1816 г.

February 28. Note from the rector of St. Petersburg. Theological Academy, Archimandrite Philaret, about the change of study hours, occupied by the reading of lectures by Hieromonk Gregory The rector, Archimandrite Filaret, presented the following note to the board of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy: A note to the Board of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy from its Rector, Archimandrite Philaret. Bachelor of Theological Sciences Hieromonk Gregory 259, having five classes in his subject a week, and at the same time composing his own lectures, finds it especially difficult to prepare them for the first morning hours. To relieve him, recognizing that it is necessary and fair to allow him, at his request, to occupy the second such hours instead of the first morning ones, so that other fathers and Mr. Bachelors, who give lessons before noon, each continue to give them on their days, occupying the first such hours instead of the second morning ones, I propose this for the consideration of the Board. Rector Archimandrite Filaret. February 28, 1816 The board of the magazine, on February 28, 1816, determined: “the proposal to put this into effect; for this purpose, and give lists from this magazine to the fathers and gentlemen of the bachelors, in which this change of study hours applies” 260. February 29. Opinion of someone present in St. Petersburg. Consistory, Archimandrite Philaret, according to a report from Archpriest Speransky, about Deacon Smirnov’s assumption of the responsibility to prepare all written files for 1815 According to the report of the archpriest of the Revel Nicholas Church, John Speransky, that the deacon of the same church, Malachi Smirnov, took upon himself the responsibility of preparing all the written affairs for that church, for 1815, such as: income books with statements, metrics, spiritual lists, forms and others - Archimandrite Philaret, who was present at the consistory, gave such opinion: February 29, 1816 To order the Revel Spiritual Board by decree so that, having called Archpriest Speransky to be present, they should instruct him in the following: 1) that by the force of the decree, May 15, 1802, in case of omission or malfunction of metric books, all priests and clergy should be held accountable and subject to equal penalties, regardless of whether at least one, noticing the malfunction of another, and the informer became: and therefore the Archpriest does not justify himself by reporting about missing the deadline, but exposes himself to accusations; for he should not have reported this, but in the event of a malfunction of the Deacon, take hasty measures to correct them, and do the same with other reports; 2) that if the Deacon and the clerk showed him any kind of disobedience, he should have reported it to the Dean and the D (ecclesiastical) Board, with an explanation of what exactly the disobedience was shown, and not bother the higher authorities by passing by the closest, and not insult his co-workers and even the Dean before the Consistory with unproven reproaches of those for disobedience, and this one for ill will 261. March 6. Opinion of someone present in St. Petersburg. consistory, Archimandrite Philaret, according to the St. Petersburg chief of police Gorgoliy, that no petition was received from the noblewoman Sofia Ivinova Zhilina According to Chief Police Chief Ivan Savich Gorgoly that “there was no petition submitted by the nobleman Alexei Zhilin from his wife: and whether a certificate would have been given to her and who signed it is unknown,” Archimandrite Philaret, who was present at the consistory, gave the following opinion: March 6. 1816. How the defendant testified in court speeches that he had children with the girl Raisa living with him; according to the certificate from the metric books in 1812 and 1814. the children born from him turned out to be recorded, but which were not shown to be illegitimate: then, on the basis of the presentation of the proceedings of part two, chapter two, where the confession of the defendants is ordered to be verified by such circumstances that would be reliable, so as not to doubt the truth, to report to the Deanery Council, so that the mentioned girl against the defendant’s confession and testimony was interrogated: whether he really had children from her in the above-mentioned years. 262 June 30. Two notes from the rector of St. Petersburg. Theological Academy, Archimandrite Philaret, about the students of the academy: Stratanovich and Chertikov To the board of the academy, Archimandrite Philaret, 1816, June 30, presented two handwritten notes with the following content: I. To the Board of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy from the Rector Archimandrite Philaret Student Stratanovich spent most of the last academic year in the hospital, where even now, after briefly going to class before the tests, he is in the same condition that he can go out. At the same time, having taken into account the fact that last year he was among the last to be accepted into the higher department, I do not find him reliable for completing the Academic course, which I submit for consideration by the Board. Rector A. Filaret. June 30. 1816 II. To the Board of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy from the Rector Archimandrite Philaret Clause 42 of the Seminary Charter gives the Academic Board the right, after a one-year trial, to refer students who are unreliable for completing the Academic course to the department of the diocese from which they arrived. This, according to the professors, and according to the test that took place, turned out to be the student Chertikov. On which I leave it to the Academic Board to conduct a review and conclusion, so that the useless member will be immediately separated from the general composition; I have to present the rank lists of students for further considerations during the vacation period. The journal of the board, June 30, determined: 1) To request information from the staff doctor who is using the students of the academy, firstly, about the time and duration of which the student Stratanovich was in the hospital in the past year, and secondly: if there is hope for him to be cured in a short time and so that he can successfully continue his studies. 2) Student Chertikov, as having turned out to be unreliable in completing the academic course, on the basis of paragraph 42 of the seminary charter, is expelled from the academy and referred to the department of the Mogilev diocese, from which he arrived. To which we must first ask the permission of His Eminence with a presentation. The resolutions of the academic board were approved by the metropolitan. 263 July 25. Letter from Archimandrite Philaret to Prince A. N. Golitsyn regarding the appointment of the former as a member of the imperial philanthropic society The chief trustee of the imperial humane society, Prince A. N. Golitsyn, is right in the report. Senate, July 25, 1816, wrote: “It was pleasing to His Imperial Majesty, on July 16, 1816, to highly approve the project for the formation of the imperial. a humane society and the staff of the office of the council thereof by their own signature, together with the lists of members of this council 264 and members of the trustee committee belonging to this project.” On the same day, July 25, 1816, Prince Golitsyn wrote circular letters to members of the new society. To Archimandrite Philaret, Prince A.N. Golitsyn wrote: “His Imperial Majesty deigned to His Majesty to approve, on July 16, the project for the formation of an imperial philanthropic society and to direct me, according to my rank as its chief trustee, to announce to your Reverence the Highest approval of you as a member of the council of this society, so that you, my dear sir, in fulfillment The highest will of His Majesty included all the charitable duties that are associated with this honorable title.” Notifying your Reverence of this, I have the honor to invite you to the first meeting of the said council, scheduled to be held on July 27 at 11 o’clock before noon, in the house of the main department of foreign confessions to listen to the Highest approved act and to open the actions of the council of the imperial philanthropic society.” On the same day, Archimandrite Philaret wrote in his own hand to Prince A. N. Golitsyn: Most Excellent Prince, Gracious Sovereign! About the highest approved formation of the Imperial Humane Society and the service assigned to me with this Society, I was fortunate to receive favorable notification from Your Excellency. Accepting with due obedience the duty entrusted to me, if I can manage to fulfill it as much as possible and serve the cause of love for mankind, I will accept it as a gift from the common Lover of Mankind. With the deepest respect and devotion, I have the duty to remain, Your Excellency, Gracious Sovereign, the most humble servant of Archimandrite Philaret. July 25, 1816 265 August 2. Opinion of someone present in St. Petersburg. consistory, Archimandrite Philaret, on the complaint of the Senate priest Poluktovich against the deacon of St. Isaac's Cathedral Yakov Vinogradsky for causing offense According to the report of Dean Archpriest Matthew Ioannov, with the attachment of documents about the insult inflicted by the deacon of St. Isaac's Cathedral, Yakov Vinogradsky, on the Senate priest Poluktovich, Archimandrite Philaret, who was present at the consistory, gave the following opinion: August 2, 1816. For the legal completion of this matter, compose an extract from it with the introduction of laws; but since in this way this matter should last for some time; the defendant, the deacon, is under prohibition; and from the case it is clear that according to the testimony of all the witnesses, accepted by both sides, the deacon in allegedly defaming and cursing the priest in a violent and insolent manner: a fool, a brute, a blockhead, a pig, etc., contrary to the complaint of the priest, turned out to be completely innocent, but on the contrary, the priest himself offended him, calling him drunk and a blockhead: then, it is not good to bring this to His Eminence now Will Deacon Vinogradsky, as slandered, be allowed to serve in the priesthood, and the ban, imposed only because of the importance of denunciation before the consideration of the case, be left without further influence on the deacon’s personality 266? September 13. Opinion of someone present in St. Petersburg. Consistory, Archimandrite Philaret, on the election of clergy to the mission again, by the highest command, appointed in Switzerland In pursuance of the resolution of Metropolitan Ambrose, which followed the attitude of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Prince. A.I. Golitsyn, with a copy of Count Kapodistrias’s statement on the election of clergymen to the mission again, by the highest command, appointed in Switzerland, - Archimandrite Philaret, who was present at the consistory, gave the following opinion on this matter: September 13, 1816. To appoint the Master of the local Academy and Bachelor of Literature Razumovsky to the priestly place of candidates, who accepted the challenge made to him with obedience, and to inform the Seminary Board about the election of two candidates for priestly places with the required qualities; and about the Master, request a service list 267 from the Academic Board. November 16. Opinion of someone present in St. Petersburg. consistory, Archimandrite Philaret, in the case of an order to the priest of the Ekateringof church Platon Georgiev to marry the synod registrar Alexander Chernyshev, without the consent of the bride’s mother At the request of Alexander Chernyshev, an employee in the office of the commission of theological schools, “to order the Ekateringof priest Platon Georgiev to marry him with the daughter of the teacher Godslut, who was in the naval corps, the girl Maria Ivanova, since two years ago he had the intention of marrying the said girl, but, due to circumstances, could not fulfill this intention,” - Archimandrite Philaret, who was present at the consistory, gave the following opinion: Nov. 16. 1816. Based on the 25th rule of Basil the Great, marriage is allowed by taking a legal obligation from Ivanova. The mother’s disagreement cannot be respected, because she is no longer in a state of education, but in service, and because marriage is necessary to erase the fall, and to calm the conscience of both persons. This opinion should be presented to His Eminence for his consideration 268. Grigory, Postnikov, 1st year master in St. Petersburg. spirit. Academy, later Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg. passed away June 17, 1860 The matter is internal. ed. St. Petersburg spirit. academician, storage in the archives of the academy, 1816, No. 12. By the decision of the Holy Synod, on February 28 (March 6), 1816, Archimandrite Philaret was appointed rector of the stauropegial Moscow Novospassky monastery, leaving him in his previous positions. Case comm. spirit. taught., 1816, No. 1088. Dokl. registry. St. Petersburg spirit. Cons., for 1816, No. 323. In 1816, on April 8, Archimandrite Philaret was granted a panagia, sent with the following rescript: “Father Archimandrite Philaret, rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Having examined the report of the commission of theological schools on your review of the St. Petersburg and Moscow districts, I make it my pleasant duty to express my complete gratitude to you, both for the successful fulfillment of this assignment, and for your zealous service in the education of spiritual youth. In commemoration of my favor, I most mercifully command you to wear the panagia you deserve, following the example of the Moscow Don Monastery archimandrite, adding to this my desires, so that by the power of Christ the Savior you may succeed in affirming in the hearts of your disciples the love for Him by the practical fulfillment of the teachings of the Gospel. Alexander. St. Petersburg, April 8,” 1816. St. Petersburg case. spirits Acad., 1816, No. 8. Report. registry. St. Petersburg spirit. Cons., for 1816, No. 398. In 1816, in June, by order of the Highest, a special committee was established, which was entrusted with drawing up a project on the production of cases concerning Greek-Russian persons in Finnish courts. The following members were appointed to this committee: Archimandrite Rector of St. Petersburg. Theological Academy Filaret and rector of St. Petersburg. Innocent Theological Seminary, and two members of the Commission of Finnish Affairs, actual state councilors: Baron Rosenkampf and Willebrant. In 1820, the committee presented a draft of the most comprehensive report and with it “a draft general regulation on the department of spiritual and civil courts in cases relating to clergy of the Greco-Russian confession in Finland and on the rights that must be observed when examining investigative cases relating to them in Finnish courts.” Copies of the report and project were forwarded on May 20, 1820, by the State Secretary of the Commission of Finnish Affairs, Baron Rebinder, to Prince A. N. Golitsyn, for a report to the Holy Synod. It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor Sp. Synod. 1812, No. 4706. The matter is internal. right St. Petersburg spirit. academician, storage in his archive, 1816, No. 11, pp. 17 and 18. In the printed list of council members, Emperor. of the humane society, attached to the report of Prince A. N. Golitsyn, the following persons were named: 1) Prince A. N. Golitsyn, as the main trustee of the society and the indispensable chairman of the council; 2) Michael, archbishop. Chernigov; 3) protopresvit. Pavel Vasilievich Krinitsky; 4) archim. Filaret; 5) Lieutenant General, Count Karl Andreevich Lieven; 6) Lieutenant General Nikolai Isaevich Akhverdov; 7) secrets. owls Vasily Nikolaevich Zinoviev; 8) general Major Nikolai Nikolaevich Leontyev; 9) Chief Prosecutor. Senate, Prince Pyotr Sergeevich Meshchersky; 10) chamber cadet Alexander Skarlatovich Sturdza and 11) stat. owls Pavel Aleksandrovich Galakhov, as assistant to the chief trustee and manager. office imperial council humane society. Case of the chancellor. imperial humane. Society, 1816, No. 1. Case of the chancellor. imperial council philanthropic. general., 1816, No. 2, part. 2, l. 1 and 2. Dokl. rest. St. Petersburg spirit. consistor., for 1816, No. 1300. Dokl. rest. St. Petersburg spirit. Cons., for 1816, No. 1572. We find it not superfluous to cite here the certification of Metropolitan. Ambrose about archimandrite. Filarete. In 1816, ext. St. Petersburg board spirits academician, upon presentation, dated September 28, 1816, for No. 110, submitted to the commission of theological schools, on the basis of Art. 109, 198 and 199 academic. oral., formal statements about the members of the board, professors and bachelors of the academy, for 1816. In the said statement, the rector and professor of theological sciences, Archimandrite Philaret, was certified by Metropolitan Ambrose as follows: “With Christian virtues, excellent talents and diligence in the future, good and undoubted hope for spiritual service.” Case com. spirit. taught., 1816., No. 1189. Report. registry. St. Petersburg spirit. Consist. for 1816, No. 1972.