1850 г.

January 3. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the director of the court singing chapel, Major General, A.F. Lvov 310, about Moscow church choirs The director of the court singing choir, Major General A. O. Lvov, in a letter dated January 2, 1850, No. 3, requested permission from Metropolitan Philaret to listen to Moscow church singing choirs, in order to give them some useful advice, without, however, distracting from the decent singing of those tunes to which the parishioners are accustomed, and if he agrees to this, to let the right people know, and notify him of the following. Metropolitan Philaret responded to this letter, dated January 3, No. 1: Your Excellency, dear sir. With regard to the 2nd day of this January, No. 3, Your Excellency was pleased to ask me a question: would it not be useful for you to listen to the choirs of singers who sing during Divine services in Moscow, in order to give them some useful advice, without, however, deviating in the least from the decent singing of those tunes to which the parishioners are accustomed? There is no doubt that it will be useful if you deign to take on this work. The more or less correctly formed choirs in Moscow are: 2) bishop, diocesan, The synodal sacristan 311, who has charge of the synodal choir, has to introduce to your excellency the regent of this choir and ask you to appoint a time when you would like to listen to the synodal choir. The inspector of the seminary 312 will introduce you to the acting regent of the seminary choir, and ask for the appointment of a time when you would like to listen to the seminary choir in the seminary house. As for the bishop's choir, I propose to Your Excellency to listen to it in my house, for which a time will be appointed after this by my agreement with you. The owners of the free choirs are unknown to me, and therefore Your Excellency rightly thinks to call them through the Moscow Chief of Police. Your Excellency will provide very desirable assistance to church order if you show these, often unorganized choirs, the proper direction within legal limits. With true respect and devotion, I have the honor to be No. 1. January 3, 1850 313. January 16. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the director of the court singing chapel, A.F. Lvov 314, about the measures he proposed to keep the owners of free choirs from using unapproved notes when singing Director of the court singing chapel, Major General, A.F. Lvov in relation, dated January 7, 1850, for No. 13, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret: “Our Eminence! Concerned about the measures that could be taken to refrain free choirs from singing, during Divine services, notes that have not received either the approval of the director of the court singing chapel or the permission of the Holy Synod, I compiled a catalog of notes that can be allowed to be sung in the first case. In my opinion, this catalog for choirs, so imperfect, is too extensive, but I thought it necessary to compile it in this form, so as not to suddenly stop musical singing, which is now used in a much more extensive amount, and thereby not incur indignation. Every year it will be possible to change it, in proportion to the position in which the said choirs will be, and this, at least, will protect the opportunity to sing prohibited notes during Divine services. If Your Eminence deigns to approve this catalogue, then I dare to ask if, upon giving it to each of the owners of the said choirs, you will, with my signature, declare in your name that whichever of them allows himself to sing notes not shown in this catalogue, he will not only lose the right to maintain the choir, but will be responsible for violating the order established by the government. To this attitude, Metropolitan Philaret, in a letter dated January 16, 1850, No. 2, responded: In secret, dated January 7, 1850, No. 13, Your Excellency explained that you are concerned about taking measures so that free choirs do not use notes that have not received the approval of either the director of the court singing chapel or the Holy Synod, and for this purpose they have compiled a catalog of notes that, in the first case, may be allowed to be used, perhaps somewhat lengthy, so that the cessation of the current singing does not incur indignation, You demand from me: 1) approval of this catalogue, and 2) my consent that when it is given to the owners of the choirs, declare in my name that if any of them allows himself to sing notes in this catalogue, not shown, he will not only lose the right to maintain the choir, but will be responsible for violating the order established by the government. Having examined the said catalog, consisting of seven books of music, and 55 different individual music works, I am convinced to agree with your Excellency that it is quite extensive for choirs that are not well-maintained, and especially since in the note it is allowed to sing all printed notes at weddings. Precaution against indignation, in my opinion, should not hinder much when it comes to fulfilling the highest will and instructions of the Holy Synod, and about protecting church order. Moreover, precaution here has two sides: precaution against the displeasure that the selfish owners of weakly organized choirs may have if their self-will is limited, and precaution against the displeasure that well-intentioned and piously disposed people may have if weakly organized choristers, taking up the work of harmony beyond their strength, cause disgrace in the church. This last precaution is, of course, more important than the first. And if your Excellency would like to show me the trust to discuss precautions with me, then I am convinced to suggest to your discretion whether it would be better not to include prices in the catalog of notes compiled for choir owners. This, in my opinion, is an unnecessary precaution so that those limited in self-will do not take from this the reason for rumors that other types are often joined in the matter, and, as it were, an insistence on acquiring published notes. The prices are known from the statements. In addition to what has been said so far, there are other reasons why I cannot take part in the approval of the compiled catalog of notes. Many of them are unknown to me, and one cannot make judgments about the unknown. So, for example, the works of the Don Archimandrite 315 included in the catalog are not known to me. And since they were not approved by the Holy Synod, therefore I cannot take part in their approval, since I am not authorized to do this by the Holy Synod either. Delving into my duties and the circumstances of the present case, I do not find myself in the right to satisfy your Excellency’s proposal to make an announcement in my name for the owners of free singing choirs. As, in general, in matters of service, so in the present, I am obliged to act in the name of the decrees of His Imperial Majesty and the Holy Synod: in this there is justice and strength. On this basis, recently, as Your Excellency deigned to discern from my attitude, dated December 29th, No. 570 316, according to the department entrusted to me, I made a confirmation against allowing unapproved singing in churches. And if this is so according to the department entrusted to me, then even less can I allow myself to make any demand or instruction in my name to people who do not belong to the department entrusted to me, which are the essence of the owners of free singing choirs 317. January 27. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the director of the court singing chapel, A.F. Lvov, with gratitude for the measures he took to allow free choirs to sing according to approved notes in churches In response to your Excellency’s attitude, dated January 26, No. 21, in which you deigned to forward to me a list of the owners of free choirs in Moscow, the subscription taken from these owners regarding singing in churches, during Divine services, according to the approved notes, and a copy of the certificates issued to the regents, I have the honor to answer that it is my duty to take care of the correct and splendid performance of church services, with I accept with gratitude the measures taken by Your Excellency to have free choirs sing in churches according to the notes approved correctly and with the direction of increasing improvement. With complete respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, Your Excellency, most humble servant Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow No. 52. January 27, 1850 318 February 3. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the director of the court singing chapel, Major General A.F. Lvov, regarding his transposition of church notated singing into four-voice Reverent for the highest attention that the most pious Sovereign Emperor honored the work of your Excellency in translating church music into four-voice singing, and realizing the importance and benefit of this undertaking, in continuing relations with you on this subject, I tried in every possible way to bring my view on this matter closer to yours, since this is not contrary to my convictions, which are obvious to me. Thus, reviewing this subject from different points of view, I come to a conclusion that I have the honor to inform your Excellency. In the harmony of the newly converted four-voice church singing, the church melody is clearly audible in some parts and is easily recognized by ears accustomed to church singing, but in some parts it is not so clearly heard, and is, as it were, overshadowed by the harmony and is not easily recognized. But if a certain shortcoming noted from this side is countered by the important benefit that by introducing this singing the arbitrariness of unskillful and not in the spirit of the Church proposals and compositions, which in different places from time to time invade the Church, can be destroyed, then the introduction into use of your work, in my opinion (which, however, in any case, I must subordinate to the highest judgment of the Holy Synod), is worthy of all promotion. I can’t resist adding the next one. I believe that your work will continue. In this case, it is advisable that you do not ignore the question: could harmony, without violating its inherent laws, be composed with greater simplicity, so that the church melody would be more open and intelligible to numerous listeners accustomed to simple church music? Your Excellency's most humble servant, Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow No. 66. February 3, 1850 319 February 8. Metropolitan Philaret's report to the Holy Synod on the notes committee's comments on the newly arranged work by the director of the court singing chapel A.F. Lviv church singing Having delved, as far as possible, into the comments of the former committee, I found that some of them were unsatisfactorily expressed and some of the differences in the new arrangement from the church ones were not very significant, such as, for example, the division of one note into two, the inconsistency of word stress, when on a short syllable the note is raised and on a long syllable it is lowered; but I did not find that they were not well-intentioned, and did not arise from the desire to exactly fulfill the instructions, indicating smaller discrepancies. Since, by the way, attention was drawn to the small crosses placed in pencil on the music book: then, having examined this too, I found that they were placed by members of the former committee, while listening to singing, to indicate notes that were not similar to the church book. Such notes are partly reported in the comments of the committee, and partly are silent in these comments. This, in my opinion, just as it does not constitute an insult to the book under consideration, does not lead to the conclusion that the committee’s actions were not well-intentioned. The desired unity in thoughts was difficult to achieve, because its proponents looked at the subject from two points of view, which were difficult to reduce into one: I, from the side of the chanting of the church music book, known and familiar to church readers and listeners, he from the side of the rules of harmony. When I suggested that in this or that irmos or dogmatics there is a dissimilarity between the four-voice chanting and the melody of a church book, or otherwise, that in four-voice singing the church chanting is not clearly audible, is overshadowed by harmony, appears unfamiliar to the church listener, and therefore does not produce the impression to which the church listener is accustomed, and which it is desirable to preserve: then it was opposed to me that the harmony was composed according to the rules, and there could not be another. Thus the reasoning moves into a region into which I could not follow. In my opinion, as the purpose of church singing is to arouse and preserve the pious feeling of the Orthodox people during church services, and for this purpose to support the edifying impressions that are already familiar: that four-voice arrangement then fully achieves its purpose when in it the familiar melody of the ancient church music book is conveniently recognized and felt not only by those versed in the rules of harmony, but by every cleric, monk and layman whose ear is able to distinguish one melody from another and consonant singing from disharmony. By reference, dated January 23, No. 19, Major General Lvov insistently demanded from me a notification based on the note communicated to me regarding the comments and crosses placed in the music book, without any explanation by the former committee; Moreover, he prescribed that it was “impossible for him not to provide an explanation for the comments made by the committee in a book already in the possession of His Imperial Majesty”, that he, Mr. Delegator, “is responsible for every note”; that “the book of brief irmology was written according to the highest will of His Imperial Majesty by a person who has the good fortune to enjoy some of the trust of the Sovereign Emperor”; that “it is impossible to please everyone”; and that he, the translator, “is obliged to prove that he is exactly fulfilling the highest order entrusted to him, that is, preserving the church melody.” This relation is attached hereto in the complete list. They could not, for the reasons stated above, enter into the study of every note and every cross, and left the members of the former committee to personally explain to His Excellency. On my part, trying in every possible way to achieve a peaceful and harmonious judgment and conclusion on a subject to which the highest attention is paid, on a subject to which, as an ecclesiastical matter, a peaceful judgment is characteristic, the notification required from me regarding the comments of the former committee, I informed Major General Lvov, in relation to mine, dated January 27, No. 51, in the following terms: that “the consideration of this subject in relation to the rules of art, both above the judgment of the former committee, is not subject to my judgment”; that “the essence of the committee’s opinion, with which I partly agreed, was only that the newly converted chant in some places presents an unsatisfactorily exact resemblance to the ancient church chant, for ears accustomed to the latter”; that “the use of newly ordained singing in my church can serve as proof of my respect for it and the desire to make sure that it is fit for purpose”; that “with the increasing experience of listening to it, I cannot completely abandon the opinion I presented to the Holy Synod, that it would be desirable to see the newly converted church singing in harmony, in some parts closer to the ancient church monophonic melody, and simpler for less skilled performers”; that, however, “as before I thought to accept it for more educated choirs: so now, especially in reverence for the highest attention that the most pious Sovereign Emperor honored the work of the translator, I am ready to prescribe the general use of it, at the discretion of the Holy Synod. Continuing to seek a convenient and correct solution to the question of the use of music books that have already been published and widely distributed, and for this purpose, considering the subject from different angles, I was finally convinced, on February 3, No. 66, to report to Major General Lvov my final review in the following terms: "In harmony... promotion" 320 . At the same time, believing that the work of translating church musical singing will continue, I recognized in this case that it was desirable “that the translator should not ignore the question: can harmony, without violating its inherent laws, be composed so that the church melody is more open and intelligible to numerous listeners accustomed to simple church music.” Which I most respectfully report to the Holy Synod No. 78. February 8, 1850 321. February 23. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Moscow military governor-general, Count A.A. Zakrevsky 322, with a conclusion on the draft drawings drawn up by the architect Ton 323 to convert the Moscow Assumption and Archangel Cathedrals into warm ones Moscow Military Governor-General, Count A.A. Zakrevsky, in reference dated February 20, 1850, for No. 1, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret for consideration, drawn up by the chief architect of the commission for the construction of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, by the highest order, the design drawings for converting the Moscow Assumption and Archangel Cathedrals into warm ones, and, adding that he ordered the senior assistant to the architect Kaminsky 324 to appear before to the archpastor for explanations, if there was a need for them, he asked that the aforementioned drawings be returned to him, the governor general, with a conclusion for further orders on his part. In this regard, Metropolitan Philaret wrote: Received 21. Answer regarding the Assumption Cathedral by stating the need for clarification, and regarding the Arkhangelsk Cathedral in the affirmative. In response, dated the 20th day of this February, No. 1, your Excellency deigned to forward to me the design drawings drawn up by Actual State Councilor Ton for the heating installation of the Assumption and Archangel Cathedrals and demand my conclusion. These drawings show the supposed artistic device in heating; but they do not explain its relationship to the existing internal structure of churches, which is especially important in relation to the Assumption Cathedral, and to which, according to my duty, I must pay special attention, to the prevention of difficulties that may arise, and to the elimination of unfavorable impressions on the minds of the Orthodox people, who with special reverence honor this primal and ancient shrine, predominantly filled with a church. For this, an explanatory note would be needed for the drawings, in which the following would be explained: 1) as the drawing shows the excavation of the soil inside the cathedral and the construction of stone walls, vaults and ovens under the floor, will it not be necessary, during this work, to protect the main iconostasis by closing it, and how is this supposed to be done? 2) Will it be possible to carry out services while the work continues, if not in the main altar, then in one of the chapels of the cathedral, and if it is necessary to stop the service, then for approximately how long? 3) Can the relics of Saints Peter, Jonah and Philip remain inviolable in their places, with their preservation through tents made of thick fabric, and with the admission of those wishing to them for veneration? In 1812 and 1813, during the renewal of the internal structure of the Assumption Cathedral, the relics of St. Jonah remained motionless in their place; the relics of Saints Peter and Philip, whose shrines were damaged, were transferred to new or renewed shrines, but were not taken to other churches; but only the relics of St. Peter were surrounded around the cathedral during its consecration. 4) The floor of the cathedral, after a heating device is made under it, will it remain on the same horizontal line, or will it rise somewhat, and in the case of some elevation, will the tombs of metropolitans and patriarchs located near the walls remain inviolable? 5) Like four pillars supporting the vaults of the cathedral and now surrounded by iconostases, in the figure they are shown naked from the iconostases; and directly next to the pillars there are shown, as it seems, vents that conduct heat into the cathedral, then, in the event of the removal of icons from the pillars, some of which are especially revered, could these icons be placed on the southern wall of the cathedral, and at least the most important of them could not be left at the two eastern pillars of the cathedral, so that the current ones near the pillars are wide, not ancient, constricting and blocking the internal view The cathedral's iconostases were replaced with thin frames that did not restrict or interfere with the arrangement of the showers. On all the subjects indicated here, the proper information, in my opinion, must be taken into account in order to reach a reliable conclusion about the convenience of executing the drafted project in church terms. As for the drawing representing the design of the heating system of the Archangel Cathedral, since in it the arrangement of the main furnaces is assigned to the tents at the cathedral, and nothing is visible in this drawing that would require significant changes in the internal structure of this church: then, without touching on the judgment about the project from an artistic point of view, which does not belong to me, I conveniently come to the conclusion that there are no obstacles to the implementation of this project from an ecclesiastical point of view. No. 111. February 23, 1850 325 In February. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the director of the court singing chapel, A.F. Lvov 326, with a review of his newly introduced church singing Your Excellency’s judgments about the comments of the committee that was in Moscow on the newly redesigned four-voice church singing, set out in the note communicated to me, considering with due respect, first of all I must admit that consideration of this subject in relation to the rules of art, both above the judgment of the former committee, is not subject to my judgment. The essence of the committee’s opinion, with which I partly agreed, was only that the newly-transmitted chant in some places does not have a very precise and clear resemblance to the ancient church chant, for ears accustomed to the latter. The use of the newly converted church chant in my church can serve Your Excellency as proof of my respect for it, and the desire to fully make sure that it corresponds to its purpose. With the increasing experience of listening to it, I cannot completely abandon the idea that I presented to the Holy Synod, that it would be desirable to see the newly converted church singing in harmony, in some parts closer to the usual ancient church monophonic melody and simpler for unskilled performers. However, as I previously thought to accept it for use for more educated choirs, so now, especially in reverence for the highest attention that the most pious Sovereign Emperor has honored your works, I am ready to prescribe the general use of it, at the discretion of the Holy Synod. With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency 327. In February. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret about the orders he made to fulfill the highest order to assist the director of the court singing chapel A.F. Lvov, for transcribing church chants into sheet music By decree of the Holy Synod, dated December 8, 1849, No. 13375, Metropolitan Philaret was ordered to immediately inform the Holy Synod of all the orders that he would make for the exact fulfillment of the highest command communicated by the Minister of the Imperial Court in 328 to the synodal chief prosecutor, and the latter proposed Synod, on the subject of translating the tunes of the Donskoy and Simonov Monasteries and the Assumption Cathedral into sheet music and on sending the director of the court singing chapel A.F. to Moscow for this purpose. Lvov 329, with two singers chosen by him. On this decree, Metropolitan Philaret wrote: December 21. 1) To inform the Holy Synod now that, in fulfillment of the highest command regarding the position on the notes of the chants of the Simonov and Donskoy monasteries and the Assumption Cathedral, according to the belonging of these monasteries and this cathedral to the department of the synodal office, 330 was proposed to her from me, and the appropriate instructions were made to the designated places, and that the matter stopped there due to non-arrival director of the court chapel in Moscow. When the matter begins, report it to the Holy Synod for further reporting. Then Metropolitan Philaret reported to the Holy Synod. The decree of the Holy Synod, dated December 8, 1849, No. 13375, depicts that, by the highest order of the city, the director of the court singing chapel of the city, Major General Lvov, was sent to Moscow with the singers he had chosen in order to begin transcribing the tunes of the Simonov and Donskoy monasteries and the Assumption Cathedral into notes, and that he has to explain to me about music books, both those already published and those that will be published in the future, and determine, together with me and with the superiors, what the work of the persons chosen by him should consist of; and I am ordered to convey all my orders regarding this without delay. On December 30, 1849, No. 573, I reported to the Holy Synod about the first communication with me from Major General Lvov regarding the disapproved singing in the university church on December 25, which was attributed to the bishop’s choir 331. By letter dated January 2, No. 2, he notified me that this happened based on information unfairly brought to his attention, allegedly on December 25 in the university church the singing was performed by the bishop's choir. On January 2, No. 3, Major General Lvov asked me if I would consider it useful for him to listen to all the choirs singing in churches in Moscow and give them advice. On January 3rd I responded that I recognize this as useful 332. As a result, I have instructed the synodal sacristan to introduce the director of the court singing chapel to the regent of the synodal choir, and the inspector of the seminary teaching the seminary choir to obtain an appointment for the hearing time. The bishop's choir was heard on January 13, with me in my house, for two hours and a half; and this was accompanied by a favorable review from the tester. By letter dated January 2, No. 4, Major General Lvov notified me that he had entered into relations with the administrator of the Resurrection Monastery, His Eminence Bishop Agapit, and with Archimandrites Simonovsky and Donskoy about delivering ancient chants to him with some explanations, and to the Assumption Protopresbyter about listening to the chants of the cathedrals. I was not invited to listen to these melodies, nor to participate in the performance of what was prescribed in the decree of the Holy Synod in order to determine what the work of the persons chosen to set the melodies to notes should consist of. In response to Mr. General Lvov, dated January 7, No. 13, I was informed of a catalog of sheet music, which showed 7 music books and 55 individual sheet music works, and I was invited to participate in the approval of it. To this, dated January 16, No. 2, I answered that I cannot take part in the approval of this catalog, because many of the works included in it are unknown to me, such as, for example, the works of the Don Archimandrite, which do not have approval from the Holy Synod, and for the approval of which I am not authorized by the Holy Synod. Relation dated January 26, No. 21, informed me that six free singing choirs were found in a very decent situation, both regarding the quality of their voices and their harmony, but in complete ignorance of what and how they should sing; that the regents of these choirs were given certificates and a catalog of notes according to which they must sing, for which subscriptions were taken from them. At the same time, the hope is expressed that the singing during the Divine service will achieve the desired order. Explanations about the published books of newly-declared four-voice church singing presented no small difficulties for me. Having presented my opinion about this to the Holy Synod, according to the accepted procedure, I was obliged to await the decision of the Holy Synod; but instead, he was forced to withstand some kind of competition in this regard, both without information about the judgments of the Holy Synod, and without receiving a definitive direction from the Holy Synod. I was informed of “the objections of the proponent of harmony to the comments of the committee that was in Moscow and to my conclusion, as it was undesirable for me to enter into the competition, and it was inconvenient to consider in detail the so-called objections, filled with reasoning on the rules of harmony, which I did not methodically study, the very notes about which the explanations would be too lengthy if we went into the study of every quarter or eighth of the measure that was called into question 333. March 4th. A note by Metropolitan Philaret about the schismatics of the Rogozhsky cemetery: the Kochuev brothers and Stefan Trifonov Zhirov On March 4, 1850, the Moscow military governor-general, Count A.A. Zakrevsky, with a “very secret” note, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret, for reading, an extract from the information he had about the subject of yesterday’s conversation, and considered it his duty to add that the necessary measures had already been taken to find the schismatic, vagabond, Stepan Trifonov, for more than a month. On a note from Count A. A. Zakrevsky, Metropolitan Filaret wrote: The note says: Kochuev was an agent of the schismatics of the Rogozhsky cemetery and the main intercessor. Expelled from St. Petersburg, with a ban on entering the capital. He quarreled and tried to expose their wrong actions. They say he presented the Ministry of Internal Affairs with a certificate from a Voskresensk tradesman about joining the church. In Maloyaroslavets, they say, he signed up as a merchant because he was looking for gold there. Vasily Trifonov Zhirov was friends with Kochuev; his brother, Stefan, denounced him; Vasily hid in Poletaeva’s house, correcting the position of the charterer. The affairs of the Rogozh schismatics are handled by Vasily Demidov, who lives at the cemetery 334. March 16. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, about ancient church tunes used in Moscow By Decree of the Holy Synod, dated September 30, 1846, No. 12585, it was prescribed in the second paragraph: the ancient tunes introduced (from ancient times in some churches, monasteries and dioceses should be left unchanged everywhere) 335; in the third point: to all of them (compile a list, indicating where each is used, and store this list in the Holy Synod, forwarding a copy from it to Major General Lvov, who is now the director of the court singing chapel). Therefore, at the same time, on this and other points of the decree, I ordered the district subordinates. But neither the consistory, nor the archpriest and dean, who received the decree of the cathedral from it, prescribed the above points to the regent of the bishop's choir; that is why the third point remained unfulfilled. This failure was noticed by me at the beginning of this year when I was the director of the court singing chapel in Moscow; and the following list of tunes, long used in Moscow, was delivered to him directly. I hereby present the same list, which by decree must be kept in the Holy Synod. Having entered the Moscow diocese 49 years before this, 336 I then found almost all of these melodies in use, among other things, in the presence of Metropolitan Plato, of blessed memory. Only the melody of the psalm: “Bless my soul the Lord” is not so old on sheet music, but this one has been used in Moscow for more than 20 years; and it is not newly composed, but ancient, according to legend, used, placed on sweats for the choir. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 2 of the decree of the Holy Synod, these tunes remain in use and should be left unchanged, especially since they all have an ancient church touching character. March 20. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with the attachment of two letters received by city mail, stating that the Moscow schismatics have two false bishops who received consecration in Austria: Afoniy and Sophrony Moscow Military Governor-General, Count A.A. Zakrevsky, in a secret letter dated March 9, 1850, No. 315, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret: “Your Eminence deigned to convey to me a letter you received, by city mail, from an unknown person, in which you are informed: 1) that the Maloyaroslavl merchant Kochuev, having been ordained bishop by the metropolitan of the Austrian schismatics, bought, under the pretext of mining gold, a small land in the Kaluga province to establish a monastery on it; 2) that the tradesman Stepan Trifonov, also ordained a bishop in Austria, now lives in the Rogozhsky cemetery with the nun Alexandra and 3) that Kochuev appointed Vasily Trifonov, the director of the schismatic prayer house at the Poletaeva house, as a deacon. As a result, on my orders, secret, sudden, dawn searches were carried out both in the apartments of the merchant Kochuev and the tradesman Vasily Trifonov, and in the Rogozhsky cemetery in the building called the cell of Mother Alexandra. In the papers of the first two, not only was there nothing that would confirm the justice of the denunciation, but on the contrary, Kochuev in this subscription explained that he belongs to the Orthodox Church, which is known from correspondence and the Minister of Internal Affairs 338; At the Rogozhsky cemetery, in the building called the cell of Mother Alexandra, not a single male person was found. Notifying your Eminence of this, in addition to the secret note 339 I communicated to you on March 4th, which I humbly ask you, gracious archpastor, to return to me, I have the honor to forward to you the above-mentioned nameless letter you received by city mail.” At the top of this letter, the Metropolitan wrote: March 20. The original two letters are sent to the Synodal Chief Prosecutor to draw attention to whether the land was truly purchased for gold mines in the Kaluga province. Most Excellent Count, Dear Sir! Today, March 2, I received, by city mail, a letter stating that in Moscow the schismatics have a bishop, Afonius, installed in Austria, the Maloyaroslavets merchant Kochuev; that he serves in Moscow, in the house of the Yakimansky unit, under number 595; that supplies priests and deacons; that there is another bishop like him, the former cab driver Sophrony; that Russia is divided among the schismatics into two dioceses, eastern and western. Having no way to determine the merits of this nameless letter, but having heard before that the Moscow schismatics sent some from among themselves to Austria to be ordained priests, I considered it not superfluous to directly convey it to Mr. Moscow’s military governor-general. On March 9, His Excellency notified me that nothing confirming the denunciation had been discovered, and that Kochuev, formerly a schismatic, belongs to the Orthodox Church. Meanwhile, I received another letter confirming the previous one. One circumstance, lying outside the boundaries of the Moscow province, seems to require inquiry - whether Kochuev really bought land in the Kaluga province specifically for gold mines, and whether it is reliable that this is the true purpose of purchasing the land. Believing that your Excellency, having more abundant sources of information about the schism, you can more conveniently believe whether the information I received is worthy of attention; I forward the two above-mentioned letters in the original, one with the surviving city mail envelope. March 20th day, 1850 340. April 5. Orders of Metropolitan Philaret, on the content of the decree of the Holy Synod, on the collection of information in the case of the arrest by the police of the novice of the Donskoy Monastery Zykov, for a quarrel and fight with the merchant son Matveev The Holy Synod, when considering the case of the novice of the Donskoy Monastery Zykov 341, who was detained by the police at night for a quarrel and fight with the merchant son Matveev, in order to determine his guilt and further judgment about him, recognized it as necessary to have the most detailed information about: 1) whether a proper study was carried out about Zykov’s act, for which he was taken into custody by the police, and what this study turned out to be; 2) why the police took an undertaking from him that he would not seek satisfaction for the offense caused to him, and what this offense consisted of; 3) what kind of papers he had that were recognized by the secular authorities as indecent for someone living in the monastery and whether the order of the same authorities to burn these papers had already been carried out and by whom, and, finally, 4) for what reason did the police authorities decide that it was necessary to carry out the strictest inspection of his cell in the monastery, with the sealing and confiscation of all papers from him, since by this measure it can be assumed that suspicion falls on him because any important crime or plan, for the disclosure or prevention of which it could be necessary, especially since this measure, as can be seen from the report of the prosecutor of the synodal office 342 correcting the post, was carried out suddenly, without any preliminary communication about it with the spiritual authorities. As a result of this, the Holy Synod, by decree of March 28, 1850, No. 48, provided Metropolitan Philaret, after considering all the information available about this matter in the synodal office and in the Donskoy Monastery, and, if necessary, in communication with whom it should be, to make known the above-mentioned circumstances, and, according to appropriate considerations, to present them to the Holy Synod, with your conclusion. On this decree, Metropolitan Philaret wrote in his own hand: April 5. Demand from the synodal office to deal with novice Zykov, and to dismiss him from the monastery; and from the Don Archimandrite information. Then Metropolitan Philaret gave the Moscow synodal office and its member Archimandrite Theophan 343 two proposals: 1) Moscow Holy Synod office, proposal. In pursuance of the decree of the Holy Synod, dated March 28, No. 48, I need to take into account the matter of the incident with the novice of the Donskoy Monastery Zykov, March 3, and the matter of his dismissal from the spiritual department, therefore I propose to deliver them to me. 2) Member of the synodal office, Donskoy Monastery, Fr. Archimandrite Theophan. In pursuance of the decree of the Holy Synod, dated March 28, No. 48, I require from your Reverence the following information regarding the incident on March 3 with novice Zykov: 1) what papers did he have that were recognized by the secular authorities as indecent for someone living in a monastery? 2) Has the order of the same authorities to burn these papers already been carried out, and by whom? 3) Do you know for what reason the police authorities decided it was necessary to carry out a strict inspection of the monastery in his cell, sealing it and taking away all his papers? Promptly deliver this information to me 344. April 8. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod on the circumstances of the arrest by the police of a novice of the Donskoy Monastery, from the nobility, Zykov, for a quarrel and a fight in the street Report to the Most Holy Governing Synod, from Moscow Metropolitan Philaret. By Decree of the Holy Synod, dated March 28, No. 48, I was ordered to inform me of the circumstances of the case of Nikolai Zykov, a former novice of the stauropegial Donskoy Monastery from the nobility, who was taken by the police for a quarrel at night, on the street, on March 3. And by decree of March 30, No. 50, it was ordered not to be embarrassed by this decision of the synodal office about the dismissal of Zykov from the spiritual department. Meanwhile, as I collect the required information, I make it my duty to immediately present to the Holy Synod the information that I already have in mind, for the discretion of the Holy Synod, how I acted in this matter, and why the spiritual authorities in Moscow did not act differently. The sealing and inspection of Zykov’s papers were not carried out entirely suddenly by the secular authorities. On March 4, in the morning, the chief police chief 345 verbally announced to me that Zykov had been captured and detained by the police on the night of that day for a quarrel on the street, and that, due to some circumstances, the Moscow military governor-general 346 found it necessary to examine Zykov’s papers, and demanded this permission. Although the novice Zykov, for 1848, was recommended by the rector to behave very honestly, is zealous for the service of God and zealous in obedience (the recommendation for 1849 was not yet known), and although, according to the report items of the Sovereign Emperor Peter the Great, in cases of abuse and all clergy are subject to spiritual court, however, I did not dare to immediately demand the novice from detention by the police, because the matter did not concern a clergyman or monk, but a novice who is still only on probation in preparation for a clergy; because a monastic novice who allowed himself to be outside the monastery on Friday, during Maslenitsa, at night, thereby deprived himself of the protection of the spiritual authorities, and must suffer the consequences of his action, even if he was not to blame for the quarrel; finally, and because for the required inspection of his papers it was necessary to leave him under police supervision until this was carried out, so that otherwise a suspicion would not arise whether the inspection file had been damaged by some forgery. I also found it necessary not to cause any difficulty in examining Zykov’s papers when this is demanded by an important government official who may have secret reasons for this. Moreover, an inspection of the papers could remove suspicion from Zykov if he was innocent, and if the inspection had not been allowed, then the suspicion that fell on Zykov’s papers would remain on him, even if he was innocent. Therefore, I answered the chief police chief that there was no obstacle to the proposed inspection of Zykov’s papers on the part of the spiritual authorities, so that this would be done in the presence of a deputy from the spiritual side, who would be required from me, or from the abbot of the Donskoy Monastery, as it turns out to be necessary and convenient. For this reason, there was no relation to me regarding the appointment of a deputy; in relation to the chief police chief towards the Don Archimandrite Feofan, he appointed the deputy, Hieromonk Raphael, as a deputy; and what happened under this deputy was made known to the synodal office and to me, after its execution. On March 13, the synodal office received reports from the Don Archimandrite and from the deputy about what was happening in the Zykov case, which turned out to be unclear in some parts and imperfectly agreed in some circumstances. The deputy wrote that “by order of the chief police chief, his office took a subscription from novice Zykov so that he would not leave the monastery without permission, would not go to secular houses, and would not remain outside the monastery at a later time.” The archimandrite wrote down a verbal announcement from Zykov, “that he was offered a subscription from the Chief of Police that he does not and will not seek claims for his offense and does not want to subject those who caused it to him to punishment, which he signed.” Therefore, on March 16, the synodal office decided: to demand from the chief police chief genuine record-keeping about Zykov. On the same day, from the submitted certificate, it was revealed that the novice Zykov, in the statement for 1849, was recommended as follows: “at the beginning he behaved well, then his frequent absences from the monastery arouse suspicion of the sincerity of his disposition towards monasticism, therefore, if he has a disposition towards this, then it would be more beneficial for him to move to a monastery distant from the capital.” Before the required paperwork was received, the synodal office received a report from the Don Archimandrite, dated March 20, with the attachment of novice Zykov’s petition for his dismissal from the monastery, due to illness and at the request of his mother. In this case, having taken into account the above recommendations of the archimandrite, the synodal office was to act according to Article 14 of the spiritual regulations on monks, which says about the novice that “if he repents and does not want to be a monk, then freely release him, without any detention or reproach.” There was no obstacle to this, and even the case that was being carried out about Zykov was conducive to this. In the report of the Donskoy Archimandrite, according to the deputy, it is said that in Zykov’s papers “there was nothing that was subject to further consideration and trial, except for what was recognized as indecent for a person living in a monastery to keep some of those letters with him.” This testimony was confirmed by the fact that neither the Moscow military governor-general nor the chief of police informed the spiritual authorities that Zykov was subject to legal judgment for any action, or for the content of the papers. If anything had been revealed in Zykov’s papers that subjected him to trial, then, of course, they would not (as is done) be given to him to be burned, but would have been subjected to legal consideration. The expression that some of the letters found in Zykov were “indecent to keep with oneself for a person living in a monastery,” conveyed the idea not of a crime, which is equally intolerable outside the monastery as in the monastery, but of some kind of secular relationship that is not purely moral, and therefore indecent for someone living in a monastery. Therefore, the synodal office, in order for a novice, who, according to the recommendation of the abbot, is not reliable for the monastery, but is questionable in his case, but is not recognized as subject to trial, to be removed from the monastery and from the ecclesiastical department, should take advantage of the opportunity that has presented itself, that is, forgiveness for his dismissal from the monastery. Due to these circumstances, the synodal office, on March 23, determined to dismiss novice Zykov from the monastery and from the spiritual department; and at the same time, stop the demand for the police record keeping about him, which would have been necessary to determine the quality of actions and dignity of a person belonging to the spiritual department, and ceased to be necessary upon the departure of this person from the spiritual department. Although, due to the ambiguity of the deputy’s report, it was not well known what happened to novice Zykov in the police; but since, upon returning to the monastery, he did not bring any complaint to the spiritual authorities, then from this side further inquiry about the police record-keeping did not seem necessary. Which I most respectfully report to the Holy Synod. April 12. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Moscow military governor-general, Count A.A. Zakrevsky, with a conclusion on the subject of heating the Assumption and Archangel Cathedrals, in Moscow 348 Moscow Military Governor-General, Count A.A. Zakrevsky, regarding, dated March 28, 1850, No. 4, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret: “Your Eminence, gracious archpastor. Based on the comments made by your Eminence on the design of the heating system for the Assumption and Archangel Cathedrals presented by the architect Ton, I demanded an explanation from Mr. Ton. Now he conveyed to me: 1) the drawing he presented shows one heating device for the Assumption Cathedral, without touching on the internal changes of the church, but, when digging places inside this cathedral, to install stoves and passages in them, to preserve the iconostasis, it must first be covered from base to top with clean fabrics, or mats over the frames; then, having placed temporary racks, nail them tightly with boards; 2) if it were possible to completely stop the Divine service in the cathedral; this would contribute a lot to the success of the work; if worship is necessary, then it can be allowed in one of the chapels of the cathedral. The actual installation of the furnaces will take at least six summer months; 3) the relics of Saints Peter, Jonah and Philip will remain inviolable in their places; but should also be covered with tents made of thick fabrics; to worship them during the entire period of work, if necessary, permission can be made through specially constructed temporary scaffolding and passages, 4) the floor of the cathedral, although it will rise by 4 inches, but the tombs of the metropolitans and patriarchs will remain in their places inviolable, and 5) during the work, all icons in the iconostasis around the four pillars of the church must be removed and removed; upon completion of the work, the placement of these icons, where and how appropriate, is completely left to the will of your Eminence, with the alteration, however, of the width of the iconostases. Submitting these explanations for consideration by your Eminence, I humbly ask you to honor me with notification of your conclusion on them, for further orders from me. To this attitude, Metropolitan Philaret, dated April 12, the same 1850, for No. 208, responded to Count Zakrevsky. On the subject of arranging the heating of the Assumption Cathedral in relation to your Excellency, dated March 28, No. 4, the following explanatory points are set out for the draft draft. I. “The presented figure shows one heating device for the Assumption Cathedral, without touching on the internal changes of the church: but when digging places inside this cathedral for the construction of stoves and passages in them, in order to preserve the iconostasis, it must first be hung from the base to the top with clean fabrics, or mats on the frames, then, having placed temporary stands, nail them tightly with boards.” The following additions to this point seem necessary. 1) The Icon of the Mother of God of Vladimir, according to this assumption, cannot be left closed for six months, both because of its special importance and because of the requirement of custom to carry it out during some religious processions. During the entire period of work in the Assumption Cathedral, it is necessary to transfer it to the Church of St. Nicholas attached to the Assumption Cathedral, which was under Ivan the Great, under the bells. 2) Similarly, other icons from the lower tier of the iconostasis in the Assumption Cathedral, due to their significant importance and for better preservation, must be transferred to the same church. 3) When closing the iconostasis, the doors leading to the chapel to the relics of St. Peter and to the cathedral sacristy should not be blocked. 4) May I be forgiven if my concern for the great church and the most unhindered way of fulfilling the highest will takes me somewhat beyond the boundaries of ecclesiastical considerations, however, not with a decisive opinion, but with a question brought to the attention of those in the know. The supposed racks in front of the iconostasis, at its full height, and, moreover, probably in two rows for stability, and the planking along them will not amount to such a weight that the bulk soil lying underneath them can be pushed into a ditch, which will be dug not far from the racks, near the pre-altar steps? And to take precautions against this, isn’t it better to just dress the iconostasis with glued fabric that doesn’t allow dust to pass through? II. “If it were possible to completely stop the Divine service in the cathedral, then this would contribute greatly to the success of the work; if worship is necessary, then it can be allowed in one of the chapels of the cathedral. The actual installation of the furnaces will take at least six summer months.” And at this point it seems necessary to explain and supplement. 1) The drafter recognizes the cessation of the Divine service as contributing greatly to the success of the work, because, of course, it presupposes the cessation of work during the hours of the Divine service. This is wrong. It is advisable to continue worship in the chapel not for the sake of the people who will find other churches, but out of respect for the cathedral church and the holy relics resting in it. Therefore, while the service will be going on behind the hung iconostasis in the chapel, work can continue in the cathedral, so long as the workers do not produce unnecessary and ugly shouting or singing, which, due to the importance of the place, should be required of them and not during Liturgical hours. From this it is clear that the continuation of the Divine service in the chapel will not harm the success of the work. 2) The six-month closure of the cathedral is a difficult deprivation. Therefore, it is proposed for consideration whether it is possible to arrange the matter in such a way that when it begins in early spring, the necessary underground work, especially along the line near the altar in the middle of the church, will be completed, and as it should be, for the church feast of the Dormition of the Mother of God, so that on this day the service on the main altar can be performed. III. The relics of Saints Peter, Jonah and Philip will remain intact in their places; but they should also be covered with tents made of linen fabrics; to worship them during the entire period of work, if necessary, admission can be through specially constructed temporary scaffolding and passage. The following explanations seem necessary here. 1) Admission to holy relics is necessary. 2) This does not present any difficulty in relation to the relics of St. Peter, which are behind the iconostasis, and to which a door leads, which also leads to the chapel. 3) When arranging a path to the relics of St. Jonah, it is necessary to ensure that this path is not laid through the tombs. IV. “Although the floor of the cathedral will rise by 4 inches, the tombs of the metropolitans and patriarchs will remain in their places inviolable.” This point may be allowed if necessary. V. “During the work, all icons in the iconostasis around the four pillars of the church must be removed and put away; upon completion of the work, the placement of these icons where and how appropriate will be completely left to the will of your Eminence, with the alteration, however, of the width of the iconostases.” Additional considerations are presented to this point. 1) The icons standing near the four pillars of the cathedral must be transferred to the above-mentioned St. Nicholas Church for the duration of the work, or to another if there is not enough space in that one. 2) Leaving the pillars without surrounding icons could, apparently, improve the internal appearance of the cathedral; the main iconostasis would be more open; and the architecture of the building would seem lighter. But it is difficult to give all these icons any other satisfactory location; and, due to the significant importance of them, the opinion of zealous admirers of church antiquity will, without a doubt, be in favor of preserving these icons in their original places, especially near the two eastern pillars. 3) Reducing the iconostases around these icons will be useful because to some extent it will contribute to a more open appearance of the main iconostasis and space in the middle of the cathedral. When considering the proposed project in all respects, one should not, in my opinion, leave without prudent consideration what impression its implementation may make on the minds of the Orthodox people. A diminutive form of this is represented by the recent arrangement of heating for the cathedral church in Tver. 350 There this matter had less to do with the internal structure of the church than is supposed here. An underground heating chamber there is built under the western porch, and the pillars supporting the roof of the porch are turned into pipes. In the church itself, the floor was only removed to allow passage through the western door of the underground passage, and then the floor was laid as before. Despite all this, during the proceedings, the people did not understand it, and looked at it with complaint, as if it were an innovation; and already after the enterprise was completed, he recognized the benefit of it, and gave it justice. The more important the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, and the more intensive the work undertaken in it, in comparison with the Tver one: the less one can expect that the people will quickly and satisfactorily understand the dignity of what is being undertaken, and will not feel some bewilderment at the extraordinary state of the sanctuary, highly revered in church and state terms, until the best of the past is revealed from the extraordinary. And since the high-monarchal wisdom and piety, which intended the present matter, is, without a doubt, disposed to spare the people's thought, although weak in relation to understanding, but worthy of attention due to the pious feeling associated with it: the above said leads to the conclusion that we should try to accomplish what is being undertaken in the Assumption Cathedral with as little change in its interior as possible, and as much as possible in a shorter time 351. No. 208. April 12, 1850 April 20. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod with a conclusion on the case of the novice of the Donskoy Monastery Nikolai Zykov, who was arrested by the police at night for quarrel and fight 352 By decree of the Holy Synod, dated March 28, No. 48, I was ordered in the case of the former stauropegial novice of the Donskoy Monastery, Zykov, from the nobility, to review all the information available about this case in the synodal office and in the Donskoy Monastery, and, if necessary, in communication with whom it should be, to bring to light the circumstances specified in that decree, and, according to proper considerations, to present To the Holy Synod, with my conclusion. And by the decree of the Holy Synod, dated March 30, I was ordered not to be embarrassed in this inquiry by the determination of the synodal office about the dismissal of Zykov from the spiritual department, because this matter concerns not only the personality of Zykov, but also the monastery authorities, who are obliged to look after the moral state of those living in the monastery and be responsible for them. In pursuance of this, I have examined: 1) in the synodal office the case of the capture of novice Zykov by the police, 2) the case of his dismissal from among the novices, and 3) the written relations of the police regarding this case with the abbot of the Donskoy Monastery. At the same time, it turned out to be necessary to take some explanations 353 from the abbot of the Donskoy Monastery, and from the governor, a former deputy in this matter, which were taken on the 8th and 10th days of this April. The progress of this matter regarding the spiritual department was outlined by me in my report to the Holy Synod, dated the 8th day of this April 354. Now it should be shown what has been revealed regarding the circumstances indicated in the decree of the Holy Synod of March 28. I. Was a proper study carried out about Zykov’s act for which he was taken by the police, and what did the study turn out to be? In relation to the chief police chief to the rector of the Donskoy Monastery, dated March 4, No. 5239, it is said: “during the investigation it was discovered that Zykov at the indicated time (at 11 o’clock in the evening), meeting Matveev, who was carrying in his hands a bottle of wooden oil, weighing ten pounds, and a bag with a head of sugar and a pound (of tea), pushed him, the bottle broke, and this happened between them quarrel and fight." This trial took place without a deputy from the spiritual side; but this cannot be considered incorrect: because, as can be concluded from consideration of the circumstances, it was carried out at the very time of the capture of Zykov and Matveev, at night. By the above-mentioned attitude, the chief police chief demanded from the Donskoy rector of the deputy to inspect Zykov’s cell and to seal his papers. The rector appointed a deputy, and after inspection and sealing, he reported it to the synodal office on March 6th. At this time Zykov was already in the monastery; but the report of the Don Archimandrite does not say that Zykov expressed dissatisfaction with the actions of the police, or made any complaint. In relation to the chief police chief to me, March 7, No. 5382, proposed by me, according to the affiliation, to the synodal office, the above-mentioned proceedings are described in the following terms: “in the selected testimony they explained: Matveev, that he, moving from one tavern establishment to another with a bottle of wooden oil and in a bag with tea and sugar, met someone who came out of the said house, in monastic clothes, Zykov, who pushed him and broke a bottle of oil, and when asked why he was fighting, hit him in the face and sides, which is why Matveev shouted: guard. Zykov testified that that day, at 12 o’clock, having left the Donskoy Monastery, with the permission of its abbot, he was in the city with Countesses Varvara and Ekaterina Sheremetev, with Princess Sofia Stepanovna Shcherbatova, had dinner with Platon Vasilyevich Golubkov, subsequently was with the Moscow Metropolitan, and at 9 o’clock in the evening he was in Glebov’s house, at Princess Vera Dmitrievna Golitsyna’s, from where they came out with the intention of going to the monastery, first one, and then another unknown people attacked him, and without any reason on his part they beat him and intended to take him to the police, but this was already done by the quarterly warden.” Among these testimonies of Zykov there is one whose injustice I know. He was at my house on March 3rd in the evening; but was not accepted by me. The deputy, in his report to the synodal office on March 12, did not mention the study of Zykov’s act on March 3. The archimandrite, in a report of the same day, asked the synodal office whether it would be good to find out whether Zykov was a real or a passive person in a quarrel and fight; but again he did not mention that Zykov complained about anything, or presented any evidence against his rival in the quarrel. The Synodal Office was supposed to demand genuine paperwork from the police; but then this demand was stopped due to Zykov’s departure from the number of novices. Therefore, I found it necessary to ask the deputy, Hieromonk Raphael, about: 1) whether a proper investigation was carried out into Zykov’s act for which he was taken into custody, and 2) why the deputy did not ask for a copy of this investigation and did not submit it to his superiors, in accordance with Article 1033 of Volume XV of the Code of Laws. The deputy gave two answers to this, one inconsistent with the other: 1) that no investigation was carried out and 2) that he only took the copy not with the help of his superiors. Upon request of this copy, it turned out that this was a journal about the opening of seals from Zykov’s papers. All that is clear from this is that the deputy did not quite understand his business; did not require not only an investigation of the case, but also the provision of evidence previously taken on it, through which the entrance to the knowledge of the case remained closed. II. Why was Zykov signed to the effect that he would not seek satisfaction for the offense caused to him, and what was this offense? The deputy, in his report on March 13, did not mention this subscription at all; and the archimandrite, in a report of the same day, mentioned it from Zykov’s words, without saying that Zykov considered this subscription either forced or for some reason incorrect. The deputy I asked testified that Zykov gave the signature, but what the offense was, he, the deputy, did not know; and that the deputy did not mention it in the report, not having a copy, and not remembering its entire contents. In this case, the deputy also did not fulfill his obligation under the above article of the Code of Laws, without asking for a copy of the subscription. One can guess that due to the lack of witnesses, and due to the contradictory testimony of Zykov and Matveev, the police signed an undertaking to drop the lawsuit in order to end the case. III. What papers did Zykov have that were indecent to someone living in a monastery, and was the order to burn them carried out, and by whom? Now it is impossible to know this in documents, because the papers were lost sight of, without sufficient inquiry, both by the deputy and the rector. The deputy testified that he did not know the contents of these papers; It is unknown whether they were given to Zykov or whether they were burned. The abbot testified that, as far as he knew, these were letters to Zykov from various persons, on the affairs of a philanthropic society of which he was a member, and among them were some poems, which, however, were published. But as the deputy’s report on March 13 said that Zykov’s letters and poems were presented to the rector, this was asked a second time; paid attention to the contents of these letters and poems, having an important reason for this, in order to determine whether the subordinate was guilty, and of what, and how he dealt with these papers. To this, Archimandrite Feofan replied that the papers were indeed presented to him by Zykov in the presence of the deputy; that he, the archimandrite, examined most of these papers and found what was said above, but did not consider it necessary to revise everything completely, partly because Zykov was ordered to burn them, partly because they were presented by Zykov in a printed envelope, from which Zykov could take out more indecent items during the journey. The archimandrite adds that the next day he heard from Zykov that the papers were burned. IV. For what reason was it deemed necessary to inspect Zykov’s cells and papers, and suddenly, which suggests suspicion of an important crime or intent. That the inspection was not carried out completely suddenly and not without prior communication with the spiritual authorities, this was explained by me in a report on April 8, which also shows the reasons why I did not dare to interfere with the inspection, but only demanded that it be done in front of the deputy, who, however, was not subsequently demanded of me. The rector and the deputy testified that they did not know for what reason the inspection was deemed necessary. But in the relation of the chief police chief to the Donskoy archimandrite, dated March 4, this reason is shown in the following expressions: “since it is known that Zykov leaves the monastery every day and returns after midnight.” At the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that the archimandrite did not make any objection to this testimony of the chief police chief; and did not mention this in the reports to the synodal office. This was revealed already when, by decree of the Holy Synod, I demanded from the Donskoy Monastery acts related to this matter. That the subject of suspicion was not some important crime, or malicious intent, but some of Zykov’s secular relations, not purely moral, this can be concluded from the fact that Zykov, after being captured by the police, on March 3, the next day, was released to the monastery, when his papers had not yet been made known: for a suspect in an important crime, of course, would have been detained until the case was explained according to the papers. It is also clear from the return of the papers to Zykov himself, and from the review that they are indecent only to someone living in the monastery. V. It remains to consider the circumstance indicated in the decree of the Holy Synod, March 30: the relevance of the monastic authorities to this matter, who are obliged to monitor the moral state of those living in the monastery and be responsible for them. In this regard, the following is brought to your attention: 1) the abbot of the Donskoy Monastery, in a statement for 1849, testified that Zykov’s frequent absences from the monastery aroused suspicion of the sincerity of his disposition towards monasticism; but it is not clear that the abbot took quite active measures to keep Zykov from frequent absences. 2) On Friday, at Maslenitsa, the abbot dismissed Zykov at one o’clock in the afternoon, with permission to spend the night with his mother. It would be better to arrange for Zykov to say goodbye to his mother not on the last days of the week, and demand a return to the monastery during the daytime. 3) When asked what cases cast doubt on the sincerity of Zykov’s disposition towards monasticism, Abbot Raphael replied that Zykov, when he left the monastery, returned very late, which was reported to the abbot. The abbot responded that Zykov had brought suspicion on the sincerity of his disposition towards monasticism by accepting secular, albeit respectable, persons after mass, and by frequently leaving the monastery, with frequent admonitions from the abbot to leave them completely. But in relation to the chief police chief, it is said that Zykov leaves every day and returns after midnight: this last testimony, after comparison with the previous ones, without a doubt, should not be taken in the full strict sense. However, Zykov’s tendency to absenteeism appears in such a way that measures stronger than exhortations would be unnecessary. 4) The abbot appointed a deputy who was ignorant of the matter, did not give him the necessary instructions, did not monitor his actions, so that unsatisfactory action on the first day could be corrected on the second, since the deputy was called upon by the police more than once. 5) Having in your hands Zykov’s papers, declared indecent for someone living in a monastery and designated for burning, do not review them all accurately in order to determine the guilt or innocence of your subordinate, and the harm and degree of guilt. However, in order not to place more blame on the abbot himself than he already has, justice requires taking into account that he had many reasons for a good opinion of Zykov, and, in his good opinion, for a lenient view of his absences. Zykov, as the archimandrite says, sought his shelter in the monastery for two years, and thus first convinced him of his good disposition towards monasticism. He spent the first year in the monastery with full approval; on the instructions of the abbot, he accepted and diligently held the position of candle seller in one of the churches of the monastery. He undertook and made some improvements in the internal structure of this church, which had the appearance of zeal, and made some absences justifiable for communication with artists. He belonged to a noble family; and it was known that he was well received “in” the respectable houses of the highest nobility. Therefore, even during the proceedings about the night adventure with Zykov, the archimandrite could remain confident in his innocence, and therefore his distrustful gaze was directed not at him, but at the actions against him. But by the same token, I find it not inappropriate to present here a certificate that, since June of last year, another unseemly case has been carried out in the Donskoy Monastery regarding Hierodeacon Ignatius. The merchant Thomas complained to the Moscow military governor-general 355 that this hierodeacon was with his wife in his apartment, and another hierodeacon of the same monastery, Polycarp, testified that both of them visited her twice. At the end of the case, it is unknown whether there is guilt; but the unseemlyness is already there, and produces unfavorable judgments from outsiders. “This matter is not being carried out by the ecclesiastical department: the investigation is carried out by the police, under the supervision of a deputy from the ecclesiastical side.” The Synodal Office had already decided that the Donskoy Monastery had not enjoyed dean inspection for a long time; since its abbot, being the dean of the stauropegial monasteries, is not subordinate to another dean, and decided to allow the manager of the Resurrection Monastery, His Eminence Agapit 356, to review the Donskoy Monastery, in church, moral and economic relations. But this has not yet been implemented. In my opinion, the present circumstances provide a good reason for dismissing Archimandrite Theophan from the post of dean of the monasteries; and since, for various reasons, it is inconvenient to entrust it to any of the stauropegial archimandrites subordinate to the synodal office, then, pending the discovery of this convenience, entrust it to the Most Reverend Agapit to review them, on the basis of existing rules. The acts taken and drawn up during my consideration of this case are attached herewith, in the original, with an inventory. Inventory of acts during the consideration of the case of the capture of the Donskoy Monastery by the former nobleman novice Zykov by the police, on the street, at night No. 1. Report of the Don Archimandrite with an answer to the questions asked of him. No. 3. Uncertified copy from the magazine. No. 4. Second answers from the deputy. No. 5. Second answers of the archimandrite. No. 6. The true attitude of the chief police chief towards the archimandrite, dated March 4, 357. June 9. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod, with considerations and conclusions on the assumptions of the Minister of State Property 358 regarding parish schools in state-owned villages In the decree of the Holy Synod, dated February 19, 1850, No. 1184, Metropolitan Philaret was informed that the actual state councilor A.I. Karasevsky, proposed at the discretion of the Synod the attitude of the Minister of State Property to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count Protasov, for No. 292, regarding parish schools established in state-owned villages, together with the following two appendices thereto. In regard to this, the minister wrote: “Your Excellency is aware of the reasons for the establishment of parish schools in state-owned villages. This measure constitutes the implementation of the charter on schools, approved by the Emperor in 1828, which remained unenforced due to the lack of financial means at that time. The establishment of parish schools in state-owned villages, based on the charter of 1828, is supplemented by the fact that education in these schools is based on religious and moral principles; and as a result of this, the very education of rural youth in these areas is entrusted exclusively to the parish clergy by election and under the supervision of the diocesan authorities. The Department of State Property was provided with assistance with material resources, i.e., the allocation of premises, the release of funds for the maintenance of mentors and the supply of schools with teaching aids. No matter how clear the distribution of such responsibilities between the ecclesiastical department and the management of state property is, according to reports received from local authorities and from my personal review of the provinces, various misunderstandings have been noticed that complicate the success of the matter. So, for example: in the Olonets province, the diocesan authorities refused to appoint mentors, leaving their choice to the manager of the chamber; in other places, the ecclesiastical department looks at parish schools as institutions that are foreign to them; that is why there is no proper monitoring of teaching success; and both studies and examinations remain unsupervised by dean. Recognizing the need, in confirmation of the established rules, to determine a positive order for the management of parish schools, I would suggest that they be carried out in accordance with the original provisions, which were awarded the highest approval. 1) Education on religious and moral principles of rural youth in parish schools in state-owned villages is entrusted to the rural parish clergy under the direct supervision of the diocesan authorities. 2) The appointment and replacement of mentors from parish priests or other persons in the ecclesiastical department depends on the diocesan authorities. 3) The diocesan authorities determine the order of teaching assigned according to the highest approved course report; as well as the procedure for supervision of teaching, rules on examinations, and establishes reporting for verification of successes and submission to the Holy Synod, for inclusion in general reports for the ecclesiastical department. 4) The diocesan authorities determine what kind of books, copybooks and notes should be supplied to parish schools, both for teaching the course and for reading. Note. Some governors consider it useful to introduce a course on agriculture in parish schools. The Ministry cannot agree to this measure, as it changes the nature of schools with the sole purpose of religious and moral education, but can, in order to familiarize students with the benefits of improved agriculture and home economics, supply schools, for reading, with brief practical instructions on the main principles of agriculture, adapting to the life and concepts of the villagers. 5) The mentors of parish schools, fulfilling their educational duties in accordance with the instructions of the diocesan authorities, under the supervision of the deans, communicate with the district commanders about everything related to the supply of schools with material resources. 6) The local administration of state property belongs to: a) the selection of villages for the establishment of schools and the idea of ​​this, through the manager of the chamber, the diocesan bishop, for the appointment of mentors. b) Supplying schools with premises and teaching aids. c) Release of amounts determined by the states for the maintenance of mentors and the purchase of all school supplies. 7) If the requirement of a mentor by the district commander is not satisfied, then the parish priest brings this to the attention of the dean, for communication, through whom it follows, in order with the local chamber of state property. 8) If the district commander notices a disorder in the educational area, then he reports his comments to the dean, and in case of failure, submits them to the manager for bringing to the attention of the diocesan bishop. Believing that by this clear division of power in the maintenance of rural parish schools, all misunderstandings will be averted and the spiritual department will be given sufficient ways to extend its useful influence on the religious and moral education and edification of the spiritual flock, I humbly ask your Excellency to propose this to the discretion of the Holy Synod, and of its decision not to leave me with notification for the corresponding orders for the government department property." Preliminary orders on this subject were assigned to Metropolitan Philaret, according to the content of the above assumptions of the Minister of State Property, to deliver the appropriate considerations with a conclusion. On this decree, the Metropolitan wrote: June 9 is delivered today. Then, on the same date, the Metropolitan reported the following to the Holy Synod: By decree of the Holy Synod, dated February 19, 1850, No. 1184, I was ordered to present to the Holy Synod considerations and conclusions about the assumptions of the Ministry of State Property regarding parish schools in state-owned villages. By chance, the formation of these assumptions was caused by misunderstandings noticed in some dioceses, such as: in Olonets, the diocesan authorities refuse to appoint mentors, in other places the ecclesiastical department looks at parish schools as extraneous institutions, and teaching and exams remain without the supervision of deans. But if the subject of concern is only these particular misunderstandings of some diocesan authorities, then they can and should be corrected through instructions and encouragements from the Holy Synod, without moving to new assumptions. However, these new assumptions, which are most closely related to the spiritual department, are the following: 1) Education on religious and moral principles of rural youth in parish schools in state-owned villages is entrusted to the rural parish clergy, under the direct supervision of the diocesan authorities. 2) The appointment and replacement of mentors from parish priests or other persons in the ecclesiastical department depends on the diocesan authorities. 3) The diocesan authorities determine the order of teaching the course assigned according to the highest approved report; as well as the procedure for supervision of teaching, rules on examinations, and establishes reporting for verification of successes and submission to the Holy Synod, for inclusion in general reports for the ecclesiastical department. 4) The diocesan authorities determine what kind of books, copybooks and notes should be supplied to parish schools, both for teaching the course and for reading. With this being said, it is considered necessary to take into consideration the rules, according to the highest approval of the Holy Synod, prescribed in its secret decree of October 29, 1836, as follows: 1) The responsibility for the initial education of settlement children relates to the duties of the clergy, who must take advantage of this means and opportunity to fulfill their unquestioning duty to instruct children in faith and piety. 2) This training should be carried out at home in the home of one or two of the members of the parish clergy, depending on ability and reliability. 3) At the discretion of the diocesan bishop, a local priest or deacon, and sometimes a cleric, is appointed to teach parish children, according to need and ability. 4) He not only accepts those who wish to study, but also disposes parents and children to this, which is also facilitated by other members of the clergy with advice and representation of usefulness: he accepts without any agreement and without demanding retribution. 5) Teach reading, church and civil printing, and writing to those who wish. Meanwhile, students should memorize the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, the Ten Commandments, the verse: Hail the Virgin Mary, to which the student should add a brief and simple explanation of them from the catechism, and the most important legends from sacred history, conveying this explanation and these legends in the form of conversations and stories, renewed from time to time and on occasion, without school compulsion and literal confirmations from memory. 6) Those who have demonstrated success in church reading, on holidays, should be given a place in the church choir, get used to church singing, and, if possible, be involved in church reading, so that the evidence of their success will serve as a consolation to their parents and to encourage others to study. 7) Depending on convenience, you can add the beginnings of arithmetic to the subjects of study. 8) You can start training with Orthodox children, in order to attract schismatic children to follow them. 9) If schismatics do not wish to send their children to be taught otherwise than from old printed books, or from old printed books published in a Edinoverie printing house: accept them on this condition and teach them from these books. 10) The teacher must pay special attention so that, without embarrassing the children of schismatics and without irritating their parents with cruel reproaches against the schism, he instills in them respect for the Orthodox Church and its teachings. 11) The constant training time should last from the end of autumn field work to the beginning of spring and approximately from September 1 to May 1; in the summer months, students can gather on holidays in the afternoon, for the repetition of prayers and the teaching of catechetical and sacred history, and on weekdays more often or earlier, as rural studies allow. In June, July and August, teaching stops completely. Although these rules have application to the education of schismatic children, they also apply to the Orthodox, and suggest starting education with the Orthodox. From these rules one can see that by the highest approval of the Holy Synod, back in 1836, the clergy was partially entrusted with what in 1850 the Ministry of State Property proposed to entrust to it, that is, the education of rural youth on religious and moral principles. Despite the fact that the schools, according to the decree of 1836, were not provided with premises, salaries, or teaching aids, they were gradually established; and there are 34 of them in the Moscow diocese, that is, not much less than those acquired from the Ministry of State Property and Welfare, of which there are 38; or even the former more, because some of the former had to give up their students to the latter, and therefore closed. From this, apparently, one must conclude that if the ecclesiastical department could establish and support unfunded schools in churches; then it is all the more convenient for him to accept under his direct supervision schools that the Ministry of State Property provides with premises, salaries and teaching aids. But upon closer examination of the matter, some reasons to doubt this are revealed. The success of educating village children, according to the rules of 1836, was neither quick nor extensive, but reliable and safe. Children trained by the clergy eagerly read and sang in church; introduced into families the reading of sacred books, sacred history, lives of saints and similar edifying books; from this there should have been a good moral and religious effect on the people; but there was no excessive curiosity or desire for vain reading that produced fermentation of thoughts. Since the establishment of parish schools in state-owned villages, under the authority of the Ministry of State Property, their superiors introduced them to a method less simple than that prescribed in the rules of the Holy Synod of 1836, and began to publish special books on various subjects for reading by peasants, about which it is difficult to say whether their effect on the minds of the people will justify good intentions and hopes. To judge this definitively, it is necessary to have a well-known book in mind. Therefore, we present to your attention a book published and distributed, as they say, in many thousands of copies, under the title: Stories about God, man and nature, reading for children at home and at school. St. Petersburg 1849. The concept of nature is not for peasant children. The preface of the book says that it is the mother who must make the subject of learning entertaining, and no one can replace her in the initial development of the young mind. Therefore, to explain to a peasant boy what nature is, the lot falls on his illiterate mother. The book does not begin, as one might expect from the title, with a teaching about God the Creator, about the origin of the world and man, about the abilities given by God to man, about descent from the first man, in the order of nature, family and then society and state, which would be in accordance with sacred tradition and is simple for children in narrative form. On the contrary, the book begins, in the form of stories, with a presentation of the democratic theory of the formation of human society. This is not surprising in the book of the Wirtemberg educator Wurst, 359 which in the preface is recognized as the foundation of the Russian book: the years 1848 and 1849 showed that German educators, and Wurst among them, did not accept and teach democratic thoughts through an accidental oversight. It is surprising that the Russian became an imitator of Wurst and looks very trustingly at the Wirtemberg teacher. In the first chapter of the book, in the first story, that is, in the first article of the book, Jacob and Joseph draw up a social contract between themselves, according to the teachings of Rousseau 360; They just don’t name this teacher, but pretend that they themselves invented their own agreement. To the agreement by which agricultural property was founded, Jacob and Joseph added a defensive agreement, and then with those who joined them they established three laws through universal voting, and even without the participation of the authorities; for the authorities do not yet exist. In the second and third stories, on the occasion of a fire and an attack by robbers, the rule is established that members of society should help each other, for the reason that everyone and everyone would suffer harm from not helping another. Consequently, the doctrine of helping one’s neighbor is taught only for one’s own benefit, which leads to neglect of the doctrine of philanthropy. According to this theory, if a fire in another village, and therefore our village, does not threaten, then we may not help the needy there. In the fourth story, the multiplication of troubles finally leads to the idea of ​​​​establishing a leadership: and it is also installed and elected by universal voting. Yakov brought down each master one by one; forced him to repeat his promise to recognize and respect his superiors. And above these dreamy stories there is a general title: the history of public life. What should we expect if the peasants, through misfortune, understand and accept the theory contained in these stories? Will they not notice that their current society is not based on this theory, that, for example, a landowner or district commander rules over them not by their agreement and choice? Will it not occur to them that it would be necessary to reorganize society according to the model of Jacob and Joseph? In the sixth story, finances are established, in the seventh, punishments, in the tenth, the consideration of the annual report and budget in the general meeting. This is exactly how the peasants should be taught if it were necessary to prepare them for the formation of a republic; and from this we must conclude that this is not exactly what is needed for Russian peasants. Thus, in ten stories the formation of society and government is presented, without God and without a king; for in them neither God nor the king is mentioned. In the eleventh story, finally, the Russian mentor probably corrects Wurst, depicting the beneficence of royal power. But will one story erase the impressions of the previous ten? Moreover, the king here seems to be not appointed by God, but necessary due to the accidental circumstance that Yakov the head turned out to be not very good; and it is not known with what thought one imagines an accidental entry into citizenship of a neighboring king, and not living under the power of one’s natural and hereditary king. After the first chapter, which, according to its title, contains the history of social life, the second chapter sets out the concept of man in general, his feelings and soul, and at the end of this second chapter, the doctrine of God begins according to Kant’s method 361, with a proof of the existence of God, deduced from the concept of the giver of bribes. It is difficult to be convinced of the correctness and convenience of this order, according to which first of all the teaching is proposed, how society, laws, authorities came into being, and then the teaching about man, as having an eye, an ear, a sense of smell, etc., and that the teaching about God begins later than all of the above. However, in chapter three, the doctrine of God and sacred history are presented in accordance with sacred sources, although not always accurately, of course, but adapted to the understanding of ordinary readers. The chapter on God gives reason to think that the book is well-intentioned; but the other chapters cited above do not allow us to be sure that it is composed carefully and that it is capable of bearing good fruit. If we assume that the political thoughts of this book, through its distribution in many copies, have already taken some roots in the lower class of the people; that the distribution of this and other books among the villagers aroused not only a disposition to edifying reading, but also a curiosity for varied reading; that, on the other hand, unhealthy food for this curiosity is ready in abundance in the multitude of published novels and other books, not only vain, but also morally and politically harmful, which greed distributes in large cities through bookstores and peddlers and everywhere through fairs and peddlers: then one cannot help but come to the conclusion that at the present time the clergy cannot with such convenience and trustworthiness take full charge and responsibility of the parish rural schools, as it was before, since 1836, according to the rules given then. Imagining the simple church education of the villagers as more trustworthy, and the more artificial and varied education as less safe, I can fear that this will seem like a one-sided view, characteristic of the rank to which I belong, and that Russian thought will seem weak in comparison with the sophistication of foreign teachers. Therefore, I am forced to call foreign witnesses to the case now under consideration. In the Parisian periodical edition of the Sower (Le semeur), February 6, this year, 1850, the following considerations are presented on the effect of education on the moral state of the people. M. Fayet 362 reported to the Paris Academy of Moral and Political Sciences that during the last two decades the number of crimes and misdemeanors has increased annually in a greater proportion in the departments of the more educated than in the less educated. M. Giraud objected to this, 363 that among those convicted in 1847, 52 out of 100 could neither read nor write. This objection would not be very strong even if in the entire population the number of those who cannot read and write were related to those who can in the same proportion. But if the category of illiterate people is incomparably more numerous than the literate ones, and the number of criminals from both is almost equal, then again one must conclude that among the educated there are proportionally more criminals than among those who cannot read and write. M. Cousin 364 reasoned about it this way: “it is not education that elevates morality, but education, which is a completely different matter, and especially religious education. In Scotland, in Holland, and in some other countries, primitive education has made the population better. Why? Because when they used so much effort to teach the poor to read, believe me, this was not in order to prepare them to read bad books brought by peddlers, as is done in the country we know (that is, in France), in order to incline them to read the Bible.” From all of the above, the Holy Synod is pleased to see why the narrow path indicated for the education of village children by the highest approved determination of the Holy Synod should be recognized as more reliable and safe than the expanded path that it embarked on in subsequent years, in the direction of the authorities subordinate to the Ministry of State Property. But realizing together with the Holy Synod that the responsibility for the initial education of village children belongs to the duties of the parish clergy, I believe that even now the ecclesiastical department should with full zeal correspond to generally beneficial types of the Ministry of State Property in the education of rural youth on religious and moral principles, with activity in the use of measures that are essentially useful, without haste in taking measures whose consequences are incorrect or mutual. Therefore, I would assume that the above assumptions, reported from the Ministry of State Property, should be accepted, with the addition of the following: 1) Accurately adhere to the direct goal of educating village children in order to provide them with a religious and moral education. 2) Both in the method and in the teaching environment, maintain simplicity consistent with this goal. 3) Do not seek glory in a multitude of schools and students, but seek the essential good, that is, the confirmation of the people in faith and good morals, by the most reliable means. A small number of people who are thoroughly and morally instructed are more useful than many superficially educated ones. 4) Carefully guide the taught children to reading that is edifying and useful for their rank, and in every possible way eliminate from them reading that is unfavorable for morality and general tranquility, that feeds sensuality and passions, or that excites fermentation of political thoughts. What the department of state property, without a doubt, is equally concerned about spiritually, cannot be left 365. July 19. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod with the forwarding of the rules he drew up for supervision over monastics living in Moscow, in metochions, not excluding those belonging to other dioceses, and over those who come to collect alms Correcting the post of Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Privy Councilor, A.I. Karasevsky, proposal dated July 15, 1850, No. 3666, brought to the attention of the Holy Synod about the message he received from Comrade Secretary of State Taneyev 366, by which Privy Councilor A.A. Kovalkov 367 announces that the Sovereign Emperor, having received information from His Majesty about the unfavorable opinion existing in Moscow regarding the morality of the monastic brethren of the local monasteries, the reasons for which are given by the monks themselves, living in the monastery farmsteads to look after them, or temporarily staying there under the pretext of monastic needs, has deigned to give the highest command that The synodal chief prosecutor reported to His Majesty what rules exist for the release of monks from monasteries in Moscow and other monasteries, as well as what rules exist for the residence of monastics in farmsteads. As a result of this, St. The Synod, by decree of the same June 28, No. 87, instructed Metropolitan Philaret to draw up special rules for strict supervision of monastics staying in Moscow in metochions, not excluding those belonging to other diocesan authorities, as well as for those who come to Moscow to collect alms, and such rules, as soon as possible, should be submitted to the Holy Synod for approval, with so that the Synod, applying to the local circumstances of both capitals, could supplement the very instructions to the deans of monasteries, setting out in it, in all detail, measures for the strictest and continuous monitoring of the relations of monastics to the laity, in order to eliminate everything that could not serve to edify the forces of the latter. In pursuance of this decree, Metropolitan Philaret, in a report dated July 19 of the same year, No. 345, submitted for consideration of the Holy Synod a draft of rules with the following content. Rules for the supervision of monastics living in Moscow on farmsteads, not excluding those belonging to other dioceses, as coming to collect alms. 1) All metochions in Moscow where monastics live, even if they belong to other diocesan authorities, regarding deanery and morality, are subject to the supervision of the local diocesan authorities. 2) For this purpose, they are subject to the department of the diocesan dean of Moscow monasteries. 3) The dean of the monasteries visits the courtyards, in accordance with Article 31 of his instructions, and acts in supervision of them, according to the force of this instruction. 4) A perceived violation of deanery or good behavior, if it is minor and not associated with temptation, the dean corrects with the means specified in Articles 35 and 36 of his instructions, and if it is not unimportant, or is associated with temptation and a reproach to the title, or is not the first time it has been observed, report it to the diocesan bishop. 5) Based on such a report, the diocesan bishop, if he finds it necessary, can order an investigation of a person belonging to another diocese, and submit it for consideration by the Moscow consistory. 6) The verdict in such a case, which consists of reprimanding the accused, or putting him on prostration, or obliging him to sign, can be approved by the Moscow diocesan bishop, and executed, with notification of the diocesan authorities to whom the defendant actually belongs to live. 7) But if the detected offense, due to its importance, requires a stronger measure of correction, then the case and the defendant are forwarded to the diocesan authorities from whom he was sent to the courtyard. 8) If a monastic metochion belonging to another diocese receives a credible denunciation of an act incompatible with the dignity of priestly service, the Moscow diocesan bishop must restrain him from priestly service until consideration, and at the same time notify the diocesan authorities to which the metochion belongs. 9) Monastics located in courtyards belonging to the Moscow diocese, in case of misconduct, are judged and corrected relentlessly in the same way as those staying in monasteries. 10) The rules of decorum, good behavior and obedience that exist and will henceforth be given for monastics residing in monasteries are equally binding for monastics residing in farmsteads. 11) Monastics who come to Moscow to collect alms, appearing, by virtue of Article 88 of the statute of spiritual consistories, in the Moscow consistory, must at the same time declare their place of residence, and after that appear before the dean of the monasteries. 12) If they live in one of the Moscow monasteries (which is desirable, but not always possible, due to the filling of Moscow monasteries with people living, and the multitude of collectors), then the dean of the monastery, in supervising them, uses the assistance of the abbot of that monastery. 13) But if they live in the houses of benefactors and hosts, then the dean, for information about their hesitations and behavior, can demand that they appear to him at urgent times appointed by him, and also acquire information about this from the parish priests, who, in general, having noticed the unseemly act of a monk or novice, a collector, are obliged to announce it to the dean of the monastery, or report it to the diocesan bishop. 14) In cases of violation of deanery or good behavior by monastic collectors, act in accordance with the above articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. 15) A monk-collector who, although not clearly exposed, is, due to the circumstances, highly suspicious of misconduct or infidelity in the collection, should not be left in Moscow, but transferred to the diocesan authorities from whom he was sent. 16) The above rules also apply to female monastics sent to Moscow to collect alms. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow 368 July 27. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod on the orders he made regarding the delivery of books and manuscripts requested from the patriarchal library and returned by Count D.N. Bludov 369 Sent to me, by decree of the Holy Synod, dated 31 last May, No. 5958, for instructions on the storage of: 1) the manuscript of the patriarchal library: “The Act on the Heretic Martin,” and belonging to the Moscow Synodal Printing Library 2) the manuscript and proof printed copy of the book: “Symphony or places and examples selected from the books of the Holy Scriptures and etc. 1773;" 3) a notebook, in ¼ sheet, on the elevation of the name of the patriarch, printed in 1721, and 4) a manuscript, in sheet: “Historical search for the name of the pontifex, etc.,” - I received; and for the sake of authenticity, it was proposed that in the office of the Holy Synod, in his presence, the sealed manuscripts sent in a bale should be opened and re-sealed separately, with her and my seals, and forwarded for storage as appropriate. When opening the bundle in the presence of the synodal office, it turned out that the manuscript: the deed against the heretic Martin, was sealed with the seal of the Holy Synod, which is why it was supposed to be forwarded to the synodal sacristy without opening the seal; and other manuscripts that turned out to be unsealed, in the presence of the synodal office, were sealed with her and my seals, and they were supposed to be forwarded to the printing office for storage. Which I most respectfully report to the Holy Synod. Your Holiness's most humble novice, Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow No. 364. July 27, 1850 370 August 5th. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the manuscript: “Calendar of the Holy Trinity Lavra” Bachelor of the Moscow Theological Academy Sergius Smirnov 371 submitted to the Moscow committee for censorship of spiritual books a manuscript entitled: “Calendar of the Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius.” The Censorship Committee entrusted the review of this manuscript to a member, professor, Archpriest Peter Delitsyn, who presented the manuscript to the committee with the following opinion: “all the information contained in this manuscript agrees with both the history and the present state of the Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius and with the order of Divine services observed in it. Therefore, I conclude that this manuscript can be allowed to be published, upon requesting the blessing and consent of His Eminence, the Most Reverend Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, as the rector of the Lavra. The Metropolitan, at the presentation of the committee for the censorship of spiritual books, dated July 30, 1850, wrote: August 5th. How correct the information is, here is a sample. The book says that the Monk Ferapont rests in the cathedral church; and he rests in another, small one. This can be seen with your eyes and not far away. Such fidelity in something close does not really guarantee something less close. The skete holidays should have been included in the Lavra month because the skete is a branch of the Lavra. And Bethany, of course, is more related to the lavra than to the posad, being under the jurisdiction of the established Lavra cathedral. And the church in the charity house belongs to the Lavra, not the Posad. However, the committee can carry out its decision under its own responsibility, for I have neither the time nor the obligation to check every line of the book 372. August 25. Metropolitan Philaret's remarks on the report of the Moscow committee for censorship of spiritual books On August 21, 1850, No. 49, the conference of the Moscow Theological Academy presented for the consideration of Metropolitan Philaret the report of the Moscow committee for the censorship of spiritual books, on the works it examined, for July 1850. The report, by the way, showed approved for publication: a manuscript entitled “Appeal to Christians for donations in favor of the Esphigmen-Ascension Monastery of Athos 373” and a lithographed sheet of the life of St. Sergius. Having examined the report, Metropolitan Philaret gave the following resolution: Av. 25. 1) An appeal for donations is the same as a collected book, if not more, for the book is known to the one in whose hands it comes, through one collector, and the appeal goes to the whole world by itself. Since, according to the law, no one can give a collected book in a diocese without a bishop, and in Russia without the Holy Synod, it is doubtful whether the censorship committee had the right to skip the appeal. 2) I was presented with a lithographed sheet of the life of St. Sergius, which was passed by the censorship committee. Without having time to examine it in detail, I noticed, however, irregularities that were contrary to church order and distorted history. Above the signature: the ordination of St. Sergius as a hieromonk; the picture represents St. Sergius and the bishop, standing one on the left and the other on the right. In the rite of ordination there is no such position of the ordainer and the ordained. The one ordaining stands in front of the throne, and the one being ordained is on the right side of the throne in a kneeling position. Above the caption: the resurrection of the youth is represented in the picture by the father of the youth with a coffin. History shows that the father carried his sick son to the monk; that the son died on the way; but the father, by faith, did not return to the monk, but came straight to the monk with the dead. Where is the coffin from? Did the father know that his son would die on the way, and provided himself with a coffin? I propose that the conference consider this 374. December 27. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with an opinion on the means for the moral improvement of Moscow stauropegial monasteries Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, in a confidential letter dated April 29, 1850, No. 2651, notified Metropolitan Philaret that the Sovereign Emperor, due to various information reaching His Majesty about the lack of deanery and strict morality in the ancient monasteries and other Moscow monasteries and in general about the unfavorable opinion in the capital regarding their current spiritual state, has deigned with the highest command to inform the Eminence Metropolitan that His Majesty, being confident both in his experience and in his zeal for the benefits of the Holy Church and its institutions, wants the Eminence to enter into a detailed consideration of the current personnel of all Moscow monasteries and the current state of each of them regarding church and moral deanery, as well as in consideration of the means for using them in the future on such a basis that the admission of new persons into these will be allowed only for those who have a decisive disposition to lead a truly spiritual life; the art established for the novices was fully ensured by the active spiritual edification of them by word and example and constant observation of them, and so that in general the monasteries of this capital, and especially the stauropegic ones, corresponded to their ancient institution in our church and could, as they should, serve for other monasteries as examples of Christian piety and asked the metropolitan to notify the consequences of this. Metropolitan Philaret, dated December 27 of the same year, No. 602, responded to Count N.A. Protasov, the following: By your Excellency, dated April 29, 1850, No. 2651, His Imperial Majesty’s highest command was announced to me: to enter into a detailed consideration of the current personnel of all Moscow monasteries and the present state of each of them regarding church and moral deanery, as well as to consider the means for organizing them in the future on such a basis that the admission of new persons to these monasteries is allowed only for those who have a decisive disposition to lead truly spiritual life; the skill established for novices was fully ensured by the active spiritual edification of them by word and example and constant observation of them, and so that in general the monasteries of this capital, and especially the stauropegic ones, corresponded to their ancient institution in our church, and could, as they should, serve as examples of Christian piety for other monasteries. As the first subject most highly indicated is the consideration of the personnel of the Moscow monasteries, then, not being content with the existing annual statements, the testimony of which is sometimes in abundance, I found it necessary to again demand and demanded from all the abbots statements about the personnel of the monasteries entrusted to them, with testimonies about the behavior and trustworthiness of each of the monastics and novices. In order for me to determine the merits of these statements, I needed some time for my own observations and considerations, especially regarding the stauropegic monasteries. As for the abbots, I had to borrow information about them from the affairs of the synodal office and consistory, and about the abbots of diocesan monasteries and from immediate personal fame. Given the special position of the stauropegial monasteries, it seems appropriate that consideration should be given to them separately from the diocesan ones. We offer three degrees of personality for consideration: I. Personality of the dean of stauropegial monasteries. II. The identity of the abbot of each of them. III. The personnel of the brethren. I. Upon removal from the post of dean of the monasteries, the former Don Archimandrite Theophan 375 was to be elected to the designated position, which was ordered to me by the Holy Synod. But difficulties presented themselves with this. The eldest of the stauropegials, archimandrite of the Novospassky monastery Apollos 376, who is in extreme old age, was under the supervision of a secret matter by the highest order, subject to a painful condition, combined with a disorder of the nerves and imagination, forcing him from time to time to seclude himself in his cell, obviously cannot satisfy the needs of precise supervision over the stauropegial monasteries, insufficiently satisfying this need in his own monastery. Archimandrite Simonovsky 377 was the dean of the monasteries in ancient years in the diocesan service, but during his service in Simonovo, he was subject to comments from the Holy Synod about two icons, which (one with signs of the established truth) were declared miraculous, and the precautionary measures continued to this day regarding these icons show that the trust of the highest authorities in this abbot and one of his monasteries has not been completely restored; Consequently, it is inconvenient to entrust him with the supervision of several monasteries. Zaikonospassky Archimandrite Alexy 378 works towards the spiritual and material improvement of the monastery entrusted to him in such a way that he fully deserves the trust of his superiors; but as the rector of the academy, he has a permanent residence in the Sergius Lavra, and does not spend a long time in Moscow. Therefore, it is inconvenient to entrust him with the position of dean of monasteries. And it is consistent with the benefit of the service that he should not be distracted from academic studies. While the election of the dean of the stauropegic monasteries was opposed by obstacles, circumstances demanded that the performance of this office should not be interrupted; and therefore a temporary order was needed. At my suggestion, and by order of the synodal office, the duties of the dean of the stauropegial monasteries were temporarily assumed by the administrator of the Resurrection Monastery, His Eminence Bishop Agapit 379. Due to his rank and other circumstances, this order could only be temporary. Finally, on August 31, Archimandrite Simeon, from the rector of the Chernigov seminary 380, was appointed rector of the Donskoy Monastery by the Holy Synod. Having waited for his arrival and assumption of office, and having taken some time to observe the way he acted in the monastery entrusted to him, I saw it as trustworthy to entrust him with deanery supervision over the stauropegial monasteries, which I presented to the Holy Synod on the 7th day of last November. II. The real personality of the stauropegial abbots in Moscow corresponds to the needs of the places, except for Novospassky Archimandrite Apollos, who, for the reasons stated above, does not provide faithful supervision over the brethren, as experience has already shown. On May 19, he presented me with a statement in which Hierodeacon Vasily was shown to be trustworthy, and on May 21, this Hierodeacon was taken by the police for drunkenness, as was revealed from the attitude of the Moscow military governor-general, dated June 21. The malfunction of the monastery authorities in this matter was also revealed in the fact that at one time neither the dean of the monasteries nor the synodal office was allowed to know about this; and therefore it was impossible to bring this matter into sufficient clarity when, a month after the incident, it was revealed through the attitude of the secular authorities. Thus, it must be recognized that the Novospassky Monastery requires a more active abbot than the current one. Among the candidates for this place may be the Archimandrites Platon of the Savior and Androniev 381 and Joseph’s Agapit 382, ​​who apply the rules of monasticism with rigor to themselves, increasing the power of governance by the power of example. As for Archimandrite Apollos, since he has been in service for 48 years; since during the management of the Novospassky monastery he did a lot for it in material terms, renewing and enhancing the interior decorations of churches, and correcting the dilapidations of buildings, without assistance from the treasury, after his predecessor 383 asked for this from the treasury for a significant amount, since what now turns out to be unsatisfactory in his activities is a consequence of his old age and illness; then, if he is replaced by a more active abbot at the Novospassky Monastery, he deserves to be provided with ensured peace, mainly in a warmer climate 384. III. From the examination of the information I collected about the brethren of stauropegial monasteries, several persons were discovered who were unreliable, or not quite reliable enough to be able to continue serving with dignity in Moscow monasteries, where those who are not firm in their behavior are more likely to encounter stumbling blocks than in secluded monasteries, and where the shortcomings of a clergyman in view of the large number of people present more of a temptation. About such persons, a compiled list is attached 385, with an indication of what order, according to the circumstances encountered, has already been made about some, and what order is expected to be made about others. IV. After the removal from the Moscow stauropegial monasteries of people whose personal qualities are considered not to correspond to the needs of the service and the dignity of the title, so that the admission of new persons into the monasteries, the guidance and edification of novices and monastics, and the highest deanery supervision, sufficiently contribute to the maintenance of monastic brotherhoods in an improvement corresponding to the ancient institution in the church, and representing examples of piety, for this it is necessary that the dean, abbots and The monastics zealously turned to the exact fulfillment of the church and paternal rules known about monasticism, and, additionally and adaptively to the circumstances of the time, given by the Holy Synod. It is necessary that they be deeply imbued with and aroused to jealousy by the strong word of the royal insight about the rules that exist for the guidance of monastics and the supervision of them; “The rules are very good and positive, but they are very carelessly observed.” For regular monasteries, especially urban monasteries, due to their special circumstances, the ancient rules of monasticism have a special, necessarily, not strict, application, such as, for example, the rule of non-acquisitiveness, with the custom of distributing salaries and income to the brethren for clothing and cell needs. The habit of necessary relaxation in one rule imperceptibly extends to other rules where relaxation is not so necessary. When relaxation has become common, the obligation of strict rules is less strongly felt. The rules prescribed by the Holy Synod in the dean's instructions, being addressed to the authorities, are not sufficiently in the minds of subordinates, and therefore do not have a sufficient effect on them. The immediate indication of the requirements of superiors and the duties of subordinates should contribute to the guidance of the brethren and the improvement of the monasteries. This prompts the experience of drawing up internal monastic rules, under the conditions of which the brethren would be accepted into the monastery, which would guide it, which, in cases of deviation from them, would clearly expose the perpetrators, and would all the more give force to measures of correction. It is not difficult to draw up such rules so that they are fair and consistent with the spirit of monasticism; but it is not so easy to apply them to the special circumstances of the monasteries located in the capital with ease of execution. Therefore, I find myself in the need to ask for some time to do this with the assistance of the appointed dean of the stauropegial monasteries, and the dean of the Moscow diocesan monasteries. I undertake to present considerations about the Moscow monasteries to the diocesan department especially 386 after this. December 27. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with an attached opinion about the book: “History of the Russian Church. Synodal Administration" Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, wrote the following to Metropolitan Philaret in confidential letters: a) dated October 27, 1848 “Recently received in local bookstores, printed in Moscow, the book: History of the Russian Church. Synodal administration. Due to the special remarkableness of this book, which can attract the curiosity of many, especially since the period of time constituting the subject of its contents has not yet been separately described anywhere, I consider it my duty to draw the attention of your Eminence to it and humbly ask you, dear sir and archpastor, not to leave me to tell you your opinion about it, as well as whether you deign to consider it necessary, especially under the present circumstances, so that this work, in case the new edition thereof was corrected in some way. b) From December 25, 1848 “By a letter of last October 27, I asked your Eminence to inform me of your opinion regarding the recently published Volume V of the History of the Russian Church, and also whether you would like to consider it necessary that this work, in the event of a new edition, be corrected in some way. According to the information about the said book that reached the Sovereign Emperor, it was most submissively reported to His Imperial Majesty on my part that I had already spoken to you about it, dear sir and archpastor, about which I consider it my duty to inform you, and c) regarding, dated December 5, 1850, No. 7802. “About, Volume V of the History of the Russian Church was published in 1848, I addressed your Eminence, on October 27 of the same year, about communicating your opinion regarding this book, which was most submissively reported to the Sovereign Emperor, due to the special information that reached His Imperial Majesty. Since the fifth volume of this work has been submitted again for consideration by spiritual censorship for the second edition, I make it my duty to notify your Eminence about this, turning to you, dear sir and archpastor, with the most humble request to honor me with your review regarding the above-mentioned fifth volume of this book.” To these papers, Metropolitan Filaret, dated December 27, 1850, answered Count Protasov as follows: On October 27, 1848, your Excellency confidentially requested my opinion on Volume V of the History of the Russian Church, which describes the period of synodal government, and whether this work, in case of a new edition, needs to be corrected in any way. On December 25 of the same year, your Excellency notified me that the said book and the demand made to me had been brought to the highest attention; however, the highest command on this subject was not announced to me. The matter had to begin with the purchase of a book hitherto unknown to me. Since the more necessary and inevitable matters of the service usually fill a small measure of my strength and exhaust my time, I could not for a long time begin the task, which in that case could only fall into my hands if a member of the St. Petersburg spiritual censorship, Archpriest Nikolsky, 387 dissatisfiedly and carefully fulfilled his necessary and inevitable duty. I ask for a lenient judgment on my delay. In a bishop's book, imbued with the spirit of piety and zeal for faith and truth, marking unsatisfactory passages is an unpleasant duty. The features of the book that I cannot agree with mostly stem from an uncontrollable zeal for faith and truth, which led the writer to judgments and expressions that were excessively strict and harsh. The accompanying presentation of passages in this book that, in my opinion, require revision, should not be taken as a condemnation of the work, from which, as a first and hasty experiment, one cannot demand that everything in it be complete and accurate to the last word. Therefore, in my comments I did not pursue everything that may turn out to be incomplete or inaccurate, and dwelled especially on those places that are subject to views from a different point of view from which the writer looked, and in this case can make unfavorable impressions. The following document is attached to this letter. Indication of places in Volume V of the history of the Russian church that require revision. Country 1. “Entered a new period of existence.” An expression that exaggerates particular change, and disagrees with immutability as an essential property of the Orthodox Church. Country 4. Whether the position of Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod is correctly defined, this must be taken into account in accordance with the instructions. There is no name of the intermediary in the instructions; and if it can be used, it must be limited so as not to exclude the direct presentation of the Holy Synod to His Imperial Majesty. Experience shows that some decisions of the Holy Synod are presented to His Imperial Majesty through the synodal chief prosecutor; and on some, and moreover, more important subjects, the Holy Synod directly comes to His Imperial Majesty with the most submissive reports, signed by all members. Country 5. “Before the church and the Lord.” Why is the church before the Lord? "Canonization of Saints". A Latin expression referring to Western rites alien to the Orthodox Church. The rite of Western canonization includes, among other things, the advocate of the saint and the advocate of the devil. Country 7. “With the closure of the patriarchate there followed a change in the degrees of hierarchy.” Wrong. The degrees of hierarchies remained the same: for the patriarch was also called an archbishop. “The titles of metropolitan and archbishop were abolished forever for some pastors, and for others temporarily.” Unclear and unproven. Country 12. “Places of intermediate control.” What does it mean? Between whom do they mediate? Country 14. “Freedom for church houses.” Were church houses formerly in slavery or serfdom? Country 16. “Heated protest.” “He suffered cruelly.” Hot and cruel words, but not explaining the deeds. “To raise faith before the people.” Faith is high in its subject; and man cannot exalt it. Country 17. “The first measure (to be distinguished by orders) is not entirely appropriate for the humility of shepherds.” It is proposed to more accurately find out the thought and expression of Metropolitan Plato. Country 20. "Muslims." This word among the Mohammedans expresses the dignity of their faith, and is therefore strange in the mouth of a Christian. Country 21. “For the happiness of faith.” The expression is not very happy. Country 41. “Several other Ostyaks were initiated.” What is it dedicated to? Country 50. “In some seminaries there were two capable teachers.” There must be a printing error here. Country 54. “And for it (for the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, in 1809) the best professors were appointed.” This is not entirely true. An excellent professor in his subject was Professor of Mathematics Guryev 388; but he tempted some of the students with his extensive lessons, distracting them from the most important subjects in the theological academy. Professor of Philosophy Gork 389 was poor both in knowledge and in the ability to explain. Professor Fessler 390 seduced students with his scholarship; but it should be considered a blessing from Providence that soon 391, due to some strife and confusion, he was removed from the academy; because, as it was found out later, he was a man of a dangerous way of thinking. Professor of History Orlov 392 was a hardworking man, but not distinguished by the power of reasoning. The bachelors taken from theological schools were inexperienced, and some had to teach subjects that they themselves had not studied. It was a special mercy of Providence that the first year of the academy ended successfully, and, by the way, gave eight archbishops to the church from among its students; and of the leaders and teachers of this course - three metropolitans, two archbishops and two bishops. Country 55. It is not true that the draft school regulations were drawn up in 1822. This happened much earlier. Country 57. It would be desirable to find the remark about the Dutch-Slavic Bible expressed without harshness and ridicule, and without reference to the Dutch and Russian sailor. Country 70. “In many (metropolitan Plato’s sermons) 393 the depth of thought and purity of language do not always equal the abundant flow of words.” Not clear; and is offered for consideration, is that right? Praise for the word: the calf poured out, the preacher himself would hardly now approve of. A sermon that resembles satire can hardly bring spiritual benefit; and therefore it is better not to extol it, and not to attract young preachers to a dubious path. His preaching on Great Friday brought His Eminence Ambrose 394 fame as a preacher. The anecdote that Emperor Alexander sent this sermon to the governor is very doubtful. This is not in the character of the late Emperor Bose. At one time, people who had complete convenience to know about this anecdote did not know about it. There was an opinion that there were personal hints in this sermon: and for this they did not approve of it. Country 72. “Biron played with the fate of the Russians.” You can put it in a less offensive way for Russians. Country 74. 75. 76. What was said about Stefan 395 and Theophanes 396, it is not superfluous to weigh and believe again with the sources. Stefan is rightly approved and Theophant is not approved: but the measure and manner of disapproval require consideration. The writer extols Stefan when he himself admits that he wrote comments on the book “rashly, at the first impulse of passion, in discord”: and with some effort he turns the words of Theophanes in a bad direction. If Stephen ordained the heretic Theophanes as bishop, then this is not commendable both for Stephen and for the church. And therefore we need to carefully look around whether to blame Theophan and Stephen and the church. The note makes it clear that Theophanes was not justified in his opinions; but in what opinions, and to what extent important or unimportant, is not shown. Country 79. “The Synod in full meeting returned him (Theophylact) 397 rank.” According to church rules, we will not return someone who has been deprived of their rank. So, the expression used can give rise to a complaint against the Holy Synod that it, in its full assembly, acted against the rules of the church. For the sake of the dignity of the Holy Synod, it is necessary to carefully examine the case and reveal why the defrocking was wrong and why the Synod in full assembly declared the deposition invalid and recognized the Right Reverend Theophylact in the rank. Country 81. “Get inspired by dancing.” Is it really inspiration? It is necessary to show what is imaginary. Country 85. “Spiritual Christians, or Molokans.” Isn’t it better to say: Molokans, covering themselves with the honorable name of spiritual Christians? Country 90. “The Reformation was a service to the goddess of reason.” This is no longer a reformation. The revolution is not the same as the reformation, although this was the distant beginning of that. There is no need to unnecessarily insult the followers of the Reformation, many of whom have retained faith in the Holy Trinity and in Christ, and faithfully serve the Russian Tsar. Country 90. “Summoned d’Alembert 398 to mentor the heir to the throne.” Is it true? But if there was a sinful thought, by the grace of God, that was not fulfilled, is it necessary to expose it and throw dark dust into a bright memory? Country 91. Shouldn’t the absurdities that are “limited to the highest circles of society” still need to be limited? And in the highest circle there were quite a few people who revered “all that is holy” and at whom they did not “laugh.” Remember, for example, Suvorov 399. Country 90. 91. 92. The writer introduces anecdotes into the story. It is not very convenient to give them a place in a short history; and it is very necessary to be careful not to damage reliability with them. Where is the saying of Empress Catherine known: “Let’s close highly learned books and get down to the primer.” The expression: “newly penetrated philosophical principles” does not resemble the language of Plato 400, and Plato’s time. The anecdote about Plato's meeting with Diderot 401 represents not so much Plato's entertaining in resourcefulness as Diderot's disgusting insolence. A modest story, without ceasing to be true, may not expose such private features, just as a modest painting, without ceasing to be true, hides some members of the body. When it is said that “Plato was commissioned to examine the books that had been translated”: nothing is said for history when it is not shown what was revealed by examination. Country 103. “Raise children of mixed marriages in the faith of their parents.” What does it mean when parents have two faiths? Country 104. “The Holy Synod allowed those who converted from the Union to perform local rites that were established temporarily.” It's too vague. It would be at least necessary to give an example, so that it would be clear that the permission is not contrary to Orthodoxy. Country 124. “The sanctity of Rogozhsky cooking.” This is said about the imaginary holy moor, which the schismatics of the Rogozhsky cemetery illegally attempted to compile and consecrate. Although their work is extremely wrong and unseemly, however, since this is a religious matter, and an effort to imitate the sacrament of the church, it would be undesirable to encounter a rude and mocking word from a sedate Orthodox historian. Country 128. “Should not enter military service; otherwise both the deliverer and the surrendered would perish.” The author pronounces these and similar opinions of false teachers sharply and independently, as axioms, without a clear indication that these are delusions. For a reasonable reader this is not dangerous, but unpleasant. And for the ignorance and deceit of schismatics, we need to express ourselves more carefully. Country 129. The writer says that among the persons of the upper classes there were many inclined to split. The schismatics will be pleased with this: but is this true? Country 131. “The schism inexorably destroyed or stopped Peter’s work.” Where is the proof of this? Country 134. “Martyrdom is not at all what superstition takes it to be.” It seems that the writer wanted to say: martyrdom is not at all what superstition considers martyrdom. Country 153. 154. “He cuts men’s hair as priests and as deacons.” They are sheared as sextons and sextons, but they are not sheared to the highest degree. Country 161. “I introduced something else again.” It is necessary to say more definitely so that the Holy Synod is not accused of innovations that the Orthodox Church does not approve of. Country 162. “They tried to correct church opinion according to the rules of the latest art.” It is suggested that you trust this place. What is the use of saying that the service and canon of St. Alexander Nevsky was banned and selected, without explaining the reason for this? This only gives the appearance of inconstancy to management. Country 165. 169. 176. “Punitive craft: a) Biron 402, b) plague and Pugachev 403, c) Napaleon. The first general title is uncertain. Three particulars displeasedly allow one to guess that they relate to church history. Providence punishes, without a doubt, the guilty. But the article about Biron describes the suffering of most innocent people; and it is not explained how they relate to Providence. If “Dolgoruky paid their debt for political sins,” then does this belong to church history? Country 169. “Parisian debauchery, by the very extreme of its wickedness, forced many to adhere to ancient examples of Russian pious life.” Much honor to debauchery, and little honor to piety. Country 169. 170. The story “about young Plato”; and about the joke of Count Razumovsky in the church, unworthy of church history; and does not prove that “they wanted to sanctify freedom of thought and will.” Razumovsky simply joked about the severity of Peter the Great. Country 170. The story about the council, about Gabriel 404, about the geese and the conclusion of Empress Catherine: “The meeting is over,” is not correct. They say that a conversation of similar content took place in the office; but so that the council was assembled, and, after listening to the anecdote about geese, it was immediately closed with the words: the meeting is over, this is only possible in the theater. Country 170. “The price of Parisian freedom was revealed in Pugachev’s rebellion.” Not clear. And doesn’t the writer imagine Russia to be more infected than it really was? In particular, there were people infected with unbelief and freethinking, and, moreover, people of importance and influence: but was the infection so extensive and deep that the spirit of Russia could be considered infected at all? If the evil is particular, then fidelity to the truth requires that the denunciations should not be too vague and general. The freedom of Paris was proclaimed by the Parisian Pugachevs later than the Russian Pugachev. Closer to Paris, the causes that produced Pugachev can be found, which, however, like Pugachev himself, are not fully included in church history. Country 170. What was said about the Rogozhskaya and Preobrazhenskaya almshouses is not accurate. They did not yet exist at this time. The schismatics asked for space for cemeteries and permission to set up shelters for those suffering from the plague. Country 173. “The rules of Christian humility remained forgotten.” Would you like to limit this thought? And before 1812 there were people in Russia for whom the rules of Christian humility did not remain forgotten. "St. the utensils were used to dress horses and harlots.” The story of the desecration of a shrine is difficult; and even more so, caution is needed so that there is no exaggeration in it. One can understand that someone tore the vestments and covered the horse; but it is difficult to understand the possibility of transforming vestments into the clothing of a harlot. An inquiry is needed. Country 177. “The schism gave rise to not only obliging everyone to confess and partake of the Holy Mysteries every year”... Wouldn’t they really be obligated to confess and partake of the Holy Mysteries every year if the schism had not given rise to this? We need to be more careful. "Influenced by the European spirit." Not exactly. And the Russian church is located in Europe. Country 181. “In some dioceses almshouses remained for a long time.” Are they not there now? In Moscow there are up to one hundred almshouses attached to churches 405. See above, p. 282 and note. 1. Cathedral Hieromonk Eustathius. Stored from the original. in Moscow, library, dept. VII pp. 41 and 42, case of the Holy Synod, 1845, No. 3083, pp. 99 and 100. Feofan. About him, see vol. I, p. 292, note. 4. From a handwritten draft original, kept. to Moscow diocesan library, dept. VII, pp. 46, 49–51. Case of the Holy Synod, 1845, No. 3083, pp. 106–108. Case of the Holy Synod, 1845 No. 3083, l. 118. Case of the Holy Synod, 1815, No. 3083, l.l. 73 and 74. See above, no. 335, pp. 322 and 323. From the original, storing in Moscow diocesan library, dept. VII, l. 98–101. Zakrevsky, Count Arseny Andreevich, Moscow. military gen. gub., general. from infant.; mind. January 11, 1863, in France. Ton, Konstantin Andreevich, honored. Rector I. A. Kh., famous. architect., secrets Sov.; mind. January 25, 1881 Kaminsky, Joseph, architect, served under academician. arts, in 1850 From a handwritten original, kept. to Moscow diocesan library, dept. VIII, sheet. 73–76. From the original, storing in Moscow epar. library, dept. VII, pp. 102–103. See above, No. 336. Volkonsky, light. book Petr Mikhailovich; Adjutant General; mind. in 1852 See above, no. 327, p. 309. See above, No. 331, pp. 314–316. See above, no. 332, pp. 317 and 318. With the actual black original, storage to Moscow diocesan bibliography, dept. VII, l.l. 56–57. With autogr., storage. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 86, doc. No. 13. The words enclosed in parentheses are taken from the original definition of the Holy Synod on September 30, 1846. Of course, this is the time of the Metropolitan's transition. Philaret from the Kolomna diocese to Moscow, in 1800, when he, with the name of Vasily Drozdov, became a student at Trinity Seminary. See vol. I, page 1. From the original, storing in Moscow Diocesan library, dept. VII, pp. 104–105. Perovsky, Count Lev Alekseevich, see above, p. 91, note. 1. From a copy stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 86, document. Nos. 14 and 15. Zykov, Nick. Sem., from the nobility. Several characteristic news about Zykov were published by M.P. Smirnov, in the “Historical Bulletin”, for 1885, September, in the article: “Little things from memories,” pp. 582–589. Lopukhin, Alexey Alexandrovich, rev. due Prosecutor, Kam.-cadet. Feofan (Alexandrov), archim of the Don Monastery, from November 14, 1832 to July 6, 1850. From a handwritten draft original, kept. in Moscow diocesan library, dept. IX, pp. 36–43 and 63 and 64. Luzhin, Ivan Dmitrievich, retinue E.V. Major General. Zakrevsky, gr. A.A., see above, p. 327, note. 1. From a handwritten rough original, kept. to Moscow diocesan library library, dept. IX, pp. 44–49. See above, No. 337, pp. 327–329. Tone, K. A. cm. about him above, p. 327, note. 2. In the Tver Cathedral, stoves were built using the Amosov method in 1847, under Archbishop Gregory, later Metropolitan of Novgorod. From a handwritten rough original, kept. to Moscow. diocesan library, dept. VIII, 11. 78, 87. Orders of the Metropolitan. Filaret, about taking explanations, are as follows: I. 1850, April 8. From the deputy on the case of the former novice Zykov, Don- monastery governor, the following information is required, by decree of the Holy Synod: 1) Was a proper investigation carried out into Zykov’s act for which he was taken into custody by the police? 2) Was Zykov asked about this and what did he show, in writing or verbally? 3) Who others were asked and what did they show? 4) Why didn’t the deputy ask for a copy of this investigation and present it to his superiors? 5) Did the police take from Zykov, and why did they take an undertaking that he would not seek satisfaction for the offense caused to him, and what was this offense? 6) What papers did Zykov have in his possession that were recognized by the secular authorities as indecent for someone living in a monastery? 7) To whom were these papers given for burning, and were they really burned, and by whom, and where? 8) Does he, the deputy, know for what reason the police authorities decided it was necessary to seal and inspect these papers? 9) Does he, the deputy, have any written acts on this matter? 10) As in the report for 1849 about the novice Zykov, the abbot shows that Zykov’s frequent absences arouse suspicion of the sincerity of his disposition towards monasticism, can the abbot indicate some cases leading to this conclusion? II. 1850, April 8. To the information given by the deputy, Hieromonk Raphael, on April 8, 1850, the following additions are necessary: 1) How he, in paragraph 5, showed that Zykov gave a signature that he would not seek satisfaction, did he see this signature, did he not, as the deputy should, report that he was at her dacha; and if he hasn’t seen it, then why does he know about it? 2) Why didn’t he mention this subscription in his report to the synodal office, dated March 13? III. 1850, April 10. From the rector of the Donskoy Monastery, Fr. Archimandrite Theophan, by decree of the Holy Synod, information is required; 1) As in the report of the deputy, Hieromonk Raphael, to the synodal office, dated March 13, it is said that the letters and poems assigned for burning, upon returning from your excellency, were immediately presented to you; then did you pay attention to the contents of these letters and poems, why did you have an important reason to determine whether your subordinate was guilty, and of what, and what you did with these papers? 2) Can you point to certain cases that led you to the conclusion that Zykov arouses suspicion of the sincerity of his disposition towards monasticism? From handwritten originals stored in the Moscow diocesan library, dep. IX, pp. 67–70. Case of the Holy Synod, 1850, No. 2845. Count A.A. Zakrepsky, see about him, above, p. 327, note. 1. Agapit, ep. Tomsk, from 12 Aug. 1834; from June 10, 1841 member. Moscow synod. contact; from July 13, 1852 he ruled the Donskoy Monastery, where he died on January 1. 1854 From a handwritten draft original, kept. to Moscow diocesan library. dept. IX, pp. 50–62. Count Pavel Dmitrievich Kiselev, Minister of State. properties; died November 20, 1872, See edition: “Gr. Pavel Dmitrieivch Kiselev and his time. SPb. 1882" vol. II, p. 123. Wurst, Raimund-Jacob, complete collection. Op. his ed. in Stuttgart, 1863–1865, in 1 volume. Rousseau (Jean Jacques Rousseau), one of the eloquent writers of France; mind. July 3, 1778 Kant (Emmanuel Kant), known. philosopher; mind. in 1804 Fayet (Paife), Jean-Jacques, bishop. Orléans; mind. April 4, 1849 Giraud, Peter, Archbishop. Cambrai, cardinal; his op. in 7 volumes, published. for the 3rd time, in 1852 Cousin, Victor, known. philosopher; mind. 1867, op. his ed. for the first time, in 1846 and 1847, in 22 volumes. With authentic Chernov. papers, storing in Moscow spirit. acad., package No. 3, doc. Nos. 45 and 46; copy from the report. Keeps the Holy Synod. in secret. office papers. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1836, No. 154, l. 70–81. Taneev, Alexander Sergeevich, Doctor of Technical Sciences, Senior Secretary, Member. state Sov.; mind. July 17, 1866 Kovalkov, Alexander Ivanovich, t.s., assistant. Art.-abbr., chamberlain; mind. Dec. 20, 1852 The case of the Holy Synod, keeping. in his archive, 1850, No. 2845. pp. 8.37–41, 105–108. See above, p. 197, note. 1. The case of St. Synod 1849, No. 2383. See above, Nos. 321, 326, 328 and 329. Now he is an archpriest and rector of the Moscow Theological Academy. The case of the Muscovites. committee for qualification spirits books. 1850, No. 16. The manuscript was presented to the committee by the archimandrite of this monastery Agafangel and accepted for publication by the professor, Archpriest Theodore Golubinsky. Rep. conference Moscow spirit. acad., No. 49, Aug. 21, 1850 Feofan (Alexandrov) from July 6, 1850 was transferred to Nizhyn Nazareth Mother of God M., Chernigov bishopric, and from there on December 21. the same year he was moved to Makariev Troitsky, in the city of Kalyazin, metro station, Tver bishopric, where he died. Oct 23, 1852 Apollos (Alekseevsky) in March 1851, retired to the Rostov Yakovlevsky Monastery, where he died in 1839. Melchizedek (Sokolnikov) from March 26, 1851, transferred to Resurrection, New Jerusalem, where he died on July 6, 1852. 1853, Sept. 20 d. ordained bishop of Dmitrov, vicar of Moscow; died in the rank of Tver archbishop, June 9, 1877. Former bishop of Tomsk, retired on June 10, 1811, with appointment as a member of the Moscow synodal office; from 18 Dec. 1843 managed the Resurrection (New Jerusalem) Monastery; On March 26, 1851 he was transferred to the Moscow Novospassky Monastery, from there he was moved, on June 31, 1852, to the Donskoy Monastery, where on January 1. Died in 1854. Archimandrite Simeon (Avdulovsky), transferred, on August 31, 1850, from the Chernigov Yelets Monastery to the Moscow Donskoy; Died on February 21, 1852. Archim. Agapit, transferred on August 7, 1852, from the Joseph Volokolamsk Monastery to the Moscow Novospassky Monastery, with the appointment of a member of the synodal office and dean of the stauropegial monasteries, deceased. May 28th, 1877. Archim. Polycarp (Goytalinkov); mind. January 19, 1837 See above, p. 377 and note. 2. The list of these persons is not included here, as it has little to do with the personal views of Metropolitan Philaret. File from the Archives of the Holy Synod. 1850, No. 2845, l. 58, 59. 180–193. Nikolsky, Timofey Ferapontovich, see above about him. P. 219, approx. 3. Guryev, Semyon Emelyanovich, ord. academician and academician of sciences, member of the Russian Federation. academies; mind. in 1814. See Dictionary of light. rus. writer Metropolitan Evgenia, part 1, page 155. Moscow, 1845 Von Horn, South, Dr. theologian and philosopher., since 1810 he was a professor. into the spirit. acad. until the end of the first year. Fessler, Ignatius Aurel., prof. philosophy; mind. in 1839 After five months (Historical collection of academician I.A. Chistovich, p. 249). Orlov Y. V. About him, see East. St. Petersburg acad. I.A Chistovich, p. 252. and East. Troitsk family S. Smirnova, M. 1867, p. 532. Plato (Levshin), Metropolitan. Moscow, see above, p. 133, note. 5. Ambrose (Protasov), archbishop. Tver; mind. 1831. About him, see the Russian Review. spirit. literary Philareta, Archbishop. Chernigov, ed. 3, St. Petersburg, 1884, pp. 436–43. Stefan (Yavorsky), Metropolitan. Ryazan and Murom., President. Holy Synod; mind. November 27, 1722 Feofan (Prokopovich), archbishop. Novgorod, see above, p. 133, note. 1. Theophylact (Lopatinsky), archbishop. Tver, since 1723; in 1735 he was taken into custody; December 31, 1740 liberated from the fortress, d. May 6, 1741 d'Alembert, member French ac., encyclopedist; he refused this offer by writing a letter to Odar, who served in the cabinet of Empress Catherine II. See Tsarevich Pavel Petrovich. St. Petersburg, 1882. Historical. research D. F. Kobsko. Suvorov, book. Alexander Vasilievich, gr. Rymniksky, general.; mind. May 6, 1800 Plato (Levshin), Metropolitan. Moscow, see about him above, p. 133, approx. 6. Diderot (Denis Diderot), French. encyclop.; mind. in 1783 Biron (Biren, Johan Ernstvon Biron), Count, Duke of Courland; Nov. 8, 1740, taken into custody; exiled to Siberia, and then returned from exile, and in 1763 the dukedom was returned to him, which he renounced in 1769 in favor of his son Peter; mind. in 1772 Pugachev Emelyan Ivanov, Don Cossack; in 1775, January 10, quartered by decree of the Senate. Gabriel (Petrov), Metropolitan. Novgorod, see about him above, p. 134, note. 1. With black authentic, storing to the library Moscow spirit. acad., pak. 3, nos. 42–44; authentic letter to gr. N.A. Protasova keeps. in the case of chancellor chief proc. Holy Synod; 1848, No. 427, l. 6 and 7.