IV. В Московской духовной академии – начало службы (1863–1867)

From rebellious St. Petersburg and from the unrest of the St. Petersburg Academy, I was destined to move to Trinity-Sergiev Posad, to the quiet monastery of St. Sergius, to the Moscow Academy, which was under his protection. In it hovered: the spirit of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, enormous scholarship, extraordinary cordiality and fatherly kindness of its then ideal rector, Archpriest A.V. Gorsky, the traditions of its famous professor-philosopher, Archpriest F.A. Golubinsky, and the patriarch of the academic corporation, who constituted its soul, united it into a single brotherhood, the first-born I her course, Archpriest P. S. Delitsyn. In a word, I found myself in a completely special kingdom, not at all similar to the environment in which I spent four years of my student life. My appointment to the Moscow Academy represented a very rare case, only the second in its history during the Filaretov period, when a graduate of another academy was sent to it 245 . The first case was the appointment in 1839, to the department of literature, of the 2nd master of the 13th year (1839) of the St. Petersburg Academy E.V. Amphiteatrov (a friend of my mentor, K.I. Luchitsky), a relative of Metropolitan of Kyiv Philaret (Amphiteatrov). The call in 1863 from the St. Petersburg Academy of two students to the Moscow Academy to occupy two of its departments (patristics and church archeology) was probably on the part of Metropolitan Philaret (without whom nothing of the least importance was done at the academy) in retribution to the St. Petersburg Academy for its call of the Moscow student of the XXII course (1860, 2nd master of this course) A.M. Ivantsov-Platonov, to occupy the department of new church history there. And the fact that the Moscow Academy asked to send, instead of one, two students, it was like repaying a courtesy with sheer courtesy. Metropolitan Filaret, when he wanted, knew how to be like that. Didn't he, however, have some other intention? In 1861, he examined our October (October 4) case and treated us extremely leniently. And suddenly from this very course of Octobrists (unless he forgot our history) he calls to his academy, and not just one, but two students, and, moreover, without any urgent need 246. I willingly went to the Moscow Academy. At that time, it stood out from a number of our other theological academies for its solid scholarship. For some reason, we had an idea about Kievskaya as not particularly attractive, imbued with a Jesuit spirit, about the young Kazanskaya - as approaching the type of St. Petersburg. Moscow was depicted as a strictly scientific kingdom, of the Filaretov style, a kind of Russian Oxford, as it was called by foreigners who visited Russia. True, not entirely pleasant reviews were heard about it in St. Petersburg, as a kingdom full of proud consciousness of its superiority over other academies and intolerance towards everything that did not come from it, which is why I had to listen to advice to refuse appointment to it 247 . Despite, however, such chilling reviews about the place of my future service, I did not at all waver in my decision to go to my destination. I had too much desire to try my hand at an academic department. And therefore, having collected his belongings, including a complete academic bed set, which was considered the property of each student, having received runs and, it seems, another 50 rubles. for the initial establishment, on December 4, 1863, he went to Moscow, and from there, along the recently opened railway, to Trinity-Sergiev Posad. I arrived there in the morning, December 6, Nikolin's day, stayed at the old monastery hotel and immediately went to see my fellow countryman, the then inspector Archimandrite Mikhail (Luzin). ABOUT. I had never seen Mikhail before, but knew only by rumors, and from information preserved in our family that he was a friend of one of my uncles, his friend at the seminary (Peter G. of Olives). Not having a single acquaintance at the academy, I thought it best to come to him first of all, as a fellow countryman, in the hope that he would help me navigate a completely unfamiliar place and new environment. I came to him early in the morning, around nine or ten o’clock. O. Mikhail, due to slight ill health, did not serve that day and was very glad to see his fellow countryman come. Among the conversations about Nizhny, St. Petersburg and the Moscow Academy, almost from the first words he expressed regret about the death a few days ago (November 30, 1863) of the oldest of all professors, Archpriest P. S. Delitsyn. That's what he told me. “You have arrived at a difficult time for our entire academic fraternity. Just three days ago we laid our patriarch, the man who united us all together, in his grave. We have lost the soul of our academic corporation. I don’t know what will happen to us now. I think that division will come, and there will be no former unanimity.” The words of my venerable interlocutor, unfortunately, came true! Two or three hours passed amid such conversations, the liturgy ended, and Fr. Mikhail reminded me that I needed to appear before the head of the academy, “highly venerable and deeply respected by all of us, our common mentor and leader, Fr. Rector, Archpriest A.V. Gorsky." It will be all the more convenient to do this now, he added, since you will find the entire academic corporation at his place and get to know them. We have a custom of visiting Fr. rector on all holidays and Sundays after the liturgy. On this occasion, he arranges some kind of consolation for the brethren - a small snack. But among the conversations we did not notice that we had missed a more appropriate time, and when I came to Fr. rector, it turned out that all his visitors had already gone home and only one remained - Bachelor of Physics D.F. Golubinsky, son of the late philosopher F.A. Golubinsky. Possessing an enviable appetite, he finished off what was left of what was offered for a snack. More than modestly dressed and far from representative in appearance, this, the only representative of the academic corporation at that moment, made me ask myself the question: are all the local professors really such originals? Father Rector A.V. Gorsky, a distinguished-looking, gray-haired old man, with a very handsome face, deep, thoughtful eyes looking somewhere into the distance, received me with open arms, with his characteristic cordiality and also offered me a snack, and, pouring a glass of some grape wine, added with sweet playfulness: “Get on with your duties.” This is how I began my service at the Moscow Academy in an original way! Even before the idea of ​​Fr. Rector, Fr. Mikhail extended his courtesy to me to the point that he persuaded me to move to him from the hotel with all my luggage and temporarily stay with him. After dinner, despite being slightly ill, he took me in the evening to the so-called “state courtyard” (the usual unofficial name), or to the “monastery academic house” (official - see in “The History of the Moscow Theological Academy 1814–1870” by S.K. Smirnov), where family professors occupied apartments in two wooden houses belonging to the academy. In the big house lived: the family of the recently deceased professor P.S. Delitsyn, his two sons, already adults and even serving as mentors at the Bethany Seminary (Petr Petrovich - 18th master of the 16th year, and Dimitri Petrovich - 14th master of the 19th year of the Moscow Academy), and the extraordinary professor priest F.A. Sergievsky. In a small house: extraordinary professor A.F. Lavrov († Archbishop Alexy of Lithuania) and bachelor P.I. Gorsky - single (but his mother lived with him). Before going there Fr. Mikhail told me: “I would like to introduce you to the first-born of my academic course, A.F. Lavrov. He is a family man. His wife Maria Nikolaevna is a very pretty lady, he also has a daughter, Sasha.” They received me very warmly, but they looked at me, as they say, with all their eyes, trying to recognize what kind of bird had flown to them from St. Petersburg. Now, as soon as we came to A.F. Lavrov, we were joined by his counterpart in the apartment, bachelor P.I. Gorsky, a namesake, but not a relative of A.V. Gorsky, who was distinguished more than all his colleagues by his curiosity, although others, to a greater or lesser extent, were not alien to this lack of provincial towns and towns. He especially looked at me inquisitively in order to spread the news throughout Posad the next day about the newly arrived bachelor from St. Petersburg and share his impressions of his new acquaintance. The extreme monotony of the life of an academic corporation, the complete lack of variety of impressions in the circle of everyday life, made such manifestations of everyday curiosity completely natural and understandable. Due to such circumstances, I was destined to become a hero for several days, or, as they now say, the highlight of the December 1863 season at the Moscow Academy. And they met me there at first, as it turned out later, with great prejudice and suspicion. Subsequently, when they got to know each other better, some of the colleagues closest to me admitted that, harboring prejudice against St. Petersburg residents, they thought that in my person a “whip” had come to them from St. Petersburg, but now they were dissuaded of this. Archpriest F.A. later told me about the same prejudice of Muscovites against St. Petersburgers. Sergievsky, professor at Moscow University and Archpriest P. A. Preobrazhensky, students of the St. Petersburg Academy. P.A. Preobrazhensky told me once, a long time later, at a meeting at the annual ceremony of the St. Petersburg Academy: “They don’t like us, St. Petersburgers, in Moscow,” and added, turning to me: “It’s good that you supported the honor of our St. Petersburg Academy.” Soon they placed me in one of the apartments of the professorial or, as we called it, bachelor’s building, adjacent to the main building, or “halls,” where the rector’s apartment and the meeting hall were at the top, and the living rooms and bedrooms of the senior students were below (the junior ones were in the inspector’s building). All bachelor's apartments were almost exactly the same in size and arrangement of rooms, differing only in greater or lesser comfort, which depended, however, on their inhabitants, and also on which side their windows faced: to the north, facing the buildings of the academic library and hospital, or to the south, facing the academic garden. Only two apartments faced the north: the one in which I was accommodated, the one closest to the main building, and at the opposite end of the corridor - the apartment of bachelor E. E. Golubinsky. Other parts of this side were occupied by the entrance staircase, the servant's room and the editorial room. On the south side there were the best apartments: opposite mine - bachelor P. M. Khupotsky, and further along the corridor, apartments - bachelor N.K. Sokolov, bachelor V.N. Potapov and extraordinary professor N.I. Subbotin. The apartments of these latter were the best - in terms of furnishings and because they were covered with wallpaper, and not painted with light blue glue paint, like all the others. My apartment consisted of three rooms and was furnished with a sufficient amount of government furniture. There was a sofa, armchairs, chairs upholstered in green oilcloth, tables, a desk and a living room, a bookcase, an iron bed and even screens for the bedroom. All these items, not distinguished by the elegance of their decoration, were made firmly and were capable of serving for a long time, passing from one person to another. I considered it my duty to make visits to all my colleagues, of course, and first of all to my aforementioned roommates along the corridor, and then to others who lived in different places: ordinary professors E.V. Amfiteatrov - in his house, P.S. Kazansky - in the inspector building (opposite the apartment of inspector Archimandrite Mikhail, who jokingly called him his adversary) 248, S.K. Smirnov - in the apartment near the “state courtyard”, to V.D. Kudryavtsev - in the house of E.V. Amfiteatrov, to the extraordinary professor F.A. Sergievsky - in the “state yard”, bachelor D.F. Golubinsky - in an apartment near the “state yard”. Such visits were made to the extraordinary professor A.F. Lavrov and bachelor P.I. Gorsky, although I had already visited them on the first day of my arrival in Posad. On Christmastide Fr. the rector took me to Moscow to introduce me to Metropolitan Philaret. We agreed to meet at Rev. Savva (Tikhomirova) 249 - former, before A.V. Gorsky, rector of the Moscow Academy, and at that time a Moscow vicar who lived in one of the Moscow monasteries - in order to go from there to the Metropolitan. It was some kind of holiday, Rev. Savva served, and after the liturgy I appeared in his chambers. Here I, not accustomed to the ceremony of Moscow bishops' receptions, was struck by the solemnity of the Moscow vicar's reception of visitors. In St. Petersburg, the suffragan bishops behaved much more simply. From Rev. Savva and Fr. The rector went to see Metropolitan Philaret. He received me favorably, asking the usual questions and also expressing the usual wishes and hopes regarding the success of my upcoming service. He didn’t say anything special, but such was the charm of this extraordinary personality that everything he said seemed very smart. Both at the beginning and at the end of the presentation there was a meeting between us and Fr. The rector bowed to the ground to the Bishop. This is how everyone in Moscow usually bowed to him then, not only clergy, but also secular people. When Metropolitan Philaret came to Sergiev Posad and the academic corporation was presented to him, everyone fell prostrate before him, at the beginning and at the end of the show. During my arrival at the academy, on December 6, the lectures stopped and the Christmas exams began. The lectures began after Christmas. When this time came, A.V. Gorsky himself introduced me to the auditorium of the senior, XXIV, course (1860–1864) and on this occasion made a short speech. I remember that he recommended that my future listeners be attentive to the study of Orthodox worship, which represents the “flower and fruit” of the tree of life of the Church of Christ. Having made this speech, he left the class and was not present at my first lecture. I began my readings on church archeology with a general overview of the history of the development of Christian worship, then moved on to a brief review of the literature on the subject, enlivening my readings and making up for their natural dryness and fragmentation with general church-historical reviews. Then I moved on to readings about the ritual side of the most important church rites, the seven church sacraments, according to the advice given to me by my former professor V.I. Dolotsky. In this kind of reading, I followed, at first, the manner of my former mentor, without setting myself the difficult task (which I set myself in the following years) - to trace the history of the gradual formation of the order of the sacraments. I had to give lectures to students graduating from the XXIV course (1860–1864) in the last half of their studies at the academy 250. In addition to church archaeology, I also had to read homiletics, or “ecclesiastical eloquence,” as this subject was called at the Moscow Academy. A.F. Lavrov († Archbishop Alexy of Lithuania) admitted to me that it was he who awarded me this subject, which until then had been associated with “church jurisprudence” and which he did not like, especially because he had to read student sermons - a far from interesting activity. In the first half of my service, I did not begin readings on this subject, postponing them to one of the next two years of course XXV. My colleagues at first told me that their lectures at the academy did not attract the attention of students, not like they had heard at the St. Petersburg Academy, so they advised me not to worry too much about the preparation and finishing of lectures, but to study the subject for myself. In addition, they threatened me with the so-called “first shot”, at a public exam, from Metropolitan Philaret, who had the custom of humbling the pride of young bachelors, mercilessly cutting them off and distributing very unflattering compliments to them, including a fool 251. From the stories I heard, it turned out, however, that from time to time even senior emeritus professors, like Archpriest F.A. Golubinsky, received similar compliments from the Bishop. The prophecy about the “first shot” did not come true. I did not receive the first or any shot from Metropolitan Philaret. He was not present at public examinations in my subject either in this first year or in subsequent years. Public examinations at the Moscow Academy lasted two days; the first day was appointed for the main subjects, the second - for secondary ones, which included church archeology with church eloquence, church jurisprudence and some others. The Metropolitan himself was always present at the first exam; at the second, in my time, his vicar, the Most Reverend. Savva. In view of the objections of Metropolitan Philaret, treatises were selected for public examinations with great scrutiny and caution, for the most part having been tested more than once. And in my subject, students dug up old notebooks somewhere. The objections that the Metropolitan usually made were also known from tradition. Both days of public examinations ended with lunches for all employees of the academy, on the first day - with the metropolitan, on the second - with the rector. Both the authorities and teachers of Bethany Seminary were invited to these dinners, who in turn invited us, academic teachers, to their dinners on the occasion of public exams at the seminary. These festivals brought considerable excitement to our monotonous life. At his dinners, Metropolitan Philaret behaved quite affably with the academic brethren and did not embarrass us with his presence; at least we, the young people, made quite a noise at our end of the table. He was not present at the rector's dinner. At the Bethany Seminary we spent our time even more pleasantly, walked in the Platonovsky groves and near the Bethany ponds and visited after lunch the then Bethany teachers, of whom the most prominent were: M.I. Karinsky, later my long-term colleague at the St. Petersburg Academy, the Delitsyn brothers, Peter and Dimitri Petrovich, and S. Linkov (6th master of the XXIII course, 1862). Moscow Academy; U Simeon, Bishop of Minsk). The first three were distinguished by their sociability and hospitality. Most often we gathered at M.I. Karinsky’s. I did not go home during the summer holidays of 1864, in order to prepare during this time for the lectures of the next academic year - 1864/65. 50th anniversary of the Moscow Academy - October 1, 1864 I slightly missed the 50th anniversary of the St. Petersburg Academy, which was celebrated (February 17, 1859) 6 months before my entry into it (in August of the same 1859), but I had the rare happiness of participating in the anniversary celebration of the Moscow Academy, October 1, 1864. However, little remains in my memory. How now I see two elderly elders, arm in arm, entering the academic hall for a ceremonial meeting. These were: Metropolitan Philaret and, as they said then, his teacher, Archbishop Evgeniy (Kazantsev), formerly of Yaroslavl, and at that time the manager of the Moscow Donskoy Monastery 253. He was blind then, and that is why Metropolitan Philaret led him by the arm. I remember the speech of the rector A.V. Gorsky and the reading of the historical note by Professor S.K. Smirnov. Of the greetings, I very vividly remember the speech of the rector of Moscow University S.I. Barshev, a former student of the Moscow Academy 254, delivered in an extremely loud, high-timbre voice. Our famous historian S. M. Soloviev, who was part of a deputation from Moscow University, also said a few words on his own behalf, striking with his flourishing health, despite his intense work and publishing one volume of history every year. Regarding these issues, they joked that S.M. Every year, along with the next volume of history, a new, also another, member of the family is born. Of the remaining speeches and greetings, I remember: greetings from the rector of the Moscow, then Archangel Cathedral (now court) Archpriest P. E. Pokrovsky († chief priest of the army and navy) 255 and the delegate from St. Petersburg University - Professor Archpriest P. Polisadov 256. Their characteristic figures attracted attention, and Fr. Archpriest V.P. Polisadov, in addition, stood out for his liveliness, sociability and talkativeness. It was noticeable that P.E. Pokrovsky was looked after somewhat more than other members of the Moscow clergy. Then they talked about some kind of significant monetary donation, either from his personal funds, or from the amounts he collected from the Moscow clergy. Finally, we remember, although not so vividly, Comrade. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Prince N. Urusov, with his nondescript figure, and then M. N. Katkov, I. S. Aksakov and N. I. Gilyarov-Platonov. Here, at the act, on the occasion of the anniversary, awards to professors and bachelors of the academy were announced. Cash - to professors P. S. Kazansky and V. D. Kudryavtsev (500 rubles each), S. K. Smirnov and extraordinary professor priest F. A. Sergievsky (429 rubles each), bachelors - P. I. Gorsky-Platonov, N. K. Sokolov, Evg. Evs. Golubinsky and P.M. Khupotsky (214 rubles each). Other types of awards were received by: bachelors – Dm. Fed. Golubinsky - the title of ordinary professor, V.N. Potapov - extraordinary professor, bachelor Hieromonk John (Metropolsky) - the title of cathedral hieromonk of the Moscow Donskoy Monastery, bachelor A.L. Katansky is a blessing of the Holy Synod, together with the economist of the academy, Hieromonk Gerontius and external members of the conference (numbering 6). The list of awardees did not include: rector A.V. Gorsky, inspector Archimandrite Mikhail, ordinary professor E.V. Amfiteatrov and extraordinary professors N.I. Subbotin and A.F. Lavrov. All these persons, with the exception of E.V. Amphiteatrov, were not among those awarded, probably because they had received certain awards in the previous two years and the deadline (three years) for receiving the next regular award had not yet arrived 257. The only person left out was the eldest after the rector, Professor E.V. Amphiteatrov. But this happened for reasons completely independent of the educational and spiritual authorities in general 258. The anniversary dinner, as far as I remember, took place in the conference room, where there is a monumental stove made of ancient tiles (probably preserved to this day). I don't remember the speeches. Two academic years - 1864/65 and 1865/66 - were years of intense work on my study of teaching subjects, especially church archeology. In this case, the instructions of the unforgettable Fr. A.V. Gorsky sources and manuals for studying different departments of this science. At the beginning of each new department, I invariably went to my learned rector, who accepted these visits with apparent pleasure. Meeting me at first with a certain feigned, uncharacteristic of him, rector's importance, then, when the topic of books came up, he was completely transformed, apparently forgot that he was the rector, and in front of him was the youngest of the bachelors, climbed under sofas and armchairs, taking out the necessary books from there, and loaded me with them, usually in large quantities. Moreover, he never indicated where to get what and in what respect exactly this or that work is important, leaving me to sort through the pile of books I received. One thing you could be sure of was that you were taking with you everything that was the best, most important and the latest in the literature of that time. I consider it worth adding that the library of the Moscow Academy was extremely rich (much richer than the library of the St. Petersburg Academy) in books on church history in general and church archeology in particular, and, it seems, on other subjects of the academic course. The influence of Professor A.V. Gorsky was also felt here during his twenty years of librarianship (1842–1862). This time, too, I began with the church sacraments, but at the same time I set myself a different, incomparably more difficult task than in the first half of the year (from January 1864), namely, to trace the history of the gradual formation of the liturgical side of the seven church sacraments in our Orthodox Eastern Church. The difficulty of accomplishing such a task was determined both by the lack of manuals in the literature that pursued this goal, and by the extreme fragmentation, on the one hand, and the paucity of material, on the other, for a coherent and consistent depiction of the historical fate of each of the rites of the church sacraments. For the first centuries, there was, however, enough material in the works of Western Protestant and Roman Catholic liturgists (Bingham, Augusti and Binterim) 259, but this material was raw, divided into headings, and it took a lot of work and art to create something whole from this mosaic, and for the history of the Orthodox Eastern rite, starting from the 5th-6th centuries, there was no such material, and here you had to piece by piece yourself collect historical data related to this. In both respects, especially in the latter, A.V. Gorsky provided irreplaceable assistance with his recommendations of various scientific works. Thus, for the history of the liturgy and other most important sacred rites, I strongly recommended the work of Gohar (Euchologion), and, in particular, for elucidating the scheme of the liturgy, in the initial stage of its development, the work of Bunsen - Hyppolitus und seine Zeit - and the work of Ludolf (Historia Aetiopica - 17th century - it was also in my hands), on which this scientist (Bunsen) built his hypothesis about the ancient scheme liturgy, then the works of Renadotus (Liturgiarum orientalium collectio) and Daniel (Codex liturgicus - important for the comparison of all liturgies, eastern and western, ancient and modern) and several other works, less thorough. For the history of the liturgical side of the sacraments in the subsequent period, from the 5th to 6th centuries, the last volume of “Descriptions of Manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library”, given to me by the unforgettable A.V. Gorsky - in proof sheets (at that time this volume was just being printed) - was of great importance for me. This volume contained a truly rich treasury of precious indications of what had appeared in the Orthodox Eastern rite since the 11th–12th centuries and what had not existed before that time. True, they did not fill the huge void, the lack of historical data for the intermediate period between the 5th, 6th and 11th and 12th centuries. Here we had to resort, for the most part, to conjectures, probable assumptions, supplemented by those grains of facts that could be found either in the works of the fathers and writers of the Church, or in the works of Roman Catholic scientists, like Binterim, in those cases when our Orthodox Eastern rite coincided with the medieval Roman one. Among our domestic literature, the works of Archbishop Philaret (Gumilevsky) on patrolology (“Historical Teaching about the Fathers of the Church”) were very useful, especially the “Historical Review of the Song Singers and Hymns of the Greek Church” and the publication of the St. Petersburg Academy – “The Writings of St. fathers and teachers of the Church relating to the interpretation of Orthodox worship." The nature of my readings in this department of church archeology can be judged by the articles I subsequently published: “Essay on the history of the liturgy of our Orthodox Church” (“Christ. reading”, 1868), “On the history of the liturgical side of the sacrament of marriage” (“Christian reading”, 1880) and “Essay on the history of the ritual side of the sacrament of unction” (“Christian reading”, 1880). These articles are based on my previous Moscow lectures, albeit with significant revisions and additions. He pursued the same task and followed essentially the same method in his readings in other departments of liturgics, that is, he sought to present a historical outline of the gradual development of various parts and aspects of the Orthodox Eastern liturgical rite, no matter how difficult it was sometimes to satisfy such goals and objectives. In addition, whenever possible, I always tried to draw a parallel between the Eastern and Western (Roman, Anglican and Lutheran) rites, for the most part in their fully developed form, at times only entering into the study of the historical fate of some particulars of the Western rite. Having finished with the section on the seven church sacraments, I moved on to the section on the church as a place of public worship, examining it from two sides: from the side of its external appearance - architectural and from the side of its internal structure, location and purpose of its parts. In the first respect, - after the treatise on the house churches and catacombs of the first Christians and ancient basilicas - he had to enter the field of architecture, study its various styles, starting with the Assyrian-Babylonian, Egyptian, ancient Greek and ancient Roman, continuing with the Byzantine, transitional to Gothic (Lombardo-Florentine), medieval Gothic, Romanesque and ending with the ancient Russian, the construction of wooden churches in the ancient Russia and stone, different mixed styles, churches in Rus' - in Kyiv, Novgorod, Vladimir-on-Klyazma, Moscow and other cities. At the same time, thanks, of course, to the same A.V. Gorsky, everything that was then the best and even rare and expensive in this area was at hand. For the study of basils there was a work by Zestermann - Die antiquen und christl. Basiliken, for the study of Assyro-Babylonian and Egyptian styles - a rare and very expensive edition of the Napoleonic expedition to Egypt - Description de l'Egypte (t. 1–26) 260, for the ancient Greek, Roman, Gothic and Romanesque styles - several manuals on church archeology in French (the French meant exclusively architectural archeology by church archeology), for the Byzantine style - Salzenberg - Altchristliche Baudenkmale von Constantinopel VI-XII Jahrh.), for Russian churches - the works of the count Stroganov (“Dmitrievsky Cathedral in Vladimir”), Snegirev (“Moscow”, “Monuments of Moscow Antiquities”), Martynov (“Monuments of Moscow Antiquities”), collections of materials by Sevastyanov and some others. On the history of the internal arrangement of parts of the church, data was found partly in the Western archaeological works of Bingham, Augusti, Binterim and others, and partly in our domestic research. Of the latter, Filimonov’s essay, “The Church of St. Nicholas on Lipna” to resolve the issue of altar barriers and the Russian iconostasis. The department on church iconography began with catacomb symbolic images, using mainly the work of Agincourt (“Histoire de l’art”) and partly Martigny (Dictionnaire d’antiqu. chret.) and articles of Russian spiritual magazines (“Christian reading”, 1864 - “Catacombs”, “Spiritual messenger”, 1864, June, etc.), then moved on to Byzantine icon painting, and had at hand the “Menologies of Emperor Basil the Macedonian” (some very old edition) and Diderot - about the Athonite icon painters of the 12th century. Didrot – Manuel d'iconographie greque et latin 261 . To get acquainted with Russian icon painting, I used the works of F. I. Buslaev (“On the Russian Icon Painting Original” - in essays, “General Concepts about Russian Icon Painting” - in “Collection of General Old Russian Art”), I.P. Sakharov (“On Russian icon painting” – 1st and 2nd issue), “Antiquities and symbolism of the Kiev-Sophia Cathedral” (Creations of the Holy Fathers, 1859), etc. At the end of this section, he presented a description of Byzantine religious painting, our ancient Russian icon painting, with its various schools up to and including Suzdal, and finally Western Italian, which influenced through Novgorod and Pskov and on old Moscow painting (in the 16th century - the work of clerk Viskovaty). In conclusion, using a very interesting article in a German work, he gave an outline of the development of all Western painting in general, not only religious, but also secular, in connection with the rise or decline of religiosity - either rising to unattainable heights (the age of Raphael, Michelangelo, etc.), or gradually falling to a very low level, as in the time we are living through. In the section on sacred clothes and vessels, first of all, the question was resolved: were the liturgical clothes of the first centuries of Christianity generally different from ordinary clothes and whether they were borrowed from the clothes used in the Old Testament Church. To resolve this issue, he used a very good article by Hefele (Beitrage zur Kirchengesch., Archeol. und Liturgik, 1864), then, in particular, he treated the clothes of deacons, priests and bishops - with a determination of their comparative antiquity. The final result: the most ancient sacred clothes: a vestment with its modification, a surplice, a phelonion, an orarion with an epitrachelion and an omophorion. Of the later ones, the miter appeared before others, later - the sakkos, club, panagia and, finally, the legguard (a feature of our Russian Church). In addition to Western archaeological works, he used, among other things, “Review of the Moscow Patriarchal Sacristy” - Rev. Savva, where many valuable historical and archaeological notes are found. – In the section on sacred vessels, it was treated, first of all, about the vessels used during the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist: the chalice (“Antiquities” in the “Proceedings of the Moscow Archaeological Society”, 1865), paten, star, spoon, spear, tabernacle, and then about other sacred vessels and accessories of worship. The manuals were the same as for the treatise on sacred robes. At the conclusion of the treatise on sacred vestments and vessels, a parallel was drawn between what was preserved from ancient times by our Orthodox Church and what is in the Roman Church and remained in Anglicanism and Lutheranism. Readings on church archeology ended with an extensive section on the times of worship in the annual, weekly and daily circle. He started with the annual cycle, continued with the seven-day cycle and ended with the daily cycle. In the annual circle, around the great holidays of Easter, Pentecost and Epiphany, with the Nativity of Christ, all the holidays and fasts of the year are grouped around three centers, and therefore they were considered as parts of three cycles: Easter, Pentecost and the Nativity of Christ. He started with the Easter cycle, moved on to the Pentecost cycle and ended with the Nativity cycle. Along with the history of the holidays and fasts that were grouped around these centers, he studied the history of Easter, the calendar, the monthly menaion and the Lenten and Colored triodion. As for the circle of weekly worship, after deciding where and when the division of the year not only into months, but also into weeks, came about, the characteristic features and peculiarities of worship on various days of the week were discussed. In connection with this treatise, information about the Octoechos was reported. The daily divine service was formed in its final form in the ancient eastern monasteries, and therefore, along with the treatise in its various parts (Compline, Vespers, Midnight Office, Matins, All-Night Vigil, Hours and Liturgy) information was provided about the works of Basil the Great on this part and about the Jerusalem and Studite statutes. This important department of liturgics (we mean the entire department about times of worship and various church services and liturgical books) was then very little developed in our literature. Its development moved forward very significantly later, thanks to the solid works of professors: I.D. Mansvetov (my successor in the department of church archeology), A.A. Dmitrievsky (Kyiv professor) and N.F. Krasnoseltsev (Kazan professor; † professor at Novorossiysk University). It was necessary to collect historical data relating to these subjects and issues from everywhere, piecemeal. The well-known work of Archpriest Debolsky “Days of Worship” helped a lot, but it did not satisfy all scientific needs regarding historical information. For the history of the holidays, there were manuals in Russian literature, in the articles “Creations of St. fathers" (1857 XVI – Feast of Pentecost, 1858 XVII – Feast of the Ascension of the Lord). For the history of the Nativity of Christ, I had in my hands a very good essay by the Berlin professor Kassel - Weihnachten, Ursprung, Brauche und Aberglauden, 1856. For the history of fasting - a dissertation published at the Moscow Academy (I don’t remember the exact title). For the history of Easter, calendars, the beginning of the new year, etc. - Arago’s work, dedicated to the presentation of popular astronomy. In general, for all my lectures on church archeology, I tried to collect data from everywhere, not only from spiritual journals, but also from secular ones. What, of all my assumptions, I was not able to accomplish was to compose an outline of the history of church singing in general and here, in our Russian Church, in particular. In this case, I was hampered by a complete lack of musical education and even a natural inability for it, and therefore I had to limit myself to only brief comments on this subject, although I already had some materials at hand for a more detailed outline of the history of church singing 262 . He devoted much less attention to the subject combined with church archeology - homiletics, or (as it was called at the Moscow Academy) “ecclesiastical eloquence”, devoting no more than ¼ of the entire two-year course to this subject, reading homiletics for one half of the year, in the first third, before the Nativity of Christ. This kind of reading was also historical in nature, not theoretical. They consisted of sketches of the history of church preaching, starting from the first centuries of Christianity. For the history of its most ancient period, up to the 5th century, Panille’s famous work, Pragmat, was an excellent guide. Gesch. der christl. Bereds. For essays on further periods - from the 5th to the 10th centuries, the medieval and in the Protestant and Roman Catholic West (about the famous French preachers - Bossuet, Bourdalou, Fenelon and Massillon) - various less outstanding manuals. However, I must admit that these essays were of a rather general, superficial nature. He did not touch upon the history of our domestic preaching at all, hastening to move on to his favorite studies in church archeology. He lectured on homiletics only once during his entire service at the Moscow Academy, in its XXV course (1862–1866). He read his lectures, but did not speak, not relying on his poor gift of speech and fearing his natural shyness and embarrassment. My ideals as an academic professor were completely at odds with the ideals of my colleagues, who, as noted above, advised me to study the subject most of all for myself and to pay less attention to the preparation of lectures that were not attended by students. I wanted, along with a serious study of church archeology, to have more and attentive listeners, and, in the end, I managed to achieve what I wanted to some extent. Students attended my lectures, albeit in moderate numbers, but, in any case, my classroom was never empty. There were more students at the beginning of each section and gradually decreased towards its end. My listeners noticed my zeal and even once instructed one of their comrades, who was visiting me, to tell me: “Why are you so diligent in compiling lectures, they are little visited and valued among us. After all, if an Angel came to us from heaven and began to lecture us, at first we would, of course, listen to him, say that his lectures were wonderful, and then... they would still stop going to see him.” But this warning from the students did not particularly affect me, and I continued to conduct my business as before. The result was my extreme overwork during the two-year academic course of 1864–1866, but my reputation as a good lecturer was firmly established among students, which was expressed once in flattering inscriptions addressed to me in the class magazine 263 and in applause at one of the lectures 264 . It cannot be said that the students did not study enough. They read a lot of serious scientific books; but they spent a lot of time composing essays. It was remarkable how they behaved during the exams. With amazing calm, without worrying at all about a satisfactory answer to the questions. Those who knew little directly declared that he could not say anything on a well-known ticket (exams were carried out on tickets, as in the St. Petersburg Academy), and when they pestered him that it was impossible that he did not know one or another of the generally known facts, he reluctantly answered something, repeating in conclusion that, in essence, he still knew nothing. In general, the student responses gave the impression that by attending the exams, the students were doing some kind of favor to the examiners, showing some kindness to them. This happened because exam answers were given even less importance at the Moscow Academy than at the St. Petersburg Academy, one might say - almost none. By the way, exams in church archeology and homiletics were combined with an exam in canon law, so A.F. Lavrov and A.L. Katansky were each other’s assistants, and the students answered - one in one subject, the other in another. The rector, A.V. Gorsky, presided over these exams. It was terrible for me, such a pygmy, so to speak, to present the results of my readings before such a colossus of theological science in general and church history in particular as A.V. Gorsky, but Fr. the rector, with his delicacy and tact, never made me feel the enormous difference between us and did not make any objections to my theses; at least I don’t remember anything like that. The students of the Moscow Academy, as noted above, were little like us, St. Petersburg residents. They behaved with great consciousness of their dignity, since they constituted the only intelligentsia of Posad and did not see anything higher than themselves. They behaved very freely towards their mentors. Not at all embarrassed by them, barely deigning to bow to them on the street, we calmly continued to court the local ladies and young ladies, so that we, at least the young bachelors, were more embarrassed by them than they were by us. Sometimes they gave concerts, playing violins, cellos and flutes in student rooms with open windows, while in the academic garden, in front of the residential student rooms, the townspeople strolled, enjoying the music of academic artists. However, after several such concerts they stopped due to the protest of the Lavra monastery authorities. And after that, however, this student orchestra played more than once, but not in public, but in the apartments of academic professors, for example, with S.K. Smirnov, F.A. Sergievsky and, it seems, A.F. Lavrov, when they had guests. Once, I remember, there was such an evening at F.A. Sergievsky’s, and, by the way, his brother N.A. Sergievsky 265 (the namesake of the Moscow University professor, Archpriest N.A.S.), who was at that time an inspector of the Moscow Practical Academy of Commercial Sciences, a remarkable type of an unusually cold, self-possessed bureaucrat, was present. He was with his wife, a Muscovite, from a merchant family. Respectable people played cards, and we, the young people, danced to the music of the student orchestra. We spent especially many such evenings with Professor S.K. Smirnov, who had many teenage daughters. The student orchestra consisted of: S. I. Miropolsky (later famous teacher, † vice-director of the Synod. Chancellery), N. N. Korsunsky (brother-in-law of A. F. Lavrov), M. Svetovidov and others. The most gifted students in this XXV course were: S. I. Miropolsky, V. P. Slansky († serving in State Control), D. Izvekov (teacher at St. Petersburg Seminary), A. Kudryavtsev († Archpriest, professor at one of the universities, Odessa or Kharkov), widowed priest Pyotr Leontievich Losev († Bishop of Perm), P. F. Komarov (acting bachelor at the St. Petersburg Academy, then its librarian, finally a priest) 266. Bosses and colleagues. The truly great saint, Moscow Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) 267, who occupied the Moscow see for 46 years (from 1821 to 1867), was more than an ordinary supreme leader for the academy. He, one might say, exclusively made good and bad weather possible. In my time, living out the last years of his long life († November 19, 1867), he was only the sun, illuminating it with his radiance, and ceased to be the formidable thunderer that he had been in the previous, earlier years of his command over the academy. We, young teachers, only heard legends of previous times and reviews of his harsh regime. But the remarkable thing is that not a single person, even from young people, who are usually not inclined to adore old people, has ever heard talk about the weakening of his mental abilities, such as the fact that, they say, the old man has lost his mind. His extraordinary intelligence and authority stood unshakably in the minds of the academy, one might say, hypnotized by his genius. He continued to take an active part in academic life. So, as before, by the way, he vigilantly ensured that nothing came out of “his academy” that was weak in terms of scholarship or inconvenient in terms of censorship, be it the works of academic mentors or the dissertations of students. Therefore, master's (student's) dissertations sent to the Holy Synod were subject to the strictest censorship, direct examination and reading, at least in excerpts, at the conference 268. In view of this, academic teachers themselves had to work very hard to bring them into a more perfect form, so that some of the students' master's theses were almost half the work of professors - supervisors of master's students. I was also threatened with the prospect of such work, but I did not have to experience anything like this, since two or three dissertations written on my subject were not included in the master’s degree. I also remember Metropolitan Philaret’s opinion on topics for dissertations for academic degrees. In one of the meetings in the meeting of academic mentors, when discussing the issue of these topics, rector A.V. Gorsky, regarding topics about ecumenical councils, noted: “The Bishop is against this kind of topics, he finds that young people are beyond their strength; you never know what happened at the ecumenical councils.” I remember the last phrase very vividly, and it struck me very much as the opinion, obviously, of the Metropolitan himself. Then, I remember another incident that clearly demonstrates Metropolitan Philaret’s concern for what comes out of his academy from the pen of not only students, but also professors. I come once to the inspector Fr. To Mikhail, when he had just returned home, I saw him in a terrible sweat, with a red face, as if he had just left the bathhouse, and I said to him: “You were probably in the bathhouse?” “Yes,” he answers, “I was really in the bathhouse, just not in an ordinary one, but in Filaretovskaya.” It turned out that Fr. Michael was then publishing his articles: “On the Gospels and Gospel history, regarding the book of Renan - The Life of Jesus” and had to first, before publishing them, read his manuscript to Metropolitan Philaret, who was living at that time in Bethany, in his monastery. It was in the summer, on one of his usual visits there. By the way, Fr. Mikhail reported that the Metropolitan very reluctantly agreed to the publication of his articles, fearing that the minds of readers would be confused by Renan’s views on the face of Christ the Savior cited in them. By the way, about the visits of Metropolitan Philaret to Sergiev Posad, and from there to Bethany. On one of these visits - probably the last or penultimate one (in 1866 or 1867) - he was very kind to the academic corporation. Upon introduction, he told us: “I am very glad that I am again among you, it is always a pleasure for me to be among the academic fraternity; How are things going with the publication of the Church Historical Dictionary?” He gave 10,000 rubles for this dictionary. The rector replied that the business was going quite successfully (? - it will be seen later how true this was). “Excuse me,” continued the Metropolitan, “I myself should take an active part in this kind of your work, but due to my old age I cannot; my strength has become weak." If we add to what has been said the impression I received when I was introduced to Metropolitan Philaret, on the occasion of asking for his blessing for my marriage (this will be discussed below), then this will be all that remains in my memories of this remarkable personality. The last time I saw him was at a public examination in June 1867 (here he struck me with his unusually brilliant, lively eyes) and at a dinner on this occasion in his Lavra chambers, four to five months before his death (November 19, 1867 - at that time I was already serving at the St. Petersburg Academy, from July 30, 1867 - and, unfortunately, did not participate in the tribute last debt to a truly great saint). Thus, I personally have only bright memories of Metropolitan Philaret. Rector of the Academy (since October 23, 1862) Fr. Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky 269 is such a rare, unusual and multifaceted personality in his scientific activity and influence that it is very difficult to give an exhaustive description of him in brief words. A complete and unusually successful, comprehensive description of him can be read in an excellent, masterful essay (the successor of Evg. Evs. Golubinsky) by Professor S. I. Smirnov (“A.V. Gorsky” - “Theological Bulletin”, 1890, No. 11), and a brief, but very expressive one, in N.P. Gilyarov-Platonov (Collection of his works, ed. K. P. Pobedonostsev, vol. 2, pp. 464–465), where this wonderful scientist and publicist, a very strict and angry critic, bowing to the personality of A.V., as a “colossal personality,” writes: “This ascetic professor, this lay monk, who combined a sociable life with an ascetic life humanity and readiness to serve everyone with their knowledge and works - this was an extraordinary phenomenon. It is unlikely to happen again. It was the creation of a special spiritual system during the well-known period of the Moscow Academy, where A.V. Gorsky was preceded by his prototype - F.A. Golubinsky, with the same abyss of erudition, with a deep thinking mind and not only the absence of vanity, but with humility, about which it is difficult to even form a concept.” Fully joining this apt and absolutely correct description, we will add just a few words about him as the rector of the academy. A.V. Gorsky was irreplaceable, one might say ideal, rector of the academy as its scientific leader, which, however, is clearly evident from this entire chapter of our memoirs. As an administrator, he was not distinguished by abilities of this kind, he even had shortcomings in this regard, but these small defects were completely covered by the enormous merits of the mind and heart of an unforgettable old man, a great scientist and an extraordinary kindness of a person. He treated the students with great condescension, but this apparent weakness of his only led to the fact that the students were afraid to do anything to upset their rector - “dad,” as they usually called him, and in their pranks they often stopped each other with the words: “If dad finds out, he will cry.” As we saw above, he even allowed the student orchestra to play pieces in student rooms with open windows. They also saw that this permission was withdrawn due to protest from the Lavra authorities. The latter had, of course, quite sufficient reasons for this. But at the same time, there was also a certain antagonism between the Lavra and the Academy, an antagonism that made itself felt in many other cases, which is very natural when two different independent institutions coexist in one enclosure. And the rector, Archpriest A.V. Gorsky, for all his meekness, humility and peacefulness, found it difficult to maintain good relations with the Lavra authorities, so from time to time the phrase escaped him: “I don’t know what to do with the Lavra.” His position was all the more difficult because at the time the Lavra was headed by a very influential viceroy, Archimandrite Anthony, who had great weight with Metropolitan Philaret, who was unfriendly towards the academy and for some personal reasons 270. To the professorial corporation, including its junior members, young bachelors, rector A.V. He treated me extremely delicately and cordially. He did not reveal despotic tendencies on the academic board, giving, as they said then, a lot of scope for the influence and experience of the then secretary of the board, the oldest professor after him, E. V. Amfiteatrov, who was then called the “bigwig” of the academic administration. And such compliance of the rector served, without a doubt, only in favor of the successful course of administrative academic affairs. His only rather sensitive flaw was his extraordinary suspiciousness - slowness and indecisiveness in maintaining academic publications. These properties of his were determined, one might think, by his extreme scientific conscientiousness and exactingness and partly by the influence of Filaret’s merciless criticism. Publication of an academic journal – “Creations of St. Fathers" - almost stopped, his books were published sloppily, two or three a year. The extent to which the lack of material resources and weak subscriptions affected this is unknown. There was no talk about this then, and the blame was placed entirely on the rector. The mentioned church-historical dictionary, conceived by A.V. himself, as he stated in his anniversary speech on the occasion of the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the academy (in 1864), did not move forward at all. Teachers of various sciences represented Fr. to the rector alphabetical lists of treatises that were to be included in the dictionary, but all of this fell into oblivion. On this occasion, the following characteristic scene is vividly remembered - in the rector’s apartment, on one of the holidays, when the academic corporation, according to custom, gathered at his place after the liturgy. O. Rector, A.V., sits on the sofa, and on the chairs around the table are the oldest professors, including P.S. Kazansky. We, completely or relatively young, including A.F. Lavrov (later Archbishop Alexy), V.N. Potapov, P.I. Gorsky, N.K. Sokolov, stand in a group not far from the oldest professors. Our then academic doctor, Nil Petr, also found himself near us. Strakhov (who bore our nickname - “Frivolous Nile”). Suddenly, among the oldest professors, there is talk about a church historical dictionary, why this publication is not being established, and, by the way, about the journal “Creations of St. fathers”, which is why it is being conducted incorrectly. Then P. S. Kazansky, pointing his hand at the rector, with liveliness, it seems even standing up, remarks: “It’s all his fault, he’s the cause of everything” (these words are engraved with literal precision in my memory). The kindest A.V., by nature of “a lively, flammable temperament, who sometimes could not resist an angry outburst or expression of annoyance” (his own confession in his diary), at these words P.S. K-go blushed greatly, even sat up on the sofa and began to heatedly justify himself. Thus, a rather stormy scene occurred, which was pointed out by the doctor standing next to us, N.P. Strakhov, noted: “Now they (A.V. Gor. and P.S. Kaz.) have now quarreled, then they will get sick, and then they will pull me to them: they say, treat me, and what to treat, for example, with P. Sim. Kaz., when there is nothing inside him anymore, everything has rotted,” hinting at the old catarrh of the venerable old professor’s lungs. This scene, of course, did not in any way disrupt the long-standing friendly relations of the old colleagues - the rector and P.S.K., both of whom were distinguished by their nobility and sincerity of character, with the exceptional kindness of A.V. G. This characteristic scene well illustrates the then structure of Moscow academic life and at the same time proves the old truth that even the sun has spots. The thought involuntarily suggests a comparison of the Moscow rector, Archpriest A.V. Gorsky, with the then rectors of the St. Petersburg Academy - Rev. Ioannikiem and Rev. John (Sokolov; † Bishop of Smolensk). What a huge difference between them! The inspector, ordinary professor Archimandrite Mikhail (Luzin) 271, who enjoyed great attention and respect from students as a good, eloquent professor of Holy Scripture, did not enjoy the same sympathy among all its members among the academic corporation. Some had doubts about his sincerity and especially truthfulness. However, much in the latter respect, it seems, should be attributed more to the playfulness of his mind and imagination than to shortcomings of a moral character. He treated his colleagues, even the younger ones, quite correctly, the rector with great respect, and the archpriest rector with respect for his rank of archimandrite, so that during his infrequent, however, joint divine services with him, he put him on a level with himself, just as bishops stand in the church in their concelebration. The eldest after the rector, ordinary professor of general literature Egor Vasilievich Amfiteatrov 272, enjoyed enormous influence on students as a very talented, wonderful, eloquent professor of literature, and great weight and authority among the academic corporation. He was distinguished by a decisive, firm, rather proud character. Not everyone among the professors loved him, but everyone respected him. Pyotr Simonovich Kazansky 273, an ordinary professor of general civil history, a very respectable, knowledgeable scientist, known for his numerous valuable published works, unfortunately did not enjoy the due attention of students. This was prevented by his extreme pain, which was already mentioned above. Students jokingly said about him that he did not read, but “coughed out his lectures.” Unfortunately for him, with extremely poor health, he was a passionate smoker; sitting in his apartment, he did not take his pipe out of his mouth, so that his apartment was full of tobacco smoke, and among the clouds the venerable professor could hardly be seen. He was distinguished by his religiosity and directness, sincerity of character, as can be seen from the scene in the rector’s apartment described above. He treated all members of the corporation very kindly and enjoyed the love and respect of all his colleagues. Sergei Konstantinovich Smirnov 274, an ordinary professor of Russian civil history, also one of the oldest professors, a very hardworking and talented scientist, the author of very numerous works and studies on a wide variety of subjects, mainly on the history of academies (Slavic-Greek-Latin and Moscow), the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, various monasteries, Moscow churches and other ancient monuments, was a popular professor among students. According to rumors, he captivated them with his lectures, full of curiosities and piquant details, chosen by him from the chronicles, deliberately to arouse the attention of the listeners. His audience, they said then, was always full. At the corporation he was a very flexible colleague, friendly and welcoming to everyone. However, they laughed at him because he was also friends with the Lavra monks, expecting himself, as a man with a large family, 275 some benefits and benefits from this. Victor Dmitrievich Kudryavtsev-Platonov 276, ordinary professor of metaphysics and history of ancient philosophy, who then headed the teachers of philosophical sciences at the academy, a worthy successor to our famous philosopher, Archpriest F.A. Golubinsky, enjoyed deep and sincere respect from both students and the academic corporation, not only as an excellent professor, but also as a very likable person. He had an even, reserved and at the same time affable character, quite correct in all his actions, concentrated, and rather silent. Nikolai Ivanovich Subbotin 277, comrade V.D. Kudryavtseva as a student, an extraordinary professor of hermeneutics and the doctrine of religions and schisms (subjects united in one department at the Moscow Academy), a well-known great expert on the Russian schism, did not enjoy the sympathy of the academic corporation, partly thanks to his friendship with the unloved former inspector and rector of the academy, Sergius (Lyapidevsky; † Metropolitan Moskovsky), partly because he kept himself quite far from her; he was close only to the circle of professors E.V. Amfiteatrova and V.D. Kudryavtsev. He gravitated more towards Moscow, to which he himself traveled very often, and some rather strange personalities from the schismatic world constantly came to him from there. I often saw them leaving his apartment - counterparts to mine. He dressed very well, even dapper, and in general his entire appearance stood out favorably from the rest of the academic fraternity, the vast majority of whom did not shine with external polish. Archpriest Filaret Aleksandrovich Sergievsky 278, an extraordinary and then ordinary professor of moral and pastoral theology, one of the rather close relatives of Metropolitan Philaret, was considered a very thorough and serious professor. He was of a reserved, silent character. In essence, he was very similar to his brother, N.A. Sergievsky († trustee of the Vilna educational district), mentioned above, but, thanks to his environment, his character could not be molded into a bureaucratic form, and he remained a kind, flexible colleague, not lacking in sociability and, to a certain extent, cordiality, and was not averse to participating in various entertainments. Alexander Fedorovich Lavrov-Platonov (monastic Alexy; † Archbishop of Lithuania) 279, bachelor, and since 1864 - an extraordinary professor of church jurisprudence, a deep expert in his subject, our most outstanding canonist, was in appearance a rather powerful, impressive figure, in which lived a very meek, kind soul. His character was modest, quiet, friendly, sociable and generally likable 280. In his family environment, with the friendliness of his wife M.N., it felt easy and good. He was also very religious at that time, steadily attending all services and, it seems, almost alone from the entire corporation in my time, once or twice a year, delivered sermons in the refectory of the Lavra church (there then, in the absence of its own academic church, services were performed by the academic clergy), as appointed by the academic authorities. Previously, all academic mentors were required to preach, and even in my time sermons were assigned to everyone, but almost no one presented them. Once, as a teacher of church eloquence, I considered it my duty to introduce Fr. the rector assigned me the sermon, but did not deliver it during the service. In addition to A.F. L., I remember, Dm also preached. F. Golubinsky. Dmitry Fedorovich Golubinsky 281, son of the famous philosopher Archpriest F.A. Golubinsky, bachelor, and then, from 1864, an ordinary professor of physics, was truly a man out of this world, passionately loved his subject, like his St. Petersburg colleague (Professor N.I. Gloriantov), ​​and was even more eccentric. He was very loved by the students, although they often made fun of him, and there were many stories among them about his eccentricities, especially during exams. He lived in a special apartment with his old aunt. He was very religious and was also distinguished by his charity towards the poor. Several times a year (it seems, on the days of memory of the parent and on his name day), crowds of beggars gathered at his place, whom he gave alms. He was very friendly and helpful towards his colleagues, although he kept aloof from them. Vasily Nikiforovich Potapov 282, bachelor, and since 1864 - an extraordinary professor of logic and new philosophy, in his way also a rather original person. A very gifted professor, he was distinguished by philosophical depth and concentration, from which at times he emerged and showed a lot of cordiality and a kind of sweet naivety. In relation to his colleagues he behaved very correctly and took advantage of their general sympathies, without exception. He loved music, although, it seems, he had no special musical abilities, he played the piano, which he alone had in our bachelor’s building, and through this somewhat enlivened our monotonous life in a government environment. Pavel Ivanovich Gorsky-Platonov, a namesake, but not a relative of the rector (a relative of Professor P. S. Kazansky, his nephew) 283, a bachelor, and then, from 1867, an extraordinary professor of biblical history and the Jewish language, a very respectable scientist, a great expert in his subject, did not, however, enjoy the sympathy of the majority of his colleagues, due to some features of his character. Nikolai Kirillovich Sokolov 284, relative of the rector A.V.G. (his cousin), bachelor, and since 1865 - extraordinary professor of modern church history; with great talent, he was, as they say, a man with a sparkle in his soul. We were in great friendship with him. Unfortunately, at times he suffered from the weakness characteristic of many in Rus', and I, as a person very close to him, had to endure many difficult moments, for which, after the crisis had passed, I was rewarded with manifestations of his ardent, devoted friendship. Subsequently, since 1867, he became a professor of church law at Moscow University, he declared himself with numerous, talented works on this subject, among other things, he conducted a heated debate with Professor A.F. Lavrov on the then burning issue of transforming the church court. It is extremely unfortunate that N.K. Sokolov died so early (1874). Evgeny Evsigneevich Golubinsky 285, a namesake, but not a relative of Archpriest F.A. Golubinsky, who received this surname in memory of his famous fellow countryman, in turn, later became a celebrity himself, as the author of major works on the history of the Russian Church. He ended his life (January 7, 1912) as an ordinary academician of the Academy of Sciences. At the time described, Eug. Evs. was a young bachelor, a great original, 286 an unsociable, reserved armchair scientist, not without harshness in his manners. In essence, however, he was very good-natured; a harsh word almost always ended with a booming, somehow childishly naive laugh. An excellent and very complete and correct description of him can be read in the essay of his successor in the department and relative, Professor S.I. Smirnov (probably in the “Theological Bulletin”, 1912; we have a separate reprint at hand). Pyotr Makarovich Khupotsky 287, a student friend of A. M. Ivantsov, bachelor of experimental psychology and moral philosophy (3rd department in philosophy; there were only two of them in our St. Petersburg Academy), a gifted man, but, unfortunately, he was prone to a weakness for alcoholic beverages, he served at the academy until 1865. He was distinguished by his great sociability and good-natured character. He could be found in all places where his colleagues gathered, had a good voice and very willingly sang in company when asked to do so. Hieromonk John (Metropolitan) 288, Bachelor of Ancient Church History, successor in the department of Professor A.V. Gorsky and student friend of Kyiv professors A. Voronov and F. Ternovsky, and St. Petersburg professor M.I. Karinsky, was not considered particularly gifted. He was a good-natured man, who, however, did not have tact in general and in his attitude towards students, in particular, why inspector Fr. Mikhail did not find it possible to offer him the position of his assistant, but persistently convinced me to accept it 289. Since 1864, three more people from my former students turned out to be my colleagues. Alexander Alekseevich Smirnov 290, bachelor of patristics, brother of Archpriest P. A. Smirnov († chairman of the Educational Committee at the Holy Synod), prominent, representative in appearance, a man with a fairly high opinion of himself. Alexander Petrovich Smirnov 291 (namesake of A. A. Smirnov), bachelor of experimental psychology, considered more talented than his namesake. A.P. Sm-v was P.M. Khupotsky’s successor in the department; he was a modest man, of a sympathetic character, and was not without the weaknesses of his predecessor, although to an incomparably lesser extent. Nikolai Yakovlevich Fortinsky 292, Bachelor of Mathematics, was distinguished by his modesty, great good nature and easy-going character, and enjoyed the sympathy of all his colleagues. The life of the academic corporation was concentrated exclusively within itself, limited to the mutual communication of its members. There was no other society in Posad, and therefore academic teachers had to live in very close communication with each other. While Pyotr Spiridonovich Delitsyn was alive, the academic corporation represented a single body that had a single soul in it. Everyone went to this academic patriarch, both the old and the young professor, and everyone grouped around him. It was said that P. S. Delitsyn even had a room with several beds in his apartment, designed specifically for visiting professors, mostly young bachelors, who lived in the academic building, when, after 10 o’clock in the evening, they could not get into their apartments because of the locked Lavra gates. Waking up in the morning, Elder P.S.D. usually asked the servants a laconic question: “Is there anyone?” “There are,” she answered, “two or three.” “Well, then call them for tea when they wake up.” And then, when the overnight guests arrived for tea, a friendly, relaxed conversation began between the most authoritative, honored professor-host and his, often very young, guests, who felt as if they were in their parents’ home. But all this was already in the past. During my time, the inspector’s prediction, Fr. Mikhail, about whom he spoke on my first meeting with him - regarding the collapse of the academic corporation. Soon, several circles were formed, which later (however, after I left the academy) even turned into parties, which, according to rumors, were quite at odds with each other, especially since the introduction of the charter of 1869, with meetings of the council, branches, debates, etc. In my time, all this was still only in its infancy, not going further than the isolation and formation of circles. There were two main ones. The first consisted of only four persons: E.V. Amfiteatrova, V.D. Kudryavtsev, N.I. Subbotin and Doctor N.P. Strakhov. It was, so to speak, an aristocratic circle. It was headed by E.V. Amphitheaters, a man with a strong character, who set his own tone here too. He and V.D. Kudryavtsev were brothers-in-law, married to two sisters, and at first lived in the same house (E.V. Amph-va), until V.D. Kudryavtsev built his own. N. I. Subbotin, through his student partnership with V. D. Kud and out of sympathy for the family of E. V. Amph-va, also gravitated towards this circle. The second circle had as its center the “state courtyard” - the monastery house. This circle included those who lived in this house: extraordinary professor F.A. Sergievsky, A.F. Lavrov and bachelor P.I. Gorsky 293, the main leader of this circle. Adjacent to him were: Professor S.K. Smirnov, who lived near the said house, and inspector Fr. Mikhail (Luzin), who, as they said then, stood in some opposition to E.V. Amfitheatrov on the academic board, and was also friends with his fellow students - F.A. Sergievsky and A.F. Lavrov, especially with the latter. Those who lived as hermits did not belong to any circle: P. S. Kazansky, Dm. Fed. Golubinsky and Evg. Evs. Golubinsky, finally we are the inhabitants of the bachelor’s building: V.N. Potapov, N.K. Sokolov, P.M. Khupotsky, A.L. Katansky, A.A. Smirnov (another Smirnov, Al. Petr., was married and lived in a private apartment) and N.Ya. Fortinsky. We were equally willing to visit family members belonging to both circles, as long as there was some opportunity to spend the evening pleasantly and without much boredom. We, the single inhabitants of the building, had very close mutual communication with each other, there was a kind of hostel, we visited each other constantly, every day, sometimes several times, with the exception of N.I. Subbotin, who avoided communication with us, from whom we also avoided, and partly the uncommunicative Evg. Evs. Golubinsky, who, however, very soon left our building, moving to a government yard, which, by the way, I note, gave me the opportunity to occupy his apartment. My most friendly relations began with V.N. Potapov and, in particular, with N.K. Sokolov. The former was attracted by his very sympathetic, noble character, and the latter by our very similar mood. The fact is that we were both very bored in Posad, I, after living in cities such as Nizhny Novgorod and St. Petersburg, he - after two years of life abroad, mainly in London, where he went in 1861, first as a home teacher in the family of the famous admiral E.V. Putyatin, and then was there on a scientific trip to prepare for the occupation of the newly opened, in 1863, in Moscow Academy, Department of New Church History. At the time of my arrival in Posad, N.K. Sokolov had just returned from a trip abroad and occupied a new department, instead of the previous one (Russian church history). Thus, there turned out to be one more circumstance that brought us closer: both again, although in different departments. A lively mind, not without a poetic twist, hot temperament, great sociability of N.K.S. I was very attracted to him. Meetings and acquaintances. In August 1864, Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna, a well-known patroness of education and the center of the circle grouped around her, visited the academy. They gathered in the academic hall, where the academic corporation was introduced to her, including the person writing these lines. The Grand Duchess, when introducing me as a teacher of church archeology, was apparently struck by the complete discrepancy between my appearance and the nature of the subject of my teaching. She could not contain the smile on her face, seeing a very young archaeologist, who did not have the slightest solidity in figure, at least in any way corresponding to the specialty of his work. In 1865, in the rector’s apartment, academic teachers introduced themselves to the new Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count Dm. Andr. Tolstoy, who had just been appointed, was then a young man, alive and seemed to us to be a little respectable for the high post he occupied. For some reason (probably in connection with the recently published work of Count Tolstoy - Le Catholicisme en Russie, 1863 - a work to which, by the way, he owed his appointment to the post of Chief Prosecutor), talk began about Pichler's work, which had just been published in 1864, on the unification of the Churches and attempts to do so. Count Dm. Andr. asked: is this essay known at the academy? On this occasion, A.V. Gorsky, not without visible pleasure, reported that not only was it known, but that there was already a note about this work in a printed article by one bachelor, namely A. Katansky, and pointed to me. It should be noted that our great bibliophile, Fr. the rector, immediately, as soon as this essay came out, wrote it out and, knowing about my dissertation on the same topic, gave it to me. And I wrote an article for the Orthodox Review (1865, January and February), entitled “The question of the unification of the Churches, the history of attempts to solve it and its future fate,” where, by the way, I placed a short bibliographic note about Pichler’s book, which was again published abroad. The main content of the article was a revised introduction to my master's thesis (see Chapter III). By the way, about my printed works. My first published works, with which I made my debut in the literary field, were two articles in the newspaper “Den,” then published by the famous Slavophile I. S. Aksakov: “What is the significance of the spread of enlightenment among the Russian people for the future fate of the Russian schism” (1864, December), “On the movement of religious thought of the educated class in Russia” (1865, No. 1). This was followed by the two above-mentioned articles in the Orthodox Review (1865). Partly in connection with these first experiences of my journalistic activity, I also made acquaintances in Moscow. Of these, the most interesting were those with I.S. Aksakov and N.P. Gilyarov-Platonov. I visited I.S. Aksakov several times. I decided to send my first article about the schism to the editor of the newspaper “Den” (which was a somewhat altered version of my student essay written on the same topic), so to speak at random: in my manuscript I did not indicate either my last name or address. The article, however, was published, after which I sent I. S. Ak-vu a letter indicating my name and address. He answered me with a very interesting letter 294, and then I came to him to meet him personally and receive a fee. I visited him several more times, on the occasion of the publication of the second article. By the way, I. S. Aksakov complained greatly about the unfair attitude of the St. Petersburg authorities towards him and apologized for the modest payment for my articles, citing financial difficulties in publishing the newspaper, which, according to him, absorbed his personal funds. In connection with this acquaintance there was something else that was no less interesting. I had to meet, under rather original circumstances, with one of the most remarkable literary figures of that time, Nikita Petrovich Gilyarov-Platonov, who was at that time the manager of the Moscow Synodal Printing House 295. I heard a lot about him from colleagues, but I did not know him personally. Suddenly one day he himself comes to me, to my bachelor’s apartment. It turned out that he had heard about me from I.S. Aksakov and wanted to get to know me. Among the conversations with the unexpected guest, I was amazed by the wide variety of his knowledge, 296 the originality of his views and the ebullience of his thoughts. He made me promise that I would be with him in Moscow, at the Synodal Printing House. In Moscow, during a meeting, after inspecting this wonderful printing house, he took me to his dacha (his own, in Petrovsky Razumovsky), where I had to spend the night. Here, among conversations and a mass of various projects with which his hot head was full, he expressed, among other things, the idea that he intended to publish a large national newspaper. This intention, as it turns out from his biography, he harbored from a young age, he began to strive for its implementation in 1859 and realized it at the end of 1867 (in the edition of Sovremennye Izvestia). He invited me to participate in this projected newspaper as his closest collaborator and assistant. But I was still so young and immature at that time (this was in 1865–6) that I felt completely out of sync with him, and besides, I was not entirely sure of the feasibility of this project, one of his many projects. Some prejudice against N.P. Gilyarov was instilled in me by the reviews of his former colleagues about him. The fact is that this talented person did not enjoy the love of the academic corporation, mainly because of his evil tongue and addictive character. They did not deny his great talent, but they considered him not a particularly thorough person, scattered in different directions, interested in one or another subject that was not part of his academic specialty. Suddenly, for example, he becomes interested in political economy or statistics, locks himself in an apartment for several months, studies this subject intensely, then gives up and moves on to another. I owed other acquaintances to colleagues and friends. U o. rector, A.V.G., met Cap. Iv. Nevostruev, master of the 12th year (1840) of the Moscow Academy, until 1849 - a teacher at the Simbirsk Seminary, from 1849 - in Moscow, assistant to A.V. Gorsky in describing manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library. K.I. Nev-v, a wonderful, outstanding archaeologist, amazed with the originality of his appearance and habits. For example, like Metropolitan Philaret, he did not recognize the railway and headed from Moscow to Posad, to his friend A.V. Gor, on foot, like a wanderer, with a knapsack over his shoulders and a staff in his hands. Metropolitan Philaret also came to the Lavra not by rail, but in a carriage. Among my colleagues, I also met A.E. Viktorov (Orlov, candidate of the 17th year of 1850 at the Moscow Academy), also a famous Moscow archaeologist. N.K. Sokolov introduced me to the professor of Moscow University, Archpriest N.A. Sergievsky, and his brother, Archpriest A.K. Sokolov (6th Master of the XIII course, 1842, Moscow Academy, first Bachelor of Church Archeology until 1854). I vividly remember his two sons, who were then studying at the Moscow Seminary, including V. A. Sokolov, later a talented, eloquent professor at the Moscow Academy. V.N. Potapov introduced me to his son-in-law, Archpriest Vasily Petrovich Nechaev (3rd Master of the 16th year, 1848, Moscow Academy; † Most Rev. Vissarion, Bishop of Kostroma), then rector of one of the Zamoskvoretsk churches and editor of “Soulful Reading.” At Professor S.K. Smirnov’s I met his fellow student and brother-in-law, Archpriest Ipp. Mich. Bogoslovsky-Platonov (1st Master of the 14th year of 1844 at the Moscow Academy, until 1850 - Bachelor of Logic and History of Middle and New Philosophy), very revered in Moscow and popular among the Moscow aristocracy, and finally - with their common student friend, Archpriest Vas. Iv. Romanovsky (19th master of the same, XIX course), a very original personality. Moscow has always been distinguished by its hospitality and broad hospitality, which I also experienced when visiting my Moscow acquaintances. But the record in this regard, as they say now, was broken by Fr. Archpriest V.I. Romanovsky. I saw him several times with Professor S.K. Smirnov. But then one day I go to Moscow and meet him at the station. “Where are you going and why?” he asks me, for some reason addressing me as “you” when we weren’t drinking the so-called “Bruderschaft” with him. “To Moscow to clear my head.” “Where will you stay?” “At the hotel,” I answer. “What nonsense, nonsense, let’s go to me.” Despite my delicate refusal, he took me away in his own carriage, on a pair, and brought me to his house, in Zamoskvorechye, near the Pyatnitskaya Church, where he was rector. After examining the house, he began (despite the fact that it was early in the morning) intensively and, one might say, forcefully treating me to wine; There was no way to refuse, and it ended with me feeling sick. In the evening he sent my son and me to the theater, from the theater he called us, through the servants, to drink tea and have a snack in the house of a rich merchant, in the same Zamoskvorechye (Ryb-na), where he himself was, feeling at home here and treating everyone without any ceremony. Upon arrival home, he began to woo this merchant’s daughter for me. No matter how grateful I was to Fr. archpriest for his more than cordial welcome, but did not dare to try it another time. Generally about. V.I.R. was a rare type of broad Russian character in a cassock. He was very popular among Moscow merchants, especially railway builders and contractors, like Gubonin, and jokingly called himself “the railway bishop” when consecrating bridges, stations, etc. As he always called himself by a half-name, that was what others called him. They said that he led a large life while still a student, receiving a fairly large inheritance from his parents. He was tall, very prominent in appearance and athletic in build. We all really loved going to Moscow. These trips gave a lot of pleasure and were very useful in the sense of refreshment and rest after strenuous work, especially for the young bachelors who made up the first two-year course of lectures. Unfortunately, the scarcity of material resources prevented me from giving myself this pleasure as often as possible. From 35 rub. salary to spend 10 rubles. to travel to Moscow meant depriving oneself of the opportunity to make at least the most insignificant expense later, for example, to update and repair a suit, and besides, even without these expenses, it was an extremely difficult task to live, without a deficit and a loan, for a month on the remaining 25 rubles. - with a daily payment of 1 ruble for the table, and even with the inevitable expense of tea, sugar, tobacco (alas! I started smoking). True, by the end of 1865, thanks to Metropolitan Philaret, there was an increase in the bachelor’s salary - to the previous 429 rubles. another 271 (= 700 rubles), from the sums of the Moscow department - the first example, which was followed by other departments: undoubtedly, St. Petersburg and, probably, Kiev, and maybe Kazan. And for me personally, from September 6, 1866, funds increased by 10 rubles. per month with my appointment to the position of assistant inspector of the academy (128 rubles 70 k. per year). But this was already more than two years after the start of service, and these new funds cost about 58 rubles. per month, required great restraint and prudence in spending on emergency expenses, such as trips to Moscow. Therefore, I was happy if I found shelter with one of my Moscow acquaintances when visiting Moscow, and was spared the expense of renting a hotel room, which I still often had to resort to so as not to burden my Moscow friends and good acquaintances. In particular, he often stayed with one venerable Moscow deacon, I. G. Bogoyavlensky, a close relative of Metropolitan Philaret. The son of this o. deacon, K.I. Bogoyavlensky (14th master of the XXIV course of 1864 at the Moscow Academy, later the eldest son-in-law of Professor S.K. Smirnov, rector of St. Basil's Church), was my student at the academy. By the way, this o. The deacon told me about what a brilliant mentor, it seems according to Holy Scripture, Metropolitan Isidore (Nikolsky) was at the Moscow Seminary, when he was Archimandrite - Rector of the Moscow Seminary. “We, the students,” said I. G. B-y, “listened to our rector, one might say, with bated breath, and were extremely unhappy when we heard the bell to leave the classroom.” Archimandrite Isidore, however, often stayed in class even after the bell rang, and left only when another mentor appeared to give the next lesson. “Why did Metropolitan Isidore turn out to be so... (my interlocutor seemed to add) colorless in St. Petersburg?” I don’t know what I answered him then, but now I would say that he was made this way: St. Petersburg, which has the unfortunate property of discoloring personalities, then the traditions of the history of the synodal period (like the expulsion from St. Petersburg of two Philaretov - Moscow and Kyiv, which the wise and cautious Metropolitan Isidore very much remembered and which was once directly stated to our St. Petersburg rector - Fr. I.L. Yanyshev) and, finally, the personality of Metropolitan Philaret, who was the main leader of our church life and without whom nothing could be done with us then. The wise St. Petersburg saint, Metropolitan Isidore, if he wanted to achieve something, acted through his deeply revered Metropolitan Philaret, while remaining in the shadows himself. U o. Deacon I. G. B-go met a very interesting and respected person in Moscow, the rector of the church where Fr. deacon, with the archpriest of the Church of St. Nikita the Martyr in Basmannaya, Pl. Iv. Kapustin (2nd master of the 12th year of 1840 at the Moscow Academy, in 1840 - teacher at the Tobolsk Seminary, in 1842 - bachelor of philosophy, in 1844 - in mathematics, in 1850 - priest and archpriest of the Church of St. Nikita the Martyr). This is what. The archpriest was considered not only a very smart person, but also a great expert and lover of physics. He was, if I am not mistaken, the brother of the famous rector of our Palestinian mission, the famous Archimandrite Antonin. Trinity-Sergiev Posad, an excellent place for serious scientific studies, was, however, very boring during the hours of rest from them, especially for young people. We young people really didn’t know what to do with our free time. There was nowhere to even walk; There were no sidewalks at all in all of Posad; one had to walk along a few dirty or dusty streets: Pereslavskaya, Vifanskaya, or near the railway station. The tiny boulevard near the monastery wall, near the entrance to the main, holy gate, was taken over by students who embarrassed us, but themselves, as noted above, were not at all embarrassed by meeting us. It was necessary to take walks even through the monastery walls, at the top of which there were quite wide passage corridors, or to wander around in the small academic garden. In this garden one could often meet Fr. rector, who usually walked here. I remember one such meeting, one conversation with him. “Do you know,” says A.V., “there is a new book: “Dogmatic Theology” by Rev. Philaret of Chernigov" (1864). “How do you find it,” I decided to ask Fr. rector “What can I tell you. We had Catholic dogma (Reverend Macarius Bulgakov), now Protestant dogma has appeared, but still there is no Orthodox dogma.” Probably Fr. A.V. Gorsky, with the words “Catholic” and “Protestant”, wanted to indicate the not quite complete independence of the dogmas he indicated, some dependence of the authors on Western manuals and models, not only regarding the material, but also regarding the method of presentation. But, of course, I had no intention of casting a shadow on the essence of the dogmatic views of our Orthodox dogmatists. That’s how I understood him then, and then at one time I myself became convinced of the validity of such, albeit a very harsh, characterization. It would be better, however, to put it this way: one is “Catholic”, the other is “Protestant”... The last - fourth - year (1866/67) of my service at the Moscow Academy, in addition to the usual activities of composing new lectures, correcting and adding to old ones, was spent trying to arrange a family life for myself, the lack of which was now felt especially strongly. Thanks to the compiled two-year course, there was no oppressive every minute worry about compiling lectures, and therefore there was more free time than before to think about myself, about the lasting structure of my life in the field of service that fell to my lot and was attractive to me. Although Trinity-Sergiev Posad, with its unenviable location and boring pattern of extremely monotonous life, did not satisfy a person who grew up in such an outstandingly beautiful city as Nizhny, and spent four years amid the extraordinary liveliness of St. Petersburg life in the 1860s, I thought that if I became related to Moscow through marriage, Moscow would make up for me what was lacking in Posad. The Mother See, which immediately attracted me even when traveling to St. Petersburg to enter the academy, began to please me more and more, amid her frequent visits from Posad, satisfying both my aesthetic needs and my desire for mental and social movements. That’s why I decided to definitely marry a Muscovite. There were also people who willingly undertook to arrange for me in this regard. And there was one moment when it seemed to me that all my proposals and plans had come true. But somehow everything was completely upset 297. And then something completely unexpected and far from ordinary happened to me. Moreover, you involuntarily come to the conclusion that the paths of our lives are directed not by us, but by the One who leads us to the goal of our life intended by Him. Soon after the failed Moscow matchmaking, I was made an offer 298 to meet the family of the archpriest and rector of our Paris Embassy Church, Fr. Joseph Vasilievich Vasiliev, who had to come, with two of his daughters, to St. Petersburg at the end of 1866. Not at all believing in the possibility of such an unusual marriage, more for entertainment and dispelling the boredom that tormented me, I decided, however, to go to St. Petersburg to meet with the venerable family of the Parisian archpriest. I took a 14-day vacation and arrived in St. Petersburg in early October, on the very day of the entry there of the Danish princess Dagmara, the bride of the then Sovereign Heir Alexander Alexandrovich, the current Empress Maria Feodorovna. The hotels were overcrowded, and I barely found a place in one of them, and, surprisingly, in the same one (opposite the Kazan Cathedral) to which the three of us were brought seven years ago by a cab driver from the Nikolaevsky station, when arriving for the first time in St. Petersburg to enter the academy. St. Petersburg, apparently, began to attract me after my three-year exile. My matchmaking did not last long: a week after my first date with my bride, we were engaged. Soon I left for Posad to continue lecturing until the Christmas holidays, and the family of my future father-in-law remained in St. Petersburg, in the apartment of my eldest brother-in-law, Fr. Vasiliev, Archpriest V.P. Polisadov, professor at St. Petersburg University and rector of the Peter and Paul Cathedral. It was decided to have a wedding in Paris, where all the Vasilievs who were visiting St. Petersburg were supposed to go, together with me, at the end of December 1866, just before the Nativity of Christ. When this time came, I took official permission to get married and went on a trip abroad for 28 days. In addition, he had to appear to Metropolitan Philaret to personally receive his blessing. The Metropolitan received me very favorably. When he wanted, he knew how to be friendly and even amiable. With a smile on his face, expressing surprise that I could not find a bride in Moscow and had to look for her so far away, Metropolitan Philaret, blessing me, concluded with the following memorable words, engraved in my memory with literal precision: “Convey my respect to Fr. Archpriest" (that is, Fr. I.V. Vasiliev). He knew Fr. Vasiliev and respected him very much, which is not surprising after the famous letters of Fr. I.V. to the Bishop of Nantes and the construction of a Russian Orthodox church in Paris. This construction forced Fr. I.V.V. to travel to Moscow and Nizhny several times, partly to collect donations for the construction of the church, partly regarding the consecration of the already built church by one of our bishops, and I had to have long conversations with Metropolitan Philaret in order to obtain his consent. The successful outcome of the petition before the Holy Synod depended on the consent of Metropolitan Philaret, as was the case in all any outstanding cases. Upon arrival in St. Petersburg, we immediately went abroad. There were six of us traveling 299. Driving through Cologne, we managed to see the famous cathedral there, a miracle of the Gothic style. Here about. I.V. V-v drew my attention to one bas-relief image of St. baptism - through immersion. We arrived in Paris on December 23rd. After Christmas, on January 18, 1866, our marriage took place in our magnificent Parisian church, with the singing of a wonderful choir of French opera singers, in the presence of the entire, then very noble Russian colony, led by the then Russian ambassador, Baron Budberg 300. Fr. himself married us. Archpriest I.V. Vasiliev. The crowd of people attending the wedding was so great that even part of the street closest to the Russian church, Faubourg St., was crowded with carriages of the Russian nobility. Honor. And the loud popularity of the Russian mitred archpriest in Paris made the French newspapers not fail to describe the marriage of one of the daughters of the Russian “bishop” (eveque) with the professor of the Moscow Academy Mr. Katansky, and even listed the numerous wedding gifts received by the newlywed from Russian nobles. After the wedding, the two most noble of them, Svetlana. book Chernysheva and Field Marshal Prince. Baryatinsky, wedding dinners were given to the newlyweds. Particularly memorable was the dinner at Prince's. Baryatinsky. This conqueror of the Caucasus, at that time confined to a chair by severe gout, showed us, among other things, a magnificent saber studded with large diamonds, the highest gift for the conquest of the Caucasus. Before the wedding, Fr. I.V. Vasiliev introduced me to Paris and its attractions. We were in the Parisian Notre Dame Cathedral, in the sacristy of which there are several items from our Russian church utensils taken by French troops during the Crimean War. Here I was amazed by the French minister who showed us this sacristy. He spoke with such extraordinary eloquence and fervor, as if he had to speak to us first. My companion and leader explained to me that the said minister is no exception to the general rule, that all French are great speakers, that some street seller, for example, of pencils, makes great pathetic speeches to the public gathered around him, recommending his goods. We visited the Pantheon, with an unusually wide view of the whole of Paris - from the lattice around its dome, and with a wonderful statue of Voltaire, in its dungeon, the Church of St. Genevieve, the Church of the Invalides (with the tomb of Napoleon I), Cluny and much more. In Cluny, in this museum of French antiquities, I was especially struck by the French icons of the 12th century, purely Byzantine style. Paris, with its light, elegant buildings, cheerful boulevards, extraordinary cleanliness, extreme liveliness of street life, exquisite courtesy, friendliness and cheerfulness of the Parisians, wonderful climate (although that year, in January, there were quite frosts, up to 10 degrees or more) directly enchanted me. And it’s not surprising: from the more than modest Russian Posad I found myself in a magical kingdom of grace, beauty, fun, in the center of sophisticated European civilization. There was something to make one’s head spin, and naturally there was a desire to stay here forever, or at least then, over time, to move here through foreign service somewhere else, in the rank of priest, to which there was every possibility. This combination was offered to me by my father-in-law, a very influential man who had great connections both in the spiritual world and in secular high society. The temptation was great. However, I managed to defeat him. I was helped in this case by my passion for academic service and the partly ingrained consciousness in me of my unsuitability for serving in the priesthood, 302 not to mention my mentioned (Chapter I) views on the height of pastoral service. That is why, reluctantly, I had to leave Paris, without any hope of ever returning to it, and generally serve abroad, as part of our Russian clergy abroad. We, the newlyweds, returned first to St. Petersburg 303, and then to Moscow and Posad, arrived at the appointed time (February 6), rented an apartment on Pereslavskaya Street (for 200 rubles a year, an entire floor of a rather large house), and I finally began to live a family life. The salary then, thanks to the mercy of Metropolitan Philaret 304, for the post of bachelor was 700 rubles, and another 128 rubles. as an assistant inspector, and by the end of his service at the Moscow Academy (from May 14, 1867) - housing allowance, 120 rubles, so it was possible to live quite comfortably - given the undemanding nature of my young wife. It should be noted that, to her surprise, she endured the move from the brilliant world capital to a modest Russian village, very complacently. In this case, in addition to serious home education, it was probably due to the incommensurability of such magnitudes as Paris and Posad, the impossibility of comparing them, just as it does not even occur to some traveler from the civilized world to countries completely untouched by culture to compare, to compare the incomparable. Many things interested my young wife because of their extraordinary nature, such as, for example, the sight of huge mountains of snow during the very harsh, snowy winter of 1867. In this, the fourth and last year of service at the Moscow Academy, I read its XXVI course 305 (1864–1868), sections on the external, from the architectural side, and internal structure of the church and consecrated images - church iconography. Towards the end of the academic year 1867/68, according to custom, there was a public exam, at which Metropolitan Philaret himself was present on the first day (in the main subjects), and the Most Rev. Savva, the then Moscow vicar. After the exams there were the usual two lunches, the first with the Metropolitan in his Lavra chambers, the second with the rector in his premises, and then followed by two lunches at the Bethany Seminary. At the end of the exams and all the school work, we were drawn abroad again. That year, in the summer of 1867, there was a world exhibition in Paris. In the same year, and precisely in the spring, the appointment of my father-in-law, Archpriest I.V. Vasiliev, was arranged as chairman of the newly established Educational Committee at the Holy Synod, instead of the previous Spiritual Educational Directorate. His entire family was about to move from Paris for permanent residence to St. Petersburg, after twenty-one years of staying abroad. It was difficult to resist the temptation to see the city that enchanted me again, and, in addition, to visit the world exhibition, and for my young wife to say goodbye to the place of her homeland and her entire girlhood life, until her marriage. Half-reduced tickets for special trains (train de plaisir), on the occasion of the World Exhibition, made our undertaking convenient and financially feasible. Having received the passes from Paris, we happily went abroad. My marriage naturally drew me to St. Petersburg. If it weren’t for this circumstance, I would have finally settled in the Moscow Academy, gravitating towards Moscow, dear to my heart for a long time. At the same time, my closest friend, Professor N.K. Sokolov, was drawn from Posad with me. He was offered to occupy the chair of church law at Moscow University, 306 and his departure from the academy in 1867 completely coincided with my departure. During the holidays, while we were visiting Paris, it became known to us that I was being transferred to the St. Petersburg Academy to the department of dogmatic theology, as an assistant to the then extraordinary professor and inspector Archimandrite Chrysanth (Retivtsev), who combined in himself a teacher of both basic and dogmatic theology. This appointment took place on June 30, 1867. So my fate again brought me to St. Petersburg, but first took me through the strict Philaret school, through the highly revered Moscow Academy, full of scientific traditions, placing me under the immediate leadership of a great scientist, an irreplaceable scientific leader and, in a special sense, the “father” of the rector, Archpriest A.V. Gorsky. The Moscow Academy was truly my second mother, who completed my education as an academic teacher. She guided and strengthened my first, still unsteady steps in the scientific field. The years I spent there were more important to me than any trip abroad. And if I subsequently managed to accomplish something that was not completely useless for theological science, then this, undoubtedly, owes much to the training and direction that I received at Russian Oxford. I consider myself extremely happy that I managed to live to see the 100th anniversary (October 1, 1914) of the dear Moscow Academy, to which I dedicate this essay (IV chapter) of my “Memoirs” as a sign of deeply respectful and heartily grateful memory of it. Vivat Academia, vivant professors! Excluding transfer from St. Petersburg. Academy of her student, N. A. Sergievsky (2nd Mag. XVIII class, 1849), bacc. mathematician, a Muscovite by birth and a relative of Metropolitan. Philareta. Sergievsky, according to his request, was transferred in 1850 to the same department in Moscow. acad. and occupied it until 1854, † prot. prof. Moscow University, founder and editor-publisher of Pravosl. reviews". It would be possible to wait for the end of the XXIV year. Moscow. academician, in 1864, to replace both departments, or at least one, with her own students. Six months after my arrival in Posad, this happened. From the said course, his 1st master, A. A. Smirnov, brother of Archpriest, was appointed to the department of patristics. P. A. Smirnov, also former tank. in this academy, according to the church. archeology († Chairman of the Educational Committee at the Holy Synod). And then, the next year, 1865, the 2nd magician was elected to the department of philosophy. same course, namesake of the first, A.P. Smirnov. Here, for example, is what Prof. told me. A.I. Predtechensky, whom I visited before leaving for Posad, having forgotten all my previous griefs: “I do not advise you to go to this village academy. It has its own special spirit, and they don’t like strangers. And keep in mind that if they like you there, they will never let you out, and if they don’t like you, they will kick you out.” Fortunately, he turned out to be a bad prophet. French translation the words “counterpart” and a double allusion to both this circumstance and the acceptance of Fr. Michael's monasticism, which he owed to P.S. K-mu. They said that Prof. Kazansky delivered student M.I. Luzin (Fr. Mikhail) to the academy authorities, in a very drunken state, as a result of which the student, who was already completing his course, was asked to become a monk and remain at the academy as a bachelor. Jerome. Savva (Tikhomirov), Vladimir, 10th Mag. XVII century Moscow. acad. (1850), from widowed priests, 1850–1859 – sacristan Moscow. Synodal sacristy, 1859 – rector. Moscow Sem., 1861 – rect. Moscow academician, 1862 – ep. Mozhaisk, Vik. Moscow, 1866 – ep. Polotsk, 1874 – archbishop. Kharkov., † archbishop. Tverskoy. This course included: A. A. Smirnov (1st Master, from 1864 – Bachelor of Patristics), A.P. Smirnov (2nd Master, from 1865 – Bachelor of Psychology and Moral Philosophy), D.F. Kasitsyn (3rd Master, from 1867 – Bachelor of New Church History), P. I. Kazansky (4th Master, from 1867 – Bachelor of Pedagogy), N.Ya. Fortinsky (7th Mag., from 1864 – Bachelor of Mathematics), I. Kratirov (9th Mag., after serving in the Vologda Sem., secretary of the governing board of the Moscow Academy after 1869, teacher, and then rector of the Kharkov Sem., Vic. Kharkov. dioceses, rector. St. Petersburg Acad., bishop of Saratov, † at rest). Of the stories of this kind, I remember one, namely, how Metropolitan. Filaret treated, at the first public examination, to one of my closest predecessors in the department of church archeology, Bak. P. A. Smirnov (Prot., Chairman of the Educational Committee at the Holy Synod). This young bachelor decided to give lectures on catacomb symbolic painting for a public exam. Metropolitan Filaret, not familiar with this then novelty, attacked the young teacher and scolded him greatly. However, this incident ended with the fact that when, after the exam, the Metropolitan was explained (I think by A.V. Gorsky) the importance of the discoveries of Western archaeologists for church history and archaeology, Metropolitan. Filaret softened and even indirectly apologized for his harshness, and then gave P. A. Smirnov a good priestly position in Moscow. I had to hear a detailed story about this incident from the lips of Fr. P.A. was already in St. Petersburg, 25–30 years ago. They then talked about the following funny scene. Once, F.A. Golubinsky, extremely upset by such treatment of him by Metropolitan. Filareta sits, sadly, on the porch of her house. His oldest colleague, his student friend and roommate at the Zamonastyr academic house, P. S. Delitsyn, also approaches him and asks: “Why are you, F. Al., so sad?” “How can I not grieve; after all, you heard what the lord called me.” “So, so, so. But, F. Al., if you think carefully and weigh it, it turns out that there is no sufficient reason to be offended and upset. After all, Vladyka is such a great, extraordinary mind that, to tell the truth, we all, in essence, turn out to be fools before him.” “But that’s true,” F. Al allegedly answered. and completely calmed down and cheered up. Archbishop Evgeniy (Kazantsev), 1800 – from the Trinity-Lavra family, 1804 – tonsured, 1809 – inspection. St. Petersburg academician, 1810 – rect. Trinity family, 1814 – Moscow. semester, 1817 – archim. Donskoy Monastery, 1818 – bishop. Kursk, 1822 – archbishop. Pskov., 1825 - Tobolsk, 1831 - Ryazan, 1837 - Yaroslavl, 1853 - retired, manager. Donskoy mon., consecrated member of the Holy Synod, † 1876, July 27. Was part of the VII k. Mosk. acad. (1830), fellow student Archbishop. Filaret (Gumilevsky), but stayed at the academy for only 3 years, on the fourth he was called to St. Petersburg to study law under the guidance of Count. M. M. Speransky, and then sent abroad. Petr Evdokimovich Pokrovsky, Moscow, 8th Mag. VI building Moscow. acad. (1828), 1828 – teacher. Vifan. Sem., 1834 – priest. Paraskiev. ts., 1855 – prot., present. Moscow Arhang. sob., 1871 – chapter. priest army and navy. Vasily Petrovich Polisadov, Kostroma, 5th magician. XIII building Moscow. acad. (1842), goods. by student Ioanna Sokolova († bishop of Smolensk) and prof. P. S. Kazansky; 1842 – teacher. St. Petersburg sem., 1845 – priest, 1847 – in Geneva in Switzerland, 1848–1854 assigned to the mission in Paris, 1854 – present. embassy center in Berlin, 1858 – prof. theology in St. Petersburg. uni and insist. Petropavlovsky collective, 1871–1874 – under Isaac. sob., † 1878. The rector, Archpriest A.V. Gorsky, was awarded a miter in December 1862, inspector. archim. Mikhail received the title of Ordinary in 1863. prof., and A.F. Lavrov, in the same 1863, - extraord. Prof., N.I. Subbotin - Order of St. Anna 3rd degree. He then found himself somewhat on trial for the following incident. They said that soon after the opening of the railway section from Posad to Moscow, being at the ticket office of III class. To get a ticket to Moscow, he pushed aside the gendarme, who did not allow him to the ticket office out of turn, in front of a large crowd of passengers. Why E.V. Am-v allowed himself such an act, or, as they now like to say, “tough,” was explained as follows. The oldest at the academy, an emeritus professor, who considered himself the first person in Posad, after the rector and governor of the Lavra, and also a man of rather proud character, he was outraged by the disrespectful attitude of the gendarmerie non-commissioned officer and, moreover, where? - in the station, which was being built before E.V.’s eyes, almost near his house, as if in the area of ​​​​his possessions. This, as they said then, was the source from which his conflict with the gendarme arose. The gendarme reported the professor’s action to his closest superiors, and then to St. Petersburg, in the then III department, to the chief of the gendarmes, then all-powerful, gr. Petru Andr. Shuvalov; The III department reported this incident to the spiritual authorities. In short, a very unpleasant case arose about insulting a lower rank while he was performing his official duties. How this matter went, I cannot say; there was, of course, correspondence, an explanation was demanded from E.V., etc. I can probably say only one thing: for a long time, probably until 1867 or even until 1869, the accusation of his behavior with the gendarme weighed heavily on E.V., until my father-in-law, Rev. I.V. Vasiliev, who in 1867 became the chairman of the Academic. committee at the Holy Synod, did not ask gr. P. A. Shuvalov, his great admirer, hush up this matter and restore the venerable, respected professor, and also a fellow countryman (Orlovets) in all his rights in terms of awards. I heard about the outcome of this case from Rev. I.V. Vasiliev, already in St. Petersburg, therefore, not earlier than 1867. Bingam – Origines eccles., Augusti – Denkwürdigkeiten aus der chistl. Archeologie, Binterim – Die vorzuglichsten Denkwürdigkeiten der christl. Kirche. It is remarkable that this truly precious, luxurious and multi-volume publication was purchased by the Moscow Academy for less than a penny - only 50 rubles. (?!!), after the death of Archbishop. Tobolsky Afanasy, and he bought it for 1000 rubles. banknotes (?!). (See: S.K. Smirnov “History of the Moscow Spiritual Academician 1814–1870”, p. 286). I also had in my hands Pitzer’s work - a description of the Berlin Museum (vol. 1). But then only the first volume was published, which was of no interest to me due to its content. V.M. Undolsky - “Notes for the history of church singing in Russia” (“Readings in the Society of Historical and Ancient” 1846–1847), Bessonov - “The Fate of Musical Singing Books” (Orthodox Review, 1864, May), Sakharov - “Research on Russian. church hymn." (“Journal of Min. People’s Education,” 1849) and even the works of a famous expert on Russian. church singing, prot. Razumovsky, about our hook notes and tunes. Once the students allowed themselves one very daring trick: they filled the class magazine with comments regarding the merits of the lectures of the teachers and, in general, with brief characteristics of the personalities of professors and bachelors. For the most part these remarks were very rude and unfavorable to the then composition of the academic corporation; the exception was very few inscriptions, including those against the tank. A. K-th inscription: “worthy of a professor.” They got away with this daring prank of the students quite happily. The culprits have not been found. Having interrupted my lectures on archeology, I once decided to devote one lecture to homiletics, in order to share my impressions of reading student sermons, which, at the end of the previous lecture, I informed my listeners about. On the appointed day, the entire course gathered, the audience was full as never before. And although my listeners heard very little flattering from me, since with all frankness I expressed the rather bleak impressions drawn from reading their works, they, however, considered it necessary to reward me with loud applause at the end of the lecture. Then they told me that Fr. Rector A.V. Gorsky, who was daily brought a class magazine with notes on the content of lectures, asked the duty officer what exactly I said about student sermons. He did not have a conversation with me about this subject. Nick. Al. Sergievsky, 3rd Mag. XX k. Moscow. acad. (1856), 1856–1858 – tank. biblical. history and Greek language, 1858 – rank. esp. charge at ober-proc. St. Synod, 1861 – rank. esp. charge at min. adv. enlightenment, 1862 – chief secretary of the office of the Holy Synod, 1864 – inspector. acad. comm. Sciences, 1866 – director. Office of the Chief Provost. St. Synod, 1869 – trustee of Vilensk. textbook districts. Of these: S.I. Miropolsky, Voronezh, 8th Mag.; V. P. Slansky, Voronezh, 9th Mag.; D. Izvekov, Kaluga, 1st Mag.; A. Kudryavtsev, Vifan., 2nd Mag.; priest P. Losev, Ryazan, 5th Mag.; P.F. Komarov did not receive any degree, although he was on the list at number 1. True, as I remember now, when compiling the list during the course, when asked who to put at number 1, they usually answered: “No one,” “Well, then let’s put Komarov,” noted A.V. Gor. This depended on the fact that the most talented students (Miropolsky and Slansky) did not satisfy the requirements of either discipline or careful fulfillment of academic student duties, and Komarov, not particularly distinguished by his talent, seemed suitable for occupying this place. The fate of P.F. Komarov, summoned by the Rev. John (Smolensky, then rector of St. Petersburg academician) to occupy the department of morals. theology in St. Petersburg. Academy, in the hope that he would accept monasticism, turned out to be quite unusual: he did not accept monasticism, did not submit a dissertation, and although he served, without any academic degree, as a bachelor from 1866 to 1869, but with the charter of 1869. had to leave the department, was made a librarian, and then accepted the priesthood and was somewhere in Kaluzhsk. diocese priest. In this course there were also quite remarkable personalities, people not without abilities, but lame in behavior: S. Raevsky, Tula, 42nd candidate, and M. Semenovsky, Vladimir, 43rd candidate. († prot. c. Lazienki Palace in Warsaw). It was said about them then that they “are a sore spot for Inspector Fr. Mikhail." Filaret (Drozdov), Moscow, 1803 - from the Trinity-Lavra family, 1808 - tonsured, 1811 - archim., 1812 - rector. St. Petersburg academician, 1814 – doctor. theologian 1817 – Vic. Revelsk., 1819 – archbishop. Tversk., 1820 – Yaroslav., 1821 – archbishop. Moscow, 1826 – Metropolitan Moscow, † 1867, November 19. I cannot say how these conferences took place, since I was not present at them, and could not have been present without being a professor. A.V. Gorsky, Kostroma, 3rd Mag. VIII building Moscow. acad. (1832), goods. by student Philotheus (Uspensky, 1st Mag. Course; † Metropolitan of Kyiv), 1832 – teacher. Moscow Sem., 1833 – tank. church history, 1837 – extraord. prof., 1839 – order. prof., 1860 – priest, without marriage, and prot., ranked among Moscow. Arkhangelsky Sob., 1862 – rect. Moscow academician, 1864 – doctor. Divine., † October 11, 1875 They said that Archimandrite Anthony decided to get a master's degree without taking an academic course. For this purpose, a dissertation was allegedly prepared, compiled, as rumor said (maybe gossip?), by Prof. S.K. Smirnov. But this whole enterprise ended in nothing. I can’t say when this incident took place. In any case, this story does not relate to the time described, but to an earlier one. Jerome. Mikhail (in the world - Matvey Iv. Luzin), Nizheg., 3rd magician. XIX room. Moscow. acad. (1854), 1854 – tank. according to Holy Scripture, 1861 – inspection. academician, 1863 – order. prof., 1876 – rect. Moscow academician, 1878 – rect. Kyiv. acad. and ep. Umansky, † ep. Kursk. E. V. Amphitheaters, Orlov., 2nd Mag. XIII building. St. Petersburg. acad. (1839), 1839 – bachelor, 1844 – extraord. prof., 1848 – order. prof. Then there was hail. Posad's head. P. S. Kazansky, Moscow, Bethany, 4th Mag. XIII building Moscow. acad. (1842), from 1842 – tank. Moscow academician, 1850 – extraord. prof., 1858 – order. prof., 1873 – doc. theologian, 1874 – retired, † 1878. S.K. Smirnov, Moscow, 3rd Mag. XIV building Moscow. acad. (1844), 1844 – bachelor, 1857 – extraord. prof., 1859 – order. prof., 1873 – doc. theologian, 1870–1878 – inspection. Moscow academician, 1878 – rect. Moscow acad. and prot. Of his large family, which consisted mainly of daughters (6, it seems), one of his daughters, Anna Sergeevna, who married P.N. Milyukov, currently plays a major (even political) role. In the memoirs of Rev. Savva (“Theological Bulletin”) contains a letter in which prof. S.K. Smirnov informs that one of his daughters is marrying P.N. Milyukov, then an associate professor at Moscow. uni (now the head of the Cadet Party). According to rumors, Anna Sergeevna Milyukova has enormous influence on her husband. They even say that if Miliukov is what he is in the political world, then he owes this mainly to the influence of his wife. I cannot pass in silence the personality of Prof.’s wife. S.K. Smirnova, Sofia Martynovna, a wonderful woman in all respects, very smart, very pretty, with great tact. She was a rare woman, a mother and wife, who stood out among other, also venerable, professors of that time. The entire corporation of academic teachers treated her with great respect and sympathy. V.D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov, Chernig., 1st Mag. XVIII building Moscow. acad. (1852), 1852 – tank. biblical. ist. and Greek language, 1854 – tank. metaphysis and history ancient philosopher, 1858 – order. prof., 1861 – teacher. philosophy to Sovereign Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich, 1873 – Doctor of Science. theologian N.I. Subbotin, Vladimir, 3rd Mag. XVIII building Moscow. acad. (1852), 1852 – teacher. Vifan. Sem., 1855 – Bak., 1859 – Extraord. prof., 1874 – doctor. theologian and hordes prof. Prot. F. A. Sergievsky, Moscow, 2nd Mag. XIX room. Moscow. acad. (1854), 1854 – tank. biblical. ist. and Greek lang., 1856 – tank. logic and history middle and new philosophy., 1857 – morals. theologian and pastoral, 1860 – extraord. prof., 1865 – order. prof., 1874 – rect. Vifan. family A.F. Lavrov-Platonov, Yaroslavl, 1st Mag. XIX room. Moscow. acad. (1854), 1854 – tank. church jurisprudence, 1864 – extraord. prof., 1878 – mon. and ep. Mozhaisky, Archbishop. Lithuanian. He did not receive the degree of Doctor of Theology (although he was more worthy of it than anyone) because he did not submit an essay, and did not submit, as he himself told me, because he was “afraid of criticism.” Then, in a conversation (this was in St. Petersburg, shortly after his consecration), he told me that he had accepted monasticism at the insistence of the Most Reverend. Mikhail (Luzin), his fellow student and friend. “If it weren’t for his influence, I would not have been a monk,” added the Most Rev. Alexy. In Moscow, I heard the following enthusiastic review of him from the also famous canonist, A. S. Pavlov, a former bachelor of the Kazan Academy, and then a university professor. “I can only be his student, and I’m even proud that I can be one,” said A. S. Pavlov. Dm. Fed. Golubinsky, Vifan., 5th Mag. XIX room. Moscow. acad. (1854), 1854 – tank. geometry and physics, 1864 – order. prof., 1870 – supernumerary teacher. "natural scientific apologetics". V.N. Potapov, Moscow, 1st Mag. XXI building Moscow. acad. (1858), 1858 – tank. logic and history new philosopher, 1864 – extraord. prof., 1870 – historian. ancient and new philosophy. P.I. Gorsky-Platonov, Bethan., 2nd Mag. XXI building Moscow. academician, 1858 – tank. biblical. ist. and ev. language, 1867 – extraord. prof., 1870 – biblical. archaeol. and Jewish language, 1878 – inspection. Moscow acad. He was then the mayor of Trinity-Sergiev Posad. N.K. Sokolov, fire, 3rd magician. XXI building Moscow. acad. (1858), 1858 – tank. rus. church history, 1861 – abroad on a business trip, 1863 – tank. new common church history (newly opened department), 1865 – extraord. prof., 1867 – prof. Moscow uni at the church department law, † 1874 (ord. Professor of Moscow University). Evg. Evs. Golubinsky, Kostroma, 5th Mag. XXI building Moscow. acad. (1858), 1858 – teacher. Vifan. Sem., 1861 – tank. rus. church history, 1870 – extraord. prof., 1872 - sent for a year and a half, for academic purposes, abroad, to Greece and rights. Slavic lands, 1881 – Dr. theologian and hordes prof., 1902 – order. Academician of the Academy of Sciences, † January 7, 1912 He remained this way until the end of his life. Here, for example, is how we met in my apartment in St. Petersburg, in 1905–1907, 40 years after our service together. His first words to me were: “Are you wearing makeup? Why don’t you have gray hair?” He was only a little over 2 years older than me (born February 28, 1834), yet he was completely gray. Our first meeting was also original, 50 years ago, when I paid him my first visit upon my arrival in Posad in 1863. His first words were: “Do you like to eat?” “I’m warning you that the food here is terrible.” Evg. Evs. I meant the table that one of our servants (there were two of them) prepared for all the residents of the building. P. M. Khupotsky, Ryazan, 1st Mag. XXII building Moscow. acad. (1860), 1860 – tank. psychol. and morals. phil., 1865 - left the service, was then abroad (whether on his own account or on a business trip from the Ministry of Education, I don’t remember), but traveling abroad did not bring him any benefit. His further fate is unknown to me. Jerome. John (Metropolitan), Kaluga, 3rd magician. XXIII room Moscow. acad. (1862), 1862 – tank. ancient church history, 1868 – archim., 1870 – bishop. Aleutsky, 1877 – member of Moscow. Synod. offices, 1881 – present. Moscow Simonov Monastery, 1889 – bishop. Aksaysky, 1910 – retired, † June 2, 1914 I refused his offer in every possible way, proving that it was most convenient for him, as a monk, to have a monk as his assistant, that is, Fr. John. In the midst of a conversation on this subject, when I inquired why he did not want to have priest as his assistant. John, Fr. Mikhail openly finally admitted that he was afraid, as it were, of Fr. John, due to his tactlessness, did not invent a student revolt for him. A.A. Smirnov, Yarosl., Vifan. Sem., 1st MA. XXIV room Moscow. acad. (1864), 1864 – tank. patrist., 1871 – priest, scholar of law. 1st Moscow military gymnasium. A.P. Smirnov, yarosl., 2nd magician. XXIV room Moscow. acad. (1864), 1864 – teacher. Moscow Sem., 1865 – tank. psychology, 1871 – extraord. prof. N.Ya. Fortinsky, Ryazan, 7th Mag. XXIV room Moscow. acad. (1864), 1864 – tank. mathematician, 1870 – priest, scholar of law. 4th Moscow military gymnasium. According to rumors, he is alive. In a large house, F.A. Sergievsky moved into the apartment of the late P.S. Delitsyn, and the latter’s apartment was occupied by A.F. Lavrov, who moved there from a small house. In a small house, P.I. Gorsky moved into A.F. Lavrov’s apartment, and Evg took over his apartment. Evs. Golubinsky, who transferred there from our undergraduate corps. In it, among other things, it was reported that among the excerpts from newspaper and magazine articles presented to the Sovereign Emperor Alexander II, there were excerpts from my article, and that these excerpts did not deserve the approval of the Sovereign. I. S. Aksakov attributed this circumstance to the tendentious selection of the official who made these excerpts (Kapnist), who was hostile to Slavophilism. This turned out to be my “first” literary “damn”. Nikita Petrovich Gilyarov-Platonov, Moscow, 2nd Master. XVI century. Moscow. acad. (1848), 1848 – tank. hermeneutics and teachings about religions, heresies and schisms, 1854 - according to Russian. schism, 1855 - dropped out of the academy, employee of the Slavophile publications of the circle of Khomyakov and Aksakov, 1856 - member of the Moscow censorship. com., 1862 - official of special assignments under the Minister of People's Affairs. enlightenment (A.V. Golovine), 1863 – manager of Moscow. synod. typography, 1867 - left the service and began publishing the newspaper “Modern News” (from December 1, 1867). Died 13 Oct. 1887 20 years of newspaper publishing, with 20 punishments that befell him, completely ruined him and exhausted his strength. See: Gilyarov-Platonov. Collection of essays. T. 1. M., 1899. Preface: pp. I–LX. I was very surprised that N.P. even studied the multi-volume Acta Sanctorum. At that time, I was interested in the question of how our all-night vigil service was formed. N.P. advised me to look for data for the history of this services in one of the months of Acta Sanctorum (I remember, September-November), which I then did, and actually found something related to the history of the first half of the service. I decided to take my lifelong friend into the family of one of the most venerable Moscow archpriests and, although I had not yet proposed to my chosen one, I was accepted into the family and had every reason to think that I would not meet a refusal either from her or from her parents. Things have already progressed so much that I sent my mother from Nizhny to Posad to get her blessing for marriage. My mother came and saw my bride, but she didn’t quite like the latter... Nevertheless, my mother’s blessing was received, and, having escorted her to Moscow, and in Moscow to the Nizhny Novgorod Railway, I went to my bride that same evening with the decisive intention of proposing to her, but I never did... Something got in the way, either my mother’s words, or the lack of my own attraction to my future friend, very smart, well-educated, pretty. Probably both. That's how this matter got upset. The consequences were of great importance for my entire life and service. On the mentioned evening, all my plans regarding Posad and Moscow collapsed, and truly this day had a fatal influence on my fate. This proposal was made through my former seminary friend, P.I. Pokrovsky, then a doctor at one of the Moscow hospitals, brother-in-law of the priest. P. I. Raev (then rector of the St. Petersburg Seminary, Archimandrite Palladium; † Metropolitan of St. Petersburg). While he was in St. Petersburg, P.I. Pokrovsky, in a conversation with Fr. Palladium, mentioned me as a fellow countryman serving in Moscow. Academy, and informed me of my intention to get married, and also that for some reason things were not getting better. Archim. Palladius, in turn, conveyed this conversation to his fellow seminarian, priest. churches in St. Petersburg. Smolensk Cemetery to P. A. Matveevsky, also our common fellow countryman at the seminary. Father Matveevsky, hearing from Fr. Palladia has good reviews about me and about my entire family, which the latter knew very well, and decided to offer me as a groom to his large-family brother-in-law, Archpriest. Paris Embassy Church Fr. I.V. Vasiliev, for one of his six daughters. A correspondence arose on this matter between me, Dr. P. I. Pokrovsky and Fr. archim. Palladium. There was an exchange of photographic cards - mine and the bride's, Fr.'s eldest daughter. Vasilyeva, Sofia Iosifovna Vasilyeva. Fr. himself I.V. Vasiliev, his wife Anna Efimovna, my fiancee Sofia Iosifovna, her sister Nadezhda Iosifovna, now the wife of the rector of our Russian church in Florence - Archpriest. V.I. Levitsky, and then their 8-month-old brother - S.I. Vasiliev, now a member of St. Petersburg. district court. Among the most significant persons were: gr. Muravyov Amursky with his wife (a close friend of Father Vasilyev), His Serene Highness Prince. Chernyshev, princes. Baryatinskaya (wife of Prince Baryatinsky, who was not present at the wedding due to illness), Prince. Ypsilanti, book. Kochubey, Countess Radziwill (represented by Count Kiselev, who was not present personally due to illness), Prince. Obolensky with his wife, gr. Samoilova, Princess Meshcherskaya (later Demidova of San Donato), general. Chertkov, general. Novitsky and his wife (son-in-law of Count Adlerberg, my imprisoned father) and many others. etc. We must not forget that this was under Napoleon III, in the era of the most brilliant state of the French capital. 20 years later, in 1886, already under the republic, when my wife and I visited Paris again, the picture turned out different: there was no longer such cleanliness in the city, and the character of Parisians changed quite sharply for the worse. The lack of a representative appearance, and most importantly, the weakness of the voice and the inability to sing, due to a complete lack of ear for music (in my entire life I could not hit a single note correctly) - all this was very vividly felt and turned me away from accepting the priesthood. I was sent to St. Petersburg from Paris, by the way, as a courier with dispatches to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, thanks to the kindness of the Parisian ambassador Baron Budberg - of course, not to me, but to my father-in-law. I was given 1000 francs by courier. The Moscow Academy, as noted above, was ahead of other academies in this regard. In it, first, by the grace of the unforgettable Metropolitan. Filaret, an increase was made to the government salary, “from the enormous sums of the Moscow department”: horde. prof., instead of 858, – 1200 rub., extraord. prof., instead of 429 rub., – 900 rub., tank., instead of 429 rub., – 700 rub. (See: S.K. Smirnov “History of the Moscow Spiritual Academician before its transformation,” pp. 344–345). In this course, my students were, by the way, my successor in the department I.D. Mansvetov (1st master's degree), N. Eleonsky (2nd master's degree, later prof., professor at Moscow University), P. I. Tsvetkov (6th master's degree, later prof. Moscow academician in Latin). He was drawn there by a group of professors influential at the law faculty at that time: Chicherin, Kapustin and Dmitriev. The mediator was Prof. Kapustin, who turned to N.K. S-vu with the said proposal and negotiated with him all the time. However, this did not improve all of a sudden. University professors bargained for a long time regarding the recognition of a Master of Theology degree as sufficient to occupy a professorship in church law at the university. They suggested N.K. either to pass the examination for a university master's degree, or to submit a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Law, promising to provide on his part, upon receipt of this degree, all possible leniency. But N.K. S-v firmly stood on the fact that (if they want to have him as their professor) they recognize a master’s degree in theology as sufficient for the title of extraordinary and even ordinary professor of Moscow. university and that they give him a formal certificate of this. In the end, he prevailed and entered the university with the rank of extraord. professor. Subsequently he was an ordinary professor. Whether he submitted his doctoral dissertation later, when he was already in the service of the university, I do not know. Probably not, judging by what he said when he was offered, out of leniency, to be given a doctorate when moving from the academy to the university. “What a Doctor of Laws I am, I am ashamed to bear this title when I realize that I have no right to it.” These are his true words. He made the only concession to the insistence of law professors by presenting what seemed to be a dissertation pro venia legendi, a small work on some subject close to the field of legal sciences. I don’t remember the topic of this dissertation. This whole story does great honor to N.K. Sokolov’s steadfastness in defending the rights of our theological academic degrees. It was not the same in St. Petersburg. university with M.I. Gorchakov, who was forced, and he agreed, to pass all exams for university degrees - candidate, master and doctor - and submit the corresponding dissertations. You might be interested in: