The work of Abbot Michon “A new solution to the question of the places of saints” of 1852 and its translation into Russian by members of the first Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem

The article is devoted to the work of the members of the first Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem - Archimandrite Porfiry (Uspensky), Hieromonk Feofan (Govorov) and student Peter Sokolov - on the translation of the work of the French abbot J.-I. Michonne. Michon's journalistic pamphlet “A New Solution to the Question of Holy Places” was published in Paris in 1852 and contained proposals for a fair settlement of the dispute between Christian denominations over the possession of the holy places of Palestine. At the height of the Crimean War, the translation of the work was entrusted to members of the RDM in Jerusalem. The article traces the history of work on the translation, and also characterizes the recently discovered tray copy of the translation, stored in the collection of P. N. Tikhanov in the Manuscripts Department of the Russian National Library. Based on textual analysis of the draft manuscript from the SPF ARAN and Belova from the OR RNL, the stages of translation and its editing were studied. Key words: Russian Palestine, Russian spiritual mission, Jerusalem, Bishop Porfiry (Uspensky), J.-I. Michon, Crimean War, handwritten monuments. Throughout its history, Palestine has been the cause of religious and political conflicts between world powers. In the middle of the 19th century. The result of foreign policy confrontations over the possession of Christian shrines was the Crimean War, in which Russia loudly declared its claims to a presence in the Holy Land. In addition to the existing relationships related to church-political issues, from the middle of the 19th century. There is an active scientific and cultural “penetration” of Russian writers, scientists, and artists into the East. In 1847, with the establishment of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem, the permanent residence of Russian scientists and clergy in the Holy Land received legal grounds and created the prerequisites for the systematic study of the history, archeology, cultural monuments and traditions of Christian Palestine. From that moment on, a new stage began in the history of the Russian presence in the Holy Land, which in recent years has become the object of close attention of domestic and foreign scientists. Since 2019, employees of the Manuscripts Department of the Russian National Library have been working on a project aimed at searching and studying materials on the history of the Russian presence in the Holy Land. Its task is to introduce into scientific circulation a previously unknown body of archival materials (letters, reports, official documents, travel descriptions, memoirs and diaries) from the collections of the Manuscripts Department related to the stay of residents of the Russian Empire in Palestine in the mid-19th – early 20th centuries. Particular attention is paid to the search for narrative monuments - descriptions of pilgrimages and travels, diary entries and letters with stories from authors about the Holy Land. In the course of their work, members of the scientific team discovered and published documents from a variety of people who described the history of their stay in the East and their acquaintance with Christian shrines. Among them, such monuments stand out as the autobiographical memoirs of I.F. Tyumenev, diary of Countess A.A. Sheremeteva, description of the pilgrimage trip of the peasant I.N. Bushueva. In them, the authors reflected their impressions of visiting Palestine after the end of the Crimean War - at a time when travelers from all over the Christian world began to flock to the Holy Land, and Orthodox pilgrimage acquired a massive, organized character. This article, on the contrary, is devoted to the problem of studying a manuscript created during the Crimean War and associated with the “St. Tomb Affair,” which became one of the reasons for the armed confrontation between world powers. We are talking about an unknown handwritten copy of the translation of the work of the Catholic abbot J.-I. Michon “A new solution to the question of the places of saints with two colored plans of the Holy Sepulcher Church, indicating the possessions of different Christians in it before the fire in 1808 and after it” [Michon 1852], discovered in the collection of P.N. Tikhanov in the Department of Manuscripts of the Russian National Library 1. The work of translating the work is connected with the creative heritage of two outstanding Russian church figures - the thinker and theologian St. Theophan the Recluse (Govorov) and the Christian scientist Bishop Porfiry (Uspensky), who were part of the first Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem. Porfiry (in the world Konstantin Aleksandrovich Uspensky, 1804–1885), was the initiator of the creation and leader of the First RPM in Jerusalem (1847–1855). By 1847, when the mission was formed, Porfiry was in the rank of archimandrite. By that time, he had under his belt scientific research and expeditions to Dalmatia, Syria, Palestine, Mount Athos and Egypt. After a six-year stay in Jerusalem, Porfiry focused on scientific activities, studying the collection of manuscripts he had collected, researching Christian writings and translating them into Russian. A significant place in the creative heritage of Bishop Porfiry is occupied by his autobiographical work “The Book of My Genesis” [Porfiry]. When preparing the mission, Archimandrite Porfiry included Hieromonk Feofan (Govorov, 1815–1894) in its composition. By the time of his departure to Jerusalem, Feofan served as an assistant inspector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. In Jerusalem, he researched and translated monuments of early Christian literature, which predetermined his future spiritual path. Upon his return from Palestine, Feofan became the rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, headed the Tambov and Vladimir dioceses, but he increasingly gravitated towards a solitary monastic life. Subsequently, Feofan spent twenty-two years in seclusion in the Vyshenskaya Hermitage, where he continued his literary and translation activities. In 1988, Theophan the Recluse was glorified by the Russian Orthodox Church as a saint. In recent decades, his life and work have become the subject of study by church and secular scholars. Since the late 2000s. The annual “Feofanov Readings” are held at the Holy Dormition Vyshensky Monastery. Currently, a research team chaired by Clement (Kapalin), Metropolitan of Kaluga and Borovsk, is preparing the works of the saint, as well as the “Chronicle” of his life [Chronicle]. In this article, the authors’ attention is paid to a small episode of the joint work of Porfiry (Uspensky) and Feofan (Govorov) on the translation of the French work by J.-I. Michon, undertaken at the height of the Crimean War and directly related to the activities of the RDM in Jerusalem and the problem of establishing a Russian presence in the East. The circumstances of the creation of the first RDM in Jerusalem and its activities are discussed in detail in historiography 2. In 1847, the mission headed by Archimandrite Porfiry (Uspensky) included Hieromonk Feofan (Govorov) and students of the St. Petersburg Theological Seminary Pyotr Solovyov and Nikolai Krylov. “They were “sent abroad to worship the Holy Places”; they were allowed to stay in Jerusalem under Archimandrite Porfiry and take part in the assignments assigned to him” [Shcherbakova 2017:41]. The mission was given numerous diplomatic and scientific assignments aimed at strengthening Orthodoxy and the Russian presence in the Holy Land. The foreign policy crisis in relations between the Russian, Ottoman, French and British empires found members of the RDM in Jerusalem. The Holy Land in the early 1850s became the object of close attention of the largest world powers, and the dispute over the possession of holy places became one of the key ones on the eve of the Crimean War [Anisimov 2010; Anisimov 2014; Melnikova; Yakushev]. The Eastern Question, rooted in the 18th century, by the middle of the 19th century. identified all the painful points of contact between the great powers in the Middle East, in which the Ottoman Empire was inevitably involved. During that period, the long-standing rivalry for the possession of holy places between different Christian denominations reached the level of interstate disputes and led to a severance of diplomatic relations between the countries. Before the outbreak of hostilities, the discussion about the ownership of Christian shrines took place in the field of journalism - on the pages of magazines and newspapers. The most “aggressive” position on the exclusive rights of the Catholic Church to own holy places was expressed by French imperialist circles. A landmark stage in the discussion was the publication of a pamphlet by the French orientalist and missionary Eugene Bore, who visited the Holy Land in 1847. His essay “The Question of Holy Places” was published in Paris in 1850 [Bore]. In it, the author examined the history of Christians in Palestine from the beginning of the era of the Arab conquests and came to the conclusion that during the Crusades and further relations between European powers and eastern states, representatives of the Catholic Church received a monopoly on the ownership of all Christian shrines. The Greeks, according to the scientist, thanks to the support of the Turks, illegally usurped some of the holy places. The main conclusion of the work of E. Bore's message was the need to return to the policy of the “Crusades” and strengthen French influence in the East. The publication of E. Bore's brochure did not go unnoticed and caused a wave of indignation not only among the “opponents” - the Eastern Church, but also among liberal Catholics. Quite strong in the middle of the 19th century. the movement for church renewal did not support the idea of ​​“aggressive” penetration of the West into the East and challenged the exclusive rights of Catholics to holy places. In particular, these views were expressed by Abbot J.-I. Michon in an essay published in 1852 and devoted to the issue of resolving the dispute over the division of holy places. Like E. Bore's pamphlet, Abbé Michon's work became an important milestone in the dispute not only in journalism, but also at the level of official diplomacy of the great powers. The author of the book, Jean-Hippolyte Michon (1806–1881), was a French Catholic priest. He is known to his contemporaries as a theologian, teacher, preacher, archaeologist and writer. J.-I. Michonne is also the founding father of scientific graphology, to the study of which and the collection of handwriting samples he devoted the last decades of his life. Numerous works of foreign research are devoted to the biography of the scientist, starting with obituary publications [Landau; Savart; Seiler; Varinard]. Taking a liberal position in religious discussions, Abbé Michon often published in periodicals, opposing the conservative position of representatives of the Catholic Church. In numerous essays, he “called on the Church to turn towards science, liberalism and democracy; advocated the separation of Church and State; limitation of the power of the Pope; democratization of the church hierarchy; for a comprehensive reform of the Church" [Landau: 3]. At the turn of the 40s and 50s. XIX century J.-I. Michon was one of the leading historians and archaeologists in France. In 1850, he was invited to a scientific archaeological expedition to the Middle East and the Holy Land as an archaeologist and botanist. The journey to Syria and Palestine took place in 1850–1851. [Anisimov 2014:104]. Michon's traveling companion was the famous French Orientalist and archaeologist Felicien de Solcy, who in the 1850s–1860s. conducted large-scale excavations in Palestine [Rosenberg: 36]. Even before the trip, the abbot advocated the transfer of the Papal throne from the Vatican to Jerusalem and, in general, advocated for the rapprochement of Christian denominations. Your thoughts and impressions from the expedition to the East J-I. Michon reflected in two essays - “A New Solution to the Question of Holy Places,” published in Paris in 1852 [Michon 1852], and “Description of a Religious Journey to the East,” published a year later in Paris and London [Michon 1853a; Michon 1853b]. In “A New Solution to the Question of Holy Places,” the author briefly examined the history of Christian shrines since the Arab conquest, described their affiliation with various Christian denominations before the fire of 1808 and at the time of writing, and also made critical remarks against the imperialist position of conservative Catholic circles in France. This book was a response to the brochure published two years earlier by E. Bore, the author of which proved the primary right of the Catholic Church to own Christian shrines. Michon outlined the polemical nature and relevance of his work in the introduction: “Upon my return to Paris from the East, where I traveled with my learned friend Salsi, a member of the Institute, clergy, diplomats and publishers asked me what I thought about St. places" [Michon 1852:7]. Polemicizing on the pages of the book with E. Bore, J.-I. Michon expressed the idea that there is no information in the sources about the monopoly right of the Catholic Church to own holy places. Moreover, according to the publicist, it was to the Greeks and Orthodox pilgrims that all Christians should have been obliged to save religious monuments from the conquerors. According to Michon, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is a “public” place, which cannot be owned by any denomination by right of conquest or purchase: “this church (Church of the Holy Sepulcher - I.P., M.S.) is not private property, the possession of which could be defended by the right of construction or purchase, but a public building, which is therefore subject to all laws and, it must be said with regret, to all the whims of the leaders of the country in which it is located. This logic is disappointing, but we must give in to it” 3. Polemicizing with the concept of E. Bore, the author criticizes it simply because it is based on inaccurate translations and erroneous interpretations of historical documents: “I will not go into a detailed analysis of all the firmans that Mr. Bore often mentions here. I haven't read them. But if he cited them in the same way as the bulls of the popes, which I read, then his firmans, rightly, are suspicious to me” 4. In the work of J.-I. Michon spoke critically about the controversy surrounding the “St. Sepulcher Affair” and watched with apprehension the flaring up conflict of the great powers: “I do not hide all the sorrow that I feel as a Christian and as a Catholic priest, foreseeing that this purely evangelical thought about the concordat regarding the possession of St. in some places no one will smile, and that they would rather resort to the cannon of France in order to demand the fulfillment of the strict truth” 5 . According to the abbot, the main tasks of the united Christian world are the struggle for the independence of holy places from the control of the Ottoman Empire, as well as for the possibility of free worship of Christian shrines and the expansion of the pilgrimage movement. Having analyzed the current state of Palestine, J.-I. Michon presented to the public a project to create a concordat between all Christian denominations that laid claim to holy places. According to his plan, members of various Christian churches should create a common body in the Holy Land to interact with the Turkish authorities and manage the shrines. Each year the latter would have to pay the Ottoman government a sum greater than the Porte's previous income from the holy places, but in return the Christian denominations would have to be given the right of free possession of them. J.-I. Michon imagined that the work of a united body would prevent armed conflict between the great powers, would contribute to the fair redistribution of Christian shrines, as well as an increase in the influx of pilgrims to the Holy Land. According to the author, the joint activities of all Christian denominations in Palestine in the future would lead to a gradual smoothing out of conflicts and contradictions between churches. In conclusion, Abbot Michon acted as a seer, predicting further events. Here is what the author wrote about the consequences of France’s ultimatum actions: “The weak benefits that our envoy and the French Catholics, or more precisely, the magazine that always speaks in France on their behalf, seem to be completely satisfied with, seem to be completely satisfied with; these benefits will be honored in Jerusalem with victory. The petty passions of a small town will not fail to take advantage of it in order to further intensify spiritual discord. Naturally, they will begin to pose as martyrs there in front of the numerous fans who flock to the Holy Sepulcher every year. These, having arrived there from the borders of the Russian kingdom and from all the countries of the East, upon returning to their homeland, did not fail to complain to their priests and patriarchs that St. the places were taken away from them and given to the Latins. The poison of hatred will increase, and when, thanks to the well-intentioned efforts of some people, preliminary negotiations begin on the rapprochement of the heterodox churches with Rome, then the memory of recent insults will become like an underwater rock against which this noble undertaking will be broken. Small causes often have great consequences, and we bitterly mourn the present struggle as one of the obstacles to the fulfillment of plans more useful for Catholicism than the right to lay a carpet and light a lamp before this or that altar at the Holy Sepulchre.”6 Work of J.-I. Michon drew sharp criticism from ultra-conservative Catholic circles in France. His work was published at the height of the foreign policy crisis, and therefore attracted the attention of not only the French public, but also became widespread in the opposing camp - in the Orthodox East. On the eve of the Crimean War, on September 5, 1852, the author sent Russian Emperor Nicholas I “a volume of his speeches and brochures on Holy Places” with an attached letter, in which he called for preventing the escalation of the conflict and returning to the negotiating table to resolve controversial issues 7 . Apparently, the readiness for dialogue and the abbot’s liberal view of the equal distribution of influence of Christian denominations in Jerusalem and its environs interested the ruling circles of the Russian Empire and the Russian Church. They decided to entrust the translation of the book to members of the Russian Spiritual Mission. At the beginning of the Crimean War, members of the Russian Spiritual Mission, like other Russian subjects, were forced to leave the Ottoman Empire. On May 8, 1854, they left Jerusalem in full force, but due to military operations they could not return to Russia by a short route, so they returned to St. Petersburg only on October 2, 1854 [Clement 2019: 155–156]. In the capital, Archimandrite Porfiry and Hieromonk Theophan, officially remaining part of the mission until the end of 1854, continued the academic studies that had begun in Jerusalem and did not stop during the return trip. Most likely, work on translating the book began upon returning to St. Petersburg and was completed by the end of November, as indicated by the date “November 28” on the final page of the draft translation 8 . This activity of RDM members is mentioned in several sources. "Report on the learned and artistic pursuits of the ecclesiastical mission in Jerusalem during the year 1854." Porfiry (Uspensky), presented in January 1855, contains detailed information about the organization of work on translating the book 9. Work on the translation of arch. Porfiry described it this way: “In S. In St. Petersburg, a hieromonk, a student and an archimandrite translated from French into Russian the famous book by Abbot Michon about holy places, dividing it into three equal parts. This translation with two colored plans of the Holy Sepulcher Church (they were prepared by student Soloviev, - note by Porfiry) and with a drawing of the Church of Gethsemane (the drawing was made by Hieromonk Theophan, - note by Porfiry) was presented to the Metropolitan of Novgorod" 10. In “The Book of My Genesis,” Bishop Porfiry described this episode in more detail: “The beginning of this little book was translated by me myself (November 13), the middle by Hieromonk Theophan, and the end by student Peter Solovyov (November 28)” [Porfiry 7:7]. Metropolitan Clement (Kapalin) analyzed the information from the “Report” and the diary of Archimandrite Porfiry and came to the conclusion that the manuscript of the translation was transferred to the Novgorod Metropolitan - “the first member of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan. Nikanor (Klementyevsky)" [Kliment 2019:155]. The latter, according to the words of Archimandrite Porfiry, “thanked me for this translation and especially for pointing out the inaccuracies and untruths of Michon” [Porfiry 7:7]. Metropolitan Clement (Kapalin) suggested that a copy of the translation was preserved in one of the collections of Bishop Porfiry in the SPF ARAN [Clement 2019:155; Chronicle 1:497]. Apparently, this conclusion was based on Porfiry’s own remark that the text of the translation should be looked at “in my handwritten Collection in folio bound” [Porfiry 7:7]. The study of the indicated Metropolitan. Clement (Kapalin) manuscript made it possible to refute these conclusions. Translation of the book by Abbot J.-I. Michonne is preserved on ll. 136–173 vol. handwritten collection of Bishop Porfiry 11. An analysis of the handwriting confirmed the information in the diary: the beginning of the book (chapters 1–5) was translated by Archimandrite Porfiry 12 , the first five sections of the sixth chapter of Abbot Michon’s work by Hieromonk Theophan 13 , sections 6–12 of the sixth chapter by student Peter Solovyov 14 . The manuscript also indicates the time intervals of work of each of the members of the RDM: Archimandrite Porfiry completed work on the translation in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra on November 13, 1854 15, and Fr. Feofan and Peter Solovyov - November 28, 16. The latter could do the work together, since both parts of the translation follow each other on the same block of notebooks. The study also showed that after the translation was completed, Archim. Porfiry and Hierome. Feofan repeatedly double-checked all parts of the book - it contains pencil (early edits) and ink (several layers - later edits) notes by Porfiry and ink corrections by Feofan. Based on the results of studying this collection, it was established what “inaccuracies and untruths Michonne” spoke about. Nikanor (Klementyevsky)” [Porfiry 7:7]. In nine cases, the translators made notes on the bottom and right margins of the sheets, pointing out the factual errors of Abbé Michon and explaining terms unfamiliar to the Russian reader 17 . The analysis showed that the block of notebooks (fol. 136–173 vol.) from the manuscript of Bishop Porfiry (No. 101) is not a tray copy to the Novgorod Metropolitan Nikanor (Klementyevsky), but represents one of the draft translations. The validity of the conclusion is confirmed by the absence in the collection of three handwritten plans mentioned by Porfiry. Apparently, it was the tray copy of the translation that was discovered by the authors of this publication in the collection of P. N. Tikhanov in the Manuscripts Department of the Russian National Library. The monument is a manuscript of 57 sheets, two color and one black and white plans, glued to the main block of paper. The book is housed in a gray cardboard binding. To create it, expensive English paper from the Bath company was used [Klepikov: 111, No. 243 (1849)]. The translation text and legends to the color plans are made in the calligraphic handwriting of a student of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Peter Solovyov. Samples of the archimandrite's handwriting were also found in the monument. Porphyry and Hierarch. Feofan. The first one read the text written by P. Solovyov and corrected errors. The second added two more notes to the finished copy, prepared legends for the black and white plan and signed all three plans: in two cases - “Drew the plan of Art. Soloviev”, in one – “Drew the plan and. Feofan." Textual comparison of the manuscript from the collection of P.N. Tikhanov and a draft from the SPF ARAN showed that the corrections made by the translators were included in the final edition, and the corrected archim. Porfiry's mistakes are mechanical in nature and were made by student P. Solovyov during correspondence. The tray copy also lacks one note made in the draft by Jerome. Feofan 18. The conclusion about the manuscript from the collection of P. N. Tikhanov as the latest version of the translation is also confirmed by the results of the analysis of the note on the sheet. 10. In the text of the translation, when describing the tomb of the prophet David, P. Soloviev wrote: “this is nothing more than a clamp, roughly made of sandstone and whitened with lime” 19. This part of the book was translated by Archimandrite. Porfiry. Analysis l. 140 rev. The draft showed that Porfiry spent a long time choosing between two translation options - “cabbage roll” or “strubets” 20. As a result, having crossed out what was written several times, Porfiry placed the pencil version of the “clamp” above the line. The translators still doubted the correctness of the chosen word. After finishing work on the tray copy, Hier. Feofan made a note on the word “stub” on the bottom margin of the sheet: “or, cabbage roll” 21. Let's look at the meanings of these words. A.V. Svyatoslavsky, in an article for the Orthodox Encyclopedia, points out that the cabbage roll, or golbets, is “a cross with a roof-like covering; a tombstone shaped like a house” [Svyatoslavsky: 716]. In a study of Russian memorial sculpture we encounter an interpretation of both words. Thus, the clamp, or srubets, “apparently is the historical predecessor of cabbage rolls. Such “logs” are a square frame, approximately the size of a well, made of several crowns under a gable roof, without windows or doors. Such a low and squat structure, installed above the grave, is sometimes accompanied by a cabbage roll standing next to it” [Ermonskaya, Netunakhina, Popova: 25] Thus, the results of the study of manuscript No. 138 (Op. 3) from the collection of P. N. Tikhanov allow us to conclude that it is a tray copy of the translation of the work of Abbot J.-I. Michon "A new solution to the question of holy places." In addition to textual analysis, this is also indicated by the design of the manuscript. To date, the authors of the article have not been able to determine in what way the book from the personal archive of Metropolitan. Nikanor (Klementyevsky) or the library of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra came to the collector P. N. Tikhanov. Pavel Nikitich Tikhanov (1839–1905) was a Bryansk writer and collector. At different years of his life, he was the ruler of the Chernigov provincial scientific archival commission, a free worker in the Russian branch of the Imperial Public Library, and also stood at the origins of the founding of the Society of Lovers of Ancient Writing [Loparev: 63; Grishin]. The scientist devoted his life to collecting and studying handwritten monuments and compiled a collection of more than a thousand Russian and foreign books and documents. In 1907, his archive and collection were purchased by the Public Library from his heirs [Abramovich; Kapralova; Troitsky]. The collection of P. N. Tikhanov is distinguished by the unsystematic arrangement of materials and their heterogeneity, which makes it difficult for researchers to identify single complexes of materials in its composition. Manuscripts and documents from the scientist’s collection also lack catalog numbers and owner’s notes. Unfortunately, this does not allow us to establish how the translation of J.-I.’s work came into contact. Mishona to Tikhanov's meeting. Thus, the manuscript of the translation of Abbot Michon’s work “A New Solution to the Question of Holy Places”, recently discovered in the Department of Manuscripts of the Russian National Library, is a tray copy made by members of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem Archimandrite Porfiry (Uspensky), Hieromonk Feofan (Govorov) and P. Solovyov. The manuscript was presented to Metropolitan Nikanor (Klementyevsky), and the work on the translation was important in the context of the dispute over holy places and the flaring up of the Crimean War. Abramovich D. I. [Description of the collection of manuscripts from the collection of P. N. Tikhanov] // Report of the Public Library for 1907. St. Petersburg: Type. V. Kirshbaum, 1914. pp. 38–44. Anisimov O.V. Russia and Napoleon III: The Struggle for the Holy Places of Palestine. M.: Indrik, 2014. 415 p. Anisimov O. V. Franco-Russian conflict around the Holy Places of Palestine: periodization and its significance / Proceedings of the Department of History of Modern and Contemporary Times. 2010. No. 4. pp. 194–201. On the eve of Russian Palestine. Chronicle of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem. 1847–1854 / Compiled, text preparation, comments. M. I. Shcherbakova. M.: Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem, Institute of World Literature. A. M. Gorky RAS. 2017. 352 p. Gorbatov E. N. St. Theophan the Recluse as part of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem (1847–1855) according to AVPRI documents: [Speech at the section “The creative heritage of St. Theophan the Recluse - the subject of collaboration between church and secular science” of the Christmas readings-2011]. URL: http:// svtheofan.ru/item/1224-gopbatov-egop-nikolaevich-vedushtiy-sotpudnik-possiyskogo- gosudapstvennogo-aphiva-dpevnih-aktov.html (accessed 10/20/2020). Grishin K. P. P. N. Tikhanov and the Society of Lovers of Ancient Writing // Russian collection: Proceedings of the Department of OIDIS of BSU. acad. I. G. Petrovsky. Bryansk, 2010. Issue. 6. pp. 194–206. Dmitrievsky A. A. Bishop Porfiry (Uspensky) as the initiator and organizer of the first Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem, and his services to the benefit of Orthodoxy and in the study of the Christian East: On the occasion of the centenary of his birth. SPb.: Type. V. Kirshbaum, 1906. 124 p. Ermonskaya V.V., Netunakhina G.D., Popova T.F. Russian memorial sculpture: On the history of artistic tombstones in Russia in the 11th – early 20th centuries. M.: Art, 1978. 312 p. Kapralova L. F. Tikhanov Pavel Nikitich // Employees of the Russian National Library - scientists and cultural figures: Biographical Dictionary. T. 1. St. Petersburg: Publishing house of the Russian National Library, 1995. P. 519. Klepikov S. A. Filigree and stamps on paper of Russian and foreign production of the 17th-20th centuries. M.: Publishing house Vsesoyuz. Book Chamber, 1959. 306 p. Clement (Kapalin), Metropolitan. Through eight countries: the return of St. Theophan (Govorov) from Jerusalem to Russia // Christian Reading. 2019. No. 2. pp. 152–159. Clement, Metropolitan. The service of St. Theophan in Palestine in the first composition of the Russian Spiritual Mission (1847–1853) // Theophan’s Readings. Vol. 10, vol. 2. Ryazan: Ryazan State. University named after S. A. Yesenina, 2017. pp. 7–22. Chronicle of the life and works of St. Theophan, the Recluse of Vyshensky: 1815–1894. M.: Publishing house of the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2016–2020. T. 1–4. Lisova N.N. Russian spiritual and political presence in the Holy Land and the Middle East in the 19th – early 20th centuries. M.: Indrik, 2006. 510 p. Loparev Kh. M. Pavel Nikitich Tikhanov // Reports on the meetings of the Imperial Society of Lovers of Ancient Writing in 1904–1905. SPb.: Type. I. N. Skorokhodova, 1906. T. 160, pp. 63–73. Melnikova L.V. Holy places in the center of the Eastern Question: the church-political factor as one of the causes of the Crimean War // Questions of History. 2008. No. 11. pp. 61–75. Porfiry (Uspensky), bishop. The Book of My Being: Diaries and Autobiographical Notes of Bishop Porfiry Uspensky. SPb.: Imp. Academician Sciences, 1894–1902. Parts 1–8. Svyatoslavsky A.V. Golubets // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M.: Tserkovno-nauch. Center "Orthodox Encyclopedia", 2006. T. 11. P. 716–716. Sirku P. Description of the bishop's papers. Porfiry (Uspensky), donated to the Imperial Academy of Sciences by will. SPb.: Imp. Academician Sciences, 1891. 440 p. Troitsky S.A. Notes on the scientific work of P.N. Tikhanova // Bryansk region in the 20th century: Society, politics, economics. Bryansk: Ladomir, 2012. pp. 24–44. Shcherbakova M.I. Chronicle of the first Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem. Based on materials from the Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire and other archives // Holy Land. Historical and cultural illustrated almanac. Anniversary issue: Russian Palestine: people and destinies. Publication of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem. 2012. No. 1. Part 1. P. 12–59. Shcherbakova M. I. Russian Spiritual Mission 1847–1854. in the context of the Holy Sepulchre case // Feofanovskie readings. Vol. 10, vol. 2. Ryazan: Ryazan State. University named after S. A. Yesenina, 2017. pp. 40–53. Shcherbakova M.I. The Holy Land in the handwritten heritage of St. Theophan (according to documents from the Athos archive) // Theophan’s Readings. Vol. 6. Ryazan: Ryazan State. University named after S. A. Yesenina, 2013. pp. 92–101. Yakushev M.I. Jerusalem Patriarchate and the shrines of Palestine in the focus of Russian foreign policy on the eve of the Crimean War // Orthodox Palestinian collection. Vol. 100. M., 2003. pp. 245–288. Bore E. La question des Lieux Saints. Paris: J. Lecoff re et Ce, Libraires-Editeurs, 1850. 87 p. Landau S. Michon and the Birth of Scientific Graphology // The Vanguard. 2007. January-March, pp. 3–9. Michon J.-H. Narrative of a Religious Journey in the East in 1850 and 1851. London: Richard Bentley, 1853. 396 p. Michon J.-H. Solution nouvelle de la question des Lieux saints, suivie d'une notice sur la veritable rose de Jericho... par M. l'abbe J.-H. Michon. Paris: Comon, 1852. 107 p. Michon J.-H. Voyage religieux en Orient. Paris: Comon, 1853. 403 p. Rosenberg S. G. Felicien de Saulcy and the Rediscovery of Tyros in Jordan // Palestine Exploration Quarterly. 2006. Vol. 138, pt. 1, pp. 35–41. Savart C. L'abbe Jean-Hippolyte Michon (1806–1881). Contribution a letude du catholicisme liberal au XIXe siècle. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1971. 390 p. Seiler J. De Lavater a Michon: essai sur l'histoire de la graphologie. Friborg: Saint-Paul, 1995. Vol. 1–2. 573, 602 p. Varinard A. J.-H. Michon, fondateur de la graphologie, sa vie et ses oeuvres, Paris: s. e., 1881. 63 p. OR RNB. F. 777. Op. 3. D. 138. The fundamental work on the history of the first Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem is the work of A.A. Dmitrievsky [Dmitrievsky]. A detailed review of the literature is given in the monograph by N.N. Lisovoy [Lisovaya]. Subjects related to archival materials about the stay of Hieromonk Theophan as part of the first RPM in Jerusalem are reflected in the studies and articles of E.N. Gorbatov and M.I. Shcherbakova [Gorbatov; Shcherbakova 2013; Shcherbakova 2012; Shcherbakova 2017; On the eve of Russian Palestine]. About the activities of Hierom. Feofan as part of the first RDM, see the article by Metropolitan. Clement (Kapalina) [Clement 2017]. OR RNB. F. 777. Op. 3. D. 138. L. 29–28 vol. The letter is stored in AVPRI (AVPRI. F. 161/3. Op. 233. D. 3. L. 1–1 vol.) and was translated into Russian and partially published by O. V. Anisimov in his monograph: [Anisimov 2014: 354–355]. SPF ARAN. F. 118. Op. 1. D. 101. L. 173 vol. AVPRI. F. 161. II-9. Op. 46. ​​D. 19. Part 2. L. 29–29 vol. SPF ARAN. F. 118. Op. 1. D. 101. L. 136–173 volume. Indicated Metropolitan. Clement (Kapalin) described the collection to P. Syrku as part of a file of documents of Bishop Porfiry [Syrku: 212]. Another collection (No. 100) from the same collection contains various materials concerning the translation of the work of Abbot J.-I. Michon. Unfortunately, the authors of the article were unable to analyze these documents due to the closure of the joint venture, the collection was described by the VF ARAN for an indefinite period. SPF ARAN. F. 118. Op. 1. D. 101. L. 136–144 vol. Notes on l. 138 rev. – 139, 141, 142, 143 vol. – 144 volumes, 173 executed by Bishop Porfiry, on fol. 140 rev. - hierome Feofan (SPF ARAN. F. 118. Op. 1. D. 101. L. 138 vol. – 139, 140 vol. – 141, 142, 143 vol. – 144 vol., 173). Archimandrite's note. Porphyria on l. 141 was later corrected by Rev. Feofan. When describing the Church of the Ascension on the Mount of Olives, J.-I. Michon pointed out that “one old man in rags, for a few piastres, admits admirers into this precious sanctuary...”. In 1852–1853 The church's gatekeeper has changed, so the priest. Feofan noted: “Now the woman is in a blue sundress; the old man died” (SPF ARAN. F. 118. Op. 1. D. 101. OR RNB. F. 777. Op. 3. D. 138. L. 10. SPF ARAN. F. 118. Op. 1. D. 101. L. 140 vol.