1853 г.
Machine translation from the original · Show original
February 18. 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 September 15, 1852, No. 8994, it was prescribed: based on careful consideration, in the recall committee established to test the musical proposals, the director of the court singing chapel, about the irmos and antiphons not approved by the committee, to submit a conclusion to the Holy Synod.
The committee, having fulfilled the instructions given to it, presented me with a report, from which I am obliged to present a complete list for the consideration of not only the considerations and opinions of the committee, but also the grounds on which it approved its conclusions.
The committee proved that all ten manuscripts proposed for consideration are not ancient. Two of them date back to the 2nd quarter, seven to the last quarter of the 18th century and one to the beginning of the 19th century.
He found that eight manuscripts were taken from one Vyatka diocese, and two from Little Russia, and of these one with the Polish signature of a scribe or translator.
He found that in none of these manuscripts the melody is called Greek, but in three it is called Kiev, probably only at the desire to give importance to the melody.
The committee found, in the inscription on manuscript No. 6, an admission that “many notes were unfairly placed.”
It is worthy of note that the inscription of the Vyatka book, dating back to the end of the last century, admits the very same thing that the Moscow committee denounces the Vyatka notes, that “there were many unfairly placed notes.”
To understand this remark, we can probably assume that both the Vyatka music writer and the note-writer had in mind the tune, which to this day (as an abbreviation of Znamenny) is constantly and consistently used in Moscow and the surrounding dioceses; that the Vyatka writer wrote some irmos correctly (which the Moscow committee also found), and in some he made arbitrary changes, which the Vyatka note condemned, which the Moscow committee did not approve of.
For these reasons, I cannot but agree with the committee’s opinion that it would be unfair to turn the Vyatka, by Vyatka’s own admission, “unfair” notes into a model for all Russian churches. And with the highest will of His Imperial Majesty, about the preservation of ancient tunes, it would be disagreeable to change the ancient tune of the Great Russian dioceses according to the model of the non-ancient Vyatka.
I also agree with the final conclusion of the committee that the irmos, classified in the previous opinion of the committee as category 3, should be set to notes according to the Moscow tune, according to the presented sample attached hereto.
I also present the above-mentioned manuscripts.
Your Holiness's most humble novice Filaret, Moscow
Attached to this report is the following list:
List from the report of the committee established to test musical transcriptions.
Based on these comments, it can be assumed that the melody of the presented manuscripts was formed after the time of our kings, under the influence of the south, and, to give greater importance, falsely decorated with the name Kiev, some zealot of it was brought to Vyatka and found some followers here.
Therefore, it would be unfair to set such a melody as a local one as a model at the present time, and through transcription into four-voice harmony make it universal, especially in the ancient capital - Moscow, where, indeed, since the very ancient time of our great princes and kings, there have been so many monasteries and parish churches, and where therefore the ancient melody with continuous Divine services could be preserved with greater accuracy to our time.
Based on this melody, as it exists to this day in the Moscow diocese and is familiar not only to singing choirs, but to all parish clergymen, even lay lovers of church singing, the committee verified the handwritten irmology in question, and classified verses similar to this chanting to the 1st category, quite similar to the 2nd, and not similar to the 3rd, guided by at the same time with the conviction that this abbreviated tune originated from the ancient Znamenny, with which it still has similarities in some voices, as noted by the committee during the first review of irmology.
All this encourages the committee to remain in its opinion, so that the poems classified by them as the 3rd category are rearranged again according to the tune now used in Moscow, agreeing, if necessary, to translate it from a living voice to notes, and for a sample to present a music book with Sunday irmos of the 4th tone.
The original was signed by: Nikolo-Bolshekhrestovsky Archpriest Nikifor Zercheninov; Mari in the widow's house, Archpriest Pavel Nekhotenov; Uspenskaya, in Mogiltsy, church, priest Ippolit Platonov.
Correct: Filaret metro station Moscow 484
February 26. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, about the incorrectly published catechism in Greece
The Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, in two respects, dated July 31, 1852, No. 5458, and February 16, 1853, No. 1021, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret the following:
I. Regarding your Eminence’s information to me, dated April 30, No. 177, about the translation published in Greece, published by the Holy Synod, of the catechism with damage to some parts of the original, communication was made with Hieromonk Antoninus, who is at our embassy in Greece, 485 about the delivery of more detailed information about this.
The review of Hieromonk Antonin, which has now been received by the director of my office, is my duty to forward here, in the original, at your discretion, dear sir and archpastor, humbly asking that upon his return you do not leave to inform me of your opinion on this subject.
In the second letter, dated February 16, 1853, Count N.A. Protasov appealed to the Metropolitan with a request to speed up the communication of the review of the catechism.
Metropolitan Philaret, February 26, replied:
A letter sent to me, dated July 31, No. 5458, from Hieromonk Antonin, who was at the Russian embassy in Greece, regarding the translation of the Russian Long Catechism published in Constantinople, with a deliberate omission that reveals differences of opinion, while returning, I find it difficult to say anything decisive on this subject, both due to the lack of the Constantinople edition in mind, and on others reasons.
The features with which I. Antonin describes Pharmacis are not difficult to recognize as fair. Pharmacides was condemned by the Greek hierarchy as a heretic; but by the Greek government the consequences of this trial were gradually weakened and finally destroyed.
But whatever he was, one cannot think that he wrote an obvious lie about the Constantinople edition of the catechism, which is very easy to expose.
So it must be assumed that the omission indicated by Pharmacides in the doctrine of the oath was actually made in the Constantinople edition of the catechism. It is unknown whether there are any other omissions or changes. For this purpose it would be useful to find a copy of this publication.
The expression ἡ ἐκκλησιασικὴ κεντρικὴ ἐπιτροπή, if used in the Greek translation about the All-Russian Synod, is very informal, to say the least. Doesn’t the translator recognize the All-Russian Governing Synod when he doesn’t want to name it, and expresses himself with unequal roundaboutness: church central administration?
If, in fact, the Constantinople edition omitted the doctrine of an oath as permissible, but then printed the doctrine of the abuse of an oath, which presupposes its correct use: this inconsistency does not reveal such a degree of prudence in the actors that one could hopefully enter into explanations about this subject with them.
As for what was said in the district message that the oath is renounced to all Christians, especially to members of the clergy and monks: this saying can have a sound interpretation, consistent with the teaching of the Russian catechism on the oath. If the oath is renounced with particular severity to members of the clergy and monks, then, of course, it is renounced with less severity to the laity, and therefore is sometimes permissible. Moreover, there is no doubt that here we are talking about an arbitrary oath, and not about an oath ex officio, just like in the 29th rule of St. Basil the Great, which the compiler of the district message seems to have had in mind. St. Basil writes: an oath is generally forbidden, since it is more appropriate to condemn something given for evil. But in the same rule of St. Vasily says that it is necessary to teach, but not to swear hastily; Consequently, he allows for a not hasty and judicious oath. But it is obvious that we are not talking about an oath ex officio, but about an oath arbitrarily, for we are talking about an oath for evil. In the rules of St. Vasily there is a case in which he respects an arbitrary oath, and does not reject it.
Thus, in rule 10 he writes: those who swear not to accept ordination when they have taken an oath, should not be forced to break it. In canon 17 of St. Vasily condemns, however, not strictly, the presbyter who swore. And here is an example for the rule according to which in Russia the church and state law exempt clergy from taking the oath, and are content with their testimony regarding the priesthood, except for one most important case, namely, the oath of allegiance to the Imperial Majesty. Rule 94, 6 of the Ecumenical Council excommunicates those who swear by pagan oaths (for a pagan oath is participation in a pagan religion); consequently, it does not condemn oaths in general and leaves outside condemnation an oath that is in agreement with Christian beliefs.
All this could be offered to the Greek publishers of the Russian catechism; but if we assume in accepting this the same degree of prudence as is visible in the matter of publication, then it is difficult to have good hope.
If we remember that the Constantinople hierarchy issued a very important church act - a district message against the attempts of the Roman hierarchy 486 - without consulting the Russian hierarchy; If we take into account that the current private relations with the highest members of the Constantinople hierarchy on the subject of baptism do not show due concern for the preservation of church unanimity, then it is difficult to expect good consequences from relations on the present matter of the catechism, if they were opened.
All of the above leads to the following conclusion:
1) not to enter into relations with the hierarchy of Constantinople on the matter of the catechism at the present time.
2) Meanwhile, out of an abundance of caution, find the Constantinople edition of the Russian catechism, and subject it, without official publicity, to examination in comparison with the Russian 487.
March 18. Note from Metropolitan Philaret on the need to improve methods of preserving sacristy and utensils, antiquities and libraries in churches and monasteries
On the means and obstacles to the preservation of church antiquities and manuscripts in churches and monasteries
Churches and monasteries, by the nature and constancy of their existence, should be the primary sources and reliable repositories of antiquities.
It is unpleasant to encounter antiquity in worldly hands, the very sight of which arouses the guess that this rightful place was in a church or monastery; and the question involuntarily arises: why is it not saved there? This may occur from a lack of vigilance and caution in storage; but there may be circumstances in which the means of storage are necessarily weaker than the obstacles.
The means of storing ancient church things and books are: a faithful and knowledgeable custodian, correct inventory and supervision of superiors. You can own these funds now, with widespread education, with well-organized management, with public safety. It wasn't always like this. There were keepers who did not understand what they were keeping; and therefore they could gladly exchange the ancient, dilapidated, unused manuscript for a new book, very suitable for reading in church. Not suddenly did they realize that for the sacristy and book depository, no less than the castle, an inventory was needed, and things were to be certified from it; They thought that church things would be guarded by the idea that they were church things, and books would be protected by the spell written on them against thieves. In times of social unrest and enemy invasions, neither the sacristan and the bookkeeper, nor the inventory, obviously meant anything in the face of the predator.
The antiquity of church objects and writing is older than Tatar times. The Tatars came to churches and monasteries not for antiquities, but for treasures; but the treasures were carried away, and the antiquities were thrown into disarray and scattered; and having taken away, for example, the Gospel decorated with gold and silver, where they found it convenient to rip off the gold from it, they threw the book, and now it wanders along dark paths, or somewhere lies in the dust for a long time, until the greedy eye finds it and the long hand of the archaeologist reaches it.
What churches and monasteries preserved from Tatar times, and what they acquired in greater abundance during the time of the established rule of the great princes and tsars of Russia, was subjected to greater danger and actual plunder and waste during the unfortunate time of disorder and the Polish invasion of Russia, due to the impoverishment of the royal family in Russia. Where, for example, is the Grand Duke's library of Greek books, for the translation of which Maxim the Greek was called upon 488? She disappeared in these troubled times. The Sergius Lavra, although it was not taken by the Poles, could not help but suffer losses when, for example, cellarer Avramy Palitsyn 489, for lack of money, offered church vestments decorated with pearls to the Cossacks near Moscow in retribution for not refusing to assist the army that came to liberate Moscow.
Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, of course, saw the breakdown of church and monastery property; and, with prosperity being restored, he wanted to introduce and approve improvement for future times. He himself ordered an inventory of the most important places in the spiritual department to be made, and appointed people for this. Such an inventory has been preserved to this day in the Sergius Lavra.
But then it happened that the orders of the government itself, with good intentions, did not have a favorable effect on the safety of church and monastery sacristies and especially libraries.
In the personal decree of Emperor Peter the Great, 1701, it is depicted: “monks in their cells do not have any letters to write to the authorities, and they will not have ink or paper in their cells.” Decree II, 1723, confirmed: “monks should not write extracts from books without the abbot’s own knowledge, under severe punishment on the body.” These laws, which had been in effect for a long time and strictly, were supposed to kill the taste for spiritual and historical writing that had hitherto existed in the monasteries, and give the monastery libraries curators who were semi-literate, incapable, and due to their inability, unzealous and unreliable in their work.
In 1720, by personal highest decree, it was ordered: “in all monasteries located in the Russian state, ancient letters of grant and other curious original letters, as well as historical handwritten and printed books, where any necessary information can be found, are inspected and taken away.” The Senate decree ordered that all this be sent to the Senate. There is no doubt that as a result of this, a bountiful harvest was collected from the monastery libraries and archives; and the Senate, now, probably, will not present evidence as to whether everything collected was accurately brought into its granary, and preserved, and whether more was scattered into private hands.
1775, February 5th, Adjutant General (later Prince) Potemkin 490, in relation to Metropolitan Platon 491, announced the highest command to “convert the sacristy in the Chudov Monastery into bishop’s clothes, and correct everything dilapidated under the supervision of him, the Adjutant General; and demanded that for the fulfillment of this highest will, all things contained in it should be prepared.” Some of the sacristy items taken as a result were returned for alteration; and part remained in the department of Prince Potemkin; and after his death, only some materials were found and returned to the Chudov sacristy. This is a special case, but not the only one. According to legend, it is known that in a similar manner, the famous manuscript of the Gospel, the so-called Ostromir, came out of the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral irretrievably.
A lover of antiquity, Count Musin-Pushkin 492, took it from the cathedral to present it to Empress Catherine II as a curious object. The manuscript was on the empress's desk for some time, and after satisfaction of curiosity, it was removed, and accidentally ended up in the wardrobe, and from here, after the death of the empress, it passed into private hands, in which it remained until then, when Secretary of State Olenin 493 presented it to the sovereign, Emperor Alexander Pavlovich, and asked for an order to put it in the Imperial Library.
There were other irrevocable borrowings from church and monastery libraries, made by order of the government for scientific purposes. Thus, some especially important manuscripts of the ecclesiastical department were taken by the historiographer Karamzin 494, and were lost to him in 1812.
There were visits to church and monastery libraries, under the patronage or by order of the government, not for borrowing, but only for taking down lists, which, however, were not without losses. This includes the search for ancient manuscripts carried out by agents of the Chancellor Count Rumyantsev 495 and an archaeological journey. An archaeologist, who is ordered to provide any assistance by his superiors, comes to the monastery library, takes several handwritten books, and settles down with them in the room assigned to him in the monastery, or in the monastery hotel, and studies them for several days and nights. The book guardian accompanies him, but is ashamed to reveal distrust of the one approved by the authorities, and with his prolonged presence with him every minute he says to him: I am afraid that you will steal a sheet or notebook. Moreover, the bookkeeper needs to go to church and to meals.
And so the archaeologist is trusted: he returns the books; and then or afterwards it turns out that some sheets or notebooks are missing; and to convict him is either late or inconvenient, because some ancient manuscripts either do not have numbering at all, or only have numbering for notebooks and not sheets. So that it does not seem that this is just a picture of the imagination, a proven example is presented. In the thirty-fifth year of the current century, the Metropolitan of Moscow, with the permission of the Holy Synod, requested from the stauropegial Resurrection Monastery, for the necessary information, an ancient parchment manuscript, known as the collection of Svyatoslav. It turned out that there was no leaf at the beginning. The late Secretary of State Olenin explained that there was a sheet, that there was a picture of the prince and his surname on it, that he, Mr. Olenin, took a photograph from this sheet when the sheet was still in the book. The Metropolitan asked Olenin for a photograph of the painting, attached it to the manuscript, and asked from the Holy Synod for an order, for better preservation, to transfer this manuscript to the Synodal library.
It later turned out that after the death of one archaeologist, the stolen parchment sheet with the painting was presented, as a rarity, to the Sovereign Emperor, and by his order was placed in the Imperial Library. Who is more worthy of condemnation here: the librarian who believed in honesty; or an archaeologist who did not justify the trust of not only the sacristan, but also the authorities 496?
But the church and monastery sacristies and libraries suffered the most in 1812, in places affected by the enemy invasion, and especially in Moscow. Popular opinion was greatly aroused by the appeals of the commander-in-chief in Moscow, Count Rostopchin 497, to stand for the inviolability of Moscow, and was ready to act insultingly towards anyone who showed a disposition to flee and take away with them a church shrine, the defense of the city. Therefore, the stowage of sacristy items and preparations for removal could only be done in sacristies that were remote from the eyes of the people, such as, for example, the synodal sacristy. Export was allowed no earlier than one or two days before the enemy entered Moscow; and in some monasteries, what was prepared for export remained unexported due to a lack of supplies. What, after the expulsion of the enemy from Moscow, remained unplundered and undestroyed in the libraries and archives of monasteries: that remained unattended for a considerable time, because their leaders and almost all the brethren were on the run.
A considerable time passed until the Moscow vicar Augustine 498 learned in Murom about the cleansing of Moscow and achieved it; but even upon arrival, it is unknown for what reasons, he was not allowed into Moscow by Count Rostopchin for about two weeks. This time, without a doubt, was taken advantage of in their own way by ill-intentioned people, and especially schismatics, who used the presence of the French in Moscow for their own purposes, as evidenced by the marching regimental church acquired by the schismatics at this time.
Having taken into account all of the above, in fairness, one can thank God that in the churches and monasteries of Moscow and surrounding areas, church relics, treasures and antiquities have been preserved in such abundance as they are now visible.
In 1813, upon the return to Moscow of church treasures and antiquities taken away from the enemy invasion, the spiritual authorities of Moscow and its diocese, together with the restoration of the destroyed structure of churches and monasteries, immediately took care to re-establish the safety of their property on a solid foundation. Corded books were given from the synodal office and consistory for entering into them inventories of church and monastery property. The inventories were not compiled suddenly, because some churches are not quickly equipped with internal structures; and before this they could not have been written. The compiled inventories, depending on their importance and convenience, were verified partly directly by the synodal office and consistory and their members, partly through proxies; and then finally approved by determinations, of which the consistory ones were approved by the bishop governing the diocese.
Because these inventories were compiled hastily, during times of difficulty and poverty; and since, as the prosperity of the capital increased, spiritual places gradually received renewal, an increase in church decorations, utensils and vestments: it is not surprising that the inventories sooner or later turned out to be unsatisfactory and required renewal and improvement. According to the reports of the deans and the ideas of the local superiors, the inventories were renewed with the same supervision and verification from the authorities as before. That this happened, as needed, not at once, the authorities found benefit from this; because it was more free to carry out verification through people, and, moreover, busy ones.
This procedure for compiling, verifying and renewing inventories extends not only to cathedral and monastery churches, but also to all urban and rural ones.
In addition, the preservation of church and monastery property is ensured by a twice-a-year inspection of churches and once a year, through deans, and a special inspection of the sacristies and libraries of cathedrals and monasteries, by order of the authorities, every five years.
Due to this difference in time and the fact that the plan for the inventories was not established everywhere by the authorities, and most of the abbots followed the example of the previous inventories, there was some diversity both in the internal composition of the inventories and in their external form. All of them have a fastener on the sheets, a cord and the seal of the synodal office in stauropegial, and the consistory in diocesan churches and monasteries; but the signatures of local authorities are not uniform in all; some who verified the inventory and carried out the five-year inspection of the sacristies reported only the execution of this to the authorities; and some made an inscription about this on the inventories themselves. This type of diversity does not harm preservation; but may appear unsatisfactory to the reviewer.
Inventories of manuscripts and books are especially imperfect. The describers did not have the archaeological eye to describe the manuscripts clearly; and they did not always show the year of publication of printed books, which is not unimportant for ancient publications.
And so there is a degree of perfection to which this matter can be raised; and the present time represents a possibility of this that is closer than previous times.
For this purpose, the following assumption is presented.
On improving methods of preservation in churches and monasteries of church and sacristy items, antiquities and libraries
1) Carry out again, through authorized persons, an audit of the inventories and compare them with the existing ones in churches and monasteries, whose church decorations, sacristies and libraries are of particular importance due to their composition, with the requirement to report on everything that requires improvement.
2) Then begin compiling new inventories, starting with the most important places and those in which the inventories will be in greater need of correction.
3) For this purpose, give corded books, bound together, sheet by sheet, to the secretaries of the synodal office and consistory according to their affiliation.
4) So that the inventories are less subject to changes due to dilapidation and change of things, divide the inventories of each place into two categories.
In the first, write everything that is most important and lasting; in the second, everything is unimportant and subject to change, such as the vestments used daily.
5) The inventory plan must be correct and uniform. Table 499 about this is attached.
6) Inventories must be compiled with such detail and accuracy that there could be no loss or change even in small parts of things, without the inventory revealing this.
7) The newly compiled inventory is signed on the sheets by the rector of the church or monastery to which it belongs and then certified in the synodal office or consistory according to the ownership, regarding the correctness of the compilation, and legal precautions are taken against erasures and amendments. An inscription about this is made on the inventory.
8) Further, the new inventory is verified on the spot through proxies with the previous inventory and with the availability of things, and an inscription about this is also made at the end of the inventory.
9) In case of any doubt, the case is investigated and considered in the office or consistory until the doubt ceases.
10) When the main inventory is found satisfactory, then, according to the highest will, it is approved by the great cathedral seal of the Moscow Metropolis, and becomes a valid document for the reception and audit of sacristies and libraries of church and monasteries.
11) A significant number of white sheets should be left at the end of the inventory. Here, at each appointment or audit, signatures are made in order: such and such a year, month and day according to this inventory was handed over by such and such, received by such and such, and such and such was the intermediary. Also: this inventory was reviewed by such and such. If there was any loss or damage to things, then the signature should indicate that this was reported to the authorities.
12) No item or book for legal reasons should be removed from the church sacristy and library except with the approval of the Holy Synod or the diocesan bishop. And therefore, if, after the approval of the inventory, a change occurs in some things, or by order of the authorities (such as, for example, the transfer of some ancient utensils to newly founded Edinoverie churches) or for other inevitable reasons, independent of the will of the custodians, then about this in the inventory, against the retired thing, a mark is made, with which not only the content, but also the form, must be approved by the synodal office or the diocesan superiors, by affiliation; and this mark is sealed by the dean.
13) For the safety of manuscripts, the inventory indicates the time of their writing (depending on the possibility, exactly or approximately), the number of sheets (for which all manuscripts must be renumbered by sheet), and if the manuscript contains several different works, they must be named in the inventory.
14) On every manuscript and on every ancient or rare printed book, under the last line of the first sheet there should be a signature in strong ink, for example: “belongs to the great Assumption Cathedral. 1852". Also, the signature must be repeated on the tenth and twentieth sheets. These signatures must serve as an inviolable protection of church property, so that wherever a book with these signatures appears, it must be returned to the church without any revocation by statute of limitations or under other pretexts.
15) The dean of monasteries and churches, during the six-month review of monasteries and churches, pay vigilant attention to the integrity of things and books and, at least some of them, especially the most important ones, compare them with the inventory, and report the following to the authorities.
16) Article 38 of the statute of ecclesiastical consistories on the certification of the sacristy of the cathedral by specially appointed trustees, every two years, to be extended to all cathedrals and monasteries, instead of the five-year inspection prescribed by the decree of the Holy Synod of 1775.
17) A copy of each main inventory must be kept in the synodal office or in the consistory, as appropriate.
18) Additional inventories are written by the rectors of churches and monasteries in books issued under the seal and seal of the synodal office or consistory, and are subject to the supervision of deans. The abbots enter new items into them immediately upon entry; and those that are dilapidated can be excluded from the inventory otherwise than by examination and permission of the authorities, with the testimony of the dean.
The order of the main church sacristy inventory of a monastery
Inventory of the church or churches.
2) Pre-altar iconostasis.
3) Iconostases and icons in other places of the church.
4) Reliquary of holy relics (where available).
5) Iconostases and icons in the meal or vestibule.
6) Lamps, candlesticks, analogues.
3) Sacred service vessels.
10) The vestments of thrones and altars.
11) Bishop's vestments.
12) Priestly vestments.
13) Deacon's vestments and ceremonial surplices.
17) Vessels for the consecration of bread.
18) Vessels for water blessing.
20) Antiquities not belonging to Divine services.
Inventory of book depository and writing
1) Manuscripts on parchment.
3) Printed books of scripture.
6) Other books of spiritual content.
8) Charters and ancient acts.
9) Business documents, such as plans and the like.
10) Ticket for safe treasury (where available).
1) This general plan, without changing the main order, can receive special applications, depending on local circumstances. For example, in the Sergius Lavra, the inventory of icons, due to their multitude, forms a separate part.
2) Books used daily during Divine services, and therefore subject to frequent damage and change, should be included not in the main inventory, but in an additional inventory.
3) After each chapter of the inventory, white sheets should be left for entering profit items.
4) The inventory must have two numbers: one belonging to each chapter, and the other continuously passing from the beginning to the end of each part, to connect the whole.
5) Under the description of things that are an imperial or royal contribution, attribute whose contribution they are.
6) Also mention the names of other investors, if they are known 500.
Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Moscow military governor-general, Count A.A. Zakrevsky, regarding the proposed performance of the oratorio in the theater: Stabat Mater - the cry of the Mother of God at the Cross
Excellent count, dear sir.
In the middle of this March, I received an unnamed letter from the city post office, with a list of 501 attached. For several years now I have been receiving similar letters in the same handwriting, written in a spirit of pious jealousy. I don’t know the writer, but I just heard a rumor that although he writes alone, it is not only from his own thoughts, but from the consultation of several zealots. But no matter who writes, a thought worthy of attention should not be ignored. This seems to be the idea of the writer of the letter about the oratorio: Stabat Mater.
The idea that the Mother of God and Her holy feelings at the Cross of the Lord, which we revere in church and at home, is indecent to exhibit in theatrical singing. This thought cannot be called prejudicial or inappropriate to the subject. On the contrary, it is the product of reverence for the sacred, sacredly observed in the Orthodox Church, in accordance with the word of God: if you bring out the honest from the unworthy (if, that is, you protect the sacred inviolable, and do not allow the unworthy to be mixed into it) as my mouth will be. Jeremiah 15:19.
If someone raised an objection from the fact that the oratorio: Stabat Mater was given in Vienna, one could ask: is it necessary to neglect the now cited saying of the word of God because it was neglected in Vienna? In places of Roman worship you can find church music in the theater, and hear theatrical music in the church. This is not something that could be imitated in Orthodox Russia or in Orthodox Moscow; but this is something against which precautions must be taken.
I think I would not have fulfilled the duties of my title if I had not offered the above to your, dear sir, love for Orthodoxy, your patriotic feeling, your superior attention 502.
April 16. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Moscow military governor-general, Count A.A. Zakrevsky, regarding his demand for an untitled letter about the concert: Stabat Mater
Moscow Military Governor-General, Count A.A. Zakrevsky, regarding, dated April 15, 1853, No. 537, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret: “G. The chief of the gendarme corps asks me to inform him in the original, solely due to the need encountered in the department entrusted to him to compare handwritings, known to your Eminence, sent to your name, an unnamed letter regarding spiritual singing in theaters, which served as the reason for the cancellation of the concert: Stabat Mater.
Notifying your Eminence of this, I have the honor to humbly ask you, gracious archpastor, if you would please find it possible to tell me the original, unnamed letter, which, if requested, can be returned to you.
In this regard, Metropolitan Philaret wrote:
“On April 15, in the absence of the first letter, forward two, written in the same handwriting, to the cathedral archpriest and to the cathedral saccelary.”
Then, Metropolitan Filaret, due to the above-mentioned attitude, wrote to Count A.A. Zakrevsky, dated April 16th:
By reference, dated the 15th day of this April, No. 537, Your Excellency deigns to demand from me an authentic untitled letter about the Stabat Mater concert, for comparison of handwritings.
I cannot deliver this letter now because it was when the Adjutant General, Synodal Chief Prosecutor, Count N.A. was in Moscow. Protasov, transferred from me to him.
But I have preserved two original and unnamed letters, in the same handwriting as the above, written after it, to the cathedral archpriest 503 and to the cathedral sacellary 504. In these letters the Stabat Mater concert is called blasphemy. They were written so that the first letter sent through Archpriest 505 of Adrian would not be hidden, but would certainly reach me.
I hereby forward these two letters in the original 506.
April 2. Metropolitan Philaret’s proposal to the conference of the Moscow Theological Academy to consider the action of the censorship committee, which approved for publication the poems: “Prayer at the Cross”
Conferences of the Moscow Theological Academy, proposal.
The censorship committee at the academy allowed the accompanying verses to be published: prayer at the cross, in which this title is followed by arias and choruses, showing the purpose of these verses for the theater.
I propose to the conference to consider this action of the committee, and not leave me in the dark about what will happen next.
Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow
In pursuance of this, the academic conference first demanded from the censorship committee an explanation of what rules and considerations guided it in approving the publication of the said poems.
From the explanations delivered, as a result of this demand, by the committee and the member of it who examined those verses, the inspector of the academy, Archimandrite Sergius, as well as from the attached attitude of the council of the Moscow charitable society, which submitted the mentioned verses to the committee, it turned out that 1) these verses had already been previously published with the approval of the St. Petersburg spiritual censorship; 2) since the manuscript presented by the council of the charitable society turned out to be completely similar to its previous edition, the censor who examined it decided to repeat the approval given by the spiritual censorship, on the basis of Article 243 of the charter on censorship, which says: “if no changes are made in the book approved by the committee, then the authors, translators, or publishers, wishing to print such a book approved by the committee in another, third, and so on next time, they announce this to the censorship committee and can receive permission to do so, without a new consideration by the committee” 507.
3) The censor who examined the manuscript recognized himself as obligated to hasten the fulfillment of the request of the council of the charitable society, which presented an urgent need for a hasty reprinting of the manuscript and expressed in its attitude that it was most important to inform Her Imperial Majesty about the actions of the committee on this subject.
Based on the circumstances explained, the academy conference found that the action of the committee member, Archimandrite Sergius, who reviewed the poems, can be considered partly excusable, since he, the archimandrite, did not give again, but only repeated the already given approval on the aforementioned manuscript, at the urgent request of the one who presented it, did not have time to discuss whether decent use would be given to it after printing, and finally, in the existing censorship regulations had in mind an article by virtue of which he was obliged to approve a previously printed manuscript for a new publication, and yet in the same charter he did not find any instructions on how to deal with manuscripts assigned after printing for musical performance. The conference, dated April 1, No. 15, submitted this conclusion to the discretion of Metropolitan Philaret, who gave the following resolution:
April 2. since: 1) Article 243 on reprinting, submitted by the censor, says: they can receive permission to do so without a new review in the committee, and consequently only allows, and does not oblige the censor to allow reprinting without review, and consequently he was not deprived of the right to review;
2) There is no law according to which another censorship committee must unquestioningly obey the judgment of one censorship committee;
3) For the theological gaze and religious and moral feeling of the censor, the inconsistency between the title: prayer at the cross and the subsequent arias and choruses belonging to the theater could easily be felt;
4) The explanation of the censorship committee that the manuscript was submitted from a well-intentioned society does not have the slightest force to justify; for the censorship committee was also established for well-intentioned people who, with all their good intentions, may not see in the works that, according to censorship consideration, it will be disapproving of publication;
5) The censorship committee, having found doubt in the case, could not enter into the judgment, so as not to affect the decision of another committee, and could allow those who submitted the poems to apply for permission to reprint to the committee that gave the initial approval, and accepted responsibility for it.
For all these reasons, the justification of the censor and the censorship committee cannot be considered satisfactory.
Therefore, I propose: 1) to urgently confirm to the censor that he should be more attentive in examining works submitted for publication or reprinting, and, in case of even the slightest doubt, without relying on his own judgment, refer to a meeting of the full presence of the committee.
2) The Committee should also confirm that all its members protect each other and support each other in correct action, basing themselves on the law and the theological and religious-moral views on the subject, and not on the face of sight 508.
April 11. Resolution of Metropolitan Philaret on the report of the committee for censorship of spiritual books
The conference of the Moscow Theological Academy presented to the discretion of Metropolitan Philaret a report from the censorship committee, in which a book was shown approved for publication, under the title:
“Brief extracts from letters to newly baptized Jews about the correctness of the Orthodox Church in relation to its use of leavened bread in the sacrament of communion, and not unleavened bread.”
After reading the report, the Metropolitan wrote:
Did the censorship committee do the right thing by approving an essay that proves that the Lord Jesus did not celebrate the Passover of the Old Testament?
On April 10, the academic conference presented the above-mentioned book to the metropolitan, after reading which, the metropolitan, at the presentation of the conference, gave a resolution with the following content:
April 11. The censorship committee approved an essay in which an unknown writer tries to prove that Christ the Savior did not celebrate the Old Testament Passover. But when the apostles asked the Lord: where do you want us to prepare the Passover meal for you? - they could not think of any other Easter other than the Old Testament; for the sacrament of the Eucharist had not yet been revealed. The Lord indicated a way to find a stranger and a place, and ordered to say: I will make the Passover for you, and He said to the disciples: prepare it. And the disciples: having prepared Easter. All this cannot be understood otherwise than about the Passover of the Old Testament. Was the entire order made in vain? Saint Chrysostom, in his interpretation of Matthew, says: Why did you celebrate Easter? - showing everyone until the last day that it is not against the law. It is obvious that the Holy Father says this about Easter according to the Old Testament. Therefore, I propose to the conference to consider whether the censorship committee acted correctly. It is known that Holy Scripture must be interpreted according to the guidance of the holy fathers, and not according to arbitrary wisdom.
In pursuance of such a resolution, the conference, upon request of a review from the censorship committee, in a submission dated June 17, No. 31, explained that the committee allowed for publication a book in which it is proved that the Lord Jesus Christ did not celebrate the Old Testament Passover on the evening of the establishment of the sacrament of the Eucharist, on the basis that this opinion, with the approval of spiritual censorship, had already been expressed in print, namely in Christian Reading, 1841, part I, p. 398 (in the message of Peter, Patriarch of Antioch), in the Temporary of the Imperial Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities, book. 5, 1850, p. 35 (in the message of Leo, Metropolitan of Russia) and in Christian Reading, 1838, part 4, p. 348 (in the message of John II, Metropolitan).
The Academy Conference, taking into account that, in approving the named book, the committee was based on the fact that the expressed opinion had already been repeatedly expressed in books published with the approval of spiritual censorship, recognizes his act in this case as worthy of apology. But since this opinion does not agree with what is generally accepted in the Orthodox Church, it seems necessary to impose a duty on the committee so that, if the same book is submitted for publication in a second edition or another work expressing the same opinion, the committee does not at all allow them to be published.
At this performance, Metropolitan Philaret wrote:
June 7. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Moscow military governor-general, Count A.A. Zakrevsky, with the opinion of the need to fulfill the highest command of 1847, about the gradual liberation of the Preobrazhensky cemetery from the character of a schismatic institution and maintaining in it the character of a philanthropic institution
Illustrious count, dear sir!
At the end of last May, the Moscow secret advisory committee on schismatics and sectarians, having discussions about the fulfillment of the highest command of 1847, about the gradual liberation of the Preobrazhensky cemetery from the character of a schismatic institution, and the preservation in it of the character of a humane institution, which it is recognized by the government.
At the same time, I found it necessary to make known to your Excellency some special circumstances of this matter and my thoughts; but partly the deferred work of the service, partly the depletion of strength steals away my time without notice: and now I can only fulfill what I intended.
I will preface the present matter with some thoughts, although, however, they are not unknown to your Excellency.
Schism is a rather old disease; and therefore healing her is not easy.
The measures taken against him must be chosen very carefully. They require a difficult combination of two conditions: first, that they be quite strong to weaken the split; secondly, that they should be quite moderate, so as not to spread the exciting effects to many.
It is equally important that the measures taken are carried out skilfully. Otherwise, the best measures will not only not be completely useful, but sometimes may even cause harm. For example, please remember how in the Nizhny Novgorod province, in the village of Gorodets, an exhortation to Edinoverie reached a majority of votes who wanted to convert a schismatic chapel into a Edinoverie church, and a decisive decree about this was made 510. How the spirit of the rest of the schismatics would have fallen if this had been skillfully performed! And the whole art consisted in not spreading preliminary rumors about this among the surrounding schismatics. Then the majority, who want the common faith of the townsfolk in Gorodets, would make this decision with joy, and the minority would not have the spirit to raise their voices against it.
But the not unselfish patron of the schism, the police officer Massarius, previously divulged among the schismatics of many villages what would happen, and on what day he would come to demand the keys to the chapel; and when he arrived, several thousand schismatics stood near the chapel; He, without doing anything, reported this to his superiors, and the matter ended with the fact that the chapel was left in the hands of the schismatics, and as a result, the schism was not weakened, but strengthened, because it triumphed over the government’s orders.
From this example we must conclude that sometimes, even if a reliable measure to weaken a schism appears, it is difficult to decide to use it, if, moreover, it is not presented to skilled performers.
What was decided by the Moscow advisory committee on last May 21, please see from the list in the magazine, under the letter A 511.
In addition to the measures laid down in this journal, the committee was asked the question: should the bells, the largest of which weigh up to 100 pounds, be taken from the Preobrazhensky cemetery. This would be in accordance with the law prohibiting schism, and with examples of similar cases. But most of the members were not of this opinion. As a precaution so that judgments tending to weaken the existing law would not be included in the committee’s journal, it was necessary to propose that it would be better not to mention this measure at all in the journal.
The committee was also reminded of some matters of significant importance that had been started and left without progress, and it was suggested whether they should be given movement now.
The first of these cases was that in 1844, a note was opened under the title of fatherly wills, signed by the senior trustee of the Preobrazhensky cemetery Alexei Nikiforov, and two handwritten books written in the same cemetery, the last under the chief abbot Semyon Kuzmich, which stated that from 1666 the royal power established by God would be abolished, that the teaching commanding to pray to God for the current royal power is a godless tradition and bad understanding, and so on, which circumstance, if you please, is seen from the list of the committee, April 14, 1844, attached herewith under the letter B.
Therefore, holding Alexei Nikiforov and Semyon Kuzmin accountable would be a legal and not severe measure, but capable of lowering the self-esteem of the schismatics. But the Minister of Internal Affairs postponed this matter until time. A list of its relations is attached herewith, under the letter B.
Now Alexey Nikiforov is no longer alive; and Semyon Kuzmin continues to lead, no doubt, according to the same rules that were exposed in 1844.
Another case, also in 1844, was started about the found authentic document given by the elders of the Preobrazhensky cemetery to Afanasy Antonov to manage the schismatics in Saratov, in which the letter, by the way, said that their country was subject to the local Moscow department, from which it is clear that the elders of the Preobrazhensky cemetery organized themselves into a department that extended their actions far. About this, attached is a list from the committee's journal, June 17, 1844, under the letter G. This matter also remained without consequences.
The Committee did not express any disposition to demand that these matters be given movement; and that I did not insist on entering this into the journal, in this, I think, the thoughts I stated above about caution will justify me.
I leave it to your enlightened zeal for the common good to make such use of these thoughts and information as you deem fair and possible 512 .
June 15. Two notes by Metropolitan Philaret, entitled: a) “On the past and possible future transfer of excess people of clergy rank to military rank” and b) “On the excess of people of clergy rank, burdensome in some dioceses”
I. About the former and possible future transfer of excess people of clergy rank to military rank
In the past century, and in the first half of the current one, from time to time, by special orders of the government, we carried out the so-called analysis of people of the clergy rank, according to which those who were redundant and uncommon in it, but capable of military rank, were transferred to the military department.
The last order of this kind was in 1830; and although it was lenient, so that young people, homeless, but by education could be useful in the clergy, were left in it, and even from the poorly educated, one son was left for the mothers of widows; however, it is clear that the government viewed this measure as difficult; because not a small number of those taken from the clergy into military service, at the request of their parents and relatives who remained in the clergy, for a year or more, were returned to this rank, not without damage to the military department, which uselessly spent costs and labor on their uniforms, maintenance and training, and not to profit for the ecclesiastical department, which, having given away few capable ones, received them back even less capable of church service, having lost their former adaptation to it, among activities of a completely different kind.
Given the reverse course of affairs in this way, one can doubt whether the government will be disposed in the future to use a measure that, having used before, it itself seemed to be trying to weaken. But, when delving into the essence of the matter, the question cannot yet be considered resolved, but must be presented as awaiting resolution: is it not necessary, from time to time, to continue to transfer the excess of people of clergy rank to the military, on rules consistent with the general and private good.
In some ranks, for example, in agriculture, the increase in the number of people is a profit for both the state and private welfare.
This is not always the case in a spiritual rank. As long as there are not enough people capable of filling places of service, so long will the multiplication of people mean profit in the clergy. But when the service places are full, and, in addition to a certain supply of people, for the easy occupation of the opening places, there remains an excess of people who have not found places for many years, then these people are a burden for the rank and, multiplying, must more or less concern the state with themselves. People without work and without bread are a serious burden for the rank and for the state: and such, of necessity, are the abundant people of the clergy; because, with the exception of rare exceptions, they do not have hereditary means of subsistence and, constituting a category of people preparatory to spiritual service, are not sufficiently able to employ themselves in other occupations that provide bread, and especially the less capable and less educated among them.
This state is all the more tempting because these helpless people are mostly forced to stay in provincial cities in order to guard against the opening of vacancies and so as not to be late with requests to fill them; and on this guard the less worthy remain for several years, warned by the more worthy.
Already the spiritual authorities feel the burden of their department with an excess of people, and are thinking about means against this. By the way, it is trying to limit the number of students in religious schools, so as not to exhaust its resources on people who will not be needed by it. But this measure can only provide some relief from the burden of costs, but not from the burden of people. And if, as a result of the entry of constraint into theological schools, a large category of people who were not only superfluous, but also completely uneducated, will again appear in the ecclesiastical department, which was in some places in the past century; then wouldn’t this be a burden that cannot be carried, and from which it is especially difficult to free oneself?
Where will the untrained children of the clergy go? With complete lack of education, they have only one path in mind - into a taxable state. But if a philanthropic government wants to act with the least severe measures possible, as can be seen in the above example of 1830, then it will not make efforts to transfer from a clergy title to a taxable one, and will provide this only to those who wish. To close the path to education for children, which was open to their parents, and to relegate those born in a free state, without guilt, to a tax-paying state, while a lenient government opens the way to education for those born in a tax-paying state, and through education, the outcome to a non-taxable state - these would be two grave measures, which could be partly excused by need, and which justice cannot justify.
Moreover, to enter the urban taxable state one needs, albeit small, capital, which the children of the clergy do not have, and to enter the rural state one needs adaptation to agricultural work, which cannot be found in the urban clergy, and which in the rural one has gradually been lost since, by decree of the Sovereign Emperor Paul the First, the cultivation of the lands of the rural clergy was entrusted to the parishioners.
From this we can rightly conclude that, although transfer from a clergy rank to a lower level of military rank has always seemed like a difficult measure, it is easier than blocking the paths to education and transferring to a taxable state: firstly, because the military rank is honorable; secondly, because it represents more or less the hope of long service, and then free peace in retirement; thirdly, because expulsion from the clergy to the military rank is usually established in such a way that this measure is justified by justice, for those who are expelled are those who, through the free use of their abilities, adapted themselves less than others to the spiritual rank.
With such analysis and justice, the transfer of surplus people to the military rank may not be useless to the military rank, providing it with people, without a doubt, more capable of military education than a recruit from the peasants; and at the same time, it can be combined with moral benefit for the spiritual calling, freeing it not only from the superfluous, but also from the less capable and reliable, and thereby encouraging those remaining in the spiritual calling to improve themselves in the spirit of this calling, so as not to be excluded from it.
If the considerations now set forth are recognized as fair, then in order for the deduction from the clergy to the military rank to be carried out in accordance with justice, and, if possible, in an easier way, for this purpose the following assumptions are presented for consideration:
I. Before studying in theological schools, admit all children of the clergy at the request of them and their parents, so that the most worthy of them in teaching and behavior will be used in spiritual service, and then those who are redundant and together less capable and worthy will be obliged to choose another rank for themselves, or be transferred to a military rank.
II. In uncertain times, at the discretion of the government, or at certain times, for example, every seven or ten years, to review people of clergy rank, in order to deduct those who are surplus to the military.
III. The following are included in the military rank:
1) Students expelled and dismissed from seminaries before completing their theological studies, who are at least 17 years of age.
2) Students of the same age who were expelled and dismissed from lower theological schools and did not enter the seminary.
3) Current students of seminaries and lower theological schools, whom the seminary board recognizes as unreliable for the clergy.
4) Homeless children of clergy and clergy, bell ringers and sextons, who have not studied in schools, and who are at least 17 years of age.
5) Clerks who, during three years of clerical service, do not deserve initiation into the surplice by knowledge of the service and behavior.
6) Clerks, watchmen and bell ringers convicted twice or more of offenses against office and good behavior.
IV. However, the widow's son, who is about to be transferred to a military rank, can be retained in the clergy if she does not have another son in place, and if he is not completely unreliable for clergy service.
V. A clerk who is about to be transferred to the military department may also, upon special consideration of the diocesan bishop, be retained in the clergy; if his mother is a widow who has no other son nearby, or if he has a large family, and, moreover, is not completely unreliable for spiritual service.
VI. Probably, the government will find it consistent with justice and mercy that those expelled from the clergy to the military with approved behavior are assigned a not very long term of service, and although a rather long period of service to officer ranks; because (if good intention is allowed to touch the judgment of someone else’s business) officers who have achieved this rank through many years of service and active experiences in combat life can sometimes be no less useful, especially in campaigns and battles, sometimes even more than young officers produced as a result of educational training.
II. About the excess of people of clergy, burdensome in some dioceses
No more than forty years ago, all dioceses still felt a lack of educated people, and a significant number of priestly places were occupied by those who did not listen to theological teaching. This prompted the committee on the formation of theological schools that was formed in 1808 to establish a rule that all children of the clergy over 6 years of age belong to the department of theological schools. From here begins the multiplication of students in theological schools, which has now reached a burdensome excess in some dioceses. This time is moving from schools to dioceses that do not have enough places to identify those who have dropped out of schools.
This excess in people is associated with the following inconveniences for superiors and rank:
1) too many students in schools increases the difficulty of management, supervision and maintenance.
2) The costs required to maintain schools, mentors and poor students increase until they exceed the means available to the spiritual educational administration.
3) Pupils who leave schools, for several years without being assigned to places, due to a lack of vacancies, for the most part suffer an extreme need for support, while burdening their poor parents or relatives.
4) Those who have parents and relatives outside the diocesan city cannot live with them for a long time, because they would not be able to find out about opening vacancies; and therefore, staying in the diocesan city, where, and as it turns out to be possible, they cannot enjoy the fairly close and constant guidance and supervision of either relatives or superiors, which not only does not favor their spiritual structure, but can also subject them to temptations in morality.
From this it is clear that the situation of these people requires the protective attention of the highest authorities, both according to the law of state frugality, so as not to have idle and useless people, and out of love for humanity, so as not to leave the innocently needy without care, and as a precaution, so that involuntary idleness and irresistible need do not become teachers of evil and do not damage the well-being of the title.
The means against the multiplication of placeless people in the clergy, previously used, and subject to consideration and choice, are the following:
I. Time-by-time analysis of people who are superfluous in the clergy and not reliable for it, but not hopeless for other ranks, according to a special highest command, in uncertain or certain times, such as, for example, during audits. This analysis usually did not concern all clergy, clergymen ordained to the surplice, students actually in schools, and those who left schools after completing theological studies. Of the clerics who were not ordained to the surplice, those unworthy of initiation and seen to be unreliable in behavior were excluded from the clergy. Excluded age students were also excluded from the clergy; but in the last of the former discussions, out of the monarch’s great love for mankind, it was ordered that from these, one son of widows’ mothers and elderly homeless fathers who had no other sons in the clergy should be left in the clergy. Thus excluded from the clergy, those who were capable were appointed to military service, and those who were unable were given the choice of a type of life other than the clergy.
This measure was naturally associated with great sorrow for families, some justly, since it befell the innocent; but in part she cleared the spiritual rank from those who were incapable and illiterate, from those who were unreliable in behavior, and from those who were not internally disposed to the clergy, but who held on to it out of necessity, and therefore were also unreliable for it. Therefore, from this measure something that is both more fair and at the same time less burdensome could be withheld, namely:
1) during audits, make a revision of clergy and expelled students, with the aim of purifying the church service.
2) Clerics who were under trial and punishment, and after that were not sufficiently approved in behavior, should be excluded from the clergy.
3) Clerks who, within two years from being appointed to the position, have not prepared themselves to properly perform the position and who have not earned initiation into the surplice, and who are at least 18 years of age, shall be excluded from the clergy.
4) Pupils expelled from theological schools, who have a low level of evidence of behavior 514, upon expulsion from the schools who did not find places, and who are at least 18 years old, shall be excluded from the clergy.
5) Those who have not studied in schools of undetermined places, and who are at least 18 years old, are also excluded from the clergy.
6) If, due to non-chosen type of life, they will be appointed to military service during a given period, then students, as not obligated to military service by birth, and not appointed to it by court, will be given some advantages from the time of service and length of service, and clergy children are higher than clergy children.
II. The dismissal of students from religious schools to secular ones, such as a pedagogical institute and a medical academy, at the request of the authorities. This measure was previously not entirely convenient for some dioceses due to the lack of people; but at the present time it would be very useful in order to separate from the clergy people who are more inclined towards the secular, harmless for them and very beneficial for the secular rank, which would easily and without cost acquire people who have received a preparatory education. If the authorities of secular schools had paid attention to this in good time, they would probably have freed themselves from some of the efforts expended on the spread of secular schools in other ways. With regard to the types of the state, it would be more appropriate to use for secular schools the children of the non-taxable state, such as the children of the clergy, than to open and expand the path into the schools from the taxable state. Whether it is possible to reopen to the children of the clergy the paths that were previously open to them and then closed, this depends on considerations and relationships.
III. Dismissal of students from religious schools into secular service. This path, previously more open, has been constrained for some time by new laws. But if the law allows those who were born serfs, then freed, and who completed a course of study in some institutions, to enter the civil service, then does not the son of a clerk, born not in a serfdom, but in a free state, have a greater right to enter the service, if he has reached, for example, the secondary department of a seminary, and therefore received an education no lower than a gymnasium? It is obviously fairer to keep someone born in a taxable state in the same state than to force someone born in a non-taxable state into a taxable state. Therefore, the question of whether it is not necessary to somewhat expand the cramped path for the children of the clergy into the civil service is not unworthy of the attention of the legislative branch.
IV. For clergy and clergy who have reached the age of sixty, dismissal, at their request, from active service, even if they were still able to continue it, is allowed in order to take their places by their capable children or relatives who take them into their care. This measure can be extended to fifty-year-olds, with the benefit that dismissed clergy can be useful leaders of children entering service under their eyes; and clergymen, having received a release from active service with their strength still not exhausted, can acquire an allowance for their maintenance from private studies.
V. Appointment of seminary students as rural teachers. This purpose, recently discovered and still little in use, can be extended with the mutual assistance of the departments of spiritual and state property, to mutual benefit.
VI. Preventing the children of clerics from higher education in theological schools. There seems to be a plausible basis for this measure in the fact that civil law already distinguished between the degrees of rights of clergy and clerical children. But against this there are many considerations that cannot be denied attention.
1) The clans of clergy and clergy are not as demarcated in practice as they are in law. The son is a clergyman on his father’s side, and is often a clergyman on his mother’s or grandfather’s side; and the son is a clergyman, often a clergyman through his mother or grandfather. So this is one gens, which can not so much be divided into two gens with different rights as cut.
2) Children of clergy are often raised by relatives of clergy, and in general they are born, grow up and receive the rudiments of home education in the same circle as the clergy; and therefore they are as capable of teaching as the clergy. The children of clergy, less constrained in their way of life, and with a less harsh home upbringing, more easily acquire a certain tendency towards absent-mindedness, and therefore the humble children of clergy are often forestalled in zeal for teaching and in success.
3) If the law allows a person born in a tax-paying and serfdom to receive manumission, and therefore to enter a school and achieve academic degrees: it would be inconsistent with justice, for the law to prohibit this to the son of a clerk, who from his ancestors belongs to a tax-free and free state. This measure, which blocks the path that was previously open and which by birth belongs to clergy children, without their fault, before impartial reasoning, seems more difficult than the appointment to military service of unreliable clerks or expelled students, low approved in behavior, and therefore not finding a place.
4) The burden is not the students of theology; but students of the lower classes, overfilling the classes, and not finding places after being expelled from schools. The excess of students who have completed the full seminar course has its own benefits. When there were fewer of them, they, according to the right granted by the spiritual regulations, more strongly sought directly priestly places; and when there are many of them, they more willingly enter the deacon’s places, and in some cases even the clergy; and we get the opportunity from the exclusive rule of spiritual regulation to return to the ancient church rule about the gradual passage of the degrees of clergy. At the beginning of this century, only a few of the scientists entered monasticism in teaching positions; Those who have now completed theological teaching often enter monasteries simply for a novice position, and through this monasticism they will have the opportunity to be educated better than before, with greater benefit for the church and public edification.
From this it is clear that there is no need to hinder the path to theological teaching, and consequently there is no need to block it for clergy children.
To reduce the burdensome crowd in religious schools, it remains to use measures of justice and severity, which would, without blocking the path of the worthy, eliminate the less worthy, and thus contribute to the improvement of the schools, without giving fair reasons for complaints, such as:
1) Seminaries that are significantly overburdened with people, and whose graduates fill the dioceses far beyond the capacity of accommodation, make it an obligation to accept at the beginning of the training course no more than the number of people that were accepted in the previous one.
2) If the district schools propose more than this number of people for transfer to the seminary, then elect to the designated number those most worthy in terms of abilities and successes, with approved behavior, and those who are lower than others and not included in a certain number, if they are not of great age, are allowed to remain in the district school, or seek a place in the diocesan department or in secular schools.
3) Admit to the seminary at least fifteen years of age, and only admit those excellent from the first category at the age of fourteen.
4) To carry out tests of district students with accuracy and rigor, and to appoint to the seminary only those who have sufficiently advanced in the subjects assigned to district schools, and not to allow relaxation, which was excusable only during the initial organization of schools that did not suddenly achieve the perfection intended for them.
5) During private tests carried out in seminaries and district schools, carefully separate out those who are unreliable in teaching and behavior, and be sure to exclude them, so that they do not unnecessarily complicate the mentors, and do not give the better a reason to weaken by a weak example.
VII. To possibly counteract the accumulation of the homeless and helpless, the preservation of the states in the churches determined by the previous decrees of the Holy Synod, they comply with the requirements of the order of church services, and the requirements of the duties of the clergy to the parish, increasing with the formation of rural education and other orders of the authorities, and the preservation of the fidelity of the important church writing through a sufficient number of witnesses.
If frugality in assigning salaries to rural clergy required a slight reduction in those receiving them, it is possible and useful to fill positions that are not provided with salaries through local orders. For example, if the new states have closed the place of a deacon, you can appoint a deacon on the salary of a clergyman, and appoint another clergyman on a salary from the land or from the parishioners.
VIII. Appointment of expelled students of seminaries and district schools as scribes of the civil department. Through this, the highest will to strengthen the positions 515 for such scribes can be fulfilled in the simplest and most cost-effective way, because students of theological schools have an education that is either sufficient for the position of scribes, or can easily be supplemented in some by improving handwriting, with the readiness of other initial knowledge.
IX. Establishment of church-art and craft institutions for icon painting and carpentry, carving and goldsmithing. This could lead to the most convenient satisfaction of an important church need, to the formation of correct icon painting under the supervision of the clergy, instead of the fact that now the people partly use icons painted incorrectly and unseemly, by people who do not know the matter and are often schismatics. These institutions can be formed on the following grounds:
1) An icon painting class may be opened at a seminary or at a district school.
2) Pupils of this class can continue regular studies until the end of the course according to their ability and desire; and in case of failure in the sciences to enter the higher classes, in primary education, they continue studying only in the class of icon painting.
3) Those who have achieved sufficient perfection in icon painting, after testing, receive a certificate for the title of church icon painter, with the right to practice this art and accept students.
4) Those who have acquired the art of painting icons, although not excellent, nevertheless approve the use of the icons they have painted, after testing they receive (only) a certificate for the right to engage in icon painting.
5) Icon painters of both categories can enter church services as clergy; and in case of lack of places, they remain only icon painters, taking advantage of belonging to the clergy by birth, and not obligating themselves to be assigned to the guild, for life, without however imparting this right to children, who will already be obliged to choose a type of life outside the ecclesiastical department, unless they are accepted into the diocese out of necessity and for special consideration.
6) For training in carpentry, carving and goldsmithing, mainly in relation to the making of church iconostases, children of the clergy can be given to masters at will, and having studied to the point that they themselves can become masters, they enter into the same position as indicated above under number 5, and can spread their art by teaching other children of the clergy.
X. It goes without saying that those who wish can move from the clergy to the taxable state, which happens according to need and favorable circumstances. But to use coercive measures for this would be inconsistent with the rights granted to the clergy from ancient times. Perhaps this would be facilitated by granting benefits for several years.
August 12. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Minister of Internal Affairs, D.G. Bibikov, with an opinion on what was verbally communicated to him by Archpriest Raikovsky, who was sent as a deputy to the case being examined at the Moscow Preobrazhenskoe cemetery, with an attachment of an extract from a letter from the merchant Kazantsev, about the state of the schism in the Perm diocese
D.G. Bibikov 517, in August 1853, informing Metropolitan Philaret that “the duties of the current rank in which the Sovereign Emperor was pleased to place him and that these duties, “concerning the affairs of the Orthodox Church, whose peace is being disturbed by schismatics and sectarians, prompted him to ask the Metropolitan to honor him with “wise advice.”
Informing that the bearer of the letter, Archpriest Raikovsky, would report to the Metropolitan about the matter in which he was participating, as a deputy from the spiritual side, that the discovery of the truth in this matter, to which, without a doubt, all the attention of the schismatics of the priestly sect was directed, could have very important consequences in curbing the well-known plans of this sect, equally hostile to both the church and the state, asked the Metropolitan to “listen graciously Archpriest Raikovsky, and then act according to the archpastoral discretion, and in order to avoid difficulties that may arise from carelessness or from other types of persons, about whom the archpriest will report, honor with a message, his thoughts about the methods of action in relation to the Moscow schismatics.
In a letter from D.G. Bibikov Metropolitan is marked “Av. 10 1853"
Your Excellency, dear sir.
With the most respectable letter from your Excellency, which was delivered to me by Fr. Archpriest Raikovsky, your zealous care for subjects related to the peace of the church and the good of the fatherland is marked, strengthens me in such dispositions, and the favorable attention with which you were pleased to precede me gives me the freedom to reveal to you my thoughts about these subjects and submit feasible considerations to your enlightened judgment.
Father Archpriest told me information about a man who had placed himself in an illegal position before the church and the state, and whom state insight finally discovered and exposed. Now we must wish that the means to continue sowing the tares, which he, in all likelihood, has already sowed a lot, would be taken away from him. Tares of this kind are widespread, as the attached extract from a letter from an Ekaterinburg merchant, a sincere and zealous fellow believer, will show you.
As for another person, whose “negligence or other types” could be the cause of difficulties, if only carelessness were to be feared, it would be possible to prevent difficulties with timely advice, and then only if it were possible to enter into communication with this person immediately upon his arrival in Moscow, which does not seem to be the right means to achieve. But according to the already known, ambiguous action of this person, one should be afraid not of negligence, but of other types. It will not listen to advice in order to follow it. Difficulties in this case could have been prevented only by authority, which I do not have over this person, as he does not belong to my department. From this, please see that I have no opportunity to prevent difficulties that could arise from the said person.
According to the information I have taken, this person is not yet in Moscow, however, due to the limitations of my means of inquiry, this information cannot be considered decisive.
The methods of acting on schismatics in general, and especially those from Moscow, can hardly be determined by rules that are quite general and non-exclusive. The law tolerates the error of schism, unaccompanied by rejection or seduction from Orthodoxy or violation of civil law. As long as it is decided not to go beyond these limits, the possible and proper action on it is spiritual and moral, edifying words and example from the clergy, example and admonition from those in power, as well as preventing schismatics from power over the Orthodox, preferring the Orthodox to schismatics in public relations, caution against the efforts of schismatics to appear before the authorities in the form of a special class, and to enter into friendly relations with them primarily before the Orthodox.
The creation of a schism, the seduction of the Orthodox by schismatics, their violation of existing laws and rules, provide an opportunity for a stronger effect on the schism. Just as leaving such cases unattended gives the schism greater courage and strength, so on the contrary, the destruction of the revealed evidence of the schism, the correct discovery and exposure of the seducer, and the taking away from him of the means of seduction, the unrelenting action of justice on schismatics who violated existing laws and rules, should weaken the courage and desire for such actions, lead to the decline of the spirit of the dissenters and the schism itself. The more timely and relentless the action of the authorities in such cases, the more reliable its consequences.
Thus, the work now being carried out on the Preobrazhensky cemetery had it been carried out in 1844: the truth could have been revealed more easily and more completely, the dissenters would obviously have been put to shame by the harmful absurdity of their teaching, and the split of the cemetery would probably have lost significant support that still remains today - Semyon and Yegor. However, even now the case is not completely lost, and the case, if carefully handled, can be beneficial.
Among those belonging to the Rogozh cemetery for several years now there have been people who have been thinking about common faith, and one day it was proposed about this in the meeting; but while one had the courage to propose this, no doubt knowing others who were inclined to this, they did not have the courage to support the proposal, and in the discord that occurred, the charterers and fugitive priests prevailed, whom unity of faith cannot enrich as much as schism enriches.
Dissenters try to remove their own from communication with the Orthodox clergy. Recently, a priest of the same religion made the experience of visiting the Rogozhsky cemetery as a simple curious visitor. The watchman did not let him in.
As long as there is a special case for the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery, I think nothing special will be undertaken for the Rogozhskoe cemetery in order to see first what the outcome of the undertaken experiment will be. It would be worth attention if it were possible to notice what the Rogozhsky cemetery would think, calmly looking at the Preobrazhensky cemetery, where someone is somewhat worried.
This is what I can offer this time at the discretion of your Excellency.
Invoking God's blessing upon you, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be Your Excellency.
Attached to the letter is an extract from a letter from the Yekaterinburg merchant, honorary citizen Gavriil Kazantsev, dated June 3, 1853, with the following content:
“Thanks be to the Lord God! The congregation of our church is spreading and multiplying, although not quickly. But if you remember his state in 1845, in which I found him, and compare him with the present, then in truth - one must be amazed at the grace of God acting in us - at that time not many of the wives visited the Church of God during the service, and virgins and boys were not visible at all; now, wives and virgins seem to compete with us men in numbers; Often on Sundays, their number is incomparably greater than men, and whole groups of boys stand in church during the divine service. Despite all this, the number of those who are alien to the Holy Church is still large, and some of them seem to become more stubborn, more bitter, so, at least, cases show in conversations with some of these, whose “imaginary pillars of being” do not allow “the right of fellowship” (Gal. ch. 2, p. 9). us". Thinking about them, the words of St. Apostle Paul to 2 Timothy 3:1-10. It’s as if it was written directly about them.
Yes, and we have: “diving into houses and captivating the bridegroom”; and we have Lannii and Lamvri, who no longer resist Moses, only - but the very Head of the body - the church, the Savior of their body (Eph. 5:23). Lord Christ!!! What remains to be done? I think one thing: to pray that the Lord will turn them to the path of truth, and for us; may he send down the instructing, affirming and enlightening grace of the Holy Spirit “so that we may be ready for everyone who challenges us.”
Our Old Believers are still directing their gaze to Moscow, the Rogozhsky cemetery, where there are two elderly, ailing priests, vocal before the government, and several, according to rumors, supposedly silent... where the latter I don’t understand, is it from Bukovina? and indifferently looking at their position... without the priesthood and sacraments, they depart to another world without priestly instructions, being satisfied with one reading of the skete’s repentance... No matter how much you object to them, the skete’s repentance also means the same thing as the penitential Psalm 50, that here there must be a witness of the penitent, to whom is given the power to knit and decide, and on whom the resolution of the penitent, and therefore his eternal salvation, depends; they repeat one thing of their own and do not want to believe their judgments with St. scripture... It is regrettable to see such spiritual eternal death of intelligent beings close to us in flesh and blood.
A new trick of the Old Believers was discovered: the local merchant Ierusalimov went to Kazan, where he wooed a bride and, having signed up as a merchant, in 1853, in Bogoroditsk (Moscow, Gubernia), had a wedding at the Rogozhsky cemetery. His wife Eve went there for the same reason. Tarasova with her daughter. Recently, a decree was received from the treasury chamber to transfer the young man to Iv. Romanov, a local merchant, to the Moscow merchants; also visible for marriage; for there are no other motives in mind. If the highest government does not stop these tricks, then a great temptation will occur here and the Old Believers will raise their heads... but God knows how to act! I submitted information about Jerusalem to the general. A note to Glinka, but it seems he left it without action, even though he promised it. It is useless to write to both in Perm. Let things go as they go! In general there is no movement on the mission, everything seems to have fallen into a deep sleep. I think that if His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret had been informed about the tricks of the local Old Believers, he would have taken appropriate measures to stop the weddings.
There were no lawless copulations, for some reason called “marriages by blessing,” in our city, thank God, during my ministry (the writer was the city’s head). But in Nevyansk they continue; in Kyshtym - it appeared last year, but was stopped by energetic measures of the factory management; They entered these factories from the Shadrinsky district, where this ulcer has spread so much that the Orthodox are being brought together and dozens of families are retreating from the church ... "
This extract is from a letter from the Yekaterinburg merchant, honorary citizen, Gavriil Fomich Kazantsev, who converted from schism to unity of faith; I received the letter in Petrozavodsk on June 27 last.
A.A. Olonetsky. July 1, 1853 518
August 21. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Minister of Internal Affairs D.G. Bibikov with gratitude for delivering news of the grounds for the highest approved course of action in relation to the schism
D.G. Bibikov 519, in a secret letter, dated August 18, 1853, No. 537, transmitting a copy of the position held in a special secret committee, which contains the main grounds for the highest indicated system of action in relation to schismatics, thanked the Metropolitan for communicating thoughtful considerations regarding the fulfillment of the highest will of the Sovereign Emperor, which is that on the path of exhortations and admonitions of the church addressed to the erring, there were no obstacles from self-will and selfishness, and together he expressed the hope that the Metropolitan would continue to assist him with wise advances and advice if difficulties were encountered and any questions arose, especially regarding the affairs of the Moscow schismatics.
With deep gratitude, I accepted the trust your Excellency placed in me, by informing me precisely of the foundations of the highest approved course of action in relation to the schism, the significance of which in Moscow makes it especially necessary for me to know the intentions and types of the government, so that my feasible actions in the service would be consistent with them.
In the committee's journal, I found the presentation in your second note of the current exceptional and extralegal situation of the schismatics especially interesting. This subject, as far as I know, is for the first time so clearly illuminated before the eyes of the government.
The case calls for strong measures; but the rule of gradualness is very rightly connected with them, which, I think, will be applied to time, places and people. When the shaking of a significant nest of schism makes some noise, it is of course better that it does not spread far and that other places remain silent.
I appeal to you with good intentions for the good help of God.
August 21, 1853 520 .
August 31st. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with an opinion on the case of the marriage of the courtyard girl Visilisa, under the false name of the bourgeois daughter, Nastasya
Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, in a letter dated August 24, 1853, forwarding to Metropolitan Philaret an extract from the case about the marriage of the courtyard girl, Ms. Afanasyeva, Vasilisa Pavlova, under the false name of a bourgeois daughter, Nastasya Poedavsheva, with the bugler of the carabinieri regiment Ivan Vasilyev, asked the Metropolitan to report on the contents of this paper opinion.
In this letter the Metropolitan wrote:
August 29. Responsible for the return of the certificate, and with an opinion about the firmness of the marriage, on the basis of the good will of the husband, despite the false name.
Then, Metropolitan Philaret, on August 31 of that year, answered Count N.A. Protasov the following:
Returning to your Excellency the note about the marriage of the courtyard girl Vasilisa, under the false name of the bourgeois daughter Nastasya, I express the opinion required on this matter.
Article 52, Volume X of the Code of Laws, in my opinion, cannot be used as the basis for resolving this case. It could happen that the civil law misses the feature of an illegal marriage, which therefore, regardless of the civil law, may have a special consideration and decision according to church rules, and even which may cause an addition to the civil law.
For a clear solution of the present case, it is not useless to present it in three questions:
1) can Vasilisa’s marriage be firm when she entered into it under someone else’s name, and having ascribed someone else’s title to herself?
2) Can this marriage be firm, because the serf bride entered into it without the will of her mistress?
3) Can this marriage be firm as if it were based on forged written documents?
The solution to the first question can, and, I think, should be the following: if the bugler Vasiliev said that in the church he expressed his good will to marry the bourgeois daughter Nastasya, but did not and does not express his good will to marry the serf Vasilisa, then this marriage, as not having the essential affiliation required by the church, should be recognized as invalid and insignificant. It would also be true according to general reasoning that someone who has acquired something by deception does not have the right to retain such acquisition; Likewise, Vasilisa has no right to retain a husband acquired by deception. But since the bugler Vasiliev announced that he had the good will to marry Nastasya, Vasilisa also does not cancel it, and does not want to break the law and does not want to be free from this marriage, and thus destroys the claim for deception in relation to his person, then this marriage remains firm in church terms.
The solution to the second question is provided by Article 959 of Volume IX of the Code of Laws. The landowner has no right to demand divorce. She should only be left to seek “an established conclusion from her husband.”
The content of the third question is an addition to the first question. In addition to verbal false names, Vasilisa added written false names. Therefore, from an ecclesiastical perspective, the solution to this third question must be combined with the solution to the first. since the bugler, despite the false name of the bride, verbal and written, retains good will; then the marriage remains valid. For false documents, Vasilisa is subject to liability in civil court, without ceasing to be the bugler's wife.
As for the priest who performed the marriage using forged documents: he cannot be considered right because the documents were sent from the regiment commander. The forgery is very visible. And if it was not noticed by the commander, the priest nevertheless had the immediate duty to look into it, and if he doubted making a representation about this to the regiment commander, he could and should have communicated with the priest who issued the certificate, or reported this to his spiritual superiors, in order to inquire about the authenticity or non-authenticity of the documents through communication with whom it should be 521.
September 12. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Minister of Internal Affairs D.G. Bibikov, with a review of the actions of the schismatics: Antonov and Kuzmin and that the schismatics of the Preobrazhensky cemetery, contrary to the highest prohibition, continue to accept and educate foundlings in the cemetery
D.G. Bibikov 522, in a letter dated September 9, 1853, No. 676, for information, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret that “the secret inquiry being carried out about the malicious manuscripts compiled at the Preobrazhensky schismatic cemetery leads to very important discoveries that show how far and boldly the Preobrazhensky elders extended their actions.
“Your Eminence knows that the charter of these elders on the governance of the Saratov country was written in the name of Afanasy Antonov; this person and the work done about him are extremely remarkable.
Antonov, who lived in the Saratov province, was sentenced in 1839 to exile to the Transcaucasian region for illegal actions due to the split. Local authorities reported that he died in 1840. Three years after this, it was brought to the attention of the ministry that this supposedly dead man was living either in the Preobrazhensky cemetery, or in the Klin district, in the factory of the merchant Guchkov. There was correspondence about this in 1844. The former Moscow military governor-general certified that Antonov was nowhere to be found. Officials of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, who were tasked with collecting information about this in the Saratov province, reported that, according to their investigations, the case of Antonov’s death turned out to be extremely doubtful. That's where the matter stopped. Meanwhile, it has now been brought to my attention that Antonov, after his apparent death, enjoyed special respect among schismatics for several years, and very recently died and was buried in the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery, where they saw his grave, with a monument on which his name is indicated.
I now instruct the actual state councilor Bezak 523 to conduct a secret and most careful inquiry about this.
Meanwhile, having received a report from Mr. Bezak that the state peasant Lovygin, a former intermediary between Semyon Kuzmin and Papulin 524, lives in St. Petersburg, the keeper of icons and books that belonged to the latter and which the highest command was ordered to take away from him, I made an order to conduct a search in Lovygin’s apartment on the same day. During this search, a prayer room was opened at Lovygin’s with the mentioned icons, books, with the accessories of Divine services and with a retired soldier who lived in the house, on whom strong suspicion fell that he was the mentor at this prayer house. A letter from Papulin was also found, proving his relationship with Semyon Kuzmin. Now research is being done on this.
From the confidential information contained in Your Excellency, dated September 9, No. 676, I see that the insightful activity of Your Excellency clearly reveals to what extent the Moscow schismatics despise the rule of law, and to what extent the supervision that exists over them is sometimes blind. The fugitive escapes after being declared dead; and the person declared dead lives in a schismatic institution, over which a special official is assigned to supervise. This official is on a salary from the schismatics. Isn’t the conclusion drawn from this that from whom the salary is received, it should serve him?
Information about the Preobrazhenskoye cemetery that was worthy of the attention of my superiors recently came to my attention. It is known that the schismatics there accepted and raised foundlings who, having been raised by dissenters, and having no support in life besides them, naturally became the most zealous activists in favor of the schism. The government ordered to stop receiving and raising foundlings in the cemetery. Several years before this, when one adjutant general had an order from the Sovereign Emperor to inspect the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery, I heard that before his arrival, people who should not have lived in the cemetery were taken to apartments, and as a result of this, the observer did not find anyone illegal in the cemetery. Recently Mr. Bezak told me that he saw quite a few children at the cemetery who spend the night in apartments and spend the day in the cemetery, where they study. Consequently, the government issued an order to destroy the breeding ground of schism in the cemetery, and the schismatics made their order to destroy the government order.
On my recent visit to the city of Kolomna, I learned that the house of the former schismatic prayer house there, in which many people lived, but which was destroyed by the government, according to the plaque on the gate, belongs to the Moscow schismatic Guchkov, and that those expelled from this schismatic institution, for the most part, did not return to their families, but live in several places, several people together, and receive support from the same Guchkov. Thus, it may happen that instead of one destroyed schism nest, it forms several similar 525 ones.
Now I can say something about the Chernigov Edinoverie archpriest Arsenyev. He was recently in Moscow and visited me. In his conversation with me, he showed partly frankness and partly secrecy. Therefore, I could not speak to him quite freely. However, I told him (due to the first attitude of your Excellency) that according to some news I received from St. Petersburg, I advise him to be as secretive as possible in dealing with schismatics. Subsequently, he complained that his former spiritual children did not accept him like the previous ones in Moscow. He told me that his influence on the local schismatics is especially hampered by their old priest Ivan, who, under a curse, forbids the thought of opening a church of the same faith in the cemetery, which is why two or three meetings about this at the cemetery remained fruitless.
Priest Ivan especially cursed one significant schismatic because he secretly visited me to discuss the opening of a co-religion church in the cemetery.
There is no time left to write more about the upcoming occasion 526.
September 12. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Minister of Internal Affairs D.G. Bibikov with a notification that he finds his proposed bringing to precise knowledge, according to the attached form, the current state of the schism in the Moscow diocese, through the clergy, completely inconvenient
D.G. Bibikov 527, in a top secret letter, dated August 26, 1853, No. 609, notifying Metropolitan Philaret of the order he had made to carry out the highest command, dated June 10 of that year, regarding bringing, in a secret manner, the exact knowledge of the current situation of the schism throughout the state, in some provinces through their leaders themselves, and in others through special people sent for this purpose officials, according to the program given to them, added that in the Moscow province this procedure for collecting information is not available to civil officials, both local and outsiders. This is because in this province, and especially in the capital itself, schismatics have many means of hiding and concealing their illegal actions, not only with the assistance of their main gatherings of Rogozhsky and Preobrazhensky, but also in other places where openly and secretly schismatics of almost all sects have established their central points.
Finding, for his part, more convenient to collect information about the schismatics through the priests, with the assistance of their parishioners, he asked the Metropolitan to assist in this matter; I have also attached a program for this 528.
Your Excellency, dear sir!
I am using the correct means to respond to Your Excellency’s secret communication, dated August 26, No. 609.
According to the program attached to it, it is not convenient for some to collect information through the clergy, and for others it is not at all possible. Several years before this, in the Moscow diocese there was a priest of the same faith, who, while zealous for service, had cunning and searching in his character; he lived, so to speak, on the border between schism and Orthodoxy. Due to his strict observance of old rituals, his fellow believers were committed to him, and some schismatics did not shy away from him and were frank with him. Through him I often had information worthy of the attention of my superiors about the internal movements of the schism and about fugitive priests unknown to the government; but did not have the opportunity to use this information to his advantage. This priest died in a mission in the southern region, where he had significant success in converting schismatics to the same faith.
From this example, please see that only an exceptional case can provide the spiritual authorities with the opportunity to have information about the secrets of schismatics. For the clergy in general, these secrets are inaccessible. The current four priests of the same faith in the Moscow diocese almost do not extend their relations beyond their parishes. The schismatics completely avoid the general Orthodox clergy.
I have begun, as far as possible, the collection of information about the schism, according to the program given in the decree of the Holy Synod, which is close to that enclosed in relation to your Excellency. But for the reason stated above, I am proceeding in this matter, so to speak, by groping, making private experiments in places and through people who are more likely to achieve the desired goal, in order to guide the further course of the matter based on these experiments. What I can discover, I will not fail to bring to the attention of Your Excellency 529.
October 11. Report to the Holy Synod to Metropolitan Philaret on the case of the chapters introduced into the Rzhev Cathedral, supposedly St. Savva the Sanctified
The secret decree of the Holy Synod, dated September 12, 1853, No. 9101, ordered me, in the case of the chapter introduced into the Rzhev Cathedral under the name of St. Savva the Sanctified, to collect additional information on the Androniyev Monastery and present it with my conclusion.
Therefore, I requested information from Archimandrite Plato of the Androniev Monastery and received the following:
1. On the occasion of the dissemination in this monastery of the cathedral church of the Image of the Lord Not Made by Hands, in which the relics of the Venerable Andronicus and Savva rest under cover, 530 having the need to correct and build a closed shrine over them, he had the opportunity to examine the state of the relics, and saw that the head of the Venerable Savva was missing.
2. There are currently no old-timers in the monastery who could speak about the state of this monastery in 1812. And the elderly coachman Bakulin, who lived in the neighborhood, said that in 1812 the iconostasis of the above-mentioned Church of the Savior was burned, and the dome fell, and the church doors were not locked; that he did not see the monastics in the monastery at that time, and did not hear that the parish Sergius 531, at that time burned, church, Archpriest Efimy Nikitin served in the warm church of the Androniev Monastery.
Based on the consideration of this information with that contained in the case sent to me, the following circumstances should serve as the basis for its decision:
1. They say that the chapter about which the case is being made was obtained in Moscow by the schismatic Obraztsov 532 in 1812, under the name of the head of the Monk Savva, who rests in hiding in the Androniyev Monastery; but that this head really was of the Monk Sava, there is no evidence for that.
2. Legally, the true head of the Monk Sava could not leave the monastery into the wrong hands. If, according to the testimony of the archpriest 533, we assume that someone may have kidnapped her and sold her to a schismatic: then does the unscrupulous blasphemer and holy seller deserve trust in the fact that he sold the true head of the saint?
3. Yamshchikov 534 testified that Obraztsov also doubted the authenticity of this chapter and came to the conclusion that he had been deceived.
4. This chapter was in the hands of schismatics for forty years, and from their hands it came to the church. Therefore, one cannot have sufficient confidence even that this is the chapter that was obtained in Moscow in 1812. When the fugitive priest Vasily did not agree to accept the proposed chapter into the chapel, for fear of trouble from a possible search: as a result of this, it could happen that in order to eliminate this danger, the chapter kept by the Obraztsovs was hidden, and the other was given to the church, so that there would be no reason for a further search.
5. The examination made by the Right Reverend Gabriel of Tver does not lead to the conclusion that this is the true head of the monk.
6. No sign has been revealed from the Providence of God that this chapter is a true shrine.
Consideration of these circumstances should, in my opinion, lead to the following conclusions:
1. The head about whom the case is being made is considered unknown.
2. since in the unknown, even if the true shrine is not given veneration, this will not be condemned; and if reverence is given to an object that is not truly holy, this will be unfair and harmful: then it is safer not to offer the said chapter for veneration in the church until God’s Providence is pleased to reveal something clear and undoubted about it.
3. Consequently, it is necessary to leave this chapter where it is, in the Tver cathedral sacristy, under the seal of the local bishop.
I most respectfully report this to the Holy Synod with the return of the case.
October 23. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Moscow military governor-general, Count A.A. Zakrevsky, with an opinion on the extent to which the highest commands can be fulfilled regarding: 1, the windows on the eastern side of the altar in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior and 2, the addition of parishioners of the Pokhvalskaya Church to this church
In the papers of Metropolitan Philaret, on the construction of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, a note dated September 4, 1853, unsigned by anyone, was preserved, announcing the following two highest commands:
The Sovereign Emperor, during the inspection, on September 3, of the construction of the church in the name of Christ the Savior, deigned, among other things, to express his highest will:
1) Either insert painted glass with images of saints into the windows behind the throne, or cover them with brick, and consult with your Eminence about this.
2) Talk with your Eminence: is it possible to abolish the Church of the Praise of the Blessed Virgin Mary, if it does not constitute a remarkable monument of antiquity, by joining its parish to the Cathedral of Christ the Savior.
This note, in all likelihood, was reported by Count A. A. Zakrevsky, since it is followed by the answer to him of Metropolitan Philaret, dated October 23, 1853, with the following content:
In fulfillment of His Highest Imperial Majesty's command, having examined the interior of the newly erected building of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, I have the duty to present my best considerations and opinions on the following subjects.
1) Do the windows on the eastern side of the altar, in accordance with the ancient custom of building Orthodox churches, need to be sealed, or can they be preserved and painted glass inserted into them?
In ancient cathedral churches, for example, in the large Assumption Cathedral, we see, on the eastern side, three windows, arranged, of course, with the thought of the trinitarian light of the Most Holy Trinity. And in the newly built Cathedral of Christ the Savior, on the eastern side, there are three windows, therefore this is in accordance with ancient church custom, and therefore there is no need to close up these windows. And they are useful for light in the altar. Inserting colored glass with images of saints or a light cross in the middle window on a blue field will also be in accordance with the location and splendor of the altar.
2) The Church of the Praise of the Blessed Virgin Mary, located near the newly created temple, cannot be abolished if it does not constitute a remarkable monument of antiquity, and its parish cannot be annexed to the Cathedral of Christ the Savior?
The Church of the Praise of the Blessed Virgin Mary, according to legend, was built in 1705, with the diligence of the Duma nobleman, printer Bashmakov, but from the inscription on the altar cross it is clear that it already existed in 1687; and even more ancient in this place was the Church of St. Nicholas, instead of which, now at the Church of the Praise of the Blessed Virgin Mary there is a chapel in the name of St. Nicholas. In this church there are icons remarkable for their antiquity and dignity of iconography and especially revered, and parts of the relics of St. Nicholas and the Great Martyr Paraskeva. The church builder Dometiy Bashmakov is buried under the chapel church of St. Nicholas. The parish of the Church of Praise consists of 10 courtyards and in them there are 235 male souls, including the clergy and clergy of this church.
Although, according to some of the above-mentioned monuments, this church would be worthy of preservation; but it is difficult to imagine that her existence and the clergy with her will continue for a long time, when her parish, and now small, will either significantly decrease, or even be destroyed with everything, since the nearest houses will probably need to be removed to open up the area around the newly created church.
Therefore, one cannot but recognize that it is in accordance with the circumstances that this church should be abolished, and it seems a happy circumstance that in the newly created church it has already been proposed to build a chapel in the choir in the name of St. Nicholas, through which the memory of the ancient church of St. Nicholas will pass here and the old farewells (that is, from ancient times known for healings). It would be appropriate to transfer part of the relics of St. Nicholas, and other relics and the most important icons, and even, perhaps, the very iconostasis of the Church of Praise from the abolished church to this chapel built in the choir. For all this, being placed in the choirs, in a separate area, will not upset the system of decorations of the main church.
If the remainder of the parish of the Church of Praise remains, then it, without a doubt, can be assigned to the new Cathedral of Christ the Savior.
3) Guided by His Imperial Majesty’s highest thought that the structure of the church should be consistent with ancient church custom, I am duty-bound not to remain silent about some considerations regarding the internal structure of the altar in the newly created church.
According to the ancient rite, the altar in churches, especially cathedral ones, as can be seen in the Assumption Cathedral, was divided into three parts. Of these, the middle one, in which the throne is, is the altar itself, or the holy of holies, the northern side is the altar, and the southern side is the diakonikon, the place for preparing utensils and vestments. This division is important and necessary so that the 69th rule of the 6th Ecumenical Council can be fulfilled exactly, which says: Only there is one king and no one from the worldly people can enter into purification.
In churches where the altar is not divided, lay people, having the need to come to the altar to offer and receive the prosphora, get used to approaching the altar without caution. In the newly created church, the altar is not divided in the architectural structure; but, according to its space, it is possible to give it an internal division so that it can even contribute to its splendor. For this purpose, it would be possible to draw two lines of a carved barrier from the eastern wall to the iconostasis, slightly more than human height; and in the depths of the altar, near the eastern wall, in the likeness of ancient cathedral churches, build a high place, with seats for the clergy fixed on the sides near the above-mentioned barrier. From this it should happen that when the royal doors are opened, the viewer will be presented with only the middle part of the altar with the throne, beautiful in all parts, and will not appear to outsiders as an empty and non-symmetrical space, which would appear if, with the indivisibility of the altar, an altar was visible on one side, and an empty place on the other.
If this idea about the internal structure of the altar was recognized as worthy of attention, then it would be necessary to draw up drawings that would present it in greater clarity for a final judgment about it. At the same time, it may not be inappropriate to recall that in Solomon’s Temple the wall carvings of the sanctuary consisted of dates and cherubs. Believing that your Excellency will propose this to the church-building commission, I also leave it to your discretion to inform the highest authorities that I have fulfilled the command of His Imperial Majesty 536.
December 31st. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Chamberlain A.N. Muravyov 537, regarding his complaint that Rzhev Archpriest Matthew Konstantinovsky forbade him to enter the altar
God's blessing to Andrei Nikolaevich for the new summer.
Father Matvey’s region extends to the borders of his parish, and mine to the borders of my diocese. And so, if he forbids you to enter the altar not because of his belonging, then you are not asking me about this because of his belonging. If you are close to the diocesan bishop, it is his job to resolve your bewilderment; and if it turned out to be great, he would have with him a council of bishops. Me and Fr. You can leave Matvey aside, if we say anything, maybe not skillfully.
Our old Helmsman, in her interpretation of the 19th canon of the Council of Laodicea, says: “the rule commands that a single priest worthily receive communion inside the altar,” that is, it forbids a layman to partake of the holy mysteries in the altar at the altar with the priests. The interpretation, thus constraining the meaning of the rule, seems to evade the question of whether it is permissible for a layman, in addition to communion of the holy mysteries, to stand in the fence of the altar, in a humble place, at a distance from the throne and the clergy. In this regard, we must remember that according to ancient custom, the altar should have pedestals and the altar in the pedestal should be accessible to a layman for offerings.
Where this exists, I advise the layman not to penetrate further than the altary. Unfortunately, the ancient location of the church has, for the most part, been lost, and those walking with prosphora to the altar, of necessity, walk in the common altar space. In this case, I advise you, as much as possible, not to approach the throne and not to walk between the throne and the high place, as well as between the throne and the royal doors, for this is completely the altar and the path of Christ.
It seems to me that our predecessors made such leniency necessary by allowing the reduction of altars.
Or is there no need for leniency? Or, for fear of error, it is necessary to adhere to the broadest meaning of the rule and expel you from the enclosure of the altar? Maybe, but I'm afraid of severity for others because I'm afraid of it for myself. And knowing that because of my sins, I am the first worthy of expulsion, I am afraid to expel others without extreme need. I confess what you accuse me of, that is, that I allowed you and even invited you to be within the altar, in a decent place, and I think that those who stand here with fear, with recognition of their unworthiness, but also with faith and trust in the mercy of God, do not insult the shrine, and my weakness and unworthiness are promoted by the communication of prayer.
But are there angels here? Not only angels, but also the Lord of angels himself. And you never know how many sinners we face and it doesn’t strike us. And he welcomes us in his holy place; and enters our unconsecrated dwellings to sanctify the souls of the sick. To Him and His ineffable mercy befits glory, honor, and worship, forever and ever. Amen. What is better for your saints to teach you, teach me.
Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow 538
Case of the Holy Synod, 1850, No. 3424, ch. 86–89.
Now he is an archimandrite and head of the Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem.
The district message mentioned here was translated from Greek into Russian and printed in Add. to Creation Holy Father, for 1849, VIII, under the title: “Response of the Orthodox Eastern Church to the Circular Letter of Pope Pius IX to the Orthodox in the East.”
From rough. authentic, storage in Moscow diocesan bibliography, dept. III, pp.49–54.
See about him above, p. 140 and approx. 3.
About him, see the chronicle of governors, celariums, etc. Holy Trinity. Sergiev. Laurels, Hieronymus Arsenia, St. Petersburg. 1868, p. 23.
Potemkin-Tavrichesky, Prince Grigory Alexandrovich, Field Marshal General; mind. Oct 5 1791
Plato (Levshits), see about him above, p. 133 and approx. 5.
Musin-Pushkin, Count Alexey Ivanovich, chief proc. Holy Synod, D.T.S.; mind. February 1, 1817
Olenin, Alexey Nikolaevich, President of the Academy of Arts; mind. in 1813
Karamzin, Nikolai Mikhailovich, Russian historiographer; mind. May 22, 1826
Rumyantsev, Count Nikolai Petrovich, state. chancellor; mind. January 3, 1826
This precious monument, thanks to the enlightened assistance of the Society of Lovers of Ancient Writing, was published by light printing, at the expense of T. S. Morozov, edited by G. F. Karpov, in 1880.
Rostopchin, Count Fedor Vasilievich, member. coll. Foreign Affairs, then General. from infant. and commanders in chief. in Moscow, from May 12, 1812; mind. 18 Jan 1826
Augustin (Vinogradsky), from December 28. 1812, admin. Moscow Metropolitan, from August 30. 1814 Archbishop. Dmitrovsky and Archiman. Holy Trinity Lavra, member. Holy Synod; from 19 Feb. 1818 Archbishop. Moscow; mind. Mar 3 1819
See below, page 302; order of the main church-sacristy inventory, etc.
Original, stored in Moscow spirit. ac., nak. No. 1 Case of the Holy Synod, 1853, No. 3806.
The list was not preserved in the papers of Metropolitan Philaret.
Art. authentic, storing in Moscow diocesan library, dept. VII, pp. 70–71.
Arseny Ivanovich Tyazhelov, who died in 1855.
To priest Alexy Lebedev.
Dmitry Petrovich Novsky, later protopresbyter of the Assumption Cathedral; mind. 1879.
With original, keeping in Moscow diocesan library, dept. VII, pp. 75 and 77.
See Vol. II, p. 19, § 87.
Rep. conference Moscow spirit. acad., no. 15, apr. 1, 1853
Rep. conference Moscow Theological Academy, No. 107, April 10, 1853
See vol. II, no. 199, pp. 265–268.
In the papers of Metropolitan Philaret, the list from the magazine, under the letter A, as well as other appendices, under the letters B, C, D, were not preserved.
From an autograph, keeping. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 16, document. No. 3.
Words: “or indefinitely”, in the journal. Readings in public loves. spirits education, for 1883, February, p. 6, released.
In the jury. Read in public loves. spiritual enlightenment, 1883, February, p. 6, added the following words: “for three years or more.”
In the journal Read in general spiritual enlightenment 1883 Feb., p. 10, printed: “school”.
With his own hand. Chernov. authentic, storage in Moscow diocesan library, dept. XII, pp. 8–19.
These two notes were printed by the jury. “Read. in public spiritual enlightenment,” for 1883, February, pp. 1–10, with minor discrepancies, which are indicated in the note below the text.
Bibikov, Dmitry Gavrilovich, was a minister, internal. affairs, from 1852 to August 30. 1855; mind. February 22, 1870
With his own hand. authentic, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 16, document. Nos. 9 and 10.
See above, No. 382, p. 527, note. 2.
With my own hand, draft. authentic, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 58, document. No. 3.
With his own hand. Chernov. original, stored in the Moscow diocesan library of the department. VI, sheet. 19–21.
See about him above, No. 382, p. 527, note. 2.
Bezak, Nikolai Pavlovich, was a member in 1853. owls minister internal business
Papulin, Sudislav merchant, Kostroma province.
The period from the words: “On my recent visit and to the words: “Now I can say,” ..., on the margin of the manuscript is crossed out with a bracket by the hand of the Metropolitan and written against the middle of the bracket: “omitted.”
With own black authentic, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 16, doc. Nos. 11 and 12.
See about him above No. 382, p. 527, note. 2.
The program was not preserved in the papers of Metropolitan Philaret.
From my own draft of the original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod according to inventory No. 58, document No. 5.
St. Andronicus from the disciples of the teacher. Sergius, and St. Savva was a student of the teacher. Andronika.
A Rzhev merchant, whose children donated it to the cathedral church, and until that time it was kept in the house.
Rzhev Cathedral of M. A. Konstantinovsky.
Probably one of the residents of Rzhev.
Reported. This was published in the magazine: Readings in Society. amateur spirits Enlightenment, 1881 February, pp. 7–9.
The Metropolitan’s assumption regarding the division of the altar by barriers was fulfilled, as can be seen from the historical description of the church by M. Mostovsky (p. 107). With his own hand. Chernov. authentic storing in Moscow sparh. library, dept. VIII, sheet. 60–64.
See about him above, page 3, note. 3.
From a copy stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to op. No. 75, doc. No. 3. This letter was published in the book: “Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to A.N. Muravyov", No. 286, Kyiv, 1869, pp. 442–444.