Третья часть. Свидетели и свидетельства

IV. Witnesses of Saint Seraphim of Sarov. Critical evaluation Published in 1903 in connection with the canonization of St. Seraphim, Chichagov's work 69 is the main source for the biography of the saint, but it is still entitled not “The Life of St. Seraphim”, but “The Chronicle of the Seraphim-Diveyevo Monastery with biographies of its founders, Blessed Seraphim and Mother Alexandra” (short title). In fact, Rev. Seraphim revealed the gifts he had acquired not only for the urgent needs of those who turned to him, but also for the sake of their future well-being and the well-being of future generations, whose needs he recognized thanks to the enlightenment of his spirit, enlightened by grace, and even more thanks to the gift of clairvoyance. His work, providentially prepared by the labors of the founder of the monastery, became a stone laid in the construction of the heavenly Jerusalem and called upon to endure until the end of time. The task of the hagiographer is to understand the ways of revealing the universal fate of St. Seraphim up to the present moment and set out his predictions about the future, which has not yet come. At the same time, all events after his death (1833) have mainly explanatory and illustrative significance. So, out of more than eight hundred and fifty pages of Chichagov’s work, a little less than five hundred are of greatest interest to us; the same can be said about the documents he used. Did Leonid Chichagov convey to us the contents of the archives in full? Of course, it is the life of St. Seraphim sought to create Chichagov, working for his canonization. The historian’s work reflects all the documents known at that time, 70 but its main significance, which gives it fundamental value, is due to the fact that this work is based on the archives of the Diveyevo Monastery, to which Chichagov received access. This is the most important thing. Professor V. Ilyin believes that the creation of a critical life is impossible until the publication of archives takes place. Obviously, if this happens one day, new aspects of research will open up. But this study is born of the conviction that the materials published by Chichagov can already serve as the basis for a critical, although incomplete, of course, biography and, therefore, present in a new light many episodes taken out of context or completely ignored by previous biographers. Chichagov's work was prepared in connection with the upcoming canonization and was limited to compiling archives and organizing them, if possible, in chronological order. In fact, the publication of the documents should have been supplemented by grouping together the scattered accounts of each of the many witnesses: forty sisters, the parish priest, two laymen and many other witnesses from among the pilgrims. This necessary work is quite feasible, since Chichagov almost always named witnesses and most often provided a reference to archives 71 . Us. XII -XIV 72 Chichagov placed a catalog of archives. Of the sixty so-called notebooks, only notebooks No. 40–60, mentioned by him simply as “notes of N. A. Motovilov,” were not analyzed. This twenty-one notebook, like many others, is never, at least directly, cited, but Motovilov himself, as the author or co-author of the three most frequently used notebooks, is cited quite often, with or without references, and is one of the most significant witnesses. Chichagov could not help but put these notebooks in order, and, therefore, could not help but use them. It is even quite possible that it was he who added them to the archives, having discovered them in Motovilov’s widow 73 . Seventeen notebooks out of the remaining thirty-nine tell about events after the death of the Rev. Seraphim and therefore are of only illustrative interest to us. Some of them Chichagov quotes directly, others he summarizes at length. Since the persecution of the Diveyevo nuns for their adherence to the instructions of the monk led to an investigation by the Holy Synod, headed by Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, Chichagov cites thirty-one letters from Metropolitan Philaret 74 and an eleven-page resolution, which fully confirm the reliability of archival evidence. Only twenty-two notebooks are directly related to the saint’s biography. 1st and 2nd – a collection of oral stories. Chichagov quotes them thirty-eight times. 3rd – the brochure prepared by Motovilov, mentioned above (pp. 39, 42). Chichagov quotes it widely. 4th – history of the Diveevo community, compiled by the priest and Motovilov. The themes of its four chapters are retold in detail by Chichagov. 5th – report of the monastery to its bishop. The quotations cited by Chichagov show that he is wholly or partially devoted to the story of the persecution of which the community became a victim. 6th - a collection of testimonies compiled by the priest and Motovilov and cited eighty-seven times by Chichagov. This little work will be examined in detail in the next chapter. Chichagov reproduces it almost completely. The 10th, 16th and 17th tell about events and nuns, modern reverends. Seraphim. Chichagov talks a lot about them. 20th – thirty different testimonies about one episode from the life of St. Seraphim. Chichagov summarizes them. The 14th and 15th tell about the construction of a large cathedral, conceived by Rev. Seraphim and erected despite persecution on a plot of land specially acquired by him for this purpose. Chichagov talks a lot about him. 35th – a collection of Manturov’s notarial documents relating to the purchase of land and the construction of a church. These documents are mentioned by Chichagov. 37th – criticism of the life of St. Seraphim, published by the persecutor Joasaph. Chichagov criticizes this publication at length. 38th – certificates about Rev. Seraphim of the nuns of another monastery. Chichagov quotes them at least once. And finally, Chichagov reports that the 11th notebook, as well as notebooks from 29 to 33, have reached us in the form of rough notes. He retells in detail what is said in them. Thus, Chichagov perfectly conveys the contents of the archives. The only dark place remains notebooks from 40 to 60, about the contents of which nothing is said. Negligence was completely out of character for Chichagov 75 . It is also impossible to assume that Motovilov seemed to Chichagov to be an unreliable witness in some way: the historian says only good things about him and tells how the monk himself made Motovilov the patron of nuns. It is no more likely that Chichagov chose to remain silent about such aspects of the saint’s life as the oppression he experienced or the strife in the community caused by Joasaph, since he was able to talk about all this very well, albeit restrainedly. We will still talk about the highest reliability of Motovilov’s evidence, but this point remains unclear. Witnesses of St. Seraphim and their characteristics Archival evidence certainly sought to perpetuate the image of the elder. But some, especially the earliest, documents testified to the plans of the Rev. Seraphim regarding the sister community he founded, which Joasaph tried to distort, seeking his own glory. And therefore, many of the entries are not personal memories, but rather historical chronicles, testifying to the goal of the reverend. Seraphim. From them we learn that the monk worked not so much in the name of the present as in the name of the future; we see his concerns for the last fifteen years, for the daily life of the nuns was at the center of his daily concerns. These fragmentary stories are kind of milestones necessary for understanding the meaning of a particular episode. Three authors who worked together also sought to trace the history of the formation of the community: the priest, Motovilov and Manturov. The latter died in 1858, before the archives were completed, but his friends took advantage of his written and oral testimonies 76 . Like the girls accepted into the community, these three reverends. Seraphim himself chose to serve the community, assigning, following the plans of Providence, each of them a special role. Thus, their fate is inseparable from the fate of the monk, but here we do not have the opportunity to present their biographies 77. I would only like to confirm their impeccability as witnesses and at the same time clarify some chronological details important for the biography of the reverend. Manturov was elected first. He visited Rev. Seraphim, seeking healing from a serious illness (a non-epidemic form of the plague) 78, and the monk emphasizes that he became the first miraculously healed: “According to the grace given to me by the Lord, I am the first to heal you” (157 3/5). From the subsequent story about his sister, it turns out that this happened no later than 1822, most likely in 1821 or even 1820. So, it was from that time that Rev. Seraphim begins to prepare for service, although he was supposed to leave the seclusion only in 1825. However, many facts indicate that one should not take literally the chronology outlined by the Sarov Lives. Manturov was born in 1796, was a career officer, retired for health reasons and lived on his estate forty kilometers from Sarov. “Some time passed,” and, remembering that the monk had told him to thank God for the healing, he visited him again. The monk invited him to sell the estate and buy land in the village of Diveyevo and live in voluntarily chosen poverty. He settled there on the eve of the spring of 1823 - it was then that Rev. Seraphim instructed him to drive a peg into the ground at the place where he would later have to build a mill, around which the elder would gather the first novices (163 top). Living with his wife in poverty, Manturov served as a reverend until the end of 1831. Seraphim in the improvement of the Diveyevo community. He gave freedom to his serfs 79, and with the proceeds from the sale of the estate, he erected a stone church for the nuns. Manturov was childless, but had a sister in his care, nine years younger than himself, who had a worldly mindset. In 1822 she was engaged, and Manturov rejoiced at the opportunity in the near future to freely devote himself to the work to which the reverend called him. Seraphim (164 1/2). But a religious turning point occurred in the girl’s consciousness, and the elder accepted her into the Diveyevo community. Not so much in terms of spiritual qualities, but in terms of the level of culture, she turned out to be just the kind of abbess he was looking for, for all the other girls were illiterate peasant women, and therefore, having selected the first seven sisters, he appointed Elena Manturova as abbess. And then a chain of events unfolds that surpasses human understanding. At the end of 1831 or the beginning of 1832, when it was clear to everyone that Rev. Seraphim did not have much time left; he, yielding to the persistent requests of General Kupriyanov, who was leaving for Poland, sent Manturov to him as a manager. He did this for the sake of the good that Manturov was supposed to bring to the local peasants, ruined and led away from the paths of the Orthodox faith (292 bottom - 293 top). But the area in those parts was swampy, and Manturov fell ill with a fatal fever; calling his sister, Rev. Seraphim asked her to die for her brother out of obedience, since “I still need him for our monastery, for the orphans” (418 2/3). Elena agreed and died a few days later. So Rev. Seraphim sacrificed the abbess to save Manturov. He never found a replacement for her and died, leaving the community without an abbess, only with an “elder.” If Elena were alive, she, like the abbess of another monastery, under the care of St. Seraphim, would have been able to repel Joasaph. Upon returning from Poland in 1833, Kupriyanov stopped in Sarov to venerate the grave of St. Seraphim. At that very time, Joasaph, wanting to get rid of Manturov, accused him of contradicting the will of the monk, refusing to give up the plot of land he had acquired in Diveyevo to the sisters. Returning to his place and not having obtained compensation from Manturov, which in fact was forbidden to him by the Rev. Seraphim, Kupriyanov fired him from service without paying anything. The dishonored Manturov came to Diveevo on foot and without a penny of money. Until his death, he remained only a mute witness to the tyranny of Joasaph. One gets the impression that this is exactly the kind of testimony that the reverend expected from him. Seraphim: after all, he was not forced, like the nuns, to violate his instructions out of obedience. For almost ten years, Manturov lived next to the elder, implementing all his endeavors. He was his spiritual son and heart friend. Repeatedly emphasizing that Rev. Seraphim did not have a student, Chichagov still adds that if anyone can be named, it is Manturov. They say that Rev. Seraphim often visited his family after his death. He did not get to see the day of justice, as he died peacefully three years before the community was delivered from Joasaph in 1861. The seventy-one-line text compiled by Manturov, shown on p. 310 3/5 – 312 1/2, very emotionally tells about the persecution of Joasaph against the Venerable. Seraphim. In the three retold episodes, the saint twice asks Manturov to testify in the future about what he saw and heard. The rest of Manturov’s oral stories to the priest and Motovilov are not so personal in nature, but are necessary for understanding the saint’s intentions. Father Vasily was born in 1800. He was appointed the second priest of the village of Diveevo in 1825 or 1824 (175 bottom 176 top) immediately after his ordination. He was probably married to the daughter of the parish priest, Father John Dertev, whom he succeeded, but not earlier than 1829 80. From the very first visit of Father Vasily in 1825, Rev. Seraphim began to teach him how to lead the sisters (188 1/2). Due to the lack of canonical status, the sister community was actually deprived of its own confessor. The sisters were considered ordinary parishioners of the church where they prayed and served. In 1826, Rev. Seraphim invites Father Vasily and persistently asks who, in his opinion, should be appointed abbess of the sister community being created. Out of modesty, Father Vasily did not express his opinion (191 1/2). For thirty years he was a dean, that is, responsible to the bishop for the churches of his district (176 top). In 1853, he was released from the parish and appointed confessor to the community of nuns (top 176), which by that time had received official recognition 81. As the community grew, permanent priests were appointed to it. One of them was Peter of Sophia, married to the daughter of Father Vasily, goddaughter of Manturov. He and his wife were present at the sudden death of the latter (61 o 1/2). Father Vasily's brother, Ivan, was a deacon of the Diveevo parish 82. Nilus reports that the grandson of Father Vasily, Ioann Dormidontovich Smirnov, confessor of the Diveyevo Monastery, introduced him to the monastery in 1903 and 1905 83. Then it was already a monastery with a thousand nuns. Father Vasily died in 1884 (752 lower), when there were more than five hundred nuns in the monastery. As the Rev. predicted. Seraphim, the wife of Father Vasily and the first sisters he chose died before him 84. Father Vasily himself and Manturov were buried on the right and left sides of the monk, according to the will of the latter 85. Knowing about his imminent death, Rev. Seraphim made the young priest the confessor of the maiden community, while continuing to personally guide its spiritual life. Undoubtedly, the monk was an elder for them, but not always in the special sense that was later put into this concept 86 . So, Father Vasily enjoyed the greatest confidence of the reverend. Seraphim in his endeavors and told us about them. He also left records of several of the most amazing miracles, thanks to which we again experience the closeness of the monk. Father Vasily would have told much more if, as a true priest, he had not had an aversion to talking about himself. Undoubtedly, he suffered persecution from Joasaph, who knew how to ingratiate himself with the successive Nizhny Novgorod bishops, to whom Diveyevo also obeyed. However, this cannot be said about everyone: Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow writes in response to Bishop Theophan (Recluse), who turned to him for advice: “For the purpose of admonishing these latter, would it be objectionable for you to use the priest Sadovsky, who has served as the confessor of the monastery for many years and enjoys well-deserved respect. His Eminences Jeremiah and Anthony treated him with special confidence and sometimes gave him instructions directly.”87 Saying goodbye to the sisters, Rev. Seraphim gave them the following instructions: “In addition to Mikhail Vasilyevich Manturov, Nikolai Alexandrovich Motovilov and the priest Fr. Vasily Nikitich Sadovsky, not to listen to anyone and rule themselves, not trusting anyone, not allowing outsiders to interfere in the affairs of the monastery. “You will have no father except me! I entrust you to the Mother of God Herself, She Herself is your Abbess, and everything will be governed by Her!” (469 2/3). In addition, he honored Motovilov with a solemn dedication ceremony. Having called two sisters chosen by him and placing their hands in the hands of Motovilov, he “commanded that after his death they not only themselves tell Nikolai Alexandrovich everything in detail, what, where and how the Mother of God started through him (Seraphim), but that all the sisters did not hide anything from him, because the Mother of God wanted Nikolai Alexandrovich to be appointed “nurse of the monastery” and that he “knew everything about the monastery in the same detail as is known.” Fr. himself Seraphim." And he ordered Motovilov, “that he should at one time be a witness to everything that was done in Diveyevo under the “poor Seraphim,” and testify that even the entire structure found after the death of the elder was built by him himself, according to the purpose and instructions of the Queen of Heaven. “And I, poor Seraphim, did not spontaneously place one pebble with them!” (470 bottom – 471 1/2). Motovilov received special dedication, for he was an outsider in Diveevo 88 . His mission was not as obvious as the mission of Father Vasily, whom Rev. Seraphim made Manturov the spiritual leader, or mission, under whose leadership the sisters erected the planned venerables. Seraphim built. So, on the one hand, his mission was to be the main benefactor, and on the other, a reliable, albeit indirect witness to the plans of the Venerable. Seraphim. Therefore, in the compilation of archives it is given a primary place. But Motovilov was also destined to become an active witness, and he actually became one in 1861, when on the way to Moscow, due to a carriage breakdown, he was forced to stay in Diveevo just on the day of the seemingly final triumph of Joasaph. In Moscow, he met with Metropolitan Philaret, who succeeded in getting the Holy Synod to begin an investigation. Motovilov was born in 1809, and he was twenty-two years old when, on September 5, 1831, he ordered to be brought to Rev. Seraphim for healing. Apparently he suffered from multiple sclerosis. The saint healed him with one word, and for eight months he was healthy (329 down - 333 1/2). However, he had to endure two relapses of the disease, from May to October 1831 (470 top, 471 1/2) and during 1840 (561 1/3). Belonging to the highest strata of society, he already had the rank of state councilor, which corresponded to the military rank of colonel. He was a conscientious judge 89 in his district and an honorary superintendent of district schools in the Korsun district, three hundred kilometers away from Sarov (329 bottom - 330 top). According to Nilus, he died in 1879. Having been healed by Rev. Seraphim, Motovilov often came to Sarov over the next eight months and “talked a lot” with him. During one such conversation, which he talks about as if it were known to readers, he saw Rev. Seraphim shining brighter than the sun 90. In May 1832, as a result of “severe spiritual grief,” his legs gave out again, and this time for some reason he decided to seek healing from Archbishop Anthony of Voronezh, who sought the canonization of St. Mitrofan and was in close spiritual communion with the Venerable. Seraphim. But first he made a detour of two hundred kilometers to show himself to the old man. He spent the night in prayer, wanting to find out if it was he who should perform the healing. During the prayer, Motovilov’s past and future life was revealed to him. He made him the patron of nuns, “and he revealed many secrets about the future state of Russia” to him (333 1/2 and 470) and sent him to Voronezh 91. Motovilov was not destined to see Rev. again. Seraphim, who died three months later. The elder did not order him to marry the girl engaged to him, and predicted that he would later marry the niece of two of his nuns, an orphan raised in the community. And it was Motovilov who did not reveal anything about the persecution awaiting the community from Joasaph: Motovilov himself admits that he maintained friendly relations with Joasaph until the day in 1840 when Joasaph revealed his plans. Motovilov spent 1839–1840 in Diveyevo, constrained by a returning illness. Then he got married, after which he settled on his estate. If not for the marriage, he says, he would have prevented Joasaph’s arbitrariness (561 1/2). Notes in the archives indicate that Motovilov and his wife truly became the “feeders” of the community. Using Manturov’s support while he was alive, Motovilov was able to implement many of the Rev.’s projects. Seraphim. Many details of his life and conversations with the elder are set out by Nilus in the book “On the Bank of God’s River” (T. 1, pp. 115–169 and T. 2, pp. 190–193). According to one of these texts (1, 136–138), Motovilov seduced a seventeen-year-old girl who lived with the nuns and was forced to marry her. These texts are completely untrustworthy. But we will not discuss them here, nor will we try to find out how this irresponsible person could discredit the memory of the one whose spiritual heir he considered himself, and the memory of the spiritual daughter of the Rev. Seraphim, from whose hands he allegedly received these manuscripts. Nilus reports that Motovilov was a restless, unbalanced person and suffered from some kind of mental illness all his life, from which he was cured only in 1860. If this is true, then he is obviously an unreliable witness, so we will look at the facts on which Nilus drew this cartoon. Chichagov actually mentions that Motovilov, in addition to paralysis, suffered a certain illness, but does not name it: “After the death of Fr. Seraphim [Motovilov] soon went to Kursk to collect information about the priest from his relatives and through this he paid with a cruel illness, which was alleviated by Archbishop Anthony of Voronezh” (561 top). He doesn't say anything more about it. We know nothing about the duration of his illness and have no indication that it was mental or capable of affecting his mind 92 . The suspicion of “imbalance” comes from the pen of Metropolitan Philaret. In 1861, demanding that the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod initiate an investigation on the basis of the memo presented by Motovilov and other evidence, he writes: “Let us assume that some circumstances of Mr. Motovilov’s note do not inspire confidence in it, because they represent signs of a restless spirit; but in the above, she agrees with Mr. Karamzin’s letter 93, which presents signs of an impartial presentation of the incident and circumstances that are undoubtedly known” (661 1/5). Chichagov outlined these “untrustworthy circumstances” and Metropolitan Philaret commented on them. But first, let's talk about what happened in 1861. Joasaph convinced the diocesan bishop Nektary to remove the Diveyevo abbess (illegally, as stated in the conclusion of the investigation) and achieve the election of a nun from among his henchmen in her place. To this end, Bishop Nektarios forced the nuns to vote, but only forty nuns out of four hundred and forty present voted in favor of the new boss. Having failed, Bishop Nektary resorted to lawlessness: the next day he succeeded in replacing the abbess with the help of a falsified drawing of lots, as the investigation established. At the suggestion of Metropolitan Philaret, the Holy Synod restored the former abbess, returned the nun expelled by Bishop Nektarios, who was accepted into the community by St. Seraphim in 1819, and removed three and temporarily transferred the monastery under the jurisdiction of the bishop of the neighboring diocese, who turned out to be Saint Theophan the Recluse (Govorov). A penalty was imposed on Bishop Nektary, but Metropolitan Philaret did not want or was unable to achieve his removal. In the behavior of N.A. Motovilov, however, was enough to make even a conscientious judge with thirty years of experience lose his cool. Nevertheless, he (Bishop Nektary) paid for his deceptions with a slap in the face from the holy fool Pelageya, which he accepted, however, with the greatest humility. As for the circumstances in which Motovilov lacked objectivity, we first present Chichagov’s account: “Irritated and enraged by the failures (in forcing him to change the abbess), as well as by the answers of the Seraphim orphans, the Right Reverend Nektary began to move impatiently towards the door, but, due to the cramped conditions, the sisters involuntarily got entangled in his robe 94, and he, wanting to free himself, began to push, push away with their feet, and this whole scene deeply struck and outraged Nikolai Aleksandrovich Motovilov, who was standing at the door of the refectory unnoticed” (643 bottom - 644 top). And here is the comment of Metropolitan Philaret: “G. Motovilov, attributing to the Eminence a very strict treatment during the election, wrote that he kicked the sisters lying in front of him. Some sisters testified that, as he passed between them, he touched some with his foot. This circumstance, as a consequence of cramped conditions, can be ignored” (684, paragraph II at the bottom of the page). The truth is obviously somewhere in the middle; it was unnecessary to inform the Holy Synod about this rude act. This insignificant episode should not cast a shadow on the objectivity of Motovilov, whose archival records are characterized by the precise and weighty style of a judge drawing up an indictment. He faithfully fulfilled the mission entrusted to him by Rev. Seraphim, as testified by Father Vasily, who was his co-author in many records. We have many opportunities to evaluate the reliability of the memories of each of the forty sisters that have reached us, regardless of their length or brevity. The main attention should be paid to those to whom Rev. Seraphim trusted especially, sometimes precisely so that they would testify to it later. It is necessary to compare the parallel stories of various sisters about miracles or memorable words of St. Seraphim. In addition to events and memorable words, the sisters often talked about the circumstances in which Rev. Seraphim called them to monastic life, and often - how he encouraged them at the moment of discouragement. These deeply personal stories are especially valuable because they are not distorted by collective myth-making, since they did not concern the life of the entire community. Such work goes beyond the critical discussion that precedes the study of biography, and we consider it more appropriate to devote a separate study to this topic. V. Diveyevo sisters introducing us to Saint Seraphim The sisters who left the most important testimonies about St. Seraphim, were chosen by him. From 1825 to 1830, in an effort to renew the Diveyevo community, he allocated thirteen selected sisters to an independent community and assigned at least one of them to write about all the graces that he had received. These sisters were indicated to him by the Mother of God and at the same time chosen by him. Apparently, it is necessary to undertake a special study to prove that the understanding of the Divine will did not at all fetter the ability of independent judgment of the Venerable. Seraphim. Here we only note that the monk, having learned the names of the first eight sisters from a revelation to him on November 25, 1825 (182 1/2), in 1826 consulted with Father Vasily about the choice of the first abbess: he hesitated in choosing between two sisters, one of whom was never accepted into the community (191 1/2). Two died before him, and three more, apparently, did not survive him much. The remaining eight sisters became the main witnesses. In the last two years, he accepted sixty more sisters into the community, thirty of whom also left testimonies about him. Before we list these sister-witnesses, it is necessary to clarify some information about the Diveyevo community. Founding of the community by Mother Alexandra In 1788, the great benefactor of the Sarov Monastery, having settled in the village of Diveevo, founded a sister community there six months before her death. It was a community of very strict monastic rules, but without any canonical status. Only in 1842 did the Holy Synod officially recognize it, and in 1861 it acquired the status of a monastery. The sisters prayed and served in the parish church, built by the founder in 1772 and dedicated to the icon of the Kazan Mother of God. In 1829, next to the parish, their own church appeared, dedicated to the Nativity 95, built for them, with the blessing of the bishop, Rev. Seraphim, with the help of Manturov. Later, Motovilov achieved the construction of a new church in the village, and the former parish church was transferred to the monastery. The nuns, simple peasant women, enjoyed the spiritual, material and administrative support of the Sarov monks and themselves performed various works for them. Since 1794, the new abbot Isaiah began to care about them much less than his predecessor Pachomius (97 top), and abbot Niphon, elected in 1806, finally “stopped this and separated them from the monastery” (317 bottom - 318 top); Meanwhile, the sisters still worked for the monks (318 bottom - 319 top). The Reverend takes care of the Diveyevo sisters Jealous of fulfilling his obligations to the sisters, Rev. Seraphim, apparently, began to patronize them quite early, or at least sent converts to them. Nothing is known exactly about any significant events of his life before 1820, with the exception of a few episodes and facts that he himself told his sisters about. The information coming from Sarov is schematic and stylized. Until 1863, the Diveyevo community was not even mentioned in them. We cannot assess the significance of this evidence because we know nothing about their sources. There is nothing incredible in the fact that Alexander’s mother, endowed with the gift of clairvoyance, entrusted her community to the then young deacon Seraphim (53 top). Perhaps Pachomius himself entrusted it to him (59 1/2), for he could not help but see a cooling towards the Diveyevo community of the younger generation of monks. During the years of his hermitage (from 1794 to 1810), the monk was probably visited by quite a lot of lay people, since in 1804 the robbers who almost killed him said, while extorting money from him: “Worldly people come to you and bring money” (83 below). At first, he apparently managed to protect himself from visits from women (60 1/2 - 62 1/2), who were allowed to come to him at the monastery, where he returned on Sundays and holidays, at least until the attack in 1804, after which long journeys became impossible for him. There is information that Rev. Seraphim received visitors until the very end of 1807 (97 top). In the next three years he completely retired (101). Apparently, this period corresponds to the thousand days of his stylite life: he spent the night on a stone in the forest, and the day on a stone transferred to the desert (81 bottom - 82 bottom); thus, it was still possible to meet him in the forest. In such cases, he fell prostrate to the ground 96. In 1810 he was forced to return to the monastery (104 1/2). One of the reasons that prompted him to go into complete seclusion was the fear of unwittingly ending up at the head of a group of monks opposing the abbot. It is difficult to understand how the reverend could receive visitors from 1815 to 1820 in his recluse cell without talking to them or noticing their presence (109 1/2). But in any case, already from 1820, and not from 1825, as Chichagov claims without citing a source (179 top), he began or resumed his care for the sisters. Just in 1823, one of them brought her younger sister, the future nun Martha (172 top), to him. It was from that time that Rev. Seraphim hatched projects for the material improvement of the sister community. They needed money even more than their own church, and he decided to build them a mill (318 bottom - 319 top). Along with others, Ksenia Mikhailovna, who was abbess from 1796 until her death in 1839 97, also visited him. Despite its shortcomings and especially its simplicity, Rev. Seraphim valued her greatly, for he invariably sent converts to her. He called her “a pillar of fire from earth to heaven” and, not without humor, “a spiritual scourge” (179 top). The founder and first abbess were just as stern, but Xenia’s severity, in the elder’s opinion, stemmed from imprudence. He failed to convince her to abandon the charter of the Sarov Monastery, which was unbearable for the small number of illiterate and semi-poor sisters (179 1/2, 462). That is why, since the Diveyevo community did not have, as we said, canonical status, he gave the sisters sent to the mill an independent abbess. This breakaway group was known as the Mill Community, while the sisters led by Ksenia were called, after the parish church, the Kazan Community. Despite the extremely strict routine, the latter was more like a society of piety or a monastery of beguines 98 . Without going into details of the life of the Diveyevo sisters, it should be noted that the Mill community, although it seemed only temporarily transferred from the authority of the abbess to the care of the Venerable. Seraphim, was no longer part of the Diveyevo community. In protest against the actions of Joasaph, who abolished this autonomy in 1842, Motovilov describes both communities as completely independent of each other. In a certain sense it was so, but, with the exception of those cases when Rev. Seraphim did not approve of Ksenia; the sisters always united to implement his endeavors, which benefited them all. Abandoning further attempts to keep Xenia from her chosen line of behavior, the monk sent so many of his spiritual daughters to her that since 1825 the number of her community grew from fifty sisters, of whom at least ten were his spiritual daughters (98 1/2), to one hundred and thirteen by the time of his death (502 lower), even minus all the sisters transferred from the Kazan community to Melnichnaya 99. Many of the Kazan sisters were faithful to the instructions of Rev. Seraphim is above loyalty to the community. One of them even refused to be considered a nun of the community legalized in 1842: as a sign of devotion to Father Seraphim, she built herself a small cell and, together with the novice and holy fool Pelageya, lived in it until her death (535 3/4 - 536 bottom). After her death, the cell was silently annexed to the monastery. This state of affairs, obviously, can confuse the Western mind, but Eastern monasticism often deviates from canonical norms. It is often impossible to find out which community - Melnichnaya or Kazan - a particular secondary witness comes from. It is important that the closely united mill sisters overcame persecution and preserved for us the spiritual heritage of St. Seraphim. According to the testimony of Motovilov (561 4/5), in 1833 this community consisted of 74 sisters, and according to the testimony of the elder sister appointed by Rev. Seraphim, - out of 73 (210 1/2) 100. In 1861, one of the founders, Evdokia Efremovna, convincing Bishop Nektary not to change the abbess, told him: “The eldest of us are six sisters, Fr. Seraphim" 101. It is these founding sisters who were still alive by that time and three more, apparently already deceased, who are the main witnesses. Many other sisters “from the mill” were still alive, but these six were recognized as the rightful heirs of the Rev. Seraphim. The reverend selected the first eight sisters in 1827, upon completion of the construction of the mill. It is unknown how he did it, but each of them received its own serial number. The only person left without a number was Elena Manturova, who did not spend the night at the mill, and who should have been listed first as abbess; but the eldest of the sisters became the first. In 1830, Rev. Seraphim added five more sisters to them, from the 8th to the 12th. Finally, during the last two years, he introduced sixty more sisters into the community. The first-called eight sisters were under the leadership of Rev. Seraphim from July 7, 1827 until his death on January 2, 1833, i.e., over a period of five and a half years. Soon there were six of them left, for two of them died before him. It is not clear why the five sisters admitted in 1830 are also considered founders, when the monk had only two years to live, during which he introduced sixty more sisters into the community. Obviously, these five were chosen for some special qualities that made it possible to honor them as founders. This is our personal point of view, to which we will return later when describing their biographies. At the same time, we note the following: if the community as a whole enjoyed the spiritual guidance of Rev. Seraphim was only a few years old, but many sisters, on the contrary, were his spiritual daughters for much longer, often from childhood. Founders since at least 1820, and some longer. Among other things, notebook 6 of the archives contains a list of witnesses. The sisters are placed in it according to the degree of authority recognized for them. This list is important to study - it hints at the possible contents of the archives and how Chichagov disposed of them, thus complementing our study on the “critical assessment of witnesses” (see Chapter IV). We will supplement the list of witnesses with information known to us about their role in the community, especially in the events of 1861. Two of them had to intervene in events back in 1841 or 1842. Then Joasaph, having established himself in the Kazan community, tried to subjugate Melnichnaya to himself through intimidation. Gathering the sisters, he forced them to admit before the cross and the Gospel that Rev. Seraphim himself entrusted him with taking care of them. When the two older sisters said the opposite, he became "bitter" and in 1842 achieved a merger of the communities through official recognition of a single community, thus ending the autonomy of the Mill Community. The 6th notebook is a comprehensive document that combines two types of stories presented in the archives: some reflect the history of the construction of St. Seraphim of the sister community and the lives of the most famous persons, others - memorable episodes or words of the venerable 102. Documents of the first type, often in the form of verbatim quotations, were included in entire pages in Chichagov’s work and serve as its basis. The latter, occupying many pages, are most often short. Almost all of them are collected in the 1st and mainly in the 6th notebook. This is why we have thirty-two explicit quotations from Notebook 1, eighty-eight from Notebook 6, and only a few from the rest. Here are the contents of the 6th notebook (p. XIII): Title: “The chronicle legend of the Seraphim-Diveev Monastery, compiled from the notes of Archpriest Fr. Vasily Sadovsky and Nikolai Aleksandrovich Motovilov and according to the stories of Mikhail Vasilyevich Manturov" (In fact, in the fifth part it contains not oral stories, but written evidence of Manturov.) a) “Foundation by Elder Seraphim of the second mill community of Diveevo, near the village of Diveevo.” Retold by Chichagov in Chapter IX. b) “Construction of a two-stage windmill in Serafimov Diveevo” (ibid.). c) “Mikhail Vasilievich Manturov.” His role in Diveyevo is covered starting from Chapter XII in accordance with chronology. d) “Construction of the original Nativity churches of Serafimo-Diveev. The story of Archpriest Fr. Vasily Sadovsky. This is the first part of Chapter XI. “Churches” is plural, since the crypt was the second church. e) “Eighty-one stories of elders (elderly sisters) about the predictions of Father Fr. Seraphim." These stories are scattered throughout Chichagov's work in chronological order, as far as he could establish it. In fact, only sixty-six of them belong to the sisters; stories No. 67–81 – notes by Manturov, Fr. Vasily and Fr. Houri. The latter is a Sarov monk, the alleged author of one of the first biographies of St. Seraphim. And these stories, even stories about. Vasily, contain not only prophecies. One of the quotes (470 bottom) refers to the introduction to this notebook, which describes the ceremony of awarding Motovilov the title of protector of the community. Below in the text (471 1/2) the composition of this introduction is attributed to Motovilov himself. This must be a mistake: it is difficult to believe that the judge made himself a witness in his own case. Moreover, by the time this notebook was compiled, Motovilov had died. The final edition of the document belongs rather to Fr. Vasily. “Now it’s 1887, and I lived as my father predicted, and everything happened,” says one of the sisters at the conclusion of her story (215 top). Thus, the notebook was compiled no earlier than the specified date. This probably happened in the year of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the abbess of the same Mother Mary, whom Joasaph tried to remove from the position of abbess in 1861. She was elected in 1851, and in 1901 she was to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of her abbot 103. But the notebook also uses earlier documents, such as Manturov’s stories. Rev. Seraphim himself ordered one of the main witnesses to put everything in writing (320). Having received a heavenly vision with him (327 2/3), during her lifetime she did not talk about him; her description of the event will be revealed only in 1865, after her death (752 1/2). In the 1st notebook, one sister indicates that after a conversation with the monk, she immediately wrote everything down (72 below, also on 232 2/5). Most of the sisters were accepted as illiterate, but later learned to read and some to write. Now let us list the main sister witnesses. We will present, without reference to sources, only objective data known to us for certain, confirming the reliability of their evidence. Founding Sisters and Witnesses 104 The eight founding sisters are the authors of the first thirty-four stories, twenty-three of which are given by Chichagov with references. These are the following sisters in order of their authority: a) PRASKOVYA STEPANOVNA, No. 1. Admitted to Diveevo no later than 1826, perhaps much earlier, since she was already quite middle-aged. Delivered by Rev. Seraphim the eldest over the mill sisters. In 1842 he fought back against Joasaph, and in 1861 against the bishop. Dies in 1868. b) PRASKOVYA SEMENOVNA, No. 8. Adopted no later than 1823. In 1834 she was elected abbess; in 1837 he resigned from these duties in protest against the intrigues of Joasaph. In 1861 he rebuffs the bishop and dies nine days later. c) ANNA ALEKSEEVNA, No. 7. Died at the age of over eighty years. d) KSENIA ILYINICHNA, No. 3. In 1861, assistant to the abbess; her testimony during the investigation was most accurate and impartial. e) PRASKOVYA IVANOVNA, No. 5. The investigation of 1861 recognizes her testimony as particularly weighty. f) EVDOKIA EFREMOVNA, No. 2. Adopted no later than 1801. It was to her that Rev. Seraphim instructed to write about the mercies that he had received. In 1842 he fights back against Joasaph, and in 1861 against the bishop. Dies in 1865. g) KSENIA VASILIEVNA, No. 9. Born in 1804, adopted as a minor. In 1887 she was still alive. Her testimony is one of the most rich and interesting. h) EKATERINA EGOROVNA, No. 12. Chichagov quotes one of her testimonies with reference to the 6th notebook, but it is impossible to determine her place among other witnesses, since he omitted the number of the story. Seven of these eight sisters, under new monastic names, were still alive in 1861. It is known that Evdokia Efremovna told the bishop: “There are six older sisters, Fr. Seraphim." Apparently one of them was absent that day - one of three not mentioned in connection with this case. Of the thirteen founding sisters, Elena Manturova, who died in 1832 and has no serial number, is not a witness; the 4th sister, who died a little later in 1827, and finally the 6th, 10th and 11th sisters. These latter, apparently, also died early. The 6th left one certificate in the 4th notebook. The 10th and 11th are not mentioned anywhere. Even the patronymic of the 11th sister turned out to be lost. Other Sister Witnesses The next twenty-eight stories, from 35 to 62 (Chichagov quotes twenty-two of them with references), belong to fifteen sisters. It is necessary to especially note Domna Fominichna (or Fominovna), who recalls with pleasure that she was elected thirteenth. In fact, she tops the list; there are four of her stories. Closing the list is sister, Akulina Ivanovna, Rev. Seraphim predicted that she would live “until the courts,” that is, until the investigation of 1861, but he ordered her to answer the investigators’ questions: “I’m stupid, I’m deaf, I’m blind!”, which, according to her, she did (460 1/2). She would only confuse the investigators with her highly confused and disorganized manner of recounting events. In addition to her two stories, the sixtieth and sixty-second, Chichagov gives another testimony of hers on five and a half pages (236 below et seq.), not devoid of interest, but extremely verbose. It may correspond to stories #63-66, but there are no references to them. Although these sisters were not founders, they were often extraordinary witnesses; sometimes the monk told them things that he did not explain to everyone. He explained to Maria Illarionovna, among other things, why he only accepts girls at the mill, that they are more obedient than widows (219 1/2). So is Fr. He said to Vasily: “In a communal desert it is easier to cope with seven virgins than with one widow.” To everyone else, he only said that such was the will of the Mother of God. This once again shows that the instructions received did not restrict the freedom of judgment of the Rev. Seraphim. Thus, we have compiled a list of twenty-three sister-witnesses, eight of whom are founders, based on Chichagov’s links. The rest of the archives introduces us to eight more witness sisters and one who does not talk about Rev. Seraphim, but about mother Alexandra, whose novice she was. Five of them tell only how the monk called them or confirmed their calling: this is very interesting, but has almost no connection with the topic of the 6th notebook. Another sister cites in Notebook 1 a prophecy that concerns her personally and not the community. In the 1st notebook, which apparently chronologically precedes the 6th, another sister cites the prophecy of St. Seraphim to her prematurely deceased friend. Special mention should be made of Ustinya Ivanovna, born in 1801 and admitted to Diveevo in 1819. Rev. Seraphim assigned her to collect his prophecies to Maria Semyonovna, his beloved spiritual daughter, who was destined to die at the age of 19 and who, apparently, was never part of the “Mill.” Her (Ustinya Ivanovna) testimony, along with another - about herself - is given in the 1st notebook. In 1850, she was elected abbess, but Joasaph, sending the election act to the bishop, wrote in a different name. In 1861, she spoke so harshly to the bishop that he removed her from the monastery, where she was returned by the Holy Synod. These sisters proved themselves to be as resilient in the face of persecution as they were able to resist myth-making. While the four sisters claimed that Father Seraphim predicted the incorruptibility of the body of Alexandra’s mother (two of them died before him, thus their testimony is indirect), Ksenia Vasilievna claims the opposite (190 top). Another example: two sisters say that Abbot Niphon, fulfilling the last will of the monk, ordered his icon of the Mother of God to be transferred to the mill, where it enjoyed great veneration (214 1/3 and 221 top). “This testimony... is very important,” adds Chichagov, “for no one knows or remembers how this image... ended up in Diveyevo; some suggested that he was invisibly transported himself and ended up at the refectory window" (221 1/2). Three stories belong to witnesses who had not yet become sisters during the life of the reverend. Seraphim. Three more retell the testimonies of deceased sisters. The total number of sister witnesses is thirty-eight. Taking into account everything that Chichagov conveys their testimonies without references, we can be sure that he selected from the archives the most significant things about St. Seraphim and his work. He is so scrupulous that he does not leave out anything even in the stories of Joasaph he cites, warning at the same time that, relying on the past, they are distorted (for example, 485 2/3). The only pity is that he does not always support the testimony of one witness with identical testimony from another, which would allow them to be compared. VI. Comparison of parallel evidence It is interesting to compare parallel evidence about several episodes and memorable words of St. Seraphim, which Chichagov preserved for us. As a result of such comparisons, it turns out that the sisters agree on miraculous events or statements of the monk on a specific occasion, but their testimonies do not coincide when it comes to theological problems. This is natural - most of them were uneducated peasant women. One of them tells how Father Seraphim tested her (and her godmother) before being accepted into the community: he ordered her to read “Rejoice to the Virgin Mary!”, “Our Father” and “Creed”, after which he concluded: “But she’s ready to go straight to the monastery!” (243 1/2). The eldest, Evdokia Efremovna, was soon to become the second sister and founder of the mill: two of her testimonies will be discussed in this chapter. Now let’s look at three episodes in sequence: – two similar testimonies about the case of the simultaneous presence of Rev. Seraphim in two places; - teaching by Rev. Seraphim about the future salvation of the sisters. The first, specific part is based on the promise of the Mother of God and is quite consistent with the story of Father Vasily. The second part, very abstract and vague, presents some difficulties for understanding; - prediction by Rev. Seraphim about the future of the Diveyevo community until its destruction during the revolution. The narrative of one of the sisters is highly coherent, while the other confuses the revolution with the end of the world and, in connection with this, distorts the figurative structure of the Rev.’s language. Seraphim. This is how we encounter the transition from reality to myth. There is another wonderful episode, numerous witnesses of which completely agree with each other: the episode with the hundred-year-old spruce tree, which, through the prayer of St. Seraphima fell in the direction of Diveevo - an indication that God was pleased with his concerns for the sisters, and at the same time, thanks to this miraculous event, she supplied the community with firewood (315 1/2 - 319 top and 491 2/3 - 492 1/3). It’s a pity that no one was present when the tree fell, so there was, strictly speaking, nothing to describe. The subjective interest in this miracle is of Joasaph, whose machinations it upsets, as well as of Guria, who sincerely criticizes St. Seraphim, and the sisters, who could not even imagine what difficulties the monk faced while caring for them, are too different. First episode Ceremonial laying of the groove Rev. Seraphim ordered to fence off the plot of land on which the Mill community was located with a deep ditch 3 arshins wide (2 meters 15 centimeters). An earthen bank on the inside of the ditch doubled its relative depth, and a gooseberry hedge (255 1/2) was planted on the slope. The Mother of God ordered him to do all this during Her visit on November 25, 1825, walking with him around the entire plot of three hectares. Rev. Seraphim said that the purpose of the ditch was to perpetuate the path of the Mother of God during Her visit. The top layer of soil on which she walked was preserved and placed in a ditch; it was believed that walking along the “path of the Virgin Mary” with one hundred and fifty times reading “Virgin Mother of God, rejoice!” (258 1/2 and 290 3/4) bestows special grace 105. But the main purpose of this fortification system is to ensure the safety of the sisters. The construction of the moat actually disfigured the “path of the Blessed Virgin”. Rev. Seraphim himself said: “The thieves won’t get over it” (258 2/3), apparently implying much more serious dangers, which the innocent girls were not aware of in their naivety. The village of Diveevo was both peasant and mining: rural houses and sisters' cells were scattered among the fields and iron ore mines. Rev. Seraphim once said that Diveevo “was the enemy’s dwelling, but the Lord... allowed me to drive out the entire satanic horde” (231 1/3). There was one more reason for the construction of this ditch, which will be discussed in the third episode. The reverend outlined the site for the construction of the mill back in 1823 (163) 106 . The land plot belonged to the mines, and one of the co-owners promised to donate it. She forgot about the formalities, and therefore the demarcation of the land took place only in the winter of 1829–30, when the sisters had been living there for the third year. With the beginning of the thaw, Rev. Seraphim ordered the sisters to get down to business, but they hesitated because the work was prohibitively difficult for them. And then one morning, even before sunrise, Rev. Seraphim took up the matter himself. Obviously, he was in two places at the same time, judging by the way he disappeared and also for the reason that he made it a rule to never, even for the consecration of a church built at his request, or for the burial of his beloved sisters, come to Diveevo. The archives have three parallel testimonies about this event: Anna Alekseevna, the 8th founding sister (256 1/5, tetr. 6), Praskovya Ivanovna, the 5th founding sister (257 1/2, tetr. 6) and Evdokia Efremovna, the 2nd founding sister. Unfortunately, Chichagov does not give her story, noting only that he confirms the previous two (259 3/5, notebook 1). And finally, Ekaterina Egorovna, the 12th founding sister, without being a direct witness to the event, confirms it (257 top). The day before she was working in the hermitage of St. Seraphim, probably in the garden. In the evening, he ordered her to spend the night in the hermitage, as the sisters sometimes did, and he, as usual, went to his monastery cell for the night. Returning in the morning with the first rays of the sun, he told her: “Come, come, mother (to the mill), tell the girls to start digging a ditch today; I was there and started it myself!” “I’m walking along the road, but I’m thinking: how can Father say that he was? He must have walked around at night. I come, and haven’t had time to tell him yet, but the sisters meet me, tell each other how they saw the priest at dawn, how, overjoyed, they rushed to him, but he disappeared, suddenly became invisible!” Note that the hermitage is twelve kilometers away from the mill (215 2/5): having visited the mill before dawn, Rev. Seraphim would not have had time to return to the desert immediately after dawn. Perhaps he hoped that he would not be noticed at the mill, and left Catherine in the desert so that he could convey instructions to her in the morning. In the two compared stories, discrepancies in small details are noticeable, but this only confirms the independence of their sources. The sister who was busy with the housework, who, according to Anna, saw how Father Seraphim was digging the earth, and according to Praskovya only a burning candle, is mentioned in one more place, but she was destined to die early. Anna only mentions her name, adding: “the sister of the late Akulina Ivanovna Malysheva.” It is also noticeable that the sisters are trying to tell not so much about the manifestation of the ability of the reverend. Seraphim is in two places at once, talking about his joy that he finally visited them at the mill. Whether this was ultimately a phenomenon of bilocation or rather of metalocalization is not so important. Table 1. Comparison of evidence Second episode. "All sisters will be saved Rev. Seraphim left two teachings about the fate of his nuns. On the one hand, during Her visit in 1830, the Mother of God agreed to save all the sisters except three. But, on the other hand, the sisters were divided into three categories depending on the degree of fidelity. Undoubtedly, this second teaching was also the fruit of revelation, but Rev. Seraphim does not mention him. We have three parallel accounts of these teachings. Rev. Seraphim spoke about this with Evdokia Efremovna, the 2nd founding sister (324 top, note 6), already mentioned as a witness in the previous episode. The first teaching, or message of revelation, is very brief. Some of its elements are rearranged differently than in the other two certificates, and in the accompanying comparative table their order had to be changed. Here is its suggested sequence: 1) “Behold, mother, up to a thousand people will gather in my monastery, 2) and that’s it, mother, everyone will be saved, 3) I begged, poor thing, the Mother of God, 4) and the Queen of Heaven deigned to answer the humble request of the poor Seraphim, (b) I promised, Merciful Lady, to save everyone, my joy!” Ksenia Vasilievna, the 9th founding sister, testifies to the same teachings (324 bottom, notebook 6). She does not specify whether they were given at the same time. And finally, a few days after the appearance of St. Seraphim spoke about the promise of the Mother of God to Father Vasily (323 1/2). Father Vasily nowhere speaks of dividing the sisters into three categories, but this is contained in Elena Manturova’s vision. On her deathbed, she told Father Vasily about it, and he immediately wrote it down (420 1/4 to 422 1/3). It is the same teaching, conveyed in much the same imagery. In order not to overly complicate our presentation, we will reproduce only its fragments. Table II. Comparison of evidence To appreciate the full significance of these teachings, a special study is necessary; we only certify the fact that the evidence corresponds to each other. At the same time, some remarks should be made. The Russian word “monastery” means both a community and a dwelling, a place of residence. With this word Rev. Seraphim names both the temporary community of Diveyevo nuns and the mystical community in the heavenly “abodes.” Many sisters will be “with him”, in his heavenly community-abode. This is the second category, the category of the chosen ones. Other sisters who exceed this category and live for God alone will take a place in the heavenly palace. This is the first category, the combined category. And finally, the rest who did not answer their calling. By participating in the life of the community only formally, they will not find a place for themselves in the heavenly community-abode of St. Seraphim. This is the third category, the category of those called. Rev. Seraphim is so upset that he weeps bitterly for them, just like Elena during the story. This is the teaching of Rev. Seraphim concerns all the Diveyevo sisters from the day the community was founded by Mother Alexandra until the revolution and, undoubtedly, points to their posthumous fate; Elena makes this clear. But not a single word of this teaching by Rev. Seraphim does not predict the fate of sisters in eternity. Apparently, he has in mind their fate before the Last Judgment, since the “chosen ones” are also called to join the heavenly palace. According to Elena, even some of the “invited” wear crowns (422 top). True, they “can never rejoice” (422 1/4), “they will always grieve” (324 1/2), but, apparently, we should understand “until the Last Judgment.” About the three sisters who are denied salvation, we are told only that they will die prematurely, which is often an inevitable consequence of sin (see: II Cor. 11, 30). Motivated by deeply humane love for his daughters, Rev. Seraphim asks for them not only eternal salvation, but also a peaceful end of life, without tragedies and horrors, as stated in the liturgical prayers. Episode Three: Prediction of the Lavra and the Revolution In his hermitage, Rev. Seraphim started a vegetable garden and supplied the sisters and the Sarov monastery hotel with vegetables. The sisters came to work in the garden, which provided him with the opportunity to mentor them. The girls he called to monasticism first worked for several days in the garden, receiving the beginnings of education, and often only after that he sent them not to the Kazan, but to the Mill community. It also happened that he would send for some sister, knowing thanks to his insight that she was going through a period of despondency. Apparently, this was the case with two sisters invited at the same time, each of whom spoke about it. Their stories follow one after another in the 6th notebook, which once again proves the careful compilation of this section of the archives. This happened in the last two years of the reverend’s life. Seraphim, since neither were founding sisters. In addition to this testimony (290 below), Evdokia Trofimovna 108 also left a story about her calling. Another sister who told about the miracle, Irina Semyonovna (215 1/3), Rev. Seraphim took Motovilov as a witness to the dedication, and after the death of the monk she was elected abbess of the Mill community. Her testimony, as we will see, is reliable, but Evdokia distorted his words. At the end of the work, Rev. Seraphim ordered the sisters to return to Diveevo and come again the next day. Thus, he forced them to walk twenty-four kilometers after two days of hard work, while the other sisters, who could not complete the work in a day, often remained overnight in the desert; Rev. Seraphim, as we mentioned, returned to the monastery cell every evening. On the way back, one of the sisters, wondering why he had condemned them to such great fatigue, announced her intention to leave Diveevo and move to another monastery; her companion decided to leave with her. They did not understand that the monk tried, if possible, not to leave the sisters overnight in the hermitage because of the suspicions of the monastery authorities that he himself sometimes spent the night with them. Sarov monks lived in separate cells or simply huts and could enter and leave without being noticed by outsiders. One night, the seven sisters were indeed disturbed by the arrival of the assistant abbot 109 and several monks into the hermitage: they “silently kept looking for something and ordered us to immediately get dressed quickly and immediately leave” (247 below on 248 1/2; see also 309 1/4). Rev. Seraphim tried to hide this scandal from his sisters. However, the sisters did not dare to carry out their plan and the next morning they obediently appeared in the desert. Upon their return, the monk revealed his secret thoughts to them, forgave them and, wanting to encourage them, began to talk about the future greatness of the Lavra, which was supposed to ease the hardships of their current labors. Irina sets out this entire self-deprecating preamble, and Evdokia only says that Father Seraphim, “loving her,” told her many prophecies. Communication with a saint often gives rise to the impression in the soul that it is loved more than anyone else, but such illusions must be resisted. Evdokia, of course, mentions Irina’s presence, but, in her opinion, Rev. Seraphim addressed himself mainly to her. Table III. Comparison of evidence It is quite possible that Rev. Seraphim, as Evdokia says, who himself sketched out the plan for the future Lavra (it was reproduced by Chichagov on p. 262), told them about the splendor of individual buildings and the Lavra as a whole. The majestic cathedral, the future pearl of the monastery, for which the monk himself acquired the land, is mentioned in both testimonies. The two stories then diverge. Evdokia attributes to Rev. Seraphim vague apocalyptic speeches not related to the stated circumstances. Irina's story, on the contrary, is clear if we take into account the following facts. The highest point of Diveev's heyday was the transfer of the relics of St. Seraphim in 1903 in the presence of the imperial family and with a significant gathering of pilgrims from all over Russia. Two years later, events broke out that became the harbingers of the revolution. Of course, Rev. Seraphim could not speak directly about his canonization, but, describing the day of glorification, he mentioned the gathering of pilgrims and predicted the visit of the Tsar, resorting to the image of the so-called “Tsar’s Bell,” the famous giant bell located in the Moscow Kremlin 110. Then, involuntarily carried away by his prophetic vision, he suddenly turns from joy to sorrow and predicts a revolution that will soon follow these events. Now, with the passage of time, everything becomes completely clear. But in that era, only the brightest minds foresaw the revolution and few suspected the coming scale of violence, and especially its anti-religious rage. Everyone, and Chichagov first of all, understood the words of the reverend. Seraphim as a prophecy about the end of the world. Evdokia also succumbed to this temptation. We should not be embarrassed by the words that when the bell rings, “the Cape will wake up for you,” while in another place Rev. Seraphim says that “I will always be alive for you.” He always connects himself with those to whom he addresses: he says not “you need to do this,” but “we need to do this.” Evdokia's testimony essentially corresponds to Irina's testimony, except for the alien shade and confused order of presentation she introduced into the story. The second part of her story should be read like this: 1) After this Fr. Seraphim suddenly began to cry and said: 2) “But then life will be short. The angels will barely have time to take souls. 3) And whoever lives in my monastery, I will not leave them all; who will even help her, and those torments will be spared! 4) The ditch will be a wall for you up to heaven, and when the Antichrist comes, he will not be able to cross it; she will cry out to the Lord for you and become a wall to heaven and will not let him in! 5) And the Moscow bell, which stands on the ground, near the bell tower of Ivan the Great, will itself come to you by air, 6) and it will buzz so much that you will wake up, 7) and the whole universe will hear and be surprised.” With the exception of phrase (7), which is given excessive pomposity, phrase (3), possibly said by Rev. Seraphim, but omitted from Irina, and phrase (4), which will be discussed below, the content of the texts is identical. Only the ringing of the bell, symbolizing the arrival of the Tsar in Diveevo, turns, according to chiliastic teaching, into a signal for the resurrection. We see here the beginnings of the myth of the resurrection of St. Seraphim, “the great Diveyevo secret” according to Nilus. Words attributed to Rev. Seraphim in phrase (4) is cited by many other witnesses, and in particular by Father Vasily: “Father Seraphim said many wonderful things about this ditch. So... this ditch is high to heaven... And when the Antichrist comes, he will pass everywhere, and will not jump over this ditch!” (255 2/3). Apparently, Father Vasily did not understand that Rev. Seraphim did not mean the Antichrist with a capital letter, but Joasaph, in whom he saw his prototype. Trying to prepare his sisters for future persecution from Joasaph, he composed a consonant proverb that could be etched in their memory: “You will not live to see the Antichrist, but you will survive the times of the Antichrist.” The main meaning of the groove metaphor is as follows: only the direct guidance of the Rev. Seraphim distinguished the Mill community from the Kazan one, since the sisters’ cells and land plots were scattered throughout the village, and both communities often united for work and prayer. For the abbess of the Kazan community, who was easily influenced by Joasaph, the Mill community would quickly lose all signs of autonomy after the death of the Venerable. Seraphim, if she had not been separated by a groove. Thanks to this giant ditch, the sisters managed to maintain their independence until 1842; this decade united the young nuns in such unanimity, which ultimately triumphed over the Antichrist Joasaph. Since the secret of the groove concerns the sorrows of the sisters after the death of the reverend, it is obvious that he would not tell them about it at the moment when he wanted to encourage, so we have removed this passage from the comparison table. With the reader's permission, we will say a few more words about the groove: the content of these texts confuses hagiographers and has become one of the reasons why they avoid wide publicity of everything they know about St. Seraphim: believers are left in the dark, because during the dispersal of the Lavra in 1929, the ditch did not seem to play a saving role. Already in 1842 it was trampled underfoot by Joasaph. He moved the mill to a new location, demolished the sisters' cells and the refectory, which also served as a room for prayer (575 3/4;, and built bridges across the ditch (635 top). But, apparently, St. Seraphim himself did not think of turning these three hectares of land into an eternal fortress inside the monastery: he did not build a church there, but chose a different place for the cathedral. The location of the ditch was not even indicated on the plan of the Lavra drawn by him. In the description of the events of 1861, the ditch is, of course, mentioned, but only as a symbol. One of the sisters, who fell into foolishness during the days of difficult trials, calls on the sisters to strengthen themselves behind the ditch and call out to it: “Gutter, ditch! Cry to Heaven for us!” Not one did this, because everyone understood perfectly well that this was simply a symbolic image characteristic of the speech of holy fools (647 1/4). After 1861, the ditch was restored for purely pious reasons. 111 If Rev. Seraphim gave some apocalypticism to his teaching, despite the fact that this has more than once become a source of misunderstandings and superstitions alien to the Christian spirit, he did this more for our admonition than for the instruction of his contemporaries. With the passage of time, we can and should indeed recognize the main meaning of his prophecies. Only after understanding the direct meaning of the teaching of St. Seraphim, it will become a source of encouragement and inspiration amid the trials of our time, for the apocalyptic drama invariably resumes 112. So, in this chapter we have compared eight pieces of evidence, as well as the testimony of Elena Manturova. The difference in presentation styles and discrepancies in small details confirm the independence of evidence from each other and the absence of any collective myth-making. In addition, apart from the second part of Evdokia Trofimovna’s testimony, they confirm each other. These seven completely concordant testimonies come from Father Basil, four founding sisters (one of them the author of two testimonies) and another sister who was not a foundress, but could become abbess, which speaks in her favor. Testimonies are reliable when they tell of miraculous events. When it comes to doctrine, the evidence is correct, but not accurate enough, for Rev. Seraphim, due to the lack of Christian culture among these women, resorted to images. As for the prophetic instructions of St. Seraphim, deciphering it is so difficult that even Father Vasily, recording it verbatim, does not claim to understand it. If you study the three comparative tables not diagonally, but lengthwise and crosswise, they will amaze you with the originality inherent in the reverence. Seraphim of style - simple, accessible, direct and figurative. Where this style appears, we can be sure that we hear the voice of the reverend himself; at least this applies to sincere witnesses; Joasaph and Nilus are excellent at imitating him. The first did it for the sake of deception, the second - unconsciously; Perhaps Nilus wrote many of his apocrypha in a state of some kind of split personality, which he took for inspiration. And on the contrary, such an excellent witness as Motovilov does not convey to us at all the color characteristic of the speech of the Venerable. Seraphim, since his only concern was the scrupulous transmission of its contents. Simplicity prep. Seraphim is natural. He came from the merchant class. While individual merchant dynasties, having succeeded in industry or large-scale trade, constituted a large Russian bourgeoisie that competed culturally with the aristocracy, the bulk of merchants did not differ in spoken language and morals from the common people, occupying either an equal or slightly higher position on the social ladder. Father Rev. Seraphima, who died quite early, and his mother must have been very gifted people. The father was a builder-contractor of the church, which later became the cathedral, and the mother completed the construction, which was unfinished after the death of her husband. The monk inherited the human qualities of his parents, and familiarity with the writings of the Fathers of the Church made him an educated person. Three times he was offered the position of abbot. But this was not his calling, and he remained faithful to his simple origins, which were also inherent in his nuns. Rev. Seraphim was unusually gifted spiritually, as the previous chapters prove. The historian G.P. Fedotov 113 admits that along with reliable episodes there are also legendary stories about him (and sometimes, it must be admitted, deliberate falsifications). He believes that it is impossible to identify them using only rational methods. It is not clear what other criterion, besides historicity, can be used: outside of it, the hagiographer is forced to rely only on his own knowledge and, as a result, measure the life of a saint to his own yardstick. This is already happening everywhere, not only in hagiographic literature, but also in secular biographies. If some of the ascents of the greats of this world can be explained only by their genius, how much more of them there are in the lives of saints! The source of mythical elements - both folk myth-making and deliberate falsifications - are mainly four editions of the life of St. Seraphim, published by Joasaph. Nilus later spread other falsehoods and myths, but these are less known to the public. Of course, one should separate from them the “Conversation”, which has already been said that it gives the impression - only in essence - of being genuine 114. In this chapter we will look at the main myths, try to prove their inconsistency in the light of critical analysis and show that the real events that served as their basis are much more orthodox and significant. The reason for the wide popularity of some mythical episodes, more than real ones, lies in the existence of an unspoken ban on the publication of information about the persecution of Diveevo by Joasaph, on the one hand, and by the Sarov monks on the Venerable himself. Seraphim - on the other. Rev. Seraphim repeated that holiness without persecution is impossible, therefore, we do not have the right to pass them by in silence. It is known that Joasaph, who was expelled from Diveevo by two bishops in a row (716 2/3 and 598 below), was finally expelled in 1861 by decree of the Holy Synod. The decree was issued on the basis of an investigation conducted by Metropolitan Philaret, the sixth chapter of which is entirely devoted to the machinations of Joasaph. In article 12 we read (690): “It is noteworthy what was said to the investigators by the founder of the Ardatov monastery, the eighty-year-old elder Evdokia 115: “According to the teachings of Joasaph, even a lie for salvation lies on Fr. He taught Seraphim and the Diveevskys to lie. He assured that the priest entrusted him with the care of three communities: Diveyevo, Ardatov and Zelenogorsk. This is false. I did not allow Joasaph to interfere in our affairs, and our monastery, for the prayers of Fr. Seraphima, comforted. And in Diveevo, if Joasaph had not interfered, things would have settled down long ago, and the sisters would have lived peacefully, thanking God and Fr. Seraphim." “What does Joasaph say about Fr. Seraphim did not always tell the truth,” continues Metropolitan Philaret, “this can be discerned from the discrepancies in his various editions of the life of Fr. Seraphim." And he refers to the attached document. Chichagov himself devoted many pages to exposing one or another lie of Joasaph. Of the four episodes presented below, the episode with the mole is unknown to the public, for Joasaph, not understanding its meaning, introduced the Rev. Seraphim in an unsightly light. But this particular episode is completely reliable and shows how the appearance of the reverend was distorted. Seraphim Joasaph. From the episode with the disturbance of the source, only one circumstance is universally known, precisely the one invented by Joasaph. The episode with the bear is known both in the mythical and in the real version. And finally, believers are often confused by tales attributed to St. Seraphim's impudent behavior with bishops. We will not touch on another important episode: the vision in which Rev. Seraphim visited the heavenly abodes. The only surviving record of this teaching is that of Joasaph. Perhaps the saint told him in an attempt to convert him; Chichagov apparently believes this (360 top), but dismisses Joasaph’s story as not trustworthy. Let's just say that about the heavenly abodes of St. Seraphim spoke as if he had visited them himself. Speaking with the sisters, Rev. Seraphim often called Joasaph simply “an alien visitor.” Joasaph himself recalls that during his last meeting with the elder, he advised him: “And do not be a stranger to the visitor!” He referred to 1 Peter. 4:15: “Let no one suffer from you as a murderer, or as a thief, or as a villain, or as an alien visitor!” Joasaph, blinded by vanity, found this word mysterious and naively quoted it (487 1/3). And even earlier, he did not understand the prophetic meaning of the episode with the mole, which was that he, Joasaph, was a thief, a villain and an alien visitor and that he would suffer from this. Rev. Seraphim had childish simplicity, but Joasaph, selfishly showing him every respect, in fact took him for a simpleton. Rev. Seraphim knew how to use his prophetic gift in different ways: both in words and in actions. In this episode, he reveals the prophetic meaning of a random incident. “One day,” writes Joasaph (ed. 1849, p. 4546), “I found him at the source... in a kind of embarrassed and childishly murmuring mood. He held four or five potatoes and, looking at how they had been spoiled by the mole, repeated with incomprehensibly sweet sorrow: “Now, you see, there is no way for them to eat other people’s labors!” It was both surprising and pleasant for me to watch his childish murmur. Whereas he usually did not drive away a single insect from himself during his labors... now he grieved over five spoiled potatoes. Of course, the elder fed the orphans of Diveyevo and the beggars in the hotel with the labors of his hands, 116 however, only the Lord knows what and why the elder was grieving at that time. Meanwhile, unnoticed, we reached the other end of the ridges... But we barely had time to sit down when we saw, not far from us, the mole itself, running out onto the ridge... Suddenly, out of nowhere, some bird, very similar in appearance to a hawk, instantly descended on the culprit and, putting its claws into him, carried him into the air. The squeak of a mole that had been caught could be heard for a long time, until they were completely out of sight. It is difficult to convey with what childish contentment Father Seraphim looked at everything that was happening: ?-?! This is how, this is how to consume other people’s works!” - he repeated. The merciful Lord spoke here, as if in words, how He loved the elder and his works; so that when His servant was even slightly offended, He consoled him even for that sorrow.” Indignation of the source and the Decembrist When Joasaph inflates an insignificant detail into a whole episode, it is immediately guessed without any critical analysis by the overly romantic coloring of the story. Here, for example, is his pathetic story about his last meeting with Rev. Seraphim (485 1/3 – 489 3/4) or his version of the miracle with the fallen tree (492 1/2 – 495 bottom). Joasaph was capable of composing sentimental tales in the spirit of the times, but the simplicity of St. Seraphim did not succumb to his pen. Most often, he used real episodes, changing them in such a way that he himself could participate in them as a student and assistant to the elder. This also applies to the episode at the well built by the monk above the miraculous spring, the water of which, usually clear, became disturbed when the troublemaker approached. Moreover, he could not cite real facts, since one of the two well-known episodes talks about the disturbance of the water just at his own approach, and the other, dating back to 1861, at the approach of the one who, at his instigation, was preparing to remove the Diveyevo abbess 117. This is the story of Joasaph. One of the visitors to Sarov asks Joasaph to intercede for him before the Venerable. Seraphim, who refused to accept him, and they set off together into the desert. Leaving the visitor nearby, Joasaph goes further alone and finds the old man crouched near a pond and looking into the water. The elder greets him favorably, but, boiling with indignation, he resolutely refuses to accept the visitor. (In fact, St. Seraphim was indignant for another reason.) He shows him how the water in the reservoir became indignant while the visitor approached the hermitage. He was a Decembrist - Joasaph explains, without saying how he found out - who asked for the blessing of St. Seraphim to carry out his criminal plans. Decembrists were the name given to members of secret societies responsible for the uprising on December 14, 1825 118 against imperial power. Joasaph invented the reverend's indignation. Seraphim by their conspiracy to please their highest patrons, members of the imperial court. But even chronologically the visit of the Decembrist is impossible. It could have taken place no later than November 24, 1825, when the death of Tsar Alexander became known; from that day on, the conspirators were too busy preparing for the uprising to find time to travel to Sarov. The source was revealed in the vision of St. Seraphim November 25th. In the following days, he himself built a well over it, covering it with a frame (184 1/4). The sisters saw him for the first time on December 9, but the elder did not linger near him that day and took the sisters to pray in his former hermitage, located two and a half kilometers from there. Until November 25, the monk lived as a recluse in a monastery; Only from that day on did he spend the daytime hours at the source, arranging for himself the hermitage of the recently deceased monk. Located on a hill, it was difficult to access for the crippled old man, and in the spring of 1826 another one was built for him, closer to the source. Only from that time on did the place where the source began to be called the hermitage of St. Seraphim. The pose of the monk, bending over the log house and looking into the water, was borrowed from an episode described in archival documents (320 bottom - 321 2/5). The witness Anna Alexandrovna died before the archives were compiled, but “she conveyed the same fact to many in the monastery,” and Joasaph must have heard conversations about him. One day she stood with her father at its source, and Father Seraphim, leaning on the log house, looked into it for a long time. Suddenly the source became completely indignant and became completely dirty. “I,” Anna Alexandrovna told about herself, “was looking at the priest at that time, not paying attention to the source. Suddenly the priest raised his head and, pointing to the source, said: “Look, mother, what a source!” Seeing him completely dirty and raging, I was very frightened and asked the priest in horror: “What does this mean?” At this time, Ivan Tikhonovich, the current hieromonk Joasaph, came down from the mountain. Father, clasping his hands, pointed at him and said: “Here, mother: this is an outrage to the whole world, and he outraged me, poor Seraphim.” And then again, pointing to the source, he added: “So, mother, it’s the same with us.” The second episode, dated May 15, 1861, tells of the disturbance of the source three days before the crisis, which was caused by the visit of Bishop Nektarios (630 1/2 - 632 top). The main witnesses are Praskovya Stepanovna, the 1st founding sister, and especially Praskovya Semyonovna, the 8th founding sister, who played the main role in opposing the bishop, as the Venerable had prescribed for her. Seraphim. She “went to fight,” that is, she fell into foolishness, and a few days later, as the elder predicted, she died. In this episode she is not acting like a fool: this happened upon her return to Diveevo. In general, she was an exemplary nun and at one time even acted as abbess at the mill. “After crying at the grave [Rev. Seraphim], the sisters went straight to the source. Here they drank water and washed themselves with it, and with the head of the spring, the Sarov monk Fr. Ilya sat and talked for a long time, remembering Father Seraphim. Finally we got ready to go home, poured water into our dishes from the always clean, fresh and, like a mirror, calm spring. Serafima, when Lukerya Zanyatova, who lived in St. Petersburg with her artist sisters, suddenly appeared 119. Her appearance involuntarily surprised the other sisters, since they had not seen her in the monastery, and had not heard of her being called from St. Petersburg. Lukerya Vasilyevna said hello, and just went up to scoop up some water, when suddenly the whole source became indignant, began to boil, and all the pebbles rose up from the bottom, so that the water became cloudy and became completely dirty and opaque. Praskovya Semyonovna’s face immediately changed... “Who came up? For whose sake was the source indignant?!” – she asked menacingly. Everyone was silent in fear... “Lukerya! - Praskovya Semyonovna suddenly exclaimed loudly, turning to Zanyatova, “you’ll outrage the whole monastery!” Praskovya Semyonovna quickly remembered the priest’s prediction about the disturbance of the source, his commandment to everyone to speak the truth loudly after this, and also remembering her death. Lukerya Vasilievna immediately left, but Praskovya Semyonovna remained and looked silently, anxiously and intently at the source for a long, long time until it calmed down, became quiet, was completely cleansed and remained fresh as before. Then she scooped up some water. “Well,” said Praskovya Semyonovna, “it’s okay now, let’s go!” Goodbye Elijah! Goodbye, we won’t see each other again in this life!” The monk, amazed at what had happened before his eyes, answered reassuringly: “That’s enough, old lady, I’m really worried! Look what else you came up with - we won’t meet, or you’re going to die! That's enough, that's enough, you'll run to the spring for water!" “Well, no,” said Praskovya Semyonovna, “now farewell, truly farewell!” Father Seraphim told me: here, mother, remember, when you see that my source will be outraged by the dirt, from whom he is indignant, that person will disturb your entire monastery! Then, mother, do not be afraid and tell the truth and tell the truth to everyone! This is my commandment to you! This is your end! So you see, Elijah, the source is indignant, and Lukerya will outrage our entire monastery! The time has come, I will go to war, as my father ordered me! Farewell, Ilya, farewell! We won't see each other again! And you be a witness - who came up!” They returned to Sarov and cried again at the grave of Fr. Seraphim and went home.” In addition to the episode, more fully presented in the archives, in the fourth edition of his life, St. Seraphim (pp. 167–168), Joasaph gives the following episode with the bear. When a certain sister Alexandra 120 was with a friend in the hermitage with the elder, a huge bear appeared, walking on its hind legs. Seraphim asked him not to frighten his orphans and ordered him to bring them a gift. The bear bowed awkwardly and went into the thicket. He returned two hours later, bringing a honeycomb with honey wrapped in leaves and bark. If this episode came from a reliable source, it would put us in a very difficult position. The witness or the one who tells his story is a very narrow-minded person, for he does not report anything about what motives the elder was guided by, thus revealing his strength. And finally, it is very difficult to imagine the motivating spiritual reason for such unnatural and at the same time reasonable behavior of the bear. This is wonderful for the sake of the wonderful, like in fairy tales. Perhaps Joasaph actually reproduced the folk tale into which the episode with the bear was transformed. A wonderful story from the archives of a completely different kind (249 bottom – 252 top). Life in the Diveyevo community was very harsh. Knowing, thanks to his insight, that one or another sister had fallen into despondency, Rev. Seraphim invited her to his place and found the right words for each, strengthening faith and courage. This happened with Matrona Pleshcheeva, who, as happened with many, had already decided to leave Diveevo without telling anyone anything. Everything suggests that she was very young then. Rev. Seraphim encourages this girl, showing her that even wild animals submit to people; her fear is replaced by tenderness, tears of despair - by carefree laughter. About forty years later, the nun spoke about this with emotion. “Having entered the Diveyevo community, I passed, with the blessing of Father Seraphim, obedience in preparing food for the sisters. One day, due to poor health and enemy temptation, I became so embarrassed and despondent that I decided to completely leave the monastery quietly, without blessing: this obedience seemed so difficult and unbearable to me. (Indeed, cooks were rarely with other sisters in church and at work.) 121 Without a doubt, Fr. Seraphim foresaw (thanks to his insight) my temptation, because he suddenly sent me to tell me to come to him. Fulfilling his orders, I went to see him on the third day of Peter’s Day, after finishing the meal, and cried all the way (from Diveyevo to Sarov, twelve kilometers). Arriving at his cell in Sarov, I said a prayer, according to custom, 122 and the elder, saying “Amen!”, greeted me like a loving father and, taking both hands, led me into the cell. Then he said: “Behold, my joy, I have been waiting for you all day.” I answered him with tears: “Father, you know what my obedience is, it was impossible before, I had just fed the sisters, and at that very moment I went to you, and cried all the way.” Then Fr. Seraphim wiped my tears with his handkerchief, saying: “Mother, it’s not for nothing that your tears drip onto the floor”; and then, leading Tenderness to the image of the Queen of Heaven, he said: “Knock yourself, mother, the Queen of Heaven will comfort you.” I kissed the image and felt such joy in my soul that I became completely revived. After that Fr. Seraphim said: “Well, mother, now you go to the living room, and tomorrow come to the distant desert” (she was five kilometers away, in a dense forest; thus, Seraphim gave her a day off). But I objected to him: “Father, I’m afraid to go alone to the far-?? desert." Father Seraphim said to this: “You, mother, go to the hermitage and read everything in your voice: Lord, have mercy,” and he himself sang several times: Lord, have mercy! “But don’t go to Matins, but when you get up, make fifty bows and go!” I did so, as Fr. blessed. Seraphim, getting up, made fifty bows, and went, and all the way she said to her voice: “Lord, have mercy!” Because of this, not only did I not feel any fear, I also felt the greatest joy in my heart, through the prayers of Fr. Seraphim. Approaching a distant desert, I suddenly saw that Fr. Seraphim sits near his cell on a block and next to him stands a terrible-sized bear. I froze with fear and screamed at the top of my voice: “Father! My death! - and fell. Father Seraphim, hearing my voice, hit the bear and waved his hand at him. Then the bear, like a reasonable person, immediately went in the direction where Fr. waved to him. Seraphim, into the depths of the forest. Seeing all this, I trembled with horror, and even when Father Seraphim came up to me with the words: “Don’t be horrified and don’t be frightened,” I continued to shout as before: “Oh, my death!” To this the elder answered me: “No, mother, this is not death; death is far from you; and this is joy." And then he led me to the same deck on which he had sat before and on which, having prayed, he sat me down and sat down himself. Before we had time to sit down, suddenly that same bear came out of the density of the forest and, approaching Father Seraphim, lay down at his feet. I, being close to such a terrible beast, at first was in the greatest horror and trembling, but then, seeing that Father Seraphim treated him without any fear, like a meek lamb, and even fed him from his hands with the bread that he brought with him in his bag, I began to little by little be revived by faith. The face of my great father seemed especially wonderful to me then: it was bright, like an angel’s, and joyful. Finally, when I had completely calmed down, and the elder had fed almost all the bread, he gave me the rest of the piece and told me to feed the bear myself. But I answered: “I’m afraid, father, he’ll eat my hand off.” Father Seraphim, looking at me, smiled and said: “No, mother, believe that he will not eat your hand.” Then I took the bread given to me and fed it all with such consolation that I would like to feed it more, for the beast was meek and towards me, a sinner, for the prayers of Fr. Seraphim 123. Seeing me calm, oh. Seraphim said to me: “Do you remember, mother, a lion served St. Gerasim on the Jordan, and a bear serves poor Seraphim. So the animals listen to us, and you, mother, are despondent, and why should we be despondent? Now, if I had taken scissors with me, I would have cut him off [to become a monk].” Then I simply said: “Father, if the sisters see this bear, they will die of fear.” But he answered: “No, mother, the sisters will not see him.” - “What if someone stabs him? – I asked. “I feel sorry for him.” The elder answered: “No, and they won’t kill you; no one will see it except you.” I was still thinking about how to tell my sisters about this terrible miracle. And Father Seraphim answered my thoughts: “No, mother, before eleven years after my death, don’t tell this to anyone, and then the will of God will reveal who to tell.” Chichagov briefly retells the end of Matrona’s testimony: subsequently it happened that Matrona, going into the cell where one of Seraphim’s faithful, Efim Vasiliev, was painting his portrait, suddenly prompted him to draw Seraphim’s father with a bear, and thus she had to tell him this episode. This happened just in 1844, and from that time the episode became known. The artist at that time was a friend of Joasaph. “Although many outsiders also saw Father Seraphim with the bear,” adds Chichagov, due to the unknown nature of these persons, it is impossible to convey their testimonies, except for one transmitted by the Sarov monk Peter” (Chichagov does not cite this testimony). This example shows his intellectual honesty, which is not so common among hagiographers. Venerable Seraphim and bishops There are many apocrypha circulating throughout Russia, attributing to St. Seraphim has complete contempt for episcopal authority. One of my correspondents wrote to me: “If possible, send some evidence about the nature of the relationship between the saint and the bishops. This is very important, since they still refer to these apocrypha to this day. One Orthodox bishop admitted to me that he doubted the sanctity of the saint because, as they say, he expressed opinions hostile to the episcopate. I hastened to dissuade him. Many fictions of this kind were published even before the revolution. They were distributed mainly by Nilus" 124. Nilus, who died in the USSR in 1930, is undoubtedly the author of many unpublished documents - with the exception of a manuscript he sent abroad and published under the title "On the Bank of God's River", Volume II - documents predicting the end of the world. This book contains precisely the “great Diveyevo secret” that I mentioned in the first sketch (see p. 45): at the end of times, bishops will lose faith in the most basic dogmas, Rev. Seraphim will rise to preach repentance and die again. Below we will clarify the origin of this myth. In addition to this, we will try to refute two more myths that are very similar in content and clearly belong to the category of gossip. Chichagov apparently knew about them, since he cited, as if to refute them, two relevant episodes; the second is especially noteworthy, because Chichagov had first-hand documents. The bishops were indeed concerned about the unusual way of life for a monk. Seraphim. The Sarov archives preserve a draft of Abbot Nifont’s (1806–1842) response to a secret request from the Tambov chancellery. Chichagov provides a quotation (82 4/5), where Abbot Nifont speaks about Venerable. Seraphim is fine. As we will see, the visit to the bishop, which is narrated in the second episode, was also a kind of investigation on his part (444 1/2 - 445 top). But many bishops honored St. Seraphim. Among his relics, Chichagov mentions “a copper cross, which Fr. Seraphim always wore on himself over his clothes” 125 (498 2/3). In the 19th century, priests were awarded pectoral crosses for exceptional services; formerly it was the insignia of the abbot. This cross, which the monk gave to the penitents to venerate, should not be confused with the iron cross that he wore under his clothes and which his mother blessed him with when leaving for Sarov. In iconographic images these two crosses are often confused. Rev. Seraphim reproached the Sarov brethren for moving away from their original simplicity, and clearly wore this cross as a sign of respect for the bishop. Of course, the bishops had to investigate Rev. Seraphim. They were forced to check the accusations against him from the monks; therefore, before talking about the relationship of the monk with the bishops, we will try to shed light on the nature of the relations of the brethren with the monk in the last twelve years of his life. This is the only period for which we have reliable documents. The Diveyevo sisters talked about some of the oppressions that the elder had to endure because of them, but they avoided talking about internal strife among the Sarov brethren. One of them claims that Abbot Niphon was extremely hostile to the Venerable. Seraphim, and this is confirmed by Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow. Describing in 1840 to his adviser and confessor Anthony Medvedev the censorship difficulties of the monk Sergius in publishing the life of St. Seraphim, he notes: “Apparently, the Sarov abbot (Nifont. - L.R.) sinned, he wrote his dark thoughts to Jonah” 126. Jonah, the namesake of the Bishop of Tambov, who will be discussed below, was the first present in the Holy Synod. Chichagov, speaking about Abbot Nifont, added each time that he revered St. Seraphim; he did this, of course, for diplomatic reasons. As a rule, with the exception of materials from the Diveyevo archives, he made public living material with all its contradictions, without trying to create a critical study that could cause a lot of noise, preventing the canonization of St. Seraphim and without even allowing him to pass through censorship. Two reasons for this hostility are indicated by A. N. Muravyov. This is a former official of the Holy Synod, a possible candidate for chief prosecutor, who resigned in protest against one censorship case (at the same time, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow and Archbishop Philaret of Kiev refused to sit in the Holy Synod). In 1848, he visited Sarov and asked Niphon’s successor, Isaiah II, “is the rumor true... that Father Abbot Nifont did not love Father Seraphim and did not allow him to live in the desert or receive visitors? How to explain such a strange feeling for a righteous man, such as Seraphim, in the soul of the pious Niphon? Abbot Isaiah, who bore a considerable burden of responsibility, gave him the following evasive answer: “Who can doubt the righteousness of both? I, who was a witness to the good life and everything that the late Father Superior did for the holy monastery, is it possible not to praise his virtues? And the fame of Father Seraphim’s virtue spreads throughout Russia; but sometimes, by the secret permission of God, there are some perplexities between the most holy people, as we read about in their lives. And here, however, the father abbot’s displeasure was not without reason. A strict adherent of the ancient order of Sarov, established by our forefather, he could not indifferently see how this charter was sometimes violated by the gathering of people of both sexes, albeit pious, into the recluse’s cell, when the charter strictly prohibited such visits. On the other hand, Elder Seraphim, tested by a long seclusion and desert life, of course not without a special revelation, only known to him, opened the doors of his cell to those who came for spiritual edification and, although he seemed to be a violator of the monastic commandment, he was, however, with extreme exhaustion for himself, a fulfiller of Christ’s commandment about love; and I know that my predecessor was filled with sincere deep respect for him” 127. Thus, the first reason for the disagreement between Rev. Seraphim and brethren were his elders 128. Let us note that if visiting persons of “both sexes” really violated the monastery charter, then the elementary foundations of asceticism would force the Rev. Seraphim did not trust the revelations that prompted him to disobedience. In addition, Abbot Isaiah’s reference to the ancient monastic rules was hypocritical, since another reason for the disagreement between the Rev. Seraphim and the brethren, as we will see, were precisely moving away from the ancient monastic rules. And when Rev. From May 25, 1825, Seraphim began to spend daytime hours in the hermitage, receiving Holy Communion in his cell on Sundays; he, of course, did this in order to maintain peace and make the influx of visitors less noticeable. But soon he received a ban from the Tambov chancellery on receiving Holy Communion in his cell, and what he tried to avoid happened: to the great displeasure of the brethren, his return from church turned into a crowded procession, held back by a crowd of visitors who wanted to see him closer, and he himself walked without raising his eyes and as if not noticing anyone (194 2/5 - 195 bottom). Obviously, this decree came out thanks to the intercession of the monks. The second reason for the disagreement between Rev. Seraphim and the brethren are mentioned by Muravyov in a letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod dated October 1866, the contents of which he told P. S. Kazansky. This letter is a protest against a number of reforms leading to the secularization of various church institutions. He reminded the chief prosecutor that “Seraphim was folding his hood, which could happen again.” Kazansky, a professor at the Moscow Theological Academy, an expert on monasticism and a member of the Moscow Censorship Committee, recounts their conversation in a letter to his brother the bishop, whom he keeps abreast of the news. These letters are very interesting both for the information they contain and for the boldness of the author’s views, but for the most part they are too short. They were published by A. Belyaev in “Memoirs of... P. S. Kazansky” in the “Orthodox Review” (1880–1881) and reprinted by the magazine “Strannik” (1881, Dec., pp. 684–694). The Chief Prosecutor at that time was D. Tolstoy, who combined these duties with the duties of the Minister of Education; as evidenced by the reforms he carried out, he was indifferent to Christianity. Among the institutions that fell under the secular reform, Muravyov names seminaries in his letter, and informs Kazansky that Metropolitan Arseny of Kiev will not be involved in the last stage of developing the seminary reform, since the reform is planned to be carried out without him. Thus, the former Bishop of Tambov Arseny, whose meeting with Rev. Seraphim will be described below, as well as the Venerable himself. Seraphim, opposed secularization. The hood is the distinctive sign of a vowed monk. Speaking about “folding the hood,” Kazansky uses the imperfect form of the verb. Obviously, we are talking about the fact that Rev. Seraphim, without completely abandoning the monastic vestment, wore it only on rare occasions, thereby showing that he did not approve of the innovations introduced in Sarov. The very laconicism of this hint testifies to the well-known fact and explains why Rev. Seraphim was canonized so late. Of course, the sources tell us nothing about the relative spiritual decline of Sarov. In 1839, the future Optina Elder Ambrose, a native of Tambov, went for advice to a local hermit, who made him the following confession: “Go to Optina Hermitage - and you will be experienced. One could go to Sarov, but now there are no such experienced elders there as before” 129. It is enough to look at the illustrations of the Patericon to be convinced of the changes that took place in Sarov under Abbot Nifont. His depiction is preceded by portraits of modest monks, most often covered with a low hood, according to the old custom. None of the abbots have a pectoral cross, since Niphon was the first to receive the title of abbot, and their abbot's staffs are elbow-high. Abbot Nifont, on the contrary, is covered with a monumental hood, on it is not one, but three pectoral crosses, and his staff reaches his face: almost a bishop! His successors wear two pectoral crosses. Rev. Seraphim is depicted not only without a hood, but also with his head uncovered, which was unacceptable from the point of view of church traditions, and without a pectoral cross, but in a monastic robe. He is wearing an epitrachelion and a brim, for, as was his custom, he was always ready to accept the confessions of visitors. However, in photographer's parlance, this is more of a "posing" than a "snapshot", as the Reverend's hands rest on a rosary. According to the Patericon, Abbot Nifont began industrial development in the Sarov forest, which until then had been a refuge for hermits. In the photograph of the distant desert, St. Seraphim, reproduced by Chichagov on p. 62, it is clear that the trees in the forest are young; immediately after the death of Rev. Seraphim, his hermitage became a logging point. The neat house depicted on it has nothing in common with the Seraphim Hermitage; it was built in later times for the needs of pilgrims. The original hermitage was bought by Motovilov and became the altar of the cemetery church in Diveevo. Undoubtedly, Abbot Niphon used this money to erect stone buildings for the workers he hired to work in the forest. In 1829, Anna Eropkina, whose testimony is of considerable interest, drew attention to a thick candle in front of the icons in the cell of St. Seraphim. He told her that on the way to the monastery, she must have noticed the damage caused by the hurricane, which had knocked down many trees. “This candle was brought to me by a man who loves God during a thunderstorm. I, unworthy, lit it, prayed to the Lord God, and the storm calmed down. Then, sighing, he added: otherwise one stone would not have been left on another, such was the wrath of God on the monastery!” She clarifies that the losses, according to rumors, amounted to 11,000 rubles (389 1/2). Rev. Seraphim provided Sarov with many other services, in particular, he protected both the brethren and the Diveyevo community from the cholera epidemic, except for those “who left the monastery without a blessing into the world.” He could not openly warn about the famine years only because the majority laughed at his predictions. Rev. Seraphim indicated his distance from the brethren only with the help of clothing. He wore a monastic robe, but instead of a black cassock he wore a peasant white dress and shoes. In the first and second editions of his life, St. Seraphim Joasaph tried to describe him as a kind of holy fool, whose actions did not imply responsibility for them. In the third, later edition, he abandoned this falsification. A week before the death of Rev. Seraphim, abbot Nifont served a liturgy, at which the elder took communion, said goodbye to him and his brothers, and acted as an intercessor for the most humble brothers (472). Under such circumstances, the bishops had to visit Rev. twice. Seraphim. This gave rise to popular rumors about the elder’s daring behavior. The very first fable was picked up by Joasaph, who was glad to endow his imaginary teacher with the same arrogance that he himself exhibited with such shamelessness. He refers to the testimony of a certain Archimandrite Theodosius from the Lyutikov Monastery. In the given episode we are talking about Jonah, who was the Bishop of Tambov from March 29, 1812, transferred on April 26 (or 29), 1821 to Astrakhan, and from October 1, 1821, became the Exarch of Georgia. According to Joasaph, Jonah, having visited Sarov at the beginning of 1821, ordered the venerable. Seraphim will appear to him from the desert to the monastery. The elder refused, citing the fact that he was an uneducated monk, and it was proper for a bishop to communicate with the abbot. Bishop Jonah sent a second messenger, telling him to convey that if he failed to appear, he would order the police to escort him to Tambov in shackles. The elder again refused, noting that Bishop Jonah would not return to Tambov. Bishop Jonah left Sarov, determined to fulfill his threat upon his return to Tambov, but during the trip he learned about the transfer to Astrakhan and became convinced of the prescience of the saint. Seraphim. N. Levitsky, who placed this story in a note and only in order to recognize it as implausible, notes that Jonah was initially transferred not to Georgia, but to Astrakhan. But everything is even simpler, since in 1821 the Rev. Seraphim did not have a hermitage and lived in a monastery. As we have already said, only from November 25, 1825, he began to spend daylight hours in that place, which gradually became known as the “nearby desert”, at the request of Abbot Nifont, returning to spend the night in the monastery. Chichagov mentions this visit of Bishop Jonah and dates it to August 15, 1820 (109 3/5 - 110 1/2). Then Rev. Seraphim lived in seclusion in a monastery - in absolute seclusion according to Chichagov’s chronology. He did not open the door to the bishop, and Abbot Niphon suggested breaking it down, but Bishop Jonah prevented him, fearing, as he said, “to sin.” A week later, Rev. Seraphim, having received a revelation, came out of absolute seclusion and began to receive visitors. The Diveyevo archives contain accurate information only about the period after 1821, and therefore Chichagov studied the entire previous period relying on conflicting sources and trying in vain to reconcile them. One of the archival passages (top 184) apparently suggests that Rev. Seraphim came out of absolute (i.e., excluding visits) seclusion in 1813. If this is so, then he, of course, opened the door to the bishop. Visited Rev. Seraphim and another bishop - Arseny, who ruled the Tambov diocese from April 24 (or March 12), 1832 to April 5, 1841, later Metropolitan of Kiev. A mythical version of this visit was published by N. Potapov, who retells what Motovilov’s widow told him at the age of eighty-three to eighty-eight years. She was born in 1822 and was raised in the Diveyevo community; when Rev. Seraphim died when she was ten years old. Along with other “memories,” she allegedly reported that the elder predicted his canonization and his resurrection, from which Nilus subsequently concocted the “great Diveyevo secret.” Potapov writes that shortly before the death of Rev. Seraphim was visited by His Eminence, Bishop Arseny of Tambov, and this happened for the following reason: “Father Seraphim was much slandered and attacked because he was involved in the construction of Diveev. The Right Reverend Arseny, wanting to check this, came to Sarov and asked Abbot Nifont. Hegumen Nifont suggested that the Eminence send a messenger to Father Seraphim in his nearby hermitage so that Father Seraphim himself would come to the Eminence. Father Seraphim was already very weak... The messenger found him lying in a coffin. Father Seraphim said: “Tell the Right Reverend: I can’t walk, I’m lying in a tomb, I’m wounded by ulcers.” Father Niphon sent for him a second time. “Tell the Eminence that it was not Lazarus who came to Christ, but Christ to Lazarus”... Arseny exclaimed: Ah, Niphon, Niphon! I have sinned with you against the great elder!” and he himself went to Father Seraphim in the desert.” Note that Rev. Seraphim indeed had a long-term habit of reading while lying in a coffin, but that coffin stood in the vestibule of his monastery cell, and not in the hermitage. Chichagov talks about Bishop Arseny’s visit in great detail (446 1/4 – 449 1/4). He did not indicate the source, but the facts were confirmed by a letter from Bishop Arseny (449 1/4 - 450) given after the story. This visit, like the visit of Bishop Jonah, took place in August 1832 on the occasion of the patronal feast day in the monastery church. Rev. Seraphim came from the desert to take part in the reception of the bishop, and then returned back. Accompanied by the treasurer Isaiah and another Tambov priest, the alleged author of this story, Bishop Arseny visited all the buildings of the monastery, including the Hermitage of Seraphim. The elder was strengthening the bank of a stream near the desert with stones and immediately came up for blessing. Bishop Arseny, apparently informed in advance, wished to inspect even a secluded corner in the desert, where the monk sometimes took refuge for prayer. At the end of the visit, Rev. Seraphim asked if he could give visitors, as he usually did, a piece of bread and a spoonful of red wine. Bishop Arseny allowed wine or bread to be given separately, for he heard that some, in their simplicity, believed that he was giving them Holy Communion. He added that it was better not to give wine at all, limiting himself to bread, and the elder promised him to do just that 130. In 1855, Bishop Arseny, having already become Metropolitan of Kyiv, mentions this episode in a letter to Abbot Isaiah. The first part of the letter is deliberately confusing: on the one hand, he excuses Abbot Nifont for the rift with the Rev. Seraphim, on the other hand, not knowing enough about Joasaph’s intrigues in the Diveyevo community, which was not part of his former diocese, suggests that the elder, in his simple-heartedness, became a victim of secularized persons, that is, Joasaph and the sisters who fell under his influence. (In fact, almost all of these sisters were not accepted into the community by St. Seraphim himself.) These considerations are carefully buried in lengthy arguments, because the metropolitan could have suffered from the wrath of Joasaph. His own works, which he alludes to at the end of the letter, are the struggle against sectarian proselytism and activities aimed at repealing some government decrees of 1802 of a rationalist coloring, which favored sectarians to the detriment of the Orthodox faith. Here is his letter: “In good conscience, peaceful relations with Fr. Abbot Nifont to Fr. Seraphim does not cast the slightest shadow on the life and character of both, but on the contrary, in the first they show how highly he understood and faithfully fulfilled the position of abbot of the desert monastery and how dearly he valued and strictly observed the purity of monastic life, and in the latter they expose the evangelical simplicity and gentleness, by which he had no idea that his imaginary or true disciples or disciples sometimes abuse his name to achieve their own vain and not yet purified from the admixture of vanity or self-will. It would also be appropriate in the biography of Fr. Seraphim to mention his first meeting with me: it is full of high significance and undoubtedly reveals in him the gift of insight. His words and actions during my visit with you (Fr. Isaiah then accompanied him in the position of treasurer) of his deserted hut, his then gifts to me: wooden oil, red wine, several candles, a piece of linen and woolen stockings, and, finally, his repeated kneeling farewell to me, which I could not stop with many convictions in him and from which I had to hastily leave with you, so as not to labor any longer with the old man, who continued to kneel and bow, were like later it turned out to be expressive symbols depicting his and my fate: he soon died 131, and I, with the help of God, continue to lay stones on stones to protect the church bank from the pressure of worldly waters.” The letter was apparently written in connection with the intentions of the Sarov Monastery to publish the life of St. Seraphim. Its first edition was published in 1863, but the visit of Bishop Arseny is not mentioned in it. Bishop Arseny called this visit “the first”; Rev. Seraphim died four months later, and we know nothing about the second visit. The letter finally acknowledges at least some of the tension between Rev. Seraphim and abbot due to the fact that the elder received visitors. But in this case, Joasaph was not on his side: wanting to personally become the ruler of the Diveyevo community (319 lower; 320 2/5), he was on the side of those who criticized the elder for caring about her (491 2/3) - albeit under the pretext that he was a hermit. In conclusion of the sketch about the mythical side of the biographies of St. Seraphim, it should be noted that it was the archival documents and documents obtained by Chichagov regarding Bishop Arseny that helped refute the myths and restore the true image of the Venerable. Seraphim. All of the above refers to the last twelve years of his life - the period to which the first archival records date back. This period was not much preceded only by the visit of Bishop Jonah, and therefore our refutation of the myth about him is incomplete. The first forty-nine years of monasticism of St. Seraphim did not give rise to myths. We know almost nothing reliable about them, except for three or four episodes that he himself told his sisters about. The remaining information is questionable and often contradictory. In 1973, the library of “Eastern Spirituality” was replenished with the work of Irina Goryaynova, who introduced the French reader to Saint Seraphim of Sarov. The volume was later included in the “Theophany” series of the Desclee de Brouwer publishing house. And now, fourteen years later, we are offered a new work about St. Seraphim. It was created by Father Vsevolod Roshko, whose figure is quite unique and not without some similarities to the Sarov monk 132. Captivated by the personality and holiness of Seraphim, Father Vsevolod set out to critically evaluate the evidence that has reached us, believing that he has sufficient materials for this; he also tried, on the basis of these testimonies, to recreate the spiritual atmosphere in which the spiritual mentor of the Diveyevo monastery and the elder, known throughout Russia during his lifetime, shone. When Father Vsevolod died while driving a car on December 13, 1984, he left a series of critical sketches, and not a manuscript ready for publication. The sudden death put an end to the almost completed work, which, in order to become “properly hagiographical,” needed, as the author himself admitted, a “change of register.” When combining the sketches into a book, we had to, together with Protopresbyter Georgiy Roshko, brother of Fr. Vsevolod, who handed over the manuscript to us, to solve some problems that arose as a result of the incompleteness of the work. The technical notes that follow the text of the "To the Reader" address serve to explain changes made to studies previously published in Flame and Christian Middle East magazines. I would like to especially draw the reader’s attention to the “Alphabetical List of Sisters”, which was not published by Father Vsevolod during his lifetime. This isn't just a boring list; it contains the clearest evidence that introduces us to the holy of holies of the intimate relationship of St. Seraphim with his spiritual daughters. In them Rev. Seraphim appears as he really was. In his statements, devoid of hagiographic gloss (“Our old lady is bad!” he says about the Diveyevo abbess (Ksenia Mikhailovna, p. 152)), he is full of human tenderness (“Now I choose you to be my sisters, and those who will enter the monastery after me are my daughters” (Evdokia Efremovna, p. 140)). Or, for example, when, during one of his levitations, the sisters notice that his socks have fallen and that the skin of his legs is completely white (Anna Alekseevna, p. 134). Or, finally, when, having been completely transformed and repeating almost verbatim the words of Christ to the disciples after the Last Supper to one of his spiritual daughters, he makes it clear to her that he will soon die, and at the same time consoles her (Praskovya Ivanovna, p. 163). It is interesting to introduce the reader to another article published by Father Vsevolod in the magazine “Flame” - regarding “Frank stories of a wanderer about the grace-filled effect of the Jesus Prayer” 133. The plot and method of the article are close to critical studies about St. Seraphim. The attached text is a fragment of a little-known version of the first “Tale”, but it seems to us that it allows us to hear the true speech of the wanderer himself. While preparing this publication, we became acquainted with other documents: “Akathist” by Patriarch Sergius (Stragorodsky), which prayerfully immerses us in the world in which St. Seraphim; photographs and engravings from the book of Father Leonid Chichagov, which Father Roshko used 134. These latter especially resurrect for us those people among whom the holiness of St. Seraphim. There are several practical points to note that are useful as you read the various chapters. 1. We were faced with the problem of unity of work. The proper names of various persons and geographical names in some sketches are given in different spellings, which can not only surprise, but also confuse the reader, especially when it comes to nuns, whose names are often similar to one another. Therefore, throughout (with the exception of the “Alphabetical List of Sisters”) we have brought these names into line with the writing style of Irina Goryaynova; In a similar way, we agreed to call the well-known Ivan Tikhonov Tolstosheev Joasaph, who by the end of his life would also take the name Seraphim. 2. In some places stylistic corrections were made, and for more effective use of the inexhaustible source of information, which is the sketches of Fr. Vsevolod, an Index of proper names was compiled. 3. Quoting the work of L. Chichagov, Fr. Vsevolod adhered to the following order: the number indicates the number of the quoted page, followed by the designation of part of the page (70 bottom to 76 1/2 - from the bottom of p. 73 to the middle of p. 76). The word "tetr." stands for archive notebooks. We can only thank those whose selflessness and goodwill helped the appearance of this collection, namely: the magazine “Flame”, the magazine “Christian Middle East” and the Brotherhood of St. Herman of Alaska, which in 1978 reprinted the work of L. Chichagov, from which the illustrations were taken. And most of all we would like to express our warm gratitude to Protopresbyter George Roshko, who kindly provided the manuscript and expressed the broadest confidence in the preparation for publication of the text of Fr. Vsevolod. Finally, we express our gratitude to Sister Claire Cusset, a nun of Notre-Dame de Garde, who undertook and successfully completed the painstaking work of identifying names, stylistic corrections, compiling an index and tables. All this was intended for the convenience of the reader, and we hope that we have thereby made it easier for him to become acquainted with the research of Fr. Vsevolod, and most importantly with St. himself. Seraphim. Br. M. – Etienne Baudry, monk of Bellefontaine First of all, we provide an exact list of the etudes used: Christian Near East (Sainte Anne, V. P. 1979, Jerusalem), XXIII, Jan. – March 1983, pp. 3–18, Saint Seraphim in the face of historical criticism: Study-generalization (with references: HBV). Flame is a journal of the Center for Russian Studies in Meudon (15, rue de Porto-Riche, 92190 Meudon). 1. The life of Saint Seraphim in the face of historical criticism. 1983, Me? 62, Easter, p. 65–75; for references – Flame No. 1. 2. A critical assessment of the witnesses of St. Seraphim. 1983, Oct., N? 63, pp.25–36; at links – Flame X? 2. 3. Diveyevo sisters introducing us to Saint Seraphim. Ibid., pp. 37–55; for references – Flame No. 3. 4. Comparison of parallel evidence about Saint Seraphim. 1983, no. 64, Christmas, p. 51–62; for references – Flame No. 4. 5. Saint Seraphim of Sarov: myths and reality. 1985, Feb. X? 67, p. 23–39; for references – Flame-No. 5. 6. Stages of the life of Saint Seraphim. 1985, X® 68, pp.49–67; for references – Flame No. 6. Flame. 1984, No. 66 pp. 31–40: An unpublished fragment of the text of “Tales of the Wanderer.” Unpublished: List of Diveyevo sisters, contemporaries of St. Seraphim. This list, compiled on the basis of L. Chichagov’s book and included in this volume, has not yet been published and was provided to us simultaneously with the studies listed above. First of all, we were faced with the question of in what form the article from the Christian Middle East magazine should be left. This article, called a generalization study, is actually better called a program study. Chronologically, it was apparently written at the same time, if not earlier, as the sketches in the magazine “Flame”, which reveal, clarify and, obviously, correct some of its provisions, especially in the magazine “Flame” No. 6 about the stages of life. And on the contrary, many of its pages completely repeat practically similar pages in sketches in the magazine “Flame”, mainly about the founding sisters (Flame No. 3) or the three patrons of Diveev (Flame No. 2). For fear of boring or even confusing the reader, we were inclined to use this article without reproducing it in extenso, namely, parts of the text that were repetitions and often contradicted with later studies were removed, and the essay that concluded the article about “The Conversation of St. Seraphim of Sarov with N. A. Motovilov about the purpose of Christian life” 135 was moved to the end of the third part of the book. (All changes are noted in the appropriate places in the notes to the text.) It seemed appropriate to us to place this article, in edited form, at the head of the entire series of studies, emphasizing, on the one hand, the spirit of the method used by Fr. Vsevolod, and on the other hand, how St. Seraphim went down in history. It seemed natural to us to group Father Roszko's studies into three parts, and this is the second change. The first part relates to history and historical criticism: chapter 1 of the HBV magazine, abridged in accordance with the above instructions; Chapter 2 “Flame” magazine No. 1. The second concerns directly the life of St. Seraphim, as she appeared with the greatest accuracy to Father Vsevolod at the end of his Detailed Research: Chapter 3 of the Flame magazine No. 6. To help the reader when reading this or that sketch in this volume, we have compiled, based on various sources published to date in French, a “Chronological Table”. In italics it indicates, in addition to historical events, three or four facts from the life of Saint Seraphim, which the author dates differently from the generally accepted chronology, namely: the beginning of old age, the period of 1000 days, the beginning and end of the seclusion. The third part is entitled “Witnesses and Testimonies” and reproduces the unpublished list of the Diveyevo sisters and other sketches from “Flame”: chapter 4 of “Flame” magazine No. 2; Chapter 5 “Flame” magazine No. 3; Chapter 6 List of Sisters; Chapter 7 “Flame” magazine No. 4; Chapter 8 “Flame” magazine No. 5. It also seemed to us possible and useful for the convenience of the reader to continue the list of sisters with a list of Diveyevo abbess - from the death of the founder in 1789 to 1904 - taking into account the division into two communities, which the Rev. considered necessary to make. Seraphim for the sake of saving his business. Finally, a sketch about the life of St. Seraphim (magazine “Flame No. 6”) ends with a short conclusion to studies on historical criticism. We left the first paragraph at the end of the sketch (our chapter 3), and moved the remaining four paragraphs to the end of the entire third part. In conclusion, we have cited, as mentioned above, the end of the sketch from the Christian Middle East magazine about “The Conversation.” Throughout the work, the author repeatedly refers to this text, and therefore we have devoted a more thorough study to it. It seemed appropriate to us to highlight the end of the sketch in a separate chapter, because in it Fr. Vsevolod analyzes the famous “Conversation” most deeply. Appendix 2. Alphabetical list of Diveyevo sisters - contemporaries of St. Seraphim This list, intended as an appendix to Chichagov's work, lists the evidence of each sister and allows us to assess, as far as possible, the weight of each evidence. It includes the names of those sisters who did not leave evidence. All of them are named as mentioned by Chichagov: as a rule, by first name and patronymic, or by last name, or by whatever replaced it. All the sisters, with the exception of the founder, became nuns only after 1861, and the monastic names of many of them remained unknown. At the same time, Chichagov calls some only by a monastic name: in this case, this name takes its place in the alphabet, with reference to the corresponding note. The names given by Chichagov are in capital letters. The presence of several names for each sister sometimes causes some difficulties, which will be discussed below. Since many sisters were accepted into Diveevo long before entering the mill, the known dates of the sisters’ admission to Diveevo and the Mill community are indicated, respectively. Often the sisters, entering the Mill community formally or spiritually, did not live at the mill, for their cells were two to three hundred meters apart. In many cases, the sisters' affiliation with the Mill community remained unclear. Until 1827, the seven founders of the mill were members of the Diveyevo community. In reality there were nine of them. Five other founding sisters, the eighth through the twelfth, were admitted in 1830, and the rest in three subsequent years. It should also be borne in mind that the references do not provide comprehensive information, since Chichagov does not always provide the name of the witness. The links are accompanied by a brief analysis. Since the phenomena of clairvoyance are described in almost all testimonies, we omit them. The reference in parentheses does not indicate evidence, but an indirect mention of one or another sister. AGAFYA GRIGORIEVNA (242 2/5). She is depressed; Rev. S. tells her about heavenly joy and indicates prayers. AGAFYA IVLEVNA, 11th founder (208 top). “Ivlevna” is apparently a colloquial distortion of a patronymic, not a surname. That is why, as well as for a number of other reasons, it is impossible to identify her with other Agafyas. She will die early. One of the sisters, named Agafya, was a novice of Elena Manturova (171 lower). AGAFYA LAVRENTIEVNA (459 3/4). There will be great confusion. Many will disperse (the text is repeated at 628 top). Prepare bast shoes (p. 459 1/2). You'll see it, just for a little while. According to “The Tale of... Pelageya” (p. 39), Rev. S. predicts to her the circumstances of her death. Chichagov does not quote this text. AGAFYA SEMENOVNA MELGUNOVA. See ALEXANDER'S mother Nun AGRAFEN. See AKULINA VASILIEVNA AKULINA VASILIEVNA, nun AGRAFEN (228 4/5 – 229 top). Rev. S. is unable to convince her not to leave Diveevo. He predicts to her through gestures that she will be beaten. Subsequently she returns to Diveevo. The episode is narrated by Varvara Ilyinichna. 267 top In 1829, Rev. S. makes her the adoptive sister of Praskovya Semyonovna in order to console her after the death of her younger sister Maria. 268 3/4. Rev. S. tells her: “If I, poor Seraphim, had been at her (Mary’s) burial, then much healing would have come from her spirit!” (236 1/2). AKULINA IVANOVNA MALYSHEVA. This talkative sister, who is sometimes difficult to understand, has already been mentioned by me above (pp. 124–125). “On the courts,” that is, in 1861, she declared herself deaf and blind, as the reverend had prescribed to her. S., in other words, refused to testify (460 1/2). So her evidence should be treated with caution. 236 1/3 – 242 1/4. At the same time, the editor of the 6th notebook preserved her lively stories about the daily life of the Rev. S. and sisters. According to her, she was accepted in 1826, and Rev. S. appointed her to the mill, but first sent her to the Kazan community for three years, since she was an excellent worker. 291 1/3. Topography of the future monastery and the lopsided hotel. 468 3/4 – 469 1/4. In her old age she would devote herself to prayer and would receive the imperial family. This prediction seems reliable, because Akulina stated it (and Chichagov published it) before the visit actually took place. 468 2/3. Akulina sets out a prophecy to the monk Pavel that Diveevo will become Diveevo only when their abbess is called Maria and bears the surname Ushakova. Apparently, it is more accurate to assume that Rev. S. said: “Diveyevo will be marvelous...” Such consonant expressions were characteristic of the Rev. S. Nun ALEVTINA (229 bottom). All that is known is that she was Matryona Petrovna’s aunt. Perhaps this is one of the sisters known only by a secular name. Mother ALEXANDRA, founder of the Diveyevo community. Her life is described on pp.: 3 3/4 – 6 bottom; 24 bottom 33 3/4; 37 1/5 38 3/5; 52 top 53 2/3. About Rev. S. it comes on p. 38 2/5 – 3/5 and 53 top – 2/3. Regarding the last episode, dating back to 1789, we note that, excluding, of course, cases of his simultaneous appearance in two places, this was the only visit of the Rev. S. in Diveevo for his entire life and, despite the pouring rain, he did not even stay for the wake. Rev. S. expressed his respect for Mother Alexandra on p. 99 bottom; 179 bottom; 188 3/4 191 2/5; 204 2/3; 284 4/5; 288 3/5. Us. 579 top - bottom a certain layman tells how Rev. S. appeared to him along with his mother Alexandra during a snowstorm and saved him. ALEXANDRA IVANOVNA BULGAKOVA (505 1/2 505 bottom). Appointed in 1833 as abbess of the Mill community, she resigned due to illness a year and several months later. Re-elected in 1837, she died two years later without leaving a certificate. Comes from an educated family. Rev. S., who was looking for a competent abbess, knew, of course, that she did not have long to live. ANASTASIA... PROTASOVA (244 1/2 247 2/3). The story of her calling. On her first visit to the community, she was not yet six years old. Anastasia was adopted at the age of eighteen, so this apparently happened between 1818 and 1820. Her younger sister also entered Diveevo, and her younger brother Ivan became a monk. 496 bottom and 497 top. Her mother commissioned a portrait of the Rev. S. Perhaps this is the same Anastasia Mikhailovna who in 1861 was called upon to reason with the self-proclaimed abbess (644 top). ANISYA SEMENOVNA, 10th founder (208 top). She died early. ANNA ALEXANDROVNA (320 bottom). Particularly beloved Rev. C. “The source was indignant” because Joasaph approached. The testimony was given by a friend who survived her. ANNA ALEKSEEVNA, 7th founder (206 2/3). She became blind no later than 1854; died at the age of over eighty years. Undoubtedly, it was blindness that prevented her from playing her role in 1861. 189 1/2. Co-witness of the veneration of St. Seraphim of mother Alexandra. 222 1/5 – 223 top. Testimony in notebook No. 1, at the age of eighty: “You must renounce your will and entrust yourself entirely to your superiors.” Her sister Varvara suffers from epilepsy (see related note). Levitation: “Don’t tell anyone about this while I’m alive, and after I leave you, perhaps tell me!” (Let us note this vivid detail: the girls notice that Father Seraphim’s stockings have fallen down and that the skin of his legs is completely white.) An onion growing overnight. In the cell of the Rev. S. is a devilish darkness, because he prays for the salvation of a sinful, lost soul. 256 1/5 – 257 top. Excellent evidence of the ceremonial laying of the ditch (see pp. 175–179). 315 1/2 – 316 top. Miracle with a fallen tree (632 bottom). Witness to the vision of Praskovya Semyonovna. She hears voices and smells, but sees nothing, for she is blind (268 1/4). ANNA GERASIMOVNA. This sister preserved for us a wonderful story about Pelageya and thus most of her testimony about the Venerable. S. But these testimonies contain few biographical details. Apparently, she was accepted (into the Kazan community) shortly after the death of Rev. WITH. ANNA PETROVNA (246 top). VARVARA IVANOVNA (459 3/4 – 460 top). “Here I have girls in Diveevo who say the hemp is good! And when they kill her, my joy, so that it would be better, they quickly pull her out, mother.” In other words, many sisters will leave the community, but the best will remain. In 1837–1838, the holy fool Pelageya was temporarily entrusted to a young sister with the same name: Legend..., p. 31 top But Pelageya wanted another sister to help her, and made life unbearable for the first one. If we are talking specifically about Varvara Ivanovna, which is very likely, then she was part of the Kazan community. VARVARA ILYINICHNA (228 1/3 229 2/3; mentioned on 268 top). She often visited Rev. S. and left a lot of evidence, in particular about how Rev. S. voluntarily endured fly bites. Rev. S. apparently healed Varvara from dental abscesses and the physical disorders caused by them. She cites an episode concerning Akulina Vasilievna. Varvara Ilyinichna was slandered and expelled from the Kazan community, and Rev. S. took her to the mill. VARVARA KONDRATIEVNA (514 top 514 1/2). Appearing to her a few months after his death, Rev. S. healed her from demonic possession. Perhaps we are talking about Varvara Ilyinichna, although the middle name is indicated differently. These stories say that Rev. S. healed her twice and in both cases it was about mental disorders. Perhaps in the second case there was a relapse of the disease. VARENKA, diminutive of Varvara (222 1/2 – bottom). A girl with epilepsy, Anna Alekseevna’s sister, who found shelter in Diveyevo. She lived there for twenty years, and Rev. S. appeared to her and blessed her. GLAFIRA VASILIEVNA (220 1/2; 221 1/3). Rev. S. chooses her to venerate his icon of the Mother of God (226 1/4). She also receives a vision. She is not Russian, but Kalmyk. DARIA ZINOVIEVNA, 6th founder (106 1/2). She died early, but left a testimony about how Rev. S. revered his mother Alexandra: her body will remain incorrupt (189 1/2, repeated at 190 top). DARIA TROFIMOVNA. Recounts the stories of the sisters (504 1/3 505 1/4). Levitation in front of a sick visitor. Rev. S. prays for a person who died from drunkenness, which is prohibited and therefore difficult. About the death of Ksenia Mikhailovna, see p. 506 1/2. DARIA FOMINA, not to be confused with Domna Fominichnaya. She is named Daria Fominichnaya on p. 319 top, but the order of the stories in the 6th notebook shows that we are, of course, talking about Daria, and not about Domna. 319 top Attitude of Rev. S. to Joasaph. 458 bottom – 459 2/5. One community will become a monastery, and the other will become a monastery (this did not happen). Four pillars and four relics. A worse hurricane than the one that will come from Sarov will sweep over Diveevo (the text is repeated on p. 627 bottom - 628 top). DOMNA VASILIEVNA, nun OLYMPICS (320 bottom). Presents the testimony of the deceased Anna Alexandrovna. DOMNA FOMINICHNA. Admitted to the mill on the 13th, one of its certificates is dated 1887 (215 top; Nun Dorothea. 258 low Her calling. The promise of spiritual and material prosperity, in particular thanks to the groove. 214 1/3. Living conditions at the mill from 1830 to 1833. 236 1/3. I worked in the forest with my other sister - both were crying from the cold, and the Rev. S. consoles them. 316 2/3. Evidence of a fallen tree. 514 1/2. Soon after the death of Rev. S. one of the sisters sees Domna Fominichna in a dream together with the reverend. S. Nun EVANTHIA (795 1/3). In 1887 it is mentioned that she was received by Rev. S. Perhaps this is one of those who are spoken of in other places without indicating the monastic name. EVDOKIA EFREMOVNA, nun EUPRAXIA, 2nd founder, originally from the village of Alamasovo. To distinguish her from her many namesakes, she was called “deaf.” Apparently, she was only slightly hard of hearing, for she became one of the “three pillars of Diveev” (636 1/2). She died in 1865 (752 3/4), entered Diveevo ca. 1800 (645 1/2; Filaret speaks about the same on p. 681 of notebook X® 3). In 1831, Rev. S. calls her “old woman” (326 3/5) not only because of her age, but also as a sign of respect for her. The episode shown on p. 211, makes one think that Evdokia lacked the self-control necessary for an abbess, and that is the only reason, of course, that Rev. S. preferred to make Praskovya Stepanovna the eldest as the 1st founder, even though she was poorly educated. (We note that at least the first seven founders were selected by Rev. S. from among the Diveevo sisters, called by him even earlier, from which it follows that Rev. S. had been taking care of Diveevo since 1800.) It was Evdokia, together with another sister, who was later elected abbess of the Mill community, Rev. S. made a witness to the “appointment” of Motovilov as Diveev’s defender (470 below; see p. 102). Rev. S. instructed her to tell Joasaph at the appropriate time that he was against Joasaph’s intervention in the affairs of Diveev (320 1/3). Soon after the death of Rev. S. Joasaph asked Evdokia about this when they met, and she told the truth. He ordered 1/2). In 1842, Joasaph again gathers the sisters and demands that they, one by one, declare what exactly the reverend told them about him. S. Evdokia walked second and again, disgracing Joasaph’s threats, told the truth (552 top). Finally, in 1861, she tried to overrule the bishop's decision imposing the guardianship of Joasaph on them (645 1/2 and 681 K? 3). Rev. S. also instructed Evdokia to tell in writing about all the grace-filled gifts that he used: “Just as the saints of God: Anthony, Theodosius (Kyiv) and Sergius the Wonderworker (Radonezh) had assistants, wrote down their lives, so write down what you hear from me” (320 3/4). It was she (with some other sisters) who preserved for us the memory of the visions that St. S. during his life. There were twelve of these visions, as he told her (329 3/4). Evdokia herself was awarded the last of them (325 1/2 - 329 bottom). She kept the secret about him until her death (752 1/2). 191 top: Rev. S. predicts her sorrows, and then joy “as the Lord will reveal his might!” 211. Rev. S., appearing to Evdokia, saves her life. One day she gets a job at a mill as an obedience. The peasant who helped the sisters with their work was annoyed that one sister was sent to him instead of two, and left, refusing to work. Evdokia, unable to stop the mill herself, tried to slow it down by adding grain and calling out in a loud voice to Father Seraphim. A fierce wind was blowing, threatening to turn into a squall. A catastrophe that could have prevented the establishment of the Mill Community was inevitable. In a fit of despair, Evdokia threw herself at the millstones to stop them. But the millstones suddenly stopped on their own, and Father Seraphim appeared to her and said that he is always with those who call for help. Apparently, the phenomenon was quite long-lasting, since he urged her to humbly endure the hardships of their life: the “young ladies” are disgusted by the voluntary poverty of those living in Diveyevo; The Queen of Heaven allowed him to gather simple girls to serve his cause; later he will send noble girls to them, who, in turn, will serve them. 234 1/6 – 235 2/5. “The Lord has 12 apostles, the Queen of Heaven has 12 virgins, so I have 12 of you (founding sisters - B.R.). Just as the Lord chose the martyr Catherine as his bride, so from among the 12 virgins I chose Maria (Semyonovna - see the note about her - V.R.) as my bride in the future... Now I choose you to be my sisters, and those who will enter the monastery after me are my daughters” (234 1/6). Episode of clairvoyance by Rev. S. (234 2/5). He expels the nuns who visited him from the hermitage, who do not want, like his daughters, to eat potatoes in their skins (new ones? - V.R.) (234 bottom). 234 1/5 – 244 1/4. Evdokia's niece and goddaughter, later nun Ermionia, tells how Evdokia introduced her to the reverend. S. 248 1/2 – 249 bottom: Rev. S., with the help of cunning, upsets the immoderate claims of the Sarov authorities for the gifts that he receives from visitors and transfers to the sisters. 259 3/4: story about laying the ditch, not reproduced by Chichagov (see p. 177). 289 2/5 – 290 bottom and 453 bottom – 454 3/4. Both passages are taken from the 17th story of the 6th notebook (the indication “1st notebook” on p. 289 2/5 is apparently a typographical error, especially since it is known that the 1st notebook was not divided into stories). The presence of repetitions is not necessarily a sign of distortion: Rev. S. used to repeat the most important words. Very accurate predictions about the laurel, about churches, about the glorification of four saints. Parallel texts suggest that about the glorification of four of his students, St. S. says, not wanting to talk about his own canonization: “But we won’t live long enough, and I won’t live long enough.” This text is valuable because the prophecies, which have elsewhere been subject to myth-making, are given in their historical context. Based on 454 1/6, it should be recognized that, predicting the revolution, Rev. S. himself refers it “to the end of times”; after all, the Antichrist here is no longer Joasaph, and the cathedral and the ditch become mystical concepts. 320 top Rev. S. teaches Evdokia for six hours. He instructed Pelageya in exactly the same way: Legend..., p. 8, note (in Chichagov the note is omitted, p. 297). Evdokia talks only about the warning against Joasaph, which was mentioned above. 636 1/2. In 1861, Evdokia apparently did not approve of her sister, who nonetheless acted under inspiration. The text is short and too vague. The same is said at 642 2/5. EVDOKIA MARTYNOVNA, one of the novices of Mother Alexandra (37 4/5; 732 1/2). He is present at the death of the latter, and she predicts to her that the community will reach enormous proportions, that great confusion will come, and Evdokia will live to see this time (53 2/3 - 54 top). EVDOKIA NAZAROVNA (227 bottom 228 1/4). Her healing by Rev. Seraphim and entry into Diveevo. EVDOKIA TROFIMOVNA, nun EVSTOLIA (290 1/4 – 2/3). Rev. S. tells her to go to Diveevo, but Evdokia doesn’t like it there, and she returns home. A year later, visiting Fr. Seraphim, she receives the same order from him. 290 1/5 – 291 1/3: she again wants to leave with the other sister, but he encourages them (see pp. 188–193). EVDOKIA FILIPOVNA KOCHELAYEVSKAYA (744 2/5). Not mentioned anywhere else. EVFIMIYA GAVRILOVNA (222 1/2 bottom). Rev. S. is trying to reason with this sister, who will be removed from Diveyevo shortly after his death: at home she will be killed by a horse. Rev. S. insisted that she take care of a girl with epilepsy (Varvara Alekseevna; see note about her). EKATERINA VASILIEVNA LADIZHENSKAYA and her sister ANNA. They entered only in 1842, but often visited Rev. C. They are from an educated family. The sister is mentioned only in passing. 428 top – 433 1/2. Lead to Rev. S. his brother. 502 bottom – 503 top. They entered the Kazan community in 1842. 570 1/5: take the side of Joasaph (see The Legend of... Pelagia, p. 36), but “constantly on the move” until 1850. 600 1/2: in 1850 Catherine was appointed abbess. 627 1/2: in March 1858 turns against Joasaph. 657 1/2: in 1859, unable to cope with the situation, he escapes. Her sister is not mentioned. EKATERINA EGOROVNA, nun Evdokia, 12th founder (208 top). Her testimony (210 niz) confirms that she is able to resist myth-making (458 niz). Rev. S., receiving her younger sister in Diveevo, sends her to the Kazan community: “Anyway, later you will become one family” (211 top). 190 1/2. “The Kazan Church is our church... and you can never call it that - parish!” Rev. S. also avoided calling the original community “Kazan”. 190 top The body of Alexandra's mother is incorruptible. 257 top Detained Rev. S., Catherine is not present when the groove is laid (see p. 177). 284 low Rev. S. entrusts Catherine with the duties of a bread maker, which she also performed during the compilation of the archives. Let us note that Ksenia Mikhailovna herself proposed her for this position (234 bottom; 268 1/4). EKATERINA MATVEVNA PUCHINSKAYA (216 2/5 217 4/5). Her calling. At the time of E.M.’s admission, there is only one cell. Veneration of Ksenia Mikhailovna to Rev. S., disappointment E.M. ELENA VASILIEVNA MANTUROVA, sister of M. Manturova. Born in 1805, entered Diveevo in 1820, died in 1832. 164 2/5 – 171 bottom. Her appeal. 191 1/2 – 192 2/3. Rev. S. decided to make her abbess at the mill. But she never lived there. Elena has her own cell, which she occupies together with her former maid Ustinya, who did not want to leave her. After Ustinya’s death, Agafya Petrovna and Ksenia Vasilievna live with her as novices. She doesn't want to be abbess; in fact, she performed her duties (216 bottom 217 2/3; 271 1/2; 417 1/2; 230 1/3). 276 1/2 – 280 1/2. In addition, Elena has church responsibilities. On this occasion, Rev. S. gives her the vestments. 293 1/4 – 296 bottom. Nights spent in church. 417 1/2 – 425 bottom. Rev. S. tells her to die for her brother. Death of Elena. On her deathbed, she retells her vision (note that along with this vision, satanic phenomena were frequent in her life). Rev. S. predicts that her relics will be venerated in the monastery, but this was not confirmed (note that she was ready to die rather than become abbess (192 top) or outlive Rev. S., which he promised her (417 1/3). She may have contracted tuberculosis while caring for Ustinya). It is also mentioned on p. 259 3/4; 261 bottom; 271 1/2 274 bottom; 287 2/5; 288 top ELENA IVANOVNA MOTOVILOVA, née Milyukova. An orphan without a mother, he was raised by his aunts Praskovya and Maria (see notes about them) in the Diveyevo community, after they joined it. Born in 1822, she married Motovilov in 1840 and left Diveevo, becoming together with her husband a benefactor of the community, as the reverend predicted. S. Her father became a monk in Sarov. She left a valuable testimony about Rev. S., despite the fact that she knew him only in childhood: 634 1/2 (see note about Praskovya). Having been widowed, she settled in Diveyevo, living as a “nun in the world,” and died in 1910. It was from her that Nilus, according to him, received tens of kilograms of Motovilov’s manuscripts, where “Conversation” came from. A certain Potapov published in “Soulful Reading” for 1912 the memories Elena allegedly told him about St. S. and Motovilov, where truth is mixed with fiction (reprinted: Orthodox Bulletin. San Francisco: 1967. No. 7). ELIZAVETA ALEKSEEVNA USHAKOVA. See mother MARIA. Nun ERMIONIA (Martha) (243 1/5 244 1/4). Her calling. Evdokia Efremovna, who is her aunt and godmother, introduces her to the reverend. S. He asks Hermione to read with him “Our Father”, “Virgin Mother of God” and “I Believe” and concludes that she is completely ready to enter Diveevo. Her first impressions. 99 1/5 – 100 bottom. Rev. S. praises Abbess Ksenia Mikhailovna, and Hermione speaks of her severity. Probably Chichagov divided this evidence into two parts. According to Nilus, she died in 1902. IRINA VASILIEVNA. Mentioned on p. 228 top and 473 1/2. IRINA PROKOFIEVNA KOCHEULOVA. She came to Diveevo as a child with her mother, Ksenia Mikhailovna, who became the abbess of Diveevo in 1796 (97 1/6 - 2/3). Can read (top 100). After the death of her mother in 1839, she becomes her successor (The Legend of... Pelageya, p. 30). Raised by an oppressive mother and the same nuns, Irina, as often happens, remained a child for the rest of her life. She appears the same way in the role of abbess (The Legend of... Pelageya, pp. 30, 36, 60–62). Joasaph convinced her that St. S. prepared her for the role of abbess, adding that she would not have to worry about anything, since he instructed Joasaph to tell her what to do (560 1/2). In fact, Joasaph gave her blank forms to sign, which he then used for his own purposes, getting the bishop to fulfill his demands (597 2/3). In 1850, he crossed the line of what was permitted when he demanded that the bishop, citing Irina’s advanced age and her signature, transfer to him full power in the community. The bishop rejected his request and ordered the election of a new abbess. Joasaph replaced the chosen nun with Ekaterina Ladyzhenskaya, who began her duties in 1851 (597 1/3 - 599 1/7). One day Rev. S. put the hand of the girl (six-year-old Anastasia Protasova. - Trans.) into the hand of Irina Prokofievna as a sign that the latter was to become her abbess in the future (244 bottom - 245 top). IRINA SEMENOVNA (LIFANOVA?). Her last name is mentioned on p. 505 2/3 indicating that she is from the village of Toinakovo, while on the village. 470 below it is called Zelenogorsk. Apparently, this is a misunderstanding, or her family moved from one village to another. Us. 505 2/3 it is said that in 1833 she was chosen as abbess of the Mill community (and died in the same year); in other episodes cited, she apparently also plays a decisive role. It can be assumed that there was no other Irina Semyonovna. 215 top – 216 bottom. Irina is strongly tempted to leave Diveevo, and she leads another young sister into the same temptation. Speaking to her in a parable, Rev. S. calls her “old man” (215 3/4). See p. 189. 242 4/5 – 243 1/5. The episode is dedicated to the fact that Rev. S. called it “heavenly food,” but the text is incoherent and, no doubt, distorted. We see Irina giving orders to her sisters. 470 bottom – 471 1/2. Rev. S. makes Irina and Evdokia Efremovna witnesses to Motovilov’s dedication, since he apparently knows that after his death she will be the abbess. 191 1/2 – bottom. Father Vasily recalls that at the time of the founding of the Mill community, Rev. S. hesitated in choosing an abbess between Elena Manturova and a certain Irina. Apparently, it was just about Irina Semyonovna. However, she was not admitted to the mill until 1830, as she was not one of the original thirteen sisters. Nun CALLISTA. See KSENIA IVANOVNA. KSENIA VASILIEVNA PUTKOVA, 9th founder, nun KAPITOLINA. Born 1804: 795 1/3. Entered Diveevo no later than 1827: 183 lower and 194 1/3. Chichagov reports that she is alive (apparently during the first edition of his work in 1896): 285 bottom. Can write: 269 1/2. Taking Ksenia to the mill in 1830, Rev. S. entrusted her as a novice to Elena Manturova, with whom she lived in the same cell (171 bottom; 277 1/3) and was present at whose death (418 1/2 - 423 bottom). He ordered her to help Elena in performing her duties as a sacristan. As performing these duties, and also, of course, knowing about the imminent death of Elena, Rev. S. calls on Ksenia, along with Elena and Father Vasily, for instruction regarding the church (277 1/3 - 280 1/2). Apparently, she continued to perform these duties throughout her life, since in both 1858 (618 1/5) and in 1861 (708 top) Xenia was still a sacristan. At the age of eighty-three, she became sacristan of the entire monastery. Once, even before Ksenia entered Diveevo, Rev. S. spent the whole night in prayer to save her from great danger: “After all, now you are even more mine, for this night I snatched you out of a lion’s tooth” (173 bottom - 175 bottom). It is the love of Rev. S. forced her, although she came from a wealthy family, to enter Diveevo and stay there because. as she says: “After all, I was always with him (with Rev. S. - Transl.) in spirit” (194 1/4). Ksenia had the authority of an abbess, although she had never been one (282 2/3; 454 bottom). She and Evdokia Efremovna visited Rev. more often than others. S. (248 bottom) and left the most evidence. Rev. S. trusted Ksenia so much that he admitted to her, for example, that he found the abbess he appointed after Elena’s death not too smart, but there was no one else to replace her (505 1/3). As a witness, she stands out in that she does not hesitate to contradict many of the sisters (some of whom are outstanding witnesses), denying that Rev. S. said that the body of mother Alexandra would remain incorruptible (190 1/4). 49 1/2. Rev.'s vision S. in 1783. 186 1/2. Joy Rev. C. upon receipt of a deed of gift for a land plot for the Mill community. 186 bottom – 187 2/3. Investigation into charges against Rev. S. in the theft of the monastery forest for the mill. 211 bottom – 214 top. Difficulties of the first year. Rev. S. refuses to forgive the manager of the Kazan community for not feeding her sisters well. The sisters visit Rev. S. in the morning; anger rev. S. against the depraved deacon. 258 1/3. The groove indicates the path of the Queen of Heaven. 280 1/2 – 283 2/5. Gifts of Rev. S. for the church and for the mill. You cannot borrow for the needs of sisters from gifts made for the church. Teaches Ksenia gentleness. You need to be affectionate with him and with everyone, awaken joy. If there is not enough time, a minimal prayer is enough. 285 2/3 – 286 2/5. Miracle with the oil of the unquenchable lamp. 314 4/5 – 315 1/4. Rev. S. is criticized for entrusting the church to young girls. That is, he said, the will of the Queen of Heaven and this does not contradict the teaching of the Fathers of the Church. 321 1/2 – 322 1/2. Rev. S. predicts that Praskovya Pavlovna will go to the camp of Joasaph. 418 1/2 – 420 1/2 and 422 1/3 – 423 bottom. Death of Elena Manturova. 454 3/4. Do not bother yourself about assigning the status of a monastery to the community. Xenia is to accept converts from her own family and the families of the other sisters. 458 1/3. “Go to my grave... and whatever is in your soul, everything... tell it as if it were alive... I will always be alive for you” (468 1/2; 499 2/5). KSENIA IVANOVNA MUNIKOVA, nun KALLISTA. There is an indication that she was often assigned the role of the eldest (217 bottom). 217 bottom – 219 1/2. “Whoever offends [you] will always be punished.” A miracle with a whip that goes into the ground. 224 top – 1/2. Healing a horse through the prayer of St. S. 582 top – 583 1/5. In 1840, one novice tells how he saw St. S. 681 X? 5. Her testimony at the investigation in 1861. KSENIA ILYINICHNA (or ILYINA) POTEKHINA, nun KLAUDIA, 3rd founder. She was the last abbess of the Mill community from 1839 to 1842 and showed herself to be stern and strict (505 below). For some time, until 1861, she was an assistant to the abbess (dean) (206 1/3; 210 1/2). Do not confuse her with Efemia (or Euphemia) Ilyina, mentioned in the investigation documents of 1861, also a former assistant abbess (treasurer), whom Philaret several times simply calls Ilyina (670 X? 3 and 6, 671 X? I, 696 6/7, 699 bottom). Ksenia died before the 6th notebook (315 1/2) was compiled, but her evidence is also recorded there. 210 1/2 – 5/6. Description of life at the mill during the first year. 315 1/2. Indirect mention. 453 top “Except for the wretched Seraphim, you will no longer have a father.” Neither Elder Hilarion, nor Isaiah, nor Savvaty will become this. 680 1/2 – 681 1/3 and 694 2/5. Her important testimony during the 1861 investigation. KSENIA KUZMINICHNA. He comes from a wealthy family and does not tolerate the hardships and vicissitudes of life in Diveevo (224 1/2). Still alive in 1876. 224 1/2 – bottom. She almost gives in to the temptation to leave Diveevo with another sister, having deceived the reverend. S. But he shows them that he knows their thoughts. 227 4/5 – 228 1/2. She was sent to Rev. S., so that he would heal her from toothache. He sends her to his cellmate Pavel, who heals her (by squeezing the nerve and using magnetic passes). This episode, like the previous one, is intended to testify to the gift of clairvoyance of the Rev. S. 460 top; 466 1/2. Rev. S. supplies the sisters with everything they need every day, but before his death he gives them money for a whole year. 247 4/5 – 248 1/2. The assistant to the Sarov abbot and other monks go to the hermitage at night to make sure that the Venerable. S. does not spend the night there. 834 bottom – 835 1/3. Around 1876, Ksenia was present at one of the episodes in the life of Pelageya. KSENIA MIKHAILOVNA KOCHEULOVA. She entered Diveevo with her daughter Irina Prokofievna. Arrival time has not been set. In 1796 she was elected abbess and remained so for forty-three years until her death, that is, until 1839 (97-100, 505 bottom - 507 top). Can't read (top 100). Rev. S. reveres her very much and constantly sends converts to her (179 top - bottom; 237 top; 239 1/4 (cf. 94 bottom); 500 1/3). Due to her extreme severity, she seriously sins with what one of the witnesses calls stinginess, and this causes a tragic scene between the Rev. S. and one of the sisters (212 1/2 – 213 1/2). Undoubtedly, this is why Rev. S., whose predictions were sometimes mysterious, makes it clear to her that at the end of her life she will go to prison: during her dying illness, she could not stand even weak light and absolute darkness was maintained in her cell (163 top and 506 1/2). Before her death, she performed an act of generosity accompanied by a miracle (506 1/2). She belonged to Rev. S. with great respect (216 1/3 below; 244 1/2 and below). But Rev. S. considers her an ignorant abbess: “Our old lady is bad!” (191 3/5). First of all, he condemns her for imposing on the community an overly long sequence of prayers, such as was established in Sarov (462 1/3; 179 1/2). First, giving a command to some sister, Rev. S. sent her to Ksenia for a blessing, “for order.” But when she began to reinterpret his orders, Rev. S. got angry and stopped doing it (457 bottom - 458 top). As a matter of fact, it was largely because of Ksenia that Rev. S. gradually transferred the mill to full autonomy. Ksenia is mentioned often, but there is no evidence of St. She did not leave S. KSENIA PAVLOVNA, 4th founder (206 1/2; 207 1/2). “Soon... she died.” Mother MARIA, ELIZAVETA ALEKSEEVNA USHAKOVA. Born in 1819 into an educated family, she entered Diveevo at the end of 1844 (585 1/2). She was abbess for more than fifty years, until her death, which occurred a few years after the canonization of St. S. (1903). Mother Mary left a testimony about Joasaph (312 1/3 - 313 1/3), about the good deed of St. S. (287 3/4 – 288) and “blessed” Natasha (622 1/2). Although she entered after the death of Rev. S., it was Maria’s mother who had the task of bringing his work to completion. Rev. S. predicted that in due time the “righteous mother” would come, that is, walking in the ways of God (441 below). According to another, less reliable testimony, he predicted her monastic name and even surname (468 3/5). Immediately after Elizabeth’s admission in 1844, Joasaph, who was in charge of everything, put her in the choir to sing, “which surprised her quite a bit,” entrusted her with the “written part,” keeping records, and forced her to study painting, while at the same time continuing to send her to field work (586 top). When Ekaterina Vasilievna became abbess in 1850, she asked Elizabeth to become her assistant, which she hated, because Joasaph had appropriated the role of superior. Every week she went to the city for mail and therefore turned to Elder Anthony the Blind (600 1/2 - 601 1/3) for advice. He told her to agree so as not to be expelled from the community and not lose salvation, and also predicted that she herself would soon become a “mother,” that is, an abbess (605 bottom - 606 1/4). Pelageya, for her part, also encouraged her to do this (610 bottom - 611 top). When Ladyzhenskaya ran away from Diveyevo in 1859, all responsibility passed to Elizabeth; she fell ill and spent thirteen days in unconsciousness. After her illness, she went to Nizhny Novgorod to see Bishop Anthony and received support from him. but for a long time she suffered from frequent fainting (620 3/4 621 3/5). In 1861, Bishop Nektary tried to get rid of her, offering to become the abbess of another monastery, she refused, after which he deposed her. Justifying himself before the investigative commission of the Holy Synod, Nektary accused her of cohabiting with the Sarov abbot. As a result of the investigation, she was acquitted and reinstated in her position (see Filaret’s letters cited by Chichagov in a number of places). During her two years as abbot (1859–1861), she significantly improved the situation in the monastery, which had previously been disastrous (785 bottom). In 1862, having accepted monasticism along with many other sisters, Elizabeth became abbess (723 1/2). She sought monasticism from 1860 (715 1/2), apparently privately, since the community received the status of a monastery only in 1861. In 1880, Mother Maria was ill for six months and was close to death (The Legend of... Pelageya, pp. 120 and 152). In 1887, the twenty-fifth anniversary of her abbess was celebrated (784–833). Theophan the Recluse, who was the Bishop of Tambov already in 1861, wrote to her that in terms of the number of bad weathers she had endured and the length of days, she was like a well-burnt brick (798 1/4). MARIA VASILIEVNA NIKASHINA (221 2/3 222 top). She entered Diveevo after the death of Rev. S., widowed. She attended Rev. S. together with her husband. One day Rev. S. rejoiced in front of her for his girls, who would surround the Mother of God like bees - their queen. Responding to the secret thoughts of Maria Vasilievna, who regretted her marriage, Rev. S. said that widows would receive the same mercy. MARIA (MARYUSHKA) IVANOVNA MALYSHEVA. Rev. S. predicted to her that she would not live to see 1861 (460 1/2). She indeed died very early, since she is usually mentioned only by name or called by a diminutive name with the clarification that she was the sister of Akulina Ivanovna Malysheva. At the mill she served as a cook (207 1/2). One day, having risen before everyone else to prepare breakfast, she was the first to notice the reverend. S., who began digging a ditch (256 1/2 and 257 3/4) (see p. 178). Received into the mill in 1830 (the year the ditch was laid), it apparently was formerly part of the Diveyevo community. MARIA ILLARIONOVNA, nun MELETINA. Calling Mary to Diveevo, Rev. S. warns her about future illnesses (270 1/2). In fact, she was seriously ill for seven months, then the Rev. appeared to her. S., who was then in a different place, healed, but not completely, because it “was not for our benefit.” From time to time Maria fell ill (407) and, apparently, quite often, since Chichagov, mentioning her, every time says that she is sick. Like many other sisters, she entered Diveevo out of obedience to St. S. All statements by Rev. S., which she cites, are remarkable: she was one of his intimate interlocutors. 219 1/2 – bottom. Rev. S. explains to her why he separated the girls from the sisters who were already married. Unlike the latter, girls are more obedient. Like young birch trees, they can bend and straighten again. But everyone will be saved. 269 ​​bottom – 270 1/2 and 230 bottom – 231 1/3. Rev. S. encourages Maria to enroll in Diveevo. Hinting at her future illnesses, he reminds her of Maria Semyonovna (see note about her). “Don’t complain about me, poor Seraphim, for calling me to my monastery against your wishes; It was not I, but the Lord himself and the Mother of God who brought you, and I only tried to take care of you. You know what an enemy’s dwelling was here, but the merciful Lord, in his love for mankind and goodness, allowed me to drive away all the satanic hordes!” 749 1/2. In 1867, Maria sees in a dream the heavenly abode of St. S. MARIA SEMENOVNA MILYUKOVA, schema-nun MARFA. In 1823, at the age of thirteen, she “tagged along” to Diveevo with her sister Praskovya. Rev. S. took her into the community, and there she died in 1829 at nineteen years old (172 top - bottom). Rev. S. himself tonsured her into monasticism and even into the highest degree of monastic order. She is the abbess of the heavenly monastery (community) of Diveyevo and the heavenly bride of St. Seraphim (185 1/3 and 234 1/3). “Through it your whole family will be saved!” (267 2/5). The Milyukovs (or Melyukovs) were wealthy peasants, devoted to St. S. Praskovya is one of the most notable Diveyevo sisters. Her brother Ivan helped the reverend. S., and later became a monk in Sarov. Three daughters of Ivan became nuns in Diveyevo (see note about one of them: Elena Ivanovna). 9 Dec. 1825, during the creation of the Mill Community, Rev. S. goes to pray in a distant hermitage and takes with him the future abbess Praskovya Stepanovna and the future heavenly abbess Maria (183 bottom - 185 1/2). Rev. S. gave Mary many prophecies about the future monastery and, knowing about her imminent death, ordered her to convey many of them to Ustinya Ivanovna (235 1/2 - 236 1/5); text repeated (270 1/2 – 271 2/3). Rev. S. predicted that her body would remain incorrupt and only her lips would undergo decomposition because, yielding to the insistence of the sisters, she told them more than the reverend allowed. S. But Ustinya Ivanovna retells few of these secrets: only what was important for the sisters to know (see note about her). It is noteworthy that the predictions of Rev. S. of the most personal nature have not reached us. The same applies to the predictions to Motovilov, Fr. Vasily and Ksenia Vasilievna (see pp. 181–187). Mary's death is described on p. 266 1/5 – 270 1/2. Rev. S. is deeply moved by her. He sends everyone he meets to her burial: “Whoever attends the burial of Maria Semyonovna will receive absolution.” “If I, poor Seraphim, had been at her burial, then from her spirit (Mary) there would have been much healing!” Rev. S. claimed that she died from a strangulated hernia as a result of lifting excessive weight - stones for building a church (270 3/5). Why were the older sisters so careless? Not to mention Rev. S., who was always spiritually present in Diveyevo? This is the secret of the saints. 233 4/5 – 234 top: working together with their sister, they violate the instructions of the reverend. S. and are forced to repent of it. MATRONA IGNATIEVNA SPASSKAYA. Having entered Diveevo two years before the death of Rev. S., she left three certificates. One of them is the prediction of St. S. about the future flourishing of the community. This is an interesting variant of numerous parallel texts (460 1/3). The other two testimonies are very vivid stories that convey the impression of the experience, but the second of them seems implausible. In both cases we are talking about sisters who went to the Rev. from the night before. S. to the Sarov Monastery. This is confirmed by a reliable witness, Ksenia Vasilievna (213 1/2; Rev. S. constantly invited sisters for the urgent material and spiritual needs of the community. Diveevo was a three-hour walk from Sarov and, leaving around midnight, Matryona was supposed to come to Sarov for matins, with which we can quite agree. If the outer door of the cell, that is, the hut, of Rev. S. was closed, it was necessary, trying to remain unnoticed, to wait until Rev. S. or his cellmate Pavel opened it for them. A monk lived next door, who once, with sinful intent, invited the sisters to wait with him (213 1/2). S., having learned about this, gave the sisters the key to the front door, as Matryona reports (467 1/4). The details of the ending of the story (466 bottom – 468 top) are also plausible. Many witnesses spoke of cases when Rev. S., obviously in a state of ecstasy, three times turned to people quite familiar to him with the question of who they were. It is more difficult to believe the second story (473 bottom - 474 1/3). It talks about a sister who stayed late at Rev. S. on the night of January 1 to 2. 1833 and was present at his death. In the dead of night she returned to Diveevo and did not tell anyone except Matryona, with whom she lived in the same cell. This is impossible, since on the morning of January 2. Pavel, smelling smoke from the cell (in this case from the room), Rev. S., discovered that the door was locked with a hook from the inside, and one of the monks was forced to break it: 475. We offer the following explanation of this episode. The sisters knew that Rev. S. doesn't have long to live. Matryona's cellmate, who remained unknown, visited the Venerable the night before. S., and he quite clearly announced to her about his upcoming death (473 bottom). Returning to Diveevo, she did not go to bed, but most likely headed to church, where, at the insistence of the Rev. S. constantly read the Psalter. Perhaps there she learned about the death of the Rev. S. thanks to a fairly common telepathic phenomenon. When she returned to her cell, the awakened Matryona impatiently asked her about the health of the priest, and in the end she, without any explanation, announced to her about his death (474 ​​top), and Matryona decided that she was present at this personally. MATRONA PETROVNA - “little red”, as the reverend called her. S. She left a story about her calling (229 2/3 - 230 bottom), and several predictions by the Rev. S. (459 1/2). She was the niece of one of the sisters from the mill, about whom it is only known that in monasticism her name was Alevtina and from childhood she visited St. S., coming to visit his aunt. When Matryona was sixteen years old, he ordered her to enter Diveevo. There are many known cases where, instead of “admitting” a candidate to monastic life, he simply prescribed it to her. Matryona readily agreed, but since she was from a very poor family and dressed in cast-offs, she did not dare to join the sisters from the mill, who were “well dressed,” but ensured that she was sent to the Kazan community. Rev. S. was forced to insist on her transfer to the Mill community. Soon Matryona fell ill with a fever, from which the reverend cured her. S. Rev. S. predicted to Matryona that under the 12th abbess, the community would become a monastery. Just as Christ, before his death, commanded his disciples to stock up on two pairs of sandals, so did St. S. told her to have a bag and several pairs of bast shoes, since in the snow covered with an ice crust, shoes wear out quickly, and not to trust rumors. MATRONA (...) PLESHCHEEVA. She cooked at the mill and was so young that they called her by her first name, without a middle name, which remained unknown. Apparently she was the only one with that name. In the only evidence that has reached us, her monastic name is not mentioned (249 bottom - 252 top). It was Matrona who was lucky enough to see the Rev.’s tame bear. S. This bear is mentioned in all biographies about St. S., because it refers to “miracles,” but it makes sense to re-read the original testimony in order to appreciate the tenderness and humor with which the elderly nun talks about the episode of her youth. Then still a girl, she faced the difficulties and hardships of life in Diveyevo, which required considerable courage. Rev. S. consoles Matrona with great psychological subtlety, so that her despondency is replaced by inspiration, her fear of the bear is replaced by tenderness for him, and the tears that the day before the reverend. S. in his cell wiped it with his own handkerchief - laughing when the next day, in a distant desert, he notes that he could tonsure a bear as a monk if he had grabbed a pair of scissors - he is so meek!.. Rev. S. ordered Matrona not to say anything to the sisters and predicted that a suitable opportunity to tell about this would present itself to her in eleven years. And indeed, then she met the artist who was painting a portrait of the Venerable. S. told him this episode, and he painted a well-known picture where the Rev. S. feeds the bear from the hands. Rev. Others saw S. along with the bear, but no one else left written evidence of this, except for one Sarov monk, whose testimony Chichagov, unfortunately, does not provide. MARYUSHKA (Maria). See MARIA IVANOVNA MALYSHEVA. NATALIA DMITRIEVNA, NATASHA. Adopted in 1842; Apparently she didn't know Rev. S. never aspired to monasticism. Praskovya Semyonovna, acting like a fool in 1861, calls on her to intervene (642 2/5) not as a witness, but as having great moral authority. The village is dedicated to her. 621 3/5 – 625 bottom. OLGA MIKHAILOVNA KLIMOVA (220 1/3 221 2/3). Rev. S. ordered her to prepare a home for “the high Lady who will live with you!.. You all serve Her,” meaning his icon of the Mother of God. This extension will also serve for prayer and as a refectory. The icon, according to the request of Rev. S., donated by the Sarov abbot. Thus, she was not miraculously transported herself. Wed. 214 2/3. Olga came from an educated family, but for some reason there was never any talk of making her abbess. PARASKEVA: The Praskovs are often called Paraskevas, which is more correct. PRASKOVYA IVANOVNA PASHINA, nun SERAPHIM, 5th founder. She was called by Rev. S. and was adopted in Diveevo until 1827, and not in 1828–1829, as Chichagov says on p. 231 1/2, as she was one of the original seven founding sisters. She is a witness to the laying of the ditch and the miracle with the tree (see pp. 177–179). During the investigation in 1861, Filaret recognized her testimony as particularly authoritative (681 No. 4). For all these reasons, Praskovya is one of the most reliable witnesses. It is necessary to emphasize this, for one of her testimonies, more extensive than all the parallel testimonies, is so extraordinary that no one dares to mention it. Placing himself more in the Christological perspective of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Acts of the Apostles than in the direction that prevailed in the Epistles of Paul, Rev. S., without doubt, draws an analogy between the saving work of Christ and his own role and applies to himself the words spoken by Christ about Himself. Hagiographers are silent about the fragmentary statements of St. S. on this topic, without being able to assess their significance due to the lack of context. But Praskovya gives us a complete episode (440 1/2 - 441 below). Here it is: In the last year of his life, Rev. S.’s strength was melting away before his eyes, but only the most insightful sisters understood that the end was approaching (417 1/2). In vain he warned the sisters that he was weakening and would soon leave them; they, and Praskovya among them, thought that the reverend. S. simply wants, without ceasing to be their spiritual father, to go into seclusion again. One day Praskovya visited him in a nearby desert; talking with her about heavenly bliss, Rev. S. was completely transformed. “Does she understand him?” he asked. Praskovya diligently listened to his teachings, but had no idea that he was telling her about his imminent death. Rev. S., knowing her thoughts, gradually led Praskovya to understand the meaning of the conversation. She burst into tears and threw herself at his feet, unable to speak or listen further to the teaching of the reverend. S. And then he spoke openly with passages from the Gospel, starting with Matt. 5, ?? 9 “You are the light of the world,” then repeated almost the entire Conversation of Christ with the disciples after the Last Supper (John 14:1 – 16:24). Finally he stood up and said to her: “Come, mother, follow me” (see John 21:19). He said this not in Russian, but in Church Slavonic. She stood up and followed him, continuing to cry. Her other evidence is as follows: 230 1/2 – 233 2/3. Five episodes of no particular interest, with the exception of the last, which tells of an unheard-of miracle, mentioned in other reliable testimonies: Rev. S. treats her to the fruits of paradise. The rest are as follows: one summer day, Rev. S., without doubt, forces her to walk twice from Diveyevo to Sarov (a total of fifty miles) in order to deliver him provisions; During almost three years of hermitage, St. S. ate exclusively snithu - apparently a type of wild onion, which the sisters would also eat; at Rev. S. was never tempted to leave the monastery; advantages of monastic life over family life. Us. 72 bottom – 73 1/2 prep. S. talks about the dream in more detail to an unknown witness, who immediately writes it down. It is unclear whether Praskovya herself is a witness. 257 1/2 – 258 top. Filling the groove. 288 3/5 – 289 2/3. The sanctity of Mother Alexandra. Three saints are buried in Diveevo (besides Alexandra, St. S. undoubtedly means Mary-Martha and Elena Manturova; the 4th saint, mentioned elsewhere, is either Father Vasily or Mikhail Manturov, both of whom were still alive at that time). Predictions about the laurel. 316 top – 3/5. Miracle with a tree. 453 1/2 – bottom. 1832: Rev. S. is excited that Joasaph interrupts his spiritual conversation with Praskovya. Rev. S. gently sends him away. Praskovya is also mentioned on p. 206 1/2; 228 top; 473 1/2 and 474 1/2. PRASKOVYA PAVLOVNA EROFEEVA. The sister from the mill, who, according to the prediction of the Rev. S., will move on later? camp of Joasaph (321 bottom - 322 1/2). In 1861, it was removed from Diveevo by the Holy Synod. 572 top; 682 No. 6; 683 2/5; 691 top; 694 1/2; 695 top; 707 1/3; 708 1/3; 666 2/5; 713 2/3. A certain Feodora Erofeeva is the author of the 21st notebook. It is unknown whether she was a nun or a laywoman, but she was undoubtedly a relative of Praskovya, although she did not belong to the party of Joasaph, as follows from the title of the notebook. PRASKOVYA SEMENOVNA MILYUKOVA, 8th founder. Entered Diveevo by the end of 1823: 172 top. From 1834 to 1837 abbess of the mill; resigns his duties in protest against the intrigues of Joasaph: 505 3/4. About Praskovya's relatives: see the note about her sister Maria. It was she who introduced Maria as a girl to Rev. S.: 172 top. Usually Praskovya behaved like an exemplary nun and was even elected abbess, but on two occasions she showed herself to be a holy fool. She did this with the blessing of Rev. S., who took upon herself her sins (452 ​​3/4), as he did in relation to Pelageya (The Legend..., p. 103). Holy fools are indeed a temptation for many. Rev. S., persistently warning against numerous pseudo-fools, considered this calling one of the three highest. Once during haymaking, helping Praskovya get off the haystack, he told her: “You, my joy, are above me!” (634 1/2). In 1861, she calls Diveev Evdokia Efremovna, Praskovya Stepanovna and herself “three pillars.” 268 1/2 – bottom. Description of her madness over the death of her sister; Praskovya's brother comes to the reverend. C. find out if she will be healed. 452 bottom – 453 top and 469 1/3. A week before his death, Rev. S. predicts to Praskovya the future of the community, gives instructions and takes on its sins. In his desert, he dug a well over a source and lined it with a frame. The disturbance of the water in it was warned by St. S. about the approach of the culprit of the troubles (for example, Joasaph: 320 bottom - 321 2/5). Seeing the disturbance at the source, she finds out who is troubling the community. This will be a sign that the time has finally come for her to speak, and soon after that she will die. Certificate on p. 469 1/3 is a continuation of this teaching by Rev. S., in the 6th notebook this is the following story; The division into stories in it is sometimes artificial. The same text is repeated on p. 628 1/4. In 1861, Praskovya remained faithful to these instructions. The story about her begins on p. 630 1/2. She sees the disturbance of the water at the approach of her sister, who leads the camp of Joasaph’s followers. The story ends on p. 653 below with a message about the death of Praskovya nine days after the visit of Bishop Nektary. This story is mixed with a story about Pelageya’s behavior. PRASKOVYA STEPANOVNA SHABLYGINA, nun PELAGEIA, 1st founding sister. Since the founding of the mill, Rev. S. calls her eldest, since Abbess Elena Manturova did not live at the mill. She is not young, since in 1833 she was removed from her duties on the pretext that she was too old (505 1/4). It is also very likely that Rev. S. received her in Diveevo long before 1825. Old age is only an excuse, for Praskovya will die only in 1868 (752 2/5). In fact, she is apparently illiterate and rather clueless, since Rev. S. entrusts it to Ksenia Vasilievna (505 1/3); but at the moment he has no one else to appoint. In addition, she is timid (310 top; 644 2/5). 183 bottom – 184 bottom. It was with her and Mary-Martha that Rev. S. prays at the moment of the founding of the mill. He cures her cough, performing the first miracle with the water of the spring. 210 1/5. The first years at the mill. 283 2/3. Rev. S. dissuades Pavel from visiting Diveyevo during the laying of the church. 310 top – 1/2. Praskovya does not dare to drive away Joasaph, as the venerable monk orders her. S. He visits the mill under various pretexts. 319 bottom – 320 top. Rev. S. calls on Praskovya to tell her about his refusal to entrust the community to Joasaph, although he is seeking this. “All his life he will be cold to you, and the sisters who will be devoted to him will be cold to you.” This is the end of the long instruction from Notebook 1. In the 6th notebook, Praskovya gives an equivalent version (452 ​​1/2 - 453 top), adding the following instruction: “Then, mother, all kinds and ranks will come to you, and great people will seek you out for me, poor Seraphim! They will ask you then (a hint at the investigation of the Holy Synod), tell everyone what you heard from me, do not be afraid... and do not hide anything; now, before the time comes, be silent!” There is absolutely no doubt that in 1861 Praskovya cited the words of Rev. S. investigators, but her testimony in the conclusion of the investigation drawn up by Philaret and the Holy Synod was not recorded: this investigation was intended only to make a decision on the question of how legal Nektariy’s appointment of a new abbess was. The sisters' testimony about Joasaph only served to take disciplinary measures against him. But Praskovya briefly repeated the words of the Rev. S. also in 1841 or 1842, when Joasaph interrogated the sisters in turn, trying to intimidate them. Two testimonies about this have reached us: one without a reference, at 551 4/5 - 552 top; another is in Motovilov’s notes on p. 563 top – 1/4. During the days of Bishop Nektary's visit in 1861 and after him, Praskovya Stepanovna did not leave Praskovya Semyonovna until her death (630 1/2 et seq.). But she does not believe that the time has come to speak: 636 1/2. And in fact, the “big men” will appear with an investigation only after a few months. Praskovya Semyonovna reminds of the teacher given to her. S. prediction: “You will remain broke like a cancer.” It is not clear why the holy fool mentions this prediction in this case: it most likely dates back to 1833, when Praskovya Stepanovna, as a result of the death of St. S. initially found herself responsible for the fate of the mill, and then relieved of her duties. It is also mentioned on p. 222 1/4 and 466 bottom. STEFANIDE ANIKEEVA. Akulina’s friend in the episode that she cites on p. 237 1/5 – 239 bottom. She disobeyed and almost drowned. ULYANA GRIGORIEVNA, from the village of Krasnoselskoye. Mentioned once during the life of Rev. P. 287 1/2), often mentioned in “The Tale of... Pelageya”. It is she who invites Pelageya to settle in Diveyevo (530 bottom - 532 top). It should be noted here that Ulyana is part of the Kazan community. She did not reconcile herself with the merger of communities, which Bishop Joasaph achieved from Bishop in 1842, since it was contrary to the will of the Venerable. S., and built herself a separate cell. Ulyana took with her Pelageya (whom Joasaph was afraid of) and Anna Gerasimovna, her sister, who was obliged to take care of Pelageya 535 3/4 - 536 bottom). ULYANA GRIGORIEVNA, from the village of Maidovo, novice of mother Alexandra: 37 bottom; not to be confused with its namesake. USTINYA IVANOVNA KUZNETSOVA, nun ILARIA. Born approx. 1801 (597 bottom). Adopted in Diveevo approx. 1819 (712 1/3). Characterized by gentleness (645 top). Appointed Rev. S. collect his prophecies to Mary-Martha. In 1850 she was elected abbess, but Joasaph, sending the papers to the bishop, canceled the choice of sisters, allegedly due to Ustinya’s illiteracy, and entered Catherine of Ladyzhenskaya instead (597 top and 685 1/3). In 1861, Ustinha addressed the bishop with harsh words. The predictions of Mary-Martha are given on p. 235 1/2 – 236 1/5 and repeated on p. 270 1/2 – 271 1/5. This text (1st notebook) was written down ca. 1854, while Maria Martha died in 1829. It should be noted that we are talking only about predictions of the future of the community up to the revolution: if Rev. S. made prophecies of an apocalyptic nature, but not in this case. Ustinha states that due to her weak memory, after twenty-five years she has forgotten a lot. This can be explained: 1. Either, if Mary-Martha told her more than the reverend allowed. S., this is a case of providential oblivion, similar to those described on p. 323 bottom and 325 top (see p. 183). 2. Or the reason is the sister’s conscientiousness, known for her restraint and not wanting to fall under the influence of collective myth-making. 3. Or, finally, this is a holy lie for the sake of concealing what Mary-Martha let slip about. Be that as it may, Ustinya does not tell anything that we do not already know from others. But it is obvious that this is one of the most reliable witnesses. 284 1/3 – bottom: “From... receipts” (implied - to the mill, and, of course, in 1830) Rev. S. orders Ustinye to study the rules and singing, so that she was not illiterate, as Joasaph assured. The sisters were taught singing by Nazarius and Cornelius (in other words, not by Joasaph, who gave them several lessons, saying that he had been sent by Rev. S., but neither Rev. S. nor the sisters liked Joasaph’s singing). “Works, needs and sorrows” led Ustinya to the idea of ​​leaving the community, but Rev. S. ordered her never to leave Diveevo, which she would remember in 1861, when she was expelled from there for six months. Rev. S., who knew how to find special words to encourage each of the sisters, spoke with Ustinya about the greatness of the founder, mother Alexandra. In 1861, this meek sister, shocking everyone a lot, declared to Bishop Nektary: “Father Seraphim, you are punished for us, Vladyka, for he gathered us, but you want to disperse us!” Many sisters would actually have left if Motovilov had not secured an investigation by the Holy Synod. In response, Nektarios expelled Ustinya from the monastery and, although she asked for forgiveness three times, sent her, accompanied by police, to another monastery. Ustinya spent six months there until the Holy Synod issued a decree on her return. Filaret in his letters does not dare to justify Ustinya, but recognizes it as possible to forgive in view of her great merits (645 top; 684 bottom - 685 1/2 (No. 3); 711 3/4; 712 1/5). USHAKOVA. See mother MARIA. For greater clarity, Filaret calls her by her last name in his documents. Nun FEVRONYA (582 top). Perhaps this is the monastic name of one of the sisters, known only by her first and patronymic. FEODOSIA VASILIEVNA (259 1/4 1/2). Her calling. Rev. S. heals Feodosia of epilepsy. He sends her to dig a groove, which the Queen of Heaven measured out with Her belt. FIENA VASILIEVNA, nun Feofania (224 lower –225 lower). Praskovya Semyonovna tells her about the vision that visited her in the refectory. 649 bottom – 650 1/2. Fiena serves in the cell of Mother Maria. Appendix 3. Abbesses of two Diveyevo communities Founder Agafya Semenovna Melgunova, mother of Alexander (†1789); Unknown abbess; Ksenia Mikhailovna Kocheulova (1796–1839); Ksenia Mikhailovna Kocheulova Elena Vasilievna Manturova (1827–1832); Alexandra Ivanovna Bulgakova, (1833 – resignation in 1834 due to illness) Praskovya Semyonovna Milyukova (1834 - resignation in 1837 in protest against Joasaph) Alexandra Ivanovna Bulgakova (18371839) Irina Prokopyevna Kocheulova Ksenia Ilyinichna Potekhina, (1839–1850); Irina Prokopyevna Kocheulova; Ustinya Ivanovna Kuznetsova, mother of Ilaria, elected in 1850 and removed by Joasaph; Ekaterina Vasilievna Ladyzhenskaya (1851 fled in 1859); Elizaveta Alekseevna Ushakova, mother Maria (1861–1904). A detailed bibliography can be found in the publication: Gorainoff I. Seraphim de Sarov. DDB, 1979. Below are some of the studies and articles that complemented this work or appeared after its publication. 1. Clement O. Saint Seraphim de Sarov, prophete et temoin de la lumiere // Le Visage interieur. Stock, 1978, pp.117–156. 2. Lassus L.A. Le starets Seraphim de Sarov. Joie et la lumiere. O.E.I.L, 1984. 3. Spidlik T., s. j. Serafino de Sarov // La Mistica. Fenomenologia e riflessione teologica, a cura di E. Ancilli et M. L. Paparozzi. Roma, Citta Nuova Editrice, 1981, I, p.621644. 4. Zander V. Saint Seraphim de Sarov. Edition du Comite diocesain d'oeuvres et d'enseignement de l'Eglise russe en Europe occidentale, 12, rue Daru, 75008, Paris, sans date. 5. Vie de saint Seraphim de Sarov. Monastere NotreDame de Toute-Protection, Bussy en Othe (89400 Migennes, France), 1986. 6. Arch. Benjamin. Life of Saint Seraphim of Sarov. Paris, 1935. – 79 p. The work of L. Chichagov “Chronicle of the Seraphim-Diveevsky Monastery...” (M., 1896) was republished in 1903, reproduced phototypically in 1978 by the Brotherhood of St. Herman of Alaska (St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, P. O. Box 70, Platina, California 96096, USA). Republished in Russia in the 90s. “I will meet Rev. soon. Seraphim, and he will ask me: “Did you speak correctly about me?” That's the question. All my life I have been no less afraid of false thoughts than of bad deeds. Indeed, God is not only love, but also Truth.” “Chronicle of the Seraphim-Diveevsky Monastery, Nizhny Novgorod province, Ardatov district, with a biography of its founders...”, prepared for publication by Fr. Leonid Chichagov, published by the Seraphim-Diveevsky Monastery in 1896 and republished in 1903 in Moscow, as well as by the Brotherhood of Blessed Herman of Alaska in 1978 (USA). However, Chichagov does not mention the “Conversation of St. Seraphim of Sarov with N. A. Motov Ilov about the purpose of Christian life,” also published several months before canonization. Approximately two-thirds of the citations have a direct or indirect reference. In two cases the link reads "ibid" while the previous link is not identifiable. Whose omission this is: Chichagov himself or his publisher is unknown. Chichagov, the author of a work on military history, had experience working with documents. Compiling the final edition of the Chronicle..., he successfully carried out similar work. When he was the rector of the Suzdal monastery, which served as a place of detention for the guilty clergy, he so skillfully audited the personal affairs of prisoners that after several years he achieved the release of almost all the prisoners. Numbers without reference indicate the pages of his work, in this case the introduction. Added to them is the designation of the place on the page: at the top, 1/2, 3/5, etc. The word “tetr.” indicate a notebook in the archives. Chichagov himself participated in the creation of the latest documents. Us. 623 at the top he notes: “We turned to her (N.D.) with a request to write about herself, but she positively found it impossible to convey anything” (tetr .19). To these we can add two more letters: Metropolitan Philaret and Isidore, Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, Chairman of the Holy Synod. They were addressed to Bishop Theophan (Recluse), then Bishop of Tambov, under whose jurisdiction the Holy Synod temporarily transferred the Diveyevo Monastery (Collected letters of Bishop Theophan. M., 1899. Vol. 5, pp. 4 and 5.). According to Nilus, Motovilov’s handwriting was practically unreadable, and only as a result of a special small miracle was he granted the ability to decipher it. Nilus received little revelations at literally every step. But if Chichagov’s silence were explained only by this circumstance, he would not fail to refer to it, as he refers to the fact that this or that notebook was preserved in the form of a draft. When Chichagov talks about the use of Manturov’s testimony by the priest and Motovilov, this must be understood as both written and oral testimony. Chichagov himself quotes one of the written testimony on p. – 310 31/5. E. Poselyanin tried to do this in his work “Chicks of Elder Seraphim of Sarov,” published in “Russian Pilgrim” (1902, No. 35–44). Perhaps this means leprosy? See: Goramoff I. Seraphim de Sarov, p. 72. P. 159 2/3. Much testifies to the sympathy of the Rev. Seraphim to those who were in a state of serfdom. Elagin N. Life of St. Seraphim. M.: ed. Sarov Monastery, village. 122. The community was subject to less strict regulations than the monastery. But this did not mean a less harsh lifestyle. Probably Father Vasily was relieved of his parish duties on the occasion of the construction of a new parish church. And then the former church, built by the founder of the Diveyevo community, became a monastery church. The legend of Christ for the sake of the holy fool Pelageya... p. 99 top The episode in which brother Ivan is mentioned does not characterize him from the best side. On the banks of God's river. T. 2, p. 134 bottom and 144 bottom. He was already mentioned in 1884 in “The Tale of... Pelageya”, p. 115 top In fact, one of his sisters survived him (795 1/3). St. Seraphim often spoke about four saints on whom the community would stand. One of them is the founder, Mother Alexandra, who died while she was still a reverend. Seraphim as a deacon; the second is Maria, a very young nun who died before Rev. Seraphim; Manturov is recognized as the third, and the fourth, in our opinion, is Father Vasily. In Russian it also means “old man” (and is not always accompanied by a connotation of respect). There is a story that at the mill the sisters were helped by a hired “elder worker,” that is, simply an elderly peasant; it was safe to put him to work next to the young nuns. Once, due to his negligence, trouble almost happened (211 1/5) (see p. 139, biographical note about sister Evdokia Efremovna). Chichagov calls every nun who knew the Venerable “elderness”. Seraphim and therefore able to testify about him. Some Sarov monks were called “elders,” but, obviously, because of their age. The reverend himself Seraphim more than once mentioned three paths that cannot be entered into without a special calling from God: seclusion, foolishness and abbotship (359 below): he did not mention eldership, since in Sarov it was not revered as a special calling. Collection of letters from Bishop Theophan the Recluse. M., 1899. T. 5, p. 5. Jeremiah is the bishop whom Joasaph got rid of, having achieved his transfer to Alaska. Bishop Anthony became his successor. After the death of Rev. He bought Seraphim a dacha in Diveyevo. The Conscientious Court dealt with sensitive civil cases that required arbitration or reconciliation of the parties: offenses of minors, the mentally ill, witchcraft, etc. The judge was assisted by six lawyers: two for each of the three classes of Russian society. This conversation is known to us only from the publication of Sergei Nilus in 1903ˆBut his version raises serious questions. P.470 1/2. In an entry made after 1863, Motovilov expresses his firm intention to put these revelations in writing. One can hope that they are in notebooks No. 40–60. But twenty-one notebooks are too much to present one conversation, which, it seems, was one of a kind. It is thanks to this journey that we know some details of the youth of the Rev. Seraphim. He also researched the life of the founder Alexandra before the advent of Rev. Seraphim in Diveevo and passed on all the data to Joasaph, whose friend he was then, who published them in his life of the Venerable. Seraphim. We know nothing about this Karamzin. A certain V.A. Karamzina is the author of the 22nd and 36th notebooks. She was a nun in Diveyevo in 1885 (745 3/5). The bishop's robe ends with a long train. This crowded community did not have a spacious room, since Joasaph, as predicted by the venerable. Seraphim never cared about the well-being of the nuns. The upper church was dedicated to the Nativity of Christ, the lower one to the Nativity of the Mother of God. See at the same time the chronological table, p. 51, and ch. III, p. 58, 73 magazine “Flame” No. 6, where, after deeper reflection, Father Roszko explains these three years of withdrawal from the world differently and attributes the thousand days of crowding to the beginning of the hermit period. The sisters adopted new names only in 1862 upon entering monasticism, when the community became a monastery and they were tonsured. Only Alexander’s mother and a little later Marfa (Maria Semenovna Milyukova) took monasticism separately. And at that time they were called by the name given at baptism and patronymic. When addressing the abbess, the patronymic was always added, but they often even called each other by diminutive names. These peasant women did not always have a surname; more often it arose from the name of their native village (see Appendix No. 2. Alphabetical list of Diveyevo sisters). Societies of Beguines are societies of women that arose at the end of the 12th century in the Netherlands who lived together and led pious lives, but did not take any vows. Chichagov, without citing a source, gives the following figures: 50 in 1825 and 113 in 1833. Elsewhere he reproduces the following text from Father Vasily: “Mother Ksenia Mikhailovna ruled over sixty sisters for forty-three years.” Apparently this is something in between. Elsewhere, Chichagov, without citing a source, speaks of 125 mill sisters (503). For many reasons, this figure is unlikely. P.645 1/2. She adds that she has lived in the community for sixty years. Chichagov claims that all the first eight sisters owe their calling to Rev. Seraphim (206 5/6). He must have called her around 1801, when he was a hermit. This chapter gives minimal figures, since Chichagov - or his publisher - omits references in one case out of three or four. Due to incomplete or erroneous references and inaccuracy of data obtained by comparison, there is also a bit of approximation in the less significant figures and facts given here. Russian pilgrim. 1902. No. 18, p. 320. See Appendix No. 2. Alphabetical list of Diveyevo sisters, contemporaries of St. Seraphim. The naming method includes three elements: first name, patronymic (designating her as the wife or daughter of a person) and last name. Example: Elena Vasilievna (daughter of Vasily) Manturova. As Fr. points out. Roshko, many sisters did not have a surname. In cases where sisters have the same names, they should be identified by patronymic. Surrounded by abandoned monastery buildings and new buildings, the ditch has survived to this day. Pilgrims still walk along it (Nadezhda. Christian reading. No. 7, pp. 383–386). This place was shown to him by the Mother of God on November 25, 1825. And again we see that the instruction received does not constrain the freedom of judgment of the Rev. Seraphim. We are not talking about the Evdokia who is mentioned in previous chapters. The four founding sisters bear this name, and we will have to distinguish them by their patronymics. This refers to Isaiah, the “treasurer” from 1822. He is called “Isaiah the second” to distinguish him from the first Isaiah, hegumen from 1794 to 1806 and confessor to the Venerable. Seraphim. In 1842, Abbot Niphon appointed Isaiah II as his successor, and he was elected “by unanimous vote,” as the Sarov Patericon states (p. 178). We are not obliged to trust him, but still the election of a monk who is so disinclined towards the Venerable. Seraphim, confirms the disdainful attitude towards him during life and after death. Elsewhere Rev. Seraphim predicts a visit to the imperial family (269 top and 290 top). It is difficult to agree with such an interpretation of Fr. Vsevolod. It is important to note that the Sarov monastery was almost completely destroyed after the revolution - in the 50s, two main cathedrals were blown up - the Assumption and the Life-Giving Spring. Only the bell tower and part of the cells have survived. In the 50s, the closed city “Arzamas-16” arose on the site of the monastery, in which nuclear physicists are still engaged in the development of nuclear weapons. That is why, even to this day, the territory of the monastery and the surviving buildings have not been transferred to the Russian Church. The Diveyevo monastery was preserved, it was restored, and it was in the summer of 1991 that the relics of St. Seraphim. So, after the second discovery of the relics, the saint returned not to Sarov, but precisely to Diveevo, to which he had given so much strength and prayers (comp.). It is precisely this, deeper understanding of the prophecy of St. Seraphim occurred after the events of the summer of 1991 (editor's note). Fedotov G.P. A Treasury of Russian Spirituality, L., 1952, p. 242. Only an in-depth study of the teachings of Rev. Seraphim will help separate the good wheat from the chaff in this document. The Ardatov community became a monastery in 1861, and at the same time Evdokia, installed as abbess by the Venerable himself. Seraphim, became his abbess. We have no information about the role of the monk in the founding of the Zelenogorsk community, mentioned below. Like Diveevo, it was recognized in 1842. And also, as stated elsewhere, to feed the Diveyevo sisters. See also the story of Manturov, who, having appeared in the desert at the time when Joasaph was leaving there, also saw how St. Seraphim sat over the source and poured water on his head, arms and legs for a long time. He tried in vain to turn Joasaph away from his criminal plans, which were revealed to him thanks to his foresight, and took Manturov as a witness that he abdicated all responsibility for the fate of Joasaph’s soul (310 2/3 - 311 2/3). 1 All dates are indicated according to the Julian calendar. Joasaph, against the will of St. Seraphim sent his sisters there to study painting and... intrigue. We know nothing about this sister and have not been able to identify the community of Liozovsk, of which we are told she is the abbess. The author's comment is given in parentheses. Russian monks do not knock on the door, but say a prayer. In Joasaph’s retelling, Matrona says that at first she was torn by the fear of being bitten and the desire to thus become crippled and be freed from kitchen service. This is all the more implausible since it was from that moment that Matrona became emboldened. While working on the life, we often corresponded with Fr. Vsevolod. I shared his discoveries and thoughts with others. One day we were talking about the work of Fr. Vsevolod with Archbishop of Kursk and Belgorod Chrysostom (Martishkin). He expressed surprise why Rev. Seraphim had a negative attitude towards the Russian episcopate. I cited part of this conversation in my letter to Fr. Vsevolod.. In his work he quotes from my letter (approx. comp.). Chichagov, apparently, is mistaken when he says that this cross was granted to him by the Nizhny Novgorod Bishop Jeremiah: the only bishop with that name, whom Joasaph forced to retire, was no longer found by the venerable. Seraphim. Moreover, only the Bishop of Tambov, who cared for Sarov, could bestow such a distinction on him. In Tambov, there were no bishops with that name. Letters, Part 11, p. 183, op. from: Denisov, p. 413. Muravyov A. N. Sarov Desert. St. Petersburg, 1849, p. 33; cit. from: Denisov, p. 412. In the introduction to the “Conversation”, omitted from I. Goryaynova, which, in all likelihood, should be attributed to Nilus, it is indicated that while Motovilov was waiting for a reception with Rev. Seraphim, his cell attendant tried to convince him (Motovilov) to turn to another Sarov elder. This is a slander against Brother Paul, for he has always been a modest and devoted friend of the Rev. Seraphim. But in this one can see echoes of the monks’ jealousy for the veneration with which the elder was surrounded. Archpriest S. Chetverikov. Optina Pustyn, village 63 1/2. According to some reports, Rev. Seraphim, about whose activities we know far from everything, could have contributed to the creation of this desert. St. John of Kronstadt also performed the paraliturgical rite of communion. Donated by Rev. Seraphim, Bishop Arseny used oil, wine and candles during the service of the solemn funeral liturgy in his memory. See the note about him by Monsignor Gelin in the journal Message du Secours Catholique, 1985, vol. 12, 377, p. 19. Hereinafter referred to as "The Wanderer's Tales" or "Stories". Due to the fact that all these photographs and engravings are placed in the “Chronicle” of Fr. L. Chichagova, which has recently been published several times in Russia, we do not reproduce them in this publication (editor's note).