1852 г.

January 16. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret presenting “rules for the improvement of monastic brotherhoods in Moscow” The Holy Synod, by decree No. 100 of March 12, 1851, addressed to Metropolitan Philaret, among other things, instructed him to draw up draft rules on internal governance in monasteries. In pursuance of this, Metropolitan Philaret, dated January 16, 1852, No. 26, reported the following to the Holy Synod: In pursuance of the decree of the Holy Synod of March 12, 1851 No. 100, I hereby present the rules for the improvement of monastic brotherhoods in Moscow, humbly asking for a condescending view of the delay, which occurred, partly, during considerable studies, from the poverty of strength and often comprehending soreness, partly because, for immediate application to the peculiarities of some monasteries, I wanted to take advantage of attentive observation of the newly appointed dean of the stauropegial monasteries 426, the information and considerations he acquired; but this took time, and finally, the illness that befell me prevented me from taking advantage of his benefits. It is my duty to explain that when drawing up the rules, it seemed necessary to me to dissolve the necessary severity with moderate leniency, so that dangerous severity would not become an obstacle to the disposition to join Moscow monasteries, while these monasteries do not have an abundance of brethren; and reducing them to a meager number of brethren would be incompatible with their dignity, and could make an unfavorable impression on the residents of the capital who are zealous for it. Your Holiness's most humble novice Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow Rules for the improvement of monastic brotherhoods in Moscow stauropegic monasteries. Foundations of monasticism and its rules I. Monastic life must be well-ordered on the unshakable foundation of the word of God, with the help of the instructions and examples of the Holy Fathers: for only on this foundation is the building of spiritual life and salvation erected firmly and reliably; and what is built on the sand of human thoughts and desires is not solid and threatens a great fall. II. He who makes a vow of obedience and renunciation of his will and his wisdom must base it on the word of the Lord: if anyone wants to walk after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and come after Me. Matthew 16:24. III. He who takes a vow of chastity must heed the word of Christ: he who is able to contain, let him contain. Matthew 19:12. And the word of the apostle: he who is not married cares for the Lord’s things, how he may please the Lord. 1 Corinthians 7:32. IV. He who makes a vow of non-covetousness must be affirmed in the word of Christ: if you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give to the poor, and have treasure in heaven, and follow Me. Matthew 19:21. V. One must motivate oneself to the faithful and unremitting fulfillment of these vows by the word of Christ: no one lays his hand on the head, in vain they sleep, they are ruled in the Kingdom of God. Luke 9:62. VI. About the beneficialness of obedience, about the need for spiritual guidance, about the dangerous desire to live according to one’s own will, one must admonish oneself with the words of the wise Solomon: those who have no control fall like leaves; There is salvation in much advice. Proverbs 6:14. VII. All rules and regulations that improve the monastic fraternity as a whole and the behavior of each person in the fraternity, extending not only to spiritual and moral life, but also to the state of external deanery and economy, must come from these main principles, and be applied to them. VIII. A preparatory action for the improvement of the fraternity should be acceptance into the fraternity, with prudence and after a thorough test of the trustworthiness of the person accepted in terms of behavior and readiness to unswervingly fulfill all monastic duties. Everyone who wants to join a monastery is subjected to this test, over a more or less long period of time, so that later the abbot can take upon himself the responsibility of expressing consent to formally assign him to the monastery. IX. Unknown people, albeit with appearances, but without approving certificates about themselves or without other reliable certificates about their previous life, cannot be accepted, even for a temporary stay, into Moscow stauropegic monasteries. Moreover, those who, in secular or monastic life, have been found to have committed offenses against good behavior, and those who have discovered inconstancy by repeatedly moving from one monastery to another, are not accepted into these at all. Those who are recognized as intolerant for their misdeeds in one of the stauropegic monasteries should not, under any circumstances, even for correction, be placed in another stauropegic monastery 427. X. The nomination of a novice for tonsure as a monk should be based not simply on the fulfillment of the legalized three years of probation, but on the certification acquired, through faithful supervision and testing, of his trustworthiness for the worthy passage of monastic life. And it is better for him to secure a firm future path for himself through continued temptation than to rush into a decisive embrace, not protected from the danger of hesitation and stumbling. XI. Each member of the monastic fraternity, especially the younger one, or those on probation, being under the supervision and orders of the abbot and the officials subordinate to him, in relation to monastic duties and deanery, must, moreover, in relation to spiritual life, be under the special guidance of an elder, to whom he must often reveal his state of mind, occupation, perplexities, difficulties, embarrassments, temptations, errors, and receive from him the unfavorable attitudes towards others. resolution of confusion, correction of errors, and instructions most directly applicable to his current situation and guiding him to further success in spiritual life. XII. For some, the elder may be the abbot, for others the general confessor of the monastery, carefully selected for this position, with the qualities required for it, and for others, other members of the brethren, capable of edifying by word and example. In addition, the abbot himself, or by his appointment, the most capable of the elders, must teach at certain hours to all novices and brethren of the less educated the doctrine of the faith, according to the short catechism and a short sacred history (Ecclesiastical Reg., art. 35) 428 . XIII. The rector and confessor see to it that all the brethren cleanse their consciences with the sacrament of repentance, and partake of the Holy Mysteries in all four Lents, without fail, and some, depending on their state of mind, more often, and especially the clergy before entering the sequence of priestly service. In general, the fasting of the brethren during four fasts should be accompanied by the most careful supervision of the abbot and confessor and the strengthening of general teachings and private instructions for those fasting, according to the importance of this spiritual feat 429. XIV. Everyone must accept and carry out the work of obedience assigned by the abbot unquestioningly, except in the case of an insurmountable obstacle that he encounters in his inability or weakness. In this case, he must reveal his inability or weakness to the abbot with humility and submit to his further reasoning, which the abbot must mark either with condescension towards weakness, or with firmness against an unruly will. XV. The brethren should not undertake anything special out of their own thoughts and will, and they should not undertake special spiritual endeavors, for example, imposing fasts on themselves beyond what is prescribed by the rules, according to reasoning and with the blessing of the abbot, confessor or elder, so that self-indulgence or conceit does not creep into the work of their will and damage the good deed, just as a worm damages the fruit. XVI. The abbot and elders must ensure that the brethren remain at peace with each other, and if anyone is found not at peace with another, immediately use all possible means so that the offender asks for forgiveness, and the offended forgives, strictly observing the word of the apostle: let not the sun go down on your anger. Eph.4:26. The abbot is obliged to inspect all the cells of the brethren at least once every three days at unspecified hours 430. XVII. The most important subject of attention of the monastery authorities and the zeal of the brethren is church worship. Not neglectful and reverent participation in the commission of this, or presence at it, must be supported by the example and motivation of the authorities. Failure to do so should be recognized as a major breach of duty, and urgently stopped by corrective measures. XVIII. Half an hour before the morning bell, the wake-up caller, having taken a blessing from the abbot or his elder, goes around all the cells with prayer, for the timely awakening of the brethren. XIX. After the start of the gospel for every Divine service, everyone should try to come to church before starting prayer. XX. The wake-up caller announces the person who has not arrived or arrived late to the church to the rector or his elder, depending on the circumstances, either during the service itself, or immediately after the end of it, for inquiry and consideration of the case. XXI. Those engaged in certain obediences, for example, in the refectory, if they cannot fully participate in church services, must have special permission from the rector in this case. Especially if they cannot be in the late liturgy, they should be in the early liturgy. XXII. The clergy who read and sing in church must carry out their work with unflagging attention, without double-voicedness, preserving ancient church singing without being damaged by innovations incompatible with simplicity and tenderness, which are especially appropriate for monastic divine services (Instruction of the monastic monastic). XXIII. The readings from the patristic writings at Matins, the teachings at the liturgy, and the evening rule laid down in the charter should not be omitted, except in special cases when this is required by the duration of the holiday service, or by many private prayers. XXIV. The brethren occupy certain places in the church separately from the people, with the exception of some who, by virtue of their positions, occupy places among the people, such as, for example, by candlelight. Standing in church should be so reverent that it can serve as an edification and example to all the people. Therefore, it is forbidden to unnecessarily look around or pay attention to the coming lay people, which during prayer should be entirely directed towards the one God 431. XXV. No one should leave the church before the end of the service, except for extreme necessity, for which they must strictly report to the authorities. XXVI. At the end of Matins, all the brethren approach the abbot standing in his place to receive a blessing; also at the end of Compline, for forgiveness. XXVII. On the way to and from church, the brethren should not stop with strangers and engage in conversations; and if anyone is asked about anything, limit yourself to the necessary answer. XXVIII. If the fraternal meal is served immediately after the end of the church service, then the brethren go straight from the church to the meal, and if after some time, then, while waiting for the meal, they rest in their cells. XXIX. At the signal given by the bell, all the brethren immediately gather for a meal, which begins and ends with prayer, according to the rules. XXX. During the meal, the brethren remain silent, listening to the proposed reading from instructive books, or the lives of saints. XXXI. Entering a meal late, or leaving it before finishing, is considered a disorder and is not left without responsibility. XXXII. No one should take food into the cell, except for those who are allowed to do so by the abbot, as those who are unable to come to the common meal due to illness or extreme old age (Spiritual regulations of the monastery, art. 23–24). XXXIII. The time remaining from church services and from works of public obedience, spent in cells, should be used by the brethren in accordance with the apostolic instruction: redemptive time (Eph. 5:16). Trying to use prudent and thrifty use of time, as if by accurately calculating the price, to acquire some benefit, and ultimately spiritual benefit. Time-saving cell sessions are: 1) cell prayer rule, according to the rules, and the reasoning and blessing of the elder. 2) Reading spiritual books under the guidance of the most experienced elders 432. 3) Writing out what is most needed from books of prayer or edification. 4) Preparatory exercise for church services in church reading and simple musical singing, without any admixture of new compositions or transcriptions 433. 5) Activities assigned by the abbot and performed out of obedience. 6) Handicraft for the benefit of the monastery, or to satisfy one’s own needs, or in order to produce something and give it to the poor. XXXIV. For cell reading, we offer, firstly, the Holy Scriptures, and secondly, the writings of the holy fathers and the lives of the saints, especially the ascetic writings of Basil the Great, John Climacus, Ephraim the Syrian, Macarius of Egypt, Nile of Sora; for some non-novices also Isaac the Syrian, Barsanuphius the Great, and the writings collected in the book: Philokalia, but not without the supervision and guidance of the most experienced, especially the latter, so that the well-timed high reading does not become for the inexperienced a case of incorrect application of a poorly understood teaching, and of daydreaming instead of true success in spiritual life. XXXV. The monastic brethren are not forbidden to read books of human wisdom, such as historical books and those relating to the study of nature, as if for relaxation, and, moreover, with the intention of discerning in the creations of God and in the events of the world God’s wisdom and God’s Providence and judgment. In particular, one can wish and demand that the brethren certainly know the history of their monastery, the lives of the ascetics who glorified it, their rules and instructions, and in general be familiar with the monastic monuments 434. XXXVI. Books of worldly and carnal wisdom, such as theatrical and romantic books, should not be allowed into the monastery, and it will be worse than anyone’s aspirations if they are found in the monastery, they should be set on fire, or immediately sent away if they are the property of outside secular persons. XXXVII. Icon painting is a very decent occupation for the monastic brethren. The authorities should favor those who want to engage in it, directing them primarily to imitate ancient models (Spiritual regulations of the mon., art. 18). XXXVIII. Handicrafts should be chosen, according to the instructions of St. Basil the Great, mostly simple, related to need and benefit, and not to luxury and whim, or conducive to health through body movement, such as carpentry and turning. XXXIX. In cells and cell things and their arrangement, cleanliness, order and decency must be observed, combined with simplicity, favorable to carelessness and impartiality towards things. Decorations that are refined and close to luxury should not be allowed. XL. There should not be any strong drinks in the cells, unless someone is especially allowed to do so by the abbot, for reinforcement, due to poor health or difficult obedience. XLI. Those who have enough strength, especially the younger ones, would do well if, to maintain cleanliness in the cell and around the cell, and for heating it, they do not require a servant, and serve in this respect to the elders. XLII. The clothing of the brethren must also be kept clean and simple, alien to luxury and splendor. In addition to black, only dark gray can be allowed, and only for inner clothing, and not for outerwear. XLIII. The clothing of the brethren should be, if possible, uniform. This must be achieved either simply by supervision, or by arranging for all the brethren to wear the same clothes, by order of the abbot. On mutual visits to cells XLIV. The brethren can visit each other in their cells for collective edifying reading (which the illiterate especially need), and for mutual admonition and edification through this reading, for mutual assistance in the needs of the cells, especially for visiting the sick and elderly and serving them. XLV. For these visits, no special permission is required: however, the abbot and his superior must observe who visits whom, so that visits that are entertaining and could be harmful are stopped. XLVI. After the evening meal, everyone must remain in their cell, except in special cases when the abbot requires someone, or when it is necessary to go to the abbot or elder on a matter of conscience, or to serve a difficult patient. At 9 o'clock in the evening, after the monastery gates are closed, the abbot inspects the cells himself or through reliable elders 435. XLVII. For visitors to the monastery churches, the entrance to the monastery opens with the gospel for Matins; and it stops at seven or eight o'clock in the evening, depending on the time of year, and according to the reasoning of the abbot; in the evening of summer holidays after the end of the all-night vigil. XLVIII. Reception of external visitors in the cell is allowed between the end of the late liturgy and the beginning of Vespers, except for special needs, for example, visiting a doctor. The abbot can also receive after Vespers until a certain closing time of the monastery. XLIX. The abbot, as the head and representative of the monastery, has a special need to receive visitors, pilgrims and benefactors of the monastery, and is guided in this by his own discretion. Others should not often receive strangers, and each time not otherwise than with the consent of the abbot or the person taking his place 436, and, moreover, in their cells in monasteries they should only receive the male sex. As for female persons who need to see one of the monastics or novices, with the dignity of a monastery, with the distinction of monastic life, and the silence of a cell stay, it is recognized that they should be received not in cells, but in a fraternal meal (not during meals), or in a specially designated monastery reception room, and not in private, but in the presence of one of the senior reverent monks who is assigned to this will be the rector; Moreover, no treat is allowed (Spiritual regulation of the mon., art. 20 and 34) 437. About the departure of the brethren from the monastery L. The departure of the brethren from the monastery occurs due to official duties, by order of the abbot, and is allowed at the request of those who have a respectful, private need. LI. Those leaving the monastery with the abbot for a cathedral or other divine service must return to the monastery immediately after its completion. LII. When monastery clergy are required in parish churches for priestly service, instead of local patients, or for early liturgies, or in house churches of the diocesan department: the rector appoints serviceable and trustworthy people for this, with the permission of the diocesan bishop. At the same time, it is also observed that they leave the monastery at the appointed time of the Divine service for which they are called, and return immediately after it has been completed. LIII. The custom that exists in Moscow and in some monasteries is that on the feasts of the Nativity of Christ, monastics visit the houses of some benefactors of the monastery with the holy cross; if it does not turn out to be convenient to stop (so that those who are zealous are not upset), then it should be preserved in a limited form. A hieromonk with a holy cross and two or three singers can be sent to the few honorable houses of pious benefactors of the monastery, for festive doxology, on the first and second days of the holiday. They should avoid the treat. Liv. Of the monasteries in which the dead rest, monastics should not go to houses for funeral and nominal dinners. Those who are zealous can, if they wish, send something to the monastery for the common meal of the brethren. LV. For the economic needs of the monastery, those sent from it, immediately upon their return, give the one who sent them a report on the matter and in time. LVI. In regular monasteries, such as those in Moscow, it is customary to divide income between the brethren, to produce what each individually satisfies his various personal economic needs, and hence comes the need for frequent departure from the monastery and relations with worldly people. The abbot and the brethren, who would be more zealous to fulfill the vow of non-covetousness, and formed into a perfect community, would deserve the encouragement of the authorities in this; But achieving this soon, in addition to the ingrained custom, there are other important obstacles. Under such circumstances, the monastery authorities should try, although some of the personal needs of the brethren, to be satisfied by the superior general order, and thereby reduce personal concerns and entertainment. And some imaginary needs, recognized by worldly people, but not arising from the true demands of nature, but invented for false self-gratification bypassing nature, should not be allowed into the monastery, and if they sneak in, they should be stopped and destroyed by prudent suggestions. The prudence of the superiors is left to detailed considerations, which would be lengthy and petty to indicate here. LVI. Anyone who has the necessary need to leave the monastery must explain this need to the abbot, or in case of his absence and on his instructions, to the senior in charge, and when the reason for the need is respected, then permission is given; Moreover, depending on the significance of the absence, and the degree of trust in the person leaving, if the dismissing person finds it necessary, the reason and duration of the absence are entered in the book established for that purpose, by decree of the Holy Synod, March 12, 1851. The dismissed person, immediately upon returning, must come to the dismissal person to verify whether this period has been observed, which is noted in the same book. But if the person being dismissed, either due to age or for other reasons, requires some supervision, then he must be released accompanied by a trustworthy elder 438 . LVIII. Departure from the monastery is permitted only during the daytime, and the return date must always be before the evening meal. LIX. A visit to a benefactor or relative can be allowed no more than four times a year, and, moreover, in the company of another honest elder, and mainly for the purpose of 439 edification. (Spiritual regulation about mon., art. 21). On the means to maintain decency and good morals LX. So that the rules of decorum and good morals are carefully and steadily followed by the brotherhood, the surest way for this is that these rules are internally respected and loved. The abbot and the elders must arouse and nourish this inner disposition in the brethren with a good example and benevolent suggestions, that the rules prescribed to the fraternity from great to small have a connection with monastic vows, and the observance of these vows, with spiritual salvation, that according to the word of the Lord, the faithful is faithful in a little and in many, and the unrighteous in a little and in many is unrighteous (Luke 15:10). that, consequently, infidelity even to those rules that seem small can be very harmful; that the son of the monastery, according to the word of the church song, should gain vision in vision by action, that is, by hardworking and unflagging fulfillment of the commandments of God and the rules of the fathers, should open the way to a higher spiritual and contemplative life, which is the purpose of heavenly life on earth; that those who came to the monastery, so that by observing the commandments, rules and vows of monasticism, more than those living in the world, would confirm the hope of salvation, if even with the special benefits found here, they neglect to observe them, they will be condemned more bitterly than those who live carelessly in the world. LXI. Although the abbot must be well-disposed towards all members of the brotherhood and a guardian of all, those who are predominantly good in behavior, faithful in fulfilling the prescribed rules and who strive to succeed in spiritual life will naturally primarily enjoy his favor, care, trust and respect; and this should be a means both for establishing them on a good path, and for giving them a useful and edifying influence on others. LXII. It should not be hidden from the abbot who among the brethren writes to whom, or from whom he receives letters. Depending on the circumstances, he may demand that the letters be shown to him; and, if the correspondence is neither necessary nor useful, order it to be stopped. LXIII. Since corrective measures are also needed for those who stumble in behavior, they must be used without anger, with careful consideration of guilt, with exact justice and meekness. First, one must admonish the guilty person about his guilt, and then apply penance, as a result of which he must accept it not as a scourge, but as healing and encouragement for the better. LXIV. The custom of bowing down for misdeeds requires spiritual reasoning. Both the boss and the culprit should not look at this as punishment. Prayer, in its essence, is and should be presented as a beneficial action, and not a punitive one. Prostrations in front of the brethren should also not be done with the thought of humiliation and shame; prayer is a sacred action and should not be presented as a shameful action. One must bow down so that the one who has violated his duty asks God for forgiveness and help in his correction. This should be done without many witnesses, so that he can pray more easily without embarrassment. If there is an urgent need to put someone on prostration in front of the brethren, then it is necessary to impress upon him and the brethren that this is not to humiliate him, but so that others, seeing his repentance, will call on him for God’s help for correction. LXV. Anyone who 440 sins by using the income received not for true needs and benefits, but for expenses 441 contrary to moderation and abstinence 442 should not be tolerated in stauropegic monasteries. LXVI. Corrective measures may also include removal from the common fraternal meal for one or several days, and in cases of no small importance, hopeless confinement in a cell for one to three days, with fasting until the evening. LXVII. Misdemeanors that are repeated more than once, or of no small importance, especially of persons who do not enjoy the trust of their superiors, should, at the discretion of the abbot, be recorded in the same book in which absences from the monastery are recorded. The frequency or importance of misconduct leads the abbot to the decision to report them to the authorities who are in charge of the monastery. LXVIII. These rules are announced to everyone who enters the monastic brotherhood, and he signs the unswerving fulfillment of them, as well as the unswerving responsibility in case of violation of them. Moreover, although, once a month, they are read aloud to everyone at meals 443. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow 444 January 23. Opinion, entitled: “thoughts on the question: is it useful in church and state relations for churches and monasteries to own immovable estates” Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, in relation dated November 28, 1851, No. 8228, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret that, due to a particular need encountered in the considerations he was dealing with, regarding the benefits for the ecclesiastical department from donating lands, houses and other things to churches, “and asked him to communicate such considerations to him and, if possible, in a short time.” Regarding Count N.A. Protasov, Metropolitan Philaret noted: “1852, January 23, is now being fulfilled.” Thoughts on the question: is it useful in church and state relations for churches and monasteries to own real estate? I. The first creator of the spiritual rank through the law is God Himself. He gave through Moses the law by which among the Jews the tribe of Levi was formed into a Divine service title, special from the rest of the people, or, according to the name now in use, adapted to the spirit of Christianity, a spiritual title. The letter of this law was adapted to the time of the Old Testament, and passed away with it: but shouldn’t something remain of the spirit of this law for us? For he came from eternal truth. God did not give the Levites an equal right to own land with other people, so that, being busy with earthly things, they would not be distracted from their spiritual purpose (Deut. 18:1). But of course he foresaw the inconvenience of leaving them without real estate, and appointed them not only to settle in the city, so that they would not be homeless, but also the outskirts of the city, and adjacent to the city, from the city wall, two thousand Lakotas around for economic use (Num. 35: 2–5). II. In the first days of Christianity, we see that zealous churches sold real estate, and their price was laid at the feet of the apostles (Acts 4:34-35). But this was not according to a permanent law or rule, but due to temporary need. With the sudden increase in believers, not only Jerusalemites, but also those who had gathered in Jerusalem from different countries, a multitude of people in need of food suddenly appeared. It was not enough to give income from estates for this purpose; it was necessary to sell the estates. III. Subsequently, the children of the church generally helped it with movable property, and some with immovable property. Diligence gave it away; and the need was accepted without asking either the legislative or the executive power, which at that time was not Christian. The Christian power of the Roman Empire found the matter ready and protected it with laws. She not only allowed churches and monasteries to accept real estate from investors, but also took care that they were not alienated. The Law of Justinian (New Western Gran. 2, Chapter 2) allows the sacred vessels in excess to be sold in order to thereby preserve immovable church property: but let not real estate, rex, villages or grapes be sold. IV. The rules of the councils also show care that immovable church property is not alienable (7 Ecumenical Sob. pr. 12; Kare. sob. pr. according to the book of rules 35, according to the Helmsman 26). V. Saints and reverends of the Russian Church, who cannot be suspected either of a lack of reasoning about the benefit of the church, or of self-interested views, for example, Theodosius of Kiev-Pechersk, Varlaam of Khutyn, St. Alexy, Sergius and Nikon of Radonezh, accepted real estate in favor of churches and monasteries, and kept them with them. What were their types? Without a doubt, so that the churches and those who serve them are reliably provided for, so that the monks are not forced to go into the world, ask for what they need, so that they use the right of power over the peasants for their Christian edification, so that the excess of what they acquire is used to feed the poor, and for other charity, and when necessary, and when it is possible, to benefit state needs. VI. The Old Testament right of the clergy to receive tithes from the people gave way to Christian freedom, and turned into the custom of voluntary offerings, sometimes abundant, sometimes not satisfying the needs of the church and clergy. The tithe of Equal-to-the-Apostles Grand Duke Vladimir had imitators, and then stopped. But, what people did not expect at all, Providence over the course of centuries delivered to the Russian Church a full tithe from Russia. In the past century, the church owned immovable estates, the population of which amounted to a million souls, which was a tenth of the then number of taxable souls. VII. It should not be taken as an offense if anyone notices that the Russian clergy did not always use this gift of Providence in strict accordance with its purpose. The household was caring; the monasteries and their peasants had a lot of grain; piety was instilled and rooted, so that some of the former monastery villages are still distinguished by their zeal for the church; but the honorable brethren of rich monasteries often shied away from the vow of non-covetousness and from the simplicity of life characteristic of monasticism. And we must admit that the same insightful and good Providence that patronized the increase in the earthly wealth of the church, for good purposes, delivered it from the difficulties and temptations of earthly avarice, through the most pious Sovereigns. Not only inhabited, but mostly uninhabited church estates, with the assistance of the elders of the clergy, were appointed and taken into state administration. VIII. If the separate administration of the former church estates with a million souls, established under Empress Catherine the Second, had been carefully continued; and the income, which was supposed to increase over time, for the satisfaction of the clergy with legalized salaries, was saved for use for further needs of spiritual administration, and for emergency cases of state needs: spiritual administration, of course, would not be a burden, but a relief to the state, and the care for this administration of the Sovereign Emperor Nicholas the First would enjoy incomparably greater convenience in comparison with the current one. But things took a different form during the same reign of Empress Catherine II. The former church farms, carefully arranged, disappeared; a significant number of former church estates, mixed with state ones, passed into private hands; the production of salaries for the clergy, provided by former church estates, with the loss of this provision, fell on the state treasury. IX. The difference between the preservation of an immovable church estate and the loss of it from view can be seen from the following example: when former church estates were taken into state administration, an annual salary of 20 rubles was assigned to the hieromonk, according to current accounts, 7 rubles, then sufficient, now insignificant. If the supporting real estate had been in mind: then, with the increase in the value of the items of vital food, income would increase, and it would be easy to increase the salary provided by them, not as it is now, when the circumstances of the times constantly increase the needs of the state, and therefore it is ashamed to pester the state economic administration about the monastic salary. The past cannot be returned; but from the experience of the past one can extract useful thoughts for the present and the future. This idea is the following: the acquisition of real estate by the church not only serves to reliably ensure church services, but can also serve to facilitate the state economy. However, this thought does not currently apply to populated estates, the possession of which would especially strongly involve the clergy in worldly affairs, and is incompatible with the currently prevailing thoughts or perplexities about the serfdom, although in Russia, subject to the observance of the laws, it differs from slavery as much as white from black. X. But the love for the clergy to own real estate was born in the West; and there was something to give birth to there. The example of the Roman high priest, who not only became a secular sovereign, but also sought, sometimes not without success, to place himself as sovereign over sovereigns, naturally produced imitations in the subordinate clergy, in more or less reduced sizes according to the strength of persons and circumstances, while directing the Latin clergy to strengthen its influence on secular power, this should sooner or later be aroused to counteraction, and in order to reduce the oppressive influence of the clergy, reduce the external means of its power. All this is alien to the Eastern clergy in general, and especially to the Russian Church. The commandment: render Caesar's to Caesar's, and God's to God's - she never divided into two opposite parts, and always tried and is trying to support one another, and not weaken. The Russian clergy enjoyed significant real estate as long as state power granted it to them; As soon as she recognized it as better to take them at her disposal, the senior clergy, as stated above, contributed to the adoption of the necessary measures. And so, if in the West the state power in some way does not trust the church, this does not lead to any conclusion in relation to Russia. The increase in immovable uninhabited estates in church ownership, and to this day the most insignificant, does not present any doubt for the state. XI. Will it perhaps be said that over the course of centuries the immovable estates of the church can multiply excessively? Over the centuries there will be time to think about it. When necessary, nothing will prevent you from turning to what, at the discretion of the need, Russian sovereigns did in past centuries - to stop their further multiplication and make an order about them that turns out to be necessary based on the essence of the matter and the circumstances of the time. XII. At present, the state power of Russia, having seen that the maintenance of the parish clergy with various incomes from parishioners is sometimes unsatisfactory, sometimes associated with inconvenience and unseemlyness, is taking care to provide them with a stable maintenance with monetary salaries from the treasury; and must struggle with difficulties in fulfilling this. On the one hand, one must refrain from demands that are burdensome for the treasury, on the other hand, one must be careful so that by reducing the number of clergy not to increase the number of the homeless and helpless and not to make an unfavorable impression on parishioners who cannot indifferently see with the removal of the clergy the cessation of constant Divine services in their church. These difficulties now and in the future would be much less, since the churches would have more real estate. Instead of a salary from the treasury, some churches could be content with income from the estate. There are examples - that some churches, by selling timber from their lands, or by selling the land itself (of course with the highest permission), made up capital, from which the diocesan authorities now had the opportunity to retain clergy with them and not demand salaries from the treasury. XIII. Monasteries are needed not only for those who live in them, but also for the church and the state. And despite their imperfection, there are always people in them who pray with love and strength for the Tsar and the Fatherland; and their holiness and diligent, well-organized Divine services greatly nourish the people's piety. Regular salaries are currently insufficient for their meager existence. Not many of them are provided with income from pilgrims. If the ancient majestic buildings in the monasteries are not allowed to be destroyed, and the brotherhoods are supplied with the necessities, then some, even significant monasteries, owe this to another farmstead leased out, another mill, another land cultivated or given away for establishments. And that many monasteries are not provided with what they need, this is revealed daily by the fact that monks and novices, nuns and novices walk around the cities with collected books in such numbers that the multitude of them exhausts and cools the charitable disposition in people, sent with these books, suffer from the need to address themselves in the worldly crowd, and some are damaged morally by this. From this it is clear that the investor who gives the monastery real estate does not only benefit it materially, but also morally; and the state receives relief from the concern for maintaining monasteries and national monuments. XIV. Some give immovable estates to churches and monasteries in wills, some give them during their lifetime, by vow, in gratitude for the special benefits of God, or in order to gain God's mercy by benefactoring the church. As it is pleasant for the Christian heart to see such dispositions, so, without a doubt, it would be unpleasant for a pious government to be in the need to hinder the action of such dispositions. Fortunately, this is not necessary. XV. Those who are prompted by pious feelings or a vow to give real estate to a church or monastery, if they encounter this obstacle, so as not to break the vow, of course, they will turn it into money and give it away for its intended purpose. But this will decrease and the benefit will become less durable. The money may be spent and the benefit will end; real estate will always bear fruit. Capital and its interest, significant at the beginning, over time, due to changes in value, can become insignificant. Income from real estate, corresponding to modern value, will most likely retain its original significance. XVI. All of the above leads to the conclusion that the possible increase in immovable uninhabited estates at churches and monasteries in Russia, following the examples and rules of antiquity, in accordance with the examples and rules of antiquity, is useful for churches and monasteries, makes it easier for the state and is not doubtful in any other respect 445 . January 31st. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, on the transfer of the charitable helmsman's book from the library of the synodal sacristy to the department of the workshop and armory Count N.A. Protasov, regarding, dated January 14, 1852, No. 258, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret. From the decree of the Holy Synod, sent to the Moscow office on December 12 last, No. 14.479, Your Eminence knows that a special department is being established at the Moscow workshop and armory for the storage of state charters and other ancient papers worthy of note, and that to this department, by the highest command, several manuscripts of the patriarchal library are intended to be transferred. Now the State Secretary Count Bludov 446 informs me that among the documents destined for this repository should be the Russian truth of Yaroslav the Great, the oldest list of which, according to the instructions of the historiographer Karamzin, in the notes to the second volume of his history, is in the synodal library, in the Charitable Helmsman's Book (No. 82). To this, Count Bludov adds that, in his opinion, it would be very decent to place this list in the proposed compartment, in that special ark in which the codes of law of John III and John IV will be kept; but that before reporting this to the Sovereign Emperor, he wants to know whether it will be considered possible to cede, or, better said, just move this copy of the helmsman’s book from the synodal library to the designated department of the workshop and armory. As a result of this, I turn to you, dear sir and archpastor, with the most humble request to notify me whether the list of Yaroslav’s Russian truth is contained in the aforementioned manuscript, No. 82, and in what condition this manuscript is, as well as to communicate your opinion on the explained question of Count Bludov.” At the top, on the relation, the Metropolitan wrote: January 30. Reply with an opinion about separating the required last part from the manuscript. The relationship field is marked with Metropolitan: 1852, January 21. Sheet 615 is reversed. Judge Yaroslavl Volodymyritsa. Sheet 628. Charter of Saint Prince Vladimir, who baptized the Russian land. Sheet 632. Last in the book. By your Excellency, 14 days from this January, No. 258, it is required of me: 1) information whether the list of Russian truth of Yaroslav is in the charate manuscript of the helmsman's book, located in the synodal library, under No. 82 (according to the inventory of subsequent times, No. 132), and in what condition this manuscript is. 2) Opinions on the question: will it be considered possible to transfer this copy of the helmsman’s book from the synodal library to the department of the workshop and armory, established for the storage of state charters and other ancient papers worthy of note. I. The indicated manuscript of the helmsman's book is parchment, in sheets, bound in boards, well preserved. This manuscript, from the beginning to page 615, contains the rules of the holy apostles, holy councils and holy fathers and several articles of ancient Russian church legislation. On page 615, the trial of Yaroslavl Volodymyritsa, otherwise Russian truth, begins. On sheet 628, the charter of the holy Prince Vladimir, who baptized the Russian land, begins on tithes and church judgment. On sheet 630, the charter of the Novgorod prince Svyatoslav, also about tithes. The book ends with folio 631. II. From the above it is clear that the manuscript in question, on 614 pages, contains acts of church legislation and for the most part the most important: a) Russian truth, with the addition of the two articles following it, occupies only 17 pages of the latter. This composition of the book already shows how inconvenient it is to tear it away from the church library. This manuscript of the helmsman's book, in addition to its antiquity, is important for the history of church jurisprudence: firstly, because it represents how, from the oldest translation of the complete church rules, an abbreviated text was formed, which was later included in the printed helmsman's book; secondly, because it contains the most ancient experiences of Russian church legislation. From this it is clear how necessary this manuscript is for those engaged in church jurisprudence. Upon entering the armory, it, of course, could not be as accessible to them as in the synodal library. In Moscow there is a custom according to which, on the week of Easter, the ancient churches in the Kremlin and the synodal sacristy and the synodal library are open, and the people, visiting them and worshiping the shrine, are consoled by the review of antiquities. Taking this opportunity, those who are zealous for Orthodoxy show schismatics on ancient icons and in ancient books those features that testify to the true antiquity recognized by the Orthodox Church, and expose the imaginary antiquity of schismatic traditions. The keeper of the synodal sacristy and library contributes to this with knowledge of the matter; but from the keeper of the armory one cannot demand either convenience or detailed knowledge of the matter, when a schismatic needs to find, indicate and explain a rule in the ancient helmsman’s book that can enlighten him about the rightness of the Orthodox Church. From this it is clear that to take this manuscript from the spiritual department would be incongruous both with its predominant character and with the benefit of spiritual learning and Orthodoxy. But in order to satisfy the requirement of the established state repository of antiquities, the following method can be used: the last part of the manuscript, starting from sheet 615 to the end, which contains: Russian truth, the charter of Vladimir and the charter of Svyatoslav, is separated from the helmsman books, and given to the state repository of antiquities, and the helmsman itself is left in the synodal library as before. This is the opinion, in my best understanding, inspired by the essence of the matter. January 31st. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with an opinion on the manuscript entitled: “The Installation of Tsars and Grand Dukes to the Kingdom,” which was kept in the patriarchal library, and by the highest order, assigned for transfer to the department of the Moscow Armory Chamber An order was made to the Moscow Office of the Holy Synod to allow Academician Solntsev 448 to examine the ancient manuscripts of the Patriarchal Library, which, by imperial command, were designated for transfer to the newly established department of the Moscow Armory Chamber. Among these manuscripts is the following: “The Book on the Installation of Tsars and Grand Dukes to the Kingdom” (No. 580, and according to the catalog of the Synodal Library, 1823, No. 703). According to this title, there are two manuscripts bound in one leather binding, which do not constitute one book any more than two people placed in one chariot do not constitute one person. The first manuscript, on 28 sheets, is written in curly handwriting of the 17th century, with capital letters written in cinnabar, and has the title written in cinnabar: On the installation of pious kings and great princes as kings. On the first page of the 28th folio, the manuscript ends with the word Amen, and the other page remains white. The second manuscript begins with folio 29 and continues to folio 123; With this one unwritten sheet the book ends. The numbering of the sheets, in the handwriting of modern times, continues alone, no doubt only because this second manuscript was found in the same binding as the first. This second manuscript is written in 17th-century handwriting, in small, curly handwriting. At the beginning the title, written half in cinnabar and half in ink, is as follows: Order of election to bishops 449. This is followed by 17 more articles, all of church content. Their table of contents is attached herewith. Therefore, the synodal sacristan presented me with a question: if this book is transferred to the designated department of the armory, should not an exact list of church contents be made from the second manuscript to be left in the synodal library, or should the first manuscript be separated and handed over for its intended purpose, and the second in the original left in the synodal library. Guided by the considerations that are set out in relation to my Excellency, dated January 31, 1852 450, regarding the manuscript of the helmsman’s book, I find it compatible and convenient with the nature of the objects to divide two manuscripts, bound together, and transfer the first one on the installation of pious kings to the kingdom to the armory, and the second, containing 18 articles of church content, to leave in the synodal sacristy. I consider it my duty to bring this to the attention of your Excellency and to most humbly ask you, dear sir, to seek a resolution of this issue through the communications that depend on you. February 16. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret with a conclusion on the procedure for relations between ecclesiastical consistories and the offices of other departments The Holy Synod, after hearing the ruling of the Governing Senate on the procedure for relations between ecclesiastical consistories and the offices of other departments, found it necessary to communicate it, dated December 31, 1851, under No. 16271, to Metropolitan Philaret so that he could present his conclusion on this issue to the Holy Synod, with the return of the ruling of the Governing Senate. On this decree, the Metropolitan noted: “February 14. To convey, with the assumption of intercourse through a member, with the return of the Senate’s determination.” Then, Metropolitan Philaret, dated February 16, 1852, reported the following to the Holy Synod: By Decree of the Holy Synod, dated December 31, 1851, No. 16271, I was ordered to present a conclusion on the subject of the determination of the Governing Senate on the procedure for relations with the consistories of the lower government offices of the civil department. Since a ruling on this subject has already been made by the Governing Senate, which also agreed with the ruling of the Holy Synod, it would have been considered untimely to draw up a new conclusion if this decree of the Holy Synod had not allowed me to do so. Since the conclusion must be derived from the principles, it is necessary to touch upon the principles from which the conclusion on the present subject must be drawn. As used in Russian legislation and administration, a decree is a written act through which the authorities speak to subordinates and demand obedience. An attitude or message is a written act by which a public place or official speaks to another place or person and demands the necessary information, assistance, execution or responds to such a demand. A report or report is a written act by which a subordinate place or person speaks to a superior place or person. From this the rule should be derived that by decrees a public office should act only within the circle of the department subordinate to it. This does not contradict the fact that the Holy Synod sends decrees to provincial government offices, because the entire Orthodox flock of Russia is subordinate to it, as the highest spiritual authority. Moreover, experience shows that he sends decrees only on decisions that ultimately depend on his power and require obedience in execution; and on subjects that require consideration in a secular department, it is communicated by communication with the Governing Senate, or through the Synodal Chief Prosecutor with ministers and other authorities. From this it is clear that the Kursk consistory exceeded its measure when, to determine the order of its relations, it referred, for example, to the Holy Synod. The above rule was agreed upon by the procedure according to which provincial government offices were dealt only with equal ones from other provinces, when the demand was applied to the lower ones. It was necessary to send a decree to the lower one in one’s own place of government, and not in someone else’s office. In this order, for the speedy progress of affairs, a change was made by the position of the State Council, on December 28, 1821 452, which are allowed to communicate with unequal offices of other departments. Volume 2 of the Code of Laws, in Article 745, states that the provincial government is communicated by messages with all equal and other places and officials of other departments not subordinate to the provincial government. From the words: equal and others, one must conclude that it must communicate with the lower ones by messages. But Article 747 allows the provincial government to communicate with the district administrations and courts of other provinces by decrees, without a doubt, in order to thereby honor the highest government office over the lower ones. That the law recognizes consistories in the ladder of administrative and judicial institutions on an equal basis with provincial boards, there is not the slightest doubt about this, due to the force of Article 368 of the Charter of Ecclesiastical Consistories and Article 195 of Article 2 of the Code of Laws. So, if the law gives the honor to the provincial government to send decrees to the lower, non-subordinate government places, there is no just reason to deny the consistory the same. Such a reason cannot be the silence about this in the law. An omission in one article of the law does not destroy a right that has a basis in another article. There is also no provision in the law for the consistory to communicate with lower places by messages; Consequently, if we were based on the silence of the law, then this order should not have been allowed. From this it is necessary to conclude that the dispute raised by the Kursk magistrate has a basis not in the law, but only in pride. What has been said so far brings us closer, however, in my opinion, it should not decisively lead to the conclusion of demanding the approval of the consistory’s right to send decrees to the district administrations of the secular department, firstly, due to the modesty inherent in spiritual administration, and secondly, because this could give rise to the provincial boards, by reciprocity, demanding the right to send decrees to the ecclesiastical administrations: for this would lead to inconveniences, some of which have already been provided for by the Holy Synod, when he made it a rule that metric certificates required by public places were for cases from consistories, and not from ecclesiastical boards. We only need to be careful so that the desire of the lower secular places of office for exaltation, having luck, does not take this opportunity to extend to predominance. Therefore, I am convinced that the conclusion required of me by the Holy Synod should be the following: 1) do not insist on recognizing the right of consistories to send decrees to the offices of the lower authorities of the secular department, as a precaution against the solicitation of unhelpful reciprocity. 2) But in order not to give these places a reason to elevate themselves above the measure established by law for them, take it as a rule that when the consistory needs to communicate with the lower offices of the secular department, then messages are not sent to the consistory, but the relationship of one of its members is determined and ordered by the consistory. In a similar way, the question of relations between the synodal office was previously resolved. The determination of the Governing Senate is returned 453. February 20. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod on church hymns Report to the Most Holy Governing Synod, from its member Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. By decree of the Holy Synod, dated June 21, No. 5446, explanations were sent to me regarding the comments made by the committee on church singing, on the arrangement of the irmos and antiphons of the Greek chant, and it was ordered to entrust them to the consideration of the committee, and to report the committee’s conclusion with my opinion. When instructing the committee to carry out what was prescribed by the Holy Synod, I found myself in the need to prescribe to it the following: as the objections submitted to the comments of the committee show that the consideration turns into a competition, which can continue unduly, because the objections go beyond the scope of the issue under consideration, and propose a dispute about the forms of the Slavic language used in church books (raspalaemy): then, if possible, to achieve a more definitive and final solution to the matter, the committee will judge whether it is possible and whether it is necessary to listen to the entire book again, and to determine the merits of each verse, suggesting the following categories: 1) poems that are satisfactorily similar to ancient church chants and capable of use. 2) Poems not quite similar to the ancient ones, but acceptable for use. 3) Poems, due to their deviation from the ancient, or due to the difficulty of the artificial position, are inconvenient for execution by ordinary church singers, and therefore require a different translation. In pursuance of this, the answers submitted by the committee to the above-mentioned explanations and the division of verses into the three above-mentioned categories are presented to this Holy Synod, with the return of the explanations. The competition that took place between the proposer and the committee represents, for the most part, labor that does not bear fruit. For example, the proposer said that the proposed manuscript is ancient, and perhaps the only one. The committee objected that it was not ancient, because it was written on paper dated 1784 and 1786, therefore it had existed for just over 60 years 454 . The proposer, without paying attention to the most important and strongest objection (which) the committee makes against antiquity, in his explanation confirms its rarity by the fact that the committee did not find other copies of it. To this the committee replies that it could not search throughout Russia; and that the manuscript is not ancient has been proven over the years. The antiquity of the manuscript would constitute some merit, because the matter concerns the preservation of ancient singing: but the rarity of the manuscript does not constitute any merit, and therefore the effort to prove its rarity is fruitless labor. The proposer in his explanation says that allowing a change in the tunes would be harmful. The committee replies: exactly so; and the committee had no intention of allowing changes at all. The dispute regarding the position on the notes versus the emphasis of the words: church, fathers, in which the committee does not deviate from its opinion, in my testing, turned out to be somewhat mutual. When the singers sang without preamble, the oppositeness of the accents was felt; but when the regent, who supported the translation, especially tuned the singers to take notes so that the opposition to the accent was not noticeable, it really became not noticeable. To the proposalr’s objection that the missing irmos will be found in another book, the committee’s response deserves attention that it is inconvenient for singers in the same canon to move from one book to another. The Committee noticed that the sentence in the word: inflamed, there is a mistake, which should be in the irmos: inflamed. To this, the proposer objected that the opposite word: inflamed, is a spelling error. The committee proved that: raspalyaya, is the true Slavic form of the word, constant in church books since ancient times, and that only someone unfamiliar with the forms of the Slavic dialect can find a spelling error here. One objection of the predicator is decisively true, that in the antiphon in some editions it stands: I cry unto Thee; but the committee recognized this as a mistake and believed that it should be read: I have cried out to You. This happened because the committee had one publication before its eyes, and the translator another. It is desirable that the proposer take into account that the committee, knowing the high gift and knowledge of the proposer in his art and the good intentions of his work, if it could afford bias, then, of course, in favor of the proposal, and not against it; and that the committee could only with difficulty and out of necessity decide to make comments on the very rule that the translator himself uttered, that allowing a change in the tunes would be harmful. The committee has enough experience in church singing to determine in which verse the ancient melody is preserved and in which there is a deviation. Experience determines the merits of committee judgments better than competitions. When in the Assumption Cathedral the newly appointed regent began to sing some Sunday canons at all-night vigils according to a new version: comments of displeasure were heard from visitors to this church who were accustomed to church singing, and some left the church without finishing the canon. And what was presented correctly did not outrage the people’s feelings. This is the canon sung at the eve of the feast of the Dormition of the Mother of God: we are supported by many misfortunes. I am convinced to agree with the division of poems into categories, both by trust in the committee and by my own testing. Your Holiness's humblest novice. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow No. 76. February 20, 1852 455. March 7. Two letters from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with an opinion on the translation from Greek by Archimandrite Zephanius: “Notes on the disagreement of the Armenian Church with the Eastern Orthodox” Count N.A. Protasov, in relation dated February 28, 1852, No. 1993, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret: “the rector of our embassy church in Constantinople, Archimandrite Zephaniah 456, sent me the work of the former Patriarch of Constantinople Constantius (1834–1835) 457, translated from Greek, under the title: “Note on the disagreement of the Armenian Church with the Eastern Orthodox Church,” with the question that it would not be considered useful to print this translation, either in its entirety, or in the most remarkable passages from it, as a tool for the historical study of the Armenian Church, and as an important means for the very rapprochement of this church with the Orthodox Church. The said essay, together with the letter of Archimandrite Zephaniah, as well as the opinion of the rector of the local seminary, Archimandrite Ioannikis 458, delivered to me about them by the board of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, I am obliged to forward to your Eminence, for your, gracious sir and archpastor, consideration and conclusion, humbly asking you to notify me about the subsequent proposal To the Holy Synod, welcome back and the following appendices.” At the top of this regard, Metropolitan Philaret noted: March 5th. To answer that this is a damaged translated article from the book: “Georgia and Armenia”, and therefore it is not necessary and not useful to print. Metropolitan Philaret responded to Count Protasov with the following two letters: I. Transmitted in the presence of your Excellency, dated February 28, No. 1993, an essay entitled: A note on the disagreement of the Armenian Church with the Eastern Orthodox, and a review of this essay, which was returned, I read, and it turned out that: 1) I cannot agree with the idea that “it is more likely that there will be harm from the publication of this work,” because it is “in a polemical spirit, although moderate.” It was not harmful that the Apostle Paul wrote polemically against the Galatians: about the foolish Galatians, etc. It was not harmful that Athanasius the Great wrote and published polemical writings against the Arians, and many fathers against many wrong-minded people. That the Armenians “live within the borders of our fatherland” does not prevent us from telling them the truth, against their erroneous opinions. II How will we lead them to the truth if we do not expose erroneous opinions? 2) I agree with the opinion that the lack of precise references to sources takes away some of the dignity and strength of this work. 3) The translator, in a note, without the need to pronounce the trial of Patriarch Constantius; that he “was never distinguished by the strict correctness of his language.” But couldn’t the translator have turned this judgment on himself if he had paid attention to some of his words and expressions, for example: “the outline of this work”, “strict layout of objects”, “deeper in the meaning”, “excuse Moses”, “baselessly”, “but most unapologetically, that after the fifth ecumenical council they had no excuse to distance themselves from the Orthodox Church”? Who is unapologetic here? Is it really the Orthodox who left no excuse? The supposed Greek writer may be to blame; but the translator, having condemned him for the incorrectness of the syllable, had to correct him and say: Arian’s stubbornness is especially inexcusable, while so on. 4) But the most convenient way to resolve the present case can be the fact that the manuscript in question is not the work of Patriarch Constantius, but a translation into Greek from the 2nd part of Mr. Muravyov’s book: Georgia and Armenia 459, an article about the disagreement of the Armenian Church with the Orthodox. This translation has been made, with some changes, but not for the better, so that the disapproving passages in the manuscript have the correct form in Mr. Muravyov’s book. For example, in the manuscript, on sheets 8 and 9, it reads: “the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon did not pay careful attention” and further: “they took advantage of this tempting pretext.” This puts some criticism on the cathedral. As if he was not careful and gave rise to temptation. G. Muravyov expresses this purely, without attributing carelessness and temptation to the council. Folio 21 mentions "Cardinal Angel Moses". Can you guess who it is? From Mr. Muravyov's book it is clear that this is Angelie Mayo. The conclusion from this, in my opinion, should be that printing a book in Russian, which is a translation from Russian into Russian through a corrupted translation of Greek, is neither necessary nor useful. It’s better to read the uncorrupted article in Mr. Muravyov’s book. No. 113, March 7, 1852. II. Regarding my attitude of March 7, No. 113, regarding the essay on the Armenian Church, whose polemical, albeit moderate, direction was recognized by those who considered it an obstacle to its publication, the following addition seems timely to me. If some find the moderate polemical trend questionable in relation to its benefits, then the immoderate and irritating polemical trend, in fairness, should be limited. In the article on the sign of the cross, printed with the Book of Hours and Psalms, the expression is found: damned Armenians. A reproachful word: the damned, without violating justice, could be taken away both because the documents discovered in modern times present the errors of the Armenians in religious doctrine as less serious than previously assumed, and so that the sign of peace on the part of the Orthodox Church would be an example and a call to peace for the Armenian Church. As your Excellency proposes to propose the above-mentioned essay with an opinion about it for consideration by the Holy Synod, I humbly ask you to offer the above-mentioned consideration for its consideration 460 . May 10. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret on the restoration of icons in the Assumption Cathedral Report to the Holy Governing Synod, from Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna Philaret. The Holy Synod, after hearing the report of the Moscow Synodal Office, dated February 29, this year, by decree of April 25, No. 3400, ordered me, firstly, to report to the Holy Synod whether the highest command to resume painting in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral has been followed. To this end, I make it my duty to convey that the saying that I had the good fortune to receive from the lips of His Imperial Majesty in August of last year was proposed by me to the synodal office in September, in the following expressions: “The Sovereign Emperor, during one of his visits to the Assumption Cathedral, last August, deigned to see that some icons in the lower tier of the iconostasis were gilded again; and at the same time he deigned to respond that it would be good to restore the entire iconostasis in a similar way, albeit in parts, gradually, according to the means.” That the highest saying about renewal applied to gilding is undoubtedly because the attention of the Sovereign Emperor, firstly, was drawn to the new gilding of some icons. But just as the newly gilded icons were at the same time cleaned from the dust that had adhered to their varnish over time, and especially on the icon of the Savior, which is near the royal gates, the image of the feet was cleaned of the strong blackness caused by those applied, then the iconography of the gilded icons should have appeared to the gaze of His Imperial Majesty in greater light compared to other icons, and in some kind of renewal, from which it is possible to conclude that this part of the renewal has received the highest approval. since the highest will was more clear about the resumption of gilding, then in this sense I announced it to the synodal office. Secondly, the above-mentioned decree ordered me: if the highest command to resume painting has been received, then enter into a special consideration in which parts and in which icons painting should be resumed; are ancient icons subject to this renewal, to which special veneration is directed, with what caution, corresponding to previous examples, should we begin to correct the icon painting, both in the form of preserving antiquity, and in relation to any disclosures that are spread in such cases, and submit my conclusion to the Holy Synod. That there is the highest will to renew gilding is, according to the above, clear and undeniable, and that the cleansing of icon painting has been awarded the highest approval, this can only be assumed, with probability, from the conclusion. Therefore, I could stop wondering whether it is time to begin fulfilling the second part of the order of the Holy Synod. But the following information about the state of the present case shows that it is no longer convenient to stop. On February 21, this year, the protopresbyter of the Assumption Cathedral with the sacellaries and the church warden, representing the latter’s zeal to fulfill the highest will declared by him in the very expressions set out above, asked, along with the gilding of the icons, permission for: a) completely icons, in all five tiers (except for the icon of the Mother of God of Vladimir), the current oil painting remove cracked varnish and drying oil, blackened by time; b) also remove amendments that are alien to the original nature of the scripture, and open the original scripture without harming it; c) if there are places on the icons that are damaged or erased, then they should be indented, but not painted with new paints where it is not necessary; d) after all this, to protect against soot in the future, cover all the icons with mastic varnish. Here, to explain the matter, I continue to mention that, as is known, the long-standing custom of icon painters, icons requiring renovation, is to paint according to the old image with new colors in all parts of them, even if only a little correction required. So, already several years ago, I knew from experience and the ability to remove a new corrective layer of icon painting, and preserve intact the image of the original letter hidden underneath it. Such an experiment was made on some ancient icons in the Sergius Lavra (by the icon painter Salautin, now deceased), and after removing the correction layer, the original images of higher art were discovered than what the correction layer was. II, the artist Podklyuchnikov, invited by the protopresbyter and the cathedral elder, was known to me for his art even before this case. Taking, by the way, an ancient icon from one parish church, he showed it to me then, how part of it had been cleaned by him, and presenting the clear features of the image, while the other remained covered with a correction layer and boiled with dust and blackened varnish, with barely noticeable features of the image. At the same time, it was clearly possible to see that the point was not to restore the image with paints, but only to remove the bark that covered it. The Synodal office, to certify the reliability of the undertaking, gave this artist two icons from the Assumption Cathedral, of which he, having cleaned some parts and left others in an uncleaned form, presented them to the presence; and it also made sure that it carried out only purification and not renewal of paints. According to this certificate, the synodal office, on the basis of Article 52 of the constitution of the consistory, which grants permission to the local diocesan authorities to renovate iconostases, decided on February 25: to give the requested permission to the protosviter and the cathedral elder, and to inform the Holy Synod, and reported, dated February 29, No. 298. At the same time, the synodal office took the precaution that it entrusted the supervision of the cleansing of the icons to the Kosmodamian priest Dimitri Vladislavlev, who was knowledgeable in icon painting; and then she also seconded to him the deacon of the same church, Ivan Vladislavlev, who was also knowledgeable in icon painting. Thus, the synodal office, having resolved the case, with the confidence that it was acting on the basis of the charter, should have seen a new certificate of the undoubtability of the case in the proposal of the prosecutor correcting the post, dated March 10, that the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod ordered him to report on the progress of this case monthly, for this seemed to be a sign that the Holy Synod did not see anything doubtful in the report of the synodal office, dated February 29. On March 29, the protopresbyter with the sacellaries and the cathedral elder reported to the synodal office that seven icons had been cleaned. This number was expected to increase in April. This was the state of affairs when I received the decree of the Holy Synod, dated April 25. Having taken into account all of the above, I did not find myself in the right or in the opportunity to stop the matter. Firstly, because this was not prescribed by the decree of the Holy Synod, which, from the report of the synodal office, dated February 29, and April 18, No. 494, knew that the matter had already taken its course. Secondly, according to the precaution against possible disclosures indicated in the decree of the Holy Synod: for if a work that had begun and continued for about two months, the actions of which are visible in the cathedral, were suddenly stopped, then this, of course, would give rise to conjectures about the reasons for this order, and, in the absence of solid conjectures, to inventions, and, consequently, to unfavorable disclosures. Thirdly, because, as on the left side of the iconostasis, in the upper tiers, a significant number of icons have already been cleaned, and their images, which have become more clear, are noticeably different from the icons on the right side, leaving the iconostasis in this unfinished state would present an unsatisfactory appearance. Under such circumstances of the case, in pursuance of the second part of the decree of the Holy Synod, I proposed to the protopresbyter with the sacellaries and the cathedral elder: 1) icons: the Savior, which is near the royal doors, the Dormition of the Mother of God and the Annunciation, as primarily revered, should be left untouched until special consideration is given to whether it is necessary and possible to apply to them the method used for others. 2) Regarding other icons, continue cleaning with special care; and if for which it is envisaged that significant areas will need to be marked with paint, provide me with preliminary information about such without starting the matter. 3) When visiting the Assumption Cathedral, I personally suggested to the protopresbyter that he leave the icon of St. undisturbed. Great Martyr Demetrius of Selunia, Greek letter; because the face of this icon is quite clear. To bring the matter into greater clarity, I asked the protopresbyter with the sacellaries and the priest Vladislavlev, who oversees the cleansing of the icons, the following questions, and the following answers were received from them. Question I. How many icons and which ones have been cleaned and varnished using the above method? The answer of the protopresbyter with the sacellaries and the cathedral elder: As a result of the decree given to us from the Moscow Holy Synod office, from the 3rd day of last March, for No. 326, until the 4th of this May, the royal doors and icons, on the north side, of the iconostasis 14 were cleaned; on the south side there are 3, and in total there are 18 icons with the royal doors, namely: A) On the north side of the iconostasis, in the lower tier a) an icon of the Savior standing near the Vladimir Mother of God; b) the icon of the Mother of God standing next to her; c) the icon of the Savior standing near the northern altar door; d) the icon standing next to it, called “Rejoices in You.” a) icon of the Evangelist Luke; b) icon of the Apostle Bartholomew; c) Apostle Andrew; d) the Evangelist John the Theologian and e) the Apostle Thomas. a) icon of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary; b) icon of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary into the Church; c) Nativity of Christ; d) The Presentation of the Lord and e) The Epiphany of the Lord. B) On the south side of the iconostasis, in the lower tier a) the icon of the Savior with those present: the Mother of God and the Forerunner, standing between the southern altar doors and the doors in the Demetrius chapel; b) the icon of the Tikhvin Mother of God, standing above the southern altar doors and c) the icon of the Savior, standing above the doors in the Dimitrievsky chapel. Question II. Was the cleansing of the icons really carried out in the above manner, and if, in this case, places were opened that required puncturing with paints, then in significant or insignificant quantities, and were the sacred images preserved unchanged? Reply from the protopresbyter with others. The cleansing of these icons was carried out in the requested manner, without any retreat, with all caution, and with unremitting supervision. During this cleansing, there were no significant places in terms of space and number that required puncturing, but small and few damages were encountered, which occurred mostly from the application of crowns, vestments and frames. The holy images, while open, have not been changed at all, only part of their color has changed, which is natural with any renovation, even when the icon, after removing the old varnish, is covered with new. Answer from priest Vladislavlev 1) The cleansing of icons took place and is taking place exactly in the manner permitted to the artist by the synodal office. For with constant monitoring of the production of this work, it was not noticed that the artist deviated from this method; but it is clear that he removed the layer of varnish, drying oil and assigned colors from the icons, just as he removed them from the icon he presented to the synodal office for a sample. 2) The original iconography and its dignity have been preserved intact. For the artist, when starting to clean the icon, first prepared small samples in different places of each icon, so that one could see how many layers of paint lay above the original icon painting. After this examination, the artist was allowed to remove layers of varnish, drying oil and assigned colors from the entire image, up to the first amendment found on the original icon. After examining the integrity of the first ancient amendment and the places where the original icon painting was revealed, the artist again made a test at different places of this amendment in order to make sure whether the original was preserved under it? And after that he carefully opened it. By constantly observing this order when cleaning icons, the original icon painting and its dignity are preserved. 3) But when unimportant damage appeared on the background, margins and surrounding decorations, and sometimes even on the very faces, arms and legs: then they were carefully punctuated with paints, in accordance with the tone of colors and light and shadows that remained on the hard parts of the original. If, however, where, after the discovery of the first amendment, more significant damage was encountered, the first amendment was left inviolable there. Question III. Since some experiments in the cleansing of icons are already visible in the Assumption Cathedral, and could attract the attention of visitors, what were the reviews of lovers of sacred antiquity about this subject? “When the cleaned icons were placed in the lower tier and one icon in the third tier, there were many visitors to the cathedral, and great attention was paid to renewing the icons during the week of Easter and after it. From the higher and more educated class, lovers of sacred antiquity, knowing the method (as they put it) of restoring paintings, and some of them, knowing a similar method of restoring ancient icons, strongly approved the restoration of icons to their ancient primitive form, and one of them put it this way: “Glory to God! Finally, a new era of renovation of ancient icons begins in our cathedral. The previous restorers painted the ancient icons again and thus only spoiled them.” The middle and lower classes of pilgrims and visitors rejoiced at the regilding and, in the simplicity of their hearts, admired the renovation. But among these there were also disapprovers, however, no longer of the cleaned icons, but of the varnish. First of all, the most noticeable were the icon painters, to whom the icon correction was not entrusted due to inquiry or due to their own consciousness of their inability to remove paints alien to the original, and behind them were mocked non-icon painters, carried away by their opinion. But there were very few of the latter at the beginning, and now, when they understood the matter, there were none at all. The judgment regarding the mastic varnish was as follows: “This varnish is new, unprecedented on icons; it is difficult to remove, and therefore it is not suitable to cover images with it.” Finally, among those who were curious about the correction of the icons were schismatics; and here are their reviews: A schismatic from the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery came to the cathedral on Friday, Easter. Having met him, the protopresbyter offered him an explanation about the method of renewing icons, and led him to every cleaned icon. The Raskolnik, as it turned out later, was an expert in icon painting, listened and looked attentively, and at the end of the inspection he asked the question: were the icons damaged? answered in the affirmative that “they are not damaged, but I would only like you to cover them, as we did, with colored drying oil, then they would seem older.” After Easter, on Tuesday, St. Thomas Week, after the liturgy, a schismatic from the Rogozhskoe cemetery was in the cathedral. Having examined the icons on the north side, and approaching the royal doors, he said loudly: “Yes, all this has been written again.” And this was in front of a considerable number of pilgrims. How long will it take to paint these six images again? asked the steward of the cathedral elder Shaposhnikov. The Raskolnik, after thinking, answered: “about six weeks.” So listen, Shaposhnikov told him, these very royal gates in this place stood not renovated until Monday of Bright Week. Before that time, they were seen by those of your kind who were in the cathedral (and they were named). On Monday evening, they were taken down unrenewed, and on Saturday in the bright week, before Vespers, they were hung up renewed like this, as you see. The schismatic said quietly: how can this be, and, as it seemed, ashamed, he hurried out of the cathedral. On April 21, there was a schismatic (Bogdanov) in the cathedral tent, selling groceries near the Intercession Cathedral, with eight schismatics. Then there were icons of the holidays in the tent to put painted frames on them. Those who came with him, looking at the icons, said loudly: “The icons have been painted again.” The one who brought them said: what is not true is not true! Here with him (and pointed to another who came with him), we saw these icons, how they were removed from the iconostasis, printed with these seals; Is it true that he asked the former during the release of the icons? And he answered: yes, so! And then they all left the tent in silence. However, to reassure those who are perplexed, an icon of the Annunciation, half cleaned, was placed in the cathedral with the same intention, on which you can clearly see all the alien layers of the original and the original itself that is being revealed. This icon is shown every day: and behold, the fruits of this: 1) after examining the cleaned icons twice and three times, and half of them were cleaned, the merchant Zhuravlev, overjoyed at the new beauty of the cathedral, as he put it, volunteered with others at his own expense to paint the copper tent. 2) Two ask permission in exactly the same way to clean the icon of Boris and Gleb, standing in the cathedral, but on the northern wall, above the tombs of the metropolitans, and the third volunteered to donate 400 rubles for this icon. assignment, for a silver frame. These two remarkable challenges, on the occasion of the cleansing of icons, will, in due course, be presented to the discretion of the authorities. Question IV. Priest Vladislavlev. Is the method of purification used by the artist well known to the priest, and could the priest himself also reliably use it? The priest's answer. The method and substance used by the artist to clean the icons are not exactly known to anyone, as the artist’s own secret. And therefore, I can only judge it speculatively, partly in comparison with the means hitherto used for such a task, and partly from my own few experiences in cleansing old icons. I can’t do the real thing as skillfully as the artist Podklyuchnikov does it, remove each layer of paint one after another, separately, without even touching the original, without comprehending its secret means. Question V. To him. What is the advantage of mastic varnish over drying oil? His answer is the same. The advantage of mastic varnish over drying oil is: a) that this varnish, after covering the icon with it, quickly dries and becomes stronger, and therefore does not absorb dust and soot, but drying oil, due to its oily, thick property, does not dry out for a long time, has a tack-free finish, and therefore more conveniently and quickly absorbs dust and soot; c) mastic varnish revives the tone of paints and preserves them so that they do not darken; and drying oil turns the color yellow, and from time to time takes on a dark brown color, making the iconography unclear; c) mastic varnish is not damaged by sun heat and damp air; and drying oil, from the heat, sticks together, becomes stained and bumpy, and from dampness it often turns white; d) mastic varnish is removed from icons easily and quickly, without the slightest damage, and drying oil, since it adheres very strongly to the paints, is removed with great difficulty, and often grabs thin areas of the paints. During my review of the cleaned icons in the Assumption Cathedral, I noticed that most of them turned out to be not only clearer in comparison with the uncleaned ones, but also lighter in color. This, in my opinion, occurs partly from the fact that mastic varnish is more transparent than drying oil, and therefore darkens the image less, and partly because some icons are originally painted lighter; for there are also icons that, even after being cleaned and covered with mastic varnish, have a rather dark appearance. For those who, based on the freshness of the cleaned icons, express doubt whether they were not painted accurately or were not corrected again, the doubt should be completely resolved by 1) that it is impossible to paint an icon in such a short time as Podklyuchnikov uses for his work of purification; 2) that some icons, after being cleaned, represent such an art of icon painting that none of the icon painters now known in Moscow can achieve; 3) that therefore, if there was a new correction on the icon, it could not hide from ordinary gaze, when a less skillful person corrects a more skillful one, but such a sign is not revealed anywhere on cleaned icons. Although for the same reasons, and for the very size of the icons of the Assumption Cathedral, it cannot be assumed that the forgery noticed in other cases could have been made by substituting icons or sawing off the upper side: however, as a precaution against suspicion or slander of such a forgery, icons are entrusted and entrusted to the artist only by imposing a seal on them on the front and back sides and on their edges. Among the cleaned icons I examined in the Assumption Cathedral, there are those in the cleansing of which the artist did not go as far as the original writing, but stopped at the first correction layer: because he found this layer intact and strong, but did not expect to find this after removing this layer in the original writing; Therefore, I kept the correction layer so that after removing it there would be no need to correct the original letter with paints. From this, the Holy Synod is also pleased to see that the matter is being carried out with due and sufficient caution. To prove the strictness with which the old is preserved in this matter and the new is not allowed, I present another example. The protopresbyter showed me the inscriptions on the icons of the forefathers and prophets, some of them taken from unknown sources, and perhaps from an apocryphal book, some of them with obscure and incorrect content. On the icon of the forefather Issachar there is an inscription: honor Levvia Judas, for she has been shed in all. I responded that it was necessary to erase it and leave it as it was. But here is the inscription of the icon of the forefather Joseph, which, in my opinion, should not be tolerated: and I saw that a goose was born of a virgin, and from her I came forth. Not daring to change this on my own, I submit to the Holy Synod whether it would be acceptable to allow it to be replaced on the icon with the following: “And my God will help you, and bless you with a blessing from heaven from above.” Gen.49:24 or the following: Fear not, for I am God's. Gen.50:19. And write the previous inscription on the back of the icon, indicating that it was on the icon until 1852; but this year, as incorrect, it was changed by decree of the Holy Synod. I turn to the certificate prescribed in the decree of the Holy Synod, dated April 25. The synodal office did not have this information in mind when it issued a ruling on the cleansing of icons. But the circumstances of the present case are far from those presented in the certificate. In 1812, many icons of the Assumption Cathedral were damaged and required restoration with icon painting, and the entire cathedral was deprived of its consecration by the wicked enemy, therefore it was proper and necessary to begin its correction with a cathedral prayer service. At present, icons are gradually, one by one, or in small numbers, taken from the cathedral, and are not painted again, but only cleaned, and also gradually returned, while the cathedral retains its complete shrine. Therefore, only the private consecration of each returned icon is appropriate here, which is performed through holy water. In 1770 and 1813 icon painters from the clergy were used; this was required by the undertaking; but, in 1813, 17 people could not do everything that was done (375 icons were renewed in three months), therefore it must be assumed that secular icons were also used, which pious antiquity did not forbid, for in many ancient churches there are icons painted and renewed by secular icon painters. Now what was required was not icon painting, but the cleansing of ancient images from non-ancient amendments; Only one person was found who has an artistic secret for this action; the spiritual authorities have no legal right to demand that the artist reveal his secret to the priest. Consequently, all that remained was to use the only reliable and safe means that presented itself and, after a satisfactory test. All of the above leads me to the conclusion that a task begun with due caution, which God has blessed with successful experiments, can, without a doubt, with God’s help, be continued with the same caution and with the same unrelenting supervision 461 . In May. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on early age ordination to the priesthood. G. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with reference dated April 30, 1852, No. 3119, forwarded a note regarding the ordination to the priesthood to Metropolitan Philaret, asking him to provide a conclusion on the contents of it. A note written in A.V.’s own hand. Gorsky 462, which has the title: “About some holy men who were ordained presbyters before thirty years,” indicates three persons: 1) St. Hieromartyr Eleutherius, who suffered in the 2nd century. 2) Teacher Euthymius the Great, who died in 473 and 3) Teacher Theodore Sikeot, who died in 613. Brief information about them is taken from only two sources: Prologue, Dec. 15 days; Chetyi Menaia, Gen. 20 days and April 22. At the end of the note there is a note in the hand of Metropolitan Philaret: Saint Athanasius the Great heard from his parents about the persecution of Maximian, which began in 303 AD, therefore at that time he was either not yet born, or was in infancy, leaving no memories; but in 326 he was already a bishop 463. June 10. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, about sending Parthenius 464, who joined Orthodoxy from the schism, to Gulja, to correct the needs of the Russian prisoners of war there The matter, foreign to my local ministry, came to me in a strange way; but I’m afraid to decide this with the thought alone that it doesn’t concern me. It happens that the work of God proceeds in an unusual and, apparently, strange way: and he would not be on the path of God’s will who would leave without attention and participation a work in which one can notice signs that it is going towards the glory of God and the salvation of souls. This reflection prompts me to explain to your Excellency the matter that inspired this reflection. Someone, by birth Russian abroad, brought up in a schism, but, through a diligent search for truth, became convinced of the purity of the Orthodox Church and joined it, then in Athos he was tonsured a monk under the name Parthenius and wanted to end his life there, suddenly from an elder to whom he was in obedience, and who was known as having the gift of clairvoyance, received an order not to remain in Athos, but to go to Russia, and precisely to Siberia and Tomsk, and the elder said that this was the will of God. Parthenius, despite the lack of means, made this long journey; in Tomsk he became a Russian citizen; and asked the Holy Synod to number him among the monastics of the Tomsk diocese. The contact made with Athos confirmed, as he assures, what he shows about himself. While he was in Tomsk awaiting the permission of the Holy Synod to his request, the Turukhan tradesman Porfiry Ufimtsev became acquainted with him and told him about his travels, as a merchant clerk, through Bukharia, and along the Kyrgyz steppes and to the Chinese cities of Small and Large Kuldzha. In Kokan and Tashkent, Ufimtsev found more than 200 Russian families, who had long been drawn there by captivity and various incidents and who married there, who retained the Christian faith, have and use church books, but do not have a church or priest and have not been baptized. In small and large Kulja he also found 15 families (including up to 50 souls with native wives) of Russians, whose ancestors had been captured in Beijing and evicted from there to these cities. These also honor themselves and wish to remain Christians, but they have only the creed and the Lord’s Prayer, and meager concepts of Christianity, and are also not baptized. Parthenius decided to communicate this information to me and encourage me to take care of these “lost sheep of the flock of Christ”; for, he says, every human soul is very dear to our Lord Jesus Christ, and especially a Christian soul, because He shed His blood for it.” Parthenius further explains himself in the following words: “I want to reveal to you the desire of my heart, but I am afraid and trembling, so as not to volunteer for a fight that is beyond my strength; however, I will reveal that if I had the rank of priesthood, I would devote all the remaining days of my life to this arduous field and regrettable long journey, then it would clearly be the will of God and His holy help, and the favor of the authorities and the blessing of the Holy Eastern Church of Christ; for I know Asian customs, and everywhere has its own side for me, and maybe that’s not why I was sent here”? This challenge, marked by free zeal for the cause of God, courage, self-sacrifice, devotion to the will of God, humility, represents in Parenia those qualities that should be sought in a missionary. Of course, many circumstances would not allow him to be sent as a missionary openly. But how ancient Christians, under circumstances unfavorable for faith, preserved and spread it in secret; and how the Russians in question, immersed in the dominant Mohammedan and pagan population, secretly preserve the remnants of Christianity; in this way the spiritual help they need can be secretly given to them. This matter, without a doubt, cannot receive a decision without the highest discretion. In my opinion, it could appear to the Christ-loving Sovereign Emperor with the following assumptions: 1) Make a soaring in the hieromonk. 2) Allow him to travel to the above-mentioned places to maintain Christianity among the Russian settlers there through instructions and worship, and to sanctify them with the sacraments of faith. 3) For this purpose, give him the consecrated antimension, holy chrism, gospel, cross, sacred vessels, necessary books, if possible in an abbreviated form, convenient for carrying them on a long journey. 4) Give him the blessing to establish, where he finds it possible and safe, houses of prayer, and, after placing in them, depending on the circumstances, a movable or fixed altar, and after consecration, perform the Divine Liturgy. 5) Give him an assistant capable of being a translator and at the same time a clerk, which Ufimtsev seems capable of. 6) Provide him with financial allowance for his maintenance with an assistant and for travel expenses. 7) They can undertake a journey with a trade caravan under the guise of trade, for which they need to be provided with a certain amount for goods that are not valuable, but can be sold. These benefits will be enough to start from the government; These can be further supplemented by the diligence of private people. 8) When teaching spiritual help to immigrants, one must, without a doubt, hope that the love for Russia, which has not faded away in them to this day, will be supported in them, and God’s Providence will not lack the means, sooner or later, to extract from this a good reward for the beneficent Russia. For a better understanding of the case and character of Parthenius, the “epistole” (letter) of Parthenius and the story of Ufimtsev 465 are attached in the original. The royal heart is in the hand of God. I pray to God that the heart of the Most Pious Sovereign Emperor may speak good and beneficial to souls. May the Lord grant your Excellency the good idea to put this matter on the right and true path, in order to achieve a good goal. July 10, 1852 466. August 11. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret with an opinion on the brochure of the director of the court singing chapel, Major General Lvov, entitled: “On church choirs” By decree of the Holy Synod, dated June 12, 1852, No. 93, a brochure by the director of the court singing chapel, Major General Lvov 467, under the title: “On church choirs,” was forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret for consideration, so that a conclusion about this brochure would be delivered. On this decree, the Metropolitan wrote in his own hand: July 20. Demand the opinion of the members of the music committee, the archpriests. August 7. The note and conclusion about the essay “On Church Choirs” should be submitted to the Holy Synod with the manuscript itself. September 29. Today it arrives with corrections. After that, Metropolitan Philaret, in pursuance of the said decree of the Holy Synod, reported the following: By decree of the Holy Synod, dated July 12, this year, 1852, No. 93, I was prescribed a manuscript entitled: On Church Choirs, to consider and submit a conclusion about it. In pursuance of this, returning the manuscript, I present the following comments and the conclusion resulting from them. Notes on the essay: About church choirs. The remarks here offered lead to the conclusion that the work must be revised before it can be approved for publication 472 . Meanwhile, we must do justice to the well-intentioned article entitled: general rules. The reference to Rule 17 of the Council of Carthage should be deleted. It is useful for choir managers to keep in mind what is said in the interpretation of this rule: singers are not under the authority of the people, and consequently they must be under the authority of the clergy 473. September 29. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Flaret with a conclusion about the manuscript: “On church singing in Russia”, Count Tolstoy By decree of the Holy Synod, dated July 12, 1852, No. 93, Metropolitan Philaret was ordered to consider the manuscript sent to him on church singing in Russia, with four appendices of notes, and present his opinion about it to the Holy Synod. On this decree, Metropolitan Philaret wrote: “July 20.” Then, on September 29, 1852, he reported the following to the Holy Synod: By Decree of the Holy Synod, dated July 12, No. 93, I was prescribed the manuscript: On church singing in Russia, N.Ya. Tolstoy 474; review and present your conclusion. In reviewing this manuscript, in order not to increase labor, I have not entered into a rigorous examination of such opinions as can be accepted and rejected without significant consequences, and therefore can be left to the responsibility of the writer. So, for example, I did not find it necessary to dispute what was said on page 14 that the curly method of Greek singing has changed in our country to a simpler one, although it is more likely that ancient Greek singing was simple, and in this form it was first widespread in Russia; and curly singing, the product of the domestics of the Byzantine court, was less ancient and less widespread, as requiring special art and special vocal ability. But as a censor of the manuscript, he encountered some opinions in it that could not be afforded such tolerance; so am I. And how, for the sake of brevity of the work, he did not write refutations, but corrected and excluded what was unacceptable; I decided to do the same. However, it is my duty to present in relation to some of the most important passages the reasons why correction or exclusion was required. On page 47, the writer says almost decisively, and in other places quite decisively, that ancient church singing cannot be brought into meter and rhythm. This cannot be considered entirely fair. For example, the irmos of the Great Canon, proposed or approved by Bortnyansky 475, have rhythms or beats and preserve the spirit of ancient church singing; the harmony in them not only favors the hearing and understanding of words, but also the feeling of tenderness. They satisfy lovers of ancient church singing and folk feeling. When they are sung during the first week of Lent in the cathedral church of the Chudov Monastery, it is sung by the people, as on great holidays. Another similar example is provided by the festive table books, previously published by the court chapel, with the permission of the Holy Synod, and to this day not rejected by it. It is surprising that the writer denies even the possibility of size. Let him look at the synodal editions of ancient church singing: he will see measures, half measures, quarters. What is this if not size? The only difference is that in the new partes singing the measure is counted more in bars, but in the ancient church it is appropriate to count it more in quarters. On page 49, constant failures are attributed to the previous exponents of ancient church singing for four voices “despite enormous talents and musical knowledge.” This allusion directly falls on the above-mentioned irmos of the great canon, proposed or approved by Bortnyansky. Finding this remark exaggerated and unfair, I found it necessary to correct this place and deflect the arrow of unfair criticism of the venerable memory of Bortnyansky. On page 52, it is said that to this day, based on ancient church singing, it has been published by the city of Lvov 476. I found it necessary to put instead: stated and submitted for consideration by the Holy Synod. Because it is very doubtful whether lithographed notes can be called a publication, which, by the highest order, were submitted for consideration by the Holy Synod and on which the decision of the Holy Synod has not yet been made. The publication must not appear before it has been approved by the censor appointed for it. On page 54 and further, I recognized the need to exclude the strongly stated opinion that, since our prayers, that is, church hymns, are all written in prose, their singing has neither meter nor verse, and should not have it. It is said above why this cannot be considered completely fair. Here we can add that Mr. Bortnyansky and Mr. Lvov wrote many partes compositions with meter, rhythm and tact, despite the fact that their text was written in prose. Consequently, Mr. Bortnyansky and Mr. Lvov, by their own actions, refute the opinion that prose cannot be based on notes with meter, rhythm and tact. On page 56 it is said that the translators of the ancient tunes were forced to allow repetition of words, and, worst of all, the pronunciation of words by the singers at more than one time, causing speech to be mixed between voices. This would be true for concert composers; and in relation to the converters of one-voice ancient singing into four-voice it is unfair. On page 62 and further it is proven that the notes now published by Mr. Lvov do not deviate in the least from the ancient singing of church music books. What is the proof? Because only one verse is presented, which is found similar to ancient examples. Here we can see the following conclusion: one verse is similar to the ancient one, therefore hundreds and thousands of other verses are similar to the ancient one. It is surprising how the writer did not notice this tactile incorrectness of the conclusion and logical inconsistency. Therefore, it was necessary to correct this place. On page 64 there is a remarkable admission by the author that after the publication of Mr. Lvov’s first books, amateurs were so often heard to say that this singing was unfamiliar to them, that they were hearing it for the first time, and therefore concluded that it was again composed by Mr. Lvov. This is clear proof that in some of Mr. Lvov’s compositions the ancient church melody is so obscured by artificial harmony that the listeners do not recognize it. The writer tries to solve this by the fact that the listeners know only the Greek melody and therefore do not recognize the translation made according to the Znamenny melody. This resolution is unsatisfactory. The use of the znamenny chant in dogmatists and in irmos, especially holiday ones, is very common, and therefore it is familiar to many. The fact is that those who know the Znamenny chant do not recognize it in some variations of the Znamenny chant, and those who know the Greek chant do not recognize it in some variations of the Greek chant. On pages 65 and 66, I found it necessary to exclude the indication of the approval of private individuals, considering it untimely to display them publicly on such a subject, on which the legal judgment of the Holy Synod is still awaited. After the corrections have been made, the work returned, in my opinion, can be allowed to be published, with the permission of the censorship committee, in the usual established form 477. October 28. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to I.I. Davydov with an expression of consent to the premises, in the works of the 2nd department of the Academy of Sciences, his words, and an indication of the discrepancies regarding the place of baptism of St. Vladimir, as well as rules for the publication of a new Russian dictionary Ivan Ivanovich Davydov 478, in relation to Metropolitan Philaret, dated October 11, 1852, No. 649, wrote: “In the outline of the activities of the second department of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, it is proposed, in the works of its members, to include works of fine literature, as the crown of human reason and the color of people’s life. Your Eminence, blessing the first beginnings of the department’s work, among other things, deigned to utter words that were remarkable for the members: “The highest purpose of the tongue is to be an instrument of God’s truth.” The department sees such a weapon in the elegant, strong and sublime words of your sermons, with which Your Eminence never ceases to delight your Moscow spiritual flock. The department wants to decorate its works with this word, and has instructed me to ask your permission for this. It, as an example of Russian preaching, will be translated into foreign languages. Fulfilling this flattering assignment for me from the members of the department, confident that you will not refuse them their convincing request for the glory of Russian literature, I ask your Eminence for your archpastoral blessing. In response to this attitude, Metropolitan Philaret, dated October 28, No. 454, responded: Dear Sir, Ivan Ivanovich! Despite my inactivity and malfunction in relation to the second department of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, to which I have the honor of belonging, it deigns to continue to be condescending towards me, communicating to me its works and offering me participation in the issues it is researching. It is necessary, although it is too late, to fulfill at least part of the duty this imposes on me - to explain how I accept this! I accept with gratitude for condescension, with indignation at my inactivity, with participation in the matter, but not turning into action, because the measure of my strength, small before and diminished by time from day to day, is much closer than the measure of my responsibilities. Your Excellency requires my consent to the separation’s proposal to include my words in its works. The question is difficult for me. A negative answer would put me in some disagreement with the venerable class, which I do not want; An affirmative answer could look as if I attribute more meaning to my humble words than what I actually recognize in them. One thing I can say: if it happened that the department would make some use of any of my words, there would be no dispute on my part; but I usually do not attribute fame to my words; this is done by the judgment and demand of others. There is one place in the news of the department (p. 330) that would require explanation. According to the writings of Lakov Mnich and the Monk Nestor, it is said about legends that Vladimir was baptized in Kyiv, and according to others in Vasilkov (?); and concluded: “both legends could be true.” In order for both legends to be true, it is necessary for this that Vladimir be baptized once in Kyiv and another time in Vasilkov 479, and that he not be baptized in Korsun, according to the generally accepted legend. Regarding the rules for publishing a new Russian dictionary, I join some of the comments of Nikolai Ivanovich Grech 480, especially the one listed under number 13 (p. 337). Words and expressions similar to those that he wants to banish from the dictionary have been banished from their language even by people without special education, guided by a sense of morality and a sense of decency. The Academy's dictionary, created in order to maintain and elevate the purity and dignity of the Russian language, should open a clear spring and stream of the language, and not conduct muddy and muddy water into it from nearby swamps. It is in vain that some people think to look for nationalities in that syllable, which in ancient times was called the yeast of the people (fel plebis). Pure wine must be taken above yeast; and yeast cannot enrich wine, except to make something pure unclean. Since the department was pleased to pay attention to my words, I allow myself to forward the meeting to them. Would it be inappropriate to suggest to him for consideration whether to give them a place in his library 481? November 6. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod N.A. Protasov, with an opinion about what caused the differences in the text in the 1846 and 1848 editions of the Gospel. and which of the differing readings should be preferred in new editions Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count P. A. Protasov, in confidential respect, dated October 19, 1852, No. 7083, wrote: “On the occasion of the new edition (in small format) of the Gospel undertaken in the local synodal printing house, from the Moscow edition of 1848, when comparing the proof with the Gospel contained in the Bible published published in 1751 (similar to which the new testament was printed, in a small format, in Kyiv in 1846), there were differences between them in some words and expressions. Enclosing a register of such differences noticed in the text of the Gospel of Matthew, and a special note written about them, I turn to your Eminence with the most humble request, could you, dear sir and archpastor, tell me your opinion on what could cause the mentioned differences and which of the differing readings should be preferred in the new editions.” In this regard, Metropolitan Philaret noted: November 5. Answer according to what was written here. After this, the Metropolitan, in a confidential letter dated November 6, the same 1852, No. 86, answered Count Protasov as follows: By letter dated October 19 of this year, No. 7083, your Excellency demanded my opinion: 1) what could have caused the differences in the text of the Gospel in the editions indicated in the attached note; 2) which of the differing readings should be preferred in new editions. I. When the revision of the Slavic translation of the books of the Holy Scriptures took place, then in the direction of this matter there was a significant precaution so that it would not be accompanied by the wrangling that the correction of church books was subjected to in the previous time. Therefore, in 1751, a revised Slavonic translation of the Bible was published for educational and home use; and therefore, to this day, both the complete Bible and a separate new testament, with a similar purpose, are published according to the model. But the text of the Gospel, which was in use in the churches during the correction of the text of the Bible, according to the above precaution, was left inviolable for church use, and is repeated to this day in editions assigned for church use, which are the editions shown in the note of 1765, 1830, 1848. Thus, we have two editions of the Gospel text: 1) old, church and 2) corrected, educational. II. As until now, for church publications, the old, church edition was preferred; and for educational and home use, the edition has been corrected: this can still be done today. There are only two places in the church edition, it is desirable that they be corrected, especially since this can be done not according to new, but according to old editions: the Ostrog and the first Moscow, these places follow here. However, it is not superfluous at this time to take into account that it would be more intelligible for someone listening to the Gospel reading during the Divine Service to hear, for example, he will consume his threshing floor, rather than: he will consume his threshing floor; it is more intelligible: are not two birds valued by a single assar, rather than: are not two birds valued by a single assar; it is more intelligible: having seen their eyes, than: their eyes have received sight; it is more intelligible: what seems to you, than: what seems to you. This may give rise to the question: is it not time to publish, for the first time, in a corrected edition, only a small format Gospel, which is usually used when performing prayer services, baptism, blessing of oil, all-night vigils, etc. in homes. This question can be resolved in no other way than by the Holy Synod. Extracts of heteroglossia and another note containing some thoughts about these heteroglossia are returned 482. No. 86. November 6, 1852 483 Archimandrite Agapit of the Novospassky Monastery, see above, p. 378, note. 2. In “Soulful Reading,” for 1867, October, pp. 66 and 67, § 9, it is printed as follows: “9. Those who, in secular or monastic life, have been found to have committed offenses against good behavior, and those who have shown inconstancy by repeatedly moving from one monastery to another, are either not accepted into Moscow monasteries, or are accepted only after a particularly strict test and a considerable period of inquiry into the best direction of life they have perceived.” In “Soulful Reading”, for 1867, Oct., p. 67, § 12, the words starting with this ... and up to § 13 inclusive are not placed. There, on page 68, § 13, words were released, starting: “In general, fasting ... until the end of § 13.” The end of § 16, from the words to the end: “the abbot is obliged...”, released in Dushep. Readings, for 1867, Oct., p. 68. The end of § 24, starting with the words: “Standing in the church ...” and until the end of § 24 is released, in “Soul Floor. Thursday,” for 1867, Oct., p. 70. In “Soul. Readings,” 1867, Oct., p. 71, words: “under the guidance of the most experienced elders,” released. Art. 4 was published in the same magazine, under the following edition: “exercise in church reading and singing, preparatory to church services,” p. 71. The end of § 35, starting with the words: “In particular...” and until the end, was published in the journal. “Soul. Chtsi.”, 1867, Oct., p. 72. In “Dushen. Read.”, for 1867, Oct., p. 74, end of § 46, starting with the words “At 9 o’clock...”, released. In the journal “Soul. Read.”, 1867, Oct., p. 74, words, began “and every time... until “and, moreover, in their own...” released. In the same place, page 75, the words starting: “and not alone... and ending: “he will be rector...” are released. The beginning of § 57, slightly changed in “Soul. Read.”, 1867, Oct., p. 77, and the end of it, starting with the words “But if ... and until the end §, was not printed. The contents of this § in “Soul. Read”, 1867, Oct., p. 77, as follows. “If a monk leaves to visit a benefactor or relative, it is according to the rule of the spirits. reg. (O mon, v. 21), this should be allowed no more than four times a year, and, moreover, in the company of another elder, and primarily for the purpose of edification.” The beginning of this is this. “For one who, etc. See Soulep. Reading, Oct., p. 79. I baked it there. "useless or etc. It also added “the means of correction can be sought in the instrument of his sin. Part of his income must be taken from him and given to the poor, or, if necessary, his entire share of income must be kept in the hands of a steward or treasurer, and instead of money, necessary things must be delivered to their account (Inst. pious mon.). The last words of the rules: “Moreover...” and to the end, in the journal. “Soul. Read.”, for 1867, Oct., p. 80, not placed. Case of the Holy Synod, 1850, No. 2845, pp. 294; 315–345. Rules for the improvement of the monastery. brotherhoods in Moscow are printed. a) in Dushep. Read 1867, Oct., pp. 65–80 and b) in ed. “Notes about the life and times of the saint. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, comp. N.V. Sushkov, M., 1868, pp. 68–76, appendix. XXX. In the named publications, the “rules” are printed. identically, but in comparison with the edition of the “rules” taken from the file of the Holy Synod, with significant abbreviations, which are indicated in the notes to the text of the “rules”. With own black vile, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 102, doc. Nos. 19 and 20. See above, No. 295, p. 197 and note. 2. From rough. authentic storing in Moscow diocesan library, dept. III, pp. 40–42. Solntsev, Fedor Grigorievich, academician. The table of contents has not been preserved in the papers of Metropolitan Philaret. See above, no. 361, pp. 440–443. With a handwritten original draft, stored in the Moscow diocesan library, dep. III, sheets 38 and 39. This attitude is written on the report of the synodal sacristan, Hieromonk Savva, now the Archbishop of Tver and Kashin and the editor of this publication, with additions. See chronological index, in linear Collection Laws, vol. 1, no. 28851. From rough. authentic, storage in the Moscow ecclesiastical Academy, package No. 3, document. Nos. 49 and 50. Case of the Holy Synod, 1850, No. 3424, pp. 41–44. Zephaniah (Sokolsky), from March 13, 1863, bishop. Novomirgorod, vicar of Kherson; from November 12, 1871, bishop. Turkestan and Tashkent; passed away in 1877 Ioannikiy (Gorsky), from January 16, 1855, bishop. Starorussk; from April 15 1856, bishop. Saratov; from July 17, 1860, archbishop. Warsaw; 1876 ​​Kherson; mind. March 1, 1877. Print in 3 parts, in St. Petersburg. in 1818 From rough. authentic, stored in Moscow. Diocesan library, dept. III, l.1. 43–48. From a copy, storing to Moscow spirits, academy, package No. 1, boom. No. 6. Gorsky, Alexander Vasilievich, archpriest, rector of Moscow. spiritual Academy, Doctor of Theology; died 11 Oct. 1875. With his own hand. autograph, keeping in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory, No. 102, document. No. 13. Parthenius was subsequently abbot of the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Guslitsky Monastery, Moscow diocese; died in retirement in the Gethsemane monastery, near the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius. Parfeniy's letter and Ufimtsov's story are not reprinted here, since their essence is visible from the printed letter of the Metropolitan. Philareta. With his own hand. black authentic, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 31; document No. 1. See about him above, No. 322, p. 282 and approx. 1. The text of this article has been crossed out in ink. The text of the author of this article, as well as the comments against it, have been crossed out in ink. This article, starting with the words “for example” to the word “having bestowed”, is crossed out. About church singing choirs and a few words about the rules for composing harmonic singing, op. Lvov, printed in 1853, in St. Petersburg. With his own hand. Chernov. authentic, stored in Moscow. diocesan Library, dept. VII, sheet. 59–60. Tolstoy, Nikolai Yakovlevich, until 1829 was an inspector of the court singing chapel. Bortnyansky, Dmitry Stepanovich, director of the court. singing choir; died Sept. 28 1825. See about him above, p. 282 and note 1. With his own hand. Chernov. authentic, storing in Moscow diocesan library, dept. VII, sheet. 58 and 61–64. Davydov, Ivan Ivanovich, academician, senator; mind. November 15, 1863 In the rough original: “Vasiliv”. Grech, Nikolai Ivanovich, Russian. pissing and journalist; mind. January 12, 1867 With black authentic, storage to Moscow spirit. acad., package No. 3., doc. Nos. 53–55. In the papers of the Metropolitan. Filaret was mentioned in this letter of documents, but no documents have been preserved. With own authentic, storing to Moscow spirit. acad., pack., No. 3, doc. No. 52.