"Their works follow them." Saint Philaret of Moscow and Archpriest Alexander Gorsky

“I have fought the good fight, I have died, I have kept the faith.” (2 Timothy 4:7) In the history of Russian spiritual thought, and indeed of all Russian theology, one of the most powerful moral and instructive examples is the relationship between two outstanding personalities - St. Philaret of Moscow and Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky. Saint Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow and Kolomna is, without a doubt, the largest figure in the history of the Russian Church of the 19th century. Combining in himself the features of a church hierarch and a learned theologian, a statesman and an ascetic of piety, a preacher and a poet, he was one of those people who were chosen by God himself for the mission of supreme spiritual leadership. Saint Philaret of Moscow (1782–1867) lived a long life: “Literally from the conquest of the Crimea to the great reforms” 1. Only at the Moscow See, his ministry lasted for almost half a century (from 1821 to 1867), and by the end of his life his authority was such that his contemporaries called him the Metropolitan of All Russia, the natural Patriarch of the Russian Church. Among all the great deeds undertaken by Saint Philaret for the benefit of the Church and the Fatherland, his role in the establishment of the Russian Theological School and public education stands out. The name of Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky (1812–1875), rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, talented scientist, Church historian, pastor, teacher and theologian, is one of the brightest in the history of the Russian Theological School. The personality of Archpriest Gorsky is multifaceted. Many amazing phenomena are associated with this person. In a providential manner, the Lord blessed these two great people to live at the same time, together to create and establish Russian theological science and the domestic Theological school. But not only official, business relations connected the great hierarch with the great worker of science; the rapprochement went deeper and bore the character of a sincere and touching relationship between father and son. This, of course, did not happen right away - while young Gorsky was gaining experience, he was in the shadow of the Moscow archpastor, already famous throughout Russia, but already at that time, Metropolitan Philaret undoubtedly had a colossal influence on the future archpriest. The personality of Saint Philaret became a guiding star for Gorsky from the very day he crossed the threshold of the Moscow Theological Academy. Having exceptional talents from his youth, Gorsky entered the Academy almost as a boy, at the age of sixteen, from the philosophy class of the Kostroma Seminary, two years earlier than normal. Having entered the Academy, Gorsky was immediately exposed to the invisible influence of the spiritual atmosphere that Metropolitan Philaret, strict and attentive in everything to himself and others, created in it. For most of his ascetic life, Saint Philaret was associated with Moscow Theological schools - as a student, as a mentor, as an archpastor. After joining the Moscow See, Saint Philaret entered into even closer relations with the Academy, as its immediate head. This relationship, which lasted for 46 years, led to an amazing phenomenon in its history: being under the leadership of one leader for almost half a century, it maintained an amazing unity of spirit and direction of education throughout this entire period. “The school that the Academy went through during Filaret’s era was harsh; Even its best workers received more reprimands than approvals and praises from their strict boss, but based on the indicated moral principles, this school created a very special type of academic monastery from an academic corporation. The concept of “monastery” contains the idea of ​​obedience: the Academy educated people obedient to duty; The concept of “scientist” contains the idea of ​​freedom: “The Academy educated people who recognized the right to their own convictions and respected the freedom of others” 2 . It was in such an atmosphere that the future scientist studied, and in the same atmosphere he remained after he became a young teacher at the Academy that became his home. As a mentor, Gorsky was subordinate to the rector, the Academy conference and the authority of the ruling bishop. This censorship was not a formality. And the most responsible was the censorship of St. Philaret, to whom the teachers of the Academy each year, through a conference, provided short notes about what they had read to the students during that time. In addition, Saint Philaret often demanded the lecture notebooks themselves for viewing. From letters from friend A.V. Mountain Archimandrite (later Archbishop) Philaret Gumilevsky can be seen that he gave him advice on how to correctly express his thoughts in notes submitted to censorship, how to conduct a conversation with the Metropolitan during exams, which at that time were exams not only for students, but to a greater extent for the professors themselves. “It seems to me,” wrote the rector, Archimandrite Filaret, to Alexander Vasilyevich, “that if unfortunately your experience is not compiled according to his thoughts, then you will challenge him to open battle and unnecessarily touch his hot-tempered character. We need to know his thoughts in advance... There is no need to forcefully insist. This will be considered stubbornness, an act of self-will - and they will consider it, perhaps, rightly. Then (which God forbid) even the good will be called bad. Why insist on your own in front of him? Afterwards I can do the same thing that I now defend slightly, when i.e. my thought is holy. And no one will reproach me for this. I act according to the convictions of my conscience” 3. However, the advice and instructions of a friend did not prevent an “open battle” between Gorsky and Metropolitan Philaret at the public exam on July 2, 1837, when they had a lively dispute about the correctness of some provisions on the subject of the lectures, which Alexander Vasilyevich presented to the Bishop. A detailed description of this incident is recorded in Gorsky’s diary: “Today, during the test, I had to hold a rather long debate with the Bishop on the subject of the lecture... he began to listen to what was presented for testing from the New Testament history: about the spread and oppression of Christianity after the Apostles to Constantine... Having listened to brief comments about the countries in which Christianity had spread again, he began to make comments again on the article about the obstacles to the spread of Christianity, and from the very beginning on the varied direction of the spirit of empire and the spirit of Christian society. “What is spirit? Have you been able to embrace and explore the spirit of Christianity yourself? Could they fit it into the heads of your students? This is a strange direction in history today. They look at humanity as one person, and assimilate this or that general direction to it. An excellent look at history."... Upon further reading this article, he began to attack from the other side: "What are these theories for? It is necessary to present historical facts." After listening a little more, he noted: "After this, all persecutors of Christianity will be justified. They acted according to the laws: as recently one Jew proved that the death of Jesus Christ was pronounced according to the justice of the laws."... When they began to read about the influence of philosophy on the way of thinking about Christians, the bishop again made the remark: "all theories. You are talking about sects, but about St. won’t you talk about martyrs?”... At the end of the consideration of moral reasons, Vladyka remarked: “It seems that you missed the main thing. You didn’t even notice the elephant. The main reason for the persecution of Christianity was pagan superstition. And you didn’t say a word about it.” I answered this that this will be said about this now. Religious reasons are placed in the third category of obstacles to the spread of Christianity. - “There will be no end to your ranks,” said the Lord. "" 4. This clash confirms the idea that Metropolitan Philaret’s control over professors and their activities was very strict 5 . But the demanding and strict Saint Philaret already respected Gorsky, trusted him, valued his works and knowledge, distinguishing him from other teachers. On January 19, 1837, Gorsky was elevated to extraordinary professor, and on September 9, 1839, he became an ordinary professor at the Moscow Theological Academy. Years passed, A.V. Gorsky turned into a famous scientist, whose knowledge and experience were highly valued by people of science throughout the country. But not only secular scientists and theologians valued Gorsky’s scientific knowledge; Metropolitan of Moscow Philaret himself used his instructions and advice. The Metropolitan sent his sermons of a historical nature for Gorsky to review, talked with him on issues of church life, asked his opinion on various issues that arose in society, for example, regarding the correction of the Charter of Theological Academies, on civil marriage, teaching theology at universities, Zemsky Sobors, etc. The Metropolitan asked Gorsky to write the Charter of the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment and to provide reviews of some books. At the request of St. Philaret, Gorsky explained the “Testimony of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts,” attributed to Nikita Stifat or Pectorate in the book against the Latins “On the Irrigation of the Body of Christ with the Blood.” Gorsky also commented on the letter of Theodore the Studite to Pope Leo III. It was this letter that Catholics referred to as proof of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome 6 . Also, Gorsky, at the suggestion of Metropolitan Philaret, published teachings and compiled biographies of Cyril II, Metropolitan of Kyiv 7, Metropolitans of Moscow Peter 8 and Alex 9. These biographies of the ancient saints of Moscow can be considered exemplary works. Metropolitan Filaret, in many of the most important issues of church government, in which the Synod demanded advice from him, himself sought the advice and scientific instructions of Alexander Vasilyevich and in them found solid scientific support for his government orders 10. So, with the blessing of St. Philaret in 1860, A.V. Gorsky, who had by that time received holy orders, was sent to St. Petersburg, where he participated in the work of the Committee for the Transformation of Theological Schools 11. Therefore, it is no coincidence that “there is a legend in the Moscow Theological Academy that the amazing brilliance of the canonical and historical justifications in the famous resolutions of Filaret owes much to Gorsky. Philaret’s detailed reports in St. are of the same origin. Synod" 12. Demanding of his subordinates, Metropolitan Filaret favored Gorsky, distinguished and rewarded him. For his part, Alexander Vasilyevich respected the bishop, was in awe of his intelligence, and often met with his metropolitan. Gorsky knew the ardent character of the saint, his demands, views, and knew how to conduct business in such a way as not to incur unnecessary anger on himself. None of the works presented to the Metropolitan for judgment went as well as those that had previously visited Gorsky. But this close relationship between the saint and Gorsky also contained a certain difficulty for Alexander Vasilyevich, who knew well himself and did not hide from others that not all of his research could be made known to the reading public. “I’m studying for myself,” he wrote to the famous scientist historian and philologist Mikhail Petrovich Pogodin, “as best I can and as much as I can, I’m ready to tell you my comments. But the state of our church affairs and my personal position do not allow me to say in print what, in good conscience, a scientist can and should say in his office” 13. Another time, in his diary on June 19, 1836, Gorsky wrote: “Yesterday the rector (Archimandrite Filaret Gumilyovsky) said that the bishop, in a conversation about reasoning, among other things, expressed his thought about the lack of spiritual works in our country. Our spiritual scientists, he said, do not write anything. And how to write? Whatever is written with an effort to reveal a new side in the subject, it will all seem like heresy” 14. Of course, the strict metropolitan could not force Gorsky to think in the quiet of his office the way his superiors wanted, but he had the power and strength to influence the external expression of Gorsky’s thoughts and allowed this. Therefore, Alexander Vasilyevich never forgot to be careful in words and on paper, so he published little of his works, often without even disclosing his name in them. In this, however, there is no particular fault of Saint Philaret; it was not his “personal despotism” that stifled theological thought; the very atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion that reigned in society at that time left a corresponding imprint on the Theological School and state policy towards the Church. In addition, Metropolitan Philaret himself was repeatedly subjected to censorship and even persecution by the civil authorities and the Holy Synod 15. Not all of Gorsky's contemporaries understood this. M.P. was especially vehemently indignant. Pogodin: “Why are you giving them to the Bishop for viewing. This is a long box. I don’t understand your fear of the Jews? Are you a slave? Who has the right to your thought and business? In any case, an article without the author’s name cannot cause you any harm. It is difficult to imagine such despotism, or better than such eastern citizenship. You, you yourself are to blame” 16, the scientist wrote to Gorsky on November 22, 1842. Another time, on October 20, 1847, Pogodin inspired Alexander Vasilyevich: “This is the stigma... aro...aro of seminary education, the scars of despotism, which the best and highest souls cannot smooth out within themselves. Forgive my frankness! If I did not love you sincerely, I would not have dared to speak like that. He also helped NN here with the weight of his mind and character! The entire Moscow clergy is, as it were, bewitched and cannot breathe freely” 17. And the famous historian Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov directly accused St. Philaret of drowning out Gorsky’s enormous talent with his despotism. “The theological academy and seminary were in a terrible state... He made a mummy from Gorsky, one of the most gifted and learned professors of the theological academy” 18. Is this review correct? Of course not, and Saint Philaret has nothing to do with it. A.P. rightly speaks about this. Lebedev: “Does not at all suit the sympathetic and humane personality of A.V. Gorsky's name is "mummy". Not to mention the fact that this name is offensive for such a learned person (and are there mummies with a colossal mind and a philanthropic heart?), A.V. Gorsky was not a slave to tradition, as he is made out to be" 19. But still this review by S.M. Solovyov is often repeated without verification, despite the fact that such an accusation is very false. Another thing is true - that in Gorsky’s character and in his thinking one always feels some kind of internal coherence and indecision. “But this was not fear of someone’s condemnation or opinion, even the opinion of a bishop, it was a kind of spiritual suspiciousness. And it was not Saint Philaret who “dried up” Gorsky. He stops himself at every step out of some kind of inner timidity... He also had some kind of deep spiritual breakdown, a mental breakdown” 20 . Contemporaries rightly wrote about Gorsky that “the more extensive his knowledge becomes, the more, apparently, his distrust of himself increases” 21 . Misunderstood by people, he continued to love them, trying to show his love by always being ready to help everyone. An interesting episode in the relationship between St. Philaret and Archpriest A.V. Gorsky presents the history of the description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library. This extensive book depository, compiled on the basis of ancient Russian collections, was organized in 1721. By the middle of the 19th century, the library's wealth had greatly increased. Of exceptional value here was and remains to this day precisely the collection of Slavic manuscripts from the 11th to 18th centuries, the total number of which is more than a thousand and among which there are many truly unique ones. Meanwhile, this very valuable material remained scientifically unclaimed: in the absence of a real index or catalog for it, it was almost impossible to use it, although the need for the use of all this wealth for learned historians arose long ago. Secular researchers involved in historical science have more than once reproached, and quite rightly, the spiritual authorities for their reluctance to correct the situation. Finally, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow took the initiative to positively resolve the problem. In May 1849, he wrote to the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archimandrite Alexy (Rzhanitsyn), later Archbishop of Tver: “They say that strangers are undertaking without us for the synodal library what I have been thinking about for a long time, without achieving it, namely the compilation of a clear catalogue, and are even thinking about printing. Therefore, tell the censors that if anything of this kind comes to the censorship, they should keep it from being passed through without being presented to the Holy Synod. And I want to know if something like this happens. But as it is desirable for us ourselves, it is also necessary to do something for which we can be reproached for not doing it: then talk to Mr. Gorsky, if he will take on this matter with several employees who could be hired in Moscow and whom he would direct and supervise the work, visiting Moscow from time to time. Engage in this thought and give me the answer” 22. It is obvious that Metropolitan Philaret’s plan for the Synodal Book Depository was to introduce all this new manuscript material into scientific circulation immediately with proper interpretation in line with church tradition. That’s why he wanted to entrust this to “his” person, who was A.V. Gorsky, not wanting to allow the interference of “strangers,” secular researchers. The letter from the Moscow hierarch decided the matter. After the rector's conversation with Gorsky, Alexander Vasilievich got down to business 23. The description of the manuscripts, with the direct participation of Gorsky, lasted for 14 years. The result of such a long work was the appearance in print, with the name of Gorsky and his active assistant K.I. Nevostruev's six rather voluminous volumes, in which more than 340 books and manuscripts were described in detail. The first book “Descriptions” was published already in 1855. This first volume examines all the Slavic-Russian manuscripts of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and, first of all, the Bible of Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod according to the lists of the XV-XVII centuries, as well as individual lists of the XII-XVII centuries of the Gospel, Apostle, Psalter, Prophecies and so on. They are examined in comparison with printed Bibles, starting with the Ostrog Bible of 1581, and in parallel with biblical Greek, Latin and Hebrew texts 24. But it was precisely this first book, and, consequently, the entire extensive “Description” series, that faced the sad fate of remaining forever in obscurity. The breadth, versatility, critical direction of the enterprise organized by the authors to publish descriptions of manuscripts, scientific novelty and bold decisions to which they came, almost served as the main obstacle to the appearance of their work in print. It was like this. When the first volume of the “Description” was prepared, its final version was presented by Gorsky to Saint Philaret in September 1852. The Metropolitan sent the manuscript for consideration to the Synod, providing the study with his review. The work of Gorsky and Nevostruev was presented to the ordinary professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Archimandrite John (Sokolov), who was a member of the Committee of Spiritual Censorship 25. This censor was distinguished by two traits: pickiness and complete disrespect for other people's thoughts, managing to arm even the most harmless people against himself 26 . And he approached the first part of the “Description” entrusted to him for consideration with his usual techniques. Archimandrite John gave a negative review of the “Description” and spoke out against its publication. The recall of Archimandrite John raised the issue of printing the “Description” quite seriously. Given the distrust with which the publication of ancient Russian church monuments was treated at that time, such a review could raise serious doubts about whether such a description is necessary and useful. Fortunately for our Church and our science, the matter of describing manuscripts was near and dear to Saint Philaret, and the censor did not have the strength to fight the authority of the saint. The revocation did not decide the outcome of the case. And the saint decided to teach the arrogant censor a lesson. With the blessing of Metropolitan Philaret, Gorsky had to draw up a detailed explanation of the objections and demands of the censor review. Gorsky got down to business and already in the summer of 1853, after careful, painstaking work and constant consultations with Metropolitan Philaret, the answer was ready. The document itself is entitled: “Apology for the “Description of Slavic Manuscripts of the Synodal Library” and an Accusatory Word against Father John (now the rector of the Kazan Theological Academy)” 27. As a result, from Gorsky’s pen came what can rightfully be called a masterpiece of polemical art. In a serious, scientific style, a competent and comprehensive response to Archimandrite John’s review was given, but not only as a rebuff to all the critic’s comments. Here you can see how Gorsky literally pursues the censor to the end, exposing the exaggeration of his conclusions and the insidiousness of his plans. This answer is indeed not only an apology for the “Description”, but also a kind of accusatory word on the censor’s review. Defending all the conclusions of the “Description” regarding the history of the Sacred Text, Gorsky with particular energy defends the scientific formulation of the work, proving with unshakable arguments that the work in question can only be recognized as unseemly and unprofitable for general reading by a picky look, burdened with false judgments. In some places, “Apology” abandons its official tone and rises to lyrical inspiration. Gorsky responds to the censor’s demand to eliminate the scientific-critical component with energetic words with a sense of fulfilled duty to the Church and science 28 . In the same summer of 1853, the “Apology” was sent to the Synod, and in early November, Metropolitan Philaret informed Gorsky that “the description presented to the Synod has been authorized for publication, since it exists and is protected by you, without exception of research” 29 . This is how the story with the first book “Descriptions” ended happily. She owes her favorable outcome to A.V.’s brilliant answer. Gorsky to the censor's review, but no less to St. Philaret. If he had not been at the head of the entire enterprise, such a censorial review as that of Archimandrite John could have completely ruined the whole thing. Instructing his co-worker K.I. Nevostruev to present the first part of the “Description” to the Metropolitan, Gorsky wrote: “I ask you to humbly present it from us to the Saint, who showed us this work and constantly guided us with his advice and encouraged us with merciful attention. We remember and will remember that without his strong words our book would not have seen the light of day. Presenting the book, I ask you to explain everything to our Patron in a bold voice of pure, sincere gratitude, so that he sees in this not just a formal rite, but so that our feelings are clearly reflected in his soul” 30. And this sincere feeling of gratitude to St. Philaret for the protection of the “Description”, expressed by A.V. Gorsky should be close to everyone who experiences and values ​​the successes of Russian science. When the “Description” volumes were already published, a significant event happened in the life of Alexander Vasilyevich. In October 1859, he was instructed by Metropolitan Philaret to draw up a brief note on “whether canonical decrees require that parish priests be married, and on what basis, and since what time has the custom of ordination been established in our country only when the person destined for ordination gets married” 31 . Gorsky set to work, and it soon turned out that several pages of the certificate he compiled were extremely important for his own fate. Gorsky had long wanted to take the priesthood, but the obligatory church requirement to pre-marry did not allow Alexander Vasilyevich to do this. And as can be seen from Gorsky’s past life, his parents’ prohibition did not allow him to accept monasticism 32 . Metropolitan Filaret knew about Gorsky’s desire. He decided to ordain Gorsky as a priest against the existing custom. The consequence of this intention was that the Metropolitan ordered Gorsky to compile a study on the celibacy of the white clergy. Obviously, Saint Philaret wanted to make sure in advance whether his plans would not encounter canonical obstacles. Gorsky investigated the question proposed to him and, in the end, came to the following conclusion: “it was not canonically forbidden to ordain celibates as priests and deacons; but due to various reasons, of course, both in Greece and here in Rus', it became a custom to supply only those who had married” 33 . This answer satisfied the metropolitan, who blessed Gorsky to write a petition for priestly ordination. In his official petition to Metropolitan Philaret on March 12, 1860, Gorsky wrote that he had been harboring the desire to be an altar server for a long time, and had not entered into family life due to his disposition towards academic pursuits. Gorsky assured the hierarchy that, with the help of God, he had already experienced himself enough in this state, and therefore asks to be honored with holy orders and assigned to some church that has a free priestly place, but does not require a rector, so that he can continue his service at the Theological Academy 34. The Bishop ordered the Consistory to provide a certificate of priestly vacancies and on this certificate, on March 22, 1860, he put the following resolution: “1) Based on Rule 6 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Prof. A. Gorsky gives an immutable promise and signature that upon entering the priesthood, he will remain celibate for the rest of his life. 2) Prof. Gorsky is appointed priest to the cathedral. 3) To confession, and, if there is no doubt, to the oath and dedication” 35. In a private letter, Gorsky wrote to Saint Philaret: “As I approach the Throne of Grace with reverence, in the depths of my soul I recognize both the greatness of the promised gift and my unworthiness. But, having tasted the sweetness of hope itself, I again surrender myself to Your condescension, and, falling at Your feet, I boldly ask you to complete the work of goodness on me” 36. Here you can see how Gorsky, who had been particularly sensitive and vulnerable since childhood, worried about his upcoming ordination. He very responsibly, with special attention, decided to take such an important step in life as accepting the grace of the priesthood. The kind of mood Alexander Vasilyevich was in before his consecration is evidenced by his letter to His Eminence Leonid (Krasnopevkov), Bishop of Dmitrovsky. A kind of joyful trembling and, at the same time, fear and embarrassment then took possession of the entire soul of the protege. Gorsky did not ask, he almost begged Bishop Leonid: “Support with spiritual help the first steps of those who decide to approach the throne of grace. The dignity of the rank is great, but the unworthiness, despite the long preparation of an unprepared life, is immeasurable. Abandoning all external considerations, I think to concentrate my thoughts and feelings on myself in order to more deeply feel the greatness of the gift of grace and with greater boldness hope to plunge into the abyss of God’s bounty and mercy” 37. After receiving the blessing of St. Philaret, all formalities were resolved, and on March 25, 1860, Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky was ordained a deacon in the Chudov Monastery, and on March 27, in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, he was ordained a priest 38 to the Moscow Cathedral of the Archangel 39. The case of promotion to the sacred degree of a celibate is unprecedented in the then ecclesiastical practice of the Russian Church. Only among Catholics there was, and still is, mandatory celibacy of the priesthood, the so-called “celibacy”. But there were practically no such precedents in our Church. At least, before Gorsky, only one case of celibacy is known 40 when in 1845 in Novoarkhangelsk the Right Reverend Innokenty Veniaminov (later Metropolitan of Moscow) “ordained the celibate clergyman Ermolai to the priesthood” 41 . It is understandable, therefore, with what excitement the news of Gorsky’s ordination was received in both spiritual and secular society. The impression this order of Metropolitan Philaret made in Moscow at that time can be judged by the following letter from one of the clergy to the Ryazan Archbishop Gabriel (Gorodkov): “For the sake of the holiday, I will tell Your Eminence extraordinary news. Do you deign to know the Professor of our Academy, G. Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky? He had not previously been married, but he did not want to enter monasticism, but he wanted to be a priest, just so as not to get married. And his wish finally came true. But on the basis of the 6th rule of the 6th Ecumenical Council, the Bishop, having taken from him a subscription not to marry, ordained him, on the Annunciation, in the Chudov Monastery, to the Deacons, and on the week of Vai, in the Dormition Cathedral, to the Presbyter of the Archangel Cathedral, leaving service at the Academy. And he did this without communicating with the Synod. Now the only talk about Moscow is about G. Gorsky. Marvel with us at what happened in our ancient capital. Gorsky is about 50 years old” 42. Indeed, there was a real uproar in Moscow society: everyone was talking about it, they were talking a lot, both for and against. According to the memoirs of D.N. Tolstoy, “the ordination of Alexander Vasilyevich was so new that it gave rise to a lot of talk even in our salons, which were usually extremely indifferent to church events. Due to our general ignorance of the canons, there were even doubts about the correctness of his ordination; others confused celibacy with monasticism and asked why he did not wear a hood” 43. In December of the same 1860, the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archimandrite Sergius (Lyapidevsky), was transferred to the episcopal see in Kursk. Then for the first time there was talk of appointing Archpriest Gorsky as rector of the Academy, but Metropolitan Philaret rejected this. This is what he wrote to the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod A.P. Tolstoy on January 7, 1861: “There is no rector of the Academy yet. Apparently, there is doubt in this matter. I hear that some people want the rector of the Academy to be Fr. Gorsky. I wish this too; and for this purpose he invited him to enter monasticism, but he remained firm in his long-accepted disposition. If you want him to be a rector and have an archimandrite inspector subordinate to him, then this will be an entry, although not yet noticeable, but already exemplary for the future, an entry into the path of the church revolution desired by some, contrary to the ancient constant rule, to place the white clergy above the monastics. Let not the pillars of the house of God be shaken." 44 Apparently, the cautious Saint Philaret was afraid of a revolution in church consciousness and rejected Gorsky’s candidacy. Then the Metropolitan chose the rector of the Moscow Theological Seminary, Archimandrite Savva (Tikhomirov). He was recommended by the Moscow Hierarch as a man of strong character who was capable of taking the reins of government at the Academy 45. So Archimandrite Savva became rector of the Academy, but remained in his new position for about a year and a half: in September 1862, he was appointed vicar of the Moscow Metropolitan (later Archbishop of Tver). The rector's position became vacant again. Now Metropolitan Philaret was already directly standing for Archpriest Gorsky. Apparently the bishop was convinced of this by the governor of the Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev), the metropolitan’s confessor. The governor asked the saint: “Why don’t you want to appoint Gorsky?” “He is a white priest, not a monk,” answered the saint. “How white is he? He is gray and now may be inclined to be black; and it’s easier for you to elect a permanent rector than to worry about filling this important position again” 46. After this conversation, the Metropolitan finally decided to appoint Gorsky as rector. Even before the appointment of Archimandrite Sava as bishop, Saint Philaret wrote to the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod A.P. Akhmatov: “If Savva’s election had been confirmed, then Professor Archpriest could have been appointed rector of the Academy. A. Gorsky, worthy of this in terms of his scholarship, long-term service and moral dignity. Not being a monk, he, like a monk, devotes himself entirely to spiritual learning and the fulfillment of academic duties, without being entertained by anything extraneous” 47. When Archimandrite Savva, already appointed Bishop of Mozhaisk, came to Metropolitan Philaret and learned about his promotion, the bishop asked him: “Who do you recommend to take your place?” Father Savva named the rectors of the Moscow and Bethany Seminaries and the inspector of the Academy. “Why don’t you recommend Archpriest Gorsky?” - “Lord! Is this really possible? – Archimandrite Savva asked in amazement. “Why not?” “In that case, this will be the best choice. Father Archpriest Gorsky will be the most worthy and most durable leader for the Academy. But why didn’t you deign to appoint him instead of me, after Archimandrite Sergius?” “It was not the time then,” answered Metropolitan Philaret 48 . And the inconvenience that the rector archpriest in service had to become higher than the archimandrite inspector was eliminated by awarding a miter to Father Alexander, this idea was instilled in the metropolitan by Archimandrite Savva 49 . The metropolitan's word mattered in the Synod, and Gorsky was appointed rector of the Moscow Theological Academy on October 23, 1862. Notifying Archpriest Alexander about this, the Moscow saint wrote to him: “Accept the position of rector with obedience. I believe that you will also need to accept the chair of theological sciences. Consider other consequences of the change taking place and tell me your thoughts. I hope that you will act according to the rules of holy obedience, and the Lord will bless your obedience with the fruits of goodness and peace” 50. Thus, with the blessing and support of St. Philaret, Archpriest Gorsky became the first rector of the Academy from the white clergy in the history of the Russian Theological School. The appointment of Archpriest Gorsky as rector was received at the Academy and beyond its walls, not without surprise, but with great sympathy. Everyone had high hopes for the personality of Father Alexander: they thought that he would raise the authority of the rector’s position at the Academy, support the department of theology, be a good leader for students, and become the guardian of Orthodoxy, giving society and the Church new champions of Christianity. After this important event, another thing happened in the life of Archpriest Gorsky: Metropolitan Philaret made an attempt to persuade him to accept monasticism. In mid-January 1863, the saint instructed the abbot of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev), to negotiate with Gorsky about his acceptance of the abbotship of the Moscow Epiphany Monastery, with entry into monasticism, retention of the position of rector of the Academy and the promise of an early elevation to the rank of bishop. Gorsky was embarrassed by such a proposal, and these are the thoughts he left in a special note written on this occasion: “Is a change of title necessary for my present ministry? It seems not. Or do they want to transfer to another field of action? But doesn’t the Academy open things up enough for zeal? Isn’t it useful for the church to serve as a teacher at a higher theological school? Shouldn’t the church have support for itself in the Academy, taking advantage of the conscientious efforts of the scientific experience of its members? Of course, I cannot boast that I can promise a good worker in this field of service. But maybe God will allow me to do something when I go deeper into my present situation and become more closely acquainted with the field of my new science. Will my strength change me? I already feel that such work should have been undertaken much earlier than my present years.”51 But the trials of Father Alexander did not end there. In Moscow, at the Divine Liturgy on February 7, 1862, Archpriest Gorsky concelebrated with Metropolitan Philaret. Here he again heard a repetition of the saint’s desire for monasticism, which was expressed to him through Archimandrite Anthony in the Lavra. Wanting to know God’s will for this, Father Alexander immediately prayed and opened the book of the New Testament. The Gospel of Mark was revealed to him: “Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all. And he took the child, placed him in the midst of them, and, embracing him, said to them: whoever receives one of these children in My name receives Me; but whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me” (Mark 9:35–37). In these words of Holy Scripture, Gorsky saw a definition of God’s will for himself: “Not to desire the highest position in society, but to be the last of all and the servant of all” 52. During the rectorship of Archpriest Gorsky in 1864, the fiftieth anniversary of the reformed Academy was widely celebrated, the same Academy to which Gorsky gave his entire life without a trace. Reviewing what has been done over this considerable period of half a century, Metropolitan Philaret noted with satisfaction the significant influence of the Academy on the clergy of Moscow in a report on the Moscow diocese for 1863: “The clergy of the capital, made up partly of those who received an academic education... significantly excels over the other clergy of the diocese both in education and moral character... and is accompanied by a corresponding influence on parishioners" 53. In another document, petitioning for support and awards for the Academy in connection with its anniversary and characterizing its achievements, Metropolitan Philaret speaks of its high dignity, as well as the devotion of the professors of his native Academy. “I would be unfair,” he points out, “if I asked the Moscow Academy for less than what was granted to the St. Petersburg Academy in such a case. I will say modestly if I say that the dignity of the Moscow Academy is in no way lower in scientific and moral terms in the Orthodox direction... An honorable feature of the Academy’s mentorship, by the way, is that they, with meager content, do not transfer to another most profitable service, even by invitation” 54. A few months after the anniversary of the Academy, on February 3, 1865, at the request of Metropolitan Philaret “for attention to theological and historical works and their scientific merit,” Archpriest A.V. Gorsky was elevated to the degree of Doctor of Theology 55. In turn, Archpriest A.V. Gorsky loved and respected Saint Philaret, revered him: “our saint,” “merciful saint,” “lord”—that was the only way he called the venerable hierarch 56. On August 5, 1867, the Russian Church solemnly celebrated the 50th anniversary of St. Philaret’s service as a bishop. In the churches of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, festive services were performed by ten bishops who arrived for the celebration, co-served by more than thirty archimandrites. Also present were numerous deputies from various dioceses and educational institutions from the white clergy. On this day, people prayed for the hero of the day not only in the Lavra, but in all corners of great Russia; they prayed in Orthodox churches in Europe, Asia and Africa - so great was the authority of the Moscow saint. Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy Archpriest A.V. Gorsky addressed the great hierarch with a touching word: “...Your discerning gaze was given the opportunity to survey the first experiences of the workers at the Academy, and to direct their aspirations more accurately to the goals of spiritual education. And from that time until now, with a vigilant gaze You have been following all the movements of thought in the field of higher teaching, and giving strength to the weak and prosperity to the good. Under your protection, wisdom, obedient to faith, has flourished and is blooming here; under Your supervision, in theology lessons, the pure truth of Christ was always preached - there was no hesitation, there was no it, but it was always firm... The Lord revealed to you the language of images and the canopy of the Old Testament world, in which history itself was a prophecy; The depth of the apostolic knowledge of God is also available to you. But as the shepherd of the flock of Christ, You wanted, first of all, that the treasures of saving teaching be open to everyone. It is primarily through your feat that the Word of God becomes accessible to the simple minds and hearts of the Russian people... Blessed is God, who gave us such a High Priest, Blessed is God, who rewarded Him with the blessing of longevity in the high service of the Church...” 57 After his anniversary, Saint Philaret lived only a few months. His bodily strength was melting away. The saint himself predicted his death. On September 17, 1867, he said to his confessor, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev): “I just had a dream, and I was told: take care of the 19th... I didn’t see a dream: my parent appeared to me and told me those words. I think from now on, every nineteenth day I will receive Holy Communion.”58 And then October 19, 1867 came, the saint celebrated his last Liturgy and, having received the Holy Mysteries of Christ, passed away into eternity a few hours later. The Moscow flock was orphaned, and the entire Russian Church was orphaned along with it. The burial of the saint was truly a solemn procession of his deeds following him. And it is unlikely that a funeral service similar to the funeral service that took place in the Kremlin, in the Chudov Monastery on November 25, 1867, will be repeated. During the funeral Liturgy, the body of the deceased archpastor “was brought from the church meal into the interior of the Church itself. The Wonderworker Alexy - in his silver shrine, and in the cypress coffin the newly deceased ascetic, who occupied his pulpit for about half a century - what a touching rapprochement! 59 Instead of a sacramental verse, the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest A.V. Gorsky, himself orphaned by the loss of his beloved father and ruler, uttered a touching word in praise of his blessed teacher, whose tireless exploits he compared with the exploits of the Apostle of Languages, for like him he tried to be everything to everyone. Filled with sadness, but not devoid of Christian hope, the words of the learned shepherd were addressed to all those grieving for the deceased saint: “...The Lamp of the Church, whose grace-filled light we desired and hoped to still use, has disappeared, listeners. Hidden, but did not disappear. The darkness of death did not completely deprive us of light..." 60 In another place in his extensive speech, Archpriest Gorsky says: "... The doors of his house were always open to everyone who needed a solution to spiritual perplexities, to those wounded in their conscience and seeking peace - and he received everyone and healed them spiritually with fatherly love... He himself, in the cell of Gethsemane, or among the capital, was always simple and strict in his appearance life, always a reverent prayer book was a model of monasticism. But the strict monk did not cease to be an ardent son of the Fatherland common to all, and the shepherd of the flock of Christ was a man of state... In all the joys and sorrows of the Royal House he took the deepest part, with prayer in his heart, with a spiritual word... Thus, spending day and night in work and deeds, tirelessly, tirelessly, always keeping in mind the will of the Lord and not personal benefit, but the good of the church, state, society, we believe, he could say, ending his earthly career: I fought a good fight... We cannot help but cry over the deprivation of a godly leader and shepherd, but forgetting the grief for ourselves, we merge all tears and petitions into one prayer: join him to the church of the firstborn in heaven, who are written in the spirit, and those who are righteous in the Spirit" 61. Archpriest Gorsky himself briefly outlived Saint Philaret. His immense service to science affected his already weak health. In the last months of his life, Archpriest Alexander described his difficult condition in his diary 62, and shortly before his death, as if feeling it, he said: “I’ve had enough, I’ve served” 63. These heartfelt words conceal both a modest expression of a sense of duty fulfilled and an expression of gratitude to the Creator. Until his last breath, the tireless worker of science continued his ascetic activity, conducting classes in his apartment. Imagine a picture that is more family than school. At a small table on one side, on an armchair, was Fr. the rector, on the other three sides there are students on chairs. The old professor, having broken his mighty strength, depressed by illness, with rapid breathing and a faltering voice, but with the same sincerity, actually continued the course of his learned lectures, when he had little left before the end of his life itself. The students listened attentively, now more than before, to the dying lessons of this fiery zealot of science, but with bated breath they noticed his fading 64 . The date came October 11, 1875. Archpriest Alexander Gorsky, guided by the Holy Mysteries of Christ, peacefully departed to the Lord. The last dying words of the deceased were: “I want to go home soon” 65. The burial of the body of Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky took place on October 14, 1875. The grave was prepared in the same academic student cemetery near the Smolensk Church, which the deceased rector had so carefully arranged several years before his death. Here, under the shade of a spreading poplar, the late Father Alexander often sat, reflecting on the lofty, incomprehensible secrets of the afterlife. Here, mourned by many prayers and tears, the grave of the ever-memorable worker of science was received. Thus the grateful Academy saw off its great son on his last journey. Even then, contemporaries noted the spiritual closeness of the late rector with St. Philaret. Panegyrists over the tomb of Archpriest Gorsky directly said that: “The spirit of the great hierarch overshadowed the thoughts and actions in God of our deceased father and was for him an ever-present, worthy of imitation, example and leader” 66 . This strong connection, based on love for God, the Church and people, between Saint Philaret and Archpriest Alexander Gorsky, firmly preserved throughout their earthly lives, almost mystically passed into eternal life. A visible expression of this connection is the significant fact: 40 days after the death of Archpriest Gorsky falls on November 19 - the day of the repose of St. Philaret. The responses to the death of the blessed ascetics, proclaimed by the best representatives of their era, are also remarkable. Here are the words of I.S. Aksakov: “Metropolitan Philaret passed away... The power, the great, moral, social power, in which the entire Russian world heard and felt its own power, was abolished - a power that was not created from the outside, generated by the help of the personal spirit, which grew on church folk soil. The mass of glory with which the church adorned itself and the people were consoled collapsed... The lamp that for half a century shone for the whole of Russia without becoming scarce or dimming went out... The never-ending eye of thought was closed" 67 . When Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky died, his student Professor N.P. Gilyarov-Platonov said: “It is necessary to recreate the entire spiritual personality of the deceased, a colossal personality, we would say, if the epithet “colossality” could befit the moral height, the height of humility, the fulfillment of duty to the point of self-forgetfulness. This ascetic professor, this lay monk, who combined sociable humanity and a willingness to serve everyone with his knowledge and labors with an ascetic life, was an extraordinary phenomenon. It is unlikely to happen again." 68 More than a century has already passed since the time when two great ascetics departed for the heavenly world. If anyone, then, of course, it is to Saint Philaret and Archpriest Alexander of Gorsky that the words of the Revelation of John can be learned: “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord... to her, says the Spirit, let them rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them” (Rev. 14:13). Florovsky G. Ways of Russian theology. Paris, 1937. P. 166. Melkov A.S. Metropolitan Philaret and Moscow Theological Schools // Collection of materials on the results of research activities of young scientists in the fields of humanities, natural and technical sciences in 2003. M., 2004. P. 23. Quote by: Popov S. Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest. A.V. Gorsky. Sergiev Posad, 1897. pp. 160–161. Diary of A.V. Gorsky / With approx. prot. S. Smirnova. M., 1885. pp. 50–52. See: Melkov A.S. Metropolitan Philaret and Moscow Theological Schools // Collection of materials on the results of research activities of young scientists in the fields of humanities, natural and technical sciences in 2003. M., 2004. Melkov A.S. Church historian Archpriest A.V. Gorsky: teacher, clergyman, scientist. M., 2004. (Typescript). P. 70. Gorsky A.V. Kirill II, Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia // Ibid. 1843. Part 1. pp. 415–432. Gorsky A.V. Saint Peter, Metropolitan of Kiev, and his Confession of Faith // Ibid. 1844. Part 2. pp. 89–128. Gorsky A.V. Saint Alexy, Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia // Ibid. 1848. Part 6. pp. 89–128. In memory of deceased mentors. Sergiev Posad, 1914. P. 315. See: Rimsky S.V. The Russian Church in the era of great reforms. M., 1999. pp. 291–294, 298–300. Evseev E.I. Antiquities. Proceedings of the Slavic Commission of the Imperial Moscow Archaeological Society. 1902. T. 3. P. 64. Barsukov N.P. Life and works of M.P. Weather. St. Petersburg, 1888. T. 1. P. 254. Diary of A.V. Gorsky "With approx. prot. S. Smirnova. M., 1885. pp. 43–44 See: Florovsky G. Decree. op. pp. 164–185, 187–189, 191–193, 202–210, 212–220, 222–225, 228–230, 333–335. OR RSL, f. 231/I, room 44, unit. hr. 45, l. 7 rev. OR RSL, f. 231/I, room 44, unit. hr. 47, l.18–18 vol. Soloviev S.M. My notes for my children, and if possible, then for others // Bulletin of Europe. St. Petersburg, 1907. No. 3. P. 76. Lebedev A.P. “Great and Small...”: Studies on the history of the Russian Church and the development of church historical science. St. Petersburg, 2005. P. 159. Melkov A. Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy A.V. Gorsky and his contribution to the development of Russian church historical science // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 2002. No. 12. P. 47. Correspondence of the professor of the Moscow Theological Academy P.S. Kazansky with A.N. Bakhmeeva // At the Trinity at the Academy, 1814–1914: Anniversary collection of historical materials / Published by former students of the Moscow Theological Academy. M., 1914. P. 554. Filaret (Drozdov), Metropolitan. Letters to the late Archbishop of Tver Alexy. 1843–1867. M., 1883. pp. 45–46. Gorsky A.V. Diary / Ed. S.K. Smirnova // Additions to the edition of the works of the holy fathers in Russian translation. 1884. T. 34. P. 315, 319, 330. Gorsky A.V., Nevostruev K.I. Description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library. Dept. 1. Holy Scripture. M., 1855. An episode from the history of the description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library // Theological Bulletin. 1900. No. 11. P. 485. For a draft version, see: OR RSL, f. 78. room 9, unit. hr. 2; Apology “Descriptions of Slavic manuscripts of the Synodal Library” and an accusatory word against Father John (now the rector of the Kazan Theological Academy) // Theological Bulletin. 1900. No. 11. pp. 496–515. Quote from: Episode from the history of the description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library // Theological Bulletin. 1900. No. 11. P. 490. Popov S. Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy Archpriest A.V. Gorsky // Theological Bulletin. No. 5. 1896. P. 261. Melkov A. Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy A.V. Gorsky and his contribution to the development of Russian church historical science // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 2002. No. 12. P. 48. Quote by: Popov S. Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy Archpriest A.V. Gorsky // Theological Bulletin. 1896. No. 5. P. 261. For a draft copy of the petition, see: OR RSL, f. 78, building 1, unit. hr. 2, l. 1. To the biography of the Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, A.V. Gorsky // Readings at the Society of Russian History and Antiquities. 1875. No. 3. pp. 156–157. OR RSL, f. 78, room 20, unit. hr. 47, l. 1–1 vol. OR RSL, f. 78, room 22, unit. hr. 1, l. 3. A.V. Gorsky - to Bishop Leonid (Krasnopevky) dated March 9, 1860. To the biography of the Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, A.V. Gorsky // Readings at the Society of Russian History and Antiquities. 1875. No. 3. P. 157. Memoirs of P.S. Kazansky about A.V. Gorsky // Theological Bulletin. 1900. No. 11. P. 556.; In memory of the rector of Moscow. Spirit. Academy, Doctor of Theology, Archpriest A.V. Gorsky // Orthodox Review. 1875. No. 12. P. 4. Irkutsk Diocesan Gazette. 1879. No. 30. Barsukov I. Innokenty, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. M., 1883. pp. 221–220. To the biography of the Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, A.V. Gorsky // Readings at the Society of Russian History and Antiquities. 1875. No. 3. P. 158. Tolstoy D.N. Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky // Russian Archive. 1875. T. 3. P. 474. Filaret (Drozdov), Metropolitan. A collection of opinions and reviews on educational and church-state issues. M., 1887. T. 5. Book. 1. pp. 3–4. Right there. M., 1886. T. 4. P. 574. Smirnov S. Alexander Vasilievich Gorsky // Theological Bulletin. 1900. No. 11. P. 431. Filaret (Drozdov), Metropolitan. A collection of opinions and reviews on educational and church-state issues. M., 1887. T. 5. Book. 1. pp. 323–324. Savva (Tikhomirov), archbishop. Decree. op. 1899. T. 2. pp. 795–796. Right there. 1901. T. 3. P. 33; Filaret (Drozdov), Metropolitan. A collection of opinions and reviews on educational and church-state issues. M., 1887. T. 5. Book. 1. pp. 354–355. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to A.V. Gorsky // Additions to the edition of the works of the holy fathers in Russian translation. 1882. Part 29. P. 551. Quote by: Popov S. Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy Archpriest A.V. Gorsky // Theological Bulletin. 1896. No. 7. P. 53. Popov S. Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest. A.V. Gorsky. Sergiev Posad, 1897. P. 98. Sushkov N.V. Notes on the life and times of St. Philaret, Metropolitan. Moscow. M., 1868. P. 139. Filaret (Drozdov), Metropolitan. A collection of opinions and reviews on educational and church-state issues. M., 1887. T. 5. Book. 2. P. 624. Savva (Tikhomirov), archbishop. Decree. op. 1901. T. 3. P. 203, 210–11, 219–221, 230–231. Popov S. Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy Archpriest A.V. Gorsky // Theological Bulletin. 1896. No. 12. P. 391. Gorsky A.V., prot. Speech delivered on the occasion of Metropolitan Philaret’s fiftieth year of episcopal service // Orthodox Review. 1867. No. 9. pp. 12–13. From the memoirs of Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev) // St. Philaret (Drozdov): Selected works, letters, memories. M., 2003. P. 899. From the memoirs of A.N. Muravyova // Ibid. P. 907. Gorsky A.V., prot. Word before the funeral service of Metropolitan Philaret // Orthodox Review. 1867. No. 11. P. 8 Excerpts from the diary of A.V. Gorsky // At the Trinity at the Academy, 1814–1914: Anniversary collection of historical materials “Published by former students of the Moscow Theological Academy. M., 1914. S. 486–492. Quote by: Smirnov S. Alexander Vasilievich Gorsky // Theological Bulletin. 1900. No. 11. P. 440. Troitsky N. Memories of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky † 1875 Oct. 11th day // Readings at the Moscow Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment. 1881. T. 3. pp. 444–445. In memory of the rector of Moscow. Spirit. Academy, Doctor of Theology, Archpriest A.V. Gorsky // Orthodox Review. 1875. No. 12. P. 6 Quote by: Popov S. Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy Archpriest A.V. Gorsky // Theological Bulletin. 1896. No. 12. P. 405. Response from I.S. Aksakov on the death of St. Philaret // St. Philaret (Drozdov): Selected works, letters, memories. M., 2003. P. 900. Gilyarov-Platonov N.P. Collected works. St. Petersburg, 1899. T. 2. P. 464.