1821 г.

May 31st. Opinion of Archbishop of Yaroslavl 77 Filaret on the rules of the censorship statute relating to the publication of Jewish books In the journal of the main board of schools, February 17, 1821, in article IV, it is written “compiled by the main board of schools regarding the ideas of some years. trustees about the inconvenience of existing regulations on censorship and the very way of establishing them at universities, and in cases encountered during the publication of books, the committee to consider the charter on censorship presented for the discretion of the minister a draft charter for censorship, together with a draft secret instruction to the censorship committee and its staff.” After reading the draft, in accordance with the comments made by the minister and members, it is necessary to “make some additions and changes to it and, among other things, §§ 31, 32, 33 and 34; let the member, the Eminence Philaret, set out the rules on the subject of consideration of Jewish books, for which purpose the whole matter about these books should be conveyed to him.” In addition to the case of Jewish books, Archbishop Philaret was sent a number of articles, or §§ of a draft charter for censorship on Spray books, with the following content “§ 31 All Jewish kangas, without permission indicated on them by the censorship committee, printed in Russia (or brought from abroad) 78 are prohibited. § 32. And since the goal of the government in prohibiting harmful Jewish books is so that this people can read the Holy Bible without false and malicious interpretations of it and have the books they need for worship without damaging them; Therefore, they are allowed to be exported and printed in Russia. 1. The Bible without interpretations (called Rashe by Jews). 2. Books of (their) prayers without additions about extraneous objects 79. 3 Book of Psalms of David, also without interpretation. [§ 33. Other things, such as: Talmud, Misnaesh, Shulhon, Oruch, Zohar, as well as all false interpretations of the book Talmud Bavleh, tending to close the true meaning of the prophetic books and to spread hatred towards Christians and their governments, are subject to prohibition]. [§ 34. All Jewish kings who enter into disputes and bickering between their sects: Mishogdim and Hasidim are subject to prohibition. Having crossed out §§ 33 and 34, Archbishop Filaret wrote the following in his own hand: In examining other Jewish books, censorship, in addition to the general rules, is guided in particular by the following: Books that contain blasphemy against Holy Christianity and its Divine Founder are not only not allowed to be published, but a copy of such a book submitted to the censorship committee is kept in its archives. Books in which false teachers instill in Jews hatred or contempt for people of different religions, and teach rules contrary to morality and social good, such as, for example, not allowing one to testify in favor of a Christian, or allowing one to deceive a Christian, are also subject to prohibition. Disputed books between Jewish sects are allowed to be published if there is nothing in them that contradicts the two previous rules. To the above §§ 31, 32, 33 and 34, Filaret attached a special opinion, written by him in his own hand, with the following content. Although the rules on the censorship of Jewish books were supposed to define in detail and even name the books subject to prohibition, but, upon closer examination of this subject, this assumption turned out to be impracticable due to the lack of aids for a complete overview of Jewish rabbinical literature, especially of middle and modern times. For this, however, it is impossible to completely return to the rules set out in the draft charter, which say, among other things, that the Bible without interpretation is called Rashe by the Jews, that Misnaesh (correctly Mishnaiot) is a thing separate from the Talmud; as if the meaning of the prophetic books is obscured by false interpretations of the book of the Talmud Bavleh (that is, Babylonian), while the Talmud itself is a mixture of interpretations, and not the subject of interpretation. It seems inappropriate for the purpose of censorship to prohibit controversial books between the Hasidim and Mishnogdim sects, that is, between Jewish neologians and Old Believers. Let the Jewish neologists prove to the Jewish Old Believers that sacred rites are invalid outside the Holy Land. And rabbinical traditions are human and unsaving. Let the Jewish Old Believers prove to the Jewish neologians that by rejecting rituals, they reject the Divine institution. Through such a dispute, both sides will explain the longed-for truth that at present the Old Testament is not sufficient for salvation. Meanwhile, they will enjoy freedom in their disputes, which Christian love for mankind does not allow to be taken away from anyone unnecessarily, which leaves even the tares if they do not suppress the wheat so that it grows until the harvest. On this basis, the proposed changes in the rules for censorship of Jewish books. The main board of schools, at a meeting on July 18, 1821, determined: “due to the importance of this matter and the diversity of circumstances that make up this institution, to submit this project for preliminary consideration to each of the gentlemen members of the main board of schools, excluding members of the censorship committee, which drafted it, for which purpose and send it to them, in order to each, for reading and making comments 80. June 22. Opinion of Archbishop Philaret of Yaroslavl on the project to establish a weaving factory under the imperial philanthropic society to provide employment to poor young people At a meeting of the council of the imperial philanthropic society on June 22, 1821, the presentation of the educational committee was reported with the appendix of a project “on the delivery of food for both sexes, food and clothing by establishing at this end a workers’ house and with it a factory for paper materials, under the management of the Swiss Hess, who already has such a factory.” The Council, having considered the project at the meeting on April 27, instructed its member P. A. Galakhov; with the chairman of the educational committee, Baron Fitingof, and his member Aderkas, to inspect the house in which the institution described in the project was supposed to be located, and provide detailed information. On May 15, Baron Fitingof presented a note to the chief trustee, in which he outlined in detail all the circumstances on the basis of which it was planned to provide charity for 80 young males, from 10 to 20 years old, from among those loitering on the streets. Occupying them with weaving craft. Attached to the note was a calculation according to which 105,635 rubles were required to buy a house, cars and equipment in general. 50 kopecks, and annually for salary, office and maintenance of pupils 100,418 rubles. 33 k. Annual maintenance expenses, as well as the capital used to purchase a house and cars, according to the drafter’s project, could subsequently be covered by the amount that would be received from the sold products. Archbishop Filaret, after considering Hess’s project and Baron Fitingof’s note, gave the following opinion: The assumption of handicraft, in my opinion, is not feasible. Much is required, but little is promised. It requires more than 100,000 at a time and, in addition, more than 100,000 annually. Such a cost would suddenly absorb all the methods of advice of the imperial philanthropic society and, I think, would not even be enough for this. And through this a small part of the poor, of one condition and only one gender, would receive charity; and, moreover, one that needs benefits less than others, because a young man capable of working can be easily assigned to any skill, and this requires the activity of a trustee committee, and not huge capital, staff and charter. Having immersed all its methods in such an institution, a philanthropic society would destroy all its activities for the remaining many and numerous categories of the poor, who are incomparably more in need of philanthropic benefits. The Council, expressing its gratitude to Baron Fitingof’s efforts to develop Hess’s project, decided to “refrain from further execution on this subject” 81. July 26. Letter from Archbishop Philaret of Moscow 82 to the head of the affairs of the commission of theological schools, I. I. Yastrebtsov, regarding the donation made by Count S. Potemkin to allowances for theological schools Regarding the proposal of Prince A. N. Golitsyn to the commission of theological schools, dated July 22, 1821, that the Kursk landowner, retired lieutenant, Count Sergei Potemkin expressed his readiness to donate 20,000 rubles at a time and 1,000 annually for the benefit of the theological schools, Archbishop Filaret, as a member of the said commission, wrote on July 26 of the same to the head of the commission's affairs, Yastrebtsov, the following. I forward to your honor the proposal, which has already been accepted. Therefore, do not hesitate to prepare a journal on the execution of this, and accept orders from me, as much as possible, immediately, and before signing the journal. Due to my circumstances, I need to quickly be free from this burden. If you do not want to transfer the books assigned to the local academy, then let the academy know by means of a stationery note that it must accept them from me immediately. Receive Count Potemkin's donation proposal. Here is the resolution, with which I also agree: to provide an equal amount, both lump sum and annually, in favor of the schools of the dioceses of Moscow and Kursk, in which house churches will be established. A lump sum of ten thousand rubles should be used for circulation from interest in the government place, so that the five-hundred-ruble income will be used annually in the Moscow and Kursk seminaries for the maintenance of several poor, trustworthy and well-behaved students. From the annual sum from Count Potemkin, the same seminaries, receiving five hundred rubles, will use each year to support several students in the lower schools subordinate to these seminaries. The reports show about this between extraordinary amounts called “the charitable sum of Count Potemkin.” The seminary authorities, out of gratitude to the benefactor, from time to time, will provide him with information about the students benefiting from his charity. On August 25, the commission decided: the amounts donated by Count Potemkin should be provided, in equal parts, in favor of the schools of the Moscow and Kursk diocese, in which house churches are to be built, so that the lump sum donated is 20,000 rubles. was deposited in the government office for circulation, and the interest on it would be used annually to support several poor, trustworthy and well-behaved students in the Moscow and Kursk seminaries. And annually the donated amount (1000 rubles) should be used for the maintenance of the same students in lower schools subordinate to one and another seminary, at which end this amount will be sent to the mentioned seminaries, 500 rubles each. in each. The commission should inform Count Potemkin about this assumption, expressing gratitude to him for the donation made in favor of theological schools, and also arrange for the acceptance of the amount donated from him to be given to the Minister of Spiritual Affairs and Public Education 83. November 3. Report from Archbishop Philaret of Moscow to the Holy Synod, with an opinion on whether it is possible to allow an old printed psalter with a prayer to be printed for fellow believers, and if so, in what form To the Holy Governing Synod from a member of the Onago Filaret, Archbishop of Moscow and Kolomna and Knight, a report. By decree of His IMPERIAL MAJESTY from the Holy Governing Synod, dated July 27 of the past month, this year 1821, No. 3108, in the third paragraph, I was ordered to examine and compare the old printed psalter with prayers and the old printed teaching psalter, the originals of which were not in the library, to examine and compare with those of the new edition, and to submit To the Holy Synod, with an opinion. As a result, I instructed the supervisors of the Edinoverie printing house to carry out the above-mentioned comparison, so that they would describe significant differences, omitting, however, those that consist only in spelling features or in endings that do not change or double the meaning of words. Having fulfilled this instruction, they presented to me that, at their discretion, significant differences include the following: In the preface of the educational psalter: 1) A double-fingered hand fold is allowed for the image of a cross on the face, from 5 to 18 sheets. 2) On folio 57 it is printed that Ezra collected three thousand psalms, and is represented as the king who lived before Hezekiah, who selected one hundred and fifty psalms from them. 3) North is interpreted as the East, and not the midnight country; Jesus is holy, not Savior; Hallelujah - sing, and do not praise the Lord. Having calculated these differences, the overseers conclude that although some of the designated passages differ in the composition of concepts from the translation of the Holy Synod, but as it does not make a significant change in meaning and can easily be understood and agreed with the said translation, and as the parishioners of the Edinoverie Church do not agree with the change in these: then they, the overseers, in their opinion, consider leaving them in print as before; and from the preface regarding the 3rd paragraph, the proper explanations of the words: Suver and so on, by their consent, should be printed at the end or in the margins of it. About this, to this Most Holy Governing Synod, with the attachment of the old printed psalter, I most respectfully convey my opinion: to allow this edition to be reprinted without any change and even without printing the explanations put by the overseers on some words: firstly, because in all the differences found in this edition from the new editions there is nothing that would contradict the essential truths of the Word of God; secondly, because the slightest change or addition in the publication may turn into a stumbling block for weak and illegible admirers of ancient writing, and through this the entire publication may lose their trust; thirdly, because such errors as were noticed by the overseers in this edition should be left as they are, so that, when encountering them, a non-hardened schismatic could notice for himself what a fair reason there was to correct the old editions. To resolve this, I most respectfully request a decree. Your Holiness's humblest novice. Filaret, Archbishop of Moscow No. 122. November 3 days, 1821 The Holy Synod, as determined on February 20/March 14, 1822, allowed the printing of 1,500 copies of the psalter, but refused to print the educational psalter 84 . 26 Sep. 1820 Archbishop. Filaret was moved to the Yaroslavl bishop's see. Words placed in direct brackets are crossed out by Archbishop. Filaret. The words printed in italics of the corpus were written by the hand of the archbishop. Philareta. Minister's case. people. education, 1821, No. 12723, map. No. 235. Journal. chapters right taught., 1821, No. 6, art. IV and No. 15, Art. XV. Journal imp. people total, for 1821, 1st half, June 22. On July 3, 1821, the Right Reverend Philaret was appointed Archbishop of Moscow and Kolomna, Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, sacred archimandrite. Business of the Communist Spirit taught., 1821, No. 967, pp. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8. File of the archive of the Holy Synod, 1821, No. 64, pp. 37 and 38.