Глава двадцатая. Пастырский посох 1840–1842

-Mother Mary! Take the staff! That's when the prophecy of the unknown old man came true! Thirty-five years have passed. And she still remembered the wedding day, the fog that clouded her consciousness, and this staff, handed to her by a stranger dressed in rags who had come from nowhere. Here it is, this staff, still with her. Only from now on he is destined to become abbot. On June 28, 1840, Metropolitan Philaret tonsured the nun Melania into the mantle. Melania received a new name - Maria. She could have become Natalya, because the Battle of Borodino took place on Natalya’s day. But, in addition, the battle took place on the feast of the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God, and June 28 is the feast of the icon of the Ever-Virgin Mary, called the “Three-Handed”, and the newly-minted abbess received the name of the Mother of God. It was then that I remembered the stranger’s cry: “Mother Mary! Take the staff! The next day, Maria was made abbess of the Spaso-Borodinsky convent, and from now on she always walked with her wedding staff. For Filaret this was a joyful event - his beloved spiritual daughter became abbess! He loved coming to visit her, talking with her, looking into her wondrous sky-blue eyes, which had cried so much in her life. He loved to treat himself to Borodino bread, spicy and fragrant. The recipe belonged to Abbess Maria herself. She came up with it during Lent to brighten up the monotony of the Lenten table a little and to pamper the nuns. Once, during his next visit to the Spaso-Borodinsky monastery, Metropolitan Philaret asked the abbess: - Well, Mother Maria, are you satisfied with your sisters? “I have no one to complain about,” came the answer, “my only trouble is that I am a sinner.” The Lord smiled cheerfully and tenderly: “Finally, a sinful abbess has been found in my diocese, otherwise no matter who I talk to, they’re all saints!” The forties began - the time of the beginning of the construction of railways in Russia and the development of shipping, the improvement of medicine, the time of the beginning of new revolutionary movements and the conquest of the Caucasus, the suppression of uprisings in Poland and Hungary. In church life, the new rise of Orthodoxy in Poland was important, the revival of which began after the annexation of Polish lands to Russia, first in the time of Catherine, and then in 1815. Napoleon was defeated, the dreams associated with him did not come true, and Catholics, without any coercion, put up with the Orthodox Poles. The Belarusian Archbishop Gregory of Konissky wrote beautifully about this: “Those who were furious were tamed, those who were persecuting made peace and became friends with the persecuted. Today a wolf and a lamb graze with us, and a lynx rests with a goat; the lion, accustomed to prey, has been transformed by the Russian legislator into another nature, eating the chaff of its labors, like an ox; and the asp himself, the most humane mistress, I don’t know how charming he is, and the sting has lost his poison, so that even the young one fearlessly lays his hands on his cave... Anyone who sees this wonderful disgrace from the outside is surprised, but we come into delight and wonder whether this is a sweet dream for us or a true event, desired for centuries, but never expected.” The Polish Orthodox were governed by the Minsk diocese. In the twenties, persecution began again, ending after the suppression of the uprising. In 1834, the vicariate of the Volyn diocese was already established in Warsaw, and in 1840 - an independent diocese. The Bishop of Warsaw is elevated to the rank of Archbishop of Warsaw and Novogeorgievsk. Thanks to the activities of Metropolitan Philaret, more and more Old Believers came under the omophorion of the official Church. The Edinoverie branch of the Old Believers developed - remaining true to their foundations, two-fingered faith and everything else that distinguished the schismatics from the rest of the Russian Orthodox, the Edinoverie Old Believers recognized themselves under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church. When visiting the Holy Trinity Edinoverie Church on September 8, 1840, before laying the Church of All Saints in the Edinoverie cemetery, the saint uttered a weighty word, calling on the Old Believers to complete unity with all other Orthodox Christians. He cited the words of the Apostle Paul from his letter to the Romans: “I desire to see you, so that I may give you some spiritual gift to strengthen you; and this is that you may be comforted by the common faith, yours and mine” (Rom. 1:11-12). Having said that he came to the Old Believers of the same faith according to his and their mutual desire, Filaret continued: - So, this is why the apostle wants to visit the Roman Church, to see Roman Christians: he wants to find among them a common faith and fellowship in faith, to find out as soon as possible and discover that the Romans are definitely fellow believers with him, and he is a fellow believer in the Romans. And in this inquiry he hopes to find consolation, that is, mutual consolation, to the Romans from him, and to him from the Romans, and not just human consolation, but a spiritual gift, the gift of the Holy Spirit the Comforter. If, brethren, we also want to be faithful to this apostolic direction, consistent with this original image of the Church of Christ, then it is necessary that both your preliminary invitation and my present coming to you have no other purpose than the common faith, yours and mine. Both you and I must have the same desire, that we may become like one another in the same faith, according to the true, Orthodox, pure, immaculate faith, which was handed down from the Lord Savior through the holy apostles and God-bearing fathers, and which has reached us through continuous and unchanging tradition; Yes, in the communion of peaceful hearts and untroubled consciences, we may be comforted by the common faith, yours and mine, and in this consolation we will recognize and feel the grace-filled spiritual gift. I do not seek to subjugate you to my word: I submit to the word of the Gospel and the Apostles, and in submission to it I wish to be with you. Philaret’s speech eloquently testified to his passionate desire to see all Christians united: – When our Lord, departing to suffer freely for us, with His omnipotent prayer to His Consubstantial Father, He established His Church forever: then, having first prayed for His apostles, preachers of the faith, pillars of the Church, builders of the mysteries, then He continued His prayer like this: I pray not for these only, but also for those who believe their word for Me, yes they will all be one (John 17:20–21). Hear: not only does the Author and Finisher of faith care about this, so that believers remain in the faith, but especially so that believers are all one. So, if anyone imagines he has faith, but does not adhere to the great unity of all believers; walks around on his own, not caring about sincere communion with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church: one must be very afraid for such a person, lest he remain outside the action of the saving prayer of Christ, and, consequently, outside salvation; for there is no doubt that only those for whom the Intercessor of God and men brought His prayer, and over whom it was fulfilled, will be saved... Truly, how many reasons, and what strong reasons and motivations for unity! If for slaves one common master is the center of unity, and even more so for households the head of the family, for children a father: then how much more so for us, Christian brothers, there is one Lord Almighty over us all, one heavenly Father for all of us!.. Brothers of this holy church! The more confidently we learn from the Divine word how important and necessary unity in faith is: the more carefully we must think about whether we really have this good, whether, with real visible communication, internally and spiritually, according to the Apostle, we can be comforted by the common faith, yours and mine... Isn’t there one consubstantial and indivisible Trinity, with the same dogmas Orthodoxy we confess and glorify? Do we not place the single death on the cross and life-giving resurrection of Jesus Christ as the foundation of our faith and our salvation? Is it not the same grace of the Holy Spirit that is acceptable in the same sacraments? Do we not have the same commandments and rules of the Gospel, Apostolic, Conciliar, Holy Fathers?.. This speech became a kind of treatise on the differences between Christians and the fact that unity is possible in the face of differences: - In the second century after the Nativity of Christ, between the customs of the Eastern and Western Churches, there was a difference in an important subject: the Eastern celebrated Easter on the fourth or tenth day of March, even if it was not a Sunday, and the Western - certainly on Sunday. But at the same time, the unity of faith and the unity of the Churches existed and was not subject to doubt. The Roman bishop Victor rebelled for this against the eastern ones and attempted to dissolve church communion with them: but this non-peaceful intention was also opposed by the western bishop, Saint Irenaeus, who, moreover, reminded Victor that when Saint Polycarp visited the Roman bishop Anikita, then each of them remained with his own custom of celebrating Easter, but nevertheless they had communication with each other, and Anikita, for the sake of honor, granted Saint Polycarp their Church had primacy in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, and both parted in peace, and peace was preserved throughout the entire Church between those who adhered to one custom and those who adhered to the other. Here is proof that unity of faith can exist with a variety of rituals, and this proof is presented to you by Saint Polycarp and Saint Irenaeus. Remember at the same time that, after the establishment at the first Ecumenical Council for the entire Church of the same time for the celebration of Easter, and after that a common Easter circle, those who disobeyed this definition were not excused by the old custom, but were condemned: and here you have an ancient church example of how church severity can fall on those who are disobedient and at war for a rite or custom that is tolerated in the peace-loving and obedient. Whoever thinks about what has been said now, carefully and impartially, I hope, will clearly see how even now the Holy Church agrees with itself, when it condescendingly extends its motherly embrace to those who sincerely desire to be children of obedience, and, firmly holding its common ancient rites and pious customs, does not, however, place some private old-time rites as an obstacle to unity of faith, with confidence in the unity of dogmas, sacraments and hierarchy. So, brethren, there is no obstacle for us to be comforted by the common faith, as a true spiritual gift, if only we sincerely desire this and earnestly seek it... Have Christian love; it’s simple: and love will contrive to make you of the same wisdom; for it tends to unite, not divide... Thus, Philaret’s word united the Christians of Russia. When ordaining Bishop Joseph of Dmitrov, Filaret spoke about the episcopal staff: - After the others, accept the sign of your more external work - the shepherd's rod. May it remind you of the rod of Aaron, which vegetated with flower and fruit, and the rod of Moses, which cut off the sea. And let the rod of your leadership bloom and be fragrant with the word of truth and piety, let it grow the fruits of good deeds, and let it cut through obstacles in order to open the path of salvation to the people of God. Pay attention to yourself and your flock: may the Lord shepherd you and your flock in the green place, and may He nourish us on the calm water! The bishop's crozier is a symbol of the fact that the bishop does not sit in one place, that he is an eternal wanderer in this world. Following the example of his beloved Russian Metropolitan Alexei, who constantly traveled first to the Horde, then to Lithuania, then to Kyiv, then to Constantinople, Bishop Philaret never sat still. In addition to annual movements from Moscow to St. Petersburg and back, he annually traveled around his diocese. And his thought extended from the Trinity Compound to the shores of America! Whatever event in Russian life took place in the first half and middle of the 19th century, most often one could find at least some participation of Filaret in it. Since the time of Catherine, the Russians began to explore the western coast of the American continent. The great Russian traveler Grigory Ivanovich Shelikhov founded Russian America in Alaska. In 1799, the Russian-American Company was created. Alaska at that time was called the American district of the Irkutsk province. During the Nicholas era, the development of Alaska acquired a new scope. Naturally, the question arose about the spread of the Orthodox faith in American lands. And the apostolic star of Father John Veniaminov rose. And here it could not have happened without the influence of Filaret! Father John was born on August 26, 1797 in the Siberian village of Anginskoye, Irkutsk diocese, into the poor family of Eusebius Popov, a sexton of the local Ilyinskaya church. In 1806 he entered the Irkutsk Theological Seminary. There turned out to be an abundance of Popovs there, and the rector gave many of them different surnames, which is why Ivan Popov then became Veniaminov, in memory of the recently deceased Irkutsk Bishop Veniamin. He married the daughter of a priest of the Annunciation Church, Ekaterina Ivanovna, and was immediately ordained a deacon to the same church. He graduated from the seminary as one of the best, and four years later he was ordained a priest. At the end of 1822, a new parishioner, Ivan Kryukov, appeared in the Annunciation Church, who had lived for forty years in the colonies of the Russian-American Company. With his stories, he inspired the young priest to seek apostolic ministry in Alaska. And when the Irkutsk Bishop Mikhail received instructions from the Holy Synod that a priest should be sent to the Aleutian Islands, Father John decided to go there and on May 7, 1823, he left Irkutsk with his family. He studied the language of the islanders, taught the Aleuts carpentry, plumbing, metalsmithing, blacksmithing, brick making and masonry. Having built the church, he gradually began to accustom his new friends to Christianity. He translated Orthodox prayers into the Aleut language, and then began translating the Gospel of Matthew. After spending ten years on the Aleutian island of Unalaska, Father John was transferred to Alaska in 1834 - to St. Michael’s Cathedral in the Novoarkhangelsk port, located on the western coast of the island of Sitka. Here his apostolic ministry continued. In Sitka, Father John set up a school for converts and their children, where he taught them the Law of God, literacy and various crafts, and he himself compiled textbooks. On the islands, he wrote “An Experience in the Grammar of the Aleutian-Lisevsky Language,” and now he just as zealously took up the study of the Koloshensky and Kodiak languages ​​of the inhabitants of Alaska. In 1839, Father John arrived in St. Petersburg, where he needed to have conversations with the highest church authorities about the need for material support for his apostolic affairs. He was warmly welcomed both in St. Petersburg and Moscow, his works were being prepared for publication, and fundraising was successful.. On November 25, 1839, Father John suffered a terrible grief - his wife suddenly died in Irkutsk. Who could better console the sorrowful priest than Saint Philaret of Moscow, who was then in St. Petersburg at the next session of the Holy Synod! Having met with Father John, the bishop began to ardently convince him that the death of Ekaterina Ivanovna was an undoubted sign of God. Conversations with Filaret greatly influenced the priest. While he was preparing to take monastic vows, went to pray at the Trinity-Sergius and the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, Filaret was busy about the arrangement of his children. As a result, Father John’s daughters entered the Patriotic Institute, and his sons entered the St. Petersburg Theological Seminary. All this time, Father John constantly prayed to St. Innocent of Irkutsk, and when on November 29, 1840, Metropolitan Philaret took monastic vows in St. Petersburg, he named the newly minted monk Innocent. The next day, the monk Innocent was elevated to the rank of archimandrite by Philaret. Soon, on the advice of Moscow Chrysostom, the Emperor met with Archimandrite Innocent. Nicholas informed him of a new appointment - bishop of the newly created diocese by decision of the Holy Synod. On December 15, 1840, Filaret performed episcopal consecration, and Innokenty became Bishop of Kamchatka, Kuril and Aleutian. On January 10, 1841, Filaret blessed Innocent, and he set off from St. Petersburg to the other end of the vast Russian Empire. On the way, he stopped in Moscow, then at the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, and handed over a letter from Philaret to Archimandrite Anthony: “Receive, Father Viceroy, in a befitting manner the Most Reverend Innocent of Kamchatka-Aleutian and bless the icon from the monastery. He is authorized to take with him the people he needs and those who want to serve with him. If we find someone willing and pleasing to him, we will not be stingy. And don’t stop correspondence with me. I still can’t answer you about many things, because the cold does not allow me to keep my feet on the ground for a long time, and the person lying down has not yet learned to write. On March 11, Bishop Innokenty arrived in Irkutsk, and on September 27 he came ashore to his diocese. In 1842, Bishop Innocent began the construction of a Missionary House with an Annunciation Chapel in Sitka. The building is now the oldest structure in Alaska. Thus, according to the word of Philaret, a new stage in the apostolic ministry of this wonderful lamp of the Orthodox faith began, who will be destined, after the death of Moscow Chrysostom, to take his place at the Moscow see! But before this event there was still a quarter of a century ahead. Separated from each other by unimaginable distances, Filaret and Innocent continued to be friends, constantly corresponding. In difficult moments of his life, Innocent always sought spiritual support from Filaret and received it. While in St. Petersburg in the winter of 1840/41, the Moscow Metropolitan was present at the conversion of the Tsarevich's bride to Orthodoxy. Princess Maximilian-Wilhelmina-Augusta-Sophia-Maria of Hesse-Darmstadt, engaged to the heir Alexander Nikolaevich back in April, came to St. Petersburg and on December 5, 1840 was anointed and named Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna. The next day, the name day of Nicholas I was celebrated, and on this day Maria Alexandrovna and Alexander Nikolaevich solemnly became engaged. In a letter to Archimandrite Anthony, Filaret described this event as follows: “Yesterday and today we witnessed important and joyful events of the Most August House: yesterday the anointing of the highly named bride of the Sovereign, the heir to the Tsarevich, and today the betrothal of their Highnesses. The blessed princess pronounced her confession of faith with majestic modesty and reverence and such a pure word that could not be expected from her recent acquaintance with Russia. This holiday was filled with quiet, bright joy.” But alarming news came to Filaret from Moscow that his dear friend, Prince Sergei Mikhailovich Golitsyn, was inclined to make peace with his wife, Evdokia Ivanovna, who had had enough fun. Vladyka was afraid that, having settled in Sergei Mikhailovich’s house, the “night princess” would establish her own order there, everything would go topsy-turvy, and he would no longer have such a native corner in Moscow where he could come every hour and get comfort. Just six years ago, in the fall of 1834, Sergei Mikhailovich gave a luxurious ball in his house, to which the migratory bird Evdokia Ivanovna deigned to fly. She tried to persuade her husband to forgive her and restore the marriage, but Golitsyn remained adamant. And so she came to Moscow again, trying to restore her marriage with Sergei Mikhailovich. Filaret learned about this from a letter from the governor of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra and replied: “You wrote to me about the desired reconciliation of K.S.M. (Prince Sergei Mikhailovich - A.S.) with his wife. Peace is a good thing, and peacemakers are blessed. With all this, I am perplexed as to what can be done here. For them, I think, the time for fulfilling all the duties of marriage has passed. The princess's character and lifestyle are such that even if they are under the same roof, they will see little of each other. One thing we can take care of is that everyone test themselves to see if they have an unpeaceful disposition, and that they perceive and express peaceful dispositions to each other.” Golitsyn was already sixty-six years old, Evdokia – sixty. Marital relationships are possible at this age. The letter shows that Filaret is in some panic and really does not want the reconciliation of the spouses. But this reconciliation was not destined to happen. The Golitsyns will remain “on the road” until the end of their days. Evdokia Ivanovna, at the end of her life, became interested in writing, but she did not become a Russian Madame de Staël, her works were not in demand, and after the death of the “princess of the night” they were completely forgotten. She also showed herself as a mathematician, leaving some mathematical works. But the beautiful Avdotya, of course, was remembered for her free life at the beginning of the 19th century, and her glory was that of an elegant, sophisticated, seductive, high-society harlot. For St. Petersburg in those years, such glory was almost honorable. The decline of morals again worried the Fathers of the Church. It got to the point that sodomites openly cohabited with each other, such as Baron Heeckeren and Dantes, who became his adopted son in order to justify their cohabitation. And in the early forties the situation did not improve. Petersburgers could be seen in large numbers in any kind of entertainment, including dubious ones, and the churches were empty. Filaret reported the service, which was attended by four hundred people, as something incredible. And in a letter to the governor of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra dated March 19, 1841, the Moscow Metropolitan complained: “The hope of self-interest in the Nevsky Lavra has been shaken a lot these days. For one deceased woman they took 13,000 rubles at the Lavra; a murmur about this reached the Emperor; It was ordered to make a decree for the cemeteries of both capitals so that funerals would not be expensive. The law of crimes for the sake of is attached (Gal. 3:19), and for Moscow for the crimes of St. Petersburg. However, Moscow will only suffer the trouble that the cause of freedom and zeal is subject to the law; and the loss will be for St. Petersburg, and especially for the Nevsky Lavra and its monks, for whom the main and almost only source of income is in the dead. There are too few Bogomolets.” In St. Petersburg, as before, Filaret was much worse than in Moscow, and he was constantly sick here, and there were much fewer believers than in the Mother See, and Chief Prosecutor Protasov pestered him with his thirst to suppress the bishops, rule over them, and so that everyone could see this power. And, nevertheless, sometimes it was necessary to spend almost half a year on the banks of the Neva, as, for example, in the winter of 1840/41. I arrived in the fall, and returned to Moscow only at the end of April, after Easter! I saw the funeral of my enemy, Admiral Shishkov, who died in St. Petersburg on April 9. In the last years of his life, Alexander Semenovich became blind, his gift of foresight emerged, several times he fell into a lethargic sleep, which once lasted four months, and the sovereign was informed that Shishkov had died, Nikolai had arrived, and the dead man would rise again! But on April 11, 1841, the emperor attended the funeral of the gallant admiral and great guardian of the Russian word. By the way, Shishkov has always remained an adamant opponent of translating the Bible into a modern language, arguing that Old Church Slavonic is the language of the Russians. But he himself nevertheless translated “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” from the ancient language into the new one! But - peace be upon him!.. Having waited for the solemn marriage of the heir to the throne Alexander Nikolaevich and Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna, which took place on April 16, Saint Philaret returned to Moscow in May. One can only imagine with what a sigh of relief he left the Northern capital every time and with what joy he entered the Mother See! And soon he met in his diocese the imperial family, which had again arrived in Moscow in full force for the summer, now with the crown princess. Tsar Nicholas came to Moscow much more often than his predecessor, almost every year. His relationship with Filaret was complicated. At times he was irritated by the bishop’s excessive independence, the desire to prove that church power was higher than state power. But it was impossible not to recognize that by the forties, Filaret had become the most important bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church, the St. Petersburg Seraphim had grown old and decrepit, and Filaret, although he suffered from frequent colds, remained generally healthy, vigorous, capable, and full of life. In May 1841, in Moscow, Filaret met one rather unusual guest - the Englishman William Palmer. A well-known theologian, archdeacon of the Anglican Church, he was one of the active participants in the Oxford Movement, which sought union with the Russian Orthodox Church. He came to Russia twice and asked the Synod to accept him into Orthodoxy, but in such a way as to simultaneously remain in the bosom of the Anglican Church. This has never happened and could not have happened, which Filaret, of course, explained to Palmer, but at the same time he met him very hospitably and sent him to the Trinity-Sergius Lavra with a letter: “Although it is unreliable that the best thought will win a decisive victory, it is necessary to pay attention to the beginnings of a good thought. He wishes to be in the Lavra on the feast of the Most Holy Trinity and for several days afterwards, to consider the order of the service. Receive him and, if convenient, give him accommodation in the Lavra or in a hotel; and introduce him to Fr. the rector of the Academy or with Fr. Archpriest Golubinsky, who will find it more convenient to talk to him. May the Lord arrange that it will be useful for him to see the shrine and its servants.” The movement towards Orthodoxy most likely testified to the decline of Anglicanism and indeed of all Protestantism. If in Russia, in St. Petersburg, in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra there were few parishioners and they only brought funeral services for the dead, then you can imagine what was happening in Europe. William Palmer never received consent to make him Orthodox while remaining in the Anglican Church. He did not receive one in Constantinople either, and only in 1855, together with Newman’s group, achieved such a Uniate transition to Roman Catholicism. Summer flew by, autumn brought rains and winds, and new colds... And at the end of October, oh-ho-ho! - go to St. Petersburg again. And God knows what troubles there again. While in the Northern capital at the end of 1841, Filaret received an anonymous letter that came from Vladimir. Someone who did not put his signature announced: “Your Eminence, Bishop! The thought that the Lord has made you the guardian of His Church gives courage to me, His last servant...” - and then there was severe criticism of the translations of the Holy Scriptures made by Archpriest Gerasim Pavsky. Five years ago, Father Gerasim was dismissed from his post as teacher of the law to Grand Duke Alexander Nikolaevich and princesses Maria, Olga and Alexandra. He was left at court in the rank of protopresbyter of the Tauride Palace. Having received a lot of free time, he resumed work on translating the books of the Old Testament. While teaching at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Father Gerasim distributed his translations among students, who rewrote them, and soon a large number of lists were formed. The best of the lists were lithographed in St. Petersburg in an edition of one hundred and fifty copies. The same thing, and secretly from the church authorities, happened at the Moscow and Kyiv academies. The author of the anonymous letter burned with anger: “In the Russian language, such blasphemy has hardly ever appeared as in the lithographic translation. The serpent has already begun to tempt the simplicity of the children of the Holy Orthodox Church and, of course, will continue his work if he is not destroyed by the guardians of Orthodoxy, to whom the Lord has entrusted the leadership of His Church... The most effective means of preventing the spread of translation is to satisfy the general feeling of need with a faithful translation, to reveal in full light the truth itself, which has enough power to compete with lies and to triumph over it.” Having read the letter, Filaret did not give it any progress, since he generally despised all kinds of anonymous letters. Why hide your name if you are confident in your own rightness and are determined to fearlessly fight everything that can harm Orthodoxy? And if you are afraid to give your name, it means that you are hiding some kind of cunning within yourself. Filaret did not know that exactly the same letters, word for word, were received by two other senior bishops - Metropolitan Seraphim (Glagolevsky) of St. Petersburg and Metropolitan Filaret (Amphiteatrov) of Kiev. The first, due to his weakness, did not even bother to read the letter, or read it, but did not have the strength to decide what to do with it. But the second one went to Chief Prosecutor Protasov, handed him a letter, one copy of Gerasimov’s lithographed translation and his note: “With the most superficial review of this wicked creation, one cannot help but see with deep regret what an important evil for the Orthodox Church and our Fatherland can occur from its dissemination in religious educational institutions and among the people.” Protasov immediately began a secret investigation to find out whether other bishops had received the same anonymous letters. It turned out that both Filaret of Moscow and Seraphim of St. Petersburg also became recipients of the message. The Chief Prosecutor strictly demanded an explanation from them why they, like Filaret of Kiev, did not inform him about the Vladimir anonymous letter. Metropolitan Seraphim justified himself by his serious illness and begged in a letter to the Chief Prosecutor, “that no one, under any guise or pretext, should dare to encroach on the translation of the Holy Scriptures, which must remain in the form in which we received them from our pious ancestors and have served as the guarantee of our prosperity until now.” Philaret of Moscow responded with a report on February 11, 1842: “Having received in one of three copies an unsigned denunciation known to the Holy Synod of Vladimir about the existence of an incorrect translation of some books of the Old Testament with notes that deviate far from the true reason of the words of God and the interpretation of the saints, the father immediately felt concerned in relation to the diocese entrusted to him, so as not to the tares were inhabited...” He further said that he had ordered an inquiry to be held at the academy, but in such a way as not to cause unnecessary noise. He gave these orders in letters to Archimandrite Anthony: “I remember that I heard from you about the lithographed translation of some books of the Old Testament. A denunciation was sent from Vladimir against him, and the case will almost reveal the names of everyone to whom he was sent from St. Petersburg. Wouldn’t it be nice if those who had this publication, not on demand, but themselves presented it to the authorities as one in which there were important inaccuracies? I have not yet had the opportunity to consider this translation, except for a short glance, but the errors indicated in the denunciation are important.” And in another letter: “Since it was discovered that the novice of Behemoths bought an illegally lithographed and non-Orthodox translation of some books of the Old Testament, and this reveals the need for prudent attention to the brethren of the Lavra on this subject, then the governor of the Lavra is instructed to carefully inquire whether any of the brethren have this book; and, if this is revealed, explain the illegality of this and arrange, without waiting for a formal investigation, to present the book for presentation to me and for forwarding where it should be.” The chief prosecutor was beside himself. Nikolai Alexandrovich finally had the opportunity to scold the strong Moscow Metropolitan, to make him guilty of inaction regarding the seditious translation of the Bible. Perhaps the caustic remark of Bishop Philaret regarding persecution by Protasov, who had already become a general and was on the lists of the same Life Guards Hussar Regiment, dates back to this time: “The general’s spurs cling to my robe.” The statement reached the ears of Protasov himself, and he furiously reported Filaret’s words to the sovereign. Nikolai Pavlovich shared Nikolai Alexandrovich’s anger, but when the chief prosecutor left his office, the tsar went to the window and, drumming his fingers on the glass, grinned: The witty expression instantly became popular among the bishops. From now on, whenever they felt any oppression from the secular authorities, church hierarchs hastened to say with a smile: “The general’s spurs cling to my mantle.” Instead of settling the matter rationally and calmly, Protasov continued to stir up a scandal. Filaret wrote to Anthony: “Church sorrows are difficult. The waves rise, and silence is not visible behind them. Jonah, self-willedly guilty of the storm, is exposed, but the storm does not want to leave those in the ship alone. Let us pray through prayers to Him who rebukes the winds and the sea.” Finally, the bishop received a lithographed translation and could familiarize himself with it. It was some relief for him that the work of Father Gerasim really turned out to be worthy of much criticism. “And the translation is not good, and especially bad are the comments or introductions attached to it, which are contrary to the dignity of the sacred books and destroy the prophecies about Christ in them,” - this was Filaret’s assessment of the translation. The bad thing was that Protasov and the members of the Synod obedient to him continued to persecute both Filaret of Moscow and even Filaret of Kyiv. “Looking at this matter as it has now opened, they look at it not so much as a simple oversight or bewilderment as to what to do, but rather as not covering up a non-Orthodox case, at receiving copies of this translation and not presenting them to the authorities immediately,” Filaret wrote to Anthony and then sadly complained that now his dream of continuing the translation of the Bible is as far from being realized as ever: “To undo the damage already done, and to satisfy the need, Of course, you should get the right manual for reading the Old Testament with understanding. But a bad translation made the thought of a good translation, which some were already afraid of, even more terrible. Even the idea of ​​publishing a Slavic translation with explanatory notes is met with bewilderment and fear. The Lord alone can help His people, so that they may not suffer from the hunger of hearing the word of God and may not be deceived by false food.” Realizing that it would not be long before he would have to raise the question of translating the Bible again, Filaret decided at this moment to achieve at least the publication of the entire Slavic Bible with explanatory notes. He had a conversation about this with the Kyiv Metropolitan, and he supported him. Somehow their conversation came to the attention of Protasov, and he did not hesitate to ask Filaret of Moscow whether such a conversation had taken place. “Yes, I was,” the saint admitted. “In that case, I ask you to put the essence of your conversations on paper,” Protasov ordered. On February 28, 1842, Bishop Philaret wrote a draft that began with the words: “The false, incompatible with the dignity of Holy Scripture and harmful concept of prophecy and some books of the Holy Testament, which was expressed and more or less spread through a lithographed translation, requires a medical remedy. Prohibitive means alone are not very reliable when curiosity, which is spreading more and more every day, rushes in all directions for its satisfaction, and even more strongly breaks through illegal paths, where legal ones are not well organized. Therefore, care must be taken to provide a correct and convenient aid to the understanding of Holy Scripture.” Further, he proposed point by point to publish an interpretation of the sacred books, based on the Greek text of seventy interpreters, in special cases also the Hebrew text, interpretations of the writings of the Old Testament in the New Testament, interpretations of the Holy Fathers; “to make an edition of the entire Slavic Bible, adapted for the most convenient use and understanding”, to explain all incomprehensible words and expressions, “to briefly indicate the most important events in prophecies”, “to make brief protective interpretations of some texts, especially harmfully abused by false teachers, for example, the text: they are eunuchs, who have accumulated for themselves the kingdom of heaven, interpret so that the eunuch, having opened the Bible to defend his teaching, he immediately found a refutation”; and, finally, “publish the Slavic Bible with a meaning above each chapter of its contents, and at the end attach a dictionary of obscure words, with an interpretation of them, which, however; I must admit, it is difficult to make it satisfactory, because darkness does not always lie in the word, but often in the composition of words that are individually incomprehensible, and because it is tiresome for the reader to frequently switch from text to dictionary.” Having received this document, the chief prosecutor read it to Metropolitan Seraphim, and he called the intentions of both Filarets unnecessary and dangerous. Protasov demanded that Seraphim express his judgment in writing, after which he brought Filaret’s project to the emperor along with Seraphim’s opinion. On March 7, the Emperor highly approved the resolution of the St. Petersburg Metropolitan, demanded an inquiry into which of the clergy was guilty of distributing Bible translations, and ordered to strengthen “measures to protect the books of the Holy Scriptures in their present form inviolably.” Filaret again caught a bad cold, but on March 10, overcoming his illness, he was forced to arrive at the Synod, where the announcement of the emperor’s will was expected. But by the middle of the meeting he felt completely ill, and he left the building on Senate Square just before the announcement of the tsar’s decision. This is good, otherwise a stroke could have happened to him, because everything converged on the fact that he and Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev were the most to blame. 8 in his diary, Moscow Chrysostom wrote: “Illness forced me to leave S(the most venerable) S(inod) ahead of time, and thus God saved me from hearing somewhat difficult things.” After this, it was difficult to reconcile with the situation when “the general’s spurs cling to the mantle.” Filaret began to lean toward the idea of ​​no longer coming to St. Petersburg for synodal sessions. “Pray that the Lord will enlighten me on what I should do,” he wrote on April 3 from St. Petersburg to the Trinity-Sergius Lavra to Anthony, “and tell me a good word of advice. The concern is not about what happened to me personally, but about whether I can be of any use to the service. – Isn’t the time indicated to me to retire in order to mourn my sins and, outside the rebellion of affairs, to pray for the well-being of the Holy Church? If you want to tell me anything, it would be good for me to hear it soon, because the time is approaching when I usually ask to go to Moscow. My health asks for relief from traveling to St. Petersburg.” It is noteworthy that the true instigator of the whole scandal, Father Gerasim Pavsky, did not suffer at all. By the way, it also became clear who was the author of the anonymous letter - a bachelor of the Moscow Theological Academy, Hieromonk Agafangel (Soloviev), who did not like Filaret and shared the opinion of those who considered the bishop a liberal, a devoted member of the Bible Society and a faithful servant of the former chief prosecutor Golitsyn. Bishop Philaret was very upset about the disfavors that fell upon him from the Synod and the sovereign. He wrote: “The point is not about avoiding trouble, but about the fact that in complicated and dark circumstances it is more useful and safer to violate duty. What was signed with a half-dead hand is presented as written by a living and strong hand and is approved by the Highest.” This refers to the half-dead hand of Metropolitan Seraphim. “In this case, to remain silent means in some way not to give evidence of the truth, and to speak would mean to give those seeking guilt the guilt of a grave accusation, which would put even stronger barriers against testifying to the truth. In this state of affairs, I am glad that my thoughts, although stolen from me, entered into acts with my name, and consequently, what, to the best of my understanding, seemed true, is testified to. Others said, or kept silent about their opinion, or did not have the time to speak. It's not for me to judge them. Let the Lord, who is the truth, bring forth His truth as light.” Only in mid-May of that year did Filaret receive permission from the sovereign to return to Moscow. Before leaving St. Petersburg, the saint had a conversation with the chief prosecutor and could not restrain himself from expressing to Protasov his uncertainty about the need to participate in the synodal hearings. Nikolai Alexandrovich raised his eyebrows arrogantly and in surprise: – Well, won’t you return to the Synod again? “If the sovereign orders, I cannot disobey, but on my own I would never return to St. Petersburg,” answered Filaret. “Because it’s impossible to do business this way, and it’s dangerous.” Did the saint know that his words would turn out to be prophetic? The pastoral staff will never again lead him to St. Petersburg!