“Great in small things...”: Moscow Metropolitan Filaret

The limits of the task: the study of predominantly small features of Philaret’s moral character, expressed in private and everyday life; interest of this study. – A look at the psychological state of him, then still a teacher at the Lavra Seminary, when deciding on the choice of a life path; What does this psychological state indicate? Why did he choose the path of monasticism? The rule of his life: think and remember as little as possible about himself, and as much as possible about others. – The unpretentious home life of Metropolitan Philaret (unpretentiousness at the table, his fear of allowing any luxury in this regard exclusively for himself, curious cases of this kind. – his Moscow gardening). – The humility and modesty of the late saint: his thoughts about humility and his desire for teaching and admonition from others; – examples of humility and modesty in relation to subordinates; – his attitude towards reproaches and scolders (the case of Avdotya Smirnova’s breadmaker; Zvonarsky deacon), as well as towards slanderers. – Filaret’s letters to the Lavra governor, Archimandrite Anthony, as a wonderful monument to the humility and modesty of the Moscow saint, his characterization based on these letters. – Simplicity in his relationships with others: aversion to flattery and praise, selfless disregard for personal peace, his remarkable accessibility (memoirs of Bishop Nicodemus on this matter). – The saint’s efforts to exercise Christian love for his neighbors: his fear of causing offense to another (his thoughts on this matter); instructive examples of his condescension towards his neighbors: lay people, clergy (the priest of the Deposition of the Robe in the role of a public exposer of the heresies of Philaret) and monks; – purely kindred attention and care for the so-called lower brethren (for example, novices and novices, their cell attendants and servants, some of them even after death); a curious case of Filaret’s obedience to the written request of a Yakut tradesman. – Metropolitan Philaret’s wit and wit are examples of his wit, the significance of this side of his spiritual personality for characterizing his moral image. – A few comments regarding some of the accusations against the Moscow hierarch that appear in the press and are heard orally, and in particular regarding the accusation of his lack of “boldness.” – The height of the moral personality of Metropolitan Philaret. – Two brief reviews about the late saint. Centuries will pass: his name will grow extraordinary. Thought will look for his great image in the past, and happy is he who sees his imperfect portrait... From the notes of His Grace Leonid, Archbishop of Yaroslavl. The moral character of each person is imprinted on all aspects of his activity. The same thing, of course, happened with Metropolitan Philaret. This character is reflected in everything that our Saint does and wherever he participates; is clearly depicted in his relations to the state, in synodal activities, in his management of the Moscow Church and flock, in his relations with various kinds of societies and institutions serving public education and the cause of charity - this character, we say, is clearly visible on everything that bears the stamp of officialdom, where, however, it is not so much personal will as the law and established rules that outline and determine the direction and tone of activity. But we do not want to talk about this official discovery of the moral qualities of the Saint. Our business, i.e. the task we want to take on is completely different and not very difficult. We want to bring together the features that characterize the moral character of Metropolitan Philaret in his private everyday life, from those everyday little things in which very often a person reveals himself with his merits and demerits more fully, brightly and more clearly than in activities that take place in front of everyone, the official and most responsible ones. We are interested, let us say even more clearly, in the small features of the moral image of the Saint, especially since we do not know whether anyone paid attention to this very small, and therefore, apparently, unattractive task. Drawing the image of Metropolitan Philaret, we imagine him in no other way than as a man of gigantic will and a strong mind, capable of resolving all issues quickly and without stumbling. However, if we look into his soul in those years when he had to choose a path in life for himself, we will see in him some other person who seemed to bear little resemblance to the Saint Philaret that history knows. And it’s true to say: it was not Filaret yet, but only Vasily Mikhailovich Drozdov. Looking around, we see how people, especially nowadays, easily take the lot that determines the path of life forever. This was not the case with Filaret. Choosing a life path was a big psychological task for him. Having received one letter from his father, Filaret, then still a layman, says that this letter gives him “an opportunity to carefully reflect on the light,” and this is how he reflects on “the light,” i.e. about life in society. “I imagine that I, too, must one day enter this dubious scene, which I now look at from the outside, where ignorance and prejudice often applaud, malice and envy boo... And I must follow this path, where stones and gold are thrown under my feet, over which inexperience or imprudence equally conveniently stumbles” 1 . Somewhat later, he noted: “The first part of the science of living in the light is the science of being more or less a chameleon” 2. Another four years passed after this, and Vasily Mikhailovich had not yet emerged from the period of doubts and hesitations in deciding the question: which path of life to choose for himself. This is what he wrote to his father: “The future makes me somewhat difficult; but I, unable to clarify its gloominess [i.e. darkness], I calm down, turning my eyes away from him, and wait until some rays fall, which should show me the way. Maybe this will be called frivolity... Let whoever wants to run after the wandering fire of happiness; I walk calmly, because I don’t see constant light anywhere” 3. Almost at the same time, he again wrote to his father: “Why does this happen that I am now less pleased with myself, and more cold towards everything than ever before? I am like the kind of person who stands on an empty road in the dead of night, wanting neither to [stay] in one place nor to move forward.” “You do not find the exact thoughts in my thoughts; but I told you that they are not in my head either. If I had a strong intention, you would already know it. What I see and know, and what they incline me towards, does not quite please me [of course, the priesthood and family life]. The other thing that is contrary to this is not well known to me [obviously, we are talking about monasticism]” 4. But the question is, why did the Lavra Seminary teacher’s decision regarding his choice of life path fluctuate for so long and so much? A person with such a strong mind and strong will as Filaret falters like a weak reed? I believe that the answer must be sought in the properties of his heart. A cold heart, governed by calculations and everyday considerations, would resolve the issue without any internal torment. After all, it is not at all difficult to take into account the chances of everyday advantages and disadvantages if you are guided by banal motives. But Filaret had a heart that lived with other feelings. We are sure that for a long time his tender heart could not find the right solution to the question: what is better - to use his remarkable spiritual wealth for himself and a few loved ones (in the case of accepting the priesthood), or to spread it to many, to the detriment of his personal interests (in the case of accepting monasticism). Generosity finally prevailed in him, and he, although after much thought, resolved the issue in such a way that in his decision his own personality received secondary importance. Metropolitan Filaret proved this with all his subsequent activities. To think and remember as little as possible about himself, and as much as possible about others, became and was the rule of his life. In fact, if we look through all the available literature related to Metropolitan Philaret, we will not find anywhere in it evidence that he loved and cared for himself and tried to ensure that his life’s path was strewn with roses. He didn’t think about anything like that and didn’t care about anything like that. We can cite several truly touching examples showing how little care he took to ensure that in his life he enjoyed earthly goods to a greater extent than is available to ordinary mortals. Anything that even remotely resembled luxury or whim, when it came to him, not only did not amuse him, but embarrassed him, as he declared it. Once - this was in the 40s, when, therefore, there were no railways - in April the Lavra governor, Archimandrite Anthony, sent the Metropolitan some berries, apparently grown in a greenhouse. On this occasion, Vladyka wrote to the governor: “Thank you for the berries. I used them with the thought that they are from the region of St. Sergius. But I was ashamed,” he notes, “to look at this luxury, especially when I learned that the berries were carried on foot. I remember that you prescribed them for my health, but I don’t want a medicine that would involve such difficulty for someone else.”5 Another case. A year later, in July, the same governor sent the Metropolitan and the gardener a letter and two baskets of fruits and berries. This parcel with garden works again embarrassed Metropolitan Philaret, who was averse to the whims. In his response letter, he considered it necessary to write down the following: “If he [the gardener] came for some work and by the way brought fruit, and in this case I am ashamed to think about this work; and even more if he went only for the fruits. If I didn’t have bread,” the Saint reasons, “and he brought it in this way, then there would be virtue in him, and goodness for me.” The words “you are hungry and give me food” cannot be applied to cherries. I thank you for the blessing from the monastery, but I ask you not to send such embassies. It’s another thing to send something like that on occasion when someone is going for something else.” 6 The Metropolitan considered it a luxury not only to send early fruits, but also black bread, if this required some trouble on the part of the sender. The thought we have indicated clearly shines through in the following words of one of his letters to the Lavra governor. “They told me to grind new rye for me [this happened in early August], I thank you for this, in order to be curious: whether the difference between fresh bread and the one that had been sitting for a long time would be noticeable. But I’m ashamed that this luxury is only for me” 7. The lack of desire to indulge himself in terms of earthly goods extended so far that he was ashamed to even beg Lavra beer for himself in Moscow, which was served to him by his governor in the Lavra and which the guest seemed to be very useful for his health. But it so happened that the governor, probably in view of this last observation, himself decided to send the indicated drink to the Moscow courtyard. The letter that Metropolitan Philaret wrote about this is interesting. “Thank you for the beer, although it’s a shame. It occurred to me to ask you for a little, because it seemed to suit my taste and the requirement of nature; but I was ashamed to add another whim to my many whims. Now I will use it as if it was received with a blessing” 8 . When reading this letter, one should not forget that the actual owner of the Lavra was the Metropolitan himself. How much of the unpretentiousness of St. Philaret was expressed in this letter - on the one hand, and just as much subtle delicacy - on the other. I will tell you another incident that took place under another governor of the Lavra, Athanasius. A gardener was needed for the Moscow ruler's garden; Metropolitan Philaret notified the governor of this need. The latter imagined that the Metropolitan wanted to dispossess the Lavra and demanded an experienced Lavra gardener for himself, and, apparently, became concerned about this; why the Saint writes a letter to him, in which he reassures him, pointing out that his demands from the gardener are so unassuming that there can be no difficulty in satisfying them. Metropolitan Philaret wrote: “I don’t demand your gardener and I don’t want to upset your garden for my garden. It would not be bad if one of the ignorant hunted: I would find here the means to teach. My establishment is simple and walking is not difficult. It used to be that I was walking through the garden,” the Moscow Bishop narrates, “and the peasant who was working in my garden was lying and reading; I look and am glad that I have a learned gardener; and he, I think, was pleased that [I] did not drive him from the book to the spade" 9 . It goes without saying that such a master was not difficult to please! With what complacency the Metropolitan talks about his famous gardener! Only complacency, it seems, prompted him to introduce his Lavra interlocutor to the type of “scientific” gardener. Speaking about the Metropolitan’s habit of caring very little about his personal material needs, perhaps one could point to his amazing simplicity in the table, home clothes, his attested unselfishness, certifying that he literally understood the commandment: “do not worry in the morning”; but these are very well-known things. One of the distinctive features of the moral image of Metropolitan Philaret, in our opinion, was humility and modesty associated with it. The saint reasoned: “Humility alone can establish peace in the soul. The soul is not humble, constantly torn and agitated by passions, dark and vague, like chaos: establish its strength in the focus of humility; then only the true light will begin to appear in it, and a harmonious world of right thoughts and feelings will form” 10. In particular, considering the significance of this feeling for the position that he occupied, the Saint said: “If others humble themselves by calling the Bishops Lords, the Bishops should not therefore forget that [they] are servants” 11. And it can be argued that the Metropolitan did not cease to exercise himself in strengthening these feelings he praised - humility and modesty. In letters to his vicar Bishop Innocent at the end of the 20s, with great sincerity and more than once, he reminds him not to hesitate to admonish and teach him when he sees the need for it. “Do not renounce teaching me or reminding me, but say everything that is fair and useful: salvation is in much counsel” 12. On another occasion, the Vladyka wrote to the same Innocent: “I ask you to speak freely to me as well, whatever you see for the benefit or to correct my mistakes; I hope in Christ, who exists among us, that this not only will not harm the love between us, but will strengthen it” 13. Or again: “Thank God, I cannot complain about you in anything; and if you have anything to complain about me, tell me, I’m glad to improve” 14. Not only from his assistant bishops, many inferior to him in all respects, but also from even more modest and insignificant persons, the Saint did not shy away from seeking lessons and guidance. In one of his letters, at the end of the 40s, to the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, later vicar Alexy, we find the following interesting lines: “One can marvel at the wisdom of today's people. Having served for thirty years in the rank of Bishop, I feel in some cases the need to consult with archpriests, students of my students, but they do not find this necessary. Don’t be angry,” adds the author of the letter, “and don’t think that I’m angry.” I only wish that a humble thought would help us to be careful." 15 And many examples of such an attitude of the Saint towards his subordinates can be cited. For example, Metropolitan Philaret sends two of his handwritten sermons to the Lavra, assigning them for publication in an academic journal that was just beginning to be published, and accompanies this sending with the following letter to Viceroy Anthony: “Read it, that’s all, and tell me whether one and the other should be included in the [academic] publication that is starting these days, or is it better not to give it away” 16 . The Metropolitan, thus, submits his famous sermons to the censorship of “everyone,” shunning the idea that they should serve as the best decoration of a new magazine. Once Metropolitan Philaret made a stern remark to the spiritual censorship committee, however, he considered it necessary to add a request not to be angry with him for his judgment. But it soon turned out that the committee was not at all as guilty as the Metropolitan assumed, and the latter finds it necessary to apologize to the members of the committee: “If you, Father Rector, and the fathers of the censor are angry with me, then I ask for forgiveness,” 17 wrote the humble Archpastor. Of course, there were cases when his comments regarding any official malfunctions committed by his subordinates aroused displeasure among the offenders; but in these cases he found consolation in the fact that although he was subject to displeasure, he was fulfilling his duty. He reasoned wisely: “It seems to me that by making [sending] my comments, I will fulfill my duty and expose myself to trouble, and if I don’t do it, I will eliminate trouble from myself, but will not fulfill my duty” 18 . Here, of course, for a reasonable person there could be only one way out. But fulfilling his duty, when it was necessary to make a serious suggestion, the Saint took great care that those receiving a reprimand and suggestion did not harbor enmity in their hearts towards the highly eminent superior. The following case is interesting in this regard. In the mid-50s, a High Person, apparently from the Royal House, visited the Moscow Theological Academy and was dissatisfied with the fact that the student premises were full of tobacco. The Metropolitan, of course, could not ignore the disorder and wrote an appeal to the students, where he tried to find out the harmful aspects of smoking. Everyone will say that Metropolitan Philaret fulfilled his duty and could feel right without worrying about the consequences. But this is not what our Saint did. He wanted to know what the rector of the Academy, the governor of the Lavra and even the students thought and how they reacted to his words. The governor hastened to express his opinion, and this consoled him. But the Academy, obviously, was dissatisfied with the remarks and did not answer the Metropolitan for some time. This worried him, and through a letter he began to find out from Archimandrite Anthony how his address was accepted at the Academy: “But you did not answer the question,” the Metropolitan wrote, “how they judge my letter [on tobacco smoking]. Apparently very unmerciful.” But the matter did not stop there. The Metropolitan tried to impress upon the Academy that his letter on smoking should not be viewed as an order from a superior, but as a challenge to discuss the matter. He said with touching modesty: “There are no instructions in it [the letter], but a reasoning is written [...]. And I didn’t mean prohibition and supervision, but that students should be given reasoning that would encourage them to draw conclusions themselves” 19 . What a friendly tone of the seventy-year-old man towards the green youth! The Archpastor's modesty forced him to sometimes take on such assignments that anyone else in his place would refuse. So some oh. Abel (obviously a monk) asked Saint Philaret to correct the prayer composed by the petitioner to Forefather Abel, and the Metropolitan fulfilled the order, apologizing that he could not return the original, as it was too outline. And the Lord does this work six months before his death 20! Metropolitan Philaret's modesty and humility were especially expressed in his benevolent attitude towards the critics and unfavorable judges of his affairs and activities, even if these critics did not remain hidden. He wanted to stand and stood above these trifles, which he considered the antics of his critics. In such cases, the Moscow Bishop said: “By the grace of God, if I am judged unfavorably, I believe that I deserve it, and I do not change my favor towards the unfavorable judge” 21 . “It is better to respond to reproach with meekness than with reproach,” he said. - You need to wash off dirt with clean water. You can’t wash away dirt with dirt” 22. He was guided by these rules in practice. When one day one of his subordinates expressed censure against the Metropolitan in the presence of witnesses who, as part of his duty, had to bring the act to the attention of the Bishop, he declared that he did not want to pronounce condemnation for the censure against him, that he did not want to give a pretext for the assertion that he was subjecting the accused to punishment for himself, and that, finally, he wanted to put himself above the insult directed at him, and recommended that his management employees learn the same rule 23 . At present, one can only read with amazement one long case that lasted for many years and caused endless and undeserved anxiety to Metropolitan Philaret. Despite this nature of the case, he did not take any measures to stop it, not wanting to be attributed to a type of violence. We understand the following. One girl, the daughter of a village priest, apparently not entirely normal, Avdotya Smirnova, demanded from the Metropolitan that she be given a place for malting, but certainly at the Vagankovsky cemetery, where, however, this place was not idle. The Metropolitan offered her another place in the malting house, but Smirnova did not want this and went to the Moscow diocesan authorities and the Synod and the Tsar with a request. It was in vain that the Metropolitan, wanting to calm the grumpy woman, moved Vagankov’s malt mill to another place and assigned this place to Smirnova; in vain this time and then he personally exhorted her to start living quietly and calmly. Smirnova, although she was pleased that she had achieved her goal, demanded that the consistory buy a house for her in the cemetery and provide funds for heating it. And when this illegal demand was denied to her, she announced in the presence of members of the consistory: “So what is your decree [putting her in place] for? Mallows don’t live in the snow and they don’t bake bread in the snow.” The grumpy woman did not hesitate to threaten suicide even in the face of the Metropolitan himself if her demand was not fulfilled. This matter, we say, dragged on for many years, but the remarkable humility of Metropolitan Philaret emerged victorious from this test: he unhinderedly allowed the matter to go through all stages of its development, although, of course, he could have stopped it at the very beginning 24. Or here's another example. At the end of the life of St. Philaret, one deacon became famous in Moscow (Zvonarsky - by the name of the parish where he served: St. Nicholas in Zvonary - we do not know his last name), became famous for his daring behavior in relation to his Archpastor. One admirer of Metropolitan Philaret, who left us memoirs dedicated to describing the life of this Saint, tells the following about the above-mentioned deacon. For several years in a row, he continuously pestered the Metropolitan with petitions to appoint him to the place of parish priest, and in each petition or letter he tried to prick Saint Philaret, now reproaching the people whom he distinguished, now reproaching him for his partiality towards his relatives, he started cases, wrote many harsh papers, wanting to hurt the Metropolitan. But he remained calm. Sometimes only, and then laughing, he reported, if the conversation came up about the deacon, what lesson, instruction, hint he had again received from his subordinate. - Why don’t you bring him to his senses? - an admirer once dared to ask St. Philaret, and received the answer: “I am not a judge in my own case” 25. Humility and modesty did not allow the Metropolitan to become a judge between himself and his enemy. The Moscow Saint left even direct slander against himself (and who is spared from it?) without any attention. He distinguished between two types of slander. “Some slander drives you out, leads you into poverty, throws you into prison: this is hard,” he reasoned. “Isn’t it easier when slander passes over your ears like the wind?” 26 Of course, there was no slander of the first kind against Metropolitan Philaret, and therefore he could only turn a deaf ear to the slander, since the matter could only concern the Metropolitan’s pride, but he was not unbridled. Even less could the Metropolitan punish anyone for slander concerning his personality. Once news reached him that a certain abbot of Israel was writing slander against him and was giving his writing an official movement. The answer of Saint Philaret, which we find in one of his letters to Vicar Innocent, is characteristic: “I would agree to consider the slander of others in advance; and it is not my business to consider slander against me. Therefore, I am returning the papers sent to me without printing them” 27 (obviously, these papers contained the slander in question). But the most indisputable evidence of the humility and modesty that distinguished the great Hierarch are those letters that he wrote to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony. These letters represent a precious monument. Firstly, there are a lot of them, and they cover almost the entire long period of Philaret’s Moscow priesthood, and secondly, here, as nowhere else, his moral character is reflected even more clearly. Not even four years had elapsed since Anthony assumed the position of governor, when Metropolitan Philaret already wrote to this, at that time unknown, assistant in charge of the management of the Lavra: “You have long been in favor of a friend in my heart” 28, i.e. the great Hierarch declares his humble subordinate a personal friend. Of course, at one time it was a secret that only the two of them knew. This confession was unexpected and shocked Archimandrite Anthony. Friendship - with whom? Under the influence of unexpected joy, St. Philaret’s new friend confesses that he is afraid that such happiness might lead to exaltation and arrogance of the lucky one. To this, the Metropolitan responded with the following humble lines: “What is the case for fearing the ascension? [...] Does your friend stand somewhat higher in visible rank? – But God does not look at this, but at the depths of the heart. Is your friend a poor creature, toiling and burdened? “But even such people are called by the meek and lowly-hearted Jesus. And dare to stand and be respected. Don’t be arrogant, but be afraid,” 29, Anthony’s friend inspires himself. Since then, Vladyka has been doing everything to make this friend believe that the Metropolitan’s friendship with his subordinate has a deep moral meaning. Soon after this, Archimandrite Anthony found himself very dissatisfied with himself in some way and poured out this complaint in a letter to the Metropolitan. The latter calms him down and, moreover, in a way that only a sincere friend could do. “The complaints you wrote about yourself... I read, turning [them] towards myself, and not decreasing, but increasing” 30. The weight is taken from the shoulders of a weak friend. Metropolitan Philaret often turns to the governor with a request to instruct him: “Thank you for comforting me, but teaching me more,” 31 he often declared. Or he wrote like this: “It is better to show you obedience than to be wise” 32. He asks his friend for moral support: “Support me in bearing the cross with words of love, advice, reinforcement and consolation.” “Teach me humility and obedience and pray about this” 33. He asked for forgiveness for himself: “Will you tolerate my weakness or sometimes impatience, with which I sometimes notice small things, while I do not always express gratitude for great things” 34. Calls him to boldly point out his mistakes and expose him. “I will tell you, as I usually say, what I think, and what I say is erroneous,” Vladyka wrote, “indicate my error.” “I ask you never to embarrass yourself in communicating with me, even if it is not about your desire, but about my denunciation” 35. The Metropolitan never forgot to ask for forgiveness from the governor at the beginning of Lent and even other fasts; he expressed this request very touchingly. “I ask for your forgiveness,” he wrote, “in what way I offended you with my impatience, or in what unreasonable, or passionate act, or bad example I tempted you” 36 . Sometimes a humble Hierarch modestly admits that he is a bad boss: “Don’t be angry with me, because I only know how to hinder you, and not help you” 37 . The famous hero Philaret often sent them to Archimandrite Anthony, who did not have a proper school education, before printing his sermons. So one day, intending one of his sermons to be published in the journal of the Moscow Theological Academy, he sends it in advance to the governor Anthony and writes: “If your censorship decides to stop the entire notebook or makes comments: return it to me. And if your censorship lets you through: then suggest it to the academic censorship, and let it pronounce its judgment” 38 . And it must be said that the governor used the right given to him. Sometimes he made his own comments or expressed bewilderment about certain passages in the sermons of the famous preacher. In one such case, the Metropolitan responded to the governor with a letter, saying: “I don’t know whether to say, watch me more strictly. I’ll at least say: don’t look too leniently at me.”39 What humility! Let us finally point out one more fact that outlines the relationship of Metropolitan Philaret to Archimandrite Anthony. In the early 40s, Anthony, for ascetic reasons, wanted to leave the position of governor. Of course, the Metropolitan tried in every possible way to induce him to change this intention, and when the governor relented, the Saint praised his obedience and wrote: “I thank you, bowing to the ground” 40. The same thing happened again later. This was towards the end of Metropolitan Philaret’s life. Archimandrite Anthony, feeling his strength weakening, decided to retire and leave his position. In response to a request for this, the Metropolitan wrote to his governor that in this case it was necessary to submit two resignation letters to the Synod - his, the governor, and Philaret himself, and at the same time the Bishop added significant words: “But if they fire me, I don’t want you to be fired” 41. With these words, the Metropolitan wanted to show that he places his assistant above himself. The governor had to surrender. In connection with humility and modesty, as a natural complement to them, the historian is obliged to note in the personality of the Moscow Metropolitan the attractive simplicity of relationships. While still a layman, he spoke out against unnecessary courtesies in relation to him; his soul was not in favor of anything that was in the nature of compliments. Without hesitation, he called flattering words “dirt.” It is necessary to separate, he said even at that time, “the pure breath of sincerity, which enlivens the heart, from the unclean dirt that is thrown into our eyes in order to blind us: this is often what ordinary greetings and established politeness often seem to me like.”42 He felt and expressed even greater disgust for all flattery when he became a prominent Hierarch. At every opportunity that presented itself, he warned those around him against any praise of himself and his deeds. To praise him, as he put it, meant leading both the panegyrist and the person being praised into temptation. “If I understand that the honor given to me does not belong,” the saint noted, “then I am upset and can upset the one who did the honor; and if I fell in love with [exaltation], then I was led into sin” 43. On another occasion, the Metropolitan recounts an episode that apparently took place in a family related to him. “Yesterday one baby told me that he loved the Metropolitan, and made me say the same to him. If I hadn’t been forced, I wouldn’t have told him this, but I would have loved him the same.” And from here he draws the following conclusion: “We do not love, it is said, in word or tongue, but in deed and truth. So, love does not lose by silence. Truth does not fail when the word fails. Let us trust each other’s silence, just as we trust each other’s words” 44. He once inspired his Eminence Vicar: “Reward me not with praise, but with frank communication of the truth, advice, reproof and prayers” 45. N.V. Sushkov, who left us interesting memories of Metropolitan Philaret, says that he once could not resist (this was a few days before the death of the Saint) and during a visit he said to this person who does not like praise: “What kind of a person was this, posterity will think: he does not refute the reproachful and obviously slanderous rumors about himself; and what is said with love about him, in praise of him, he rejects” 46. Metropolitan Philaret very much disliked it when they told him: “I didn’t dare to disturb you,” imagining the Bishop as if he existed only for some extraordinary people and extraordinary deeds. To the governor Athanasius, when he said: “I didn’t want to disturb,” Saint Philaret replied that this would lead to bad things 47 . He expressed his view on the same matter even more clearly to Bishop Nikodim of Krasnoyarsk. When this bishop, while still an archimandrite, visited the Metropolitan and told him: “I did not dare to bother” you, the Bishop replied: “Such apologies are no good; I don't like them. What is there to be afraid of disturbing when it comes to the common good? Would I be good if, walking at night, I saw a man who had fallen into a hole, and passed by him because, not being able to get him out alone, I did not dare to disturb a neighbor living nearby? Who refused you, and who will refuse you?” 48. It must be added, however, that although Metropolitan Philaret did not block access to himself to everyone who needed it; but he did not like his approachability to descend into familiarity, expressed in an excess of frankness. He was afraid of this kind of frankness. “The enemy can derive harm from unnecessary frankness” 49. Accessibility, determined by the simplicity of relationships, which Saint Philaret acquired for himself, is especially glorified by the above-mentioned Bishop Nicodemus. He enthusiastically writes: “Accessibility to the Lord (as far as I know and as I can judge from experiences with me) [and it must be said that Nicodemus, before receiving the bishopric, spent 25 years in various spiritual and educational services] is exemplary, and alas! According to the experiences of my life, it is unparalleled! With Filaret, say whatever you want: he will be listened to patiently, not only when it is stupidity, a mistake, a delusion, but also when the speech may be unfavorable to his personality. Filaret will answer and give instructions, judging by the merits of what is proposed, and in any case without bitterness...” In a conversation with the Bishop, says Nicodemus, one forgot “the immeasurable distance between him and his little listener: he spoke to me [when, of course, Nicodemus was not yet a bishop] as a man a little older than me.” “All the honor of spiritual kindness, all the glory of reasonable condescension,” notes Bishop Nicodemus, “all the honor of insight and justice belongs to Philaret,” in comparison with other hierarchs whom the narrator knew 50. The same narrator conveys the following story from the life of Metropolitan Philaret. One simple wife of the cleric appeared to the Metropolitan, who, however, considered herself intelligent. He has hundreds of petitioners in his waiting room. The archpastor goes around them in order, announcing to each what he considers necessary to say. He approaches the clerk’s wife, she falls at his feet and bursts into tears. Filaret: What do you need? Answer: Your Excellency, look upon my Mashenka! - Who is your Mashenka? - My daughter. -Are you a widow? - No, my husband is alive. - Who is he and where? - Deacon in the village of Komlevo, Ruza district. - Why didn’t he come? Answer: Look, Your Excellency, my Mashenka! Seeing no way to find out the matter, Vladyka told her: “Go to my clerk!” The matter was clarified here and ended to the satisfaction of the petitioner. Relaying the story, Bishop Nikodim notes: “Few bishops are so attentive to the simple and poor wife of the cleric, who, moreover, does not know how to express the essence of her petition” 51. We can be sure that this curious story is told to us with complete accuracy, because the described incident happened to the narrator’s mother. It is curious that even his comments, which the Metropolitan made according to the duties of his authority, he did not treat as something indisputable and not subject to dispute. Sending his critical comments on one church-historical book that caused a lot of trouble (Rudnev N. Discourse on heresies and schisms that occurred in the Russian Church from the time of Vladimir the Great to Ivan the Terrible. M. 1838) to the rector of the Theological Academy Philaret (Gumilevsky), Vladyka, however, writes: “I am sending a leaflet [with comments] on your sacrifice polemics, and... if the thought is not offensive,” he adds, “to a decrease in your self-confidence” 52. The Metropolitan did not even attach such great importance to his famous creations as even little-known writers currently attach to their literary works. At the end of the 40s, delivering his sermon to the rector of the Academy and assigning it for publication in an academic journal, the Hierarch innocently says: “If you need something to quickly plug the emptiness in your [i.e. academic] edition, then read the attached discourse on the sanctification of the Lord’s day and do with it as you wish” 53 . In the modern language of journalists, Metropolitan Philaret sends his sermon for publication, as they say, “for the plug,” i.e. in case of lack of suitable material! How similar this is to Philaret and how unlike the Metropolitan! Humility, modesty and simplicity of behavior, which were discussed above, serve as a clear expression of our Hierarch’s vigilance over himself, over his pride and ambition, and in general over the sinful impulses of his will. But the question arises: in what facts was his Christian love for others, his neighbors, expressed, and what rules did he adhere to in this regard? Our Saint was imbued with fear of causing any offense to his neighbors. He made it a rule for himself not to be angry with another: “Being angry is not useful,” he reasoned. - The anger of a man does not bring about the righteousness of God. Anger can only produce or increase the irritation of another, but one can only be brought into a better disposition through patience and peace” 54 . “In moments of indignation and anger, you should not allow yourself to speak and act, but you should take time, calm the passion with reasoning and prayer” 55. “Bitter cannot be sweetened with bitter,” he still reasoned, “but only with sweet. Likewise, bitter cases cannot be sweetened by a bitter judgment about them, but meekness, patience and love can not only sweeten what flows from a bitter source, but also correct a bitter source” 56 . This is how the Saint reasoned, and this is what he did. If he encountered something that should irritate him, he said: “... I would be angry at this if it were good to be angry” 57. He tried not to cause offense to his neighbor through suspicion; he wanted to keep his heart pure in this regard as well. “Why should a person,” he taught, “indignate himself with unfavorable guesses, for some insignificant reason for them? And is it necessary to make your peace of mind dependent on human opinion? 58. “With a suspicious eye,” he argued, “you can reach the point of hatred of humanity; whoever wants to have love for his neighbor must have a simple eye.” “An excess of trust is better than an excess of suspicion. For excess trust is my mistake, and excess suspicion is an insult to my neighbor." 59 His fear of harming his neighbor extended so far that he carefully destroyed letters that could somehow compromise someone, even regardless of the will of their recipient 60 . If it was necessary to correct someone’s course of action, to arouse energy, the Metropolitan often tried to ensure that the suggestion was not made in his name: “There is no need,” he ordered, “to mention me, so as not to mix sorrow with the encouragement” 61 . Our saint, however, did not at all imagine that it would be possible to spend life without any displeasure; he took life as it came. But he knew and showed how to resolve any displeasures that might arise. “It seems to me,” our profound moralist wrote on one occasion, “that the advantage of sincere intimacy between people does not consist in not doing each other the slightest displeasure, which is hardly possible in life, but so that even when, by mistake or necessity, something is said or done to the displeasure of another, it does not harm love and does not give food to evil memory” 62 . Golden rule! Having set himself the rule not to cause offense to his neighbor or, if possible, to avoid it, the Metropolitan tried to be lenient towards his neighbors when their actions, while not amounting to offenses against the laws, were, however, offensive, obscene, harmful and worthy of condemnation. First of all, let's say a few words about the remarkable condescension of Saint Philaret towards his secretary of Svyatoslavsky, whose life passed under the roof of the Archpastor. Once the Metropolitan began to notice that he was not receiving some of the necessary official papers for a very long time, he became concerned about this, and only after a whole summer it was discovered that his secretary, due to some inexplicable negligence, did not transfer the packages to the Metropolitan; A whole bunch of such packages was found in Svyatoslavsky’s room. The Metropolitan, despite the importance of the offense, limited himself to one explanation of the absurdity of the secretary’s behavior. A year later, however, the same story repeated itself. And a year later, the Metropolitan opened a new pile of packages in his secretary’s room, some of which lay undisturbed for five months 63 . And the gracious Lord endured and condescended! Subsequently, things got to the point where the secretary did nothing at all. Saint Philaret said: “Svyatoslavsky is already dead for business: he walks little, remembers little and does nothing” 64. A good secretary is one who does nothing! And yet, as one narrator puts it, this secretary ended his life with the Metropolitan “in the service and, as it were, in his arms” 65. The answer to such condescension lies partly in the fact that the secretary was almost the same age as the Metropolitan, was devoted to him and was a good Christian. But still, the condescension of St. Philaret is truly remarkable! Let's look at other similar examples. Around the 30th year of the last century, a retired St. Petersburg official Smirnov, one of the minions of the former minister Shishkov, who played a very unattractive role in its hostility in the life history of St. Philaret, appeared in Moscow. This official, having settled in Moscow, began to visit the Metropolitan. They began to warn the latter that this official was an unreliable person, that he came to the Vladyka to “find out”, and that he was causing the Vladyka “harm by reporting what was not there.” But the Metropolitan, despite the warnings, did not change his condescension towards the unworthy person. Saint Philaret wrote on this occasion: “The Lord knows hearts and secret deeds. What I have heard about him does not prevent me from accepting him calmly, but,” the Metropolitan complains about this, “I miss his long conversations and get tired” 66. The Metropolitan also showed rare condescension towards one Moscow priest. The priest of the Church of the Deposition of the Robe on Donskaya Street imagined himself as a great preacher, delivered “inflated” sermons, fought against modern heretics and heresies, with which “he fought like Don Quixote with mills,” in general, in the words of Metropolitan Philaret, for this preacher “this rage upsets ... some strings of thoughts to the point of absurd discord.” The then vicar wanted to prohibit the preacher from delivering his sermons. But the Metropolitan, who was in St. Petersburg at that time, did not deign to do this. The motive that guided the Saint is interesting: “...I seem to have the honor of being one of those [obviously heretics] whom he sometimes targets in his sermons” 67. There is reason to believe that the priest of the Robe polemicized against Metropolitan Philaret under the influence of the aforementioned Shishkovsky official, who, one might think, brought from St. Petersburg a lot of gossip about Freemasonry, neologism, Protestantism and Philaret’s liberalism 68 . But such gossip actually existed. Metropolitan Philaret also showed a lot of leniency in his relations with persons of the monastic order, although the vow of humility and obedience they took did not oblige him to such leniency, and although they did not really deserve it. One archimandrite of the Joseph Monastery had the highest opinion of his intelligence. “This man thinks that he is smarter than everyone else,” the Metropolitan characterizes him, “and when I try to prove to him that this is doubtful, he looks at me with surprise or with regret that I do not understand his wisdom” 69. There is no doubt that the Archpastor could have said directly to his face the bitter truth that was asking itself on the tongue, but he did not want to do this. Another case. The abbot of the Pesnosha Monastery was guilty of something, and it turned out that it was necessary to spruce up the investigation. This greatly upset the abbot. In view of this, Metropolitan Philaret considered it necessary to console the offender. He wrote to the governor who was conducting the investigation: “I said good things to the abbot [i.e. an encouraging word through the consistory, but you also tell him from me that there is no reason to be discouraged. Out of an abundance of caution, the authorities had to do what they did; but he [the abbot] should be reassured by the fact that the matter ended with one inquiry as a precaution” 70 . Under the command of Governor Anthony in the years 40–50 there was a certain novice Philip, who later took the monastic name Philaret. He began to allow himself to do things that aroused speculation. He appeared in Moscow churches with some kind of staff hung with ribbons, arranged a meal for himself on the porches, walked around Moscow with some kind of metal bird in his hands. More than once he ended up in police custody because of this. The Metropolitan reacted condescendingly to this behavior of a person classified as a monk, limiting himself to advising him to “refrain from such actions,” instilling in him that he should not “lead himself into temptation.” Subsequently, when this same Philip-Filaret began to ask the governor to undertake some kind of trip, the Metropolitan did not interfere, but he jokingly wrote the following in a letter to Archimandrite Anthony: “But tell him not to try to be taken into custody, and if he likes it, he would tell us, and we would arrest him with love, and not with anger, like the police.” 71 Some Lavra hieromonk Vladimir was given a book for collecting alms. But this man was not satisfied with the right given to him, but wrote a “pompous appeal” to the benefactors. In all likelihood, the appeal was a bit stupid. The Metropolitan forbade Vladimir to “use it.” The consequence of all this was that the offended writer took revenge on the Metropolitan. “So he settled with me,” writes the latter, “I did not give use to his eloquence, and he did not give our collection book” (obviously, the monk refused to collect). “At least he gave himself satisfaction” 72. The tone of Saint Philaret’s speech is completely complacent and even somewhat playful. Let us give you another case. One monk, who belonged to the brethren of the Moscow Metropolitan Metochion, while drunk in the evening, made a riot, so that the noise reached the ears of the Metropolitan at the other end of the house. It turned out that this monk had previously declared himself inebriated. But it is interesting that the Archpastor showed his displeasure not so much against the monk as against the steward of the metochion, who was in charge of the brethren here, because he hid the behavior of the culprit from the Metropolitan. He wrote to the governor Anthony: “You, for your part, advise the steward not to treat the boss [i.e. with Saint Philaret], like a wolf, when the authorities want to treat their subordinates as brothers” 73 . Despite all his desires for leniency, Saint Philaret admitted that sometimes he showed dissatisfaction, that is, probably irritability. But he found that in his position this was an almost inevitable evil. The Metropolitan was so overwhelmed by affairs, both official and extra-official, that he did not have time to follow all the impulses of his soul. He said in explanation of the irritability that sometimes befell him: “Things in which there is no food for the soul consume time and always leave the concern that much remains unfinished; weakness requires a lot of time to rest; the soul finds it difficult to return to its peace; thoughts of care or vanity pursue and rob her” 74. Indeed, if we take into account that the Metropolitan found rest only in a change of occupations 75, then we will marvel at his complacency, which was expressed so clearly and so undoubtedly. Truly touching is the purely kindred attention and care of Metropolitan Philaret for the smallest brethren, for the persons who stood almost on the last steps of the social ladder. His soul was open to them too. Many instructive examples could be given. Let's give at least a few. Saint Philaret heard about the dangerous illness of some skete novice and remembers him with a kind word. “I [seem] still see and hear the novice Theodore,” he writes, “reading in the skete church. I sympathize that he is sick, I rejoice that he is complacent” 76. On another occasion, the Metropolitan writes to Viceroy Anthony: “I don’t want to tear Elijah away and I think that he will be bored with me” 77 . And the Metropolitan writes this about a certain Elijah, whom the governor wanted to send to the Moscow courtyard to perform sexton duties. “He will be bored with me!” We are definitely talking about a close relative! Another example. The saint learned that in the Blachernae hostel the novices-ringers were exposed to dangers while performing their duties. And so he thinks about how to help the trouble, and writes: “I learned that there the novices walk to the bell tower on the church roof, with the danger that the wind will blow them away or slip and fall. Strange structure of the building! I suggested G.P. put up a railing: he says that it will be ugly, and offers a rope, which is unlikely to satisfy. I again suggested installing a wooden handrail on sparse supports...” 78 It is clear that the compassionate Hierarch does not consider caring for the bell ringers to be an empty matter! The Archpastor took upon himself many touching concerns about his cell attendants and servants if any serious troubles happened to them. Here, for example, are his truly brotherly concerns for the servant Peter, who fell ill at the Metropolitan’s courtyard in St. Petersburg. The Bishop writes a letter to the governor, where he says: “I have temptation in my house. Servant Peter goes crazy [note that later it turned out to be something else], does strange things and bothers many. Remember him before St. Sergius, may he ask for good reason.” Then, under a plausible pretext, the Metropolitan sent Peter to the Lavra, entrusting him to the protection of the governor. But since strange things continued with this minister even after this, Saint Philaret asked Archimandrite Anthony: “Tell him to remember him at the proskomedia.” Then Peter finally settled in the Lavra and began to indulge in various exploits: either he became silent, or he imposed a 40-day fast on himself. Whenever this kind of phenomenon occurred, Metropolitan Philaret showed a keen interest in his former servant. For example, when Peter wanted to undertake a 40-day fast, Vladyka advised him to shorten this fast to 33 days, in memory of the years of the Savior’s life, so as not to exhaust himself too much with a long fast. He regretted it when the fast exhausted Peter so much that he fell ill before fulfilling his vow, but he rejoiced and thanked God when he learned that Peter managed to accomplish his feat. In general, for many years the Metropolitan was interested in the life and actions of Peter, and a mass of letters from the great Hierarch are covered with the name of an unknown metropolitan servant 79 . Metropolitan Philaret and his other servant, Yakov, from among some Lavra clerks, were much concerned about the illness. Yakov, as it turned out, fell ill with mental illness. The saint sent him to the governor for the latter's care. The patient was eager to publicly repent of his sins. “Try to reason with him,” Metropolitan Philaret said to the governor, “and persuade him to pray, under the intercession of St. Sergius, for peace to the Lord and not give in to impulses.” It is interesting that in one of his letters, Saint Philaret very clearly tells the story of Yakov’s illness, how he turned from an obedient person into a person who began to interfere where he shouldn’t and even put on airs 80 . The saint gives advice to the governor on how to deal with this patient if his illness becomes severe. The Metropolitan showed no less concern for his third servant, Vasily. This is what he wrote about him to Governor Anthony: “Already in Moscow, I learned that one of my companions, Vasily, disappeared on the way to the Lavra, and another time he disappeared while leaving the Lavra. He is humble, but he is sick with tapeworm, and therefore, when he thinks about it, he does strange things. Look for him and, if found, bring him to us, persuading him not to deviate from the path and telling him that we care about him” 81. The Saint did not even refuse to express appropriate attention to his deceased cell attendants. Once, while in St. Petersburg as a member of the Synod, the Metropolitan learned that his cell attendant had died in Moscow, and upon learning, he wrote the following letter to the vicar, Bishop Innocent: “Thank you, Your Eminence, for the orders for the late Gregory. Thank me and Fr. Archimandrite Zlatoust, if he took the trouble to be at the funeral. The deceased reassured me a lot. Following me, due to my weakness, can be quite fussy. I don’t remember any time when he was lazy or complained. Sometimes he stopped treating himself so that he could more easily follow me when I was sick. May God reward him with eternal peace." 82 With this letter the Saint, one might say, immortalized the name of the unknown Gregory. In addition to his closest servants, Metropolitan Philaret extended his guardianship to other persons who served him. It is touching to read the following lines of his letter to the same vicar about how best to send one metropolitan choirboy from Moscow to St. Petersburg, where the Saint was staying while sitting in the Synod: “It would not be bad to send him on a stagecoach [one must remember that there were no railways then], and make sure that he was given one of the resting places inside, and not outside the stagecoach” 83 . Just think that this is about the journey of the Metropolitan’s own son! The next act of the Moscow Vladyka is even more impressive and amazing. Some Yakut tradesman Pavel Grigoriev, for unknown reasons, sent Metropolitan Philaret a petition to St. Nicholas, with instructions to present it (the petition) for its intended purpose. It is unlikely that anyone would have taken this request seriously, but Vladyka approached the matter differently. He wrote a letter to Archimandrite Anthony, where he said: “I could tell the Yakut tradesman Grigoriev to contact his diocesan bishop. But can a petition to St. Nicholas be ignored, no matter what it is? Would you please instruct us to perform a prayer service before the miraculous image of St. Nicholas and remember the servant of God Paul?” 84 The Primate of the Church in the ancient capital did not want to disobey the will of the Yakut tradesman Grigoriev! Extending his saintly attention and kindness even to the lower brethren, Metropolitan Philaret was not guided in his actions by chance and impulses. No, he admitted: “For me, communication with the humble of the earth was comforting and useful. They are very beloved." 85 So there was a kind of system to it. I would like to say a few words about one more side of the spiritual nature of Metropolitan Philaret, about his wit, which was expressed in brilliant wit and constituted the pleasant fruit of his complete spiritual harmony. The Hierarch's interlocutors admired his wit, 86 but these sparkles of his wit have hardly reached us. But we have many excellent examples of his wit in his numerous works. These latter sparkle with his sharp words. It should be noted, however, that there is a difference between the wit of his young years and his mature ones. The first, no doubt, is thoughtful, but rather harsh and somewhat vulgar. This is not the kind of wit that has already come out of the mouths of the metropolitans. In Filaret's letters to his relatives, several examples of his wit from the time of his pre-monastic life were preserved. Here are two of them. In Sergiev Posad, where the future Metropolitan Philaret studied and taught, there was a loss of livestock, but the quick-witted inhabitants did not suffer a loss from this, because the meat of sick cows was, among other things, sold to the seminary. On this occasion, he joked: “Crafts beat cattle at night and stockpile diseases for the whole winter to sell to the healthy.” “The infection that devours the local cattle is transmitted from their jaws by the hands of honest merchants to our teeth.” Another time, the future Filaret fell ill and received a lot of treatment. This event prompted the following words from him in a letter to his father: “In addition to the torment of illness, ... I experienced the beneficial tyranny of medicine ... Today I am finishing my treatment ... I am happy, yes, I think, also the local pharmacy. It would be in danger of being empty if I maintained this jealousy for a long time, with which in the past days I swallowed all sorts of worthless substances” 87. The wit of Saint Philaret was distinguished by its greatest brilliance, as we said, in the years of his courage. The examples are redundant. The Metropolitan was exhausted from reading endless, often absurd letters, petitions, memos, etc., and once expressed his complaint in the following words: “There is no time to read everything that is now very generously written by people who, unfortunately, have learned to read and write” 88 . What is the difference between a building done with an architect and without an architect? “Whoever builds according to the decision of the architect puts bricks on the architect’s head, and he who builds without an architect, on his own” 89. About his secretary, as we already know, who was not distinguished for service, the Metropolitan once said: “Svyatoslavsky on Passion Day before confession wanted to cleanse his clerical sins as well” 90 . He called tobacco smoking a “smoky habit” or “a Western habit of bad grass” 91. We come across many witty sayings from Metropolitan Philaret regarding Lavra affairs. There was a fire in the Lavra, and an investigation was planned; on this occasion, he remarked: “If you touch a fire, you will need paperwork, which will produce a lot of smoke” 92. One of the monastics, not entirely free from suspicions of greed, was supposed to be transferred from one obedience to another. The Metropolitan, having learned about this, said the following: “I’m afraid that A. will not live in his own pocket in another place” 93. On the Yaroslavl Railway, a new train schedule was made to Sergiev, which was inconvenient for pilgrims; The Bishop did not fail to joke: “And why the change? freight trains do not need to be in time for the Divine service" 94 . Saint Philaret jokingly wrote to the governor of the Lavra: “They say that the Lavra’s treasurer has a good cook, but it is known that the Metropolitan’s, and a sick one at that, is very poor. Would you consider bringing justice to this?” And a few days later he wrote to the governor again: “It would be possible to be healthier with the treasury cook, but he says that he still has an unfinished house. And in Jewish law, those who built and did not renovate houses and were given leave from a military campaign. That’s why I let the cook finish building the house” 95. In a letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the same governor we read: “In a French book I read a magnificent description of a French traveler’s night battle in the hotel of the Sergius Lavra with insects that did not allow him to sleep. Was it necessary to achieve such European glory? 96 In other cases, the Metropolitan’s wit touched on various aspects of life at that time. One day, Vladyka learned that the Khotkovskaya abbess, upon taking office, ordered the nuns to arrange a meeting for her, and said: “It’s good if they meet out of love and humility, or even according to custom; but to order this means to meet oneself” 97. Once it happened that a parcel of several printed sermons from Metropolitan Philaret, before falling into his hands, made two journeys from Moscow to the Lavra and back. The Bishop did not ignore this incident and joked: “Or do you think that it [the sermon] will improve from the road, like porter from being transported by sea?” 98 Another example. After it was decided not to call Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to attend the Synod (an interesting circumstance, but not relevant to our topic), the Vladyka’s belongings from St. Petersburg were sent to Moscow, and it turned out that the lock on the chest with books was damaged. Metropolitan Philaret joked about this, saying that “there was a secret investigation to see if there were heresies locked in the chest” 99 . N.V. Sushkov conveys to them the following witticism of the Saint that he personally heard. Metropolitan Philaret started talking about some venerable archpriest. Sushkov, not knowing the circumstances of this person’s life, asked Vladyka: “Where did it come from?” The Metropolitan answered in one word: “As big as a goat.” The answer to this answer, according to Sushkov, is as follows. One day, a certain St. Petersburg official was sent to the provinces on an important matter; To investigate this matter, this official needed a deputy from the clergy. The local bishop recommended the spiritual person in question. Deciding to take this deputy with him on the road, the official ordered this: he himself sat comfortably in the carriage, the servant sat behind the carriage, and his “high blessing” was given a place on the “goats” 100. Many witty sayings were created by the Moscow Hierarch under the influence of subtle observations regarding various cases of his diocesan practice. Once it happened: some Greek metropolitan of the little-known town of Synada stayed in Moscow for some reason and then left for St. Petersburg. Talking about this, Saint Philaret, not without subtle irony, said: in St. Petersburg, this eastern newcomer complained that “the famous Metropolitan of Sinada was forced to walk from the Chudov Monastery to the Archangel Cathedral.” “You see,” the Lord said wittily, “what trouble we have caused. Is it easy to appease him now!” 101 About the Moscow Consistory, the Metropolitan once wrote to his vicar Bishop Innocent: “Have you heard, Your Eminence, that last summer the Director of the Department of the Ministry of Education, for long and harmful slowness in the execution of the Highest command, was put in a guardhouse for 24 hours, and only in respect of the request of the Minister was 12 hours reduced? Now this must be done with our Consistory, and I must petition for leniency, if only I myself will be allowed to be considered innocent” 102. The Moscow Synodal Office and its prosecutor allowed themselves to interfere in diocesan affairs. The Metropolitan, having learned about this, said: “If the office and the prosecutor are allowed to sit in someone else’s sleigh, then the owners will be cramped” 103. The abbess of the Nativity Monastery asked Metropolitan Philaret to make the deacon of this monastery a priest. The Metropolitan refused, giving his refusal a witty form: “The abbess wants the presbytery of the Nativity deacon, but God does not give it” 104. Saint Philaret wrote to his vicar, Bishop Nicholas of Dmitrov: “The proverb does not praise the one who walks seven miles to eat jelly. I don’t know if she would even praise someone who goes seven hundred miles away to eat sweets. But as some think that they reason better than a proverb, then, Your Eminence, send Archpriest Elokhov to St. Petersburg for the wedding, if he asks for it” 105. Once from St. Petersburg, where the Metropolitan was on duty as a member of the Synod, he wrote to the vicar: “Seven hundred miles away, Your Eminence, I saw and heard that in Moscow on the day of the Epiphany, during the procession of the cross, some priests were inappropriately bowing to strangers and talking to each other. How this should be seen and heard in Moscow” 106. The chief commander of the Moscow cadet corps took the sermon from the teacher of the law to familiarize himself with it more accurately and returned it with a remark and a scolding. The Metropolitan was amazed by the event, but his wit also found a ridiculous side to what had happened. “Tell the teacher of the law,” he wrote from St. Petersburg to Moscow, “that I want to see this sermon, wounded by the brave General against the teachers of the law; but, however, assure him that this wound is not dangerous” 107. The affairs of theological schools also often served to sharpen the wit of Metropolitan Philaret. The anniversary, celebrated by the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, provided food for the resourceful mind of the Bishop with one of its details; he said: “The rector of the St. Petersburg Academy writes to me, so that on the occasion of the anniversary, I give money to create some kind of capital and collect money from others. For the Jews, debts were forgiven on the anniversary, but for us, taxes were imposed on the anniversary” 108. In the magazine “Christian Reading,” published by the same Academy, Saint Philaret read one dogmatic article and characterized it as follows: “It seems to me that the publishers swallow German food without chewing it” 109 . It seemed to the Metropolitan that at the Moscow Theological Seminary it was necessary to “take a closer look at the seminary test,” and he added: “I was in the Seminary easily, and then the kitchen seemed better to me than the classes” 110. Even cases, so to speak, that were extremely prosaic, and they served as a reason for wit for the subtle mind of the Lord. When the Metropolitan was in St. Petersburg, one not-so-refined abbot was present at a service in the courtyard. After the service, the latter dared to say to Metropolitan Philaret: “Your singers, Vladyka, sing in new notes and melodies. It's a pity. It would be better if they sang according to the ancient church melody.” But the Metropolitan was not taken aback by these indelicate words and answered his guest: “Here’s what, Father Abbot: the singers have also been singing [this way] for a long time.” 111 The Metropolitan, while in St. Petersburg, learned that the steward of his Moscow courtyard did not bother to arrange winter clothes for the young Miracle singers in a timely manner, and with his characteristic wit he wrote on this occasion: “The child does not cry, but the mother does not understand. Perhaps it should also be added that although the child winces, the nanny is dozing” 112. But, however, the question arises: what significance can our acquaintance with the wit and wit of Metropolitan Philaret have in studying his moral image? N.V. Sushkov, the author of the essay “Notes on the Life and Times of St. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow,” seeks and points out the source of his wit in the “constant peace of mind” of the Bishop 113, i.e., more precisely, in the harmony of spiritual forces that distinguished the personality of this Hierarch. The explanation is not without justice. Metropolitan Philaret’s wit was not of the nature of caustic irony or sarcasm, i.e. such properties that would not be consistent with the idea of ​​​​the harmony of the spiritual forces of the individual. It was a reflection of spiritual happiness or spiritual bliss, spiritual excess, which involuntarily sparkle in words. Let us remember that Adam gave names to all animals at the very first stages of his paradise life (Gen. 2:19–20), when neither sadness, nor sin, nor a black thought weighed on his soul. Only a state somewhat close to the blissful state of the first man makes one or another of his descendants capable of saying a lot in a little, putting deep meaning into simple words and vividly capturing what was said, which is the essence of wit. Thus, the wit of Metropolitan Philaret, it seems, can be considered an expression of his complete spiritual harmony, but such harmony can have its support and root only in deep moral principles. We must not forget that his witty sayings either contain moral lessons for others, or reveal to us the subtlety and insight of the moral sense of the wit himself. Such, at least, were the witty sayings that came out of his mouth when he became a Saint. There is no ephemeral showiness in them, but there is always a deep truth, characteristic of a wit and impressive for those who called him to utter these words. Perhaps someone will think and say that the above description of the moral personality of the late Metropolitan of Moscow Philaret is not complete. We will be reproached for not touching on those accusations that were heard during his life, which are sometimes heard to this day, and which were and are intended to cast a shadow on the bright moral image of the Saint. But what are these accusations, who is making them, what are they based on? These accusations are created by people's rumors. They say or have said that Metropolitan Philaret was “an obsequious monk, a cold conservative” 114, he was a man puffed up with his own intelligence, could not stand to see smart people around him, he was an administrator capable of cruel acts, he indulged his relatives, etc. But we must say that all these accusations can easily be refuted, for the facts on which the accusations are based can, without violence against them, be interpreted in a harmless sense for the deceased Moscow Hierarch. We notice a dark cloud near Filaretov’s forehead, but it is not an actual appendage of his forehead: it is the result of the imperfection of our vision. But the question arises: if accusations of this kind are unfair, then how could they arise? In explanation of this incomprehensible phenomenon, one sometimes hears that this is the fate of geniuses 115: enmity accompanies their life and memory. Maybe so, we say. But it seems another explanation can be given. Metropolitan Filaret, it can be safely said, made an impressive impression on society with his versatile talents. He seemed, one might say, the ideal of a bishop. Therefore, naturally, they wanted to see in his activities the imprint of the rarest and most extraordinary virtues. They demanded of him that, as the apostle expressed himself about himself, he should be everything to everyone (1 Cor. 9:22). His subordinates demanded that he be a sage in the strict sense of the word and be lenient in spite of his duties; admirers and friends demanded heroism from him; people of science were waiting for books; monks - asceticism; society vigilantly followed what the Metropolitan of Moscow said and did, giving his words and deeds their own meaning, whatever they wanted. Under such conditions, could our Lord please everyone? Metropolitan Filaret was a man, not a superman. There were dissatisfied people who found that the Lord did not realize the high moral ideal. They began to look for his shortcomings, discovering them where there were none. Interpreters of his words and actions appeared, who gave them a false meaning that did not correspond to the truth. And this is solely for the sake of finding an explanation for yourself why the Metropolitan was not what his heated imagination and unbridled fantasy wanted him to have. Saint Philaret is not to blame for the fact that he was elevated to an ideal that no person in the world could be, and even less to blame for the fact that these admirers of his were disappointed in him, not finding the fulfillment of their pipe dreams. How far the excessive claims of society in relation to our Saint extended, is clearly seen from the lusts with which even his close friends, who should have fully known and studied the Bishop, dared to approach the monk-bishop. These friends demanded from him nothing more, no less than that he take upon himself the courage to stop the pen of the monarch, inscribing thoughts that expressed the will of the autocrat. His friend, the viceroy, Anthony, encouraged the Metropolitan to do something similar, as can be seen from the following words of the first’s letter to the second: “You, Father Viceroy, are thinking of pushing me closer to the confessors. - Far. “It is enough if we preach God’s mercy with the publicans” 116. Another person close to the Metropolitan, A.N., did the same. Muravyov. He demanded that the Saint cast a disapproving vote regarding the decision of the supreme power to sell our North American possessions, i.e. Alaska, Americans 117. And one can hardly doubt that both Anthony and Muravyov, when Metropolitan Philaret did not follow their strange advice, found that the Moscow Hierarch did not stand up to the height of his calling. Whether Archimandrite Anthony expressed this thought in any way, we do not know; As for the more passionate Muravyov, he did not hesitate to throw a cruel reproach in the face of the great Saint: “...what a heavy answer lies on the guards of Israel” 118. This is one of the sources of the most unfounded accusations leveled against the great Hierarch. Our Lord, accustomed to thoughtfully discussing every important phenomenon, regarding the above requirements, expresses the thoughts inspired by them, applying speech to himself, in the following instructive words: “It will not be unjust or useless to fill the measure of patience with the water of meekness and pour it on the fire of jealousy, so that it burns quietly and does not flare up needlessly into a fire, which, beyond fear, can damage the peaceful tabernacles of love, forbearance and humility" 119. On another occasion, Metropolitan Philaret wrote: “You can knock on a locked door with prayer, but with advice you can only enter into an open one” 120. And would it be necessary for our Hierarch to take the path of the unfortunate Nikon and the even more unfortunate Arseniy Matseevich?.. 121 Confession, which was pointed out to the Metropolitan as his duty, often leads to martyrdom 122. For our part, we would not at all wish this on him: martyrdom makes sense only in non-Christian states. Having set ourselves the task of indicating the features of the moral character of the deceased church primate of the ancient capital, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna Philaret, we have only lifted the edge of the curtain, behind which an instructive picture is revealed. How many instructions can be extracted from his works, written simply, without pretense, these creations, where morality comes from the heart and is alien to any cold theoreticality; how many moral lessons can be learned from his life and deeds! In my duty as a Church historian, I had to re-read hundreds of biographies of various hierarchs of the Eastern Church and set out many dozens of them in books, and I can safely say: there is no one to put next to Saint Philaret (I am, of course, talking about hierarchs who are not counted among the Holy Saints), no one - taking into account the remarkable moral height of our Saint. It was some kind of moral monolith, always equal to itself, identical to itself in everything. His words did not diverge from his deeds, and what he said dozens of years earlier is repeated with accuracy and carried out subsequently. Glory to him! One very prominent Russian bishop, a younger contemporary of Philaret, even during the life of the Moscow Saint, said that in terms of his importance in the Orthodox Church he can be called an ecumenical Archpastor 123. And this is true! I.S. Aksakov, a famous Slavophile, a representative of the best aristocratic Moscow traditions, wrote in the magazine “Moscow” he published immediately after the death of the Saint: “Filaret is gone! Power, great, moral, social power, has been abolished. Half a century of edification to all Russian people was interrupted - in a marvelous example of a spirit that was tirelessly awake and awake to the end. Strength and glory have waned, the last popular name has waned. There is no one else to name. There is no other equivalent, or even less significant, but popular name.” The glorious time of Filaret has long passed, and subsequent generations did not dare to describe his life and deeds. Saint Philaret has no biography! One might think that it would be beyond our power not only to imitate him, but also to describe what he did. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow (in the world Vasily Mikhailovich Drozdov) to his relatives from 1800 to 1866. M. 1882. P.29. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the abbot of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony. 1831–1867 At 4 o'clock. Moscow 1877–1884. Part 2. 1878. P.307. Right there. M. 1884. Part 4. P.243. Letters of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, to the abbot of the Trinity St. Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Athanasius (1821–1831). // Additions to the edition of the works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation for 1886. [Next: Additions] M. 1886. Part 38. Book 3. P.149. A collection of thoughts and sayings of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, extracted from his correspondence with various persons. M. 1897. P.26. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the vicar of the Moscow diocese, Bishop Innocent of Dmitrov (1827–1831). // Additions. M. 1872. Part 25. Book 1. P.48. Right there. M. 1871. Part 24. Book 2. P.425. Right there. Part 25. Book 1. P.46. Letters from Moscow Metropolitan Philaret to the late Archbishop of Tver Alexy. 1843–1867. M. 1883. P.17. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the abbot of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony. Part 2. P.126. Letters from Moscow Metropolitan Philaret to the late Archbishop of Tver Alexy. pp.26–27. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the abbot of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony. Part 4. P.141. Right there. M. 1883. Part 3. pp.353–354,356,359. A collection of thoughts and sayings of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow. P.18. Resolutions of Moscow Metropolitan Philaret. //Readings at the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities. M. 1877. Book 2. P.42. Collection published by the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment on the occasion of the centenary anniversary of the birth (1782–1882) of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. In 2 vols. M. 1883. T.1. P.339 ff; 679 ff. Sushkov N.V. Notes on the life and times of St. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. M. 1868. P.145. A collection of thoughts and sayings of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow. P.20. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the vicar of the Moscow diocese, Bishop Innocent of Dmitrov. // Additions. M. 1872. Part 24. Book 3. P.481. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the abbot of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony. M. 1877. Part 1.S.116. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the abbot of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony. Part 3. P.268. Right there. Part 1. P.352. See also pp. 343–345. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow (in the world Vasily Mikhailovich Drozdov) to his relatives. P.90. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the abbot of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony. Part 1. P.38. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the vicar of the Moscow diocese, Bishop Innocent of Dmitrov. // Additions. Part 24. Book 3. P.484. Metropolitan Philaret asked the same Bishop Innocent to write letters to him simply, without “ritual lines,” i.e. without preliminary titles and final expressions of veneration (Ibid. Part 25. Book 1. P. 20). Sushkov N.V. Notes on the life and times of St. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. P.200. Letters of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, to the abbot of the Trinity Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Athanasius. P.125. About Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, my memory. Notes of Nicodemus, Bishop of Krasnoyarsk. // Readings at the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University. M. 1877. Book 2. April-June. P.54. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the abbot of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony. Part 1. P.96. About Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, my memory. Notes of Nicodemus, Bishop of Krasnoyarsk. P.105,56,26. Letters from Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, to Philaret Gumilevsky, later Archbishop of Chernigov. M. 1884. P.25. Letters from Moscow Metropolitan Philaret to the late Archbishop of Tver Alexy. P.35. A collection of thoughts and sayings of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow. P.21. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the vicar of the Moscow diocese, Bishop Innocent of Dmitrov. // Additions. M. 1873. Part 25. Book 4. P.555. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the abbot of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony. Part 4. P.496. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the vicar of the Moscow diocese, Bishop Innocent of Dmitrov. // Additions. Part 24. Book 3. P.483. Right there. Part 25. Book 1. P.63. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the abbot of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony. Part 1. pp. 352–353. About Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, my memory. Notes of Nicodemus, Bishop of Krasnoyarsk. P.20. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the abbot of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony. Part 1. P.371. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the vicar of the Moscow diocese, Bishop Innocent of Dmitrov. // Additions. Part 25. Book 4. pp.561–562. Sushkov N.V. Notes on the life and times of St. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. pp. 145–146. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the vicar of the Moscow diocese, Bishop Innocent of Dmitrov. // Additions. Part 24. Book 3. P.472. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the abbot of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony. Part 1. P.388. Right there. Part 2. P.421,433. Part 3. P.27. Sushkov N.V. Notes on the life and times of St. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. P.282. Metropolitan Philaret often complains about the burden of his affairs and does so in strong terms. While still in his young years, he wrote: “There are many things to do, many holidays, many people taking up time.” (Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow (in the world Vasily Mikhailovich Drozdov) to his relatives. P. 245). “I do the work of my job, but there are more of them than I have the energy and time.” (Ibid. P.350). As I grew older, my burden of work increased. He said: “I don’t know what it is. I feel like I'm in captivity. Every day so many people and things attack me that I can’t keep up with it.” (Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the abbot of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony. Part 3. P. 265.) Also: “...various questions are pouring down on me like snow [obviously from the Synod]. Some of them seem like riddles to me: nevertheless, it is necessary to answer.” (Ibid. Part 4, p. 227). The saint compared himself to the Jews who worked for Pharaoh. “But I am like the Jews in Egypt, who worked all day to make the appointed number of bricks, and who are told to take time from the same day to gather up the chaff [i.e. straw for bricks]. I’ll take care as much as I can.” (Ibid. P.272). Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the abbot of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony. Part 2. P.277. Right there. Part 1. pp. 312–317,332–336,339,341,346,399–400,402, etc. Right there. Part 2. pp.295,297–298. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the vicar of the Moscow diocese, Bishop Innocent of Dmitrov. // Additions. Part 25. Book 4. P.543. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the abbot of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony. Part 3. P.302. Sushkov N.V. Notes on the life and times of St. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. P.280. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow (in the world Vasily Mikhailovich Drozdov) to his relatives. pp.27–28,80–81. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the abbot of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony. Part 1. P.279. Right there. Part 4. P.366. You need to know that in those days the railway line extended only to Sergiev Posad. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the vicar of the Moscow diocese, Bishop Innocent of Dmitrov. // Additions. Part 24. Book 3. P.475. The Chudov Monastery is separated from the Archangel Cathedral by only one square. Right there. Part 24. Book 3. P.511. Right there. Part 25. Book 2. P.189. Readings at the Moscow Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment. M. 1870. Book 10. Dept.2. P.31. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the vicar of the Moscow diocese, Bishop Innocent of Dmitrov. // Additions. M. 1886. Part 37. Book 1. P.316. Right there. Part 25. Book 2. P.190. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the abbot of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony. Part 4. pp. 171–172. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the vicar of the Moscow diocese, Bishop Innocent of Dmitrov. // Additions. Part 25. Book 1. P.52. About Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, my memory. Notes of Nicodemus, Bishop of Krasnoyarsk. P.106. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the vicar of the Moscow diocese, Bishop Innocent of Dmitrov. // Additions. Part 25. Book 4. P.576. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the abbot of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony. Part 4. P.421. Following Archimandrite Anthony and A.N. Muravyov and many others pushed Metropolitan Philaret to daringly intervene. Right there. P.490. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the abbot of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony. Part 4. P.516. A collection of thoughts and sayings of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow. P.17. It was difficult to find any other way. Metropolitan Philaret himself, called to “confession,” said: “But now you will not find the path of St. John [of course, Chrysostom].” Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the abbot of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony. Part 2. P.401. About Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, my memory. Notes of Nicodemus, Bishop of Krasnoyarsk. P.105. Sushkov N.V. Notes on the life and times of St. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. Applications. P.29.