To the characterization of Filaret (Drozdov), Metropolitan of Moscow: (The Case of Filaret, Hieromonk of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra)

(The case of Philaret, hieromonk of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra) There is currently a huge literature about the personality of the ever-memorable Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow; in it he is presented as an administrator and judge in the Moscow diocese, as the author of “an outline of church-biblical history,” as an interpreter of St. Scripture, as a denouncer of free-thinking, as a preacher; his work in translating the Bible into Russian and in creating catechisms has been revealed; collected his numerous opinions and reviews on educational and church-state issues, on the affairs of the Orthodox Church in the east; many of his letters to various persons have been collected; a complete collection of his resolutions on diocesan affairs is compiled; A lot of words and speeches about him have been compiled and published. But still, the time is still far away when the personality of Metropolitan Philaret will be exhaustively and impartially exhausted; There is still a lot of untouched material in various archives that can more fully illuminate some features from the life of Metropolitan Philaret and even shed new light on the personality of the Bishop. This kind of material contains a case that we intend to offer here to the reader, borrowing it from the archives of the Moscow consistory. This is a big matter - on 346 sheets; its production lasts for 10 years, from November 25, 1832 to December 23, 1842; it is mainly two persons who appear in it - two Philaret - the Metropolitan of Moscow and the hieromonk of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. Omitting some details concerning the history of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, we will present the contents of this curious matter, preserving in all its accuracy the resolutions of Metropolitan Philaret, which are not yet in print, and for a clearer understanding of the matter itself, we will provide in the notes the letters of the Bishop sent on this matter to the governor of the monastery, Archimandrite Anthony. On November 30, 1832, the Established Council of the Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius came to His Eminence Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, with a report in which he explained the need for the benefit of the Lavra - to restore its overgrown boundary markers in the dachas, the holes that had swollen due to longevity and rotted pillars, and to bring all the dachas belonging to the Lavra and Bethany to justice, to remove them from nature. plan, instead of the former infidel, to acquire a plan for the internal Lavra lands located in Posad, for indisputable and inalienable possession of them. At the same time, the established Council asked the Bishop to allow him to entrust this matter to the Lavra hieromonk Philaret due to his trustworthiness and zeal, providing him with a power of attorney and instructions to complete the ongoing case about the Sadkovsky meadow with ponds, disputed by the Duma for its ownership, and also to give him the money for expenses that would be presented to them in this case and recognized by the Council as fair 1 . At the report of the Council, His Eminence wrote on December 9, 1832: “I agree, but I ask the Council and Fr. governor to conduct business with attention, supervision and caution." From the track record available in the case, it is clear that Hieromonk Filaret was born in 1792 from Great Russians, from Moscow philistines - the Gaidukov family; studied at the Moscow City School; On October 16, 1819, at his request, with the passport given to him, he was assigned to the Novgorod Vyazhitsky Monastery; in 1822 moved to the Novgorod Iversky Monastery; On January 14, 1823 he was tonsured a monk; On January 18 of the same 1823 he was promoted to hierodeacon, and on the 19th to hieromonk and appointed treasurer of this monastery; in the same year, 1823, on December 30, by resolution of His Eminence Seraphim, Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and Novgorod, he was appointed vicar of the same monastery; On September 12, 1826, for zealously fulfilling his position, he was allowed to use a legguard during priestly services; On June 11, 1829, according to the petition, by resolution of His Eminence Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, he was assigned to the Moscow Cathedral Miracle Monastery; On July 26 of the same 1829, he was appointed economist at the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, from which position in 1830, by order of His Eminence, he was dismissed. Soon after his appointment as a deputy of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, Hieromonk Filaret repeatedly appealed to the Established Council with a request to give him money for expenses, and the Established Council, according to its resolution of March 8, 1833, in view of the necessary benefit for the monastery, each time recognized his demands as respectful and, without demanding any reports or invoices, released him money in the amount that he prescribed in his reports. This continued until 1834. On February 5 of this year, Hieromonk Filaret presented a statement to the Council, in which he stated that he “used for travel, maintenance, reception of officials and other office expenses for various official places in Moscow and Dmitrov in the search for the ownership of the Lavra of the Sadkovsky meadow with ponds, disputed by the Duma, behind the shops of the land, disputed by the owners, and the boundaries of the area around the Lavra, disputed Town Hall, 3,547 rubles 20 kopecks, including 2,847 rubles received from the treasurer and economist of the Lavra. 20 kopecks; at which 700 rubles that actually belonged to him were spent, in payment of which he asked to be given 200 rubles with the understanding that the rest of the money (500 rubles) could remain pending the discretion of the Council.” The Council established on February 16, 1834 decided to give hieromonk Philaret 200 rubles, but to postpone the issuance of other money until permission was sought from His Eminence 2. After this, Hieromonk Filaret, in a report on December 15, 1834, announced to the cathedral that after submitting the above statement, he spent 112 rubles on December 15 for the reception of officials from Moscow and Dmitrov. 50 kopecks, including up to 30 rubles for prosphora, books and images presented to them as a blessing, and, counting 612 rubles for the Lavra. 50 k., asked to give him 300 rubles with the idea that the rest of the money could remain for a while. As can be seen from the further report of Hieromonk Philaret, at this time Fr. The viceroy, Archimandrite Anthony, privately addressed Metropolitan Philaret, asking for orders, and the Bishop, among other things, instructed Fr. The deputy's deputy's expenses should be checked, at least privately, to see if the expenses were in vain or incorrectly provided, as a result of which Fr. Filaret was invited to tell the Viceroy about. Viceroy - to the Lord, where the amount indicated in the issuance was spent. 5 Jan 1835 o. The viceroy personally approached Hieromonk Philaret with a proposal to give an explanation 3 . As a result of this, Hieromonk Philaret, in a document filed on January 20, 1835 addressed to Fr. The governor stated in his explanation that out of the amount given to him at different times, only 3,736 rubles. 50 k., he used for the following expenses: 1.) In the matter of renewing the boundaries of land and forests belonging to the Lavra and the Bethany Monastery, in 1832, for the maintenance of a land surveyor with peasants instead of monastery workers, 189 rubles. 30 kopecks, and as a reward for the surveyor, according to the report of the Council, 500 rubles. 2.) In the case of Sadkovsky meadow with ponds, disputed by the Duma for its ownership. 3.) In the case of the land behind the shops, disputed by the owners of those shops as their property. 4.) In the case of finding lands remaining in Posad for exchange. 5) In the case of endowing the Lavra and Bethany Monastery with forest dachas. For all these cases, he spent 3,659 rubles on travel, maintenance, reception of officials and on office expenses in Moscow, Dmitrov, in the commission of buildings, the boundary office, the Provincial Board, in the Treasury and Civil Chambers of the 1st and 2nd departments, in the 7th department of the Government Senate, the District Court, the magistrate and other places. 70 k., and with the above - only 4349 rubles. What he received as part of this amount on January 20, 1835 was 3,736 rubles. 50 k., so he should receive another 612 rubles. 50 kopecks. At the same time, Hieromonk Philaret added that the real movement of affairs began on June 6, 1832 and ended on February 5, 1835; Consequently, the office work lasted 609 days, in which the expense was never less than 5 rubles: on another day the expense reached 10 rubles. up to 25, 50, 100 rub. and more, although very rarely; There were also days when he consumed up to 300 rubles. and even up to 500 rubles. This expense is not only not burdensome for the Lavra, but is also completely insignificant, because the Lavra, for such an insignificant amount, acquired: 1.) from the renewal of the borders of the dachas, up to 50 acres, which until now were either in the possession of the peasants or lay empty and which neither the Lavra nor Bethany could use due to the destruction of boundary signs over time. 2.) Sadkovsky meadow with ponds was not only returned to the Lavra’s possession, but in addition it was granted to recover the losses incurred by the Lavra; Moreover, according to Fr. deputy, should be recovered from the Duma or Posadsky Head Erofeev for red tape and for the fact that the Lavra did not use either grass or fishing for 4 years, 499 rubles. 60 k. 3.) The land disputed by the shopkeepers was not only returned to the Lavra, but it was allowed to recover 257 rubles from the shopkeepers for machinations and red tape. Then Hieromonk Philaret describes in his explanation the assumptions about the benefits of the Lavra from the acquisition of this land. He ends his explanation by adding that he, having fulfilled the demand of Fr. the governor and having shown, as much as he could remember, his expenses, he dares to caress himself with the fair hope that the expense made by him, after such an acquisition of benefits by the Lavra, will seem very satisfactory and that this expense could have been even more satisfactory if the Council, on the basis of the resolution of His Eminence of December 9, 1832, had provided him with a power of attorney, and at the same time with a receipt and expenditure book in which he could have written down the costs, but since he had neither one nor the other, he did not think about anything more than to quickly achieve the goal to which he was striving with such haste, and, like a good farmer, when cultivating his field, he does not spare either sweat or labor, and during the five-year occupation he did not regret either his labors or peace of mind; the thought of benefit never occurred to him; his work was without any form, but solely out of zeal for the great Pleasant of God, under whose roof he is located. At the same time, Fr. The deputy also reminds us of that letter from Fr. The governor, which he wrote to the deputy before he took office and which we have given in the note. Hieromonk Philaret then asks to be dismissed from such difficult obedience and at the same time to be given the amount of 612 rubles that belongs to him. 50 kopecks, which the Council has not given to him for about a year for an unknown reason 4. It is not clear from the case that the Established Council made any orders on this report, but from the further (August 5, 1835) report of Hieromonk Philaret, it follows that the Council on February 12, 1835 offered the same hieromonk a new assignment - to set the boundaries of the area around the Lavra according to the authority of Prince Prozorovsky 5. Soon after, Hieromonk Filaret, in a report on March 29, 1835, asked the Council to issue 200 rubles for expenses in the case, which money he received against a signature from Fr. The Viceroy in order to return them back to him upon receipt of them from the Council. Decree of the Council on the issuance of these 200 rubles. took place on April 18, 1835, but it is not clear from the case whether Hieromonk Philaret returned those taken from Fr. The governor's money. On April 23 of the same year, he again entered the Established Council with a report in which he explained that in a matter known to the Council, new expenses for maintenance, travel and office expenses were required, which is why he asked to give him the previously spent 612 rubles. 50 kopecks with the fact that the newly spent money can remain in the Cathedral for a while. In response to this demand, Fr. Deputy established by the Council on April 30, 1835, it was announced to him that he, Filaret, would take the money that he counted for the Lavra, and the Council was not clearly visible from the report, from what was due, according to his own testimony, from those guilty of intrigues and red tape, 750 rubles 60 kopecks, with which the settlement with him was completed, and in the newly collected amount, 660 rubles. would give the council a proper report. To this, Hieromonk Filaret explained on May 2, 1835 that since his report dated February 5, 1834 on the recovery of the said money (i.e. for machinations and red tape) did not result in a determination consistent with it, they remained without recovery, and therefore he does not consider the settlement with him completed. As for the report on the newly taken 660 rubles, then from this amount we used: on the first trip to Moscow and back to the Lavra with an official, 35 rubles, on travel and maintenance for 47 days in Moscow, assuming about 5 rubles for each day, - a total of 235 rubles; for reception of officials and other office expenses 285 rubles, – total 555 rubles; for the second trip with an official to Moscow and back to the Lavra, 35 rubles; for travel and maintenance in Moscow for three days 15 rubles, for office and other expenses 55 rubles, and for two trips in total from January 25 to April 5 - 660 rubles. Having given such an explanation, he asked for the 612 rubles he had previously withheld. Give him 50 kopecks, and stop the account for the newly spent amount (660 rubles), with the exception of the account for the new hotel, which is not included in this expense. On May 2, 1835, the established Council recognized the report of Fr. the deputy was very unsatisfactory and decided to attach the report to the case pending a correct explanation 6 . Meanwhile, Hieromonk Filaret, as can be seen from the case, did not submit another report to the Council, and on August 5, 1835 he reported to the Council that by decree of February 12, 1835 No. 80 7, the Council ordered him to have circulation, where appropriate, about establishing boundaries in the area around the Lavra according to the force of the order of Prince Prozorovsky and asked for expenses on this subject to be sent to him at Trinity Sukharevskoye Compound 200 rubles, which money was sent to him by the Council on August 22, 1835. In addition, Hieromonk Philaret, having received another 100 rubles on September 15, 1835, on October 17 of the same 1835 asked to send 200 rubles to the same courtyard. As a result of this, the Council, in its journal on October 18, 1835, determined to give him his small income, consisting of 200 rubles, with the proviso that they were rewarded with income for service in the Church of God, and he, Hieromonk Philaret, for work outside the church 8 . Then Hieromonk Philaret, according to the request, received 200 rubles from the funds of the Council on February 13, 1836, 9 and on May 18, 1836 he asked to send him 200 rubles. The Council on May 27 of that year decided to give him 100 rubles, on July 6, 1836, Fr. the deputy asked for another 300 rubles, but the Council on July 19 of that year issued 150 rubles, stipulating in the decree of Fr. treasurer that this issuance is being carried out with the permission of His Eminence. Until now, as we see, things have been going more or less smoothly; Hieromonk Philaret successfully carried out the assignments entrusted to him, and the Established Council satisfied his financial claims, and the governor Anthony retained friendly feelings towards him. But on February 6, 1837, Fr. The treasurer of the Lavra, Hieromonk Anastasy, while he was in Moscow, unexpectedly announced to Hieromonk Philaret a verbal order from Fr. The governor, so that he would leave the work entrusted to him without execution and return to the Lavra to live 10. Having received this order, Hieromonk Philaret, in a report on February 11, 1837, explained to the Council that the matter had been entrusted to him for execution on the basis of the resolutions of His Eminence, in accordance with the decree, and therefore he could not be based on the verbal order of Fr. The viceroy, when he has his written order, so as not to be embarrassed by anything and not to care about anything except the assignment before him 11, and in order to warn himself against possible subsequent liability for omission on this subject, he is forced to find this circumstance to submit to the discretion of the Established Council and notify it of the following questions: 1) whether the treasurer was instructed to announce to him to return to the Lavra to live and leave the matter without execution then, as a result of the proceedings, under his supervision, it was completed in the Dmitrov District Court, in the Magistrate, in the Government Senate, in the Provincial Board, in the Commission of Buildings, in the civil and treasury chambers, in the office of the Moscow Military Governor-General, where an extract from the entire case was compiled and left for resolution upon the return of His Excellency. 2) Will the Council accept the responsibility that may happen without monitoring the proceedings. 3) Will the Council satisfy the costs that it incurred during the proceedings of the case, up to four thousand rubles. - If the Council satisfies, then he, having received written permission for all this, will immediately leave the matter unfulfilled and return to the Lavra, without demanding any reward for six years of obedience, which was accompanied by insults and disaster; otherwise, he will be forced to find himself, as an offended person, asking for protection from the Higher Authorities. During the explanation, Hieromonk Filaret presented 7 copies of documents on the basis of which he made his orders in finding rights to land belonging to the Lavra and kept expenses. The Council, in a journal on February 15, 1837, decided to notify the deputy to immediately arrive at the Lavra for a proper report on his part in the affairs entrusted to him, for which he would take the documents that he had, to clearly show the progress of the matter and where it stopped, about which a decree was sent to him from the Council on March 11, 1837. But Hieromonk Philaret did not appear; he presented the Council with a report on April 6, 1837, on 21 pages, a note in which he outlined all the papers that were on this subject, and also reported on those provisions that were developed at the general meeting of His Eminence Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, with the Moscow Military Governor-General and Director of the Commission for Buildings in Moscow, Senator Bashilov, as well as about why the implementation of these provisions has stopped. From the numerous copies attached to the report of Hieromonk Philaret from the long correspondence that took place between the Established Council, the office of the Moscow military governor-general, the provincial government, the first department of the civil chamber, the treasury chamber, the office of the deanery, the Town Hall, the commission for buildings and the provincial architect Belyaev, it is clear that the stone shops were allowed to be built in 1810 at the proposal of the commander-in-chief in Moscow, Count Gudovich, in accordance with the intention of Metropolitan Platon, who approved the very plan of the buildings so that the construction of stone shops would be carried out under the general supervision of persons seconded from the Council and the civil government. The provincial architect Belyaev was sent from the civil government, and the shops of the merchants Erofeev, Gubin, Vanin and Matveevsky in 1815 were completed “exactly the decoration in accordance with the facade and the resolution of Metropolitan Plato,” for which they were given certificates from him. The Council sent the treasurer and the housekeeper, who were ordered to strictly ensure that there were no additions to the plan. The certificates given to the merchants by the architect should have been approved by the Council, but the latter did not do this, which circumstance gave the shop owners the basis in 1818 to ask first from the Town Hall, and then from the commission of buildings for stone shops. Having received these from the Dmitrov magistrate in 1827, these owners, not remaining grateful either to the Lavra or to His Eminence for the land given to them for stone shops, began to produce various kinds of residential and non-residential buildings behind these shops. This was brought to the attention of the Established Council by Hieromonk Philaret, who at that time was filling the post of economist of the Lavra. The established cathedral then, in accordance with the resolution of His Eminence, in 1830 entered the provincial government with a message to clear the land behind the stone benches and leave it as before at the disposal of the Lavra, which, at the request of his deputy Hieromonk Philaret, was approved by the provincial government and submitted for conclusion to the Moscow Military Governor-General; Moreover, between the latter, His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret and the Director of the Buildings Commission, Senator Bashilov, a regulation was drawn up in 22 points, but the implementation of this provision and the conclusion of the Moscow Military Governor-General stopped due to the failure to find genuine plans for the stone benches. At the conclusion of his report, Fr. The deputy points out to the Council that the Council, which demanded an explanation from him, distracted him from observing the matter at a time when it was especially important to observe, since His Lordship’s office was collecting such certificates for a decisive conclusion that could only be found on the instructions of Fr. deputy 12. After hearing the report and note of Hieromonk Philaret, the Established Council made it its duty to report and reported on July 30, 1837 to His Eminence that due to the long absence from the monastery of Hieromonk Philaret, he was ordered to come to the Lavra, but in response he sent a report on February 11, 1837, in which he asked whether he was really ordered to return to the Lavra by verbal legend about. treasurer, and demands 4,000 rubles, allegedly spent in excess of those given to him in the case being carried out regarding the lands. The established Council deemed it necessary to summon him to the Lavra, take from him a report on what he had done in favor of the monastery in the matter of the land behind the shops and the area around the Lavra, and in the expenditure of the money given to him. After listening to the note presented by him, the Council determined: in the course of the said case, it is not clear that the deputy needs to live in Moscow for such a long time and not appear even when called to the Lavra, because the matter is not due to the deputy’s residence in Moscow, but to the beneficent care of His Eminence, that the deputy in vain speaks so much in favor of his works, which is not at all visible from the course of the case; if he had been less willful and more obedient to the Council, then there would have been no need to live in Moscow for ten months and the expenses for his maintenance would have been cheaper, and the matter would have been more correct. The deputy's demand is 4,000 rubles. from the Lavra, as if they were their own or borrowed from someone for the expenses of the case, seems incredible to the Council, and the Council under no circumstances can recognize them for its debt. According to the Council, how much was needed to support the deputy in Moscow, money was given to him every year, namely from 1832 to 1835, 3,613 rubles were given to him. 75 k., in which amount, as a result of the resolution of His Eminence, they gave an account, although unsatisfactory; in 1835 and 1836 he was given 2,481 rubles for his maintenance; therefore, in these two years, 1,240 rubles come in each year. 50 kopecks, and a monthly income equal to that of other working brethren, up to 300 rubles each year. Therefore, the Council cannot recognize the debt of 4,000 rubles, which it honors for the Lavra, in excess of the amount indicated and already issued to the deputy, and so that Hieromonk Philaret does not continue to shirk for long absences and arbitrary orders not permitted by either His Eminence or the Council, and incurring unnecessary costs, then dismiss him from the post of deputy for the lands, turning to general duties of obedience in the Lavra. Take the affairs and correspondence on this matter to the Council, and entrust the Sukharevsky metochion to Hieromonk Theoktistus 13 with regard to monitoring the affairs of the lands under the order of the Council. The Metropolitan, at the conclusion of the Established Council on August 30, 1837, put forward the following resolution: "The deputy himself writes that I asked the Council to conduct the matter with attention, supervision and caution. But there is no attention or caution that he suddenly presents an unaccountable debt, allegedly made by him to the Lavra. Not only him, but no one authorized the Council to make a debt to the Lavra and demand payment even without submitting a report, as the deputy does: for this would be in accordance with neither the legal order nor the security of church property. The deputy’s unreasonableness extends to the point that he himself does not know how much money he demands from the Council, and writes vaguely - only up to four thousand rubles. Therefore, I cannot help but point out to the Council that my resolution, which the deputy points out, was not carried out quite accurately. By the way, the hieromonk was allowed to live for a long time in Moscow somewhere in someone else’s house, instead of the monastery courtyard.” On August 29 of the same 1837, Hieromonk Philaret presented a report to His Eminence, in which he explained that on the 4th of August he reported to the Established Council that of the cases entrusted to him, the most important were two: one about the land of the Sadkovsky meadow with ponds, the other about the land behind the benches. The Dmitrov district court and the magistrate, the civil and treasury chambers recognized the rights of the Lavra, and the first case has already been carried out, and the second Council refuses in opposition to the legal rights of the Lavra 14 that he, Hieromonk Philaret, asked the Council not to give up the land behind the shops, but to protect and recover for it either by court form, or by conciliation proceedings, meanwhile he, the hieromonk, continued the proceedings on this matter made expenses from his income and went into debt. Since this matter was over on his part, he asked for the release of the money spent from 1832 to the date of August 4, 1837 for the production of the case, a total of 4,375 rubles. than to stop the matter that has arisen. Then, complaining about the conclusion of the Council about the announcement to him that the sum he demanded by the Council does not recognize as fair due to the failure to complete the main matter regarding the position on the plan of the borders of the Lavra lands lying around the monastery, to protect them from the claims of the townspeople, Hieromonk Filaret writes that on the basis of the Regulations on the dependence of Krasnogorsk Square on the Lavra, approved by the Highest on the 9th day of August 1827, to the Established Council it was necessary to protect the rights of the Lavra, but the Established Council, in violation of the rights of the Lavra, allowed the bourgeois wife Ogorodnikova to again build a house at the 18th quarter on the embankment, and the merchant Estifeev at the 21st quarter on the upper street, thereby voluntarily violating the boundaries, and thereby retreated from its definition, did not protect the rights of the Lavra, did not preserve the Highest confirmed plan, did not observe the sanctity of the law and this oath upon taking office, and therefore, having become an oathbreaker and a judge in his own case, it is not known by what laws, without a trial he made him, the hieromonk, guilty for the fact that he, out of the duty of his conscience, justified the power of attorney of the Council and brought to the end such a case, which, due to its complexity, is being brought to an end in barely 45 years, and for all this the Council arbitrarily deprives him of the amount spent and removes him from positions with the, no doubt, intention of further eclipsing the matter and thereby violating the rights of the Lavra, in clear defiance of the owners of the stone shops and Posad itself. Therefore, he does not recognize the decision of the Council as correct and he has been removed from office - especially since, by order of the Committee on the equalization of city duties, there will soon be a land surveyor, and the presence of a deputy is necessary when the land surveyor fulfills the assignment. To the explanation, Hieromonk Filaret attached 4 extracts in copies from the code of laws from the inscription made on the economic plan of the Klimentievo volost dated October 3, 1790, from the relationship of the boundary office and the Dmitrov district marshal of the nobility to the manager of the Sergiev police department. On this report, the resolution of His Eminence dated September 2, 1837 stated: “It is not clear what exactly the former deputy wants. However, 1) on the denunciation of incorrect permission to build a house for the merchant Estitheus Cathedral, give an explanation 15. 2) Announce to Hieromonk Philaret, so that he has no doubt that his deputy position has been terminated due to circumstances. 3) To bring some understanding him, so that he would refrain from reproachful words and groundlessly exaggerated accusations, which is the name of the Council as an oathbreaker, which he allowed himself to be very inappropriate and for which he may be subject to punishment.” A little earlier on the 16th, Hieromonk Philaret, in a petition to His Eminence, stated that when in 1832, by order of the Established Council, he was sent as a deputy to remove forests on the plan of the boundary office by land surveyor Polyakov, then at the same time he, the deputy, suggested to the Viceroy whether it would be inappropriate to order the land surveyor during one move for peace of mind In the future, laurels will restore the boundary signs that have deteriorated over time, to which he agreed. But since money was needed for this item, the Viceroy, without giving it, ordered him, the deputy, to spend his own before the time. The Established Council also ordered the matter of finding internal dachas, which, after the exchange of land, remained in Posad belonging to the Lavra. In addition to this, the Council instructed him to complete other matters related to this subject, so that under his supervision, in addition to outsiders, there were six matters: 1) about the land of the Sadkovsky meadow with ponds - 1829; 2) about the land behind the shops – 1830; 3) on the renewal of boundary signs outside the settlement - 1832; 4) on the search for lands remaining for exchange in the settlement - 1833 and 1834; 5) on the establishment of the boundaries of the area around the Lavra - 1835 and 6) on the organization of Sergievsky Posad, at a general meeting of His Eminence with the Moscow military governor-general Prince Golitsyn and the director of the commission of buildings in Moscow, Senator Bashilov - 1836. To this, Hieromonk Philaret draws the attention of His Eminence to the fact that neither Fr. The Governor, nor the Established Council, entrusting all the assignments to him, did not limit him either by time, or by amount, or by the power of attorney itself, or by instructions. These affairs have been completed in favor of the Lavra - and in part they have already been fulfilled, and in part they are being carried out. In expenses for all 6 cases entrusted to him, he used, with the exception of state-owned ones, funds from himself, the deputy, and those belonging to various third parties - in total, on February 11, 1837, up to four thousand rubles, from February 11 to June 25, up to three hundred and seventy rubles, and in total up to 4,375 rubles, for the satisfaction of which he asked both the Council and Fr. The governor, to which the latter apparently agreed, if he, the deputy, fulfilled the demand of the owners of the stone shops, to whom Fr. The governor promised his protection. How much is there about. The governor did not have time to express how much he, the hieromonk, was angry with him, suspected and oppressed him in every way possible, precisely because he, the deputy, protected the rights of the Lavra and warned Fr. The governor from such orders, which, obviously, could subject the entire presence of the Council to the strictest liability under the laws. In view of this, Hieromonk Philaret asked His Eminence to satisfy him with the amount of 4,375 rubles he spent, which he spent either due to non-payment from the Established Council due to the malicious action of Fr. The governor, or due to the lack of those sent from him, whom he gave out too sparingly - and then often from his, the hieromonk's, income, which, of necessity, had to be used for this matter. At the same time, Hieromonk Philaret again refers to the letter to him from Fr. Viceroy dated October 20, 1835, in which he promised to satisfy him with money not only already used, but also used by him. Hieromonk Philaret ends his petition with the statement that the Council itself does not have the right to refuse him the required amount, since according to the general law he cannot be a judge in his own case. The same on September 2, 1837, His Eminence on this petition of Hieromonk Philaret put the following resolution: "As the petitioner for the amount of 4,375 rubles does not present evidence, then this petition, as unsubstantiated, cannot be satisfied. It is impossible not to notice that he takes on a lot of unnecessary things when he considers the meeting of the Moscow Military Governor-General with me a special matter and says that this matter was under the supervision of him, the petitioner - Hieromonk Philaret" 17. On October 12, 1837, Hieromonk Philaret came to His Eminence with a report in which he complains about the Established Council for the fact that 1) he did not allow him to make extracts and certificates from the cases taken from him in his office and 2) that the report submitted about this was returned to him with the inscription for incorrectly calling himself a deputy, as a result of which he asked Him Your Eminence, before he, the hieromonk, comes in with a report on the completion of a formal investigation, allow him in the office of the Council to freely make extracts and certificates from the mentioned cases for preliminary presentation to His Eminence; Moreover, he presented the original report and the report returned to him with an inscription from the Established Council. The resolution of His Eminence on this report on October 12, 1837 prescribed: "The position of deputy is a temporary assignment, depending on the need and discretion of the authorities. As the need for a deputy has passed and this assignment has been terminated at the discretion of the authorities, Hieromonk Philaret ascribes to himself the title of deputy, contrary to order and subordination. Therefore, do the following: 1) Leave this report without action. 2) Instruct him not to arbitrarily attribute to himself what is not given to him. 3) Since the occupation of his affairs that do not belong to him raises doubts about whether he is fulfilling the duties of monasticism in an unacceptable manner, then instruct the dean and the confessor to find out and report to me whether he has been and is currently going through the cycle of priestly service. Divine service, and whether you were at confession at the appointed times.” On October 30, 1837, the dean and confessor of the Lavra reported to His Eminence that Hieromonk Philaret had not corrected the sequence of his priestly service in the past season and did not promise to correct it until the end of this matter, but he occasionally visited the church for Divine services, to confession in St. I was in Pentecost, but I was not in the fasts of Peter the Great and Dormition. According to this report, His Eminence ordered on November 2, 1837: “The Council will instruct the dean and confessor to do the following: 1) Explain to Hieromonk Philaret that by evading priestly service and having already missed two fasts without confession, he is harming his soul and, by setting a bad example, deserves punishment and should attribute only to leniency that he is not subject to punishment. 2) So that he does not become stagnant in his distance from the shrine, without waiting for his turn in order, now appoint him to the priestly service for the week in some church, so that he can begin the priestly service, having pacified his soul with confession. 3) Will he fulfill this, report “18. On November 21, 1837, Hieromonk Philaret came to His Eminence with a letter in which he wrote 1) that he, having been with Fr. The governor, among other things, suggested to him that he, Filaret, was ready to reconcile, but he could not leave the matter without satisfaction in the costs, due to the debt that lay on him. If it pleases His Eminence to draw attention to his plight and the innocent oppression of Fr. Viceroy, then only to the pleasure of His Eminence will leave the matter and, having distributed the money received according to his belongings, will be ready to carry out the resolution of His Eminence in peace of mind, otherwise he will be forced to seek justice. Therefore, he cannot enter into the order of worship and celebrate the liturgy with hostility, as his rival does, contrary to the laws of God and the rules of St. The Apostle and Father, as His Eminence deigns to see from the attached note with an extract from various places of St. Scripture and a set of laws, according to which he, the hieromonk, recognizes himself as less guilty than his rival, who deviated from his definition, failed to fulfill the resolution of His Eminence, failed to protect the rights of the Lavra, failed to protect the power of the Highly Confirmed Plan and failed to observe the sanctity of the laws. 2) By what laws is it proposed for the Council to acquit those accused by the court, and to punish him, Filaret, without trial for the fact that, out of the duty of his conscience, he defended the rights of the Lavra and justified the power of attorney of the Council? 3) For all this they threaten him with punishment, but why punish him? If it is because he evades the sequence of worship and confession, then there is a known reason for this: enmity with the Viceroy, and not him, Hieromonk Philaret, a depraved life. He, Hieromonk Philaret, sometimes left his cell and thus, perhaps, gave rise to suspicion of a bad conclusion - then there is no other reason for this than the fact that he was from illegal persecution of Fr. The governor and from his cruel reproaches was often subjected to severe grief; it is known that in such a situation every person is close to falling; and therefore, in order to preserve himself, he must, of necessity, take walks, and sometimes go into unsuspicious houses for innocent entertainment, and here, with the help of God, he did not forget himself. Therefore, the harm to his soul is less dangerous than those of whom some have acquired their own houses, others acquire them, others follow strangers, others take them to their homes, and thus the mystery of lawlessness is committed in a holy place. But the Lord still preserves him, Hieromonk Philaret, and this gives him the courage to seek justice where it can be found. 4) As a result, something should be done about his behavior and Fr. Veniamin’s general search and then consider all this fairly and impartially, for which he from Fr. The governor is punished and for this Benjamin is rewarded 19. Then the root of all lawlessness would surely be revealed: Fr. Viceroy. Whoever worships this beast, who honors his image, who sacrifices to him and blindly obeys, on such he places the seal of his blessing; all of them, no matter how depraved they lead, are with him with trust and dignity. On the contrary, all those who do not follow his ways are unworthy of him. Therefore, when he, Hieromonk Philaret, bowed to him, revered his image, made a sacrifice to him, blindly obeyed him, even if it was illegal, then he bore the seal of his blessing. When Providence was pleased to call him from this darkness to the unevening Light, although not because of his deeds, but solely because of the ineffable mercy of God, and therefore, when he refused the favor of him (the Viceroy) for the above reasons, then the anger and rage of the Viceroy poured out on his head, from which he was greatly exhausted, and in this grief he resorted to His Eminence to ask for fair protection and the most merciful satisfaction in its costs. His Eminence did not even want to pay attention - either because he doubted the justice of his, the hieromonk’s, demands and therefore did not want to believe the Israeli, in whom there was no flattery, or because the Pharisaic truth overshadowed the truth, and His Eminence wanted to justify Fr. The viceroy, which the hieromonk could have done without offending him, but His Eminence did not want to do even this and, having condemned him innocently, threatens him with punishment. How to bear it, how to endure it! He, the hieromonk, refers to His Eminence’s own court against him. So, adds Hieromonk Philaret, God dealt with the Jews; At the same time, references are made to the books of the prophets Micah, Jeremiah and the conversations of John Chrysostom. 5) After such a long and cruel persecution, Fr. Vicar, after such reproachful remarks from His Eminence, how can he, the hieromonk, rest in peace! How to join the Divine Service and perform a bloodless sacrifice! 6) The reason for his debts and shortcomings in his cell was only his one good nature; Out of simplicity and carelessness, he so strongly believed in the insidious hypocrisy of Fr. Viceroy. On this occasion, Hieromonk Philaret cites a number of extracts from the conversations of I. Chrysostom, Holy Scripture and the book of the tablet of moral teaching, treating of deceit and hypocrisy. The innocence of him, Hieromonk Philaret, through the criminal actions of Fr. The viceroy opens up a direct path for him to the throne of justice, but how can a slave dare to do this, he adds, to the Lord? It is painful for him, Hieromonk Philaret, to expose His Eminence to his injustice - especially since His Eminence should serve as an example of justice, a guardian of the law, a support for the state, a pillar for the church, a luminary for the world; and on this occasion a number of extracts from Holy Scripture are given. Concluding the letter with a statement of his readiness to end all disputes, Hieromonk Philaret asks the Bishop to satisfy his costs, if not in court, then by the grace of His Eminence, adding that if His Eminence does not do anything better than his expectations, then allow him to at least appear for a personal explanation and arrange his affairs with creditors, for which purpose he is allowed to leave for the capital, where he has not been for more than 6 months, since Fr. The governor, despite his requests, did not allow leave 20. This letter from Hieromonk Philaret was followed by a resolution from His Eminence only on February 1, 1838; namely: "This letter, like a paper not in a legal form, could rightly be left without effect, and in terms of content in some parts it would subject the hieromonk to just reprimand. But since at the end of it he expresses a desire to end the disputes, then, if he wishes, he will overcome the temptation to once again use means of admonition; and for this purpose, do the following: 1) Explain to Hieromonk Philaret that he, by declaring unable to enter into the priesthood due to enmity, he exposes himself to prohibition. And if he is truly in a disastrous state of enmity, then he must immediately repent, reconcile and serve, and not leave himself in sin and at a distance from the shrine. The established Council on the matter cast a voice that did not agree with his desire, not a matter of enmity, but of office. In addition to this, in the actions of the Viceroy, as far as they are known to the authorities, no hostile disposition is discernible. In a similar way, Hieromonk Philaret unjustifiably accuses the Viceroy of other faults and offends him with unsubstantiated reproaches. 3) The hieromonk admits himself to be less guilty than the Viceroy. But whoever is guilty, although less than the other, must repent and correct himself, and leave the judgment of whether the other is guilty to the authorities. 4) With offense, the hieromonk asks his superiors under what laws the Council is allowed to punish without trial. For he, the hieromonk, was not and is not punished without trial. 5) He also unfairly says that he is threatened with punishment for his services in the Lavra. He is threatened with punishment for removing himself from confession and Holy Communion. 6) He says that the reason for his removal from confession is enmity. But if he is found in this sin, then this not only does not prevent confession, but most of all should motivate him to repentance. 7) The hieromonk’s admission that he enters unsuspicious houses for innocent entertainment and such absences from his cell may have given rise to suspicion makes him directly guilty of violating the order of the monastery. Resolutely demand from him that he does not make arbitrary absences, in his own words, suspicious ones, but leaves the monastery only when necessary with a blessing, as the rules of the Holy Fathers command, under fear of punishment according to the same rules. 8) Nameless reports of the sins of others also make him guilty of the sin of judging his neighbor. Inform him, so that if any of the brethren actually knows illegal actions, he will report to the authorities with evidence for taking corrective measures, and refrain from nameless slander against the brethren. 9) The hieromonk’s demand for a general search of his behavior is not legal, because there seems no need for it, and it is not convenient, because he lived for a long time in Moscow not in a courtyard, but in unknown places. 10) What the hieromonk says is that I didn’t want to treat him without offense, to tell him that I accepted it without anger, and if I saw that I had done something offensive or unfair to him, I would hasten to correct it. 11) That he attributes reproachful remarks to me is, I think, also sinful. If I called his wrong actions wrong on the basis of evidence from the case, then this cannot be considered a reproach, but an inevitable expression of the truth of the matter. 12) But the expression used by Hieromonk Philaret to address the Viceroy: insidious hypocrisy, is an obvious reproach, prohibited not only by spiritual rules, but also by civil laws and subject to punishment. Therefore, exhort him to admit and correct the sin he has committed. 13) If the hieromonk says the truth that he is burdened with debts, then this is a pity. And if the debts had been incurred by him out of necessity during the course of business, then, although he was not authorized to do them and had no right to burden the Lavra with them, he would nevertheless deserve the leniency and care of the Authorities. But his debts, if he has them, cannot be recognized as having been incurred due to the Lavra’s need, because the expenditure he declares in round numbers is too great and incredible, because he did not give an accurate account of the significant amount that was given to him: and therefore his debts, if there are any, should be considered a consequence of his personal carelessness, which makes him guilty and for which the Lavra is not obliged to answer. 14) Regarding the merits attributed to himself by Hieromonk Philaret in the case, declare to him that, when viewed dispassionately, his successes are not as important as they seem to him. 15) In response to his opinion that the Council is not trying to benefit the Lavra in the matter of land, advise him to enter into a discussion of what could prompt the Council to act in favor of the Lavra? If we think about this impartially, we must be convinced that the Council is doing what is necessary and possible. 16) In response to his opinion that the Council violated the laws regarding the matter of land, explain to him that the matter of land is now being considered by the secular higher authorities, who know the laws, of course, as much as they should, and therefore must bring the matter of land to a legal position, even if the Council had indeed lost sight of any law relating to this matter. Consequently, Hieromonk Philaret and the Council itself, with their zeal for the matter, albeit well-intentioned, must now remain awaiting the decision of the matter by the authority to which the laws have granted it to consideration and decision. 17) In this sense, admonish Hieromonk Philaret. And since it does not seem convenient for the Viceroy, with whom the hieromonk declares himself to be at enmity, to do this, then invite in my name to the Established Council the father of the Rector of the Academy, first offer him the matter and this resolution, so that he can delve into it, then call Hieromonk Philaret and announce to him the present resolution, to which Fr. The rector can add further explanations and admonitions that can lead Hieromonk Philaret out of sinful thoughts and the illegal position in which he has placed himself. 18) If Hieromonk Philaret admits his mistake: then let him be reconciled with the Viceroy, let him cleanse himself with confession, and let him begin his priestly service. Let him certify his fulfillment with a signature, and report it to me immediately, so that the matter can be considered resolved. 19) In this case, Fr. Rector and Fr. The viceroy must judge and imagine whether it is necessary and possible to do anything leniently to alleviate the economic confusion and shortcomings declared by the hieromonk. 20) If, above all, the aspirations of admonition do not have the desired success: take a signature from Hieromonk Philaret that he heard the resolution, and about everything that happens in this meeting, write a detailed journal signed by all those present and submit to me for my discretion what measures will be necessary to take to bring Hieromonk Philaret in order and to stop the temptation of disobedience." 21. To implement this resolution of His Eminence, the established Council, by decree of February 25, 1838, ordered Hieromonk Philaret to come from Moscow to the Lavra, and forwarded the matter for preliminary consideration to Fr. The rector of the Academy, but Hieromonk Filaret did not appear at the Lavra, but with a report dated March 3, 1838, he asked the Council to notify him of what resolution he should come to the Lavra to fulfill? By what letter? When written to whom, since there were more than one of them? On March 5, 1838, the established council reported to His Eminence about this circumstance and asked for orders as to whether His Eminence would be allowed to write Hieromonk Philaret in a decree the entire resolution of the Bishop or to urgently demand Hieromonk Philaret to appear at the Lavra 22. The Bishop, at this report of the Council on April 7, 1838, prescribed: "Hieromonk Philaret has no right either to ask the Council why they want him in the Council, or to demand from the Council papers for himself in Moscow, where he lives willfully. And as the consistory has already reported to me about his willful residence in Moscow, and as a result of this, I have ordered the consistory to take legal measures to return him to the Lavra, then this report is resolved. 2) since it has come to my attention 23 that in the extract from the laws attached to the letter on which this case is based, which, as an extract, I did not find it necessary to read word by word, there is a special denunciation mixed in: then, separating this extract from the letter, send it immediately to me for special consideration." 24 The established council on April 19, 1838 presented His Eminence with a letter and an extract from Hieromonk Philaret dated November 21, 1837, and the Bishop on May 9, 1838 deigned to put the following resolution on this report of the Council: “A note attached to the letter was required, which should be left with me for proper disposal of it.” 25, and return this letter to the Council for the execution of the resolution on February 1.” Meanwhile, the dean of the Moscow monasteries, VysokoPetrovsky Archimandrite Gabriel, in a report on March 27, 1838, presented the said hieromonk Philaret to the Consistory as living in Moscow without any intention of making appropriate orders about such people. As a result, Hieromonk Philaret was interrogated on March 29, 1838 in the consistory, where he testified: he had been in Moscow since December 9, 1837; lives in the Yauzskaya part of the 1st quarter in the house of a foreigner Anrio with his parent - a former Moscow merchant, and now a tradesman Pankratiy Ignatiev Gaidukov; lives in Moscow due to the pending completion of the case regarding the lands belonging to the Lavra, as a result of the resolution of His Eminence; lives not in the Sukharevsky courtyard, but in his parent’s apartment, both due to its proximity to the public places where business is being carried out, and because there are no special rooms allocated for him in the courtyard, for storing documents that are not safe during his absence, and finally, due to his poor health. He did not have and does not have any special permission to live in Moscow during the entire proceedings of the case, except for the decree from the Established Council on February 12, 1835 on the assignment and handling of this case; arrived in Moscow on December 9, 1837, together with Fr. The viceroy of the Lavra and by his order remained in Moscow to continue the work on the matter, which was done by him, Hieromonk Philaret, on March 17, 1838. Report 26 to His Eminence and awaits permission from His Eminence. He agrees and wishes to return to the Lavra upon receiving permission from His Eminence for the report he made and upon receiving relief from the illness, from which he continues to suffer in his parent’s apartment; at the present time, for the above reason, he cannot return to the Lavra. And since now all public places are closed, for prayer on holidays and during fasting and to prevent any criticism from himself, he asks permission to live in the Sukharevsky courtyard under the supervision of the local steward, as a person belonging to the Lavra and invested with the trust of the authorities. By the resolution of His Eminence on April 5, 1838, according to this testimony of Hieromonk Philaret, it was prescribed: “Hieromonk Philaret, as can be seen from the affairs of the Lavra coming before me, was dismissed from the post of deputy in the case of the lands of the Lavra much earlier than his last arrival in Moscow, and this was announced to him by the Established Council. Why his testimony that he lives in Moscow in the case of lands, there is obviously false. Why should the Consistory do the following: 1) Take unremitting legal measures so that this hieromonk does not live in Moscow under an illegal pretext, and send him to the Lavra according to his belonging without delay - especially since he had already lived in Moscow for a very long time in a secular house, and did not appear in time to the dean of the monasteries, or in general to the spiritual authorities, and did not appear from the Established. He did not submit a council for residence in Moscow. 2) To report to the Established Council with a list from the report of the Dean of the monasteries, from the testimony of Hieromonk Philaret and from this resolution for legal consideration of the actions of the hieromonk.” In pursuance of this, the Established Council from the Consistory, with the attachment of a list from the report of the Dean of the monasteries, from the testimony of Hieromonk Philaret and from the resolution of His Eminence, was informed on May 7, 1838 with a notification that Hieromonk Philaret, according to information given to the Consistory on May 6, 1838, announced that he decided to immediately go to the Lavra, where, according to the notification Council, he arrived on the 27th. On June 9, 1838, Hieromonk Philaret entered the Established Council with a report that, based on a matter known to the Council and through numerous correspondence, with the help of God, he decided to abandon this matter, and to plunge his fate and all those involved in the matter into the “abyss” of the mercy of His Eminence, according to the general rule that it is better to release ten guilty from punishment than to sentence one innocent; at which he asked His Eminence to enter into his sad state of affairs and, having demanded, from where it follows, the matter, to consider and make a merciful determination with which he will be pleased and will not argue about anything; to his report he attached all the correspondence with plans and two volumes of a code of laws for the report to His Eminence. That same June, in pursuance of the resolution of His Eminence of February 1, 1838, Hieromonk Philaret gave a handwritten signature at the Established Council that he had heard the said resolution and with the help of God, was reconciled with everyone, left the matter, having cleansed himself by confession, would begin Divine priesthood, submitting himself to the paternal mercy of His Eminence. In the report on this of the Established Council, by the resolution of His Eminence on July 9, 1838, it was prescribed: “Although in the case it is known and recognized that Hieromonk Philaret has no legal right to any remuneration from the Lavra: but, accepting with respect his return to peace, order and obedience and finding it probable that during his long, albeit irregular residence in Moscow, he suffered debts, out of leniency, give him a thousand rubles from the enormous sums of the Lavra, and for this, relentlessly see that he unfailingly enters into all the duties of his title and service.” As a result of this, the Established Council, by decree on July 22, 1838, ordered the Lavra Treasurer, Hieromonk Anastasy, to issue a thousand rubles to Hieromonk Philaret against receipt 28 . The matter, apparently, was settled to general satisfaction, but not for long. Soon it flared up with even greater force. On May 8, 1839, Hieromonk Philaret in a letter to Fr. He explained to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony, that upon his arrival, the hieromonk, in Moscow, he immediately turned to his friends to ask for help in what Fr. the governor of the case and not having received it from anyone, he grieved, but one family promised to redeem him from extremity and calmed the spirit agitated in him, which was brought to such a terrible state that he decided to start the old business, being forced to continue it due to dissatisfaction with the costs. In addition to this letter, the file contains a report from Hieromonk Filaret addressed to the Established Council, signed by him in January 1839, received at the Council, as can be seen from the note on it, on May 8, 1830. In this report, Hieromonk Filaret, writing out the reproaches of his creditors for non-payment of the money owed to them, explains that, although he asked His Eminence to enter into the situation of his case and, Having demanded it, from where it should be, consider and make a determination, with which he will be completely satisfied and will not argue or contradict anything, but since no such determination followed in his favor, probably because His Eminence deigned to adhere to his previous resolutions, which resulted in his greatest offense and complete ruin from the unjust and false report of the Established Council, and therefore he did not finish the matter. admits. As for the crime associated with this case, 29 which occurred in the presence of the Established Council, then neither he nor the authorities themselves can leave this case, as a criminal one, without legal judgment. Since the entire amount spent by him has not been received, he does not consider the matter completely completed; the longer the Council retains the amount belonging to it and various creditors, the more it will increase from the interest due on it; However, how much has not been paid by January 1, 1839, he will not hesitate to enter the Established Council with a petition. When submitting his report, Hieromonk Filaret attached a long extract from the code of laws, on the basis of which he submits this report. The established Council reported on the report of Hieromonk Philaret on June 26, 1839 to His Eminence, who issued the following resolution on July 2, 1839: “The Council: 1) explain whether the resolution was announced to Hieromonk Philaret on July 9 of last year and why there is no signature in it. 2) Explain with a proper certificate whether the amount assigned to him was truly not given to him in full and whether there is a receipt for receiving it and where? 3) On what occasion was Hieromonk Philaret in Moscow in May, by whom was he dismissed, for how long and did he return on time? 4) It is confirmed to put this matter in order, which is presented without a beginning, without numbering of sheets and inventory, and partly not connected.” As a result of this, the Established Council, according to the journal of July 5, 1839, reported to His Eminence that its resolution of July 9 was announced to Hieromonk Philaret, money, in the amount of a thousand rubles, was issued to him at the rate on July 22, 1838 against his receipt in the income book. After this, on July 12, 1839, Hieromonk Philaret asked the Established Council - due to his extreme need to organize the orphan affairs of his two sisters and his elderly mother - to allow him to leave for Moscow for 21 days, for which period he was issued a ticket 30 on the same July 12. On December 23, 1839, His Eminence, in his determination sent to the Moscow Consistory, deigned to prescribe: “As it has come to my attention that the Lavra Hieromonk Filaret has been living for a considerable time in Moscow in a secular house in unauthorized absence, the Consistory: 1) take active measures - find him and interrogate him in his presence and present the interrogation. 2) Then send him to the Lavra immediately for supervision, unless important reasons are discovered to continue his stay in Moscow. 3) If it becomes necessary to extend his stay in Moscow, then place him in a monastery under continuous supervision until the decision is made, so that he does not unnecessarily interact with lay people and does not engage in matters that do not belong to a monastic.” On January 2, 1840, the housekeeper of the Sukharevsky metochion, Hieromonk Theoktist, brought to the attention of the Consistory that Hieromonk Philaret went to the Lavra on December 24, 1839 on horses hired by him, and the Consistory reported this to His Eminence, deciding to consider the matter over. This report was followed by the following resolution dated January 14, 1840. “The consistory with the writing out of this protocol should be submitted to the Established Council, so that it, having taken from Hieromonk Philaret a proper explanation about his residence in Moscow, presents it to me with his opinion immediately, which is especially prompted by the fact that this hieromonk was suspected in Moscow of spreading unfounded and harmful rumors,” which was executed by the Consistory on January 24, 1840. The explanation required by His Eminence was provided by Hieromonk Philaret to the Established Council on February 24, 1840 on 23 pages. While he was in Moscow, on the work entrusted to him in 1832 regarding the lands of the Lavra, from the very beginning and in its continuation, as Hieromonk Philaret writes here, he lodged in his parent’s house, used the room, the contents, as well as the money that he took for the said business through an excessive power of attorney to the Established Council; therefore, his sisters, due to failure to pay their father the due money, remained unsettled, as a result of which the father placed their arrangement on his responsibility. Since he did not receive satisfaction, he fell into complete ruin. In addition, his uncle died at the end of 1838, and his father also died at the beginning of 1839. Having interred his body, in mid-May he returned to the Lavra, and in mid-July, at the call of his mother to settle orphans, he went to Moscow with a three-week ticket issued by the Established Council, and lived longer than the permitted time, not without permission, but through his correspondence with Fr. the governor and his silence on this subject, he took for consent, and therefore, while busy bringing his orphans to completion, he expected from Fr. the governor's permission for his letter to him dated December 14. On the 16th, the Lavra treasurer, Hieromonk Sergius, and the steward of the Sukharevsky metochion, Hieromonk Theoktist, entered the house of his parent, who, on behalf of His Eminence, Bishop Vitaly of Dmitrov, announced to him a verbal order to immediately go to the Lavra. Having no reason to show any resistance to the execution of the orders of his superiors, he, Hieromonk Philaret, prepared to leave, but he was held back for several days by the imperfect completion of the orphan case and the construction and repairs he made in the house of his late father, located in the Basmanny part, in the parish of the Holy Great Martyr Nikita, in Gorokhovsky Lane, where he had a permanent residence. Meanwhile, the holiday was approaching, but there was no money, which is why he asked Fr. treasurer to lend him 100 rubles for income and salary, but he received only 50 rubles, which he immediately spent almost all of. At this time, the orphans rented out the house to a tenant and, with the deposit they received, he asked the steward of the Sukharevsky farmstead to hire horses, on which he returned to the Lavra on December 24, 1839, entered the order and corrected the ministry. As for the question of his spreading unfounded and harmful rumors, he, the hieromonk, did not spread any rumors and had no need to spread them, and therefore he cannot satisfactorily explain about this subject, as completely unknown to him, and he believes that the source of the lie about the spread of unfounded and harmful rumors and about the unauthorized absence to Moscow came from the person of the governor, who, without sincerely reconciling with him, as he, the hieromonk, did Considering him to be his enemy, he not only did not accept the most convincing means offered to him to satisfy his innocence, but out of his deep-rooted malice, he dared to use a false denunciation a second time, through which he forced His Eminence to take such measures as are only done with state criminals. But is he a criminal when he justified the authority of the Council and brought to an end the work entrusted to him, which is why the Lavra now enjoys peace. Although the matter of the lands between Lavra and Posad began according to the resolution of His Eminence and earlier than the receipt of Fr. Governor Anthony, but after he, the hieromonk, handed over the economic position, it lay inactive. O. the governor, realizing the benefit of this matter, convinced him, the hieromonk, to accept the position of deputy and continue the work, and he promised to assist him in everything, help and satisfy him in whatever he needed. When was the deputy’s former love to experience the fruits of his labors? the governor, through the action of the devil, turned into a quarrel, abusive words rained down like hail, and in this stormy spirit an unjust order was made to refuse to meet the expenses of the deputy because it was as if the Established Council did not authorize him to make expenses, but then, it turns out, he did not authorize him to conduct the business either. If the Council authorized the conduct of the matter, then it also authorized the expenses, and therefore, on the basis of the laws, must satisfy it. While he was on business, he had with him for information a large number of files related to the case entrusted to him, which he had to review, and for a personal meeting he had to invite officials to him, for which he needed a special room for the premises and a reliable person to guard him during his absence. Since he did not provide for all this at the Sukharevsky courtyard, out of this necessity and due to the proximity to all public places, he lodged in his parent’s house, where he enjoyed the room, contents and tranquility. Therefore, if Lavra owes him something for his work on business, then she owes incomparably more to the family of his parent, who spared nothing to give her the peace that she enjoys. Therefore, is it really pleasant for the Lavra to see that family upset and ruined to the last extreme, although, without a doubt, through the action of the same original devil, but acting secretly under the guise of appearance? He, Hieromonk Philaret, accepted the position of walking according to the conviction of Fr. the governor, who, as is known, occupied the first place in the presence and was an actor in the case, but without the other members of the Council, from whom everything was hidden, and if anything was proposed, it was explained in a completely different sense. This is what prompted him, the hieromonk, to deal not with those present at the Council, but only with the person of the governor. Therefore, he, the hieromonk, dismissed them as they were not participating in the case then, and must also remove them now - especially since in a case that has arisen again, the opinion of the entire presence is required from one member. Since that person has such power that if he wanted to give this truth a false direction, like the first case, then, without a doubt, the members of the presence - the confessor by news, the sacristan by modesty, the treasurer by duty must undeniably agree. Therefore, can such an opinion be fair? If all this had been known to His Eminence, he would not have demanded an opinion from the Council on this subject, as incompatible with the essence of the matter and inconsistent with the force of the law, according to which no one can be a judge in his own case. Therefore, the Established Council, or, better said, Fr. What opinion will the governor give about himself? The case entrusted to him, the hieromonk, was completed in favor of the Lavra and the courts gave her the right to recover from the perpetrators all the losses caused to her, but Fr. The governor, in clear defiance of Posad and contrary to all legal regulations, to the waste of state property, to personal insult and complete ruin to him, the hieromonk, solely due to his whims, completely refused not only the collection, but also the entire order, with which he forced not only the members of the presence, but also His Eminence to agree. He, the hieromonk, brings the judgment with the Viceroy and the arrangement of his orphans to trial by the mercy of God. Since during his ten-year stay, the hieromonk, in the Lavra, while engaged in such a complex task, he completely upset his health and weakened his eyesight to the extreme, he decided to devote the rest of his days to God at the hospital church, and asks, in order not to have relations with worldly people, to introduce Fr. The Viceroy to satisfy all creditors and his orphans from the cell property of his, the hieromonk, whatever it may consist of, for which purpose, having made an inventory, put it on sale and, having drawn up a debt sheet, showing how much and to whom exactly the debt remains for payment, deliver it to the Viceroy for voluntary execution; otherwise, give them the right to find the Viceroy as the culprit for the waste of their property, on the basis of the laws. At the same time, Hieromonk Filaret added that the Vysokopetrovsky Archimandrite, the hieromonk, for lack of a ticket to live in Moscow, escorted him to the Consistory, where Messrs. those present looked, read, listened, reasoned, suggested, threatened and were themselves afraid, because this matter, due to its complexity, was not subject to judgment. Therefore, he made an absolute intention not to return to the Lavra before a personal explanation with His Eminence, and how old was he in that year. those present interfered, in which he was more affirmed; Finally, those present had to agree with the defendant, whom they tried as a criminal and sent from one place to another, like a prisoner. Hieromonk Philaret asked the Council to present this explanation to His Eminence in the original; and he attached several copies of his letters sent to Fr. To the Viceroy. In these letters, Hieromonk Philaret asked Fr. The Governor entered into his position and gave him satisfaction, since everything depended on the Governor, and declared that after the former reconciliation they should not pursue each other for personal reasons. In addition, Hieromonk Philaret attached to the explanation a long extract from the laws of civil, criminal, and the local Carthage Council and made a note in which he stated that since during the continuation of the old case, the essence of the case was not extracted from many of his papers, and other papers were not recorded at all, so that this would not happen again, he laced his explanation and attached his personal seal. The established Council presented His Eminence with the aforesaid explanation of Hieromonk Philaret, in his report, in which it was explained that Hieromonk Filaret, with a ticket issued by the Council on July 12, 1839, for 21 days, left the monastery for Moscow and lived until December 24 in the house of his late parent and, since he did not have permission after the expiration of the ticket, his residence after This in Moscow can only be called unauthorized. As for the issue of the spread of harmful rumors in Moscow, since Hieromonk Filaret, according to his testimony, did not spread any rumors and the Council does not have any extraneous evidence for this, it cannot give its opinion on this subject. On this report of the Council, the resolution of His Eminence on March 22, 1840 prescribed: “From the circumstances of the case and the hieromonk’s explanation, the following is clear: 1) Hieromonk Filaret admitted that he went to Moscow with a ticket for three weeks, and lived there for five months, therefore, he is guilty of unauthorized living. 2) This guilt is not diminished by the fact that he wrote private letters to the Viceroy; nothing was done officially based on private letters, and the failure to receive an answer showed that they did not dare to give him a reprieve. 3) The Viceroy and the Council acted wrongly by allowing Hieromonk Philaret to be absent for four months without permission and not making an order for his return to the Lavra, but the Viceroy deserves an apology because he showed patience, as a person who had previously been offended by Hieromonk Philaret and therefore was careful that even just severity would not be accepted by Hieromonk Philaret for a hostile action. 4) Hieromonk Philaret himself explains the reason for the present matter, i.e. rumors about the phenomena and predictions that allegedly took place in the Lavra, and therefore he must be convinced of how necessary it was for the authorities to carry out the real work and hasten to return it to the Lavra. 5) Hieromonk Filaret raises suspicions against the Viceroy that he, Filaret, is credited with spreading false rumors: in this, Filaret is deceived and sins, for the suspicion of this against Filaret, on the occasion of his residence in unauthorized absence, arose in Moscow and was communicated to me from there. 6) However, no evidence of this suspicion was discovered against Hieromonk Philaret, and therefore he should not be found guilty of spreading false rumors. 7) Hieromonk Philaret removes from judgment on this matter not only the Viceroy, with whom he imagines himself to be in conflict, but also all other members of the Council. But just as it is prohibited by law to divert entire public offices from business, this recusal of Hieromonk Philaret, as illegal, does not deserve respect. 8) Further, Hieromonk Philaret, in his explanation, introduces circumstances that are not at all relevant to this matter, and pronounces reproachful judgments about the Viceroy, about some other members of the Council and about the members of the Consistory. All this makes his hieromonk Philaret guilty, and not anyone else. Therefore, do the following: 1) having announced to Hieromonk Philaret what was described above, inform him that he would have deserved strict punishment for his unauthorized absence and for reproachful judgments, but is left without punishment out of leniency because his words and actions are attributed to temptation and overwhelm of thoughts, however, to instill in him that he should beware of disturbing the order and it is unjust to insult others under the fear that the authorities will be forced to move from leniency to measures of legal justice. 2) The Council should ensure that no one is allowed to leave without permission, and if anyone allows himself to do so, immediately return him to his place and duties by legal means. 3) The Council notes that it should not have shied away from pronouncing an opinion on the present case. The governor had a reason to refuse to cast a vote in order to show impartiality to Hieromonk Philaret, who accused him of partiality, but the other members had to judge this matter and give their opinion. 4) As for the extraneous and unrelated items that Hieromonk Philaret writes about in his explanation, they are not subject to judgment in the present case and therefore are left without further consideration and conclusion.” 31 On March 10, 1840, Hieromonk Philaret, in a letter to His Eminence, complaining of insults from the Viceroy, asked for satisfaction for the money spent in the above-described cases and on this basis: His Eminence deigned to cover up the crimes of Fr. The governor calmed him down, as did Fr. The viceroy must reassure His Eminence by accepting the costs with which Hieromonk Philaret will satisfy his creditors; the matter itself will thus end in peace according to the word to the Apostle: bear each other’s burdens. At the same time, Hieromonk Filaret also attached a letter to him from his sisters Olga and Maria Gaidukov, in which they describe the demands of the foresters and iron workers for money. In a letter from Hieromonk Philaret, His Eminence ordered on March 19, 1840: “1) According to this private letter, nothing can be done in relation to the matter. But it is considered necessary to forward it to the Lavra for the case because, among other things, the attached letter from the sisters of Hieromonk Philaret reveals the reason for the debts of which he is complaining. These debts arose from the construction of the house, therefore, neither the Lavra nor the Viceroy are the cause of these debts and are not obliged to answer for them. 2) As Hieromonk Philaret is again tempted to attribute his troubles to the Viceroy, then to announce to him that the information about his long residence in Moscow and that he was credited with spreading unfavorable rumors to which the attention of the police was drawn, I received not from the Viceroy, but from Moscow as a result of the attention paid to this by the police. We advise him, with God’s help, to overcome the spirit of suspicion and enmity, which leads him into the sin of unrighteous and cruel reproach against his neighbor, as can be seen in this letter.” At the report of the Established Council on Hieromonk Philaret’s desire to go to Moscow to take advantage of his poor health and weakened vision for a period of three months, the resolution of His Eminence on March 28, 1840 prescribed: “1) That Hieromonk Philaret’s vision is very good, which is proven by a rather long petition and an even longer, on many sheets, explanation recently given to the Council, which were written by his own by hand. Therefore, finding that the reason for his request is false, and taking into account that he was recently on a long, willful absence, I cannot allow his dismissal to Moscow for fear that he would become ossified in the habit of living among worldly people. If he finds good reasons to be in Moscow, he can seek transfer to one of the Moscow monasteries, which the abbot will agree to accept. 2) From the petition of Hieromonk Philaret, I see with regret how he denounces himself for his long-term removal from the priesthood, for it is admitted that on November 6, 1837, the Council issued a decree on his entry into the priesthood, from which it is obvious that before this he did not serve for a long time and after this decree, as he himself admits, he did not serve until August 13, 1838, and last year on occasion living without permission in Moscow, he also did not perform a priestly position in the Lavra for a long time. Therefore, instruct the hospital rector and confessor to admonish him so that he strives to pacify his soul by diligently fulfilling his sacred monastic duties, and the Council is reminded not to make allowances for negligence, to the temptation and seduction of the weak” 32. The hospital builder, Archimandrite Paisiy and confessor Hieromonk Anatoly reported to the Established Council on May 7 that in response to their admonition, made according to the resolution of His Eminence, Hieromonk Philaret made a statement that due to not receiving monetary satisfaction from the Lavra, he could not perform the service of God. Hieromonk Philaret submitted an announcement to the Established Council that he had heard the resolution of His Eminence of March 28 and was very dissatisfied with such a decision, since His Eminence deigns to make such conclusions to the unbearable offense and complete ruin of him, the hieromonk, from the unfair report of the Established Council on the malicious action of the Viceroy. This announcement of Hieromonk Philaret, together with the report of the hospital Archimandrite Paisius, the Established Council presented the report to His Eminence and received a resolution on May 25, 1840: “As Hieromonk Philaret declared himself very dissatisfied, and this requires legal consideration, and how he has displeasure with the Viceroy and the report of the Council recognizes as unfair, then, although the law does not give the right to withdraw the whole public place, however, in order to reject any doubt about the impartiality of the Council, to present all matters related to Hieromonk Philaret for a special order on the legal consideration of the displeasure expressed by him.” On the report of the Established Council with the presentation of cases concerning Hieromonk Philaret, by the resolution of His Eminence dated July 6, 1840. it is prescribed: “For the reasons set out in the resolution of May 25, the case for which Hieromonk Philaret declared himself dissatisfied before the Established Council, unlike others, should be transferred to the consistory, which has the right to carry out a legal consideration and determination on it, and other cases submitted to this office should also be forwarded there for information and considerations.” Soon after this, the Moscow merchant Yegor Antipov entered the Established Council with a petition to collect from Hieromonk Philaret the 1289 rubles owed to him. 75 k. in banknotes; moreover, Antipov presented: 1) a receipt from Hieromonk Philaret, given by him on May 7, 1833, about the taking of 300 rubles. borrowed from 1500 rubles sent to Antipov from Fr. Viceroy, Archimandrite Anthony and 2) a bill according to which Hieromonk Philaret must pay 989 rubles. 75 k. dated April 2, 1832. This invoice shows that Hieromonk Philaret ordered Mr. Antipov: 1) a silver chasuble for the icon of St. Martyr Photius, St. Martyr Photinia and St. gracious Philaret, weighing 160 spools, 11 rubles each. 15 k. for the spool, with gilding of the entire chasuble for 100 rubles. with 472 rhinestone stones in rims at 25 k. per stone; 2) a silver chasuble for the icon of St. Martyr Photius, St. Martyr Photinia, St. Righteous Anna, St. Great Martyr George, weighing 295 spools, with gilding of the entire robe for 180 rubles. and with 630 rhinestone stones; 3) 6 silver table spoons for 90 rubles. and 4) a silver and gold box for 25 rubles: thus, minus the money received, Hieromonk Philaret had 1289 rubles in his account and receipt. 75 k. To the report of the Established Council with the application of Mr. Antipov’s petition and the invoice, the Bishop deigned to prescribe on July 8, 1840: “The invoice attached with the petition is one of the proofs that Hieromonk Philaret wants to pay his private debts to the Lavra and the Viceroy, for the debt was due to non-payment for decorating the icons of the martyr Photius and the martyr Photinia and for silver spoons and a box. As the affairs of this hieromonk are deemed necessary to be translated and transferred to the Consistory, then the Consistory will consider the petition presented at this time.” At the same time, the established Council reported to His Eminence that after the Council had repeatedly, on the basis of the resolutions of His Eminence, admonished Hieromonk Philaret about the performance of his sacred monastic duties - Hieromonk Philaret from the week of St. On Easter 1840 he does not attend religious services and does not even attend services except on Sundays. As a result of this, the Bishop, in the report of the Council, ordered on July 12, 1840, among other things, to the Council: “to transfer Hieromonk Philaret from the Lavra to the Znamensky Monastery pending discretion and until a decision is submitted about him to the Consistory of the case. 2) To report this to the Council to the Consistory with the attachment of a service record about him 33, and also to forward him to the Consistory for determination according to the above-mentioned purpose, so that the Znamensky rector would try to explain to him the wrongness of his evasion from fulfilling his monastic duties and to incite him to perform them, and to inform him about the future.” The established Council notified the Moscow Consistory of this on July 17, 1840, and Hieromonk Philaret was received into the Znamensky Monastery on July 19 of the same year. Meanwhile, Hieromonk Philaret submitted two petitions: one to the Established Council on 10 stamp sheets, and the other on 3 stamp sheets to His Eminence. In a petition addressed to the Established Council, Hieromonk Philaret wrote about his rights to be rewarded for the costs of his money incurred in the case of the Lavra lands, and also that, as a result of these costs, he was unable to pay Mrs. Nevorova for the house he bought from her for his sisters and his other debtors; Here he also declared his displeasure against the Lavra treasurer, Hieromonk Sergius, for not accepting the package from him at the Established Council during the acceptance of monthly government money and asked to return what was submitted to the Council by the master silversmith Yegor Antipov, who asked Antipov back, as written on paper of illegal value. Hieromonk Philaret filled his petition with extracts from civil, criminal and ecclesiastical laws. On July 23, 1840, the Bishop put forward the following resolution: “As this hieromonk and his affairs have been transferred to the department of the Consistory, then the papers of his Consistory will be examined.” In a petition addressed to His Eminence, who personally made a note on it: “submitted on July 10 in the evening,” Hieromonk Philaret wrote: his case with the Lavra Vicar, transferred from the Established Council to the Consistory, due to its complexity, does not belong to the judgment of the Consistory, but is subject to consideration by the Holy Synod, the Criminal Chamber and the Provincial Board. The consideration of the Holy Synod should include the contempt of the sacred and the trampling of the world, established by the Divine Blood, which, out of greed, is hitherto trampled upon by the Viceroy, who, contrary to the command of the Lord, makes a bloodless sacrifice in enmity and anger. The consideration of the Criminal Chamber should include the rejection of laws by the Viceroy and all his lawless orders on this subject, such as: violence, cruelty, threats, persecution, etc., this should also include the attribution to him, the hieromonk, of spreading harmful rumors, according to which he deliberately subjected him to deprivation of all rights of the state and exile to the settlement. The consideration of the Provincial Board should include: dissatisfaction of creditors, for their satisfaction: the house and all the property of him, the hieromonk, and his sisters will go on sale at auction, and for debt claims a competition will be drawn up, which will judge this subject more impartially than the Moscow Consistory, which, contrary to the X century St. zak. citizen Art. 1644, cannot enter into the consideration of a case that does not belong to her, but for the crimes of the Viceroy, which are more related to the court of the Criminal Chamber, and for debt claims - competitive consideration, which, upon its establishment, will be published by the Provincial Board everywhere. Therefore, he, Hieromonk Philaret, finds himself forced to conduct business with legal order, which should be started in the first place by the fact that about the crimes committed by the governor, he, Hieromonk Philaret, in accordance with the duty of the oath of promise in relation to subject loyalty, will have to inform whoever should, and ask for an investigation to be carried out, on what subject he, the hieromonk, made his order, which by force and effect can perceive in case of harassment or personal detention. 2) He, the hieromonk, will be obliged to announce his inability to satisfy the payment of debt claims to the creditors and, beyond their desire, place the house and all the property of him and his relatives at the disposal of the Provincial Board for auction sale and drawing up a competition, to which the request of the merchant Antipov must also be submitted without any satisfaction pending consideration by the competition. Since, according to the general law, no one can be deprived of the rights belonging to him without a court, then any damage to property and any personal injury, on the one hand, imposes an obligation, and on the other, produces the right to demand compensation, as prescribed by civil laws. Hieromonk Philaret concluded his petition with the following expressions: Your Eminence Vladyka! Before I conclude my petition and stop, due to your inattention, further communication with Your Eminence on this subject, I for the last time beg Your Eminence in the name of God Himself, in the name of that impartial Judge whose dignity you bear: enter into the sad state of my case before it comes to the consideration of the civil authorities, consider it again in the same way as it would be considered The Supreme and Impartial Judge and the Supreme, Autocratic power of His Imperial Majesty, without whom I can assure you that the matter with its complexity and your touch on the matter will not end as you think or as the governor thinks, no matter how much he tries to cover up this matter with the guise of appearances in relation to the rejection of laws and trampling on the world, the Divine Blood affirmed, which continues to this day, and therefore the Most Pure Body and Divine Blood of the dear Redeemer is trampled with contempt, the law of the beloved Monarch is boldly rejected, the rights of freedom are destroyed, the culprit of crimes is hidden, and the innocent sufferer is detained, contrary to all legal regulations, according to which “a boss who imposes penalties on his subordinates without deserved guilt or aggravates by a penalty exceeding the measure determined by law and the power granted to him, he is put on trial and punished according to his guilt; “Whoever is repeatedly convicted of this is expelled from service,” as this subject is described in Art. 265. XV" vol. St. zak. corner. In view of this, Hieromonk Philaret asks to come to the defense of his innocence and to save him from the lawless persecution of the Viceroy; his case, from the time he was appointed to the position of deputy and attorney in 1832, is to be considered in all detail and given legal action, in order to obtain fair satisfaction for the grave offense inflicted on him by the Viceroy and the complete ruin in a well-known case. According to this request, the resolution of His Eminence on July 20, 1840 ordered: “as the hieromonk is transferred to the department of the Consistory, then the Consistory should be considered.” Then Hieromonk Filaret, on July 29, 1840, due to the lack of a cell for him in the Znamensky Monastery, based on the verbal permission of His Eminence, was transferred to the Chrysostom Monastery. In October 1840, Hieromonk Philaret, calling himself “the hieromonk of the Lavra, living in the Chrysostom Monastery until the case is resolved,” asked His Eminence to make an order for a speedy resolution of his case, to which the Bishop ordered on October 15, 1840: “The consistory should try to finish the work of this hieromonk immediately, declaring to him that he, the hieromonk Chrysostom Monastery, and not the Lavra, and instructing the abbot to support him and use him in the monastery to serve with the other brethren of the Chrysostom Monastery" 34. In August 1841, a detailed note was drawn up in the Moscow Consistory on this case, but the decision on the case was delayed until the next year. As a result, Hieromonk Philaret again, on September 12, 1842, submitted a petition to the Highest Name with a signature that the petition was to be submitted to the Moscow Consistory. The Consistory suggested that Hieromonk Philaret take this petition back, as its content was not subject to acceptance and consideration by the Consistory, but Hieromonk Filaret refused this, demanding that the petition be given to him with an inscription; Moreover, with passion, as evidenced by the journal of the Consistory, he said in the presence of the Consistory that, by submitting this petition to the Consistory, he was sparing only his Spiritual Superiors and that now he could submit it through the secret police. Although he responded to this that no one is forbidden to do what you want and that the Consistory, on the basis of paragraph 14 of Article 1690. X t. St. zak. 35 has no right to accept such requests, however, Hieromonk Filaret, referring to 1691 Art. the same volume of St. zak. 36 insistently demanded that his request be accepted and returned to him only with an inscription. As a result of this and in accordance with the resolution of the Bishop on November 3, 1842. 37 at the determination of the Consistory, His Eminence Vitaly, Bishop of Dmitrov, deigned to make the following conclusion, which was approved by Metropolitan Philaret on December 21, 1842: “The petition of Hieromonk Philaret: 1) contains reproachful words, for example: speaking of. The Viceroy of the Lavra calls him an irreligious person, an unfaithful servant of the Tsar, an unreliable guardian of the Lavra, etc. 2) No evidence is presented and it is not even explained through what false denunciation the Viceroy subjected him to deprivation of all the rights of the state and exile. 3) The determination of the Consistory is unfairly stated, which, as I know from the case, did not award him compensation for the required costs. 4) It contains various items, regarding which it requires orders to preserve written documents and income books for the purpose of reporting on the Lavra, and the discovery by the investigation of a case of embezzlement of state property, and an announcement to him where exactly the big genuine case is located. Why I believe in my opinion: 1) the request of Hieromonk Philaret to be left without action; 2) for the irascibility he discovered in the presence of the Consistory, give him the same severe reprimand with instructions on how he should behave in court, with the permission of the highest established authority. At the same time, and based on the above note on the case, a ruling of the Consistory was drawn up, at which the Right Reverend Vitaly made the following opinion, approved by the Bishop on December 17, 1842: “In this case, three subjects are subject to consideration: 1) the calculation of Hieromonk Philaret with the Lavra in terms of costs on the occasion of the transaction entrusted to him regarding the acquisition of plans and bringing into undisputed possession of the dacha belonging to the Lavra and Bethany; 2) Hieromonk Philaret’s disobedience against his superiors and his impudent expressions; 3) the petition of the merchant Antipov with the attachment of an invoice for the satisfaction thereof of the money owed to him by Hieromonk Philaret. For the first subject: It is clear from the case that the Lavra Established Council, entrusting Hieromonk Philaret with handling the matter of the lands, did not provide him with unaccountable production of costs and did not at all authorize him to enter into debt at the expense of the Lavra, but, on the contrary, accepted compensation for costs only in the event that they were presented to the Council and recognized by it as fair. Hieromonk Filaret, not content with the 7094 rubles given to him. 75 k., also demands 4375 rubles, showing this amount, allegedly borrowed from strangers, taken and spent during the Lavra’s business. But his solicitation to receive this amount from the Lavra cannot be considered fair, because: 1) Hieromonk Filaret did not provide any evidence or report for the expenditure of the said amount in the case of the Lavra’s lands; 2) this amount, even if it was truly borrowed by him, was spontaneously, without right, without the knowledge and permission of the Lavra Viceroy; 3) a letter from Philaret’s sisters and an invoice presented by the merchant Antipov, showing that it was not for the needs of the Lavra that Philaret went into debt, but for the construction of a house and for decorations on the icons of St. Photius, Photinia and Philaret, also for silver spoons and a silver and gilded box; 4) Filaret’s demand for payment of 4,000 rubles, presented to the Council suddenly and unaccountably, seems all the more likely to be a claim on the property of the Lavra, since it was made by him following his announced return to the Lavra and the relinquishment of his duty to attend to its business; 5) contrary to the desire expressed in writing to his superiors in June 1838 to stop the matter of settlements and remain unquestioningly satisfied with the merciful determination of His Eminence, again in May of the following year he began to continue his harassment regarding receiving money from the Lavra, although due to the desire to stop settlements in that year 1838 he received a thousand rubles not by legal right, but by indulgence, as stated in His resolution Eminences; 6) besides Philaret’s covetousness or extravagance, there are no other reasons why such a significant sum, which he has already received and which he still seeks, could be spent by him in the case of the Lavra lands. Disobedience and daring expressions against the Authorities are evident from the fact that Hieromonk Philaret, despite the demands of the Council, did not return to the Lavra for a long time and lived in Moscow willfully, evaded the priestly service, which he was ordered to undertake by the resolution of His Eminence, appropriated to himself the title of deputy, which had already been removed from him, and named the Established Lavra Council oathbreaker; Fr. reproachfully explained. The governor, attributing to him insidious hypocrisy: to offend and reproach those present at the Consistory, he allowed himself to say that when he was presented in the presence, they looked, read, listened, reasoned, proposed, threatened and were themselves afraid, wrote that His Eminence did not want to deal with him without offense, and to respond to the resolutions of His Eminence, supposedly they followed his greatest, hieromonk, insult and complete ruin from the unjust and false report of the Established Council. It is not clear from the case that, at the request of the merchant Antipov to satisfy him by paying the debt, the Consistory was asked by Hieromonk Philaret whether he recognized the debt brought against him by Antipov as fair, and whether he had already paid it. Such a demand is required both by legal order and by the fact that Hieromonk Philaret himself asked the Council to return the debt to Antipov. Taking into account all these circumstances, I consider in my opinion: 1) Due to the failure to provide evidence of the fairness of the costs and the unaccountable demand for 4375 rubles. As a reward for this, the solicitation of Hieromonk Philaret to receive the indicated amount from the Lavra is recognized as not subject to satisfaction. 2) For disobedience against the Authorities, daring expressions and reproachful judgments, it would be necessary, as the Consistory believes, to demote Hieromonk Philaret to a novitiate position until obedience and humility are seen in him, but by the power of the All-Merciful Manifesto, which followed on the 16th day of April 1841, he should be released from this punishment, obliging him to subscribe, so that henceforth was in every possible way refrained from such actions under fear of strict legal responsibility and was prevented, due to the hostility he harbored against the Viceroy of the Lavra, from leaving him among the brotherhood of the Chrysostom Monastery without returning him to it. 3) At the request of Antipov, who filed a debt against Philaret, the Consistory should enter into judgment separately, taking from Hieromonk Philaret the appropriate response on this subject.” The Decree of the Consistory was sent for execution on December 23, 1842. Thus ended the work of Hieromonk Philaret 38 . Let us make a few comments regarding the case presented. First of all, we must admit that Hieromonk Filaret of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra had considerable spiritual abilities. Despite his insignificant education at the district school, he surprises with his erudition in patristic literature, his great knowledge of church and civil laws and his remarkable ability to use them when the need presented itself to him. That tireless walking that he had in various public places, that character in the conduct of the business itself, which revealed in him a correct understanding of the spirit of the time and the ability to attract official people to his side, that energy and courage that he showed with the resourcefulness of his mind in his skillful, often sarcastic explanations, constructed strictly logically and reaching the point of rudeness and insolence, clearly show in him a strength that could be taken into account without using less energy. Vladyka Metropolitan Philaret himself understood this and let others know. It is not for nothing that Hieromonk Philaret, being 30 years old, receives the position of Viceroy in the Iveron Monastery of the Novgorod province; it is not for nothing that he is attracted to the Trinity-Sergius Lavra by Fr. Vicar Athanasius, at whose request he immediately received the post of economist of the Lavra, and under Vicar Anthony, he was given the important and honorable task of being a Lavra deputy on an important and complex matter about land, although earlier he was known to not like to correct the order of the priesthood and sit in a cell 39 . Hieromonk Filaret, in addition, is a skilled politician. In order to protect himself in the future from various kinds of criticism for seeking and incurring costs, before taking office as a deputy, he calls Fr. Viceroy Archimandrite Anthony 40 on letters that serve him as an approving certificate and a documentary basis for his expenses, and he uses these letters so skillfully during the investigation that Fr. The governor, Archimandrite Anthony, loses ground and refers not to himself, but to the Established Council as an anchor of salvation. In his elected MP Fr. The governor, Archimandrite Anthony, sees a good heart, a sound mind, love for God, and in the first 2-3 years of doing business, he gives him unaccountable trust, gives him money at his first request, without demanding either an invoice or supporting documents. Vladyka Metropolitan Philaret himself notes in his resolution of August 30, 1837 that in the orders of the Council regarding the production of costs there is neither attention nor caution. When the established Council was not able to immediately satisfy the Lavra deputy with money, Fr. The governor, Archimandrite Anthony, hurries to lend him his money on loan and in 1835, at the request of the deputy, gives him a written response that all the funds used and used will be gratefully absorbed in the deputy’s business.” This attitude about. The viceroy to the deputy clearly showed that he, the deputy, was necessary for both the Lavra and Fr. To the Viceroy. The Bishop himself saw this when, after Hieromonk Philaret resigned from his duties as a deputy, he wrote to Fr. The governor that the matter of land was entrusted to them by the Consistory, since the Council, due to inexperience, would not know what was needed here 41. This was clearly seen by the deputy himself, from whom the Council in 1835 did not resign his duties as a deputy, although he asked for it; on the contrary, the Council, in response to Hieromonk Philaret’s request to dismiss him from the post of deputy, entrusted him with a new matter - to establish the boundaries of the area around the Lavra, by order of Prince Prozorovsky. Such is the position of Hieromonk Philaret in the Lavra, such unconscious trust in him. The viceroy, Archimandrite Anthony, could and did develop ambition and arrogance in him. But Fr. himself is partly to blame for this. A governor who failed to put his subordinate within proper boundaries, but on the contrary, with his simplicity, his uncontrolled attitude towards the deputy, repeatedly gave indulgence and grounds for his pride to go beyond the norm. Metropolitan Philaret foresaw this danger back in 1830, when he wrote to Viceroy Afanasy: “reports should be demanded from the steward immediately, and if you hesitate to submit them, do not lead him and yourself into temptation with indulgence 42.” Once o. The governor, Archimandrite Anthony, gave the deputy a weapon against himself, then the discord that arose between them for personal reasons, of course, was bound to grow the more, the stronger their friendship was. In fact, Fr. The governor soon realized his powerlessness in the fight against the deputy and entrusted the whole matter to Metropolitan Philaret, but Philaret himself did not easily cope with the obstinate deputy. In his relationship with Hieromonk Philaret, some strange hesitation and condescension are noticed. With his goodwill and trust in Fr. For Governor Anthony, with his overwhelming authoritative power, the Metropolitan, of course, very quickly and easily could have brought Hieromonk Philaret within the proper boundaries, but he does not do this and only seems to intimidate the deputy, while at the same time showing him amazing compliance. One must be quite surprised how Metropolitan Philaret, this strict administrator and inexorable judge, before whom both the honorary members of the Moscow clergy and the professors of the Theological Academy, who demanded blind submission and obedience, felt embarrassed and feared, gave severe reprimands for the slightest deviation from their orders, burdened with a mass of cases in various branches of state, public, educational and diocesan life, which seemed not has even the slightest leisure, this same metropolitan for the whole 5-6 years conducts almost a polemic with the hieromonk over his unfounded solicitation, spends a lot of time just reading the enormous explanations of this zealous author, endures unheard-of rudeness and insolence from him, shows amazing condescension towards him, as if protecting him, as if encouraging him to further insolence, devotes he has 26 letters. The Metropolitan himself seemed to be afraid of the deputy, afraid that he, such a walker in business and practice, with a resourceful mind and flexible thinking, would not turn towards the enemy and thereby ruin the entire Lavra matter about the land. Having entered into a matter, the Bishop often deviates from his usual practice of resolving a dispute himself and immediately, and regarding this dispute he considers it necessary to consult with Fr. The governor of the house or after his resolution is given by Fr. additional clarifications to the governor in private letters. At the same time, the Bishop observes possible caution and advises taking it and Fr. to the governor. In addition to his abilities, Hieromonk Philaret, being in close relations with Archimandrite Anthony, also knows the entire inner life of the inhabitants of the Lavra and possesses, one might think, some secret, the disclosure of which is very unpleasant for the Bishop and is not beneficial to those close to him. This close acquaintance with the inner life of the Lavra, this mastery of the secret, it must be assumed, was mainly what gave Hieromonk Philaret special courage, amounting to insolence and rudeness, and each time saved him from just punishment. It turned out to be dangerous to argue with Hieromonk Philaret, imposing strict penalties on him. In this case, Vladyka Metropolitan Philaret shared the fate of those mortals who are afraid of revelations, and therefore often show the owners of secrets such leniency that borders on indulgence. Hieromonk Philaret found himself defeated; only unsatisfied pride remained in him, which, gradually hardening, brought his dejected spirit to hallucinations. He begins to stubbornly pass off the icons in his cell as myrrh-streaming ones and is first banned from the priesthood and then demoted to the rank of novice, until old age and illness take away his last energy. O. The Viceroy, Archimandrite Anthony, wrote to Hieromonk Philaret on March 19, 1832: "The thought never occurred to me about any of your seeking: what is this for you? God gave you a good heart, a sound mind, love for Him, His blessing for you. And so you have everything, having love for the Lord; these are the main reasons for my rapprochement with you and, seeing you like this, it is impossible not to love you: but about this: I wrote to you, as in confession; I bring a prayer to our representative, the Venerable Sergius, that he may, more and more, cleanse and whiten the clothing of your soul for the palace of heaven and protect your entrances and exits from all evil; This letter, preserved in the file in a copy, testifies that Hieromonk Philaret, before his appointment as a deputy, privately requested from Fr. deputy of his opinion, in order to avoid possible misunderstandings and criticism of him for being too searching. Bishop Philaret wrote on September 11, 1834 to Fr. to the governor, Archimandrite Anthony: “If I had not taken the caution that I now take, then perhaps in future cases I would not be able to protect you as I should, but would only seem like a pottaker” (letter 84 p. 114). Metropolitan Philaret wrote on January 19, 1835 to Fr. To the governor: “Where is F. with a complaint? He did not come to me, and I admit that when I agreed to use him as a deputy, I did not have good hope, but did not want to follow my thoughts when others saw the person better than me... My home is hardly better than yours and F.” (letter 99, p. 133). Metropolitan Philaret wrote on February 14, 1835 to Fr. To the governor: “I don’t understand what Philaret is doing. First he came and spoke to me as if he were acting in accordance with the Council; then, when I did not dare to affirm what he represented, but turned him to order, so that he would present his opinions to the Council, and the Council to me, he began to express displeasure at the Council. When I said this that I could not rely on his changeable words and that he needed to present his thoughts Council, and to present his displeasures to the Council in writing, then he disappeared for several days, and deliberately or inadvertently appeared yesterday before the holiday, demanding my consent to the paper that he wants to submit to the commission. I didn’t see him, but told him that I doubted relying on his words, but I was turning him to order, as I said before. Why is he wandering around?..” I accidentally fell into my hands with the decree of the Council of Filaret, which partially authorizes what was written about him above (letter 103: p. 140). On March 2, 1835, Vladyka wrote to Fr. To the governor: “It seems unreliable to me that you trust Filaret after he did not achieve what he promised before and did not explain the money clearly” (letter 105; p. 243). Metropolitan Philaret wrote on May 13, 1835 to Fr. Viceroy: “I spoke with Prince Dmitry Vladimirovich regarding the matter of the lands, due to my relationship with him. He says that, reading it, he finds it convincing, but that we need to see what the other side says. He still assumes that he will need to report to the Sovereign Emperor, promising in this case to show me the project in order to listen to me. The papers will all now go to you" (letter 112, p. 159). See above 105 the letter of the Lord in the note. On file – in a copy there is the following letter written by Fr. Vicar to Hieromonk Philaret on October 20, 1835: "I received your letters, Father Philaret, with due gratitude; my irresponsibility - sometimes partly from lack of time, partly from the confidence that you yourself care to live up to the expectations of the authorities - at the same time we deliver you a hefty sum of two hundred rubles. My advice: do not mix one thing with another, and it is advisable that you stick to the main thing - to receive a formal a plan that defines the boundaries of the Lavra’s own domain, and a plan for Posad for his knowledge. This is the goal of your labors, the achievement of which is expected from your prudence, and activity, and diligence for the monastery, and all the means used and used will be gratefully absorbed by this goal. About stoves in shops and so on is an empty matter; it does not arouse our fears or expectations, and leave it out of sight for the time being; You also need to take care of the land behind the benches; what needs to be done has been done, but for the sake of the Reverend, I ask you, worry about plans; the dispute about the breakdowns will be resolved by the patience of the Council and time, and it will not be sensitive, and there is no need to irritate people. Sorry. To you, benevolent Viceroy Archimandrite Anthony." One must think that the compromise between the Father Deputy and the Father Viceroy about 612 rubles 50 k. took place earlier than this time and the Father Deputy no longer mentions this amount in his reports. Vladyka wrote on March 29, 1836 to Fr. To the viceroy: "Our deputy sometimes does more than he should, and sometimes does not notice what absolutely needed to be shown, such as the name on the plan of the church quarter in which merchants live. This mistake was made, of course, not in vain, and an indication of it could have given the prince an idea with what hands this work is done in the Commission (i.e. buildings), and how much therefore one can rely on the words of the Commission. Unfortunately, I too due to my vanity, I did not finish the plan before talking with the prince, although I had it in my hands, and therefore did not indicate it to the prince personally. The note from the commission presented to the prince on this matter was not composed with such goodwill to the Lavra as they boast there” (letter 132: p. 202). On May 11, 1836, Vladyka wrote to Fr. To the governor: "Fr. F., I remember, I told you that I would not have used it if I had not listened to you. Calm him down. Let's talk more about him, if God pleases, at home" (letter 137; p. 208). This can be seen from the report of Fr. Philaret dated February 11. Hieromonk Philaret refers to a letter from Fr. Viceroy dated 20 Oct. 1835; see above in note. On June 7, 1837, Vladyka Metropolitan wrote to Fr. To the governor: "The matter of our land was again subject to investigation and it turns out that there were many fruitless concerns. There were people who suspect the Lavra that she has a plan that is not in her favor and is hiding it in order to win more than she has the right to. Gratitude to Prince Dmitry Vladimirovich, which provides ways to get out of the difficulties" (letter 161, p. 238). Vladyka wrote on August 21, 1837 to Fr. To the governor: “The case of your deputy is making it difficult for me. Much has been allowed to him and he has gone far. I am in no hurry to decide so that, having learned the decision, he does not think of seeking pleasure in serving those against whom he was appointed as a deputy” (letter 166, p. 245). On August 29, 1837, Vladyka wrote to Fr. To the governor: “Convince the unfortunate deputy to serve and collect himself with good work without distraction. The Civil Governor writes to me that Prince Dmitry Vladimirovich agreed to the last proposals about the land, but suggests whether the Lavra would not find it possible to refuse the plot of land behind the shops. I expressed my consent. It is not convenient for me to keep the affairs of the deputy for a long time. The postponed affairs make it difficult and confusing" (letter 167). From letter 167, placed above in the note, it is clear that the Vladyka himself refused the land behind the shops. It is not clear from the case that the Council gave an explanation. The previous report and the present petition are marked by the Bishop as having been received under the same date - September 2, 1837. On September 19, 1837, Vladyka wrote to Fr. To the governor: “What does Filaret want to do, dissatisfied with my resolutions?” (letter 168). On November 7, 1837, Vladyka wrote to Fr. To the Viceroy: “I gave instructions to the confessor and the dean about Philaret because he has a competition of orders with the members of the Council, but I forgot to say that this competition should not prevent the Viceroy from giving useful advice to the hieromonk, and from accepting with obedience spiritual advice, as well as superior orders. Now you have an addition to the resolution” (letter 175; p. 258). Vladyka wrote on August 9, 1830 to Fr. To the Viceroy, Archimandrite Athanasius: "You did not speak to me as clearly about Hieromonk Benjamin in the Lavra as you now write, and even this you did badly; it is necessary to tell the truth purely; but it is more convenient to sort out and resolve the matter on the spot. Tell Benjamin not to accept anyone from the female sex in his cell under any guise, for any need; and he himself did not go anywhere to secular houses. And Keep an eye on this... Tell me also, Fr. Viceroy, how Philaret lives after his economic position.” Arr. to creativity Holy Fathers 1886, part 38, page 398; letter 166. On November 27, 1837, Vladyka wrote to Fr. To the viceroy: "I don’t know what to do with Hieromonk Philaret. If, as I see, he does not fulfill what is officially prescribed, I must officially report this. The doubt is this. His actions show, among other things, that his head is not in order. At the beginning of the last letter to me, he writes that he will leave the matter at my pleasure only if they pay him money, otherwise he will seek justice, and at the end of the letter he decides to leave everything and asks only release him to Moscow for a personal explanation before me and to arrange his affairs with his creditors. The letter generally consists of inconsistencies, but in the end there is a softened, apparently repentant thought. If at this time we use severity, which is what the official course of the matter is leading to, then we must fear that bitterness will again prevail and the enemy will try to take this direction to a harmful extreme. "(letter. 175, p. 238). On February 13, 1838, Vladyka wrote to Fr. To the viceroy: “What other strange thing is Hieromonk Philaret? If he was from the Lavra on December 10, why wasn’t he with me in Moscow? And why stay for a long time? If he returned, try the method of admonition that I prescribed in his letter. If he didn’t return, call him urgently and say that if he doesn’t return immediately, he will have to report, which is what really needs to be done” (letter 188: p. 278). On March 19, 1838, Vladyka wrote to Fr. To the viceroy: "I definitely didn’t read the appendices to the papers of Hieromonk Philaret, thinking that this was an extract from books and nothing more. I don’t have time to read everything that people who, unfortunately, have learned to read and write very generously now. Do not grieve and be at peace in the Lord, and forgive me for not looking through and not using special caution against the publicity of this part of the slander. Seal the case, except in the case if it is needed to implement the resolution. I will tell you what to do regarding this special part of the matter” (letter 189; p. 279). This information, as can be seen from the previous note, was received by the Bishop from a letter to Fr. Viceroy. On April 10, 1838, Vladyka wrote to Fr. To the Viceroy: "About the new article you discovered in the papers of Hieromonk Philaret, I remember that I already wrote to you that I had not seen it because I had not read his extract from the laws attached to the letter. Now I demand this paper. Do not hesitate to send it so that I receive it in St. Petersburg, where I will stay until mid-May. The age now is such that, no matter how absurd denunciations are, you cannot throw them away with only contempt, without thinking about precautions... It seems to me that Hieromonk Philaret is directly on the path of mental damage, and that is why I am trying in every possible way not to give an opportunity for an increase in irritation to push him forward. But the need to act more decisively, it seems, is already inevitable. Pray for him, eliminating grief, and order to take out a part for him at the proskomedia. (letter 191; p. 280). There is no note in the file; it remained with the Vladyka: it is not clear from the case that there were any orders regarding this, so the contents of the note are unknown. This report is not in the file. Vladyka wrote on May 28, 1838 to Fr. To the governor: “I forgot to ask the steward, and maybe I’ll forget again, did Filaret come to the Lavra, as he promised the Consistory? He didn’t come to see me. And I haven’t had the time to look for him yet” (letter 194; p. 285). June 7, 1838 to the same Fr. Vladyka wrote to the Viceroy: “Tell Hieromonk Philaret that if he has any doubt, let him wait for me, but meanwhile it is desirable that he serve, to which there was no obstacle before, if he wanted, and now even more so, when he remains in such a dispensation of spirit in which I saw him these days” (letter 195; p. 286). Vladyka wrote on October 18, 1838 to Fr. To the governor: “I instructed the matter of land to be processed according to the legal forms of the Consistory, because the Council, due to its inexperience, would not know what was needed here” (letter 199; p. 300). February 21, 1839 to the same Fr. The Bishop wrote to the Viceroy: “Has Philaret returned and what is he doing and what should be done with him if he does not do what is good and proper” (letter 217; p. 311). It is not clear from the case what Hieromonk Philaret means here. On July 13, 1839, Vladyka wrote to Fr. to the governor: “Hieromonk Philaret gave me a letter through others, but he, they say, is ill” (letter 231, p. 325). On March 22, 1940, Vladyka wrote to Fr. To the governor: “It may seem to you that I write a lot about F’s case. I think that I am taking medicine for illness. His thoughts are sick with dreams about the law: won’t he be healed at least partly when they show him that he is not walking in the law” (letter 250, p. 351). Vladyka wrote on April 9, 1840 about. To the Viceroy: “Hieromonk F” “as far as I can see, he is not only guilty, but also sick: and if you treat him as if he were guilty, then you can harden his illness. Therefore, I treat him more as if he were sick than as if he were guilty” (letter 252, p. 354). In the track record of Hieromonk Filaret, Fr. The governor noted: “correct in behavior; self-willed in obedience." Vladyka wrote on February 6, 1841 to Fr. To the governor: “However, F., who began with evil words, in my opinion, is no less guilty than A., who ended with an impudent hand. Will you scold me for the order about F. and N.? I did this without anger, but it seems to me that it is necessary to make an experiment to separate the people who were conferring on a stern path. Thank God that instead of those who leave, at the same time there are those who come, giving good hope” (letter 279, p. 391). 1690 art. 14g t.: “a petition is not accepted when it is not submitted to the proper Judicial place.” 1691 art.: “When the petition, after consideration of it, turns out not to be accepted, then it can only be returned to the petitioner except with an inscription, that is, with the reason indicated on it why it cannot be accepted.” The Bishop wrote on the minutes of the Consistory: “to the Eminence, following the example of other cases, for consideration and conclusion, especially since the resolution of the Consistory did not examine all the circumstances of the case.” His fate is interesting. According to service records for 1842–1846. Hieromonk Philaret is certified: good behavior, corrects the order of priestly service, capable of obedience and trustworthy. But on the report of the rector of the Chrysostom Monastery, Archimandrite Philotheus, presenting the service records of the monastics for 1846, Vladyka Metropolitan Philaret wrote on January 3, 1847: “although Hieromonk Philaret is shown to behave without reproach, but as it comes to my attention that he, not being sick, for it turns out, does not correct the order of priestly service, then The consistory must demand a detailed report on whether he behaves in everything in accordance with his monastic and priestly duties. Since this resolution of the Bishop, Hieromonk Philaret began to appear on the lists as not correcting the order of priestly service and serving very rarely. On January 14, 1850, Vladyka wrote on the presentation of service records about the monastics of the Chrysostom Monastery: “Instruct the dean of the monasteries to give advice and exhortation to Hieromonk Philaret to perform, on an equal basis with others, the order of priestly service, both for the benefit of his soul and for compliance with the monastery order”; On December 19, 1851, at the same presentation of the lists, Vladyka wrote: “Hieromonk Philaret, as explained, rarely goes to church and does not perform priestly services; exhort him so that he does not deviate from fulfilling his monastic duties, so that this evasion does not become a loss of spiritual benefit, and if he obeys this admonition, take written testimony from him.” For 1851, Hieromonk Filaret showed behavior: “dubious; incapable of any obedience." On January 31, 1851, he was banned from the priesthood for not attending confession during the fasts of the previous year, so that, having fulfilled this holy duty, he would be admitted to the priesthood, but, as he did not fulfill this and, at the threefold demand of the Consistory, did not appear therein, then by decree of June 23, 1851, he was left on novitiate obedience. He was kept under this ban by decree of the Consistory on October 27, 1854, for his stubborn disobedience to the authorities in the case of the announcement of the myrrh-streaming icons in his cell. On September 12, 1856, permission was announced for him. From 1852 to 1866 he is shown in lists of behavior: “arbitrary; due to rigidity in stubbornness, he is incapable of obedience.” Since the time of the abbotship of Archimandrite Gregory in 1867, he began to show behavior: “quite good; incapable of obedience due to old age and illness.” Since 1870 he is no longer on the lists. Metropolitan Philaret wrote on November 22, 1829 to Fr. To the Viceroy, Archimandrite Athanasius: “Tell the one who is in the position of Lavra Economist to serve, and not rarely. In Iverskoye there was an opinion of him as a hunter to wander into the city. Therefore, he needs to cleanse himself of this opinion in the Lavra. And that he offered his cell without asking or need: do not accept that about the Lavra, and confirm to him so that he does not dare to fool around like that in the future.” On October 31, 1830, Vladyka wrote to him: “Is Philaret correcting the series? If he is still lazy, and you allow it, then this seems to be a very significant sin.” (Priab. to the works of the fathers, 1886, 38, pp. 391 and 401; letter 155 and 171). Arr. to TV Father 1886, part 38 p. 394; letter 157; Hieromonk Filaret was the housekeeper.