Filaret, Bishop of Chernigov

The following helped me: a) the handwritten notes of Archbishop Philaret, jotted down by him in Riga; b) his draft letters to Count Protasov, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kyiv, Count Dmitry Nikolaevich Tolstoy and others; c) his draft papers and letters to him from various persons; d) “Orthodox Review” 1886, June and July; e) “History of the Moscow Theological Academy” by S. Smirnov, 1879; f) “Creations of the Holy Fathers” 1888 to 1884, g) “Russian Antiquity” 1884 book 4, 1885 book 10; c) “Russian Archive” 1885, 10; i) “Kyiv Antiquity” 1876; i) Chernigov Diocesan News of 1866, 1867, 1870 and 1879; j) Tambov Diocesan Gazette; k) “The Most Reverend Philaret, Archbishop of Chernigov and Nezhensky, S. Ponomareva, Poltava 1866; l) obituaries published in some newspapers; m) “The Wanderer”, September 1886; o) “Russian Pilgrim”, 1886, book 31; m) Letters of Philaret of Chernigov to A.V. Gorsky, Archpriest. Smirnova, M. 1885; p) “Stories and legends collected at the site of the birthplace of the Right Reverend Philaret and necessarily reported to Fr. Nikolai Konabievsky,” c) “Stories and reviews from colleagues and those who personally knew Filaret at the Moscow Academy, in Riga, Kharkov and Chernigov”; r) “Collection of opinions and reviews of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow” volume 4; y) “Letters of Metropolitan Philaret to the late Archbishop of Tver Alexy 1843–1867, Moscow, 1833; f) “Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy” 1887; x) “Kyiv Antiquity” 1882; c) “Blagovest” 1888; h) “The Most Reverend Philaret, Archbishop of Kharkov,” Prot. N. Lashchenkova, “Kharkov Collection” 1891 and 1892. Issues 5 and 6. “The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” In the Shatsky district of the Tambov province there is an ancient village “Lesnoye-Konobeevo”, which is listed as a palace village according to the charter of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich. It is located on the mountainous bank of the Tsna, near the forest. On the opposite bank of this river lies another village, Konobeevo, called Polny due to the nature of the area. In Konobeevo there was once a Kazan monastery for women, and this village was almost equal in its vastness to the city of Shatsk, which was considered a significant city during the time of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. They say that Konobeevo surpassed the city of Shatsk in its antiquity, although the foundation of the latter dates back to the 15th century. With the transfer of this village to the Naryshkins, it began to decline, as the owners, who had many empty lands, settled them with settlers from Konobeev. Nevertheless, however, even at the beginning of this century (19th century) it was significant: there were over 5 thousand male people and two churches with a double staff of clergy and clergy in each. Twenty fathoms from the altar of one of the churches there was a simple house of a priest, Fr. Grigory Afanasyevich Konobeevsky. The house consisted of two spacious huts connected by a vestibule. Fr.'s large family lived there comfortably. Gregory. He had an elderly father, two brothers, three sisters, a wife and two sons. The whole family lived in harmony, love and deep piety. Subsequently it was divided into three houses. O remained in his parents' house. Gregory is like an older brother; His father, wanting to prepare for death and die in a monastery, spent his last years in the Chernigov monastery, where he died. A Naryshkin peasant named Alexei lived in Konabeevka. He was known as a madman: many, however, considered him blessed, attributing to him the gift of clairvoyance. In winter and summer he walked around in only a shirt, without shoes, and distributed the money he received to the poor, leaving nothing for himself. Alexey suffered a lot of harassment and beatings from the estate manager. More than once he was presented to the recruiting presence, from where he returned rejected. The landowner Naryshkin, having arrived at his estate in the summer and meeting Alexei, wanted to know what kind of person he was. They explained to him that this was his peasant, crazy or holy fool, God knows. Naryshkin ordered to bring him to him. “Why are you walking around in just a shirt? Here you go - get dressed." And he ordered to give him his clothes. Alexey accepted the clothes, but, moving away a little, took them off and, hanging them on the church fence, left. Naryshkin wanted to find out whether Alexey thought he would appear funny in clothes that were unusual and unusual for him, or whether there was another reason. Naryshkin again called him to him. “Your clothes are expensive, and mine are more expensive than yours,” answered the holy fool to his master’s question - what prompted him to such an act? Then Naryshkin gave 100 rubles. “Here you go.” “Buy yourself whatever you want,” said the master, handing Alexei a hundred-ruble note. The holy fool thanked him, having received the banknote, brought it to the church and put it in a mug that was placed at the bell tower for voluntary donations to the holy church. Having learned about such an act of the holy fool, Naryshkin strictly ordered his steward not to oppress him and to give him complete freedom. Alexei settled in the same village with Archpriest Dimitri, brother of O. Gregory. He lived with him for 25 years in great feats of fasting and prayer. He constantly repeated the Jesus Prayer, and in this exercise he was noticed at night, sitting in front of the holy icons. Each post included communion of the Holy Sacraments. He often retired to the state forest near Arzamas for a feat of prayer. There, in 1827, hunters found his body, inclined to prayer, while his soul flew off to the world in which both his life and his exploits were unraveled. His body was buried in the city of Arzamas. On October 23, 1805, in the house of Fr. Gregory noticed a special fuss. This fuss was caused by the birth of a second son, named Demetrius in honor of the Holy Great Martyr Demetrius of Thessalonica, whose memory is celebrated on October 25th. No one in the village yet knew about the birth of a son to the venerable shepherd: only the holy fool Alexei knew and, having climbed the bell tower, announced the birth by ringing a peal. Alarmed by the untimely ringing, the people rushed to the church. They began to ask the holy fool who ordered the call and why? Glad Alyosha that the great Timoshka was born! And he will call, he will call all over Rus',” answered the holy fool. The disgruntled people did not heed the prophetic voice of the blessed one, and there were people who took out their frustration on his back. The holy fool was flogged, and during the punishment he said: “Beat more, big Timoshka was born.” Not content with corporal punishment, however, he was chained to a table for a whole week. So, the first messenger of the birth of the lamp of our church and the prayer book for our homeland was the holy fool. And as it was from time immemorial, so it was repeated here: the people did not reflect on the prophetic words of the holy fool, did not give praise to God, but gave the messenger over to torture. Dmitry grew up, developing beyond his years; at the age of five, he sang in the choir and read almost the entire Psalter by heart. He had a very gentle treble voice and retained it until entering the academy. He was taught to read by his aunt, a girl who died at ninety years old. The Christian life of his family, which, as they say, served as an example for those around him, the kindness and affection of everyone, especially the mother, acted on the soul and heart of the receptive child. His father was distinguished, despite his deep piety, as a wonderful preacher and an exemplary priest. His mother, Nastasya Vasilievna, was an example of an ancient Russian pious woman. Having tidied up the housework, on holidays she would certainly go to church, “so that she would be ashamed to sit down at the table and taste the gift of God, bread and salt.” She received strangers and clothed the poor. Prayer, especially for her children, was, as they say, such a need for her that she often got up in the dead of midnight “to pray to God without hindrance, with full concentration of thoughts and feelings and with zealous kneeling before the “Giver of all things.” She constantly took her children to church, teaching them to pray by the example of her prayer. And Dmitry fell in love with church prayer so much that it became a living need for him. Such a situation and in the midst of it the ascetic life of the aunt-mentor early developed in the future Filate a penchant for monasticism. Dmitry was short, always thin, lively and playful: intelligence and energy shone in his eyes. His father kept him in the fear of God and, without ever resorting to harsh punishments, nevertheless restrained the playful boy. The tender mother sometimes found that the punishment was not deserved and reproached her old husband. Father Gregory did not object to her in front of the children; when they were together, he suggested to her that she was spoiling the children and giving them a reason to condemn their father for injustice. When Dmitry was still very small, his father tied him to the table with a thread, and Dmitry had to sit or stand at the table until his father himself let him go. Dmitry was ashamed of this punishment, but did not dare to run away, which he remembered when he was an archbishop. When Dmitry began to study, due to his ardor he could not stay with the book for long: he was drawn to run outside, and so from the locked room he ran through the window to his friends, and most importantly, to the river to admire the beautiful views, to breathe in the fresh summer air into his whole child’s chest. And the village of Lesnoye Konobeevo is truly remarkable for the beauty of the area: to the north of it there are endless forests, in the northeast there are vast meadows and pastures, the Tsna River, and beyond it another Konobeevo. The beauty of the area could not help but make a certain contribution to Dmitry’s character. Dmitry fell in love with nature since childhood. And now they indicate the place of his favorite walk, where, when he came home from school, and then from seminary, he was immersed in the contemplation of nature. When he was the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, he took care of flowers; from Riga he wrote that under the windows “somehow, with effort, he planted a garden in the church fence”; in Chernigov he turned the monastery courtyards into gardens with rose bushes and other flowers. Sometimes admiring the views from your gazebo of the vast river valley. Desna, cut by a highway and dotted with villages and groves, and in front of him a historical place - a pine grove and a holy lake (in which, according to legend, Chernigov residents received Holy Baptism), he concentrated and sighed deeply. And where did these sighs fly? Was it a tribute to childhood memories or a prayer offering to the Creator? In general, he loved village life, which undoubtedly awakened in his soul many memories from his childhood. Living in Kharkov, in the summer he often retired to a country dacha - “Vsesvyatskoye” for relaxation, walked there, and swam daily. He loved to fish and twice paid with considerable fright. Once, having come to swim, he wanted to drag a fish. The efficient elder Artyom immediately delivered the portage and the bishop and his sacristan Pimen pulled the portage, walking up to their necks in water. Suddenly he disappears under the water, falling into a hole. Pimen was not taken aback, he pulled the drag and the ruler swam out. Increased fishing rewarded his fear, and his stern confessor Parmen, standing on the shore, reproached him for his carelessness. Another time, he, the monk Tezikil and the same sacristan, having arrived at the mill, decided to catch fish with a net. A very small and dilapidated boat capsized and they all fell into the water. Fortunately, it was shallow. We must stop at this accident,” noted Filaret, “in our desire to catch fish, so as not to ever be eaten by those living in this element.” He also loved beekeeping. Romanovsky and Khrushchev gave him a dozen decks of bees, and the beekeeper and priest Vlasov gave him 8 decks. In his free time, especially during swarming, he sat in the apiary, caught the emerging swarms and planted them himself. Dmitry had remarkable abilities, an extraordinary memory, sharp words and resourcefulness, according to his teacher-aunt, amazing. His father took over his further education. At the age of seven, however, he placed him in the Vyshenskaya hermitage with the learned hierodeacon Nikon, the former prefect of the Ryazan seminary, where he stayed for two years and became familiar with all the subjects of the school course. He entered here with his cousin Nikita Voskresensky (later Archimandrite Nikon, abbot of the St. George first-class monastery near Sevastopol, who died on peace in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra). During Dmitry's childhood, there were several incidents with him, which he and his parents accepted as evidence of his special preservation by craft. While still almost a baby, he once, during the spring ice drift, jumped onto an ice floe. The ice began to break, and communication with the shore ceased so quickly that the tiny boy did not notice. Only then, having realized the danger, did he begin to look around: but, seeing no way to get out and no one on the shore who could help him, he nodded in tears: “Mama! At least pray for me!” And suddenly the ice floe turned towards the shore and pulled him towards a prominent cape. Dmitry quickly jumped ashore, and in his childish soul the conviction remained that he was saved through the prayers of his pious mother. Talking about this in old age, he repented that he hid it from his parents, fearing that his frankness would deprive him of his freedom. The following two incidents, according to the story of their eyewitness, Archimandrite Nikon, happened to him during their life in the Vyshenskaya Hermitage. Once, in the month of July, they both went to swim in the river. Higher. They walked to the place, according to the instructions of their mentor, through the forest. Dmitry was wearing shoes on his bare feet. He accidentally stepped on a large snake. The snake wrapped itself around his leg. Fearlessly, he shook the shoe off his foot, and the snake fell with the shoe. Nikita began to cry in fright and fear. "Brother! Have you been bitten by a snake? “No,” Dmitry calmly answered. Then, taking a stick, he chased the snake and, having caught up with it in the bushes, said, turning to it: “You did not hurt me, for my guardian angel did not allow you to hurt me.” Such was the faith of the youth. Returning to his previous place, he took the shoe and, without putting it on, took it to the river, where he rinsed it in water and laid it to dry in the sun. Before they had time to swim, a caring mentor came to them. “I’m kind of sad and mournful,” he told them, “and you haven’t been coming back for so long.” Seeing the wet shoe, he asked: “Children! What does it mean?". Accustomed to telling the truth, Dmitry told everything as it happened and showed the road the very place where the incident happened. The mentor conveyed what had happened to his spiritual friends - Hieromonk Barsanuphius and Hierodeacon Zosima, who the next day together with him served a prayer service to the Mother of God, thanking Her with tears for the miraculous salvation. Having learned about the prayer service and the reason for it, the abbot and his brothers notified Dmitry’s parents about what had happened. Upon their arrival, the rector served a cathedral prayer service, and the children’s mentor, O. Nikon, preached a sermon, listening to which everyone cried, and some even sobbed. This is the environment in which Dmitry lived when he left his parents’ home as a teenager. The second case was as follows. In mid-December, with the permission of his mentor, the boy Dmitry and Nikita, accompanied by the monastery tailor, went for a walk in the forest. Having moved about a mile away from the path, they noticed squirrels. The tailor was a hunter: and since he had skis and a gun with him, he, attaching the skis, chased the nimble animal through the powdery snow. The youths were left alone. Without waiting for him and hearing the bell ringing for the evening service, they hurried to the monastery. On the way there, Dmitry was attacked by an ox, wounded by a trap and thereby enraged. He instantly crushed Dmitry and began tearing with his teeth. Nikita, having forgotten his fear, grabbed a club he came across and began using it to beat Dmitry away from the wolf. The enraged wolf seemed not to pay attention to the boy’s blows: on the other hand, the child’s strength was too little for such a fight. In response to his cry, a monastery worker galloped up on horseback and, together with Nikita, barely managed to pull the wolf off Dmitry. And Dmitry stood up and quite calmly announced that the wolf had not done anything to him. It turned out that his hare's fur coat was torn to shreds and his boots had been chewed off. From Vysha, Dmitry entered the Shatsk Theological School. Here he was placed in the apartment of the sexton of the Nativity Church, Alexander Onisimov. And again he attacked good people. Here is one incident that evoked the prayerful memory of the deceased about his Shatsk mistress. In the morning, a sbiten man came to his apartment with sbiten and pretzels. Taking a glass of sbiten, Dmitry went into his chest for money, finished the sbiten and put the glass in the chest, where he absent-mindedly forgot it. Having received the money and checking the glasses, the knocker was missing one. He went to look in the boys' chests and, to everyone's surprise, found a glass in Dmitry's chest. Dmitry, whose hot head imagined that his action would be explained as theft, became confused with embarrassment and ran out of the room. His face changed and he lost the urge to eat and sleep. After dinner, at which he sat silently and without touching the food, he was the first to crawl into the bed where all the boys usually slept. But the kind housewife kept a watchful eye on him. When the boys climbed onto the bed and went to bed, Dmitry, who had not slept, pretended to be asleep. He thought a gloomy thought: he could not bear the shame with which, it seemed to him, he had covered his name. It was better not to live, he thought, than to be known as a thief. And the child’s inflamed head prompted him with a terrible thought - to take his own life. But as soon as Dmitry’s comrades fell asleep, he heard the gentle and sympathetic voice of the hostess: “Are you sleeping, Mitya?” Dmitry did not answer. “Are you sleeping, or what, Mitya?” repeated the same voice. “No,” answered Dmitry, “Are you sick, it seems, Mitya? You should have prayed well to God and gone home: you would have recovered a little there.” The kind woman's gentle speech instantly eased the child's soul. Dmitry burst into tears. “What’s wrong with you, my dear? You are obviously quite ill.” And touched by his sobs, she stroked his head, and when Dmitry, touched by her affection, burst into tears even more, she took him off the floor, and her hand came across the knife he had prepared. Dmitry, through tears, confessed his intention to her, explaining that he found his situation hopeless and could not get along with the shameful name of a thief. It was not difficult for this kind woman to completely calm the child down. And this woman was not the only one the saint remembered with grateful memory. In the same Shatsk, the wife of the school superintendent, Ekaterina Ivanovna Luminarskaya, with her affection and attention to the children who studied at the school, won their grateful memory. The Reverend Philaret, whom she outlived, sent her his writings and was her constant prayer book. In 1817, a new incident also marked Dmitry’s marvelous storage. During a severe fire in Shatsk, which destroyed the entire city, Dmitry, who was fast asleep, was awakened by his kind mistress. The frightened boy, jumping out of bed, grabbed his chest with linen and books and ran with them past the school, through a huge ravine to the Black Settlement, located on the other side of the ravine. Considering this place safe from fire and tired under the heavy burden for him, he settled down near the fence, a hundred yards from the courtyards, and immediately fell asleep in a serene sleep. But the raging fire seemed to be looking for a new victim, and the fire rushed from edge to edge. Soon the Black Settlement was on fire, and with it the fence itself, near which Dmitry, unnoticed by anyone, fell asleep. Here the fire creeps along the fence and illuminates the sleeping boy with a bright light. Luckily, a peasant woman was walking here. She rushed to him, woke him up and thereby saved him. Although Dmitry studied at the Vyshe and Shatsky schools, his father was most involved in his upbringing. Dmitry, being a student at a theological school, very often spent time at home studying with his father. And when he had to take an exam at the school, the father who was present, satisfied with his answers, said: “Well, Mitya, if we had studied with you more, we would have become familiar with some of the subjects of the seminar course.” This is in the mouth of Fr. Gregory was a word of praise. The natural inclination and direction given to Dmitry by his father developed his love of reading. I read books mainly of religious and moral content. The book had been his inseparable friend and comrade since childhood. And while at school, apart from playing ball, he did not take part in children's fun, and in his free time he immersed himself in reading. One peasant who survived him told about him that one day, seeing him with a book, sitting in a field on a tithe pillar, he remarked to him: “Mitri! What would you like to do? Well, at least take a plow and plow.” - “Ah!” Dmitry answered him: “If you knew what was written in this book, you would not have parted with it.” “And many times,” the peasant added to his story, “I saw him alone with a book, either in a field or in a meadow.” Coming home from school, and then from seminary, Dmitry still did not miss church services, which were celebrated almost every day in two parishes. As before, he stood on the choir, read and sang, participating in the notated choral singing that had long been introduced in Konobeevo. And from childhood he developed a love for church singing, which distinguished him until his death: his bishop’s choir was always famous for its special harmony. He himself often, despite his scholarly labors and diocesan studies, was present at the rehearsals. When he was already Bishop of Kharkov, at first he listened to early mass every day, where he was extremely pleased with the beautiful singing in four voices. In particular, “Glory and the Only Begotten” by the Kyiv chant, “Cherubic”, Simonov’s trio, “Mercy of the World” by Markov and the communicant “Unceasing in Prayers” by Hieromonk Victor, always evoked hot tears during his prayer. And every time after mass he treated these singers to tea. and to an affirmative answer he said: “He will salt, salt all over Russia!” The narrator explains this figurative speech of the elder as follows: “Salt protects food from spoilage, making food healthy and pleasant. Likewise, Dmitry, later Archbishop Philaret, with his prayers attracting the blessing of God to the world through his activities and example of a pure and pious life, having a moral influence on the environment, will protect his neighbors, his flock from moral corruption and corruption and contribute to its moral recovery.” It seems to us, however, that it would be more correct to attribute the prophetic words of the elder to the educational activities of Philaret. As if wishing to confirm his prophecy with threefold testimony, the same elder for the third time, when later Dmitry’s elder brother Vasily, having the intention of taking monasticism, came to him for a blessing, said: “It was only your brother who God gave the talent to take a book out of his pocket every month, and you go home and live as God directs.” Vasily became a deacon in the church where his father served. The last prophecy of Elder Seraphim has an obvious connection with the first two and explains to us what the elder meant by the word “salt.” In 1819, during an exam at the Shatsk School, in the presence of the Tambov Eminence Jonah (later Exarch of Georgia), Dmitry and Nikita attracted the attention of their ruler. Dmitry was the first student, and Nikita the second. Having wished to know their names, the Right Reverend was quite surprised: the first name was Konobeevsky, and the second Tartarov. He ordered them to change their surnames (which was done in seminaries at that time): the first to be called Gumilevsky, and the second Angelov. “Both of you study diligently,” the lord told them, “and behave honestly. I will send you to the academy in due course. Yes, all of you, children, remember that science is only a golden bridle, and a horse is behavior.” Then the venerable archpastor stood up and, singing “The day the grace of the Holy Spirit has gathered us,” ordered the boys to sing with him. His words came true; but Jonah’s successor, Archbishop Athanasius, sent Gumilyovsky and Angelov to the academy. At the end of the first year in the theological department, Dmitry began to woo the bride, fulfilling the desire and will of his father, in order to take his place. But during the last holidays, while walking with his brother and friend Nikita in the vast garden planted by his father, Dmitry approached an apple tree, thought about it, and then told his friend about the wondrous vision that he had while sleeping under this apple tree. “He enthusiastically conveyed the dream,” the narrator says, “and tears of joy flowed down his cheeks.” “I see in a dream a saint like Basil the Great who came to me, and he solemnly says to me: your and your father’s plan will be destroyed, and what was said ahead by Bishop Jonah will be fulfilled over you. Take my works from the Tambov Seminary Library, you will see my image in them and read them in Latin and Greek. Moreover, walk in the image of the saint and wonderworker Dmitry of Rostov." Having told this, Dmitry with tears asked his friend not to tell anyone about what he had told until his death. Meanwhile, from that time on he himself completely changed his previous way of life. Despite his father’s displeasure and even threats, he not only abandoned the idea of ​​getting married, but for a whole year he did not go anywhere except for church and seminar and entered the Moscow Theological Academy in 1826, where two years later he became a monk. At the seminary, Dmitry was distinguished by his extraordinary diligence. Rarely did anyone see him without a book: both in class before the teacher arrived, and in his apartment, he was always with a book. Helping his comrades in their studies was his exceptional trait. Knowing the Latin language well, he approached his comrades before the class with a proposal to translate some difficult passage from a Latin book, and, they say. always before the start of the Latin class, a crowd of comrades surrounded the young classicist, listening and writing down his translation. The readiness to serve his comrades, how to serve his neighbor in general, was learned by Dmitry on the conscious principles of Christian teaching. Work was a familiar thing for him, since since childhood he had been constantly at work. Thanks to his excellent memory and ability to study, he soon learned his lessons and indulged in reading in his free time. When there were no books to read, he was busy copying the lectures of the theological class. He, as the son of wealthy parents, did not take anything for his work; I did this only to fill up my time and get acquainted with higher course subjects. His shyness amazed his comrades no less. He could not hear the swear words, he was all red; “His face lit up like a blazing fire,” as his comrade put it, and he immediately moved away from the one who allowed himself to make a rude trick. The authorities and teachers, noticing such modesty in Dmitry, treated him especially kindly. During the entire seminar course, Dmitry was never punished, which at that time was perhaps the only exception. According to his comrades, Dmitry was on par with the first student, but was ranked sixth, then third, then second. In the German language he was considered so accomplished that, while still a student in the theological class, he served as a lecturer in the lower class. Although he was taller than the third and even the second of his comrades, he was released fourth for the strange reason that in the summer he was younger than them and shorter in height. Indeed, he was so youthful that he, a former student of the theological class, could be mistaken for a school student, i.e. give him 14 years at most. But he stood out for his talents, especially the gift of preaching, perhaps inherited from his father. In the statement against his name there was a note from the rector, Archimandrite Jason: “distinguished in declamatione.” And very often the little preacher delivered his sermons to the church pulpit. His childish and modest appearance, his sincere and warm speech with a beautiful and lively face attracted many listeners even from the highest circles of society. In 1826, having successfully passed the entrance exams, Dmitry Gumilyovsky entered the VII academic course of the Moscow Theological Academy. Certifying him always as the best and most well-behaved student, the inspector of the academy, Archimandrite Evlampy, wrote in his report in 1829: “Dmitry Gumilevsky is distinguished by his special meekness and humility, strict attention to himself and his actions, and a constantly pious mood of spirit, according to which he disposed himself to monasticism.” He remained that way afterwards. So in 1837, when he was already the rector of the academy, A.N. Muravyov wrote to Prince A.N. Golitsyn: “among the learned archimandrites, the first place is occupied by the rector of the academy, Filaret, young in years, but very knowledgeable, modest and fasting, and able to inspire respect for himself.” So, Dmitry’s acceptance of monasticism did not stem from the expectation of a well-known hierarchical career. Already as Archbishop of Kharkov, he, introducing his old aunt and mentor to his visitors, testified that she, with her ascetic life, disposed him to monasticism from childhood. And from his childhood and throughout his seminary course, especially in the last class, he, apparently, was preparing for monasticism. His view of monasticism, expressed in a letter to his student and friend A.V. Gorsky, whom he persuaded to follow his example, confirms that monasticism was accepted by Dmitry Gumilevsky according to his spiritual predisposition. Here, by the way, is what he wrote in May 1842 from Riga, where he was a bishop: “And how I would have rejoiced, how I would have thanked the Lord when I heard that you had finally decided to put on the holy monastic robe under the roof of St. Sergei! For the Lord’s sake, listen, leave your vain doubts: you will be useful to the Holy Church; she has been waiting for you for a long, long time... There is no doubt that without the Lord Jesus, without His holy grace, no one has ever done or can do anything truly good. but your doubts do not consist of that, but relate only to the fact that you are afraid of dangers, against which the Lord has given you the means in your spiritual strength.” To Gorsky’s remark that it is difficult to be a learned monk, Filaret objects: “You are pointing, my friend, to my own experience of how difficult it is for a learned monk to live.” If it concerns my experience, then, having called on the Lord for help, I sincerely tell you that until now, with the assistance of the ineffable mercy of the Lord Jesus, it has not even occurred to me to regret my monastic position. There is an abyss of my sins, a boundless abyss of my iniquities, and monasticism is almost in one name; Nevertheless, I thank my Lord that, despite the impurities of my soul, both past and present, He did not refuse to accept me under the shelter of monasticism. I thank you for protecting me from the waves of the world and its destructive rules, decency, and customs. Living here, I can see even more what the life of the world means, what its rules and examples mean; I can see how he sanctifies, often unconsciously, the most disastrous deeds, the most incompatible rules with Christian life. Try to talk to the world about such matters: it will present you with a thousand apologies and justifications for them, and you will only be left with the certainty that the world is unhappy, having entangled itself in pagan affairs, in rules that are contrary to the Christian conscience. Yes, otherwise it is impossible to finish thinking about the many things that happen in the world, how can one not thank the Lord that He delivered the soul from the hard and useless labors of reckoning with the customs of the world, that He gave the soul freedom to use time and strength on business, bringing the soul so close to Him alone, to Whom all my bones must serve and return: Lord! Lord, who is like You? Not a word about the sorrows of the life of a monastic scientist: they can be grave; but He directs them to His glory. Just think!” When, at the end of 1829, Dmitry Gumilyovsky announced to his superiors and the Metropolitan his absolute intention to accept the monastic rank, the Metropolitan apparently reacted with great approval to such determination. He noted Gumilyovsky with a special distinction, giving him his name when he was tonsured. During the entire period of his 46-year leadership, this was the only example. He decided to leave aside the established custom of giving a name beginning with the same letter as the previous name. A legend has been preserved that the Moscow saint was preparing him to be his successor. In his relationship with the young monk one could notice fatherly solicitude and at the same time exceptional severity. It was clear that the vigilant and unwavering ruler of the church wanted to create a worthy successor. And there is no doubt that this school of the wise hierarch had a great influence on Filaret. This influence was noticed at the Academy, as a result of which, and by comparing the talent of a mature person with a beginner, at the Academy, when calling the Metropolitan Philaret, they usually called the young learned monk “Philaretik”. Filaret, despite his brilliant talents, attributed the Metropolitan’s disposition to his extraordinary diligence. For him, as they say, there were no subjects of secondary importance, but every subject, languages ​​ancient and new, attracted the full attention of this worker. Upon acceptance of monasticism (January 19, 1830), Filaret Gumilevsky was ordained hierodeacon on June 29. He remained in this rank until the end of the course on August 29 of the same year, when he was ordained a hieromonk. Those who wish to accept the monastic rank, for the sake of contemplation of God and greater concentration, are temporarily removed from communication with others. In this loneliness, temptation happened: Filaret became sad and left his cell. The elder, who was entrusted with his preparation (spiritual father), not finding him in the seclusion, carefully told one brother about what had happened, who, with the help of one comrade Philaret, managed to find him in the tavern. His comrade brought him in upset and agitated. Meanwhile, they reported to the Metropolitan, who strictly forbade it to be made public so that young Philaret would not know that what had happened was reported to him. This proves the extraordinary experience of the Moscow saint and deep knowledge of man: one announcement about what happened could destroy the ardent 24-year-old Philaret. While still a student, namely on June 6, 1830, Filaret was appointed librarian of the academic library. This appointment fully suited his inclinations. Here he spent all his free time, rummaging through books, reading without interruption. He loved the library so much that when part of it was allocated for the newly opened Kazan Theological Academy, he wrote with contrition: “there will be a very great loss”; but, as if to reassure himself, he immediately added: “but you also have to sacrifice yourself for others.” When he was the rector of the academy, he enriched its library so much that he repented of it as his hobby. But nevertheless, he continued to replenish it, already being the Bishop of Riga, and he himself offered to review everything new on theological German literature and write out useful things for the library, since all this was sent to him by booksellers and scientists. “So,” he wrote, “perhaps I will be the publisher of the Litteraturblatt for you.” From St. Petersburg, complaining about the scarcity of sources for his works, he wrote to Gorsky: “And is it possible to do here what is done at the academy? It happened that he was naked in the library in all his freedom; and if your legs are not completely obedient: my dear Alexander Vasilyevich is ready for anything. But here, and with people who are completely strangers, what to expect, what to hope for? Boring!" Vigilantly monitoring the progress of academic education, Metropolitan Philaret placed a special value on exams, especially public ones. In advance, the board of the academy presented him with notes about the upcoming tests. The ruler carefully examined them, demanding exceptional discretion. But he was most strict about works intended to be read at public tests. His criticism was strict, one might say, merciless, and sometimes, perhaps, picky. These works were presented to him after a thorough examination by the rector of the academy. On June 8, 1830, the rector, Archimandrite Polycarp, presented two such essays by final year students, one of which was Hierodeacon Philaret: “On the spirit and nature of Christian martyrdom.” “Neither one nor the other reasoning,” the metropolitan wrote, I can consider sufficiently prepared either for publication or for reading in a public meeting. The discussion of martyrdom is still infinitely extensive and weak both in relation to logic and in relation to literature. This is a forced accumulation of words and expressions, historical circumstances, extracts, and not a systematic work of the mind, all parts of which would be aimed at specific goals. I have read about half of everything (I have neither the time nor the patience to finish reading), but I have not yet come across anything that would be directly and forcefully directed towards the goal indicated in the introduction, i.e. to protection from martyrdom from reproaches. After a vague and tedious story about the persecutions of the Jews, Persians, Mohammedans, and Russians, an exclamation was made: this is the beginning and origin of martyrdom! The Maccabees prepared (this word was written by the rector) the Old Testament church for the same exploits in the New Testament church. Why was it necessary to prepare the Old Testament church for such feats that should not be performed in it, but in the New Testament church that follows it? It seems to me that this does not mean clearing the essay of errors. However, it is not at all forbidden to transfer both arguments discussed here to the commission of theological schools at its discretion.” The commission of theological schools was more lenient than Metropolitan Philaret, whose harsh criticism was accepted with humility by the future student and luminary of the church. The Metropolitan treated the administrative activities of his favorite with the same stern and strict attitude when he was inspector and rector of the academy, subordinating his innate gentleness and gentleness with the requirement of service and order. Hierodeacon Philaret graduated from the course with a master's degree, second, although he was far superior to his colleague Nechaev. Preference is believed to have been given to the latter as a graduate of his own, that is, the Moscow seminary. At the end of the course of Philaret’s initiation into hieromonk, he was left at the academy as a bachelor, and in September he took the chair of church history and, as a learned hieromonk, was included in the collection of hieromonks of the Moscow Donskoy Monastery. at the same time he was appointed censor. Censorship took a lot of his time, sometimes rewarding him with great troubles and troubles. So in 1834 he approved for publication the most innocent book, the alphabet: “An invaluable gift to children.” The following year, this book came out of the printing house in the amount of 1,200 copies. And so, in 1837, when Filaret was already rector, a most unpleasant matter surfaced. Metropolitan Seraphim brought a copy of this book to the Synod and pointed out unforgivable typos, namely in the Creed it is printed: “He who was born of the Father before all ages; not Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, uncreated, consubstantial with the Father.” In the seventh commandment the particle “not” is omitted. The Moscow Metropolitan was informed about the confiscation of copies of this book and the prohibition of sale, and an explanation was demanded from the censorship. It turned out that the tradesman Chizhkov submitted the alphabet for permission to print, but after printing it was not submitted to the censorship, and the censorship did not issue a ticket for its publication. Seven months passed before the Deanery Administration presented the explanations of Chizhkov and the owner of the printing house Ponomarev. Chizhkov, to justify himself, presented a censorship ticket; but it turned out that the ticket was issued for the printing of another book, “A Useful Gift for Children.” Meanwhile, in the 182 copies of this book with the indicated errors taken from Chizhkov and booksellers, there is only one error: the uncorrected proof copy was among others on sale and unfortunately came across to Metropolitan Seraphim. Presenting a copy without errors from among those selected to the Synod, Metropolitan Philaret petitioned for the release of the censors and the committee from liability. Only in 1839 did the Synod make it known that it was releasing censorship from liability and handing Ponomarev over to the court. Chizhkov managed to die. The academic library became the home of the young professor. Here Filaret was engaged in compiling his lectures, which were full of interest, new in content and fascinating in presentation. finding. that Filaret was a historian and by vocation, they claim that he was an innovator in this department at the Academy. Before him, students studied this subject poorly, without the slightest interest, teachers were burdened to read it, trying to change the subject to something more interesting to the students: and therefore for more than a year, many or two. no one remained in this department. We read it. usually, according to the textbooks of Metropolitan Philaret (Outline of Biblical History) and Innocent of Penza (Outline of Church History), making some additions. Filaret, who did not like to embarrass himself with textbooks, reacted differently to this subject. He himself began to work on this subject, giving his lectures a captivating interest and thereby arousing a lively attitude towards the subject in his listeners. He inspired one of them, later his friend and famous successor A.V. Gorsky. At first, as his assistant, he accustomed him to the painstaking work of a historian. Filaret treated every work with keen interest, one might say with enthusiasm. His ardent and lively temperament, habit of work, desire to serve the church and his neighbor fueled every business in his hands. But to the first subject of his professorial teaching, i.e. He seemed to treat the history of the Russian Church with the greatest enthusiasm. And to unravel this choice in his scientific works, we must return to his childhood. We have already seen what influence the pious family of his parents in general had on his character, on his moral structure, and in this case he owes exclusively to his father. In his free hours, especially on long winter evenings, Fr. Gregory had the custom of gathering his family to a large table and he himself read the lives of the saints of the Orthodox Church, and in his heart a flame of love for God and his saints flared up, which, turning into a flame, embraced him during the courageous time of serving in the church. And Filaret himself makes it clear what importance he attributed to his father’s influence on him. “Yes,” he wrote from Riga, “now that my parent, to whom I owe a lot, a lot for my soul, has been gone for so long, how from time to time I want to look at him even for a quarter of an hour! Before his death, I never felt such spiritual need.” And so he chose “On the spirit and properties of Christian martyrdom” as the topic of his first student essay. His first major works were: “History of the Russian Church” and “Historical Teaching about the Fathers of the Church.” To see how he looked at scientific work, how much warmth and animation he put into it, it is enough to read some of his letters to Gorsky. In almost every letter he poured himself out, so to speak, into a certain moral form. presenting a high example of a servant of God. “I read and review the works of our fathers, revealed to the venerable and experienced Vostokov 1. The East has revealed many, many new things to us, sometimes things that I had to look at more than once, but which I did not understand. A new world is open. And what kind of world? Peace of our fathers, pious fathers, who sometimes made mistakes, but loved the Lord Jesus with a fiery soul.” After reading Master Anichkov’s article “On religious processions of the Orthodox Church,” he writes: “Forgive me for saying a sinful thought about religious processions. The essay is written too coldly, it chills the soul; sacred actions are the fruit of strong and living feelings, and therefore, at least for their origin and meaning, one can sacrifice the severity of painstaking thoughts and give scope to feeling. You say: an old song? True, but forgive the poor man, meager in thoughts.” Having read an article in Moskvityanin about the siege of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, he guessed that its author was Golokhvastov, who wanted to whitewash his ancestor. But he was bitter that Palitsyn was humiliated by the author, and he immediately asks Gorsky to write an article about Abraham Palitsyn and publish it in the same “Moskvityanin”. “I don’t think Pogodin would refuse,” he wrote, “he is grateful and will not sacrifice the truth for the sake of face. Write to him and from me that amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas.” And it was not only Palitsyn who aroused his desire to restore the truth: he condoled for Prince Golitsyn. “He was in prison among the Poles for forty years: why so dishonor the sufferer, the founder of the vast Golitsyn family?” Considering the multiplication of the family to be a blessing from God, he demands verification of information about the book. Golitsyn. Gorsky fulfilled the wish of his friend-mentor, but the latter was not satisfied with his article: he found it cold. After reading the review of this article, he settled on the critic’s phrase: “the writer never changes his late tone,” and wants to understand this phrase, whether approval is expressed here or, at the same time, a desire to see sometimes more warmth, “more love for the subject.” “As for me,” he continues, “speaking to you in ordinary language, I wish that you do not ignore the last requirement to the extent shown. True, although in scientific reasoning what is most needed is calmness of the soul and the natural train of thought left to the control of the reflective mind; but, as it seems to me, even in scientific reasoning, if one must reason about a subject dear not only to the mind, but to the whole soul, it is unnatural to leave feeling inactive; It is unnatural for it to be that love for an object is not expressed in reasoning in its own way, in words, in the tone of expressions, in images breathing life and movement. It seems to me that otherwise the reader cannot help but be offended by the coldness that he sees in the writer, since this coldness relates to an object worthy of love, respect, and the activity of a whole soul. True, my mood of spirit, the organization of my sinful soul, which is so often anxious and ardent and where there is no need to get excited about feeling and imagination, but only reasoning, also participates in this judgment of mine. But now I look at the Germans. A reflective people, a learned people; but whatever you want, only the predominance of thought in him dried up his soul. say sincerely, after calm reflection on the subject, is it good that the Germans now write blasphemies against the Lord Jesus with such composure; Do other Germans listen and read blasphemies with such composure? The latter, having read the blasphemies of the pagan soul, say: we cannot help but pay respect to the wealth of information of the writer, his deep study of the subject, etc. How? to respect the fact that a Christian uses the gift of God the way Satan used it? Oh, God have mercy on us from such a state! I don’t want to refute the excuses that German composure is accustomed to telling itself. All these excuses are as true as composure; because they are the fruit of the same coldness towards the highest and most dear objects to the soul, for which the life of the soul is not life, but destruction. It seems to me that the current state of German learning has disfigured the state of the soul, for what can we call the state of a living being when only one part lives and acts in it at the expense of all the other parts? Imagine that in the whole physical organism one voice is alive and well, but the arms, legs, stomach, and nerves are dead. What is it? Freak! Why doesn’t the soul mean exactly the same thing, in which only reason lives and acts without rest, restlessly setting up and destroying intricate mental figures? But I got too carried away by the general subject. Cherishing your beloved soul, I sincerely ask you to beware of German coldness towards lofty objects. Why put yourself in an unnatural state? Your soul loves the Lord as much as it has managed to love Him with the help of His grace; speak about the Lord in such a way that all your bones speak about Him. Let everything glorify the Lord, because everything in us should glorify His holy name. Your soul honors and loves St. His saints. Talk about St. His saints so that your whole soul will speak what is right about them. Do not kill the feelings of your saints with sinful doubts, warnings, concessions, conditions of cold reason. Do we already love the Lord and everything that pleases Him as much as we should love? Does our soul burn with zeal and zeal for His holy law as much as it should? Has our love for piety in Christ grown so much that it could be the life-giving beginning of our life for all eternity? Oh, eternity-eternity! How threatening is the thought of you to my sinful, weak, lazy, proud, vain soul! Lord, Lord. have mercy on us sinners! Teach us to do Your holy will, ignite us with the fire of Your love, so that we may not perish lifeless for all eternity!” “Forgive me for reminding you of your shortcomings, while I have a lot of sins that I don’t see at all. In return, I ask you to remember me, a sinner, when you pray to the Lord to correct your shortcomings. The hardworking Filaret considered laziness among his shortcomings, and he uttered this complaint about laziness at a time when an eyewitness of his work, amazed at his tireless activity, asks himself the question: “did he ever sleep?” Undoubtedly, the bright moral image of Filaret was constantly before the eyes of his student and friend, like a beacon in the depths of the sea. Philaret’s remark fell on the heart of his young friend, and he is looking for instructions, to which he immediately receives in response: “My messing about learning has somewhat disturbed your peace, and you are asking what to do in order to combine learning with the living spirit of love for truth and holiness? The first, no doubt, happened in your soul from the fact that something else was said very sharply. Isn't it? I will repeat now with greater confidence than before that my demand for a living spirit is more the fruit of my own immoderately ardent and often stupid properties of the soul. Yes, this is absolutely true. It is quite sacred that one must speak the truth, one must show and prove the truth in spite of those who tell lies, and not show oneself, one’s restless state. In the latter case, it very often happens to me that upon examination there are a number of questions and practically nothing useful. Nevertheless, I do not agree to praise you for the article about St. Lavra, which is placed in “Moskvityanin”. I agree that calmness is necessary in the study of truth, but I do not think it is good to look calmly at the blatant insult to truth and holiness. And Golokhvastov, if not often, then occasionally, not without impudence towards St. Lavra. These people imagine themselves to be wonderful scientists and wonderful politicians. if there was only a desire in your soul to know the truth, which is not entirely clear to many and is even presented in a different form: say your thoughts with the caution of someone who wants to know the truth, and do not pretend to be a person who alone can know the truth, while everyone else has spoken and continues to speak nonsense. Otherwise, he turns out to be, in simple terms, a braggart. If you have to deal with a braggart, then for practical research he has a copper forehead, from which everything practical flies away; he should not be admonished, but punished with satire. Let him bear a mark worthy of him. It will stop other braggarts. Otherwise, after one, a whole series of similar people will appear, and then say goodbye to the truth for at least 50 years. And at the same time, thousands will lie in the coffin with harmful thoughts that came to them only by the grace of the copper forehead. But I've already started talking; there is little goodness in many words.” “As for the second point, it is not easy to solve it, and it is not even easier to carry out what I wanted to say. It seems to me that prayer can best maintain the warmth and life of the spirit in the soul. It’s not easy to pray the way you should pray.” But is it necessary to pray? How can this be? How can we achieve both prayer and praying as we should? Force yourself to pray, hurt mercilessly for a bad prayer, use one or another method to induce prayer, a method that is more useful for someone, change methods, choosing a more convenient and useful one. I don’t know how your soul likes prayer with bows? It happened to be heard that this is only an expression of the soul and is important only as an expression. And it seems to me that this is also a way. It seems that the great prayer books are on my side too. They prayed whole nights, making small and then large bows. What did they think was necessary for this? This did not mean only an outpouring of the soul. There is no doubt that prayer can be prayer - the prayer of one soul. This is contemplative prayer. However, even that, as we see from the writings about it, was not without the participation of external actions, and it required tension on the bodily organism and, perhaps, even. more difficult than in ordinary prayer. First of all, I must not forget that if I take up contemplative prayer, then instead of contemplation there will be only dreams, only fermentation of thoughts, without contrition, without a deep consciousness of the impurities of the soul. But prayer without a feeling of guilt and lack of dignity is bad prayer, it can even be harmful to the soul, it can lead to a proud direction of thoughts and will. God forbid. So it’s better to pray simply the way we usually pray and the way God designed us. Let us visit the church of God more often—or rather, follow the order of the center. There are few lofty thoughts in church prayers, but a lot of life and warmth. “They are simple, but those of them have a stronger effect on the soul, those that are more fruitful are those that are simpler. I came across two or three prayers that greatly affected my own soul; repeat them with bows: you will warm up.” at the same time, as is his usual habit, he sends a reproach to himself: “Sometimes, sinner, I stand like a piece of wood, like a fool, or wander with my thoughts in different directions. What kind of prayer is this? “My letter has saddened your soul,” he says the next time. “Together with you, I pray to the Lord that it will be for the benefit of the soul. What more could you wish for than health to your soul? Everything else will remain on earth. Oh, how souls would be preserved for the Lord! So the young mentor admonished, encouraged and supported the spirit of his young friend. Treasuring Filaret’s friendship and revering him as a leader in spiritual life, Gorsky turned to him for advice in all serious circumstances. Thus, having the intention of accepting the position offered to him at the Constantinople mission, he first turned to Philaret (then Bishop of Riga). Let us present Filaret’s response letter not so much as proof of his influence on Gorsky, but to better get acquainted with the author himself, with his view of life and service to the church. “You wrote about your intentions regarding Constantinople. My friend! leave even the thought of it. This matter was not presented to you at all in the form in which it really is. You think to find food for pious curiosity or pious deeds in teaching the truth of Christ. No, that’s not what they expect from someone they want to send there. There you have to live at the embassy, ​​in one corner, often locked up. There they want to have a political tool for negotiations, to see a person who would have in mind the calculations of earthly authorities, and after that, if you like, calculations for spiritual life; they need a clever, secular person who would be able to hide the intentions of earthly wisdom under black clothes. You and I were not born for such a life: it will kill us. If you had to live here for only a week, you would understand that not only such a place as the one at the embassy in Turkey, but also the place of the local parish priest is entangled in the networks of earthly intrigues. In appearance, it seems that they are busy about the matter of faith, about the matter of Orthodoxy, even just a word with a person unfamiliar, a stranger, that Orthodoxy and faith; and all this in the language of the heart means: our business is politics, everything else is a third-party matter. My God, my God, how hard it is to look at this state of affairs! How scary it is to live among such people! You are afraid and afraid for your soul, lest storms of thoughts carry it away into the disastrous abyss of earthly vanity. Now and tomorrow, now and in the next hour, they force you to think about one thing: either to think about how not to entangle you in some kind of intrigue, then to judge and even condemn intriguers who put faith and shrine on some kind of ribbon, and often on the smile of the highest nobility. Life is such torture. For the Lord’s sake, I ask you, abandon all thoughts about Constantinople.” He tells Gorsky that the idea came to him to volunteer for a mission to Jerusalem when the British sent their bishop there; Having made sure that he could not count on support, Filaret abandoned this idea. “For myself, I resolved the doubt by saying: it is safer to follow the path that the Lord has appointed than to choose the path yourself, even if it seems closer to salvation. Can I be sure that my strength will be enough for a great feat, when I see that I am doing so little on the path now assigned? Yes my friend! Let us work on the path we are on.” Touching concern for the moral purity of a friend is expressed in a letter dated November 20, 1844. The spiritual mentor himself was not yet 40 years old, and yet his letter reflects a person who has understood the life of an old ascetic. “A strange thought came into my head: I had a desire to tell a friend about a subject that smart people don’t talk about, but only fools do. But let me speak to a friend according to the ritual of a fool; nature in everyone follows the same path. In all her aspirations come into play, sometimes early, sometimes late, sometimes during the day, sometimes at night. It takes a lot of work and vigilance over oneself so that the secret desire of a bad nature, having begun to act, is not led by deception into a situation that is too bad. And if it needs to be applied to anything, then most of all to sexual desire. Don’t be offended, my friend, for God’s sake. I don’t know, I don’t see you now. But when I saw it, I did not yet see the awakening of the aspirations of the sinful body. However, even if there is still no awakening, for the Lord’s sake, do not believe yourself, do not think that they have not awakened. It is difficult, my friend, to give you advice: what to do with yourself when this strength of nature appears in your soul? You have to cry, you have to cry; but I won’t say that this will immediately get rid of the trouble. Yes, my friend, prepare in advance, prepare with tears and the memory of death and rottenness of the body, of hell, ready for the corrupted body. No passion is as secretive as this passion. Tens of years pass and it’s as if she’s not there; and when she appears, many years may pass before she is seen. Watch and pray. A beautiful flower means bodily purity; but how rare it is, how expensive it is to get! My friend, take care of your soul. Keep a close eye on her. Ah, it may easily be that a beautiful flower will easily perish from the burning wind! Thousands of apologies, thousands of excuses, as soon as this evil plant appears in the soul - love for the other sex. I call him evil both in comparison with purity and with the thousands of sins that this passion entails. Yes, we are not in heaven. Forgive, my friend, the stupidity of the friend of your soul, if he lies at the wrong time: tell him - God will forgive him. I embrace your soul as dear to the Lord Jesus.” And this is where the source of the abundant tears of Philaret himself is, from the first minute, when he appeared before the throne of God as an altar server until his death, every service, from the Cherubic Song to Communion, tears flowed from his eyes; Having received the Lamb and reading the prayer before communion, he sobbed. And for a long time, having partaken, he could not stop the flow of his tears. Forgetting, it seems, everything around him, he cried, sighed and prayed. This slowed down the ministry. Those who served with him sometimes even expressed impatience and displeasure (notes Archpriest Fr. John Sharotsky, who served under Philaret in Kharkov) at the profusely flowing tears and sighs of his Eminence: but there were also those who rejoiced at these tears, these sighs and in the depths of their souls thanked the Lord that He gives such an abundant source of tears to the archpastor, bringing holy gifts for his sins and human ignorance (Heb. 7:27: 9:7). During the all-night vigil, these sighs came from the altar to those standing near the choir and, freeing many from distraction, they encouraged them to merge their prayers with the prayers of the humble archpastor. Hieromonk Philaret only had the opportunity to read church history for two years. At the beginning of the 1832–33 academic year, according to the will and plans of, probably, the same guiding mind that directed the activities of the young scientist, i.e., according to the plans of the Metropolitan of Moscow, Philaret was entrusted with reading the Holy Scripture, and then moral and pastoral theology. Seeing how Philaret treated his teaching classes, understanding his intelligence and abilities, the Moscow saint did not want, perhaps, a monotonous direction and, finding that the subject read by Philaret was sufficiently illuminated and refreshed by him, he directed his work to theological subjects. A manual for teaching this subject was the essay of the professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy I.S. Kochetova: “Features of the active teaching of faith”: but this textbook, even under Filaret’s predecessor in teaching, was recognized as insufficient and was subject to significant changes. Filaret was original here too. According to the testimony of Father Smirnov 2, “he left a memory of himself as an excellent professor who combined extraordinary diligence with extensive scholarship. He entered this field with new techniques: with criticism of sources, with philological considerations, with the history of dogmas. with sharp refutations of the opinions generated by rationalism in the Protestant West." In his research, Filaret was guided by the dogmatists of Clay and Brenner; but he borrowed from them, and then partly, only the plan, and, mainly, used the passages they cited from classical writers and church fathers. His presentation, more concise, is captured by the nature of independent work. “Filaret was distinguished by a special way of speaking: his expressions, especially where he fights against ancient heretics and the non-Orthodoxy of Catholicism and Protestantism and with the extreme views of rationalists, are quite sharp and original. This is how he is in all his works, and this is how he is in dogmatics.” Reading theology brought Filaret great fame. As soon as he arrived in St. Petersburg in 1841 to be ordained Bishop of Riga, our highest spiritual hierarchs suggested that he start compiling “Dogmatics” and order his lectures from the academy for this purpose. The deficiency in the manual for the study of Dogmatic Theology was recognized by all. It was pointed out a little later by Count. Protasov and Metropolitan Filaret. When, due to his modesty and caution, Filaret refused, they resorted to the mediation of the most powerful man, Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count Protasov. He persistently pestered Filaret. Regarding this insistence, Filaret then wrote: “These proposals are flattering for pride, but not flattering for prudence, attentive to the state of affairs. Even now I have not yet touched upon this matter; Let the Lord reveal what a sinner should begin, where to bow his neck. Yes, quite enough, almost full of dreams. And it’s true, who’s to blame for chasing dreams? Everyone needs to know their own path. Walk along the one indicated: you will walk along someone else’s path: don’t be angry if they push you in the neck.” Despite Filaret's outstanding activity in teaching theology, the Moscow Metropolitan did not abandon his tactics. He treated the young professor more strictly than others and gave him a hard time in the exams, but nevertheless, the same metropolitan handed over his sermons to the young scientist for review, about which the latter wrote with usual modesty to his friend from St. Petersburg: “Vladyka is preparing all Moscow sermons for publication. And it fell to my lot to read the giant’s deeds. Asks to change the giant's steps. It's funny! Should I hurry with my steps on his business? Yes, my friend, how quickly his legs can walk! I wrote all the sermons at once, in a few hours. This can be seen from the originals.” On May 1, 1833, Filaret was appointed inspector of the academy, i.e., in addition to teaching, he was accustomed to administrative work, and all the more difficult since this responsibility was associated with being an abbot in a monastery. Philaret was given the abbotship of the Moscow Epiphany Monastery. This position was far from easy for the meek and humble monk. Supervising young people almost his age, sometimes with habits that he had estranged from his youth, put him between two fires: with strict measures he could irritate the students. leniency could incur the displeasure of superiors. And the Metropolitan’s watchful eye vigilantly watched everything that happened at the academy. The inspector had to submit his reports monthly. The Metropolitan looked through them carefully and made various questions and comments. The young inspector complained to his friend Gorsky about the difficulty of his duty. After a conversation about this subject with Filaret, Gorsky wrote in his diary: “This is how the concept of the high rank of inspector of this place was determined. He must have more than simple supervision over the decency of students, prevent, suppress any disorder among them, penetrating to the very root of all disorder, try to transform the people entrusted to him morally, Christianly. The importance of their design and preparation must certainly prompt us to do this. They demand directly for the high service of the church; The education of all pastors of the church depends on them. The society of spiritual mentors becomes higher in its own way, the title of each acting priest in his circle. So, looking at such a goal, the education of these young people, it is impossible for their overseer - the one who is entrusted with overseeing the most essential side in the shepherd of the church, the moral and spiritual - to limit himself to such a close circle in which they usually have conversion. This view of the moral and educational nature of supervision was adopted by Filaret and put into practice. At least the biographer of the Right Reverend Philaret mentions that this bright view was retained, developed with greater force and expressed in practice by A.V. Gorsky, and it is natural if we take into account the short period of service of Philaret in the positions of inspector and rector in comparison with the period of service of his friend. Academic memories of Filaret portray him as a not very strict inspector and record on the pages of the history of the academy that he supplemented the instructions for indoor senior students compiled by the former inspector Evlampy. He established an original rule, which can be explained by Filaret’s personal respect for written work. Noticing students in their rooms during class hours, he immediately sent them to the classrooms; those whom he found at that time working on written compositions, he left at this work without making any comments. Having examined the project that was being prepared for transforming the Academy in 1833, Filaret expressed the following view: “The fact that they are planning to assign one and a half hours for classes seems useful to me. Is the abolition of annual tests a great gain for scholarship? I doubt. The point is not whether there is a test, but what the test is. The main issue in the course of education is the movement of education forward. Will students gain more by memorizing the words of others, following the example of the red-headed bird, than by preparing for a living account of their own? I doubt it very much. Finally, my doubt reaches almost an extreme degree when I think about the fact that they want to make a writer by experimenting on one essay. The extreme is to force one essay to be prepared in two weeks. And giving the freedom to do one thing for two years is almost the same as giving the freedom to do nothing and not leave any hope of seeing any experienced self-thinker. The Academy is not a school for learning the basics and letters. Woe to those who only have enough strength to adopt what they have noticed from others and imitate what they have noticed, at least over their own paw. No, the clerk is not a writer, and the soldier is not a theologian. The gradual transformation of Philaretik into Philaret is so noticeable. Let's take his real opinion, for example. It is as if one can hear the thoughts of the great Philaret with all the originality of their expressions and irresistible truth. And he himself devoted himself to work with enthusiasm. Deeply immersed in it, he did not notice the time and was often late for lectures. When he was rector, he studied while sitting or reclining on the carpet. There was paper on both sides and two inkwells. Here, making inquiries and research, he jotted them down on paper. Deeply absorbed in this work, he did not pay attention to the fact that his hands were stained with ink and that, wiping sweat from his forehead or rubbing his eyes, he transferred ink stains to his face. When he was distracted from his studies by a reminder that students were waiting for him in the classroom, he ran straight there with his hands and face dirty. At first, this appearance of the young rector made the students smile, but later they began to treat this as an ordinary matter. Moreover, as soon as his lecture began, everyone listened to it with concentrated attention. Finally, the rector of the Moscow Academy, Archimandrite Polycarp, who was unloved by Metropolitan Philaret, was dismissed from his post on December 14, 1835, and the inspector of the academy, Archimandrite Philaret, was appointed in his place. Polycarp's self-will irritated the Metropolitan. “Either remove me from the academy completely, or leave me with it. Otherwise, it is impossible to know what responsibility is for,” he wrote to Polycarp. But such intelligible remarks touched Polycarp little. Upon the appointment of Philaret to this position, the Metropolitan, in order to prevent such clashes, wrote him the following instructions: “I remind you that more than once, probably in your presence, I reminded my predecessor not to despise the rule of the charter, which orders decisions on important matters not to be carried out without the knowledge of the bishop. What are the most important things? For the proud and inattentive there are none, but the modestly thinking one already recognizes them himself.” On an extract from the journal of the commission of theological schools on the appointment of Archimandrite Philaret as rector, Metropolitan Philaret put the following resolution: 1) to carry out an examination of academic amounts according to receipts and expenditure books and accounts for 1835; 2) enter into a discussion about the embezzlement of funds in the Kazan district under the former secretary Dobrokhotov; 3) require secretaries to register unsolved cases and report on the state of the archives; 4) report on the state of the library; submit a note on academic property. It was difficult for the young rector to solve the problem assigned to him. Many things did not turn out to be obvious. To discover this disorder meant to aggravate the situation even more. The chaos of several years has already been revealed to the authorities, and what they demanded has already been done, that is, your predecessor has been fired. Now, no matter how many disorderly cases are revealed, there will be no other consequences for those affected by the disorder: now is the safest time to show everything as it is and to put it in order. And if you say that the files are intact, when they are incomplete and confused, but then there is an inspection, or a certificate that reveals that they are not intact, then you and your employees will be responsible, like your predecessor and, perhaps, more strictly for secondary disorder and for hidden disorder. And so the spirit of love says, as much as I hear, that it is necessary to protect you and your predecessors with the purity of the present action, and there is no need to cunningly cover up the already covered sins of your predecessors and thereby expose you to danger when the cunning is revealed. You say that some lost papers can be obtained from the seminary boards. So much work, so much time! Meanwhile, you will already be to blame for not giving an account of the acceptance of the academy. How will you require papers, especially submissions? In copies? These copies will be eternal proof that the original papers have been lost and that you deceived your superiors by reporting that they were intact when you saw the originals signed in the old date?? May God protect you from this; to indulge in such forgeries!” Indicating which registers should be drawn up, the Metropolitan noted: “Get accustomed to the concept of accuracy in matters that do not allow arbitrary speculation without the danger of being guilty. It's good that I accepted the need to report in the acceptance of the academy. If the commission of theological schools had demanded it (as was the idea of ​​some), you would now be to blame for the fact that there is still no report, which should have been made immediately, at least about the assumption of office and the acceptance of cash sums.” Then the Metropolitan makes the following comments about the presented rector: “The magazines need to be bound in the archives. Isn't that a lot? Cases are not intertwined even where the archives are more important than yours. For money, externally, you need a book of receipts and expenses, but why write postal advertisements in it? “Don’t be too clever” ... “Your reluctance to sort out the cases about the amounts is incomprehensible to me, and therefore I have nothing to say.” “You are occupied with the wisdom of God’s affairs, Father Rector, but you do not know how to understand the wisdom of the affairs of the clerks,” the Metropolitan responded to Rector Philaret’s letter about his proposed method of recovering from the estate of the deceased secretary Dobrokhotov the amount he had wasted. “To demand a ban on an estate that does not exist means making the provincial authorities laugh; to demand the prohibition and seizure of an estate that is already under arrest means leading to even greater laughter, for it means looking for the mittens that are in your belt. (Here it is impossible not to notice that in this case the Moscow ruler did not stand on a strictly legal basis). It seems to me that other members of the academic branch could understand and tell you this if you asked them about it. I could explain to you Fr. viceroy, if asked. As a precaution, it was possible to write to the provincial government about imposing a ban on Dobrokhotov’s estate, if there is one or turns out to be one; but this is almost in vain, because it seems that he has nothing except what is in your hands. Do not think that the orders of the case exceed human reason and that in them it is necessary to do according to the letter even what is contrary to common sense; sort it out, give room for discussion among your fellow members, consult and, acting prudently, preserve the dignity of the place to which you belong. Do not take my words as abuse: I am not indignant, but I am explaining the matter and showing how it should be done.” “After joining the academy, you suddenly gave yourself a lot to do. You are ordered to accept reports from everyone, you would have accepted them and reported on them, and whatever further verification would have been necessary, it would have happened gradually. Now you accept things as they are, and at the same time erase the previous omissions, as a result, suddenly there is a lot of work, but what should be done is not being done, somehow: there is still no information about the state of academic property, except for money. Look at the 6th paragraph of my resolution on January 21, execution on it should have been done immediately after the inspection of the amounts, as signed there. If this has not yet been done and it turns out not to be intact, then it may not be clear whether it happened under your or previous management. I remind you of the fulfillment of this point.” “On paragraph 6 of the same resolution on the library and paragraph 7 on affairs and archives, carry out as signed, without going into the distance prematurely. Send the reports, verify them by general examination and report with your opinion what else needs to be done further to verify these reports in detail, or to put in order the objects that these reports talk about.” Having directed the work and activities of rector Philaret in this way, the Metropolitan reported to the Synod, among other things: “that upon the assumption of the position of the current rector, measures were taken to verify the archive and put in order the previously overlooked parts of it: movement was given to matters, some of which had remained without movement for a considerable time; orders have been made for a safer movement of funds passing through the academy.” The Metropolitan demanded that the rector on particularly important matters, before presenting the academic board or conference, report to him and find out his opinion. Departures in such cases provoked comments from the metropolitan, which the young rector did not avoid. So, regarding the presentation of the conference on the petition to Professor F.A. Golubinsky’s pension in the amount of a third of the salary received for the position of censor, the Metropolitan put forward a resolution: “This means demanding a new law. You need to think in order to decide in good time, not to rush to report on the spot. I always advise that subjects that require a meeting be presented to me on the spot, but everyone has to complain that it doesn’t happen that way.” The Metropolitan did not miss a single detail: even phrases provoked his criticism. On the occasion, for example, of the proposed ordination of inspector Hieromonk Evseniy 3 to archimandrite, the academic board proposed allowing him a four-day leave to perform the ceremony. The Metropolitan wrote: “This is not dismissal, but ex-officio.” Or, it would be more correct to report that the academy did not suffer any damage from the fire that happened in the Lavra. The Metropolitan wrote: “The inspector’s note is more pious than this idea: it mentions a prayer service,” or, they represent the dismissal of Bachelor Slavolubov for 7 days in Moscow due to extreme need. The Metropolitan writes: “Decisions cannot be based on the vague expression extreme need. A person, following a whim or an unlawful impulse, may say: extreme need.” Once, rector Filaret, having not yet received permission from the metropolitan to go to Moscow for Easter, left the academy. The Metropolitan, who was then in St. Petersburg, wrote to him: “You went to Moscow without waiting for permission. It wasn’t there because it was only from the letter about your departure that I learned that you were asking for permission. There is no judgment with me in this; but as a precaution, I will say from now on that dismissing oneself is a very unofficial act and, if it reaches the highest authorities, it can have unpleasant consequences.” This is how the Metropolitan treated his young brother of the same name strictly. In this harsh attitude, it is impossible not to notice that the Metropolitan, appreciating the modesty and humility of the young rector, tried to soften his speech with the additions: “Do not take my words as abuse: I am not indignant, but explaining the matter” ... “Peace be with you” ... “Do not be bored by difficulties” ... “God will send help and relief,” etc. And at the same time, in his presentation to the Synod, although he speaks about his own orders, but places significant emphasis on the fact that new orders began upon the entry into office of the current rector, thereby establishing a well-known reputation in the Synod for the young rector. Filaret was no less strict when it came to teaching. Thus, on a summary of dogmatic theology presented by Rector Philaret in 1838, the Metropolitan made the following comments. In the notes it was written: “the concept of the God of the Old Testament revelation, the concept of the New Testament revelation of God, judgments of reason, the pantheistic concept of God.” The Metropolitan wrote: “The concept of God is from the revelation of the Old Testament and the New Testament. It's like two different concepts! As if revelation were different from revelation! It may be clear in the lessons, but in the notes it seems mysterious how and why one of the false teachings is attached to the true teaching.” In response to the expression: “in the preface of the Gospel of John,” the Metropolitan remarked: “At the beginning of the Gospel, the preface refers to something extraneous that does not belong to the composition of the book. It’s strange that in such a fragmentary summary of literature they could not omit “satires” and “elegies,” as if this were extremely necessary for the theological academy.” In 1836, he wrote to rector Filaret, having reviewed two student essays submitted by the latter, assigned for public tests: “I return to you the discussion about the interpretation of Holy Scripture according to the theory of adaptation. The topic itself is presented poorly, and so on. It is not safe to talk about this in Russian, so that, instead of resolving the doubts that have arisen, you do not awaken doubts that you did not know. The author portrays his opponents incorrectly and answers them unsatisfactorily,” etc. “What kind of word is one-year-old?” asks, by the way, the Metropolitan. “Weekly from the word week. Is it really a year from a year? From the word annual." This is the kind of teacher and leader Filaret had at the beginning of his teaching and administrative service. Archimandrite Philaret probably didn’t like his rector’s service. He became involved in academic studies, from which, of course, his rector's duties distracted him a lot. Moreover, loving, humble and forgiving, he did not easily get along with the cold formality that his service required, and partly with the peculiar concepts of the metropolitan. For example, notifying Gorsky from St. Petersburg in 1841 that the Metropolitan agrees to approve the continuation of the consumable academic book, but not otherwise than on the date when it is presented to him, he makes the remark: “What to do? Order, order, order. This is the time, the time of forms. What about the content? ... Although the experienced and stern gaze of Metropolitan Philaret directed the activities of the young rector, the latter’s warm soul was felt everywhere, always giving a special shade to his speech and judgments. So, when the famous Pavsky case was in full swing, his translation of the Bible was taken away, an investigation was carried out at the Moscow Theological Academy about who and through whom ordered copies of the lithographed Bible, our rector wrote to Gorsky from St. Petersburg, where he was summoned for consecration: “What you write about the sincerity of the answers given by some students did not entirely please me. But God willing! Having spoken about the mentors, they did not untie the knot, but tied it tightly and tightened it tightly. God grant that my thoughts are unfair and my fears are in vain. Unfortunately, the way things are going now is such that there is a lot to fear. Yes, childish frankness is a wonderful thing; but even for it there are cases when it can be in vain, since we are commanded not only to be simple as a simple dove, but also to be wise like a serpent. Students, my good students, were mistaken; they don't know life yet. If a well-intentioned judge asks me, a judge with a Christian conscience, a judge who sincerely wants to take care of both my sin and my soul: I am ready, I must open my soul to him. But if I see that my judge does not need my soul, but only sin, if I see that the judge himself is very sick with passions, is looking for food for passions, is ready to give in words the meaning that belongs to them in my soul: tell me, doesn’t love for my sick court oblige me not to tell him what can irritate his passion, not to tell lies, but also to remain silent about the details of the truth? Moreover, let’s not talk about the fact that it is doubtful for me whether it happened or not?” Filaret, being the rector, drew attention to the cramped conditions of the classrooms and the hospital, and a third floor was built for classrooms and apartments for single teachers, as well as an outbuilding for the hospital. Devoted to his beloved scientific works and position, Filaret did not enter into the economic order of the construction matter, and although there were no abuses, the matter itself turned out to be out of order. True, this was the fault of the former secretary of the academic board, and at the same time the rector’s trust in him. The new secretary had to correct someone else's misfortune. Nevertheless, Philaret remembered the fate of Polycarp, and he could not help but be concerned about this matter. The disorder was discovered during Filaret's trip to inspect the Simbirsk Seminary. Pretending to be his head, he wrote to Gorsky: “Because of my sins, it is necessary that the things you write about happen in the academy. My sin is clothed: it seems there is no need to think about it any other way. so be it! The will of the Lord be done! He is a Heartbreaker. True, true, what can be expected from a sinner other than sins? Lord, do not go into court with Your servant. Punish, but also have mercy! Punish here, but have mercy there - in eternity. Punishment is necessary, it is necessary; I forgot a lot, I was confused a lot, I left a lot that shouldn’t have been left, I got used to a lot that I shouldn’t get used to, my sins multiplied like water when the snow melts. The wickedness of the heart has multiplied like the hairs of a wild will. Have mercy on me, have mercy on me, Lord! Teach me to do Your will!” But the beloved rector was not allowed to suffer for his gullibility. The Metropolitan was not reported, and the matter, as we said, was put in order. The missing papers appeared again in action. Which way? There is no need to talk about this. It was a matter of love and appreciation. The rector and inspector of the academy and its professors were entrusted with the audit of seminaries. This duty was extremely unpleasant: it was necessary to sacrifice vacation time, depriving oneself of rest, and almost always running into trouble; and the trip itself, with the then bad roads and simple carriages, was tiring. Filaret did not avoid this service either. As an inspector, in 1834, the twenty-eight-year-old auditor inspected the seminaries: Vologda, Yaroslavl and Kostroma, in 1836 Bethany and in 1839 Vladimir. Filaret submitted audit reports on time, at the beginning of October, which corresponded to the metropolitan’s strict accuracy and aroused his pleasure, while the untimely submission of the audit by Professor Golubinsky gave rise to a whole unpleasant matter. But even here, Filaret had to sacrifice his opinion before the strongest authority of the Metropolitan, whose inexorable logic and experienced gaze were constantly in full force. For example, a young auditor made a proposal: in order to better supervise students in lower grades, establish classical senior students from high school students who would supervise students in grades up to high school before the arrival of professors. He wrote that such a measure was introduced at the Yaroslavl Seminary at the suggestion of Archbishop Abraham. The Metropolitan objected: “the establishment of special classical elders for the lower branches from the higher, in my opinion, is inconvenient and can not destroy the disorder, but create a new one. If we appoint a special senior every day, then for the two parts of the lower department we need 12 of them, and if for the middle department, then 24. What a waste of people, while from the higher department lecturers and senior room and apartment workers are appointed! What a fuss it is for these 24 people to figure out the days and places, to whom, when and where, and to pass on to each other daily a newly invented book of order and disorder. It is difficult to understand at what time these elders should be in the classes of the lower department. The teaching hour in the lower departments and in the higher departments begins at the same minute: therefore, a student in the higher department must be in his department at the same time when he is sent to the lower one. They say: before the professor arrives. And is it necessary for the professor to be late to give time to a student in a higher department to post a position as a senior in a lower department? And if it happens that the theology professor is more diligent than the teacher of the lower department and comes to class earlier, then the theology student will lose part of his theological lesson, chasing the lower department. I believe: a) the order, as inconsistent with the true order, should be destroyed; b) strengthen the classical supervision of classical censors and through mentors for each class; c) as the board’s offer of empty time before the professor’s arrival shows that the professors are late in coming to class, then confirm to them not to come to class late, thereby the time of disorder will be destroyed by itself when the professor soon appears for the students and gets down to business.” In response to inspector Philaret’s remark on the audit of the Vologda Seminary, the Metropolitan wrote: “The auditor found that theology was taught partly in Latin, partly in Russian. Probably the first is out of possible obedience to the rules, and the last is out of necessity, because the students are not strong in Latin, as the auditor noted. In this case, to demand the teaching of theology exclusively in Latin would mean to demand an inconvenient and unfamiliar language to stop the spread of theological knowledge, while in addition to this, the dominance in Orthodox theology of the Latin language (formerly pagan, and now pantheistic and Protestant) is a phenomenon that is not consistent with the spirit and purpose of the theological schools of the Eastern Church. Therefore, I believe that the teaching of some parts of theology in Russian should be left without persecution. At the Vladimir Seminary, the rector drew attention to the unsatisfactory answers and essays of the first departments of theology and philosophy, frequent absences from lessons by students, changes by the seminary board of their definitions approved by the local eminence, untidiness and poor maintenance of students, which was brought to the attention of the seminary board. Having noticed in 1836, upon his arrival at the Bethany Seminary, some disorders, the Metropolitan made a proposal to the academic board “to see that these irregularities are stopped, and since during the former audit of the Bethany Seminary the auditor (Golubinsky) did not discover those irregularities to the authorities, then appoint a more attentive audit for this seminary.” The academic board appointed rector Filaret himself. This appointment shows us how the Metropolitan himself understood Philaret. The auditor, however, gave a favorable review and pointed to the rector and inspector of the seminary as persons worthy of approval, which was announced to them by the commission. More details about the mentioned revisions are unknown; but in 1841, Rector Philaret’s audit of his native Tambov seminary was strict and gave impetus to the life of this seminary. According to the testimony of the person who later headed it, it was carried out intelligently, authoritatively and carefully and brought a lot of benefit to the spiritual and educational institutions of the Tambov diocese. This confirms the opinion about the undoubted benefit that the young archimandrite obtained by serving under the direct supervision of the Moscow Metropolitan. On the other hand, the young auditor’s strict and correct understanding of the method he chose to give back to his native seminary indicates his bright outlook. And the field, as evidenced, for education and its purification was vast and overgrown. “I found a lot of news in Tambov,” wrote Filaret; “some are strange. But what to do? The Lord owns everything. May His holy will be with us sinners." There were up to 700 students in the seminary, and in addition, theological schools were under the supervision of the rector of the seminary. The rector of the seminary was Archimandrite Adrian, who had a reputation as a kind, kind, but very narrow-minded man. In 1840, as an inspector, he also came across a man who was not superior to him in oddities. The cause was supported by mentors as much as possible for them. and most importantly, the Reverend Arseny 4. He spared Adrian for his meekness. By the time of the audit, Bishop Arseny was no longer in Tambov. And His Eminence Nicholas, appointed in his place, had not yet arrived. Those present during the audit found Filaret’s actions strange. Only Rector Adrian could understand their meaning and reason. Filaret, having come to the exam, after prayer, took his chair, without looking at either the students or the teachers, who, according to the customs of that time, not excluding the rector Adrian, stood. He looked at the list, the program and began to ask, while he leaned his elbows on the table and covered his face with his hands. The student spoke the text. “Wrong text,” notes the auditor. Rector Adrian gives the student another hint. “Not this text,” the auditor notes, without changing his position. He looked like he was weighed down by the task entrusted to him. But this was not the matter that weighed on him. Arriving in Tambov, he stayed with the inspector, from whom, of course, at the request of the rector, he moved to the latter. And this stay burdened and upset Filaret. “We had a competition with Father Adrian,” he wrote to Gorsky. “Strange man! I didn't think he was that weird. With a certain weakness of mind, he is so stubborn in his opinions that he has no strength to overcome his stubbornness...” I cannot help but conclude that I am burdened by my stay with Fr. Adrian and I regret that I came to him.” “As I write these lines, I am not entirely at peace. And now I have become somewhat calmer than I was all night and morning.” And then, as if softening his words, he adds: “but the Lord is merciful to sinners.” And so, after a sleepless night, irritated by the morning competition with his master, he appeared for the first exam in the subject of theology, read by the same strange man. The board of the Moscow Theological Academy made the following comments on the report of the audit of the Tambov Seminary: 1) the theological lessons by the students of the upper division of the 1st grade were not learned with proper understanding; many showed a lack of thinking in their essays. And the knowledge of church history is unsatisfactory. The latter depended on the illness of the mentor (Ornatov); 2) Insufficient success of students in the reading class of Holy Scripture and in the subject of teaching about the fathers of the church: this deficiency depended on the large number of students; 3) Pupils of the secondary department of the 2nd grade produced less than adequate essays; 4) The lessons in the first grade of literature (E. A. Ponomareva) are not presented very clearly and simply for the students, which is why they were not well understood by the students. Lessons on this subject are given by each mentor (3 sections); 5) The students of the secondary department showed a very unsatisfactory knowledge of the Greek language, which depended on their insufficient preparation for this class at the district school, especially those who came from the Tambov and Shatsk schools.” Following the order of the academic board, a second one was received with the proposal of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, who was in charge of religious educational institutions at that time, based on the same comments of the auditor. All his instructions were carried out in the shortest possible time, and the benefits of this wonderful revision were palpable. Rector Filaret's business trip to Tambov brought hope to his loving mother for a long-desired date with him. But Konabiev’s remoteness from the postal road, then the haste that was required by the case (since the students of the Tambov and Penza seminaries, which Filaret was supposed to inspect, were not allowed to go on vacation before his arrival), did not allow Filaret to travel to his homeland. From Penza he traveled to Tambov, from there, to venerate the relics of St. Mitrofan, to Voronezh, and on the way back, either due to lack of funds or due to service requirements, he went straight to Moscow. From Tambov he sent his mother a gift - 100 rubles. The old mother was very sad. “Will money really replace a date with him?” she said. And in order to calm down in spirit and pray for her son, she went to Vysha; returning from the monastery, she caught a cold and passed away into eternity. Filaret had just returned to Moscow when a new assignment was ready for him - by decree of the Holy Synod - an audit of the Simbirsk Seminary. This audit was a difficult task. It did not have the character of an ordinary audit, but was entrusted to Filaret, as a result of the greatest disorders committed by the rector, Archimandrite Gabriel. “God grant that this case ends without any trouble for the investigator.” This is how it seemed to Filaret. All the more obvious was his unpleasant side to the experienced eye of the Metropolitan, who, while condoling about Philaret, met him with the words: “Shouldn’t you refuse due to illness?” But always submissive to the will of his superiors and reading in it the instructions of Providence, Filaret remained silent, “in the thought that there is nothing to talk about the impossible.” The Metropolitan “gave a lot of advice and told the progress of the matter. The Lord will save him! “The truth stings the eyes,” wrote Filaret from Simbirsk, but here it is so bitter, so callous, that it leads to trouble. Be the will of the Lord! You know my stupid rules, that is, do until you drop. Almost the same thing is happening to me here, do not scold me, a sinner, but pray to St. Sergius for me.” During all the difficult moments of his life in St. Petersburg and Riga, he constantly turned to the prayerful intercession of St. Sergius. The theological class turned out to be weak, economic affairs were in chaos, seminary buildings were built and collapsed. According to Filaret, it was necessary to introduce permanent walls instead of partitions so as not to dismantle the buildings. “I still can’t say anything definite about the affairs of the seminary,” wrote Filaret (October 16). “This is a togu waboghu” 5. The leaders of the Simbirsk Seminary were fired. Rector Gabriel received control of the Zilantiev Monastery near Kazan 6, inspector Blagovidov was transferred to the position of mentor in another seminary. This order was made by the Holy Synod even before the presentation of Philaret’s revision. The latter’s concern was who would fill these positions, albeit temporarily. He turned to one archimandrite, who refused due to illness. Then he decided to ask the Metropolitan to entrust the position of rector to mentor Smirnov. No matter how much concern the audit entrusted to Filaret presented, he still took some work with him. “Between the business of finding out the sins of others 7,” he wrote to Gorsky (a very decent occupation for a sinner!), “I am leafing through and correcting the notebooks that the Metropolitan had.” From Simbirsk Filaret traveled to his homeland. “I decided to visit my homeland, bow to my mother’s coffin, God’s will be done! Obedience to your superiors, and love to your family! Both are debts. The Lord sees hearts." After 12 years, Filaret found himself in his homeland and, instead of the lively and friendly speech of his parents, he himself said “eternal memory” at two graves close to his heart, one of which was still only covered with earth. In his native church, where his childhood prayers were raised before God, he served a liturgy, and then a memorial service over the graves of his parents and said goodbye forever to his dear, orphaned nest. In Shatsk, he visited the school and visited the widow of his former boss, the caretaker of the school, Luminarskaya. For her affection towards him, a child, he, they say, had the opportunity to pay her when he was in Tambov, appointing her son to the academy. At the same time, they point to the original opinion of Filaret, expressed in a conversation with the seminary authorities. “We will send to your academy someone who can write an excellent essay for himself and for ten others,” said one of the teachers. “We don’t need those,” answered Filaret: “they will ruin the floor of the academy, we already have similar ones.” At this very time, a great deed was being accomplished on the northwestern outskirts of Russia, and just as a small incident often leads to great consequences, so it was here. In the Protestant region, a handful of pennies and a few pieces of bread laid the foundation of the Orthodox Russian Church. To know, this sacrifice was given from a pure heart, filled with love for one’s neighbor, it was holy. In Livonia, which under Catherine the Great was simply called the Riga province (and in many ways it would do well for us to borrow from the Great Empress), there was a grain crop failure. The people were dying of hunger. About seven hungry Latvians wandered into the courtyard of the bishop's house. His Eminence Irinarch, seeing them, provided them with money from his meager resources and ordered them to give them bread. A few days later, up to 70 Latvian souls came to him. “My friends,” the bishop tells them, excuse me: what I gave to seven, I cannot give to seventy.” “No, father,” answered the strangers, “we did not come to you for bread, but when our neighbors told us that you were so sympathetic to their misfortune and helped them, while our barons, on whom we and our fathers worked in the sweat of our brow, are indifferent to our situation; when our pastors, whom we support, are indifferent to us; and you, the bishop of a church foreign to us, extended a helping hand in the Gospel, we thought: it has become, the teaching of your church is the true teaching of Christ and your church is the true church of Christ. And so we came to you with a request: accept us into the bosom of your holy church.” Their request was fulfilled, and the people, forgetting about hunger, went to their villages, preaching everywhere that they had found the truth. A few days later, several hundred Latvians came to Vladyka Irinarch for the same thing. Thousands of people felled. The barons came to their senses when they saw that the political veil with which they thought to cover the foreign natives was ready to fly away; that the chain with which the country was entwined, and the ends of which the neighbor seemed to be firmly holding, was broken. They began to use all kinds of intrigues, torture, and slander, which was repeated under Irinarch’s successor and, perhaps, is partly repeated now. The tricky barons built a nest at court, and finally they managed to achieve the transfer of Irinarch, who was taken out of Riga. The movement stopped. Everything seemed to be quiet. Barons and pastors rejoice. Petersburg has calmed down. With Orthodoxy, that means it’s settled. Barons and pastors again became stewards of the destinies of the country, where every inch of land was again bought at the price of Russian blood and washed with the tears and martyrdom of the new children of the Orthodox Church. So, everything was fine. But perhaps it was only the mind that looked at it differently; only he alone understood that the more sacrifices and sufferings were made in the name of the church, the stronger its foundation, the deeper its roots penetrated into the soil. Didn’t all the apostles end their lives as martyrs? Was it not the martyr's blood of their followers that watered the field of the church before it bore fruit? This far-sighted mind belonged to the great Moscow saint. There is no other way to explain the appointment of his favorite rector Philaret as Bishop of Riga. The Metropolitan knew the young monk's fiery love for the church, his submission to the will of God, his humility, his deep understanding of the truth of the faith and each and every error of Protestantism and, finally, his close acquaintance with German theological literature and the German language. The Metropolitan understood that the roots of Orthodoxy on Livonian soil must sprout. And a better choice could not have been made. But this news, received by Filaret in Simbirsk, struck him like a thunderbolt. He was so attached to the academy, to his work, to the library that he seemed to want nothing more than not to part with them. He put in so much work and perhaps had such broad plans for his studies that it pained him to renounce them. “Enough, almost full of dreams!” he writes with some sadness. The same attachment to the academy and scientific pursuits kept his friend, Gorsky, from becoming a monk: although in his life he was a true monk, monasticism was followed by the bishopric, and with it the inevitable separation from the academy and, to a large extent, from science. Even before receiving this news, Filaret, missing the academy, wrote to Gorsky: “Besides all this, there is no hope to soon return under the warm wing of the Reverend. Yes, while you live in one place, you don’t feel like you can miss the place. This is not what happens when you have to experience the difference of places in reality.” “Here I live in such a wilderness that the voice from my native monastery and the academy is very dear to me.” And then this voice came, and what did it bring to him? The fatal news about his appointment. True, a lot of sympathy and love was expressed by his friend, who returned the difficult news, but this did not change the situation. “May the Lord reward you for your love for me, a sinner,” wrote Filaret. “Strange thing! Your news has stirred up a lot of thoughts and sorrows for me, but the will of the Lord be done. I wanted to write a lot; but circumstances this time do not dictate that I do what I thought I would do before. Strange thing! I can say one thing. Do you remember, my friend, how often I told you the last time about mental boredom, which I could not explain. Several times I began to tell you about one feeling or premonition, but each time I stopped at the thought that feelings or premonitions are sometimes the same as the wind, the movement of air. Now it is clear that my feeling or premonition was not a simple movement of the soul. Here's the thing. Recently, my soul has constantly felt that I was like a stranger at the academy. And this feeling was so strong that it overwhelmed me that I could not drive it away. I had to make a lot of efforts on myself in order to drown it out for some time. Emptiness, alienation from everything around me - constantly remained in my soul. You had to fight with yourself in order to resurrect in yourself the flame of love you knew for your academy, for its affairs, for its position. The sorrows and griefs that had recently followed me so closely one after another, left only one feeling in me: I am a stranger here; everything tells me that I am a stranger. Hardly for hours could I forcefully arouse in myself the warmth of love for the students, as for my relatives, as for the affairs of the academy, as my own, when again in my soul the same feeling: you are a stranger, and everything here is alien to you, and my fellow academic workers, whom I had previously held so close to my soul, seemed to be telling me: you are a stranger. This, my friend, is the feeling that burdened my sinful soul. Now you understand why your sincere word, your sincere reproach for my mistakes and weaknesses, that word of love that shook my whole soul, lately, as I myself noticed, did not wake me up much. What should I do with myself? Apparently, the soul has its own rules, which are difficult for the will to change.” This letter is very valuable for determining the character and academic activities of Filaret. From it we see how close the academic was to him. From him to the last student, it was one family, working together for the glory of the church and science. That is why the time of Philaret’s rectorship is considered the golden time of the Moscow Theological Academy. Here is a review of him and his works during his rectorship by one knowledgeable person. “In 1840, on the occasion of the transformation of the educational part in seminaries, the Moscow Academy was entrusted with compiling notes on all subjects of the seminary course. All subjects were distributed among the teachers, and the notes on dogmatic theology were compiled by Rector Filaret himself. In addition to these notes, in 1839 Philaret compiled a note on patristics. He himself was the creator of this science. The “Historical Doctrine of the Fathers of the Church,” compiled by him, in three volumes, was a textbook in academies, and an abbreviated version of “The Doctrine of the Fathers of the Church” was introduced as a textbook on patristics in theological seminaries. Thus, thanks to him, a new department was opened in religious educational institutions. Abstracts and programs compiled by a corporation of scientists at the Moscow Academy, thanks to the direct influence of Metropolitan Philaret, but the power of his comprehensive understanding standing high above the minds of entire learned societies, as well as the painstaking and assiduous work of the tireless Archimandrite Philaret. often turned out to be better than in other academies. Thus, the programs of logic and psychology compiled at the Moscow Academy were given preference over others, “in terms of clarity of presentation, completeness of content and systematic consistency,” and these programs were sent out for guidance to universities. Thus, the Moscow Academy, under its management by Philaret, scientifically became superior to others and was the leader in the organization of philosophical sciences in higher secular educational institutions. Due to such a high rise in science at the Moscow Academy, the Holy Synod repeatedly entrusted very important assignments to Archimandrite Philaret. Thus, he was entrusted with revising and correcting the Slavic translation of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of Matthew. To carry out this receipt, a special committee was formed from the professors of the academy. He found the Slavic translation inconvenient to use, and... according to his proposal, he was allowed to again translate the works of Chrysostom into Russian. Professor Delitsyn was tasked with translating the interpretation of St. into Russian. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Romans. These works were published in 1839 and were produced under the direct supervision of Rector Philaret. Many questions that arose, requiring canonical and sometimes archaeological erudition, were carefully worked out by the young rector, whose diligent assistant in his work was Gorsky. “Without exaggeration we can say that the best, golden time for the Moscow Academy was the time when it was ruled by Archimandrite. Philaret under the direct leadership of the Metropolitan himself.” – “During this period, as has already been said, many translations of the patristic works were made; At this time, the corporation of academy professors worked especially hard to compile independent works, which is easy to see from the list of scientific works of those individuals who served the academy, and at the head of all workers, as a model for them, and partly as a leader, was Rector Filaret himself. The “History of the Moscow Academy” by S.K. Smirnov does not include the scientific works of the academy rectors. From this list it is clear how much richer, more varied and fruitful the scientific activity of Archimandrites was. Philaret the 2nd in comparison with the scientific works of his predecessors. The first rector Simeon composed two words, the second rector Filaret 1st 8 (1815–1819) also wrote and published two words; the third Kirill 9 (1819–1824) wrote five words and one speech; the fourth Polycarp (1824–1835) published a book of words and conversations, a book of translations from Greek into Russian and compiled. on behalf of the authorities, for the lower class Latinam Chrestomatiam (1827). Rector Filaret 2nd Gumilyovsky published much more in six years than his predecessors did in more than twenty years. And his works are not words and speeches, not translations only from foreign languages, not textbooks for schools, but scientific research, such as: “Research on the Preachers of the 13th Century”, “St. Serapion, Bishop of Vladimir", "Testimony of the apostolic times on how the name Jesus should be written and the cross depicted"; historical works that are very valuable for our time, such as: “O professor. Maxime Greke", "History of the Song Singers of the Greek Church". in 3 parts. At the same time, teaching dogmatic theology, he compiled his famous “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” in 2 books. He also worked on translations from foreign languages, especially from Greek, and took an active part, along with others, in translating patristic works into Russian. The translation of his “Spiritual Meadow” dates back to the same period of his scientific activity. “To the rector’s office, Archimandrite. Philareta Moscow Academy has reached the apogee of its scholarship. No wonder he had the desire to found a spiritual journal at the academy. In this respect, he became on a level with the famous Innocent, Archbishop of Kherson. the very thought of publishing a learned periodical shows an excess of spiritual strength, a high desire to enrich others with true wisdom. Almost seven years of persistent pursuit of his beloved dream, which did not even bow to the authority of Metropolitan Philaret - to found his own academic journal, brings this dream to fruition. The first and best years of publication of this magazine, i.e. “Creations of the Holy Fathers,” owe their content to the famous worker Philaret.” To evaluate his professorial activity, a letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Chief Prosecutor Count. Protasov in July 1842, after his audit of the Moscow Academy, i.e., six months after the departure of rector Philaret: “The main subject of academic teaching, dogmatic theology, turned out to be taught and accepted in the spirit of Orthodoxy, with thoroughness and strength, with the use of both the sayings of the Holy Scriptures and the testimonies of the holy fathers to establish the truth. the departure at the end of last year of the teacher of this subject (the current Bishop of Riga) and the entry of a new one did not leave any traces of diversity and did not reduce the unity and strength of teaching. According to hermeneutics, both in the rules of interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, and in the very experiments of interpretation and in the information about the books of the Holy Scriptures, conformity with the teachings of the Church and the interpretations of St. is seen. father". “The Teaching of the Fathers” 10, despite the recent introduction of this subject into the academic curriculum, presented information that was entertaining, easy to understand and promising benefits, both because it introduced one to St. fathers, and because they encourage them to read.” Having been summoned to St. Petersburg, from there and then from Riga, he constantly urged Gorsky to hurry with the magazine and sadly reported on various difficulties brought from outside. “The Metropolitan is in no hurry to move the magazine; tight times require that, time that makes you watch every step vigilantly. Lord have mercy on us sinners!” But at the same time, regardless of the obstacles, he asks to work for the magazine: “For the Lord’s sake, strive with zeal for the glory of the name of Christ. Your work will be appreciated there.” The following letter from him to Gorsky, in which he sent his articles for the magazine from Riga, makes it clear about Filaret’s keen attitude to this matter and what difficulties presented themselves. I am sending two articles about St. Chrysostom. I tried to be brief; but the subject is so interesting, so great, that the soul yearns for both: you can’t hold back. Neander wrote two books, but it seems to me that it is possible to write at least two volumes and - excuse me - more entertaining than the books of Neander, who often stained the pure, heavenly face of Chrysostom. The more you read Chrysostom, the more you become fascinated by him, the more you are filled with respect and love for him... I thought and am thinking of sending you an article: “Chrysostom is the founder of worship”; there is a lot about liturgy in it. But again there is an obstacle: it speaks about the liturgy in a way that others may not want to talk about, I mean schismatics in pants. However, I’ll think about it.” The Metropolitan demanded consistency in the translation of the fathers, and the article about Chrysostom could not be published according to this plan, which was what Philaret wanted. “Yes,” he wrote, “if you wait with the article about Chrysostom’s teacher until the translation of the works (I mean Basil the Great, Ephraim the Syrian, Gregory of Nyssa, etc.), you will probably wait until my bones lie in the womb of the common mother earth. No, don't wait! And without that, they will look at Chrysostom not without consolation. So, at least it seems to me, especially since Chrysostom is presented not only as writing and talking, but also as acting, or more precisely, the whole action is lively and tireless. But these are just my thoughts. It’s good to have one mind, but you don’t have two.” However, fearing that earthly vanity might arise in this desire, he, out of his greatest humility and fear of damaging the publication with his persistence, sends another in pursuit of the letter. “I wrote my last letter very hastily, in some impatience; the answers to my articles were not written in a calm spirit, and this bothered me after the letter. Everything requires presence of mind, and in mental anxiety, no matter what it is 11, thoughts can more or less get in the wrong direction. True, at the end I stipulated that I was leaving everything to your general meeting, and this made me somewhat easier; but nevertheless, it is not good to write letters not in a calm or somewhat restless spirit. For this you need to scold yourself. you need to protect yourself from this. In such cases, pride acts most often and most powerfully. This is what happened to me in this case. I was impatient for the article to be published. But why this impatience? Fruit and food of self-love. Lord, forgive me, a sinner! I have sinned and am sinning before You every minute.” This attitude towards the work of the main figure, of course, gave the magazine a special direction. Filaret had not yet returned from Simbirsk when a caring friend began to prepare him for the journey: to put his affairs in order for delivery, his library, his things, and Filaret thanked him in touching expressions and, according to his constant rule, surrendered himself to the will of God. It would be useful to explain how Filaret’s relationship with Gorsky was established. For two years Gorsky listened to “Church History” and Filaret. A man with remarkable abilities and hard work, Gorsky respected the worker of science, the young professor. In 1833, appointed bachelor of the same subject at the academy, Gorsky became an assistant in the works of Filaret, and the latter became his leader. Together with Filaret, they spent almost hopeless time in the academic library. In 1835, when Filaret was appointed rector and received simpler premises, he took Gorsky to his place. And so science and moral qualities bound these two beings in a strong friendship, rare in our time. They became necessary to each other, both for the success of academic studies and for support in life. These were two workers of science, two hermits who lived in the world. Their main guardian from the bustle of the world was science. For those who worked with their backs bent all day long, a minute of rest for the body was precious, but the mind did not stop working. Feeling tired, Filaret went to his friend’s room, lay down on the sofa to straighten his body and had a conversation with his friend about the world that knowledge opens, about the path along which it leads. And with what pleasure Filaret later remembers these moments of relaxation and conversation! Neither time, nor labors, nor sorrows, nor circumstances weakened Filaret’s love and affection for the academy. Arriving in Simbirsk on the day of the teacher. Sergius, on September 25, he was mentally transported to the indestructible walls of the monastery: “when you celebrated the feast of the saint of God. I could only watch your triumph from afar. like an alienated sinner. It’s so necessary, in my opinion, it’s not worth it! May the will of the Lord be done over the sinner!” “Write to me about everything academic,” he wrote from St. Petersburg, “write more, more. It’s hard, damp, stuffy, cold here.” And he didn’t like the St. Petersburg Academy. “Now I was in a model academy; But I’ll tell you the exact truth: there’s a stink in the corridors. The yards are clean. Soldiers on guard. I don’t want to talk about anything else.” “Please write to me more often, I’m bored.” “I hug and kiss you in the Lord. How I would like to sit in your room! And even more to lie down! The past cannot be returned. So be it! “I congratulate you on this bright holiday, my dear Alexander Vasilyevich! May the risen Savior rejoice your soul with holy, pure, bright joy. Wish the sinful wanderer the same. Last year, together with you at night, we waited for a bright morning. Now where am I? With whom? For what? And from where? It’s hard, my friend, but He told me to endure. This is necessary because of my sins. Enjoy quiet, serene joy, angel of God! May the Lord bless you from Zion more and more with his peace and quiet joy! Do not forget about me, a sinner, in a moment of quiet prayer and quiet consolation.” In 1854 he visited the Lavra and... upon returning to Kharkov, he wrote: “I am still delirious about the Lavra, the Academy, Moscow. Places dear to my soul." He never spoke of Metropolitan Philaret except as “our ruler.” “I never stop calling him mine, speaking from my soul.” The Metropolitan considered him so close to the academy that even after his consecration as a bishop, he made his orders through him, while living in St. Petersburg. Seeing him 10 years later already as the Bishop of Kharkov, the Metropolitan, with all the calm restraint of his character, expressed by his reception great love for the saint. Valuing the good name of his protege, the Metropolitan reported to Philaret about all the rumors that reached him, without leaving him with advice. Filaret accepted this advice with filial piety and gratitude. Appreciating Filaret's services to the church, his tireless work and understanding the benefits that he could bring to the academy, the Metropolitan, according to many, predicted him to be his successor. In turn, Filaret considered the metropolitan’s activities at the academy so fruitful that he reproached the mountain academy, which, as he remarked, “is in debt to the saint, having not yet erected his portrait.” When the case of translating the Bible was being inflated, Filaret, although he feared for himself, as the former rector of the academy, betrayed himself to the will of God. “Without a doubt, they will come to me with questions and, without a doubt, they will not believe the answers. But let it be what pleases the Lord. Nevertheless, sinful Philaret will have to pay with sorrows for these deeds. It is difficult to doubt this under the present circumstances.” "God! Only You, Lord, know the thoughts of the heart. I am a sinner and worthy of all kinds of punishment. Thy holy will be done." But what troubled him most of all was the possibility of bad consequences for the academy. “For God’s sake, be more careful in conducting your business before the commission. You know the thoughts of its members. You know that in one 12 there is a little prudence and partly purity of intentions, and in the other there is almost no common sense at all 13 . Understand that such members were chosen by the count with special views, in order to somehow dishonor the academy for his own glory. My God, my God! be the protector of those who trust in You alone!” Undoubtedly, the intrigue was directed against the Moscow saint. The Metropolitan, with his penetrating mind and deep knowledge, with his indestructible logic, against which all the plans of Count Protasov were dashed, stood in front of him on the road. The active role of Athanasius and the suffering role of the decrepit Metropolitan Seraphim contributed to the intentions of the chief prosecutor; he wanted to clear the field for himself, and so Filaret was dismissed to Moscow, and at the same time Filaret of Kiev. This is how our Filaret wrote about this in a letter to Gorsky: “The Metropolitan accepted this matter, of course, not in a schismatic spirit. At first, he wanted, on this occasion, to begin the process of publishing a Russian translation” (As you know, the Moscow Metropolitan gave feedback that if the people are eager to read the Holy Scriptures in their native language, then this thirst should be satisfied and the existing translation, cleared of duties, should be published). “But since the cry of the schismatics rose up so furiously against the translation,” Filaret continued, “that it was not possible to think about translation, while the count himself began to announce it as the leader and sower of thoughts contained in the translation, then another very moderate idea was adopted: to print the title of the chapters with comments, or at least just the titles. This proposal was treacherously taken from him and turned into a loud dishonor to his person and the entire Synod, with the exception of the old man, who lost his meaning.” That was the time when everyone in the church department was subservient to Count Protasov. he knew how to divide the spiritual hierarchs and turn some church ministers to serve him and against her. A pupil of the Jesuits, who knew his church only from the outside, a servant of pride and vanity, he was a tyrant in the church sphere in the sense that the concept of the people assigns to this word. Here is what Archbishop Anatoly (Martynovsky) of Mogilev wrote about the situation of our church: “There is hardly a church more unfortunate than ours, and since 1812 I have been in the school service and have witnessed many incidents in our church. In terms of its position, it is now in exactly the same relation to the secular government as the so-called ecclesiastical regions are to the papal government. And if you put it with the XI volume of St. laws (ed. 1857) in the hands in parallel with other religions located in Russia, then it is unlikely that our church is not more constrained, bound, humiliated than any society of other faiths.” To confirm that other churches enjoy a more advantageous position in Russia than the dominant Orthodox Church, one can point to their budget. So, to satisfy the spiritual needs of Catholic subjects, that is, the maintenance of the Catholic clergy, the treasury allocated an amount of 15 kopecks. for each Catholic subject, while for the Orthodox this amount did not exceed 7 ½ kopecks. If we take into account that the Catholic clergy is celibate, then one wonders how much more secure is their position than the Orthodox clergy. It would seem fair to set this expense in inverse proportion. Without depriving the Catholic clergy of what they currently receive, our Orthodox clergy would be completely provided for. And only now, by the will of the Monarch, has a beginning been made for the future provision of the clergy. “With what pleasure I read every letter of yours,” Filaret wrote to his friend from St. Petersburg. “You, living in the former blissful silence, cannot imagine the local state of affairs, and at the same time my situation. Thrown into the most cramped atmosphere, where only shadows seem to wander and swirl, it is, of course, gratifying to receive a voice from the favorite place of souls living and breathing in the Lord. Yes, this is true, and such truth is very difficult for the soul. God forbid anyone should live in St. Petersburg at this time. Siberia is cold for the body, but it is also free for the Lord. I don't know what will happen to me here. My situation is such that I don’t know what to call it. I am afraid to judge him, since it is difficult for a short-sighted person to judge what is being done by order of the established Authority.” Advising us to hasten the submission of a report on the audit of the Bethany Seminary, he wrote: “You see that now they are looking out for our sins in order to take the government into their own hands and make the church an arena of ambitious exploits. Believe me, for God's sake, that I am writing the truth, although this truth is too bitter. You must spare your soul and the church, redeemed by the Lord. It's hard to suffer for your soul. How can one answer for the suffering of the Church of Christ?” Philaret, who took the fate of the church to heart, while present at the Synod, in 1858 wrote to his spiritual friend, the leader of the Nobility Romanovsky in Kharkov): “God grant that something useful for St. churches. But, as one would think, a lot of things could work out for the benefit of the churches.” Among this, he arranged a proposal to establish a seminary of evangelical missionaries to preach the word of God among pagans and Mohammedans, not excluding even the Chinese Empire. “God grant,” he wrote, “that this is St. things got better sooner. But we are poor in money,” he notes. This was immediately after the Sevastopol War, which weakened our financial strength.” One of the difficult days of his St. Petersburg life was, of course, the day of his presentation to the Chief Prosecutor Count Protasov. He describes this performance as follows: “He kept me with him for more than an hour and the whole time was spent talking; but it was a test or better yet torture. The questions proposed were the most difficult for the soul; for example, what is such and such a bishop like, such and such a secretary of the consistory? Understand for yourself that there were even more interrogations about rectors and seminars. I confess that I left him in great embarrassment and with a great heaviness in my soul. He himself later told others that he tortured me. Yes, it is easy to torture; but what is it like to be in torture? May God's will be done! Even now I cannot say anything about this conversation or, more precisely, about its consequences. Whether it will lead to good or bad, I don’t know. One thing I know now is that it is not easy to talk to these people, very difficult. And Father Afanasy 14! Oh, great Athanasius! But may the Lord, who is great, forgive me for such things that I would never like to hear about. I admit that, although his affairs were not bright before, but now? My God, my God! What do passions bring us to? What can outraged wild pride lead to? A person will burn people at the stake, will hand over saints to desecration, and yet will remain half confident that he is doing all this for the benefit of humanity. Unhappy man! What a pity that Afanasy is like this now. Forgive me, my friend, for calling him Judas 15. Too cruel? But if I have sinned, Lord, just me. My friend, I feel that I am writing to you only about my feelings and not showing my actions. But what should I do with my soul? She is so indignant that she cannot speak otherwise, cannot help but call things by their proper name, burdened by the blackness of names. Athanasius, yes, Athanasius, and no one else, preaches: for me the confession of Grave 16 and the Helmsman is everything - and nothing more. Athanasius, and no one else, is a tool and a desperate agent according to the appearance and will of the shaven schismatics 17. Whatever they need to do, everything is ready to do and does. My God, save us! Yes, our sins have brought us to this point. Lord, let me see my sins! Unhappy man! An ulcer for your soul! A devastating plague for an entire church! But soon you will see some of his deeds for yourself, and free me from the burden of talking about his deeds. Even before this, he wrote to Gorsky that Afanasy forbade Professor Karpov to read philosophy from his notes, but gave him Winkler 18. “You know the courage of Fr. Afanasia. Added to this, apparently, was a strong desire to do what was pleasing to the people of the century. May the Lord forgive us sinners!” The same helpful Athanasius and his committee, examining books of a harmful direction, counted 177. It turned out there were 53. “They counted not only the number of copies, but also the number of books, magazine particles, and now a terrible number was formed - 177. Lord, let me see my sins and do not condemn my brother.” This is how Philaret informed about the activities of the committee, which was engaged in viewing books in execution of the decree of St. Synod on May 14, 1825 (!), regarding mystical writings. I would like to say a few words to you about recent events here; but they are so black, so dirty, that it is better to remain silent about them. Perhaps I sinned a lot in condemning the current course of affairs. But the recent affairs of the shaved schismatics are so dirty that it would be difficult to even guess about them before they were discovered. Now just one thought calms the soul, the thought that deeds themselves revealed people who seemed so similar to zealots of good; Now it is certain for everyone that their deeds emerge from a bottomless dirty pit. And therefore it remains to firmly follow those rules that they do not approve of, and with even greater love to pray to the Lord that He would not forsake us sinners with His help. Their case remains to be handed over to the court of the Just and All-Seeing! Even before this, he wrote to Gorsky: “You write with regret about the silence of our generals 19 . Ah, my friend, if you looked here at the situation of our generals, you would shed tears for them! Things are in such a situation that it is barely, barely possible at times to repel the onslaught. Otherwise, you just have to face bullets in the side and stand without wincing. Yes, that's exactly how things are. You can’t even think about forays or offensive actions. You know my previous thoughts and feelings; it is known how the soul was sometimes tormented by unreasonable thoughts about the inaction of the generals; Now I see that it is necessary to pray to the Lord to give them firmness and determination to withstand the siege. The forces are exhausted, the funds are taken away.” So his young minister was tormented in his soul at the sight of the state of the church. When Gorsky, in order to publish Filaret’s work: “historical teaching about the fathers of the church,” advised him to turn to the chief prosecutor, Filaret replied: “Our ruler is closer to the soul, but I don’t want to disturb him either; he is already a long-suffering ascetic of the Church of the Lord.” On the advice of the Metropolitan, Filaret petitioned for permission to print the lives of the saints in separate books. Gorsky explained the refusal by economic calculations. “The reason is probably,” answered Filaret, “that they are Russian. Despite this reason, I am not indignant: I have seen enough of actions and deeds. Let us pray to the Lord God that he will send his help to create salvation.” Meanwhile, they slowed down his departure to Riga. “Now I’ll just tell you about this,” he wrote, “that I will live here for a long time: the holiday will be held here. Such is the fate. First they tell you to hurry, then they tell you to wait. But what? Others order, but I don’t want it myself - and that’s enough. The less space, the better." “Don’t you think, my friend,” he wrote later, “that I am now in Riga? No, don't think so. And still in St. Petersburg. What to do? I can’t explain it to you: this matter is above your eyes.” Apparently, the inactive life in St. Petersburg tormented Filaret. Spring also came, during which Filaret suffered from a severe fever. They have already begun to leave for their dachas, but not a word about leaving. His only entertainment was his studies: but it was difficult to conduct them without benefits. Of which the library of the St. Petersburg Academy turned out to be scant. “Do you know what is not in the academic library?” he wrote to Gorsky. “You won’t guess. “Monuments of Russian literature of the 12th century!” For this reason, understand other things as well. Old and worn out in abundance; don't ask for anything new. They are afraid of heresy. Of course, this fear is sacred, but in what case? Christ is with them!” The only pleasant experience he had during his stay in St. Petersburg was the exam at the Smolny Monastery. “Among mentors, the best professor of history is Akhmatov. This man knows his business almost perfectly well, dexterous, able to make people listen to himself and with extensive information. The girls answered very well in history. It was even fun for me to see that they could read like that. What is especially striking is that they answer very freely, and he reasons with them, as if in an ordinary conversation. I would be mistaken if I said that this is a fidgety dandy. No, there is nothing like that in him. On the contrary, he is a rather stern person, or at least gloomy. For example, he did not think about insulting the rules of secular politeness when he suddenly stops one and says: “Order is the soul of the body; but you mixed up the events and released a lot.” Count Protasov continued to insist that Filaret compile Dogmatics. Perhaps here, too, partly lay the reason for the slowness of Filaret’s departure. To the guardsman. To the Chief Prosecutor, this matter seemed, perhaps, very easy; but it was not like that for Filaret, who complained that he did not even have notebooks (i.e., his lectures), not even the New Testament: everything was sent to Riga. Adding to the suffering that Filaret was experiencing was his own hardship. His own aunt, his father’s sister, was married to Naryshkin’s peasant, Dmitriev. He and his relatives served in an economic office. The chief manager was the German, an evil, cruel man. Noticing that the Dmitrievs condemned his actions regarding the peasants, he became their irreconcilable enemy and was looking for an opportunity to take revenge on the Dmitrievs. Upon the assistant’s arrival at the estate in the summer, the German manager assured him that the Dmitrievs acquired wealth illegally, that is, by profiting from the master’s account. Their fate was immediately decided: their property was taken away, some were assigned to menial work; other young people, including two cousins ​​of Filaret, were supposed to join the soldiers. Filaret was informed about this family grief by his uncle, Archpriest Dmitry. Filaret turned to his ruler for advice and help. The Metropolitan, through his father-in-law Naryshkin, managed to persuade him to release the Dmitrievs and allow him to be ransomed. The release order prevented the Dmitrievs from being recruited into soldiers by two hours. Naryshkin agreed to give free rein for 8 thousand rubles. But where could one get such a sum? “Now it’s about the money. Four thousand have been contributed, and four more need to be contributed. We need help. And the Tatar would not refuse help in such a case. Be His holy will!” In this matter, Filaret was helped a lot, as we heard, by his childhood friend, the son of the former manager of the Naryshkins, later comrade of Finance Minister III. Filaret corresponded with him until his death. Filaret sent his brother, who came to him in St. Petersburg on this sad occasion, on his way back to his homeland, instructing him to deliver a letter to Gorsky at the Trinity Lavra. “Receive it with love. Let him and his son pray to the Pleasant of God. Of course, there is nowhere for them to lay their heads except with your love. Warm them with love. They lived here for quite a long time, but received little or not everything they needed for their needs. Talk to them and show St. Lavra And one more request is: lend them 25 rubles for the journey. I don’t have any now: I live somehow, I gave them what I had. Trust in the Lord God! I will try to repay love with your love.” Filaret had a very hard time finding money. He could not yet receive anything for his writings; Several years passed before it was approved for publication. Kind and compassionate towards the needs of his neighbors, he did not save from his not particularly large salary. And any surplus went towards books. Filaret had a tender affection for his relatives, especially his mother. And it must be credited to him that during his ministry he did not surround himself with relatives, who, while completely devoting their time to the work of scientists, could abuse his name, and if not, then they would give rise to unnecessary slander. At the request of his own nephew, who was a deacon in Konobeevo, he wrote to the Tambov Eminence asking whether it was possible to appoint him as a second priest in the same village. After the fire of 1828, which destroyed all of Konobeevo, it fell greatly. Many peasants were transferred to other estates; instead of two wooden churches, one stone church was built with one staff of clergy. The local priest, having learned about Philaret’s letter, went to the bishop and explained to him that the two priests would have nothing to live on. “I cannot,” answered the Bishop, “not to fulfill the wishes of the respected archpastor (Filaret was the Archbishop of Kharkov at that time) and must make a presentation to the Synod.” The priest asked permission to write to Philaret himself. Filaret, having learned from the priest’s letter about the circumstances of the case. He abandoned his application. Letters from Filaret to his mother and relatives. His uncle, Archpriest Dmitry Voskresensky, with whom he maintained constant correspondence, breathed with tender friendship and sympathy. Unfortunately, they were destroyed by a fire in 1869. These letters, according to the testimony of a person who had the opportunity to read them, clearly expressed the high character of the saint. He constantly sent money to his mother. Once the widow-sacrifice (who is still alive) turned to Philaret’s mother for help: she did not have enough money to pay for the horse. Old lady Nastasya Vasilievna, giving her money, remarked: “What a good son I have! He writes that he sent little money because he gave it all away; But he doesn’t know that I have nowhere to put the money he sends.” One relative-priest betrothed his daughter and turned to Filaret, who was then in Kharkov, for financial help. “I don’t have any money now, but tell your matchmaker that I will send it soon and assure me that the bishop will not deceive you.” Two weeks later he received 200 rubles. Filaret built a monument on his mother’s grave, and sent 300 rubles to his native church for commemoration. and silver vessels worth 400 rubles. When his uncle Archpriest Dmitry and his old aunt-mentor came to him in Kharkov, he met them with tears and repeatedly exclaimed: “My dear uncle and aunt! Well, I’m so glad to see you!” The next day, he invited his uncle to serve with him, and after the liturgy, introducing his village guests to the visitors, he testified that he owed his aunt the development of his inclination towards monasticism. By chance, one priest, condemned by Philaret to stay in the monastery, met a visiting guest. Realizing his guilt, the priest expressed his grief: the family was suffering because of him. No matter how strict Filaret was towards the mistakes for which he condemned the priest, he forgave him at the request of his dear guest. He summoned two of his nephews to Kharkov and assigned them to the seminary, but only to supervise them and guide them. After completing the course, they entered the rural priesthood. He provided financial assistance to poor relatives in absentia. At the end of the course at the Tambov Seminary, one nephew, Ivan Gumilyovsky, was summoned to Riga and appointed priest of the Konlogusen Peter and Paul Church. Philaret entrusted him with the censorship of sermons written in Latin. Over the course of two years, this shepherd converted 72 people from Lutherans, 4 Catholics and two schismatics to Orthodoxy. The movement among Lutheran peasants in favor of joining Orthodoxy was general, and therefore the conversion of 72 Lutheran-Latvians does not represent anything special, but the conversion of Catholics and schismatics that the pastor stood in all respects at the height of his task and responsibility. But according to Filaret’s translation, the position of Fr. Gumilevsky became so difficult that Filaret had to take him, assigning him to Sumy, to the St. Nicholas Church. Meanwhile, the persecutors of Orthodoxy made a denunciation against him, common at that time, that he allegedly resorted to coercive measures when converting to Orthodoxy. The local authorities did not protect, like many priests then, from slander and Fr. Gumilevsky, with a ban on religious service, was sentenced to imprisonment in the Korennaya Hermitage in the Kursk province. “I ask for your love,” wrote Filaret to Innocent, who was at the service in St. Synod, “stand up for the poor Fr. John Gumilyovsky, so that at least the suffering of the innocent would not be aggravated to immeasurable duration,” and from Chernigov he wrote to Romanovsky: “The circumstances of my blood are not joyful. We must surrender to the will of God, before which we have already sinned greatly.” He wrote to his nephew’s wife: “May the peace of God be with you. The Lord is merciful. Even if He sends us sorrows, it is for our own salvation. Because what is necessary for eternal life, what is useful for the salvation of our soul, we must accept with gratitude to the Lord, or at least with submission to Him. Blame me for why your husband didn’t tell you why he went to Kursk, I didn’t tell him to tell you so as not to burden you with grief untimely. Now our sorrows are close to the end. I wrote to the Reverend. Kursky for your husband. And the Reverend wrote to me that he will use everything to calm your fate. At first glance, he appointed Fr. John in Miropol. It is not far from Sumy. Subsequently, he promises to give a better place when such a place opens. So, you see that your suffering for your children is in vain. Everything will work out. Let's be patient and pray to the Lord God. There is no need to tell others what I am writing to you. After what has been said about your fate, I think you will no longer be troubled by doubts and sorrows. Fear sin. I repeat: pray and the Lord will arrange everything. Hope is in Him, who leaves no one in shame. People think to do us harm, but the Lord will turn evil into good.” “I am sending it for your needs. I hope to see you soon through Rev. Kursky and tell him and ask him for you.” After 3 ½ months, he sent her 35 rubles and again urged her to pray and hope in God. “Pray to the Lord and trust! It’s a sin not to hope in the Lord, but hoping not to pray.” “I am ready to help with your needs.” At the same time, he informed that Vladyka Kursk had already made a presentation about her husband to the Synod. At the beginning of the next 1853, he was released from confinement as a monastery and received a parish in the Kursk diocese, and in 1855 Philaret transferred him to Kharkov; but in 1859 Makariy transferred him to Okhtyrka. Filaret was extremely happy about his brother’s arrival in Kharkov, served with him several times and wrote to Romanovsky: “Yesterday in Slavyansk I served with my brother for the last time, and on Friday I served with him in Svyatogorye. God knows: will we see him? And he and I grew up together, studied together, were punished together. Poor man, he got a lot from his ardent father. We are with him, which is more important than anything else. They laid down the beginning of spiritual life.” The resemblance between both brothers was striking. Not only his relatives enjoyed his attention and support, but every fellow countryman was close to him. So one young man, who had not completed his course at the Tambov Seminary, came to Kharkov with a bag over his shoulders and a ruble. The letter from Deacon Vasily, brother of Archbishop Philaret, was supposed to open the door to the poor young man. The saint received him with sympathy, talked with him and, noticing his abilities, made an offer to the seminary authorities to accept him into the theological class. A few years later, this young man, having completed his academic course, was appointed as a mentor at the Chernigov Seminary when Philaret was already Archbishop of Chernigov. His diligence won him the love and favor of the saint until the end of his life. Philaret's consecration as Bishop of Riga took place at the Kazan Cathedral on December 21, 1841. According to custom, the newly consecrated bishop will give lunch to the members of the Holy Synod. Filaret avoided this custom partly due to his personal view of it, and partly due to the scarcity of funds. Only in six months. In July 1842, he went to Riga. “No matter how difficult it is for me to live here,” he wrote from St. Petersburg, “but I feel that not such sorrows await me ahead. Recently they sent me here the magazines of the Riga government. It was then that I partially saw what Riga promised me, what worries, what mental suffering he wanted to endow me with. But be the will of God in everything.” “I just have to get ready for Riga, unfortunate Riga, worthy of me.” “Please, write to me in Riga more often: it will be very difficult and very boring for me there, I already know that.” This is the feeling with which Filaret went to Riga; but he still had a very weak idea of ​​what awaited him in this ill-fated diocese. In 1841, there was a rumor among Latvians about the existence of a decree. Allowing them to move to the internal provinces. This caused a great stir: exhausted from work and burdened with taxes, people flocked to Riga to sign up for resettlement. When the provincial authorities, in order to stop the movement, came up with the idea of ​​putting them in prison, shaving their heads like prisoners, and not accepting petitions, and when, by order of the same authorities, the gendarmerie Colonel Kirsch refused to accept their petitions, they turned to the bishop. His Eminence Irinarch advised them to return home, mind their own business and remain their own business and remain in obedience to their assistants, but he accepted their requests. More than one condolences for their bleak situation prompted him to such an act: according to the meaning of the bishop’s oath, obliging him to “intercede for the weak,” and, if necessary, write to the Sovereign himself, he considered it his duty to bring this illness of the region to the attention of the Monarch. For this purpose, the Latvians’ petition was forwarded by him to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count Protasov. Meanwhile, the Latvians, having learned that the bishop accepted the petition of the Wittenhof peasants, began to come to him in crowds. Sending three genuine petitions to Count Protasov, Irinarch wrote to him “that the peasants of the Livonia province come in droves to Riga to seek protection from the oppression of the local landowners, who burden them with exhausting work and taxes, through which they and their families are deprived of daily food; that to such complaints they add requests for their resettlement to other provinces, where they could be state-owned peasants.” Soon afterwards, in the petitions received by Irinarch, two petitions began to be presented: for resettlement and for joining Orthodoxy. Without accepting the former, he, out of duty as a priest, could not refuse the latter. Irinarch again informed gr. Protasov, that some Latvians express a desire to join Orthodoxy, that they do not have bread, that they are not allowed into the city, and are subjected to corporal punishment and imprisonment for bringing complaints to the authorities. The Emperor announced his displeasure. Then everyone rebelled against Irinarch, and especially the Governor-General Baron Palen. U b. A sharp correspondence arose between Palena and Irinarch. Irinarch wrote to him that he forwarded his paper along with the requests of the Latvians to gr. Protasov. This blew Palen's mind. He surrounded the bishop's house with disguised soldiers, who were instructed to arrest everyone leaving Irinarch, and to write to Irinarch so that he would not accept those who came to him with requests to join and would first turn them to the provincial authorities. Irinarch replied that he did not make any records. But he, as an altar server, cannot refuse to join Orthodoxy; that he does not accept Latvians who have not been with the provincial authorities, as evidenced by their shaved heads, and that the police surrounding his house are already taking them away. He added that this attitude of Palen was forwarded by him to Count Protasov. Irinarch's answer was conveyed to b. Palen to the attention of Sovereign Nikolai Pavlovich, as proof of Irinarch’s harshness in relations with the civil authorities. The emperor wrote: “I can’t judge the answer without knowing the greeting.” The attitude of the Governor-General towards Irinarch was also to be reported. After reading it, the Emperor put forward the following resolution; “As it comes around, so it will respond.” It seemed as if a thunderstorm had swept over Irinarch. But what could one fighter for the church do before a whole host of her enemies? Baron Palen told gr. Stroganov and Benkendorf about the indignation of the region by Bishop Irinrkh and his clergy, who support the people's hope for resettlement. He also found a witness, a certain Spassky, who was expelled from the clergy by Irinarch for disapproving behavior. As it turned out, later, this witness was bribed by the Riga provincial authorities themselves. Count Stroganov reported this to the Emperor and informed Count Protasov. This latter, on the basis of the most loyal report of Count Stroganov and the information delivered by Palen, drew up a report to the Emperor, emphasizing that b. Palen attributes the peasants' misconception about the resettlement to the actions of the bishop, as proof of which he presented a draft petition, allegedly corrected by the hand of priest Fasonov, which was subsequently not confirmed. Moreover, he expressed the opinion that Irinarch was ordered not to allow quarrels with the civil authorities and not to accept such requests from the peasants, turning them to the governor-general. Obviously, the report itself was drawn up one-sidedly, and the chief prosecutor’s conclusion was only a conclusion from it. The Emperor, agreeing with the opinion of Count Protasov, added that Irinarch should be given “a strict reprimand about the incorrectness and imprudence of his actions.” In fulfillment of the will of his superiors, Irinarch did not accept petitions that combined two petitions: for relocation and for annexation. Having learned about the bishop's refusal, the Latvians began to turn to him exclusively with a request to join and came in droves. No matter how severe the persecution and intrigues directed against Irinarch were, the servant of God could not reject those who came to him. When he explained to the Latvians that there were no earthly benefits associated with the transition to Orthodoxy, the Latvians answered with amazing firmness: “If the Emperor is pleased that we remain in our present places of residence, then we will remain calmly; only we want to be Russian in faith and its rituals.” At the same time, many priests reported to their ruler about the request of the Latvians to go to them and join their families to Orthodoxy. Irinarch reported everything to his diocesan bishop of Pskov and Count Protasov. Irinarch was not one of those people who, when serving the church, hesitates in the face of fear of persecution. Therefore, in order to ensure success in opposing Orthodoxy, it was necessary to completely get rid of Irinarch, and so a plan was drawn up. Realizing how sensitive the Emperor was to everything that could cause excitement and, perhaps, even capable of giving exaggerated significance to such circumstances, the cunning rulers struck this sensitive chord of the Monarch. And so, through Counts Stroganov and Benkendrf, Baron Palen presented to the Sovereign that the entire Baltic region was engulfed in a popular revolt, the main leaders of which were Irinarch and his priests. Baron Palen reported that Irinarch was still accepting petitions from Latvians and sending them to the priests in the fortress, where they were told about the possibility of resettlement under the condition of accepting Orthodoxy; that the peasants are already beginning to form secret meetings, saving money and taking it through their elected officials to Irinarch; that the Latvian electors at the outpost are allegedly met by a retired soldier (though not found), who, posing as a guide sent by Irinarch, takes them to the priest, and he, in turn, promises them with the adoption of Orthodoxy houses, lands, cattle and all economic establishments; that the peasants are neglecting work, expressing resistance and threatening to change the existing order with a bloody outcome no later than in the fall. Such information, which reached the Sovereign, had its effect. Not only the Emperor, but all the Russians who stood near the throne looked at these events with alarm, foreseeing in them the glow of a political fire that could engulf all of Russia. Meanwhile, Baron Palen appointed investigative commissions, ordered military executions, and even traveled around Livonia himself; in a word, he discovered amazing energy for “suppressing rebellion.” He reported all this to St. Petersburg, where everything was taken at face value. Our soldiers and Cossacks. Those who opposed the rebels were amazed that they were nowhere to be found: the peasants were minding their own business. But somehow we need to provide a spectacle, we need to organize some kind of hunt for the Latvians? After all, they are not Germans: why not hunt! And so the civilized ruler, who met at a halt a convoy of Latvians traveling for the province to Riga, surrounded them, took them away and put them in prisons. Knowing what the reports of Baron Palen to the Sovereign should be, Irinarch wrote to Count Protasov: “As for the unrest of the peasants, which the Governor-General represents as almost obvious indignation and against which he recognizes the need to use military force, then I can affirm, your Excellency, that this unrest or indignation is nothing more than a strong and almost universal desire of the peasants to join the Orthodox Church.” Pointing out that this desire gave rise to great concern among the civil authorities, he urged that all measures be taken so that the matter would not be decided by a unilateral report from the Governor-General. “In order to shed new light on the present matter and give a new degree of credibility to the fact (he wrote) that the local peasants are indeed disposed to accept Orthodoxy, I must tell your Excellency that Lutheranism in this region has completely degenerated into a neologism, similar to that which has spread throughout Germany, not to say throughout Europe; that rural pastors appear in the pulpits once a month, if not even less often; that they perform baptism of infants only among their noblest parishioners, and among other peasants, kisters or churchwardens, who present to the pastors records of the baptisms they performed for inclusion in the metric registers, and that the burial of the dead occurs in the same way. Such performance of their duties by pastors has long cooled the hearts of the peasants towards the Lutheran religion and its ministers and has disposed them in favor of the Orthodox Church, where all needs are fulfilled and where they see decent splendor in everything.” But Count Protasov was little touched by the words of Irinarch and cared little about the cause of the church. On the other hand, German intrigues were carried out with full energy. They began to act on the Sovereign from different sides, not even excluding Prussia. Prince Wilhelm (later the German Emperor) wrote to his royal sister asking her to persuade the Sovereign to defend “oppressed Protestantism.” Benckendorff, returning from Riga, imagined the need to keep troops there. Irinarch stood alone before the eyes of the Most High God. On earth, in defense of the vital cause of the Russian land and the Russian Church, not a single encouraging voice reached him. Finally, according to the report of the Chief Prosecutor, it was ordered that Irinarch, accompanied by the seconded official Skripitsyn, be taken from Riga to Pskov, and the priests Zabolotsky, Fasonov and the bishop's novice Annenkov were sent for interrogation to St. Petersburg. Irinarch was offered 14 question points based on false reports to the government. When the answers of Irinarch and the priests were reported to the Emperor, he seemed to have seen the truth; at least the impression made on him by previous reports had weakened significantly. The Synod proposed placing the priests in the St. Petersburg diocese; The Emperor approved the definition of the Synod, and Irinarch received an appointment as suffragan in Voronezh. The case about Irinarch was put into the archives, and with it the case about Orthodoxy in Livonia was consigned to oblivion, or rather, the case about Orthodoxy in Livonia was placed under strong oppression. Under such circumstances, our Philaret was appointed Bishop of Riga. Here is how one contemporary of the new Riga saint and his position in the punishment is depicted: “The chosen person, despite his frail and weak body, was distinguished by extraordinary energy of will and enormous erudition. Unfortunately, this will, thirsting for activity, capable of great sacrifices for Orthodoxy, was arranged in such a way that it was doomed to complete inaction; was tied, as they say, both hands and feet.” Before his departure, when Filaret introduced himself to the Tsar, he was charged with the duty to act carefully and with the consent of the civil authorities. To act in the cause of Orthodoxy with the consent of the civil authorities, who were trying with all their might to suppress Orthodoxy, of course, amounted to dooming Filaret to inaction. Moreover, the instructions to the Bishop of Riga were changed. “Attention and prudence combined with care and caution are required on the part of the vicar in dealing with foreigners, who are mostly populated in the Livonia and Courland provinces; in relations with local secular authorities, special caution is required in matters in which his opinions are not the same as those of the spiritual authorities; in these cases, before decisive action, the vicar asks for guidance from the diocesan chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, and the unanimity and consistent action of the authorities must be guarded extremely carefully.” The caution went further: “Petitions submitted to the bishop, containing two objects, namely a petition to join Orthodoxy and others that are subject to consideration by the provincial authorities, are completely forbidden to be accepted.” Frightened by the story of Irinarch and the warnings that he heard both officially and privately from various people, Filaret began his ministry with the greatest caution. Filaret’s prudence went so far that he forwarded his answers to the Governor General, of course, for more serious circumstances, before sending them to the address, to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod for review. This is evidenced by the letter we have from Count Protasov to Filaret. He needed to establish himself well and firmly in the eyes of the government; he could begin to act more boldly. Soon after arriving in Riga, Filaret writes to Gorsky: “It would be a sin to complain about the lack of love of the local flock for the shepherd. No, the flock was overjoyed, all the more overjoyed because the unfortunate circumstances agitated by the Germans made them think about the impossibility of being a shepherd here.” And it could easily be that this was part of the plans of the enemies of Orthodoxy. The Latvians, having learned about the arrival of the new archpastor, did not abandon the thought of joining. In a report to his chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Filaret describes the first time Latvians approached him. “On the evening of August 1, 1842, I heard that two Latvians came to Riga and, having asked the priest about me, left. On the morning of the 2nd, I considered it my duty to personally explain this matter to His Excellency the Civil Governor about this incident (the military governor was not in Riga at that time). Having spoken about those two Latvians, I asked if there was any fear for the peace of the civil if, in accordance with my conscience and with the announced instructions of the Sovereign Emperor, the Latvians would be listened to by me when they appeared. At the same time, I explained that, in any case, I am ready to follow the sincere ones and that I consider it my duty to listen to the Latvians in no other way than in the presence of the police chief and in his presence to write down. Mr. Governor fully approved of my intention to listen to the Latvians in the presence of the police chief, and added the idea, which, however, I also had, that the words written down by both of us would take the form of an act. Throughout the entire conversation, he did not let anyone notice that there were any fears at the expense of the calmness of the Latvians, just as such fears were not visible from anything else. In the form of friendly advice, he told me to beware of taking crowds and drastic measures, and then allowed me privately, so that the priest, if the Latvians came to him, could tell about my arrival and whereabouts, but no more (?!) Thus, I remained completely calm and in the firm confidence that if I happened to see the Latvians, nothing special would come of it to me, and my action would be in accordance with the wise will of the Sovereign Emperor and with the strictest requirements caution. My peace of mind was strengthened by the fact that, according to all the information that I received through the priests and from other persons, everything is calm in this area; The very position of the local authorities, as far as I knew it, assured me of this. On the 4th of August, at about 3 o’clock in the afternoon, when I had just returned from the cemetery, where I was serving liturgy and remembrance, I heard that two Latvians wanted to see Mr. Chief of Police Yazykov. When he arrived, I, among other things, asked him about the situation of the Latvians. He told me about their previous state; He said that now they are completely calm, that they have very good bread and they are peaceful. Unintentionally, but beneficially in its consequences, I asked him whether he trusted the translator when the latter appeared with the Latvians? He replied that he himself knew as much Latvian as was necessary in order to notice the infidelity of a translator, if there was one, and that therefore another translator was not needed. Then the testimony was selected and recorded by me with all accuracy, and I tried, with God’s help, to pay close attention to the demands of the truth. I consider it necessary to note that the questions proposed were mostly by Mr. Colonel. At the end of the testimony, the colonel hurried away from me, pointing out the urgent need to be with one of the investigations. For my part, following the will of the Sovereign Emperor, following the removal of the Latvians, I went to the city. military governor for personal explanations, after which he intended to send a paper with questions about this matter.” Governor General Filaret was not there and postponed the meeting until the next morning. In the morning, the police chief, having arrived to sign yesterday’s statement by the Latvians, wanted to limit himself to making sure that the words of the Latvians were recorded correctly; but the cautious Filaret demanded that he outline his proposal for the translator and he answered about familiarity with the Latvian language. No matter how careful the young bishop was in this matter, he could not avoid trouble and not pay for it with many sorrows. The success of the intrigue in the case of Irinarch gave courage to the German party, whose main supporter was the Governor-General Baron Palen himself. Filaret had just gathered to see him when he was informed of the arrival of the Governor General himself. “Following the instructions of the Sovereign Emperor,” Filaret wrote to the Chief Prosecutor, “on arrival in Riga, I made every effort to gain the love of both His Excellency and the other gentlemen. civil leaders and thanked the Lord in my soul that, as it seemed, my efforts had achieved success. Now Mr. The military governor-general, having arrived at the house, expressed strong displeasure, which for some reason was unexpected for me, and announced that my actions would again begin unrest among the Latvians in the same way as the actions of my predecessor; that I should have, without entering into any relations with the Latvians, sent them to the Provincial Government, where they would have been questioned with a skilled translator and that the police chief did not know the Latvian language. With confusion of soul, but with complete humility, I explained to His Excellency that if these demands and concerns had been announced to me before, I would have considered it an indispensable duty to follow them with precision. I mentioned to him about my relationship with the city governor, about the assurance of the police chief, about the will of the Sovereign Emperor. These explanations of mine somewhat reassured the Governor-General, and I, having thanked the Lord, considered it necessary to add to my communication my request asking whether special measures would be recognized for such cases of the arrival of Latvians, thus expressing my constant readiness to comply with the instructions of the local civil authorities. On the 6th I received the attitude of His Eminence. 5, 6 and 7 were quite difficult for me. The police were set in motion to see if more Latvians would come. Thank the Lord, things are still in the same situation as they were before the unfortunate arrival of the Latvians to me.” Seemed reassured by Filaret b. Palen did not abandon the accepted tactics and energetic persecution of Orthodoxy. They appointed a special commission, which acted with the usual weapons - torture, slander, bribery, etc. All efforts were used to find the guilt of the Orthodox clergy and the means for this were not understood. Dissatisfied with the Edinoverie, schismatics and all sorts of scoundrels were recruited for testimony, and an accusation was made against the Edinoverie priest Emelyanov of inciting Latvians to accept Orthodoxy. Filaret wrote to Count Protasov: “The investigators have not returned yet and, I admit, I don’t know how it will all end and why they went to the place! It would seem that if they were afraid of unrest, they should not be afraid of the mere appearance of Latvians in the area, much less cause any unrest in any other way. But be it the Lord's will! Only God knows what this acceptance of Latvians is worth to me. Previously surrounded by peace, I am now surrounded by anxiety and hostility. Some approved before Mr. the military governor-general was my way of accepting the Latvians and, perhaps, this kept me from the consequences that could and were ready to be at the very beginning of the matter. Whether you can hope for a successful ending to the case - judge for yourself. The situation is as dire as it can be. For my part, I consider it necessary to add my thought that if I feel bad now, should I expect something worse when they consider themselves offended by some report of mine. My part is to endure and pray to God.” This letter is written somewhat more reservedly; it does not fully express Filaret’s state of mind, as it is depicted in his simultaneous letter to Gorsky. “I would like to write to you a lot, but hold off. I am now in a difficult trial. For the Lord’s sake, I ask everyone who loves and remembers me to pray for me, a sinner. For the Lord's sake, pray to the teacher. Sergius, serve a prayer service for me, a sinner. I can’t write about the essence of the matter yet.” “I am not writing anything to you about my sorrows,” he wrote shortly afterwards, “because they are not over yet. The matter concerns Latvians; it started too unfavorably, and I don’t know how it will end.” Filaret closely followed the progress of the investigation, reporting every outstanding feature to the chief prosecutor. “The other day we completed a formal investigation into the case of two Latvians who came to me, which began upon receipt of an order from the Minister of Internal Affairs. Both this investigation and the preliminary private one took place under the jurisdiction and order of one civilian authority. The end of the investigation only leads to new grief for the Orthodox clergy. Based on preliminary research, they demanded from me that the Edinoverie priest Dorofey and the Edinoverie cleric Sazonov, as being involved in the unrest of the past year and supposedly participating in the current unrest, were removed from Riga. The same requirement is repeated at the end of another investigation. Since the beginning of the case showed too clearly that any disagreement of mine would only lead to the worst consequences, while also realizing that a person so empowered by the trust of the HIGHEST authority obliges my conscience to rely on his feedback, especially in such an important matter as civil peace: I, for my part, responded verbally that Sazonov would be removed immediately (moreover, he was considered only temporarily correcting the clerk’s position, but by condition he remained a tradesman), and he humbly asked for a priest, so that he would be allowed to stay until another one was found for such a difficult position as that of a priest of the same faith. They agreed to this; Meanwhile, I wrote about this to His Eminence. My actions in this matter were limited to this only, since, moreover, I did not find any opportunity for myself to do anything in public relations; could not say anything even privately against any action. My position was such that I had to use every effort to ensure that the civilian authorities restrained their anxieties and worries, which required a lot of work and sorrow. Everything that I saw and experienced over the course of three months, while research was being done about the two Latvians, shows too clearly to my conscience that every step in this matter will end without any benefit to the cause, and its consequences will only be anxiety for my superiors, disasters for many, not to mention myself. Both words and deeds show that thousands do not want Latvians to be Orthodox; And in this situation, what can I do alone? Nothing for business; no caution, no purity will save either me or my business. I can’t help but admit that the Latvians want to come to me; but when conscience and prudence insist that to begin this matter means to begin something that will not lead it to the end, but to other consequences, then I was forced to say that now is not the time. All that remains is to leave everything to the Lord and await His will.” In response to Gorsky’s impatient questions, Filaret wrote: “The thing about the Latvians in relation to me is that they desire Orthodoxy, and the Germans strangle them for this desire and insist that they are rebels, and at the same time everyone who touches the matter. This is the content of the unfortunate story! My every step is investigated, every desire is penetrated; spies even go into rooms and sometimes with requests for help against them; They are trying by all means to involve me in some dirty story. Slanders are pouring in from both hands. If the Lord does not protect, of course, there is no hope of deliverance from the fetters. I know that a new investigation has been ordered. But who will produce it and how is a special and unknown matter. Some of me have already been linked to the case of the Latvians who came to me. After what happened to me, I can no longer take a single step in this matter, and this has already been told to the right people. May the will of the Lord be done!” Meanwhile, Count Protasov reported to the Sovereign Filaret’s letter describing the first reception of his Latvians, and the Sovereign ordered that Philaret be conveyed approval of his actions, finding them “prudent and prudent.” This brought a lot of peace to Filaret. Filaret understood that he needed “serpentine wisdom.” His reports to the chief prosecutor give an idea of ​​his foresight and foresight. Emphasizing that if they were offended by any of his reports, his situation would worsen, he seemed to warn Count Protasov about keeping his reports out of publicity. Not without purpose, he also pointed out that not only did he not find it possible to enter into public relations on this matter, but even to touch upon it in a private conversation. “It is not easy to talk about the affairs of others,” he wrote to Count Protasov, when conscience cannot recognize them as matters of the Christian conscience.” Filaret conveys the words of b. Palena: “There is no need to unite Latvians to Orthodoxy now; in 100 years we will all be Orthodox through marriage.” Further, when it was necessary to praise Protestants, he said: “This is the beneficial effect our religion has on the hearts: when there was indignation last year, although strict measures were used, even military force, not a single Latvian touched anyone.” When it was necessary to show that the Orthodox clergy could start disturbances, the ruler said: “Last year, disturbances spread among the Latvians like fire after they were received by the clergy; the same will happen now. Nothing could stop it then; the same will happen now.” And the servant of truth had to listen to this blatant untruth! “Believe me, your lordship,” he wrote to Count Protasov, that three months were too difficult for me; I could hardly do anything at all, I was almost getting closer to the coffin, and what happened? The will of the Lord be done!” “The Lord will not abandon His work,” wrote Filaret, somewhat calmed down. Your Excellency I humbly ask you not to worry about this matter. If the Lord will be so merciful to my sins that, despite them, He will strengthen me, then with love I hope, with His help, to achieve what cannot be achieved in other ways; “I don’t consider it either useful or in accordance with my conscience to get involved in any legal proceedings.” The humble tone of Filaret’s letters, devoid of irritability, the brightness of the news he reported, the voice of the Russian people with their complaints about the lack of attention to the Russian cause, which more and more often reached the ears of the chief prosecutor, finally awakened him. At the same time, Count Stroganov was replaced at that time by the energetic, intelligent, completely Russian at heart, L. A. Perovsky, who took the cause of Orthodoxy, as a Russian cause, to heart. Count Protasov, under the pressure of such circumstances, in a report to the Sovereign, outlined the information provided by the bishop, and recalled his course of action, approved by the Sovereign himself. By the way, he presented the following considerations to the Sovereign: “Given such contradictory reviews of this case from Baron Palen and Bishop Philaret and the significance of the person of Priest Emelyanov, who has great influence on the local Edinoverie society (his efforts led to the recently pulled out of the schism), wouldn’t it be kind to the highest order to transfer this case to the Minister of the Interior for research and bringing it to light in a legal manner, with so that, if this priest is truly guilty, the spiritual authorities could have a fair and legal basis to immediately remove him and subject him to strict punishment according to his guilt?” The Emperor ordered it to be fulfilled. All of Philaret’s correspondence was transferred by the Chief Prosecutor to the Holy Synod: The Synod presented at the highest discretion a measure that fully corresponded to the time and circumstances, namely, that the Bishop of Riga should ask the permission of the Synod for everyone who wished to join. This, in the opinion of the Synod, should reveal in examples of private accession: many people desire it, for what reasons and what precautions and methods need to be taken. The main essence of the matter was that such a measure freed the bishop from clashes with the local authorities, for whom the fight against the Synod was more difficult. But the Sovereign, until the end of the investigation into priest Emelyanov, suspended giving consent to the resolution of the Holy Synod. This turn of events gave Filaret even more courage. However, having been tested by examples of previous consequences, he still did not fully trust the impartiality of the new one, and therefore wrote to Gorsky: “Pray! Now a great thing is being done here for me; An investigator from St. Petersburg, by order of the highest order, is conducting an investigation. If only St. Sergius would not leave me a sinner!” Notifying in the next letter about the satisfactory outcome of the matter, Filaret adds: “Let us pray to the Lord God! I will only say that until now I had never known that the hatred of the Germans extended towards me to such an extent as it actually did. Only the prayers of St. Sergius protected me, a sinner. Otherwise, the Germans wanted to treat me too, too badly. May the Lord forgive them!” Filaret, with his deep learning, perseverance, curiosity, zeal for the church and energy, was dangerous for the Germans and their domination on the outskirts of Russia. Not a single circumstance, not a single monument, not a single ruin escaped his attention. So, for example, after his trip to Wenden, he writes to Gorsky: “I was recently in Wenden and there I saw a copy of an ancient plan drawn up no later than the 17th century. There, near the castle wall, Grund der russischen Kirche 20 is shown in the city and a plan of the church itself is drawn. Now this place is built up with philistine houses. After that, I saw that in one German late book the German writes: “Tradition (Sade) says that there was a Russian church in Wenden in the 14th century. With all probability, or rather with certainty, it must be assumed that under Magnus or under Ivan the Terrible there was a church here for the wife of Magnus and the niece (if I’m not mistaken) of the Terrible.” The fruit of such observations appeared a year later in the June books of “Moskvityanin” (1843). Filaret’s article: “Where did the indigenous inhabitants of Livonia receive Christianity, from the East or the West?” This article could not hide from the Germans and made it clear who they were dealing with. Filaret's curiosity was not limited to the boundaries of his diocese. As a zealot of the church in general, he did not ignore a single phenomenon in her life, not a single incident that she experienced. Thus, having visited Vilna on the occasion of the reunification of the Uniates, he writes that he went “to share the triumph of Orthodoxy over the power of papism.” “Yes, one must marvel at both what happened before in Vilna and what is happening now. Do you know what the state of Orthodoxy was in Vilna in the 17th century and what it was like at the beginning of the 19th century? An old map of Vilna from the 17th or 18th century has been preserved. It shows that there were 15 Orthodox churches in Vilna. And what did the 19th century find? At its beginning, there was only one Spiritual Monastery left and its abbot without brethren. Strange; extremely strange! At present, things have taken the opposite direction: Orthodoxy is spreading, and the papacy is constrained within its limits.” Let us present Philaret’s opinion about Protestantism in order to better illuminate his activities for the benefit of the Orthodox Church and the attitude of the Germans towards him. “Go through the history of Protestantism to the present day. Where did it start, and where does it stop now? Luther demanded that everyone be a judge both when reading Scripture and when reviewing the state of his soul. He demanded that thought live. And at the same time, a demand was expressed that the trusting feelings of others, the humble submission to the experience of those blessed in heaven, should be abandoned. They listened to him. They obeyed because the demand flattered their pride. What is better for self-esteem than when they say: live according to your own discretion? They listened to him. And what then, what finally now? At first there was still a feeling in motion (you can’t suddenly kill it in yourself): life fights on its own with death, no matter what death turns to. At first there was a lot of fire both in words and in deeds, although it was more the fire of imagination, excited by pride, than of sincere, pious feeling. Then the feeling became weaker and weaker. From what? Because the thought began to act stronger and stronger. Three centuries have passed since Luther, and what has become of his Christian society? Moved by thought, but with a feeling deadened to the Lord.” The Moscow Academy rejoiced: the rumor reached it; that Filaret received the highest gratitude for his actions. Everything that Filaret wrote to Gorsky was read by the entire academy, and the sorrows of its former boss were taken seriously. Filaret informed his friend: “I didn’t write because I couldn’t write. These are secret papers; Only I know about them here, and now I am writing not without fear. I don’t understand how they found out about everything in Moscow; but how they decorated reality! I repeat, sinner, that thanks be to the Lord for these mercies, which I am not worthy of. The mercy is all the more palpable for me because I was not expecting it, but was already searching, searching with my mind for a corner where I could hide in complete solitude. If my friends here knew what they know in Moscow, they would ring the bell for me. You cannot, my friend, imagine how many precautions and concerns you need to have here! Every step is noticed, words are written down; They also write down when and how I visited one of the local celebrities. That's how it should be, my friend. When I myself live so carelessly, so carelessly, I waste time without thinking about what I’m spending it on and why it was given: it is necessary for others to notice and let me know about my carelessness. Oh, how merciful and generous the Lord is to a scoundrel like me!” Meanwhile, soon Governor-General b. Palen was summoned to St. Petersburg. “Something extraordinary is being prepared here,” wrote Filaret; “I can’t tell you what exactly. Things are in full swing there, in St. Petersburg. O Lord, do what is necessary for the glory of Your holy name!” The former Bishop of Riga Irinarh was summoned from Voronezh to St. Petersburg and was honored with favor. Rumors were heard from St. Petersburg that he, in the presence of the Emperor, would be given a confrontation with the military governor. “This is the most critical time,” notes Filaret. What caused this change? The place of Count Stroganov, as we know, was taken by Perovsky. He looked at the Latvian case in all its breadth and depth. Having examined the above-mentioned investigation, he reported to the Emperor that the accusations of priest Emelyanov and, in general, all the accusations of the clergy were fabricated, and the actions of the local Livlyandsky authorities were biased. The Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod began to act more boldly then. After Perovsky’s report, he asked the Sovereign’s permission to carry out the previously held resolution of the Holy Synod regarding the procedure for the annexation of the Latvians. Having approved this decree, the Emperor ordered the establishment of worship services for Latvians and Estonians in their natural language. It was difficult for Baron Palen to maintain the state of affairs in its previous form through perversions. Perovsky, with persistence worthy of a statesman and patriot, exposed the lies. Baron Palen no longer had support: the all-powerful Count Benckendorff, who so diligently assisted him, passed away into eternity 21. The news of his death (September 12, 1844) leads Filaret to the following thoughts: “The blessing of God is more necessary than anything in the world. One must live with him even beyond the grave. Without him, it’s bad on earth. People with a strong mind rise above time and attract the attention of posterity. They talk a lot about them, talk with enthusiasm, give them many big names; but if this is only the work of man, if a strong mind lives only with itself and itself, how sad is its greatness! Sarcasm, caustic sarcasm - its greatness. What is he now, the great of the earth? They talk about him loudly here; but the loud glory of the earth does not constitute a heavy blow for him? Do you believe that a thousand miles away a soul can feel that it is being touched, pushed by the movement of human feelings? Yes, it happens that a human voice echoes in my soul, coming from a thousand miles away from me. What then? Is there a connection between souls here, why not there too? And this is a sad reality for a soul enjoying illegitimate earthly fame! God's truth is strict. He gives his own to everyone, gives up to the last mort 22 . I am poor and wretched like no one else! Forty years on earth; and what is ready for eternity? Count Benckendorff was replaced by the Russian man Count Orlov. And here's L.A. Perovsky, together with him, managed to achieve the removal of Baron Palen and the appointment of E.A. in his place. Golovin. This change made the entire German Party think. Baron Palen was considered so strong that no one even thought about removing him. And then they replaced him with a Russian, at least a man with a Russian name. Moreover, Sovereign Nikolai Pavlovich said a decisive word, irrevocably his will, which encouraged all those who joined: those who wish to join Orthodoxy should freely enter the bowels of St. churches. The Tsar said to the noble deputies of Livonia that he, “himself, belonging to Orthodoxy, cannot and should not prohibit the free transition to the dominant church.” He expressed to them his indispensable will “to engage in improving the life of the peasants.” The Minister of Internal Affairs, informing the Governor-General about the will of the Sovereign Emperor, drew his attention to the oppression of the peasants who had joined Orthodoxy by the landowners and the Protestant clergy, and reported His Majesty’s resolution: “Keep your eyes open, do not start anything new and blindly adhere to the permissions given by me for all cases, and treat those who disobey my will, no matter who it is, as rebels. Amen". With such good signs, a new movement towards annexation began in 1845. But alas, all these hopes were dashed to dust. Governor General Golovin turned out to be very weak. The cause of annexation could not meet with his energetic support, because he remained convinced of a possible quick change in the system and the opinion of the Sovereign himself. The Minister of War, Count Chernyshov, in order to trip up Perovsky, tried at all costs to harm his plans in Livonia. Many of those who served under Golovin were completely indifferent to this matter, to say the least. Almost the only person ardently devoted to the church and the Russian cause was Count D.N. Tolstoy, with whom the Right Reverend became friends and maintained good relations until his death. Upon arrival in Riga, Filaret found the cause of Orthodoxy almost lost. Of those converted to the apostolic ministry of Irinarch, more than half fell away. Filaret wrote, among other things, to Count Protasov: “It is to be regretted that the landowners are very concerned about the desire of the peasants to join St. Orthodoxy. The concerns of pastors are natural, although some of them reach the point of frantic outbursts against Orthodoxy. In sincere conversations in Riga, the landowners confessed that it was not the weakening of Lutheranism that occupied them, but they were only afraid of the fact that a) under Orthodox priests they would not have that unaccountable power over the peasants that they had under Lutheran pastors, and b) that they generally wanted to keep affairs in Livonia separate from Russia and not allow anything Russian into it.” As a Russian man, Filaret wished success to the Russian cause. So, for example, when the “Creation of the Holy Fathers” began to be published at the Moscow Theological Academy, he wrote to Gorsky: “An announcement about your magazine will be sent out throughout Livonia. Let the sausage makers not be arrogant. Oh, sorry for the harsh word!” Academy Professor P.S. Delitsyn: “Print, print acts about the activities of the great Lomonosov, the great Russian man. Russia needs to know this man; It is especially necessary that the Germans know him and moderate their stupid arrogance in front of the Russians. Let him have his weaknesses; but for the Russian soul, Russian weaknesses are also dear, not only because they are ours, but also because Russians can learn from these weaknesses how to reject their weaknesses. It's time for us to be our own teachers, and not listen with our mouths open to what a German or a Frenchman is chattering. Sorry for speaking Russian. And, however, I will add that it is strange why there are only Germans and Chukhmas in the academy, but no Mordovians and Chuvash.” Or, for example, his review of the article by Archimandrite Joseph. Pointing out some of its shortcomings, he made the following remark: “Who wrote the article about the church? She is thorough; it’s not like French jelly.” Filaret's zeal could not be satisfied by the concern for preserving the remaining Orthodoxy. Knowing history well, understanding how unfair and contrary to the political views of the fatherland the claims of the barons, he ardently wanted to put the matter of annexation firmly in place, protect him from the machinations of enemies, foresaw the triumph of the church and the radical merger of the region with vast Russia. To accomplish this task, he considered it necessary to install the following program: 1) Distribute parishes and build churches. 2) To bind new fiefs to the church, appoint priests from among them; but since this requires preparation, then 3) establish a theological school. 4) In order to bind converts to the church by providing spiritual consolation in public prayer, to introduce worship in a natural language to converts, and for this purpose 5) to prepare pastors who know the Latvian language. 6) Take care of the education of the people in the spirit of Russian Orthodoxy, for which purpose, instead of Lutheran schools, open parochial schools. 7) Facilitate the transition to Orthodoxy; 8) for this purpose, to raise the level of the local clergy by attracting people with higher education, academicians, to this service, for which 9) to ensure the maintenance of the clergy; 10) for the same purpose, to protect barons and pastors from persecution and claims; 11) to raise Orthodoxy in the eyes of the population, to protect it with all our might from censure and insults from Protestants. And this is how this program was executed Filaret compiled the distribution of churches and parishes. By order of the Minister of Internal Affairs, the issue of delimiting parishes and assigning places for churches and schools was resolved by agreement of the Governor-General with the bishop and comrade of the Minister of Internal Affairs Sinyavin, sent to Riga on the recommendation of Perovsky. The meeting decided to send two priests with two officials for a personal review and agreement with the landowners and tenants. Potulov and Shishmarev were sent, both inexperienced, fresh from the navy. Filaret, foreseeing that the barons, having given verbal consent to the construction of a church or school on their land, could then renounce the promise (through which the matter would drag on without fulfillment), insisted that officials draw up protocols on the consent of each landowner. Still little initiated into local casuistry, Sinyavin was against this proposal; however, Filaret managed to stand his ground. His proposal was thus included in the instructions. “The bishop is stubborn,” notes Count D.N. Tolstoy. “I think, however, that the bishop is right: otherwise the trips will be useless.” Back in 1844, it was allowed to open an Orthodox church in Vindava. But what was it worth! Filaret presented to the Synod the need to establish an Orthodox church in Vindava Castle, where there was a Lutheran church, for which a new building was built. He motivated the need by the remoteness of the Libau church (30 versts). Baron Palen wrote to Filaret, and Count Protasov, and Perovsky that this was completely impossible to do, because all parts of the castle were occupied, and presented a review from the construction commission, which stated that even if the castle were not occupied, then the church could not be built because 1) the castle is located near the harbor, which is why confusion may inevitably occur during the celebration of the divine liturgy (what concern for the deanery of the service in the Orthodox churches!); 2). 3) the very design of the castle does not allow the altar with the iconostasis to be placed so that they can be visible to all worshipers. But Perovsky did not limit himself to this message, but demanded a plan of the castle. Having examined the plan, Perovsky found that the public places were so spaciously located in the castle that without embarrassment it was possible to clear the premises for a church. He even considered it possible to place the church where the bishop proposed, and to eliminate the inconveniences indicated by the commission by destroying the stables and prohibiting punishment in prison on holidays during the liturgy. Perovsky conveyed his thoughts to Count Protasov, who reported to the Emperor. This report instilled doubt in the Emperor about the purity of Baron Palen’s actions. It is very likely that Count Protasov simultaneously reported Filaret’s letter, which stated how the governor promised to insist that the Orthodox Church not be built in the castle where he lived, but in a special ugly house surrounded by taverns, which will be done, despite the order of the Minister of Internal Affairs. The Emperor, on the report of Count Protasov, ordered it to be carried out, which greatly puzzled the entire German Party with Baron Palen at its head. Opposition to the establishment of churches went so far that Colonel Pistolkors, who built a church on his manor, was fined 50 rubles for such betrayal of Protestantism. Governor General Golovin, having visited Arensburg and finding the church there in a dilapidated state, expressed his readiness to Filaret to enter with the idea of ​​​​repairing it. After waiting until the fall of 1845, Filaret reported the state of the church to Count Protasov with a note, indicating that it would have to be sealed. Apparently, the governor-general wanted to reassure Filaret with his challenge, and in the meantime the church could have been closed due to its disrepair. Having followed everything related to Orthodoxy, Filaret did not allow himself to be lulled by promises, but, after waiting for some time, he got down to business, although this matter, given the displeasure of the Minister of War with Perovsky, was difficult to move forward, since the Arensburg Church was under the jurisdiction of the War Ministry. Even in the first year, Filaret expanded his poor and cramped house church and brought it into splendid form. He dreamed of establishing, on the advice of his successor at the academy, rector Eusebius, a monastery and consoled him that “God willing there will be monks.” Although he did not manage to arrange this, but having received for the bishop’s country house from one donor, a hereditary honorary citizen, Ivan Aleksandrovich Komarov, the Eichenberg dacha (an oak mountain, where there are oak trees of majestic size even today), he built there something like a monastery, with a church in the name of the Nativity of John the Baptist. What concerned Philaret most was that his scattered flock, having no churches and priests, was deprived of the consolation of praying in church and the opportunity to satisfy their spiritual needs, through which they could learn more deeply and strengthen themselves in a new faith. Filaret was busy with the construction of churches. But although a sum from the state treasury was allocated for this item, construction takes time. In addition, the need for churches increased as Orthodoxy spread among Latvians. Filaret petitioned for the construction of temporary churches. The Emperor resolved this issue in the affirmative. Back in 1843, going to survey the diocese, Filaret expressed its condition in a few words: “I am now getting ready to set out on a journey, wandering through German Livonia to look for poor Orthodoxy hiding in its corners, like a bird in a menacing storm.” Count D.N. writes about the same thing. Tolstoy: “The situation of the newly joined is pitiful. There are already 12 thousand of them, scattered throughout Livonia. Having no compact connection, and, consequently, no strength, they are subjected to all kinds of deprivations. Poverty and hunger haunt them, and no one not only wants, but does not dare to lend a helping hand. They die - they are denied graves. It was ordered to bury people in Lutheran cemeteries until the allotment of places for cemeteries; pastors are opposed. Today we wrote to the governor to insist on an inquiry. It's a pity! No one, not even for a high fee, wanted to give up premises for the church of God. At least it was an unnecessary ruin, and even that could not be purchased for this purpose.” Upon the opening of services in the Latvian language in the Church of the Intercession, Filaret, finding it inconvenient, petitioned for the construction of a special church. In accordance with his rule of presenting the matter with complete clarity, so as not to meet with any resistance, he surrounded the present petition with the highest arguments. So he wrote to Count Protasov: “It is necessary to enter into a new consideration about the Riga Latvian Church. a) Cemetery Church of the Intercession is located outside the city, at the end of the St. Petersburg cemetery; There are very few dwellings near this church; it is about five miles from the city center; therefore, some of the Orthodox Latvians have to walk 8 or 9 versts to her, but not one is closer than three versts. This is difficult even in warm weather, but in winter it is impossible for others. b) Church of the Intercession is cold; and it is difficult to make it warm, given its dilapidation and structure with a dome. c) This remoteness of the Church of the Intercession and its inconvenience for winter are put forward by some of the Latvians as the reason why they still do not dare to join Orthodoxy by Chrismation and express their readiness to belong to Orthodoxy as soon as a convenient church is appointed. These inconveniences were also in mind when the matter of designating the church for Latvian worship took place; but nothing else could be done.” Having indicated why none of the city churches can be given up for Latvian worship, Filaret recognizes the need to build a special church for Latvians and indicates the location - in a suburb, as more populated by Latvians. But since in the suburbs, according to the law on fortresses, it is prohibited to erect stone buildings, he proposes to transfer the wooden hospital church transferred to his jurisdiction, for which he believes it will be enough to spend 1000 rubles. silver At the same time, anticipating various objections, Filaret explains: “Lutheran townspeople, as you know, are ready to argue over the place where the Orthodox church should be erected; They say that they themselves will build a Lutheran church there, which they need. But this is more stubbornness against Orthodoxy than the needs for Lutheranism. Another place may be allocated for the church; The city owns not only all the land occupied by the city and the suburbs, but in the vicinity of 10 versts. Meanwhile, the place where it was necessary to erect an Orthodox church was previously under the Orthodox church; Only after the fire of 1812 was the Alexandrovskaya (formerly the Life-Giving Spring) erected in a different place. As for the fear that Latvians would not consider their church to be any different from the Orthodox, if they had a special prayer church, then: a) everything that is hitherto visible in their way of thinking does not confirm this fear. At first they strongly desired to be allowed to sit on the benches in the church; For the old and weak, by indulgence it was allowed to place a bench near the wall. But now they themselves have taken out these benches and say that it is definitely more decent to stand before the Lord than to sit. There is no longer a word about the organ. They generally fell in love with all Orthodox rituals and do not find anything better in their former one. We are very happy about prayers over newborn babies, their baptism, and the burial of the dead. The only thing they retain from the past is the singing of their prayers at Vespers, and sometimes at Matins. But this must be tolerated even because so little of the Orthodox service has yet been translated into the Latvian language. b) Latvians are not at all averse to the fact that Orthodox Christians who know the Latvian language share prayer with them. Russian Orthodox, for their part, would begin to attend Latvian worship services more often than now, when there was a church in the intended place: then it would be close to going to church. Nothing would prevent us from making it a rule that in this church services would be performed in both Latvian and Slavic languages, especially since some of the Riga Latvians know the Russian language well and can understand the Slavic service.” There is no doubt that such detailed notes, familiarizing the Chief Prosecutor well with the case, made it easier for him to report to the Sovereign, and through this elevated the importance of Filaret himself in the eyes of Count Protasov. Despite the indifference and resistance of local authorities, Filaret opened 63 parishes from the newly annexed ones, established 20 permanent churches and 43 temporary ones, of which 9 were in military posts. “God-loving Count!” he wrote to Count D.N. Tolstoy on April 23, 1847, “seeing the writing of a certain lover of God and good-lover, zealously make an offering to St. the church of our Orthodox faith, so that whenever I judge its case, it will bring good to me personally. I ask and pray to your God-loving soul, and if you can, take this matter into account and judge it rightly. This is what the unworthy prayer book, the wretched Bishop Filaret, begs your Lordship for.” Filaret understood that in order to establish the church it was necessary to give the Latvians their own priests from among the more enlightened people among them. So, in March 1845, having joined David Ballod, he first ordained him as a deacon, and on February 10, 1846, he appointed him a priest of the Loudon Baptist Church. Ballod was famous among Latvians, and entire settlements were ready to convert to Orthodoxy behind him. Anticipating such a possibility, the intrigue managed to cause an order from the local authorities so that the priests would travel around their parish to fulfill the requirements in no other way than accompanied by an official. If we take into account that the Livland villagers live in farms of one and three yards, then such an order was tantamount to dooming the priest not to leave his house. In addition, of the governor general’s officials, notes Count Tolstoy, “three were on business trips, two remained inseparable on permanent duty; and those who joined were up to 14 thousand souls. How many are dying, demanding the last consolations of religion! And the priest, instead of fulfilling his duty, must send to Riga for an official.” What pain this resonated in Filaret’s heart! “Yes, the Moscow saints rejected me as unworthy. This is necessary because of my sins,” he wrote. The appointment of shepherds from among the Latvians, without their preparation, could satisfy, and then partly, an urgent need; but it was necessary to take care of providing the Latvians with the opportunity to have their own shepherds who were more enlightened, who knew the matter not only in spirit, but also in mind. And Filaret, soon after his arrival, filed a petition for the opening of a theological school. Already on December 11, 1842, he informed Gorsky about the execution of his presentation on this subject. “Thank the Lord! The teachers have not arrived yet, but the students are almost all here; stayed after the vacation in hope.” And how he was in a hurry with this matter! To speed up the opening, having probably secured a promise to allow his application for a school, he kept the boys. Many of them, especially those who lost their parents during persecution, were accepted at public expense. At the report of Count Protasov, on March 12, 1844, about those wishing to join, the Sovereign added that “the service should be performed in the Latvian language, for which there is no need to build a special church, and the service can be performed in one of the Riga Orthodox churches.” This measure had a beneficial consequence. Filaret immediately began translating liturgical books into Latvian. He entrusted this to a knowledgeable person, Mikhailov, who was respected, and then ordained him as a priest. On April 21, 1845, Filaret solemnly joined ten Latvians from the Hernguter Society, and on St. Thomas Week in the Church of the Intercession he opened a service in the Latvian language. Fr. Yakov Mikhailov, the readers were the converts Karl Ernest and Ballod, and the singers of the bishop's choir, who knew Latvian, sang. The impression was indescribable. The church could not accommodate those who came. Both those who joined and the Germans who knew the Latvian language went to this church. They testify that after this the movement of Latvians towards Orthodoxy was so strong, it spread in such a wide wave that it even captured the Riga schismatics, who before, together with the Germans, acted against Orthodoxy. Filaret had to introduce this measure with caution, because the opposition of local authorities was strong. This is how he wrote to Count Protasov: “Regarding the Latvian divine service in Wenden, which is opened there inconsistently, one must also keep in mind the state of circumstances in Wenden. The bishop had long known that in Wenden they did not like the Latvian Orthodox service. On site, during the illumination of the church, this was even more visible. The bishop was repeatedly and passionately called upon by Count S... to answer the questions: “Why do they want to make Lutherans Orthodox? Why don’t they turn their jealousy towards the Jews and Mohammedans?” etc. The bishop tried for a long time and with all his love to console the confusion with reasoning, and in response to the last question he was finally forced to say: “Your sir, I leave all the Jews to your pastors.” With Wenden in such a position, it seemed best for the bishop to “first introduce one Slavic divine service, and when the divine service takes over the place of confusion, open the Latvian one, which is what will happen with the arrival of the actual priest and deacons in Wenden.” Theological school alone was not enough to satisfy the need for clergy. Firstly, several years still have to pass before we wait for the first release. Secondly, how many years must then pass before several graduates could complete the required composition of the clergy. Meanwhile, as Orthodoxy spreads among Latvians, there should be a need to increase parishes. For these reasons, Filaret proposed strengthening the teaching of the Latvian and Estonian languages ​​at the Pskov Seminary. His submission was respected. Not limiting himself to this, he recruited as priests whom he could, from people of good character and who knew the Latvian language. So he dedicated the former accountant in the name of Count Sheremetev, Mikhailov, who knew, in addition to the Russian language, the languages ​​Latvian, German and French. Then, he dedicated some officials to proven morality who knew the Latvian language, such as Pavlovsky, teacher Treskin and many others, introducing each of them in notes to the chief prosecutor, in which he pointed out their moral side. At the same time, Filaret expresses his opinion in response to questions that he heard so often and that, in all likelihood, went higher. “People who are ready to judge things that they do not know and are not able to know can say and partly do say: who will replace the Orthodoxy of learned pastors? To this, the answer of conscience is this: a) Let them talk as much as they like about their own affairs and not worry about the affairs of others; everyone is responsible for themselves before God and people. b) Orthodoxy must pray to the Lord that His priests are not like the Lutheran Livonian pastors, whom the flock abandons as people who are busy not with the flock, but with money, vanity and a life that is more than dishonest. c) The Bishop of Riga, appointing well-known persons to priestly positions, trusts in the Lord that these persons will not shame him either before God or before good people; he does not consider it necessary to worry about the judgment of bad or short-sighted people. When choosing persons for the priestly position, he first of all looks at the life and Christian spirit of those chosen. And in this it is based not only on the commands of the Word of God, but also on the demands of those newly joining Orthodoxy. Those who want to see, first of all, pompous German scholarship in the priest of the Livonian peasants, know too little about the needs of the local peasants and judge the matter, as they say, in the wind, or what is also in the manner of European superstitions. The lifeless, selfish teaching of the Lutheran pastors is too tired of the local peasants, and they abhor it. They need a priest full of Christian love, easy to use, gentle in conversation, breathing piety, ready to grieve with their sorrows, rejoice in their joys, and pray for them in their place. They now repeat: “How good it is that in the Russian service they pray for the sick, and for those in prison, and for all those who suffer.” In the Riga Church, Deacon David now reads a sermon every Sunday; but this does not have the same effect on simple hearts as simple church prayers. More than once it happened to hear from those who joined: “Now we pray for ourselves and for those close to our hearts; otherwise the pastors prayed only for themselves when they only prayed, and we did not pray at all; Now we pray for the Tsar, for our benefactor, which has never happened before.” They are glad now that the priest will talk to them about their home life; and if the bishop finds time to ask them about something with love, then they are delighted. As for knowledge, the bishop makes sure that the priest has no more than as much as is needed for a peasant shepherd. To seek more is to seek the unreasonable. And those who are now destined for the priestly rank all have such knowledge to the most satisfactory extent. True, not all of them can pay compliments to the barons, not all of them can shuffle their feet on the parquet floor, are not trained to spend time playing cards with landowners, do not play the piano, do not babble in French; but isn’t it a shame for those who admire such qualities in Lutheran pastors?” At the same time as Filaret, Count D.N. became involved in the benefit of the Russian cause in Livonia. Tolstoy expresses the same thoughts about the clergy for Latvians, although he arrives at that position in a different way. “Wherever the clergy is common and equal to the people, religion is firm. This is why the Russian people are so attached to the church; That’s why the Germans are faithful to their religion: their education and that of their pastors are equal. But not so with the Latvians; their views are completely different from those of pastors who are too educated for them. The clergy looks at them not as a flock, but as a pasture on which they themselves graze.” Filaret's note presented to Count Protasov is important in many respects. Firstly, it points to the special foresight of Filaret. By introducing the chief prosecutor, who has little knowledge of church affairs, to those concepts and arguments that can most powerfully serve as an objection to complaints about the lack of education of the Orthodox clergy in comparison with pastors, he thereby puts into his hands a weapon against the enemies of Orthodoxy. For him there was no doubt that the latter wanted to put into practice the thoughts expressed in order to achieve in our highest sphere a cooling towards the cause of Orthodoxy in Livonia. Secondly, this note will make it clear that Filaret’s position in St. Petersburg, so to speak, has strengthened. There is no doubt that the removal of b. Palen eased Filaret's position somewhat; but, in addition, it was necessary to buy trust in St. Petersburg with personal qualities, since, with the change of governor-general, the general order of affairs in Livonia changed little for the better; Has the slander against Filaret weakened somewhat? But under Suvorov, the times of B. returned for him and for Orthodoxy. Palena. This ruler, in the words of one contemporary, “glorious in the name of his ancestor, but not in his deeds,” was a terrible scourge of Orthodoxy. Thirdly, the note introduces us to Filaret’s prudence in choosing priests, since nothing could so much support the importance of the church in the eyes of the common people as worthy shepherds. Not limiting himself to carefully choosing shepherds for his young flock, Filaret tried to cleanse the church of those shepherds who, through their course of action, could harm Orthodoxy. From such priests, Philaret “wholeheartedly and submissively” asked Count Protasov to free Riga, which was already suffering from various diseases that needed to be cured; “Otherwise I,” he wrote, “will not be able to do anything here: the only hope is for new employees.” But in this he met significant resistance from his diocesan bishop, Pskov Archbishop Nathanael. An old, frail man, Nathanael easily succumbed to intrigue. Every priest who was dissatisfied with Philaret turned to the protection of the diocesan bishop, trying to gain his favor by slandering his shepherd and those priests who, by conscientiously performing their work, had gained Philaret’s favor. Denunciations were accepted by Nathanael without any verification. They say that Nathanael looked with some displeasure at the spread of Orthodoxy among Latvians, fearing for his importance. We cannot, of course, judge how fair this is, and are inclined to assume another reason here - senile weakness. Be that as it may, this created discord between the two archpastors, making Filaret’s already constrained activities much more difficult. Archpriest Kuninsky brought him especially much grief. Let us quote his letter to become familiar with the unworthy methods that were resorted to to restore the diocesan bishop against his vicar. “The course of the matter of converting Latvians and Chukhons to Orthodoxy for me, not privy to the mysteries of such a matter, was and is a mystery, partly manifested in some phenomena due to the circumstances and the course of dark affairs, but somewhat illuminating the matter through guesswork. Moreover, everything that I can find out became known to me not at the time when (if such sowing was carried out secretly) the sowing took place, or the basis for the diocesan inheritance was laid, but later. Not at that time, because on June 2, when there were no rumors about the spread of Orthodoxy, I went on vacation and returned on the 25th in the night, when the matter was already opened and secret correspondence between the Governor General and the civil governor was taking place with His Eminence. If we now look at the matter of converting Latvians and Chukhons not only as an enterprise to spread Orthodoxy in the local region, taking advantage, if possible, of the free disposition of the Gentiles towards the Orthodox faith, but as an enterprise to lay the foundation of a new diocese, then it seems that such an enterprise prevented the unrest that occurred last year by three or four years. For even at a time when the former Uniate spiritual college was concerned about the rapprochement of the union with ancient Orthodoxy and the matter foreshadowed favorable consequences, Lukyan Annenkov 23, who served under the person of his eminence, in the middle of 1838, told me positively that a special diocese would be formed in the local region through the annexation of the Uniates and that it would be added to the inheritance of the Riga Vicariate Vilna province. I heard this from Lukyan more than once; but whether he spoke about it to others, I don’t know. Lukyan, however, is an insignificant man; he truly did not speak his own way: he, I don’t know how, meant many secrets and turned out to be a seer of many circumstances.” It should be noted that the establishment of an independent Livland diocese was the own thought of Sovereign Nikolai Pavlovich. The Holy Synod, perhaps, looked at the matter with a narrower view, measuring it by the number of those professing the Orthodox faith, and in response to the Sovereign’s thought, it presented the establishment of only a vicariate. This order, as it later turned out, posed many obstacles and difficulties in conducting the business. Perhaps the Right Reverend Irinarch expressed his opinion in this case, since the disadvantages from the established order, during his apostolic service, resonated very sensitively for the matter. But this was a view, and not at all a plan for action. Archpriest Kuninsky went further in his letter; he reported how, during the famine, when Latvians wandered in crowds, seeking help and protection against the landowners, the same Lukyan told him: “Here, Fr. Archpriest, you have a chance to get a distinction! If only you had admonished the Latvians to turn to Orthodoxy, then the Emperor would have respected their request. Can the vicariate really exist here forever? If they were more Orthodox, our Bishop would try to establish a special diocese here. This idea is not servile,” the writer notes. Next, he casts a shadow on the priests Mikhail Zavolotsky and Nikolai Fasanov, and his envy over the reward promised to the former is very clear. Then comes the message from the bishop that during the all-night service, having called deacon Peter Popov to him, he forced Latvians (from 136 families) to write petitions and promised to install him as archpriest in the Latvian church. The author of this denunciation did not fail to mention that the priests Zavolotsky and Fasanov often visit the bishop, that the whole matter is kept secret by them, and that in general all employees in the bishop’s house are strictly punished not to spill the beans and are taught in advance what and how to answer questions. Forwarding this letter in the original to Metropolitan Seraphim, Priest. Nathanael wrote to him, upon summoning Zavolotsky and Fasanov to St. Petersburg: “Instead of K., the priests Fasanov and Zavolotsky, who are now in St. Petersburg, were used. Through them, no doubt, the idea was instilled in the Latvians about their liberation from the landowners through joining the Russian Church. So later the Latvians themselves openly spoke about this (?). No one knew about the progress of the case, except for the priests Fasanov and Zavolotsky, who often came to the house of the bishop and had meetings in their apartments. Meanwhile, however, the local police (this was in the last days of June), seeing the extraordinary movement of peasants in the city and noticing that they were especially crowding around the bishop’s house and the apartment of priest Zabolotsky, took their measures,” etc. This letter, of course, was of great importance in the case of Irinarch. And so, with such a face as Archpriest Kuninsky, Filaret had to serve! He probably learned about the role that Kuninsky played in the Irinarch case. However, Kuninsky has already managed to prove himself under Filaret. Filaret urgently asked Nathanael to dismiss Kuninsky from his position as a member of the board. Although Filaret managed to get him fired, he still remained in Riga, harming Orthodoxy as much as possible. Finally, in May 1846, Filaret wrote to the chief prosecutor: “I have already asked your Excellency to use your assistance to ensure that Archpriest Kuninsky is removed from Riga. Now again I most humbly ask for the same thing, as one of the urgent needs of this place. 1) The mere fact that Kuninsky, by rank first assistant to the bishop, does not hold any positions in diocesan administration, says that this person is completely unnecessary for this place; and since he idly occupies the place of the chief assistant in the diocesan administration, which could usefully be occupied by another, he must be replaced by another capable one, with his removal from the idlely occupied place. 2) From the very moment I arrived in Riga, I saw in Kuninsky a quarrelsome man, unable to get along with anyone, so that all the priests, deacons and clerics, one after another, brought me complaints about him about the insults they had suffered from Kuninsky, then the first member of the board and the dean. Having made it a rule to be forgiving of weaknesses and to overcome evil with good, I tried to establish peace with the best admonitions to both the insulted and the insulted. But the quarrelsome character did not soften: on the contrary, in the affairs of government it turned out that it was necessary to use special efforts to reduce evil. Finally, exhausted in resources and strength, I was forced to ask His Eminence Nathanael to remove Kunitsky from participation in the board.” Then pointing out the passion for litigation, waste of money and concealment of the circumstances of the case, and complete disobedience to the orders of the Holy Synod, Filaret concludes: “Finally, Ave. Kuninsky has recently begun to enter into secret relations with the German party in Riga. This behavior of Kuninsky, due to the special circumstances of the region, makes him completely intolerable in the department of the Bishop of Riga. The bishop encounters many troubles and extreme difficulties for the cause of Orthodoxy from the Germans; but to still have a domestic enemy of Orthodoxy is already too difficult, so if Kuninsky is not removed from Riga without delay, the current bishop will hardly be able to fulfill the work of Orthodoxy entrusted to him.” Such a decisive tone of the letter indicates that Filaret’s cup of patience has overflowed. In his previous submission, he mentioned that Kuninsky did not appear to him, having been summoned due to the attitude of the Chief Prosecutor with a message from the Highest Command. “I then covered up his sin, expecting correction,” Filaret confessed. Meanwhile, at the same time, Nathanael, in a letter to Count Protasov, certified Kuninsky from the best side. This is the kind of struggle Filaret had to endure in his diocesan affairs with people who were supposed to serve the same goal as him. Concerned about the education of the newly-ordained in the spirit of Russian Orthodoxy, Filaret wanted to open parochial schools. He drew up a program, which was stuck in the office of the Governor General. Filaret pushed at all the doors before the matter was completed. “Will you take the trouble to put in place student rules?” He wrote to Count Tolstoy. “I wrote, wrote, asked, asked, but the matter did not move an inch. Meanwhile, the peasants grieve greatly, and the enemies laugh. Let them change the situation as they wish; but to leave the matter unresolved for whole years and the matter under such circumstances as the circumstances of Livonia is beyond all the powers of patience. If there is already so little concern about the most essential matter for the holy faith, why do they require me to have rock-solid patience? They even spare the ox.” “To tell you something pleasant, I’ll add: Estonian grammar and Latvian grammar are printed in Russian,” wrote Filaret to Gorsky. Not without a purpose, of course, these manuals were compiled in Russian: both for better acquaintance with the local language of the Russian people, and even more so for familiarizing the local natives with the Russian language, whom Philaret wanted to convert into Russians throughout. For the same purpose, under his leadership, a Latvian primer with Russian and Slavic was compiled and printed, and all at his expense. But “water breaks through stones,” and with his persistence, Filaret still managed to bring God’s good deed to light: schools were opened in every church. Nowadays this matter has developed significantly: auxiliary schools have been established independently of parochial schools. Since the population lives scattered, mostly in one courtyard, one from another at a fairly considerable distance, the parishes are spread over 20, 30, 40, or more miles, and therefore there is an urgent need for such auxiliary schools. The thirst for learning was wonderful. On Monday morning the boys came to school with bread and some provisions and stayed until Saturday, when their parents took them home. This order, however, remains to this day. Having introduced Governor General Golovin to the Highly approved instructions given to the Bishop of Riga, Filaret asked him to suggest that the Governor provide the Latvian priest sent to the manor with a warrant. On this lake, a manor judge must appear to be present when the priest selects signatures about the desire to join. But, since a manor judge could evade under any circumstances, and the priest’s trip would become useless, Filaret asked that this order grant the priest the right to demand a volost judge or volost ruler for this purpose. The governor promised to send only an order so that on the manors where all the peasants express a desire to join, the manor judges would freely appear before the priest upon his arrival; but a few days later he announced to Filaret that it was inconvenient for him to make such an order. At the insistence of Filaret, in his circular order, the Governor General made it known that peasants going to Riga on domestic affairs and wishing to join Orthodoxy are not forbidden to come to the priest for this purpose. Such an order was obviously made to cancel the orders of B. Palen. But what was Filaret’s surprise when, a month after this, police chief Yazykov made an order that the townsfolk should not keep visiting Latvians for more than a day. Of course, it was impossible to join on the same day, since in order to do this, the person joining must still be prepared. In Filaret's notes it is mentioned that the peasant from the Sturtsengov manor, Jan Anders Zander, who testified about his faith on May 6 and was annexed on May 20, had a release certificate to be registered wherever he wished. The police chief did not give him even a day to join the children and escorted him out of Riga. Filaret asked, at least three days, and finally two, to limit the length of stay. Having received a refusal, he brought this to the attention of Count Protasov. In order not to bother the Latvians with traveling to Riga, Filaret made an order that those wishing to join should go to the nearest city for this purpose. How did the local authorities respond to this measure? It ordered that peasants wishing to join receive from the manor board (i.e., from the estate office of a Protestant landowner) a note with the designation of the city. The note usually indicated a city where there was no priest! A peasant comes there and they smear his face and head with tar. He goes to another city; but, not allowing him to become a priest, he will be flogged and put in prison, where he will sit for three or four months before Philaret manages to beg the governor general to order his release. And the family goes 3-4 months without a worker, which causes a failure to pay for the land, and he is then kicked out of the estate. And they will release him from prison not in his clothes, but in prison clothes, with a black triangle on his back; Some will have their forehead shaved, some will have the right or left side of their head. They send home a whole crowd tied up and not in a direct way, but force them to travel all over Livonia, mainly those places where there was a movement towards annexation, to convince them that something will happen to you too. Where there was a movement to join, they reported there was a riot and sent troops. Others were driven through 1,500 Spitzrutens twice, and the noble deputy von Numer said: “This is how everyone who wants to go to the warm land, to the Russian faith will be punished, will not listen to helpers and pastors and will listen to deceivers, troublemakers.” All this happened in the Russian region, under Russian rulers with those wishing to join the dominant church in the Empire. Filaret was exhausted in soul. “Terrible situation!” he wrote to Count Tolstoy. “It’s creepy from all sides. However, for the real thing I was waiting for time: if even after this there is no worthy defense, let them find someone more powerful than me. Please don't judge me. No matter how many ways and strength he had, he fought, without resting, and did not shy away from battles out of fear. You know that some are silent. 24 This will explain a lot.” At the same time, he wrote to Gorsky: “I have a lot of trouble, a sinner in Riga. He cared a lot, traveled, learned, judged; but whether it was of any use, I don’t know. Until now I remain in the twilight. There are troubles ahead, fears and dangers on the road traveled - darkness. Who will host it? Don't know. He who trusts in the Lord will not perish. But where is the hope from my soul? It is won through long, tearful prayers and experiences that follow the prayers. The damned Filaret doesn’t have all this.” At such critical moments, close, one might say, to despair, the caring person responsible for Filaret’s appointment to Riga sent him a word of consolation. “Even if you said,” the Metropolitan of Moscow wrote to him, “that your strength has been reduced to exhaustion, I hope, however, that you will still have strength, having said with the Apostle: when I am weak, then I am strong.” Finally, Filaret obtained an order that, upon arrival at the priest’s manor, the local Ordnungsrichter 25 should appear to be present during the collection of faith signatures from the Latvians; an invitation to a volost judge or ruler for this purpose was refused. But how was this accomplished? The Werrian priest invited Ordnungsrichter Engelhardt for this purpose. He, after taking subscriptions from two Latvians, refused to stay longer for lack of time; and then announced that he could only attend two days a week, Wednesday and Saturday. But these days he took only three readings and left. Seeing that the priest’s patience was inexhaustible, he stopped appearing altogether. The complaints were in vain. In Marienburg, Kirchspielrichter, who was tasked with being present at the selection of subscriptions, transferred this responsibility to the local landowner Fitingof. He, having arrived at the priest’s apartment, when many Latvians had already gathered to him, began to shout that the priest had no right to receive anyone again, but should limit himself to joining those who had previously testified, and that he would not allow restless crowds to gather on his estate. He even had intentions of taking the Latvian clerk into custody because he allowed himself to talk to two Latvians. And the priest, in order to calm the baron, dissolved the Latvians. We have before us an interesting paper-document - this is a draft message from the Governor General to Baron Fitingof, drawn up in his own hand by Filaret, regarding the above-mentioned incident. This is not a copy, because corrections were made here by the same hand. The message is written in the most polite and gentle tone. Here it is: “G. The Riga bishop told me, among other things, that: 1) When the priest of the Orthodox Church Michaelov with St. arrived in Marienburg with gifts, your honor allocated him an indecent room for worship, precisely in the guesthouse. 2) When the priest on this and the following days, on the basis of the Highest approved instructions on the joining of the Gentiles of Livonia to Orthodoxy, explained the subject of their desires to the peasants who had gathered to him and tested them in the purity and sincerity of their intentions, namely, he admonished that the adoption of the Orthodox faith did not at all change their relations and responsibilities to the landowners, your honor came to his apartment, dispersed the gathered peasants and announced to them that the priest was not dares to accept anyone. 3) Your Honor, soon after, with your own hands, brought in David Ballod, the clerk in office, accusing him of telling the Latvians that Orthodox priests do not receive any payment for either burial or baptism: and they announced your intention to send Ballod under arrest to Riga; Finally, they even posted a guard at the priest’s door. Just as I generally wish that such unpleasant cases would be avoided by landowners, I personally am especially sorry to listen to such important complaints about your honor. And you will attribute to this feeling that I did not give this matter official proceedings, and this time, as an opportunity to show leniency and mercy, I limit myself to warning and reminding state laws. Such an act, presented by the bishop as an attempt to hinder or reject people of other faiths who want to join Orthodoxy, threatens with severe punishment. I have all the more reason to make this warning privately. I believe that His Imperial Majesty ordered the establishment of a mobile church in Marienburg, through which you, as the landowner of this manor, will in many respects have to do with the Orthodox clergy. Therefore, I recommend that you exercise extreme caution in your orders in the execution of the Highest Command, as with peasants who have converted to Orthodoxy or are about to convert, so that you avoid everything that could be a reason for complaints from the spiritual authorities, which complaints will expose you to inevitable responsibility.” Obviously, Golovin gladly agreed to such a peaceful outcome of the matter. And why Filaret agreed to it and took the trouble to draw up the paper given now, this will be explained by the following note to his chief prosecutor. “On the Marienburg case, the city governor intends to limit himself to private suggestions to Fitingof and Koskul 26 so as not to make noise. In the present state of affairs, the bishop, for his part, considers this inevitable; for if you start an investigation, then the investigators here can only be Lutherans; There are no Russian Orthodox officials in the local official places, with the exception of two people at the Governor General, who, however, have too much to do in Riga, so that without danger to the cause of Orthodoxy they cannot be absent. It is absolutely inevitable that several Orthodox officials will be sent to Riga. The Governor General already sees and feels the need for his office in Russian officials, not only for the matter of the Orthodoxy of Latvians and Chukhons, but for the largest part of his affairs. For his office, he considers it necessary for half of it to be Russian officials, for fear of doing something unpleasant to the Germans. Without a doubt, he would be grateful if the government itself ordered the sending of capable Russian officials. As for the investigations into the case of Latvians and Chukhns converting to Orthodoxy, the bishop will be forced to formally ask that not a single investigation be carried out while only Lutheran officials remain.” At the same time, Filaret stated that until now they had not invited a deputy from the spiritual side and that, although investigations had been and are being carried out, under such conditions he could not know anything about them. This is the reason for everything. And one cannot help but do justice to Filaret’s great tact and marvel at his extraordinary energy. Realizing the unfavorable consequences for the work of the church when it must be carried out by its enemies, on the other hand, considering it disastrous for him to leave Philaret’s act unattended, he comes up with the idea of ​​giving such a turn to the matter so as not to diminish the importance of the church and, at least, to intimidate the baron somewhat. He knew that nothing would be done in the city governor's office if the matter was transferred there, and therefore he himself composed a paper for the governor general. Seeing the latter’s lack of character and indecisiveness in replenishing the staff of the chancellery with Russian people, he does not miss the opportunity to bring this to the attention of the chief prosecutor, undoubtedly hoping that through him this will reach the Minister of the Interior. business Filaret confirmed this urgent need with facts. Thus, having explained one case of torture, he says: “The police officer started the case incorrectly, with an open bias towards Lutheranism and against Orthodoxy, and the same police officer carries out investigations. This means that the perpetrator becomes the judge in his own case. In this state of affairs, when there are no Orthodox officials here, as there are now, it is necessary to choose one of two things: either refuse to continue the annexation of Latvians, or take responsibility before the Lord for the disastrous fate of those who join Orthodoxy.” “Everything that has hitherto been done here in favor of Orthodoxy,” he wrote to Count Protasov, “has been done only by the Lord. It's too clear. The instructions of the highest government for these people are just paper, which they sometimes begin to dismantle only after two months. As an example, we can refer to the audit of a magistrate. The German authorities abandon their stubborn inattention and resistance to anything when they are hit hard. On this side there is only hostility and inexorable intrigues. The Governor-General, in addition to being new in this place and therefore does not know either people or affairs, is surrounded by Germans. He is not strong enough to pursue and discover all the German intrigues. In his office and close to him there is only one Russian. He tries to show things in their present form; but thousands of voices pass into the ear of the Governor General and are completely different.” To what extent did the disrespect for the authorities reach that, in response to the Latvians’ questions, he explained to them that priests do not charge for their services and, at their request, gave them Latvian Orthodox books, was, through the intrigue of Baron Mengden, imprisoned. The bishop, to whom Buchinsky’s wife declared this, treated Golovin twice; but he did not receive an answer to Golovin’s two proposals to the provincial government. There were even more outrageous cases. When, at the request of Filaret, the governor general made a proposal to the provincial government (July 3, No. 195) to immediately return to the annexed Latvian Trina (in Orthodoxy Catherine) her six-year-old son John, whom the landowner Rasmus had not given to her, the provincial government responded that “it does not consider this matter fair, because children of old age can themselves join if they wish.” That is why Filaret’s remark is quite true that “thousands of voices are processing business and affairs in the German, and not the Russian, style. What, for example, can be done when five Ordnungsrichters write that there are various unpleasant rumors circulating, and this happened here, and that happened there? Send an official to the place? But who? The German, the one who, perhaps, is in secret correspondence with this and that Ordnungsrichter and gives instructions on how and when to write?” There were Russians under Golovin; but how they served the Russian cause and Orthodoxy! For example, the vice-governor, about whom Filaret said that he is “the most fierce enemy of Orthodoxy and, if I dare say, the most unscrupulous in other respects; It is enough to his honor that he put his brother on trial for robbing the treasury, while the money remained in his pocket, and not in his brother, a rather simple man.” As for Chief of Police Yazykov, then, according to Filaret, “there was not a single dishonorable and harmful case for Orthodoxy in which he did not participate.” “For my part,” Filaret wrote to Count Protasov, “wanting to think about people in the best way, I then excused Mr. Police Chief in my thoughts by his position in relation to his superiors. So he excused himself in personal explanations with me. Now, it would seem, under an Orthodox mayor, a sincere son of Orthodoxy, it is possible and should act differently. In reality it’s not like that.” What was especially significant about Yazykov’s activities in opposing Orthodoxy? And here is what Filaret says about his actions. He inspired the Governor General to unexpectedly demand a list of those joining Orthodoxy with the goal of either transferring it to the Lutheran consistory, or putting the bishop in an unpleasant position with the Governor General. He kicked out Latvians who had joined from Riga if their passport was nine days expired, even if they had lived there for at least ten years. He did not allow Latvians to register in the bishop's house when they came on their trade business without a passport, as was usually the case. At the same time, he tried, through slander and lies, to arouse the governor general’s displeasure towards Orthodoxy. For example, he reported to Golovin that nine Latvians stated that they testified about their desire to join under the influence of the promise he made of various benefits. Now Golovin instructed the gendarmerie staff officer to report this to Filaret. Amazed by such impudent slander, Filaret invited the police chief to his place and asked him to indicate who these nine Latvians were. To this, the police chief said in response that he knew of no such Latvians, but only those who expressed a desire. With them was also a Russian official under Golovin, V., who was ashamed to admit that he was Russian and insisted that he was a Pole. Filaret says about him that he, due to his close relationship with the governor of Riga, was a cruel persecutor of Orthodoxy and the Russian people. He was ready to distort the obvious to please the party. This is how one conversation between him and Filaret is recounted: “Having described how peacefully the Latvians are joining Orthodoxy in Dorpat, V. suddenly says that he is afraid that there will be trouble between the peasants. Surprised by this turn of phrase, Filaret asks: “Have you learned from the Ests that they have bad intentions for peace of mind? Did the Ests say anything about earthly hopes during their testimony?” V. replied that he did not learn this from the Ests. - “On whose testimony do you base your fears?” Instead of an answer there was complete confusion. V. began to talk about the cases, but, feeling that this was a bad source, he only said: “True, when we went to Dorpat, we thought to find excitement there, but we did not find anything.” Next V. argued that the peasants do not have a proper understanding of faith, that some of them, putting on crosses, claim that they are Orthodox. To this, the bishop noted that he himself could not find crosses for those joining and that, as V. knows, the Dorpat archpriest could not even complete the joining due to the lack of crosses in Dorpat.” These are the Russian people who were under Golovin and ruled the Russian cause! Seeing among them only one completely Russian person, Count Tolstoy, he found his presence in Riga necessary. Filaret realized that the new Minister of Internal Affairs was closely monitoring the progress of the Russian case in Riga, and his relations with the chief prosecutor were not interrupted, and in this way Filaret’s thoughts could reach him. And indeed, soon after this we see several young Russian officials on the Governor General’s staff. Filaret Gorsky wrote about one of them, then a young man, Samarin: “I am writing these lines in order to recommend to you the kind and intelligent Yuri Fedorovich Samarin. I spent many most pleasant days with him. He is a very worthy and rare person. Be cordial, simple and frank with him. He is worth heartfelt love. From him you will also learn about my life and existence, and he especially knows well the local region, studied by his Russian soul.” Filaret was also grateful to Sinyavin, a former comrade of the Minister of Internal Affairs in Riga for a short time. “I owe a lot to the former Moscow governor, and current comrade of Mr. Minister of Internal Affairs, Ivan Grigorievich Sinyavin. Kind, smart Russian soul! He lived here for about two months. May God reward him according to his goodness! May the Venerable remember him. Sergius in his prayers, so strong before the Lord!” Filaret carried out the entire difficult task of planting Orthodoxy alone. And this is what prompted him to such individual work. “On the part of the clergy,” he wrote to Count Protasov, “the matter of Orthodoxy is done by one bishop: a) Some cannot do it; others only want to harm him, for German bread. b) Two or three who could be called upon to participate; but with the firm belief that this matter will lead them to destruction, compassion forces them to assign other important matters. After all this, what can one bishop add to the success of Orthodoxy? Neither send to anyone, nor do this or that, except the same bishop, who writes instructions, and gives advice, and goes first to the governor general, then to the governor, then to the burgomaster, then to some stubborn opponent of Orthodoxy, with whom one must speak as with a friend of Orthodoxy.” “I smear paper so much that I don’t have enough money to buy paper. I have so few scribes! All that remains is to blacken and write completely,” Filaret complained to Gorsky. Before us are masses of similar papers, notes, testimonies, written in Filaret’s own hand. But we know that this is only a part of his surviving papers. It was clear how his hand sometimes got tired, and under his dictation a rough leave was written by an illiterate scribe, and then again the same working hand of a tireless fighter continued what he had begun. Filaret asked to send him some official who would help the bishop in his relations with the civil authorities. He hoped, of course, that the appointment of an official to him by the Holy Synod, who was outside the jurisdiction and influence of the local administration, would make his work easier and ensure his success. “The matter in itself is complex and difficult, surrounded on all sides by attacks: can it be expected to succeed in the present situation? God helps, but does not work miracles where people can do the work.” This is how he convinced Count Protasov; but his representation was not respected. In an effort to counteract the spread of Orthodoxy, the German Party spread rumors that could weaken the aspirations of the Latvians. But these measures did not always achieve their intended goal. So Filaret points out some of them, on the contrary, which served in favor of Orthodoxy: “1) by expelling Latvians from Riga they wanted to achieve stopping Orthodoxy at the very beginning. But since open injustice aroused deep sorrow and discontent against the defenders of Lutheranism, the most expelled Latvians became the first preachers of Orthodoxy in the manors of Livonia. 2) On the manors they began to refuse passports to those who joined Orthodoxy and who desired it, in order, partly, to take revenge for the desire for Orthodoxy, and partly, to keep these people in their power and under the influence of pastors. But this again only increased jealousy for Orthodoxy and dissatisfaction with Lutheranism, not only among those who previously desired Orthodoxy, but also among outsiders, since the injustices were too obvious for outsiders. 3) In May and early June, rumors were spread that joining Orthodoxy would end either on the last day of May or on the fifteenth of June. This resulted in people rushing to come to testify about their faith on these dates. In rejecting complaints about the clergy, Filaret explained to gr. Protasov that he constantly charges priests with the duty of explaining to Latvians that no earthly benefits are associated with their joining Orthodoxy. And even the civil authorities themselves, he adds, expressed their approval to the priests for their cautious and conscientious attitude towards this matter. But he also had to pay for the indiscretion of his subordinates, as can be seen from the following letter from him to Count Tolstoy. “When leaving Fr. Thomas 27 did not have the convenience of writing you an informal letter. I don’t know if I’m writing now; at least I will fulfill what my soul requires. First of all, I sincerely thank you for scolding Alexei. 28 He has caused me so much sorrow that I have not yet come to terms with his confusion. Don’t think, for God’s sake, that I am not ready to accept any of your thoughts, especially the thought about the order of the peasants’ walking. I will scold Alexei a lot because he already decided to write about his difficulty in accepting them when they pushed him. I have not seen the Governor General before. I said for the priest that you can record thirty people per reading. This: a) only makes sense in the case when during a verbal test there was no reason to consider their testimony to be different in thoughts, although their words are somewhat different. b) When there are no special reasons to record their testimony with complete accuracy and literally. c) However, if in no other case, especially in the Arenburg case, in your presence, the priest should not be literal regarding the type of testimony and argue out of pettiness. May God keep our hearts in peace! I must also add that the idea of ​​such a recording came to me from the fact that in other places civil officials themselves submitted it. For my part, I think that the more strictly the matter is conducted, the more peaceful it is for me.” “Alexey worried me quite a bit by the fact that he didn’t write a word for a long time, whether he received it from V. s-my papers. From this example you can judge how much you need to monitor the affairs of this person. And the trouble here is that 400 miles away you will see little, hear little and will not soon convey your thoughts.” But not all the rumors spread among Latvians turned out to be useful in their consequences for Orthodoxy. Filaret complained so much that they disbanded among the people, as if joining was prohibited after September 29th. “What tirelessness in finding ways to harm Orthodoxy! This is already the fourth purpose of the limit,” he noted. But more harmful, according to Filaret, were the rumors spread about certain material benefits allegedly associated with the adoption of Orthodoxy. Filaret unmistakably pointed to the root of these rumors, understanding well the goal of creating confusion in the mind and confusing the Orthodox clergy. Filaret also pointed to individual cases. Thus, “the peasant owners of the estates of Stomerzes and Kalnamoise, Retch Pukish with his son Simon and brother Lan Pukish came to Riga to get the truth. They claimed that without any interest, out of pure impulse, they accepted Orthodoxy. Between conversations they reported that they were hungry and that many were very poor. Although the pastors convince them, they said, not to change their faith, saying that “only deception lurks here”; but they sincerely believe and hope that when they join Orthodoxy, the Almighty Creator will hear their cry and their prayers will be pleasing to Him, and now the Lord is punishing them for their sins. They said this with tears in their eyes, standing on their knees. But immediately the police officer, Gorbachevsky, addressed them with a remark about how they dared to show up without passports and leave the manor during working hours. Although they explained that they had retained workers to carry out work, nevertheless, they should have been refused to join for failure to present passports. But when Jan Anders Zander came to Riga with a passport, the chief of police kicked him out, not allowing his children to join. There were cases where testimonies about faith were not allowed to be recorded under the pretext that these peasants complained about helplessness on the part of the landowners or about the failure to give them leave to feed themselves and their children. “The priest fulfilled with all accuracy,” adds Filaret, “the instructions given to him not to deal with such people, but to leave it to the will of the Lord, who leads the tears of the innocent.” Defending the innocent from slander in the spread of false rumors, Filaret wrote to the chief prosecutor that he had made sure that, unfortunately, false rumors were spread not only by people of the middle class, but also by people of the upper class with the aim of mixing earthly goods into the cause of religion or shaking the purity of the aspirations of Latvians. “With the oppressive shortage of bread and the oppression of landowners (perhaps legally right, although wrong before Christian morality), in poor Latvians, even without the aforementioned empty talk, unrealizable and unfounded dreams can be born about the consequences of joining Orthodoxy; what to expect when the rumors of emptiness join in? Is this why, it seems, it is hardly more unnatural to look for guilt in rich idle lovers, to say the least, than in oppressed poverty? Even without that, for the most part, it remains unprotected, at the will of wealthy arbitrariness.” A convention of Livonian nobles met in Riga on September 19, 1845. Filaret closely followed his activities, as far as it was possible for him to receive information about him, and reported everything with his comments to Count. Protasov. He wrote to him that although the convention had gathered under the pretext of finding out about the needs of the peasants, the actual goal was different - how to stop the Latvians from joining Orthodoxy. At first it was decided to send a deputation to the Emperor; then they decided to ask for permission in advance. But what should the deputies say? Sing the old song about outrage? They won’t believe it: this lie has already been discovered. It must be said that the work of Orthodoxy is being carried out illegally. The president of the General Lutheran Consistory, Baron Meyendorff, took upon himself to report to the Sovereign. “The bishop, for his part, regrets,” noted Filaret, “that his minister was not pleased to listen to the Orthodox bishop about the matter of Orthodoxy, but was content only with the reasoning of people who cannot have accurate information about the matter of Orthodoxy and do not want to talk about it in any way that is hostile to Orthodoxy.” Filaret conducted the annexation matter with great attention and caution. The tests were carried out by two priests who knew the Latvian language perfectly. These tests were never repeated at least twice, and sometimes three or four times. A log was kept of the tests, in which not only the days, but also the hours of the tests were recorded, during which a civil official was always present, and then two: one who knew Latvian, and the other - Estonian. The annexation itself took place under the same officials, the ceremony of which lasted up to two hours. “The priest, as if in the presence of the Lord who graciously dwells in the church, examines conscience and gives instructions to those who join,” writes Filaret. He explained to the chief prosecutor that all those coming to join, when explained to them that there are no earthly benefits associated with Orthodoxy, answer: “we already know about this, it has been announced to us many times.” If they decided to bring to the attention of the government a false rumor - that the promise of earthly benefits was attracting Latvians to Orthodoxy, such a warning from Filaret should have weakened the credibility of such a denunciation. Not without purpose, of course, Filaret also reported the governor-general’s flattering review of priest Mikhailov and others who were entrusted with the task of annexation. Filaret did not limit his activities to the area of ​​the present. He did everything to strengthen Orthodoxy for the future, and of course, in these broad plans he encountered even more opposition. Due to circumstances, Filaret’s caution and foresight reached the point that he did not travel around the dioceses without the Highest permission. Let us present his interesting presentation on this matter to the Chief Prosecutor on September 28, 1845 (No. 1331): “Under the high protection of the most pious Sovereign Emperor, Orthodoxy is making very significant progress. Since May, 650 fathers of families have given testimony about their desire for Orthodoxy according to the order indicated by the high wisdom of the Sovereign Emperor, but have not yet been annexed to St. Orthodoxy. The children of both of them, not confirmed, should also be joined to the saint. Orthodoxy; other members of the families of the same fathers will no doubt follow the example of the fathers of families as family heads. Meanwhile, the number of fathers expressing a desire for Orthodoxy is increasing from day to day. If you send priests to the manors to carry out partly the annexation, partly the testing of the indicated persons, then the priest will only be subject to disputes, complaints and accusations, as the experience in Marienburg has already shown. At the same time, I am quite sure that whole thousands of peasants are ready to receive St. Orthodoxy and being Russian throughout, but are held back partly by distance from Orthodox priests, and even more by various local obstacles. The office of bishop in this matter, I hope, will protect the cause of Orthodoxy from the rumors invented by malice before the highest authorities. Therefore, I would consider my personal review of Livonia very useful, so that in my presence both the joining of the children of fathers who have expressed a desire for Orthodoxy and the testing of other persons who have a desire to declare Orthodoxy could be carried out, and it is also necessary that a civil official be present, authorized by the power of attorney of the Governor-General of Livonia, Estland and Courland. since, even with firm confidence in the benefits of this intention for the church, I cannot be sure that the fulfillment of this intention will not subject me to some criticism from the strong Lutheranism here: then I turn to my most humble request to the Holy Spirit, whether it would be pleasing to submit this intention of mine to the Highest discretion of the Sovereign Emperor. His will is so sacred for every son of the Orthodox Church; his word has already done so many miracles for St. Orthodoxy both between those who had previously turned to Rome, and even more recently between inveterate schismatics, and his charitable love for St. Orthodoxy of the century will be felt and gratefully raised to the throne of the Father of bounties. And in the present case, one word from him, and everyone will be peaceful.” This idea is important not so much because it introduces Filaret’s special caution, but because it gives an idea of ​​the energy with which he pursues the goal of “spreading Orthodoxy at all costs,” as Gr. Tolstoy. Protecting priests from responsibility, in view of constant persecution and denunciations against them, Filaret himself went into the breach and took all the troubles upon himself. Having secured the Highest permission, he could act more boldly. Knowing the character of his Sovereign, he sincerely gave his word magical power. Not without purpose, of course, he pointed out the readiness of Latvians to become Russian throughout. In St. Petersburg they did not notice what a far-sighted man, ardently devoted to the Russian cause, saw on the spot. Only two persons saw it there - Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich and his minister Perovsky. The proposal was reported to the Sovereign, who not only approved of Filaret’s intentions, but after that he warmly spoke out to the Livonia deputies as a defender of Orthodoxy in Livonia. The translation of the catechism, prayer book and liturgy into the Latvian language and the performance of divine services in it greatly contributed to the cause of accession. “Many Latvians, even before joining, attend church, get acquainted with Orthodox worship and, having received a gratifying impression for the soul, then desire Orthodoxy themselves,” reported Filaret. In order to strengthen those newly affiliated in Orthodoxy and establish them in the teachings of the church, he distributed icons of the Mother of God, the Savior, St. Sergius, and St. Nicholas Chud., Forerunners, images by B.M. "comfort for those who mourn." Asking to send an extract from the German book “The Orthodox Rite of Confession,” he, among other things, wrote to Gorsky: “Would you believe that the Metropolitan’s German Orthodox Catechism is being destroyed here? What are the Germans like!” Filaret’s diligent and frequent service attracted many Latvians to the church, first by their curiosity, and then by their spiritual disposition. In addition, Filaret very often spoke teachings, which, according to the testimony of his colleague, made a strong impression with their sincerity. About this service to his holy cause, he, with his characteristic modesty, wrote to Gorsky: “What can I say about myself? What I say in sermons and say often is nothing special; Who doesn’t preach sermons now?” Filaret also reported to Count Protasov about pastors who were not carried away by the general example, but declared to the Latvians that if they sincerely desired Orthodoxy, they could freely go to the priest. Such exceptions, according to his testimony, existed among the barons. One cannot help but regret that these persons are not named, but are spoken of in general as a gratifying exception. When the annexation, due to the evasion of the village authorities, began to be carried out in Riga, they did not like it. “Why,” they started talking again, “don’t they join at the place of residence?” Filaret notes about this Gr. Protasov: “First of all, the answer to this is that there is no instruction to act as the warring parties would like.” Then he examines this measure in detail, the circumstances that caused it, always logically breaking down the opinions of his enemies and often defeating them with his own provisions. Meanwhile, Golovin more and more allowed himself to be entangled in German intrigue, and opposition to the Orthodox clergy in the cause of the church, taking on ever greater proportions, remained without persecution. Filaret, in his letter to Count Protasov, pointed out how, alongside the constraint of the clergy in matters of faith, there was bold propaganda of the Lutheran clergy. The General Huters were ready to join Orthodoxy. But, Filaret wrote: “Pastor Trey, the same one who had pastoral dealings with the Latvians-Gernhuters, now opened private evening meetings in his house for Lutheran preaching, and crowds began to gather to him. Now compare your situation with the position of the Orthodox clergy in Riga. If I had allowed myself to send someone either from the priests or from the pious laity to the house of some Latvian, even one who expressed a desire for Orthodoxy, I know very well that he would have been immediately seized as a rebel. Don’t think V. s-in that I am exaggerating the bitter reality. No, I already know that in connection with the last case they were looking everywhere and in every possible way, was there ever someone sent from me to Latvian’s house? Moreover, it is known; but the Lord is with them, I don’t want to touch my personality. Thus, all I have to do is surrender everything to the will of the Lord. If He is merciful to Orthodoxy and appoints another leadership for Riga, then Orthodoxy will make progress without noise and turmoil. I alone cannot overcome so many strong people. And what do I mean to them? However, perhaps the Lord will be merciful and send help to resolve the upset matter. This is the only thing that requires calm. Against the local stubbornness, which is often arrogant, open struggle is of little success. More than once they came to me again with a desire for Orthodoxy (to send one of their own - I’m afraid and consider it impossible); but I can’t formally start anything until better time. It would be necessary at least to curb by secret measures those bold antics of the enemies of Orthodoxy that I mentioned.” So, Filaret, carried away more and more by the zeal of service, conducting business on the spot carefully and prudently, at the same time acts in St. Petersburg more and more boldly: he seems to reproach Protasov himself for his indifference, expressing confidence that he only hopes for God’s help and mentions a change in the authorities in Riga. At the same time, in his actions one can see the impulse that is always inherent in his heart: while enduring persecution, to protect the subordinate servants of the altar from them. For the same purpose, he freed them from carrying out sensitive assignments. Wishing only to protect Orthodoxy from embarrassment, he conducts business with kindness and does not betray the spirit of Christian teaching. So, for example, regarding disrespectful comments from pastors about Orthodoxy, he says: “The bishop has many written testimonies from Latvians about this, although the bishop did not want and does not want to make that use unpleasant for the pastors.” Or: “I didn’t want and don’t want to talk or judge unfavorably about people. Their judge is the Lord. But what is necessarily connected with the cause of Orthodoxy, I am forced to say.” In general, he had the most idea about the need for general measures; if he sometimes pointed out individual cases, then, by grouping them, he outlined the general state of affairs. And when Count Protasov demanded to know which of his assistants punished the Latvians who turned to Orthodoxy, he replied: “Due to my means and duty, I cannot accurately collect information on this subject.” The authorities might not have mentioned the need for change in Riga to Filaret after Golovin at one of the meetings directly spoke out against the annexation, arguing that the annexation would shake the centuries-old order? Filaret’s jealousy belittled his own danger in front of him, and he immediately, to his face, called Golovin “German.” Golovin fully trusted the sincerity of the landowners' fears and the panicky fear that the demand for troops was based on a necessity they recognized. No matter how hard Count Tolstoy tried to explain to him that the barons in this case had an ulterior motive - to pretend that the annexation took place under the pressure of bayonets, Golovin remained his own. Count Tolstoy represented to Golovin that this issue had gone so far that there was no turning around, and there was only one outcome - to deal with the matter directly and the sooner the better. He pointed out the need to convince the barons that the government could not leave the peasants to fall prey to the hatred of the Lutherans. Golovin argued that the landowners would willingly carry out the will of the Tsar if he spoke categorically. Count Tolstoy noted that there is a new trick here: they want the Sovereign to take upon himself all the shame with which biased Western Europe is covering up this matter, and to provide justification for his distant history, which in turn can be deceived. “The circumstances are curious, but the matter is difficult,” writes Count Tolstoy, ending this note with the following words: “Lord, give me strength and patience!” If such an exclamation escaped from a secular person who looked at the matter as a Russian and a son of the Orthodox Church, then what should a zealous servant of the Church, such as Filaret, have felt? “Believe me, there is not a single slander, there is not a single low means that they would not undertake in maintaining Lutheranism,” he wrote to Count Protasov. “If they leave me alone again to fight the beasts, the answer to the judgment of God and man for the harmful consequences will not fall on me. I am clear of conscience in declaring the matter in its present form after I knew through bitter experience and in sleepless nights I reflected on everything that is being done and is about to be done.” But this is not how the state ruler looked at the matter, not only renouncing the service of his church, but turning a blind eye to the political task of his homeland, which was so visibly, so clearly, carried out by itself, without any preliminary preparation, without any efforts by the government. This is not enough. The same intrigue and the same rulers managed to bypass the Tsar himself. After such a definite program as he expressed, one could not expect a change in the behavior of such a person as Nikolai Pavlovich. One must assume that the Sovereign was assured that the annexation was being carried out too hastily, as if those who joined did not have time to come to their senses and discuss such an important issue as a change of confession. Perhaps they also pointed out the case when the Latvians-Gernhuters, who had already expressed a desire to join, but had time to discuss, later refused. But this case did not escape Filaret’s attention, and he investigated this matter. It turned out that the Latvians were called to the Lutheran consistory, where they were lured with the promise of allowing them to establish a house of prayer and a school (which was not allowed by the consistory before the movement towards Orthodoxy). Of course, this promise, which prompted the Gernhuters to abandon their intention, was hidden from the Emperor. And then, unexpectedly, the Highest command came that six months should pass from the announcement of the desire to join until the actual joining. This order extremely embarrassed Filaret and, according to him, “plunged everyone who seeks Orthodoxy into bewilderment and despondency.” Such a measure had the irresistible consequence of giving complete scope to intrigue and persecution and cooling the desire for annexation. But, wonderful thing! Soon movement appeared again and in some places it was very strong. Only the goal was achieved with great suffering, only more thorns were planted on the path of the poor people's march into the arms of their new mother - Russia. Is this a mockery of fate or the inscrutable plans of the Creator? Neither intrigues nor torments, which were now given more scope, stopped the people. We are familiar with Filaret's view of the priests needed for newly ordained Latvians. But the educated society of Riga could not be satisfied with such a composition. Even pride demanded that the clergy in Riga be not inferior in education to the pastors, whom the barons boasted so much about. “The Germans used to say that Russian priests are men,” notes Filaret. Undoubtedly, such a remark was too offensive for any Russian; and therefore Filaret’s idea to raise the educational level of the Riga clergy was sympathetically welcomed by the Russian people. Filaret seems to refer to the authority of the Sovereign himself in this matter, citing his words: “I like priests with crosses (i.e., masters of the Academy); I’ve seen them many times, they are good, educated people, they should be appointed to my guard.” And in his gratitude to the Moscow Metropolitan, Philaret makes the following remark: “Yes, my friend, this means a lot, it means a lot for St. faith, means a lot to our Metropolitan Father, to whom our church owes all this.” For the same reasons, as we know, Filaret reacted with keen interest to the desire of one baron, married to a Russian, to appoint a good priest to his manor, who could be a teacher of the law for his sons. Filaret appointed this place for a graduate of the Moscow Academy and was very concerned about quickly finding a reliable person to replace him. Finally, more developed people were needed for the diocesan administration itself. Filaret tried to attract academicians to Riga. His petition was allowed by the Holy Synod, and he was left to take care of finding those willing. Of course, his eyes turned to his native Moscow Theological Academy. She was close to him in his love for her, close in the direction that was given to her pets. And so he sends there request after request, prayer after prayer. “For the Lord’s sake, I ask you, I ask all the brethren, I ask Fr. rector - send your pets. Truly I say that this will be an undoubted benefit for the church. I sincerely ask those whom you choose not to be burdened by the lot; “I will try, with God’s help, to calm their situation as much as I have the strength and means.” “Yes, I forgot to mention: the apartments for the clergy here are state-owned, i.e. purchased by parishes for the church. This is, of course, a lot, especially for the first time.” “It will be very difficult for me if you do not spare the three young men of St. Sergius from your charges. You, of course, understand why I would like to see pastors here from our Academy. I, a sinner, saw the pupils of St. Petersburg. Christ is with them! I ask the Lord, do not refuse mercy,” “you ask me about the conveniences that may be for your pets destined by the Synod to Riga, and you write with spiritual sorrow. Of course, you have no doubt that I, a sinner, am concerned with this matter out of love for the pets of St. Sergius. But don’t think, I beg you, that these places are as unprofitable as you think. You believe that the local priests receive nothing at all from the parishioners (except for a salary). No, the local parishioners love priests very much. Suffice it to say that they consist of merchants and townspeople: and you know that our merchants, thank the Lord, are devout; The people here are the same and even more committed to the church than in some other places. This also depends on the fact that, living among non-believers, it itself, through heterodoxy and especially its hostility against Orthodoxy, is disposed to love Orthodoxy and the Orthodox.” He further reports how great the income of priests is and gives the example of one of them, who receives twice as much as the others, thanks to his truly pastoral service, thereby gaining the love of his parishioners. But the students to whom Gorsky apparently proposed were wary of serving in Riga. It was no secret to anyone what was going on there. And the saddened Filaret wrote: “It’s a pity, it’s a pity that students are abandoning Riga. Now I see even more that it would be very profitable for them to live here. According to recently collected correct information, not a single priest here receives less than 2,000 rubles. (appropriations). Now they also assign 200 rubles. silver Per year. And life is calm for them. The life of sinful Filaret is another matter. But the will of the Lord be done!” The refusal of the Moscow Academy students prompted Filaret to turn to St. Petersburg. Fortunately, the choice seems to have been successful. “If you don’t like it, Rev. Sergius to send his pets. How sad it sometimes makes me feel! The St. Petersburg ones are good, but it would be a joy for me to be with my own people. Now there is no doubt that the situation of those who would come here would be very happy. Here we sent everyone 150 rubles. ser. for establishment. I'm not talking about salaries and places. But I repeat again: blessed be the name of the Lord Most High!” But Filaret, one must think, did not lose hope in his native Academy and, perhaps wanting to have its students closer to him, left places for them in Riga. The personal participation of the Moscow Metropolitan contributed greatly to this confidence of Philaret. “We are concerned about the election required for you,” wrote the Metropolitan, “but there is no success yet. You know that in Moscow and near the center there is more rapid force than centrifugal force.” Apparently, the metropolitan reproached Philaret for not addressing him directly, and in response to his justification, Philaret wrote to him: “First of all, let me argue against your thought that it was painful for you to bother me by bothering me about candidates for the priesthood, and as if it was painful even for your conscience. It would be a burden to my conscience if, out of humanity, so as not to disturb me, they did not demand from me what was necessary for the public good. And you did not write to me in praise, calling the demand for what is generally useful a concern for me; If I consider this useless, then I would ask you to distinguish me and arouse me to better dispositions.” The great teacher of Moscow has not changed, as we see, over the years. “I proposed your demand to the academic board and am beginning to worry that they are not in a hurry, and am inclined to bother with confirmation. I regret that it is not very convenient to fulfill this kind of requirement. In Moscow, people grow especially tightly attached to a place, and do not willingly allow themselves to be torn away,” the Metropolitan noted. In contrast to this increase in place, Filaret pointed out to Gorsky one graduate of the St. Petersburg Academy, who refused a professorship and preferred service in Riga. And in order to woo the Moscow ones, he did not miss the opportunity to inform Gorsky about all the benefits for the Livonian priests, assuring that there were few such parishes in Moscow. In December 1847, Filaret already wrote to Gorsky, asking him to send five academicians for whom places remained unfilled. “Now the circumstances here are no longer the same; Rus' begins to have space; Now in Livonia alone there are up to 70 Orthodox priests, but before there were not even seven.” These are the results he achieved with his tireless perseverance. Filaret. After this, it is not difficult to understand all the bitterness of the Germans against him. Finally, his native Academy gave him two of its pupils, and Filaret informs Gorsky about them: “Nazarevsky and Varnitsky 29 are not bored here. Both of them live quite warmly.” And for me, with my people, it’s somehow freer and easier. You can’t complain about the Petersburgskys either. All three are quiet. But, with my souls freer, I’ll say it again.” The arriving priests, looking around, made sure that it was really possible to live. They began to draw others in. “I expect from you a reliable priest, about whom Vladimir Grigorievich wrote to the Academy 30. Choose a better, kinder person, such as Vladimir Grigorievich, whom I love very much both as kind and as smart.” – “The one you wrote about, according to your own words, is not very approving. But life in Riga is tricky. The Germans are a smart people, a trading city, where wealth spoils people and, by spoiling, destroys happiness.” One of the obstacles that the students of the Academy set for themselves was ignorance of the native language. Filaret urged not to be afraid of this, assuring that they would easily learn on the spot and gave examples: “I say this from experience: 60 priests ordained by me, whose initial knowledge of the folk language was either weak or even insignificant, now all speak and write in the folk language.” At the same time, Filaret advised coming unmarried and choosing life friends here. “It's useful in many ways, for the first time and for talking to people. Besides, it’s boring for a wife to be on a foreign side, and it’s boring for a husband not to have a link nearby that connects him with the local area.” But still, even thinking about transferring from Riga, Filaret did not cease to besiege his native Academy with the demands of the priests, obviously wanting, as far as possible, to strengthen the matter, in case his successor turned out to be a person with a small reserve of energy. In disgust at such a disastrous accident for the church, he asked the rector Eusebius to succeed him, knowing his firm, unwavering character. He wrote to Gorsky: “I am still waiting for your pets. So I need them. Parishes are left without priests. Placing them presents some difficulties for me. We have to transfer the former to new places, and this, as you understand, saddens those being transferred.” Finally, the expected students from the class of 1848 appeared and were assigned: “Karelin to the island. Ezel as a dean and priest, Pospelov in the city of Volmar, Troitsky on the Karolen manor in a ready-made church house and church, Belikov in Ryannino, very rich in income. I asked for a successor for them.” This is what Filaret of Gorsky announced when he handed over his flock to a new shepherd. Thus, nine academicians took priestly places in Livonia. In order to raise the clergy and attract educated people to serve the church, of course, it was necessary to increase the wretched staff of clergy. This worried Filaret, who at first began to petition for an increase in the salary of the clergy. Unfortunately, the local diocesan bishop of Pskov, His Eminence Nathanael, rebelled against this. Claiming that the Riga clergy is better off than the clergy of the Pskov diocese, he submitted to the Synod that Philaret’s petition be left without respect. The key to unraveling such opposition from Nathanael may be local diocesan intrigue and the bishop’s too narrow view. But Filaret was persistent, and this did not stop him. He supported his petition with too strong arguments, among other things, “with the hope of placing the clergy in prominent places so that heterodoxy could not point out the shortcomings of life as a reproach to Orthodoxy” 31 . The Synod, of course, could not include this question in such a narrow frame in which the Pskov ruler looked at it, and Philaret’s petition was respected. The staff has been received, additional staff have been received, and then for establishment. What reward did Filaret ask for himself? “If only the clergy of Riga remembered me beyond the grave”! he wrote to Gorsky, informing him with particular joy of the success of this matter. Filaret had to endure a lot of grief in his efforts to protect those who joined and sought to join Orthodoxy from their cruel persecution. This is how the situation of the Latvians is described on the basis of official information available in the files of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. “It seems that all kinds of violence, torture, cruelty and tricks were put into action and put into action to turn Latvians and Estonians away from accepting Orthodoxy. The unfortunate victims were starved, driven from the Earth with their entire family, deprived of their places, thrown into prisons, beaten with sticks, beaten to the point of disfigurement and even death, dragged through courts, their every word and action were waylaid, interrogated, their heads were shaved, they were mocked in every possible way, using all measures, all means to drive them out of patience and incite them to rebellion; so, in the words of Rev. Philareta, one should be surprised at only one thing - the patience of innocent sufferers. Truly, the Lord himself strengthens their strength, tormented by fanaticism and selfish hatred. How long will their patience last? God knows. Until now they are calmly going, like sheep to the slaughter - to the German judgment.” The picture of this time is well painted by one and, with the exception of Filaret, perhaps the only Russian figure in Livonia at that time in the spirit of Orthodoxy and philanthropy, Count D.N. Tolstoy. He brought to light all government orders in the matter of annexation and divided them: 1) relating to the procedure for annexation and assistance to spiritual authority on the part of civil government, 2) to the establishment of permanent and temporary churches and schools, 3) to protect public order and tranquility, 4) to prosecute abuses of power and duties. By this he wanted to give the right direction and movement to the matter, to lead it out of chaos. But he barely managed to finish this work when the matter was again led astray into the impenetrable sphere of chaos and intrigue. The result was a secret order from the Minister of War on the establishment of a military loan commission for cases of whistleblowers. There are always some rumors circulating among the people that affect strings more or less close to them. It was the same here. The suffering people sought in their dreams a better outcome. And then there was publicity that it was possible to move to warm lands, that is, to the south, where the Orthodox faith was freely professed. The hope of resettlement, perhaps, gave vigor and patience. But these innocent rumors were colored by unprecedented popular excitement. Gen.-M. was appointed as the representative of the commission. Krusenstern, members of the wing were adjutants Efimovich and Annenkov. The very appointment of Krusenstern convinced everyone that this was the work of the German Party. “But this is not the evil,” says Count Tolstoy; “It consists in the separation of government actions on the same matter. Our relations with St. Petersburg were divided into four ways: the first - direct, through the Minister of Internal Affairs; the second is the bishop’s, through the chief prosecutor of St. Synod; the third - through the Minister of War and, finally, according to the movement that is starting, as we hear, in Estonia (consisting in the St. Petersburg Vicariate), the fourth - through Metropolitan Anthony. Naturally, these reports will differ in proportion to the differences in views on the subject, and instead of giving the government more energy and unity, we must now expect measure upon measure, command upon command.” And how did things go? What did you find? “The adjutant wing has arrived and is looking for business in vain. The Minister of War does not get along with the Minister of Internal Affairs, and so he sent aide-de-camp, because as if out of the many investigations being carried out here, not a single one has been completed (this is nonsense), but in fact he needs to counteract Perovsky. For Chernyshov there is nothing and no one here: only Perovsky is in mind. And my poor old man 32 is pulled and torn in all directions and confused. Count Protasov sees a tape in this matter; the bishop is trying to spread his flock at all costs; The governor general, thinking in his heart to be impartial, in fact turns out to be weak. Only Perovsky sees in this matter the spread of the Russian element. He realizes that the situation in this region is anomalous for Russia, and that is why I serve in his ministry. I serve because I share his beliefs; I’ll just notice that the matter is contrary to my conviction, contrary to my conscience, and I’ll give it up and leave.” “We often deceive ourselves by attributing our indifference and coldness to a matter in which we feel that we should take part as impartiality; and in order to make peace with ourselves, we loudly call ourselves impartial.” Of course, these words applied entirely to Golovin, who, according to Count Tolstoy, had finally become a perfect German by conviction. The intrigue was in full swing. “Now the matter of annexation is finding new accusers,” Count Tolstoy narrates: “the Orthodox say, of course, that our people do not want to deal with neophytes and that even the Russian residents of Dorpat wanted to submit a request for this. Those who have never before cared about the integrity of the Russian Church are beginning to fear a schism. They say that the newly affiliated ones are bringing Protestantism into the bowels of our church.” When the Tsar went to foreign lands, the Empire was ruled by the Tsarevich. He ordered that those accused of spreading false rumors and the benefits allegedly associated with converting to Orthodoxy be divided into two categories: “1) Those who act with malicious intent through seduction to attract the simple-minded to Orthodoxy. 2) Repeating what they heard without intent. The former should be tried by military court, and the latter subjected to police punishment.” How did it end? The prisons were overcrowded, and not a single prisoner, according to Count Tolstoy, belonged to either the first or second category. They forgot about the third, who in fact were the only ones: these are those who, without malicious intent, speak nonsense, without however repeating what they heard, but themselves misinterpreting the matter, according to their extreme understanding. This is how the prisons were filled. How did Filaret feel about this murderous case in its own sense? First of all, he turned to the prayerful help of his native Lavra. “There is so much work and sorrow here now! The Germans rebelled with all their bitterness against the cause of Orthodoxy. Both intrigues and slander - everything is in use. The poor peasants are worried and tormented. The top management is also worried about doubts. Officials fly from St. Petersburg to Riga for inspections. Consequences after consequences. Pray to the Lord God for sinner Filaret. Pray to the Mother of God and St. Sergius for the protection of the innocent and holy Orthodoxy. I’d love to write, but I don’t have time.” “Today there is peace, tomorrow there is anxiety,” wrote Filaret. “You can’t guarantee one day. Recently we sent an adjutant to the wing twice. Enough anxiety. At first they announced: there was a riot in Pernov, but there was peace. Then they announced: there was a riot in Orenburg, and again there was no riot. Imagine that about every such case they write to all the ministers and to the Emperor. You will understand that it takes a lot of firmness not to be indignant in this agitated abyss. At least I, a sinner, do not have such strength as to remain calm. May the will of the Lord be done! Apparently, everyone has their own path. The Heavenly Father leads everyone on His own path. Last December (1845), now I’ll say it as if it were the past, I was completely preparing for the journey that my predecessor took from here. This is how they appointed, this is how they announced, this is how they wrote. But it’s still here, to the joy of the good Germans. What will happen next, what will happen tomorrow? I don’t know, I truly don’t know.” But under the pressure of severe grief and his own fears, Filaret’s activity does not weaken. On the contrary, she seems to be even more excited by them. Shedding tears, Filaret describes the oppression and insults of the Latvians and forwards his notes to the governor-general, then goes to him, then to the governor, then asks for the mediation of Count Tolstoy and writes about everything to Count Protasov in St. Petersburg; and he strengthens the unfortunate ones who come to him in patience, gives advice and, with his own tears of sympathy, eases their souls. Opposition to Orthodoxy has reached the point of blatant insulting it. For example, the Kirchenforspilsrat of Dorpat-Berrovsky, having gathered a general meeting of all church trustees and preachers of his district, in view of “the present and in the near future of our domestic (?) Church impending fate” (as he wrote), proposed the following rules for their indispensable guidance: 1) A wandering (?) Russian priest has no right to demand premises for a mobile church on the manor until he presents a full Ordnungsgericht certificate of sending him to fulfill spiritual needs on the land of that manor administration. 2) The manor administrations are obliged to immediately inform the Ordnungsgerichts, church trustees and local preachers about the arrival of the Russian priest through messengers. 3) All sacred ceremonies of priests, with the exception of private services, such as baptisms, burials, etc., must take place in the presence of a person sent from the Ordnungsgericht and local guardianship. At the same time, the manor administration was also required to appoint a representative on its own behalf for strict control over the actions of the priest. 4) In those towns where there are no members of society who have joined the Greek Church, the fulfillment of spiritual requirements should not be allowed. 5) Do not allow the mobile church to travel to villages and join there. In those cases when, out of urgent need to fulfill some spiritual requirement, the priest would go to the village, the manor representative was obliged to accompany him and strictly monitor that the priest did not deviate from the established rules, that is, that they did not allow recording and anointing. Otherwise, it was proposed to turn to the Ordnungsgericht for assistance through a messenger, and in the meantime, as the manor police, stop the priest’s actions with caution and prudence. 6) Strictly observe that those who declared their desire only upon the arrival of the church do not register with the mobile church. (Here again the concern is: so that the people, deceived and outraged by widespread rumors about the secular benefits expected as a result of joining, do not look at the appearance of a mobile church as a challenge and a command to join). 7) Again it is repeated, probably for greater understanding, about strict monitoring of traveling Russian priests, about reporting to Oberokirchenforspielgericht and taking appropriate measures. 8) Allowing the itinerant Russian clergy, in the presence of a representative of the manor board, to worship and perform religious services on those manors where there are already members of the society who have transferred to the Greek Church, allowing the joining of only previously registered members of the society, but not otherwise than in the presence of church trustees and testing everyone joining in the fact that he has a firm and true desire to join, not prompted to do so by earthly benefits and according to the rules Greek Church doctrine of law. At the same time, strict supervision was recommended to ensure that those joining had the proper mental abilities and the age of majority (for men 18 years old, for women 16 years old). Those who have not achieved the latter should be admitted in no other way than with the consent of both parents. In case of deviations, it was also proposed to inform the Ordnungsgericht and stop further actions of the priest (here “caution and prudence” were no longer recommended), etc. Two more paragraphs, in which, among other things, it is said that preachers should immediately provide information about the number of minors who have joined Orthodoxy. The Oberkirchenforspielsrat concludes this instruction with the confidence that it will be carried out “with prudence and awareness of their Christian, human and subject (?) responsibilities.” So, simultaneously with the commands of state power or orders of the local Lutheran spiritual administration, making it difficult to fulfill the former and lulling the vigilance of Russian rulers with touching care about fulfilling their loyal duty! Filaret ardently defended the new children of the church, defeating the Lutheran consistory with his indestructible logic, incriminating it with his own words. For example, he wrote to the Governor General in December 1845. “After considering the forwarded case and comparing it with the documents in my possession, I consider it my duty to offer the following review: “1) The extract of the consistory speaks of the church movements that took place before April of this year; and in November the consistory asks for the trial of Karl Ernest and David Ballod. But: a) if we look at Ernest and Ballod as guilty of church movements (as the attitude of the consistory forces us to look at), then since they joined St. Orthodoxy, according to Art. 209 and 211th XV vol. St. Zak. should be considered free from both answer and judgment, especially since they are now the most sincere Christians of Orthodoxy. Just before their annexation, the review of the civil governor dated April 5th of this year, No. 4456 (required according to the original procedure for annexation) spoke of David Ballod: “good behavior,” about Karl Ernest: “leads a respectable life befitting his rank, and the police know nothing reprehensible about him.” The very reviews of the extracted individuals represent Charles Ernest and David Ballod as seeking only one piety; The pastors themselves talk about them in extracts too. b) If Ballod and Ernest still remained in Lutheranism and were not protected from suspicion by the testimony of the civil authorities and the reviews of the extract itself, then it is strange that the attitude of the consistory requires the trial of only these two persons, while its extract also speaks of Luke Michelson, Andrei Vade and others who revealed their dissatisfaction with the church position. And it is even stranger, even more incomprehensible that the consistory, ardently rebelling against Ballod and Ernest, who are no longer subject to its jurisdiction either as a person or as a matter of Orthodoxy, ignores the affairs of pastors Trey and Shiren, whom the extract itself blames so much. c) Did the consistory come to a good time to calm the movements taking place in Lutheranism? Almost a year and a half passed after the first movement she exposed, guilty according to her concept, and a whole seven months after the last movement; Now her actions speak more likely of obvious opposition to Orthodoxy than of the order of the matter.” “2) As for the matter of some members of the brotherhood 33 who expressed their pious desires to me, what part of the extract concerns; then: a) first of all, it should be said that this matter is completely separate from the matter of Latvians joining Orthodoxy. The latter is separated from the first by the Highest will communicated to me regarding Mr. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod on March 14th of this year under No. 1799 and is depicted in more detail in the additional instructions to the Bishop of Riga, Highly approved on April 25th of this year. In accordance with this will, everyone who desires Orthodoxy expresses the desire on his own behalf, and not from society, and is tested in the purity and sincerity of his voluntary desire for himself in the presence of a civil or village official. The very first such test, in accordance with the Highest will, took place on March 25, and the very first time the Latvian Lutherans joined Orthodoxy took place on April 21, i.e., far after everything that the extract talks about. Whoever wanted to be subjected to such a test was subjected; and whoever, although he has ever expressed a desire for Orthodoxy, but changes his desire, either on his own, or turned away from a good intention by the efforts of bad people, is submitted to the judgment of God, just like the one who turned him away. Thus, the consistory in its attitude in vain allows itself offensive expressions about the cause of Orthodoxy: it is in vain, without any evidence, to denigrate the Orthodox Ballod and Ernest with names that are not justified even by its extract, which, as said, has no connection with joining Orthodoxy, and even less the matter of joining: in vain, especially since the consistory, as its extract shows, knows the Highest will communicated to it from March 20th, prohibiting, like the well-known law of the Empire, any act against Orthodoxy. b) For the benefit of those who, out of ignorance, sin against a pious cause 34, I am forced to say that the work of the members of the brotherhood happened like this. After the bitter complaint brought to me by members of the brotherhood that the pastors persistently refused them permission to perform morning and evening services (it is clear that I could not count such a complaint among my formal affairs), after presenting Latvian books to the Orthodox members, written conditions were offered in Russian and Latvian, on which the Orthodox bishop agreed to take into account the pious desires of the suffering, and between the conditions there was a connection with Orthodoxy. The paper with the conditions was given to the brotherhood itself, it was read by members in the brotherhood meeting and in houses, and whoever agreed with the conditions signed the paper, whoever did not want to agree did not sign. The Orthodox catechism, the Orthodox prayer book, the Orthodox liturgy, all three in the Latvian language, given to the brotherhood, completely clarified for the brotherhood what was going on. Consequently, everyone who signed up, as someone who could read, and even more so listen, could know what was going on. When there was a significant number of people willing to act, in accordance with the conditions, to submit a petition to the bishop, a power of attorney was required from the society to one person, and the power of attorney, written in Russian and briefly expressing the contents of the above-mentioned paper, was signed in his own hand by non-commissioned officer Markevich, David Ballod, Karl Bertul, Atom Medni, and signed for others by Markevich. Thus, a) no one could complain about anyone in this case; the matter was left to the understanding and will of everyone. b) Considering it difficult for conscience to expose the lies of others, I limit myself to one example. The extract speaks about Yakov Markevich, as if, according to his, Markevich’s testimony, he, Markevich, did not sign the power of attorney himself, but signed Ballod for him, and as if he only learned from the police on March 8 that the matter was about uniting with Orthodoxy. Markevich did not say and could not say either: the first because he signed the power of attorney himself with his own hand, and even signed it for others, as the power of attorney itself shows; the second because not only did he sign the power of attorney for himself and for others, but he also signed the paper with the conditions of union with his own hand, and he was one of the first to join Orthodoxy. c) I am forced to repeat again that if the consistory did not know the progress of the fraternal matter, then it should have at least been careful in its response to the matter of Orthodoxy, so as not to be condemned itself; if she knew, then it would be no better for her conscience and her honor.” The most vehement opposition to Orthodoxy was expressed by the Dorpat-Verrovsky main church trusteeship. First of all, it turned to Dorpat Archpriest Berezsky with its protest, trying to support it with references to various laws and even decrees of 1819. Here is this curious protest and Filaret’s response to it to the Governor General. “By virtue of the enclosed copy of § 25 of the Highly Approved Charter of Spiritual Consistories of March 27, 1841, priests wishing to join the Orthodox Greek-Russian faith are obliged to first of all instruct and confirm in the teachings of the Orthodox faith, and by the decree of January 8, 1819 (also in a copy attached and copied from the Complete Collection of Laws Russian Empire) The Holy Governing Synod, having taken into account that to join to the Orthodox Church such Protestants who turn to it not by direct preference, but by other reasons rejected by the Church itself, would be contrary to the Evangelical spirit, ordered to accept and join to the Church Protestants who have the concept and the perfect age required for the reality of the will to marry, i.e., according to this Synodical decree, male persons 15, and female 12 years old, and Code Zak. ed. 1842 t. X order. citizen according to Article 3 (based on the Highest Decree of July 19, 1830) males - 18, females - 16; to perform the ritual of joining Protestants only if, after a preliminary test, they turn out to have a firm and true disposition, and the joining of young children, up to the above-mentioned age, according to the same test and when the parents of those children confirm their will with their consent. The need for the most precise execution of these Highest and Synodal decrees is now being expressed regarding the local peasants, especially since (as everyone knows) as a result of rumors that spread among them, the false opinion among the peasants was confirmed that by joining the Orthodox Greek-Russian Church they would receive great benefits, such as: land divided according to the number of souls, liberation from corvée, poll taxes or conscription, or other secular benefits, or will avert the damage that threatens them, namely, a return to the previous serfdom. All this cannot be unknown to the local Greek-Russian clergy, and especially to your Reverence, especially since you were present at many investigations carried out in local police stations, from which the existence of such false rumors and opinions was clearly revealed, and that there were cases in which Estonians of the Orthodox Greek-Russian confession and even natural Russians appeared to be included in the list like peasants of the Lutheran confession, in particular from their masters, and especially from your Reverend, with the intention (as it turned out) to have a share in the benefits expected by the peasants joining the Greco-Russian Church, or to avoid their expected return to serfdom. Despite the above laws and circumstances, despite the fact that, according to paragraph 2 of the publication of the Governor General of October 29, this year. d. joining the church must be done by the Highest will in accordance with the prescribed general order - joined in In Dorpat, several thousand local peasants of the Lutheran confession join the Greek-Russian Church, and almost every day up to a hundred, even up to two hundred people join, without any instruction or confirmation of them in the teachings of this church and without any preliminary test, and especially a test consistent with current circumstances, which can certify that they do not want to leave their former faith and accept the Greek one, not in anticipation of secular benefits. Those who come to join are admitted for the most part in crowds of about forty or more people, and in addition to the announcement that they do not expect secular benefits, they are asked not individually, but all together about whether they wish to join from Lutheranism to Orthodoxy sincerely and with all their souls, to which it naturally follows from the crowd, which is in error through the aforementioned false rumors, an affirmative answer, especially since there is even a rumor among them that priests are not allowed to say tell them the truth about the benefits they expect. Moreover, many young children, under 18 and 16 years old, were added to the Greek-Russian Church, contrary to legal regulations, without the consent of their parents or persons taking their place.” Then the guardianship, declaring such an alleged violation by the Orthodox clergy of the rights of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and insulting it, threatens to bring such inconsistent actions of the clergy to the notice where it should be. Signed by Landrat Baron Brüning. To this challenge, Filaret responds that Lutheran guardianship requires: “1) Not what it says. If it were sincere, it would admit that it is actually trying to stop the success of Orthodoxy. Whether or not the Orthodox priests observe the rule of the Orthodox consistory is of no concern to the Lutheran guardianship; and it, of course, feels that it is entering into someone else’s business, with the danger of being reprimanded for interfering in someone else’s business.” (Here, of course, there is a slight hint as to what view the authorities should take on this matter.) “2) Not what one should have required. It is obliged to see that neither private nor government officials of the Lutheran confession offend the rights of mankind. What are the Lutherans of Livonia doing? When Lutheranism was introduced in place of the Roman Confession, the assistant brought the pastor into the church and said to the peasants: you are now Lutherans and here is your pastor! If anyone after that did not go to listen to the pastor, the landowner ordered him to be beaten with sticks until the poor man began to shout “and I am a Lutheran.” Now the pastor and the landowner grab the peasant and, after domestic torture, bring him to trial - for what? Because a poor and simpleton told another the confession of his soul: The Russian faith is good. Let the Lutheran trusteeship think about what it is now obliged to take care of? 3) Demanding detailed instructions for everyone who joins, it demands the impossible in the present state of affairs. a) The Dorpat guardianship knows well that it would be the first to cry out: riot, riot, conspiracy, conspiracy, if the priest gathered around him at least 500 Lutheran peasants to teach them instructions about the difference between Orthodoxy and Lutheranism. I say: he knows this well, because the chairman of the trusteeship, Mr. Bruning, was the first to send a denunciation to Riga at the end of September about some kind of riot in Dorpat, when the peasants came to the priest for Orthodoxy, and he, Mr. Bruning, received a fair reprimand for the insolence of the same time against the governor general. b) During the general movement of the people towards any noble cause, they do not ask each private individual for an account of why, to what and for what purpose is he striving for a noble cause? Then the authorities are obliged only to rejoice at this movement, praise it, strengthen the wonderful feeling that governs the movement: then anyone who would reproach the authorities for not explaining to everyone what and for what he strives for would be an enemy of society, an enemy of everything noble, a criminal. This is what happens in religious movements. The law with which the trusteeship covers its claim does not speak about such cases. c) If the guardianship allows itself to say that the Dorpat clergy joins the peasants “without any preliminary testing, and especially testing in accordance with the current circumstances,” then it is too bold and exposes itself to the danger of being sued for slander: firstly, the Lutheran guardianship is not invited to be present when accepting peasants with the desires of faith; and therefore, he is not able to testify with his personality how the acceptance of such peasants is accomplished, even if his response was accepted as a response from a witness. Secondly, not a single official seconded to Dorpat or to another priest ever, either privately or formally, complained (and has no reason to complain) that peasants were annexed “without any testing.” Especially in recent times, when so many confirmations have been made to the priests, so many new strictures have been introduced in the matter of receiving peasants: one must have too little conscience to allow oneself to make such a review of the holy cause as is done by Lutheran guardianship. 4) It is better to think that Lutheran trusteeship does not understand what it requires. Persons of the Lutheran confession who accept Orthodoxy are either confirmed or not confirmed. Those who were not confirmed: a) according to the rules of the Lutheran Church, could not be admitted to St. communion, without first being instructed (confirmed) regarding the main subject of Christianity in the knowledge of God, the Holy Trinity, the great feat of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the moral rules of faith. If those confirmed are affirmed in the main essential objects of faith, then the Orthodox Church has no reason to deprive them of the sacrament of confirmation, or even to classify them as Mohammedans. b) Confirmed according to the rules of the Lutheran Church to obtain the right to St. The sacrament is established in the essential rules of faith and life. But it was not considered necessary for them to reach the subtle and highest theological discussions about faith, accessible only to those who exclusively devoted themselves to the study of theology. And this is done fairly. On the one hand, the Christian faith is a universal faith, accessible to everyone, both high and limited in education, as soon as passions do not interfere with its access to the soul. On the other hand, to demand from everyone sophisticated reasoning about faith would mean to demand the impossible, even for the activities of earthly life. If such reasoning about faith is not required to obtain the right to the name of a Christian, then Orthodoxy would act contrary to Christianity if it required such reasoning about Orthodoxy to obtain the right to the name of an Orthodox Christian. c) The most striking difference between Orthodoxy and Lutheranism is that the latter strives to feed only the mind with reasoning about faith, while Orthodoxy edifies the mind and heart, the heart with reverent prayers and rituals, the mind with thoughts of faith hidden in rituals and teachings. The foundations of this difference are hidden in the very dogmatic principles of both confessions, since Lutheranism says: believe (otherwise think), and that is enough; Orthodoxy says: believe and act by faith. Therefore, everyone who is confirmed, if he listens to the Orthodox service in church in a language that he understands, already feels and realizes what he lacked in Lutheranism and what Orthodoxy gives him; and to enter into subtle discussions with him would mean not to cure the illness of his spirit, but to set him in order. Other differences between Orthodoxy and Lutheranism are so uncomplicated and simple in general sense that to explain them the church did not provide any special catechumen (instructions), while it established a six-day catechumenate for Jews, Mohammedans and pagans. And, therefore, both on the merits of the matter and on the order of the church, detailed instructions to those confirmed when accepting Orthodoxy are not required. Confirmation has been connected with baptism since the very first times of Christianity. Neither Lutheranism nor Orthodoxy refuses baptism to infants. If baptism is not denied to infants, and instruction in the faith is given to the future tense: then the Orthodox Church, without violating its rites, cannot refuse confirmation to an infant, whether due to physical or spiritual age.” “After that, little remains to be said about those who have not been confirmed or those who have not yet received sufficient concepts about Christianity. In relation to those who have not been confirmed, we can only add that to fill an unspoiled soul with instructions about the differences between Orthodoxy and the self-will of Lutheranism would mean punishing the innocent.” Filaret, as soon as he received the guardianship’s protest with the threat of “bringing it to the attention of the right place,” hastened to make an explanation to the governor general, beating the guardianship on all points and even lightly touching on the fact that it is criminal to allow opposition to Orthodoxy on the part of the authorities. Of course, such a warning should have significantly weakened the impression made on Golovin by the guardianship report, and therefore at least half the energy in the prosecution of the innocently accused. To our surprise, Golovin ordered that testimony about Orthodoxy be selected by the Ordnugsgerichter, and after selection, the latter would be reported to the spiritual authorities. The inquiries carried out in good faith by officials of the Governor General Varadinov, Khanykov, Samarin, Burger, about the cruel acts of the barons and pastors against the Latvians, were not given any significance or progress. “Governor General,” Filaret wrote a letter to Protasov, “is a good Christian; but that not a single complaint from a peasant to the Ordungsgerichter will either reach the governor-general, or will arrive in a distorted form, and the peasants will only be rewarded with new persecution, this can only be doubted by those who, having healthy eyes, say that they see nothing.” There were, for example, the following complaints about the non-issuance of passports. A peasant from the Martsengov manor, Martyn Lapin, with his wife and three children has been living in Riga for 10 years, but now, after joining Orthodoxy, he does not receive a passport under the pretext that, having previously paid 10 rubles, he now undertakes to pay 16 rubles. He has neither a house nor land on the manor. Peasant from Tegaps manor Andrey Vitul, who lived for 9 years in Riga and now sent 6 rubles. 50 k. for a passport, I received a passport only for my wife, and another 10 rubles are required from him. He has neither a house nor land on the manor. The maiden Caroline Anderson who joined the Orthodoxy of the Petkenshof estate. Having lived in Riga for 10 years, she always received a passport without any payment; upon joining her, Baron Wrangel demands 10 rubles from her. silver, threatening her otherwise to call her to peasant work, which she, out of habit and poor health, could not perform. Pointing out such oppression of Eva Gragan, Filaret asked the Governor-General to instruct the police or another board to demand from the landowners a formal explanation for such statements and submit them certainly to the discretion of His Excellency. All these complaints were recorded by Filaret himself. It is clear that Philaret personally took on such work so as not to involve others in the matter and not subject them to accidents and persecution, like Fr. Dorofey Emelyanov. Filaret forwarded these notes to the governor general, often supporting them with personal petitions for the oppressed. Not receiving satisfaction, Filaret repeated his petition with a special note. But these notes, these requests from Filaret, instead of stimulating Golovin’s energy, brought him to the point that he could not read them indifferently, and finally even hear about Filaret. Seeing that (thanks, of course, to his lack of character) his instructions were not being carried out and that he could do nothing to raise his importance, Golovin, however, could not bear the pricks of his pride and chose to put a wall between himself and the bishop. Who was Filaret to turn to then? The only person his voice could reach, and who grieved with him about the participation of the unfortunate, was Count D.N. thick; but Filaret also had to warn him so that they would not know that the well-known petition came from him. “I am sending you a note,” he wrote to him, “but not so that anything will be done in my name. The fact is that many other peasants came to Riga from the same manor for the same bread; They say there is absolutely no bread. For the Lord, do mercy and prevent intrigues! Please don't tell E. A. 35 about my name. You had 36, but they weren’t allowed in.” Agents of pastors and barons were everywhere and eavesdropped on the villagers' speeches. These careless speeches, in which the conduct of the pastors was condemned, which included a public attack on Orthodoxy, or an intention was expressed to join Orthodoxy, always ended in great misfortune. Here is a sad story about one of many similar cases. We learned that one villager wanted to convert to Orthodoxy. He was sent from the manor board on an errand to Riga. As soon as he arrived there, they put shackles on him and put him in prison. For two weeks, this prisoner’s eyes did not dry from the tears that flowed at the thought of his wife and children, their anxiety and poverty. The prisoners were surprised by this abundance of tears. Looking sadly through the window at the Peter and Paul Orthodox Cathedral, the unfortunate man saw his wife on the porch. And she sat on the porch, leaning on her hand and wondering where her husband, the support of the family, had gone. Where can I find it? "Anna"! a familiar voice came from the prison window. “Teach the children. Let them not cry for me. I'm still alive. Hurry up to join and join the children.” Anna was driven away; the window closed... The history of the new martyrdom in Livonia is very intelligible for those who, reading about the exploits of Christian martyrs of the first centuries, doubt and see in them the embellishment of the narrators. Condemned while suffering for his beliefs, what does he care about? So that the wife and children rush to join, knowing well both from their own experience and from the experience of others that grief and suffering await them for that. Anna rushed to the only door, which, according to her son, was not locked for the unfortunates; it was the door leading to the cell of the Riga Orthodox Bishop Filaret. And the narrator himself makes the following question: “Did he ever save? You could always come to him.” Filaret promised to help. Somewhat reassured by the promised protection, Anna wanders towards the prison. To her surprise, she was admitted; but, it turned out, already to the corpse of her husband. His whole body, especially his face, was covered with bloody spots, his jaws were convulsively clenched, and bloody foam was oozing from his mouth. The doctor gave him medicine. After tasting it, he refused to finish it. Then the doctor threw the rest into his eyes. This is how those imprisoned with him explained it. With desperate cries, Anna fell to the warm corpse of a person dear to her, a friend and support of the family... They dragged the unfortunate woman away from the corpse and drove her out of prison. She wandered again to Filaret, whose waiting room was crowded with sufferers like her. And now the unfortunate woman stands in front of Filaret, barely able to stand on her feet, and conveys to him, choking with tears, her sad story. And the bishop stands in front of her, and tears flow down his face. And he cries over the grief of his neighbor, over his powerlessness, over the shame of his Motherland, over the desecration of his mother-church... He asks her with participation: “How big is the family? Can any of the sons help manage the household? What position is it in? Is there a house and is it big? How big is the corvee and service? Is there anything to bury my husband with?” He immediately enrolls one of Ivan’s sons, later a priest, in a theological school. “Maybe he will be a consolation for you? Besides him, I will accept nine more Latvians and will constantly accept them. There you won’t have to pay anything: everything will be ready. If he studies well, he and everyone else will become priests.” Having learned that she was almost out of money, he brought her the last 5 rubles, apologizing that he had no more. “It was true,” the narrator asserts. “The voice of the people is the voice of God,” says the proverb. And during his lifetime, Filaret acquired the name Filaret the Merciful. The grief of the woman we talked about was not exhausted by the loss of her husband, and Filaret’s participation in her situation did not end. All her property was sold. She and her young children, the eldest of whom was 9 years old, were kicked out of the house. And she spent the cold autumn, without a piece of bread, in the barn, where the dung heap served her and the children as a bed. Filaret repeatedly wrote to the Governor-General, who encouraged and wrote about her; but whether his writing reached anyone, or whether there was a clear disregard for the dispositions of the Russian authorities, nothing was done to alleviate the situation of the unfortunate one. Count Tolstoy was absent. Filaret wrote to him: “Dear count! Kolmang's case is devastating. Seven children were left without a father and without any support. The case was handled, excuse me, by the court Shymyakin. Would you take it upon yourself to revise it? If something similar had been done by Orthodoxy against some German, the Germans would not only have trumpeted it all over Russia, but would have published it in all the newspapers of Europe. I'm looking forward to seeing you. For God's sake, come back soon. With love in the Lord, sinner Filaret.” From this letter it is obvious that Count Tolstoy was the only support for Filaret. The barons also understood this, and this circumstance did not escape their intrigues. They began to assure Golovin that Tolstoy was credited with too much influence on affairs. In other words, by hurting the weak old man’s vanity, they sought to cool him towards Tolstoy. This is not enough. Trying to ease Count Tolstoy’s jealousy: “I heard that they wanted to put you against me; They told you God knows what strange things about me. And do you believe? I don’t believe it: you know me. I’m talking about this because I love you and value your affection. And as a sign of sincere love, I will say a sincere word to you: have pity on the one who has become so black that, out of fear alone, whether they are not telling the whole truth about him, he allows himself to do base things. Sat sapienti.” Of course, such a calculation was not successful. Count Dmitry Nikolaevich remained deeply devoted to Filaret and spoke enthusiastically about him, as a great lamp of the church and a sufferer for it. Filaret’s letters, according to him, he kept as a shrine. Thanks to a stroke of luck, we were able to write off some of them. But one can hope that sooner or later, and the sooner the better, they will appear in print 37 . Out of affection and respect for Filaret, Count Tolstoy visited him in Kharkov, after which Filaret wrote to him, among other things: “how you gave me to many, giving me some time to stay in Kharkov! I remember you with deep memory; but, having seen you, I filled my soul with joyful thoughts that I saw with my own eyes the selfless friend of God.” The only person in Riga to whom Filaret resorted, the conversation with whom gave him consolation, Count D.N. Tolstoy, was finally placed in such a relationship to the cause of the Russian Church that for his success Filaret had to interrupt his meetings with him. “Dear Count,” Filaret wrote to him, “my soul is eager to visit you... But I am truly afraid. My God, what is my life? Do you know why I want to come to you? Then, to bow at your feet... for a lot, for a lot. May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ protect you. Sinful F. How heavy my soul is!” Count Tolstoy’s note about the change in Golovin probably dates back to this time, whom he found “a perfect German and as if sworn to harm Orthodoxy.” Let us present the testimony of Professor Rozberg of the University of Dorpat about the work of Orthodoxy in Livonia and the situation of those who joined. He wrote to Count Protasov: “Without any pressure, without any tangible human means, without hoping for any earthly benefits, crowds of simple-minded villagers, having finished their field work, peacefully strive under the unshakable canopy of the Eastern Church. This spectacle is the most sublime, touching and pure of her triumph: for here it is not half-wild pagans who pass into her bowels, not Uniates, who are quite closely associated with her, but Protestants, who for three whole centuries have been under the influence of the wisdom, dialectics and eloquence of educated pastors. From the 19th (September 1845) to the present, in the course of six days, up to 4000 have signed up, among whom there are many men and women are already in advanced, senile years, many village judges and elders. They present themselves to the priest, dressed as best as possible, cross themselves, and beat their chests when they learn that their names have already been entered into the protocol. Skripitsyn 38 and g.-m. The Ants were amazed to the depths of their souls by everything that they saw with their own eyes and heard with their own ears.” “The entire Estonian people unconditionally accepts Orthodoxy. The work is truly miraculous! From September 19th to the present day - September 28th - already too 15,000 souls of men and women have registered with Archpriest Fr. Berezsky. Despite all this, the silence and reverent calm of the vast crowd standing from morning to night in front of his house had not yet been disturbed by the slightest disorder. The Germans are extremely annoyed by this; They would sincerely want some kind of disturbance to occur, and that’s understandable! The zeal of Estonians to join Orthodoxy reaches the point of frenzy: many come and come from distant places, for two days at a time they drink and eat almost nothing, smell the open air near the city, exhausted by cold and hunger, patiently wait in line.” Rosberg points to the following motivating reasons for this desire for Orthodoxy: 1) “Our pastors are too great gentlemen; 2) on our churches there is not a shining cross, the common sign of Christianity, but some kind of turkey is stuck; our churches are falling apart from dilapidation, no one cares about them; 3) our pastors, instead of liturgy and sermons, often read to us only announcements that so-and-so has died, so-and-so has been born; 4) we have no consolation to light a candle, sprinkle ourselves with St. water, serve a prayer service, reveal sins to your spiritual father; 5) finally, our Sovereign professes Orthodoxy. The reverence of these people for the august Monarch is difficult to describe. When Fr. Berezsky, among other names, suggested the name of Nikolai, everyone shouted out loud: no! We are not worthy of such a name; this is the name of our Sovereign; it's too big for us. Many of those present began to cry when Archpriest Berezsky, depriving the Estonians of any hope of achieving temporary benefits from a change of religion, added that the divine service itself would only slowly be clothed in splendor; they unanimously answered him: if we do not wait for this, our children will; we sacrifice ourselves for the children! Combining this with the arrogance, negligence and greed of most pastors, we will receive a satisfactory explanation of the mysterious incident for many. The Eastern Church, shining in places among the local simple-minded tribes, with its rituals, its appearance, its spirit, like a mighty magnet, attracted them irresistibly. There are no other reasons." The same Rosberg describes the impression made by this religious movement on the barons. “The gentlemen of the Ostsee, at first stunned by the first impulses of the people towards Orthodoxy, are now gradually coming to their senses. There is now insatiable activity between them; all springs, all passions are set in motion, all feathers creak, all lips spew blasphemy. There is a strong intention, on the one hand, to frighten the government, and on the other hand, to intimidate the poor villagers, instilling in them that troops will come here to drive them through the ranks. The Livonians are beside themselves with the serenity of the Estonians: they would really like to incite them to disobey, crumple everything together again and cast a shadow of imaginary disorder, disobedience to authorities, and violation of indigenous rights over the present circumstances. The heart will become heavy, and common sense will become numb if their ingenuities and searches are crowned with even weak success. In blindness, in convulsive attacks of wounded pride, they do not even see their own direct benefits. German pride, accidentally wounded in the most painful place, wriggles like a serpent under the spear of St. George the Victorious, stinging itself in impotent rage. Everyone who should know about this should imagine that every hesitation in the current situation, every backward step will turn out to be unforgivable mistakes and can lead to troubles.” According to the testimony of one impartial Baltic German, “the actions of the barons with the Latvians were reminiscent of the times of the first centuries of Christianity and were repeated before our eyes in a country that considers itself part of educated Germany, the times of martyrs. Sometimes there were real gatherings of the Inquisition. Inquiries, interrogations, exhortations, and extortions begin (for Latvians and Estams), as if it were a matter of some unheard-of crime; and the crime lies in the peaceful desire to accept the faith of the Sovereign and Russia.” This is how the Lemsalsky priest Menshikov depicts the situation of those who joined: “Woe to those who joined St. churches; for rarely does God's day pass without one of them coming to me. Some ask for advice to get rid of starvation, others complain about hunger and their merciless masters and judges; another asks for some kind of favor, and all tickets for a trip to Riga for bread. It is impossible to hear about their grief without sorrow, to look at their truly bitter tears without tears.” Next, the same priest cites a number of victims of the barons’ malice and vindictiveness. The peasant Andreas Linil from the Nankul manor comes in tears, declaring that the family is dying of hunger, and he is not given either the manor, or the Kirchengerich estate, or bread, or a ticket to Riga to receive bread; that he was in Riga twice, where they don’t give you bread from the manor without a ticket. Many from the Kedd-Yan manor addressed him with the same complaint. Several people from the Zalisburg manor complained that they appealed to the landowner, and to all the courts, and to all the authorities of the Wolmar district and could not get either bread or tickets, while the Latvian Lutherans were being helped. The manor even told them that the land was being taken away from them and that they could go wherever they wanted. In March 1846, the Wenden priest reported to Philaret that one peasant had already died of hunger; and several people died near Fellin. The Verrovsky priest also reported about the same cruelty, adding that the mansions, mocking Orthodoxy, send the starving “to the one who baptized them.” Some peasants from the Argaf manor complained that one of them had a 4-year-old son die of hunger, another’s wife and newborn baby were dying. A peasant from the Odempe manor, Karn Rebali, with his wife and children, dying of hunger, asked for help. Several peasant women from the Venguta manor made the same complaints, saying that those who were not annexed had already received bread three times. In order to quickly starve the people, the barons, despite the complete failure of the harvest, collected the entire grain debt from those who joined and left them without bread in the fall. Those who could not pay extra were punished. Thus, the peasant of the village of Kenonormi Georgiy, 60 years old, was sent to prison for a day and punished with 25 rods for not delivering bread; he offered to take his horse, cow; but they answered him: “You are Russian! You are rich and don’t want to pay.” For demanding a ticket for annexation, the landowner Miller gave the peasant of the Ney-Shuzen manor 15 blows with sticks under the pretext that he allegedly returned the barley he owed frozen. The innkeeper of the old Kopguta manor and the owner of the mill, Jan-Miller, for wanting to join, were kicked out by the landowner Fitingof with the threat of exiling him along with the “recorder, a drunken priest.” The tenant Treiman took away the horse and all the bread from the mentioned peasant of the Tama manor, Georgiy Sirk, and left his entire family to die of starvation. Peasant d. Pivloty Marya Plotin, for saying out of turn that she wanted to convert to Orthodoxy for the salvation of her soul, was immediately punished by the officials who recorded the testimony with 25 blows, although she had only been discharged for two weeks. The Intsem peasant Zoos was held in prison for three weeks in the case of conspiracy to convert Jan Janson to Orthodoxy, who explained that he had never heard anything like that from him. But, despite the fact that, although he was not convicted as innocent, he was released from prison with a shaved head and led home in shackles, like a criminal. And when he was brought to the Treiden manor, the parish judge punished him with 60 blows of sticks, saying: “When you converted to the Russian faith, you will receive Russian punishment.” No, not a single page in the history of serfdom in Russia presents such a gloomy picture. If there were cases of abuse of power, then these were isolated, exceptional cases: “every family has its black sheep,” says the proverb. But to act unitedly, to draw up an agreement, to starve the people, this is such a general cruelty for which in the hearts of the Russian people there is not only no place, but also no definition. Let us take into account the degree of education on the one hand of the barons, and on the other hand of the Russian landowners of some of our outbacks of the forties. And isn’t this partly the answer to the Latvians’ desire for Orthodoxy? They understood the spirit of the teachings of the Orthodox Church, acting on the soul and heart of people and its educational significance for the people. But this crying and groaning, echoing with burning pain in Filaret’s heart, did not go further, did not touch anyone. Having tied up the unfortunate Latvians, they decided to weaken Filaret’s voice in St. Petersburg at all costs. Various intrigues against him began again. “Heavy matters now lie on me,” he wrote to Gorsky. “Pray for me, professor. Sergius! They force me to do something (with the Latvians), which no matter how hard I fight, I just can’t get it to move. Both difficult and dangerous! Let the will of the Lord God be done. Pray to your love." “Would you please do me the favor,” he wrote to Count Tolstoy, “to provide copies of N.N.’s comments? and your answers, or at least the first ones? I understand the comments on measures to protect Orthodoxy. You also need to know the voice of your enemies in order to be able to defend the cause when the opportunity arises.” From this we can see that, regardless of Filaret’s report on all individual cases of oppression in special notes to the Governor-General, of which there are a significant number (drafts) at our fingertips, Filaret presented to St. Petersburg about general measures to protect Orthodoxy. But his voice was the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Moreover, under the pressure of intrigue and intrigue, he himself had to make concessions. One concession, although of a private nature, was made according to the convictions of Count Tolstoy in order to save the common cause. “I immediately fulfilled the words of the Lord,” wrote Filaret: I again confirm that Ivanov will remain in Arensburg, with one addition that he should not participate in the annexation of the peasants. As for the prohibition of priestly service, put yourself in my position: I only have the report of the priest himself about the matter and nothing more. On what basis can I base the ban on religious services? However, I will make a secret, unspoken order about non-service. I wrote to Popov so that whatever your Excellency wishes, that’s how Konyushevsky was asked.” True, the concession here did not change the common cause and, perhaps, prevented the irritation of the rulers that was harmful to it; Moreover, instead of prohibiting service, Filaret agreed to an unspoken order not to serve; but still, what, presumably, did this concession cost Filaret? “By the Lord I ask you,” he wrote further, “use your efforts not for me, but for St. churches and Orthodoxy, which are in grave danger.” And he wrote to Gorsky: “You see, my friend, how I live here. One hour I write and speak freely, and the next I can neither speak nor write. In the morning I get up as if without any prospect of grief, and it happens that from midday I barely survive until the evening from the heaviness of my soul. What to do?" Finally, Governor-General Golovin, tired of the persecution of Orthodoxy, was replaced in 1848 by a fresh force - Prince Suvorov. But Filaret’s position became more and more difficult. The Metropolitan of Moscow, announcing the change of leadership in Riga, congratulated Philaret on the change for the better. This is not how it actually turned out from the very first days. “The new head of the region brought with him many German gifts,” wrote Filaret. Soon after Suvorov’s appointment, Filaret had reason to write about him to Gorsky: “My circumstances here are no easier day by day. Apparently, this is the will of God. Prince Suvorov, despite the fact that he is the grandson of a famous love for all Russian affairs, is extremely strange in his zeal for the Germans. I don’t know whether to call him a Lutheran super-intendent general or just a man for whom only the stars are important. He constantly insists that he is Russian from head to toe, and mocks everything Russian and humiliates Russians openly: he insists that he has a deep sense of truth, but patronizes Lutheranism and persecutes Orthodoxy in all convenient and inconvenient cases, and it is only clear that one must pray that the Lord will deliver from temptation,” when persons appointed from the Moscow Academy to priestly positions in Riga were previously ordered to appear in St. Petersburg, Filaret wrote to Gorsky.” “These are the tricks of the same Suvorov. But I don’t want to touch this person with my thoughts, so as not to disturb my soul.” Upon taking office, Prince Suvorov immediately placed himself in an overly formal relationship with the bishop and immediately pushed the cause of Orthodoxy back. The quibbles against Filaret were reminiscent of the times of Palen and Irinarch. We cannot help but cite here Filaret’s letters to Suvorov and what the governor-general answered to the bishop. The last letter leaves a very difficult impression: it seems that the Russian pen has never conveyed such cynicism in the beating of a bishop, boundlessly devoted to the holy cause, in the most sweetened speech. “From April 9th. for 459,” writes Filaret, “I had the honor of receiving treatment in lordship. Filled with respect for you, I do not allow myself to answer this formally; but due to the demands of the case, I cannot remain in silence, since otherwise perplexities could continue, to the detriment of the case. In the above-mentioned relation, two papers, sealed by Mr. Tidebel, are enclosed in copies. The reference says that these are protocols allegedly drawn up in my office, and that the persons referred to in the papers brought me complaints of harassment. Your Lordship, please mention that during a verbal explanation with me, you became convinced that the local clergy did not want to interfere in secular affairs. For my part, I remain fully confident that your saint, with your characteristic love of truth, when you have time to learn through your own experience the state of affairs here and the attitudes of persons, you will reach complete confidence in this, as in many other things (just as the very content of the present relationship with your saint clearly shows me) that the doubt regarding this subject, expressed in relation, was the fruit of only external suggestions. If it were not for necessity, I would never have allowed my conscience to even assure your holiness of the reluctance of me and the clergy subordinate to me to touch the affairs of others. While I am convinced, and am convinced to the point that I suffer, that the affairs of Orthodoxy are in disarray and require a long time and work to arrange them, it is unwise to leave what is ours and take on someone else’s. While the priests are in such a position that they are ready to interpret every word in a different sense, to give every action a different meaning, the priests are left to spend too much time and labor to protect themselves from the unscrupulous vigilance of spies. It would be incomprehensible to me if Mr. Tidebel, who served in the office for so many years, did not know how protocols are drawn up. The minutes, as he must know, are signed by the members of the presence and sealed by the secretary. Meanwhile, the copies sealed by Mr. Tidebel do not bear the signature of either the member or members or the secretary. On what basis did Mr. Tidebel present before your saint the copies he had sealed as protocols? And what does their action mean? But in order to... Since the matter was well known in its true form and was not reinterpreted by others, I will say about the meaning of the papers sealed by Mr. Tidebel. Since I do not speak either Latvian or Estonian, and therefore cannot listen to or know the requests, or explanations, or complaints of the Latvians and Estonians who come to me, then, out of necessity, I ordered someone in the office who knows the Latvian or Estonian language to write with literal accuracy the words of the peasant in a private note and present this note to me. If the contents of the note relate to the spiritual department, then its contents are entered into a formal paper and the matter begins with this paper. If what is contained in the note does not relate to the spiritual department, then the petitioner receives an answer to go where he should with his request or complaint. Thus in. Saints, you will agree that the notes compiled in my office constitute a matter that does not have any form of formality either in my office or for anyone else.” “It should be explained why, with the petitions about which Mr. Tidebel submitted to. St., notes were also attached, although they were by no means formal papers. The reason is that it was the will of the deputy. s-sti to General Golovin, among other things due to lack of trust in his translator. Believe me, in. s-st, it’s unpleasant for me to touch on the last subject: but what should I do? Not remembering the unpleasant stories that arose from this unpleasant circumstance, I allow myself to point out the printed publication of the Governor General dated October 26, 1845 No. 228: in it, the third paragraph in the Latvian translation was completely distorted even against the German text, and bad consequences came from this. But as a result of these consequences, the main department was forced to print this paragraph with the corrected Latvian translation, about a year later, and send it out separately. For visibility, I have the honor to enclose this and that publication.” It is impossible not to draw attention to this distortion of the text in the publication approved by the Governor General. This case amazes us both with its courage and its impunity and, finally, with the cover for the arrogantly guilty, which we read in Suvorov’s letter in response to Filaret’s meek warning. But let us turn further to Filaret’s letter. "IN. St., of course, you will not find anything contrary to the order in that, if the petitioner, whose recorded complaint was found, was related neither to my consideration, but to the consideration of V. St., was sent from me to V. St. Listening to what another says is a common thing; listening out of compassion to the complaint of the poor is a matter of compassion; To show the ignorant the path that he should go and which he did not understand is also a matter of mercy. In addition, c. The saint knows the oath that every bishop takes at his consecration. V. Saints express your readiness to pay special attention to the complaints of the local Orthodox peasants. I never allowed myself to doubt this. On the contrary, knowing the kindness of our truly Orthodox soul, I am convinced that the more you learn from your own experience the state of affairs here, the more this readiness will grow in you. Just allow me one thing, c. holiness, to remain with doubt that you will find yourself able to satisfy.” To this letter, Filaret received the following confidential response from the new Governor-General. “Eminent Bishop, gracious Sovereign and Archpastor. Your Eminence deigned to honor me on the 18th of last month, due to my relationship with No. 459, with a confidential letter, to which I have not yet had the honor to respond. I offer to your Excellency my most humble apology and most humble request not to deny me the confidence that I delayed for so long only because of my desire not to limit myself in this case to a hasty answer incompatible with my sincere respect for you, gracious archpastor, with the attention that I am obliged to pay to each of your words, and with the importance of the subject. Two trips to the provinces entrusted to me, which I had undertaken in the meantime, and a multitude of accumulated matters, have hitherto prevented me from responding, with the desired detail of considerations, to the above-mentioned most respected letter to. p-va." “Your thoughts, m-th Archpastor, set out in it, mainly relate to one separate subject, namely to the previous correspondence between us about the acceptance by the office of the. p-va, or parish priests, testimonies from peasants bringing various complaints against the secular authorities, and about reporting them to me, in the form of special notes, or in the form of relations signed by you. But on the other hand, your letter of April 18 essentially concerns not only the very sources of the complaints brought by the peasants, but also the general state of affairs in the administration of the Baltic region.” “I humbly ask. “to allow me to enter into as separate a consideration as possible of these non-identical objects.” “I am fully aware of the truth of V.’s words. p-va: “listening to what another says is an ordinary thing: listening out of compassion is a matter of compassion; To show the ignorant the path that he should follow and which he does not understand is also a matter of compassion.” I deeply respect the feeling expressed in these words and, let me add, I share it. But in. It is known that the manifestation of feelings of compassion in the field of official relations is somewhat conditioned by the law and government institutions. When using official forms, official participation in the matter is assumed, and when c. If, when reporting the complaints brought to you, you wanted to demand (which happened more than once) notification of the consequences, then this could mean more than one feeling of compassion. Likewise, when the parish Orthodox priests, having listened to the petitioners, sent them to further bring complaints not to the subject civil authorities, but to the c. p-vu (which also happened more than once), it seems to me somewhat doubtful that the petitioners were indicated the path they should follow. In general I believe that a number of civil authorities; Established by the highest will, it has not yet been recognized as insufficient; that if any shortcomings were recognized, they could be eliminated through civil reforms; and finally, that even if parish priests were legitimately called upon to receive complaints against civil authorities, then, due to their inherent sense of Christian compassion, they could not limit themselves to the boundaries of their spiritual flock (?): for Christian love for one’s neighbor is not constrained by the condition of common faith. Meanwhile, the fact that almost without exception, only peasants who have recently joined Orthodoxy come to Orthodox priests with requests or complaints proves the erroneous concepts of these latter and reveals in them an error that is incompatible with the general laws of state improvement. Encouraged by the priest’s natural readiness to listen to their requests, encouraged even more by the equally natural inclination to unilaterally admit the validity of the complaints brought, the peasants expect from their shepherds more than just spiritual aids, and in the field of civil life more than just advice. Distrust of other authorities (?), aroused by the imaginary opening of a new judicial path, gradually turns into contempt for them, and in this contempt lies the first step towards disobedience and arbitrariness. V. you yourself would like to agree that, guided by this conviction, I am obliged, according to the duty of the title entrusted to me, to take all measures in my power to ward off evil, and without a doubt you will not deign to recognize the request for the necessary assistance from you as disrespect for the philanthropic feelings of the Orthodox clergy.” “The above considerations were a direct reason for my attitude from April 9th ​​for No. 459. V. please find that the expressions used in it assign excessive formality to the notes that came to me from your office. I consider it my duty to notify. p-in that in the administration entrusted to me, the mentioned notes were always recognized as formal written interrogations, taken in your office and sealed, instead of someone else’s signature, with a seal. peninsula for which they were sent; that each note was considered a paper received directly from you, gracious archpastor; and that a special case was carried out for each, and it happened more than once that c. n were notified of the consequences. finally, in. Please kindly explain that the testimony of the peasants was selected in your office, among other things, due to the distrust of my deputy in his translator, who is now performing the same duty in my presence. His unreliability, of course, would be of utmost importance; but I must assume that General Golovin’s doubts were eliminated subsequently; for he not only did not replace him with another translator, but also assigned him the post of censor of local periodical publications.” “Having betrayed to condescending respect in. For my thoughts regarding the peasants bringing complaints past the civil authorities, I turn to the very essence of the complaints and to their sources. V. p. are confident that with all my efforts I will not find an opportunity to satisfy the fair complaints of the Orthodox peasants; and already more than once, in the previous correspondence with my predecessor and me, they deigned to reveal confidence in the persistent oppression of our native co-religionists, and in their oppression precisely because they share the same faith with us.” “I know that in relation to complaints coming from Orthodox peasants, it is constantly assumed that joining Orthodoxy was the reason for the topic of the orders about which they complain; I know that parish priests certainly admit the validity of such complaints and that c. They often themselves deigned to add the weight of your opinion to the reports of the priests and in advance, before the necessary research was carried out, deigned to demand punishment from those responsible for illegal persecution. I repeat that I deeply respect those feelings of Christian compassion for one's neighbor, which... n-vo were led; but I have an official duty not to get carried away by such feelings and to be concerned about impartial and unconditional (!) compliance with the current law. I do not deny the general ill will of Lutherans towards the New Orthodox; I admit that in some cases the severity of the laws falls on these latter without the leniency often (?) shown to Lutherans; but nevertheless, going into the immediate proceedings of each individual complaint and bearing in mind the previous cases of this category, carried out in the management entrusted to me, I had to deviate somewhat from the point of view. p-va. My predecessor has received and is receiving from Lutheran peasants many requests and complaints that are completely similar (?) to those brought by peasants of the Orthodox confession. Their source, for the most part, lies in the general conditions of peasant life, the shortcomings of which have long attracted the attention of the government. On the other hand, the very nature of civil relations between landowners and peasants shows that oppression can primarily affect only the owners of estates, among whom, as you know, there are relatively few Orthodox Christians. Finally, in. It is well known that the illegality of almost all the complaints brought to your attention has been proven by the research carried out on them. It often happened that during the investigation, peasants denied their initial testimony: it was often discovered that their complaints were initially inaccurately understood: even more often it turned out that their harassment was unfounded and their testimony was false. This has been confirmed by many studies conducted. I know that local authorities are clearly suspected of bias and injustice; but firstly, I cannot decide to unconditionally accuse entire classes, all public places and every member of every official place of the Livonia province of deliberate lies, violation of the official oath and malicious persecution of non-believers (?): secondly, I mean many known to you, gracious archpastor, investigations carried out by Orthodox officials, whose trustworthiness there is no need to doubt, for example, count. ac. Varadinov, count. ac. Tolstoy, lieutenant colonel. Shcherbachev, etc.” “The main and almost the only type of injustice of landowners towards Orthodox peasants was the refusal to maintain their estates. But in. I know that as long as such a refusal does not violate the law, I have no power, on my part, to violate the legal rights to announce a refusal. Complaints are useless here, no matter how they reach the authorities. I consider it my duty to convey to your respects in this regard that, in my opinion, the reason for announcing such refusals were the very investigations carried out according to the complaints of Orthodox peasants (?). IN. Please know that the spread of Orthodoxy is a new thing in this region and was initially associated with many private and official misunderstandings; You yourself will agree that constant complaints about the Lutherans and constant suspicions against them (?) could not but have an irritating influence; that, at the same time, the many new concerns and assignments entrusted to all local authorities in matters of Orthodoxy could not but be burdensome; and with all due respect, may you be kind enough to recognize the somewhat natural desire of the landowners not to have those estate owners for whom only the paths of claim are supposedly open (?), and from whose side every complaint inevitably leads to public suspicion of opposition to Orthodoxy, biased abuse of power and violation of the Highest will of His Imperial Majesty. These unfavorable circumstances for Orthodox peasants can only be rejected by the impartial action of government authorities and the gradual elimination from the field of worldly litigation and complaints of the alien issue of difference of religions. All her efforts tend towards achieving this goal; but given my constant, repeatedly expressed readiness to you, to strictly pursue every abuse, I am nevertheless forced to humbly ask. "To allow me to maintain the conviction that by measures of gentle influence and the establishment of trust in the main local authorities in general, the Orthodox peasants will be provided with more direct benefits than many semi-inquisitorial complaints (?) and consequences." “Finally, it remains for me to mention the perplexities that, according to V. p-va "do not cease to excite me, taking advantage of the news of my position in the region." I most humbly ask you, gracious archpastor, to disgrace me to explain myself on this subject with that conscientious frankness with which I became irrevocably related (?) in the field of my former service.” "IN. Would you like to assume that some people, not specifically mentioned by you (?!), are concerned about the distortion of the truth around me and allow themselves ill-intentioned machinations that elude my eyes. Unfortunately, I cannot deny these machinations; but I dare to assure you. p-that those persons who, since my very arrival in this region, by persistent distortion of the truth have been opposing my conscientious efforts, who are strengthening to instill distrust of me in my fellow-religious and half-blooded compatriots, who finally chose, to communicate their thoughts to me, the humiliating method of false letters, that all these persons, I say, do not belong to the number of those whom I recognize as trustworthy executors of the will of the government and to whom I believe I have the right to place trust (?). I know that some of my ill-wishers arrogate to themselves exclusively the right of ownership of ardor for the Orthodox faith and love for the Fatherland, recognize their pen as the direct grandson of the sword of Peter the Great and consider themselves called upon to replenish, by spontaneous activity, the insufficient, in their opinion, instructions of the Highest Will and the incomplete feats of the forefathers (?). But I would not have mentioned them if there were no traces of their influence in the affairs of the local region, and if the local region were not to them, in part, it was obliged by the establishment of the custom to systematically irritate one of the local tribes against another, to use complaints instead of evidence, to introduce feelings of personal hostility into the circle of official relations, and to forget that in the Baltic provinces, along with other parts of the Empire, the heteroglossia of performers should be silent before the dictates of the autocratic government." “I bring it to. I sincerely request that you deign to favorably discuss my above-stated thoughts and excuse the frankness with which I expressed myself. I caress myself with the hope that you will deign to do justice to my intentions and will not deign to doubt the sincere desire, on my part, to always treat you. p-vu as a respectful son of the Orthodox Church to one of its most worthy shepherds. I flatter myself with the hope that you will not judge me hastily, with a one-sided judgment and will not refuse to assist me in eliminating the misunderstandings that are unfortunate for me between us. If any of my orders do not receive your approval, gracious archpastor, then let me hope that... It would be nice to consider condescendingly that I am the chief commander of the region entrusted to me; that I have the responsibility to manage it; that I have a duty to monitor the inviolability of existing laws and to be concerned not only with the benefit of this or that class of residents, but also with the general benefit, and finally, that I am obliged to be guided, in the fulfillment of the Highest will, by my views and my convictions, until the Sovereign Emperor is pleased to relieve me of the official duties he has assigned to me.” “I have the honor to be with a feeling of deepest respect and true devotion, etc.” We apologize to the readers for boring them by presenting this letter in full. To those impartial testimonies that even some Germans gave, to those facts that were established through legal inquiries and historical acts, Prince Suvorov’s letter serves as a valuable illustration. This letter will give us an idea of ​​Filaret’s helplessness and loneliness. It exalts in the eyes of posterity the merits for the church and fatherland of this fighter, “who fought as much as he had the means and strength, without resting, without shying away from battles out of fear,” as he himself put it in a letter to Count Tolstoy. Philaret’s Riga activities unfolded before the eyes of Count Tolstoy. We mentioned how highly Count Tolstoy valued her, and therefore these words of the always modest Philaret undoubtedly ring true. Prince Suvorov did not want to realize that the Livlyandsky region was in an exceptional situation. A people infantile in citizenship, infantile in faith, pressed on all sides, very naturally goes for advice and protection to the one who is closer to them, more to their soul, to their confessor, their shepherd. If the latter sees the tears and suffering of the people, endured only because they accepted from them the true teaching of the faith, that through their mediation they entered into the great Russian family, is it not natural for him to accept mediation between the people and the only power in the region, which should have these interests close to them? In the region, as we saw, there was no other reliable path between the people and this government, there was no other way for the groans of the people to reach its ears in their actual form. It is so simple, so natural, so historically true. Only by closing your eyes to the history of your own fatherland can you deny the naturalness of such an order. Shouldn’t the first thing be to ensure that the new faith strengthens among the people, so that the importance of the church stands high in their eyes? Was it not the spiritual power that prepared and strengthened the spiritual and political connection of this people with the entire vast Empire and strengthened the charm of Russian government power in the eyes of this people? Isn’t it the other way around, isn’t it contrary to the fears of Prince Suvorov, the undermining of the importance of the church and spiritual authority was caused by distrust in the government power - Russian? But this was actually what was needed for the Livonian barons. As a hint to the bishop that the intervention of spiritual authorities was causing confusion in the minds of the population and distrust of the civil authorities, Philaret was revealed, from where he was threatened with the danger of slander, which was not slow to reveal itself. Pointing to the investigations carried out by some officials, Prince Suvorov thinks to certify their correctness with the Russian names of the investigators. But didn’t he himself bear a Russian name? How many times is his position higher, more independent, more responsible before the Tsar, the fatherland and history! Why didn’t he point out the investigations carried out by Samarin, Khanykov, and Burger (German)? Why didn’t he indicate what was revealed in the investigation, for example, of this Burger, as Filaret’s notes explain to us? Landowner Wulf on the estates of Shtokmerze and Kalnomoise announced to the Latvians that any of them who converted to Orthodoxy would be driven out of the land. At the Kalnomoise manor, Latvian was flogged to death, and although the foreman who flogged him tried to shield the landowner Tranze, the latter’s participation was clarified by the circumstances of the case. Ordnungsrichter Koskul turned out to be guilty of torturing completely innocent campers Yuri and Andres for simply announcing their desire to join. All these facts were confirmed by Burger's investigation. We do not know what investigation carried out by Varadinov that Prince Suvorov pointed to as proof of the injustice of the peasants’ accusations against the barons. Before us is evidence of the investigations carried out by Varadinov and Liprandi and confirming the oppression of the peasants by the barons. This lengthy Jesuit letter can be translated into ordinary Russian very briefly: “I will restore to the region, at any cost, its former system” (which is what the activities of this inglorious time for Russia in Livonia were aimed at); “I ask the bishop not to interfere in this matter, on pain of Irinarch’s fate, or worse.” That’s what Filaret understood. He wrote to Count Tolstoy on October 26, 1848: “I don’t know what consequences the paper had. You were kind enough to promise to keep an eye on the progress of the matter. Following one, several others were sent. What will be the consequence? This question worries me. Can't you at least notify me? It’s my lot that they beat me and blame me. K. S-v 39 preaches with all his might that he is a zealous son of Orthodoxy. It is strange that people can contradict their words and their deeds to such an extent. I don't understand this kind of conscience. The Lord is the Judge." So, Filaret could only close his door, which had hitherto been closed to no one, and wait in silence for his further fate, about which the representative of the Russian government in Livonia began to actively take care. It cannot be ignored that they tried to act on Golovin from this side as well. And he was assured that the intervention of spiritual authorities was inappropriate here, undermining the significance and authority of civil authorities. Golovin, as a weak man, either succumbed to these suggestions, or, seeing that for the oppressed people, there really was no other way to them, he renounced them. Filaret wrote to Count Protasov about this. He pointed out that the enemies of Orthodoxy, after various unsuccessful measures to harm it, turned to the following, the most harmful: “The Governor-General is constantly told that the bishop’s acceptance of complaints from peasants is contrary to order; that the peasants, if they do not receive tickets and are punished by the landowners, should file complaints with the civil authorities.” Having explained about the notes he compiled, also what the prince later explained. Suvorov, Filaret added that “until now, not a single complaint has brought the bishop into formal contact with the civil authorities, that not a single note has led to formal prosecution, while formal investigations are being made based on the false denunciations of some fanatic Engelhardt.” Stating that not a single complaint from the peasants to the Ordnungsrichter either reaches the Governor-General, or reaches it in a distorted form, he noted that to prohibit the spiritual authorities from listening to these complaints means legitimizing the persecution against Orthodoxy. He pointed out a strange thing: when he did not send notes and petitions to the Governor-General, displeasure was expressed; when he sent it, he didn’t avoid him either. He warned Count Protasov that there is also a limit to human patience, and leaving the newly annexed to trial to the same persecutors is dangerous for peace. Prince Suvorov did not allow any hesitation. He, as we have seen, directly removed Filaret from the task of defending his new flock against the persecutors of Orthodoxy. Filaret did not ask for such work; but who could remain indifferent to the suffering of the innocent? He wrote to Count Protasov: “The bishop is not at all happy that he has to listen to bitter complaints about persecution against Orthodoxy and would be glad if he could not hear them, just as every private person cannot rejoice at this state of affairs.” It was not easy for him, presumably, to see the tears of the people not drying up. He wrote to Metropolitan Philaret, several years later, from Kharkov: “As for the Livland case, in the first years after my arrival in Kharkov, one memory of it shook all my nerves, my whole body was so upset by the torment that I had experienced for seven years in a row. Now I thank, thank and praise infinitely the mercy of God, which saved me from a thousand troubles.” Such was his service in Riga. Orthodoxy had to accept insults from the Lutherans and mainly their pastors. The latter, from their church pulpit, uttered abuse of Orthodoxy in the most indecent form. So the Rodennoy pastor Walter addressed from the pulpit a certain Bedril, who expressed a desire to join: “You know that good people do not join this faith, but only fools, scoundrels and pigs,” etc., talking mainly about pigs. “Is this the Orthodox faith, in which they give communion from a spoon, mixed with various varieties?” Then the altar servant, approaching Bedril, began to scratch him in the eyes and chest, depicting “how Russians smear oil,” and assuring that he, having changed his faith, would be “a Judas who betrayed Christ.” Others told those wishing to join that they were betraying themselves to Satan. Marienburg pastor Girgenson scolded Orthodox priests from the pulpit as deceivers. The pastor of the Torma church preached from the pulpit that “The Russian faith is a demonic faith, that those who accept it, the devil will take the soul and heart and eat a sheep like a wolf.” The Lendorf pastor refused to bury the young son of the peasant who joined him in the cemetery. In the village of Engolot, during the burial of the 60-year-old old man Oncha Sils by the Jacobstadt priest from the village. Mutovozov, the pastor did not allow the coffin into the Lutheran cemetery. Filaret, having inquired through the priests about such cases, presented the need for a general measure, as a result of which the Highest Command was issued: pending the establishment of cemeteries for Orthodox Christians, the latter should be buried in Lutheran cemeteries. But the Highest will also met with daring resistance. Thus, the peasant Toms Oazols, Launskam manor, who joined, was denied the burial of his child in the Lutheran cemetery and was deliberately sent from one government to another, and the corpse lay in a stable and was subjected to severe decomposition. Upon learning of this, Filaret ordered the priest to bury the body in the Lutheran cemetery. In such cases, Filaret turned to the governor-general, who sent instructions twice; but according to Count Tolstoy, they were left unfulfilled. Here is an example of how the orders of the Governor General were received. Drobyshskaya (Karlsru manor) the pastor complained to him that the Latvians of his parish wanted to convert to Orthodoxy and that they had intentions that were dangerous for the general peace. Golovin explained that he saw them in Wenden, spoke with them and was pleased with their calm presentation of their case, and asked the pastor whether he had received his order dated June 20, which said that pastors should not interfere with the cause of Orthodoxy, either by word or deed? The pastor replied that he had not received it. The order was sent through the Ordnungsrichter, who also confirmed non-receipt. This is what the post office was like for matters concerning Orthodoxy. The guard colonel, landowner Miller, ran into the church, caused chaos and hit the priest in the chest. The priest ordered him to be tied up. This matter was not passed in favor of the priest; on the contrary, they tried to give the appearance of indignation of the peasants against the landowner. Filaret immediately sent a note to the Governor-General, very cleverly composed. He first says that “if the priest ordered the colonel to be tied up, this is bad, since it is the job of the police to tame the brawler; but if the riot threatened death, then life must be protected. If they did not know that this was a landowner and a colonel, then actions against him cannot be considered as directed against the landowner. Miller hit the priest in the chest while he was carrying the holy gifts. This circumstance is extremely important." There were many schismatics in Livonia. Filaret was not indifferent to this phenomenon. On the one hand, his heart ached, looking at the renegades of St. Church, on the other hand, he expressed fear for their propaganda among her new children. He had great hopes for academician priests in converting schismatics, about which he wrote to Gorsky, among other things, depicting the following schism: “Unfortunately, the schismatics here are very evil; They're kind of freaks." After describing their terrible moral state in vivid colors, he adds: “You say, what are the police and civilian authorities looking at? They are looking at how to get a thousand rubles from one and another from another schismatic, but they don’t need anything more.” In an effort to act against the schism, Filaret asked Gorsky to send Pokrovsky and Undolsky’s arguments about the sign of the cross. “Here they can be read with benefit for schismatics, of whom there are more than 10 thousand,” he wrote. Next, he asks to send the schema-monk John, “Addition on the antiquity of the sign.” “It is very necessary,” he wrote, to have the authentic words of Herman the Patriarch about the making of the cross and the explanation given to them, if I am not mistaken, by Fabritz. I understand that the number 6,500 is expressed in a blessing with the hand, as Herman said. Cotelier (Patr. Apost. T. 1, p. 44) says that Nikolai Smirnsky and Boda say something in support of the explanation. But I remember, besides Cotelier, in some special book de Graeca Ecclesia the words of Herman are given and explained. I also have a great need for Theophylact to expose the schismatic lies. M. 1745.” “I would ask for something handwritten for the split, for example. at least Nikodim’s remarks,” he wrote, reminding Gorsky how they once in his room began to read Neophyte’s answer to the Pomorians, who they found smart; he wanted to have them at least for a short time and with the first mail. He was in such a hurry with this matter. Asking Gorsky to make extracts of everything he can find on this subject, he writes further: “You understand that the articles that constitute the dogma of our schismatics are most important to me. Meanwhile, I am not entirely convinced that in our first period there was no confusion of thoughts about the formation of fingers, a difference in customs. I do not seek grounds for undoubted confidence in anything permanent. It seems strange to me how this storm broke out under Nikon. There are so many differences in customs, and they appeared so quickly! Was there really no thought, not a single word, not a single hint, not a single monument about all this before the Stoglavy Cathedral? And how did the Council of the Hundred Heads not enter into the consideration of differences and their origin? G. Vostokov has now sent me additions to the answers to Nifont’s questions. But in the additions, and in what was previously known, and in general in the known written monuments, I do not see a hint of the subjects of current disputes. Strange!" These guesses of Filaret gained even more positiveness when he read Markevich’s remarks (in the “History of Little Russia”), which says that Little Russia twice refused to unite with Russia, because there are a lot of rumors and splits in Russia, and this was before Nikon and at the beginning of his patriarchate. “Your comments about ancient mosaic icons are very useful for me. I would like to see something more like this about ancient customs.” We cited this reasoning of Philaret to show how occupied he was with the idea of ​​weakening the schism and with what prudence he understood the subjects of dispute in order to be an exposer of the schism fully armed with historical truth. The fruit of such research was his article: Testimony from the times of the Apostles on how to write the name Jesus and depict the cross. The Metropolitan remarked to him that he was allegedly putting weapons into the hands of schismatics. Probably, regarding this remark, Filaret wrote to Gorsky: “It seems to me, a sinner, that what is useful for everyone can be useful for a schismatic, but what is supposedly useful for a schismatic is of no use to anyone.” On the issue of a split, Filaret made or was ready to make concessions; but we cannot deduce from such readiness that he easily looked at the inviolability of church statutes. No. In his youth, at the beginning of his scientific and professorial career, he was sometimes carried away by Western theology; but Metropolitan Philaret restrained this passion in time. And over the years, Filaret has become increasingly stronger in the rules of church organization. But this concession was an expression of Christian love and the desire for church peace and unity. He was confident that he only needed to take this step, and the all-encompassing grace-filled power of the Head of the Church would destroy all discord. Before us is Philaret’s own handwritten note on this issue, entitled: “How to facilitate the union of schismatics with the Orthodox Church?” Having explained that the curse imposed by the Council of Patriarchs in 1662 is an obstacle to unification, he points to the desire of the schismatic priests to be accepted into unity with our church, with their priests and bishops consecrated by the Greek Metropolitan. He believed that the Holy Synod should have asked the Patriarch of Constantinople to decide at the council: a) does the anathema of the council of 1667 serve as an obstacle to consciences so that those who retain the old rituals and books freely unite with the Orthodox Church and its hierarchy, with the retention of the customary rituals for them? b) Can priests and bishops who have been ordained by the Greek Metropolitan be accepted into communion with the Orthodox Church? To facilitate the resolution of these issues, he considered it necessary to provide the council with information both about the unity of faith desired by some schismatics, and about what is known to St. Synod on the procedure for ordination by a Greek Metropolitan. We do not know whether the course of this thought was given by Filaret; but that it was suggested to him by a feeling of Christian love, there is no doubt about it. And here, perhaps, is one special case that confirms this assumption. Once in Chernigov, three merchants came to him, two of whom were Old Believers, and one was a fellow believer. The Old Believers bowed to him, and a fellow believer came up to receive the blessing. Filaret blessed him with a large cross. Having then escorted them into the hall, he bowed. And when his fellow believer approached him to receive another parting blessing, Filaret hugged him tightly and kissed him three times. A fellow believer, seeing such an outburst of Christian love, understood the meaning of these embraces. He realized that in his person the archpastor greeted with his love all those who had renounced errors and returned to the bosom of St. churches. The fellow believer shed tears. Philaret’s works against the schism attracted the attention of the Holy Synod, which commissioned him, back in Riga, to compile the “History of the Russian Church” for the school of Ekaterinburg schismatics. But even in this matter, Filaret’s concerns were dashed by the indifference of the powers that be. In July 1847, he wrote to Count Tolstoy: “I am forwarding to V. with two papers about schismatics. I would like to see the wandering return to St. churches. Will love not be found in... s-va to St. Is there a way for the church to deflect the obstacle one way or another?” We know, after all, that many schismatics returned under Philaret to the bosom of St. churches. Although this is explained by the understandable influence on them of the general Latvian movement, Philaret’s personal activity also manifested itself here. Due to his zeal for the church and ardor, for which he reproached himself, Filaret sometimes expressed himself harshly in his papers and business correspondence and often sent them first to Count Tolstoy. He often softened the tone of the paper, for which Filaret always thanked him. The latter circumstance serves as proof that the harshness was not a consequence of quarrelsomeness and irritability. This harshness was also reproached by the Moscow saint. “Someone who was in your region,” wrote the metropolitan, “also told me that the Reverend Plato in Vilna is more successful in his courtesy with everyone than you are at home. Of course, this is a superficial success,” notes the Metropolitan, “but it is not always necessary to neglect it. We can serve God by running away from people; It is impossible to serve the management of people other than through communication. It is only necessary that it does not contradict the nature of the service.” This is the way in which Philaret’s ministry was interpreted, that even such a far-sighted man as the Metropolitan of Moscow did not have a clear idea of ​​the peculiarities with which this ministry was furnished. Where did Filaret have time to communicate with people and with whom? The doors of his cell were not closed to his flock, and outside of it, with whom could he have this communication, and for whom was it needed? This required people-pleasing, not communication, and Filaret could not make such a deal with his conscience. We will find an explanation for his harshness only in his pastoral zeal for St. churches. The same jealousy caused the harsh action of the Myrali saint with Arius. She also forced the Chief Shepherd Christ Himself to make a rope to expel the merchants from God’s church. And later, while in Kharkov, Filaret, in response to a request repeated by the Chief Prosecutor, the all-powerful Count Protasov, which outraged his monastic conscience and innate modesty, answered: “In good conscience, I say that I will not answer.” So the Chief Prosecutor was content with this answer. Once in Chernigov, before the opening of the Zemstvo Affairs Committee, Governor Prince. G. Made an order regarding the spiritual department in addition to the diocesan bishop. Filaret wrote to him, among other things, “but since I have made it a rule to act in agreement with the civil authorities, it is only for this reason, in accordance with your wishes, that the consistory has been instructed to change the 5th and 6th articles of its order. I am amazed that your saint, who is obliged to do so many things that did not allow you to notify the diocesan commander about the opening of a case about the zemstvo in the province, has enough time and desire to deal with matters that are subject to the management of special authorities. With such zeal for your business, I remain confident that... s-protect the clergy from troubles in the case of the zemstvo, like the next one,” etc. Book G. He acted like a true boyar: after reading this paper to the committee and admitting to a mistake (purely mechanical, clerical, however), he announced that he would not enter into correspondence on this matter and for this reason remained on good terms with Filaret. But the next day one of the committee members, a man close to Filaret, pointed out to him the harshness of his paper. “Yes, I thought about it myself later and regretted it. But just tell me: did I tell the truth or not?” - “Yes, absolutely true.” - “Well, if it’s true, then I’m calm.” And this “truth” was always in the foreground, both in matters of church administration and in historical research, to which he devoted his leisure time. Among books, he sometimes forgot himself, and his academic studies were hours of rest and peace of mind, with the exception of those minutes when, as he put it, “he didn’t know where to put his soul.” Reporting the register of books he purchased to Gorsky, he remarks, “Here are my interlocutors. In my solitude I have conversations only with those who are absent, that is, besides you, with those who have gone to that distant country to which we also need to go. I read and reread the works of our fathers, revealed by the venerable and experienced Vostokov.” But his essay “Historical Teaching on the Fathers of the Church” did not escape the “censorship clutches,” as Filaret put it. The Chief Prosecutor, to whom this work was presented, notified Philaret, at his request, that the manuscript had been handed over to the Holy Synod. Imagine Filaret’s surprise when Archbishop Iliodor of Kursk, who was present at the Synod, notified him that she was not in the Synod. So year after year dragged on, and seventeen years passed before this work appeared in print. Meanwhile, Filaret’s material means were very weak, and his desire to help the surrounding poverty was too strong. It was this desire that dictated in his note to the Metropolitan of Kyiv (which will be discussed below) the remark that “archpastors must be brought out of their current poverty, which leaves them without the means to be dispensers of mercy for the poor.” Only sometimes for his minor articles did he receive a small fee from the academy, which he did not neglect as the only addition to his meager salary. Subsequently, he happened to receive substantial sums for his writings, but he never had any money and did not leave it. None of those who turned to him in need left him without help. With meager funds at the academy, he, in addition to his mother and relatives, helped others. So, for example, from his correspondence with Gorsky it is clear that he paid five rubles. he gave it to some poor old woman a month, instructing Gorsky to carefully continue this payment after his departure. During a detour from the Kharkov diocese, he arrived in the city of Lebedin after a fire that took away all the fortune, as they say, to the last thread, of one priest (now archpriest) Fr. John Chizhevsky. Filaret consoled the victim, gave him as much money as he could and even his own clothes, and promised to transfer him to a good parish, where it would be easier for him to recover from his losses. He subsequently transferred him to the city of Kharkov, where the recipient continues to bless the memory of his benefactor. Once, when Filaret was Archbishop of Chernigov, a priest came to him, asking for help: he was burned. “What will I give you?” – Filaret asks, as if in bewilderment. “I don’t have any money now.” “Lord,” he says, “I’m even in someone else’s cassock.” “Well, go and get my cassock from the closet,” says Filaret, as if rejoicing at the thought. The priest, taking the cassock, bows to his archpastor and complains that the cassock he is wearing is someone else’s. After the fire in the village. Flat of the Chernigov diocese, says Archpriest Fr. Trifon Stefanovsky, “I completely lost everything: what I wore, that’s what I stayed with. The church also burned down. I come to the bishop completely upset. Vladyka gave me 25 rubles. and remarked: “Well, why are you so upset? Were you the first to fail? God, loving, sends trials. Trust in His holy help. And you will live as well as you have never lived before.” “These words were spoken so convincingly that I accepted them as a prophecy and left with a relieved spirit.” Filaret immediately ordered that the dean, each among the clergy of his deanery, announce a subscription to help the injured brother; and so that this proposal would not remain mere stationery paper, he ordered the deans to report to him about the success of the collection. “And they fell,” says Fr. Tryphon - “donations to me; and then the opportunity presented itself to buy a very cheap estate, and I settled down and lived better than before. With the blessing of the bishop, having printed the appeal, I received donations for the church of 35 thousand rubles, in addition to utensils and things, and built a beautiful stone church.” His mercy and good deeds testify to Fr. John of Fialkovsky, showered a generous hand not only on the clergy of the Chernigov diocese, but also on all the poor and unfortunate, persecuted by fate, “so that the glory of his good deeds and deeds of charity has not yet died; and how legends are passed down among the people and the clergy.” “It happened in 1862, when a fire in the city of Lyubech destroyed all my property and the house in which I lived with my family. Coming to the bishop to report that the charter and some of the church documents were burned during the fire, I fearfully expected from him at least a reprimand for the careless storage of church things. But what was my surprise and joy when, instead of the expected anger, he gave me a cassock, a caftan and 50 rubles, consoling me with these words: “you shouldn’t lose heart in life.” It happened more than once in Kharkov that poor henchmen came to their ordination wearing a cassock and the cassock of Filaret, who, having learned from Romansky that they did not have the means for these items, gave the poor his cassocks and caftans. Archpriest Fr. Gabriel Fedorovsky, who is still alive today, told how Filaret, reviewing the 3rd dean in 1857. district of the Valkovsky district, ordered him, as the dean, to gather everyone looked after by diocesan guardianship and especially in need of help, and presented everyone with money, and for distribution to those who were absent, he handed the money to him, Fr. Gabriel, forbidding him to declare that this money was received from him. Filaret was so responsive to someone else’s misfortune. Of course, such cases are not isolated. Most of them are only testified to God in heartfelt prayer... The treasurer of the Chernigov Yelets Monastery, where Philaret stayed in the winter, once met at the post office with one landowner. “Yes, I get 6 thousand rubles. from the bookseller for the Bishop’s works.” “Well, now the ruler will have money,” remarked the landowner. “Uh, no!” said the treasurer, “I won’t bring anything to the bishop: he gave me a register of who to distribute and send out.” Once he asks his cell attendant how many rubles he has? “38,” the cell attendant answers. “What are you doing? Well, who are you going to marry off? Give it away, give it away!” And, leaving 8 rubles for himself, he ordered the rest to be distributed in the monastery. Money had no value for him. It was as if he was afraid of them. It is rightly noted that, despite the significant funds that he had at his disposal during his stay at the Kharkov and Chernigov departments, he constantly had to reduce his expenses, because the funds he received went mostly to charity. And how much was he supposed to receive for his writings when Macarius, on his assignment to Vilna, donated 200 thousand rubles. For essay prizes? This is how Filaret kept his financial accounts: he gave 2,500 rubles. at the speed of the candle factory, which he set up at the Trinity Monastery; of which 1,500 rub. they returned him 100 and 150 rubles. “Oh, I’m already tired of your scores; It’s better if it stays with you.” So he definitely spent 6 thousand rubles. to the printing house at the Yeletsky Monastery. Two thousand rubles were returned to him from the proceeds. “God bless you,” he said to the treasurer, “I’m already tired of you with calculations; Better pray for me, when I die, and for my parents.” This was the case in Kharkov. For several years, not only did he not take his share from the income of the bishop's house, but the house management and the candle factory remained indebted to him before his departure, borrowing from him for their needs, so that a rather large sum was formed, which, when leaving, he donated to the bishop's house. We saw how little brightness befell Filaret during the difficult days of his Riga life. He was no longer able to fight: there was no support from anywhere, and his heart was tormented, looking at the suffering of his flock. “My soul is sad. Apparently, the time has come to know only yourself and your sins and abandon the empty concern of being useful to others. Where! What God didn’t give, why admire your dream?” This is how a lonely worker, abandoned by people, among enemies, expressed his grief. Filaret's loneliness was noticeable to everyone. Count Kleimichel, visiting him and taking a closer look at his situation, told him: “you are a real monk here, alone, without people.” Meanwhile, the cause of Orthodoxy stopped. Filaret repeatedly wrote to Protasov, asking him to go to St. Petersburg on church business; but there was no permission for this. Count Protasov did not report Filaret’s request to the Synod, like many things reported by Filaret; Filaret wrote about this from Kharkov to his Moscow patron. “And what came of it? After the confusion, St. the case stopped, and various accusations were left on my name, which were not at all fair. The late Right Reverend Gideon of Poltava, just before his death, driving through Kharkov to Poltava, having listened to my stories about the progress of the Livland case, said with a sigh: “We didn’t know this, they told us something completely different; sorry! “It’s a pity, and a great pity, especially since they couldn’t fix it,” noted Filaret. “Afterwards they called Plato more than once; but did this actually serve the cause of St. Orthodoxy? Exhausted by the struggle and hostility, Filaret thought about rest or transfer, proposing rector Eusebius in his place. “It’s true,” he noted, “a special kind of person is needed here. Here you need to have a lot and a lot of patience. What is needed is a will as flexible as steel, and as non-fragile as steel.” While Count Protasov hid the essence of the matter from the Holy Synod and only for certain calculations and motives reported to the Emperor in one form or another, slander and denunciations did not cease to fall on Philaret. Prince Suvorov surpassed Palen in this case. He touched upon the cell life of the saint, without stopping at the most vile slander. But let us turn away from this terrible and disgusting action of human malice and end the story of Filaret’s Riga ministry with the testimony of the person before whose eyes his activities took place in Riga, Latvian, whose father suffered for his faith. We cannot help but trust the witness’s priestly conscience, especially since this is not flattery to a living person, but a tribute from the heart to one who has passed into eternity. "God! How much this saint worked in Livonia! Alone, only with his clerk, he knew no peace either day or night, did not know the time of lunch and tea. Prosphora is his daily breakfast, lunch, and dinner. He only ate prosphora and tea. As I see it now: a leather sofa, a simple table, a huge pile of written and white paper, a writing utensil and a glass of tea at the end of the table. Here he described the suffering of the new children of the Orthodox Church with his weary, emaciated hand. It was David who plucked his father's lambs from the mouth of a ravenous beast. It was Daniel in the lion's den." But Philaret’s merits were too great for him to be treated like Irinarch. On the other hand, Sovereign Nikolai Pavlovich, in view of the erroneous conviction of Irinarch, would, of course, not limit himself to one report this time. That is why it was decided to transfer Filaret with honor to the highest, archbishop's see in Kharkov. “I believe the joy with which you and others with you received,” wrote Filaret to Gorsky, “the news of my appointment to Kharkov. Thank the Lord, the good news is true. I'm completely ready to go. In a day or two I will leave Riga. In my place comes Kovensky Platon, the same one who was briefly Kostromsky’s editor and whom I, a sinner, had to dedicate with great dignity in 1843. Joseph as Bishop of Kovno. It will be painful for him to move from Kovna to Riga, and it will be even more difficult for him to manage local affairs. Dealing with the Germans is like carrying stones up a mountain. May the Lord God manage the affairs of His church according to His good will.” Although this translation was flattering for Filaret; but in any case, according to his ideas for Orthodoxy, it cannot be looked at otherwise than as a triumph of the German Party. He was mourned by the young flock, children, and a handful of Russian people of Riga, to whom Filaret was close due to his ardent devotion to the Russian cause. “The Russian residents of Riga said goodbye to me with many signs of love. May the Lord reward them for their love for me!” Filaret wrote to his friend. Knowing the poverty of his funds, they gave him a carriage, which gave him the opportunity to travel without burdening himself with debt. A sad oddity. We seem to be groping our way through our political procession. Neither the intelligible lessons of history, nor the patriotic attempts of some public figures, nor even the examples of our neighbors opened our eyes to our own task, nor created a definite political system for us. At a time when a German neighbor converts foreign subjects of his crown into Germans against their will, we deny such their voluntary desire to be Russian, forgetting that the more tribal discord in the state dulls and disappears, the stronger its position, the more secure its future. At once we could Russianize the border region; but we didn't. We have given the opportunity to interpret our indifference as our moral and political impotence. In place of German pretentiousness, we allowed the idea of ​​some kind of “Latvia” with its independent and political structure to emerge. What made us renounce our own benefits? Admiration for Europe, from which we sought to obtain a certificate of maturity, and obsequiousness to that neighbor who, while doing one thing at home, does not tolerate it in his neighbor’s house, as recently in the matter of eviction. And these are not phrases: we have before us the testimony of contemporaries. In our shortsightedness, we go further, allowing parts of them to be torn away from the people and the church. We, under the guise of Russification, are introducing services in the Russian language in kirks and churches, not understanding that the Lutheran, and especially the Catholic clergy, fantasizing their flock, does not risk anything, and besides, each of them understands the Russian language more than Latin; but for the good-natured Rusachki this is a trap. Philaret rejoiced at the success of Orthodoxy in Lithuania when this matter was set up by the wise and experienced hand of Blessed Metropolitan Joseph Simashka 40. He knew the Poles, he also knew the Russians, and this acquaintance encouraged him with all his might to resist the implementation of such a measure. He foresaw in it an evil for Orthodoxy, a loss for the Russian people. Just as His Grace Joseph was a servant of Orthodoxy and the Russian people in Lithuania, so was Filaret in Livonia. The very struggle of the helpless, lonely Filaret with the enemies of Orthodoxy makes it clear that the Russification of the region was not part of the plans and system of the government, that the awakening of the desire for Orthodoxy in Latvians was viewed only from one church side and as a fleeting phenomenon. While making some concessions to the church, they only cared about ensuring that there was no more disturbance and noise. That is why bishops who did not think about their position and cared only about the church were so easily transferred from Riga. We believe that the valiant Montenegrin hero also made a mistake by giving an insignificant handful of his Catholic subjects a bishop and sending young Montenegrins to Rome for Catholic science. These future propagandists of the papal faith in their homeland will bring disunity among the now almost intact people. The neighbor looks at this vigilantly and with gloating. Or maybe his own plan was fulfilled here? It is a pity that this could bring a dark stain in the eyes of posterity on the good name of the famous and handsome real leader of the glorious people of the Black Mountain. We do not deserve imitation in everything. But we go further in our self-denial. After a century and a half of struggle, having fed the entire land with dear Russian blood, we gave its best part (Transcaucasia) to the Germans as a reward for the extraordinary sacrifices of the Russian people! We didn't stop there. We allowed Protestant pastors to preach freely among the people we conquered 41 . Thus, in our land, we laid the foundation for an alien political body, to which, in addition to the persistence and resourcefulness inherent in the Germans, we gave all the means for strengthening and spreading, allowing them congresses and meetings on church affairs, these future, and perhaps real, political gatherings. Thus, after shedding blood for a century and a half to conquer the region, we are creating in the future a new arena at home for military exercises. Will we then have Irinarchs and Philarets?... We have digressed too much from the subject; but may the reader forgive us: any injection directly into the heart is too sensitive to resist sighing. And very recently, government officials, on the other outskirts, opposed the Cheremis and Chuvash teachers in their desire to convert to Orthodoxy. What explained this opposition? “Students will follow the teachers, and people’s trust in the school will disappear.” The answer of the Russian figure, who was awarded public education in the district, is good. Meanwhile, sing about indifference to the religion of the people, like the Chuvash and Cheremis. This is known to everyone who has observed them in the slightest degree. All these sad circumstances convincingly indicate that we did not have a definite political plan. If it had once been established, not a single ruler would have dared to go against it, for fear of being held accountable for high treason. And Golovin’s confidence in a possible change in the government system in the Livland case serves as proof of the absence of this plan, and partly as a justification for it... On December 20, 1848, after waiting until the evening, in the Kharkov bishop's house it was decided that if the new ruler was approaching Kharkov, he would stop for the night at the last station, but would not arrive at night. And no one knew which path to expect it from. Meanwhile, on the road from Kyiv, a clumsy road carriage was approaching Kharkov, and the new Kharkov bishop was sitting in it, deep in thought. He was only 43 years old at the time; but seven years of suffering in Riga left a strong imprint on his face. Those who saw him as rector noticed with surprise a change in him that was unusual for years. What was the traveler thinking about? He was in a hurry to Kharkov, at least to arrive late at night, but to serve tomorrow. And tomorrow, December 21, was the end of the Great Week (seven years) from the day of his consecration as a bishop, seven years of his episcopal service, seven years of sorrows and suffering, which he bore, in his greatest humility, with complete obedience. The carriage thundered along the pavement and stopped in front of the porch of the bishop's house. The cell attendant opened the door. The Bishop came out and made the sign of the cross. It's dark all around. A novice met him in the corridor and reported with fear that his rooms were locked and the servant with the key had left. Vladyka blessed him and ordered him to lead himself to the Church of the Cross. After praying, he asked: “Where is Father Economist? You o. economy? Tomorrow I will serve in my house church. Make your arrangements. I don't need anything except a glass of tea. Specify the bedroom: I need to get ready and rest.” The cell attendant sorted out his things, fed him dinner, and gave him tea. The residents of the bishop's house have already managed to find out from him that the new bishop has the habit of resting little, working hard and serving diligently. And the residents of the bishop's house began to talk along the way, gathering in a small group near Fr. the steward, about the new archpastor, and about his habits. Of course, among them there were those who did not look at these habits with approval. Finally, the cell attendant fell asleep, the group scattered, each to his own place, and everyone fell asleep. And in the bishop’s bedroom the candle glowed for a long time in front of the icons, and the bishop prayed on his knees. And he prayed not for deliverance from his sorrows, but for the blessing of his new ministry for the glory of the church and for the good of his flock. As the cell attendant spoke about his bishop to the residents of the bishop's house, this is how he showed himself. Having served on December 21 in his church of the cross, on the day of the Nativity of Christ, then on January 1 and 6, he served in the cathedral and on 7 in the Resurrection Church. Everyone believed that a long journey and, finally, frequent service should tire the archpastor and cause the need for rest, and yet from the very first days of January he began to survey the city churches and, moreover, without any preliminary preparations. Noticing the cleanliness and order in the church, he personally thanked the rector; but where, on the contrary, he saw untidiness and disorder, he announced a reprimand to the rector through the dean. This again reflected a trait of his character: it was pleasant for him to express a kind word and gratitude in person and, on the contrary, it was difficult and embarrassing for him to make personal comments. He could not leave the disorder in the church without comment, understanding well that the careless maintenance of the church of God almost always indicates the same attitude of the priest towards his pastoral duties. And Filaret was strict in such cases. So, already during a tour of the Chernigov diocese, due to the noticed untidiness in the Holy Church, he did not allow its priest to serve with him, sternly remarking to him: “Are you a Jew or something?” These remarks immediately gained Philaret the reputation of a strict bishop. But soon, as soon as they began to get to know Filaret better, they saw in him a meek, merciful and attentive shepherd. He was strict towards “those who listen to a lot of wine,” notes the narrator of his Kharkov service, but he did not like slander and spoke an accusatory word “against hostility prone to denunciations.” He could not stand litigiousness and enmity at all: it was all the more difficult for him to see this in the clergy. As for the management of the diocese, it could be called personal. “At the most cursory examination of his resolutions laid down by him on consistory matters,” writes Fr. Lashchenkov, “you are amazed how he had the strength and time to carry out such a mass of work.” That is why many resolutions, in addition to being short, were too harsh: “the resolution is wild.” “This definition is stupid.” Many resolutions were supplemented, amended, or returned to the consistory for a new revision. He compiled a manual for finding laws for a well-known case and explained the purpose of this work in the following lines of his proposal to the consistory. “Since I know from experience that in the Kharkov Consistory either erroneous decisions are made, or definitions are drawn up too slowly because it is extremely difficult to find, scattered throughout the affairs of different years and books, church decrees and rules, then the church rules that I have extracted from the current legal provisions, along with this, I propose to the consistory so that it can use this extract as a guide for finding laws and rules, the same rules and laws, as is clear, they must be brought to the case in their true form.” Accepting all petitions, writing all important papers in his own hand, relentlessly engaged in his studies, constantly performing religious services and being distracted by scientific works, Filaret, of course, must value his time. That is why he did not like to talk to the petitioners, seeing slander in the petition, he threw it at the petitioner’s feet and left without saying a word. His silence when receiving petitioners was reproached to him and they found that he was doing this out of imitation of the Moscow Metropolitan. To such a reproach, Filaret answered Innocent: “I can’t guess for what reason they accuse me of the Moscow crime. Is it because he didn’t speak? But this is not a matter of will.” He gave little space to the members of the consistory. Treating the situation of the rural clergy with sympathy, he protected them from oppression with this order of business. He knew and understood well that the rural clergy always value more the archpastor who invests more personal labor and authority in the affairs of the diocese. And it is natural: the bishop, in addition to receiving the special gift of a priest, both due to his position in the church and society, and due to the absence for him of those small connections and relationships that the white clergy is entangled with, is always more impartial in decisions. Here Filaret had no inclination towards autocracy. He did this with great embarrassment for his conscience, but he did it precisely for the reasons expressed, which he later justified before his Moscow patron. Finally, that it was precisely this conviction that he put into his personal management of the diocese, one letter from him from Chernigov to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Prince Urusov, can confirm. Repeating the petition to close the three spiritual boards, he wrote among other things: “I consider it unnecessary to explain other reasons for the closure of the boards; I will only say that the clergy under their jurisdiction will serve a grateful prayer service when an order is received to close the spiritual boards.” But no matter how attentive and sympathetic Filaret was to the situation of the rural clergy, he put the benefit of the church above personal sympathies and compassion. Here, as proof, is the answer to his request from his friend, Romansky. “And I am a sinner, I seem to you at times to be wrong. You think, and sometimes say, that I do not fulfill your requests and desires for the wrong reasons. Whether my conscience is right before the Lord, only the Omniscient knows. But I wish to act only in accordance with my conscience. If I had acted differently, you yourself would have the right to both condemn me and not love me. God is my witness - I love your kind soul, but because I love you very much, and I must watch my heart so that it does not get carried away by feelings for the unjust. I repeat: I am amazed at how others do things in jest. They don't know how to do things jokingly. The fear of God’s judgment gets in the way.” In applying the law and governing regulations, he assigned a significant share to personal views and experience. So, for example, Article 82 of the Charter spirit. The consistory granted clergy, upon reaching 60 years of age and due to illness, the right to ask for dismissal. Filaret himself fired people due to decrepitude and illness. Those fired complained. Filaret explained that he considers it unfair for the entire parish to endure inconvenience because of one thing, when the priest, due to the weak state of his body, cannot fulfill the requirements without fail. The Holy Synod not only approved Philaret’s system, but recommended it for guidance to all diocesan bishops. Whenever possible, Filaret reminded and advised the elder priests to take care of the family in advance, giving their place to their son-in-law. I cannot help but remind the elder priests that it is in vain that, to the sorrow of their families, they do not make timely orders, and when the authorities make this order, they are indignant and gravely sin against the authorities.” In such petitions, the person close to him, Romanovsky, did not always succeed, and gave the latter a reason to reproach Filaret for cruelty. And to such reproaches Filaret answered: “Don’t sin, don’t complain about my cruelty. When I meet you, I’ll tell you a few words in defense of myself against accusing me of cruelty” - “I fulfilled your request. Sergius is in front of you. Don’t sin - don’t complain about my cruelty.” Accepting petitions, he immediately looked through them, demanded, when the need arose, a file or correspondence from the consistory and, having put down the resolution, released the petitioner. The petitioner, having learned his fate or his case, went home with full confidence that there would be no change. Sometimes the resolutions were harsh; “But given the pious mood of the bishop’s soul,” the same narrator notes, “he quickly changed resolutions if, at someone’s request or explanation of the matter, he found that he had acted harshly.” This is how he was in Kharkov, and this is how he was in Chernigov. So in Chernigov, having deprived one priest of his deanery and having become convinced that the latter had been slandered, when he met him, during a tour of the diocese, in the village. Belmachevka, bowed low to him and said: “Forgive me, Fr. John; I condemned you innocently.” Or this is what the priest says, Fr. Grigory Timoshevsky “once I was slandered before the bishop. The storm was in earnest. The bishop himself said how very upset he was. The people who were present stood up for me and proved to the Bishop that it was a lie that had been brought against me. The Bishop demanded a formal list and, having read it, sighed and said: forgive me, Lord! I have been cruelly deceived. Give this poor, offended priest my apology. Yes, in my temper I could have caused great misfortune. We always need discretion. Thank God I didn’t order the punishment.” “That’s how the ruler was,” notes the narrator. “May the Lord give him according to the riches of his virtue.” - Having trusted the dean’s idea about the shameful life of one young widow priest, he proved to Filaret that the dean had slandered her out of personal enmity, Filaret summoned the dean and the widow-priest, ordered the first to submit his resignation from the dean’s position, announced to the widow that he was destroying his resolution, increasing her allowance and giving her a promise to be her protector and patron. The widow fell to her knees and, shedding tears, kissed his feet, and wrapped her arms around them so tightly that the cell attendant could hardly free his bishop from her. And Romanovsky then expressed a friendly, but sharp, reproach for his credulity in the dean’s denunciation. Filaret usually said “you” to the clergy under his diocese, but in dealing with the clergy he was “fatherly kind.” “You” he said only to those with whom he was dissatisfied. It was a kind of punishment. No matter how much we happened to receive information from the priests of three dioceses who served under him, everyone calls him “an unforgettable benefactor.” It should be noted that Filaret, with his kind and sympathetic heart, was extremely well-mannered, he was, one might say, an elegant person in many respects. His manner and conversation immediately made you understand this. Everything aesthetic, everything sublime captivated him. Here are examples of his good manners. While talking with a seminarian, sitting on a bench in his garden, he let go of the staff. A seminarian standing nearby picked up his staff and handed it to him. The archbishop, without interrupting his conversation with the other, responded with a polite bow to the seminarian’s service. Such courtesy from the archpastor was unusual for seminarians, and this bow served as the topic of their conversations for a long time. In one place in the North-Western region, when he was traveling from Riga to Vilna, he was given an overnight stay in a Catholic monastery. The abbot of the monastery received him cordially and offered him a meal. When the first course was served, which turned out to be meat, Filaret asked not to worry and refused, apologizing that according to the rules of our monasteries, meat food is forbidden. This greatly embarrassed the abbot. Filaret asked not to worry and told him: “Let me have a glass of milk and a piece of bread, and that’s enough for me.” But the hospitable host did not allow this and, apologizing, assured that the Lenten table would be prepared immediately. “Dinner was served,” said Filaret, “but I immediately realized that everything was with the same sauces and broth. What was to be done? In the first case, I had every reason to refuse, but in the second it was already indelicate to accuse the owner of deception. I didn’t give any indication that I suspected him.” But the stomach, unaccustomed to meat for 15 years, found it difficult to cope with even the most moderate portion of the venerable Catholic fasters, and Filaret almost paid with his life for his delicacy, frightening his hospitable hosts. Filaret sniffed tobacco. He acquired this habit, like many at that time, to refresh his eyesight, tired by constant stress. He did not hide this habit, but when sniffing in society, he did it somehow unnoticed, never taking out his snuffbox or stuffing his nose, as others did, much to the displeasure of those present. Opening the snuff box in the pocket of his cassock, he, of course, gradually scattered tobacco there and, laughing, told one of his acquaintances that this is why (the cell attendants) call him a pack boy. It is known that bishops wear colored clothes. One could never notice on Filaret the tasteless combination of colors in his clothes. One conversation in Chernigov is very memorable for us, and the last one, which we will touch on below. (Perhaps that’s why his clothes remained in my memory). It was summer. He was wearing a lilac moire-antique cassock and a white cassock of the same material. The panagia consisted of a white camel in an elegant gold frame with amethysts. And he was always dressed, strictly in accordance with the requirements of taste. And it would be a mistake to say that this is what he focused on. No, it seemed like an ordinary matter to him. Satisfying the demands of aesthetics and taste usually came about something as simple as, for example, the need to have clean underwear. His sacred robes were distinguished by the same grace. In the Chernigov Cathedral, there are quite a lot of ancient Gospels; but during his service, one was always used, donated by Colonel of the Little Russian Regiment Vasily Dunin-Borkovsky in 1685, as the most elegant in work, although it was the least of all. Due to its gravity, the Protodeacon did not like this Gospel as much as his bishop. To indicate Philaret’s correct understanding of the graceful, we quote from his letter to Gorsky a judgment about two buildings in St. Petersburg: the Cathedral of All Educational Institutions and St. Isaac’s Cathedral. “It seems I didn’t write to you about the cathedral of educational institutions: an excellent church! What splendor, what beauty, what lightness! A wonderful man Rastrelli, an extraordinary man! Inside, they deviated from his plan, and it could hardly have turned out better. Or rather, the grandeur of the iconostasis was reduced by half, which now does not reach the height designated for St. Isaac's Cathedral. I have seen the appearance in real life more than once. It will be very good; but what Rastrelli will not have. True, this is impossible to do under certain conditions; and therefore Montferrand is a great architect in his own way. The wealth of this church will be a miracle! So many huge columns in the air! So many bas-reliefs of the best work made of expensive material! The one who undertook to put such communities in such a situation is, without a doubt, not one of the ordinary people.” Once, while he was in Kharkov, they decided to elevate the meal in the Valkovsky Cathedral, arranging it in two tiers. The cathedral was built in 1787. Filaret immediately objected to such a project, believing that such a building would damage the beauty of the church, which was not particularly tall. While talking, he listened with impatience and complacency to the interlocutor who was distorting historical facts or expressing an incorrect view of the subject, and then in a very gentle and modest form he would explain the essence of the matter and quietly lead the errant person to the real path. And it was done so simply, with such care, and without the slightest arrogance with one’s knowledge. The question arises: where does the son of a village priest get such a flair for the elegant, such a correct understanding of it? Where did he get his conspicuous good manners? We will not be mistaken, I believe, if we say that the first thing that developed in him was a love of nature: where is there more harmony and beauty, if not in nature itself? The second was formed by his innate modesty and humility, severity towards himself, love for a person and respect for him. His judgment made the same complete impression as the conversation. It was both solemn and simple. Simply because he did not kneel at a memorized time, but when it was caused by a reverent impulse of the soul. Without the help of subdeacons, as usual, he prostrated himself in tears before the throne. His choir was distinguished by its harmony and the entire service by its lack of fussiness and order. It walked decorously and reverently, slowly and without interruption. It should be noted that Filaret endured a lot of slander, which we will discuss below; but we witnessed when one visiting person, leaving his service, on Wednesday of the first week of Great Lent, in tears, loudly said: “No matter what they say about Philaret, I won’t believe anything.” This was the impression. He served often, every Sunday, holiday and solemn day, presanctified by the liturgy on Wednesday and Friday of the first and fourth weeks and throughout Holy Week. At the same time, he did not take food during the first week and the last week until Thursday. While in Chernigov, he read akathists twice a week in the Trinity and Yeletsky monasteries, and the same thing in Kharkov, he served every Sunday and holiday, every Wednesday and Friday a cathedral-akathist service. Neither poor health nor work distracted him from reading the Lenten canons. “He performed the service in an extremely touching manner,” notes Archpriest Fr. Lashchenkov. “Oh, how many reverent sighs of the soul and prayerful cries were raised before the throne of the Lord, how many heartfelt tears were shed for the peace, health and salvation of the flock.” Often on weekdays I listened to the liturgy in the altar of my home church. When, after a fire in the Yeletsky monastery (where he lived in the winter), it was necessary to rebuild the house church, landowner V.V. Kochubey gave him the idea to arrange the altar so that it would adjoin his bedroom, and so that in this way he could come there unnoticed by the people. “Don’t do this, sir,” another landowner told him: “such a neighborhood is somehow incompatible with the holiness of the place; and then, why would you deprive people of blessings who want to receive it? Do you know what the peasants believe: if you accept a blessing from the saint 50 times, you will be saved.” “Thank you for your good advice,” said Filaret. “Yes, ancient Russian piety speaks against such a plan.” The first thing that Filaret paid attention to upon his arrival in Kharkov was the seminary. From his letter to Gorsky it is clear that on the second or third day after his arrival he was already there. Before him, the seminary was located in the house now occupied by the theological school (near the city police) and in the building of the former collegium (near the bishop's house). Such placement of one educational institution in two houses, separated from each other by a considerable distance, was extremely inconvenient. Spiritual guardianship was located in dark and small rooms of the bishop's house, and the archive was in a damp basement. The new seminary buildings, which began construction under Innocent, had not yet been finished. The Reverend Philaret began to insist on the speedy completion and transfer of the building to the jurisdiction of the seminary board. Complaining that the construction of the seminary building was not completed, Filaret wrote to Gorsky: “Everywhere we need to move forward with action.” Thanks only to his persistence, which he showed from the very first days after his arrival, the temporary committee decided to transfer the building without completing some formalities. By Easter, the disciples had already been transferred there, and after Easter, Filaret consecrated churches in the name of John the Theologian, donating works of artists for the iconostasis. Having vacated the collegium house, he moved the consistory there, and placed the theological school in another building of the former seminary, which it occupies to this day. In September 1843, the Right Reverend Innocent received a decree from the Synod (dated August 18), which informed all diocesan bishops about the establishment in the St. Petersburg diocese, by the will of Sovereign Nikolai Pavlovich, of a model school for the daughters of priests and church ministers. The purpose of the institution, as stated in the Highest Decree, is to provide education “in accordance with the direct purpose of the spiritual state and with the true needs and statutes of our church.” This school was ordered to be under the Highest patronage of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna and the guardianship of Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna. More than 10 thousand rubles were allocated from the spiritual and educational capital for the maintenance of the school. Attached to the decree were the charter and states. Ave. Innocent made a template resolution “for information and guidance.” Filaret reacted differently to this matter: he pulled him close to him. Now he demanded information about the amounts that could be allocated for this item. It turned out that the total amount was 121 rubles. 55 k., and with the donation of Archpriest D. for the shelter 621 rub. 55 k. It was obviously impossible to start such a solid business with such insignificant funds. But it was so close to Filaret’s soul, he was so passionate about it that he believed in its implementation. He addressed an appeal to the clergy, basing the cause on his own significant sacrifice. His example and his word had an effect: not only the clergy, but also secular people began to donate. In his favor, he assigned the first volume of the publication of the “Historical and Statistical Description of the Kharkov Diocese.” “I don’t know whether God will bless me with His mercy to open this shelter; but for the third year now I have been struggling to gather sufficient means for the sustainable existence of this institution. With God's help there are quite a number of ways. However, I do not want to build a building on sand, or start building a building without first preparing all the ways for the construction and existence of the building. Entrusting Gorsky with the printing of the “Historical and Statistical Description of the Kharkov Diocese,” he wrote to him: I forgot to tell you about one thing. The publication of the description is assigned in favor of a shelter for poor girls of clergy. That is why I worked so hard on the description of the Kharkov diocese. I have good reasons to think that this description will soon spread throughout the diocese - it is expected. And therefore I fully hope that it will provide the shelter with significant means for its existence. Therefore, I ask you to write on the manuscript itself in a decent place: “publication in favor of the shelter of poor girls of clergy” “Filaret,” notes Archpriest on this occasion. O. N. Lashchenkov, “looked at his labors as feats in the highest monastic sense, just as the ancient ascetics gave away everything they did with their own hands and earned for this work for the benefit of others or the creation and beautification of monasteries and churches.” Meanwhile, the amount was 21,500 rubles. Construction could now begin. The place, for lack of another, was allocated on the land of the city cemetery. On this occasion, Filaret wrote to Gorsky: “This is again a feature; but my conscience says that this is in accordance with the spirit of the institution and is much closer to the spirit of Orthodoxy than when they push the school of secular girls into nunneries according to Western custom.” Persons appeared who offered personal labor for a good cause, in addition to their large donations; this is the former head of the Kharkov agricultural school Art. owls M.L. Ilyinsky and former mayor S.K. Kostyurin, who donated the first 3,500 rubles, and the second 900 rubles. bricks Valid Art. Advisor Kovalevsky donated 2,000 rubles. From all over the province, and especially from Moscow, they began to send tea, sugar, chintz, canvas, calico, muslin, camlot, scarves, icons, books, etc. As a reward for their work and sacrifices, Ilyinsky and Kostyurin asked only for prayers for their deceased relatives. Filaret himself, who always believed that the beginning of a good cause was his own sacrifice, donated 5860 rubles from himself. and from the bishop's house 3000 rubles. The work was carried out quickly and in compliance with strict economy, under the direct supervision of Filaret himself. From his letters to Romanovsky one can judge with what keen interest he took this matter. “The corridor at the school is not ready yet,” he wrote. What to do? We are in a hurry, we are in a hurry, but everything is not near the shore. This is how God pleases for the treatment of our sins. “Orphans are children,” writes Archpriest. O. Lashchenkov, in the person of their archpastor, was seen as a gentle father who vigilantly delved into everything that related to their maintenance, training and upbringing. The choice of the head Anna Nikolaevna Lukyanovskaya was unusually successful to manage the affairs of the school. Philaret established a committee of three archpriests. The staff of teachers consisted of a teacher of the law, who was also the priest of the house church, a teacher of the Russian language and arithmetic, and a teacher of church singing. The boss taught geography and history. Besides them there was a classy lady, a sewing teacher and a housekeeper. Appreciating the work of her boss, Filaret treasured her and, noticing her fatigue, sent her to Romanovsky’s house to rest, where she sometimes stayed for a whole month. This did not limit Filaret’s attention to her, and in his letters to Romanovsky he always asked about her health. How is Anna Nikolaevna - is she getting better? - “Anna Nikolaevna is ordered to be dead.” Philaret asked to take this school under the patronage of the Holy Synod, wanting, of course, not to connect this institution with earthly vanity, but to strengthen it with a blessing, although he expected that “others would not like it.” The teaching program he compiled proves that Filaret thought about the true benefit of students and about the school’s fulfillment of its direct task. Here is this program: “a) the Law of God, studied thoroughly and carefully as the main subject: in addition to Holy History and the Catechism, the doctrine of sacred churches and their accessories, about the actions and times of worship, the history of the universal and Russian Church; b) reading in Russian and Slavic languages ​​and penmanship; c) Russian grammar and literature with exercises in expressing thoughts on paper; d) first part of arithmetic and calculation on accounts; e) Russian history and geography; f) general history and geography in brief; g) musical church singing, and h) handicrafts to a possibly extensive extent. Moreover, during their entire stay at the school, the pupils are taught to practice housekeeping in all its forms, such as: baking bread and prosphora, preparing various types of food for the winter, gardening and horticulture.” It is clear that with such knowledge, girls marrying priests skillfully took care of their household and were true helpers in their lives. Those who remained unmarried always had a piece of bread, performing the duties of housekeepers in wealthy landowners' houses. God-fearing and modest, accustomed to work, growing up in a modest home, they were not burdened by such a position and represented a true treasure for those whom they served. The successes of the children pleased Filaret and were his best reward for his labors and care. In 1856, two years after the opening of the school, Filaret already wrote to the Synod: “the test I carried out on thirty students who studied for two years at the school showed them to be quite successful in all subjects, so all that remains is to thank the Lord for their success, in addition to the success in knowledge of the short Catechism, Russian history, geography and other subjects, they are already very satisfactorily engaged in sewing and housework, so they sewed for themselves and new students had shirts and dresses and knitted stockings; The children themselves lead the reading and singing during church services, but two of them take turns helping in the dining room and kitchen, and monitoring the cleanliness of the classrooms and bedrooms. For its unusually rapid successes, the Kharkov school for girls was credited mainly to the pious zeal and experience of its head, Anna Nikolaevna Lukyanovskaya, a girl of clergy, who for a long time held the position of teacher both in boarding houses and in private noble houses.” Such a report from Philaret was confirmed by the feedback of one secular person who was present at the exam: “very satisfactory answers, mostly in their own words, in fluent, fluent speech, and such swagger of the students led to the admiration of those present at the exam, even amazed many who saw at the opening of the school, two years ago, what savages most of these girls acted then.” The exam described by Philaret makes it clear: what attention is paid to everything that a priest’s wife, a housekeeper, needs to know and to those moral principles that form a Christian woman. Not without purpose, Filaret established, for example, that older girls trim younger ones. We saw that the creator of the school was Filaret; but in his report to the Holy Synod, he removed himself, not seeking glory on earth, but gave thanks to God and then pointed to the headmistress as the person to whom, after God, the school owes its good position. And Filaret himself took care of the school as his brainchild. When in 1858 he was on duty at St. Synod, wrote to Romanovsky: “I ask you with love to visit the school, visit the sick Anna Nikolaevna and write to me what you see there.” When leaving, he entrusted the school to the supervision of the rector of the Seminaria, Archimand. Gerasim, and upon calling the latter to St. Petersburg, entrusted this responsibility to Romanovsky, convincing him with the following words: “you love the school children in the Lord.” And to Romanovsky’s question what his responsibility would be, Filaret answered: “You ask: what kind of things will fall on you with the title of trustee of the school? You ask in vain. Your love will find subjects within its strength, and my love for you cannot expect from you what is beyond your strength. I would be very grateful to you if, in the rank of trustee, you would take part in the distribution of orphans to places, some to marriage, others to useful service in the homes of non-poor people. O. Macarius says that Nikolai Nikolaevich can benefit from this. And I think he's telling the truth. To reassure you, let the inspector remain a trustee, especially in the educational department. In this situation, of course, you do not need to visit Kharkov often. Your participation from Valki (where Romanovsky was the leader of the village) may be useful in the following cases: in cases of any sorrows of cowardice, mutual distrust and the like. Regarding the first subject, regarding the arrangement of orphans leaving school, I will tell you the thought of my heart: I think that each orphan who gets married should be given 50 rubles. beyond the priestly or deacon's place - however, depending on the behavior and education of the orphan. I have announced two priestly places that will be given to those who take school orphans into marriage: this place is in Kolomak and Merefa.” This is how the girls' school was surrounded by the care and love of the archpastor. Was it any wonder that he achieved his prosperity: after all, Christian love works miracles. Always systematic and always persistent in the precise implementation of a known plan, Filaret often visited the school, leaving nothing unattended. He also strictly observed the same school he later founded in Chernigov. Arriving there usually after lunch, he walked around the school and in the summer went to the vegetable garden, where every student always had her own garden bed. Approaching one of them, he asked “whose bed?” One of the pupils came forward and reported that the garden bed was hers. “What did you sow here?” “Well, work, work, children!” The children understood that these words were dictated, and his arrival at the school was always a holiday for them. Unfortunately, the Chernigov school changed the Filaret type. Instead of a modest house with cramped rooms, which closely resembled the furnishings of each pupil's parental home, a palace was erected, instead of four classes - six, with a program almost like an institute, where instead of the church language, perhaps more efforts are made to break the French speech, and instead of church singing you hear the clanging of the piano. Having grasped the heights of knowledge that is not applicable to their lives, the new mothers are capable, of course, of introducing into the house of their working husband such demands that he is not able to satisfy with his meager means, and instead of serving the family, they themselves are able to demand services. The same conditions close the doors of private houses to their activities. This is what a man of system and mind, fueled by a true impulse for good, means! In 1853, the building of the Kharkov School was completed, decorated in the spring of the next year, and on June 6 it was already consecrated by Philaret. At the same time, out of constant attachment to the Lavra and faith in the prayerful intercession of the Saint who rests in it, he asked for prayers before the relics of the teacher. Sergius, “may his blessing be on this matter, so strong before the Lord.” Philaret conducted this business with great prudence, always starting it modestly and on a small scale, so as not to burden the clergy. Having collected 21,500 rubles, he built a house with 18 rooms for 90 pupils. Strict economy was observed during construction. According to the estimate, 19 thousand rubles were calculated for this house. He built it, furnished it, fenced the place, built a well of 22 soots. depth and spent 10,300 rubles on all this, and 11 thousand rubles. he retained it as the capital of the establishment. In 1856, he built an extension on the north side of the house with a church, and two years later the same extension on the south side, spending 18 thousand rubles on both extensions with the church. Although donations continued to flow into the establishment's cash register; but Filaret did not get carried away with these construction projects, preferring to create capital and thereby ensure the strength of the school’s existence. When leaving Kharkov, he left 23,631 rubles. 20 k. school capital. At the same time, when drawing up his spiritual will, in his concern for his brainchild, the “shelter,” he assigned to its benefit all his own belongings and money in excess of 4 thousand rubles, which, as we will see below, received a special purpose. Of course, due to his kindness, Filaret was not able to make savings, and indeed he did not have any money after his death, and therefore this clause of the will was not of particular importance for the school; but much more important for him could have been the right granted to him to publish his works for his own benefit within the period established by law. When he was transferred to the Chernigov department and came from St. Petersburg to Kharkov, he hurried to the school. The children saw him off in tears. He blessed the inconsolably crying boss with the icon of the Most Holy. Mother of God and wrote in the synodik: “I command all priests who have to serve at the school church to remember in their prayers the first head of the Kharkov Theological Women's School, the God-loving servant Anna (Lukyanovskaya) after her death. Sinful Filaret A. Ch. July 3 days 1859.” His transfer to Chernigov did not break his connection with the Kharkov school. This is how he wrote from Chernigov to Romanovsky: “I bow to the ground to Anna Nikolaevna, who loves the Lord. Let her heart be encouraged and strengthened in trusting in the Lord. Our business is to make rain; and the Lord will provide warmth. You have to sow even in the cold: but you can’t help but sow. You can't live without bread. Merciful Heavenly Father! We are thin children, but still yours. Don't leave us. Save us by Your mercy. Apparently we are not worth Your mercies. But dogs also take advantage of the crumbs falling from the table.” Regarding the incorrect rumor that reached him about the hardships that pupils are experiencing due to a lack of means, he wrote to him: “Write about whether there is a way to provide help without insulting the love relationship and even without creating reasons to consider yourself insulted? Think with a Christian conscience. I'll do what I can. Support Anna Nikolaevna with your kind advice. I would like to console her, but can I? See for yourself." And Anna Nikolaevna, having lost her moral support in Philaret, mournfully, one might think, continued her feat and in 1861, at the request, was dismissed by Ave. Macarius. But in 1864, Filaret invited her to the same position in Chernigov, at the school he founded, where she stayed until his death, leaving a good memory of herself. She spent the remaining years of her life in the Romanovsky house and died in 1886. Setting up a girls' school or, as he called it, an orphanage, he did not forget his native Tambov diocese, making his labor contribution there: with the money received for his works, he laid the foundation of the Tambov girls' theological school, in which, in grateful memory to its founder, every Sunday and every holiday (with the exception of highly solemn days) a commemoration of the soul is performed "benefactor-Archbishop Philaret." The same subject concerned him later in Chernigov, as will be discussed below. But most of all, Filaret paid attention to the organization and direction of educational work. We know that he arrived in Kharkov on the night of December 21st. 22 or 23 students of the seminary are released for the winter holidays; but he had managed to visit the seminary before this time, not with the purpose of inspecting the building, but was in the classrooms and, apparently, checked the knowledge and progress of teaching, since he wrote at Christmas to Gorsky: “Without the bishop, we became somewhat lazy. His Eminence Innocent lived in St. Petersburg, but Elpidiphoros did not know how or did not want to look after them.” Unfortunately, Filaret did not have good assistants. “Have pity on me,” he wrote to his friend, that at the Kharkov seminary now both the rector and the inspector are not very literate people. I wrote and wrote, but everything was not in favor.” When Filaret completed the construction of the seminary building and consecrated the church with it, he began his pastoral word like this: “The house of education is ready. The Church of Enlightenment is illuminated. All that remains is to study. Come, children, listen to me, I will teach you the fear of the Lord.” These words were not an empty phrase in the mouth of the saint. Having uttered these words, he revived them, spiritualized them with his activity, his tireless work on the task of not only educating youth, but on preparing good shepherds for the flock entrusted to him. He did not limit himself to choosing worthy teachers, but he himself reviewed the students’ written works. He followed the teaching, attended theological classes, was present at exams and, not content with these exams, called those completing the course to himself and talked with them in the garden, testing their knowledge. This is what he did in Kharkov, and this is what he did in Chernigov. During these tests, he took a closer look at the subjects and formed more accurate concepts about each. Students always considered this conversation more important than the seminar exam. Upon returning home, the students themselves said: “it is true that as he sows, so also reaps,” because the saint immediately noted those worthy in knowledge, diligence and moral qualities, providing them with the best places. Regardless of their youth, he appointed worthy priests as deans. He especially liked the students who were under the leadership of the seminary inspector, Archimandrite Iakov Pospelov, a student of Moskov. Spirit. Academy. His extraordinary energy, severity, reasonable and high monastic life gave him a special value in the eyes of Philaret. The seminary students had a deep sense of gratitude towards the saint for his concerns. We will quote a wonderful word spoken on the name day of the Most Reverend. Philaret, one of the students, a word that expressed, according to his testimony, the common feeling of all: “On the very day when the great spirit of Elijah rested on Elisha, the sons of the prophets, as they say in the book of Kings, came out to meet Elisha and bowed down to the ground before him (2 Kings 2:15). What prompted the sons of the prophets to pay such deep veneration? Without a doubt, there is also a feeling of reverent respect for the pure prophetic grace that rested on Elisha, and on the other hand, a feeling of deep gratitude to him for his care for them: for it is known that the prophetic school, where the sons of the prophets received spiritual education, was run by the prophet Elisha himself. “It is with the same feelings that we, students of spiritual enlightenment, go to meet you, Most Eminent Bishop, on your namesake day. We greet you, Rev. Vl., with feelings of deep reverence: for through this reverence we wish to express respect for the deep Grace of God that has rested in you, and for the grace of the angel of God, in whose image you have now been clothed, and for the grace of the holiness of the eternal Bishop, whom you were also clothed with the Holy Spirit a few days after this day. We greet you now with filial feelings of our most sincere gratitude to you, our merciful father and archpastor: for this day vividly reminds us of the paternal experiences of your archpastoral rule of our spiritual hill, under the canopy of which we so calmly enjoy all the conveniences for education, both mental and moral, conveniences, we dare say, such as not many have,” etc. Recognizing the importance of a priest with a well-educated, moral girl who had studied home economics, who could be both a caring friend and a kind mother, he hurried to establish a women’s theological school, making a proposal to the consistory: “Let the diocese know that upon completion of the course of girls in the theological women’s school, I will make it a rule to allow priest candidates to marry those who received an education in the theological school, but not with secular or those who have received a secular education, much less those who have not received any education.” The prohibition to marry girls, although of spiritual knowledge, but who have received a secular education, speaks of the saint’s envisaged care for the spiritual and moral structure of the family; since secular education can introduce a different view, different morals and demands that are difficult for the poor altar server to satisfy. Filaret's attention to education was not limited to the circle of educational institutions of the ecclesiastical department. So we know about his efforts to provide a good teacher of theology, logic and psychology at Kharkov University. “I have the need to point out to the Synod who is capable of holding these positions at Kharkov University,” he wrote to Gorsky. Pointing to the latter some masters of his native Academy, he convincingly asked him, if they refused, to recommend him from among the masters well known to him, warning that the teacher should also be the rector of the university church. He also wrote to Academy Professor Golubinsky about the same thing, asking both of them to hurry up with this matter. In response to Gorsky’s remark: why did Filaret refer to the university and educational institutions in the word “about the influence of Christianity on society”? Filaret replied: “You probably forgot, friend, that there is a university in Kharkov. Among those listening were all the local professors and authorities. Remembering this, you will remember the content of the Highest commands sent to universities, the importance and need of Christian education. They were what was meant when the word was spoken.” This indicates how steadily Filaret fulfilled his pastoral duties and how close the matter of education in general was to him. It is significant that, simultaneously with Filaret, as if by agreement, in another university city, Kazan, Archbishop Gregory spoke on the same subject 42 . Apparently, both zealots of the holy teaching found it timely to make such intelligible reminders. Filaret's word was received with great sympathy. Meanwhile, the university became more and more close to him. Professors visited him, and their time passed, as he wrote, “in pleasant conversations.” Paying tribute to Filaret’s work and knowledge, university professors expressed surprise that the author of “History” was not awarded a doctorate. These words, as spoken by people of science, were already a reward to Filaret and were taken to heart by the latter. And Kharkov University was the first to honor him with the title of its venerable member in 1852, followed by Moscow University in 1855. His acquaintance with professors reflected his indelible attachment to his native Academy. Between them was his comrade I.V. Platonov, whose conversation was especially pleasant for Filaret. “You know how dear to the soul are the memories of the unions of youth,” he wrote to Gorsky about this. Filaret was no less jealous of the splendor of churches, and his activity on this subject in Kharkov was amazing. As soon as he transferred the consistory from the bishop's house, he began expanding and rebuilding his house and the main cross, Intercession, churches. Having expanded the house church by adding a corridor to it, he built a new iconostasis with icons by artists and consecrated the church itself in honor of the icon of the Mother of God “for the joy of all who mourn.” He enlarged the refectory part of his Church of the Intercession and decorated it with artistic icons. For the Ozeryansk Icon of the Mother of God, which is brought to the Church of the Intercession on October 1, I made a golden chasuble worth 17 thousand rubles. To increase the income of the bishop's house, he, partly at his own expense, partly borrowing from the trusteeship, built two large stone houses of two and three floors, which were rented out, built a house for an almshouse, and renovated the entire bishop's house both in Kharkov and the country house with the Church of “All Saints” (Vsesvyatskoe). And the condition in which he found the bishop’s house can be judged because the floors had not been painted for 17 years. Having updated everything, he compiled an inventory of the bishop's house and sacristy, which no one had cared about before. Soon after Filaret’s arrival in Kharkov, a large stone church in the city cemetery, completely built in the rough, collapsed. One statesman of England said: “It is the misfortune of the country when the Minister of Finance is a professor.” He thought he knew that it was possible to read the theory of finance without knowing the country; but without knowing the country, it is impossible to conduct a state economy. Or he found that a person drowned in an academic specialty is alienated from the life of the people, his patriotic feeling fades, so to speak, dries up; and in order to conduct a financial business with success for the country, you need a living patriot, a person torn from the very life whose interests are placed in the foreground. However, we will not analyze this, and it is out of place. We only want to point out to justify the statesman that no matter how the same thing happened here. To build a simple row church in a village, and it stands for a century, promising to stand for more than one; but the real one was built by a professor of architecture at Kharkov University - and it fell apart. But how can you help the trouble when the money collected for the construction has been spent? Filaret invites local citizens to his evening tea, grieves before them about the common misfortune and asks for help. The subscription immediately begins with his light hand. Professor-architect on the side. Practitioner builder Kostyurin takes over the management of the construction. The church was dismantled to the ground, and on April 27, 1857 it was already consecrated by Philaret. Back in 1848, the Right Reverend Elpidiphoros founded a church in the name of the Holy Spirit; but, due to lack of funds, the construction was extremely unsuccessful. While seeking funds to complete the church, Filaret, among other things, allowed his choir to give spiritual concerts during Lent for this purpose. And in 1854 the church was already illuminated by him. Finding the Trinity Church cramped and unsightly, he convinced the parishioners to build a new one. The project, which was reminiscent of the cathedral of all educational institutions in St. Petersburg that delighted Filaret, was not approved. A new project has been sent. Having no funds in his hands, Filaret never thought about producing such structures and had no doubts about success. Such confidence flowed from the deep faith of this saint that for every good undertaking, help is sent from above. It was felt in this case too: on June 7, 1857, Filaret founded this church, and in 1861 it was already consecrated by his successor. On June 7, 1857, Filaret founded this church, and in 1861 it was already consecrated by his successor. Philaret’s concerns about the church of God were not limited to external splendor alone. What occupied him most was the selection and preparation of worthy shepherds and clergy. The university city of Kharkov, of course, was more demanding regarding pastors and Filaret immediately turned to his native Academy, inviting Academy students to serve in Kharkov. So he wrote to Gorsky: “Here the life of a priest is good. The city is rich and cheerful. I don’t think that any other provincial city can compare with Kharkov, judging by the customs of the world. Maybe he’s even too cheerful.” And he was quite successful in this matter: never, neither before nor after Filaret, did the Kharkov diocese have so many pastors with higher theological education. All members of the consistory, with the exception of one, who was appointed deputy Filaret, were students of the Academy, three of them were masters, the dean of the city Kharkov churches was also a master. “I love the students of the Academy,” Filaret wrote to Gorsky in 1852. “Now academicians have been placed as archpriests in all district towns. But I don’t know where I will place them anymore.” But then he appointed them to rural parishes. Meanwhile, the city clergy, who did not receive a salary, were placed in such a desperate financial situation that rural priests considered their transfer to the city not a reward, but a punishment. Valka leader N.N. Romanovsky, in a note submitted to Filaret, made a calculation according to which the entire income of the Valka priest turned out to be 450 rubles, and the most modest life for him and his family required 451 rubles. 82 k. To have an idea of ​​the modest budget drawn up by Romanovsky, it is enough to say that 73 rubles per year were calculated for underwear, shoes, dresses and outerwear. 13 kopecks for five people. Obviously, the priest had to live more than modestly, and there was no way to raise children in the seminary. Filaret entered the Synod with a presentation, repeatedly repeated his petition and finally achieved its fulfillment. In total, the salary of city priests and city clergy of the Kharkov diocese was determined to be 9930 rubles. Wanting to improve the theological and moral education of the clergy of his diocese, Filaret founded libraries at churches in cities and rich villages, wrote out for them teachings for the people and academic journals, mainly “Creations of the Holy Father.” Regarding this, he wrote to the consistory: “Conscious of the extensive benefits for the study of faith and for edification in piety that the publication of the works of the church fathers brings, I propose to the consistory to make an order so that the cathedral city and rural churches of the first three classes would certainly copy out the works of the church fathers for church libraries, starting from the first year of their publication, and continue to copy out their continuation. The deans have to report to me about the fulfillment of this.” And what significance he gave to this publication, he spoke about it in a letter to Gorsky. “The church fathers, especially Rev. Efremov Sirip, true wayfinding signs.” For the same purpose and in order to occupy the priest’s free time with useful activities, he involved them in joint work on compiling a “Historical and statistical description of the Kharkov diocese,” started church chronicles in which the priests were obliged to make entries about remarkable events in the parish, and obliged them to teach prayers to the people in the church. He, one might say, introduced church preaching in his diocese and insisted on the unmissable delivery of sermons. So, in a proposal dated January 13, 1854, He wrote to the consistory: “According to information that has reached me, many of the priests do not speak the sermons assigned to them, and many almost never offer teachings even from printed books. According to this, it is decided: a) sermons by appointment of the authorities should be delivered only in cities and local city deans have to be censors of sermons; The dean censors have to deliver reports to me every year about whether they are fulfilling or not fulfilling this duty; b) it is an indispensable duty that priests on Sundays and holidays, and especially on the days of the four fasts, speak teachings, if not their own compositions, then from printed books, such as the Synodal teachings of the blessed one. Tikhon of Voronezh about the positions of a Christian, Vladimir, Bishop of Kostroma, and other new teaching and edifying archpastors, first choosing the closest to the state and concept of his flock. The consistory has to issue an order immediately.” Of course, not all priests were recognized as capable of performing such a task, and Filaret, knowing everyone, sometimes made original marks on the dean’s lists, for example, on the schedule of sermons for the deanery in Kharkov in 1850, the priest of the Resurrection Church is shown in the column of the sheet. I.K. indicating the date, month and year when he was obliged to preach the sermon of his composition, Filaret noted: “to occupy himself with a special task, that’s enough for him.” (He sang in the bishop's choir). In the count against the priest of the same church, G.P. - “and did not teach himself good”, Archpriest of the Nativity Church N.M. - “and in his young years had little ability for preaching. Where can an old man be a preacher?” Cathedral Assumption Church. Priest E.M. – “can’t read books. Where can I write anything but nonsense?” The deans themselves were obliged to appear at the cathedral once a year to deliver sermons, which were censored by the rector or inspector of the Seminary. Teachers of the theological school and Seminary were not exempt from this duty and preached sermons once or twice a year, most often during Lent at the so-called passions. At these passions, Filaret himself delivered his “precious for the soul and heart,” “Conversations about the suffering of our Lord Jesus Christ,” in the Intercession Monastery. Looking through the records of the dean, those priests who did not give instructions without good reason were fined 2 and 3 rubles. in favor of a girls' school. Filaret did not limit himself to viewing the reports, but suddenly demanded, in addition to the consistory, from the dean to present all the sermons delivered by the priests, setting a very short period of one week in order to discover where the deception was committed and warn it in the future. Such orders from Filaret tell us that he was a man of the system and persistent. He didn’t do things jokingly and didn’t count because if a paper number was issued, it was the end of the matter. In order to refresh the memory of the clergy and constantly maintain their theological knowledge, at every opportunity, and especially during the review of the diocese, he tested them on dogmatic and moral theology, on schism, and immediately offered to say a few words in the form of a brief lesson to the common people against drunkenness, theft, theology, etc. He tested deacons and clergy in their knowledge of the catechism, church rules and singing; More often than not, the latter were examined by the Seminary inspector, Archimandrite Jacob, or members of the consistory, Archpriest. I. Gapopov. These tests instilled such fear in the clergy that during a tour of the diocese in 1849, 100 people disappeared, for which they were fined in favor of the school: priests 1 ruble, deacons 50 kopecks. and clerks for 25 kopecks. This is how dean Fr. Grieg. Timoshevsky, the state of mind of the clergy in anticipation of the exam, Rev. Filareta “There was an exam coming up. This was in 1855. This is where the clergy, both old and young, became alarmed. A terrible task lay ahead—an exam. We were all waiting for the bishop in the church. I confess that I, too, became afraid when I saw that the Seminary inspector, Archimandrite Jacob, a strict ascetic, and Archpriest Gapopov, a famous preacher, had arrived with the bishop. The Bishop ordered everyone to go to my house, there will be an exam here. And the clergy went with great fear. And what happened to him before the bishop’s arrival is difficult to convey. All these brethren walked around the garden with the catechism and read it, while the more courageous and jokers hid the books with their comrades. The noise and almost general despair: he runs around shouting: “Now I’m lost!” another promises to go on a pilgrimage to Voronezh after a successful exam, etc. In short, while waiting for the bishop there was such turmoil that it’s difficult to express.” However, for the most part, Filaret found the priests’ theological knowledge satisfactory, and for others, very thorough. Having thus become acquainted with the clergy on the spot, he made notes on the list against each person, for example: “Priest S.S. responded very well during the test, keep special attention.” "Priest I.R. very satisfactory." “Priest I. Ch. It’s very good to have special attention.” "Prot. N.S. is excellent, capable and well-intentioned, and should be given special attention, among other things, when important assignments need to be done.” Such a mark is very valuable for the church. Sometimes, following a complaint against a dean, the diocesan bishop, not knowing the moral qualities of the person, instructs another to carry out an investigation, who, expecting that the first may soon be assigned to carry out an investigation over him, covers up errors, to the temptation of parishioners and to the detriment of church authority. "AND. G. priest is knowledgeable, educated and capable.” “Priest S.P. answered well.” “Priest M. is quite reasonable.” “Priest N.D. is very good and deserves gratitude.” “Priest G.S. answered very well during the test - to have special attention,” etc. Of course, there were also priests who could not earn Philaret’s approval and about them he made the following, for example, notes: “St. I. D. is an ignoramus.” "Holy I.K. is weak.” "Holy I.Y. is of little use.” "Holy I. Zh. knows little about baptism.” "Holy M.R. is bad, he doesn’t know how to say anything against theft.” "Holy A.N. he’s a fool, he doesn’t know anything.” Although this rarely happened, sometimes the answers of the priests were characterized by a complete lack of knowledge even of the dogmas of the faith. So for example, priest. G.F. and A.A. to the question: “how many persons are there in Jesus Christ” both answered: “two.” To the question: “Who is Jesus Christ by nature?” Prot. N.V. answered: “The Savior, born of a virgin,” and to the question: “How many persons are there in Jesus Christ?” answered: “five.” Meanwhile, this archpriest was the rector of the Belovodsky Cathedral. Filaret was struck by such ignorance of the cathedral archpriest. He immediately ordered to take away a certificate about him, according to which it turned out that P.V. was appointed sexton to the Belovodsky Cathedral in 1808, a deacon in 1820, and in 1823 he took the place of his father’s priest there. In 1842, for exemplary behavior and zeal for the splendor of the church, for which he donated 4,600 rubles from his own funds, His Eminence Innokenty Borisov elevated him to the rank of archpriest, and in 1847, at his recommendation, the Synod awarded him a skufia. Recognizing the merits of Archpriest P.V. Filaret left him in place, but called him to Kharkov and forced him under the leadership of Archpriest. AND. Sharotsky, study the tenets of faith. In gratitude for his education, the old man donated 100 rubles to the girls' school. And here is the memory of another archpriest, S. Sulima, about Philaret’s exams. “What interested each (priest) most was that Filaret, upon reviewing the diocese, planned to examine the clergy and transfer those well versed in theology to the best places, and those who provided unsatisfactory answers to the worst. Some were happy about this, but others, especially the old people, were embarrassed. The spring of 1849 came and Filaret undertook his trips around the diocese, and with them the exams. Having agreed with his seminary comrade, Fr. John Rudinsky, we arrived in advance, three days before the appointed time, to our Alekseevsky fortress, where an exam was scheduled at the house of Dean Pavel Kovalevsky, rented an apartment and began reading seminar notebooks on dogmatic theology. Our apartment turned into a temporary school, where some priests came to listen to our lessons. Vladyka was somewhere on the road and, contrary to his schedule, was two days late. Suddenly, at about 11 am, a bell rang. We all perked up. Seeing the pale faces of my comrades (and, of course, I myself turned pale), I involuntarily, in an almost trembling voice, said: “What fear, St. attacked us with the extraordinary ringing of bells and the approach of the lord of the examiner, a man servile like us. What will happen when the angelic trumpets sound and call us to the world exam to the ruler of heaven and earth. Now we will give an answer for ourselves, and then for our flock.” Everyone was silent and, bowing their heads to the ground, walked with quiet steps up the mountain to the church. Here the dean placed us near the pulpit on the right side. There were a lot of people. Here comes the Eminence and with him a member of the consistory, Archpriest. I. Gaponov. The Reverend was small in stature, his face was very handsome, but exhausted and pale, the hair on his head and beard was black, he wore his hood very low, looked more down, and when he raised his head, his gaze seemed serious, even somewhat angry. After the dean finished the usual prayer at the meeting, the bishop said a few words to the people and then began to give them a blessing, and we all went to the dean’s house. Dear one of the priests, and how I remember St. M.L., tells me: I was so frightened by the stern gaze of the Eminence that, in all likelihood, I will not answer a single question. Well, if the bishop says: prove from the Holy Scriptures the Divinity of St. Spirit, but I forgot all the texts.” Listen, I tell him: “Ananias, why Satan fill your heart”... “I remember, I remember, L interrupted me.” So what? The Bishop actually asked this lucky man about the Divinity of St. Spirit and he got off with this text, even told him it was good. Even before the exam began, some priests took Rudinsky and me to give advice in difficult cases; I had to stand on the right side of the priests, and Fr. Rudinsky on the left. To the share of the saint. Rudinsky's lot fell to prove the divine dignity of I. Christ on the basis of Holy Scripture. An easy question, Rudinsky thought and boldly answered that the Apostle John at the beginning of his Gospel says: in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was to God, and God was the Word. Here the word refers to the second person of St. Trinity. “How can you prove this?” The lord asks. “The fact,” Rudinsky answered, is that in the very first chapter of his Gospel the Apostle ascribes incarnation to this Word: the Word became flesh. Having praised him for this answer, the Bishop says: “Well, now explain every word of the Gospel.” Rudinsky calmly and thoughtfully answered that in the beginning it means the pre-eternal existence of Jesus Christ, it was with God - it means His unity with God the Father: but at the last words of the text he was completely at a loss: instead of saying - the Word was God, he said God was the Word. “No, the lord remarks to him, repeat again.” He repeated as before. I told him: ὄ λόγος. The Bishop says: “They tell you ὄ λόγος” and at the same time said the whole phrase in Greek: θεός ἠν ὄ λόγος. Rudinsky became even more confused and silent. Then the bishop tells him: “here λόγος is obviously the person about whom the Evangelist is discussing, and θεός is the predicate of the Word; θεός therefore, which is a predicate, is put without number. This means that the words θεός ἠν ὄ λόγος should be translated as follows: The Word is God himself. Be sure to notice this to me well.” “Well, now tell me, prompter,” the bishop turned to me: “how else can one prove the Divinity of the second person of St. Trinity? “The miracles of Jesus Christ,” I answered. “Miracles,” says the Bishop, were performed by the apostles and prophets, but miracles cannot prove the Divinity of Jesus Christ.” The prophets and apostles worked miracles, I answered, not with their own power given to them by God, but Jesus Christ performed miracles with the power of his Divinity. He not only raised the dead, but he himself rose from the dead. To resurrect oneself was the greatest miracle of all miracles and it is characteristic only of the Son of God.” With this answer, as far as I remember, my exam ended. He expressed neither praise nor censure, but made some kind of note against my name in the dean’s list. Some priests were greatly embarrassed for their bad answers, calling them ignorant, ignorant, fools, such priests who had been in the service for more than 40 years. In many deanery districts there were not uncommon examples when Philaret immediately fined priests and deacons who were very weak in theology in the examination to the cash desk of some institution, summoned them to Kharkov and assigned one of the city priests to teach them, or transferred them to worse places.” What kind of knowledge did Filaret find among the clerks? Some of them turned out to be completely illiterate, unable to sing, read or write. If any of them showed disapproving behavior, he immediately reprimanded him: he made him bow, sent him to study in a monastery or to a neighboring cleric who knew singing and rules well, or removed him from service altogether. He himself noted the punishment assigned to him on the list; to those who were in their place in terms of knowledge and good behavior, he declared gratitude; his entries in the lists were distinguished by their variety, originality, and impressiveness. Let's return to the priest's story. “About six months after this exam, the bishop demanded me to come to him. After reporting about me, the bishop came out holding a notebook in his hand. It turned out that this was the sheet where he entered his exam marks.” “His first question was: “You completed the course so well, why did you enter a poor place?” “This place,” I answered, was assigned to me by the Reverend. Innocent, when I was still behind the bench of the seminary. Having married an orphan immediately after completing the course, I immediately entered this position.” “It does you honor,” said Bishop, “I also praise you for continuing to study theological subjects; I offer you a rich parish in the settlement of Voloskaya Balakleyka, do you agree?” I expressed my consent in silence, falling at his feet. Returning to me the petition, which, on his orders, I wrote right there in his office, he said: “There is a senior priest there, Z.A., there was unrest in his church, and apparently he is illiterate, I appointed you as a senior priest.” For the second time I fell at his feet. The next year, while passing through the city of Kupyansk, the bishop visited the Balakleya Church. At the meeting, I stood in vestments in the middle of the church and the usual short prayer was going on; my comrade, priest. Bishop Z.A. called to the altar to explain to him the three images painted on the altar walls. He explained two of them (the Savior’s prayer for the cup and the breaking of bread at Emmaus), but he failed to explain the third – the angel holding a lantern in his right hand and a mirror in his left. Then the bishop offered to explain it to me. I said that according to the interpretation of the church fathers, a mirror means a mirror of God’s destinies for the salvation of the human race, and a burning candle in a lantern, although luminous, is covered with glass, means that these destinies of God were closed until time.” “It’s a shame,” he said to the priest. Wow, to see this image in front of you for so many years and not be interested in finding out its meaning.” After inspecting the church records and the sacristy, he went to the young priest’s house, drank a cup of tea and, at parting, blessed his family, and ordered him to come to the city of Kupyansk and serve with him the next day. At the service, he awarded him a loincloth. After the first exam, Filaret, in his proposal to the consistory, stated: “although the clergy of the Kharkov diocese, in their lives, especially in the spirit of meekness and love of peace, generally makes us thank the Lord for them, the information of very many priests, deacons and clerics in the dogmas of faith is very weak. This undoubtedly depends on the fact that one does not engage in either reading books or thinking about faith. Almost nowhere did I happen to see, either in the church or among the priests, even Philaret’s lengthy catechism. Therefore, it is necessary that all priests and deacons be equipped with lengthy catechisms, and all clerics with Philaret’s short catechisms, and be encouraged to study the subjects of faith with due diligence, since a priest especially must be ready to answer every question about faith according to the Apostle.” Such a tour of the diocese left a deep imprint on church life. This was not a formal tour of the diocese, where the bishop is seen while harnessing horses, and not always, but briefly in the church. We know how some diocesan bishops drew up such routes for their vicars that the latter did not have the physical ability to complete them, even without stopping anywhere, and they were not able to get to the designated point for the night. What results can you expect from such a review? Knowing closely the needs of the church, becoming personally acquainted with the pastors and the clergy, he unerringly made appointments, without yielding to anyone’s intercession or to any pressure. We cited his answers to the person closest to his soul, N.N. Romanovsky, but we will give another case as an example. The head of the eight districts of the Ukrainian military settlement, Lieutenant General Baron Engelgart, asked to dismiss the old priest of the 1st district, Slob. Preobrazhenskaya Korniliev and transfer his nephew, the priest, to his place. With. Berezovy Grigory Popov. Resolution of Filaret (April 6. 1851). “To answer on my behalf to the general that I agree to the dismissal of Korniliev for reasons of decrepitude and illness, but I cannot agree to the transfer of Popov, because Popov, among 49 of his comrades, completed his studies as only 42 students, that is, one of the last, while the Preobrazhensky parish, where there are 1,393 men of one gender, requires a priest with a good stock of information and with good gifts of mind and heart.” At the same time, Filaret suggested a student from the Gav Seminary there. Vertelovsky. Priest Popov himself made a request for his transfer, supporting it with the fact that he had already bought a house in Preobrazhenskoye for 250 rubles. Filaret put the following resolution on the petition: “if a merchant is deceived in trading: who is responsible? Let him not forget that the merchant is an unreliable priest.” Again the general made the same request to Filaret. Philaret’s resolution: to answer that for the reasons stated in the previous relation, I cannot appoint the unworthy Popov in Kornilyev’s place as an insult to my conscience and to my worthy students, especially since according to the laws of the church, neither kinship nor monetary calculations should be included in discussions about the rights to the priesthood! On his first tour of the diocese, Filaret examined the peasants and encountered their complete ignorance; many of them did not know the simplest prayers. Filaret entrusted the priests with the responsibility of teaching the people prayers in the church itself. In a proposal to the consistory, he wrote: “I noticed that few priests are engaged in teaching people prayers and the rules of piety, and in rare churches I happened to see such a useful book for the common people as Tikhon of Zadonsk on the duties of a Christian. That is why I consider it especially appropriate that my gratitude be declared to Archpriest Lobkovsky, priests John of Chizhevsky and Theodore of Tirana for their diligence in teaching the people Christian piety. Meanwhile, it is necessary: ​​a) to oblige all rural priests to subscribe so that they are zealously engaged in teaching the people prayers, the rules of faith and piety; b) make it a duty that after each Sunday liturgy the priests themselves, or, at their order, someone else from the clergy, should read aloud the prayers “Heavenly King,” “Holy Trinity,” “Our Father,” “Open the doors of mercy to us,” and the commandments of God, and each of the people would repeat the words aloud after the teacher. It goes without saying that training should be carried out until the majority knows by heart everything that is indicated above. Especially young people getting married should test whether they know the necessary prayers, and urgently demand that they learn the necessary prayers. But the latter, firstly, then should be required when training on the part of the priests has already been done, and secondly, the requirement - this not only should not be combined with types of self-interest, but even suspicion of this should be rejected in every possible way, otherwise violators of this will be judged with all severity; c) make it a duty for priests to read the works of St. for the people as often as possible. Tikhon on duties, Synodic weekly teachings, etc. This applies mainly to rural churches, since for the common people other kinds of teachings are little understood or completely incomprehensible, and, therefore, useless; d) make it a duty for the dean to strictly monitor the implementation of these instructions and to report those who do not comply, under the fear of being held accountable for those who are negligent. It is their duty to inform them which churches do not have a book about the duties of a Christian, and to ensure that the consistory sends the required number of copies of this necessary book.” According to his custom, Filaret here did not limit himself to paper with a well-known number, but checked the fulfillment during his rounds, testing children and adult peasants in the knowledge of the Law of God. In 1855, he could already in the report of St. To write to the Synod about the religious state of the flock: “the knowledge of the rural parishioners of the basic truths of the faith and the most necessary prayers has noticeably increased, because I paid special attention to this subject from the priests.” There are five monasteries in the Kharkov diocese, of which three are male and two are female. Kuryazhsky-Preobrazhensky male and Khoroshevsky Voznesensky female have existed for a long time; but they did not have a hostel. The Khoroshevsky Monastery was particularly disgraceful. On his first visit to this monastery, Filaret was delighted with the beauty of its area; but the squalor, neglect and internal turmoil of the monastery outraged his spirit. The nuns' cells were a bunch of nondescript, dilapidated huts, among which the abbess's cell did not stand out in any way. Everything was built without a plan, dishonestly. There was also a house for pilgrims and 6 huts for ministers. Due to the cramped space, many of the cells were located outside the monastery, and therefore there was almost no supervision over the sisters who lived there. When Filaret compared the plan of the monastery with the actual location of the buildings, it turned out that they completely deviated from the plan. For example, the alley on the north side was completely built up and so crowded that in the event of a fire there was no way for those living in them to escape. On the southern side of the Archangel Church there was a danger of fire from the cells with which it was covered. The cells, constituting the property of those living in them, were transferred according to the terms of sale and purchase, which caused quarrels, litigation, and displeasure. A month after Filaret’s arrival in Kharkov, a distinguished old nun, who had lived in the monastery for more than 40 years, came to him asking for a financial allowance from the amount of trusteeship, since she belonged to the clergy and had no means of living. Filaret turned to the abbess with the following proposal: “The kind and experienced mother abbess will take care of supporting the petitioner on the income of the monastery. At the same time, I invite her to consider opening a common meal for the poor sisters and novices, for the first time for a small number, and present her considerations to me. I convince you of this both through Christian love and through the examples of Christians of the apostolic era.” It turned out that the monastery not only did not have a dormitory, but there was neither a hospital nor an almshouse for the elderly. Each nun lived separately, at her own expense, which some received from loved ones, while others earned money by embroidering gold or decorating icons in foil. Those who did not have benefactors and were not able to earn money became beggars. Meanwhile, worrying about their day alienated the sisters from their direct vowed responsibilities, and their time was consumed by vanity. The novices could always be found in the city, where they often spent the night, where the nuns sent them with instructions to buy what they needed for their work and food. Such constant wandering of young novices around the crowded city did not meet the requirements of monastic life. “Monastic community,” Philaret told the sisters in one of the conversations, “is the renunciation of all property in favor of society and, as a result, the renunciation of any desire, as soon as it is found to be in disagreement with the types of monastic society.” He did not miss a single service in the monastery without giving instructions to the sisters in his church conversation, sometimes warning them threateningly. “Beloved sisters! You are happy, but know how to take advantage of your happiness. Be careful not to go down the mountain (the monastery is located on a high mountain). It is not smart to exchange the clean air of the monastery for the stifling air of the world. Beware of reviving connections with the abandoned world under the pretext of innocent love for family and friends. How long until this connection drags a weak soul there irrevocably? Let your thoughts and hearts steadily look to the sky. From there is salvation for our weak souls. Be reasonable about your stay on the mountain. Among you there should not be a Rachel who carried away idols from Laban’s house, there should not be anyone who would secretly bring here idols of carnality and self-indulgence. If on a desert mountain they grumble about its poverty, about its labors, about its desert boredom: is that not what the Israelites are doing, who sighed in the desert about the meats and cauldrons of Egypt? Oh, let them maintain patience in themselves by the memory of the fate of those who sighed for meat. They died in the graves of lust." When the abbess reported that the nuns were so overwhelmed by household chores that during services, especially in the morning, the church was often empty, Filaret, in his next service, addressed the sisters with the following speech: “sisters in the Lord! God knows: I’m afraid for you. You made a vow to devote your time to prayer, how do you fulfill it? How? Is your church empty during Matins? Who are you? Why are you in the holy fence? Or do you think that you can laugh with impunity at the abode of prayer with your life? And you laugh at her, you disgrace her when you transform her from the abode of prayer into the abode of serving the whims of the flesh. “What to do”? They say: “you need food and clothing, it takes time to acquire both.” Who gave you the charter of caring Marthas? Who is stopping you from allowing two or three of you to perform Martha’s services out of obedience, so that everyone else remains blessed Mary? Would they only have air when they made a vow, to follow the rules of community life and prayer? Come to your senses, be afraid of your situation, think about what awaits those who break their vows to God. My God! What blinding! I like to always be at the service of my whims. Whose hell is it if not the slaves of whim and self-will? They exchange a conversation with the Lord for a conversation with petty objects of vanity. And they still think of being close to the Lord. Have mercy on yourself. You will cry out: Lord, Lord, open to us, but the Lord will say, “We don’t know you.” Filaret decided to introduce a hostel in both monasteries. The Kuryazhsky Monastery unquestioningly fulfilled the will of its ruler. But the spirit of self-will that reigned in the Khoroshevsky Monastery presented Philaret with many difficulties and brought him a lot of sorrow and tears, as we will see below. Filaret planned to rebuild the entire monastery, tear down the dilapidated shacks and build five stone buildings, with a church in one of them. According to the estimate, this required 100 thousand rubles. The monastery had no money. But this did not stop Filaret. A huge brick factory was set up at the monastery, and several reliable nuns were sent out to collect books. Filaret personally appealed to many familiar landowners and merchants, published in the Kharkov Gazette “an appeal to all Orthodox Christians, inviting “with their love in Christ to help for the restoration of the Holy Monastery, which for two centuries was the subject of special care of the nobility and Cossacks of Ukraine.” At the same time, he invited the abbots of the monasteries to donate from the monastic funds; instructed the priests to collect donations for the benefit of the monastery for three years, paid fine money here, asked the State Property Department to release free forests, and the first one donated more than 3,000 rubles. Meanwhile, Filaret forbade nuns from dragging around the city and ordered that they contact the abbess about their needs. Since the abbess was a weak woman, Filaret summoned nun Antonina Chubarova, the daughter of a landowner, from the Tambov Ascension Monastery, and gave her the position of abbess of the Khoroshevsky Monastery. With her assistance, he immediately, as an experiment, established a common meal, persuading the less stubborn to eat from the common meal. Through the efforts of the new abbess and Elizabeth's treasurers, funds were secured. This included: 1) bread, etc. products from 100 acres of arable monastery land; 2) grinding from two monastery mills, 3) fish from two quite extensive lakes of the monastery, 4) income from the sale of prosphora, 5) all donations of food and money for vigilant reading of the psalter at meals with prayer for the souls of the departed, 6) all income from the sale of various monastic products, for which each sister, eating from a common meal, was obliged to work three days a week for a common cause, 7) proceeds from publications Philaret “historical and statistical description of the monasteries of the Kharkov diocese.” In the spring of 1852, Filaret began construction, which he supervised himself, delving into the smallest details. In less than 2 years, the first three-story building was completed, its size can be judged by the premises arranged there: on the top floor there are 18 cells, cells for all commanders and the bishop’s reception chambers, on the second there are 34 cells and a bright and spacious refectory, on the lower floor there are 12 cells, kitchens and 4 basements. In addition, stone services and a hotel for pilgrims were built. Back at the end of 1852, Filaret wrote to St. Innocent: “The affairs of the Khoroshevsky Monastery are little by little getting better. The number of people participating in the common meal increases of their own free will. Now up to 130 poor and zealous for a serene life are fed.” Of course, with the construction of new buildings and an extensive refectory, their number should have increased; but at the same time, displeasure grew among the stubborn nuns, accustomed to self-will and to their corners. After all, in order to erect these vast stone houses, it was necessary to destroy those half-rotten nests, where each one considered herself almost independently the owner of the nest with its small bed, flower bed or acacia or plum tree. Entering the new cell of the stone building, each felt that life was changing, perhaps for the better for the soul, but to the detriment of earthly habits. But Filaret, serving the church and the cause of salvation, was least inclined to make concessions to the vain whims of the flesh. Having taken up the task of rebuilding, or rather creating a well-maintained monastery out of this bunch of shacks, he loved this work, as was his custom, as his brainchild. Noticing, for example, how difficult it was to deliver water to a high mountain, he built a water-lifting machine at his own expense, which cost him 2,300 rubles. Having arranged this, he wrote to Innocent: “The water-lifting machine is already delivering to the monastery mountain over 60 steps. For the future, this will preserve the health of many, many women residents of Khoroshev, who were already suffering miserably. Over the course of three years, the rank of the hostel became so strong that Filaret considered it timely to seek a blessing from the highest spiritual authority, and therefore wrote about this to the Synod, reporting among other things: “each of the sisters who enjoys a common meal has less worries and worldly worries about her existence. They listen to the church service without entertainment and distractions about the morning day - what to eat and drink. Having an extensive meal, some certainly get rid of envy, and others from whimsicality, yet they exactly fulfill the church rules on food and drink, which did not happen in Khoroshevo under the reign of cell self-will, who even allowed themselves to be drunk. Under the previous way of life, young novices were sent by their elders to the city, either according to the actual needs of the cell, or under the pretext of their own needs, and this taught the young to absent-mindedness and various vices of the spirit. It was not possible to stop these disastrous absences from the city while they could point to the numerous needs of cell life.” The Holy Synod approved the dormitories, expressing the desire “that the very clothing of the monastics should be public, so that in this regard the nuns would be detached from everyday needs and concerns.” The desire expressed by St. The Synod, of course, was to Philaret’s liking and he immediately laid the foundation for capital for the construction of clothes for poor nuns, donating 1000 rubles himself. Filaret allowed admission into the monastery no other way than with submission to the cenobitic rules. Philaret managed to significantly increase the monastery's real estate. At his request, 12 acres of meadow and hay land and 40 acres of forest were allocated to the monastery from state dachas, and 40 acres were purchased with monastic funds. The very success of the buildings indicates that these funds came significantly from private donations. Thanks to them and the diligence of the abbess, Filaret restored the Ascension Church and expanded the Arkhangelsk Church with the addition of two chapels. When his trustee, General S.N. Gerasimova, donated a significant amount for this item and expressed a desire for one of the chapels to be dedicated in memory of St. patron, the Right Reverend, Filaret wrote a resolution: “let, at the request of the monastery’s benefactor S.N. Gerasimova, one chapel of the winter church be in the name of the righteous Filaret, who will also pray for the sinful Filaret.” In 1854, Filaret expressed gratitude to the abbess and the treasurer for his efforts in establishing the monastery, adding them to his service record, and granted the right, when, due to old age or other reasons, they wish to leave their position, to occupy a cell of 3 rooms each in the new building until their death; in 1855, at the request of Philaret, Abbess Antonina received the blessing of St. Synod, and the following year a pectoral cross, as stated in the decree, for the work of bringing the monastery into better shape by constructing stone buildings and for establishing the most orderly and orderly order in the monastery, which stopped many of the disorders that had troubled the diocesan authorities until that time. And here Filaret, having removed himself from retribution for his labors, nominates his assistants to his superiors; and he himself was content with the consolation that the good deed he had completed to the end gave him. He received such consolation after finishing the first buildings of the monastery, its main building and laying a solid foundation for the hostel. Many townspeople were invited to the consecration. Filaret himself consecrated and blessed the first meal. By this time, he had also built a warm church in the monastery in the name of Philaret the Merciful. Everyone could read Filaret’s joy at the sight of his thoughts and worries being fulfilled on his face. He himself took all visitors around the new building, explaining the purpose of each room. Entry to the monastery was very inconvenient: you had to either drive far from the village of Babaev through the landowners' fields and forest, or from the village of Khorosheva climb a steep, rutted mountain. Having looked around this area, Filaret immediately pointed out to the abbess where a direct and convenient entry could be arranged, directly from the village of Babaev. The abbess carried out his instructions unquestioningly. They dug up the mountain on the eastern side, strengthened the ravines formed by spring water with stakes and wattle fences, and thus built a good road, shortening the route by 2-3 miles. He ordered to plant forests along the mountain; but, having learned that the neighboring peasants would thereby lose their pastures, he canceled this order. Although the matter had already been established well and firmly, and although the abbess, as we noted, was a diligent executor of her archpastor’s plan; but Philaret kept a vigilant watch over the monastery and often sent the dean or cathedral keymaster, Archpriest M. there to inspect and report to him whether his instructions were being followed exactly. The monastery required many more constructions and corrections. Having fallen significantly in the eyes of the people, thanks to the lack of any splendor and decorum in him, he attracted little worshipers to himself. Filaret immediately raised the monastery. Every year, on a church holiday, he himself served, giving the service a special solemnity. He himself walked around the walls of the monastery with a procession of the cross, and then blessed the loaves and distributed them to the people with the help of the concelebrating clergy. People began to flock in thousands. In order to further strengthen the hostel, he donated the second volume of the “Historical and Statistical Description of the Kharkov Diocese” and bequeathed 2 thousand rubles. One must be surprised at the speed of construction and the abundance of funds for them in one city and at the most unfavorable time, when there was complete stagnation of industry and when the incessant roar of cannons under the walls of Sevastopol, echoing pain in the Russian heart, prompted everyone to make sacrifices in defense of the fatherland. How did Filaret react to this difficult time for the fatherland? When, upon receipt of the decree calling the Kharkov province to the state militia, an extraordinary meeting of the nobility was opened on August 23, 1855, which brought together up to 500 nobles, Filaret made a speech before the oath. He pointed out the readiness of the nobles to take an important oath more than ever, taking to heart the suffering of the fatherland from the enemies surrounding it, the need for donations for its needs, the importance of the assignment to the nobility - to elect from among its defenders. He talked about how, no matter how vigilantly self-interest looks at its own benefits, it is blind, and only Christian love is far-sighted. He recalled the meeting of Monomakh with the princes on the occasion of the expected raid of the Polovtsians, when the wise and pious prince said to the squad: “It’s strange to me that you feel sorry for the horses that need to be plowed, but you won’t think about the fact that when the peasant begins to plow, the Polovtsian will gallop in, kill him with an arrow, take his horse, and in the village his wife and children and all his property. Will this be better? - and then he added that we are not expecting the Polovtsians, but the ferocious Polovtsians have already invaded the borders of our fatherland, that the present Polovtsians destroyed our brothers more than those who were ferocious out of greed for the property of others. One must leave aside all calculations of self-interest, the vigilance of which is so doubtful, and give one’s word before the Lord to fulfill the King’s order with a clear conscience, to do it holy, no matter how hard the soul may be.” “Give your word,” he said in conclusion, “to make a great sacrifice to the fatherland and to the Lord with the firmness of a Christian, for whom there is nothing on earth and everything in heaven.” Within three days, the nobles elected 228 officers from among themselves for 12 squads. One of the nobles describes the enthusiasm that enveloped the nobility in the following words: “The subsequent Highest decree on the formation of a militia occupied the minds of all classes. Everything was excited. Donations poured in like a river, all kinds of material sacrifices were nothing: crackers, sheepskin coats, oxen parkas, everything was willingly given by the nobility to help the common cause. But more than just material sacrifices were made: it was rare that a noble family did not send a healthy member of its own to the active army.” Filaret himself not only did not restrain the clergy of his diocese who asked to join the army; but he willingly blessed them for this feat. So, at the request of the school’s mentor, a former seminarian, Nikolai Yakhontov, Filaret gave the following resolution: “he is resigning from the clergy to enter, if desired, into the ranks of the defenders of the fatherland. May God bless your good wish. Issue all necessary documents immediately.” Just like Rev. Sergius gave Dmitry Donskoy the monks of Peresvet and Ooslabya, Philaret chose his best hieromonks of the Svyatogorsk monastery o.o. Benjamin and Nicander will accompany the soldiers and serve as consolation for them. Both of them justified their choice: for heroic deeds of philanthropy under a hail of bullets they were awarded medals, orders and cabinet crosses on the St. George ribbon. Both later became archimandrites, and the first was even a knight of St. Anna 1st degree. After the completion of the formation of the militia, which caused misunderstandings in other provinces, Filaret reported to the Holy Synod on March 20, 1855, according to all the reports of the dean, when electing the warriors of the militia, the clergy of the Kharkov diocese behaved with exemplary decency to their rank and not only none of the clergy incurred a single complaint or reproach during the accomplishment of the great work between peasants of the diocese, but received commendable reviews from the military authorities, for which we must thank the great shepherd chief Christ Jesus the Lord.” He kept silent about his own prudent management. Filaret looked at the war as God’s punishment for sins, so in his speeches to the soldiers he called everyone to repentance. These words were later published under the title “The Voice of God to the Sinner.” “But woe,” he wrote to Romanovsky, “the war seems to continue. It is heard that soon there will be a new recruitment from all over Russia, and from the indigenous Moscow Russia there will also be additional militia of 6 and 7 per thousand. Apparently, our sins still require a scourge; Apparently we’re repenting poorly.” Filaret's correspondence with Romanovsky during the war reveals to us how deeply this disaster touched and cared for Filaret; His activities during this time speak about this. When news was received that troops would pass through Kharkov, Filaret made the following proposal to the consistory (15 Lelh. 1853). since many regiments will soon pass through the city of Kharkov for the war for St. the Christian faith against the enemies of Christ's name - the Mohammedans, moreover, during a harsh winter, then offer to persons in charge of the consistory living in the city of Kharkov, so that whoever can donate money in favor of the soldiers of Christ. For my part, I donate 150 rubles for this. Now the city clergy has collected the same amount. Since this amount was too insignificant to provide financial assistance, Filaret gave it another purpose. It is impossible to explain on whose initiative the money was collected and who was the main donor, Filaret forwarded it to the city governor Kokoshkin, informing him that “that the clergy of the city of Kharkov, wanting to express their prayerful love for the Christ-loving soldiers going to war with the enemies of Christ the Lord and his anointed, the Sovereign Emperor, donated 300 for the troops of the 17th and 18th infantry divisions rub. so that in front of those 12 icons with which these troops will be blessed by him, when they cross through the city of Kharkov, it will burn throughout the war in lamps, as a sign of prayers for them before the Lord. The highest gratitude was declared to the city clergy for this donation. All the clergy, who, following the example of the city, donated 976 rubles, received the same gratitude. Having reported this to the Holy Synod (March 31, 1854), Filaret asked him for a blessing, which was given by the Holy Synod. This, of course, was not the end of the sacrifices of Filaret and the clergy of the Kharkov diocese. It is known how many families of sailors, hero-defenders of Sevastopol, were orphaned. Filaret collected 2,700 rubles for the benefit of these unfortunate people. among the clergy, for which they again received the highest gratitude. Of course, here too there was a significant contribution from Filaret himself, since otherwise he would not have started any collection. Philaret met all the troops from the squad passing through Kharkov to Sevastopol in front of the Church of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker. He chose this place, as he explained to the Synod, because on June 2, the memorable 1709, Emperor Peter the Great, on his way from Azov to Poltava, to this church “offered his fiery prayers before the throne of the King of Kings, preparing to fight the formidable warriors of Charles 12, King of Sweden.” Here Philaret, after a short prayer, sprinkled the soldiers of St. with water, blessed with icons, distributed crosses. Such a lively attitude of the saint inspired everyone and the meeting of the troops became a touching national celebration. Here, for example, is how an eyewitness describes the meeting of the Tula Jaeger Regiment (1853, December 31). “As soon as the regiment took its place, from the Church of St. Nicholas, at the sound of the bells, a spiritual procession came out. Filaret ascended to the pre-prepared pulpit and performed a prayer service; he blessed the regiment commander with an icon of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker and at the same time uttered a short edifying word. The mayor S. Kostyurin brought bread and salt to the chief of the regiment. Then the Right Reverend, with a life-giving cross, walked around all the ranks of the regiment and sprinkled St. water Solemn was that moment when the army and people, with the prayer of the archpastor and the singing of the clergy, with a reverent feeling in their souls and with tears in their eyes, offered up their warm prayers to the King of those reigning for the sending of victories to the Sovereign Emperor and his Christ-loving army. The general, headquarters and chief officers were treated to lunch by the citizens of Kharkov in the beautiful spacious hall of the merchant Pavlov. Sub-ensigns and cadets were treated to lunch by students of the 1st and 2nd gymnasiums. The lower ranks were given rolls and portions of meat, fish and wine. In the summer of 1855, the movement of militia squads through Kharkov began, in total, 40 squads within 7–8 months. Filaret greeted them with the same solemnity.” The clergy dressed in their best vestments. In front, with the ringing of bells, they carried city badges, banners and external crosses, then came the choristers, the clergy, then they carried the miraculous icon of the Mother of God of Ozeryansk or Yeletskaya, overshadowed by ripids, followed by the Reverend. Filaret, always surrounded by many people. All this naturally made a strong impression on the heroes of the occasion. Many squad leaders received St. with tears in their eyes. the icons with which Philaret blessed them, and the spiritual edification that he taught them in his short but powerful speeches. When Filaret walked around the ranks of soldiers, their armor was St. water, and the miraculous image was carried in front of him, the officers ran out of the ranks, kissed the icon and bowed their heads to the water. Each militia especially thirsted for drops of St. to reach him. water and therefore greedily grabbed the drops flying through the air and wiped their faces and heads with them. With the same deep feeling of reverence, they accepted, distributed among the rows, gilded crosses on silk ribbons and breads blessed the day before at the all-night vigil. By the way, let us note that, despite the bad weather and winter cold. Filaret almost always personally met the troops. This is what a living witness says. In the diary of Archimandrite Gerasim on February 10, 1856 it is written: “Today, Rev. Filaret served a liturgy and prayer service for the Kharkov militia and in conclusion made a speech. Frail and weak, barely able to even move his legs from pain, within an hour he seemed to be reborn and, standing in front of the host of warriors, like a trumpet, he raised his voice to the words of the prophet. Then he handed over the icon of the Yeletskaya Mother of God for blessing to the head of this squad and sprinkled all the saints. water, and ordered us to distribute gilded crosses on silk braid to the militia. Leaving for Moscow for a month and a half at the beginning of 1854, Filaret made sure that in his absence, according to the procedure established by him, a meeting of troops and squads was carried out, instructing the rector of the seminary to replace him, about which he made a proposal to the consistory. At the same time, he sent 100 rubles, assigning 25 rubles each. for oil for each icon with which the squad is blessed. Inviting all the clergy to meet troops and squads that should not go through Kharkov in district towns and villages with a short prayer; with a procession of the cross, bells ringing, and sprinkling of St. water. He also charged the dean with the duty of reporting to him about the implementation of his proposal. The meeting of the militia in the city of Sumy and in the city of Akhtyrka of the rifle regiment of the imperial family was especially solemn. Filaret received personal and written gratitude for his sacrifices from Prince. Gorchakov and many militia commanders and written thanks for the touching meeting and blessing by many village priests, which was a great consolation for Filaret. As an example, let us cite from the letters a letter from the head of the Kaluga militia, gr. Tolstoy and Tambov Mr. Zhikharev. The first wrote: “I consider it a pleasant duty to offer my sincere gratitude for your clergy, from whom, during the campaign through the Sumy and Akhtyrsky districts, the Kaluga militia I led received guidance and blessings everywhere. I especially cannot remain silent about the zeal of the priest. Akhtyrsky Intercession Cathedral of Vasily Lopatin, who blessed both me and all the leaders of the militia, the militia entrusted to me with the Highest, with the image of the Akhtyrka Mother of God, with sincere and diligent admonition for the difficult feat ahead of us. In similar circumstances. Where the Russian Christ-loving army is at present, the prayer of the church and the blessing of the ministers is the best consolation for him.” The second wrote: “I thank the priest from the bottom of my heart. With. The settlement of Simeon Ilarionov for his stewardship and cordiality with which squads No. 177–180 and my headquarters were met. Such a priest, in fairness. He does honor to the Russian clergy, and I am pleased to express my feelings for him before your Reverend.” But after the movement of troops came concern for the wounded, who were transported in huge numbers to Kharkov. And Filaret stood ahead of everyone in this matter of philanthropy. He personally visited the wounded, attended to their needs, he invited all classes to donate, giving himself the first example. So at the end of 1855, he distributed complete hospital linen to 40 wounded lower ranks - a sheet, a pillowcase, a shirt, a pair of stockings. Another time, he distributed canvas shirts to 150 wounded. Meanwhile, there was no convenient building to house the wounded, and the accommodation in cramped apartments was completely inconvenient. Governor General Kokoshkin turned to Filaret with a request to give up the seminary building for a temporary hospital. Filaret, without hesitation, immediately transferred the seminary to private homes, without asking permission and without thereby slowing down the matter, and to the Synod in his justification he reported: “Since this real war, more than any other, is a war for the holy Christian faith, then for my part I consider it a sin to refuse such a request from the local provincial authorities.” In order to further revive the matter of caring for the wounded and give it proper organization, Filaret proposed to establish in Kharkov a society for caring for the wounded and sick using the temporary Kharkov military hospital. On this occasion he wrote a book. Gorchakov: “By your order, a temporary military hospital has been established in Kharkov for two thousand wounded and sick soldiers from the brave, Christ-loving Crimean Army led by your brother. Residents of the city Kharkov, constantly nourishing lively and deep sympathy for the plight of our beloved fatherland, and in the present case, they wished, to the best of their ability and means, to contribute to the beneficial care of the government for the valiant defenders of our beloved fatherland, and therefore, for this purpose, they proposed to establish a society for improving the life of the wounded and sick. In presenting the draft charter of the proposed company, I have the honor to humbly ask you to draw your sir’s favorable attention to it and allow this proposal, in order to immediately provide the opportunity to fulfill the desire of the local residents, since at present up to three thousand rubles have already been collected for this subject. With sincere pleasure, having assumed the title of chairman of the company, I consider it my duty to humbly ask your approval, among other changes that you consider necessary to make in the charter of the business, first of all, to allow me to elect as my assistant the vice-governor, Mr. Sivers, who, according to his feelings and rules in this matter, will be a very diligent collaborator of mine. I am appealing to your sir directly in order to avoid any delay in this matter and not to deprive society of the opportunity, with God’s help, to be immediately usefully placed in the local temporary military hospital for the wounded and sick.” Two months later, Prince. Gorchakov, traveling to St. Petersburg, spent the night of January 6 in Kharkov. On the day of Epiphany, listen to the liturgy in the Assumption Cathedral. Filaret ordered that a petition for his health be included at the special litany. Book After the liturgy, Gorchakov inspected the hospital, then visited Filaret and thanked him in the most ardent terms for his care of the wounded. No matter how Filaret hid his activities in his reports, nominating others, they were too noticeable in reality and could not hide before the government, and Filaret received four Highest thanks during the war. Finally, there was talk of peace, gossip and rumors began, saddening the Russian people and bitter for their pride. They also reached Philaret, who in response to them wrote to Romanovsky: “There is nothing new about the children of the Canaanites, but everything that was before is vague and untrue. I think that if anything is done, it won’t be much. Much cannot be done, no matter how much you spin, no matter how much you ring the London Bell (a newspaper published by Herzen). Common sense has not yet been taken away from the Russians, so there is no need to worry.” Finally, the peace of Paris ended the great drama, which claimed many lives and arose from the motives of envy and ill will. In memory of the heroic war, bronze medals were distributed, and bronze crosses were distributed to the Russian Orthodox clergy. But Filaret, recognizing the service of the clergy of the Kharkov diocese during the war as deserving of great distinction compared to others, petitioned the clergy of his diocese, since the Kharkov province was under martial law, to receive bronze medals on the St. Andrew's ribbon. At the very time when the war broke out, the Kharkov province, among others, suffered another disaster - cholera. When the civil authorities found means to weaken its power, Filaret tried to spiritually prepare his flock for the great test and strengthen the prayerful mood of the inhabitants, deeply believing in the power of prayer. In all the city churches, prayer singing was performed; in the month of June, the miraculous icon of the Ozeryanskaya Mother of God was delivered from the Kuryazhsky Monastery, and in front of it, among the crowd of people, on the cathedral square, Filaret served a prayer service with kneeling. August came, the cholera did not stop. “Cholera is reaping among us,” Filaret wrote to Gorsky. By order of the saint, on August 1, St., especially revered by the parishioners, were brought to the procession to the river from all churches. icons. At the end of the blessing of water, each clergy walked around with the sprinkling of St. water borders and streets of his parish. Strengthened and truly paternal preaching was another feature of Philaret’s activity during this time. He did not threaten the wrath of God, but tried to encourage the fallen spirit of his flock and call them to internal self-correction.” Despite his chronic stomach suffering, he, with the same purpose, undertook his journey through the diocese, choosing places where the disease was especially rampant. In some places he served liturgy, in others prayer services, pronouncing an edifying word as a consolation. Inviting his friend Romanovsky to accompany him, he wrote: “it seems it would not be superfluous if I say that someone will preach about the afterlife.” The thought that he himself was close, perhaps, to death, which apparently never left him, was especially now inherent in his soul. And he began his first sermon like this. “Whoever you are, a wanderer of earthly life, soon both your soul and mine will have to part with the earth. This thought is so natural, especially at a time when a destructive disease so unexpectedly escorts you from earth to another world.” At the same time he wrote to Innocent. “Now I often have the desire to die, to lie down and rest. What good is there in my life? And then a spiritual testament was written to them. Finally, in mid-September the illness stopped. Grateful before God for his mercy, on September 20, Filaret performed a liturgy and a grateful prayer service in the Assumption Cathedral on the cathedral square. Not only the church, but also the square were full of people. An eyewitness describes the general impression as follows: as soon as the sacred council of clergy, headed by the bishop, came out with the shrine to the square to bring thanks to the all-good providence for deliverance from the destructive disease, touching joy was reflected on all faces. The assurance of the mother of our church that the creator was not completely angry with his creation, in an instant, as if by some invisible force, calmed those present.” In 1855, for his successful work with the rank of vice-president of the Kharkov Prison Committee, he received the Highest blessing. This means that he will devote a large share of his work and worries here too. However, this was also attested to by his contemporaries. His significant work “Historical and statistical description of the Kharkov diocese” dates back to this time. He involved almost the entire clergy of the diocese in this work. He compiled questions and forwarded them to the deans and priests. The priests were obliged to enter answers to the proposed questions, which should constitute the information he needed, into memorial notebooks and have them in the churches. He himself looked through all these notebooks presented to him through the deans, made corrections and changes, and returned them for correspondence. This was one of his first orders upon arrival in Kharkov. In the very first summer (1849), he spent two months touring the diocese and did not lose sight of anything that could enrich him with information about the region. And in 1851, his overview of the diocese was so detailed that he had to travel through other places two or three times. Ch.N. helped him a lot in this matter. Romanovsky. He, seeing how much Filaret valued every chronicle sheet, rummaged through the archives himself, reviewed the archives and consistory papers of his landowner friends, and delivered to Filaret many documents and written monuments of Ukraine that were very valuable for his work. As an old-timer, he conveyed to Filaret many folk legends about the initial settlement of the city of Valok and its district: “I look forward to your writings about Fr. Archpriest and Blessed Ivan. Whatever you want, bring them on Easter.” We are talking here about Archpriest Fr. Vasily Sitsarev, a remarkable personality, who served in Valki from 1787 to 1833. To have an idea about this priest, it is enough to indicate that the trustee of the educational district, Mr. Pototsky, having attended his lesson at the school and listened to his sermons in church, offered him the chair of Theology at Kharkov University. His biography, written by Romanovsky, was placed by Filaret in his “Description”. Ivan Khral, ​​the son of a Kharkov merchant, was known in Kharkov in the 30s as a fool for Christ. He died in 1841. “Alferov, writes Filaret, promised to send me family notes about the Lenvitskys. But I can't wait. I don’t even know where he lives now. Otherwise I would have written to him a second time. Would you be willing to help?" So he forced everyone to help him collect materials for his work. When starting this work, this is what he wrote to Gorsky: “In my soul there is a desire to compile a description of the Kharkov diocese. I think that this will be a rather entertaining picture, not without interest for everyone and especially for friends of the Russian Church. It is a pity that until now not a single line has been written down in any place. What to do? It remains to be content with what will be collected at the present time. This region has its own history, with its own colors and touches. Russia is not like some country of sausage makers. It contains South and North, East and West. The climate zones are different, and the zones of everyday life are not the same.” For the kind of work that Filaret took upon himself, he had to get acquainted with numerous ancient acts delivered to him from the provincial government, with many family notes of landowners, and the archival files of the consistory. From the provincial government, he was given not only survey books, but also letters from the tsars Alexei Mikhailovich, John and Peter Alekseevich, rolled up in long scrolls. Many of them corresponded for him. Not content with the affairs of his consistory, he sent one archpriest with a consistory archivist to Kursk to familiarize himself with the affairs and acts of the archive of the Kursk spiritual consistory during the state of the present Kharkov diocese under the control of the Belgorod bishops. How did others feel about such monuments? Filaret complained: “In Belgorod, Saint Joseph collected 43 ancient liturgical books printed in Polish-Lithuanian printing houses, on suspicion of their unorthodoxy and errors. The books were kept inviolably in the head of the cathedral (former cathedral) church. His Eminence Vladimir 44 ordered them to be taken to the Donets River, and the will of the mistress was fulfilled. I admit, it was painful for me to learn about this when I was searching through papers about the fate of the books taken from Ukraine. If the bishop ordered this, what can we think about the priests? Many local churches had royal letters of grant, as can be seen from their deeds; but now they are no longer there: they, of course, were dealt with according to the example of Vladyka Vladimir. There was a time of incomprehensible passion for the European and hatred or disdain for the Russian! Everything written in French seemed to be an example of intelligence and almost holy, and everything that was written in Russian was the subject of either ridicule or extreme coldness 45 . In the review of the 2nd part of the diocese, quite a lot came out that relates to civil history; I wrote to you and my own confession. Enemy raids, in my opinion, still have a necessary relation to the position of the church; but these raids brought with them something else. It remains to say that an error was made, but it was made, for many partly local, partly and general reasons. Most of all, the novelty of the materials, and then the confidence that the local residents would be very happy with every new news about their ancestors, encouraged me to retain some civil knowledge.” Also accurately, the description of the Chernigov diocese included many historical narratives about political events. Through real work, Filaret earned himself deep gratitude. The information that he managed to collect 38 years ago would now be impossible to obtain. Let us take into account how many archival files in public places, by later order, went on sale and disappeared. Let us remember that Filaret used perhaps the most valuable material for the history of the region - family papers and notes from landowners. He collected this information on the eve of a strong economic shock to the nobility, from which few nobles in their familiar family nests survived. The dispossessed nobility scattered across the face of the Russian land in pursuit of bread. These nomads of the renewed Russia had no time to rush around with family archives and paternal notes. They, perhaps, would rather forget about their ancestral traditions in order to more easily come to terms with the present. Meanwhile, predators have settled in their nests, for whom these archives have only the price of paper sold by weight. And we know how the archives of famous people were used to paste window frames... The publication of his “Conversations on the Sufferings of Our Lord Jesus Christ” dates back to the same time. According to the testimony of Pimen, a well-known St. Petersburg monk of the Sergius Hermitage, Filaret wrote these conversations under the influence of inspiration caused by prayer. O. Pimen, who served with him in Kharkov, usually read the evening rule to him. Filaret prayed, then began to walk around the room and then sat down to write these touching and sublime conversations. During Lent, Filaret fell ill; but, despite his illness, which did not allow him to leave his bed, Filaret did not stop studying. He called to him Archpriest Fr. John Sharotsky. “Against teaching, conveys this way about. John, they invited me into the bedroom, which was also his office. The reverend patient was lying on the bed, covered with a blanket and with some kind of book in his hands. Having received the bishop’s blessing, I moved closer to him in order to listen more carefully to his orders, since his voice was weak. The Reverend, with difficulty rising to his elbow, took a thick manuscript from the table and, handing it to me, said: “Here, read it and, if you notice anything, write it on a special sheet.” This manuscript was “Conversations on the Sufferings of Our Lord Jesus Christ.” I read it with attention and love and returned it as I was told.” Not content with these, Filaret sent the “Conversations” to Gorsky, asking him and the inspector to look through them. During the same period of Kharkov ministry, his “Review of Russian Spiritual Literature from 862 to 1720” was published (the end of this work, Review from 1720 to 1858 and an addition to 1862, were published in Chernigov), many articles containing various historical studies, teachings, as well as two volumes of teachings delivered in Riga. Filaret's zealous activity did not weaken his spiritual connection with the Riga flock. And could he, having become close to her with his suffering soul, not feel this connection? “Four years have passed,” he wrote on July 28, 1853 from Kharkov to Count D.N. Tolstoy, “as from Riga I don’t have a single line, except for empty, official ones. Would you please me with some news about Riga? Otherwise, it’s wild not to know anything good. What is the hardworking and happy successor of Riga? They talked so much about his dexterity, about his government skills! Much success? The wind catches! Those who knew him did not expect anything more. All this is between us, who didn’t drink wormwood honey together for nothing.” True, two months after Filaret’s departure from there, Riga reminded him of itself: they demanded an explanation from him about Prince Suvorov’s letter. Later, the Metropolitan of Moscow informed him about new gossip about him. By the way, the Metropolitan sends him the following reproach for the harshness of his expressions: “Perhaps you will say that I am too attacking the expressions and tone of your speech. If I'm wrong, forgive me; but I’ll tell you why I do it. It seems to me that, out of brotherly love, I should inflict on you the wounds of a friend, which, according to the word of scripture, are more reliable than the free kisses of an enemy - namely, to draw attention to your custom of expressing yourself very harshly, and to suggest that you limit yourself in this, because this can cause harm in business and service. I can prove this with your experience.” But let’s also read Philaret’s own response to the Metropolitan, which will introduce us to this circumstance. “At the feet of your Eminence I ask forgiveness of my sins. I will pray to the Lord to curb my impatience. This time I cannot say anything about the subject that aroused my final impatience. You need to have time to think about the matter in the form in which you are told to look at it. Another thing struck me. “You wrote in a harsh and restless tone about the accused priest to the late Count Protasov. In response, they sent you an instruction written by a secular person and signed by Metropolitan Anthony, etc.” These words are completely incomprehensible. If this is about the unfortunate priest Nazarevsky, then I never wrote any letter to Count Protasov about him; I also did not receive any instruction from Metropolitan Anthony on this subject. I really don't understand what this means? Not only did he not write letters, but he didn’t even say half a word to Count Protasov about Nazarevsky. Did my brother, 46, who more than once asked me to give him advice and to whom I never showed anything except love, decided to turn the letter written by brother to brother into a formal matter and summon the boss to trial against me? I definitely wrote a letter to him about Nazarevsky; but I repeat - I wrote in confidence in our fraternal relations between us. If he considered himself insulted, then all he could do was tell his brother in a letter: you insulted me, and that’s all. Yes, he wrote me a similar answer. What reasons made you go further? If he allowed himself to repay me for my favor in this way, the Lord will forgive him. I must say that the letter was written by me at the first news of Nazarevsky’s detention following a denunciation by a woman known to me (who is already being judged by the Lord). When I found out that my name was involved in the case and I received an answer from your authority that the priest was to blame: I did not even allow myself to argue with this matter any longer. I repeat, I have not received a single line from Metropolitan Anthony on this subject to this day. One letter was written to me from him, as a result of the Highest command, with questions. And that was about two months after arriving in Kharkov. But this was a special thing, a strange thing. They tried to destroy me; but the Lord, the Lord alone saved me. I sent answers to questions. I heard later that they checked my answers in Riga and found nothing against me. According to the content of the case, the case should be presented to the Sovereign; but I have reason to believe that it, as unpleasant for the informer, and not for me, remained endlessly. I cannot help but add to this confession that when I heard from Archbishop Arseny your father’s opinion that I was unyielding and harsh, then, not knowing at all what has now become known, I sinned - I accused Muravyov of slander. As for the Livlyandsky affair, in the first years after my arrival in Kharkov, one memory of it sent all my nerves into a tremor: my whole body was so upset by the torment that I had experienced for seven years in a row. Now I thank, thank and praise the boundless mercy of God, which saved me from a thousand troubles. I mention this because my poor brother, even if he had seen some cruelty in my letter to him, knowing my situation at that time, would have had to forgive me out of regret for my disability. Protasov, who knew my position closer than anyone else, should have done even more. Much would have to be said if we were to talk about the deeds of this man; but he is already at God's judgment. And I shouldn’t talk about myself.” The letter case poses a great mystery. It seems to us that it can only be explained in the following way: when the fraternal letter was shown to the chief prosecutor, the latter asked Metropolitan Anthony to make a reproof to the overheated bishop. Metropolitan Anthony agreed. Anthony’s letter was obviously written by a person close to Metropolitan Philaret, perhaps A.N. Muravyov, who, knowing his disposition towards Filaret, gave him a copy. Metropolitan Anthony, sympathizing with Philaret’s position and understanding all his awkwardness in giving an official meaning to the letter and thereby establishing a method not practiced in our church, did not send the letter. Meanwhile, the accusation from. Nazarevsky was outrageous. V.G. Nazarevsky was one of the first students of the Moscow Theological Academy, who accepted Philaret’s invitation and, together with Fr. Foma Varnitsky, who exchanged his academic career for a modest and difficult pastoral service in Riga, Nazarevsky became a close assistant to Philaret in the last year of his service in the ill-fated diocese. That is why the displeasure of the local authorities towards Filaret was strongly reflected in Nazarevsky. And here is the case that was inflated almost to the point of a political crime! After Filaret was transferred to Kharkov, he also transferred Nazarevsky there, wanting to protect him from persecution. And as if fearing that Nazarevsky would not fall into the snares that Filaret had avoided, he constantly hurried him to leave. “Come to Kharkov soon. I wanted you not to delay too much in Riga; circumstances require this,” Filaret wrote. Assuming that Nazarevsky’s financial difficulties could slow down his move, he took care to eliminate them, and apparently he himself did not have the opportunity to help him at that time, and therefore wrote: “As for travel costs, hire cab drivers so that you can pay in Kharkov. We'll pay it off here somehow. I bless your family and wait for you. We'll talk when we meet. I embrace you with the love of Christ.” But this meeting was not destined to take place. January 15, 1850 Nazarevsky served in Riga in the small house church of the Riga Bishop's House and, bidding farewell to Riga, preached a sermon on the text “The good shepherd lays down his soul for the sheep.” This sermon destroyed him. We will come from her, precisely her place, which we used to impute this sermon to Fr. Nazarevsky, distorting both the words and the meaning. “I thank the Lord that it was providentially determined for me to be awarded the rank of priesthood at the very time when the desire to accept the Orthodox faith was ripe in the inhabitants of this country. I thank the Lord that I, a little one, was honored to work to the best of my abilities and zeal for a holy cause, under the wise leadership of such a hierarch as Archpastor Philaret. You don’t know what to be surprised about in this saint? Is it surprising at his glorious actions, which will take a place in the history of our Russian church, at his incredible patience, at his tireless diligence, with which in a short time he managed to acquire tens of thousands (120,000) new children for the church and establish many Orthodox churches in the local area? Or is it better to be amazed at his deep humility, his meek silence, through which the observant always saw his subtle, prudent mind, considering from afar beginnings with consequences, methods with goals, plans with execution. Thus, a real precious metal is recognized by those who know how to distinguish it, no matter in what frame and form it appears. How instructive the life of the archpastor is for us! There is no need to learn so-called secular conversion from him; for this, it was necessary to learn from him devotion to the will of God, Christian piety, which he expressed in everything, in a strictly ascetic life, more than a word of edification, in dealing with others, in the most ordinary conversations, and especially in the touching performance of divine services, where so many heartfelt tears were shed before the throne of the Lord, so many reverent desires of the soul and prayerful cries for peace, health were raised to him, salvation and prosperity of the flock, about mine and yours, listener! What instructive love is his, love for everyone, love nurtured by the spirit of the Gospel! Anyone, no matter who he was, noble or commoner, rich or poor, known or unknown, everyone could have free access to him, received a kind and affectionate welcome from him, and no one was refused useful advice, good instruction and warnings - how to act in difficult circumstances of life, in protection, intercession, in help, or at least in heartfelt participation and goodwill. And charity to the poor and compassion for the oppressed were not the least of this saint’s virtues. Those who worked for the cause of Orthodoxy will say: “he did not spare himself, his labors for us, he was ready to sacrifice everything for us when we were in complicated circumstances.” We enjoyed the benefits of this unforgettable archpastor and, perhaps, did not know how to adequately appreciate this treasure in our time; That’s why we lost it so that in time we would know its value. I would like to talk about the excellent service of the Church of Christ in word and deed of our present archpastor; but this is still untimely while he is serving here.” Further, the preacher pointed out the need to “pray to the Lord that the holy spirit of them (the archpastors), their rules, taught in word and implemented in life, turn into our life and spirit.” “I, unworthy, also pray, as I bid farewell to the local flock, that he would grant it at all times honest, sound, zealous ministers of the church in preaching the Gospel teaching about faith and piety, zealous for the acceptance into the bowels of the church of those seeking salvation for themselves in it, caring for the return to the path of truth of those wandering at the crossroads. The local flock especially needs zealous shepherds, imbued with the spirit of Orthodoxy, to protect our faith among the society of non-believers. Those who profess the Orthodox faith here, along with their upbringing, adopt from those of other faiths not only the language, but also customs, morals, decency, and habits; all this in itself is innocent and harmless; but the danger here is that along with this the very opinions about faith creep in unnoticed. Say somewhere, among the Orthodox community, that all faiths are the same: you will now be rebuked for this; but here, when mixing with people of other faiths, one can often hear such an opinion. Pathetic! They do not understand at all that there is only one true Church - Orthodox, apostolic, conciliar, in which, as in a treasury, sound and pure teaching is contained by the Holy Spirit himself...” On January 15, as we said, this warm word was uttered, which seemed to offend no one, and on the 28th of the same month, before the preacher had time to leave Riga, a decree was already passed in the Holy Synod that completely changed the fate of Fr. Nazarevsky. We will present the decree in its entirety, since it spells out the attitude of the book. Suvorov, compiled, as can now be seen, by the same person who wrote the above letter from Suvorov to Filaret. "St. Right The Synod listened: firstly, the proposal of the city correcting the duties of the Chief Prosecutor Acting. stat. advisor and gentleman A.I. Karasevsky, under which it is proposed in the list, at the discretion of St. Synod, received by His Excellency, Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, from the Governor-General of the Baltic provinces, attitude No. 150 with the following content: “On January 15, a speech was delivered in the bishop’s house church by the cathedral keymaster, Archpriest Vladimir Nazarevsky, which quickly spread throughout the city and made a strong and detrimental impression not only on all Orthodox, but also on all Gentiles. The details of this speech have already been reported to the local eminence, who at that time was in St. Petersburg and are probably not unknown to your excellency. I am silent about the antics directed against me personally; this is not the first time they have been uttered (?!) and both before and now I leave them completely unnoticed. I will not go into detail about the expressions with which the Orthodox priest called the Orthodox to moral warfare against the Gentiles, instilled in them distrust of their fellow citizens and not only demanded that his Orthodox children move away from all Gentiles, but that they raise their children in the same spirit. (?). I do not personally blame Father Vladimir for these speeches. He acted in the spirit instilled in him by his former superiors (?), whose disposition he believed in this way to further confirm for himself. He had to rebel against the word of peace and Christian love, proclaimed in the churches of God and outside them by his superior, the Bishop of Riga; in his weakness, Archpriest Nazarevsky took advantage of the departure of the local eminence to deliver a speech filled with instructions contrary to the instructions of his vicar superior, not in agreement with either the actions or the feelings of meekness and Christian love of the local eminence. Here, in my opinion, is the main guilt of Archpriest Nazarevsky, a guilt that cannot be justified by any discipline - neither civil nor spiritual. This wine is also distinguished by the following circumstances: the word about. Vladimir was pronounced in his Eminence’s own church. I know to what extent the clergy is given the right in speeches delivered in churches to speak about the actions of their superiors, but in any case, in my eyes, it is highly inappropriate for Archpriest Nazarevsky to be allowed, when praising two former Riga bishops (Irinarch and Philaret), to remain silent about the current one (?!) and to conclude his speech with the desire that the Orthodox in Livonia after the brilliant sower Orthodoxy Irinarch and adorned with all the virtues, except for secular subtlety, Philaret (well, neither give nor take an excerpt from a German article!), received an archpastor similar to them, who, like them, would protect the sheep of his flock. With true delight I appreciate the sublime feelings of meekness and Christian virtues of the local bishop, and even less can I admit that in his absence anyone would dare to publicly utter the slightest unkind word about him. I know that the personal good qualities of the Eminence cannot be darkened by any intrigues anywhere and never; but Your Excellency share with me your opinion about the unfavorable impression that the word of a subordinate priest should make on the minds of not only those of other faiths, but also the Orthodox themselves, not only against the actions, but also against the personality (?!) of his superior. In a personal explanation with me, Archpriest Nazarevsky attributed the circumstances I exposed to misunderstandings on the one hand, and on the other, to the reinterpretation of words by his ill-wishers (instruments of intrigue), but nevertheless, I cannot hide from you, M.G., that in public opinion the word uttered by Archpriest Nazarevsky made an impression higher than his that I presented. Although I am convinced that the local Eminence, out of the kindness of his soul known to me, will forgive the repentant culprit, and although on my part I do not wish misfortune to Archpriest Nazarevsky, whom I consider an instrument used by personal enemies, both mine and the local Eminence (?), and, unfortunately, perhaps, public peace in Livlandia (again the Livlandskys’ favorite reference bosses!), but after all, I leave it to the discretion of your sir, whether the present case can remain without consequences, and in particular, whether all clergy in Livonia should not be strongly impressed upon not to violate the limits of subordination and the right to make speeches that are the subject of consideration of official actions of the government and commanders.” Ordered: St. Right. The Synod, after a careful (?) examination of the said papers, finds that Archpriest Nazarevsky, who decided to deliver without any permission, without censorship and in the absence of your Eminence, in your home church, a speech filled with judgments that do not belong to him and arousing unpleasant impressions and rumors, for such determination alone is subject to strict punishment and, as a result, determines: having banned him from priestly service, send him immediately for detention pending a decision cases about him, to one of the Pskov monasteries, at the discretion of your Eminence, and meanwhile order you, upon requesting explanations from Nazarevsky and other persons, to submit them to the Holy Synod for further consideration, with your conclusion, about which to send a decree to Your Eminence. January 28, 1850. From this decree we see how much untruth, deliberate lies and slander there was in the Governor General’s message. At the same time, it speaks of the defenselessness not only of the new children of the Orthodox Church in Livonia, but also of all those who served the church and the fatherland. On an unfounded accusation, without investigating or asking for an explanation, they are deprived of the right to perform sacred functions and imprisoned in a monastery. And they sacrificed a man, his reputation, his peace of mind, his health and the entire well-being of his family only in order to cast an extra shadow on Filaret, who lay across the road before the pretensions of the barons. Yes, indeed it was a strange matter, as Filaret noted, strange to such an extent that when you read it, you don’t believe it. We do not know how successful the “all-forgiving meekness and love” of the new archpastor, witnessed by Prince. Suvorov; but life in the Spako-Mironsky monastery, indicated by his choice, was as follows: “in winter, the dilapidated stone cells were unbearably cold and damp and were heated scantily, after two or three days, (in winter in the north!), and in the spring, due to the flood of the Velikaya River, the lower floor of the residential buildings of the monastery for more than a week was completely flooded with four arshins of water, so that from the top on the floor where I was placed there was nowhere to hide from the cold and dampness; to get to the church it was necessary to sail through the monastery courtyard by boat. Being kept in such a monastery, first in the cold and then in the damp seasons, ruined my health.” So sufferer, oh. Nazarevsky, described his situation. What should he experience for his family and how much should his family suffer for him?! It is also surprising to us how they could implicate Fr. Nazarevsky delivering a sermon in the church of the bishop's house and without the approval of censorship, when his direct superior knew that the first was legalized by custom, and the censor was Nazarevsky himself. True, this is not the only sad page for us in the history of our fatherland. We know that a hundred years earlier, under Queen Anna, Archbishop of Tver Theophylact Lopatinsky, because under his leadership (with the blessing of the Holy Synod) the “Stone of Faith” was published, which denounced Lutheranism, after being defrocked, languished in the Peter and Paul Fortress. And what his premises were like can be judged because when he was released barely alive 8 years later, under the ruler Anna Leopoldovna, 153 copies of the “Stone of Faith”, thrown with him into the basement, decayed! The suffering elder had such an appearance that Princess Elisaveta Petrovna, who came to visit him, could not look at him and burst into tears. Such pressure from the Germans not only on the sphere of public administration, but on the Russian national spirit, on the Russian church, on the people's conscience is far from an accidental phenomenon. That is why the gratitude of the Russian people for the liberation of Russia from its harmful tutelage (not to say captivity) is limitless. Taught by experience, Filaret repeatedly warned Fr. Nazarevsky be especially careful. “Even the Metropolitan of Kiev,” he wrote after a meeting with Kyiv Philaret, “is afraid that people like Suvorov will not take revenge for their right word.” Speaking about his successor, he gave sincere advice: “Do not show shortness in your relationship with me and him. The reason is clear. Here, of course, there is a hint of persecution by local authorities. Try especially to ensure that S. does not know about your closeness to him, if it continues. Please be calm, don’t give free rein to your feelings. Equally try to remain silent as much as possible. It’s boring, your soul will hurt, pray to the Lord. There you will find joy for every drop of tears. I embrace you with my loving soul! This warm, one might say, touching care of Filaret for Nazarevsky makes up for that trait of his character that we touched upon when narrating his ministry in Riga: to protect those serving the Russian cause and the church from persecution, exposing himself to the shots of the enemies of Orthodoxy. Six months later Fr. Nazarevsky, who was charged with being kept in a monastery as punishment, was appointed to the post of parish priest in his homeland in the Tula province, under strict supervision. The “searches” about him and Filaret led to nothing and yielded nothing, because nothing could have turned up. But meanwhile, the matter was presented in such a way that the cautious and intrigue-tested Moscow saint forced Philaret to abandon the petition of Fr. Nazarevsky. And only later, when the essence of the whole matter came to him in the present light, perhaps through Bishop Dmitry of Tula, who took part in Nazarevsky, he transferred him to Moscow, made him a professor, entrusted him with managing his correspondence with the Eastern patriarchs and appointed him to a wonderful parish. He could not only restore his health, which had suffered from monastic imprisonment. In general, the meager news coming from Riga, apparently, did little to console Philaret. So he wrote to Gorsky: “What is happening in Livonia? I have little information. However, you know my successor. Lord, let me see my sins.” Blessed by Philaret, the Khoroshevsky monastery brought him a lot of grief. Some sisters of the monastery were dissatisfied with the hostel, which required humility. Unfortunately, the venerable abbess of the monastery, Anatoly Verevkin, soon died. “The death of the venerable mother Anatolia greatly saddened me,” Filaret wrote to Innocent. He turned to the Right Reverend Simbirsk with a request to dismiss the Simbirsk Abbess Seraphim for the Khoroshevsky monastery, but the Right Reverend Simbirsk refused him. He explained his request like this to Innocent: “I had special reasons for this, namely the need felt by all here for there to be a hostel in Khoroshevo, for the establishment of which an abbess is needed, capable of starting and leading to the end of the hostel’s work, and Seraphima is known to me.” Involuntarily, Filaret had to give the choice to the sisters of the monastery from his midst. But they chose the nun Palladia, who was not at all desirable for Philaret. “The Khoroshevskys stretch out and make noise like women,” he wrote to Innocent. “I thought and thought and this is what I did. I took Matvey Alekseevich (brother Innokenty) and Nick with me. Nick. Romanovsky and, going to Khoroshev with them, installed Anatolia as abbess, but not Palladia, who was chosen by the loudmouths.” At the same time, he appointed Archimandrite Arseny as dean of the monastery, as an experienced founder of the hostel in Svyatogorye, and instructed him to lead the abbess he had appointed in this matter. To the latter, he gave the following instructions: 1) to make it an indispensable duty for Abbess Anatolia and the elder sisters of the monastery, so that their very first concern would be to quickly establish a common meal, which was already prescribed by me; 2) carefully supervise so that those living in the monastery, as those who have dedicated themselves to God, unforgivingly go to the church of God at the times of Divine services established by the church, as well as to listen to the monastery rule, admonish those who do not heed their salvation maternally, and when they begin to not heed the admonition of love, admonish strictly; 3) to be allowed to leave the monastery for the city only for blessed needs, and, moreover, to release young novices only accompanied by their elders, and not alone; 4) those wishing to enter the monastery should not be allowed to live outside the walls of the monastery, and of those who already live there, only the most trustworthy should be allowed to live until the time when they can be accepted into the monastery, while the rest should be ordered to leave by choice of will.” But the monastery’s affairs were going badly: there was disorder in the monastery’s economy, and arbitrariness still reigned in its internal life. Abbess Anatolia did not live up to Filaret's expectations. Not sympathizing with the rules of the hostel, she was the first to oppose them. Having dismissed Smaragda as treasurer and appointed nun Antonina Chubarova in her place, Filaret made a proposal to the consistory: “Since they have not yet begun to carry out my instructions, then by decree the abbess and sisters will be forced to declare unworthy of staying in this monastery if we do not soon see repentance.” But such a threat had no effect on the stubborn nuns. Then Filaret ordered the dean to oblige the nuns to obey the rules of the hostel by subscription. Many nuns refused to give such a subscription. So a year passed. Filaret could no longer allow such self-will and disorder in the monastery, in whose life the main condition is humility and obedience. He convinced Anatolia to give up the position of abbess and appointed Antonina Chubarova as treasurer in her place. The impetus for this appointment was, according to Filaret, the fact that he recognized her as “one of the best sisters of the Khoroshevsky Monastery in terms of education, experience and strict monastic life.” This is what Antonina really was. She brought a lot of benefit to the monastery, steadily following the instructions of her archpastor. But her appointment alone intensified the unrest in the monastery, which was facilitated by the former abbess Antonina, who was fired by Filaret, who assured the sisters that she had suffered while defending their interests and customary orders, opposing innovations. At her instigation, the nuns formed a deputation from among them, at the head of which, as the eldest, was Palladia, and sent her to Philaret with a request: to return the former abbess to them. Filaret accepted Palladia. Having explained, with strict suggestion, the inappropriateness of their action, he ordered them to return to the monastery and remain in complete obedience to the newly installed abbess. Realizing that the latter’s uncertain position, supporting unrealistic hopes among the nuns, should fuel turmoil, he summoned the abbess to Kharkov and, without waiting for the decree of the Holy Synod, ordained her as abbess. Then he ordered the dean to go to the monastery, call all the sisters to church, serve a prayer service, announcing that Antonina had been ordained as abbess, and read them the following warning from him: “From several experiences, I have noticed in the Khoroshevsky inmates a spirit of self-will, completely incompatible with the vows of monasticism, which is why it is instilled in them to take the first rule for themselves - to correct themselves in this grave weakness. Let them come to their senses and not let them forget that since disobedience to the authorities is the permission of monasticism itself, then the authorities, obliged to protect the rules and dignity of monasticism, will henceforth be forced to punish every act against the vows of obedience by removing the monastic order from the guilty person or expulsion from the monastery, in order to thus restore, if possible, the order of monasticism destroyed in the Khoroshevsky monastery.” But Philaret’s severity increased the grumbling and indignation of the inhabitants of the monastery, who covered their stubborn self-will and disorderliness with a black cassock. The following incident can give an idea of ​​how far their insolence reached. Once on a church holiday, Filaret appointed his service in the monastery. The abbess's cell was demolished for the newly built building. To receive the bishop, the abbess ordered the preparation of a room in the cell of nun Porfiria, who, by the agreement of the other sisters, refused to give up her cell. On the report on Porfiria’s action, Filaret put the following resolution: “Rude, disobedient and stupid Porfiria should be put on prostrations in the church so that during three festive services she would make 300 prostrations each time. At the same time, instill in her the ears of others that for her disobedience to the abbess and gross insolence, she should be deprived of monasticism and thrown outside the monastery fence, but the punishment is not due to the crime, but according to attention to her old age and dementia. The confessor of the monastery, Hieromonk Macarius, is charged with the duty of using every effort to instill the fear of God in the hearts of the residents of the Khoroshevskaya monastery, who have so little of it, and to instill in them the monastic rules of unquestioning obedience, attention to themselves and their sins, to prayer and avoidance of idle talk.” Filaret wrote to Innocent: “If there are those who grumble at the common meal, then the first question is: who are these people? those who participate in the common meal? No, they thank the Lord for their lot. Who are the complainers? These are the chosen ones from those who, by choice, do not participate in the meal. Judge, is this not a wild murmur? Aren't they being quite complacent and considerate if they leave such people alone, without even touching them with a rod, not only with the cane of judgment? If among these there are also those who turn the very condescension towards them into a reason for bitterness, anger, then what should we do with them? A difficult question.” But Filaret did not suspect that the reason for bitterness was given not only by the rules of the hostel, but by the severity and injustice of the people to whom Philaret entrusted the work and who did not justify his trust. Abbess Antonina, who helped Philaret a lot in his efforts to organize the monastery, thereby gained his trust and respect for herself. But, relying on this disposition of Filaret, she allowed herself obvious injustices towards the nuns, exaggerating their misdeeds in the eyes of Filaret. Her main assistant was the treasurer Elisabeth. This was a relative of Philaret, who from a young age had been her cell attendant in one of the Tambov monasteries. Antonina took her with her to Khoroshev, where she herself was summoned by Filaret. Filaret treated her with kindness and ordained her as a nun. Antonina’s affection and trust in her, and perhaps the calculation to please the ruler, prompted the latter to petition for the appointment of her treasurer, which Filaret willingly did. Relying on her relationship with the bishop, Elizabeth proudly behaved in front of the other sisters, enjoyed special amenities, and sometimes the abbess herself was forced to obey her whims and self-will. When all this was revealed before the eyes of Philaret, he wrote to Innocent: “It is known from the answer that relatives everywhere and for all the Eminences brought nothing more than sorrows, by the grace of human passions.” Philaret’s relationship with Elizabeth was close. She was his cousin through her mother. That’s why he took a special part in their entire family. He bought her father from Naryshkin, as mentioned above. Noticing his ability to paint, he placed her brother Ivan in the Academy of Arts, giving him the means to complete the course. At the end of the course, he ordained him in Riga as a deacon in the Church of the Intercession. In Riga, he left behind his memory and painted all the icons for the bishop’s church. After Filaret was transferred to Kharkov, he called him there and ordained him as a priest in the village. Derkachi, where he soon died, however. Abbess Antonina kept herself far from her sisters and was not very accessible. Seeing many of the nuns as her enemies and suspecting them of secret relations with the former abbess Anatolia, she got Philaret to prohibit the nuns from entering Anatolia. Although such a prohibition did not contradict the strict monastic rules, conversations between nuns were allowed within the monastery walls, and therefore Anatolia’s forced seclusion outraged her and her sisters even more. In September 1852, when Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich arrived in Chuguev, Anatolia, without the knowledge of the abbess, went there in order to personally file a complaint against Philaret to the Emperor. Of course, this could threaten Filaret with trouble, since such a complaint was in keeping with the accusations that the Riga authorities had recently brought against him. For this reason, Filaret could not be indifferent to what happened. “Unhappy Anatolia,” he wrote to Romanovsky, has created a mess again, and more than one.” But his prayers were heard and God averted the trouble. Anatoly, as the head of the military district Engelhard responded to the consistory, having arrived in Andreevka to visit her relative, Major R., fell ill and lay there during the entire stay of the Sovereign. But Filaret was afraid to trust such a message and personally sent the cathedral keymaster Melimovsky to personally verify the truth of what was reported. However, both this incident and the generally bad influence of Anatolia on the sisters of the monastery made it natural that Filaret wanted to free the Khoroshevites from her, which is why he transferred her to the St. Nicholas Monastery. But this order so frightened St. Nicholas' Abbess Emilia that she entered with a petition, asking to be spared her troubled sister. Filaret made the following resolution on this petition: “Since Abbess Emilia in the attached request asks to free her monastery from such a plague as Anatolia, it remains to determine the following: 1) Announce to Anatolia through her confessor, Hieromonk Macarius, that if she wants to stay in Khoroshevo, then she would undertake by subscription to show full obedience to the abbess, and never do her any insolence and rudeness, not to disturb order and peace with chatter, not to do anything contrary to the abbess, especially not to leave the monastery, in general not to do anything similar to what was bad, with the obligation to leave Khoroshev otherwise and retire to another diocese. 2) Force her, nun Anatolia, in the church in front of all the sisters, after making 500 prostrations, to ask the abbess for forgiveness for the insults inflicted on her. 3) To the sisters in the same church, to announce that henceforth they should not listen to the chatter of a stupid and evil old woman and would not thereby confuse their souls, but in silence engage in prayer and the news that is brought to us from Heaven in the Holy Scriptures, among other things, that an unquenchable fire awaits sinners. Let the dean know about this, so that on occasion he can admonish stupid people.” After such a strict suggestion, which once again proved that Filaret did not think of backing down from his decision to restore order in the monastery, Anatolia calmed down, and both the nuns and the monastery unrest calmed down somewhat. But Anatoly, having been abbess, of course made acquaintances in the city, and the sisters also had their well-wishers and patrons, who could not be less outraged by Philaret’s severity towards their clients. And therefore, displeasure towards Philaret was noticed in the city, which was also supported by injustice, partiality and even some abuses on the part of the new abbess Antonina and treasurer Elizabeth. Unfortunately, Filaret found out about this late. So, for example, the abbess demanded, contrary to the direct instructions of Philaret, that social work be performed three days a week not only by those nuns who used the common meal, but also by those who did not use it. Filaret made significant orders: to embroider miters and vestments and paid generously, ordering the money to be given out in favor of the workers. But the abbess and the treasurer divided this money among themselves, and the abbess forced the workers, when Philaret arrived, to thank him for the generous reward. Filaret was pleased and did not suspect deception. The experienced and cautious Metropolitan of Moscow, who closely monitored the administrative activities of his favorite in Kharkov, wrote to him as a warning: “The bishop should take care of the monks; but the method of care must be taken into account with the circumstances of the time and place. In the management of women's monasteries it is less convenient to enter closely, and here the choice of rulers is more difficult; special caution is needed here.” Wise advice; but the system recommended by Mitoropolitan testifies, in addition to everyday experience, to its purely subjective properties. Ardent, burning with jealousy for the church, Filaret cannot be content with the quiet work of dispensation; and for the very success of the business in Kharkov, it was necessary to make a sharp turn, without yielding to the voice of the self-will that reigned there. Unfortunately, Filaret did not get along with the representative of the authorities in the region, Governor General Kokoshkin. Whether this was due to Kokoshkin’s unfavorable warning for Filaret is unknown. From the latter’s mode of action, it is more correct to assume a desire to conquer a large area of ​​power - a disease of lust for power. In any case, in relations with Filaret, hostility and nit-picking were constantly noticed on Kokoshkin’s part. It began when Filaret graduated from the building of the school for girls of clergy, on the eve of the consecration of this building he received an official request from Kokoshkin: what kind of building was built and with whose permission? It was not difficult for Filaret to unsubscribe: the building was built outside the city, on cemetery land, which was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the diocesan authorities, and was built by a diocesan architect with the permission of the Holy Synod. Here is another case: about five years before Filaret’s appointment to Kharkov, the Holy Synod made a decision on the construction of a stone chapel in the city by the Kharkov monastery. The definition remained unfulfilled until Filaret. Concerned about increasing the funds of the monastery that had benefited them, Filaret decided to immediately fulfill the synod’s decision, and therefore entered with a petition to the governor general. Kokoshkin for permission to erect a chapel on Mikhailovskaya Square, vast and free. Kokoshkin refused without reason, leaving him to choose another place. Filaret pointed out several more places; but Kokoshkin did not agree to any of the proposals. Then Filaret asked him to indicate the place for the chapel. Kokoshkin pointed to a place near the Muronositsa Church. But for many reasons this place was completely inconvenient, and most importantly, the Moscow highway was supposed to be built here, which was soon completed, and the chapel would have to be demolished. Filaret pointed out this inconvenience to Kokoshkin, but did not receive an answer. The matter was resolved after Kokoshkin’s translation, and the chapel was erected in the place originally indicated by Filaret. Kokoshkin was not moderate in his demands; and Filaret, to please him, after reviewing the diocese, had to appear to him. This is what Filaret wrote to Romanovsky: “I was surprised to hear that he (Kokoshkin) was angry because I did not visit him upon the return of their diocese. I didn’t want to believe it for many reasons, but Sukhanova (landowner of the Starobelsky district) assured me of this and I had to see each other, which was not easy. During the meeting, it turned out that the incredible news was true. This is how it goes in the world. Wonderful people." In August 1852, he surveyed the Starobelsky district and consecrated the church in the village. Bogodarovka, Izyum district. The owner of the village, a very respectable landowner Ivan Petrovich Pleshcheev, used 100 thousand rubles from his own funds for the construction of the church and bequeathed 15 thousand rubles. for its maintenance. Filaret did not stay there after the consecration, but in a letter to Romanovsky explained the reason for his hasty departure. “If I hastened to leave Bogodarovka, it was my fault, I won’t say it was the circumstances, but my thoughts about the circumstances. However, my thoughts were not wrong. Upon returning to Kharkov, I found strong indignation against me in Kokoshkin. What would you think? For the way he spoke out loud to many, that I respect “Potemkin” too much as an insult to the respect that should be shown to him by the representative of the Sovereign.” Filaret did not have time to return from this detour by the day of the coronation, on August 22. And then the next day, after his return, he receives a message from Kokoshkin that on the highly solemn day of the sacred coronation, one of the archimandrites served and “some private singers in the most unkempt and ugly form, and among them the baker Smirnov,” sang. Filaret made a remark to the cathedral keymaster and dean, and suggested to the consistory that private singers should not be invited to the cathedral in the future, which he informed Kokoshkina about. “This answer turned out to be very successful,” Filaret wrote to Romanovsky, “because, as it turned out later, these same private singers were invited to the university church, and without them there was no one to sing there.” Kokoshkin was also a trustee of the educational district. This incident once again confirms that Kokoshkin found fault with the saint. The next year, Filaret wrote to Romanovsky about this: “On August 22, I need to be in Kharkov so as not to enjoy the drink that they gave me last year.” “There are so many troubles, both domestic and urban, that my soul is tired,” he wrote to Romanovsky. “Our kindest gr. Sievers was forced out of Kharkov. He is upset, especially about economic and family life. The trip to Kharkov cost him 7,000 rubles. Now all this was of no use. You have to spend money again. He’s sending the kids to Moscow the other day, and he’s staying for a few weeks to take care of things. He was transferred to Saratov, but he is unlikely to go there. Poor Venikhov (senior council of the provincial government) was also forced out of Kharkov. Two other lip advisors. right they also want to push us out of here. All this makes the passions of one. I can hear that he wants to get me out of here too, a sinner. For what? - his conscience knows. God will be his judge for all the insults that I suffered from him for 6 years.” The next day, Tsar Nikolai Pavlovich was supposed to come to Kharkov and Filaret, not without reason, feared Kokoshkin’s unfavorable review of him before the sovereign, and by the way, an opportunity came along. On Nikolaevskaya Square there was a stone bell tower that belonged to the Nikolaevskaya Church and stood so far from it that there was a passage between it and the church. The bell tower had an ugly appearance and, as it was proposed to build a new one, had not been repaired for many years. Kokoshkin demanded that it be demolished and forwarded to Filaret a design for a superstructure over the church porch to house the bells. As a lover of antiquity, Filaret valued the preservation of the architecture of the oldest temple in Kharkov. Another reason why he didn’t like the project was that it gave the church the appearance of a Catholic church. Having outlined this in his paper to Kokoshkin, Filaret asked him to wait until the parishioners raised funds for the construction of a new bell tower that would correspond to the character of the church. The Emperor has arrived. In the cathedral he was met by Filaret with a host of priests, all in new white glazed vestments. Apparently, the intelligent and handsome face of the bishop, the majestic figure and euphonious voice of the protodeacon and the harmonious singing of the clergy (under the direction of priest S. Lyubinsky) made a pleasant impression on the Sovereign. He was especially charmed by the voice of Protodeacon Andrei Chervonetsky, whom he immediately ordered Gr. Take Adlerber to the court church, where he served as a protodeacon for 35 years, participated in the sacred coronation of Emperor Alexander II and the now safely reigning Sovereign Emperor, and died in 1888 as a Knight of the Order of St. Vladimir, 4th degree. After the solemn service, the Emperor, driving along Nikolaevskaya Square, noticed the ill-fated bell tower. Undoubtedly, Philaret's objection, to which the Emperor, of course, would have given a great price, was not explained to him by Kokoshkin and the matter was presented as a whim on the part of the bishop; and the very next day Filaret received Kokoshkin’s project for execution, according to the Highest command. The next day, after the Emperor’s departure, the bell tower was dismantled, and the Orthodox church received the physiognomy of a church. Such relations between Kokoshkin and Filaret, of course, greatly hampered the latter’s activities for the benefit of the church and especially the Khoroshevsky Monastery, which soon brought him so much grief. We have already talked about Abbess Antonina’s abuse of Filaret’s trust in her. It got to the point that the Right Reverend fired the monastery priest, Fr. Afanasy Protopopov, who served 25 years in the monastery, according to the abbess’s statement that he was inciting the sisters against her; and the whole fault was that he, as the spiritual father of the former abbess of Anatolia, sometimes visited his spiritual daughter. Archimandrite Gerasim in his diary makes the following note about Antonina: “in the Khoroshevsky monastery there was an abbess Antonina, who did not enjoy the favor of both the nuns and the residents of Kharkov in general, partly because, at the insistence of the Reverend. Philaret to stop the frequent absences of nuns to Kharkov, she took care of the introduction of a hostel in the monastery, which many did not like, and even more for its harsh and rather cruel nature, to which the Khoroshevsky nuns could not adapt, who were accustomed to seeing in her predecessors, especially in the late abbess Anatoly Verovkina, a mother-friend who bore their burdens. But strong by the constant favor and patronage of the Right Reverend, she went against everything and everyone, not paying attention either to the peculiarities of the region, or to the spirit and traditions of the monastery, which counted for more than 200 years. Such strained relations between the abbess and the nuns from time to time worried and upset the bishop, and more than once he inspired the abbess to be more careful and prudent, but the latter did not calm down and brought disaster on her own head. The trouble was this: In the fifties, an impoverished young count lived near the monastery, count. regist. A.P. Devier. With his indecent actions, he often disturbed the silence of monastic life. For example, near the church itself he smoked cigars, sang immodest songs, in front of St. set off fireworks at the gate. shot a gun, etc., and finally lured the beautiful young novice Tatyana Khoromanova and married her in her hometown, Stary Oskol. Returning home on the first holiday (Av. 29, 1857), he appeared with his young wife, dressed in fashion at the monastery church, taking a place in front of everyone. This seemed to the abbess a great temptation for the young novices, and she, through the dean, asked Devier to leave the church with his wife; but Devier did not pay attention to the abbess’s desire. Then the latter, on the advice of the treasurer, ordered the nuns to stand in a chain in front of the iconostasis and, moving back, move the Devier couple to the western doors of the church. At the end of the mass, the count went home, but the gates were locked, and therefore he had to go through the gate. As soon as the countess crossed the gate, the prisoner (a peasant woman who was at the epithemia by order of the court), at a sign from the watchman, poured a bucket of slop on her. The count rushed to her cry and received the same dacha from another bucket. The abbess was in the church. Having learned that the count was looking for her, she ordered to lock herself in the church, and the next day she went with a report to the bishop. Hiding the story about the slops from him, she told how they invited the count to leave, how she made a chain of nuns to protect young novices from temptation, adding that Devier, so offended by her order, upon leaving the church, ran screaming along the fence, looked for her with the intention of using her stick, that he hit nun Raisa, his wife’s aunt, on the cheek, threatened to shoot at the nuns and pointed such a gun at them fear that they were afraid to leave their cells. Filaret trusted the words of the abbess and, not suspecting that she hid a lot, conveyed a lot in an exaggerated form, he asked the head of the province to order the protection of the monastery from Devier’s outrageous actions. At this time, retired official Napolov lived in Kharkov. He had long harbored displeasure against Filaret for the latter’s removal from the Khoroshevsky Monastery of his two sisters, the main instigators of all monastic unrest. He advised Devier to start a case against the abbess and took it upon himself to conduct it. According to his instructions, Devier submitted complaints to the governor, the gendarmerie colonel and the Rev. Philaret. In a complaint to the Eminence, Devier asked to order an investigation and immediately remove the abbess and treasurer. Since the consistory had already heard the abbess’s report 10 years earlier and the case was given movement, Devier’s petition was left without consequences, as was announced to him in the inscription on the petition itself. Obviously, such an order was wrong: but it took place, of course, under the influence of personal trust in the abbess and the bad reputation that Devier enjoyed. Then the latter filed a complaint with the Holy Synod and the chief of gendarmes, asking that the investigation be carried out in the presence of a gendarmerie officer. “No matter how much Filaret at first,” Archimandrite Gerasim notes in his diary, defended Antonina and Elizabeth, recognizing Devier’s complaint as accepted, Devier, led by Napolov and instigated by some nuns, did not give up and firmly insisted that, upon recovery from them for the dishonor caused to him, they should be removed from office. This matter lasted for six months and greatly worried the Reverend. On February 14, Devier submitted a petition to the consistory to dismiss the case, expressing doubt that Abbess Antonina was involved. This was unexpected for Filaret and made him so happy that the next day he served a prayer service in the cathedral in front of the Yelets Icon of the Mother of God. The consistory prepared a report to the Synod on the termination of the case. But the report has not yet been sent, as on February 20 from Devier, in which he sets out. “The other day a stake came to me. secret Matvey Boguslavsky with convincing proposals on behalf of Filaret to end the matter peacefully, but the crown of his convictions was not in the mouth of the mediator, but in 1,500 rubles, which he offered me on behalf of Filaret. That incident gave rise to the following considerations; a) that the case of reprehensible acts of monastics does not stop even after the conclusion of settlement transactions; b) that I could only make peace for myself, but for my wife I have no right and do not want; c) that the offer made to me clearly proves that the perpetrators face responsibility, forcing them to seek mercy, even at the cost of money. These considerations led me to the conclusion: take this money and use it for some charity; to continue the matter for the personality of his wife and at the same time discover the special patronage enjoyed by the abbess and the treasurer from Philaret. After this conclusion, encouraged by common sense, I took the money and handed him a petition for peace to submit to the consistory. If I decided to take the money in question, it was also because it was nice to take advantage of the enemy’s mistake by using the money for something good. However, if Rev. Filaret will like 1500 rubles. use at his own discretion, then I undertake to present them to the Spirit. Consistory. Therefore, I ask you to carry out the matter, do not hesitate to submit a peace petition on behalf of me.” The compilers of the petition now made this known throughout the city and caused a great stir, which also spread among the clergy. “Paper,” writes Archimandrite. Gerasim says it’s terrible. I didn’t have the courage to go into the consistory to read the impudent gossip that weaves a bright crown for our saint, who, apparently, with his labors and exploits has greatly annoyed the enemy of our salvation. Lord, strengthen him to bear this cross to the end.” Devier's brazen slander greatly outraged the saint's pure soul. With his characteristic ardor, he wrote to the governor. “According to a verbal notification from the secretary of the local consistory, Mr. Devier, in his request submitted yesterday to this consistory for the restoration of the claim for the insult inflicted on him and his wife in the Khoroshevsky nunnery, allowed himself to write a blatant slander against me - as if I had sent someone to him with money to end the matter peacefully. According to information that has reached me from the other side, some Napolov and others are spreading this slander throughout the city. Since this slander, which is extremely offensive to me, can have a morally harmful influence both on the people in general and especially on the management of spiritual affairs, I turn to V. p-vu, as the head of the province, with my most humble request, to take measures depending on you to curb evil and to protect me from insolent insults: 1) Immediately interrogate Devier, who made up the requests for him? 2) Interrogate the official Khar. corner. Boguslavsky's chamber, who wrote a request for Devier to terminate the claim based on his complaint, who participated in that? If possible, by secret order through your trusted official, take away all the sneaky papers from the retired official Napolov, who I have reason to suspect of writing papers of this kind, as well as of disseminating all sorts of rumors offensive to my personality. I am nourished by the hope that your government, both out of duty as the head of the province and out of the Christian nobility of your soul, will not refuse to satisfy this request of mine.” The next day, Filaret, having approved the resolution of the consistory to return his petition to Devier with an inscription as containing offensive expressions, wrote to the governor: “The Kharkov spiritual consistory presented at my discretion a copy of its determination, which took place at the request of Count. Deviera. From this definition, to my extreme regret, I saw that Devier, having forgotten the fear of God, allowed himself in an official paper to slander me in such vile and base actions that are completely incompatible with either my moral rules or my title, and it was he who called me the briber of him, Devier, and the patron of injustice. Therefore, forwarding with this a copy of the said resolution of the consistory, which sets out Devier’s request, filled with daring insults related to my person and rank, I humbly ask you to make an order, depending on your part, to deal with those guilty of slander and insult according to the laws. At the same time, I consider it my duty to add: a) that I did not send any person to bribe Devier; b) that the money is 1500 rubles. I didn’t give it to anyone for this need, and I’m not able to give it due to lack; c) I was not a patron of illegal actions of persons subordinate to me: and this is inconsistent with both my rules and my title; d) that the case of supposedly offending Count Devier and his wife in the Khoroshevsky Monastery by the proceedings of the ecclesiastical department has not yet been completed, and that if the investigation reveals those responsible for the personal offense against Count. Devier, then they will be subject to legal punishment, therefore I did not have and will not have any need to worry about stopping this case; e) although Devier calls himself the author of his said request, filled with slander, I positively doubt it, for Devier, as a person who has not received any education and, one might say, is almost illiterate, cannot compose such a cunningly composed paper, and its author was probably a certain official Napolov, who, as I inquired, is the count’s full manager and who, having in the Khoroshevsky monastery two sisters, gave them various absurd and outrageous advice, which created discord, disagreement and disobedience towards elders among the community of monastics. Therefore, please your government to pay special attention not only to Devier’s act, but also to Napolov’s harmful actions.” According to a strict inquiry carried out on behalf of Governor Luzhin, it turned out that the official Boguslavsky, familiar to Devier, actually persuaded the latter to peace for 1,500 rubles, which were given to him by General Gerasimova. Intending to settle permanently at the Khoroshevsky Monastery, where she often lived, S.N. Gerasimova, sympathizing with the grief of the sisters, embarrassed by the unpleasant matter, thought to stop the matter, authorizing Boguslavsky to convince Devier to do so, offering the latter 1,500 rubles. as the amount that, according to him, he spent on conducting the business. The governor, having notified Filaret of the result of the investigation, confirmed the correctness of his assumptions about Napolov’s leading role in the case and at the same time asked to hurry one way or another to satisfy Devier’s request. From the above message from Philaret to the Governor, it is clear that Philaret was little inclined to indulge his subordinates, and therefore, at the first indication of the guilt of the authorities in the monastery, he removed both the abbess and his relative, the treasurer, from the monastery to the St. Nicholas Monastery. Of course, he informed the Metropolitan of Moscow about what had happened, who (March 28, 1858) wrote to Bishop Alexei of Tula: “The age, having become bad, is easier to believe bad than good, and especially where good should be exemplary. You have heard about the temptation of the Right Reverend Kharkovsky. It began with a minor carelessness: he took a relative of a nun from another diocese and assigned her as treasurer to the monastery. Some count seduced a novice of the monastery, married her and had the shamelessness to appear with her at the monastery. He was insulted here. And hence the slander. I learned late about the treasurer, a relative of the Right Reverend: and therefore I wrote to him late that the bishop should behave carefully in relation to relatives who serve in his diocese; and it is better not to take relatives from other dioceses at all. Now the abbess and the treasurer-relative have been dismissed in connection with the case, and the latter has been removed to another monastery: I don’t know whether this will be enough to certify that the bishop is acting impartially? So, the wise Moscow saint did not abandon his protege with his advice. At the same time, Governor Luzhin informed the Chief Prosecutor of St. Synod: “the case of Devier on the claim of an insult allegedly inflicted on him by the abbess, as well as another by the abbess’s complaint against Devier about his insult to the monastery shrine, in essence, although it does not contain anything extremely beyond the range of ordinary offenses, but in the direction that is given to him by outsiders who are leading Devier, who want to involve the personality of the archpastor in this case, and especially from the time the assignment of Major General Bogdanovich to the investigation of the gendarme corps attracts everyone's attention and gives rise to absurd rumors that weaken the significance of the archpastoral rank. Regardless of all this, I consider it my duty to inform you that Abbess Antonina really does not enjoy the universal love of those subordinate to her, and this reason is more likely to be found in her rude treatment of the nuns and in her obstinate character than in her reprehensible life. And as much as possible, according to the scope of my duties, I verbally reported this to Philaret at his discretion: and recently I asked him, in order to stop all talk, to pay special attention to Devier’s complaint and, having impartially examined it, to subject the perpetrators, if any, to punishment, to which I received the answer that all this would certainly be done to them.” From this message it is clear that the city gossip had already touched upon the behavior of the abbess and did not hesitate to cast shade on the saint. Luzhin did not dare to tell Filaret about this slander and Romanovsky told him about it. Filaret’s tears flowed in streams and he raised his hands and said: “Lord! This is already beyond my strength! Despite such a message from the governor and Philaret’s order to remove the abbess and treasurers, which facilitated the correct course of the matter, St. The Synod instructed the rector of the Moscow Danilov Monastery, Archimandrite Iakov, to carry out an investigation. This, according to Archimandrite Gerasim, deeply saddened Filaret. “Undoubtedly, Archimandrite noted in his diary. Gerasim, “that Filaret was going through a difficult time. Devier in his complaints to St. The Synod and the chief of gendarmes did not spare the personality of Filaret; accusing him of special patronage of the abbess and treasurer, he touched upon his cell life, not stopping at the most vile slander. The slander against Philaret spread everywhere by people's rumors was heard by God-fearing persons with sincere sorrow and disgust for the slanderers, but there were also those who greedily caught every word and passed it on to others with gloating. There was even a libel against Filaret, who was secretly going from hand to hand. “The Right Reverend Kharkovsky,” wrote Moscow Metropolitan Alexy, “is slandered, of course, but it’s not just him who is sorry. Slander against one or the other easily turns into criticism of the clergy.” The humility of Filaret, excited by Romanovsky's news of slander, soon brought him peace of mind. And when Emilia, the abbess of the St. Nicholas Monastery, devoted to him, all in tears, agitated and saddened, appeared to him and recounted the worldly slander, Filaret said to her with a smile: “Thank God that they are slandering me in vain. This removes my sins from me and reduces my responsibility for them before God. I only feel sorry for the poor slanderers, that while they lighten my soul, they burden their own souls with the sin of slander.” Remembering this conversation, Mother Emilia could not hold back her tears and, wiping them away, said: “Here was a wonderful man, a generous man, not like us cowardly couple.” Priest of the Ascension Church Fr. Grigory Tomashevsky, as a spiritual deputy, knew this matter very well. This is what he says: “Decades have passed, and even now my heart feels bitter when I remember the slander and untruths of people. “Filaret’s case,” these two words once resounded in the city of Kharkov. What the suffering ruler endured, God knows. The city trumpeted horrors. Prosecutors made inquiries. The nuns slandered everything, reaching such shamelessness that they claimed that the bishop went to the Khoroshevsky Monastery at night on a racing droshky and the gate was opened for him. And who saw the Bishop, who opened the gate, how long and with whom exactly the Bishop was in the monastery, where the horse stood at that time? etc., etc., no one gave an answer to these and similar questions. Yes, no matter how many slander his enemies wove against Philaret, not a single pen or tongue, guided by hatred of him, dared to write or speak, or even hint at any fact that would make the moral purity and chastity of the feelings of this saint suspicious. It was clear as day that the slander directed at the personality of Filaret, at the very touch of him, was exposed and torn like a cobweb. I often visited Vladyka on this matter. Once during my report, I saw him silently walking around the hall and sighing. Suddenly, standing in front of me, he asks: “How are you, Fr. Gregory, do you think about the blame placed on me?” and immediately burst into tears. Instead, I fell at his feet and cried myself. “Apparently I, a sinner, have done something good for someone, if the enemy of salvation weaved such a stinking slander against me and brought the bishop to shame in my person.” When I began to leave, he blessed me and said: “God’s will be done in everything!” The world has shown itself to be the same as it was 19 centuries ago. For preaching the truth, for his labors to save many and for his prayers for his flock, he repaid with sorrows and placed a crown of thorns on the shepherd, who was ready to “lay down his life for the sheep.” With pain in our hearts, we must bring here that the prince took upon himself to finish off Filaret, to support the denunciation with his authoritative word. Suvorov. Having learned about such a powerful avenger, Filaret sadly looked at his fate. We will not be mistaken, I believe, if we say that what most upset Philaret was the tempting for the church to bring its archpastor to shame. “Until now I knew nothing about my misfortune,” Filaret wrote to the Metropolitan of Moscow, “moreover, what I wrote to your bishop. Two days ago, the Metropolitan of Kiev, during a meeting, told me in a few words that a denunciation had been filed against me for bribes and bad living, and that this denunciation was personally delivered by the prince. Suvorov to the secret chancellery (?). Having considered the matter with its consequences, I remain convinced that even if the investigation had acquitted me, such a strong persecutor would have brought the matter to the point that I would have been forced to renounce the diocese. This conviction is a consequence of close acquaintance with Suvorov’s poor vindictiveness. Therefore, I am sending a letter to the St. Petersburg Metropolitan that I am ready to abandon the diocese without investigation, if it is impossible to limit myself to demanding an explanation for a copy of the denunciation, hitherto unknown to me in its exact form.” But suddenly things took an unexpected turn. By order of the Highest, the investigation was terminated. According to the most humble report of Prince. Dolgorukov, the Sovereign Emperor ordered: 1) further proceedings of investigative cases arising from the mentioned complaints to be stopped; b) those who entered St. Synod of petition gr. Devier and his wife, as well as the report of the Reverend. Philaret in the present case should be left without exception: c) Abbess Antonina and Treasurer Elisaveta, having been removed from their posts, transferred to live in another monastery; d) gr. Devier, because in his complaints he allowed himself to express himself insolently and unfairly about the honor of Bishop Philaret, was arrested for six months in his village; e) the official Napolov for incitement and drawing up libelous petitions, as a harmful and restless person, should be expelled forever from the Kharkov province.” Thus ended the matter, which had caused so much noise and brought so much grief to the zealous altar server and to all those devoted to the church and its covenants. When Filaret received an appointment to Kharkov, he repeatedly asked himself the question: “is there something waiting for me in Kharkov?” Rev. Innokenty (then already Archbishop of Tauride), congratulating him on his arrival in Kharkov, wrote to him that “in Kharkov you can create and arrange things in silence and peace,” but Filaret answered this. - “Having suffered grief in Riga, I cannot assure myself that it will not happen in Kharkov.” Of course, peace and anxiety here depended on the personal characteristics of each. More indifference to the matter and the matter will go, albeit quietly, but calmly, without irritating anyone, without disturbing one’s own peace. The “for your information” resolution, instead of a lively attitude to the matter, we see satisfies others. The paper is under the cloth - and everything is calm. Philaret’s zeal in serving the church had no limits, just as his commitment to the church and his concern for the spiritual salvation of the flock entrusted to him were boundless. That is why, after he was transferred from Riga, his successor lived there quietly for 17 years. They pressed Filaret, but they supported him, because they were afraid of getting another Filaret in return. That is why Philaret’s deputy served quietly in Kharkov. This incident did not yet end the hardships of Philaret’s Kharkov ministry. Dissatisfied with the closure of the Starobelsky spiritual board, the first present Archpriest Silvansky, jealously guarding his own interests, filed a complaint with St. Synod, and a memo to the Chief Prosecutor, accusing clerk Filaret of bribes, among other things, during the distribution of bronze crosses erected in memory of the Sevastopol War. True, Filaret constantly failed in choosing clerks: In 1854, he took the best student of the seminary, the son of his confessor, the venerable hieromonk, later Archimandrite Macarius, hoping, of course, that, being with his father and under his supervision, he would not follow the slippery and tempting path of his predecessors. But Filaret should have fired him too, but sought a place for him. The accusation brought against him by Rev. Silvansky’s account of the crosses was not confirmed. “We must pray,” wrote Filaret to Romanovsky from St. Petersburg, “it is clear that my sins are calling storm after storm upon me. Thanks be to the Lord for everything. I don’t know how things will go further; but in the Synod they listened with amazement and indignation to Silvansky’s trick. Even Bozhanov, (protopresbyter), to my amazement, expressed disgust and indignation during two sessions. For my part, I tried to remain silent so as not to aggravate the guilt of the perpetrator.” But it was not so easy to dispel the slander. On his way to St. Petersburg, Filaret stopped by the Moscow saint. He wanted to know his view of what had happened and, of course, wanted to find moral support in him, in his conversation, in his word. After all, 15 years of his toiling life passed before the eyes of the Metropolitan. He is familiar with his activities in Riga and he has already given a real assessment of the slander against Filaret in Riga. And after a meeting with him, Filareta writes to Romanovsky: “I listened to a lot from him, including hearing things that I did not expect to hear. For example, said arch. Jacob, as if some student offered 300 rubles for a place. in favor of the Khoroshevsky Monastery, and as if on your advice some archpriest gave 400 rubles. and got a place. Explain to me, if you can, what this gossip is and where it comes from?” It is clear that the arch. Jacob accepted the rumors that reached him without proper criticism. After the next conversation, Filaret wrote: “Praise and glory to the merciful Lord that the main vile slander against me fell from my sinful head. Grateful to the Lord for the latter, I don’t want to talk about other Khoroshevsky gossip. May the Lord forgive and enlighten the blind... They strained, passed through a strong vice my whole life in Kharkov this year with one intention - to show the unclean and dirty in it. But I placed and place all my hopes in the Lord, and if I was mistaken, I was mistaken by an error of conscience, and not against my conscience. And so my hope in the Lord did not remain in shame. Glory to you, Lord, for everything.” We know from the letters of the Metropolitan of Moscow to the Most Reverend. Alexy Tula that they did not believe the slander against Filaret, understanding that they were an expression of strong displeasure against him, caused by the purest motives on the part of Filaret. Obviously, the Metropolitan informed Philaret about all the rumors that had reached him in order to confirm the need for caution, which he often warned his ardent and zealous protege about. Filaret valued the opinion and disposition of the Moscow saint. That is why, having become convinced from his conversations that the rumors did not shake the visionary old man’s opinion of him, Filaret found complete satisfaction in this. How and with what did Filaret overcome his sorrows? His colleague, Fr., introduces us to this. N. Lashchenkov. “In these cases, when Philaret was left alone with his grief and was seriously ill in soul, he was languishing and did not know where to go from melancholy, he usually retired to his bedroom, preceded by his cell servants, so that for all petitioners and visitors there would be one answer: “the bishop is sick.” Here, kneeling in tearful prayer, he poured out his soul before the Lord. When the anxiety of his heart began to subside somewhat, he sat down and read the Gospel. My favorite passage from the Gospel at this time was the Savior’s last conversation with his disciples. Then he went out into the hall and, with his hands behind his back, quickly walked along it and sang his favorite canon of the 8th tone, repeating it several times and most often the sixth hymn “Cleanse me, O Savior, from much iniquity”... Then he went into his office and sat down to work. Engaging in some kind of scientific work served as a sure sign that the mental storm had passed and he had calmed down. “When the heart is confused,” he wrote to Romanovsky, “the safest thing to do is turn to two means: prayer and reading the Holy Scriptures. Here the soul finds rest and light.” Apparently these remedies were tested by him more than once. Filaret was extremely responsive. But for all his zeal, remarkable abilities and hard work, he always looked for moral support in a worthy person. So he valued Gorsky’s friendship, considering his friend “a gift from God.” So he became attached to his confessor, Fr. Macarius, missing him in his absence. At the news of his summons to St. Synod, he made the following request to Macarius: “I am afraid to part with you, father-confessor: I need you for my soul. Create love with me: let’s go with me and we will always be together until the very grave.” And from that time on, he was not truly separated from him until his grave. Romanovsky took advantage of Filaret's great friendship. Nikolai Nikolaevich Romanovsky, the Valka leader of the nobility, was a great clever man, an enlightened and pious man. He knew the region well and provided great assistance to Filaret in his description of Kharkov. diocese. N.N. was a remarkably pleasant conversationalist both among spiritual people and in secular society. His stories, full of wit and humor, made his conversation extremely interesting and funny. He was the most dear and welcome guest of the Potemkins when they and their St. Petersburg friends and acquaintances came to the Holy Mountains. Filaret called Romanovsky “dear nightingale,” comparing the beauty of his speech with the wonderful song of a nightingale. He sometimes did not part with him for several months. “With all the zeal of my loving soul, I ask you to come to Kharkov as soon as possible so that together we celebrate September 25 - the day of St. Sergius,” he wrote to him. “And you should be scolded: why didn’t you come here to fast? It’s warm and peaceful here.” Romanovsky often fasted in the bishop's cross and listened to divine services from the prayer room. “Please return to Kharkov as soon as possible. I'm looking forward to seeing you. I think that you have set too much time for harvesting bread; at least the most necessary things can be completed much sooner. I'm looking forward to seeing you. You now have a late carriage. It seems that you could safely travel to Kharkov, where they love you, they love you very much. How sensitive are our souls! Vera, I was planning to write to you yesterday. And now I received your letter. I rejoice that the Lord sent you a good alarm clock. And for your vigilance and love, may the Lord reward you where rewards are dearer than all earthly rewards. Do you know what I was going to write to you about? Can't guess? Get ready for Moscow. T. Borisovna (Potemkina) wrote that she promised to let me go to Moscow and by tomorrow’s mail I am sending a letter to the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, asking him to ask me for permission to go to worship St. Sergius. He wrote about his desire and M. to the Metropolitan. So, it's up to you. What do you say? However, don’t be put off by the surprise. I still haven’t decided for myself when I can hit the road? So I wrote to St. Petersburg. Whether you go in winter or spring, you need to think about it. I've already thought a lot and still haven't come to a firm decision. I hope to see you soon according to your promise. I am writing a second message to you. And again about the same thing: please come to me. This is my third call to you. But this call is not the same as the previous ones. I received news from Arseny from Moscow that the Metropolitan had already received news of the Synod’s permission for my journey to Moscow. And Vladyka even hoped that I was already on my way. So all I have to do is get ready to go. And the proximity of fasting tells us not to hesitate. So, if your health and circumstances do not allow you to decide on a cold and quick journey, please come at least to see me off.” But Romanovsky did not refuse to accompany Philaret and recalled with spiritual delight the time spent with him in Moscow and under the canopy of St. Laurels Rev. Sergius. Philaret’s last letter, in addition to his love for Romanovsky, testifies to us of Philaret’s filial obedience to the Moscow saint. His word was enough and the unresolved question about the time of the trip was resolved even if there was doubt about the accompanying person of a loved one. Leaving for St. Petersburg for the week, Filaret even more felt the need for his friend’s conversation and wrote to the sick Nick. Nik-chu: “If you were at all healthy, I would ask you to visit St. Petersburg. But this is not the time to talk about this. Strengthen yourself, strengthen yourself." Having received an appointment in Chernigov and planning to visit Kharkov for a few days, Filaret wrote to him: “If you can, in your weakness, visit Kharkov around May 25, visit for the love of Christ - we will see each other for the last time. I’ll try to get there around May 25 or 30. I’d really like to see you. I don’t have anyone else in Kharkov, more beloved and more worthy of love, at least I think so from the experience of your affairs.” Indeed, this was their last meeting. Filaret could not part with the idea of ​​no longer seeing his “soul friend” and wrote from Chernigov: “Don’t get sick, but get better. Father Macarius and I expect that you, having visited the saints of God in Kyiv, will visit us sinners in Chernigov. If you need to talk; then I will say that I loved and love you in the Lord, like no one else in Kharkov. My soul knows this.” Why was Nick especially dear to Filaret? Nikolaevich, makes it clear about. Lashchenkov “In a bitter earthly life, the love of a friend is a gift from God, for which we must thank God.” This is how he (Filaret) looked at friendship. In these difficult moments of his bitter life (when the Devier case was going on), the love of his friend, Romanovsky, for him was truly a gift from God. Of course, Romanovsky could not always give Filaret timely practical advice on how to correct this or that matter that had caused him trouble, and this was not what his soul actually craved from Romanovsky. She asked to share her grief with him. An important service on Romanovsky’s part was that with his participation, with his intimate conversation, he managed, albeit for a short time, to distract his thoughts from the subject of his oppressive grief and calm his troubled spirit. Filaret felt that he was not alone in the midst of his sorrow, that there was a soul completely devoted to him, which he called “dear soul,” which rejoices at his joy and grieves with his sorrows. This feeling eased the burden of his grief, encouraged and gave him strength and courage” - “For 9 days now, my soul has been in severe melancholy, which I cannot drive away from my soul,” Filaret wrote to Nikolai Nikchu, humbly adding: “but this is necessary for my sins.” Filaret himself did not leave his friend with instructions and advice, presenting them in the gentlest form. “May the Almighty protect your home church with His goodness. Walk cheerfully in the path of Christ and do not be disturbed by the winds of life. I don’t know if I’ll say something useful, but I want to say something that’s beneficial. Having had a chance to see and talk with Nick. Nikolayevich (Bakhmetyev’s gubernatorial leader), and with the vice-governor and some others, I learned that permission to draw up district assemblies was considered necessary to be given after collecting information from the city. leaders, so that otherwise there would be no disorderly noise throughout the province. Therefore, they expect you with information in Kharkov by January 21. In my opinion and conviction, such reasoning is thorough and deserves full approval. I would like from the bottom of my heart that my sincere Nick. Nick. accepted him with peace of soul and conscience, and then followed his thoughts.” The matter was about preparation for work, which received permission on February 19, 186. In his view on this issue, Filaret differed from his friend, as we will see below, and was far more far-sighted than him. Thinking about the approach of death, Romanovsky in one of his letters complains to Filaret that he did not prepare himself for separation from his family, to whom he is so attached and who must be left alone. Filaret answered: “Thank you to the Lord and that you feel this.” Then, pointing to some spiritual means that contribute to calming the spirit, he continues: “I can only add, if you do not consider it unnecessary, a word of my sinful love, that your attachment to your own, and according to my observations, is sometimes unnecessary and crosses the border, attaching itself to the thought that it is not holy, that you mean too much to your own, while everything and in everything is the Lord. Why should we undertake to be strong masters and lords of the happiness of others, when we are so weak and short-sighted, and only the Lord is strong and all-seeing? Forgive me, for the Lord’s sake, for telling you this.” Romanovsky sometimes expressed his opinion very sharply, especially about Filaret’s orders, sometimes made in the heat of the moment: and this directness and courage of Romanovsky was accepted by Filaret as an expression of his friend’s sincere disposition towards him and the love of his friend. So, for example, when Filaret refused benefits to the widow of a priest due to the dean’s unjust and vile slander and when he, having learned that it was slander, added to her allowance, she rushed to his doorsteps, pouring tears on them. Romanovsky, at the end of the scene that happened in front of him, told Filaret that she had wet his feet with tears, and in her place he would have bitten them so that the bishop himself would have been hurt, and another time, based on one denunciation from the dean, he would not have made such orders. Filaret responded with a Christian kiss. This is what Romanovsky was to Filaret, who always grieved over his weaknesses and shortcomings. All significant days for him: his birthday, the day of the angel, the day of his consecration, the church holidays of his cross churches, the days of fasting, the days of St. Filaret certainly accompanied Sergius and some other saints with Romanovsky. “Vladika Filaret,” writes Fr. in his memoirs. Tomashevsky, “was very friendly with Romanovsky, with whom he sometimes did not part for several months. It happened that when they began to say goodbye and kiss, it would be touching to the point of tears. Here there are prostrations to one another and endless blessings and good wishes.” But such a close and sincere relationship between Filaret and Romanovsky did not constrain Filaret in refusing any petition, as we saw above. Filaret’s first impulse upon receiving the decree to terminate the case was to give thanks to the Creator. He wished to pray before the miraculous Ozeryansk Icon of the Mother of God, which at that time was in the Kuryazhsky Monastery. This monastery is located three miles from the bishop’s summer dacha - Vsesvyatsky. May 20 Filaret, accompanied by Rev. Innokenty, the former bishop of Yekaterinoslav and who lived in retirement in the Kuryazh monastery, and Romanovsky went on foot to Kuryazh. The rector of the monastery, Archimandrite Gerasim, served an akathist and wrote in his diary the following story about the journey of the two rulers. “The touching singing, the importance of the circumstance that caused the vow of prayer, and perhaps the premonition that we will not see each other again in Kuryazh - all this, combined, really touched my heart and I was ready to cry. From the church, both bishops went to my cells and drank tea here and then had lunch. Romanovsky brought a bottle of wine with him for dinner: “Eat,” he said, “after all, this is not wine, but love.” I also drank a glass, although I had never drunk before.” The case was over, but worries about Khoroshev did not stop. One of the concerns was to find an abbess capable of calming the indignant passions, establishing order and continuing the improvement of the monastery steadily begun by Philaret. The monastery was temporarily ruled by the nun Smaragda. But Filaret could not trust her, not so much because during the investigation she was hostile to the former abbess, but more importantly because she was one of the nuns who rebelled against the rules of the hostel; and this indicates a great lack of humility, a lack of everything that is most undesirable in the abbess, who should serve as an example for other sisters. However, bitter experience prompted Filaret to beware of taking an abbess from another monastery. And the question of the abbess remained unresolved when Filaret left for St. Petersburg. Romanovsky interceded for Smaragda. Filaret, understandably, had to refuse him. Then Smaragda turned to the mediation of another person, the Kharkov head O.K. Kostyurin. Kostyurin wrote to Filaret in St. Petersburg. Having knocked down Smaragda for her activities and care of the monastery, he, on behalf of all the sisters and on behalf of all the merchants, asked Filaret to confirm Smaragda in the position of abbess. Filaret greatly respected Kostyurin, as a pious man, devoted to the church and who provided him with great assistance in the construction of a women's religious school, both through great sacrifice and personal labor. In response to Kostyurin’s petition, Filaret wrote to Bishop Innokenty: “in order to stop many rumors, consecrate Smaragda as abbess.” Doubting the benefit of such an appointment, Filaret wrote to Romanovsky: “God grant that this will serve the world and for good.” And Filaret was not mistaken in his expectations. Soon a complaint was received against Smaragda from Archimandrite Gerasim. Smaragda, only because of her suspicion of concealing her cell and suspected her of stealing 12 rubles from her, drove the other cell out of the monastery in one scroll, taking all her dresses and withholding her dismissal certificate. The homeland of the cell, where she was supposed to go, is 200 versts from Kharkov. Arch. Gerasim twice personally appealed to Smaragda about issuing her dismissal certificate from the cell, but was refused. Smaragda issued the certificate only upon receipt of a decree from the consistory, where Fr. Gerasim was forced to convert. Filaret put forward the following resolution: “It’s a pity about the event. Let Abbess Smaragda know by decree that no authorities, neither secular nor spiritual, will tolerate those who are disobedient to their superiors and stupid in their orders. This time limiting myself to this suggestion, I remain confident that in the future she will not allow herself to do similar things, forcing her superiors to suffer severe and deeply painful sorrows.” Filaret carried Klivet like a cross, from his youth to the grave. Thus, when he was the rector of the academy, his frequent meetings with Mrs. Ya., nee Sh., were a reason for slander. People who knew Filaret closer did not allow anything bad in his relationship with Ya-oh. Fortunately, the people who witnessed Philaret’s rectorship pass by are still alive: these are his former students. It is easiest to treat a person’s reputation when he is young; on the other hand, who better to notice any weakness in a leader than a student? And here is the testimony of one respected presbyter A.I.S., a former student of Philaret, which we will try to convey verbatim: “My God! Yes, none of us students could ever think of anything bad about Filaret. God forbid! This was a righteous man. Yes, he and Gorsky didn’t even have time to think about sin: they spent their whole lives in work, in studies, and how! 3-4 hours a day, they didn’t get to sleep anymore. And Ya-na was our person at the academy. Our students studied with her children (the eldest was about 12 years old), and she was at the academy every day. But she was smart, and educated, and it was a pleasure to talk to her.” Moreover, if there was anything bad in these relations, it would not have escaped his friend Gorsky, whose pious life was known to everyone; this would cool his feeling of attachment to Filaret. Here, on the contrary, we see their relationship not only unshaken, but we notice that Gorsky looked at Filaret as a support and sought his advice and guidance in important issues of life. He was even upset when, in response to the requested advice, Filaret, due to an extremely restless state of mind during an unpleasant matter in Riga, answered: “I don’t know.” Finally, Filaret, being the rector, lived with Gorsky in the same apartment, and his life was in front of the latter’s eyes. Slander is ready to interpret any fact to please itself. So, when Ya-na moved to Moscow for the further education of her son (he could not finish his education in Sergievsky Posad), they began to say that she was asked to leave by order of the Metropolitan. They didn’t want to understand that if Ya-na valued Philaret’s conversation, it was because, living in the suburb, she, as an educated and intelligent woman, could not find any other company. Moreover, given the working life that Filaret led at the academy, he could not have much free time for these conversations. His departure from the Academy, as we know, was hasty. He did not have the time to sort out the papers and ordered them to do it without him. Between his papers was a letter from Ya-oh. And what did it contain? Advice to endure grief without complaint, as the will of the Creator! And the grief was caused by separation from the academy. And not a single word, not a single hint indicating shortness; on the contrary, the letter certified that the relationship was purely spiritual.” We mentioned this incident, perhaps forgotten, so that, at least after death, we could remove from the memory of the saint the undeserved reproach that was fabricated about him by human frivolity. To confirm the venerable presbyter’s remark, we will cite the opinion of his former comrade, Archbishop Joseph, about Philaret 47 . “He was a pure, simple soul. He didn't understand evil. It happened that you would warn him: why are you acting so carelessly? They can explain it this way and interpret it for evil. But he doesn’t understand this: how can a person explain evil in something innocent.” “How can this be? How can you say what doesn’t exist?” “And with such an infant heart he remained until the grave. He was like that in Kharkov. If he sometimes acted carelessly and caused slander against himself, it was not because he was worthy of it, but because he was not careful: he saw only good in people and did not believe that it was possible to invent evil where there was none.” Filaret suffered the same slander in Chernigov. There they spread a rumor about him that he takes tribute from the clergy and does nothing without offerings. What was this rumor based on? Even on the way to Chernigov, while reviewing the churches of the Konoton district, he was dissatisfied with two priests, whom, having arrived in Chernigov, he thought to transfer to other parishes. The abbot of the monastery remarked to him: “Better fine them, Vladyka. They are wealthy people, this will not ruin them. If you transfer them to another village, the same rules will be introduced.” - “Where does this fine go?” Filaret asks, perplexed. “How to where? Yes, our bells are about to fall, because the crossbars are rotten; and fine it in favor of the monastery.” Filaret obeyed. But now they began to say that the bishop fined them in his own favor. This opinion about the bishop, which was spreading among the clergy, was very useful for the clever clerk, who, without any hesitation, began to abuse the name of his bishop. Mogilev Archbishop Eusebius spoke about rumors about Filaret: “I don’t believe the stories, Filaret is not like that; I know him. What are those around him like? He's gullible. He doesn’t even have time to look closely at people.” This rumor also reached His Eminence Isidore, who was then Metropolitan of Kyiv. Jealous of the good reputation of his brother, the Metropolitan Vladyka informed him of what he had heard. Filaret, having received this fraternal warning, said to his novice: “Here, brother, they say about me that I take bribes. Lord, I’m already a great sinner before you: where would I be preparing myself if I were still doing this!” At this time, D, who was his patron, was spending his holidays with him. Showing him the letter, Filaret asked him: “Well, what does this mean, what do you think?” - “Indeed, Vladyka, everyone is talking about this, that R. is abusing your name.” - “How can this be, no one will tell me”? - “They are afraid.” - “And you knew?” - “And I knew.” - “Why didn’t you tell me?” - “I was afraid too. I saw that you were disposed towards him and thought that, perhaps, they would not believe me, or he would have time to convince you that this was slander. I wouldn’t help the cause, but in it I would have an eternal enemy, who could turn you against me, but I live only by your gracious participation in my situation.” And everyone looked at the clerk as the person closest to Philaret. No one expected him to break up with him. But Filaret, immediately calling him to him, said to him: “The Lord is with you! Get away from me and may you not be here tomorrow.” Eusebius’s assumption was justified. Soon he traveled to Kyiv to venerate the shrine and on the way stopped in Chernigov to visit his old comrade Philaret. Upon his return, he said: “I ask my cell attendant: what kind of bishop did he seem to you? Good, says the lord, very good; but the people around him are bad.” And this deficiency in those around him was revealed with all its terrifying truth after his death. But the slander against Philaret, launched in the highest sphere of St. Petersburg, had little impact on the Holy Synod. Filaret's fame as a scientist has already thundered throughout Russia. There was almost no secular literary magazine that did not devote several articles to an analysis of his works, paying tribute to his talent and knowledge. Various learned societies honored him with diplomas. So on January 25, 1847, he was elected a full member of the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities; On February 14th, corresponding member of the Imperial Russian Archaeological Society; On March 15, 1852, a full member of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society and on the same date an honorary member of the Imperial Kharkov University. He was then already a respected member of the Copenhagen Society of Antiquities; On March 22, 1855, he was elected an honorary member of the Imperial Moscow University; On May 21, 1856, an honorary member of the Imperial Russian Archaeological Society; On May 21, 1857, an honorary member of the Kyiv Theological Academy. Later, namely on April 3, 1860, Filaret was awarded the degree of Doctor of Theology by the Kiev Theological Academy, and in 1865 he was elected an honorary member of the Moscow Theological Academy. It’s somehow strange that our native academy was the last to honor its famous student and rector. His apostolic ministry in Riga became known to the members of the Holy Synod in its true light; before their eyes was the case of undeserved slander by Filaret in Riga. As a result, the Holy Synod had to treat the new slander, if not with distrust, then with extreme caution. His activities in Kharkov were as rich in results as his activities in Riga were in sorrows. That is why, instead of responding to the denunciation, Filaret, elevated to the rank of archbishop in 1857, was honored by the appointment to be present at the Holy Synod. One thing that Prince Suvorov managed to do was to shake the opinion of the late Sovereign about Filaret in God. So, for a short time, when Filaret was appointed to Chernigov, the Tsar warned Governor Shabelsky about Filaret from a disadvantageous perspective for the latter. And only when he signed a rescript to Philaret in 1866 to award him the Order of the Holy Blessed Prince Alexander Nevsky, the former chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, gr. D.N. Tolstoy boldly opened the eyes of the Emperor, pointing out the true merits of Filaret for the church, fatherland and science. And in the Highest Rescript his scientific works were attested, constituting the decoration of spiritual Russian writing.” Leaving for St. Petersburg, Filaret had the consolation of making sure that the slander spread by his ill-wishers was given a proper assessment by Kharkov society. Everyone vied with each other to express deep respect to their innocent sufferer. Farewell to him was touching. The provincial leader of the nobility, taking advantage of the congress of all district leaders, honored him with dinner. the next day, for the same purpose, dinner was given by the governor of the province. The merchants brought him bread and salt. At the same time, everyone unanimously expressed the desire for the archpastor’s speedy return. From morning to night, the rooms of the bishop's house were filled with those who wanted to receive the holy blessing of the departing Bishop. “The love and respect for the Right Reverend Philaret that is common to all classes of the province,” it was said about his departure in the “Kharkov Gazette,” will become completely understandable if we only remember that for more than ten years the Kharkov diocese was illuminated by the light of his enlightenment and was warmed by the warmth of his kind heart.” Leaving the diocese, as expected, for a year, Filaret made the necessary orders, which he outlined in the following sentence of the consistory: 1) Eminence. Innocent took upon himself the work of ordaining proteges and performing divine services on solemn, holiday and Sunday days. The keymaster, Archpriest A. Malinovsky, is obliged every day before the service to ask for orders from the Eminence about the service; Archimandrite Parmen has to give him a carriage and horses for his service, and when the Eminence deems it necessary for himself, to receive him and rest in my rooms. 2) Members of the consistory must always and promptly appear in the consistory and diligently engage in business according to the charter, decide cases without delay and according to the letter of the law, always write in the minutes the rules or articles of the law on the basis of which the case is decided. 3) The rector of the seminary, Archimandrite Gerasim, is entrusted with the supervision of the school for maidens of the clergy and all monasteries. 4) The churches of the cross and the bishop's house are entrusted to the management of the archimandran. Parmenu. 5) He, the archimander, is in charge of the hospice house. Parmen, without violating the order I have established in any way and using my money when needs require, will report to me about the progress of the matter in two months. 6) Direct management of the candle factory is entrusted to Hieromonk Abramius and every month statements must be sent to me. 7) The sacristan has to report to me about incidents in the cathedral in two weeks, the dean has to report about incidents in the city churches, and the archimandrite has to report to me about the incidents in the city churches. Parmen. 8) Since in the candle factory there is my money, given in favor of the factory mutually, and the bishop’s house has received a lot of money from me at different times or has not received it, following me, then the members of the consistory, Rev. Ganon and Eleidov should inform me exactly how much money I owe to the plant and to the house management and deliver a report to me. Such detailed orders requiring reports on all subjects of his department confirm to us that Filaret takes his ministry seriously. In April 1859, while Filaret was in St. Petersburg, he was appointed to Chernigov. Whether in connection with this transfer of the Kharkov case, as a result of which it was considered inconvenient for him to remain in Kharkov, is unknown. The Reverend himself Filaret, who was in St. Petersburg at that time, and therefore had the opportunity to know all the circumstances more closely, attributed this movement to the Riga intrigue. This is what he wrote to Romanovsky: “How did this happen, you ask? It happened due to circumstances that not only you, but also I did not think about, or if I did, it was very little because they were ten years ago. When we meet, we’ll talk, if God wills. I’ll just say: Riga.” Before the late Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich, they would not have dared to re-post the Riga slander against Filaret. The intrigue was clear to him and received his assessment once and for all. Filaret's ill-wishers obviously took advantage of the new reign to denigrate Filaret before the reigning Emperor, who was then uninitiated into the secrets of the Riga intrigue. This is what could have given rise to the Sovereign’s unfavorable opinion about him for Filaret, which he expressed to Shabelsky, and cast a shadow on his Kharkov ministry. In any case, we are ready to see in this appointment the mercy of God for the Chernigov flock, where Philaret’s predecessor, Archbishop Paul, due to his decrepitude and weakness: for many years he almost did not govern the diocese. Simultaneously with the receipt of the decree on the transfer of the Right Reverend Philaret to Chernigov, a rumor spread in Kharkov that he would stop in Kharkov on the way from Moscow to Chernigov. Indeed, at the end of June 1859, when His Eminence Macarius, who had been appointed there from Tambov, was already in Kharkov, Filaret also arrived. The purpose of his visit was to explain to his successor some of the economic affairs of the bishop's house and to arrange his treasury - the library. Upon receipt at the consistory from the newly appointed steward of the bishop's house of a report on the receipt of all amounts according to books, and all property according to inventories, and upon the issuance of a receipt from the consistory, the Right Reverend Philaret left Kharkov in early July, staying there for four days. Saying goodbye to the members of the consistory and kissing everyone, he said to everyone: “Christ is with you!” “This was his favorite expression,” notes Fr. John Sharotsky, “which very often came out of his mouth and indicated the good disposition of his soul. You could say he breathed the name of Christ.” Having said goodbye to the city clergy, Filaret went to Vsesvyatskoe, where his successor, the Right Reverend Macarius, was waiting for him for lunch. His beloved Eminence Innocent was also at the dinner. From here, through Kuryazh, he went to Valki to see his friend Romanovsky, who, due to his illness, could not arrive in Kharkov and was impatiently waiting for Filaret to come to him. After spending two days in the family of a person dear to his heart, already in the last intimate conversation with him, Filaret moved to gray-haired Chernigov to replenish the number of its great saints in its chronicles, Having spent the last night in the Baturinsky monastery, the next day at 4 o’clock in the afternoon Filaret arrived in Chernigov, having previously made sure that there would be no meeting. The Chernigov diocese made a sad impression on Filaret. He found complete desolation here, an untouched corner. “There are very, very many things to do here,” he wrote to Romanovsky. There were up to a thousand unresolved cases of the consistory. Meanwhile, up to 30 and 40 requests are received every day. Besides, there is no one to do the work of the consistory; all the people are old and decrepit. In short: there is no time to think. There are three times the diocesan cases against Kharkov here.” - “I’m getting to know the flock. I repeat the same: there is a lot to do.” “The house here, which is not rich in itself, is neglected due to poor supervision. It takes a lot of trouble to fix it.” “Churches and residential buildings,” he complained to the metropolitan, “were ready to fall” - “I don’t understand,” he wrote to Romanovsky, “how people can live so carefree as they lived in Yeletskoye 48. It’s impossible for me to live like this: my soul will be tormented.” - “Parmen 49 says: “Why bother about the house? They worked hard in Kharkov and everything went to others.” I answer him: look, others have planted beautiful gardens for us here, built a huge church and house. They worked for us. Why don't we work for others? Isn’t it beneficial for us in eternity if we work for others and as little as possible for our own pleasure? Do you think I'm wrong? True, Ivan Vasilyevich Platonov told me six years ago at Vsesvyatsky “I am surprised at your troubles around the house, all this is not for you, but for others; right is not smart.” But then and now I want to remain with my convictions.” Filaret, of course, was not mistaken that by putting the monasteries where he spent his winter and summer stays in better shape, he created for himself an abode of eternity. And now both old and young will show you: this church was restored by Filaret, this house was built by Filaret, this orchard was planted by him, this entrance was built by him, the candle factory is the work of his hands. Both in the last century, Lazar Baranovich, and in the present, Filaret were outstanding creators: the first built buildings, the second restored them almost from ruins and, most importantly, ensured their support in the future, leaving one monastery a candle factory, and the other a printing house and forest dachas. Those who benefit from the fruits of his labors undoubtedly remember the worker in prayer. The Chernigov clergy was not distinguished by its development. Litigation, a light attitude towards his responsibilities and little concern for being a good example for others almost constituted his common feature at that time. At least, if there were exceptions, they were not particularly frequent. Moral supervision of future shepherds was weak. The cramped student dormitory building of the seminary, which was in danger of being destroyed, was cleared and the students were taken to private apartments, which made inspection much more difficult. One might say that the seminarians lived without supervision. In response to the rector’s strict sentence, the weak archpastor remarked: “Well, what good will happen? You will expel them, and I will put them in the butt.” So, that’s how many things and concerns Filaret had to do. They could promise him little free time for his academic studies, which could not help but crush him. “It seems that here they will no longer let me study with cribs or books,” he wrote to Romanovsky. Such sad information received by Romanovsky from Chernigov could even less reconcile him with the transfer of Filaret from the rich university city of Kharkov to remote Chernigov. He knew that Philaret wanted to lay down his bones in Kharkov, for which purpose he built a church in the name of the three ecumenical saints. He knew that the bishop had abandoned the Simbirsk see and wrote about this: “you see, although Kharkov gives me wormwood to drink, I still hold on to Kharkov.” But Filaret meekly accepted the labors of the Chernigov archpastor, as entrusted to him by the will of God, and answered Romanovsky’s complaints: “You ask: why did they remove me from you? The answer is simple: because it is not good for you. The Lord gives us everything we need. This is undoubtedly true. Save yourself in the Lord." At this time, work had already begun on the issue of liberating the peasants. This question was close to Filaret’s Christian soul. Diverging in views on him with his friend Romanovsky, Filaret was greatly upset by this. Wanting to influence Romanovsky, in a letter to him, which we will now outline, Filaret forces him to look at the matter from a Christian point of view. This letter is remarkable for Philaret’s approval of the idea of ​​​​allocating land to peasants, which constitutes the wisest measure of the reform of February 19, and he defends this idea to Romanovsky, “We should not be burdened by what the Lord sends to each of us. You, as a landowner, are now assigned special chores. Don't be burdened by them. Weighed down by them, you become guilty in many respects before your conscience. Firstly, you upset your poor health. Next, you go against the will of God. Take care of your soul. You say that both will turn out badly, that it would be better for both landowners and peasants if it were done your way. Selfish dream! Who gave you the right to think that the government is your enemy, or that it cares less than you about what answer it will have to give for its cause? No, it is now known that the government thought a lot about the matter and discussed up to 100 projects. I am afraid for you especially when you rebel against the allotment of land to the peasants. I don’t recognize you then as either a Christian or even a human being. Let the Polish lord, the Australian magnate, even the Livonian nobleman be so cruel to the people who have worked for them for centuries that they finally tied it to them: you are free to die of hunger: we don’t care about that, we don’t have a single piece of land for you! But the Russian nobleman, the Russian Christian stubbornly wants to do the same! This is an incomprehensible task. Where is our Orthodox, brotherly loving Christianity? In justification, you point to the unpleasant consequences of the allotment for you, for example, being next to a careless and indiscriminate Ukrainian. This is not an excuse. You are confusing two things: the case and its consequences. Suggest measures against disturbing consequences: this is granted to you, but do not condemn the holy cause. Moreover, you are mistaken if you think that the government does not have in mind the unfavorable consequences of being next to a careless Ukrainian and has not prepared means to protect your peace. Let’s think as best as possible about others and as bad as possible about ourselves, this will in any case be beneficial for us.” Filaret stood close to the noble family. His manner, humility, willingness to help and console everyone, coupled with his deep learning and fascinating conversations, attracted everyone who had the opportunity to know him to him. His love, in its choice, did not take into account the opportunity and position of the person. So he was close to the landowner Efim Ivanovich Topchiy, a Kharkov old-timer. E.I. served as adviser to the House of States. property, and therefore occupied a modest place in Kharkov society. God-fearing and devoted to the church, Topchiy says in his memoirs: “Of the Kharkov bishops, Innokenty and Filaret were famous for their learning, both of them loved me, the latter considered me his friend, which I tried in every possible way to justify in fact. Lord, pay them for their love.” In his letters to Romanovsky, Filaret often recalls Topchy: “Efim Ivanovich consoles me with his visits. God save him." When Topchiy visited Philaret for the first time after a serious illness, the latter wrote to Romanovsky: “Eph. Iv. I had it the third day. I was so glad, so glad to see him in my cells that I was ready to jump for joy.” Loving peace, Filaret took part in family disagreements and managed to calm the discord. And in such matters, Romanovsky was his right hand. So, in 1856, a legal dispute arose between two related noble families of the Shidlovskys and Luzhins. Favored by both, Filaret lamented this enmity and persuaded them to peace. The subject of the dispute was the rich estate of the Valkovsky district - Old Merchik. Since Romanovsky was the Moscow leader, this was enough for Filaret to rely on the latter’s services in such a matter. “I think,” Filaret wrote to him, “I often think about your Merchin business. It's unpleasant. Somehow the Lord will help you arrange custody! Yes, it’s hard to do something that people don’t like, but that’s what your conscience demands.” Two months later, he notifies Romanovsky that he suggested that I.D. Luzhin make peace with the Shidlovskys, that Luzhin and his wife are not averse to peace and want Romanovsky’s mediation. “For good, why not bother,” wrote Filaret. “And your position obliges you to do this. Let’s get down to business.” The result was that both sides, having made mutual concessions, ended the feud peacefully. A wealthy landowner N.N. Kostevskaya lived in Kharkov. Ave. Innocent respected her for her piety and constant sacrifices for charitable causes. She donated a lot of land and money in favor of the Akhtyrsky Monastery that he restored. Filaret also respected her and often visited her. She continued to donate to churches and, what was especially dear to Filaret, to the school for girls of clergy. Kostevskaya had a pupil, an orphan. She was a nervous and undeveloped girl, and her old benefactor was spoiled by life, demanding and capricious. Once in church, someone stole an old woman’s prayer book from a pupil, which had been given to the latter by some schema-monk. Kostevskaya became so angry with the unfortunate woman that she did not let her into the house. One of the monks sent her to Filaret in the hope that Filaret would convince the old woman to put her anger to mercy. But the monk was not mistaken only in the participation of his archpastor in the plight of the poor orphan. Indeed, Filaret immediately instructed the dean to take the girl to Kostevskaya, who would ask her to forgive the unfortunate woman on his behalf. But the old woman did not want to hear. Then Filaret turned to Romanovsky. He accepted her into his house and soon married her off, and Filaret provided her with funds for the first establishment. Such participation of Philaret in the bitter plight of the orphan not only did not touch Kostevskaya, but even further strengthened her bitterness even against the saint himself, whom she scolded in any case for allegedly choosing a “mean girl” over her. Filaret knew all this and was silent; wrote only to Innocent: “Natalya Nikolaevna is very displeased with me. Amazing praying mantis! I kicked a pupil out of the house into the cold because someone stole her prayer book in church.” So more than a year passed before the old woman came to her senses, finally touched by the generosity of the saint. She forgave her pupil, took her back to her place and confessed to Philaret. He consigned everything to oblivion and continued to visit her. Once inviting Romanovsky to Kharkov, he wrote to him: “Yes, besides me, many are waiting for you, among others, Natalya Nikolaevna, from whom I am writing this letter to you.” More than once Filaret expressed concern that those struck down by illness, in addition to preparing their souls for relocation to the mountain world, also think about those they leave behind. “Olga Nikolaevna,” (Kovalevskaya), he wrote to Romanovsky, “has been given a short term by the wisest. Meanwhile, she has not yet made an order about the loan letter or, better yet, about her own. According to her relatives, the best thing she can do is to sign the transfer of rights to her daughter on the loan letter. I agree with this, I completely agree with my thoughts about my wife, son and brother. They tell me that she wants to hear my feedback. If this is true: convey my opinion, Be that as it may, hurry to do a good deed, tell her about the necessary things in earthly existence, visit her.” Romanovsky fulfilled Filaret’s wish, and Kovalevskaya accepted his advice. In her will, she among other things wrote: “At the holy feet of His Eminence I ask for my merciful repose. My brother, university student D.N., lives with me. Sharapov, who is in such a painful state that he cannot manage his own support and certainly requires a person who will take care of him with true love, having no one to entrust him with and knowing from experience how merciful the heart of the angel of the Kharkov Church is, I beg your Eminence to show me mercy and accept my unfortunate brother Dimitri under your fatherly care, placing him in whatever monastery you find possible. According to this will, one and a half thousand rubles are to be delivered to you so that from the interest on this amount my brother will be supported, and the capital will be kept in a state credit institution until his death, and after his death, that capital should remain the inalienable property of the monastery, which has matured him, for the commemoration of both him and me.” No matter how meager the amount assigned to Kovalevskaya for the maintenance of her brother was, Filaret treated the unfortunate man with care. Having sent him to the Akhtyrsky Monastery, he wrote to the abbot: “I ask, in order to give brotherly love to the unfortunate, to identify a well-behaved and compassionate novice.” Sharapov soon died, unforgotten by Filaret’s constant care for him. As soon as Topchy fell ill in 1857, Filaret first of all took care of turning the patient to a spiritual doctor. Through his confessor, Hieromonk Macarius, he convinced him to commune with St. Tain, and asked Romanovsky to insist that Topchy draw up a spiritual will. The patient fulfilled all this by sending his will to Philaret. Filaret had to return this will to Topchy himself on the occasion of his recovery. Undoubtedly, many valiant traits of the nobility, which declared themselves with such power during the era of the Sevastopol War, attracted the pure and sublime heart of the patriotic saint even more to them. He inseparably experienced both his joys and his sorrows. So, when they were expecting Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich in Kharkov, unsure of the goodwill of Governor General Kokoshkin, Filaret wrote to Romanovsky: “Let the will of God be done in everything. Pray for the nobles and for me, a sinner.” That is why many Kharkov nobles parted with him with sincere regret, and many Chernigov nobles accompanied him to his grave with deep sorrow. And to this day there are many among them who knew Philaret personally and reverently honor his memory. “I love the nobility,” he used to say. It seems infallible to say that for this love he received payment in kind. Understanding the importance of religious and moral education in all classes and conditions, and even more so in theological seminaries, His Eminence Philaret could not leave the existing order. He immediately turned to the clergy with a proposal to give to the seminary from the church funds remaining in excess, and at the same time made an appeal to private charity. In August 1862, the amount was 12,742 rubles, which made it possible for Filaret to enter the Holy Synod with a proposal for permission to begin construction of the seminary. For some reason, the Holy Synod held out this proposal for more than a year, and only in October of the following 1863 did they receive permission. But Filaret’s winter was not a waste of time for his business. His impatience was equal to the disastrous situation of the seminary; having prepared building materials in the winter, he laid the foundation of the building as soon as the snow melted, back in March. The construction sum doubled, and by January 1866 it increased to 56,447 rubles. So, with small, sometimes insignificant, funds, Filaret began, without hesitation, large structures. With this amount, by January, he not only completed the construction of a new large seminary building, rebuilt the two previous ones, built a church, but also saved the remainder in materials and money up to 7 thousand rubles. In order to raise the seminary and attract the best teaching staff, Filaret took care of improving the financial situation of the mentors. In 1864, he arranged several apartments for them in one of the seminary buildings. In March 1866, he entered the Holy Synod with a proposal to allocate 4 ½ percent of church sums to increase the maintenance of mentors, granting the right to the clergy, and to further increase the percentage of deductions, if he found it possible, to equalize salaries for the Chernigov seminary with others. In April, permission had already been received, and thus this measure was introduced during Filaret’s lifetime. Always setting the first example in matters of charity, he contributed 1,500 rubles from his own funds for the construction of the seminary and the arrangement of apartments for mentors, and donated the publication of his “Letters of the Right Reverend Lazar Baranovich.” To increase the salary of the mentors, he allocated 960 rubles from the non-salary sums of the Chernigov department. per year. His donations endeared him to feasible sacrifices and the clergy. In order to develop students, in 1862 he opened a student library at the seminary and donated all his works to it; and upon his death, his seminary received his entire valuable library, consisting of 1,752 titles, bequeathed to it. Knowing how necessary for the correct organization of education in theological schools (where boys are brought up in adolescence) the close relationship of parents to them and the possibility of their supervision over children, on the other hand, I sympathize with the clergy of the northern districts (Starodubsky, Novozybkovsky, Surazhsky and Mglinsky) in the inconvenience of educating children in the Novgorod-Seversky school, which is remote from them, he suggested opening a school in Starodub. At his initiative, capital was raised in the second half of 1861. Immediately purchased near the center. Ascension in the city of Starodub a house for 4 thousand rubles, and on October 1 of the same year the school was opened, i.e. everything was arranged in less than two months. All classes reacted to this matter, carried out so energetically, with great sympathy, and the clergy established a levy to pay insurance costs. We saw how, through the efforts of Philaret, a school for girls of clergy arose in Kharkov. The thought of establishing a similar school did not leave him in Chernigov. Having donated a thousand rubles himself, he made an appeal to the clergy. Donations were even accepted for grain bread, flour, linen, linen and other items. Grain bread and flour were sold by clergy together with church elders at trading points; and canvas, linen and other items in kind were delivered to the guardianship. The Synod was slow to grant permission here too. The late wife of the governor, Princess Golitsyna, was especially sympathetic to this thought of the Eminence. 50 While she was in St. Petersburg, as can be seen from Filaret’s letter to the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, she personally petitioned the chief prosecutor. Prince Urusov was afraid, as Princess Golitsyna explained, that they would not demand money for the school. “Vainless fears,” Filaret wrote to the Metropolitan: “the maintenance of the school is provided with its capital up to 14 thousand rubles. and his own house,” for which Filaret paid 9 thousand rubles. This was the house of the former Assembly of the Nobility. But, despite this clarification and repetition of his petition, Filaret received permission only in April 1865: and from January of the following 1867, the school was already open, with a church in the name of three saints: Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom. The joy of the clergy was boundless. As if by agreement, all the clergy expressed filial gratitude to the guardian ruler and marked their gratitude with donations. The clergy of the Glukhovsky district established a scholarship named after Filaret and even transferred his last name, Gumilevskaya, to each of his scholarship recipients. Thus, this original decree even perpetuated the name of the caring saint in the school he founded. The entire population of the province reacted with sympathy to this matter, expressing it in the same form of donations. When Filaret died, at the suggestion of the Oster clergy, all the clergy of the province immediately collected a sum for which, in grateful memory of their archpastor, they built an icon of Philaret the Merciful for the school church, establishing eternal remembrance and funeral service on the day of Filaret’s death - August 9 and on his name day - December 1. All institutions, the modest foundation of which was laid by the care of Archbishop Philaret, not only became stronger, but received widespread development both in the organization of their work and in scope. Comparing the successful development of institutions, the foundation of which was the work and care of the Right Reverend Philaret, with the sad fate of many charitable institutions that arose out of public initiative, one involuntarily has to look for the reasons in the purity and holiness of motives and in the true and selfless desire for the good. Upon arrival in Chernigov, while touring the diocese in the same 1859, Filaret encountered the complete illiteracy of the peasants, who were not even familiar with the simplest prayers. He also found it in the Kharkov diocese. In the entire Chernigov diocese there were twenty schools, mostly run by the state property department. Without immediately deciding on a broad program, Filaret ordered that priests open schools for children of both sexes, teach the most necessary prayers, reading the church and civil press, the most important legends from Sacred History, and writing to those who wish. Due to the lack of premises, he suggested that the schools be located in the priests’ homes. Then he petitioned the Chamber of State Property to allocate one room for schools in the vacant houses of the abolished volost boards, which was respected. By the end of 1860, there were already 769 parochial schools with 5,777 boys and 1,292 girls enrolled. Interested in the further progress of this matter and fearing that his zeal for it would not cool down, he made it obligatory for priests to submit monthly information about parish schools to the consistory. In this information, it was fun, among other things, to talk about the number of mentors, the number of Cossack and state-owned peasant students, and various incidents in the life of schools that attracted attention. Noticing from the dean's comparative statements a small increase in students, for example. in 1862 compared to 1861, Filaret immediately demanded an explanation of the reasons. At the same time, he ordered that he be informed about the obstacles encountered to the opening of schools with an opinion on how to eliminate them. All this made the clergy feel that the bishop was looking at the matter seriously, with full attention, which did not weaken over the years. After the liberation of the peasants, Philaret’s good deed was supposed to take on wider dimensions, and in the first year the number of students almost doubled. Schools were also opened at Edinoverie churches, where up to sixty schismatic children attended. Surveying the diocese this year, Filaret found many schools in a very satisfactory condition. He expressed gratitude to those who worked for the benefit of public education, taught blessings, gave legguards to many young priests, and ordained clerics who were zealous and had approving behavior as deacons. In a word, by all means in his power, he encouraged the clergy to energetically engage in the education of the people. Dedicated to such a good and living cause, the clergy themselves rose morally, filling their free hours with activity. In 1862 there were already 843 schools, 923 mentors and mentors, 15,116 boys and 2,360 girls. Taking a tour of the diocese for the last time, Filaret ordered the deans that, upon his arrival, they should present reports on the state of the parish schools, lists of students with the first and last names of each, with marks of their successes, with information about where the schools are located, who the teachers are. The disciples had to gather in churches when he visited. In order to establish these schools even more firmly and bring them closer to the population, Filaret proposed, by forming brotherhoods, to transfer the care of the schools to their jurisdiction. “Let holy Christian love awaken in the kind hearts of Russians! The spirit of love is smarter than any cunningly devised organizations to unite the best members of rural communities in close circles for the benefit of schools and other charitable causes. There will be peace for everyone when the schools are under the care of the brotherhoods.” With these words Filaret addressed his flock. Having read in one magazine in 1862 that the mechanism of reading was supposedly grasped more easily by children from the civil press than from the church press, Filaret did not accept this “experimental statement”, but ordered it to be introduced in one school in the form of an experiment. Experience led to the opposite conclusions: the children of Little Russians, it turned out, more easily learn to read the church seal, since the Little Russian language is closer to the church language. Therefore, in September of the same year, Filaret ordered that literacy training begin with the church seal, noting against the fact that for the moral education of common people, the initial study of the literate church seal is more useful. Finally, the population also woke up. In 1863, 88 parishes expressed their willingness to build and maintain schools. By the same year, 568 houses for schools had been built using the church purse. Filaret worked both in the Administration of State Property and in the Provincial Office for Peasant Affairs so that the premises and heating of schools and the maintenance of guards would be entrusted to the parishes. When a presence on clergy affairs was opened in Chernigov, he entered with the opinion that priests for their work in schools should receive remuneration from societies according to the verdicts of the latter. There is no doubt that in this case Filaret had more than just a desire for material benefit for the clergy, not just encouragement for them to work, but also other, more important considerations. The rural clergy, meager in resources, is necessarily forced to accept remuneration for the fulfillment of such spiritual requirements, which, according to the spirit of the church, should be taught free of charge. By opening up a source of income that depended on personal labor, Filaret could more boldly act against the primordial order that existed to the detriment of the church. In our country, it is customary to rebel against such extortions, without indicating the sources of life for the clergy. You really can’t exist on 140 rubles. annual salary for a village priest, and for another clerk 35 rubles. with families. We boldly point out this thought of Filaret based on our acquaintance with both the direction of his activities and his views. In addition to worries and labors, Filaret also made his contribution to this business, as in every business he started: he donated 75 rubles for primers at different times. and 372 copies of reading books. Later, with the opening of zemstvos and zemstvo schools, Filaret, rejoicing at the spread of literacy, did not take his eyes off the public school and, having found books in school libraries that were unedifying in content, presented them to the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod. There were such examples: the book was the most innocent, but on the cover, on the bottom page, an inadmissible teaching was set out in small print. Speaking about Philaret’s works on public education, it is not without interest to cite his view on the importance of the clergy in this matter, which he expressed to the St. Petersburg Metropolitan, as a member of the Holy Synod. At that time, the Synod was working on transformations in the clergy, transformations that, it seems, wanted to shake up the church itself. Filaret’s opinion, among other issues he raised, was stated in a special note. On the participation of clergy in parish and rural schools “1) No parish school in the city and no school in the village for the Orthodox population should exist without the participation of a priest.” “2) In the parish city and rural schools, its head is the parish priest according to the significance of his rank. The proposed project of the Ministry of Education to place an arithmetic teacher above a priest-teacher of law in a rural school, both in salary and in the right of management, is inconsistent with neither the life of the people, nor the importance of the priest, nor the desired consequences for the school.” “3) Teaching the Law of God in such schools belongs to the title of priest. If, due to the distance of the school from the place of residence of the priest, the latter is not able to teach the Law of God himself, he entrusts this teaching to a person he has tested; but in no case has anyone the right to teach the Law of God apart from the knowledge and consent of the priest.” “The proposed project of the Ministry of Education to grant the right to everyone who wants to open a school and teach the Law of God in it is contrary even to natural law, much less civil improvement. The right of nature gives parents the right to teach their children, but under the condition of their ability to do so; otherwise nature would give parents the right to kill their children. Civil order would be in extreme disorder if the teacher of riots and sedition were allowed to be a public teacher.” Filaret’s opinion is valuable for its instructive side for us. After 25 years, we come to the position he expressed. We are moving closer to it, thanks only to the fact that the experience we have experienced forces us to take a closer look at the matter: because we are finally reminded that we - Russians - must learn from ourselves, from our life experiences, from our historical lessons. Filaret also said: “Russian mistakes themselves are valuable to us as experience.” What did Philaret tell in his insightful views? Love for homeland and truth. Doesn't it mean that we should be most concerned about establishing this feeling in our native land, as the best remedy against the disease of lies and evil, as a guarantee of the civil and political strength of the fatherland? When appropriate, Filaret carried out these thoughts in his teachings. In diocesan affairs, Filaret adhered to the same system as in Kharkov. Now, upon taking over the administration of the diocese, he made a presentation to the Synod about closing three ecclesiastical boards and in their place increasing the consistory staff by two members. Permission was obtained for the latter; but regarding the closure of the ecclesiastical boards, he had to repeat his presentation, reinforcing it, as we have seen, with the assurance that the clergy would then serve a grateful prayer service. “Grateful for the appointment of two new members of the consistory, I remain alarmed that permission has not been received to close the three ecclesiastical boards,” he wrote to the chief prosecutor. In such cases, Filaret’s persistence is remarkable. Filaret was generally attentive to the position of the rural clergy, and he did not like the privileged position of members of spiritual boards and consistories, who enjoyed material surplus at the expense of the poor rural clergy and exalted themselves in front of them with their position. It was, in its moral type, something like a commissariat in our army. That is why Filaret took on a lot of work on diocesan affairs. Every morning, after mass, he went out into the large hallway, sat down on the sofa at the table, accepted all the petitions and complaints, and immediately put down the resolution and gave it to the petitioner for transfer to where he should go. Of course, the spiritual commissariat was unhappy. Complaints and displeasure spread throughout society; some brave souls even brought them to the attention of the Metropolitan of Moscow, who reported all these complaints to Philaret. Accepting the Metropolitan’s remarks with filial respect, Filaret gave explanations. “I offer my most sincere and earnest gratitude for your Holiness’s edifying letter. All my life I have tried to be a faithful follower of the advice and instructions of those above me. With God’s help, I will try to carry out in all literal accuracy all the advice and thoughts of your Holiness.” One cannot help but draw attention to the fact that Filaret titles the Moscow Metropolitan “Your Holiness.” And one must think that the Metropolitan of Moscow did not object to this, since his title of “Holiness” continued. But meanwhile, we know that he made a remark to one young scientist when he called him “Holiness” in a conversation with him. “The letter of your saint,” Filaret further wrote, “is precious to me also because it provides information to someone living in a remote province that is completely unknown and yet necessary in pastoral service. Holy lord! By the Lord, I beg your saints, do not leave us sinful provincial shepherds without such admonitions. Your saint thought, based on his trust in Fr. Lascaronsky 51 that the sinful Chernigov shepherd did not fulfill your will. How is this so? Have the archpastors of the Russian Church really become more disobedient before their archpastor father? We are your sons, you are our father. Your sister-in-law has a lot to do. But send a note, without titles, and it will be accepted with deepest gratitude and will be carried out. Otherwise, even the bishop will be guilty without guilt.” What slander against Philaret reached the Metropolitan of Moscow? Filaret had a clerk with him. We had occasion to mention the abuses and the removal of the first of them. So the Metropolitan was informed that the bishop’s clerk was abusing, that Philaret’s review of the diocese was very burdensome for the clergy, that the bishop was not protecting the clergy from slander and insults incorrectly leveled at them. In particular, Archpriest Lascaronsky boldly and sharply pointed out this, assuring the Metropolitan that Philaret had forced him out of the cathedral. Finally, it was blamed on Philaret that, by ordaining sextons as deacons and deacons as priests, he gave the latter good parishes, while those who completed the seminary course received bad ones. These are the accusations against which Filaret had to give “his ruler” the following explanations. “The consistory has taught the clergy to think that if a denunciation of a priest or deacon is not confirmed by the investigation, then the spiritual authorities must themselves demand satisfaction from the judicial authority for insulting a clergyman who was under investigation. The consequences of this, possible on the part of the secular, for the bishop are understandable. (The consistory is always on the sidelines).” At the same time, he pointed out a case where during the investigation the informer did not want to present evidence of the priest’s guilt, and when she was brought to court for libel, she presented it. He wrote to the metropolitan that he spent two hours explaining to Lascaronsky himself that he was prosecuting for slander - this was his personal matter, and not the bishop’s business; but he left him unconvinced. “Thus, a long-standing incorrect order leads a person not only to unlawful indignation at the legal order, but also excites him to contribute slander to the innocent. O. Laskaronsky slandered me, as if I was pushing him out of the cathedral, when I didn’t say a word to him about it, and he moved to a rich village for his own benefits. He slandered me. Now I understand that, convinced of my coldness towards his fate, although he had never given me either a verbal explanation or a written request, he rebelled against me with such bitterness.” Due to his kindness in the event of personal troubles, Filaret acquits the guilty person here too. “The ugly old order of affairs brought him to this, and now, having learned from him the convictions of his conscience, I do not blame him at all. I consider it necessary to add that I do not take on my conscience the affairs of the consistory, its members and the office; but I accept the requests of the petitioners myself, and I, having written a resolution, put the request in the hands of the petitioner himself for delivery to the appropriate place according to the content of the request. This order does not agree with the regulations: but from the first year after my arrival in Chernigov, having learned the passion for slander of the local people, I follow it invariably, with the exception of days of serious illness.” This is how, in the same letter, Filaret explains the reason that prompted him to act contrary to the charter. “My late predecessor did not change a single definition of the consistory: and the judge of the consistory acquitted everyone for money and accused everyone who did not give money. And here is another source of complaints and slander against me. The clergy of the Chernigov diocese, poor, due to historical circumstances, accustomed to slander and buying definitions with money, despite all their poverty, are ready not to complain when they sell the truth for money; but due to the same poverty, he rages in litigiousness, when he does not have time to defend his honor with money. That is why it is bitter in your soul when you see that in both cases the poor bishop is accused and all slander against him from the outside is taken into account.” In order to eliminate the slander about Philaret burdening the priests when reviewing the diocese (a rumor about which, apparently, reached Moscow), these are the feats he had to resort to. “This year,” he wrote to the Metropolitan, “and in the third year I did not travel at all due to special circumstances. I'm afraid to visit priests. It happened that during the whole day I would eat two eggs and drink two glasses of tea at the police officer’s apartment.” Once, having arrived in one city and inspected the church, he received an invitation from the dean to tea. “Come with your tea,” Filaret responded to the invitation, “I’m tired of it!” Feed me better: I haven’t eaten for three days.” “Is there a face near you,” wrote the Metropolitan, “that casts its unseemly shadow on you? I remember that I drew your attention to such a face, but you hardly took precautions.” “For two years now, Ryzhkov (the former clerk) has not been in Chernigov; he returned to Kharkov,” answered Filaret; After him, this is my third clerk. Favored by a local review (not my choice) turned out to be depraved and sick with depravity. Judge for the Lord's sake, how to live here? How to find the truth in the words of slander? They did not fail to inform the Metropolitan that Filaret was celebrating his name day. And to this he had to explain that on this day he only had monastics. We have seen that one of the measures to encourage clergy to engage in their work in schools, Filaret introduced the ordination of zealous sextons as deacons, leaving them in the same places, and deacons as priests. Although he did this, as he explained to the metropolitan, in compliance with the rules of the cathedral, dedicating the most worthy in service (who had served for at least 10 years), in life and knowledge, that he appointed them as priests in the poorest parishes; but “avoiding the slander of anger raging against the bishop-monks,” he abolished this rule. He also explained about the supposed appointment of seminary students to poor parishes. It turned out that they themselves, without learning about the state of the parish, pointed to it, and then often petitioned for a transfer to another. As a result of this, Filaret even made a proposal to the rector: “to inspire them (the seminarians) to first collect information about parishes more accurately, so as not to complicate the authorities later.” Filaret humbly ends these explanations: “In conclusion, I ask, for the Lord’s sake, His Holiness, to write to me directly if it comes to your attention that what seems to be illegal in my actions. Despite all my thinness, I want to serve the Lord with a sincere conscience and I am afraid of being unwilling to listen to advice and admonitions, especially since now the time is such a difficult one for every archpastor, especially for a sinner like me.” Exhausted by slander, Filaret thought about rest, but the Metropolitan remarked to him: “It’s too early for you to think about leaving the service, and I don’t think it’s necessary. We must try to bring the truth into the world if it is obscured.” He wrote about his same intention to Archbishop Anatoly, who was then living in retirement in the Bessarabia diocese. “The sorrows of time have brought my soul to the desire to leave the management of the diocese. But it was pointed out to me that your vysopr. regret your choice of a solitary life. Is the latter true? I would like to hear from you yourself news about the state of my soul. We need to study and study. The hardest thing is to know yourself. Self-love hides too much from myself. Examples sometimes enlighten the soul’s view of itself.” Filaret correctly pointed out the slander that led to horrific slander. So we can give the following outrageous case. One dean, wanting to clear a place for his son-in-law, made a denunciation of the priest. The latter went to Chernigov to work and clarify the matter. On the advice of his local landowner, who lived in Chernigov, he went to the secretary of the consistory. When he explained to him that everything depended on the bishop, the petitioner went to ask for intercession to Archimandrite Parmen, who enjoyed the favor of Philaret. He was a simple, rude old man. He was in charge of the household of the bishop's house, which ran in exemplary order. Parmen shouted and, without ceremony, kicked out the petitioner. And not before they pushed him in the neck, did the petitioner decide to go to the bishop himself. It turned out that he received the most meek and favorable reception from the bishop. Filaret demanded the dean’s report, read it and said: “I see that it’s a slander.” Immediately putting down the resolution “to leave without consequences,” he released the petitioner “with God.” Imagine the landowner’s surprise when, having arrived in the village, he learned about the rumor spread by the priest that he had bowed to the bishop with three hundred. “Father,” the landowner reproachfully remarked to him, “aren’t you ashamed to slander the archpastor, who also did good to you? Didn’t you tell me that the matter was settled without a penny?” - “Yes, have mercy,” answered the priest, it’s impossible otherwise: now I’m at peace, because everyone will judge that if it cost me 300 rubles to sit in my place, then he needs to bring 600 to take mine.” So, in order to protect himself from the machinations of others, the priest had to resort to fiction, without thinking about the fact that he was casting a shadow on his archpastor. Even if such cases were rare exceptions, one also speaks a lot about the moral state of the clergy of that time and explains to us Philaret’s complaints and the struggle that he had to wage with this inveterate passion - litigiousness. One of the local preachers pointed out such underdevelopment of the clergy in his speech about Filaret: “The care of the deceased for us was extraordinary. What did we do to deserve it? Are we worthy of the blessings so generously poured out on us? One who does not know either the purpose or the meaning of the benefit hardly deserves a benefit.” In his concern for the clergy, Filaret established the trusteeship of the poor clergy, donating his works here: “Overview of the Diocese” and “Cathedral Monasteries”, for which the proceeds were 270 rubles. Donations continue to this day, and this matter is so firmly established that at present, as “we heard, up to 20 thousand rubles. benefits are provided per year. How many poor people, thanks to Philaret’s care, were saved from starvation in this way. He also established an emerital cash register, the basis of which was the annual deduction of 3% from the purse amount. Providing for the needs of the clergy was the subject of his concern in Kharkov as well. Immediately upon his arrival there, in the very first days, he wrote to Gorsky: “There is a lot of trouble and worry about the distribution of persons left outside the state on the occasion of the introduction of a new state. Another problem is that there is terrible famine and loss of livestock here this year. Poverty among the freelance clergy increased. I am trying to increase the means of providing benefits to widows and orphans.” In order to provide for the elderly priests and church ministers, their widows and orphans, Filaret laid the foundation of the emeritus fund. This matter lay so close to his heart that he asked almost every priest about the state of this matter and, walking around the hall, with his hands behind his back, explained to them about the urgent need for self-help, about the necessary sacrifice for the holy cause. Many petitioners, turning to Filaret, submitted notes with money along with their requests, explaining in them that they were donating to the Yeletsky or Trinity Monastery, to a seminary or other institution. Filaret, accepting with gratitude the sacrifice, sometimes made not from a sincere heart, but out of litigious calculation, said to everyone: “Christ save you!” This was the basis for the rumor that the bishop was taking bribes. Anyone who, based on this essay, is already familiar with the bright personality of Filaret, needs no intelligible justifications for him. But, having taken the trouble to compose this essay, we do not consider ourselves to have the right to pass over in silence a single fact that serves to refute the slander. After the death of Philaret, the treasurer of the Yelets monastery invited everyone who allowed himself to believe the reproach so undeserved by Philaret to look through the monastery’s affairs and books and make sure that all the notes were transferred to the monastery, filed into one voluminous file, and the money was capitalized. “You know,” the treasurer said, that the monastery was in dilapidation; but you don’t know, perhaps, that we had nothing to eat. Now the monastery has been completely renovated, acquired property, and is provided with income. They don’t want to figure it out - where did these funds come from?” Another proof: before the last visit of the Most Reverend Philaret to the diocese, one seminary teacher, who enjoyed his favor, turned to him with a request to help him by lending 300 or 400 rubles. “Believe it or not,” answered Filaret. “And here’s what: there are fifteen hundred of mine in the candle shop. O. Nikolai, tell me when they come for the candles, they would give him” (such and such an amount). Meanwhile, when Filaret died on the way, and they opened the office in his office, they found several notes with money of about 300 rubles, which, as received just before departure, Filaret did not have time to hand over. This means that he considered this money so inviolable that, despite all his desire to help his loved one, he did not touch it. Seeking all measures to improve the position of the clergy, without denying anyone in particular their needs, Filaret put the cause of the church, the common cause, above the cause of compassion. So, for example, under the Reverend Paul it became a custom to leave the parish to his daughter after the death of a priest; whoever married her received a parish. Thus, marriages of priests were arranged not according to inclination, but according to calculation, and the young priest began his pastoral service with concern for earthly goods, to which his marital happiness was sacrificed. But the main evil was that the parish, while waiting for the girl to come of age, sometimes remained idle for many years under the supervision of an observing, neighboring priest. It is clear that services in the church were rarely performed, and there were great omissions in the fulfillment of spiritual requirements. Filaret, perhaps reluctantly, put an end to this order and at the very first request of the priest’s widow to leave the parish for her daughter and welcome the latter to the groom, he put down the following resolution: “the bishop is not a matchmaker and the parish is not a dowry.” This struggle between compassion and the demand for order in Filaret’s actions was often observed. Thus, intending to transfer the nuns of the same faith from Moslaki to the Malinoostrovsky monastery, he wrote to the chief prosecutor that he felt sorry for some old nuns who had their own houses and who did not want to leave their nest. Yielding to regret, he thought to submit to the Synod about leaving them in Moslaki to live out their lives. But then, having weighed other conditions of monastic life and monastic rules, he added: “But, on the one hand, this can be fulfilled without any permission from the Synod; on the other hand, the sanctification of the desire for self-will by the Synod would in itself not be entirely decent, and in terms of the consequences it would not be useful.” At the same time, Filaret allowed himself to make deviations from the rules, but in cases where they were not accompanied by general damage. So one landowner, not yet knowing Filaret, came to him with a request for the deacon of his village. Preferably orphans, and then orphans without a father or mother, were accepted at the state expense in theological schools. The landowner, having explained the plight of the deacon, burdened with seven of eleven souls, asked his son (although the latter was not an orphan) to be admitted to the theological school at public expense. “Christ bless you for taking part in the poor clergy,” said Filaret, accepting the petition, and a week later an order was received to enroll the boy in the Starodub school. From this we can see that Filaret put the cause of charity on the right foot. He increased the funds of religious educational institutions and the number of government-funded pupils, founded trustees for the care of poor widows and orphans, established an emeritus to increase the size of pensions, he himself could not see the grief of his neighbor and was ready to share the latter, but out of compassion for one he did not sacrifice the benefits of many. “Good Eliz. “Nick,” he wrote to Romanovsky, “takes care of me so that he doesn’t burden himself with fuss. May the Lord save her for her good desire. But what to do? This is how I have to go everywhere just to bother about buildings and repairs. So here too there is trouble after trouble. The Holy Synod was so lenient towards me, a sinner, that it gave the first-class Yeletsky monastery to my management. Big name first class! O. Macarius is now my governor there. But it turns out that a lot, a lot of work needs to be done to restore this monastery to first-class status. That’s why we have already started with Fr. Macarius of care and work. Where are the funds? We collect what we still have. We’ll die and then we’ll probably be left with the weight of our souls. No, Lord, I already have many sins. Spare me some of the burdens. Jealous of the splendor of the church of God, Filaret did not spare labor and money when he had it, and did not look at the fact that the church did not belong to his diocese. So, when he was summoned to St. Petersburg for a year and placed in one of the farmsteads, he immediately decorated its poor church, made new clothes for the throne, the altar and donated other necessary things. Philaret also devoted a lot of work to building churches and increasing the income of monasteries and the bishop's house in Chernigov. He renovated the Yeletsky monastery twice, since the latter suffered from a fire under him, built a warm cross church and rebuilt it again after the fire. In the Trinity-Ilyinsky Monastery 52, where now the bishop's house, he remodeled the warm church, made a new iconostasis, renovated the majestic cold church built by Archbishop Lazar Baranovich (in the second half of the 17th century), and restored the entire monastery. To increase the income of the first monastery, Filaret set up a printing house at his own expense, leaving 2,800 rubles from the amount spent. in favor of the monastery, asking to remember him and his parents, he bought a forest dacha. In the second monastery, i.e. in the bishop's house, with his own funds and borrowed funds from the trusteeship, he set up a candle factory. He received part of the amount spent as a refund from the plant’s income, and left 1,700 rubles in favor of the bishop’s house. From the proceeds of the candle factory, he built a two-story stone house for rent in the city, on land belonging to the bishop's house, and bought a forest dacha. The seminary had a very cramped and low church in a house, the top floor of which was occupied by the archives. He turned the entire house into a vast, high church, giving it a beautiful appearance. In the Boris and Gleb Cathedral he built three iconostases 53. In Chernigov there is a shrine famous in antiquity, the Transfiguration Cathedral. It was founded in 1031 under Mstislav, if not in 1026. Thus, it is older than the Kyiv St. Sophia Cathedral 54. And now this shrine stands unshakably, as if as a reproach and edification to modern architects, whose churches, having barely raised their heads high, turn into piles of stones and debris. And 8½ centuries, the Tatar pogrom, two fires, two dozen sieges that endured did not leave a single crack on the walls of the church! It was touched only by the ignorant hand of the zealous, who, out of fear, covered its porphyry columns, taken from Greece (made in the 7th century), with bricks, covered the ancient frescoes with oil paint and built an iconostasis that did not correspond to the style of the church. Filaret’s dream was to return its primitive physiognomy to this oldest church in the Empire. Knowing the energy of this saint, we can say with complete confidence that only his death prevented the realization of this thought. By the way, let me point out how great our indifference to Russian antiquities was. When the choir of the cathedral was being rebuilt, a fallen beam pierced the crypt, where there were many coffins of the Chernigov princes. Some of the coffins had brocade sticking out of them, and one had a sword on it. Satisfied that there were no inscriptions on the coffins, what did they do? The crypt has been filled up! Or maybe these swords had inscriptions that could still be read. Or maybe there were objects in the coffins themselves, but a lot could be learned from them; finally, they at least copied the drawings of mothers and clothes that were in use 8–9 centuries before us. Undoubtedly, Filaret’s curiosity would make these dilapidated coffins tell a lot of things... And in the matter of establishing monasteries, Filaret also could not avoid slander and had to explain himself to the Moscow ruler. So they reported to the Metropolitan that Filaret had made a collection and spent the capital of the trusteeship on the construction of the house that was just discussed. Filaret wrote: “The house management did not spend a single penny of the trusteeship funds. It only borrowed money from the trustee for the needs of the house (bishop's) and pays interest; and, therefore, brings benefit to the trusteeship, and not a loss. The amount borrowed is secured by materials from the candle factory, which are available at any time in an amount twice as large as that borrowed from the trusteeship. Without a candle factory, with poverty of funds, I could have reached extreme frustration. “When I arrived in Chernigov, both churches and residential buildings were ready to fall. Now, by the grace of God, the buildings are being corrected little by little. It's amazing how people want to find the bad in everything. Last year they made me guilty of the fact that the house management was selling its house for the school. Now another accusation is being made regarding the same house, as if money is being collected for the house, while it is being rented out. If the house has already been built and is being rented out, why collect money for it from the clergy or churches? A strange interpretation,” notes Filaret. The next day, Filaret again writes to the Metropolitan about the same subject and forwards an extract from the cord books, explaining that 150 thousand bricks were used from the house management plant (which means prepared in an economic way), 6 thousand rubles were paid for timber, lime and labor. from the income of the candle factory. Why did you start talking about such and such donations? I truly don't understand. This is the most blatant slander." The management of the bishop's house was so organized that nothing escaped attention. If, for example, there was a piece of land lying in vain, it was certainly planted with fruit trees under Filaret. It is known that in a monastic meal the main place is occupied by plant products, the remains of which, in considerable quantities, always disappear. To give them a purpose and turn them into an income source, Filaret started pig farming. And this article was staged in such a way that a medal was awarded to the bishop’s house for the exhibition. Many did not approve of this activity; and many found that if it brings income to the meager monastery and benefits the region, then there is nothing reprehensible here. And about this, Filaret had to explain to the metropolitan: “Regarding the unclean animals that were honored, it turned out that while the steward was ill, the head of the province urgently asked that there be something at their exhibition. That's the short story. But apparently, because of my sins, it is necessary for me to have troubles. Blessed be the will of God!” Philaret’s explanation, apparently, did not satisfy the Metropolitan, and he wrote to him: “I do not envy your candle wealth; but I’m amazed how you decided on such a complex matter, and how you know how to conduct it. It requires a lot of art, work, accounts, loyalty, it worries many, almost burdens them. Now that you, by our example, have given the reason for the fact that all bishops can become manufacturers, and many priests can become clerks, I would like to have some understanding of how this works for you and where you get your craftsmen from.” Filaret already had experience in setting up a candle factory. He set up such a plant in Kharkov. Due to the lack of cash, he initially resorted to credit, but, thanks to the active supervision of Abbot (later Archimandrite) Parmen and Hierarch. Makaria, the plant was established firmly and then worked at its own expense, receiving a solid profit. Filaret was the first of the hierarchs to set up candle factories at the bishops' houses of two dioceses. Later he found imitators; and now, when wax is mixed with various impurities in private factories, the need for the church in diocesan factories has become even more urgent. In response to the Metropolitan’s remark, one could cite the Russian proverb: “the well-fed does not understand the hungry.” A rich and well-maintained monastery cannot have any idea about the existing needs of other monasteries and bishops' houses. The Chernigov bishop received a huge empty monastery for his premises. He found it in a state of dilapidation and without means of support. Having established a candle factory, he assigned assignments to several buildings that stood without windows and almost without a roof and immediately began to repair all the buildings at the expense of the factory's income. If Filaret was interested in the archaeological research of Livonia, which, according to him, had little interest for general Russian history, then one can judge how interested he was in the antiquities of Chernigov. Having read, for example, Kruse’s Necro-Livonica and praised the detail in the description of antiquities, the thoroughness of identifying fortresses and the accuracy with which Kruse “outlined a sketch of the history of Livonia before the arrival of the Germans in Livonia,” he found, among other things, that his assumptions about the trade roads from the German Sea to the Black Sea were wrong. He was interested in the difference in the construction of fortresses by the Western and Byzantines, which, as he noted, Kruse defined “pretty accurately.” But why were you interested? “This without a doubt,” he wrote, “will lead to further results in relation to the ancient Russian fortresses if similar searches are made in Russia.” Here is the answer. These words are confirmed by the remarks made by many about Filaret, that he took every subject seriously, and that in all his works there was a patriotic basis. In Chernigov, he went through all the church things, determined their time and the history of many sacred objects, and restored some ancient monuments. And now one of them, the Church of the Prophet Elijah, the former Elias Monastery, a historical monument of the 11th century, is sealed and given over to the all-crushing time. To save this monument and strengthen the mountain, 8 thousand rubles are required; but the bishop's house, to which this shrine is attached, is now poor and unable to maintain its necessary structures of the once glorious Trinity Monastery, where many of the major artists, not excluding Count Rastrelli, left the memory of their talent. And what a strange thing! We dig mounds, tear apart the foundations of ancient buildings in order to find out something about the past, and before our eyes we allow our existing historical monuments to turn into heaps, giving the job to posterity to dig up these heaps and rummage through archival dust and garbage in order to form an idea of ​​​​the monument that could be preserved for him, as a living witness of antiquity. Filaret’s close and thorough acquaintance with archeology was most evident in Chernigov; this can be partly seen in the “Historical and Statistical Description of the Chernigov Diocese,” and especially in the description of the city of Chernigov. In his time, during the construction of one house, they came across the foundation of an ancient masonry. Filaret immediately determined that it was a princely palace, and according to the instructions, they found the foundation of the archbishop’s church. Michael, attached to the palace. A woman's braid was found there, and Filaret explained that it must belong to the princess, the daughter of Mikhail of Chernigov, who was martyred in the horde. Nowadays, only signs remain of these ruins. This place belongs to the zemstvo. In view of the fact that these remnants of antiquity must be saved, the caring zemstvo covers them with garbage and dirt from their yard 55. The work of governing the diocese, the pursuit of teaching, the fruits of which seem to have appeared in greatest abundance in the last seven years of the saint’s life, precisely during the administration of the Chernigov diocese, did not distract Philaret’s attention from the general situation of the church and did not alienate him from society. He seemed to follow all the phenomena of social life with deep attention. So, for example, we know how, before the opening of the first zemstvo meeting in Chernigov, he amazed two provincial councilors who came to him with his information about zemstvo affairs. It turned out that he followed its progress with great interest in other provinces where the zemstvo had already been introduced, and introduced it to the public through critical methods. As for the position of the church, it never ceased to concern Filaret. It is known that in the early sixties, liberalism was ready to undermine the foundations of the church itself. Projects rained down on us like stars on a November night. Many of these dimmed stars fell to the lot of the church. Fearing that the passion for projects that has gripped our highest governmental sphere would not harm the church, Filaret from his Trinity-Ilinsky Monastery, where the first monk of the Russian land spent several years of ascetic life 56, either convinced the Metropolitan of Kyiv, then wrote to the St. Petersburg, then to the bishop present at the Synod. Among the projects concerning the church was a project to transfer diocesan management to the white clergy. It was precisely this that Filaret rebelled against. He made many instructions that directly followed from practice or were irrefutable by logical conclusion. We think that his distrust of the purity of the conduct of affairs at that time in the Holy Synod had sufficient grounds for him. “I allow myself to say,” he wrote to St. Petersburg: “it’s like trying to ensure that in your presence, if not all parts, then at least some of them will certainly be finally decided and secured by a protocol decree. The house, whose character is soot-like, is small-grass, and it is only held together by beginning and never-ending projects; otherwise, with the end of them, it will be the end of him... Therefore, take caution in advance... With a firm insistence, force that the affairs of each meeting at the next meeting be proposed for confirmation by the signatures of the members. Otherwise you will remain deceived. Don't believe promises. Anyone who has deceived once is not believed well; but someone who has deceived ten or twenty times is not believed one bit, if they do not want to be a pathetic toy.” These are the warnings he gave to the Metropolitan. And here is his comment on the project on the management of the diocese. “It seems that the rule of priesthood is coming; and then “priestlessness” will soon appear. This is undoubtedly: priesthood “to sell Jesus for a sweet taste.” They point to Constantinople. But it served as a lesson to our ancestors not to allow priesthood on the table. God grant that my conviction is wrong, but, in my opinion, nothing good can be expected from the priesthood. Revelry of passions, revelry of anti-Christian thoughts - this is what will appear in the Russian Church with the administration of the priesthood.” Along with the expressed fears for the rule of the “priesthood,” Filaret, as we have seen, had a constant concern for the material improvement of the life of the clergy and for their moral uplift. By organizing educational and educational work in seminaries and theological schools, by compulsory work in educating the people, by engaging in joint work with him on compiling a “General Review of the Chernigov Diocese” (in seven books), by publishing “Chernigov Diocesan News” and by living edifying words, it can be infallibly said that Filaret, in the short period of his administration, awakened the clergy from their moral stupor. Here are his notes or, as he called them, “opinions.” A. On the means of material support for the parish clergy 1) Already in 1829, the government recognized the need to increase the allotment of land for the church clergy by no less than one and a half times (Decree No. 3323 of December 6, 1829). At present, this need is even more palpable, both due to the increased cost of maintenance and the lack of other means to alleviate the poor situation of the majority of the rural clergy. Therefore, it should be established by law: a) in the possession of each rural clergy, in addition to estates, no less than 48 acres of land. b) Where the clergy does not have enough tithes or there is not even estate land, additional arable and estate land is allocated in the very first year after the publication of the new law. c) Where the allotment of church land turns out to be impossible due to a lack of land among the settlers of the parish (namely, where there are less than three dessiatines per reviz head), there the parishioners, without delaying time, submit to the consistory their obligation, approved in court, to provide the clergy with a reward commensurate with the missing amount of land, either in money or in bulk grain, so that one or the other is delivered to the clergy from the volost administration (the latter condition is necessary for in order to save the priest from the humiliation of walking around the courtyards to collect bread or money; witnessing the act in court is necessary to prevent disputes between parishioners and priests who will under no circumstances feed a hungry priest). d) In parishes with multiple lands, the decree of 1829 regarding church lands remains in force. This measure, not disturbing for the parishioners, will significantly improve the rural clergy. In this case, the priest, having processed 8 dessiatines of winter bread, can receive up to 100 quarters and, having kept half the proportion to feed his family, for the other half he can receive up to 200 rubles, and up to 100 rubles. can receive spring bread for the sale.” “2) And the secular have long expressed a desire that the number of members of the white clergy be limited compared to the current one. There was only one reason to disagree with this desire: there would be no one to read and sing in the choir. At present, when in rural schools so many village children are and have been taught church reading and singing, and this reason is rejected. Meanwhile, by reducing the number of members of the spiritual clergy, the material life of the remaining members will significantly improve. Therefore, it should be stated: a) the following are considered clergy: priest, deacon, teachers of theological and rural church schools; a deacon is considered among the clergy only when he is capable of being a village teacher, for which position is determined by testing; those who have hitherto occupied and are holding a clerical position must equally remain in the clergy. b) The clerics are elected by the priest and parishioners and are maintained on terms with the latter; They do not enjoy the rights of clergy, but they personally and with their children are free from all rural duties that the community of parishioners assumes. c) Dyachek, at least fulfilled the position of a teacher, if he enters into a second marriage, according to the rules of St. church, “cannot be lower in the list of sacred rank” (Apostle pr. 17, Basil the Great pr. 12).” “3) A rural parish must consist of no less than 260 male souls; otherwise, it joins the nearest neighboring one, and only then is a special clergy appointed for it, when, in addition to the legal proportion of the land as security for the clergy, an amount is entered into the credit establishment, the interest of which would bring up to 100 rubles. per year. If, due to the force of this measure, it is necessary to close churches in the diocese, then the staff salaries of the closed clergy are divided among the remaining clergy of the 6th and 5th grades of the diocese according to the schedule approved by the Holy Synod; and church land, if any, is assigned to the neighboring church to which the parishioners are assigned.” “4) In order to ensure that field work does not take away from the priest the time necessary to fulfill spiritual demands, the parishioners, by voluntary decision, either assign him an annual worker from among them, or during the business season they harvest his bread, about which the sentence is submitted to the consistory for consideration in case of possible disputes.” “5) The escheated estate, movable and immovable, of the clergy of the white clergy comes to the disposal of the diocesan spiritual guardianship of the poor clergy. since it has been proven by experience that the law, which grants the estate left after the abbots and abbess of regular monasteries and after the archpastors to their relatives (Vol. IX, Art. 267), does not achieve its goal (dresses, books rot without attention, and capital is rarely squandered until the heirs come to receive the inheritance, and this only results in useless correspondence), it seems more beneficial, so that in in the event that no legal will was left, the estate of the late archpastor went in one half to the benefit of the bishop's house, and the other to the benefit of spiritual orphans studying at the local seminary; and the estate of the abbot or abbess of a regular monastery, one half went to the benefit of the monastery, and the other also to the benefit of the spiritual orphans of the local seminary. With this order of business, the places interested in the property left after the deceased will keep it intact, and the soul of the deceased will have more benefit and peace.” “6) While every civil official gives packages to the post office without paying postage, in consistories they are done because post offices do not accept packages from priests and deputies except with payment of postage. Therefore, justice demands and necessity forces that it be decreed by law that packages and parcels sealed with the church seal and signed “in official form” be accepted at post offices without payment by weight from all priests. Equally, whereas according to Art. 381 and 382 t. XII for sending the Provincial Gazette and their unofficial part, no fee is collected at the post office; money is paid for sending the Diocesan Gazette of the church and post office; meanwhile, the Diocesan Gazette replaces for churches and clergy decrees, which, according to the law (Article 202, 205 Vol. II, Art. 377 Vol. XII) are sent out without money, and the Diocesan Gazette further facilitates the postal service, since one number of the Gazette replaces up to 25 decrees. Therefore, justice requires that the force of the law (Articles 381 and 382 vol. XII) was extended in all its extent to the Diocesan Gazette, and the law on sending decrees without money was not violated by post offices.” “7) By virtue of the decree of April 10, 1786, none of the monastics and white clergy can be an intercessor in matters other than the affairs of his church and the affairs of minors under his care (Holy Law. Vol. IX, Art. 264 and 288). This law in itself is strange, placing the clergy on a level with persons deprived of the rights of state, and in terms of consequences it turns out to be very harmful for the bata of the clergy. In the Chernigov diocese, many estates of their own clergy passed into the wrong hands, because judicial practice, taking the law in a too narrow sense, did not accept any requests from clergy who asked for the restoration of the property rights of their wives or illiterate sisters, nieces and nephews, and all these persons themselves were not able to write and submit requests on their own behalf, as well as go to the courts. Therefore, both justice and urgent need require that Art. 288 t. IX was changed as follows: none of the white clergy can be an intercessor and attorney in the affairs of others, except for the affairs of his church, except for the property of his relatives, as well as his own property, and also for the affairs of minors under his care.” 8) “Since at the present time it is not the time to fear for the excessive zeal of donors in favor of the church and monastery, and meanwhile the hitherto existing procedure for strengthening the immovable estate behind a church or monastery is extremely burdensome: it seems appropriate that the right of the church and monastery of the Orthodox department be left only within the limits set for each private individual and society, without asking for the Highest permission in each case” (vol. IX Art. 309). B. On the importance of clergy in civil society “1) The priest, as the shepherd of his flock, is the first person in his parish. “2) Since, apart from religion, no human society can have either prosperity or strength, and the priest is the conductor of religion in society: then both in city councils and in rural administrations the priest has the right to vote.” “3) There is no doubt that no moral correctional institution can achieve good consequences until a pastor-teacher of the law participates in its management. This is clear both from the essence of the matter and from experience. But even in secular educational institutions, their significant and irreparable disadvantage will remain if the teacher-priest remains without the right to vote in their educational and moral management.” “4) A priest in actions relating to the religious life of the people should not be constrained by civil authority, and should not be charged with guilt if, for a secret sin and for a crime undetected by a civil court, he imposes a private penance on the sinner, such as: temporary removal from communion, bowing, fasting. If a priest, contrary to his duty, allowed something offensive to the civil order, the civil authority would bring this to the attention of the spiritual authorities, who are obliged to prosecute the guilt of the clergy.” “5) In general elections of district and city districts, when all local classes participate in them, it would be a clear injustice and an undeserved insult if trusted representatives of the clergy did not participate in them.” “6) Members of the consistory, deans and deputies for their travel on business, as applied to Art. 92 t. XI, passing money is issued from the treasury: to a consistory member-archimandrite for 6 horses, to a consistory member-archpriest and priest for 4 horses, to a dean for 3 horses, to a deputy for 2 horses.” “7) Archpriests and priests, as well as clergy of the Roman Catholic confession (Vol. IX, Art. 49), are awarded the Order of St. Anna, enjoy the right of personal nobility." “8) No matter how highly civil priests are placed in civil society by the laws, the humiliation of their spiritual superiors cannot but fall on the entire clergy class and not be accompanied by consequences harmful to civil society itself. On this basis, it is necessary for the archpastors of the Orthodox Church to restore, to the greatest extent possible, their ancient significance among Russian society. Therefore: a) the highest spiritual government (Holy Synod) must be an adviser to the highest civil government (State Council). b) The archpastors of the church must be brought out of their current poverty, which leaves them without means, to be dispensers of mercy for the poor and sometimes without the means to support those who serve them. Let us at least receive a salary, including rubles, which was assigned by the states of Empress Catherine, although the high cost of all items of life today has almost quadrupled compared to those times.” Perhaps to many, Filaret’s demand to assign such a position to the highest spiritual hierarchy in the governmental sphere will seem very bold, perhaps even more so, but a reservation needs to be made here. We cannot suspect that in this case Filaret was talking about pride or vain calculations. We saw with what fear he looked at the burden and responsibility of pastoral service. When in 1843, Eugene was appointed inspector of the Moscow Academy, with the elevation to the rank of archimandrite, without managing the monastery, and his comrade Alexy, at the same time appointed rector of the Moscow Seminary, received control of the Zaikonospasky Monastery, Filaret wrote: “I rejoice over Eugene and since I love his soul, I do not want him to think at all about the fact that another has already received the abbotship. Such joys, or rather misfortunes for the soul, come in succession; not now, then tomorrow they will come. But the transformation of the soul in the life of Christ - this is not so easy to accomplish, there is no sequence: if I don’t take care myself, then the matter stops or even goes back.” But Filaret was a historian. Studying history through a deep analysis of events, comparison of historical eras, familiarity with the living conditions of the people, he could not help but endure the conviction that the Russian kingdom was formed in its own way, the citizenship of Russia, the type of its monarchy were established under the direct influence of the church. At the first step that Christianity took in Russia, it encountered in the internal properties of the people (see the testimony of the blessed Patriarch Photius) so much ready-made material, akin to its teachings, that the church merged with the people and began to live an inseparable life with them. Such an observation led Mr. Vogue to the conclusion that “The Russian people are not actually a nation, but a church.” These same conditions prompted Delinger’s remark that a great future awaits the Russian Church.” “We will see with surprise,” says Overbeck, “how gradually more and more important consequences will arise for the political destinies of our part of the world from the close union between the Orthodox Church and the Russian state.” This close connection, he said, should have the most decisive influence on the entire future and development of the state. He places this advantage of the Orthodox Church in contrast to the Catholic Church (which is very instructive for us and intelligible for our Czech brothers, who are trying to prove, alas! without evidence, the opposite). This connection, or rather the unity of the people and the state with the church, according to the same thinker, formed an exceptional national feeling among the Russian people. Regretting that Germany does not have such a happy feature, Overbeck says: “France has a strong rational feeling, but it is based not on religion, but on glory. England also has a no less developed national feeling, but it is based not on religion, but on freedom. Russia is established on faith, and therefore a great future awaits it.” If this is the opinion of foreigners who conscientiously study our history and our church, then how could a Russian man like Filaret, almost from childhood, enthusiastically study the history of his fatherland and his church, and, as its shepherd, selflessly serve both? If an outside observer looked with envy at this guarantee of the strength and power of our fatherland, then, of course, the side of these happy conditions forced us to look from the outside at the position of Russia with the strongest fears. It was necessary to act with special dexterity and foresight in order to remove this connection from its historical path, so that Overbeck’s words did not appear as a formidable prophecy in the destinies of the world. The most terrible enemy is the one at home.” And so, snatching its members from the Russian family, they organized them into a bunch of domestic enemies. Without thinking about who they served, they scattered throughout all corners of their native land, trying to dull the people's treasured weapon, which was terrible for their enemies. Filaret saw this work and felt to its root. He understood that only the church could counteract this underground work, and for the success of its actions it was necessary to bring it closer to the government environment. He believed that its light would illuminate the enveloping darkness. He complained about “people - remnants of the 18th century, who do all the more harm in society because they occupy high places, have power in their hands and their voice is strong.” “Platon Lyubarsky, a pupil of Catherine, that Catherine, by whose grace paganism still prevails in many provinces, and many thousands of those baptized before the time of Emperor Nicholas I lived and believed again in paganism. Her Palero-Royal philosophy has done so much harm to Russia that Russia will suffer for a long time due to her mercy, and much can hardly be corrected by the ingrained course of action. Yes, Catherine left behind a memory! God forbid that something like this happens again in Russia. Maybe I think too unfavorably because I still don’t know otherwise. But given the current information, I am grieved and indignant.” This is what he wrote to Gorsky regarding his judgments about the affairs of the mission. His word thundered from his episcopal pulpit in denunciation of the historical untruth of false teachings held in society. But this was not enough. It was necessary for the church to enter into a close union with the authorities, acting in the spirit of unity, carrying this principle into the life of the people, or, more accurately, returning it to its place. If they prove to us that Russia, since we turned our backs on our historical experiences and began to take from the West and implant in ourselves the superiority of civilization and statehood, has taken a step forward in its moral development, we recognize Filaret’s mistake. But until we, without closing our eyes to our present, see such evidence, we will refrain from such a verdict. However, the alleged participation of spiritual authorities as an adviser in the highest government administration is not news. In the project of Catherine, who did not like borrowing from outside, which did not correspond to the peculiarities of Russian life, about the transformation of the Senate it is said: “the general court is composed of the Senate, the Synod of the four first classes of the empire and the chairmen of the sovereign. etc. Fates. Chambers". Back in 1858, Filaret wrote to Gorsky: “It would be very necessary to publish an article against indifference in faith. I asked the local metropolitan about this, but I don’t expect the request to be fulfilled. For God's sake, publish articles directly or indirectly directed against the pernicious spirit of the times. I have been threatened more than once that they are ready to carry out Luther’s reformation. I answered this: “Our people, thank the Lord, are quite pious and will not listen to you.” Is my answer fair? Do not think that the threat was expressed to me by people without force or meaning. No, those who spoke with meaning, and they expressed their threat not personally from themselves, but from some large society. Report it about. the governor 57 and ask for his prayers. I repeat to you again my request to publish articles against the evil spirit of the times. Tell about it about. rector and Fr. Pyotr Spiridonovich is 58. If I’m not mistaken, the evil society is thinking of uniting with the schism and acting in concert with it. Unfortunately, many of the white clergy join the ranks of the enemies of St. churches." Here is his word addressed to the nobility in the spring of 1863 (during the Polish Troubles), not yet the famous note of Prince Gorchakov: “How much Russian blood has already been shed by our domestic enemy, who has always been an enemy to himself and to us! Now, at his call, the very same ones who shouted so loudly about non-interference in other people’s affairs are interfering in our business. This is already an insult to Russia. But they also threaten us with a sword; they are ready to again exhaust Russia with destructive war. You understand, after how much love there is for the holy homeland, how much self-sacrifice there must be in those who, by your election, should act at such a time. For the common, mine, yours, theirs must be forgotten. Visible troubles are terrible. But aren’t there those who are dissatisfied and more formidable? It is not new for Russia to suffer troubles from its enemies. In the midst of troubles she grew and became stronger, but because of troubles she did not weaken, but grew stronger. Why? Because at the heart of her social life there was a strong principle - love for the holy homeland. With this life-giving principle, she happily withstood all political troubles and, enlivened by it, went from victory to victory. What now? Let them not be offended by the truthful word of the weak servant of God. How much are St. valued today? by faith? People who are light-minded, unfamiliar with the experiences of life, use freedom of speech in order to destroy the foundation of Russian life, which Russia has hitherto been so strong. By shaking the foundation of our state life, are we not bringing the state closer to destruction? Yes, there were Russians who began to introduce into Russian society, through literary organs and smuggled books, the very beginnings that had already doused the West with streams of blood.” Pointing to the task of nihilists “to reduce the intelligent to the level of the unreasonable,” he says: “Sometimes they feel their baseness and the more irritable, the more ferocious they are in relation to others. These are the diseases of our time! The unfortunate spirit of the times is ready to destroy everything: the state, the family, the life of each person. This is what those whom you elect for public service must fight against! They need a lot of firmness for good and understanding of good. But do not be surprised if I say that they will have all this, for the common good, if they abundantly honor the life-giving principle of Russian life, which has become so weak in many, many... The goal of any government is order, truth, good. And where is the basis of all good, order, truth? In the good, wise will of God. So, the basis of any improvement is if they do not do or allow anything contrary to the will of God. He who is filled with the fear of God is at the very source of reason and wisdom, since the beginning of wisdom is the fear of God. He who fears the Lord is above all human fear. Is the sound of a cart during thunder scary? Arrogant wicked people are only pathetic to a God-fearing soul. She boldly tells them the truth and boldly restrains their unbridled will in society, family, and alone. There is no sacrifice that she would not be ready to make for those threatened by the wickedness of the state and family, because for her all this is the will of God.” So Filaret looked with a watchful eye at the painful phenomena of time. Acting against them with an accusatory and intelligible word, he at the same time awakened others to this and, as if in hasten strength, turned to prayer. Filaret also wrote about “priesthood” to Mogilev Archbishop Eusebius, who was summoned for those present at the Holy Synod. “I thank you with all my heart for your sincere letter. It is necessary, a thousand times necessary, for the archpastors of the present time to be in frequent and close communion of love with each other. Time demands this more than ever. Unfortunately, this is not as easy to arrange as we would like to see. What to do? Pray to the Lord. Needs of the time: a) have you read the printed draft of the Russian Church Administration? When asked about this, proposed during a meeting with the Kyiv Metropolitan, he answered: no. When I said about the content that this is a project of Lutheran governance and that the priests want to be independent rulers of the church, he said with sorrow: why let them rule! According to my sinful reasoning, nothing can come out of the priestly rule other than the destruction of Orthodoxy, and that such a rule as the destruction of the order of the Apostolic administration of the church should be prevented by all means; and therefore those who have any opportunity to prevent it, will not allow it in silence, will answer for it at the court of the Lord Jesus. I also wrote to the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg about this project in passing. But I don’t know if it’s beneficial to anyone? Strange time! In time, it would be necessary to curb the habits of the priest’s lust for power: but the priests are only patted on the head, and the bishops only listen to Biron’s resolution. My God! Where is this going?” This letter makes it clear that the Metropolitan of Kiev was rather apathetic towards the projected church reform, and in order to arouse his jealousy, Filaret gave him a terrible indication of God’s judgment. It also introduces us to Filaret’s extraordinary energy and zeal for the indestructible preservation of the church, although, not being present in the Holy Synod, he could not personally object to the project. Thanks to such a lively attitude towards church issues, Filaret was not welcome in the Synod, which is why, once they got to know him, they did not call him again. But his opinion was close to the soul of Archbishop Eusebius, who, as we know, was very interested in this question. Archbishop Eusebius had a practical mind. He directly brought the question down this path, pointing out the possibility of such cases: “The bishop acted in a certain matter, as justice requires, but the bishop will be pitied. You see, the bishop will not resist and will show leniency towards the temptation of the church. Or it could be like this: the bishop is honest, but from the other porch the bishop will begin to accept petitions and convince his tender spouse to sin against justice. What are the consequences for the church? So, Philaret was afraid that the priests would not rule the church, and Eusebius foresaw that then the priests would rule. Such fears darkened Filaret’s days a lot. Thus, having read an article about the clergy in No. 135 of the Petersburg Gazette of 1863, he wrote to Gorsky: “How many articles similar to article No. 135 are now being published. My God, how long will Your wrath be upon the shepherds of the Russian Church? You fight with all your might to promote a better life for priests and other members of the church clergy; and some Serky writes a public condemnation of even the order of the Holy Synod. And some upset priest, who wants to have seven wives instead of one, throws mud at the forgotten bishop, silent and irresponsible. This poor fellow is fighting with carminatives in order to somehow, in fulfillment of the superior order, drag them into a committee to discuss the local needs of the clergy, incurs anger and condemnation from them, takes various twists, including very difficult ones, in order to achieve the goal. And as a reward, the bishops are thrown mud at them by the very people they are working for. What is it? What to expect from such priests? They are destroying themselves and destroying the church. The annoyance increases because you instruct them to make their own assumptions about the exaltation of their rights, and you get a pitiful limitation of meaning. Now you have the floor. Why are you silent? You will say: two articles have been published and not without benefit. True, I bow to my feet for Platonov’s article. For your article about monk-bishops - a bow from the waist. Sorry that I can’t force myself to bow to the ground. Your caution, often very excessive, is due to the fact that you, as usual, take the unclear words of the chronicle, the silence of the chronicle, as evidence in favor of a dubious opinion. This is a logical injustice, which turns out to be very harmful to life. Forgive me for talking about your weak side. I am expressing what has long been kept in my soul after long, very long observations. I express this especially because you are now dealing not with logical constructions alone, but with the affairs of life, why an error in logic can be dangerous for St. churches." Having received information from the Right Reverend Eusebius about the newly appointed chief prosecutor, Philaret answered him: “I rejoice at your news about *** I did not expect anything else. But those around you? One kind man, long known for his kindness, squandered up to 12 million of educational capital in his previous position. Now, out of the same kindness, bring the diocesan administration into disorder, giving rise to any strange complaint, even one that disagrees with the law. Another pretends to be a strict guardian of economic order, but does not even understand the alphabet of church government, eagerly, at the first hearing (not according to documents), seizes on a matter about which he has absolutely nothing to do with, and confuses his own affairs to the point of laughter. God help the count to put things in order!” “The private and home life of the deceased was not a secret to anyone; but due to our pettiness and short-sightedness, we could not always understand and appreciate it properly. We knew his unparalleled diligence; it amazed us - it could not help but amaze us: we had never seen anything like it either in ourselves or around us. But in our vain wonder, we thought neither of imitating him nor of helping him. We could hardly follow the various subjects of his conduct and activities; their diversity bordered on comprehensiveness. Everything that concerned thought and life, he responded to everything.” “But such light of knowledge and experience illuminated very little of our mental and moral darkness.” “His demands from his subordinates were not always and not fully fulfilled. Why? Of course, a lot of it was due to the negligence and laziness of the performers, but a lot of it was due to the fact that his concepts and demands far exceeded our development, our aspirations. He was beyond our reach... Whoever favorable circumstances allowed him to see the deceased close up cannot help but admit, from his own experience, that his condescension towards the weak was equal only to his all-round superiority over us. The fact that not only few could help, but also understand him, was the reason that he himself carried it with silent selflessness on his powerful shoulders. His selflessness seemed to have no limits: it was incredible to us; we, judging everyone by ourselves, looked for other reasons for his unparalleled life and activity, suspecting the reasons for which we mostly act ourselves. Eternal memory to you with all the unforgettable educators and benefactors of humanity! And may our weaknesses and our iniquities be forgotten before you!” Here is a humble confession and a truthful word on the characteristics and activities of Filaret, spoken by his closest colleague in education of the Chernigov flock. When the earth hides a person’s bodily clothing in its depths, for the most part only then is his moral character revealed to everyone. At least this is the lot of the majority of humble workers for the benefit of humanity. Only after Philaret’s death did they begin to pay tribute to him, studying him and being amazed at him. Only then did the slander that fell silent before his grave give space and freedom to the word of truth and surprise. In his private life the saint was simple and undemanding. Almost never sitting down at the dinner table, at least never sitting through until the end of dinner, he ate food as if in passing. Often a guest had to leave Filaret’s dinner almost hungry. It happened that a person would stand for a long time with a dish near the bishop, and in the conversation he would not even notice it. Taking some food onto his plate, he, almost without touching it, continues the conversation. The guest was embarrassed to eat during such a conversation, but there the person would accept the bishop’s plate, and after it the guest. Filaret himself, carried away by the story, did not notice this. But leaving the table hungry, the guest gladly accepted the second invitation to dinner: the saint’s conversation presented so many instructive and interesting things. When he lived in the Yeletsky monastery (usually in the winter half of the year), whoever was among the last to leave his cross church could, thanks to the curtain that did not fit tightly to the window, see Fileret in his study through the window. It was a small room with one window and almost no chairs. At the window there was a table littered with books, many of which were unfolded. Filaret sat in front of the table, deep in his work; Two candles were burning in front of him and a colorful sheath scarf lay under his hand. Sometimes at night, in the middle of his studies, the great worker felt hungry, went into the room occupied by the novices (who, hearing him, usually pretended to be asleep), opened the cupboard, took out black bread, cut off a slice and, adding salt, ate, washing it down with water. Having thus satisfied his hunger, he again sat down to the interrupted work. Frail and weak from childhood, he worked so hard that he never slept more than five hours a day. Even the tiring journey did not take him more than this time to rest. Returning, for example, from Moscow (from the fiftieth anniversary of the Academy) in the fall of 1864, he traveled 500 miles and arrived in Klintsy at midnight. Refusing dinner, he drank only tea. It was one o'clock in the morning when he lay down, and his cell attendant asked the owner for a fox fur coat to cover him. The owner, who enjoyed Philaret’s favor towards him, having dined with the clergy, noticed another fire in his guest, the archpastor. Looking into the bedroom, he saw Filaret sitting on the sofa on which his bed was arranged, with his legs outstretched and his back leaning against the pillows. He and his chest, which probably required special warmth, were covered with a fox fur coat. A candle was burning on the table, and he was dozing. At five o'clock in the morning he was already in church, listened to Matins, and after early mass he left for Chernigov, which was almost 200 miles away. Being moderate in food, he did not refuse, however, public dinners. Myopic people explained this by his desire to have a fun lunch. No matter how busy he was, he was always willing to make time for a conversation. With infantile faith, pious, without hypocrisy, fasting in his cell, he rejoiced in the conversation of a believer, as if finding a treasure. That's why he didn't hide from people. He did not avoid society because he loved man as he is, with all his weaknesses, considering himself last before God. But he could not stand lies. He was deeply saddened by the freethinking that was spreading in society and the decline of religious feeling. We mentioned his speech to the nobility in 1863. We know how, on the eve of the opening of the assembly of the nobility in 1866, he said to one landowner: “I love the nobility: but tomorrow I have to serve, take the oath, and I can’t tell him anything; such ideas are spreading among him”... He said this with sadness, shaking his bowed head. “If you find this, Vladyka,” his interlocutor noted, “then now is the time to tell you.” Filaret thought for a while. “I don’t know, I don’t know, I’ll see,” he said. But still he did not utter a word. The next day he attended an official dinner with the provincial leader. The landowner with whom the above conversation took place was sitting opposite him. “Do you remember, Vladyka, our conversation that took place the day before?” - “I remember.” “To your consolation, I can point out two facts: yesterday the rights of the nobles to participate in the meeting were verified; the question was: should a nobleman who allowed himself to scold his mother be allowed to participate in meetings? The unanimous answer is “not allowed.” Filaret bowed. “There was a second question,” continued the same landowner, “whether to allow a nobleman who allowed himself to shoot at the cross while drunk?” The answer was unanimous - “no”. Filaret bowed again. And when the provincial leader, who was sitting next to him, confirmed this, he impulsively hugged him and kissed him. The toast to the Emperor's health was enthusiastically received. The “hurray” did not stop for a long time. And Filaret stood with his head bowed and devoutly crossed himself. After dinner in the living room, a group of nobles sat down next to him. He was having a quiet conversation, apparently with pleasure. One of the landowners turned to him with an expression of regret that “we do not have the opportunity to categorically express to him the deep respect that the nobility has for him.” “My friend!” Philaret said thoughtfully, “Look, what do you need to think about” (he pointed to the sky), “but this is all empty.” Despite the fact that Filaret had a very weak physique and was already complaining of fatigue, which had never happened to him before; nevertheless, apparently, he was still quite cheerful. He walked quickly and easily, descended to the Anthony caves and climbed the steep mountain to the burial mounds (from pagan times) near his Trinity Monastery. In general, Filaret was distinguished by very poor health, and his sedentary life crushed him even more. “My back hurts from sitting stupidly; got attached to the conversations." (“Conversations about the suffering of our Lord Jesus Christ”), he wrote to Romanovsky. Often toothache forced him to spend sleepless nights, and rheumatism confined him to bed for several weeks. He always suffered especially in St. Petersburg and complained to Romanovsky: “It has been winter here since half of October. But at times it is very damp and therefore hard on my meager body.” “I have been lying in bed for more than two weeks now, without a leg, which suffers greatly from rheumatic pain. It can be very difficult, especially at night, - Lord, give me patience and tenderness!” But his main chronic illness was stomach catarrh. “Our ruler,” wrote Arch. Gerasim in 1857, was very exhausted from an upset stomach, which, according to him, recurs periodically.” “I was sick,” Filaret wrote to Romanovsky then, and, if I’m not mistaken, over time this illness will put me in a coffin. I think so based on its progress and beginning.” He wrote to Gorsky: “I was sick twice and the first time so badly that I was close to the grave. Just see what they call there. The bad thing is that I’m preparing poorly for that life.” But, despite his painful suffering, he overpowered himself as much as possible and continued to work. In the summer of 1866, cholera began to rage in Kyiv, threatening to visit the neighboring Chernigov province. She was already knocking on doors. Finally, she penetrated into the southern districts of the province, moving more and more towards the North. His Grace Filaret had the intention of surveying almost half of the diocese. They tried to dissuade him. Since the order of life and habits were disrupted on the road, this was the side that presented him with danger. “Now I find my trip timely and beneficial,” Filaret responded to such warnings: “the people have lost heart; he should be encouraged.” Thus, in serving his flock, Filaret was able to reach the point of selflessness, with which he imprinted his earthly exploits. On August 5, 1866, at five o’clock in the morning, Filaret left Chernigov. His route, calculated by day, reached Ushcherpye, Surazhsky district, on August 17, further dates were not determined, from which it was necessary to conclude that in Ushcherpye he intended to give himself a rest in the family of his beloved landowner. Seeing him off, the assistant police officer asked: “So would you order your Eminence to wait in Chernigov on the 18th? - “How come on the 18th? - “Yes, you deigned to write like that.” - “I don’t know how this happened! After all, I drew up the route myself... How did this happen?... That was where the conversation ended, and the answer was subsequent events. On the 6th, on the day of the Transfiguration of the Lord, he served in the city of Borzna. In the village In Zagorovka on the same day he attended the all-night vigil, and on the morning of the 7th he arrived straight for the service in the village. Fastovtsy, where he consecrated the church. From the Cherubic Song to Communion, they usually saw him in tears: here, during this entire liturgy, the last in his life, tears flowed from his eyes, and during the celebration of St. Gifts and Communion of St. He burst into tears uncontrollably, so much so that he instilled awe in those around him. While dining with a local priest, he talked a lot about the criticisms to which the clergy are subjected. With strength and conviction, he refuted the accusations, pointing out how difficult pastoral service is both in terms of the height of its task, and in the fight against ignorance and prejudice, given the scarcity of means of life and education. After mass, one of the founders of the church asked Philaret for blessing to purchase a new bell, heavier than the existing one. Filaret, having kissed him and the priest on the head, said to them in response: “The bell and the real one gathers believers to prayer; so instead of a new bell, it would be better to make a sacrifice to God if your old church is moved to the cemetery. We, old man, won’t have long to live with you: so it will be more useful for us and for others, just like there will be a church in a cemetery.” It never occurred to anyone that these words would come true on Filaret with amazing speed. In general, all the way he talked a lot about death, as if preparing for it. From Fastovtsi after lunch he left for the village. Belmachevka. Here, having met priest I. Ya-go, the former dean, with touching humility he asked him to forgive him for undeservedly depriving him of his deanery. We mentioned that this priest was slandered. Having examined the churches in Rozhnovka and Parafievka, he arrived in the village for the night. Kochenovka to the landowner T. Never having dinner, Filaret, probably feeling weak, thought to strengthen his strength with food and did not refuse dinner. The next day, the 8th, after having breakfast at T.’s, he went to the village. Plane and visited the landowner R., whom, as we know, he loved. A zealous admirer of his offered him lunch. Filaret could not refuse him, which again broke his habit: he usually ate food once a day. Having left R., he already felt very unwell. Loss of strength and other symptoms made it clear that he was entering the terrible embrace of the Kyiv guest. He complained that the unusual and untimely food upset him. Arriving at 7 pm in the city of Konotop, Filaret, despite the extreme loss of strength, visited two more churches. He entered the Assumption Church and felt that he could not stand. “I’ll rest with you,” he said. They gave him a chair. He sat down, quickly looked through the church books and hurried to the cathedral. He also stayed there for a short time. Those who managed to accept his last blessing and kiss his hand noticed that the saint’s hand was cold as ice. And on his face there was no longer that gentle smile with which he greeted everyone and to which everyone who knew him was accustomed. From the cathedral he drove to the archpriest, Fr. Stefan Ivasutic. Now he asked for tea and peace. But they had not yet served him tea when severe attacks of illness forced him to bed. They sent for a doctor. The doctor and those present were not so much surprised at the futility of the medical aids as at the patience with which the archpastor endured the suffering, never ceasing to pray and make the sign of the cross. Only from time to time he quenched his thirst and nausea with pieces of ice. At 12 o'clock at night they sent for another doctor. But the patient was aware of his hopeless situation and in the first hour of the night, calling the abbot of the Krupetsky monastery, Archimandrite Augustine, to him, he said to him: “confess me.” Father Stefan, having learned from the doctor about the hopeless situation of his archpastor, approached him and, reminding him of his own instruction to perform unction on the sick, asked to be allowed to administer unction to him. "Fine. Do what you need: but quickly, quickly, quickly: I feel bad. And you are a doctor, stay here." And he himself keeps crossing himself and praying; either he will shake the doctor’s hand with a weak, cold hand, or he will take him by the shoulder. This expression of gratitude to the doctor was the last tribute to the earth... At two o'clock in the morning they began the unction. While reading the seventh Gospel, his dying suffering began. At five o'clock in the morning they began to read the canon for the departure of the soul, and at five o'clock Filaret passed away. Only his name remains, which should be passed down with reverence from generation to generation in the grateful memory of his compatriots. The ringing of the cathedral bell twelve times echoed heavily in the hearts of the orphaned flock... Either tired from a sleepless night and anxiety, or frightened by a terrible illness, the danger of which had not been recognized until that time, the clergy did not soon get ready to serve a memorial service over the body of their archpastor. And the first who wished to pray and serve a memorial service was the landowner R. The next day. On August 10, Philaret’s body, laid in a white glazed coffin, was brought into the cathedral, and on the fifth day, after the liturgy and requiem, this coffin was placed in another, larger one, lined with iron. This coffin, covered with black cloth with white braiding, was placed on a dray drawn by 6 horses in a train, and so the body of the saint was taken under the canopy to Chernigov. At that time, the Assumption Fair had already begun in Konotop. For fear of cholera, the fair was located outside the city. Before the departure of the body, the fair was empty: everyone ran to the cathedral. About 2-3 versts the fair people saw off the coffin outside the city. It was not curiosity that attracted the people. No! It was here that the spiritual connection of the people with their “good shepherd” was felt, revealing the meaning of the tears that flowed so abundantly from the eyes of the saint while praying for himself and for his flock. The people could only hear the cry: “Forgive our lord, forgive our lord, forgive”... Yes, one could see how piously the people made the sign of the cross. It was such a solemn procession that the processions of kings, leaders and victors cannot be compared, because here earth and heaven were united... From one church to another they escorted the coffin with banners and a religious procession with the incessant singing of the lyce. And the people, replacing one another, numbering 10-12 thousand, accompanied the coffin from Konotop to Chernigov, 180 versts. For 20 or more miles, people walked to the path of the coffin to pay their last respects to the deceased. Who notified the people and what called them to this coffin, which on simple road, covered with black cloth, moved at a measured pace along the road to Chernigov? And a wonderful thing - not a single cholera case! And everyone forgot about this terrible scourge. Cholera did not reach Chernigov and stopped. Filaret seemed to give himself as a ransom for many. Who will unravel the meaning of his trip, his constant recollection of death, his prayers and sobs at the last liturgy?... On August 18, at 10 o'clock in the morning, on the banks of the Desna River, three miles from the city, the coffin was met by the Kyiv vicar Bishop Porfiry with numerous clergy and all, one might say, residents of the city, starting from the representative of the administration. As soon as the coffin was taken off the ferry, the entire crowd of thousands of people began to sway. The coffin stopped. It turned out that the people unharnessed their horses, wanting to carry the coffin of their archpastor themselves. When this coffin was stopped for a litany on the Red Bridge, opposite the seminary building built by the deceased saint, students from all educational institutions and the theological girls' school founded by the same saint joined the procession. “And God, how the children cried!” exclaims an eyewitness. On the 19th, after the funeral service, the people again drove the chariot with the coffin to the saint’s eternal resting place, to the Trinity-Ilyinsky Monastery, located 2 versts from the cathedral. Here, under the very altar of the Trinity Church, a grave was prepared. Above Philaret’s coffin there is a stone tombstone in the form of an oblong throne. At the feet of the saint, through the diligence of the abbess of the Nezhin monastery, was placed a large cross with the image of the crucified Lord, and at the heads was established an icon - the zealous offering of one landowner - with the image of the Savior in glory and the inscription: “Where I am, my servant will also be.” This tomb represents an unfinished church. It is plastered, its vaults are decorated in places with stucco work, and there is a smooth stone floor. In a word, all that is missing is an iconostasis and stoves, and a more convenient entrance to turn these catacombs into a warm church. Undoubtedly, sooner or later, this will work out, and over time, a bloodless sacrifice will rise over the tomb of Christ’s zealous servant. Filaret, one might say, endured, begged and cried for such a place for his resting place. At the appointed time, the following will of Filaret was opened and read: “In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. By Your goodness, Lord, You revealed to man everything necessary for his salvation. According to Your wisdom, You hid from him the day and hour of his death, so that every day and hour we would prepare to answer for our deeds. Grateful for Your goodness and reverent of Your wisdom, in the event of my death, in full sense and memory, I write a will with my hand.” “1) Before You, Lord, I am an unpaid debtor. The blessings and mercies poured out by You on me, unworthy, are boundless; but I have paid and am paying for Your love with the wickedness of my heart. Lamb of God, take away the sins of the world, cover my debts before the righteousness of Your Father! Intercessor of Christians, good Mother of the Son of God, do not leave me unworthy, protect me, a sinner, with Your prayer to Your son and Your God.” “2) I ask and pray to everyone who has ever, intentionally or unintentionally, offended or led to sin, to forgive me out of Christian love and to pray for me, unworthy. If someone remains in debt to me, in whatever way, I pray to the Lord not only not to remember his debt, but to reward him with bounties of grace. I ask everyone, for the sake of Christian love, to remember me in their prayers.” “3) Give my books, which have a catalog written by my hand, to the library of the seminary of the diocese where death finds me. If there are no books against the catalogue, no one will be charged for the lack of them. All manuscripts will also go there, including files related to the Livonian Church 59 . For this offering, I ask you to make a memorial for me on the Saturday before Cheese Week.” 60. “4) Of the money, I assign two thousand rubles in favor of the hostel of the Khoroshevsky Monastery, so that the monastery will benefit from interest on the capital, and the capital will always be in a credit institution. If they are found at my death, then I assign two thousand to be given to a credit institution, so that the children of my brother, Fr. Deacon Vasily, Gregory and Ivan, and upon death, their interest, by order of the Holy Synod, shall go to the benefit of orphans, students of the Tambov Seminary.” “5) All silver table items will remain in favor of my brother’s eldest son, priest Grigory Gumilevsky.” “6) If, in addition to everything mentioned, money and things of my own are found on me, then use everything in favor of the Kharkov Spiritual Orphan School for Girls, to which I grant the right to publish my works and translations for their benefit within the period specified by law.” “Filaret Bishop of Kharkov and Akhtyrka. “Written by my hand on the 21st day of December 1853.” And in his will, Filaret did not change his rule: to put the good and benefit of the common or many above his own. Philaret’s extensive labors over the last seven years of his life, i.e. during the management of his Chernigov diocese, there were: “Historical review of the hymns and hymns of the Greek Church, with notes and photographs of ancient musical notations”, “Review of Russian spiritual literature” (from 1720–1858) and “Addition” to it (from 1862), “Russian saints, revered by the whole church or locally”, “St. ascetics of the Eastern Church”, “Historical and statistical description of the Chernigov diocese” and many articles on various subjects. The publication of his famous “Dogmatic Theology”, “Historical Teaching on the Fathers of the Church” and, in an abbreviated version, “History of the Russian Church” dates back to the same time. He also laid the foundation for the publication of Chernigov Diocesan News, in which he was an active contributor. There, by the way, he placed a lot of bibliographic notes and articles on contemporary issues of public life. His curiosity and the variety of his subjects were truly amazing. It is worth looking at the catalog of his own library to see this. There were all kinds of magazines of secular literature for several years, and legal works, or, for example, Azanchevsky’s “Satirical Journals 1763 - 1774”, Empress Catherine’s “There Were and Fables”, Snegirev’s “Russian Proverbs”. “On electromagnetic telegraph lines,” etc. We are not talking about the wonderful theological and historical departments. And he read all this. He responded to many articles in literary magazines with his own critical remarks. Even Snegirev’s “Proverbs” came to him not by chance. He compiled an article from them, “Folk Wisdom,” extracting for teaching everything that was said in them and the Divine, about faith, about salvation and (hateful to him) litigation. Filaret’s works are striking in the mass of critical articles and notes. This was a feature of his talent: an inquisitive attitude towards every subject, checking everything through criticism. This way of relating to what he read, facilitating its assimilation by memory, developed his last ability to such an extent that he amazed everyone with it. His rare letter to Gorsky did not contain any critical note. We will present some of them in order to become more familiar with the originality of his expressions, his talent, his view. “I sincerely admit that I really don’t like Grave 61 in terms of my way of thinking and some of my actions; and he has almost nothing of his own, and everything that is named after him does not belong to him. Therefore, I would really not like him to be given an honorable place among the teachers and educators of the church. Papistic enthusiasm or fanaticism does not give the right to such a title.” “I read your article about St. with pleasure, great pleasure. Cyril and Methodius (Gorsky sent him the manuscript). Made some comments. It seems to me that the time of the article should be the end of the 10th century. This is true both from the news about Adalbert and from Nestor’s extracts. As for the idea that the words about the Russian Gospel were inserted by a Russian, it does not seem entirely close to the truth to me. We didn’t do inserts, and there was no one to do them. True, this happened in the chronicles; but the same idea can hardly be affirmed about the lives of the saints. It seems to me that the thought about the Russian Gospel and the remarks about the beginning of the Russian charter are simply the thoughts of a short-minded biography writer. There is no doubt that the biography writer is accurate in his narration, he exposes circumstances that cannot be refuted by historical accuracy: he also had the means to tell the truth; but you must agree that he is not a great philosopher or a deep theologian; he stands little higher than contemporary writers of legends of the dark West. Add to this the probable idea that he had in mind to defend the dignity of the Slavic letter from the attacks of the evil German dogs. At least the idea of ​​the supernatural origin of Russian literacy resonates with this short-sighted piety. It doesn’t matter to him that in another place he himself blurts out that the Slavs do not have a letter. This is a side thing, needed for another conversation.” “Another thought, not expressed in the comments, relates to saying as often and accurately as possible in the words of biographies that you cared a lot about brevity and conciseness. Phrases of legends are an unnecessary construction. Them away! But please do not omit even the smallest circumstance, no matter how particular it may be. You know that enthusiasts value every sliver of antiquity too much. And sometimes you can’t blame them for that. What is unimportant to us may be important to others.” We do not know the detailed “comments” of Filaret, but his further correspondence makes it clear that Gorsky did not agree with the opinion stated above, and Filaret wrote to him: “About the biography of Cyril and Methodius, it remains to be left to time to say decisively and truly. Now, with a lack of facts to support my or your opinion, it is impossible to decide which of you and I is right and which is wrong. A theory is strong (in history) when it is based on certain and many cases; otherwise there will be a disturbance of thoughts, nothing more. Here we don’t yet have enough cases for a strong formation to emerge. I will also note about our ancient narrators that additions and insertions in the biographies have not yet been exposed. I don’t understand that after one biography we don’t have another; but the other biography writer usually appears to us in a different caftan and increasingly dressed up, following the example of the later Greek stitchers of magnificently empty phrases.” But Philaret did not always and not everywhere demand such details as in the article about Cyril and Methodius. Here he considered them useful for the sake of the novelty of the subject and disputes, for the resolution of which a private fact, insignificant at first glance, could be suitable. Where, in his opinion, the strength and brilliance of an article was needed, where a word needed to impress the reader, he approved of the conciseness of the presentation, leaving the reader’s thoughts to work. This is what he wrote about Gorsky’s article “Description of the Sergius Lavra”: “Briefly, but powerfully, there is something to think about. Perhaps those who think - Egyptian work, will be dissatisfied with the brevity; but other things cannot be discussed at greater length, others are not worth many words, and therefore complaints are nothing.” Sometimes, while reviewing articles. Filaret, like his teacher, gets down to the smallest detail. So, approving the idea of ​​​​printing Serapion’s words, he remarked to Gorsky: “The translation is clean, but one place especially caught my eye; the words “were delighted” are translated “perished.” This is far from accurate. Why not say “suddenly taken”? Chicane. Sorry. Forgive me for what I say too. The word Julian, repeated up to ten times in remarks 62 and mostly in a row, is a little strange. If there is nothing that needs to be added, at least to avoid monotony, it would be better not to repeat this word. Almost the same - Gall. The sin of the translator or publisher, I don’t remember. But in any case, it’s not easier for publishers. Comments on a translation fall heavily on the translator or publisher. The critic's eye scans them most easily. For my part, I would like you to be more generous with your comments. This is necessary. The reader will thank you if you not only helped him understand the writer, but also gave him two or three new thoughts.” Thanking Gorsky for his comments on his article about Chrysostom, he writes: “I would consider one remark unnecessary, this is regarding miracles. I myself happened to hear from one monk, kind and reasonable: why didn’t the “Christian Reading” say anything about the miracles of Chrysostom, which are mentioned in the Chetya-Menaia? I assume that the monk's question may change the publisher's thoughts about the demand of the reading public. If the desert monk proposed a question of curiosity, what about others? Those who read the lives of the saints after the Chetya-Menaia will first of all ask, why is it said about the saint this way and not otherwise? Distrust of Chetya-Minea on the part of scientists is quite common, almost as much as credulity in edification. Let it be so, let edification remain the primary goal of your journal, after connecting it with the reading of the Holy Fathers: this is how it should be; but do not be too cold to the demands of the mind, so as not to go to extremes. “Sunday Reading” seeks edification, “Christian Reading” seeks Orthodox edification; but you must admit that some of the other things are sometimes caricatured: there are no children in Rus' now, you can’t feed anyone with sweet fables, but they require strong food. The Holy Fathers, and especially those like the Theologian, offered so much for the philosopher, and for the poet, and for the historian, and for the philologist, that it is not so easy to rank them with such learning, which, at least one inch, became higher than their learning. And it is especially convenient for you to follow their direction. I also attach this to the philological comments on the works of St. Gregory the Theologian; I’m not talking about sermons and edifying articles, where some are afraid to speak the language of scientists, while the Theologian was not at all afraid of that. A scientist will wince at you after reading a learned historical article without evidence, and an unscientific reader will not remain dissatisfied if evidence is presented in a remark or “inter caetera”. Filaret was extremely careful in assessing well-known techniques and positions in religious disputes. So, for example, he wrote: “I received a letter from the Metropolitan. He is angry. As much as I could, I wrote about the matter as it was according to my conscience. If things are not accepted as they were, it is no longer my fault. Judgment before the Lord. Orthodoxy does not require rotten supports for its firmness, such as the unfounded words about the apostolic origin of triplicate. Afraid of the outcries of the ignorant? You cannot keep them silent by shouting lies. Truth is its own defense, and human scaffolding is only fit to be broken by time.” “Have you not received the Specilegium Romanum? I'm looking forward to it and still can't wait. Even to this day I can’t formulate an exact idea about the publication. I saw that Greek antiquities were also placed here; but I also saw that Latin was quite unhappy. I confess: if there is Latin scholasticism here, I will throw it in the oven. This skeleton is already more boring than the plague. Why drag him out of the cesspool, or the Vatican? The last words, in my opinion, are unambiguous. Let the sins of the fathers lie covered in dust." But, despite such a stern look, he reproaches Eusebius for his article “Conversations on the Sacraments.” “Tell me, for the Lord’s sake, why did they accept to preach so openly the misunderstandings of papism, long abandoned?” In religious polemics, he demanded special purity and clarity. And, apparently, more than one book flew into Filaret’s stove. This is what he wrote in passing: “Yesterday I took Ammon 63 into my hands and was forced to throw it away like an abomination of desolation. I think I’ll send him to the oven.” Filaret understood Orthodoxy with a pure soul. Analyzing the “Sacraments” of Eusebius, he says: “True, I would also say that I do not like it when the thought of revelation is carried out through the categories of church scholasticism, like the soul through ordeals. De gustibus non disputandum est. Otherwise, one person loves the forms of catechism, while another thinks that catechism is another matter, and systematic reflection is another; It seems to one that it is the height of perfection when the inclinations of faith are illuminated by the logic of faith, while to another it seems that such food is dry and meager for reflective faith. One apostolic, universal church: these things are useful for a Christian to remember; these are forms that tell him a lot in a little.” “Do you want to know my thoughts about Gregory’s letters and poems? You almost know them. I’ll also say about the first ones, so you can talk, i.e. few of them have dogmatic or Christian-moral significance; they are examples of written syllables; It seems that they were written primarily so that Christian youth would see in them, and not in the letters of the pagans, examples of letters. However, one could work hard to choose the best and not ignore the works of a great man. Among them, some are at least as important as the letters of Basil the Great. Take the trouble to reconsider." “Between Gregory’s poems there are excellent ones, no matter how you think about them. You know that in my opinion there is an insurmountable difficulty in translating Gregory’s poems. But the drop breaks through the stone. To tell you about the best, I am sending you the recently published poems of Gregory, recognized by the Greeks as the best. True, the Greek taste seeks only Greek pagan beauty: this has long been known. For the late Greek there is no philosopher higher than Aristotle, and no poet higher than Homer or Sophocles; for the late Greek, treasure, wealth of all kinds in that late work, where, as we see, either Aristotelian dialectics or the singing blind man of the mythological age speak to him. That is why, following my taste, I marked with a pencil what seemed to me the best, and I cannot help but say that the poems put in last place by the Greek should take first place in the Russian translation. To this it is necessary to add especially two prayers to God, one that Galand has; poems: “Life”, translated in “Christian Reading”, two poems about himself and his life. The last two could decently form a conclusion to the works, although in their merit they should follow after the Billievs: τὰ απύρρητα. I reviewed the content of all the translated articles (but not the translation) and noted what seemed the best. It would be a very good idea to publish them. The soul speaks in them. Others are distinguished by the depth of their thoughts. Here is everything I know from memory about Gregory’s verses.” The following judgment of Philaret makes it clear more than anything else the constant mood of his soul: “My sinful soul, it would seem, needs to take up Ephraim after Gregory. To tell the strict truth, desert Ephraim, despite the fact that he is a hermit, is almost in all respects superior to Vasily. No matter how you look at him, whether you take him as a preacher, he is not inferior to the Cappadocian teacher; even in the heartfelt liveliness of the words; He speaks closer to the heart than Vasily. The latter has art, and his severity somewhat frightens the sinful soul, while the tears of Ephraim Sirip are sweetness of the heart. I do not compare Ephraim the interpreter with Basil. There is no comparison between them." That’s why he wrote to Gorsky: “The church fathers, especially Rev. Ephraim the Syrian, faithful wayfinders." “Creations of Rev. Ephraim’s songs are my favorite, his interpretations are precious stones.” By making a selection from Filaret’s letters to Gorsky, one can compile an entire penitential canon. And if we recall the streams of tears that flowed uncontrollably from his eyes during the Divine Service, it will be clear to us why the tears of the Syrian hermit were so close to Philaret’s soul. On the occasion of the great sadness of Tonchiy, who lost his youngest daughter, Filaret wrote to Romanovsky: “Good E. Iv. our health is poor. What do you think upset him? The death of the one who called me father. Poor man! What is he not crying about? She also cries because there are no children; she also cries because there are children; cries when there is no wife, cries even when there is a wife. Cries from lack of money; she cries because of the heaps of money. I would say that after that there is no need to cry about anything. But I have terrible sins. One cannot help but cry about this misfortune. She's too scary. Oh, when would I cry for her as much as she costs tears.” Philaret’s closest collaborator in the education of the flock 64 defines the significance of Philaret’s works and activities for the church and society: “The activity of a shepherd, and especially an archpastor, is made up of a combination of the most diverse social and personal relationships; his duties concern all aspects of the life of his flock, his influence extends to the entire moral and social life of his flock. To teach salvation to the ignorant, to guide the inexperienced and weak, to excite the inactive, to admonish the obstinate - what a wide, difficult field for activity! Few manage to labor on just one side of this field, and their memory does not remain without blessings. What kind of memory should there be of one who succeeded in all aspects of the great ministry, who also showed new aspects in this ministry and in all types of archpastoral activity was a man full of life, thought and virtue? “The archpastor is, first of all, a teacher-educator of his flock with the light of faith. Eternal memory to you, our ever-memorable mentor and enlightener, luminary of the entire Russian Church! We will not encounter any contradiction if we say that the children of the Russian Church received the concept from the deceased, through him they accepted into consciousness who they are and what they are in relation to St. faith of Christ. For what is his “History of the Russian Church” if not a deeply edifying guide for the Russian people to self-knowledge in religious terms? “The Russian Church, rich in the simplicity of faith and Christian life, was far from familiar with those lamps of faith and Christian life, which through their writings clarified and revealed the teaching of Christ. Without being familiar with the scriptures of their fathers, the Russian people could not properly understand the high historical dignity of Christian teaching. “The Teaching about the Fathers of the Church,” which filled this gap in our spiritual literature and in our religious consciousness, constitutes and will constitute an indestructible and brilliant monument to the deceased teacher of the Russian Church.” “Not everyone has the time and opportunity to study the teachings of Christ in the writings of the Fathers: but for every Christian it is necessary to firmly and consciously remember the fundamental truths of Christianity; every believer must be ready to answer everyone who asks about his hope. A new work appears - a detailed presentation of the dogmatic teaching of the Orthodox Church, and at the same time not only expanding the scope of our knowledge of the faith in general, but also guiding us in the fight against modern false-wise false teachings. “Dogmas, as contemplative truths, require their implementation in life; It turns out that there is a need for instruction on how to live with the faith we profess. The deceased, guardian of the Christian faith and life, did not abandon this work. But, as a wise teacher, he decided to depict Christian life for us not in dry rules, not in abstract truths, but in living images of the holy persons of the universal church (Lavsaik) and mainly in the lives of our domestic saints and those close to us in nationality, history and life, the Russian and South Slavic saints. Could there be a more edifying, more accurate, more understandable depiction of Christian life for us?” “But life, changing every minute, each time offers Christian teaching questions of how to look from a Christian point of view at this or that phenomenon, at this or that truth; How to act as a Christian in these or other temporary and local circumstances? In response to such questions, the caring teacher of the Russian Church opened his mouth for teaching, and we are amazed at the high, grace-filled art with which the word of God, Christianity, is directly applied to life and activity, illuminates with clear light the darkest corners of our everyday life and teaches us to make a bright holiday out of it.” “The Christian Church, as a society, has its own laws and rules that establish various relationships between its members and determine their way of life and behavior. Canonical rules of cathedrals and St. Fathers in an accurate and clear form have long been an urgent need for the Russian Church. The deceased did not abandon this work for the benefit of the church, and (the translation of the Book of Rules) with his usual zeal, with his characteristic conscientiousness, performed it for the glory of God, and not for the praise of his name.” “Having reviewed the works of the deceased in this way, as a pastor-teacher of the church, who would not agree that he said the whole will of God, as far as this was necessarily required by the state of not just the flock entrusted to him, but by the state and needs of the entire Russian Church? One of his works would be enough for any teacher so that his name does not disappear from the grateful memory of people.” As for the significance of Filaret’s scientific works, professor of the Kazan Academy Eliseev says: “Filaret was, one might say, the only truly learned theologian in Russia, who, as a dogmatic theologian, as a theologian-historian, as a theologian-archaeologist, stood, if not higher, then in no way lower than famous foreign theologians, an unusually talented man completely devoted to science.” Professor of the Moscow Academy S. Smirnov put it this way: “Filaret is a famous representative of spiritual learning and a figure in the field of spiritual literature - strong and incomprehensible.” If we take into account that Filaret, striking us with the mass of his scientific work, enormous erudition, depth of thought, who rightly took an honorable place among scientists, at the same time personally ruled vast dioceses, was a wonderful administrator who did not lose sight of anything, an active instiller of enlightenment and a zealous altar server, then weighing all this content in one face, moreover, physically weak, always haunted by the sorrows with which human untruth endowed him, it is impossible to find a more correct expression to form the concept of him, which Professor Smirnov cited, “incomprehensible.” Having taken upon ourselves the task of compiling a biography of Filaret and making known the valuable materials that we have, we do not undertake the backbreaking labor of entering into a critical assessment of his scientific activity, especially since the word about it has already been spoken by people of authority. We allow ourselves, in confirmation or refutation of a well-known opinion, to point to the life of the deceased saint revealed above. The significance of Filaret’s literary activity is discussed in an excellent article by Mr. Ponomarev, published in the year of Filaret’s death. He also listed his printed works. Mr. Ponomarev’s opinion is valuable for its impartiality, which was not weakened by the stunning impression of the sudden death of such a major national figure. “Where is the answer to such prolific activity?” asks Ponomarev, and then says: “The answer lies in his undeniably great and varied talents, in his enormous learning, in certain circumstances that belonged to his time and in certain properties that belonged exclusively to his nature. After the death of Metropolitan Eugene, we did not have a single spiritual writer with such a varied scope of activity. Who were the others?... In the “Review of Russian Spiritual Literature (1720–1858)” we meet, in the forties, many dozens of writers; but of these we can cite here, of course, only the most remarkable ones, those with whom we can more or less put our author on a level. These were: Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, Archbishops Gregory of Kazan, Ignatius of Voronezh, Innocent of Kherson, Jacob of Nizhny Novgorod, Archimandrite Gabriel; archpriests: Veniaminov, Golubinsky, Grigorovich, Debolsky, Kochetov, Malov, Nikolsky, Nordov, Pansky, Putyatin, Skvortsov; monk Iakinthos Bichurin; professors of theological academies: Avsenev, Amfitheatrov, Gorsky, Delitsyn, Karpov, Sidonsky, Shimkevich; We will also add Nadezhdin to them. Among the secular ones, it seems, one is Muravyov. These persons are so well known to you, reader, that you yourself, of course, can easily remember the volume and nature of their activities; remember well, look at our author’s “Review of Russian Spiritual Literature (1720–1858)”, and you will be convinced of the relative monotony and scarcity (don’t be afraid of this word), the poverty of spiritual literature at that time, with so many highly gifted figures. From the “Review” you see that the existing spiritual activity, in the forties and somewhat later, was predominantly distinguished by a religious, moral and preaching character. If there were works of other content, there were relatively few of them. Hardly a dozen of the names we have named have penetrated into secular literature and the public. His Eminence Philaret appears. In his foreground were the History of Russian Spiritual Literature and the History of the Russian Church - subjects that, more than others, are capable of attracting the curious attention of society. He was one of the first to establish relations with secular literary bodies, or at least with learned societies. He began to publish his works both separately and in various publications, mostly secular. Naturally, with all this he quickly expanded his circle of fame. From his very first step towards literature, people started talking about him noisily. The Moscow Society of History and Antiquities hastened to elect him as a full member; magazine criticism placed high hopes on him. The periods of his “History of the Russian Church”, in which for the first time a story was heard about times relatively close to us and interesting, were met with lively curiosity, loud approval and attracted the attention of the public to him. His literary fame was soon consolidated firmly and unshakably. There were too few people similar to him in learning in the forties; they had their own circle of activities, and they did not indulge in analyzes of his works; magazine criticism positively could not compare with him in breadth of knowledge and depth of views; she mostly greeted him with respectful comments; it is clear that the rest of the public greeted his works with only silent respect. And His Eminence Filaret understood very well this whole situation of his activity. He, of course, was pleased with the thought that with his scientific works he had taken a place for himself that was inaccessible to many: but even in this place he did not allow himself to calm down. Almost after him, a new powerful figure appeared, also fully armed and also diverse: others, undoubtedly gifted and hardworking, appeared as secondary luminaries; The historical, meaningful study of the state of the church and the clergy has become the subject of a considerable number of scientists, not only spiritual, but also secular. These successes, without any doubt, pleased our author, but even more encouraged him to new activities. As if avoiding the slightest rivalry and as if trying to leave everyone far behind him, he tirelessly and with even greater energy applied labor to labor. Inspired by success, the historian of the Russian Church soon became an encyclopedist in the spiritual field, but serious preparation was also visible in this encyclopedism. Open any of Filaret’s major works of the 50s and 60s, and you will immediately be amazed by the boundless abundance of references and quotations in it; they are filled with the names of many hundreds of studies, monuments, publications, manuscripts... With great amazement you look at this enormous amount of erudition and think: “Lord, when did he manage to read all this; How could I retain in my memory and apply all this mass of information to the case?” Moreover, despite the abundance of quotations and references, we affirm positively that both of them were still rather sparingly made by him, often distinguished by extreme conciseness (and, unfortunately, sometimes by uncertainty and inaccuracy). Considering all this, I’m ready to think that he wrote his books, cited quotes, put references to memory, approximately, so that the matter would not stop.” “His whole life was devoted to reading and work. He gave himself to society and the public only when absolutely necessary. There was no time between his hands. His science-loving spirit did not allow him a single moment of inaction. People who stood close to him told us that he worked, and rested, and ate and drank forever with a book in his hands, and that at that very moment he made the notes and extracts he needed. “One must be surprised,” says one who knew the late bishop closely; one must be surprised at his tireless activity. He did not go to bed except with two burning candles. At night he often woke up, took a candle, went to the library, took out a book or manuscript and sat down to work. Apparently, he did not put off such activities until the morning: even during sleep, he was occupied with some kind of mental task.” This partly explains the amazingly fast productivity of this multi-talented hard worker. We say “partly” because we cannot help but recognize another, inner strength in him - a bright energetic desire to take on everything, to be, if not a pioneer in everything, then to succeed more than others, to leave a wide mark on everything, a good memory. Over time, he no longer had a special task, a specific issue, the solution of which would occupy him exclusively; acting on a vast stage became his cherished thought. He was not embarrassed by the huge size of the field, nor the variety of subjects, nor the lack of many necessary data and sources. Without hesitating at all in the face of difficulties, he bravely plunged into the work he had begun, quickly became familiar with its actual situation and, enthusiastically, hurried to draw concise, decisive conclusions from it. After this, it is not surprising that, given his enormous erudition and his fast work, the most diverse books and articles appeared one after another into the light of God. This diversity was most noticeable in the last ten years of his life, when, it would seem, a person could already feel tired. He didn't know him at all. Physical infirmities did not at all overpower his spirit. Moving from diocese to diocese was for him a new impetus for new activities. In the new place, he seemed to sense new strength within himself. He immediately looked around the field for his literary work, quickly spotted uncultivated corners and immediately decided what he needed to do, what to tackle first. It is clear that quite a few such gaps opened up, and he took on everything at once. Since the 1860s, we have noticed in him a particularly intense attention to major phenomena of life and the movement of modern thought, and here he hastened to say his abrupt, bold word. Looking at this seething, rushing activity, I’m ready to think that he wanted to act alone in everything; and yet circumstances led him to this. He not only determined the range of activities for himself, but also pointed out to others the work for which, in his opinion, the time had come. He made sure that a certain work was completed as successfully as possible and for this purpose he indicated how to split up the work and where to combine forces. But seeing that his advice was being accepted indifferently, seeing that there was a lot of harvest, but few workers, and that some of them were engaged in academic luxury, others were immersed in diocesan administration, others were simply lazy, and the work remained untouched, and finally, realizing, perhaps to himself, that almost all the workers were much inferior to him in knowledge, and in talents, and in love for work, he boldly took on the task. work, the execution of which required the intensive labor of a dozen people. At the same time, one involuntarily recalls one major circumstance that confirms our last assumption. It was precisely, with his swift and flexible nature, that he trusted solely in his enormous reserve of strength and did not always pay due attention to someone else’s voice, someone else’s homogeneous research (especially analyzes of his works), but almost always himself, with his own labor, compiled, revised, and supplemented his works... Thus, the two most expensive treasures of a scientist - time and labor were not always saved as they should have been. In the last years of his life, his physical strength weakened to the point that he could not write while sitting; but he did not stop before this: he began to write lying down, with a trembling hand... As a result of this weakening of the body, as a result of these bold hopes for his information and as a result of hasty work, several omissions and inaccuracies appeared in his works, and any painstaking researcher could catch these mistakes. But for that, hardly anyone could compare with him in the ability to descend into the depths of a matter - to briefly and sharply outline the essence of the subject, to clearly and accurately define the meaning of the writer. There was a breath of freshness and truth from some of his studies, or rather from many, many pages. In this case, his very language, usually dry and unclear, received irresistible strength, vitality and happy originality. His flexible resourcefulness was able to capture the subtlest nuances of expression in order to more clearly highlight the features of an object or person. In his sentences, he did not like to waste words and always expressed himself abruptly and strongly, boldly and confidently. At first it was difficult to reconcile with this property of his verdicts, especially since they were often not supported by evidence, extracts, and were pronounced unfounded: but the critical power of the author and his erudition later forced one to believe such condensed verdicts, although they resemble resolutions. Indeed, he always spoke as if he had authority. It is impossible, however, not to remember that his sentences sometimes resonated with inexorable severity, and in court about figures of the ancient period - often with inaccuracy. Here we see that he sometimes judges by first impression, self-confidently avoiding more careful research. In this case, his views and conclusions need to be revised and verified from time to time.” “In our literature, every time there was talk about the Reverend. Filaret, one could come across a rather curious admission that his works still remain not fully appreciated by our spiritual criticism. Was it the lack of traditions, the fear of offending the dignity of the saint, or something else that kept our criticism from taking such a step, no matter how honest and serious it was. And quite rightly, the Spiritual Messenger noted in 1862 that criticism in spiritual journalism is still such a young child, which God knows when it will grow up. (The Spiritual Messenger" was the first to give an open, bold speech about the works of Rev. Philaret, a speech based on hardworking study of them. And what? Many, very many looked at this criticism with amazement, marveling at its courage and inventing behind-the-scenes hints; and very few did justice to its efficiency. Let us leave aside (as unworthy gossip) hidden guesses why such a thing appeared criticism in the Kharkov magazine; let us pay attention only to what was expressed about the content of this criticism. The extent to which her attempt seemed new and daring can be seen from the fact that even the learned editors of the Orthodox Review hastened to make it known to the general public that the criticism of the Spiritual Messenger, by Rev. Filareta resembles the courage of a pug against an elephant. In the public, as far as we know, there were few votes for these articles; and the majority of her, familiar by ear with the works of the Reverend. Philaret, was puzzled partly by the boldness of the tone of the criticism, partly by her too low opinion of the merits of the works of the long and well-known author, the Most Reverend. Filaret was greatly offended by these articles: many times, both in his prefaces and in his writings, he mournfully complains about the harshness and one-sidedness of the verdicts about his works and, not wanting to remain in debt, directs his heavy, irritated reproaches and ridicule at the people who allowed such verdicts. We readily agree that the spirit of pickiness and ridicule is indeed evident in the articles of the “Spiritual Messenger” about the books of the Reverend. Philareta; but these properties could be found in abundance, for example, even in “Chernigov. Eparch. Izvestia,” where famous writers were placed in the ranks of fools and, as we have already seen in “Orthodox Review,” where honest workers were called “pugs.” This means that there is no point in blaming this sad mood of the speech on the “Spiritual Messenger” alone... That time has passed and, now, judging calmly, we speak with the deep conviction that the criticism of the “Spiritual Messenger”, in its content, is right in many respects: gaps, various mistakes in the works of the Reverend. Philaret was indicated in it with such conviction that the Reverend himself. Filaret hastened to recognize some of them and partly took advantage of the works of criticism. But the prevailing tone of this criticism, its presentation, far from being alien to hooks and quibbles, could in fact be significantly softened.” “So, enormous talents, armed with deep learning, constant work imbued with passion, ever-productive reading, a seething thirst for scientific activity, swift courage to penetrate into everything, a laconic conciseness of conclusions, unflagging attention to many movements of modern thought and (who can blame him for this?) the thirst to acquire a good name for himself, this is what produced the abundance of work that amazes us so much. But due to the scientific circumstances of the time, due to his life situation, due to the heterogeneous mass of work and the hasty nature of his activity, in many of his works, with the extraordinary breadth and spreading of their field, you do not see a well-thought-out plan, you do not find a complete solution to the problem, in accordance with modern requirements of science; so that almost all of his works are predominantly materials happily collected and successfully grouped. And in this regard, its significance is extremely great: in many areas of spiritual science, without his books it is impossible to take a single step. His works, as a rich, organized mass of materials, as a guide for further work, constitute an abundant, precious and irreplaceable contribution to the treasury of spiritual literature.” “Chernigov Diocesan News”, which he created, in which he took a continuous, widest part for five years, and with his works gave them one of the first places among similar publications, is the same predominantly collection of useful materials. They, however, were valued not so much by the mass of the public as by the learned worker; and even he, looking at the contents of another issue, thought to himself: “Oh, good! If the opportunity arises, I’ll ask for help.” “If in secular literature they value every small review of a gifted critic, to the point of even reprinting it in his collected works; then, according to the law of justice alone, a similar fate should befall the critical notes of such an author as the Reverend. Filaret. But what guides us here is not the authority of his name, but the essence of his very articles: to highlight the merits of the book, point out its weaknesses, pronounce an apt conclusion and express himself in lively, concise and lively language, in all this, the Most Rev. Filaret was a true master. Anyone who wants to get a clear and precise understanding of the books he reviewed must read his reviews.” “Finally, there is nothing to say, of course, that his literary works and all his activities were always imbued with his zeal for the purity of Orthodoxy. It is enough to recall how he protected schools from the named teachers, how vigilantly he followed the books published for the people 65. How energetically he rebels in his dogma against those who dare to shake the holiness of the faith!... People who knew him closely will, of course, convey many touching facts about how the Bishop rejoiced at every manifestation of goodness and respect for those principles under the influence of which our life took shape.” Before dwelling on guesses and conclusions about known manifestations in Filaret’s activities, we will try to outline his character and inclinations in a few strokes. We will use, as very valuable material for this purpose, his letters to his friend Gorsky, published by the venerable Archpriest S.K. Smirnov. First of all, Filaret attracts people with his selfless love for truth, for which he was ready to sacrifice all the hardships of life. Complaining, for example, about the committee where his manuscripts were detained, he wrote that he would write about the matter to Metropolitan Anthony, “and I will explain the matter to him from a Christian disposition, and not in order to be at enmity with people; however, I will not hide the truth, although bitter for some.” And indeed the censorship was extremely unkind to Filaret. Suffice it to say that she lasted 10 years to write his “The Fifth Period of the History of the Russian Church,” and “The Teaching about the Fathers of the Church” for 17 years! “I am confident in the Lord that the Metropolitan will not leave the matter unattended and protected. So, for my part, I would not want to avoid the sidelong glances of some people and stop things. Truth is not afraid of light. “The authorities support the book.” God bless your bosses! I did not want and do not want to be a burden to my superiors, but I wanted and want not to be a lazy slave before the church of my Lord, I want to say and do what in my conscience I consider useful. My God, we think of supporting Your truth with the rotten cages of the Roman stage! We will remain in shame: Perhaps I am also one of the same figures of madness? But, Lord, enlighten me, a sinner.” “Innocent of Odessa was in Kharkov, but did not find me,” Filaret wrote to Count Tolstoy, “because I was on a religious procession with the miraculous Akhtyra Icon of the Mother of God. And this is for the better. Is it nice to meet people who don’t like the truth?” – “Serbinovich was here recently 66 . Without a doubt, you, my friend, with all your modesty, would either get angry or burst out laughing if you heard that the Metropolitan’s catechism was being commissioned to be replaced by another essay, to whom? To me! Isn't it true that this is either annoying or funny? And this was it. For what reason? “The Metropolitan Catechism is a Lutheran Catechism,” Serbinovich’s exact words. These people are truly almost crazy. Needless to say, the response to a lengthy discussion about the same topic was deep silence. Or no, unfortunately, he could not stand the vow of silence and said a few words that were not to their liking. But this is my fate: I have long been included in the list of stubborn Lutherans. I don’t complain about it, although I don’t rejoice. I pray to the Lord to accept my soul with the faith with which I have lived hitherto, brought up by the prayers of His saint, St. Sergius.” Such an offer was very flattering and very flattering for the young scientist, but in such cases he was not swayed by earthly benefits. “My friend! You wanted to know the truth, and you allowed anxiety to reach your soul. In this case, you need to pay a lot of attention to your soul, so as not to allow it to become alarmed, not to let it encroach on any injustice. You should speak in favor of the wrong side, but with your soul remain on the right side: beware of being offended by anything in those with whom you are dealing this time. It is difficult to maintain indifference and truth in a fight, but it must be observed: only then can we leave the place of battle and argument with a clear conscience when we have not internally deviated in any way from the truth. Words are not important. Only in this case should they attract attention to themselves when, without disturbing me, they outrage their neighbor. What about the soul? The soul must be protected." “Summer is approaching, summer is drawing closer to the grave; and the soul is no better, despite the approaching ominous report. Experience teaches a lot for everyday life, but for spiritual salvation it does not add anything. Man was a sinner, and he is a sinner now. Passions still rule everything. Some fall asleep, others wake up; some become weaker, while others become stronger. What is this terrible scene - man? Do not reject me, Lord, during my old age, when my strength will fail. Bodily powers decay, but what has been acquired for eternity? “We work, we work; but it is not visible, not perceptible, how much of that fruit is for eternal blissful life.” – “Little by little, but we will move forward along the path of salvation; How much can we expect from ourselves? But let's encourage ourselves to do a little. Today and tomorrow we will tell ourselves: we must appear in court, we must give an account of our life, we must answer for everything, even for an idle word, even for a wandering thought.” His letters to his friend Romanovsky testify to his deep humility. Let's make a few excerpts from them that make it clear that Filaret seemed to consider himself the last of people. For example, he wrote to Romanovsky: “You were not ordered to die so early. I need you to send me there first: I have nothing to do here, because I don’t do anything good.” - “I’m kind of sad. The world brought sadness to my soul. Everything is vanity. We must pray so that we have something to appear in the next world without shame and sorrow.” - "God! Let us come to the consciousness of our weaknesses and crimes.” “May the Lord Jesus Christ, most merciful to all, and especially to those who suffer, be with you, comforting and strengthening you in the midst of your illnesses. I would like to help you: you have helped me so much. But with what? I am such a poor man that I have absolutely nothing of spiritual good. Without spiritual possessions, where is a person? Let him who is rich in mercy give you what you need for me, a poor man.” “Be merciful to me, regardless of my thinness. Write to me." - “Merciful Heavenly Father! We are Thy children, but still Thine. Don't leave us. Save us by Your mercy. It is clear that we are not worth Your mercies. But dogs also take advantage of the crumbs falling from the table.” “I embrace you with love, with an unworthy prayer for you.” Apologizing for the long silence after his transfer from Kharkov to Chernigov, Filaret wrote: “There were also circumstances that filled my empty head. God! Forgive me, a sinner.” He usually ended every letter: “sinful Filaret.” Enduring the sorrows of human evil, desire and untruth, he calmed himself with the thought of salvation. “You see, my friend,” he wrote to Romanovsky. “Do I wish unpleasant things on people? But people still push me in the side, then in the back. May the Lord arrange everything for eternal salvation.” Encountering certain phenomena of social life, he checks with them the state of his soul and derives a lesson for himself. So in a letter from St. Petersburg in 1859, he wrote: “Everything on earth is changing. Especially in the capital of change, change after change runs like waves. Let it be so in matters that do not depend on the will. But it’s strange that thoughts follow thoughts like waves. The Lord alone is unchangeable. ABOUT! If only my sinful thought followed His will! There would be consistency in it! Along with such humility, of course, there must be strict observation of oneself and one’s actions, which is what is noticed in Filaret, testifying that he was a true ascetic, an unhypocritical servant of God, “Everything earthly will pass away,” he wrote to Romanovsky. “Only our thoughts and deeds will remain with us, especially our deeds. Thoughts in us are like the wind - they blow and pass by. Actions are the ripened fruit of the soul. With them, with them, if they are bad, it will be bad there, beyond the grave. By this I somewhat protect myself from embarrassment for annoying thoughts.” Such humility and strict self-care taught Filaret not only to listen complacently to comments made to him, but forced him to constantly ask people close to him and to whom he was close, such as Metropolitan Philaret and Gorsky, to point out his shortcomings. “I received a scolding from the Bishop,” he wrote from Kharkov, “and to the point. The Lord will save him for his love.” “Thank you, sincerely thank you, my friend, for your friendly letter. In a bitter earthly life (written from Riga), which is bitter for everyone, but that makes it no easier for those for whom it is more bitter than for others, in a bitter earthly life the love of a friend is a gift from God, for which one must thank the Lord. So I thank the Lord for your friendly love, which gives me consolations.” What are these consolations? Gorsky reprimanded him, probably quite harshly, so he hastened to correct himself, apologizing that the letter that had passed through was probably unpleasant for him. But Filaret meekly replies: “I don’t know why it seemed to you that your previous letter could be in any way unpleasant to me. I have read and read all your letters with heartfelt pleasure. Even if they contained a bitter truth for me: I know that my friend is writing, who wishes me only the best. But there is no need to explain this.” When Gorsky was upset by some remark of the Metropolitan, Filaret wrote to him to calm him down: “From experience, I am convinced that the Bishop’s words are very beneficial. We must value them. The kind of words he says cannot be heard from anyone else. This is such a holy truth that I don’t doubt it, just like the fact that a candle is now burning in front of me. There is no need for his words to be callous; but they are always useful." Over time, over the years, Gorsky’s concern for his friend began to weaken, and, perhaps, he no longer considered it inappropriate to moralize the sixty-year-old archbishop. But Filaret, fearing to weaken in his control over himself, with love and humility responds with a request to his friend’s harsh refusal. “Are you suggesting that I choose someone instead of you who would tell me everything? No? If you, who know me so much, refuse me, who will want to be near me instead of you? First of all, I must say that I have no soul for anyone else. What to do with your soul? Do you need to break yourself? But even then, it’s unlikely that anything beneficial will come out for me and for business. If others are not disposed as I would like for my soul, what is the point of being close to them? No, my friend, for the Lord do not leave me. Talk about what is necessary and useful. With God's help, I will respond to the words of the soul with the words of the soul, and not just the tongue. The Lord will not leave you for your good desires; and if my thinness sometimes hurts you, He will console you, and you forgive me. I will try so that my thinness does not become a burden and sorrow for you. The Lord is not without mercy towards the sinner. He gives strength not to get carried away by the movement of offended pride, offended pride and all such rubbish. From the bottom of my heart and for the Lord, I ask you, do not abandon the worthless Filaret.” Filaret was in a constant spiritual mood. Treasuring them, he often sought solitude and, living in Kharkov, twice annually he left for Svyatogorye, where the exemplary order and strict Athos charter gave him true consolation. Here he remained for several days. Divine services take place here almost continuously, day and night, and Filaret himself served every day in one or another monastery church, then in the Potemkins’ house church, making religious processions to the monastery monastery or along a covered gallery with a staircase of 400 steps to the church of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker. This church stands on a chalk mountain so high that the heads of the cathedral seem far below from it. The crowd of people for the church festival is so great that everything that could be seen from the top of the mountain was crowded with worshippers. “A feeling of reverent delight embraced the Saint’s soul at such a majestic Christian spectacle, which he loved to talk about whenever the topic of the church holiday in Svyatogorye came up. A particularly touching impression both on Philaret and those serving him, and on thousands of lay people praying, was made by the celebration of lithiums in the open air in front of the western gates of the church on a quiet and warm southern night, with the stars twinkling in the sky and with many lamps lit at the place of service and on the eaves of the church and other monastery buildings.” This is how Philareta, a contemporary of the Kharkov ministry, reports. The holy fool Theodore, usually called Fedya, lived in Svyatogorye at that time. He was obedient at the forge. Despite his remarkable physical strength, he was as gentle as a lamb. Having talked with him at the forge and noticing his deep spiritual wisdom and even insight, Filaret constantly began to invite him to his place and had a conversation with him. Fedya called him “you,” he spoke simply and even harshly, but he always knew how to say something for the benefit of the soul. The feat of obedience was so mastered by Fedya that without the blessing of his spiritual father he did not even take a glass of tea offered to him, but with the blessing he took, without harming himself, a hardened iron, as Fr. assures. Lashchenkov. At the same time, another ascetic labored there, Hieroschemamonk John, 17 years old, who lived in a hole in a chalk cliff, more reminiscent of a bird's nest than a human dwelling. Each time, visiting Svyatogorye, Filaret, in the guise of a simple pilgrim, entered his cell, brought him wax candles as a gift and at the head of his coffin, in front of a high wooden cross, brought repentance in tears. Philaret's respect and love for him made it easier for him to unhindered his difficult feat, refraining the brethren from mocking his childish simplicity. Love for the truth forced Filaret to turn away from flattery, slander and unbearable slander. “I will also sincerely tell you that, really, I have no desire and do not allow myself to accept rumors from the outside. Every business has its place. Every feeling has a rule. Each acquaintance has its own circle. Why should I interfere with things that are inappropriate for one another? I repeat that I not only do not like, but I hate people, both those who, by their appearance, seek to win something for themselves through base actions (such as gossip), and those who bring similar people closer to themselves. I will not hide the fact that by the latter I mean one known to you and to me. It seems that before the judgment of God I can say without reproach that I did not accept headphones. In my opinion they are low anyway. Will anyone's conscience really allow such people to be considered well-wishers? I don't believe it. The Chinese proverb says it cleverly: whether a low person speaks truth or falsehood, do not listen to him.” We pointed out the review of Filaret by Archbishop Joseph, and indeed Filaret had an infant soul and wanted it to be respected by his friend, to whom he wrote: “You mentioned: many things do not seem so to me now, and what previously struck the soul does not now have a strong effect on it.” I don't know what items you mean. But if we talk in general about the change that occurs in the soul during the transition from one age to another, we must not lose sight of the fact that a child’s feeling is a beautiful feeling. A child's soul is as close to the state in which the soul left the hands of the Creator of nature, in a way that no other soul is, at least in relation to innocence and purity of feelings. The soul of a child is so close to God and to everything holy, in a way that the soul of a husband, entertained by the variety and multitude of objects, is not close. A child’s soul comes quite close to the thought of one thing that is needed: the husband’s prudence is most of all to talk about the needs and inconveniences of earthly life. The ardor of youth is most amused and carried away by the imagination, filled with the colors of the world and set on fire by the fervor of passions. Therefore, it is necessary, even with compulsion, to turn the soul to the situation of childhood. One must even have distrust of the prudence of mature age, ripening for the earth, imperceptibly for prudence, not only for imagination. We will all die, and everything will pass. Earthly prudence is good for the earth. But what will we come to that life with? The trouble is, if we are deceived by cold calculation, unbeknownst to us they are counting only on earthly peace. Self-love, how little visible in our early years, how powerfully and how intelligently it controls us in adulthood; but it also prepares a bleak eternity.” Fearing that his words would not seem like a reproach to his friend and would not embarrass him, he hastens to add: “Forgive me, for the Lord’s sake, that I write what catches my eye without caution. Throw away the bad and unnecessary, put the good into action, and in this way you will do me a favor, me, poor and poor in soul. I would be glad to see dear Alexander Vasilyevich, whom I have not seen for so long: I would be very glad. Yes, it’s been almost two years since I’ve seen you. I would sit with you and talk face to face. Somehow a correspondence conversation does not give everything to the soul that a personal conversation can give. I would spend an hour in ill health and ease the burden of my soul. But may the will of the Lord be done!” Filaret did not fuel his labors with vanity, having the most modest understanding of them. Sending his articles to Gorsky, he asked, following the example of his great mentor, the Metropolitan, for comments and, one might say, greedily rushed at them. “My good friend!” he wrote from St. Petersburg; “You still love me and still fulfill my annoying desires. The Lord will save you! As if tormented by thirst and hunger, I attacked your remarks and took everything to heart and took advantage of everything. I’m so poor here, I’m so in need of spiritual food, or better yet, food for the mind.” “My shortcoming, which they tell me about and which I still cannot correct, although I wish, is that sometimes I don’t finish saying something or say things unclearly. Yes, this is my problem! Doesn't this indicate, firstly, a rapid flight of thought, which he barely had time to follow, and secondly, a passion for the subject, which could sometimes be equated with inspiration? Thus, this deficiency only testifies to the richness of thought and the abundance of materials for its work. Having published an article about Maxim the Greek (in the November book of the Moskvitian in 1842), after reading it in print, he himself pronounced a harsh sentence on it. And after reading Gorsky’s article about Cyril and Methodius, he wrote to him: “A thorough and prudent study; I will never write such an article. I feel it completely. Each part is examined from different angles, and for each integral thought the necessary explanation or confirmation is found. What is especially important is that there is nothing superfluous, something that would only show a desire to speak in a learned way and would not add anything for scientists, who have known such things for a long time. This last property is inaccessible and beyond my strength, because I was little aware of it myself, but only collect what others have written. What to do? When you have no strength, all that remains is to admit your lack of strength. Poverty is all around me; Everywhere I look at my belongings - rags! Partly I’m annoyed with myself; but so be it. The matter is over, the path has passed.” This is how modestly Filaret looked at his scientific works. We cannot say that Filaret ignored the comments. Even Mr. Ponomarev claims that he took advantage of some of the remarks of the Rev. Macaria. Yes, you can point out many similar examples. Regarding the censorship of his History of the Russian Church, he wrote to Gorsky: “I am very grateful to Father Archpriest, who revised both parts of the History. In one place he made a very sensible remark.” “They did a very good thing for me by reminding me of the lack of “introduction.” At the beginning of the case, I had in mind, after considering the parts of the case, to give an overview of the general; but then I forgot and dropped it completely out of sight due to the passage of time.” “I sincerely thank you, my friend, for your sincere, friendly participation in the revision of the manuscripts of the Kharkov diocese. I accept every word, every comment from you and the censor with grateful love.” “Yes, it was terrible to listen to or read verdicts on the works or plans from our great ruler. For how much benefit it brought! No, no matter how many people want to put themselves in the category of great talents or geniuses, so far there is only one in Russia who is a great theologian, a great critic, and a great philosopher. Russia will not soon see such a person. Yes, I have letters from our ruler. There are also letters from another, called the famous speaker 67. I listened a lot to our Bishop’s conversations. I recently listened to the conversations of the so-called famous. How far the latter stands below the former! So far, so far that, standing near the last one, you cannot see the first one. And, unfortunately, one can see the desire of the latter to criticize the former. What would be the point of these ideas? How can one not understand that this does not elevate, but humiliates him? But such is our pride. Sorry, I moved away from the subject, however, not without benefit for the subject. This shows the same thing that needs to be shown to me, i.e. you, my dears, trained under the guidance of a great critic, philologist, historian, philosopher, theologian, you must not leave without using the methods now given to you - to introduce you to the monuments of antiquity, which everyone is now waiting for with such thirst.” “Your first news amazed me to the extreme. They accuse me of not answering the bishop’s letter about “History.” Conclusions are drawn from this. I remember, I remember very well even without references, what I wrote in response to. the bishop’s letter on the very day and even at the very hour of receiving his letter. But I consulted the postal book to justify my memory, and it turned out that the letter was sent to the post office on February 7th of this year (1851). Now the question is: how did it happen that the letter was not received by the bishop? I truly don't understand. I immediately wrote and yesterday sent a new letter to the Bishop by mail, where I explained my constant disposition towards him and how I accepted one hundred comments on “History”. However, our news does not cease to bother me with the strangeness of the matter. It is unpleasant that, regardless of my will, the letter was not received and this caused anxiety in the soul of the great saint. The letter was not unpleasant to me, although the content of the comments, of course, is not favorable to the cause of History. But if only it were a hundred times more pleasant, then I still have enough sense and conscience to understand and appreciate the ruler’s disposition. I even have doubts: is the bishop not entirely satisfied with the contents of the letter received? I thanked him for his instructions with the fervor of filial love. And he, perhaps, expected me to enter into some consideration of his comments? “I return to the comments and review: they are written in such a moderate tone, with such condescension, which I have never seen before either in letters or in his official responses. True, there are several notes that might not have been included, either due to their unimportance, or even due to historical inaccuracy; but this is in contrast to his previous experiences of criticism, already a little, barely noticeable. Neither the first nor the second letter said a word about the content of the comments. What is this for? I won’t help my cause, but meanwhile I can disturb the soul of the saint.” When forwarding some of his articles to Gorsky for submission to the censor, Filaret often provided him with what he considered necessary to throw out, smear, setting aside any authorial pride. And not only provided it to him, but also to censorship. “Yes, you are asking on behalf of others, will I agree that changes be made in the article about the prophecies of Isaiah? Let them do it! I don’t argue for what’s mine, and I don’t argue against the decisions of others. My friend, I need to remember that everyone is responsible for their own. Let them change whatever and however they want!” Obviously, here the responsibility is not to the readers, for whom censorship errors were covered up by the name of the author; responsibility was understood before God, before one’s own conscience. Filaret sent his works to Gorsky for verification, so that no mistakes were made, errors against the purity of the teaching, which is easier to notice from the outside. His prudence in such a case went so far that when he wrote “Conversations about the suffering of our Lord Jesus Christ,” he listened to a lecture on anatomy by the famous professor and surgeon of Kharkov University Naranovich, so as not to make a mistake in explaining the suffering of the Lord on the cross. Gorsky also sent him all his articles. That is why he complacently accepted the instructions of the censorship. So, when St. The Synod made comments on the fifth volume of his “History of the Russian Church”, finding it inconvenient to denounce the highest spiritual government, albeit of an earlier time, in Protestantism, he replied that “with filial piety” he accepted the instructions and would try to correct the book’s errors. This makes clear the only purpose of these workers - to serve the church. “How are your studies on translating the New Testament going?” asks Filaret Gorsky from St. Petersburg in 1858, where he was summoned to the Synod. “We look forward to receiving your works soon. The expectation is general. It is necessary to satisfy him in order to at least somehow calm down the complaints that have begun to be heard against the spiritual.... My God, intercede for Your inheritance! We sin, we are guilty; but they wanted to do it in Your garden. Do not allow arrogant ignorance and wickedness to swear at Your property.” When it came to the Holy Church, Philaret acted boldly and openly, without putting his earthly benefits on the scales, and taught Gorsky to act in the same way, to whom he wrote: “Be brave and honest in defending the Holy Church. faith and church." “Your news about the results of your research on the Slavic translation of the Bible is extremely interesting. God help you in your holy work! Such labors will find reward in heaven.” Is it possible to assume in Filaret’s articles directed against criticism of his works that there is a wide scope of wounded pride? Here is his view on such a subject, set out in his letter to Gorsky. “Yesterday, half a mile, yesterday and now I read your article about the schools of the 17th century. She's beautiful. Write, write more articles like this. Yes, you have a lot ready, ready for a long time. Please hand over the stamps. Why should something good lie there without benefit? It was so pleasant, so joyful for me to read your article. She is so rich in new information. Almost every line is news. Thank you, I thank your soul. May the Lord overshadow her with His grace. Do you know what? Can you find anything in addition? You yourself say that here and there something remains unclear and unknown. Print the addition as an addendum. That would be great. Believe me, many will be grateful to you for every line, just like me, a sinner. You seem to think that something else is known, both are already known; why talk about the famous? In vain! How many people do we have with knowledge? How many with the means that you have, or more precisely, those that you have obtained through love for spiritual enlightenment and the gifts given to you from the Lord? A little. You'll end up with three. Write, write what you know, without allowing yourself to be tickled by the thought of the known, of the past. Self-love, my friend, taxes us everywhere. Why give in to sin? It’s better to humble yourself and humble your pride.” Before making a conclusion about the harshness of Filaret’s reviews, it is necessary to decide what he himself demanded from his work. “In general, I would like, if the Lord pleases, to finish my work in such a way that at least my conscience would be at peace and could say about the Lord: it seems that you did everything that was needed. If people (which I hope in the present course of things), if people 68 are dissatisfied with the work and reject it, let them themselves give an account to the Lord.” Doesn't it mean that we should look for another reason for the harshness in Filaret's answers and comments, and not offended pride? Here, on the one hand, Filaret’s innate ardor and irritability, intensified by life in Riga, were at work, of which he himself repented. In particular, as we have had occasion to notice more than once, this irritability uncontrollably fell upon the very culprits of this irritation - the Germans. For example, regarding his “Synodal Period of the History of the Russian Church,” he was attacked for his harshness in presenting the struggle against the Reformation. “They wrote to me that I was at war with the Germans, and that this was not to the taste of others. I believed and have believed more than once what was written about the Germans and in all conscience I do not find anything unfair in what was said. Even my subsequent inquiries confirmed me even more in my previous conviction regarding Lopatinsky. Harsh expressions? And I don’t realize this. Yes, my friend, if another had to endure the same from the Germans and see their deeds as closely as I had to endure and see, he would not have spoken about the Germans in the same way. I am convinced of this, in all conscience. The Germans in the books are smart and quiet people; but let them live with them in Livonia, and in my place. No, my friend, don't judge me for being harsh. My sinful soul has suffered too much—everything in it hurts, down to the smallest fiber. Do not think that I did not restrain the impulses of my soul when I had the opportunity to talk about them. Better examine both my situation and the affairs of history. I tried to speak every word honestly while coping with the documents. During Elizabeth’s time, this was not how they spoke and thought about the Germans. Nowadays others have become kind to the Germans. God forbid any of these should experience the gratitude of the Germans. She would be too callous 69 . Oh, these universal people! I would take a broom and sweep them out of St. Rus', which is so cramped and bad for them. And why are they not in a hurry to move to Frankfurt for the Diet there? After all, that’s where they belong. Do you know who the vice-presidents of the Sejm are? Two Jews. Who are the founders of the Sejm? A baker and a lawyer. Honor and glory to the Germans! What a pity that the Livonian scoundrels abandoned their determination to join the Frankfurt Union. But what to do? They always manage to deceive, just like the Jews. Their whole history is trading in the blood of others.” Knowing from experience the cohesion of the Germans, who are successful in their affairs, thanks to the power of their influence on the highest government sphere, Filaret hinted at this phenomenon at every opportunity. So, after the news of our defeat during the Sevastopol War, he wrote to Romanovsky: “The kingdom of heaven to those who fell for the faith! enough for them. They blame the German, the corps commander, but can the German be to blame? We cannot help but notice here a high trait of Philaret: his irritability against the Germans and reproaches are noticed in him only in those cases when we are talking about the machinations of the Germans against the Orthodox Church, against our fatherland and the oppression of the unfortunate people. We remind the reader that Filaret humbly endured the intrigues directed against him personally, accepting them as God’s punishment that he deserved. Expressing this thought in his letters to Gorsky, he often added: “May the Lord forgive them!” Filaret himself admitted his harshness. “My friend, I too am a sinful person. You know how easily and strongly troubles strike me. True, the sorrow and anxieties of life have quite exhausted the heat and moisture; but only grace changes a person: and the sinful Philaret becomes not better, but worse day by day” - “I thank you with my sincere soul for your good admonition. Live forever, learn forever. And before, I was faulty in my reviews of others; and my cramped position, it seems to me, increased my irritability. However, I think that the critical article, by its very content, could not do without rough edges for those it touched upon. If I have sinned, Lord, against my neighbor through passion, forgive me, the worthless one.” - “My friend, don’t complain about me for my rough words. To others, God gave the ability to live in accordance with human desires. In myself, a sinner, I do not see this ability. The wrong sound irritates my nerves, shakes my soul. What should I do? I repeat, my bitter life in Riga made me even more irritable. Especially the first impressions, before I am able to examine them in time and moderate my feelings, are difficult for me. In the present case, Fr. Macarius caught my eye so recently. Now I myself repent that one line (Latin) is not at all necessary and not even smart. Do not enter into judgment with Your servant!” “You know me, what human absurdities cost my soul, once my soul becomes occupied with them.” I am calm as long as I close my eyes from them. What should I do with myself? And the same Filaret was gentle and meek with the clergy subordinate to him, conquering with his meekness their negligence and mistakes. But in this case, he saw an evil that could be corrected and would not harm the church; it did not constitute the fruit of human pride, to which the purity of St. would be sacrificed. teachings, benefits of the church. It was this last “human absurdity” that was unbearable for Filaret, causing him irritation. He struggled with this character trait (we will not call it a flaw, as Filaret himself calls it) throughout his life. If harshness is on par with zeal for goodness and truth, which it is called upon to defend, we will not dare to reproach the saint: it is more valuable to us than calm reconciliation with a certain trend. Filaret’s harsh word – your will – is closer to the heart than the indifferent one: “let them rule!” But as a spiritual person, as a person who is strict with himself, Filaret himself condemned this harshness, and yet admitted that he could not “adjust to the tone of people.” “The article about Kirill gave rise to temptation. Fr wrote to me. Macarius, it seems the quarrel is over, but I really didn’t want to quarrel with anyone. If I had known that “Christian Reading” is now under the special editorship of great people, whom it is none of my business to touch, then, of course, I would not have touched upon Fr. Macaria. Yes, live forever, learn forever, but I’ll still die a fool.” “I don’t know if you have ever experienced it yourself, but I, a sinner, have had to experience it many times, although I still haven’t been taught what I experienced: after every case when I am very irritated against someone, God sends serious troubles. I don’t know how to decide for myself whether the Lord is so merciful to me, a sinner, that He deigns to send me such circumstances precisely as punishment and instruction and precisely in such a disposition of my soul. Only this has happened to me many times. One thing is certain: my anger and irritation are definitely bad.” Don’t these words of Philaret tell us how strictly and attentive he was to himself? “I would like to give you a detailed report on local affairs,” he wrote from Riga. “But on the one hand, a lot is needed for that time; on the other hand, the affairs here are so tricky that Christian feelings dictate that it is better to cover them with silence than to give an unwary heart room for the expression of thoughts or pride, or humiliation of others. I would rather talk to you either on your bed or on my bed, as happened in previous years: then your eye would see a lot that my tongue would not say; then the ear of your friendship would understand the living voice of the heart, now transmitted in a dead letter. But whatever pleases the Lord be done.” They point to his harsh review of The Day’s article, the editor of which he called a fool. Let us reproduce a few lines of Filaret’s remarks. “The editor of The Day did not briefly describe their “regret” about the assignment of the Chernigovsky presence on peasant affairs to supervise the peasants’ fulfillment of the duty of confession. He wants, insistently wants everyone to live as they want. We think that the editor would not have expressed such desires if he had known the Ukrainian proverb: gentlemen, they are fools, they are shy about what they want. If he knew this, then, of course, he would not want to write himself down as a fool in the first place.” We must go back to the sixties, when the press advocated for civil marriage or, in other words, legal cohabitation, for freedom of conscience in the profession of faith, i.e. when they preached about everything that, going against our historical harmony, was shaking our state foundations. We now recognize the wise policy of Ivan the Terrible, who understood well that the more in such a diverse and vast state as Russia there are followers of one dominant faith, the stronger the people's connection and the stronger the state itself. for this purpose, he built churches in all the conquered lands, and built them with haste, for example, (as legend says) in Kazan the church was built in three days, and the next year, after the conquest, as is known, a diocese was already opened there. We are aware of our mistakes in the Baltic region. And so, in defiance of these lessons, they took great care to divide the people. After all, The Day’s article could not have been more beneficial to the agents of anarchy. Could Filaret calmly take this game of chance into which the fatherland was being drawn? Again the question: the power of the landowners over the peasants fell in 1861; the government could not completely replace it with its own bodies: a politically immature people, a people whose morality was uncertain, since it was governed by the power of things of a purely external order, could manifest the most wild instincts, and the only stronghold for it could be the church, with its statutes, with its word. But they thought to replace this protective role with freedom. How could Filaret, as a minister of the church, as a patriot who sincerely loved the people, react to such an encroachment? We cannot agree with the worship of the authoritative name of the author, and when he obviously falls into a mistake, it is the more dangerous, the more formidable, the more popular this name is; and from the other side, the harshness of the condemnation is all the more understandable: “to whom much is given, much will be required.” Finally, the order of the peasant presence could not have been more in keeping with the legislation; it is known that the law itself established such supervision over even the intelligent class. Thus, persons who were in public service and who had not been to confession and St. for more than two years. sacraments were excluded from the service. We cannot now check what happened to this law? Either it simply turned into a dead letter, or disappeared during the new codification of the Code, just as the articles of law that protected the Russian population from the ruinous exploitation of Jews (in Little Russia) disappeared without being repealed by the Supreme Power. They find Filaret’s words extremely harsh and offensive; But isn’t it a thousand times more offensive when this insult is inflicted on millions of compatriots and on the fatherland itself? After all, these fears for the fatherland were prompted by Philaret’s love for him, but did love really bring the preached doctrines to the shameful day of March 1st?! Filaret did not have time to enter into a subtle critical analysis of each such article, from which almost all the literature of the sixties was made. Again, we must take into account the environment for which Filaret’s article was written. Here, subtle philosophy and political reasoning would not attract the attention of readers, and sharp two words could have a stronger effect on the minds. Filaret had a harsh attitude towards the works of A. N. Muravyov. From the outside, it would seem to us that people’s studies of secular subjects of spiritual literature should be welcomed by Filaret. But is this true? Filaret once remarked: “It’s strange how things went so confusingly in the Greek Church before the fall of the empire. People whose business is a cleaver and a gun have undertaken to judge and rule on the faith.” If he looked at Muravyov’s works with such prejudice, then due to his jealousy, a rapprochement in the state of affairs of the two empires was already visible to him: Byzantium and its successor. Life in St. Petersburg and Riga could only add to his sad thoughts about this subject. Moreover, he did not believe that Muravyov’s works were the fruit of an ardent love for the church, but looked at them as speculation. As much as he could forgive in the first case, he did not spare in the second. We know that Andrei Nikolaevich was honored with a Christian death, and therefore we can say with confidence that he had merit before God; but bad information about him reached Filaret. This circumstance could add even more harshness to his reviews of him. Then there were other reasons. “Reverend. Innocent of Odessa added heat to the fire that was hidden under the ashes,” wrote Filaret. Going to Moscow, Innocent convinced Philaret to study the lives of the saints, pointing out the shortcomings of Muravyov’s book. On the way back, either with the goal of pushing Filaret to this work, or perhaps without any purpose at all, he reported that “Muravyov is raising everyone against him...” These “all” of course meant, first of all, the Metropolitan, whose location Filaret valued so much. “Here is a confession about the lives,” he wrote to Gorsky. “To this it must be added that I, a sinner, wrote the most harsh letter about Muravyov to the Moscow ruler, with the desire to show the injustice of his love for Muravyov. The last letter, I think, will be remembered for a long time. And it serves you right, nasty Filaret! Why should you look at other people's sins? Look at yours." Having noticed errors in Muravyov’s composition “The Lives of Russian Saints,” Filaret considered it his duty to point them out to St. Synod, and in order to correct these mistakes, and more importantly, to fill the gap in our spiritual literature, he began to prepare materials in the hope of tackling this subject. But, wanting to give his work, as the Metropolitan of Moscow indicated, the character of church scripture, he asked St. The Synod entrusted him with this work. The Synod forwarded his presentation to Metropolitan Philaret for his conclusion. The Metropolitan had to, when resolving this issue, reconcile two feelings in himself: respect for the rule of law, which Philaret’s statement represented, and personal affection for Muravyov. These two feelings in this case were so divergent from each other that it took special Christian wisdom to reconcile them and build your decision on this reconciliation. And this task was resolved by the saint in this way: Pointing out the need to encourage private individuals to do such work by leniently towards the errors noticed, he believed, out of caution, to instruct the Bishop of Kharkov (Filaret) to compile a complete list of saints of the Russian Church, “showing the grounds for recognition of this dignity, especially those who are less known,” and to present as a sample the biography of one saint. At first glance, it seems that in the answer we hear bias towards one side. In fact, the metropolitan demands leniency for the mistakes of a beginning secular writer, and the saint, known for his learning, is also given an examination and offered, so to speak, menial labor, which the same secular writer could have used in the new edition of his work. But if you look deeper into the meaning of the saint’s answer, you cannot help but recognize the deep wisdom behind it. He kicked that Filaret’s trial work would immediately reveal to the Synod his superiority in its seriousness, richness of material, critical assessment of the latter compared to Muravyov’s book. And this very thing will prompt the Synod to directly authorize Filaret’s presentation. In this way, no bias will be introduced into this matter, and the saint himself remained in constant personal relations with both parties. Further, in resolving the question: should the publication be stopped and should the accusation be considered, the Metropolitan moves on to general logical and legal ground. “In my opinion, the publication should not be stopped; because the evidence of censorship speaks in favor of the publication, but nothing speaks in favor of the accusation, for it was pronounced without any evidence. No court pronounces a judgment on an unproven charge.” By the way, if there were canonical errors in Muravyov’s writings, Metropolitan Philaret would not excuse this as evidence of censorship. But in this case, the errors could have been indicated in the critical article. To support his conclusion, the Metropolitan points to the following case: the publication was suspended, and the accusation turned out to be invalid; the author will suffer irreparable loss and offense. But Filaret was apparently upset by this turn of events. Of course, he had the materials in his hands, considered the errors of Muravyov’s book to be completely discovered and was confident that his holy word would even be more credible. Suspecting Muravyov's machinations here, he wrote a letter to the Metropolitan, the harshness of which towards Muravyov himself later admitted. And indeed Filaret’s letter was very harsh. And indeed Filaret’s letter was very harsh. Having answered it on the merits of the matter, the Metropolitan points to this side of the letter with that Christian meekness and love, with which, together with high Christian wisdom and a bright view of things, he places the Moscow saint on the candlestick, from which he will be a saint of our church for a long time, perhaps for another century. Who are you talking about that I “know this evil spirit?” No! I do not have the misfortune of knowing an evil spirit among the people I know, and I wish and advise you not to allow yourself to experience this misfortune. - Why such a stern gaze? Why such a cruel word? Does it agree with the teaching of the apostle: it becomes the servant of the Lord to be meek? Do you know how God sees a person? What if we cruelly condemn the one whom He has mercy and, perhaps, justifies? Isn’t it safer from error, isn’t it calmer for our own soul to imagine a person better than how he seems to us and, if you like, better than us? Isn't that what the fathers advise? Let a humble thought follow a humble word. I’ll also copy from your letter: “I received the papers and the answer to my paper, and the grief that Satan is strong was not separated from other sorrows.” What papers gave you the idea of ​​the power of Satan? This is a decree that spells out the determination of the Holy Synod. From this we must conclude that you are subordinating the determination of the Holy Synod to the influence of Satan. You, of course, did not think this: but you see how indignation uncontrollable by patience carries us further than we thought. Let us cross ourselves, holy master! “May God rise again and let his enemies be scattered.” He advised, instead of wasting time on grief and finding another writer, to sit down and write a list of saints and the life of one saint and send it to the Synod! “Things will go well,” he added, on a straight path, without looking back at other things that are going on to the side.” “Perhaps you will say that I am too attacking the expressions and tone of your speech. If I'm wrong, forgive me, but I'll tell you why I do this. It seems to me that out of brotherly love I must inflict on you the wounds of a friend, which, according to the word of scripture, are more reliable than the free kisses of an enemy.” Of course, in order to respond to a friend’s ulcers with filial piety, one must have exactly the humility that the Metropolitan pointed out. But no matter how great Philaret’s humility was, his temperament, the purity and zeal of his motives prevailed, and he could not agree with his great teacher about leniency towards the errors of secular writers of spiritual works. He could not come to terms with the idea that Muravyov was driven here by the desire to serve the church; he could not change his opinion about him. The Metropolitan, it seems, was dissatisfied; and Gorsky also joined here. Unfortunately, they were offended by the fact that the other said, instead of praise, slight disapproval of lives, which, to be honest, there is nothing to praise for. “You write an apology for your intentions, but intentions are another matter, execution of them is another matter. You better admit, he wrote to Gorsky, that the matter was not without people-pleasing. Otherwise, you can expect that you will approve of the “adventures of Ilya Muromets” in the form of the life of St. Ilya Muromets. Apparently, everyone has their share. My share is bitterness, and bitterness, and bitterness. Blessed be the name of the Lord, the Savior of sinners, of whom I am the most worthless.” “I had nothing in my heart for the Moscow censorship,” he wrote to Gorsky, “actually for my writings; but, as I wrote, I condemned her for her strange concessions to Muravyov’s game. Vladyka took my words as strange: “Muravyov torments the patience of others with his lives.” “Regarding Fr. Vasily, I cannot agree with you at all; he cannot be put on the same level as simple-minded biographers who made mistakes out of simplicity. This is a proud man, who took on the role of a church teacher and arrogantly spoke about people and deeds, although at the same time he was an ignorant and stupid person. I wrote to Vladyka that Muravyov is almost the same as Fr. Vasily. People of this type have always caused terrible harm to the church. I think so out of conscience, and not out of passion. The Lord will judge us all.” That’s how confident he was of the correctness and purity of his view of Muravyov. From St. Petersburg, when Filaret was present at the Holy Synod in 1858, he wrote to Gorsky: “A. Muravyov told me that Alexander Vasilyevich wanted to write to me about his works as quasi scientists; but I didn't receive anything. And one must humble oneself so much in order to sign a decree on the issuance of 500 rubles for the publication of the Greek translation of the Lives! And my good Alexander Vasilyevich stands for Muravyov’s piety! Lord, forgive me, a sinner. Let me see my sins." Having signed the definition willy-nilly, Filaret could not bear not to express his opinion. “To say everything that happened, I must also admit that, in a rush, I said about demanding money: it’s unconscionable. They will probably not fail to bring this to Muravyov’s attention, and then I’ll get my ass! Oh, what haven’t they already poured on my gray beard? Anything coming next? “My strongest displeasure against Andrei Nikolaevich is (explained Filaret to Gorsky) that he does a lot of harm to my beloved Moscow saint; moreover, he is often not the same in relation to him in reality as he appears in front of him. But God's will be done! I will try to follow the advice of your friendship.” “Yes,” he adds, “Orthodoxy on the lips is a very dangerous thing. I don’t say anything more about him (Muravyov); because on the one hand I suffered enough sorrows from him, on the other - because, it seems, to him, the hypocrite Pharisee, time has passed.” We will present here Filaret’s opinion about the time of Grozny and Stoglav, which gives us the key to unraveling Filaret’s strict attitude towards Muravyov’s spiritual writings. “You won’t believe how much the stupidity of the arrogant people of Stoglav’s time spoiled sacred antiquity with its childish interpretations. One cannot be quite amazed at how brave, how arrogant, how even arrogant these people were, being vulgar ignoramuses! Annoyance with them sometimes drives me, a sinner, out of patience. This terrible spirit, this monster, not a man, Ivan the Terrible, has caused so much trouble both for the state and for the church that the latter will still be freed from his torment. Think and agree. Pride is the true Satan of the human race. Sorry for my lack of patience. They had barely freed themselves from under the Mongol arapniks when pride raised them so high that they could barely be seen on the ground. “We are Orthodox, the Greeks are Busurmans, we are the only teachers and masters of Orthodoxy,” these strange people shouted, and let us judge and rank in books about the church; but in fact they were so low, rude, and vulgar both in life and in education that it was painful to look at this vulgar rabble of ignoramuses. It was this ignorant pride that was the plague for the holy church, which has infected the dark crowds for so many centuries. I apologize again." It was this fear of infecting dark crowds that caused Filaret’s strict attitude towards spiritual writings. But still, finding many shortcomings in Muravyov’s “Lives of Russian Saints,” he did not dare pronounce a verdict in his press, but pointed this out to the Holy Synod, i.e., as they say, “he reported it to the authorities.” But when the Synod resolved his petition in accordance with the opinion of the Metropolitan of Moscow, he hesitated in fulfilling the assignment entrusted to him. And this is what he wrote about this to his teacher, the Moscow Metropolitan. “You can’t write everything about the saints on paper... Two things must be done: provide evidence that this or that person is recognized as a saint by the church and provide a description of the Lives of the Saints. If the latter is not easy, then the former is more difficult. For the first, if you do it conscientiously and with all clarity, you need to revise the patriarchal archive and part of the metropolitans... In short, it’s easy to write, but is it easy to implement? Instead, if it pleases the Holy Synod that its decree sent to me be carried out. you need to call me to St. Petersburg. I’m not saying this for myself, and therefore I’m speaking with freedom. I have ready both descriptions of the Lives of the Saints and information about the attribution of this or that person to the Saints; but I do not allow myself to present them to the Synod. I did not and do not want to act frivolously in important matters. Passions and prejudices only spoil things everywhere. About the Lives of the Saints there was and now is my following conviction. One must: 1) compile a description of the lives on the basis of chronicles, handwritten descriptions and stories, so that this is an edifying reading for both the mind and the heart, and not tempting for both; 2) publish ancient lives, stories and notes about saints, without adding anything of your own to their text; 3) reading what is published by Muravyov, forgive me, holy lord, for my opinion, is the same as reading fables remade in a new way: every line here is an error - against stories, phrenology, language, logic, psychology, an error in all kinds and kinds. God sees, I speak not from prejudice, but from the information that God has given. According to my conviction, the authorities should be the first figure where it comes to St. churches. Otherwise, Gentiles have long condemned Russian bishops for both inactivity and slavery; and their voice began to be repeated aloud by the Russian Church (is the latter edifying for schismatics and for the children of the church?). The publication of ancient biographies, stories and notes about saints could easily be accomplished under three academies: each would publish descriptions only of those saints who labored in its district. The most ancient descriptions could be published in the ancient language with Russian translation; it is enough to publish the later ones only in translation. The publication could be called: “Monuments of Piety,” and constitute, if not a special edition, then a separate one from the current editions. Don’t blame me, holy lord, for not presenting and not presenting any comments about Muravyov’s mistakes. I didn’t realize it before because I didn’t consider it necessary for my business, and I didn’t consider it necessary to volunteer for a job that wasn’t my own; I can’t imagine it now for other reasons in my conscience.” The reason is now clear: Filaret “suffered enough sorrows from him,” and therefore feared that personal displeasure would not mix with the holy cause. The above letter to the Metropolitan once again demonstrates Philaret’s special caution in scientific works on subjects of faith. An error in the narratives of political events is always correctable; it does not go further than the book; whereas an error in the objects of faith, in the teachings of the church, can lead the masses into error and give rise to differences of opinion. That is why Filaret could not be indifferent to those who treated this subject frivolously. In order to correct the mistakes of others and prevent consequences, Filaret took the trouble to study the same subject. So, having condemned Muravyov’s book, he himself wrote Russian Saints, revered by the entire church or locally. Having noticed errors in the work of Macarius, he himself wrote the Life of our venerable father, Abbot Theodosius of Pechersk, described by the Venerable Nestor, translated into modern Russian. Archbishop Anatoly, thanking Filaret for the “pleasure brought to him by reading his “Dogmatic Theology,” complained about the “censorship ordeals.” But Filaret answered him: “I agree with you that the current easing of censorship has a good side; but I am also convinced that smart and well-intentioned censorship is needed. It can be difficult for the author’s pride; But for that reason, books may not be useless or harmful.” The Moscow saint could not help but notice such zeal for the purity of teaching in Philaret and pay him tribute. That is why the Metropolitan, no matter how close Muravyov was to him, trusted Philaret’s opinion, his deep knowledge and his motives and evasively answered Muravyov’s request: “to appease the Kharkov critic.” The irritation caused in Filaret by the critical articles of the Spiritual Messenger had very good reasons. There were rumors (we do not undertake to decide and agree to rather classify them as gossip) that these articles were given a lot of courage, to say the least, by a high-ranking person. Indications of the shortcomings and errors of his writings, as we have seen, were accepted with gratitude by Philaret; but Filaret, as a well-known modern phenomenon, could not meet such an attitude towards his works, as is noted in the articles of the “Spiritual Messenger,” without bitterness, leaving aside the author’s pride. The distressed worker could not take this phenomenon calmly; and here several circumstances supported the likelihood of the rumor: 1) the magazine was published in Kharkov; 2) until now, in spiritual literature there have not been critical articles of such a tone and directed against not a beginner, but already having a loud reputation as a scientist and, moreover, an honored hierarch; 3) when Philaret’s scientific works became widely known to him and were attested by all the learned societies of the Empire, it was necessary to have great courage to decide to shower them with ridicule, courage that had not been seen in the author of the articles before this incident. Philaret, of course, could have recalled the remarks of the St. Petersburg spiritual censorship, the impression he made with his careless criticism of the articles of Christian Reading, and it could easily have seemed to him that the author of the articles of the Spiritual Messenger was given courage by a person who wanted to settle old scores with him, i.e. Macarius. We do not at all want to affirm the validity of the rumor and associate such a wretched feeling with a memorable person; but we would like to say that, due to the circumstances, it could have seemed that way to Filaret, who subsequently repented of his harsh response. Regarding this criticism, Filaret wrote to Professor Platonov: “You partly guessed my disposition with which to accept your gift - but only partly. (Platonov sent him his article published in the Spiritual Messenger). I was amazed that my good Ivan Vasilyevich was sending articles to a magazine so wild and so wildly hostile to me, but I ended my thoughts of amazement with a calm decision: what doesn’t happen in the world? Yes, it seemed that I didn’t want to cause trouble for anyone in Kharkov, but tried to be useful to the best of my ability. And yet, from Kharkov, abuse and anger have been raining down on my head for more than one year. Strange! Those who express such hostility towards me seem to have done something good. And what do they answer? Strange! Why don't I answer their abuse? God is merciful to my sins - I endure, so that with patience I can close the wounds of sin in my soul. On the other hand, wouldn’t it be a lot of honor for those strange people for me to answer them? If a half-crazy person weaves nonsense against me, although out loud; Is he really worth dealing with him - answering him, arguing, insisting on his own? I would be funny myself. If a dozen or two onlookers listen to a half-crazy man: that’s why they are onlookers, they have nothing else to do. I have a lot of things to do and little time for. There are so many things I have that I haven’t even started to do, but that I absolutely should do! It’s another thing to feel sorry for sick people - it’s my business, and I regret that they are sick. May God grant them some health.” And here is what he wrote, by the way, in response to the critical article of the Kharkovsky Vestnik. “Critical article” of the Kharkov Bulletin about the book Historical Doctrine of the Church Fathers intends, according to her, to explain the exact meaning of this teaching. The thought is good, but what is its execution? “The critic’s love for tradition is worthy of all respect; but in places he even pathetically says that the teaching about the fathers is a teaching about tradition. Is his thought correct? There is not a word about the fact that the church fathers in their teaching adhered to tradition, where necessary, just as they reverently described the deeds of the church and individuals. But they thought about the word of God, about the objects of faith, about the rules of life, they argued and spoke, philosophized and were philologists, and even made mistakes. Therefore, to say that the teaching about the fathers of the church is the same as the teaching about tradition means not understanding the fathers of the church or, deliberately turning a blind eye to the subject, interpreting it in one’s own arbitrary way. If you want, you can extract the teaching of tradition from the teaching of the church fathers, but this will be a special work for you, but not the teaching about the fathers. In the same way, if you wish, you can extract the text of the Gospel from the writings of the fathers; but will this be a teaching about the fathers? Still another will compose the rules of hermeneutics in the words of the fathers; and this will be the teaching about the fathers? The fourth and fifth will study the philosophy of the church fathers; the fruit of their labor will be a wonderful and entertaining part of the teaching about the fathers, but only a part. The critic is so naive that he just says directly: “patrology should not at all engage in reviewing those works where the church fathers are ordinary scientists, philosophers, experts in natural sciences, etc.” What is this from? you ask. You see, the critic decides to show you the father of the church in the form that suits the critic, and not in the way the father of the church actually was. Will you say that this does not agree with the meaning of the historical teaching about the fathers, that this smacks of unscrupulous papism? Does a critic really want to be among such people? Yes, the honor of an Orthodox is that he is neither a Protestant nor a papist, or, as the late Khomyakov wrote, he is not self-willed, he is not clever either in the manner of papism or in the manner of Protestantism.” Here Filaret, making an objection on the merits of the matter, is silent about the remaining errors of criticism, covering them with love. In addition, Filaret, it seems, did not recognize the genius of the Right Reverend Macarius. So, regarding the latter’s publication of Jacob’s work in “Christian Reading,” Filaret wrote to Gorsky: “However, I cannot keep silent about the fact that Macarius 70 is quick in business, but not very thorough, and is visible in this matter as well. Why was it necessary to print precious antiquities from damaged later copies? Are the Rumyantsev Museum and the public library far from it in St. Petersburg?” “I hear that our spiritual journals are ordered to publish articles about the schism. Please do not allow such stupid articles as those contained in the November book of “Christian Reading” 71. Such articles can only confuse stupid bearded people.” Regarding Macarius’s article “Three monuments of Russian spiritual literature of the 11th century,” Filaret wrote to Gorsky: “As for the article about Theodosius of Pechersk, between us, it could lie in the papers of the writer until his mind becomes more thorough. And I expected that Bilyarsky’s sensible article would force the writer to gather his thoughts, which wander here and there like the nomadic Iroquois... It would be much more useful to publish Nestor’s life of Theodosius either in the original with variants from manuscripts, or in the Russian translation. And what does the writer’s article, besides displeasure at empty guesses and stupid verbosity, give the reader? The Charter of the Studite is an important thing: but without evidence, they do not believe the author that the charter written by him is the Charter of Theodore the Studite. The author did not even look into the catalogs of Greek manuscripts to find out more precisely what is called the Studite Charter there? Is this what smart scientists do? Perhaps “The Moskvitian” also wrote the life of Theodosius. For whom? For the Chukhonts? Russians, you know, don’t speak the way he speaks.” Or he wrote to Gorsky: “Petersburg reviewers are especially dissatisfied with me for the depiction of the boyars of Nikon’s time: I also know this from private information. Let o. Macarius amuses them with watery stories without thought and strength, and empty guesses about the preaching of the Apostle Andrew to the Slavs. I recently read his Introduction to Theology. What kind of nonsense is this? There is no logical order or strength in the evidence. If I, a sinner, had the chance to read a similar student’s essay, I would not leave the fourth part unscathed.” But here pride or partiality did not play a role at all, since only before that he had spoken with approval of the work of the same Macarius, “The History of the Kiev Theological Academy.” His very kind and even close relations with his successor at the academy, Eusebius, did not prevent Philaret from severely condemning his “Conversations on the Saving Sacraments” in his letters to Gorsky. In addition, we must take into account that Filaret’s harsh review of Macarius’s writings was expressed by him in friendly letters, and not in print. Filaret, on the contrary, greeted with particular joy any useful work as a valuable contribution to science and expressed praise for it in letters to Gorsky. Thus, in the same letter in which Macarius’ article on the schism was condemned, he wrote about the article by Prof. Kudryavtseva: “An article on the unity of the human race,” an excellent article. I read it with pleasure. I heard excellent reviews about her from doctors at the local (Kharkov) university. May God grant the young writer strength and zeal to work forward with the same benefit for St. churches." Just as precisely, in the same letter in which the errors in Macarius’s article on Theodosius were pointed out, he praised Smirnov-Platonov’s essay “On the Presanctified Liturgy.” He spoke with delight about Nechaev’s essay “The Life of St. Demetrius.” “As far as I can see, from a scientific point of view we have not yet had a single biography of this kind.” At least, for my part, I kiss you a hundred times and bow to the ground, thanking you. The review of Chetyih-Menya’s sources is excellent. This was so necessary for the church, more than anything else. Not only frivolous heads, but business people, such as our Bishop, not having the opportunity to know the matter exactly, expressed strong doubts about the correctness of the information contained in the Chetyih Menaia. Now they can see that their doubts were in vain, or that at least the saint, for his part, did too much for the first experiment so that they had no right not to trust him.” No matter how morally high your life is, the temperament and character of a person will always have an impact. Saints always provided an opportunity to observe their character: it always shines through the appearance of humility. We know that the controversy of St. John Chrysostom and St. Cyril of Alexandria reached the point that the latter stopped remembering him in church prayer, and even the death of Chrysostom did not reconcile him with him. And in this discord, zeal for the teachings of the church played a role; It seemed to everyone, from his own point of view, that his opponent was violating the purity of St. teachings. And such an example is far from isolated in the history of the church. Turning again to the critical articles of the Spiritual Messenger, we cannot help but recognize them as extremely indecent in their methods and in relation to the subject and person. Undoubtedly, if we take any of Philaret’s works separately, strict criticism can find food for itself, but this way of assessing Philaret’s works will not give us a clear idea of ​​​​his amazing activity and deep scholarship. This is not one or two works to which all life, all abilities, all knowledge are devoted; it is a mass that is not easy to sort through. Ponomarev's list of his works and articles alone amounts to up to 160 issues, some of which are contained in volumes. To write all this, according to calculations, you need up to 60 reams of paper. If we take into account the necessary extracts, corrections, and additions for new editions (since most of his works went through 2, 3 and 4 editions), this calculation will at least double. To write more than 120 reams of paper, yes, it seems that one mechanical labor should be enough for a whole life. And how much did Filaret have to read in order to write all this, when his works amaze with a mass of quotes and references and when his reviews of an entire book were sometimes presented in only a few lines? One of his contemporary and famous scientists is undoubtedly Metropolitan Macarius. Before us are his works: 12 volumes of History of the Russian Church, 6 volumes of Theology and one and a half volumes of sermons. But such a serious and enormous work of Metropolitan Macarius not only cannot diminish, but elevates the works of Philaret before us. Firstly, Macarius already had before him the works of Philaret on these subjects; he walked, so to speak, along the well-trodden path already trodden by the lonely Filaret. Secondly, Macarius had up to ten unskilled workers, and he himself, one might say, took on only the most important work. Thirdly, he did not manage the diocese at all and always had a vicar. Only on particularly important matters, as is known, the secretary reported to him in the most concise form the essence of the matter: he himself did not read a single paper. But Filaret did not have a vicar. And it’s wonderful: as soon as he was transferred from Kharkov to Chernigov, and Macarius was appointed in his place, the latter was given a vicar. As soon as Filaret died, his successor, Varlaam, was given a vicar. We saw how Filaret ruled the diocese. Not a single complaint or petition escaped his hands: he himself consulted certificates or files, and resolved petitions himself. In addition, he renovates monasteries and churches, builds and rebuilds schools and seminaries, sets up a printing house, a candle factory to strengthen the funds of the monasteries, builds houses for the same purpose, directly supervises the progress of teaching, organizes parochial schools, of which there was no mention, takes care of providing for the clergy, caring for widows and orphans, unfailingly performs divine service and does not deprive anyone of his edifying conversation. It seems that this man had 48 hours a day, and even those had to work tirelessly to achieve such results. What motivated such vigorous activity of this saint? It would be a mistake to assume that he was motivated by fame, pride flattered by the success of his first works, or even concern to make a good name. Such engines are capable of losing their power; The human body itself must get tired, and this fatigue will show itself in work. With Philaret, the opposite was noticed: over the years, his scientific activity, like constantly heated water that comes to a boil, has reached a strength that amazes us. He had a love for books, as we saw, from childhood. He was even afraid that, as it developed in him, it would turn into passion and burden his soul. He expressed such fear to Gorsky. He goes out to inspect the seminary; there seems to be a lot to do; but he takes the books with him and is not yet satisfied with that. “Of course you will understand,” he writes from Tambov (in July 1841) to Gorsky, “that I really want to return to the academy and to books, there is nothing here; I use what I took with me.” – The Metropolitan advises him to rest, seeing his poor health. “I don’t know what I’ll do,” he writes to Gorsky about this, “but I can’t help it. I’m so used to books and papers that I miss them.” He finally gets ready to go on vacation to the Joseph Monastery, being the rector, and asks Gorsky to bring him: “a) a notebook in which church writers are recorded from the synodal manuscript, b) a description of the manuscripts of Count Tolstoy, c) Kalaidovich Monuments of the 12th century and the “Exarch of Bulgaria”, which he needs for his work. Going to Simbirsk on an unpleasant assignment, captivated by the story of Hieromonk Eustathius, he goes to him to inspect the found parchment manuscript dating back to the 13th century, makes his comments and asks Gorsky to immediately consult the Synodal and Stroevsky lists of writers and notify him of the result. He is going to St. Petersburg via Novgorod, and now he is going to the Sofia Library. There is no time, but still he finds a lot of interesting monuments there, informs his friend Gorsky about it, and expresses his assumptions about some of them. He arrives in St. Petersburg and immediately gets acquainted with the Rumyantsev Museum and public library. He spends two days reading descriptions of the Rumyantsovsky manuscripts: it occupied him so much. “What am I doing in St. Petersburg?” He answers Gorsky, the same as in the Lavra: I write, write and write.” “For now I still remain with the same habit, with the same things. Now I write, now I read; I read, I write.” “My friend!” he wrote from Riga, “I still live as if in an academy: I write and read, read and write. As soon as the storm subsides, again I’m all in books, both night and day with books. But when the storm comes, there is no time for books: you don’t know where to put your soul.” “What is often in my hands are books. Still a bookworm." – He studies the history of China with interest and reads Ideler about Egyptian literature with enthusiasm. He almost never sat down at the dinner table, but ate his food, as they say, in passing, without parting with his book. At night he often woke up, took a candle, went to the library, took out a book or manuscript and sat down to work, without postponing such activities until the morning. In his old age, when his physical strength weakened, he went to sleep on the floor; on both sides of it candles were burning, books and papers lay. When one side of him got tired, he turned over to the other and continued working. However, he worked this way even in his youth. When his back got tired, he lay down on the floor and worked out while lying down. Exercises in this position often ended in headaches and sometimes hemorrhage from the larynx. He still found that a lot of his time passed in idleness and, obviously, in order to remind him of work and its necessity, he started a small apiary. “I’m getting some bees,” he wrote to Innokenty. Wonderful insects! It’s nice and useful to look at them.” Where did the strength come from this weak organism from childhood? What motivated his tireless work? We can say without error that the only desire to serve God and neighbor completely controlled the works and life of this saint. Only zeal for this service gave him grace-filled power that amazes us. He says about his work: “What should we do if sometimes we are met very unkindly. It may be that later they will recognize something good in the work of weakness, in the work of a sinner, but in sincere work. And if people don’t see it, He, the knower of the heart, will see it. And if even that doesn’t happen, is it surprising that everything is bad for the sinner?” “The Bishop wrote that you are allowed to print descriptions of biblical manuscripts. I congratulate you with joy. This is joy for everyone who understands the meaning of reasonable service to the Lord.” The publication of “Works of the Holy Fathers” never ceased to concern him, and he constantly reminded Gorsky about it. “Prepare, friends of Christ, prepare food for Christ’s redeemed. Oh my God. My God! How sinful we are before You and how weak! We must do what is pleasing before You for ourselves and others. What do we have? Where are we going? Will they say anything in defense? Is there anything useful for the brethren? Lord, Lord! You are a Heartbreaker. You control the hearts of people; You know what is good for the soul; You move mountains even with a speck of dust. What about us? Oh, it is sinful to remember yourself when you think about Your greatness, about Your holiness. And then, as you place yourself close to others, and then shame covers your face for your insignificance before others; and then you feel the sadness and despondency of the soul, suppressed by the power of the deeds of others, in my emptiness. I am irresponsible, Lord, before You. I am irresponsible to my brothers. I am irresponsible before the very earth, which I trample underfoot, worthy of being trampled by everyone,” - Finally, when the first book of “Creations” was published, with what delight he wrote to Gorsky: “The soul burns with both joy and desires. May God grant that everything will be to His glory. Work hard, my friends, work hard. The reward is in heaven! It should be noted that in every matter he prayerfully turned to God with childlike faith. So, for example, regarding the death of the law teacher of the Kharkov girls’ school, he wrote to Romanovsky: “it is not easy to find such a figure. We must pray to the Lord,” and, in his humility, he ended like this: “and I, damned one, pray badly.” We have seen how many such examples are represented by his letters to Gorsky. This is the great engine and the source of power that amazed everyone in Filaret. We will finish our article with the words of the Right Reverend Eugene, spoken over the tomb of Philaret. “The coffin is a mystery. Having completed his earthly career, he descends into the grave - into the region of darkness, bewilderment and oblivion. This is the lot of most ordinary people.” “Not so with this coffin! With him, as if for the first time, you hear and understand the cry of the church: eternal memory. This coffin hid from us the pious face of the valiant archpastor. But it will not hide, but on the contrary, it will reveal as a souvenir to the birth the wonderful wealth of the inner, hidden life of the deceased. From this gloomy tomb will shine in full splendor the fruitfulness of the exploits of the one who has calmed down in it, from under the darkness of the grave the significance of the arduous, varied, generally useful and truly Christian activity of the deceased will rise in full grandeur. The history of the Church and the Fatherland, and at the same time, if not primarily, the tablets of the book of destinies of the kingdom of God, will indelibly, in eternal memory, be designated by the name of the one who rests in this tomb. The entire comprehensive meaning of the church’s prayerful desire to grant the deceased eternal memory can only be properly understood at coffins like this coffin.” Using Mr. Ponomarev’s article, we list the works of Archbishop Philaret by department, indicating reviews of them 1. The appearance of the Lord to Saul (Chernigov diocesan news, 1861 No. 2). 2. Notes on the Holy Scriptures (ibid., 1862, Nos. 1, 3, 7, 10 and 16). 3. The teaching of the apostle. Paul on the Antichrist (ibid., no. 19). 4. About the message of the apostle. Paul to the Galatians (ibid., no. 20). 5. Notes on the Holy Scriptures (ibid., 1864 and 1865). 6. Explanation of the Gospel of John (ibid. 1865 and 1866). II. Translations from the Church Fathers. 7. Blessed John Moschus. Spiritual Ray, translation from Greek, M. 1848. Second edition M. 1853. 8. Message of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer. (Chernigov dioceses, news of 1861 No. 8). 9 . Testament of St. Ephraim the Syrian, translation from the Syriac text with notes (ibid., 1862, Nos. 5 and 6). 10. Useful and harmful members in society, translation from the works of St. John Chrysostom (ibid., no. 22). 11. St. John Chrysostom: education of children, translation from Greek (ibid., 1864). 12. Blessed Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, a word on Christian teaching (ibid., 1863 No. 24). 13. Blessed Jerome; letter to Gavdentius about the education of young Pacatula (ibid., 1866 No. 5). 14. Testimony from the times of the apostles on how the name Jesus should be written and the cross depicted (addition to the works of the Holy Fathers, 1843, book 1). 15. Prophet (Chernig. diocesan news 1863 No. 1). 16. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. (Chernigov 1864 in 2 parts, second edition Chernigov 1866). 17. The teaching of St. John Chrysostom on the Word, (Chernigov diocesan news 1865. Second posthumous edition 1869). 18. Comparison of Lutheranism with Orthodoxy. (Chernigov eparch. Izvest. 1868, - posthumous edition). 19. Words and conversations spoken in Riga (M. 1850, in 2 parts). 20. A word against hostility, biased towards denunciations. (M. 1856, second ed. Chernig. 1859). 21. A conversation about the sufferings of our Lord Jesus Christ. (M. 1857. Second edition. St. Petersburg. 1859, in 2 parts). Review: Spiritual Conversation, 1858 No. 37 “The Wanderer,” 1860 No. 3. 22. The voice of God to the sinner, teaching (Chuguev 1857, third ed. Chernigov, 1860). 23. Words and Conversations. (St. Petersburg, 1859, in 3 parts, second edition Chernigov, 1863). 24. That you stand idle all day. (Chernigov diocesan news 1861). 25. Speech to the nobles when they were sworn in during the elections (ibid., 1863 No. 12, “The Wanderer” 1863 No. 6). 26. Speech at the opening of the Chernigov Provincial Zemstvo Assembly, (ibid., 1865). 27. On the use of the gift of speech (ibid., 1861 No. 2). 28. New wine in old places (ibid., No. 3). 29. Loyalty in small things (ibid.). 30. Rules for monastics (ibid., No. 4). 31. The two sons are not the same (ibid., no. 11). 32. The ability to live (ibid., No. 12). 33. And we will go there (ibid., No. 27). 34. False prophets (ibid., 1862, No. 1). 35. Unauthorized teaching (No. 2). 36. My soul, my soul, arise, what are you writing off? (No. 5). 37. The groom is coming at midnight. – Take care of my soul (No. 6). 38. Don't be afraid, I'm with you (No. 9). 39. Don't trust yourself (#11). 40. Christian Liberty (No. 20). 41. Don't humiliate yourself (No. 11, 1863). 42. Folk wisdom. A collection of proverbs about the Divine, about faith, about salvation, about litigation (No. 20). 43. Explanation of the Lord's Prayer (No. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 - 1864). 44. Religion and Morality (also 1865). 45. Appeal to the Chernigov flock (also, No. 20). VI. Church legislation. 46. A few words about the book “Stoglav” (Moskvityan. 1845, No. 12). 47. Decree on the church clergy (Cherniga diocesan newsletter, 1861, No. 4. Reprinted in almost all diocesan bulletins). 48. Marriages between close relatives (ibid., 1863). 49. On the degrees of kinship (ibid.). 50. Russian saints, revered by the entire church or locally. Experience in describing their life (Chernigov 1861, second edition Chernigov 1865). a) Spiritual Bulletin of 1862 Nos. 5 and 9. b) Domestic notes, 1862 No. 9. c) Wanderer, 1863 No. 7. d) Histor. Rus. Church Arch. Macarius vol. IV, VI and VII. 51. St. Prince Michael of Chernigov (Chernigov diocesan news (1864). 52. Saints of the South Slavs (Chernig. 1865 and 1866). 53. Holy ascetics of the Eastern Church (Cherniga diocesan news 1866 No. 14. SPV. 1871 - posthumous edition). 54. Historical teaching about the fathers of the church (SPV. 1859 in 3 volumes). a) Spiritual Bulletin 1864, vol. VIII. b) Izvestia 2 dept. Imperial Academy of Sciences 1860, vol. 9. c) Domestic Notes 1859, No. 10. d) St. Petersburg Gazette 1859 No. 242. 55. Historical teaching about the fathers of the church, in abbreviation (Chernig. 1864). a) Book. Bulletin 1865 No. 14. b) Orthodox. review 1866 No. 6. IX. History of the Church Universe. 56. Cyril and Methodius: Slavic enlighteners (read in the Imperial General History and Antiquities of Russia at Moscow University, year 2, 1846 - 47, book 4). Review: Otechestvenny. notes 1847 v. 50. 57. Addition to Art. Cyril and Methodius, Slavic enlighteners (ibid. book 5 and Cyril Methodius collection M. 1865). Note This article was translated into German and published in 1846 in Mitau. In the reference encyclopedia. The Starchesky calendar (St. Petersburg, 1848, vol. XI) says that this historical study was translated into German and published in 1847 in Leipzig. 58. Holy Great Martyr Demetrius of Thessalonica and the Solunsky Slavs (ibid. 1847 - 1848, Prince VI). 59. Gennady, Patriarch of Constantinople (in the 15th century) Orthodox. review 1860 No. 4). 60. Historical overview of the hymns and chants of the Greek Church, with notes and a photograph of ancient musical notations (St. Petersburg, 1860. Second edition, Chernigov, 1864). a) Spiritual Bulletin of 1862 No. 1. Art. Serbinov (for criticism of Serbinov, see A. Bukharev’s book “On the modern spiritual needs of thought and life, especially Russian” M. 1865. Objection to Serbinov’s article in Cheri. Diocesan News 1865 No. 8). b) News of the 2nd Department. Imperial Academician Sciences 1861 T. X. c) Wanderer 1862 No. 12. 61. Holy icons of the first six centuries (Chernig. eparch. news 1861). 62. Abgar, Prince of Edessa and the image of the Savior not made by hands, (ibid. No. 4). 63. Deaconesses (ibid., 1862 No. 18). X. History of the Russian Church. 64. Where did the indigenous people of Livonia originally receive Christianity from - from the East or West. (Moskvityanin 1843, vol. VII). 65. Research about the preacher of the 13th century. Vladimir Bishop Serapion (addition to the Works of the Holy Fathers 1847, part 1). 66. Divine service of the Russian Church of pre-Mongolian times (readings in the Imperial Society of History and Antiquities of Russia 1846 - 1847, book 7 and separately M. 1847). Review: Contemporary 1847, vol. III, art. Kavelina. Note In addition to his own research, Filaret reported to the editors of Readings several monuments of our ancient writing, providing them with his notes. 67. Message from Gennady Joasaph to the Archbishop of Rostov and Yaroslavl (ibid., book 8). 68. Contents of the message of Joseph of Volokolamsk to Ivan Ivanovich (Chelyadinin) (ibid., book 8). 69. History of the Russian Church. Period 1 from the beginning of Christianity in Russia to the Mongol invasion (988 - 1236) M. 1848; 2nd period from the devastation of Russia by the Mongols to the division of the metropolises (1237 - 1410) M. 1848. 3rd period from the division of the metropolitanates with the establishment of the patriarchate (1410 - 1588) M. 1847. 4th period of the patriarchate (1588 - 1720) Riga 1847. Period 5th Synodal (1721 - 1826) M. 1848. All five periods went through four editions. b) Journal Min. People's Enlightenment 1848 h, 5 – 7 dep. VI. c) Izvestia 2 dept. Imperial Academician Sciences 1854, vol. 3 and 1858, vol. 6, Chitovich’s note on “The History of the Russian Church of Bishop Macarius in comparison with the history of the Russian Church of Philaret,” 1858, paragraph 7. d) In the history of the Russian Church, Archbishop. Macarius contains comments and corrections. d) Muscovite. 1848 vol. 1. e) Domestic. notes, 1848 t. 56 and 59 and 1849 t. 62. g) Russian Conversation, 1859, vol. III. h) Russian Bulletin, 1860, v. 25. i) Contemporary, 1849, vol. 14. j) Son of the Fatherland, 1848 No. 11, article by Solovyov - Rostislavich: “Analysis of Pogodin’s opinion about the beginning of Russia (in defense of historical truth and the author of the History of the Russian Church”). k) Northern Review, 1848, vol. 1. 70. Life of the teacher our father, Abbot of Pechersk, Theodosius, described by the venerable. Nestor translated into modern Russian (scientific notes of the 2nd department of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. St. Petersburg. 1856, book 2). a) Russian Bulletin 1856, vol. III. b) Modern Chronicle, 1856 Art. Popova. 71. Ryazan hierarchs (Christian reading 1859 No. 2 and No. 5). 72. History of the Russian Church, in abbreviation (St. Petersburg, 1860). Review: Christian. reading, 1861, part 2, dept. III). 73. About ancient schools, almshouses and brotherhoods (Chernig. ep. news 1862 No. 17). 74. Missal of the Reverend. Lazar Baranovich (ibid., 1864). 75. Kiev Cathedral 1691 (ibid.). 76. Chernigov hierarchs (works of the Kiev Theological Academy 1860, book 2). XI. History of spiritual literature. 77. Maxim the Greek, historical research (Moskvityanin 1842). Note Two of Maxim's works are also attached here in the original. 78. The contents of the Zlotaya Chep manuscript, belonging to the beginning of the 14th century. (reading General History and Antiquities 1846 - 1847, book 2). 79. Epistle of Leo Metropolitan of Russia to the Romans or Latins about unleavened bread with information about the author of the letter (Vremennik, 1850, book V). 80. Review of Russian spirituality. literature (from 862 – 1720). (Scientific notes of the Imperial Academic Sciences, 1858, book 3. Separate issue of St. Petersburg, 1857. Second edition - Kharkov 1859). a) Spiritual Bulletin 1862 No. 7. b) News of the 2nd department. Imperial Academician Sciences 1858 vol. VI, issue 1, issue III there, 1859 vol. VIII. c) History of the Russian Church Arch. Macaria. d) Domestic notes of 1857 No. 6. e) Russian Bulletin 1857. Reprinted in historical essays by Buslaev. Comments on this article: Russian Conversation 1857 No. 4, Son of the Fatherland 1857 No. 45. f) Wanderer, 1862 No. 9. 81. Addition to the review of Russian Spirit. literature (until 1862) (Chernigov. eparch. news 1865 - 1866). XII. History, statistics and archaeology. 82. Research on the death of Tsarevich Dimitri (Reading at the Society of History and Antiquities 1858, book 1, - separately M. 1858). 83. Historical and statistical description of the Kharkov diocese: Department 1st. A brief overview of the diocese and a detailed examination of the monasteries. (M. 1852. Second edition Kharkov 1859). Department 2. Kharkov and Valksky districts. (M. 1856). Department 3. Uyezds of Akhtyrsky, Bogodukhovsky, Sumsky and Lebyadyansky (M. 1865). Department 4. Chuguevsky military settlement district, Zmievsky and Volchansky districts (Kharkov 1857). Department 5. Izyum districts. Kupyansky and Starobelsky. Kupyansky and Starobelsky districts of military settlement (Kharkov 1858) a) Vestnik Russk. Geographical Society 1859, vol. 27. F 10. dept. IV. b) News of the 2nd department. Imperial Academician Sciences 1859 vol. VII. 84. General overview of the Chernigov diocese (about the pagan inhabitants of the region and the beginning of Christianity, about the Hierarchs, about the opening of the diocese and the state of the flock, about the schism. Chernigov 1861). 85. Nizhyn and its district (Chernigov diocesan news of 1862 No. 19 and 20) 86. Chernigov - (Chernigov 1863). 87. Description of the city of Ostra and its district (Chernigov diocesan news). 88. Description of Chernigov and its district (ibid., 1863 and 1864). 89. Glukhov district (ibid., 1865 and 1866). 90. Novozybkovsky district (ibid., 1865 and 1866). 91. Chernigov diocesan administration (ibid.). 92. Mglinsky district (ibid.). 93. Starodubsky district (ibid.). 94. Historical and statistical description of the Chernigov diocese: province. city ​​of Chernigov, counties: Chernigov. Kozeletsky, Surazhsky, Krolevetsky and Ostersky (Chernigov. 1874 posthumous edition). Note This included three districts: Kozeletsky, Surazhsky and Krolevetsky, a description of which did not appear in print during Filaret’s lifetime. 95. Cherpeev Nikolaevsky Monastery, Tambov diocese. Shatsky district (Kharkov 1849). 96. Black Sea Nikolaev monastery at Lebyazhiy Liman (Kharkov 1851). 97. Cathedral Chernigov monasteries: Ilyinsky (Troitsky) Yeletsky and Borisoglebsky, (with the appendix of several unpublished works of St. Demetrius of Rostov 72) and many letters with the plan of ancient Chernigov (Chernigov 1861). 98. Description of Novgorod-Seversky Spaso-Preobrazhensky first-class man. monastery (Chernigov diocesan news 1861). 99. Nizhyn Monastery. Moreover, the unpublished works of Metropolitan Stephen (ibid., Nos. 9, 7, 9, 10 and 11). 100. Dumnitsky Bogoroditsky Monastery (ibid., 1862). 101. Glukhovsky Peter and Paul Monastery (ibid., No. 5 and 5). 102. Rykhlovsky Monastery (ibid., No. 7, 13 and 15) 103. Kozeletsky St. George Monastery (same, No. 16, 17 and 18). 104. Krupetsky Monastery of St. Nicholas, near Baturin (ibid. No. 21 and 22). 105. Gamaleevsky Kharlampiev Monastery (ibid., No. 23 and 24, - separately Chernigov 1862). 106. Closed monasteries of the Chernigov diocese (ibid., 1864 and 1865). 107. Maksakovsky Spassky Monastery (ibid., 1864). 108. Addition to the description of the Seversky Monastery (ibid., 1864). 109. Nizhyn Convent (ibid., 1864). 110. Kamensky convent (ibid.). XIV. Upbringing and education. 111. How should one begin to educate a person in faith? (Black diocesan news of 1861 No. 1. Reprinted in Soulful Reading of 1861 No. 5 and Home Conversation of 1861 No. 20 and a separate issue). 112. Education in public schools (ibid., 1862 No. 23). 113. Comments on the draft charter of general education institutions and on the draft general plan for the organization of public schools. (In the book under the same title St. Petersburg. 1862, part 1). 114. Comments on the draft general charter of the Emperor. Russian. Universities: (In the book under the same title St. Petersburg. 1862, part 1). 115. Education in rural schools (Chernigov diocesan news 1862 No. 36). 116. Public school (ibid. 1864). 117. Seminar education at the beginning of the 19th century (ibid.). 118. On the issue of sectarians of the Tambov diocese (ibid., 1862 No. 36), 119. Talk of Sloboda schismatics about books (ibid.). 120. The state of the split in the priesthood in recent times (ibid. 1866 No. 14). 121. Historical information about the schismatics of the Chernigov diocese (works of the Kiev Spiritual Academy, 1860, book 3). 122. To the biography of Chernigov Archbishop. Anthony Stakhovsky (ibid. 1862 No. 28). 123. To the life of Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky (ibid.). 124. Archimandrite Venedikt Kurkovsky. abbot of the Novgorod-Seversky Monastery. Obituary (ibid., 1861). ХVII. Contemporary issues. 125. Voice of the Russian in defense of the Greek Church (ibid., 1861). 126. Events on the island Crete in 1660 (ibid.). 127. Maintenance of religious educational institutions and clergy (ibid., No. 5). 128. A few questions (ibid.). 129. Rural Shepherd (ibid., 1862 No. 6). Regarding the contemporary story of 1861 “Mud and Gold”. 130. Don't be afraid, I'm with you (ibid., No. 9). 131. To the fourth point of the Jesuit instructions (ibid. No. 12). 132. Burial of Gentiles by a Priest (No. 12) Regarding the statements of the Chekhovs in Dikanka. 133. A contemporary note (ibid., no. 16). 134. Modern news (ibid.). 135. Note on the modern (ibid., 1863). 136. Notes on the Modern (1864). 137. Notes on the Modern (1865). 138. Notes on the modern. Something about religious educational institutions (1866). Regarding Pevnitsky’s article in the Proceedings of the Kiev Spirit. Academy (1864). 139. Blessed John Moschus - Spiritual Meadow, translated from Greek. M. 1848. Second edition M. 1853). 140. Letters to the Reverend Lazar Baranovich Archbishop of Chernigov and Novgorod-Seversky. Translation of many letters from Polish and notes explaining the contents (Chernigov. diocesan news 1861 - 1865. Separately Chernigov 1865), 141. Acts of Union 1742 – 1747 (ibid., 1862 No. 1, 4, 8, 9, 10 and 11). 142. Unpublished works of St. Demetrius of Rostov (department of the Chernigov monastery. Chernigov 1861). 143. Unpublished works of Stefan (Yavorsky) Metropolitan of Ryazan (Chernig. ep. news 1861). XIV. Criticism and bibliography. 144. Analysis of Mr. Smirnov’s essay: “History of the Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy (26 Demidov awards on June 17, 1857, St. Petersburg, 1858). 145. Bibliography: a) Holy Gospel in Russian; b) the book of wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach; c) review of Grechulevich's four gospels; d) review of the messages of St. apostle Paul to the Corinthians. M. Golubeva (Chernigov diocesan news 1861 No. 1). 146. Bibliography: a) History of the Christian Church of Cheltsov; b) M. Bogoslovsky St. Story; c) outline of the life of St. Philip Metropolitan Moscow; d) legends about St. Princes Boris and Gleb, ed. Sreznevsky; e) the communal Sarov Hermitage of Hieromonk Abel; f) memory of a devotee of St. Coffin of V. Kaminsky (ibid.). 147. Bibliography: a) accusatory Theology of Archimandrite Innocent; b) about Western religions, sacred. Benescriptova; c) the teaching of the Orthodox-Catholic faith in conversations; d) the wisdom and goodness of God in the destinies of the world and man; e) the gradual development of the ancient philosophical teachings of Novitsky (ibid. No. 6). 148. Bibliography: a) letters to friends from Mount Athos by the monk Meletius; b) about the need for the Priesthood, priest. A. Predtechinsky. c) the truly ancient and true Orthodox Church of Christ, Metropolitan Gregory (ibid. No. 8). 149. Bibliography: The triumph of Christian teaching over the Talmud (ibid. No. 10). 150. Bibliography: a) Moral Theology of Bishop Plato of Kostroma; b) reminding the priest about his duties when performing the sacrament of repentance; c) liturgist A. Chernyaev; d) liturgics, sacred village Smolodovicha; e) Athonite Patericon; f) words to the Vologda flock, Rev. Innocent; g) Christian principles, Tirsha; h) preparation for confession, Archpriest of Theology; i) selected words and speeches of Archpriest Raevsky (ibid.). Note In total, in 1861, Filaret sorted 31 books. 151. Bibliography: the book of Job in Russian. translation, with a brief explanation (ibid. 1862 No. 3). 152. Bibliography: a) historical description of the Tambov diocese, op. priest Khitrov; b) Christian martyrs who suffered in the east since the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks; c) about changes in the order of the liturgy indicated in the Pomeranian answers and in the spiritual sword, op. Abbot Varlaam; d) letters about the schism, Melnikova (ibid. G 10). 153. Bibliography: worship, holidays and rituals of modern Jews, op. A. Alekseeva (No. 12). 154. Bibliography: a) dictionary of the rector of the St. Petersburg Spiritual Society. Feofan Academy; b) words to the Tambov flock, his own; c) answers to objections to the true faith; d) spiritual and moral anthology, A. Nevsky; e) children's world, Ushinsky (No. 18). 155. Bibliography: a) historical review of the cathedrals that were in the first three centuries of Christianity, A. Pomortsov. Eagle 1861; b) the case of Patriarch Nikon, N. Subbotin M. 1862 (ibid. 1863 No. 6). 156. Bibliography: a) notes on moral theology, Archpriest P. Solyarsky. 2 t. St. Petersburg. 1860 – 1862; b) from the history of the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery. M. 1862 (No. 6). 157. Bibliography: comparative review of the four Gospels, compiled by Archpriest. V. Grechulevich (ibid., 1866 No. 13). We consider it not uninteresting to tell the story of the portrait, a photograph from which is attached to this book. At one time a distant relative of the archbishop lived in Chernigov. Filareta Nick, Iv. Dmitriev, an artist, exiled to Chernigov from St. Petersburg by doctors, since during his weak life the St. Petersburg climate was very harmful to him. After the death of Filaret, landowner D.S. With. A.I. Khanenko, who is still living, asked Dmitriev to print for him a large portrait of the deceased saint from a photographic card. Dmitriev began to paint more than once, but the portrait did not turn out successful; who enjoyed the friendship of Filaret, A.I. He impatiently wanted to have his portrait and reproached Dmitriev for laziness. After such a conversation, returning home in the evening, Dmitriev prepared the canvas with the intention of getting to work in the morning. In the morning, before he awakens, he told us, Filaret appears to me in a dream and asks: “Are you going to paint my portrait?” - “Yes, sir.” - “Well, so I came to you, look at me!” He sat down, and I looked at him for what seemed to me like half an hour. Having woken up, he immediately set to work and the portrait came out so marvelous and true that A.I. was delighted when he saw it, and noticed to Dmitriev that it was obviously his laziness that was to blame, and not that he could not paint. Yes, the artist noticed, and would not have written if Philaret himself had not helped, and told him about the dream vision and about the strong impression he received while contemplating the face of the saint. In “Description of manuscripts of the Rumyantsev Museum.” History of the Moscow Theological Academy. Evseniy Orlinsky, later Archbishop of Mogilev Subsequently, Metropolitan of Kiev Hebrew words from verse 2 of chapter 1 of the book. Genesis that determines the initial state of the earth: “The earth is invisible and unsettled.” He occupied the chair of theology at Kazan University until the 1850–57 academic year. Filaret Amphitheatrov, later Metropolitan of Kiev. Kirill Bogoslovsky-Platonov, later Archbishop of Kamentsev-Podolsk. A subject introduced into the course of academic sciences by former rector Filaret. Agapit, the former bishop of Tomsk, who lived in retirement in Moscow and the following year received control of the Resurrection Monastery (New Jerusalem). Feofan, archimandrite of the Donskoy Monastery. Rector of the St. Petersburg Academy, later Bishop of Astrakhan The hermeneutics of Athanasius is prohibited due to the comments of the Metropolitan of Moscow. Athanasius criticized the Hebrew text of the Bible, demanded the colonization of the translation of the LXX interpreters of St. Scriptures to indicate the truths of faith. Peter Mohyla, Metropolitan of Kiev. Of course, here is Count Protasov, his employees, Serbinovich and others. Winkler, Instutiones philosophiae. Founding of the Russian Church. On the way back from foreign lands to our own Fall. The Tsar, who once believed him boundlessly, saw him for the last time in Magdenburg, during his trip to England, in the spring of 1844. Count Benckendorff himself received incorrect information about the progress of affairs in the Baltic provinces, and this explains the coolness of the Tsar towards him. P.B. Mortka is the oldest small coin. Cell attendant of the Most Reverend Irinarch. Probably an allusion to Count Protasov. District judges, or rather former police officers, with judicial-police power. Fr. Alexey Panov, priest of Arensburg on Fr. Ezele. The first was the rector spirit. schools in Riga. He died in Moscow in 1881. The second and is now the keymaster of the Riga Cathedral, preserving the respectful memory of Filaret. Filaret's petition was reported to the Emperor; after that, Filaret encouraged the Moscow academicians, went to Riga and informed Gorsky: “The salary will still be increased, for which I have assurance from the Synod, for now it’s private”; It is also understandable for the Governor General. Evgeniy Aleksandrovich Golovin. Here it is implied that the peasants were with the governor-general. Now some letters have already appeared in the Journal of the Ryazan Scientific Archival Commission. Official of the Office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. We called Metropolitan Joseph blessed because of his deeds for the church and because of the special manifestation of gratitude noted in the incorruption of his body. They buried him on the 11th or 12th day after his death and stood near the coffin as if near a living person. We heard that one person who was present at the burial offered the archbishop who performed the burial. Macarius (later Metropolitan of Moscow) to draw up an unspoken act about this as a keepsake for the future, but for some reason the latter refused this. Canceled for now. Subsequently, Metropolitan of St. Petersburg. Iosaf Gorlenko, whose relics rest hidden in Belgorod. Vladimir Uzhivsky, later archbishop. Kazansky, died in retirement in the Sviyazhsky monastery. Inquisitive compatriots were sophisticated in finding ways to destroy written monuments. So, when the Surazhichi Monastery (Chernigov province) was abolished, its archive was buried in the ground, where it, of course, rotted. At present, it is hardly possible to find this place. It talks about brotherhood in church service. The words refer to his successor, the Reverend. Plato. A blind man who recently died in Voronezh. The monastery where the winter residence of the Chernigov saints was. Archimandrite taken by Philaret from Kharkov. Princess Lyubov Petrovna Golitsyna, nee Countess Apraksina, enjoyed the well-deserved respect of Philaret for her virtuous qualities and piety. A former cathedral archpriest, according to reviews, he was distinguished by his arrogance and quarrelsome disposition. In the Trinity-Ilyinsky Monastery there is an ancient shrine: an authentic icon of the Chernigov-Ilyinsky Mother of God; lists with it are honored: one in the Cathedral of all educational institutions in St. Petersburg, and the other in the monastery of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, which received the name Chernigov. Above this icon Mazepa created a silver crown, supported by two angels, below is Mazepa’s monogram. Under Anna Ioannovna, all such “decency” of Mazepa was destroyed; but the real decoration, one must think, was covered with drapery and escaped the attention of the executors of the Tsarina’s will. In this cathedral there are beautiful silver, sometimes gilded, royal doors, a sacrifice of Hetman Mazepa. Some attribute the founding of the cathedral to 1036, but this is hardly correct, since Nestor says: “Having laid (Mstislav) in the Church of the Holy Savior, he would have laid it himself; for it was raised up high in front of him, as if standing on a horse.” And Mstislav died in 1036. Such indifference may still have an explanation in the wilderness, in the provinces, but isn’t that what we see in the capitals? Who, for example, driving past Tsaritsyn near Moscow, looking at the crumbling fancy palace, did not ask himself the question: why are they allowing its destruction and at the same time spending millions on buildings in the capital and outside it of various charitable institutions and barracks? The hetman's palace in Baturyn suffered the same fate. Venerable Anthony of Pechersk. Professor of the Moscow Academy Delitsyn. Unfortunately, all of Filaret’s files and correspondence from the seminary library disappeared. The time set by the church for commemorating the dead. Peter Mohyla, Metropolitan of Kiev. In the biography of Gregory the Theologian, Creation. Holy Fathers, book. 1st. Fortbildung des Christenthums zur Weltreligion. 1840. Rector of the Chernigov Seminary, now His Eminence Evgeniy, Bishop of Mogilev. See his attitude towards Mr. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod about the book “Boyarin Matveev”. M. 1864 Consisted with the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. Here we are talking about St. Petersburg spiritual censorship. Here, of course, the Austrians and Prussians were not meant. Then rector of the St. Petersburg Academy. Macarius "Essay on the history of the Russian schism." St. Demetrius was the abbot of the Yeletsky monastery in Chernigov.