1863 г.

January 2. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, about the business trip of Professor Amphian Lebedev abroad Your Excellency, dear sir. Based on a note from the professor of the Moscow seminary Lebedev 278 (which was then returned) about sending him abroad to study Western religions, my meeting with the rectors of the academy and seminary led to a negative conclusion. The reasons for this are as follows: Professor Lebedev himself says that his health was “very upset” and only “improved significantly.” Therefore, it is doubtful whether it will be sufficient for the intensive training that his assumption will require. He had already left the chair once, and someone else had to take it. He occupied the chair of church history for four months, and wants to leave it to someone else. Frequent changes of mentors are unfavorable to the steady progress of teaching. He demands for himself a special chair, his chosen part of church history, in an academy or seminary. But the academy has no plans for him. The fragmentation of church history in the seminary, and the establishment of a department for one part of it, and, moreover, not one’s own Eastern or Russian church, but someone else’s Western one, in addition to requiring a special salary, would discordantly expand the organization of the seminary educational system, which is already quite complex. If in the vast sea of ​​Western libraries it is possible to catch something new regarding the history of the Western Church, useful for the Eastern Church, then it is necessary to cast the net many times and for a long time in order to catch what you want. Sufficient means for a thorough study of this subject can be found at home. With perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your excellency, dear sir, most humble servant, Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow There was no determination from the Holy Synod. January 4. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, with two notes attached: 1) “On the direction of the case about the Sinai manuscript” and 2) “Opinion about the Sinai manuscript of Archimandrite Porfiry Uspensky. S.P.B., 1862" Prince Sergei Nikolaevich brought me the opinion of Archimandrite Porfiry, a note from Archpriest Popov and a draft ruling on the Sinai manuscript. All this comes back. The matter seemed troubling to me. Therefore, I hasten to present two notes: 1) On the direction of the case regarding the Sinai manuscript. 2) In addition and reinforcement, analysis of the most important parts of the opinion of Archimandrite Porfiry. Whatever the judgment of my opinion, I hope not to be condemned in the sense that I am guided by care and precaution so that the matter does not get into an unpleasant situation. Invoking God's blessing upon you, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be your Excellency's most humble servant, Attached to this letter were two notes with the following content: Let us be allowed to present some doubts about the reliability of the direction that is supposed to be given to the case of the Sinai manuscript. I. Archimandrite Porfiry is appointed (together with another) to verify the manuscript published by Tischendorf with the original and with the text of the Bible accepted in the Orthodox Church. This means that Archimandrite Porfiry and the other one with him are accepted as witnesses about whether the edition is true to the original, and how different the Sinai text is from the generally accepted one, and how much therefore it deserves respect. But Archimandrite Porfiry is an informer against the dignity of the Sinai text: therefore, can he be a legal witness? No justice allows the informer to be his own witness in his own denunciation. Moreover, Archimandrite Porfiry, in his printed opinion about the Sinai manuscript, already showed himself not to be calm and impartial, but passionately and intensely intensifying to give progress to his denunciation. This can be seen from the accompanying note, in which the most important parts of his opinion are written out and discussed. One witness (Archimandrite Herman) is insufficient, and it is inconvenient for one to compare the publication with the original; It’s more convenient for two people: one to read the original, or the generally accepted text, and the other to look at the new edition. II. Comparing the edition with the original is a lot of work and a big waste of time: you need to read the handwriting in an unusual, unclear manner, with extremely small corrections. But this work is, in all likelihood, unnecessary. Is it possible to think that Tischendorf, in a publication that was being done to great effect, committed errors or forgeries? Is it possible to think of a reason why he would decide to commit forgery? And could he hope to hide the forgeries from criticism, which will examine and examine his publication with hundreds of eyes, and from which he cannot hide the original, ready to expose the forgery? III. To instruct Archimandrite Antonin to present the Ecumenical Patriarch with copies of the published Sinai manuscript, explain to him all the details of this matter, and demand consideration, together with other patriarchs (and therefore conciliarly), of the merits or demerits of the said manuscript in a dogmatic sense, would be very unofficial. If the Ecumenical Patriarch had sent his archimandrite to the All-Russian Synod with such a verbal demand, the Holy Synod would have been surprised and would have found it difficult to decide whether to show trust and whether to get involved in the matter. This is how the most holy patriarch can look at the presentation of Archimandrite Antoninus and find it incongruous with his dignity. IV. II what can be expected if he accepts this idea? In the east there are no people who would prove themselves experienced in archeology and criticism of church writing. Meanwhile, Archimandrite Porfiry has already launched harsh accusations against the Sinai manuscript into the eastern hierarchy, which could arouse persecutive jealousy against it, without examining it. From this it may happen that a conciliar ruling will be drawn up against the Sinai manuscript as heretical, which European learned criticism will then condemn as based on ignorance of the matter. Shouldn't we be careful not to lead things down a path that could lead to such an unpleasant end? V. Also, if it happens that the Eastern hierarchy condemns the Sinai manuscript as heretical, and the All-Russian Synod, after a thorough investigation, in accordance with thorough European criticism, finds it simply faulty, like many other, and even famous manuscripts, and not intentionally heretical: what then should the Holy Synod do? Reject the unfounded Eastern opinion, to the displeasure of the East; or, in order to maintain harmony with the East, join in its misunderstanding and be subjected to thorough disapproval on the part of European learning? Shouldn't we be careful not to lead things down a path that could lead to such an unpleasant end? VI. It should not be ignored that Simonides denies the antiquity of the Sinai manuscript, but claims that he himself wrote it on Mount Athos in 1839. According to this testimony, the manuscript is a forgery and has not a drop of dignity. True, Simonides became famous for paleographic forgeries, and was imprisoned for them, and therefore does not deserve trust, which the appearance of the manuscript does not inspire; but Simonides points out witnesses, among whom are named: the St. Panteleimon Monastery hieromonk Procopius, the Russian monk Pavel, the monastery calligrapher Dionysius. And the Alexandrian hieromonk Kallinikos put himself forward in favor of Simonides and wrote a letter about this to the publisher of the Literary Churchman. Tischendorf refutes Simonides; however, a decisive judgment on the subject of the dispute can only be made after examining the case. What direction could be given to this matter, more cautious and more trustworthy? For the time being, refrain from demanding a conciliar decision on the merits of the Sinai list, but direct the matter towards carrying out a thorough inquiry and study of the origin, detailed composition and quality of the Sinai list, and bringing the matter to such clarity that there can be less fear of disagreement in the final decision. Accordingly, the order of the Holy Synod could be as follows: 1) Instruct the theological academies to compare the Sinaitic text with the generally accepted text, and in places subject to dispute, with the texts of the most important ancient manuscripts, and draw a conclusion about the merits of the Sinaitic copy in general, and in particular about whether it should be recognized as simply faulty, or heretical, deliberately damaged under the influence of heresy. 2) To make the work less lengthy, entrust two academies with the examination of the text of the Old Testament books, and two others of the New Testament. (As the comparison of the Gospel has already been carried out in the Moscow Academy, may it be favored to provide the New Testament). 3) How the bringing of the Sinaitic manuscript to Russia and the printing took place outside the department of the Holy Synod: then leave this matter for the time being on this path, and therefore provide the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, through the Russian embassy, ​​with delivering printed copies of the Sinaitic manuscript to the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Bishop of Sinai; inform them that scientific research is being carried out on its merits in Russia; and suggest whether they would please entrust such a study to some scientists from the Eastern clergy, and report it to Russia, so that a general consensus judgment and conclusion could be drawn up on this subject. 4) Instruct Archimandrite Antonin to go to Athos to Panteleimon’s hieromonk Procopius and ask for information: did the late abbot Benedict really want to bring a worthy gift of blessed memory to Emperor Nicholas I? Did he, Procopius, really recommend writing the Old and New Testaments for this purpose, in the likeness of the old models, on parchment, and this was proposed to the calligrapher Dionysius, but due to his refusal, Simonides took it upon himself, who for this purpose took from the library a thick, almost unwritten book of parchment, and wrote in it the Bible from the Moscow edition, and several old manuscripts? 5) He, Archimandrite Antonin, should address the Russian monk Paul of the Panteleimon Monastery: did he, together with Hieromonk Procopius, really give the late abbot Benedict the advice indicated in the previous paragraph, and was the matter really carried out as stated in the previous paragraph? 6) Should he go to the same monastery to the calligrapher Dionysius: was it really suggested to him by the late abbot Benedict to write the Old and New Testaments in ancient handwriting for Emperor Nicholas I, but did he refuse this? And was the Bible really ordered to be written under the circumstances indicated above in paragraph 4? 7) Demand that Archimandrite Antonin present the answers received from the above-mentioned persons to the Metropolitan of Novgorod for proposal to the Holy Synod. 8) Having received opinions about the Sinaitic manuscript from theological academies and from the east, and information from Athos, depending on their content, the Holy Synod may have a decision about whether to publish them for further discussion, and awaiting the judgment of Western scientists, or to appoint a commission to make a decisive conclusion about the Sinaitic manuscript. 2) Opinion about the Sinai manuscript of Archimandrite Porfiry Uspensky. Saint Petersburg. 1862 Country 13. “I do not recognize the dignity of such a text that gives different concepts about Jesus Christ, that He is not the Son of Mary, not the Son of God, does not have what the Father has, did not forgive the sinner, did not ascend into heaven, and, instead of the gift of speaking in tongues, gives the power to rule nations.” Note. All these terrible conclusions are drawn from the fact that some words were omitted from the manuscript. The manuscript says: And without her knowing, (Mary) gave birth to (Mary) a son. From this, Archimandrite Porfiry draws the following conclusion: “as if the publishers of this manuscript thought that Christ was not the fruit of Mary.” From what is said: she gave birth to a son, and did not add: her own, the archimandrite concludes that she gave birth to someone else’s son! The manuscript reads: the gospel of Jesus Christ; missing: son of God. From this the archimandrite concludes: “So Christ is not the son of God.” Let's give a similar example. In the generally accepted, or, as Archimandrite Porfiry puts it, in the Catholic text, the Evangelist Matthew (XVI. 16) says: You are the Christ, the son of the living God; and in the Evangelist Mark (VIII. 29): You are the Christ; and there are no words: son of the living God. Will the archimandrite take it into his head to conclude from this that the Evangelist Mark did not recognize Christ as the Son of God? Having noticed that in the Gospel of Mark the last 12 verses are missing in the Sinai manuscript, which speak of the Ascension of the Lord; and that in the Gospel of Luke, the words are also missing: and ascending into heaven, Archimandrite Porfiry exclaims: “So Christ did not ascend into heaven! Amazing!!! “Deafening!!!” It is truly strange that for two evangelists the omission of words fell on the same place, which contains a high dogma. However, calm down, at least a little, oh. archimandrite. In the same Sinai manuscript, by the hand of the same scribe, in accordance with the Catholic text, the Ascension of the Lord is mentioned three times, in the 1st chapter of the book of the Acts of the Apostles, and again, in the third chapter of the first letter to Timothy. So, if you see this scribe 280 twice as a heretic, then you cannot help but see him four times as Orthodox. How to reconcile one with the other? Is it possible to assume that the scribe was a heretic Docetus when he wrote the gospel, and having added to the book of the Acts of the Apostles, he became Orthodox: in this case, he would have considered it a matter of Orthodox conscience to correct the text of the gospel damaged by heresy, but he did not do this. So, isn’t it more likely that the scribe wrote correctly about the Ascension of the Lord four times; but twice he made an omission, either following the mistake of the previous scribe, or due to his own oversight. Archimandrite Porfiry himself admits several unintentional omissions in the Sinai manuscript. Country 26. “At the end of November 1860, I happened to be in Constantinople. Here the Alexandrian Patriarch Callinicus, whom I visited on the outskirts of Haskei (28 days), told me that the Sinai Bible had been handed over to us for a while, and that we must return it. I did not dispute him, but revealed to him that the text of this Bible was corrupted by heretics and was not corrected everywhere in accordance with the text of the Catholic Church, and in conclusion I asked him to communicate this opinion of mine to all the patriarchs and rulers, whom I could not see this time, because they were busy reuniting the Syrian Uniates. He promised to fulfill my request." Note. What was the need for Archimandrite Porfiry to hurry so much, so intensify himself, to spread throughout the entire hierarchy of the Eastern Church the opinion about the heretical nature of the Sinai manuscript, printed under the patronage and at the expense of the Sovereign Emperor of All Russia? It could do no good, could not ward off any harm, and could only spread an unfavorable opinion of the Russian government. Country 28. “I wrote a letter to St. Petersburg on April 10, 1861, in which I expressed my second opinion about the Sinai Bible and at the same time the desire that it be printed as an example of the damage to the New Testament text by heretics, and published with a learned preface, or the reasoning of some of our theologians. But this voice of mine, if I am not mistaken, was a voice crying in the wilderness.” Note. Who does the archimandrite want to hurt with these last words? Are the clergy actually Russian? “But he could have guessed that it didn’t know about his letter at all; and, moreover, it was necessary to judge that it could not write anything about the Sinai manuscript when it had not yet seen it. “At the end of October, 1861, I arrived in St. Petersburg, with all the precious acquisitions that I managed to acquire during my distant wanderings, and in all the houses where they received and listened to me as an evangelist about the East, I loudly said that the Sinai Gospel printed in Leipzig would alarm the entire Christian world, and I proved this by its very text, from which one can extract soul-shaking concepts about the face of Jesus Christ, that he not the Son of God, not the Son of Mary, did not ascend into heaven, etc., etc. My speeches excited many.” Note. Father Archimandrite testifies of himself that he spoke loudly against the Sinai manuscript in all the houses where he was received as a messenger about the East; and in this capacity they accept, and even with greater curiosity and attention than others, they accept both the poorly educated and the uneducated, who respect the East by faith. So, he spoke against the Sinai manuscript not only to theologians or scientists, but also to the poorly educated and uneducated, little or not at all capable of judging this matter. And he rejoices not in the fact that his speeches were understood and brought about conviction, but in the fact that they “excited many.” What do you mean excited? - Of course, they expressed displeasure against the government, which publishes a harmful manuscript. Is such a goal of action appropriate for a clergyman? Is it appropriate for a scientist? Is it proper for a government that respects and loves, and is jealous to the best of its ability, to protect its dignity in the opinion of the people? Did the archimandrite consider this with caution? Proclaiming that “the Sinai gospel will alarm the entire Christian world,” Archimandrite Porfiry is really sounding the alarm, and, as he himself says, has already alarmed many, while it has not yet been explained whether there are genuine signs of a fire, or just smoke coming from the chimney. But the Christian world will probably not follow the alarm of Archimandrite Porfiry because the Gospel of Mark is unfinished, which has been seen before, and in the other two gospels some words were missing, which is also not unprecedented. Country 29. “Started on April 27, ended on May 7, at midnight in the Holy Trinity Alexander Nevsky Lavra. 1862". Note. “At midnight. “In the Alexander Nevsky Lavra.” – Wouldn’t it have been convenient to wait, and wouldn’t it have been close to ask for advice and guidance before publishing? January 14. A note by Metropolitan Philaret entitled “on the celebration of the millennium of the preaching of Cyril and Methodius” Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, in a proposal dated January 22, 1863, No. 458, declared the following to the Holy Synod: “The Slavs of the Austrian Empire, who are of the same faith with us, intend to celebrate, on May 11, 1863, the celebration of the millennium of the preaching of St. Cyril and Methodius in the Slavic countries. The Slavs of the Roman Catholic confession also organize a celebration at this time, canonizing these saints as saints of their church. Bearing in mind that the Holy All-Russian Synod, perhaps, recognizes it as appropriate and beneficial to celebrate St. Cyril and Methodius, I consider it my duty to offer for the consideration of the Holy Synod: 1) a service to these saints, printed in Belgrade, 2) a note on it from the Metropolitan of Moscow, 3) a review on this subject by the Right Reverend of Smolensk and 4) information delivered by the rector of our embassy church in Veke, Archpriest Raevsky, about what is being done in Austria preparations for the proposed celebration." A note from Metropolitan Philaret with the following content: On the celebration of the millennium of the preaching of Cyril and Methodius I. The Slavs abroad are celebrating, or are already celebrating, the millennium of the preaching of Cyril and Methodius. Should something similar happen in Russia? II. Old Testament church summer jubilee. There is nothing like this in the statutes of the Christian Orthodox Church, neither for fifty, nor for a hundred, nor for a thousand years. III. Not defined by the statutes of previous times, the Orthodox Church establishes extraordinary celebrations as a result of the special stimulation of public pious feelings by extraordinary events and signs of God's Providence. The present case does not present such a clear indication of popular reverence. The idea of ​​the proposed celebration was born not in the spiritual field, but in the field of scientists and political Slav lovers. Will the people at all be imbued with their thought when they bring it into the church? IV. It is already clear that foreign Slavs give the proposed celebration perhaps more national and political than spiritual and ecclesiastical significance. And this already intensifies hostility and arouses opposition from the ill-wishers of Orthodoxy and the Slavs. The West always looks at Russia's relations with Slavic tribes outside its borders with suspicion, fear and a desire to counteract. Isn’t this how he will look at the extraordinary all-Russian and all-Slavic celebration, won’t his gaze fall with a new weight on the foreign, weak and inconveniently defended Slavic tribes? May God grant that the celebration be animated by the pure spirit of prayer, which would attract the highest saving power to those praying, and repel all hostile forces! V. On the other hand, if Russia marked the completion of the millennium of its state life with a church and civil triumph, then not to commemorate the completion of the millennium from the initial sanctification of our native language with the Gospel and the faith of Christ would be a certain incongruity and dissatisfaction of pious feelings. VI. The resolution of the issue will depend on the discretion of the Holy Synod. And if it is in favor of the celebration, then, probably, the celebration will be assigned a purely church character. That is: on May 11 there will be an all-night vigil, liturgy and prayer service to St. Cyril and Methodius in the churches. VII. For this, this reverend will require a service, which is not in the church books. And now such a service appears, published in Belgrade in 1862, with the blessing of the Serbian Metropolitan Michael 282. But it can hardly be considered satisfactory. VIII. Here are the initial expressions of the four stichera: “We will be stuck with laudable crowns.” “We will please you with songs of praise.” “Let us praise you with the kindness of songs.” “Let us exalt our praises with great voices.” Verbose and monotonous. The question is raised four times and is not resolved by any answer. IX. In 3 songs of the canon the following troparion is read. “Even as Jacob of old, in a dream vision, showed a staircase raising to heaven, to you, Saint Constantine, I am still a youth, more than all the fairest maidens, her name was Sophia, in a wondrous dream, hoops: behold, the wisdom that sat upon his throne, even confirmed thee in the love of the Most High.” Is there any similarity and consistency in the comparison of the ladder shown to Jacob in a dream and the maiden Sophia betrothed to Constantine in a dream? X. In Irmos 6 of the song, John of Damascus, imagining himself drowning in sins, compares himself with the Apostle Peter, drowning in the sea, but supported by the hand of Christ the Savior, and accordingly calls out to Christ: stretch out, Master, your high arm, like Peter, save me, the steward. The compiler of the new canon, imitating this, composed the following troparion: “In the abyss of the falsely-named mind, the Hagarians, having deepened, secretly offered you mortal poison: the rivers, even if you drink mortally, will not harm you, keeping you safe, and return you with honor to the reigning city: but you did not exalt yourself with dignity as a king and patriarch, crying out: like Peter, save me, the steward.” When Constantine was preserved unharmed from the poison, he returned to the reigning city with honor, he was blessed by the king and the patriarch: after this it would be fitting for the person to give thanks; but the writer added to this the request of the perishing man: like Peter, save me, the steward. The same inconsistency is in the following troparion: “In the abyss of ignorance of God with a tongue that is perishing, set apart Barnabas and Saul for work, calling upon them tenderly, sometimes the Holy Spirit said as a disciple: He commanded the same you, the reverend fathers, to be sent to the Slovenian countries, and people sitting in darkness and the shadow of death, enlightened by the light of your teaching, crying out: like Peter, save us as a steward.” XI. The following is not unworthy of attention: is it good that the name of Constantine, and not Cyril, is used throughout the service? The inventor of Slavic letters, and the first translator of liturgical books, is better known in Russia under the name Kirill, and his letters are called Kirillovsky. Having heard the name of Cyril in church, the people will more easily understand about whom the word is being spoken and will more consciously join the church prayer. XII. The examples given here from the Serbian service show that it requires revision and improvement for use in Russia. And this is required not only by what is in it, but also by what is not in it. There is no indication in it of the millennium that is supposed to be celebrated, or of the Russian church and of Russia, or of the feature coinciding with the end of the millennium that the Russian government is currently paying special attention to the spread of literacy and education among the people. XIII. For example, something similar to the following could be introduced into this service: Having been fulfilled for a thousand years, the truth of Christ and the gospel spirit of life have entered into Slovenian word and writing, through your service, God-wise Kirill: and even to this day, the Slovenian and Russian people are enlightened by the saving knowledge of God. In this we rejoice, and glorify Christ the Light-Giver, and we gratefully confess your good deeds, Reverend. Help us with your prayers, so that we may achieve a lifeless, blessed life through the Orthodox faith and fulfillment of the commandments of Christ. Having mastered the art of Slovenian writing, wise Kirill, you wrote many books of the Divine, holy and prayerful for the people. Pray to Christ, God's wisdom, that the sons of Russia, who desire book teachings, may not be transformed into strange and different teachings, but may their minds be enlightened by the word of God and the teachings of the saints, and their hearts strengthened by grace. Good Mother of the good king and righteous judge, who bestows the kingdom of God on the tongue, creating its fruits, and weaning the unworthy, mercifully create him for us through your intercession, may he not take away his kingdom from us, as it did not bring him the fruits of piety, truth, abstinence, brotherly love, but may he turn us to repentance and correction, and keep us in the rank of sons of the kingdom its 283. XIV. At the same time (it seems not for the first time) it is proposed that the canon at the prayer service should be read quite clearly; and so that it is not complicated for this purpose. Each hymn can consist of two verses to the saints, or one of them, and one verse (or troparion) in honor of the Mother of God. An example of such brevity is the sacramental canon. This will not be enough for the all-night vigil if three verses are repeated, and thus make up six in each hymn, and are added, as usual on the feasts of saints, to the canon of the Theotokos. XV. Do I need to remind you that if there is something to do, then there is no need to hesitate. By the appointed day, the service should be printed and distributed to churches. XVI. As for the question of naming Cyril and Methodius equal to the apostles, it can be resolved from the mouth of someone who defends this name. He says they are called apostles. This is true. The preachers of the faith who were the first to spread Christianity to any nation are often called the apostles of that nation. But from this it follows that calling Cyril and Methodius equal to the apostles means confusing concepts. An equal-to-the-apostle or equal to an apostle is one who is not an apostle, but has rendered such great services to the Church of Christ that he can be compared with an apostle, such as, for example, Constantine the Great, who recognized Christianity as the state religion and convened the great and wonderful first ecumenical council. XVII. At the beginning of the canon something like the following could be put: God-wise teachers, Saints Cyril and Methodius, from your blessed understanding, send a ray of light to my dim mind, wise about you 284. God, he knows the essence of all his deeds from time immemorial, even in your adolescence, God-wise Cyril, who marked you to be the wisdom of his lover and servant, showing you in a dream your betrothal to the virgin Sophia. Sophia is interpreted as wisdom. The Holy Synod, by resolution of January 23/March 18, 1863, No. 361, decided: 1) in memory of the completion of the millennium from the initial sanctification of our native language by the Gospel and faith of Christ, to establish an annual church celebration for St. Cyril and Methodius, starting from this year 1863, on the 11th day of May, holding an all-night vigil vigil, liturgy and prayer singing to this saint; 2) presented by His Eminence, Bishop Anthony of Smolensk, and on behalf of the Holy Synod, reviewed and corrected by the Eminence Archbishops Philotheus of Tver and Eusebius of Mogilev, the service to St. Cyril and Methodius, printed in 1862, in Belgrade, to be forwarded, upon decree, to the St. Petersburg committee for censorship of spiritual books, for printing on this established inscription for permission; 3) upon receipt of the said service from the committee, transfer it to the economic administration at the Holy Synod for immediate printing, in the amount of 35 tons. copies, in the same format and in the same font as it was printed in Belgrade; 4) upon printing, forward the said service, through the economic administration, to the diocesan bishops and protopresbyters: the confessor of Their Imperial Majesties, Vasily Borisovich Bazhanov, and the chief priest of the army and navies, Vasily Ivanovich Kutnevich, in the required number of copies, for sending one of them to all the churches under his control for the purpose explained in paragraph I; the expense for this item should be attributed to the printing capital; 5) the names of these saints will be entered into the calendar from the future 1864, on the 11th day of May, like this: “Reverend Fathers of our Equal-to-the-Apostles Methodius and Cyril, in the world of Constantine”; execution of this should also be entrusted to the economic management at the Holy Synod, for which purpose an extract from the definition should be transferred to it, reporting the same for information to the office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, and printed decrees should be sent to the Synodal members and bishops on points 1 and 4 of this definition. January 15. Report to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret on the appointment of a clerk to the Bishop of Mozhaisk, second vicar of the Moscow diocese A report to the Holy Governing Synod from its member, Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. According to the most submissive report of the Holy Governing Synod, most eminently approved on the 14th day of October last 1862, as explained in the decree of the Holy Synod, dated October 20, No. 5176, a second vicariate was opened under the Moscow Metropolis, and the rector of the Moscow second-class High Petrine monastery, the rector of the Moscow ecclesiastical academy, Archimandrite Savva, with the granting of the title of Bishop of Mozhaisk, to have premises in the Moscow Vysoko-Petrovsky monastery, with its administration. He, Archimandrite Savva, was consecrated Bishop of Mozhaisk on November 4 of the same year; about which I reported to the Holy Synod on the 5th of the same November, No. 403. Mr. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, by reference, dated November 15, No. 8608, notified that the Governor of the Ministry of Finance had made an order to proceed, from October 14, from the Moscow Treasury Chamber, to the jurisdiction of the local diocesan authorities, 2500 rubles. for the maintenance of the department of the second vicar of the Moscow diocese, including 358 rubles 98 kopecks. for the salary of the vicar bishop and 2141 rubles. 2 k. in exchange for land. The Right Reverend Vicar, Bishop Savva, according to a resolution specially drawn up and approved by me on November 28th, has already begun correcting the affairs entrusted to his Eminence. Writing under the Most Reverend Savva, Bishop of Mozhaisk, is currently being done privately by a student of the Moscow Theological Seminary, Mikhail Zverinsky, whose placement among the clerical officials of the consistory, due to the lack of a staff vacancy, is being carried out in the consistory. A full-time clerk has not been appointed under the second vicar of the Moscow Metropolitanate. On the subject of increasing the salary of officials of the Moscow spiritual consistory, in a report dated December 31, 1859, No. 581, I presented to the Holy Synod a draft of a revised and replenished staff for officials of the Moscow spiritual consistory, according to which, by the way, the clerk under the Moscow vicar is entitled to a salary of 400 rubles per year. Based on volume 3 of St. zak. Charter on civil service (ed. 1857), added. to Art. 358, 975 and the charter on pensions app. to Art. 53, clerks under the eminent vicars are, by position, in the XII class, by uniform - in the X, and by pension - in the IX category. Therefore, the consistory decided to submit an opinion to the Holy Governing Synod: would it be pleased to accept a petition for the appointment of a special clerk to the second vicar of the Moscow metropolis, with his inclusion in the staff of officials of the consistory, with a salary, like the clerk of the first vicar of the Moscow metropolis, 400 silver rubles per year and with approval by position, by uniform and pension, in accordance with the above-mentioned regulations, that is, by position in the XII class, by uniform in the X and by pension in the IX category. Agreeing with this opinion of the consistory, I most respectfully present this to the Holy Governing Synod, in addition to my report, dated December 31, 1859, No. 581. Your Holiness's humblest novice, The Holy Synod, by definition dated March 18/April 2, 1863, decided: “the present petition of the Right Reverend Metropolitan of Moscow, for the appointment of a clerk to the second vicar of the Moscow diocese, with the assignment to him, in content, class of position, rank of uniform and pension, of those rights that are supposed to be granted to the clerk of the first vicar of the Moscow diocese, to have in in view during the general consideration of the case about the new staff of the consistory and about increasing the salaries of employees in them 286. January 17. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, with an opinion regarding church candle collection and sale of church candles Correcting the post of Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Prince S.N. Urusov, with reference dated August 10, 1862, No. 5589, forwarded to Metropolitan Philaret a project on the collection of church candles and the sale of church candles, and asked him to report his opinion on this. In this regard, the Metropolitan gave the following resolution: “October 18. Forerunner, which is near Bor, church, archpriest, Vvedenskaya - priest Florinsky and Assumption - priest Speransky will form a committee and consider the attached project in relation to church rules and laws, in relation to ease of execution, in relation to the accuracy of calculations and expected benefits. Then Metropolitan Philaret responded to this attitude by A.P. Akhmatov, dated January 17, 1863, No. 31, the following: To consider the project on the church candle collection forwarded to me, in the presence of your Excellency, on August 10, 1862 (No. 5589), a committee of an archpriest and two priests was formed in Moscow. The Committee drew up an opinion on this subject, which is also attached. I submitted this opinion to the consideration of two vicars of the Moscow diocese, the bishops of Dimitrov and Mozhaisk: and they found it thorough and fair. Having begun to consider the project with the same dispositions that, of course, gave it movement - with the consciousness of the dire need for benefits for theological schools and in general for the ecclesiastical department, and with a strong desire to open the sources of such benefits, I could not, however, take the side of the project; and I am convinced to agree with the opinion of the committee and two vicar bishops that the project is more than doubtful in ecclesiastical, administrative and economic relations and threatens with insurmountable difficulties and harm. I could not accurately believe the calculations made by the committee. However, its members assure that they tried to acquire the most accurate information, and the modest numbers they used are safer from exaggeration and inaccuracy. The inconveniences of a complex matter, which are revealed already during a preliminary mental review of it, can be revealed in even greater force and in more unfavorable forms upon entering into the matter itself. May the following additional considerations and considerations be not without patient attention. I. In some dioceses it is quite a common custom to twist candles in houses, for oneself, and bring them to church. To admit this, when introducing a new project, as counterfeiting and smuggling would be embarrassing for the people; and the admission of this would lead to home candle-making and secret sale, at the high cost of church candles, profitable for makers and buyers, undermining the monopoly of the church. II. Schismatics, no less than Orthodox Christians, use candles in front of icons in their homes and in public prayer rooms. But schismatics of the priestly persuasion predominantly, and schismatics of the non-priestly persuasion even exclusively, take candles from masters of their own persuasion, having signs to distinguish them. If this is granted to the schismatics under the new project, it would mean ceding a great advantage to the schismatics over the Orthodox; and if this is not allowed, the schismatics will cry out at this as cruel persecution, and besides them, there will be hunters to intensify this cry. III. If counterfeiting and smuggling, which opens up, according to the previous two points, and in other forms, needs to be exterminated by judicial prosecution, many lawsuits, difficulties, and indecencies will occur. The priest will be forced, leaving the church, to go to court, conduct litigation and, instead of teaching, speak as a lawyer. People will probably be just as unpleasant to look at church monopolistic persecutors as they are at former wine farmers and their attorneys. The negative literature that is unfavorable to the church and the clergy will find new and abundant food in candle affairs. IV. Bringing candles used for home lighting into the church monopoly is obviously unfair. State legislation, in all likelihood, will not allow this. Therefore, one must carefully consider whether to announce before the state authorities such a demand, which may seem unseemly and cause an unpleasant response. V. The proposal to take the capital of the trustees for the establishment of candle establishments, besides that it is not feasible, because most of this capital is in tickets that do not give the right to take the money immediately, threatens with the danger that the money will be spent, the income will be late and will not meet expectations, the trusteeship will not receive interest, the diocesan poor, humane institutions will be left without maintenance. VI. The proposal to take candle money from cathedrals, which (except for St. Petersburg), for the most part, are poor, will ruin them completely. VII. Taking candle money from monasteries, not many of them can bear it without difficulty, especially women. There won't even be anything to take from some of them. Here are extracts from the report for 1862 of two monasteries that have no reason to hide candle income, which is not taken from them. In Spasoborodino for wax candles received from candle sales - 291 rubles. 83 k. In Blachernae it is used for purchase wax - 8 pounds. and 17 lbs. 258 rub. (in this quantity there is a balance of 3 points and 17 pounds in local and chandelier candles, that is, unsaleable and unproductive). Received from the sale of candles - 253 rubles. 37 k. If a candle sum is taken from the St. Sergius Lavra, then it will almost certainly be forced to close some of its philanthropic institutions, because now the remainder of the annual expenditure is only such an amount that is needed for the timely, profitable provision of annual needs. VIII. It is known, and it is regrettable, that in churches not all candle profits are shown and presented to the authorities, and, probably, in most churches, more than half of it goes into the purse amount; but the priest, knowing this infidelity of church elders before the law, is forced to endure it because without this many churches could not satisfy their needs, and also because it is inconvenient to persecute church elders for this, and with such persecution they would not find anyone willing to accept the position of churchwarden. But does the new project also promise strict fidelity? Some merchants who were at the fair, where there was a strong trade in wax, say that there were two monks from one candle-producing diocese and they entered into all the customs of traders, and drank tea with the sellers in the tavern, and, paying them money, convinced them, in a receipt, to increase the wax denomination with a ruble, imagining that they had inevitable unofficial expenses. So, decency to the rank and loyalty are violated, and this case should constitute an unpleasant situation in relation to the dignity of the clergy, which will spread beyond the fair. Will there not be even more mischief and even mutual clashes when monks or candle makers from many dioceses come to the fair to buy wax? IX. In Moscow, in addition to large candle factories, there is small-scale household production and sale of candles in shops, on which the well-being of, as they say, the everyday life of 50 families is based. With the destruction of this by law, candle factories, valued from 30 to 50 thousand rubles, will become worthless, and families may lose the only way of existence, strengthened by time. X. When it is announced that churches must present increased and without reserve candle profits to the authorities, and complex forms of counting candles, cinders and money in churches turn out to be difficult, it is unreliable that churches can find an elder for themselves. XI. However, it is true that candle money remains in churches, except for those presented to the authorities. And we can believe that some of them can be extracted without harm to the church if the clergy, church elders and parishioners sufficiently understand the church need and decide to act faithfully and with zeal. How to give this direction? How to inspire loyalty and zeal? The questions are difficult! but we must not lose hope, and we must work to discover a reliable solution to them. January 20. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, which sets out the circumstances that preceded the commencement of the translation of the books of Holy Scripture into Russian Asking for forgiveness in delay, I return everything that was communicated to me regarding the continuation of the translation of the Holy Scriptures into the Russian dialect, and add my opinion in a special note. Only yesterday, while reading one of the notes communicated to me, I learned that the first act on this subject was presented as my personal opinion. This is not true. The truth must be restored. This was not my opinion, but the determination of the Holy Synod, decreed in its meeting, in which 4 metropolitans, 4 archbishops were present, such completeness has not happened since the establishment of the Holy Synod. During the stay of the Holy Synod in Moscow, at first there were private discussions about the resumption of the work of translating the Holy Scriptures into the Russian dialect, begun by the late Metropolitan Nikanor († 1856); Finally, a discussion about this took place at a meeting of the Holy Synod, which was not started by me, and a unanimous decision was pronounced. Since, due to the nature of the matter, it was inconvenient to expect from the offices an exact presentation of the former considerations, I was instructed to write a draft definition. I fulfilled this with all possible accuracy, and the draft definition included considerations proposed at the meeting by various members of the Holy Synod, and were accepted by all. But I could no longer propose this presentation to the hearing and signing of the Holy Synod, because, following the above-mentioned meeting in Moscow, it was closed and returned to St. Petersburg. Therefore, I read the statement made to the member of the Holy Synod who remained in Moscow, Archbishop Eugene, who recognized it as correct with the reasoning and decision that was in the Synod; and then I forwarded it to the incumbent of the post of Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, outlining the circumstances. It should have been proposed to the members of the Holy Synod to consider whether their decision was correctly stated; but instead, as it now turns out, the decision of the Holy Synod was renamed my opinion, and sent to the Metropolitan of Kyiv 288, and, upon receiving his opinion, it was again acted incorrectly in that it was not proposed to the Holy Synod, but was directly presented to His Imperial Majesty. The opinion of the venerable Metropolitan of Kyiv, with reference to still unnamed clergy, while concealing the opinion of the entire Holy Synod, could attract the highest possible attention. However, the hand of God’s Providence appeared over this matter, and the king’s heart was in the hand of God. The Sovereign Emperor brought the matter to order, and the original decision of the Holy Synod appeared again and entered into force. It seemed necessary to me that Your Excellency should clearly know the truth of this matter. I earnestly invoke God's blessing upon you 289. Your Excellency's most humble servant, The following opinion is attached to this letter: On the continuation of the translation of the Holy Scriptures into Russian I. In the definition of the Holy Synod (decreed in Moscow, at a meeting of 4 metropolitans, 4 archbishops and 2 protopresbyters, but not signed in Moscow, due to the imminent departure of the Holy Synod to St. Petersburg, and then not allowed to be signed), after revising the translation of the New Testament, it was necessary: to correct the translation of the Psalter by comparing the Hebrew and Greek texts. II. Here you may encounter a thought that some people had and probably still have: shouldn’t the books of the Old Testament be translated exclusively from Greek, without any relation to Hebrew? This doubt was resolved by the Holy Synod in the above part of its definition concerning the Psalter. Here is an example, psalm. LVII. 10. Know first that the thorns of your frames are alive, for I will devour them in wrath. No one will argue that there is no correct composition of words, consistent with the laws of grammar and logic, and therefore it is impossible to understand what thought is contained in them. But these words are literally translated from the Greek text, except for the last word: I, instead of which the Greek should translate: you, through which the speech will not become clearer. So, one of three things is necessary: ​​either to put in the Russian translation words that do not make sense, or to put in an arbitrarily conjectural thought (which would mean not to translate, but to invent the text), or to look for aids in understanding the said verse in the Hebrew text. The choice, it seems, should not be questionable. III. In resolving the question of considering the translation being undertaken with the Greek and Hebrew texts, the Holy Synod, it seems, did not examine the question of whether the translation of the Old Testament should begin with the books of Moses, and continue in order (as was done with the New Testament), or with the Psalter, as the Bible Society once did; but simply followed this example. But there is a good reason not to imitate this example. IV. The Bible Society was in a hurry to publish a translation of the Bible in parts in order to arouse attention, and the better to acquire manuals. It would have been a long wait for the translation of the Old Testament: and it hastened to translate and print the Psalter. This calculation was incorrect then and unnecessary now. Separate editions of the Psalter in Slavic are most useful for prayerful use and for teaching children. But for such use, the Russian translation of the Psalter should not have been offered instead of the Slavic one. V. The Psalter is one of the books of the Old Testament in which there are texts that are especially difficult to translate. It is better to start the task not with what is most difficult, but with what is simpler, so that as you continue to work on it, with increased experience, you can reach the most difficult thing. Historical books are easier to translate than the Psalter. VI. This consideration puts the matter on the natural path along which the translation of the New Testament followed. That is: it is necessary to begin the translation with the book of Genesis, and continue in order. VII. The Greek translation of the books of Moses has such a relationship to the Hebrew text that the necessary comparison of the translation with the original is more convenient here than in some other books of the Old Testament. And this is an indication that it is better to start business from here. VIII. Experiences in translating the Old Testament books preceding the Psalter are already in periodic editions, as was suggested by the Holy Synod, but the Psalter is not. And this allows us to proceed closer to what attempts have already been made, in which a small report has been given in places. (At the same time, it is not too timely to tell translators not to turn familiar, respectable and amiable Old Testament names into unfamiliar ones and mutilated by Jewish pronunciation; it is not bad to remember that 70 interpreters wrote names according to the pronunciation of a living language, and not a dead one, as is the case today). IX. If attention is drawn to the fact that there will be a long wait for the translation of the entire Old Testament, it will be possible to first publish separately the Pentateuch and the most ancient historical books, up to the book of Kings, or all the historical books, then the teaching books, and finally the prophetic ones. February 9. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod, about the manuscript: “Service to the Most Holy Theotokos, called Quench my sorrows” To the Holy Governing Synod, from its member, Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, a report. When the Holy Synod authorized the translation of the books of the Holy Scripture into the Russian dialect, then it made it a rule that the sacred books in the Russian dialect should be used at home, for the most convenient understanding of the Word of God, and that church services should remain inviolable in the Slavic dialect, to which the Orthodox inner ear has been accustomed to reverently listen for centuries. In truth, if church services were to appear in the Russian dialect, then although in some parts it would become more understandable than in the Slavic dialect, at the same time, in the minds and feelings of many, it would appear to have lost a significant part of its awe-inspiring grandeur and power; and many simple pious souls would be plunged into confusion and temptation. Contrary to the said rule of the Holy Synod, in 1862, in a service with an akathist to the Most Holy Theotokos published in St. Petersburg, with the approval of the censor Archimandrite Sergius 291, on the day of the feast of her holy miraculous icon, called: “Quench my sorrows,” a prayer to the Mother of God was printed in Russian, and not even tuned to the pure and correct tone of Russian speech, such as the following expressions: Lady; You have the power to accomplish all this in heaven and on earth, and to grant whatever is useful to anyone when asked. It also uses the word intercessor, which does not exist in Russian. The door has been opened, or a breach has been made for the introduction of the Russian dialect into church services, and in an official manner at that. Therefore, further invasion may follow in the form of legality. In addition, in the same prayer the following cannot be ignored: Strengthen our faithful kings, who are honored by the terrible name of Your Only Begotten Son, in Your intercession and in Your mercy, and in everything have You as their intercessor and champion, invisibly against the surrounding enemies: dispel the cloud of despondency that envelops their souls, deliver them from mental anguish and, instead thereof, give them bright complacency and joy, restoring the peace and tranquility of their power and kingdom. The expression: our faithful kings, could have taken place in some times of the Byzantine Empire and in Russia, during the reign of kings John and Peter; but now, thanks be to God, we have our only faithful king. If the compiler of the prayer had pointed to the example: the Lord has given strength to our king, this would not have served to justify him, for this is said about the historical fate of the kingdom under the protection of God’s Providence. But the prayer speaks of the king in the singular, when one king reigns: Lord, save the king, and hear us. Further it is read in prayer: our faithful kings, who are honored by the terrible name of Your Only Begotten Son. The Only Begotten Son of the Mother of God, He is also the Only Begotten Son of God, is our one Lord Jesus Christ, and no created being can be honored with the terrible name of the Only Begotten Son of God the Father and the Only Begotten Son of the Mother of God. If the writer of the prayer wanted to hint at the name of the Anointed of God, then he blocked the path to such an understanding with the expression: honored by the terrible name. The name of God and the Son of God is rightly called terrible, but by the words: terrible name, it is unusual to understand the name of the anointed one, which David is not afraid to attribute even to Saul. Further in the prayer it is said: dispel the cloud of despondency that envelops their souls, that is, our faithful kings. Why did the writer of the prayer think that the soul of the most pious Sovereign Emperor was overcome by despondency? Further: give them bright complacency, restoring peace and tranquility of the power and their kingdom. If the writer finds it necessary to restore the peace and tranquility of the Russian kingdom, then, of course, he sees that the peace of the Russian kingdom has fallen, and that rebellion reigns in it. I acknowledge it as my duty to submit the above to the attention and discretion of the Holy Synod. No. 11 February 9, 1863 292 The Holy Synod, by definition dated March 26/August 15, 1864, decided: In 1860, the first edition was printed in St. Petersburg, a manuscript under the general title “Service to the Most Holy Theotokos,” performed on the day of the feast of Her holy, miraculous icon, called: “Quench my sorrows.” During this service, an akathist and a prayer to the Mother of God were printed, which, during the second edition of the mentioned service, in 1862, were already indicated on the title page. This prayer, taken from the works of St. Ephraim the Syrian, presented in Russian and literally reprinted from the Russian translation of this St. father, published at the Moscow Theological Academy (Works like the saints of our father Ephraim the Syrian, in Russian translation. Moscow, 1860, part IV, p. 113, Prayer to the Most Holy Theotokos 11th). Taking into account that 1) the translation of patristic works into the Russian dialect exists for home reverent reading; 2) that the translation of the very books of Holy Scripture into Russian is also permitted for home use, with the aim of making it easier for the Orthodox to understand the word of God; 3) church services remain and should remain inviolable, in the Slavic dialect, to which Orthodox Christians have been accustomed to reverently listen for centuries; 4) meanwhile, by printing the said prayer in Russian translation, together with the service to the Most Holy Theotokos, the way is being paved for the use of the Russian dialect in church services, - the Holy Synod determines: 1) translating into Russian the above-mentioned prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian to the Mother of God, printed together with the service to the Most Holy Theotokos, performed on the day of the feast of St. Her miraculous icon, called: “Quench My Sorrows,” will henceforth, together with the said service, not be printed for church use, about which the St. Petersburg Spiritual Censorship Committee should be informed by decree, notifying the Moscow and Kiev Spiritual Censorship Committees; Moreover, to order the said three committees so that, if they receive the same prayer in a Slavic arrangement, this arrangement will first be submitted to the Holy Synod for consideration. 2) As for the explanations presented by the St. Petersburg ecclesiastical censorship committee, in pursuance of the decree of the Holy Synod, regarding the noticed difference in the comparison of the office work of the synodal office and the said committee on the printing of the above-mentioned service, these explanations reveal, on the one hand, a malfunction in the conduct of censorship affairs, and on the other, an evasion from giving a direct answer. In this last respect, the committee’s reasoning that 76 and 257 Art. qualification mouth they are not two different articles, but one and the same; that Article 76 appears as such in the statute of spiritual censorship, and in the general order of articles of the censorship statute, the same article is already considered 257. It was not this that should have been explained to the committee, but the noticed difference in the edition, consisting in the fact that in the original paper the censorship article is given according to one account, and in the first release according to another. Having decided this on behalf of the St. Petersburg spiritual censorship committee, order it to pay due attention to the proper conduct of affairs; about which to prescribe in the same decree, with the transmission of the incoming and outgoing books delivered by the committee for the years 1859 and 1860 and the committee’s paperwork on the service to the Most Holy Theotokos. February 10. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.P. Akhmatov, about the Sinai manuscript In obedience to the rules of fasting, instead of next Tuesday, we celebrated St. Alexis. Along with this, remembering the day of your angel, from a sincere heart I call upon you the protection of the prayers of St. Alexis, so that your faithful service to the benefits of the Orthodox Church may be accomplished in strength and prosperity. Now I received it, and forced myself to read (at the request of my eyes) the London information about the Sinaitic manuscript of the Bible. And the appearance of the book does not encourage one to believe Simonides, nor does his evidence. If you wanted to have a manuscript worthy of being presented to the Emperor: why would it be disfigured with so many errors and corrections! Simonides, who presents himself as an expert on the matter, could, and for his honor should have, prevented this. An ancient manuscript, even if faulty, can be important; the new manuscript, disfigured by many errors, is unworthy not only of the royal library, but also of anyone else’s library. Simonides says he has evidence, but is keeping it in his chest for the time being. This is more characteristic of a deceiver than of a truth-loving person when asked to resolve a doubt. The hieromonk, who without challenge rushed into public (?) with an inflated letter in favor of Simonides, does not inspire confidence either. However, we can expect without much concern the expected confrontation between Simonides and Tischendorf. More significant for us is the question raised by Archimandrite Porfiry’s denunciation of the Sinai manuscript, if it is ancient. Yesterday I wrote to Your Excellency that the study of this issue at the Academy is nearing completion, and the denunciation is not confirmed. With utmost respect and devotion, I have the honor to be Your Excellency's most humble servant, Note about. Archpriest Popov returns at this time. A. S. Lebedev, master of the XX course (1856) Moscow. spirit. academy. Now an ordinary professor of church history at Kharkov University. For his scientific works, see “History of Moscow. d. acad.,” S. Smirnova, M. 1879, pp. 504–506. The matter is spiritual and educational. management at St. Sukoda, 1863, No. 2138, no. 3. If Archimandrite Porfiry had chosen to assert with Tischendorf that the end of the Gospel of Mark was written by another hand, this would not have given force to the archimandrite’s objection. The Glorious Vatican Codex also does not have the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark: but no one declared it heretical. It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1860, No. 257, pp. 80–91. Metropolitan Philaret wrote about this service on January 13, 1862 to His Eminence Alexy, Bishop. Tauride (later Tver, † 1877): “Now your letter, dated December 30, found me examining the service to Cyril and Meesdia, composed by a Kiev nun, corrected, but not completed by one Russian archbishop (Bishop of Smolensk Anthony, later Archbishop of Kazan, † 1879 g.) and printed by the Serbian Metropolitan in Belgrade." In corrected form, the service of Rev. Methodius and Cyril, published in St. Petersburg, in 1863. Mikhail (Ioannovich), Metropolitan of Serbia, Master of the 16th year (1853) Kyiv spirit. academy. Since 1884, due to the political circumstances of Serbia, he has been in Russia and currently has a residence in Moscow, in the Serbian courtyard. These troparia were printed in Dushep. Thu., 1863, part 11, pp. 85 and 86. Printed in the same place, page 84. It's a matter of office. Holy Synod, 1861, No. 719. It's a matter of office. St. Synod, 1862, No. 2779, pp. 30, 31 and 33. From a handwritten original stored in the Moscow diocesan library, dep. II, sheet 277–283 vk. Filaret (Amphiteatrov, † 1857) From copies, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, inventory No. 26, document. No. 2 and in the collection of St. Petersburg. spirits acad., ll. 65–67; authentic find. in secret office papers. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1856, No. 193. From the collection, storing. in the library S.-Pb. spirit. acad., ll. 43–46, and in secret. office papers. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, 1856, No. 192, pp. 102–106. These considerations are published in the work of I.A. Chistovich: “History of Bible translation into Russian, St. Petersburg, 1873, part 2, pp. 84–87. Archimandrite Sergius is the former rector of the Saratov seminary. Case of the chancellor. St. Suvoda, 1863, No. 1055. It's a matter of office. Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1860, No. 257, al. 101 and 102,