1813 г.

January 13. Note from the rector of St. Petersburg. Theological Academy, Archimandrite Philaret, with the attachment of rank lists of students The rector of the Academy and theological sciences, professor, Archimandrite Philaret, submitted to the academic board a note written in his own hand and with it two rank lists of students, with the following content: To the Board of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, from the Rector Archimandrite Philaret, note. Based on paragraphs 166, 167, 168 and 174 of the first part of the Charter of Theological Academies, after each test, both public and private, lists of students must be compiled according to their successes, and as excellent in successes, Thus, those noticed in negligence from these lists should be noted by the Board in a book that should be opened for this purpose. This measure of encouragement, since the opening of the Academy, was not used by the two former rectors; and I, after the test that took place in June of the past 1812, upon my recent assumption of the post of rector, was postponed until then, until, taking into account the testimony of Messrs. professors and bachelors my own comments, could I get a more definite idea of ​​the type and degree of success of each student. Now, after the test that took place in December 1812, in order to bring the provisions of the Charter of Theological Academies into proper execution; in order to do justice to the excellent students; in order to excite some to competition and greater diligence; finally, in order to lay, by gradually noticing successes, the basis for a decisive test and drawing up rank lists at the end of the academic course; for in this case, in my opinion, it would hardly be possible to do justice to everyone, if the fate of six years of toiling student were to depend on a few hours or minutes of the last test; With all these respects, I hastened to compile lists of students according to their successes, in the compilation of which, in order to maintain fairness and accuracy as much as possible, I was guided by the following rules: 1. As the educational subjects taught at the Theological Academy, in essence and according to the purpose of its organization, are not all of the same importance: then I divide them into two categories in this regard. The first includes theology, philosophy, literature, church history and the Greek language; to the second, other sciences and languages. 2. I divide students into three categories. 3. Based on the rule depicted in paragraph 103 of the third part of the Charter of theological academies, which are prohibited from including in the first category those who have not distinguished themselves in the main and general academic subjects, I include in this category those who, while studying all the subjects required for a student, have earned excellent approval in some of them, and especially in the subjects of the first category. 4. The second category consists of those students who are quite successful in all subjects, or are particularly successful in some, but mediocre in others. 5. In the third category there remain those who, without distinguishing themselves in subjects of the first degree, although successful in some, were inattentive in some even to the point of sometimes not going to class. 6. In the rank lists, I showed in which subjects some students excelled, and in which some required further encouragement, which I confirmed based on the students’ testimonies and my own comments during the tests. 7. At this point, along with the students’ latest testimonials given for the December exam, I also took into account those they gave for the first exam when I was rector, which took place in June of last 1812. 8. I tried to accept the testimonies of students, expressed in general and not quite definite words, in such strength as was revealed to one or another from consideration of different degrees of approval. Thus, the word “good,” which is not found below in the testimony of the professor of philosophical sciences, could not be considered as significant by him as by some other professors, who with greater precision and rigor meant degrees of success. According to these rules, I submit the compiled lists of students to the discretion of the Board; won't it be argued: 1. From now on, create in the Board of Directors the “Book on the successes of Academy students” indicated in paragraphs 167, 168 and 174 of the first part of the Charter of Theological Academies; 2. Students who distinguished themselves in the last two exams will be noted in this book; 3. Students who have been subject to unfavorable remarks are to be told that if they do not earn better evidence by the next test, they will also be found negligent in this book. 4. Since this incentive measure has not yet been introduced into use, we must first seek the permission of the Commission of Theological Schools. Attached to the above note are three lists written in Archimandrite Philaret’s own hand. The academic board, in a journal on January 13, 1813, determined: the rector's proposal to submit for approval to the commission of theological schools with the attachment of lists, transferring to the second category from the third students: Belyavsky, Bogdanovich, Bazarov and Moshkov, of whom, according to the rector, the first three, for success in the main sciences, the last for his entry into the academy a year later than the others, and all in general in good behavior behavior above others deserves leniency, and by instructing the rector to give them the necessary reproof in private. The next day, January 14, a presentation was made to the commission of theological schools, which, in a journal, on January 18, approved the rank lists in their entirety 55. In April. Letter, in Latin, written by the rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Archimandrite Philaret, on behalf of Metropolitan Ambrose, to Wilhelm Friederik Hetzel, on the compilation of a grammar of eastern languages A professor at the University of Dorpat, Getzel, in March 1813, addressed Ambrose, Metropolitan of Novgorod, with a letter in which he asked for his assistance in entrusting him, Getzel, with the compilation of a grammar of eastern languages, proposed for theological schools, in Latin. Hetzel's letter is written in Latin. Metropolitan Ambrose presented correspondence on this subject to the commission of theological schools. The response letter from Metropolitan Ambrose was written in Archimandrite Philaret’s own hand, in Latin, and his own translation is attached to it: Guilielmo Friderico Hezel Viro doctissimo s. p. Litteras, quibus consilium, de institutionibus linguarum Orientalium Grammaticis in usum scholarum inprimis Ecclesiasticarum, conscribendis a te agitatum, exponis, gratus oquidom accepi. Rem proposui Commissioni Scholas Ecclesiasticas dirigenti discutiendam. A qua tamen de nova Grammatica linguarum Orientalium adornanda non prius aliquid statui posse judico, quam ubi de Grammatica D. Hornu Hebraea, virorum doctorum in Universitate Dorpatensi examini nunc subjecta, certius ferri potuerit judicium. Ceterum voluntatem tuam, in antiquiora, id est, saniora, imo sacra, studia promovenda propensam, penitus amplector, coeptisque tuis ac laboribus, propitium adsit Numen, opto. Translation . Wilhelm Friederik Hetzel, a most learned man. and. I received your letter, in which you reveal to me your intention to compose an instruction in the grammar of oriental languages ​​for schools, especially spiritual ones. I submitted your proposal to the commission of theological schools for consideration; and I think that she cannot make a decision about compiling a new grammar of eastern languages ​​until it is possible to give a more decisive judgment about the Hebrew grammar of the city of Horn, forwarded to the University of Dorpat for the consideration of scientists. However, I give due justice to your zeal in the dissemination of ancient, that is, sound and sacred learning, and I wish that God will prosper your enterprises 56. May 16. A note from the rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Archimandrite Philaret, on the purchase of two books, in French: a, Calmette's dictionary and b, an abbreviation of church history The rector of the academy, Archimandrite Filaret, presented a note to the board with the following content. To the Board of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, from the rector of this academy and professor of theological sciences, Archimandrite Philaret, a note. From the bachelor of Greek language Simeon Platonov, I learned that two books are being sold from private hands, namely: 1st, entitled: Dictionnaire historique, critique, chronologique, géographique ou littéral de la bible par Calmet, - consisting of 4 books, in a quarter sheet; 2nd book entitled: Abrégé de l’histoire Ecclésiastique, contenant les événemens considérables de chaque siècle, - consisting of 16 volumes, oct. The first has long been recognized as necessary for the theological class and was designated for discharge from foreign lands: but has not yet been discharged; and the second is needed for the class of church history and can replace others in this subject assigned to the extract. The price for both books is 200 rubles. Why am I proposing the purchase of these books to the Academic Board for consideration. Rector Archimandrite Filaret The board of the academy, in a journal on May 20, determined (Article 4): to issue 200 rubles for the purchase of the indicated books. the steward, Hieromonk Paul; and books, upon purchase, should be forwarded, with a copy, to the librarian, Fr. Archimandrite Innocent, for inclusion in the catalog of library books 57. May 16. A note from the rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Archimandrite Philaret, on his donation of the complete works of Kant to the academic library The rector of the academy, Archimandrite Philaret, on May 16, 1813, presented a note to the board with the following content: To the Board of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, from the rector of this academy, Archimandrite Philaret, a note. Knowing that the academic library does not have Kant’s collected works and having a copy of these works, which is unnecessary for my use, I present it to the Academic Board for inclusion in the catalog of library books. Rector Archimandrite (Filaret) The board of the academy, in a journal dated May 20, determined (Article 3): with a proper copy, forward the said book to the librarian, Father Archimandrite Innocent, for inclusion in the catalog of library books 58. June 19. Notes on the class of theological sciences and a list of students who studied there, compiled by the rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Archimandrite Philaret In pursuance of the journal of the board of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, dated June 7, 1813 (Article 6), the rector, Archimandrite Philaret, presented to the board, June 19, 1813: 1, notes on the class of theological sciences and 2, a list of students who studied there, with notes on their successes, made in the rector’s own hand. I. In the class of theological sciences Thirty chapters of the book of Genesis will be offered for testing, from XXI to the last. The classical interpretation consisted of the following considerations: a. Comparison of the translation with the original Hebrew text. b. Explaining the literal meaning. V. Notes historical and moral. d. Resolution of questions and confusion. d. The meaning is educational and spiritual. When testing, based on the appointed time and the vastness of the subject, the following important places of everyday life are chosen for special attention: a. The Birth and Inheritance of Isaac, Gen. 21:1–21. b. The Great Temptation and Promise of Abraham, Gen. 22:1–19. V. Vision of the Ladder, Gen. 28:10–22. d. Jacob's struggle with God, Gen. 32:23–32. d. Jacob's prophecy about Judah and the Messiah, Gen. 49:8–12. Visitors, if they please, offer questions about other parts of St. text, at your own discretion. II. List of students of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy showing success in the class of theological sciences 1. Gerasim Pavsky. Good luck. 2. Vladimir Ignatiev. Good ones. 3. Vasily Erofeev. Good ones. 4. Ivan Shchelkunov. Very good. 5. Andrey Tikhvinsky. He is doing it with success. 6. Dmitry Alekseev. Very good. 7. Vasily Sebrzhinsky. Very good. 8. Grigory Levitsky. Excellent. 9 . Yakov Belyavsky. Pretty good ones. 10. Mikhail Bozhanov. Very good. 11. Pavel Naumov. Very good. 12. Peter Rozanov. Excellent. 13. Ivan Lileev. Good ones. 14. Alexander Kandorsky. Good ones. 15. Vasily Khersonsky. Very good. 16. Egor Lebedev. Very good. 17. Gabriel Moshkov. Good ones. 18. Alexey Malov. Very good. 19. Alexander Pokrovsky. He is studying. 20. Goat Organs. Very good. 21. Semyon Snigirev. He is studying. 22. Alexander Protopopov. Excellent. 23. Herodion Vetrinsky. Pretty good ones. 24. Avksentiy Martynov. Pretty good ones. 25. Dmitry Tunoshensky. Very good. 26. Matvey Platonov. Excellent. 27. Ivan Lebedev. Very good. 28. Konstantin Platonov. Very good. 29. Egor Postnikov. Excellent. 30. Mikhail Malein. Very good. 31. Peter Podlipsky. Very good. 32. Mikhail Vrevsky. Good ones. 33. Ivan Nevdachin. Pretty good ones. 34. Egor Polotebnov. Very good. 35. Egor Gorodkov. Pretty good ones. 36. Mokiy Tarasov. Good ones. 37. Semyon Krasilnikov. Good ones. 38. Onisim Barkov. Good ones. 39. Mitrofan Protopopov. Very good. 40. Arseny Tyazhelov. Very good. 41. Nikolai Greshishchev. He is doing it with success. 42. Ivan Talyzin. Pretty good ones. 43. Peter Goitannikov. Pretty good ones. 44. Grigory Belogorodsky. Pretty good ones. 45. Mikhail Leontovich. Very good. 46. Vasily Kutnevich. Very good. 47. Vasily Grigorovich. Pretty good ones. 48. Yakov Kizimovsky. With praise. 49. Grigory Ogievsky. Good ones. 50. Grigory Yanchukovsky. Good ones. 51. Ivan Kryzhanovsky. Pretty good ones. 52. Nikolai Shchutsky. With success. 53. Mikhail Flerov. Pretty good ones. 54. Alexey Nenarokomov. Pretty good ones. 55. Peter Popov. Good ones. 56. Yakov Magnitsky. He works with diligence and success. 57. Alexander Bogdanovich. Pretty good ones. 58. Ivan Lavrovsky. Pretty good ones. 59. Ivan Diakonov. Pretty good ones. 60. Elpidifor Lestev. Excellent. 61. Yakov Malitsky. Pretty good ones. 62. Stefan Raikowski. Good ones. 63. Yakov Gladkoy. Pretty good ones. 64. Ivan Spassky. Pretty good ones. 65. Mikhail Zverev. Pretty good ones. 66. Peter Veselovsky. Very good. 67. Peter Tuberovsky. Pretty good ones. 68. Victor Vensky. Pretty good ones. 69. Pavel Protopopov. Pretty good ones. 70. Ivan Bazarov. Pretty good ones. 71. Gabriel Levandovsky. Works poorly. 72. Ivan Nosov. Very good. 73. Peter Kiprov. With success. 74. Afanasy Skvortsov. Very good. 75. Vladimir Nazansky. Pretty good ones. 76. Ilya Levikov. Pretty good ones. 77. Ivan Sanin. Pretty good ones. 78. Timofey Nikolsky. Very good. 79. Akim Kochetov. Excellent. 80. Stefan Loshakov. Good ones. 81. Alexey Ilyinsky. Pretty good ones. 82. Vasily Belozersky. Good ones. 83. Konstantin Puzina. Good ones. 84. Vasily Diakonov. Pretty good ones. 85. Mikhail Penzensky. Good ones. 86. Ivan Danilov. Good ones. 87. Vasily Razumovsky. Very good. 88. Ivan Dukhovsky. He is studying. 89. Ivan Smirnov. Pretty good ones. 90. Gabriel Fovitsky. With praise. 91. Vasily Polyansky. Pretty good ones. 92. Andrey Vasiliev. With praise. 93. Vasily Suvorov. Good ones. The Journal of the Academic Board, June 20, 1813, (Article 15), determined: lists of recommendations and notes should be kept with cases 59. June 21. Note from the rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Archimandrite Philaret, on the procedure for testing students for the first half of 1813. The procedure for testing students of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, for the first half of 1813. I. The test lasts three days, June 23, 24 and 26. II. On each day, the meeting begins at nine o'clock in the morning and lasts four hours. III. On the first day: and, for theology 1½ hours. b, for philosophy 1½ hours. c, for church history 1 hour. and, for literature, 1½ hours. b, for mathematics 1½ hours. and, for general history, 1⅓ hours. b, for language class 2½ hours. VI. Each meeting opens and closes with a decent amount of spiritual singing. Academy Rector Archimandrite Filaret. June 21st, 1813. The test procedure was approved by the metropolitan's resolution: “June 21, 1813. Approved.” The journal of the academic board, dated June 20, 1813 (Article 15), stipulates that these documents, together with similar ones, should be kept for business purposes 60. July 25. Opinion of someone present in St. Petersburg. consistory, Archimandrite Philaret, on the complaint of Krasnoselsky deacon Ivan Vasilyev against the noble assessor of Azov for causing offense According to the report of the priest and deputy of the village of Kolpino Zakhary Semenov, with the attachment of a copy from the journal of the Tsarskoye Selo district court, about the failure of the Krasnoselsky deacon Ivan Vasilyev to give neither an explanation nor evidence against the reports of the priest Meshchersky and the deacon Vasilyev in the case of allegedly inflicting insults on him, the deacon, by the noble assessor of Azov, Archimandrite Philaret gave the following opinion: July 25. Report to the local Provincial Board that from the testimony of the peasant wives: Natalya Antonova and Praskovya Fedorova, it is clear that the assessor of Azov and Deacon Ivan Vasiliev had a mutual quarrel, and both insulted each other with obscene words; and by the force of the 153 military article, he who has lost his right who scolds disgustingly when someone else will scold him: then the Consistory of the city of Azov cannot make any satisfaction 61. July 25. Opinion of someone present in St. Petersburg. consistory, Archimandrite Philaret, on the project of the archpriest of the Smolensk church, in St. Petersburg, on the issuance of pensions to elderly clergy and clergy and their widows of the said church, “from the mourning amount” The contents of the project are not recorded in the report register of the consistory: one opinion of Archimandrite Philaret about the project, written by him in his own hand, was preserved in the register: July 25. Assumption about. Archpriest on pensions for elderly Smolensk church clergy and clergy and their widows cannot be approved in its present form because the assignment of such pensions should depend on the number and other circumstances of persons making up the families of elderly or deceased clergy and clergy. The rule that the clergy should manage the mourning sum can be adopted, with the limitation that this management should always be the main responsibility of the rector of the church. However, in respect of the care and work of Fr. archpriest about the establishment and beneficial use of this amount, leave his project in the Consistory, and with future appointments from this pension, have it in mind, and announce it to him. This opinion should be presented to His Eminence for his consideration 62. November 10. Reports from the rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Archimandrite Philaret, on the audit of the St. Petersburg Theological Seminary, regarding the educational part The board of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, for the 3rd department, in the submission of the commission of theological schools, dated September 22, 1813, No. 219, among other things, reported: members of the academic board: rector and professor of theological sciences, Archimandrite Philaret, and professor of verbal sciences, Archimandrite Leonid, who, on the basis of the order of the commission of theological schools, dated July 6 of this 1813 year, No. 450, a review of the local seminary was entrusted, they presented the board with reports on the state of it - the first on the educational part, and the second on the moral, economic parts, and on the way the seminary board acted on the district and parish schools under its jurisdiction. At this presentation, reports from the archimandrites Philaret and Leonid were attached. In two reports on the 3rd department, dated September 10, 1813, Nos. 287 and 288, Archimandrite Philaret wrote: To the Board of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy in the 3rd department, from the Rector Archimandrite Philaret. The review of the local seminary entrusted to me, regarding the educational part, was carried out last July in accordance with the instructions given to me by the academic board. I enclose a description of my studies on this subject in an extract from the journal of the seminary board, certified by His Eminence, under the letter A, as well as the instructions indicated in paragraphs 14 and 15. lists of students, under the letter B. In addition to this, I am adding a list from the 20th article of the journal of the seminary board, dated August 28, 1813, from which the academic board deigns to discern the reasons why I and the members of the seminary board did not decide to place the student of the higher department of Peninsky on the rank list, but appointed him for immediate exclusion from the school department, V. On the state of the local seminary, guided by paragraph 38 of the second part of the academic charter, I am obliged to submit the following information and comments to the board. I. In the class of verbal sciences in the lower department The theory of rhetoric has been taught sufficiently. The professor corrected the Burgia system and distributed it with his own additions in Russian, which were copied by the students and memorized. Translations and analyzes of the best Latin writers were numerous. The deficiency in the students' own practice may be less present than in the past course, but is still noticeable. Among the best and most diligent students, I found about 40 exercises examined by the teacher during the two-year course, most of them short: including up to 30 poetic exercises, and, moreover, for the most part, sentences and imitations, and not their own compositions; there are up to 10 prose works in Russian, and up to 3 in Latin, and not a single so-called big speech. It is not difficult to see from this that the students, who wrote one exercise every two weeks, and one or two in Latin a year, were not accustomed to composition, and to the Latin language so much that they did not encounter difficulties in listening to philosophical and theological lessons in this language, and in composing arguments and sermons, upon entering the higher department of the seminary. The progress of rhetorical practice was delayed, in my opinion, by two obstacles: The first is that Mr. Professor, teaching mathematics in addition to rhetoric, and also having a position outside the seminary, with all his activities, cannot engage in criticism and correction of student exercises as much as he would like; second, that out of the ten weekly teaching hours assigned to rhetoric, little time can be separated for adding practice to the theory itself, or, as stated in the order of the Commission of Theological Schools, dated December 16, 1811, for one’s own composition with the students of examples explaining the rules, and for criticizing the essays written by the students before their eyes. The first of these obstacles can be removed by the foresight of the authorities when, with a larger number of people capable of teaching, the teacher of rhetoric will be kept in this position alone, which is quite difficult. A measure against the second obstacle presented itself to me when, from the schedule of teaching hours used by the Seminary Board, I saw that there are two days a week on which students of the lower department, instead of the six hours prescribed by the Commission of Theological Schools, study in classes for only four hours. By the right given to the auditor by paragraph 33 of the second part of the Academic Charter, I suggested to the Seminary Board whether it would consider it beneficial to add two hours for rhetoric from those omitted from the schedule, to which it agreed. II. In the class of verbal sciences in the upper division Whether Philology, assigned to this class III by clause of the Seminary Charter, was taught is not clear from the notes presented to me. The theory of Aesthetics is expounded with subtlety and taught with breadth. I could not see the effect of this theory on the art of composing, because the exercises for students in this class were not offered for testing. III. According to the class of historical sciences Geography, General History and Russian History are taught, if not with the exact rigor of the system, then with abundance and variety. Church history is presented briefly. Experiments in historical reasoning made by students of the lower department were shown to me. Success in this matter, of necessity, had to go along with success in the science of composing. The order of the Commission of Theological Schools, dated December 16, 1811, obliges each student of the higher department to work on at least one Historical problem per year; however, the students of the higher department did not engage in such tasks, of course, because the class of Historical Sciences belongs to the lower department, while in the higher department there are not even hours of study for History. It is desirable, in my opinion, that students in this class be guided by published books rather than by the extensive notes of the Professor, whose correspondence can take up the time students need for other home exercises, especially for composition exercises; 2, so that short notes are not allowed without prior communication between the Professor and the Rector about their need and dignity; 3, so that Geography, a science that burdens the memory, is better abbreviated than Church History, which nourishes the mind and heart, and requires more attention the more closely it is connected to the main subject of the Theological School than other auxiliary sciences. 4, so that the Philosophy of History, to which Historical dissertations also belong, according to the exact force of paragraph 135 of the first part of the Academic Charter, is classified as an Academic teaching, because those who study History in the Seminary, without having yet listened to Philosophy, are undoubtedly incapable of the Philosophy of History. IV. According to the class of philosophical sciences Philosophical terminology, in the spirit of the Philosophy of the past century, is presented with clarity, completeness and systematic correctness. Physics, due to the lack of a modern classical writer in Latin, was taught in Russian, under the leadership mainly of Brisson. Some of the philosophical reflections written by students during the course are worthy of praise. However, it was impossible not to notice, especially from the short essay they wrote during the test itself, that the art of composing had not yet become a skill for them, and that their poverty in literature, especially Latin, sometimes confuses and binds their thoughts. This, in my opinion, and according to the remark of the Seminary Administration, is a consequence of the fact that these students were dissatisfied with rhetorical practice in the lower department of the Seminary, and therefore in the higher department they did not take up writing with satisfied fervor, finding in this matter more difficulties, and less taste and pleasure. V. In the class of theological sciences Dogmatic Theology, according to the so-called Abbreviation of Theology, composed by Feofan Prokopovich, is explained with the desired thoroughness, order and completeness. In moral theology and the theory of hermeneutics, due to the lack of complete works in our country, Mr. Professor chose the best German writers of this kind as his models, and he overcame the difficulty that was associated with correcting their systems in accordance with the spirit of the Greco-Russian Church, as is typical for an Orthodox Theologian. In his scholarly analysis of the Epistle of St. Apostle Paul to the Romans, he showed the experience of hermeneutic practice. The most important objects of church archeology were collected mostly from Russian Orthodox writers. Several discussions on theological subjects, composed by students during the course, and reviewed by me, justify the art and diligence of the mentor, and do honor to the writers. Their number, in my opinion, could not be large for the reason mentioned above under number IV. Greek is ahead of other languages ​​in student success. Especially, the students of the lower department are not inferior in knowledge to their elders, and are almost ahead of them. The professor took advantage of the training they received at the District School and continues to guide them further. There are few students of the German language: an important reason for this is that the teacher is not rich in the gift of entertaining. From the schedule of teaching hours hitherto used at the Seminary, I noticed that on some days students are in class for only four hours, and sometimes spend the 11th and 12th hours before noon, such a decent time for studying, outside of class. This irregularity was already ordered to be corrected by the order of the Commission of Theological Schools, dated December 16, 1811. Why, adhering to paragraph 33 of the second part of the Academic Charter, I suggested to the Seminary Board whether it would not consider it a good idea to supplement its schedule of study hours by adding two hours a week for the lower department for Rhetoric, for which I showed the reason above under number I, and for the highest department two hours for Theology, and the same amount for Philosophy, since both of these sciences are both the most important and extensive, without comparison with other academic branches of this department objects. The opinion of the Seminary Board turned out to be completely in agreement with mine. In the class of Theological Sciences, there is a lack of classical books that would be composed in the spirit of the Greek-Russian Church, for moral and interpretive Theology; Likewise, Church Archeology can only be found in fragments, in a few works written in the Russian language. Without a doubt, this makes it difficult for the teacher. The publication of thorough and complete books on these subjects should be expected from such people who, after listening to the lessons in them, would have sufficient experience in teaching others, time to review, believe and understand the information collected from different sources, and encouragement to take on difficult writing. The educational book used in the philosophical class, written by Baumeister based on the principles of Wolff, does not have the quality required by paragraph 99 of the first part of the Seminary Rules, according to which educational books must be kept in line with the latest discoveries and successes in each science. It would be useful to provide this class with a manual, now translated into Russian: The History of Philosophical Systems by M. De Gerandeau. And if it were decided to replace Baumeister’s book with another classical book, Latin, then, in my opinion, in order to select it, one could pay attention to the book published several years ago by the Viennese Professor M. Carpe, who, having adopted the analytics and terminology of the latest philosophers and, like them, transferred the formal principles (Principia formalia) of human reason from Metaphysics to Logic, however, does not deviate with them to skepticism, neither to idealism, but, using their discoveries, at the same time warns the seeker of truth against their errors. The classic book of General History (the work of Schreck), worthy, however, of its purpose in the selection and arrangement of objects, is, in my opinion, not quite pure in some stories and judgments related to the Church, although it has been somewhat revised by the translator. The writer, being a Protestant, from the times of Constantine the Great to Luther, more readily notes abuses and disorders in the Church than praiseworthy deeds and edifying incidents; looking at the Western Church, it is as if he does not see the Eastern Church behind it; He deals with Protestantism a lot, and not always impartially. Having opened his book only a few times for luck, I found the following passages that seemed either tempting or indecent. Deut. hour, page 24. On the same page, Constantine the Great and Julian the Apostate are described: good and bad qualities are seen in both, but Julian the Apostate is praised more than Constantine the Great. Page 130. Berengarius is recognized as a sufferer for his efforts to correct the dogma of the Holy Eucharist. On the contrary, Berengarius suffered for transforming and rejecting the true dogma of fulfillment in the Holy Eucharist. Page 242. In the margin opposite the second paragraph is printed: “Why did Christians make their religion invalid and harmful?” Human willfulness can, it is true, make the Christian religion invalid, or better yet, not freely accept the inherent power and reality of this Divine religion, but I don’t know whether Christians can make their religion harmful! Page 254. The author says that Luther abandoned religion from all human additions and inventions, through which not only faith, but also external worship were disfigured. Every son of the Eastern Church believes that the five sacraments that Luther set aside were not human additions and inventions. And that he, thinking to avert disgrace in the Divine Service, himself disfigured the Divine Service, depriving it of the necessary splendor and entertainment, the most impartial of the Lutherans now agree. The tests prescribed by the Charter were carried out at the Seminary without fail. In discussing the manner of testing, I submit to the discretion of the Board the following opinion: The accepted image of testing has a very strong effect on the image of science teaching. Without a doubt, each of the teachers wants to present the test of the class entrusted to him in the best possible way, and therefore is forced to choose such a way of teaching lessons that would serve as the best preparation for the accepted way of testing. Nowadays, in general, in the Spiritual and Secular Schools, this type of testing more or less prevails, according to which the difference between the student is a quick, abundant and brilliant answer to the question given to him by his teacher, but at the same time, not enough attention is paid to whether the student explains his own thoughts, or whether the teacher’s reasoning, firmly noticed and thought through, as property, is pronounced from the storehouse of reason, or with the help of memory alone he repeats what he read in the textbook and confirmed in case of an exam. This gives rise to a way of teaching lessons that acts more on the memory than on the mind of students, and which is so strongly condemned by paragraphs 16 and 17 of the introduction to the Charter of Theological Schools. In order to prevent the spread of this weak method of teaching in Theological Schools, it is necessary to approve a more strict method of testing, according to which the student could rely less on his memory and temporary preparation, and would have more opportunity to show his intelligence and constant attention to his subject. For this 1, in tests, especially internal ones (in which classes are not generally shown to the public to assure them of the perfection of the School, but students are individually tested and compared for their encouragement), one should care less about the beauty of student answers, but try to show each student for what he is; and therefore give questions not only to the best, but also to the weakest. 2. The teacher of the tested class can begin the questions, so that accidents do not lead to confusion among the students, but either the Rector, or one of the other teachers who is more familiar with which subject, and whoever is appointed by the chairman of the test, continues, without fail, and must stick to the textbook. 3. Students' responses should be respected over thoroughness rather than speed. 4. When compiling a list of students who distinguished themselves during the test, the rector should pay special attention to those of them who will resolve more difficult questions with greater power of their own reasoning. 5. To encourage students to succeed in the art of composing, it is necessary to be tested in composing in the Latin and Russian languages. Certificates were not issued to students of the completed course because the form promised in the order of the Commission of Theological Schools, dated December 16, 1811, had not yet been received. In conclusion of this information and comments to the Academic Board, I have the honor to convey that in general I found the state of the local Seminary to be in a gradual ascent to perfection. The difficulties associated with the new order of affairs in the internal part of the education are constantly overcome by the Seminary Board, despite difficulties of a different kind that it finds in its extensive writing on the affairs of the lower Schools entrusted to its supervision. As time passes, the entire establishment is moving towards solid improvement. Academy Rector Archimandrite Filaret. September 10th 1813 Attached to this report are: A) a daily note from the testing of students, B) lists of students and C) an extract from the journal of the board of St. Petersburg. seminary, dated August 28, 1813 A. July 11, the audit test began at eight o'clock in the morning, and took place: 1) three hours in theology, 2) in Greek 1½ hours, 3) in Hebrew the hour. Meanwhile, the students of the lower department were engaged in writing an essay on this matter in Latin. That same day, in the second meeting, which began at three o'clock in the afternoon, the test continued: 2) in the Greek language in the lower division of the hour. At the same time, students of the higher department wrote a short essay on this theological matter in Russian. July 12th, in the first meeting there was a test: 2) in French there is an hour, At this time, the students of the lower department were busy with a small rhetorical essay in Russian. On the same day, in the second meeting, students of the lower department were tested: in geography, an hour and a half, in mathematics, an hour and a half. Meanwhile, the students of the higher department were given philosophical material for a small essay in Latin. On July 14th, in the last morning meeting the disciples were tested: 1) in aesthetics one and a half hours, On the 23rd day of July, the auditor and members of the seminary board were jointly engaged in dividing students into categories, according to the recommendations of the teachers, according to essays and comments made during the test, and based on success in the sciences with moral behavior. For 24 days in July, the rector and members of the seminary board were engaged in the distribution of students of the lower department for transfer, for continuation of studies in the same department, for expulsion. students of the higher department of the St. Petersburg Theological Seminary, divided into three categories, according to the strength of 59 § outline of the rules for theological schools 2) Alexander Rozhdestvensky. 6) Matthew of Transfiguration. 9) Mikhail Blagoveshchensky. students of the lower department of the St. Petersburg Theological Seminary, successful and appointed for transfer to the higher department 24) Alexander Maksimovich. students of the lower department who failed, but are capable of continuing their studies in the same department seminary students nominated for expulsion from the school department He was not included in the rank list with others because he was not at all involved in the Hebrew, Greek and French languages; and was noticed in reprehensible acts at the very end of the training course. Students of the lower division The studies are not reliable for continuation because they studied two courses in the same department and were not successful. Although they studied one year in the lower department, due to their great age and weakness of natural abilities, they are considered not reliable for success in the second year 63. V. From the certificate issued by the seminary board, it is clear that Peninsky was not recommended for honest behavior in September, October, November and December 1811. In January and February 1812 he showed himself to be honest and diligent; in March, for honest behavior and diligence, he was ranked among the elders; in April and May he showed himself to be approximately honest in behavior and thrifty in office; not recommended in June; in the month of July, submitted from Fr. the inspector of the seminary presented that Peninsky was seen as prone to discord with inferiors and equals and that on the 16th day of the same month he was not sober, in a fight he broke the eye of student Garinsky and tore his dress; for which he was fined with a severe reprimand from the board, with confirmation that if he, Peninsky, did not stop bad deeds, he would be expelled from the class of elders. In September he was seen trying to make amends for his offense. In October, November and December he behaved well. From January 1813 to July it was not recommended on the good side. On July 19, 1813, the board received a proposal from the inspector with the following content: a student of the higher department of the seminary, Ivan Peninsky, although for rude treatment of the students entrusted to his supervision, by right of seniority, and against their injustice, for disrespect for the authorities, for frequent absence from Divine services, indecency and temptations at it, when he was, for drunkenness, noticed especially during Christmastide, deprived, due to verbal communication with Fr. rector, positions to look after others. However, this punishment did not have any effect on his correction. From the time of his moving into the cohabitation of his comrades, the priors did not speak kindly of him, and violence, unauthorized and frequent absences from the school house, drunkenness, frequent absence from Divine services, or indecency during it were his usual actions. During the month of February, there was not a single day on which the student Peninsky did not offend one of his comrades, especially Ivan Vinogradov, with caustic and obscene ridicule, and disobedience to his superiors and complete contempt for his orders were revealed on every occasion; Moreover, he was almost always absent from the room without the knowledge of his superiors. On the 21st, 22nd and 23rd of February, through excessive drunkenness and reprehensible acts stemming from it, he brought all his comrades out of patience, who were forced to move away from him. On the 23rd, not being sober, he acted indecently and made noise in the dining room, then, coming into the room, he threw tables and benches on the floor, and started arguing with Alexei Chulkov so brazenly that he was forced to hit him with his offensiveness. His comrades who were present on this occasion were ashamed to even repeat to him, Fr. inspector, Peninsky's impudent words. On the same date he left without permission. On the 24th, on Monday in the first weeks of Lent, when all the disciples were fasting, he left at 4 o’clock in the afternoon without permission, appeared at 7 o’clock and was not at vespers. All the advice and beliefs of Fr. the inspector left no respect for his correction. On May 16 he left without permission. On the 17th, Saturday, he left again for the whole day, did not attend the all-night vigil, spent the entire next night outside the school house and appeared at the seminary the next day at 4 o’clock in the morning. On the 30th of the same month, he was brought in in such a drunken state that he was deprived of consciousness, and was carried into the room by his comrades in the arms. On the 15th of last July, when all the students of the seminary listened to the Divine Liturgy, sang a prayer of thanks, then were in the hall, where all the members of the board came, and where a vacancy was announced, he was neither in the church, nor in the hall, or even in the room. On the 16th of the same month, returning to the school house, at about 10 o'clock in the evening, when the gatekeeper, who was given strict orders to lock all the gates at 9 o'clock, did not have time to quickly open them for him, he nailed him; this noise was heard both in the monastery and in the garden. For all such actions, the student Peninsky, by the decision of the seminary board, dated July 19, this year, was expelled from the class of elders and placed under arrest for 7 days. Petrov, from September 1811 to July 1813 was not recommended on the good side, and in February 1812 he was noticed in unauthorized absences, for which he was fined and reprimanded; in October noticed: 1) in unauthorized absences; 2) drunkenness and obstinacy against superiors. In December, he was noticed in willful actions, for which he was fined by arrest for five days. In another report, dated September 10, 1813, Archimandrite Philaret wrote: To the Board of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy in the 3rd department, from the Rector Archimandrite Philaret. In addition to the report I submitted to the Academic Board in the review of the Seminary, and in pursuance of paragraph 39 of the second part of the Academic Charter, I have the duty to reveal to the Board my thoughts about the abilities and diligence of the ranks of the Seminary: which duty, with due awareness, however, that some of them are above my testimony, I hereby fulfill: Rector of the Seminary and Theological Sciences, Professor Archimandrite Methodius, in both positions, continues to be distinguished by that thoroughness of information, and to set an example for others by that prudent, constant and vigilant activity, which has long gained him the attention and favor of the highest authorities. Professor of Aesthetics Archimandrite Leonid, with his excellent talents, continues to show in the Seminary the same art in teaching lessons, which the highest authorities have witnessed in him at the Academic tests. Holding the post of Professor of Philosophical Sciences, Archimandrite Theophan, with sufficient knowledge in his part, combines zeal and unremitting diligence to succeed in the performance of his ministry. Professor of Rhetoric and Mathematics, Titular Advisor, Yakov Tolmachov has abundant information on his part. His activity, despite his many positions, is tireless. Greek Language Professor, who also teaches French, Provincial Secretary Dmitry Voronov is very capable and diligent for his position. Maintaining the character of the Professor, he studies with his students not only the Grammar of the languages ​​he teaches, but also the highest rules of Literature. Professor of History and Geography Andrei Ivanov has abundant and varied information on his subject, although not always systematic. He is diligent and diligent in holding positions. Jewish language teacher, Priest Peter Alexandrov knows the Hebrew language thoroughly and teaches diligently. The teacher of the German language, Priest Philip Coral, knows this language quite well; It is desirable that he have more skill in attracting the attention of his students. Academy Rector Archimandrite Filaret. September 10th day, 1813. The journal of the commission of theological schools, dated October 11, 1813, decided: 1. On the academic side. The student of the higher department of the Peninsky, according to the respects stated in this submission, and the students of the lower department, who, after testing, turned out to be incapable of continuing their studies, according to the opinion of the academic board, are expelled from the Seminary and transferred to the diocesan department. 2. Students who have completed the course of study are to be maintained, trained and, when clergy or teaching positions are opened, dismissed in accordance with the rules established for students who have completed the course. 3. The amount required for the maintenance of these students should be used from the amount remaining from the incomplete set of academic students, which is to be prescribed to the internal academic board through the mediation of His Eminence Ambrose, Metropolitan of Novgorod. 4. Philology in the class of Literary Sciences in the higher department, in accordance with § III of the draft Seminary Rules, is to be taught, and the theory of aesthetics is to be applied to practice, that is, to engage students in composing and delivering sermons, the consideration of which regarding the explanation of the Word of God is entrusted to the Rector of the Seminary, and regarding the style to the teacher of aesthetics, as is decreed for the Academy. 5. The opinion of Mr. Inspector about the way of teaching History, and about the fact that the “Philosophy of History,” which includes historical dissertations, should be classified as an academic teaching, as if it is thorough, should be affirmed in all its force. 6. The supply of the Theological class with classic books for Moral and Interpretive Theology and for Ecclesiastical Archeology will be left to future consideration. Shrek's story should be left to the professor in the right places to be corrected with notes, as presented about this by the academic board, that is, not otherwise than after preliminary communication with the Rector about their need and dignity; As for the proposal to introduce the Philosophy of Carpe, in place of the textbook currently used in the philosophy class, written by Baumeister, then instruct the academic board for the 3rd department to compile from the years. professors committee to consider: whether Carpe on Logic and Metaphysics has the qualities required by paragraph 99 of part 1 of the draft Seminary Charter, and the committee’s opinion on this would be presented in due time to the commission with its opinion. 7. The method of testing the students of the seminary by the auditor is supposed to be allowed, which will be introduced into the academy. 8. The commission submits the drawing up of the form for certificates for students divided into three categories to the Right Reverend Archbishop of Ryazan, for which purpose an extract from this journal is forwarded. 9 . After submitting this form to the commission, forward it to the academic board with the order that certificates be issued to students no earlier than when they are released to clergy or teaching positions. 10. Based on the above provisions, issue an order to the academic board, and forward an appropriate extract from them to the Right Reverend Metropolitan of Novgorod. 11. In terms of economic, moral and optical management. Please take note of the report of Archimandrite Leonid on the activities of the seminary board on economic, moral and external management. 64 October 1st. Note from the rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Archimandrite Philaret, about the book: Ancillon’s aesthetic considerations Metropolitan Ambrose of Novgorod, in a proposal to the board of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, dated September 26, 1813, No. 45, explained that “a book called Aesthetic Discourses, translated from French into Russian from the works of Mr. Ancillon, last 1812, by a member of the commission of theological schools, the Eminence Theophylact, Archbishop of Ryazan, was submitted to the commission for consideration, with the question of whether it would be desirable to publish it for the benefit of students studying Aesthetics; but the commission was not approved or accepted. Now this book has been published with the permission of civil censorship with the sign on the title page that it was translated by students of the Theological Academy under the leadership of the synodal member, His Eminence of Ryazan; and the father rector of the academy, Archimandrite Philaret, informed me that this book is used at the academy in lectures on verbal sciences, contrary to the rules given by the commission about the non-use of books not approved by it. Why do I propose to the academic board to entrust the father rector with examining this book according to its contents, presenting it with his notes and his opinion on whether it should be used in lectures.” The academic board, in pursuance of this proposal, by the journal, dated September 27, among other things, decided: to give the rector, Father Archimandrite Philaret, a copy of this article for execution. In pursuance of this resolution, the board of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy received a note from the rector, Archimandrite Philaret, with the following content: By the proposal of His Eminence, dated September 26, through the medium of the Academic Board, I was given instructions, having examined the book: “Aesthetic Discourses of Ancillon,” to submit my notes and opinion on whether it should be used in lectures. Why, having examined this book, I have the honor at the highest discretion to present the opinion: That “Aesthetic Discourses of Ancillon” should not be used in lectures of the Literary Sciences; firstly, because, according to paragraphs 102 and 103 of the first part of the Charter of Theological Academies, books used in lectures or educational books should only be allowed those shown in the Notes; and Ancillon’s book is not shown in the Notes approved by the Commission of Theological Schools for the entire course of this course for the teaching of Verbal Sciences, not only classical, but below auxiliary; secondly, because by the same Note the Professor of Literary Sciences is obliged in the last three years to deal with the practical part of Aesthetics, and especially the Didactic, learned and preaching style: but this subject does not include the “Aesthetic Reasonings of Ancillon”, which consist for the most part of theories, and, moreover, related to secular Literature; thirdly, and most importantly, because Ancillon’s Reasoning is fundamentally infected with Pantheism and Naturalism, which, although noticed by the translators and softened in some places, could not be completely corrected; although the students of the Academy have so much knowledge in Theology and Morals to guard against the errors of Ancillon; however, admitting his book to Academic lectures would do more harm than good; would set a bad example for other religious schools, and would serve as a temptation for the public. To prove my opinion about the impurity of Ansilion’s teaching, I enclose a special extract from his book with my notes. Rector Archimandrite Filaret. October 1st day, 1813 About the book: Aesthetic reflections of Ancillon Excerpts from Ancillon with the addition of notes showing the spirit of this author 65 General note. Here, only those passages from the city of Ancillon are copied out of which disagreement with Faith, Morality and Citizenship is easily discernible: so that everyone can conveniently believe the opinion of the person who wrote the note with their own judgment. Whoever wishes to consider Aesthetic Reasoning with a deeper study, there is still a rich harvest of lies and delusions left in this field 67 68. After hearing this note, the journal of the academic board, dated October 2 of the same 1813, by the way, decided (Article 1): an extract with comments from Fr. rector to present in the original to His Eminence 69. November 10. Note from the rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Archimandrite Philaret, on the return to him of the money used from his property for printing, paper and binding of a note about the book: Aesthetic considerations of Ancillon To the Board of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, from its Rector, Archimandrite Philaret. His Eminence deigned to entrust me with a note about the book: Ancillon's Aesthetic Discourses, approved by the Secular Censorship, to print for distribution to both students of the Academy and others, in order to avert the temptation and criticism of the Academy caused by Ancillon's book; the costs of this publication should be borrowed from the amount allocated by the Academic staff for journals and periodicals. I have fulfilled this order; and for the printing, paper and binding of six hundred copies, each of which contains three printed sheets and a half, for the circulation of one hundred of these copies, one hundred and fifty rubles were used. I hereby most respectfully submit to the Academic Board that this money will be returned to me from the said amount. Rector Archimandrite Filaret. November 10th day 1813 After hearing this note, the journal of the academic board, dated November 15th, by the way, decided (Article 1) 150 rubles, the following about. rector, issue 70. In November. Opinion of someone present in St. Petersburg. consistory, Archimandrite Philaret, in the divorce case of the wife of the court stoker Matryona Alekseeva due to the adultery of her husband After considering the court speeches conducted in the presence of the consistory on the divorce case of his wife, court stoker Pantelei Petrov, Matryona Alekseeva, Archimandrite Filaret gave the following opinion: To No. 2594. As the plaintiff, in her proof (presenting two witnesses to convict her husband of adultery), she specifically says that when, where and on what (case) she found him, she cannot know in detail. Such evidence is insufficient and insignificant... because the Code of the 10th Chapter 160, paragraph 160, orders to delve into not only whether the witnesses will say against the exile, but also whether everything is in one speech: and also the Charter of the Deanery, paragraph 104, orders the case in any case to be investigated with the circumstances, when and where what was done; and the plaintiff’s evidence, being pronounced dully and without circumstances, cannot therefore be verified exactly with the testimony of the witnesses presented, and the Consistory cannot begin to compose question points based on such dull testimony; secondly, because if the plaintiff really knew about the crime of her husband with the soldier Anna, then she could not help but know where and when it was committed: according to these circumstances, this evidence is contrary to the force of the above-mentioned laws and the decree of 1753. November 29th, with which evidence of grievances and evidence is commanded to write direct and important and to give unfeigned reasons, and to further continue the case incapable of leaving without respect; and therefore begin to compose an extract from this matter; about which, by writing a protocol, to submit to His Eminence for his consideration and decision 71 . December 8th. Note from the rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Archimandrite Philaret, on the procedure for private and internal testing of students in December 1813. The rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Archimandrite Filaret, with a handwritten note dated December 8, 1813, submitted to its board for the 4th department, for consideration, a proposal about the procedure for the upcoming private test, with the following content: To the Board of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, in the 4th department, from the Rector Archimandrite Philaret. I have the honor to present a proposal on the procedure for the upcoming private trial for consideration by the Board. Rector Archimandrite Filaret. Dec. 8. 1813 The procedure for private and internal testing of students of the Theological Academy, due to take place in December 1813 Although hitherto there was some custom to give the internal tests of the Academy the appearance of being open, by inviting famous persons who patronize the Academy, and by admitting outside visitors: but since tests in front of external persons usually require some preliminary preparation; since, with the upcoming end of the Academic course, and with the reduction of teaching time, it is necessary to give teachers and students more freedom to continue and repeat lessons for the last general test; and since, according to the exact force of paragraph 163 of Part 1 of the Academic Charter, internal tests should be carried out internally only by persons belonging to the Academy; then it is now supposed to be completely internal tests based on the following rules: I. Teaching for testing is not interrupted: but they are carried out during the teaching hours belonging to each class. II. The test in each science lasts as long as the lecture lasts, that is, two hours; but in languages ​​less than this time. III. The test is carried out by the rector, the second member of the internal Academic Board and one of the professors who, according to his knowledge of the known subject of the test, could take part in the test. IV. The test is carried out without preliminary preparation, so that each subject can be better seen for what he is. V. Notes of test subjects and lists of students with teaching certificates are required and used as before. VI. The rules approved by the Commission of Theological Schools, dated October 11 of this year, are strictly observed in testing. The journal of the academic board, dated the same date, stipulated: the proposed procedure for the test should be submitted to his Eminence for approval, and upon his approval, forwarded to Messrs. professors and bachelors have written off the appropriate information from this article so that by the 15th of this month of December they present to the academic board, each in their own class, notes of subjects completed in the last third of the year, and certificates of student success. At the presentation of the board of the academy on this subject, Metropolitan Ambrose of Novgorod wrote: “1813. Dec(Ab) 9 a.m. The location is approved and approved. Ambrose M. Novgorod" 72 . December 15. Notes from the rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Archimandrite Philaret, on omissions made when describing the personal belongings of the deceased Archimandrite Leonid As a result of a note from the inspector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Archimandrite Ambrose, dated November 23, 1813, about the death that befell the professor of aesthetics, Archimandrite of the second-class Volokolamsk monastery Leonid, the journal of the academic board, dated the same November 23, by the way, decided: to describe one’s own things and keep them under the seal of the academic board, and hand over the monastic ones to the sacristy, the execution of which is entrusted to the inspector, Father Archimandrite Ambrose, together with Yakov Tolmachev, who is holding the post of conference secretary. In pursuance of this resolution, the inspector, Archimandrite Ambrose and the acting conference secretary Ya. Tolmachev, with a note, submitted to the board of the academy a list of things left after the death of Archimandrite Leonid. Upon consideration of this list, the rector, Archimandrite Filaret, submitted a note written in his own hand to the board of the academy, with the following content: To the Board of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, in the 4th department, from the Rector Archimandrite Philaret. The inspector of the Academy, O. Archimandrite Ambrose, and the ruling post of Conference Secretary, Mr. Tolmachov, who, by the resolution of the Board on the 23rd day of this year, 1813, were instructed to describe and approve with the seal of the Board the personal belongings of the late O. Archimandrite Leonid, did not pay, as can be seen from the note and inventory presented to the Board, attention to his papers, although in general the papers of a learned person can constitute important property, and although A. The Inspector and the ruling office of the Conference Secretary in particular knew from the journal of the Board dated the 22nd day of the same November that among the papers of the deceased there should have been registers and, perhaps, other notes belonging to the file of the Library. Having learned that the papers of O. Archimandrite Leonid were in the possession of a student of the local Seminary, Yakov Vinogradsky, I turned to the Seminary Administration for immediate inspection and selection. The papers relating to the Board, probably due to the omission of time and the change of residence of Vinogradsky, were not found intact. The learned papers that were found, among which the works and translations of the deceased may be discovered, and which the heirs may demand, I considered it necessary to present for consideration by the Board. Rector Archimandrite Filaret. Dec. 15. 1813 After hearing this note, the journal of the academic board, dated December 29 (Article 2), decided: to keep the papers under the seal of the academic board so that when the things of the deceased are given to the heirs, and to hand over the papers together with them 73. The text has been amended according to the list of edits at the end of the volume. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith. Affairs: ah, internal. right St. Petersburg spirits academician, storage in the academic archive, 1813, No. 2; b, comm. spirit. taught, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, 1813, No. 5/339. See op. I. A. Chistovich, history of St. Petersburg. Theological Academy, St. Petersburg, 1857, pp. 224 and 225. Case comm. spirit. taught, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, 1813 No. 44/580. The matter is internal. ed. St. Petersburg spirits acad. storing in his archive, 1813, No. 7. The matter is internal. right St. Petersburg spirits academician, storage in his archive, 1813, No. 6. The matter is internal. right St. Petersburg spirit. academician, storage in his archive, 1813, No. 9. The matter is internal. right St. Petersburg spirits academician, storage in his archive, 1813, No. 9. In 1813, June 29, Archimandrite. Filaret was ranked in the Order of St. Right-Believing Prince Vladimir, 2nd Art., “for tireless work in the rank of rector and professor, for activity in the education of worthy servants of the altar of the Lord and for edifying and disciplining teachings about the truths of the faith.” St. Petersburg case spirits academy, storage in the academic archive, 1813, No. 12. Report. St. Petersburg register spirit. Consist., for 1813, No. 1710. Report. St. Petersburg register spirits Consist., for 1813, between Nos. 1710 and 1711. Each list is signed by: auditor, archim. Filaret; rector Semin., archim. Methodius and inspector. Semin., archim. Feofan. Cases: a, comm. spirit. uch., stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, 1813 No. 106/643 and b. external right St. Petersburg spirits Acad., 1813, No. 34. These notes, on behalf of the Authorities, were written on the occasion of the publication in Russian of the book: Aesthetic Discourses of Ancillon. Since the title of this translation contains the name of the Theological Academy, it was necessary to show that the Academy does not indiscriminately accept the wisdom of this writer. D (school) A (academy) R (ector). Probably Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor. French. Started ekzem., with the title: “About the book: Aesthetic considerations of Mr. Ancillon, St. Petersburg, in typography. F. Drechsler, 1813." In Orthodox. Review, in Art. “From the memoirs of the late Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow” contains the story of Metropolitan. about what prompted him to make notes on Ancillon’s book. In the appendices to this article, under No. 1, his notes on excerpts from the book are reprinted. Ancillon. Right Review, for 1868, August; story Metropolitan Philaret, pp. 514 and 515, note, pp. 530–540. Refutation of the notes on Ancillon's book, entitled: Aesthetic Discourses, Archbishop. Ryazan Theophylact, with a foreword by O. Bodyansky, comp. I. A. Chistovich. See Readings in imperial. society Russian history and antiquities, 1872, book. I, pp. 179–209. The matter is internal. ed. St. Petersburg spirit. acad., 1813, No. 15. The matter is internal. ed. St. Petersburg d. academy, storage in his archive, 1813, No. 15, l. 15. Dokl. rest. St. Petersburg Spirit of Cons., for 1813, No. 2594. The dots indicate words that cannot be read due to the rottenness of the paper, and the words indicated in brackets are written based on guesswork. The matter is internal. right St. Petersburg spirit. academician, storage in his archive, 1813, No. 22. The matter is govt. St. Petersburg spirit. Acad., 1813, No. 19.