II. В Нижегородской духовной семинарии (1852–1858)

The six years of my studies at the Nizhny Novgorod seminary were overshadowed and pushed back by subsequent impressions and events of my life, to such a distance that it took a lot of work to reproduce in my memory and present in the proper order and, as far as possible, factually correct, everything that concerns the educational part of this period of my life. In particular, memories regarding the subjects of teaching and, partly, teachers were confused. I always remembered very well what subjects made up the full seminar course at that time, as well as all the teachers of that time, their appearance, surnames, and (with the exception of three) even first and patronymic names. But it was confusing in my memory: which subjects (except for the main ones and some others) were taught in each of the three two-year classes of that time - lower, middle and higher, which passed from class to class and which were combined in one teacher, which was inevitable, in view of the huge number of subjects of the then seminar course, reaching up to thirty. And if, as the reader will see, I managed to remember a lot and actually and even chronologically, as accurately as possible, restore the appearance of the old seminary, with its then teaching program, teachers, leaders and trustees, in the person of the diocesan Right Reverends, then this is largely due to the following happy circumstances. Firstly, I had at hand beautifully compiled books on the history of the Nizhny Novgorod Seminary for the years 1818–1840 and 1842–1851, 37 for a time that, admittedly, preceded the years 1852–1858, but very close to them. These books greatly revived my memories and reminded me of a lot from the distant past. And then, I received a very valuable benefit from the venerable Fr. Rector of the Nizhny Novgorod Seminary, Archpriest I.M. Pomerantsev, to whom I addressed with a request whether he would find it possible to ask one of the employees at the seminary to collect in its archives information regarding the subjects of teaching and teachers in each of the three classes of the seminary of my time. Father Rector himself took on this considerable work, for which I cannot help but bring him my deepest heartfelt gratitude. I obtained biographical information regarding the teachers from other sources 38 besides what was preserved in my memory. The transition from school to seminary brought a lot of new things into our lives: new subjects of study, different teaching methods, the absence of auditors (notators and notators), rods and the appearance of new comrades from other Nizhny Novgorod diocesan theological schools: Pechersky (in the same Nizhny, but outside the city, in the Pechersky Monastery), Arzamassky and Lyskovsky. These new comrades brought great excitement into our midst and became competitors for the highest places on the lists for the best students, as was soon discovered. The transition to seminary finally almost coincided with a big upheaval in our family life. Only a few months after my transition to the seminary, my parent was ordained a priest to another church (April, 1853) - St. George's, and on this occasion we moved to live from one part of the city to another, more central, prominent and close to the seminary. With the exception of these news, everything else regarding the external environment of educational life remains the same. We remained in the same seminary building, even, as far as I personally am concerned, in the same corridor of the building where the school classrooms were located; I only moved from one side of the corridor to the other, from the left of the entrance, with windows onto the street where the school was located, to the right, with windows into the courtyard. Here was the classroom of the 2nd department of the lower class, or literature, as this class was usually called then 39 . I ended up in this 2nd department, probably because I was the second student at the school, the first student, I.F. S-go, was appointed to the 1st department; My close relative and childhood friend F. G. El-ii, who was probably third or fifth on the list at the school (odd numbers were in the 1st, even numbers in the 2nd), was also enrolled there. This 1st department was located, although in the same building and on the same lower floor as our 2nd, but on the right side of the entrance and did not overlook the courtyard, like ours, but onto the street. These two departments existed in all three classes of the seminary (lower, middle and higher), had separate classrooms 40 and separate teachers. Only in rare cases were students from both departments united into one, in the absence of a teacher from any department, due to the occasion or his resignation, before the arrival of another, or illness. The lowest class of the seminary, or literature class: 1852/3–1853/4 academic years. This class taught: literature (or the official name - “rhetoric and poetry”), general history, algebra, geometry and Paschal, “catechetical teaching” (Orthodox Confession of Peter Mogila), “on liturgical books”, Holy Scripture, Greek and Latin 41. Of the teachers in this class, the most influential and very good mentor of ours was A. A. Krylov, 42 professor of literature, the main subject of his class. He was a great lover of purity and grace of style, an enemy of foreign expressions (“Gallicisms”), and in this regard he was a worthy student of Professor K. I. Luchitsky at the St. Petersburg Academy, with whom I also later studied. A. A. K-v began our training with sentences and simple periods, then conditional, concessive, etc., hrii, etc., then moved on to different types of verbal works, descriptions, narratives, etc. and to the characteristics of different syllables: simple, sublime... He borrowed samples mainly, almost exclusively, from Holy Scripture and the works of St. fathers, which was probably influenced by the Rev. Jeremiah. Moving on to poetry, he first introduced us to the different meters of verse, and then to the different types of poetic works: fable, ballad, ode, to the different types of poetry - lyrical, dramatic, novel, etc. He forced me to memorize samples of poems, like Derzhavin’s ode “God.” He also tested our ability to write poetry. I remember he gave us a task - to rearrange some fable, to express it in our own words, but in poetic form. Despite the amount of work required, my experience turned out to be very deplorable, even according to my own consciousness, and from the teacher I received the following review on my “problem”: “The author does not have the ability to write poetry, it is better for him to write prose.” Some of my comrades had this ability, especially I. Tikhomirov and P. Rumyantsev. A. A. K-v compiled his own notes on his subject, handing out sheets of them for each new lesson. Getting them for copying was a big concern for us, especially for self-sufficient students who lived in different parts of the city, often far from the seminary. Although our literature professor was not distinguished by any particular depth of thought and in this respect was inferior to his colleague in the 1st department, also master D.I. Strakhov 44, but in general, it must be admitted that he was more in his place than the latter, who should have been a teacher of logic and psychology, and not literature. The above-mentioned shortcoming of our mentor, generally respected and rather beloved by us, despite his mocking character, was felt by us especially at the last exam in literature (in 1854), which took place in the presence of an auditor from the Kazan Academy, Archimandrite Seraphim (Protopopov), 45, as it turned out, a professor at the academy specifically in the department of literature. Archimandrite Seraphim, very thin, very sickly in appearance, gave the impression of a very intelligent person with his face and especially his eyes. I had to answer about dramatic poetry. I conveyed what was in our notes, but Fr. The auditor did not find our definition of drama satisfactory, but gave his own, which struck me with its depth and sharply distinguished it from a number of other poetic works. I thought then what a huge difference there is between academic and seminar teaching. Our teacher of general civil history, Professor Nikolai Vasilyevich Okhotin (Reverend Gury, who later died as Archbishop of Novgorod), Master of the St. Petersburg Academy 46, a noble personality and a very good teacher, enjoyed great sympathy and respect among us. It was difficult to teach such a subject, which had as its textbook the pitiful history of Kaidanov. We tried to make up for the shortcomings of this unfortunate textbook by reading the history of Lorenz. A lesson from the history of the French Revolution remains in my memory. N.V. Oh-n, sitting on the teacher’s chair, held some kind of book in front of him and rather slowly but smoothly conveyed its contents. Apparently he translated from the original French. In the 1st department, this subject was taught by a much weaker mentor, V.F. Nikolsky 48 . But this department had a great advantage over our 2nd in the personality of its mentor in the class of mathematics (algebra, geometry and Easter) and related subjects, Rights. Confession and “about liturgical books” - candidate A.I. Ostroumova 49. He was a capable teacher, knew and loved his subject - mathematics, and worked very hard with his students; He even gave out his own notes on this subject. This is not what our teacher, also a candidate, I. S. Tikhonravov 50 imagined, who obviously fell into the wrong place, a very elderly man, a friend in the seminary (1834) of my father, and most importantly, a lover not of mathematics, but of archeology and especially ethnography, a zealous collector of this type of information, who encouraged us to do the same, but was not very diligent in his direct work, moreover, very hot-tempered, uneven character. The result was that we knew no mathematics at all. In her class we did whatever we could. I remember that my comrade and competitor for the championship, who, however, felt sympathy for me, Apol. Iv. Smirnov (later an ordinary professor of philosophy at Kazan University) decided to teach me French, which he already knew, it seemed to me, fairly well, but I did not know at all. Several classes went well for us, but finally I.S. noticed our classes and drove us forever from the first places (I was the first, A.I.S. the second student) to one of the back desks and, it seems, made us kneel. I don’t remember who the teacher of Holy Scripture was in this class; It’s also not clear from the archival information. I think that - Por. Ac. Vladimirsky 51, candidate, also an elderly man and also a friend of my father at the seminary, but who graduated from the course later than him (1836), because he remained in one of the classes for the second year, a man much better preserved than I.S. T-v, of an incomparably more calm, complacent character, who knew his subject and loved it. In this class the historical books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament and laws were taught. The Latin language was combined with literature, and Greek was usually combined with Holy Scripture, but it was taught by a special teacher - Master Ip. Iv. Svetovidov 52, a man of imperturbable character, cold temperament and an important, proud bearing, for which, probably, the Most Reverend did not love him. Jeremiah is generally a good teacher. I remember we translated excerpts from the works of St. Irenaeus of Lyons. New languages ​​and Hebrew were not obligatory for everyone; they will be discussed at the end of the review of the entire training course. Of the essays that we wrote on the given topics, I have preserved almost all of them. The least of all remained, of course, from the rhetorical class, since there was no interest in preserving exercises in composing periods, chries, etc. The first, as far as I remember, my verbal work, recognized by A. A. Krylov as very successful, the best of those written by my comrades, was the “description of the Annunciation Monastery” - modeled on the famous description of the Pechersk Monastery by gr. Solloguba. Next - “Discourse from the XIth article of the Creed: tea of ​​the resurrection of the dead” (with the designation in the margins: attack, division, study, 1st proof, 2nd, 3rd and conclusion). "Conversation between father and son about the Guardian Angel." "The Character of the Crusades." Reviews by Professor A.A. Krylova. The last essay was written on the topic of N.V. Okhotin († Archbishop of Guria), professor of general civil history. From the lower class to the middle class - philosophical - I moved as the first student, Ap. Iv. Smirnov was second, and V. Ya. Rozhansky, later a bachelor of the Kazan Academy, was third on the list. Middle class - philosophical: 1854/5–1855/6 academic years. This class taught: logic and psychology (1st year), patristics (2nd year), biblical history, Russian civil history, physics, natural history and agriculture, Holy Scripture (teaching and prophetic books of the Old Testament), Greek and Latin languages. The main subjects were logic and psychologists with patristics. In our 2nd department these subjects, along with the Latin language, were taught by master A.F. Lazarenko 53. He gave out his own, well-written notes, and when he was not asking students about a given lesson, he lectured in an academic manner, without a notebook, walking around the class. He had the gift of words, spoke simple, clear Russian, without foreign expressions, went into the subject quite deeply and was generally an excellent teacher, and he had a noble and sympathetic character. I remember a lot from his teaching, in particular about magnetism and mesmerism, from patristics - about the Alexandrian school. Towards the end of the course in this class, he gave several of the best students, I remember the three first on the list, special topics for their “coursework,” as he put it, essays. It is wonderful that he gave me an analysis of the “Catechetical and Mystical Teachings of St. Cyril of Jerusalem,” as if anticipating my inclination towards theological subjects, while Apostle. Iv. Smirnov - a topic of a philosophical nature (I don’t remember which one), which also corresponded to the mood of this very gifted friend of mine, who was later, as stated above, a professor of philosophy at Kazan University. With my essay, quite large in size, carefully and skillfully (with a selection of the most significant and characteristic in this work of the Holy Father), compiled and very harmoniously and well presented, A.F. L-ko was very pleased and gave it a review: “wonderful essay.” Our department, in the person of this teacher, had an advantage over the 1st, in which these subjects were taught by the master of the Kazan Academy Pavel Ivanovich Raev (later Metropolitan Palladius of St. Petersburg). P.I. Raev, although he was also a very good, capable, knowledgeable of his subject and a very diligent teacher, still, in our opinion, was inferior to A.F. L-ko. I vividly remember the first time I saw P.I. Raev 54 in the seminary church, during the all-night vigil (apparently in 1853, in the fall). Like now, I see him, tall, thin, with a characteristic face. I immediately learned from my comrades that this was a new professor of philosophy, who had just arrived from Kazan, the second, as they said then, but in fact the third master of his course, and that he was a specialist in history itself. He also gave out his notes on philosophical subjects and patristics. Biblical history, according to the textbook of Metropolitan Philaret, was taught by us: Master of the Moscow Academy Gr. A. Politkovsky 55 , and in the 1st department - Master of the Kyiv Academy K. I. Milovidov 56 , at the end of the course of this class for both departments - the last one, that is, K. I. M-v. Both of them were very capable teachers. The first is a very intelligent and thorough person, who, however, did not have the gift of speech, and the second is brilliant and eloquent, with a very prominent and representative appearance. I don’t remember who taught general church history and where 57. If in this class, and not in the higher one, in which it is supposed to be according to the normal schedule 58, then undoubtedly the above-mentioned mentors, that is, Gr. A. P-kiy and K. I. Milovidov. The textbook was “Church History” by Rev. Innocent (Penza), in two parts, an old textbook (from 1807), rich in content, but dry, full of fragmentary information; events are divided by century. It did not give a complete and coherent idea of ​​the events of church life and was more like a detailed summary of the history of the church than history in the proper sense. Russian civil history was taught, according to Ustryalov’s textbook, by the same teacher as in the lower class, general civil history - N.V. Okhotin († Archbishop Gury) - until 1856, and from 1856 - A.I. Steklov, at that time a candidate, and later (1868) master of the Kazan Academy, who was then rector of the Nizhny Novgorod Seminary (1868) 59, a capable teacher, but rather rude and harsh in character. Physics - the same as mathematics in the lower: I. S. Tikhonravov, in our 2nd department, and A. I. Ostroumov in the 1st department, and with the same success and character of teaching. Natural history (zoology, botany, mineralogy) and agriculture were taught here by L. I. Sakharov, 60 a dedicated and good teacher. We learned from notes passed from course to course and bought from predecessors - with many errors, such as, for example, the following: pigeons are distinguished by “monotony” - instead of “monogy”. This is precisely how one student once answered a lesson in class, referring to the notes in which it was written: “monotony.” We were given a lot of information on botany and zoology; Some things have remained in my memory until now, but, of course, not much. These subjects were considered not even secondary, but, one might say, tertiary, and we paid very little attention to them. Holy Scripture (teaching and prophetic books of the Old Testament) - first Porus. A. Vladimirsky, as in the lower class, until July 1855, and then - mentor of the 1st department, candidate P. I. Nevzorov - in both departments. P. A. Vladimirsky was a good, respectable teacher here too. He forced us to memorize wonderful passages and sayings from the books of the Proverbs of Solomon, the Wisdom of Solomon and from the book of the Wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirach; For this alone one can remember him kindly. This is not what his successor P. I. Nevzorov, a candidate at the St. Petersburg Academy 61, imagined. Prominent and even handsome, quite rich, thanks to his wife, he was considered an aristocrat among our teachers, but was not outstanding in intelligence, was not engaged in his subject, but in extraneous commercial enterprises, in which he became entangled, and even ended up on trial. The Latin language was combined with logic, psychology and patristics, the Greek was first read separately. Iv. Svetovidov, then V.F. Nikolsky (together with the 1st department) and finally A.I. Steklov. I have saved a lot of essays from this class, it seems like everything. In addition to the above analysis of the “Catechetical and Mystical Teachings of St. Cyril of Jerusalem" the following topics were given in logic, psychology, patristics: "What does it mean to think?", "Discourse on the meaning of historical knowledge in the field of knowledge", "On the influence of temperaments on the spiritual life of man", "Why are people afraid at night?", "Whoever does not offend himself, no one can offend (Chrysostom)", "What is the purpose of human existence on earth?", "On the direction of the fatherly writings of the 4th century", "On the relationship between faith and knowledge according to the teachings of the Alexandrian catechists”, “On the direction of the patristic writings of the 2nd and 3rd centuries”, “Life of Blessed. Augustine as a most instructive example of God’s providence for the salvation of man.” According to Holy Scripture: “The spirit of the sacrifice to God is broken (Psalm 51:19)”, “Whoever repays evil for good, the evil one will not move from his house (Wis. Sol. 17:13)”, “Blessed is man, God rebuke him, but do not turn away from the punishment of the Almighty (Job 5:17).” Finally, there is one “Teaching on the fulfillment of Christian duty, that is, confession from an early age - from the year, St. established by the Church." All essays with marks and evaluation were read by A. F. Lazarenko and (according to Holy Scripture) P. A. Vladimirsky. The teaching is without a review, but with the signature: “Amen” - probably from Rector Theophilus. I moved from the middle - philosophical - class to the highest, theological, class, as the second student on the list, and Ap. Iv. Smirnov, as befits a future professor of philosophy, was the first, 62 V. Ya. Rozhansky was the third. Higher - theological - class: 1856/7–1857/8 academic years. The following subjects were taught in this class: dogmatic theology, moral theology, the positions of elders, doctrine of confessions (with schism), homiletics, Holy Scripture (New Testament), the foundation of church laws and canon law, church antiquities and rituals, church history, history of the Russian Church, reading of St. fathers of the Greek Church, medicine and agriculture. Dogmatic theology was taught in both departments, according to the textbook of Archimandrite Anthony, first (in the September third of 1856) by the rector, Archimandrite Theophilus (Nadezhdin), and then by his successor, Archimandrite Paisius (Poniatovsky). The first, with a rather bright and strong head, gave the impression of an efficient mentor. It remains in my memory that in his teaching about God he developed the thought: “God is light.” The teaching of Archimandrite Paisius somehow slipped out of my memory; it probably did not represent anything special in either direction. In “A Brief Commemorative Historical Note of the Nizhny Novgorod Theological Seminary” by A. Tikhov it is reported that Rev. Jeremiah petitioned (January 11, 1857) before the Holy Synod for the appointment of inspector Archimandrite Paisius as successor to rector Theophilus (December 8, 1856 appointed bishop in Samara, and January 13, 1857 ordained bishop in St. Petersburg, see “Lists of bishops, bishops’ departments...” by Y. Tolstoy). At the same time, he asked for the release of the new rector, a man already “in advanced years,” from teaching dogmatic theology and missionary subjects (this fact was unknown to us, the then students). On February 7, this proposal was approved by the Holy Synod, but the new rector was not released from teaching. Probably, a memorable incident from the temporary teaching of this subject by A. A. Krylov, then already a priest, dates back to this period of time (January and the first half of February 1857), probably on the verbal order of the Right Reverend, which is why, according to archival information, there were no traces of such an order. During one of the lessons, Fr. comes to our class. A. A. Kr-v brings some kind of book with him, pointing to which he says in his characteristic humorous tone: “Here is a little book, small in volume, but containing a lot of things”; It seems that this is exactly how he characterized it, then he began to read some pages from it. Unfortunately, he did not explain to us the great significance of this creation of St. father, who constituted the code of all patristic theology and even the quintessence of the ancient philosophical and cosmological worldview, and perhaps he himself did not realize this clearly enough. It seemed to me then inappropriate and even strange that he was reading to us from this old book, instead of reading something from another, newer one, or giving his explanations, giving us his lecture. I did not think then that during my professorial service at the St. Petersburg Academy I would have to turn so much and so often to this creation of St. father, in a joking tone for the first time recommended to me by my seminar mentor. Other theological subjects - moral theology, the doctrine of the positions of presbyters, the doctrine of confessions, schism, homiletics - here, in the 2nd department, were first taught, perhaps, by the inspector Archimandrite Paisius, or rather, both departments were taught by the assistant rector, master P. P. Vladimirov 63 , in the last year (1857/58), from July 1857 - Hieromonk Dionysius (Aretinsky), candidate of the Kazan Academy 64. Distinguished, personable, gifted, with good diction, he was generally a very good teacher, the most outstanding in this class, he even published his own notes on the doctrine of the positions of elders. We wondered why he graduated from the academy as a candidate and not as a master 65. I remember I liked how, in the class of practical theology, or homiletics, he read to us, with good intonation and even oratorical techniques, the excellent work of the famous Kyiv professor Y. K. Amfiteatrov: “Conversations on the attitude of the Church towards Orthodox Christians.” Unfortunately, he suffered from one weakness (for alcoholic drinks), which, as was heard, brought him to an early grave when he was the rector of the Vyatka Seminary (1860–1863). Of our other teachers, very few were susceptible to this weakness; You can only name two or three people. Canon law and church antiquities and rituals were taught: first by P. P. Myshkin, master of the Kazan Academy 66, and then by candidate of the Kyiv Academy I. V. Petropavlovsky 67. I have no memories of the first one, I only remember his appearance. The second, who had just arrived from the Kyiv Academy, was not without talent, a hot temperament, very diligent and not without the gift of eloquence, impressed us with new teaching techniques - for example, he organized debates between the best students on topics in canon law. There was an excellent textbook on this subject - the famous work of the Kyiv professor I. M. Skvortsov. There were some old notes on church archeology. If general church history was taught in this class (either all of it, or in the second half), then the teacher was the same P.P. Myshkin and I.V. Petropavlovsky, according to the above-mentioned textbook by Rev. Innocent. The history of the Russian Church was taught here, in the 2nd department, first by P. P. Myshkin, then by A. I. Steklov, and in 1857/58 by I. V. Petropavlovsky. The textbook was “History of the Russian Church” by A. N. Muravyov, an extremely bad textbook. In its vacuity and abundance of phrases and commonplaces, it could successfully compete with Kaidanov’s textbook on general civil history. I don’t know how we made up for the lack of information on this subject, it seems like nothing. In general, we had very little knowledge of Russian church history, which was especially noticeable during the entrance exam to the academy. Holy Scripture (New Testament), Greek and Latin languages (reading the Greek and Latin holy fathers) in 1856/57, in both departments - P. I. Nevzorov, and in 1858 - Master of the Kazan Academy I. T. Zlatoobrezov 68, an efficient teacher, but of a cold, apathetic nature, tried to introduce a detailed commentary of passages into his readings Holy Scriptures. I remember his comment on the words: “Paul is an apostle.” Medicine was taught first, and very unimportantly, by seminar doctors - Tsvetkov (who was also always more or less tipsy) and Bezsonov, and then, for a short time, towards the end of the academic year (from February 1858), by a military doctor, doctor of medicine N. E. Florentisky. The latter was an excellent teacher, he read real lectures to us, walking around the classroom (of course, without a notebook), and spoke eloquently and passionately. I remember how he drew pictures for us and conveyed the history of various diseases: consumption, typhoid, dropsy, etc., and indicated methods of treating them. We listened to him with great attention and imagined ourselves suffering from various diseases, depending on what disease was being discussed, although the doctor warned us not to fall into this mistake, from which, according to him, even students of the medical academy were not free, when they began to take a pathology course. Medicine, as well as natural history and agriculture, was studied from notes passed on and repurchased from previous courses and also full of errors. For example, I remember: “tip” bone instead of “coccygeal bone”. Doctor Tsvetkov noticed this error - almost in my answer. New languages ​​were optional, as was Hebrew. I chose German. At the very beginning of my studies at the seminary, in literature, I went to the class of this language with P. M. Sladkopevtsev 69 - probably from the fall of 1852, when he was still in the service at our seminary, teaching logic, psychology and patristics in the middle class of the 1st department. Here we learned German from him, together with the later very famous writer of the liberal camp, N. A. Dobrolyubov 70 . N.A. Dobrolyubov was then in the theological class of the seminary, stood first on the list (2nd department) and was famous for his extraordinary talent, the same hard work and exemplary behavior. After P. M. S. left our seminary, we studied German from D. I. Strakhov. I studied Hebrew from Ap. P. Poniatovsky, master of the Kyiv Academy 71, son of the rector Paisiy (Poniatovsky). A.P. P. was a very nice man; I knew Hebrew, but we studied it poorly. Of the essays written in this class, many have survived - it seems, even all of them. The topics were: “What is the purpose of the image of God in man?”, “The robe of a man and the laughter of a man’s teeth and feet will proclaim him (Eccl. 19:27).” “On the importance of the triple duty of the shepherd of the Church: to teach, to officiate and to govern.” “On the need for the clergy in the Church of Christ, as a separate class.” “What means were used by God’s Providence, during times of persecution, to preserve, establish and spread the Christian Church?” and six sermons for different holidays. The works were read by rector Paisiy, inspector hieromonk Dionysius, professors K. I. Milovidov and P. P. Vladimirov and teacher I. V. Petropavlovsky. Particularly successful for me were: the argument “On the Necessity of the Clergy...” (reviewed by I.V. P-ii) and two sermons - on the day of the descent of the Holy Spirit and on the birthday of the Sovereign Emperor (reviewed by Hieromonk Dionysius), with very flattering praise for the young author. While studying in the higher theological class, I took first place on the list and retained this place even when I graduated from the seminary. Classroom classes were held twice a day: from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. and from 2 to 4 a.m., two-hour lessons each. Teachers asked students for assigned lessons, and noted the merits of the answers in their notebooks. The same thing, of course, was done with the marks on our essays, which were given points according to the system: 1, 2 72. The teachers therefore knew well the progress of each student, as a result of which the exams were carried out more for form. They took place twice a year, before Christmas and before the summer holidays (from July 15 to September 1), did not last long, and not every student was asked about every subject, so that no more than two or three days were assigned to each class. During the exams, topics were given for impromptu essays in Russian and Latin; these impromptu songs were written in class. As the reader can see, we were taught a lot of subjects. The difficulty of studying them was eased by dividing them into main and secondary ones, and also by the fact that the works were valued most of all, which is why our primary attention was paid to them and most of our time was spent. Their place in the list and rank depended mainly on their dignity; Of course, oral responses were not ignored. How the rank lists were compiled was unknown to us, the students. As for the seminary teachers of that time, there were many very talented people among them. At that time there was not yet an almost complete flight of seminarians to secular higher educational institutions, universities, etc.; For the best students of the seminary, it was a cherished dream to get into the theological academy (as we also dreamed, at a relatively late time, in the late 50s), and they went to our academies, and from there they were appointed teachers in the seminary. That is why most of the seminary teachers of my time were very good teachers, conscientiously and skillfully fulfilling their difficult duties, despite extremely meager salaries. The annual salary was: master - 257 rubles. and master's salary 100 rubles, candidate - 257 rubles. and candidate 71 rubles, for teaching optional new languages ​​and Hebrew - 85 rubles. (increase in salary), for inspection - 128 rubles, for the housekeeper (from the seminary mentors - also an increase) - 128 rubles, for the secretary of the board - 85 rubles, for the librarian - 71 rubles. 73. The meagerness of such salaries forced the vast majority of teachers, with very few exceptions, to occupy either priestly positions in parish churches or teaching positions in various educational institutions, while continuing to teach at the seminary. This combination of jobs did not significantly affect his success. To finish with the outstanding personalities of the teachers of that time, whom I knew, although I did not study with them, I should mention Hieromonk Macarius (Mirolyubov, died Archbishop of Don, in 1894) 74 and Veniamin Ivanovich Nikolaevsky (Antony, Bishop of Penza, † 1889) 75 . I saw the former many times in the rank of hieromonk, when I was still in school, and then, several times, when I was already serving at the academy, and Reverend. Macarius was a bishop in Nizhny (first as a vicar of Balakhninsky, and then, a few years later, of Nizhny Novgorod). He was one of the most outstanding teachers of the seminary, served in it for a long time (9 years) and carried out various assignments of the Right Reverends - for example, he examined a collection of sermons (including my father's), etc. A famous archaeologist, a describer of Nizhny Novgorod and Novgorod antiquities, he was an extremely lively, agile man, with simple, rather vulgar manners. When he arrived from Arkhangelsk to Nizhny, already as a diocesan bishop, one of the members of the Nizhny Novgorod clergy expressed him this way: “A blizzard, a hurricane from the North, came upon us.” V.I. I remember Nikolaevsky (Reverend Anthony of Penza) as a secular man. As an assistant inspector, he even visited us, in our small house, visiting the apartments of seminary students; At that time, my father’s older brothers lived with us. He served for 14 years at the Nizhny Novgorod Seminary as a teacher of various subjects, initially physics and mathematics (10 years), was a very good mentor and a very kind, even virtuous person. I remember him as a hieromonk, when serving in the seminary church, and especially during the bishop’s services under the Most Reverend. Jeremiah. He was born in Kostroma, he spoke with a Kostroma accent, he was original in his speech, his voice had a very high, sharp timbre. The most influential people in the seminary were, of course, its rectors. During my studies there, the rectors were: Archimandrite Theophilus (Nadezhdin), Master of the St. Petersburg Academy 76 (during almost the entire course of my seminary course: 1851–1857), and Master of the Kyiv Academy - Archimandrite Paisiy (Poniatovsky) 77 (for only a year and a half: 1857–1858). Rector Theophilus, a man of strong, imperious character, paid due attention to the academic part, but cared little about the economic part, which, after leaving his rectorship (1857), was noticed by the Most Rev. Jeremiah. In the seminary, in his words, “in many ways it is far from what it was now” compared to what it was under rector Apollonius and what he, the Right Reverend, found in 1851, upon his arrival at the Nizhny Novgorod flock, “in the classrooms, in the hospital, in the life of the students, and in the church” 78 . This was noticeable to us, the students, too. When I entered the seminary, everywhere - both in the classrooms and in the premises of the government-funded students - I was struck by the extraordinary cleanliness and order. The floors were covered with rugs, or thick canvas, even under the desks. At the end of the seminary, everything somehow fell into disrepair, became old, shabby, and no serious repairs were made. And if a year later (1858), during the rectorship of Archimandrite Paisius, something very unpleasant happened to our seminary (which will be discussed later), precisely as a result of the neglect of its economic part, then the rector Theophilus is almost entirely to blame for this, who received the seminary in a brilliant form from his predecessor (Apollonius) and was not able or did not bother to maintain it in its previous condition, not to mention improvements 79 . In other respects, he was a good rector, authoritative, monitored the educational part, demanded, for example, student written work to look at him and every day, during school hours, the class attendants with class magazines. The following incident happened to me regarding these duties. In the theological, and it seems also in the philosophical, class, I was permanently on duty, and for a long time everything went well. Rector Theophilus treated me very well; It seems that he was the one who insisted that I always come to him with a cool magazine. But then one day I come to him, show him the magazine, the rector looked at the magazine and suddenly said to me: “Ask to another seminary, this is not your place.” It turned out that I did not register one of my bureaucratic friends, who was leaving the classroom and at that time did something in the busy rooms, and the rector, to my misfortune, immediately found out. Of course, I didn’t apply to any other seminary, the rector never reminded me of that, and in general everything went on as before, that is, I continued to go to him with the magazine; I received no punishment. By the way, about punishments in the seminary. In the lower class they were still forced to kneel for being late for lessons; on average, it seems, even that was not the case. Punishment with rods was allowed in the seminary in the most urgent cases, when students committed any particularly important offenses, and was carried out not in classes, but in the board of the seminary, through the guards, according to its special definition. I recall no more than two such cases during the entire seminar course. The successor of Archimandrite Theophilus, rector Archimandrite Paisiy (Poniatovsky), served in our seminary for 30 years before his rectorship, in many positions, starting as a teacher of literature (1827). Upon his acceptance (1847) of monasticism and priesthood (I vaguely remember him still being secular), he switched to theological subjects, for a long time (20 years, 1831-1852) he was a librarian, and then for almost the same amount of time (15 years, from 1842 to 1857) - an inspector, first (until 1846) acting as inspector, and then (from 1846) - active inspector, was therefore already a very elderly man, moreover, he had an indecisive character and without a practical mindset, but at heart he was a very kind and generally very respectable old man. He, of course, knew the seminary very well and lived through different periods of its history, both the period of its decline, and the brilliant one - Apollonius, and Theophilus, when it again began to decline - in one, however, only the economic part, but did not take measures for its rise in this regard 80. Although Rev. Jeremiah, as stated above, drew his attention to this side, but he still left everything the same, for which he paid, as we will see later. Under this rector, F. G. Eleonsky and I completed the full seminar course in 1858. In addition to our teachers and superiors, the then-Reverend Jeremiah of Nizhny Novgorod made a particularly strong impression on us seminarians with his extraordinary personality and the character of his management of the Nizhny Novgorod diocese. He was our diocesan bishop for almost the entire time of our studies at the seminary - until June 17, 1857. We heard many stories about his domineering actions in relation to the local clergy and about his struggle with the secular authorities regarding their attempts to interfere in church affairs. But first of all, let’s talk about his attitude towards the seminary and towards us, seminarians, towards our studies. Since the bishop's house was located (as it still is) behind the seminary, directly adjacent to it and communicating with it through a gate in the fence that separated them, this Eminence, like our other bishops, could unexpectedly appear at the seminary at any time, which he often did, to the slight pleasure of the seminary authorities, in particular the rector Theophilos. Rev. Jeremiah demanded that before the services all students, not excluding those from apartments, gather in the seminary hall and go in order to the seminary church, he often ordered us to be present at his bishop’s services in the cathedral, in addition, he forced us to learn all the evening and morning prayers (this was, it seems, in literature) and ordered that in the seminary church during the all-night vigil we read, in turn, six psalms and kathismas. I also had to do this last thing, which terribly worried me, shy and weak-voiced. And when in 1855 the Kharkov University (founded in 1805) celebrated its 50th anniversary and on this occasion many speeches were made in Latin, we were obliged, by his order, to learn all of them by heart. I remember there were at least three or four of them. While present at the exams at the seminary, for some reason he did not ask the students any questions or raise any objections. Humbling the pride of mind in himself and others, perhaps he did not want to feed it with co-questioning. Or, perhaps, he was thinking some thought. Looking at us with intently penetrating and at the same time thoughtful eyes, he was as if in a contemplative state, thinking what would come out of us, the chicks of his flock, what fruits we would bear for the Church of Christ. He treated me with no less favor than at school. At public exams, the best students had their essays read. I have preserved two copies of such an essay, from a philosophy class, on a topic given, I remember, by the Most Reverend himself: “On the works of the Most Reverend. Pitirim, Archbishop of Nizhny Novgorod, as the founder of the Nizhny Novgorod Seminary." On the first copy there is the inscription Reverend. Jeremiah: “to write in the book”; on the second - “write a copy of this for me. June 14, 1855." I don’t remember whether I read this essay at the public exam, but judging by the address to the bishop at the end (“Most Reverend Bishop,” “gracious Archpastor,” etc.), one must think that I pronounced it from the pulpit. It should be added that the final edition of this little work of mine was not complete without the participation of the teacher, A.F. Lazarenko. As before, as in the school, on the great holidays of the Nativity of Christ and Easter, the Most Reverend was greeted. Jeremiah in speeches by seminary students of different classes. I had to make welcoming speeches more than once. I remember once giving a speech in Russian; Many speeches were made in foreign languages. I don’t remember who composed these speeches. If I’m not mistaken, among the students of other higher classes who gave speeches was P.V. Znamensky, later an emeritus professor of the Kazan Academy and its famous historian, the author of many major works on Russian church history, the just pride of our Nizhny Novgorod seminary. He was older than me only by his seminary course. In relations with the subordinate clergy, Rev. Jeremiah was strict, but he did not treat all his offenses strictly without distinction. He was even quite lenient towards his usual weaknesses, such as drunkenness, especially when he saw the repentance of the culprit. But what he never forgave and punished mercilessly was disobedience and pride. Such a harsh attitude towards these sins was undoubtedly reflected in his ascetic mood, to which he remained faithful throughout his life, from his student days (his refusal of any academic degree) to his acceptance of the schema, during the 27 years of his life in monastic solitude, in retirement. There were several cases of severe punishment of persons guilty in this regard, but especially severely he punished one of our venerable mentor, I. I. Svetovidov, who was noticed by the Eminence in this sin and for this reason was transferred several times from place to place. In general, Rev. Jeremiah loved to transfer priests and deacons from one place to another, for which the clergy greatly grumbled at him, and not without reason. He probably did this, again coming out of his ascetic views: “the imams of the city are not here,” but sometimes it was very difficult for the clergy, and the true interests of the parish pastors and their small flocks almost suffered from this. In general, Rev. Jeremiah had an unyielding and decisive character. A zealot of the faith of Christ and piety, he once surprised the entire city by sealing the Annunciation Cathedral during Holy Week and throughout Easter. Driving past this church on Good Friday to the cathedral to take out the Shroud, he saw that the grocery stores located under this church were open and trading. This was enough for him not to stop before the aforementioned decisive measure. A murmur began from the admittedly few parishioners of this church (there is another church nearby), and its rector, the oldest at that time and respected by all, Archpriest P. I. Lebedev, begged the Right Reverend in every possible way to remove the seals at least on the first day of Easter, but to no avail; the seals remained until St. Thomas Week. For those seeking positions as psalmists, deacons and even priests, Rev. Jeremiah established the position of examiner, which he entrusted to my parent, who was highly respected by him for his strict life and for his preaching, a rare, as he once put it, his “protege” 81. The exam consisted of testing the examinee's ability to read well and separately during worship, sing, and knowledge of the church charter and catechism. From 1854 to 1857, many people stayed with us, both with lower and secondary education, and were tested when assigned to various places. It happened to see even quite respectable seminary students, former national teachers, seeking the priesthood. In these cases, my parent, in his humility and in the consciousness of his low education and recent ordination to the priesthood, was very shy and embarrassed, but had to fulfill the will of the bishop, who was pleased to entrust the fulfillment of this important duty to him, and not to any honored archpriest or monastic person, even if undeserved. This Eminence, obviously, had his own special assessment of people - not according to the years of service and not according to the color of the clergy. With the secular authorities, Rev. Jeremiah, generally speaking, did not get along, and it was difficult for him, with his character and principles, to get along in such cases when they, such as the then Nizhny Novgorod governor, Prince Urusov, interfered in church affairs. They told, for example, such a case. Rev. arrives. Jeremiah serves the liturgy at the Nizhny Novgorod Fair Cathedral. He is given a vestment that is not the one he has appointed, but a different one, and when asked why it is not the one intended for him, they answer that such is the order of the governor of the province. They said that because of this incident, unpleasant correspondence arose between the bishop and the governor, and the matter almost reached St. Petersburg. And all this happened because the Nizhny Novgorod governors always (even before the appearance of the provision on enhanced security) considered themselves the absolute masters of the Nizhny Novgorod fair, including in the local cathedral. And in the city, as if on purpose to tempt them, the governor’s house was, as it is now, in a fortress just opposite the cathedral (also in a fortress), leading the governors to various thoughts, and the natural desire was to let the bishop feel the power of the governor’s power and try to manage at least a little in the bishop’s area, the symbol of which (the cathedral) was an eyesore every minute, like a symbol of someone else’s power, completely from not dependent on them. The situation is indeed not entirely natural, especially since the bishop's house was located just opposite the theater, on one of the streets closest, however, to the fortress and the cathedral. The city residents did not find it natural either. At that time they joked, asking: Where does the governor live? Against the cathedral. Where is the bishop? Against the theater. This is how it was under Rev. Jeremiah, when an old wooden theater stood directly opposite his bishop’s house, which later burned down. It burned to the ground before the eyes of the Reverend. Jeremiah, who is said to have blessed the raging flames. Now the theater is made of stone and is located in a completely different place. This Right Reverend protected the clergy from attacks from landowners and secular authorities. And there was one such case with my father. The judicial authorities tried in every possible way to find out from my father about the reasons for the death of one merchant’s wife, his spiritual daughter, who was his farewell before his death. Suspicion arose regarding her unnatural death, self-poisoning. The father was interrogated as a witness, they tried to find out from him what the deceased told him before her death. The father, of course, refused to answer this question; stated that he could only say what he saw, and not what was told to him in confession, due to its secrecy. The Reverend, having learned about this matter, called his father, confirmed him in his decision and, in addition, entered into communication with the judicial authorities, and argued that they did not have the right to interrogate the priest-confessor. To what extent he protected the dignity of the episcopal rank, held its banner high and firmly and was alien to servility before the powers that be, is shown by the following remarkable incident. Towards the end of his administration of the Nizhny Novgorod diocese, the prince died - the Georgian prince, one of the descendants of the Georgian kings, who had a huge estate in the village of Lyskovo, almost the owner of this entire village 82. He was a man of a very kind heart and extremely generous, but of an unbridled disposition and an extremely passionate temperament. They said that in addition to many grave sins of the flesh, he also had many murderous crimes in his soul. In unbridled anger, he was capable of killing a person, but an outburst passed and he did not know how to make up for it, he was ready to give any reward to the person he had beaten, which they often took advantage of, deliberately irritating him, then running away from him and finally, when his anger passed, coming to him for a reward. So, this eminent prince-prince, according to ordinary human judgment, a great sinner, although not without good deeds, dies. Invite Rev. Jeremiah to come to the village of Lyskovo for the funeral service. And it should be noted that just at this time (September 20, 1856) the son-in-law of this Georgian prince, Count. Tolstoy Alexander Petrovich, namesake of the subsequent chief prosecutor, so memorable to the spiritual department, Dm. Andr. Tolstoy, a very religious and pious man, and also, without a doubt, well known to the Eminence, since before that (in 1855) he was the head of the Nizhny Novgorod militia. Thus, everything seemed to favor the invitation being accepted, but Rev. Jeremiah responded with a decisive refusal, motivating his refusal with all frankness approximately like this: the late prince, in his life, full of grave sins, does not deserve the honor of a bishop's funeral service; in fact, he should have been deprived of a simple Christian burial, and therefore let them bury the prince without him. This refusal to travel to the village of Lyskovo was rumored, and probably not without reason, to be connected with the request of the Most Reverend. Jeremiah about his dismissal from the management of the diocese. Not many Eminences, if they were in his place, would have acted as he did. And it was not without reason that Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, having learned about the removal of the Most Reverend. Jeremiah to retire, expressed regret and added: we need more such people 83. One cannot help but think that if our late ruler had lived in ancient times, he would have made a wonderful patriarch, similar to our fellow countryman, Patriarch Nikon, although with a fate that was probably not much different from the fate of the latter. Just before his retirement, Rev. Jeremiah lost a friend of many years, starting from early youth, Archbishop of Kherson Innocent (Borisov), who died on May 27, 1857 - therefore, three weeks before the resignation of our bishop (June 17 of the same year). On one of the last days of May, suddenly, at an unusual time, the sounds of a large cathedral bell are heard, we, seminarians, are gathered in the cathedral for a memorial service, and we see the mournful face of our bishop, commemorating his famous friend. Even then we knew about their long-term friendship, but, of course, we did not know what later became known from the published memoirs of the Most Reverend. Jeremiah about Rev. Innocent 84. In these memoirs there is a very characteristic comparison that outlines their mutual relationship - one friend to another. Rev. Jeremiah compares himself to a strong but barren branch supporting a beautiful apple tree laden with fruit (Reverend Innocent). June 17, 1857 Rev. Jeremiah retired to the Nizhny Novgorod Pechersky Monastery, joining the brethren without managing the monastery. It is unknown whether he himself asked to be arranged this way or whether the higher authorities decided so; most likely the first 85. Here he spent many years in a small cell, with a very small church, with the novice Hierodeacon Nikon (later archimandrite and steward of the St. Petersburg Metropolitan House, under Metropolitan Palladius), performed divine services in this church as a simple priest, never left the monastery for many years, and for a long time did not receive any visitors. But then he began to accept me, accepted me too, although not earlier than ten years after my retirement, when I was already a professor at the St. Petersburg Academy, he immediately found out, was very friendly and even asked me to send my father to him for a conversation about spiritual life. A few years later, Rev. Jeremiah moved from the Pechersky monastery to another one in Nizhny Novgorod, Fedorovsky (Gorodetsky), and then to Blagoveshchensky, located in Nizhny itself. Here he died on December 6, 1884, at the age of 83, in the schema with the name John, having been in retirement for 27 years. After his removal from the episcopal see, we, the residents of Nizhny Novgorod, missed his magnificent episcopal service, 86 and in general I heard from many people expressing regret that we had lost such a wonderful bishop. Succeeded by Rev. Jeremiah, Rev. Anthony (Pavlinsky), master of the St. Petersburg Academy 87, had little resemblance to his predecessor - both in appearance and, especially, in his distinctive character and spiritual traits. True, he was of a representative, impressive appearance, tall, rather full of himself, of strong build, but his appearance did not have the grace that distinguished the entire figure of the Most Reverend. Jeremiah, and by character he was a calm, even-tempered person, benevolent, not without firmness in necessary cases, with a practical mindset, without being carried away by ideal tasks and aspirations - in a word, he was largely the opposite of his predecessor. The life of the Nizhny Novgorod clergy under him, of course, was much easier and calmer than under the Most Reverend. Jeremiah. He was not completely indifferent to the seminary, but he did not show any particular concern for it; at least in my memories, no facts related to this were preserved. It was under him that, in 1858, on August 21, that is, during the holidays of the year when we graduated from the seminary course, a very memorable visit to the seminary by the Sovereign Emperor Alexander II took place. They said then that the Emperor, several times passing by the seminary - a prominent, even beautiful building, located on the route of his departures from the governor's house (his temporary residence), became interested in the seminary building and at a dinner given to the Nizhny Novgorod authorities and city representatives, asked the Most Reverend. Antonia: Your seminary is good on the outside, but how is it on the inside? The Eminence allegedly replied that he could not boast of its internal improvement, but, judging by the small funds allocated for it, it was maintained in proper order. The Emperor noted that he intended to visit her. This visit took place on August 21, at 4 o’clock in the afternoon, and was very unfavorable for the seminary. This was during the holidays, and during the holidays, with a complete absence of students, both self-paid and government-paid, complete desolation usually reigned in the seminary; there was less order and cleanliness than even during school hours. Classrooms and living rooms were locked, the hospital, in the absence of patients, turned into a storage room for furniture and other household belongings. This was approximately the case this time, during the Highest visit. However, probably, the classrooms were open and some of the living rooms were open, which they wanted to show to the Emperor, but undoubtedly not all, because, as they said, he wanted to pay attention to some rooms that turned out to be locked and hardly even the keys were prepared in case of their inspection; the hospital was undoubtedly locked and had an unusual appearance. The Emperor, accustomed to seeing exemplary order and cleanliness in secular educational institutions, was extremely dissatisfied with everything he saw here, 88 and the sight of the hospital-storeroom completely outraged him. It was reported that the Emperor even stamped his foot and said the following words, which were very unflattering for the seminary. Unfortunately, Rev. For some reason, Anthony was not present at the Most High visit to the seminary, although the bishop's house is located, as noted above, behind it and communicates with it by a gate, so it was enough for about five to ten minutes to appear at the seminary; but, probably, rector Paisiy was confused and forgot to notify the Right Reverend about the arrival of the Sovereign, or Most Reverend. Anthony was not at home at the time. At the conclusion of his inspection (it seems, precisely after examining the hospital), the Emperor, turning to the rector, ordered that the Right Reverend be told that he was very dissatisfied with the seminary, “say so,” the Emperor concluded. I convey the story of this Most High visit to our seminary on the basis of the stories circulating at that time, without, of course, vouching for their unconditional correctness, as regards all particulars. The day of August 21 had fatal consequences, first of all, of course, for the leadership of the seminary, its rector, Archimandrite Paisius, who was first temporarily removed from his post, and then soon completely dismissed from the spiritual and educational service 89. The question involuntarily comes to mind how the former rector of our seminary, Archimandrite Apollonius, felt, then still living, with the rank of rector of the Moscow Simonov Monastery († October 9, 1861), when he learned how the Highest visit to his beloved brainchild, our seminary, ended, on the improvement of which and bringing into a brilliant form, especially its economic part, he put so much effort and effort and which it passed into other hands only seven years ago (1851). Five years after the event described above, the Nizhny Novgorod Seminary finally managed to restore its reputation. In 1863, the year of the end of our academic course, again in the month of August (August 2, at 3 o’clock in the afternoon), Sovereign Emperor Alexander II again honored our seminary with his visit, examined it in detail, remembered his previous visit to it and was this time pleased with it. I was then in Nizhny, I remember that the Emperor came, together with the Empress Maria Alexandrovna, to our St. George Church, located very close, almost next to the seminary, but I don’t remember the details of the new Highest inspection of the seminary, even from the stories, probably because there was nothing out of the ordinary in them, as in the first case. You can read about these details in the “Brief Commemorative Historical Note of the Nizhny Novgorod Theological Seminary,” pp. 60–61 90. In it (see p. 60) the words of the then Sovereign Heir, Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich, are also given, characteristic of our seminary, during his visit and detailed inspection of the Nizhny Novgorod Seminary, in 1861 on August 14: “The seminary building seems to be the most extensive in the whole city,” and the Sovereign Heir deigned to add that he was pleased with everything he saw in the seminary and only regrets that he did not see it himself pupils. The building of the Nizhny Novgorod Seminary is indeed very outstanding, visible and quite extensive. The façade is decorated with massive columns (though made of plastered brick), stands in an excellent location, on a wide square, right opposite the gates of the Nizhny Novgorod Kremlin, leading to the cathedral and the governor's house (which here in Nizhny bears the name of a palace, probably because the Highest Persons always stayed there during their visits to Nizhny). Finally, the seminary house is located almost on the edge of a high mountain, from which there is an extensive view of the low-lying bank of the Volga. Such an impressive appearance of the seminary, raising the expectation of corresponding internal improvements, aggravated the unfavorable impression Emperor Alexander II received from his first visit in 1858. But if our seminary is located in a very prominent place, then the Church of St. George, under whom my parent was a priest and lived with us near it, has an even more beautiful location. It stands, almost next to the seminary, at the very top of a very high mountain, from which there is a vast view of the entire Trans-Volga region, of the low-lying banks of the Volga, for several tens of miles, so that on a clear sunny day you can distinguish, even without binoculars, the churches of the city of Balakhna, located 30 miles from Nizhny. And the whole of Nizhny Novgorod is one of our most beautiful Russian cities. In terms of the beauty of its location, it is not inferior to Kyiv, and in some respects even surpasses it, having great similarities with it 91. I was destined to live both my childhood and youth years in this beautiful area. First, when I was at school, I ran along the steep picturesque mountains going down to the Oka River, opposite the Nizhny Novgorod fair, which I also often visited when it was open, and then, when, together with my admission to the seminary, our family moved to another part of the city, I enjoyed the incomparable views opening from the Kremlin and along the embankment, from our St. George Church to the Pechersky Monastery. I have walked along this embankment countless times and could never get enough of the beauty of the views from it. The so-called English garden is laid out along the high mountain, going down to the Volga itself. And below is a wide river with many steamboats scurrying back and forth along it. The view from the embankment of the Volga was especially beautiful in the evening at dusk, when the lights on the ships were lit and columns of sparks rose from the steamer pipes; the river, in calm weather, is like a mirror, in the distance there is a vast expanse of meadows, forests, villages and lakes, and to the west, up the Volga, a crimson sunset of the sun, as if sinking into the river, and above, above your head, a deep sky dotted with stars. The beauty of my native nature was strongly felt, and if I had even a little ability for poetry, I would certainly have become a poet, like one of my grandfathers mentioned in Chapter 1. My parents lived very secluded lives, avoiding all kinds of acquaintances, so that my walks along the embankment constituted almost my only entertainment, except for visiting a few of my friends, approved by my parents. These comrades also visited us, but I mostly visited them, especially V. Ya. Rozhansky, with whom I became close, especially in the last two or three years, and even F. G. El-m, who, also for the last two or three years, lived with one of his comrades, separately from us, in an apartment. By the way, about walks along our marvelous embankment and other picturesque places in our city. Were these walks and generally enjoying the beautiful nature of your hometown just entertainment? Did they not have another, more serious meaning for us - educational? Didn’t the wide pictures opening before us arouse in us ideal aspirations and thoughts, impulses towards something higher, the little things of everyday life? It is not for nothing that the “book of nature” is placed in some parallel with the books of Revelation. It is not for nothing that monasteries, as if instinctively feeling the influence of beautiful nature on the spiritual life of a person, chose the most beautiful areas for themselves. My father’s parish – St. George’s – stretched right along the magnificent embankment. It was large in extent, stretching to the end of the city, all the way to the Pechersky Monastery, but the number of parishioners was small, and it was generally not rich. It had many government buildings: a theological seminary, a consistory, a bishop's house, and a city hospital. There were also empty, undeveloped places (where the Mariinsky Women's Institute is now). And the parishioners were not rich people, and therefore the income of the clergy was very small, and if it were not for the miraculous icon of the Smolensk Mother of God in our church, our parish would have been completely poor. My parent had to do a lot of work walking with the miraculous icon throughout the city and serving numerous prayer services, with the blessing of water and akathists, especially in times of cholera. At such a time, his labors were aggravated by the fulfillment of the duties of admonishing the sick on the Volga steamships. And in other, more prosperous times, it was often necessary to go to them for the same purpose 92. Among the parishioners, in the first years of my father’s service at the St. George’s Church, there were no outstanding personalities. There were, however, some rather unusual parishioners. These are the actors of the old city theater, as mentioned above, which later burned down. They lived in a rather large, wooden, state-owned house, 93 and were mostly the spiritual children of my father, who, by the way, expressed surprise at their kind, religious mood, which he did not expect. Somewhat later, the rich merchant Rukavishnikov settled in the parish, whose brother, a great lover of church singing, started a magnificent choir of church singers. All over Russia, the best voices were gathered into it, which, of course, cost a lot of money. This choir sang in our church and in other churches in the city. My parent did not like this choir because of its pretentious, partes singing, and most importantly because of the crowd of people who, thanks to it, gathered in the church, not at all for prayer, but simply for entertainment, as in a concert hall. Upon moving to this parish (from the former Sergievsky), our family first lived in cramped, often uncomfortable apartments, then moved to a wooden church house, located at the end of the city and our parish, far from the church. And when it was decided to build a new stone church house in another place, on our magnificent embankment, near the English garden, we had to live again in rented apartments. From one such apartment, my parents took me to the St. Petersburg Academy. When we graduated from the seminary, our future fate developed like this. Three of those who graduated from the seminary course in 1858 were to go to the Kazan Academy, which then called exactly 3 students from our seminary. Our seminary authorities appointed, from the 1st department, the first two on the list: N.S. Pototsky and A.M. Khitrovsky, and from the 2nd - me, A.L. Katansky, as the first on the list (after my refusal - next after me), the second - V. Ya. Rozhansky. F. G. Eleonsky, as the third on the list of the 1st department 94, did not receive an appointment to the academy, as well as A. I. Smirnov, who graduated from the course among the last students, 13th 95. Of all the students of our seminary (course of 1858), six people later received higher education in different educational institutions in our 2nd department: besides me, A. L. Katansky, and V. Ya. Rozhansky, A. I. Smirnov (at Kazan University), M. M. Dobrotvorsky 96 , P. A. Rumyantsev 97 and P. F. Lebedev 98 . From the 1st department there are only three: N. S. Pototsky 99, A. M. Khitrovsky 100, sent to the Kazan Academy, and F. G. Eleonsky, - therefore, half as much as ours, not counting two who left the 1st department before completing the full seminar course to enter the university: N. Kasatkina 101 and P. Iv. Pokrovsky 102. But the 1st department subsequently produced two bishops who did not receive an academic education: Fyodor Dorimedontovich Schastnev 103 and Alexander Petrovich Sobolev 104 . My refusal to be sent to the Kazan Academy occurred under the following circumstances. Two or three years before the end of the seminar course, I was very frightened by a serious illness of the respiratory branches that befell me - severe bronchitis or even pleurisy, I was suffocating, could only breathe with great difficulty, I turned to a good doctor, who scared me very much 105, but then helped me, and then for a whole year I was treated myself: I drank fresh milk, carrot juice, etc. When I felt better, V. and I decided. Ya. Rozhansky, a year before the end of the full seminar course, went at his own expense to the Kyiv Academy, where his relative (I think his cousin), the famous I.M., was a professor. Skvortsov. This enterprise brought us especially close, although we had always been friends; V. Ya. Rozhansky, very witty, cheerful, partly replaced my old friend F. G. Eleonsky, who studied in another department, and then lived not with us, but in a separate apartment. My new friend wrote a letter to Kyiv, and we were eagerly awaiting an answer. The answer was finally received, but it cooled our ardor so much that we lost all desire to try our luck, despite dreams, especially mine, of a warm, poetic Little Russia. And we decided to patiently wait for the full completion of the course, and the thought of the academy did not leave me, but where to go, to which academy? Kazan frightened me with its, as I was told, swamp climate, and most importantly, I was informed that the building of the Kazan Academy has Amosov heating, which is very harmful in its dryness for such weak-chested people as me. Therefore, anticipating the rector’s proposal to appoint me, along with other comrades, to this academy at public expense, I decided to refuse this appointment and informed my friend about this, and added that I intended to go to the St. Petersburg Academy in a year and that I would be very glad if he went with me. Petersburg, although it was known to me for its also swampy climate, attracted me as a capital; at least, I thought, I would see him if I was destined to live short. V. Ya. R-ky responded to my proposal somehow evasively, or even did not answer at all. In any case, from then on he began to behave rather ambiguously towards me 106. And so our friendship ended; although we remained on good terms, the former friendship was no longer there. Before the end of the seminar course, the rector, Archimandrite Paisiy, called me to his place three times, persistently offering to go to Kazan on government account, but each time I resolutely refused this flattering offer, due to poor health. Then he called the next one on the list, V. Ya. R-go, who accepted the offer and brilliantly, as the first master, graduated from the course at the Kazan Academy in 1862. However, I really didn’t want to go to the academy alone. Determined to go there together with a friend and disappointed in the new friendship, I remembered the old one - my oldest friend and close relative, F. G. Eleonsky, and carried him along with me. I don’t remember when the idea of ​​going to St. Petersburg together came to us; probably when I finally decided to abandon the trip to Kazan. In the end, everything turned out better than anyone could have expected. And if it had happened any other way, the St. Petersburg Academy would hardly have received F. G. El-ky, later an excellent professor, a very respectable and hardworking biblical scholar. On his own initiative, he would hardly have decided to go to the academy, and material resources played a big role here, but together everything seemed somehow easier and more convenient; Finally, it was more pleasant for my parents to let me go to a distant place not alone. When the rector, Archimandrite Paisiy, called me to him for the last time regarding the matter of sending me to Kazan and, having heard a decisive refusal from me, asked what I intended to do after completing the course, I told him that in a year I intended to go to the St. Petersburg Academy, even at my own expense, if I did not succeed at the government expense. In this case, the seminary board will be happy to recommend you as a candidate for a government vacancy; You just need to submit a request for this to the office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod,” the rector told me. The same promise was given to F.G. Yem, when he announced the same thing a short time later. I spent the end of 1858 in preparations for the trip to St. Petersburg, repeating the seminar course I had taken. By the way, I read the entire Bible, but almost to no avail, more mechanically, to read only everything and a few books from the library of the owner of the house in which we then lived, A. I. Gratsianov, a former seminary teacher: some kind of dictionary of church writers, I think Metropolitan Eugene, “On heresies and schisms in the Russian Church” by Rudnev, part of the history of Karamzin, etc. This year brought me little benefit - even for strengthening my fragile health, exhausting me with anticipation of the future trip and exam, which, given my nervousness, impatience and caring nature, was far from useful for me in many respects. Where F. G. Eleonsky spent this year, whether in Nizhny or in his homeland, in the village, somehow went out of my memory. In all likelihood, in both places, the beginning is in the village, and the second half of the year is in our family, in Nizhny. At one time, we turned to the successor of our former rector, Archimandrite Yuvenaly (Karyukov) 107 with a request to recommend us as candidates for admission to the St. Petersburg Academy at public expense, referring to the promise of his predecessor Paisius. Our request was fulfilled, but a refusal was received from the office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, despite the excellent recommendation given to us by the seminary authorities. No other outcome could have been expected after the Most High visit to our seminary on August 21, 1858. Then we decided to go at our own expense, as “volunteers.” Upon receiving a certificate from the medical council about the state of our health, before leaving for St. Petersburg, we came to the Most Reverend. Anthony to accept the blessing. He received me favorably, but did not treat my friend F.G. El the same way, letting him know in sharp, indelicate expressions that offended me that he considered his claim to receive an academic education to be unfounded 108 . Meanwhile, when entering the academy, as we will see later, it turned out just the opposite. The student, renowned 109 in the seminary, almost failed the entrance exam at the St. Petersburg Academy, and the student, less famous in the seminary, but gifted and hardworking, was accepted into the academy quite high on the exam list. I cannot end this chapter of my memories differently than the first. I consider it fortunate for myself and my comrades that we studied at the Nizhny Novgorod Theological Seminary in the good old days. We studied under the old, far from perfect program and under the old teaching methods, which gave us a lot of room for initiative, with good, in general, teachers and with the strong influence on us of the people who were at the head of the local administration (Reverend Jacob, Most Reverend Jeremiah, rector Archimandrite Apollonius, the first and last left traditions that still live in our time), and finally, under the influence of the beautiful nature of our native city on us, helping our self-development. The curriculum of 1840 did not prevent the Nizhny Novgorod Seminary of this period (1840–1867, before the introduction of the new statutes of theological seminaries) from producing many prominent, even outstanding figures in various fields of service to the Church, fatherland and science 110 . Therefore, the point is not so much in the program, but in the individuals who carry it out. A successful choice of persons, especially those in charge, and a careful attitude towards the most worthy of them often save the entire educational and pedagogical work, otherwise it is ruined. “Nizhny Novgorod Theological Seminary in 1818–1840.” (N. Novgor., 1905) and “Nizhny Novgorod Theological Seminary in 1842–1851.” (N. Novgor., 1903). An addition to them is the “Brief Commemorative Historical Note of the Nizhny Novgorod Theological Seminary” (N. Novgor., 1905). The latter is signed: “A. Tikhov." Obviously, the first two also belong to him. These are quite large books (186 pages, 268 pages and the third - 81 pages) contain a lot of beautifully and comprehensively developed material, in addition very well presented, so that they are read with exciting interest not only by a Nizhny Novgorod person by birth and by education in this seminary, but, I dare to think, can be read with almost the same interest by anyone seriously interested in our theological school. It is truly a pity that the author of these talented works, who so skillfully engaged in archival research and treated them with love, is now, as we hear, lost to the ecclesiastical department, which was unable to keep him with them. He transferred to the service of the Ministry of Public Education. We do not know how to value good forces, kind workers who are completely devoted to their work, in whom our salvation from all our evils lies mainly, and not in projects and new regulations, no matter how well they are written on paper. In this case, the above stories of my native seminary, as well as the histories of our four theological academies, with attached lists of their students who completed their courses, and some other manuals, helped me a lot in this case. I did not have the history of the Kyiv Academy, but in my hands I had a separate reprint of the article “Lists of heads and mentors of the Kyiv Theological Academy” - up to the XXV course (1869) inclusive. The second - middle - was called philosophical, the third - highest - theological. Such names were retained not only in colloquial language, but even in literary language, as can be seen from the mentioned “stories of Nizhny Novgorod. family,” where these names are found constantly and rarely the official names: lower, middle and higher. I even forgot these official names and remembered them only when I was going through my surviving seminar works, or “tasks,” as they were called then, with the inscriptions: student of the lower, middle class A.K. In the higher, theological class, for some reason the name of the class does not appear, but only the first and last name. The rooms of the lower and middle classes were located on the lower floor, the higher classes were located in the middle, mezzanine, where there were: the meeting hall, the board of directors and the apartments of the rector and inspector. I remember that we language learners looked with envy at the older students descending the stairs from the top floor, and dreamed of when we would have to go upstairs too. However, it seems that one of the departments of the philosophy class also had a classroom on the top floor. The titles: “rhetoric and poetry”, “catechetical teaching” and “on liturgical books” are given according to the table attached to the “Code of statutes and draft statutes of theological seminaries 1808–1814, 1862, 1867, 1884 and 1896.” (SPb., 1908). A.A. Krylov, Kursk native, 19th magician. XIX course in St. Petersburg. acad. (1851). [Both in this and in all the following places, the number in the word “cand.” or "mag." means the number of the entire academic list, starting with the 1st master]. Subsequently - priest. Nizhny Novgorod Rozhdestvenskaya church, prot. and lawyer Nizhny Novgorod Mariinsky Institute nobility. girls and, finally, a lawyer. Nizhny Novgorod Arakcheevsky Cadet Corp., died in the 1900s, shortly after his 50th anniversary, a year or two later. At the end of his life he received awards rare for provincial clergy: the Order of St. Anna 1st class. and even St. Vladimir 2nd class, thanks, no doubt, to his service in a military educational institution. That's what the seminar was called back then. teachers who had a master's degree. So they signed in cool magazines. Candidates signed either simply their first and last names (most often), or adding the word “teacher” to them (most rarely). I remember that A.A. K-v, before the master’s degree was approved and notification was received, with the diploma also being sent at the same time, he signed with the words “A. K-v". But then one day of some year, probably 1852, he is called out of our class, then after a few minutes he returns noticeably cheerful, with a smiling face, and after the call he signs in the magazine “Prof. A. K-v.” We then immediately realized that he had just received a notification that a master's degree had been sent to him. D.Iv. Strakhov, Nizhny Novgorod, 9th Mag. II year Kazan. acad. (1848), 1848–1852 – teacher. Simbir. family, from 1852 to 1858 – Nizhny Novgorod. Sem., 1856 – priest. St. George's Church, 1858–1867 – scholar of law. Mariinskaya women. gymnasiums, 1867–1878 – looks. Nizhegorsk spirit. taught, was prot. for 30 years. insist. Voznesenskaya C. in Nizhny, † 1894. Semyon Ivanovich Protopopov (in mon. - Seraphim), Muscovite, 6th magician. XIV building Moscow. acad. (1844), 1844 – tank. Kazan. acad. in general words., 1847 – monk, 1854 – inspector. Moscow academician, 1855 – rect. Simbir. Sem., 1856 – Tver., 1866 – Vik. Staror., 1869 – bishop. Smolensky. N.V. Okhotin, Simbir., 15th Mag. XX k. St. Petersburg. acad. (1853), 1853 – teacher. Nizhegorsk semester, 1855 – inspection. Simbir. Sem., 1874 – prot. (without marriage), rect. Simbir. semester, 1889 – archim. and ep. Smolensky, 1896 – chairman. School Council under the Holy Synod, with the management of Moscow. Donskoy mon., 1900 – archbishop. Novgorod., 1904 – member of the Holy Synod. † 1910. Before him, for a short time (until the end of 1852), this subject was taught by P. I. Kazansky, bonfire, 15th magician. XVIII building Moscow. acad. (1853), in 1853 - priest. in Moscow. V.F. Nikolsky, Nizhny Novgorod, 36th candidate. XIII building Moscow. acad. (1842), 1842–1853 – in Nizhegorod. Semin., 1853 – dropped out, was rector of Nizhny Novgorod. Rozhdestvenskaya church, † 1881. A.I. Ostroumov, Nizhny Novgorod, 20th candidate. III building Kazan. acad. (1850), 1850–1860 – in Nizhegorod. Sem., 1861–1878 – prot. mountains Vasilya, 1878–1885 - served in Nizhny Novgorod. Varvarskaya ts., 1885 - in the Arkhangelsk sob., member of the consistory, † 1892. I don’t remember that any of our mentors were given nicknames, but A.I. O-v had one, although it was harmless, relating only to his appearance. Always dirty with something, mostly with chalk, he had the nickname “dauber”. He was the seminary's housekeeper from 1852 until the unfortunate August 21st. 1858 (see below), after which he was dismissed from this position. I.S. Tikhonravov, Nizhny Novgorod, 39th candidate. XI building. Moscow. acad. (1838). Served in this until 1864. There is no other information about him. P.A. Vladimirsky, Nizhegorsk, 34 candidates. XII building Moscow. acad. (1840), in Nizhegorod. family – until 1855, from 1856 to 1868 – priest. Nikolskaya Church, 1868–1881 – prot. fair Spassky's collection, 1881–1906 – department. prot., † 1906. At the end of his very long life, he had distinctions rare for provincial clergy: the Order of St. Anna 1st class. and St. Vladimir 2nd Art. I.I. Svetovidov, Nizhny Novgorod, 20th Mag. XII building Moscow. acad. (1840), in sem. – until 1853, 1854–1856 – prot. mountains Makarieva, 1856–1859 – prot. fair sob., 1880 – department. prot., † 1880. A.F. Lazarenko, Chernig., 13th Mag. XVI building. Kyiv. acad. (1853), in Nizhegorod. family - 1853–1862, then went to serve in Chernigov and was an adviser to the provinces. board. P.I. Raev, Nizhny Novgorod, 3rd Mag. IV building Kazan. acad. (1852), from 1852 to 1863 – teacher. Nizhegorsk family, sacred Pokrovskaya church, priest. (1861), insp. sem., archim. (1862), 1863 – inspection. St. Petersburg Sem., 1864–1866 – rect. St. Petersburg Sem., 1866 – ep. Ladozh., Vik. St. Petersburg, 1869 – ep. Vologda, 1873 – bishop. Tambov, 1876 – ep. Ryazan, 1881 – archbishop, 1882–1887 – archbishop. Kazan, 1887 – Exarch of Georgia, 1892 – Metropolitan. St. Petersburg, † 1898 December 5 Gr.A. Politkovsky, bonfire, 17th magician. XIII building Moscow. acad. (1842), from 1842 to 1855 - in Nizhegorod. family, from 1851 – priest. and then Rev. Nizhny Novgorod Arkhangelsk sob., very businesslike, member of the consistory, † 1885. K.I. Milovidov, Nizhny Novgorod, 5th Mag. X building Kyiv. acad. (1841), 1841 – Orlov. family, 1842–1856 – Nizhny Novgorod. Sem., 1844 – priest. and lawyer Nizhny Novgorod Noble Institute, in the 1860s - department. prot., † 1880 The archival information also does not say this clearly, but only shows that “church-biblical history” was taught in the middle class, while in the higher, theological class, there are no other histories except Russian church history. In the already mentioned table attached to the “Code of Charters spirit. seminaries" (St. Petersburg, 1908). A. I. Steklov, 16th candidate. V building Kazan. acad. (1854), from 1854 to 1868 – teacher. Nizhegorsk Sem., from 1868 – mag. and rect. Nizhegorsk Sem., from 1882 – rect. Tavrich. family, † 1884. L.I. Sakharov, Nizhny Novgorod, educated. Mountains-Goretskoy land. school, served in this. from 1846 to 1858, left for secular service. His colleague in the 1st department. I. P. Sokolov, a student of the same school, served until 1860, was a priest. Rozhdestvenskaya and Nikolskaya churches. P.I. Nevzorov, Kostroma, 32 candidates. XV building. St. Petersburg. acad. (1843), from 1843 to 1857 - in the service in Nizhny Novgorod. sem., then was convicted, served his sentence, was forgiven, † 1902 in Nizhny Novgorod. A.I. Smirnov, apparently, came from a talented family. He had an uncle in Nizhny, who had previously been a teacher in Nizhny. Sem., Ap.A. Knyagininsky, Ph.D. Kyiv. acad. X k. (1841). A.A. The prince, although he graduated from the academy as a candidate and, moreover, very low on the list (at No. 50), was a very gifted person. In Nizhegorsk. family There were many stories about him as a man of outstanding talent, but extremely disordered in behavior, suffering from an “illness” (drunkenness), which is probably why he graduated from the academy so low on the list, despite his abilities, and was forced to leave his service in Nizhegorsk. family (1850), and then, although he received a place in Tambov. family (1853), but, as was heard, he could not resist there either. Unfortunately, his nephew, my comrade Ap.Iv. Smirnov, followed in the footsteps of his uncle. It began with a theological class, and at the end of the seminary course he almost died completely if he had not been saved by a lucky chance, or, better to say, Providence, which wanted to preserve this great power for university science. This case will be discussed at the end of the chapter. P.P. Vladimirov, Nizhny Novgorod, 8th Mag. III building Kazan. acad. (1850), 1850–1856 – teacher. Vyatsk family, 1856 – Nizhny Novgorod. semester, 1860 – Samar. seven, retired in 1861, died soon after. I remember that he also taught here, in the 2nd department, but apart from the memory of his appearance, nothing remained, only the general impression remained that he was a capable person, a good teacher. Dionysius (in the world – Dmitry Nikolaevich Aretinsky), Orlov, 14th candidate. I room Kazan. acad. (1846), 1846 – teacher. church history in Vyatsk. semester, 1857 – teacher. Philosopher and patristic, and then, with the adoption (1852) of monasticism - theologian. Sciences, from 1857 to 1860 – inspector. Nizhegorsk semester, 1860 – archim. and rect. Vyatsk family, † 1863. He was the brother of Seraphim (Aretinsky), 1st magician. VIII building Kyiv. acad. (1837) († archbishop of Voronezh.), who was at that time, 1842–1846, inspection. Kazan. academy. There were rumors in our seminary that he was even first in the senior year of the academy, but that he was unlucky in the final exam. The validity of this rumor is now fully confirmed in the “History of the Kazan Theological Academy” by P. V. Znamensky (Kazan, 1892. T. II, p. 194). P. P. Myshkin, Vyatsk, 15 ma. VI building Kazan. acad. (1856), 1857–1860 – teacher. physics and mathematics to Vyatsk. family, † 1862. I. V. Petropavlovsky, Nizhny Novgorod, 39th candidate. XVIII building Kyiv. acad. (1857), in Nizhegorod. family – from 1857 to 1882. † 1887. I.Tr. Zlatoobrezov, Astrakhan, 9th Mag. I room Kazan. acad. (1846), 1846–1857 – Astrakhan. family, 1857–1864 – Nizhny Novgorod. Sem., 1864 – in service for min. adv. enlightenment to the West. region, gymnasium teacher, † in the 1870s. P. M. Sladkopevtsev, Simbir., 10th Mag. XIX building. St. Petersburg. acad. (1851), then moved to Simbir. sem., where he was later, as I heard, rector. As you know, Dobrolyubov spoke enthusiastically about Sladkopevtsev in his memoirs as his most efficient and sympathetic mentor. By the way, about N.A. Dobrolyubov. For several years in a row, when I was still in school, we constantly met him, together with his friend and classmate V.V. Lavrsky (4th Mag. Kazan. Academician VII class 1858, after serving in the seminaries - Samara and Nizhny Novgorod - and the priesthood in Warsaw - rector of the Saratov semester in 1875-1885, and from 1885 - department provost in Samara), the second student on the seminar list. After classes they usually walked along the same path that F.G.E. and I took when going home to our apartments. At this time, Dob-v amazed us with his appearance as a very well-bred young man, modest, graceful, always well dressed, with a gentle, handsome face. He looked like a red-haired girl, and in no way could it have occurred to me that he would turn out to be such a literary figure, and of a well-known movement at that. There were then rumors in the seminary about his great talent and extraordinary diligence; they said that he wrote huge essays on given topics, sat whole nights on them, that his parents even took away his candles to stop his nightly studies. Ap. P. Poniatovsky, Nizhny Novgorod, 5th Mag. XVII building Kyiv. acad. (1855). The system is inconvenient. The highest score was 1, but one could mean “good,” “very,” or “very good,” or “excellent.” The inconvenience of this system prompted one of the mentors (only one, A. A. Krylov) in the lower class of literature to resort to a system of pluses, even double ones, on the right and left sides of the unit, and also with a cover, which meant “excellent” (I had an essay with such a score - “description of the Annunciation Monastery”), one plus meant “very good”, two – “very good”. “Nizhny Novgorod Theological Seminary 1840–1851,” pp. 179–180. N.K. Mirolyubov (Blessed Macarius), Ryazan, 13th Mag. XIII building Moscow. acad. (1842), 1842–1851 – teacher. to Nizhegorsk family Philosopher, Patr., Heb. language, and after accepting monasticism (1846) - theologian. items, 1851 – inspection. Perm. Sem., 1858 – rect. Ryazan. Sem., 1860 – rect. Novgor. Sem., 1866 – Vic. Balakhnin., 1867 – bishop. Orlov., then bishop. Archangel, Nizhny Novgorod, archbishop. Donskoy. At rest in Nizhegorod. Annunciation Monastery, † 1894. V. I. Nikolaevsky (Blessed Anthony), bonfire, 19th candidate. XIV building St. Petersburg. acad. (1841), from 1841 to 1855 - in Nizhegorod. family - teacher physics and mathematics and other items, 1855 – inspection. Tambov. Sem., 1858 – rect. Ekaterinosl. Sem., 1866 – Vic. Staritsky, 1873 – bishop. Yeniseisky, 1881 – bishop. Penza, † 1889. Jerome. Theophilus (Nadezhdin), Ryazan, 9th magician. X building. St. Petersburg. acad. (1833), 1833–1840 – inspection. Volyn. Sem., 1841 – rect. Poltava semester, 1850 – Kursk. family, 1851 – Nizhny Novgorod. Sem., 1857 – ep. Samarsky, † 1865. For some reason, in the “Brief Commemorative Historical Note of Nizhegorsk. spirit. Seminary" of A. Tikhov it is said that "from Sept. 1863" he was still a “bishop.” Saratov". Yu. V. Tolstoy’s “Lists of Bishops...” (1872) does not show this. I don't remember either. Petr Lukich Poniatovsky, Voronezh, 6th Mag. III building Kyiv. acad. (1827), from the very end of the academy. course, i.e. from 1827, he served in Nizhny Novgorod. seminary without leaving it. “A brief memorial historical note of Nizhegorsk. spirit. sem." A. Tikhova, pp. 53–54. We, the disciples, had a suspicion that at times he resorted to “great consolation of the brethren,” especially on holidays. Perhaps, due to the short time of his command there, or perhaps he calmed himself with the thought that at least the educational part was in excellent order. In the very year of the catastrophe that happened to our seminary in 1858, i.e., in the year we graduated from the course, “Nizhny Novgorod Seminary (we read in the “Brief memory. historical note of the Nizhny Novgorod. spiritual. seven.” by A. Tikhov, pp. 56–57) after the entrance exams to Kazan. acad. was recognized as the best in the area - under the famous rector of the academy - Archimandrite. John (Sokolov), and this is precisely at a time when the new academician. the authorities were especially dissatisfied with the organization of training in the seminaries of their district.” The Academy even expressed special gratitude to the seminary for representing excellent students: V. Ya. Rozhansky (my friend in the 2nd department) and A. M. Khitrovsky (comrade F.G. El-go in the 1st department), later the first masters of the 9th year of Kazan. acad. In general, since the late 1840s, Nizhegorsk. family gave Kazan. acad. There are a lot of students who are outstanding in their abilities. At the ordination of my father to the priesthood, the Right Reverend expressed himself, as we were told, this way: “I have been a bishop for many years, but this is only the first time I have had such a protege.” And besides, he had a house with a huge space in Nizhny - probably in case of his arrival there. Indeed, the prince came to Nizhny from time to time and very often attended the divine services of the Most Reverend. Jeremiah; He probably liked them, and who wouldn't like them? I saw him once in our St. Sergius Church, when the Most Reverend served there. Jeremiah, and was struck by the sight of the prince standing on the left choir, a very decrepit old man, with traces of strong passions and a very stormy life. The prince's town house was in a completely different parish, far from ours, and if the prince came to our church, it was obviously only because the bishop served in it. This prince was very rich and in this regard was as famous in Nizhny as Count. Sheremetev in St. Petersburg. “At the expense of Prince Gruzinsky,” they expressed it in Nizhny, just as “at the expense of Count Sheremetev” in St. Petersburg. I am writing from memory; I can’t vouch for the literal accuracy, but I convey the idea correctly. I read it somewhere, it seems from Rev. Savva, Archbishop. Tverskoy, in his extensive autobiography (in the “Theological Bulletin”). A lot of highly interesting details regarding the circumstances of their life and friendship are found in these memoirs. They are printed in the brochure of Rev. I.Z. Vinogradova: “Prospect. Jeremiah, Bishop of Nizhny Novgorod, and his memories of St. Innocent, Archbishop of Kherson.” N. Novgor., 1886. I made a detailed extract from this brochure in the article “Church. Messenger" (1887, No. 44). Unfortunately, I now have neither one nor the other on hand. It’s wonderful that friends and comrades from the seminary came together in St. Petersburg. Academy, one as its inspector - Innocent (from 1823 to 1830), and Jeremiah - as a student (graduated in 1827). Some time after his resignation, a pension in the amount of 1000 rubles was sent to him. In the city, a lot of talk was aroused by the simultaneous deportation, with one mail, of this pension to the former Nizhny Novgorod bishop and the same exact one, in the same amount, i.e. 1000 rubles, to some artist of the Imperial theaters. One day, after he had been removed to the Pechersky Monastery, I went into the cathedral, into its lower church, in the crypt where Minin’s ashes were placed, and saw the bishop’s service. The serving bishop seemed to me similar to the Most Reverend. Jeremiah, I was very happy to see him again, but it turned out that he was the Apostle of Siberia, the Kamchatka Archbishop. Innocent (Veniaminov, † Metropolitan of Moscow), who was passing through Nizhny and served the liturgy here. He really was very reminiscent of our former bishop in height, posture and whole figure. Jerome. Anthony (Pavlinsky), nov., 14th magician. IX building. St. Petersburg. acad. (1831), 1831 – inspection. Kaluzh. Sem., 1840 – rect. Novgor. Sem., 1852 – vicar. Ep. Ostrogozh., 1853 – Vic. Starorus., 1854 – bishop. Arkhangel., 1857 – bishop. Nizhny Novgorod, 1860 – Volyn, 1862 – archbishop, 1866 – archbishop. Vladimirsky. And partly what I heard. The Emperor was angered by another of my comrades, who graduated this year (1858), in July, together with us, from the seminary course (A-ii). For some reason, he was somewhere in the seminary building at that time, caught the eye of the Emperor and asked him: “Are you a seminarian?” gave a stupid answer: “No, Your Majesty, I graduated from a seminary course,” for which he received an unflattering name for him, which remained with him for the rest of his life, with the addition of “royal.” Eliminated on October 8, and completely dismissed (after the audit of Archimandrite Jacob (Krotkov), abbot of the Moscow Danilov Monastery) on November 30 of the same 1858, leaving him as abbot only in Nizhny Novgorod. Annunciation Monastery. “Soon” (according to the “Kr. memor. historical notes of the Nizhny Novgorod. spiritual. sem.”, pp. 57–58) “by his own election,” he retired as abbot to the poor Gustynsky monastery in the Poltava province, where he spent 20 years, dying as an elderly man. Probably, “soon” they offered him to clear a place for a new rector, Archimandrite. Juvenalia (Karyukova). It's a pity that they didn't give Fr. Paisius ended his days in Nizhny, where he lived for more than 30 years. However, he left the Annunciation Monastery, at least not earlier than the fall of 1860 - this year in the summer I visited him when I came home for the holidays as a student in St. Petersburg. academy. I remember our conversation with him. O. Paisiy asks me how Prof. is doing. V.N. Karpov, his fellow countryman, Voronezh resident and almost comrade in Kyiv. Academy (II class 1825, and Paisiy Poniatovsky - III class 1827), and continues with complete complacency: “What, is he still serving? It's time for him to retire. So I kept serving, and got to the point where they finally told me: it’s time to leave. Serve, but don’t deserve it. So-and-so." “Met at the entrance by Rev. Nectarius (Nadezhdin) and the leadership of the seminary, His Majesty, heading into the hall, deigned to ask about the welfare of the seminary. In the hall, His Majesty was presented with seminary mentors, caretakers and teachers of the Nizhny Novgorod and Pechersk schools. From the hall, the Emperor went to the library, then inspected the classrooms, which were then (partly) located on the lower floor, then on the upper floor he deigned to inspect the sleeping and entertaining rooms, on the middle floor - the board rooms and the office, on the lower floor - the dining room, and finally deigned to go into the hospital building. At the same time, the Emperor also recalled his first visit to the seminary... Leaving the seminary, the Emperor deigned to address those accompanying him with the following gracious words: “As for the appearance of the seminary, I found it in much better shape than before. Satisfied. Thank you"". While inferior to Kyiv in the absence of southern vegetation and the fertile climate of Little Russia, as well as monuments of deep historical antiquity, Nizhny surpasses it with a higher location and a more extensive view from all points of the mountainous side to the low-lying banks of two great rivers - the Oka and Volga, merging at the foot of the Nizhny Novgorod mountains. The similarity of Nizhny with Kiev was expressed in the characteristic names of some Nizhny Novgorod localities: Pochayny and Pechory (Pechersky Monastery with a village lying nearby). It is not surprising, therefore, that some persons, such as Rev. Jeremiah, having lived for many years in Kyiv (1830-1843 - 12 years) and in general in the south (in the Caucasus and Poltava, 1843-1851 - 7 years) chose to stay in Nizhny, instead of leaving for Kyiv or somewhere to the south. Another example: Archbishop. Donskoy Macarius, having spent many years on the banks of the Don, comes to end his days on the banks of the Oka and Volga, in the Nizhny Novgorod Annunciation Monastery († 1894), which has a very beautiful location, at the very confluence of the Oka and Volga, opposite the famous Nizhny Novgorod fair. The fact is that in this part of the city our St. George Church was the only one (there was no other one - Trinity Church) that was visible from the ships standing opposite our embankment. We were very afraid for our father when he was required, often in the dead of night, to perform such demands. It was necessary to go down from a very high mountain, walk a considerable distance among the working population along the banks of the Volga, then sail in a boat to the steamer, which was often quite far from the shore, climb onto the steamer along the ladder, bid farewell to the sick, often with cholera, and then return home the same way, often on foot and without an escort. But God protected my father, and nothing bad ever happened to him. When the old theater burned down and a new theater was built, the actors settled in other places and left our parish; and their old house was sold and a stone building was built in its place, having a different purpose. Throughout the entire seminary course, he, for the most part, occupied this place, although sometimes the second among the year-long courses, moving, however, from class to class always at No. 3. I. F. Spassky, who transferred from the school to the seminary as the first student, graduated from it at No. 5, and did not enter any higher educational institution; His further fate is unknown to me. He graduated so low partly because he was little involved in his work, partly because of his behavior. The further fate of this gifted comrade of mine is very remarkable. Noticed in the seminary in drunken behavior, he continued to lead the same life after completing the seminary course and finally got to the point where he ended up as a clerk for a police officer in some village. But here, fortunately for him, the governess of a landowner who lived on his estate in the same village drew attention to him. They said that, having once met A.I.S., she unexpectedly entered into a conversation with him and began to talk about how he was not ashamed, as she heard, such a gifted person, to behave like that. Her words had such an effect on him that he stopped drinking, met her, got married, entered Kazan University, completed his course brilliantly, remained at the university and then took the chair of philosophy. With Ap.I. We never saw each other after graduating from the seminary, but in the last years of his service, being already an ordinary professor, he remembered me, sent me a letter and a photographic card of himself, I answered him in kind, and then he soon died. M. M. Dobrotvorsky entered the medical academy and was a military doctor somewhere in Siberia. Whether he is alive or not is unknown. He is from the gifted Dobrotvorsky family, the brother of the famous I.M. Dobrotvorsky, a former professor at the Kazan Academy and Kazan University. My friend M. M. Dobrotvorsky always took third place in our seminar lists, and graduated from the seminar course with the same number. P. A. Rumyantsev, the 7th student on the list, first entered the Kyiv Academy, two or three years after completing the seminar course, then moved to the Faculty of Medicine at the Kiev University, was a military doctor, and died. P.F. Lebedev, our 14th student, a man of remarkable energy, surprised us with how he prepared to enter the old St. Petersburg Pedagogical Institute, which he entered. Then, when the institute was closed (1859), he moved to St. Petersburg University to the Faculty of History and Philology, where he completed the course very successfully, was then a teacher and inspector of the Petrozavodsk gymnasium, retired and is still living, living in Petrozavodsk with his son. Preparing for the exam for admission to St. Petersburg. pedagogical Institute, he didn’t even go to lunch between classes (from 12 to 2 o’clock in the afternoon), all this time he spent studying mathematics, new languages ​​and other subjects. He found the same energy in St. Petersburg, obtaining his livelihood through lessons, of which he had many. N.S. Potocki, 11th Mag., 1862–1873 – teacher. Tobolsk Sem., 1873–1877 – its rector, † 1877. A. M. Khitrovsky, 2nd Master, teacher. Saratov family until 1867, and then - Samara, † 1869. His fate is unknown to me. P. I. Pokrovsky, brother-in-law of P. I. Raev (Metropolitan Palladium), graduated from a course in Moscow. uni according to honey faculty, was a doctor in Moscow, in one of the hospitals. When I served in Moscow. academician, visited him more than once. Passed away. F.D. Schastnev, 10th on the list of students. Nizhegorsk family, in monasticism Euthymius, now bishop. Yenisei and Krasnoyarsk (1860 - priest, 1892 - prot., 1893 - tonsure as a monk, 1894 - archimandrite and presenter of the Transfiguration Monastery in the city of Arzamas, 1897 - vicar bishop of Novgorod-Seversky, 1898 - bishop of Yenisei). Hello. A.P. Sobolev (39th on the sem. list), Alexy in monasticism, was bishop. Vologda. Before becoming a monk, he was a priest. at Nizhegorod. Pokrovskaya Church, where there was once a priest. and P.I. Raev (Metropolitan Palladium). A.P. Sobolev, very distinguished and personable, behaved as a priest with great tact. Probably thanks to this, and also Met. Palladiy, who was his (together with F.D. Schastnev) mentor at the seminary, he was promoted to such a prominent post. Passed away. Von-Putren, chief doctor of the Martynovsk City Hospital. After examining me, he remarked: “I’ll do what I can.” From these words I concluded that my case was bad. The doctor prescribed me an emetic plaster, which he ordered me to put on my chest. The patch helped me a lot. In his heart, obviously, he decided to go to Kazan if he, as the next one on the list, was made this offer after my refusal, but he did not directly tell me this, and out of delicacy, I did not want to pester him, to force him to be frank. In essence, I had nothing against his intentions, which I had recently begun to suspect, well understanding that it would be too great a sacrifice on his part, in favor of our friendship and long-standing dream of studying together at the academy, to refuse a trip to Kazan at public expense. One thing was unpleasant - the lack of frankness on his part - the frankness that I was waiting for, but never received. We finished the course without saying a word about the subject that occupied both of us. Jerome. Yuvenaly (Karyukov), Ekaterinosl., last, 30th magician. XII building Kyiv. acad. (1845), 1851 – inspection. Kishinev. Sem., 1858 – rect. Nizhegorsk Sem., 1868 – Vic. Ep. Mikhailovsky, 1871 – bishop. Arkhangel., 1877 – Orlov., †1882. I remember, turning to F.G., he asked: “Are you going there too?..” These words clearly outlined the personality of this Right Reverend. This was the opinion of the seminary authorities, teachers and my comrades about me, who willingly recognized my primacy, but only they had doubts creeping in (a wonderful feature of the times!) whether I was really a very efficient person - on the grounds that I did not drink wine. “Everyone would like our first child,” they said, “but why doesn’t he drink?” Obviously, I did not quite fit the seminary ideal of that time. A complete list of them can be read in Brief. memory history note Nizhegor. spirit. sem." A. Tikhova (pp. 70–76). Here we mention only some of them, without touching either those who studied at the seminary before 1840, or those who completed the course there after 1867. We list them in the order of seminary courses. 1842: Prot. A.P. Vladimirsky (1st year master, Kazan academician), prof. Kazan. Univ. and rector Kazan. acad. for 25 years (1871–1896); 1848 – first students of the seminary: N.I. Gloriantov (2nd Master of St. Petersburg Academician and its excellent professor of physics), Archpriest. P. A. Matveevsky, known for numerous and valuable theological and literary works, P. I. Raev († Metropolitan of St. Petersburg), I. Ya. Okhotin († Most Rev. Justin, Archbishop of Kherson); 1850 – M.I. Luzin († Most Rev. Michael, Bishop of Kursk), outstanding prof. Moscow acad. and rect. Kievskaya, author of many wonderful scientific works (Against Renan, Explanatory Gospel, etc.), L.P. Poletaev (Rev. Gregory, Omsk), 1st magician. Kazan. academician, and then for a long time, 13 years, - her prof. according to Holy Scripture; 1852 – I.M. Dobrotvorsky (1st Mag.), famous prof. Kazan. acad. according to the schism, prof. and Dean Kazan. univ., A. I. Lilov (2nd master), bachelor. Kazan. academician, outstanding teacher. psychology and paleontology, then served for 20 years as a min. adv. enlightenment in the Caucasus; N. A. Vinogradov, I. M. D’s competitor in success, from theological school. class graduated (1851) from Kazan University, his prof. and a doctor famous throughout the Volga (Kazan Botkin); 1856 – P.V. Znamensky, famous prof. Kazan. academician, its historian and author of many major works; 1858 – A.L. Katansky, F.G. Eleonsky - deserved. prof. St. Petersburg academician, V. Ya. Rozhansky - tank. Kazan. acad., ap. Iv. Smirnov - prof. Kazan. univ.; 1864 – V.A. Snegirev, famous prof. Kazan. acad. in psychology, who gave lectures in Kazan. univ., Ya. A. Bogorodsky - deserved. prof. Kazan. acad. on biblical history. The student from Nizhegorsk can also be included here. family 1846 – Prot. V.I. Verbitsky, a famous Altai missionary who enlightened up to 2,100 foreigners to St. baptism († 1890), a relative and successor of the even more famous missionary S.V. Landyshev, also from Nizhegorsk. family (1836, he left the philosophy class; in 1843 he passed the exam for a student of the seventh class, † 1882). You might be interested in: