Часть первая. Жизнь и личность Преосвященного святителя Игнатия

Chapter one. Eminence Ignatius Brianchaninov before becoming a monk (Characteristics of the life and activity of the Most Reverend Ignatius before he became a monk.) The life and work of His Grace Ignatius Brianchaninov dates back to the first three quarters of the 19th century; The sixty-year period of this life, which began on February 5, 1807, according to the conditions of Russian life during this time, seems too complex and heterogeneous to be brought under general provisions that exhaust its content, meaning, most immediately, the noble landowner class of Russian society, to which Ignatius Brianchaninov belonged by birth and upbringing. We can note as the characteristic features of this class for the period of time under consideration - on the one hand, the experience step by step of Western European influences, very often alien to genuine Russian life, and on the other, the preservation, namely, in the depths of the noble class, of the original national way of Russian life and loyalty to the indigenous traditions of the Russian spirit and way of life. Starting from the second half of the 18th century, the life of the advanced classes of Russian society fell under various foreign influences, the beginning of which can be considered the encyclopedism of the French free-thinking enlightenment and Freemasonry. The leading people of the late 13th and early 19th centuries largely belonged to Freemasonry or were influenced by French philosophy. The name of the Brianchaninovs did not remain alien to this influence. Despite the distance from the capital and the relatively secluded lifestyle of the landowners, the owners of the village of Pokrovskoye were people highly educated in the Western European spirit. 7 We see even in Russian life in the first quarter of the 19th century and in subsequent years the influence of Byronism, again absorbed by the advanced people of the leading class and alienating them from their native soil reality and preparing for that sad phenomenon of Russian life, which is characterized by the appearance of “superfluous people” in the 30s and 40s; The influence of Byronism, alien to the soil of Russian life, is clearly illustrated by the poetic creativity of Ignatius Brianchaninov’s contemporaries and peers - Pushkin and Lermontov. In the 30s and 40s of the 19th century, the Byronic mood of internal discord and world sorrow was replaced by an increased passion for German philosophy, especially Hegelianism and attempts at national self-determination in the form and spirit of Slavophilism and Westernism. The mood of disappointment is replaced by an intensified search for the ideal, aspirations to determine the conditions for its soil embodiment in Russian reality and new disappointments due to insufficient knowledge of the latter. The end of the fifties and sixties of the 19th century introduced into Russian reality the influence of empiricism, materialism, positivism and natural science theories, on the basis of passion for which dreams and plans for social reconstruction and elimination of the shortcomings of life arise by destroying the outdated system and noble landowner culture, replacing them with a legal order and the gradual rise of peasant culture. Russian literature of the 19th century, in its heyday created primarily by representatives of the Russian nobility and landowner class, gives us a sufficient number of typical representatives of the stages that Russian reality passed along the path of spiritual culture. All these “extra people”: the Onegins, Pechorins, Rudins, Agarins, Bazarovs, Bolkonskys and Bezukhovs, numerous heroes of Dostoevsky, L. Tolstoy and so on. with their spiritual appearance, moral make-up and external manifestations of life, they provide an illustration of these vital and Western European influences, which, on the basis of Russian reality, either resulted in a vain, premature and aimless waste of sometimes extraordinary forces, or put the Russian people in an invalid state, creating a mood of discord and spiritual flabbiness and leaving the field of life poorly cultivated due to the inability of the workers, even if they were sometimes “with coffers full of good life.” This subordination to Western European influences in mental life, in education, in external culture, the loss of spiritual independence and captivity by other principles, while consoling a lightweight touch of life, starting with Fonvizinsky Ivanushka, caused in the deeper and more meaningful representatives of the noble-landowner class severe suffering, dissatisfaction with themselves and those around them, the expression of which can be noted in Lermontov’s “Duma” and the introspection of Russian Hamlets in the works Turgenev, Dostoevsky and L. Tolstoy. This entire complex sum of Western European influences and numerous mentally cultivating educational conditions that characterized advanced Russian life during the late 18th and 19th centuries was not alien to the Brianchaninov family, even if its worthy representatives, for various reasons, moved away from the court and metropolitan centers into the wilderness of their family estates. There, to the seemingly abandoned corners of the northern provinces, they carried with them their refined tastes, their noble habits, and their high spiritual culture, introducing it in the sense of an undoubtedly positive influence into the surrounding gray reality and, indeed, bringing it closer to the high culture of the West. In terms of external and internal spiritual culture, the northern estates of the Bryanchaninovs can be set as a model - both in terms of external improvement of the estate and economy, and in terms of cultivating culture and manufacturing industry, and in terms of order and discipline and household structure, and in terms of book treasures and spiritual enlightenment, and even more so - in terms of the breadth and depth of the mental horizons of their owners. The library of the village of Pokrovskoye from the time of the Ignatievs, his own library, which was inherited to a large extent by the Nikolo-Babaevsky monastery and the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage, earlier than all neighboring estates, opened in Pokrovskoye, a well-established and continuously existing public school to this day, numerous workshops in the village of Pokrovskoye and the satisfaction of aesthetic needs, the improvement of the parish church and the high respect for religion reflected in the family’s way of life, they say strongly that the Bryanchaninovs were not and could not be selfish exploiters of the estates and peasant souls they inherited. Of course, “the great chain of relations between serfs, which brought discord and mutual misunderstandings into the relationship between the master and the peasant, as we see in life, we know from Turgenev and L. Tolstoy, did not exclude the possibility of negative phenomena that were common at that time: the forced nature of work, the power over life and death, the grouping of brides and grooms by the master, the assignment of a serf to one or another position at the discretion of the master, punishments for misconduct that were severe in the spirit of the times - are always thought of as the dark sides of landowner life and, of course, cannot evoke sufficient justifications on our part. But the same “great chain” bound the master and the peasant, with the education and culture of the first and the simplicity and gullibility of the other, into one complex life unit, into one family, not only on the terms of external forced cohesion, but also in the form of moral relations, united and affirmed by religious and patriotic ideals. family and social, assimilated to the extent of the spiritual development of each side. Absorbing into themselves and bringing into the life of their family estates the beginnings of Western European culture and science, the Russian noble landowners, by virtue of family continuity and historical traditions, most of all retained in themselves, as the most prominent features of their spiritual appearance, the features of Russian national identity, loyalty to the Church and historical traditions, and thereby beneficially influenced the people's environment surrounding them, cementing and uniting it on the basis inspiring powerful principles of loyalty to the Church and the Orthodox faith, the Tsar and the Fatherland. On the other hand, protecting their own spiritual identity, and sometimes, due to the properties of their character and spiritual way of life, avoiding civil and military service with motives of personal success, landowners-nobles retired to their family estates and, arranging life there according to their taste and plans, carrying with them the principles of higher culture, naturally and involuntarily absorbed the influence of Russian nature, folk life, simple life and morals, and thus, on the one hand, became close to the people's environment and united the new trends they had assimilated with the traditional principles of ancient Russian life. This is how an attractive type of landowner, the Larins, was created, who, according to Pushkin: at their Shrovetide twice a year they fasted, Podblyudny songs, round dance, they needed kvass like they needed air, These are the Dubrovskys, Troyekurovs, Grinevs - in Pushkin; The Bolkonskys, Bezukhovs in Tolstoy, the Lasunskys, Kirsanovs and Lavretskys in Turgenev. The family of Ignatius Brianchaninov also belonged to the type of these noble families. Love for Russian nature, folk customs, original, without weakness, strict love for the Russian peasant, attention to his needs and welfare, love for the Orthodox Church and holy zeal for the improvement of his native parish church; respectful respect for representatives of the Church and sincere patriotism are the distinctive characteristic features of the Brianchaninov family; In relation to the time of Bishop Ignatius’s childhood, i.e. by the beginning of the 19th century, these features were sufficiently confirmed by facts. This significance of the fact, confirming our view of the spiritual image of the Brianchaninov family, is the order of improvement of the neglected family estate of A.S. Brianchaninov. A former student of the page corps, a secular, educated man, Alexander Semenovich, set out to improve the debt of his estate and raise his family name. And so he, having put up with the inconveniences of living in an old, small and dilapidated house for a long time, first of all, builds a parish church, at the same time educating its builders in a unique way, and the very next year, then he moves on to setting up his own house, 8 prerequisites for this are putting it in order and organizing the economic service. And during the many years of life of A.S. Brianchaninov's parish church on the estate always saw him as a reverent and zealous pilgrim, a reader of shrines, icons and commemorations; 9 And his high patriotism was expressed in energetic preparations for defense at the historical moment of 1812, when they expected the All-Russian fullness from the world conqueror. Alexander Semenovich then inspired his significant serf squad and, regardless of his sacrifices for the all-Russian cause, built a small fortress from his estate with a sufficient number of weapons and even cannons and mortars, which are still shown in Pokrovsky and are again torn out of the ground during random excavations for economic needs. 10 The respectful respect that Brianchaninov enjoyed among his neighbors, the attention paid to him by the provincial authorities, the frequent trips to Pokrovskoye by the diocesan Bishop for several days and the ceremonial meetings arranged for the Bishop upon his arrival at the Pokrovsky Palace 11 also sufficiently outline the spiritual appearance of the eminent owner of the village of Pokrovskoye. At the end of the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th century, we had to repeatedly encounter in the Bryanchaninov estates - Yurov and Pokrovsky with facts of the master's extraordinary touching in its disinterestedness and sincerity attention to the peasant need and the extraordinary cordiality of a benevolent impulse, and the few roughnesses of everyday life in the recent liberation years were caused exclusively by the exploitative inclinations of trusted persons and were instantly eliminated as soon as became known to any of the Bryanchaninovs. The same simplicity, cordiality, goodwill, responsiveness and selflessness characterize the current owners of the village of Pokrovskoye. In our opinion, the outstanding feature of the Brianchaninov family, exceptional in its life expression, is a particularly sensitive religiosity, the ability and inclination to live in God and a thirst for ascetic feat. The example of Bishop Ignatius, who left family and material advantages, prospects for a brilliant career and a happy earthly life for the sake of the kingdom of God and life in God, is not exceptional in the Bryanchaninov family. If it weren’t for our deep respect for the modesty and height of the ascetic feat performed before the Face of God by some representatives of the Bryanchanin family in our days, in this adulterous and sinful race, which we, by the grace of God and, for our spiritual edification, had to be witnesses of, we could depict the amazing phenomena of the bowing of human power before the wondrous signs of God’s power and talk about how, cultivated for centuries, overcoming earthly cravings, soil-folk Russian “the whole great power of the soul went into the work of God” and some later representatives of the Bryanchaninov family inherited some precious elements of the Ignatiev spirit; we could point out how some later representatives of the ancient Bryanchaninov family, both in the male and female line, at the dawn of the 20th century were ready to “count human glory as dust, and think everything as the ability of the kingdom for the sake of God.” “A monastic crown is pleasant and one can retreat into a quiet monastery.” But even in the historical perspective of the 8th or 9th decade, in addition to Ignatius Brianchaninov, his family provides a sufficient number of seekers and zealots of the kingdom of God and eternal life, so that the idea of ​​religiosity as an outstanding feature of the Brianchaninovs is, in our opinion, firmly and justifiably affirmed. Of the five sons of Alexander Semenovich who lived to adulthood, only one, Semyon Alexandrovich, remained in the world until the end of his life, having raised two valiant servants of the Church and the Fatherland; the rest ended up in a monastery: Demetrius, having embarked on the path of monasticism from childhood, followed it to God until the end of his life. Peter, from childhood devoted to the same ideals as Dimitri, went through a long path of military and civil service and, after the Stavropol governorship, took on monastic obedience in the Nikolo-Babaevsky monastery and died as a monk, with the name of Paul; Mikhail was a peace mediator in the Korbang volost of the Vologda province, and died as a monk in the Optina Hermitage; Alexander served in military service and died at a young age; before his death, he was tonsured a monk by his brother Ignatius, and buried in the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage. Son of Stavropol Governor P.A. Brianchaninova A.P. Brianchaninov, after graduating from university, under the influence of difficult circumstances of his personal life, wanted to go to a monastery, lived for a long time with his uncle in Babayki, but was rejected from monasticism by Vladyka Ignatius himself, went into the civil service, which he ended in the position of an employee of the Committee of Ministers, and with the rank of senator, without losing during this time his sensitive religiosity and remembering his righteous ancestors - his father and uncle. The home regime of the Brianchaninov family was distinguished by seriousness, severity, discipline and unshakable order. The directives of home and economic life came from the master’s office, from his thoughtful plans and decisive will, penetrated all parts of the complex life of all the inhabitants of the village of Pokrovsky, found zealous performers - out of conscience, and not out of fear; The Brianchaninovs knew how to choose and value people. Order in the family, in the house and in the estate was observed smoothly day after day, and established over the years, it no longer needed particularly careful supervision. Almost eliminating the possibility of deviations, having entered into the flesh and blood, into the habits and character of the inhabitants of Pokrovsky. For the winter, the family moved to a city house, without in the least violating the established order - neither in the house nor on the estate, and maintaining continuous contact with Pokrovsky until spring. Reports were made to the master every day, food for the table was delivered daily, and even water for drinking and food was brought from the estate 20 miles away, and this was not a whim: the water of the mountain spring in Pokrovsky, even to this day, is crystal clear and unusually tasty and, poured into a clean decanter, is completely invisible in its transparency. The improvement of the estate, achieved through their own efforts, provided external life for Alexander Semenovich’s family and brought internal satisfaction to the gifted owner. In the future, he hoped to raise the state significance of his surname, to strengthen its significance in state life, intending to give his children a good education, which, with family ties, could expand their life path. This is the general appearance of the Brianchaninov family and the general atmosphere in which Ignatius Brianchaninov was born, grew up and received his initial upbringing. This is an atmosphere of high spiritual and external culture, rigor, harmony, order of work and energy. 12 The high education of the family, the father’s erudition, especially in spiritual literature, a strict family regime, harmony and system in all parts of the estate, heterogeneity of economic institutions, a religious way of life and high respect for church and state ideals - these are the factors whose influence is very noticeable on the personality of Ignatius Brianchaninov. The originality of the family and household way of life in the depths of the Great Russian corner, remote from any foreign powers, placed his personality in favorable educational conditions, ensuring in him freedom from alien layers and foreign influences and the complete originality of his spiritual appearance, which in this very way bears the key to its vital meaning. Having grown up and been brought up in a strictly Orthodox Russian family, among northern nature, in the depths of the purely Russian nation, under the roof and in sight of a holy church, in respect for religious shrines, Ignatius Brianchaninov, more than any of his relatives, inherited the deep religiosity of the family name, and, recognizing the authority of St. Church, the highest of all earthly authorities, strove all his life to actively penetrate the spirit of the Church and Orthodox Christianity and harmonize his life with it. From childhood, his developed mind freely arose in the obedience and guidance of faith, his spirit always gravitated towards the spiritual world, his gaze looked at temporary life with the eyes of faith. His whole life was an expression of active faith, a feat of saving self-sacrifice. Due to all these conditions, His Grace Ignatius Brianchaninov appears to us as an ascetic - Russian in spirit and strictly Orthodox in the nature of his religious and moral views. This is the idea that we would like to reveal especially clearly, this is the basic position on the basis of which we would like to achieve spiritual rapprochement with our readers. We do not intend to hush up the objections that were once made against the personality and teachings of Ignatius Brianchaninov, but, after considering them, we remain deeply reverently respectful of the righteous Saint of God in whose person the author would like to have his Heavenly Representative and Forerunner. And if the author’s hopes are not alien to the reader’s mood, then the author will experience a feeling of complete spiritual satisfaction from the consciousness of this high moral success of his work. “My childhood was filled with sorrows. Here I see Your hand, my God! I had no one to open my heart to: I began to pour it out before my God, I began to read the Gospel and the lives of Thy saints.” Works of Ep. Ignatius vol.1, p. 555 In the north of the Russian land, in the Gryazovets district of the Vologda province, 20 versts from Vologda, a large, rich manorial estate - the village of Pokrovskoye - is picturesquely and beautifully spread out. While the surrounding network of noble estates in the Gryazovets, Kadnikovsky and Vologda districts was largely destroyed; some have fallen into disrepair due to homelessness and debt, or simply because tough times have come for agriculture, some have come to the disposal of new owners without historical legends or family trees, and the economically daring hand of a recent courtyard serf walks in the old linden alleys; some eke out a miserable existence due to the decline of spirit and capital of their owners and await their turn to pass into the hands of peasants, petty bourgeois or merchants. Fate spared Pokrovskoye; it did not pass into new hands; in its linden, maple and fir alleys, the destroyer of cherry orchards and the ruthless destroyer of noble traditions Lopakhin does not walk around with a victorious economic air. It, like one hundred and three hundred years ago, belongs to the Brianchaninovs. It still serves as an interesting monument to this ancient noble family; to this day it has not changed the appearance that was given to it a hundred years ago by the builder of the village of Pokrovskoye - Alexander Semenovich Bryanchaninov - the great-grandfather of the current owner of Pokrovskoye - Vladimir Nikolaevich Bryanchaninov. Of course, life's storms do not pass without leaving a trace, even for giants. The complexity of living conditions, the difficulty of running a huge economy with hired hands, the forced remote stay outside the estate of Pokrovsky’s owners, called by the Highest Will to the helm of the State Administration, and other reasons caused the reduction of the economy. Of the 1,800 acres of Pokrovsky's former property, only a third was preserved; it goes without saying that numerous workshops - the fruit and monuments of high landowner culture - ceased to exist along with serfdom, and the witness of the past showed us only the places and ruins of these wonderful small factories, the places and ruins of huge economic services, replaced by new ones, well equipped in relation to the current needs of Pokrovsky. Places and ruins of the former kennel, which in the old days kept over 200 dogs, and the menagerie, which kept hares, foxes, wolves and even bears in case of holiday hunting for guests visiting the Bryanchaninov estate. But, apart from this, the clean, well-maintained estate of the Brianchaninovs, together with the village adjacent to it, makes a pleasant impression. The attraction of the estate, from the point of view of the writer of the Brianchaninov family - the cradle and primary school of Vladyka Ignatius, is the manor house and the huge park with it, preserved almost unchanged in the form in which they were a hundred years ago, during Ignatiev’s childhood. Centuries-old trees surround the manor house of beautiful architecture; a wide alley of trees serves as the entrance to its main porch. The house was built by the great-grandfather of the current owners A.S. Pokrovsky. Brianchaninov and completed construction by 1811. Its internal architecture exhibits remarkable orderliness and ideological principles. From the outside, the house gives the impression of being one-story, but in fact it has three floors, the purpose of which, according to the builder's idea, is determined in the following order. The upper floor, in the form of a domed mezzanine, is occupied by two very spacious rooms - one large one, with windows facing the village, was occupied by the master’s office and bedroom, and the second, with its windows facing the inside of the estate, into the garden, was the lady’s bedroom and boudoir. The house was thus headed by the “fathers’” rooms. Here, so to speak, the mind, will and heart of the estate were contained: the owner dominated the entire village, and the windows of his office were like an estate observatory, from which everything that was happening in the estate could be seen. The hostess had supervision over the internal house order. The second, lowest floor was occupied by children's rooms, divided by a corridor into two halves - men's and women's, for boys and girls, with four rooms on each half. The Bryanchaninov children and their closest educators from the courtyards - a nanny and an uncle - were housed here. The lower - the most extensive and main floor was occupied by large front, well-furnished, spacious rooms for living together as a family and communicating with the outside world - receiving guests and other persons who came to Pokrovskoye and had the need to visit the manor's house; there was a hall, a living room, a dining room, an office, a boudoir, rooms for guests who stayed overnight, etc. In the vast outbuildings on the right and left, adjacent to the manor house and completely merged with it, there were numerous servants with a precise distribution of positions and responsibilities. From the dining room on the ground floor, a door led to a large terrace and then to the garden adjacent to the house. The extensive garden was divided by the owner into three parts. The first one, closest to the house, is occupied by a beautiful, harmoniously laid out park in the shape of a star; the alleys of which are lined with mighty, voluminous linden and maple trees; and the grounds are occupied by flower beds. The second part, lying lower on the slope of a sloping mountain and separated by a small rampart, is occupied by orderly planted larches and firs, providing impenetrable shade and a delicate, healthy and resinous aroma. There are also alleys here, and on the border of the first and second parts of the garden there is a line of fruit trees. In this part of the garden there is a wonderful cobblestone grotto of considerable height, created during the times of serfdom, which does not lose coolness on the hottest days. In the third part of the garden, more open to sunlight, garden plants are placed - berries, fruits and vegetables. Here, with the natural force of water pressure, there is a gushing fountain, giving coolness and irrigation to the plant kingdom of this part. From the upland of this part of the garden there is an extensive, beautiful view of the surrounding area and neighboring manorial estates. At the end of the garden there are extensive greenhouses for flowers, fruits and vegetables. The entire area of ​​the garden with its three parts is surrounded by a high rampart lined with trees, and behind it one can see a deep, large pond, in the past, abundant with fish, surrounding the manor’s estate on both sides. This is the general view of the manorial estate in the village of Pokrovskoye. And in the summer, young owners and their guests, mostly young people, who come here to relax and for economic observations, live in the manor house, the garden receives young human shoots and, perhaps, communicates to them its high, good memories of the past. And when we walked along the shady alleys of the garden of the village of Pokrovsky and, delving into the most remote parts of it, we remembered the past and we were involuntarily carried away in thought to the childhood and adolescence of Mitenka Brianchaninov and prayerfully wished that the age-old witness of his pure feelings and sublime moods - the Brianchaninovsky house and garden would tell those visiting it, especially the younger generation, that pure sublime idealism, that high and great mystery of a joyful life in God, which distinguished the whole life of Mitenka Bryanchaninov and many other representatives of the Bryanchaninov family, who were brought up under the roof of this special estate. Sitting in a remote, remote and shady alley of the Bryanchaninovsky garden, in the silence and peculiar grandeur of the white northern night in the summer of 1914, we were involuntarily carried away by our thoughts a century ago, when the house and garden were in the proper sense a “nest of the nobility”, when carved children’s shadows moved in the shady alleys, Mitenka Bryanchaninov thoughtfully followed them, checking his thoughts, dreams and prayers to the starry sky, the linden garden, the cross of the parish church, and in the environment we contemplated, offering up our prayers to God, for the peace of the whole world, for indicating the path of life, for getting closer to God... And we couldn’t help but think that if the childhood, adolescence and youth of the later and present generations had been warmed by the religious idea and the feeling of the closeness of God, like a child’s heart in the “noble nest” of the Brianchaninovs, we would not have had before us in life a waste of youthful strength, sometimes dying aimlessly “in the sorrowful pangs of waiting, in the timelessness of graves,” for there is no stronger factor of education and vital energy, as a religious factor, and there is no ideal before humanity higher than that which is expressed in an outburst of prayer: “Thy kingdom come”! In winter, with the departure of the owners, the life of the Bryanchaninovsky house freezes: its windows are closed and the doors are locked, the curtains are drawn down, the sun's ray does not walk through the halls decorated in the lordly taste of the past, does not glide over the expensive but already faded wallpaper, does not illuminate the ancient portraits in wide golden frames; the house becomes empty and silence reigns in it until next summer. There is no one to walk in the alleys and listen to the quiet whisper of the leaves, no one to admire the beauty of the views, enjoy the fragrance of flowers: fragrant jasmines, as before, surround a beautiful balcony with white lions, but life stops, as in a fairy tale kingdom. Not far from the house, under wide canopies of trees, near the parish church landscaped by the Bryanchaninovs, lie the ashes of those who, with their labors and thoughts, created the church, the houses, and the estates of the Bryanchaninov estates - Pokrovsky, Yurov and Nosudov. Widespread branches formed a canopy over the graves. A large family rests under the canopy; here lie the ashes of many generations. And this town of the deceased is headed by three graves: these are the graves of Alexander Semenovich and Sofia Afanasyevna Bryanchaninov - the father and mother of Vladyka Ignatius and Alexander Semenovich Bryanchaninov, the nephew of Vladyka, the former Samara governor, who died in 1910 - the later owner of Pokrovsky. 13 Looking at their resting place, you involuntarily experience the same feelings, the same mood that over half a century ago was experienced by one of the outstanding members of the family resting here, after many years of absence, they visited this picturesque cemetery and listened here over the graves of those dear to his heart who had died for him, to the mournful consoling songs of the sacred requiem, merging with the quiet noise of the leaves. 14 “Earth, earth! human generations are replaced on your surface, like leaves on trees; These leaves turn sweetly green and comfortingly and innocently rustle, set in motion by the quiet breath of the spring wind. Autumn will come to them: they will turn yellow, fall from the trees onto the graves, and decay on them. When spring comes, other leaves will show off on the branches, and also - only during their short succession - they will also wither and disappear. What is our life? Almost the same as the life of a leaf on a tree!” 15 Once upon a time there was spring and summer for those who now sleep in Pokrovskoye under the shade of spreading ancient trees; Now it's a long, long winter for them... During the coming winter, life did not freeze in only one of the many buildings surrounding the manor's house; this is the apartment of the Estonian manager, who is entrusted with the management of the estate by its current owner. And a hundred years ago, the organizers of the village of Pokrovskoe, now resting in their graves, were alive; life was in full swing in the now silent and quiet Pokrovsky. The house did not sleep, as if immersed in deep thought about the past: the stern and authoritative voice of its owner resounded loudly throughout the rich chambers, in the alleys of the garden and in numerous workshops, which were not left for a single day without the watchful eye of the owner. The shady park heard ringing voices, laughter and screams of children; light children's shadows quickly glided along the cleared paths... The Brianchaninov family belongs to the oldest noble families of the Russian Empire. As can be seen from the attached family tree (see pp. 40–41) and the official documents of Senator Nikolai Semenovich Bryanchaninov delivered to us, the Bryanchaninovs descend from the boyar Mikhail Bryanko, squire of the Grand Duke Dmitry Ioannovich Donskoy. Mikhail Bryanko was sent instead of Grand Duke Dimitri Ioannovich Donskoy against Mamai, in the grand ducal attire, on the grand ducal horse and under the princely banner. Bryanko was killed by the Tatars, which is mentioned in the Kiev printed chronicler, in the Russian chronicles according to Nikon's list, and in the ancient chronicle, according to Kostomarov 16. Mikhail Bryanko's son Ivan bore the surname Chelishchev on the occasion of an arrow wound to the forehead or forehead received in battles with the Tatars in the troops of Dmitry Donskoy. 17 The son of Ivan, grandson of Mikhail Bryanko, Ignatius the First, by royal command, began to write to the Bryanchaninovs. Since then, the Bryanchaninov family has existed and developed in continuous succession to the present day. The wife of Alexander Semenovich, the mother of Bishop Ignatius, Sofya Afanasyevna, also belonged to the Bryanchaninov family. As can be seen from the Brianchaninov family tree, in the order of hereditary succession along his line, Alexander Semenovich Brianchaninov was the twelfth representative of his family. 18 Of his five sons, Pyotr Alexandrovich, the father of Senator Alexei Petrovich, who died without a family, and Semyon Alexandrovich, serving as a peace mediator of the 1st convocation, were married. Semyon Alexandrovich had two sons - Alexander Semenovich, former governor of Samara and died childless in 1910 with the rank of senator, and Nikolai Semenovich, former governor of Ryazan, now a senator with the rank of actual privy councilor. 19 Nikolai Semenovich has two sons - Alexander Nikolaevich and Vladimir Nikolaevich. Both are family. The village of Pokrovskoye and its neighboring Yurovo were granted to Brianchaninov for the Smolensk seat and the expulsion of the Poles in 1617. The owner of the village of Pokrovskoye for three quarters of the 19th century until April 19, 1875 was the sober, well-read, highly educated, and energetic Alexander Semenovich Bryanchaninov - one of the most respected people in the province. The former chamber-page of Emperor Pavel Petrovich, who was proud of this title all his life and bore it with honor, a man created for a broad social court life, by the grace of fate he had to settle in a village, far from the capital that raised him and was dear to his heart. Along with a significant fortune, he inherited from his father large debts, having finished with which, he was not able to stay in St. Petersburg and was forced to be content with the modest share of a landowner, although still very wealthy: he was left with about four hundred pure souls of peasants and the picturesque village of Pokrovskoye - an ancient noble nest - the family estate of his ancestors - the Brianchaninovs. Having retired with the rank of lieutenant, he settled with his wife Sofia Afanasyevna, a beautiful, secular woman, who also came from the glorious family of the Brianchaninovs, first in the village of Nosudovo, 20 and then in the village of Pokrovskoye, which, by 1812, was rebuilt by him on a grand lordly scale. Accustomed to the metropolitan court life, Alexander Semenovich managed, here in the village, to arrange his life magnificently and richly, transferring his refined habits of a metropolitan resident to the northern wilderness. “His will and artistic taste created a small Versailles with a castle-house, a royal garden and an elegant church on the barren hill of a clayey Russian mountain. 21 Whereas other manor houses of that time, usually wooden, quadrangular, with a cramped hallway, were all similar to one another. Brianchaninov's house, elegantly decorated with taste and fashion, could successfully stand not in Pokrovskoye, but on one of the main streets of St. Petersburg; not only in the rooms, but also in the footman's room there was always the smell of flowers or fine French tobacco (the master sniffed it); large greenhouses with luxurious plants of the warm south, which are now largely reminiscent of buildings that have fallen into disrepair; tall flower beds with beautiful rose bushes in a cleared, shady garden with whimsical, graceful gazebos; stables with expensive thoroughbred horses; various in-house workshops (weaving, gilding, carving) necessary for complete comfort and satisfaction. the refined taste of a person accustomed to living in the rich northern capital - all this made Pokrovskoye some kind of fairy tale, a dream come true and contributed to the fact that the life of the Brianchaninovs in the village proceeded with metropolitan luxury. Their house was often filled with guests (by the way, the then Vologda Governor, Nikolai Petrovich Brusilov, visited them, and the Bryanchaninovs knew how to receive and treat them with special sophistication and characteristic pomp. The Bryanchaninov generation preserved the memory that when Alexander Semenovich undertook a trip, somewhere from his village, his trips, solemn, furnished with court splendor, passion to which he maintained until the end of his life, they were reminiscent of the trips of a tsar, sometimes leaving his subjects for a while, then returning to them again. Alexander Semenovich had a luxurious trip and avoided traveling by rail, not out of “superstition not recognizing the railroad, which was still a novelty at that time, but considering it incompatible with his noble title: after all, not only nobles, but people of the lower class can travel, even in first class, by rail. When a narrow-gauge railway was built between Vologda and Yaroslavl and Alexander Semenovich’s relatives complained about the slowness of the 20-mile per hour movement along it, Alexander Semenovich found this speed quite sufficient: “What do you want, this is courier driving”?! Obviously, courier riding seemed to him like horseback riding and the norm for speed of movement. 22 A man accustomed to court etiquette, to court ceremonies, Alexander Sem. and in their village they did not forget them. In this regard, the following, although small, but telling picture is typical: in Pokrovskoye they are waiting for the arrival of the bishop - and it must be said that bishops quite often came to the rich landowner house of the Bryanchaninovs; ceremoniously dressed Alexander Semenovich is in the living room, awaiting news of the approach of a guest. When the carriage arrives at the porch, the owner slowly begins to move from the living room into the hall, slowly passes it and, before entering the hall, throws a toss at the bishop entering the room at that time, and then receives a blessing from him, which all his household members do after him. During his trips to the surrounding area, Alexander Semenovich was surrounded by a retinue on horseback. And so, sometimes, when he saw a woman walking at a considerable distance, he would send a horse huntsman to inquire: “who, where and why?” The woman, aware of the master’s requirements, had to give a plausible answer without hesitation, for example. - “From Nosudov to Krivodino to our people, for yarn.” This or another answer from the woman he met was reported to the master, who was satisfied with the results and sometimes immediately added: “let him go.” 23 But it was not only the love of luxury and magnificent splendor that Alexander Semenovich brought with him to the village from the capital: the page of Emperor Pavel Petrovich, who paid the main attention to the discipline of his subordinates and strictly punished the guilty for the slightest offense, Brianchaninov developed a very strict and severe regime on his estate. For well-trained servants, the master’s word was the law, which they did not dare and could not disobey, trembling under the imperious gaze of his piercing eyes, fearing his menacing, loud voice. Everyone knew; that he will be strictly punished for any offense, any malfunction. When the owner, with his characteristic pomp and grandeur, walked around his own workshops, which happened often, the trained servants met him everywhere, with due honor and, trembling with fear, they tried to please him in everything. Not just servants; but in general, none of the family could ever contradict the iron will of Alexander Semenovich, no one could act according to their own wishes, not even his wife Sofya Afanasyevna, who in everything submitted to the influence of her husband, who cared only about pleasing him in every possible way; not to mention other members of the family. And the Bryanchaninovs had a large family: Alexander Semenovich and his wife had sixteen children, but only 9 of them survived. The rest, in the words of the Bryanchaninovs’ granddaughter, Kupreyanova, “no one stopped them from getting sick and dying”: if it happened that one of the children became seriously ill, nanny Efimovna, devoted to the Bryanchaninovs in soul and body, under whose supervision they were children were entrusted, came to the lady with a request: “Mother, Sofya Afanasyevna! Please bless the little one - they are working.” The mother blessed the child and calmly left him, according to the will of God, to die or get better. 24 Of the nine surviving children, the eldest was the son Dimitri Alexandrovich, born on February 5, 1807, who was subsequently destined, by the will of Divine Providence, to shine in the history of the Russian Church with the light of his Christian virtues, the exploits of his strictly monastic life and his ascetic theological writings. On the 4th day after birth (February 9th), the baby was baptized in the Intercession Komel Church by the parish priest Timofey Vasilyev, and he was given a glorious name, very common in the north - Dimitri, in honor of one of the first miracle workers of Vologda - Venerable. Dimitry Prilutsky. The godfather of the newborn was St. Advisor Dimitry Ivanovich Samarin, a highly respected and distinguished owner, closely acquainted with the Bryanchaninov family. 25 The next older brother after Dimitri Alexandrovich was Peter; he was followed by Mikhail, Alexander and Semyon. The youngest of five brothers was Semyon. Of the girls, Alexandra was the eldest, Maria was the youngest in the family, and Elizaveta and Sofia were the middle ones. Alexander Semenovich considered inexorable severity, severity and punishment, sometimes even cruel, to be the means of educating and developing good qualities in children, strangely combining in his character intelligence and secular tact with purely Domostroevsky despotism. For fear of his irritation and anger, nanny Efimovna, and sometimes Sofya Afanasyevna herself, tried to hide the children’s pranks and pranks from him; but as soon as the father found out anything, immediate punishment inevitably followed the offense committed. 26 Many such cases are preserved in the memory of the Brianchaninovs. So one day one of the sons of Alexander Semenovich was punished by him with rods for incorrectly pronouncing a French phrase. 27 Another time, Mikhail Alexandrovich, a proud boy, bit his hand until it bled, trying not to scream during the execution, the reason for which was that he interfered in the affairs of adults, having heard a conversation in the village about the fraudulent tricks of the headman: he ran to tell his daddy about it. Maria Alexandrovna was once whipped a second time until she fainted, because after the first unfair punishment she decided to protest. 28 Were these not all crimes on the part of children, from whom only unquestioning obedience and fear were required? The strict and harsh system of education developed by Alexander Semenovich was expressed not only in punishments: the children were kept from hand to mouth in the morning, of course not because of stinginess, but to develop a certain discipline in them: after a cup of liquid tea with a couple of wheat buns or crackers, they were not allowed to eat anything else until lunchtime. Nanny Efimovna, who loved and pitied her pets with all her heart, secretly slipped them from everyone, so that the formidable master would not find out, somewhere in the corner of the corridor, slices of black bread, which she had taken from the kitchen as if for herself - the only thing she could take away without paying anyone’s attention. “Those slices of bread that Efimovna secretly slipped us were alms!” Pyotr Alexandrovich often said later in a voice trembling with emotion, remembering the nanny as his benefactor. 29 Once it happened, when guests arrived in Pokrovskoye, Mitenka and Petrusha dared to take for themselves two rich crackers made from white flour, while these crackers were served only for guests, and for them there were special ones on the table - made from homemade wheat flour. “Not out of greed,” Pyotr Aleksandrovich later said, recalling this incident, “but because it was humiliating to show the guests that we are not given the same thing as them”... This “crime” was seen by Uncle Dorimedont, assigned to the boys, as Efimovna was to the girls. But while the nanny, feeling sorry for the children, tried to hide their misdeeds from the formidable master, and often even tried to stand up for them, thereby, of course, bringing anger and punishment upon herself, the faithful Cerberus, an uncle devoted to his master, did not consider himself entitled to hide from him even the smallest offense of the barchat entrusted to him. So it happened this time, when the guests left, Dorimedont reported to Alexander Semenovich about the disobedience of Mitenka and Petrusha, and the punishment was not slow to follow: the brothers were forced to kneel for 3 hours and were forced to hold a white cracker in their mouths. Everyone passed by and saw it. 30 Alexander Semenovich Brianchaninov, who was himself a very educated person for his time, who loved education and valued it, 31 tried to give his children, if possible, the best upbringing and education. Every day a fresh troika brought from the city and brought back the best teachers of the Vologda seminary and gymnasium; two teachers lived in the house permanently. One of them was a student at the Vologda Seminary, Levitsky, who taught young people the Law of God and planted the first seeds of love for the Word of God into the pure hearts of children, easily accepting all good things, especially in the heart of one of them - the future monk-ascetic - Dimitri Alexandrovich, where these good seeds subsequently bore rich shoots, clothing him with “holy clothing, the work of a pestrodealer, the word of judgment, the manifestation of truth,” 32 for that this last one remembered him with gratitude and love until the end of his life. 33 Giving an excellent education to his children, Alexander Semenovich paid attention to the development of their natural talents; their abilities for music, painting, and literature were developed, encouraged and exercised. Particularly gifted in the family was the eldest son Dimitri, his mother’s favorite, who, after serious studies in science, managed to practice drawing with a pen, singing notes and playing the violin, despite his excellent abilities, spending a little time preparing assigned lessons. According to the fashion of that time, the education of girls was not complete without foreign governesses; A French woman always lived in the house, taking care of developing good manners in them, and observing the correctness of their French accent and the grace of their clothing and hairstyle. But the real “educator” of the girls was not the governess, but a simple, uneducated Russian woman, Nanny Efimovna, who was already mentioned above. The same age as Sofia Afanasyevna, she was given to her as a dowry and throughout her entire life in the house she did not in any way violate her unparalleled devotion to the lady and her children. In her youth, she dreamed of marrying the gardener who fell in love with her, but the lady did not give her permission to do so: “Who else can I entrust the children to?” she said in response to the nanny’s requests: “No, no, I need you, stay as a nanny; 34 and the meekly resigned Efimovna, having forever given up the dream of her own happiness, did not feel any hostility towards Sofya Afanasyevna for this, pouring out all the love and tenderness of her pure, simple heart on the children entrusted to her. All her life she could not forgive herself for the fact that one day, angry, she “slammed the young lady Lizaveta Alexandrovna,” and considered this the greatest sin. “Having before his eyes the daily cutting of children, this pure soul blamed himself for the only, probably light, blow.” Every morning, nanny Efimovna came to her mistress’s dressing room and, having respectfully wished her “good morning,” began her report about the children: Sonechka’s cough had already gone away; Lizanka spent the night well; Mashenka had been worried since the evening, crying in her sleep; Alexandra Alexandrovna fell asleep only at dawn, having prayed all night on her knees, etc. 35 The lady, sitting in front of the toilet and fingering the expensive trinkets lying by the mirror with her hand, listened to these ingenuous reports of the nanny, deduced her conclusions from them and gave her orders until the next morning. Under the guidance of the same nanny Efimovna, the boys also grew up until they came under the supervision of Uncle Dorimedont (he was also mentioned above). Alexander Semenovich completely trusted this simple, but infinitely honest and devoted man, who fully justified the trust placed in him and truly deserved his favor. Both during the life of the barts in Pokrovskoye, and subsequently, when, as young officers, they lived in St. Petersburg (and the uncle was with them), Dorimedont did not consider it possible to conceal from the master anything that he knew about their behavior, not because he did not love or did not feel sorry for his charges, but because he considered it a violation of his duty. And, despite the fact that the young Bryanchaninovs often had to suffer after the denunciations of the guy who was watching them, the Bryanchaninov family retained a good memory of this honest, incorruptible and truthful servant. And now another one of the grandchildren of the late Alexander Semenovich, Senator Nikolai Semenovich, remembers the following story from his father (Semyon Alex.): once, when Dorimedont was sent to St. Petersburg to find out about the life of the barchat there, 36 these latter were guilty of something. Knowing well that the strict father would be very dissatisfied with this and would somehow punish them, the culprits asked the uncle not to tell their father anything. In response to their requests, Dorimedont said: “I can’t!”, and cried at the same time. Fulfilling his duty to the master who trusted him, he openly repeated: “I can’t!”, and, feeling sorry for the guilty barkats, he cried. And everyone understood that the honest old man was right, that he really could not hide anything from his master, and they were not angry with him. (Pedigree... PHOTO pages 25–26). Just as the nanny reported to the lady every morning about the girls, so did the uncle about the boys. “Everyone is healthy in the nursery, ma’am. Pyotr Alexandrovich deigned to tear his boots yesterday: they deigned to go out to the pond in the evening, and they tore them.” - Alone, sir. Dmitry Alexandrovich did not deign to leave. “Mitenka is always smart,” thought Sofya Afanasyevna, softening. Really, he should even be punished, and without finishing her thought, she asked: - Semyon Alexandrovich teased Alexandra Alexandrovna... The lady waved her hand: past! - Mikhailo Alexandrovich deigned to run around the calidor instead of going to bed. You wanted to make some noise. I reported what was not ordered; didn't deign to listen... “Dmitry Alexandrovich deigned to read the Psalm by heart in bed: “Have mercy on me, O God, as man has trampled upon me...” They deigned to say: this Psalm is suitable for many.” 37 After such reports from the uncle, the mother thought about her pet: “I’m afraid Mitenka is too serious. He’s good and smart, but why is he so serious?.. And, remembering Mitenka’s intelligence and beauty, she thought with bitterness, how could her husband not love such a perfect son? 38 And while the uncle was reporting to the lady about the behavior of his pets, in their nursery, a semicircular window that looked at the church, one could often see a similar picture and hear such conversations: two boys, 13 and 12 years old, sat in the niche of the window, taking advantage of the temporary absence of their overseer. The eldest of them was later famous in St. Petersburg for his beauty. But now in the thin features of his face and in his large dark eyes: sadness was visible - not fleeting, childish, but hopeless, deep, at the sight of which a sensitive person would feel cold. In Pokrovsky there were no people sensitive to this subject. Children's grief did not surprise anyone. Efimovna alone wept with barren and secret tears over the sorrows of her pets. “How I love looking here,” the older boy said in a whisper, peering into the sea of ​​greenery outside the window. Exactly, in these tops, in these leaves, in this air without boundaries - and I myself am free... It’s as if you live like a bird and forget everything... Parsley sighed. His thoughts had a more realistic direction. In Petrushka’s rougher features there was not one noticeable intelligence, not a single one, like Mitenka’s, but the expression of despondency was the same. “We’ll spend today somehow,” he said. “Yes,” he answered, without taking his eyes off the window. I think there are children who get up in the morning and are happy... - Everything. That they are loved, that there is another day... a good one... ahead. And we wake up in fear... - And it’s a pity that you woke up! Petrusha burst out louder than he intended. - Shhh! Mitenka stopped him and looked around. But there was no one nearby, the younger brothers were sleeping. Petrusha leaned towards Mitenka. – Have you already changed your mind? - he asked barely audibly; but with a special expression. -Have you forgotten... what you wanted? – the brother repeated insistently. The steps of Dorimedont Dmitrich were heard on the stairs. Mitenka stood up and walked lightly towards the sleepy children. “Get up, darlings,” he said, gently running his thin and gentle hand over their faces. “Get up, dears,” he said, affectionately running his thin and gentle hand over their faces, “they’ll scold you... Then, returning to the window, he quickly blew on the glass and wrote on the matte coating that formed: “You can’t run away from daddy,” and wiped everything off with the sleeve of his shirt at the very moment when the Cerberus guy opened the door. 39 In constructing hypotheses about where this thirteen-year-old, overly serious and sad boy could be planning to run away, we, it seems, will not be far from the truth if we assume that now in his soul arose the finally formed desire to leave the world, to escape from its bustle into the silence of the monastic solitude. In general, it must be said that the mood of the entire Pokrovsky Bryanchaninov family was deeply Orthodox and ecclesiastical; Voltairianism, fashionable at that time, did not touch the soul of Alexander Semenovich, a former friend of Pozdeev and other pious masons of that time. 40 According to such a harsh regime, life flowed in the last century in a rich lordly estate - the village of Pokrovskoye, under the control of the proud, imperious, able to keep everyone in unquestioning obedience, Alexander Semenovich Brianchaninov. But one should not think, says one of the granddaughters of this latter, the daughter of Maria Alexandrovna, from the words of her mother, that the life of the young Brianchaninovs was completely joyless: they could swing on the swings arranged for them in the garden, ride on excellent winter slides, on rafts on the pond; could ride on horseback, and occasionally even accompany their father on a hunt, according to an old noble custom. They generously used the fruits of the rich Pokrovsky garden, which, moreover, with its beauty, could give quite a few artistic impressions to these sensitive children. The wide expanse of fields and meadows surrounding Pokrovskoye, picturesquely spread out on two hills, where it was so pleasant to walk and enjoy the clean, healthy air - all this gave a lot of joy to the young Brianchaninovs; but one thing was missing, the main thing was missing, that which makes the most modest, even poor life in some wretched hut cheerful and beautiful; there was no parental affection and tenderness, to which a child’s heart is so sensitive! True, the Brianchaninovs’ mother, Sofya Afanasyevna, was not as strict with the children as their father; often she wanted to caress them, especially her beloved son Dimitri, but, following the system of education adopted by her husband, she had to hide her parental feelings as an unworthy weakness, always covering with a cold and calm mask everything that was in her soul. This lack of affection and tenderness in educational measures was the reason that the Brianchaninov children felt some coldness towards their parents, especially towards their father, whom they feared even as adults and with whom they never tried to share the inner content of their spiritual world. They never dared to talk to their father while sitting, and stood obediently in front of him, standing at attention. If he addressed them with any words, which, again, was performed not only in childhood, but also when they were already adults. When Alexander Semenovich returned to Pokrovskoye from some trip, his sons had to meet him at the front entrance with their heads uncovered, thereby expressing their respect. 41 What kind of friendly frankness could there be in such relations? The entire young generation of the Bryanchaninovs grew up together, but several friendly couples naturally formed between them. Only the eldest daughter Alexandra Alexandrovna, her father’s favorite but unloved by her mother, stood alone. Dimitri Alexandrovich shared thoughts and feelings with his next brother, Peter. Cheerful, rosy-cheeked Sasha got along with everyone. The middle ones - Senyusha and Lizanka, similar to each other, were playing pranks together. Graceful Sonechka was drawn to Dmitry with her soul and was loved by him. Misha and little Masha had such an inseparable friendship that the family nicknamed them by the common name “Mishmashak”. 42 But, having divided into friendly couples, all the children seemed to instinctively feel that above all of them, not only in brilliant abilities, but, most importantly, in the moral qualities of his character, was the elder brother Dimitri, the most well-behaved, the most serious, who never took part in children’s pranks and pranks, who never uttered a lie, even as a joke. And, seeing the unconditional superiority of their older brother, as if marked by the finger of God, the children treated him with respect, in which there was even a certain shade of reverence, which made it possible for Dimitri Alexandrovich to exert a good influence on them: the brothers and sisters knew that everything that Mitenka advised was good, everything that he did not approve of was somehow bad, and they always tried to resort to his advice and his help. But the intelligent and serious boy beyond his years, the future worker of spiritual life, was not at all proud or boastful of this, as if not noticing the undoubted influence that his pure, truthful soul had on his brothers and sisters. Always thoughtful and sad, always focused and withdrawn into himself, especially loving solitude under the hospitable shadow of the centuries-old trees of the huge Pokrovsky Garden and the adjacent old forest, where the noise from the manor house did not reach, he remained alone for a long time, listening to the voice of the surrounding nature, singing an enthusiastic song of praise to his Creator - the Almighty Lord, learning from her to love the Creator of the universe and flying far away with his thoughts from the earth, the futile vanity of which he felt so early. The phenomena of the surrounding home life did not make much of an impression on him and did not interest him: his bodily feelings were not receptive, the material world weakly affected him through them; he was not curious, cold towards everything, towards everything except the human soul: he could never look at a person indifferently, for “he was created to love human souls, to admire human souls.” 43 The heart of this boy, marked by God, did not lie in the secular open life that was led in Pokrovsky, in children’s pranks and entertainment; he was, as it were, spiritually separated from the world around him, nurturing in the depths of his soul the good sprout of Divine love, planted by the Almighty Gardener of all good. He was attracted to his native Church of the Intercession, where the heart yearning for God seemed to feel His invisible presence, where the faces of the Saints looking from the walls and icons seemed to tell a comforting story about a life dedicated to the Lord, and where fervent prayer so relieved his unchildishly grieving heart. What was this deep sorrow about, generally so little characteristic of childhood and adolescence, when all sorrows usually disappear as quickly as they appear? If the cause of this spiritual sorrow was the cold and harsh atmosphere of home life, then why did it, at least at times, not give way in his heart to the unthinking fun that is characteristic of children, the frivolity and carelessness that seeks, immediately after tears, entertainment and fun, as was the case with his other brothers? What could have filled this pure childish soul with sorrow so much that she remembered it throughout her entire subsequent life? 44 Serious beyond his years, not childishly religiously inclined, the boy yearned and grieved mentally that he had no one with whom he could share the yearnings of his spirit, who had early learned the unsatisfactory nature of everything that surrounded him now and what awaited him in the future; he cried and grieved that “he had no one to open his heart to,” for the desires of this heart were completely different from those that were nourished by all those close to him. These were the desires of a thirsty closeness of God, the desire of the soul to have a not dead knowledge of the dogmas and teachings of St. Eastern Church, and not a dead faith in them, as most people know and believe them, considering this quite sufficient, but to have a living, experienced knowledge of what the fall of man consisted of, what his salvation consists of, what their signs are.” The soul of the future monk-ascetic, who devoted his entire subsequent life to the service of the Heavenly King, could not help but feel that the transient knowledge of the transient world taught to her only wrapped, like the talent of the Gospel, in the garb of ignorance the ineffable gift of grace given at Baptism, buried it, hid it deeply in the ground, covered it like dust with thoughts of prosperity and temporary pleasures, about serving the vanity and dark light of the vain world, 45 - and this soul could not help but grieve about what would happen to it when, according to the Highest order, it stops its sailing on the sea of life, it could not help but wonder what fate awaits it after its separation from the body: will a peaceful and bright Angel appear to it, who will soar with it into the blissful abodes of heavenly Eden, or will it be surrounded by hordes of gloomy demons, fallen angels, who will find in her an affinity with themselves, their fall, their sinful properties, their ungodly will, will take her away, drag her into their dwellings, dwellings of eternal fierce sorrow, dwellings of eternal darkness, unquenchable fire, dwellings of torment and groaning, continuous, endless. 46 Conscious of himself as an unpaid debtor to the Grace of God, which looked upon him then, when he was still “a silent baby, wrapped in swaddling clothes, without reason, without the ability to act,” which poured out untold blessings on him - “an eruption from the perilous abyss, a washing from sinful filth, renewal of the Spirit in the waters of baptism” - while he was still nothing I didn’t feel, I didn’t understand anything, I didn’t even understand my own existence. 47 The youth, pondering the incomprehensible goodness of God, cherished in his grieving soul the thought of leaving the world for a monastery, where he could devote all his strength, all his abilities to God, “For Whom alone he thirsted, in Whom alone he trusted, and before Whom alone he constantly walked,” 48 considering this the only opportunity to repay the Lord in some way for the great blessings poured out on him... And the boy, thus disposed, avoiding noise and merriment, loved not only at the prescribed times - morning and evening, but often throughout the day to immerse himself in prayer, which calmed his sad soul, imparted to it consolation and quiet joy, a prayer that gave him the happiness of experiencing the sweetness of prayerful tears already in his childhood. The religious feeling of the future servant of the Lord was nourished, supported and strengthened by reading books of spiritual and moral content, which were in harmony with the inner mood of his soul; he loved to forget everything around him, reveling in his favorite book - the old five-volume edition of “The School of Piety.” Pimen, Sisoi and Macarius made a wonderful impression on him, and his thoughts, often soaring to God through prayer and reading, little by little brought peace and tranquility to his soul, which was not childishly grieving for the Lord. 49 Reading and re-reading the lives of the holy saints who left the vain world for the glory of God, the youth became more and more strengthened in the intention he had adopted - to follow the paths of God’s saints, to leave the “broad path leading to eternal death” and enter “on the narrow and sorrowful path leading to the stomach,” to the path that “raises from the earth, leads out of darkened by vanity, lifts to heaven, lifts to paradise, lifts to God, presents before His Face in unfading light for eternal bliss” 50 But this was not the decision of the parents of the pious youth, who wanted to lead their son in the footsteps of his father along the military road in order to see him subsequently at high levels of public service. And despite Dimitri Alexandrovich’s admission that he wanted to become a “monk,” that of all types of service he preferred “service to the Heavenly King,” when he turned 15 years old (at the end of the summer of 1822), his father took him to the capital to the Military Engineering School, and the young man entered the military and, at the same time, academic service, not by his own choice and desire.” He did not immediately follow the narrow and sorrowful path of monasticism he had planned for himself, where the voice of his heart, striving for God, called him; did not immediately defend the desire of his pure soul to leave the world that was unattractive to him; but it was not weakness of will or lack of desire that was the reason for this, but the fact that he “had not yet found the Truth, had not yet seen It clearly in order to desire It!” Since childhood, his soul, tearfully yearning for God the Redeemer, still “floated in grave bewilderment, languished; waves of doubt arose against her, born from distrust of himself, from distrust of everything that was noisy and screaming around him - from ignorance, ignorance of the Truth! II. At the military engineering school “God himself, with a good thought, has already separated me from the vain world. I lived in the middle of the world, but was not on a common, wide, angled path: a good thought led me along a separate path, to living cool springs of water, through fruitful countries, through picturesque terrain, but often wild, dangerous, crossed by abysses, extremely solitary. A traveler rarely travels along it.” (Works of Bishop Ignatius, vol. I:, p. 561). Having brilliantly passed the exam, young Brianchaninov was the first to enter; (according to a competition of one hundred thirty people for thirty vacancies) immediately into the second conductor class of the St. Petersburg Engineering School. 51 The excellent preparation and very handsome, representative appearance of Dimitri Alexandrovich, which involuntarily endeared him, his restraint, seriousness, nobility of manners immediately put him forward among other students, and the inspector general of the school - the future Emperor of All Rus' - then Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich, having arrived at the school to choose boarders (which he used to do annually), immediately drew attention to him and invited him to his Anichkov Palace, where he introduced the new pupil to Grand Duchess Alexandra Feodorovna and recommended him as being well prepared not only for the sciences required at the school, but even knowing Latin and Greek. Her Majesty was pleased to order that the young man she liked very much be enrolled as her boarder. In his story “Unmercenary Engineers” 52 Leskov reports that when, some time after this choice, the Grand Duke asked about the pupil who immediately made such a favorable impression on him and his August Wife: “What about Brianchaninov? What are his inclinations and character?”, the school authorities, in absolute fairness, could answer him: “He is exemplary in all respects. Very religious and of excellent morals." Thus began a new period in the life of the future saint, which is instructive to get to know for everyone who cares about the salvation of his soul, a period of life in the bustling capital and studying in a purely secular educational institution, where his previous desires could dissipate into dust - to serve the Lord alone, where it was so easy for him to lose the purity of his soul. The favor of the inspector general of the school, Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich, who clearly showed gracious attention and patronage to his new boarder; excellent reviews of the modesty of the noble pupil from his closest superiors and school teachers could easily arouse in the young man a completely natural pride and consciousness of his own superiority over other pupils and destroy in his soul the beginnings of monastic humility, which had been characteristic of him since childhood. Brilliant successes in the sciences and a brilliant prospect for future career activity could turn him towards human wisdom, towards the seductive “human sciences” that elevate man to the rank of “king of nature”, and orphan his soul, depriving him of the only true source - God. The fame of an excellent reader and reciter, earned by him in the house of the President of the Academy of Arts and member of the State Council - Alexei Nikolaevich Olenin, where he was introduced by family ties - acquaintance here with celebrities of that time - Pushkin, Batyushkov, Krylov, Gnedich, who paid attention to his poetic and literary talents; visits to the rich house of Aunt Sukhareva, who leads an open social life - all this could easily captivate Dimitri Alexandrovich into the bustle of worldly life and turn the former “pet of the desert” into a completely secular young man, shining in the fashionable living rooms of the capital and winning women’s hearts with his beautiful, representative appearance. But the messenger of Heaven - a bright Angel stood guard over this soul that had loved God since childhood, and the future servant of the Lord in the whirlpool of worldly vanity did not lose his humility, his former love for his Almighty Creator, and came out of the crucible of temptations hardened, dressed in the invincible armor of the true Christian living faith. But before “finding the Truth and seeing It clearly,” this future worker of spiritual life strove for him from childhood, he was destined to endure a difficult internal struggle. It was not the world, with its vain seductions, with its caressing and flattering pride prospect of future honors and distinctions, that tempted this young soul; No! the world did not present anything attractive to him: he was so cold towards him, as if the world had no temptations at all, 53 for since childhood he had strengthened his heart against the seductions of the world with the double armor of fasting and prayer - but another enemy came out to fight the young man who loved the Lord, one of the most dangerous, most serious and often invincible enemies for man - an enemy clothed in the seductive image of science, not illuminated by the light of the Christian faith. From the solitude of a quiet rural life, transferred by the will of fate to a noisy, inhospitable capital for him, Dimitri Alexandrovich at first, with all the ardor of his spirit, “with all the strength of his soul,” rushed to “human sciences, the inventions of the fallen human mind,” leaving aside “uncertain pursuits and religious sensations,” 54 and his successes in the sciences were so brilliant that throughout his stay at the school he was the first student. 55 But this did not please the thoughtful young man, did not entertain him and did not satisfy his aspirations. From childhood, “thirst for God,” striving to “find and clearly see the Truth”; since childhood, striving for a living, experienced knowledge of the dogmas of the Holy Eastern Church, he could not find “in the human sciences” what his soul passionately desired, and the result of intensive two-year studies was not the peace and tranquility of this soul that had been grieving since childhood, but some kind of “terrible emptiness in it”, even stronger than before, “her hunger for God the Redeemer”, “unbearable melancholy”... And feeling that these studies of human sciences not only do not bring him closer to God, but, on the contrary, threaten to completely orphan his yearning soul, removing it from its true life - God. The young man “began to mourn his negligence, to mourn the oblivion to which he betrayed faith, to mourn the sweet silence that he lost, to mourn the emptiness that he acquired, which burdened him, terrified him, filled him with a feeling of orphanhood, deprivation of life.” And often, walking in a cadet’s uniform through the noisy and crowded streets of the capital, he could not hold back the tears streaming from his eyes! 56 But indulging in hopeless despair was never characteristic of this powerful spirit, and he was not afraid to enter into a decisive battle with a formidable enemy, on the outcome of which depended whether or not he would be what his highest calling attracted him to; he was not afraid to subject to strict, merciless analysis those sciences in which “his entire mind was immersed”; and, having come to the boundaries of human knowledge in the highest definitive sciences, he was not afraid to ask them: “What do you give as property to a person? Man is eternal, and his property must be eternal. Show me this eternal property, this eternal wealth, which I could take with me beyond the grave! Until now, I see only knowledge given, so to speak, for maintenance, ending with the earth, which cannot exist after the soul is separated from the body.” And he was not afraid to debunk that idol, which is revered and worshiped by so many people, with a merciless analysis, revealing all its inconsistency for eternity: “What is the purpose of studying mathematics? Its subject is matter. It reveals a certain type of laws of matter, teaches how to calculate and measure it, and how to apply calculations and measurements to the needs of earthly life. It points to the existence of an infinite quantity, as an idea beyond matter. Accurate knowledge and definition of this idea is logically impossible for any rational but limited being. Mathematics points to numbers and measures, some of which, due to their significant magnitude, others due to their extreme smallness, cannot be subject to human research; it points to the existence of knowledge to which man has an innate desire, but to which science does not have the means to bring him. Mathematics only hints at the existence of objects beyond the scope of our senses. Physics and chemistry reveal a different kind of laws of matter. Before science, people did not even know about the existence of these laws. Open laws revealed the existence of countless other laws that were still closed. Some of them are not explained, despite human efforts to explain, others cannot be explained due to the limitations of human strength and abilities. It seems that the eloquent and intelligent Professor Solovyov told us, giving an introduction to chemistry, that we study this science in order to find out that we know nothing and cannot know anything: it opens such an immense field of knowledge before the eyes of the mind. So the knowledge we have acquired in this field is insignificant! It proves and convinces with tactile clarity that matter, although it, as a substance, must have its own boundaries, cannot be comprehended and defined by man, both due to its vastness and for many other reasons. Chemistry monitors the gradual refinement of matter, bringing it to a subtlety barely accessible to human senses; in this subtle state of matter it still sees complexity and promotes decomposition into more subtle components, although decomposition itself is no longer possible. Man sees no end to the refinement of matter, as well as to the increase in numbers and measures. He comprehends that the infinite must also be immaterial; on the contrary, everything finite must of necessity also be material. But this idea is vague; its existence is determined. Then physics and chemistry revolve in one substance, expanding knowledge about its use for the temporary earthly needs of man and human society. Less positive than the sciences mentioned is philosophy, which fallen man is especially proud of. Natural sciences constantly rely on material experience; they prove the correctness of their accepted theories, which without this proof have no place in science. Philosophy is deprived of a decisive means of constant persuasion by experience. Many different systems, disagreeing with each other, contradicting one another; They are already incriminating human wisdom in the lack of positive knowledge of the Truth. What scope is given in philosophy to arbitrariness, dreaminess, fiction, grandiloquent nonsense, intolerant of exact, definite science! With all this, philosophy is usually very satisfied with itself. With its deceptive light, abundant conceit, arrogance, exaltation, vanity, and contempt for neighbors enter the soul. The blind world showers her with praise and honor as if it were one of its own. He who is satisfied with the knowledge provided by philosophy not only does not receive correct concepts about God, about himself, about the spiritual world, but, on the contrary, becomes infected with perverse concepts that corrupt the mind, making it incapable, as infected and damaged by flattery, to communicate with the Truth (2 Tim. 3:8). “Do not understand the world through the wisdom of God!” (1 Cor. 1:21) says the Apostle. “The wisdom of the flesh is death, the wisdom of the flesh is enmity against God: for one is not subject to the law of God, for one is able” (Rom. 3:6:7), because this is not characteristic of him. “Brethren, beware, lest anyone deceive you with philosophy and vain flattery according to the tradition of man, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ, in Him are all the hidden treasures of wisdom and understanding” (Col. 2:8:3). Philosophy, being the offspring of the fall of man, flatters this fall, disguises it, preserves and nourishes it. She fears the teaching of the Truth as a death sentence for herself (1 Cor. 3:18). The state into which our spirit is brought by philosophy is a state of self-delusion, the soul of destruction, which is quite clear from the above words of the Apostle, who commands everyone who wants to acquire true knowledge from God to reject the knowledge delivered by the wisdom of fallen humanity. “Let no one deceive himself!” he says: “If anyone thinks that he will be wise in you in this world, let him be, because he will be wise” (1 Cor. 3:18). True philosophy (philosophy) is combined in the common martyrdom of Christ. “Christ is the Wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24:30). Whoever seeks wisdom outside of Christ denies Christ, rejects wisdom, acquires and assimilates a false mind, the property of rejected spirits. Geography, geodesy, linguistics, literature, and other sciences, all the arts, are not worth mentioning: they are all for the earth; the need for them for a person ends with the end of earthly life, for the most part much earlier. If I use all the time of my earthly life to acquire knowledge that ends with earthly life, then what will I take with me beyond the limits of gross matter?” 57 And from his adolescence, caring not about the improvement of his earthly wanderings, but about what awaits him after the end of his earthly journey, the young man turned to the sciences with a final decisive call: “Sciences! Give me, if you can give me, something eternal, positive, give me something that is inseparable and true, worthy of being called the property of a person!” And in response to this direct, non-compromising call, “the sciences were silent.” 58 The reckoning with science was over once and for all. Already here, on the school bench of the Engineering School, Dimitri Aleksandrovich realized that “science is the fruit of our fall, the product of a damaged fallen mind”, that “learning is the acquisition and storage of impressions and knowledge accumulated by people during the life of the fallen world”, that “learning is the lamp of the old man, the lamp with which “the darkness of darkness is guarded forever”; that “learning is not wisdom itself, but only the opinion of wisdom.” Already now it became clear to him that “the knowledge of the truth, which is revealed to people by the Lord, to which access is only by faith, which is inaccessible to the fallen human mind, is replaced in scholarship by fortune-telling, assumptions,” that “the wisdom of this world, in which many pagans and atheists occupy an honorable place, is directly opposite, in its very beginnings, to spiritual, divine wisdom,” and, therefore, “one cannot be a follower of both together, but one must certainly be renounced.” 59 And the choice was made... a victory was won over the seductive spirit of science, and this victory, as one of Dimitri Alexandrovich’s biographers rightly notes, “was almost more worth for him than another victory over the lust of the flesh, the lust of the self and the pride of life, for all these lusts are more or less condemned by the world itself, and the aspirations of the same fallen nature of ours are led by the will-o’-the-wisps of science, are approved and made obligatory by one and all. 60 Having discovered the inconsistency of science for eternity and, therefore, completely disappointed in it, the tireless seeker of Truth did not stop halfway: he turned “for a satisfactory, essential, vital answer” to faith. But where could he find “true and holy faith?” Where could he discover “the true teaching about it, alien to errors, both dogmatic and moral”? “It will become clear to us that this was a very difficult task if we remember that “this was the time when, under the influence of German philosophizing, various religious ideas, contrary to the spirit and letter of Orthodoxy, were fermenting in society, and when it was easiest for a secular, young man to become one of the sectarians of one or another unbelief.” 61 But the Mercy of God did not allow the soul of His chosen one to go astray; he could not “recognize the true and holy faith in fanaticism, which was not sealed with Gospel meekness, but breathed with fervor and exaltation”! He could not recognize it “in a self-willed teaching, separating from the Church, forming its own new system, vainly and arrogantly proclaiming the acquisition of a new, true Christian faith, eighteen centuries after the incarnation of God the Word.” 62 And the pure soul striving for God realized that only He alone could help her, only He alone, with His all-good right hand, could show her “the right path along which she could direct an invisible procession to Him in mind and spirit, 63 and the young man began often with tears to beg God so that He would not “give him over as a sacrifice to error.” The All-Good God, “who wants all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth,” heard the fervent prayer of His future servant and illuminated with a bright guiding star “much toil and much sorrow; the narrow, invisible path of his mind and heart to God.” From the heavenly throne of Divine Grace and Wisdom, it was sent down to the young man, who early felt the corruptible vanity of the world, “an imperishable treasure, instructing into blissful eternity,” “the main stone for the spiritual creation of his soul”: a thought suddenly appeared to him, to which his heart rushed, as if into the arms of a friend. “This thought inspired us to study faith in the sources - in the writings of the Holy Fathers. Their holiness, she told him, vouches for their fidelity; choose them as your leaders.” 64 Obeying this thought and having found a way to receive the works of the Holy Fathers, he greedily began to read them and study them deeply; Having read some, he took on others, read, re-read, studied... What first of all struck Dimitri Alexandrovich in the writings of the Fathers of the Orthodox Church? – Their agreement, wonderful, majestic agreement! This agreement, this wondrous, harmonious unity made an extraordinary impression on his thirsty Truth and striving for it soul, and many years later (in 1847), he so poetically expressed his mood caused by this unanimity: “When on a clear autumn night I look at the clear sky, dotted with countless stars, of such different sizes, emitting a single light, then I say to myself: such are the scriptures Fathers. When on a summer day I look at the vast sea, covered with many different ships with their spread sails, like the white swan wings of ships running under the same wind, towards one goal, towards one pier, then I say to myself: these are the writings of the Fathers! When I hear a harmonious, numerous choir, in which various voices in graceful harmony sing a single Divine song, then I say to myself: these are the writings of the Fathers!” 65 In the writings of the Fathers of the Orthodox Church, the future champion of Orthodoxy found the teaching repeated by all the Fathers that the only path to salvation is unwavering adherence to the instructions of the Holy One. The Fathers who say to a person: “Do you see someone seduced by false teaching, who died from the wrong choice of exploits - know that he followed himself, his reason, his opinions, and not the teaching of the Fathers, from which the dogmatic and moral tradition of the Church is compiled; She nourishes her children with it, as if it were a priceless possession.” 66 Having received from the Lord, from Whom “every gift is good, from Whom is a good thought,” this priceless gift is a good and saving thought: to study faith in the sources; Dimitri Alexandrovich’s soul found “the first refuge in the land of truth,” “respite from excitement and winds,” and looking at the religious world through this thought, he saw: the cause of all delusions lies in ignorance, in oblivion, in the absence of this thought.” And just as before, back in Pokrovskoye, aware of the untold blessings poured out on his soul at baptism, the boy strove to devote all his strength and abilities to serving Infinite Mercy and Goodness, so now the young man, having clearly seen the Truth, felt even more strongly that he could thank the Benefactor only by “devoting his entire earthly life to research and search for Him, to serving Him,” and by this, again, he will only do himself a new greatest benefit! 67 God Himself, with a good thought, had already separated the thoughtful young man from the vain world, and from that time on, although he lived in the middle of the world, he was not on the common wide, cornered path: a good thought led him along a separate path, to living, cool springs of water, through fruitful countries, through picturesque terrain, but often wild, dangerous, crossed by abysses, extremely solitary, where travelers rarely wander. 68 Reading the Holy Fathers: gave Dmitry Alexandrovich exactly what he had longed for so long, what his soul had been striving for since childhood, and what the study of the “human sciences” did not give him; it revealed to him “what Christ did for humanity, what the fall of man consists of, why a Redeemer is necessary”; it repeated to him: “You must develop, feel, see salvation in yourself, without which faith in Christ is dead, and Christianity is a word and a name without its implementation”; reading the Fathers taught him to look at eternity, “as an eternity, before which even a thousand-year earthly life is insignificant, not only ours, measured by some half-century”; it taught him that “earthly life should be spent in preparation for eternity, as on the threshold one prepares to enter the magnificent royal palaces.” It showed him that “all earthly activities, pleasures, honors, advantages are empty toys with which they play and lose bliss of eternity grown children." And the young man, always striving only for God, was now finally convinced that “everything earthly is nothing before Christ, Almighty God, Who gives Himself as an estate,... as an eternal gift and property to a speck of dust - to man; The visible world is not worth serving and engaging with! How does he reward his servants? First with toys, then with the coffin, decay, the dark unknown of the future, the weeping of neighbors and soon oblivion by them, Other rewards for the servants of Christ: they spend their life here studying the truth and educating themselves with it. Those transformed by it are sealed by the Holy Spirit, enter into eternity already briefly acquainted with eternity, having prepared for themselves bliss in it, informed of salvation.” 69 True faith, which illuminated the soul of the future ascetic with a bright light, took him by the hand, as if placed him before God, and from that time on he “ascended above the world; under his feet there remained a gloomy chaos of doubts, unbelief, delusions, pompous and at the same time vain reasoning, just as under the feet of one who has climbed to the top of a high mountain there remain clouds, cliffs, abysses, rustling waterfalls jumping over the rocks.” 70 And the twenty-year-old youth now firmly and irrevocably decided to become one of the servants of Christ, “to leave the world and devote his earthly life to the knowledge of Christ, to assimilate Christ,” for now he “dared and knew how to desire,” since he “found the Truth, saw It clearly in order to desire It!” This is how the internal struggle in the soul of the future Ignatius ended, this is the decision he came to, brilliantly completing a course of study at the Engineering School, a purely secular institution, from where it was much easier for the student to emerge as a secular, cheeky engineer, boldly paving the way for himself and quickly ascending the steps of the ladder of life, than as a humble servant of the Lord, carrying in his heart only the All-Merciful Creator. It is no wonder that with such a mood of mind and will, experiencing a complex spiritual struggle with science that had turned against him with all its strength, Dimitri Aleksandrovich, throughout his studies at the school, avoided the noisy entertainments of his youth, which brought pleasure to his brothers and school comrades who lived with them in the same apartment, who had a completely different attitude. It is also not surprising that, as noted in one of his biographies, among the diverse and varied crowd of school friends it was not easy to find a person who was of the same mind as him. But such creatures cannot remain alone: ​​with an invisible magnet they attract a sympathetic soul to themselves and imperiously break through it a spring hidden under the rough crust of earthiness. 71 This was the case with Dimitri Brianchaninov; The Lord not only directed him with His all-merciful right hand to the right path, “leading to the belly,” but already here, at the school, he gave him a friend for life, already here, “in the vale of sorrows and tears,” he united him with this latter “in a like-mindedness and unanimity pleasing to Him”; 72 already here, at the school, those words began to be fulfilled that many years later (in 1847) Dimitri Alexandrovich wrote: “God gave me friends: I accepted this reward from His all-holy right hand for the thought of self-sacrifice, which I followed from the days of my youth.” 73 Such a friend of his was Mikhail Vasilyevich Chikhachov, whose name is so closely connected with the name of Dimitry Aleksandrovich Brianchaninov that in reverent memories of the life of this latter one cannot help but assign a parallel place to a brief narrative about Mikhail Chikhachov, which seems all the more convenient since we have “notes” compiled by him, which have not yet been published, in which, “compelled by the love of those who knew him,” he ingenuously tells us, as best he can remember, “what happened to him from his youth until the time of his tonsure,” without further ado, he tells us “the story of his appeal to almighty repentance.” 74 Misha Chikhachov was a year older than Dimitri Brianchaninov (he was born in 1806). The conditions in which he spent his childhood had very little in common with those in which the son of Alexander Semenovich grew up. The youngest in the family and therefore, as often happens, especially pampered by his parents, he grew up in freedom on his native estate, located two hundred miles from the northern capital (in the Pskov province, Porkhov district). While his brothers and sisters were sent to state institutions for education, he remained at home until the age of 16, studying either under the guidance of specially invited teachers (mostly French), or with relatives or friends, where his mother placed him to teach science and the French language to their children. Studying did not present any difficulty for an intelligent and capable boy. A cheerful, carefree, and by his own admission even “fickle and playful” sixteen-year-old youth, accustomed at home to “pampering and chatter,” was brought to the same St. Petersburg Engineering School, where, at the request of his parents, Dimitri Alexandrovich also entered. Just as young Brianchaninov and Mikhail Chikhachov, upon entering the school, had a brilliant prospect for future service: having passed the exam well, he attracted the attention of the school authorities and the Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich himself, the inspector general, who chose him, like Brianchaninov, as his boarder and, visiting the school every day, often bestowed his kind words upon him. A merry fellow, a talker, with his soul wide open, who had never before thought about religious issues and had “a very dark concept of faith,” Misha Chikhachov, as he notes in his “Notes”, “neither in character, nor in piety, nor in inclinations,” was not like the serious, thoughtful, self-absorbed Dmitry Brianchaninov, “accustomed at home to a strict moral life and to piety." But the Lord, with destinies known to Him alone, united for the rest of their lives with the closest ties of true friendship pleasing to Him these two people, apparently so different from one another, merged them together into something so rare on earth, “unanimity and like-mindedness,” in which Chikhachov later perceived “God’s vision leading him to the path of repentance.” 75 “The extraordinary purity of the soul, as if illuminating with its unfading light the whole handsome, attractive appearance of young Brianchaninov and leaving the imprint of something “special” on him, involuntarily attracted Chikhachov to “talk with him about faith and be in close relations with him,” and, not hoping to make friends with this withdrawn, serious young man, Misha was still drawn to him with all his heart, because in in the depths of this heart, under the rough crust of earthiness, lurked an invisible living spring of the same selfless sincere love for the Almighty Creator, the same unshakable faith in Him and unshakable hope, a whole sea of which was in the soul of his young comrade. And Dimitri Alexandrovich, who later was distinguished by a rare ability to recognize people and had the gift, as it were, of reading with his inner eyes in the books of their souls, saw in Chikhachov a person close to him in spirit and realized that his duty was to awaken this sleeping soul from sleep, lead it out of prison, lead it to its true source - God. Once, listening to Chikhachov’s cheerful chatter, Brianchaninov interrupted him with the words: “Be a Christian!” “I have never been a Tatar,” the perplexed comrade objected to him. - “Yes, but we need to fulfill this word with action and delve deeper into it.” “I agree with that too,” answered Chikhachov. And from then on, after this brief but powerful calling to be a Christian not only in name, but in fact, friendship began between them, “friendship based on the word of God, on His commandments, on faith in the Redeemer - the Son of God, for whose sake the friends then decided not to spare anything that flattered in the world.” 76 This friendship of theirs, as Leskov notes, “had a special imprint of something ascetic; “Were they friends in order to support each other in their common desire to escape from everyday temptations to the sublime ideal of a pure life in the spirit of Christian teaching that raised them?” 77 “The most important thing in our situation now,” Brianchaninov inspired Chikhachov, “is to save ourselves from pride.” I don’t know how to be grateful for the undeserved mercy of the Grand Duke, but I constantly think about preserving what is most precious. You need to watch yourself so as not to become arrogant. I ask you: be my friend - watch over me and warn me so that I cannot lose the purity of my soul. Chikhachov promised him this help. “Great,” he answered: “I will always tell you the truth, but there will be no need for this, since you have already found the means to save yourself from temptation.” – What do you mean by this? – You yourself said: you must “not start”, and if you never start, then it will never begin. “Your truth,” Brianchaninov answered after thinking, “but still watch me.” I'm afraid that I might be dragged down this path by the very people who should be my example. After all, we “must be submissive to our superiors.” Yes, it’s true, Chikhachov answered and immediately noticed that Brianchaninov’s face suddenly seemed to light up with some kind of joyful thought - he took his comrade by both hands, squeezed them in his hands and, looking up with serious enthusiasm, as if reading under the high eaves of peace: “I see one sure way to avoid succumbing to the danger of temptation that people present, and you, perhaps, can guess what it is... “I think I can guess what you’re thinking.” – I think that we should always look to the God-man. Believe me, if we do not take our mental eyes off Him and try to follow Him in everything, then there is no danger for us, He will save us from the danger of losing ourselves in all cases of life. And here He is with us, and we are in Him, and He is in us. It seems to me that I now understand a new amazing meaning in these words... This mood of two young friends, who avoided all school pranks and were not interested in noisy social entertainment, could not help but be noticed by their comrades, and, according to Leskov, a “circle of lovers and admirers of holiness and honor” formed around them, consisting of about ten people. But we are more inclined to assume that it is unlikely that the comrades - secular young people could sincerely be imbued with this religious spirit of piety and piety - the innate traits of Brianchaninov. And, perhaps, it would be more accurate to think that if Dimitri Alexandrovich and Misha Chikhachov had imitators, then most of them did it rather out of a desire to attract the same merciful attention of the school authorities, to earn for themselves the same affectionate disposition of Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich, which Brianchaninov and Chikhachov enjoyed not only during their entire stay at the school, but also later. On the other hand, if they did not have many followers, then one cannot help but trust one of Dimitri Alexandrovich’s conscientious contemporary biographers, who testifies that this very original for a secular institution and noble direction, which Leskov calls “the desire for impeccability, honesty and even holiness,” caused “the ridicule of his comrades, who mocked the piety of two young friends and called them “monks and saints, fathers,” 79 which Chikhachov also mentions in his notes. But, making fun of the humble “monks” both in the eyes and behind the eyes, the comrades could not, however, fail to notice their true nobility, which was reflected in incorruptible honesty and truthfulness, “in preventing themselves from anger, lies, irritability, revenge and flattery.” 80 The comrades knew that Brianchaninov and Chikhachov could not be told about any bad school pranks, or about any manifestations of youth, because, without participating in them themselves, they directly said that they did not want to know anything about them, so that, in case of interrogation, they would not betray their comrades: they could not lie and hide what they knew; 81 But, if any serious misunderstanding was encountered, if someone was beset by grief or there was a need for help in the sciences, they boldly turned to the pious “comrade monks” and always found from them the warmest friendly participation, support, help, and good advice. As before in Pokrovskoe, the brothers and sisters, so here at the school, in case of disagreement between comrades, turned to Brianchaninov, and his opinion was taken as a decision, although he himself always avoided judging others, saying: “No one put me in charge of judging and dividing others.” 82 Chikhachov, in such cases, usually voluntarily concealed himself, trying whenever possible to give primacy to his friend. But, taking advantage of the advice and help of their always serious comrade in need, who shared with those in need everything that he could share, the young cadets, however, involuntarily avoided him, and this is quite understandable: secular young people must have seemed strange and incomprehensible to the way of life that Dimitri Alexandrovich and Chikhachov, who followed him, led at the school. In the cold and soulless northern capital, where there was no quiet solitude, which the young ascetic had loved so much since childhood. At the Engineering School, where only “human sciences” were studied, which did not reveal the Truth, but only obscured It; in a circle of young people who love to have fun and have fun with the recklessness characteristic of youth, and who are little inclined to think about the questions that have worried Dimitry Brianchaninov since childhood. In this environment, he remained as faithful as possible to his former habits, his spiritual aspirations, which he had cultivated in the solitude of his distant homeland. As it happened before, in Pokrovskoye, Mitenka loved to find solace in prayerful appeal to God, in hot tears before His All-Seeing Eye, in reading touching Psalms by heart, so now, living in the capital and studying at the school, he loved to indulge in mental prayer, praying mostly at night, when no one was watching him, and he could freely pour out his soul before the Heavenly Father. It often happened that, lying in bed, he raised his head from the pillow and began to read a prayer; and so, without changing his position, he did not stop praying from the evening until he had to get up in the morning and go to class for service. As it happened in childhood, Mitenka loved to visit his native Church of the Intercession, where his sensitive soul felt the presence of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, so as a cadet he stood for a long time in the church, prayed and sobbed; and, replacing the cadet’s uniform with an officer’s one, 83 he did not rejoice at this promotion, but grieved that now it would no longer be possible, as before, in the cadet’s uniform, having come to the church of God, stand in the crowd of soldiers, in the crowd of common people, pray and weep as much as your heart desires! 84 The young man, thus disposed, experiencing at the same time, as we noted above, a difficult, internal struggle with secular science and in need of spiritual reinforcement, could not be satisfied with the custom established at the school - only once a year to begin the Sacraments of Confession and Holy Communion. He felt the need to more often feed his soul with the Divine Body, broken for the remission of human sins, to water it with the Divine Blood of the New Testament, shed for sinful people. To satisfy his desire, he naturally turned to the teacher of the law and confessor of the school and began to often confess to him on Saturday and receive communion on Sunday. Revealing all the secrets of his heart, all his reserved thoughts to his friend Misha Chikhachov, with whom he shared joys and sorrows. Dimitri Alexandrovich did not hide this from him either, offering to follow them, “to keep up with him.” According to the recollections of Chikhachov himself, one Saturday, when it was possible to leave the school, Brianchaninov invited his friend to go with him to the priest, explaining that this was his custom; Confess on Saturday and receive communion on Sunday. Hearing this invitation, Misha at first came to “amazement and great confusion”; Fear attacked him: how is it possible, without any preparation, to go to confession and begin Communion, when he was accustomed to “fasting” completely differently, once a year; first go to church, and then finish with confession and acceptance of the Holy Mysteries? But his friend with his love drew him along, reassuring him that this was not his business, but his confessor’s. And from that time on, Chikhachov “kept up” with his friend and every week went to confession with him. But while Dimitri Alexandrovich, from early childhood inclined to prayerfully confess the innermost thoughts of his religiously minded soul before his Creator, found relief and peace in this frequent acceptance of the Body and Blood of Christ. His friend, who was not accustomed to this, experienced an internal shudder, feeling, as it seemed to him, “his enormous unworthiness,” and over the course of a week, with all external absent-mindedness, engaged in science and various military exercises, he often mourned this unworthiness with hot tears, fought strongly with his heart, “forced him to do everything good,” turning him away from vicious habits, defeating in his agitated soul “the internal strong uprising of passions and habits, enraged counteract them." 85 And an invisible power from above supported this soul that was pleasing to her “in the field of voluntary martyrdom and confession,” sending her strong support in the person of such a friend, “who admonished her with his prudence, and always laid down his life for her, and shared with her every grief.” 86 But the confessor of the school, to whom friends went every week, did not understand the ideal impulses of the young boys, who represented such an extraordinary phenomenon among students, and, having heard that the students revealing their souls to him “were struggling with many sinful thoughts,” he considered it his duty to report this to the school authorities. This latter interpreted “sinful thoughts” in the sense of “political designs” and subjected the young friends to formal interrogation. First, Chikhachov was called to account: what were they talking about with the priest, was it about criminal plans against the government? Not satisfied with his negative answer, the head of the school, Lieutenant General Count Sivers, also interrogated Brianchaninov, “who had to repeat his confession before the generals of the Lutheran confession, to whom can the Orthodox confession be understood”? 87 Excited by the fact that he had to tell what he wanted to keep in the strictest confidence, Dimitri Alexandrovich fell ill and went to bed, and “from that time on,” Chikhachov says in his notes, I never saw him completely healthy.” “The ideal impulses of a pure soul were not understandable to the school authorities; they considered them the empty ravings of an abnormal boy” 88 and began to monitor the young ascetics. But feeling the need to cleanse and lighten their souls through confession and having already tasted its blessed fruits, these latter could not abandon their custom to please the authorities; they were only forced to choose another confessor for themselves. Taught by experience, the friends began to go secretly from the school authorities to the monks of the Valaam metochion, “to services and for confession and communion.” These simple, pious servants of Christ felt the sincerity of the young people, received them with love, talked with them “about the benefit of the soul,” and gave them what instruction they could. But, as people without scientific education, they were more inclined to external feat than to internal piety, and could not satisfy the educated seekers of feat. Feeling themselves that they could not give the young ascetics what these latter were looking for, the Valaam monks advised them to turn for spiritual edification to the monks of the Neva Lavra: “Here you will not satisfy your soul,” one of them, Fr. Seraphim 89 to Dimitri Alexandrovich: “and, if you like, there are disciples of Fr. Leonid, an experienced elder who received a monastic education from the disciples of Elder Paisius of Moldova, 90 they will better show you this path and can introduce you to their elder.” 91 This advice was a guiding star for the young seeker of spiritual life. Brianchaninov found the students of Fr. Leonidas, hieromonks: Aaron, Chariton and Ioannikis, became acquainted with them, and through them with the Lavra confessor, Fr. Athanasius, and friends began to visit them, rejoicing that they had found true mentors who understood their spiritual aspirations; besides, they liked the service in the Nevsky Lavra, more majestic and longer than at the Valaam courtyard, more. The father of Dimitri Alexandrovich A.S. learned about these visits to the Lavra. Brianchaninov. His faithful servant - the former uncle of his sons - the old man Dorimedont, who was assigned to Demetrius and the brothers who lived with him, to serve them and to supervise their lives, could not help but inform his master about this, sending detailed reports to Pokrovskoye about the pastime of the young gentlemen. But while about Pyotr Alexandrovich he could report to Alexander Semenovich something like such a fact as “being at the gentlemen Annenkov’s evening, they deigned to lose a cambric handkerchief with a monogram,” and about Mikhail Alexandrovich, that “that same evening they deigned to buy expensive perfume, for 6 rubles a tiny bottle, and I reported that you could scent yourself with cologne, on “There’s nothing to look at all the helipads here,” and to which Mikhail Alexandrovich “deigned to say, having laughed quite a bit: you yourself, Dorimidont Dmitrich, spray yourself with cologne, and not only do I spray myself, but my heart hurts over every kindness of your master’s penny”; while about Alexander Alexandrovich Dorimedont had to report that “Alexander Alexandrovich deigns not to return at night for a long time and conversations are not very similar among other gentlemen officers,” about the life of Dimitri Alexandrovich he could not report to the master anything else except that “Dimitri Alexandrovich deigns to stay in the Lavra without objection, when only he is free from duty in the palace, the linen is with Dimitri Alexandrovich is all intact, who came with us from the estate, and they are friends only with one gentleman officer Ch-vy and go to the Lavra together.” 92 Alexander Semenovich, who did not even allow the thought of a non-secular career for his son and painted brilliant pictures of his future secular service with bright colors, was upset by such news; he knew that his eldest son had been in the same mood since childhood, but this had previously seemed to him like childish whims, which should disappear without a trace in the bustle of metropolitan life, in a purely secular educational institution, after meeting cheerful and often frivolous comrades. The father would have come to terms with the news that the eldest son was leading the distracted life of a frivolous young man in the capital; True, perhaps he would have frowned a little, reading the reports of a faithful servant about his nocturnal adventures, about spending money on unnecessary luxuries, just as he frowned and shrugged his shoulders when receiving similar news about the lives of his other sons. Perhaps he would have scolded him for this, but in his heart he would have admitted to himself that all this was in the order of things: he was young, frivolous, having fun... But commitment to the Nevsky Lavra is a completely different matter; serious attention should be paid to this. The father now saw that the desire of the eldest son, who, while still just going to school, when asked what type of service he preferred, without thinking, answered: “service to the Heavenly King,” 93 were not empty words, that the son always carried in his heart the desire to become a monk, without parting with them in the bustle of the noisy capital. But allowing his son to stand his ground, to go, guided even by his inner calling, but against the will of his father, was not in the character of Alexander Semenovich, who could not stand any disobedience. Not being able to influence his son from afar and seeing that written instructions do not have the desired effect on him, Dimitri Alexandrovich continues to visit the Lavra with his friend Chikhachov. Alexander Semenovich turned for assistance to the head of the school, Count Sivers, his former comrade in the page service, asking for his assistance and help. The school authorities took strict measures: Brianchaninov was transferred from a private apartment, where he lived with his brothers, to a government apartment, within the walls of the Mikhailovsky Engineering Castle under strict supervision. Now Dimitri Alexandrovich could be inseparable from his friend Misha Chikhachov, who lived there, but visits to the Lavra, which friends did not stop despite any prohibitions, became, of course, much more difficult and less frequent, since they were carried out secretly from the authorities. This continued until they were allowed to move into a private apartment; this was when Misha Chikhachov also became an officer. 94 Having completed the course in the cadet classes and leaving the walls of the school, the officer friends settled closer to the Lavra, according to Leskov, on Nevsky Prospect, in the large and very absurd house of Lopatin, which is now broken down and which was located where Pushkinskaya Street now lies. 95 Now no one could prevent them, removed from the supervision of a closed educational institution, from using their time in accordance with their aspirations and tastes, leading the most strict, purely monastic lifestyle, observing fast days, not attending any entertainment and, most importantly, attending church every day. According to Chikhachov’s Testimony, their life at that time proceeded as follows: from seven o’clock in the morning to one o’clock in the afternoon they spent at the school, in classes; Having returned to their place and having had a modest dinner, they went to Vespers at the Lavra, where, at the end of the service, they visited one of Fr. Leonida for conversation. But of the three hieromonks they knew, only one, Fr., soon remained in the monastery. Ioannikiy, and the other two (Fr. Aaron and Fr. Chariton), by appointment of the authorities, moved to other monasteries. With o. John and Lavra confessor Father Athanasius, the young people consulted about everything related to internal monastic work, they confessed their thoughts to them, without hiding anything for the benefit of the soul, they learned from them “to protect themselves from passions; from thoughts, from desires,” 96 They asked them for advice on what books they should read from the works of the Holy Fathers. And rich in experience, the good elders were never lazy in giving instructions to the wise young men. Having intensified his zeal for the deeds of piety and devoting all his free time from studies to diligently reading the books of the Holy Fathers: Demetrius of Rostov, John Chrysostom, Philokalia, Climacus and others, drawing from them both the way of thinking, the spiritual mind, and the methods for saving the soul, Dimitri Alexandrovich now became a complete ascetic in his soul, “he led his life very carefully from worldly lures, and from comrades, and from acquaintances,” 97 and became more and more strengthened in his always-on intention to go to the monastery. His friend Chikhachov made the same decision. But this desire of the young ascetics was not easy to fulfill. Alexander Semenovich, seeing that the school authorities were unable, it turned out, to distract his son from his adopted intention and receiving from this last letter with a request to allow him to retire after graduating from school and begin serving God, chose another, more faithful, as it seemed to him, path: he wrote a hot letter to his relative Sukhareva, an influential person in St. Petersburg, who, “taking advantage of the acquaintance and disposition of Metropolitan Seraphim,” 98 brought to his attention that two officers too often visit the Nevsky Monastery, one of whom is her nephew Brianchaninov, personally known to the Sovereign Emperor and loved by him; that the confessor of the Lavra, Fr. Athanasius seems to be persuading him to become a monk; that the Sovereign does not like this, and, therefore, if this happens, then he himself, the Metropolitan, will not escape big troubles. The Elder Metropolitan believed the slander and, calling his confessor and not listening to any of his excuses, gave him a severe reprimand and forbade him to henceforth accept young officers. Having learned about this and regretting that the kind, innocent Father Afanasy had to endure trouble because of them, Dimitri Alex decided to personally explain himself to the Metropolitan. During the meeting, as Chikhachov later recalled, he justified his confessor by saying that he never asked him for advice, and at the same time openly said that, indeed, he “had a desire and calling to go to a monastery, to spend a monastic life and to overcome with the help of God all obstacles, no matter what kind they were”; The Bishop, probably not believing the pure and unselfish desire of the young man, at first dissuaded him from this, pointing out his youth, the shortness of his future career, since he, a person without an academic education, could not be anything more than an archimandrite; when even after this the young man stood his ground, the Metropolitan resolutely said that he would not allow him to join any of the monasteries of his diocese. In response to this, the serious words of the future Ignatius were heard: “Not only in your diocese, but throughout all of Russia, if they had not accepted me, I would have found a place where they professed the Orthodox faith!” The consequence of this conversation was that Father Afanasy was allowed to continue to receive young people. 99 “Such was Brianchaninov’s desire for monastic life; it was not a whimsical desire to present oneself as an original in society; This was not a consequence of simple disappointment with life, of which he had not yet had time to experience bitterness and pleasure: it was a pure intention, alien to all worldly calculations, a sincere holy feeling of Divine love, which alone is capable of mastering the being of the soul with such force that no obstacles are able to overcome it.” 100 And there were a lot of such obstacles: not only people, but also nature itself seemed to rebel against the pious intentions of the young ascetic: being in poor health from birth; in the spring of 1826, he fell so seriously ill that he was unable to get out of bed. Having learned about this, Sovereign Nikolai Pavlovich ordered that the patient be treated by his own doctors and that he be informed daily about the health of his beloved officer. The famous doctors of the capital found all the signs of consumption in Brianchaninov and, considering his situation hopeless, did not hide the danger from the patient himself. Feeling very bad, Dimitri Alexandrovich calmly prepared to pass into eternity through prayer and frequent communion. But the Omniscient Lord needed the life of His future servant, and, to the surprise of the doctors who sentenced him to imminent death, he got out of bed and little by little recovered so much that he was able to begin his studies again. The life of the young friends again flowed in the same order, only having suffered a serious illness and, as it were, standing on the border between life and death, Dimitri Alexandrovich became even more concentrated, even stricter towards himself, even more strengthened in his intention to leave the world, seeing in his recovery as an instruction from above to dedicate to God this life returned by His Mercy. “The heart has grown cold towards the world, towards its services, towards its greatness, towards its sweetness!” He later wrote about this time: “I decided to leave the world, to devote my earthly life to the knowledge of Christ, to assimilate Christ. With this intention I began to consider the monastic and lay clergy. And here labor met me; it was increased for me by my youth and inexperience. But I saw everything up close, and upon entering the monastery, I did not find anything new or unexpected. There were so many obstacles to this entry! I’ll leave mentioning everyone; my body itself cried out to me: “Where are you taking me? I'm so weak and sick. You have seen the monasteries, you have become briefly acquainted with them; life in them is unbearable for you, both because of my weakness, and because of your upbringing, and for all other reasons.” “Reason confirmed the arguments of the flesh. But there was a voice, a voice in my heart, I think, the voice of conscience or, perhaps, a Guardian Angel, who told me the will of God, because the voice was decisive and commanding. He told me: to do this is your duty, an indispensable duty. The voice was so strong that the ideas of the mind, the pitiful, solid, apparently convictions of the flesh seemed insignificant before it.” 101 Meanwhile, by the special Providence of God, Hieromonk Leonid happened to come to the capital on business, about whom the monks of the Valaam metochion had spoken to Brianchaninov and Chikachov and about whom they had heard a lot from his students - the monks of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. Dimitri Alexandrovich met with Fr. Ioannikei with this elder ascetic, famous for his spiritual life. A conversation full of wisdom and monastic experience with Fr. Leonidas, who was close to Demetrius in spirit, made an extraordinary impression on his soul, thirsty for spiritual food. And already, after this first conversation, he became the spiritual son of the elder. “Father Leonid ripped my heart out,” 102 he said about this to Misha Chikhachov: “now the matter is decided - I’m going to ask to resign from service and follow the elder, I’ll surrender to him with all my soul and I’ll seek the only salvation of my soul in solitude.” 103 After Elder Leonid left for the Alexander-Svirsky Monastery, where he settled at that time, Brianchaninov and Chikhachov did not break off relations with him: they constantly corresponded with him, opening their souls to him and cherishing plans for future asceticism under his experienced and wise leadership. Knowing the views of his adamant father on this, Dimitri Alexandrovich, however, wanted to try to get from him, if not a blessing, then at least permission to march along the monastic path he had chosen; he was tormented by the hostility of his parents towards his cherished desire and calling, which he, however, firmly decided not to give up even if he had to incur the wrath of his parents, since he well remembered the words of Christ that whoever loves his father or mother more than Him is not worthy of Him. A convenient opportunity to finally announce to his parents his unchangeable and unshakable decision and ask for their consent presented itself: in June 1826, young Brianchaninov, having received a three-month leave from service to improve his still poor health, went home to Pokrovskoye. But no matter how carefully he prepared his parents for the supposed change in his life, no matter how hotly and tearfully he asked them to give their consent to this, his father, and after him his mother, did not even want to hear about the monasticism of their first-born, which was destroying all their ambitious plans for his brilliant secular career. Having not achieved the consent of his parents, with a heart full of deep sorrow the young officer returned to St. Petersburg, where, in the words of his biographer Archpriest Znamensky, another, more terrible storm was preparing to meet him: he had to defend his cherished desire before the Monarch, to whom he owed his upbringing, education and gratitude for his gracious, high attention to him. 104 It was a struggle; requiring all the moral strength of the young ascetic, a struggle in which he had to either yield or show “an example of unshakable courage, martyrdom, direct confession.” 105 At the end of December, having brilliantly (first) passed the final exam at the Engineering School, Dimitri Aleksandrovich immediately submitted a petition for dismissal from service due to poor health. “Here something extraordinary, majestic, reminiscent of the ancient times of Christianity began in Brianchaninov’s life.” 106 Having learned about the desire of his beloved “sergeant major” (Tsar Nikolai Pavlovich liked to call Brianchaninov that way - sergeant major of the conductor company) to retire, His Majesty, who had high hopes for his future useful service in the engineering department, demanded him to join him and himself fatherly admonished him not to leave the service. Loyally thanking the Emperor for all the favors shown to him, Brianchaninov, however, remained adamant in his desire. 107 Then the Emperor instructed his August brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Pavlovich, who was then inspector general of the Engineering School, to try to dissuade the beloved engineer from his intentions. Brianchaninov was demanded to the Mikhailovsky Palace to the Grand Duke, who, in the presence of the chief commander of all military educational institutions, Count Opperman, tried to find out what was forcing him to resign: “does he want to decide on secular affairs”? If he wants the salvation of his soul, then wouldn’t it be more glorious to be saved in the world?” “Does he want to choose some place in southern Russia to improve his health, because the Emperor does not want to dismiss him?” 108 Brianchaninov gave sincere, direct, polite, albeit negative answers to all questions, for, as his unhypocritical friend Chikhachov testifies, “he always expressed his opinions simply, without succumbing to people-pleasing out of a desire to please his superiors or other high-ranking persons who asked him about anything.” 109 He referred to his poor health, which makes it impossible for him to carry out official work, and said that, foreseeing his imminent death, he must take care mainly to prepare himself for the future life, for which he wants to enter a monastery, for, while remaining in the world, it is impossible to be saved: “To remain in the world and wish to be saved, - this, Your Highness, he said, is the same as standing in fire and wishing not to burn.” 110 After much fruitless exhortation, the Grand Duke, announcing to him that the Sovereign was refusing to dismiss him, invited him to choose his own place for service. When he, as if imposing the first obedience on himself, refused this, the Highest will of His Imperial Majesty was announced to him: within 24 hours to leave the capital to the place, by the same will, determined for him to serve in the Dinaburg fortress, where he was supposed to oversee the production of various buildings and earthworks. Submissive to the royal will, relying on the Grace of God, the young engineer went to Dinaburg and began to fulfill his duties, difficult for his weak health, which became even worse here; He was forced not to leave his room for several weeks at a time and “spent the whole year mostly ill.” 111 Separated from his beloved friend Mikhail Chikhachov, who still remained in St. Petersburg, he eased his aching soul only through spiritual communication with Father Leonid, supporting himself with the hope that the Merciful Lord, having mercy on him, would fulfill his desire when the time came. Taking advantage of the Grand Duke's visit to Dinaburg (in the fall of 1827), he again submitted a petition for his dismissal from service. Seeing the young engineer’s inflexibility and becoming convinced of his incurable mental anguish and physical ill health, Mikhail Pavlovich sent his adjutant to him to tell him that, although a prominent and useful place in the state was being prepared for him, there was no law to hold anyone by force. in the service, he fires him. 112 Thus, “the longed-for moment has arrived”: having received the Highest decree of resignation on November 6, 1827, engineer-lieutenant 113 in the clothes of a commoner, arrived in St. Petersburg and, first of all, hastened, of course, to his friend Chikhachov to share with him the good news of his freedom. During a short but full of spiritual joy meeting after a whole year of separation, having informed Misha of his decision to immediately go to the Alexander-Svirsky Monastery to the elder Leonid who was staying there, Dimitri Alexandrovich, who always cared about the salvation of the soul of his friend, as if entrusted to him by God Himself, asked him: “Now I’m already on my way; How do you think you will arrange your future life? Have you thought about following me yet? Chikhachov, to whom it always seemed that, although he wanted with all his heart to imitate the immaculate life of his comrade in everything, but “was far, far behind him in weakness, and in laziness, and in the vices ingrained from childhood, from which he could not get behind with all his efforts, 114 answered sincerely that, without relying on his own strength, he would follow his friend only if the latter promised never to leave him without your help. “Resign,” comrade exclaimed when he heard this, “and it goes without saying that I won’t resign!” 115 Now a petition was written in which Chikhachov asked for his dismissal from service, citing disorder at home and myopia as the reason. But the mutual desire of the friends - to begin serving the Lord together - was not destined to be fulfilled immediately: Chikhachov’s request for resignation was not accepted, he remained in service for another year, and Dimitri Alexandrovich alone went to his spiritual father in the Alexander-Svirsky Monastery. Having received the consent of the abbot, 116 he put on the novice robe - a cassock made of thick black cloth and joined the monastic brethren. : I entered the monastery, as an astonished person rushes, closing his eyes and putting aside reflection, into the fire or the abyss; how a warrior, carried away by his heart, rushes into a bloody battle, to obvious death. The star, my guide, a good thought, came to shine for me in solitude, in silence, or, more correctly, in darkness, in the storms of the monastery.” (Works of Bishop Ignatius, vol.: I: , p. 563). For a young twenty-year-old ascetic, upon entering the Alexander-Svirsky Monastery 117, a new life begins, difficult, but voluntarily chosen, a life of moral and physical trials, a life of all kinds of hardships and complete selflessness, a life of voluntary martyrdom. “Without impulse, without ardor, like a slave, carried away by an irresistible feeling of heart, some incomprehensible and inexplicable calling, I entered the monastery,” Dimitri Alexandrovich says about this time in his “Lamentation”: “I entered the monastery, as an astonished one rushes, closing his eyes and putting aside reflection, into the fire or the abyss, - like a warrior rushes, carried away heart, into a bloody slaughter, to obvious death. The star, my guide, a good thought, came to shine for me in solitude, in silence, or, more correctly, in darkness, in the storms of the monastery.” 118 Knowing that “the fathers of the first centuries of the Church especially advise to seek a God-inspired leader, to surrender to him in perfect, unconditional obedience,” and the fathers of later times, calling God-inspired leaders a heritage of antiquity, “already decisively bequeath to the leadership the Holy and Holy Scriptures and the advice of contemporary and cohabiting brethren, verified according to these scriptures, accepted with the greatest prudence and caution”; 119 at the same time deeply aware of the need for an experienced leader in the field of spiritual life. Dimitri Alexandrovich gave himself into perfect, unquestioning obedience to Elder Leonid, spending his days in the Svirsky Monastery “in obedience and in denying himself in everything.” 120 Like the ancient elders, he daily confessed to the elder not only his deeds and actions, but also all his thoughts, revealing to him the innermost recesses of his soul, and in everything obeying the will of his spiritual father, he killed his own will, doing nothing according to his own desire and understanding, without contradicting the elder in anything. In addition, knowing that in order for “the gospel properties to become stronger and mature in a monk, sorrows and temptations are certainly necessary; his meekness must be tested; his humility must be tested; patience and faith are tested; must be tested to see whether the Gospel, the words and commandments of Christ, in which there is eternal life, are dearer to him, whether they are dearer than the advantages, conveniences and customs of the world, whether life itself is dearer,” 121 the young ascetic revealed unparalleled meekness, exceeding all possible humility and unbroken patience, and that the teaching of eternal life, not only in words, but in reality, is dearer to him than all the advantages, conveniences and the customs of the world - he proved even earlier, giving up a secular career, which was in full swing, and finding himself from the very beginning of his monasticism upon entering the monastery in complete material need, for angry with his son’s unauthorized withdrawal from service, his parents refused him material assistance and even stopped written communications with him. – Father Leonid, as an unhypocritical mentor, wanting to overcome in the student who devoted himself with all his soul the arrogance, pride and conceit, usually inherent in every noble and educated person who is among the common people, and wanting to test his character and be sure that his humility was not feigned, but true, imposed on him the most difficult, senile tests, but the young ascetic, with sincere love for God, surrendered monastic deeds, without the slightest murmur or contradiction, with a tender and joyful heart, he fulfilled everything that his mentor demanded, assimilating with his pure soul the teaching of Barsanuphius the Great, as if personally spoken to him: “Hearing the words of the Apostle - give thanks in everything, - prepare to give thanks for everything; and whether you are in sorrows, or needs, or oppressions, or in illnesses and physical labors, thank God for everything that befalls you.” Brianchaninov's first obedience in the monastery was serving as a cook. Although the Svirsky monastery was a cenobitic monastery, according to the order that had long been established there, for some reason the cooks were always elected from among the full-time ministers stationed at the monastery, who did not treat the monastics very respectfully. On the very first day Brianchaninov entered the kitchen, the cook, who was his father’s serf, sent the new novice assigned to him to fetch flour from the barn, throwing him a sack that covered him all in white dust. Dimitri Alexandrovich humbly took the bag and followed the cook. When it was necessary to pour flour in the barn, he stretched the bag with both hands and, at the cook’s order, grabbed one of the edges with his teeth to make it easier to pour in the flour. Subsequently, Brianchaninov could never forget this incident from his religious monastic life and, often recalling it, says that after that he never felt in his heart such a joyful, delightful feeling, such admiration - complete complete oblivion of his “I” in monastic humility, which he experienced at that moment. Another time, a commoner monk in charge of fishing sent a young novice to retrieve a fishing net that had become tangled there from the depths of the lake, and Dimitri Alexandrovich, despite the fact that it was a cold autumn, and swimming at such a time was very dangerous for his always weak health, unquestioningly carried out the order, for which he later almost paid with his life: he caught a bad cold. But not only some brethren experienced the depth and sincerity of his obedience and humility, trying to deliberately offend and humiliate him, and Elder Leonid himself, his mentor, led him, as indicated above, along a difficult and difficult path into external and internal humility; Often in the severe winter cold, when his hands were wandering from the merciless northern cold, Brianchaninov, like a coachman, drove his elder in a wagon for all sorts of monastic needs. So one day he brought Father Leonid to Nikolai Akimovich Barkov 122 “a true ascetic in the world”; and Barkov subsequently spoke about this incident like this: “Father Fr. Leonidas was pleased to welcome me, a sinner; there was a snowstorm and blizzard outside. While worrying about the samovar, I completely forgot that the priest had not arrived alone; I asked him for his blessing to invite his driver for a cup of tea. The novice came in, so young and handsome, and humbly placed himself at the very threshold. “Cold, nobleman?” said the priest, treating him with a smile; “Do you know who this is?” he asked, turning to me: “This is Brianchaninov.” I bowed low to him and thought to myself: Lord my God! At such an age, with such virtues – and so much humility!” 123 Such repeated cases of unquestioning obedience gained the young ascetic the respect of the monastery brethren, who at first were prejudiced towards him. But this did not please the humble monk: his soul thirsted for exploits not before the eyes of people, but only before the Eye of the All-Seeing, and, according to the testimony of his friend Chikhachov, he was very burdened by life in this crowded monastery, striving for quiet solitude. This desire was partly fulfilled relatively quickly: after spending about a year in the Svirsky monastery, the young hermit left it and moved to another monastery, more convenient for a strict and solitary life. After a vision from St. Alexander of Svirsky, who himself took Demetrius Alexandrovich by the hand from the shrine of his relics, as if announcing to him the will of God, to leave this place, 124 by general advice it was decided to move Elder Leonid with all his disciples to the Ploshchanskaya hermitage. 125 Going to New Place and passing through St. Petersburg, Dimitri Alexandrovich stopped at Chikhachov’s apartment. Opening his soul in a sincere conversation to his friend who completely trusted him and feeling obligated to share his first impressions of monastic life, which he already had the opportunity to get to know more closely, he did not hide from Chikhachov that the leadership of Father Leonid did not completely satisfy him, for the elder could not solve all his perplexities, which, for the most part, he had to solve himself. 126 But it is not correct to think that Dimitri Alexandrovich, striving for higher leadership, did not appreciate the good instructions of Father Leonid; his own words indicate just the opposite: “I wanted to be under the guidance of a mentor; “But I was not able to find a mentor who would completely satisfy me, who would be animated by the teaching of the Fathers,” he wrote later (in 1847), when Elder Leonid was resting peacefully in his grave (he died in 1841): “However, I heard a lot of useful things, a lot of essentially necessary things, which turned into the main principles of my soul-edification. May the Lord rest in a green place, in a place of coolness, in a place of light and bliss, the departed benefactors of my soul!” 127 After a short meeting with a friend, Dimitri Alexandrovich went to the Ploshchanskaya hermitage, and Chikhachov still remained in the capital to serve for the last time, looking forward to that happy moment when he too would be able to join the ranks of the Lord’s servants. Taking advantage of the favorable opportunity when his main commanders marched with the army against the Turks (the battalion in which Chikhachov served was among those left in the capital), Mikhail Vasilyevich submitted a second resignation to his closest superior, Colonel Lutsa. But before the decree of dismissal was received; he had to go to Bobruisk to train recruits. But as soon as Chikhachov arrived at his destination, he immediately received notice of his resignation, and, without hesitating a minute, he went by mail to the Bogoroditskaya Ploshchanskaya hermitage, where his comrade already lived. And so on January 11, 1829, another true follower of Christ “took up his cross” and embarked on the difficult and sorrowful path of the procession to God, offering sincere thanks to heaven “for deliverance from the snares of the world, albeit only external ones. 128 Rejoicing that the Lord helped them to unite again in the quiet shelter of monastic solitude, the friends inseparably followed the path of unquestioning and uncomplaining obedience. The order and rite of worship in the Ploshchansky monastery differed from ordinary monasteries in its severity and duration. The brethren living there numbered about 200 people. The main rule among the disciples of Elder Leonid was this: every day in the evening, after all services, come to him and take turns giving an account of your deeds and thoughts for the whole day. “It often happened,” Chikhachov later recalled: “you will come to Father Leonid and convey all your troubles to him, and with some simple words and blessings he will soothe the sorrow of your heart and renew your dull spirit that you will leave him completely renewed, as if reborn as a new person, and you will begin again with zeal and pleasure for the internal feat of cleansing your heart from passions.” 129 Indulging in long prayer and relieving his soul by daily confessing his thoughts to his spiritual mentor, Dimitri Alexandrovich, however, was burdened by the frequent visits of the elder by pilgrims, numerous meetings and conversations, leading to absent-mindedness; jealous of the salvation of his own soul and the soul of his inexperienced friend, he wanted to separate himself from everyone, to lead a more secluded, hermitage life, since he realized that “the whole burden of the life newly chosen by him and his friend lay on his soul,” and “he had to watch over the soul of both his and his friend, so that instead of salvation, both would not fall into destruction; 130 Not receiving the blessing of Father Leonid for such a separation, the young ascetic began to grieve and yearn to the obvious detriment of his health: “he was completely exhausted and exhausted.” 131 But the hand of God did not leave him without his almighty help: one morning, when his friend went to matins at 2 o’clock, and he himself, due to his illness, was forced to stay in his cell, great Mercy descended on the young monk - not in a dream, but only in a subtle and very slight drowsiness, a wonderful vision visited him: he saw a light cross in the weight of his height, and some mysterious Gospel inscription on the cross. Above the cross were the branches and hands of Christ the Savior; He and his friend stood at the cross, and a voice came to him from the cross: “Do you know what the words written on the cross mean?” - No, Lord, I don’t know. “This means,” continued the invisible voice, a sincere renunciation of the world and everything earthly. Do you know why the branches and hands of Christ the Savior are tilted to the other side (on which his friend Chikhachov stood in the vision)? “And I don’t know that, Lord,” he said. Then the voice answered him clearly and significantly: “This means that he too must participate in your suffering.” 132 This is how the vision ended, and Dimitri Alexandrovich “from then on felt the extraordinary power of spiritual reason and the resolution of all his perplexities.” Returning from Matins, Chikhachov found his friend, whom he left sick, cheerful, cheerful, calm, without traces of recent illness. When Father Leonid learned about the miraculous vision, he allowed the friends to live together, separately from others, and no longer be under his eldership, but to be under the guidance of a common monastery confessor. Having settled in a secluded cell, located in the monastery garden 133 separately from the general fraternal building, the young novices completely devoted themselves to the ascetic life; avoiding crowds, they left the cell only to the church to listen to the service, and to the refectory to eat, rarely talking with any of the brethren. Rejoicing in their hermitage and desired solitude, the ascetics directed all the strength of their souls to contemplation of God and prayer. In calm weather, on clear sunny winter days, Dimitri Alexandrovich loved to go out onto the porch, sit on a bench and look at the vast garden, the nakedness of which was covered with snow. It was quiet all around; nothing disturbed the majestic peace of nature. The pensive gaze of the young ascetic was involuntarily drawn to the spectacle spread out before him, and from childhood, his beloved nature revealed its secrets to him. One day, as he gazed intently at the garden, a veil fell, as if suddenly, from the eyes of his soul, and the book of nature, the book given to the primordial Adam to read, the book containing the words of the Spirit, like Divine Scripture, opened before him. What teaching did the young ascetic read in the garden? The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is a strong doctrine, a teaching depicting an action similar to the resurrection. The naked branches of the trees convincingly spoke to him in their mysterious language: “We will come to life, we will be covered with leaves, we will be fragrant, we will be decorated with flowers and fruits, “will not the dry bones of men come to life during their spring?” And the young hermit believed that they, these dry bones, would come to life and take on flesh; in a new form they will enter a new life and a new world. Just as trees that could not withstand the severity of the frost, that have lost their vital sap, are cut down at the onset of spring and taken out of the garden for fuel, so sinners who have lost their life - God, will be gathered on the last day of this age, in the beginning of the future eternal day, and cast into the unquenchable fire. Reasoning this way, the thoughtful young man knew that if it were possible to find a person who would not know the transformations produced by the changes of the seasons; If you were to bring this wanderer into the garden, majestically resting in the sleep of death during winter, show him the naked trees and tell him about the luxury in which they will be clothed in the spring, then, instead of answering, he would only look and smile - these words would seem such an impossible fable to him! Likewise, the resurrection of the dead seems incredible to the sages, wandering in the darkness of earthly wisdom, who did not know that God is omnipotent, that His manifold Wisdom can be contemplated, but not comprehended by the mind of creatures. Everything is possible for God: there are no miracles for Him. But human thinking is weak: what we are not used to seeing seems to us an impossible thing, an incredible miracle. The works of God, which we constantly and indifferently look at, are wondrous works, great miracles, incomprehensible. 134 Thus, nature, which annually repeats before the eyes of all mankind the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, depicting it with a transformative mysterious action, gave Dimitri Alexandrovich, who contemplated it, content for his thoughts on God, which he poured out in inspired poetic lines, revealing to us his inner life of this time. His pure, God-thought soul, under the material appearance of the visible world, as if seeing through the invisible, spiritual world, as before in the Alexander-Svirsky monastery, and now, sent to the Creator of everything, “from the midst of battles that shake the mind and heart, from the midst of illnesses, tormenting and relaxing the body, from the midst of many infirmities that embrace the whole existence,” sent out a tearful prayer: “Lord, hear the prayer mine! Turning to the One who heard Jonah praying in the belly of the whale, the young ascetic prayed: “Lord, hear my voice! Bring my soul out of the prison of passions, shed gracious light into it! When you shed this light into her, a bright and joyful and life-giving light, then she will confess to your name!.. You, Lord, are my hope! Then only can I be in the land of the living, in the land of Your holy truth, when You, Lord, send down Your grace into my heart; when, having moved into my heart, you will be part of my property, my only property and treasure! And then Your Holy Angels will rejoice, the faces of those who have pleased You will rejoice, seeing my salvation.” 135 Reading these heartfelt lines, we see that the quiet solitude that Dimitri Alexandrovich so strove for and which he finally found in his secluded cell, “refined his feelings, refined his thoughts, expanding the range of their action.” 136 But the friends did not have long to enjoy the peaceful shelter in the Ploshchanskaya hermitage: the housekeeper of the Oryol bishop's house, appointed here as rector, flatly refused to accept Elder Leonid into the monastery entrusted to him. Then the elder went with his disciples to the Optina Vvedenskaya hermitage, 137 where he remained until his death. This time Brianchaninov and Chikhachov did not immediately follow the elder, thinking that they, who were no longer considered his disciples, would be allowed to live as they had lived until that time. But soon, after Father Leonid’s departure, the new abbot ordered them to leave the monastery. The elder brethren of the monastery, who were kind to the well-behaved young novices and respected them for their quiet and strict life, pooled five rubles and, sadly seeing off the innocent exiles from the monastery, handed them this money for their journey. With regret and great need, the young novices set off on their journey, heading to the Beloberezh desert located nearby (in the same Oryol province). Along the way, they visited the Svensky Monastery and eased their souls by talking with those who labored there, in retreat, Hieromonk Athanasius, a disciple of the Moldavian Elder Paisius Velichkovsky. 138 His teaching on the beneficialness of crying for sins and his saying: “On the day on which I do not cry for myself as lost, I consider myself in self-delusion,” sank deeply into the soul of Dimitri Alexandrovich. The wanderers, not accepted in the White Banks, arrived in Optina Pustyn, where Fr., who had arrived here a little earlier, lived in a secluded cell in an apiary. Leonid. Having settled in Optina Pustyn, Fr. Leonid, at the request of the then rector of this monastery, Fr. Moses and the brother of his hermitage leader, Fr. Anthony introduced and strengthened here that image of monastic life, which is called eldership. The attitude of spiritual children to their spiritual father, required by eldership, can be characterized by the following signs borrowed from the Philokalia, 139: a spiritual son, surrendering to the elder, must 1) show complete faith to his mentor and primate; 2) to be true to him in word and deed; 3) not to fulfill your will in anything, but try to cut it off in everything, i.e. do nothing according to your own desire and understanding, but always ask about everything and do it according to the advice and will of your mentor and primate; 4) he must not contradict or argue at all, since contradiction and argumentation come from reasoning with unbelief and arrogance; 5) sincerely confess to your mentor the sins and secrets of your heart. Knowing Father Leonid’s experience in spiritual life, and knowing that this order of monastic life is well known to him from Schemamonk Theodore, a disciple of Elder Paisius, the rector of Optina Hermitage, Fr. Moses entrusted him with the leadership of all the brothers who lived here and all who came to the monastery for advice. O. Leonid, who never refused his spiritual guidance to those who wanted to use it, took upon himself this difficult feat; The brethren flocked to his cell every day, hurrying either to repent of their sins before him, or eager to receive advice from him, resolution of their misunderstandings, consolation in sorrow, help and reinforcement in the internal struggle with passions and with the invisible enemies of our salvation. “The elder’s cell, from early morning until late at night, filled with those who came to him for spiritual help,” according to one of his students, “represented a picture worthy of an artist’s brush. An old man in white clothes, in a short robe, was visible from behind the circle of his disciples, who were kneeling in front of him, and their faces were animated by different expressions of feelings. Another brought repentance for such a sin, which one who had not undergone obedience would not have even thought of; another confessed with tears and fear that he had unintentionally insulted his brother. On one face there was a burning shame that he could not overcome the thoughts that would make him want to go to the end of the world; the other expressed a cold-blooded smile of disbelief at everything visible; he came along with others to appear only to the elder and leave unhealed; but he, too, fearing the insight of his gaze and accusatory words, lowered his eyes and softened his voice, as if wanting to soften his judge with false humility. Here one could see true obedience, ready to kiss the elder’s feet; There, a weak, sickly young man, rejected by the whole world, did not leave Fr.’s knees. Leonida, like her pet from a milkmaid. Among other things, the gray head of a warrior was visible, who had once served in the domestic battle, and now took up arms, under the command of such a skillful leader, against invisible enemies. 140 Here the hair of the elder also turned white, who, admitting his lack of skill in monasticism, began the spiritual alphabet when the world recognized him as a mentor. 141 Such a diverse society surrounded the great elder and spiritual leader. In this wonderful cell one could see spectacles as instructive as all the events reminiscent of the best time of Christianity.” 142 Elder Leonid received everyone who came to him with fatherly love and taught a word of experienced edification and consolation to all those in need; no one left his cell without being spiritually comforted by him; those who revealed their mental illnesses and wounds to him walked away calmed and consoled,” and those obsessed with bodily illnesses; they received relief by reading prayers over them from the breviary; and by anointing with oil from the unquenchable lamp that burned in front of his cell Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God. With this icon, the great elder Paisius admonished schemamonk Fr. Theodora, and this latter, dying, blessed with it the heir to his spiritual gifts, Fr. Leonida. The wisdom of the Optina Elder and his skillful healing of weak souls soon made him famous outside the monastery; Whole crowds of people thirsting for his spiritual advice began to converge at the doors of his cell; People of all classes began to be sent to him for training in monastic life, and to Optina Pustyn “brothers began to flock from everywhere, like bees to a hive, in order to water their hearts with streams of Divine sweetness flowing from the honey-flowing lips of the elder.” 143 But these “innovations” Fr. Leonidas in the Optina Hermitage could not but arouse hostility and even persecution against him; Along with the monks who devoted themselves to the elder with all their souls, there were also those in the monastery for whom it was difficult to change the concepts in which they spent most of their lives; paying main attention to external labors and external asceticism. opponents of the eldership called confession of thoughts, cutting off one’s desires and understandings, internal work, a new heresy, i.e., everything that Elder Leonid brought with him to Optina Pustyn. They considered the large gathering of people to the elder’s cell to be shameful and disturbing the monastery’s silence, although the movement to Fr. Leonid was completely separate to the apiary, and not through the monastery. Denunciations against the elder began to the Consistory and to the Kaluga Eminence Nicholas, as a result of which the accused was ordered to move; from the apiary to the monastery, and laymen were prohibited from entering it. But those who wished to receive spiritual food managed to penetrate to Fr. Leonid and in the monastery: either the abbot gave in to their tearful requests and took them to the elder, or sometimes the Right Reverend himself allowed him to receive some visitors. Every time, after such incidents, Fr. Leonid opened the door for everyone, saying that differences between people in such a matter cannot be made: if you don’t accept, then no one; and if you accept one, then it means you can accept all. “Even if you send me to Siberia, even if you light a fire, even if you put me on fire, I will still be the same Leonid,” he objected to the abbot, Fr. Moses, who, out of fear of new persecution of his beloved elder, convinced him not to receive visitors without permission: “I invite no one to me, and whoever comes to me, I cannot drive them away. Especially among the common people, many perish from unreason and need spiritual help. How can I take care of their crying spiritual needs? 144 And, despite persecutions and troubles, which, now weakening, now intensifying, did not cease to pursue the elder (for a time he was even forbidden to wear the schema, since he was tonsured privately, without a consistory decree), despite the weakness of his health, he always showed tireless zeal for serving God in the person of suffering humanity until his very blessed death, which followed on October 11 1841. 145 Opponents of eldership in Optina Pustyn, who caused persecution on the island. Leonidas, could not, of course, treat his spiritual disciples and followers well; they looked at these latter with distrust and hostility, although, according to the elder’s instructions, his spiritual children, if possible, humbled themselves in front of everyone and observed everything on their part so as not to cause misunderstandings. From this it is clear that it was not easy for Dimitri Aleksandrovich Brianchaninov and his friend Chikhachov to live in Optina Pustyn. Arriving here soon after Fr. Leonida and his disciples, they settled in the monastery and at first thought that they would be able to arrange their life as peacefully and calmly as before in the Ploshchanskaya Hermitage. About this first time of his life in the Optina Hermitage, Dimitri Alexandrovich wrote this way to the monks who were sincerely disposed towards him and Chikhachov, who always showed them love, affection and hospitality. O. Bartholomew and Fr. Alipiya: “Having arrived in Optina Pustyn, I impatiently wanted to write to you, but my illness, increased by the journey, stopped what my heart felt. Accepted by Fr. The builder very kindly, we remained to live in the monastery: our circumstances, monastery and skete, prompted us to do this. The cells are assigned to us upstairs, in that wooden outbuilding, which is located opposite the new meal and forms symmetry with the abbot’s cells. Mikhailo Vasilyevich goes to the choir; I, as a sick person, should have the refuge of my hope not in my labors, not in my merits, but in the mercy and merits of the God-man Jesus.” 146 But the peaceful life of the young ascetics did not last long; Soon, difficult and difficult days came for them: opponents of the elders treated them very unfavorably and distrustfully, as students of Father Leonid; Moreover, the coarse monastic food, seasoned with poor vegetable oil, 147 was very harmful to the already weak health of Dimitri Alexandrovich, who became completely weak, trying to eat as little as possible. Seeing that there was nowhere to get other food, the friends decided to cook stew in their cell without oil and, with great difficulty, begging for cereals, potatoes and a saucepan, and using an ax instead of a knife, they prepared lighter and more tolerable food for themselves. 148 But such a life could not last long: the first to fall down was the completely exhausted Dimitri Alexandrovich, and soon Chikhachov, who was caring for him, fell ill with a painful fever: his severe chills were replaced by fever and delirium. There was no one to minister to the sick; Brianchaninov himself, rising with difficulty, helped his friend as much as he could, and then fell again, losing his strength. “What can I tell you about our stay in Optina Pustyn? “It was quite painful, and we would have been very upset if we had not rushed to leave,” Dimitri Alexandrovich wrote to the same monks – Fr. Bartholomew and Fr. Alypius. 149 The Lord God took pity on the young sufferers and sent them His all-powerful help. Having learned about the plight of their son, Alexander Semenovich and Sofya Afanasyevna Bryanchaninov took pity on him and invited him to come to them for the winter along with his friend Chikhachov, promising that they would no longer prevent him from following his chosen path. 150 Accepting with gratitude this visible care of God's Providence, the friends immediately set off for Pokrovskoye on a covered chaise sent for them. Dimitri Alexandrovich had recovered a little by this time, but Chikhachov was still so weak that he had to be put in the crew. He felt gradual relief from his illness only after they venerated the relics of St. Sergius in the Trinity Lavra and St. Demetrius of Rostov in the Yakovlevsky Monastery, where we stopped on the way. After a tiring journey, the friends finally arrived in Pokrovskoye. The modest monastic clothes of the former brilliant officer, whom the parents had previously hoped to see on the high steps of the state ladder, again awakened in their hearts a hostile feeling towards their son, who independently, against their will and desire, chose his own path in life; and they greeted him rather coldly. “Thus, the wandering from one monastery to another, the difficult situation in the latter, the mother’s illness and, as a result, an instant outburst of parental feelings - all this only served to remove young people from the shelter of the holy monastery and put them on the same path, face to face with worldly temptation. The enemy of human salvation has no more advantageous snare than young novices leaving the walls of the monastery, under any plausible pretexts.” 151 But, living not in a monastery, but under a worldly “roof” (they were given a separate half of the house), the friends continued to lead a monastic life, often attending church services and from time to time confessing and receiving communion. But here they could not devote themselves so completely to monastic deeds as they did in the monastery: being among a noisy secular society, so opposite to the inhabitants of the quiet monastery walls; worldly interests, so far from monastic ideals, weighed down the young novices, and they strove for their former life, dreaming of settling again somewhere in a monastery. In addition, conversations with his father, in whose heart the hope again awoke to persuade his eldest son to enter the public service; his mother’s exhortations to return to worldly life again - all this was difficult for Dimitri Alexandrovich, in whose soul all accounts with this world had long been settled, and involuntarily distracted him from his monastic thought of God. In February 1880, having lived only half the winter in Pokrovsky and morally tired of this life in the world, the friends decided to settle again somewhere within the walls of the monastery, far from worldly temptations. Not afraid of the material needs and all kinds of hardships awaiting them in the future, they left the well-appointed Pokrovsky house and headed to the Kirillo-Novoezersky monastery, famous for its strict charter, where Elder Theophan, famous for his ascetic life and exemplary management of the monastery, then lived in retirement. Abbot of the monastery Fr. Arkady, his student, lovingly accepted the young people, seeing their true ascetic disposition. But they were not destined to live for long in a new place, corresponding in spirit to their ideal monastic mood: the damp and harmful climate of the place where the Novoezersky monastery stood (it was located on an island of a vast lake), endowing those unaccustomed to it with a severe fever, was the cause of Brianchaninov’s severe, continuous illness in this monastery; For three months he suffered from a painful fever, which left its traces in his weak body for the rest of his life. The illness did not spare his friend Chikhachov, who again suffered from the fever that had tormented him in the Optina Desert. Having learned about this, the Bryanchaninovs again sent a carriage for their son, and, no matter how hard it was for Dimitri Alexandrovich, he was forced to return to the world from which he had so recently left to improve his poor health. This time Chikhachov did not follow his friend, but remained in the Novozersky monastery. But feeling, despite the numerous brethren surrounding him, completely alone in spirit without his friend, he decided to go to his homeland in the Pskov province to see his relatives. Having received a small allowance from one brother who lived there, Pavel Petrovich Yakovlev, 152 in the month of August he set off and two weeks later reached the Nikandrova Hermitage, which lay 80 miles from the house of his parents, where he stayed for a while to “stay.” The rite of worship and the melodies (of Kiev), hitherto unheard of by Chikhachov, gifted by nature with great musical abilities and a wonderful bass voice, made an extraordinary impression on him, and he began to learn such melodies with zeal, 153 going to the choir to sing along with other monks of the Nikandrovaya hermitage. The parents, having learned that their beloved son was so close to them, sent an elderly aunt for him, asking him to return home. Trying to ask their forgiveness for his unauthorized departure from the world and to convince their parental heart to agree to his chosen path and not deviate from it, Mikhail Vasilyevich happily followed to his home. But, just as the Brianchaninovs tried to persuade their son to leave the monastery and return to the world again, so Chikhachov’s parents began to ask and with all their might to persuade him to enter the secular service again. The internal struggle that the young ascetic had to endure in his home was difficult, it was especially difficult because in it, in his own words, “love itself collided with love.” 154 Love for his parents pushed him to fulfill their desire, meanwhile the invisible power of Christ kept him on his previous path. “For the sake of Christ, I put on and wear this dress,” he thought, looking at his novice cassock: “Why, to please the world and my family, do I take it off?” 155 So, not knowing what to decide, he spent about a year, either living with his parents or in the Nikandrova monastery, the abbot of which really wanted to tonsure him and make him a hierodeacon. Dimitri Alexandrovich, meanwhile, left the Kirillo-Novoezersky monastery, settled in Vologda with his relatives and began to be treated for the fever that tormented and completely exhausted his weak body. At this time, “the hand of Providence, which had hitherto invisibly covered the homeless wanderer, touched the heart of the Most Reverend Stefan, Bishop of Vologda”: 156 remembering Dimitri Alexandrovich as a child (the Most Reverend Stefan, who was a bishop, visited the Bryanchaninovs’ house) and seeing his sincere ideal monastic disposition, the Bishop placed him in Semigorodnaya The Assumption Hermitage, the strict spirit of which could satisfy a true ascetic. 157 The healthy climate of this area contributed to the restoration of his health and did not prevent him from indulging with new zeal in his usual spiritual pursuits - contemplation and prayer: Here, in the silence of sweet solitude under the blessed roof of the monastery, where the whole vain world, with its tempting but fragile charms, was involuntarily forgotten, this soul, irresistibly striving for God, could freely pray and weep, humbly repent of his sinfulness and, realizing his complete insignificance before the Lord, cry out to Him for His good and almighty help. The tears of the young ascetic did not fall on piles of stones and ashes, as once did the tears of the prophet Jeremiah, who, remaining on the ruins of empty and destroyed Jerusalem, sobbed inconsolably on the ashes of the burned church - a miracle of architecture, the only church on earth dedicated to the true God; cried an inconsolable sob on the ruins of the only city where true worshipers could bow to Jehovah. He, this young ascetic, was not mourning a church erected by human hands from marble, porphyry and wood that did not rot; he did not weep on the ruins of a city that had been built over centuries, built with the mighty muscles of kings, peoples, and gold; his sighs did not fly after the numerous crowds of Jews who were drawn by a large army into civil slavery. No! the reason for his crying was a moral reason, and the area of ​​his crying was the area of ​​the spirit. He mourned the burning of the invisible and not made by hands church, created by God for the invisible, most sublime Divine service; mourned the destruction of the mysterious city, appointed as a monastery for thoughts and feelings of grace; mourned the captivity of the soul, the captivity of the mind and heart, overcome by sin. Feeling that these captives (soul, mind and heart) were bound by the chains of passions, taken into slavery, taken to the kingdom and capital of the king of Babylon: into the power of the rejected archangel, who reigns harshly and cruelly over all rejected rational creatures - over angels and people - he wept bitterly with a cry of repentance and love, plunged into saving sadness - not the one that brings death to a person: he was not sad about anything vain, perishable, transitory. He cried with that saving cry that people inherited from Adam, who turned to tears and repentance after the loss of the sweets of heaven. This cry is a reflection of eternal bliss, this cry is evidence that eternal bliss was once the property of man; this crying is a means to regain lost bliss. Like a reflection of bliss, like sighing and remembrance of bliss, this cry contains pleasure: while it stings the heart with sorrow, it at the same time waters and anoints it with consolation. The God-man, who shed all-holy tears for the four-day-old dead man Lazarus, who shed Divine tears for the crowded city, for the people who did not know, or pretended not to know, the visitation of God, blessed with His All-Holy Tears the soul-saving cry of repentance and love. Remembering the Divine voice of the Lord to Elijah the prophet: “I cannot see someone crying and not have mercy on him,” and firmly believing that everyone who approaches God with such crying will be heard by Him, the weeping ascetic found consolation and pleasure in this crying. 158 This strictly ascetic mood of Dimitri Alexandrovich and his constant desire for complete solitude forced His Grace Stefan, who was disposed towards him, to agree to his requests and move him from the Seven-Gorod Hermitage to the even more secluded and deserted Glushitsky Dionysian Monastery, 159 located in his diocese, where Brianchaninov was enrolled as a novice (in February 1831). Rejoicing in his solitude, Dimitri Alexandrovich zealously began to carry out monastic feats, and devoted all his free time to a thorough study of the writings of the Holy Fathers. It was around this time that he first met the archimandrite of the Nikolo-Ugreshsky Monastery, Pimen, a merchant’s son by birth. The attractive, beautiful appearance of the young novice, his noble, but at the same time modest posture, reverent standing at church services, and, finally, the conversation with him; exposing his insightful mind, erudition and spiritual experience - all this made an extraordinary impression on the archimandrite. “The first time I happened to see Brianchaninov was on the embankment of the Zolotukha River (in Vologda), he later recalled that I was on the left bank, and he was walking along the right. As I see him now: tall, slender and stately, fair-haired, curly, with beautiful dark brown eyes; he was wearing a sheepskin sheepskin coat, covered with a pea-colored napkin, and a novice cap on his head... Despite his still young years, it was clear that Brianchaninov read a lot of fatherly books, knew very well John Climacus, Ephraim the Syrian, the Philokalia and the writings of other ascetics, and therefore his conversation, edifying and fascinating, was extremely enjoyable.” 160 The monastic exploits of the young novice, the ideal religious disposition of his soul striving for the heavenly world, forced the Most Reverend Stephen to fulfill his always constant desire - to tonsure him into monasticism. Not hoping to ever achieve the consent and blessing of his parents for this step, Dimitri Alexandrovich decided to leave everything to the will of God and follow only the voice that he heard in his own heart and which led him to the monastery, the voice of conscience or the voice of the Guardian Angel, which proclaimed God's will to him. Summoned by the Eminence Stephen from the Glushitsky monastery to Vologda, he stopped at an inn and, amid the wave of the world, began to prepare for his tonsure, keeping this, by order of the Eminence, in strict secret from all relatives and friends. On June 28, 1831, Dimitri Alexandrovich died for the light in order to be reborn for the Lord God; Having entered the Vologda Cathedral of the Resurrection as Demetrius, he left there as the monk Ignatius, receiving this name in honor of the Hieromartyr Ignatius the God-Bearer, whose memory is celebrated by the Orthodox Church on December 20 and January 29. 161 One can imagine the amazement of Brianchaninov’s relatives, who, listening to the Divine service in the cathedral that day, suddenly saw a completely unexpected sight: he, about whose brilliant secular career broad plans were still being made, forever covered himself with monastic robes, forever irrevocably left the world, becoming, in their eyes, a useless member of society. A few days later, the newly tonsured man was ordained by His Grace Stephen as a hierodeacon, 162 then, three weeks later, as a hieromonk and temporarily left at the Bishop's Cathedral House. 163 For training in sacred rites, he was assigned to the city Church of the Savior under the leadership of priest Vasily Nordov (later archpriest and rector of the Vologda Cathedral.) 164 Young in years (24 years old), very handsome in appearance, the newly tonsured hieromonk interested the entire Vologda society; many knew the Brianchaninovs well, knew that the son had gone against the will of his father, who was angry with him for this, and, passing on various details to one another, as is usually the case in such cases, they either bowed to the strong will of the young man, which even such a father as Alexander Semenovich could not break, or were surprised at his “strange” actions; everyone wanted to see the new monk and talk to him. But they had just pronounced vows of renunciation from the world at the altar. Ignatius was burdened by this universal attention to himself, involuntarily drawing him into worldly distraction; He did not cover his young, beautiful head with a black hood to force him to talk about himself; It was not in order to arouse sympathy and sympathy for himself that he decided to go against the will of his parents and incur their anger, which was so heavy on his heart; No! from childhood, deciding to devote his entire earthly life to serving the Benefactor, the Lord, in order to at least thereby thank Him for His countless benefits. He sought to take monasticism so that, having achieved Christian perfection in monasticism, “he could serve as a light for his brothers who live in the middle of the world, busy, distracted by the cares and services of it, who can neither delve deeply into the Gospel nor revive it in themselves in the proper development and completeness. 165 Despite the requests of the young hieromonk to let him go again to the secluded Glushitsky monastery, the Right Reverend Stefan kept him with him, intending to give him a place corresponding to his pious mood and his abilities, until the position of builder of the Pelshemsky Lopotov monastery became vacant, 166 where Ignatius was appointed at the beginning of 1832 (on January 14 he was given the title of builder and at the same time a loincloth was placed on him). The lamp, which had previously appeared on the candlestick, was now taken out of the dark corner to shine on the world into a more distant space - the social activity of the future Bishop had begun. Chapter two. Ignatius Brianchaninov as abbot of monasteries I. Hegumen Ignatius – Builder of the Gregory-Pelshem Lopotov Monastery “Life here is like a field, dotted with various crops of bread and vegetables, planted with numerous, heterogeneous fruitful trees and shrubs; people: –: definitely doers; one is capable of tending vines, another of vegetables, another: -: sowing grain, another: -: plowing the earth, another: -: only plucking up thorns. Let everyone work in that area of ​​virtues for which he is capable, for which he is called by God, who reveals His calling to a rational creature with the spiritual abilities and means that He has bestowed on this creature.” (Letters of the Most Reverend Ignatius to various persons, included in his biography, compiled by his disciples in 1881, p. 37). In the Vologda province, 40 versts from the city of Vologda, seven versts from the district town of Kadnikov, there is a monastery founded in the first half. XV century (in 1426) by the Vologda wonderworker Venerable Gregory. This monastery is called Lopotov, because its founder, Reverend Gregory, came from the family of boyars Lopotov; in addition, it is also called Pelshma, as it is located on the banks of the small river Pelshma, which flows into the Sukhona. The low-lying and swampy terrain of this monastery, the rotten fumes that always fill the air surrounding it, the dampness and constant fog, the incredible mass of mosquitoes and other swamp insects - all this makes the Lopotov Monastery a place harmful even for a healthy body. Before the establishment of the monastic States, this monastery was an abbot, and since 1764 it was made a construction site. By the thirties of the 19th century, it had fallen into extreme poverty, ruin and desolation; the church and other buildings were completely dilapidated and threatened to collapse; the income was so meager that there was nothing to buy the necessary church utensils; Very few brethren lived in the monastery, since they did not even have the most necessary things for food. This small brethren could not boast of the rigor of a truly ascetic life: the Lopotov monks allowed themselves carelessness in dress and indecency in behavior not only in the monastery or outside its walls, but also while being in God’s church during divine services; so, for example, they went to church for services, belted with red sashes, with their hair casually braided; during the service they sniffed tobacco in the choir, etc. 167 A powerful spirit was needed, full of indestructible hope for the almighty help of the Almighty; a skillful and strong hand was needed to restore and put in proper order this monastery, which was so impoverished and collapsed that it was supposed to be completely abolished and turned into a parish church. 168 A special Providence of God was needed to bring to this monastery, neglected in all respects, a ruler who could not only beautify the appearance of the monastery, but also raise to the proper height the moral life of the spiritual flock entrusted to his shepherd. And such a person was found; when the builder of the Lopotov Monastery, Joseph, died at the end of 1881. 169 His Eminence Stefan, Bishop of Vologda; appointed the newly tonsured hieromonk Ignatius Brianchaninov in his place. This appointment of such a young hieromonk to the position of builder of the monastery, appropriate even for old age, did what no requests of the humble novice Demetrius could achieve. His parents, angry that their son, who was so temptingly smiling at a brilliant secular career in full view of the Sovereign Emperor, who was kind to him, had voluntarily entered a monastery, began to soften little by little. True, Ignatius’s father Alexander Semenovich, not only now, but also subsequently, could never fully forgive his eldest son for the fact that this latter went against his will and did not live up to his hopes, but his pride was now still calmed by the fact that at such a young age his son was elevated to the rank that many clergy have been seeking and impatiently waiting for for many, many years. The mother’s heart had now completely forgiven her favorite, and not only had come to terms with his chosen career, but also thanked God, who had vouchsafed her to have her first-born among His servants. Sofya Afanasyevna owed this change in her mood to her son, Hieromonk Ignatius, who, now visiting her parents’ home, tried with all his might to lead her heart to a sincere and living religious mood with his spiritual conversations. Meanwhile, Sofya Afanasyevna had long since begun to feel ill, but, not paying due attention to her illness and trying not to disturb her relatives, she struggled for a long time. But the progressive illness was doing its job: on June 25, 1832, she died peacefully, guided by the prayers of her beloved son, who himself performed the funeral ceremony for her in her native Intercession Church. It is remarkable that during this sad service Fr. Ignatius did not cry over his mother’s lifeless body! “And this did not come from the restraint befitting the head of the clergy, or from the coldness of a kindred feeling, but constituted a special feature of his spiritual character. The feeling in him was a living filial love for his mother - in its natural measure. But in him the spiritual man was replaced by the spiritual; the feeling of carnal kinship was completely imbued with spiritual love, which prompted not to regret the temporary loss, but to wish for the only blissful fate of the deceased in eternity. Therefore, such kindred feelings in the monk Ignatius were never revealed in their usual way; they were reflected in him with deep thought and prayerful, silent reverence, with complete external calm. 170 The novitiate of Dimitri Brianchaninov began on November 6, 1827, with his entry into the Alexander-Svirsky Monastery of the Olonets diocese. After the transitions from one monastery to another noted in the previous chapter due to following Elder Leonid, in 1829 he entered the Assumption Seven-Gorod Monastery of the Vologda diocese as a novice and from there on February 20, 1831 he was transferred to the third-class Dionysius-Glushitsky monastery of the same diocese. 171 After entering monasticism on June 28, 1831, monk Ignatius was ordained a hierodeacon on July 5, 1831, and a hieromonk on July 20, and on January 6, 1832, he was appointed builder of the Lopotov Monastery and, holding this position, on January 28, 1833, he was elevated to the rank of abbot. 172 By Decree of the Holy. Synod of November 10, 1833 No. 8583, according to the “verbal proposal” of His Eminence Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, Abbot Ignatius was transferred to the rector’s vacancy at the St. Nicholas Ugreshsky Monastery of the Moscow Diocese. 173 Thus, the abbot of Ignatius Brianchaninov at the Lopotov Monastery lasted less than two years. Despite such a short period of time, Abbot Ignatius, through his activities in improving the monastery entrusted to him, discovered in himself an experienced owner and a good leader of monastic life at his 25 years of age. Natural talents, high spirit, educational school and the Bryanchaninov home school, with a strong character inherited from his father, revealed in Ignatius Bryanchaninov an extraordinary person, an outstanding personality. Observation of an exemplary economy in Pokrovskoye, harmonious discipline in all economic functions, a single will, the penetrating activity of the working masses - all these impressions of childhood and adolescence raised in Ignatius Brianchaninov an exemplary owner of those two monasteries in which he was destined to discover his economic training, especially in the Trinity-Serius Hermitage. According to the legend kept among the inhabitants of the Lopotov Monastery, the young abbot of the nobles at first put the household services in order, streamlined the refectory part, hired an experienced cook - not for gourmet and gastronomic dinners, but for clean, simple and hygienic food and to eliminate the sorrows of the flesh, improved singing and the liturgical part. And the fiery zeal of the Abbot, which also demanded from the brethren a strict attitude towards their duties, although it seemed painful for the lazy and degraded novices and monks, not only did not cause displeasure on their part, but, on the contrary, aroused sincere affection for the young Abbot due to the expediency and systematic nature of his undertakings, their clearly visible benefits for the improvement of the monastery. In support of the stated position, one can point to the fact that a number of people followed Ignatius during his official movements. So, when Ignatius Brianchaninov, by the highest will and with the blessing of the Holy. Synod, he was appointed Rector of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, and an influx of novices from the monasteries of the Vologda province began to this monastery. 174 Ignatius Brianchaninov’s high spiritual authority from a young age, character and thrift attracted the hearts of the monastery inhabitants to him. His merits and the qualities of his abbot's activity in his young years at the Gregory-Pelshemsky Lopotov Monastery are authoritatively and sufficiently attested in relation to His Eminence Stephen, Bishop of Vologda, who elevated him from novices to the rank of abbot, to the Most Reverend Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. Appointed by Decree of Saint. Synod of November 10, 1833, No. 8583, according to the proposal of Metropolitan Philaret for the position of Rector of the Nikolo-Ugreshsky Monastery of the Moscow Diocese, Hegumen Ignatius did not enter into the said position and in fact was not the Rector of the Nikolo-Ugreshsky Monastery, 175 because by the Highest will of the Sovereign Emperor Nicholas I he was given abbot of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage. On the eve of this event, Metropolitan Philaret, in a letter dated November 15, 1833, No. 301, asked Bishop Stefan of Vologda to order the hasty acceptance of the Lopotov Monastery from Hegumen Ignatius and, upon acceptance of the Lopotov Monastery from him, to send Hegumen Ignatius not to Moscow, but to St. Petersburg. 176 In response to this proposal, His Eminence Stephen, with a letter dated November 28, 1838, No. 3495, certified Abbot Ignatius to Metropolitan Philaret as an outstanding Abbot of the monastery in his abilities and training. In this certification of Bishop Stefan we find a detailed approving review of the abbot of Abbot Ignatius in the Lopotov Monastery. Since Abbot Ignatius, after he was tonsured into monasticism in 1831 by Decree of the Holy Governing Synod, being one of the fraternities of the third-class Glushitsky monastery, always attracted special attention to himself for his commendable qualities and education in the sciences, then, writes the Most Reverend Stefan, in 1832 he was taken by me to the Vologda bishop's house and ordination as a hierodeacon, and then as a hieromonk, he was used for cathedral priestly service, where more and more noticing in him excellent abilities, adorned with commendable behavior, in the same January 1882, on the 14th day, Ignatius appointed him to the place of the builder, Hieromonk Joseph, who died in the Lopotov Monastery, as the Builder. Being in this new position entrusted to him, the image of his exemplary life, the establishment of order in the monastery, according to the rules and regulations of the monastery, the precise observation of proper decorum in the monastery, drawing special attention to himself from the public, he managed to revive zeal among the admirers of the holy monastery and thereby achieved the opportunity to bring the Lopotov monastery, which had already fallen into complete decline and disorder, now in a short time into the best condition: 1) by establishing valuable silver holy vessels, Gospels and vestments and many other things for the splendor of church servants and 2) the construction of the abbot's and fraternal cells and the repair of many dilapidated monastery buildings, which was his, Ignatius, the holy service useful for the monastery and public reviews of his commendable qualities convinced me of this year, May 28, to encourage him to continue the same service, to promote him to abbot, with the resignation him in the same Lopotov monastery as the Rector, about which he, Abbot Ignatius, excellent and commendable service, for the necessary reason, decided to bring to the attention of Your Eminence. In this regard, Bishop Stephen is based on the resolution of Metropolitan Philaret dated December 9, 1838, No. 444: In the Consistory, for information and considerations in the continuation of the ministry of this abbot.” 177 On November 30, Abbot Ignatius had already left Vologda for St. Petersburg to see Metropolitan Philaret, and he did not receive money for travel from Bishop Stefan, because due to lack of need for it he himself refused. 178 With the transfer of Abbot Ignatius to the Nikolaev Ugreshsky Monastery, the short period of his abbotship in the Gregory-Pelshemsky Lopotov Monastery ends and, in the order of his everyday voyage, Ignatius Brianchaninov swims out into the big waters - his abbotship in the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage. Arriving at the Lopotov monastery, which he was entrusted with restoring, the young builder, not sparing his strength and labor, zealously set to work, not embarrassed by the fact that he had to stay in the guardhouse, because the abbot’s cell was in such a state that they were forced to completely dismantle it. This guardhouse was on one side of the holy gate, built like a tower with a planked pointed roof, very dilapidated, and on the other side of the gate there was a wooden fraternal meal cook. The indestructible energy of the new builder and his sincere desire to put all his mental and physical strength into a work pleasing to the Heavenly Father. In a short time they did what had previously seemed almost impossible: the monastery was renewed externally and rose internally. Monastics from those monasteries where the builder Ignatius had previously been a novice began to flock to it, and soon there was a brotherhood of up to thirty people there. The donations that flowed from the Vologda residents, who honored the memory of the Venerable Wonderworker Gregory, enabled the young builder to beautify the church service that had been put in order: he introduced expensive vestments, silver vessels, and new Gospels. New abbots' and brethren's cells were built. The splendor and solemnity of the church service performed by Hieromonk Ignatius himself, the excellent singing choir, the cleanliness and order in the renovated church - all this contributed to the fact that many pilgrims began to visit the monastery, previously unknown to few people. The zealous and tireless assistant of the builder Ignatius in the difficult task of renovating the Lopotov Monastery was his beloved friend Mikhail Vasilyevich Chikhachov, who again united with him after a long separation. Having lived for more than a year in his homeland in the Pskov province and was very tired of the hustle and bustle of life in the world, Chikhachov, as soon as he received the news that his friend and comrade had been appointed to the Lopotov Monastery, immediately hurried to him, taking advantage of the first opportunity that presented itself and zealously began to share with him the work of establishing the monastery. 179 Excellent knowledge of church singing and music and his own magnificent voice - bass octave - helped Chikhachov to compose a very good church choir, which was one of the main decorations of the renewed monastery. Here the young ascetic was clothed - by his friend the builder Ignatius - in a ryasophore, rejoicing and with all his soul, thanking the Lord for having vouchsafed him; “albeit a small, but angelic image.” 180 But household affairs soon called Mikhail Vasilyevich back from the silence of the monastery walls: his sister’s wedding certainly required his presence in his home, and, feeling obligated to arrange his sister’s fate, he went home a second time. Returning, after some time, again to the Lopotov monastery, Chikhachov stopped on the way to the Novgorod Yuriev Monastery and, warmly received by the Abbot, Archimandrite Photius, stayed here for several days. At this time she arrived at the monastery; Countess Anna Alekseevna Orlova-Chesmenskaya, a pious and religious woman, who had long heard about Brianchaninov and Chikhachov and really wanted to get to know them personally. Having seen Chikhachov and heard from him about the poor state of the Lopotov Monastery, she with sincere zeal donated 800 rubles and several books for the monastery’s needs. From then on, Brianchaninov and Chikhachov enjoyed the countess’s gracious disposition and help until her death. 181 The money donated by Countess Orlova helped the builder Ignatius improve the monastery: “A lot appeared in the monastery: two wooden buildings of the monastery, a sacristy, a church, corrected and cleaned, wonderful books for reading at meals.” 182 Working, sparing no effort, on the external success of the monastery, Father Ignatius could not help but pay attention to its internal order. He had to raise the moral life of the Lopotov Monastery and morally recreate the monastery entrusted to him. Familiar both in theory and in practice with the life of Orthodox monasticism and clearly imagining the ideal of this life, as it is given in the writings of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church, the builder Ignatius “was in the full sense of the word Abba of the society of monks.” 183 What rules he adhered to as the head of a monastic community, and how he determined the contemporary state of Orthodox monasticism, is evident from his own words “about Russian monasteries,” from his words, which are “the fruit of many years of observation.” An impartial and unhypocritical observer and researcher of monastic life in all its subtleties and details, Ignatius could not help but see that “monastic life, like Christian life in general, has weakened. Monastic life has weakened because it is in inextricable connection with the Christian world, which, separating weak Christians into monasticism, cannot demand from monasteries strong monks like the ancients, when Christianity, living in the middle of the world, abounded in virtues and spiritual strength.” 184 But, grieving in soul, at the sight of this removal of the monks from the monastic ideal, Fr. Ignatius could not, however, indulge in hopeless pessimism, which could not find a way out in anything; observing the weakening of monastic life and the fall of monastic ideals, he, to his consolation, had to notice that there are still such monasteries on the face of the mother of the Russian land, which, “as institutions of the Holy Spirit, emit rays of light on Christianity; there is still food there for the pious; there is also the storage of the Gospel commandments; there is also strict and dogmatic and moral Orthodoxy; There, although rarely, extremely rarely, living tablets of the Holy Spirit are found.” 185 Having repeatedly observed that “all spiritual flowers and fruits grew in those souls who, at a distance from acquaintance outside and inside the monastery, cultivated themselves by reading the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers, with faith and prayer, animated by humble but powerful repentance, and where this cultivation was not there, there was sterility,” 186 he tried to lead his spiritual flock as indicated by the patristic writings. Creations of St. The Fathers taught him that the “exercise of monks,” for which monasticism itself, consists in studying all the commandments, all the words of the Redeemer, in assimilating them to the mind and heart. The monk becomes a spectator of two human natures: the damaged, sinful nature, which he sees in himself, and the renewed, holy nature, which he sees in the Gospel. The Decalogue of the Old Testament cut off gross sins; The Gospel redeems nature itself, which is sick with sin and has acquired sinful properties through its fall. A monk, in the light of the Gospel, must enter into a struggle with himself, with his thoughts, with the feelings of the heart, with the sensations and desires of the body, with a world hostile to the Gospel, with the rulers of the world trying to keep a person in their power and captivity. The Almighty Truth sets him free; liberated from the slavery of sinful passions, the all-good Holy Spirit imprints, renews, and introduces into the offspring of the New Adam. The perfection of Christianity is achieved in monasticism, and monks serve as a light for their brothers who live in the middle of the world, busy, distracted by its cares and ministries, unable to delve deeply into the Gospel; nor to revive it in oneself in due development and completeness. Only he can easily or with contempt think about monasticism who, while calling himself a Christian, has the most superficial, dead concept of Christianity.” 187 Trying with all his might to create from the monastery entrusted to his spiritual guidance just such a light, shining in the darkness of worldly life, the young abbot was guardianshiply strict and unhypocritically demanding in relation to his spiritual children. Just as Elder Leonid, several years ago, had led him, then still a humble novice, through the difficult path of senile trials and exploits, so now he himself instructed and taught others, testing their meekness, humility, patience and faith, for from the writings of his fathers he knew that “in order for the Gospel properties to strengthen and mature in a monk, sorrows and temptations are certainly necessary. His meekness must be tested; his humility must be tested; patience and faith are tested. It must be tested - is the Gospel, the words and commandments of Christ, in which eternal life is dearer to him, are they dearer to the advantages, conveniences and customs of the world, are they dearer to life itself? At first, entering into temptation seems difficult; but without them it is impossible to learn forgiveness of all insults, love for enemies, vision of God’s Providence in everything, these highest, final, in relation to one’s neighbor, commandments of the Gospel. If the inner man is not formed by all the commandments, then he cannot become the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. “The Spirit was drawn,” says Saint David, “because I desired Your commandments” (Ps. 119:131). Without the descent of the Spirit, there is no Christian perfection. Sorrows and temptations are recognized by the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers as the greatest gift of God, serving as preparatory training for silence, in which the monk achieves the most precise purification, and therefore the most abundant enlightenment. The Fathers compare the monk’s sorrows preceding his entry into silence with the sufferings of Christ before the cross, and silence with crucifixion on the cross and burial, which will be followed by the resurrection.” 188 And under the wise and full of spiritual experience mentoring of the builder Ignatius, the Lopotov monastery, renewed and brought into external order by him, did not slow down and grow morally. True, it took a lot of work for the young mentor to achieve this: the monks of the Lopotov Monastery, unaccustomed to the strict monastic life, could not immediately, without grumbling, leave the habits that had become deeply rooted in their souls, such as sniffing tobacco during church services. And Ignatius had to endure a lot of troubles, slander, and often slander. But his spiritual wisdom and inexhaustible patience helped him achieve the desired results: an internal order was established in his monastery, consistent with the monastic charter. This was, as it were, preparation for those more important works that, by God’s permission, subsequently awaited Father Ignatius. How difficult it was for the builder Ignatius to establish moral order in the Lopotov Monastery, can be seen from the following incident: the local villager Karp often came to the monastery, who loved to consult with the abbot Ignatius about his spiritual life. Once, according to Chikhachov’s story, this simple man had the following vision: he saw that the brethren, who had been in the Lopotov Monastery before Ignatius arrived here, were bathing in the river and with screams complaining to St. Gregory, the founder of the monastery, standing right there on the bank, about the new abbot, Ignatius, who oppresses them: he does not order them to go to church with a braided braid, forbids them to sniff tobacco in the choir, He orders us to wear red sashes, does not allow us to go to the village, as happened before, etc. The Monk Gregory, hearing these complaints, turns to Karp and says: “Can I listen to them? 189 This tireless zeal of the young builder and his useful work on the renewal and organization of the Lopotov monastery entrusted to him could not help but be noticed by the sincerely disposed Eminence Stephen, who appointed him to this place. Seeing that the young hieromonk fully met all his expectations and, with his zeal and diligence, actually restored the almost destroyed and in all respects neglected monastery, the Bishop the next year elevated him to the rank of abbot of the same Lopotov monastery (January 28, 1833). But the young abbot was not destined to work in the monastery for long in this new rank: his always weak health could not withstand the unfavorable, damp and swampy climate of the area where the Lopotov Monastery was located. Weakening every day, and also “overburdened, by his own admission, with bodily labor, 190 he became very ill - “his body was extremely exhausted.” 191 Chikhachov also languished with all his soul, seeing his friend and spiritual mentor lying on his sick bed; not being able to do anything to alleviate his suffering, he finally dared to suggest to him that he would go to work for his abbot to move him somewhere to a healthier place in climate, for example, to the Pskov province, the homeland of him, Chikhachov. The abbot approved his friend's idea and blessed him for his troubles. This move to the Pskov province would be both useful for Ignat’s disturbed health, and very convenient for Chikhachov, who could then at least occasionally see his relatives living there. But Divine Providence decided to arrange things completely differently than the friends expected. Arriving in St. Petersburg, and having no place to stay, 192 Chikhachov went to Countess Orlova-Chesmenskaya, remembering her kind attitude when meeting in the Yuryev Monastery and her promise to always help him and his friend Brianchaninov in whatever way she could. Having learned about the critical situation of the young Ascetic, who must certainly spend some time in the capital in order to be able to solicit from whomever he should, the transfer of Abbot Ignatius to the Pskov province, and who, at the same time, has no place to lay his head; the sympathetic and kind countess not only gave him the most comfortable room in her house and supplied him with everything he needed, including a stroller for travel, but she even undertook to take care of his business herself, which, with her connections, was easier and more convenient for her than for Chikhachov. At the request of this latter, the countess turned first of all to the Pskov Archpriest, who at that time was in the capital for eye treatment, and asked him to transfer Brianchaninov and Chikhachov to some monastery of his diocese, but her requests were not crowned with success - the Archpriest refused. Metropolitan Seraphim of St. Petersburg also did not find a vacancy in his diocese. Seeing that all the efforts of the well-disposed countess were leading nowhere and, moreover, burdened by an absent-minded life in the circle of noble secular society that frequented Orlova’s house, Chikhachov decided to return to the Lopotov Monastery, but the countess advised him to take advantage of the fact that Moscow Metropolitan Philaret was in St. Petersburg at that time and introduce himself to him. Having listened to good advice, Chikhachov decided to make one last attempt and went to the Trinity Compound (the Metropolitan was staying there). The Eminence received him very kindly, asked him about everything, said that he had already heard about the useful activities of Abbot Ignatius, and he himself offered to transfer him to the third-class Nikolo-Ugreshsky monastery of the Moscow diocese, located 20 miles from Moscow, promising, when there was a vacancy, to give him an even better place. But since Abbot Ignatius himself was inconvenient to ask for his transfer to another diocese from the diocese of Vologda Bishop Stefan, who himself tonsured and elevated him to the rank of abbot, the very next day, after Chikhachov’s conversation with Metropolitan Philaret, a decree was sent from the Synod to Vologda to His Eminence Stefan on the transfer of Abbot Ignatius of the Lopotov Monastery Brianchaninov to the abbot of the Nikolo-Ugreshsky monastery, where he was supposed to immediately go, having surrendered his monastery. Bishop Stefan not only did not oppose the transfer of his tonsure to another diocese, but, on the contrary, rejoicing that he was receiving a more prominent place, gave him the above excellent review of his previous service in his report to the Moscow Metropolitan of November 28, 1833. Rejoicing at the unexpected success of his business, Chikhachov went to his homeland in the Pskov province, thinking of staying with his relatives until Abbot Ignatius moved to Ugresh. But, according to the will of God, “something else followed again”; 193 The providence of God was pleased to choose Ignatius Brianchaninov to another, more important and very difficult service in the position of rector of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage. The short-term service of Ignatius Brianchaninov in the Lopotov Monastery revealed in him, however, a man of broad outlook, great endurance and strength of character, ascetic endurance and selflessness, capable of beneficially influencing his neighbors. Local legend has preserved the memory of an unacquisitive and unassuming young builder, who, upon arriving at a neglected and forgotten monastery, had no place to lay his head and during the urgent and, forced by extreme need, reconstruction of the monastery buildings, had to live as a watchman at the monastery gates, and during the period of the northern cold, unbearable for an unaccustomed person, he walked in a simple sheepskin sheepskin coat, delving into all the parts himself. abandoned economy and by personal example, drawing into the work of monastic obedience the few capable inhabitants of the monastery. Having himself gone through the harsh experience of the lower monastic obediences, Abbot Ignatius could attract them to their zealous execution not only by superior authority, but also by his personal enduring activity and understanding of every part of the work he was leading. Bishop Stefan’s review of the activities of Abbot Ignatius mentions his attraction to the monastery and its needs of pious laity, who “serve him from their estates.” In the wilderness of the Kadnikovsky forests, remote from cities, with inconvenient means of communication, to attract the attention of a curious and pious public to a run-down, abandoned monastery, 194 of which there are many in the Vologda diocese, is in itself a considerable task, requiring great talents, and exemplary performance of Divine services, and real burning of the Soul, and life in God, with which it is possible to create a Church in the desert. And this Church, indeed, was created in the Kadnikov wilderness, and M.V. also took part in its establishment. Chikhachov, which he, without further ado, conveys in his “Notes”. Putting in order the old, crumbling monastery buildings, erecting new ones, according to the needs of the monastery, streamlining monastic life, according to the rules and regulations of the monastery, improving choir obedience and the splendor of church services, personal observation of all parts of the monastic life being set up and the personal ascetic example of the abbot, these are the features that characterize the activities of Ignatius Brianchaninov in office according to the traditions of old-timers and reviews of the Diocesan Authorities hieromonk-builder, and then abbot Gregory-Pelshensky of the Lopotov monastery of the Vologda diocese. Since childhood, the ardor for God of the soul of Ignatius Brianchaninov, his contemplative and prayerful mood in his parents' home, the beneficial influence of a family environment in the spirit of the good old days - an old noble nest, a deep and versatile education at home and, in St. Petersburg, a breadth of mental horizons, strengthened by conversion in the world and family ties, the long art of novitiate during his stay at the Military Engineering School and during the years of wanderings in the monasteries, a personal example of a self-possessed, focused and strictly abstinent life - all these factors, conditions and characteristics created Ignatius Brianchaninov as an exceptional personality; This personality has, in Russian spiritual, especially church and monastic life, as we will see, great importance, although inappropriate for the high scale of talents and preparation, according to contemporaries. But the personality of Ignatius Brianchaninov, and in addition to his family ties, could not remain unknown in the wilderness of the northern province, she was destined to be a spiritual beacon for those seeking spiritual salvation, it was fitting for her to be “in the open, so as to shine for everyone who is in the church.” Although Abbot Ignatius himself throughout his life preferred hidden work in the inner church of the soul, the mysterious “bishopric of his heart,” but from childhood, accustomed to cutting off his will and submitting to the guidance of Divine Providence, by freely choosing monastic life, taking a special vow of obedience, he had to “for obedience” limit the feat of personal salvation for many years in order to serve salvation and edification neighbors, as he who called him to that voice of the Church and society will soon hear. And this voice rang out: the Sovereign Emperor and the Holy Synod called Abbot Ignat to abbot in the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage, near the whirlpool of the worldly sea, dangerous for spiritual salvation. And Ignatius Brianchaninov did not resist the will calling him to church service, as was the case when directing him along the path of a brilliant career in the spirit of the ancestral desires of his father, Alexander Semenovich Brianchaninov. The abbot of an unknown, forgotten and abandoned northern monastery became the abbot and Archimandrite of the First-Class Trinity-Sergius Monastery near St. Petersburg. II. Archimandrite Ignatius - rector of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage “By the incomprehensible destinies of Providence, I was placed in that monastery neighboring the northern capital, which when I lived in the capital, I did not even want to see, considering it completely inconsistent with my spiritual goals. In 1833, I was summoned to Sergius Hermitage and made its rector.: (Works of Bishop Ignatius, vol. I, p. 567). The circumstances preceding and accompanying the appointment of Ignatius Brianchaninov to the position of rector of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage are presented in the following form. 1) Monastic leadership was never part of the life plans of Bishop Ignatius; as in the days of his adolescent thoughts, and during his wanderings around the monasteries, his mood leaned toward a solitary monastic life, in the community of a few, under the guidance of an elder, filling his time with prayer, soul-saving reflection and conversation, and learning the secrets of spiritual salvation through spiritually edifying reading, church services and Godly thoughts. The monastic life of Ignatius Brianchaninov was always in conflict with his plans; by the will of Divine Providence, he had to live all the time in public and for people. His repeated attempts to evade obedience to the rector and seclude himself for a personally ascetic life are understandable from this. In addition to this, the motivation was his lifelong illness, which made public service very difficult for him. This is what, in our opinion, explains the desire to change residence that was repeatedly discovered by Ignatius Brianchaninov. According to M.V. Chikhachov, living in the Lopotov Monastery, Abbot Ignatius was constantly and very ill, without leaving his complex work. The swampy area near the Lopotov Monastery and the incredible, hard to imagine unprecedented number of insects, and other local climatic disadvantages were unfavorable for health. The abundance of monastic needs, the lack of funds to satisfy them, the involuntary, due to the demands of life, shifting the center of gravity from spiritual achievement to the vain things of life, albeit for God’s work, the need to create everything from the foundation, with poor health, weighed on Ignatius’s soul and prompted him, on the advice of his friend of his youth - M.V. Chikhachov, to wish to move to another monastery with a more tolerable climate and freedom from care and economic needs. The wishes of friends were sent to the Pskov diocese. Despite the personal representation of Countess A.A. Orlova-Chesmenskaya, - neither the Bishop of Pskov nor the Metropolitan Seraphim of St. Petersburg had room for friends. And at this moment of Chikhachov’s special griefs and failures, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, presumably not without the participation of Countess Orlova-Chesmenskaya, 195 personally proposed to Chikhachov to transfer his friends to the Nikolaev Ugreshsky Monastery, with the abbot for Ignatius with the promise of an even better monastery later. Metropolitan Philaret even took upon himself the trouble of translating Ignatius, promising with his proposal to the Synod to arrange the planned translation, 196 which, as we know, he did. A few days later, with the participation of Countess A.A. Orlova-Chesmenskaya, the circumstances of the lives of friends Brianchaninov and Chikhachov were brought to the attention of the Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich, who remembered his students and ordered that Metropolitan Philaret send Abbot Ignatius not to Moscow, but to St. Petersburg for personal presentation to the Sovereign, 197 adding that if he liked him, as before, then he would not be sent to Metropolitan Philaret will give it back. Fulfilling the will of the Monarch, the Metropolitan immediately sent an official letter to Bishop Stefan of Vologda (November 15, 1833), asking him, as soon as possible, to summon Abbot Ignatius of Lopotov to St. Petersburg for presentation to the Sovereign; at the same time, he sent a private letter about the same to Ignatius himself, immediately summoning him to the capital, to the Trinity courtyard. “Reverend Father Igumen,” Ignatius wrote to Metropolitan Philaret, “The fate of God, having placed me in relationship with you through service, at the same time opens up the opportunity for us to recognize each other by sight. I’m glad about this, I’m just concerned that this trip would not be difficult for you at this time of year due to your health, as I heard about it, but it is necessary that you be in St. Petersburg; and I cannot change this. You can come directly to me. May God bless you and guide you on the path of peace.” (Filaret M. Moscow, November 15, 1833, Sbp. 198). Having received this news at the end of November, Abbot Ignatius immediately handed over the Lopotov Monastery to his treasurer, and he hurried to St. Petersburg. By this time, his friend Chikhachov also arrived here from his native estate. In the capital, Brianchaninov immediately appeared to Metropolitan Philaret at the Trinity Compound, where he remained to wait for the time when he could appear before the Sovereign. The appointed day has arrived. The humble monk Ignatius appeared in the palace in the face of his beloved Monarch, who several years ago saw him as a brilliant, handsome officer. But modest clothing did not prevent him from immediately making the most favorable impression on the Emperor. “I like you just as much as before,” Nikolai Pavlovich told him at the end of a long conversation: “You are in my debt for the education I gave you and for my love for you. You did not want to serve me where I intended to place you, but chose the path of your own volition, so pay me your debt on it. I give you the Sergius Hermitage, I want you to live in it and make a monastery out of it, which in the eyes of the capital would be a model of monasteries.” 199 After this conversation, the Emperor deigned to send Ignatius to half of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. The Empress treated her former boarder very kindly and brought all her august children to his blessing. The Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Stefan Dmitrievich Nechaev, 200, was immediately invited to the palace to the Sovereign and the Highest will was duly carried out: Sergeev Hermitage was removed from the control of the St. Petersburg Vicar Bishop and transferred to a new rector, who on January 1, 1884 was ordained Archimandrite in the Kazan Cathedral; On the 6th of the same month, Archimandrite Ignatius went to the place of his new assignment, together with his friend M.V. Chikhachov and the 22-year-old young man Malyshev, who had just been admitted to his cell attendants, who 24 years later became rector of the Sergius Hermitage, replacing Archimandrite Ignatius Brianchaninov. 201 In explanation of the decision of the Sovereign, Emperor Nicholas I, to appoint Ignatius Brianchaninov, who not so long ago upset the Sovereign with his refusal of the prominent public service assigned to him, as rector of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage, a strictly serious character and an ascetic in spirit, who loved monastic life more than worldly life. You can accept with confidence the following legend kept in the Bryanchaninov family. The Trinity-Sergius Hermitage, close to the capital, repeatedly disturbed the Emperor with its disorganization in the absence of a leader living on site and devoted to the interests of the monastery. Around the time of Metropolitan Philaret’s intentions to move Abbot Ignatius to the Moscow diocese, the disorganization of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage was expressed very sharply and temptingly for the laity in the form of an unseemly deviation of the inhabitants of the desert from the rules and orders of monastic life. And so, Tsar Nicholas I, aware of this, in holy zeal for the improvement of God’s holy Churches and Orthodox monasteries, exclaimed: “Here I will put them in order: I will give them my sergeant major.” 202 And the outstanding, gifted, favorite of the Sovereign, His “sergeant-major” became the Highest will and outstanding Archimandrite, even more worthy of the Sovereign’s love, as a zealot of the holy Orthodox faith. The supposed engineer and instructor of military forces became an outstanding instructor of spiritual warfare and invested all his remarkable strength in the great and most important task of clarifying the paths to God, thus becoming an engineer of heavenly communications; having studied the science of protecting the fatherland from attacks by an enemy who plunders State property, he became an even greater expert in the tools and means of fighting the primordial enemy of our salvation, who plunders the good vessels and riches of our inner spiritual church. The appointment of Ignatius Brianchaninov as rector of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage took place according to the Highest command on December 25, 1833, which is depicted in the decree of the Holy Synod addressed to the Synodal Member, His Eminence Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, dated December 30, 1833, No. 9737 in the following words: "G. The Synodal Chief Prosecutor, the actual state councilor and cavalier Stepan Dmitrievich Nechaev announced to the Holy Synod for the order depending on it that the Sovereign Emperor on the 25th day of this December, deigned to command that hegumen Ignatius, appointed by the Holy Synod for transfer from the Vologda to the Moscow diocese, was determined the rector of the Sergius hermitage, which is in the local diocese, and the Vicar of the St. Petersburg Metropolis, His Eminence Benedict, who hitherto had this hermitage under his administration, in return for the salaries and other incomes required by the state of this monastery, which he enjoyed by the title of rector of this monastery, to produce from the treasury three thousand five hundred rubles a year: Together with this they proposed, Wouldn’t it please the Holy Synod, having taken into fair consideration the excellent reviews of Abbot Ignatius from his former Diocesan Administration, to elevate him to the rank of Archimandrite, which is more befitting of the abbot now assigned to him in a second-class regular monastery.” On the subject of the Highest Command, a determination was made by the Holy Synod; 1) About the above-mentioned His Imperial Majesty's Highest command to the Vicar of the St. Petersburg Metropolis, His Eminence Bishop Benedict and the aforementioned Abbot Ignatius, now located in St. Petersburg, to announce through the local Diocesan Authorities and 2) In respect of the excellent approval of Vologda The Diocesan Administration, also in accordance with the decency of the position assigned to him as rector of the Sergius Hermitage, which is in the second class, elevate him to the rank of Archimandrite and, as a result of this order, to promote Ignatius to the rank of archimandrite and to then assign him to the management of the Sergius Hermitage to provide the Synodal Member, His Eminence Seraphim, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg. 203 As a result of the Highest command of December 25, 1833 and the Holy Synod that took place on the subject of its determination, Hegumen Ignatius was elevated to the rank of Archimandrite on January 1, 1834, and orders were made regarding his assumption of office with the acceptance of the property of the Sergius Hermitage into his jurisdiction and the monastic brethren into his management. 204 In the file there is an act of surrender of property and a subscription by the brotherhood of the monastery in obedience to the new abbot. From this subscription it is clear that at the time of the abbot of Ignatius Brianchaninov, the brotherhood of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage included six hieromonks, three hierodeacons and six novices - a total of fifteen persons. 205 Such was the composition of Archimandrite Ignatius’s collaborators, in brotherhood and cooperation with whom he was destined to form a first-class monastery from a collapsed and desolate monastery, which currently has the appearance and significance of the Lavra for the northern capital. On the towering shore of the Gulf of Finland, 19 versts from St. Petersburg along the Peterhof Highway, the now first-class Trinity-Sergius Hermitage is located; two versts from the monastery is the Sergievskaya station of the Oranienbaum branch of the Baltic Railway. Two centuries ago (in the 18th century), on the site of the Sergius Hermitage there was a “Seaside Dacha” of Grand Duchess Ekaterina Ioannovna, daughter of Tsar Ivan Alekseevich a. 206 When the Grand Duchess got married in 1717, the dacha was no longer visited by the Royal family and gradually began to collapse. In 1732 (September 14), this “Seaside Dacha” was most mercifully granted by Empress Anna Ioannovna to her confessor, Archimandrite of the Sergius Lavra, Fr. Varlaam, and in 1734 he was given the State wooden Church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which was located on the Fontanka, at the country house of her late mother, Queen Paraskeva Feodorovna. Archimandrite Varlaam transported the church donated to him to the Primorsky dacha and, with the blessing of the Holy Synod, built a church here in the name of St. Sergius 207 the foundation of the desert was laid. The newly discovered desert, located on the shores of the Baltic Sea, was called “Primorskaya” for many years and, in addition, “Sergievskaya” - after the first church built in it. When, in the second half of the 18th century, a cathedral in the name of the Holy Trinity was built in it, in the likeness of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra; then the hermitage, in accordance with the Lavra, began to be called the Trinity-Sergius. The founder of this Primorsky Sergius Hermitage, Fr. During the three years of his management of the monastery, Varlaam, “loving monasticism, arranged the necessary buildings 208 in it and beneficially provided the monastery with arable, hay and forested lands, which he tried to acquire from neighboring owners. 209 When the founder of the hermitage died in 1737, the Empress ordered an inventory of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery to be made and reported to Her Majesty’s office, 210 and she entrusted the management of the monastery property to Ivan Cherkesov, the solicitor of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. From that time on, the church on the seaside site was considered attached to the Sergius Lavra, from where builders were sent to manage it. 211 This was the case before the establishment of monastic states, that is, until 1764, when the hermitages, which entered the St. Petersburg diocesan department and were elevated to the second class, began to be governed by archimandrites, which continued until 1819. From this time until 1884, the Sergius Hermitage was ruled by suffragan Bishops under the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, who, in return for maintenance from the spiritual administration, used its income. Poor from the very first time of its foundation in external structure and meager in the number of brethren, having become the property of the St. Petersburg vicars, the Sergius Hermitage “reached the point of extreme ruin and decisive disgrace.” 212 The monastery buildings, starting with the main church of St. Sergius and ending with the last monastic services, had long been neglected, collapsed and almost completely rotted; Divine services were performed without proper splendor, in a haphazard way, and sometimes not performed at all. Not only complete desolation in material terms, but also debauchery in moral terms, reigned here in full force among a very small brotherhood. There were only eight monks in the monastery, three novices and two subordinates. Despite such a small number of brethren, there was no order among them befitting a monastery. The explanation for this was partly the location of the Sergius Hermitage, located near the northernmost capital, which was very inconvenient for the monastery: it was like a crossroads for all nationalities traveling to and from St. Petersburg, why the monks who lived here, entering into constant relations with the laity, could not fully indulge in repentant prayer and inner silence, but led an absent-minded life that did not at all correspond to their monastic rank. Archimandrite Ignatius subsequently wrote this to Fr. Bartholomew, a monk of the Beloberezh Hermitage, about the inconvenience from this side, the location of the Sergius Monastery: “Our place is extremely difficult, the monastery is completely through; In the summer, the most famous St. Petersburg public moves into our neighborhood. Carefulness is involuntarily born, which leads to entertainment. 213 Meanwhile, the proximity to the capital and especially to the summer residence of the Imperial Family, the land connection between which was the only road that ran right at the gates of the monastery, required great decency and better organization of the ruined monastery. The spiritual authorities saw the need for this, but they had neither the strength, nor the means, nor the energy to get down to business. Fortunately for the monastery, by the special Providence of God, the then reigning Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich turned his attention to it, who, having personally ascertained its plight, comprehended with his quick and all-encompassing mind that it would not move forward until there was a real owner in it, not by name and not by clothing only a monastic, but by deed and deed who had passed the monastic test. 214 And in 1834, through the prayers of Rev. Sergius, exactly one hundred years after the founding of the monastery, the Providence of God, which controlled the hand of the Monarch, brought into it just such a person - a strict ascetic in spirit and a humble prayer book, Archimandrite Ignatius Brianchaninov, who exactly fulfilled the will of his beloved Sovereign and perfectly justified his trust in himself. During his almost 24-year management of the Sergius Hermitage, he raised it to the level of a first-class monastery and made it not only exemplary in all respects, but also a unique monastery among other Russian monasteries, for which the grateful Trinity-Sergius Hermitage rightly honors him as its restorer. From the considerations expressed in the previous discussion on the question of the sympathies and inclinations of Ignatius Brianchaninov, it is clear that the Highest attention of the Sovereign Emperor, encouraging and pleasing for him, and the encouraging attitude towards him of the Holy Synod and Metropolitan Philaret, showing him rare participation and raising him to an unprecedented height at that time, especially, in view of his young age, the height of his spiritual position, still did not respond his personal plans. We believe that for obedience to the Holy Synod and the Moscow High Hierarch and out of immeasurable gratitude and love for the Sovereign Emperor, Ignatius Brianchaninov did not object to the new appointment and, having postponed the fulfillment of his personal intentions for almost three decades, entered into the difficult for him abbot of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage. But, once taking upon himself to fulfill his duties, this strong character carried his duty to the end, “not out of fear, but out of conscience,” cooperating with God. And there was so much to do that only after a quarter of a century of his selfless and energetic service to the monastery, he brought the Trinity-Sergius hermitage to the brilliant state in which it is currently located, and strengthened his spirit in it, involuntarily enveloping the newcomer to the monastery. Ignatius Brianchaninov had a lot to do in the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage, but the conditions of this activity were unusual, and the figure was proportionate to the difficulties presented to him. The condition of the Sergius Hermitage was very poor. The brotherhood of 15 persons was very insufficient even in quantitative terms. With this composition, it was difficult to satisfactorily organize even the liturgical part of monastic life, so that it would meet the needs of the monastery and the outside world. And if we also take into account the morally low level of this brotherhood, which caused the appointment of the Sovereign’s beloved “sergeant-major” to the Sergius hermitage to correct its dissolute inhabitants, then we will understand the extreme difficulty of bringing the monastery into the proper moral state corresponding to its tasks. In economic terms, the Trinity-Sergius hermitage also seemed insufficient. According to a friend, colleague and novice of Archimandrite Ignatius, Mikhail Vasilyevich Chikhachov, the abbot’s corps was never drowned in the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage, and therefore a room was prepared for the abbot in the Invalid House of Count Zubov, in two rooms, where he himself and the five brethren who came with him, including the novice, who later succeeded Ignatius, were accommodated for the winter. Brianchaninova under the leadership of Ignatius Malyshev, and Mikhail Vasilyevich Chikhachov. The first object of the abbot's care for the monastery was the St. Sergius Church, which required immediate restoration, except for the walls, then the abbot's building, and to unite them it was necessary to arrange a meal again. 215 A more accurate and detailed picture of the construction work planned by Archimandrite Ignatius in the monastery according to the decree of the St. Petersburg Ecclesiastical Consistory of January 26, 1834 No. 308, which followed in response to Archimandrite Ignatius’ request for permission to carry out the necessary work and for the release of the necessary funds. In this petition, Archimandrite Ignatius writes to the Diocesan Authority that, upon entering into the administration of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage, he examined with all possible attention the monastery in all its relations; among other things, surveying the buildings, he found them all, without exception, in a very unfavorable condition. The building, which is subject, first of all, to reconstruction and correction, is the abbot's house. Its windows, doors, stoves, and in many rooms the floors fell into complete disrepair, making this house completely unsuitable for habitation. Thirteen fathoms from this house along the northern fence of the monastery there is another house, symmetrical to the first, containing a warm church in the name of St. Sergius, in which it is extremely difficult to conduct divine services in winter due to the cold. Archimandrite Ignatius presented a project to the Consistory, which was supposed to connect the two houses indicated by a wide gallery of the same architecture, thus creating one common building, very beautiful in appearance, economically most profitable and very necessary for the monastery. According to this project, it was planned to place a fraternal meal on the upper floor of the new gallery, and on the lower floor - a fraternal kitchen with four cells, and under the abbot's chambers, where the fraternal, extremely dark refectory and kitchen had previously been located, to arrange prosphora and bread, which are necessary and which the monastery does not have at all. The cost of this construction is expected to be cheaper than a separate one, because it will only have two longitudinal walls. From the abbot's cells there is supposed to be a warm passage to the gallery and through it to the St. Sergius Church, which also needs to be repaired and made convenient for service during the winter, which can be achieved by redoing the stoves, windows, frames, floors and ceiling, because the existing floors and ceiling are in danger of falling. The cost of all the works indicated in the project of Archimandrite Ignatius was calculated in the amount of 45,944 rubles, it was planned to use almost all of the monastic cash for them. But all the needs of the monastery, of course, were not exhausted by the proposed work. The St. Petersburg Ecclesiastical Consistory, designed by Archimandrite Ignatius for the improvement of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage, allowed for production, subject to architectural supervision and possible savings in costs. 216 But both instructions were only of a template nature and were not caused by reality: at the head of the Sergius Hermitage there was an excellent owner, educated in the Pokrovsk Bryanchaninov school, thrifty and neat; the clerical work of the monastery was managed by the economical and precise Pavel Petrovich Yakovlev, the technical part of the construction was supervised by: Archimandrite Ignatius and Mikhail Vasilyevich Chikhachov - engineers and the best students of the Military Engineering School. Having begun to carry out the project planned and authorized by the Consistory and having in mind a whole series of other urgent construction and economic work, Archimandrite Ignatius was quite embarrassed by the lack of funds at his disposal. 217 Having permission to spend free monastic cash on the work, Archimandrite Ignatius, on the one hand, could not allow this cash to become completely depleted, and on the other hand, it was clear to him that the amount of money possible, based on the state of the monastic cash, to cover the costs of improving the monastery to fulfill all his well-thought-out plans should be increased at least four times. It was clear to him that without widespread charity from those close to the monastery and special allocations for its needs, his plans for the improvement of the monastery could not be realized. And the expected help came. Monetary allocations for the improvement of the monastery according to the projects and plans of Archimandrite Ignatius were released thanks to the personal high attention to the needs of the monastery and the plans of the abbot on the part of the Sovereign Emperor Nicholas 1st and the extensive personal charity of Countess A.A. Orlova-Chesmenskaya and others. Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich, among his complex royal concerns, did not forget his beloved former students of the Military Engineering School - Chikhachov and Brianchaninov, he also remembered to whom and under what circumstances he entrusted the Trinity-Sergius hermitage and, if possible, inquired about the affairs of the monastery, having a constant sincere readiness to support the abbot in his difficult situation. This very important circumstance, of course, on the one hand, was extremely favorable for the establishment of Ignatius Brianchaninov and the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, and on the other hand, it gave rise to many envious people and his enemies, who, knowing that Archimandrite Ignatius would not complain about personal grievances, did not hesitate to oppress a man outstanding for his personal virtues, who was under the extraordinary patronage of the Sovereign Emperor. The attitude of Emperor Nicholas I towards Ignatius Brianchaninov and his endeavors is clearly illustrated by the following incident. In the summer of 1884, i.e. a few months after Ignatius Brianchaninov entered the abbotship of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, the Sovereign Emperor easily visited the monastery from Peterhof, without prior notice. At about six o'clock in the evening the Emperor entered the church and asked the novice: “Is the Archimandrite at home? - Say that “his former comrade wants to see him.” Soon Archimandrite Ignatius entered. The Emperor simply greeted him in a friendly manner. “Following him,” says Chikhachov, I come in too. The Emperor, seeing me, hugged me and made such an impression that I myself grabbed his neck with both hands, and we kissed at least five times in front of all the people and in front of the Empress and the Heir, who entered the church a little later than the Emperor. Then they put us next to the abbot and asked us a lot: “Are we always together?” “What am I doing?,” “Where is the third of our comrades,” who lived for some time in a monastery and entered service again? “Apparently, the monastery bread seemed dry to him,” said the Emperor, “but it was good for you.” Having examined the monastery, the new construction of the abbot's cells, the refectory and the St. Sergius Church, the Emperor drew attention to the dilapidation of the cathedral Trinity Church, ordered an estimate of what it would cost to amend the cathedral and promised to release the amount of money needed for the specified work. 218 According to estimates, the amount required for the repair of the Trinity Cathedral is 96,808 rubles. 19 kopecks, was released according to the Highest approved State Listing of 1835, from the St. Petersburg Treasury. 219 But with this significant amount, government allocations for the needs of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery did not end: according to the State List of 1837, 51,438 rubles were allocated for additional work and for correcting the iconostasis in the Trinity Cathedral. 88 kop. 220 Thus, the broad plans of Archimandrite Ignatius for the external improvement of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage could be carried out thanks to the high attention of the Sovereign Emperor to the needs of the monastery and His personal patronizing relationship with Ignatius Brianchaninov, in which it was easier and more convenient for the latter to carry out a task close to his heart and the needs of the monastery, supported morally and materially by the Royal Ktitor Trinity-Sergius Hermitage. The Emperor, obviously, wanted to maintain his moral connection with the monastery managed by Ignatius Brianchaninov, because at the same visit to the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage in the summer of 1834, they wished that Archimandrite Ignatius Brianchaninov and Mikhail Vasilyevich Chikhachov, together with the brethren of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra and the Metropolitan, would appear at the palace to glorify Christ, which has continued since then Ignatius Brianchaninov to this day. 221 Thanks to this high patronage, it was possible to carry out the extensive undertakings of Archimandrite Ignatius for the benefit of the monastery. But private charity, attracted to the needs of the monastery by Ignatius Brianchaninov, was also of considerable importance in the matter of its improvement. According to the testimony of the simple-minded M.V. Chikhachov, Countess A.A. helped a lot in the financial difficulties of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. Orlova-Chesmenskaya with her property. Her sacrifices for the benefit of the monastery cannot be counted: she loved to do charity very secretly. “Everything was transmitted,” says M.V. Chikhachov, “through my hands without counting, and I did not consider it necessary to count, but left everything to the abbot and God, who rewards each and every one of us abundantly with benefits.” 222 In addition to the construction work carried out at the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, in view of the new needs that arose in the monastery with the increase in the composition of the brotherhood, attracted by the talents and example of the life of Archimandrite Ignatius and the improvement of the monastery, the St. Petersburg merchant Makariy Vasilyevich Makarov built wooden cells for the monastics at his own expense, using up to 40,000 for this good cause rubles, and then he himself became one of the novices of the Sergeev Hermitage. 223 Died in the schema with the name Macarius on May 5, 1869. Touching friend of Ignatius Brianchaninov M.V. Chikhachov donated to the needs of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery all of his wealth, which he inherited from his parents, a significant fortune in the amount of 40,000 rubles, and he himself gave his life to serving God and the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, to which, in addition to a major material sacrifice, he was useful with his wonderful voice, knowledge of music and love of church singing. Church-musical knowledge and talents of M.V. Chikhachova owes its majestic and artistic performance of church chants to the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage. The current rector of the Sergius Hermitage, Archimandrite Mikhail, and other old-timers of the monastery remember the schema-monk Fr. Mikhail Chikhachov as a wonderful old man, a meek and positive ascetic and unmercenary. The only decoration of his poor cell was the harmonium, on which he played church melodies, and he abandoned this consolation in his declining years. He did not take the church income that he received to his cell, but immediately or even earlier distributed it to the poor. Died in 1873. 224 He was buried in the monastery cemetery, in a special chapel, together with the founder of the Sergius Monastery, Archimandrite Varlaam Vysotsky and Schemamonk Macarius. On the wall of the chapel, near the grave of M.V. Chikhachov, it is written: “Good-natured and non-covetous.” “Schemnik Mikhail Chikhachov. Died on January 16, 1873, 66 years old.” Thanks to the high attention of Emperor Nicholas I, large material allocations from the treasury and the same sacrifices of these individuals, with the energy and constant vigilance and talents of the rector, the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage came, in terms of its external improvement, to that appearance corresponding to the plans of Ignatius Brianchaninov, which, through the zeal and disposition of his worthy successors, has been maintained to this day and provides spiritual consolation not only to the permanent to the inhabitants of the Sergius monastery, but also to those who happen to live in the monastery during the Prayer Service. Directing the construction work to a successful completion and bringing the Sergius Monastery into a comfortable appearance, the young abbot had to take care of the material support of its further existence, both in maintaining the monastery buildings in the well-maintained form achieved through joint efforts, and in ensuring the living contentment of the ever-increasing brethren and satisfying other needs that arose in the complex life of the monastery. By the time of the reign of Ignatius Brianchaninov, the economic part of the Sergius Hermitage was in significant disarray. When taking over the management of the monastery, the abbot did not find a single boundary mark on the monastery land. According to the clerical work of the monastery, it turned out that all the land that was acquired by purchase. Even the founder of the desert was illegally owned by the economic peasants of the village of Podmonastyrskaya Sloboda, the monastery had only 25.5 acres occupied by vegetable gardens and mowing, and that all the efforts of the monastery to restore its rights to this land, despite the indisputability of its documents, remained unsuccessful. 225 The new owner of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage did not passively reconcile with the discovered disorder, which was causing obvious material damage to the monastery, but, on the other hand, he was not inclined to forcibly protect the rights of monastic property. Having thoroughly familiarized himself with the land issue of the monastery, Archimandrite Ignatius in 1884 filed a petition for the restoration of boundary markers on the monastery land and for a speedy review of the rights to own land incorrectly appropriated by the peasants. The hopeless, apparently controversial case was finally resolved only in 1840 226 in the sense that the land was recognized as belonging to the monastery, but in view of the difficulty of evicting the peasants who had settled on it since 1765, with the consent of Archimandrite Ignatius, it was decided to divide the land into two parts: the eastern side, on which the monastery stands; along the line from north to south, give it to him, and give the western line, on which the peasants settled, to them. Consent to such a division was expressed by Archimandrite Ignatius in a letter to State Secretary A.I. Golitsyn in the spirit of Christian peacefulness. 227 And perhaps a land division beneficial for the monastery took place. In addition, in the same petition of 1835, Archimandrite Ignatius asked the Boundary Office to allocate a forest plot to the monastery, in accordance with the Highest decree announced on June 4, 1835, by virtue of which monasteries, in order to support their methods of existence, should be allocated approximately 100 to 150 acres of land for the establishment of agricultural farming. According to this petition, initiated in August 1835, the Sergiev Hermitage was allocated with a “Forest plot of 50 acres, carved out of the state-owned Prusvenskaya dacha by the Novoladozhsky district.” 228 The forest from this site provides support for the monastery buildings. Having achieved certainty of the monastic economy in terms of land, the young but experienced owner of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage was concerned with bringing it into a form suitable for agriculture and gardening and ensuring the greatest profitability of the land plot. The land inherited after the division with the peasants of the Podmonastyrskaya Sloboda, which now occupies the place between the monastery and the railway line. road, was unsuitable for agriculture because, having remained without cultivation for a long time, it was overgrown with bushes and turned into a swamp. The land plot administered by the monastery was rented out for a small amount. Having set himself the task of establishing his own rational and exemplary economy in the monastery, Ignatius Brianchaninov first of all stopped leasing the existing plot of land and started fruit growing and gardening on it: vegetables and fruits from his farm appeared. The area inherited after the division needed to be drained and uprooted. This work was completed within one year. Having in mind the establishment of cattle breeding and agriculture, Ignatius Brianchaninov outlined the necessary outbuildings, the number of agricultural implements, horses and cows. To carry out all these plans of Archimandrite Ignatius, a significant amount of funds was required. And so in March 1838, Archimandrite Ignatius turned to Metropolitan Seraphim with a request to request 45,000 rubles from the Commission of Theological Schools. mutually for 8 years, in order to contribute only interest in the first three years, and in the last five years the capital itself, so that from the land acquired in the desert, overgrown with bushes and turned into a swamp, at least 66 dessiatines can be cultivated for the first time. properly. 229 In response to this request, a Nominal Highest Decree followed, given to the Commission of Theological Schools on the 14th day of April 1838, signed by His Imperial Majesty in his own hand, which reads: “in respect of the need presented by His Grace the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg for the appointment of a loan to the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage for economic institutions, I command, in accordance with the proposal of the Commission of Theological Schools, to release to this desert, unlike others, thirty thousand rubles from the reserve construction capital of the Commission on loan for eight years, so that in the payment of this amount only interest will be paid in the first three years, five per hundred, and in the remaining five years the capital itself with interest. 230 The loan allocated for the needs of the Sergius Hermitage, as can be seen from the previous one, in comparison with that requested by Archimandrite Ignatius, was less by a full third, and this reduction followed in the Commission of Theological Schools. The loan issued to fulfill the economic plans of the rector was insufficient, which he reported to the St. Petersburg Metropolitan Seraphim with a special petition in January 1842, in which, asking for some benefits for the monastery in repaying the debt, he pointed out that the maintenance of the brotherhood and the support of the monastery buildings, the church sacristy and other things require annually the same amount of expenditure as the desert has in its parish. The economic establishments for which capital was borrowed have not yet reached, in the past three years, the state in which one could hope to have a significant balance after expenses. The reason for this is nothing other than the fact that if at least 45 thousand rubles were used to cultivate the land, then in three years one could hope to receive the desired fruits from that land; but since only 30 thousand rubles were spent on this item, 231 of which were spent on buildings for the farm alone, 20 thousand rubles, then for this reason a significant part of the expected income, i.e. the land has not received adequate cultivation, from which the desired benefits could be obtained in a short time. To repay the loan received without burdening the desert budget, at the request of Archimandrite Ignatius, with the permission of Metropolitan Seraphim, 5,000 rubles were used. banknotes received from the wife of Tolstoy's Fligel-Adjutant for a plot of land in the amount of one and a half dessiatines that was sold to her and was unnecessary for the monastery. In addition, the large contributions received by M.V. to the Sergius Hermitage. Chikhachova and M.V. Makarov gave the abbot the opportunity to properly equip the economic affairs of the monastery and put it at the desired height. The monastery began to use vegetables from its gardens all year round; There was often enough rye bread for the whole year, despite the significantly increasing number of brethren, for the huge expenditure of it for distribution to pilgrims on holidays and for food for all monastery workers; There was so much oats and hay that it was sold annually for up to one and a half thousand rubles. Cattle breeding provided abundant dairy products for the fraternal meal. 232 Thus, in a very short period of time due to the complexity of the matter, the external economic improvement of the Sergeev Hermitage was achieved. Ignatius Brianchaninov, despite his young age, he took over the management of the monastery as a 27-year-old Archimandrite, who discovered that he was a reasonable, kind, experienced and energetic owner and administrator. He had the greatest share of the labor of organizing the monastery: his mind and will were in everything. Officially, they were the chairman of the construction committees 233 for the repair and arrangement of monastery buildings and the main responsible person for the entire course and direction of the matter. But, of course, “we must also pay tribute to his diligent collaborators, whom he was so able to choose and inspire with his ideas, no matter what they concerned—whether spiritual salvation or urgent earthly care for the outer man. “We all had a lot of work, troubles, illnesses and temptations until everything was brought into proper order,” recalls M.V. Chikhachov. “You can’t describe everything, but in the hope of the Creator, everyone did as much as they could for the common benefit of the monastery and their soul.” 234 Along with the external improvement of the monastery, during the reign of Archimandrite Ignatius, there was also an internal ordering of monastic life, for the sake of which, mainly, his favorite pupil was appointed to the Sergius Hermitage by the Sovereign will of Emperor Nicholas I. In improving the internal monastic life, Ignatius Brianchaninov declared himself to be an intelligent and energetic administrator and a zealous guardian of the monastic order. By organizing and improving the economic part, providing the monastic meal with a decent, bright and comfortable room, a simple, but hygienic and healthy, tasty and nutritious table through the establishment of a knowledgeable cook, with strict adherence to the monastery charter, Archimandrite Ignatius thereby eliminated the “sorrow of the flesh”, which is not uncommon in monasteries on the part of weak souls. The weak and unbridled brethren, to their surprise, saw that the same mushrooms, cabbage, onions and other vegetables of the monastery farm, cereals, oats and bread, with the entry of the new young abbot, began to provide a tasty and satisfying, nutritious lunch. The cleanliness of table linen and dishes, introduced in the refectory and hitherto maintained, had an educational effect on rude morals and made food in a common meal and people with refined taste not burdensome and sorrowless, and harmonious prayer, decorated with the singing of powerful and outstanding new voices who came to the monastery, and a clear reading of the lives of the saints at the meal, brought this one, apparently purely the carnal part of life - feeding the sinful body - to the highest degree of life and deeds “for the glory of God.” And the long and statutory services of God, thanks to the clear reading, beautiful singing with the participation of new newcomers, with the majestic and inspired service of the young rector with his sonorous baritone and soulfully simple “pronunciation of prayers and exclamations, sacred importance and religious aesthetics in the entire liturgical rite, the exceptional, as if unearthly octave of Chikhachov, who dedicated himself to sing to God, “until I am”, the impeccability and simplicity of the personal life of the aliens, all these traits, embodied, on the initiative of Ignatius Brianchaninov, in the life-monastic practice of the Sergius Hermitage, won a brilliant bloodless spiritual victory over the world of sorrows, temptations of carnal inclinations and falls. Previously, the inhabitants of the desert saw and felt the beauty and spiritual joy and consolation of the new order and came to terms with its difficulties for the lazy spirit and the tiresome flesh. New seekers of salvation and a quiet haven for protection from the storms of life flocked from all sides under the leadership of young Abba. Pious laymen who were not alien to church life, some out of curiosity, others in actual experience of the sorrow of the world, discovered an attraction to the Sergius Desert and its brotherhood, as an unusual and interesting phenomenon. For the edification of these latter, coming from St. Petersburg into the desert with interests that are not entirely stable and defined, there was a need for a harmonious, solemn and majestic Divine service, regulations and order in the monastery, good singing, mellifluous deacons, orderly moving ranks of well-bred monks - with all this visible spectacle of the glory and splendor of the Church of God, the soul of the church man is comforted and nourished, the soul is conquered vain and worldly, and Ignatius Brianchaninov gave all this to the monastery and the outer world and thereby conquered doubt and quenched inquisitiveness. Of course, like any good human endeavor, it is combined with temptations and sorrows, so the depicted conquests of the organizer of monastic life in the Sergius Hermitage were not alien to temptations and for Archimandrite Ignatius himself they were not sorrowless, as evidenced by his closest collaborator M.V. Chikhachev. “In the opinion of the Spiritual Authority itself,” he writes in his notes, “the management of Ignatyevo seemed unprecedented news. The brethren of the old, accustomed to their customs, were forced to conform to the new order, just as the newcomers did; The rite of church service was also introduced. A different tune, a different standing, worship according to position, decent stay in the choir, etc., clothing, meals and all life seemed to be created again, because the wisdom, that is, the way of thinking and the view of things was different from the usual, and besides, the written part and the economic part were organized again. Then it was like one family, ruled by one father, who closely watched both the performers and the performance. All responsibility lay with the father, that is, with the abbot. The inconvenience of the place for monastic residence, the youth and representativeness of many of us, the unfavorability of many of the powerful persons, the envy and slander of ill-wishers and, in some cases, the oppression of the commanding and high persons themselves, and our own infirmities, shortcomings and lack of experience - all this together did not cause worries to the head himself - the father? But there was nothing to do, you couldn’t run away, you had to carry it and ask for help from above, which in fact happened. With God's help, everything was endured - both bearable and seemingly humanly unbearable. But this cost the abbot many serious illnesses and spiritual sorrows, which were even hidden from me. His very actions were incomprehensible to many, not to say to everyone, especially to me, a simpleton. It contained a lot and one did not interfere with the other, that is, a deep knowledge of the writings of the Holy Fathers with monastic active experience, and external skill and ability to deal with all kinds of people, a subtle comprehension of human morals with all their bizarre infirmities. He knew how to differentiate between good intentions and malicious cunning flexibility and all the clerical hooks, and sometimes use them for the benefit of the brethren and the monastery.” 235 Thus, from this simple-minded testimony of Ignatiev’s ingenuous friend, it is clear that the high improvement of the Sergius monastery was not difficult for the abbot, but rather sorrowful, that the young ascetic coped with internal sorrows through invisible cross-bearing and the help of God, and in external affairs he relied on the talents given by God and inherited from his parents and his complex life and ascetic experience. Archimandrite Ignatius’s concerns about the internal improvement of the monastery and the orderliness of the life of the monastic brotherhood were expressed, first of all, in the skillful and strict selection of people, with attention, at the same time, to their general moral state and to individual qualities and abilities that could serve to satisfy one or another need of monastic life. At the same time, it was also taken into account that the persons newly entering the monastery corresponded to the general structure of communal life and the task of the missionary service of the Sergius monastery to the outside world, in close relation to which they stand by their very position near the populous capital and the residence of the Royal Persons. In this case, Ignatius Brianchaninov guarded his understanding of this task, his abbot’s authority with all the determination of his extraordinary character, pursuing not his own goals, but fraternal and social ones and not stopping at the possibility of conflict with people who were strong, but who differed from him in their understanding of the benefits of the monastery. At the same time, he did not shy away from re-educating fallen souls if he saw a spark of divine jealousy in their depths, and did not choose exclusively serviceable people, so that there would be no work left for him, although he always had in mind the external decency of the Sergius Brotherhood, so that it could not tempt anyone. It took a lot of understanding of the matter, character, foresight and caution in such an important matter. Ignatius Brianchaninov avoided accepting people who were not morally strong and who had degenerated into his monastery. His view on this subject was expressed in his official response on the issue of accepting the hieromonk of the Kostroma Epiphany Monastery, who was unsuitable for it, into the Sergius Hermitage. According to this opinion of Archimandrite Ignatius, the shortcomings cannot be tolerated in the Sergius Hermitage, which are still tolerable in other places, for it stands on the path along which in the summer every day, and in the winter very often, Members of the Highest Family, the first dignitaries of the state, famous foreigners, and all the above-mentioned persons often come to the monastery, which is why it is required that the brethren of the Sergius Hermitage be of solid character, behavior completely unquestionable and, not could give rise to any temptation.” 236 Solidity of character and unquestionable behavior are two requirements that, in the opinion of Archimandrite Ignatius, an inhabitant of the Sergius Hermitage must meet. And he adhered to the point of view he had acquired, even in the event of an unfavorable collision with another will. And his firm decisions and reviews could not be ignored. So in 1843, despite the desire of the Consistory to place Captain Pribytkov in the Sergius hermitage, it was forced to abandon this intention in view of the recall of Archimandrite Ignatius: “Because you, Fr. Archimandrite Ignatius responded that he could not express consent to accept the petitioner Captain Erast Ivanov Pribytkov into the number of novices of this hermitage due to his special inclination towards solitude and thoughtfulness, and because the Sergius Hermitage is constantly visited by a significant public, then he, Pribytkov’s petition to be included in the number of novices of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage, will be refused.” 237 Even when the matter concerned not the monastics, but the full-time servants of the monastery, Ignatius maintained his view of those living in the Sergius Hermitage and fought the sophisms of persons and institutions that disagreed with him on the issue of the educational influence of the monastery on its inhabitants. 238 Archimandrite Ignatius strictly valued abstinent life, hard work and diligence in obedience, and the personal example of everyone in their area. 239 But he believed in the possibility of human correction, by the grace of God, and did not refuse to accept into his monastery people who were weak, but not alien to the spark of God or inclined to repentance. The following case seems to confirm the stated position. In January 1823, at the Solovetsky Monastery, a certain monk Arseny fell into the heresy of false prophecy, which caused confusion and anxiety to the Solovetsky monastery, for which, by decree of the Holy Synod, he was sent to the Anzersky monastery under strict confinement in fasting and prayer. On September 7, 1837, the disgrace of the Holy Synod was lifted and the end of his life - in repentance and edifying behavior, Arseny, who accepted the schema on July 26, 1838, spent in the Sergius Hermitage. In the margins of the form list about the service of schema-monk Arseny, Ignatius Brianchaninov made the following inscription: “Having been rewarded with the temptations to which the Monks Isaac and Nikita of Pechersk were subjected, schema-monks Arseniy was also vouchsafed the spiritual state that the above-mentioned saints were vouchsafed upon their deliverance from demonic delusion. He was noted to behave very well, and he behaves the same way now. Due to his blindness and sickness, he is incapable of obedience; He is very useful to the brethren with his advice.” 240 The notes are remarkable and are in harmony with the general views of Ignatius Brianchaninov. Archimandrite Ignatius knew how to find people and encourage them. Ignatius Malyshev, his cell attendant, hierodeacon, viceroy, and then Archimandrite of the Sergius Hermitage, carried by a long trial to the highest rank, was a wonderful owner, builder and artist. Justin, later the governor of the Nikolo-Babaevsky monastery, was a remarkable connoisseur of singing. The entry into the monastery of many people seems from an ordinary everyday point of view to be accidental. Thus, the wonderful archdeacon of the Sergius Hermitage, Gideon I, was bought by Ignatius Brianchaninov for 200 rubles. from the tobacco manufacturer Zhukov, for whom he was a worker and was accidentally noticed by Archimandrite Ignatius due to his remarkable voice. The authority of Archimandrite Ignatius in relation to religious, educational and administrative matters stood high. In 1836, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count Mikhail Aleksandrovich Protasov, informed the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg that, according to the most submissive report to the Sovereign Emperor on the subject of Archimandrite Plato’s petition for his return from the Valaam Monastery and for his continued appointment to the post, His Majesty deigned to order “to transfer him first to the Sergius Hermitage for testing." As a result of this, by the resolution of the Metropolitan, Archimandrite Ignatius was ordered to report to His Eminence every two months, both on his way of thinking regarding Orthodoxy and on the behavior of Archimandrite Plato. 241 When the Lavra hierodeacon Vladimir turned out to be “addicted to hot wine drinking,” did not spend the night in the Lavra and appeared at 5 o’clock in the morning “in a drunken state,” the Consistory determined to send him to Valaam for correction, and the Metropolitan ordered “to send him not to the Valaam monastery, but to the Sergius hermitage under special supervision, about his behavior, and How will he survive this time? Tell the abbot to report to us.” 242 In 1835, Chief Prosecutor of St. Synod S.D. Nechaev, presenting a copy of the magazine “Christian Reading” to the Highest view of the Sovereign Emperor, brought to the attention of His Majesty that St. The Synod intends to publish, for the benefit of the common people, among whom literacy is increasing year by year, individual lives of saints, borrowing them from the Menaion-Chetya, since people of this class, due to their devotion to the faith of their fathers, especially love such edifying narratives and they are generally more understandable and useful for them than any other kind of writings. At the same time, G. Chief Prosecutor reported that due diligence would be used in this matter and that first it was planned to print the biographies of the saints who shone in Russia, our Grand Dukes, Hierarchs, etc. so that the collection of these first experiences would be a kind of monument for the common people, not only in the church, but also in the domestic sense. His Imperial Majesty deigned to recognize this idea as useful. According to the above message, St. Synod, by the definition of the Synod of March 7, 1835, the compilation of biographies of saints was entrusted to the rector of the second-class Sergius Hermitage, Archimandrite Ignatius, with instructions to begin his studies with the lives of saints who shone in Russia, such as: Russian Grand Dukes, Hierarchs, etc., and each biography, upon compilation, should be presented separately, through Metropolitan in St. Synod for consideration. 243 Close to the heart of Archimandrite Ignatius, concern for the splendor of church services in the early days of his abbotship was difficult to implement due to the limited staff of clergy in the monastery and due to the frequent demands of the hieromonks necessary for the needs of the monastery for the fleet. Requests from hieromonks for the fleet were presented to the abbot very often without prior notice, for immediate fulfillment, and, moreover, in such quantities that the religious and liturgical needs of the monastery could remain unsatisfied due to the absence of performers of the Divine service. 244 Having in mind the provision of the monastery with the efficient, unhindered and splendid performance of divine services, so important for the monastery’s own needs and for those who come to pray, as well as the immediate satisfaction of the demands of the clergy for the fleet and other external needs, Archimandrite Ignatius, with a petition dated April 13, 1836 addressed to the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, noting the frequent demands of the hieromonks for the fleet and the needs of the monastery, petitioned for an increase in the staff of hieromonks, “so that the desert could freely represent hieromonks to the fleet.” Archimandrite Ignatius motivates his petition from the needs of the monastery itself by the fact that the Sergius Monastery is maintained solely by the pilgrims who flock to it in the summer, during which there are always two masses, quite often three; There are often conciliar services and almost continuous prayer services and memorial services, so that at one time there are 7 and 8 hieromonks in the service. 245 The petition of Archimandrite Ignatius found the sympathy of Metropolitan Seraphim, who, by submission dated May 1, 1836, No. 156, asked St. Synod on increasing the staff of the Sergius Hermitage. As a result of this petition, according to the submission of St. By the resolution of the Synod on May 23, 1836, by the Highest Decree of May 30, 1836, the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage was elevated to class I. In the definition of St. The Synod on the subject of a petition to increase the staff of the Sergius Hermitage outlines interesting motives for characterizing Archimandrite Ignatius. “Taking into consideration that the Sergiev Hermitage, being near the capital, is visited by many pilgrims and often noble persons, that under the management of the current abbot, the moral state of the brethren, the decorum and order between them and in the church service itself are noticeably improving, and that its monastics are often sent to the fleet for naval campaigns. Holy The Synod finds it fair and useful, instead of what is proposed by the St. Petersburg Diocesan Administration, only to increase the number of hieromonks in that desert by 6 people, to elevate it from the 2nd to the first class, assigning to it a staff of people and contents common to first-class monasteries, and thereby provide the desert with a way to prepare a larger number of good monastics, to support its dignity in the opinion of the people, who are quite disposed towards it” 246 Thus, seedy and degenerate, requiring extraordinary measures to streamline its life, the monastery became a first-class monastery during the two and a half years of the abbot and tireless activity of Archimandrite Ignatius Brianchaninov, and its dignity in connection with the qualities of the abbot was noted by the determination of the highest Church Administration. With the elevation of the Sergius Monastery to the level of a first-class Monastery, a new person was introduced into the staff of the monastery: a vicar is assigned to the abbot of a first-class monastery. The introduction of a new person to the staff required an understanding of his rights and responsibilities, and also necessitated a precise division of responsibilities between the members of the previous monastic staff. As the rector of the first-class Trinity-Sergius Hermitage, not limiting himself to verbal orders on the distribution of duties and obediences among his closest employees, Ignatius Brianchaninov compiled instructions for the governor and treasurer of the Sergius Hermitage. Compiled in the spirit and strength of Ignatius Brianchaninov, this instruction is, in our opinion, a wonderful document, in itself and for clarifying the character of the compiler. It has the following title: “First-class Trinity St. Sergius Hermitage of the Rector Archimandrite Ignatius, the same hermitage to Hieromonks Theophanes and Apollos - Instructions.” The contents of the instructions are stated in the following terms: – “Due to the approval of Hieromonk Theophan as the Viceroy, and Hieromonk Apollos as the Treasurer of this desert, I order you to assume these positions in the proper manner. For greater order, I think it is necessary to state the following instructions: A) The duty of the Vicar is to pay careful attention to the brethren. And because: 1st. He is given an indispensable duty - every day, to have information about the sick brethren, to visit every patient every day and try to ensure that the sick are visited by a doctor, so that no one dares to be treated by charlatans and, in particular, to bleed willfully. 2nd. So that everyone would be in the church of God and each in his own position and in his place; if someone is absent, find out the reason for the absence. If the reason turns out to be permissible or natural, then penalties should not be imposed; if this reason is a headache, then take drastic measures immediately and send him immediately to the dacha. If resistance is encountered, then use regular force. 3rd. All these cases should be brought to the attention of the Superior, except for petty ones that do not deserve attention. Why should the Viceroy have a list of all the brothers, and for memory purposes, note in the column next to the name about his illness, or absence, and the like. 4th. During the abbot's absence from the monastery, the viceroy replaces his authority, however, deciding at his own discretion unimportant cases. Important decisions are left until the arrival of the Abbot. The abbot does not have the right to dismiss anyone to St. Petersburg due to his own need, for this right belongs solely to the abbot. If an emergency happens to someone, then the Viceroy can dismiss him only in consultation with the older brethren and with a ticket on plain paper signed jointly by all the older brethren at a meeting of the former. Do the same in other important cases that cannot be delayed in the absence of the Superior. 5th, The senior brethren for the meeting should be the following: a) Confessor, b) Treasurer, c) Sacristan, d) Dean, e) Housekeeper. The meeting is held in private, without allowing the petitioner into it. The decision of the Council is announced to the petitioner by the Viceroy. 6th. In the absence or illness of the Viceroy, his position is occupied by the Treasurer, in the absence of both - by the Sacristan, and so on - according to seniority. B) The treasurer is solely obliged to manage the amount and keep in order the books, both non-salary and regular, as well as the fraternal amount, prepare lists of the brethren when distributing the mug and distribute it. Other things that were in the custody of the Treasurer will now go to the Department of the Economist.” This instruction was signed by Archimandrite Ignatius and marked September 29, 1886 as No. 115. The most interesting part of this instruction is the first part and, in particular, the beginning of it, where, in pp. 1 and 2 define the duties of the Viceroy in relation to the brethren and decisive measures against “headaches” - with the immediate eviction of the patient “to the dacha”. The honor and dignity of the monastery put Archimandrite Ignatius on guard, and the rudeness of morals and human weakness called for drastic measures. The honor and dignity of the monastery increased during the abbotship of Ignatius Brianchaninov 247 its external improvement, the beauty of churches and cemeteries, order, cleanliness and visible contentment on the land plots adjacent to it, solid outbuildings - all this told an outside observer about the significant wealth of the monastery, although this did not yet exist at that time, and from the monastic ill-wishers it evoked envious glances and even literary attacks to which the inhabitants of the desert could always respond by pointing to the hard labor they had endured in the past and to the continuous church-religious feat in the present, attracting the eyes and hearts of both those who work and are burdened with life, and those simply curious, to the monastery. Considering in detail and historically the monastic issue and expressing his “Word in Defense of Russian Monasteries”, against the literary harsh attacks on the Sergius Hermitage, the abbot Archimandrite Ignatius points with consolation to the attention of the world attracted by the monastery. Sergius Hermitage, he says, stands on the shore of the Gulf of Finland, that is, it stood across the road. You have to go past to Peterhof, to Strelna, to Znamenskoye, Mikhailovskoye. Good people drive by, and sometimes they stop by the Sergius Monastery. Those who love to pray in the holy monastery range from humble servants of God, working men and soldiers, to their beloved Father - the Tsar and His August Family. Everyone, by the grace of God, leaves with a warm feeling; Even peoples of different tribes and foreign envoys admitted this more than once, first carried away by curiosity, and then repeating the visit for the sake of a Christian warm feeling, which is not given by earthly vanities. 248 In explaining the wealth and improvement of the Sergius Hermitage, the author of the “Lay” quoted below rightly points to the spirit of the Russian people and the selfish hard work of the brotherhood. The elegance of the buildings and some of the buildings of the Sergius Hermitage would be incredible. The spirit of the Russian people, which invariably operates in all centuries, is to blame for their creation. Look at any village: the people, like ants, huddle together in their poor huts, but the church of God is built and tall and beautiful; the golden cross goes to heaven. The people of God themselves almost walk around in rags, but in the church of God they strive to make everything shine with gold and silver, and how innocently they rejoice at the fact that they have decorated the church of God. Well, how do you re-educate the spirit of the people that has developed over centuries?... And this happens because the Russian people have a more correct view of earthly life than highly intelligent philosophers: the earth is a path for them, a home is a wanderer’s overnight stay, and the church of God is a warm shelter sent down to them by the grace of the Great Master, who warms the soul with hopes and reminders of the afterlife and eternal bliss. Here is the secret of building the Sergius Hermitage. In these magnificent buildings, both the tears of the mother, who buried all her earthly joys in the land of the holy monastery, and sad thoughts shine? A Christian husband, humbly awaiting the day of a bright meeting with an unforgettable friend, and the deep sorrow of a wife who does not want earthly consolations for the loss of her beloved husband, and the reverent memory of children who honor their beloved parents beyond the grave. Why do you want to deprive them of their last bright joy in their sorrows? And what will you give in exchange for the high immaterial aspiration for that which is unknown to the mind, invisible to the eye, but which speaks so close to the heart, which is so clear to the Russian people who believe both in times of trial and in moments of joy. Go, you dead, bury your dead; do not interfere with the living people of Holy Rus' to believe, hope and love in magnificent churches. 249 The administrative activities of Archimandrite Ignatius Brianchaninov were further complicated by his appointment at the age of 31 in May 1838 to the position of dean of the monasteries of the St. Petersburg diocese with the merger of two previously existing deaneries into one, under the control of Archimandrite Ignatius. Before the appointment of Ignatius Brianchaninov as dean of monasteries in the St. Petersburg diocese, there were two monastic deaneries and the deans of the monasteries were: Zelenetsky Archimandrite Kirill and Valaam Abbot Veniamin. The appointment of Ignatius Brianchaninov took place at the proposal of the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, given to the St. Petersburg Ecclesiastical Consistory on May 4, 1838, in the following expressions: “Over all the men and women monasteries in our St. Petersburg diocese, we recognized, due to the circumstances, as necessary to appoint the dean of the first-class Trinity Sergius Hermitage, rector Fr. Archimandrite Ignatius, and then the former deans of these monasteries - Archimandrite Kirill of Zelenetsky and Abbot Veshamin of the Valaam Monastery - are to be dismissed from these positions.” 250 From then on, a long period of 251 laborious and useful service for monastic and church life in the St. Petersburg diocese of Ignatius Brianchaninov began in the position of Dean of the monasteries. The deanery, extensive and inconvenient in terms of communication routes, poorly organized due to the state of monastic life, required full attention and significant strength and willpower on the part of the dean. The fulfillment of this position, which Archimandrite Ignatius did not refuse, solely out of monastic obedience, was the reason for the weakening of his fragile health during repeated trips to monasteries. At the same time, it brought him a whole series of spiritual sorrows. Instead of a relatively calm life in the Sergius Desert, which he had landscaped, he had to delve into the disorganization of other people's monasteries, difficult and sometimes offending the purity of the monastic mood, misdeeds and crimes. Instead of a contemplative spiritual-ascetic life and concentrated desk work on the “Ascetic Experiences” close to his heart, Archimandrite Ignatius had to write up piles of papers, write almost books on the analysis and investigation of peculiar heresies and immoral crimes, recommend a number of measures for organizing the lives of people overwhelmed by evil, show fatherly severity towards them, cry about the death of the human spirit, pray for human ignorance. The archive of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage during the reign of Ignatius Brianchaninov, half consists of files on the deanery of the monasteries of the St. Petersburg diocese. Based on these cases, thoroughly presented and kept in order, one can conveniently write the history of the monasteries and spiritual life of the St. Petersburg diocese for the 19th century. Hard work, accuracy and clerical talent of P.P. Yakovlev in the affairs of the deanery of monasteries found their proper application and expressed themselves in all their fullness. Advice and opinions on construction matters, instructions on issues of the internal monastic and liturgical life of monasteries, clarifications on reporting issues, pacification of warring parties, examination of errors and crimes, design of measures of punishment and admonition, based on Ignatiev’s mood, helping to streamline monastic life, enriched his spirit with new experiences, increased life experience, and strengthened his outlook on life. But, as in almost all positions of this kind in the deanery, one had to deal most of all with the negative aspects of human life, which evoked a sorrowful feeling for the dean’s shepherd. Not considering it our task to fully depict monastic life during the period of execution of the deanery position by Ignatius Brianchaninov, let us note some examples of matters that were subject to his attention. Strange as it may seem, the dean of the monasteries, Archimandrite Ignatius, was most concerned about the Valaam Monastery. Being one of the oldest Russian monasteries and, as it were, a monument to early Christianity in Rus', the monastery at the beginning of the 19th century was overwhelmed by internal discord. A clear expression of these disorders is the case that arose in the late thirties in the Valaam Monastery regarding the denunciation of Abbot Varlaam and the monk Josiah. The essence of this, complex and completely upsetting monastic life and good fraternal relations on Valaam, is that: 1) the former abbot Varlaam and the monk Josiah reported to the Holy Synod about the heresy that arose among the Valaam brethren, which consisted in the free and unchurchly view of some monks on church rites, sacraments and the posthumous fate of the soul. Moreover, the former abbot Varlaam and the monk Josiah accused him of a number of illegal actions and pointed out the shortcomings of the behavior of the abbot Veniamin and the governor Irinarch. 2) According to the denunciation of Hieromonk Ezekiel, submitted back in 1832, a number of disorders were noted in the internal life of the Valaam Monastery. There was no final investigation and trial until 1838. 253 Even before his appointment to the post of dean of the monasteries, Archimandrite Ignatius received an order from the Consistory to sort out the disputes in the Valaam monastery. 254 The detailed and punctual report of Archimandrite Ignatius on this issue formed the basis for the report of Metropolitan Seraphim to the Holy Synod and the determination of the Holy Synod on the subject of the Valaam riots. Highly approved on December 17, 1838, by the determination of the Holy Synod of October 17, 1838, the long-term unrest of the Valaam Monastery was finally eliminated: the main culprits were removed from Valaam with their placement in various monasteries of the Arkhangelsk, Kostroma, Kaluga and Vologda dioceses, and some of them, who were important in relation to the unrest, as spreaders heresies, monk Porfiry, who was in close relations with the also mentioned Archimandrite Plato, and hieromonk Apollos were placed in the Sergius Hermitage under the close supervision of the abbot and to test his way of thinking and behavior. Others were given suggestions, others were recommended to ask for fraternal forgiveness for the insults they had caused, some were left without punishment due to their innocence. Thus, with the energy of the rector of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage, the harmful weeds in the spiritual field of ancient Valaam were found and the church’s power was pulled out. But for the ordering and growth of the Valaam monastery in the future, it seemed extremely necessary to appoint a new abbot, experienced and suitable for the monastery, in relation to the circumstances. In p. 14 of the resolution of the Holy Synod of October 17, on this matter, Supremely approved, on this issue it was decided, in order to stop the discord, suspicion and agitation of the minds of the Valaam brethren and to stop the cooling towards Divine services noticed in them, to grant His Eminence the Metropolitan of Novgorod to immediately elect and submit for approval to the Holy Synod a rector of this proven honesty and ability to lead in cenobitic monastery, so that the new abbot would be placed in especially close and frequent relations with the dean of the monasteries of the St. Petersburg diocese and, together with him, would take special care to bring the Valaam monastery to its proper rank and order and to cleanse it from people who, with the spirit of strife and disobedience, impede the improvement and criticize the place and title, and at the same time with the assistance of the brethren, he kept the monastery’s economy in the best possible order, initially entrusting the expenditure on books and documents to the elder brethren. 255 Archimandrite Ignatius was already the dean of the monasteries of the St. Petersburg diocese at this time. And in the determination of the Holy Synod on the case of the Valaam unrest, one cannot help but see the encouraging attention of the Supreme Church authorities to Ignatius Brianchaninov and the obvious desire that in the future the organization of the affairs and life of the Valaam monastery would stand under the closest guiding influence of him, as an expert in monastic affairs, a wise and energetic leader. In this sense, undoubtedly, the synodal definition was adopted by the St. Petersburg Diocesan Administration: informing the final decision on the Valaam case to Archimandrite Ignatius for execution at the appropriate points, the St. Petersburg Consistory, according to paragraph 14 of the Highest approved definition of the Holy Governing Synod, grants Archimandrite Ignatius, as having visited the Valaam monastery and to someone who knows it, inform His Eminence whether you have in mind anyone from among the brethren there who is capable and worthy to be its abbot.” 256 By the determination of the Holy Synod and the Decree of the Consistory, the Valaam Monastery became under the influence of Ignatius Brianchaninov: he was entrusted with recommending a candidate for the position of abbot and he was also entrusted with the leadership of the activities of the new abbot. The decree of the consistory proposes to identify a candidate for the abbot of Valaam “from among the local brethren,” thereby restoring the temporarily disrupted order of abbot of Valaam. 257 Well aware of the composition of the Valaam brotherhood, Archimandrite Ignatius recommended for the position of abbot in the Valaam monastery the hermitage monk Damascene, known to him for his ascetic and ascetic life, who did not even have holy orders. The election of Damascene as Archimandrite Ignatius coincided with the will of the Sovereign Emperor and the Holy Synod, and on January 30, 1889, Damascene, after preliminary ordination as a hieromonk, was promoted to the rank of abbot and appointed rector of the Valaam Monastery. 258 On March 5, Abbot Damascene returned with the dean Archimandrite Ignatius Brianchaninov to his native Valaam monastery, was greeted solemnly with the ringing of bells and accepted the Valaam monastery into his reign. 259 Thus, with the participation of Archimandrite Ignatius, the Valaam unrest ended and the life of this monastery took on that direction of rare hard work and strict asceticism, with which the Valaam monastery has an educational influence on the restless outside world to this day. 260 The responsibilities of Dean Archimandrite Ignatius soon included monitoring the chapels of the Valaam and Konevsky monasteries in St. Petersburg. 261 Subsequently, when Archimandrite Ignatius was temporarily relieved of his deanship duties, supervision of the Valaam courtyard was still left to him, 262 so that from time to time, while fulfilling his official duties in this regard, he could indulge in the memories of his youth, when Dimitri Bryanchaninov and Misha Chikhachov brought their pure dreams to the Valaam courtyard. The insightful, logical mind, impartiality and originality, energy and determination of Archimandrite Ignatius Brianchaninov were revealed not only in his activities in the improvement of the Sergius Monastery and in the management of the monasteries of the St. Petersburg diocese, but also in the successful fulfillment of various kinds of administrative assignments on very complex matters. There is an opinion about the noble sympathies of Ignatius Brianchaninov, about his inclination to solve life issues from the point of view of the landowner. The opinion is idle and unfounded. As proof of his freedom from the tendency imposed on him and little reconciled with his spiritual way of life, namely, a church leader, we can refer to the interesting manuscript we found in the archives of the Sergius Monastery, beautifully copied, on good paper and in calico binding, entitled: “Note of the senior deputy Archimandrite Ignatius Brianchaninov on the investigative case of the landowner Strakhov in 1851,” with an addition from prisoner file from the archives of the Governing Senate, August 7, 1860, No. 277; a) opinions on the case of the Head of the Novgorod province, August 30 (1860 and b) Determinations of the Government. Senate March 20, 1860. 263 The essence of this case, which by the end of the proceedings had grown to XIV volumes on 4648 pages with appendices, lies in the long-term, full of tragedy, litigation between the serfs and the landowner Lieutenant Colonel Strakhov, which arose as a result of the peasants’ complaint about the excessive burden of their work, about the rape of their wives and daughters by the landowner Strakhov, about the forced marriage with rods at church doors, etc., The parish priest Ivanovsky and other clergy took part in this matter. The case is full of outrageous facts. Strakhov accused priest Ivanovsky of indignant peasants against the landowners' power, and the priest was sent to prison. The investigative commission and all authorities sided with the landowner. And so in 1851, by order of the Highest, a re-investigation of the case was ordered and Archimandrite Ignatius Brianchaninov was appointed senior deputy from the Spiritual Department. 264 Ignatius Brianchaninov alone spoke out against the entire course of the case and its biased direction. In his extensive note, he thoroughly and logically, critically examines the entire investigative case, decisively speaks out in defense of the priest Ivanovsky, who, in his opinion, was fulfilling his pastoral duty, speaks of the humility and obedience of the peasants and speaks out for the guilt of the landowner Strakhov. The character of Ignatius Brianchaninov, his impartiality, the height of the pastoral spirit are alive in the judgments of the author of this wonderful note, on 138 large sheets, resolving the issue of mutual human relations and serfdom from the Orthodox Christian point of view. 265 The external revival of the desert, which, thanks to the care of the abbot, rose from the ruins and was adorned with many beautiful buildings, was only one, and perhaps less important side of the activity of Archimandrite Ignatius as the rector of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage. The most important aspect of his arduous activity, which required all his spiritual strength, all his spiritual experience, was the internal improvement, moral reconstruction and Spiritual renewal of that monastery, which, living in the northern capital, according to his own vocation, he did not even want to see, considering it completely inconsistent with his spiritual goals. 266 If it was not small moral concerns and physical trials, tears and suffering that cost the Archimandrite the external improvement of the monastery, putting in order the ostentatious, so to speak, side of it, then the moral reconstruction of the monastery, which was morally debauched, cost him much more. Taking care of the external decoration and ordering of the Sergius Hermitage, the Archimandrite immediately established a strict order in the life of his spiritual flock: he raised the order of the brethren, set them up for the soul-saving passing of time in all possible labors of obedience and cell activities; demanded careful attendance at church and decent standing during church services, and the brethren, although they often grumbled at the severity of the new rector, had to obey. “The brothers who came before us,” Chikhachov says in his notes, “accustomed to their customs, were forced, not without sorrow, to adopt a new, stricter order, to do everything as the new arrivals did, that is, as; the abbot indicated; The rite of church service was also introduced. A different chant, a different standing, worship according to position, choir, decent stay, etc. “Clothes, meals and the whole life seemed to be created again, because the abbot’s way of thinking, that is, the way of thinking and looking at things, was different from what the previous brethren were accustomed to.” 267 As an experienced shepherd, caring for every sheep of his spiritual flock, Fr. Ignatius delved into everyone’s cell life, and was a father and mentor to everyone; the doors of his cell were open to everyone: elderly monks, clergy and young novices entered freely; everyone revealed their thoughts to him and received spiritual advice from him. “Then it was similar,” Chikhachov says about this time, “to one family, ruled by a father who vigilantly watched both the performers and the performance. All responsibility lay with the father, that is, with the abbot. He combined in himself a deep knowledge of the writings of the Holy Fathers with monastic active experience, and external skill and ability in dealing with all kinds of people, and a subtle comprehension of human morals with all their bizarre infirmities, the difference between well-intentionedness and malicious, cunning flexibility.” 268 “The abbot’s system of educating newcomers was as follows: he taught them to be frank with him not only in deeds, but also in thoughts. Such frankness and closeness of relationships did not allow students to make gross mistakes; It was such a shame and a pity to insult my father and benefactor.” 269 ​​“Trying to reveal the essence of monastic life, Archimandrite Ignatius strived to personify in himself, and through the painting of words, depicted to others the spiritual beauty of the morals of ancient Egyptian monasticism, which was the ideal of his life. Monasticism according to the teachings and examples of the Holy Fathers, mainly Egyptian, was his cherished thought from childhood. Guided by this teaching, he had an unparalleled love for monastic monasticism in our time, and this love was quite meaningful: he looked at the new monastic leadership as the foundation of ascetic science, where monastic morals are born and developed, and in general at monasticism as the science of sciences. In this spirit, they instructed everyone who was disposed to enter monasticism and, by the strength of their own desire for their high ideals, produced a powerful influence on young souls, not spoiled by life. He willingly accepted such people into spiritual kinship with himself and guided his experienced, spirit-bearing word, which was so effective that it converted hearts, removed many years of experience, weakened habits, and changed the morals of many. Archimandrite Ignatius possessed the ability to receive confession of thoughts, which is a very rare phenomenon in our time; versatile experience, deep insight, constant and accurate self-observation made him skilled in healing spiritual scabs, which he always touched with the thinnest chisel of the spiritual word. Knowing how to control himself in all the incidents of life, without losing heart in the most embarrassing circumstances, he conveyed the same firmness to those who confessed their thoughts to him: the oppressive sadness after confessing to him seemed to them an empty ghost. The correct view of the passionate nature of man - the fruit of many years of introspection, set out by him in the article: “The attitude of a Christian to his passions”, served as a source of consolation for his pupils; it forced them, when revealing their thoughts, to speak out with complete freedom, trust and fearlessness; they always heard an answer that completely reconciled them with themselves; often an example from his own life given by the elder, or an indication of some event described in books, came so close to the confessed case that there was no doubt or bewilderment left in the soul of the confessor; the student always left with consolation from the elder. Confession of thoughts by a new monk to an elder has always been the basis of monastic life; it was included, as an indispensable condition, in the circle of spiritual education of Archimandrite Ignatius... Archimandrite Ignatius combined in himself both spiritual wisdom and external power, and therefore living under his leadership and in his monastery was a precious acquisition for those who sought to become monastics wisely. Despite his illness, he took the trouble to listen to the confession of his thoughts every day. His disciples even had the habit of keeping a daily record of them, and they revealed their thoughts sincerely, with directness, because the elder was able to accept such a confession quite dispassionately. The benefits of confessing thoughts were obvious to everyone. At the same time, the elder did not subject his disciples to painful tests, but was in accordance with the physical capabilities of each and mental development, so that the state under his spiritual guidance was even favorable, both physically and morally. 270 The views of Archimandrite Ignatius on the issue of the revelation of thoughts are expressed in his “Offering to Modern Monasticism,” 271 where he says the following on this issue: “All the fathers agree that the novice monk must reject sinful thoughts and dreams at the very beginning, without entering into debate, later in conversation with them. To repel sinful thoughts and dreams, the fathers offer two weapons; 1) immediate confession of thoughts and dreams to the elder, and 2) immediate appeal to God with the warmest prayer for the driving away of invisible enemies. The Monk Cassian says: “Always observe the head of the serpent, that is, the beginning of your thoughts, and immediately tell them to the elder, then you will learn to trample on the evil undertakings of the serpent, when you are not ashamed to reveal them, without exception, to your elder. This image of the struggle against demonic thoughts and dreams was common to all new monks in the flourishing times of monasticism. The novices, who were constantly with their elders, confessed their thoughts at all times, as can be seen from the life of the Monk Dosifei, and the novices, who came to their elder at a certain time, confessed their thoughts once a day in the evening, as can be seen from the Ladder and other Fatherly books. The ancient monks recognized the confession of their thoughts and the guidance of the advice of a spirit-bearing elder as a necessity, without which it is impossible to be saved... The instructions of a spirit-bearing elder constantly lead the new monk along the path of the Gospel commandments, and nothing separates him more from sin and the beginning of sin - the demon, than constant and strong confession of sin at its very beginnings. Such a confession establishes an irreconcilable enmity between man and demon that is salutary for man. Such a confession, destroying double-mindedness or hesitation between love for God and love for sin, gives extraordinary strength to good will, and therefore extraordinary speed to the success of the monk, as can be seen again from the life of the Monk Dositheus. Those monks who could not act against sin with constant and frequent confession of sinful thoughts, due to the lack of an elder, acted against it with constant and frequent prayer.” Realizing, as we see from the above, how important the sincere confession of thoughts is for the novice, without which it is impossible to be saved and which, putting an indestructible barrier between man and the devil, contributes to the rapid success of the monk, Archimandrite Ignatius especially appreciated and loved those who sincerely revealed their thoughts to him. Such was the young novice-cell attendant Ignatius (Ivan Vasilyevich Malyshev), who arrived in Sergius Monastery together with the abbot, nicknamed “Little” in contrast to another monk of the same name, handsome, tall and shining with all his external advantages. How Elder Leonid once assigned Archimandrite Ignatius himself, then still a humble novice Demetrius, difficult senile trials in the Alexander-Svirsky Monastery and the Ploshchanskaya Hermitage; so now he himself led with all his soul “Little Ignatius,” who had surrendered to him, along the difficult path of internal trials and humility. According to the latter’s own recollections, when he passed the obedience of a candle maker, there were such cases. The position of a candle maker in the summer required a hopeless stay in the church: the candle maker left only to have lunch or drink tea, which at first the brethren were going to drink in the rector’s cell. Little Ignatius usually came when everyone had already heated the water and there was not tea in the kettle, but, as they put it, “ouch.” He will pour himself a cup of such and such tea; At that moment, it happened that the Archimandrite would come in, take him by the collar and chase him out of the room, saying: “Oh, you damned sensualist! Did you then come to the monastery to drink tea? Out he goes." And the novice goes to his place to the candle box. His comrade, Fr. Theophan Komarovsky (later Archimandrite of the Solovetsky Monastery) would ask, “What, did my dear one get drunk on tea?” “I got drunk,” Ignatius will answer. There were lessons of this kind every day, especially at first; when o. The archimandrite was even younger and healthier, but he taught and educated each student according to his strengths and abilities, sparing no effort, no time, and if it was not easy for his students to accept his teachings and assimilate his rules, then it took him a lot of work to educate each one separately, instill a love for lessons and elevate them to a spiritual state. 272 But, strictly treating his spiritual children and knowing how to teach them, Fr. Ignatius knew how to love them. He, in the words of one of them, “laid down his life for his disciples”; 273 he forgave them all kinds of weakness, as long as the person recognized it with sincere repentance, and never bothered to listen to all the confessions and give the necessary advice. Little Ignatius in his new leadership constantly bored him with every minute asking for a blessing, without which he would not proceed to any work: Sometimes, at five o’clock in the morning, a novice with the first bell would approach the door of the abbot’s cell to receive the blessing to go to matins, and Father Archimandrite would answer every day: “God bless” and was never burdened by the fact that his short night’s rest was disturbed, anticipating the newbie true novice. He did not like it when any of the brethren shied away from him or were afraid of him. All his closest students were always near him, like bees near the queen, he taught them to read the Holy Scriptures, often invited them to his place and forced them to read, as if it was necessary for him, and saw who read how, with what faith and love for the Word of God. He forced his cell attendants to read the morning and evening rules every day. Forgiving his students every sincerely recognized sin, the abbot hated and most of all persecuted guile and pharisaism, pride and vanity. He will not impose any humiliating qualities on his novice and force him to say: I am lazy, careless, proud, proud, impatient, cowardly, etc.; and will certainly make you realize all this within yourself and ask for forgiveness for everything. The Archimandrite also did not like disagreements and quarrels: if someone happened to quarrel, he immediately called them to him and reconciled them, so that there would be no hostility until another day. A simple elder, Anthony, who lived in a monastery, had so internalized this rule that he used to walk everywhere in the evening, looking for his brother with whom he had a falling out, and asking everyone: have you seen such and such? And to the question: why do you need it? replies: “You see, the head just had a quarrel with him, and the father says: “Let the sun not set on your anger; we must ask for forgiveness.” And he will certainly find his brother and fulfill his good intention. Father Ignatius also did not like despondency and, never forbidding his disciples to talk cheerfully among themselves, even in his presence, and if he saw someone sad, he immediately asked about the reason and consoled him, adding: “Despondency is not from God, confess your sin and be cheerful.” 274 It is impossible to count all the examples of wise leadership and kind, loving mentoring that Archimandrite Ignatius showed during his 23-year stay in the Sergius Desert, how many weak in spirit he made healthy, saved from despondency, despair, sin, and even death. Let us cite, using the memories of his cell attendant, Little Ignatius, at least a few such examples. “A certain Platon Yanovsky, a former court minor singer, came to the monastery, and soon his beautiful baritone voice emerged; the singer was not inferior to the famous Italians, and lived for several years in the monastery as a novice. At this time, Field Marshal Prince Baryatinsky wished to establish a choir of singers in the Caucasus, and turned to the court chapel demanding a capable person to occupy the position of regent. Capella pointed to Yanovsky. Yanovsky was offered a significant salary and a brilliant career in the future. Yanovsky, having spent several years in the Caucasus, fully satisfied the prince’s wishes and returned back to the monastery. After living for several years in another society, Plato returned, but not him: with new skills and infirmities. The archimandrite thought what to do? he was taken as a child from his priest father, now an orphan, and, out of his characteristic mercy, he kept Plato with him. Yanovsky was very grateful to the abbot for such mercy; even in his moments of weakness, he fell weeping at his feet and kissed his hands. By the paternal appeal of Father Archimandrite, a person was saved from obvious death. Yanovsky lived until his death in the monastery and, apart from the weakness from which he consciously suffered, he was meek, humble and a true Christian, as evidenced by his dying letter to the second abbot Ignatius.” Another example similar to this is provided by the former. Nizhny Novgorod Protodeacon Vasily Petrovich Malev. He was a capable, reasonable man, but subject to the same weakness; He used to say about himself: “I am an unhappy person; he was young, talented, - merchants and landowners used to carry Vasily Petrovich in their arms, treat him, and spoil his blood; live out your life and suffer, V.P.” He was such a respectable and reasonable person that it was ashamed to remind him of his weakness. One day, due to weakness, he was locked in his cell; when he recovered, he said to the bailiff: “go to the Archimandrite and tell him that I need to talk to him.” The archimandrite gave his blessing to come. Malev enters the rector and, having prayed ceremoniously before St. with icons he says: “That’s what, father, you know my weakness and my bad life; but even in this situation I have the custom of reading an akathist every day, before the image of St. Sergius, who is in my cell. So, these days, I stand in front of the icon of St. Sergius and read, and the image seems to say to me: “Go to your abbot and tell him to flog you.” So, father, how will you bless, publicly or privately?” “You see, V.P.,” said the abbot, “Reverend Sergius himself is taking care of you. I find that it is better to punish publicly so that others have caution." “As you bless, father, do it,” the penitent calmly answered. Of course, this was not carried out. There were other types of sick people, whom Archimandrite Ignatius also did not ignore. A young man, a Senate official, Ivan Myznikov, later a hieromonk and treasurer of the Sergiev Hermitage, entered the monastery. A very good man with a strict life; but, probably out of jealousy, without guidance, on his own, he brought himself into a strange state of mind, close to delusion. O. Archimandrite, as an experienced leader, noticing the wrong mood in him, ordered him to come to him every day. The wise mentor, wanting to destroy in the novice some opinion about himself and a hypochondriacal disposition of spirit, called him “cheerful” and used various measures, both verbal and practical, with the direct goal of bringing him to childish humility, destroying conceit and the beginning of destructive charm. This went on for three or four years; and finally, the Archimandrite managed, so to speak, to nurse the man: Myznikov returned to a normal position and was useful to the monastery. Another novice, Nikolai, fell ill with a serious illness and became so dry that it seemed to him as if his stomach had grown to his back bone. The patient had the custom of revealing his thoughts to the abbot, who placed him close to him in order to observe him more closely. When Nikolai began to recover, thoughts of suicide began to occur to him; a man was assigned to him, and everything dangerous in the cell was cleared away; but he somehow saw a nail above the door, and his thought told him to make a ribbon out of a sheet and hang himself on this nail. But the usual revelation of his thoughts saved him, and this time, he immediately confessed his criminal intentions to his elder and thereby saved his life. When he began to improve significantly, Fr. The archimandrite began to entertain him somewhat; one day he gave him a piece of paper and told him to take it to the office, but not to stop anywhere, but rather to come back. Nikolai went and disappeared. The rector sent for him: he was not in the office; They sent a horseman along the roads and to the sea, and near the monastery ponds to look for him, but Nikolai was nowhere to be found. The archimandrite stood up to pray. Two hours later the patient himself comes to him. - “Where have you been?” the abbot asks him. “In the bell tower,” the patient answers. - “Why did you go there?” “The thought told me: “go to the bell tower and jump off from there.” “Why didn’t you jump off?” “I thought for a long time, and another thought told me: “how will you jump off without the blessing of the priest?” “I thought and thought, and then I left the bell tower.” 275 Under the wise leadership of an experienced abbot in spiritual life, everyone in the Sergius Hermitage began to accept a new, better order and improvement; God apparently blessed the reasonable and pious zeal of His servant with quick and desired success - already in the first two or three years the fruits of the garden he cultivated began to increase. The number of pilgrims increased little by little, attracted by the harmonious church singing, unprecedented in the desert until that time, during the magnificent Divine service, and at the same time the income of the monastery increased, making it possible to support a larger number of brethren, especially capable of choir obedience, the importance and necessity of which for the monastery became obvious at the very beginning. 276 The number of pious admirers of St. Sergius also began to increase, who could not help but be pleased by this external and moral revival of the desert; At the same time, the disposition of many towards the monastery grew, in which some St. Petersburg residents began to bury their dead. “Having deposits so close to their hearts in the depths of the monastery, they began to bring her, in addition to money, other donations of valuable church and various items. Other benefactors appeared from time to time, not connected with the monastery by such close relations, but no less disposed towards it. Through the prayers of the teacher. Sergius, the Lord God, apparently blessed the works and undertakings of Archimandrite Ignatius, disposed some noble and rich people to build in the monastery, at their own expense, new precious and elegant churches to glorify the name of God and His saints.” 277 While, through the efforts of the abbot, who cared only about the good of the monastery entrusted to him and, as a loyal servant of his beloved Monarch, made every effort to exactly fulfill the Highest will and make the desert entrusted to him an exemplary monastery in all respects, this latter flourished more and more every year, the personal life of Ignatius Brianchaninov was full of sorrows and trials and temptations. Depicting the life and work of Archimandrite Ignatius in the application of the rector of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage, we have so far seen the manifestation of the spiritual power of a great man who brought his strength to serve God and the Holy Church and invested them in the work of God, as it seemed to him in various aspects of life. Concluding our review of the activities of Archimandrite Ignatius for the period under review, we will turn our attention to the sorrowful pages of his life. Among the sorrowful pages of the life of Ignatius Brianchaninov during his tenure as rector of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage, we include, first of all, those restrictions on the part of the St. Petersburg Diocesan authorities on the issue of freedom for the rector to travel to St. Petersburg on monastic affairs, which Archimandrite Ignatius had to endure with great strain of heart due to: a) his prevailing mood solitary contemplation, b) with the impeccability of his personal life, c) deepening into the interests of the Sergius Hermitage entrusted to him and d) in view of the petty nature of these relations. From the days of his childhood, prone to solitude and contemplative life and alien to worldly life, ascetically strict in relation to himself and impeccable in relation to his personal life, Archimandrite Ignatius received, unexpectedly for himself, restrictive instructions from the St. Petersburg Consistory on the issue of trips to St. Petersburg, although these trips were caused for Him solely by caring for the needs of the monastery and were so short-lived that he really did not have the opportunity fulfill the instructions of the Consistory. Turning, on this issue, to the “Deeds” of the archive of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage, we can present a picture of the clashes between Ignatius Brianchaninov and the St. Petersburg Consistory in the following form. On September 1, 1834, i.e. eight months after his assumption of the abbotship of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage, Archimandrite Ignatius received a Decree from the St. Petersburg Spiritual Consistory, dated August 28, 1884, No. 3457, under which, according to the report of this Consistory, approved by His Eminence, one copy of the Decree is forwarded of the Holy Governing Synod of June 10, No. 5036 regarding the issuance of passports to persons of clergy going to St. Petersburg for any need with such an order that you, Fr. The Archimandrite, without the permission of His Eminence, did not at all leave their place and position here in St. Petersburg, but regarding other clergy who were in your department, they acted upon their dismissal here in St. Petersburg, according to the exact force of the 1st point, explained in the above decree of the Holy Synod and despite the fact that passports were issued not on a simple, but on a stamp paper with a 50-kopeck stamp, and when issuing these passports, they were obliged to sign up according to the 4th paragraph of the above-mentioned decree of the Holy Synod, and those in a disapproving state, or those on trial, were not released without the will of the Higher Authorities.” 278 In its second part, on the issue of the release of the Sergius brethren to St. Petersburg, the Decree of the Consistory stated is not caused by a real need, because if, on the one hand, Archimandrite Ignatius was not at all inclined to release the brethren to St. Petersburg in the fair opinion that a monk should sit in a monastery, then, on the other hand, from the affairs there it is no longer seen that he would release clergy to St. Petersburg, “in a disapproving state or under trial.” In its first part, on the issue of trips to St. Petersburg by Archimandrite Ignatius himself, the Decree of the Consistory appears tendentious and practically unenforceable. So he: and was received by Ignatius Brianchaninov: Immediately upon receiving the Decree of the Consistory, Archimandrite Ignatius, on September 4, turned to Metropolitan Seraphim with a request to cancel the order of the Consistory made in relation to him. In this petition, by the way, he writes that no matter how much he delved into the Decree of the Holy Synod, he could not see that it was possible for the St. Petersburg Consistory to give him such an order, because the Sergius Hermitage, being located near the Strelninsky Palace, in which the Highest Family often visits, and on the road from Peterhof to Petersburg, within the meaning of paragraph. 12 of the Synodical Decree, there is a monastery that belongs to the capital, and on the monasteries that belong to the capital, the Synodical Decree “does not impose the conditions that the Consistory now imposes on the Sergius Hermitage, which leads it to a difficult situation, for the hermitage satisfies and can satisfy all its needs in St. Petersburg alone, where its closest authorities are located. “The absences, both mine and the brethren,” writes Archimandrite Ignatius, “are for the most part only for a few hours. And as in the Decree of the Holy Synod in paragraph 12 it is said that Moscow in terms of quality, capital and the Highest presence in it is in a position similar to St. Petersburg, then in fulfillment of the Decree of the St. Petersburg Consistory, so that I do not go to the capital without the permission of Your Eminence, I should not go to either Strelna or Peterhof according to the Highest Presence that is in them, why the state of my life is turned into a state close to imprisonment. 279 Archimandrite Ignatius asked Metropolitan Seraphim to come into his cramped position, cancel the order of the St. Petersburg Spiritual Consistory and allow him, regarding his absence to St. Petersburg, to be guided by the same rules that guide the brethren of the Nevsky Lavra. In response to this petition of Archimandrite Ignatius, by Decree of the St. Petersburg Spiritual Consistory of November 13, 1834, No. 4739, he was informed that the Holy Synod, according to the report of Metropolitan Seraphim of September 18, No. 3723, by Decree of October 31, 1834, No. 12877, grants Him Your Eminence, at his own discretion, allows once and for all the rector of St. Sergius Monastery for all his absences to St. Petersburg for frequent monastic needs, without asking permission from the Diocesan Authorities. As for the brethren of the Sergius Monastery, although they should be freed from the obligation to each time seek permission from the Diocesan Authority for absence to the capital, at the same time, at the same time, make it obligatory for the rector to send to the capital for monastic needs monastics of trustworthy behavior, those of them who will be sent for a short time, not to provide any kind of absence for such absence; If anyone needs to leave for the capital and stay in it for up to three days, he must provide the abbot with a ticket from himself, and this ticket, upon the messenger’s arrival in the capital, must be presented to the Consistory. The Synodal Decree was followed by the resolution of Metropolitan Seraphim: “Submit this Decree to the Consistory for proper execution, as for Fr. Archimandrite of the Sergius Hermitage, then he is allowed to come to the capital without asking for an order from us.” 280 At the same time, Metropolitan Seraphim provided Archimandrite Ignatius with a cell in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra for his visits. 281 Thus, this time, the difficulty experienced by Archimandrite Ignatius was resolved successfully and relatively quickly. But the favorable outcome of his petition on September 4, 1834 and, in general, the liquidation of this entire matter for the benefit and glory of Archimandrite Ignatius, however, could not have happened without the participation of his High Patron, Sovereign Emperor Nicholas I. Witness to the sorrows and joys of Archimandrite Ignatius, M.V. Chikhachov reports the following about the circumstances of the emergence and successful resolution of the above conflict. - “Apparently many of the people surrounding the Sovereign did not like his sincere treatment of the monks, and most of all, the common enemy of the human race and all good did not like it, who tried in every possible way to bring the Sovereign’s wrath on Ignatius for whatever it was, and, unfortunately, succeeded. Soon after that, three Decrees followed from the Consistory, one after another, such that it was impossible to execute otherwise than by destroying the existence of the monastery. The first Decree was to send three hieromonks to the fleet, and then, including officials, there were only six. When they sent, another Decree came with a reprimand to the abbot, why he was sending the elderly. But there was no other, younger and more reliable person in our monastery. The third Decree was that neither the Archimandrite nor any of the brethren should travel to the cities except by first writing out a permit ticket from the Consistory. But with us, bread, provisions, and every thing, small and large, are bought in the city; when can I expect a consistory ticket? But the Metropolitan was completely assured of this, that this was the Highest will. When the abbot, having written a paper about the impossibility of fulfilling the Decree, brought it to the Bishop, he did not accept it. There was nothing to do, we both went to Tsarskoe Selo, then the Tsar’s family was there. As soon as we arrived at the porch, the Heir, the current Emperor, meets. 283 Turning to his friend, he asks about the reason for his arrival. “I need to see the Emperor,” answered the comrade. “Okay,” said the Heir, “I’ll report to Him about you, and you wait for an answer at Kavelin’s apartment.” A few hours later, Kavelin comes and learns from us about everyone - he was instructed by the Emperor to do this and inform Him. Upon returning to the monastery, the Archimandrite again went to the Metropolitan and said that he had already gone to the Heir and talked to him about this. The Metropolitan says: “They did it very well, maybe others can make it easier”; and again they did not want to accept the papers. But Secretary Suslov, having heard this explanation, understood the matter and said: “Indeed, this is a mistake on our part.” Then only the Metropolitan took up the matter and allowed the Sergievskys to travel in the old way.” 284 From this simple-minded story it is clear that the favorable outcome for Archimandrite Ignatius of the misunderstandings that arose between him and the Consistory is explained by the undoubted participation of the Sovereign Emperor and the personal fame of Ignatius Brianchaninov to the Highest Court. The ill-wishers and envious people of Archimandrite Ignatius did not fail to take advantage of all the opportunities, fortunately for him and for his holy cause, which were very rare for any lack of foresight on his part, even though the purity of his intentions and actions was completely obvious. A remarkable incident of this kind, which brought upon Archimandrite Ignatius the paternal discontent of the Sovereign Emperor and cost Archimandrite Ignatius severe grief, was his visit, together with Chikhachov, to the house of the French envoy Barant on January 6, 1840, prepared by Barant’s personal visit to the Sergius Hermitage. According to M.V. Chikhachov, this matter is presented in this way: During Lent of 1839, Andrei Nikolaevich Muravyov came to Sergius Hermitage and, announcing that Envoy Barant wanted to be at mass on Sunday, asked Archimandrite Ignatius to receive Barant as politely as possible and show him everything that was possible. And so it was done. A common lunch was even deliberately prepared at the meal, although it was a fast one, but of such a kind that the envoy, if he stayed, could eat without wincing. Indeed, Barant arrived, stood reverently at the service, went from the church into the abbot’s room, asked about the monastery, about the rituals, about the monastic rules; The Archimandrite listened carefully to all the answers and explanations and expressed his opinion that he finds our Church closer to the ancient one than his own. At the invitation of the abbot, Barant sat down to dine with the brethren, ate willingly, and after dinner and the usual prayer, he bowed very reverently to all the brethren, thanked the abbot very much for the warm welcome and left very pleased that he had heard harmonious singing and seen a good Russian monastery; at least that’s how Barant spoke about the Sergius Desert to everyone. After about a year, on January 6, 1840, after mass, Archimandrite Ignatius and Mich. You. The Chikhachovs, at the invitation of Mrs. Barant, dined at the envoy's house. At dinner there was the family of the envoy Barant, the Potemkins - husband and wife, Archimandrite Ignatius Chikhachov, Turgenev and the one preparing to become an abbot, who was then a teacher with Zakrevsky. The conversation concerned the book, which Mrs. Barant praised and asked the Archimandrite’s opinion, trying to get him to praise it too, but, it seems, she did not achieve it, and everyone remained with his opinion. The one who was preparing to become an abbot began to speak passionately about the difference in confession of faith, but the Archimandrite told him that he had not come here for that reason and could not talk to him because he had not read our books, which the Archimandrite asked him about. And he understood and stopped the conversation. And Archimandrite Baranta read, translating into French, an excerpt from the life of St. Tikhon of Zadonsk, in which Turgenev helped him. At the same time, Barant said: here one can see truly holy simplicity, without any admixture. With this the conversation ended, and Archimandrite Ignatius and Chikhachov returned home. But at that time the French court was not on good terms with the Russians. That is why the Emperor did not like the close acquaintance of Archimandrite Ignatius with the envoy Barant, which was expressed by the Emperor. After some time, Metropolitan Seraphim verbally announced a ban on Archimandrite Ignatius 285 leaving the monastery until the Sovereign’s permission. But, soon after this prohibition, the Metropolitan had to ask whether the Archimandrite could travel to monasteries on behalf of the dean, as a dean is obliged to do? And then the Sovereign’s verbal answer was received that he did not forbid him to go anywhere where the need for his position required it. 286 From that time on, he was allowed to go everywhere, but since this permission was only verbal, the ill-wishers of Archimandrite Ignatius did not forget to use the earlier prohibition in suitable cases. So three years later, already in 1843: when Metropolitan Anthony entered the St. Petersburg See instead of Metropolitan Seraphim, 287 ill-wishers of Archimandrite Ignatius assured the Bishop of the broad meaning of the existing prohibition regarding the Abbot of Sergius, so when Kavelin, who was then the military governor from December 2, 1842 to 1846, invited Archimandrite Ignatius served together with the Metropolitan at the consecration of the house church, the Metropolitan announced that Archimandrite Sergius could not be in his house due to the Highest prohibition. Then only Kavelin found out the whole matter and reported to the Emperor. As a result of Kavelin’s report, the Sovereign announced to the Metropolitan in the presence of everyone that He, only wanting to protect and protect Archimandrite Ignatius from criticism, limited his travels, and if anyone accepted this otherwise, he does not understand Him, then the Sovereign expressed how long He had known and loved Ignatius Brianchaninov, because he was completely worth it and is worth it. 288 Thus, by the grace of God, Archimandrite Ignatius experienced, and this was no small temptation for him, grief that came upon him with the involuntary participation of a beneficent and friendly hand. This whole incident once again speaks of the difficulty of the ministry of Archimandrite Ignatius, the complexity of his living conditions and the severity of his life school, when in connection with the most favorable aspects of his official activity the greatest difficulties arose completely, unexpectedly, and among the beautiful and comforting roses there were also the most prickly thorns. The sorrows of Archimandrite Ignatius as a result of conflicts with the Diocesan Authorities, which he experienced in 1834, initially during his abbotship in the Sergius Desert, and eliminated by the benevolence of the Supreme Authority, resumed again in 1846 for a longer, almost three-year period. The reason for these sorrows, as the first time, was the restrictions imposed on Archimandrite Ignatius by the St. Petersburg Consistory in relation to leaving the monastery for St. Petersburg. On October 31, 1846, Archimandrite Ignatius received the Decree of the St. Petersburg Spiritual Consistory, dated October 15, 1846, No. 5014, which, due to the general order of the Chief Prosecutor of St. Synod on timely reporting of the arrival in the capital and departure of persons of the rank of Bishop and Archimandrite. The St. Petersburg Spiritual Consistory, with the approval of the Metropolitan, orders the rector of the Sergeev Hermitage, Archimandrite Ignatius, that upon his arrival in St. Petersburg, at the same time, he should let the secretary of the 1st expedition know with short notes both about the time of his arrival, and about the apartment in which he will stay, as well as the hour and place of his departure from St. Petersburg in the same order, without fail, for a proper report to the Chief Prosecutor of St. Govt. Synod. In 1847, by Decree of the St. Petersburg Spirit. Consistory, dated February 19, 1847, No. 749, with the approval of the Metropolitan, the Archimandrite of Sergius Monastery was again ordered that whenever he arrived in the capital, immediately, under personal responsibility, he notified the office of the 2nd expedition of the St. Petersburg Spiritual Consistory, as well as when leaving the capital. 289 Submitting to the requirements of the Consistory approved by the Metropolitan, Archimandrite Ignatius, during his very rare trips to the capital in view of the stated conditions and his painful state, sent to the secretary of the 2nd expedition of the spiritual Consistory A.V. Shramchenko notification of arrival and departure in the form of a note 290 But this turned out to be not enough for the Consistory. By proposal dated May 19, 1847, No. 204, the Office of the 2nd Expedition of the St. Petersburg Ecclesiastical Consistory asks Archimandrite Ignatius to send information about his arrival in the capital for proper signature. 291 According to this requirement, every time upon his arrival in St. Petersburg, Archimandrite Ignatius notified the 2nd expedition of the St. Petersburg Ecclesiastical Consistory with special reports signed and numbered according to the book of outgoing papers. 292 What the soul of Ignatius Brianchaninov felt and experienced in these clerical constraints, how he treated the obvious distrust and restrictive demands on the part of the Diocesan authorities, clearly harmful to the living work he was doing, can be seen from his petition, which he submitted to Metropolitan Anthony on May 19, 1847, petitioning for the abolition of these life bonds for him. In this petition, remarkable in its thoroughness and tone, we find not only a statement of all the circumstances of the case we are investigating, but also a reflection of the mood and spiritual grief of Ignatius Brianchaninov. Giving detailed information on the contents of the known consistory Decrees dated October 15, 1846, No. 5014 and February 19, 1847, No. 749, Archimandrite Ignatius says: “None of these Decrees indicates from what time, by whom I was expelled from the St. Petersburg clergy, and where I am assigned, to which city, to which county? It is not clear that this circumstance is taken into account by reference to previously existing circumstances of a similar kind, as well as to the circumstances of mine and the monastery entrusted to my management. There is a circumstance of the same kind, which is inextricably linked with the subject matter of the above-mentioned two Consistorial Decrees. This circumstance is of incomparably greater importance; the second follows from it in itself, as its consequence, and when considering this last, reference to the first is an important necessity. I am talking here about the order regarding the clergy coming to the capital, depicted in the Decree of the Holy Governing Synod, in which the Highest will of His Imperial Majesty was declared that those arriving here in St. Petersburg from the monasteries should appear before the Synodal Chief Prosecutor. This Highest Command has not been applied to me, obviously for the reason that I belong to the clergy of St. Petersburg. In addition to this Decree, there is also a Decree of the Holy Synod, known to me from the signatures of consistory secretaries on the abbot’s cards issued by me as a dean. From these signatures it is clear that the Holy Synod extends the duties set out in the above-mentioned Decree to those who come to Tsarskoe Selo, Peterhof, Strelna, as places where the Supreme presence is, thus, in this regard, classifying these places as the capital. The decree of this Holy Synod was sent to all the monasteries of the local diocese, except for the Sergius Monastery. Again, obviously, because both the Sergius Hermitage and I belong to the capital. If these inquiries had been made, they would have indicated the legal course even with the present orders of the Consistory and would have stopped it from giving me an order that is impossible for me to fulfill while remaining the rector of the Sergius Hermitage. These two Decrees of the Consistory demand that I leave this position. What is Sergius Hermitage? There is a monastery at the St. Petersburg cemetery; he does not have any own funds for his maintenance; he is supported solely by benefactors of St. Petersburg. According to this organization, the abbot must be on hand, must visit from time to time the benefactors of the monastery and see, sometimes with his own eyes, the various monastic needs, which are all delivered from St. Petersburg. Such trips last for several hours, and the abbot of the Sergius Hermitage has no opportunity to do what is so conveniently done by abbots who come to the capital for several weeks and during these weeks stay in St. Petersburg without a break, going about their business. Arriving in a part of the city separate from the Neva Lavra for half an hour, an hour, or two, what opportunity do I have to notify the secretary about the hour of arrival, about the hour of departure? The order of the Consistory made regarding me can with the same correctness be attributed to the Most Reverend Vicar and o.o. Archimandrites living in the Lavra, because in the same one-sided sense, the Neva Lavra, like the Sergius Hermitage, is not a city. The relationship of the Sergius Hermitage to St. Petersburg is exactly the same as the Laurels. The order would require many more words for final development and explanation, but I dwell on the above, so that my words, although words of truth, would not be as burdensome in relation to others as the order about me and its tone are burdensome for me. I only ask Your Eminence that you, Most Gracious Archpastor, be pleased to look at the state into which the order made over me puts me. They cut me off from the entire clergy of St. Petersburg, deprive me of all the rights enjoyed by the monastics and novices of the Neva Lavra and St. Sergius Hermitage and the entire clergy of Strelninsky and Peterhof. I, being in the rank of Archimandrite, alone, absolutely alone of all the clergy, am placed under the direct supervision of a secular person - the secretary of the Consistory, to whom I must give an account of every place where I visit, about the hour of entry and exit. Put in this position, I have all the appearance of a prisoner, and not the abbot of the Sergius Hermitage. Tied hand and foot, I am unable to fulfill the duties of abbot, as a result of which the monastery entrusted to me must inevitably fall into decay, which I cannot allow, recklessly remaining in the position of abbot. The brethren, seeing such attitudes towards me from the authorities, in which they have every right to assume obvious disfavour towards me and want my removal, lose due respect for me, and from this a moral disorder must necessarily follow. Please, Most Gracious Archpastor, look at the whole difficulty of my position and, if it pleases Your Eminence that I remain the rector of the Sergius Hermitage, then return to me the opportunity to correct my duty as it should: for it is in a monastery that has almost no sources of its own, and is most dependent on the activity of the abbot; the prisoner cannot correct. It is convenient for you, Most Gracious Archpastor, to destroy the arbitrary order of the Consistory regarding me on the subject on which the Highest Command has not been applied to me. I submit this request to the most merciful discretion of Your Eminence.” 293 Despite the importance of the issue raised by the stated petition, both in principle and in relation to the exceptional position of Archimandrite Ignatius, there was no written decision on his petition. 294 The sorrowful page of the life of Archimandrite Ignatius was not softened; At the beginning of June 1847, he, mentally and physically upset, went on a long vacation until June 1, 1848. A significant period of vacation did not bring anything special or comforting to the indicated situation of Ignatius Brianchaninov, because we see in the affairs of the Sergius Hermitage a continuation of the paperwork for registering the abbot’s trips to St. Petersburg. The situation continued to be unbearably painful for Archimandrite Ignatius. In April 1849, Archimandrite Ignatius turned to Metropolitan Nikanor with a report on the same issue and with a petition to allow him to travel to St. Petersburg on the grounds set out in the Decree of the Holy. Synod and resolution of Metropolitan Seraphim in 1834. The argumentation that Archimandrite Ignatius uses in this new petition to substantiate his view is identical to his known considerations dated May 19, 1847, and only some of the expressions of the first petition are softened. “I have,” writes Archimandrite Ignatius, “before my subordinates the appearance of a person under supervision, and not of an abbot; They rightly saw in this order and other similar ones the disfavor of my former superiors towards me, their desire for my removal, which is why they could decisively waver in obedience to me. If the brethren remained obedient to me, then the only reason for this was moral influence. In all respects, seeing the need for a free departure to St. Petersburg, which I have never used for evil, loving to stay in the monastery and not finding any consolation in any Gaiety of this world, I dare to submit this most humble request to the discretion of Your Eminence and to await your Most Gracious Archpastoral Resolution on it.” 295 The resolution of Metropolitan Nikanor to the petition of Archimandrite Ignatius did indeed follow, but, while consolidating the existing situation, it was not merciful for the petitioner. The petition of Archimandrite Ignatius was submitted by Metropolitan Nikanor to the Consistory for certification. It is not clear from the file what the certificate given by the Consistory was. But this certificate was followed by a resolution of Metropolitan Nikanor dated April 16, 1849 with the following content: “From the certificate it is not clear that Fr. Archimandrite Ignatius was under the supervision of the Secretary of the Consistory. If the secretary demands from him notes, both about arrival and departure from the capital, then he does this on a general basis about all abbots coming to the capital and leaving it, and at the same time, this requirement is not a supervision that would monitor the behavior of the abbots along all their paths during their stay in the capital. The authorities do not believe that any of the abbots have questionable behavior. Also from his report, Fr. Archimandrite, it is clear that when he came to the capital on monastic business and needs, before he always stayed in the Lavra, and now in secular houses, allegedly due to the lack of an apartment in the Lavra: then, finding his accommodation in those houses indecent, I suggest Fr. From now on, the Archimandrite will always have a room in the Lavra, in the cell of the Lavra Treasurer; excluding cases requiring his arrival in the capital for several hours, for removals and funeral services. Since Fr. The Archimandrite is burdened by the demand from him personally for notification notes about his arrival and departure, then order the treasurer to notify the Secretary of the Consistory about this promptly and without delay. It goes without saying that Fr. The archimandrite, carefully and zealously caring for order, subordination and obedience in the monastery entrusted to him, does not ignore the general duty of the abbots - to appear to me upon arrival and accept the blessing before leaving. The Consistory will notify Fr. of this resolution. Archimandrite by Decree and will report to the Lavra office for appropriate orders.” 296 Thus ended this long-term “case” - a collision of form and spirit, law and interpretation of the consistory office and the ecclesiastical monastery, an ordinary, unremarkable secretary of the Consistory-office clerk and an Archimandrite outstanding in his spiritual life and many-useful activities for the monastery, for the resolutions prescribed above are explained, in our opinion, only by the fact that the Metropolitan, with his many affairs, did not have the opportunity to delve into, what spirit did Archimandrite Ignatius, and was guided by the “certificates” of the Consistory, and the tendentious and unkind additions to them of the secretary. From the whole course of the case, of course, it follows: 1) That the obligation to immediately notify about the hour of entry and exit in St. Petersburg and about the place of stay of Archimandrite Ignatius came under the supervision and control of the Secretary of the Consistory, who, with his hostility and formalism, was given unlimited scope by these for the dissemination of interpretation of the trips of the Sergius Archimandrite to the capital in a direction unfavorable for the latter. 2) Bringing Archimandrite Ignatius under the general position of provincial monastic abbots who come to the capital for several days or even weeks, in addition to its formal groundlessness and the pretentious application to this case of the Decree of the Holy Synod on this subject, seems essentially strange, as can be seen from the argumentation of Archimandrite Ignatius, which is convincing to us, and is in all respects useless for the improvement of the monastery entrusted to him. 3) Understanding the short-term, several hours, stay of Archimandrite Ignatius in St. Petersburg - in the houses of relatives or high benefactors of the monastery; as indecent and in any respect reprehensible, seems morally difficult for him, and offensive for those who are disposed towards him. 4) Caring for an apartment for Archimandrite Ignatius during his stay in St. Petersburg, with the exception of cases of his arrival for a few hours, was not particularly necessary, since his stay in the capital was almost always one-day, for several hours, he was allowed to spend the night in the capital in very rare cases and when absolutely necessary. 5) The imposition of the obligation to deliver notification notes to the secretary of the Consistory about the arrival and departure of Archimandrite Ignatius from St. Petersburg to the treasurer of the Nevsky Lavra, instead of the visible relief of Archimandrite Ignatius, put the latter in an even more embarrassing position of being supervised by the Lavra treasurer. 6) The introduction to Archimandrite Ignatius of the general obligation of the abbots to come to the Metropolitan upon arrival to take a blessing for departure - seems to be not a matter of substance and for Archimandrite Ignatius almost impossible to fulfill given the one-day, most of his stay in St. Petersburg, and for the Metropolitan himself, burdensome. In fact, Archimandrite Ignatius comes to St. Petersburg for several hours, returning to the Sergius Monastery at night. During this time, in addition to completing the business for which he came to the city, he must, according to the order presented to him, notify the secretary of the Consistory about the hour of his arrival and departure and visit the Metropolitan twice - once appearing for a presentation on the occasion of his arrival in the capital, the other time for a blessing to return to St. Sergius Hermitage. Relationships are extremely complicated for a living spirit, extremely burdensome. Only the deep humility of Archimandrite Ignatius and his vowed monastic obedience in connection with his view of life’s sorrows, with the help of God, helped him endure the painful temptation of life and not weaken in the holy zeal of monastic work and improvement entrusted to his management of the monastery. But under the influence of this and other temptations that confused the powerful spirit of Ignatius Brianchaninov, which he experienced from childhood, complicated by the difficult monastic temptation of novitiate and illnesses suffered during this time, with an ascetic lifestyle, the ailments at times intensified to the point of unbearability, ached the opposing will and demanded rest from life's work. True, soon after arriving at the monastery it even seemed to him that he was feeling better, and, informing in writing about his appointment to the Sergius Hermitage Fr. Bartholomew in the Beloberezh Hermitage, he, among other things, wrote to him the following: “the health of my body in the local monastery has improved a little; Apparently, the Lord “gives me time to repent.” 297 But this did not last long: illnesses soon struck the abbot’s weak body. “The monastery - Sergius Hermitage - received me inhospitably,” he later recalled (in 1847), “in the first year after arriving there, I was struck by a serious illness, the next - another, the third - a third: they took away the remnants of my meager health and strength, made me exhausted, constantly suffering.” 298 If we look at his letters from this period of the life of Archimandrite Ignatius (from 1834 to 1847), for example, to Father Bartholomew or to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod Nechaev, in almost each of them we will find several lines testifying to how often and how much the abbot was ill. “A long illness does not allow me to be in St. Petersburg to this day,” he wrote to Fr. White Banks. Bartholomew in March 1836. “I can’t write much due to eye disease” - in March of the following year, 1837. “I have the honor to inform you that at this time I am boasting quite a bit; Due to the weakness of my health, the local climate has a negative influence on me. Not to mention other things, I often suffer with my eyes, which deprives me of the sweetest and most useful activity - reading” - in June 1838. “From time to time I am subject to physical ailments, but I am constantly in mental illness” - in November 1840. “My health is poor; I’ve been praising almost all winter” - in March 1841. “I have now become extremely weak in the eyes, which I attribute to the influence of the local seaside air” - in October 1843. “My health is getting worse year by year. In winter I hardly leave my cell; the legs become extremely cold, and this causes a rush of blood to the head and relaxation throughout the body” - in 1845. “I am informing you about myself that I am extremely upset with my health, I have been ill all summer and autumn, and now I am also ill” - in January 1846. 299 Similarly, from the letters of Archimandrite Ignatius to Nechaev, it is clear how many different illnesses he had to endure in the Sergius Hermitage. “I can’t boast about my health either. Before Vash left, I fell ill, after leaving I became very ill, I was sick throughout the whole summer, and now I am dying,” he wrote to Nechaev in October 1834. “Yesterday I really wanted to be with you in order to say goodbye to you and your family; but the fever, quite stubborn, does not allow me to leave the room” - in June 1835. “On the 15th I fell ill, and on the 16th I went to bed; a fever occurred; did not take any food for seven days; now, although better, he is very weak - August 1835.” “Either I burdened myself with unnecessary writing activities, or temptations acted on my weak physique, or my chronic illness - tapeworm, or all together brought me in the middle of winter into such a painful situation that I left food, felt severe pain in my chest, and during Great Lent I was so weak that I could barely sign my name on the lectern; I’ve been getting better since Holy Week” - in April 1841. “I did not answer your most respected and friendly letter for a long time. At this time he became ill, and they feared inflammation in his chest. Bloodletting is performed, leeches are applied, and the bloodletting is sentenced to repeat. I keep a large diet from writing and write only in extreme cases: this is caused by great weakness in the chest with pain and loss of voice. This is how we melt in this life and, God forbid, it’s not useless!” - in January 1842. “I have been suffering from an eye disease for seven years, and I spend long winter evenings in my room without candles; I write and read only in daylight; however, I have been able to do this without eye pain only since this winter, after I began tying chopped, or better, finely crushed, beets in a cambric scarf to my eyes at night for half an hour or an hour, after first wetting my head with rum, preferably white, and wiping my face with it... What can I tell you about myself? My days flow uniformly among mental and physical infirmities. The Sergius Hermitage blooms more year after year, but year after year I grow frail, weaker, and in the winter I almost never leave my rooms” - in December 1843. “My health is getting weaker and weaker; and with this, the local world begins to seem alien. It’s no wonder when relocation is before your eyes!” - in December 1845. “I continue to get sick: my illnesses are associated not so much with severe pain, but with exhaustion and fever; During this winter I hardly leave my rooms, and from mid-January until now I absolutely have not left. Be the will of God! Can poor vessels judge what is necessary and useful for them?” - in March 1846. 300 This explains the official leaves of Archimandrite Ignatius, which he used only three times during his almost 24-year abbotship in the Sergius Hermitage, each time with the hope of personal asceticism and liberation from the abbotship. Later, determining for himself the refuge of his last earthly residence, Ignatius Brianchaninov, already in the rank of Bishop of the Caucasus, invariably strove to retire to a remote diocese with good monasteries. “I would be very glad,” he writes, “if they were given a diocese somewhere far away, but with monasteries, so that one could prepare a monastery in advance, and then retire to it. This is a human assumption, but the Lord is building His own, and one must submit to His will. 301 At that time, there were intense rumors about the upcoming transfer of Vladyka Ignatius, but he himself was not interested in this transfer in the sense of career advancement and was only happy about the rejection of prominent assignments. 302 At the beginning of 1860, feeling particularly painful, Vladyka Ignatius was especially preoccupied with the issue of a monastery for his residence; February 17. In 1860, he wrote to Chikhachov: “I am so weak from illness and treatment that I should retire to some monastery, that is, with the management of the monastery. Send me a book where Russian monasteries are described, and collect what information you can about the Zadonsk and Kalyazin monasteries. The latter would be more convenient, as it is less visited by the nobility. However, these are human thoughts, and God knows what to do with his creatures.” He did not think of returning to Sergius Hermitage, for this was impossible for him for a number of reasons in connection with his previous service relations as abbot in this monastery and new, complicating the situation, elements of relations with the highest Church administration, and, in addition, Sergius Hermitage, due to its proximity to the capital and the inevitability of relations with the noisy outside world, never fit the ideal of solitude and detachment from worldly concerns, which was guided by Eminence Ignatius. From this side, his attention was focused for some time on the Optina Pustyn, which he liked and well-known. For this purpose, back in 1856, in the summer, he visited Optina from the Sergius Hermitage, intending to have a last refuge there for himself and for Pyotr Alexandrovich, when he could leave the world. 303 Despite the complete seriousness of his intentions to retire to Optina Hermitage and decisive steps in this direction, Ignatius Brianchaninov did not manage to move from Sergius Hermitage, due to misunderstandings with the authorities of Optina, who were probably afraid to accept such an influential Archimandrite into their midst, and even with many disciples. 304 The first time Archimandrite Ignatius announced his illness was in 1847 and, presumably, in connection with particularly difficult official circumstances of that year. On April 1, 1847, Metropolitan Anthony of Novgorod of St. Petersburg received a petition from Archimandrite Ignatius with the following content: “My constant, painful condition has increased over the past two years to such an extent that I consider myself completely unable to continue to hold the positions I occupy as dean of seven male and one female monasteries of the St. Petersburg diocese and rector of a first-class Trinity-Sergeev Hermitage, and therefore I find it necessary to seek shelter among the hospital monasteries of such a monastery, which, due to its healthy location and favorable climate, would contribute to some maintenance and, perhaps, improvement of my disordered health. On such a subject, choosing for the location of my Nikolaev Babaevsky Monastery of the Kostroma diocese, I dare to turn to Your Eminence with the most humble request: Deign, Most Reverend Bishop, condescending to my extremely painful condition, to request from where permission should be given to dismiss me from the positions I occupy - dean and rector and for permission to move, as a sick person, to Nikolaevsky Babayevsky Monastery of the Kostroma diocese. To certify the reality of my painful condition and that the exact measure I am prescribing is necessary for me, I enclose, for the discretion of Your Eminence, the authentic certificate of the Strelninsky Palace Department physician, surgeon, collegiate assessor Butuzov, who used me, approved by the life physician, actual state councilor Arendt, given to me on the 17th day of March this year.” 305 Such a decisive petition of Archimandrite Ignatius, caused by his real illness, undoubtedly had at its core a hidden motive - in view of the extremely unfavorable attitude of the Diocesan Authorities towards him, to retire, evading the evil of formal truth and doing good and saving asceticism that was close to his soul. This judgment is ours, confirmed by the testimony of M.V. Chikhachov, who speaks about this moment as follows: “there was a time when the spiritual authorities wanted to squeeze the Archimandrite and force him to ask for dismissal from office in order to rule themselves according to their wishes, but even that was not possible. This was during the illness of Metropolitan Anthony, when all diocesan affairs were managed by Vicar Bishop Nathanael. The archimandrite, seeing and understanding everything, submitted a request for dismissal, but the Synod was pleased to give him only a year's leave to the Babayevsky monastery of the Kostroma diocese that he had chosen. 306 The decisive request of Archimandrite Ignatius for dismissal from his positions seemed to confuse the Diocesan Authorities with its unexpectedness. The petition of Archimandrite Ignatius dated April 1 was answered by the Vicar Bishop’s resolution only on April 11, and not on a petition, but on a consistory certificate. The requested dismissal to rest was rejected, and the resolution of April 11 suggested that the Consistory ask the rector of the Sergius Monastery, Archimandrite Ignatius, whether he would like to take advantage of temporary leave for recovery, and, in this case, Archimandrite Ignatius, in his response, recommends the person who can be reliably entrusted with correcting the duties that lie with the Archimandrite until he returns upon recovery. 307 In response to the Consistory’s request on the subject of Bishop Nathanael’s resolution, Archimandrite Ignatius, in a report dated April 16, 1847, No. 155, gave the following response: “taking with care such attention to me from His Eminence, at the same time I have the honor to inform the Consistory that I have decided to bother His Eminence with a request for the complete dismissal of me from my positions. positions only after becoming convinced, both from my own observations and from meetings with many doctors, of the decisive need for such a measure. The disorder of my health and the extreme decline in bodily strength, caused by a continuous series of illnesses over many years, requires many years for some recovery - I put the word - for some, because I have lost hope of restoring my bodily strength and destroying the exorbitant tendency to catch a cold that I have received. Therefore, I most humbly ask that my request for my complete dismissal from the positions I occupy be given the proper course.” 308 However, instead of the requested resignation, Archimandrite Ignatius: By Decree of the Holy. Synod of April 26, 1847 for No. 218, he was sent on leave to the Babaevsky, Kostroma diocese, monastery for six months, so that after this period he would report to his Eminence about the state of his health and whether he would find himself able to take up his post. The management of the Sergius hermitage during the absence of Archimandrite Ignatius was entrusted, according to the order of service, to the governor of the hermitage, Hieromonk Ignatius, to whom “sums of money were handed over, and all the household and property of the monastery were duly and in full repair. 309 But a six-month stay in the Babayevsky Monastery turned out to be insufficient for Archimandrite Ignatius and, at his new request, his leave was postponed until June 1, 1848, “to complete the treatment he is currently continuing so that by this time he will report to his posts.” 310 On May 31, 1848, Archimandrite Ignatius returned from vacation in a relatively improved state of health and entered into the performance of his official duties with monastic obedience and submission to the will of Divine Providence to the joy of all the brethren and known ones. 311 According to Chikhachov, during the abbot’s vacation, the Emperor, seeing Chikhachov, asked about the health of Archimandrite Ignatius and ordered him to be told that he was impatiently awaiting his return. 312 Was it the Tsar’s attention and memory of Archimandrite Ignatius, the perceived outstanding benefit of his service for the St. Petersburg diocese, or his obedience and Christian patience that softened St. Petersburg’s attitude towards him? spirit. Consistory, only in the affairs of the Sergius Hermitage for the abbotship of Archimandrite Ignatius one does not see such a demanding relationship with him, as was noted above, although the relationship was not completely trusting. Time passed, writes Chikhachov, and neither Metropolitan Anthony nor his Vicar were any more; their places were replaced by others. Metropolitan Nikanor himself was once the rector of Sergius Hermitage, he knew what happened then and what happened later. At this time, Vladyka felt better, although there were some bewilderments and distrust of the abbot, but even that passed. Metropolitan Gregory, also a former rector of Sergievskaya, knew and understood the Archimandrite well. 313 But the painful condition of Archimandrite Ignatius, temporarily weakening and amenable to treatment, returned to him again. At the beginning of May 1852, Archimandrite Ignatius again petitioned for a reduction in his official duties. “Even in my youth, at the age of 17, I upset my health with a severe cold,” writes Archimandrite Ignatius. “This disorder continued to gradually intensify on the narrow path of monasticism that I had chosen. - at the beginning of my arrival in the Sergius Hermitage, my health was especially shocked by nervous fever in 1884 and bilious fever in 1885, followed by cholera. After these illnesses, I felt a complete change in my strength; but, although with the greatest difficulty, I continued to fulfill the positions assigned to me, especially the position of dean of monasteries, which required traveling to monasteries at all times of the year, and traveling around the situation of some monasteries, often very difficult. In the fall of 1846, during a trip to the Cheremenets Monastery - on the duty of the dean, I caught a very cold, after which my legs became paralyzed and during the whole winter I did not leave my room. Considering my health to be completely lost (the consequences justified and justify such a conclusion), I asked for dismissal from the position of rector and dean, intending to end my days without care that was not in harmony with my means, and in a climate more lenient for colds. But the attentive and merciful authorities gave me, instead of a complete dismissal, leave, which lasted with a delay of eleven months. At this time, I could use a decoction, which returned me to using my legs, but at the same time weakened my strength even more. Upon returning to St. Petersburg and to the positions I previously occupied, I performed them with the greatest effort, constantly having a feeling, of course, completely understandable only for patients like me, a feeling as if dressed in someone else’s body, very little subordinate to the soul. During the past winter, the disease, which had hitherto been hidden only inside, came out in the form of rashes and tumors, with strong perspiration, especially at night, with extreme exhaustion and weakening of all the components of the body, from which weakening the teeth began to loosen. In addition to weakness, constant sweating, rashes and swelling made the skin extremely susceptible to colds. This situation forces me to resort to the merciful condescension of Your Eminence and most humbly ask for dismissal from the post of dean of the monasteries of the St. Petersburg diocese, leaving him as dean over the Sergius Hermitage, following the example of other deans of the capital, who, resigning from the deanery of other churches, remain dean over those churches of which they are rectors. 314 The resolution of His Eminence - the correction of the deanery position was entrusted to Zelenetsky Archimandrite Innocent, pending the recovery of Fr. Archimandrite Ignatius. 315 Thus, this time too the Diocesan Administration expressed its desire to retain Archimandrite Ignatius with the full scope of official duties entrusted to him. For the third time, Archimandrite Ignatius took sick leave in the summer of 1856 from May 16 to July 1, having properly ensured the correct course of monastic life with his preliminary orders during his absence. 316 These constant illnesses did not, however, prevent Archimandrite Ignatius from leading the same strict lifestyle as before. Carefully monitoring the behavior of the spiritual flock entrusted to him, sharing with everyone the treasures of his personal experience in monastic life, refusing no one advice, guidance, help and support in his personal life, the abbot remained the same strict ascetic as he was when his physical strength was stronger. His table was unpretentious: he ate more plant foods, and some kind of gruel, and then very moderately. His cell clothes were also simple: a white cassock, not fastened on the chest, with wire rod on the legs. In his free time from monastic affairs, he would quickly walk around his cell and rub the back of his head or forehead (in such forms, he usually expressed his joy and his sorrows), or lie in the corner and read a book, or write at the table: 317 a strict monk and here, despite all the labors that burdened him; did not abandon his cell work and, drawing invaluable riches from the treasuries of the Holy Fathers, poured them out in inspired words. “He had a special gift of looking at everything spiritually; the slightest cases, apparently insignificant circumstances, often received a deep spiritual meaning from him and always found an echo in the moral teaching that guided him; they provided abundant food to his mind and heart, and often in a wondrous melody the words were heard from his spiritual and poetic lyre. These are his works: “Blessed is the Man”, “Song in the Shadow of the Cross”, “Prayer of a Persecuted Man”, “The Lament of a Monk” and many others. From these features of spiritual calling and mood, it is clear that expressing oneself in writing was the spiritual need of Archimandrite Ignatius.” 318 What mood was Fr. Ignatius, while composing his teachings, we learn from the memoirs of Little Ignatius, who was his cell attendant at that time: “Father Archimandrite had to endure a lot of insults,” says the latter, “while he himself was unusually kind and benevolent to his neighbors. He deeply sympathized with every good deed, but he was rudely, ignorantly insulted; some with unfair claims to service, others with impudent and false reproaches - and all this was done out of demonic envy, undeservedly. Then, agitated by grief, he accused the Antichrist and his collaborators; but he soon calmed down, and if the insult was great, he would retire to the bedroom, draw down the thick curtains on the windows, make a dungeon out of his cell and lock himself in for a week or two, declaring himself ill. At such times no one came to him; he indulged in prayer and weeping until a blessed visit from above came and overshadowed him with indescribable joy. As he expressed it, not only the soul, but also the body and bones took part in this joy; in the words of our Savior: The kingdom of heaven is within you. The word of the Lord is true! A person, being in such a state, cannot imagine any other bliss. Usually the kingdom of heaven comes after great sorrow: through many sorrows one must enter into the kingdom of heaven. It was then that the transformation from enemies into bright angels took place; He himself expresses this in his “Lamentation”: “I met enemies seeking my head, like bright angels.” In this mood of spirit, Archimandrite Ignatius was composing his teachings. After a long retreat, his instructive creations always appeared on the table, and he himself came out of his prison with a bright, unusually joyful face. He did not hide his creations from his students; he would always read them, not out of vanity, but as if for testing.” 319 What unjust insults these were; claims and censures from which the Archimandrite had to suffer? Where did the anger and envy come from that began to rustle around this chosen servant of God, who did not hide his talent in the land of worldly vanity, waiting for an opportunity to bite him even on the heel, if it cannot be reached on the head? What made him exclaim in his “Lamentation”: “Envy, slander, slander rose and hissed; here I was subjected to severe, prolonged, humiliating punishments, without trial, without the slightest examination, like a dumb animal, like an insensitive idol; here I saw enemies breathing implacable malice and thirst for my destruction; - here the merciful Lord vouchsafed me to know the joy and peace of the soul inexpressible in words; here He vouchsafed me to taste spiritual love and sweetness while I met my enemy, who was looking for my head, and the face of this enemy became in my eyes like the face of a bright Angel. I learned through experience the mysterious meaning of Christ’s silence before Pilate and the Jewish bishops. What a joy it is to be a victim like Jesus! Or not! What a joy it is to be crucified near the Savior, as the blessed thief was once crucified, and together with this thief, from the conviction of the soul, to confess: “I am worthy of my deeds: remember me, Lord, in Thy kingdom.” 320' The personal mood of Archimandrite Ignatius during his abbotship in the Sergius Hermitage and his attitude towards people are illustrated by his letter to K. P. Bryullov, written on April 27, 1847. Expressing sympathy for Bryullov in the illness that befell him and expressing his intention to visit the sick artist at the first opportunity, Archimandrite Ignatius speaks of his painful condition, which makes it impossible for him to leave the room and even write while sitting. And his mood: Archimandrite Ignatius depicts with the following words: “I wander, surrounded by disasters from infancy. A circle of friends has formed around me who sincerely love me, but I have not yet met a soul to whom I could completely open up. And this is not because I am secretive; no, I am very frank, but the soul, before which I could open myself with true benefit, must be able to understand me, examine me - must comprehend my very inspiration, if; I have some inspiration. Without this, frankness is fruitless. Not only that, frankness in front of those who do not understand only inflicts a new wound on the soul. In my earthly wandering and loneliness, I found a sure haven - the true knowledge of God. Not living people were my mentors, they were the Holy Fathers who had died in body, living, in spirit. In their writings I found the Gospel fulfilled; they have satisfied my soul. I left the world, not as a one-sided seeker of solitude or anything else, but as a lover of higher science; and this science brought me everything: calmness, coolness towards all earthly trifles, consolation in sorrows, strength in the fight against myself, it brought me friends, it brought me happiness on earth, which I have almost never encountered. You know how I live in the monastery! Not as a boss, but as the head of a family. For several years now my health has been deteriorating. For months, for half a year, I don’t leave my room, but religion at the same time turned into poetry for me and keeps me in continuous wonderful inspiration, in conversation with the visible and invisible worlds, in unspeakable pleasure. I don't know boredom; time shortened, rushed with extreme speed, as if merging with eternity; eternity seems to have already arrived. I invite those who are oppressed by grief and driven to my pier to enter my pier, into the pier of Divine thoughts and feelings. They come in, rest, begin to experience peace, consolation, and become my friends.” At the end of the letter, Archimandrite Ignatius invites the ill famous artist to enter this pier, expressing confidence that his soul will find peace in this pier, because this soul in earthly chaos seeks beauty, and his paintings depict a thirsty soul that would be satisfied only with a picture that would be a picture from eternity, for such is the requirement of true inspiration. According to Ignatius Brianchaninov, “all beauty, both visible and invisible, must be anointed with the Spirit; without this anointing, it bears the mark of corruption; beauty helps to satisfy a person driven by true inspiration. He needs beauty to resonate with life, eternal life. When death breathes out of beauty, he turns his gaze away from such beauty.” Wishing the sick artist a recovery, Fr. Ignatius wishes him to “live a little longer in order to become more familiar with eternity, so that before entering into it he can acquire heavenly beauty for the soul. The embrace of the Heavenly Father is always open to accept everyone who wants to run into these holy, saving embraces.” 321 As we see, despite the unusually difficult work, illness and service-life sorrows, Ignatius Brianchaninov’s mood is cheerful, cheerful and Christian. There were many other sorrows for this selfless and tireless worker of the kingdom of God on earth; many thorn needles stung this pure loving heart and evoked its heartfelt cries: “Having reached the age of forty, destroyed by illness, shaken by many sorrows, weakened, incapable of an active life due to the very exhaustion of my bodily strength, what can I say about my fate? - he exclaims in his “Lamentation”. I don’t see a person before me whose fate would be desirable and enviable for me. I am a sinner worthy of executions, both temporary and eternal; but the lot of no man is enviable to me. When I look at my sins, they fill me with horror; but even for terrible sinners there is a Redeemer. Lords of the earth, Shepherds of the Church, Fathers and Brothers! I am no longer fit to serve you. What kind of service is capable of one who is bound by illnesses, chained to his bed by them, kept hopelessly in his cell? Cast me out, cast me out as an indecent slave, serving only as a burden for you! I will not disturb you with any requests, with any concern for me. I don’t need a garden with luxurious shade and fragrant flowers; many servants are not needed; A humble monk will serve me for the sake of the name of Christ, and a Christ-lover will send me food and clothing; I don’t need vast chambers, I don’t need any amusement, no earthly entertainment. Let me go, let me go, sick, incapable of anything! I will find myself a little-known refuge, secluded and quiet, far from the noise of the capital, far from cities and villages: there I will drag out my days alone until my grave. My illness makes the silence of solitude necessary for me. You will want to know, is there really no desire lurking in my soul? - I can satisfy your curiosity. I am a sinner: I thirst for repentance.” 322 Archimandrite Ignatius had to endure many trials in the Sergius Hermitage, so many that it is impossible to count them... “All the sorrows and persecutions were nothing in comparison with what ordinary slander and human slander inflicted on him,” says his biographer V. Askochensky on this occasion: “Hardly anyone’s name was so much vilified everywhere, as evil, as the name of Archimandrite Ignatius Brianchaninova. Even persons invested with sacred rank, persons who had renounced the world, did not “shrink their ears from criticizing the good name of the worker. Everything that in and under the human tongue prepares labor and illness for others, everything that malice and frivolity are capable of - everything fell upon the victorious head of the disinterested, honest and righteous ascetic of inner, spiritual life. People didn't want to know anything about his previous life; for them his self-sacrifice, his voluntary acceptance of the cross of Christ, his flight from the world, with all worldly lures and seductions, his secret labor, visible only to God, could not be understood - before them was Ignatius, enjoying the attention of the Kings and great persons inaccessible to them, who was “everything to everyone, that he might gain everything”, before them was a man who pricked their eyes with his comprehensive education, his tireless activity, their inner greatness, destroying their ostentatious perfections, feigned dignity; Before them was a man who understood his life’s work and was steadily striving for it, and they decided: to resist him everywhere and in everything, and in case of failure, “to blaspheme his name as evil.” Subtle, delicate treatment with people of all ranks and conditions, all genders and ages, the ability to behave among legislators, admirers and admirers of secular vanity, a high, comprehensive education, even knowledge of foreign languages ​​- everything turned into a weapon of slander and slander, everything was imputed to him as a vice and a crime. Like his patron, St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, Once upon a time I was all entangled, And the beasts rushed at him Accomplices of hostile forces. But having met them with a strong soul, He won with his humility"… 323 How the humble ascetic felt about his undeserved insults and sorrows and in what alone he found support and consolation is clear from his own words: “Let us follow Christ! Let us humble ourselves like Him!” - he exclaims in his word of consolation to the grieving monks: - “like Him, we will not refuse to be known as flatterers and insane; We will not spare our honor, we will not turn away our faces from spitting and cheeks from being blown; Let us not seek glory, beauty, or pleasures that belong to this world; Let's make an earthly journey like; wanderers who have no place to lay their heads; Let us accept reproach, humiliation and contempt from people as integral parts of our chosen path; Let us openly and secretly fight the thoughts of pride, and vigorously overthrow these thoughts of our old man, who seeks to revive his “I,” under various plausible pretexts. Then the Son of God, who said “I will dwell in them and walk around” (2 Cor. 6:16), will appear in our hearts and give us the power and strength to bind the strong one, to plunder his vessels, to step on the asp and the basilisk; trample them (Teacher Macarius. Word 4, ch. 16). Let us reject grumbling, reject complaints about our fate, reject heartfelt sadness and melancholy, from which weak souls suffer more than from sorrows themselves. Let us reject all thoughts of revenge and repay evil for evil. “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, said the Lord” (Rom. 12:19). Do you want to endure sorrows with ease and comfort? – May death for Christ be desirable to you. May this death be constantly before your eyes. Mortify yourself daily by abstaining from all sinful desires of the flesh and spirit; mortify yourself by rejecting your will and rejecting self-justifications brought by the false mind and evil conscience of the old man; kill yourself by vividly imagining and painting your inevitable death. We are given the commandment to follow Christ by taking up our cross. This means: we must always be ready to die for Christ with joy and gladness. If we arrange ourselves this way, then we will easily endure all sorrow, visible and invisible. Whoever wants to die for Christ, what misfortune, what insult will he not endure generously? Our sorrows seem heavy to us precisely because we do not want to die for Christ, we do not want to enclose all our desires, all our hopes, all our minds, all our wealth, our entire existence in Him alone. Those who strive to follow Christ and be a joint heir with Him must be a zealous imitator of His Passion. Those who love Christ and His followers discover and prove their hidden deposit by enduring every sorrow sent down to them not only with complacency, but also with zeal, and with zeal, and with joy, and with thanksgiving, placing all their trust in Christ. Such patience is a gift of Christ. This gift will be accepted by the one who asks for it through humble and constant prayer from Christ, proving the sincerity of the desire to receive the priceless spiritual gift of patience by coercion and painful violence of a heart that does not want to endure all the sorrows and temptations that occur and occur.” 324 And Archimandrite Ignatius had this priceless spiritual gift of patience; “he carried revenge on his enemies, not the desire for evil, the Dathans and Abirons who were jealous of him in the desert and the entire “host of Kore”, who rushed at him “in rage and anger,” in his meek and humble soul, but fell for them before the cross of the Divine Sufferer and thanked: “I thank You, Lord and my God, for everything that has happened to me! I thank You for all the sorrows and temptations that You sent me to cleanse those defiled by sins, to heal my soul and body, ulcerated by sins! Have mercy and save those instruments that You used to heal me - those people who insulted me! Bless them in this and the next century! Credit to them as virtue what they did for me! Grant them abundant rewards from Your eternal treasures! This is how a true Christian curses his enemies!” 325 So patiently, without grumbling, the spiritual crusader bore his heavy cross; but all these sorrows further upset the already broken health of the Archimandrite; finally, his moral and physical strength could not stand it: his constant mental mood, searching for achievement, and his constant painful state, which always kept his thoughts “on the threshold of eternity” - all this prompted him to seek solitude, to flee the busy life of the abbot of a crowded monastery, located, moreover, so close to the capital with its diverse bustle, the echoes of which could not help but penetrate, in any case, beyond monastery walls. He dreamed of finding the longed-for peace for his tormented soul in quiet solitude and completely surrendering to sweet repentance. His ardent desire is to retire, - Fr. Ignatius expressed in his “Lamentation” the following words, touching the reader’s soul: “Incomprehensible, all-powerful, all-good, all-wise God and my Lord, Creator and Savior! In tears and dust before You, an insignificant speck of dust - I, called by You to existence, allowed to think and desire! You see my heart, in its hidden depths lies the word that I intend to pronounce with my mind and lips! You know before I ask what I want to ask. It has already been decided in Your destinies whether to fulfill or reject my request. But You have given me autocracy, and I dare to bring before You, to pronounce before You the desire of my accursed, my distressed, my ulcerated heart! Do not listen to my heart, do not listen to the words of my prayer, do not do according to my will; but do what You please, what Your all-holy, wise will chooses and appoints for me. However, I will say the desire of my heart; I will express in words the desire of my autocracy!.. Open the doors of repentance to me, Lover of mankind! I lived my life as a prodigal, I reached the tenth hour; all my strength is exhausted; I cannot perform the commandments and services with my weakened body: grant me to bring You at least repentance, so that I do not have to leave the hotel of the world, alien to all hope! You see my weakness, the weakness of soul and body! I cannot stand against the face of passions and temptations. Lead me into solitude and silence, so that there I can immerse myself entirely, mind, heart, and body, in repentance... I thirst for repentance!.. Merciful Lord, quench my unquenchable thirst that consumes me, grant me repentance! You who have poured out such countless blessings on me, complete and fill them with the gift of repentance, O All-Holy Lord! Do not deprive me of the gift, for which, in my madness, I have been begging You for so long, not knowing what I am asking, not knowing whether I am capable of receiving the gift, not knowing whether I will keep it if I receive it. One of Your servants, sanctified and enlightened by the Holy Spirit, said: “Outside silence there is no true repentance” (St. Isaac of Syria, Homily 41). This word struck my sinful soul, stuck in my memory, pierces me like a sword, every time the memory is renewed. Not seeing repentance in myself, I am perplexed; I force myself to repent, but I involuntarily encounter worries and entertainment - they steal repentance from me. I can’t keep him in the midst of rumors and embarrassment: he leaves, slips away, leaves me with emptiness and hopelessness. Most merciful Lord, grant me the repentance brought by silence, constant repentance, repentance that can cleanse the defilements of soul and body, the repentance that You have granted to all whom You have chosen and called to Yourself, whose names are appointed to be entered in the book of life, to whom You will determine to eternally behold Your glory and eternally glorify Your mercy. The gift of repentance is dearer and more desirable to me than the treasures of the whole world. Purified by repentance, may I see Your immaculate will, the infallible path to You, and may I proclaim them to my brethren! - You, my sincere friends, connected with me by bonds of friendship in the Lord, do not complain about me, do not grieve over my departure. I move away in body to draw closer in spirit; Apparently I am lost to you, but in essence you gain me. Commit me to repentance: it will return me to you purified, enlightened, and I will proclaim to you the word of salvation, the word of God - Open the doors of repentance to me, O loving Lord, grant me eternal salvation with all my friends who have loved me in You, and all in eternal bliss, in joy and unspeakable pleasure, we glorify the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the One and Trinitarian God, who showed the human race love and mercy that surpassed words, surpassed comprehension.” 326 But this desire of Archimandrite Ignatius - to completely surrender to repentance in quiet solitude - was not destined to come true so soon: instead of being dismissed, he was allowed only an 11-month leave to improve his health at the Babaevsky monastery indicated by him. “Seeing that I no longer had the strength to fight the enormously intensified illness, or to fight the circumstances, I wanted to retire from St. Petersburg and from noisy positions forever,” Archimandrite Ignatius himself wrote about this: “Not everyone can be leaves, flowers, fruits on the state tree, but someone, like roots, must provide him with life and strength through unknown, quiet, essentially useful, essentially necessary activities. I recognize that one of these activities is the affirmation of our neighbors in the Christian faith and morality. This peaceful, modest occupation with the living word and pen has always consumed a significant part of my time, and if I was sick, it would have taken up all of my time. It did not happen according to my desire, it did not come true according to my assumption; but I assumed that they would probably give me a dismissal - there were so many people who helped me get it! I was given temporary leave to the Babaevsky Monastery for rest and treatment. This is where I am now.” 327 During his vacation in 1856, Archimandrite Ignatius, as we have seen, went to the Optina Hermitage with the goal of preparing a monastery cell for himself for a silent, prayerful, ascetic life. For this purpose, in addition to pain, another motivating factor appeared in his mood. the motive is a mournful feeling on the occasion of the death of his Sovereign Patron, the Sovereign Emperor, Nikolai Pavlovich. But Providence was pleased to retain the ascetic seeking solitude for a considerable time in church and public service and to prolong his multi-useful service for the glory of the Holy Church of God. Instead of Metropolitan Nikanor, who died in 1856, Gregory was appointed Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, who personally knew Ignatius Brianchaninov and treated him kindly. Metropolitan Gregory invited Archimandrite Ignatius to accept the rank of Bishop. Deciding not to deviate from what was proposed for the glory of God, Archimandrite Ignatius expressed consent to the proposal made. According to Chikhachov, Archimandrite Ignatius was first intended to be appointed Bishop of Novgorod, where he was already preparing. But it turned out differently. Another was consecrated to Novgorod, and a year after that Archimandrite Ignatius was appointed Bishop of the Caucasus and Black Sea to bring the diocese into proper order. 328 The highest command to become Archimandrite Ignatius Bishop of the Caucasus and Black Sea followed on October 13, 1857. 329 His naming as Bishop of the Caucasus and Black Sea took place on October 23 at the Holy Synod, and his episcopal consecration took place on October 27, 1857 at the Kazan Cathedral. In his speech when he was named Bishop, Archimandrite Ignatius spoke about his desire from his youth for the deep deserts, that he liked monasticism and attracted him in itself, and he did not think about any service to the Church in the rank of priesthood. But the Incomprehensible Divine Providence bound and girded him, the Hand of God snatched him from the wilderness of forests and deserts and placed him in the monastery of St. Sergius, on the seashore, on the shore of the sea of ​​life, great and extensive. Archimandrite Ignatius recognizes public church service as useful for himself, as it relieves daydreaming and conceit, clarifies the ailments of the soul and teaches humility. With this humility and submission to the will of God, Archimandrite Ignatius accepted the rank of Bishop. 330 The next day, the newly installed Bishop Ignatius celebrated the liturgy in the Lavra Cross Church, and then spent three days of November in the Sergius Desert. On November 3, Sunday, Bishop Ignatius served the Divine Liturgy in the desert, participated in a common fraternal meal and, having said goodbye to everyone, finally left the Sergius Hermitage and moved to the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. The Sovereign Emperor most mercifully granted Bishop Ignatius the full episcopal vestment, arranged at the expense of the office of His Imperial Majesty. 331 On November 4, at the invitation of the Dowager Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, Bishop Ignatius traveled to Tsarskoye Selo to present himself to Her Majesty. The Empress graciously received him and granted him a panagia decorated with diamonds and rubies, and said at the same time: “With the permission of the Emperor, I give you this panagia in memory of me and the late Emperor.” On November 9, Bishop Ignatius introduced himself to Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich and Grand Duchess Alexandra Iosifovna, and had a long spiritual conversation with the Grand Duchess, and on November 10, in Tsarskoye Selo, he had an audience with the Sovereign Emperor and, especially, with the Empress, and the Empress was pleased to talk with him about monasticism in general and about the Sergius Desert in particular. On November 17, His Eminence Ignatius participated in the consecration of Solovetsky Archimandrite Alexander as Bishop of Arkhangelsk and Kholmogory. On the same day, the abbot of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage, Hieromonk Ignatius (Malyshev), was elevated to the rank of Archimandrite and, according to the proposal of Bishop Ignatius and the unanimous desire of the brotherhood, was appointed rector of the Sergius Hermitage. 332 Retiring from the Sergius Hermitage to the distant Caucasus, Ignatius Brianchaninov, with the blessing of the Church Authority, left as his successor and continuator of his endeavors his student and long-term cell attendant and pupil Ignatius Malyshev, and in his person he transferred the spirit of his monastic work to the Sergius Monastery. Ignatius Brianchaninov left for the Caucasus four years later and moved to Babayki, and after a six-year stay there, he completely left his sorrowful earthly journey to that land of endless eternity, to the land of promise, which he saw so clearly with his believing gaze. But the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage to this day serves as an eloquent and irrefutable witness to his tireless, arduous work, and the spirit and structure of Ignatieva’s life, which she diligently preserves, is a miraculous monument to the 24-year asceticism of Ignatius Brianchaninov. Protecting and increasing our external wealth, collected through the works of Ignatius Brianchaninov and his worthy successors, disciples and continuers of his holy work. The monastery of Sergius did not squander the spiritual wealth inherited from its organizer, retaining the power of creating the spiritual salvation of its permanent inhabitants, edifying those who come to pray, and still pacifying the mood of those overwhelmed by the waves of the sea of ​​\u200b\u200blife. Currently, from the outside it is a well-maintained, clean, spacious monastery. From the north there is the Baltic seaside, in winter it is a huge snowy plain, Kronstadt is visible, in the west the Grand Duke's Palaces, Peterhof and Alexandria. In the east and south there is a lowland covered with thin forest. The bulk of the Russian capital of St. Petersburg is visible, in the darkness and smoke of which the majestic St. Isaac's Cathedral emerges. Inside the monastery there is cleanliness and order in everything. The monastery gives the impression of a good Lavra. Majestic mausoleums merge with churches and cells of monastics. The living and the dead live a life together, and it seems that for the living, death is only an inevitable move to a new apartment, or, better yet, to one’s own house, arranged with one’s own labors and according to one’s own taste: here, within the walls of the monastery, it is easier to remember the last and not sin. Nearby, with one wall in the fence of the Sergius Hermitage, there is another monastery, the Invalid House of the Counts Zubovs, 333 maintained in exemplary order by the generous sacrifices and attention of the organizers, and according to the tasks of the founders and the influence of the monastery - and in strict morals, the disabled live like schoolgirls. The general appearance of the monastery is difficult to grasp - the monastery is located on a low-lying and flat square and is visible only close up, best from the side of the railway station. The station is about two miles away, the road is in a straight line: the monastery is both close and far - you won’t get there soon. So is the Kingdom of God. Close to everyone and difficult to reach. Near the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage you can see the palace of the Grand Duke Dimitri Konstantinovich, who is very friendly to the monastery and its current abbot, Archimandrite Michael. Further, the palaces of the Grand Dukes Mikhail Nikolaevich, Alexander Mikhailovich, Nikolai Nikolaevich, Peterhof and the Sovereign's residence - Alexandria. The Tsar's Palace and the Grand Duke's palaces represent, as it were, the area of ​​the parish of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage. The great princes and their families receive spiritual consolation in the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage, take care of the monastery and its household. In the vast desert economy there are valuable horses - a gift from Grand Duke Dimitri Konstantinovich. On the wall of the refectory of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage, near the reader’s lectern, in a prominent place, you can read the following letter, placed in a gold frame, written in a child’s handwriting: “Petersburg. 06.04.1903. Dear father! Having learned from Uncle that you want to make a stone floor in the refectory, we collected as much as we could from our pocket money and ask you to accept this contribution and pray for the sick Gabriel and Oleg. We ask for your blessings John, Tatyana, Konstantin, Oleg and Igor.” This touching letter was written to Archimandrite Mikhail (Gorelyshev), the current abbot of the Sergius Hermitage, by the children of Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich, and their Uncle, from whom they learned about the needs of the monastery, was Grand Duke Dimitri Konstantinovich. The monastery's closest neighbor, Grand Duke Dimitri Konstantinovich, often visits it and even has a room for himself in the chambers of the rector Archimandrite Michael, whom he treats with touching love. 334 The brethren of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage, since the time of Ignatius Brianchaninov, together with the brethren of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, led by the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, go annually to glorify Christ to the Royal Palace and to the Grand Dukes. This position of a magnificent monastic monastery near the monasteries of the Tsar and Grand Dukes makes a pleasant impression and evokes spiritual tenderness: the object and source of spiritual consolation for ordinary Russian believers serves as the same for the Sovereign Royal House; is a link connecting the Royal House and the hut of a poor commoner who loves his homeland, the Tsar and the Church. One cannot help but imagine the greatness of the merits of all those persons who contributed to the organization and decoration of the monastery of the Trinity-Sergius - here, on the seashore, in the swamps of the swamps, for the teaching of an arrogant neighbor - a heterodox and heterodox foreigner, for the defeat and hostility to the salvation of man, the sower of evil - the spirit of malice. And the High-Ranking Inhabitants of the Baltic seaside, constrained by their high position, shackled by the chains of worldly greatness - where they could simply see the abode of holiness and peace, if the Trinity-Sergius hermitage were not in close communication with them. The farm of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage is kept in perfect order: 1) Dairy, where over 20 purebred and valuable cows are kept, the cleanliness and order in the dairy farm are remarkable. 2) Poultry house - with countless flocks of completely tame chickens, nests are built for laying eggs and hatching chickens. 3) A stable where there are very valuable horses - a gift from Grand Duke Dimitri Konstantinovich. 4) A beekeeper in front of the abbot’s windows, satisfying the needs of the monastery in terms of the amount of honey produced. 5) Garden with fruit trees. 6) Garden and field farming. The total budget of the monastery is currently estimated at approximately 15,000 rubles. annual income. 335 and 7) Sergius Hermitage Hospital with an outpatient clinic for incoming patients - a clean, spacious building. The hospital was built by the present experienced abbot; order and cleanliness; the walls are painted with oil paint, decent servants, neat beds, 10 of which are for monks. Bath, electric machine, pharmacy. Downstairs is an outpatient clinic that receives up to 6,000 patients a year (in 1913, 6,584 people were admitted). Paramedic-monk, lay doctor. The hospital makes a good impression. The composition of the brotherhood eliminates any difficulties in performing Divine services - in the monastery now: the rector Archimandrite Michael, the hieromonks: the vicar, Fr. Joasaph, treasurer Fr. Gennady, sacristan Fr. Sergius and confessor Fr. Jonah, in addition 18 hieromonks; a total of 23 hieromonks, 10 hierodeacons, 3 monks, designated novices - 10, living for prayer - 41. 336 Thanks to such a significant composition of the brotherhood and its structure, supported since the time of Ignatius Brianchaninov, church services are performed in a statutory and consistent manner - stylishly, like a monastery. The spirit of Ignatius Brianchaninov seems to be hovering everywhere, blessing the monastery he created, lively and prosperous, under his leadership, a desert like a desert. Since 1834, for 80 years, the Trinity-Sergius Monastery has maintained the structure, order and direction introduced into its life by Ignatius Brianchaninov, for subsequent abbots feed on his spirit, belonging to his successive disciples, 337 with love and zeal support those undertakings of Archimandrite Ignatius, which strengthened the glory of the monastery. The Divine service in the Sergius Hermitage makes a special impression, even on weekdays. Touching order, regulations of services. Slenderness of movements. Manatean monks are all in robes. The rector stands at the back of the church, in front of the candle box, those who perform church obedience approach him for a blessing, decorously and harmoniously, quietly and reverently, each goes to his own business and place. A huge, majestic, spacious church with a colonnade and a beautiful iconostasis. Large, closed choir; there are two choirs - up to 40 people in total. At vespers for “Glory” and “Quiet Light” - everything is in the middle, for verses - too. The procession is beautiful, hoods, robes, twilight. Tenor hieromonk, bass hierodeacon. And in the choir there are wonderful voices, especially the bass ones. The hierodeacon's bass hums in low notes. In his huge figure, in his thick bass, we can involuntarily hear the almost forty-year-old ascetic of the Sergius Hermitage, Schemamonk Mikhail (Chikhachov), who sang with his rare octave to God - “until even I am”, 338 this cheerful ascetic, who did not wear a shirt, but a hair shirt, bathed in the sea breaking through the ice, energetic and humble, a great and diminished spirit, powerful and strong, but obedient and unassuming, not having seen the world in which he was born and to which he could belong by birth and connections, but blessed, we think and believe - “a contemplator of the highest mysteries of God.” And the people of the world, even the Supreme Helmsman of the worldly ship, sensed the spiritual power of the inhabitants of the Sergius Hermitage. It is not without reason that he is strong in will and spirit, with a great character - Emperor Nicholas I, arriving at the monastery, hugged Mikhail Chikhachov in a friendly manner and, clapping him on the shoulders, said strongly: “my, my monk.” Didn’t it seem to the Royal Autocrat then that the search for the kingdom of God and faithful standing on the path to it was higher than the royal palaces and purple? Chikhachov refused the priesthood, did not want to be a mentor to others, was poor for the sake of heavenly riches. And when it was necessary to go to the Palace, he put on someone else’s cassock... Sergius Hermitage - the seaside dacha of a royal person! Now this, so to speak, primitive name for the territory of the Sergius Hermitage seems to us ambiguous. At what sea does this dacha now lie? - Is it in that natural geographical sea, from where, by the will of the great Russian man, the Royal Carpenter, who revived the desert waves with the construction of the northern capital, foreign flags float on the Baltic waves and Sovereign Orthodox Rus' will give those guests not only material benefits, but also spiritual ones, thereby fulfilling its high mission of the people - God-bearers?... Or at that sea of ​​life, which can be seen from it, in a straight line, 8 miles away, in the form of a royal city and an immeasurable country, for the inhabitants of which, overwhelmed by the waves of life, they need an abode of peace, a sacred shelter, a place of rest, a spiritual hospital. Of course, the second meaning of the “Seaside Dacha” is also applicable to the monastery of the Holy Trinity and St. Sergius the Venerable, 339 and this holy Ascetic, the Heavenly Citizen of his earthly fatherland, left far from the reigning city with the transfer of the capital to St. Petersburg, moved here in spirit to guide the royal minds and with a visible sign of this established his new monastery here, the “Seaside Dacha”, and invisibly dwells in the mood of the inhabitants her, especially since the time of Ignatius Brianchaninov, who assimilated the spirit of asceticism through the feat of his life. And even if you temporarily live at the “Bogomoleniya” you feel the presence of the spirit of asceticism, the spirit of Ignatiev. This spirit of Ignatius Brianchaninov is felt: 1) in the very existence of the monastery, in its improvement, in its churches, in their splendor; 2) in its vast cemetery of noble people, for whom the honors of high earthly positions were often devalued at the sight of the spiritual wealth of the monastery; 3) in the aesthetic and religious order, regulation, beauty and spirituality of the Divine service that has been preserved in the monastery to this day; in the cleanliness and order of the refectory, decorated with works of art - an unusual monastery refectory, where the lives of saints compiled by Archimandrite are read. Ignatius. But especially in the spirit and mood of the current inhabitants of the monastery and its leaders, the “vicars” Ignatius Brianchaninov, who inherited this spirit from him and the simple-minded and non-covetous schema-monk Mikhail Chikhachov. What is this special spirit? Ascetics are ascetics who have imputed wealth and glory, honors and pleasures, “as they know how to do the kingdom for the sake of God,” they retained a joyful, joyful spirit and passed it on to their spiritual descendants. They did not darken their faces, “as if they would appear as a fasting man,” but were joyful and complacent, sympathetic and meek, kind in their very outward severity, and they passed this on to their successors. Such was Ignatius Brianchaninov, such were his co-workers. Wounds and swelling of the legs tormented the giant Mikhail Chikhachov, but he did not reveal his suffering, even when his spiritual strength broke under the weakness of his body, he remembered only about the friend of his youth - Ignatius, and directed his soul and attention to God, putting his mood into the chants he performed. And the current rector of the Sergius Hermitage, Archimandrite Mikhail, at 66 years old, is young, cheerful, vigorous, cheerful; childishly simple, despite asthma, diabetes and other ailments, the wonderful tenor, who sang with Mikhail Chikhachov, infuses cheerfulness and spiritual joy into everyone who enters the sphere of his life. And his closest colleague, the sacristan Fr. Sergius, imbued with spiritual joy and trusting simplicity, asceticically self-absorbed, nourishes his neighbors with his even Christian mood, without pretentiousness or exaltation. And the governor is a magnificent and modest Fr. Joasaph, enthusiastically carrying out obedience to the leadership of monastic singing, was completely absorbed in this holy work and indifferent to any quest for human glory. Such are also many other elders and novices of the holy monastery of Sergius, with fascinating simplicity and clarity regarding the issue of life and death, between both - union and brotherhood: death is only a rebirth to eternal life. And this is especially vividly felt in the Sergius Monastery. When we had to walk through the monastery in the evening, when in the darkness we could see lamps burning on the graves, when at night we saw an unquenchable lamp in the touching chapel of the three elders, it became clear to us that there was no real death; It seemed to us that Fr. would rise. Mikhail Chikhachov and his octave will thunder: “Eternal counsel,” or: “Thou hast given wealth to those who fear Thee, Lord,” or: “Christ is risen.” During our stay in the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage, we experienced the joyful confidence that Vladyka Ignatius Brianchaninov is alive, both in the monasteries he built and in His creations, he broadcasts to the entire believing world the joyful and saving memory of future death, of eternal life: a believer in God will not die, but will pass from death to life! Chapter three. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Bishop of the Caucasus and Black Sea “I liked and like monasticism in itself, but I did not at all think about serving the Church in any kind of priesthood. To be the Bishop of my heart and to sacrifice to Christ thoughts and feelings sanctified by the Spirit - this is the height to which my eyes were drawn.” Works of Bishop Ignatius, vol.: III: , p. 313. With the adoption of monasticism in 1831 and continuously until the time of his appointment to the Bishop's See in 1857, Ignatius Brianchaninov was busy with vigorous and complex activities to put in order and organize the monasteries entrusted to him - Griropie-Lopotova and Trinity-Sergius. In both monasteries, he found a disorder in all aspects - both external and internal life. He left both monasteries, especially the Sergius Hermitage, in a flourishing state. The same activity of organizing and raising to the proper height the begun church work fell to his Share in the position of diocesan Bishop. It was not the continuation of peaceful rule and the maintenance of Christian mood in a well-organized diocese that he got, but the ordering and arrangement in religious and church terms of a militant region, which was also unsettled in civil terms, absorbed in almost all interests by many years of military struggle. Here, as well as in the Sergius Desert, Ignatius Brianchaninov needed to improve the appearance of the Bishop's residence and the organization of church administration and, if possible, infuse a Christian mood, introduce the principles of Christian life into a population engaged in external struggle, sedentary and warlike. The attitude towards the military and civil authorities required serpentine wisdom, deep tact and understanding of the situation of the region, the attitude towards the clergy - vigilant attention and perseverance in reviving the spiritual life of the flock, the strength of the prayerful spirit and Christian love, all church work in the Caucasian region required Ilya's zeal and tireless energy, intelligence, tact and character from the one who took upon himself the responsibility of leading this matter. And these properties belonged in abundance to Ignatius Brianchaninov and were revealed in his activities in managing the Caucasian and Black Sea departments, despite the comparative shortness of his stay in the region. A strong spirit supported and strengthened his ailing body; ailments did not prevent him from being an active and energetic Bishop in the young Episcopal See. The Caucasian and Black Sea Department was opened on January 1, 1843 at the request of the head of the Caucasian region P. E. Grabbe. The report of the Holy Synod on this subject was approved on April 4, 1842. The entire Caucasus region and the Black Sea region were transferred to this diocese from the Novocherkassk diocese. 340 The bishop of the new diocese was ordered to have a residence in the city of Stavropol and be called Caucasian and Black Sea. By the Highest Decree of January 1, 1843, the first Bishop of the Caucasus and Black Sea was appointed Vicar of the Kyiv Metropolis, Bishop of Chigirinsky Jeremiah, who, according to the reviews of his contemporaries, possessed high Christian perfections, an ascetic who burned with the unwavering light of Christian faith and virtue, and was distinguished at the same time by his extensive administrative activities. A friend and fellow villager of the Most Reverend Innokenty Borisov, when the Right Reverend Innokenty Borisov was the rector of the Kyiv Academy, he was its inspector in the rank of Archimandrite, and when in 1839 Innokenty Borisov was appointed Bishop of Chigrinsky, Archimandrite Jeremiah Solovyov took the place of the Rector of the Kyiv Theological Academy until 1841, when, with the transfer His Grace Innocent in Vologda, Archimandrite Jeremiah became Bishop of Chigirinsky, and on January 1, 1843 - Bishop of the Caucasus and Black Sea. After almost six years of ruling the Caucasian and Black Sea diocese, which laid a healthy foundation in the organization of spiritual affairs in the North Caucasus, His Grace Jeremiah was transferred to the Poltava diocesan see in 1849. 341 The second Bishop of the Caucasus and Black Sea was His Grace Ioannikis from 1849 to 1857, at the end of which the Bishop's See of the Caucasus and Black Sea Diocese was occupied by His Grace Ignatius Brianchaninov. Thus, Bishop Ignatius Bryanchaninov entered the cathedra of the Caucasian and Black Sea Diocese 14 years after its establishment and was the third Bishop of the said cathedra. 342 The state of the Caucasian and Black Sea diocese, in view of the heterogeneity and instability of the population, the military situation of the region and the poor civil conditions, at the time of the bishopric of Ignatius Brianchaninov, was just as unsettled in a spiritual sense, and there was complete scope for the energy, initiative and spiritual experience of the new Bishop. The activity of Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov at the Caucasian and Black Sea See lasted less than four years. On January 4, 1858, His Grace Ignatius, newly ordained for the Caucasian diocese, arrived in Stavropol. Residents of the Caucasian diocese joyfully and cordially greeted Vladyka Ignatius. The mood of Bishop Ignatius upon entering the Caucasian see was full of submission to the will of Providence and readiness to work tirelessly for the benefit of Christian enlightenment of the diocese entrusted to him. Having recently dreamed of going somewhere at the end of his life to the quiet region of his native Russia, away from St. Petersburg, which in climate and in everything was unlike him, Archimandrite Ignatius relied in everything on the will of God. 343 Upon accepting the grace of the Bishopric, he writes to his friend and brother P.A. Brianchaninov, who was the Stavropol vice-governor at that time: “I earnestly wish that you remain in Stavropol and that God will bless us to work together for the benefit of Christianity and humanity, otherwise – for the benefit of the Orthodox Church and the benefit of the Fatherland, closely related to it. May the all-holy will of God be done upon us and grant us sinners salvation! The purpose of my life in Stavropol is piety. I earnestly wish and pray to the Lord to grant me to devote myself entirely to the teaching of Christ, as my duty requires, and to nourish myself and my neighbors with this teaching for salvation.” 344 The speech of Bishop Ignatius at his naming as Bishop and his first introductory speech to the Stavropol flock are imbued with the same mood. 345 This spirit of submission to the will of God, zeal for the Christian teaching of the God-given flock, for providing for it the very conditions and sources of spiritual nutrition through the improvement of the diocesan Administration through the elevation of the mental and moral level of the clergy; Even the inevitable struggle with the shortcomings of the diocese and the clergy is imbued with this spirit, but the same zeal for Christian improvement and the spiritual salvation of the flock did not allow Ignatius Brianchaninov to compromise and encouraged him to defend the originality of his life view, regardless of how this would affect him, his personal reputation, health and mood. To get acquainted with the activities of Bishop Ignatius in the position of diocesan bishop in relation to the internal life of the diocese, the documents of the first two years of his diocesan ministry are of greatest importance, and to characterize his church and social views - documents relating to the second half of his diocesan bishopric, especially those relating to the great peasant reform. In the first two years of diocesan administration, Bishop Ignatius became acquainted in detail with the state of the Caucasian diocese - through personal visits to the churches of the diocese specifically for the purpose, and on special emergency cases of diocesan life, through documentation and in the performance of the usual functions of the diocesan bishop. During these same two years, Bishop Ignatius formed his definite view of the state of the diocese and sufficiently revealed his plans for its desired structure. Bishop Ignatius did not like to be unfounded, and in diocesan affairs, as well as in matters of spiritual life, he relied on the impressions of his personal experience, but on the other hand, through personal impressions, tested by him, experienced in his own experience and thought out, he gave him grounds for quite definite judgments, for decisive and persistent actions. The traits of Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov noted above are confirmed by his judgments in reports on the state of the diocese, and his actions to improve the latter. Presenting His report on the state of the Caucasian diocese for 1857, Bishop Ignatius in his transmittal report to the Holy Synod himself recognizes it as theoretical, because having arrived at the Caucasian See on January 4, 1858, he not only could not acquire practical, solid concepts about the diocese by the time the report was compiled, but did not even have time to familiarize himself with its affairs, which could have provided him with a lot of accurate and accurate information. alive. Subsequently re-reading this report, His Eminence Ignatius himself found it colorless and lacking in life. It could not, of course, be anything other than hastily compiled from information collected from various individuals and from office work - information that could not be subjected to proper criticism; according to the information, it may be correct, but it is unfounded and does not express Bishop Ignatius’ personal view on the matter. But the report on the state of the Caucasian diocese for 1858 presents the diocese to the Holy Synod more clearly and distinctly. But the picture of diocesan life and according to this report of Bishop Ignatius is still incomplete. Due to the extremely late spring of 1858, which was unusual in the Caucasus, His Grace Ignatius could not visit the regions of the Black Sea Cossacks in the spring. At first, he intended to do this in the fall, which in 1858 was unusually good, similar to the July of the best St. Petersburg summer. But the arrival of rare and pleasant guests, Their Imperial Highnesses the Grand Dukes Nicholas and Mikhail Nikolaevich, determined for him, as for all the main persons of the Caucasus region, a stay in Stavropol to receive them. The picture of diocesan life in the Caucasus is supplemented by the report of Bishop Ignatius for 1859, in which he also includes information about the Black Sea region he visited that year. Having entered into the administration of the Caucasian diocese, Bishop Ignatius, first of all, was concerned with the proper arrangement and raising to the proper height, in accordance with his ideas, the institutions auxiliary in relation to the Bishop - the spiritual Consistory and the composition of the District Deans. In relation to the composition of the Consistory, the activities of Bishop Ignatius were expressed in the diligent and energetic selection of hardworking, efficient and honest members of the Consistory, with the elimination from the composition of the Consistory of bearers of autocracy and personal benefits, and concerns about improving the position of the clerical employees of the Consistory and their working conditions. In the first respect, a significant fact that required considerable persistence and determination from Bishop Ignatius and caused him significant grief was the removal of Archpriest Krastilevsky from the Consistory. In 1858, the composition of the Caucasian Consistory, under the influence of Bishop Ignatius, changed significantly. Already at the end of 1857, some members of the Consistory, including the former rector of the seminary, Archimandrite Ioannikis, ceased to be present in the Consistory as a result of an order made by the Holy Synod. At the beginning of 1858, following Bishop Ignatius, the new rector of the seminary, Archimandrite German, and the new inspector, the cathedral hieromonk Isaac, arrived in Stavropol. The first of them, according to the right acquired by the rector, began to be present in the Consistory, and the second, at the suggestion of the Bishop. Together with this proposal, Bishop Ignatius submitted a proposal to the Holy Synod for the appointment of an inspector as a member of the Consistory, which proposal was granted satisfaction. In March, the new secretary of the Consistory, Grigorevsky, arrived. The entry of two new members and a secretary into the Consistory somewhat shook the authority of a member of the Consistory, Cathedral Archpriest Krastilevsky, who until then had dominated the Consistory, distinguished by significant abilities and experience in business, acquired by long-term practice, enjoying the special trust of the former Caucasian Bishop Ioannikios. The fear of Krastilevsky somewhat weakened in the former members, and a member of the Consistory, Archpriest Sukharev, a candidate at the Moscow Academy, a truthful man, began to lend his voice to the benefit of the cause. But Krastilevsky’s abilities and knowledge of affairs, specifically the Caucasian region, could not help but attract the attention of other members and the secretary to his opinions. Following attention, a power of attorney also began to be attracted, especially since the rector and inspector, busy with seminary affairs, could not devote as much time to the affairs of the Consistory as these matters required for a thorough consideration of them. Superiority in knowledge of the matter over other members, innate cunning, reaching the point of deceit, again gave Krastilevsky primacy and dominance in the Consistory and would have given it if there had been no other power limiting him. In affairs, there was a noticeable clash between Krastilevsky and the Episcopal authority, perhaps, for many, inconspicuous: the cunning Krastilevsky, as soon as he saw that his opposition was becoming noticeable, immediately resorted to evasive compliance. But this, in certain cases, compliance could not change the general direction; and the clash became palpable in the administrative goal itself, in the moral and spiritual goal. Bishop Ignatius was convinced that the correction of Krastilevsky was an impossible task and his removal from the Consistory was a necessary matter. From end to end of the diocese complaints were heard against him; the clergy, accustomed for over a dozen years to see him as an unlimited ruler, were in awe of him. In 1858, with the entry into the administration of the diocese of Bishop Ignatius, the clergy, although they noticed the limitation of Krastilevsky’s influence, did not trust this state of limitation, unusual for Krastilevsky and, knowing from many years of experience about his steadfastness, expected him to enter into ordinary autocracy. Many things progressed slowly, while others did not progress at all for the sole reason that the persons to whom they were entrusted, knowing Krastilevsky’s view of them, did not dare to act in a way that was not favorable to him. The latter circumstance served as a very important obstacle to putting the diocese in order, and in some cases could give rise to the most unpleasant and loud events, as was discovered when Bishop Ignatius visited the city of Mozdok. When the deputation of the mountaineers told him that the decline in Christian sentiment among them depended on church orders that did not meet their needs and the appointment of priests among them, unfamiliar with their mood and language, supported by the influence of Archpriest Krastilevsky. The mountaineers complained especially about the unfavorable influence of Archpriest Krastilevsky, to whom the former Archpriest of Mozdok, who was under investigation at that time, was a relative. The slowness of the investigation into the abuses of the former archpriest, attributed to the influence of Krastilevsky, greatly worried the mountaineers. 346 Out of their mood and unbearable situation and their waywardness, they plotted to steal the miraculous icon of the Iveron Mother of God and retire with it to the mountains. 347 Having finally become convinced of the fundamentally harmful influence of Archpriest Krastilevsky on church affairs in the Caucasus region from examining cases not only on paper, but also in their results, Bishop Ignatius, upon his return from overseeing the diocese, decided to eliminate from diocesan activities that element that for a long time deprived diocesan activities of beneficial correctness and henceforth, according to the adopted direction could have a harmful effect on business. Upon his return from reviewing the diocese, Bishop Ignatius gave the Caucasian Spiritual Consistory, dated September 24. 1858 for No. 198, the following decisive proposal. “Having familiarized myself with most of the diocese entrusted to me, I recognize the following order as essential: Archpriest Konstantin Krastilevsky resigns from the post of cathedral archpriest and from his presence in the Consistory. In his place are appointed the cathedral archpriest of the city of Georgievsk and dean Vasily Popov, who will also be present in the Consistory. The Judgment Table is handed over to Archpriest Pyotr Sukharev, as a person whom I noticed to be especially truthful and who understands the importance of those types of cases that have a strong influence on the fate of people, and often decide it. At the same time, entrust the sums and property of the cathedral to the new cathedral Archpriest Popov together with Archpriest Krastilevsky and the brethren of the cathedral, and Archpriests Sukharev and Pospelov to act as intermediaries; upon completion of the verification, inform me of the following in a report signed by all persons participating in the verification. Archpriest Krastilevsky will be given a decent position upon receipt from the Holy Synod of his complete dismissal from the rank of member of the Consistory, for which I petition. I propose to the Consistory to carry out my order without the slightest delay. Ignatius, Bishop of the Caucasus and Black Sea." 348 In view of these considerations, Bishop Ignatius, according to the right granted to him, having dismissed Krastilevsky from his presence in the Consistory, presented to the Holy Synod about his complete dismissal from the title of member of the Consistory. The Holy Synod respected the proposal of Bishop Ignatius. Krastilevsky was dismissed from the membership of the Consistory and Popov was appointed instead. 349 At the same time, wishing to achieve a decisive liberation of the members of the Consistory from the influence of Archpriest Krastilevsky, Bishop Ignatius decided to remove him from the diocesan city. Therefore, upon receipt of the Decree of the Holy Synod on the dismissal of Krastilevsky from the members of the Consistory, Bishop Ignatius, by resolution of November 17, 1858, No. 1457, granted Archpriest Krastilevsky the abbot of the Mozdok Cathedral, without, however, any influence on the Assumption Country Church, in which the miraculous icon of the Mother of God is located and the parishioners of which are the most Ossetians and Circassians. Bishop Ignatius acted this decisively, striving to form a composition of the Consistory that would meet the needs of the Caucasian region. But the matter of Archpriest Krastilevsky did not end there. Before receiving the Synodal Decree of November 4, 1858, No. 11099 on the dismissal of a member of the Consistory and the resolution of the diocesan Bishop, No. 1457, Archpriest Krastilevsky dated October 16, declaring to Bishop Ignatius that he accepted the dismissal from the post of a member of the Consistory with filial obedience, taking into account his large families and work on the construction of the cathedral, asks the Bishop to leave him as cathedral archpriest of Stavropol. But, upon receiving the Synodal Decree, both of Krastilevsky’s dismissals from the post of member of the Consistory, Bishop Ignatius refused Krastilevsky’s request, since Archpriest Popov was already named cathedral in the Decree of the Holy Synod. 350 But Archpriest Krastilevsky did not agree to accept the full-time archpriestly position given to him in the city of Mozdok; and, citing the state of his health, large family and 36 years of service in Stavropol, on November 27 he asked Bishop Ignatius to appoint him as a full-time archpriest at the Trinity Stavropol Cathedral. This petition was followed by the resolution of Bishop Ignatius dated November 24, 1858, No. 1519: “In the Consistory, as I reported to the Holy Synod about granting Archpriest Krastilevsky a rector’s place at the Mozdok Cathedral and the place indicated by him at the Trinity Cathedral is occupied, I find it inconvenient to fulfill his petition: I propose Fr. the archpriest to experience that obedience, the readiness for which he actually expressed in his petition: I hope that such obedience of him, in accordance with the spirit of the Holy Church, will not be put to shame, and the obstacles and fears that appear to his imagination will disappear like smoke. I hope that Fr. The archpriest in his obedience will find peace of mind and achieve a satisfactory financial position for himself.” 351 Having received a refusal to return to the cathedral and an appointment to the Trinity Cathedral, Archpriest Krastilevsky on December 4 asked for priestly service and correction at the church of the Stavropol Prison Castle. But even this, Bishop Ignatius, by resolution of December 12, 1858, refused him, since “clergy services and services at the Church of the Prison Castle are performed by hieromonks and other clergy who are attached to the bishop’s house. The maintenance of the house is so meager that I do not find it possible to deprive the mentioned persons of the small allowance they receive from the Prison Castle. This was also understood by Archpriest Krastilevsky, who presented me with a new petition dated December 6, on which my resolution is based, No. 1647. Ignatius E.K. and Ch.” Stubbornly not wanting to leave Stavropol, Archpriest Krastilevsky on December 5, 1858, asked Bishop Ignatius to appoint him to the staff of the Trinity Stavropol Cathedral, without mentioning the abbot. The resolution of Bishop Ignatius on this petition of Krastilevsky dated December 12, 1858, No. 1647 is as follows: “To the Consistory. The clergyman of the Trinity Cathedral came to me with a petition to reduce the staff, which directly contradicts this petition, the subject of which is to increase the staff, why, leaving this petition without consequences, carry out my lenient order regarding Krastilevsky, depicted in resolution No. 1629.” On December 12, Archpriest Krastilevsky submitted a petition to assign him to the Cemetery Assumption Church, assigned to the Stavropol Trinity Cathedral, granting him hierarchical seniority during Divine services. Bishop Ignatius submitted this petition from Krastilevsky to the Consistory with a proposal to consider and present to him an opinion on whether a special priestly place could be opened at the Cemetery Church of the Assumption and on what basis. According to the conclusion of the Consistory, since there is no need to determine a separate clergy for the Cemetery Assumption Church, assigned to the Stavropol Trinity Cathedral, due to the lack of ways to ensure it, especially since with three available clergy of the Trinity Cathedral, to which the Cemetery Church is assigned, it does not remain without Divine services, the request of the archpriest Krastilevsky must be left without satisfaction. The conclusion of the Consistory was approved by Bishop Ignatius. Archpriest Krastilevsky did not agree to take the other archpriestly position offered to him in the city of Georgievsk, declaring in a petition to Bishop Ignatius dated April 22, 1859 that he could not enter the ministry from the city of Stavropol, and therefore asked that the regular priestly position assigned to him in the city of Georgievsk no longer be considered his, and his, until it opens, is decent his rank and long-term service, place in the city of Stavropol, leave in the outstaff. On this petition, the resolution of Bishop Ignatius dated April 24, 1859, No. 787, is as follows: “Since Georgievsk cannot continue to remain without an archpriest, this place, which Archpriest Krastilevsky decisively refused, is given to the Pyatigorsk Sorrowful Church to priest Lev Kozyrev, who will immediately begin to correct his duties under a new appointment,” and appear for the proceedings ordained upon my return from the diocese. He should also be a teacher of the law at the St. George School. Priest Vasily Erastov is transferred back to the Pyatigorsk Church of Sorrow. At the Pyatigorsk School, Archpriest Macarius Znamensky is entrusted with teaching the law. Actually, at the request of Archpriest Krastilevsky, to prepare a presentation on my behalf in St. Synod of I. E. K and Ch.” In this presentation, at the end of April 1859, No. 2037, outlining in detail the circumstances of the case and giving detailed information about Krastilevsky, Bishop Ignatius reports to St. Synod that he no longer has vacancies for Archpriest Krastilevsky due to his refusal from those that were provided to him, and his desire is to remain on the staff until he receives a place again, and, precisely in the city of Stavropol, he finds it a new desire, for persons entering the supernumerary staff usually remain in this position. Bishop Ignatius asks that Archpriest Krastilevsky be given a place in another diocese, because he, having acquired a long-term habit of unlimited power in the diocese, has become incapable of obedience here, but demands and will persistently demand the fulfillment of his only will. But at the beginning of May 1859, Bishop Ignatius condescended to Krastilevsky’s desire to remain in Stavropol. Archpriest Krastilevsky submitted a new petition to Bishop Ignatius on May 5, 1859, in which he writes: “Although with the petition I submitted on April 22, due to the lack of free places in the city. Stavropol, I asked Your Eminence in the future, until such an opportunity is revealed, to leave me in the shadows, but Your Eminence, with paternal compassion, entering my family life and condescending to my shy position, blessed me to renew my request for a place at the Peter and Paul Church, which is in the Prison Castle; Based on this, I most humbly ask Your Eminence to grant me the above-mentioned position, and when your permission is granted, then my request for resignation will be left without effect. This petition was followed, on May 5, 1859, by the resolution of the Most Reverend Ignatius No. 902 with the following content: “To the Consistory. Since the Bishop's House received a salary instead of a mill and fishing, the requested place at the Prison Castle was granted to Archpriest Krastilevsky. And since he was dismissed from the post of cathedral archpriest and member of the Consistory due to old age, do not bother him with invitations to serve in the cathedral, to prayers and memorial services. In respect of his long-term service in the Caucasian diocese, in which he occupied the first place among the white clergy, this place is reserved for him during Divine services. Ignatius B K and Ch.” At the same time, that is, on May 5, on Krastilevsky’s earlier petition dated April 22, Bishop Ignatius’ resolution was based on the following: “On the occasion of the subsequent and satisfied request of Archpriest Krastilevsky to place him at the church of the Prison Castle, this matter should be stopped. I. E K and Ch.” 352 Thus ended the case of Archpriest Krastilevsky. Having taken the place of Cathedral Archpriest in the Stavropol Cathedral and a member of the Caucasian Consistory, instead of Krastilevsky, Archpriest V. Popov, according to the certification of Bishop Ignatius, is a man of open, direct character, direction consistent with character, good intentions and abilities, proven by 14 years of service in the position of dean, which he retained for himself, despite Krastilevsky’s coldness towards him. Archpriest Popov, with his detailed knowledge of many matters, truthfulness and good intentions in discussing them, soon managed to justify his election and very noticeably influenced the change in the character of the Consistory. Thanks to the energy and influence of Bishop Ignatius, the composition of the Caucasian Spiritual Consistory and its character in 1858 completely changed. From the previous composition of the Consistory, only one remained - Archpriest Gremyachensky, with the same direction, but due to his abilities he could not have any influence on the course of diocesan affairs. Assistant Secretary Albanov, who was the subject of several complaints to St. Synod, in June 1858, left service in the Consistory. The new members of the Consistory and the secretary took a closer look at the affairs and church needs of the region. According to the conclusion of Bishop Ignatius, the measure of beneficial severity used by St. The Synod regarding the members of the Caucasian Consistory, who openly opposed the Bishop, supported by the removal from the Consistory of Krastilevsky, who covered his opposition with evasiveness, instilled in the existing members of the Consistory a special vigilance over the manner of their activities, gave them unanimity in the pursuit of the common church good. From this vigilance, from this unanimity, the activity of the Consistory suddenly received special energy and development. 353 Vladyka Ignatius made the same demands for honest work, accuracy and diligence on the consistory office, along with this, he was energetically concerned about improving the working conditions of the office workers. The office work of the renewed Caucasian Spiritual Consistory, with the diligence of the members and secretary, according to the observation of Bishop Ignatius and to his consolation, took on a better character, compared to the previous one. It could have been in an even more satisfactory state if the consistory office had not been in a constrained position due to the limited content received. If the office of the Consistory was not yet empty, it was only because the employees in it, for the most part, either did not have the right to serve in other departments, or received assistance from parents and relatives. For a completely clear and correct view of office work, Bishop Ignatius gave a proposal to the Consistory to compile, with all accuracy and fidelity, a list of unresolved cases. This measure brought clarity and certainty to the records management of the Consistory; but in achieving the required speed and clarity in this office work, the poverty of content received by officials served as an important, insurmountable obstacle. This obstacle could be eliminated only by increasing the staff of the Chancellery and paying salaries equal to the salaries of the Provincial government offices in Stavropol. The office, with its labors and thoroughness, according to Bishop Ignatius, deserved such attention from the highest authorities. Especially during 1858, led by his well-intentioned secretary, the office acquired a noble character. The most outward form of its writing far surpassed other public places in Stavropol in neatness and thoroughness. Bishop Ignatius's attention to the material insecurity of the clerical officials of the Consistory was expressed, first of all, in his personal sacrifices to help them. At the beginning of March 1858, Bishop Ignatius submitted the following proposal to the Consistory: “Drawing attention to the difficult situation of the officials of the Caucasian Consistory, who are content with the general salary set for the consistory offices in Russia in general, while in Stavropol food items are incomparably more expensive than in Russia in general, I considered it my duty to show my pastoral active participation in the position of officials of the Caucasian Consistory. Satisfying the requirement of my pastoral duty, I offer the Consistory three hundred rubles in silver from my property for distribution to officials according to a schedule, which I propose to the Consistory to draw up and present at my discretion. We hope that with this meager gift of ours, as with the giving of the Archpastor, the blessing of God will enter the houses of officials, since, on the contrary, illegal acts remove the blessing of God from all persons and houses by which these illegal donations are attracted.” 354 In response to this proposal, the Consistory, in a special report dated March 12, presenting a schedule for the distribution of the amount donated by Bishop Ignatius as an allowance to officials, 355 expresses its gratitude to the Archpastor for his attention in the following words: “Your Eminence, with your arrival at the Caucasian see, in a short time, with a fatherly gaze, delved into the extreme situation of the officials of the Caucasian spiritual Consistory, they suffered from insufficient means of living with a limited salary, and, driven by a feeling of compassion for the poor officials, on March 10 they deigned to provide them with assistance by donating three hundred rubles to their benefit. The Caucasian Spiritual Consistory, sympathizing with the position of its officials, makes it a sacred duty to bring you, Most Gracious Archpastor, deep gratitude for the Archpastoral mercy shown, and hopes that the officials of the Consistory, having accepted the gift, which they have hardly yet deserved, in the management of the diocese entrusted to you, will intensify their zeal for service activities according to the strength and abilities of each, in order to justify the blessing poured out on them from the generosity of Your Eminence. At the same time, the Consistory has the good fortune to submit to the Archpastoral discretion of Your Eminence the schedule for the distribution of benefits and will add that in this case it took into account the family life of the officials, not without attention to the merits of each.” In the same way to improve material resources, with the permission of the Diocesan authorities, in order to maintain the Consistory, in 1858, the Stavropol printing house began printing blank sheets for search and receipt books and clergy records, with their distribution to churches for a fee in the amount of what the Synodal Printing House receives for metric and confession sheets. Thus, the debts accumulated in previous years at the Senate Printing House gradually began to be covered and the necessary stationery materials began to be purchased. With the exception of this measure, no funds were envisaged to maintain the consistory economy, and the regular amount allocated for its maintenance was not enough for office supplies and heating. The lack of funds made itself felt at every step. As can be seen from the schedule attached to the report of the Consistory, 15 officials of the Consistory received benefits from the amount donated by the Bishop. At the same time, by order of Bishop Ignatius, the Consistory prepared a draft staff for the Caucasian Spiritual Consistory. Presenting this project to the Holy Synod, in comparison with the states Highly approved for the Caucasian Consistory on April 4, 1842, Bishop Ignatius in his report on this occasion asks the Holy Governing Synod to seek the Highest approval of the said project, in the respect that only by this means can the Consistory be raised to the level of satisfactory official order and that moral dignity, which a diocesan seat should have. The archpriests and priests of Stavropol, the members of the Consistory, need to be given a sufficient salary, since service work in the Consistory takes up a lot of their time, and the income of the Stavropol city clergy is much meager than the income of the rural clergy of the Stavropol province. Regarding the officials serving in the office of the Consistory, experiments show that young people with excellent abilities who enter the service of the Consistory, having become accustomed to office work, will very soon certainly enter the civil department, where the salaries are five times higher than the consistory. For all that, the Caucasian civil authorities, due to local circumstances, are now petitioning for an increase in their salaries. The project I am presenting is drawn up in relation to the currently existing staff of the Caucasian Civil Department. It is worthy of note and extreme regret that persons who were educated in theological academies and awarded an academic degree serve in various government places, and in the Consistory there is not a single official who has completed a course at the seminary. The reason for this is the miserable condition of consistory officials. The poverty of officials can be clearly seen from the following fact: two watchmen are hired in the Consistory, each of them receives three times more salary than a clerical official. Naturally, this situation of officials suppresses zeal for service and forces them to look for employment outside of service for the necessary daily piece of bread, which inevitably brings extreme harm to the office work of the Consistory, and cannot be prohibited due to the plight of officials. 356 This petition was postponed until the consistory states were reviewed. There were attempts to reconstruct the house belonging to the cathedral, occupied by the Caucasian Ecclesiastical Consistory, in order to best adapt the house to the needs of the Consistory, but these attempts remained unfulfilled due to the lack of local funds special for this and due to many other urgent needs of the Caucasian diocese, the satisfaction of which is associated with significant financial expenses. 357 Along with the streamlining of consistory office work and concerns about the appropriate height of the available staff of the Presence of the Caucasian Spiritual Consistory, the immediate attention of Bishop Ignatius, at the very first stages of his diocesan Archpastoral activity, was turned to familiarization with the composition of the deanery district administration, with the teaching of Fr. dean of the guiding directives, in relation to Bishop Ignatius’s understanding of the tasks of the dean’s activities in accordance with the activities of the diocesan Right Reverend. In order to develop the deanery supervision of the Caucasian diocese, Bishop Ignatius made the following orders. All priests, deacons and clerics, if they wished to move from parish to parish and in other similar circumstances, were obliged to present a certificate of consent to this, or of unhinderedness to do so, by the dean, if both parishes are under the jurisdiction of one dean. If the parishes are in different deaneries, then the petitioners were required to have the certificates of both deans in their petitions. Moreover, deacons and clergy were required to present certificates from their parish priests. This measure secured the clergy in places of service, fostered sedentarism and, in general, had a most beneficial effect on the spirit of the Caucasian clergy, which bears the imprint of the national character, characteristic and natural of the region - the character of courage and self-will. Deacons and clerics were forced to see from experience that parish priests were their superiors, and the clergy began to see their dean as their superior. It should be noted that the orders of Bishop Ignatius, “innovations” in the opinion of the clergy, were not always implemented calmly. All the well-meaning members of the clergy accepted this order with love; but it did not please the weak members. Because of this order, many well-meaning and well-behaved people became known to the Bishop and received official promotion; Also, restless characters and unstable morals were revealed. The punishment of a small monetary penalty in favor of the diocesan Guardianship for violation of the mentioned order was applied by Bishop Ignatius as a sufficient admonition to the willful and disobedient. At the same time, this measure, in addition to the moral influence on the clergy, also brought other significant benefits in the sense of reducing clerical work for the Consistory. The second measure to strengthen the influence and importance of deans, Bishop Ignatius recognized a change in the previously existing order of judicial investigations. Previously, before Bishop Ignatius, different priests were appointed as investigators for various cases arising among the clergy at the discretion of the Consistory. As a result, many deanery matters remained little known to deans. Moreover, priest investigators, especially those who were most often entrusted with investigations, often with the removal of the dean from the investigation in order to ensure that the investigation proceeded correctly, these investigators, fully aware of their importance in relation to the mysterious assignments they were given, already charged their deans with nothing. To eliminate the disorder noticed in this regard, which is so reminiscent of the Russian proverb about troubled waters, Bishop Ignatius proposed that the Consistory use exclusively deans for deanship investigations. Although deans most often served in the Caucasian diocese under two parish churches and, in the event of their absence on deanery matters, could be replaced by colleagues in the parish, but, in view of the multiplication of investigative cases and the territorial dispersion of the diocese, Bishop Ignatius suggested that all deans elect assistants approved by the Bishop. These assistants were authorized to entrust matters of secondary importance, in relation to Art. 69 Set. spirit. Consistories. Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov recognized the third means of strengthening dean supervision and the influence of deans to bring the Bishop closer to the dean and to initiate written communications between them. The dean was given, by the way, in addition to official reports receiving legal processing, to treat the Bishop with confidential reports, which were to remain in the Bishop's cabin without publicity. The subject of these reports could be information that does not tolerate formality, but is necessary for the completeness and clarity of the life picture in administrative terms. All of the above-mentioned orders were set out on paper by Bishop Ignatius and announced throughout the diocese in circulars with the goal of eliminating confusion if possible and freeing the Consistory from unnecessary correspondence that distracts from due attention and work on matters of primary importance to minor details. The Caucasian diocese under Bishop Ignatius consisted of 18 deanery Districts. In 1858, two deaneries were reopened: 1) For the cathedral with the appointment of the newly appointed cathedral archpriest V. Popov as dean, and 2) in the north-eastern part of the diocese, with the separation, for ease of administration, of part of the parishes from the Deanery of the archpriest of Georgievsk, so that the latter could with particular care observe the churches of the cities of Georgievsk and Pyatigorsk: through the first of these cities there is a large road from St. Petersburg to Tiflis, and in the second there is a significant gathering of people in the summer to use the waters. In Kizlyar, Bishop Ignatius appointed priest Alexey Iosselianov, a Georgian, very familiar with the customs and life of the city and beloved by the population, to fill the vacancy of archpriest; He, who previously served as dean of churches in Kizlyar and its environs, was confirmed in this position. Due to the meekness of his character, and the distance of Kizlyar, which stands at the confluence of the Terek into the Caspian Sea, from the diocesan authorities, Bishop Ignatius found it necessary to entrust the moral confidential supervision of the clergy of Kizlyar and its environs to the rector of the Kizlyar Monastery of the Exaltation of the Cross, Abbot Herman, who inspired special trust in himself. By this order, the abbot received the right to edify the clergy; stop violators of good behavior, inform the Bishop in general about the morality of the clergy, and, in particular, about those persons who allowed indecent acts, despite the abbot’s reminder. But relations with the Consistory were not the responsibility of the abbot on this assignment. 358 However, as it turned out later, Abbot Herman did not demonstrate compliance with his appointment and did not justify the Bishop’s trust, turning out to be petty and picky and not having the breadth and Christian mood required by Bishop Ignatius, and his attitude towards the Kizlyar clergy and the Diocesan Right Reverend soon took the form of relations between an investigator and a dean. Thus, the idea of ​​eldership, so close to the mood of Vladyka Ignatius, did not enter the life of the Caucasian clergy, largely depending on the lack of persons capable of being imbued with this idea and, by their moral authority, capable of having a moral influence on the clergy. In the city of Stavropol, the dean of Sukharev was dismissed from his post upon request, and in his place was appointed Archpriest of the Trinity Cathedral Feodor Pospelov, who, in order to best fulfill the duties of the dean, was relieved of all other positions. 359 In the Stavropol district, Bishop Ignatius replaced the meek priest, Kozma Fleginsky, who was correcting the position of dean, with the priest of the Resurrection, combining good morals and good intentions with excellent abilities and strength of character. 360 These are the measures taken by Bishop Ignatius to improve the most important body of Diocesan administration - deanery supervision. The construction of the Bishop's House in the city of Stavropol required a lot of energy from His Grace Ignatius Brianchaninov, which cost him a lot of trouble and did not come without significant troubles for him! The priest's house was almost destroyed by 1858. The wooden dilapidated cramped hut, donated by the merchant Volobuev for the residence of the Right Reverend Jeremiah for a short period, until the time of construction of the Bishop's House, was supposed to serve much longer than this period as a shelter for the Bishop. The inconvenience and extraordinary simplicity of this shelter deprived the Bishop of the opportunity to deal with diocesan affairs with due clarity; Moreover, the hut, which had already been donated and was already dilapidated, fell into complete disrepair within 14 years and began to collapse. Bishop Ignatius was supposed to spend the winter of 1857–1858 in a private house. The place itself, quite large, was inconvenient for the bishop's house, which, according to Bishop Ignatius, should stand separately and have the character of a monastery. This place was approved by the Highest Command behind the Bishop's House back in 1858, but was not transferred by 1858, under various pretexts, to the diocesan department. 2) Another place, in the best part of the city, called Vorobyovskaya, very convenient and picturesque, was purchased by the Right Reverend Jeremiah from the Headquarters. At this place there was a forest cottage with broken slabs, donated to the house by the city. Regarding the dacha, a process was carried out with a private individual who arbitrarily and violently seized a significant plot of land and tried to expand his possession. Naturally, given the situation of this place, and with the unknown how the matter would be resolved, the construction of the house seemed premature. A project for the house was also drawn up, but the project was so insufficient that Bishop Ignatius could not accept the responsibility of submitting the project for approval by the Holy Synod. 3) The Caucasian authorities, who petitioned for the opening of a diocese in the Caucasus, intended to immediately provide the maintenance of the Bishop and his house with land or a sum for the land. But this provision, however, was not carried out, both the person and the house of the Bishop remained in a very difficult situation. Bishops Jeremiah and Ioannikios were given 1000 rubles as an allowance. silver in addition to the salary and 1500 silver. for the maintenance of the house; last 1500 rub. were released in 1858. 4) With the opening of the diocese, 44 ministers were given to the house, chosen from the state-owned villagers of the Stavropol province. The house, obviously, had neither the means nor the space to house these full-time servants. The means of supporting the ministers consisted in their meager salaries and the meager allowance that the house could give them. For this reason: the position of full-time ministers, especially family ministers, was completely homeless and disastrous. The following measures were taken to extricate the Caucasian Apostle's House from a state of decline and destruction in 1858: 1) The Diocesan Department made an intensive petition to the Civil Department to carry out the Highest Command by taking possession of the site donated for a temporary shelter to the Bishop. As a result of such a petition, the Bishop's House was put into possession of the said plot and the Civil Chamber "Dannaya" was delivered to the house for possession of it. 2) The wooden hut in which the Bishop lived turned out to be so dilapidated that it had to be rebuilt from the very foundation. During the summer this was accomplished, 361 and the house was given a different location, more convenient and somewhat larger in size. In view of the high cost of building materials in Stavropol, the new temporary premises of the Bishop had the most modest character, however, not alien to the grace delivered to the building by the harmonious, architectural dimensions, convenience and simplicity that were given to the house by an experienced builder, such as Bishop Ignatius. Placed at the end of the city, away from the noise, in the middle of a garden, the Episcopal shelter resembled secluded monasteries and monasteries of Russia, Gethsemane, Optina Hermitage and others like that. Although this temporary shelter was not convenient enough to house the Bishop, and it was proposed to build the Bishop's House in another, very convenient place; however, all measures were taken to arrange this shelter with all care and strength for the following two reasons. Firstly: it was unknown how long the shelter should be occupied by the Bishop, since it was impossible to determine when the Bishop's house would be built in Stavropol. This last uncertainty was based on another uncertainty: whether, due to the transitional nature of the region, it would remain the provincial city of Stavropol, or would suffer the fate of Georgievsk, which quickly rose and quickly fell. The location of the Bishop's House seemed convenient to Bishop Ignatius for placing a theological women's school in the proximity of the seminary and theological school and convenience, therefore, for the mentors of the seminary and the school to have lessons in the women's school. In addition, because the buildings of the bishop's shelter were located inside the garden, surrounded by a fence, and in the garden there were vines and fruit trees; In the opinion of Bishop Ignatius, girls could be trained to care for them, since gardens and vineyards bring significant benefits to many of the Caucasian clergy. In order to acquire funds to restore the episcopal shelter, Bishop Ignatius addressed an appeal to the flock. Initially, the appeal was made to the Stavropol merchants, who, despite the recent formation of the society and their meager funds, presented 3975 rubles in silver. Due to the extraordinary high cost of materials in Stavropol, especially timber, which were four times more expensive than in St. Petersburg, this amount turned out to be insufficient. The correspondence regarding the delivery of the amount for the initial establishment from the Holy Synod, which was at first very vigorously conducted by the Caucasian chief authorities, who petitioned for the establishment of the diocese, was subsequently weakly supported and did not result in any result. Even if this correspondence had been successfully initiated, the fruit from it could have been expected in a few years, and the fruit could have been very unsatisfactory. Meanwhile, the need for premises for the Bishop was urgent: free premises were provided to G. Stasenkov to the Bishop only for a six-month period, and the Bishop not only did not receive rent money, but in 1858 he did not receive even that thousand rubles in addition to his salary that his predecessors received; Apart from being a complete inconvenience, renting an apartment was very difficult. This situation naturally pointed to one way - a way to strengthen the merchants' donations with other donations. To achieve this goal, in accordance with previous examples in the Caucasian diocese and examples in other dioceses, Bishop Ignatius turned to the clergy with a proposal to make a feasible donation from the purse amount for the construction of a shelter for the Bishop. This proposal was accepted by the clergy with extraordinary sympathy. By January 1, 1859, up to 8,000 silver rubles had been received. This amount of money turned out to be enough for a thorough and durable construction. 362 3) The place in the Vorobyovskaya part of the city, which was in litigation with the official Krupinsky, by 1858 almost went, through the means of untruth and violence, to a large extent to the mentioned official, who arbitrarily seized the entire middle of the dacha and, thus, took away all the dignity from the dacha, of which only the outskirts remained behind the Bishop's House. Upon the arrival of Bishop Ignatius, it turned out, by a particularly happy coincidence of circumstances, it was possible to stop the willful disassociation of land belonging to the house - Mr. Krupinsky, and to forward the whole matter to the Holy Synod on the basis of Art. 306. IX volume of the Code of Laws, ed. 1842, which decrees that no decision by which anything from the actual possession of monasteries and Bishop's houses can be put into effect without a review of the case in the Senate and without the approval of the Imperial Majesty. Despite the process and protest, G. Krupinsky continued to own the seized plot, but stopped in further predation. Meanwhile, the Caucasian governor had already given an order to the Stavropol Civil Governor on this matter during the summer in favor of the House of Bishops. 4) Appropriate measures were taken regarding the allocation of land to the house; in particular, relations on this subject with the governor of the Caucasus, Prince Baryatinsky, turned out to be very successful. State Secretary Kruzenshtern notified the Bishop with a formal message dated September 25, 1858, No. 3702, that the prince had come with a report to the Sovereign Emperor through the Caucasian Committee on the annual payment to the House of Bishops of the sum of 3,800 rubles. silver instead of land, which the region cannot provide. 5) The regular servants of the house, due to their difficult situation, in both respects, i.e., in relation to the house and in relation to themselves, could no longer remain in this position. For this reason, Bishop Ignatius entered into communication with the “Stavropol Chamber of State Property” about whether it was possible to replace the ministers with money, while proposing this as a temporary measure, indicated, so to speak, by the force of the circumstances of the case, for which he cannot currently give his full-time ministers any shelter, even any means of maintenance. At a meeting of the Chamber with peasant societies, to which the Bishop expressed his consent, a proposal was made, in the form of a temporary measure, to the Prince Viceroy to issue from the Chamber to the Bishop's House, instead of regular servants, an amount of 1,760 rubles. ser., counting 40 rubles. per person. This measure has been awarded the Highest approval. Along with the organization and maintenance of diocesan administration bodies at the proper level and improving the conditions for the correct performance of their duties, the most important aspect of Bishop Ignatius’s activities as diocesan Bishop, undoubtedly, was his familiarization with the spiritual life of his diverse flock and the energetic leadership of this life. The views of Bishop Ignatius on the spiritual state of the Caucasian population, in view of the originality and originality of the object of observation, seem interesting, both in themselves and in relation to the characterization of the personality of His Grace Ignatius. In addition to documenting, mainly on the affairs of diocesan administration - reports and journals of the Consistory and reports of deans, Bishop Ignatius, in the first two years of his diocesan ministry in the Caucasus, devoted a lot of time and labor to personally familiarizing himself with the state of the flock entrusted to him by God when visiting the diocese; These same visits also reflected his influence on the spiritual life of his flock. Bishop Ignatius's reports on his visit to the diocese are also interesting in that they provide information about remarkable churches and places in the Caucasian diocese. In 1858, Bishop Ignatius visited that part of the Caucasian diocese that was occupied by the Stavropol province, and in 1859 - the Black Sea region. In 1860 he remained in Stavropol, especially since his stay in the diocesan city was necessitated mainly by the preparatory work for the peasant reform: there was neither time nor opportunity left to travel to the dioceses. 363 Visited by Bishop Ignatius in 1858, the Stavropol diocese in the southern and eastern parts at that time was scattered, like islands in the sea, throughout the region of the linear Cossacks. During the reign of Ignatius Brianchaninov, the Caucasian diocese bordered only to the north-west with the Orthodox population - the land of the Don Cossacks. At its eastern end it adjoined the Caspian Sea, in the west – to the Azov and Black Seas. A significant part of the Stavropol province was an uninhabited desert, and the entire Caucasian region was most populated along its outskirts. The most extensive facet is to the south; Russian neighbors lived here - mountain tribes of the Mohammedan religion. Just as China is separated from Mongolia by a wall, so the peaceful civilian villages of the Caucasus region are separated from the mountain peoples by an unbroken chain of villages of the Black Sea and Linear Cossack troops. Along the shore of the Caspian Sea, the border of the diocese is very short; along it, between the Russians lived significant numbers of Nogais and Turkmens, peoples of the Tatar tribe. The extensive northern and northeastern border was occupied by the Mohammedan Tatars; a small number of Kalmyk idolaters (up to 4,000 souls) roamed the northern tip of the diocese. And so almost the entire border of the vast eparchy was occupied by Mohammedans of the Tatar tribe, or Mohammedan mountaineers; Among the latter, the Tatar language was generally accepted and commonly used, just as French was among Europeans. This is not enough, the highlanders, in significant numbers, called peaceful ones, lived on the Russian side of the chain of Cossack villages, inside the country, or were in the chain itself; also the Tatars lived in significant numbers in the villages of the civil department, either permanently or temporarily; hiring as employees. From this situation, the most important church need was obvious to the Most Reverend Ignatius during his administration of the Caucasian diocese. It consisted in ensuring that a thorough study of the Tatar language was developed at the Caucasian Seminary, that the teaching of this language began in theological schools, so that students were familiar with the language not only in books, but also in spoken language. Knowledge of the Ossetian language was needed to a much lesser extent than the Tatar language. There were few Ossetians; and all of them, like other highlanders, knew the Tatar language. Knowledge of the Tatar language would enable priests to communicate with the mountaineers and Tatars and persuade them to accept Christianity, especially since these Mohammedans have the most confusing and incorrect concept about the Mohammedan religion. Knowledge of the Tatar language would give the priests the opportunity to literally fulfill the clear and valid testament given to the shepherds by the Lord himself: “Those who go, teach all languages” (Matt. 28:19). This is the main feature and need that came to the fore for Bishop Ignatius during a careful examination of the Caucasian diocese and needed immediate satisfaction. In 1858, Bishop Ignatius visited that part of the Caucasian diocese occupied by the Stavropol province, of which the southern and eastern parts are scattered, like islands across the sea, throughout the region of the Linear Cossacks. The cities of Kizlyar, Mozdok, Pyatigorsk, and Stavropol itself could rightly be called islands: they were surrounded on all sides by lands belonging to the linear Cossacks. This situation of the cities of the province, crowded on a small corner of the earth, in the middle of another department, was associated with great inconvenience in civil terms. The bishop, visiting diocesan cities, of necessity, had to travel through the Cossack villages, in which, as a result of the order made by the Holy Synod, he entered the Church of God and talked with the village population. The city of Stavropol was recently a Cossack village. Recently, mountaineers lived in its gorges. These sons of wild freedom, noticing that the Russians’ settlement here was secure, and settled life for the mountaineers in their character and direction was inconvenient and even impossible, they retired to the mountains. The village was replaced by a village. When the climate of Georgievsk turned out to be extremely harmful to health, and the area now occupied by Stavropol is one of the best in the Caucasus, very high, abounding in excellent spring waters, then the provincial city was moved here. The Cossack village with its wooden church moved to Kuban. The hill that crowns the Stavropol Upland is occupied by the cold Cathedral in the name of the Kazan Mother of God, Tone architecture. From a distance the church can be seen standing, as if on a cloud, above the entire city; The view of the city from the site on which the church is located is also picturesque. Unfortunately, the Bishop's service could be carried out in this beautiful and spacious church only during the six summer months. They are cold; if it were warm, it would be very difficult to heat it; because in winter the strongest winds rage in Stavropol, and the church is built from local very brittle stone, unable to withstand either cold or wind. In winter, the solemn Divine service was held in a warm church, almost like a brownie, built above the benches of the guest courtyard, and therefore called the row church, in the name of the Savior. On the large street leading from the St. Petersburg outpost to the Tiflis one, in sight of the Cathedral, there is the Trinity Cathedral, also cold, in which, however, divine services were held even in winter, since it has a wooden floor, not; as high as Kazansky, and stands on incomparably lower terrain, less susceptible to bad weather. Trinity Cathedral has an indeterminate architecture, which has become even more indefinite with extensions. The Cathedral and Trinity Cathedrals each had their own parishes. In addition to them, they had their own parishes - the Church of the Great Martyr Barbara on the south-eastern end of the city and the Church of the Great Martyr George on the south-western end. There were two Cross Bishop's churches, both warm, the Exaltation of the Cross at the temporary shelter of the Bishop and in the name of St. Andrew the First-Called on Vorobyovsky Heights, where it was proposed to build the Bishop's House. At this church of St. Andrei, standing in a most picturesque place, accommodated several monks on the staff of the house, who arrived from deserted Russian monasteries. One of these monks, very experienced in monastic life, was made confessor of the women's St. John-Mary community, to the greatest consolation and edification of the sisters. There were three house churches: in the gymnasium, in the women's shelter and in the Prison Castle. Churches in the villages of the Stavropol province were generally very sufficient; some are very rich. Such help from the churches naturally occurred and is explained by the special wealth of the peasants, a wealth that is provided to them by the extraordinary abundance of the region, which generously rewards the easiest work. Many villages look like county towns, and the population is several thousand souls. 364 The most notable churches are located in the following villages: The Church of the Transfiguration of the Lord in the village of Novoselitsy - stone, three-limits - unfortunately, belongs to an uncertain architecture, is very insufficient in artistic terms, poorly located, and therefore cramped. The same should be said about the main Church of the Transfiguration of the Lord in the village of Vorontsovka, which belongs to Prince Vorontsov: this church is even larger than the church in Novoselitsy. The Church of the Ascension of the Lord in the village of Praskovei was built in the character originally used by the architect Ton, in the character that for a long time was known as Byzantine. This church is not inferior in size to the cold Stavropol Cathedral, painted by Moscow artists, according to the taste and abundance of the region. The best church in the entire Caucasus region, in terms of architecture, should be recognized as the Church of St. Nicholas in the vast and rich village of Petrovsky. According to Bishop Ignatius, in the character of the first churches of Thon, it is very similar to the churches of St. Catherine the Great Martyr in Kolomna and the Introduction to the Semenov Regiment in St. Petersburg, but its decoration is much rougher, the size of this church was extraordinary, and in terms of the mutual harmony of its parts it is superior to the Stavropol Cathedral, which after it is the best church in the Caucasus in architectural terms. The utensils and sacristy are sufficient everywhere, and in many churches they are rich. Near the city of Georgievsk is the Churekovsky aul, inhabited by those mountaineers who, recognizing the power of the Russian Tsar over themselves, expressed a desire to convert to Christianity. The village consisted of Christian mountaineers: during the time of Bishop Ignatius, these mountaineers, without exception, were Mohammedans: This sad incident, according to Bishop Ignatius, happened quite recently - during the reign of the region by Prince Vorontsov. Reliable persons told Eminence Ignatius, although they spoke about it confidentially, that the mountaineers of the Churekovsky aul, in the presence of many, asked the prince to allow them to return to Mohammedanism from Christianity. The prince answered them that he left this completely to their will, as long as they served the Tsar with fidelity. The consequence of this answer was the introduction of Mohammedanism to the village, in which a mosque was immediately built. Even the political view expressed in the above response from the government official is incorrect, says Bishop Ignatius! The spread of Mohammedanism among the mountaineers was carried out by Turkish missionaries most at the end of the 18th century, not so much in religious forms as in political ones. The mountaineers have the most insufficient understanding of the Mohammedan religion. Their mullahs are completely unfamiliar with the Arabic language, and since Alkoran has not been translated from Arabic into Tatar, commonly used among the highlanders, Alkoran is completely unknown not only to the people, but also unknown to the mullahs themselves. But the idea that the Turkish Sultan is their only legitimate sovereign is planted and deeply rooted in them: it is obvious that communicating this idea to the highlanders was most interesting to the Turkish missionaries, since Latin propaganda is most interested in the idea of ​​the primacy of the pope. The consequences of this prevailing thought, expressed in fact, are clear. But during the time of Bishop Ignatius, the view of Mohammedanism became more insightful, and the main authorities of the Caucasus provided greater assistance in converting Mohammedans to Christianity. A significant reason for the fall of the highlanders of the Churekovsky aul was that the highlanders, especially the female sex, did not know the Russian language, and the Orthodox clergy did not know the language of the highlanders, among whom Tatar is the commonly used language. Communication between the clergy and the Christian mountaineers had, of necessity, to be carried out through translators, and this is always difficult, and when performing the sacrament of confession, it is completely inconvenient. With the meager knowledge of Christianity, which, of necessity, the Christian mountaineers had to have, their coldness towards Christianity and their falling away from it become understandable. However, the sad event - the mentioned deviation of Christians into Mohammedanism - was an event not only conveyed by eyewitnesses, but also proven by written documents: in the church archives of the village of Goryachevodskaya, some notes survived, from which it is clear that from the mountains immigrants were sent for baptism, according to their wishes, and priests were named, who were entrusted with performing holy acts on them. baptism. The village belonged to the Assumption Church, located in the Georgievskaya village near the city of Georgievsk, which was later moved to another place. Confessional paintings for 1799, 1800, 1801 and 1821 that belonged to this church have been preserved: they indicate the names of Mohammedan mountaineers who converted to Christianity and were assigned to the Linear Cossack military regiment. As much as the city of Georgievsk fell, gradually becoming a provincial city and, finally, a provincial city, the district city of Pyatigorsk grew and began to flourish, due to the government’s special attention paid to it and the significant annual gathering of the public to the healing waters located in Pyatigorsk itself and in its environs. On a very convenient place in Pyatigorsk, a stone Latin church was built and surrounded by a stone fence. The Orthodox Church of the Mother of God of All Who Sorrow Joy, wooden, cramped, low-lying, is located in the lower part of the city near the boulevard. Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich, visiting Pyatigorsk in 1837, noticed that the Church of All Who Sorrow was extremely cramped and did not correspond to the city in all respects, being perhaps the most modest building in it. To raise construction capital, the Tsar ordered an invitation to donations to be issued throughout Russia. In this way, more than 50 thousand silver rubles were collected. The church was founded in 1847. By 1858, it was expanded to domes. The severe cracks that appeared throughout the building forced the continuation of work to be stopped and, after examining the damage, the technicians found it necessary to dismantle the church to the very foundation, since the very foundation turned out to be completely weak. The construction of the church was carried out by a Committee of civil dignitaries and officials; two priests of the Sorrowful Church participated in the Committee and delivered information about the progress of the matter to the Diocesan authorities, who did not have the slightest influence on the construction of the church and could not have it, since the Committee related directly to the governor in everything. Whatever the reasons for the unsuccessful actions of the Committee, the deficiency of the city of Pyatigorsk in relation to the church remained by 1858 in the same position in which it was seen by the Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich in 1838. Bishop Ignatius, having visited the Church of the Mother of God of Joy of All Who Sorrow, in consultation with the city clergy and civil authorities, found it possible to expand the church and build a wooden dome over it in order to ward off the unbearable stuffiness that was happening in the church, especially in the summer heat. A project was drawn up, approved by the Stavropol Commission, and residents of Pyatigorsk were invited to donate. Inspired by pious zeal, the citizens soon collected a sufficient amount of money and extracted forest material from the mountains, which were of excellent quality. With the departure of the summer visitors, called course students in Pyatigorsk, work began actively from the material prepared in advance, and, to the unspeakable joy of the residents, the two-altar vast church, crowned with a dome, was completely completed and consecrated at the end of the Nativity Fast. Pyatigorsk residents have already celebrated the holiday of the Nativity of Christ in the new church, which accommodates triple the number of people opposite the old church. The church need of the city was thus satisfied. In the vicinity of Pyatigorsk, in the villages of the Linear Cossack army of Essentuki, Zheleznovodsk and Kislovodsk during the Archpastorship of Bishop Ignatius, there were schismatics. In the village of Essentuki there was a Edinoverie church, however, with a small number of parishioners. The path from Pyatigorsk to Mozdok and from Mozdok to Kizlyar lies along the villages of the Linear Army. 365 Mozdok was formerly the seat of the Bishop of Mozdok and Madzhar. Outside the city, on a plain irrigated by the Terek, where the Bishop's House was located, in 1858 there was one wooden church. There is a city cemetery next to it. The city is populated mostly by Armenians of the Gregorian faith, engaged in trade and living quite well; There are much fewer Russians and they live much more meagerly. The Armenian cathedral church is made of stone, much larger and more magnificent than the Orthodox one, which is made of wood. A wonderful shrine of Mozdok is the miraculous icon of the Iveron Mother of God. The miraculous icon of the Mother of God, according to the reverent conviction of His Grace Ignatius, performs the service of the Apostle in the Mozdok region, promoting and testifying to Christianity with signs. It is necessary for people, says Vladyka Ignatius, to make efforts, characteristic of them, towards the holy cause of enlightening the mountain people with the light of Christ. Here, Bishop Ignatius found a strange order, and the Christian mountaineers were found, because of such an order, in the most alarming state. Many of the Ossetian and Circassian Christians understand the Russian language very little, many do not know it; The female gender is completely unfamiliar with the Russian language. On the contrary: all the priests at the Assumption Parish Church were Russians, completely unfamiliar with the Ossetian and Circassian languages, even completely unfamiliar with the Tatar language commonly used among the highlanders. For this reason, relations between pastors and flocks were extremely difficult, in many cases completely impossible; especially the female sex was deprived of all edification, all spiritual food. The need for this food forced the Christian mountaineers to invite mullahs into their homes, who with their instructions extremely damaged Christianity among the female sex and would certainly have distracted all the Mozdok mountaineers from Christianity if the icon of the Mother of God had not kept them in Christianity. Asians, says Vladyka Ignatius, due to their unusually ardent character, when they get excited, they lose completely common sense and are guided solely by their temperament. Their alarming situation became known to the prince-governor, and he convincingly asked His Grace Ioannikis to remove from the Assumption Church that archpriest from the Russians, with whom the highlanders were especially dissatisfied. The Russian archpriest was replaced by another Russian archpriest; Upon the arrival of Bishop Ignatius in Mozdok, a deputation of mountaineers presented themselves to him to explain their difficult situation due to the impossibility of both understanding the priests given to them and being understood by these priests. The mountaineers complained that they were completely deprived of the sacrament of Confession, that they were deprived of the opportunity to receive the concepts they desired about Christianity, due to the inability to communicate with their priests. The mountaineers were already planning to steal the icon and retire to the mountains with it. This plan became known to the military authorities and would have been carried out by the ardent mountaineers if they had not been satisfied. They expected satisfaction from the new Bishop. Bishop Ignatius offered the mountaineers priest Bartholomew Sinanov, a Georgian who had completed a course at the Caucasian Seminary in the first category, knew the Ossetian language, and was placed, according to some strange calculations, in a village neighboring the Kalmyk nomadic camps of the Astrakhan province. The Ossetians accepted this proposal with delight; another priest was given to them, also from Georgians, who knew the Tatar and Ossetian languages. The Russian archpriest is left to his discretion. To console the Circassians, the Bishop invited them to choose from among themselves a well-behaved and capable young man to prepare in theological schools for the service of the Church. This proposal was accepted with the greatest pleasure: they elected a young man from a noble family who had received some education at the Mozdok School of Civil Affairs. The bishop entered into communication with the prince governor about the dismissal of the Circassian from the Cossack estate in order to enter the clergy. The prince expressed full consent to this, and entered with a presentation to the Minister of War, who reported this to the Sovereign Emperor. His Majesty was pleased to greatly approve of this measure. While the Circassian’s expulsion from the Cossack department to the clergy was being carried out, he, on a ticket issued by the ataman, lived in the Bishop’s House and attended the seminary and prepared for the priesthood. In Mozdok, the need for the Caucasian clergy to know the Tatar language, as commonly used among the mountaineers, was expressed with extreme clarity for His Grace Ignatius. This need is obvious everywhere in the villages of the Black Sea and Linear troops, bordering on the villages of the highlanders, and especially in the cities of Mozdok and Kizlyar. The Armenians, who make up the majority of the population in these cities and trade with the mountain peoples, all know the Tatar language: they study it from childhood in order to succeed in industry. Why shouldn’t the clergy study it from childhood, for the success of Christianity? Rightly Reverend Ignatius rightly notes. The district city of Kizlyar, which belongs to the Caucasian diocese, should be called, according to the conclusion of Bishop Ignatius, a completely Asian, or, more correctly, Armenian city; Residents of Kizlyar, both Orthodox and Armenians of the Gregorian confession, especially respect the icon of the Life-Giving Source, which is recognized as miraculous due to its antiquity, according to legends about the miracles performed under it, which were passed down from generation to generation. This icon is located in the parish Life-Giving Spring Church, and is placed behind the right choir. The Kizlyar monastery should have been very important in relation to the church administration, since it is located in a city inhabited by people of other faiths, at the very end of the diocese, 500 miles from the Episcopal See. Unfortunately, it did not satisfy this goal. The main reason for this must be recognized as the fact that the Caucasian authorities until that time had in mind the satisfaction of military needs alone, and sacrificed everything else to them. Recently, citizenship began to develop in the region and civil life was recognized as essential for a person, an inhabitant of the earth; Recently the idea has begun to emerge that war and the army are the instruments by which citizenship is established and protected. When looking at the region before, very profitable fishing was taken away from the monastery by the Military Department. Private individuals, seeing this course of action, also allowed themselves to appropriate the monastery lands. The abbot of the monastery, Abbot Herman, an active, sober old man, following the ancient rules, spent twenty years of management, his own in constant processes. Naturally, given this situation, the monastery did not receive proper development: it should be considered fortunate that it was not destroyed. Actually, the Russian clergy in Mozdok and Kizlyar, especially in Kizlyar, due to the small number and poverty of the Russian population, was in an extremely poor condition. The benefit of the Church absolutely required that it be supported. The dominant part of the population in the cities of Mozdok and Kizlyar were Armenians. The religious state of the Armenians, living in significant numbers throughout the Caucasian diocese, and in the cities of Mozdok and Kizlyar constituting the majority of the population, is presented by His Eminence Ignatius Brianchaninov in this form: Caucasian Armenians are of the Gregorian religion. They do not understand the Eutychean heresy, and therefore do not understand the essential dogmatic difference that separates their Church from the Eastern Church: They attribute the separation to differences in rituals. They do not have that special attachment to rituals that is noticeable among the Russian people. The Armenians easily abandon their ritual when its incompatibility with Christianity is explained. This is how they had the custom of breaking their fast on Holy Saturday, after the end of the service of that day; some person from their clergy introduced them to the strangeness of this custom, pointing out the solidity of the custom of the Orthodox, and the Armenians with love, without any dispute, agreed to break their fast on the day of Holy Easter after the liturgy. In general, there is a noticeable unfeigned, heartfelt desire in them to get closer to the Orthodox, to the Russians. This circumstance, in the opinion of Bishop Ignatius, is of particular importance; It is important not only from a religious point of view, but also from a state point of view. If Providence had favored the Armenians to unite with the Orthodox Church, which requires only one explanation for the perplexities on both sides, then their state benefit in this region is incalculable. Their trade embraces not only the Caucasian and Transcaucasian regions, but also the mountains themselves. Knowing the Tatar language, commonly used among the mountaineers, they wander freely in the mountains, visit auls and peaceful and non-peaceful mountaineers, and have established close relations with them. They might, under the appearance of industrialists, be excellent missionaries and excellent political agents, having excellent natural ability for the performance of all these duties. Now the moral position of the Armenians is uncertain. It should be like this: they have a spiritual attraction to Russians; but the perplexities are not eliminated, there is no unity; the natural and logical consequence of these conditions is uncertainty. The path from Stavropol itself, through Georgievsk, Mozdok, to Kizlyar lies past the villages of the Cossack-Linear Army. This region made a sad impression on Bishop Ignatius, into which they were trying to instill a Protestant position, unusual for the Orthodox Church, contrary to the wishes of the population. The ecclesiastical character of the region is the character of a schism. This is quite clear and perceptible to anyone who has a definite understanding of the Eastern Church; The Cossacks themselves see and feel this, many of whom study and have studied the faith. Everywhere in the villages the Bishop was greeted with the greatest cordiality; in some, deputations came to him expressing their sincere desire to have a Bishop at the head of their Church; The question was even proposed: “Will we soon belong to the Orthodox Church?” 366 This question determines the concept that the Cossacks have about their religious status. Many Cossacks studied religion very carefully. Their concepts of faith should not be compared in any way with the concepts of people in the highest educated circle. The very development of the schism between the Cossacks serves as proof that faith is for them a subject of deep, strict reflection and study - by no means a subject to which they would be indifferent, to which they would look superficially and condescendingly. With all the above-mentioned expressions of sympathy, Bishop Ignatius responded that the present situation of the Churches of the Line Army is a consequence of administrative considerations, that in order to satisfy the pious feelings of the Orthodox, the Bishop was ordered to visit their churches and provide them with all the desired Christian edification and consolation. Such an answer, if not completely reassuring, then imposed silence on the lips. It could not have been offered to more educated people. Everyone here knows, says Bishop Ignatius in a report for 1858, the religious direction of Prince Vorontsov: he did not stop publicly showing special attention and affection to the Mohammedan clergy; giving him in many cases preference over the Orthodox clergy. Just as the three Jewish youths in the cave and captivity in Babylon confessed that God, through truth and judgment, brought about all this sin for their sake (Dan. 3.28), so the Caucasian diocesan authorities must reflect on their position in relation to the Churches of the Cossack-Linear Army. The clergy of the region loudly told Bishop Ignatius about the former abuses, 367 and the highest officials, talking about the time of the break, remembering this time, set an indispensable condition for the reunification, which should sooner or later follow, meekness and the preservation of decency when dealing with them. Administrative types, according to which Prince Vorontsov, according to the conclusion of Bishop Ignatius, transferred the church of an entire region to the management of the presbyter, taking them away from the Bishop, in contrast to the decree of St. Spirit, have not yet been explained. But they must be explained, at some point, even for the sake of history, as a violation of the inviolable holy character of the Orthodox Church. Such an explanation must inevitably turn out to be very difficult, and the phrase proclaiming an administrative consideration is unfounded and therefore unsatisfactory. Defenders of the measure must present the reason for it, just as they now present the incorrectness and inconsistency in the actions that the Bishop of the Caucasus allowed himself to do. 368 But this does not justify the measures taken against such actions. Church tradition represents that into all ministries, the most holy and lofty, beginning with the Apostolic, man introduced abuse and sin, which were internalized to humanity. In such cases, the Church never stopped eliminating the person who abused the ministry; but the ministry itself, as established by the Holy Spirit, she constantly preserved inviolable. The Apostle, who turned out to be unworthy of apostolic service, was replaced by another Apostle. Patriarchs and other bishops who fell into heresy or revealed actions incompatible with their ministry were deprived of their thrones and dignities; the throne and their dignities were transferred to more worthy persons. But, says His Eminence Ignatius, the replacement of the Bishop by a presbyter for an entire region, with the use of the Bishop as a machine and instrument for the consecration of churches, ordinations and other things for which it is impossible to do without the Bishop, is news in the Orthodox Church. This news seems insignificant to those who do not understand the Orthodox faith; it is of great importance to those who understand the faith. It is also of great importance in the eyes of schismatics: for the doctrine of the Bishop belongs to one of the most important subjects of their thoughts and judgments. The Bishop of the Caucasus fulfills all the church needs for the region of the Linear Cossacks, but does not control this, his flock. The chief priest of the Caucasian army is located at the army headquarters, in Transcaucasia, in a region completely separated by a significant natural demarcation from the country proper called the Caucasus, which has almost no natural relations with Transcaucasia. Managing Churches from such a distance is completely unnatural and plunges these Churches into the most disastrous situation in all respects. The Cossack ataman, his headquarters, the main persons of the Cossack administration, have their residence in Stavropol, surrounded on all sides by the villages and churches of the Cossack-Linear army. Communications about matters taking place under our eyes should be made with Tiflis at a distance of 500 miles, behind the gigantic ridges of the gray-headed Caucasus, with the chief priest, who has his own special duty at home and cannot in any way satisfy the management of the Churches of the Cossack Army entrusted to him due to their very remoteness and alienation from him. A situation for which it is so difficult to find meaning should not last, concludes His Eminence Ignatius. 369 In the Caucasian diocese under Bishop Ignatius there were two monasteries and one monastery for women. Of these: the Ekaterino-Lebyazhinskaya desert is located in the region of the Black Sea Cossacks. It has no class according to the church hierarchy, but was established with special rights according to the Black Sea Regulations, approved by the Highest. The Mariinsk Women's Hermitage, also in the region of the Black Sea Cossacks, was established with special rights granted to the Black Sea Army. 370 The Kizlyar Holy Cross monastery is located at the opposite end of the diocese, in the city of Kizlyar, not far from the Caspian Sea. This monastery, which had up to 2000 rubles. ser. annual income, was very shocked in his well-being by the processes regarding the lands belonging to him in which he was involved. Due to this geographical position of the diocesan monasteries, it turned out to be possible to subordinate only one Mariinsky convent to the deanery of the Archimandrite of the Catherine-Lebyazhye Hermitage. The abbot of the Kizlyar monastery was also its dean. Monastic life, according to the observation of Bishop Ignatius, is in its infancy in the region of the Caucasian diocese, and it is difficult that it could soon emerge from this state. For monastic spiritual success, a peaceful state of the monasteries is necessary. But both men's monasteries did not have this peaceful state at that time, and it was not foreseen that they could receive it until secular power came into the same relation to spiritual power as it is everywhere in Russia. And this can only happen when war ceases to be solely the beginning, the goal, and the excuse for the right or wrong of all meetings and places. At this time, the abbots of the Caucasian monasteries needed knowledge and abilities, mainly clerical ones; Their clerical work was especially significant. In the Ekaterino-Lebyazhinskaya Hermitage there existed at that time a Committee, represented by the abbot, in which some secular persons participated to manage the monastery’s economy. In this Committee for a long time there was a great disunity between its spiritual and secular members, which was the cause of very difficult correspondence. Given the very good relations between Bishop Ignatius and the main Black Sea authorities, this separation was destroyed; but it was impossible to make any significant changes in the church character, according to the rules of the church: neither one nor the other is known or understood, says Bishop Ignatius. Friendliness alone can act with some success against a government that finds in military considerations a means to be unlimited; alone it can mitigate the evil produced by inattention to the decrees of the Church. With patience and submission to the Providence of God, we must wait, says Bishop Ignatius, for the time when in the Caucasian monasteries it will be possible to introduce such a charter, which is outlined for all Orthodox monasteries in general by the tradition of St. Church, in which moral and spiritual improvement in monastic monasteries is only possible. 371 In the Caucasian diocese under Bishop Ignatius there were 168 churches in total. The clergy of the Caucasus originally gathered in this remote region from various places in Russia. At first, it was not particularly well-behaved: it was a mass of immigrants who had no hope of getting good jobs in their homeland and rushed to the then deserted Caucasus with the hope of finding shelter and contentment there. This calculation turned out to be unmistakable; The children of the aliens, having received an education in a seminary established in the Caucasus, formed a new generation with their own character, which, according to Bishop Ignatius, is very comforting: they carry out their important service differently from how their fathers did it – they pass it very satisfactorily. In the Caucasus there is space, it seems, and characters are formed according to space and contentment: in the character of the Caucasian clergy, special cordiality, hospitality, and frankness are noticeable. The last feature is especially striking for a new person in the region, such as Vladyka Ignatius. According to his testimony, there were many excellent people among the priests. The clergy in general is not lazy in the conduct of Divine services and the edification of their flock. Of course, there were errors and omissions, which no human society can do without; but such omissions were corrected by measures provided in full abundance by the moral tradition of the Church. Experience proves that since the new generation entered the field of church activity, in general the entire clergy has gradually changed, risen, and ennobled. If ignorance and gross vices also appeared, then they manifested themselves mainly in the clergy of the Black Sea army, which was made up of Cossacks who learned to read and write; but even there, the moral state of the clergy began to improve as a result of the gradual replacement of opening priestly vacancies by seminary students who had completed the course. Of course, such a judgment about the moral state of the Caucasian clergy during the administration of the diocese of His Eminence Ignatius does not exclude the presence of negative phenomena among the mass of the clergy. In the most pleasant and beautiful picture there will be shadows: among the Caucasian clergy we have already encountered disapproving facts. The archpastoral activity of Vladyka Ignatius in the Caucasus in relation to the clergy consisted not only of giving instructions and directing the pastoral activities of good shepherds, but also in pacifying the warring, and in admonishing the erring, and in punishing the wicked. A distinctive characteristic feature in the action of the Most Reverend Ignatius in relation to the misconduct of the clergy is a conciliatory and admonishing fatherly tone, the desire to belittle the outwardly formal guilt of the person who committed the offense and to influence him with pastoral measures. In those cases when the Bishop became convinced of the incorrigible and stubborn depravity of a clergyman, he was menacing and merciless. To illustrate the relationship of Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov to the vicious members of the Caucasian clergy, we note some cases from court cases. 1) In the village of Petrovskoye, Stavropol district, the priests are Mich. Gremyachensky and supernumerary Vasily Alekseev, with mutual hostility, made it difficult for each other to fulfill the church duties that lay upon each to such an extent that the intervention of the diocesan authorities was required. On the journal of the Consistory with the ruling on this matter, which followed the report of the dean priest Kozma Fleginsky, there was a resolution of Bishop Ignatius dated March 12, 1858 with the following content: “Fulfill. According to Art. 2nd Gremyachensky should be given twelve bows instead of one hundred, since the punishment coming from the church authorities should have a greater effect on the spirit than on the body. Entrust the dean with the blessed work of reconciling the priests of Gremyachensky and the forbidden Alekseev, who should be inspired to sing reverently and decently during Gremyachensky’s priestly service, which the dean should monitor and report to me about the results of his actions.” Dean Fleginsky report dated August 19. 1858, for No. 185, reported to the Right Reverend that priests Gremyachensky and Alekseev had fraternally reconciled with each other, with the assurance that such a thing would never happen between them. This report contains the resolution of the Most Reverend Ignatius dated August 24. 1858, for No. 989: “to the Consistory. Announce to priest Kozma Fleginsky our Archpastoral blessing of I. E. K. and Ch.” 372 2) The dean of Yeisk, Archpriest Nikolai Bellustin, in a report dated March 9, 1858, No. 76, reported to His Eminence Ignatius about the extremely indecent and impudent behavior of the sexton Nadezhdin, who allowed defiant acts and threats against the dean and other persons. On the report, Bishop Ignatius included a resolution dated March 18, 1858, No. 424: “To the Consistory. Order Bellustin: 1) to report to the city police to keep sexton Nadezhdin under arrest until the end of the case. 2) According to the contents of this report, to collect written testimony from the priests Yaroshevich and Verderevsky, as well as from other persons of the merchant and bourgeois class named here, and to present these testimonies to me in my report. Ignatius E.K. and Ch.” But when, at the end of April of the same year, Nadezhdin’s mother petitioned for the release of her son from arrest in consideration of her widowhood and his five-year service, Vladyka Ignatius heeded his mother’s tearful prayer and put down a resolution dated April 24. 1858, for No. 563, as follows: “To the Consistory. Request the clerk Nadezhdin to the Bishop's House to review his behavior for a six-month period. Nadezhdina’s request to conduct an investigation should be ignored, since my resolution of March 18, No. 424, made an order that satisfies the requirements of the laws and the case.” But Nadezhdin did not justify the recommendations of his mother and the attention of the Bishop, and already in July, with a report dated June 24, 1858, No. 76, the Stavropol city dean, Archpriest F. Pospelov, reported to His Grace Ignatius about Nadezhdin’s drunkenness, riotousness and extremely indecent behavior. Then the Right Reverend Ignatius, on Pospelov’s report, put a resolution dated July 30, 1858, No. 906, as follows: “To the Consistory. Since Nadezhdin turns out to be of the most violent behavior while in Yeisk, and having been summoned to Stavropol for a closer examination of his qualities and here he turns out to be hopeless for correction, then begin discussing his exclusion from the clergy and carry it out on a legal basis. Ignatius E.K. and Ch.” 373 3). In the case of the quarrel between centurion Kapustyan and the priest of the village of Ivanovskaya, His Eminence Ignatius, a resolution dated June 18, 1858, No. 1208, was given as follows: “Send to Archpriest Kucherov, who has to conduct an inquiry in this matter. Since centurion Kapustyan expresses a desire to make peace with priest Lavrov, Archpriest Kucherov has to take care of the fulfillment of this laudable desire. And in order for the peace to have the proper strength, the archpriest must take from both the priest Lavrov and the centurion Kapustyan a written certificate of the sincerity of their reconciliation. Then submit all the documents of the case to me. Ignatius E.K. and Ch.” 374 4). By resolution of Bishop Ignatius of July 19, 1858, No. 105, Deacon Mikhailovsky, convicted of shameful behavior, was sent to the Black Sea hermitage for an indefinite period, so that Fr. The Archimandrite closely monitored the deacon's morality and reported to the Bishop about his lifestyle every three months. 375 Other resolutions of the Most Reverend Ignatius on identical judicial cases have the same nature of inclination towards reconciliation of those at war, to exhortation of vicious ones, but also to decisiveness of orders. 376 By Resolution of 31 December. 1859, No. 2165, it was prescribed: For offenses against good behavior, the sexton Sergiev should be immediately transferred to the Kizlyar Monastery for use in monastic labors for six months. After four months, the abbot of the Monastery has to report to me about his behavior. I.E.K. and Ch.” 377 In material terms, the clergy of the Caucasus, receiving salaries from the treasury and using alms from parishioners for the most part, lived comfortably, except in the Black Sea region, where the clergy, receiving salaries, although they were content with offerings from parishioners, were not very abundant offerings. Some of the clergy, in order to support themselves and raise their children in educational institutions, were engaged in cattle breeding on a small scale, greatly embarrassed by the fact that in the village yurts there were no haymaking or arable areas allocated and during haymaking the most unfavorable places were always given to the clergy. The Caucasian diocese had no shortage of clergy in quantitative terms. Clerks and students expelled from theological schools were invited from other dioceses to fill the vacant clergy positions, and they filled the existing gap by filling almost all the vacancies. The relations of the Orthodox clergy towards the inhabitants of other faiths living in the city of Stavropol, and mainly in Kizlyar and Mozdok, were favorable. This is evident from the fact that the Armenians eagerly visited Orthodox churches, and in the city of Kizlyar, out of jealousy for the house of God, destroyed several years before this fire, they asked the Bishop to invest them with the title of church builders, in which, of course, one cannot help but see the influence of the clergy on them. There was also a schism in the Caucasian diocese. The schism in the Caucasian diocese, although insignificant in number, is very persistent in errors. The significant, main, almost only reason for this was the adjacent villages of the Caucasian Linear Cossack Army. It can be said unmistakably, says the Bishop, that these villages, all without exception, are more or less infected with schism. From there come heresy teachers to seduce the inhabitants of the Stavropol province into schism; there, the residents of the Stavropol province, who have been seduced by schism, find reinforcement in their errors, from there they receive mentors who allow themselves to perform the sacraments and affirm that only there - in the villages - is the true Church of Christ preserved. With such a harmful influence of the village schism, the Orthodox clergy encounters an insurmountable obstacle to the success of converting their schismatics into the bowels of the Orthodox Church. In addition, to the regret of Bishop Ignatius, a new nest for schism opened in the Caucasus - in the newly populated port city of Yeisk, where schismatics flocked in large numbers, taking advantage of the benefits granted to this city by the Highest and avoiding persecution in their previous places of residence. There were also sad examples of children of Christ’s Church being torn away from the flock of Christ. To introduce this evil, the diocesan authorities approached the city governor of the Caucasus with a request to prohibit the admission to Yeisk of persons who do not present evidence of their Orthodoxy from their previous parish priests, and even to completely prohibit the inclusion of schismatics in the city of Yeisk. The archpriest of the city of Yeisk, a very active person, was ordered to carefully monitor the schismatics; preventing corruption and admonishing those who are mistaken and seduced. The Caucasus, rich in terrain, constantly welcomes new settlers, from whom independent parishes are formed. Thus, on the lands belonging to the Kalmyks, nomadic in the vicinity of the Stavropol province, several villages were settled by order of the government, in which houses of prayer were established, and even priests were assigned to some to correct Christian needs. In addition, the Caucasian hierarchy acquired Orthodox children from other Christian denominations and non-Christians into the Church. To the consolation of Bishop Ignatius, the sense of piety in the true children of Christ was highly developed. Each settlement of the Caucasian diocese takes care of creating churches for public prayers, and, without resorting to Government benefits, from its surpluses bring gifts to the altar, not only sufficient to create churches, but also to ensure their maintenance and repair. The zeal of the Orthodox to visit the churches of God and fulfill their Christian duty, by the grace of God, did not diminish; Those cases are rare when an Orthodox Christian, due to negligence or weakness of consciousness in the need to cleanse his conscience through confession, is forced to do so by intensive measures. In an uneducated class, alien to literacy, one cannot find a clear knowledge of prayers and a full understanding of the commandments, especially the truths of faith; but despite all this, the firm conviction in the holiness of the professed faith lies deeply and is imprinted in the hearts of the Orthodox believing people. Under the beneficent guardianship of the Government, which strengthened the education of peasant children in schools and in the families of the common people, there was a love and custom for edifying reading, which provides the clearest understanding of the elementary truths of the faith and commandments, and together contributes to the study of the most necessary prayers. The spiritual state of the Caucasian diocese seemed to Bishop Ignatius quite satisfactory, and for the shepherd of Christ's flock, not dismal. 378 The pastoral action of representatives of the Orthodox Church in those parts of the Caucasian diocese that bordered on still rebellious tribes was almost impossible during the reign of Bishop Ignatius, and among the recently conquered it was extremely difficult. The conquest of the mountaineers of the entire left wing and two tribes of the right wing, due to the recentness of this event, could not cause any action in favor of the Church, writes His Eminence Ignatius in 1860: it is known that in the country of the Abadzeks there are the remains of Christian churches; in the very customs of this people there are signs of former Christianity, and Mohammedanism is very weak in them. It was difficult for the Caucasian diocesan authorities to act on the mountain people, because on the left wing only the churches of the cities of Kizlyar and Mozdok, located on the very border with the conquered mountain peoples, were in the diocesan Department. The Black Sea bordered with the unsubdued Shapsugs, and throughout the rest of the vast Caucasus, the villages of the Cossack-Linear Army were located on the border with the highlanders. The archpastoral concerns of His Grace Ignatius about the ordering and elevation of the spiritual life of the Caucasian flock, of course, were connected with his hopes for raising the spiritual level of the Caucasian clergy. If in quantitative terms the diocesan clergy was quite sufficient in relation to the needs of a small but scattered diocese, then in terms of quality both the clergy and monasteries left room for limitless plans in accordance with the high ideals of the Most Reverend Ignatius. The concerns of the Most Reverend Ignatius about raising the spiritual level of the clergy were expressed in the measures he took to better organize training and education in theological educational institutions, especially in the young seminary. 379 and in recommending to them the means of self-education of the parish clergy. The Caucasian Theological Seminary, during the reign of Bishop Ignatius, did not have its own house, but was located in an apartment in private houses, built for speculative purposes and located on Bolshaya Street. For this reason, it was impossible to have cleanliness and convenience in relation to the needs of the seminary, as it would be in a special building. The successes of the students and their morality depend greatly on the premises they occupy, wrote His Eminence Ignatius in 1859: the very fact that the seminary is located on the best street of the city, on the boulevard, close to public entertainment, has a great effect on the students. Stavropol is a military city, a cheerful city. It was difficult to find another apartment that would satisfy the needs of the seminary in terms of space and would not present the indicated disadvantages. 380 The seminary had neither a church nor a garden and, moreover, was located in a low-lying place. 381 Having remained in Stavropol almost forever in 1860, His Grace Ignatius became concerned about finding and arranging more convenient premises for the seminary. The contract for the previous uncomfortable apartments has expired. Another building was found for the seminary in a part of the city called Vorobyovka. The seminary was in three private houses, in the immediate vicinity of the Church of St. Apostle Andrew the First-Called, built on the site where the Bishop's House was supposed to be. Several monks lived at this church, conducting divine services in the church according to the monastic charter. Next to the church there is a garden, and behind it a grove belonging to the Bishop's House. Moreover, one of the rented houses, owned by the merchant Krutitsky, also had a garden. An apartment for the seminary was rented near the place allocated for the construction of the seminary and which belongs to the best places in Stavropol. The Right Reverend Ignatius received an official notification from the prince governor that there was no obstacle to the construction of both the seminary and the Bishop's House in Stavropol, since this city should remain the main city of the country, which had previously been an unresolved matter. The temporary premises of the seminary, again rented with the assistance of the Most Reverend Ignatius, satisfied him. The rector and inspector, wrote Bishop Ignatius in 1860, as well as teachers and students of the seminary always have the opportunity to be at the Divine service and refresh themselves with clean air in a secluded grove, inaccessible to secular persons. 382 Having provided the seminary with the most convenient and appropriate temporary premises for its needs, His Grace Ignatius, in the duty of the diocesan Archpastor, did not leave the internal life of the seminary without his leadership influence. Concerned about improving the composition of the Consistory and the dean's supervision, His Grace Ignatius did not leave the theological schools of the diocese, especially the seminaries, as a nursery for the future clergy, without his care. His views on the nature of the education of future pastors of the Church are clarified from his leadership resolutions on the journals of the seminary Board, from the note of Bishop Ignatius attached to our work on the issue of organizing education in Naval educational institutions, from his proposals to the Caucasian clergy on the Peasant issue, from his reports on the diocese and other documents from the time of Bishop Ignatius’s administration of the Caucasian diocese. Giving general fundamental guidelines to the diocesan clergy on issues that are particularly difficult and that may raise doubts, Vladyka Ignatius did not forget the seminary, inviting the administration of the theological school to familiarize future pastors of the Church with such instructions, as was the case, for example, with regard to the Peasant Reform. Bishop Ignatius put a lot of work into establishing his relationship with the seminary authorities and the seminary on the basis of monastic life: such was his principled view on this issue. He believed that the preparation of seminary students for their high future service should consist not only in the theoretical assimilation of sciences, but also, mainly, in spiritual and practical work, exercising the will and creating a pastoral mood. The expression of his views on the issue of training pastors of the Church in his “Note on the Necessity of a Council for the Russian Church” is very significant. Among the questions for the necessary Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, in the foreground, Vladyka Ignatius raises the question of the education of candidates for the priesthood. The strongest expression of his views on this subject can be noted in paragraph 8 of his draft questions submitted for resolution by the Council. The Council must draw up regulations for theological educational institutions in relation to the regulations of monasteries, so that the life of the students is practically and strictly Christian, so that they acquire solid skills in piety, so that they become well acquainted with the Divine service, and gain a taste for church prayers and standing. In England, says Bishop Ignatius, this character is given to the school. There, the character of the schools puts a strong stamp on the students. Our students of theological schools are imprinted with the impressions of the world, the spirit of the world and, to the greatest surprise, they have a Protestant aversion to monasticism and speak against it no weaker than Luther. Of those who complete the seminary course, very rarely enter monasticism. It is necessary to compile your own textbooks for religious educational institutions, removing from them everything pagan, even indirectly leading to freethinking and immorality. Pay special attention to philosophy, from which logic should be taught with particular completeness. The history of philosophy should be taught briefly. Mature men who have studied the positive sciences and philosophy and the writings of the Fathers of the Church, who have experienced the meaning of Christianity, can and should compile a detailed exposition of philosophy, very useful and scientific in a certain respect; it should be considered and approved by the highest clergy and serve as the subject of attention of husbands, and not of young people, so capable of one-sided infatuation. In theological higher schools it is necessary to teach positive sciences. The philosopher Plato quite rightly recognized the impossibility of teaching philosophy without knowledge of mathematics. Knowledge of the natural sciences is especially necessary, because in our time nihilists affirm their teaching supposedly on the natural sciences. You need to know that they establish the edifice of nihilism not on the natural sciences, but on arbitrary absurd hypotheses. Nature proclaims God, according to the testimony of the Holy Scriptures: and the sciences that explain the laws of nature, the more powerfully proclaim God. All the great scientists, mathematicians and natural scientists, such as Newton, Leibniz, Necker, were not only deists, but also recognized Christianity. Almost all the sophists were atheists, not knowing the positive sciences and indulging in unbridled action and daydreaming. These are the views of Bishop Ignatius on the issue of preparing candidates for the priesthood. 383 In his concerns about strengthening pastoral influence on the population of the Caucasian diocese and for the purposes of the Orthodox mission, Vladyka Ignatius, based on his experimental acquaintance with the state of the Caucasian flock, recognized the need to teach the Tatar language, so widespread in the Caucasus, at the seminary. 384 The same considerations about the success of the Orthodox faith among the highlanders and missionary goals explain the care of Vladyka Ignatius to introduce the teaching of the Ossetian language at the Caucasian Seminary. In relation to this issue, the following references from the journals of the Board of the Caucasian Theological Seminary “in part, internal management” seem interesting. From the Archpastoral Resolutions on these journals we can see not only the attitude of Bishop Ignatius to the subject under consideration and to other related ones, but also his guiding influence on the office work of the seminary Board: the ideally set up office of the Sergius Hermitage could be a good model for the office of the consistory and the seminary Board. The following references are relevant to illustrating the issue of teaching the Ossetian language at the Caucasian Seminary. At the meeting of the Board of the Caucasian Theological Seminary on August 27, 1858, the petition of Peter Kuzmin, who graduated from the course of the Caucasian Seminary, dated June 24, 1858, was reported, explaining that during the last two years of his stay at the seminary and performing student duties, he, by order of the seminary authorities, also served as a teacher of the Ossetian language and wishes to remain a teacher of the Ossetian language in the present time, at the end of the seminar course, he asks for his teacher to define the Ossetian language. The board of the seminary decided: “according to this petition, pending the decision of the case on the termination of teaching the Ossetian language at the Caucasian seminary, to entrust the student Peter Kuzmin to be in the position of teacher, as he held this position while he was a student at the seminary, with the production of his salary according to the state, which is announced to him according to the proper.” This resolution was followed by a resolution from the Most Reverend Ignatius with the following content: “September 22. Fulfill, and according to Art. V keep in mind my opinion, based on my personal conviction when visiting the diocese, that teaching the Ossetian language at the Caucasian Seminary is necessary. Ignatius, Bishop of the Caucasus and Black Sea." Meanwhile, before the accession of the Most Reverend Ignatius to the Caucasian Bishop's See, the Board of the Caucasian Theological Seminary initiated before the Holy Synod, through the Kazan Academy, a petition to stop teaching the said language at the Caucasian Seminary, which, however, was not respected, which is also seen from the affairs of the seminary Board. The journal of the Board of the Caucasian Theological Seminary regarding internal management dated January 26, 1859 contains the order of the “External Board of the Kazan Theological Academy” dated December 19, 1859, No. 162, by which it makes it known that St. The Synod, following a petition from the Kazan Academic Board to close the Ossetian language class at the Caucasian Seminary, bearing in mind that the teaching of local languages ​​in theological educational institutions, including Ossetian in the Caucasian Seminary, has already been recognized as useful, and that there are more than 4,000 Ossetians in the Caucasian diocese, and in the adjacent Transcaucasian region their number extends to several tens of thousands; and therefore, the Caucasian clergy may encounter frequent cases of communication with this tribe, with a resolution dated November 17, 1858, it decided: “leaving without consequences the proposal of the Kazan Academic Board to close the Ossetian language class at the Caucasian Seminary, order the Board of the seminary to pay due attention to strengthening the teaching of the Ossetian language in it, and so that in the event of a lack of a knowledgeable and experienced teacher of this language, the Board communicated with the Tiflis Seminary Board, which can find such a mentor without any difficulty.” The Board of the Caucasian Seminary decided: 1) This order, having taken note, should be attached to the case; 2) the matter of introducing the teaching of French and German at the Caucasian Seminary is considered completed; 3) for the successful progress of teaching the Ossetian language, this magazine will ask His Eminence to contact His Eminence Eusebius, Exarch of Georgia, to appoint a worthy teacher of this language to the Caucasian Seminary, from those who have completed the course at the Tiflis Seminary; since student Kuzmin was appointed to this position only temporarily and has classes at the Stavropol Theological School, which may interfere with its accurate execution; Moreover, the Board of the seminary is not confident that his information is sufficient for the title of teacher of the Ossetian language, which he himself did not study for a long time.” This journal bears the resolution of His Grace Ignatius dated February 5, 1859: “Fulfill. Regarding the 5th point, there is no basis on which the matter of teaching French and German at the Caucasian Seminary can be considered over. It is also not clear how it ended: whether the teaching of these languages ​​was introduced, or whether it was abolished. This needs to be explained. I.E.Kich.” But the teaching of the Ossetian language at the Caucasian Seminary encountered considerable difficulties due to the lack of persons capable of occupying the established position. In response to the attitude of Bishop Ignatius on this subject, the Exarch of Georgia, Archbishop Eusebius, with an attitude of July 14, 1859, No. 594, notified that among the students of the Tiflis Seminary of previous courses there is no one willing to take the position of teacher of the Ossetian language in the Caucasian Seminary, and among those who completed the course of study this year there is no one capable of entering the indicated position, since there is no natural between them Ossetian In this regard, there is a resolution of His Eminence: “To the seminary Board, which has to take care of satisfying the need with the means that the Caucasian diocese can provide. On this occasion, the Board of the Caucasian Seminary decided on August 19, 1859: In pursuance of the resolution of His Eminence, to ask the Caucasian Spiritual Consistory to notify the Board of the Seminary whether it has in mind, according to the diocesan Department, persons who can take the position of teacher of the Ossetian language at the Caucasian Seminary with a salary of 225 rubles. annually, and if so, by whom exactly. The journal of the Seminary Board bears the resolution of the Most Reverend Ignatius: “August 20. Execute. According to paragraph VII, pay attention to the priest of the Bryukhovetskaya village Sinanov A.I. E.K. and Ch.” Indicated by Bishop Ignatius as a possible candidate for the position of teacher of the Ossetian language at the Caucasian seminary, priest John Sinanov petitioned the Board of the Caucasian Theological Seminary to appoint him to the position of teacher of the Ossetian language at the seminary and to the position of teacher at the Stavropol school. According to the content of the petition of priest Sinanov, the Board of the Caucasian Seminary in the magazine dated August 27. 1859, it was decided: “Although the Board of the seminary has no other guarantees about priest Sinanov’s knowledge of the Ossetian language, except for his seminary certificate, and although, based on his service at the Stavropol school, one can doubt his ability to teach, but since there is no other more well-intentioned person in mind to occupy the position of teacher of this language in the seminary, then, according to the resolution of His Eminence, to present to the highest to his superiors regarding his appointment to this position. As for the position of a teacher in the Stavropol school that he - Sinanov - requested for himself, this request was denied to him, both because there is currently no teaching vacancy at this school, and because he was already in such a position and the school authorities proposed dismissing him from it for the benefit of the service, therefore, returning to it; cannot bring any benefit to the school, and since it is really difficult for priest Sinanov to support himself with just a salary from the seminary, then with this journal I ask His Eminence to open to priest Sinanov, as having a priestly rank, an auxiliary source of support by assigning him to one of the city churches or other means at his Archpastoral disposal. This resolution is based on the resolution: “September 1. Execute. On the 2nd point, it is necessary to verify the ability of priest Sinanov to be a teacher at the Ossetian language seminary. There is no place in the city for him and there is no opportunity to provide it, due to the small number of city priests and the significant number of responsibilities assigned to them. If it were possible to provide him with a teaching position at the Stavropol Theological School, then this measure would eliminate the difficulties in maintaining him. I propose that the Board, after discussing all of the above, come back to me with a journal article or a special idea about this subject. I.E.K. and Ch.” In pursuance of this resolution, the Board of the Caucasian Seminary decided to admit priest Sinanov to teach the Ossetian language at the seminary, since there is no longer a person who would be able to enhance the success of students in this subject: which was presented to the external Board of the Kazan Theological Academy, in order to favorably petition the higher authorities for the approval of priest Sinanov as a teacher of the Ossetian language at the seminary with the production of his salary according to the state day of taking office. As for providing him with a teaching position at the Stavropol School, keep this in mind in case a teaching vacancy opens up at this school. The resolution dated September 19 was placed on this journal by His Eminence Ignatius. 1859 with the following content: “Priest Sinanov cannot in any way assume the position of teacher of the Ossetian language unless he is given a position as a teacher in a religious district school, since the salary of an Ossetian language teacher is far from sufficient for him. the maintenance of Sinanov with his family, and there are no vacancies in the Stavropol churches and there cannot be, due to the small number and for the reason that all the priests attached to these churches are burdened to the point of excess with various responsibilities: And; E.K. and Ch.” The case of priest Sinanov ended in 1861 as follows. The Caucasian Spiritual Consistory, in relation dated August 17, 1861, No. 2739, forwarded to the Board of the Caucasian Seminary a petition from the teacher of the Ossetian language of the Caucasian Seminary and the clergy class of the Stavropol Theological School, priest John Sinanov, to open, for lack of a vacant priestly place in the city of Stavropol, at any church in the state, where he could use along with other priests’ income, asked the Seminary Board to inform the Consistory of its opinion on the content of the petition. On August 24, 1861, the Board of the Seminary decided on this subject: To notify the Caucasian Spiritual Consistory of the attitude according to the certificate, explaining to it that on the part of the Seminary Board to provide Sinanov with a priestly place at one of the city churches with his dismissal from the post of teacher of the clergy class at the Stavropol Theological School and with the reserving for him only the position of teacher there are no obstacles to the Ossetian language at the Caucasian Seminary. This resolution of the seminary Board was based on the resolution of Bishop Ignatius with the following content: “August 29. I find that correcting the duties of a parish priest is incompatible with the duties of a teacher, for the most pressing demands can distract him from his teaching position at any time, both during the lessons themselves, and outside of them during preparatory office lessons that do not tolerate frequent entertainment. True, the Ossetian language, due to the circumstances of the region, acquired particular importance in the Caucasian Seminary; but in order for the teaching of this language to become more distinct and satisfactory, another measure is needed than the provision of a parish to a priest-teacher, whose classes in the parish will completely distract him from his teaching activities. Special care was needed to give Sinanov his present position, which he should be content with until the seminary board finds a solid means to improve the teaching of the Ossetian language in the seminary, which I propose to this board to take care of. This is all the more necessary because Sinanov, in the course of his actions, turns out to be fragile for the seminary. If his request had been granted, then it can be reliably seen that upon receiving the parish, he would very soon begin to ask for dismissal from the position of teacher, citing as the reason the many classes in the parish: I.E.K. and Ch.” Having himself established strict order and remarkable clarity in the office work of the Sergius Monastery and the deanery of the St. Petersburg diocese, Bishop Ignatius strove for the same in the Diocesan Administration and in the Board of the Caucasian Seminary. So, for example, by a resolution dated August 26, 1858, which followed the journal of the Board of the Caucasian Seminary dated August 20, 1858, His Eminence Ignatius suggests “to the seminary Board that it should pay more attention to the Chancellery: the negligence in both the preparation of journal articles and their correspondence is too obvious.” The shortcomings of the paperwork of the seminary Board were sometimes noted by Bishop Ignatius and more specifically. Thus, at the beginning of September 1859, at the presentation of the seminary Board with the application of the form lists for the Archpastoral certification, the following resolution followed from His Eminence: “the form lists with my marks are returned to the seminary Board. Some of them do not indicate the time of their composition: it is indicated. Two lists of professors Razumov and Kostyasha, soiled, should be rewritten and presented to me.” The board of the seminary, in pursuance of the Archpastoral Resolution, in a journal dated September 9, 1859, orders the chancellery to indicate on the formulary lists the time of their compilation, where this is omitted, and, having rewritten the accidentally soiled formulary lists, to present them again to His Eminence for Archpastoral certification. In April 1860, the Board of the Seminary filed a petition with His Grace Ignatius for the representation of a full-time physician and teacher of medicine at the obstetrician seminary of the Stavropol Medical Council, collegiate assessor Vl. Snigirev to the Order of St. Stanislav 2nd Degree. The resolution of the Most Reverend Ignatius of April 25 indicates the direction and order of the said presentation. 385 In the affairs of the seminary Board, His Grace Ignatius also took care of eliminating everyday tensions and reconciling the warring parties. As an example, we can point to a case of misunderstandings between the Board of the Caucasian Seminary and the diocesan Audit Committee on checking the economic report of the seminary. The Audit Committee on the reports of the Caucasian Theological Seminary for 1860 entered the Seminary Board with a statement dated May 20, 1861, No. 91, in which, explaining that “through one of the members - the seminary teacher Viktor Petrovsky, he asked, on the basis of § 8 of the Instruction, verbally the economist of the seminary and the secretary of the seminary Board to supply the Committee with office materials and scribe for the correspondence of journals and papers related to the audit, but received a refusal regarding the scribe, and at the same time the office materials were not submitted. This prompts the Audit Committee to bother the Board itself... with a request to supply the Committee with office materials and a scribe.” Regarding this attitude of the Audit Committee, the Board of the Caucasian Seminary decided: 1) on the basis of § 8 of the regulations on the formation of temporary audit Committees, the office materials required for the conduct of the Committee’s affairs, forwarded to the Committee against the handwritten receipt of the senior member of this Committee, Archpriest Alexandrovsky; 2), as for the requirement to send a clerk to work for the Committee, then, having recognized this requirement, on the basis of the above-mentioned § 8 of the provisions on the formation of audit committees, it is inappropriate and illegal to leave it without satisfaction. This journal was followed by a resolution from Bishop Ignatius: “May 24. I suggest that the seminary Board refrain from harsh expressions that are not consistent with the dignity of the clergy; Objection and refusal must be presented in a polite manner. I.E.K. and Ch.” In terms of spiritual and educational matters, Bishop Ignatius was very interested in the good behavior of the students - the future priests of the Caucasian diocese and, perhaps, when burdened with the affairs of a poorly ordered diocesan life, Bishop Ignatius showed his interest in the behavior of the students. Thus, he established the custom of reporting on especially good students, in addition to those reports of misconduct, which are usually almost exclusively brought to the weary attention of the diocesan Bishop. Thus, already in March 1858, the inspector of the Caucasian Seminary, Hieromonk Isaac, presented to the seminary Board a list of seminary students who distinguished themselves for good behavior in February 1858. The board of the seminary, at a meeting on March 15, 1858, decided: the students who distinguished themselves by their good behavior should declare their gratitude to the board of the seminary in the general meeting of its students and the qualities with which any of them distinguished themselves should be noted in the book of student conduct. Bishop Ignatius put a resolution on this journal: “Fulfill. According to Article VII: wanting to know which of the students deserved the attention of their superiors for their special good behavior, I propose that the seminary Board henceforth mention these students by name in a journal article. Ignatius, Bishop K and Ch." By a resolution of Bishop Ignatius on June 16, 1858, an Archpastoral blessing was announced to students of the Caucasian Seminary who distinguished themselves by good behavior. In the same educational form, Vladyka Ignatius, making up for the purely formal order of the seminary Board on the conditions for the participation of seminary students in the Bishop’s singing choir, with a resolution dated November 25, 1859 on the journal of the Caucasian Seminary dated November 19, asks the seminary Board “to provide all the assistance in its power so that the choir is in the best possible shape, because this is both the people’s need and the Stavropol old-timers They remember with delight the excellent Hierarchal Choir of the time of Bishop Ignatius. In relation to those students of the theological school who, through the instability of their external behavior, revealed a lack of spiritual discipline and their spiritual incompatibility with the tasks of the theological school, Vladyka Ignatius was a supporter of decisive and strict measures. As an example, we can note the following case. The inspector of the Caucasian Theological Seminary, Archimandrite Isaac, entered the seminary Board with a note dated February 26, 1861, in which he reported that on February 25, the students of the higher department of the seminary, named in the note, were not at Divine services without a good reason, and added that these students, according to the remark of his assistant Professor Tsaregradsky, had previously shied away from Divine services, and one of them did not spent the night in the seminary building. The board of the seminary decided: on the basis of a note from the inspector of the seminary and inquiries made, taking into account the previous behavior of the said students, the persistence in evil of some of them, revealed in the fact that they more often than others allowed themselves to evade the most important duty of a student of a religious educational institution, and the degree of their guilt in the present case, 1) the students (name, surname) should be deprived of government support; 2) Punish students (name, surname) with imprisonment in a punishment cell on bread and water during the days free from teaching, the upcoming cheese week - the first for five days, the remaining two for three days, 3) in addition to this, give the students a warning that they will also be deprived of government support if they do not correct themselves. Based on this decree, Bishop Ignatius based the following resolution: “February 28. Execute. Confinement in a punishment cell for no more than three days; anyone on whom such a conclusion does not make a useful impression is subject to other types of punishment, more serious, even expulsion from the seminary. I believe that with such a view and course of action, the importance of the theological school - seminary will rise in the eyes of students, and they will value their stay in it more. Ignatius E.K. and Ch.” To implement his views in the life of the seminary, Vladyka Ignatius took great care to establish good relations with the seminary authorities. But in this aspect of his Archpastoral activity, Vladyka Ignatius did not avoid sorrows and temptations, partly due to the complications of relations by the participation of the rector and inspector of the seminary in the affairs of the Diocesan Administration, as was the case, for example, in the case of Archpriest Krastilevsky, partly due to the character of the persons who held the positions of rector and inspector of the seminary under Ignatius, partly and due to a number of diocesan intrigues. How much Vladyka Ignatius valued his good relations with the seminary authorities can be seen, for example, from his letters to His Eminence Leonid Krasnopevkov. “Your letter is a treasure,” writes Vladyka Ignatius in one letter. “It shows the most faithful relationship of the Bishop to the rector and the rector to the Bishop. Since the wise and experienced Saint of Moscow established these relationships in himself and constantly maintained these relationships, I considered it my duty to adhere to them and constantly maintained them in my relations with Archimandrite Epiphanius. The other day I considered it my duty to show a beneficent letter to the Archimandrite, so that he could see from the letter the way of thinking that they have in Moscow about the duties of the rector to his diocesan Bishop. 386 However, Vladyka Ignatius could not maintain good relations and this was one of the sorrowful pages of his difficult life, which undoubtedly had significance as the motives that accelerated his abandonment of the Caucasian diocese and his removal to Babayki. 387 In order to maintain Christian education in the parish clergy and Orthodox flock, His Grace Ignatius took care of maintaining and replenishing church and parish libraries. 388 In March 1861 regarding the Decree of the Holy Synod regarding church libraries. His Grace Ignatius, in his resolution dated March 31, 1861, No. 575, wrote: “Since the works of St. Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephraim the Syrian and other Eastern Church Fathers were received and are being received in the “Works of the Holy Fathers of the Church” published by the Moscow Theological Academy, and the Fathers of the Western Church in the “Transactions of the Kyiv Theological Academy”, also in the “Christian Reading”, then prescribe that all churches of the Caucasian diocese should acquire the Theology compiled by the Most Reverend Anthony and the Long Catechism. 389 By the Resolution of the Most Reverend Ignatius of January 30, 1861, No. 196, all churches of the Caucasian diocese, with the exception of the extremely poor, were ordered to subscribe to the journal “Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy. 390 Resolution No. 206 of the same date provided those wishing to subscribe to the magazine “Soulful Reading” from the clergy and recommended offering copies to its parishioners, as the magazine is very consistent with its name. 391 Academic journals in rare dioceses were subscribed in quantities corresponding to the Stavropol diocese. The time of the Archpastoral service of His Grace Ignatius at the Caucasian See coincided with the time of the great Peasant Reform of Emperor Alexander II. From the beginning of 1859, preparatory work for the great act of February 19, 1861 was going on in places. At the request of the nobility of the Stavropol province, the Sovereign Emperor deigned to command by his Highest Rescript - to open a special Committee in the city of Stavropol to draw up a draft regulation on the structure and improvement of the life of the landowner peasants of the province. The Stavropol Committee on the matter of improving the life of landowner peasants, chaired by the provincial Leader of the Nobility, after a solemn prayer service in the city cathedral, was opened on January 15, 1859 by the Civil Governor, Lieutenant General Volotsky. The act itself on February 19, 1861 occurred during the governorship of P.A. in Stavropol. Brianchaninov, brother of Vladyka Ignatius. Touching upon the issue of the great Peasant Reform of Emperor Alexander II in relation to the Caucasus region; we mean to sanctify and establish a view of the participation in this matter of His Grace Ignatius Brianchaninov as diocesan Bishop, as it appears from the documents stored in the archives of the Stavropol Theological Consistory and found in the papers of Senator N.S. Brianchaninova. The participation of His Grace Ignatius in carrying out peasant reform in the Caucasus was expressed in the deeply thought-out and energetic leadership, activity and mood of the Caucasian clergy in relation to the great cause. Very naturally assuming that in the important matter of organizing and improving the life of the landowner peasants, for guidance, conscience and reason, the beneficial light of Christ’s teaching, emanating from the Gospel and taught by the Holy Church, is especially needed, and that both landowners and peasants will turn to the shepherds of the Church for a word of edification, for a word of advice, for a word of consolation and reassurance, the Most Reverend Ignatius considers it his most sacred duty to teach to the church pastors of the Caucasian diocese in all clarity and certainty, the direction that they must acquire and constantly maintain in their conversations with the flock on a subject so important - improving the life of the landowner peasants. 392 This direction is determined by the Most Reverend Ignatius from the point of view of the eternal task of St. Churches for the creation of Christian spiritual salvation. Paying attention to the narration with the Lord’s answer to a certain person’s request for the division of property with his brother (Luke 12), Vladyka Ignatius distinguishes two parts in this answer: firstly, the Lord mentioned the material part of the matter, that is, the division of the property itself and deigned to renounce any participation in the judgment of the matter from the material, civil side; secondly, the Lord deigned all His attention and deep edification the spiritual side of the matter, pointing out that in this matter, and, consequently, in any similar matter, one must primarily be wary and beware of being carried away by the hidden part of extortion, from which, as from a seed, other passions, more obvious, should undoubtedly be born, already obviously disastrous for individuals and for society. Based on this understanding of the issue, His Eminence Ignatius points out the most sacred duty of the pastors of the Church to lead the entire Christian brotherhood towards virtue and salvation, and, from this point of view, we recommend that the clergy in the upcoming work direct their conversations, advice and instructions to avoid the flock from being carried away by passions. “Shepherds! teach both landowners and peasants who turn to you for advice, so that in meekness of spirit, in pious self-sacrifice, they turn with frequent prayers to God, begging His mercy to grant them to wisely conceive, process, and carry out a great domestic work that should elevate the state to the highest degree of prosperity. Teach the sheep of Christ so that they constantly graze in the pasture of Christ, that is, constantly feed the soul with the teachings of Christ, which commands to carefully and constantly preserve love, mutual peace, mercy, goodness, which rejects all passions, no matter in what plausible vestment and cover these passions are dressed to deceive people. Pay all your attention so that in the matter the spiritual side of it, entrusted to you by the very Law of God, by your very sacred calling, retains its dignity, clearly indicated to it by the Gospel. The pious and pleasing direction of souls that you will nourish and support will undoubtedly have a beneficial effect on the material side of the matter. At the same time, carefully avoid not only interference in civil orders and any judgment about them, but also from any, even private, seemingly confidential conversations and advice about the material side of the matter.” 393 His Eminence on the proper attitude of the clergy to civil affairs is confirmed by His Eminence Ignatius in his letter addressed to the Civil Stavropol Governor, Lieutenant General A.A. Volotsky dated January 18, 1859, in which, attaching a copy of his proposal to the Caucasian Spiritual Consistory dated January 17, 1859, No. 3, he writes that he considered it his sacred duty to teach the clergy of the diocese the direction that they should steadily adhere to in relation to the work being carried out. 394 The appearance in the March book of the journal “Orthodox Interlocutor” of articles related to the matter of the Peasant Reform prompted the proposal of the Caucasian Spiritual Consistory dated April 25, 1859, No. 809, on the part of the Eminence Ignatius, with which he confirms to the clergy of the Caucasian diocese - that they should be steadily guided by the direction given by the proposal of the Eminence Ignatius dated January 17, 1859 for No. 3, and the flock was guided according to this direction. 395 But, not limiting himself to this general confirmation of the pastoral duty to be guided by oneself and to nourish the flock with the instructions of the Word of God and the voice of the Church, maintaining an unpeaceful mood of spirit free from passions, His Grace Ignatius, regarding the journal article “Orthodox Interlocutor” entitled “The Voice of the Ancient Russian Church on Improving the Life of Unfree People,” again addressed the Archpastoral Word to the clergy Caucasian diocese through an extensive proposal of the Caucasian Spiritual Consistory dated May 6, 1859, No. 916. 396 This proposal is a detailed article outlining the view of His Grace Ignatius on the origin of slavery on earth and, along with a critical analysis of the article “Orthodox Interlocutor, 397” expresses the view of Bishop Ignatius on the desirable course of the Peasant Reform and its significance for the future of the Russian state. Establishing the position “that there can be neither equality, nor perfect freedom, nor prosperity on earth to the extent that enthusiastic false teachers desire and promise, and that the unfree state of people, which has many different forms, is a consequence of humanity’s descent into sin,” the Most Reverend Ignatius says that “as long as humanity is subject to the influence of sin and passions, power and subordination are still necessary. What is the actual significance of improving the life of peasants? This is a change in the form of managing them. They are granted freedom, but not self-will: they leave the department of the landowners, as if from under the supervision of educators and guardians, into an official, personal relationship with the state, through the authority that will be established over them by the Government. The Sovereign's command was marked by the happiest beginning, a magnificent execution that astounded Europe. Europe is accustomed to seeing coups d'état accompanied by popular confusion and terrible bloodshed: in Russia, on the contrary, the coup is carried out with undisturbed calm. The words of the Sovereign, “that the beginning of a revolution, by command from above, prevents its beginning from below” should be inscribed in golden letters on the tablets of history. The meaning of the articles of the “Orthodox Interlocutor” and the question of the serfdom of the peasants, the great act of liberation of them and their future, as well as the proper action of the clergy, are considered by His Grace Ignatius in relation to state legislation, to spiritual literature, to Russian history and in relation to Divine revealed Christian teaching. Having outlined the teaching of the Word of God and St. Church about slavery and power, about spiritual and civil freedom, His Grace Ignatius comes to the conclusion, 1) that “The Word of God and the Church, both Ecumenical and Russian, in the person of the Holy Fathers, never said anything about the abolition of civil slavery, that there is nothing in common between spiritual and civil freedom, that both slaves and masters were constantly taught by the Church the most precise, most conscientious performance of their duties, that violators Christ's testament of love was exposed to reproof and admonition; 2) that the liberation of slaves has always been recognized by the Church as a good deed, a deed of mercy, a deed of brotherly Christian love.” “From this teaching of the Church,” says Vladyka Ignatius, “the view of the present domestic event, of the matter of improving the life of the landowner peasants and of granting them civil freedom, is majestic, magnificent. The most pious Russian Autocrat showed the noble class the accomplishment of a great Christian deed, a deed of love. The Church calls upon God's blessing for the great domestic cause with its warmest prayers! Its shepherds invite the nobility to noble selflessness, to sacrifice, to the immediate sacrifice of material benefits for moral benefits, and the peasants are instructed to accept the Tsar’s gift with due reverence and humility—these sure guarantees that the gift will be used wisely and usefully. It should not be thought that civil freedom can only elevate the peasants morally: the class of nobles must certainly enter into a high degree of moral advancement by abandoning slavery. This is the property of selflessness and sacrificing material benefits to spiritual benefits: it elevates, changes, and perfects a person.” Having presented a vivid picture of Old Testament slavery and, using biblical and ascetic examples, the influence of the moral revolution that has taken place in a person on his material interests and way of life, His Grace Ignatius ends his instruction - a proposal to the clergy of the Caucasian diocese with an interesting archpastoral and church answer to the question: what awaits us in the future? “We see,” he says, “the extraordinary material development of Europe: Russia, in order to harmonize with Europe, to maintain its importance in it, must, of necessity, of state and political necessity, introduce European material development. Material development cools people towards the Christian faith, allowing for the most superficial engagement with it. With the strengthening of relations with Europe, the fact is inevitable: the increased invasion of its various religious teachings into our fatherland. All these teachings, from papism to deism and atheism, are equally hostile to the Orthodox faith. Meanwhile, the greatness of Russia must increase. Let us assume that it will remain within its present limits for a whole century; It is not at this time that its own population should increase, according to the laws of statistics, to 200 million. Russia does not need to send the surplus of its population, like other European states, overseas: it can accommodate it freely and widely. in its vast space, hundreds of millions. Accordingly, with the increasing population and material development, the importance of the state rises, and with the rise of the importance of the state, the importance of the service class rises. Already now we see dignitaries with significance that did not exist at the beginning of the 19th century. These are: Governors of the Caucasus, Governors of the Kingdom of Poland, Governors General of Novorossiysk and Eastern Siberia; their regions are entire kingdoms; they cannot stand on the same level as the governors Dimitri Donskoy, Mikhail Feodorovich, Alexei Mikhailovich. With such state development, with such material development, with the invasion of European teachings into Russia, there is no hope that the clergy could return to the importance, both morally and materially, that it had in virgin Russia. They will say here: it is necessary to improve the material position of the Orthodox Church for the very welfare of the state. So! But the path to achieving this goal is not the one indicated by the “Interlocutor”. The strength and essential significance of the clergy lies in its character: “You are the light of the world, you are the salt of the earth,” the Savior tells us, the shepherds of the Church (Matt. 5:14). Let us show obedience to Christ with our lives, let us acquire Christ within ourselves: He will make us light for the world, salt for the earth; Our brethren of all classes, having seen the light shining from us, having felt the effect of the blessed salt with which we must be saturated, will give us everything we deserve and provide us with everything we need for temporary life. This is what the Lord Himself promised us (Matt. 6:38). On the contrary, if we lose our character, then our brethren will feel distrust of us, turn away from us, and show us every kind of disdain. And this was foretold to us by the Lord (Matt. 6:13). Alas, brothers! If we notice that people despise and trample on us, then wouldn’t it be more accurate, wouldn’t it be fairer when, instead of blaming other classes for this, we turn our eyes to ourselves and try to correct our earthly situation by correcting ourselves in spirit? The moral sign of Christianity is love. “Of this, the Savior said, everyone understands that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35). This holy sign must be, par excellence, the sign of the clergy! Let us acquire love within ourselves, we will show it abundantly to all classes: then all classes will involuntarily be imbued with reverence for us and satisfy all our needs. A person cannot help but pay homage to love when he sees it in his neighbor, especially when he sees it in a shepherd, because love is God, before whom every creature of His humbles Himself (1 John 4:16). Here are the main, in our opinion, provisions of this wonderful instruction of Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov to the Caucasian clergy: 1) Slavery and all other disorders of life are a necessary consequence of the sinful state of humanity and are weakened in humanity only as it progresses spiritually. 2) The emancipation of the landowner peasants in Russia must happen peacefully and calmly - from top to bottom, and not from bottom to top, through a sovereign act of the royal mercy of the Sovereign Emperor and the selfless desire of the nobility to give up their material advantages in favor of their smaller brothers, and these latter must accept the mercy given to them with humility and gratitude. 3) Civil freedom and material successes in life make sense only to the extent that moral and spiritual freedom is realized, and to the extent that people humbly accomplish their most important life feat of spiritual salvation. 4) The activity of the clergy should not consist in the handling of external affairs and not in the construction of material wealth, but in serving the spiritual salvation of their neighbors, in carrying out their Christian love, in arousing in them a disposition for spiritual achievement. 5) The high task of this pastoral activity can be resolved only in proportion to the personal spiritual achievement and moral improvement of the pastors of the Church; The holy principles of Christ’s love, in order to have a beneficial influence on others, must first find expression in the life of the primates of the Church. 6) The future of the Russian people, with the colossal development of the latter in terms of quantity and material, depends on its moral state, which the Russian clergy is called to serve, thereby fulfilling both their life calling and their civic duty. These are, we believe, the indisputable provisions that are expressed in the extensive proposal of the Most Reverend Ignatius to the Caucasian Spiritual Consistory of May 6, 1859, No. 916. It is also indisputable that this sentence was written with remarkable theological erudition and fully expresses the ascetic mood of His Grace Ignatius. If the Right Reverend Ignatius had been left to his own devices, perhaps a different person would have emerged from him, perhaps some great ascetic detached from the world, but people, with their care for him, made him, in relation to the period under consideration, abbot, abbot and Bishop. It is quite possible to think that Ignatius Brianchaninov would have refused the abbotship in the Sergius Desert, if not for the special formulation of the proposal by Emperor Nicholas I, who demanded that he pay the debt for education and love and service where the Emperor indicated. The mere fact that after moving to the Sergiev Hermitage, Ignatius Brianchaninov became weak and at first was ill a lot shows quite clearly that the new sphere did not revive him, did not give him spiritual strength. Meanwhile, after illness, he moved from Dinaburg to Fr. Leonid to the Alexander-Svirsky Monastery, in a more severe climate, immediately began hard work there, but felt healthy. Even the order of the fisherman monk to go into the water for a net in cold weather did not cause him a serious shock to his health and brought only a common cold. This character of asceticism was fully expressed in the proposal of the Caucasian Consistory No. 916. But, according to the purpose of the document, this was to some extent its weak side. This proposal, both for the Caucasian clergy and for students of theological schools, was an important spiritual and educational document, but at that moment it was not entirely clear to ordinary people: it was necessary to write a practical and simple instruction for the clergy on how to act on the people, how to guide them in worldly life, how to behave when implementing the great peasant reform. That the Right Reverend Ignatius fully sympathized with the Peasant Reform is proven, in addition to this sentence, by many facts of his life. It is not without significance that long before the liberation of the peasants he did not want to use his property rights and became a monk. At the first step in his new life, he humbly obeyed his former slave, the cook at the Alexander-Svirsky Monastery. Having become the abbot of the Sergius Hermitage, he gave the peasants all the monastery land that they had long used. There is a letter from him to the former Civil Stavropol Governor A.A. Volotsky 398 dated March 22, 1861, which also testifies to his liberation-Christian mood. In this letter, His Eminence Ignatius writes to Volotsky: “On March 20, the Highest Manifesto was read in the Cathedral of the city of Stavropol, announcing to the state a great feat and a great deed accomplished by the Sovereign Emperor - the transition of serfs to the state of free rural inhabitants. I am writing to you under the fresh influence of the Manifesto; my letter will probably be of interest to you, since the matter began while you were managing the province. The manifesto is great! He was listened to with the greatest attention and reverence, and made the most favorable, saving impression on all classes. Public opinion about the case was distorted by the Kolokol magazine, which penetrated all layers of society, and various printed articles in the direction of Kolokol. On this basis, many expected a Manifesto, if not exactly in the same direction, then at least in a similar or somewhat close way. Is the Manifesto! His high direction, the greatness and correctness of his thoughts, the greatness of his tone, the extraordinary clarity of his view of the matter, the directness and nobility of expression, the accurate depiction of the incompatibility and untimeliness of the outdated form of serfdom and at the same time the public justification of the nobility (which his vile envious people tried to humiliate, slander, trample and even destroy with the help of sophisms about the peasant question), the preaching of the Manifesto about true freedom with the elimination of self-will and violence, which ignorance and malicious intent are mixed with the idea of ​​freedom - all this gave the Manifesto extraordinary moral force. False concepts, which appeared and multiplied due to stupid and evil disclosures, dissipated and fell. The state of bewilderment that gripped the minds was replaced by a state of clear understanding, calm, trust and deep respect for the actions of the Government. The manifesto decisively separated itself in its character from all the small writings on the peasant question, and eclipsed them with its light: just as the stars disappear when the sun appears. They are not destroyed, they continue to exist and be present in the sky, but they are no longer visible. The Manifesto, serving as a reasonable image of our Government, cannot but pour out true consolation into the hearts of all well-meaning and well-intentioned people, in fact proving that the Russian Government is moving along the most correct, most reliable path. I was very pleased to see that my two proposals, given to the Caucasian Consistory, while you were in Stavropol, to teach the clergy of the Caucasian diocese the proper direction in the peasant question, are decisively similar in spirit and in thought to the Manifesto, having warned it for two years. There were various arguments against the proposals here, especially after the appearance of an abusive article against me in Kolokol. These nasty rumors, in which the main role was played by unscrupulous slander, involuntarily forced the clergy to pay special attention to the proposals, as they received special interest due to the controversy aroused as a result of them. The proposals were examined in detail, and therefore studied, and the Manifesto, having appeared, found the clergy already prepared for it. While all the people bless the Sovereign Emperor for his deeply reasonable Manifesto, one must assume that the publisher of the Bell, with a small number of like-minded brethren, will go berserk and sound his vulgar alarm bell. In the Manifesto, precisely, those words of St. Apostle Paul to the Romans, about which the frantic Iskander said that the Apostle Paul, having uttered them, did more evil than Judas Iscariot by betraying Christ. Do you have a copy of my proposals? In the second of them, dated May 7, 1859, you will see the development of concepts about the Question, exactly the same as those developed in the Manifesto (pp. 4, 5, 13:20). In the Manifesto, from the first word to the last, the principle of the Monarchical guarantee, public order and prosperity of Russia is expressed. On the eve of the publication of the Manifesto, I read in the St. Petersburg Gazette a letter from Falkovsky and the Sovereign’s Rescript to Prince Gorchakov regarding this letter. What a calm tone in the Rescript! What a majestic, open statement of the Tsar’s good intentions in relation to the people’s progress and the Tsar’s firmness in relation to the preservation of order among the people. Before the Rescript, as before a giant, Falkovsky’s letter takes on the character of such a trifle, such trifles! The Rescript and the Manifesto are full of moral force: before them, opinions contrary to them fall and are destroyed by themselves. Here, my dear, are the lines that, I hope, will bring you true joy on the eve of the joy that the All-Holy Easter will bring. Glory and praise to God, who protects Russia! God’s preservation of Russia is clear to anyone capable of seeing from the Manifesto.” The proposal of the Most Reverend Ignatius for No. 916 provoked sharp attacks by Herzen in The Bell. Of course, from a worldly point of view, the proposal should have seemed strange. But Herzen greatly harmed himself with attacks on the Right Reverend Ignatius, because he did them not in the name of the truth, but for reasons of showing off in front of the profane and free-thinking, he did it with irritation, because otherwise how can one explain not only his indecent insinuations regarding the person of the Right Reverend Ignatius, but even such gross oversights that Ignatius Brianchaninov was the rector of the Sergius Lavra nearby Moscow. 399 The answer of the Most Reverend Ignatius to Herzen, dated February 1860, has a polemical character in relation to the tone of Herzen himself. 400 Picture of the announcement of the Supreme Manifesto, Feb. 1861 in the North Caucasus in the proposal of His Grace Ignatius of the Caucasian Spiritual Consistory, dated March 19, 1861, No. 505, is presented in the following form. Decree of the Holy Synod of March 2 for No. 765 with the attachment of the Highest Manifesto and appendices to it was received by His Eminence Ignatius on March 19 through the head of the province. According to the Highest Command, the announcement of the Manifesto for the Stavropol province was to take place on the same day as the announcement of the Don Army on the ground. For this purpose, the city sent a courier to the Governor of the province and, as a result of an agreement with the head of the Don Army, also as a result of the order of the Prince Governor of the Caucasus, he decided to announce the Great State News simultaneously throughout the entire Stavropol province, on the day of the Great Spiritual News. The fulfillment of the Highest will, declared by the State Secretary, was violated in an unexpected way. The priest of the military hospital located in Stavropol, in the Military Department, read the Manifesto on March 19 after the Divine Liturgy, without any communication not only with the civilian authorities, but also with the military, despite the fact that the Commander of the troops, Adjutant General Count Evdokimov, was in Stavropol. As a result of such an announcement, unfavorable rumors arose among the population of Stavropol about the authorities allegedly concealing the Manifesto. To calm these rumors, it turned out to be necessary to immediately announce the Manifesto in the city. There was no longer time for written communications on this subject. For this reason, by agreement of the Most Reverend Ignatius with the military and civil authorities, the Highest Manifesto on February 19 was announced in the Stavropol Cathedral after the Divine Liturgy on March 20, and for other churches of Stavropol and the diocese - on March 25, which was reported in relation to the Head of the province and in a report to the Holy. Synod. 401 Apr 30 1861, No. 2581, was followed by a circular proposal from the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.A. Tolstoy in the name of the diocesan Right Reverends, who were entrusted, in order to prevent the cases encountered in some dioceses of incorrect explanations by the clergy of the Manifesto, giving rise to peasant unrest, to instill in the clergy so that, under fear of the strictest responsibility, they should in every possible way beware of arbitrary, and even more so incorrect, explanations of the said Manifesto and constantly, in the manner of acting on parishioners, acted in accordance with the rules of Circular No. 890. “The clergy, first of all, must remember that the most important and essential duty of clergy in this matter is not to be judges, but to be peacemakers.” This circular was followed by the resolution of Bishop Ignatius dated May 11, 1861, No. 800: “To the Consistory. A copy of this statement should be sent out to the churches immediately under Decrees to protect the clergy from improper actions on the Peasant Question. At the same time, the project of relations with the head of the province. I.E.K. and Ch.” 402 Regarding the address to the head of the province, the Most Reverend Ignatius believed, due to the importance of the document, to send out copies as soon as possible, in which he asked for the Governor’s assistance. 403 Regarding the circular from Mr. Ober-Prosecutor St. Synod of February 17 1861, for No. 890, which is mentioned in relation to April 30. for No. 2531, then he, pointing out that during the Peasant Reform, “the clergy has a sacred duty, to the best of their strength and ability, to provide full and complete assistance so that this good thought, when put into execution, “is not misunderstood and interpreted,” proposes the following guiding rules: 1) When introducing new decrees concerning entire classes in the state, it often happens that they are not accepted by everyone with due due disposition, which can sometimes be caused by misunderstandings, sometimes incorrect suggestions from people controlled by their private views, sometimes some real difficulties connected with the news of the matter before they have adapted to it. Similar cases may occur with the introduction of a new regulation on the relations of peasants to landowners. Every loyal subject, especially those who have achieved a certain degree of education, when encountering a case of this kind, is obliged, as far as possible, to help end misunderstandings, weaken incorrect suggestions, reduce and overcome difficulties. In the fulfillment of this general duty, without a doubt, rural parish priests, who by their very service are in close relations with the peasants, should take part, to the extent possible. 2) The constant duty of priests is, among other things, to teach parishioners so that they observe loyalty to the Sovereign and obedience to the rulers appointed by Him, so that they steadily and conscientiously observe legal duties and pay certain taxes and imposed or agreed dues; so that, if they find themselves unduly burdened by someone or something, they seek protection and relief, each according to their own need, in a legal way, without spreading anxiety in society, and patiently await from their superiors the necessary orders and actions of justice. Rural parish priests should act with such instructions in the present circumstances, both in church teachings and in home interviews, when cases arise. 3) There is no need and should not give this action the appearance that priests were especially appointed by the Government to act in the present circumstances. They must fulfill their ordinary duty of teaching the parishioners as much in piety as in good deeds, both morally and civilly: but the general teaching must be applied, as prudence always requires, to special emerging cases and circumstances. 4) It must be explained to the peasants that the new decree concerning them is the fruit of the paternal care of the Sovereign Emperor, who wants to increase their well-being, and His trust in their prudence, that they will use the work, which from now on more than before will depend on their own good will, judiciously and without laziness for their own and the general benefit. Therefore, they must enter into their new position with gratitude and with a zealous desire to justify the care and hope of the Sovereign. 5) A poorly understood idea of ​​freedom and unreasonably exaggerated hopes may have the consequence that some peasants will find their new situation not as satisfactory as they expected. It must be explained to such that freedom does not consist in acting according to unlimited arbitrariness, which no society could stand for, but in choosing and doing good and useful deeds within the limits established by law. When the Tsar wanted to grant the peasants new rights and benefits, then He, heeding the law of justice and His fatherly love for all loyal subjects, could not help but take care that the welfare of the landowners was protected. 6) When necessary, the priest should offer such admonitions and explanations to the parishioners as his reflections and advice, which his goodwill towards them and concern for their well-being and peace prompts him to offer. 7) The priest should give a twofold admonition to the clerics: firstly, so that when they hear discussions about new regulations for peasants, they do not interfere with them by expressing their opinions, since due to insufficient understanding of the matter, they may adhere to the false opinions of others, or communicate their erroneous opinions to others, from which bad consequences may occur; secondly, so that if they hear rumors between the peasants that are unfavorable to the cause and the general peace, they immediately and correctly bring this to the attention of the priest. 8) All the actions of the parish clergy indicated here must take place with the necessary quietness and modesty in such a case. This circular was received by His Grace Ignatius on March 1, 1861. The Bishop’s resolution was placed on it on May 11, 1861, No. 801, with the following content: “To the Consistory for application to the case and use if necessary.” 404 Comparison of the contents of the circular of the Chief Prosecutor of St. Synod No. 890 with the content of the proposals of the Most Reverend Ignatius of the Caucasian Consistory for Nos. 8 and 916 provides grounds for some conclusions in explaining the reasons why the circular of the Chief Prosecutor of St. Synod No. 890, received on March 1st and giving guidelines on such an important Subject, remained in the office of Bishop Ignatius until May 11th, when he, together with the Circular of April 30th. for No. 2531, was handed over “to the Consistory for attachment to the case and use if necessary.” 1) Some thoughts of the circular No. 890, coinciding with the instructions of proposals No. 3 and 916, (for example, the distinction between freedom and arbitrariness, the peaceful implementation of the reform, teaching parishioners piety, caution in judgments on the subject of reform), could seem unnecessary to the Right Reverend Ignatius, as he had already introduced them into the consciousness of the clergy in stronger and more definite expressions. 2) Other thoughts of the circular of the Chief Prosecutor No. 890, such as. introduction into the circle of activities of the clergy of leadership in the performance of civil duties (for example, P.P. 2 and 3), not agreeing with the basic view of Bishop Ignatius on the activities of the clergy, mainly in the sphere of explaining the principles of Christianity and guiding spiritual Christian life for the purposes of eternal salvation, and seeming to him not entirely correct, could make it difficult for him to teach the clergy Circular No. 890 for fear of creating confusion in moods due to the abundance and disagreement of instructions. 3) The Circular of the Chief Prosecutor No. 890 is not based on the corresponding behavior of the Supreme Power, and on the definition of St. Synod - the power of the Church, and therefore it could be understood as a personal, clerical order, given by a secular person, a layman, albeit a high-ranking diocesan one; Bishops; bearers of Divine grace and the Apostolic lot, and therefore, from the point of view of the church and social views of Bishop Ignatius, could not be so obligatory for execution, especially since the necessary clarifications on the matter had already been made by the Bishop’s proposals. Circular No. 890 might have remained shelved in the Bishop’s office for the Bishop’s personal considerations if, on May 11, 1861, another circular No. 2531 had not been received, which, along with a general new and more definite opinion, in agreement with the views of His Grace Ignatius: “the clergy, first of all, must remember that the most important and essential duty clergy in this matter should not be judges, but peacemakers,” circular No. 890 was marked as mandatory. But why then did the less complex and not so detailed circular No. 2581 cause an immediate resolution of Bishop Ignatius No. 800 and vigorous action in relation to informing the contents of his parish clergy? Therefore, we believe that the contents of the latest circular of the Chief Prosecutor of St. The Synod is in harmony with the content of the Bishop's proposals, already addressed to church application, and even more so because with the circular order of April 30, 1861, No. 2531, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod addresses the diocesan Right Reverends no longer on his own behalf, but by the Highest command. At the moment of receiving the last circular, Bishop Ignatius’s resolutions dated May 11, Nos. 800 and 801, appeared, and a little later - his authoritative and confident response to the Chief Prosecutor, dated May 22, 1861, No. I486. In response to this, His Eminence Ignatius, dated May 22, 1861, No. I486, informed the Chief Prosecutor of St. Synod that “in the Caucasian diocese there was not a single unpleasant incident like those mentioned in the circular, for the reason that at the very opening of the noble Committee on the Peasant Question, the Caucasian clergy received the proper direction. This direction was set out in my proposal to the Caucasian Consistory dated January 17, 1859, No. 3. When articles of the opposite direction appeared in magazines and newspapers, which began to captivate some, I wrote comments on these articles. The comments revealed the incorrectness of the articles and pointed out the harm that could occur from being carried away by them. Comments were sent to churches and announced to seminaries, which turned out to be especially necessary. Upon the announcement of the Highest Manifesto on the Peasant Cause, the Caucasian clergy saw in the Manifesto the very foundations of thought regarding the matter that were set out in two years by their Archpastor and, prepared by the comments, the direction could not give the manifesto any arbitrary interpretation. Thus, in the region, in which unrest had recently arisen between the landowner peasants due to misunderstandings that arose among them, order was preserved during the promulgation of the Manifesto, undisturbed.” This is how the good news of the Supreme Manifesto of February 19 was published in the Caucasus region. 1861 and so definitely expressed himself in the activities related to the preparation of this message, the Most Reverend Ignatius Brianchaninov, as a spiritually enlightened, possessing extensive theological erudition, powerful and convinced Archpastor of the church-ascetic direction. This is what Vladyka Ignatius is in all those cases when a broad wave covering a person’s spiritual and ecclesiastical interests, military and civil life, called upon him to determine his attitude towards it from a Christian point of view. In this regard, the unpublished “speech of His Grace Ignatius, Bishop of the Caucasus and Black Sea, on the celebration of the conquest of the Eastern Caucasus, delivered on August 25, seems remarkable. 1860 in the Kazan Cathedral of Stavropol Caucasian." The Vladyka’s speech is based on the interpretation of Psalm XXIII and draws a parallel between the conquests of the prophet-commander, who reached with sword in hand both the shores of the Mediterranean Sea and the shores of the Euphrates, who provided the state with borders that were essential for it and heard the voice of the Lord everywhere, and the conquest of the Caucasus, which was preceded by a series of campaigns, bloody battles, and high-profile events. This voice of the Lord is also heard in the completed conquest of the eastern Caucasus. “The voice of the Lord on the countless mountains of the Caucasus! The voice of the Lord on the waters, frozen for centuries, with which the heads of the Caucasus are decorated, shining with whiteness and proudly rising above the clouds, as if with the intention of touching the sky! The voice of the Lord over the deep abysses of the Caucasus, over its impenetrable wilds, over sheer rocks and cliffs! The Voice of the Lord over the diverse peoples of the Caucasus! In vain did they rely on high mountains, on dark forests, on impenetrable gorges, on walls of rocks and cliffs, in vain did they consider them insurmountable barriers to predatory self-will! Voice of the Lord!.. And at the voice of the Lord, what has not changed before changes. The Caucasus bends the brow to the power that is beneficial to it; savage peoples are forced to reject violent freedom for submission and the subsequent enjoyment of true freedom following submission. True human freedom consists in man's acceptance and assimilation of the Law of Christ (John 8:31). Let us offer thanks and praise to the Lord for the blessings poured out for us! They were poured out in the fortress given to our brothers, Christ-loving warriors; they are poured out in blessing us, longed for, in the happiest world. Let us offer our warmest prayers for our Most Pious, Most Autocratic, Great Sovereign, Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich! Through the supreme care of His Majesty, a trustworthy world came into our possession with all its abundant and varied consequences, flowing into one common consequence: the prosperity of the country. Let us offer fervent prayers for the famous leader of the Caucasian army and ruler of the Caucasian region, who accomplished the great task of conquering the Caucasus, a task on which the first commanders of Russia worked for half a century! May the All-merciful God grant to the chosen Leader, crowned with a brilliant feat, to create Christian success out of military success, so that an earthly matter is also a heavenly matter, a temporary matter is an eternal matter.” time must be based on eternity. The ascetic mood and calling of the Most Reverend Ignatius was reflected in all his activities and in the attitude of the clergy towards him. In relation to his activities, this is confirmed by many of the above facts of his life from the period of diocesan administration. From the side of the attitude of the clergy, this is confirmed by the reviews of contemporaries and partly by the facts known to us from the ministry of Vladyka Ignatius at the Caucasian See and in the Sergius Desert. The clergy, with the exception of a few people, did not like Vladyka Ignatius, and not only because he stood above many of them in his origin and education, but also due to the strict, domineering character and mood of the Most Reverend Ignatius, far from the world, which distinguished him from people of a less ascetic mood. Just as a poetic prophet and contemplator of the heavenly ideal, proclaiming to people “pure teachings of love and truth,” loving people, aroused their contempt, ridicule and persecution, so Ignatius Brianchaninov, with his mood of sublime ascetic idealism, directness and imperious character, was difficult for the earthly people of the world: they were accustomed to compromises of earthly interests with heavenly ideals, carnal life with the precepts of Christianity, they sought and strive to reconcile the contemplation of the land of promise with the cult of the golden calf and the interests of meat pots and bread until satiety, and the stern and imperious ascetic, with his words, and his power, and his high personal example, constantly reminds people of the impossibility of compromise, of the crime of worshiping all kinds of life idols. Living himself an intensely active and working life, never abandoning spiritual achievement, he recommends the same to the subordinate clergy, calling for increased activity, self-education, and spiritual achievement. Of course, it was not easy for the Caucasian clergy to be in any way appropriate and worthy of their Archpastor. Respecting the power and spiritual height of a person, we can not love him because our mood is burdened with other, from our and from his point of view, wrong interests. While respecting Socrates, the Athenians condemned him. By the Highest Decree, given on August 5, 1861, Bishop Ignatius of the Caucasus, in accordance with his request, was most mercifully dismissed from the administration of the diocese and, according to his personal desire, by the determination of St. Synod of August 9 1861, for No. 1752, he was assigned to stay in the Nikolaev Babayevsky Monastery of the Kostroma diocese, which was provided to the Right Reverend Ignatius in the main administration, so that the abbot and brethren of the monastery would have the same relationship with him as if they were with the diocesan Right Reverend, with the use of the best cells, heating, lighting, servants and crew, but without a staff according to the monastery contents. The pension for the Most Reverend Ignatius was assigned in the amount of one thousand rubles per year. 406 By Imperial decree of November 9, 1862, the pension was increased by five hundred rubles per year. 407 In relation to this new stage in the life of His Grace Ignatius Brianchaninov, attention should be paid to two circumstances: a) what prompted him to petition for dismissal from the administration of the Caucasian diocese, and b) why did he choose the St. Nicholas Babayevsky Monastery as his place of residence for the end of his life? – Both of these circumstances are definitely clarified by the Most Reverend Ignatius himself in the report to his Most Holy Governing Synod dated July 24, 1861, No. 1186. In this report, the Most Reverend Ignatius writes the following. “Despite all my efforts to restore my health, damaged by long-term illnesses, with mineral waters, I could only get some relief during the three and a half years I spent here, but at the same time I feel a particular loss of strength. Having reported about this situation of mine, I am forced to humbly ask Your Holiness to show me the most merciful indulgence by dismissing me from the administration of the Caucasian diocese and placing me in charge of the cenobitic Nikolaev Babayevsky monastery of the Kostroma diocese for the following reasons prompting me to such an election: 1) I was trained in monastic life in cenobitic monasteries and was initially made abbot to a cenobitic monastery, so I have special sympathy for the hostels. 2) The brotherhood of the mentioned monastery is sufficient to satisfy the needs of the bishop's service. 3) The climate and terrain of this monastery correspond to my poor health, forcing me to pay special attention to my place of residence. I consider the satisfaction of this most humble request of mine to be the greatest blessing for me.” 408 Thus, within the limits of the above petition, the leaving of the Caucasian See by His Grace Ignatius is explained by the extreme weakening of his health, and the choice of the Nikolaev Babaevsky Monastery for residence is explained by the adaptability of this monastery to the spiritual and physical needs of Vladyka Ignatius and the more pleasant cenobitic nature of the monastery. To this, from the point of view of the first position, i.e. in relation to the abandonment of the Caucasian see, the weariness of the intense and vigorous activity of three and a half years of diocesan administration, the combative nature of the see and those misunderstandings with the Supreme Church authorities, which were especially sensitive for Vladyka Ignatius in the case of the construction of the Bishop's House, in the clash with Archpriest Krastilevsky and Archimandrite, were of no small importance Epiphany. Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, respecting Bishop Ignatius for the height of his moral life, treated him without any special favor, considering him not fully prepared for diocesan administration, and explaining his departure from the see by the desire to have a better see. 409 The mood with which His Grace Ignatius left the Caucasian See was full of humility, submission to the will of God and contentment: the earthly wanderer received the opportunity for the best self-examination before entering eternity. In a letter dated Aug. 31. 1861, notifying P.A. Brianchaninov about the consent of the Sovereign and the Holy Synod to dismiss him from the management of the diocese, His Eminence Ignatius writes: “this is the All-merciful will of God for me, giving me time and convenience to carefully prepare myself for the transition to eternity, through thorough repentance.” 410 In relation to the second position, i.e., the choice by the Right Reverend Ignatius of the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery for his residence, along with his stated motives, the good, friendly relations towards Vladyka Ignatius of the local diocesan, the Right Reverends - Archbishop Nile of Yaroslavl and Bishop Platon of Kostroma, in the diocese, were of no small importance where the monastery chosen by Bishop Ignatius was located. Thanks to the good relations of His Grace Plato of Kostroma, Vladyka Ignatius, by mutual agreement, with the permission of the Holy. The Synod received the Babaevsky Monastery under its jurisdiction as a diocesan Bishop. Its certainty. The situation in the Babaevsky monastery was also established by mutual agreement with His Eminence Platon of Kostroma. Joined Oct 16 1861, during the management of the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery, His Eminence Ignatius, in view of the need for the management of the monastery to have a relationship with some Consistory, asked His Eminence Plato: “to issue the appropriate order so that the Kostroma Spiritual Consistory would enter into relations with me at the Babaevsky Monastery as if with a diocesan Bishop, since this is convenient and characteristic of it, for the Babaevsky Monastery, before entering my department, belonged to the department of the Kostroma diocesan authorities and, in all likelihood, after the present time and conditional situation has passed, it should again enter this department.” 411 The Most Reverend Plato proposed to the Kostroma Consistory that the orders of the Most Reverend Ignatius, as if the diocesan Bishop, be replenished for the Babaevsky Monastery. Synod, 413 which, recognizing the current situation as correct, introduced the presentation on this subject of the Most Reverend Ignatius to the case. 414 Thus ended the short, but most restless period of public service of His Grace Ignatius Brianchaninov in the Caucasian and Black Sea Bishop's Cathedral and began a new, also short, but fruitful period of diligent literary activity and contemplative and ascetic life in the St. Nicholas-Babaevsky Monastery on the eve of eternity, before the gaze of the waiting God. Chapter Four. Life in the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery and the blessed death of Bishop Ignatius Ι. The life of Bishop Ignatius in the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery “I’ll tell you about the Babaevsky Monastery that I like it extremely in every way. The location is great. What air! What crystal, spring waters! They beat, boil from the mountain, and in such quantities that there would be enough of them, I think, for the whole of St. Petersburg. What groves with centuries-old oaks! What glades! What a Volga! What silence! What simplicity! I open the book of the ascetic writer, read it: -: I conclude that here you can actually implement her advice, while in St. Petersburg you can fulfill them only in your imagination and desire. In a word: for my earthly wandering I would not wish for another, better shelter.” (Letters of the Most Reverend Ignatius, included in the biography of him compiled by his disciples and admirers, pp. 2–3). Before the Right Reverend Ignatius Bryanchaninov took over the management of the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery, considerable changes and additions took place in the fraternity of this monastery. Before the resignation of the position of diocesan Bishop by His Grace Ignatius, the housekeeper of the Caucasian House of Bishops, Abbot Justin, first surrendered the position of regent of the Bishop's Choir, and then the position of housekeeper and moved to the brotherhood of the Nikolaev Babayevsky Monastery; Hieromonk Kallist, the sacristan of the Caucasian House of Bishops, also moved there. 415 The novices of the Caucasian House of Bishops, Moses Slosman, Konstantin Pavlov, Vasily Pavlov and Hieromonk Theophilus, who were close and devoted to His Grace Ignatius, moved there to the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery. 416 Thus, by the time the Right Reverend Ignatius Brianchaninov moved to the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery, the latter’s brotherhood already had at least six persons who were well known and selflessly devoted to Bishop Ignatius. Even before his arrival in Babayki, the abbot of the monastery applied for another abbot’s position, and the head of the Ignatius retinue, Abbot Justin, was appointed abbot of the Nikolo-Babaevsky monastery. By its location, by the composition of the brotherhood, by the nature and direction of monastic life, the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery largely met the needs of the last earthly refuge of Vladyka Ignatius. 417 “I’ll tell you about the Babaevsky Monastery that I like it extremely in all respects,” he wrote to his friends in 1847: “The location is very nice. What air! What waters, what crystal spring waters! they beat, boil from the mountain and in such quantities that there would be enough of them, I think, for the whole of St. Petersburg. What groves with oaks! What a Volga! For my earthly journey, at this moment, I would not wish for another, better shelter. 418 The tormented soul, which needed nothing but solitude, 419 in a quiet refuge on the picturesque banks of the Volga, the majestic and magnificent Volga, could finally find the longed-for peace and, with gratitude to the Lord God, calmly indulge in the sweet thoughts of God. “I thank the merciful Lord” who brought me to rest in solitude from the rumors of the capital. The feelings that visit a person in solitude are no longer unfamiliar to me. That is why the secluded desert lured me so conveniently from the noisy Sergius Hermitage. Solitude strengthens the soul, breathes into it some kind of courage, some kind of contempt for the world, which is impossible to feel in contact with the world,” wrote Fr. Ignatius about his solitary life in the Nikolo-Babaevsky monastery: “When the soul tramples corruption by renouncing corruption, then everything corruptible, without exception, becomes corruptible, and spiritual contemplation descends on the scales of the heart, which cannot be content with anything. It makes the resident of the silent cell a resident, one might say, of paradise - it introduces him to a new world, before which the local world is very small, insignificant. In the silence of silence, the soul floats as if in some immense space, looks at the past, at the present, at the earth, at the sky, at time, at eternity. So in clear weather an eagle walks at an unattainable height, in a transparent, azure abyss. The larger the space occupied by the landscape, the more magnificent the spectacle. Good are the beauties that a person can express and describe in words, but incomparably higher are those that exceed the word, delight the heart, and seem to deprive the mind of the ability to act. They say: in Switzerland, from one extraordinary, rocky height, a most picturesque, delightful landscape appears to the eye; Some travelers, having climbed to this terrible height, were so amazed by the splendor of the spectacle that they could not stand on their feet from amazement, fell from the height, and were broken. This is exactly how spiritual contemplation works! Whoever suddenly sees him is plunged into this abyss from amazement, dies for the world! The aforementioned travelers did not come to life: black wooden crosses over the ashes of these sons of Britain stand at the foot of the Swiss cliff; I would say: he who is killed by a spiritual vision for the world will no longer come to life for the world. Alas! I would say unfairly; and therefore I can’t say! Alas! Man comes to life even for death! Solomon came to life for death! Judas came alive for her! Many came to life for her!.. Alas! How weak we are, how fickle!.. I look at our weakness, I look with tears!.. My eyes seek joy, consolation, and suddenly they turn to the desert, to solitude!.. There, there it is safest!.. There my soul strives!.. Run!.. If your legs are not enough for the fast flow, take wings! Rush!, Fly! save yourself from the jaws of the beast: peace! Be like the blessed woman who ran and flew into the desert, the woman whom the spectator of spiritual mysteries saw - John. Feet - a sound mind in the Lord; wings - faith: flaps them, mighty wings, is carried through the wilds, waters, steppes, mountains - the one to whom Christ gave them. Let us ask Him for faith; The Apostles showed us an example; they said and prayed: “Lord, add faith to us.” “May the Lord grant us, on the wings of faith, to fly across the worldly sea and fly into the blessed haven of Heaven,” 420 – wrote Archimandrite Ignatius from his sweet temporary solitude on the banks of the great Russian river, where his soul found peace and consolation, the soul of one “who spent his whole life in sorrows, who is covered in wounds, and rejoices in them, and thanks God for them. 421 The ascetic’s repentant sobs and sighs about his sins were replaced in quiet solitude by “delightful joy,” “quiet, intoxicating joy”: “I see God’s endless mercy towards me, I see a chain of God’s incessant blessings. Why did they pour out on me? I'm perplexed. How did I pay the Benefactor for them? - continuous sins. I look at my sins and am horrified, as if I were looking into a terrible deep abyss, from just looking into which my head begins to spin. What if we measure this abyss?... And I begin to measure it with sorrow, measure it with sighs and sobs!.. I am still sobbing, suddenly the sadness in my heart changes to delightful joy, as if someone is telling my heart: “The incomprehensible Benefactor God is dissatisfied with His blessings; He still wants to bring you into heaven, to make you a partaker of eternal pleasure.” I believe this: every good deed, no matter how great, can be expected from the immeasurable goodness of God. I believe, and my whole being is immersed in quiet, delightful joy,” we read in one of the letters of Archimandrite Ignatius, sent by him from the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery. 422 Thus, under the roof of a secluded monastery, the soul of the ascetic rested; At the same time, his disease-weary body rested and gained new strength. This monastery became the place of the last earthly refuge of Bishop Ignatius. 423 The view of the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery from the Volga River is remarkably beautiful, both in terms of the terrain on which it is located, and in terms of the monastery buildings, picturesquely deployed along the banks of the Volga. From behind the front line of the buildings, a new, majestic church of the Iveron Mother of God can be seen leaning into the depths of the picture, reigning over the general view of the monastery, with its crowned head rising high to the sky. Twenty small heads and spitzes surrounding her correspond to her in size. Along the bank of the Solonitsa River, up its course, somewhat retreating from the outskirts, there is a grove of wildly growing trees stretching for more than half a mile, a group of centuries-old oaks adjacent to the southern side of the monastery. The western side of the monastery is beautifully shaded by flooded meadows and enlivened by abundant springs of the purest spring waters, springing from the bowels of the earth and flowing in a stream into the Volga. On the eastern side there is a monastery plowing area, on the northern side there is a two-story hotel for receiving and accommodating visitors to the monastery. The hotel is separated from the walls of the monastery by a street ten fathoms wide. Further behind the hotel, other outbuildings located in the same direction can be seen, completing the picture of the monastery, located along the river bank - for observation of a traveler traveling to the monastery by water from Yaroslavl or by land from the opposite bank from the village. Timokhin. For those traveling by water from Kostroma, this view loses much of its content, being closed by the Cape of the Volga River, which makes a sharp turn to the northeast below the monastery. The northern and eastern sides of the monastery face the monastery fields, separating the monastic monastery from the dwellings of neighboring peasants, the nearest of which is located two miles away from the monastery. On the opposite side is the low left bank of the Volga. The view of the Volga region from the monastery is beautiful; green meadows are bordered by undulating hills with many villages of the Yaroslavl province. Opposite the Monastery, on a large barge, a steamship pier was built from the monastery to receive passenger ships. On the pier there is a spacious chapel. A pleasant remnant of the Ignatiev times is the service of prayers to St. Nicholas the Wonderworker at the steamship pier during stops of the ship. Every day, eight steamships stop at the Nikolo-Babaevskry pier - one from each of the four shipping companies on the Volga, one steamship down the Volga, the other up the Volga. A novice is on duty at the monastery bell tower. As soon as a steamer appears in the distance, this novice rings a small bell. At the sound of this bell, a string of monks and novices is heading to the pier, monastery pilgrims who want to board the ship, and summer residents living at the monastery for prayer in the rooms of the monastery hotel are also drawn there. In the front part of the barge, depicting a pier, in the chapel, with an iconostasis to the lectern image of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, another hieromonk performs a prayer service, novices sing; travelers leave the ship on the pier to pray and venerate the miraculous image. Next to the chapel, there is a kiosk selling church candles and postcards with a view of the monastery. At the moment of departure, under the whistles of the steamer, one can still hear the singing of “St. Father Nicholas, pray to God for us,” and the hieromonk, going aboard the pier, sprinkled holy water towards the steamer. The beautiful panorama of the monastery, its groves and the panorama of the river community - caresses the eye, especially in the evening, the bell buzzes before the beginning of the all-night vigil, calling for prayer near the dear grave of the Archpastor-Ascetic... This prayer service, and the solemn carrying of the holy icons of the monastery in the outskirts of Kostroma and Yaroslavl - this is the legacy of the times of the Ignatievs. Over fifty years ago, Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov arrived along the same road to the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery in search of solitude and detachment from worldly concerns, for the sake of spiritually related work. What did his great, rich soul carry with it, what plans did it harbor? - Of course, not the plans for all-Russian dominion that his ill-wisher Hieromonk Moses spoke about in a letter to Hierodeacon Paisius regarding the unrest in Babayki among the Admirers of Ignatius, after his death, - for the soul of Ignatius had not sought the plans of dominion, the paths of metropolitanship and even abbotship since his youth. This was not the mood of the great Saint. When you approach Babayki, after a short stop in Dievoy Gorodishche, three hours later from Yaroslavl, when a beautiful panorama of the monastery opens up and the ringing of bells is heard, you can’t help but think that other ideas occupied the soul of the Babayevsky hermit when he chose his last earthly refuge: a) The extreme labor and many years of soreness of the Saint’s flesh prompted him to look for a healthier area than Lopotov, The Seven-City Hermitage and the Sergius Hermitage are the places where the Lord lived for many years. The extreme morbidity of the Most Reverend Ignatius is visible from his own testimony, which we use in this case. In the papers of Vladyka Ignatius, which after his death went to his nephew, Senator Alexei Petrovich Bryanchaninov, and after the death of the latter, passed to another nephew, Senator N.S. Brianchaninov, there is a handwritten description of the illness of Bishop Ignatius dating back to the time of his life in Babayki. 1) I grew up very early, at the age of 15 I reached the height that I have now. During these years he was sent to military service, which was incompatible with his strength and the delicacy of his health and service. 2) Being 18 years old, I caught a cold while swimming in cold water; this cold could not be treated, but after it I felt a change in myself, precisely because it could not be treated. 3) In my 17th year I caught a cold again. At the same time, not so much from the cold as from the erroneous treatment, I felt a special and decisive change in myself; I began to feel worse and worse. In both of these colds, scrofula must have played an important role, which was not noticed. 4) At the age of 20 he entered into a monastic life, which was not in keeping with his strength or health. At the age of 23, he caught a cold and developed a severe fever in a remote monastery, where there were no means of treatment. This long illness resulted in exhaustion and an even greater change in health. I constantly began to get sick and feel a particular lack of strength, even a particular change in my mental abilities, which noticeably weakened after my illness at the age of 17. 5) Since 1834, I have constantly used the benefit of a doctor, who in 1848 announced to me, out of a feeling of special friendship for me, that the doctors were to blame for me, not recognizing the scrofula that was very secretly present in me, which they drove inside with means directed against hemorrhoids. 6) In the fall of 1846, during a long trip to the monasteries of the St. Petersburg diocese, I caught a very cold. It was as if the chemically combined caloric separated from my body, which from that time on became extremely chilly. My legs became paralyzed, and I did not leave my two inner rooms for the whole winter. They treated me for this cold with sarsaparilla decoction during another winter in a hopeless seclusion, as a result of which control of my legs returned, but at the same time an extraordinary tendency to debilitating perspiration appeared, which continues to a significant, although to a lesser extent, to this day. From that time on, my health became decidedly disturbed; From now on, in body I do not belong to the number of completely living people, but, somehow, alive and at the same time dead. 7) When I was 51, I used Caucasian mineral waters, which uncorked the scrofula that was hidden in me; it knocked me out in different ways, but led me into complete relaxation and complete inability to continue public service. The separation of scrofula continues to this day; At the same time, exhaustion and weakening of strength increase. Conclusion. At present, extraordinary exhaustion of strength, exhaustion of the physique itself, which has become no longer capable of withstanding most of the means of treatment due to extreme exhaustion, is the main sign of pain; Then: - The head is very weak. Vision is weak: cannot withstand reading or writing, especially by candlelight; the presence of scrofulous matter is felt in the eyes. Nose hurts; the presence of scrofulous matter has been felt in it continuously since the autumn of 1858, after using the waters. There is pain in the forehead and bridge of the nose, aggravated by special discharge of mucus from the nose. The back of the head is covered with lichen and various growths, which are associated with a runny nose, and have somewhat resolved; appeared initially after sarsaparilla decoction, and especially after swimming in the Black and Azov Seas. The spine and ribs hurt. The lower ribs and hypochondrium hurt in the chest. Severe shortness of breath. Right leg, hip has a cold. The feet of both legs hurt, especially the right one; The legs are cold, especially the extremities. The soles are very cold, they sweat and their extremities hurt, as well as the fingers, especially on the right foot. The extremities, especially the right leg, swell. Sometimes there are shooting pains along the legs, sometimes the legs twitch. Over the past fall, winter and spring I rubbed it with salt alcohol, which had a strong effect. After it, it was necessary to install a lot of leeches; and the blood turned out to be cleaner than it was before. In general, I feel my body is lighter, but I am incredibly weak, and I can’t even walk for a walk in the fresh air. After the shortest labor, e.g. - Having stood at mass in church, I feel a chill, no matter how warmly I am dressed, along with perspiration and exhaustion. At times there is swelling in places.” Vladyka repeatedly speaks about his extreme illness in his letters, especially to Fr. Mikhail Chikhachov, where he expresses his mood on this occasion: “My health was upset in childhood by secretive scrofula, which was not understood, and then by a cold, Vladyka writes in a letter dated September 18. 1859. Thank God for everything! During my day, illness was like chains that curbed the ardor of my character and build; it hindered activity, and at the same time prevented the greater development of pride, which often develops from successful activity.” 424 Involuntary depth. in worldly and civil concerns in the position of the diocesan Bishop, close to the world and the social character of the monastery of the Trinity-Sergius, with the inclination of St. Ignatius towards a contemplative armchair and ascetic life, prompted him to choose a place of residence in a big city, far from the large centers of worldly vanity. Vladyka Ignatius’s love for nature, manifested in him even in the days of his childhood dreams in the shady gardens of the village of Pokrovsky, made Babayki with the shady grove surrounding them - the Vladyka’s favorite place for walks - with the majestic Volga - a convenient place for spiritual achievement, for reading the great book of Divine world rule, for self-identification and self-report, in his declining years, on the eve of death. And the great Russian river, with its power as if embodying the identity of the Russian people, could symbolize in the eyes of the Right Reverend the hermit those rivers of living water with which the spirit of a believer is graciously fed. Be that as it may, one thing is certain for us that Ignatius Brianchaninov did not harbor any ambitious plans and in life he walked completely different paths than those leading to human glory, but the sorrowful, cramped and humiliated path of those who imputed all the futility and wisdom of the Kingdom for the sake of God. From this point of view, the Babaevsky Monastery, with its isolation, location and communal structure, in connection with the friendly relations of the neighboring, closest Archpastors, represented for the Right Reverend Ignatius a last earthly refuge suitable and corresponding to his needs. The brotherhood of the Nikolo-Babaevsky monastery, quite numerous, during the residence of Vladyka Ignatius there, led an active, working lifestyle. Divine services were performed according to the order introduced in all well-maintained communal monasteries; the Rules were originally borrowed from the Sarov Hermitage with some modification and application to local customs. The most notable application is the service on Sundays of prayer to the Mother of God and St. Nicholas after the liturgy, the reading of the akathist to St. Nicholas on Wednesdays after Vespers, the day-night reading of the Psalter between services in the church, during the first week of Lent. 425 In the Babayevsky Monastery, the brethren, according to the general custom of the hostels, in addition to participating in Divine services, are engaged in various monastic economic obediences, according to their abilities and skills. In the summer they take part in agricultural work. Heavy work, such as arable land, mowing grass, reaping, and others, is done by civilian workers, and the brotherhood, headed by a rector or one of the senior hieromonks, leaving in the church another hieromonk, a hierodeacon and several choir members for the celebration of Divine services, goes out to harvest hay, to harvest sheaves, to collect vegetables from gardens and similar works. Some of the brothers are engaged in fishing. 426 While greatly promoting the economic prosperity of the monastery, these rules of cenobitic monasteries, as we happened to observe in some northern monasteries, weaken the spiritual life of the monastery residents, turn the monasteries into agricultural farms and reduce the saving remembrance of the one thing needed. This, without a doubt, was the case in the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery, to the regret of Vladyka Ignatius, who wanted to see in the monastery primarily a spiritual and prayerful feat. In general, writes the Most Reverend Ignatius, there are very few people in the brotherhood with satisfactory mental and physical abilities: for this reason, the monastery has a meaning very close to an almshouse in material and moral terms. 427 But, to the deep sorrow of Vladyka Ignatius, the increase in economic worries he observed in the life of the Babayevsky Monastery is an almost universal phenomenon for monastic life, and in Babayki it has no less expression. His views on the state of monastic life were reflected most of all in his letters during his stay in Babayki. In a letter dated Jan. 3. 1863 to Anthony Bochkov, abbot of Cheremenetsky, Vladyka Ignatius, among other things, writes: “The situation of the monasteries is like spring snow in the last days of March, the first of April: there is snow outside, and underneath there is caustic spring water everywhere, it will eat this snow at the first auxiliary atmospheric change. An important sign of the death of monasticism is the widespread abandonment of internal work and self-satisfaction with appearances for show. Quite often, terrible immorality is masked by an actor's appearance. True monks do not live in monasteries from actor monks. For such a life, alien to internal activity, this sole means of communication with God, people become obscene for God, as God declared to the antediluvian progressives. However, he gave them 120 years to repent.” 428 Another letter to the same abbot Anthony Bochkov expresses an even more pessimistic view of the state of the monasteries. “I wrote to you about monasticism that it is surviving in Russia, the period given to it. I don't expect a recovery. There is no one to restore. For this we need spirit-bearing men, and now, even guided in part by the writings of the Fathers, such as Fr. Macarius of Optina, no. True, even now some heated superstitions, even among the secular ones, take up the support of monasticism, not realizing that it is God’s great mystery. The attempts of such people are only ridiculous and pitiful: they expose their deep ignorance of both the destinies of God and the work of God. Such clever people and zealots will do anything to their detriment. It is noticeable that the ancient serpent uses them as instruments for multiplying in monasteries worldly multi-care and clerical character, which decisively destroys the spirit of monasticism, filled with holy simplicity. We must submit to the very permission of God, as is beautifully stated in the prayer of the holy three youths cast into the cave of Babylon. In modern monastic society, the correct concept of smart doing has been lost. Even the outward decorous behavior that was introduced in the Optina Desert by Fr. Leonid and Macarius, left almost everywhere... The most satisfactory person I had to meet was the monk Nikandr, a prosphorian of the Babayevsky monastery, a gracious husband. I talked with him in 1847. 429 He achieved the highest success in mental prayer, he accomplished this feat very simply, naturally - he was not in glory among people. Previously, smart work was very common among people who had not yet been influenced by the West. Now everything has been eradicated, the mask of piety remains; the strength is gone. Perhaps there is hidden somewhere, as the greatest rarity, some remnant of the former. Without true mental activity, monasticism is a body without a soul. About monasticism Fr. Nikander understood the same way I understand. He called the monasteries marinas, according to the purpose given to them by God; He said that these piers have turned into abysses, in which many such people are harmed and perish, who in the middle of the world led a very good life... At least in choosing a monastery one should be extremely careful and prudent. 430 With such a view of the state of monasteries, it was natural for the Right Reverend Ignatius - in resolving the question of the last earthly refuge, to take care of the organization of His monastery in accordance with his views or to choose from the existing monasteries the one that most meets his needs. Apparently, for someone who has studied monastic life theoretically and practically and experienced the feats of monasticism, it would be convenient to establish his own monastery with the close participation of devoted and like-minded people. And His Grace Ignatius, together with his brother P.A., really had dreams of such a monastery. Brianchaninov. But the Most Reverend Ignatius himself abandoned this idea, as it would deviate him from spiritual life for a long time, as can be judged on the basis of the correspondence of the ascetic brothers. In one letter to his brother, the Most Reverend Ignatius writes: “On the thought of establishing our own new monastery, I find that the establishment of our own monastery will lead us to material concerns, which will interfere with the care of our souls. The strong dependence of our spiritual state on our external state, and the knowledge of man, borrowed from the experimental instructions of the Holy Fathers, leads to the conclusion that we can succeed much more when we are strangers and strangers in a foreign land than if we founded a monastery in our homeland, where everyone knows us and many respect us. This is my judgment about our common life - perhaps in the eleventh hour of our earthly life.” 431 Thus, dreams of founding their own monastery within the Vologda region were abandoned; and, instead, His Grace Ignatius chose the Babaevsky Monastery for residence. The mood with which Vladyka Ignatius entered the Babaev monastery was one of contentment and spiritual satisfaction. “Never in my life have I been so pleased with my position as I am now,” writes Vladyka Ignatius to Chikhachov. “It seems that my guardian angel, by command of God, dictated a decree about me to the Holy Synod; “So this decree satisfies the requirements of my mental mood and physical health.” 432 The same mood is evident from the letter to his brother: “Sometimes you look at my two rooms and they seem like paradise. In general, my situation on Babayki is the most consistent with the state of my health and spiritual mood, and therefore the most satisfactory. It is noticeable that it is getting better and better: this makes us assume that we will be very calm when we get settled, and get settled when those who fear us are convinced that there is nothing to fear.” 433 It is not surprising that when Vladyka Ignatius settled down in Babayki, when his dreams of a quiet monastery 434 came true, he no longer wanted to sail into the stormy sea of ​​life, although he feared the possible necessity of a coincidence of circumstances like those that moved him from the Lopotov Monastery to the Sergius Hermitage. With the assumption of the post of Synodal Chief Prosecutor Akhmatov, A.I. Muravyov wrote to His Eminence Ignatius asking him to once again enter public service after his health had improved, but he responded with a decisive refusal, although in a letter to his brother he added on this occasion that “due to the ability of circumstances to revolutionize, you will not know anything in advance, and therefore you cannot make any guesses, and also nothing real can be recognized as true.” 435 But the Right Reverend Ignatius himself personally looked at his Babaevsky retreat as his last refuge in life, and believed his connection with church and public life in prayer and his ascetic literary activity. 436 The life of the Most Reverend Ignatius in the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery was reduced to this feat of prayer and verbal expression of his spiritual and ascetic treasures for the good of his neighbor: the severe feat of personal asceticism, the feat of prayer and enduring the sorrows of bodily soreness, concern for the improvement and prosperity of the monastery, caring for his brother the ascetic, remembering the places of his life’s service, strengthening correspondence for the edification of neighbors, literary and ascetic activity, occasional echoes of messages from the outside world reaching the retreat, constant remembrance of death and the need for worthy preparation for it - this is the direction in which the content of the life of the Most Reverend Ignatius Brianchaninov in the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery from October 16, 1861 to April 30, 1867 can be presented. The 86-year-old elder monk Alexander, who performs the obedience of reading the Psalter and memorial service at the tomb of Vladyka Ignatius, lived in the Nikolo-Babaevsky monastery during the reign of St. Ignatius. In his touching and edifying memoirs, the listener appears before the listener with living images in God of the deceased workers of the soul-saving feat: Vladyka Ignatius himself, his brother - Peter Alexandrovich - in monasticism, monk Paul, the son of the latter Alexei Petrovich, the brethren who came with the Vladyka from the Caucasus. The Reverend Ignatius, according to the elder’s recollections, got up at three o’clock in the morning and, after prayer, when he was healthy, went for a short walk in the monastery grove; the rest of the time he stayed at home, engaged in prayer and writing his works. In his life he was distinguished by strict abstinence, constantly having soup and porridge on his table, while a more substantial lunch was offered to the pilgrims and monks of the monastery. In his manner he was distinguished by his extraordinary kindness and affection. He almost never left the monastery, and all the monastic affairs were handled by P.A. Brianchaninov. Among those deeply devoted to Bishop Ignatius, who honored him during his life in the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery and after his death, one should mention Anthony as the abbess of the Moscow Passionate Monastery. Abbess Antonia visited the Babayevsky Monastery several times, but only after the death of His Grace Ignatius, who during his lifetime had a feeling of deep affection and respect for her. One pious Kharkov landowner, Andrei Feodorovich Kovalevsky, was in close relations with the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery during the residence of the Most Reverend Ignatius there. Considering His Eminence Ignatius to be his Mentor, he was deeply imbued with his ascetic spirit and decided to withdraw from the world. For this purpose, he set up a monastic monastery on his estate in the Zmievsky district of the Kharkov province; For a long time it was not an independent monastery: monks sent from the Svyatogorsk Monastery lived in it. Currently, this monastery is already known under the name of the Vysochinsky Kazan Monastery. A.F. Kovalevsky, having thoroughly studied the language of Slavic liturgical books, lovingly devoted himself to writing akathists, some of which have long been introduced into church liturgical use with proper permission. 437 Having handed over the economic part of the monastery to the abbot and confidant Archimandrite Justin with the closest brethren known to him, His Grace Ignatius delved into literary, ascetic and prayerful feats. But he was not indifferent to the interests of the monastery that sheltered him. In relation to the external, his concerns for the Babaevsky monastery were expressed in the improvement of its material resources, especially through personal sacrifices, in the improvement of the monastery under personal leadership, in his experienced instructions to Peter Alexandrovich and the brethren in this direction; in relation to the internal life of the Babaevsky monastery, the guardianship of Saint Ignatius was expressed in measures of personal influence on raising the moral life of the monastic brotherhood. An experienced owner-leader who revived the monastery and provided for external needs in the Lopotov Monastery and the Sergius Hermitage, Vladyka Ignatius, through trusted persons, achieved the economic and external improvement of the monastery here too. The monastic economy was organized on a rational basis; the buildings were all repaired or rebuilt. Since 1865, the miraculous icon of St. Nicholas began to be worn out from the monastery to Yaroslavl, Kostroma and their environs. The influx of pilgrims to the Babaevsky Monastery increased, attracted by the magnificent Divine services, miraculous icons and the ascetic name of Vladyka Ignatius. 438 All this together contributed to the increase in the material resources of the monastery. In addition, the personal funds and material assets of Vladyka Ignatius, as well as Peter Alexandrovich Brianchaninov, went towards the improvement of the monastery. Vladyka Ignatius contributed his pension of 1,500 rubles and other material income to the monastery’s cash desk. There is partly documentary information about this, and partly this is confirmed by the fact that among the meager amount remaining after the death of the Most Reverend Ignatius, there was no material value of money, and he did not transfer money to his relatives according to the flesh, and he did not have any relatives according to the flesh who needed it. 439 Increased since 1862 The influx of pilgrims to the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery and the increase, with the personal participation of the Bishop, of material resources, caused him to worry about the creation of a new cathedral church in the name of the Mother of God. The dilapidated and cramped cathedral church in the name of the Iveron Mother of God was dismantled in the spring of 1864 and at the same time a new church was laid according to the Highest approved project of the architect, professor of the Academy of Arts I. I. Gornostaev, who was guided, at the same time, by the instructions of the Most Reverend Ignatius. The two-story, vast, majestic, beautiful and unique church of the Iveron Mother of God throughout the Volga region, in appearance has some similarities with the Church of the Resurrection of Christ in Jerusalem; with a head depicting the royal crown and together the Bishop's miter, which both belong to the Head of the Church - the Lord Jesus Christ. In the construction of this church, Vladyka Ignatius had a lot of troubles, but, anticipating them, he placed his trust in the mercy of God and in the very difficulties he saw a special meaning favorable for the work. “The finger of the Mother of God is evident over the construction of the church of Our Lady,” he wrote to his brother. “Help is given to people who work in business; together it is granted to them to struggle with obstacles and grieve for their own spiritual benefit, in order to cleanse the matter from the admixture of vanity and other hobbies, so that it is accomplished in Godly humility. This is the usual course of affairs protected by God.” 440 But His Grace Ignatius was not destined to live to see the completion of the construction of the Church of the Iveron Mother of God: the church was completed only in 1877. Founded under Vladyka Ignatius, built according to his project and idea, owing its existence to his pious zeal and means, the cathedral church of Our Lady of Iveron serves as a wonderful funerary monument to Saint Ignatius himself. With its bulk, it dominates not only the buildings of the Babaevsky monastery, but also over all the surrounding areas. On the sides of its middle chapter there are 12 images of the most revered icons of the Mother of God in Russia, and on the cornice of the lantern of this chapter, a hymn to the Mother of God is inscribed in Slavic letters: “It is worthy to eat, as truly, the blessedness of Thee, the Mother of God”... The miraculous icon is placed on the left side of the main iconostasis. For its reverent storage, a magnificent canopy and icon case were built in the ancient Russian Byzantine style, carved and gilded; the canopy is crowned with three similar domes. 441 Under the supreme control of the ascetic Archpastor, who was highly experienced in spiritual life, the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery was greatly improved in spiritual terms. With his high spiritual authority, His Grace Ignatius revived and raised the moral life of the monastic brotherhood to an unprecedented height, in comparison with the previous state, becoming the founder of the spiritual monastic squad. Unfortunately, the violation of the order of succession in the appointment of abbots of the Nikolo-Babaevsky monastery was reflected in the gradual loss of the spirit of Ignatiev: persons from other sometimes distant monasteries, completely unfamiliar with the mood and labors of the ascetic-Archpastor resting under the arches of the Chrysostom Church, focusing primarily on the economic side of monastic life, did not keep the abbot of the Nikolo-Babaevsky monastery at the proper height spiritual heritage left by Ignatius Brianchaninov. One can hope that the current rector of the monastery - a native of the strict and glorious Solovetsky monastery - Archimandrite Anatoly, who is interested in the personality of St. Ignatius, will revive saving memories of him among the Babaevsky monastic brotherhood. His brother, friend and zealous admirer, Pyotr Aleksandrovich Bryanchaninov, took the closest part in the concerns of the Right Reverend Ignatius about the improvement of the Babaevsky monastery. In turn, the Bishop’s many years of care for this brother of his in flesh and spirit also ended during this Babaev period in the life of St. Ignatius with the appointment of Peter Alexandrovich Brianchaninov to the brotherhood of the St. Nicholas-Babaev monastery. The personality of I. A. Brianchaninov is so meaningful and interesting, and his life is so instructive that it requires special literary work in relation to himself. 442 And if we touch on the high personality of the ascetic governor, then only in view of his close relationship with Bishop Ignatius and to the extent that this is necessary for the completeness of the portrayal of the personality of the Most Reverend Ignatius. Beginning in childhood, taking shape under the roof of his parental home, the relationship of Vladyka Ignatius to his younger brother throughout his life was the relationship of an elder to someone spiritually guided by him. Even in a letter from the Sergius Hermitage, then Archimandrite Ignatius, along with answers on everyday questions, most of all gives spiritual and ascetic instructions regarding attention to oneself, confession, prayer and placing all hopes on the mercy of God. This nature of the relationship between Bishop Ignatius and P.A. Brianchaninov, in our opinion, is completely clear from the series of letters of Vladyka Ignatius to his brother attached to our book. Especially spiritual and ascetic correspondence between the ascetic brothers intensified at the time when Vladyka Ignatius, freed from the Caucasian see, settled in the Nikolo-Babaevsky monastery, while P.A. Brianchaninov remained the governor of Stavropol and, with his attraction to the monastery, had to manage civil affairs in a restless and disorderly region. Peter Alexandrovich, upon the departure of his Eminence brother, was eager to enter the monastery. Vladyka Ignatius, having sheltered his nephew Alexei Petrovich under his protective roof, restrained his brother’s impetuosity and came up with a form of initial residence in the monastery for him, taking into account his family situation and his plans for the external improvement of the monastery, which required funds and could be largely provided for by the governor’s pension of Peter Alexandrovich. To illustrate the position under consideration, from our point of view, the letter of the Most Reverend Ignatius to P.A. seems very valuable. Brianchaninov dated February 24. 1862. His Eminence, Ignatius writes: “If God’s permission follows, then some pilgrim (i.e. P.A.) has a desire to enter the Babaevsky monastery to cohabit with me and prepare himself for the transition to eternity, to which transition I am called by my constantly growing and multiplying infirmities. The Holy Fathers affirm that anyone who wants to join a monastery must choose a way of life that would correspond to his spiritual goal and lead to it. Considering the position that would befit the most mentioned pilgrim, I consider it best for him to enter into relations with the monastery as a monastery patron. Remaining in secular rank and clothing, he can permanently live in the monastery, making a feasible arbitrary monetary contribution, managing the agriculture of the monastery, which must certainly improve, managing buildings, and attending to the affairs of the monastery in the capitals and neighboring cities. The ktitor will have the character of a benefactor before the monastic brotherhood and in general before the clergy. This external position also corresponds to the spiritual needs of those who have newly entered the monastery and need material pursuits. The transition from secular entertainment to unbreakable deep silence must be gradual. After activities associated with some generally useful entertainment that is useful for the monastery and brotherhood, God arranges a very calm situation, based on previous labors associated with entertainment... The position of a ktitor will also be very useful for Alexei Petrovich. Who knows how long I'll last. Very exhausted. In the event of my death, everything about the Lord requires the brotherhood to have a defender of considerable weight.” Thus, Vladyka Ignatius simultaneously cares about the benefits of the monastery by attracting his brother to the patronage of it, and for the latter he is satisfied with the gradual transition from vigorous social activity in the post of Stavropol governor to the humble feat of a monastic novice. In the subsequent series of letters, Bishop Ignatius convinces his brother not to get excited and not to rush into fulfilling his fiery desire to enter the monastery: “be sure to wait until you retire,” Bishop Ignatius writes and emphasizes. “Faith must be combined with prudence, which is recognized as the greatest Christian virtue. Act wisely and cautiously. You see for yourself that in general things are becoming confusing.” 443 Slowly and carefully, Vladyka Ignatius leads his brother to the monastic lot, limiting the aspiring Alexei Petrovich in the same direction, but at the same time, carefully caring about the religious discipline of his spirit. On the occasion of Alexey Petrovich's admission to Moscow. University, Vladyka Ignatius from the Caucasus writes to His Eminence Leonid, Bishop of Dmitrov, dated January 24. 1860 “Allow me to ask for your gracious attention to the bearer of this letter, Alexei Petrovich Brianchaninov, my own nephew, the only son of my brother, the local governor of the province. Alexey Petrovich wishes to join Moscow University. Do not refuse him useful instructions, which young people have always needed, and now, with the increase in temptations, they need even more. My brother is the most religious person; tried to raise his son in the fear of God, and now, releasing him from his personal supervision, he entrusts him to God and God’s servants.” 444 Letters of the Most Reverend Ignatius to P.A. Brianchaninov and, partly, to M.V. Chikhachov - they reveal the intimate side of the Lord’s soul, his kind heart, his sensitivity and careful attitude towards spiritual purity, deep faith in Divine Providence and religious principles, as the main factors in life relationships. Peter Alexandrovich was a multi-useful member of the Babaev Brotherhood: he used his governor's pension for monastic needs, conducted various monastic affairs in Kostroma, Yaroslavl and St. Petersburg, contributed to the streamlining of the monastic economy, arranged the affairs of Vladyka Ignatius in publishing his works, was an exponent and executor of his will in all directions, was, at the same time, a friend and moral support for those troubled by illnesses and Lord Ignatius, separated from the world. And, making his last earthly orders on the eve of eternity, His Grace Ignatius entrusts the execution of his will to brother P.A. Brianchaninov. Testament - a letter from St. Ignatius to his brother dated July 9, 1862, No. 209, attached below in the autograph, 445 speaks not only of his deep trust in the latter, but also reveals the solid basis of their spiritual closeness in the common aspirations of the spirit to the land of eternal promises. “Your Excellency, dear brother, Pyotr Alexandrovich,” writes Vladyka Ignatius in this official letter. “Seeing myself in extreme exhaustion and soreness, marking the approach of the common migration of all people from the hotel of the earth into eternity, I humbly ask you to take upon yourself in the event of my death, the management of all my - however, very small - property, in accordance with the attached copy of my proposal to the Kostroma Spiritual Consistory and in accordance with the verbal will I made to you. Having received a significant monetary allowance from you during my stay at the Caucasian department, I ask you to accept those things that you find necessary and useful for yourself and for your son, Alexei Petrovich, into your and his property; others - to give to the abbot and distribute to the brethren, mainly to those of them who served me personally. The main items of my property consist of: 1) a library, 2) linen, fur coats and various dresses, from which colored and velvet robes are intended by me for the sacristy of the Babaevsky Monastery, 3) carriages: a dormez, a carriage and a winter cart. “My works, which remain in manuscript, I transfer in full to your ownership and disposal. You know my way of thinking: why it is clear to you that my desire is that the property left behind me, as acquired during my miserable service to the Church, and not from relatives, would go to the benefit of the Church, its ministers and the poor brethren. I am convinced that you will fulfill my desire more clearly and better than I would have fulfilled it myself, and therefore I stop from any petty orders that could unexpectedly complicate you in your action. May the merciful Lord, by His sole mercy, open the gates of His mercy for me, may He receive my orphaned and poor soul from the midst of this multi-rebellious world, may He rest it in His Kingdom. In your turn, which certainly comes for every earthly wanderer, you will also be called to appear before God. With all my heart I wish that this appeal will be heard by you with joy, as a calling to eternal joy, no longer haunted by any sorrow. Your Excellency's most humble servant and brother, Bishop Ignatius. 446 In itself, this will of Vladika Ignatius is edifying and clearly tells us that the testator is of the same mind with the one who becomes the executor of his will after his death. ΙΙ. Blessed death of Bishop Ignatius From the time of his entry into the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery, Vladyka Ignatius with special attention begins to prepare for death, renouncing his connection with materiality of any kind. In addition to the above-mentioned touching will of Vladyka Ignatius and acts of sale of jewelry with the use of the proceeds for the needs of the newly built church, in the papers of Senator N.S. Brianchaninov is also an expression of the dying will of the Lord. In May 1862, a pectoral cross that belonged to him, decorated with diamonds, roses and Siberian amethysts, was sent by His Eminence Ignatius himself as a gift to the Trinity-Sergius Desert for use by the abbots during priestly services. 447 In 1865, His Grace Ignatius donated a panagia with the image of the Kazan Mother of God to the Kostroma Ipatiev Monastery. 448 The Most Reverend Ignatius died at the age of 61 on April 30, 1867, in the second half of 8 o’clock in the morning, on the week of the Myrrh-Bearing Women. According to the testimony of the reverent Witness to the righteous life of Saint Ignatius, his cell attendant Vasily Pavlov, the habit of those around him to see the Right Reverend always sick, always weak in strength, but at the same time constantly dressed and never stopping prayerful deeds, was the reason that everything related to the notification of the proximity of his death remained unnoticed; and therefore those same ones who had seen him close to death for three years were amazed when they suddenly heard the news of his departure to eternity. Only after some time had passed, so to speak, having come to his senses, based on the consideration of all the actions and words that preceded the death of the Right Reverend, it became clear that he knew the approach of the end of his life and expressed this in expressions, sometimes hidden, sometimes very definitive to many of those around him, and especially to his cell attendant Vasily Grigoriev Pavlov, to whom he showed special spiritual care, as to a pious boy, for his simplicity and special obedience. From the words of Vasily Pavlov it is clear that the Right Reverend Ignatius began to decisively prepare for death from the first day of Easter. Having served the last liturgy that day, 449 he was so tired that it was with difficulty that they brought him to his cell. A half-hour rest was required to gather strength and eat food. From that same day, the Right Reverend made a change in the distribution of hours for his studies, increasing the number of hours of solitude by the fact that after Vespers he did not receive anyone, not excluding the cell attendant. The reason for this change, he declared, was “I need to prepare for eternity.” Soon, around this time, explaining to Archimandrite Justin his spiritual state, he said that he “lost all sympathy for everything earthly, even lost attention to the taste of food.” At the same time, he added: “Watch me, father, I won’t last long.” The degree of the aforementioned rejection of the Most Reverend Ignatius from everything earthly can be partly seen in the following circumstance: April 23rd. The 3rd and 4th volumes of his works, which had just come out of print, were delivered to him, but he did not open, without looking at the books, he did not send those assigned for exile to the Eminences of Kostroma and Yaroslavl, he did not even give those who were to be distributed to those around him, saying that Brother Peter Alexandrovich would come, send out and distribute himself to whomever it should be. Such indifference is completely contrary to the caring and active character by nature and the previous attention of the Right Reverend to the publication of his works, which he looked upon as an obligatory fulfillment of his duty. It is impossible not to notice that, since the arrival of Peter Alexandrovich was a completely uncertain circumstance, by this order the Right Reverend completely removed himself from the matter, which in the natural order was the closest to him, as a pastor and author, of all his earthly affairs. His conversation with his cell attendant Vasily dates back to this same time. Vladyka told him: “Vasya, Vasya, how I feel sorry for you!” The cell attendant asked, will I die, Vladyka? “No,” answered the Elder, “don’t even allow that thought.” But he did not explain the reasons why he felt sorry for Vasya. Lately, the Right Reverend had repeatedly told him that it is very useful to ask the Lord to notify him of his death: “It is very good,” he said, “if the Lord notifies someone of his approaching death, only these notifications are always unclear so that the person remains in constant fear. Saint Tikhon prayed to the Lord: tell me, Lord, when will I die? He was told: “a day of the week.” Now, although it is said “on a weekday”; but it doesn't say which one. So get ready for every Sunday.” Telling this, Vasily remarked: “Vladyka repeated these words so often that they were clearly engraved in my memory, and I thought that he repeated them to me because of his senile forgetfulness.” 450 On Thursday, April 27, the Bishop rubbed himself with ointment; after the rubbing was completed, he asked forgiveness from his disciple, Hieromonk Callistus, who was rubbing him, for bothering him with this service, and said that “I accepted this service from him for the last time.” To the hieromonk’s question: doesn’t he like the ointment, he answered: “No, but my days are numbered.” On Friday, Vladyka went to bed as usual - to rest after lunch, but soon called his cell attendant and ordered him to give him tea. The cell attendant noticed the unusual redness of the face and asked about the reason. The Vladyka explained this as a consequence of a weak blow (which, however, did not cause any damage), and told the cell attendant that he felt so unwell that he was expecting death, which is why he ordered the housekeeper, Hierodeacon Nikander, to tell about this: “otherwise, if I die, said the Vladyka, he will be offended at you for not telling him that I am so difficult.” At these words, which struck the young man with grief and horror, the cell attendant’s first thought was expressed by the question: “How can I live without you, Vladyka? Isn’t it very difficult these days?” To this, Vladyka replied: “Yes, father, it is very, very difficult, so difficult that you cannot even imagine; and I thought about you and surrendered both myself and you to the will of God.” When Hierodeacon Nikander came to him and offered to send to the city for a doctor, Vladyka rejected this offer. Before, he had said more than once to those around him, “When I die, do not send for doctors, let me die, as a Christian should, in attention, without embarrassing or dissipating me with your anxiety.” Archimandrite Justin says that at the beginning of last winter, regarding a conversation about a person who had suffered a paralytic stroke, Vladyka said: “And I will die with a stroke.” 451 The Archimandrite began to object, saying that given his physique, thinness and lifestyle, this was incredible; but the Lord, briefly confirming his words, changed the conversation. More than two years ago, 452 talking to me about death, Vladyka said: “our mother was just as sick before her death as I was: everything was on her feet, but the time came, in three days the illness finished its work.” On Saturday, April 29, in the morning, Vladyka was quite cheerful, he said that he was feeling better, “but yesterday,” he added, “I almost died, I had difficulty resting.” However, he canceled his order to prepare a bath for him, saying: “It’s no longer necessary.” Lately, and especially in the last days of his life, not excluding Friday, when it was very difficult for him, His Grace Ignatius was inspired by extraordinary mercy towards everyone, dissolved in pity. 453 This mercy and with it the unearthly joy that shone on his face supported the conviction among those around him that his life would still be extended; Meanwhile, he told his cell attendant, pointing to his heart: “My heart hurts terribly, yes: they don’t believe me. 454 On one of the last days, saying goodbye to this cell attendant, Vladyka responded to his bow with a reverent bow to the ground, saying: “Forgive me, Father.” Filled with magnificent humility, the sight of the Right Reverend touched the cell attendant to tears. On Sunday, April 30, at 7 o’clock in the morning, cell attendant Vasily, entering the Bishop’s bedroom, found the orlets uncleaned in front of the icons, which rarely happened. The Eminence always stood on the eagle during cell prayers and mostly cleaned it himself. 455 Having washed, he took communion as usual, drank the Epiphany water and, having drunk tea, 456 went to his inner cell. At the end of the 8th hour, just before the bell ringing for late mass, the cell attendant entered him with the usual prayer and found him lying on the bed, on his left side, facing the wall. Seeing that Vladyka, always very sensitive, did not pay attention to his entrance, the cell attendant attributed this to a special prayer action, which sometimes happened to him. After standing for a while, Vasily began to repeat the prayers, but received no answer. Looking more closely, he noticed that the Right Reverend’s hand was covered with mortal pallor: the Bishop had already died. His head, lying on the pillow, was slightly tilted forward; the palm of the left hand is raised upward, as if in prayer; the right hand, lowered along the body on the bed to the side of the wall, lay near the open canon. In general, the decent position of the body was the reason that the cell attendant could not soon decide to recognize him as lifeless. Death, having come to the Saint of Christ, found his mind occupied with prayer; having begun prayer on earth, he was called to the endless praise of God in heaven. – Bishop Ignatius had long been preparing and waiting for the coming of death, armed with unceasing prayer in the name of Christ Jesus, and death, defeated by Christ, honored “life in Christ, it came to the servant of Christ, in accordance with his expressed desire, 457 in the silence of solitude at the hour of “prayer, with attention deep in prayer; - she even chose a position of the body that would not disturb the well-being of the departing Saint of Christ, who devoted his entire life and especially his last years to repentance and crying. He who walked the path of repentance and crying could not help but come to the blessings promised by the Gospel for these virtues. According to medical terminology, by what death did His Eminence Ignatius die? – Although he died on the third day from the onset of his last illness, we think that the final outcome of this illness was precisely the one that he himself foresaw and announced. The action of the shortest separation of the soul from the body must also be the most painless, 458 but this action must inevitably be expressed in the body itself by one or another final painful outcome. The face of the late Bishop, upon transferring the body to the table, according to the unanimous testimony of all who saw it, shone with joy. A blue vein was noticeable on the left church, going down near the ear along the cheek in a reddish stripe, probably a trace of the path by which death entered and took possession of the body. According to the custom of the Athonite ascetics, the Right Reverend Ignatius, during his stay in the Babayevsky monastery, never allowed himself to go to bed undressed; for a short nap, he calmed down dressed and with shoes on. 459 Despite the various ailments with which he was constantly obsessed, no one had ever heard his painful groan. He said that by forcing himself not to groan when he was ill, he taught himself to endure whatever came his way. “Every obvious virtue is not my virtue, according to the teaching of the Lord Himself, who commanded that all good things be done in secret,” he said, talking about doing the Gospel commandments. And precisely, all the greatness of his feat, in its indescribable volume, is the secret of his spiritual cage, confessed and revealed, as far as possible, in his writings, but in its entirety known to the one God. With this mystery, a distinctive feature of all his earthly activities, according to the exact meaning of the Gospel commandments, the Most Reverend Ignatius captured his dying feat. To console the disciples who had lost their spiritual father and mentor in him, he left instructions about his earthly path, about where he strove in life and where we believe he achieved: “I was taken,” he says in the preface to the 4th volume of his works, “caught away from the broad path leading to eternal death, and placed on the narrow and regrettable path leading to the stomach. The narrow path has the deepest meaning: it lifts you up from the earth, leads you out of the darkness of vanity, leads you to heaven, leads you to paradise, leads you to God, presents you before His Face in an unstoppable light for eternal bliss.” On May 2, on the third day after his death, the body of Bishop Ignatius was taken from his cell to the monastery church of St. Nicholas, and on May 5, on the sixth day, the liturgy and funeral service were performed by His Grace Jonathan, Bishop of Kineshma, Vicar of Kostroma. The funeral rite, by order of the Right Reverend, was performed in the same way as the Easter service. At the end of the funeral service, His Eminence Jonathan pronounced the funeral homily, said goodbye to the late Saint, according to the accepted rite, and was followed to the kiss by the Archimandrite and the brethren, and then by the head of the Kostroma province, V. I. Dorogobuzhinov, and all those present in the church. Then the body of the Most Reverend Ignatius during the procession, surrounded by the circle of the Church of St. Nicholas, was taken to the monastery hospital church of St. Sergius of Radonezh the Wonderworker and John Chrysostom, where they were interred in a crypt built behind the left choir. The head of the province and all the worldly present were amazed at the softness of the hand and the generally calm state of the body, which did not at all emit the usual smell of decomposition, and the entire burial gave the impression of a solemn celebration. Blessed are those whom the Lord has chosen and accepted, their memory for generations and generations. The death and burial of Vladyka Ignatius coincided with the spring lack of roads, which made it especially difficult to cross the Volga. Despite this, admirers of the Most Reverend Ignatius, enduring the hardships of a spoiled sleigh route and the dangers of crossing a rebellious huge river, gathered in large numbers to the tomb of the deceased. 460 On the most obedient report of the Chief Prosecutor, St. Synod of Count D. A. Tolstoy to Sovereign Emperor Alexander II on the death of His Grace Ignatius, His Majesty deigned to write in his own hand: “I sincerely regret him, as an old friend of mine.” 461 In a series of sympathetic letters received by P.A. Brianchaninov, on the occasion of the death of His Grace Ignatius, highlights the letter of His Grace Leonid, Bishop of Dmitrov, dated August 12, 1867, in which Bishop Leonid, along with regret about the life outcome of the deceased, expresses his view on perpetuating the memory of Saint Ignatius by publishing his works. “It was necessary to honor your sadness with silence or, in brief words, to limit yourself while the wound suddenly inflicted on your heart by the death of your brother in the flesh, father in the spirit was still fresh,” writes the Most Reverend Leonid. “The wound is so deep that even now touching it cannot but produce a painful sensation; but now, in prayer and humility, you, of course, have already found a cure and it begins to produce its effect. Therefore, I decide to write without trying to hold back my word as much as possible. The loss you have suffered must be recognized as a church-wide loss. You know better how the event of the death of the Most Reverend Ignatius is accepted in Orthodox Russian society. Even if you are dissatisfied and sympathetic, you should not complain. The humility of true Orthodox Bishops is such that they seek obscurity for themselves as diligently as the children of the world seek celebrity. Therefore, it is not surprising that they are not widely known and their merits are not quickly appreciated. But their glory, although slowly, is firmly established and is safe for their humility, for, for the most part, after death (exceptions are rare, although they do exist, as we saw on the day of August 5). 462 And these words are not the subject of fruitless idle admiration of the crowd, but a source of edification for chosen souls. I hope that the Orthodox Russian people, little by little, will assimilate the late Saint. In his life and writings they will try and find what can be universally nourishing. It seems that over time, for the benefit of monasticism, you could extract from his writings that which is especially publicly accessible, understandable and edifying for those monks who are not rich in human wisdom, but are rich in spirit in God or want to become rich, as well as that which is useful for ordinary lay readers.” These were the wishes of His Grace Leonid and coincided with the intentions of P.A. himself. Brianchaninov, who, in accordance with the will and for his own consolation, carefully began collecting and putting in order the extensive correspondence and other unpublished works of his Eminence brother, although he did not have time to do this. Those devoted to the Most Reverend Ignatius and those who revered his face were overwhelmed by burning grief over his death, and only in prayer and memories of the deceased did they find consolation. Among the admirers of Vladyka Ignatius during his life there were several people who most convincingly considered him a saint due to the righteousness of his life. These included, in part, the Lord’s relatives in the flesh, and in part, his relatives in mood. Some of them experienced, in connection with the death of the Most Reverend Ignatius, miraculous visions, such as. A.V. Gendre. 463 In the autobiographical notes of Mikh. You. Chikhachov recorded the following amazing “appearance of Bishop Ignatius to Alexandra Vasilievna on the 20th day after his death, May 19, 1867, described by someone who saw it in Moscow.” We present this vision in view of its deeply edifying meaning in essence, as well as to characterize the views of contemporaries on the personality of the deceased Saint. “Severe grief suppressed my entire being from the moment the news of the death of the Lord reached me! This grief was not inferior to prayer: prayer itself was dissolved in grief, unbearable, bitter. Neither day nor night the feeling of spiritual orphanhood did not leave my heart. Both soul and body were exhausted to the point of illness. Thus time passed until the 20th day after the death of the Lord. On this day, I was preparing to partake of the Holy Mysteries in one of the Moscow women’s monasteries. The feeling of sadness was so strong that even during the Sacrament of Confession it did not leave me, and did not leave me during the entire liturgy. But at that moment, when the Lord vouchsafed me to receive the Holy Mysteries, suddenly a wonderful silence descended into my soul and a living prayer in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ was felt in my heart. Just as suddenly, incomprehensibly to me, the sadness about the death of the Lord disappeared. Several minutes passed, during which I moved a few steps away from the royal gates, and, without leaving the solea, stood, at the direction of the mother abbess, on the left choir directly opposite the icon of the Dormition of the Mother of God. There was a prayer in my heart, a thought descended in silence into my heart, and suddenly - before my inner eyes, as if also in my heart, but right opposite me at the icon of the Assumption, near the bed on which the Queen of Heaven reclines, the face of the deceased Saint was depicted - beauty, glory, light, indescribable! The light illuminated the entire face from above, especially concentrating at the top of the head. And inside me, again in my heart, but together and from my face, I heard a voice, a thought, a story, a ray of light, a feeling of joy that penetrated my entire being, which without words, but somehow wonderfully conveyed to my inner man the following words: “See how good you feel today. But for me, without comparison, it’s always good and therefore you shouldn’t grieve for me.” I saw and heard this so clearly, so distinctly, as if I were privileged to see the Lord and hear from him face to face. An unspeakable joy took hold of my entire soul and was reflected in a living imprint on my face so that those around me noticed. At the end of the liturgy, they began to serve a memorial service. And what a funeral service it was! In the ordinary sad funeral hymns I heard a wondrous song of spiritual triumph, unspeakable joy, endless bliss and life. It was a song of churching of the warrior of Christ who had again passed from the earthly, militant Church to the Heavenly Church of the righteous triumphant in the eternal glory. It seemed to me that it was Christ’s day, everything around me rejoiced at such a holiday, and a quiet prayer was happening in my heart, In the evening of the same day (May 19th) I went to bed: there was no sleep. Around midnight, in the silence of the night, from somewhere far away the sounds of a wondrous harmony of a thousand voices reached my ears. The sounds were getting closer and closer: the notes of church singing began to separate clearly, finally the words began to be defined and clearly expressed... And this singing was so full of harmony that all attention, all life was involuntarily riveted to it... The thick bass hummed rhythmically, like the ringing of all Moscow bells hums on Easter night, and this hum smoothly merged with soft, velvety tenors, with silver scattered violas, and the whole choir seemed to be one voice - there was so much harmony in it! And the words stood out more and more clearly. I clearly heard: “The Divinely inspired adornment of the bishops, glory and praise to the monastics.” And at the same time, for me, an inexplicable announcement, without words, but completely clear and understandable, told my inner being that with this singing they were greeting Bishop Ignatius in the world of heavenly spirits. An involuntary fear seized me, and it also came to mind that the Lord taught not to listen to such visions and hearings, so as not to be subjected to delusion. I tried hard not to hear or listen, concentrating all my attention on the words of the Jesus Prayer, but the singing continued besides me, so the thought came to me whether they were actually singing somewhere in the surrounding area. I got out of bed, went to the window, opened it: everything was quiet, dawn was breaking in the east. In the morning, when I woke up, to my surprise, I remembered not only the chant I heard at night, but also the words themselves. The whole day, despite the many everyday activities that happened, I was under the extraordinary impression of what I heard. Words were recalled in fragments and inconsistently, although their general connection eluded memory. In the evening I was at the all-night vigil: it was Saturday - the eve of the last Sunday of the six weeks of Easter: they sang the canon of Easter. But neither these chants nor the harmonious choir of the Chudov singers reminded me of what I had heard the day before: no comparison could be made between the one and the other. Returning home tired, tired, I went to bed, but again there was no sleep, and again, just as the city noise began to subside, around midnight, familiar sounds again touched my ears, only this time they were closer, clearer, and the words were engraved in my memory with amazing consistency. An invisible choir sang slowly and sonorously: “A champion of Orthodoxy, a great worker and teacher of repentance and prayer, Divinely inspired adornment of the Bishops, glory and praise to the monastics: with your writings you have made us all chaste. Spiritual singer, new Chrysostom: pray to the Word of Christ God, Whom you bore in your heart, to grant us repentance before the end!” This time, despite the fact that I was intensely saying the Jesus Prayer, the singing did not distract my attention. And also, in some inexplicable way, my heartfelt prayer merged into the general harmony of the chant I heard, and my heart vividly felt and knew that it was a solemn song with which the celestials joyfully greeted the one who presented himself from earth to heaven - the earthly and heavenly man, Bishop Ignatius. On the third night, from May 21 to 22, the same thing happened again, with the same sensations. This threefold repetition confirmed faith and did not leave any embarrassment, imprinting in the memory both the words of the “troparion” and the melody to which it was sung, as if a long-familiar prayer. The melody was similar to the chanting of the kontakions in the akathists. Afterwards they told me that this was the eighth voice when I showed in my voice what kind of melody I heard. 464 About A.V. Gendre, who knew her, speaks with deep respect as a highly educated, deeply religious and impeccably truthful person. In view of this, and the heavenly glorification of St. Ignatius, certified by her testimony, in addition to its general edifying meaning, provokes reflection on the difficult life of Vladika Ignatius, his intense and continuous feat of improvement, about his infinitely pure and clear childish faith in the land of promise, in the eternal joy of Communion with God. And having become acquainted with the behavior of A.V. Gendre, the reader involuntarily inclines in his soul to a sympathetic movement in your faith, may your hope be with you and not put you to shame, and St. Ignatius is truly thought of as the heavenly forerunner of his disciples and admirers, praying to the Lord God to grant them, before the end, repentance. No less important in its internal meaning is what was conveyed by M.V. Chikhachov S.I. Snesareva had a wonderful dream about Bishop Ignatius, adjacent in time to the coming days after the death of St. Ignatius. The story about S.I. Snesareva’s dream is presented in the following form. On the last meeting with His Eminence Ignatius, September 13, 1866, he said goodbye to me: “S. AND.! I tell you, as a friend, as I say to myself: get ready for death - it is close. Do not worry about worldly things: one thing is needed - the salvation of the soul! Force yourself to think about death, worry about eternity! On April 30, 1867, on Sunday (the week of the Myrrh-Bearers), the Most Reverend Ignatius died in the Nikolaev Babaevsky Monastery: I went to his burial, which took place on May 5th. The sad joy that I experienced at his tomb is indescribable in words. On Saturday, August 12, 1867, I slept poorly at night and fell asleep in the morning. I see that Vladyka Ignatius has come in monastic robes, in the full bloom of youth, but looking at me with sadness and regret: “Think about death,” he says. “Do not worry about earthly things! All this is just a dream, earthly life is just a dream! Everything that I wrote in my books is all true! The time is near, cleanse yourself with repentance, prepare for the outcome. No matter how long you live here, it’s all just one moment, just a dream.” In response to my concern about my son, Vladyka said: “It’s none of your business; his fate is in the hands of God! You are concerned about the transition to eternity.” Seeing my indifference to death and filled with compassion for my weaknesses, he began to beg me to turn to repentance and feel the fear of death. “You are blind, you don’t see anything, and therefore you are not afraid, but I will open your eyes and show you the pains of death.” I began to die. Oh, what a horror! My body became alien and insignificant to me, as if it were not mine, all my life passed into my forehead and eyes; my vision and mind saw what really exists, and not what seems to us in this life. This life is a dream, just a dream! All the benefits and deprivations of this life do not exist when the moment of awakening comes with death. There are no things, no friends - one vast space, and all this space is “filled with terrible creatures, incomprehensible to our earthly blindness; they swarm around us in “different forms, surround and hold us. They also have a body, but it’s thin, like some terrible mucus! They climbed on me, clung to me, pulled me by the eyes, pulled my thoughts in different directions, did not allow me to catch my breath, so as not to allow me to call on God for help. I wanted to pray, I wanted to make the sign of the cross, I wanted to get rid of this torment with tears to God, by pronouncing the name of Jesus Christ, to distance these terrible creatures from myself, but I had neither words nor strength. And these terrible ones shouted at me that now it was too late, there was no prayer after death! My whole body became stiff, my head was motionless, only my eyes saw everything and my spirit felt everything in my brain. With the help of some supernatural force, I raised my hand a little, it didn’t reach my forehead, but in the air I made the sign of the Cross, then the terrible ones writhed. I strengthened myself not with my lips and tongue, which did not belong to me, but with my spirit to present the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, then the terrible ones burned like a hot iron and shouted at me: “Don’t you dare pronounce this name; it's too late now!" Indescribable torment! Just take a minute to catch your breath! But my vision, mind and breathing endured inexpressible torment from the fact that these terrible monsters clung to them and dragged me in different directions, so as not to give me the opportunity to pronounce the name of the Savior. Oh, what suffering is this! Again - the voice of Vladyka Ignatius: pray unceasingly, everything that is written in my books is true. Give up earthly cares, only take care of your soul, take care of your soul.” And with these words, he began to move away from me through the air in a circular manner, higher and higher above the ground. His appearance changed and turned into light. He was joined by a whole host of the same bright creatures, and all seemed to be steps of an immense, indescribable staircase. Just as the Lord became unearthly as he ascended, so everyone who joined him in different forms received an inexpressibly beautiful, sun-like light. Looking at them and rising in spirit behind this endless strip of light, I no longer paid attention to the monsters that were raging around me at that time in order to attract my attention to them with new torments. The bright hosts also had bodies that looked like wondrous, radiant rays, before which our sun is nothing. These hosts were of different types and light, and the higher the level, the brighter it was. The Reverend Ignatius rose higher and higher. But now he is surrounded by a host of radiant saints, he himself lost his earthly appearance and became just as radiant. My vision did not reach higher than this level. From this height, Vladyka Ignatius once again looked at me, full of compassion. Suddenly, without remembering myself, I broke free from the power of those who were holding me and shouted: “Rest, Lord, the soul of Your departed servant, the Most Reverend Ignatius, and through his holy prayers, save and have mercy on me, a sinner!” Instantly all the horrors disappeared, there was silence and peace. I woke up in a severe shock. I was never afraid of anything and willingly remained alone in the house, but after this dream for several days I felt such horror that I was unable to remain alone. For many days I felt an extraordinary feeling in the middle of my forehead: not pain, but some special tension, as if my whole life had gathered in this place. During this dream, I learned that when my mind concentrates on the thought of God, on the name of Jesus Christ, the terrible creatures instantly move away, but as soon as the thought is entertained, at that very moment they surrounded me to “prevent my thoughts from turning to God and the Jesus Prayer.” 465 Reflecting the deep perception by the disciples of the late Saint Ignatius, his great faith in the afterlife, his meaningful lessons in the mystery of posthumous existence, the story we present about the dream of S. I. Snesareva, in any case, testifies to the deep conviction of the disciples and admirers of the Right Reverend ascetic that his spiritual work is pleasing to God, and in its known moral properties and content soul-saving life, Saint Ignatius has the boldness of most reverent standing before the throne of God and participation in the Kingdom of eternal, unfading glory. According to numerous testimonies from people who knew the Right Reverend Ignatius, they sincerely considered him a saint and the assurance of the truthfulness of their hope and faith put them in a particularly blessed mood on occasions of direct spiritual communication with him. The most deeply convinced of the spiritual holiness of Saint Ignatius was the ascetic-minded brother of Saint P.A., who plowed his spiritual field through life’s feat. Brianchaninov, with the rank of monk Paul, died near his revered brother in the cemetery of the Nikolaev Babaevsky Monastery. According to the touching testimony of Senator N.S. Brianchaninov, the only one of the sons of A.S. was convinced of the righteousness of Saint Ignatius. Brianchaninov, who remained in the world, the father of Nikolai Semenovich - Semyon Aleksandrovich Brianchaninov - the brother of the Vladyka. When in the fall of 1862 Semyon Alexandrovich sent his sons, students Nikolai Semenovich and Alexander Semenovich Bryanchaninov to the university, he directed them to visit their uncle in Babayki, and spoke to his sons about him in a reverently respectful tone, as about a righteous man, adding, at the same time, as a special edification to the children in his review of his uncle: “I guarantee with my head that he is strict virgin." And these edifying stories, these instructions of Semyon Aleksandrovich Brianchaninov, not only in surname, but also in spirit, as well as the personal impressions of the then students when visiting His Eminence Uncle, were so strong, deep and lasting that to this day, at the venerable and serious age of the seventieth year of life of one of the witnesses of this joyful past, they are alive and vital, and inspired and reverently reproduced by the respectful and worthy nephew of St. Ignatius, Senator N.S. Brianchaninov embrace the soul with a special unearthly spirit and involuntarily incline us to a feasible judgment about Vladyka Ignatius, as the heavenly forerunner of his admirers, boldly begging the Lord, “to grant us repentance before the end.” P.A. Brianchaninov contributed a sum of one thousand rubles for the eternal remembrance of his brother, which, according to a letter from the donor addressed to His Eminence Platon of Kostroma and the Decree of the Kostroma Spiritual Consistory dated September 30, 1867, No. 9556, addressed to the abbot and brethren of the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery, should be done in the following order: 1) Name The Right Reverend Bishop Ignatius will be commemorated at the proskomedia of both liturgies, at the litanies and litanies of the early liturgy, and at the incessant reading of the Psalter; 2) send a requiem service over the grave of the deceased every Saturday, consecutively after the early liturgy; 3) three times a year to perform cathedral funeral late liturgies in the church in which his body rests, with cathedral, at the end of the liturgy, requiem services, namely, on his birthday, on his name day (Jan. 29) and (on the day of his death). 466 In 1904, Senator A.P. Brianchaninov contributed 600 rubles. to the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery for the repair and maintenance of monuments on the graves of Bishop Ignatius and P.A. Brianchaninova. 467 Near the tomb of St. Ignatius, everything is full of peace and joy, and quiet, joyful sadness involuntarily fills the mood of the pilgrim who honors him, and then the sounds of heaven cannot be replaced by the boring songs of the earth. We boldly and deeply hope that, when applied to Saint Ignatius, his words remain unshakably true: “You can know that someone who has died under the mercy of God if, during the burial of his body, the sadness of those around him is dissolved by some incomprehensible joy. 468 ΙΙΙ. Personality of His Grace Ignatius Brianchaninov “There are kind hearts, there are bright minds; They shine for us like the crimson glow of the morning. In the chaos of noisy affairs, among everyday darkness, Their voices sound like solemn hosannas! A distinctive feature of the personality of His Grace Ignatius Brianchaninov, in our opinion, is her internal concentration and self-collection. Following all the worldly journey of Bishop Ignatius known to us, we everywhere see in him the predominance of internal life over external life, with the correspondence of the latter to the direction of his spiritual life. And from this point of view, His Grace Ignatius, throughout his entire life, presents us with a rare example of an integral personality, always equal to himself. In the gardens of the village of Pokrovskoye, in the Engineering School, in the sorrows of the novice, in the abbot of the monastery, in the archpastorate of the Caucasus and in the silence of the monastic solitude - before us, all alone Ignatius Brianchaninov - a self-assembled, concentrated ascetic ascetic, a seeker and zealot for spiritual salvation for himself and his neighbors. “Blessed ones, you have chosen them and accepted them, O Lord!” We hear these words when the Holy Orthodox Church commits to the earth the body of each of its members and sends up spirits and all flesh to God with fervent prayer, that He may forgive the deceased with His infinite mercy all his voluntary and involuntary sins, and may He rest his soul in the bosom of Abraham, in a bright place, “where there is no sickness, no sorrow, no sighing, but endless life.” “Blessed ones, you have chosen them and accepted them, O Lord!” With these words S. G. Runkevich ends his short but valuable biography of the Right Reverend Ignatius Brianchaninov, 469 as if emphasizing that the Saint, who died almost fifty years ago, was among the blessed chosen ones of God.” Taking a general look at the entire difficult and painful life of this ascetic man, experiencing reverent surprise at the greatness of his soul, which endured so many sorrows, involuntarily bowing before his tireless social activity, always directed towards only one thing - the spiritual benefit of his neighbors, we will say together with Runkevich: yes, the deceased Bishop was one of the small number of those people who bear the spiritual stamp of God's election; he was one of those “whose voices sound in the chaos of noisy affairs, in the midst of everyday darkness, with solemn hosannas”; He was one of those lamps burning brightly in the darkness of life’s night, who illuminate the path for others, guide those who stray onto the right path, help those who stumble, and raise those who have fallen. He was one of those glorious men “in whom the Lord created much glory by His greatness from the ages,” men who “advised with their understanding, prophesied in prophecies,” about whom it is said: “Their bodies were buried in the world, and their names live for generations. People will teach them their wisdom, and the Church will confess their praise!” And we can say about him: “The Lord established signs in his words and glorified him before the face of kings. Command him to His people and show him His glory. Sanctify him in his faith and meekness, choosing him from all flesh. The strangers rebelled and became jealous of him in the desert, like those under Dathan and Abiron, and the host of Kores were in rage and anger. The Lord saw and was not pleased, and died in the rage of wrath.” 470 The many-sorrowful and arduous life of the Most Reverend Ignatius, which was a rarely interrupted chain of moral and physical suffering - for his mighty spirit endured many sorrows and temptations, and many various serious illnesses exhausted his body, which had been weak since childhood - best of all testifies that he was a chosen man of God, marked with the seal of Christ. Comforting his spiritual children in the sorrows and illnesses that befell them, Bishop Ignatius said to them: “Enlightened by the word of God, we confess that temporary sorrows are a great gift of God, which is given to the chosen servants of God, prepared for eternal bliss.” 471 “Christ marks “His” with the seal of suffering! And the small flock, part of Christ, stands separately from the multitude of other people; Those of Christ hold in their hands the sign of their election by Christ - the cup of Christ; on their shoulders is the banner of Christ’s cross. Far, far away did the sons of the world recoil from them! In a countless crowd, with noise, in a strange rapture, they pursue temporary cares and pleasures.” 472 Between the spiritual paradise and the carnal, spiritual, ordinary life that all people live in general, the cross and the crucifix are placed as a boundary, like a vast sea. There is no other way to heaven! Whoever God wants to raise to paradise, he first begins to lead him on the path to Him - to the cross.” “It is a sign of God’s election, said some holy ascetic writer, when incessant sorrows are sent to man.” 473 “The path leading to the kingdom of heaven is narrow and sorrowful. Among the sorrows, its essence is also illness, by which the body and soul are cleansed from sinful corruption." 474 Reading these words, with which Bishop Ignatius instructed his brothers in Christ for the salvation, a person familiar with everything that the deceased Bishop endured during his sixty-year life should involuntarily come to the thought that he belongs to the number of those whom the Lord chose. Doesn’t his inspired brow bear the mark of suffering, with which Christ marks “His”? Isn’t there a banner on his shoulder - the Cross of Christ? Isn’t the path along which he steadily walked all his life “a narrow and sorrowful path that leads to the stomach” - the path of the cross and suffering? Were his body and soul not sufficiently purified by illness? Were there not enough “reproaching, insulting and persecuting him”, without whom it would never be possible “to come to love for enemies, commanded by the Gospel, which constitutes the highest commandment among the commandments given to people in relation to their neighbors”? 475 Didn’t he deny himself from a very young age in order to take up his cross and follow the Teacher - the Lord? Did he not reject the wisdom of this world in order to become like the unlearned fishermen, but enlightened by the gifts of the Holy Spirit? Didn't he leave his father and mother to be worthy of Heavenly Father? – The cross was not only on the chest of this chosen one of God, it was always in his heart, uncontrollably striving for God; this same banner, the banner of the cross, fluttered over his theological and ascetic writings, which he directed to the salvation of others. Looking over the life of His Grace Ignatius, replete with sorrows and illnesses, who, by his own admission, was “all in wounds,” 476 we involuntarily ask ourselves: what gave this man that inner strength that from an early age did not allow him to deviate from the small flock of Christ and move into the numerous camp of the sons of the world, with noise and rapture pursuing temporary cares and pleasures? What helped this man, sick and physically weak since childhood, to endure all trials - moral and physical - to endure them not only without grumbling and contrition, but with gratitude to the Lord who sent them? What supported the brilliant officer, the beloved sergeant major of the Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich, when in simple novice clothes he had to hold a flour sack with his teeth and unquestioningly fulfill all the demands of his former servant. (See page 79)? What helped the Archimandrite, in front of all his subordinates, without any guilt, endure the humiliating punishment of being prohibited from leaving the estate of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage? What power calmed the shepherd, unjustly, out of malice, accused and slandered by his enemies, for example, in admonishing the repentant Magdalenes? 477 – There can be only one answer to all these questions: the power of the Most Reverend Ignatius was in his, never indestructible faith, in that truly Christian faith, which, “taking a person by the hand, puts him before God” and, as it were, lifts him above the world, bringing under his feet a gloomy chaos of doubts, unbelief, delusions, pompous and at the same time vain reasoning, as under the feet of someone who has climbed to the top of a high mountain: clouds, cliffs, abysses, waterfalls rustling and jumping over the rocks.” 478 In the soul of this chosen one of God, who loved the Lord his God with all his heart, with all his soul and with all his mind and who proved this love by observing His all-holy teachings, the clear, gracious lamp of faith in Christ, illuminating people’s path to the eternal Kingdom of God, never went out; his path in life was always illuminated by the guiding star of that right, living faith of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, which alone is life for Christians, for the Savior said: “believe in Me, you will have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” His faith was the faith of those saints of God who endured cruel temptations: “having in the Persians the wealth and pleasure of the eternal life, they considered earthly life with its delights to be nothing,” “accepted sorrows and sufferings as gifts from God, which God provided them with to imitate and partake of His stay on earth, when He deigned one of His Persons to accept our nature and complete our redemption." 479 His faith, to which he called all his spiritual children, was one that can only be born in a child’s pure heart and which gives rise to immeasurable pleasure and so “absorbs the ferocity of sorrow that during suffering only one pleasure is felt” ... His faith was one that, enlightening the eye of the mind, steadily looking at God in His Providence and attributing all external floods to this Divine Providence, teaches the soul accept sorrows and temptations as healing for one’s ailments and, thanks to the Heavenly Physician, blesses the instruments of one’s healing and thereby enters into love for one’s neighbors, and through this into love for God. 480 When a dark, deep abyss of sorrow suddenly opened before him, he was carried across it on the wings of faith; he did not experience waves of incredulity at the foot of human thought - he boldly walked along them with the courageous feet of faith, and the soft wet waves turned under his feet into solid marble or granite slabs; timidity and doubt were not in his soul when he saw the sea of ​​sorrows, when he saw the strong wind of temptation, for he believed that the one calling him to walk on the sea of ​​sorrows was the Lord Himself, separating him for such a walk from the rest of the brethren. The wings of true faith and love for the Creator lifted him from the earth, freed him from worldly shackles, pulled him out of the midst of torment and lifted him to Heaven... He was that blissful swimmer on the stormy sea of life, who, not trusting the changeable elements, often turns his gaze to the sky and, not being frightened by storms and unrest, directs his path along the heavenly bodies: along the holy sun the Gospel, according to the moon - the Old Testament and according to the stars - the writings of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church. 481 Knowing that faith in Christ - the only door to the Lord - opens only to those who have denied themselves, rejected their fallen mind, which is opposed to faith, boldly demanding an account from God in His actions and evidence in the truths He reveals to man; only before the one who rejected his fallen heart, wanting to live a life of fall, from his flesh and blood - with his long-suffering life he gave us an example of complete selflessness, the highest self-forgetfulness. He rejected his fallen mind, his fallen heart, his flesh and blood, and gave his whole life into the hands of God's mercy, teaching this to his neighbors. “We are all in the power of God; The providence of God protects everyone, invisibly holds the hand of His sincere servants, instructs them on the path of His holy desires,” he wrote to one clergyman who was going to Jerusalem. 482 “Everything is in the hands of God: in these hands we are too. It is much safer to rely on God than on human intentions.” “Everything that happens is done under the watchful gaze of the All-Good and Almighty God, one by the will of God, the other by God’s permission... Let the will of God be done,” he wrote in 1862 to Father Anthony Bochkov, abbot of Cheremenets. 483 “Be content in the midst of unrest, surrender yourself to the will of God, endure illness with joy and gratitude, knowing that the soul is healed by bodily illnesses. Repeat this prayer often: Lord! Thy will be done! It is short, but contains a broad meaning and has a very strong effect on calming a person who is in sadness. I learned this, partly, from my own experience. But why am I referring to an insignificant experience, when the Savior of the world Himself pronounced this sacred prayer in Vertograd and with this prayer blocked the petitions torn out by the weakness of humanity,” he wrote to Stefan Dmitrievich Nechaev in 1834. 484 This faith that everything is in the hands of God, that not a single hair will fall from a person’s head without the special Providence of God, filled the heart of this chosen one of God, this true ascetic, with quiet joy. “I consider myself to have spent half the days of my life,” he wrote in 1847 from the Sergius Hermitage to a certain holy monk who was in sorrowful circumstances. “The opposite shore is already visible! already intensified weakness, more frequent illnesses herald the proximity of resettlement! I don’t know what storms are still ahead of me, but I look back and feel involuntary joy in my heart. Seeing the many waves through which my soul swam, seeing the dangerous places through which my boat was transported, I involuntarily rejoice. Strong winds rushed towards her; many pitfalls lay in wait and foreshadowed her salvation, and I have not yet perished. According to human considerations, he should have died long ago. I am sure that the incomprehensible Providence of God led me along strange and difficult paths; I am confident that He is watching over me and, as it were, holding my hand with His almighty right hand. I surrender to him! let him lead me wherever he wants, let him lead me as he wants to a quiet refuge “where there is no sickness, no sorrow, no sighing.” 485 Believing that everything is in the hands of God, His Grace Ignatius thanked God for everything sent to him, praised and blessed His holy right hand, with reverence and submission to God’s will, accepting everything, even sorrow. “This is being told to you by someone who has spent his entire life in sorrow, who himself is covered in wounds, and rejoices in them, and thanks God for them,” he wrote in one of his letters. 486 “Thank God for all the sorrowful things that happen to us! Whoever is allowed sorrow will, therefore, be remembered by God in His kingdom; and whoever lives sorrowlessly is forgotten by God,” he said. 487 According to the inscrutable destinies of God, in order to cleanse my sins and sinfulness, I continue to feel both illness and extreme exhaustion. Glory to God, who punishes in time. “I ask your holy prayers, that I may be granted to bear the Lord’s punishment with due humility and due gratitude,” he wrote to the Beloberezh abbot Father Bartholomew, 488 always remembering that St. Mark the Ascetic advises that when sorrows occur, one should not look for the one from where and through whom the sorrow came, but in order to endure it with thanksgiving. 489 “Great wisdom and a great source of consolation is to thank God for all earthly sorrows, as sent to us by the very Providence of God for the salvation of our souls,” he said in one of his letters to his sister Maria Alexandrovna. 490 He taught his other loved ones about the Lord with the same wisdom and this source of consolation; so S.D. He wrote to Nechaev: “May the Lord, in your moments of grave sorrow, send down a good thought of thanksgiving to God, praise and blessing of His right hand.” 491 "Rejoice"! - he wrote to one father, beset by sorrowful circumstances, and again the river: “Rejoice! You are on the shore of the sea of ​​sorrows so that you can sail to the land of joys.” 492 He taught one sick old woman who entered the monastery with her two daughters: “Make it a rule to thank the Lord daily for your cup, that is, for your ailments, for all your sorrows, for the lot of your daughters; especially thanks to God, sorrowful thoughts are driven away; When such thoughts invade, “thanksgiving” is pronounced in simple words, with attention and often, until the heart brings peace. There is no sense in sorrowful thoughts: they do not relieve sorrow, they do not bring any help, they only upset the soul and body. This means: they are from demons - and you need to drive them away from yourself. Sorrowful thoughts are driven away by “thanksgiving” to God. “Thanksgiving” first calms the heart, then brings it consolation; subsequently will bring heavenly joy - a guarantee, a foretaste of eternal joy. When you thank me, you try on the whisk. I would like to see the crown of heaven tried on your soul, the crown of spiritual joy! - “Thanksgiving” is made up of simple and few words, but will do more things than thousands of the smartest books will do. “Thanksgiving” is a weapon bequeathed to Christians by the Holy Spirit through the Apostle. “Thanksgiving” – Apostolic, Divine teaching and tradition. Thank God for signs and wonders! And these signs are seen not with the eyes of the body, but with the incomparably superior eyes of the soul - and in the spiritual cage: there, from the Divine touch, a painful fire of sorrow leaves Petrov’s mother-in-law - she begins to serve the Lord. Peter is the image of faith, his mother-in-law is the image of the soul, Peter’s closest relative. Thanks is due to God Almighty, to whom it is offered! Thanksgiving is strong through faith, which alone, decisively alone, is capable of perceiving and embracing the unlimited power of God: faith has no boundaries, just as God and everything that relates to God have none. Reason, no matter how reasonable, is limited and not suitable for the affairs of God. He meets everything of God, every sign with repulsion: “how”? "really"? "Why"? “Away, obscene, rejected by God!... Come - holy faith and the violence of Christ’s preaching - save us!” 493 Great was the faith of this true servant of God, who thanked his Heavenly Father for everything; The faith of this Saint was alive and active, placing his entire life in the hands of Divine Providence, and this pure Christian faith is one of the most important Christian virtues, a faith so rare in our days, when the vast majority, if not betray the Orthodox faith to reproach and reproach; then, at best, is completely indifferent to it, was the same rarity in the days when the Most Reverend Bishop Ignatius lived. He himself noted this with deep sorrow many times, both in his theologically ascetic works and in his correspondence with private individuals. “Religion among the people is declining. Nihilism penetrates into bourgeois society, from where it is not far from the peasants. A decisive indifference to the Church appeared among many peasants, and a terrible moral disorder appeared. Contractors, neighbors of the local monastery, unanimously complain about the loss of conscience among the artisans. Success in all this is happening with extraordinary speed.” 494 How could one who believed that the Orthodox faith is the spiritual and moral strength of our people, the strength that other European peoples have always envied! 495 “They say that now in the bookstores of both capitals the expenditure on spiritual books has completely stopped, or it is so small that it can be considered to have stopped.” 496 “It is very difficult for a person who has formed his way of thinking according to the teachings of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church to adhere to the virtues and prosperity of our time,” 497 he wrote to Father Anthony Bochkov. The eyes of His Grace Ignatius almost constantly met a sight worthy of bitter sobbing: they saw Christians who did not know what Christianity consists of! Rarely were they consoled by the opposite, as if a comforting spectacle! Rarely could they, in a large crowd calling themselves Christians, stop at a Christian both in name and in deed, 498 which he himself was. At the time when Vladyka, who now rests in the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery, lived, everyone had his own religion, his own path, accepted arbitrarily or accidentally, recognized as correct or only justified. This large herd of Christians in name only, having lost connection and unity in truth and spirit, appeared to him in the form of the greatest disorder; he watched as each sheep wandered in its own direction, not knowing where it was going; no one stopped her, no one cared about her. Deafened by the noise of earthly cares, the noise of sensual amusements and earthly prosperity, rare people heard with their heavy hearing the saving voice of the true Shepherd, coming from His holy Church and proclaiming to them the right path. 499 There were few such chosen ones who, leaving earthly things, followed this voice of the Lord Jesus Christ, with the greatest effort and labor, making their way through the dense crowd surrounding them, incoherently noisy, and gave justice to heavenly truth on earth. How few of them there are in the time we are living through, when the vast majority are deaf to God’s teaching. Among such chosen ones, such true Christians not only in name, but in deeds, belonged the Bishop of the Caucasus and the Black Sea, now reverently remembered by us - Ignatius Brianchaninov, who proved his belonging to the small flock of Christ's sheep by his renunciation of the understandings of his fallen natural mind and from all rational human beings, sublime and attractive only in appearance. To remain faithful to God, he was not ashamed that the world reproached and slandered him; He not only generously endured persecution from the world, but also subjected himself to various hardships and thereby retained within himself “the deadness of Jesus and His life.” Hearing with my own ears, purified by prayer and repentance, the voice of the good Shepherd, infinitely merciful to human infirmities; calling His sheep to the narrow but blissful path of salvation and future eternal bliss, a voice that is always heard incessantly for those who want to listen to him - he tried so that his neighbors would hear this call of the Heavenly Father, and he could broadcast to others the word of God's truth, because the Lord God, who gives each person those gifts with which this latter can be useful to those around him, rewarded him, His faithful an ascetic minister, with a powerful poetic talent, so that, listening to Him with Divine verbs and contemplating with the spiritual mind His Divine Trinity Face of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, he could burn with his heartfelt words the cold hearts of people and, filled with God’s will, tirelessly call them to the path of repentance, faith and hope; to the path of the holy cross, to proclaim to them “the pure teachings of love and truth,” to lead their native land, “to the path of Christ from the path of real untruth!” This poetic talent, which Bishop Ignatius discovered both as a child and while sitting on the student bench of the St. Petersburg Engineering School, flared up brighter and brighter over the years, and by the time he was appointed rector of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage, it flared with a bright, unquenchable fire until the end of his life, from which many lit their spiritual lamps. The results of the discovery of this poetic talent - the works of the Right Reverend Ignatius Brianchaninov - are the best and most fair material for characterizing his rare, rich and extremely beautiful personality. All the qualities that we have already noted and will further note can be deduced and justified as much by the facts of his personal life as by references to his writings, reflecting his childishly pure, religiously inclined soul, always striving for the Lord, for which “the sounds of heaven could not be replaced by the boring songs of the earth.” That is why, wanting to characterize the personality of the Right Reverend Ignatius, we have referred and will continue to refer mainly to his writings, so How can one not fail to recognize as fair that “his ascetic writings are nothing more than an indicative arrow or barometer of his inner spiritual life, an exact double of his mental or, more precisely, his religious “I”, 500 in his own words, all his ascetic articles are a “report on the spying” of his “promised land, sharpening spiritual gifts and blessings,” 501 i.e., a report on the inner life of his soul. And if we consider it fair, relative to any writer - spiritual or secular, that in his literary physiognomy, that is, in the content of his works, in the manner of his depiction of reality and in his attitude towards it, the peculiarities of his nature and his character, his concepts, feelings and views on human nature are expressed, then we must say that if we did not have any information about the arduous and rich in temptations and sorrows of the life of this ascetic, and before us lay only volumes of his excellent works, more or less known to everyone even slightly familiar with our spiritual literature - the image of a selfless, pure soul and rich in true faith monk-saint would then have been clear to us with his spiritual features. A faithful servant of God's will, who throughout his life strove not only in words, but in deeds to fulfill the commandments of his Heavenly Father, who poured out ineffable mercies and blessings upon him at baptism even when he was an unconscious baby and could do nothing to deserve them - he did not become like an indecent slave who buried in the ground the talent given to him by the Master; he was not afraid of the labors, dangers and sorrows that are inevitable for one who multiplies the wealth given to him by the Lord for the benefit of others, and his spiritual and poetic lyre sounded all his life for those who wanted to listen to its sounds, who wanted to draw spiritual treasures from this abundant source and learn from them, and it still sounds now for those who wish. What was the poetic talent of the Most Reverend Ignatius directed towards, what did he consider necessary to teach his neighbors about in his own words, coming from a heart full of love for a sinful person and a sincere desire for his salvation? Let us answer this question with an excerpt from his own letters: “Not everyone can be leaves, flowers, fruits on the state tree,” he said: someone needs to be like roots; to provide him with life and strength through unknown, quiet, essentially useful, essentially necessary activities. I recognize that one of these activities is the affirmation of our neighbors in the Christian faith and morality. This peaceful, modest activity with the living word and pen has always absorbed a significant part of my time.” 502 “One kind of service to my neighbor, which I like, is to my liking - service with a word pleasing to God and useful, guiding towards salvation. 503 A godly and useful word that guides salvation, the confirmation of neighbors in the Christian faith and morality - this is how to briefly and definitely express the entire content of the spiritual and ascetic works of Bishop Ignatius. From a very young age, he himself was imbued with the spirit of true, inner asceticism, never carried away by the tinsel of life, but always caring only about the soul - with his creations he led others to the narrow and regrettable path leading to the stomach, showed others ways to receive “the greatest, the only good for man - the knowledge of God,” that good, in comparison with which all others are unworthy to be called blessings, for only this one good - the knowledge of God - is a sure guarantee of the eternal bliss, it alone provides us with the highest and most abundant consolations in our very earthly journey and retains all its power even when the greatest disasters and sorrows befall us and when all other consolations become insufficient and powerless. 504 Having learned from the works of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church, “what Christ did for humanity, what the fall of man consists of, why a Redeemer is necessary, what is the salvation delivered and delivered by the Redeemer.” 505 Bishop Ignatius shared this information with others, which each person needed for the salvation of the soul, just as he shared every penny of his with those who needed material help. Believing with all my heart in the words of the Lord, who said that for every idle word uttered by a person, he will be exacted from him on the day of judgment, and realizing that this especially applies to those who have been given by heavenly mercy a special gift of speech - poetic talent; besides, never forgetting that he is the shepherd of the spiritual flock, and the shepherd will have to give an answer for every sheep of his flock, which he must steadily and carefully guide to salvation. Vladyka Ignatius could write only spiritual and moral works, he could call on his students and his readers to only one thing: to courage, victory, the conquest of the mysterious world - the army of Israel; thoughts and feelings of a Christian!. 506 About the fact that a spiritual shepherd should use his poetic talent only in order to instruct others on the path of salvation, he wrote in these words to Father Anthony of Cheremenetsky, abbot, having become acquainted with the latter’s poems: “I am especially grateful to you for wanting to introduce me to your poems, to your wonderful talent, to which I rent the entire fair price. All gifts of God to man are worthy of respect. The gift of speech undoubtedly belongs to the greatest gifts. They make man like God, who has His Word. The human Word, like the Word of God, constantly abides with its father and in its father - the mind, being one with it, and at the same time separating from it separately. The human word is known only to the mind, from which it is constantly born and thereby expresses the existence of the mind. The existence of the mind without words and words without; mind, we cannot imagine. When the mind wants to communicate with the minds of its neighbors, it uses its word for this... The word, in order to acquire the ability to communicate, is clothed in sounds or letters. Then the immaterial word becomes, as it were, material, remaining unchanged in its essence. And the Word of God, in order to enter into communication with people and save them, became human. With a thorough look at the word of man, the reason for the strict sentence of the Lord becomes clear, by which it is determined and announced that people will give an account of every idle word. The divine purpose of the word in writers, in all teachers, and especially in shepherds, is the instruction and salvation of people. What a terrible answer will be given by those who turned the word of edification and salvation into a means of corruption and destruction! Saint Gregory the Theologian wrote in poetry with a sublime, deeply pious purpose: to provide Christian youth with reading and examples in poetry, to make it unnecessary for them to study pagan poets who breathe voluptuousness and other passions, who breathe blasphemy. I sincerely wish for you the goal of the Theologian, finding you capable to a certain extent of satisfying this goal, and your reward will be many on earth and in heaven. Take upon yourself the yoke of this goal, as obliged in due time to present an account of the talent given to you to its Giver. Commit yourself to achieving this goal. Engage yourself constantly and humbly, removing from yourself all heat, the prayer of repentance that you are engaged in: from it draw inspiration for your writings. Then subject your own writings to strict criticism, and, in the light of your conscience, with the enlightened prayer of repentance, mercilessly cast out from your writings everything that belongs to the spirit of the world, that is alien to the spirit of Christ. Woe to those who laugh now! These are the words of Christ! This is a definition that came from God! It is impossible to eliminate them with any word of apology. Judging yourself and examining yourself, you will see that every word spoken and written in the spirit of this world puts its seal on the soul, which seals the assimilation of the soul to the ruler of the world. It is necessary, in such words, torn out by passion and ignorance, to repent. It is necessary to establish in the heart a guarantee of fidelity to Christ, and the falling away of the heart from fidelity, due to our weakness, must be healed immediately by repentance and the removal from oneself of actions inspired by unfaithfulness, done under the influence of the spirit and spirits that flatter us and together thirst for our destruction.” 507 If the Most Reverend Ignatius gave such advice to another clergyman, then we can confidently say that he did this on the basis of his own experience and that the demands that he made on the works of another shepherd, he made even more strictly on himself: he himself was engaged in his spiritual and poetic creativity, having eliminated all heat from himself, he himself drew inspiration for his writings from the prayer of repentance; He himself subjected his own ascetic creations to strict criticism and, in the light of his conscience, enlightened by faith and prayer, mercilessly cast out from his writings everything that was alien to the spirit of Christ, correcting what was written many times. He himself spoke about this in his other letter to the same Cheremenetsky abbot, Father Anthony Bochkov: “In your poems there is a feeling that is not found in any secular writer who wrote about spiritual subjects, despite the distinctness of their verse. They constantly fall into their sensual, and transform the holy spiritual into their sensual. The soul does not find satisfaction or food in them. How beautiful is the verse in Zhukovsky’s Abbadon and how tense is the feeling! It is obvious: in the writer’s soul there was neither a correct understanding of the subject being described, nor true sympathy for it. Due to the lack of truth, he composed it both for the mind and for the heart, he wrote a false dream that could not find sympathy in the soul of a reasonable and truly educated, much less a pious reader. I really liked Pushkin’s method in relation to his works. He subjected them to the strictest criticism of his own, willingly taking advantage of the comments of other writers. Then he mercilessly erased unnecessary words and expressions from his writings, as well as words and expressions that were somewhat strained, heavy, or unnatural. From such purification and elaboration, his works received extraordinary purity of style and clarity of meaning. They are so easy to read, there are no superfluous words in them! Why? From merciless cleaning. Having read your poems and allowed myself to form an impression of them, I find that you also need this work. Your essays are so easy to read! an acquaintance told Pushkin. Because, Pushkin answered, they are written and developed with great difficulty. I dare say that I try to adhere to this rule.” 508 These last words explain to us why, speaking about the works of the Most Reverend Ignatius Brianchaninov, they consider these latter remarkable not only for the height and depth of the teaching set forth in them and for the wealth of information collected in them, but also for the purity and artistic correctness of his spiritual and literary language. 509 Working diligently on the processing of his ascetic creations, before introducing them to others, Bishop Ignatius not only corrected them many times himself, but also asked others who knew them to send him their comments. So he asked Father Anthony Bochkov in one of his letters: “Gradually reading the “Experiments”, do not refuse to write down your comments. Point out what you find unclear, incomplete, incorrect, and, in due course, let me know. I try to take advantage of the comments in order to make additions and corrections to the book.” 510 In another letter to him, he said: “I will accept your comments with sincere gratitude... I acknowledge as a special favor the work of well-meaning and knowledgeable persons, which consists in carefully revising the “Experiments” and communicating to me comments, which I will try to use according to my opportunity.” 511 Selfless and non-covetous in everything, never caring about material benefits, this chosen one of God never looked at his writings as a means to improve his financial situation; he wrote them only in order to “give a voice” to other Christians who were lost in soul in a crowded city - just as one can get lost in a vast forest - so that with his voice he could lead these lost ones onto the path of true life leading to the Heavenly Father, just as the beneficial sound of a church bell leads them out of the forest thicket. In one of his letters, he speaks about it this way: “I don’t remember since when, but a very, very long time ago, I especially liked the words of the Apostles: It is not good for us to eat the word of God, to serve meals... we will abide in prayer and the service of the Word” (Acts 6:4). Serving the brethren with the Word of God!... What a delightful, delightful picture this service seemed to the eyes of my soul!... “Not a single gift of ours,” said Saint John Climacus: so much is not favorable to God as the offering of a verbal soul to Him by repentance... “The whole visible world is not equal to one soul: it perishes, but it is incorruptible and abides forever.” So what? “The infinitely merciful God has placed this ministry in my hands!” – Not only has he placed it in my hands, but he is also telling many souls to seek this service from me! Now all my time is taken up by this ministry. How comfortingly many souls call to me in the midst of the mysterious night of this world from their various countries! one from a sickbed, another from exile, another from the bank of the Volkhov, another from the bank of the Dvina, another from the Borodino field, another from a hut, another from the royal palace. The soul, wherever it is, is placed, if not killed by insensibility, everywhere it feels the need for the word of God, everywhere the fall oppresses it, crushes it. I pronounce the Word of God in personal conversations, I write it in correspondence conversations, I compose some books that could satisfy the needs of present-day Christianity, and serve as some kind of consolation and instruction during the current famine. From serving the Word, some indescribably joyful voice of confirmation of salvation is heard in my soul. 512 Bishop Ignatius wrote his creations when the Divine verb touched his sensitive ear, when a “word” sent by the Lord appeared in his heart: “There were moments in my life, he wrote to S.D. Nechaev, either during severe sorrows, or after a long silence, moments in which the “word” appeared in my heart. This word was not mine. It consoled me, instructed me, filled me with imperishable life and joy, and then went away. I searched for it within myself, tried to let this voice of peace and tranquility resound within me - in vain! It happened to write down the thoughts that shone so brightly in these blissful moments. “I read afterwards - I read something that is not my own, I read words that descended from some higher sphere and remain instructions.” 513 This explains the fact that His Grace Ignatius never considered his creations to be his property: “I recognize this book not as my property, but as the property of the Christian Orthodox society,” 514 he wrote to Father Anthony Bochkov about his “Ascetic experiences” in one letter, and in another; “I recognize this book not as my property, but as the property of all modern ascetics of the Orthodox Church.” 515 This chosen one of God, this true ascetic monk, we repeat, always sought to use his rich talent only for the benefit of his neighbors, and seeing this benefit in instructing their souls to salvation, he wrote only about what could instruct his readers to this. His hand always worked tirelessly only for the benefit and comfort of the lesser ones who needed a word of strengthening. 516 He achieved this both with his writings and with his private letters to his beloved in Christ; sick himself, tired from work, exhausted by sorrows and troubles, he always found time and energy to correspond with those who needed his loving and instructive word “guiding for salvation.” And Father Anthony Bochkov was quite right when he said to Vladyka Ignatius; “Your Christian love for everyone, and your monastic humility always defeated your bodily weaknesses: you were always ready to give an answer to your lesser brothers about Christ; So now, in your correspondence with me, you forget the great distance between you and me; “You accept my awkward letters with approval and answer them with fatherly condescension.” 517 With his letters and his works, wanting only to “serve others on their path to Christ,” 518 Bishop Ignatius with his teachings did not at all want to show others his superiority over them; he never considered himself more worthy and more experienced than them, and taught others only because he saw “the impoverishment of true spiritual knowledge,” the lack of spiritual “bread.” “Having received your letter,” he wrote to a certain abbot, “I was touched by my damned heart and take up the pen to answer you, with the sole hope that the merciful Lord, seeing the true need of your soul and your faith, will grant a useful word, and will forgive me my daring in the cramped times of the present time, in which true spiritual knowledge has become very scarce.” 519 What can you compare the word that I now pronounce to you, for the sake of the Lord, for the benefit of your soul?” - he asked in one of his letters: “I will liken you and others who want to be saved, among whom, deluding myself, I think that I am, - a traveler walking along the road. This path has always been narrow and deplorable, but now there is an added inconvenience on it - a lack of bread. This drawback is so great that many, having noticed several moldy pieces in my bag, ask me to share them. I'm sharing." 520 In his true monastic humility, the Most Reverend Ignatius taught others only because he considered his words not his own teaching, but the teaching of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church. I call on you: “Come, children, listen to me, I will teach you the fear of the Lord,” not because I was content in myself to teach anyone anything, but because my teaching is not mine, but borrowed from the Holy Fathers, whose pen was led by the Holy Spirit,” 521 he wrote in one of his letters to his spiritual children. And with this teaching, borrowed from the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church, as well as with his letters, Bishop Ignatius really brought benefit to others, for with his powerful and bright thought, he clearly saw what this benefit was. From childhood, gifted with outstanding abilities, able to grasp the most necessary essence in every subject taught to him, over the years he more and more developed his natural mind, feeding it with the sciences studied either in his home or at the Engineering School. By his own admission, in his youth his mind was “entirely immersed in science,” he “rushed toward science with all the strength of his soul,” 522 wanting to find the Truth. If we recognize the fair opinion that the weaker the human mind, the less it seeks, and, conversely, that a mighty strong mind is constantly in search, constantly rushing to where it is called by the truth shining ahead, like a guiding star, then we must say that the Most Reverend Ignatius Brianchaninov had a mind so powerful, so tireless in these searches, which is rarely given to people and, if he could in his immortal “Crying” to write a critique, an analytical analysis of all the sciences, when “the boundaries of human knowledge in the highest, final sciences” appeared before his eyes, it was only because he studied all these sciences not superficially, but deeply, looking for the desired truth in them. True! All people know this multi-talking word, everyone, one way or another, more or less, but strives for it, for, as the poet says, “there is no higher destiny to seek it, and to serve it, with its mighty, eternal will, try to merge your whole life”! Whoever has found it, this bright truth, is no longer afraid of the thorns of life’s road: “: that all the persecution, all the threats, and grave insults and tears was given through a long darkness of searching, through the pain of longing for her alone, through the darkness of falls and suffering souls sick with doubt! If there is no truth, life is not life. “What is life without Truth? - Nothing, shadow of life, pathetic languor, blind people's empty dream "...: 523 True, Truth, like happiness and beauty, belongs to those blessings of our fast-flowing life, which everyone defines in their own way: what is “truth” for one is “false” for another; What is “true” for a person now may no longer be “true” for him after some time. For the Most Reverend Ignatius, “Truth” was identified with God’s truth, the tireless thirst for which burned his whole mind, and, seeing that this truth does not exist in human sciences, for they only provide knowledge that “ends in the earth, which cannot exist after the separation of the soul from the body,” and do not give anything eternal, positive, inalienable and true, worthy of being called the property of man, which must be eternal, for man himself eternal, 524 - he renounced this wisdom of the world in the name of spiritual wisdom, which was revealed to his inner vision in the writings of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church. “Whose mind burns with a sleepless thirst for the Truth of God,” says the same poet, he, having found it, hastens to break with his own and the common lie!” And Bishop Ignatius truly lived up to these words. Having learned early that “learning is the acquisition and storage of impressions and knowledge accumulated by people during the life of the fallen world; the lamp of the old man, by whom the darkness of darkness is kept forever”; having early become convinced that “the knowledge of the truth, which is revealed to men by the Lord, to which access only by faith, inaccessible to the fallen human mind, is replaced in scholarship by fortune-telling and assumptions,” having early learned that “the wisdom of this world, in which many pagans and atheists occupy an honorable place, is directly opposite, in its very beginnings, to spiritual, Divine wisdom, and, therefore, one cannot be a follower of both together, and one must certainly renounce, 525 he renounced worldly wisdom, subduing his powerful mind into the simplicity of belief, “Away with the indecent, rejected by God!” he exclaimed to the mind, which meets every sign of God with repulsion; "How"? "really"? Why"? and by this unfitness for God's affairs, and having rejected the fallen mind, he called upon himself the holy faith and the violence of the preaching of Christ, and all the power, all. He directed the tireless inquisitiveness of his mind into greedy and deep research and study of the writings of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church. And in these majestic and wonderful writings, like countless stars of various sizes, dotting the clear sky on a clear autumn night and all emitting a single light; in these writings, like a numerous and polyphonic choir, singing a single Divine song in elegant and strict harmony, he found the desired Truth, which he always strived for with his inquisitive mind, dissatisfied with “human sciences,” and, having found it, began to reveal it to those who wished in his creations and instructions. Only clear and quiet water, where there is no turbidity or disturbance, can reflect the clear blue sky; only a crystal-clear mirror can correctly reflect the objects in front of it; only true spiritual reason, which is in an inseparable union with faith and humility, contrary to carnal, spiritual reason, can sufficiently correctly reflect its height, depth and purity of the paternal creations it examines. The spiritual mind of the Most Reverend Ignatius, sanctified by faith and humility, was such pure water, such a correct mirror, and this was noted by many familiar with his creations. “I sincerely thank Your Eminence for the answer with which you have honored me, and for the trust in my view of your writings, a view darkened by both passions and coexistence with a world that destroys our spiritual vigilance with its diversity,” wrote Father Anthony Bochkov to Bishop Ignatius in response to the request of the latter to inform him of comments about “Ascetic experiences.” Only clean and quiet water reflects sky. To view the building, which is quite tall, you need a ladder; the foundation of the building is deep, solid and with many hiding places, it cannot be believed without a lamp and a guiding thread. It is scary to look down from an immeasurable height and not easily felt in the depths. I do not recognize in myself sufficient strength to review and evaluate your creations, precisely because none of my contemporaries, spiritual writers by profession and ascetics in life, comprehended as much of the height of the Fatherly writings and its depth as Your Eminence. I once spoke about this to the former Chief Prosecutor, Count Tolstoy. He was somewhat surprised by my words: then your works were less known, and then only to a few and not all together. Now His Lordship can actually believe my words, if only he reads spiritual books. Always aware of the greatness of your spiritual knowledge and your works, I have always been aware of my inability to follow your example, both because of my life, which passed before meeting you in the bustle of the world, and in my somewhat upset imagination, which always with its colors colored spiritual essays that require not brightness, but correctness and accuracy, always introduced its own arbitrary additions into a certain circle of Orthodoxy; and it took a lot of work to conquer the mind into the simplicity of belief. 526 In another letter, Father Anthony Bochkov expressed his reverent surprise at the spiritual mind of the Most Reverend Ignatius, the surprise that everyone involuntarily experiences when getting acquainted with his creations: I bring my wretched gratitude for your rich talent, for two volumes of your works. Some are known to me; I read the rest with attention, learning from them much that had been forgotten: it is so common for us to forget what is beneficial to our souls and to remember the past, which was of little edification, but which left its graphic imprints in our blood. Forgive me for writing a Greek word, linking it with Greco-Russian: I can’t express my thought otherwise. Our bloody soul, i.e. the whole life that moves our body and has received from childhood external, local impressions, images of this transitory world, often completely forgets about its subtle, pure spirit, its highest, forgets, or does not know, the secret of its heart, forgets the grace-filled gifts of God breathed into it at baptism, often forgets to the point that it makes a person everything spiritual, and not spiritual, and with its blood, like a thick, impenetrable fog, surrounds the mind and brings before him his images and often fantasies. Alas! how difficult it is to relieve yourself from this bloody thick hymen, how difficult it is to become a spiritual crystal, transmitting rays of light! There are so many treasures in the writings of Your Eminence, hidden from the world, so much inaccessible to soulful people like me, that few will give them a true tribute of surprise. Meanwhile, all this was acquired by your experience and love for the Fatherly writings. You often looked into these mirrors, reflecting the Divine light: that is why it is reflected on your creations.” 527 Not only Father Anthony Bochkov experienced such surprise at the depth and power of the bright spiritual mind of Vladyka Ignatius, surprise close to awe, having become acquainted with the works of his spiritual and poetic lyre: this is noted by all those whose reviews of his creations have survived to this day. And such a powerful and bright mind was connected not with proud exaltation, not with the usual daring conceit, but with true monastic humility, which requires its bearer to admit that he is worse than all people. Knowing that the Apostle did not just say that he was the first of sinners, but was convinced of this, and that people should also convince themselves of this, 528 the Most Reverend Ignatius did not find anything in himself that flattered his self-conceit; on the contrary, he found much worthy of lamentation and sighing, worthy of bitter and prolonged tears. He considered himself a sinner worthy of temporary and eternal executions, 529 always calling himself “an obscene sinner who has an extreme need of God’s mercy”; his conscience, weighing and assessing his own dignity, placed him “lower than all criminals,” and not allowing him to judge, much less condemn anyone, thereby, as it were, inclining him in this way of thinking to the feet of his neighbors. 530 He sincerely considered his entire life to be a chain of mistakes, a chain of falls. His spiritual gaze saw only ulcers, illnesses and infirmities in his own soul. Let us quote his own words about this: “Will I turn my mind’s gaze to my past days? This is a chain of seductions, a chain of sins, a chain of falls! – Will I look at that part of life that is still before me in the field of earthly wandering? - Horror overwhelms me: it is produced by my weakness, proven to me by countless experiences. Will I look at my soul? - There is nothing comforting! She is all covered in sinful ulcers; there is no sin to which she is not involved; There is no crime for which she would not record herself! - My body, poor body! I smell the stench of your decay. “Corruption does not inherit incorruption” (I Cor. 15:50). Your lot is after death in the prison of the tomb, after resurrection - in the prison of hell!.. What fate awaits my soul after its separation from the body? It would be a blessing if a peaceful and bright Angel appeared to her and soared with her to the blessed abodes of Eden! But what will he stand for? What virtue, what feat will worthy celestial beings find in her? No! rather, hordes of gloomy demons, fallen angels will surround her, they will find in her an affinity with themselves, their fall, their sinful properties, their ungodly will - they will take her away, drag her into their dwellings, dwellings of eternal, fierce sorrow, dwellings of eternal darkness and at the same time unquenchable fire, dwellings of torment and groaning of continuous, endless. 531 Elsewhere, His Grace Ignatius exclaims about his sinfulness and unworthiness before the Lord God: “I stand before the face of the Truth and, illuminated by its light, I look at my soul. What do I see? I see ulcers on my soul, I see its numerous illnesses, I see infirmities, some of which are natural, others are the result of ulcers and illnesses, past and present. I turn to my past life: I see - this is a chain of errors, a chain of falls; at almost every step I was ridiculed and scolded by the devil for lack of spiritual wisdom, for excess of pride, not inclined to ask advice from my neighbor. This is the position my soul is in, when the path of my life has already stretched beyond the half of my days. Meanwhile, my body weakened; it is pierced and dissected by various ailments. They are messengers: they announce to me the approaching separation of the soul from the body. Soon, soon I will lie on my bed, not to give my overworked body temporary rest, but to put it from myself into the grave ark, into the bowels of the earth, from where I was taken, until the future general resurrection. Remember me, Lord, in Your Kingdom, for my soul is in ulcers, and my body is sealed with sin. In this state of mine, the most decent thing for me was to leave everything and, outside of everything, indulge in inconsolable crying; when everything is lost, at least do not lose repentance.” 532 And the Most Reverend Ignatius constantly indulged in repentant crying for his sins: “Moanings have accumulated in my chest, they are crowding in it, they want to burst out; but, warned by one another, they return to the chest, producing a strange vibration in it,” he says in his “Lamentation”: “Then quietly meager drops of tears, like drops of dew, only water the apples of my eyes; then a large rain of tears rolls down the cheeks, onto clothes, or the bed; then the tears dry up completely - one painful cry envelops the soul. I cry with my mind, I cry with my heart, I cry with my body, I cry with everyone with my being; I feel crying, not only in my chest, but in all the members of my body. They strangely and unspeakably participate in crying, they hurt from it.” 533 “I cry with tears of repentance and love,” he says in another place: “I plunge into saving sadness, not into that which brings death to a person: I cry not for anything vain, corruptible, transitory, - the cry embraces me - the inheritance of my ancestor Adam, who turned to crying, began to seek consolation in it, after the loss of the sweets of heaven. This crying is a reflection of eternal bliss, this crying is evidence that eternal bliss was once the property of man: this crying is a means of returning lost bliss.” 534 And these were not just words: the true servant of God actually fulfilled the earthly sermon of the God-man, who announced to people: “repent”! - He grieved for his sins and repented of them before the merciful almighty Doctor, for he was a true monk, who proved his belonging to the chosen flock of Christ by internal deeds, and not by ostentatious appearance. This was not a monk only in clothes and name, he was a monk in his soul, always striving not to achieve some higher rank, not to receive any reward or distinction, not to material gain, but only to please God; and day and night he only thought, only thought about how to cleave closer to the Lord, how to pray more warmly to Him, how to cry more before Him. This attraction to the Lord was, as it were, unbearable. In nothing did he find such consolation and peace as only in prayer and crying. After such a repentant prayer, something unearthly was always depicted in his face. In his reverent recollection of the Right Reverend Ignatius, his last cell attendant, Vasily 535, says that if at such moments he happened to approach him on some matter, he did not see or hear the person addressing him; Something unearthly shone from his eyes; it was clear that his mind was somewhere far away. Some kind of inexplicable silence wafted from him and every sinful thought went far away from the one who came to confess it to him. 536 He “melted on his bed in his fiery prayers before the greatness of God”; he often stood at the lectern with his hands raised to the sky, in fear and trembling, wetting his cheeks with warm tears, cleansing his soul with groans, screams, sobs and sighs. 537 The fact that he was a true monk, a monk at heart, is evident from many facts of his special life: he was not attracted to the brilliant career of an officer-engineer, which promised both material benefits and honors, which smiled temptingly on him, the favorite of the Sovereign Emperor; he was not afraid of the anger of his parents, who did not want to see their son in a modest monastic robe, and the material need associated with this anger; he was not stopped by the constant pain since childhood of a weak body crying out to him: “Where are you leading me? life in a monastery is unbearable for you, both because of my weakness, because of your upbringing, and for all other reasons,” 538 he was not deterred; evil ridicule and contemptuous nicknames, like “sapper in Christ” - he overcame all the obstacles that arose on his way to the monastery and gave his whole life to serving the Heavenly King; and, although he was later convicted of the episcopal rank, entering monasticism, which “he liked in itself,” he could not count on it, because he did not have an educational spiritual qualification and it would be a sin to think for even one minute that this humble God-loving monk-ascetic was pushed onto the path of monasticism by the thought of a future career, or the thought of material security: the non-covetousness, kindness and responsiveness of his soul were known to everyone to others. His favorite cell attendant in the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage, little Ignatius (Malyshev), in his reverent memoirs of the life of Bishop Ignatius, writes: “Archimandrite Ignatius was remarkably non-covetous and not money-loving; it happened that the treasurer would bring him a salary or a share in the division of the fraternal circle, but he would not even take it in his hands, and would not even count it, but would say to the treasurer: “Put it in the tin, my friend,” and the cell attendants would take it from the tin and spend it according to his orders. 539 “Monasticism was not a career for this man or a means to make money. “He always gave away almost everything he had,” writes the granddaughter of the late Vladyka Ignatius-Kupreyanov in her Family Memoirs.” 540 When he left the Sergius Hermitage, where he had worked tirelessly for 23 years, he did not have his own funds for the long journey to Stavropol in the Caucasus. When he died, he left no inheritance; 14 kopecks were found in the pocket of his cassock. This was all he had, because only two or three days before his death he gave seventy-five rubles to a peasant whose horse had died. He was a monk. 541 Non-acquisitive and not money-loving, in his relations with other people, he never tried to obtain any personal benefit and never valued people from the point of view of the material benefit that acquaintance with them could bring him. “Human life is like the sea,” says one of our modern writers: “people swim in this sea and are constantly searching: some for the pearls of wealth, others for the pearls of glory, while others, despising these blessings, seek the pearls of the human soul.” That the Most Reverend Ignatius belonged to the number of such seekers of spiritual pearls is evident from his own words: “I was created to love human souls, to admire human souls! That is why they appear before me like angels to the eyes of my heart, so captivating, so comforting! What a sight, a picture that I look at, stare at, stare at again, can’t get enough of! And strange! I immediately forget the face, shape, features, but I remember the soul. There are many souls, beautiful souls, in my picture, which was painted by love, which faithful memory keeps intact, in vividness, in color.” 542 “I looked at the soul; for the face and for everything material, I am exactly without eyes. I just forget the facial features; the features of the soul, even the most subtle ones, remain imprinted in memory.” 543 As a true follower of the teachings of Christ, who commands man to “love his neighbor as himself,” His Grace Ignatius, indeed, loved his neighbors with such love. For his own soul, he always invariably desired only one good - spiritual salvation; He strove only for this one good all his life, only for this he always directed the steps of his heart! Only he wished for the same good for his neighbors, expressing, like a true monk, his love for the human soul in wishing it not material wealth, not temporary pleasures, but in wishing it salvation, in preparing it to be a worthy temple of the Holy Spirit. We see this in his relationships both with his relatives by blood and with his relatives in spirit. “You deign to know my zealous desire for the good of all members of our family,” he wrote in 1835 to his father Alexander Semenovich: “But my judgment is one-sided; it is consistent with the kind of life I lead.” 544 He wrote to his beloved sister Maria Alexandrovna: “Ordinary letters from secular people, consisting of various congratulations and assurances, do not constitute the duties of a monk. I cannot refuse a word about spiritual benefit; such a word is alms, which a monk must certainly give not only for the spiritual benefit of his neighbor, but also for his own.” 545 And a loving brother, sincerely wishing his sister spiritual salvation, he signed himself like this in some letters: “He who zealously loves you and wishes you spiritual salvation,” 546 never denied her such a word “guiding salvation.” “Get acquainted with God in advance, acquire boldness through frequent prayers, so that when you have to appear at the Last Judgment, you can beg the Judge to be merciful to you. Leave pleasing the devil in various worldly amusements, obey the Savior, who proclaimed: woe to those who laugh now! woe to the saturated now! Take up reading Divine books, with prudent moderation, which preserves the taste for a long time and refines it and destroys the heart's thirst for Divine truth, told by these books. Turn the eyes of your mind and heart to eternity,” 547 he instructed her on the path of piety. He also expressed his heartfelt love for his sister, Sofia Alexandrovna (by her husband, Boborykina), with whom, by his own admission, he was connected by “ties of exceptional friendship.” When she died, he wrote a letter to Maria Alexandrovna, asking for details about her last days of life, and added that “he hopes to see her in a future life according to the word of Holy Scripture: “God brings like-minded people into the house” 548... By the same pure ties of spiritual friendship, Vladyka Ignatius was connected with his brother, Peter Alexandrovich, who followed him in seniority, who in the last years of his life followed him into the monastery walls. In the same way, the Most Reverend Ignatius showed his love for his disciples by instructing them to salvation; the door of his cell was always open to everyone, and little Ignatius, his cell attendant, says in his memoirs that for 24 years he does not remember a single case in which Father Archimandrite refused to receive or teach anyone. Neither the infirmity and weakness of a body constantly exhausted by illnesses, nor the mass of worries and labors regarding the external structure of those monasteries where the Lord God was pleased to place him - nothing prevented him from giving those who wished to receive instruction from him “a word that guides salvation,” a word instructing others in the Orthodox faith and morality. It is not for nothing that his former student, Ignatius Malyshev, begins his reverent memories of him with the words: “Archimandrite Ignatius Brianchaninov knew how to love his spiritual children, but he also knew how to teach them; he suffered a lot for them, endured a lot of slander and reproach on his shoulders,” 549 and further says: “He taught and educated each student according to his strengths and abilities, sparing no effort, sparing no time, and if it was not easy for his students to accept his teachings and assimilate his rules, then it cost him a lot of work to educate each one separately, instill a love for lessons and elevate them to a spiritual state.” 550 Loving his neighbors as himself, the Most Reverend Ignatius wanted to make of his disciples and of all who resorted to his spiritual advice true monks, monks in their spiritual mood, and monks only in clothing. And for this he never tired of repeating to them both orally and in writing: “Brothers! do not spend your life in empty pursuits; Do not waste this short earthly life, given by us for eternal acquisitions. She will run, rush by, and not return; its loss is not rewarded; those who spend it in vanities and games deprive themselves of the blissful eternity prepared for us by God. Use it to study the will of God, good and perfect, as set forth in the Sacred and Holy Scriptures.” 551 Considering, as noted above, his own life to be a chain of falls, delusions and mistakes, feeling horror when looking at his sins, which, as it seemed to him, were worthy only of executions, both temporary and eternal; Bishop Ignatius, with his instructions, wanted to warn those travelers who were sailing on the same stormy worldly sea, “tossed up by a storm of misfortunes,” in which he had already suffered terrible disasters. “The shocks that I experienced were bitter, and heavy, and cruel, and stubbornly languidly prolonged,” he says in one place of his “Ascetic Experiences”: “Shocks in the external situation, in the judgment of my conscience, mean nothing in comparison with the shocks to which the soul was subjected. The waves of the sea of ​​life are fierce; darkness and darkness reign over it: storms are constantly raised on it by fierce winds-rejected spirits; the ships are deprived of pilots; reliable harbors turned into whirlpools, into disastrous abysses; every mountain and island moved from their spiritual places (Apoc. 7:14); sinking seems inevitable. It would have been inevitable if God’s incomprehensible Providence and equally incomprehensible mercy had not saved His chosen ones. My soul is a wanderer (Ps. 119:6), not finding a true refuge either outside or within itself. “The coal miner in the dark of the depths, and there is no constancy” - the correct and firm mood of the soul, unshakable in virtue - “came into the depths of the sea, and the storm drowned me. The call grew weary, my throat became silent, my eyes disappeared from my hope in my God (Ps. 69:3-4): as the enemy drove away my soul, he humbled my belly to eat, he made me sit in the dark to eat.” (Ps. 142:3). “Like water poured out, and all my bones were scattered, like my strength was lost” (Ps. 21:15:16), “having overcome me with mortal diseases, and the sweat of iniquity has crushed me; The diseases of hell have overcome me, having preceded me to the snares of death. ( Ps.1:7,5-6 ); My spirit is depressed within me, my heart is troubled” (Ps. 142:4). From this state I give a voice to my fathers and brothers, a voice of caring warning. This is what a traveler does who has suffered terrible disasters on a difficult and long journey. He passes on his notes, a precious treasure, to those who intend to undertake such a journey, or who have already embarked on the journey, not knowing it, or having become familiar with it only superficially from outdated descriptions... St. John Climacus says that some, walking through marshy places, got stuck in the mud and, covered with it, told how this happened to them to others who passed there, in order to save them. For the salvation of their neighbors, the Almighty delivered from the swamp those who, having fallen into it, warned their neighbors from falling into it (Ladder, verse 26, chapter 14). “Create the right course for your feet, and straighten your paths: do not deviate either by hand or by foot; turn your foot away from the path of evil. For the Lord knows the ways of the right hand, but those who are on the right side are corrupt. Your currents and your walks in the world have the same right.” ( Proverbs 4:26–29 ). 552 In the biography of Bishop Ignatius, we pointed out examples of his good influence, emanating from a heart that loved his neighbors, and instructions on the souls of his younger brothers about Christ: let us remember Plato Yanovsky, whom Archimandrite Ignatius, by his fatherly conversion, saved from obvious death; Let us remember Protodeacon Vasily Petrovich Malev, whom he never tired of guiding on the right path, or Myznikov, whom with his instructions he brought to childish humility, destroying his self-conceit. And how many unknown cases of Bishop Ignatius’ good moral influence on others were there! All his life, striving for solitude in order to “freely indulge in wanderings in the regions of the spiritual world,” where his thought and heart moved from earth, this chosen one of God considered himself “incapable of public positions,” 553 and this should be clear to everyone familiar with the inner mood of his soul, which always strived for the heavenly world; as a true monk, a monk by inner calling, he would like to devote his entire life only to preparing himself and his neighbors, his beloved them in Christ, to eternity, where every wanderer in the hotel - earth must inevitably come. But Divine Providence, incomprehensible to our human mind, vigilant about the salvation of his slaves, judged him differently, and, as a disobedient Servant of his Heavenly Master, he humbly accepted his lot and always carried out the public work assigned to him in the way required by the incorruptible honesty of his childishly pure soul, inner consciousness of duty, sincere desire to benefit others and not only with his spiritual instructions and teachings, but also as a public figure, and, most importantly, as required by his desire to disobediently fulfill the will of God. This is clearly evident from his most excellent speech, which he delivered when naming him Bishop of the Caucasus and Black Sea and in which, like in a mirror, his spiritual appearance is reflected. Here's the speech: “Your Holiness! In these sacred and terrible moments for me, I involuntarily remember the words spoken by the Lord to His disciple: “When you were young, you walked as you would, and when you are old, you will lay hold of your hands, and you will also girdle and lead you, even if you did not want to” (John 21:18). In the days of my youth I longed for deep deserts. “Behold, I went away running and settled in the desert, hoping for God to save me from cowardice,” which exposes a person’s lack of grace-filled development, and “from the storm” of passions raised by the deceptive and perishing charms of the world (Ps. 55:8:9). I liked and like monasticism in itself! but I did not at all think about serving the Church in any kind of priesthood. To be a bishop (see John Ladder, verse 28, chapter 51) of my heart, and to sacrifice to Christ thoughts and feelings sanctified by the Spirit: this is the height to which my eyes were drawn. I did not enjoy the freedom of youth for long: I was soon girded and shackled by the incomprehensible Divine Providence. His almighty right hand, contrary to my assumption, suddenly took me away from the wilderness of forests and deserts, and placed me in the monastery of St. Sergius, on the seashore, on the shore of the sea of ​​life, great and extensive (Ps. 105:25). It is difficult to test the ways of God! Only the Spirit of God tests the depths of God (1 Cor. 2:10). Enlightened by the spirit, the holy teachers of monasticism assert that deep solitude is dangerous for novice monks, in which they can conveniently fall into daydreaming and conceit, which they need, as a school and a medical clinic, human society. In various encounters with his neighbors, the monk discovers his passions that are hidden from himself; in the secrets of the heart, and are healed by omnipotent medicine - the teachings of Christ (Isaac the Syrian, verse 55; teacher Barsanuphius the Great, answers 2, 108, 311, 342, etc.; Rev. John the Ladder, verse 4, chapter 35, 36, 74. Word 28, chapter 1; Rev. Nila Sorskogo sl. 11). Peering into the ailments of my soul, I recognized this situation as essential and necessary for me. But how can I explain to myself the calling with which you, the Holy Fathers, are now calling me? What have you found in me and what can I present to you, besides my many shortcomings? The rank of Bishop is terrible for me when I think about my weakness. I am afraid that, instead of edification, I might bring temptation to my brothers and prepare myself for greater condemnation at the judgment seat of Christ. I would consider it more consistent with my strength to spend the rest of my days, like the beginning of them, in the silence of the desert, in contemplation of my sin. And again I am afraid!... I am afraid of my will, so that, following it, I will not follow myself instead of God and thereby bring upon myself unforeseen disaster (Teacher Av. Dorotheus, teaching 5). “I am pressed on every side” (Dan.13:22). In my bewilderment, I deny myself, betraying both my temporary and eternal fate in the hands of my God. Bound by your election and the command of the Most August Anointed of God, with humility and trembling I bow my head under a burden that can crush the unworthy. Do not cease to strengthen me with your edifications! Do not deny when, at the behest of the Holy Spirit, I come to you for a word of reason; for a soul-saving word. The Holy Spirit commanded: “Ask your Father, and your elders will tell you, and they will tell you” (Deut. 23:7). Extending your hands to me to clothe me with the great dignity of the Hierarchy, stretch them out in prayer for me to God, who reveals His power in human weakness. As for me, in this terrible hour for me, I am looking for peace of my conscience and find it in unconditional devotion to “the will of God; in consciousness and confession to you of the abundance of my infirmities.” 554 In another place in his “Ascetic Experiences”, the Right Reverend Ignatius wrote about the same thing: “We will carry out our earthly ministries, our earthly duties, as entrusted to us by God, fulfilling them - as if before the eyes of God, conscientiously, with zeal; preparing to give an account of their fulfillment to God. Let these services not be robbed or desecrated by sinful motives and goals! We will do earthly deeds for the purpose of pleasing God, and earthly deeds will become heavenly deeds; Let our main and essential occupation be serving God, striving to become assimilated to Him! Serving God lies in the constant remembrance of God and His commands, in the fulfillment of these commands with all one’s behavior, visible and invisible.” 555 And the Most Reverend Ignatius himself, indeed, carried out these instructions that he gave to his spiritual children: he carried out his earthly social duties, as assigned to him by the Heavenly Master; He always fulfilled them, as if before the eyes of the Lord God, he performed them so conscientiously, with such zeal and diligence that he was always ready to give an account of them to the Supreme Lord. Always striving to become assimilated to God, he constantly remembered Him and trying with all his behavior - visible and invisible - to fulfill His holy commands, he performed his earthly affairs with the sole purpose of pleasing God. And they, these earthly deeds of Bishop Ignatius, were made, we believe, heavenly! His tireless labors, as an Archimandrite, on the internal and external renewal and new arrangement of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage; His enormous labors, as a Bishop, to organize the Caucasian and Black Sea diocese evoke feelings of reverent surprise and respect and are noted by all his biographers as those that could only be accomplished by such a chosen one as he was. But putting the desolate Lopotov monastery in order, restoring and making the Trinity-Sergeev hermitage a model for other monasteries, organizing the devastated Caucasian and Black Sea diocese, His Eminence Ignatius, we repeat, worked tirelessly not in order to receive external honors and distinctions, to earn the gratitude of people and other earthly rewards: by his fulfillment of the social order entrusted to him by the Lord's Providence deeds, he only wanted to ask for a reward in heaven, a reward received not by the servants of the world, but by the servants of Christ. “Nothing perishable or transitory can satisfy a person. If it seems satisfying, don’t believe it: it only flatters. He will not flatter for long, he will deceive, he will slip away, disappear, and will leave a person in all the horrors of poverty and disaster. God’s – positive, eternal. At the beginning, like the slightest grain, it appears in the heart in the form of the slightest good inclination, desire; then it will begin to grow little by little, embrace all thoughts, all feelings, embrace both soul and body, become like a tree, great and branchy. Birds of the air, etc. that is, angelic thoughts and contemplations will come to hover on its branches. This must happen to a Christian during his earthly life. Over whom it is accomplished, upon entering eternity, he will see himself possessing spiritual treasures - guarantees of never-ending bliss,” 556 - said Bishop Ignatius in one of his letters. We can apply the same words to him himself. Nothing perishable or transient from the earliest childhood satisfied this chosen one of God; from early childhood, the good grain of “God’s positive, eternal” grew in his heart, and this grain grew on the soil fertilized by prayer and repentance, his pure soul loving the Lord into a great and branchy tree. The Reverend Ignatius once wrote to Stefan Dmitrievich Nechaev: “How many glorious ministries there are, luring ambition, occupying and igniting the imagination: but the end crowns the work: Death comes, calls to life without ghosts; No one can refuse this invitation, no matter how bitter it may be. The kings are coming without having completed the enormous proposed plans, from the implementation of which millions of people could prosper; geniuses go, leaving what they started to surprise posterity; legislators are coming without completing the legislative codes; in an instant, insignia and loud titles are laid aside, the acquisition of which took a whole life. Those rich in faith, on the contrary, become even richer: for by death they come into substantial possession of what they possessed before death only by faith.” 557 Bishop Ignatius never strove for ministries that attracted ambition: he never thought about serving the Church, in any rank of priesthood; he did not care to acquire titles, insignia and material wealth; he did not use his life to achieve the Honors of Glory, and where it was possible to avoid the external pomp and honors necessarily associated with his rank, then Archimandrite of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage, or Bishop of the Caucasus and the Black Sea, he always tried to evade them. In her “Family Memoirs,” the granddaughter of the late Vladyka Ignatius, Kupreyanova, conveys the following incident, characteristic in this regard: “Having served for several years in the Sergius Hermitage, personally known to the Emperor, respected by the Heir and the Grand Dukes, Father Ignatius wanted to visit his native places. Life in the public eye, with inevitable troubles, along with inevitable official honor, tired him, and he longed for nature, cordiality and simplicity. But in Pokrovskoye he was given a ceremonial meeting, “in keeping with his position.” Of course, all his relatives came and walked around him with such reverence, as if he had been canonized alive. Alexander Semenovich himself gave a tone of such extreme honor in his attitude towards his son. On the day of his arrival, Father Ignatius was, of course, at his mother’s grave; and remained at the grave long after the priest had served the requiem service. A solemn service was scheduled for tomorrow in the Church of the Intercession. Neighbors arrived, crowds of peasants gathered to look at the Archimandrite; They hoped that Father Ignatius, even if he did not serve, would perhaps give a speech... In the morning, when the whole family gathered in the corner “billiard room” waiting for the first strike of the bell, Father Ignatius sat down on the sofa next to the two Boborykin girls and said: Father, I will not go to church today. Not very healthy. You all go, God will bless you, and I’ll stay with them,” he points to the children. The grandfather was amazed, threw up his hands, but did not dare to object. Left alone, Father Ignatius called his cell attendant, went out with the children into the garden and there, with the help of this cell attendant, Nikolenka, he rode his nieces on the mountain all the time while the service was going on in the church - on that perfectly arranged mountain in the garden, on which he himself rode in childhood. What he wanted happened: the parade did not work out, and many thought: “What kind of saint is he if he plays with children instead of praying in church?” 558 Family relations in the spiritual life of the Most Reverend Ignatius do not represent an outstanding side. Cherishing from adolescence the dream of a life pleasing to God and close to God, he naturally moved away from those life plans that were “according to man”, also naturally nurtured by his parents, especially Alexander Semenovich, his father. Only due to the special requirement of circumstances, on the eve of his youth, the Right Reverend Ignatius, in response to his father’s questions about the desired dispensation in life, expressed his dream - to become a monk and, not finding support and sympathy for himself, involuntarily closed in on himself, developing his inner world, strengthening his spiritual position. Later, with the death of his mother, his connection with his home weakened even more and broke almost decisively from the time when, due to the absence of the mistress of the house, some relaxations and deviations from the ideal family system were allowed in the life of Alexander Semenovich, which caused Archimandrite Ignatius to have a very serious conversation with his father, in which two great Brianchaninov characters met on the basis of serious fundamental disagreements and, without coming to an agreement, separated forever: one remained in Pokrovskoye with the inevitability of a natural and humanly understandable, frequent moral compromise in life, the other went on his sorrowful, but also saving earthly journey in the rank of monk, carrying with him all his life holy covenants, alien to carnal wisdom. In his letter to the artist K. P. Bryullov, Bishop Ignatius depicts the isolation of his Spiritual world with a completely sincere and cordial mutual attitude towards people. 559 The inner world of Saint Ignatius seemed unusually sublime. We feel, behind all his inspired creations, a great, special, righteous human soul, which lived with a vision of the heavenly, walking before God, contemplated eternity, its victories unknown to us, heard “ineffable verbs, which it is too old for a man to speak.” Of course, Divine visions, spiritual insights, feats of preparatory spiritual cross-bearing could not be revealed in their entirety to another person, although it was precisely on this ground that Vladyka Ignatius was the most frank and clear; this side of his richly gifted spirit is most accessible to our spiritual comprehension. And he does not at all seem to be a self-closed ascetic, completely absorbed in his personal feat; on the contrary, he appears everywhere and everywhere, even in his sorrows and illnesses, cheerful, bright and cheerful, his strength does not diminish, and, being strong himself, he bears the infirmities of the weak. He discovers a childlike, pure, family-like intimacy in his correspondence with his brother Pyotr Aleksandrovich Bryanchaninov, with Mikhail Vasilyevich Chikhachov, with His Eminence Leonid (Krasnopevkov). But his letters to his brother are especially valuable in this regard. We do not enter into a detailed analysis of this correspondence for fear of burdening our book and in the conviction that the direct impressions of some of the letters appended to our work are better to understand the noted side of Ignatiev’s spirit. Pyotr Alexandrovich is his brother not only in the flesh, but also in spirit, his constant life companion, especially since the time of joint service in Stavropol; they are united by the same covenants, brought together by the same hopes, but in these relations Vladyka Ignatius goes ahead, is the elder brother, the leader in matters of worldly service and even more so in the preparation of spiritual benefits, in the creation of spiritual salvation. Of course, the leadership role of Vladyka Ignatius in relation to his younger relatives in the flesh, learned in childhood, remains with him for the rest of his life. He carefully, but also confidently, educates and guides his younger brother in his impulses towards an ascetic life, restrains his impetuosity, ponders and prepares the very form of Peter Alexandrovich’s entry into the monastery. His sincerity, purity of aspirations and touching love for his brother for the readers of his letters to the latter are completely clear, but even in this correspondence and in his life relations with Pyotr Aleksandrovich Bryanchaninov, Vladyka Ignatius remains the elder brother, leader, mentor, spiritual patron: Vladyka Ignatius is a larger and stronger personality than his younger brother. And how touching is the relationship of Vladyka Ignatius to his nephew - Alexei Petrovich, the son of Pyotr Alexandrovich! The corresponding passages in Vladyka Ignatius’s letters testify to us how closely his brother and nephew do not fit into his heart, but again we note, not only because they are his relatives in the flesh, from the same blood, but even more because they are related in spirit, that for both the ideals of spiritual salvation are higher than all worldly advantages. In this spiritual unity of the Brianchaninovs, we feel not so much the worldly communication of like-minded people, but rather a small Church, according to the word of Christ: arising where two or three are gathered in the name of Christ. From this church-religious side, it seems to us that Vladyka Ignatius values ​​most of all his relatives in the flesh. Entrusting Alexei Petrovich to the care of His Eminence Leonid (Krasnopevkov) upon his entry into Moscow University, Eminence Ignatius lovingly attests to his brother and nephew, mainly in terms of their religious disposition. “Let me ask,” he writes from Stavropol to His Eminence Leonid: “your merciful attention to the bearer of this letter, Alexei Petrovich Bryanchaninov, my own nephew, the only son of my brother, the local governor of the province. Alexey Petrovich wishes to join Moscow University. Do not refuse him useful instructions, which young people have always needed, and now, with the increase in temptations, they need even more; My brother is the most religious person; tried to raise his son in the fear of God, and now, releasing him from his personal supervision, he entrusts him to God and God’s servants.” 560 In letters to his brother, His Grace Ignatius often speaks about his nephew and his life. He slows down Peter Alexandrovich's entry into the monastery, pointing out to him the need for his guidance for his son. 561 He delays Alexei Petrovich’s early entry into the monastery, but points out the worldly path of preparation for monasticism: “Let Alyosha accustom himself to monastic obedience by obedience to his parent, let him prepare for himself classes in the monastery, corresponding to his origin, rules and strengths, by careful study of the sciences, Russian literature, languages, it would be good for Latin and Greek. Don't neglect calligraphy either. Learning will make it possible to maintain solitude in the monastery during cell studies and can make the monk useful to society in a moral sense. 562 Later, when Alexey Petrovich settled with his uncle in the Babaevsky monastery, Vladyka Ignatius carefully looked at his spiritual structure and discovered the most tender attention to him. “Alexey is living well,” Vladyka writes to his brother: “he is engaged in monastic life with attention and diligence. God bless this sweet child! 563 In a letter dated February 24, 1862, His Grace Ignatius informs his brother: “Alexey Petrovich received the Holy Mysteries today. After communion, his face acquired an unusually pleasant expression. O Theophanes testifies that he has the softest heart.” 564 The same side of deep religious kinship and trusteeship was revealed in the Most Reverend Ignatius during his random meetings with relatives. According to the testimony of another nephew of Bishop Ignatius, now senator Nikolai Semenovich Brianchaninov, who, together with his brother Alexander Semenovich, visited the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery during Bishop Ignatius’s residence there, their meeting with the Right Reverend Uncle left in the young students for the rest of their lives a deep impression of kindred cordiality, extraordinary simplicity, spiritual closeness, in which the elder’s superiority was not felt at all - an ascetic in front of his nephews - young men and at the same time, the deep content of the contemplative, powerful spirit involuntarily raised the mood of his respectful nephews: the strong spirit was not aware of its power, showed it humbly and naturally and did not crush or repel anyone with its superiority, but on the contrary, irresistibly attracted to itself. Appreciating and highly appreciating glory and splendor, as the supreme representative of the Church with the rank of Bishop, during his travels around the diocese, in church services, at all kinds of representations and, not attributing the honor given to his personality, but to the greatness and holiness of the Church of Christ, Saint Ignatius in his personal life was alien to any ostentation: in his ascetic and ascetic life he himself did not he darkened his face and gave the same advice to his relatives and those he knew in their impulses to follow him. The venerable Varvara Vasilyevna Boborykina, the niece of Bishop Ignatius, conveyed to us some cases of his pious relatives and admirers turning to His Grace Ignatius for a blessing - while remaining in the world, maintaining the monastic feat and the rules of monastic life. In relation to the personality of the applicant, Vladyka Ignatius blessed the applicant to be likened to the order of his personal life, and the mood of the ascetics of piety, but at the same time, he was almost always against changing the appearance of life, clothing and any kind of blueberry, rightly believing the possibility of Pharisaic self-exaltation when standing out from the mass of other people, and it was considered necessary to preface monastic feat with a preliminary self-examining test. Having prepared himself for renunciation from the world through a long experience of novitiate, he experienced the need for others to do so in order to avoid late and painful repentance. Vladyka Ignatius inspired deep respect and selfless devotion in people he knew closely. The mood of selfless devotion, ardent love and deep respect gathered around Bishop Ignatius a close circle of people most devoted to him, who willingly and without thinking followed them along the paths of their earthly wanderings. Such are all those persons who, like Archimandrites Justin, Agafangel and Ignatius Malyshev, for a long time resignedly and joyfully endured the long-lasting art of novitiate and, having demonstrated, under the influence of Vladyka Ignatius, the highest degree of their God-given talents with his blessing and under his guidance, entered into life, discovering such a height of spiritual development that excluded for them the need for school diplomas and generally accepted life patents. Such is Pavel Petrovich Yakovlev and the touching friend of Vladyka Ignatius M.V. Chikhachov. Such are the persons related to him in flesh and spirit of the numerous Bryanchaninov family; After the death of Vladyka Ignatius, she was awarded miraculous visions and found consolation in her false hopes. Very valuable for characterizing the mood of the Ignatiev students in relation to their spiritual Abba is preserved in the papers of Senator N.S. Brianchaninov’s “Contemporary Review” of the Most Reverend Ignatius, marked May 6 and 19, 1867, therefore representing a funerary wreath on the grave of St. Ignatius. We consider it necessary to note the essential points from this remarkable document, which not only testifies to the mood of contemporaries - admirers of Vladyka Ignatius, but also notes very important features of the deceased Saint. “The entire week of the Myrrh-Bearers, according to their daily Gospel, is, as it were, appointed for the deceased: all the days of the Gospel of John, about animal bread, its poison does not die, is divided for remembrance. The entire Ecumenical Church,” writes a contemporary of St. Ignatius: “now renders this spiritual honor to the newly departed, who so convincingly, clearly, and with warm feeling conveyed his Christian conviction about the Bread coming from heaven. The Lord was always ready for the outcome, therefore his death cannot be sudden, even if he was called quickly, even instantly. This was done according to the heavenly order, which is also proven by the coincidence of the days with the prophetic, venerable and Gospel charter. It was on these days that he was appointed to depart, having written his will and transferred his silver to the merchants.” A contemporary is interested in the circumstances of the death and burial of Saint Ignatius, calling him a great elder and father. “I thought so,” he writes, “that he would die without witnesses. The Lord did this according to His Divine judgment. The Most Reverend Ignatius was above all a monk, and the Lord rewarded him with a lonely death, there were no intermediaries between the departing soul and God; nothing distracted the righteous soul from completely surrendering itself to the hands of God.” A contemporary characterizes His Grace Ignatius as an ascetic ascetic and hermit, for whom life in public and public service were feats of obedience. “The life of the Most Reverend Ignatius was an involuntary service to his neighbors, but by his own will, he wanted and loved to remain alone: ​​his best friends and interlocutors were the Holy Fathers and his bright thoughts and strict mind, listening to himself. Friends, students, neighbors could not bring him anything or give him anything except temptations. Whoever, at the age of 20, could cry like a monk, he was perfect without the gray hairs of experience and old age, and no one except the Most Reverend Ignatius could express such thoughts at such an early age. Hardly anyone would believe that this book was written by an almost underage youth; no one will believe it because no one, the first spiritual writers, can do this in such years. The abbotship and the Bishopric did not elevate or change Ignatius Brianchaninov. The lover of silence was out of place, strangers' dead at funerals and funeral services. He would like to cry insatiably with Adam's cry only about his expulsion from paradise. It was hard for him at a party, in worldly rumors, in general Manilovism, where people often rejoice with gnashing of teeth and cry with joy in their hearts. Even priestly service could elevate an exalted mind, inseparable from God, and, I know, the Right Reverend, while still the abbot of the monastery, mourned the sad need to participate in worldly affairs. He was ashamed, as others are elevated by the magnificent surroundings, so little in agreement with the monastic constant mood, and the princes of this century did not know with what tightness of heart he accepted their quickly passing visits, leaving nothing behind except the smell of vanity. When left alone or with those closest to him, he rested, and his face took on a different, more specious expression than when he was with guests. “I would lock the monastery gates and not let anyone from the world in, if the Sergius Hermitage could exist, like the Yuriev Monastery, with its own resources,” he used to say. The crowd singing, so beloved by them, could not please the spoiled ears of the St. Petersburg people and even the majority of the spoiled brethren, like the noise and music in an artificial garden, which the Sergius Hermitage gradually became. Anyone who knew how the Most Reverend Ignatius loved monasticism and comprehended its essence will only believe that he did not rejoice in his Bishopric. And the Lord did not allow his beloved to bless foreign grapes, even those from the Caucasus, and to graze sheep, even with Circassian fleece. Feed (not my sheep, but rather and more accurately one can say) tame my fierce beasts, such a word was closer to the purpose of the Most Reverend Ignatius, and he was appointed to such a feat. Involuntarily, sometimes, roaring like a lion and tormenting himself, he frightened others with both his gaze and his words. One of those close to him used to say: there is greatness and picturesque beauty in anger, and this expression was on the face of Bishop Ignatius.” Anger does not frighten others, but His Grace Ignatius was sometimes truly formidable. The shipwreck of the righteous becomes a haven for sinners. The Sergius Hermitage, although it was not a disaster for Fr. Ignatius, but his ship, heavily laden with spiritual wealth, stopped in it, and for a long time, and took into its gilded ribs many who perished in the sea of ​​life. He could not go further, because the crew fell in love with the St. Petersburg shores, the camarilla did not allow their Admiral to sail further, even to the deserts of the Arctic Ocean. And then, this stay with domestic flatterers-enemies, exhausted the strength of the great spiritual swimmer. Among the disciples there were true traitors who hovered without remorse until then on their father’s breast, which had warmed them, until they saw in the elder the king’s favorite and the all-powerful abbot, ready to elevate them to the same level as himself, and who hissed at their father when he, tired of his burden - and on his shoulders he carried almost everyone - sometimes fell in weakness and was equal in weakness to neighbors. The spiritual activity in him, like breathing, never stopped, and he never left the Ladder of the Climacus, but this was not what most of the S-skaya camarilla wanted. They wanted Fr. Ignatius ascended with them higher and higher on the steps of the Royal Throne. Indeed, he could be the new Richelieu, and could manage the stern of the kingdom no worse than the famous cardinal; he could even have been Nikon for a while, but the Lord did not allow this, as the once great poet and lyricist Gregory of Nazianzus was torn out into the warm waters from a petty dramatic game with spoiled everyday actors... The quiet Volga finally received a tired, exhausted old man onto its shore, and as soon as he entered his beloved study silence, everything calmed down - both in him and around him; and the interlocutors were again the dead - immortal friends - the Holy Fathers. What was a matter for others was a rest from more difficult work for him; the construction occupied him, he unwittingly created his future magnificent mausoleum. “And a reverent admirer of the memory of Ignatius, his contemporary hopes that even during the transfer from church to church, perhaps the Lord will reveal the incorruption of the saint’s body.”... So boldly sublime and reverent are the thoughts and hopes of the admirers of Vladyka Ignatius. To direct witnesses of the life of the Saint, his personal moral character seemed lofty in the halo of righteousness and asceticism, his church and social deeds were blessed, his word, spoken, personal and written, was edifying and effective - at a distance. A noteworthy example in this regard is the letter and gift of St. Ignatius to Admiral Nakhimov. In the handwritten “Notes” of S. I. Snesareva, a remarkable case of prayerful consolation by Archimandrite Ignatius of selfless ascetics of life for the good of their neighbor is conveyed. We mean the blessing of Admiral Nakhimov with the icon of St. Mitrofan. This case is depicted in the “Notes” in this way: “We are at war with the Turks. I wake up at night; I am ashamed to sleep peacefully when my compatriots, when the Russians suffer and endure all the disasters. The Battle of Sinop resonated in the heart of every Russian. I visited Father Ignatius. I asked him if it was possible to send Nakhimov a letter and a blessing in the image of St. Mitrofan? “Why St. Mitrofan”? he asked. But because with his money Peter I laid the foundation of the Black Sea Fleet. As a Voronezh native, I could not help but know the exploits of our Pleasant. “If you provide me with historical facts, then I will be very glad to fulfill your wish.” I found Golikov in the Imperial Library, copied everything related to this event and sent it to Father. Good, gracious father! He ordered an image of St. Mitrofan and sent me to read a letter he wrote to Nakhimov. Everything was so brief and so clear here: sympathy, prayer, and gratitude. After a while, Nakhimov sent an answer full of humility and gratitude: “don’t attribute anything to me, but if you want to show me sympathy, pray for the repose of the soul of Lazarev, who did everything for the Black Sea Fleet.” Archimandrite Ignatius called the brethren, read the letter to them, and together they offered prayers to God for Mikhail (Lazarev). Nakhimov was killed! I was with Sergius... There, together with Russia, they mourned the noble warrior, and Father Ignatius served for the repose of his soul, and they prayed for him for a long time. Many years have passed. My sister was visiting me and asked me to read my prayers out loud one day. Which three Pavels do you remember for their repose, she asked. Pavel E, Pavel is a nephew, and there is no one else. It seemed to you. “No, just look at the note, you mentioned three people,” I noticed. I looked, yes, three - I made a mistake, I wrote down too much, I need to cross it out. The pen didn’t come to hand, so I forgot. I see a dream. The religious procession, the banners are fluttering, the clergy are singing, the people are crowding - I look - all the familiar faces, all the friends who have already died. Suddenly a man in a sailor's hat, stooped, middle-aged, with a stern face separates from the crowd, and - straight towards me. Immediately, in front of everyone, he begins to shame and scold me. Why? - I say through tears, I don’t know you. I don’t know - that’s what I forgot. So why promise to forget? I didn’t ask, but if you promise, you have to keep your word and not forget. But who are you? – Pavel Nakhimov! – I screamed in fright and woke up. Soon after this, I went to Tsarskoye Selo with my son. At the station we saw a young sailor on crutches, with his arm tied and his face bandaged. He dropped the cigarette and could not pick it up. My son raised it to him. He sat with us and talked all the way about Sevastopol, about Nakhimov. He himself served on the ship “Twelve Apostles” and was at Sinop. Nakhimov, according to him, was adored by the entire fleet, every sailor saw a father in him and was ready to go through thick and thin with him. Nakhimov was not loved by the Higher Authorities, and his life was sad. But after the Battle of Sinope, he learned the sympathy of his people. From all sides of Russia, words of love and gratitude from his compatriots rushed to him. But not a single letter was as pleasant for him as the letter from the famous Archimandrite St. Sergius Hermitage Brianchaninov. You've probably heard of him. This letter touched him so deeply that he immediately called all the officers and read the letter to them with deep emotion. The image of St. Mitrofan was placed in the hall on the ship “Twelve Apostles”; at that very moment the priest served a prayer service to the Voronezh Wonderworker, who, as we learned from the wonderful letter of Archimandrite Ignatius, was the founder of our fleet; - all of us, starting from Nakhimov, fervently bowed to the Saint and venerated his image. Nakhimov said: “This image will remain here as long as the ship exists!” It happened that you were walking past, looked at the icons and prayed, and got so used to it that your hand involuntarily rose as you walked, no matter how many times you had to pass by. Thanks to Archimandrite Ignatius, he consoled our Admiral. I listened with bated breath: both scary and pleasant.” 565 And such an impression was left by Vladyka Ignatius not only in those people who came within the sphere of his pastoral or archpastoral influence, but also in all those who, even with equality in life, impartially observed the lofty personality of the Holy Hierarch of God. In this regard, the reviews of St. Ignatius by the Eminence Leonid of Dmitrovsky and Platon of Kostroma seem authoritative and valuable to us. In his letter dated August 12. 1867, addressed to Pyotr Aleksandrovich Brianchaninov, His Grace Leonid, Bishop of Dmitrov, writes, among other things: “The loss you suffered should be recognized as an all-church loss... I hope that the Orthodox Russian people, little by little, will assimilate the late Saint. In his life and writings they will try and find what can be universally salutary. It seems that over time, for the benefit of monasticism, you could extract from his writings that which is especially publicly accessible, understandable and edifying for those monks who are not rich in human wisdom, but are rich in spirit in God or want to become rich, as well as that which is useful for ordinary lay readers. 566 The same deep respect is imbued with the memories of His Eminence Ignatius of His Eminence Plato, Archbishop of Kostroma. Greeting Peter Aleksandrovich Bryanchaninov on the feast of Holy Easter in 1870 and calling him “a believing and creative son of the Church,” His Eminence Plato writes: “As soon as things and people give me opportunities and opportunities, I take into my hands the patristic writings, including the Most Reverend Ignatius. Reading them, I was mentally transported to you, and now I want to convey my thoughts to you. There are few Hierarchs left among us like His Eminence Ignatius. It is necessary to preserve the memory of his life for centuries or future names. You, Most Honorable Peter Alexandrovich, have the responsibility to collect all possible information about the life and activities of the Right Reverend Ignatius. You know the places and people where you can get information. Collect every legend, every information. This responsibility is placed on you not only by connection with the deceased, but by the Church. No one can replace you in this case. Do not put off for an hour the task entrusted to you by the Church. People pass away, and now it is impossible to do what yesterday was worth nothing to do. Write down what you yourself heard from the deceased. Collect and keep all his letters: May the Lord help you fulfill this obedience not only of love, but also of duty. 567 In a letter dated November 22, 1870, Vladyka Platon writes to Peter Alexandrovich: “You know how much I value the writings of the godly Saint Ignatius, and understand with what impatience I will await his “Fatherland” from you. There are now few such elders among us; a different spirit is already blowing, and they blame us for the monastic direction; and monasticism is the strength and beauty of Orthodoxy and, I can say, life. Do not forget, most venerable Peter Alexandrovich, my request for a collection of all the information available to you about the Most Reverend Ignatius. If time and circumstances do not allow everything to come into being now, then everything will be useful at another time. You are obliged to accept this obedience: not only as a brother, but as an Orthodox Christian who desires the good of the Church.” 568 Thus, the admirers and contemporaries of Vladyka Ignatius Brianchaninov and direct spectators of his Earthly affairs honored in him, first of all, his personal example of ascetic life, the depth and clarity of his soul-helping worldview and, from this point of view, wanted the wide dissemination of his views on the purpose of human life through the popularization of his creations, which in essence and character were close to the patristic ones. But the Most Reverend Ignatius Brianchaninov, being an ascetic in direction and a viewer of the highest mysteries of God by his grace-filled illumination, did not, as we know, remain in his secret prayer cell, but was placed “on the candlestick, so that he can shine for everyone who is in the church.” Called by Providence and the will of the Church and State authorities to the abbot of a first-class monastery and the primacy of the Church Militant, Vladyka Ignatius looked with an eagle's eye over the entire vast area of ​​life and knew the value of everything from the point of view of the only thing valuable to him in his earthly wandering - the search for the Kingdom of God and its righteousness, he looked at everything with the gaze of a sage and to everyone searching for his hope was ready to give an answer. This answer could sometimes be unacceptable for the questioners, sometimes painful, like everything, the eternally unshakable word about the only thing needed: “This word is cruel, whoever can listen to it,” but it was a definite, original, thoughtful answer, and therefore interesting, and therefore excluded the possibility of an indifferent attitude towards it. These are his wonderful answers in that area, especially where for almost four decades he was a good and unhypocritical worker, rightly ruling the word of Christ’s truth, in the area of ​​​​building the Church and determining the paths of the earthly pilgrim to the heavenly Fatherland, to the heavenly Jerusalem. The church-social consciousness of Vladyka Ignatius Brianchaninov was not crowded, but it did not know earthly “compromises”, and the right of heavenly birthright did not sell tempting “earthly positions” for lentil stew. He testified to the truth fearlessly and impartially, he said what he thought and what he considered himself obliged to say out of the duty of his church calling, and those who questioned sometimes “uniformly” deviated from the inevitable logical conclusions, “convicted by their conscience.” These are his written views on the issue of the participation of the clergy in civil life, on the attitude to the maturing peasant reform, on the origin of slavery on earth, on the conditions for its elimination, on freedom of spirit, etc., expressed in the treatise already known to us - proposed to his Caucasian clergy dated May 6, 1859, No. 916, which we offer in full in a special appendix; These are his judgments in response to Herzen’s harsh antics. But especially his church-social and administrative views found expression in two remarkable documents: 1) a response to the head of the Caucasian line and 2) a note on the need for a Council for the Russian Church. The first document bears the following title: “Question from the head of the Caucasian line and the Bishop’s answers about the Caucasian department in its relationship to the Caucasian Linear Cossack army, the importance of the Bishop and archpriest in the Orthodox church hierarchy” 1858. This note from Bishop Ignatius followed a request from the viceroy of the Caucasus, Prince Alexander Ivanovich Baryatinsky, dated September 20. 1858, for No. 719 - to set out the spiritual foundations for the establishment of the Diocesan Administration in the Orthodox settlements of the Linear Cossack Army in order to eliminate the sad facts of life, which are noted: “the decline of Orthodoxy, the strength and triumph of the schism and general immorality, protected from government measures by the courage and courage of the combat units of the troops.” At the same time, as the reason for the strengthening of the schism in the Cossack Linear Army, the actions of the first Caucasian Eminence Jeremiah are pointed out, which complicated the situation and now complicate the subordination of the Linear Army in church terms to the Orthodox Bishop. Responding to a “completely confidential” request about measures for the best organization of the Linear Cossack army in church terms, also “completely confidentially,” His Eminence Ignatius, first of all, notes the need for the Bishop to visit his militant flock as often and unhurriedly as possible, and for this he considers it useful to help the diocesan Bishop by establishing a vicariate, with the help of the vicar Eminence in the diocesan city, so that his activities could merge into one with the direction and activities of the diocesan Bishop. But he recognizes the most important, essential need for revitalizing the spiritual and religious life of the Linear Cossack army is the reunification of the latter with the Orthodox flock of the Caucasus and under the control of one diocesan Bishop. “The Caucasian diocese,” writes Bishop Ignatius, “was originally established for the entire Caucasian region, which in geographical and statistical terms constitutes a whole. This character of integrity, recognized as a treasure for every country and department in administrative and economic relations, was violated by the expulsion of the Cossack Linear Army from the Diocesan Department of Churches. The division of the diocese made by the expulsion of the Cossack Churches is meaningless; at the same time there is division and confusion. There is no such nonsense in all of Russia. It is in vain that they cover it up with the loud phrase that it was made for administrative purposes. This is wrong: the fruit of administrative considerations should be the most convenient position; The opposite is evident here. An order contrary to all the rules of modern science, proven by experience to be completely worthless, carried out with “extraordinary haste, testifies to itself that it is the fruit of a clash of passions. I speak frankly, motivated by love for the good of the cause and only in a secret conversation with a statesman. Concealing the truth from a statesman is a crime against the state.” Vladyka Ignatius considers the observed shortcomings and disorganizations in the spiritual and church life of the Linear Cossack Army to be sad consequences of the present management of the Churches of the Cossack Linear Army and, drawing the attention of the questioning dignitary to the very principles from which the observed shortcomings arose and should arise, he gives an answer to the essence of the question posed, indicating its basis from the Law of God, church decrees from the Holy Scriptures and Holy Fathers, expounding the teaching recognized by the entire Orthodox Church as Divine, as it is, and not human. The views of His Grace Ignatius on the position and relationship of the Bishop and Presbyter in the Orthodox Church and on the correct order of governing the church life of the Linear Cossack army are expressed as follows: The bishop constitutes the beginning of the church hierarchy; he is the successor of the Apostles, the representative on earth of the Lord. The bishop ordains the presbyter and deacon; he sanctifies the church or the most essential part of the church - the Antimins, he sanctifies the Holy Chrism; thousands of elders gathered together cannot accomplish this. He is the beginning and source of all Christian Sacraments and Divine service itself; The Christian Church cannot exist without him. The Apostles, preaching the Gospel throughout the universe, appointed Bishops in all cities and regions, and the Bishops ordained presbyters (priests) to fully satisfy the needs of Christians. In the ecclesiastical sense, priests are the instruments of the Bishop: these instruments act as long as the Bishop acts with them; when he ceases to act by them, then they are deprived of all their strength: for their strength and reality are not their own, but borrowed. The entire community of Christians was called the Universal Church, and the private and local Church was and is called the community of Christians in a city or region; local were: the Church of Rome, Jerusalem, Corinth, Carthage, Athens. The presbyter has never been and could not be the head of the Church for the clear reason that he acts not with his own power, but with the power granted, granted and terminated by his authority, which is the Bishop. When Presbyter Paulinus became the head of a certain part of the Antiochian people, separating from Bishop Meletius, but not at all separating from the unity of faith, the Universal Church took all measures that depended on it to eliminate this disorder, and called it nothing other than schism. 569 This circumstance is known in Church history under the name of the eastern schism, since Antioch, the capital of Syria, with the neighboring countries: Mesopotamia, Armenia and Georgia, was called the East, constituting the eastern extremity of the Roman Empire; Persia was no longer understood as part of the East. The present administration of the Churches of the Line Army also has a character similar to that of the Eastern schism. It is very natural that the main Russian pastors, who constitute the Holy Synod, look at this circumstance in an ecclesiastical sense and would like, if possible, to eliminate the violation of church order and regulations, especially since it serves as a cause of sorrow for the true sons of the Church, a cause of temptation for very many who do not understand the needs and types of administrative, and who begin, on this basis, to doubt the very Orthodoxy of our Church; schismatics, on this basis; inside and outside Russia they reproach, accuse and convict our Church of apostasy from Orthodoxy. Because of such temptations, which often invade the Church under the influence of the West, are more or less clear; many are being seduced into the schism that is constantly growing in our fatherland. This is proven in fact: under Emperor Peter I, when the population of Russia reached 17 million, there were up to 700 thousand schismatics. If they were multiplied in proportion to the population, then, with a current population of 70 million, the number of schismatics should not exceed 3 million, but their number extends beyond 12 million. Since in open reports read by the public, almost no seduction into schism is visible, but only one conversion from schism to Orthodoxy is visible. Meanwhile, the schism is growing rapidly and has already assumed gigantic proportions, this leads to a logical and practical conclusion: the schism is spreading in Russia, in ways and means unknown to the Government or made known only when they have completed their work and bear abundant fruit. One of the most reliable weapons for limiting and reducing the schism lies in reverence for the most holy decrees of the Holy Church, which are the decrees of God, the decrees of the Holy Spirit - in protecting them. The archpriest has only the right, according to his church rank and significance, to occupy first place among his brethren - the priests; 570 he by no means has the ecclesiastical right to govern the Churches of an entire region; the assimilation of this right to the priest belongs to the character of Protestantism, and is so understood by all who have thoroughly studied the Christian religion. For any local Church, the deprivation of the Bishop is the deprivation of God-established ecclesiastical authority, the deprivation of the religious principle, the deprivation of the source of the Sacraments, the source of hierarchical authority and justice, the source of Orthodox church doctrine and moral teaching: this is the removal of the head from the body, the removal of parents from children, the expulsion from the Church of the image of Christ, the representative of Christ. The inevitable consequence of such disunity should be the decline of religious teaching, which is why schisms and heresies and the decline of moral teaching develop in the country, which is why sinful, depraved and not guided by conscience life develops in the country, which is all provided for by Your Excellency. But since the Orthodox Church of the country cannot exist without the Bishop, this only source of the Christian Sacraments, then for the Churches of the Linear Army priests and deacons are ordained, the Antimenses and everything else are consecrated, for which the power and dignity of the apostle are needed, by the Caucasian Bishop by order of the Holy Synod, which has the character of leniency to the demands of circumstances, but not in accordance with the rules and spirit of the Orthodox Church. According to church rules, a Bishop must carry out ordinations only within his diocese, and not outside it. He must prepare the person for ordination by abundant edification and study of the person; after consecration, he must edify the initiate and supervise him. 571 Ordination is a great Sacrament; through it, a person is suddenly reborn from a verbal sheep into a shepherd. The performer of this rebirth is the Bishop. Due to spiritual rebirth through consecration, the Bishop enters into a spiritual relationship with the initiate. 572 Both the performer of the Sacrament and the one on whom the Sacrament was performed vividly feel this kinship. The Bishop sees in the initiate his spiritual child, the fruit of his ordination, the fruit of the Spirit, and the ordained sees in the Bishop his father, who brought him a new being, sees the image of his Creator, who transformed him from a sheep into a shepherd. The spiritual seal imposed on the soul by consecration is indelible, because it is Divine: God unites, says the Gospel, let not man separate (Matt. 19:6.) The excommunication of a Bishop from the presbyters ordained by him, the excommunication of a Bishop from the flock for whom he performs all duties, the Bishop, is similar to the forcible excommunication of parents from the children they have born immediately after their birth; the use of the Bishop as a machine for ordinations and other ecclesiastical needs is like the use of parents only for the birth of children: in one case a violation of the natural law established by God; in another case - a violation of a spiritual law, also established by God. The separation of Presbyter Paulinus from the Bishop of Antioch, which I mentioned above, lasted a long time because it was supported by the Government, which often, in administrative forms, demanded various concessions from the Church, and, by the gentle Spirit of the Church, received them when they did not involve a violation of the dogmas themselves. But Church history actually testifies that the most reliable and reliable administrative measure consists in carefully guarding church decrees; evasion from them, in administrative forms, which initially seemed useful, later, in its results, turned out to be harmful, contributing to the disunity of the people and the weakening of the State. 573 This is the opinion of the Most Reverend Ignatius Brianchaninov about the attitude of the persons of the church hierarchy and his clear answer on the question of the desired church system of the Linear Cossack army, and together - the decisiveness with which he expresses himself, and the motives guiding him in this case. Bishop Ignatius has a definite view on issues of church life that arise from life, which testifies not only to his theoretical knowledge on related subjects, but also to the fact that he cares about the needs of the church. Bishop Ignatius bases his judgments on issues of church life on the reason of the Holy Ecumenical Church, the Word of God and Church Tradition. These views are harmonious, definite, and not fortune-telling, and the method of their expression is decisive and excludes any compromises, even if it put him in an inevitable conflict with a number of life conditions that were not in harmony with his decisions, as is, for example, absolutely certain from his judgments on the issue of the church system of the military units of his heterogeneous flock. His decisive judgment on the need to subordinate all Churches of the Linear Cossack army to the Orthodox Bishop with the elimination of the current presbyteral control of military units does not at all stem from any ambitious plans of the Bishop, as it might seem to someone, but are quite understandable from the ideological considerations he outlined about the mystical and grace-filled foundations of church administration and the Bishop’s relationship with the presbyters. These mystical and gracious foundations should, according to the conviction of Bishop Ignatius, penetrate all aspects of human life in the Christian Church. A close union of state and church power seems to him necessary for the good of man. Regarding the attested good attitude of the Sovereign Emperor and the Empress towards Metropolitan Philaret, Vladyka Ignatius says with consolation that these relations are a public good. “God united kings and Jews for the good of humanity wandering on earth, instructing the first to arrange the temporary prosperity of human society, and the second to prepare this society for migration to eternity and for bliss in eternity. Representatives of both ministries must be in unanimity, as called to this unanimity by God himself, and act out of their pious unanimity. Satan always tries to upset the order established by God, deceiving people with sophistry and using people themselves to destroy their temporary and eternal well-being.” 574 This is the view of Babaev’s hermit, who “from his solitude looks at the world floating in the distance, and prays for one thing, that he complete his voyage under the cover of God’s mercy.” 575 From the same, of course, mystical and grace-filled point of view, Saint Ignatius looks at all other aspects of life; From this point of view, the deep sorrow of the Saint of God over the decline of Christian sentiment in his contemporary society and, especially, in that part of this society that has the primary purpose of directing life in accordance with Christian ideals, is understandable. Setting the essential task of church service as the reconciliation of the main classes of the fatherland, which were scattered by European teachings, which subjugated both the clergy and the nobility, Vladyka Ignatius believes that the Church and the clergy have suffered, are suffering and, it seems, should suffer from European teachings, and not from any classes.” He is deeply saddened by the deviation from the foundations of the national Russian life of Russian people - merchants who stayed in Western Europe, children of the clergy, educated in a European way, 576 and meanwhile, in the foundations of the psychology of the Russian person there are so many makings for organizing life on original principles. Having become more closely acquainted with the white clergy, Vladyka Ignatius testifies that among them “there are the kindest people, that all the clergy in general can be perfectly directed, that they are very virginal, that their errors and shortcomings are more gross than deep - only “they need education and direction, more definite.” 577 He is saddened by the decline of monastic life and the difficulty of finding a well-maintained monastery. “In many monasteries, various buildings of considerable size are erected, which give the monastery the appearance of prosperity. But this is a deception for a superficial glance. Monasticism itself is quickly being destroyed. Spiritual achievement is almost universally rejected: the very concept of it is lost. Bodily labor and too much concern for material development destroy mental development.” 578 He is saddened by the decline of the theological school, the weakening of church ideals in it, the materialization of vital interests, the uncertainty of the direction, and therefore the results of education in the theological school. “Our pupil comes out with some vague direction: he wants to get a priestly position, if it is profitable; if by chance a more advantageous position in the clerk's office presents itself, he does not hesitate at all to accept it. During conversations you always hear, in the foreground, the thought of benefit. Because of this coldness, we have almost no monastics from the seminary students. They don't go to monasteries! They did not feel any inclination towards self-sacrifice, towards spiritual development. As a result, the monasteries are in great decline, being a haven for only illiterate jealousy. If seminary students went to monasteries, the monasteries would be in a completely different situation.” 579 Bishop Ignatius also grieves that “nowadays it is very difficult to find a true servant of God, although outwardly no time has abounded in the servants of God as much as our time, which proclaims its positivity, abounds. There are many who lead God and are pleasing to God according to human testimony, but it is difficult to find a God-attested one who knows God and is a reader of God.” 580 Vladyka Ignatius is saddened by the spiritual corruption brought by European enlightenment with its fornication; He is afraid that people who have received higher education are infected with unbelief and the predominance of material interests over all others, and with such a spiritual mood they become the leaders of people's life. 581 Testifying to the not indifferent attitude of the Right Reverend Ignatius to life, to his vital observation and broad outlook, his sad conclusions practically drawn from life and his spiritual experience do not remain fruitless laments and complaints about life’s problems, but evoke in him energetic and definite thoughts about measures to raise the spiritual level of Russian life to a desirable and completely feasible height. In the foreground, as a measure to raise the spiritual level of Russian life, according to the Right Reverend Ignatius, we should put strengthening the educational element in educational institutions and weakening the theoretical side of the curriculum in favor of developing practical skills in relation to the special purpose of a particular educational institution. The very entry into an educational institution with a certain special purpose should be determined not by considerations of material security in the future, not by career incentives, not by the adaptation of this institution to the needs of a particular social class and by the advantages of the parents’ service, but internally by a conscious vocation and the obvious predominance of inclinations and preparation towards the activity prepared by the educational institution. The judgments of Bishop Ignatius in this regard are expressed in his comments on the content of the project for the transformation of Naval educational institutions and in considerations on the issue of raising theological educational institutions and, in general, the level of spiritual life of Russian society. Responding to the confidential proposal of His Highness, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, dated October 7. 1860, for No. 2263, - “To undertake the work, as a special, personal favor to me, to communicate to me, quite frankly, your comments” on the content, “compiled by Admiral Count Putyatin of the project for the transformation of Naval educational institutions with the establishment of a new gymnasium in St. Petersburg, the Right Reverend Ignatius does not limit himself to general judgments about the suitability of the said project, but carefully and thoroughly notes the desirable applications for organization of educational work in educational institutions. In addition to the above-mentioned conditions for entering an educational institution by vocation and with proper preparation, he makes a number of fundamental comments regarding practical classes, regarding the elimination of multi-subjects, because “excess knowledge takes away their quality,” the need for certain guidelines for setting up the educational part and the requirements that should be presented to the head of the educational institution and his assistants. Highly understanding the task of educational education, the Most Reverend Ignatius recognizes that “the head of the educational institution and his assistants have the important responsibility of acquiring Christian moral rules and carefully observing, firstly, themselves, restraining themselves from being carried away by passions.” The educator “needs to observe himself in the light of the Gospel teaching. He who has undertaken the study of the high science of Christian psychology within himself, no matter how much he improves himself, will always find even greater improvement necessary and will use all the methods that provide him with perfect knowledge.” Making such high demands on the heads and other figures of educational institutions, His Eminence Ignatius, at the same time, considers a caring attitude towards him to be an important educational factor in relation to the person being educated. “There is nothing more harmful to a person’s morality than the deprivation of his rights that belong to him, which may not be clearly understood by him, but are certainly felt in the spirit. A person whose rights are violated loses respect for the rights of others. A pupil, a child and a youth, has his rights as a person and a citizen. He must be given a correct concept of these rights, introduced to the correct knowledge of the rights belonging to his neighbors, and learn respect for rights. For him to respect the rights of others, his rights must be respected. A truly free civil society must be recognized as one that has been granted all the rights that can only be enjoyed on earth by human society without harm to itself, whose members have received the correct understanding of their rights and sacredly preserve these rights in all two mutual relations. Society cannot achieve such a state except through the correct moral education of youth. A young man brought up in this direction will become the best subordinate: understanding and respecting the rights of civil society, including his own, he will understand and respect the rights of his superior, he will inviolably preserve them, carry out his orders, equally before his eyes and outside his eyes. This type of education creates noble characters, with sincerity and directness, incapable of flattery.” 582 It is very clear that the stated views of Bishop Ignatius on issues of education are applicable not only to Naval educational institutions, but are of general, fundamental significance, testifying to the breadth of his spiritual horizons and his high authority, which prompted government officials to propose transformative projects to the impartial, preliminary conclusion of Bishop Ignatius. The views expressed by the Most Reverend Ignatius on the issues of transforming theological schools and on measures to sublimely church-religious life, which he rightly considers the basis of civil life, are of the same principled and lofty nature. His Grace Ignatius sincerely wishes “that the reforms in theological schools achieve good results. “It is very useful,” he writes, “to remove students from theological schools, if possible, from the seductive impressions of the world and to give the education itself a stronger and more defined character, so that the education affects not only the mind, but also the heart, so that the students educated in theological schools receive the decisive character of an Orthodox Christian, prepared to serve the Church with all his soul.” 583 And this “decisive appearance of an Orthodox Christian,” according to Saint Ignatius, is acquired by the structure and direction of teaching in theological schools, on the one hand, and by the organization of education, on the other. In the first respect, Vladyka Ignatius wants to give the education itself an educational character, and expand the area of ​​school preparation for the hierarchical service of the Church beyond the boundaries of the school itself through the circulation of spiritual and theological books among pious and close to the spirit of the Church lay people. “In order to enable pious people of all classes to prepare themselves for hierarchical degrees, they must formulate: a) Theology not in a school character, but in a generally understandable character in full agreement with the Divine Service of the Orthodox Church, so that the knowledge announced publicly by the Divine Service is also proclaimed by Theology; b) a detailed Sacred and Church history, which will introduce, firstly, in detail the teachings of the Orthodox Church. This teaching is understood the more clearly the more detailed the struggle of the Church with the numerous heresies that have rebelled against it is expounded. Secondly, a detailed Church history will introduce the characters and actions of the holy men. It is known that the reader’s character and rules are formed according to those models that history presents to him in detail and picturesquely,” 584 School teaching should be the same. “Detailed teaching of Church history is necessary so that students have an understanding of the characters of historical figures and themselves are formed according to the characters of true servants of the Church. From teaching, which acts exclusively on the mind, comes a coldness towards church affairs and is predominantly material in direction. Because of this coldness, we have almost no monastics from the seminary students.” 585 “It is necessary to compile our own textbooks for these educational institutions, such as a course in literature, etc., removing from them everything pagan, everything, even indirectly, leading to freethinking, immorality, irony, jokes, playfulness, which is all so contrary to the spirit of Christianity and has such an infectious effect on the corrupted human nature.” 586 We saw above that, in the opinion of the Most Reverend Ignatius, the statutes for theological educational institutions should be drawn up in relation to the statutes of monasteries, so that the life of the students is practical and strictly Christian, so that they become well acquainted with Divine services and gain a taste for church prayers and standing. Bishop Ignatius generally believes that assimilation with the spirit of Orthodox monasticism enhances a Christian’s preparation for church service. As an example of correct and complete preparation for church service and the assimilation of a pastoral disposition, the spiritual gaze of Bishop Ignatius is presented to the great Holy Fathers of Christian antiquity - Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Neocaesarea, John Chrysostom, who, after completing the course of study, entered into monasticism, into desert monasteries, and cultivated themselves there monastic deeds. 587 “How well,” he says, “our ancient Fathers of the Orthodox Church acted! Having learned human sciences, they accepted the yoke of Christ and, in the field of self-sacrifice under the guidance of the cross of Christ, learned Divine wisdom, and for them human learning became a humble slave, which they used in the service of Divine Wisdom, to teach this wisdom to their neighbors.” 588 Thus, along with careful and targeted theoretical preparation, candidates for the priesthood must, in the opinion of St. Ignatius, undergo the practical test of spiritual achievement in a monastic or similar setting. Nothing can replace this practical-experiential knowledge of spiritual life, and no education, even the most sublime one, can compensate. And since the experimental knowledge of spiritual life and the free and active asceticism directed toward it constitute an essential side of monastic life, then, according to the just conclusion of Bishop Ignatius, monasticism is the most important factor in church life, a necessary condition for the elevation and development of spiritual and religious life, for monastic rules and regulations were set forth by the Holy Fathers “by revelation of God, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and not by any human consideration." Spoiled by “the pride and ignorance of various thinkers who acted according to the elements of Western Protestantism and atheism,” monasteries, for the good of the Church, should be returned to their original purpose, and not destroyed: “monasticism is necessary for the Orthodox Church, it cannot exist without it. Monks achieve Christian perfection, dispassion, the tangible action of the Holy Spirit within themselves, and therefore acquire a living concept of Christianity. And no human science can teach a shadow of such knowledge; all professors, masters and doctors of Theology produced by Universities and Academies are ignorant in comparison with a monk, animated by the grace of God for following Christ by fulfilling His commandments.” 589 So definite, original and firm: the views of the Most Reverend Ignatius on the issues noted above. His opinions are not random, his judgments are not scattered, but are united harmoniously in one harmonious and sublime worldview, penetrating his church and social activities, personal feats in life and his literary and edifying works. A remarkable expression of his church-social views is his “Note on the Necessity of a Council on the Current State of the Russian Orthodox Church,” which we have repeatedly cited above. In this note, Vladyka Ignatius, noting the wide extent of the deviation from the Orthodox Christian faith, the rooting of immorality in society, which apparently excludes the possibility of a return to true Christianity, comes to the conclusion of the decisive need to convene a Church Council. The need for this Council is all the more urgent because for two centuries the position of the Russian Church was not considered or verified by the Council. Since the last years of the 17th century, the western wind has brought a lot of dirty dust into the bowels of the Church and into the bowels of the State to the detriment of faith, morality and the people. Ignorance of the Orthodox faith, views of it and the Church from ideas brought by debauchery, Protestantism and atheism, were the reason that outsiders, alien and hostile to the spirit of the Church, contrary to the rules and teachings of the Orthodox Church, crept in and were forcibly introduced into the Orthodox Church.” Dissatisfaction with church life is growing, and distrust is being expressed towards the present state of the Church. The Russian Church remained isolated for a long time, cut off from the rest of the Orthodox East, as a result of which “the immediate convening of a Council, at which there must certainly be authorized representatives of the Eastern Patriarchs, seems unsafe,” in the sense that a change would be required in the usual and established structure of the Russian Church. And His Grace Ignatius outlines a number of preliminary measures preparing for the convening of the Council of the All-Russian Orthodox Church and a number of issues to be considered by the Council and determines the importance of the expected Council for the elevation and revitalization of the spiritual and religious life of the All-Russian Orthodox Church. Among the measures preparatory to the convening of the All-Russian Church Council, His Grace Ignatius outlines the following: 1) It is necessary to compile a complete collection of all the decrees that the All-Russian Church has accepted and established, in fact, for itself since the reign of Emperor Peter I or even since the time of the Council that condemned Patriarch Nikon, for these decrees have not yet been controlled by the Universal Church, which is required by the spirit of the true Church of Christ. 2) Must receive a complete meeting on all subjects of church teaching and administration from the Eastern Patriarchs. We must also receive from them a complete collection of those decrees that have been made since the alienation of the Russian Church from the Eastern Church and which are most unknown in the Russian Church. 3) To invite from the Patriarch of Constantinople, with the consent of the other Patriarchs, one person or two persons who would be very knowledgeable in the faith and very pious, who would enjoy the full power of attorney of the Patriarchs and, together with these persons, prepare everything that should be considered at the Council. Preliminary consideration and agreement should make it easier for the Council to act and eliminate sharp clashes. The composition of the All-Russian Church Council is presented to His Grace Ignatius in the following form. – The Council must have the character of an Ecumenical Council. He must enjoy complete freedom. There should be representatives of all Eastern Patriarchs and all Russian Archpriests, either personally or through their attorneys. At the Council there should be deputies: 1) from Russian monasticism, according to the election of this monasticism; 2) from the white Russian clergy, by election of this clergy; 3) from Orthodox laity, by election of the laity. Approximately each enapxia must elect two deputies from each category, for a total of six deputies each diocese must elect. The government should dispatch several dignitaries from those most familiar with the faith to observe - just as it was at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, so that the Council could be carried out freely and correctly.” “The main subjects of the Council’s studies should be the following: 1) Consideration of the decrees that currently guide the Russian Church; this should be followed by the destruction of decrees that disagree with the decrees of the Eastern Orthodox Church. 2) The destruction of caste, the so-called spiritual rank, as an irregularity that crept in by itself in opposition to the rules of the Holy Apostles. It is necessary to restore the most ancient custom of the Church: let the enapxia elect from itself an Apxiepeus, and the parish - a priest, a deacon and a cleric, testifying to their piety. 3) Renunciation for all altar servers from the honors and occupations of this world, and for monks, no matter what their ecclesiastical hierarchical degrees, from all unnecessary property, even money. The remaining money and property after the monks should be the property of the monasteries, - in no way - not relatives in the flesh. Elimination of the entire clergy is necessary; from speculation and all intrigues for enrichment, it is necessary to renounce all vain honors; removal from luxury is necessary, modesty is necessary, and for monks non-covetousness is also necessary. 4) Restoration in the monasteries of the statutes and rules of the Holy Fathers, who set out the statutes and rules for monasticism by revelation of God, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and not by any human consideration. 5) The opinions presented at the Council must be written down, as was the case at the Ecumenical Councils, repeated after each meeting, and, at the end of the Council, announced in print for all to see. 6) A draft Code or Laws and Rules must be drawn up that could guide the Russian Church in its present situation. 7) It is necessary to revise the Catechisms and Theology and supplement them, giving them an Orthodox-Eastern character, similar to the character of the Divine Service of the Orthodox Church, so that the knowledge announced publicly by the Divine Service is also proclaimed by the Catechisms. 8) Draw up a charter for theological educational institutions in relation to the charter of monasteries. 9) Collect and print the Tradition of the Universal Church (Cursus completus Patrologiae) in Greek, Latin, Slavic and Russian. And the Tradition of the Universal Eastern Church, ascertained with all fidelity, according to the most reliable documents, should act in favor of the Orthodox Church. 10) Give the Synod a correct organization and abolish slavery in the clergy, according to the instructions of the Holy Apostles. 11) Abolish the punishments newly invented for the clergy, which in their nature belong to tyranny, so alien to the spirit of the Church, serving to the final moral disorder of those who are subjected to them.” Moreover, in the note of Bishop Ignatius “On the necessity of the Council, given the current state of the Russian Orthodox Church,” a lot of space is removed from the question of the position of secular persons in the composition of the highest Church administration and especially of the Chief Prosecutor’s power. This side of the highest Church administration should have the following statement, according to the project of His Eminence Ignatius: “The spirit of the times and experiences prove the complete and decisive need for a secular person for the Church, who would take care of its benefits, protect them, bring them into harmony with the benefits of the state, communicate with ministers and all higher authorities, and have a direct report to the Sovereign. This person should be on a par with the highest dignitaries of the state. It has already been placed in this place by the irresistible force of circumstances and the spirit of the time. The position of the Chief Prosecutor, to which he is placed by modern requirements, does not in any way coincide with the position given to the Chief Prosecutor by the state institution of this position. For this reason, every Chief Prosecutor, of necessity, strives to get out of the position in which his original institution puts him, as from a false position that constrains the requirements of his activity to the greatest detriment to the cause of the Church. This brings him into conflict and struggle with the Synod, with the clergy, with the Church, which has its own hierarchical statutes, given to it by the Apostles according to the will of the God-Man. No government can cancel these statutes.” To eliminate possible tensions between the church-synodal and civil-ecclesiastical chief prosecutorial authorities, His Eminence Ignatius plans to return the chief prosecutorial position to its original state, but at the same time proposes the establishment, along with the post of Chief Prosecutor, of the position of Trustee of the Church. The attitude of these persons to Church administration is presented by the Most Reverend Ignatius in the following form. The Church needs a Trustee, a Ktitor, a church warden. Under the Trustee, to whom the companion and office of the current Chief Prosecutor should pass, the Special Chief Prosecutor at the Holy Synod may remain in the position given to him by the original institution. In this position, the Chief Prosecutor is not required to be a courtier; it is required that he be a jurist, a lawyer, an office and clerical businessman. Since all reports and all administrative communications must be carried out through the Trustee, the Prosecutor will always control the members of the Synod before the Trustee, and the members - the Prosecutor. The desire of the Chief Prosecutor to move to the position of minister will no longer have any place or basis. The establishment of the position of Trustee will in no way be an innovation in the Church, being in accordance with the spirit of the Church, having already been implemented in all parish Churches, but it is urgently required by the modern situation and the spirit of society. The Synod will be significantly strengthened under the Trustee for the greatest good of the state, a good that is cursed by the terrible decline of religion and its rights in all classes. The internal struggle in the Synod is shocking and destroying it, the struggle between the secular and spiritual authorities, the struggle that does not cease, although not always obvious, will be destroyed. The Trustee, having the importance and rights of a high dignitary, being a member of the State Council and the Committee of Ministers, being a Trustee and not a minister, will not encounter reasons for the struggle that arises from the desire for elevation, a desire caused by necessity. To tell the truth, the establishment of a Trustee is already evident. The Chief Prosecutors have moved significantly towards this position. But this situation is an accident; it is the fruit of connections of court influence and does not have a solid foundation; All Orthodox people look at him incredulously. It cannot be otherwise. The ministry is something like the patriarchate; for this reason, every Chief Prosecutor, having achieved the status of a minister, remains in a false, uncertain position and puts the entire Church in the same position. The Chief Prosecutor can very conveniently be renamed the Trustee, and the ruler of the Synod Chancellery - the Chief Prosecutor. In this case, the false position of everyone will disappear by itself: everyone will enter into correct relationships, indicated by church and civil law. A well-intentioned and prudent Trustee, more than anyone else, will have the means to carry it out. The convening of the Council should be pleasant for the Trustee, because the Council, for its own strength and freedom, will try to elevate the importance of the Trustee and have in him a reliable instrument for acting in favor of the Church and for its defense against individuals hostile to the Church. On the contrary, the council will certainly take care of limiting the ministerial power of the Chief Prosecutor, precisely because of its similarity to the power of the Patriarch. This will lead to clashes and intrigues, and will make the meeting of the Council useless. The trustee of the Orthodox Church must certainly be the minister of all other confessions: this will put other confessions in the correct relation to the dominant religion, which, in its present position, often takes on the character of an exclusively oppressed and persecuted one.” Carefully prepared, successfully conducted, with the intended composition of members, and in the direction of the above-mentioned most important issues of discussion, the All-Russian Council of the Orthodox Church, according to the conviction of His Grace Ignatius, will be very important and will bring beneficial results not only in church-religious, but also in civil-state terms. “If God’s Mercy grants the Council to be completed with the desired success, as the Ecumenical and Local Councils of the Orthodox Church were accomplished, then the beneficial fruits of the Council, both in spiritual and civil terms, will be amazingly majestic and great. In spiritual terms, triumph will be brought to the true teaching of Christ, which we almost did not dare to talk about until now. When Christ’s teaching is explained with all frankness, then all heretical teachings will fall, or at least greatly weaken, the Orthodox people will be established in Orthodoxy, and many Gentiles will flock under the roof of Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy must be accepted in all its integrity and completeness. In civil terms, such a Council will unite the Orthodox believing people into one people, even if these people were in different states and under different civil governance. In Russia, such a council should have a strong impact on the schism, which currently has much support for itself in the rules and regulations of the Universal Church. The Americans and the British will be forced, not by violence, but by common sense, to accept the Orthodox faith as it is, without any changes or exceptions. Russia, since the time of Peter I, has often made many donations to the detriment of faith, to the detriment of truth and spirit, for empty and false political considerations, which covered up a corrupt heart, hatred and contempt for the rules of the Church and for the Law of God. All these considerations, having shaken the terribly Orthodox faith, turned out to be decisively harmful for the state and the administration. With the consciousness of error, with self-sacrifice, one must renounce all human-pleasing, criminal deviations in relation to God. Otherwise, without this determination, it is better not to convene the Council.” So clear and definite is the Most Reverend Ignatius in his church and social views. Without pursuing any personal goals, having renounced earthly acquisitions, Vladyka Ignatius puts spiritual salvation above all else, and values ​​the wealth of faith above all else. And he is rich in this faith. Never caring about acquiring earthly riches, this chosen one of God, Bishop Ignatius, was royally rich in faith in Christ, a living and active faith, for it was carried out in deeds, not words; and we can liken his soul to a great ship sailing on the waters of the worldly sea, filled with various spiritual treasures, constantly increasing them on its way. So precious are these riches that all the riches of this world are nothing in comparison with them. The world envies these riches and breathes hatred towards the one who acquired them. This ship, despite the strength of its structure and its size, was threatened by contrary winds, storms, underwater rocks, shoals, for every Christian, despite the fact that he is clothed in Christ, must make an earthly journey among numerous fears. And just as an ordinary ship always strives for a pier, stopping along the way only for a short time, when necessary, so the ship of his soul omnipotently and unswervingly strived only for heaven, only for eternity, and did not attach its heart to anything temporary or anything earthly. 590 We can liken him to that wanderer along the road of life who, when he stops along the way in a strange home - the earth, does not pay special attention to this house. Why attention when he is sheltered in the house only for the shortest time? He is content with only what is necessary; tries not to spend the money that he needs to continue his journey and to maintain himself in the great city to which he is marching; endures disadvantages and inconveniences generously, knowing that they are an accident to which all travelers are exposed; that inviolable calm awaits him in the place where he strives. He does not become attached with his heart to any object in the hotel, no matter how attractive the object may seem. He does not waste time on extraneous activities: he needs it to complete a difficult journey. He was constantly deep in thought about the magnificent royal capital to which he was heading, about the significant obstacles that must be overcome, about the means that could make the journey easier, about the robber ambushes that plague the path, about the unfortunate fate of those who did not manage to complete this journey safely, about the happiest situation of those who completed it with the desired success. Having spent the required time in the hotel, he thanks the owner for the hospitality shown to him, and, having left, forgets about the hotel or remembers it superficially, because his heart was cold towards it. 591 We can liken him to that wanderer who stands on the shore of the stormy sea. Fiercely gray waves approach the wanderer’s feet and, hitting the sand, crumble into small splashes at his feet. The sea, bickering with the whirlwind, roars, becomes waves like mountains, boils, bubbles; waves give birth and consume one another; their heads are crowned with snow-white foam; the sea covered with them represents one immense mouth of a terrible monster, lined with teeth. The mysterious wanderer looks at this formidable spectacle with calm thought. His only eyes are on the sea, but where is his thought, where is his heart? – his thought is at the gates of death; the heart is at the judgment of Christ. Here he already faces with his mind, here he faces with his sensations, here are his worries, here is his fear: from this fear the fear of earthly temptations flees. 592 And we believe that when the pure soul of one who himself did not find in himself any virtue, no feat worthy of the inhabitants of heaven, was separated from the body, the hordes of dark demons could not find in it any affinity with themselves, nor their fall, nor their sinful properties, nor their ungodly will; these fallen angels could not drag her, this soul who loved the Lord, into their dwellings of eternal, fierce sorrow; eternal darkness and instead of unquenchable fire, a home of torment and continuous, endless groaning. We believe that to this soul chosen by God, purified by prayer and repentance, fulfilling the commandments of her Heavenly Father, a peaceful and bright Angel appeared and soared with her to the throne of God, and only there, in the face of the Eternal Just Judge, the one who all his life considered himself an indecent sinner, worthy only of execution and punishment, should have seen himself “claiming spiritual treasures - the guarantees of never-ending bliss." We, like his cell attendant Vasily, believe that when his body was hidden in the coffin, his winged soul flew away to where his thoughts and feelings always resided, where his heart always lived: to heaven. And together with Vasily we exclaim: “There you are, there you are!” How good it is for you, Lord! You are blissful now, having forgotten everything sorrowful on earth, all the exploits and labors raised for heaven. You stand before the unapproachable majesty of the Divine, at the unstoppable Light, and you yourself are filled with light; you are saturated with an unceasing vision of God, you burn, like the seraphim, with love for Him; your heart burns, melts like wax, being scorched by fire - by God.” 593 We say this because we believe that only one acquisition that we have made on earth can remain forever our inalienable property - our salvation. “Whoever has used earthly life to accumulate wealth will leave wealth behind during the transition to eternity; whoever used earthly life to acquire honors and glory will have them taken away by cruel death. Whoever used earthly life to acquire his salvation will take his salvation with him into eternity and in heaven will forever be comforted by the acquisition made on earth.” 594 The entire life of Bishop Ignatius was directed only towards the acquisition of this inalienable treasure - salvation, which he took with him into eternity. And once again reviewing the entire life of this strict ascetic, this active abbot, priest, and spiritual writer! laboring for more than forty years in a difficult field, but freely chosen by him, we will say that he will leave behind an unforgettable memory as a humbly wise monk, a skillful and zealous abbot, an eparch who actively preached the word of God, but did not lose sight of the material well-being of the diocese, and as a spiritual-ascetic writer who knew how to do so abundantly, so clearly, and so artistically simply convey the essence of the information with which his rich memory abounded, drawing from the very source, ever-flowing and exuding its multi-healing and life-giving streams in the Holy Scriptures and in the writings of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church. Almost fifty years have passed since the day when His Grace Ignatius gave up his soul to the Lord, but he is alive to this day in his creations, serving as an indispensable guide for all “who want to live piously in Christ”; and the righteous name of this chosen one of God is prayerfully revered, not only by Russian, but also by Svyatogorsk monasticism. Firm faith in his prayerful intercession before God even recently prompted some devotees of piety from the distant holy Mount Athos to flock to the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery for prayerful veneration of his tomb. 595 Mentally standing at this tomb, we, finishing the description of the bright and righteous personality, Bishop Ignatius, illuminated by the bright light of God's election, exclaim: eternal memory to you, blessed Saint! May the Lord God bless and give rest to your heroic soul, count us with the righteous and have mercy and save us through your prayers, as He is Good and Lover of Mankind! Seeing the immaculate paths of your godly life, we believe in your prayers and ask you, champion of Orthodoxy, worker and teacher of repentance and prayer: do not leave us during our exodus from this temporary life! When our souls are separated from our mortal bodies, when, due to our many sins, dark spirits surround them, help us in this bitter hour to get rid of them, so that they do not drag us with them into the prison of hell. Our hope in these terrible moments is God’s endless goodness, the intercession of God’s saints and your prayers. Pray to Christ God, who you bore in your heart, to grant us repentance before the end! And it seems to us that now, when you, good shepherd, who preached God’s Word-Christ’s teaching all your life, lie under a cold, silent stone, your very grave, without the sounds that only the earthly word needs, announces to us a loud sermon, sends to us, restless, noisy seekers of corruption on the earth’s surface, the most convincing admonition: earthly life is instantaneous, deceptive dream. Eternity is inevitable. There is also a disastrous eternity!... Acquire a blessed eternity by attention and obedience to the all-holy law of the All-Holy God - and come to true, never-ending pleasure, each at his own time appointed by God Himself and the One!.. Niece of the Reverend Ignatia Varvara Vasilyevna Boborykina in her memories of her grandfather, Alexander Semenovich Bryanchaninov. paying due tribute to his education, intelligence and character, he invariably adds to his review of Alexander Semenovich: “he was a Freemason.” According to the stories of Pokrovsky old-timers, the church in the village of Pokrovsky was built in 1810, and the house in 1811. so by the time of the nationwide events in Russian life in 1812, Alexander Semenovich was already living in a new house. According to eyewitnesses, Alexander Semenovich always stood until the end of the liturgy and after that carried the prosphora given to him in his hands, with his head uncovered, to his home. Of course, the distance is small, but the reception and custom are characteristic. According to the legends kept by the old-timers in Pokrovskoye, in the year of the Napoleonic invasion, Alexander Semenovich often looked with sadness at his newly rebuilt house, sitting in a chair opposite the terrace built on the garden side, and mysteriously said: “Fun, my fun, who will get you”? But the hard times have passed and the “fun” fell into worthy hands and to this day serves as an interesting monument to its remarkable builder. According to the memoirs of Senator N.S. Bryanchaninov, the solemn meetings of the apxiepe in Yurov and Pokrovsky, which he and his brother, later the Samara governor, the late A. S. Bryanchaninov, repeatedly witnessed, made an indelible impression, confirming the special height of the Holy Order. And when later, as final year students, Nikolai Semenovich and Alexander Semenovich Bryanchaninov, on the advice of their father Semyon Alexandrovich, went to Babayki to see their uncle and for the sake of spiritual consolation, they were most confused by the thought that their uncle was a Bishop, which, along with the rumor about his holiness, increased their difficulties when meeting him, precisely in view of the height of the rank he held. And only the extraordinary simplicity and cordiality of Bishop Ignatius at the meeting helped the nephews to get closer to their famous uncle, and to adopt a touching tone of sincere frankness in their conversation with him. To characterize the energy and determination of the Brianchaninovs, the following case seems interesting. When in 1831 it was necessary to remove Archbishop Irinei Nesterovich from Irkutsk, who refused to leave the diocese and considered the Highest command to dismiss him to be fraudulent, this responsible matter was entrusted to Nikita Petrovich Brianchaninov, who at that time, it seems, was the gendarme Captain. Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich wanted this order to be carried out quickly, decisively and without publicity or temptation among the people. He expressed his thoughts on this matter to Count Beckendorf and asked if he had people capable of carrying out this assignment. Beckendorf pointed to N.P. Brianchaninov and, when the latter, at Beckendorf’s call, appeared before the Sovereign, the latter, by direct impression, remained satisfied, remarking with satisfaction: “this one will take it out.” N.P. Brianchaninov with great authority went to Irkutsk, introduced himself to Governor-General Lavinsky and His Eminence Irenaeus, for some time attended the divine service performed by Archbishop Irenaeus and, being a pious man, had spiritual conversations with him, and then, having prepared everything and made the appropriate orders along the way, announced to Archbishop Irineus about the goal The highest business trip. Irinei Nestorovich tried to resist, but was instantly calmed by Brianchaninov, who revealed to him the utter futility of resistance. Vladyka Irenaeus felt a decline in energy and, to the surprise of the Governor General, obeyed Brianchaninov, who, placing him in a locked carriage, drove him at the highest speed to Vologda, where, having placed Vladyka Irenaeus in the Spaso-Prilutsky Monastery, five miles from Vologda he went with a report to the Sovereign. The Emperor thanked Brianchaninov. Subsequently I.P. Brianchaninov visited Rev. Irineya and the latter, remembering his involuntary resettlement to Priluki, did not harbor any malice towards Nikita Petrovich, who had captured him. (From the stories of V. N. Brianchaninov). The life story of His Eminence Irinei Nesterovich is described in detail in an interesting article by Professor Archpriest F.I. Titov “Kyiv Theological Academy in the era of reforms”. Proceedings of the Imperial Kiev Theological Academy for 1914, January, pp. 35–86 and September-October pp. 72–104). Due to the death of Alexander Semenovich and the absence of heirs in the male line, the estate, by voluntary agreement, Sofia Borisovna, the wife of Alexander Semenovich, was transferred to his nephew, the son of Nikolai Semenovich, Vladimir Nikolaevich Bryanchaninov, now the Arkhangelsk vice-governor. The parish church and cemetery of the village of Pokrovskoye are kept in remarkable order and cleanliness, thanks to the attention of the village owners and the diligence of the parish rector, Archpriest Konstantin Lavrov. It is worthy of note that among the servants of the Church of God - the parish priests - there is also a continuity of the family, as among the owners of the village of Pokrovskoye. We looked at the clergy records of the Intercession Church for a century and were convinced that during the specified period of time there was no case of a priest being appointed to Intercession from the outside, and the position of parish rector was held in one family. The custom in Great Russia, and especially in the north, is not uncommon and, in our opinion, useful for the improvement of parish life. Works of Bishop Ignatius, vol. I, "Cemetery", p. 186. Service certificate of the Actual Privy Councilor, Senator Nikolai Semenovich Brianchaninov. From family legends of the Brianchaninov family. Representatives of the Bryanchaninov family line under consideration follow in this order: 1. Mikhail Bryanko; 2. Ivan Chelishchev; 3. Ignatius Brianchaninov; 4. Sophrony; 5. Vasily; 6. Boris; 7. Theodore; 8. Afanasy; 9. Mikhail; 10. Andrey; 11 Semyon and 12. Alexander. Nick. Sem. Brianchaninov family in 1844, after education at the Vologda gymnasium and St. Pete. University at the Faculty of Law, for some time he was busy arranging property affairs after the death of his father. In 1867 he entered the Cavalry Regiment and from then on his military service continued continuously until 1885, when he, awarded during his military service with various orders up to St. Vladimir 4th degree inclusive, including two foreign ones, and repeated thanks in the Orders of the Chief of the General Staff, retired with a uniform and with the rank of major general; Upon his retirement, Nikolai Semenovich, until 1890, was engaged in farming on his Pskov estate and in public service, by the way, with the rank of leader of the nobility. By the highest order of Jan. In 1890, Nikolai Semenovich was appointed Pskov Vice-Governor, and in 1893 by the Highest Order dated February 16. was appointed to the post of Ryazan Governor, where he served until August 11, 1904, taking an active part in the development of the activities of everyday public life.. The varied and useful activities of Nikolai Semenovich, when he was the Ryazan Governor, earned him wide popularity, love and respect in the province. In the Ryazan province there is almost not a single educational scientific or charitable Society where Nikolai Semenovich is not a lifelong honorary or honorary member. On August 11, 1904, by the Highest Decree, Nikolai Semenovich was appointed to be present in the Government Senate, initially in the second department, and from January 1, 1905, he was moved to be present in the first department. During his many years of civil service, Nikolai Semenovich Bryanchaninov was repeatedly awarded the Highest Order and was awarded orders up to and including Alexander Nevsky. On August 22, 1913, Nikolai Semenovich was most mercifully granted the insignia of blameless service for XL years. At a distance of 15 versts from Pokrovsky. “From family memories” by Kupreyanova, “Theological Bulletin” for 1914, (April, p. 650). From the stories of Senator N.S. Brianchaninova. From the stories of Alexander Semenovich’s own grandson, Senator Nikolai Semenovich Bryanchaninov. “From the family memories of Kupreyanova (“Theological Bulletin” for 1914, April, pp. 650–651). In the confessional statements of the village of Pokrovskoye for 1822, the composition of the children of Alexander Semenovich is presented in the following order: Dimitri - 16 years old, Alexandra - 15 years old, Peter - 14 years old, Sophia - 13 years old, Mikhail - 12 years old, Elizaveta - 11 years old, Alexander - 9 years old, Simeon - 7 years old, Maria - 5 years old, Lyubov - 6 years old. In the metric book of the Church of the Intercession for 1807, in part 1 about those born, it is written: On the 5th day of February, he was born, on the 6th he was prayed for and on the 9th he was baptized in the village of Pokrovskoye by Mr. Lieutenant Alexander Semenov from his wife, his Sofia Afanasyevna, son Dimitri, the baptismal recipient was St. Advisor Dimitry Ivanov Samarin; parish priest Timofey Vasiliev said prayers and baptized; At the baptism there were parish deacon Ivan Afanasyev and sexton Pavel Petrov.” This certificate gives grounds to consider the birthday of Dimitri Bryanchaninov Bishop Ignatius to be the 5th, and not the 6th or 8th of February, as some of his biographers indicate, for example, see: 1) Biography of Bishop Ignatius Br., compiled by his closest students in 1881; 2) His Grace Ignatius Brianchaninov, Bishop of the Caucasus and Black Sea. Archpriest F. Znamensky (Church Gazette for 1903); 3) His Eminence Ignatius (Br.), Bishop of the Caucasus V. Askochensky (Home conversation for 1867); 4) Letters of an ascetic, S. G. Runkevich (Christian reading for 1895); 5) In search of the Living God. Hiermonk Ignatius (Sadkovsky). From the family memories of Kupreyanova (Theological Bulletin for 1914, p. 652). From the stories of Senator N. S. Brianchaninov. From family memories of Kupriyanova. Right there. From the family memories of Kupreyanova (Theological Bulletin for 1914, pp. 652, 653:658). From the family memories of Kupreyanova (Theological Bulletin for 1914, p. 659). Alexander Semenovich, well understanding the need for education, not only for those at higher levels of the social ladder, but also for the peasants, took care of disseminating literacy among these latter, maintaining throughout his life in Pokrovskoye, at his full expense, a parish two-year school, in which up to 50 peasant children studied, for which he enjoyed the reputation of an advanced person among the assistants around him. (Biography of Bishop Ignatius, volume I, compiled by his close disciples in 1881, p. 8). His Eminence Ignatius (Br.) Bishop of the Caucasus. V. Askochensky (Home conversation for 1867, p. 655). Dimitri Aleksandrovich's friend Chikhachev subsequently saw the great mercy of God in the fact that the teacher of the Law of God for the future saint of the Russian Church was a man not of secular, but of spiritual education. From the family memories of Kupreyanova (Theological Bulletin for 1914, p. 661:653). From the family memories of Kupreyanova (Theological Bulletin for 1914, pp. 653–4). Dorimedont walked to St. Petersburg. The master usually gave him 2 rubles for the journey, and this money was not only quite enough, but the faithful servant also managed to bring Alexander Semenovich a bottle of St. Petersburg Provençal oil as a gift. From the family memories of Kupreyanova (Theological Bulletin for 1914, pp. 654–56). From the family memories of Kupreyanova (Theological Bulletin for 1914, pp. 656–7:659). From the stories of Senator N. S. Brianchaninov. Semyon Alexandrovich, being the father of the family, preferred to stand respectfully in conversation with his father. When Alexander Semenovich came downstairs in the morning, the children met him and kissed the hands stretched out to them. From the family memories of Kupreyanova (Theological Bulletin for 1914, p. 651). Works of Ep. Ignatius Brianchaninov, vol. IV, p. 435. “My childhood was filled with sorrows,” wrote Bishop. Ignatius in his article “My Cry” already in 1847. Op. Ep. Ignatius, volume 1 “My Cry.” Op. Ep. Ignatius, vol. 1, p. 552. In search of the Living God. Jerome. Ignatius (Sadkovsky), p. 7. Op. Ep. Ignatius, vol. 1, p. 555. Op. Ep. Ignatius, vol. V, page 3. The first engineering school in Rus', opened by Peter the Great in Moscow in 1712, was transferred to St. Petersburg 11 years later (in 1723). and is connected to the St. Petersburg Engineering School (established in 1719). In 1728, the Engineering School, according to Minich, was connected to the Artillery School, and in 1804, at the suggestion of General Sukhtelen, the engineering part was again separated from the artillery, and a school of conductor engineers was established, for 25 people, which from 1810 became known as the Engineering School. In 1817, Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich was appointed inspector general of the engineering unit, and on November 24, 1819, at his insistence, the main Engineering School was opened, which was divided into two divisions: conductor-three-class and officer-two-class. Those who graduated from the conductor classes moved on to the officer classes, where they continued their education. In 1855, the main Engineering School was renamed the Nikolaev Engineering School, and the officer classes were renamed the Nikolaev Engineering Academy. (Big Encyclopedia. Publishers: Meyer Bibliographic Institute in Leipzig and Vienna and the Prosveshcheniye publishing company in St. Petersburg. Volume 10, p. 121). Complete works of Leskov in Marx's edition. 1902, vol. IV, p. 53. Works of Bishop Ignatius, vol. I, p. 556. Works of Bishop Ignatius, vol. I, p. 555. By the end of 1823, with transfer to the upper conduction. class, Brianchaninov was appointed sergeant major of the conductor company; the following year he was transferred from the cadet classes to the lower officer class and promoted to ensign engineer (December 13, 1824). The Work of Bishop Ignatius, vol. I, pp. 556–559. Works of Bishop Ignatius, vol. I, p. 559. Works of Bishop Ignatius, vol.IV, p. 501. V. Askochensky, Most Reverend Ignatius (Brianch.), Bishop of the Caucasus (Home conversation for 1867, p. 660) The Work of Bishop Ignatius, vol. I, pp. 559–560. Works of Bishop Ignatius, vol. I, p. 560. The Work of Bishop Ignatius, vol. I, pp. 560–561. The Work of Bishop Ignatius, vol. I, pp. 562–563. Works of Bishop Ignatius, vol.IV, p. 433. V. Askochensky, Most Reverend Ignatius (Brianch.), Bishop of the Caucasus (Home conversation for 1867, p. 656). Works of Bishop Ignatius, vol.IV, p. 439. Notes of M. Chikhichov, p. 1. Notes of M. Chikhichov, p. 5. Notes of M. Chikhichov, pp. 10–11. Leskov's works, vol. IV, p. 55. Works of Leskov, vol. IV, pp. 54–55. We cannot, of course, claim the unconditional authenticity of the above conversation. But that discussions on a similar topic could and probably very often happened between comrades who decided to leave the vain world to serve the One Lord; that such reasoning was fully consistent with the inner mood of young Brianchaninov - there can be no doubt about this for a person, although partially familiar with his virtuous life. Askochensky. His Eminence Ignatius (Br.), Bishop of the Caucasus. (Home conversation for 1867). Works of Leskov, vol. IV, p. 56. In addition to the personal innate truthfulness of friends, in relation to Brianchaninov, how reminiscent of the influence of the honest and truthful Dormedon! Works of Leskov, vol. IV, pp. 56–57. In 1824, Brianchaninov was transferred from the cadet classes to the lower officer class, which is now the Nikolaev Engineering Academy. Works of Bishop Ignatius, vol. I, p. 556. Notes of M. Chikhachov, pp. 12–13. Notes of M. Chikhachov, page 15. The inspector of the school was Engineer Major General Baron Elsner, who had difficulty communicating in Russian. In search of the Living God. Jerome. Ignatius, page 12. Subsequently, he was a housekeeper in the Sergius Hermitage under Archimandrite Ignatius, and then a builder of the Cheremenets monastery, where he died. About Fr. Leonidas and Elder Paisia ​​will continue. Notes of M. Chikhachov, p. 18. From the family memories of Kupreyanova (Theological Bulletin for 1914, p. 660). From the family memories of Kupreyanova (Theological Bulletin for 1914, p. 9). Having immediately entered the second, conductor class, Brianchaninov became an officer before Chikhachov. Works of Leskov, vol. IV, p. 57. Notes of Chikhachov, page 20. Notes of Chikhachov, page 21. Notes of M. Chikhachov, pp. 22–23. Biography of Ep. Ignatius Br., compiled by his closest students in 1881, pp. 26–27. Works of Ep. Ignatius, vol. I, pp. 562–563. Notes of Chikhachov, page 23. Elder Leonidas, who in the biography of Bishop Ignatius, compiled by his closest disciples in 1881, is figuratively called Moses, who led the new Israeli (Dimitri Alexandrovich) from the Egypt of worldly life, was so important for this latter that it seems appropriate to say about him in a little more detail. Coming from a family of simple Karachev citizens, the Nagolkins, Elder Leonid (in the world Lev Danilovich) spent his youth as a merchant clerk, traveling on trade affairs throughout almost the entire Russian land. Twenty-nine years old, leaving the world (in 1797); he spent 2 years in Optina Pustyn; and from here he moved to the deserted Beloberezh monastery, where in 1801 he was tonsured a monk by its abbot, Hieromonk Vasily (Kishkin) and named Leonid. In the same year, he was ordained a hierodeacon, and then a hieromonk, which indicates that he was superior to other brethren with his strict life and his exploits. After spending 3 years in continuous labor at the Beloberezh monastery, Hieromonk Leonid was appointed (in 1804) rector of the same monastery. Even before taking this position, Fr. Leonid, while temporarily staying in the Cholna monastery, had the opportunity to recognize schemamonk Theodore, who had settled there, experienced in “ascetic life—a student of the great elder Paisius, archimandrite of the Moldo-Vlachian monasteries. This elder, Paisiy Velichkovsky, contributed to the restoration in Russia of the eldership that flourished in the ancient Egyptian and Palestinian monasteries and was subsequently planted on Mount Athos. With great difficulty, he collected on Athos and translated from Greek into Slavic the works of ascetic writers, which contain the doctrine of monastic life in general, and especially the spiritual attitude towards elders. At the same time, in the German and other Moldavian monasteries subordinate to him, he showed the application of this teaching to business. The disciple of Elder Paisius, schemamonk Theodore, who lived in Moldova for about 20 years, learned from him this order of monastic life. Just as Dimitri Alexandrovich subsequently devoted himself entirely to the spiritual mentorship of Father Leonid, so this latter entrusted his entire soul to Elder Theodore, wise by the grace of the Holy Spirit, and under his experienced guidance achieved spiritual enlightenment. When Fr. Leonid was appointed rector of the Beloberezh Hermitage; the humble elder Theodore, burdened by the numerous visitors, moved (in 1805) to the same monastery to live with his beloved disciple for a more convenient prayer service. Lord. 3 years after this, when the elder, thirsting for an even more secluded and silent life, retired to a secluded cell built for him two miles from the monastery in the depths of the forest, the humble Fr. Leonid voluntarily resigned as abbot (in 1808) and went over to the elder. Here, living with Fr. Theodore in the desert silence, he privately “took monastic vows into the schema and was named Leo. But the desert-loving Father Theodore and his disciple did not manage to live in solitude for long: thousands of visitors flocking to the doors of the cell forced the first to move to the Novoyezersky Monastery (in 1809), then to the Paleostrovsk Hermitage (on the island of Lake Onega) and, finally, in 1812, to the monastery of the Valaam Monastery, where a year earlier he had arrived from the White Shores and Fr. Leonid. The valiant companions spent about six years in the Valaam monastery, teaching wise advice and instructions to everyone who wanted to benefit from their spiritual guidance. But their teaching, which brought such great spiritual benefit to many, caused persecution against them from the Valaam abbot-abbot Innocent, who, seeing that many brethren who had previously been his disciples (for example, Keller Father Evdokim) turned to the elders, complained about them to Metropolitan Ambrose of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, saying that they were disturbing the peace of the monastery. And, although the elders did not suffer from this denunciation, thanks to the thorough and impartial investigation of the case by the Konevsky builder, Fr. Hilarion and thanks to the intercession of the then archimandrites, and later the great saints Philaret and Innocent, but, fearing further persecution from the abbot, they decided to leave Valaam and move to the Alexander-Svirsky monastery (in June 1817). Here, in the year 1822, on April 7, on the evening of Bright Friday, after a serious illness, Elder Theodore calmly gave up the ghost, in the arms of his beloved disciple and at the same time spiritual father Leonid, rejoicing at the end of his voyage on the sea of ​​life. After his death, Fr. Leonid did not want to stay in the Alexander-Svirsky Monastery, both for the sake of his disciples, who could not yet bear the rumors from the large crowd of people in the Fierce Monastery, and for some other reasons, trying to move to a more secluded place. When this desire of Father Leonid became known, he and his disciples began to be invited to different places: to the Kazan diocese, to the Ploshchanskaya Hermitage, to the newly built monastery at the Optina Hermitage. It was most desirable for the elder to settle in the last place, where he spent the first two years of his monastic life and where he was invited by the Kaluga Archpastor His Eminence Philaret, the Optina Abbot Daniel and the founder of the monastery, Fr. Moses, with the skete elders. But despite the intense requests of Father Leonid, he was kept in the Alexander-Svirsky Monastery for another 6 years after the death of Elder Theodore, which he could leave only in 1828; but even after leaving the Svirskaya monastery, he did not suddenly decide to move to the Optina Hermitage, where his heart was drawn, but, as if in order to make sure whether it was God’s will for him to move to this monastery, he first settled in the Ploshchanskaya Hermitage, where he was attracted by the desire to cohabit with the local hieromonk Father Makarii Ivanov with whom he became spiritually close (Fr. Leonid arrived in Ploshchanskaya Pustyn, October 6, 1828), and only six months later, in April 1829, he finally moved with his students to Optina Pustyn. In the penultimate year of Father Leonid’s stay in the Alexander-Svirsky Monastery (in November 1827), Dimitri Alexandrovich Brianchaninov arrived here and entered under his spiritual mentorship. We will present the most important facts of the subsequent life of Father Leonid in parallel with the biography of the Most Reverend. Ignatius. (All of the above information and others about Elder Leonid can be read in the book: “Biography of the Optina Elder Hieromonk Leonid (in the schema of Leo). Edition of the Kozelskaya Vvedenskaya Optina Hermitage, 1890). Archpriest F. Znamensky. Rev. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Bishop. Caucasian and Black Sea. (Church Gazette for 1903, p. 1165). Biography of Ep. Ignat. Br., compiled by his students in 1881, p. 32. S. G. Runkevich. Letters of an Ascetic (Christian Reading for 1895, p. 556). The fact that the Sovereign Emperor himself persuaded Brianchaninov not to leave his service is also evidenced by Askochensky in his biographical sketch. Notes of M. Chikhachov, p. 25. Notes of Chikhachov, pp. 25–26. Biography of Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, compiled by his students in 1881, p. 38. Notes of Chikhachov, pp. 26, 28. Brianchaninov was dismissed with the rank of lieutenant. Notes of Chikhachov, page 29. At this time, the rector of the Svirsky monastery was Archimandrite Barsanuphius; The position of treasurer was filled by Fr. Andronik, and the sacristan. Ilarius (later abbot of the Nikolo-Ugreshsky monastery, in the schema Ilya, who died in 1862 in retirement in the Gethsemane monastery). The Alexander-Svirsky Monastery is located in the Olonetsky district of the Olonets province, on the right side of the Svir River, 6 versts from it, 20 versts from Lake Ladoga, on the large postal road from the city of Lodeynoye Pole to Olonets and Petrozavodsk. The monastery area is surrounded on all sides by pine forest. The proximity of the Svir River, two large lakes located at the monastery, an elevated and dry location - all this gives the Svirsky monastery and the area it occupies a beautiful appearance and contributes to healthy, well-dissolved air. Old-timers claim that the inhabitants of this corner of Olonets district enjoy remarkable longevity. The foundation of the Svirsky monastery dates back to 1506 AD, and, after the name of the founder - the Venerable Alexander of Svirsky the Wonderworker - and in memory of the church built here by the Venerable in the name of the Holy Trinity, it is called the Trinity Alexander-Svirsky Monastery. Very little information has been preserved about the original history of the Svirsky Monastery. The passage of time, and most importantly the destruction of the monastery in the middle of the 17th century, known from monastery records under the name of the Lithuanian destruction, as well as the monastery fire of 1784, destroyed many precious monuments and documents related to the history of the monastery, especially the first times of its existence. Detailed information about this St. The monastery can be obtained from the book published by the monastery under the title: “Holy Trinity Alexander-Svirsky Monastery.” St. Petersburg 1901 Works of Bishop Ignatius, vol. I, p. 563. Notes of M. Chikhachov, p. 30. Works of Bishop Ignatius, vol. I, p. 565. In “Home Conversation” for 1863 (issue 39), on page 260, the following obituary about N.A. Barkov is placed, which quite clearly depicts his personality to us: “Sept. 16. at 5 o'clock in the morning, after a short but serious illness, died in St. Petersburg, Member of the General Presence of the Holy Synod, Art. Advisor Nikolai Akimovich Barkov in the 63rd year of his life.” He was a true Christian, with his mind, heart and all his thoughts devoted to the Orthodox Church and a strict zealot for its statutes and laws. Brought up under the guidance of the famous ascetics of spiritual life, the hieroschemamonks of the Optina Hermitage Leonid and Macarius, Nikolai Akimovich, while remaining in the world, was, in turn, a true ascetic. Childlike simplicity, the strictest chastity, tireless guarding of oneself from all the vain amusements of this world, unceasing contemplation of God, ascetic sobriety, loving condescension to the weaknesses of one’s neighbor, all-perfect devotion to the leadership of the Orthodox Church, ardent zeal for its integrity and inviolability, reverent love for everything that makes up the character of a truly Russian person - these are the essential features of the deceased, whom we all called: “holy soul.” Readers of "Home Conversation" are somewhat familiar with him. He appeared in our magazine either under his own name, or under the nickname “Shy”, which he accidentally acquired; The last article he submitted to the editor was “Semyon Dmitrievich the Fool.” “We do not count his merits in civic life. For the deceased, he is no longer needed, and those to whom he served, as a true Christian and a faithful son of the fatherland, remember the servant of God Nicholas with prayerful sighing to the God of spirits and all flesh, asking him for residence in the abodes of the righteous, for which he tirelessly strove throughout his arduous life. Peace to your soul, worker of Christ! Go to the One Whom you loved with all your soul! Say a word of prayer there and for us who remember you here! Don’t forget the one you loved so selflessly with your pure soul. V. Askochensky. Rev. Ignatius (Br.), Bishop of the Caucasus. (Home Conversation for 1867, p. 663). Notes of M. Chikhachov. page 31. Ploshchanskaya Bogoroditskaya hermitage is located in the Oryol province, on the shore of Lake Ploshchanskoye, 45 versts from the cities of Dmitrovsk and Sevsk. It was founded by Prof. Procopius at the end of the 14th century. Notes of M. Chikhachov, p. 32. Notes of M. Chikhachov, p. 34. Notes of M. Chikhachov, p. 27. Notes of Chikhachov, pp. 37–39. Ate. Ignatius later wrote: “In 1829 I spent the winter in the Ploshchanskaya desert. And to this day, there, in the garden, stands the secluded wooden cell in which I lived with my friend*. (Works of Bishop Ignatius, vol. I, p. 179). In the notes of M. V. Chikhachov there is a wonderfully poetic and heartfelt “Appeal to my cell, and with it to the entire visible world.” “My cell, my cell! My refuge is silent and soulless! Witness to my sinful secrets! Take heart and tell me: what did you see or hear during my entire stay in you? You are silent now, but someday you will rise up, as if revived, and show my secret deeds. You will expose the sinner before everyone. There will be no way to hide from your accusations. And then, instead of you, I will be covered by shame, fear, trembling, gnashing of teeth, despair, incredible sorrow, unbearable humiliation, fierce poverty, the most cruel of all - separation from everything good and bright and imprisonment with all the evil in darkness, never impenetrable by light. O my cell, my cell! Be revived now, while there is time. Live up and present yourself to me in the form in which you will be when exposed. When the desire to sin comes to me, the desire to make you, my benefactress, a fierce enemy, say threateningly, do not be afraid. Say by the power of the Word of the Living God: stop, evildoer! What are you doing? Come to your senses and rise up! Call upon Him who is able to save you! This word will be followed by the deed itself: And you, my cell, will be my true benefactor, who has covered me here from the troubles and storms of life, with the grace of my Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ and His Most Pure Mother, the Mother of God Mary. When I have stripped myself of everything corruptible, I will say: truly glory, strength and thanksgiving to the Great Lord, who covered me with his rich Grace! Who gives me, instead of you, His abundant love, satisfying in everything, His high humility, aware of my enormous unworthiness of His great benefits, and His bright consolation, filling me with joy and joy unspeakable *. (Notes of M. V. Chikhachov, pp. 131–133). The authorship of this appeal to the cell belongs to D. A. Brianchaninov. Works of Ep. Ignatius, vol. I, "The Garden in Winter", p. 179. Works of Ep. Ignatius, vol. I, “A tree in winter before the windows of the cell,” pp. 181–182. In Kaluga province. Detailed information about this famous St. monastery can be obtained from the monastery publication under the title: “Historical description of the Kozelskaya Vvedenskaya Optina hermitage and monastery, with appendices.” Price 1 ruble. The elder, Archimandrite Paisiy Velichkovsky, labored in a secluded German monastery 120 versts from Iasi, at the foot of the Carpathian Mountains at the end of the 18th century. From here, the eldership established by Paisius Velichkovsky was brought into Russian monasteries by elders Theodore and Leonid. The most ancient information about Elder Paisius and Elder Theodore is presented in the handwritten Biography of Schemamonk Theodore, compiled in 1829 by Dimitri Aleksandrovich Brianchaninov, a novice of the Ploshchanskaya hermitage in the Oryol province. This biography is kept in the papers of Senator Nikolai Semenovich Bryanchaninov. Alexey Ivanovich Zhelyabuzhsky is the spiritual son of Fr. Leonid and his others in the Lord, who died several months before the elder and was buried next to him. Hieromonk Fr. Macarius Ivanov, who shared the work of spiritual mentoring with Elder Leonid. In 1836 he was appointed confessor of the monastery. Biography of the Optina Elder by Jerome. Leonida. Edition of Kozelskaya Vvedenskaya Optina Hermitage, pp. 27–28. Biography of the Optina Elder Leonid. Edition of Optina Pustyn, p. 29. Biography of the Optina Elder Leonid. Edition of the Optina Hermitage, p. 48. Elder Leonid was buried near the Vvedenskaya Cathedral Church in Optina Hermitage, and on the cast-iron monument erected on his grave is written: 1) Who is man, who shall live and not see death: but blessed are they that die in the Lord: indeed, they shall rest from their labors. 2) This monument covers the body of Hieroschemamonk Leonid (Leo), who rested in peace in the Lord, who bore the good yoke of Christ into monasticism for 46 years; was originally from Karachev citizens, with the surname Nagolkin. 3) I fell asleep in the sleep of death in the hope of Sunday and eternal life. He left a memory of himself in the hearts of many who received consolation in their sorrows. 4) Died on October 11, 1841; His entire life was 72 years. 5) This monument was erected by zeal and love for it. (Biography of the Optina Elder Leonid. Publication of the Optina Hermitage, p. 147). Theological Bulletin for 1914, February, p. 239. This oil still constitutes an unbearable temptation for the inhabitants of Optina Pustyn. Notes of Chikhachov, page 42. Theological Bulletin for 1914, February, p. 241. In the biography of Rev. Ignatius, compiled by his students in 1881, it is indicated that this decision of the parents was influenced by the illness of Sofia Afanasyevna, which softened the hearts of her and her husband. Biography of Ep. Ignatius, compiled by his disciples in 1881, p. 44. Subsequently, Chikhachov introduced such tunes into the monasteries in which he was located; He did especially a lot for staging singing in the Trinity-Sergius Desert. Notes of Chikhachov, page 51. Biography of Ep. Ignatius, compiled by his disciples in 1881, p. 47. In the brochure “The Vologda House of Bishops among the bishops of Vologda and Ustyug (from 1796–1894) is listed under No. 39 of all Vologda bishops: “Stephan Romanovsky, - in 1813, ordained bishop of Volyn-Zhitomir, in 1828, on November 24, transferred to the Vologda see, and March 1, 1841 – to the Astrakhan See with elevation to the rank of Archbishop, where he died in December of the same year. The seven-city Assumption Hermitage is located 77 versts north of the provincial city of Vologda and 35 versts northwest of the provincial town of Kadnikova (Vologda province). Located among a large timber forest, in which many wild animals live, and where you can often even meet a northern bear, the desert at the time in question is surrounded everywhere by swamps and almost impassable wilds, so the country road to it is very inconvenient. On either side of the desert there was no human habitation closer than 10–12 miles. The monastery buildings open to the gaze of the traveler only near the monastery itself, when, having passed the forest, he enters a wide plain, where the magnificent Seven-City Hermitage flaunts, breathing with sweet solitude. This desert is called “Semigorodnaya” from the Semigorodskaya volost that was here, and the volost itself is from seven villages that were located on seven small mountains and with their fields were separated from each other by fences. Therefore, in the old days, the church in the desert was called: “Church of the Most Pure Mother of God on Seven Mountains.” The hermitage is also called “Uspenskaya” after the main church in the monastery - the Assumption of the Most Holy. Theotokos - and according to the most ancient shrine - the miraculous icon of the Dormition of the Mother of God. The Seven-City Hermitage was founded in the 15th century by the monks of the Dionysievo Glushitsky Monastery, which is located 20–25 versts north of this hermitage. The monks who laid the foundation of the desert brought her two saints as a gift. icons written by the Venerable Dionysius himself: the above-mentioned miraculous icon of the Assumption and the icon of John the Baptist. Having fallen into extreme desolation in the very first century of its existence as a result of a pestilence (which befell the entire Vologda country in the 15th century), the Semigorodnaya Hermitage was finally deserted after the Lithuanian devastation. In the middle of the 17th century, God's Providence brought Elder Juliana, from the family of the Belozersky nobles Medvedevs, to the desolate desert, who moved here from the Moscow Novodevichy Convent after her miraculous healing. Sisters flocked to Juliania, who restored the dilapidated wooden church and built cells near it, and thus, instead of the men's monastery, a women's monastery appeared for some time in the Semigorodnaya Hermitage. After the death of Juliana (in 1643), the elder Mariamne took over the leadership of the monastery, who worked very hard on the improvement and splendor of the seedy desert. After her death, the few sisters of the Seven-City Monastery dispersed, and it was empty again. In 1651, the hermitage was subordinated by royal charter to the Vologda Archbishop Markell, who appointed elder Arseny as its builder and resettled several monks here. The Semigorodnaya women's hermitage again turned into a men's monastery. Of the 49 builders and abbots who were abbots in the Seven-Gorod Hermitage, the following persons especially worked on its success: the builder Theophylact I (1752–1755), who began to erect a stone two-story church instead of the previous wooden churches, which, after many reconstructions, still exists. The builder Bartholomew (1803–1809), who built cells and a stone fence around the monastery, instead of the timber fence built by the builder Theophylact II (1757–1764). The builder Archimandrite Nektariy (1846–1869), with his zealous labors for the benefit of the monastery, earned himself a kind and reverent memory. Now the rector of the desert is Abbot Antonin (Yablonsky), who actively cares about the prosperity of the monastery entrusted to him. Communication with the monastery has improved thanks to the construction of the Arkhangelsk Railway. (The Seven-City Assumption Hermitage. Edition by Abbot Antonin. Compiled by the teacher of the Vologda Spirituality. Sem. V. Lebedev. Vologda, 1902). Works of Ep. Ignatius, vol. V, “Lamentation of a Monk,” pp. 388–389. The Dionysian-Glushitsky Monastery is located in the north of Russia, 20–25 versts from the Semigorodnaya Hermitage. Its foundation was laid at the beginning of the 15th century by the teacher. Dionysius Glushitsky. Biography of Ep. Ignatius, compiled by his disciples in 1881, pp. 48–49. Receiver of Dimitri Brianchaninov from St. The Gospel was the then Rector of the Vologda Seminary, Archimandrite Evtikhian. The leader of Hierodeacon Ignatius in training for the diaconal ministry was famous among the Vologda residents in his time and to this day for his righteous life, foolishness and foresight, the Peter and Paul Deacon Alexander of the Resurrection, who predicted the bishopric for Hierodeacon Ignatius, even before monasticism. Sufficient information is provided about the Peter and Paul deacon in “Biographies of Russian Ascetics of Piety in the 18th and 19th Centuries,” October, pp. 706–723. The Vologda diocese was established in 1383 under the name of Perm; The department was initially opened in Ustvyi, Yarensky district, then in 1492 it was moved to Vologda. When in. In Moscow in 1589, in place of the All-Russian Metropolis, a cathedral established the Patriarchate, then the same cathedral “established an archbishopric in Vologda,” and the Archbishops of Vologda were gradually placed first among all Russian Archbishops. At the same time, Moscow Patriarch Job ordained Jonah, the former Archimandrite of the Vladimir Nativity Monastery, as Archbishop of Vologda; in 1603 he was transferred to the Rostov Metropolitanate. In the brochure “Description of the Vologda Cathedral” on page 98 it states: “the fifteenth archpriest of the Cathedral was Viktor Ioannovich Vensky from 1822–1841, and from 1841 Vasily Ioannovich Nordov. Works of Ep. Ignatius, vol. I, p. 565. At the end of 1831, the former builder of the Lopotov Monastery, Hieromonk Joseph, died. See Notes of Chikhachov, Karp's vision, page 84. Notes of Chikhachov, page 63. At one time he was the cell attendant of Metropolitan Eugene, during the years when the latter was in Vologda. Biography of Bishop Ignat, compiled by his students in 1881, p. 55. The circumstances of the transition of Dimitri Brianchaninov from the Seven-Gorodnaya Hermitage to the Dionysius-Glushitsky Monastery, as well as the service of Hieromonk Ignatius in the position of Builder of the Gregory-Pelshemsky Monastery, during the documentary clarification, some difficulties are encountered in view of the fact that the archive of the affairs of the Vologda Spiritual Consistory has an inventory starting only from 1839, and before that time the office work of the Consistory disorganized and there is almost no way to find the required cases. Service record of the former abbot of the Lopotov Monastery, Abbot Ignatius (from the papers of the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery). Formula. list of the service of Bishop Ignatius for 1856 in the affairs of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage. Decree of the Holy Synod No. 8583 was received by us among the few other papers of Bishop Ignatius remaining in the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery. So for example, 1) By Decree of the Holy. Synod of May 10, 1834, No. 1880, novice of the Lopotov Monastery Philip Semenov Kupreyanov, one of the chief officer’s children, 26 years old, was moved to the Sergius Hermitage. 2) By Decree of the Holy. Synod of October 31, 1838, No. 6508, assigned the novice Mezentsev from the Kadnikovsky burghers to the Sergius Hermitage. 3) By Decree of St. Petersburg. spirit. Consistory dated May 14, 1837, No. 2373, priest Viktor Avsalomov from the Vologda diocese, Intercession Komel Church (birthplace of Ignatius), which was in 1832 in the Lopotov Monastery, widowed, identified as one of the brethren of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage. 4) The Decrees of St. Petersburg have the same character. spirit. Consistory of October 17, 1842, for No. 7656, of March 22, 1843, for No. 215, of April 27, 1858, for No. 2212, of June 15, 1853, for No. 2944. In addition to the natural and clear course of events in the life of Ignatius Brianchaninov, further documented, this is confirmed by two resolutions of Metropolitan Philaret on the Decree of St. The Synod on the transfer of Brianchaninov to the Nikolo-Ugreshsky Monastery has the following content: a) dated November 10, 1833, No. 418: “The Eminence will issue an order to induct him into office and hand over the monastery to him and, if not promoted, to promote him to hegumen. The consistory will request his service record from Vologda”; and b), dated December 22, 1833, for No. 3058 – on the same decree and next to the first resolution: “Without proceeding with execution, present this when Abbot Ignatius appears” (Papers of Bishop Ignatius from the archives of the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery). The matter of moving Hegumen Ignatius seemed so urgent to Metropolitan Philaret that he ordered Bishop Stefan, in the event of a delay in the issuance of money from the Treasury Chamber to Abbot Ignatius, to provide him with the next money according to rank and according to calculations to St. Petersburg mutually. As a result, the next day after receiving Metropolitan Philaret’s proposal, on November 27, 1833, Bishop Stefan sent a messenger to the Lopotov monastery with an order for Abbot Ignatius to immediately, after handing over the Lopotov monastery to the treasurer, appear in Vologda to go to Metropolitan Philaret without any delay (Papers of Bishop Ignatius in the archive Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery). Attitude of Bishop Stefan, from the papers of Bishop Ignatius in the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery. Letter from Bishop Stefan addressed to Metropolitan Philaret, dated December 5, 1833, No. 3562. Mikhail Vasilyevich’s sister was Kutuzov’s fiancée at that time, and one of the Chikhachovs needed to see the groom’s relatives who lived in the Yaroslavl province. Chikhachov visited the old Kutuzovs and from them went to the Vologda Lopotov Monastery to see their comrade abbot. Notes of Chikhachov, page 69. “From then on we began,” says Chikhachov in his notes, a close acquaintance with the countess and continued until her death.” Notes of Chikhachov, page 68. Biography of Bishop Ignatius, compiled by his students, p. 56. Works of Ep. Ignat, vol. I, pp. 564–565. Notes of Chikhachov, page 84. This same Karp had a different vision: it was revealed to him that Fr. Ignatius is given the Church of the Holy Trinity near St. Petersburg, where the brethren, as if excited from sleep, are surprised at his arrival here; he even clearly saw the iconostasis in the church. Then Fr. Ignatius had not yet thought anything about the Sergius Hermitage, but thought that he would be able to move somewhere in the Pskov province, which is why they asked Karp, who told about his vision, what he thought would be 400 versts from St. Petersburg to the church in which he saw Ignatius. But he replied that this church was much closer. Everyone was left in bewilderment, and only when they arrived at Sergius Hermitage and in the church they saw an iconostasis exactly like the one Karp described, they remembered his vision, which, thus, was completely justified. (Notes of Chikhachov, pp. 83–85). Theological Bulletin for February 1914, p. 243. Notes of Chikhachov, p. 70. The small amount of money that Chikhachov took for the road from the Lopotov Monastery was all spent by this time, it was necessary to find a place where he could stay without paying, but he could not find anyone he knew - it was, in his own words, the finger of God leading him and showing him the place where he was supposed to go - to Countess Orlova. Notes of M. V. Chikhachov, p. 75. The Lopotov Monastery was so ruined and abandoned that they wanted to turn it into a parish church and close the monastery (Notes of M. Chikhachov, p. 63). Notes of M. V. Chikhachov, p. 74. Leskov, in his story “Unmercenary Engineers,” sets out somewhat differently the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Abbot Ignatius to the Sergius Hermitage. According to him, the person who reminded Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich about Brianchaninov and Chikhachov was Moscow Metropolitan Philaret. Once talking with the Sovereign and hearing from him expressions of displeasure about events that testified to great debauchery in the life of the monks, the Vladyka told the Monarch that there was now a wonderful abbot, a real monk, who could be relied on, and with him it would be possible to clean up and correct a lot in the monasteries. “Who is this rare person?” asked the Emperor. - Brianchaninov? I remember one Brianchaninov at an engineering school. - Did he become a monk? – Yes, I remember, even at school he was still distinguished by his piety and excellent behavior. I am very glad that he has found his calling and can be useful in managing the monks. – Your Majesty’s will will be carried out, and I firmly hope that Ignatius Brianchaninov will prove useful wherever you wish to appoint him.. “I’m very glad, but I regret that he’s the only one: he’s not a warrior alone in the field.” “He has his friend with him, an equally strict monk, Chikhachev.” - Bah! Chikhachov! This is also from the same family - my cadet. - Exactly so, Your Majesty. - Well, I ask you to transfer them together. Brianchaninov came as abbot to the Sergiev Hermitage and brought with him his friend Chikhachov, who was his assistant. (Notes of M. V. Chikhachov, pp. 75–78. Leskov, vol. IV, pp. 63–64). “Letters to the Most Reverend. Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to the rector of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, Archimandrite Ignatius Brianchaninov” (Theological Bulletin for December 1912, p. 682). This letter was the first link in the relationship between Archimandrite Ignatius and Metropolitan Philaret. Having met at the end of 1833 in St. Petersburg, where Ignatius, then still Abbot of Lopotov, was summoned to introduce himself to the Emperor, these two remarkable people did not interrupt frequent written relations, and occasionally saw each other in person. An echo of their relationship is the letters of His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to Archimandrite Ignatius of the Sergius Hermitage that have survived to this day, stored in the Sergius Hermitage among other papers of the late Ignatius Brianchaninov and published in 1912 in the Theological Bulletin. Notes of M. V. Chikhachov, pp. 75–77. Archpriest F. Znamensky, “Reverend. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Bishop of the Caucasus and Black Sea." (Church Gazette for 1903, 1 pp. 11–67). The acquaintance that began in the Sovereign's palace between Abbot Ignatius and S. D. Nechaev lasted for many years. The circumstances of life, the kind character and special spiritual disposition of Nechaev, who was not a stranger to mysticism, needed spiritual consolation, guidance, advice; and the great spiritual experience of Archimandrite Sergius went towards meeting this need. Evidence of this is 31 letters from Archimandrite Ignatius to the Chief Prosecutor. These letters, printed on the pages of “Christian Reading,” provide material for characterizing the views of their author and, revealing his extraordinary spiritual wisdom, at the same time, by the richness of their inner content, can be applied to all people, in various circumstances of their lives. (See Christian reading for 1895, "Letters of an Ascetic", S. G. Runkevich, pp. 559–593). Ivan Vasilyevich Malyshev was born on May 24, 1811 in the village of Shishkin, Yaroslavl province, Danilovsky district. Since childhood, he did not like noisy conversations and fun games with friends, preferring solitary walks in the forest, in the field and quiet work for the benefit of his neighbors; the boy not only helped his parents with household and field work, but also found time to help the poor old women of his village remove hay and chop wood. When he was 12 years old, he was brought by his parents to St. Petersburg and given into the service of the merchant Lesnikov, where his elder brother Macarius, later also a schemamonk of the Sergeev Hermitage, was already stationed. An intelligent, truthful boy who diligently performed all the tasks assigned to him and eschewed all city amusements, Vanyusha from the very first days of his service earned the love and trust of his master. A year later he moved into the house of another merchant; here he had to endure not only hard physical labor, but also, by the will of God, endure many moral trials: the servant of the merchant house where Vanyusha served, the old woman Fadeevna, for no reason began to pursue the meek boy, constantly found fault with him and scolded him, despite all his efforts to please her. The youth patiently endured undeserved insults, finding support in prayer and reading the Gospel, but sometimes it became so hard for him from the injustices of the old woman Fadeevna that he several times wanted to run away to some monastery where his heart was drawn. A quiet, secluded life within the walls of the monastery seemed to him in the most tempting colors, but he restrained himself for the time being. Later remembering this old woman Fadeevna, who forced him to endure many undeserved trials, he called her his benefactor.” “Through her,” he said, I learned to pray, I learned to read the word of God. I had the Gospel, it used to lie open on the table; There’s no time to read a lot, but in the meantime, you’ll run in, look in, read even a word—it’s a pleasure! Tears flow, and you walk around with this little word. I have never read like this in my life. Thanks to Fadeevna, faithful memory to her. What can I say, it was difficult to bear the insults and then I even fell in love with them; and she stopped offending me and became kind and kind to me”; Having served in this place for 6 years, Ivan Vasilyevich again returned to the house of the merchant Lesnikov and, as he was already experienced in trade, was made a clerk. But his soul was not inclined to trade, material wealth did not attract him. The desire to withdraw from the world and indulge in monastic exploits matured more and more in his soul; he only thought about the monastery. It used to be, he later recalled, that out of duty you walked along the wide streets of St. Petersburg, you walked as if in a dense forest, and looked at the sky; but every time you go to the Kazan Cathedral, which was on the path of my activities, and there you will enjoy sweet food. I also often visited the Transfiguration Cathedral or the Church of St. Panteleimon. Early in the morning I went to the Empty Market for provisions, and never passed by the Church of the Lord. You used to stand with a little bag at matins in the back, with the beggars... For three years, when he was a clerk, Ivan Vasilyevich tried to enter the monastery, and all the time some kind of inner force held him back. Finally, at the end of 1833, the abbot of the Lopotov Monastery, Ignatius Brianchaninov, who was appointed rector of the Sergius Hermitage, arrived in the capital, and, preparing for his ordination as an Archimandrite, stopped at the Trinity Compound. Vanyusha had previously heard about Father Ignatius as a wonderful monk, and, having learned about his stay in St. Petersburg, he decided to definitely see him and talk to him. Brianchaninov’s appearance alone immediately riveted the young man’s heart, and when, after much hesitation, Ivan Vasilyevich finally decided to cross the threshold of his cell and, received with fatherly love, revealed his soul to him with complete trust, his further fate was decided. Just as a few years ago, Elder Leonid, after the very first conversation, “torn out the heart” of Dimitri Aleksandrovich Brianchaninov and, like Moses, led this new Israeli out of the Egypt of worldly life, so now Abbot Ignatius “torn out the heart of Vanyusha Malyshev and led him with him: the 22-year-old youth was accepted by the newly appointed abbot of the Sergius Hermitage into the fraternity of this monastery. On Epiphany Eve (1834), Ivan Vasilyevich left the merchant Lesnikov, who with great regret let go of his capable and beloved clerk, and together with the new rector Ignatius and Fr. Mikhail Chikhachov went to Sergius Hermitage. His cherished wish came true: Vanyusha Shishkinsky became a novice of the Sergius Hermitage; Having replaced the secular dress with a cassock and having accepted, along with this monastic clothing, the good, much-desired yoke of Christ, he, with the ardent zeal of a novice, entered on the difficult path of monastic obedience and asceticism, being under the guidance of a wise and experienced mentor, Archimandrite Ignatius. (“Biography of Archimandrite Ignatius (Malyshev), former rector of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage. St. Petersburg, 1899). From messages of Senator N. S. Brianchaninov. We recall that, precisely, This is what Tsar Nicholas I called Dimitri Brianchaninov during his studies at the Military Engineering School. Papers of Bishop Ignatius, Archives of the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery. First-class Trinity-Sergius Hermitage Case No. 56 for 1834 – On the determination by the Highest Command of Archimandrite Ignatius Brianchaninov as rector of this hermitage”; Decree of the St. Petersburg Ecclesiastical Consistory of January 4, 1834, Nos. 9 and 11. The same number of persons of the monastic brotherhood is listed in the autobiographical notes of M. V. Chikhachov. page 78. Subsequently Duchess of Mecklenburg-Schwerin. This church was consecrated by him on May 12, 1735. Several wooden cells for monastics, a stone outbuilding for the abbot, a wooden fence with small towers on a stone foundation, and the necessary outbuildings. The inscription on the marble plaque above the coffin of Archimandrite Varlaam, whose body was buried in the Sergius Desert, in a stone chapel located near the altar of the Trinity Cathedral Church. According to this inventory, there were thirteen people of all the brethren in the Sergius Hermitage at that time. All builders before 1764 were 13; the first was Hierodeacon Alexey Loginov, the last was Hieromonk Varsanofy Korelsky. V. Askochensky. His Eminence Ignatius (Brianchaninov) Bishop of the Caucasus (Home conversation for 1865, p. 678). Theological Bulletin for March 1914, p. 439. V. Askochensky. His Eminence Ignatius (Brianchaninov) Bishop of the Caucasus (Home conversation for 1867, p. 678). Notes of M. V. Chikhachov, pp. 78–79. Decree of the St. Petersburg Ecclesiastical Consistory addressed to Archimandrite Ignatius dated January 26, 1834, No. 308. The speed of action is worthy of note: on January 5, Archimandrite Ignatius took over the management of the monastery and within a three-week period not only managed to submit a project for the necessary work on the monastery, but also received permission from the Consistory. The consistory also did not hesitate to review the project and issue permission. The Decree of the Consistory notes that the predecessors of Ignatius Brianchaninov, the Eminences of Revel, who ruled the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage, also saw the disrepair of the monastery buildings, and therefore prepared sums of money and quite a significant amount of bricks in advance. Without denying the concern of the Eminence Vicars for the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, we must, however, say that being busy with the affairs of the Diocesan Administration and living outside the monastery, they could not soon carry out the proposed work, due to the impossibility of personal observation of this, and the limited composition of the brotherhood excluded the possibility of entrusting this important task to anyone living on site. When Archimandrite Ignatius Brianchaninov assumed the post of administration of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage in January 1834, he took over the following: 1) things that were in the chambers of the Most Reverend Vicar of St. Petersburg according to the inventory (The inventory is in the file of 1834, No. 8, a copy of it from the same year, No. 56); 2) according to receipts and expenditure books in cash and cash tickets – 57.399 rubles. 33 kopecks; 3) bricks prepared in previous years for the new building and made at the monastery brick factory - up to 400,000, and 4) belongings according to the inventories of church, sacristy, monastery and household items. (Decree of St. Petersburg, spirit. Consistory addressed to Archimandrite Ignatius dated February 13, 1834, No. 565). Notes of M. Chikhachov, pp. 86–87. Decree of St. Petersburg spirit. Consistory of December 30. 1837 for No. 6792. Decree of St. Petersburg spirit. Consistory addressed to Archimandrite Ignatius dated February 22. 1837 for No. 867. Notes of M. Chikhachov, p. 87. Notes of M. Chikhachov, p. 79. By decree of the St. Petersburg Spirit. The consistory of November 28, 1840 No. 6727 announced to him, through Archimandrite Ignatius at the meal, in front of all the brethren, the blessing of the Metropolitan; brother of Macarius Vas. Makarov, also a St. Petersburg merchant, donated a precious tabernacle to the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage. Ivan Vasilyevich Malyshev, Makariy Vasilyevich and Stepan Vasilyevich Makarov are siblings, originally from the Danilovsky burghers of the Yaroslavl province. Ivan Vasilyevich Malyshev entered the Trinity-Sergius Monastery together with Archimandrite Ignatius as his cell attendant. By Decree of S.P.B. spirit. The consistory, dated August 20, 1836, No. 3199, allowed Danilovsky's bourgeois son Ivan Malyshev to live in the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage for determination by the Danilovsky City Duma, among the brotherhood. Ivan Malyshev was raised spiritually and externally by Archimandrite Ignatius. Noticing in Ivan Malyshev the ability and inclination for drawing, Ignatius Brianchaninov sent him to Y. K. Bryullov to study, and Ivan Malyshev emerged as an extraordinary artist, who contributed greatly to the decoration of the monastery, both with his painting works and with his skillful selection of saints. icons and art paintings. Ivan Malyshev was tonsured a monk by Ignatius Brianchaninov and received the name Ignatius. After many years of experience and a good monastic school under the leadership of Ignatius Brianchaninov, Ignatius Malyshev or Ignatius Maly, as he was called in the desert, on the recommendation of Ignatius Brianchaninov, was appointed to the position of rector of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage, by the definition of St. Synod of December 30 1857 for No. 12292. Before his appointment to the position of rector, he served as Viceroy under Archimandrite Ignatius Brianchaninov. He was buried in the Church of the Resurrection, near the iconostasis and the left choir; A high marble tomb was built over his grave. Archimandrite Ignatius Malyshev was an artist with ideas. It was his idea to arrange bas-reliefs of all Russian saints going to the call of Christ the Savior around the outside of the Resurrection Cathedral. And this work has begun. To the left of the western entrance gate of the church, Christ the Savior is depicted with a meek expression on his face, with his father’s arms stretched forward and ready to accept him into his arms and support a person seeking spiritual salvation, with blessing and compassion in his gaze. To the right of the entrance, western gate, towards Christ the Savior are coming: Grand Duchess Olga, Metropolitan Michael and two Russian martyrs, tortured by pagans in Kyiv. Inside the Resurrection Cathedral, all around the walls on a canvas, the entire picture with a great host of Russian saints is painted - a project for the external decorations of the church, which was not completed by Ignatius Malyshev due to lack of funds. A remarkable confirmation of the artistic taste of the builders and landscapers of the Trinity-Sergius churches are the majestic columns in the Resurrection Cathedral, made of simple cobblestone. Brother Ignatius Malyshev died in the schema, with the name Macarius, on May 5, 1869. Official information about the life of M. V. Chikhachov is amazingly modest. In the monastery list of names for 1856, under No. 46, it is written: “Retired second lieutenant Mikhail Vasilyevich Chikhachov, who lives for worship, has not been married for 50 years. He studied and completed a course at the Main Engineering School. He entered the Trinity-Sergius Monastery for training in monastic life, with a decree of resignation issued to him on April 20, 1829 for No. 215 in St. Petersburg at the Main Apartment, signed by the infantry general Count Tolstoy. Entered January 5, 1834. Corrects choir obedience. Since 1834 he has been constantly working with special zeal in choir obedience. He was very useful for the monastery in material terms.” That's all the official information about the remarkable life of the outstanding ascetic of the 19th century. Not wanting, however, to limit ourselves to this official information and wanting to enhance the mood with the reviving impressions of his God-loving soul, we decide to use for this purpose the precious lines of M.V.’s original autobiographical notes. Chikhachov, “in the content below, not only hitherto unpublished, but also not quoted by various authors concerning the personality of his friend Ignatius Bryanchaninov. The close friendship of Brianchaninov and Chikhachov from a young age naturally raises the question of why they separated when Ignatius Brianchaninov was appointed to the see of Bishop of the Caucasus and Black Sea, and Mikhail Chikhachov remained in the same rank of novice in the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage; Chikhachov's notes provide an answer to this question. “It seems strange to many of your acquaintances,” writes Chikhachov, “why are we, having lived together for so long, now being apart? Wonderful are the works of God and untried are His ways! It happened that the comrade was given a diocese in which there are no monasteries, and it is still impossible to improve them in their local location. If this diocese had monasteries like others, then not only I, but perhaps many from our brotherhood would have gone over to him, through this it could have happened that our monastery would not have had the same appearance, but now, especially under this abbot (Ignatius Malyshev), it remains exactly the same as it was: all the old people live, rest in peace with the love and good intentions of the abbot, and I too am with them, which is why they persuaded me to take full monastic vows, having first entered into the spiritual ministry, which the Lord helped me to do. Now, if the Lord wills, I have a desire, at the discretion of my superiors, to go into hiding so that the end will be consistent with the beginning and await the transition from temporary life to eternal life, with repentance and contrition of heart, so as not to be rejected from the Lord at the Last Judgment, where you will have to answer for every idle word (Notes of M. V. Chikhachov, p. 104–106) Thus, the underdevelopment of monastic life in the Caucasus, of course, a habit, and the penetration by the gracious spirit of brotherhood of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage and the reluctance to be in the position of a hanger-on under the diocesan bishop, even if others, kept Mikhail Vasilyevich Chikhachov, in the Sergeevsky Hermitage, December 20, 1860 Chikhachov was tonsured a monk, with the name Misail, and on May 21, 1866, he accepted the schema with the name Mikhail returned to him. But why didn’t schemamonk Mikhail Chikhachov move to the Nikolo-Babaevsky monastery with the relocation of Bishop Ignatius there as the Diocesan Bishop of the monastery? – And the “Appendix” to Chikhachov’s notes gives the answer to this question. Chikhachov's notes are contained in a manuscript dated 1860. Five years later, the author makes a postscript to them. “Five years have passed since this manuscript was written. During this time, Bishop Ignatius, due to his illness, left the Caucasian diocese and moved to the Nikolaev Babaevsky Monastery of the Kostroma diocese with the management of the monastery, where he is now located. The next year after my tonsure, I went to visit the sick Bishop... I spent about a month in his monastery, and returned back, feeling that it was impossible for me to move to the monastery there. A leg illness, since 1859, which did not allow me to endure draft winds, the structure of the church and the long, deserted service, became unbearable for me. To go there would mean adding an incapable disabled person in need of maintenance, food and servants. So, by general consultation and agreement, we each live in our own place, content with mutual disposition and correspondence.” (Notes of Mikhail Chikhachov, pp. 107–108). Thus, the reluctance to burden his friend and new monastery with his disability, due to the reasons mentioned above, his painful condition and lively spiritual communication kept Chikhachov from switching to Babayki. The notes of M. V. Chikhachov finally give an answer to the question of the reasons for his adoption of the schema and introduce us to his edifying mood in the last days of his earthly wandering. We consider it interesting in essence to characterize the remarkable personality of Schemamonk Mikhail and for the edification of the reader to cite here the “Exposition of the reasons for the desire for my tonsure into the schema” made by Mikhail Vasilyevich Chikhachov himself. - 1) “Accepting and believing with the Holy Church that this is the second baptism, I wish to be worthy of the remission of all my sins, already having the mark of a mortal illness on my leg. 2) The very image of the schema and the vesting in it are diverted from many cases of entertainment and rumor. 3) Set an example for those who have the wrong idea that one who is clothed in the schema is obliged to live in a tomb and not perform any obedience. 4) In offering these reasons for consideration to whomever is appropriate, I rely on their discretion, seeking not my own will, but the will of God through them (pp. 141–142). “The legal time for my final tonsure has approached. On April 3, 1866, I turned 60 years old. According to the form of civil law, this is a legal period for those wishing to take monastic vows into the schema. According to the rector, Fr. Archimandrite Ignatius (Malyshev) and with the blessing of Metropolitan Isidore, I was tonsured on the day of the Feast of Holy Pentecost, May 21 - the day of my former Angel, the Murom Saint Prince Michael, whose name was returned to me again. Glory to the One to whom all honor and worship is due, the One Wise God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen. I waited for this day for almost 38 years and, by the grace of God, it came. Now I will and must expect relocation from this life, and who knows how it will follow. From there you can no longer write or say anything, so I ask everyone: remember in your prayers the poor earthly wanderer - Michael the schema-monk, and, by remembering you, the Lord will fulfill all bliss here and there, where there is no illness, no sorrow, but endless life forever and ever. Amen". (Notes of M. Chikhachov, pp. 109–110). Biography of Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, compiled by his closest students, and letters from His Eminence to persons close to him. St. Petersburg 1881, p. 75. In the archives of the Sergeeva Hermitage there is a “Case” that began on August 24, 1834 and ended on November 29, 1840. “On the establishment of boundary lines on the land belonging to the local Sergeeva Hermitage according to documents and on the division of it, according to the Highest Command, between the Hermitage and the economic peasants of the Podmonastyrskaya Sloboda” on 155 pages. This letter is in the file cited above. Moreover, it is fully given in the “Biography of Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov”, ed. 1881, pp. 76–77. But the boundary planning of the disputed land was established much earlier, as can be seen from the files of the monastery archive. Among the documents of the Sergeeva Hermitage there is a “Geometrical special plan, made in 1836, October 12th, by the Oranienbaum district land surveyor Nikolai Volochinsky and approved by the seal of the Land Survey Office, for the seaside dacha of the local Sergius Hermitage, which was in possession of the peasants of the Podmonastyrskaya Sloboda, in which, after demarcation, there was a total of 199 acres of land 39 square meters, soot. and a copy from the land survey book of the same content. Thus, even with the division taking place, the monastery’s land ownership increased fourfold. Archive of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage. The case, which began on August 15, 1835 and ended on September 12, 1844, about the endowment of the local Sergius Hermitage from the treasury with a forest plot of 50 dessiatines, which took place as a result of the general endowment of monasteries, in excess of the 30 dessiatine proportion, from 100 to 150 or more dessiatines of land and timber for economic establishment.” This plot, due to its proper use, due to its distance and inconvenience of ownership, was subsequently sold by Archimandrite Ignatius Malyshev to m. In total, the monastery has 215 acres of land subject to cultivation at this time. Decree of the St. Petersburg spirit. Consistory addressed to Archimandrite Ignatius dated April 29, 1838, No. 1926. Attached to the Decree is a payroll sheet for the 8-year payment of the loan received. The authorized representative of Ignatius Brianchaninov upon receipt of 30,000 rubles. was hierodeacon of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage Ignatius (Malyshev). All information on putting things in order. farms can be seen in the “Case” of the Sergius Hermitage for 1838, No. 12 (Started on March 12, 1838, ended on May 2, 1846), on 39 sheets. In addition, with proper permission, 3947 rubles were spent. 94 kopecks for processing 15 des. land for vegetable gardens (Decree of St. Petersburg spirit. Consistory dated September 15, 1837 No. 4587). Biography of Bishop Ignatius, compiled by his students and admirers. Page 78. This is what is stated in his service registration form. Notes of M. V. Chikhachov, page 80. An active assistant of Archimandrite Ignatius, mainly in clerical and written matters, and a devoted person to him was the novice of the Sergius Hermitage, nobleman P. P. Yakovlev. Notes of M. V. Chikhachov, pp. 80–83. Decree of St. Petersburg. spirit. Consistory, dated October 17, 1842, No. 7652. Decree of St. Petersburg spirit. Consistory, dated September 22, 1843, No. 4600. Relationship St. Petersburg. lips Office of State Property dated November 30, 1836 for No. 1055 about the minister Dmitry Mikhailov and the response of Archimandrite Ignatius dated December 1, 1836 for No. 143. This can be seen from the case of denunciation of the builder of the Vvedensky Ostrovsky Monastery, Hieromonk Israel (Decree of the St. Petersburg Spiritual Consistory, dated June 11, 1849, No. 2660). This inscription was made in 1856. Decree of St. Petersburg, spirit, Consistory addressed to Archimandrite Ignatius, dated April 10, 1836, for, No. 1360. Decree of St. Petersburg spirit. Consistory addressed to Archimandrite Ignatius, dated October 12, 1840, No. 5675. Decree of the Holy Synod of March 23, 1835, No. 3875. Decree of the Consistory addressed to Archimandrite Ignatius, dated March 30, 1835, No. 1265. All this happened in March. In August, Archimandrite Ignatius, through Metropolitan Seraphim of St. Petersburg, presented the Holy. His first work to the Synod was the life of the Holy Great Prince Vladimir. The Lives, before they were printed, were reviewed by the Bishops sitting in the Holy. Synod. Metropolitan Philaret looked through the lives of the Russian Hierarchs: Metropolitans Peter, Alexei, Jonah, as well as the lives of the Venerable Anthony and Theodosius of Pechersk. In the case of St. Synod there is a handwritten note from Metropolitan Philaret: “The Lives of the Three Russian Hierarchs are edifying for general reading. A few expressions, for greater accuracy, have been changed according to my understanding in the presence of the Holy One. Synod". “The lives of Saints Anthony and Theodosius are edifying for monastics. I noticed some passages for exclusion when printing for public reading. Perhaps some other omissions would lead to the same goal, in order to make this reading more commonly used.” Archive. Holy Synod, case 1835, No. 1375. Thus, by the Decree of the St. Petersburg Spiritual Consistory of June 16, 1835, for No. 2441, it is required to send a hieromonk for the fleet, by Decree of May 8, 1838, for No. 2106, four hieromonks are required for the fleet; a year later, by Decree of June 16, 1839, No. 4438, it is required to send eleven clergy to the fleet; By decree of April 15, 1849, No. 1556, it is required to send two hieromonks for naval service; Decree No. 2700 of June 22, 1848 requires four hieromonks to provide guidance to cholera patients placed in hospitals. “The case of the Trinity Sergius Hermitage, according to the inventory of 1841, No. 16-O was added to this desert of the staff of hieromonks and on the erection of this hermitage from II to I class on this occasion,” fol. 2. Above citations. "Case". Definition of Holy Synod is also spelled out in the Decree of St. Petersburg. spirit. Consistory addressed to Archimandrite Ignatius, dated June 18, 1836, No. 2415. It is not for nothing that the witness of his works, later the governor of the desert, Abbot Agafangel, calls him the benefactor of the Seriieva Hermitage (Inok’s Leisure, St. Petersburg, 1901, p. 44). Archimandrite Ignatius. A word in defense of Russian monasteries. St. Petersburg , 1874. Based on the time of its appearance in print, in view of some facts (eg p. 60), this “Word” should be attributed to Archim. Ignatius Malyshev, but in terms of the thoroughness of the development of the issue, in its style and spirit, it belongs to Ignatius Brianchaninov. We believe that this work of Ignatius Malyshev was started under the leadership of Ignatius Brianchaninov. “The case of the first-class Trinity Sergius Hermitage, according to the inventory of 1839, No. 36, On the determination of the Archimandrite of this hermitage as dean over the monasteries of the St. Petersburg diocese and on the welfare of them and the brethren located in them” -l. 1. Decree of St. Petersburg. spirit. Consistory addressed to Archimandrite Ignatius dated June 22, 1838, No. 3073. The dean of the monasteries, Ignatius Brianchaninov, was, one might say, until his appointment to the Black Sea Department, because there was no appointment of another person to the specified position during this time; only at the beginning of October 1857, according to the proposal of Ignatius Brianchaninov, the housekeeper of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, Hieromonk German, was appointed assistant to the dean (Decree of St. Petersburg. Consistory of October 7, 1857, No. 5760). Thus, at this time Archimandrite Ignatius was still the Dean of the monasteries. Archimandrite Ignatius was actually free from performing the duties of this position only during the sick leave granted to him, for example, from April 1847 to June 1848, when he lived in the Babayevsky Monastery. (Decree of the St. Petersburg spirit. Consistory, dated April 13, 1847, No. 1612 and June 11, 1848, No. 2416). During the assumption of Archimandrite Ignatius as dean monasteries of St. Petersburg. The diocese included in the deanery the following monasteries: 1) Spaso-Preobrazhensky Valaam, 2) Trinity Zelenetsky, 3) Rozhdestvensky Konevsky, 4) Vvedensky Ostrovsky, 5) Bogoslovsky Cheremenetsky, 6) Star Ladoga Nikolaevsky, 7) Star Ladoga Uspensky (female) and 8) Trinity-Sergius desert. The case of Abbot Varlaam and monk Josiah is set out in detail in the Decree of the Holy Synod on its subject, on 12 pages, dated December 31, 1838, No. 11640, available in the special “Case”. Decree of the St. Petersburg Spiritual Consistory of January 31, 1838, No. 437. Decree of the Holy Synod addressed to Metropolitan Seraphim, dated December 31, 1837, No. 11640. Decree of the St. Petersburg spirit. Consistory, dated January 7, 1839, No. 107. By definition Holy The Synod, dated July 23, 1813, No. 1657, decided that the abbots of the Valaam Monastery, in the event of a vacancy, should be permanently determined from among the monastics there, worthy and capable of maintaining the steadfastness of the cenobitic charter. From 1833 to 1839 this definition was changed: Abbot Veniamin was sent to Valaam from the Konevsky Monastery. He violated the good orders and regulations of the Valaam monastery, and under him, precisely, the Valaam monastery fell into disorder and decay. Information about Abbot Damascene can be obtained in the book: “The Valaam Monastery and its Ascetics,” ed. 3rd, St. Petersburg. 1903, pp. 169–175 and 89; in the same book there is a detailed message about the Valaam Monastery. There is also information about Abbot Damascene in the “Biographies of Russian Ascetics of Piety” of the 18th and 19th centuries. Valaam Monastery and its devotees, p. 175. The author has a vivid memory from his youth of visiting the Moscow Theological Academy of Fr. Abbot Damascene with the senior brethren of the Valaam monastery. The guests gave the impression of angelic people with their appearance, mood and simple words. This was during the rectorship of Archimandrite Anthony (Khrapovitsky), now Archbishop of Kharkov, at the Academy. Decree of St. Petersburg spirit. Consistory, dated December 13, 1841, No. 7787. Decree of St. Petersburg spirit. Consistory, dated June 11, 1852, No. 3613. At the end of this “Note” there is a note in the hand of the copyist: “the diligent, thorough work of rewriting this note on behalf of the rector, Father Archimandrite Ignatius Brianchaninov, who entered the Sergius Monastery in 1851 for holy obedience, performed; to accustom himself to monastic life, the son of an official, Alexey Nikolaevich Voskresensky, subsequently, from 1862, the abbot of this monastery, Hieromonk Agafangel.” Even lower it is written: “An eyewitness to the labor of rewriting the note, the former companion of the senior deputy of the Sergius Father Archimandrite Ignatius to the city of Ustyuzhna and back, Pavel Yakovlev.” The Investigative Commission on this case included: Member of the Council of the Minister of Internal Affairs, Privy Councilor Pereverzev – Chairman of the Commission; Major General of the Gendarme Corps - Akhverdov and State Councilor Afanasenko, who is attached to the Land Survey Department of the Senate. According to the final decision of this case, the landowner Strakhov was sentenced to deprivation of all rights of his estate and, instead of being sent to hard labor in fortresses, due to his unfitness for them due to his years, according to Art. 78. XV vol. Code. Zach. and on the basis of Article XXII of the All-Merciful Manifesto of 1856, he was assigned to exile in less remote places in Siberia (Final opinion of the Head of the Novgorod province dated August 3, 1860, No. 5562). By definition of Govt. Senate on March 20, 1862, the Strakhov case was softened; He was sentenced under Articles 1344 and 1979. Laid down, but it also remained unenforced due to the death of Strakhov on January 13, 1862. Works of Ep. Ignatius, vol. I, p. 567. Notes of Chikhachov, p. 80. From the memoirs of Arkhim. Ignatius Malyshev (Appendices to the biography of Bishop Ignatius (Brianch.), compiled by his students, art. 123). Biography of Ep. Ignatius, compiled by his disciples, pp. 82–85. Works of Ep. Ignatius, vol. V. From the memoirs of Arkhim. Ignatius (Malysheva), pp. 121, 122. From the memoirs of Archimandrite Ignatius, the first cell attendant of Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, now the Rector of Sergius Hermitage, p. 182. From the memoirs of Arkhim. Ignatius, pp. 125–128. Askochensky. Reverend Ignatius (Brianchaninov), Bishop. Caucasian. (Home conversation for 1867, p. 680). V. Askochensky. Reverend Ignatius (Brianch.), Bishop. Caucasian (Home conversation for 1867, art. 683). Under Archim. Ignatius began the construction of the Church of the Intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, consecrated only in 1883 under Archimandrite Ignatius Malyshev. This church, representing a Florentine church in reduced size, richly decorated on the outside and magnificently inside, was built at the expense of Prince M.V. Kochubey over the ashes of his wife, Maria Ivanovna (nee Princess Baryatinskaya); under it there is a tomb where Prince Kochubey himself is buried. Decree of St. Pete. spirit. Consistory, dated August 28, 1834, for No. 3457. (“The case according to the Decree of the St. Petersburg spirit. Consistory about permission for the rector of this desert with the brethren to come to St. Petersburg without asking the Diocesan Authorities for permission,” according to the inventory of 1834, No. 33, l. 1). Archimandrite Ignatius used this cell until Archimandrite Nikanor was appointed treasurer of the Lavra, when he began to stay in the treasurer’s apartment until his death. After his death, Archim. Ignatius stayed with relatives and friends. After the summer, in 1834, visit of the Sovereign Emperor to the Sergius Hermitage. Sovereign Emperor Alexander II. Notes of M. V. Chikhachov, pp. 88–91. According to Chikhachov, Archimandrite Ignatius received a Decree from the Metropolitan that, by personal order, he was prohibited from leaving the monastery. But in the archives of the Sergius Hermitage we did not find such a decree, but instead we came across a note written in the hand of P. Yakovlev that there was no written decree on the rector not to travel to St. Petersburg and there were no written documents at all on this matter in the Sergius Hermitage, but only a verbal message was made by Metropolitan Seraphim that there is the Highest will on this subject. The message of Metropolitan Seraphim was made to Archimandrite Ignatius on February 1, 1840. February 1st in 1840 was on Thursday, the 37th week, which is before the resurrection or week of the Publican and Pharisee. For this first day of February, see Ascetic. experiments, part I, page 91. There is a hint in the same part on page 649, although it may imply case No. 80 for 1846, quoted below. Obviously, this mysterious prohibition, by the will of the Sovereign, applied only to cases such as visits to the house of the envoy Barant. Metropolitan Anthony; occupied the department from January 17, 1843 to November 4, 1848. Notes of M. V. Chikhachov, pp. 93–98. First-class Trinity-Sergius Hermitage “Case” - About notifying the office of the St. Petersburg Ecclesiastical Consistory each time the rector of this hermitage arrives in St. Petersburg, both about that arrival and about the departure from St. Petersburg. According to the inventory of 1849, No. 80, l.l. 1 and 2. The same “Case” l. 3. Note May 19. The same note was presented on May 20. In “Case” No. 80 there are several releases of such reports by Archimandrite Ignatius. This kind of paperwork stopped for a while when Archimandrite Ignatius, due to illness, went on vacation to the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery on July 10, 1847 and stayed there until May 31, 1848, after which reports of his arrival in St. Petersburg were resumed. Cited “Case” for No. 80, l.l. 4 and 5. Ibid., l. 17 on the back. Undoubtedly there was some kind of verbal answer, because Archimandrite Ignatius visited the Metropolitan before leaving on vacation. Quotes. ,Case" No. 80, l.l. 16–19. Report of Archimandrite Ignatius dated April 4, 1849, No. 107. Quotes. “Case” No. 80, l. 20; Decree of St. Petersburg Spiritual Consistory in the name of Archimandrite Ignatius dated April 27, 1849 for No. 2089 (received by the rector for some reason only on May 16). We quote this letter in full: “Most Reverend and Most Beloved Father Bartholomew in the Lord! I received your most pleasant letter to my great pleasure. Forgive me for my laziness, which is why I did not answer your last letter to me, written to the Lopotov Monastery. In this Vologda monastery, the location is low, the atmosphere is filled with rotten fumes; all this, together with great harm, affected my health, in the weak state of which I was overburdened with bodily labor. Last year, 1833, in the month of May, he was promoted to abbot. Meanwhile, the Sovereign Emperor, whose pupil I was, was pleased to order that they find and notify Him where I am. At that time, by Decree of the Holy Synod, I was transferred to the Moscow St. Nicholas Ugreshsky Monastery. The Sovereign Emperor ordered the Metropolitan to demand me to St. Petersburg, and then gave me the Sergius Hermitage, where I am to this day. Fr. lives with me. Mikhail holds the position of leader on the right choir. The health of my body in this monastery has improved a little; Apparently, the Lord is still giving me time to repent. Then forgive me, Most Revered Father Bartholomew, I congratulate you on the upcoming holidays, ask for Holy prayers and have the honor to be your most humble servant and prayer book. Archimandrite Ignatius. 1834, April 17 days (“Theological Bulletin”, February 1914, p. 243). Theological Bulletin for February and March 1914, pp. 238–253, 429–449. S. G. Runkevich. “Letters of an Ascetic” (Christian reading for 1895). Letter from Bishop Ignatius to Micah. You. Chikhachov, dated October 10, 1860. (From the papers of Senator N.S. Brianchaninov. See “Appendices” to the second part of our book, p. 268, No. 281). Letter to Chikhachov dated December 27, 1860. (See “Appendices”, page 269): “As for myself, I’ll tell you straight,” he writes to a friend of his youth, “that I don’t want any prominent place for myself, and, due to my illness, I am not able to serve in prominent places, but I sincerely wish to end my days somewhere in solitude and obscurity in self-repentance.” On January 30, 1861, he writes to Chikhachov: “There are serious rumors about me here that I will be transferred. So what? The whole earth belongs equally to God and I surrender myself entirely to His will and leadership.” On February 16, 1861 he wrote to him: “Rumors about my movement here continue. But don’t talk about them for idle talk and with everyone. Having heard about the death of Metropolitan Gregory, I realized that I had to receive another appointment, because with a change in the highest power, there is usually a significant change in administrative plans.” Regarding the business trip to Paris to consecrate the church, Eminence Ignatius writes to Chikhachov: “I find the appointment of Eminence Leonid to consecrate the church in Paris very reasonable, and I find the desire of some that I be used for this to be completely unfounded; I thank you for the love. I was very old, I had lost my physical strength and mental faculties, I came here half-dead, not realizing that I was terribly ill. Treatment on the waters revealed the full importance of my illness, which was even accompanied by a nervous breakdown. Now, although I feel some relief, I am not so relieved that I can figure in prominent positions for which I have not the slightest sympathy. The share of His Grace Tikhon of Voronezh is a share worthy of sympathy and competition! (Letter dated June 11, 1861). In a letter dated July 31, 1861, Mich. Chikhachov Rev. Ignatius writes: “I, seeing that my days, like a shadow, are declining, and my strength is extremely weakening, moreover; Having a long-standing desire to end my days in solitude, I submitted a petition to the Holy Synod to dismiss me from the administration of the diocese and to place me in the management of the Babayevsky monastery of the Kostroma diocese. Having done this, I felt in my soul a special feeling of calm and even quiet joy, as if I had fulfilled my duty. It is not in my direction to live in prominent places and occupy prominent positions. And now - “and not with my strength and health.” (See Appendices, pp. 269–271). The seriousness of these intentions and the mood of His Grace Ignatius are visible from his letter to Pyotr Alexandrovich dated June 11, 1856. Here is an excerpt from this letter: “I am responding to your letter dated April 27, which I received in St. Petersburg, from Optina Pustyn, located in the Kaluga province, 4 versts from the city of Kozelsk. “I’ll tell you that I’m very glad that you could evade managing Nikolai Nikolaevich’s estate.” The sacrifice that a person makes of himself to a worthy person, especially when the benefit of the fatherland is combined with such a donation, is wonderful, but the sacrifice of oneself to God, to whom we already belong, is incomparably more excellent. Moreover, the last donation is actually necessary for us; Before death, it is necessary for us to be reconciled and unite with God through repentance, so as not to hear at His judgment: “We do not know you, depart from Me, who called Me Your Lord and who violated My commandments.” Living in the Sergius Hermitage, which is after all a monastery, I cannot withstand the pressure of the waves and whirlwinds of life, I often falter and fall; What can we say about life and complete dependence on the world and in the midst of it? In this conviction, I wanted to see with my own eyes the Optina Monastery, which at present is undoubtedly the best monastery in Russia in moral terms, especially its monastery, located 100 sazhs. from the desert itself, fenced on all sides by centuries-old pine trees on sandy soil, inaccessible to women; can satisfy the pious desires of the hermit in our age. Many nobles who study spiritual literature live in it; but the treasure there is their spiritual father or elder, in whose hands is the moral leadership of the monastery brethren and most of the monastic brethren, that is, all well-intentioned and successful in virtue. He is from the nobility, 68 years old; with me on the most friendly terms. Considering the needs of my soul and my body, I chose the monastery as a place to end my days in silence, and in order to give this undertaking some strength, I am buying a body of wooden cells. During this matter, I mentioned you to the local chief monks who were talking with me. The cells require amendment, even restructuring; they would be suitable for residence only by the summer of 1858. These are my own actions, in which my will and judgment are evident, but I entrust this will, this judgment, these actions to the will of God, praying to Her to guide me and to direct me according to Her wise and all-good purposes” (From the papers of Senator N. S. Brianchaninov. Appendices pp. 178–179). In a letter dated August 13, 1856, Archimandrite Ignatius writes to brother Peter Alexandrovich: “Despite my desire to stay in the Optina Desert, I did not get along with its abbot, and therefore the time of my removal from Sergievskaya was postponed for an unlimited time. I surrender to the will of God. You have to live differently than how you think you should live. This is not the fate of me alone. According to human judgment, the society of the Optina monastery and the confessor, Father Macarius, are the best that could be desired in the current state of Christianity and monasticism in Russia; but God’s Providence, which guides our fate, is wiser than human judgment.” (Ibid., pp. 179–180; no. 138). First-class Trinity-Sergius Hermitage “Case”, according to the 1847 inventory No. 23, about the dismissal of the rector of the local Sergius Hermitage, Fr. Archimandrite Ignatius, due to illness, retired, with placement among the sick leave of the Nikolaev Babayevsky Monastery of the Kostroma Diocese,” f. 1. Notes of M. Chikhachov, pp. 100–101. Decree of St. Petersburg spirit. Consistory addressed to Archimandrite Ignatius, dated April 13, 1847, No. 1612. File of the archive of the Trinity Sergius Hermitage according to the inventory of 1847 No. 23, l. 4. Decree St. Petersburg. spirit. Consistory addressed to Archimandrite Ignatius, dated May 9, 1847, No. 2036. Decree of St. Petersburg spirit.. Consistory of January 31, 1848, No. 354. Notes of M. V. Chikhachov, p. 101. From the Archive of the first-class Trinity-Sergius Hermitage Case, according to the inventory of 1852 No. 37. On the dismissal of the rector of the local Sergius Hermitage, Archimandrite Ignatius, from the post of dean of the monasteries of the St. Petersburg diocese with the remaining dean over the Sergius Hermitage. The petition of Archimandrite Ignatius further speaks of drawing up a description of St. Petersburg. diocese entrusted to him: “I consider it not superfluous to add that I have taken due measures to compile a statistical and historical overview of the St. Petersburg diocese, entrusted by Your Eminence personally to me. As the Sergius Hermitage, among its pilgrims is the famous writer Bashutsky, who, by the Highest Will, was engaged in the historical and statistical description of St. Petersburg, also the official Stratonovich, who graduated as the first student from a course at the Mogilev Seminary and has very good literary abilities; On the contrary, the other diocesan monasteries do not have a single person capable of such activities: so I entrusted the analysis of all the monastic archives and an extract from them to Mr. Bashutsky and Stratonovich, so that they would visit all the monasteries this summer and present their work to me for final work. For the above reason, and since the final work should be purely desk work, I, if your Archpastoral permission follows, would like to continue and complete this assignment entrusted to me by Your Eminence.” By Decree of St. Petersburg spirit. Consistory, dated February 12, 1852, for No. 651 – in pursuance of the definition of St. The Synod decided to entrust the dean of the monasteries, Archimandrite Ignatius, with the help of Zelenetsky Archimandrite Innocent: paragraph 3. Information about the saints who rest in monasteries or other places, with the attachment of complete lists of their lives, or records about them from monastic, church and other chroniclers. entrust the monasteries to the dean of the monasteries, Archimandrite Ignatius. Decree of the St. Petersburg spirit. Consistory addressed to Archimandrite Ignatius, from May 28, 1852, for No. 2766. Handing over the affairs of the deanery to Archimandrite Innocent, Archimandrite Ignatius compiled for him a list of cases not resolved by the deanery, indicating the reasons why they were not resolved, in order to monitor the exact and unforgiving execution on the part of the abbots. From the Archive of the first-class Sergius Hermitage Case, according to the 1856 inventory No. 36 On the dismissal of Fr. Archimandrite Ignatius on leave to the Oryol and Kaluga diocese for six weeks to improve his health. Petition from Archimandrite Ignatius addressed to Metropolitan Nikanor dated May 7, 1856. His report to the Consistory dated July 2, 1856, No. 180—about his appearance from vacation and taking up his duties. From the memoirs of Arkhim. Ignatius (Malysheva). Biography of Ep. Ignatius, compiled by his disciples, pp. 81–82. From the memoirs of Arkhim. Ignatius, pp. 133–134. Works of Ep. Ignatius, vol. I, pp. 567–568. Letter from Archimandrite Ignatius to K. P. Bryullov (from the papers of Senator N. S. Brianchaninov). In 1900, this letter was published in the magazine “Russian Antiquity” (September). Works of Ep. Ignatius, vol. I, p. 568. V. Askochensky. Reverend Ignatius (Brianch.), Bishop. Caucasian. (Home Conversation for 1867, pp. 690–691). Works of Ep. Ignatius, vol. I, pp. 353–354. V. Askochensky. Rev. Ignatius (Brianch.), Bishop. Caucasian. (Home Conversation for 1867, p. 692). Works of Ep. Ignatius, vol. I, pp. 569–570. Letters from Bishop Ignatius, included in the biography of him, compiled by his disciples, pp. 16–17. Notes from M. V. Chikhachov, p. 102. Decree of the Holy Synod, October 21. 1857, for No. 10157; Decree of St. Petersburg Spiritual Consistory addressed to the vicar of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage, Hieromonk Ignatius, dated October 29. 1857, for No. 6129; Decree of the Holy Synod addressed to Archimandrite Ignatius on October 21. 1857, for No. 10158. In the papers of Senator N. S. Brianchaninov, this speech is dated October 18, 1857. From the papers of Senator I. S. Brianchaninov; Attitude of the Chief Prosecutor St. Synod addressed to Bishop Ignatius, dated November 4, 1857 for. No. 6726. Biography of Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, compiled by his students and admirers, ed. 1881, pp. 89–90. During the management of the Sergius Desert by Ignatius Brianchaninov, 29 soots of land were sold to Count Alexander Nikolaevich Zubov. length, located behind the Invalid House, for 7 thousand rubles, so that only persons of the Orthodox confession were buried in this place, this place was surrounded by an iron grating with two keys at the entrance doors, so that one of them would be kept by the sacristan, and the other by Count Zubov, so that the drawings of the grating and monuments that could subsequently be erected would certainly be presented to the monastery abbots for consideration (These conditions were signed by Count Zubov on August 4, 1835. Decree of the St. Petersburg spirit. Consistory dated August 7, 1835, No. 3268). Along with this, Archimandrite Ignatius, in his report addressed to the Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, dated November 24, 1835, No. 5029, presented his view on the procedure for managing the Invalid Home of the Counts Zubovs, which, in relation to the persons of the families of the Counts Zubovs, is the basis for the definition of St. Synod on this subject, dated December 11, 1836, in which, after a careful consideration of the entire matter, the Synod finds that, according to the local position of the Invalid House, the surname of the Counts Zubovs, which was built inside the fence of the Sergius Monastery and the facade of which faces the monastery church and cells. The way of managing it requires special clarity in the rules, which would be consistent with the monastic rules, especially since according to paragraph 4 of the Highly approved draft regulations on the house of the abbot and the brethren of the monastery, they are called upon to receive moral consolation from the faith of helping those in care, and it can be assumed that the first founders of the Invalid Home did not intend to remove the monastery authorities from any complicity in care and supervision for the improvement of the house, which is so closely connected with the monastery, and therefore it seems necessary to define the rules about the Invalid House and harmonize them with the monastic rules, which, like the rules of the Church, can neither be changed nor violated. (Decree of the Holy. Synod of May 20, 1837 for No. 5831; Decree of St. Petersburg Consistory of June 16, 1837, No. 2942). Such agreement has been achieved to a large extent, and the Invalid Home of Counts Zubov, in its order and improvement, currently does not represent disharmony with the life of the monastery. Proof of the Grand Duke’s high attention to Archimandrite Michael is a heartfelt letter upon the appointment of the latter to the abbot of the Sergius Hermitage, dated December 21, 1901. “Strelnya Manor. Dear Fr. Michael. I hasten to forward you the enclosed telegram (telegram from V.K. Sabler). Having received it, I rejoiced with all my heart. Apparently, this is how God wants it. May the Lord help you in the holy, although not easy, task of managing the monastery for the strengthening of the Orthodox Faith and for the joy and consolation of all who venerate our Holy Trinity Hermitage of St. Sergius, as well as those who love and respect you. After the death of the late father Archimandrite, I prayed to God that the appointment of a new abbot would take place according to His Holy Will, that He would enlighten Vladyka Anthony with His Holy Spirit and indicate who to appoint as Archimandrite. Once again, wishing you with all my heart God’s help and complete success in everything, I entrust myself to your prayers and remain, Dmitry, who respects you sincerely. I am sure that the late Father Varlaam also rejoices at your appointment. Please accept my sincere bow." (From the papers of the rector of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, Archimandrite Michael). If it were not for the signature under this letter, based on its content and tone, we would be inclined to consider it to be the author of a Bishop or Metropolitan. File No. 20 on the inventory of cases of the first-class Trinity-Sergius Hermitage about urgent information submitted to the St. Petersburg Diocesan authorities for 1913. The information was taken from the same “Case”. Ignatius Brianchaninov was rector of the Sergius Monastery from 1834 to 1857, 24 years, after him Ignatius Malyshev for 40 years, then Varlaam for 4 years and the now living Archimandrite Mikhail since 1901. To explain what has been said and as evidence of the extraordinary, powerful talent with which the Lord awarded Mikhail Vasilyevich Chikhachov, and an indicator of the area in which this gift of God was directed - his wonderful voice (octave), we allow ourselves to cite here the following interesting and characteristic fact, stated by Leskov in his story “Unmercenary Engineers”. One of Chikhachov’s relatives, Maria Pavlovna Fermor, was married to the St. Petersburg Governor-General Kavelin. Chikhachov often visited her. One day, when he was sitting with Kavelina, the famous Rubini came up to her for a farewell visit. Kavelina, introducing the guests who met, told Rubini that Chikhachov was her uncle, and that although he was a monk, he knew music very well and had an excellent voice. “But he never heard you,” added Maria Pavlovna. - This is because our clergy cannot go to theaters. “What a pity,” replied Roubini: “music elevates feelings, and theater can inspire very deep thoughts.” - Well, whatever it is, we have a rule that monks do not listen to operas. - But, anyway, your uncle could have been at my concert. Kavelina smiled and answered: – Our monks are not allowed to attend concerts. “This is barbarity!” exclaimed Roubini: “and I think you will not follow it and will not forbid me to sing in front of your uncle.” - I will be delighted with this. “And you have nothing against this?” Rubini turned to Chikhachov himself, quickly getting up from his seat. – I am very glad to hear the famous Rubini. - In this case, Rubini sings with a double purpose, to please the mistress of the house and his fellow man, and at the same time, to displease rude people who do not understand that music is a high art. Maria Pavlovna Kavelina opened the piano and sat down to accompany, and Rubini stood up and sang several of his best arias for Chikhachov. Chikhachov listened with the deepest attention, and when the singing was over, he said: – Your loud fame does not in the least exaggerate the merits of your voice and skill. You sing excellently. Rubini was extremely pleased with Chikhachov’s modest and dignified praise. He, of course, has long been bored and disgusted with the increasingly vulgar exclamations of cheap delight with which people of banal tastes consider it necessary to greet artists. In Chikhachov's words, indeed, there was praise that can be accepted without blushing for the one who praises. And Rubini, squeezing the monk’s hand, said: – I am very glad that you like my singing, but I would like to have an idea about your singing. Chikhachov immediately, silently, stood up, sat down at the piano and, to himself,