Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov in polemics with the liberal intelligentsia about the Christian understanding of freedom

While Russian educated society was under the influence of the ideas of Western rationalism and non-Orthodox mysticism, Saint Ignatius countered the temptations of a de-churched worldly culture with the indigenous traditions of Russian spirituality. Along with the elders of Optina Pustyn, he studied and revived in Russia the principles of Eastern Orthodox asceticism, the practice of internal “smart work” - the true basis of monastic and general Christian life. Nowadays the ascetic works of Bishop Ignatius are being studied and republished. Less known and little studied are the views of Bishop Ignatius on the historical development of Russia, on the contemporary socio-political process, as well as his relationship with the world of Russian culture. Meanwhile, these relationships were wide and diverse. Saint Ignatius himself had an undoubted talent for writing. In his youth, while studying at the Engineering School in St. Petersburg, he attended the literary salon of A. N. Olenin; his literary and poetic abilities attracted the attention of A. S. Pushkin, I. A. Krylov, K. N. Batyushkov, N. I. Gnedich. In the literary heritage of St. Ignatius there are many works that are related in genre to lyrical reflections and essays; There are also several poems. Brianchaninov's friends and correspondents were M. I. Glinka, P. I. Turchaninov, K. P. Bryullov. Review of St. Ignatius about the book of N.V. Gogol’s “Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends” can be considered a classic, in terms of accuracy and depth of thought, expression of the Orthodox Church view of the nature of artistic creativity; Among the Vladyka’s letters there are many assessments and analyzes of certain literary and musical works and paintings. The published materials reveal one of the interesting pages of Russian social life of the 19th century. During the preparation of the peasant reform of 1861, Bishop Ignatius, as the administrator of the Caucasian diocese, considered it necessary to enter into polemics with liberal, pseudo-Christian views on the peasant question, and then with the representative of the militant atheistic wing of the Russian intelligentsia, A. I. Herzen. These documents essentially reflect the clash of two fundamentally opposing views on the world, on history, on the human personality; the struggle of ideological positions, which did not subside throughout the entire modern era. In the most general terms, these positions can be defined as follows. One of them, the liberal-educational one, recognizes the existing world and the relationships that have developed in it as something not proper, requiring alteration and correction. It is distinguished by its belief in social and moral progress, the deification of “human rights and dignity.” Religion, if not completely denied, is accepted only as a tool for establishing the principles of goodness and justice on earth. Ignoring the ontologically inherent sinfulness of man, this ideology and the culture it generates naturally come into fundamental conflict with the entire doctrine of the Orthodox Church. Another worldview, the Christian church, in which the concepts of sin and redemption are central, sees the main goal of man in “deification,” that is, in the internal purification and enlightenment of the soul, free access to a higher reality. All attempts to organize earthly life by political, social, economic means, but outside the Church and not in the name of Christ, are considered here as manifestations of human arrogance and pride. This position does not deny social activity in principle, but requires humility of the arrogant mind before the reality of God's world and tirelessly reminds that its main goals lie beyond the boundaries of historical existence. Until now, as in the 19th century, this position of the Church (it is sometimes seen as a justification for slavery, lack of will, submission to fate) causes bewilderment and rejection in the worldly mind and gives rise to fierce criticism of representatives of various churchless political systems - be it populist revolutionaries, Bolsheviks, liberal democrats or adherents of “universal human values.” The question of slavery and freedom in connection with the upcoming liberation of peasants from serfdom became one of the main points of polemics of St. Ignatius in the materials offered to the reader’s attention. They consistently express the Orthodox Church understanding of the historical process, the ways and means of social reformation, and the spiritual needs of the Russian people. The published materials were not included in the repeatedly reprinted collected works of Bishop Ignatius; they were published in rare editions of the early 20th century, not always accessible to modern researchers. Meanwhile, they are of undoubted interest from historical, literary and theological points of view. This publication presents in a single complex all the materials of St. Ignatius, which in one way or another touches on the peasant issue. In 1857, Archimandrite Ignatius was ordained bishop and from 1858 to 1861 ruled the Caucasian and Black Sea dioceses. These years coincided with intensive preparations for the peasant reform. In 1859, a committee was created in Stavropol to draw up a draft regulation on the organization and improvement of the life of the landowner peasants of the province. Bishop Ignatius took an active part in the preparation and implementation of the peasant reform in the Diocese entrusted to him and, in particular, addressed the Diocesan clergy with two Appeals 1. In the first of them, dated January 17, 1859, he clearly defines the direction that priests should follow in conversations with parishioners - peasants and landowners. He proposes to be guided in these conversations by the answer of Jesus Christ to a person who turned to Him for advice on dividing property with his brother (Gospel of Luke, chapter 12), and to introduce words of consolation and edification everywhere. Following the example of the Lord Himself, spiritual shepherds must highlight all aspects related to the peasant reform from the point of view of spiritual salvation; maintain a passion-free and peaceful disposition of spirit and not interfere in the material, civil side of the matter, as not falling within the competence of the clergy. The Bishop zealously ensured that this order was implemented. Thus, on the report of the Pyatigorsk city dean, Archpriest Macarius Znamensky, dated March 20, 1859, who, like many other priests, reported receiving the Appeal, Saint Ignatius imposed the following resolution: April 6. No. 674. To the Consistory for information. Review all such reports from deans, and from those priests and clergy who signed only for reading my instructions to the clergy on the issue of improving the life of landowner peasants, set out in my proposal to the Consistory of January 17, No. 3, demand an obligation to strictly follow my instructions, orders 2. In 1859, two articles appeared in the journal “Orthodox Interlocutor”, published by the Kazan Theological Academy, on the issue of the liberation of peasants. These articles extremely disturbed Saint Ignatius, since, in his opinion, they contained, in his opinion, judgments about the liberation of the peasants that were contrary to the spirit of the Church and distorted the interpretation of the Gospel teaching. On April 25, 1859, the Bishop sent the following order to the Caucasian Spiritual Consistory: To the Caucasian Spiritual Consistory. Since articles appeared in various magazines on behalf of the Church, but not belonging to the Church, about the life of landowner peasants, I consider it necessary to again confirm to the clergy that they should be steadily guided by the direction that I set out in my proposal to the Consistory of January 17 of this year, No. 3, and that the flock should be guided according to this direction; For easier reading, I forward to the Consistory 170 printed copies of the above-mentioned proposal, which the Consistory has to dispose of as follows: leave 1 copy in the Consistory, forward 2 copies to the House Administration for two churches, 1 copy each. to the Seminary Board, to the Stavropol, Ekaterinodar and Mozdok religious schools, to the Ekaterinodar Spiritual Board, to all monasteries and to all parish churches of the Caucasian diocese. Ignatius, Bishop of the Caucasus and Black Sea. No. 809: April 25, 1859 3. Anxiety about the consequences of such writings is also heard in the Bishop’s letter to his pupil and friend Bishop Leonid (Krasnopevkov) of Dmitrov on May 4, 1859: You have a great responsibility: to reconcile the main classes of the fatherland, which have been separated by European teaching. Both the clergy and the nobility largely submitted to the influence of this teaching. I read with horror the January and March articles of the Kazan “Orthodox Interlocutor”, in which the clash of classes was expressed very clearly 4 . Saint Ignatius considers it necessary to enter into direct polemics with the ideas of the “Orthodox Interlocutor” and on May 6 he issues another detailed Appeal to the clergy, 170 copies of which he also orders to be distributed throughout the Diocese, and also personally sends it to the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, the Viceroy of the Caucasus, the Exarch of Georgia, and three metropolitans. This Appeal resulted in a detailed treatise on the origin of slavery, the history of serfdom in Russia, and the Christian understanding of freedom. Written with remarkable theological erudition, it reflects the ascetic mood of St. Ignatius, his views on the participation of the Church in worldly affairs, and on the future development of Russia. It explains questions about the origin of evil and suffering. The Biography of the Bishop speaks about how alien it turned out to be to the ideological atmosphere of the era: “the circular... armed almost all the bishops, students of theological academies, against it” 5 . “Orthodox Interlocutor,” the organ of the Kazan Theological Academy, was acquired in the late 1850s. wide popularity not only in spiritual, but also in secular circles. Its editor, rector of the Academy, Archimandrite John (Sokolov, 1818–1869; later Bishop of Smolensk) is one of the founders of a new, journalistic direction in Russian preaching. In the January book of the magazine for 1859, an article was published (without a signature) “The Voice of the Ancient Russian Church on Improving the Life of Unfree People,” which was a report at the ceremonial act of the Kazan Theological Academy in memory of its founding, read on November 8, 1858 (hereinafter referred to as “The Voice...”); and in the March one, also without a signature - “A word on the liberation of the peasants on the day of the accession to the throne of His Majesty the Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich. February 19, 1859" (hereinafter referred to as “The Word...”). In his Appeals, Saint Ignatius does not mention the names of the authors, who may have been unknown to him at that moment. The work “The Voice...” was written by the famous Russian historian Afanasy Prokofievich Shchapov (1830–1876), who at that time was a bachelor (associate professor) at the Kazan Theological Academy, where he lectured on church history. By this time, his works on the history of the schism had already become famous, in which he argued that the schism arose on the basis of the democratic aspirations of the people oppressed by the elite (this idea was then picked up by the revolutionary strata of Russian society). In our published polemics with A.I. Herzen and letters from the 1860s. Bishop Ignatius claimed that both articles belonged to Shchapov. In fact, the second work, “The Word...”, was written by Rector John himself, as evidenced by the lists of his works. However, it must be borne in mind that both articles are very similar in content; they quote the same monuments of ancient Russian literature. It is known that the article “The Voice...” was written by Shchapov on the instructions of Archimandrite John and approved by him 6 ; on the other hand, when creating his works, the rector himself often used materials specially prepared for him by the Academy’s teachers, in particular Shchapov 7 . It is possible that “The Word...” is the fruit of the joint creativity of Shchapov and Archimandrite John 8. The journalistic orientation of the “Orthodox Interlocutor” attracted the attention of church authorities: the decree of the Holy Synod of March 5, 1859 recognized the direction of the magazine as unusual for a spiritual publication; “Voice...” is also mentioned among the “incongruous” articles. A remark was made to Rector Ioann, and all subsequent materials were ordered to be submitted to the Moscow Censorship Committee 9 . What were the main provisions of the articles that caused serious concern to St. Ignatius? In the work “Voice...” the author considers the upcoming liberation of the peasants as “a high moral feat of Christian love, Christian ideas about moral dignity, the rights and welfare of humanity.” He then talks about the dark ages of Russian history, which were dominated by "violence" and "slavery"; in ancient Russian literary written sources he hears “bitter crying, sobbing and crying” of the oppressed people. In particular, in “The Prayer of Daniel the Imprisoner” he finds “bitter dissatisfaction with the oppressive reality and a bold protest against the senseless insult inflicted on human rights.” Shchapov also cites quotations from ancient documents in which the Church “denounced hard-hearted slave owners” and mentions the holy ascetics of the Russian North - children of rich parents who set their slaves free. From this, the author concludes that “the Church rose to the purest idea of ​​human dignity, humanity...”, however, “ancient Russian society had difficulty reconciling itself with the lofty idea of ​​Christian, moral freedom and was not yet ripe for its full implementation.” The 18th century, according to the author, the century of usurpation and materialism, was even darker, “one of the most difficult centuries for our people, for its lower classes.” The modern Church, the author believes, must “reveal and understand to the people the high moral significance of freedom, develop, educate in the spirit of true, moral and Christian freedom the spiritual and ethical life of the people, reveal, develop and put into action the principles of moral improvement of the people’s life” 10. In the obvious confusion of spiritual-moral and social-everyday concepts, in the repeatedly repeated phrases about “human rights and human dignity”, about the idea of “reasonable human... freedom”, about “true progress of mankind”, it is not difficult to see a reflection of rationalist-educational views that have nothing in common with the truly Christian evangelical call for the spiritual transformation of the “inner man” - which became one of the central points of the saint’s polemics Ignatius. In the “Word...” Archimandrite John quotes the words of Jesus Christ: “You will understand the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32). But if the Gospel speaks of slavery to sin and freedom from sin (John 8:34), that is, in a purely spiritual sense, then the author, mixing concepts, complements these words with a socio-legal, external understanding of freedom as follows: “Isn’t it better to understand that if the Savior of the world freed all humanity from the moral slavery of evil or sin and led all people onto the free path of good, then this already undermines class slavery at its very foundation, which is moral evil? But the Gospel words really do not provide any basis for such a conclusion. Christian teaching speaks of the complete independence of a person’s spiritual path from all external conditions and circumstances, and the Apostle Paul calls: “Everyone remain in the rank in which you are called. For the servant who is called in the Lord is the freeman of the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:20:22). Having brought this fragment from the First Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians and distorted the text (see. Note “G” to “Notes...” on p. 444 and a detailed analysis of this fragment in the works of Bishop Ignatius on p. 414 and 437), the author argues that it is class slavery that hinders the implementation of Christian goals in life, “since it hinders the morally free development of the spirit and the highest aspirations of active life.” “We do not judge anyone’s conscience,” declares Archimandrite John, but what follows is an angry philippic addressed to a certain medieval “slave owner” in connection with his spiritual testament, which seems to the author insufficiently repentant. He recommends that the noble committees for peasant reform take advantage of the Old Testament Jewish laws on slavery, where everything is “simple, easy, moral and humane.” Then the author turns to the peasants, urging them to direct the freedom given to them for good, to remain faithful to the Orthodox faith and the Church, and ends his article with the wish that the clergy also direct the villagers on the path of truth and goodness 11. Turning to the Appeal of St. Ignatius of May 6, 1859, it should first of all be noted that Vladyka never participated in ideological disputes and did not publicly respond to various kinds of anti-church articles published in the secular press. But when such articles appeared in a spiritual magazine, I considered it necessary to immediately demonstrate the falsity of the views developed there. Obviously, the Saint saw a much greater danger in the fact that secular-humanistic views penetrated into Christianity and were proclaimed in the name of the Church, thus creating a threat to the purity of the Orthodox faith. In the history of Russia, there are frequent cases when the works of theological academies became sources of teachings that were far from traditional Orthodoxy, and “theologian” professors often turned out to be destroyers of the Church almost more active than outright atheist revolutionaries. In his Appeal, Saint Ignatius warns of the disastrous consequences for society that can result from distortion of the dogmatic side of Christian teaching, in particular, ignoring the dogma of the Fall. “There can be neither equality, nor perfect freedom, nor prosperity on earth to the extent that enthusiastic false teachers desire and promise. This is announced to us by the Word of God; proven by experience,” he writes. In contrast to the progressive, “life-improving” direction of the “Orthodox Interlocutor,” Saint Ignatius proves that sorrow and suffering, as the consequences of sin, will not disappear from the world until the end of time, and attempts to put into practice the idea of ​​universal happiness inevitably lead to social catastrophes: “Rationalists are alien to poverty of spirit. They reason and conclude about human nature, rejecting or omitting the concept of its fall; they see in this nature all possible virtues, without noticing that in it good is mixed with evil, and therefore its very good has become evil, just as fine food mixed with poison becomes poison. From false ideas came the most monstrous actions and consequences. Having presented to people their nature not in the form in which it is, the rationalists actually caused the most terrible disorders wherever their teaching was accepted ... " Saint Ignatius finds the origins of this trend, in which the Church is assigned the role of a social reformer, and not a healer of souls, in Old Testament ideology: The “Interlocutor” was carried away in his articles by the Jewish direction: he wants the teaching of Christ to interfere in civil affairs, to present his opinion on civil slavery and in a civil sense, and not in the spiritual, to provide an advantage in the flesh and become a weapon for earthly purposes. For this reason, the “Interlocutor” turned to Jewish decrees that were not obligatory for Christianity and inapplicable to Christianity, rightly hoping in them to find support for his carnal wisdom and unjustly imposing them on Christian society.” The most important thing in all the creations of the Lord is the thought of the fallen state of man, his nature distorted by sin and the “carnal wisdom” characteristic of him. This idea remains the main one in the Appeal. Carnal wisdom - words from the letter of the Apostle Paul to the Romans (8:6), characterizing the worldly mind of a person damaged by sin, unfavored. It is contrasted with spiritual wisdom - the perception of the world in the light of Divine Revelation; it is achieved only through cleansing from passions, through “spiritual poverty”, the transformation of personality by Divine grace. Saint Ignatius, relying on Holy Scripture, drawing on the works of many holy Fathers, shows what exactly the “Interlocutor” distorts the Orthodox understanding of freedom. Outlining the teaching of the Church on power, on slavery and slave ownership, Saint Ignatius decisively separates internal, spiritual and external freedom - social and legal, between which “there is nothing in common.” “Submission to authority does not undermine piety”; “He who has spiritual freedom does not at all need civil freedom: he is free in slavery, in prison, in chains, in the hands of the executioner...” Moreover, the desire to free oneself from sorrows and inconveniences, to rebel against the circumstances into which a person has been providentially placed by God, is a terrible crime, a rejection of the Cross of the Lord. Citing the words of the Savior about bearing his cross (Matt. 10:38), the saint notes: “Hearing these decisive words of Christ, it is better to cry before Him about your weakness, rather than to wade through earthly carnal wisdom and tortuousness against the Cross of Christ and against that narrow path, that only path that leads to salvation.” Among such “vitiy”, Vladyka also includes Daniil Zatochnik, whose famous “Prayer” (13th century), full of complaints about poverty and caustic characterizations of the boyars, is sympathetically quoted by Shchapov. Daniel’s writing evokes a completely different reaction from St. Ignatius: “All earthly calamities mean nothing before spiritual distress: before the alienation of the mind and heart from the humility given to us by God. The Church can only respond to the voice of Daniel the Prisoner with the voice of painful lamentation for this lost and darkened soul, which may God’s mercy cover.” The civil liberation of the peasants, of course, is welcomed by the Saint as “a work of mercy, a work of fraternal Christian love,” blessed by the Church. For the modern reader, the final part of the “Appeal” is of particular interest, from which it is clear that Vladyka soberly assessed the future of the Russian state: he foresaw the rapid material development of the country, the active penetration of European principles and the increased invasion of various religious teachings, from “papism” to atheism. All this, the saint predicts, will entail a gradual cooling of the people towards the Christian faith and the inevitable diminishment of the influence of the clergy on state and public life. One of the copies of the Appeal of Bishop Ignatius dated May 6, 1859 reached the publishers of Kolokol, and on August 15, 1859, A. I. Herzen’s pamphlet “In Christ the Sapper Ignatius” 12 appeared in this newspaper published in London. As you know, Herzen was one of the most fierce opponents of the Orthodox faith in Russia in the mid-19th century. At the beginning of the same 1859, the Holy Synod considered and approved the proposal of Metropolitan Gregory of St. Petersburg to excommunicate Alexander Herzen from the Church, but Emperor Alexander II prevented its approval. It is noteworthy that Herzen himself expressed regret that his anathematization did not take place 13. The gospel teaching was adapted by Herzen to substantiate the new “religion of socialism,” and he interpreted the words of Christ as a call to fight against state power, to establish freedom and universal equality. Herzen was particularly mocked by everything connected in one way or another with the Russian Orthodox Church. The issues of “Polar Star” and “Bells” are filled with blasphemy against church Sacraments, shrines, rituals, as well as derogatory reviews of many Russian spiritual figures. In the same row is the note “In Christ, sapper Ignatius.” It clearly shows the methods by which church figures were transformed, under Herzen’s pen, into grotesque figures of “serf owners” and “apologists of slavery.” Having become acquainted with Herzen’s note, Bishop Ignatius writes several short emotional refutation notes to it. On their basis, in February 1860, he created a detailed article “Remarks on the review of the magazine “Bell” to the Caucasian Bishop Ignatius,” where he speaks about himself in the third person. Vladyka returned to this work more than a year later and added several notes to it. The Bishop prepared a white manuscript consisting of Herzen’s note and “Notes...” (see textual commentary). It is unknown whether the Saint intended to publish this material anywhere. Most likely, out of humility, he did not consider it necessary to publicly respond to outright slander and slander. In his “Notes...”, Vladyka repeatedly refers to the book “Iskander Herzen,” compiled by N.V. Elagin and published in Berlin in 1859. It is a collection of anonymous articles, where Herzen’s views on the state, religion and the Church are analyzed from the position of an Orthodox Christian, and extensive quotes are given from the publications of “The Polar Star” and other works of Herzen, in which “the existence of God is rejected, betrayed the Christian faith is desecrated, atheism is clearly preached, and everything is aimed at overthrowing state improvement in Russia.” Considerable space is devoted in the book to polemics on the issue of personal freedom. Freedom, promoted by Iskander, says one of the articles, “gave rise to the horrors of revolutions and drowned itself in streams of human blood”; a person, having acquired such “freedom,” “can easily become a slave to passion, a slave to some evil habit.” “It seems that the experiences of the revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries are enough to make sure that any transformation of society, not carried out in the name of Jesus Christ, is built on sand and ends in the guillotine or shooting at the barricades, without achieving the goal.” Further in the book, the already quoted words of the Gospel are given (John 8:31–32:36) and followed by reasoning that is very close to the thoughts of St. Ignatius from his Appeal: “The truth of Christ will free you from false ideas and hobbies that enslave human freedom. Christian freedom is such that it is equally preserved undisturbed on the throne, in chains, and in prison; because the spirit to which freedom belongs is not subject to these external restrictions.” “The most bitter enemies of freedom are the loud preachers of liberalism,” the author notes. - They do not tolerate any contradiction. The despotic domination of their thoughts, their ideas - this is the subject of their aspirations and efforts; the extermination of everything and everyone that they do not like, by any means necessary, is their motto. Is this freedom? 14. A comparison of Herzen's note and the answer of St. Ignatius characterizes the personalities of opponents, the techniques and methods of polemics, their moral position and at the same time demonstrates the ideological poles between which Russian culture of the 19th century existed. Echoes of this controversy can be found both in the letters of Bishop Ignatius and in Herzen’s notes during the first half of the 1860s. Thus, Herzen twice mentions the name of the Saint in the article “Fossil Bishop, Antediluvian Government and Deceived People,” dedicated to the discovery of the incorruptible relics of St. Tikhon of Voronezh in 1861. Herzen himself called this work, permeated with open mockery of the shrines of the Orthodox faith, his favorite article. Here are some quotes: “One must think that the serf owner and sapper in Christ, Ignatius, known to the readers of the Bell, was in charge of the earthworks” (meaning the raising of relics); “We remember the young Archimandrite of the Kazan Academy John, who published “The Word on Liberation” in the January book of the “Orthodox Interlocutor”; but his article immediately evoked a wild and ugly response from the sapper in Christ” 15. Bishop Ignatius’ opinion on the Highest Manifesto of February 19, 1861, his assessment of Iskander’s activities are visible from the Bishop’s letter to the former Stavropol governor A. A. Volotsky dated March 22, 1861, written two days after the solemn announcement of the Manifesto in the Stavropol Cathedral: The manifesto is great! He was listened to with the greatest attention and reverence, and made the most favorable, saving impression on all classes. Public opinion about the case was distorted by the Kolokol magazine, which penetrated all layers of society, and various printed articles in the direction of Kolokol. On this basis, many expected a Manifesto, if not exactly in the same direction, then at least in a similar or somewhat close way. Is the Manifesto! His high direction, the greatness and correctness of his thoughts, the greatness of his tone, the extraordinary clarity of his view of the matter, the directness and nobility of expression, the accurate depiction of the incompatibility and untimeliness of the outdated form of serfdom and at the same time the public justification of the nobility (which his vile envious people tried to humiliate, slander, trample and even destroy with the help of sophisms regarding the peasant question), the sermon of the Manifesto about true freedom with the elimination of self-will and violence, which ignorance and malicious intent are mixed with the idea of ​​freedom - all this gave the Manifesto extraordinary moral strength. False concepts, which appeared and multiplied due to stupid and evil disclosures, dissipated and fell. The state of bewilderment that gripped the minds was replaced by a state of clear understanding, calm, trust and deep respect for the actions of the government. The manifesto decisively separated itself in its character from all the small writings on the peasant question and eclipsed them with its light: just as the stars disappear when the sun appears. They are not destroyed, they continue to exist and be present in the sky, but they are no longer visible. The Manifesto, serving as a reasonable image of our Government, cannot but pour out true consolation into the hearts of all well-meaning and well-intentioned people, in fact proving that the Russian Government is moving along the most correct, most reliable path. I was very pleased to see that my two “proposals”, given to the Caucasian Consistory, while you were still in Stavropol, to teach the clergy of the Caucasian diocese the proper direction on the peasant issue, are decisively similar both in spirit and in thought to the Manifesto, having warned it for two years. There were various arguments against the “proposals” here, especially after the appearance of an abusive article against me in Kolokol. These nasty rumors, in which the main role was played by unscrupulous slander, involuntarily forced the clergy to pay special attention to the “proposals”, as they received special interest due to the polemics that arose as a result of them. The “proposals” were examined in detail, and therefore studied, and the Manifesto, having appeared, found the clergy already prepared for it. While all the people bless the Sovereign Emperor for his deeply reasonable Manifesto, one must assume that the publisher of the Bell, with a small number of like-minded brethren, will go berserk and sound his vulgar alarm bell. In the Manifesto, precisely, the words of St. Apostle Paul to the Romans, about which the frantic Iskander said that the Apostle Paul, having uttered them, did “more evil than Judas Iscariot by betraying Christ” 16. Do you have a copy of my “proposals”. In the second of them, dated May 7, 1859, you will see the development of concepts about the “question”, exactly the same as those developed in the Manifesto. From the first word to the last, the Manifesto expresses the monarchical principle - the guarantee of public order and prosperity of Russia. Glory and praise to God, who protects Russia! God's preservation of Russia is clear to everyone who can see from Manifesto 17. The personality of Professor A.P. Shchapov also aroused the keen interest of both opponents, especially since his name soon became known throughout Russia. Shchapov became increasingly close to liberal democratic circles. Since 1860, while remaining in the rank of bachelor of the Theological Academy, he simultaneously gave lectures at Kazan University, which were popular with young audiences. In April 1861, students of the Kazan Theological Academy and Kazan University organized a demonstrative memorial service for those killed during the pacification of a peasant uprising in the village of Bezdna. Shchapov, who was present at the funeral service, gave a speech in which he interpreted Christian teaching as a political democratic doctrine. This case received wide publicity. Shchapov was arrested, but then bailed out by the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Count P. A. Valuev, and assigned to serve in his Ministry. The Holy Synod made a purely formal decision regarding Shchapov to remove him from office and expel him from the clergy. However, on the recommendation of the Main Committee, Sovereign Alexander II ordered Shchapov to be sent to a monastery 18. By chance or not, the place of residence of the disgraced professor was chosen to be the Nikolo-Babaevsky monastery of the Kostroma province - the same monastery where St. Ignatius had just arrived, having left the management of the Caucasian diocese and, at his request, been sent to retire to this monastery, where he spent his last years. This is how the Bishop reacted to this order of the Holy Synod (in a letter to his brother P. A. Brianchaninov dated January 15, 1862): Mr. Shchapov was appointed here to admonish him. What a late measure! When his works spread throughout Russia, they were, and probably still are, read by the majority with delight and enthusiasm; when Shchapov has completely completed his work, then they send him to the monastery. A monastery for the face, if there is God's mercy towards it, can be useful; but this person is already alien to his work, which has acquired its own meaning and independence. Both students of the Caucasian Seminary, sent with me to the Kazan Academy, are involved in the case. These are sacrifices; the priests are on the sidelines. Every trifle that now appears in print is imbued with a revolutionary spirit. The direction has become universal. The peasant question has become an all-Russian question. The depletion of funds from the landowners affected the well-being of the merchants; rising prices for bread and other supplies of life; prices, constantly rising and bound to rise, affect the situation of all city residents. The peasants become infected with the most violent spirit, which is spread in them by various ill-intentioned people from outside and from among them 19 . However, this, belated, according to the Saint, measure of punishment was not carried out. Under pressure from a number of influential persons and the “voice of the public,” Alexander II was forced to cancel the decision to expel Shchapov. “At the end of February I received a notification that Mr. Shchapov had been forgiven by the Sovereign Emperor and would not arrive at the Babaevsky Monastery,” writes Bishop Ignatius to his brother on March 10, 1862. 20 In turn, Herzen told readers of the Bell about Shchapov’s speech, his arrest and the subsequent measures (notes “April 12, 1861” 21, “Professor Shchapov” 22, etc.). In the fall of 1861, Herzen sent Shchapov a letter of greeting, which marked the beginning of their correspondence 23 . Shchapov establishes connections with the publishers of Kolokol and with the first organizations of Land and Freedom. In 1864, he was exiled to Siberia, where he developed a new “social-anthropological” theory of the historical process, formed under the influence of the ideas of Buckle and Pisarev. In 1876 he died of consumption and alcoholism. The progress of peasant reform, the liberal spirit of the 1860s. worried Vladyka Ignatius even after his retirement. “The great work of liberating the peasants is fraught with significant difficulties, to overcome which, firstly, the special help of God is needed, and then the wisest, most unsleeping human activity,” he noted in a letter on January 22, 1862, 24 and four years after the announcement of the Manifesto, in a letter dated January 6, 1865, he expressed extreme concern about the spiritual state of the peasantry: An archpriest from the village in which Susanin’s descendants live, a rather smart man, came to see me. He said that the peasants were drunk and impoverished, that nothing could be done to stop this current, because those who fell into drunkenness would drink vodka even when they decided to raise the price for it. This has been proven by experiments. Along with the riotous life, a special cooling towards the Church and the clergy appeared. The revelers among the peasants are carousing and have fallen into indifference towards religion; Nekutils turn in large numbers to the schism. The nobility is poor and cannot help the churches and clergy as they did before. The contents of the clergy are becoming scarcer and scarcer. The archpriest, who had a practical view, said that there was no outcome in sight for this situation and that the consequences of this situation should be prolific. . Progress is moving at amazingly fast pace. Who will stop him? 25 Archimandrite John, rector of the Kazan Theological Academy, who was sharply criticized by Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow in connection with the “Shchapov case,” by 1864 returned the favor of the Moscow Bishop. In March 1864 he was appointed rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, in January 1865 he was ordained Bishop of Vyborg, and from 1866 he was Bishop of Smolensk. Responding to this news, Bishop Ignatius recalls in letters to his brother: I liked John for his openness more than the academicians of his time. And then many people admired his sermons aimed at the liberation of the peasants, not realizing that John was by no means a spiritual preacher, but a zealous class fanatic and that he had a disguised thought about the massacre of nobles and about giving his flock primacy in both civil and church service. Others, having the same thought, hide it better, and therefore John, who speaks out more openly than others, is morally superior to others (letter dated January 29, 1865) 26. A month later, in a letter dated February 24, the Saint again mentions the names of Bishop John and Shchapov: Regarding my reconciliation with the Right Reverend John, if it happens, it will be a most pleasant event for me. I am very pleased with his disposition towards monasticism and I find that, due to the openness and directness of his character, he is very capable of accepting true monasticism and even of the gracious feeling of God’s mercy, from which living faith appears in a person. I did not quarrel with John, but only gave a response to Mr. Shchapov’s articles, which became so heated in the Caucasus that they “demanded blood.” How much wrong and harmful the way of thinking is in these articles has been proven by experiments and will continue to be proven. It is the articles that have been forgotten, but it is in their spirit that they are written and spoken - the spirit and direction receive a huge volume 27. Indeed, in many of the letters of Saint Ignatius, written in the last years of his life, one can see a sadly insightful look at the prospects for the ideological evolution of the Russian intelligentsia: “From the published works it is clear that the entire educated society in all classes has adopted a new direction, which should have results corresponding to itself” 28. “It is obvious that the departure from the Orthodox faith is universal among the people. Some are open atheists, some are deists, some are Protestants, some are indifferentists, some are schismatics. There is no cure or healing for this ulcer. Save, let him save his soul!” 29 “Judging by the spirit of the times and the ferment of minds, it must be assumed that the building of the Church, which has been shaking for a long time, will shake terribly and quickly. There is no one to stop and resist. The measures of support being taken are borrowed from the elements of a world hostile to the Church, and are more likely to accelerate its fall than to stop it. I will say again: God’s will be done! What they sow, so shall they reap! 30 The Russian people had to fully reap these benefits half a century after the death of Bishop Ignatius. Bishop Ignatius himself did not title these texts, which he later defined as “appeals,” “proposals,” “instructions,” “archpastoral words,” “circulars,” “articles.” It seems to us that the title given by the first publisher of these materials, L. A. Sokolov, is quite accurate, which we retain in this publication: “Archpastoral appeals of Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov to the Caucasian clergy on the issue of liberation of peasants from serfdom” (Sokolov L. A. Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov: His life, personality and moral and ascetic views: In 2 hours. Kyiv, 1915. Part 2. Applications, p. 13). (Hereinafter – Sokolov...). State Archive of the Stavropol Territory (hereinafter - GASK). F. 135 (Caucasian Spiritual Consistory), op. 17, units hr. 323, l. 26. Right there. L. 5. Published from the same copy in the publication: Sokolov... Part 2. Applications. P. 17 with a typo (“followed” instead of “next”). Ignatius (Brianchaninov), saint. [Op.]. T. 7: Letters. M., 1993. P. 368. (Hereinafter - Letters of St. Ignatius...). OR RNB. F. 1000. Op. 2. Unit hr. 531. L. 383 vol. Luchinsky G. A. Afanasy Prokofievich Shchapov: Biographical sketch // Shchapov A. P. Works: In 3 volumes. St. Petersburg, 1908. Vol. 3. P. XXIV. Znamensky P. History of the Kazan Theological Academy: (1842–1870). Kazan, 1892. Issue. 2. P. 224. In the commentary to Herzen’s note “In Christ, the sapper Ignatius” (Herzen A.I. Collected works: In 30 volumes. M., 1958. T. 14 on p. 507) it is stated that “The Word...” “was attributed to P. A. Shchapov and was included in his Collection. cit., vol. I, 1906, pp. 1–16,” but this is a mistake: the indicated edition contains Shchapov’s article “The Voice...”; “The Word...” does not appear among Shchapov’s works. Znamensky P. History.S. 542–543. Orthodox interlocutor. 1859. Part I. [January]. pp. 41, 46, 63, 71–72, 75. Orthodox interlocutor. 1859. Part I. [March]. pp. 337–341, 342, 347. Also published in the publication: Herzen A.I. Sobr. op. T. 14. pp. 140–141. Herzen A.I. Collection. op. T. 14. P. 486. Iskander Herzen. Berlin, 1859. pp. VI-VII, 155–156, 158–160, 175–176. Herzen A.I. Collection. op. T. 15. pp. 143–149. See note 5 of St. Ignatius to “Notes on the review of the magazine “Bell”” (p. 437). Sokolov... Part 1. pp. 286–288. Luchinsky G. A. Afanasy Prokofievich Shchapov ... P. XLIV-LI. Letters of St. Ignatius... P. 392–393. Letters of St. Ignatius... P. 397. Herzen A.I. Collection. op. T. 15. P. 106. Letters of St. Ignatius... P. 393. Letters of St. Ignatius... P. 436–437. Letters of St. Ignatius... P. 392.