Глава восемнадцатая. Конец света 1836–1837

Superstitious people waited for the year 1836 with fear. Once again, some charlatans made a fortune and predicted the end of the world this year. There were especially many such predictions in the works of European mystics, for example, Johann Albrecht Bengel. It is no coincidence that Gogol at this time wrote the comedy “The Inspector General,” which ends with a grotesque depiction of the end of the world - the famous silent scene. It was perceived at the beginning of 1836, when Gogol first read The Inspector General to his friends, with precisely this apocalyptic connotation. “It always seemed to me more likely that the fortune-telling about 1836 would not come true than that it would come true,” St. Philaret wrote to Governor Anthony. - For if the apostles were not given the property of understanding times and years, then it is surprising that this should be the property of our fortune-telling and calculations. But now that 1836 has arrived, when the years preceding it did not correspond to fortune-telling, it does not seem to me that one can slumber carelessly. It seems to me that our affairs are not leading to a golden age.” Filaret celebrated this year in St. Petersburg. In another letter to Anthony, he reported with alarm: “Troubles are becoming more frequent. You read in the news reports how on the Sunday of the Last Judgment more than a hundred people burned in a wooden entertainment building in St. Petersburg. On the eve of the same day, the same buffoon, two buildings in Moscow also burned down, but, thank God, without people.” This meant a fire in Leman's booth on February 1, the last Sunday before the ritual for Lent, which is called the week of the Last Judgment. In this fire, 126 people burned alive. Further: “In Serpukhov, a significant part of the convent burned down, only the churches were not affected by the imminent danger. You have undoubtedly heard about the Moscow wolf.” The Moscow wolf was the name given to a hyena that escaped from the zoo and, while running around the Mother See, bit a lot of people. But in the tone of Filaret’s letters one can see the fear that the predictions will come true, that the world is on the brink of the Last Judgment. Here is the March letter: “You probably heard that in England they saw a cavalry army in the air. Recently, they say, there was a terrible earthquake in Hungary, and one very large lake boiled terribly and emitted steam or smoke. After an unusually cold winter, will an unusually early spring bring something to us? The multiplication of wolves near Smolensk is said to be very far from normal. Pray that the Lord will deliver us from all sorrow, anger and need.” At that time, there was a “struggle for dominance” in the Synod - this is what Nikolai Semenovich Leskov called his story dedicated to these events. This fight was launched by Chief Prosecutor Stefan Dmitrievich Nechaev, who took this post in 1833. Before him, after Golitsyn, from 1817 the chief prosecutor was Prince Pyotr Sergeevich Meshchersky. Under him, in the Synod, as Leskov said, “silence, smoothness and God’s grace were spread out in every corner,” “silence and order were strictly observed, almost like during a public church service.” With the arrival of Nechaev, everything changed dramatically. In his own way, he was an extraordinary person. He put things in order in the offices, carried out audits in the spiritual consistories, began to develop a charter for the spiritual consistories, established control over the finances of the Synod, did a lot to improve theological educational institutions and the position of the white clergy, and prepared the annexation of the Uniates to the Orthodox Church. As a historian, Stefan Dmitrievich became famous for his work in researching the history of the Battle of Kulikovo, did a lot to perpetuate the memory of the heroes of this battle, it was through his efforts that a majestic column in the form of a bell tower, crowned with a golden-domed dome and a cross, was erected on the Kulikovo field. The arrival of the new chief prosecutor coincided with the move of the Synod to the building on Senate Square, the creation of the great architect Karl Ivanovich Rossi. Previously, Nechaev behaved very respectfully towards Filaret, but now for some reason he decided to show that the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod is a much more important figure than the metropolitans, including both St. Petersburg and Moscow. By that time, Filaret was already considered a pillar in the Synod, and soon a gendarmerie denunciation appeared against him, believed to have been organized by the chief prosecutor himself. The Bishop sent a letter of justification to the sovereign and unexpectedly aroused the tsar’s dissatisfaction precisely because he was justifying himself. The next blow came against Andrei Nikolaevich Muravyov, who, after the publication of his “Travels to the Holy Places of the East,” was revered as a pious Orthodox writer. In addition, appointed to the Synod by the sovereign and promoted in every possible way by Filaret, Muravyov eventually promised to become chief prosecutor himself, and Nechaev needed to bring down his opponent. Denunciations began to come in against Andrei Nikolaevich. In the winter of 1836, while in St. Petersburg, Saint Philaret felt a cooling towards him in society, caused by the intrigues of the chief prosecutor. I tried not to notice what was happening. On January 18, at the Imperial Academy of Sciences, he read a note “On Russian rhetoric of the 11th century,” which to this day is included in all anthologies on rhetoric. The Chief Prosecutor's struggle for supremacy in the Synod suddenly ended when Nechaev's wife became very ill, she was sent to the Crimea for treatment, she became worse there, Stefan Dmitrievich was forced to leave his affairs and go to his wife, to be with her while she was dying, and his position on May 25, 1836 was transferred to a fellow Minister of Public Education, Count Nikolai Alexandrovich Protasov. - Now the end of the world will come! - said the synodals, because the thirty-seven-year-old Life Hussar Colonel Protasov had a reputation as a “shuffle and dancer.” There is a legend that Protasov, having received the chief prosecutor’s appointment, came to Adjutant General Chicherin and said: - Congratulate me! I am a minister, I am a bishop, I am the devil knows what! Kiev Metropolitan Filaret (Amphitheaters), having learned about this, wittily remarked: -Only the latter is true. Filaret was absent from St. Petersburg. If he had been in the city, perhaps he would have been able to achieve Muravyov’s appointment. “Although the removal of Nechaev could have been pleasing to Filaret, who did not forget the grievances and, of course, remembered how Nechaev first slandered him through the gendarmes, and then brought him into disfavor with the sovereign by cunning, but as for the request for the appointment of a hussar completely unsuitable for synod affairs, it is very difficult to allow Filaret to agree to this,” writes Leskov. Protasov's appointment was facilitated by the empress, who really liked him. But the St. Petersburg Metropolitan Seraphim (Glagolevsky) did not dare to interfere, because at more than seventy years old he had become very timid. Regarding Protasov’s attitude towards Filaret, there is evidence from Muravyov that he “did not have power of attorney for him due to old slander about his imaginary mysticism and, most strangely, about Protestantism, when all of Russia studied Orthodoxy according to his only catechism.” The trail of long-standing patronage of Philaret from the extravagant Golitsyn, who bred Protestants in Rus', continued to follow the Metropolitan of Moscow. Meanwhile, Leskov proves that Muravyov himself was involved in writing a note to the sovereign on behalf of the Synod with a request to appoint Protasov instead of Nechaev, and thus it turns out that Filaret’s friend contributed to the appointment of a man to the post of chief prosecutor who would soon attack the Moscow bishop with a new wave of attacks. “Having brought the church “under the hussar,” he saw that he had made a mistake, and, having received what he could from Protasov, he left for distant countries, but not with the empty goals of an ordinary tourist, but with serious concern to enlighten Rome about Eastern Orthodoxy and explain to the Russians the inconsistency of Roman Catholicism...” writes Leskov about Muravyov. And while in St. Petersburg passions were boiling over the new chief prosecutor's appointment, in Moscow Metropolitan Philaret enjoyed friendship with his former rival and almost enemy - Archimandrite Photius (Spassky). From now on they became friends, and Philaret took special pleasure in welcoming Photius and his spiritual daughter Anna Alekseevna Orlova-Chesmenskaya as guests. Perhaps there were guests in Klin, where, during the consecration of the Cathedral Church of the Most Holy Trinity, Moscow Chrysostom delivered another sermon on the need to visit churches. As you can see, the voices of those who, as we often hear now, did not stop saying that you can pray in your soul and at home, but it is not necessary to go to churches. “But we can say,” said Philaret, “that the first church of God on earth was paradise itself, in which God graciously appeared to man, in which man, sanctified by the image of God, was an immaculate priest, in which the tree of life was a visible, mysterious shrine; because from this tree man mysteriously tasted the incorruptible life, just as we now, at the Lord’s table, from the fruit of the wheat and the vine, mysteriously and essentially taste the immortal life of the Divine Body and Blood of Christ. Since man, through the Fall, destroyed the image of God in himself and ceased to be the living church of God, the need for a visible, educational, secret church of God has obviously become more palpable, and sacred history shows that as much as man worked to satisfy this need, God Himself contributed even more to it... The founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ himself, not only visited the Temple of Jerusalem, but also defended its dignity against insult when he expelled those who were selling and buying from it; this, no doubt, is not in order to support the church, which He Himself predicted would soon fall, but in order to preserve in Christianity the idea of ​​the holiness of the church of God and the reverence due to it. And then - about Christian churches: – Their initial model was, without a doubt, that Great Upper Room (Luke 22:12), in which the Lord established and for the first time performed the sacrament of His Body and Blood. He Himself appointed it for this purpose and, as the Supreme Bishop, consecrated it... Visit the church of God diligently; abide in it reverently, participate here in prayers and praises from the heart; listen carefully to the proclaimed Word of God, not so that you only hear and temporarily occupy your curiosity, but so that you apply what you hear to your heart, retain it in memory, renew it in meditation, turn it into work and life... The Church does not require that you all abandon your household chores; but he wants everything to put your spiritual affairs in order... But if laziness and sleep do not allow you to attend the morning church service on a holiday, an inappropriate worldly matter does not allow you to attend the daytime service, and again worldly fun or laziness and habit to the evening service: I leave it to your conscience to judge whether these are Christian customs! The guests probably also listened to Philaret’s sermon in the Chudov Monastery about the cumbersomeness of the vain world, which you need to get rid of if you want to follow Christ: – If, without deceiving yourself, you want to be saved, then be a faithful follower of Christ along the path of His true faith and His commandments, and as far as possible leave behind everything that cannot or does not want to go with you along the narrow, but only saving path. And sending his dear guests to the Lavra, he wrote to Anthony: “Receive, Father Viceroy, visitors, Countess Anna Alekseevna and Fr. Archimandrite Photius, with all attention. Take O. Archimandrite to my cells or where it is more peaceful for him to rest. Fulfill the sacred thing you wish. By the way, Fr. The archimandrite wishes to listen to the memorial service for Schemamonk Mikhail. Offer them a treat from our zeal.” In July, an event took place that had been prepared for a long time by the wise Philaret, who knew that people should not be rushed into accepting monasticism. Margarita Tuchkova finally waited for the day when she was destined to part with her name. Generally speaking, the beautiful name Margaret is only the first component of the name of the Antiochian martyr, whose full name was Marina Margaret, which means “pearl of the sea.” Now Margarita had to disappear so that the nun Melania, which means “black” in Greek, would appear in her place. The tonsure was performed at the Trinity-Sergius Lavra by Viceroy Anthony, and Philaret was present as the successor of the new nun. From now on, his letters to her will begin with the words: “Blessing and peace from the Lord to the leader of the hostels, Melania, and to those who strive in the obedience of love.” In 1836, it was ten years since the coronation of Emperor Nicholas I, and on this day, August 22, welcoming the sovereign to Moscow, who came to the Mother See for this celebration, Saint Philaret pronounced a word in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin, in which he outlined with great delight the successes of the first years of Nicholas’s reign: - Look. External enemies have been defeated and tamed. Domestic enemies have been destroyed. Alliances that are especially favorable to the peace of kings and peoples are especially strengthened. With rare royal art, enemies are transformed into friends. The power of disasters, which it was not in human power to prevent and avert, was more than once powerfully and beneficially countered by the personal presence of the most pious emperor. The military forces are continuously maintained and maintained under vigilant care in a development consistent with the dignity and security of the state; especially the sea ones, are not only enlarged, but, I don’t know if I should say, resurrected by the gaze of the royal life-giving gaze. Education, the arts, and industry are encouraged in various ways. Legislation and justice received their special crown in the systematic composition of laws. Humane institutions for education, healing, and charity have increased in number and flourish under the never-setting sun of direct royal charity. Every need, poverty, misfortune, public and private, continually found and finds open the beneficent hand of the king. According to the needs of the holy Church, her shepherds, her churches, her monasteries have been partly multiplied, partly blessed. In areas where in previous unfortunate times Eastern piety was constrained by the violence of the West, the own eye of the most pious sovereign saw the disrepair of the rightly glorious churches, and his special will clothed them with decent splendor... These are some parts of the high work in the crown of the royal decade! It shines majestically and sweetly into the eye of the Russian heart; and not only at the present time, but also for the future, reflects the light of good hopes. No one has yet received such high praise from the lips of Saint Philaret. To suspect him of insincerity is absurd; from previous sermons it is clear that he could utter words about the need for obedience to the king, could compare the sovereign with the biblical kings and bypass the exact mention of certain acts of the emperor. But he deliberately dwells on what God’s anointed has done “during the reporting period.” Directly, one might say, point by point he wants to emphasize Nikolai’s merits. In the fall of 1836, Russia was excited by the publication in the Moscow magazine “Telescope” of the first “Philosophical Letter” of Pyotr Yakovlevich Chaadaev, in which he left no stone unturned in Russian history, and also looked very skeptically at the religious Christian feelings of Russians: “First wild barbarism, then crude superstition, then foreign domination, cruel and humiliating, the spirit of which the national government subsequently inherited - this is the sad story of our youth. The times of overflowing activity, the seething play of the moral forces of the people - we had nothing like that. The era of our social life corresponding to this age was filled with a dull and gloomy existence without strength, without energy, animated only by atrocities and softened only by slavery. No enchanting memories, no captivating images in the memory, no effective instructions in the national tradition. Look around all the centuries we have lived, all the spaces we have occupied, and you will not find a single riveting memory, not a single venerable monument that would powerfully speak about the past and paint it vividly and picturesquely. We live only in the most limited present without a past and without a future, amid flat stagnation. And if we sometimes worry, it is not in anticipation or wishing for some common good, but in the childish frivolity of a baby, when he reaches out and stretches out his hands to the rattle that the nurse shows him.” “Peoples are moral beings, just like individuals. They are raised by centuries, just as people are raised by years. It can be said about us that we constitute, as it were, an exception among nations. We belong to those of them who, as it were, are not part of the human race, but exist only to teach a great lesson to the world.” It's funny that our first Westerner was a man with such a very Eastern surname. Chaadai (otherwise Chagatai, Jaghatai) is the second son of Genghis Khan. From him came the Chaadaev or Chagatai tribe, who created their own state in Central Asia. There was a Chagatai language. And the most famous chaadai was Tamerlane. Chaadaev split society, giving two directions of thoughts and preferences. Those who shared the points of view of Pyotr Yakovlevich subsequently became Westerners, and those who fiercely criticized him became Slavophiles. He very sharply distinguished between Russia, which he cursed, and the West, which he adored: “The experience of times does not exist for us. Centuries and generations have passed fruitlessly for us. Looking at us, we can say that in relation to us the universal law of humanity has been reduced to nothing. Alone in the world, we gave nothing to the world, took nothing from the world, we did not contribute a single thought to the mass of human ideas, we did not contribute in any way to the forward movement of the human mind, and we distorted everything that we got from this movement. From the very first moments of our social existence, nothing suitable for the common good of people has come from us, not a single useful thought has sprouted in the barren soil of our homeland, not a single great truth has been brought forward from our midst; We did not give ourselves the trouble to create anything in the realm of imagination, and from what was created by the imagination of others, we borrowed only deceptive appearances and useless luxury.” While the West was rapidly moving towards the degeneration of Christianity, in Russia it held on, largely thanks to such pillars of the Orthodox Church as Filaret of Moscow. But Chaadaev expressed an extremely opposite opinion on this matter: “Contrary to the name of Christians that we bore, at the very time when Christianity marched majestically along the path indicated by its divine founder, and carried away generations, we did not move. The whole world was being rebuilt anew, but nothing was being created for us: we still huddled in our huts made of logs and straw. In a word, the new destinies of the human race were not accomplished for us. Although we are Christians, the fruits of Christianity did not ripen for us.” The scandal with this publication, naturally, could not pass by St. Philaret. He gave a strict and clear assessment of the “Philosophical Letter”: “The Telescope article, offensive to the Church and to Russia, was shown to me, because, however, I did not have and did not read this magazine. The government took notice of this madness. It’s strange that the university rector omitted it from publication. It seemed to me that this was possible only if I missed it without reading; but some say that he even corrected it. Find and read the Northern Bee sheet from the third day. There is a good antidote to the Telescope article here.” The Emperor was much more straightforward in his assessment of Chaadaev’s article: “A mixture of impudent nonsense, worthy of a madman.” "Telescope" was closed, its publisher Nikolai Ivanovich Nadezhdin was exiled, Chaadaev was declared crazy and forced to undergo a compulsory medical examination. There was no controversy. Then everyone saw the glory of Russia and its history, everyone saw themselves as Christians in a better manifestation than Europeans, and most people considered it absurd to argue with someone who said that Russia has no history, that we are a dacian and barbaric people, and that our Christianity is ignorant. The controversy will develop gradually in future years. And as an antidote to the “Telescope” article, Filaret called an excerpt from the book of the writer and diplomat, Albanian by nationality, Konstantin Mikhailovich Basili, “Bosporus and New Sketches of Constantinople,” published in Bulgarin’s “Northern Bee.” In this passage, entitled "East and West", the author assessed Western Christianity as based on violence, and Eastern Christianity as driven by love. Moscow Chief of Police Lev Mikhailovich Tsynsky had to take the rap for Chaadaev’s article before the top brass. In his correspondence with the Moscow Governor-General Dmitry Vladimirovich Golitsyn, an interesting letter was preserved. In it, Tsynsky notifies: “After the article published in the XV issue of the Moscow Telescope under the title philosophical letters, the editor has now received an article entitled: “A few words about the philosophical letter published in the XV book of the Telescope.” Presenting this article in a copy at the discretion of Your Excellency, I have the honor to add that since the publication of the Telescope is now prohibited, it is proposed to publish this article in the Moscow Observer. Just now I received information that this entire article has been destroyed and will not be placed in the observer; I have the printed proof sheet. Note: this article, as we hear, was composed by Metropolitan Philaret.” Apparently, a powerful response to Chaadaev was being prepared, but then a decision was made to act more decisively - to declare the author of the “Philosophical Letter” a psycho, and it was stupid to argue with a crazy person. So the anti-Chaadaev article never made it into print. A copy of the proof copy of this article has been preserved, most likely actually written by Moscow Chrysostom. Imitating Chaadaev’s writing style, the author also writes to some unknown addressee. Moreover, unlike the one to whom Chaadaev is addressing, here it is quite possible to see Russia itself as an interlocutor. Here are some key statements from this “Antichaadaev”: “You were surprised, my friend, by the article on philosophical letters, published in No. 15 of the Telescope, you were even offended by it, you involuntarily repeat: are we really so insignificant in comparison with Europe, are we really like adopted children in the common family of humanity? I understand how sad this thought makes you feel; calm down, my friend, this article was not written for you; any transformation of your heart and your soul would be evil: you were already born a true Christian...” “I know how you were seduced by the non-Christian life of the people of that society, which should serve as an example for other states. You resisted temptation, did not get carried away on the path of a life without a goal, and now you yourself see that on the path you have chosen you cannot lose or waste earthly goods; for the path you have chosen is the path on which a person is safe from predation and caresses and along which, over time, all humanity must walk.” “If you have already comprehended the truth once and are following it, then do not think that the truth can be improved; her revelation took place once and forever, and therefore the words: “how many bright rays cut through the darkness that covered all of Europe at that time!” relate only to discoveries concerning the improvement of material life, and not spiritual; for the essence of religion (it has no forms) is the eternally unchanging spirit of light, penetrating all earthly forms. Consequently, we have not lagged behind other enlightened nations in that respect; and paganism still lurks throughout Europe: how many more worshipers of idols, scattered into gold and honors. As for the conventional forms of social life, let the experiments not be performed on us: we can live wisely by the experiences of others; why should we go to extremes: to experience the passions of the heart, like France, to be cooled by the predominance of the mind, like England; let one burn out and the other get cold; one can develop an aneurysm from excessive effort, and the other from excessive fatness can cause paralysis. Russia, with its strong constitution and moderate life, can reach the venerable centuries of existence destined for the peoples.” “If we had not lived with the powerful impressions of times past, we would not have been proud of our name, we would not have been able to overthrow the name of the Mongols, we would have bowed long ago to the power of some Sixtus V or Napoleon, we would have recognized purgatory between hell and heaven, and finally, long ago we would have turned into bigots, following the rule “there is no evil in a secret sin.” Whoever needs such an indulgence will not find it in our Church decrees.” “Our society now really consists of a disagreement of concepts and everything is so because the concepts are passed on to us by differently-minded educators who come from France, England and Germany, because of this our society, which should set an example in everything for other states, is tuned in different ways, and this disorder will not end until we have a sufficient number of mentors of our own, worthy of the respect and trust of parents.” “In this way, other people's concepts confused us with our own. We have put aside the concern for improving everything that is ours, because we have been instilled with love and respect only for the things of others, and this costs us moral humiliation. Our native language is disrespected, our ancient straightforward disposition is often replaced by cunning, the strength of the body is pampered...” “Why are our peaks torn away from their foothills, why do they often live like guests in their homeland, not only speaking, writing, but also thinking not in Russian? Answer me, my friend, these questions - are they true! Answer, does a falcon need peacock feathers in order to also be a bird of God and fulfill its destiny in the fate of all creation?” “When dividing the European single family into Latin and Teutonic, the writer unfairly excluded the Greco-Russian family, which also goes in connection with the rest and, one might say, constitutes the middle between the extremes of blindness and clairvoyance.” “From the voluntary union of Greece and the North, Rus' was born; From the forced union of Rome with the North, the Western Kingdoms were born. Greece and Rome have become obsolete. Rus' is the only heir of Greece, Rome had many heirs. The Christian world is divided into three spiritual dominions to this day; truth in three more forms: in the material form of Catholicism, in the spiritual form of Protestantism, and in the form of the merging of materiality with the spirituality of the Greco-Russian Church.” “Look only at the West, you will not see anything in the East, look continuously at the sky, you will not notice anything on earth. Let’s say that we are “hermits in the world, we didn’t give him anything,” but to not take anything from him is logically unfair, we took from him disrespect for ourselves, if we agree with the writer of the letter.” “While Rus' endured childhood illnesses, unwittingly submitted to the Khan’s idol and meanwhile was a wall protecting the Christian world from the Mohammedan world, Europe at that time learned from the Greeks and from their heirs the sciences and arts. The worldwide material predominance of fallen Rome was again equipped in the Vatican, ostensibly transformed into forms of spiritual predominance; but this was new violence to humanity. This predominance was not the predominance of the word, but the predominance of the sword, only hidden. Russia has survived for the common good - this is its merit.” “We received from dying Greece the holy heritage, the symbol of redemption, and learned the word; we defended it from the invasion of the Koran and did not give it over to the power of the Pope; preserved the immaculate dove that flew from Byzantium to the banks of the Dnieper and fell on Vladimir’s chest.” “The eternal truths conveyed to us in the Slavic language are the same as Europe follows, but why don’t we know it? Our confession does not prohibit, like God did Solomon, from comprehending the mysteries of the universe and improving common life for the good. The Christian religion nowhere needs to be governed by the world through prejudices.” “Religion is one sun, one light for everyone, but its equally beneficial rays do not spread equally across the globe, but according to the general law of the universe. In accordance with the climate of nature, our climate of ideas is colder; With a stronger body, we can have stronger soul strength, and we are not doomed to freeze. Nature has given us the means to warm the body; It is up to us to protect our souls from the cold of evil. With this I wanted to end my letter; but could not resist a few more words to refute the opinion that Russia has neither history nor traditions, does this not mean that it has neither a root, nor a foundation, nor a Russian spirit, has neither a past nor even a cemetery that would remind it of the greatness of its ancestors. You only need to know the history of the Solons to be so unfair. Is it the fault of the chronicle of Russian old life that it is not read? Not earlier than a century did all the truly enlightened kingdoms begin to emerge from the chaos of barbarism. In the 12th century, our Christian world was already thriving peacefully, but what was happening in Western Europe then? The sheep of the western flock, excited by their shepherd, thought of dominance; but it is true that the holy lands were not assigned to them for their flock; faith requires neither blood nor persecution for faith; they do not prove the truth with the sword; The God of words conquers with words. The Holy Sepulcher is not a bone of contention. He is the property of all humanity. In the same way, the supposedly great enterprise had to be decided. We did not take part in it, and we can boast about it. At this time we formed our mind and soul, and that is why not a single kingdom that arose from the Middle Ages will present us with monuments of the 12th century similar to the word of Igor, the letter of Daniel to George Dolgoruky and many other works in the Slavic language even of the 9th and 10th centuries. Do any of the European peoples, except the Scots, have legends and songs similar to ours, who have so much of their own soul, from where these sonorous, incomprehensible in the fullness of feelings, voices of round dances flow; read Kirill Danilov's collection of ancient folk legends and poems. Which Christian people have Nestor? Which people has so much intelligence in proverbs, and aren’t proverbs the fruit of an experienced, long-standing people’s life? It would still remain for you to calculate the natural properties and acquired shortcomings of ours and other enlightened peoples, weigh them and then conclude from them: which of the peoples is more capable of combining material and spiritual power? But this is a new, extensive subject of discussion. It’s quite contrary to the opinion that we are insignificant.” The style of presentation is very similar to Filaret’s. Moreover, the beginning almost parodies the beginning of Chaadaev’s letter. Let us remember that Filaret responded to Pushkin’s “Gift in Vain” with a parody of his poems, but a parody that contained in everything an objection to what was written by Pushkin. In the same way, here, parodying Chaadaev’s manner, the author argues with the creator of the “Philosophical Letter” in everything. So. If we accept that the article “A few words about philosophical writing” was really written by the Moscow Metropolitan, then we must admit that just as Chaadaev is the first Westerner, so St. Philaret is the first Slavophile! Slavofilaret. Translated from Greek: “loving Slavic virtue.” And he’s a reactionary. In the sense in which the human body shows itself to be reactionary by showing any overt reaction to illness. Filaret was the first, without hooting: “Crazy! Atta him!” - went to battle with the slanderer of Russia, so that not by the power of the state machine and not by the power of public squeeze, but by the power of an enlightened mind, he would overcome the power of slander. It is a pity that the article “A few words about philosophical writing” was never published and, instead of polemics, the authorities preferred to choose the path of almost physical elimination of both the slanderer and those who published him. They say there is no need to fan the coals, it is better to trample them secretly and as quickly as possible so that no one sees or smells the smoke. But the smoke came, they smelled it, and the consequences will show themselves in the near future. In the chain between the Decembrists and Herzen, the most important link is Chaadaev. Filaret's article could break this chain. And he was ordered to be silent temporarily. One of the letters to Anthony from that time begins with the words: “How long have I been silent!” But then he explains: I’m sick. It's winter again in St. Petersburg, sickness again. There he always caught a cold and suffered from pain in his ear. I was treated, but as usual, the drugs cured some things and crippled others. You take medicine for a cold, but it causes stomach pain... But far more annoying than the illnesses of St. Petersburg is participation in the work of the Synod. At this time, Moscow Chrysostom falls silent, his inspired sermons do not sound. Until he returns to his dear Moscow. This winter something terrible happened in St. Petersburg. Pushkin was killed. They killed the genius of Russian literature, a man in whom a new development was in full swing towards Russia and Orthodoxy. Together with Filaret, Pushkin became the first Slavophile. Filaret’s answer to Chaadaev remained in vain. But the letter from Alexander Sergeevich, written to Pyotr Yakovlevich on October 19, 1836, became famous: “As for thoughts, you know that I do not agree with you on everything. There is no doubt that the schism (division of churches) separated us from the rest of Europe and that we took no part in any of the great events that shook it, but we had our own special destiny. It was Russia, it was its vast expanses that swallowed up the Mongol invasion. The Tatars did not dare cross our western borders and leave us in the rear. They retreated to their deserts, and Christian civilization was saved. To achieve this goal we had to lead a completely special existence, which, while leaving us Christians, made us, however, completely alien to the Christian world, so that by our martyrdom the energetic development of Catholic Europe was freed from all hindrances. You say that the source from which we drew Christianity was unclean, that Byzantium was worthy of contempt and despised, etc. Ah, my friend, was not Jesus Christ himself born a Jew and was not Jerusalem a byword? Does this make the Gospel any less amazing? From the Greeks we took the gospel and traditions, but not the spirit of childish pettiness and word debate. The morals of Byzantium were never the morals of Kyiv. Our clergy, before Theophan, was worthy of respect, they never stained themselves with the baseness of papism and, of course, would never have caused a reformation at the moment when humanity most needed unity... As for our historical insignificance, I absolutely cannot agree with you. The wars of Oleg and Svyatoslav and even the feuds of appanages - isn’t this the life full of seething fermentation and ardent and aimless activity that characterizes the youth of all peoples? The Tatar invasion is a sad and great spectacle. The awakening of Russia, the development of its power, its movement towards unity (toward Russian unity, of course), both Ivans, the majestic drama that began in Uglich and ended in the Ipatiev Monastery - is all this really not history, but just a pale and half-forgotten dream? And Peter the Great, who alone is the whole story? And Catherine II, who placed Russia on the threshold of Europe? And Alexander, who brought you to Paris? and (hand on heart) don’t you find something significant in the current situation in Russia, something that will amaze the future historian? Do you think that he will put us outside of Europe? Although personally I am heartily attached to the sovereign, I am far from admiring everything that I see around me; As a writer - I am irritated, as a person with prejudices - I am offended - but I swear on my honor that for nothing in the world I would not want to change my fatherland or have a history other than the history of our ancestors, the way God gave it to us.” Pushkin of the 1830s is the one whose “soul was warmed by the fire of Filaret.” He is already a family man, his children are born one after another, and he enters the service. He meets the Minister of Public Education and President of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, Count Sergei Semenovich Uvarov, a reactionary, author of the famous triad “Orthodoxy - autocracy - nationality,” which became the motto of the entire Nicholas era. Pushkin openly declares himself as a Russian patriot with his 1831 poem “To the Slanderers of Russia”: You are formidable in words - try it in deeds! Or an old hero, deceased on his bed, Unable to screw in your Izmail bayonet? Or is the word of the Russian Tsar already powerless? Or is it new for us to argue with Europe? Or is the Russian unaccustomed to victories? Are there not enough of us? Or from Perm to Taurida, From the Finnish cold rocks to the fiery Colchis, To the walls of motionless China, Steel bristles sparkling. The Russian land will not rise?.. What answer did Chaadaev expect from Pushkin after such lines?.. Pushkin writes his majestic "Autumn". He creates “The History of the Pugachev Rebellion,” which is by no means the kind that could later be taught in schools using Soviet textbooks. He creates his Pushkin Russian fairy tales, amazing in their folk sound, and gives “Songs of the Western Slavs,” supposedly a translation of Merimee, but in fact a real Slavic work. And then comes the year 1836, predicted as the end of the world... Clouds are gathering around Pushkin. Does the king want him dead? Excuse me! Those whom he called slanderers of Russia do not want to see his life and further growth. They cannot like the way he ironically speaks about “human rights”, for which they are ready to tear others’ throats - “I don’t value loud rights very much...”. Pushkin goes to church! “In the sad days of Great Lent” he admires the canon of Andrew of Crete: But let me see my sins, O God, Yes, my brother will not accept condemnation from me, And the spirit of humility, patience, love And revive chastity in my heart. He begins to publish his magazine Sovremennik, of which only four volumes will be published, the fifth will be published by his friends as a dedication to the deceased poet. He finishes The Captain's Daughter, his last major work. Pushkin is not going to die: Oh no, I'm not tired of life, I love to live, I want to live... He started the majestic work “The History of Peter the Great.” But the end of the world is getting closer and closer. It will not come in 1836, but on January 27, 1837, on the day of St. John Chrysostom, on the Black River... The emperor wrote to the dying Pushkin: “If God does not order us to meet again in this world, I send you my forgiveness and my last advice to die as a Christian. Don’t worry about your wife and children, I’ll take them into my arms.” The sovereign's forgiveness is for a state crime, which is how a duel was qualified then. Nicholas I not only forgave Pushkin for the duel, but also decreed after the poet’s death: “1. Pay off debts. 2. Clear the mortgaged estate of the father from debt. 3. Pension for widow and daughter upon marriage. 4. Sons as pages and 1,500 rubles for the education of each upon entry into service. 5. Publish works at public expense for the benefit of the widow and children. 6. 10,000 rubles at a time.” The duel was recognized not only as a state crime, but also as an Orthodox crime. There were no special regulations regarding duelists; they were simply equated with suicides, who could not be buried in a church, buried inside a church fence, or commemorated along with all Christians. Metropolitan Seraphim of St. Petersburg insisted on the implementation of this severity in relation to Pushkin. The Moscow Metropolitan undertook to change his firm point of view. Perhaps we owe it to Filaret, among others, or perhaps to Filaret alone, that Alexander Sergeevich was awarded Christian repose. Otherwise, what a temptation it would be for those who adore Pushkin and are not too firm in their faith to take offense at the Church and move away from it! Just imagine how, thanks to such firmness of Seraphim (Glagolevsky), the entire anti-Orthodox world would rejoice if in this way they were “given” Pushkin! And under the godless power of the Bolsheviks, Alexander Sergeevich would have been completely opposed to Christ, turned into a model figure of anti-Christian resistance! After all, just like on the grave of Leo Tolstoy, there would not be a cross on Pushkin’s grave. And now? It's also scary to imagine. How many of today's Orthodox priests would Pushkin's posthumous excommunication be tempted to preach that reading the works of the Russian genius is a sin! Of course, it is an exaggeration to say that we owe the posthumous salvation of the great poet to Philaret. Here, first of all, the kind attitude of the Emperor played a role in many respects. Now, if Nikolai Pavlovich stuck to the letter of the civil and religious law, then things would be bad. But Filaret’s opinion also made an important contribution. And thank God that he was in St. Petersburg at that time! When they write about the death and burial of Pushkin, the authorities are constantly reproached and even cursed for not organizing a magnificent funeral. But to arrange such things meant to abolish the strict attitude towards duelists. And the duels would fall like peas! Metropolitan Seraphim forbade the funeral service for Alexander Sergeevich in St. Isaac's Cathedral, and the funeral service took place in the church, which is always designated as “Stable,” in order to emphasize that the genius of Russian literature was buried almost in the stable among the horses. In fact, this is the Church of the Savior Not Made by Hands, located near the Moika on Konyushennaya Square inside the rather majestic building of the Konyushenny Dvor. They write that this is a very cramped church. In fact, the church is quite spacious, which is easy to see now since it has been restored. Under Soviet rule, it housed an entire hydroproject institute. When they say that “the king banned the funeral service in St. Isaac’s Cathedral,” the thought of Montferrand’s masterpiece involuntarily arises. But in 1837, the current main cathedral of St. Petersburg was still under construction, the construction of the dome was finishing. And this was the fourth St. Isaac's Church in the city. Isaac of Dalmatia is a saint whose memory is celebrated on May 30 (June 12), which is the birthday of Alexander Nevsky and Peter the Great. That is why the main church of the Northern capital was supposed to be the cathedral in the name of Isaac. After all, Peter built his city in the places where Alexander defeated the Swedes on the Neva. The first church in the name of St. Isaac of Dalmatia, wooden, small, appeared near the Admiralty on the site where the Bronze Horseman now stands, back under Peter. The second, stone, was erected in its place; in 1735 it burned down and was dismantled. The third St. Isaac's Cathedral was built there under Catherine II, completed under Paul I, and consecrated under Alexander I. According to the design of the architect Rinaldini, it was supposed to be a tall structure made of marble, on a marble foundation, but Emperor Paul used marble for the construction of St. Michael's Castle, and on the marble foundation an absurd brick cathedral was erected, which quickly began to deteriorate and collapse. Apparently, in 1837 it was in this crumbling cathedral that they wanted to hold Pushkin’s funeral service. But the emperor ordered the funeral service to be moved to the Church of the Savior Not Made by Hands, which was the court church. Thus, the sovereign emphasized that Russia was saying goodbye not only to the great poet, but also to the statesman. The funeral service was performed by the archimandrite and six priests, which is also a lot. The best poets came, the coffin was carried by Krylov, Vyazemsky, Zhukovsky. High-ranking officials were present, among whom was the Minister of Public Education Uvarov. Well, the fact that not one of the bishops, including Philaret, honored with his visit to this funeral... It should, I repeat, take into account that the funeral was held for a duelist, according to church concepts - a suicide, however, who managed to repent before his death to the rector of the Church of the Savior of the Image Not Made by Hands, Archpriest Peter Pesotsky. Then, as you know, the body of the servant of God Alexander was taken to the Svyatogorsk Monastery, which Pushkin loved to visit while living in Mikhailovsky. Here he buried his mother and for ten rubles bought a place for himself to also be buried in the family Pushkin cemetery. It was his will. The end of the world was expected in 1836, but it happened at the beginning of 1837 - a small end of the world. The Russian solar genius Pushkin stopped shining.