1861 г.
Machine translation from the original · Show original
January 7. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, regarding the rescript he received from the Sovereign Emperor
Batyushkov 3, in his letter, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret a copy of the following rescript: “Eminence Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow! Constantly concerned about the establishment and success of Orthodoxy in our beloved fatherland, you have now shown a new feat of pious, fiery zeal for the benefits of the church, having undertaken and completed the collection of sacred utensils and vestments for the rural churches in the Mogilev diocese that are being renewed, according to our instructions.
According to one pastoral word from you, the capital, having barely managed to finish supporting the Orthodox churches of the Turkish possessions, accepted new, significant donations and, in a very short time, donated to the Mogilev diocese all the objects necessary for Divine services, many of which, due to their elegance and value, could serve as decoration for the capital’s churches.
For such commendable efforts that you have carried out, crowned with complete success, I am pleased to express my sincere gratitude to you, allowing me to thank on my behalf the persons who assisted us in this good deed.
Committing myself to your prayers, I remain forever favorable to you.”
December 30, 1860 St. Petersburg.
Upon receipt of this rescript, Metropolitan Philaret wrote to Count A.P. Tolstoy the following:
Most Excellent Count, Dear Sir.
The Emperor was pleased to honor me and my colleagues on Mogilev and Syrian affairs with a word of favor. I am enclosing the list from the highest rescript.
I am met with bewilderment. In such cases, a report to the Sovereign Emperor is not required. But since before this, as a result of the highest rescripts, in accordance with the circumstances, I presented His Majesty with all-submissive letters, then in the present case the silence would not seem incompatible with previous cases? Therefore, I wrote a most submissive letter and, forwarding it herewith, I humbly ask, if you deign to find it decent, to present it to the Sovereign Emperor; and if this is not necessary, return my letter to me. So that you know its contents, I have attached a list. I especially wanted to present His Majesty with evidence in favor of my employees who worked more than me.
I presented the list with the highest rescript to the Holy Synod. Should it be published in bulletins, or should it only be communicated to those to whom it applies? And I would like to know your thoughts about this.
Invoking God's blessing to you, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency, most gracious sir, most humble servant,
Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow
Attached to this letter is a copy of the following most loyal letter from Metropolitan Philaret:
Most pious Sovereign!
Small service to the cause of good and benefit is not hidden from the bright eye of Your Imperial Majesty and does not go unnoticed: and the gaze of your benevolence consoles, encourages and strengthens those who work or have labored. It was so good for you, Most Gracious Sovereign, to make the beginning of this year happy for me and those who worked with me in helping the Mogilev churches in their needs and Syrian Christians in their disasters.
The duty of truthfulness obliges me not to remain silent about how justly Your Majesty’s favor extended to my colleagues, who made up for my meager strength and therefore small activity with their zeal and activity, and especially Bishop Vicar Leonid 4.
I bow down with them before the throne of Your Majesty with loyal gratitude.
May the King of kings look upon your goodness, which comforts those devoted to you; and from the inexhaustible source of His infinite goodness may he pour out an abundance of bounties on you and on your most pious wife and on your faithful children and on your kingdom 5 .
January 7. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy 6, about Archpriest A.V. Gorsky 7, appointed to the position of rector of the Moscow Theological Academy
There is no rector of the academy yet. Apparently, there is doubt in this matter.
I hear that some people want Archpriest Gorsky to be the rector of the academy. I wish this too; and for this purpose he invited him to enter monasticism; but he remained firm in his long-accepted disposition. If you want him to be the rector, then let me be instructed to urgently offer him entry into monasticism. For if he is an archpriest rector, and he has an archimandrite inspector subordinate to him, then this will be an entry, although not yet noticeable, but already exemplary for the future - an entry into the path of the church revolution desired by some, in order, contrary to the ancient constant rule, to place the white clergy above the monastics, and to entrust the administration to the archpriests with their spouses, and leave the bishops only with ordination, without consideration of dignity of those ordained. From such management one can expect neither unity, nor firmness, nor purity. Let not the pillars of the house of God be shaken.
January 25. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, about Professor Sosnin
I am grateful to you for introducing me to Professor Sosnin. I saw in him a man of very good hope. But as pleasant as this was for me, it is so regrettable now to hear that he is expected to serve abroad. I could not resist telling the Bishop of Novgorod 9 and you now that, in my opinion, he is needed at home. Judge and choose what is useful, and forgive me.
Your Excellency, gracious sir, most humble servant,
Would you please instruct someone to inform me whether the message of the Holy Synod to the Patriarch has been sent or not? 10
In January. Notes from Metropolitan Philaret, entitled: “About Arnaudov’s letter, dated December 27”
In a letter from Arnaudov, dated December 27.
On the day of the Nativity of Christ, up to 1000 people gathered in the church of the new Uniates, and the next day, as they say, up to 1500.
The Greek envoy, imbued with Pan-Slavism, for a long time rejected Arnaudov’s requests for mediation from the patriarch: now the same one asks him to accept mediation on an agreement with the Greeks; but both he and the patriarch woke up late.
22 days, Orthodox Bulgarians sent out an announcement throughout Bulgaria against the union.
In Palauzov's letter 11, dated December 23, it is suggested that the Holy Synod should mediate for the Bulgarians with the Patriarch 12.
February 5th. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Count V.N. Panin 13 with his opinion on the draft manifesto sent to him on the upcoming transformation of the life of the landowner peasants and the draft manifesto drawn up by the Metropolitan
Count V.N. Panin, in a letter on January 31, 1861 to Moscow Metropolitan Philaret, wrote: “with the upcoming transformation of peasant life, the word of the Sovereign Emperor to his people will have the strongest influence on the success of the undertaking. In this conviction, His Imperial Majesty, with full confidence in your loyal feelings and in your talents, which were repeatedly expressed in speeches memorable throughout Russia, considered it necessary to contact you expressing the desire that your Eminence take upon yourself the work of drawing up a manifesto in which His Majesty’s will and expectations on this important subject will be explained.
The execution of this work requires some preliminary personal explanations. For this purpose, I wanted to have the honor of personally presenting to you the preparatory works compiled on this subject, but the opening of meetings in the State Council to consider drafts of various regulations on peasant affairs does not allow me to leave St. Petersburg at the present time. For this reason, His Imperial Majesty was pleased to entrust the Privy Councilor Tapilsky 14 with the duty of going to Your Eminence and presenting to you all the explanations necessary for this matter. From them, Your Eminence, see what are the main thoughts that His Majesty would like to express in a manifesto 15, but the Emperor relies entirely on the high gift of eloquence of Your Eminence and on your zealous zeal for a cause so important for the fatherland, so close to the heart of the first shepherd of our church.
Guided by these feelings and this trust, the Sovereign allows your Eminence to make all those changes or additions that you would recognize as consistent with the feelings of His Majesty and your own, for better success in achieving the intended goal.”
Excellent count, dear sir.
As much as the condescending highest trust expressed in the assignment encourages me, the subject of the assignment, which is far from the circle of concepts and activities in which I address myself, complicates me.
In carrying out the assignment, enter into me with loyal obedience, and not with the consciousness of the ability to satisfy the requirement.
It is my duty to give an account of what I have done and why.
I decided not to be too embarrassed by the draft of the highest manifesto communicated to me: so that my view on the subject would be clearer and more convenient to reveal. Therefore, I present not partial changes, but a whole text in which the changes I received are combined with the changes that, in my opinion, are necessary.
Looking at the project communicated to me, I found that it could be divided into three parts:
1) Beginning, progress and presentation of the case.
3) Exhortations and reassurances.
But these parts in the project were not sufficiently demarcated; and this is necessary so that the act is better understood and makes the desired impression, and so that it is more convenient to subsequently use it and make instructions on it. Therefore, I moved some thoughts according to the above division, the parts of which on my project are indicated by numbers and in pencil.
The expression: “we did not consider it necessary to hide” has the appearance of justification against former rumors. In my opinion, the government is above the need to justify itself against rumors. Therefore, I transferred the thoughts I set for this to another place where they are needed and can have an effect.
The article, which begins with the words: “these provisions are granted to serfs,” seemed unclear to me. From the name: “temporarily obligated,” he extracted a certain concept about it, and stated it as much as he understood.
The highest commands are marked in the previous draft by numbers.
This is really necessary for the convenience of later referring to them. Having compared the 4th article with numbers, I added the following 3 articles to the number, for the same reason.
Then, there is a break, at the limit of which there are the words: “the following gradualism.”
What should follow here is unknown to me; That's why I omitted the index formula.
I will not hide my thoughts, which may not be accepted, and therefore presenting them will not cause difficulty.
The project is already quite long and complex. The introduction here of a new article on gradualism, which, if I am not mistaken, was briefly indicated above, will make the project more complex and may not be clearer; could not what is supposed to be taken here from the drafted legislative provisions be left, including much that cannot be included in the manifesto?
The manifesto must be read to the peasants. Their minds are not accustomed to long, uninterrupted attention. Therefore, I tried to divide the project I changed into articles, as short as possible.
In the last part of the project communicated to me, “an appeal to the courtyard people,” much seemed extraordinary, in a high state act in which the Sovereign Emperor speaks to all the people, the entire empire. Therefore, I changed the form of personal address, retaining the necessary thoughts.
I repeat that I only fulfilled the duty of obedience in a matter, the essential processing of which belongs to the statesmen, and for them, of course, is a difficult feat. It is my duty, together with the other servants of the altar, to pray to God to grant the state advisers both insightful wisdom and straightforward zeal, and most of all, to illuminate with the highest light the gaze of the Most Pious Sovereign Emperor on what is true, trustworthy and beneficial to the church and the people.
Draft manifesto on the liberation of landowner peasants from serfdom
By God's Providence and the sacred law of succession to the throne, having been called to the Ancestor's All-Russian throne, in accordance with this calling, we have made a vow in our hearts to embrace with our royal love and care all our loyal subjects of every rank and status, from those who nobly wield a sword in defense of the fatherland to those who modestly work with a craft tool, from those undergoing the highest state service to those plowing a furrow in the field with a plow or plow
Delving into the position of titles and conditions within the state, we saw that state legislation, while actively improving the upper and middle classes, defining their duties, rights and advantages, did not achieve uniform activity in relation to serfs, so called because they, partly by old laws, partly by custom, were hereditarily strengthened under the authority of landowners, who at the same time had the responsibility to organize their well-being. The rights of landowners were until now extensive and not defined with precision by law, the place of which was taken by tradition, customs, and the good will of the landowner. In the best cases, from this came good patriarchal relations of sincere, truthful trusteeship and charity of the landowner and good-natured obedience of the peasants.
But with a decrease in the simplicity of morals, with an increase in the variety of relationships, with a decrease in the direct paternal relations of landowners to peasants, with sometimes landowner rights falling into the hands of people seeking only their own benefit, good relations weakened, and the way was opened to arbitrariness, burdensome for the peasants and unfavorable for their well-being, which in the peasants was answered by immobility towards improvements in their own way of life.
Our ever-memorable predecessors saw this and took measures to change the situation of the peasants for the better; but these were measures, partly indecisive, proposed to the voluntary freedom-loving action of the landowners, partly decisive, only for some areas, at the request of special circumstances, or in the form of experience. Thus, Emperor Alexander I issued a decree on free cultivators, and in Bose, Our late father Nicholas I, a decree on obligated peasants. In the western provinces, inventory rules determine the allocation of land to peasants and their duties. But the resolution on free cultivators and obliged peasants was put into effect on a very small scale.
Thus, we were convinced to admit that the matter of changing the situation of serfs for the better is for us the testament of our predecessors and the lot given to us through the course of events by the hand of Providence.
We began this matter with an act of our trust in the Russian nobility, in its devotion to its throne, proven by great experiences, and its readiness to make donations for the benefit of the fatherland. We allowed the nobility itself, at its own invitation, to make assumptions about the new structure of life of the peasants, at which the nobles had to limit their rights to the peasants, and raise the difficulties of the transformation, not without reducing their benefits. And our trust was justified. In the provincial committees, represented by their members, invested with the trust of the entire noble society of each province, the nobility voluntarily renounced the right to personality of serfs. In these committees, after collecting the necessary information, assumptions were made about the new structure of life for people in a state of serfdom, and about their relationship to the landowners.
These assumptions, which turned out to be varied, as could be expected from the nature of the matter, were compared, agreed upon, put into the correct composition, corrected and supplemented in the main committee for this matter; and the new regulations drawn up in this way about landowner peasants and courtyard people were considered in the State Council.
Having called on God for help, We decided to give this matter executive movement.
By virtue of these new provisions, serfs will in due course receive the rights of free rural inhabitants.
The landowners, while retaining the right of ownership of all the lands belonging to them, provide the peasants, for established duties, with their permanent homestead for permanent use, and, moreover, to ensure their life and fulfill their duties to the government, a certain amount of field land and other land determined in the regulations.
Using this land allotment, the peasants are obliged to fulfill the duties specified in the regulations in favor of the landowners. In this state, which is transitional, the peasants are called temporarily obliged.
At the same time, they are given the right to buy out their settled estate 18 and other lands allocated to them for permanent use. With such acquisition of ownership of a certain amount of land, the peasants will be freed from their obligations to the landowners on the purchased land and will enter into a decisive state of free peasant owners.
A special provision for domestic servants defines for them a transitional state adapted to their occupations and needs; upon expiration of a two-year period from the date of publication of this regulation, they will receive full exemption and immediate benefits.
On these main principles, the provisions drawn up determine the future structure of peasants and courtyard people, establish the order of public peasant governance, and indicate in detail the rights granted to peasants and courtyard people and the responsibilities assigned to them in relation to the government and to the landowners.
Although these provisions, general, local, and special additional rules for some special areas, for the estates of small landowners and for peasants working on landowner farms 19, are, if possible, adapted to local economic needs and customs: however, in order to preserve the usual order where it represents mutual benefits, We allow the landowners to make voluntary agreements with the peasants and conclude conditions on the size of the peasants’ land allotment and the following duties, with 20 protecting the inviolability of such contracts.
As a new device, due to the inevitable complexity of the changes required by it, cannot be produced suddenly, but it will take time, approximately at least two years; then during this time, in order to avert confusion, and to maintain public and private benefits, the order that has existed to this day on the landowners' estates must be preserved until, after proper preparations have been made, a new order will be opened.
To achieve this correctly, we considered it good to command:
1) to open in each province a provincial presence for peasant affairs, which is entrusted with the highest management of the affairs of peasant societies established on landowners' lands.
2) To resolve locally misunderstandings and disputes that may arise during the implementation of the new provisions, appoint peace mediators in the counties and form county peace congresses from them.
3) Then create secular administrations on the landowners' estates, for which, leaving rural societies in their current composition, open volost administrations in significant villages, and unite small rural societies under one volost administration.
4) Draw up, verify and approve a charter for each rural society or estate, which will calculate, on the basis of local situation, the amount of land provided to peasants for permanent use, and the amount of duties due from them in favor of the landowner, both for the land and for other benefits from it.
5) These statutory charters should be carried out as they are approved for each estate, and finally put into effect for all estates within two years, from the date of publication of this manifesto.
6) Until the expiration of this period, peasants and courtyard people remain in the same obedience to the landowners and unquestioningly fulfill their previous duties.
7) Landowners will retain control over order on their estates, with the right of trial and reprisal, until the formation of authorities and the opening of volost courts.
Paying attention to the inevitable difficulties of the ongoing transformation, we first of all place our hope in the all-good Providence of God, which protects Russia.
For this we rely on the valiant zeal of the noble class for the common good, to whom we cannot but express from us and from the entire fatherland our well-deserved gratitude for their selfless action towards the implementation of our plans. Russia will not forget that it voluntarily, prompted only by respect for human dignity and Christian love for one’s neighbors, renounced serfdom, which is now being abolished, and laid the foundation for a new economic future for the peasants. We undoubtedly expect that it will also nobly use further diligence to implement the provisions in good order, in a spirit of peace and goodwill; and that each owner will complete within the boundaries of his estate the great civil feat of the entire class, arranging for the peasants and his household servants to be settled on his land on conditions favorable to both parties, and thereby give the rural population a good example and encouragement for the accurate and conscientious execution of government regulations.
The examples in mind of the generous care of the owners for the welfare of the peasants, and the gratitude of the peasants for the beneficent care of the owners, confirm our hope that by mutual, voluntary agreements, most of the difficulties that are inevitable in some cases of applying general rules to the various circumstances of individual estates will be resolved, and that in this way the transition from the old order to the new will be facilitated, and in the future mutual trust, good agreement and unanimous desire for the common benefit will be strengthened.
For the most convenient implementation of those agreements between owners and peasants, according to which they will acquire ownership, along with estates, and field land, the government will provide benefits on the basis of special rules, issuing loans and transferring debts lying on the estates.
We also rely on the common sense of our people.
When the government’s idea of abolishing serfdom spread among the peasants who were unprepared for it; private misunderstandings arose. Some thought about freedom and forgot about responsibilities. But general common sense has not wavered in the conviction that, according to natural reasoning, he who freely enjoys the benefits of society must mutually serve the good of society by fulfilling certain duties, and according to Christian law, every soul must obey the powers that be (Rom. 13:1), give due to everyone, and especially to whom it is due, a lesson, given, fear, honor; that rights legally acquired by landowners cannot be taken from them without decent compensation or voluntary concession; that it would be contrary to all justice to use land from landowners and not bear the corresponding duties for this.
And now we expect with hope that the serfs, with a different future opening up for them, will understand and gratefully accept the important donation made by the noble nobility to improve their life.
They will understand that, having received for themselves a more solid foundation of property, and greater freedom to dispose of their household, they become obligated to society and to themselves to supplement the benefits of the new law with the faithful, well-intentioned and diligent use of the rights granted to them. The most beneficial law cannot make people prosperous if they do not take the trouble to arrange their own well-being under the protection of the law. Contentment is acquired and increased only by unremitting labor, prudent use of strength and means, strict frugality, and generally an honest life in the fear of God.
Performers of preparatory actions for the new structure of peasant life and the very introduction to this structure must take vigilant care so that this is done with a correct, calm movement, observing the convenience of the times, so that the attention of farmers is not diverted from their necessary agricultural activities. Let them carefully cultivate the land and collect its fruits, so that later from a well-filled granary they can take seeds for sowing on land for permanent use, or on land acquired as property.
Sign yourself with the sign of the cross, Orthodox people, and call upon us God’s blessing on your free labor, the guarantee of your home well-being and public good.
February 6. Notes from Metropolitan Philaret on the difficulties that may arise when implementing the provisions on transforming the life of landowner peasants 22
Yesterday, while reporting on the fulfillment of the assignment entrusted to me, I did not find it convenient to explain one circumstance, namely: why the acceptable transformation of the life of the landowner peasants, which was presented as “joyful” in the project communicated to me, was not designated as such by me.
Even now I find it difficult to explain this, so as not to touch upon a state matter with my judgment, which I am not called upon to judge by my ministry.
But, on the other hand, I doubt whether the duty of devotion to the Sovereign and love for the Fatherland would have been completely fulfilled if, when an opportunity arose, I had not expressed with all sincerity the caring thoughts that this very devotion to the Sovereign and love for the Fatherland arouses. I don’t want to leave this doubt on my soul.
I did not mention joy, lest a word be uttered on behalf of the King that would not be sympathized with by many of his loyal subjects. People of theoretical progress rejoice at the extensive transformation that is being undertaken; but many well-intentioned people expect this experience with bewilderment, anticipating difficulties.
The announcement of the landowners' renunciation of serfdom on the peasants, and the urgent encouragement of both to enter into decisive terms about the lands - these are reliable measures. If the peasants were promised the use of the landowners’ land without the qualifying word “permanent”.
But when the peasants are proclaimed the right to “permanent use of the landowners’ land,” will this not make the proposed agreements more difficult, since at seven the peasants’ stubbornness, which manifests itself even without legal support, will find support for itself?
With the decisive alienation of land from the landowners, before their consent, although without the peasants declaring it their own, will the landowners not find themselves constrained in their property rights and in economic circumstances? And won't this have an adverse effect on their zeal for the government?
When new provisions are promulgated, further confusion may arise: is it possible to draw up “statutory charters” without delay and difficulty in the absence of detailed plans and descriptions of estates?
Will world mediators and district world congresses successfully fulfill their purpose if their activities expand at one time to many places calling for hasty action?
Given the troubling nature of the matter, how just and comforting it seems that the Most Pious Sovereign Emperor so significantly turns to prayer; It is equally consistent with the circumstances to refrain from expressing joy in prudent reflection on what has been undertaken and in anticipation of God’s mercy in events.
If in saying this I have stepped somewhat out of my limits, then I hasten to return to them.
Mr. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod communicated with me about what instructions should be given to the local clergy upon the opening of the transformation of peasant life: and I informed him on this subject in a note. I don’t know what consideration has been made about it. In the event of a decisive time approaching, I would like to bring to your attention that instruction must be given to the clergy in good time, so that, when the highest manifesto is announced, they already know what action is required of them, and with what precautions.
February 10. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with an opinion on “Reasonings when reading the journals of the committee dealing with considerations for the transformation of religious schools”
Presented to me are the “Reflections” of the members of the conference of the Moscow Theological Academy, while reading the journals of the committee dealing with considerations on the transformation of theological schools, signed by all participants in the reflections. I also agree with these reasonings, as conveyed herein.
It is my duty to add some reasoning.
I. The Committee desires hostel accommodation for all students.
But in the considerations about the transformation of religious educational institutions the following is read: “to the general misfortune of schools, spoiled children, forming friendly gangs, acquire with their liveliness and insolence a predominant influence on their morally innocent comrades.”
You might think that this was taken from a famous book about rural clergy.
Are all religious schools truly enslaved to the predominant influence of friendly gangs of spoiled children?
And if any school is truly like this, then this leads not to the conclusion that the school should be transformed, but to the fact that the rector and inspector should be held accountable for negligent service.
But if more than ten rectors recognized such a judgment about the schools entrusted to them, and this was not recognized as unfair, then with what hope can one organize a universal student dormitory? Is it because it will be closer and more convenient for friendly gangs of spoiled students to spread their predominant influence over innocent comrades? Will spoiled students, rectors and inspectors suddenly be reborn for the better?
It is a consolation that one cannot consider such a condemnation of the rectors of their schools and themselves to be completely fair. But there is some truth in this, that unruly students can spread their infection to others. And what is more convenient: to invade with their infection the houses of the students’ parents, where they will be found one by one, under the eyes of their parents or relatives, or to spread their infection in one house containing several hundred students, where the inspector’s eye cannot comprehend everything in the immense crowd.
In Moscow, 200 seminary students and 300 students from lower schools live in the homes of their parents and relatives—half the number of all students. Without a doubt, we can assume that accommodating these 500 students in a dormitory of a thousand would not give them an advantage in moral education, while it would make both supervision and housekeeping excessively difficult.
II. It is in vain that it is considered inconvenient for the disciples to confess and partake of the holy mysteries during the Dormition Fast. Priests and church ministers are obligated to do this during this Lent: therefore, the disciples can also do it with them.
III. During Lent, students can come to the presanctified liturgies and to the services of the great canon and akathist so that the school hours of the day are only moved forward, or slightly reduced, and not completely canceled.
IV. In general, when discussing the transformation of schools, attention is required to the fact that most of the censures with which the considerations are generously filled, by direct conclusion, lead not so much to the need to transform the statutes, but to the need to arouse in bosses and mentors jealousy, activity, living zeal, and a strong consciousness that both excessive cold severity and people-pleasing indulgence to students are not virtues, but vices. Here is help from the following considerations: “No one thinks about the spiritual mood of the pupils, about the movements of awakening thinking, about the refinement of their conscience.” Why doesn't anyone think? Why do they think, not about arousing their spirit, but only about changing the letter of the charter?
February 12. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with the appendix of rules for the election of abbots in cenobitic monasteries
From observations of the rise and fall in the improvement of various cenobitic monasteries with the change of abbots, the need has often been revealed that the election of abbots to these monasteries should be protected by firm rules. Recently, my thought about this was reinforced by the late Optina elder, the hieroschema-monk Macarius 25, who, in his dying illness, instructed his disciples to express to me his desire that I make an effort to obtain from the Holy Synod such rules regarding the election of hostel superiors primarily from among the hostel’s own elders.
I humbly ask your Excellency to propose the draft of such rules, set out in the note attached herewith, for the consideration of the Holy Synod.
On the procedure for electing abbots of cenobitic monasteries
Due to the influence of times and circumstances, monasteries in Russia are divided into two categories: non-coenobitic, in which the brethren, having a common table from the monastery, clothes and other things they need, each acquire for themselves at their own disposal with the help of salaries, income and labor (and the sisters of many women’s monasteries do not have a monastery table), and into cenobitic, in which the brethren receive everything they need from the monastery, by order abbot, and provide their labor for the general benefit of the monastery. This last position is obviously more conducive to non-covetousness, obedience and renunciation of one’s will. The frequent opening of conscience to the elders, and the elder's guidance to spiritual life, is seen in special strength and action in well-maintained communal monasteries. Therefore, the benefits of monasticism and the benefits of the church require that cenobitic monasteries be maintained relentlessly in the character inherent to them.
But the following circumstances are sometimes not conducive to the improvement of communal monasteries.
I. Sometimes an abbot is assigned to a cenobitic monastery from outsiders, who does not know the special regulations and rules of that monastery, or is generally unfamiliar with the structure of cenobitic monasteries, or even has no experience at all in monastic life, having just been tonsured from the white clergy. Such a person, not without difficulty, enters into a relationship of brotherly love and unanimity with the local brethren, does not always faithfully support the local order, little known to him, and sometimes does not refrain from innovations that confuse and upset the fraternity.
II. Due to ancient simplicity, in some cenobitic monasteries, the management of them is too exclusively concentrated in the abbot. Because of this, the abbot’s arbitrariness sometimes exceeds its limits: it does not seem convenient to adapt people to positions; and in the event of a serious illness or death of the abbot, sometimes there is no person left responsible for the exact knowledge and integrity of the monastic property.
III. According to the law, the antiquity of which does not go back more than a hundred years, and some believe less than a few decades, abbots and abbess of monasteries have the right to bequeath their property, and their relatives to claim inheritance on them. It happens that after the death of the abbot or abbess of a cenobitic monastery, there are things and money that are not listed in the monastery documents, while there is no possibility that the deceased could have them not from the monastery, or not from those who benefactor the monastery itself. Then an inexplicable doubt arises whether the monastic property is being inherited by others. And it is unseemly and unedifying for the brethren that the abbot turns out to be a teacher of non-covetousness for the brethren, which he himself does not have.
The following rules might serve against such unfavorable cases.
I. The abbot of a cenobitic monastery is elected primarily from the brethren of the same monastery, and, in case of need, from another monastery, also a cenobitic one.
II. The election of two candidates for the vacancy of rector takes place with the dean of the monasteries, or, in case of need, with another person authorized by the diocesan eminence, through prayer, in the meeting of all monastics.
III. If there is no simple unanimous election, then each of the monks is allowed to write separately, in his cell, the names of the two he has chosen, and in a folded or sealed note, upon the resumption of the meeting, put it in one common bowl, from which the notes are then taken out, the names specifically shown in them are written down, and it is noted who was named how many times, or, what is the same, who received how many votes. The two receiving the most votes are recognized as candidates.
IV. Of the two candidates, the diocesan bishop approves one at his own discretion.
V. If he had seen important reasons preventing the approval of both; he can elect a candidate from himself, and submit the entire election to the permission of the Holy Synod, with an explanation of the circumstances.
VI. The abbot of a cenobitic monastery, in the person of a governor or treasurer, depending on the degree of the monastery, has an active assistant who, being in obedience to him, along with other brethren, assists him in the management and protection of monastic property; takes his place during his absence, and in the event of a serious illness or death of the abbot, is responsible for maintaining the order and property of the monastery.
VII. Everything that remains after the death of the abbot of a cenobitic monastery, even if it is not listed in the monastic documents, is recognized as the property of the monastery; and if he happened to have property independently of the monastery, he could bequeath it no other way than for the benefit of that monastery in general or for the specific specific needs of the monastery.
VIII. These rules also apply to women’s cenobitic monasteries.
IX. However, these rules cannot suddenly be applied to all cenobitic monasteries. In some of them, with a small number of brethren, there may be a shortage of elders capable of presiding over them. Therefore, the present rules on the election of abbots should first be given to monasteries, which, with a fairly large fraternity, are especially famous for the preservation of elder traditions and internal spiritual improvement. And then you can apply them to other monasteries that prove capable of reliably implementing them at the discretion of the Holy Synod, and according to the ideas of the Eminences.
X. At present, the following monasteries can usefully adopt the above rules:
Arzamas Alekseevskoe hostel.
XI. Some hostels, or monasteries, have their own approved statutes, and some, without them, according to legend, preserve some pious and edifying institutions, especially those belonging to them. In order to protect these institutions from arbitrary changes, it is useful to prescribe that each abbot has the special rules and customs of his monastery, having verified the accuracy of the traditions of the elders of the brethren, copied in detail, and, signed by himself and the elder brethren, submit them to the right reverend, for consideration and approval, for permanent preservation.
February 15. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, about the revision of the Moscow Theological Academy
The order of the Holy Synod to conduct a review of the Moscow Theological Academy, announced to me by your Excellency, dated June 8, 1860, (No. 5392), was fulfilled by me in due time.
At the same time, I am forwarding ten journals of meetings related to the review of the educational part, which took place on June 8, 13, 14, 15, 17, 20, 25, 27, 30 and July 1.
The state of the academic department at the academy represents the same image of improvement as seen in the previous review. Theological sciences excel in the power of teaching and acceptance. Church historical knowledge, under the influence of an experienced and active mentor, also has a fairly strong movement, which appears especially in the essays of students of considerable space and dignity. Philosophy is taught without the proud independence and imaginary complacency of the latest foreign philosophers, but in the community of sound principles of reason with the highest truths of revelation, with the awareness of the insufficiency of the former without the latter.
The moral state of the academy also presents a favorable view. The correct and modest life of the rulers and students, and especially the elders, in mutual agreement, sets a noble example for the students, whose behavior follows this direction. If the example of secular educational institutions, in which much is given in to the inclination of youth towards various arbitrary directions, was sometimes noticeably reflected in some of our students; then order, good behavior and obedience are not inferior to such attacks.
The academy's housekeeping is in order, as are its reporting and writing.
About the oldest members of the Academy, your Excellency’s testimony is known from previous reviews and from my recent attitude, on the occasion of the election of the rector for the Academy 27.
What I said above about philosophy applies especially to the dignity of Professor Kudryavtsev.
No. 79. February 15, 1861 28.
February 19. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, regarding the dismissal of Abbess Philareta to Jerusalem
The former Abbess of Ufa, Philareta, is now in Moscow. She wants to go to Jerusalem. And they tell her to try to complete the work she has started on restoring the monastery in Balakhna; and some promise special benefits if the monastery is entrusted to her. When I remarked to her that if she were to take up the monastery, wouldn’t it be better to postpone the journey to Jerusalem, during which a change in circumstances and benefactors might occur; then she said: I desire to go to Jerusalem for my soul; and the monastery will bring me external worries and, perhaps, new temptations. I found this answer worthy of bringing it to the attention of your Excellency, if you would consider facilitating the dismissal of the abbess to Jerusalem.
March 4th. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with the attachment of two projects for changing some of the rules on the election of abbots in cenobitic monasteries
I hear that articles IV and V, or one article V of the rules compiled by me on the election of an abbot in cenobitic monasteries, are subject to objections.
I did not rely solely on my own considerations, but also consulted with some experienced and zealous about the spiritual structure of cenobitic monasteries: no objection was made to me, and my assumptions were found to agree with precautions.
Are the brethren of cenobitic monasteries infallible? Or are they less susceptible to errors than bishops?
It may happen that the brethren, less zealous for spiritual life, will give the majority of votes in the election to the person from whom they hope for more leniency and satisfaction in external needs, and the few, who understand better, will point to one or two elders, predominantly spiritual and capable of firm governance. In this case, the bishop needs the right to approve the second, and not the first, candidate.
It may happen that the election takes place in a monastery that is less strong in spiritual life than another in the same diocese. The brothers will naturally choose their own; and the bishop sometimes finds it necessary to take it from another monastery. For example, the brethren of Tikhon’s Hermitage will choose one of their own as their abbot, and the bishop may find it best to take one from the Optina monastery.
However, in case the rules IV and V in the rules I have drawn up are not accepted, I am enclosing changes that will more limit the action of the diocesan bishop.
Draft change No. 1 contains an addition that was not clearly stated before, namely, that the bishop must elect his candidate no other way than in a cenobitic monastery.
Project No. 2 gives the bishop the right to approve only the first candidate, and to approve the second requires the permission of the Holy Synod.
For my part, I suggest No. 1.
If the matter is presented for consideration by the Holy Synod, then I ask that this letter and the new projects be made known to the Bishop of Novgorod 30 so that it can be seen on what the basis of what I am presenting is based.
Invoking God's blessing to you, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, Your Excellency, most humble sir, most humble servant,
I. Draft amendment to Article V of the rules on the election of abbots in cenobitic monasteries
V. If the Eminence saw important reasons preventing the approval of one and the other candidate, then he could elect a third candidate; however, not otherwise than from the same or another cenobitic monastery and submit the entire election to the permission of the Holy Synod with an explanation of the circumstances.
II. Project changes IV and V.
IV. Of the two candidates, the diocesan bishop approves the one who was presented first from the monastery, or who received a greater number of electoral votes than the second.
V. But if the Eminence saw important reasons preventing the approval of the first candidate, he could present the second candidate to the Holy Synod for approval, with an explanation of why he prefers him to the first. In a special case, the Eminence may present, at the discretion of the Holy Synod, a third candidate on his own behalf, but not otherwise than one elected from the same or another cenobitic monastery, and moreover, with an explanation of good reasons for this election.
In accordance with the views of Metropolitan Philaret, the Holy Synod, on October 12, 1862, promulgated a circular decree “on the property remaining after the death of abbots and abbess of cenobitic monasteries” 31 .
March 13. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, regarding the request of the Grecouniates-Melchites for financial assistance from Russia for the construction of churches and supplying them with the necessary supplies
Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, in a letter dated March 8, 1861, No. 1273, informed the Right Reverend Metropolitan that the Minister of Foreign Affairs 32 forwarded to him a request from the Syrian Greek Uniates who had joined Orthodoxy to provide them with benefits for the construction of churches and to supply them with the necessary supplies. Along with this, the Count asked the Metropolitan to provide this matter, which was brought to the attention of His Imperial Majesty, who deigned to write in his own hand on the report on this matter “to figure out what can be done,” the same beneficent assistance that he provided in the recent collection of donations for benefits to Christians who suffered in Syria.
From the copies attached to the letter from the relationship of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, dated February 25, 1861, No. 691, and the response to it, dated March 7, 1861, No. 1274, it is clear that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, not finding it possible to help the petitioners from its own funds, intended to use part of the money donated by private persons in favor of Syrian Christians who suffered from the persecution of the Druze, and in addition, for the same purpose, to open a private collection throughout Russia. The Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, notifying the consent of the members of the Synod to the above assumptions, reported that from the amount of money previously collected in favor of Syrian Christians, 8443 rubles remain unspent in the economic management of the Holy Synod.
On the letter there is an inscription in the hand of the Metropolitan: “March 13 responds with an offer of what is missing to build the church.”
From your Excellency’s attitude, dated 8 days of this March, No. 1273, and the appendices thereto, it is clear:
1) that the Syrian Grecounites-Melchites, who have joined Orthodoxy, are asking for benefits to build churches and supply them with accessories;
2) that, in particular, 20,000 rubles are required to build a church for them in Beirut;
3) that towards this amount, the members of the Holy Synod propose to use 8,000 rubles from those collected for benefits to the affected Syrians.
4) that, in addition to this, it is planned to open a subscription in Russia in favor of Syrian Christians who have returned to Orthodoxy.
Let me freely express my views on this matter.
The movement of the Melchites towards Orthodoxy promised more than what has turned out to be. The reason for this is probably the difficulties that it encountered in Constantinople, which now would be long and untimely to talk about.
If not for these difficulties, the Melchites would probably have come to Orthodoxy with a bishop, and perhaps more than one. The matter would be firmer and more extensive. Now, according to a report from the Beirut Consul General, dated January 6, 1,900 people are considered to have decisively joined Orthodoxy. Bishop Agapius, who wavered between Orthodoxy and union, again fell into union. And in this state of affairs, Archimandrites Hanni, Massamiri and Gabriel Dzhibara, in their request and the note attached with it, ask from Russia 199 thousand rubles; and even ask for a university.
Don't worry about my words. I speak not to deny benefits, but to show the truth, and to determine a benefit that would not perish in vain.
Since the reunited people turned to the Russian government with a request and hope; it is necessary that they are not deceived. since the Russian government has already tried to promote their cause, it is necessary to continue this promotion with what is possible, what is especially necessary, what is reliable.
The reunited people in Beirut obviously need a church. It must be a support for those reunited, and a center for attracting others. It must support the zeal and hope of those working in favor of Orthodoxy. And since the matter is in crisis, this benefit should be submitted as immediately as possible. While the collection of benefits was going on throughout Russia for this purpose, those reunited, in their helplessness, could lose heart, and their cause could be in danger.
This view of the matter prompts me, in addition to the above-mentioned 8,000 rubles for the construction of a reunited church in Beirut, to offer the missing 12,000 rubles from the saved sums of the cathedral and affiliated monasteries that I am in charge of. If His Imperial Majesty is pleased to accept this offering, then upon first request I have to present the indicated amount where it will be allocated.
As for the assumption of a collection across Russia in favor of the Syrians who have returned to Orthodoxy, the question is not superfluous whether to decide on this now, or to see how the Syrian cause, which was started under strong obstacles and without confidence in help even from the side that is most closely interested in this matter, will be established. Will the Patriarch of Antioch, who did not want it to begin, actively help this matter?
Benefit collections opened throughout Russia are generally not very successful, because they are frequent and are undertaken on subjects not close to general sympathy. The collection in Moscow in favor of the Syrians who suffered from persecution was successful because their misfortunes were known to everyone. Therefore, it would be more reliable to start collecting benefits for the reunited Syrians if we could say more about them than we still know.
A copy of two reports from the Beirut Consul General, with two attachments, is being returned.
March 19. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the manuscript “The Tale of the Life and Deeds of the Blessed Memory of the Elder of Optina Hermitage, Hieroschemamonk Macarius” 34
The disciples of the late elder of the Optina Hermitage, Hieroschemamonk Macarius, submitted to the censorship committee for consideration the manuscript: “The story of the life and exploits of the blessed memory of the elder of the Optina Hermitage, Hieroschemamonk Macarius, compiled by the same hermitage Hieromonk Leonid” 35 .
Committee member Archimandrite Porfiry, having examined this manuscript, presented the following opinion about it: “This work, in its content, can be edifying for many readers. Filled with deep respect for the memory of Fr. Macarius, the writer conveys in detail everything that he knows for sure about his life before monasticism, about his monastic exploits, and serving the good of his neighbors in the Ploshchanskaya and Optina deserts; describes in fine detail his monastery cell, and all the things that were in it, where and how they were placed. However, even these last details were personally known to admirers of Fr. Macarius can be classified as one of the subjects of reading close to, and not alien to, their hearts.
The only thing that must be considered unnecessary and not very edifying (on folios 1 and 48) is the tale of how Fr. Macarius made comments to the readers for their mistakes during the Divine Service itself (which would have been more convenient to do after the Divine Service), and about how he fed the cat during his lunch (fol. 74 and 75). As for presentation and language, expressions that are not entirely accurate or rarely used, as well as unnecessary repetitions of the same thoughts, are allowed in places; but all these places are corrected in the manuscript itself. Thus, in this corrected form, the manuscript, in my opinion, does not represent anything contrary to the censorship regulations and can be approved for publication. But this manuscript (on sheets 84 and 103) contains two letters from His Eminence the Metropolitan of Moscow to Fr. Macarius, and on (l. 47), it is said about his Eminence’s assistance in establishing a staff for the monastery at the Optina Hermitage.
Meanwhile, the censorship committee does not know whether His Eminence would be pleased to express his consent to the publication of these letters and information about promoting the establishment of the monastery staff in the form as expressed by the author. Therefore, before approving the manuscript for publication, I consider it necessary to submit it to the discretion of His Eminence.”
Metropolitan Philaret wrote the following at the committee’s presentation:
March 19. I don’t prevent you from printing my letters, if you like. They have a relationship to the works of Fr. Macarius on the publication and explanation of domestic books. But for the sake of the dignity of the unforgettable elder, let his biography be carefully revised so that it is not burdened with circumstances that are not related to his life and work, and that are neither entertaining nor edifying. For example, someone who wants to know the life of Fr. Macarius, why does he need to know that Abbot D. writes strangely about his archpastor? what daughter o. Archpriest Theodora and his son were sick? that one monastery is located 8 versts from Karachev? In the description of the order of daily activities there are details that also relate to the description of the cell. For the loving student all this is entertaining; but it may tire an inexperienced reader; for a knowledgeable reader it may seem strange that an elder in his cell was reading the hours when the liturgy was close. It would be better for the description of his works to mention what is happening in the church.
Of course, I don't have time to read the whole book; I only take into account what was noticed in parts, for example, if you wish, take 36.
March 20. Metropolitan Philaret's conclusion on the report on the state of the Moscow diocese, for 1860
The religious and moral state of the Orthodox common people, with a lack of education, presents comforting types of warmth of faith. Among the educated class, this disposition is increasing in some and decreasing in others.
Concern is aroused by the increasing poverty of the clergy and the multiplication of the placeless and helpless, especially the schism supported and strengthened by the multiplying false priesthood.
Here is a comparison: in 1854, 24 people were subject to admonition for falling into schism, in 1860–44, and, in addition, in one parish of the village of Ivashkova there were 315 families.
No. 141. March 20, 1861 37
March 24. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with an opinion about the book of Archimandrite Theodore 38, about the “Orthodox Review” and about spiritual censorship
By confidential communication, dated the 2nd day of this March, (No. 1243), your Excellency demanded that I consider some considerations made on the occasion of the book of Archimandrite Theodore.
Having no doubt about the Orthodoxy of the people who make up the editorial board and censor the Orthodox Review, and about the well-intentioned composition of the articles, I do not deny that in some cases, partly the editors, partly the censor, can be accused of oversight and one-sidedness.
To encourage the editors and censorship to be more careful, I have given the Moscow branch of spiritual censorship a proposal, a list of which is attached.
Your Excellency finds “biased” the Orthodox Review’s judgment about the book of Archimandrite Theodore, that it contains “many bright and deep thoughts.” To what extent this review is biased, I cannot judge because I have not read the approved thoughts, since I have not seen the book itself. But if a book approved by spiritual censorship, written by a person in whom the spiritual authorities expressed special confidence by appointing him censor, is praised more than appropriate; such approval, and not of the entire book, but only of “many thoughts,” does not constitute an important guilt. In this case, the Orthodox Review followed the same direction as its superiors.
There are disapproving passages in the book; but the Orthodox Review did not approve of them.
It is true that strict caution required that we trace the entire book and indicate disapproving passages, so that it would be clearer that approval did not extend to them. This is what was noted in the sentence given to the censorship department.
But in order not to accuse my neighbor more than he should, it should be noted that in the accusatory extracts from the book of Archimandrite Theodore delivered to me, his belief in salvation through Christ and in the actions of the Holy Spirit is visible, and no dogma or teaching of the Orthodox Church is denied. But, intensifying his philosophizing to the point of daydreaming, while he thinks to rise in the contemplation of truth, through incorrect considerations, he falls into absurdities, such as: that in Christ being and non-being entered into one another, that he, Archimandrite Theodore, without philosophers would not have guessed what the Savior’s thinking was like in earthly life. He speaks unorthodoxly not because he thinks heretically, but because he thinks and speaks stupidly.
In relation to your Excellency, the accusation heard in society is cited that the Orthodox Review “is not alien to the shortcoming, common, unfortunately, to other spiritual publications - excessive compliance and, as it were, servile condescension in relation to the philosophical “views and demands of the world.”
Every accusation requires evidence so that one can judge to what extent it is fair or unfair. There are none here. Consequently, it is inconvenient to discuss this accusation. In order to answer such a vague accusation, I would have to take all the spiritual publications for several years, read all the articles, and note about each of them whether there is any subservience to philosophical views and the world in it or not. You will agree that I do not have time for this. Due to lack of time, even in Moscow publications, many articles remain unread by me in their entirety.
I will say what I mean and pay attention to. In the publication under the title: Additions to the edition of the works of the holy fathers, I have never encountered subservience to philosophical views, and I am forced to think that this publication is unfairly brought under this general accusation. On the contrary, this publication contained articles refuting false philosophical views that deserved the attention of right-thinking people.
Therefore, to those who present such accusations to your Lordship, it would not be superfluous to advise that in this case they do not turn the particular into the general, and do not accuse the innocent along with the guilty, if there are any.
You are also presented with a general accusation that translated articles are “too dominant” in the Orthodox Review and other publications.
Again there is no evidence; and therefore again I can answer only in part, namely:
In the Addendums to the publication of the works of the holy fathers throughout the past year there was not a single translated article.
In the twelve books of Soulful Reading, there was only one translated article, and that one is not alien to us, because this is part of the journey of the Eastern Patriarch across Russia, in historical terms representing the piety, humility and philanthropy of Tsar Alexy Mikhailovich.
Another accusation: “they say that the Moscow edition contains more heterodox confessions.” Maybe there is this drawback; but this is a shortcoming, and not yet a grave fault. If someone published a political review and reviewed only the politics of the fatherland, and did not pay attention to foreign ones: wouldn’t this be a shortcoming of the publication? Well-intentioned criticism would not require that attention be paid to foreign policies, partly in connection with domestic ones, partly in contrast, partly in order to learn from the mistakes of others the rules of caution. This can in some way be applied to Orthodox review: one only needs to carefully observe that the review of heterodox confessions is directed towards the goals of Orthodoxy. This requirement is met, for example, by two articles on the decline of Christian understanding and life in Protestant Germany (Christian Reading, January. Legal.
Obzr., Feb.), over which observation may encourage the Orthodox to be wary of such impoverishment, and protect some from prejudice in favor of Protestantism.
Your Excellency notes that “in general, attention should be paid to the composition and action of spiritual censorship committees,” and that they have omitted many books that would have been better off not being published. Here, if you please, it is fair to distinguish between two subjects: 1) the composition of the committees and 2) their action.
More than once it was acted upon without carefully distinguishing between these two subjects, and the consequences were not desired. The censorship committee operates unsatisfactorily; therefore, it is necessary to change its composition and charter: this conclusion is incorrect.
Following the example of the secular and ecclesiastical departments, a new censorship committee was recently formed, reinforced with people and money: and it conducted the matter worse than before. This committee, which approved the book of Archimandrite Theodore for publication, is the first to blame for the fact that rather difficult relations are now taking place between you and me.
But let me doubt whether spiritual censorship committees should be blamed “in general.”
For forty years I had in mind the censorship committee located at the Moscow Theological Academy (I am not talking here about its new department, which is still operating without communication with it), I remember only one case when, with its permission, poems were published that I found disapproving; but when I turned to the members of the committee with an accusation, they presented their justification by saying that the poems were initially approved for publication by the committee of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, and they were only allowed to be reprinted, in accordance with the rules of the charter, without new consideration.
The censorship committee at the Kazan Theological Academy acted imprudently; therefore, its timely publication is left to the supervision of the Moscow Academy committee. This latter, as far as I know, did not allow anything that would again concern the higher authorities.
If some oversights are observed in the operation of the new branch of this committee, which is located far from it, in Moscow; this can be explained partly from previous circumstances beyond his control, partly from the haste of action, partly from some condescension towards the publication, which was undertaken hastily without preparation, and which would be extremely difficult if the censorship began to reject entire articles due to minor doubts.
From what has been said, in my opinion, it follows that we need to pay attention not so much to the composition of spiritual censorship committees, but to their actions.
In my opinion, the censorship committee of the Moscow Theological Academy, in comparison with some others, preserved itself better from errors because its members relied less on their own wisdom, were less fond of acting independently, each tried more to verify their judgments through mutual consultations, and in special cases, relations with superiors, sometimes official, sometimes simply trusted unofficially.
And if this is true, then we may not consider it necessary to change the composition of spiritual censorship committees; but it is necessary to carefully select members, encourage them to act cautiously, encourage them to make greater use of mutual meetings, instruct the rector of the academy to monitor their actions, and in special cases, formally or informally present them and their opinions or perplexities to the local bishop, and ask for his instructions.
If, despite all this, an incorrect or sinful action of censorship is discovered, one should not hesitate and accumulate errors to the point that it will be necessary to blame everyone and everything; and it is necessary to immediately correct the discovered error by action of the superior, and thereby give better direction to subordinate actors, and prevent further incorrect or sinful actions.
Your Excellency was happier conveying to me the opinions of others than I, who am forced to express and submit my opinions to the court. But I hope that you will accept them with patient and supportive attention.
With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency, dear sir, most humble servant,
No. 36. March 24, 1861 39
Attached to this letter is a copy of the proposal from Metropolitan Philaret to the Moscow department of spiritual censorship regarding unfavorable comments made to the Orthodox Review, dated March 24, 1861, No. 35.
Moscow branch of spiritual censorship.
It has been brought to my attention that the Orthodox Review in some parts is subject to unfavorable remarks, such as:
1) On the occasion of the approval of Archimandrite Theodore’s book On Orthodoxy in relation to modern times. It is not surprising that the editors were predisposed to look at this book on the good side and not suspect the bad, because the author’s way of thinking was not subject to doubt; because his service as a censor showed the confidence of his superiors in his Orthodoxy; because the book was approved for publication by spiritual censorship. The censorship department did not even have the opportunity to discuss the book of Archimandrite Theodore, which was not presented to him, and which was only pointed out in the Orthodox Review. But when a dispute about this book was already raised by Home Conversation, caution required the editors to trace the entire book, and with approval worthy of approval, to distinguish and expose the contrary, such as, for example, the following passage: (if the extract delivered to me from the book, which I have not seen, is correct).
Page 45. “In Him (in Jesus Christ) in His self-exhaustion for the sins of our thoughts, and for all our sins, being and non-being unsearchably converged, entering one into the other “in the identity or unity of His Self.”
2) The Orthodox Review, while approving modernity and not clearly separating its dark side from this, itself admitted inaccuracy, while it exposed the inaccuracy of “Home Conversation,” which condemns modernity without separating its bright side.
3) About the Anabaptist Spurzhon, the Orthodox Review (Jan. p. 106) says that “he wanted to seal his return to the depths of the faith with a solemn commitment, and for this purpose he was baptized according to the custom of the Anabaptist society.” The Orthodox Review should have looked at this from an Orthodox point of view, and expressed itself accordingly, and not presented a false concept of baptism and sectarian abuse of baptism in the form of an undoubted or seemingly approving action. For this is the tone of the expression: “I wanted to seal my return to the depths of faith with a solemn commitment.”
4) About the same Spurzhon, the “Orthodox Review” (Jan., p. 110) speaks exaggeratedly that “the modern history of Christianity can hardly present another example of the success of Christian preaching, so early and rapid, and so extensive and promising.” A lot of listeners does not mean success. The speech of the sectarian, rich in images of the imagination, does not promise much for true Christianity.
5) The Orthodox Review immoderately entered into a dispute with “Home Conversation”, from which one could not expect anything other than even more immoderate contradictions.
To protect the dignity of the spiritual periodical publication and the benefits expected from it and brought by it, the duty of precaution prompts us to propose the following:
1) When assigning articles to the publication that generally agree with the spirit of Orthodoxy, the censorship department and the editors must carefully observe that private thoughts or expressions subject to unfavorable interpretation are not allowed.
2) Any doubts that arise in this regard should be resolved not only by the censor, but also by consultation.
3) This precaution should be extended especially to translated articles, to the works of writers who do not belong to the Orthodox Church 40.
March 27. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, about Hieromonk Joasaph, who ran the Diveyevo hostel
You have care for cenobitic monasteries, especially those with good spiritual dispensation from good elders. Accept the word forced by the same care.
Hieromonk Joasaph, who managed the Diveyevo hostel, but was removed from this by the Holy Synod, was accepted as a special power of attorney by the Eminence of Nizhny Novgorod 41, again manages the Diveyevo hostel, and the material prepared for the construction of the church is used for the restoration of the monastery, in which he had previously settled his relatives, and which was later abolished. But this is not the most important subject of concern, but the rumor, apparently unfounded, that Joasaph made a project to transfer the Sarov hermitage to the Nizhny Novgorod diocese and become its rector. He hopes to find strong patronage for this. But if this happened out of misfortune, it would be as unfair as it would be harmful. The Sarov Desert and the Diveyevo hostel are located a few miles away from each other. It is good that they are in different dioceses, under different authorities, each of which protects its side from an incorrect, and potentially subject to criticism, rapprochement with the other.
This is not a matter for my department; but it concerns the improvement or disorganization of monasticism and dioceses; and therefore it is necessary that you know in advance the emerging plan and can stop it before it rises high, before the evil undertaking finds good support.
Invoking God's blessing to you, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency, most gracious sir, most humble servant,
March 31st. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Metropolitan Isidore of Novgorod and St. Petersburg regarding the book of Archimandrite Theodore, in which disapproving comments were made about the Orthodox Review
Your Eminence Bishop, gracious archpastor and father.
It has been brought to my attention that the Orthodox Review is subject to disapproval; Disapproving places are indicated; an extract of disapproving passages from the book of Archimandrite Theodore on the attitude of Orthodoxy to modernity was delivered, and the idea was expressed about the unsatisfactory nature of censorship spiritual committees.
What are my thoughts on this, and what I have done, please see from the note attached to this: Something about the book of Archimandrite Theodore, about the Orthodox Review and about spiritual censorship, and from the appendix to this note.
Having made a remark to the Moscow censorship department in Moscow in relation to the Orthodox Review, I could not close my eyes so as not to see the actions of another censorship that seriously affects the Orthodox Review and its first editor. I would not have fulfilled my duty if I had not paid attention to this.
Please read the attached note: about the illegal and tempting action of the spiritual censor in St. Petersburg.
I hope you will deign to justify me in the fact that I did not address this to the Holy Synod, but chose a more modest path.
I believe that you deign to find this matter of no small importance, and do not leave me in the dark about your views on this, so that I can show myself the future path.
Humbly asking for your prayers, with complete respect and devotion, I present your Eminence as your most humble servant,
I am now writing to Count Alexander Petrovich about the same thing.
The following documents were attached to this letter.
1. About the illegal and tempting action of the spiritual censor in St. Petersburg.
A member of the spiritual censorship in St. Petersburg, Archimandrite Sergius, approved for publication the article of Home Conversation (Issue 8, pp. 157–160), in which the word of the teacher of the law, priest Sergius, is condemned with censures that go beyond the bounds of decency.
“We absolutely cannot give an account either to ourselves or to “our readers” of what kind of faith he deigns to preach about. True, it is clear that about Christian, “not Russian,” as the interpreter of Professor Sergievsky Albert Vikentievich Starchevsky noted, but Christian in general: but “and Lutherans, and Swedishborgists, and Mormons and even Hegelists “of all colors, both red and blue, do not consider themselves “Jews and Muslims. The demons themselves finally have faith and tremble; and they confessed Christ as the Son of the “living God”: so is this really the faith that has conquered the world “about which the professor preaches? It can’t be!”
Despite the words: “It can’t be,” the tone of the speech shows that Priest Sergievsky, in the critic’s opinion, is subject to accusations of favoring Lutherans, Swedishborgists, Mormons, and even some Reds and Blues.
In order to determine whether there is a basis for such accusations, it is necessary to determine the nature of the word being criticized, and this can be determined through comparison.
Saint Cyril of Jerusalem 43, in order to enlighten the catechumens about the necessity and action of faith in the field of grace, shows the necessity and action of faith in the field of nature and human affairs.
In the cataclysmic teaching of Wu, he says: “not only among us, who bear the name of Christ, is faith considered great, but also everything that is done in the world, even by people “strangers to the church,” is accomplished by faith: by faith, marriage laws “unite persons distant from one another, and a person “stranger” through faith, which happens in marriage “unions,” becomes a participant in the ownership of other people’s slaves “and wealth. Farming is also based on faith: for whoever “does not believe that he will gather the fruits that grow” will not “endure the labors. Navigators are led by faith, “when, having entrusted their fate to a small tree, they prefer the fickle “striving of the waves to the hardest element—the earth; “they surrender themselves to unknown hopes, and have with them only faith, which for them is more reliable than any anchor. So, very many human deeds are based “on faith; and we are not the only ones who believe this; but those outside the church also believe, as I said above.”
The same teaching is proposed in the word of the priest Sergievsky, only in a different presentation. “Look,” he says, “in ordinary life,” etc.
So, if for this teaching the priest of Sergius is subject to accusation of hostility to Lutherans, Swedishborgists, etc.: then for the same, Saint Cyril is subject to the same accusation. And if the teaching of St. Cyril should not be condemned, then the same teaching is unfairly condemned in the priest of Sergius.
If they find the comparison unsatisfactory in that Saint Cyril spoke to the catechumens, and Priest Sergius to the faithful; To this it must be said that in our time, among those who are called faithful, there are quite a few who need the teaching of the catechumens, and, unfortunately, this occurs among people who have more claims to enlightenment than others. Evidence of this is visible both in books and in lifestyle. This is what is said in a well-intentioned article about the moral element in Russian education (Journal of Min. People's Education, 1860, December, p. 186): “we know that for many “our folk religion, as a necessary element of education, seems an unnecessary and constraining requirement.”
Having indicated the actions of faith in the realm of nature, in ordinary life, Priest Sergievsky ascends to the realm of grace, and says that “faith, which visibly and invisibly dominates over all other faith” is “religious faith, and predominantly Christian.” Word: primarily, here in place because before the Christian faith there was a Jewish, also religious faith in the true God, but the all-conquering character was not revealed in it with such strength and breadth as in the Christian faith.
On page 159, the critic writes down the words of the preacher: “how were great characters, lofty souls, the most devoted servants of all that is holy, noble martyrs of science, the fatherland, and humanity formed? “Are they not primarily formed by the great idea of the very thing to which they devoted themselves, by faith in its truth, in its power?” From this the critic deduces the following: “this is faith in yourself, in your convictions, which you, therefore, praise in Aria 44, and in Hegel 45, and in the sworn Jew, and in the rebellious revolutionary, and in Nikita 46.” It's all written on one page. Could the censor not understand that from the words of the preacher about the most devoted servants of all that is holy, about the noble martyrs of the fatherland, about faith in truth, a cruel accusation is forcibly drawn, as if the preacher praises Arius, Hegel, the revolutionary and the raspony?
On page 160, the critic writes down the words of the preacher that faith “opens up a vast field and an endless horizon to legitimate human affections.” In fact, doesn’t the Christian faith open up a vast field of love for one’s neighbor, when it teaches us to love even enemies, to love all souls created in the image of God, and encourages us to go to the ends of the earth to serve their salvation?
Doesn’t she open an endless horizon in love for the infinite God, in the desire for God-likeness, for union with God? The critic admits that he “decidedly doesn’t understand.” And may he be pleased with his confession. But he is not satisfied with this: he finds it necessary to add ridicule of the church minister: “I don’t understand this university phrase that has crept into the church pulpit.”
There the critic writes: “the soul aches with inexpressible sorrow, after reading the word about the meaning of faith in humanity, looking for the sweet and gratifying word to the Russian heart: Orthodoxy, and instead of that, and so on.
But even in the above conversation of St. Cyril there is no word: Orthodoxy. And in the Gospel itself there is no word: Orthodoxy. So the absence of the word “Orthodoxy” does not mean the absence of Orthodox truth. When teachings against heretics are proposed, they are contrasted with the word Orthodoxy. But when a teaching is proposed against unbelievers, it is enough to contrast them with the word: Christianity, and the Orthodox preacher means, without a doubt, Orthodox Christianity.
Further, the critic says: “you come across a relationship between faith and the arts.”
The word: kinship belongs to the critic, not to the preacher. The preacher only says: “faith does not prohibit the arts.” And there is nothing reprehensible in these words. Faith even approves, for example, of the art of icon painting.
Further: “finally connecting the words of the apostles: we cannot, as we have seen and heard, not speak, to his broad view of faith, the speaker secretly reprimands himself for the freedom to speak about everything as he “thinks.”
The preacher does not associate the words of the apostles with any particular view; he speaks simply about preaching them according to the commandment of Christ: go and teach all languages; and does not apply this to himself, and consequently does not give himself the freedom to talk about everything as he pleases.
Further: “if in the church pulpit they begin to reconcile “the teaching of the faith of Christ with the knowledge that very often and almost openly touches on the mind of God; then it is unlikely that this “will be useful for that faith that really conquered the world.”
It is in vain that the critic thinks that the faith of Christ is at enmity with knowledge. It is not in enmity with true knowledge, because it is not in alliance with ignorance. Holy Scripture itself reconciles faith with knowledge. The same apostle in one place says: by faith we mean to be perfected forever by the word of God (Heb. 11:3); and in the other: the invisible things of God from the creation of the world were thought and visible by the creatures, and His ever-present power and Divinity (Rom. 1:20). What is this if not knowledge?
At the end of the article, the critic writes: “The Orthodox Church, on Sunday of the first week of the Holy Pentecost, clearly and positively expounding the dogmas of Christian doctrine, proclaims that only this is the apostolic faith, this is the Orthodox faith, this is the faith that establishes the universe; to all other beliefs and peculiar views, self-willed and sophisticated, he pronounces... you know “what”?..."
The critic doesn't finish his sentence; but it is clear what he wants to say: the church pronounces anathema on the worldly. But why is this said? Of course, this is not said without connection with the previous one, and if it is said in connection with the previous one, then it is obviously said against the preacher condemned by the critic. So, a critic who has not named himself, without a church court, publicly, anathematizes the priest: and the spiritual censor approves this for printing and publication!
It would take a long time to count all the unjust and indecent things that the spiritual censor Archimandrite Sergius approved in his Home Conversation.
Here are some more examples
In No. 7, on page 138, it is said: “all these gentlemen “were prevented from ruling in their own way in the camp of Christ by the Orthodoxy of our dear Mother Church,” and now the Review, “having embraced the Son of the Fatherland, removes this dangerous obstacle for its like-minded people, opens “the gates for modern heralds of complete unbridledness.”
What is this grave accusation based on? Why is Orthodoxy presented as an “obstacle against like-minded people” by the Orthodox Review? When did the Orthodox Review “remove this obstacle”? When did it “open the gates of the utter licentiousness of modern heralds”?
On page 141 it is said: “here (in the Orthodox Review) one cannot help but fear the greatest evil both for the church and “for the well-being of society, into which everything that carnal modernity invents, “starting from the worship of art,” is introduced and legitimized.” This is followed by expressions that good modesty would not allow to be used in conversation with well-behaved and modest people and which contain the idea that the Orthodox Review “introduces into society and legitimizes” fornication. Where did the critic get this from? On what basis did the censor believe him? – How far the Orthodox Review is from this abomination can be seen in it, in the article on Christian marriage.
Article 3 of the set of statutes on censorship states: works of literature are subject to censorship prohibition when they insult good morals and decency, when they insult the honor of any person. From the above it is easy to see that this law was repeatedly violated by the censor Archimandrite Sergius.
Let us point out some examples of insulting the decency and honor of a person.
Vol. 7, p. 141. “from the worship of art to the courtship of...”
Vol. 9, p. 172. “The servant of God Vanka is baptized, or “his highness Andrei Akimovich is baptized.” This is not only an insult to decency, but also blasphemy, insulting the sanctity of the sacrament of baptism.
Vol. 7, p. 143. “it is evident that it was necessary for the moral leprosy, hitherto hidden under the cover of the sacred garment of light and truth, to come out.” This is how Home Conversation depicts Archimandrite Theodore. The spiritual censor here approved the slander of his colleague in the service, about whom he could not help but know that his morality had never been subjected to the slightest doubt.
This thing looks sad.
Accusations against a clergyman of unorthodoxy and spreading debauchery are officially approved by another clergyman, the censor. It's a temptation.
If the Orthodox Review, so as not to increase the temptation, remains silent; the clergyman will remain offended without justification or satisfaction, and the publication itself may more or less suffer.
If the Orthodox Review prints in its justification something similar to what is stated here; the temptation will continue.
Meanwhile, in response to this justification, the critic can say to priest Sergievsky: be silent, your assembly approves of me, and therefore accuses you.
If such a justification is given confidence in the public; then this will turn into an accusation of spiritual censorship and, perhaps, unpleasant surprise will be expressed that in the eyes of the highest spiritual authorities, one clergyman bites another.
In fairness, it should be assumed that this matter calls for the attention of the highest spiritual authorities in order to reduce the difficulty and stop the continuation of the temptation.
Then, here is a list of proposals to the Moscow department of spiritual censorship, which is printed above, under No. 578, p. 39.
April 10. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with the notification that the Patriarch of Alexandria Callinicus expressed a desire to leave the department
Some time before this, I heard that the Alexandrian Patriarch Callinicus wants to leave the department and install his viceroy, Archimandrite, as Patriarch, on the condition that this one will not demand an account from him for the money received from Russia.
Yesterday I learned from the Reverend Nikanor that Patriarch Kallinikos is already asking the great church about this.
The Eminence says that the archimandrite, a candidate for the patriarchate, had previously served in several places with disapproval, and was removed.
Another candidate for the Alexandrian see appears to be the Bishop of Sinai - the one whom the Patriarch of Jerusalem did not agree to ordain as a bishop, based on the testimony of his moral unworthiness from his spiritual father, the late Patriarch Constantius, but whom the Ecumenical Patriarch ordained because this testimony after the death of Patriarch Constantius was recognized as unproven.
The Reverend Nikanor says that the election of the patriarch should be left to the Alexandrian church. Her election was respected even when, after the death of the patriarch, she had only an archimandrite: how much more should it have force now, when she, in addition to the patriarch, has two bishops.
His Eminence Nikanor expressed a desire for me to write about this to you and to the Minister of Foreign Affairs 48 . I consider this last thing not to have belonged to me: but I consider it not superfluous that the above information be kept in mind by your Excellency. It will depend on your discretion whether it is possible and whether it should be used for what purpose.
With perfect respect, I have the honor to be, Your Excellency, dear sir, most humble servant,
The news conveyed by Metropolitan Philaret prompted the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, ask about the validity of the rumor from the chancellor, who, in his letter dated April 19, 1861, No. 1347, reported a note with the following content: “Patriarch of Alexandria Callinicus sent from Constantinople with the Archimandrite of Mount Sinai Cyril to the communities of Cairo and Alexandria charter, dated January 18, in which, announcing his desire to leave his department, recommended his deputy, Archimandrite Eugene. At the time of receiving these letters, there was no other person in mind who could be elected as the successor of Patriarch Callinicus; but it was necessary to determine the amount of the annual pension which the successor of his beatitude was obliged to pay to his predecessor.
While negotiations were underway on this subject, the ill-wishers of Archimandrite Eugene agreed to leave aside the bishops of Thebaid and Libya and unite their voices with Archbishop Kirill himself, who first announced that he would refuse the see of Alexandria if the choice fell on him and that he would promote the election of Archimandrite Eugene. Nevertheless, he accepted the offer made to him to be a candidate to succeed Blessed Callinicus, and this rivalry gave rise to his followers in various unseemly intrigues. The letter by which the most blessed Callinicus refused the see was read on February 5 at a meeting convened by the epitropes of Cairo, after which an act was drawn up by which Archimandrite Eugene was unanimously excluded from among the applicants, and on February 15 the people turned to the Right Reverend Cyril, petitioning him to accept the Alexandrian see. The local clergy also joined the people, declaring themselves initially in favor of Archimandrite Eugene.
Until March 5, the Alexandrian bishops had not yet communicated the patriarchal letter to the community, and without calling a meeting, they tried by all means, even by force, to obtain signatures in favor of Archimandrite Eugene. Having learned about these searches, members of the community signed a petition in favor of the Right Reverend Kirill and sent it to the Cairo epitropes.
The Greek consulate supports the election of Archimandrite Eugene, but such interference is not approved by our Egyptian consulate.
1,500 votes were cast in favor of the Right Reverend Kirill in Cairo and 300 in Alexandria, and 400 votes were cast in favor of Archimandrite Eugene in Alexandria. The adherents of this latter want to resort, through the mediation of Patriarch Callinicus, to the intercession of the ecumenical patriarch.
Upon the announcement of the election of a new patriarch, the Holy Synod, dated September 15/26, 1861, decided: to approve the presented draft response message and send it to His Beatitude Jacob, Patriarch of Alexandria in the following expressions:
“To His Beatitude Kir-Jacob, Patriarch and Pope of the great city of Alexandria and all the land of Egypt and universal judge.
Brotherly kissing in the Lord!
Your Holiness’s most kindly fraternal announcement (dated June 16 of this year) about your accession to the Patriarchal throne of Alexandria, we the humble accepted with joy and kissed with love, as a visible guarantee of the spiritual union of peace and love in Christ, which Your Holiness most abundantly shows to our humility.
Having given thanks from the fullness of our hearts to the Supreme Shepherd, the Lord Jesus Christ, for the longed-for accession of your blessedness to the dowager throne of the Church of Alexandria, we humbly pray to His goodness, that He may send you from the throne of His glory, according to the abundance of His grace and mercy, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and strength, to the fruitful and the saving passage of your arduous ministry, for the creation and establishment of the Apostolic Church of Christ and for the consolation of the grieving and embittered children of the flock of the Alexandrian throne.
Welcoming with this small message your Holiness as a beloved co-servant and brother in Christ, we earnestly ask your love to offer up your holy prayers before the throne of the Lord Almighty for the peace and welfare of the Russian Church, for our most pious autocrat Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich, the divinely crowned defender and patron of the Orthodox Church and for our humility. We beg your Holiness not to abandon in the future the unanimous and one-wise communion with us in which the Alexandrian Church has hitherto existed with the Russian Church.
For its part, the All-Russian Synod most humbly prays to the Author and Finisher of our salvation, the Lord Jesus, to increase His grace and mercy to His beloved bride, the holy Orthodox Catholic Church, to preserve us all in peace, love and unanimity, so that we strive to preserve the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:2), comforting and building each other ( 1 Thess. 5:11), truly in love and arranging all things for salvation, they themselves grew and grew everything into Him, who is the head of Christ (Eph. 4:15).
Kissing your Holiness with a holy kiss, with the most fervent desire for your prosperity, health and salvation and good haste in everything, we remain your Holiness's well-wishing co-workers and brothers in Christ.
Isidore, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg.
Filofey, Archbishop of Tver.
Demetrius, Archbishop of Kherson.
Gregory, Bishop of Kaluga.
Protopresbyter V. Bazhanov.
Protopresbyter Vasily Kutnevich.
St. Petersburg. October 2, 1861 49 .
May 2. Metropolitan Philaret's proposal to the Moscow ecclesiastical consistory to supply Danilov's Archimandrite Iakov with travel, according to government needs, to Kazan and back, to carry out a secret assignment for him, to serve a memorial service for those killed in the Abyss by students of the academy, and on orders regarding the supply of money for travel expenses and the management of the monastery during his absence; instructions given to Archimandrite Jacob
Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, in a very secret manner, dated April 27, 1861, No. 2439, informed Metropolitan Philaret that 1) the Minister of Internal Affairs 50 notified him of a report received by telegraph from the Kazan governor that on the 16th of that month, university and academy students, including 150, served a memorial service in the cemetery for those killed in the Abyss and that Professor Shchapov after funeral service “he said something,” and then sent him a copy of another note from the governor, which said that Shchapov had said in his speech that the teachings of Christ were democratic, he died for freedom, as our working brothers are dying now, that the moment of Russia’s liberation will soon come, and something about the constitution. Shchapov is enthusiastic, impudent, a drinker, but smart; two monks serving a requiem mass are harmful. And 2) The Sovereign Emperor, after reading the first dispatch, deigned to command: “Find out what Shchapov read after the funeral service,” and on the second he deigned to write in his own hand: “Shchapov must be arrested and the two monks imprisoned in the Solovetsky monastery.”
As a result of this, finding it necessary to send a capable and trustworthy archimandrite to Kazan to collect information not only about this incident, about the number of students of the academy who were at the memorial service, their names, but also detailed information about each of them, about Shchapov and his speech, about two monks and in general about the spirit and direction of the entire Kazan academy, the count, by agreement with Metropolitan Isidore, asked the metropolitan Filaret to choose such a person from the Moscow clergy and send him to Kazan, since such a person is not meant here.
Moscow spiritual consistory proposal.
A member of this consistory, Archimandrite Jacob, must go to Kazan to carry out a very secret assignment.
Therefore, the consistory, without the slightest delay, provides him with travel allowances, according to government needs, and with what is required by law for travel expenses. In disgust of slowness in this latter matter, he can borrow the calculated amount from the monastery entrusted to him and return it in due time.
During the absence of the abbot, the management of the monastery is entrusted to the eldest of the brethren, under the supervision of the dean of the monasteries.
Member of the consistory, St. Daniel's monastery, Archimandrite Iakov.
I. From the attached extract from the very secret communication of the synodal chief prosecutor, Count Alexander Petrovich Tolstoy, dated April 27, this year, No. 2439, you will learn the subject of the secret order that is given to you on behalf of the Holy Synod, and which you must fulfill.
II. You will have as your employee the Chief Secretary of the Holy Synod, Olferev 51.
III. By agreement with him, you have to immediately go to Kazan, taking travel money and legal travel money, which the consistory has been ordered to do by me.
IV. Upon arrival in Kazan, you will personally present to the Eminence of Kazan 52 the enclosed information in this regard, and you will ask him for the information he has about the persons known to him who participated in the memorial service for the killed rebels.
V. The inquiry can be started by a written questioning of two monastics who were at the funeral service, which can provide significant information if it is done in such a way that after the question of the first, the other is immediately asked the same questions, without being allowed to know the answers of the first, and if the questions are given in detail, for example: by whom were you invited to the funeral service? Who led and participated in the ministry? What expression did you use to remember the dead? Who was present at the funeral service, and approximately how many? Who gave the speech? Before or after the funeral service? What is the content of the speech? Did those who heard show any signs of approval? Why did you decide to perform a memorial service for the rebels? Why did they decide to do this on a day when the church charter does not allow commemorations, except for the need to bury the newly deceased? Did you report this unusual incident to your superiors, and if you didn’t, then why?
VI. In a similar way, the priest who is in charge of the cemetery church and its keys should be interviewed.
VII. Then the inquiry will turn to Bachelor Shchapov with relevant questions and with a demand for the speech he gave. If he declares that it was not written, then demand that he immediately show its contents. It is also necessary to ask him whether he invited academy students to the funeral service, whom, and for what reason? And who did you notice at the funeral service?
VIII. If the students of the academy are named by someone as those who were at the funeral service, you need to ask everyone: at whose invitation were you? And for what reason did you take part in the rebels? This last question can serve to open up the political way of thinking among those being asked.
IX. Questioning should take place in the general presence of you and Mr. Olferyev, by the way, in case someone did not want to give or sign a statement, so that what happened would be witnessed in the journal, signed by you in common.
X. However, what is said here is said initially and approximately. Circumstances that emerge on the spot must have a role in the further direction of the case.
XI. You need to get written information from the rector of the academy whether he has noticed a non-Orthodox and ill-intentioned political way of thinking in anyone belonging to the academy.
XII. Also from the academy inspector.
XIII. From the Most Reverend Archbishop and the Most Reverend Vicar 53 one can respectfully ask for such information verbally.
XIV. You need to get special information from the rector of the academy, by whose permission Bachelor Shchapov gives historical lectures at the university (which the charter does not allow without special permission), whether the rector, in his duty, observed with what thoroughness and in what spirit these lectures were given, and does he find them approving? Also: did the academy students participate in listening to these lectures at the university?
XV. Just as the city is not deaf to the academy; then an opportunity may arise from well-intentioned and straightforward members of the clergy to hear a noteworthy opinion about the spirit of the academy, or some persons belonging to it, as well as students.
XVI. Since it will be necessary to use information from persons other than the ecclesiastical department, you must provide this primarily to Mr. Olferyev.
XVII. You will talk about this matter only with whom you need to, and for as long as you need to, and you will talk peacefully and without judgmental comments, which may be premature. Your calmness and impartiality will more easily attract impartial feedback from others.
XVIII. Combine all the information received into one case and draw up a report.
May 17. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, about the peasants who wanted to bring bread and salt to the Sovereign Emperor
Let me, Your Excellency, ask you for information that you probably have and that I need.
The peasants, who wanted to offer bread and salt to the Sovereign Emperor, sent a deputy to me to ask that the liturgy and prayer service be celebrated by the bishop's service, and at the same time the dish on which they would present the bread and salt to the Sovereign would be consecrated. They say that this was the case in St. Petersburg, and the Bishop of Novgorod served 55.
Was there really anything like this?
The church charter does not recognize the need to consecrate the dish on which bread is placed.
Let me hope for this informative word from you.
Your Excellency's most humble servant,
When writing this letter, two handwritten notes from Metropolitan Philaret were preserved in the file:
I. Can I find your Excellency at home at twelve o'clock this day?
Kindly tell the answer to the messenger.
II. Returned to Your Excellency.
1) Addition to the report on the Kiev Academy.
2) Letter from the Most Reverend Nektarios.
4) Letter and note from Prince Urusov.
5) Report of the Bishop of Novgorod.
6) Handwritten French sermon.
The eulogy of the rebels is worthy of its subject. They act against the truth, at random. He speaks with the same dignity.
May 21. Remarks of Metropolitan Philaret on the letter of the rector of the Kazan Academy, Archimandrite John, dated April 28, 1861, and on two explanations from students of the same academy on the case of serving a memorial service for the peasants killed in the village of Bezdnya
In a letter from the rector of the Kazan Academy, dated April 28, 1861, it is said that Shchapov was dismissed from service at the academy and from the clergy on April 8, and this was reported to his Excellency (the Synodal Chief Prosecutor, Count A.P. Tolstoy), dated April 18, (1861).
But the academic board does not have the right to dismiss from service and especially from clergy without higher approval. Consequently, on the 16th day, when there was a memorial service, he was still at the academy.
Why was his supposed dismissal reported only after 10 days, and already two days after the memorial service? Why can one ask whether the definition of the 8th day was written retroactively?
The students admit that they heard about the university’s memorial service for those killed in advance, on the same day: it was impossible not to understand that the memorial service for the rebels was illegal, despite the fact that the academy students went to it.
In the first paragraph of the explanation, the students say that they knew that the memorial service would be for those killed in the Abyss, and in the second, that they did not know the purpose of the memorial service. This is a contradiction.
The testimony of the students, especially the hierodeacon who served the memorial service, is incredible, that they did not hear anything from Shchapov’s speech.
The explanation for the crowd of 37 students is illegal. It was necessary to take testimony separately, through which the truth would be better revealed.
From the explanation of priest Yakhontov and hierodeacon Meletius, it is clear that the cemetery priest hesitated to serve the requiem mass and offered to serve them, but finally decided to serve and everyone served. The excuse that there was a solemn meeting and that the funeral service is intended in perfect order is absurd.
The rector, revered as a lawyer, did not act legally by writing an exculpatory word into the explanation of the priest and hierodeacon with his own hand, which gave rise to suspicion that the explanation, under the auspices of his superiors, was drawn up artificially and not truthfully.
The truth begins to emerge from the testimony of the cemetery priest, who says that priest Yahontov was the first to explain during Vespers that the students intend to hold a memorial service for their murdered relatives. Consequently, priest Yahontov not only knew what was going on, but was also the instigator of the memorial service.
Upon notification of the cemetery clergyman's report to the academic board, the case was decidedly investigative in nature. But even at this time, contrary to the law, the priest Yakhontov and the hierodeacon were questioned not separately, but together.
Both these and the rector are able to refute the testimony of the clergyman by the fact that the students have no relatives among the killed. A phrase that has no force in the case. Of course, the word “relatives” was used only to give the manifestation the appearance of a simple memorial service and in the eyes of the cemetery priest, so that he would not refuse to serve the memorial service.
In paragraph 3 of the 2nd explanation, priest Yakhontov and the hierodeacon admit that the cemetery priest “refused” to hold a memorial service.
Why did they interfere unnecessarily in a dubious matter?
In paragraph 4 there is an important testimony that the students asked the cemetery priest to serve a memorial service “on the street or on the graves,” while none of those for whom they wanted to serve a memorial service were buried here. This is a clear sign of manifestation. How, even after this, did the academic priest and hierodeacon hesitate to intervene in this matter?
And in this explanation there is an amendment by the hand of the rector.
On May 5, the rector of the academy submitted the address of the students for presentation to the Sovereign Emperor. Is there a legal right to do this? It seems that both the university students and the authorities did not dare to undertake such a demonstration.
The rector writes that the arrest of priest Yakhontov and the hierodeacon “produces an extremely painful feeling throughout the entire academy.”
What is he trying to say? Is the Academy in danger of revolt? The Academy did not serve a memorial service; many students and mentors, except one, were not there; and the priest Yahontov and the hierodeacon served her. Why is the entire academy, and even outsiders, worried about the two guilty arrested?
At the point of explanation on May 8, the students discover that the university students sent to call priest Raev to celebrate a memorial service for the murdered peasants, and the academy students knew this before the memorial service. How could one not guess that the university students were afraid that the cemetery priest would refuse to serve the funeral service as indecent, and therefore they trained someone else’s priest?
Further, the academy students say that before the funeral service there were already more than 300 university students and 2 professors in the church. How can one fail to understand that this could not have been a matter of pious zeal for the killed rebels, but a demonstration against the government? And how could one not leave the church before the funeral service?
The following sets out several circumstances that may serve to incriminate university students, but do not serve to justify academy students.
Finally, another time, they say that they did not understand the political significance of the memorial service until the rector explained it. It's hard to believe that they were so slow-witted.
May 21. Notes by Metropolitan Philaret on the relics of St. Tikhon of Zadonsk
I. Draft of another edition of the first paragraph of the definition of the Holy Synod on St. Tikhon
In the fragrance of the shrine, the deceased Tikhon, Bishop of Voronezh, is recognized as a saint, glorified by the grace of God, and his incorruptible body is recognized as holy relics.
II. I dare to think that the presentation of the first paragraph of the definition of the Holy Synod about St. Tikhon, which speaks only about his body, is unsatisfactory. At the same time, I propose another editorial draft.
Whether this can be used is not for me to judge.
The note on healings is unsatisfactory in that the testimony is too brief, and for the most part does not provide signs that grace-filled rather than natural actions occurred.
If it is necessary to print part of this information, then it is necessary to present it in the same way as was done in the legend about the discovery of the relics of St. Mitrophan, 58 where the testimony is not extensive, but is made in such a way that, due to the specified circumstances, what happened cannot be recognized as simple natural actions.
As for the matter of opening a diocese and vicariate, it is partly unnecessary to change anything in it, partly it is inconvenient.
May the Lord say the best to those who lead, and may good things be spoken in the heart of the most pious Sovereign.
May 21. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the all-submissive letter from the bachelor of the Kazan Academy Shchapov, which contained a project for transforming public administration
This letter contains a project for the transformation of public administration.
To examine this work in all its parts, it would be necessary to write more than 14 sheets, as many as it is written on. A lot of time would be stolen from the writer. Wouldn't it be enough to indicate some features so that the bird can be seen in flight?
I. First of all, he draws attention to the education of peasants and demands “regional societies, rural schools.”
“We scientists are obliged to pay taxes for rural and public schools from our salaries, which come from the people.”
“Societies could send gifted peasant children abroad with leaders to familiarize themselves with the structure, techniques, methods, tools and machines of foreign agriculture.”
A brilliant, but not immediately perceptible ideal for practice - a peasant son, raised by the taxes of scientists, under the guidance of a tutor, wandering around Europe, and then returning to his fatherland in order to take up the Russian plow and harrow with foreign techniques, due to the impossibility of acquiring foreign agricultural tools and machines!
II. The Converter complains that many people have been "swallowed up" by the recruiting packages.
But he does not discover ways to do without them.
Or does he think that conscription will not be needed when the peasants are literate and learn foreign agricultural techniques?
III. From rural to urban schools, the converter defines their three degrees:
1) Initial general class parish schools.
2) General-class gymnasiums and general-class seminaries, if these are not connected to gymnasiums.
3) All-class universities and theological academies, if they are not connected to universities, and all-class real institutions.
He prescribes the following subjects for primary parish schools:
“Grammar, arithmetic, knowledge of the main truths of Christian teaching, mainly moral, knowledge of the main duties of a citizen, knowledge of the main principles of physics, natural history, geography, history, mainly Russian, literature, art and poetry.
So generously the converter imparts knowledge to the student of the parish school. And if he succeeded, would he need to go to the gymnasium?
IV. In higher education schools, the reformer opens, among other things, “faculties of commerce and handicrafts.”
This is very new. Therefore, there will be a department of spinning, weaving, blacksmithing, carpentry, shoemaking, etc. Is it possible, for example, that the history department, to which Mr. Shchapov seems to be assimilating himself, will agree to give its learned and honorable name to carpentry and shoemaking?
Just as the faculty usually gives academic degrees, will the craft faculty not produce candidates and masters of carpentry or shoemaking?
V. G. Shchapov wants to immerse theological schools in the too diverse mass of secular schools, perhaps because he does not find in theological schools the “democratic teaching” that he dreams of seeing even in the Gospel, and which he would like to instill in those preparing to serve the church through training in secular schools.
Let us say by the way that those who truly understand the Gospel have never found and will never find democratic teaching in it. The following words of Christ are not democratic: render unto Caesar what is Caesar's (Matthew 22:21). The apostles, without a doubt, understood the teaching of Christ more accurately than the wise men who were born seventeen centuries after the apostles. But, of course, the following apostolic words are not democratic: obey every human authority for the Lord’s sake, whether to a king, as one who prevails, or to a prince, as one sent by him (1 Pet. 2:13,14); from him, and not from the people by universal votes. Fear God, honor the king (17). Christ the Savior created the church, not the state; hierarchy, not democracy. These are items far from being mixed. G. Shchapov wants to parody church councils with “Central Zemstvo Councils”; and these latter have exactly a democratic basis for him - the universal casting of votes; but church councils have a hierarchical basis; they are composed of members whom the Holy Spirit has appointed bishops (Acts 20:28).
So the democratic teaching is not in the Gospel, not in the church, but only in Mr. Shchapov’s head 60.
It is not surprising if the clergy does not want to immerse their children, who are preparing to serve the church, in a diverse mass of “general class” schools, for fear that the church, Orthodox spirit, the spirit of obedience, meekness, modesty, will not be upset by unrelated and alien influences. And we must hope that the insight of the higher authorities will not allow this.
But if Mr. Shchapov wants to have “classless”, as he puts it, or “general class” lower and higher schools; Why doesn’t he demand that military educational institutions also be included in gymnasiums or universities, despite the significant similarity of military sciences with university ones? Is it because he recognizes the need for special, specific preparation for the peculiarities of military service? Why does it not recognize a similar feature in theological schools for a special type of teaching, and for a type of service that requires special preliminary preparation?
VI. The reformer demands “local classless (that is, by popular vote) elections to public positions, starting from the governor to the last policeman, guaranteed by mutual responsibility.”
The question is: is there anything like this? Do the people elect a governor in England, in France, anywhere?
The question arises: what will remain in the hands of the supreme power?
The question arises: does the reformer want to organize a nationwide Hungarian opposition against the government?
VII. The reformer demands “regional councils” of members elected by the people, and “central zemstvo councils” of members chosen by regional councils; without limitation, he entrusts to these councils and councils both state affairs and even the organization of the army, not caring about what force will protect the supreme power and autocracy against such a strengthened democratic element.
Let the statesmen judge what Mr. Shchapov wants to do, or what he knows how to do, or what he was suddenly taught by the delight of the memorial service and the genius of the Abyss - to build or destroy.
VIII. Finally, the reformer demands “to abolish censorship and allow full openness and freedom of the press; and submit any composition to the responsibility of the author.”
How can he not see that states, which have been working for quite some time on an agreement between freedom and order, struggle not only with unlimited, but also with limited freedom of the press, such as France?
Talks about the responsibility of the author; but before whom? He doesn't talk about the trial. And responsibility before public opinion means impunity. When an outrageous writer is condemned by protective people, he finds his justification and even glory in people prone to indignation.
And if it is necessary to bring complaints against the authors to the deanery council or to the district court; can we hope for justice?
This subject does not require such an easy judgment as the converter allowed himself.
It seems quite enough. It seems you can see the bird by its flight.
May 25. The most humble report of Metropolitan Philaret about the outrageous proclamation of the Pole Miroslavsky and the lithographed brochures distributed by students of Moscow University
The bishop's oath obliges the bishop, in emergency cases, to write to His Imperial Majesty.
This opportunity suddenly presented itself to me.
The unknown person came to me and said that he intended to open a matter for me concerning the security of the state to bring to the attention of Your Imperial Majesty. Despite my remark that there are other officials to whom he could more correctly turn, he, insisting on his own, read me the note he had brought, which contained a translation of the proclamation of the Pole Miroslavsky, from Paris, dated 1 day of this May, on the methods of preparing and starting the uprising in Poland and Lithuania. At the same time, he presented the said proclamation in Polish.
In addition, he announced that anti-religious and harmful political works were being lithographed and distributed in large numbers at Moscow University, and presented four lithographed brochures as proof of this. He added that the same thing is being done at universities: Kharkov, Kiev and Kazan.
I believe that it is not hidden from the insight of Your Imperial Majesty's government how much truth lies in the above testimony; Nevertheless, I am prompted by the duty of loyalty not to remain silent about them before Your Imperial Majesty, presenting at the same time the above documents and the address, at my invitation, personally written by the retired second lieutenant Balashevich.
May the God of truth destroy the fetters of the enemies of faith and the fatherland and may preserve the throne of Your Imperial Majesty in peace, strength and glory.
May 30. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on cases of leniency towards illegal marriages
I. Marriage is important in relation to the Providence of God, to the family and to the state.
II. God, having created the first people, entrusted to them and their descendants the further production of people into the world - entrusted, as it were, the continuation of his creative action. What a great gift! And is it possible to think that God’s Providence will ignore the abuse of this gift, and that God’s justice will not befall the abusers? The action of this justice is not always obvious, not always quickly, but for those who carefully observe the ways of God, it is undeniable.
David had strong faith in the true God; worked zealously to spread it among the people; but even with such, one might say, merits before God, when he allowed himself to violate the law of marriage, even after repentance, he was subject to grave disasters, not only family, but also state.
I knew of one couple who married in a degree of relationship prohibited by church rules, and who evaded church justice by cunning. Both were kind people; They lived quietly for several years; but, finally, the wife spent the last ten years of her life in relaxation; After her death, her husband, while treating his eyes, deprived himself of his sight, and when he died, his daughter, with many children, had to endure long and severe sorrows; because a relative brought up a case of illegitimacy of her parents' marriage in order to deprive her of her inheritance.
III. An unblessed marriage deprives the family of God's blessings. Children learn that their parents did not respect the law, and they easily come to the conclusion that they do not need to respect the law any more than their parents. The decline in morality, begun by parents, continues in children.
IV. The state consists of a family. Disturbed components will upset the whole.
Therefore, it is natural to expect from the violation of the laws of marriage and chastity those social consequences that the prophet depicts: fornication is spread over the earth, and blood is mixed with blood: for this reason the earth will mourn, and will diminish with all those who dwell on it. ( Hos. 4:2, 3 ).
When the wives of the Romans were ready to die for the purity of marriage, Rome grew and strengthened. But when he plunged into vices contrary to the purity of marriage, he fainted before the uneducated, but not upset by such vices, nature of the barbarians, despite the fact that he possessed almost the entire universe.
V. Can’t necessity excuse a deviation from the marriage law, for example, when someone else is looking for another marriage from an unhappy marriage? - No way. What could be more unfortunate than a husband whose wife is so insane that she needs to be kept on a chain? But the church rule says that even in this case he should not leave her and look for another. Anyone who has suffered an unhappy marriage according to the inscrutable fate of God must endure it as a test from God; and whoever, as a result of an unreasonable choice, must endure it as a punishment for his recklessness. Therefore, Canon 87 of the VI Ecumenical Council says decisively: “a wife who leaves her husband, if she commits violence for another, is an adulteress.” The composition of the expressions of the rule allows us to conclude that there would be room for some apology if she had only left her husband and not encroached on another; but in this last case there is no room for apology.
VI. They say that there were exceptions to the rules allowed by the authorities in favor of those who violated marriage laws, and that there are many such cases. It would be a great misfortune if there really were many such cases. The more such cases; the greater the danger for the morality of families, and for the improvement of the state.
But, to be consoling, there are reasons to think that there is an exaggeration in citing examples of this kind.
If there are examples of those who entered into illegal marriages and were not subject to the action of church justice; this is because the spiritual authorities did not have the means to correctly find out the guilt and its degree, and to call the perpetrators to trial. Such examples do not lead to patronage of an illegal marriage, which is opened, put on trial and actually condemned, just as examples of people who stole other people's things and hid from court do not lead to placing the convicted thief on the same level as the innocent.
If the circumstances of these sixteen illegal marriages were known in detail; then it would probably turn out that many of them do not have the meaning that is attributed to them and do not lead to the conclusion that they want to draw from them 63 .
VII. However, unfortunately, one cannot help but admit that there are examples of unpunished violation of marriage laws, public and visible, and bearing the bitter fruits of temptation. The weakening of morality in relation to the seventh commandment of the Decalogue spreads from the upper strata of society to the lower ones. The clergy has the opportunity to notice this with certainty. Peasant daughters are not ashamed to make formal complaints against young peasants for illegally having children with them, and do not want to marry. Printed shamelessness goes beyond all limits. One magazine (Iskra) published that the seven deadly sins (he no doubt means especially the sins against the 7th commandment) were used so much that they became boring, and offers a prize to the one who invents the eighth mortal sin.
VIII. Therefore, the clergy and sincerely Orthodox people must and do pray to God that, while some resort to the mercy of the Sovereign Emperor in favor of illegal marriages, others will appear before His Majesty, interceding for the holiness of church rules and for the protection of public morality.
May 31st. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on K.A.’s project Govorsky 65 according to the publication of the “Archive and Historical Bulletin of Western and Southwestern Russia”
Teacher of the Mogilev Seminary, K.A. Govorsky, in 1861, presented a note to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod and with it “a project for publishing the journal: Archive and Historical Bulletin of Western and Southwestern Russia.”
The note with the journal project was forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret, who presented the following opinion about the journal, written in his own hand:
The project of publishing periodicals and short works for the protection of Orthodoxy in the western provinces, by intention, deserves respect and assistance.
But whether there will be enough means to carry out this work with force and spread its influence, this requires further considerations.
The ability and zeal of Mr. Govorsky are worthy of being actively used by the spiritual authorities in favor of Orthodoxy. But he needs funds and employees.
Analysis of words in the week of Orthodoxy also requires attention.
The following question needs to be considered:
Doesn't being afraid of causing trouble for the preacher mean not being afraid of causing harm to the Orthodox Church?
June 3. Opinion of Metropolitan Philaret, entitled: “On the Nestorian Case”
I. Their situation is worthy of regret and sympathy; but it is not easy to help them.
II. Of the 8,000 families, half were under the influence of Protestants, 100 under the patronage of Latin missionaries. So, the smaller half provides open access to the Orthodox activist, and the larger half must be contested from two opposing forces, each of which is armed with knowledge and material means and is supported by the already acquired influence on the Nestorians.
III. If only a capable and educated leader could be found from among the Erivan Nestorians; those who have already joined Orthodoxy; It is more convenient than the Russian one, it could be used to bring foreign Nestorians to Orthodoxy, due to their same tribe, due to their common language, due to the natural disposition of the proselyte, who supports himself by acquiring co-proselytes. But will there be?
IV. Priest Michael says that “publicity of the intentions of the Nestorians could destroy them.” But they want to investigate the matter on the spot. Is it possible without publicity? Is there a person from Russia who could speak to them without an interpreter? A secret in the hands of a translator can hardly remain a secret.
V. In my opinion, the Asian department’s remark is correct that a clergyman in this embassy will be less likely to arouse suspicion than a secular one. Of the first it is easy to dwell on the idea that it is an agent of religion; about the second they will carefully ask: is he an agent of politics? If the Persians do not ask; Western Europeans will teach you to ask.
But who will be found in the clergy for this assignment? Ignorance of the local language poses a barrier to business.
VI. In the Turkish possessions, where the Nestorians are stronger in numbers and where their patriarch is, new difficulties will be encountered. Will the Patriarch agree to submit himself to the Holy Russian Synod? And it is inconvenient to accept him as an equal to the other patriarchs and the Holy Synod without the consent of the Eastern Orthodox hierarchy.
VII. Protestants and Roman Catholics undoubtedly use significant and continuous material resources to influence the Nestorians. The Russian actor will need the same ones, or even greater ones, in order to have the advantage and courage of a translator, and will they find them?
VIII. The great differences and disagreements of opinion that exist among the Nestorians weaken them in relation to one sense to another; but it is especially difficult to collect them from different paths onto one right one. When one of those who disagree agrees with you in thoughts, those who are contrary to him, accustomed to hating him, will look at you with distrust.
IX. It is necessary to carefully weigh the presenting demands and difficulties in order to determine how to proceed with the hope of success.
June 3, 1861 In Gethsemane monastery 67.
June 3. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, that the Right Reverend of Nizhny Novgorod persuades the sisters of the Alekseevsky hostel to accept monastic forms
Through the prayers of our venerable father Sergius, the blessing of the Most Holy Trinity to the servant of God, Count Alexander.
Notes about the Nestorians are with me in the Lavra. Let me hold them off for a few days so I have time to read them.
New information comes to me about what happened in Diveyevo and in the Alekseevsky hostel, as well as previous, unexpected information, which it would be desirable not to believe, but it is difficult not to believe, due to the reliability of the sources. In Alekseevsky, the Eminence persuaded the senior sisters to vote for the transformation of the hostel into a monastery, instilling in them that they had the right to do so. But they answered: our voice is with the boss’s mother. Convincing them to become monks, he pointed out how to insert a wedge into the sleeves of their current clothes so that there would be a cassock; praised the splendor of the robe, etc. Going to inspect the gardens, he ordered 500 or 600 sisters to follow him, saying: why are they forbidding you? – This is where emancipation and freedom are.
I think (and my viceroy agrees with me) your Excellency will do a good deed if you write to the Right Reverend Nektarios, asking him to leave the Alekseev sisters in the dispensation of obedience, simplicity and humility in which they were placed, and in which they were confirmed by their pious predecessors, and not force them to accept monastic forms, which, perhaps, will not elevate the dispensation, but will only shake the old with new forms and worries.
May the Lord inspire you and arrange something useful for you.
In the monastery of Gethsemane. June 3, 1861 68
July 13. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, about the Vitebsk seminary
I am returning the case about the Vitebsk seminary. Please see my thoughts on this in a special note.
The visitor you predicted was with me for 4 days, with his information about Vitebsk. When I told him: do the council members rightfully own the seminary farm? Is it correct that the seminary pays 500 rubles? for the bishop's farm, which is useless to her? He replied that there are many such cases. He expressed two opposing opinions about one person: that he deserves to be put on trial, and that he must be preserved or removed in an honorable manner, as he once fought against the Polish spirit.
Finger disease prevents me from writing better and more.
Blessings to you from the Lord.
June 13. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the case of the closure of the Vitebsk seminary
On the closure of the Vitebsk seminary 70.
I. If we assume that, in addition to the circumstances set out in the case, there are hidden reasons prompting the closure of the Vitebsk seminary, then in this case one can doubt whether these reasons are stronger than the opposite reasons prompting its preservation.
II. A diocese without seminaries is a different matter, because a seminary has not yet had time to be formed in it; It’s a different matter for a diocese from which its existing seminary is taken away. This is a kind of disgrace for the diocese. The diocese feels humiliated, deprived of the advantage that all dioceses have except the newly opened ones. The clergy of an entire diocese are insulted and tempted to murmur against the government.
III. For the Vitebsk clergy, the closure of seminaries increases the difficulty in raising children. The clergy of the diocesan city have children in the seminary under their own eyes, both nonresident and rural, due to frequent relations with the diocesan city, it is convenient to entrust children to the supervision of friends and receive information whether the children are lazy, whether they are physically or morally ill, and take appropriate measures. A non-diocesan city does not offer such convenience. This is a new reason for the displeasure of the clergy of the Vitebsk diocese.
IV. It is known what a pernicious wind blows to this region from Warsaw. The party of anxiety will not fail to give the closure of seminaries the worst possible interpretation in order to weaken the zeal of the clergy for the government.
V. If the reason for the closure of the Vitebsk seminary is believed to be that there were unrest and economic illegalities in it, then the conclusion does not correspond to the reason, and this is not what justice requires. The destruction of the seminary will be suffered by all diocesan clergy without guilt; and those guilty of disorder and illegality will more conveniently hide in its ruins, and will not receive an incentive to reform. The consequence of the above reason should be investigation, trial and removal or disarming of those responsible for the abuse.
VI. If the reason for the closure of the Vitebsk seminary is believed to be its unhealthy state of morality and spirit; then would it be useful to send it to three dioceses, perhaps not without the danger of introducing infection there? Wouldn't it be more useful to leave the sick seminary in place and take active medical measures?
June 14. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret on public evidence of the schism in the Bogorodsk district, Moscow diocese
Report to the Most Holy Governing Synod, from its member Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow.
From the information reaching me from the diocesan administration, the following is revealed:
1. Bogorodsky district, Zaponorskaya volost, state property, Pyatnitsky parish, in the village of Korovina, on the day of Midsummer, there was a blessing of water, in the middle of the street, publicly, at a congress of many people; Peasant Ivan Larionov served as a priest in the appanage department, Karpov volost, Zakhotsky third, and the village of Lyakhova.
2. Abramovskaya volost, Rudnikovsky parish, in the village of Titova, there was a blessing of water in the middle of the street, publicly, with a gathering of many people; Peasant Pyotr Rodionov served as a priest in the same village.
3. In the same volost, Ilyinsky parish, in the village of Shuvoy, in the middle of the street on the day of Midsummer, there was a blessing of water, with a gathering of many people; the merchant's son living there, Semyon Epifanov Smirnov, served as a priest in the same village; He also publicly serves liturgy in that village in the chapel.
4. In the estate of the city of Nord, in the village of Chelokhovaya, in the parish of Ilyinsky, on the day of Midsummer there was a blessing of water on the river with a procession of the cross, with a gathering of many people; The peasant Demid Fedorov served as a priest in the same village.
5) On the estate of Princess Golitsyna, in the village of Zavolenye, in the parish of the Church of the Exaltation of the Cross, in the chapel, the liturgy is publicly served in the linen church, and the rite of blessing of water is performed in the same village by a former peasant, and now a freedman, Kosma Alekseev Sorokin.
6) The appanage department, Pokrovsk parish, in the village of Malakova, consecrated water on the day of Midsummer and on past holidays: baptism and August 1st, on the river, during a religious procession, with the gathering of many people from two volosts: Pokrovskaya-Selinskaya and Gzhel; Publicly, in the form of a priest, the peasant Nikon Ivanov Naboishchikov served in the same village, who acts completely publicly.
Having referred this matter to the Moscow military governor-general, so that legitimate attention may be paid to this illegal manifestation of the schism, I decree it my duty to most respectfully report this to the Holy Synod.
Your Holiness's humblest novice,
The Holy Synod, dated July 19/August 7, 1861, decided: “to order the Metropolitan of Moscow by decree, so that he reports in due time to the Holy Synod about the consequences of communication with the military governor-general about the public manifestation of the schism in the Bogorodsk district” 72.
June 15. Opinion of Metropolitan Philaret entitled: “about the Ikovite case” 73
I. It is strange that when the Jacobite patriarch, with three bishops, expressed a desire to unite with the Orthodox Church, the Ecumenical Patriarch Afim did not accept this proposal. It would be worth the effort to find out the reason for this. Perhaps the conditions offered were inconvenient.
II. It is necessary to know, if possible, what prompts the Jacobites to desire union with the Orthodox Church.
Is it accurate for them to admit that their beliefs are wrong?
If not this, then the matter has no soul. Probably, what is most involved in this is the desire to have a support in Russia against the Latins. If so, then there is little church in this matter, but it will require struggle and expense, with a dubious hope of true success.
III. However, there are means for the cause of the Jacobites that are not available for the cause of the Nestorians. From the previous actions of Patriarch Jacob we can conclude that he is determined to unite with the Orthodox Church. Nicholas Isaac, whose ability and zeal have already been tested and recognized, can be a very useful figure if he is placed in a position favorable for action.
IV. But here is a difficult question about those seeking to join Orthodoxy in the East: should they be accepted into the communion of the Russian Church without contact with the Constantinople Church, or by agreement with it?
In the first case, it may happen that the Constantinople hierarchy will not like the method of acceptance and disagreement between the peaceful ones will occur for those being reconciled. And how can a new patriarch be accepted into the communion of the church without the consent of the existing patriarchs? But if you seek an agreement with the Church of Constantinople, it is difficult to achieve it. If, following a recent example, the Ecumenical Patriarch offers acceptance through Chrismation, then now, as before, he will complicate the matter and harm it. Wouldn’t it be strange to recognize Patriarch Jacob as a patriarch, but at the same time to anoint him as newly baptized?
It is very likely that the Jacobites are turning to the Russian church because the union with the Greek presents them with difficulties both in the beginning and in the consequences.
To avoid taking the path and encountering an impassable obstacle, in my opinion, the Holy Synod needs to first consider:
1) by what act and by what order can the Jacobites be accepted into the communion of the Orthodox Church?
2) Is it possible to do this without contact with the Church of Constantinople?
3) Is it necessary to officially communicate with the Ecumenical Patriarch about this, or will it be enough to find out his opinion privately, or, on the contrary, only to promote rapprochement and agreement, and leave decisive accession to the so-called great church?
June 16. Remarks of Metropolitan Philaret on a letter from the rector of the Kazan Academy, Archimandrite John 75, and on the explanations of students of the same academy on the case of serving a memorial service for the 76 peasants killed in the village of Bezdny
It took a lot of work to explain to the students the political point of view of the memorial service. They do not think about its political meaning and do not understand it.
Shchapov 77 is unfairly considered dismissed from the academy. It is learned by his university authorities.
Students left academy lectures for Bulich's lectures.
They attend elective lectures from their professors.
Bulich 78 took away 79 listeners from Porfiryev.
“There is a brotherhood between the academy students and the university students.”
University students offer an unloved professor to leave the department, the rector is put on trial; this is passed on to the students of the academy.
University professor Bulich, after the incident in the Abyss, refused to give a lecture due to mental disorder.
The trustee approves of Bulich.
Money for the funeral service comes from the professors, with the requirement to sign the name, and from the people.
Money was thrown at the professor who did not sign his name.
That the memorial service is a demonstration against the nobles is an awkward cover for the goal, and not the goal.
When asked for information about students’ attendance at university lectures, the academy inspector replied, “He’ll probably write, but he can’t tell the truth, because he has to lie.”
The words in Shchapov’s speech: “and now the prophet has appeared.”
Priest Yahontov on the litany: “those beaten for freedom.”
Rector about Shchapov: since entering the university, he “rarely and very poorly attended academic lectures.”
Shchapov's complaint about the students, and them about him, is like a fairy tale. The students praise him and say that he was completely respected at the academy.
That the university students take on the blame for the funeral service proves their close connection with the students of the academy.
“The rector calls our worship chatty.”
The rector shamelessly says that the students had no (understanding) about politics.
June 19. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A. I. Tolstoy, regarding information from the East
The information sent to me on the 13th day of this June (No. 3447): 1) about the Viddin Metropolitan Paisius and 2) about the change in the administration of Athos, I return.
It is difficult to say anything about this, and much information from the East, other than expressing sadness; because one can see not only the unkind state of affairs, but also the closing of paths to the better.
If the Ecumenical Patriarch recognized the actions of Metropolitan Paisius as wrong, and his way of life reprehensible, and promised to change him, but then, contradicting himself, refused this: then what kind of conviction can be strong for him, when his own conviction has no effect? However, shouldn’t the Viddin flock make a request and submit it to the Patriarch through the Russian envoy?
Rightly, the Athonite monks cried out against Gusni Pasha’s interference in the management of their monasteries; but didn’t they themselves in some way attract this misfortune to themselves and prepare an obstacle to getting rid of it? Why did they decide to rely on Western power, as the Israelis once did on Egypt? Why were there interchangers among them for English patronage? Why did they not sufficiently protect their ancient simplicity and modesty, which served as a safeguard for their safety? The Vyatka priest, having taken monastic vows in Athos, came to Russia, began writing about Athos in the language of magazines 81, aroused attention, and by publishing books and collecting money brought a lot of money to Athos; fortune has produced many imitators; with the permission and without the permission of the government, many Athonite collectors walked and still walk around Russia, taking advantage of the piety of the Russians, not only for needs, but for splendor unnecessary for the monks, so that sometimes several pounds of silver were brought to Athos at one time to decorate icons.
In Russia, some expressed fear that this type of wealth on Mount Athos would arouse the greed of the Turks; and they will find means to lay hands on it. This is what Gusni Pasha is doing now, using as a guide the tale of Russian artillery on Mount Athos.
It must be hoped that the Russian embassy, which has already agreed with the Turkish minister to restore the ancient order of government in Athos, will insist on bringing this into execution.
With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency, dear sir, most humble servant.
June 19. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, in the case of the election of a leader to the newly opened Diveyevo convent.
From your Excellency’s confidential message, dated the 14th day of this June, (No. 3448), received by me on the 18th day, I learned with regret that the circumstances of the election of the headmistress to the newly opened Diveyevo monastery should be subjected to an official inquiry, and that thus the action of the Right Reverend Nektarios 83 would be subject to revision, about whom I, having learned about him on the occasion of his passage through Moscow, had a good opinion for church government hope.
But one cannot deny the validity of the remark made in Mr. Karamzin’s letter that, given the already unfavorable publicity about this matter, leaving it without a proper inquiry would seem like inattention of the highest spiritual authorities to what is happening in his department.
Justice itself demands this, if truly 400 sisters, and among them the founders of this institution and the direct disciples of its founder, Elder Seraphim, were satisfied with their leader, and begged the Eminence not to change her, and only 40 agreed to change her. And that this was so, it is difficult to doubt, because several eyewitnesses agree on this. Let us assume that some circumstances of Mr. Motovilov’s note do not inspire confidence in it, because they represent signs of a restless spirit; but in the above, she agrees with Mr. Karamzin’s letter, which presents signs of an impartial presentation of the incident and circumstances, undoubtedly known.
I agree with the opinion that this matter is not of such a degree that it is necessary to send a bishop and an actual state councilor managing the synodal office to investigate it; Moreover, through this, publicity would increase greatly.
But as many well-disposed to the Diveyevo monastery pay attention to this matter, with opposite views and desires, special attention is required on the part of the Holy Synod so that the reliability and certainty of the proposed examination is ensured by a preliminary order. And therefore it is necessary that the archimandrite appointed for this be accompanied by a secular confidant from the Holy Synod or from your Excellency.
As for the assignment entrusted to me by the Holy Synod to appoint an archimandrite for this, for this I do not have in mind many candidates, partly because some archimandrites are strongly attached to their positions, such as, for example, school ones, partly because, by the grace of God, the Moscow clergy, with a few exceptions, is not inclined to legal disputes and does not in many cases represent the formation of office-work experience. I propose to appoint Danilov’s Archimandrite Yakov 84, who has more than once carried out similar assignments correctly and impartially.
The case regarding the Minister of the Imperial Court 85, with all the attachments received in his presence, I return.
With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, Your Excellency, most humble sir, most humble servant,
Two additions were attached to this letter:
I. Out of respect for the rank of the Eminence, it is advisable that the archimandrite investigator does not address him with any questions regarding the case.
But it may happen that later the Eminence will present a case with such circumstances due to which the investigation turns out to be incomplete or unsatisfactory.
Therefore, doesn’t the Holy Synod consider it necessary to include in the decree to the Right Reverend Nizhny Novgorod an order for him to inform by the next post how the opening of the Diveyevo Monastery and the election of its leader took place?
Questions about which of these reports might arise and require investigation could be immediately addressed to the appointed investigator.
I consider it necessary to supplement what was written this day for Your Excellency.
Having had the opportunity to notice how Archimandrite Jacob and Mr. Olferyev acted carefully and in agreement on the Kazan case 86, I would like to unite them in the Diveyevo assignment. But here is a circumstance that becomes a decisive obstacle to this. Princess Anikieva, who is the main person of the party, in the words of Mr. Karamzin, fantastic, once provided care for the education of Mr. Olferyev; and he calls her mother. I heard this from others; otherwise I know directly from his lips that before the inquiry, his opinion is inclined to the side of his benefactress. So, if he were used in this matter, he could find himself in difficulty in front of his benefactress, if a case was revealed that disagreed with her thoughts, and the opposite side would have reason to cast doubt on his impartiality.
June 22. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, about the proposed publication of the journal “Archive and Historical Bulletin of Western and Southwestern Russia”
The teacher of the Mogilev seminary, Ksenophon Antonovich Govorsky, in May 1861, introduced the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, a note and with it a project for publishing a journal: “Archive and Historical Bulletin of Western and Southwestern Russia.”
Metropolitan Philaret, to whom the said documents were delivered, wrote about this to Count A.P. Tolstoy the following:
I return the note and projects of Mr. Govorsky. His information and considerations are very worthy of attention; and therefore projects. There may be doubt as to whether there will be enough active employees, as well as funds, for the proposed journal to have sufficient attractiveness, strength and influence on society. I don't have the opportunity to discuss this sufficiently.
June 24. Resolution of Metropolitan Philaret at the presentation of the conference of the Moscow Theological Academy, dated June 13, 1861, No. 18, with reports of the censorship committee on the works examined by him during May
On June 13, No. 18, the conference of the Moscow Academy presented to the discretion of Metropolitan Philaret a report from the censorship committee on the works it examined during May. At the presentation, the Metropolitan wrote:
June 24. In the May book of the Orthodox Review, in the translation of the book of Job, on page 9, a remark was made that shows that the God-inspired writer Job adhered to mythology. What benefit will a register of Bunsen's works unknown in Russian bring? Meanwhile, without evidence, he casts a shadow of doubt on the messages of Ignatius the God-Bearer, which only three out of seven are recognized as authentic by Bunsen. These comments should be conveyed to the Moscow censorship department 89.
June 30. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with an opinion about the Perm seminary
Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, having forwarded the correspondence about the unrest in the Perm seminary, dated June 26, 1861, to Metropolitan Philaret, asked the Metropolitan to report on the importance of the accusations against the students of that seminary and the seminary authorities - the conclusion on this case.
The metropolitan’s hand made a note on this document: “June 30. Responsible with a note.”
I am returning the case about the Perm seminary. Please see my thoughts on this in the attached note. I am forced to write in this form because, having the need to write hastily, I do not write clearly: it is more convenient to let a note be rewritten than a letter.
Gethsemane skete. June 30, 1861
The Perm seminary presents a bitterly sad look.
If she is what her mentor Morigerovsky 90, her student Shishov and the case of the prisoner Morigerovsky show, then the bad manners, self-will, and complicity against her superiors that have infected her all give little hope for her correction.
It might be better to close it and then put it back together little by little, with careful choice of materials.
But is she really like that? Bad news came from bad hands. Both Morigerovsky and Shishov describe it as they need it for their purposes.
Unfortunately, it's hard not to trust a lot of things.
Morigerovsky stands for students against bosses.
But what can I say? – The students complain about the long church service; and “they are afraid to even remember that the holiday is approaching.” Good students of the theological school!
Of course, the inscription of the “humble Dorotheus rector” on the student journal was not invented, but actually copied, in which he justifies himself against the libelous letter, and then admonishes the students. But this inscription proves that there was a libelous letter, that the seminary authorities did not reveal the culprits, that they did not know how to act and were exhausted.
Isn’t it clear that there is a spread of complicity among students against the authorities, when students not only voluntarily declare their agreement with the thoughts of the libelous letter, but also strengthen their efforts so that this announcement is accepted?
After this, it is difficult not to believe what Morigerovsky says about the stones sent to the authorities.
Disciple Shishov, there is almost a machine that is moved by a hidden hand and, perhaps, writes slander. But what a vile direction opens up in students when they post notices on the streets about something shameful to themselves and disgracing the seminary! What a lie when they themselves wrote inaccurate or false testimony from witnesses, and turned not to the diocesan authorities 91, but to the secular ones!
Probably, the spiritual and educational administration will hasten to send a skilled and energetic confidant to carefully review the affairs and personalities of the Perm seminary, so that it can be determined what to do with them and with it.
July 7. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, in the case of the restoration of the dome over the Church of the Holy Sepulcher
His Holiness Count, dear sir.
I received the warning to keep the secret about the dome and duly carried it out. I speak about such subjects only from public printed news.
From Peter Ivanovich 93 I heard the opinion of the Bishop of Novgorod and yours, that the dome should be repaired by Russia alone. That would be great, but is it reliable?
Three outcomes can occur:
The best is performed by Russia alone.
Mediocre - by Russia and France.
The worst is falling back into the same contradictions and difficulties.
If things improve to mediocre, with the conditions I wrote about; the word of Russia and France can receive a favorable response before other powers intervene, and the job is done.
If Russia alone says the word; The Porte will not give consent without communicating with other powers, and thus the controversy and difficulties that stopped the matter before will be renewed, and the promise that a non-Christian power will build the most important Christian monument.
So, I think that you, not wanting to choose the mediocre, and striving for the best, will fall into the worst.
Consider whether you should accept responsibility for the consequences of your strict pursuit of the best.
July 7. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with a request to notify which of the officials will be appointed to examine the circumstances of the election of the abbess in the Diveyevo monastery
By a secret decree of the Holy Synod of June 29, 1861 (No. 3), I was ordered to appoint an archimandrite to examine the circumstances of the election of the abbess in the Diveyevo monastery, together with an official appointed by your Excellency.
Therefore, I make it my duty to most humbly ask your Excellency to notify whom it would please you to appoint for this purpose, and when the appointed one can arrive in Moscow, so that in accordance with this I can give the appropriate instructions to the archimandrite.
With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, Your Excellency, most humble sir, most humble servant,
July 7. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, about the celebration of July 3
You guessed, which I did not expect, that the brethren of the Moscow church kindly remembered the third day of July, returning to me for the fortieth time, and took the trouble to find the one absent from Moscow in the Lavra.
Please accept my sincere gratitude for your supportive participation in this memory.
I should not think about congratulations on my fourtieth birthday, but about the answer for my fourtieth birthday; but I accept good desires with consolation, because they contain prayer, and it is both necessary and useful.
Invoking God's blessing upon you, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, Your Excellency, most humble servant,
July 25. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with an opinion on the report presented by Archimandrite Yakov and the Chief Secretary of the Holy Synod Olferyev on the investigation they carried out regarding the service of a memorial service by students of the Kazan Theological Academy for those killed in the village of Bezdnya and the speech given by the bachelor of this Shchapov
Count A.I. Tolstoy, in a very secret manner, dated July 14, 1861, No. 1069, forwarded, in fulfillment of the highest will to Metropolitan Philaret, the report compiled by Archimandrite Jacob and Chief Secretary of His Holiness Sunod Olferyev in the investigation they carried out in Kazan about the performance of a pannikhida by students of the local theological academy for those killed in the village of Bezdne and the democratic speech given by the bachelor Shchapov - asked for an opinion on this subject.
In pursuance of the highest will, with a very secret attitude from your Excellency, on the 14th day of this July (No. 1069), a report from the investigators in the case of the memorial service for those killed in the Abyss was forwarded to me, and a conclusion was required from me.
This matter involves two matters that require separate consideration:
About the celebration of the memorial service and those concerned, and about the state of the Kazan Academy.
I. The main question, without the resolution of which it is impossible to determine the dignity of the actions of persons, is the following: was the funeral service a pure action, the motivation of which was philanthropy and piety; or was the ecclesiastical action misused to produce a civil demonstration against the nobility, or even a political one against the government?
Many circumstances necessarily lead to the conclusion that this was not a pure pious act, but a manifestation.
1) Bachelor Shchapov says that he intended to give a speech at some grave, where at first they thought to serve a memorial service. This is the intention of the manifestation, so that it is more visible in an open place, because funeral services are usually served in the church, and go to the grave of the person being commemorated, and do not go to some other person’s grave.
2) According to the testimony of priest Yakhontov, the requiem was sung by all students of the academy and university; and according to Shchapov’s testimony, 400 people sang in one voice: eternal memory. And this is not in church custom: therefore, this is an exquisite manifestation.
3) Shchapov himself retells the following words of his speech addressed to the murdered: “you fell victim out of innocent ignorance because we, while serving to educate the people, did not enlighten you.” This is an indirect indictment of the government. Other information about Shchapov’s speech, which is shown below, shows its bad meaning even more fully; and it has not only personal, but also general significance, because the university students present expressed their sympathy for her by singing the eternal memory after her.
4) Professor Priest Zefirov, inviolable from this case, and therefore having the dignity of an impartial witness, testified that on the morning of April 16, two university students came to him with a request to serve a memorial service, explaining that this was decided at their meeting the day before, at which academicians were also present, that “the students decided to openly express their dissatisfaction against the wrong action of their superiors with a memorial service.” The priest refused to fulfill their request because it was a direct demonstration against the government.
5) Priest Yakhontov and Hierodeacon Meletius both testified that at the funeral service they commemorated: “those beaten for freedom and love for the fatherland.” Such a review of the rebels is an indictment of the authorities who tamed the rebellion.
6) The cemetery priest Balbutsinovsky, who showed himself to have participated in the memorial service out of ignorance of the circumstances and the incident itself in the Abyss, deserves preferential confidence in his testimony over the priest Yakhontov and Hierodeacon Meletius, as clearly guilty. Priest Balbutsinovsky testified that during Vespers, Priest Yakhontov asked him for permission to serve a memorial service for his murdered relatives; and at the end of Vespers, two university students asked his Balbutsinovsky to take part in the memorial service for his murdered relatives. From this it is clear that both Yakhontov and the students were aware of the illegal manifestation in the memorial service, and were afraid of refusal to carry it out, and therefore covered up the illegality with a false reference to relatives.
7) If we add to this the information unofficially collected by investigators that university students collected money from professors and the public for the memorial service and in favor of the families of the killed rebels; that one of the professors, who gave money but did not want to sign his name, was thrown money; that one gave the ruble not out of choice, but because it was difficult to resist force, that ordinary people on the streets were called to a memorial service; it is obvious how they tried to strengthen and expand the manifestation.
Such a manifestation, if, as they say in its excuse, was directed against the nobility, and in this case is contrary to deanery, reprehensible and illegal, insulting the class that enjoys special advantages in the state; but it is even more worthy of condemnation, being aimed at spreading discontent among the people against the government.
II. Of the clergy, the one most involved in the matter of the memorial service is the priest Yahontov.
He was the first, according to the testimony of the cemetery priest, to ask for permission to perform a memorial service.
Although priest Yahontov does not admit this, he deprives his testimony of credibility with his contradictions and inconsistencies. In the second testimony, he says that he refused to serve the funeral service; but this is refuted by the fact that he did not say this in his first testimony, and by the fact that he actually served a memorial service; for if he had truly refused, nothing would prevent him from persisting in his refusal.
After the cemetery priest, in an exclamation, commemorated the simpler formula “those who were killed again,” priest Yakhontov, when it was his turn, came up with his own formula of political significance: “those killed for freedom and love of the fatherland.” Both of these formulas were shown by the priest Yahontov himself in his own interrogation. Realizing the reprehensible meaning of his formula, he used a twist: “believing to express the matter of freedom.” But this is a different matter, and besides, it was not proper to mention a court case in a church service. He also unscrupulously tries to justify his formula by the fact that he “wanted to apply to the church form regarding commemoration”; for the church form never speaks of freedom, and the church form: “about all who laid down their lives for faith and the fatherland” is absurdly presented as a model for the commemoration of killed rebels.
Priest Yahontov is approved by the academy inspector 97, but he is not trustworthy based on his own testimony that, if a written explanation is required from him, “he cannot tell the truth, because he has to lie.” The assistant inspector recognizes priest Yahontov as unreliable; and the investigators see in him cunning and dishonesty, which is what the case shows.
When the telegram on April 20 brought to the highest attention that the two monks who were performing the funeral service were harmful, then the highest order was issued to imprison them in the Solovetsky monastery. Now it has been revealed that the name of the two monks indicated the priest Yakhontov and hierodeacon Meletius. And the circumstances of the case show that the above-mentioned highest command must be applied to the priest Yakhontov, so that he is admonished in Solovetsky to correct his way of thinking and moral dispositions, so that there are urgent reports of success in this to the Holy Synod, and so that after correction the Holy Synod gives him an appropriate appointment. Accepting him into the academy would be inconsistent with the dignity of the academy.
III. Hierodeacon Meletius, another actual monk indicated by the telegram, is not far behind priest Yakhontov in the degree of guilt. According to Meletius’s own testimony, before the memorial service he heard the following words from university students: “the landowners drank champagne for the dead, but we want to pray for the dead.” Consequently, Meletius knew before the funeral service began that it would not be a prayer, but a student demonstration against the nobles, and yet he took part in the funeral service.
Meletius worked diligently about the memorial service; he took the missal and gave it to the university students.
But he says (and this has not been refuted) that at the litanies he commemorated “the murdered servants of God,” while the priest Yahontov “those killed for freedom and love for the fatherland.” Consequently, in this case, Meletius did not follow the political advice of the priest Yahontov.
Meletius is unanimously approved by the heads and mentors of the academy, as well as by the auditors, who believe that he participated in the memorial service due to the pliability of his character.
Therefore, would it not be pleasing for the Holy Synod to grant him to the highest mercy, so that he would be sent not to Solovetsky, but to one of the monasteries of the nearest dioceses, on the same basis as the priest Yahontov to Solovetsky.
IV. The appearance of the outrageous demonstration was conveyed to the funeral service especially by Bachelor Shchapov in his speech. In complete contradiction to both custom and church rules, he, a secular man, in secular clothes, stood before the altar, on the pulpit, where the Gospel is read, and made an outrageous speech. And priest Yahontov, and Meletius, and the students of the academy cannot but be suspected of false testimony when some say that they left before the speech, and others that they did not hear. This singularity no doubt excited great curiosity and attention; and it was easy to hear in a small church. But the Kazan governor writes in a telegram on April 20: “I know the speech in fragments, that the teaching of Christ was democratic, he died for freedom, as “they are dying now, as the brother workers fertilized the field with their blood.” The list of speeches delivered to investigators from the police says: “friends murdered inhumanely! Christ himself proclaimed to the people redemptive freedom, brotherhood and equality during the times of the Roman Empire and the slavery of nations, and at the Pilates’ trial he sealed his democratic teaching with his blood.”
Another list of the same speech, obtained by investigators in a different way, says the same thing. So, according to these three concordant testimonies and the confession of Shchapov himself, there is no doubt that Shchapov’s speech contained, on the one hand, a stupid and outrageous protest against the actions of government justice, on the other hand, a distortion of the teachings of Christ, which Shchapov turns from spiritual, moral and soul-saving into political, democratic.
When looking at the way of thoughts and actions of bachelor Shchapov, who has not yet been dismissed from the academy, the ecclesiastical department itself, both with justice and in order to remove a harmful example, seems to agree to remove him from the academy and from the clergy; and, since he discovered a false concept of the teaching of Christ, incompatible with the true faith, then subject him to admonition and admonition in the monastery, by order of the Holy Synod, if no obstacles are encountered.
From the strictly political side, Shchapov’s actions are subject to consideration and determination not by the spiritual authorities.
V The attitude of the 37 academy students to the memorial service is not entirely clear, not due to a lack of attention from investigators, but due to the obstacles they encountered. The rector of the academy, regarding May 10, writes that he interrogated the students on April 16, 17 and 18, but this did not serve to discover the truth, because their words were not recorded. The rector himself speaks for them in this respect, that they solemnly protest against any criticism of them. Then he accepted, one after another, two written explanations from everyone together, and even an act of address, unprecedented in such matters. Thus, it was not the authorities who carried out a legal inquiry, but the students conducted the case as they saw fit; it is obvious that such action is more likely to obscure than to reveal the truth of the matter.
Investigators asked the students separately: and they testified that they were present at the funeral service without any special intention; but at the same time it is already inconvenient to determine whether these testimonies accurately express everyone’s personal conviction, and not what was agreed upon in the general explanations they previously wrote.
Priest Zefirov, from the words of two university students, says that the funeral service was decided at their meeting the day before, at which academicians were also present. But this hearsay evidence does not have full legal force, and it could have happened that the university students presented the academicians as accomplices in order to better persuade the priest to perform the funeral service.
The rector, regarding May 10, writes that the students did not understand the political point of view on the memorial service until he revealed to them the full meaning of the memorial service. It is difficult to imagine that out of 37 students, not a single one understood that the memorial service of university students for the murdered rebel peasants is not simply a church matter, and that this is a reprehensible matter, that the commemoration of those killed for freedom and love of the fatherland is the transformation of rebels into patriots and, therefore, offensive to the government.
An unusual case in this case is an announcement written in the name of the internal academic board of nine university students that the academy students were supporters at the memorial service. The rector of the academy takes this to justify the academy students; on the contrary, this casts doubt on them. It is difficult to imagine that university students not called upon would invade an outside agency to justify the academy students, if the latter were completely alien to the first, and if some academy students were not on close terms with the university students. Investigators notice that there is a close connection between the students of both institutions; that the rector does not deny this connection; that, according to one confidential information, a brotherhood has recently been formed between the academy's students and the university students.
An illegal and unfavorable feature for the improvement of the academy in the case of its students is that they acted en masse, so that some people, contrary to justice, signed common papers. So Milovsky, when questioned separately, testified that he was in the church for no more than 7 minutes, and left before the end of the funeral service; and Tikhov testified that he did not know the funeral service for whom, and found out later at the academy. These students, under these circumstances, could justify themselves as not being involved in what was illegal in the memorial service; but they, of course, yielding to the osprey, signed the general explanation of the students, which says that they were present at the funeral service, moved by compassion for the murdered peasants. There were 37 students at the memorial service; but the address was signed by 44, therefore 7 were brought in outside the case in order to strengthen the crowd with the number of signatories.
Based on everything stated here about the 37 students of the Kazan Academy, one is convinced that some of them are subject to suspicion of taking part in an illegal funeral service, not without prior information and agreement with the university students; yet they are guilty of rash and reckless participation in a cause whose illegality, at least in part, was visible to them, and of defending their wrong cause by improper means.
Justice and leniency towards them would be combined if, at the end of the academic year, it were decided to put them in the second category in the list of conduct, so that this would not be an obstacle to obtaining master's and candidate's degrees for those of them who next year will prove worthy in terms of success in science and behavior. As for those seven who interfered in someone else’s business and signed an address that did not belong to them, let the local authorities take an explanation from them about this and act in accordance with what turns out to be.
VI. The actions of a cemetery clergyman may be subject to review by the diocesan authorities.
VII. Finally, the question involuntarily arises: how to reconcile the fact that (in) a case for which academy students are held accountable, university students openly declare themselves to be the culprits, and remain without any responsibility? On this issue, the spiritual department does not have a judgment, but only surprise.
The observers made observations about the state of the Kazan Academy and collected information so significant that simply reading it without much research gives important conclusions.
I. Both teachers and students have largely retreated from the responsibilities assigned to them by the institution’s charter, and have largely violated order and decorum.
Consequently, the state of the academy is generally unsatisfactory.
II. “The obligation to go to public worship has recently been fulfilled as it should by few students; others either do not go to church, or go, but not for what they should. The heads of the academy know all this, and when they visit the church, they see it, but they ignore it.”
“Divine services, despite all the reductions, are carried out somehow.”
“There have been no private morning or evening prayers since 1860, with the exception of the time when auditors were there.”
Students, within the walls of the academy, in the evening, on the third day of Easter, played the comedy “The Inspector General”, making the scenery from government sheets, despite the confrontation of the housekeeper. “Despite the great days of fasting and fasting, they began to repeat the roles on Maundy Thursday.”
This is enough to conclude that the attitude of the academy towards the duties of religion is unsatisfactory.
III. “Few people go to classes at all, and often no more than two or three people from the department.”
Academy professor Porfiryev expressed regret that Bulich had completely lost his listeners. (Bulich is a university professor whom the chief of the gendarme district considers a harmful person).
Bachelor Shchapov, but when he was seconded to the university, “rarely and very irregularly attended academic lectures.”
All the academy's mentors wrote a complaint about the unfair and harmful orders for the academy and the insulting treatment of the rector; for example, Professor Ilminsky 98, who, with great difficulty, through traveling to the east to study Arabic and Tatar languages, prepared himself for the missionary department of the academy. The rector, by arbitrarily moving him to the department of mathematics, forced him to leave the academy, and from the clergy. The loss is considerable and irreversible.
From this it is clear that the state of the academic administration of the academy is unsatisfactory.
IV. Students go to bed and get up whenever they want, “they are not forbidden to go wherever and whenever they want, whether it be the time of worship, or classes, or the time of night.”
“Students sometimes return to the academy late, and not always sober.”
“Liberty is noticeable in their way of thinking and life.”
From this it is clear that the moral management of the academy is unsatisfactory.
V. His Eminence Nikodim 99 about the rector of the academy, Archimandrite John, said that he is “a learned man with fortunate talents, but, unfortunately, he behaves distantly, arrogantly and imperiously. I believe that this cools the life of the academy.”
“The rector does not participate at all in the bishop’s services.” - Lack of obedience.
“The rector calls our worship chatty.” - (This is talk, said in the transfer committee, and has not been investigated; however, the very fact that this is told and believed in this reveals a low opinion of the pious way of thinking of the rector.)
The rector and inspector “were not ashamed to support themselves at the expense of the students, using their table and supplies, the rector himself for a quarter, and the inspector himself for a third.” (And this is when the rector receives more than 3,000 rubles from one editorial office.)
According to the majority of people familiar with the academy, under rector John, “the academy quietly began to take the wrong path.”
“The Most Reverend Archbishop Athanasius 100 deigned to respond that today the spirit is not good everywhere; but that, in his opinion, there is no particular need to undertake anything important, and it would not be superfluous to intimidate whoever should be, and, perhaps, give her another boss.”
We must agree with this last thought of His Eminence Athanasius.
VI. “It’s difficult for academy students to learn, for example, sobriety from a not always sober inspector.”
Consequently, it is necessary to give the academy a different inspector.
VII. “With all this, justice requires saying that this institution is not in a hopeless state. In the majority of students, one can see receptivity to all that is good when good is instilled in them.”
It is very comforting to join this opinion with confidence.
The investigators' report, attachments to it, and two cases are being returned.
July 30. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with a request to notify which of the officials will be appointed to examine the circumstances of the election of the abbess in the Diveyevo monastery
As a result of the secret decree of the Holy Synod, which ordered me to appoint an archimandrite to examine the circumstances of the election of the abbess in the Diveyevo monastery, together with an official appointed by your Excellency, dated July 7 of this year, No. 72, I had the honor to ask your Excellency for notification of whom it would be pleasing for you to appoint for this purpose, and when the appointed one can arrive in Moscow, so that in accordance with this I could give a proper order to the archimandrite.
Since I still have not received an answer to this, I find it necessary to ask your Excellency about this again, so that the decree of the Holy Synod does not remain unfulfilled.
With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, Your Excellency's most humble servant,
No. 77. July 30, 1861 102
July 31st. Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on the letter and explanations of the rector of the Kazan Academy, Archimandrite John, following a complaint against him from the mentors of the same academy
Prince S.N. Urusov, with a very secret attitude, dated July 17, 1861, for No. 4115, forwarded him to the Metropolitan. Filaret, for conclusion, delivered by the rector of the Kazan Theological Academy, Archimandrite John, with a letter of explanation regarding complaints against him from the mentors of the same academy.
About the letter and explanations of the rector of the Kazan Academy regarding the complaint of mentors.
These explanations were received when a response to a very secret relationship had already been written, dated July 14, No. 1069. There was a review of the Right Reverend Archbishop of Kazan 103 about the Kazan Academy: “perhaps give it another boss,” and it was concluded that he should agree with this review. Consideration of the explanations presented should show whether this conclusion needs to be changed.
It would take a long time to analyze all the explanations. But considering some may be sufficient for the intended purpose.
August 2. An order from Metropolitan Philaret to the Archimandrite of the Danilov Monastery with instructions on how to conduct his research into the circumstances of the election of the abbess to the Diveyevo monastery
Member of the consistory, Danilov Monastery, Archimandrite Yakov.
In pursuance of the secret decree of the Holy Synod, dated June 29, No. 3, you are appointed to inform the circumstances of the election of the abbess to the Diveyevo monastery.
The consistory will give you a list of this decree.
A member of the general presence of the economic administration at the Holy Synod, court councilor Barkov, will cooperate with you.
At the same time, attachments are handed over to you with the said decree.
1) Attitude of the Minister of the Imperial Court.
2) Note from Mr. Motovilov.
4) A note from an unknown person.
5) Report of the Right Reverend Nektarios, dated June 1/12, No. 4454.
6) Extract from the resolution of the Holy Synod, dated June 28, No. 1408.
These attachments must be returned to me upon completion of the order.
The details of your action must be determined as circumstances and information on the spot become known; but the first rules could be the following:
I. If you need to ask the sisters, and there are many of them, then first of all you can ask those six who originally entered the hostel under its founder, Father Seraphim; and then turn to the 48 following the first, as indicated in Mr. Karamzin’s note.
1) What was the procedure for the election, how were the votes cast, did the majority of the sisters ask to leave the real boss?
2) At the request of the Eminence, were three candidates elected, who exactly? and, as we know, the majority appointed the current boss, and the minority appointed Glyceria: then who appointed the third person?
3) Who wrote the names and sealed the lot bags?
4) When the Right Reverend opened the package and it contained the name of Glyceria, were the other two packages also opened to prove that they contained other names that did not receive election?
5) For this, it will probably be necessary to ask whoever will follow about the details closest to the matter indicated in the notes.
6) Since the majority, who want to retain the current abbess, have not made any testimony against Glykeria, and are afraid through her to see Hieromonk Joasaph, who for some time was in charge of the Diveyevo hostel, at the monastery, it is necessary to draw up information from the written documents of the hostel and from impartial testimony as to whether his orders were useful and beneficial for the hostel.
7) In case, it is considered not superfluous to preface you that immediately upon arrival at the place, you must pay attention to whether the decree of the Holy Synod that the monastery should remain under the control of the current abbess, and not Glyceria, has been fulfilled, and if it turns out that it has not been fulfilled, then you must notify me of this immediately, without delaying until the end of your business.
8) For accuracy, it is not superfluous to compile three registered registers of sisters:
1) Those who declared a desire to have the former abbess.
Registers must be compiled in the presence of an investigator. Those who can write can write their name and rank.
August 10. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Prince S. N. Urusov 107, with an opinion on the report on the review of the Kiev Academy and some seminaries
I am returning the report on the review of the Kiev Academy and some seminaries given to me by the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count Alexander Petrovich.
While reading it, I came across thoughts that, perhaps, it would not be superfluous to submit for consideration; but I, not having time to write, and now do not have time to return to this.
For example, the following topics are hardly approved: teaching during the bestial case; farewell lesson; a lesson to householders about the treatment of workers; teachings to mothers about education (where can a preacher meet mothers without fathers?); teaching at the consecration of the estate; teaching on the occasion of state arrears; a lesson about women's intoxication (don't men need this?); a lesson about the bad custom of giving children intoxicating drinks. Who and where will speak such teachings? By talking about such trifles, will the preacher not fall into worldly polemics instead of pure moral teaching?
The idea of one school superintendent is worthy of attention, to combine similar subjects with one mentor, for example, Russian and Slavic grammar. In this case, the mentor, while teaching Russian grammar, could at the same time point to Slavic and vice versa; and of course the understanding would be better and the success would be greater.
Mountain skiing is not the best movement for seminarians. Money must be paid for the construction of the mountains; to maintain them by watering, the work will probably fall on the servants; not much movement. There are simpler and more effective ways of moving the body.
August 14. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the current Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Prince S.N. Urusov, in the case of the Diveyevo monastery
Most illustrious prince, gracious sir.
On the 4th day of this August it was given to know in St. Petersburg, the court councilor Barkov, appointed to investigate the Diveyevo monastery, and on the 5th day to me, in Moscow, that the Holy Synod was listening to the report of the Most Reverend Nizhny Novgorod about his failure to comply with the decree of the Holy Synod and about making his order, and that I would immediately receive an order from the Holy Synod on this subject, necessary for the consideration of the investigators.
Ten days passed; but I have not received any instructions.
Meanwhile, the Right Reverend of Nizhny Novgorod, dated July 11, wrote to your Excellency that, according to a secret inquiry, the abbess of Diveyevo should be removed from this monastery to save her soul (which means that she is subject to secret vices), and at the same time wrote that he intends to make her abbess in another monastery. To understand this contradiction, it is necessary to recognize the first as slander; for it cannot be assumed that the Right Reverend would decide to make a vicious woman the abbess of the monastery. But now the matter is about turning slander into truth. By order of the Right Reverend, Dean Rozov asked Abbess Elisaveta (whom, contrary to the decree of the Holy Synod, he calls former), whether the Sarov builder and Hieromonk Takov often visited her, and whether the paramedic Maximov often visited her cell. (She replied that the builder visited her two or three times a year, according to the needs of the monastery, and that the medical assistant, an honest man, invited by her predecessor, was accompanied to the cell only for a short time for needs).
What will happen if the synodal investigators begin their investigation, and Dean Rozov immediately continues his?
From this, please see that such an illegal course of business does not lead to the discovery of the truth, but to the disgrace of the Sarov and Diveyevo monasteries and monasticism in general.
Since the Holy Synod was pleased to conduct this matter through me and demand my conclusion; then I would not have fulfilled my duty if I had not drawn your Excellency’s attention to the above, so that the conclusion would not subsequently become inevitable that the complexity of the matter was increased by the slowness in the Holy Synod.
No. 83 August 14, 1861 109
August 18. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod on the matter of electing a superior to the Diveyevo monastery
From the Danilov Monastery, Archimandrite Yakov and court adviser Nikolai Barkov, I received information that, having arrived at the scene of the investigation at the Diveyevo Monastery on the 10th day of August, they found that the monastery was under the control of the ryassophore nun Glikeria, and the former abbess, Elisaveta Ushakova, had been eliminated and remained among the sisters of the same monastery.
From this it is clear that the Eminence of Nizhny Novgorod did not obey the decree of the Holy Synod, and that this causes difficulty for the investigators, who, by the force of the decree of the Holy Synod, must recognize the abbess Elizabeth, but in fact meet the superior Glyceria, who is not recognized by the Holy Synod, which confuses relations and can take away the freedom of the sisters in revealing the truth.
It is my duty to report this to His Holiness Sunod and ask for permission to issue a decree.
No. 84. August 18, 1861 110
August 20. Comments by Metropolitan Philaret on the project on penal monasteries, to which criminals of spiritual and secular ranks could be sent for a certain time
About the project of penal monasteries
I. That the premises of those sent to monasteries be separated from the fraternal cells, have special courtyards, and prisoners cannot have free communication with the brethren and outsiders - this can hardly be satisfied by any monastery other than Kirill’s.
II. Is it true that in the St. Petersburg diocese there are few people sent to the monastery?
III. 41 dioceses regarding females confined to monasteries remain in the present position.
IV. What if in the Nikander monastery, like in the Kirillov monastery, there were a separate building and area for prisoners. Then it would not be an obstacle, but a convenience.
Couldn't the same question be addressed to some other monasteries?
V. If to 10 hours of classes for prisoners in a monastery we add three hours for matins, one and a half for liturgy, an hour for vespers, an hour for lunch and dinner; Then isn’t there enough time left for cell prayer and rest?
VI. The monasteries are burdened with burdens that most of them can hardly bear. For example, for some ten prisoners there is a special church, and therefore the required number of employees in it. There are two priests in women's monasteries, and they are busy daily serving the early and late liturgy. Who will serve in the church of the prisoners?
VII. A person of secular rank who is faulty and does not correct penance is reported to the bishop, and at the same time the judicial investigator is made aware. Therefore, the investigator will come and do whatever he pleases, before the bishop’s order; and things can get confusing.
VIII. The new rules regarding those sent to monasteries, on the one hand, make it easier, but on the other, impose more difficult responsibilities. There is nothing to demand retribution from the monasteries for; the tax on monasteries for the construction and maintenance of buildings will be heavy.
Is it fair to impose a tax on monasteries so that secular involuntary murderers, those who have fallen into schism, fornicators and adulterers, as well as those defrocked, have a place to live?
IX. The rule to send to the monastery only those accused as a result of a formal investigation is not consistent with practice, for example: a priest who has shed a saint is, as a rule, removed from priestly service for six months. But this is inconvenient for the parish. Therefore, a short but effective penance in the monastery is needed to cleanse and calm the conscience. There is no need to drive such people away from the monastery: they do not burden it, as people of corrupt behavior do.
X. For secular persons not to be sent to the monastery at all, but to correct penance under the supervision of their spiritual father, this for the majority of such people will amount to the destruction of the beneficial effect of penance. The monastery will invite you to church, and it is inconvenient to refuse. The parish priest does not have the power to enforce penance, the execution of which is usually refused on various pretexts. At least a short-term confinement in a monastery is necessary for penance to have an effect on the conscience of an inattentive and absent-minded sinner.
XI. According to the new assumption, it will not be without difficulty for the secular court to decide who should be sent to a monastery and who should not. Is it convenient for him to know in advance which of the defendants will bring temptation and blasphemy into the monastery? Convicted of adultery, is there a sinner who can be reformed, or a hopeless debauchee? Wouldn’t it be more convenient to just give the monastery and the spiritual authorities the right to send those who cause temptation in the monastery to the secular authorities to complete their penance in prison or in a restraining house?
XII. But here's what needs attention. What kind of people are defrocked? Is it not those whom there is no hope of reforming without defrocking? Is it appropriate to send those deemed hopeless for correction to monasteries for correction? Shouldn’t they be directly removed from the clergy, with the obligation not to live for 7 or 10 years in the diocese in which they served, in order to avert the temptation of their meeting especially with former spiritual children? Separated from previous connections and acquaintances, having the need to earn food through labor, will they not have more incentive to reform than in a monastery - in a ready-made home, at a ready-made table, in ready-made clothes?
August 23. An order from Metropolitan Philaret to a member of the Moscow spiritual consistory, Archimandrite Iakovos, with instructions regarding the unrest in the Diveyevo convent
By decree of the Holy Synod, dated August 19, 1861, No. 2603, a presentation was forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret from the Most Reverend Nektary, Bishop of Nizhny Novgorod, dated August 3, No. 13, on the consequences of the research carried out by Priest Rozov on the unrest in the Diveyevo convent, with an order to convey this representation to the person appointed to carry out research on this subject.
On this decree, Metropolitan Philaret wrote: “August 23 is forwarded with instructions.”
Then, Metropolitan Philaret gave the following instruction to Archimandrite Iakovos:
Member of the Moscow spiritual consistory, Archimandrite Iakov.
In pursuance of the secret decree of the Holy Synod, dated the 19th day of this August, No. 2603, I forward to you the report of the Most Reverend Nectarius, Bishop of Nizhny Novgorod, dated August 3, in the original, and I offer you and your collaborator:
I. Request the real case on which this report is based.
II. Pay attention to whose denunciation this investigation was launched and what it consisted of.
III. Whether it was through the exile of defendants Ushakova and Ilyina, or through someone else’s exile, under oath or without oath, and in general whether the witnesses were asked on a legal basis.
IV. See in the case whether the investigation has been announced to the defendants, for the purpose of signing pleasure or displeasure, and if this has not been done, then announce it to them for this purpose, and ask if they have any doubts about the correct and impartial conduct of the investigation.
V. Since the Eminence of Nizhny Novgorod intends to continue the investigation, then continue it and take written testimony from the Sarov builder and hieromonk Iakov on those issues that concern them in the report of the Eminence Nektary.
VI. Pay attention to whether the persons who testified against Ushakova and Ilyina belong to those sisters who elected Glykeria, or to those who did not choose it.
VII. As from the number of sisters, extending to 500, those asked in the report of the Right Reverend of Nizhny Novgorod showed only up to 68, then continue the explanation of the matter by questioning other sisters, especially the oldest ones upon entry into the monastery, to whom it was indicated to you before, and those who were predominantly approved in the reports of the monastery, and especially to whom the defendants refer.
VIII. Pay attention to the request for additions made in the report of His Eminence of Nizhny Novgorod.
IX. The alleged relationship of Abbess Ushakova with different persons can only be understood as suspicious relationships, but this is also incredible in relation to one person, and Ushakova is supposed to develop suspicious relationships: 1) with the Sarov builder, 2) with Hieromonk Jacob, 3) with the paramedic, 4) with the clerk, 5) with the village head, which is completely beyond the limits of probability; then, if possible, limit questions about this only to persons belonging to the two monasteries, and not further expand publicity, which is shameful for both monasteries, but probably based on slander.
X. However, the course of the matter will give you further indications for the legitimate discovery of the truth.
XI. since the investigation carried out by you is still ongoing about the correct or incorrect election of the abbess, and according to the report of the Right Reverend of Nizhny Novgorod, an investigation should be carried out about the misconduct of Elisaveta Ushakova and Euphemia Ilyina, and since the law forbids mixing two different matters in one case, then the last investigation should be carried out separately from the first, and depending on the need, take copies from the first to the last from the testimony or certificate.
XII. As by decree of the Holy Synod, dated August 2, No. 2497, His Eminence Nektariy was ordered to exactly fulfill the decree of the Holy Synod, dated June 29, on leaving the Diveyevo monastery under the control of the head of the community, Elisaveta Ushakova, and the investigation into Ushakova’s actions, which had begun by order of his Eminence, was stopped; then, upon receipt of this, you will immediately provide me with information whether this confirmatory decree of the Holy Synod has been fulfilled 112.
August 24. The images suggested by Metropolitan Philaret that should be placed on the internal doors of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior
Assumption of images on the internal doors of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior.
Entry of the Lord into Jerusalem.
1) King David holding in his hand a scroll with a drawing of the future Jerusalem temple.
2) King Solomon holding the Temple of Jerusalem on his hand, in a small form.
1) On the right side, an angel with a charter, writing the names of those reverently entering the church.
2) On the left side, an angel with the blunt end of a cane blots out the names of the irreverent in the church.
The youth Jesus in the Jerusalem temple, talking with bishops, scribes and elders.
1) Moses holding the ark of the covenant.
2) Aaron holding the tabernacle of meeting.
1) Holy Equal-to-the-Apostles King Constantine, with his banner, not linen, but depicting the cross and the name of Christ on a pole in one hand, and in the other with a scroll of the acts of the first ecumenical council.
2) Holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Queen Helen holding an image of the Jerusalem Church of the Holy Sepulcher.
Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary into the church.
1) Zerubbabel holding an image of the second temple in Jerusalem.
2) Nehemiah holding an image of Jerusalem, whose walls he restored.
1) Saint Nicholas, holding an image of the church on his hand.
2) Holy noble prince Alexander with an unfolded scroll in his hand, on which is written: “I worship the one God, I serve him.”
August 24. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Minister of Public Education, Count E.V. Putyatin 114 about the transfer of the professor of the Moscow Theological Academy V.D. Kudryavtsev 115 to the St. Petersburg University to the department of philosophy
Count E.V. Putyatin, in a letter dated August 9, 1861, asked Metropolitan Philaret to express his consent to the dismissal of the professor of the Moscow Academy, Mr. Kudryavtsev, to occupy the philosophy department at St. Petersburg University, since in the ministry entrusted to him he did not see a trustworthy person for this person, and Mr. Kudryavtsev in his response stated that, although he had no incentive to leave the service under Academy, as he owes everything to it, but in any case will follow the will of Metropolitan Philaret.
Your Excellency’s venerable letter, dated the 9th day of this August, concerning Professor Kudryavtsev, has placed me in great difficulty.
I cannot help but give complete justice to your concern that a sound philosophy be taught at St. Petersburg University, and therefore naturally in agreement with Christian truth.
It is comforting to me to see that your attention is drawn to Professor Kudryavtsev with trust and hope.
I would not like to become an obstacle to the fulfillment of your beneficial intentions.
But I also have the responsibility to ensure that in the theological academy the teaching of philosophy is taught not only sound and pure, but also with sufficient strength and influence on the mind, which requires a professor who is not only capable, but also experienced.
Theological schools are constantly experiencing difficulty from the fact that mentors, of necessity, often change, moving to another service. It is all the more necessary to retain the few mentors who remain in the academic service longer than others, and especially in the department of philosophy, which tolerates newcomers less than others.
The Moscow Theological Academy now does not have a mentor sufficiently prepared to satisfactorily take the place of Professor Kudryavtsev.
Therefore, I would not have fulfilled my duty if I had not decided to humbly ask you, dear sir, not to weaken the philosophical department at the Moscow Theological Academy by taking Professor Kudryavtsev from it.
I hope that I am not saying this against his wishes. With gratitude to him, I must mention that he had previously rejected the invitation made to him to take a chair at Moscow University, despite the benefits of this move.
How meager are the resources of the theological academy in comparison with the methods of the university. It is difficult to work out what is needed in it. It's easy to weaken it. And weakening it is not useful for the Ministry of Education either. She provides teachers of the law to higher and secondary schools; and these teachers of the law, at the present time, have a need for significant philosophical education, because false philosophy is not silent in the pulpits, in the press, and in society.
As for your Excellency’s intention to give the university a second teacher of the law, I will not fail, on my part, to prepare, if possible, for the fulfillment of this idea when the time comes for that.
September 13. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.II. Tolstoy, with the transmission of a note with an opinion on corporal punishment from a Christian point of view
Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, in relation to Metropolitan Philaret, dated August 5, 1861, No. 4452, wrote: “I have the honor to forward to your Eminence, in the lists, the attitude towards me of the chief manager of the II department of His Imperial Majesty’s own chancellery 117, a note from Prince N.A. Orlov 118 on the abolition of corporal punishment and a journal committee established to consider the draft military regulations on punishments.
The essence of the issue of abolishing or retaining corporal punishment does not concern the ecclesiastical department. But since the proposed measures are based on considerations allegedly drawn from Christian teaching, it is very important to consider with rigor these considerations, submitted for the highest consideration, in order to discuss whether they agree with the teaching of the Orthodox Church and whether they contain any arbitrary conclusions. Namely, Prince Orlov’s note contains discussions about the protection of the human person by “hierarchs of all faiths,” about Christian equality, etc. Therefore, I have the honor to turn to you, dear sir and archpastor, with the most humble request to tell me your opinion on this matter.
To this I make it my duty to add that it seems difficult to agree with the idea that in order to prevent the ultimate corruption of national morality and to ensure order in the state, it is necessary to abolish corporal punishment; as if they weaken the power of military discipline, undermining the living connection between officers and lower ranks and instilling in them feelings of mutual disrespect and dislike. As for the words of Prince Orlov that we are not far from the time when corporal punishment will lead to open resistance or suicide, and that this is a terrible but inevitable extreme, then they express an accusation against the Russian people, the injustice of which has been sufficiently proven by history.”
To this attitude, Metropolitan Philaret, on September 13 of the same 1861, answered Count Tolstoy as follows:
Your Excellency, having forwarded to me, dated August 5, 1861, No. 4452, a list with the attitude of the Chief Administrator of the II Department of His Imperial Majesty’s own Chancellery, a note from Prince Orlov and the journal of the committee on corporal punishment (with this being returned), they demanded my opinion whether some of the considerations in the said note and journal, gleaned as if, agree with the teachings of the Orthodox Church would be from Christian teaching.
Please see the consideration of this subject in the note forwarded with this: on corporal punishment from a Christian point of view.
At the same time there is a note written in Metropolitan Philaret’s own hand, and entitled: “Journal of the Committee on Punishments on April 19, May 6 and May 25, 1861”, with the following content:
Corporal punishment constitutes such an evil in the state that it leaves the most harmful consequences among the people, acting destructively on popular morality and inciting the mass of the population against the established authorities, that corporal punishment can be tolerated in the state only in the most necessary cases.
It is necessary to take care of adopting a different system of punishment to ensure peace and public order in the state.
From the reviews of the chief governors of the provinces
When punishing women, it even happened that persons who were completely unfamiliar with the criminals came to the zemstvo court to ask them to marry, thereby intending to spare them from punishment by the committee's lashes. These punishments do not correspond either to the dignity of a person, or to the spirit of the times, or to the successes of criminal legislation: for they harden morals, destroy any sense of honor in the person being punished, and if they do not eliminate them altogether, then at least make it difficult for them to morally correct them.
Sent to hard labor and settlement:
i.e. less than ten percent.
Withdrawal in favor of females.
The crimes of women are for the most part committed not out of self-interest or inveterateness in vices, but due to the prevailing impressionability and sensuality in their nature.
Prince Orlov replaces correctional punishments with rods, and in all cases with monetary penalties.
About corporal punishment, from a Christian point of view
I. The concern for the establishment of such a system of punishments, which would be aimed at the goal of correcting the guilty, and counteracting attempts to commit misdeeds and crimes, and which would at the same time soften justice with meekness, touching the limits of the spiritual department, gave rise to the question: what could be the correct view of corporal punishment on the part of Christianity?
II. When considering this issue, first of all it must be borne in mind that Christ the Savior created the church, and not the state. By the power of the internal law of grace, He improves the internal and external life of people. The state tries, by the force of external law, to put in order and protect in order the private life of a person and the public life of the state.
III. And therefore the state cannot always follow the high rules of Christianity, but has its own rules, without thereby becoming unworthy of Christianity. For example, Christianity says: whoever wants to sue you and (through untruth in court) take your robe, let him have the swearing as well (Matthew 5:40). But the state cannot say to the robbed: give back to the robber what has not yet been taken from you. With such a rule, a state in which there are both good and evil could not stand. It is necessary to say to the robbed: go to court; according to the court, the robber (cunning or arrogant) must return what was taken, and be exposed and punished.
IV. Here is the saying of Christ the Savior regarding the punishments defined in the Law of Moses: Hear as it was said: an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. I tell you not to resist evil (Matthew 5:38, 39). That is, according to the Law of Moses, one who gouges out another’s eye should be punished by gouging out an eye, and one who knocks out a tooth by knocking out a tooth, but do not resist the one who does you evil, do not repay insult for insult, endure generously, leave vengeance to God. And here again is a rule that state legislation cannot follow. The Savior is not correcting the criminal code, not talking about changing the type and degree of punishment; He teaches the spiritual law: to endure and not seek punishment for an offense.
V. So, the question: about the use or non-use of corporal punishment in the state stands apart from Christianity. If the state can refuse this kind of punishment, finding milder forms of it sufficient, Christianity will approve of this meekness. If the state finds it inevitable, in some cases, to use corporal punishment: Christianity will not condemn this severity, as long as the punishment is fair and not excessive.
VI. Some believe that corporal punishment has a destructive effect on popular morality. It is impossible to think that the Lord God through Moses legitimized corporal punishment for the guilty: let them inflict on him fourty wounds (Deut. 25:3) so that this would have a destructive effect on the morality of the Jewish people.
VII. It is believed that corporal punishment destroys any sense of honor in the punished. There are many things that prevent us from being convinced of the strength of this objection to corporal punishment.
The criminal killed his sense of honor when he decided to commit a crime. It is too late to spare this feeling in him during punishment.
Is the imprisonment of a guilty person less striking in his sense of honor than corporal punishment? Is it possible to recognize as correct such a judgment that a guilty person leaves from under the rod with dishonor, and from prison with honor?
If any consciousness suppresses the guilty person, causes him to lose spirit, and thereby prevents him from rising to correction, then this is the consciousness of the crime committed, and not the punishment suffered. Those who have the opportunity to deal with the conscience of such people sometimes notice that they feel inner relief, having suffered a humiliating punishment, and by this satisfaction with justice they are strengthened in the hope of heavenly forgiveness, and are encouraged to reform. Previously, when corporal punishment was more severe, those who came to Siberia, with fear, met with people who had a mark on their forehead and no nostrils; but the people there assured that these were honest people and worthy of complete trust. Apparently, corporal punishment did not prevent them from rising from the abyss of crime to perfect honesty. It is not known whether this is the case now: perhaps those who were not punished set an example for those who were punished, not the same as before.
But let the word return to the Christian point of view. The apostles, having suffered innocent corporal punishment from the Sanhedrin, went away rejoicing on behalf of the council, as if for the name of the Lord Jesus they had been deemed worthy to receive dishonor (Acts 5:41).
The Apostle Paul writes to the Corinthians: he was beaten with clubs (2 Cor. 11:25), not thinking that by doing so he was humiliating himself before them. So, according to Christian judgment, corporal punishment in itself is not dishonorable, but only crime is dishonorable.
VIII. Some would believe that corporal punishment should be completely abolished and replaced with imprisonment. For this, with a crowded city, it would be necessary to build and maintain almost a prison city. This would require enormous costs, one-time and ongoing. From what amounts? From government revenues. Where does government revenue come from? From taxes on the people. So, in order to alleviate the real or imaginary burden of the guilty, it is necessary to place a new burden on the innocent. In this case, both Christian and simply human mercy can say: it is good to have mercy on the guilty, but it is even more necessary not to burden the innocent.
IX. The following statement is indicated in the direction against corporal punishment: “the saints of all faiths have constantly defended the personality of the being created in the image and likeness of God.”
Many witnesses are listed: it is a pity that not a single one is named, and although about some it is not shown what exactly they say. Even non-existent ones are listed. What we call saints is not recognized in some confessions and does not exist.
From the fact that the saints defend the personality of a being created in the image and likeness of God, no conclusion can be drawn against corporal punishment. Protecting the identity of a being created in the image of God is not protecting the identity of a criminal.
And what does it mean to protect a person’s identity? Doesn't that mean making it inviolable? But if it is possible to make the personality of a guilty person inviolable from the rod, is it possible to make the personality of every guilty person inviolable from shackles?
Inspired writers defend the person created in the image of God not from corporal punishment, but from vice and its consequences. You will beat him with a rod, but you will deliver his soul from death (Proverbs 23:14).
X. There are thoughts that sparkle with moral beauty so that in them, like in the sun, one cannot suddenly discern a dark spot, although there is one. This is the following saying: “the law of mercy and meekness unconditionally condemns all violence and torture.” Wonderful. However, if you look carefully, then in this brilliant saying there will be some stain, that is, something untrue. All violence cannot be condemned unconditionally. If someone is raging indomitably, then it is necessary to use force to bind him. If you need to catch and detain a criminal, thief, robber; he, of course, will not allow this to happen voluntarily, but violence must be used to seize and shackle him.
Thus, a brilliant idea, but not strictly correct, does not promise reliable conclusions in relation to the issue of punishments.
XI. It is heard that recently in England they were considering the issue of abolishing corporal punishment in military ranks, and that the military leaders there voted to preserve it, without fear of destroying the sense of honor in soldiers, which is especially important for them, and even admitted that without this it would be difficult for them to maintain discipline in the lower military ranks.
But the word already goes beyond the limits of the proposed question. Time to be silent.
September 11, 1861 No. 12 120.
September 16. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod on the matter of electing a superior to the Diveyevo monastery
By a decree of the Holy Synod, dated June 24, the Right Reverend Nektariy 121, Bishop of Nizhny Novgorod, was ordered to leave the Diveyevo monastery under the control of Elizabeth, who was in charge of the Diveyevo community. This has not been fulfilled.
By decree of the Holy Synod, dated August 2, it was confirmed to fulfill this. And this confirmatory decree of the Holy Synod remains unfulfilled, as can be seen from the official information delivered to me by the producers of the investigation appointed by the Holy Synod, Archimandrite Yakov and Court Counselor Barkov, dated 6 days of this September (No. 4), attached hereto in the original.
Respecting the legitimacy and dignity of the Holy Synod, fearing difficulties for investigators, the confusion of the investigation and the effect of a harmful example, I cannot help but report the above to the Holy Synod.
No. 97. September 16, 1861 122
Attached to this is a report from investigators with the following content:
In fulfillment of the XII point of the secret order of your Eminence, dated August 23, No. 89, addressed to the first of us, which we received on September 5, at seven o’clock in the evening, we have the duty to humbly inform your Eminence that the confirmatory decree of the Holy Synod to the Most Reverend Nektariy of Nizhny Novgorod, dated August 2, No. 2497, on leaving the Diveyevo monastery under the control of the head of the community Elisaveta Ushakova, has not yet been executed until September 6th.
September 16. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod on the matter of electing a superior to the Diveyevo monastery
The Simbirsk council judge, Mr. Motovilov, addressed me with a letter, dated September 4, stating that Mrs. Shubina and Kopyeva, having registered the new sisters of the Diveyevo monastery with threats and reprimands, were drawn into forced and violent subscription to the forcibly installed new boss, Lukerya, etc.
Taking into account that
Having taken into account that, based on Motovilov’s note, the Holy Synod began a case and ordered an investigation on the election of the abbess of the Diveyevo monastery, I am obliged to present Mr. Motovilov’s letter to the Holy Synod in the original.
No. 98. September 16, 1861 123.
September 19. Note from Metropolitan Philaret on the consecration of the Orthodox Church in Paris
I return the unkind friend and the letter.
How painful it is that the most pious soul should be so cruelly touched! – Only sincere piety believes sincere piety. The insincere suspects insincerity everywhere.
That anyone would think of making the archpriest of a church in Paris not a diocesan bishop, but a parish bishop, is incredible. And to make bishops of this kind for the dioceses, we hear people dream about it, but not those on whom an unkind friend places suspicion.
It is worth paying attention to the article about the Bulgarian movement.
They say that they wanted to send Juvenal 125 to the east, where Zephaniah 124 is now being sent. That wouldn't be bad. And it’s a pity that he did not agree to make this sacrifice to the Lord.
September 21. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Count E.V. Putyatin regarding the count’s request to warn Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich about the extremely dangerous current situation for the state and the Imperial family
Count E.V. Putyatin 127 in a “very secret” letter dated October 12, 1861, to Metropolitan Philaret wrote that “since the departure of the Sovereign Emperor from St. Petersburg,” it “constantly became more restless,” and that the goal of “criminal actions was aimed at overthrowing the existing order and even, apparently, dynasties.”
To confirm his thoughts, Count Putyatin forwarded “certain papers” to the Metropolitan, after reading which he asked him to return them to him “with the same person” from whom he received them. These circumstances and loyal feelings prompted the count to ask the metropolitan “to express what he recognizes as the best way to inform His Majesty that the current state of affairs is extremely dangerous for the state and the Imperial power and to convince Him that under the current circumstances greater firmness and strong measures are needed.”
To this the Metropolitan replied:
May the Lord bless your zeal for the good of the Tsar and the Fatherland.
May the Lord instruct and strengthen you in a field filled with difficulties that are prepared before you, but against which you are destined to withstand the struggle. They could have been foreseen: and it turned out to be possible to eliminate them, or prevent them from opening so much.
You want to arouse my jealousy. Maybe I need this. But for my jealousy there is a circle outlined by my calling. This circle is a church, or, to judge more strictly, a diocese. If my action within the limits of my duties turns out to be unsatisfactory, I can alleviate my grief a lot by acting according to a necessary duty, with reasonable understanding.
But if I arbitrarily step beyond the boundaries of my duties, and the consequences turn out to be undesirable, I will have a deep reproach in my conscience that I did not act for good, and that through my arbitrary guilt I opened the way for myself to what was not useful.
I thought a lot about what was communicated to me: I grieved a lot and was perplexed a lot.
What is required now? Arouse attention to danger? Arouse attention to the need for prudent and firm measures?
But in the printed and written appeals I have read, the danger is so clearly visible that it hurts my eyes; she speaks about herself in such a loud and threatening voice that it is impossible to imagine that it does not arouse attention.
My hand does not rise to rewrite much of what I have read. Let me point out one example.
The Great Russian wants to separate from Russia not only Poland, but also Southern Rus', and, according to the theory on which this is based, of course, much more. Is it possible not to see that they want to destroy Russia?
Remember that in the report of the investigative commission on the incident of December 14, it was mentioned that they wanted to divide Russia into seven republics. This leads to the conclusion that the Great Russian did not express the fleeting dream of one or a few heads; but that the diligent underground work of destruction is coming out.
Therefore, it cannot be thought that attention will not be drawn to the need for prudent and firm measures.
I not only have no vocation, but also no opportunity to discuss these measures. This does not require proof.
I note and have a duty to point out to myself, and to whomever I can, that we have sinned greatly before God by cooling off towards Orthodox piety, in which especially harmful examples are set from the higher and educated classes, by weakening moral principles in private and public life, in government, in court, in the field of science and literature, luxury and even in poverty, - addiction to sensual pleasures that weaken spiritual powers, - imitation of foreign things, greater partly vain and unrelated, which damages the character of the people and the unity of the national spirit - the pursuit of private and personal benefit primarily before the general one. Sins that have multiplied attract punishment, according to what was said: your apostasy will punish you (Jer. 2:19). Remedies against this: active repentance, prayer and correction. The shortcomings of the guardians turn into weapons of the destroyers.
The virtues of the guardians wrest weapons from the hands of critics and troublemakers. This is not a time for inactivity, lest jealousy be aroused; let division and particular species be silent; May all the faithful and well-intentioned, in the power of unity, perform a strong feat under a common banner: faith, the Tsar and Russia.
This is what I must say and say, as far as I can, to those who have ears to hear.
September 27. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with letters to the King of Greece and his dignitaries enclosed
Bear my burden, accept labor for me.
A letter to his minister in response to his letter, and to present a letter to the king.
A letter to the Greek envoy, which I ask him to forward the first two.
All of them are open so that you can see the content and judge whether I have sinned in any way in this unusual relationship, and whether it is necessary to attach a translation of the letter to the Tsar, in French. If you find this last thing necessary, then I humbly ask you to order this to be done.
Finally, I am sending a letter to our envoy in Greece, sealed, because there is no particular concern about its contents.
Please forward all this to the Greek envoy in St. Petersburg.
Sorry to burden you.
Invoking God's blessing upon you, I have the honor to remain with perfect respect and devotion, Your Excellency, most gracious sir, most humble servant,
No. 385. September 27, 1861
The form of the letter to the Greek minister corresponds to the form of his letter to me.
I. Letter to the King of Greece
Most Gracious Sovereign.
It was a great surprise for me that Your Majesty, far beyond the borders of your kingdom, sought me out with the gaze of your favor, and deigned to rank me among the Order of the Savior.
Not being able to attribute this to my merits, I explain this by saying that Your Majesty deigns to support and respect the ancient union of the Greek and Russian peoples, founded by Christianity and, despite the continuation and vicissitudes of times, preserved in mutual sympathy.
I can express my deepest gratitude to your Majesty in no other way than with a humble prayer, that Christ, the Savior of souls and kingdoms, in whose hands the hearts of kings, preserves you under His holy protection; May it strengthen and expand your kingdom, and may your heart always dispose to promote the active union of the Russian and Greek peoples and the good of all Orthodox Eastern Christianity.
All-merciful Sovereign! Your Majesty's humble servant,
II. Letter to the Minister of the King of Greece.
I had the high honor of receiving the highest letter of His Majesty the King of Greece and with it the insignia of the Order of the Savior, forwarded to me in the presence of Your Excellency.
Having taken the liberty to offer my deepest gratitude to His Majesty through my humble letter, I humbly ask you to present it to His Majesty.
Sincerely honoring the hereditary spiritual kinship of the Russian Orthodox Church and people with the Greek Orthodox Church and people, I apply this same feeling to the visible sign by which I am now in some way connected with the Greek people.
Accept, favorable mediator of the royal favor towards me, my most grateful gratitude, and at the same time confirmation of my complete respect.
III. Letter to the Greek envoy in St. Petersburg.
The favorable disposition with which your Excellency accepted the trouble of personally visiting me in order to announce to me the favor of His Majesty the King of Greece towards me, obliges me to express the most grateful gratitude to you, and at the same time gives me the freedom to turn to your benevolent medium.
To His Majesty the King of Greece I took the liberty to express my gratitude in the most humble letter.
In a letter to the Minister of the Greek Royal Court and Foreign Affairs, I respond to his letter and ask that my letter be presented to His Majesty.
I humbly ask you to forward both as appropriate, along with this.
Lord, save the Greek king, the Greek Orthodox Church and the Greek people!
Invoking God's blessing to you, with perfect respect I have the honor to be, Your Excellency, most humble servant,
September 21. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod on the matter of electing a superior to the Diveyevo monastery
From the investigators appointed by the Holy Synod in the case of the Diveyevo monastery, I have, dated September 19, new information that the third confirmatory decree of the Holy Synod, dated August 23, on leaving Elisaveta Ushakova as the head of this monastery, was not carried out. The monastery is managed by the appointed abbess Glyceria and, in her spirit, the newly elected treasurer and dean. Those called as witnesses for the sake of questioning “out of fear may “show, betraying the truth, just as before their arrival at the monastery, some of the elders and sisters “signed on the prepared register, worn in honor of the legality and dignity of the Holy Synod, with the obvious danger that the matter will be confused by incorrect testimony, due to the predominant influence of the illegal boss, I cannot help but report this to the Holy Synod.
No. 101. September 29, 1861 130
September 29. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, about the failure of the Nizhny Novgorod Nizhny Novgorod Nektariy to comply with the decree of the Holy Synod
Your Most Serene Count, my dear sir.
In the well-known case of the Diveyevo monastery, the third decree of His Holiness Sunod remains unfulfilled. I have this information from September 19, that is, 27 days after the decree was issued. It was time to execute. Obviously they don't want to. I have never heard such sharp opposition to the Holy Synod.
I report to the Holy Synod about the failure to fulfill the three-fold injunction. Please also pay attention to the preservation of the dignity of the Holy Synod, and to the maintenance of discipline in church administration, at a time when disobedience is spreading and intensifying everywhere. The Lord said: If there is darkness in you, if there is light, then there is more darkness. If obedience is destroyed in the spiritual department, it will be worse than in the secular.
Through the prayers of Father Seraphim, may the Lord inspire useful things for the Holy Synod, for you, and for His Grace Nektarios.
In Lavra. September 29, 1861 131
September 30. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Prince S.N. Urusov about the book: “Dogmatic presentation of the teachings of the Anglican Church”, distributed by English missionaries in Moldova
Prince S.N. Urusov, in a letter to Metropolitan Philaret, dated August 21, 1861, No. 4762, wrote: “Our consul in Galati 132 presented to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs “A Dogmatic Exposition of the Teachings of the Anglican Church,” in Greek, which, as the consul explained, among other books of this kind are distributed to Moldovan priests by English missionaries; but such Protestant propaganda, in his opinion, cannot have any success in Moldova.
Conveying this book to your Eminence, I have the honor to address you, dear sir and archpastor, with the most humble request, would you please consider it necessary to instruct the Moscow Theological Academy to look through this book and extract from it a brief summary indicating those places that are especially hostile to Orthodox teaching, and honor the subsequent with a notification.”
In response to this letter, Metropolitan Filaret wrote the following to Prince S. N. Urusov:
In accordance with your Excellency’s request, dated August 21 (No. 4762), a dogmatic presentation of the teachings of the Anglican Church, in Greek, I instructed the Moscow Theological Academy to review and extract from it a brief summary, indicating those places that are particularly hostile to Orthodox teaching.
The academic board, on September 29, presented me with an analysis of the said book, made by bachelor Saburov 133 .
The academic board agrees with the final conclusion of Bachelor Saburov.
The Anglican bishop fumbles with the truth, counting on the ignorance of the Greeks. For example, he reasons with himself like this: if we say that we reject the Seventh Ecumenical Council and the veneration of icons, then the Greeks will immediately reject the book and us. So, let’s say that we accept the four ecumenical councils and others who agree with them: in this case, the Greeks may think that we accept all their councils, and may be caught in this trick. Thus, this book does not prove Anglican dogmas, but only the cunning of the writer.
The analysis of the book and the book itself, with complete respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, your Excellency, most humble sir, your most humble servant,
No. 391. September 30 days, 1861 134
October 3. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, on the establishment of a convent at the Moscow Edinoverie cemetery
A zealot of Edinoverie, Vladimir Andreevich Sapelkin, goes to St. Petersburg to petition for the approval of a women's Edinoverie monastery at the Moscow Edinoverie cemetery, which I submitted to the Holy Synod. Deign to be favorable to the intercessor and to the cause. The schismatics attract Orthodox Christians to their cemeteries and seduce them into schism: will God help the Edinoverie monastery to attract schismatics and join them to the Orthodox Church.
In order to firmly establish and form a new monastery, an experienced and trustworthy abbess is needed. This is what Mr. Sapelkin points out in the Edinoverie monastery of the Chernigov diocese. She seems to agree to work for the new monastery; but the diocesan bishop does not want to let her go. From the sisters of an already established monastery, one can choose one who would maintain the order already established. It is necessary to build again with more knowledge and strength. Please also pay careful attention to this.
Invoking God's blessing to you, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, your Excellency, most humble sir, most humble servant,
In Moscow. October 3, 1861 135 .
The highest order for the establishment of a women's Edinoverie monastery at the All Saints Church, at the Edinoverie cemetery in Moscow, took place on January 27, 1862.
October 12. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to K.V. Chevkin 136 on the matter of heating the Assumption Cathedral by Captain Bykov 137
Your Excellency, dear sir.
From the case being carried out in the Moscow Holy Synod office regarding the heating of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, the following is revealed: 1) during the formal examination of the heating device of the cathedral that took place on February 16 and 20, 1859, through the members of the commission appointed for this purpose, for the construction of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow with other persons, engineer-captain Bykov, who carried out the heating device, presented to him in a memorandum, explaining the reasons why until that time much more than the amount of firewood designated by the contract, 80 fathoms, had been used for heating the cathedral, he asked that he be allowed to heat the cathedral during the next two winters, with payment from the cathedral for 80 fathoms of the best birch firewood, 11 vershoks long at modern reference prices, which Mr. Bykov proposed testimony and then the entire presence of the commission was recognized as useful, so that everyone would receive full confidence that with the stoves built by Mr. Bykov, more than 80 fathoms of the indicated firewood are not required for heating the cathedral during all cold times, and Mr.
Bykov was tasked with maintaining the temperature in the cathedral at least 11 degrees Celsius and taking upon himself to carry out heating repairs during those two years, to which he announced his consent. 2) But two years of experience have shown that the condition of the contract regarding the amount of firewood required for heating the cathedral is far from being fulfilled, because in the first year much more than 200 fathoms were used for this, and in the second year, according to an accurate inquiry, 293 fathoms of birch firewood were used, but not of the best quality, and this quantity is higher than the quantity required for Amosov stoves, as calculated in the inspection report heating devices, for it was concluded there that with the Amosov stoves it would have been necessary to heat the cathedral during the entire cold season of the year, 240 square fathoms, that is, 53 fathoms less than the amount used by Mr. Bykov in the last winter. 3) Despite all this, the temperature in the cathedral rarely reached the level that Mr. undertook to maintain.
Bykov, for in the first winter it was usually from 7 to 9 degrees, when there was no crowd of people, and in the second sometimes 8, most of the time 9 and 10 degrees, and very rarely rose to 11, but in this last winter for the cathedral itself and even for the sacristy, where there was only one degree less warmth compared to the cathedral it was considered satisfactory, it was not entirely sufficient only in two chapels located in the sections of the altar: here it was constantly lower than the temperature of the cathedral and the middle section of the altar, because the heat-conducting pipes carried from the furnaces to the sections of the altar did not provide heat, and the altar was only heated by an exhaust pipe that attracted heat from the cathedral into the altar. G. Bykov, to bring these pipes into proper operation, intended to build a transverse iron wall in the warm corridor near the furnaces, but this remains unfulfilled to this day. 4) All three furnaces built by Mr. Bykov for heating the cathedral in the past 1860 turned out to be damaged due to the weakness of the foundation, and two of them in October and November of that year, Mr.
Bykov, were shifted, but the third, due to the frost that set in at that time, remained not shifted, however, last winter it could still be heated, but now, due to its disrepair, it can no longer be heated. 5) G. Bykov, in accordance with the accepted obligation to carry out heating repairs within two years, he himself recognized himself obliged, by the winter of this 1861, to both re-lay the said third furnace, and build the iron wall mentioned in paragraph 3 and also properly seal the hole located in the exhaust pipe when it came out of the ground at the synodal house, which was only temporarily closed with an iron leaf and covered with earth. 6) Therefore, the office of the Holy Synod, in May of this 1861, at the urgent request of Mr. Bykov, having ordered the payment of the last money due to him for the two-year heating of the cathedral, instructed the protopresbyter of the cathedral to ask Mr.
Bykov, so that he, without missing summer time, would carry out the above-mentioned corrections on the heating system; also ask for information about why the condition of the contract concluded with him regarding the amount of firewood has not yet been fulfilled and whether it is possible to hope that in the future, although in average winters, with the agreed amount of firewood, the agreed amount will be sufficient; and how the furnaces for heating the cathedral were built by Mr. Bykov according to a method invented by himself and unknown to anyone else, and the combustion of these until now was carried out under his direct supervision; then, on the occasion of his Mr. Bykov’s obligation to heat the cathedral now ending, ask him also that detailed instructions regarding heating be given to them in the future guidance and also that in case of misunderstandings or damage in the heating device that may occur, it is allowed to contact him to receive the necessary instructions. 7) Now the protopresbyter of the cathedral will report that Mr.
Bykov last summer went to St. Petersburg, where he remains to this day, and despite his protopresbyter’s repeated requests, both verbal, through his son, Mr. Bykov, and written, he does not give any answer, nor does he make any orders for the said corrections; Meanwhile, the time has come to heat the cathedral, and although it can be heated using two stoves moved last year, these two stoves cannot heat up enough in severe frosts, and a transverse wall in the corridor near the stoves is necessary to save heat in the cathedral, because without it the heat-conducting pipes in the altar remain inactive and to heat the altar the exhaust pipe must always be open, and it, attracting heat from the cathedral into the altar and carrying it outside.
Why should the protopresbyter ask the office of the Holy Synod to take measures on its part, both to eliminate the current difficulty in heating the cathedral, and to prevent similar difficulties in the future, which, judging by present experience, will be inevitable if, besides Mr. Bykov, no one else can be contacted to receive the necessary instructions in the event of possible damage to the heating device. 8) In the past 1859, about encouraging Mr. Bykov to speedily complete some of the heating installation work that was then unfinished until the fall and to carry out repairs that were then necessary, the office of the Holy Synod entered into communication with the commission for the construction of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow, but the commission, dated October 8 of that year, for No. 711, responded that the heating installation of the cathedral was entrusted to the city.
Bykov with the highest permission, according to the representation of your Excellency, and the commission was entrusted with one paper work on the installation of heating, after the completion of which it cannot enter into any further orders on this subject. Finally, 9) it is clear from the case that at the beginning of work on heating the cathedral, the preservation of the main altar of the cathedral inviolable from work carried out in it was presented to the Holy Synod, and the Synod, through Mr. Chief Prosecutor, transferred this matter for consideration by Your Excellency.
The Office of the Holy Synod, having taken into account the above-mentioned circumstances of the case, although it recognized that the current difficulty in heating the Assumption Cathedral should have been presented to the Holy Synod, to which the cathedral is directly subordinated, for the superior discretion and taking appropriate measures to eliminate this difficulty; but since the corrections necessary for the unhindered heating of the cathedral, due to the proximity of winter time, require immediate implementation, in order to give this matter the fastest possible movement, I left it to you to contact your Excellency directly and ask you to find and indicate ways to both carry out at the present time what is needed for the unhindered and more successful heating of the cathedral, and to prevent future heating problems that may arise Council of difficulties, and also in order to be pleased to draw attention to the need to receive what is required by the office of the Holy Synod from the city.
Bykov information regarding the amount of firewood and instructions regarding the production of heating.
With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency, dear sir, most humble servant,
No. 1052. October 12, 1861 138
October 16. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with an appended opinion: “about a case in the Greek class of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy
Conference of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, relation, dated October 7, 1861, No. 201, addressed to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, reported that on the 27th of September there were only four people in the Greek language class from the higher department of the academy, despite the confirmation from the eminent rector of the academy to go to class, and on the 4th of October, despite the will of his eminence declared by him, with a warning that those who did not go to class would be dismissed from the academy, only twenty-three of them showed up.
Meanwhile, students of the Academy of the Upper Division, both those who did not come to the Greek language class on the indicated days, and those who came, with the exception of 13 people, presented explanations on this subject with handwritten signatures to the conference.
The conference, after considering the explanations of the students, found it necessary to ask the highest ecclesiastical authorities that in the event of persistent deviation from the order in the institution on the part of one or another of the students, the academic conference would be given the right, with the approval of His Eminence, to immediately dismiss them from the academy to the diocesan departments, or deprive them of government support and residence at the academy.
Of the 25 students who did not want to listen to Greek lectures, 5 students expressed a desire to be accepted into the academy according to the right granted to them.
From the case carried out in the spiritual and educational administration at the Holy Synod, it is clear that the issue of disobedience of students was forwarded to the Moscow Metropolitan Philaret.
In a letter to Count A.P. To Tolstoy, dated October 10, 1861, Metropolitan Philaret wrote:
About the incident in the Greek class of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, what was reported to me, I read and returned.
What are my thoughts on this matter, please see from the attached note.
About the incident in the Greek class of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy.
I. From the students’ explanations, much is revealed that requires attention.
II. They admit to neglecting this class. A trait conducive to lenient judgment.
III. They ask attention to the negligence of Bachelor Predtechensky 139, who read one copy of an unknown book with one student so that the others remained without participating in this lesson. This reduces the students' blame and blames the mentor.
IV. They blame the bachelor for recording those who were absent in the register, and they consider this measure suitable only for young children. They are very much to blame for this. This measure is legal. A journal has been started for this purpose.
V. It is incredible that other mentors did not have absences. But, apparently, they did not show this in the magazine, that is, they did not follow this rule, and allowed themselves to relax. In this case, part of the blame falls on them for the students, to whom the legal measure, which was not used for a long time due to negligence, seemed offensive and childish.
VI. Students complain that the bachelor in official measures is looking for a means to bring all students to classes. It is surprising that students consider the use of official measures a crime.
VII. Even though the students asked the rector for another mentor and did not receive satisfaction, this did not prevent them from going to class out of respect for order.
VIII. Students say that they found it impossible to go to Predtechensky’s class: the review was not based on anything.
IX. They say that they did not find any means to restore the moral connection with the bachelor. But this, in anticipation of better relations, did not prevent us from maintaining academic contact, that is, listening to his lectures.
X. They say that they found it impossible to go to class on October 4, by special order of His Eminence. The idea of impossibility is false. An act that seriously violates the duty of obedience.
XI. They say that they did not want to give up their moral dignity. On the contrary, by obedience they would demonstrate their moral dignity, and by disobedience they themselves would insult their moral dignity.
XII. They say: they didn’t think of resisting their superiors. On the contrary, they actually showed resistance when the authorities said: go to class, but they didn’t go.
XIII. The explanation was signed by 25 students. This is not in accordance with the law, and in this case, others are carried away by the force of others to do something that they would not have done according to their own free judgment. The truth would be better revealed if everyone were asked and said what they think.
XIV. It is a pity that the threat of expulsion was uttered. It was difficult for those on whom it fell and reduced the freedom of the authorities to provide leniency.
XV. In another explanation, sixteen students say that they were in class on October 4, obeying the will of His Eminence. This is legal and approved.
XVI. At the same time, they say that they share the conviction of those who were not in class on October 4, and therefore, they also share the conviction expressed by 25 students in their explanation that they did not find it possible to go to class on October 4. So they, at the same time, could not be in the class, and were in it. A remarkable example of how strange it is to bring the enslavement of one’s own mind to the spirit of complicity.
XVII. It’s good that out of 25 students, 19 received the leniency of their superiors. But it would be better for the present and the future if this were not to cancel the word previously spoken by the authorities. The free condescension of the authorities encourages good feelings; the concession does not have this effect.
XVIII. Observing what happened can provide the following tips:
1) Academic authorities must be vigilant to ensure that the established order is observed by both mentors and students, so that the habit of allowing violations of order does not make the order hateful.
2) Observe and instill that students, each on their own, directly, or through their elders, and not as a whole, turn to the authorities about what they find themselves dissatisfied with, which makes it difficult for both themselves and the authorities, because such a movement does not agree with the law.
3) The academic authorities should discover and correct the unsatisfactory actions of the mentor through their own observation or, when complaints begin, carefully investigate and take the necessary measures, preventing them from happening.
4) Correcting student misconduct and violation of order by appropriate gentle means, academic authorities must use special powers of supervision, admonition, and justice if any of the students turns out to not only allow themselves important deviations from order, but also increase their influence on others. Such a person, if he does not accept admonitions and gentle measures of correction, should be immediately and decisively removed from the academy, and this circumstance should be brought to the attention of the higher authorities.
5) Instill in both mentors and students that the dignity of the theological academy and its special purpose requires that internal order and good harmony between all its members be primarily observed; and that in the direction towards this goal, all mentors should assist their superiors, by their relationships with their superiors and by their influence on students in the classroom and outside the classroom.
October 24. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret, about the peasants of the Volokolamsk district, Moscow province, who have deviated into schism
In pursuance of the decree of the Holy Governing Synod, dated September 29, 1860, No. 4468, I most respectfully present here a note drawn up in the consistory from the case of deviation from Orthodoxy into schism from among the parishioners of the Volokolamsk district, Spasskaya, the village of Ivashkova, the church, the peasants of the villages: Kelich, Ostroga, Starago-Nesytova and Novago-Nesytov.
With this in mind, I submit to the attention of the Holy Governing Synod the following: 1) The testimony of the dean that the falling away of the peasants from Orthodoxy occurred due to the influence of the Rzhev schismatics and as a result of the widespread opinion about the government’s patronage of the schismatics deserves trust. The split in Rzhev is strong and the rich schismatics there support the splitters. 2) It is noteworthy that those who fell away admitted that they considered it best to separate from the Orthodox Church, because it is possible to go into schism and live like a schismatic now, by the grace of the Tsar, as they have heard enough. They do not talk about their convictions and the superiority of schismatic teachings, but go into schism because it turned out to be convenient, and (which they will not say clearly) because it is more convenient to live in schism. An Orthodox priest will not agree to solemnize a marriage if someone is underage, or if they are closely related, or if they are left by their husband without a legal divorce; will not agree to bury the deceased on the king’s day; or someone who died suddenly, without examination, etc.
For schismatic false priests these difficulties do not exist. 3) A strong temptation and reason for falling into schism is the fact that everyone knows where schismatic false bishops live and where they come, where false priests serve and even sometimes perform prayers and religious processions in the open air; they see peasants growing their hair, proving themselves to be priests - and all this is not subject to any responsibility.
No. 114. October 24, 1861 141
October 26. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with an opinion on the case of the riots in the Perm seminary
Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, in reference, dated October 21, 1861, No. 8398, forwarding to Metropolitan Philaret a report from the professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy V.N. Karpov about the consequences of the inquiry he carried out, on behalf of the Holy Synod, about the moral state of the Perm seminary, together with the case about the unrest in it, asked for a conclusion on this subject, with the return of these papers.
Metropolitan Philaret responded to this attitude on October 26, 1861:
By the letter dated the 21st day of this October (No. 8398), received by me on the 23rd, your Excellency requires my opinion on the report of Mr. Professor Karpov 142 on the moral state of the Perm seminary.
I read 26 pages of this report, which does not contain any documents on which it is based.
After considering the most important objects thereof, in view of the purpose of the inquiry carried out, the following is presented to your attention.
I. From the report comes the conviction that Rector Dorofey and Inspector Innokenty, speaking in the language of their track record, are incapable and unreliable. In important cases, their actions represent neither legality, nor prudence, nor justice. The report provides two types of evidence for this: firstly, the testimony of the students. Evidence of this kind is not beyond doubt, because it is unclear whether the disciples were truthful in giving such testimony, and the moral state of the seminary is such that it is difficult to distinguish the truthful from the wicked; Another type of evidence, excluding any doubt, lies in the very actions of the rector and the inspector, undoubtedly and partly officially investigated. For example, a student Kudryavtsev, accused by a secret informer of breaking glass, was expelled from the seminary without being heard out with a disapproving certificate of behavior, and four months later the rector found out the true culprits and Kudryavtsev, who had been expelled, returned to the seminary.
II. But despite the undoubted guilt of the leaders of the seminary, there is still a question: are they, in fact, and are they alone the cause of the moral disorder of the Perm seminary? The report answers this: “external influence on the Perm seminary was very harmful; however, it is not here that I see the main source of the unrest that has occurred in it, but in the internal influence.” It considers the system of espionage and the mistreatment of students by superiors to be the main cause of evil. There is truth in this opinion; but is there any inaccuracy? Wouldn’t it be more correct to say: the system of espionage and the mistreatment of students by superiors were very harmful for the Perm seminary; but the main source of evil must be sought in external influences.
The espionage system could be the reason for the formation in seminarians of a counteracting system of secrecy, cunning, complicity, and sneaking. But how could espionage bring the morality of students to such extreme and general damage that student Kuznetsov, who completed the course in the first category, and was consequently considered one of the best in behavior, became angry because he was not given the desired teaching position, got drunk and broke the windows in the student rooms? Is it possible to explain from the system of espionage what the seminarians received and copied: the message of the guard (?) Kondraty, the rebellious work of Iskander and Gavriliad, an extremely blasphemous poem? Is it possible to explain from the system of espionage that some students showed in their diaries gross disbelief in the revealed teachings of religion? That secret debauchery, as the report puts it, even received help and medicine, that this debauchery ceased even to be secret and was written about on corridor walls and, finally, lamp posts?
It was not in the seminary’s head that these thoughts were born: that the elders would be chosen by the students themselves by majority vote, that there would be no moral magazines, that there would be no punishments, under the threat of rebellion and the erasure of the leaders from the face of the earth. These are the seeds of democracy born in the seminary, which are being sown throughout Russia by the enemy, a sleeping man.
The report, objecting to the opinion of the seminary authorities about the source of the unrest in the influence of ill-intentioned persons and Ikonnikov’s libraries on the seminarians, says: “How many such people are there in the city? Is it only Shilovsky, Efimenko, Ikonnikov, Gotlevsky? They can be found on almost every street and in all cities of Russia. So what? Should the seminary be locked? One can answer this: what? Should we open the gates and let them preach ungodly and seditious doctrines in the seminary? There is no need to cut off students from society; however, the seminary’s charter orders that students be protected from harmful books, and also from the community of harmful people, as long as this is possible.
III. However, for one reason or another, the moral state of the Perm seminary is obviously upset. How can I fix this? In a note on June 29, when the ugly state had opened, it was suggested to your attention whether it was necessary to close it and compose it again, from materials that were, if possible, clean. This would, of course, be a grave measure that should be avoided if possible. Has not the Perm seminary already been purified by the separation of a few harmful members from it? No, says the person who carried out the inquiry: “to this day she hides the source of moral unrest, which can again spill over and outrage her with immoral phenomena.” From this it is impossible not to conclude that it would be necessary to study it in more detail, to open it with possible certainty, in order to cut off from it the members, especially those that are highly infected and infecting. But this was not done.
Shouldn't this be entrusted to the new rector? It would be better if this painful operation were performed before him, and he would come to complete the healing.
And if he begins his service in this unpleasant way, he may make an unfavorable impression on his students, who have learned to dislike their bosses.
I do not know whether the unreliable leaders have been removed or who has been put in their place; and therefore it is inconvenient for me to give a definite opinion on this part of the matter, as well as due to the lack of other information based on documents.
The following seems to be a possible remedy for clearing seminary stains in the present circumstances:
1) Take this part of the academic year as a time of testing the seminary in moral terms.
2) For the December test, form a committee of members of the seminary board and two persons from the senior diocesan clergy, at the discretion of the Right Reverend of Perm.
3) The committee will carefully carry out the test, take into account: the comments made about the students in previous cases, their behavior in the current months, paying special attention to the 50 students who signed the demand that they themselves choose their elders, and for this, students infected with harmful rules and vices will be assigned to expulsion from the seminary.
IV. Based on a complaint from students about the length of church services, the inquirer noted: why not shorten the services? It is incredible that the service in the seminary was excessively protracted: and no definite information has been taken about this. It is likely that only the fullness of services without omissions was introduced and the reading was not rushed so much that it could be intelligible. So, on this subject, there is no need to be carried away by the opinion of the authors of the significant letter, so as not to patronize incomprehensible hasty reading and singing and careless and truncated worship.
V. As a precaution against confusion during the investigation of the case, it is not superfluous to pay attention to the remarks of the person conducting the inquiry in his discussion about the investigative committee on the occasion of the anonymous letter: “why was it not required to confirm the students that the rector had ignoble treatment of them? The answer to this must be: because if we had taken evidence from the students, it would have required an acquittal from the rector, and thus an investigation would have taken place against the rector, to which the committee was not called. He was called upon to carry out an investigation into the authors of the anonymous letter.
The report of the person who carried out the inquiry and the case are returned.
November 16. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret on antimensions
A report to the Most Holy Governing Synod from its member Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow.
In ancient times, antimensions were made of linen fabric, in a small form, with an image of a cross and an inscription.
In the 17th century, they began to be built in a larger form, with the image of the position of the Lord in the tomb, also from linen fabric, and eventually from silk.
Antiminces on linen fabric were used without damage for 70 years or more.
Antimines on silk fabric, especially in modern times, due to decreased strength, become unusable after 25 years or less.
This makes it difficult to preserve holy relics when they are frequently transferred from the old antimension to the new one.
In the East, antimensions made of linen fabric are still used, and, moreover, according to the special reasoning that a Christian bloodless altar is more appropriate for fabric from the plant kingdom than from the animal kingdom, to which silk belongs.
It is my duty to bring this to the attention of the Holy Synod, whether it would be considered good to restore the use of antimensions made of pure linen fabric.
No. 458. November 16, 1861 144
November 16. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, about the illness of the rector of the Bethany Seminary, Archimandrite Porfiry
What I wrote to Vladyka Novgorod just now, I am writing to you.
Bethany rector Porfiry 145 returned from Samara with improved health, but as soon as he began his lessons and running the seminary, the bleeding from his throat resumed. They say that to save his life it is necessary to free him from the worries and labors of his real service. And his life is especially worthy of preservation, as a person who has a thorough education, both scientific and monastic. Being an abbot in Simon's monastery might have served as a remedy.
November 20. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret, celebrating the birthdays and namesakes of members of the imperial house on the coming Sunday
To the Holy Governing Synod, from its member, Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, a report.
The Russian Orthodox Church celebrates:
days of Holy Week - 3.
other feasts of the Lord - 8.
feasts of the Blessed Virgin Mary – 8.
Sovereign Heir Tsarevich – 2.
other members of the imperial house - 28.
The cathedral prayer service celebrates:
cavalier holidays – 3.
With the blessed multiplication of the imperial house, the number of royal days reached an extraordinary superiority to the number of previous times.
This leads to inconveniences:
1) Just as lesser royal days are not considered holidays for public places and for schools, clergy - members of the consistory, spiritual boards and mentors do not have the convenience of fulfilling these positions on these days, being busy with church holiday services and prayer singing.
2) Just as in royal days it is not allowed to bury the dead; then the burial day is delayed, which is difficult for closely packed families, especially in the summer.
3) Lesser royal days, when the people are busy with work, are not celebrated very nicely in deserted churches, except for cathedrals, where bishops’ services take place.
To avoid these difficulties, a special order turns out to be necessary, which could consist of the following:
I. The days of the Emperor and the Sovereign Heir Tsarevich continue to be celebrated with all the advantages assigned to them.
II. Celebrations of births and namesakes of other members of the imperial house should be held on the coming Sundays.
III. During these 28 days, do not forbid the burial of the dead.
IV. since the days of victories remembered in the church, such as the capture of Frigates, were significant only for their time, except for the day of victory at Poltava; then keep the prayer singing only on this day, and stop others.
It is my duty to submit this to the consideration of the Holy Synod.
No. 467. November 20, 1861
As a result of the report of Metropolitan Philaret, a circular decree of the Holy Synod was issued on March 29, 1862, “on the celebration of birthdays and namesakes of members of the imperial house, except for the days of the Imperial House itself and the Sovereign Heir Tsarevich, on the coming Sundays, and so on.” 147.
November 24. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the economic affairs of the Tomsk seminary
About the economic affairs of the Tomsk seminary
I. Rector of the seminary 148 more than 1600 rub. He spent church money without proper recording, unaccountably, for the most part, without clearing the expenditure with receipts. The inspector of the seminary 149 spent from 5,000 to 7,000 rubles in the same way. pensioner money. The Most Reverend Porfiry 150 investigated this matter. The matter is not very good in itself; but the parties who were at odds with each other made it even worse.
II. On April 20, 1861, during Holy Week, the Right Reverend made a proposal to the seminary board that the rector and inspector should contribute church and pension money with documents to the seminary board, and ordered that this proposal be heard on the same day, and tomorrow no later than 12 o’clock a judgment on this should be presented to him, and at 5 o’clock the housekeeper and the secretary should report whether the proposal will be fulfilled. The order is restless and offensive to those responsible. The Eminence seemed to be trying to catch thieves and hurry so that they wouldn’t leave.
III. The seminary board in its explanation says that in some cases it is completely impossible for the board itself to maintain savings on apartments in an official manner. This is not true. All seminaries have student and (all the same) pension money, for which records and reports are kept officially by the seminary board. And the seminary board itself immediately refutes itself, saying that it expressed full consent to such conduct of the matter. To this, the inspector inopportunely adds that this was done in the hope of maintaining peace with the diocesan bishop. The diocesan bishop and the seminary board are not two independent states between which there can be peace and war.
IV. The Eminence appoints an investigative commission over the actions of the rector and inspector, and immediately authorizes it to question the students. Respecting the dignity of the defendants, he could have ordered a secret investigation, limiting it to questioning members of the seminary board and examining documents. Maybe this would be enough for the job; and those in command at the seminary would be protected from unpleasant publicity, especially before their subordinates.
V. The Eminence says that the notes were written retroactively, that is, he accuses them of forgery. The seminary board says that the bishop could not (as he says) admonish the rector, because he did not have a rector at all; Consequently, the seminary board accuses the bishop of false words. Under such circumstances, it is impossible to terminate the case with any leniency, without a full inquiry and a correct decision. If in the eyes of both sides the words: “good name”, “good opinion” are not words without meaning, then the Reverend should not allow him to be told: you were not justified in false words; equally the rector and the inspector, so that they can be told: you were not justified in forgery of documents.
VI. The seminary board, as an excuse, says that the inspector only rewrote his previous note in white. Then, when it comes to suspicion of untimely compilation and incorrectness of records, rewriting the record and presenting the rewritten one without the original documents is either extreme recklessness, or really an attempt to cover up the infidelity.
VII. The seminary board expresses doubt: “whether an investigative commission could have been appointed to take into account the seminary board without the knowledge of the Holy Synod.” Here, firstly, an incorrect reading is noticed. The rector and the inspector themselves say that they kept and wrote the accounts personally; and consequently the commission is appointed personally over the rector and inspector, and not over the seminary board. Secondly, it is clear here that the rector and inspector are dissatisfied with delving into the seminary regulations. By virtue of Chapter 1 of Article 8, the bishop has the right: at his personal discretion, to remove the responsible person from being on the seminary board, and therefore the rector and the inspector, and to assign two professors to consider the case with the rest of the board members. The Reverend acted more lightly when he did not remove the rector and inspector from being present on the board, and appointed two persons not subordinate to the rector to consider the case.
VIII. The Eminence, in the resolution of his rector and reporting inspector, puts the old age of the church lower, the old age of the village massacre lower, and the boy lower. It is a pity that the Eminence used such expressions that do not prove anything, uselessly insult, and reveal a restless spirit in him. He did this more than once in the present case.
IX. The inspector says that his income book was written in April and May from such entries that could not be presented to the Reverend. Why couldn't they? – When it is necessary to justify oneself against suspicions of outdatedness and falsification of records, one could and should have presented the original records, even if they were unseemly. Failure to provide them is reinforcement of suspicion.
X. Seminary leaders sometimes justify themselves by misinterpreting words, accusing others of the same. Here is an example: the investigative commission presents to the seminary board that in its very idea of the common apartment it has committed itself, that the sums for the common apartment will be spent by the seminary board itself, under the main supervision of the diocesan bishop. The seminary leaders, in order to dodge this evidence, say: the commission added the word: by themselves, that is, by the board, giving the idea of the direct expenditure of the said amount by the seminary board itself; whereas the literal meaning of the word does not give this thought. Not true. Read, or skip the word: yourself, the meaning is the same, that the seminary board, and not anyone else, should spend the amount. This is what it did in the beginning; but then the pension amount is left unsupervised in the hands of the inspector.
XI. The seminary board finally realizes that it really did not act according to the established procedure for such matters, and harbors hope for the mercy of its superiors. If all the explanations of the seminary government were drawn up in this spirit, it would be easy to end the matter with leniency in trusting the good intentions of the actors. But the seminary board accused the Eminence and justified itself with such exaggeration that it itself increased suspicion against itself.
XII. The seminary board admits that it did not conduct the affairs of church income and expenditure in the way required by the best order, due to the lack of positive rules. There are positive rules; but it did not comply with them. It says that it conducted these affairs following the example of other churches; and for them there is a rule in the instructions of the church warden, so that everything is recorded in a timely manner and cleared with receipts, so that there is an annual report. But the seminary board did not fulfill this. It is strange that the rector writes the church books of income and expenditure with his own hand, as if he has nothing to do.
XIII. Yes, even if there were no positive rules, the rule of prudence, the rule of caution, the rule of protecting one’s good name require that everyone who gets into the hands of someone else’s money should use it with a timely, clear and documented record, so as not to doubt himself later, and not to lead others into doubt. Anyone who does not comply with these rules requires correction, instruction, testing, so that later they can place full trust in him.
XIV. However, the investigative commission did not clearly reveal that any amount was received and did not enter its proper place, or went to the wrong place and was subject to return.
Therefore, as much as it is inconsistent with the case, the order of the Eminence to deduct two-thirds of the salary is just as illegal, offensive and embarrassing.
XV. It would take a long time to notice everything in this matter that requires attention. What has been observed so far is enough to determine its further direction.
XVI. That the rector and the inspector allowed the riots to occur has been discovered, and partly admitted by them themselves. It remains in due time to determine the degree of disorder and the necessary incentive to order.
XVII. The question of whether part of the pension money was used illegally, and whether it is subject to recovery, and in what quantity, is not made clear. Asking students about this is not reliable for discovering the truth, and is not beneficial for school discipline. Asking everyone who sent money is a lot of work, a lot of publicity, but there is not much hope for accurate information. It is necessary, if possible, to limit ourselves to all the documents that exist and the necessary addition of explanations taken from the responsible persons.
XVIII. In order to finish what started noisily noisily, close the investigative commission, and transfer the case being carried out in it with all the documents to the seminary board, on which a new rector and inspector, uninvolved in this matter, will sit.
XIX. The rector assigned to the Kostroma seminary, and the inspector assigned to the St. Petersburg Academy, shall be released to their appointment immediately upon completion of the Tomsk seminary, taking from them, if any documents related to the case are still in their hands.
XX. Release the withheld salary.
XXI. The seminary board shall carry out what was said above in Article XVII.
XXII. It is necessary to consider in the case whether the former rector and inspector made the forgeries that the Eminence attributed to them, such as making retroactive notes, and whether this is simply clerical confusion, or whether it hides the illegal use of amounts.
XXIII. The seminary board will submit the entire matter with its opinion to the academic board, and after consideration, with its conclusion, to the Holy Synod.
XXIV. The Holy Synod, by the way, will determine whether the Right Reverend Porfiry should be released from the charges brought against him, such as that he wrote that he admonished the rector, while the rector was not with him at all, and could not hear admonitions from him.
XXV. The rector and the inspector, by their actions before and during this case, made it necessary that in new places of ministry special supervision and guidance be applied to them, which would ensure full trust of their superiors in the future.
XXVI. The Holy Synod, in all likelihood, will find it necessary to give His Eminence Porfiry useful advice and, perhaps, not without details and strong expressions.
XXVII. Hieromonk Sergius, who had previously been recognized in the Ufa diocese as unfit for the position of teacher and school inspector, and who, as is clear from the case, lies as a stumbling block between the bishop and the seminary board, needs to be transferred to another diocese.
November 24. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret on the failure of the Nizhny Novgorod and Tambov bishops to comply with the decrees of the Holy Synod in the case of unrest in the Diveyevo monastery 152, listed by the Holy Synod from the Nizhny Novgorod to the Tambov diocese
By decree of the Holy Synod, dated October 15, 1861, No. 3250, Metropolitan Philaret was instructed to order investigators that, if necessary, they should refer to the head of the Diveyevo monastery, they should refer to Elizabeth, and not to Glyceria, and the decree of this Synod should also be announced to the monastery.
On this decree, Metropolitan Philaret wrote in his own hand:
“October 22. Send the investigators a complete list of this decree; and regarding the announcement to the monastery, in a special order, write out from this decree only what is necessary for the monastery’s information.”
Then Metropolitan Philaret, as a result of this decree, reported to the Holy Synod, dated November 24, 1861, the following:
By decree of the Holy Synod, dated October 15, No. 3250, I was ordered, among other things, that the investigators of the Diveyevo monastery announce the said decree of the Holy Synod on leaving the former boss Elizabeth in this position. But they set off on their way back before the order about this reached them.
From those who arrived in Moscow from the Sarov desert, it became known that even on the part of the Right Reverend Tambov 153 the above-mentioned decree of the Holy Synod had not yet been announced in the first days of this November, that the incorrectly appointed head of the monastery, Glyceria, had left it, and who was in charge of it was unknown.
It is my duty to bring this to the attention of the Holy Synod, for fear of the consequences of lack of leadership.
November 24 days, 1861 154
December 3. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, with an opinion on measures to elevate persons in the ecclesiastical department, namely: 1) on the allotment of land to the rural clergy, 2) on the provision of certain rights and advantages to students of seminaries and academies, and 3) on the appointment of bishops to the state council
Former Minister of Internal Affairs P.A. Valuev, now a count, in his letter dated November 13, 1861, among other things, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret: “It seems to me that under the influence of some of the remarks of your Eminence, during yesterday’s conversation I forgot to mention one of those assumptions that I intended to submit for discussion to a special committee, the establishment of which I reported to you. I ask you to allow me to correct the error of my memory on this occasion.
“The families of some clergy are so numerous that it is difficult to ensure the future of all clergy children if they are left hopelessly in the clergy. Meanwhile, at the present time, according to the force of the current regulations, leaving this class is made difficult by the fact that it is not accompanied by the acquisition of proper rights and benefits as part of other classes. It was intended to consider the issue of granting such rights and benefits to clergy children. The same question can be raised in relation to the children of clergy. At present, as your Eminence is not aware, there are many more candidates for positions of priests and clergy than there are vacancies. This disproportion will increase even more if, as has been discussed for a long time, the number of parishes in some areas is reduced in order to better provide for the rest, without simultaneously increasing the number of parish churches in some other areas where there is currently a shortage of them, for example in the Vyatka diocese.”
A few days later, on November 24, and the former Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, in his confidential letter, notified Metropolitan Philaret on the same issue: “Yesterday the Minister of Internal Affairs visited me to, by order of the Sovereign, inform me about his assumptions, already known to your Eminence. He told me that back in Livadia he presented to the Emperor a project on measures to elevate our clergy, which should consist of allocating land to the rural clergy, granting certain rights and advantages to students of seminaries and academies, and introducing bishops to the state council. About the meeting with your Eminence, Mr. Valuev told me that you deigned to approve the first two assumptions and object to the bishops being present in the State Council and pointed to the (still unknown to me) article of the “Regulations”, according to which, in case of need, members of the Senate united with members of the Holy Synod in a special meeting. This is Mr.'s objection.
Valuev wanted to present it in such a way that he did not reject his main idea - the participation of the clergy in state affairs - but only proposed to implement it in a different form. Besides me, Mr. Valuev, by the will of the Sovereign, had to communicate his project only to Metropolitan Isidore and Protopresbyter Bazhanov. Finally, he conveyed to me that, by the highest order, this subject would be considered in a special committee, chaired by Grand Duke Constantine, and asked for my assistance in carrying out his thoughts.
“In response to all this, I praised the Mr. Minister for the fact that he possesses one of the first properties of a statesman, that is, he knows how to keep his intentions in deep secret, but what exactly is the news for me of such a comprehensive plan in its entirety, I need to have some time to pronounce any opinion.
“Immediately after meeting with His Grace Isidore and Vasily Borisovich, I will have the honor to tell you, most gracious sir and archpastor, what I hear from them. But since our most important matters are now urgent and urgent, it may soon be necessary to express our thoughts about this matter to His Majesty, and then in the committee that will open upon the arrival of the Grand Duke 155. My thoughts are outlined in the main outlines in the attached note, and I still see no reason, in good conscience, to abandon them. I don’t know whether I will find support in the committee, and since it will be very difficult for me to defend them alone, I turn to you, Your Eminence Bishop, with the most earnest request to tell me your thoughts on this important transformation, so that I can either support or correct mine with them. Allow me, holy lord, here to express the joy and deep, heartfelt gratitude with which I accept every confidential message from your Eminence, and the great spiritual consolation that being of one mind with you gives me.”
There was a note attached to the letter; the note is the same as the letter from Count A.P. Tolstoy, written by the hand of N. A. Sergievsky. The note reads as follows:
“The appointment of the first member of the Holy Synod and other bishops, on an equal basis with secular dignitaries, members of the state council, would seem to be an unsuccessful innovation and, under the plausible appearance, a strong blow for the church.
“Until now, when the State Council on matters relating to the church needed its opinion, the ministers and other members of the State Council came to the Metropolitan of Novgorod in a committee in which he chaired, even if the Grand Duke participated in the meeting, as was often the case on matters of schism. This order in the conduct of affairs separated the church in dignity from the ministries, i.e., secular government.
“Your bishops are not privy to the matters discussed in the Council of State, and therefore their presence, without participation, silent, but with the obligation to sign protocols, can only lower them in the general opinion and, in the current direction, give rise to blasphemy. The bishops will share responsibility for matters that will be criticized, a responsibility from which they were hitherto free.
“Under the prevailing direction, one cannot hope that state administration will take on a church character; on the contrary, one can fear that the state council, taking advantage of the presence of bishops, will decide matters subject to the Synod, and thus secular administration will extend its power even more over the church.
“In general, it seems beyond doubt that any radical change is now untimely, and can only strengthen the general fluctuation of thoughts, which is very natural when such important innovations are undertaken with such ease.”
Your Excellency, after your conversation with Mr. Min. internal cases about some assumptions concerning the clergy, you require my opinion on these subjects.
As Mr. Minister informed you of the conversation he had with me about the same subjects; then I find it necessary to touch upon this conversation, as a precaution against misunderstandings that may occur.
You say that the Mr. Minister’s proposal for the elevation of the clergy has three objects: 1) giving the rural clergy land, 2) granting some rights to students of seminaries and academies, and 3) introducing bishops to the state council.
It seems to me that the main subject of the project is the latter; and the first two are indicated more as an example of which subjects require the judgment of united clergy and secular persons in the state council 156.
When asked about the introduction of spiritual members to the State Council, I first responded that it was difficult for me to decide to give an impromptu answer to such an important question, accidentally proposed; then, what if, due to lack of confidence in my opinion, I remained in bewilderment, but would be more inclined to the negative side; Finally, upon further reflection, I decisively took the negative side.
The reasons for my opinion, which I will now explain, perhaps somewhat more fully than in a casual conversation, are the following:
I. Persons of clergy rank, by their education and official occupations, are not prepared to judge the subjects considered in the state council, and casting a vote, sometimes at random, would be a burden to the conscience, and unreliable for the benefit of the state.
II. As an incentive to introduce the clergy into the State Council, the idea of elevating the clergy was expressed. According to a more strict reasoning, the state council should be filled not for the elevation of any rank, but for the surest achievement of state benefit. But the voice of a few clergy, even if significant in itself, can hardly have a significant influence on the movement of opinions in a state council composed of numerous members.
III. If ecclesiastical members join the state council, it is natural to expect that it will more freely touch upon with its judgments and decisions such subjects that should be subject to consideration by church government; but through this the importance of the Holy Synod and the freedom of its judgments would decrease; and this would be inconsistent with justice, and with the dignity and benefit of the church, and with the highest, all-merciful will to elevate the clergy.
IV. Given the extraordinary vastness of the dioceses, and as a result of the burden of diocesan bishops with diocesan affairs, their diversion from the dioceses to attend the Holy Synod constitutes a great difficulty for both bishops and dioceses. This difficulty would be increased by the diversion of bishops from their dioceses and from the Synod to attend the State Council.
V. Point to the example of the bishops of the Church of England who are present in the upper parliament. Upon careful consideration of this example, it should be pointed out not for imitation, but for warning. Parliament will also resolve church issues; and church councils are not allowed; why those who are zealous for the church recognize the Anglican Church as oppressed. In addition, bishops immersed in the political sphere sometimes lost their church spirit. Thus, during the debate on the admission of Jews to parliament, Count Vincensi adjured the lords not to approve a bill inspired only by the spirit of unbelief; and the Archbishop of Dublin, on the contrary, agreed to allow Jews into parliament. Here one can see more of the church spirit in the count than in the bishop.
VII. From ancient times to the present day, the Russian clergy, firmly adhering to the altar, is at the same time always devoted to the throne and the fatherland. At present, his activities are greatly intensified. Discussions about the best structure of religious schools are shared with the authorities voluntarily and by subordinates. Noticing the spread of the infection of unbelief, materialism, and immorality in secular literature, spiritual literature reveals new well-intentioned efforts to resist evil. The zeal of the clergy for the spread of primary education among the people is growing and expanding. Is it not more useful to keep and support the clergy in this sphere characteristic of them, rather than to introduce them into a less characteristic and vast sphere, while this is dominated by the alarming movement of various ideas, mutually struggling and overwhelming society?
VII. They say that there are subjects that require a combined consideration of spiritual and state people. Let this be recognized for some special cases. But individual cases do not provide grounds for restructuring government institutions. Instead, it is enough to recall the old forgotten resolution. When the Holy Synod was established, and the Senate was what is now the State Council: the Holy Synod, in its 5th report paragraph 157, drew the attention of Emperor Peter I to the fact that in the Senate verdicts there are “general determinations about all, which is what the synod team consists of” and suggested: “with general consent, such determinations should be concluded so that it would be for the best common benefit of the discretion.” The emperor wrote: “to be so” 158. On this legal basis, in emergency cases, there may be conferences of the Holy Synod and the State Council, without violating the separate, mutually independent integrity of each of these institutions.
Such were, and are now, my thoughts on the issue of appointing members of the State Council from the clergy.
Regarding the new allocation of land to the rural clergy, I said and now remain in the same thoughts that this measure is not quite reliable for many places, partly due to the lack of land, partly due to the reluctance of the parishioners and the unsatisfactory activity of the authorities; why the full thirty-six-decade proportion of land already determined by law cannot sometimes be achieved. The more educated of the rural clergy fell behind in agriculture. To establish it again, they need capital, which they do not have, and experimental study of it, which would more or less distract them from their duties. Giving out land for rent does not promise much success and benefit, especially now, when landowners limit the cultivation of their land, because free labor in some places turns out to be lazy and intractable.
The issue of providing students of academies and seminaries with rights that would help them move from their clerical rank, which is burdened by the number, to others, deserves attention. But no definite assumption was given to me about this; It’s inconvenient for me to imagine any definite opinion about this.
Regarding the formation of a committee of clergy and secular persons to consider certain issues related to the external life of the clergy, my opinion was and is that this can be useful so that the committee does not touch upon the internal structure of the clergy, which especially needs to be protected from shock when much is shaken.
Finally, let me touch upon the idea expressed to me about the elevation of the clergy. The exalted and humble position of the clergy essentially depends on the altar of God, near which it is placed by God. In the name of God it blesses, instructs with teaching, and sanctifies the nobleman with the sacraments, as well as the villager. For this reason, the clergy is elevated in public opinion by its piety and virtues and the pious disposition of the society in which it serves. Therefore, perhaps, it is not so much necessary that the bishop sit in the government assembly of nobles, but rather that nobles and noble men, together with the bishop, surround the altar of the Lord more often and more diligently, thereby decorating the church and its holidays, comforting with their communication and encouraging the bishop, and setting an edifying example to the people, who rather diligently surround the bishop on church holidays.
No. 133. November 30, 1861 December 3,159.
December 5th. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Minister of Internal Affairs P.A. Valuev, with an opinion regarding the proposed appointment of the Eminences to the State Council as delegates
Minister of Internal Affairs P. A. Baluev, in a confidential letter dated December 2, 1861, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret: “I have the honor to bring to the attention of your Eminence that the assumptions known to you were communicated, upon my return from Moscow, to the Most Reverend Isidore, Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, Protopresbyter Bazhanov and Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count Tolstoy. The reviews of the first two did not contain any significant objections; the latter focused primarily on the very doubt that you encountered regarding the issue of inviting several hierarchs to be present in the State Council. This issue, apparently, will be resolved in accordance with the instructions you have given, that is, instead of a permanent presence, some members of the Holy Synod will probably be invited to participate in the consideration of a separate, or separate issues, for example, on the organization of rural schools. It seems that this will be the same thing that Your Eminence was pleased to call delegations.
Meanwhile, following the return of Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich from abroad, a committee will be established, about which I had the honor to report to you. Members are supposed to be in it, with the inclusion of Count Tolstoy and Prince Urusov, up to 10, from the highest clergy and secular persons. The Sovereign Emperor wishes that one of the spiritual members be appointed by your personal instructions. Therefore, I have the honor to address you with the most humble request not to refuse to inform me, in order to report to His Majesty, which of our hierarchs you would like to name for this purpose.”
From your Excellency’s letter, dated the 2nd day of this December, which I received 4 days ago, I saw how difficult it is to make verbal communication alone on subjects of considerable importance and considerable complexity satisfactory.
Please mention the invitation of some members of the Holy Synod to the State Council, and add that this seems to be what I called delegations.
The word delegation was not used by me because it might have conveyed a different idea than what I proposed.
Please agree that an active member of the State Council can have more importance and power than a delegated person, that is, temporarily assigned to the State Council. Please remember my opinion that three or four active members from the clergy for the sake of the large number of other members of the state council would not have significant influence and would not bring significant benefit. Consequently, I could not think that two or three temporarily delegated from the clergy would have more influence, and therefore I could not propose to the delegation.
I used the word: conference, by which I meant a joint discussion on a certain specific subject of the Holy Synod and the State Council, on equal terms, preserving the integrity and mutual independence of both classes.
This incident prompts me to look for a way to ensure that my thoughts are in your mind, my dear sir, with complete accuracy, and I can’t find any other way for this than to forward to you a written statement of the previous verbal communication.
As for the requirement that I name one candidate from the clergy to be members of the proposed committee: it is difficult for me to fulfill this because I have been continuously within the Moscow diocese for twenty years, and therefore my observations of the other clergy are very limited. Only, obeying the highest will, I do not dare not say my opinion.
Inviting the leading member to the committee is hardly convenient because if he expressed his opinion in the committee and the matter was transferred to the Synod, it would no longer be possible to comply with the law on juniors casting votes before the senior one.
Of the other Eminences who are in St. Petersburg, I am quite familiar with the Eminence Philotheus of Tver, who served with me in the rank of vicar and participated with me in affairs with prudence, fidelity and the ability to express his judgment thoroughly and correctly.
Since I must answer for my opinions in the last letter before God and the Sovereign, and therefore I am obliged to take every possible precaution against any misunderstanding that may occur; then I find it necessary to humbly request that my present letter and the attached written summary of 160 former verbal communications be submitted to the highest discretion of H.I.V.
December 20. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the former Moscow Governor-General P.A. Tuchkov, regarding the newly compiled special prayer read in churches in Moscow during services for the deliverance of Russia from the difficult situation in which it supposedly finds itself
Minister of Internal Affairs, P.A. Valuev, in a confidential relationship with the Moscow Governor-General P.A. Tuchkov, dated December 14, 1861, No. 1561, wrote: “They say here that in the churches of Moscow, during divine services, a recently compiled special prayer is read for the deliverance of Russia from the difficult situation in which it allegedly finds itself at the present time. I have the honor to humbly ask Your Excellency to honor me with a notice of how true this rumor is, and, if any prayer is actually being read that could give rise to such rumors, to deliver me a copy of it.”
P.A. Tuchkov, as a result of the above attitude of the Minister of Internal Affairs, dated December 14, 1861, No. 666, asked the Metropolitan to notify him how true the rumor is that in the churches of Moscow, during divine services, a recently compiled special prayer is being read, for the deliverance of Russia from the difficult situation in which it supposedly finds itself, and, if any prayer is actually being read, to deliver him a copy with her.
Metropolitan Philaret on the attitude of P.A. Tuchkova, in his confidential regard, dated December 20, No. 141, wrote to him:
G. The Minister of Internal Affairs demands information as to whether the rumor is true that in churches in Moscow, during services, a recently compiled special prayer is being read for the deliverance of Russia from the difficult situation in which it allegedly finds itself at the present time, and for the delivery of a copy of this prayer.
Regarding this, I respond to the confidential attitude of your Excellency, dated the 16th day of this December (No. 666).
It has not been compiled, and no special prayer is being read in the churches of Moscow for the deliverance of Russia from the difficult situation in which it supposedly finds itself at the present time.
During public disasters, such as during war, during the liturgy the priest kneels and pronounces a special prayer, applied to the circumstances of the time. There is nothing like this in Moscow churches at present.
Probably, the rumor that reached the Minister came from a reinterpretation of the action, simply ecclesiastical, not connected with any indication of the political circumstances of Russia.
At every vespers, Sunday and holiday, at litia (if this is not omitted to shorten the service), by the way, the following prayer request is read:
“We also pray for our good and philanthropic God to be merciful, to turn away all anger that moves us, and to deliver us from His impending and righteous rebuke, and to have mercy on us.” For some time now, in my home church, this petition, with the addition of a few expressions that do not contain a special petition, but only stimulate one to heartfelt prayer, has been pronounced by the deacon among other petitions of the so-called special litany at Vespers, Matins and Liturgy.
All those who are accustomed to hearing the above-mentioned petition at Sunday and holiday vespers know that it was composed in ancient times, in Greece, and therefore does not indicate any unusual circumstances in Russia, and, being pronounced in a joyful holiday service, is not an expression of any difficult or sorrowful circumstances, but is simply a humble and repentant prayer request.
Only people who do not go to festive vespers and are little familiar with church services could take it for news and give it an arbitrary conjectural interpretation.
The note containing the above-mentioned petition was also transferred by me to the cathedral monastery and the cathedral, with permission that clergy may use it, as long as they are aware of the need to especially excite themselves and others to humble and repentant prayer.
This note was given by me in the same form as attached, and without my signature, so that it would not be taken as an order, but could only be used by those who wish.
The impulse that guided me, and which, of course, was followed by a greater or lesser number of clergy, is religious and moral. It is expressed at the beginning of the above-mentioned note in the following words: “Our sins have multiplied, and what is most required is “repentant and tender prayer.”
If an explanation were required for this, justice requires saying that for some time anti-Christian, anti-moral and anti-government thoughts and teachings have been spreading especially strongly in literature, censored and uncensored, among the younger generation and penetrating to the lower strata of society. The multiplication of mental sins is followed by a multiplication of active sins, partly unashamedly revealing itself in regrettable spectacles before the eyes of society, partly noticed in the signs of a hidden infection.
I don't think this needs to be proven. However, I will give a few indications of what I see close up or can easily remember.
I. Sovremennik published an article in which materialism was presented and proven - a teaching, of course, not friendly to religion and morality. A bachelor of the Kyiv Academy wrote a refutation of this article, which was given justice by thorough scientists. The preacher of materialism did not know how to defend himself; but did not yield, but responded with ridicule and insults. A lonely materialist would not be so bold. Only one who hoped to meet many sympathizers and to produce sympathy in many again could do this.
II. Students of Moscow University (and, they say, more than one Moscow university) for a long time, secretly from censorship, lithographed and distributed translations of foreign anti-Christian works, and anti-government articles of Russian foreign literature (I don’t know if they are kept from this now); and then the fruits of these mental sins were shown in actions that they themselves, only late, recognized as sinful.
III. In “Svetoche” (1861, book IX), in an article entitled: “Peter the Great, as a humorist,” it speaks of “the most drunken cathedral,” about “the most extravagant cathedral”; Buturlin is the “ruler of St. Petersburg”, and Peter the Great is the “protodeacon”. The election and decree of the prince of the pope is described, and not only the election and consecration of the pope, but also the Orthodox church actions, and the election and consecration of Orthodox bishops are blasphemously ridiculed and desecrated, such as:
In the procession are deacons, priests, monks, archimandrites, Bacchus carried by the monks of the great monastery, a ladle carried by the bald.
“Why did you come, brother, and why do you ask from our immensity?”
“Let the drunkenness of Bacchus be with you.”
“What do you mean by the law of Bacchus”?
“I fill my belly with Bacchus (drinking) like a barrel. And I always do this. And I promise to teach those handed to me. Otherwise, I reject those who philosophize.”
“The archpriests lay on hands.”
“I am ordaining this drunken drunk.”
“They put on a cap with an exclamation: I put the crown of the needle of Bacchus on your head.”
“After which he sings: axios.”
In all this, the rite of the Orthodox bishop's oath and dedication is clearly parodied; and expressions from it were taken and mutilated.
So literature suddenly insults religion, morality, and the royal family.
The fact that this is based on modern written documents does not serve as an excuse. Impurities exist; but only someone devoid of common sense, or someone who has lost all sense of decency, can decide to take them out into the street and show them to the people.
IV. In “Northern Bee” (1861, No. 256), on the occasion of criticism of one Christomathy, the words of Christ the Savior are written out: “you are the salt of the earth” and so on. (Matthew 5:13,14.), and after critical comments on some words of the text, it was added: “we can only say that this is being published for a people for whom, according to Mr. Nevsky, logic in thought is completely unnecessary.” That is, the critic believes that there is absolutely no logic of thought in the exact words of Christ the Savior.
Thus, the one who judges Christ, apparently, has no claim to be and be considered a believer in Christ. Meanwhile, judging Christ and proclaiming this to the people, he apparently hopes to earn applause for his free judgment, and wants to spread his way of thinking.
Meanwhile, as statesmanship seeks means through laws and government measures to block the destructive influence of anti-religious and anti-moral wisdom and trends, and to protect the religious and moral spirit, which is the true soul and force of social life; Isn’t it the duty of the church and its ministers, at the sight of the weakening of this spirit, not by alarming, but by quiet action, to arouse among the people the consciousness of their sinfulness and the disposition to humble repentant prayer, in order to avoid the wrath and rebuke of God, and to attract higher help to the cause of self-correction and public correction? Wouldn’t it be good if the children of the Moscow church, and not just the Moscow one, were truly animated by such feelings?
Attached to the letter was a copy of the following prayer:
Our sins have multiplied, and what is most required is repentant and tender prayer: for this reason, at Vespers, Matins and Liturgy, at the end of the special litany, plagoli and this:
“We also pray for the merciful and merciful life of our good and humane-loving God, to turn away all anger that moves us, and to deliver us from His due and righteous rebuke, and to forgive us every sin, voluntary and involuntary, and to have mercy on us, unworthy His servants, in a contrite heart with the words of all: we pray, hear and have mercy."
On the genuine one it is written by the hand of Metropolitan Philaret:
“That's right. December 20, 1861"
December 27. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the case of riots in the Diveyevo convent
The secret decree of the Holy Synod, dated June 29, 1861 (No. 3), ordered that in order to bring to reliable knowledge the circumstances surrounding the election of the abbess to the Diveyevo monastery of Glyceria, an examination should be carried out, according to the highest order, of the reported information and reports of His Grace Nektary, Bishop of Nizhny Novgorod on this subject (for which Danilovsky was appointed Archimandrite Jacob and court councilor Barkov), and that the executive report to the Holy Synod be presented through me, with my opinion.
I present such a report with the case on 245 pages, and with an inventory of the case, to the Holy Synod.
The Holy Synod deigns to find a detailed statement of the matter carried out in the presented report.
Therefore, it remains my duty to express my opinion, indicating the circumstances of the case and the considerations that form the basis of my opinion and make it necessary.
I. The election to the abbess of Glyceria should be recognized as incorrect and not subject to confirmation, for the following reasons.
1) It was already seen by the Holy Synod, and in the decree of October 15, it was recognized that the literal meaning of the decree of the Holy Synod did not provide grounds for electing, instead of Ushakova, a new abbess, especially since the diocesan authorities in December 1860 petitioned to rename the community into a monastery - out of respect for the internal and external improvement of the community under the leadership of Ushakova - which, in the case the need to elect a new abbess, her election, by virtue of the decree of the Holy Synod, belongs to the community of sisters; but the Eminence did this through his personal insistence; he did not respect the opinions of the majority of the sisters, and used the lot incorrectly.
2) Ksenia Ilyina, one of the sisters, who at the beginning of the community under the leadership of Elder Seraphim joined it, and according to the statements for 1858, 1859 and 1860, evidenced very good behavior, showed the process of the election of the abbess in the following form. Before the liturgy in the church, the Reverend said: we need to elect a leader. The sisters did not answer. After lunch, about a hundred of them gathered at the hospital, and 20 fell at the priest’s feet to ask the Eminence to leave Elizabeth as the boss, and when the Eminence left the hospital, they all fell at his feet with the same request. After the all-night vigil at the meal, the Right Reverend ordered the sisters who were on Lukerya’s side to stand forward towards the images, and the rest to move back. (This placement is significant; it expressed the preference of the Lukeryans, and the desire to attract others to this side, to whom displeasure was expressed by sending them back).
Those devoted to Elizabeth, on their knees, with tears, asked the Eminence to leave her as boss; the bishop said: “I will not leave her; elect three persons; “and if you don’t choose, I, in addition to Elisaveta and Lukerya, will choose a third person from among Lukerya Vasilievna; “and if the lot falls on Lukerya Vasilievna, and you do not “obey her, then I will send you out.” We said: “there are 400 of us.” To this he said: “I’ll send you 400.” Thus the Eminence rejects the majority; – not in order; enter into the election himself, wanting to appoint a candidate himself, and, moreover, certainly from the minority party. The choice in relation to the sisters is not free, and on the part of the Eminence it is not impartial; and therefore, in fairness, not subject to approval.
3) Evdokia Efremova, also one of the original sisters of the monastery, whose behavior was very good in 1858 and 1859, and good in 1860, also testified that the Right Reverend threatened those who did not want Lukerya with expulsion, and added: “I, Evdokia, standing before him with tears said to him: “Holy master, have mercy on us, Joasaph has been persecuting us for 30 years; “and you are persecuting us; We don’t need Lukerya.” The Right Reverend answered: “Joasaph is a good man”; and I continued: “I, father, have been living in the monastery for 60 years, and I’m already in my eighth decade; Our eldest are six sisters; The monastery “brought on us” Fr. Seraphim; we worked with him; they served him. “The bishop said: what does it matter to me that you are 70 years old; “I don’t need you; I will have a young woman as my boss. “The sisters cried and sobbed.”
4) Praskovya Ivanova Pashina, (very good behavior) showed: at the meal the bishop said: chosen ones, come forward. Maybe 80 people walked forward; and 400 people remained behind. This is wishing for Elizabeth.
5) Ksenia Ivanova Munikova (for two years of very good behavior, and for one good) and, in agreement with her, several sisters, testified that when the Reverend left the hospital, a hundred or one hundred and fifty hundred people bowed at his feet with tears and asked him to leave Elizabeth. And Varvara Abramova testified that she and others, about 20 people, came to the Eminence at the hotel with the announcement that they were electing Lukerya. Here Lukerya’s side itself declares its weak minority, in front of the above number.
6) Praskovya Pavlova Erofeeva testifies about herself that only 15 people asked the Eminence to enter her into the lot. And, despite this insignificant minority, she was entered into the lot.
7) Glafira Semenova Makkaveeva testified that she wrote a letter to the Right Reverend, and submitted it to the monastery upon arrival from 30 sisters, but with only her signature, about the election of Lukerya. She named 25 who agreed to this letter. Of these, according to the statement for 1858, only 4 are shown to have good behavior, 3 fair, one unknown from the news, 17 unreliable, and Glafira herself self-willed. These are the kind of people who elected Glykeria! And consequently, these are the people who, having favored Glyceria with their election, would have predominant influence in society!
8) Efrosinia Vasilyeva, speaking in detail about the election in main terms in accordance with what is shown above under number 2, says, among other things, that there were no more than 40 electing Glyceria, and all the others were on Elizabeth’s side, that the Right Reverend did not listen to those who wanted to show Elizabeth’s dignity; that the election of Glyceria to the leadership is understood by everyone as subjugation to Joasaph; that the lot is considered incredible, because there were no rumors in whose presence it was written. In fact, the Eminence did not take sufficient precaution against doubt. Having himself written and sealed the lot, and placing it on a plate in the order known to him, he could take the one he wanted; and under the guise of a lot he fulfilled his will.
9) The number of those who elected Glyceria was shown by those belonging to its side: two - it seems, more than on Elizabeth’s side, 7 - a smaller part, 1 - much less, 1 - half, 1 - an equal part, 1 - up to 150, 9 - up to 100 or more, 1 - 50 or 100, 2 - 70. Thus, the Glykeria party itself recognizes a more or less weak a minority of votes in favor of Glyceria, except for two who guessingly attribute the majority of votes to Glyceria, which is obviously refuted by their own party.
Those on Elizabeth's side showed the number of votes in favor of Glyceria: 6 - less than on Ushakova's side, 4 - 40 or 50, 1 - too 40, 1 - maybe 80, 21 - 40. Obviously, the number 40 prevails.
10) Investigators, in addition to requests, also compiled electoral lists. There were 293 on the list of those electing Elisabeth, 104 on the list of those electing Glyceria, electing Paraskeva 2. There were 63 neutrals left and those who did not fit in due to illness or absence. There are three times as many electing Elisabeth here too. But if we take into account that many were diverted from Elizabeth’s side, after the election of Glyceria by her leadership and her party, “for which there is evidence in the matter,” then it remains irrefutable that at the initial election there were only about 40 sisters on Glyceria’s side, and consequently on Elizabeth’s side ten times more, and on this side are the oldest and most worthy sisters.
11) Proof of the increased diversion of the sisters from the side of Elizabeth, to the side of the already commanding Glykeria, is the testimony of Dean Erofeeva that Glyceria sent her and Glafira, the leader to act in favor of Glykeria, to their cells and they collected a subscription of 230 sisters. But during the investigation, 40 of them announced that they signed for fear; 23, - that they were written down without their consent, and this forgery is exposed by the fact that some of them, although they themselves knew how to write, were recorded as not being able to write. This list includes 12 who were absent at the time of signing, 1 who left the monastery during Lent, 1 who was of poor intelligence, 1 who was damaged in her mind. It is clear that this list is not credible and should be rejected as illegal. It only proves that the management of Glykeria is untruthful and oppressive.
12) The monastery confessor, priest Sadovsky, testified that about 50 people went to the side of Glyceria, and about 200 unanimously asked the bishop about Elizabeth as worthy. Priest Felixov - that a small part of the sisters wanted Glyceria. Priest of Sofia - that no more than 40 people went to the side of Glykeria. Two outside witnesses under oath - that a fourth part separated to the side of Glyceria.
13) 10 sisters testified that during the election no one named a third person at the meal. The bishop's brother testified that the bishop himself wrote the lot for election. New proof of the incorrectness of introducing Paraskeva into the lot, and the incorrectness of the lot itself.
14) One way could explain the intensified action of the Right Reverend of Nizhny Novgorod to eliminate Elizabeth, if we assume that he somehow recognized her unworthiness; but this thought cannot be allowed, because at the same time he offered her to be the head of the Davidic community. This is confirmed by Mr. Motovilov, Princess Engalycheva, Dean Archimandrite Joachim, the Pechersk governor, and the Right Reverend himself. It cannot be assumed that he offered to be the abbess of the monastery to an unworthy and vicious woman.
II. G. Motovilov, attributing to the Eminence a very strict treatment during the election, wrote that he kicked the sisters lying in front of him.
Some sisters testified that, as he passed between them, he touched some with his foot.
This circumstance, as a consequence of cramped conditions, can be ignored.
III. G. Motovilov wrote that the Right Reverend ordered Ustinya Ivanova to be exiled because she told him after mass: it’s a sin for you, father, to offend us.
Ustinya admitted that she told him: “Father Seraphim gathered us; and you will accelerate; God will punish you"; and testified that she asked three times to forgive her and not to expel her from the monastery, from which Father Seraphim gave her a commandment not to leave; but the bishop sent her to the Ardat monastery, where she has already been for three months. (Now it's been six months).
Ustinya is one of the oldest sisters of the Diveyevo monastery. She was once elected to the position of boss; but not approved because she can’t write. The Ardatov boss approves of her as diligent in prayer and church services.
The Most Reverend Nektarios would not have offended his rank if he had placed himself above the insult of the old woman’s rude simplicity. But even if she had to be punished, a six-month exile would be enough, and it was time to return her to where Father Seraphim commanded her not to come from.
IV. Since, along with Mr. Motovilov’s note about the Diveyevo incidents, a letter from Mr. Karamzin was also sent to the investigation, it was necessary to inquire about the subjects of this letter, which were important in the present case and in the fate of the Diveyevo monastery. G. Karamzin wrote: a mythical community (as he calls the party of Joasaph and Glykeria) started to build some kind of monastery, the purpose and benefits of which no one in the real community knows.
The head of the community, which is now a monastery, Elisaveta showed the investigators that Hieromonk Joasaph had the intention to build a monastery 3 versts from this monastery, to the side of the Sarov desert, 2 versts from the village, so that, in the likeness of Anthony and Theodosius of Pechersk, here would be the monastery of Father Seraphim, and his disciple, that is, Joasaph, about the 12 gates like the heavenly tabernacle. There, in 1850, a cell was built for the dean Tatyana Burzhumova, with whom Joasaph stayed in the monastery, but the headmistress Lodyzhenskaya recognized this cell as useless and broke it.
From this it is clear that the monastery’s enterprise is full of oddities and incongruities. Joasaph inappropriately compares himself with the monks of Pechersk, whom he, of course, did not reach, and who did not build two women’s monasteries. It would be inconvenient to build a monastery even closer to the Diveyevo monastery than to Sarov, as a precaution against criticism. To build a monastery with 12 gates in the likeness of the heavenly tabernacle is a dream that goes beyond the limits of sanity. The dark beginning of the monastery also appears in the fact that Joasaph stayed in the monastery with Dean Tatiana; then for this Tatyana he built a cell in an empty place; and then he wants to build a monastery in this place.
This beginning of the monastery becomes even darker when we take into account an extract from the journal of the investigator, police officer Betling, November 18, 1861. From this journal it is clear that at that time Joasaph’s son-in-law, Muranov, and his wife lived in the community cell in the forest; that the sisters of the community lived there and witnessed the fight between Fomina and Muranov’s wife. The resolution of the same investigator on December 10, 1850 said: the circumstances relating to Joasaph, announced by the girl Fomina, were presented for consideration by the consistory. The Nizhny Novgorod consistory determined: Muranov, due to lack of evidence of a crime, should be released from trial, and Fomina should be subjected to church repentance for fornication.
This is the desecrated place that Joasaph wants to decorate with a monastery.
It is necessary to recognize as fair the opinion of the Sarov builder that well-meaning people see the complete uselessness of the construction of the monastery; and that he could have caused the disorder of the Diveyevo monastery.
V. G. Karamzin wrote about the Diveyevo community that it is now a monastery: all the sisters are now up to 500. They live in poverty, fasting and prayer, little known to the world, under the leadership of their beloved, respected leader, an old, venerable spiritual father, beloved by all of them. One monk managed to create some kind of fantastic mythical Diveyevo community. I asked a lot about him, and did not meet a single person who would say a good word about him. But in the mythical Diveyevo community that he created, this monk is a holy man, Seraphim’s favorite disciple, appointed by him as the patron of the community. At one time he somehow bypassed the actual community, gave orders to them a lot, stirred up trouble, and was finally expelled from there, leaving the most painful memory among the mass of sisters and tainting the entire community in the general opinion of the laity. Since then, Joasaph, forcibly separated from the real community, which without him had again found peace and silence with great poverty, transferred the entire stock of his lies and intrigues to the mythical community.
Investigators have revealed the following about Hieromonk Joasaph and his relationship to the Diveyevo monastery:
1) In 1844, as a result of the request of the Diveyevo (sisters) to have John (who is now Hieromonk Joasaph) as their confessor and the decree of the Holy Synod, the Right Reverend John of Nizhny Novgorod 163 rejected this, representing, among other things, the youth of the ryassophore novice John, but decided to allow his assistance to the monastery in external economic matters.
2) His Grace Nikolai 164 of Tambov also did not want to allow the priesthood of John, who in the Sarov monastery was not recognized as worthy of tonsure and was testified to have self-willed behavior.
3) In 1846, the dean of the monasteries reported to the consistory that in the Diveyevo community the Sarov novice John was managing the buildings without the participation of the sick boss, that John had broken a wooden building, and another, very durable one, was assigned to breaking, that the older sisters complained about the dissatisfaction of some of their needs, among other things, because they were postponed until John’s arrival, and They announced that they had not asked John to be their confessor, although, however, the treasurer Julia (who belonged to the party of Joasaph) objected to this.
4) In March 1850, on behalf of the sick and inactive boss Kocheulova, by the hand of his son-in-law Joasaph, a petition was written to the Right Reverend Jacob 165 in order to confirm Hieromonk Joasaph as confessor, dean and builder of the church. This request was left without consequences; but it proves that it was not the community that trusted Joasaph, but he himself tried to empower himself.
5) In the same year, a serious case took place, known to the Holy Synod, about the Diveyevo novice Fomina. In a petition addressed to the police chief, she announced that she was pregnant by her son-in-law Joasaph Muranov; confessed this to Joasaph in confession; he revealed this to Dean Tatyana; this one escorted her out of the monastery to relieve her of her burden; then Fomina returned, and Hoasaph (instead of expelling her from the monastery) forced her to go to him for confession, but she did not agree because he violated the secret of confession. During the investigation, Tatiana announced that Joasaph had a room in her cell; and she goes to another. But the rules do not tell a monk to spend the night in a nunnery; Moreover, there is a hotel near the monastery where he could have premises.
As a result of Fomina’s petition, the civil governor asked the Right Reverend Justin 166 to remove Joasaph from the Diveyevo monastery, which the Reverend did.
6) From the inquiry of Archpriest Miloradovsky in 1856 and from the resolutions of the Right Reverend Jeremiah 167, it is clear that Joasaph overextended the fence of the Diveyevo monastery, unfairly referring to the tradition of Fr. Seraphim and the plan allegedly approved by the Right Reverend Jacob. The fence was supposed to stretch for several miles. Some sisters would have to walk about a mile to eat and to church. The enterprise is as arbitrary as it is unreasonable.
7) In March 1851, Hieromonk Joasaph, who had been removed from the Diveevo monastery, as reported by the boss Lodyzhenskaya, arrived in Diveevo without the knowledge of his superiors. The boss did not let him into the monastery, and forbade the sisters to go to his hotel. Two people violated this: Glafira and Joasaph’s sister.
8) In 1858, as can be seen from the explanation of the boss Lodyzhenskaya, Joasaph sent officer Nazimov to the monastery, who, with the merchant's wife Tarakanova, tried to enter the church; but was not admitted. He cursed the society and the boss for eliminating Joasaph. The next day the officer climbed over the fence and entered the church; forced the sisters to venerate the image he brought; and resumed his curses.
9) In 1857, the boss Lodyzhenskaya sought money from Joasaph for sold books printed for the benefit of the community; and a ticket for 3000 rubles. s., donated by Mr. Popov for the fence. Joasaph declared the books and the money for them his property; and about the ticket he said that Popov, who had died, changed his mind, and the ticket was given to the clerk. This, of course, does not show Joasaph as the benefactor of the monastery.
10) From the list of buildings it is clear that Joasaph built, destroyed, moved many buildings at random, and broke one residential building because it was built without his request.
11) To explain Joasaph’s attitude to the monastery, Ushakova referred especially to the priest Sadovsky, who served at the monastery for more than 30 years, and enjoyed the approval and trust of the Reverends Jacob, Jeremiah and Anthony 168. His testimony is worthy of being fully heard. This is its main content. Joasaph Fr. Seraphim despised and humiliated the spirits trained by him, distinguished by monastic virtues; the younger ones were given special protection; gave reasons for disobedience, demanded obedience to himself more than to the boss; Little by little he separated the sisters who were devoted to him from the boss and others, which is why under Ekaterina Lodyzhenskaya and Elisavet Ushakova the sisters rebelled against the boss. For several months at a time he lived in the same building with Dean Tatyana and other sisters, of whom there were up to 15. He stood on the choir between the sisters. I went to work surrounded by a crowd of sisters. Permission from the Eminence for his stay in the monastery was sought by those who were committed to him through petitions on forms signed by the headmistress Kocheulova.
On behalf of the boss and older sisters, without their knowledge, petitions were submitted to appoint Joasaph as a trustee and confessor. The sisters were forcibly sent to confess to Joasaph. 169
12) It is noteworthy what was said to the investigators by the founder of the Ardat monastery, the eighty-year-old old woman, Eudokia: according to the teachings of Joasaph, lies for salvation; lies on o. Seraphim and the Diveevskys - he taught them to lie. He assured that the priest entrusted him with the care of three communities: Diveevo, Ardatov and Zelenogorsk. This is false. I did not allow Joasaph to interfere in our affairs, and our monastery, for the prayers of Fr. Seraphima, comforted. And in Diveevo, if Joasaph had not interfered, things would have settled down long ago and the sisters would have lived peacefully, thanking God and Fr. Seraphim.
What does Joasaph say about Fr. Seraphim did not always tell the truth, this can be seen from the discrepancies in his various editions of the life of Fr. Seraphim. Feedback about this, admirer Fr. Seraphim, Mr. Betling, worthy of reading, attached at the end under the letter A 170.
From everything stated here, it is necessary to conclude that Joasaph’s relationship with the Diveyevo monastery is harmful in relation to its peace, deanery, economy, and to the spiritual structure of the sisters 171; and therefore it is necessary to stop them completely, and pay vigilant attention to him where he now serves.
VI. This must be followed by the question: how can a divided monastery be pacified? Without a doubt, it is necessary to primarily support the side that represents a strong majority, and to which the original disciples of Fr. Seraphim, and bring her to safety from the smaller party, to which many belong who are disapproved in their behavior, and who turned out to be disapproving in the present case.
Therefore, it is necessary to remove from the monastery the dean Praskovya Pavlova Erofeeva, who, through coercion and fear, compiled a list of those electing Glyceria from cell to cell and included in it the absent and insane.
Glafira Semyonov Maccabeev, who wrote a letter to the Eminence about Glyceria, and became the leader of its parties.
Lukerya Vasiliev Occupied as having become the main stone of stumbling and temptation in the monastery.
VII. Finally, it will be up to the foresight of the Holy Synod to find a way out of the following difficulties.
It is inconvenient for the Diveevo monastery to remain under the jurisdiction of the Tambov bishop for a long time, much less to be included completely in the Tambov diocese. The boundaries of dioceses must be firm. Moreover, it is much more useful for two monasteries for men and women, not far from one another, to be supervised by two bishops of two dioceses, so that the fidelity of supervision would be all the more satisfactory, as a precaution against criticism, which unfortunately has already arisen, although unfounded, as will be seen from another case about the Diveyevo monastery. But the circumstances of these cases show that the Right Reverend of Nizhny Novgorod is himself prejudiced in favor of the party of Joasaph and Glyceria, and supports it with extraordinary effort; and the misuse of the lot for the election of Glyceria seems to this day to be considered a matter of providence. Therefore, it is difficult to expect him to change his views and direction, which cannot be agreed with the peace and improvement of the Diveyevo monastery.
No. 144. December 27, 1861 172
December 27. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, about the Bulgarian Archbishop Joseph, who expressed a desire to join Orthodoxy
By letter of November 6, No. 6261, your Excellency requested my opinion on the petition to the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Archbishop Joseph.
Your Excellency could already see this opinion in two of my notes about Archbishop Joseph, and in my note on November 25, under numbers V, VI and VII.
However, I turn to the petition.
The Archbishop expresses his sincere repentance for his grave fall and his most ardent desire to be in sincere communion with the one holy Orthodox Church.
He deeply and completely condemns his unfortunate falling away from the Orthodox Church, and brings sincere and tearful repentance about it before the Holy Synod.
He says that he never recognized the pope as the head of the church and as one of his own, but sought only the independence of the Bulgarian church and its independence from the Patriarch of Constantinople.
It is difficult to imagine how he could receive ordination from the pope without recognizing him as the head of the church.
He asks that the Holy Synod, by the power given by God, grant him forgiveness and permission from all excommunication.
He explains that he could not appear before the Ecumenical Patriarch, so as not to endanger his life, or at least his freedom, and now he cannot, so as not to be unwittingly to blame for new popular unrest: and therefore ask the Holy Synod to seek forgiveness for him from the Holy Patriarch.
By the way, he expresses fear that if he returns now to Turkey, Western propaganda may seize him, hold him captive, and act in his name to the detriment of Orthodoxy.
The first question in this matter is the following: can Joseph, when accepted into the Orthodox Church, be recognized as an archbishop, and by what rank should he be accepted?
My answer to this is in the note about Archbishop Joseph, dated July 1 under numbers IV and V and in the note.
November 25 under the numbers V and VI.
The difficulty of this first question depends on the second question: is it possible, and how, for Joseph to obtain forgiveness from the Ecumenical Patriarch, and his consent for Joseph to be graciously accepted into the communion of the Russian Church?
The resolution of this issue, according to the information indicated above, is difficult and doubtful. It is necessary that His Holiness the Patriarch deviate from his strict judgment about Joseph, which he expressed to Archimandrite Antonin, and that he agree to leave Joseph without persecution, as his subordinate who had gone out of obedience. This requires a lot of condescension on the part of the Holy Patriarch, while on the contrary, he showed a lot of inflexibility in the Bulgarian cause. If the Holy Synod had written about this to the Ecumenical Patriarch and received a refusal: the matter would have reached an insoluble situation, and would have revealed an important violation of the consent of the churches, not without the danger of further harm.
If the Russian embassy in Constantinople had been in completely desirable relations with the ecumenical patriarch, it could have assisted this matter with a trusted verbal representation to the patriarch, whether he would allow the Holy Synod to intercede with him for the forgiveness of Joseph. Such respectful modesty of the Holy Synod would not only not threaten discord, but would also predispose the patriarch to a friendly, condescending response.
If this is inconvenient, is it not possible to entrust Archimandrite Antonin to humbly bring to the attention of the Ecumenical Patriarch that the Russian clergy finds it useful for the Orthodox Church, so that Joseph would be shown leniency, and that the Holy Synod would decide to petition the Patriarch for the forgiveness of Hosif, if it had the hope of a favorable acceptance of this petition. Based on the patriarch's response to this, one could judge the further course of the matter.
Meanwhile, it is necessary to acquire reliable information about which of the members of the Constantinople clergy who fell away from the union returned to the Orthodox Church with the preservation of their church degrees, and according to what rank they were accepted.
It is not superfluous to inform Archbishop Joseph that the Holy Synod favorably accepts his request, and if it does not immediately resolve it, then so that this happens while maintaining peaceful relations with the Ecumenical Patriarch.
Letter from the Metropolitan of Kiev and petition from the Archbishop
No. 146. December 27, 1861 173
December 28. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, in the case of riots in the Diveyevo convent
Sending to the Holy Synod an investigation into the election of Glyceria to the head of the Diveyevo monastery, I find it necessary to turn to Your Excellency with some additional information related to this matter. This information was inconvenient to introduce into the case, firstly because it was collected by one Archimandrite Yakov, separately from another investigator, and not officially, and secondly, because some information about Hieromonk Joasaph is too disgraceful, and their publicity would expose the monastic rank to mockery, to which many are now disposed. Some Diveyevo sisters revealed to the archimandrite, as a clergyman, circumstances that they did not want to talk about in front of another investigator or a secular person.
Therefore, I forward the following papers at your discretion:
1) Report of Archimandrite Yakov, dated November 17.
2) An extract from the story of the life of Elder Seraphim, with comments by Archimandrite Jacob.
4) a most secret note about Hieromonk Joseph.
As for Mr. Betling’s note mentioned in the report, it is attached to my report to the Holy Synod.
You need to keep this most secret note in mind in order to know with what caution you need to look at Hieromonk Joasaph.
December 30th. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret with its conclusion on the report of Bishop Nektary on the behavior of the head of the Diveyevo monastery, Elisaveta Ushakova
By a secret decree of the Holy Synod, dated August 19, 1861, No. 2665, I was ordered to hand over the report of His Grace Nektary, Bishop of Nizhny Novgorod, regarding the Diveyevo monastery, or more precisely, about the behavior of its head Elisaveta Ushakova, to the previously appointed investigators for investigation.
Fulfilling this order, I suggested to the investigators that this case, as having a special subject, should be carried out separately from the previously appointed investigation on the election of the boss.
On the 13th day of this December, the investigators presented to me, with their report, the investigative file presented with this, on 145 pages.
The diocesan matter began with a report from the housekeeper of the bishop's house, Hieromonk Theodosius. 5 points of denunciation all fell on the boss Elisaveta. The denunciation does not name a single person from whom the denunciator received information: and thus the informers are hidden, from whom proof of the denunciation should be required; and saved so that the whistleblowers could turn into witnesses.
The denunciation from March 29 until May 19 remained without action. From the fact that on this very day the Right Reverend Nektarios offered Elizabeth to be the head of another monastery, one should conclude that he considered the denunciation not worthy of respect. But on this very day, the Eminence instructed the keymaster to carry out an inquiry into this matter. If this order is taken as a sign that the Right Reverend found the denunciation respectful, then it is not clear how on the same day he allowed Elizabeth to be among the candidates for election to the head by lot, and did not postpone the election until it was explained whether the denunciation was fair or false.
The keymaster's report, dated May 31, repeated the same articles of the denunciation, saying that some sisters confirmed the denunciation, while others did not; but again none of them is named; and it was noted that it was difficult to find the truth in the biased testimony of the sisters who were troubled at that time.
Thus, the inquiry was also clearly unfounded, like the previous denunciation: however, the Right Reverend ordered Dean Rozov to carry out the most rigorous and detailed study on them.
The informer extended the shame from the Diveyevo boss Elisaveta to the Sarov abbot Seraphim. In the study of priest Rozov, Elisaveta answered that the builder visited the Diveyevo monastery two or three times a year, at her invitation, according to the needs of the monastery, and also Hieromonk Jacob no more than twice; that she visited the Sarov monastery no more than three times a year to venerate the tomb of Elder Seraphim, and on monastery business with the sisters and the coachman, but once, for the occupation of working people and horses, she rode with one sister on the same horse.
Witnesses to Elizabeth's exile under oath
Former dean Ksenia Ilyina, confirming Elizabeth’s testimony, added that Jacob, as she heard, was there to draw up an inventory of church property - that he and the builder never stayed until late in the evening.
68 sisters showed the same.
The Glyceria listed on the list, which therefore belong to its party, showed:
Praskovya Pavlova began by censure of the sisters who testified in favor of Elizabeth. Attributes impudence to them and refers to the Eminence; no doubt, in relation to the incident during the election of Glyceria, in which case there was an urgent request from those loyal to Elizabeth; not insolence. Then, he says that the builder and Jacob visited the boss and the treasurer the first time three times a year, and the second once to write some papers, the first stayed for a day and a half, and the second for two days; We returned to the hotel at 10 pm.
33 sisters showed the same.
Varvara Ivanova and 20 with her visited often.
Glafira and a few - that they were very tempted.
The eldest in the living room Matrona - the builder and Jacob visited three times a year; the latter once spent the night in the horse yard.
Praskovya and Varvara don’t know about the riots, but they heard.
Praskovya Pavlova and her 57 boss often visited the Sarov hermitage.
14 - stayed in Sarov for five days, which they were very tempted by.
(And when Joasaph lived for months at a time in the dean’s cell, they were not tempted. It is clear that they are not jealous of moral dignity, but are slandering the boss who is not from their party).
Finally, after taking testimony from all the sisters, Glafira Vasilyeva recalled that the former boss Elisaveta, recently, before the arrival of the Eminence, went to the Sarov hermitage three times a week, kept it in her cell and did not forbid the novices from drinking bread wine, etc.
Priest Rozov, presenting the investigation to his Eminence, himself admitted to his illegal act, that he did not allow the defendant Elizabeth to read the investigation and sign whether she was satisfied or not; this is supposedly so that strong hostility does not arise between parties.
Then, investigators appointed by the Holy Synod, in the investigation of priest Rozov, discovered the following illegalities: witnesses on Elizabeth’s side were sworn in without her; the witnesses against her were sworn in without her, and by the investigator himself; Elizabeth was not asked whether she had any reasons for disqualifying witnesses; No excuse was taken from her, as the defendant.
So the investigation of priest Rozov has no legal merit at all.
New investigators announced an investigation to Elizabeth: and she remained dissatisfied with it, presenting, among other things, the following: the investigator did not inform her of the persons who were allowed to interrogate against her, most of whom belong to the hostile party of Joasaph; took the oath without her, and he himself, while there are two priests at the monastery, accepted new denunciations against her, which were not in the reports of the cleric and treasurer; did not ask Glikeria where she got the list of sisters, through which the sergeant and housekeeper allegedly made the inquiry. (It should be noted here that if this list is correct, then it is clear that those who were informers to the steward were subsequently turned into witnesses). Finally, Elizabeth considers it incredible that Theodosius could question 65 sisters, judging by his short stay in the monastery, while doing many other things. Elizabeth asked to investigate the matter in truth.
In the justification taken from her, she more fully and conclusively confirmed what she had previously shown during interrogation.
The Sarov builder explained that he happened to be in the Diveyevo community two or three times a year and visit the abbess for a short time, and each time Elder Eugene accompanied him; last winter, not finding Prince Shakhaev, I went to the Diveyevo monastery; were at the boss's at 4 o'clock in the afternoon; and due to the blizzard they stayed overnight at the hotel. Abbess Elisaveta visited Sarov twice, and sometimes, maybe three times a year, seeing him in church and at the hotel, to receive blessings and for the needs of the monastery. In May of this year she had never been to Sarov.
Monk Eugene confirmed the builder’s testimony.
Glafira Vasilyeva, asked for proof, testified that she could not remember when Elisaveta went to Sarov after Easter. She didn’t tell investigator Rozov about the indecent treatment of her boss, Elisaveta, but she said it about the treasurer, Evfimiya.
Anisya Soldatova testified that she traveled with Elisaveta for a coachman to Sarov, but also to Arzamaz; I didn’t go with her in May, but in June I went on behalf of Glykeria to ask for wood.
Pelagia Gumillevskaya, that after Easter Elizabeth did not go to Sarov.
Glyceria - she doesn’t know about this, but she has heard; and confirmed about the trip in June.
A witness to Elizabeth’s exile, Ksenia Musina, testified that the builder visited the Diveyevo monastery two or three times a year, and in Elizabeth’s cell for an hour or two, much like three, that she considered the gossip about this from the sisters of Joasaph’s party to be enemy teaching.
Praskovya Pashina - doesn’t know and hasn’t heard.
Anisya Soldatova had never heard of gossip and there was nothing tempting.
Daria Kamenskaya (who built the church) - that she was constantly in the cells of the boss Elizabeth; When visiting the builder, there was one thing that was edifying and useful for spiritual life.
Ekaterina Engalycheva - I haven’t heard about the gossip; a builder, according to his pious life, deserves full respect - in Elizabeth she always saw an edifying example of spiritual life.
Matrona Bobkova - I have never heard of indecency; Elizabeth is a kind mother to everyone; knows nothing but good things about the builder.
Daria Mamonova - did not find anything indecent; builder of spiritual life; Elizabeth has an exemplary life.
Glafira Kharkevich - thoroughly and strongly expresses trust and respect for the builder and Elisabeth.
Ekaterina Burova - no one was tempted by the visit of the builder and Yakov, and everyone was happy.
Without an oath, due to her evasions from it, Ksenia Pushkova - there was nothing seductive; Elizabeth rarely went to Sarov, only for the monastery and to venerate the tomb of Elder Seraphim.
Mavra Elkova, Praskovya Boldyreva - the same.
Nastasya Voroshilova doesn’t know anything, she listens to herself.
Five sisters announced that during the investigation of priest Rozov they did not show anything against the boss; and resolutely rejected the testimony written by priest Rozov.
Matryona Osipova announced that she was included in the list of sisters who testified against Elisaveta without her knowledge.
The venerable priest Sadovsky testified: the builder visits the Diveyevo monastery and its superior two or three times a year, for the shortest possible time, and is always accompanied by one of the Sarov elders. His visits showed him to be a respected superior. Elizabeth led and leads a humble and godly life; She always treats the sisters entrusted to her management with maternal love, meekly, spiritually and nobly.
The former Ardat police officer of the 1st Columbus camp says that society’s opinion of Elizabeth was excellent.
Princess Shakhaeva, following Elizabeth’s reference, writes that Joasaph unscrupulously forced the innocent Mrs. Ushakova to suffer because she protected the monastery from his ugly dominion.
The heads of the Ardatov and Alekseevskaya communities, the abbess of the St. Nicholas Arzamaz monastery, and the dean of the monasteries, Archimandrite Joachim, all spoke approvingly of Elizabeth.
Nine noblemen spoke of Elizabeth as excellent and exemplary in her life and management of the community.
Investigators note that priest Rozov asked witnesses against Elizabeth not on the orders of the older sisters, but on the list compiled by Marya Karaulova, which included 57 sisters who elected Glyceria, that is, who constituted her party. Of these, 26 in the statements for 1858, the boss Lodyzhenskaya showed the behavior of unreliable, willful and impudent; 10 of those who, until 1859, consisted of disobedience to their superiors - and from whom, according to Lodyzhenskaya’s review, no change for the better was expected. This list also includes the sister of Joasapha, the widow of Muranov, who is not included in the monastery lists. On the contrary, of the number of sisters who testified in favor of Elizabeth, 30 were recommended for three years to behave very well and very well; and there are none that are not approved.
Investigators also note that priest Rozov entered into the investigation a testimony on behalf of Anna Yudina: but it turned out that when he was in Diveyevo, she was not in the monastery.
They also note that during the selection of the abbess by the Right Reverend Nectarius, when the majority of the sisters testified to the dignity of Elizabeth, the opposing party had the opportunity to testify against Elizabeth if they knew something bad about her; but then no one expressed doubts about her honest life.
The question of the relationship between Elizabeth’s boss and the Sarov rector is separated here from other parts of the case, so that many different testimonies on many different subjects do not confuse attention when considering the case; and that a continuous series of evidence and considerations thereof should clearly and directly lead to a conclusion. The conclusion from all of the above, in my opinion, should be that the builder Seraphim and the boss Elizabeth are respectable persons who cannot be blamed, and that the slander against them is slander from ill-intentioned people.
I don’t have time to analyze each of the other points of the denunciation in a similar way; but, having read the report of the investigators, I believe that their analysis will not lead to a conclusion that disagrees with the one that is now proposed in relation to the boss Elizabeth.
As for the former treasurer Euphemia, I have not made a set of denunciations and testimonies about her for the reason stated above. This should be done by the Office of the Holy Synod.
Attached is also a report from the investigators.
December 30, 1861 175 .
In December. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Moscow military governor-general, P.A. Tuchkov, with an opinion about the harassment of schismatics, to obtain permission to print altars in the chapels of the Rogozh almshouse
Moscow Governor General P.A. Tuchkov, in a letter dated December 11, 1861, No. 651, asked His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret to provide feedback on the request of the trustees of the Rogozh almshouse, Moscow merchants, A. Dosuzhev and E. Bochin, about unsealing altars in the chapels at that cemetery, and thereby freeing those located there: the utensils from damage and decay, and St. mold icons.
In response to this, the Metropolitan wrote:
To the attitude of Your Excellency, dated December 11, 1861, No. 651, with the attachment of a petition submitted by the trustees of the Rogozh almshouse, Moscow merchants Andrei Dosuzhev and Yevsey Bochin to the Minister of Internal Affairs, about the unsealing of altars in the chapels at the Rogozhsky cemetery, for the release of the utensils and St. icons from melting and mold - I have the honor to explain the following:
1) the information presented in relation to the Minister of Internal Affairs does not fully correspond with the actual circumstances of the case about the sealing of altars in Rogozh chapels, which was in the Moscow secret advisory committee on schismatic and sectarian affairs - 1856, June 9th. In relation to the city minister, it is stated that the altars in the said chapels were sealed by the highest approved resolution of the secret committee on the affairs of schismatics, as a result of the letter of Hieromonk Parthenius about the unauthorized creation of a schism in these chapels on January 23, 1856 176; the investigation carried out did not reveal such a finding; why was it ordered by the highest order to confront Hieromonk Parthenius with the unfoundedness of the information he communicated; but the altars were not printed.
Meanwhile, from the files of the committee, which contains an exact copy of the “special journal of the St. Petersburg secret committee about the schismatics on March 12, April 5 and May 16, 1856, “in the case of the actions of the schismatics, the so-called “Rogozhsky cemetery in Moscow”, it is clear: that, by the highest approval of the resolution of this committee, in the said case, due to His Imperial The Majesty's resolution: to be considered immediately in the secret committee, and to take urgent measures to curb the criminal willfulness of the schismatics - it was necessary; separate two, one from the other, independent questions: first: which of the schismatics of the Rogozhsky cemetery should be found guilty of arbitrarily causing a schism? second: what urgent measures, based on the exact basis of the highest will, should be taken to curb the criminal willfulness of the schismatics? An investigation was appointed to resolve the first issue. The second question was resolved prior to the investigation and independently of it, by sealing the altars in the Rogozh chapels.
The subsequent highest approval on June 12, 1856 more decisively expressed the independence of the measure of sealing the altars from the investigative case and its outcome. On the original journal of the St. Petersburg committee, it is written in His Imperial Majesty’s own hand: to fulfill according to the opinion of six members, especially since since there are no priests at the Rogozhsky cemetery and should not be allowed unless they join Orthodoxy or Edinoverie, then altars for the service are not needed. Therefore: the altars could not and were not unsealed, despite the known outcome of the investigation.
2) With regard to the Minister, it is explained that in relation to the worship of schismatics and in general to the actions of the civil and spiritual authorities with them, in October 1858 (Ministry Circular of October 15, 1858 and the attitude, dated October 18 of the same year, No. 1660), detailed instructions followed, applying which questions arising on this subject should be resolved; and by the highest order on April 21 of this year, the highest supervision over the orders for the Rogozh almshouse was entrusted to his main and immediate leadership, the minister. But the present question regarding the altars, sealed by the highest command, absolutely does not fit the instructions set forth in the said circular of October 15, 1858, for guidance in executive actions and meetings on matters pertaining to the schism. As for the attitude, dated October 18, 1858, it is completely unknown to me. Equally unknown to me is the exact meaning of the highest command of April 21 of this year on the degree of authority given to Mr.
minister in relation to the orders regarding the Rogozh almshouse: however, without a doubt, the highest supervision over the said orders, entrusted to the main and immediate leadership of the minister, also includes supervision over the execution of the highest order regarding the sealing of the altars in the Rogozh chapels, which took place on June 12, 1856.
3) The trustees of the Rogozh almshouse ask for the opening of the altars under a plausible pretext in order to free the utensils stored in the altars from damage and decay and St. mold icons. But such liberation requires only a temporary opening of the altars, in which case the utensils and icons could be taken out for storage in a more convenient and accessible place. And then the altars must be returned to the position in which the highest order placed them on June 12, 1856. But due to the above considerations, such temporary opening of the altars should not be allowed without a special order from the highest order 177.
Not earlier than 1861. Opinion of Metropolitan Philaret on the ancient icons of the overseer of the Transfiguration almshouse Sorokin
The overseer of the Transfiguration almshouse, Sorokin 178, has a collection of ancient images, books and manuscripts, and is looking for an opportunity to sell this collection, especially icons, without fragmentation, for the purpose of domestic and church benefit. This collection was given to him by the will of his relative 179 along with a house and a chapel in it of a non-priestly kind, which Sorokin, soon after joining the Edinoverie Church, destroyed. From Sorokin, the schismatics bought a house and a chapel with the entire congregation, giving a very significant sum, but he did not sell them anything because he would allow the continuation of the chapel to the detriment of Orthodoxy and considered it criminal for those who joined St. churches. He proved this way of thinking by deeds when he gave away another collection of ancient icons that he had to the Guslitsky monastery for a price that was twice as much as the schismatics gave him 180 .
The late Metropolitan Gregory (†June 17, 1860) bought several icons from Sorokin from his remaining collection, but, for an unknown reason, returned them to Sorokin.
Some of these icons attracted the attention of the Empress and were presented to Her.
Sorokin ascribes special importance to the collection of icons he now has both in terms of antiquity and art, so that in the hands of the spiritual authorities they could serve as models for the restoration of ancient icon painting 181. On the contrary, if they pass into the hands of schismatics from the hands of a fellow believer, they will be an important acquisition for the schism, and, in all likelihood, will serve as the foundation of a new schismatic prayer house somewhere.
Meanwhile, Sorokin, due to his limited condition, cannot keep them for long.
Wouldn't it be possible to purchase these icons for the ecclesiastical department? 182
Batyushkov, Pompey Nikolaevich, being at the Ministry of Internal Affairs, had supervision over the construction of churches in the northwestern region, built at public expense.
Leonid, bishop Dmitrovsky, then archbishop. Yaroslavl and Rostov, deceased. Dec. 15, 1876. See about him, vol. III, p. 396, note. 5 of this edition.
It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor Holy Synod, 1861, No. 3.
Tolstoy, Count Alexander Petrovich, Chief Prosecutor. Holy Synod; mind. September 22, 1873
Gorsky, Alexander Vasilyevich, see about him III volume of this edition, No. 367, p. 468, appendix. 1.
From an autograph, keeping. in secret. stationery papers Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1856, No. 190, pp. 56 and 57.
i.e. Isidore (Nikolsky), Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg.
It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1861; No. according to arch. 114, l. 20.
Palauzov, Spiridon Nikolaevich, Bulgarian, student at the Alexander Lyceum; Master's degree from Moscow University; mind. in Pavlovsk, August 14, 1872. See detailed information about him in the separate 5th volume of this edition, No. 45, pp. 223 and 224, approx. 4.
From a handwritten draft original stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 95, vol. I, document. No. 41.
Panin, Count Viktor Nikitich, Minister of Justice, Chairman of the Comm. for peasant affairs, member. state sov., d.t.s.; mind. April 12, 1874
Tanilsky, Mikhall Ivanovich, senator, secret. Sov.; mind. from apoplexy blow, January 2, 1883. Curious and characteristic information about the relations of the Metropolitan. Philaret to M.I. Tapilsky, who was sent to the Moscow ruler to clarify some questions that might arise when drawing up the draft manifesto on the liberation of the peasants, printed. in Art. Academician M.I. Sukhomlinov, in the journal, “Historical Bulletin”, 1885, January, pp. 71–79, under the title: “Two episodes from the era of the liberation of the peasants.”
Neither the statement of thoughts nor the draft manifesto were found in the papers of Metropolitan Philaret.
From a handwritten draft original stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 79, document. No. 5.
In the 2nd P.S.Z.R.I., vol. XXXVI, No. 36650, p. 131, printed. "were convinced" and the words: "were admitted" were released.
In the 2nd P.S.Z.R.I., vol. XXXVI, No. 36650, p. 131, it is added: “and with the consent of the landowners, they can acquire ownership of field lands.”
In the 2nd P.S.Z.R.I., vol. XXXVI, No. 36650, p. 132, it is added: “and factories.”
In the 2nd P.S.Z.R.I., vol. XXXVI, No. 36650, p. 132, it is added: “in compliance with the rules established for birth.”
From a handwritten blackish original kept in the archives of the Holy Synod. According to inventory No. 79, document. No. 6. See 2nd P.S.Z.R.I., vol. XXXVI, No. 36650, pp. 130–134, where the manifesto is printed with minor discrepancies indicated under the text of the draft manifesto compiled by Metropolitan Philaret.
From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 79, document. No. 7.
From a handwritten draft original stored in the Moscow diocesan library, dep. II; sheets 122–123.
Macarius, hieroschemamonk, elder of Optina Hermitage; mind. September 7, 1860
The first 8 points are from a copy, and the last from a handwritten original, stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 23, document. No. 3. Genuine. The papers are kept in a candel file. Holy Synod, 1861, No. 3954.
The matter is spiritual and educational. management at the Holy Synod, 1860, No. 2647.
It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1861, archive no. 123.
Isidore (Nikolsky) Metropolitan. Novgorod and St. Petersburg, from July 1, 1860
Case of the Office of the Holy Synod, 1861, No. 3954.
Gorchakov, light Prince Alexander Mikhailovich; mind. February 27, 1883
From a handwritten draft original stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 74, document. No. 18.
See about him above No. 571, p. 20.
Leonid (Kavelin), priest. Optina is empty, now the governor of the Trinity Sergius. laurel.
Case of the Moscow Committee for Censorship of Spiritual Books, 1861 No. 5.
Case of the Holy Synod, 1861, No. 119, No. 124.
Information about the archim. Theodore (Bukharev) and about his writings, see Ist. Moscow d. acad. S. Smirnova, M. 1879, pp. 463–465.
From a handwritten draft original, from the papers of Metropolitan Philaret, stored in the Moscow diocesan library, dep. III, pp. 106–116.
From the handwritten original of Metropolitan Philaret, from his papers kept in the Moscow dioceses. library. Dept. III, pp. 117–120; keeps a copy of the proposal. in secret papers, office of the chief prosecutor. Holy Synod, 1861, No. 203.
Nektary (Nadezhdin), archbishop. Nizhny Novgorod, from May 14, 1867, and before that, from September 22. 1860, bishop; from 21 Jan. 1869, Kharkov; mind. 7 Sep. 1874. See “Lists of hierarchs and abbots.” monastery Russian churches", comp. P. Stroev, St. Petersburg, 1877, column. 966.
It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1861, No. according to architect. 11, houses 20 and 21.
Cyril, St., Bishop of Jerusalem; Prest. in 385
Arius, presbyter of Alexandria, died a disastrous and sudden death in 336.
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, founder of the new philosophical school. schools; mind. from cholera, November 14, 1831. His works were published by friends in Berlin in 1832.
Nikita, schismatic priest, nicknamed "Pustoskit", lived previously in the city of Suzdal and was a priest during the reign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. He was entrusted with other persons with the correction of liturgical books, but the books he corrected were full of false teachings, for which he was excommunicated from the church.
With authentic papers signed by Metropolitan. Philaret and storing. in a special collection; to the library St. Petersburg spirit. acad., ll. 24–41.
To Prince A. M. Gorchakov, about whom see above, No. 575, p. 29.
It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1861, No. 297.
Lanskoy, Sergiy Stepanovich, Minister of Internal Affairs, acting. secrets sov., member state council, senator; mind. in 1868
Olferyev, Nikolai Ivanovich, at that time held the position of Chief Secretary of the Holy Synod.
Afanasy (Sokolov), archbishop. Kazan from November 3, 1856; Retired in Kizichesky Monastery, November 9, 1866
Nikodim (Kazantsev), bishop. Cheboksary from February 14, 1854, and from September 18, 1861 bishop. Yenisei; discharged April 9, 1870
From the gravy and a copy, storing. in the archives of the Holy Synod, inventory No. 61, document No. 2 and to No. 6/6. Case of the chancellor. Chief Prosecutor Holy Synod, 1861, No. 149.
That is, Isidore (Nikolsky), Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg.
It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1861, No. according to architect. 114, length. 113–115.
From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory, No. 61, document. No. 7.b. office business. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1861, No. 149.
Mitrofan, St., first bishop. Voronezh, who ruled the diocese for 21 years; Prest. November 23, 1703; before his death he accepted the schema with the name Macarius. His memory is celebrated on November 23.
It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1860, No. 2, pp. 31–33,
However, Shchapov did not invent anything new: democratic Christianity was proclaimed in the Paris revolution of 1848. A cross was carried in front of a crowd of rebels and priests were forced to consecrate the tree of freedom. Democratic Christianity shot at non-democratic Christians; and when the Archbishop of Paris wanted to stop the bloodshed, democratic Christianity killed the Archbishop on the barricades.
From a copy, corrected and supplemented by the hand of the Metropolitan, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 61; document No. 8 Case of office. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1861, No. 149, l. 83.
From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 15, document. No. 1.
For example, Countess Razumovskaya was not recognized during the reign of Alexander I. The Velgorskys, precisely because of their marriage, were not allowed to the court until the death of Empress Maria Feodorovna. These were clear disapprovals of illegality, guarding against the spread of temptation. In Gvozdev, isn’t there an example of a man who, having evaded justice in human society, will face the judgment of God? Note Metropolitan Philareta.
From copies, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 50, document. No. 23.
Govorsky, Ksenophon Antonovich.
From secret stationery papers Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1861, No. 115; l.26.
From a handwritten original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 4, doc. No. 2.
It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1861, No. according to architect. 11, pp. 37 and 38.
It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor Holy Synod, 1861, No. 152.
The Vitebsk Seminary, until 1855 located in Polotsk and called Polotsk, this year was transferred to Vitebsk with the same name; but in 1871 it was renamed Vitebsk. In 1860, professor sab. carried out an audit of the Polotsk seminary. spirit. Academy V.N. Karpov († 1867) and found it in such a disorganized state in all parts of the administration that he considered it fair to close it and place the students in nearby seminaries.
From a copy stored in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 113, document. No. 15.
It's a matter of office. Holy Synod, 1861, No. 3072.
Jacobites - Syrian Monophysites. They received their name from Jacob Baradei, a student of Severus, patriarch of the heresy of Antioch (VI century).
From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 4, document. No. 9.
Subsequently bishop of Smolensk († 1869).
The village of Bezdna, Kazan, province, Spassky district, estate of the landowner Musin-Pushkin. This village became notorious for the events that followed the promulgation of the Regulations on the Emancipation of Peasants in 1861.
Shchapov A.P. Bachelor of Russian History at Kazan D. Acad. He taught the same subject at the university. Mind. 28 Feb. 1876
Bulich N.N. professor of Russian literature at Kazan University, later rector of the same university.
Porfiryev I.Ya. Professor in the Department of Theory of Literature and History of Literature at the Kazan Academy.
From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 61, document. No. 7/a.
This priest is known in literature under the name of Svyatogorets. With this name, a collection of his works and letters to his friends about St. was published in 1866. Mount Avon, Palestine and Russian holy places, in 4 parts, with maps and drawings.
It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1861, No. 294.
Nektary (Nadezhdin), bishop. Nizhny Novgorod from September 22, 1860, from May 14, 1867 archbishop; from January 21, 1869 Kharkov, † 1874
Archim. Jacob, later Bishop of Murom, Vicar of Vladimir. passed away in 1885 retired to Moscow. Don Monastery.
Adlerberg, Count Vladimir Fedorovich, Adjutant General, Infant General, Chancellor. imperial and royal orders, minister. courtyard and estates; mind. March 8, 1884 (burial at the wolf cemetery, in St. Petersburg, in the family crypt of the Adlerberg family).
It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1861 No. 4246, pp. 16–19.
It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1861 No. 89, l. 43.
Represented Moscow censored Committee, No. 18.
Morigerovsky Alexey – candidate of the 20th year (1858) Moscow. acad.
Neophyte (Sosnin), Archbishop. Permian; from November 15, 1836, vicar of Staritsa; from April 23, 1838, bishop. Vyatka; from March 29, 1856, archbishop. Permian; mind. July 5, 1868
From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 113, document. No. 17. authentic stores. in spiritual matters.-educational. management at the Holy Synod, 1861, No. 4236, pp. 47–49.
Of course P.I. Salomon, administration, chancellor. Holy Synod.
It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1861, archive no. 332, l. 40.
It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1861, archive no. 11, l. 63.
It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1861, archive no. 114, l. 156.
Archim. Benjamin, now the Bishop of Kineshma, vicar of Kostroma.
Ilminsky, Nikolai Ivanovich, now director. Kazan foreign teacher's seminar.
Nikodim (Kazantsev), since 1851 Bishop of Cheboksary, Vicar of Kazan. diocese; 1861 Yenisei lists; in 1870 he was retired; June 11, 1874 died.
Archbishop Afanasy (Sokolov) was retired on November 9, 1866 and died on January 1, 1868. January 1, 1868 (Changes have been made to the text according to the list of edits at the end of the volume. - Editorial of the ABC of Faith).
From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory, No. 61; document No. 7.
It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1861, No. according to architect. 11, no. 75.
Afanasy (Sokolov), archbishop. Kazan and Sviyazhsky, from November 3, 1856, to November 9, 1866; mind. retired, Jan. 1, 1868
The lecture on Guea, which Sokolov gave last year in the presence of Prince Sergius Nikolaevich Urusov, was stolen from a secular magazine.
With original, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to the inventory of papers of Metropolitan. Filareta, No. 61; document No. 11 and secret. stationery papers. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1861, No. 115, l. 26.
From a handwritten draft original, from the papers of Metropolitan Philaret, stored in the Moscow diocesan library, dep. IX, sheet. 186–187.
Urusov, Prince Sergei Nikolaevich, comrade of the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, then member. state owls, d. secrets. council; mind. May 13, 1883
From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 109, document No. 2.
It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1861, No. according to architect. 11, pp. 84–85.
Case office. St. Synod, 1861, No. 4246, l. 40.
From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory, No. 23, document. No. 4.
From a handwritten draft original, from the papers of Metropolitan Philaret, stored in the Moscow diocesan library, dep. IX, sheet. 88–92.
From a copy, corrected and supplemented by the hand of Metropolitan Philaret, from his papers stored in the Moscow Diocesan Library, Dept. VIII, l. 24.
Putyatin, Count Evfimy Vasilievich, Adjutant General; mind. Oct 16, 1883
Kudryavtsev Viktor Dmitr., Master of the XVIII year Moscow. d.ac.; since 1854 he has been teaching philosophy at the academy. Many of his deeply scientific articles, mainly of philosophical content, were published in spiritual magazines.
From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 109; document No. 5.
Chief Manager of the 2nd Department. His own E.I.V. office was at that time Bludov, Count Dmitry Nikolaevich, who died in the rank of acting. secrets councilor, chairman of states. Council, February 19, 1864
Orlov, Prince Nikolai Alekseevich, extraordinary. ambassador and plenipotentiary minister in Belgium, then in France; mind. March 17, 1885
That is, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, who at that time was the chairman of the committee established to consider the draft military regulations on punishments.
From a handwritten original, kept. in the Moscow spirit. academic, package No. 3; document Nos. 60 and 61. A copy of this opinion is available in the draft papers of Metropolitan. Filareta, op. 79, document. No. 26. See office file. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1861, No. 73. Sl. Thurs. total history and ancient Russian, 1867, book. IV, 11–15.
See about him above, p. 42, note. 1.
From a handwritten draft original, from the Metropolitan’s papers, stored in the Moscow diocesan library. Dept. IX, sheet. 134–135.
It's a matter of office. St. Synod, 1861, No. 4246, l. 64.
Zephaniah (Sokolsky), later bishop. Novo-Mirgorodsky and then Archbishop of Turkestan, d. 1877
Juvenaly (Polovtsev) is now the governor of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra.
It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1861. No. 305, l. 58.
Putyatin, Count Evveny Vasilievich, † 16 Oct. 1883
From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 15, document. No. 3.
It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1861, No. 43.
It's a matter of office. St. Synod, 1861, No. 4246, l.70.
It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1861, No. according to architect. 11, l. 119.
Offenberg, baron, nadv. Soviet, in 1861 he was consul in Galati. in Moldova.
Saburov, Mikhail Ivanovich, in 1861, was a teacher. Hebrew and Greek languages in Moscow spiritual academy.
It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor Holy Synod, 1861, No. 96.
It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor Holy Synod, 1861, No. 9.
Chevykin, Konstantin Vladimirovich, Adjutant General, Infant General, Senate, Chief Directorate via communication and public building; mind. November 8, 1875, in Nice.
Bykov, engineer-captain, see volume IV of this publication, pp. 359–362.
From copies, storing in the case of the Moscow Holy Synod kovtors, 1858–1865, No. 208 (65), pp. 165–169, 170.
Predtechensky, Andrey Ivanovich, prof. S.-Pb. spirit. academician, from November 6, 1855 East. s.-pb duh.ak. I. Chistovich, St. Petersburg. 1857, p. 349 (Changes have been made to the text according to the list of edits at the end of the volume. - Editorial of the ABC of Faith).
It's a matter of office. spiritual and educational management. at the Holy Synod, 1861, No. 2443. Handwritten. Chernov, authentic. finds this opinion. in the papers of the Metropolitan. Philaret, keeping in the archives of the Holy Synod, op. No. 119, document. No. 6.
It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1861, No. 102, pp. 15 and 16.
Karpov, Vasily Nikolaevich, prof. S.-Pb. spirit. ak., news. scientist; mind. Dec 3, 1867
From a handwritten draft original stored in the Moscow diocesan library. Dept. II, leaf. 285–292.
It's a matter of office. Holy Synod, 1861, No. 776.
Archimandrite Porfiry (Popov) – master of the XVII course of the Moscow spirit. academy. From January 1861, from inspector of the academy, rector of Bethany Seminary. In December of the same year, due to illness, he was dismissed from his post as rector and appointed rector of the Stavropegic Simon Monastery in Moscow. In 1864 he was appointed rector of the Orthodox Church at the Imperial Russian Embassy in Rome, where on January 13. Died in 1866. (Soul. Thur. 1866, 1, pp. 109–127).
From a handwritten original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, in file 1861, No. 4284. But there were no further proceedings on this letter,
Case of the Holy Synod, 1861, No. 1503.
Archimandrite Veniamin (Blagonravov) is now the Archbishop of Irkutsk.
Vladimir, later the head of the Altai spirit. mission, now Bishop of Stavropol.
Porfiry (Sokolovsky), from September 13th. 1860 Bishop of Tomsk; in 1864 he was retired; Died on June 3, 1865.
From a handwritten draft original. Inventory No. 113, document. No. 18. See the case of chancellor. Holy Synod, 1861, upon delivery of inventory No. 494, according to register No. 517, pp. 119–120.
See above Nos. 579, 598, 603, 606, 608, 610, 611, 613, 617, 618, etc.
Feofan, later of Vladimir, since 1866 he has been in retirement in the Shatsk Vyshenskaya hermitage, Tambov diocese.
From a handwritten draft original, from the papers of Metropolitan Philaret, stored in the Moscow diocesan library, dep. XIX, sheet 171.
His Highness, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich.
After these words, at the beginning of the next page, in the original, in the hand of Metropolitan Philaret it is written in pencil: “Exposition of verbal communication on certain subjects.”
See original. personal highest decrees given to the Holy Synod for 1721, “report items from Sunod,” November 19, vol. 1, sheet. 17 rev. Full meeting of resolutions. and spacer according to the Department of Orthodoxy confession vol. 1, no. 285, p. 299; 2nd edition No. 312, p. 635.
In the original, the following words are crossed out in pencil: and in case of his absence he added: “The Synod agrees with the Senate and signs, and then publishes,”
From a handwritten draft original, according to inventory No. 79, document. Nos. 8, 9 and 10. A certified copy of this document is stored in the library of St. Petersburg. spirit. acad. ll. 10–14.
There was no written statement in the papers.
From a handwritten original, kept. in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 79, document. Nos. 11 and 13.
From a handwritten draft original, kept. in the archives of St. Suvod, according to inventory No. 104, document. Nos. 4 and 5. Copies of these documents, certified by Adjutant General P. A. Tuchkov, are kept in the minister’s file. internal affairs, 1861, No. 86, according to the archival inventory; to the collection Metropolitan's opinions Philaret, keeping to the library St. Petersburg spiritual acad., ll. 16–21. An extract from a letter from a Moscow clergyman to St. Petersburg, which tells about the event described above. See Soulful Reading, 1862, January, pp. 1-9. See also chancellor case. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1861, No. 158.
Since 1847, Archbishop of Don. In 1867 he was retired; † in 1872
In 1857 he was retired; † Oct 21, 1864
Justin (Mikhailov), Bishop of Vladimir, after the death of the Right Reverend Jacob, temporarily ruled the Nezhgorod diocese.
Peremin (Soloviev), from December 19th. 1850 Bishop of Nizhny Novgorod; On June 17, 1857 he was retired; mind. 6 Dec. 1884
Anthony (Pavlovsky), from July 20, 1850 to August 29, 1860, Bishop of Nizhny Novgorod.
Anthony (Pavlinsky), from July 20, 1850 to August 29, 1860, Bishop of Nizhny Novgorod.
Adj., under letters: A and B, kept on file, pp. 103–105; 148.
This includes the review of Princess Shakhaeva, attached at seven, under the letter B. Note Metropolitan Philareta.
From a handwritten original, from the Metropolitan’s papers kept in Moscow. diocesan library. Dept. IX, pp. 108–131. File of the Office of the Holy Synod, 1861 from No. 4246, pp. 87–101.
From a copy, storing in the case of chancellor St. Synod, 1861, No. 4291, pp. 37–39. More detailed information about Archbishop Joseph is contained in the Collection of Opinions and Reviews of Philaret, Metropolitan. Moscow for the Affairs of the Orthodox Church in the East, St. Petersburg. 1886. See the index of personal names under the word: Joseph (Sokolsky).
From a handwritten draft original, from the papers of Metropolitan Philaret, stored in the Moscow diocesan library, dep. IX, sheets 132–133.
From a handwritten original from the Metropolitan’s papers stored in the Moscow diocesan library. Dept. IX, sheets 172–183. The white list of the report is in the office file. St. Synod, 1861, No. 4246, pp. 149–157.
T. IV of this edition, No. 464, pp. 229–233.
From a handwritten draft original. Inventory, No. 11, document. No. 3.
Andrey Efimovich, Moscow merchant.
Merchant Evstigneevich, who belonged to the priestless sect of newlyweds.
For 122 icons, the Guslitsky monastery paid Sorokin 1,500 rubles. (See The Legend of the Beginning and Present Position of the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Guslitsky Monastery, M. 1863, p. 41). But, to deep regret, these icons, along with many other ancient icons that adorned the original wooden church of the Guslitsky monastery, founded in 1858, were destroyed by fire on March 26, 1868.
These icons were purchased for the Church and Archaeological Museum of the Kyiv Church. academy.
From the collection of papers of Metropolitan Philaret, stored in St. Petersburg. Theological Academy, ll. 243–244.