V. В Петроградской духовной академии (1867–1896)

First period of service (1867–1884), under the old and new (1869) academic regulations My transition from the Moscow to the Petrograd Theological Academy almost coincided with the onset of the rectorship of the ever-memorable Archpriest Fr. Ioann Leontyevich Yanyshev, who only 7 months before my return to my native academy became its rector (from November 27, 1866), successor to the famous Ioann (Sokolova; † Bishop of Smolensk). More than half of my service here was spent under the command of this very remarkable rector, who gave a completely new direction to the academy. The 17 years of his rectorship (from November 27, 1866 to October 19, 1883) represented a truly brilliant, glorious period in the history of the Petrograd Academy, which still bears the name “Yanyshevsky”. I consider myself lucky that I had to begin serving in my native Alma Mater precisely during this period of time, after serious training at the dear Moscow Academy. My transition to the Petrograd Academy was quite unusual. It was heard that he got a job on the recommendation of the rector to the higher authorities, without consulting with the corporation of professors. This was during the holidays at the end of June 1867 (my transfer took place on June 30 of the same year), in the absence of academic teachers. In all likelihood, the rector, Archpriest I.L. Yanyshev, consulted only with the then Fr. Inspector of the Academy, Archimandrite Khrisanf (Retivtsev), who, one can assume, not only proposed my candidacy, but also advised me to choose the above method of my transfer, bearing in mind the good opinion of the then corporation of academic mentors about me and his own benefits and goals. It was beneficial for him to get himself an assistant in the department of basic and dogmatic theology, which until that time he had occupied alone, and besides, by choosing me as such an assistant, he achieved some other goals. First of all, he did something nice for the rector, my relative by wife (my wife was the niece of I.L.’s wife, A.E. Yanysheva), and my father-in-law, Archpriest I.V. Vasiliev, who had just been appointed chairman of the Educational Committee at the Holy Synod, of which Fr. Archimandrite Chrysanthus. If the rector’s adviser, far from being devoid of subtlety and intelligence, foresaw the displeasure of his colleagues, professors of the academy, from this method of electing and appointing a new teacher, then perhaps he was even partly happy about it, thinking to himself that, they say, he would “get” the rector - the archpriest - for this, but essentially believed that the academy would not lose anything from my appointment, and my colleagues could not have anything against me; rather, in their hearts they will be happy about the transfer to them of their former pet, a once very desirable (1863) co-member in their family (see Chapter III - about replacing the department of new church history), and in the end everything will work out for the general well-being. And so it happened. It was heard that when at the end of August 1867 The professors arrived after the holidays, and at the very first meeting of the conference the rector had to listen to many heated and harsh speeches from them about the illegality (in form) of my transfer, with the caveat, however, that essentially they had nothing against me and were even glad that the appointment took place, but why was it not done as it should have been according to the laws and academic customs? Indeed, all my former mentors greeted me very cordially as a long-desired colleague, and some even told me what happened at the general meeting of academic teachers regarding my transfer to my native academy, adding that, in essence, they had nothing against it. Of the visits that I made to my former mentors and now colleagues, one was especially memorable, namely to Professor I.A. Chistovich. “You probably,” he noted, “will not remain in the department of dogmatic theology. After all, this subject is completely uninteresting from a scientific point of view. It’s not science; it is nothing more than a common catechism. I believe that you will take the chair of philosophy instead of Vasily Nikolaevich Karpov, whose days are numbered (not long after this conversation, he actually died - on December 2 of the same 1867), and I would like you to be my closest collaborator in teaching philosophical sciences.” Having thanked the venerable professor for this offer, which was flattering to me, I, however, decisively rejected it, declaring that I had formed a completely different mood, a decisive disposition towards studying theological subjects, that although I had very little knowledge from the circle of science of dogmatic theology, I had the hope of putting the teaching of this subject more or less on a scientific basis, and at the same time, it seems, I added that I intended to give my readings a historical-dogmatic character, which indeed I did. This nature of my first readings on dogmatic theology is explained both by the influence of the Moscow school - the ever-memorable great church historian Fr. A.V. Gorsky and the advice of my new rector, Fr. I. L. Yanyshev, who was very sympathetic to this particular method of teaching this important subject, and, finally, to my skeptical views on the possibility of creating a system of dogmatic theology. It seemed then that after the works of Rev. It is impossible for Makariy (Bulgakov) and Philaret (Gumilevsky) to do anything in this direction worthy of an academic department, and that in this case it would be necessary to repeat their works, especially the multi-volume and already famous work of Rev. Macaria. Only three or four years later (1872) did I begin giving lectures on the system of dogmatic theology, in parallel with readings on the historical presentation of dogmas. This was caused by my listeners themselves, as we will see later, and until that time my readings were exclusively historical and dogmatic in nature. We shared with Fr. Archimandrite Chrysanthos - he holds the rank of extraordinary professor, and I hold the rank of bachelor - taught the subject as follows: he took the introduction to theology (basic theology) and the first part of the dogmatic, that is, the doctrine of the unity of God, the Trinity of Persons in God and the creation of the visible and invisible world (Angels). Everything else, that is, the second, most part of dogma fell to my lot. Since the first subject of my readings was the Face of Christ the Savior, and then everything that Christianity brought into the realm of the revealed faith, then, following the historical-dogmatic path, it was natural to study, first of all, the last times, before the coming of the Savior, in order to trace how the Jewish world was preparing to receive the Messiah, what concepts existed in Jewry at that time regarding the most important issues of faith, and whether there were any in these concepts preparatory elements for the adoption of Christianity. Recommended to me by Fr. rector I. L. Yanyshev, who had just appeared at that time, a very interesting work by the Roman theologian, later an Old Catholic Lyangen 307, containing a detailed presentation and analysis of everything that appeared in religious Jewish literature in the period of time between the appearance of the last books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament and the New Testament Scriptures of Sts. apostles, helped me accomplish this task. The general conclusion was that in the Jewish literature of that time they came more or less close to the aspirations of that complete illumination that appeared in Christianity, but that these were, however, only weak glimpses, like the morning dawn preceding the appearance of the sun - Christ, and that it was impossible to explain the appearance of Christianity through the supposedly natural development of ideas and ideas fermenting in Judaism, as negative German criticism sought to do. After these readings, I should have turned to the presentation of the dogmatic data contained in the New Testament books of Holy Scripture, or to what in the West is called “Biblical Theology”, as the first part of the historical presentation of dogmas, and which, as we will see later, I had to do later, but this time I began reading directly from the history of the revelation of dogmas in the patristic and medieval periods. At the same time, he was guided by Western, so-called “histories of dogmas” - both Roman Catholic 308 and Protestant, and the latter mainly, especially the work of Kanis 309, a very objective, very impartial theologian, even in professional matters, strictly orthodox in the Lutheran sense. It must be admitted that at first these readings were almost completely devoid of independence and were of a summary nature, containing a lot of rather fragmentary information and presenting a cursory overview of the rich history of dogmatic movements in the patristic and medieval periods. If my initiative was manifested in anything, it was almost exclusively in the processing of the material given in German manuals, and in the exclusion of everything that smacked of Protestantism or Catholicism. In general, the duty of justice requires us to admit that during this first period of my activity at the new department I was in decent slavery to the Germans and freed myself from it only after 1869, when I began more or less independently developing the subject and composing new lectures, while putting the previous ones in the archives. This was the fate of the first lectures, as far as we know, of the vast majority of academic teachers of the past, at least from a time when the current training of candidates for occupying academic departments did not exist. The then rector of the Petrograd Academy, Archpriest Ioann Leontievich Yanyshev, 310, as can be seen from the previous one, fully approved of the method of readings I adopted. Richly gifted by nature, first a bachelor of mathematics at his native academy, soon a priest abroad (in Wiesbaden), then a brilliant professor of theology at Petrograd University, leaving him with great fame 311, then again a foreign priest and archpriest (in Berlin and Wiesbaden), in 1864 - a teacher in Copenhagen of the law of God and the Russian language to the princess Dagmara, now the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna; in 1866, by order of the Highest, he was the rector of the Petrograd Theological Academy. Yanyshev was a man of a philosophical mindset, bright, broad views, who placed a high value on scientific interests, was well acquainted with both his native academy and with the organization of teaching at universities, both domestic and foreign German, energetic, highly experienced, having seen and experienced a lot in his time, despite his relatively short years (40 years old in 1866). He created for himself the ideal of a theological academy, in many ways completely different from the one the expression of which was then our domestic theological academy. His ideal was the theological faculty of predominantly German universities. His rectorship coincided with the era of transformations in the spiritual and educational environment, and he could not have come at a better time as rector at the capital’s academy, close to the environment where spiritual and educational plans were developed, and soon became one of the most prominent and influential leading figures in spiritual education, and in the academy acquired, over time, great authority. However, we do not consider it necessary to hide the fact that his first steps in the new field of service were not particularly successful, for which, however, he was largely to blame himself, thanks to his carried away character. The fact is that, greeted by the academic corporation of mentors very cordially, as a desirable boss, as a glorious pet of the academy, he, they said, from the very first stages put his colleagues in opposition to himself. In his speeches and especially in his introductory speech, from the text: “in the seat of Moses the scribes and Pharisees sit,” he offended the memory of the old Petrograd Academy, as if he crossed out its entire past. Meanwhile, the native academy was proud of this past, especially the era of Rev. Macarius (Bulgakov), its glorious rector and an outstanding spiritual writer, theologian and church historian. But it should be noted that most of the teachers of the Petrograd Academy of that time were students of the Makaryev period. “The new rector,” they said then (I had to hear this later from others, since when Fr. I. L. Yanyshev assumed the post of rector, I served at the Moscow Academy), “he himself had not done anything yet, and yet he dared to treat so many famous, at least, names, the historical traditions of the academy and the established way of its life. Let’s see what he himself will give to the academy.” In particular, regarding academic discipline, the views of the new rector sharply diverged from the views of the oldest representatives of the academic teaching corporation. For them, the ideal in this regard was the strict Makariev times. They sighed about the strict Makariev regime, shaken under the successors of the Most Reverend. Makaria - Feofan (Govorov), Nektaria (Nadezhdina), Ioanniki (Rudnev) and Ioanna (Sokolov), in the period from 1857 to 1866, and dreamed of its restoration. The new rector, himself a graduate of the same Makariev times, was far from being a fan of them and was a champion of a completely different system of student life, incomparably greater freedom. There were also some other circumstances that contributed to the intensification of misunderstandings between the new rector and academic professors, but this will be discussed later. His closest assistant, the inspector of the academy, Archimandrite Khrisanf (Retivtsev) 312, was little capable of resolving these misunderstandings; on the contrary, due to his character and the position in which he found himself, he was inclined to contribute to their strengthening. Apparently, he was far from alien to the jealousy of a monk subordinate to a person from the white clergy, and his personal character disposed him to the same thing. A very gifted, wonderful, brilliant professor, who made a strong impression on students with his smart and lively lectures, he was very popular among the corporation of academic mentors. Highly lively and sociable, interested in everything - from important events to the little things of life, he was always as up to date with academic life as possible and loved to share his impressions with his colleagues. And in Petrograd he was the same as in Kazan, during his service at the Kazan Academy, according to the description of his former student, an eighth year student at the Kazan Academy, Professor P. V. Znamensky. This is what we read in the wonderful, highly interesting “History of the Kazan Academy” 313 of this venerable professor: “A young, reddish monk, with nimble movements, with a lively, somewhat suspicious look of small eyes running in all directions... He was a strong philosophical and at the same time a lively historical and literary head, with the most versatile scientific and everyday curiosity and even passion. There was no news in the world in the field of German transcendental philosophy, or in the field of modern politics of Napoleon III, or in the life of bachelors or students, which he would not try to find out first, taking the keenest interest in everything. From early morning he could certainly be seen running across the academic courtyard from one mentor wing to another; this meant that he either heard about some curiosity between students, about a new original saying of the rector Ivan (Sokolov; † Bishop of Smolensk), about a scandal in the city, or read from the newspapers over tea what new trick Napoleon III had pulled up, and was in a hurry to share the news with his friends.” Exactly the same thing happened at the Petrograd Academy, where he went to serve under his predecessor, Fr. I.L. Yanysheva, Rev. Ioanna (Sokolov). With such peculiarities of mind and character, Fr. Chrysanthus understands what rich food for extraordinary worldly curiosity and what rich material for the critical mind of the inspector was provided by the orders and views of the new rector, due to the ideal of academic life presented to the latter, completely different from the old one - Filaret and Makariev times. It is therefore not at all surprising that Inspector Fr. Archimandrite Chrysanthus found himself at the head of the academic opposition to the rector; he was, one might say, its soul. He remained this way even after leaving the academy to become rector of the Petrograd Seminary in 1869, just before the academic reform. The close proximity of the seminary and the academy and close friendship with some of the oldest professors of the academy, especially with the successor in charge of inspection, Emeritus Professor K. I. Luchitsky, greatly facilitated the fulfillment of this role. This is how things continued after 1869 (a good five years), until 1874, when Archimandrite Chrysanthos, elevated to the rank of Bishop of Astrakhan, left Petrograd, and Professor K.I. Luchitsky, together with the inspectorate, left his service at the academy in the same 1874. However, this already applies to the period of time after the transformation of the academy in 1869, the subject of our further story. Of my then colleagues at the Petrograd Academy, the vast majority were my former mentors as students, whom I have already sufficiently characterized (see Chapter III). Of the new ones there were only a rector, an inspector and four bachelors (L. A. Pavlovsky, T. V. Barsov, A. E. Svetilin and P. F. Komarov). The rector, an ordinary professor in the department of moral theology, chose this subject (and not dogmatic theology, as his predecessors did) because it seemed to him easier and more convenient to combine studies in this subject with the performance of difficult rectoral and other (court service) duties. More than once he told me that dogmatic theology requires younger forces, more time and more undivided devotion to it than moral theology, which is why he decided to choose the latter, and for the former to call me from the Moscow Academy. On my own behalf I will add that the philosophical mindset of Fr. I.L. Yanysheva was most suitable for the department of moral theology, the serious scientific formulation of which requires precisely such a disposition, which I.L. probably instinctively felt. and what, in the end, led to the appearance of his remarkable, major work - a system of moral theology. Justice requires noting, however, that the strong mind of I.L. It was far from all of a sudden that I managed to master my subject. It was heard that at times he was disappointed in the value of his lectures, which he did not hide from people close to him. Represented by I.L. The academy undoubtedly received an excellent, brilliant professor, an excellent rector who cared about all aspects of its life, and the corporation of mentors received a sympathetic, most delicate head, friendly, extremely kind to its members and patient with their shortcomings, and sometimes not entirely correct antics. Unfortunately, our then colleagues, accustomed to the completely different treatment of previous rectors, failed to appreciate, at least in the first years of his rectorship, his refined politeness and delicacy of his address and unfairly suspected him of insincerity and even of Jesuitism. The contrast between him and his predecessor, the brutally despotic Rev., was too sharp. John (Sokolov), and other, earlier rectors. However, what was said above about I.L. Yanyshev, as a professor of moral theology, refers specifically to the period after the transformation of the academy (after 1869); until that time (1867–1868) he taught pedagogy, and the department of moral theology from 1866 was occupied, with the rank of bachelor, by P. F. Komarov, my former student at the Moscow Academy 314, who did not submit a master’s thesis, and therefore was left behind in 1869 (about him, see Chapter IV of my "Memories"). His place in the department of moral theology (combined with pedagogy according to the charter of 1869) was taken by Fr. I.L. Yanyshev. Of the new faces, in addition to the rector, inspector (Fr. Chrysanth) and P.F. Komarov, my colleagues from the student years turned out to be my senior XXIV, my XXV and junior XXVI, namely L. A. Pavlovsky, bachelor of patristics 315, T. V. Barsov, bachelor of church jurisprudence, my fellow student, and A. E. Svetilin 316, Bachelor of Logic and Psychology. The first had a more practical than scientific mindset, the second did not enjoy the sympathy of most of his colleagues, due to the peculiarities of his character, the third was distinguished by great modesty, shyness, concentration, deep-thinking, in many ways by his mentality and character, partly even by appearance, reminiscent of my former colleague at the Moscow Academy, Professor V. N. Potapov, also a teacher of logic and still new philosophy. The corporate life of teachers at the Petrograd Academy differed in many ways from the Moscow Posad Academy. Here professors and bachelors did not live in such close communication as in Sergiev Posad. A few, about six people (V.I. Dolotsky, N.I. Gloriantov, A.I. Predtechensky, I.E. Troitsky, T.V. Barsov, P.F. Komarov), had government-owned apartments in the academy building, the rest were scattered around Petrograd, and if the former naturally saw each other often, the latter lived separately from each other and from the academic inhabitants, having a special circle of friends and relatives, which represented their own beneficial and disadvantages. The financial situation of the teachers of the capital's academy also turned out to be somewhat different than in the modest Posad. True, following the example of the Moscow Academy and following it, in the Petrograd Academy there was the same increase, from the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, to the government salary: ordinary professor (instead of 858 rubles) - 1200 rubles, extraordinary (instead of 429 rubles) - 900 rubles, bachelor (instead of 429 rubles) - 700 rubles, but these funds were not enough given the high cost of life in the capital, especially for family people. I'll take myself as an example. I rented an apartment for 300 rubles. per year (25 rubles per month), 400 rubles left. - about everything about everything; more than modest content! This is how we lived through the end of 1867 and all of 1868; By the end of 1868, the beginning of 1869, with the appointment of inspector Archimandrite Chrysanthus to the rectorship at the Petrograd Seminary, I received an increase of 200 rubles, his salary was transferred to me - an extraordinary professor (900 rubles), in view of my marital status, although I was not elevated to this rank. I considered myself lucky, already having 75 rubles a month, and excluding rent, 50 rubles. But this happiness was very short-lived; it lasted for two or three months. Before the transformation of the academies according to the new charter, three or four months before May 30, 1869 (the time the charter was approved), the Lavra refused to give increases to our salaries, in view of future higher maintenance salaries, in the amount of university salaries. It happened completely unexpectedly. It was a great disappointment when, expecting a near improvement in our life, we appeared in January or February of this year to the economist of the academy, and they announced to us that we, bachelors, together with extraordinary professors, would receive 35 rubles each. with pennies of a month's salary. Under such circumstances, one inevitably had to resort to literary work as an additional means of subsistence. At half the month, the pocket usually turned out to be completely empty, and you would go, with some embarrassment, to the treasurer of the editorial board of Christian Reading, Professor I.F. Nilsky to receive 10–15 rubles as a fee for articles published in the magazine. This is where my “Essays on the history of the liturgy of our Orthodox Church” (1868) and “History of the ancient national liturgies of the West” (1870), published in Christian Reading, begin. If it were not for the oppressive need, these essays would hardly have been born, which took me a lot of time from studying a new subject of teaching (dogmatic theology), with works on which I could not yet appear in print due to insufficient study of it. From time to time he also published articles of a journalistic nature in the “Church and Public Bulletin” of A. I. Popovitsky. Transformation of theological academies according to the charter of 1869 The main engine of the transformation was the then Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod (since 1865), Count D.A. Tolstoy. He carried on this matter with his characteristic energy and perseverance. In January 1868, a committee was established to revise the charter of the academies - under the chairmanship of Nizhny Novgorod Archbishop Nektary (Nadezhdin), our former rector. But the soul of the committee was not the chairman, a man not outstanding in anything other than complete sympathy for the cause of transformation, and therefore Count D.A.’s persona grata. Tolstoy, and the members of the committee, especially the chairman of the Spiritual Educational Committee, Archpriest I.V. Vasiliev and the rector of the Petrograd Academy, Archpriest I.L. Yanyshev. Both of them were ardently devoted to the cause of transformation and were excellent, very knowledgeable representatives of the organization of higher theological education in the West: Archpriest I.V. Vasiliev - in the Roman Catholic world, Archpriest I.L. Yanyshev - in Protestant. Moreover, Archpriest I.V. Vasiliev, a highly gifted personality with a strong and balanced character, very lively, witty and eloquent, very influential in all higher spheres, both secular and spiritual, had great weight and importance among the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D. A. Tolstoy 317 . The other members of the committee were also remarkable people in their own way and contributed their share of influence to the cause of transformation. The chief priest of the army and navy, Archpriest M. I. Bogoslovsky, a man also authoritative and influential both in spiritual and partly secular circles, of a strong, unshakable character, who once reigned supreme in the school of law, when he was its professor and teacher of the law, a doctor of theology (which was then a rarity), was a representative of the moderate conservative element in the committee. Prominent representatives of the Ministry of Public Education - professors of Petrograd University I. E. Andreevsky and the Historical and Philological Institute A. D. Galakhov - pulled, of course, towards the transformation and faculty structure of theological academies in the manner of universities. The rector of the Petrograd Theological Seminary, Archimandrite Pavel (Lebedev; † Archbishop of Kazan), a man of broad views, was also on the side of the transformation. SHE. Sergievsky, director of the chief prosecutor’s office, there is nothing to say: he, of course, diligently followed the will of his principal, the chief prosecutor. Professor I. A. Chistovich, an authoritative expert on the history of the academy, author of “The History of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. 1858–1888" (St. Petersburg, 1889), also joined the advocates of a radical transformation of theological academies; Moreover, he took upon himself a special mission - to be an ardent defender of secular sciences, in particular philosophy, as part of the academic course; At that time there was a fairly strong current in favor of transforming academies into specifically theological institutions, like university theological faculties. Finally - E.I. Lovyagin, also the clerk of the committee, a venerable professor of mathematics, who defended, although not particularly energetically, the existence of physical and mathematical sciences in the academic course. There were also random members in the committee who were present at several of its meetings: the Lithuanian Archbishop Macarius (Bulgakov) and the delegates who found themselves in Petrograd at that time (on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Petrograd University in February 1869) of the Moscow and Kazan academies: the rector of the Moscow Academy, Archpriest A. V. Gorsky and the professor of the Kazan Academy N. P. Sokolov 318. Archbishop Macarius was an ardent champion of reform; A.V. Gorsky, as was natural to expect, was not particularly disposed towards him. By the way, during his stay in Petrograd, my unforgettable former rector, A.V. Gorsky, to my great joy, honored me with a visit to my modest apartment. Thus, through the efforts of the mentioned persons, the Charter of Theological Academies, approved on May 30, 1869, with all its features, was developed. One of the main ones was the specialization and division of the taught sciences into three groups, or departments: theological, church-historical and church-practical, with a few subjects generally required for all students. Generally compulsory were: Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments (2 departments), basic theology, logic, psychology, history of philosophy, metaphysics and pedagogy. The theological department included: dogmatic theology, moral theology, comparative theology, patristics, biblical archeology and the Jewish language. To church history: biblical history, general church history, ancient and modern (2 departments), history of the Russian Church, civil history, ancient and modern (2 departments), Russian civil history and Russian schism. To the church-practical: pastoral theology with homiletics (1 department), church law, church archeology, literature and Slavic dialects. Of the ancient languages, only one was required for each student, and of the new ones, too. The weaknesses of this curriculum were soon noticed. This is the predominance of non-theological sciences over theological ones in at least two departments: church-historical and church-practical 319, the lack of completeness of theological education of students due to the classification of some of the most important subjects as departmental, special ones, such as general church history and dogmatic theology 320, and finally, a large unevenness in the number of subjects to be studied by students of departments and lectures listened to weekly 321. The idea of ​​specialization of spiritual and academic education was, so to speak, in the air of that time and found almost general recognition. But it is probably difficult to say who exactly had the first idea about such a curriculum, about dividing all sciences into three groups, or departments. In I. A. Chistovich in his “History of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy...”. St. Petersburg, 1889, p. 113) it is said that Rev. Macarius (Bulgakov), the then Archbishop of Lithuania, who was present at one of the meetings of the committee for the transformation of academies, spoke in favor of such a division, with the departments adopting just such names. It may very well be that the first thought belonged to him and that his authority influenced other members. This kind of faculty structure of academic courses was probably first of all seized upon by the secular members of the committee, professors of the university and the historical and philological institute (I. E. Andreevsky and A. D. Galakhov); they were joined by professors I.A. Chistovich and N.A. Sergievsky, and perhaps Archimandrite Pavel (Lebedev). But it found its main support in Archpriest I. L. Yanyshev, an ardent and convinced defender of the strictest specialization, as could be seen from our repeated conversations with him, and he strenuously, by the way, defended the practical department, referring to the structure of German theological faculties. Archpriest I.V. Vasiliev was a supporter of more moderate specialization; In all likelihood, Archpriest M.I. Bogoslovsky also saw eye to eye with him. After the introduction of the new curriculum of the charter of 1869, it brought many good and valuable fruits. Students began to take the study of sciences, especially departmental ones, much more seriously than before. Personally, I was very glad that my subject was special, departmental. I have never had such attentive and diligent listeners as during the period from 1869 to 1884. In general, in all classroom activities there was some kind of cheerful, lively current. All the more annoying was the obvious extreme in carrying out the beautiful and, in essence, beneficial principle of specialization, there was a premonition of the fragility of the new charter and a strong fear of a return to the previous academic system, which then, unfortunately, happened in 1884. Inspired by such thoughts and feelings, I even took a risk in 1874. come out in print with a friendly but frank criticism of the curriculum according to the charter of 1869, indicating its above-mentioned shortcomings, with his project of dividing all the sciences of the academic course into two groups, or departments - theological and church history, and with another combination of relatively compulsory subjects. My articles were published in the “Church and Public Bulletin” by A. I. Popovitsky (1874, No. 45–47) - of course, without the author’s signature. It was far from safe then to make such, albeit very restrained, criticism, given the well-known despotic and intolerant character of the Chief Prosecutor, Count D. A. Tolstoy. This matter was kept in great secret, the name of the author was known only to those closest to me and to no one at the academy, but there was one moment that threatened to violate my secret. Soon after the publication of the mentioned articles, in the same 1874, our academy was audited by the Lithuanian Archbishop Macarius (Bulgakov). After the audit, in the meeting of all the academy’s mentors, in the rector’s apartment, the Right Reverend auditor starts talking, among other things, about the new academic charter, and states that he read the articles of the “Church and Public Bulletin”, finds them, in general, fair and thorough 322, and then suddenly turns to the immediately present lecturer of the French language and editor of the “Church and Public Bulletin”, A.I. Popovitsky, with the words: “A.I., who wrote these articles? Are you yourself? “Yes, I myself,” answered A.I., in my deathly silence. There was another aspect of the curriculum of the 1869 statute which was subject to severe and almost universal criticism. This is a production of the IV course. The first three courses - I, II, III - were assigned for lectures, IV - for practical classes. There was little time left for reading full courses; it was reduced by a quarter compared to the previous one (before the transformation), even more, since in the third year students were already writing candidate essays and, naturally, were little inclined to listen to lectures, which the teachers inevitably had to take into account. And although the number of lectures in this course did not decrease, even sometimes increased, according to the schedule, in fact, in student practice it was reduced... The fourth course, assigned for practical classes and for preparation for the master's exam, was considered of little use, to say the least, a waste of time 323. Dissatisfaction with this arrangement of classroom activities was, admittedly, almost universal in our academy; there were very few defenders. Among them, the hottest was the rector. The writer of these lines also belonged to this minority, not sharing the opinion of the majority, for the following reasons. I have never considered the completeness of courses to be the task of the academy, holding the opinion that for academies, as higher educational institutions, the motto should be “non multa sed multum”, believing that what is a necessary requirement for theological seminaries is completely unnecessary, even in some respects harmful for theological academies. I dare to think so now. The attacks on the IV course also seemed to me to be unimportant and unfounded. Most of all, they attacked the idleness and laziness of the students of this course, who had already received the right to a candidate’s degree, during the transition from the third to the fourth year, for the submitted course essays, and therefore considered themselves entitled to rest on their laurels. It cannot be denied that there were many of them, but these were the worst students. There were, are and will be a certain number of such people, capable of lying on their side not just for one, but for four whole years, under all regulations. At this time there were more of them than before, but the number of all students had more than doubled, with the doors of the academy wide open. The best students spent this year with great benefit for themselves; Zealously engaged in the work given to them, mainly in the study of the literature of the subjects they had chosen for the master's exam (groups of two to four), in particular, the most outstanding manuals on these sciences. In addition, they worked on their candidate’s essays, with the goal of turning them into master’s essays by expanding or even changing the topic; practiced composing and delivering trial lectures on their chosen subjects. These practical classes alternated with listening to some, albeit few, theoretical lectures given by mentors in the form of supplementing or completing courses I–III. All this greatly aroused the energy of the students and disposed them to scientific, serious, independent and at the same time calm work; even the worst ones were forced to do something, since they were obliged to report on their studies to the proper mentors, and it was a shame to appear before them completely empty-handed and empty-headed. In the extreme case - let's take average students - the fourth year was far from useful, at least in the sense that it provided an opportunity to look around, take stock of the results of their many years (15-16 years) of study in a theological school, seminary and academy, outline a path for future life and activity, and accumulate energy for future teaching activities. Both experience has shown and observations have confirmed that of the students of the academies of the period 1869–1884. the most energetic seminar teachers came out; This often turned out to be the case even for people who were not particularly diligent and successful in their academic course. With the exception of the above-mentioned features of the statute of 1869, others not only did not encounter any objections in the academic environment, but, on the contrary, found complete sympathy. These are: the organization of the academic council, departments, etc., in general the entire administrative structure and direction of the versatile scientific and educational academic life. And the life of the native academy flowed at an accelerated pace, very harmoniously, under the leadership of such an ideal, especially for that time, rector, which was Archpriest I.L. Yanyshev, and under the tutelage of its closest superior, very favorable to the academy, the wise Metropolitan Isidore. Metropolitan Isidore (Nikolsky) was a most remarkable saint. A student of the Petrograd Academy of that period (1821–1825), when the spirit of Philaret (Drozdov), its famous rector, was still alive in it (although the period of reaction had already begun - the years 1824 and the following), he became even closer to the Moscow saint during his seven-year service in Moscow, as rector of the Moscow seminary (1833) and vicar of Moscow, bishop Dmitrovsky (1834–1840), Metropolitan Isidore was close in his ideals and educational aspirations (translating the Bible into Russian) to the famous Moscow saint, but he sharply and in many respects differed favorably from Metropolitan Philaret in his personal character traits. Extremely restrained, extremely calm, amazingly equanimous, even, polite in his manners, prone to humor, alien to impulses towards arbitrariness and the frequent bishop's despotism, deeply imbued with a sense of legality, extremely far-sighted, and finally, sincerely sympathizing with the successes of spiritual science - such was Metropolitan Isidore. Under his leadership, as if behind a reliable wall, his native academy could live peacefully and develop in a new direction. There is no doubt (for me at least) that Metropolitan Isidore in the depths of his soul sympathized with the statute of 1869, of course - in general, and not in all its particulars. Possessing a far from remarkable mind, he was generally broader-minded than many of his brothers in the highest church hierarchy. I remember a conversation with one person close to the highest spiritual spheres, namely with Professor I. A. Chistovich (son-in-law of Protopresbyter V. B. Bazhanov). Comparing Metropolitan Isidore with the then Metropolitan of Kyiv Arseny (Moskvin) 324, Professor Chistovich put it this way: “Our bishop is much higher than the one of Kyiv in intelligence, in his bright and broad outlook.” Metropolitan Isidore's sympathy for the new academic system, due to his extremely restrained character, was not clearly expressed, but it was felt. It is remarkable how favorably he treated academic dissertations for academic degrees, condescending to some of their weaknesses. We witnessed how kindly he treated the workers of science, attending debates, academic events, or accepting works presented to him. We ourselves personally experienced this, for example, on the occasion of the appearance of my works on liturgics (“Essay on the history of the liturgy of our Orthodox Church” and “Essay on the history of the ancient national liturgies of the West” 325), or on the occasion of my personally presenting to him a copy of my doctoral dissertation. He especially ardently sympathized with works on the Holy Scriptures 326. I remember that he himself even kept the proofs on the interpretation of the books of Holy Scripture in the articles published in Christian Reading by Associate Professor I. S. Yakimov and others. And what about the publication of the complete Russian translation of the Bible that he carried on his shoulders? This alone speaks too loudly about his well-known mood and direction. In general, it was felt that he had a scientific streak, that he was far from indifferent to the strong scientific movement generated by the charter of 1869. True, something in this case (and perhaps a considerable amount) can be attributed to his inclination to follow the prevailing trend, to his remarkable ability to put up with Tolstoy’s reforms, due to which he later made peace with the Pobedonostsevsky trend, although, as we will see later, he sometimes gave passive resistance to the latter. It cannot be denied that in many cases he lacked steadfastness in defending his rights and in defending the academy - from attacks from the characteristic chief prosecutor, Count D. A. Tolstoy (for example, in the case of Prof. N. I. Gloriantov and V. I. Modestov), ​​or from attempts by the Educational Ecclesiastical Committee to subordinate the academies to the committee in some aspects of administrative and even academic activity. We were all very surprised that he, the leading member of the Holy Synod and, in essence, its chairman, was often able to sign decrees of the Holy Synod condemning the decisions of the academic council that had been taken and approved by him. We were worried and perplexed, but he remained completely calm, as if it didn’t concern him at all. “An amazing person,” I. L. Yanyshev once said about this in a confidential conversation. “The Metropolitan probably has some special worldview.” Actively opposing decisions he did not like was not at all in the spirit of Metropolitan Isidore. He was capable only of passive opposition, and in this regard he was inimitable. As the most characteristic fact of such opposition, one can point to the defense of me, as the editor of the Church Messenger, from K. P. Pobedonostsev, from the attacks of this chief prosecutor on the direction I gave to the academic body, which at the same time (until 1888), in the official part, was the body of the Holy Synod; this highly remarkable incident will be discussed in detail in its proper place. Finally, another character trait of Metropolitan Isidore. He was a strict enforcer of the law, he had a strong sense of legality. For example, there was such a case. The acting rector, Professor E.I., comes to see him. Lovyagin with a report, and suddenly, among the cases being reported, one magazine comes across with such a secular definition that arouses the metropolitan’s bewilderment. The speaker, in defense of the secular solution, refers to some paragraph of the charter. The Metropolitan says: “We’ll see,” takes out the academic charter from the shelf behind him (the report was in the office) and, surprised by the paragraph he read, with the words: “Strange paragraph,” signs the journal. In general, although we sometimes criticized our wise old boss, we deeply respected him and sincerely loved him - as our trustee, who allowed us to live and work with a light heart and a calm soul. After his death we appreciated him even more. Blessed be the memory of this wonderful saint, who stood at the head of the Holy Synod for 32 years (1860–1892), served as a bishop for 57 years (1834–1892) and died as an almost 93-year-old elder (without 24 days, born October 1, 1799, died September 7, 1892). The rector for almost the entire duration of the charter of 1869 was Archpriest I. L. Yanyshev. He left service at the academy six months before the introduction of the charter of 1884 (October 19, 1883).\ Council of the Petrograd Academy 1869–1884. According to the charter of 1869, the management of academies was concentrated in a council chaired by the rector. The council was divided into general and private. The general consisted of all the professors of the academy, ordinary and extraordinary. Private - from the rector, his departmental assistants, the inspector and representatives of three departments, two from each. The first was in charge of the most important matters regarding the scientific and educational part, the second decided on matters of an administrative and less important nature. A major role was played in both the one and the other council, especially by the rector’s assistants and partly by elected representatives from the departments. The first assistants to the rector were: in the theological department - Professor I. A. Chistovich, in the church-historical department - professor I. V. Cheltsov, in the church-practical department - professor V. I. Dolotsky. The inspector remained the same - Professor K.I. Luchitsky. Members from departments in the private council were: from theological – ordinary professor M.A. Golubev, extraordinary professor I.T. Osinin and (after his death soon, on August 22, 1869, M.A.G., from October of the same year) - extraordinary professor A.L. Katansky, from church-historical - extraordinary professor M.O. Koyalovich and I.F. Nilsky, from church-practical - ordinary professor E.I. Lovyagin and extraordinary Professor N.I. Gloriantov. The secretary of the council and board in the first years after the transformation (1869–1873) was A.V. Beletsky, a wonderful, one might say ideal, secretary 327. Further changes were as follows. In place of professors V.I. Dolotsky and I.A. Chistovich, 328 who retired in 1873, they were elected assistant rector for the church-practical department prof. E.I. Lovyagin and in theological later, already in 1877 (this position was vacant for 4 years), - Professor A.L. Katansky. In 1874, instead of Professor K.I. Luchitsky, who retired, prof. was elected inspector. M. O. Koyalovich. In 1878, after the death of I.V. Cheltsov, he (M.O.K.) was elected assistant rector for the church history department, and professor I.F. Nilsky was elected inspector. Thus, this entire period of time (1869–1884) passed under two assistant rectors for all three departments (theological - I. A. Chistovich, A. L. Katansky; church history - I. V. Cheltsov, M. O. Koyalovich; church practical - V. I. Dolotsky, E. I. Lovyagin) and with three inspectors: K. I. Luchitsky, M. O. Koyalovich, I. F. Nilsky 329 . Elections to these offices attracted great attention and were carried out with special care. Particularly memorable were the elections to the position of assistant rector for the theological and church history departments. After I. A. Chistovich retired in 1873, the election of an assistant rector for the theological department was not carried out for a long time, since there was not a single ordinary professor in the department (except for the rector). Two years later, an ordinary professor finally appears in the department in the person of D. A. Khvolson, who was nominated for this title on August 31, 1875. After some hesitation, the council allowed in 1876 the members of the department, in its presence, to nominate D. A. Khvolson for the position of assistant rector; the ballot gave a positive result, and the council decided “to submit confirmation in this position to the Holy Synod” (journal February 15, 1876). However, this “presentation” never took place due to the fact that voices were heard (by the way, from the Holy Synod) protesting against the election to the leadership of the department of a person who had no theological education, and, moreover, of Jewish origin, although a venerable scientist of the Orthodox faith. In explanation of this delay, in the journal of the council meeting held (February 14, 1877) exactly one year after the election of D.A., we read in the submission of the theological department that “D.A. Khvolson, elected theologian. department 15 Feb. 1876 ​​to the vacant position of assistant rector in this department, but was not nominated by the academy council for approval in this position, in view (?) of Mr. Khvolson’s 25-year service life approaching at that time and the need to elect him again for further continuation of academic service, he now told the department that due to his personal circumstances he could not accept the position of assistant rector, which the department has the honor to present to the council.” But all this is just the practical side of the matter, a more or less decent way out of an awkward situation for the council. The main thing was the aforementioned rumors and rumors and the expectation that another member of the department, extraordinary professor A.L., might soon receive the right to occupy this position. Katansky, who, a month after the February 1877 council meeting, actually submitted (March 15 of the same year) his doctoral dissertation for consideration. On May 26 of the same 1877, my dissertation was accepted for public defense, on June 5 my disputation took place, on August 22 I was approved for the degree of Doctor of Theology, on August 31 I ran for the title of full professor, and on October 6 I ran for the position of assistant rector. The ballot for this latter position was made by the members of the branch in the presence of the council, by closed ballot (ballots), with four elective and none non-elective. Thus ended this rather delicate matter. Another memorable case was when he was also running for the position of assistant rector for the church history department. This incident deeply and pleasantly struck us all with the pure chivalric nobility displayed. In 1878, after the death of I.V. Cheltsov, it was necessary to elect his successor as assistant rector. Three candidates, ordinary professors M. O. Koyalovich, I. F. Nilsky and I. E. Troitsky are running, in the presence of the council, as members of the department. And suddenly it turns out that all three get all the electoral balls and not a single non-selective one. The voting is repeated, the result is the same, and so on up to three times. Finally, those running themselves (especially I.F. Nilsky and I.E. Troitsky, there were two or three more extraordinary professors) convince their comrades to put themselves in the “chernyaks”. The conviction worked, and the oldest member of the department, who at that time held the position of inspector of the academy, Professor M. O. Koyalovich, was unanimously elected. It should be noted that closed voting, in general, and not only in this case, was striking in its greater impartiality and fairness. Each time the act of voting was approached with great seriousness, with a consciousness of moral responsibility. One could often hear the phrase: “This ball is small, but it can kill a person.” I remember that Professor I. F. Nilsky especially often liked to repeat this phrase when running for academic degrees and titles. Academy departments. The branches were in the closest connection with the activities of the council. These were, as it were, permanent, organized commissions that were in charge of filling vacant departments in the academy, recommending candidates for their replacement, considering the teaching programs of the subject academic mentors, reviews of essays for academic degrees, preliminary awarding of these degrees, as well as incentive awards for student essays, and in general all matters relating to the activities of both teachers and students who were part of the department. The result was that the preliminary work of the departments greatly facilitated the activities of the council and the rector, a lot of time was saved, unnecessary conversations and debates were avoided, since in the departmental submissions all the necessary information on the case was given, a draft decision was also given, all that remained was to agree with it or reject it. Such organization and activities of the departments were of great importance, first of all, for the academic mentors themselves. The departments included, without exception, all teachers of the academy - both senior and junior, with equal voting rights. The active participation of both in the discussion of various academic affairs could not but have a beneficial effect on them, teaching everyone to take to heart all the events of general academic life, bringing senior teachers closer to junior ones, enriching juniors through communication with seniors with greater scientific and pedagogical experience, preparing them for future activities as members of the council, simultaneously disciplining arrogant youth and subordinating them to the authority of senior colleagues. We attach considerable importance to the latter circumstance in the orderly flow of academic life at that time. The departments had a great and beneficial influence on students in the sense of stimulating their energy and even disciplining them. Each student was known in the department, and this or that opinion about him was generalized between teachers, which gave more weight to the established opinion of this or that individual teacher; students eagerly listened to what was said about them in the department. Moreover, they got used to looking at members of departments as their defenders or strict judges in matters of a disciplinary nature, which kept them within proper boundaries regarding behavior and indirectly helped the academic inspectorate maintain discipline in the academy. The rector's assistants were especially important to students. Students conducted various negotiations with him: regarding the deadlines for submitting semester essays, about the release of one or another student, for good reasons, from an exam scheduled for a certain day, about the scores received in the exam, about changing these scores, etc. He also submitted semester essays, for transmission to the subject mentors, with marks of the day of their receipt; after the deadline for submission, essays were not accepted, and their authors were sent to the rector so that he, with his own authority, if he found it possible, resolved the issue of their acceptance. The presence of the assistant rector at all exams (except for master's in the fourth year) in the department's subjects as the chairman of the examination committee, which usually consisted of three people (the assistant rector, a teacher of a famous subject and an assistant), became well acquainted with each student, and the students knew this and felt that there was an eye watching their successes and partly how they behaved in the exams. There were cases when assistant rectors provided important services to the cause of academic tranquility and peace. For example, there was such a case. When I was assistant rector of the theological department (1877–1884), on a certain day in one of the courses an exam was scheduled in one of the compulsory subjects, namely pedagogy. Since the teachers of these subjects were part of the theological department, the chairman of the exams in these subjects was always the assistant rector for the theological department, which, by the way, placed a considerable burden on him: he had to attend 25-30 exams in compulsory subjects (students of all departments - up to 100 people), extremely long. Before the start of the said exam, deputies from this course come to me with a statement that their comrades will not be examined in this subject, since the teacher does not agree to exclude several tickets (3-4) from the program issued to him for the exam, meanwhile, the deputies said, these tickets fall on lectures that were not accidentally recorded. And it should be noted that most mentors usually satisfied such requests from students, and they got used to this practice; The teacher’s intransigence, and perhaps the harsh tone of refusal, aroused this time a feeling of protest, which resulted in such an incorrect form 330. After my admonitions not to take such a risky step, the deputies left with a promise to talk with their comrades. After that, a deputy from them appears again with a statement that the students will appear for the exam. A few minutes later, all of us, as part of the full commission, go to the audience in full confidence that the incident has been resolved. But imagine our surprise when we find the classroom completely empty - not a single student... Then I again call on one of the students of this course and, knowing from my own experience (our student history on October 4, 1861) that threats of reprisals will not achieve anything, I take a completely different point of view, appeal to the sense of obligatory decency and ordinary everyday politeness and correctness for students, and from this point of view I explain to them all the indecency of their act - after this word, force the entire venerable commission to go a second time into the auditorium (the first time we were in it, it seems, was before the reception of the student delegation) to admire its bare walls and empty desks. It should also be noted that inspector I.F. Nilsky or his assistant, respected by the students A.V. Vasilkov, came to the students on this occasion, or maybe both, but they were not successful. My speech had an effect on the students, and the exam took place, and the mentioned 3-4 tickets were not withdrawn from circulation (to the satisfaction of the teacher), but it was allowed, at my insistence, to replace them with others if the answerers came across them. One of the surviving students of this course (XXXVIII - 1881) recently, in a casual conversation, told me that the students’ sympathy for me, as the chairman of the commission, had some influence on the successful outcome of this case. As for the rector’s power, there was no diminution of it from the existence of his academic assistants. The rector was the highest authority to which his assistants referred, which happened often, but to which the students resorted very reluctantly, since they had little hope of satisfying their requests; The rector was very protective of the authority of his assistants. The existence of an extra, intermediary authority between him and the students elevated the rector even more, not to mention the fact that it freed him from many not particularly important matters and concerns. I return to the departments. There was a noticeable noble competition between them and a desire to dominate relative to influence in the council, but there was no serious struggle. Mainly, the church-historical department competed with the theological one; the church-practical department remained in the shadows and was somehow overshadowed by the former, obscured. The Church-Historical Institute, very united, thanks to the homogeneity of its composition and the seniority in service of its members, was also proud of the fact that it had the best of its students as its listeners. Theological, not inferior to it in the number of members, even surpassing it in this respect, due to the fact that its composition included teachers of compulsory subjects, did not have such cohesion. It included teachers not only of various theological subjects, but also of philosophical ones, but philosophy has always not been particularly friendly with theology, and the members of the theological department were of different ages, the old mixed with the young. In terms of the number and quality of students who chose the theological department, it was also inferior to the church history department, although it included many gifted students in its composition. Meetings of the departments were quite frequent, at least, sometimes more than one per month, depending on the number of cases to be considered for presentation to the council. If in any of the departments the work of the departmental meetings was taken most seriously, then it was precisely in the theological department. Its meetings never turned into a comradely pastime, as was often practiced in church history, where, after discussing and solving departmental matters, the meetings ended in a comradely evening with the usual entertainment. There was nothing like this in our theology, and although our meetings always ended with a small fraternal meal, even at the table the exchange of thoughts and conversation on scientific or church-social topics continued. This tone was set by our first chairman, first assistant to the rector, Professor I.A. Chistovich, my predecessor in this position. I, his successor, followed him. They always gathered in the evening, in turns, in the apartments of family members, the oldest in service, during my chairmanship - for the most part in my apartment. It's nice to remember these serious, friendly meetings!.. In all honesty, the departments brought nothing but good and various benefits to the life of the academy, and it is truly a pity that with the charter of 1884 they ceased to exist. They were important for the life of the academy in administrative, pedagogical and academic terms, and they provided invaluable services to the academy council. In the council, especially the private one, for the most part, only the cycle of cases that had been previously developed in the departments was completed and were sent to it in the form of draft decisions - written or oral. The council could only either agree with the representations of the branches or reject them. It is clear how much the council’s activities were facilitated and accelerated by this. As soon as a debate arose on this type of case, it was mainly to explain the motives for this or that departmental decision. The source of disagreement in the council was sometimes friction between departments, but here the rector acted as a conciliator and did this with his characteristic tact and skill. Rector I. L. Yanyshev was the ideal chairman of the council. Very delicate, showing great tolerance for other people's opinions, no matter in what extreme form they were expressed, but a firm guardian of the order of the debate, he did not allow disorderly speeches of several members at once (as happened later after him), established their turn, did not allow speakers to interrupt each other, deviate to the side, caught the moment in time to stop the debate on a well-known issue, excellently, inimitably, subtly and intelligently summarized the essence of the opinions expressed, brought together them to several question points and let them vote. At the same time, he was very reminiscent of the talented chairman of the district court, giving the floor to witnesses, the prosecutor's office, the bar, and then summarizing to the jury everything they heard at the trial. However, we must pay tribute to the then members of the council. Some of them were masters of words and deeds and possessed either oratorical talents (M. O. Koyalovich, I. V. Cheltsov, I. A. Chistovich, I. T. Osinin), or great worldly wisdom and experience in academic affairs (V. I. Dolotsky, K. I. Luchitsky, V. I. Lovyagin). Leaving the council after such debates, we often even dared to compare our meetings with the meetings of the English Parliament!.. Being present in the council then was a real pleasure, and was not accompanied, as later after 1884, by a heavy feeling and a bitter aftertaste in the soul. Let the readers not think that this is an idealization on our part and that the above phenomenon is exceptional, temporary and local. We don’t really know how things went in other academies. Not everywhere, of course, there were such favorable conditions for the activities of the council as in the Petrograd Academy; We mean that the members of our academic corporation did not have clashes in everyday life (in provincial academies, on this basis, with close cohabitation of its members, parties could easily form, as, according to rumors, was the case in the Moscow Academy); not all academies had such exemplary chairmen of the council as ours. We also do not deny that the orderly flow of academic affairs was facilitated by the news of the situation (the new broom), as well as the previous history of the academy, the harsh rector’s regime of the previous time, which disciplined the academic corporation. All this had its share of influence on the structure of academic life at that time, but still the most must be attributed to the wise structure of the administrative academic mechanism according to the charter of 1869. In this mechanism, all the wheels, clinging to one another, were set in motion gradually and evenly. The entire academy, starting from its youngest member, was aware of the academic affairs prepared by the preliminary meetings, and showed more or less participation in their direction and decision. This is not the same as later, after 1884, when members of the council, even the oldest, came to the council completely unprepared for solving Soviet affairs, very often presenting “tabula rasa”, and the chairmen of the council were little concerned with the preliminary study of affairs, and when the academic machine, creaking and knocking with its wheels, moved disorderly and with great noise, often not reaching the goal and again, several times to it returning in subsequent sessions. Academy Board. The board, chaired by the rector, included his three assistants, an inspector and an economist (the latter with voting rights on the economic side). The Academy's management was carried out in exemplary order. The rector was a wonderful, very caring owner, he delved into every detail of the household, and did not hesitate to walk through kitchens, basements and attics 331 . When the roof of a building needed repairs, he even climbed onto the roof and inspected it himself. The inspectors of that time, especially M. O. Koyalovich and I. F. Nilsky, actively helped him in monitoring the farm. Before entering the rector's office, Fr. I. L. Yan-va, the academic economy was so neglected that the sums allocated for it were barely enough only for the first six months, but in the second half of the year the academy was forced to live on debt. This is how his predecessor, the Most Reverend, ruled. John (Sokolov), with the then economist (1863–1867) Professor A.I. Predtechensky, a man of broad scope and broad nature. By 1869 the debt was paid 332 . A normal schedule of expenses was drawn up for various items: building repairs, student clothing and their food, with detailed indications of prices for individual supplies: meat, fish, flour, cereals, etc. We used this table with gratitude later, after 1884. Needless to say, Fr. I.L.Y. after careful preparation and study of the cases involved, why these sessions went very smoothly and evenly and were not long, did not take as much time as under his successors, when he had to sit sometimes for five to six hours. At the end of the board, and sometimes in the middle of the meeting, during breaks, there was often an exchange of thoughts among the rector’s assistants on departmental affairs, regarding this or that direction and a possible decision in the council, which sometimes took the form of diplomatic negotiations, with testing the waters, hints, warnings, etc. Composition of teachers of the Petrograd Theological Academy 1869–1884. With the introduction of the charter of 1869, many changes occurred in the composition of academic teachers: the number of departments increased and private assistant professors appeared at full-time departments. Instead of the closed two departments, mathematics and physics, eight new ones were opened: the second in Holy Scripture, in basic theology, in metaphysics, in Russian church history (separate from civil history), in biblical archeology, in biblical history, the second in civil history (new), in the Russian language and Slavic dialects. At some departments, private assistant professors appeared, namely: in dogmatic theology, in general church history, in the history of the Russian Church, in pedagogy, in philosophy, and in Greek and Latin languages. For general compulsory subjects. He occupied one of the two departments of Holy Scripture, namely the New Testament, shortly after the introduction of the charter of 1869, in the same 1869 (after the death of Professor M.A. Golubev, † August 22 of that year), with the rank of associate professor, teacher of the Petrograd Seminary, master V. G. Rozhdestvensky 333, who had previously been a bachelor of the Kazan Academy, a very of a gentle, sympathetic character, a kind and respectable colleague, from 1874 - a long-term professor of theology at Petrograd University. In October 1915, he celebrated the 50th anniversary of his venerable scientific and teaching career. To the second department - according to the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament - candidate I.S., who graduated in the same year, was elected in 1871. Yakimov 334, first with the rank of privatdozent, and then (after defending his master's thesis in 1874) as an associate professor, distinguished by very attractive personal traits and devotion to scientific interests, who subsequently distinguished himself with many valuable works on his subject. He occupied the department of basic theology with the rank of first bachelor, and then (after the introduction of the charter of 1869) associate professor, bachelor of the Kazan Academy, master N.P. Rozhdestvensky 335, a gifted teacher who, in addition, had the gift of speech, a developed aesthetic sense and a good voice. He often participated in the academic church choir and even performed in academic concerts, which were not uncommon during the rectorship of I. L. Yanyshev. After N.P.R. Many valuable scientific works remained, and even the complete “Course of Basic Theology, or Christian Apologetics,” published after his death by his friend, Professor A. I. Predtechensky. The friendship of these individuals began and strengthened especially since 1875, since the publication of the “Church Bulletin”, which Professor A.I. Predtechensky was the first editor, and N.P. Rozhdestvensky was his assistant in editing this magazine. Master of the Moscow Academy, teacher of the Moscow Seminary M. I. Karinsky 336 was elected to the department of metaphysics. He was “pre-elected” to this department back in 1868, before its opening, on the recommendation of Professor I.A. Chistovich, who drew attention to the presented M.I.K. to the Educational Committee of the Holy Synod, a program for the review of philosophical teachings (for seminaries). Upon the opening of the department of metaphysics in the academies, M.I. K-ii was unanimously elected to the title of associate professor at our academy, without competition, “in view of his undoubted and special ability to analyze metaphysical questions” (August 15, 1869). Soon he was sent abroad for scientific purposes. With great talent and an innate philosophical mindset, he is an outstanding professor of philosophy, the most worthy of the students of the Moscow theological school (Archarchs F.A. Golubinsky and V.D. Kudryavtsev). As a member of the council (since 1872), he showed great and active participation in academic affairs. Possessing a subtle mind and a remarkable ability to analyze, he often found out aspects of the issue under discussion that did not occur to other members. Fortunately, he is still alive, having been retired for more than twenty years, but without abandoning his studies in philosophy and enriching this science with highly valuable works. In 1912 he celebrated the 50th anniversary of his venerable activity. Currently, he is the oldest of the professors at our academy in terms of years of service (one year older than me), but not in years; in this regard, the person writing these lines is two or three years older than him - to the great, I would add, unfortunately; I wish I was younger! In 1874, Professor M.I. Karinsky left the department of metaphysics and moved to the department of history of philosophy. The theological department, which included teachers of all compulsory subjects except languages, strongly begged him to stay in metaphysics, but he turned out to be adamant in his decision, motivating his refusal from metaphysics with his inner consciousness of the impossibility for him to develop an independent system of philosophy and the hope that, perhaps, one of his successors would be able to do this. Two years later, in 1876, a candidate of our academy, M. I. Smolensky 337, who was taking a course in the practical department, was allowed to give lectures on this subject with the rank of privat-docent. Quite a rare case; this department provided only three persons as academic teachers (N.V. Pokrovsky, A.I. Ponomarev and M.I. Smolensky). M.I. Smolensky was undoubtedly a gifted man, but, unfortunately, he suffered from alcoholism, and, moreover, unsuccessfully arranged himself in a family relationship. He had a vocation for studying philosophical subjects and showed considerable hope that he would become a reputable professor of philosophy. Died after four years of academic service. After him, the department of metaphysics was occupied, in 1882, also with the rank of privat-docent, by N. G. Debolsky, a candidate at Petrograd University, the son of the famous archpriest G. S. Debolsky, the author of “Days of Worship of the Orthodox Church” and other works. N. G. Debolsky by this time had already established himself with solid published works on philosophy. Although by education and service (he was a clerk in the department of public education), it would seem that he was alien to the theological academy, but in reality he was very close to it: his origin, mentality and sympathies completely related him to the spiritual academic environment, and the attractive, extremely calm, even, sympathetic character of a born philosopher made him a completely desirable colleague in the environment of the academic corporation. And if he did not remain among her forever, the only thing that prevented this was the fact that he did not have a master’s degree, mandatory for a full-time associate professor, as a result of which he had to leave service at the academy in 1887. The Academy did not conduct it without sincere regret. He was then vice-director of the department of public education; He is currently a member of the council of the Minister of Public Education. A.E. Svetilin continued to teach logic and psychology, first with the rank of associate professor, and then, from 1875, as an extraordinary professor, until 1884, when he fell ill; died in 1887 At the philosophy departments, even a private docent was opened - in anthropology, but it did not last long, about 3 months - it was occupied by F. F. Gusev 338 . But another private docent – ​​in pedagogy – existed for 13 years, during the entire period of the charter of 1869. Pedagogy, a compulsory subject, was combined with moral theology, a departmental subject (of the theological department). Moral theology was chosen by the rector, Archpriest I. L. Yanyshev, and the teaching of pedagogy was entrusted, from 1871, to candidate S. A. Sollertinsky with the rank of privat-docent. S. A. Sollertinsky 339, from 1883 - master, and subsequently, with the introduction of the charter in 1884, doctor of theology and long-standing venerable professor of pastoral theology and pedagogy, who did not leave the academy and after thirty years of service (1901), continued to lecture there for about ten years, as a supernumerary honored ordinary professor. Of the ancient languages, Greek was entrusted to the professor of mathematics, excluded from the academic course, E.I. Lovyagin, and Latin, to the professor of physics, also abolished, N.I. Gloriantov. At that time - the intensive development of classicism in Russia - special attention was paid to ancient languages, and Count D. A. Tolstoy, the then chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, was very dissatisfied with this replacement of departments in ancient languages. With E. I. Lovyagin, as a former (1847–1853) teacher of the Greek language, who also distinguished himself with his works on translations from Greek (“Liturgical Canons of the Orthodox Church”, etc.), Count D. A. Tolstoy still somehow put up with, but positively could not digest N. I. Gloriantov as a professor of the Latin language. On every occasion, in conversations with the chairman of the Educational Committee at the Holy Synod, Archpriest I.V. Vasiliev, he considered it necessary to point out with causticity this, in his opinion, an anomaly, drawing from here the general conclusion that classical education in theological educational institutions is in decline. Despite the energetic defense of both Professor Gloriantov and spiritual and educational classicism in general on the part of Fr. Archpriest Vasiliev, Count Tolstoy always stubbornly stood his ground. The end result was that Professor Gloriantov had to resign, having previously spoken at a council meeting (March 4, 1876) with a rather harsh written explanation regarding the decree of St. Synod (May 30, 1875), which ordered the professor of Latin “not to limit himself to translations in class according to the Nosov anthology assigned for seminaries,” which, according to Professor Gloriantov, was not true. To the council’s proposal to exclude several harsh expressions from the statement, Professor Gloriantov responded with the words: “he’s pissing, pissing.” His resignation took place on March 22, 1877. He undoubtedly possessed not only physical and mathematical, but also great linguistic abilities, excellent knowledge of both ancient languages ​​and an enormous memory. We were all very sorry to part with this venerable professor, kind colleague, and man out of this world. The vacancy of professor of Latin language and its literature was filled in 1877 (October 17) by ballot, an ordinary professor at the Kyiv University of St. Vladimir, Doctor of Classical Philology V.I. Modestov 340. An expert in his subject, a gifted professor, but a man of a proud and rather quarrelsome character, he served in our academy for about four years, until 1880 (January 8). Prone to journalism, he became a regular contributor to the newspaper “Golos”, where, by the way, he once published a large feuilleton dedicated to heated criticism of the immoderate classicism of M. N. Katkov and Count Tolstoy. The latter immediately made a proposal to the highest academic authorities to dismiss the free-thinking professor, which he had to do by submitting his resignation. His place was taken, as a temporary teacher, by the district inspector of the Petrograd educational district, candidate of Petrograd University N.F. Fokkov, a specialist in the Greek language itself, but thoroughly familiar with Latin, an energetic and respectable teacher. He occupied this department for about three years (from 1880 to 1883). For some time he then served as an assistant to a full-time professor for teaching Greek (after the departure of private assistant professor Ya. E. Smirnov, see below). The desire to strengthen classicism in theological academies led to an increase in teachers of ancient languages ​​in them (including ours): private assistant professors appeared as assistants to full-time teachers. These were the following at the Greek language department: candidate of the Moscow Academy, Greek Dimitri Menagios (from September 16, 1876 to February 12, 1880), and then – candidate of our academy Ya. E. Smirnov (from September 18, 1881 to November 10, 1883); both of them served only briefly. Menagios 341 had to leave the academy due to the scandal that happened to him. Proud of being a doctor of one of the German universities, he was exposed for appropriating a doctoral dissertation that did not belong to him. Ya. E. Smirnov 342, although he was sent abroad to study the Greek language, he soon left the academy and took the place of priest at our mission in Dresden. At first, A. I. Sadov 343 was a private assistant professor at the Department of Latin. He was also sent abroad (together with Ya.E. Smirnov), then, having received a master's degree (1883), he took this department as an assistant professor and full-time teacher. This private docent was very successful; she gave in the person of A.I. Sadov a long-term, very respectable professor, who worked with great honor in the academic field, who remained faithful to his Almae Matri until the end of his service (1907, supernumerary until 1909), doctor of church history, emeritus professor. The following changes and news appeared in the theological department. In the department of dogmatic theology, to help me and on my initiative and petition, a candidate of our academy, A. S. Lebedev 344, was elected - with the rank of privat-docent, for readings in one of the departments of the historical presentation of dogmas, namely, “the presentation of dogmas according to the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament.” Not without some hesitation and objections on the part of the higher authorities, as was heard, the matter of approving this privatdocentur passed. It seemed like a reflection of Protestant trends and therefore inappropriate in the Orthodox theological academy, but it seemed to me very useful in the sense of facilitating the work of presenting historical and dogmatic data over the space of many centuries and among the various monuments of the revealed truth. This enterprise of mine was realized, undoubtedly, only thanks to the breadth of enlightened views of the ever-memorable Metropolitan Isidore and, in part, the chairman of the Spiritual Educational Committee of the Holy Synod, Archpriest I.V. Vasiliev, as well as the rector of the academy, Archpriest I.L. Yanysheva. Unfortunately, I could use the cooperation of A. S. Lebedev for only two years (1876–1878). Professor of comparative theology I. T. Osinin, awarded the title of Honored Extraordinary Professor in 1882, left service at the academy in 1883, soon taking up the high post of honorary guardian of the institutions of the department of the Empress Maria. After him (1883), the Department of Comparative Theology was occupied by Master A.P. Lopukhin 345 with the rank of Associate Professor, a very gifted man, who distinguished himself with numerous published works, mainly of a journalistic nature, had an excellent command of the pen, an expert in foreign languages, mainly new ones, a fast and extremely tireless writer and publisher of books and translations of foreign church writers, like Farrar, a man of remarkable energy and outstanding initiative (publication on his initiative of a translation of the complete works of St. I. Chrysostom); No wonder he lived for several years in America. Candidate A. A. Priselkov 346 was admitted to teaching patristics in 1873 with the rank of privat-docent, but this election was not entirely successful. Not without talent, A. A. Priselkov somehow failed to establish himself in this full-time department; for ten years (1873–1884) he could not submit a master’s thesis or receive the title of associate professor, and in 1884, with a new charter, he had to leave service at the academy. Much happier was the department of biblical archeology and the associated Hebrew language. It was held until 1883 by the venerable professor of Petrograd University, a great expert in Jewish antiquities and language, doctor of Jewish literature D. A. Khvolson, first, until 1870, with the title of associate professor, from 1870 - extraordinary professor, and from 1875 - ordinary. In 1883, upon his retirement, candidate I.G. was admitted to teaching these subjects with the rank of privatdozent. Troitsky 347. He has firmly established himself in this department and has been - for over thirty years, and upon his retirement - a venerable professor of our academy. Having inherited from his predecessor and teacher a thorough knowledge of the Hebrew language and biblical antiquities, having mastered his teaching methods, he declared himself not only a gifted teacher of the subject, but also a considerable number of published works in his specialty. Several changes also followed in the church history department and many new people joined the teaching staff. A new department of biblical history was opened, separate from general church history (or, as in other academies, for example Moscow, from the Jewish language). At the suggestion of Professor I.V. Cheltsov, my fellow student and close relative F.G. Eleonsky 348, at that time a teacher at the Vilna Seminary, who distinguished himself by his work in the analysis of historical monuments of the Western region and in the publication of the Archaeological Collection, was elected to this department. Probably, these works of his attracted the attention of Professor I.V. Cheltsov, and perhaps this former mentor of ours had a good impression of the work of F.G. El. on the topic that was once given to us regarding the desirable setting of a “textbook for teaching the history of the Old Testament Church.” Be that as it may, F.G. an offer was made to appear at the competition to occupy the department of biblical history, a program of future readings was required, he gave trial lectures, and on September 24, 1870 he was appointed full-time associate professor at the academy. Since then, for about thirty years, he has been a professor at his native academy with honor for it and for himself, representing “a major scholarly worker, mainly in biblical history,” as rightly noted in the “Biographical Dictionary” of A. S. Rhodessky. The Department of Ancient General Church History also received a new teacher. In 1878, Professor I.V. Cheltsov suddenly died, since 1870 he had been a Doctor of Theology, the first to be awarded this highest academic degree in our Academy, after publicly defending his dissertation. The department was empty for a year, as they were waiting for the completion of the course by one unusually gifted student, namely V.V. Bolotov, who attracted the attention of the entire academy. Immediately after completing the course in 1879, V.V. Bolotov 349 took this department (November 2, 1879), and, moreover, a very rare case, under the charter of 1869, right at the rank of associate professor, as having received a master’s degree after defending a dissertation (October 28 of the same 1879). The Academy made a huge acquisition in the person of this phenomenally gifted, one might even say brilliant, man, who was already famous at the Tver Seminary for his extraordinary talents and knowledge. Even before he entered the academy, his inspector at the seminary, and my former student at the Moscow Academy A.A. Tyazhelov 350 wrote to me that a student of extraordinary talents was coming to our academy, who already at the seminary had more scientific knowledge than anyone else who had completed a full academic course. The glorious name of Professor V.V. Bolotov subsequently became known far beyond the boundaries of the academy and the spiritual world and contributed one of the most brilliant pages to the history of his native academy. At the departments of general church history, ancient and modern (the second continued to be occupied by Professor I.E. Troitsky, from 1875 - Doctor of Theology and full professor) two private assistant professors appeared: 1) in church geography and statistics and 2) in Byzantine history. Lectures on the first (church geography and statistics) were given by A. A. Avtonomov 351, a gifted man who had an excellent gift of speech and great wit, but, unfortunately, did not take root in the academy and soon (a year later) left it, first for secular service, and then for service in the priesthood. Privat-docent in Byzantine history - master of Syrian Gerasim Yared 352 - served much longer (1870-1876); also very talented, with a hot head and an flammable character, he left behind many valuable scientific and literary works. He combined teaching this department of church history with service at the Petrograd Theological Seminary, until he was appointed rector at the Pskov Theological Seminary. To the department of Russian church history, which with the charter of 1869 received, separately from civil Russian history (with which it had been connected until that time), a full-time teacher, was elected in 1871 and in 1872 confirmed in the rank of associate professor, master priest P. F. Nikolaevsky 353, an expert in his subject, subsequently multi-knowledgeable, our outstanding Russian church historian, an energetic member of the academic council. His assistant, from 1875, was candidate E.M. Prilezhaev, 354 with the rank of privat-docent, who gave lectures on the history of the Russian Church during the period of synodal administration. This was the third private docent in the church history department; it existed for about nine years, until 1884, that is, until the end of the charter in 1869. E. M. Prilezhaev was a very useful, promising young teacher. He was of a closed character, very silent. The same teachers remained in other departments of this department. On the history and denunciation of the Russian schism - Professor I. F. Nilsky (since 1870 - Doctor of Theology and full professor); in Russian civil history - M. O. Koyalovich (since 1873 - Doctor of Theology and ordinary professor), in general ancient civil history - A. I. Predtechensky (master, extraordinary professor, since 1880 - honored extraordinary professor). The second department of general civil history, new, - after a failed attempt to replace it with the master of Petrograd University P. I. Lyupersolsky 355 and after a year, temporary (1872-1873) teaching by associate professor of the same university V. G. Vasilyevsky 356, later a famous scientist - was occupied in 1873, with the rank of associate professor, who graduated in the same year with a master of our Academy N.A. Skabalanovich 357 . This was the first time, according to the charter of 1869, that a student received a master's degree and the title of associate professor at our academy immediately after completing the academic course; the second case is the one mentioned above (V.V. Bolotov). In the person of N.A. Skabalanovich, the Academy received great scientific strength, an excellent professor, a long-term (30 years) member of the academic corporation, who declared himself not only through scientific works, but also as an outstanding journalistic talent (editor of the Church Bulletin and a long-term employee of it). The following changes took place in the church-practical department. My fellow student Tim continued to teach church law. V. Barsov, first with the rank of associate professor, and from 1870 - extraordinary professor, combining the professorial service with the position (from 1879) of chief secretary of the office of the Holy Synod, in 1888 - doctor of theology, in 1889 - ordinary professor († 1904). The department of homiletics and associated pastoral theology was occupied in 1869 by another of my student comrades, master Nikolai I. Barsov 358, with the rank of associate professor, and from 1873 - extraordinary professor. He turned out to be quite suitable for classes on the subject of church eloquence. Prepared for teaching at the Academy of Church Literature by his seminary service, as a teacher of general literature at the Petrograd Theological Seminary, he had a good command of the gift of speech and was distinguished by great liveliness and responsiveness to current events in church and public life. Unfortunately, he was a very nervous person, with a very unbalanced character. Church archeology and liturgics - after the resignation of the long-term (1836-1873) professor of these subjects V.I. Dolotsky - was read temporarily, for about a year (1873-1874), by the writer of these lines, extraordinary professor A.L. Katansky, who was once a bachelor of church archeology at the Moscow Academy, did not give up his readings at the department of dogmatic theology. I managed to select and prepare, from among the fourth-year students of the church-practical department who were graduating at that time, a permanent teacher in the person of N.V. Pokrovsky 359, first with the rank of privat-docent. My choice turned out to be very successful: N.V. Pokrovsky, later a master, associate professor, sent abroad for scientific purposes, then an extraordinary professor, doctor of church history, ordinary professor, inspector of the academy, director of the Petrograd Archaeological Institute, then received great and well-deserved fame (thanks to works in his specialty) not only in spiritual, but also secular circles; now he is an outstanding Russian church archaeologist. With great benefit for his native academy, he still (even after his resignation in 1904) does not leave it reading on church archeology - with the rank of supernumerary emeritus professor. Another department of this department also made an excellent acquisition - in the theory of literature and the history of Russian literature - after the resignation of long-term professor (1839–1874) K. I. Luchitsky. His place was taken in 1874 by Master V.V. Nikolsky 360, a former teacher of literature at the Petrograd Seminary, and at that time a brilliant professor at the Alexander Lyceum, who had an excellent gift of speech and great knowledge on his subject, captivating his listeners with an excellent teaching style. Students from other departments and courses often flocked to the academy to listen to his lectures. Unfortunately, he served at his native academy for a relatively short time, about nine years. His death in 1883 was a great loss for her. Simultaneously with the occupation of the full-time department of literature by V.V. Nikolsky, a private assistant professor appeared in it in the person of the candidate of our academy A.I. Ponomarev 361, who was admitted by the council to give lectures in the department of literature - “a review of the most important foreign literatures.” After the death of V.V. Nikolsky, A.I. Ponomarev took a full-time department in 1883 - first with the rank of private assistant professor and acting associate professor (after 1884), and then, after receiving a master's degree in 1886, as an associate professor. In his person, the Academy subsequently received a respectable professor and a long-term servant. Responsive to all church and social movements (which is partly explained by his journalistic activities as co-editor, and then editor and publisher of the magazine “Wanderer”), he worked a lot in the spiritual and literary field; enjoyed the favor of the students. He took a lively, enthusiastic part in the events of academic life; His character was not entirely equal, but in any case he was a good colleague. The newly opened, with the charter of 1869, the department of Russian language and Slavic dialects was occupied in 1869 by master's candidate of Petrograd University A. S. Budilovich 362, first with the rank of privatdozent, and after receiving a master's degree at the university in 1871, as an associate professor. Richly talented, deeply devoted to the interests of the Slavs, with a hot head, broad outlook and captivating speech, he was a promising young teacher valuable to the academy. Thanks to his sympathetic character traits, he enjoyed the general goodwill of his colleagues. Unfortunately, his service at the academy was short-lived (about two years, 1869–1871). Our close relationship with him, starting from his student days, was not interrupted until his death (in Petrograd, with the rank of member of the council of the Ministry of Public Education). After he left service at the academy, his place was taken by his university teacher, a famous Slavist, professor at Petrograd University, Vladimir Ivanovich Lamansky, with the rank of non-staff teacher, with a salary of first 1200, and then (from 1877) 2000 rubles. per year; What prevented him from being tenured was the fact that he was a tenured professor at the university. I consider it unnecessary to talk about the enormous erudition and scientific merits of this outstanding professor and public figure. He served at the academy for a long time, about twenty years, and as a colleague he was distinguished by his sociability and likable character. He enjoyed, of course, great authority among the students, and was very useful to them as a great expert in Slavic languages, he encouraged them to study these languages, so that, as we heard from his former students, they began to understand Serbian, Czech, etc. speech. Distracted by extensive scientific and literary activities, V.I.L., however, was not a particularly diligent teacher of the academy, but she valued him very much, which she expressed by electing him as an honorary member after he left his service at the academy. Teachers of new languages, who received the title of lecturers in 1869, were also new faces. The lecturer of the German language since 1869 was Ludwig Pavlovich Razmusen, a remarkable personality. A candidate at the University of Copenhagen, a Dane, he was elected on the recommendation of the rector, I. L. Yanyshev, as he was well known to him, and had been the librarian of our academy until that time (since 1866) 363 . L.P. Razmusen was a deep connoisseur not only of the German language, but, what is especially surprising, of Slavic dialects. Once, when I was visiting the rector, they brought him a translation from some Western Slavic language (Czech or Serbian), and the translator turned out to be Razmusen. To my surprise, Fr. the rector noted that L.P.R. knows Slavic dialects very well; he studied them when he was at the University of Copenhagen at the Faculty of Philology. The most conscientious teacher and great connoisseur of the German language L.P. was, however, very difficult for those students who cared little about learning this language, and extremely intractable regarding the change of examination marks in cases where it was necessary to show some leniency to the best students who had the misfortune of receiving a bad score in the examination in his subject. In general, he was a man of rare moral qualities of character. And he lived as a complete hermit, a bachelor, extremely undemanding to life. He did not know any pleasures or entertainment; he spent all his time in his small apartment reading books; His only exit was to the academy, to the Public Library, and even to the cheap kitchen where he ate. After many years of service at the academy, he died in a very poor environment, alone. The lecturer of the French language was (1867–1881) candidate of our academy A.I. Popovitsky 364, a student friend of the rector I. L. Yanyshev, later a remarkable spiritual publicist, who became famous especially during the era of his publication of the “Church and Public Bulletin”. Having thoroughly studied the French language while in Paris, as a home teacher for the children of Prince A. B. Kurakin, then the senior secretary of our Parisian embassy, then returning to Russia in 1853, he, along with works in the journalistic field, devoted himself to pedagogical activity: he was a long time teacher of the French language in the capital's educational institutions (in the 3rd Petrograd Gymnasium, etc.), and then became a teacher of the same language at his native academy, renamed (from 1869) to lecturer. Attractive, cheerful, and very sociable, he enjoyed the sympathy of his colleagues and respect, especially for his journalistic activities. He was close to Archpriest I.V. Vasiliev, thanks to his stay in Paris (1849–1853), where he was, among other things, a supernumerary psalm-reader assigned to our embassy Russian church. We often saw him at my father-in-law's house, and our close acquaintance did not break until the day of his death (1904). The lecturer of English was (1867–1888) the Englishman P. M. Nurok, an experienced teacher. In conclusion of this review of the composition of teachers for the period 1869–1884. I would like to say: however, how many new venerable scientific forces appeared in the academy during this period! .. and ask whether in this regard it is not largely obliged to the charter of 1869? Would the same thing have happened under other conditions?.. Students. The influx of students, compared with previous times, was enormous - not only from theological seminaries, but also from secular educational institutions; instead of the previous 120, the number of students, constantly increasing from year to year, reached 392 in 1883, and 372 in 1884. There were many selfish people who were allowed to live in private apartments. There were also many volunteer students, some of whom later became students. The general level of student youth, in terms of talent, has, however, decreased, but the general revival of academic life was reflected in the intensified and very fruitful studies of the best and most talented of them. The appearance and increase (until 1884 there were already 12) of private scholarships (in addition to the 120 government ones) for the maintenance of students and incentive cash awards, from capital donated by private individuals for this purpose, for course essays (which did not exist at all before 1869) attracted some to the academy and greatly encouraged the energy of others to intensive studies. The “Society for Assistance to Insufficient Students of the Petrograd Theological Academy”, which opened in 1877, helped a lot of insufficient students who did not get government or private scholarships. This society, which included many of the capital’s clergy and all the academy’s mentors, even rented a special apartment for several (15–20 people) self-employed students (since 1878) in one of the houses of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, on the Kalashnikov pier. This apartment was jokingly called the “Kalashnikov Academy”; many treated her not particularly sympathetically, mockingly. It lasted no more than four years (1878–1882); in 1882, the Holy Synod prohibited self-sufficient students from living in private apartments, except for those who had parents in Petrograd. The Kalashnikov Academy, of course, had its weaknesses, but there is no doubt that at that time it was far from useless, and its closure led both the academic administration and the welfare society to great difficulties, etc. The students were distributed among the departments as follows: the most gifted preferred to enroll in the church history department and, partly, in the theology department; the less gifted chose the church practical department. There was competition and noble competition between students of different departments; they argued about the advantages of the departments, about their scientific programs, about the merits of the available teachers. State-funded students were accommodated on all three floors of the academic building - according to courses and departments of courses so that each course and each department had its own special rooms (two or three); one for studying, another for a bedroom, sometimes a third for a dressing room. With four courses (in the old academy there were only two courses - senior and junior) and three departments, 12 classrooms were needed, the arrangement of which, in the sense of rooms separate from living rooms, entertaining areas and bedrooms, was impossible, since the old academic building was designed for only two courses that had no departments. Despite the construction in 1882 of a new building to house the academic library and apartments for the rector and other employees of the academy (secretary, librarian and their assistants) and thus freeing up a significant amount of space in the old building, the arrangement of numerous classrooms, separate from residential, entertaining and sleeping rooms, was impossible. This placement of students, isolating both courses and departments from one another, was a great hindrance to general student movements, to the organization of unrest, was very beneficial for the academic administration, in particular for the inspectorate, and, without a doubt, greatly contributed to the peace and tranquility within the walls of the academy in those turbulent times. The picture would, in all likelihood, be different if the student dormitory was arranged differently, as, for example, during our student days, when the student rooms, study rooms and dormitories of both courses were an uninterrupted row, so that one could walk right through them from one end to the other. After this, the enthusiastic review of one of our younger colleagues (Professor V.V. Bolotov, who was a student in 1875–1879) about the structure of the then student dormitory is understandable: “The one who invented this should have been awarded a prize for virtue” (an allusion to the famous French medal). Giving lectures in such an environment was, admittedly, less solemn, but it had, so to speak, an intimate character and was devoid of official dryness. The professor of the department came to the students in their room as a kind of guest of honor, and they were embarrassed not to be present at the lectures, and uncomfortable, they had nowhere to go. If some of the laziest allowed themselves to lie in the next bedroom, then they, willy-nilly, had to hear something from the professor’s lectures. The small composition of the department (at most 25, and sometimes 10–15 people) also constrained students and did not encourage them to skimp on lectures. Lectures on compulsory subjects (for all departments) were given either in a large meeting hall or in two old, very spacious auditoriums. Here, on the contrary, everything was conducive to sloppy attendance at lectures. Practical classes with fourth-year students took place either in the same student premises, if they were not busy with regular lectures, or in other places where necessary, sometimes even in the apartments of professors. I remember that student priest G.I. Titov, now the Venerable Fr., came to my apartment for such classes. archpriest, one of the most prominent members of the Petrograd clergy 365. The course to which Fr. belonged. G.I.T. was very small (only 35 people), and Fr. Titov found himself in the singular in the group of subjects to which dogmatic theology belonged. He came to my apartment in the evenings, and we had a completely homely conversation, over tea, on scientific topics. Many years later, we recalled our evening practical classes with pleasure. No more than three semester-long essays were given in the first two years (in the third, candidate dissertations were already compiled). Much attention was paid to the writings, although not to the same extent as under the previous charter; scores for essays and oral answers competed with each other, and although the former were given a significant advantage, the importance of the latter was not diminished or reduced to a minimum, as before. Rank lists were not compiled starting from the XXIX course (1871), the first course completed under the statute of 1869. The exams became quite serious. All students were asked about all subjects of the course, and the answers were marked with points. Usually, all members of the examination committee gave points - the assistant rector for the department, the subject teacher and the assistant; At the end of the exam, the scores were compiled and the average was calculated. The rector of the academy himself presided over the fourth-year exams, the so-called master's exams. The questions were given either from the literature of the subject, or from some department of science, and more specialized information was required than in ordinary, year-long exams. And it should be noted that it was pleasant to see how the graduating students behaved and to hear their calm, respectable answers. You got the impression that before you were no longer schoolchildren, but people who realized that they were taking a test, so to speak, for a certificate of theological maturity. I remember one of these exams for the next emergency. Quite unexpectedly, K. P. Pobedonostsev, then Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, comes to the Academy (it is unknown why - whether to see the rector or specifically to attend the master's exam). The examination in the group of subjects that included dogmatic theology had already begun. Suddenly, Pobedonostsev enters the old senior-year classroom (on the right side of the church), where we, headed by the rector, were sitting. At the time of his appearance, a very good, gifted student, my fellow countryman K. M. Dobronravov, XXXVII year (1880), answered in my subject - in the department of eschatology about the last Last Judgment of Christ - and other subjects related to it. K. P. Pobedonostsev, as you know, loved to talk; He was not silent here either. By the way, for some reason he expressed his opinion about the high dignity of the Slavic text of the Bible, comparing it to a gold coin, and the Russian translation to a copper one. It is remarkable that at the same time, and indeed all the time, he addressed me, and not the rector, whom he seemed to deliberately ignore. He apparently did not favor I.L. Yanyshev, although they had a long-standing acquaintance, dating back to Wiesbaden, where Fr. I.L.Y. and where K.P. Pobedonostsev and his wife E.A., née Engelhardt, often enjoyed his hospitality. No wonder; these were people of completely different moods and sympathies. Pobedonostsev's visit to the academy described above caused a lot of speculation among us. They talked among other things about the witty trick of Professor M.O. Koyalovich, our then inspector. When leaving the academic building, having encountered K.P.P., he ironically thanked him for the unexpected honor of visiting the academy, especially since he, as chief prosecutor, had no direct relationship with it. M. O. Koyalovich was distinguished by his courage and independence of character, moreover, he was closely acquainted with K.P.P. and enjoyed his respect. Master's theses. Master's students, that is, students who completed the course and passed an oral examination for the degree of Master of Theology in the fourth year, were subsequently awarded this degree upon publication and after the public defense of their dissertations. For the most part, these dissertations represented a revision of candidate's essays, with some changes, expansion, etc. of their topics. At the same time, a lot of work fell on the share of professors and supervisors of undergraduates. What happened for the most part was this: a professor, noticing a candidate’s essay that was outstanding in merit, advised the author to rework it into a master’s thesis, a new work began, was presented to the professor, sometimes as a whole, sometimes in parts, but what seemed very good for a candidate’s thesis turned out to be rather weak, given the increased requirements, for a master’s thesis; hence the disappointment for both parties, the return of the manuscript to the author for rework, additions, and corrections. With the first master's work (1879), written under my leadership - N. M. Bogorodsky - “The Teaching of St. I. Damascene on the procession of the Holy Spirit, in connection with the theses of the Bonn Conference” - there was such a case. By the end of the school year (1878), at the end of the course, Mr. Bogorodsky presented only one third of his work in processed form, and then he himself went to Vilna to serve at the seminary. I liked what I received, and I decided to join the council with the idea of ​​permission to publish at public expense the essay, as if completely finished. This was done in view of my confidence in the successful completion of the work, on the one hand, and most importantly, out of fear of missing the deadline for publishing the essay at public expense, on the other. Then we had an active correspondence with Mr. Bogorodsky; he sent me his notebooks, and I sent me my comments and advice. I confess that I acted illegally and rather riskily, but if I had not done this, then in all likelihood this efficient, solid dissertation would not have been born: the author would have lost the energy to continue and complete the work, mainly due to the lack of material means to publish it at his own expense. During the relatively short period of time that the statute of 1869 was in effect, for 15 years (until 1884), quite a lot of master's theses were published. But to these 15 years, in all fairness, we must add two more years, 1885 and 1886, when the old leaven continued to operate, and the students who completed the course in 1886 were only half, that is, in the last two years of the four-year course, under the influence of the statute of 1884. In this case, the number of master's theses would already reach 34. It is interesting how they were distributed among the departments. Theological ones accounted for 15 dissertations 366 , slightly more - 16 - for church historical ones 367 and only 3 - for church practical ones 368 . Not all of them went through departments, 7 of them were born when there were no more departments, but undoubtedly, the root of all of them lies in departmental specialization. There were 5 (Messrs. Bogorodsky, Eleonsky, Tikhomirov, Lebedev, Orlov) and even 6 dissertations on dogmatic theology 369. My esteemed successor, Professor P.I. Leporsky, in an article on my 50th anniversary 370, noting this fact, draws the following conclusions from here. “Under the previous (1869) statute, when the number of students in the theological department fluctuated between 10–25 and rarely exceeded 30, and the number of those choosing their specialty, in the fourth year, the group of sciences - basic, dogmatic and moral theology - was three or four people, of this small number of specialists, six people wrote master’s theses only on dogmatics, on topics proposed by A.L.” “Meanwhile, of A.L.’s students, from 1884 to 1896, only one received a master’s degree for a dissertation on a dogmatic topic - the late prof. E. P. Akvilonov" 371. “This fact clearly shows that under favorable conditions A.L. possessed a high talent for awakening theological thought in his listeners and inspiring them to difficult scientific studies of dogmatic issues, which unfortunately also indicates how the abolition of specialties carried out by the statute of 1884 had a disastrous effect on the theological thought and scientific productivity of the academy’s students.” Doctoral dissertations and their public defense. During this period of time, 9 dissertations for the degree of Doctor of Theology were submitted, namely by ordinary professors: I.V. Cheltsova (“Ancient Forms of the Creed,” 1870), I.A. Chistovich (“The Ancient Greek World and Christianity in Relation to the Immortality of the Soul and Future Life”, 1871), E. I. Lovyagin (“On the Relationship of Classical and Biblical Writers in the View of Christian Apologists”, 1872), extraordinary professors: I. F. Nilsky (“Family Life in the Russian Schism”, 1870), M.O. Koyalovich (“History of the reunification of Western Russian Uniates of old times”, 1874), I.E. Troitsky (“Exposition of the Armenian Faith, inscribed by Nerses, Armenian Catholicos,” 1875), A. L. Katansky (“Dogmatic teaching on the seven church sacraments in the works of the most ancient holy fathers and writers of the Church, up to and including Origen,” 1877), F. G. Eleonsky (“History of the Israeli people in Egypt,” 1884) and Associate Professor N.A. Skabalanovich (“The Byzantine State and the Church from the death of Vasily the Bolgar-Slayer to the accession of Alexei Komnenos”, 1884). Disputes by F. G. Eleonsky and N. A. Skabalonovich completed his public defense of his doctoral dissertations; the charter of 1884 abolished it, and since then, for 30 years, unfortunately, scientific competitions of the most mature academic forces have not been heard. Meanwhile, these doctoral debates presented a lot of interesting and instructive things for the large and diverse public that gathered at them. They were far from useful for the academic teachers themselves, accustoming them to public speaking and giving them an extra opportunity for this. It should be noted that our spiritual environment has always been distinguished by more than modesty, a desire to keep itself as much as possible in the shadows. Therefore, we had to work a lot on ourselves to rise to the occasion. At the first debate (doctoral debate - Professor I.V. Cheltsov) I had to be an active person, as one of the official opponents; the other was Professor I.E. Troitsky. This was the very first debate in our academy, not only for the degree of doctor of theology, but also for master’s degrees in general; there had never been any before it. It is not surprising that I turned out to be an unimportant opponent; This was due to our lack of preparation for public speaking in general and some of my personal characteristics in particular. Shy, not accustomed to speaking in public meetings, I first composed a series of speeches, essentially not bad, which the venerable disputant, my former respected mentor, listened to, and responded to them with his own speeches - in his characteristic doctoral tone - which had little to do with the subject of my objections. In essence, both of us did not listen to each other, but continued to say each other. The result was that in newspaper reports (for example, in the newspaper “Golos”, where our former students P.I. Nechaev and A.N. collaborated). Nadezhdin) my opposition was subjected to criticism that was unfavorable to me. Of the other doctoral debates, the most interesting were: M. O. Koyalovich, I. F. Nilsky and I. E. Troitsky. It is remarkable that there were many visitors to the debates, and not only from among the intelligentsia, but also from the common people; The hall of academic ceremonial meetings was always completely full. The public heard very favorable reviews of our debates, in the sense of recognition of the seriousness and interest of the debates. My own doctoral disputation, June 5, 1877, was also unfavorable for me. I was terribly tired from the labor of compiling and printing my work “Dogmatic teaching on the seven church sacraments in the works of St. fathers...", and although the official review of the persons who reviewed my essay, my future opponents (extraordinary professor I.T. Osinin and private associate professor A.A. Priselkov), was very flattering and completely reassuring for me 372, nevertheless, extreme fatigue, aggravating my natural nervousness and shyness, made me extremely lethargic, barely able to stand on my feet, and looked like a living person in the pulpit dead man, and therefore did not show himself to the public from his advantageous side, although the objections were far from weighty. There were no other opponents besides the official ones. After the dispute, when my father-in-law, Archpriest I.V. Vasilyev (together with rector I.L.) came to my apartment. Yanyshev), in order to share with me the proposed modest meal, he summarized his impressions of the debate in the following memorable words for me: “You were extremely bad at the department; if I were in your place and knew at least half of what you know on this subject, I would smash my opponents,” which, I note from myself, is not at all surprising - given his extraordinary gift of words, enormous skill in public speaking, great self-control and resourcefulness. And my brother-in-law, who unexpectedly appeared from abroad, then the rector of our church in the city of Nice, Archpriest V.I. Levitsky, who was also at my debate, a very witty man, expressed his impressions in the following wonderful saying: “The learned bread is bitter!” - obviously, comparing academic service with the pleasant, secure and relatively easy service of a foreign priest. The thought involuntarily arises of recommending this very true saying to the attention of those people who like to criticize the dissertations of professors and do not notice at all the difficult, thorny, far from strewn with roses path of learned workers... At my debate there was not a single representative of the highest church hierarchy, on the occasion of summer time (June 5). Usually they came in large numbers, led by Metropolitan Isidore or one of the members of the Holy Synod. This time there was not a single bishop, not even a simple one, so the rector of the academy, I. L. Yanyshev, presided over the debate (a rare case!). Among the secular visitors, I remember the Minister of Public Education I.D. Delyanov, the director of the Public Library A.F. Bychkov and the Serbian envoy (I think Protich). Why and how did I settle on such a topic for my doctoral dissertation? The answer to this question introduces the history of my theological development, my inner experiences, with which I consider it worthwhile to introduce readers. In strict accordance with the statute of 1869, according to which “dogmatic theology” was supposed to be “with a historical presentation of dogmas” 373, my studies were divided into three parts: 1) presentation of the system of dogmatic theology, 2) historical presentation of dogmas in the biblical period and 3) in the patristic, patristic period. I was called to classes on the system of dogmatic theology by my listeners, students. Once, I remember in 1871, among practical classes in the fourth year, one of the group of students (namely A.F. Gusev, later a professor at the Kazan Academy) said to me: “All this is good, and it’s interesting what you are doing with us regarding the history of dogmas, but we will have to serve in seminaries, where we will deal most closely with the system of dogmatic theology, and therefore we would like you to offer readings on systematic exposition of the dogmatic teaching of the Orthodox Church, except for the history of dogmas.” Our dogmatic systems (of His Eminence Macarius and Philaret of Chernigov) obviously did not satisfy them. The next year I began this kind of reading, in the second and third years, in parallel with readings on the history of dogma. When presenting the system of dogmatic theology, I tried primarily to embrace the entire range of dogmatic teachings and clarify their mutual connections, without stopping at a detailed substantiation of them on the authorities of the Holy Spirit. Scripture and Church Tradition (this was part of my other kind of readings - on the historical presentation of dogmas in the biblical and patristic periods), and also to indicate the desired organization of different departments of science, etc. The students really liked these readings, so that they even expressed their sympathy to me with applause 374 . But nevertheless, my primary attention was directed to the historical presentation of dogmas and, moreover, equally to both periods - biblical and patristic, which corresponded to two series of separate parallel readings. At that time I was not yet completely captivated by patristic theology, as I would later be. That is why at first (around 1872), in search of a topic for a dissertation, I decided to give an account of the dogmatic data in the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, intending to present the experience of so-called “biblical theology” or “biblical dogmatics” in the West, but, of course, in the Orthodox spirit and understanding, with a refutation of Protestant theories and, in particular, the negative German critical school. He began preliminary work, and their fruit were two large articles published in Christian Reading (1872), under the title “On the study of the biblical New Testament period in historical and dogmatic terms” 375. These articles, in my opinion, were to serve as an introduction to my dissertation. But what I heard when they were printed completely chilled me. One of my well-meaning colleagues (Professor I.F. Nilsky) noticed to me that my articles smack somewhat of Protestantism, and that if I was thinking of writing a dissertation on this topic, then it probably wouldn’t pass. Despite my deep conviction that the suspicions expressed regarding Protestant influences on me were unfounded, I, however, became convinced of the untimeliness of my undertaking and began to look for topics in another area - in the period of the patristic revelation of dogmas. I was also very interested in patristic writing even then, directing my research (in class readings) to exposing the untruth of Western theories of negative German criticism, which tried to present the history of the revelation of dogmas during this period as a process of gradual formation, the growth of completely new teachings that had nothing in common with the teaching of Christ the Savior. I started looking for topics for my dissertation in this area. After some hesitation, I settled on the question of the sevenfold number of church sacraments. He was fully aware of the enormous difficulty of strictly scientifically, through impartial historical research, justifying the teaching of the Orthodox Church on this subject; The main thing that confused me was the appearance at a very late time (around the 12th–13th centuries) of the dogmatic formula: “there are seven sacraments of the church.” Other people close to me and my colleagues who knew about the topic I had chosen told me the same thing: I did not make it a secret to anyone, although many at that time preferred silence regarding the subject of the dissertations being prepared. There was literally not a single person around me who would approve and encourage me in the intention I had adopted; everyone, without exception, unanimously condemned me and even pitied me. What supported me in my persistence was the observation made during the study of the history of dogmas, namely, that the formation of exact formulas, even regarding such dogmas as - about St. The Trinity and the Person of Jesus Christ as the God-man followed relatively late, several centuries after the beginning of the Christian Church, which, however, always lived with firm faith in these divine truths, and then when there was no external, firmly established shell of them. The same thing, I thought, probably happened with the doctrine of church sacraments. However, it was easy to assume, but it was far from easy to justify the assumption in a strictly scientific way. I groped for a long time until the path along which the revelation of this point of dogmatic teaching took place was revealed in all clarity; I vividly remember that truly happy day when, at the end of work (living at a dacha in Gatchina, probably in 1875), I could make ends meet and, surveying the long path traveled, exclaimed in unspeakable joy: hurray! the shore is visible. My dissertation writing classes were of great importance to me. They completely opened up for me the rich treasury of patristic writings, attracted me to the richest, inexhaustible source of truly living water, compared with which Western German springs turned out to be miserable accumulations of swamp mud, made me love the patristic works with all my heart and see in them the only means to revive our sluggish and meager theological thought. In the midst of studying the patristic works, my theological development was completed. The completion of the work brought a feeling of satisfaction, brought the consciousness of a final victory over Protestant theories in what seemed to be their strongest point, and at the same time - a justification for the method and direction of all my historical and dogmatic readings, imbued with the same trends as in the dissertation. Thus, my dissertation was incomparably more important for me than a simple means of obtaining a higher academic degree; the question of whether I should “be or not be” in the future at the department of dogmatic theology was being decided. As usual, I personally presented copies of the book in good binding to all members of the Holy Synod. They all graciously accepted me and my offering. Vladyka Metropolitan Isidore told at the same time how dogmatic issues are resolved in England. “Here you are,” he said, “you studied the Holy Fathers and generally worked a lot on your dissertation, but in England dogmatic issues are resolved much more quickly and simply. Once a question about baptism arose there. Without thinking about it for long, we calmly decided to submit it to parliament for a decision.” The Most Rev. also received me very kindly. Macarius (Bulgakov, at that time Archbishop of Lithuania). He recalled my article - “On the historical presentation of dogmas”, noted that he approved of this method, that he himself was now not aware of the movement of literature on dogmatic theology and was busy with works on Russian church history. “Tomorrow,” he said in conclusion, “I’m going to Vilna and on the way I’ll try to get acquainted with your essay, the appearance of which I welcome with pleasure.” In general he was very kind to me and shook my hand firmly at parting. Also memorable are the visits to Protopresbyter V.B. Bazhanov and Archbishop of Voronezh Seraphim (Aretinsky) 376, who was related, although not very close, to my father-in-law, Archpriest I.V. Vasilyev. Rev. Seraphim strongly advised me to accept the priesthood, to which, he noted, the very subject of my academic readings is very conducive. In addition to nine doctors of theology, three more doctorates were expected: 1) rector of the academy, Archpriest I. L. Yanyshev, 2) rector of the Petrograd Seminary, Archimandrite. Chrysanthus (Retivtsev) and 3) Metropolitan Isidore, but for various reasons these doctorates did not take place. In 1872, after a one-year temporary dismissal from the post of rector (November 12, 1871) 377, to improve his health (the official motive), but in fact to compile a doctoral dissertation, the rector, Archpriest I. L. Yanyshev, submitted, in manuscript, to the council an essay entitled “The state of the doctrine of conscience, freedom and grace and an attempt to clarify this doctrine.” This work, by the way, contained rather sharp criticism of our so-called symbolic books (Rights Confession, catechism, etc.) and questioned their authority in relation to resolving the issues raised. In the theological department, where the manuscript was received for consideration, intense attention was paid to this point, and the then chairman of the department, assistant rector for it, Professor I. A. Chistovich, especially focused on this aspect of the work, finding great inconvenience in skipping the work. For some reason, he immediately developed a rather unfavorable relationship with the rector, 378 deftly brought up the idea of ​​a “discrepancy” between the main idea of ​​the dissertation and existing views regarding symbolic books, and stubbornly insisted on this invention of his. Moreover, as the philosopher, prone to suspicion and reading between the lines, not without caution, however, he hinted that not all was well in the dissertation regarding some other thoughts. I remember, for example, he drew attention to such expressions in the essay that Jesus Christ is the “ideal of morality”; for some reason such expressions seemed suspicious to him (?!), almost reminiscent of rationalism and the influence of German negative criticism. Not all members of the department agreed with their chairman, but his persistence made an impression, and the whole thing ended with the theological department making a submission to the council in the sense that although it considers the submitted essay satisfactory for the degree of Doctor of Theology, it does not hide the difficulties encountered in this regard, in view of the “inconsistency”, etc. The Council had no choice but to submit the essay to the Holy Synod for consideration - in view of the incompetence of the academic council to resolve such an issue as the question about the symbolic books of the Orthodox Church, which the council did. Thus ended this delicate, extremely unpleasant matter for the academy. Unfortunately, the native academy never got around to making amends, even subsequently, for its guilt before its former, ever-memorable rector, and after the publication of his major work, hitherto the best in moral theology, “Orthodox Christian Teaching on Morality” (Moscow, 1888, 1st ed.) 379, but gave the honor of erecting Fr. I.L. Yanyshev for the degree of Doctor of Theology from the Kazan Theological Academy, which awarded him this degree in 1899, that is, 26–27 years after the described story. “Orthodox Christian Teaching on Morality” represents a revision, albeit a thorough one, and substantiation of those views that were carried out in the above-mentioned handwritten essay “The State of the Teaching on Conscience,” etc. However, there is a silver lining. If a handwritten work had appeared in print then, in 1872, perhaps we would not have had such an outstanding work as “Orthodox Christian Teaching on Morals,” but would have received a less mature work, compiled hastily, to meet the requirements of the statute of 1869 on the need for ordinary professors to have a doctorate of theology 380 . A three-year period was assigned for obtaining this degree for regular professors. Something similar to the story with the doctorate of I. L. Yanyshev also happened with the doctorate of the then rector of the Petrograd Seminary, Archimandrite Chrysanth (Retivtsev). Presented by him in 1873 as a doctoral dissertation, the 1st volume of “The History of Ancient Religions” met with severe criticism from the then teacher of basic theology, Associate Professor N.P. Rozhdestvensky, who, without denying some of the merits of the work, especially the brilliant presentation and some others, found, however, that this work has little independence, and is heavily dependent on some outstanding Western works of this kind, especially on one of them. However, the department recognized the essay as satisfactory as a doctoral dissertation and, in this sense, made a submission to the council, and the council decided to “admit the author to public defense.” But then something happened that has not yet been fully explained. For some reason, Metropolitan Isidore did not allow the author to defend himself, the debate did not take place, and Archimandrite Chrysanthos did not receive his doctorate at that time. This happened, probably, mainly due to the above-mentioned defects of the essay, as well as the position of the author as the rector of the seminary, who, in the event of a dispute, would have to listen to not entirely flattering remarks at the department, and perhaps from some other reasons and considerations, for example, due to the noticeable dislike of Metropolitan Isidore towards Archimandrite Chrysanthus, or at least for the company of the essay that had just been rejected before Rector of the Academy, Fr. I.L. Yan-wa. The fate of these individuals is largely similar. Like Fr. I. L. Yanyshev, and Archimandrite Chrysanthus subsequently, already the Bishop of Nizhny Novgorod, received a doctorate in 1878, also from the Kazan Academy, for three volumes of his “History of Ancient Religions”; therefore, much earlier than our former rector. Finally, it was intended to award the degree of Doctor of Theology to Metropolitan Isidore for his work in translating and publishing a translation of all the holy books of the Old and New Testaments into Russian. A proposal for this came to the council (it seems in 1875/76) from Professor I.V. Cheltsov. The Council found itself in a difficult position. On the one hand, he was aware of the importance of the completion of the long and difficult history of translating all the holy books into modern Russian, and he also recognized that this successful outcome owed much to the wisdom and perseverance of the leading member of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Isidore, who also participated in direct personal labors in the translation of some books of the Holy. Scripture, but on the other hand, he realized that all this work is still not the sole work of the bishop, that it, in any case, represents collective work, that, finally, it is very delicate to award the highest academic degree to one’s immediate superior, that there is a danger of earning reproaches from society, which could easily see captatio benevolentiae in a positive Soviet decision. In this sense and direction, Professor M. O. Koyalovich, distinguished by the rigor of his principles and remarkable art of speech, gave a brilliant speech. By way of information, Professor I. A. Chistovich added that the final – so to speak, responsible – proofreading for the printing of the holy books was held by Their Majesties’ confessor, protopresbyter and member of the Holy Synod, V. B. Bazhanov. After such considerations, the council, which very jealously guarded its good reputation and did not practice the award of the highest academic degree for “a set of scientific works”, which later became a custom, without a separate doctoral dissertation 381, not without sincere regret, was inclined to make a negative decision on the issue of awarding the degree of Doctor of Theology to Metropolitan Isidore. Without a doubt, all this became known to our kind, magnanimous ruler, but he did not express his displeasure to the council in a single word and absolutely did not show in any way his dislike for the main culprit of such a decision of the council - Professor M. O. Koyalovich, although the latter was very afraid of this, which he expressed more than once in our private conversations with him. A truly characteristic story for that time and very instructive for subsequent times! Yes, there were people at that time... and I would like to add further words of the poet... Participation in the then religious and social movements. During the described period of time, the revival of the activities of the Petrograd Theological Academy was reflected in the active participation of its representatives in the then religious and social movements. In the then (1872) “Petrograd department of the society of lovers of spiritual enlightenment” that arose then (1872), under the honorary chairmanship of Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich 382, with the chairman Adjutant General N.V. Zinoviev (former educator of the Tsar’s children), many of the members of our academy took an active part - as or as members of the society’s council (Archpriest I.L. Yanyshev, Professor I. T. Osinin) 383, or founding members (except for the rector Archpriest I.L. Yanyshev and Professor Osinin, professors I.A. Chistovich, I.V. Cheltsov, M.O. Koyalovich, A.L. Katansky, I.E. Troitsky), or full members - professors I.F. Nilsky, T.V. Barsov, N.P. Rozhdestvensky. All these persons of the academic fraternity declared themselves through considerable work for the benefit of the society of spiritual enlightenment, especially on issues: Old Catholic, about common faith and schismatics, now called Old Believers. First of all, through them the society entered into active relations with the Old Catholics. At Old Catholic conferences the representatives of the society were almost invariably members of the academic corporation. At the first, in Cologne, in 1872, the rector, Archpriest I. L. Yanyshev, together with the secretary of the society, regiment. A.A. Kireev, on the third 384, in Bonn in 1874, - he, with Professor I. T. Osinin, on the fourth, also in Bonn in 1875 - again Archpriest I.L. Yanyshev, with the same professor I.T. Osinin. On this occasion, many messages, reports on foreign trips and various kinds of abstracts were read in society. By the way, at the very beginning of the society’s activities (it began on March 25, 1872), on November 29 of the same year, I had to present an abstract “A brief outline of the history and characteristics of attempts to unite the Greek-Eastern and Roman Catholic Churches for the entire 8-century period of separation of the Churches” (printed in full in the minutes of the society). Archpriest I.V. Vasiliev encouraged me to attend this speech. He also gave me useful advice on how to read my rather extensive abstract, recommending that I shorten it, as much as possible, devote no more than half an hour to reading, referring to his observation, gained from his rich experience, that a large and heterogeneous meeting is not able to maintain its attention for a longer time. Many times I have been convinced of the justice of this advice and feel sorry for our church preachers, who test the patience of their listeners with their excessively long speeches. Reluctantly, no matter how hard it was to cut down and shorten my manuscript, I followed this advice. The meeting was very large; in the hall of the Geographical Society, in the building of the Ministry of Public Education, there were many people from high society, attracted, it seems, not so much by the interest of the readings, but by the personality of Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, who was present here. My reading was a complete success. The Grand Duke considered it necessary to encourage the lecturer with applause, which was joined by the entire assembly. This was my third public appearance, this time successful. The first, as readers remember, was at the debate of I.V. Cheltsov, in 1870, the second in 1872, at the annual act of the academy (February 17), and I had to draw up and read at the ceremonial meeting an annual report on behalf of the academy council about the life and activities of the academy for the past year. Let me make a small digression from the speech about the society of lovers of spiritual enlightenment. In 1872 it was necessary to draw up the first normal annual report on our academy. In 1871, the rector himself read it, but it was more likely a speech on the occasion of the academy’s entry (in 1869) onto the path of transformation than an ordinary annual report. I had to develop diagrams and forms of a normal report and put into them the content from the raw material given by the secretary of the council. The novelty and unfamiliarity of such work was the reason that I had to devote at least two weeks of intense work to it, which tired me out quite a bit. Everything ended, however, very well. The public apparently liked the report, and I read it well, with great enthusiasm and enthusiasm; applause followed 385 . I continue to talk about the society of lovers of spiritual enlightenment. In addition to the question of Old Catholics and the unification of Churches, questions were raised about our Russian co-religionists, about the reunification of our Russian schismatics with the Church, and finally, about our internal mission. All these questions were in an internal, psychological connection and arose naturally, so to speak, by association of ideas. Advocates of uniting us with the Old Catholics on equal rights (one point of view), or joining them to the Eastern Orthodox Church as Orthodox Christians of the Western rite (another), or, finally, unconditionally joining them to the Russian Church, with the acceptance of our rite (third point of view), naturally aroused in some members of society a desire to reunite with the Church the adherents of our old Russian rite, especially our Russian schismatics, with recognition and acceptance (or without both) their hierarchy, and then - to more complete communication and merging with us of our co-religionists, to the destruction of their isolated and ambiguous position, to allowing a free transition not only from co-religion, but also into co-religion. In short, a lot of very important and extremely interesting questions were raised. Regarding the Old Catholics, many works were devoted to the study of dogmatic differences inherited by the Old Catholics from the Roman Church (about Filioque, etc.); an indication of Protestant influences on the Old Catholics in the teaching about church sacraments, about the veneration and invocation of saints in prayers, about prayers for the dead, etc., further - the question of recognizing the reality of the Old Catholic hierarchy, which originated from the Utrecht one (separated from the Roman Church and not recognized by it), as well as how the entire ritual side of the church life of the Old Catholics corresponds to the spirit of the Orthodox Church. When they moved from the Old Catholics (to whom Fr. I. L. Yanyshev’s attention and sympathy was exclusively devoted and to whom he remained faithful until the last days of his life) to our Old Believers, co-religionists, and in general to our internal mission, the mood of society became aggravated. Internal church issues began to cause great concern and were the cause of division, the formation of two sides that argued heatedly and even passionately. On one side stood: Archpriest I.V. Vasiliev and professors of the academy, led by an expert on the schism and Old Believers, Professor I.F. Nilsky, on the other - the famous schism-phile T.I. Filippov, who himself was close to the schism on his mother's side, at that time the head of the Petrograd Chamber of Control, later the state controller, in appearance - a merchant's face (with hair cut into a circle), with an unctuously caustic speech. He was joined by secular people from society, who were little able to understand church issues, and partly, due to their characteristic indifferentism, did not recognize their importance. The dispute centered mainly around the question of how to look at the permissibility of using our old books and rituals, at the anathema uttered on them by the Moscow Council of 1666, whether it fell on the oldest rituals or only on persons who then showed resistance to church authority and, therefore, punished this resistance of our Russian schismatics. The first position was defended by T.I. Filippov, who insisted on the need to remove conciliar oaths from old rites through a solemn, conciliar determination; the second point of view was defended by his opponents, who did not recognize the need for a new conciliar discussion of the issue of old rituals and therefore did not see any contradiction in our assumption of common faith, which T. I. Filippov pressed with particular force. Since some of the Old Believers who were once disobedient to the church authority have submitted to it, the mediastinum between them and the Church has fallen, and they can, being in unity with it, receiving priests and deacons ordained by our bishops, retain their old rituals and serve according to the old books. In a word, rituals and conciliar oaths have nothing to do with it. But T.I. Filippov stubbornly stood his ground. There were many heated debates, and many abstracts were read on this subject in 1873–1874. (Archpriest I.V. Vasilyev, professors I.V. Cheltsov, I.A. Chistovich and I.F. Nilsky), then a magazine controversy arose, and T.I. Filippov allowed himself in the newspapers (I remember, by the way, in the newspaper “Grazhdanin”, then edited by Putsykovich) very ardent and even rather indecent antics against his opponents. These bickering ended with irritation of our academic environment and a cooling towards studies in the society of lovers of spiritual enlightenment. And Archpriest I.V. Vasiliev even decided to leave the council of the society, which he did, despite the urgent requests of Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, who greatly valued such great power as Fr. archpriest. I remember that one fine day he came to his apartment (the house of the spiritual department, on Liteinaya), on behalf of the Grand Duke, K.P. Pobedonostsev, then only a member of the State Council (of which Grand Duke K.N. was the chairman), in order to persuade Fr. I.V. Vasilyev to abandon his intention, and the following conversation takes place between them. Expressing his lack of sympathy for too much enthusiasm for the Old Catholic issue, in which he saw no practical benefit, as well as disappointment in the debate on the Old Believers, which only brought irritation into the environment of society, Fr. The archpriest, by the way, remarked: “Yes, and you, K. P., of course, you don’t see any benefit from all this kind of activity and debate.” “Quite right,” answered his respectable interlocutor. “But in that case, why do you, K.P., remain on the board of the society,” objected I.V., “and even persuade me to do the same?” “I am doing this exclusively for the Grand Duke,” answered K.P. Then the conversation turned to the so-called “internal mission,” that is, about educating the people in religious terms. This “internal mission” was the cherished dream of Fr. I.V. V-va, to whom he devoted the last days of his life, speaking as a preacher in extra-liturgical interviews, encouraging others to do the same, and standing at the head of the “society for religious and moral education in the spirit of the Orthodox Church”; he was the first chairman of this society. But, to my surprise, as I.V. V-v later immediately told me (I happened to be in his apartment at that time), K. P. P-v reacted negatively to this mission too, expressing fear that the religious enlightenment of the people would lead to Protestantism here in Russia. We were very surprised then by such thoughts and mood of K.P. Pobedonostseva. It turned out that he remained faithful to his views on religious education even later, when he became chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod. This was the end of their conversation. O. I. V. Vasiliev remained adamant in his decision, which was accompanied by the following consequences, which were important for me personally. After an unsuccessful attempt by Grand Duke K.N. to retain Fr. I. V. As part of the council of the society, the Grand Duke came up with the idea of ​​​​using the powers of Fr. archpriest indirectly - through his son-in-law, that is, through me. For this purpose, he decided to invite Professor A.L. to the board of the society. Katansky. “Archpriest Vasiliev doesn’t want to be with us, so let young Vasiliev, his son-in-law, be in his place,” he said and ordered the secretary of the society A. A. Kireev to write me a letter in this sense, which surprised me extremely. With this letter I immediately went to Fr. I.V. Vasiliev for advice on how to deal with this extremely flattering proposal that upset all my plans. It should be noted that at this time, around 1874-1875, I was already very involved in the work of compiling my doctoral dissertation. I.V. V-v at first avoided a direct answer to the question of what I should do, whether to accept the offer or refuse it. He only said: “Decide for yourself. I consider it necessary, however, to note that you have a wonderful opportunity to make a brilliant career for yourself, just as Professor I. T. Osinin did it in the same way. The Grand Duke's proposal brings you into the circle of very influential people from high society. If you are not content with the modest lot of a professor and want further advancement in your career, then, of course, you should not miss this wonderful opportunity; another may not introduce himself.” To this speech I replied that I had never dreamed of anything like this and that my desires had never gone further than a professorship at a theological academy, and that if I received the degree of Doctor of Theology and the title of full professor, then this would be the crown of all my aspirations and desires; I never thought about anything more. I'm thinking of refusing the honor offered to me. I understand well that the council of the society attracts me not for the sake of my beautiful eyes and not even just to please you in part, but mainly because it expects to find in me a diligent and useful worker, meanwhile, at the present time I absolutely cannot be one for reasons known to you: I mean my studies on compiling a doctoral dissertation. Self-esteem does not allow you to sit in the palace of the Grand Duke, among very high society, realizing your uselessness. “So you decide to refuse; “I completely agree with you and approve of your decision,” my interlocutor noted. “Write a letter to A. A. Kireev in this sense, expressing, of course, your deepest gratitude to the Grand Duke for the high honor offered to you, etc.” In response to the fear I expressed that my refusal would be attributed to I.V. himself, would be attributed to his influence on me, and that I would not want to aggravate the Grand Duke’s attitude towards him, I.V. replied that I should not worry about it. My response was sent, and was soon received from A.A. Kireev a new letter, in which extreme displeasure was expressed to me on behalf of the Grand Duke. “Tell Professor Katansky that I am extremely dissatisfied with him, angry at his refusal.” This last alarmed me greatly; I hurried again to Fr. I.V. V-vu for advice. “You are already scared,” he said, “perhaps you are afraid that they will send you to Siberia; don't be afraid; the Grand Duke cannot do this.” “That’s how the incident ended.” It was one of the strongest temptations (perhaps even stronger than Paris on my honeymoon) to move me away from the modest path of my life that I had planned. I consider it my duty, however, to note that the value of my act, a kind of self-sacrifice, is significantly reduced by my childlessness. If I had a large family, I would hardly have given up the opportunity to find better security in other fields of service so easily and soon. Or maybe such a refusal would not have followed at all, and my adviser, Fr. I.V. would hardly have agreed with my decision so quickly and willingly. Archpriest Joseph Vasilievich Vasiliev. Meetings and acquaintances. Archpriest I.V. Vasiliev played a huge role in my life - first of all with his personality, and then with the environment in which he placed me. In his house I had the opportunity to meet many wonderful people of that time from the then aristocracy - well-born or learned and official. But of all the wonderful people, he himself was the most wonderful. Unusually richly gifted by nature, with a deep, thorough mind, a remarkable memory, with a large store of information on various subjects of non-theological knowledge, a brilliant gift of speech, great wit and inexhaustible gaiety, he represented for me a pure expensive treasure, coupled with the excellent library he collected in Paris (mainly on patrolology, church history and theology; he had, by the way, a Greek series of the famous Patrology of Min). Very frequent conversations with him were extremely useful for me. And he loved to talk, and he apparently liked me very much, not only as his eldest son-in-law, but also as a person with whom he had more common interests than with his other sons-in-law 386 . These conversations enriched me with a wide variety of information from the past of his foreign service in Paris (21 years, from 1846 to 1867), as a priest, and then rector and archpriest of the embassy church there - from his life, replete with events of great importance. It is enough to mention the Crimean War of 1855, which he spent in the circle of our captured soldiers without leaving Paris, the publication (together with Abbot Guettet, who converted him to Orthodoxy) of the Orthodox magazine L'Union Chrétienne, the construction of our Russian church in the capital of France, religious movements in the Roman Catholic world of that time, political revolutionary events in France from 1846 to 1853. and much more. At the same time, these conversations introduced me to the state and direction of our domestic church affairs, especially since the time, 1867, when Fr. I.V. Vasiliev established a close relationship with the Holy Synod, as the chairman of its Educational Committee and as the main director of our entire spiritual and educational affairs. It should be very regrettable that his extraordinary talents, wealth of knowledge and brilliant gift of presentation were not expressed in a corresponding rich scientific and literary productivity. After him, relatively few printed works remained. We can only mention the famous “Letters to the Bishop of Nantes Jacquemy”, “Letters to Cardinal Bonald and the historian Guizot” (all in French, there are also Russian translations), “The Abbey of St. Genevieve" ("Journal of the Ministry of Public Education", 1854), several articles in "Spiritual Conversation" ("On the Council of Old Catholics in Constance", 1874), in "Christian Reading" ("Readings about the needs of the same faith", 1874), in the "Church Bulletin" ("Speech on the occasion of the opening of the society for the dissemination of religious and moral education", 1881). True, he wrote a lot of articles in L'Union Chrétienne, but, unfortunately, either without a signature, or with pseudonyms (Abbot Yusuf, Naumov, Korolev, etc.), few, or even completely unknown to the Russian reading public 387. It is therefore impossible not to warmly thank Mr. Brodsky, who recently published a collection of “Paris Letters to Archpriest. I. V. Vasiliev to the chief prosecutors of the Holy Synod and other persons, 1846–1867.” (Petrograd, 1915). These letters to some extent compensate for the lack of printed works of I.V. Vasiliev. In these remarkable letters, of deep historical interest, 388 presented in excellent language, the largest figure of Fr. archpriest. It is not clear from them how energetic, broad and comprehensive his activities were in Paris. He was on time everywhere and did not lose sight of anything remarkable that was happening at that time in the movements of Roman Catholicism, establishing relationships and acquaintances with all the outstanding personalities in Paris 389 - theologians, church and public figures, church preachers, scientists - visited both of them, listened to lectures at the Sorbonne and other places, was present at various so-called conferences, not to mention vigilantly observing his a diverse, visiting flock, behind the actions of the Jesuits aimed at seducing our aristocrats and aristocrats, greedy for everything foreign. And yet, it is extremely unfortunate that there is nothing left of this wonderful man, except for the works indicated above and these recently published letters, of anything larger and more complete. He was thinking about writing notes or memoirs from his life abroad, as well as about the Anglican Church, which he was very interested in in view of the British attempts to communicate with us in the church, he began to collect works and materials for this, but he never managed to fulfill his plans, which he often spoke about in our conversations with him. The reason for his relatively low literary productivity was that Fr. Archpriest I.V. Vasiliev, both in Paris and in Petrograd, found himself in a whirlpool of important events and movements that distracted him from office work and pulled him into the realm of practical life. In Paris, he played a role, one can say without exaggeration, no less than the official representatives of our Russian interests, our ambassadors and envoys there, especially in the last decade of his service. Even in his relatively young years, he enjoyed great respect and weight from the ambassador, Count Kiselev, who, at official receptions of the Russian colony, usually gave Fr. V-woo is the first place after himself, and once he even expressed that Fr. V-va “statesman” and that he should have served in another, more prominent field. The same thing happened with other ambassadors: Count Orlov and Baron Budberg. I.V. had to spend a lot of time and effort on matters of political importance (especially in the Crimean War and in the construction of the Parisian church) or practical life. K o. The Russians addressed their various needs much more often and more willingly than to the embassy. Due to his extraordinary responsiveness and readiness to help everyone, he tirelessly worked for his compatriots, whether they found themselves in critical financial difficulties or some other kind of unpleasant situation 390, tried to extract his relatives from the clutches of Jesuit propaganda, the main figure of which at that time was the Jesuit Prince Gagarin 391. His ardent admirers, Russian aristocrats and rich people, took up a lot of his time with their visits and invitations to dinners or to settle family affairs. Upon moving to Petrograd, he was very busy organizing a new institution - the Educational Committee of the Holy Synod, of which he was the first and most remarkable chairman, highly authoritative, unusually tactful, able to unite all members into one whole and highly raise the importance of the new institution. But even then he continued to experience great inconvenience from his many ardent admirers from the highest aristocratic circle. With nothing to do and nothing to do, he was, one might say, torn apart. In addition, thanks to his kind heart, he was always pursued by a kind of retinue of people who longed for his protection and intercession with people in power; and it should be noted that his efforts of this kind were almost always crowned with rare success. I.V. Vasiliev died not yet at an advanced age, at the 62nd year of his life, 1881, December 27, in Gatchina. Two years before, he suffered a serious illness - meningitis (inflammation of the meninges). The recurrence of this illness was the cause of his death. After his death, everyone agreed in recognizing his great significance in our spiritual environment, not only his admirers, but also people who had little sympathy for him during his lifetime. Metropolitan Isidore, when he learned of his death, said: “What a man we have lost!” - a characteristic exclamation, testifying, I note by the way, about the direction and attitude of the Metropolitan himself to the reforms of that time, the largest representative of which was Archpriest I.V. Vasiliev. Even K.P. Pobedonostsev, who did not sympathize with him, admitted (in a conversation with my brother-in-law, Archpriest A.A. Avtonomov) that Archpriest I.V. V-v was a “large quantity”. And one extreme reactionary (in some brochure, the name of which I forgot) wrote that Archpriest Vasiliev was for his time what Feofan Prokopovich was for the time of Peter I, and “brought the same harm to the Church.” No matter how one looks at such an outburst, in any case one hears in it a recognition of the great influence of the deceased Fr. archpriest on our then church affairs, especially in the field of spiritual education. It’s interesting how I.V. himself looked at his career in his new place of service in Petrograd. Our conversation with him in the last summer before his death is memorable. It was in Gatchina, in 1881, in his own modest house, in the garden. Already thinking about resigning, I.V. tells me: “You need to resign. I’m an old, worn-out horse, it’s time to go to the stables and retire. Everything I dreamed of came true; now - with the assumption of K. P. Pobedonostsev to the post of Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod - something new begins. Maybe this new one will be better than the old one, but I can’t change myself anymore and therefore I’m no longer a servant...” He had already begun to have arguments with the new chief prosecutor K.P. Pobedonostsev. With the former, Count D.A. Tolstoy, despite frequent disagreements, still got along with him and had great weight and importance with him, often stopping and deflecting him from too decisive and hasty actions characteristic of the bilious and despotic character of this chief prosecutor. In I.V.’s apartment I met many prominent representatives of the then high society, starting with the then Chief Prosecutor D.A. Tolstoy, his fellow Chief Prosecutor Yu.V. Tolstoy and K.P. Pobedonostsev. Particularly close to I.V. were the two Counts of Adlerberg (the old one, V.F., and the young one, A.V., the then Minister of the Court) and the brothers Counts Shuvalov, Peter and Pavel Andreevich. The first (Petr Andreevich), the then all-powerful chief of gendarmes and head of the III department, and his wife Elena Ivanovna (nee Chertkova) very often resorted to the advice of Fr. Vasilyev - partly due to family matters, partly due to the inclination of his wife Shuvalova to be carried away by the “Pashkovism”, a fashionable, high-society sect of that time. I.V. had to have a lot of conversations with her on religious topics; in the end, it finally switched over to Pashkovism, however, after the death of I.V. Both Shuvalov brothers were very prominent, very handsome generals. The younger brother, Pavel Andreevich, then commanded, it seems, a guards division or even a corps, and later our Russian ambassador in Berlin, highly respected by the German court, was nicer than his brother. I vividly remember how Pavel Andreevich once unexpectedly and quite early in the morning arrived at I.V.’s apartment and directly entered the dining room, where I was also. I.V. greets him with the words: “Again?” Then they went into the office to talk about matters, obviously of an intimate nature, not subject to public disclosure. I mention this small episode in order to show in what close relationship I.V. stood with our aristocrats. Of the other persons close to the deceased, I remember: Princess Kochubey, the young Prince Mingrelsky, Count Bobrinsky, who was related to the Shuvalovs, General Chertkov, also their relative, the general and the old lady, his wife Ozerov, close to the Court, zealous visitors and admirers of Fr. AND. V., Baron Bühler, then head of the Moscow Foreign Affairs Archive, an ardent Russophile, despite his German surname, also a frequent guest, of a very boring character and uninteresting in conversation, and many others. It goes without saying that I had to meet with all the then members of the Educational Committee at the Holy Synod, as well as with many of the highest ranks of the central institutions of the spiritual department (the synodal office, the office of the chief prosecutor, economic management, control, etc.). Thanks to I.V., I also became acquainted with the secular scientific world. This was facilitated by the following, completely random circumstance. In the first summer after moving (in 1867) to Petrograd (1868), I.V.’s family lived in a dacha, along the Peterhof road, near Sergiev, in a large two-story stone house (Matisena). The upper floor of this house was occupied by I.V.V., and the lower floor was occupied by his brother-in-law, the rector of our academy, Archpriest I.L. Yanyshev. Here, in my father-in-law’s family, my wife and I settled. And next to this house, in a neighboring dacha, lived a large family of a famous Slavist, a professor at Petrograd University, an ordinary academician of the Academy of Sciences. Iv. Sreznevsky. Thanks to the neighborhood, my father-in-law and Fr.'s long-standing acquaintance with him was renewed. I.L. Yanyshev, who was once, moreover, a colleague of Professor Sreznevsky at the university. Naturally, they introduced me, a young associate professor (bachelor) of the Theological Academy, to a respected, authoritative professor. It was precisely at this time that I began to publish “Essay on the history of the liturgy of our Eastern Orthodox Church.” This became known to I. I. Sreznevsky, and he became interested in my work. Upon returning from the dacha and after publishing a separate reprint of my articles, I considered it my duty to present a copy of my work to my venerable dacha acquaintance. I. I. Sreznevsky really liked my small book, and he even offered to elect me as a full member of the “Philological Society established at the Imperial Petrograd University,” of which he was chairman. The election took place, and I was awarded a diploma for this title, with the following signatures: Chairman I. Sreznevsky, Comrade. Chairman Or. Miller, for comrade. chairman Baron Dorn, for comrade. chairman D. Chubinsky, office manager. F. Sokolov. This society included all professors and associate professors of the Faculty of History, Philology and Oriental Studies. Some of the university students, who attracted attention with their talent and diligent studies, were also admitted here as employees; One of these was a student I knew, A.S. Budilovich, later a famous scientist, who was my colleague at the Petrograd Theological Academy. Interested in the new academic environment, I diligently attended society meetings (usually in the chairman’s apartment, sometimes, but rarely, in the university council hall). Here I met many famous scientists: academicians Grot, Kunik, professors - the famous Latinist N. M. Blagoveshchensky, Orest Miller, F. F. Sokolov, an expert on the Indian Pali language - Minaev, V. I. Lamansky - then still relatively young; I. V. Pomyalovsky - a very young associate professor; famous poet Apol. N. Maykov, his brother Leon. N. Maykov, then also a young scientist (later vice-president of the Academy of Sciences), Garkavi, a young associate professor at the Faculty of Oriental Studies, Hilferding, a famous public figure and Slavist, who amazed with his extremely high timbre, shrill voice, P. I. Savvaitov, a member of the archaeographic commission, and many others. The dominant role in this society was played by its chairman, Academician I. I. Sreznevsky, although his authority was recognized by everyone as a great scientist, he was, unfortunately, distinguished by his great harshness, unevenness and despotic character. Here is an example of such sharpness. Somehow we started talking about translations of patristic works from Greek. I. I. Sr., who generally had a very condescending attitude towards spiritual and academic science and spoke with great respect for the works of almost one archpriest A. V. Gorsky, allowed himself to note that spiritual and academic translations of the patristic works (it seems that we were talking about the translations published at the Petrograd Academy) are worth nothing, since they are made from French translations. However, he treated young aspiring scientists, including me, relatively kindly, patronizingly, and encouragingly. Many interesting, although sometimes extremely special, abstracts had to be heard at the meetings of the society, but everything was somehow forgotten, and only a few fragmentary episodes remained in memory. I remember, for example, reading about Arabic legends about the Slavs, about Indian literature (in the ancient Pali language), and even the debate between I. I. Sr-y and Academician J. K. Grot, the author of the famous manual on Russian spelling, who defended the continuous spelling of some words (also, for example, moreover, etc.), while Sr-y defended separate ones; I also remember the somewhat mocking, but not devoid of good nature, attitude of I. I. Sr-y to P. I. Savvaitov 392, to whom he invariably addressed with the words: “Your Excellency” - perhaps because Sav-v had just received the rank of full state councilor (Sr-y himself was a privy councilor). In general, this venerable academician was very peculiar and uneven in his manner; However, he was highly respected. In order to somehow express my active participation in the works of this society, I read about the Image of the Savior Not Made by Hands. This reading, entitled “Tales of the Image of the Savior Not Made by Hand, Eastern and Western,” was published in “Christian Reading” in 1874. This work was an echo of my Moscow studies in church archeology and liturgics. The same echo was, by the way, in the same 1874, my other work - “Introduction to the collection of ancient liturgies, Eastern and Western, translated into Russian,” with a detailed outline of the plan for this publication. I was called to this by the request of my colleagues at the Petrograd Academy, who conceived the said publication, in which, however, I did not take any further part, being busy compiling my doctoral dissertation. "Church Bulletin" and its editing. In 1881, three years after defending my doctoral dissertation, I had to take over the editing of the journal “Church Bulletin”. It happened under these circumstances. By the way, I will also touch on the previous history of the “Church Bulletin”, which now, since 1916, unfortunately, has already ended its existence, at least as an academic publication (it, although it still exists, is in a completely different form and in different hands). The “Church Bulletin” began to be published at the Petrograd Theological Academy in 1875. Its appearance was preceded by the following, rather long story. The initiative in this literary enterprise belonged to the rector I. L. Yanyshev, but this business did not work out exactly as he expected. Having decided to revive the “Christian Reading” he edited with news from current church life and in this direction introducing into it the sections “Review of Internal Life”, “Chronicle of Foreign Life”, “News from the East”, he proposed back in 1871 to found a special publication - “Church Bulletin” 393, as a weekly supplement to the “Christian Reading”, as an organ, among other things, of official information from church government and life. He also appointed an editor for this new publication in the person of A. I. Popovitsky, a lecturer of the French language at the Academy. A meeting of all academic mentors was held in the rector’s apartment, and although the academic corporation’s lack of sympathy for the cause of the new publication, and partly also for the intended editor, was noticeable, in the end this matter was, with little luck, settled. The consent of the Holy Synod for this publication was received, a subscription was even announced for it, and, nevertheless, this whole business stopped due to the lack of sympathy of the corporation of academic teachers for this, in their opinion, an undertaking that was not akin to them. “What kind of publicists we are,” old and young professors and associate professors said, “we are armchair people, far from life.” They said the same thing later in 1874, when Professor A.I. Predtechensky, an experienced publicist, who had previously worked a lot in the “Birzhevye Vedomosti”, ed. Trubnikova. A.I. Pr-y at this time edited “Christian Reading” 394. This time we gathered in the apartment of Professor A.I. Prsky to discuss new assumptions regarding the old case. But this time too the matter hung, one might say, by a thread. In addition to the above speeches, there were strong voices expressing doubts about the material success of the publication, predicting its inevitable collapse. A negative decision was emerging on the issue raised. And there was a moment when it seemed that the new publication had completely failed. But at this moment A.I. Pr-y suddenly declares that he takes upon himself entirely the risk of publication and all material losses, if any, and let the success and benefits be common - to the entire collection of mentors and co-publishers. Such a statement shook the resolve of the meeting, and it was decided, taking all the risk of publication upon itself, to begin publishing a new academic organ called “Church Bulletin”, and “Christian Reading” turned into a monthly supplement to this weekly newspaper. On January 4, 1875, the first issue of the “Church Bulletin” was published as the organ of the Petrograd Theological Academy, and from January 1, 1876 - as the official organ, in its official part, of the Holy Synod; the unofficial one remained as before exclusively an academic body. It should be noted that the “Church Gazette”, neither at this time nor in subsequent years, until 1888 (that is, before the founding of the “Church Gazette”, the real official organ of the Holy Synod), was not mandatory for churches and clergy in the sense of a mandatory subscription for them. The success of the Church Messenger in the first year of publication exceeded all expectations: it had up to three to four thousand subscribers. This must be attributed to the fact that he obviously satisfied the urgent need for such an organ, as well as the talent of his first editor, Prof. A. I. Predtechensky. The main events and issues of that time were: the Turkish war of 1876–1877, the cultural struggle in Germany, the old Catholic question, and among our internal issues - the question of the foundations of domestic education (classicism or realism?) and the widespread spread of nihilism in our country. The attention of the new academic publication was primarily focused on these subjects and many excellent articles and reviews were devoted to them. But the Church Messenger touched upon our inner church life and its movements little and casually at that time, so it did not give a complete picture of them. It looked like a random collection of talented articles, sometimes translated from rich Western (mainly English) literature, sermons and speeches, by our outstanding archpastors and pastors, etc. In any case, the academic newspaper was not a mirror reflecting the movement of Russian church life. By 1880 this defect had begun to be felt quite strongly in our academic environment. Added to this was her dissatisfaction with the editors’ too pronounced admiration for the classicism of Count D. A. Tolstoy and M. N. Katkov. All this led to an attempt to give a different direction, a different look to the magazine. In addition, in 1881, the five-year term for which A.I. Pr-ii was elected editor of the Church Messenger was expiring. It was decided to choose another editor for him. The choice fell on me, as I had already partly demonstrated an ability for journalism and as a person close to the central spiritual spheres, thanks to family ties with the chairman of the Theological Educational Committee of the Holy Synod (Archpriest I.V. Vasiliev). This last circumstance was presented as one of the motives for my election. “Christian Reading” was separated, in editing, from “Church Messenger” (A. I. Predtechensky edited both publications); Professor I.E. Troitsky was elected editor of Christian Reading, and I was elected editor of the Church Bulletin. Very reluctantly and even with fear, I began, on January 1, 1881, to edit an academic journal, fully realizing that being its director was far from the same as accidentally publishing articles and notes in magazines and newspapers. In addition, the Church Messenger pursued two goals that were difficult to reconcile: officialdom and serving academic interests. There was a danger of not satisfying one of them, or even both of them together, however, thanks to the encouragement of Rector I. L. Yan-va and Archpriest I. V. Vasilyev, after considerable hesitation, he did not refuse the election. I was especially influenced by the persuasion of my father-in-law, who believed in my journalistic abilities, and on the other hand, wanted for his son-in-law to expand the range of activities, and, by the way, to increase the material means of life. Thus, here too the influence of this wonderful man affected me. I immediately set out to organize the newspaper in such a way that, on the one hand, it would reflect the movements of our church and public life and, on the other, would give serious answers to pressing questions and requests. The first goal was to be promoted by the department of “Press Opinions on Church Issues”, the second - by the editorials in each issue of the Church Bulletin. It all started from the very first issues. The following year, 1882, another new department was introduced (from No. 10) - “Church Chronicle”. These departments gave the editor a lot of worries, troubles, and partly grief, especially “Press Opinion”. Former editor A.I. Predtechensky objected to the idea of ​​advanced articles guiding each issue. “Are you thinking of prefacing each issue with editorials? - he told me. “But where will you get them from, because you’ll have to suck them out of thin air.” But my opponent did not take into account the strong movement in our social and religious life at that time. To a large extent, even to a large extent, the department of “Press Opinions on Church Issues” suggested topics for editorial articles. Here, as if in focus, everything that worried our spiritual and secular world at that time was collected, and provided abundant material for discussion. And they were mainly concerned with questions: about public education and the participation of the clergy in it, about parochial schools, about the structure of the parish, about the relationship between the state and the Church, about extra-liturgical interviews, about monastics and white clergy (regarding Mr. Elagin’s book “White Clergy and Their Interests”), about the structure of the church court (regarding the publication of the same Elagin), about the internal mission, about the church economy, candle factories, about the attacks of secular journalism on our clergy, about the anti-church, even anti-Christian mood of a significant part of our intelligentsia, about the educational needs of our Church and much more. The vast majority of the editorials had to be written by the editor himself 395, since in his hands was concentrated the entire mass of data regarding the sentiments that existed at that time, church and social needs, issues raised, rumors, etc. Significant relief, however, in the work of composing the editorials was given to the editor by some of the members of the academic corporation, namely: Professor M. O. Koyalovich with his articles, mainly on Western Russian church affairs, Professor I.E. Troitsky - reviews of church affairs in the Orthodox East and Latin and Protestant West (which were published mainly at the beginning of the year), associate professor N.A. Skabalanovich, who continuously, almost from the very beginning of the introduction of the church chronicle, followed the movement of diocesan life, and therefore was aware of emerging local and church-wide needs and issues, mainly of a church-economic nature. Without this help, it would have been completely impossible for me to endure the labor of compiling editorials for each issue of the magazine. From my predecessor I inherited the “Last Week in Russia and Abroad” department. Here information was reported primarily from the social and state life of our country and abroad, but from the area of our church domestic life - only about some facts and events of an official nature, mainly about changes, new appointments in our highest hierarchy, the highest awards, etc. I decided to open a special section of the “Church Chronicle”, retaining the previous one - “Last Week”, etc. It is remarkable how my predecessor reacted to this new one of mine venture. “I don’t advise you,” he said, “to enter this chronicle into the journal. Look, you're going to get yourself into a lot of trouble because of this department. Here you can touch your pride, arouse passions, in a word, you won’t end up with all sorts of ticklish things here.” But this prophecy did not come true either; This department brought me almost no disappointments. There were only two cases of reprimands for him, of which in the first I was really guilty due to an oversight 396 , and in the second it was a misunderstanding and a completely vain accusation 397 . If any of the departments gave me the most trouble and trouble, it was the department of “Press Opinions on Church Issues.” The vast majority of readers, apparently, liked the concentration in it of everything that was talked about then regarding our church affairs, and was discussed at random in the press, mainly in secular magazines and newspapers. But I had one strict, unforgiving and very influential critic in the person of the then chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, K. P. Pobedonostsev. My highly esteemed critic completely disagreed with me in his view of the tasks of a church newspaper. His ideal: the newspaper should deal with the main issues of faith, the most important past events in the history of our Church and not touch on the worries of the current time. Why collect all this rubbish, muck and scum from newspapers and magazines. You never know there is excellent, very valuable material in the Synodal archives and even in diocesan records regarding the past of our Church and its outstanding figures. “The Catan Church Bulletin has been spoiled,” K.P. stated several times. at meetings of the Holy Synod. – “This magazine was good under the previous editor (A.I. Pr.); Now it’s no good, it’s filled with some kind of rubbish.” About such speeches by K.P. Archpriest I.V. Vasiliev informed me more than once. Finally, one day he says to me: “The Chief Prosecutor again attacked you at a meeting of the Holy Synod; This is a very worrying sign." Well, I answer, if necessary, I am ready to leave editing and am even glad to lay down this great burden. But I wonder, I ask, how do the members of the Holy Synod respond to K.P.’s hot remarks? "Complete silence." And Metropolitan Isidore, having silently listened to K.P.P.’s speech, usually said (and this more than once): “Well, what kind of affairs will be reported to us at the Synod today?” The wise old man, obviously, adopted the tactics of passive resistance in relation to the chief prosecutor’s statements, did not want to argue with him, since the dispute would have led to nothing but mutual irritation, without the hope of dissuading K.P., stubborn in his opinions and, moreover, a famous dialectician. Apparently, Metropolitan Isidore (and, probably, other members of St. Synod) liked the style and direction of the magazine, and he valued its awareness of public sentiment and newspaper gossip about church affairs. Reading the Church Messenger helped him keep up to date with them. It is remarkable that K.P. Pob-v himself was a tireless reader of secular newspapers and magazines, these works of “adulterers of the word” and “robbers of the pen and press,” as he called newspapermen and journalists. It is clear that he was fed up with this reading, and quite naturally could not feel anything other than disgust for them, and then he also received the “Church Bulletin” and in it he encountered excerpts from the same disgusting articles. The members of the Holy Synod and the leader, the ever-memorable Metropolitan Isidore, were in a completely different position and mood. They did not have the time, opportunity, or desire to read, like K.P., current secular journalism, and for them, therefore, the “Church Bulletin” presented a lot of new and interesting things precisely in that aspect of it, which was subjected to merciless condemnation by the Chief Prosecutor. That the members of the Holy Synod were pleased with the new production of the Church Messenger is proven by the following incident. Soon after March 1, 1881, after the greatest atrocity that covered all of Russia with indelible shame, Fr. Archpriest I.V. Vasiliev meets a member of the Holy Synod, Archpriest I.V. Rozhdestvensky. O. I. V. Rozhdestvensky, having started talking about the “Church Bulletin”, says that he read my editorial on March 1 (No. 11 - “The main source of all our evils”), as well as the extensive section of “Opinions of the Press”, especially this time informative - by the way (I will note on my own), with a response to the objections of K. P. P-va, without indicating, of course, his name, - and in conclusion he adds: “I like the current “Church Bulletin”, a good editorial about March 1, and in general there is something to read in it now, not like in the past.” Knowing the close relationship of Archpriest I.V. Vasilyev to me and probably having in mind the attacks of K.P.P. on the "Church Bulletin", Venerable Fr. I.V. Rozhdestvensky, apparently, wanted to encourage me in the difficult editorial work. However, I had to hear many similar sympathetic statements to the new direction of the Church Messenger from other sides during my four-year editorship. By the way, about March 1st. It was a difficult time, especially for the editor of the church newspaper. Experiencing, together with all Russian people, the shocking events of that time and circumstances full of tragedy, while reading liberal newspapers, he absorbed all the poison of their ambiguous reasoning and hypocritical regrets, poorly disguised calculations for the good, in their opinion, fruits of the greatest atrocity for the good and progress (?!) of Russia, according to the proverb - every cloud has a silver lining. Some of these kinds of articles will never be forgotten, especially the editorial about March 1, the newspaper “Order” (ed. Stasyulevich), which represented the height of poorly disguised cynicism. Sometimes, after reading such articles, you feel positively poisoned, but it was impossible not to read, it was necessary - in order to have an understanding of all the moods of society. Not to mention the amount of work involved in conveying to readers in a coherent presentation the details of the shocking events of that time. I myself had to work a lot in this regard, although there were, however, variable then, employees for the chronicle of public life, in the department inherited from my predecessor - “Last Week in Russia and Abroad.” This department, soon after March 1, began to lead the entire time of my editorship, and even after many years, continued to compile, with great tact and characteristic caution, then associate professor, and later professor A. I. Sadov. A few more words about my main critic and opponent, K. P. Pobedonostsev. By the end of the first year of my editorship (1881), he apparently softened in relation to me and, if not completely reconciled, then began to look at me as an evil of not so great a hand. And once, having read one article that he really liked (I remember - about the attitude of the state to the Church), he even honored me with a very favorable audience, called me to him, talked a lot and, among other things, proposed to make the “Church Bulletin” a completely official organ of the Holy Synod, with a mandatory subscription, but assigned such an annual fee - 2 rubles, that it was unthinkable to accept his proposal. True, with forty thousand subscribers (the number of churches in Russia) the amount would apparently be enormous - 80,000 rubles, but the costs of paper, printing, booklet, mailing, not to mention the remuneration of the editor and employees, and even the printing of "Christian Reading", which is inextricably linked with the "Church Bulletin" and was supported mainly by funds received from the newspaper - all this would become incomparably more expensive amount received from mandatory subscription. I expressed all this to my honorable interlocutor. The only thing he didn’t say, for obvious reasons, was that the corporation of academic teachers, publishers of Ts.V., would never agree to turn it into a purely official publication, no matter how great even the material benefits from it might be. K.P. spoke a lot about church affairs; After all, he loved to talk, he loved to listen to himself; but, I remember, he did not reproach me. It seems that he only advised us to pay attention to the synod’s archival materials and to the diocesan statements. From this conversation, which took place in the evening, at the appointed hour, and lasted at least 1½ hours, the following general impression was made: you are talking with a very intelligent person, who, it is true, had unique views, but who retained the professorial habit of discussing an issue from all sides, listening to objections, although he preferred to talk more than listen 398 . The department of “Opinions of the Press,” which greatly outraged K.P. P-va (at least at the beginning, then he more or less reconciled with it), towards the end of my editorship, in 1884, brought me into a characteristic clash with two of our then hierarchs. A certain M. Sabinin, a Georgian by birth, one of the students of our academy (XXX class of 1873, candidate of 1878), who wrote a lot on the history of the Georgian Church and about current church affairs in the Georgian exarchate, published in one of the newspapers (Modern News by N.P. Gilyarov) a note that our church government allegedly treats Georgians unfairly, that in vain it restricts them from using their native language in schools and in worship, while at the same time allowing Armenians to freely use the Armenian school and liturgical language. Having read this kind of newspaper excerpt in the “Church Bulletin”, the then Exarch of Georgia Pavel (Lebedev, who was an inspector of the academy during my student days; † Archbishop of Kazan) became terribly angry and sent a very angry letter to the rector of the academy, at that time already the Most Reverend. Arseny (Bryantsev), successor to I. L. Yanysheva, threatening to complain about Professor Katansky to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. The rector also informed me about this letter in a rather harsh note. During a personal meeting and explanation with Rev. Arseny, without denying some of my oversights (namely, that I did not accompany the newspaper excerpt with any remark from the editor), remaining, however, completely calm and not at all frightened by the Exarch’s threat, I allowed myself to calm the very excited Rector with the following words: “Why are you, Your Eminence, so worried; In newspaper activities, oversights and mistakes are inevitable, you have to put up with this and be prepared to sometimes suffer troubles, in this case not only for the editor of an academic publication, but also for the rector of the academy, as a representative and defender of academic interests.” Much to my surprise, I received the answer to this remark: “Yes, it’s good for you to say that, but you need to maintain good relations with the Exarch.” In these words, which represented very little heroic, worthy of the head of the academy and quite outraged me, the appearance of our new rector, successor to I.L., was fully outlined. Yanysheva. This whole incident ended with a note in No. 18 of the Tserkovny Vestnik that, according to the information collected, the judgments of the newspaper Sovremennye Izvestia, reported in No. 15 of Ts.V. (1884), “turn out to be completely incorrect and, in addition, tendentious” 399. In conclusion, it was added that, “unfortunately, the spreaders of this lie are persons who were educated in our highest theological schools.” The last words are directed against Mr. Sabinin (the alleged author of the article in Sovremennye Izvestia; the article, as far as I remember, was anonymous), who, thanks to his dexterity and partly his very prominent appearance, managed to enter many aristocratic houses and therefore seemed like the Most Reverend. The Exarch is quite a dangerous opponent. After this note, both Eminences calmed down. At the end of my editorship, on my initiative, two more new departments were introduced. To satisfy the desire of K.P. Pobedonostsev to use diocesan bulletins and in the awareness of the real value of some of the materials they provide, the “Review of Diocesan Gazettes” was introduced (from No. 37 in 1884), and - in parallel with the “Review of Spiritual Journals” (the old department inherited from my predecessor) - “Review of Secular Magazines on Church Issues” (from No. 42 1884). All new sections - “Press Opinions on Church Issues”, “Church Chronicle”, “Review of Diocesan Gazette” and “Review of Secular Magazines” - had to be compiled by the editor himself for the first issues. It was necessary to organize a new business, develop a standard, and provide a desirable model for detailed reviews. Then, when things had already improved and permanent employees were recruited for the new departments, mainly from among the young teachers of the academy, and partly from the mentors of the Petrograd Seminary 400, it became easier, but even then the editor had to work a lot, especially in the “Opinions of the Press” department, the most sensitive one, to supplement, change, etc., and most importantly - to read, mark and send to the employees a lot of printed newspaper and magazine material. Most of my academic colleagues took little part in collaboration, preferring desk-based academic work to journal work, so I had to carry out the latter almost exclusively on my own shoulders. Under such circumstances and with my tendency to be passionate and completely devoted to any task I took on, it turned out that at the end of the four-year period of editing I felt very tired. In addition, the “Church Bulletin” was then an uncensored publication: I was both the editor and the censor of all articles – both those of others and my own, which, although it presented its own conveniences, at the same time placed an extra burden on the editor of an academic and at the same time semi-official newspaper: I had to worry and worry a lot. Therefore, it is not surprising that I was very tired towards the end of editing. The summer holiday in 1884, a trip to Nizhny, my homeland, and a trip along the Volga to Saratov did not help either, and the editing of the “Church Bulletin” was temporarily entrusted to my colleague, Professor I.E. Troitsky, editor of Christian Reading. Upon returning to Petrograd, he decided to give up his editorship before the expiration of the five-year term for which he was elected. As a result of the announcement of this decision of mine, the entire corporation of mentors of the academy, co-editors of the “Church Bulletin”, headed by the Most Reverend, gathered in my apartment. Arseny (Bryantsev), our then rector. Here it turned out that my colleagues, on the one hand, were not confident in the unyielding determination of my refusal, on the other, they wanted to keep me in the editor’s position at all costs. In these forms, they tried in every possible way to convince me to take back my refusal, at least for one more year, until the expiration of the five-year term of my election. To sway my decision, they resorted to the following means: led by the rector (who probably forgot my not very long clash with him, see above), everyone stood up and standing asked me to remain editor 401. Despite, however, this very touching and very flattering attitude of my colleagues and employees towards my journal activities, my determination did not waver at all. Having warmly thanked them for their kind opinion of me as an editor, I said literally (I remember it well) the following: “You, gentlemen, do not seem to fully believe the sincerity of my statement. What you are about to hear should dissuade you from this. Besides fatigue, there is another, more important reason for my refusal. I must admit that I am too much involved in magazine activities. I feel that I am ceasing to be a professor and turning into a journalist, that if I remain an editor for a few more years, I will finally turn into a scribbler, which I do not want, but I want to return to serious scientific works, which I have pretty much started. I do not refuse to continue to take a possible active part in cooperation on the “Church Bulletin”, but still I earnestly ask you to take the burden of editing off me.” After such a speech, my colleagues could, of course, no longer insist on their request and turned to me with the question of whom I would recommend as their successor. I pointed to one of my regular employees, who had declared himself to have remarkable abilities in journalism, who was immediately unanimously elected as editor Ts.V. for five years. Thus ended the story, to the great displeasure of my wife, who, being in the next room, heard everything and was full of indignation at me for my decisive refusal to remain editor for at least one more year, according to the persistent request of my colleagues. “I heard everything,” she said. - They begged you to do so. Why didn’t you agree to stay, at least for one more year, but preferred to throw 3,000 rubles a year out the window?” With these words she greeted me after my colleagues left. 3000 rubles, about this amount 402 annually I received in previous years both for editing the “Church Bulletin” and for my numerous articles that were published in it. By the way, about the material resources of academic publications. At that time they were so good (in my time there were about 7,000 paid subscribers, before me - somewhat less) that my predecessor (A.I. Pr-ii) suggested not even dividing between employees the entire amount received as a dividend from publishing costs, but assigning a certain amount of payment per line in the Church Bulletin (maximum - 14 kopecks, some permanent employees of departments were entitled to a certain monthly salary), and in “Christian Reading” for a printed sheet (50 rubles, I think) - for internal employees and, somewhat less, for external ones; the rest remaining from the division of the amount should be contributed to the formation of the “auxiliary pension fund” of mentors of the Petrograd Theological Academy, for persons wishing to participate in it. Conditions for participation in it: a one-time contribution of a certain percentage for previous years of service and deduction of the same percentage from the monthly current salary. I remember that even before my editorship, a decent capital had already been formed (if I’m not mistaken, about 20 thousand rubles), and during my four years, 5 thousand rubles were added from the editorial contributions annually, that is, in four years - also 20 thousand rubles. This is how our academic pension fund was formed, which continues to operate, thanks to God, until now, although there were attempts on the part of the central departments of the Holy Synod, fortunately unsuccessful, to take our pension capital at their disposal. I don’t know what would have happened then, but now we, retirees, receive from our treasury some additions to the government pension, depending on the years of service and the rank of the pensioner (ordinary professor, extraordinary, associate professor). For thirty years, for example, an ordinary professor like the one writing these lines receives 660 rubles a year. Many thanks to the unforgettable A.I. Predtechensky for this truly good deed, the beneficence of which I have felt especially vividly in recent years, with the high cost of living increasing every year, and in the current years of the World War - which has already crossed all boundaries. The history of our pension fund was not without a small collapse. Of sad memory, the secretary of the council and board V. M. Smelkov (Nov., Candidate XXX of our Academy in 1873), to whose disposal, unfortunately, pension sums were entrusted (under the control of one of the board members, E. I. Lovyagin), carried away by speculation (he opened an auction room), embezzled about 14,000 rubles of pension money, turned interest-bearing papers for this amount into collateral for their enterprises. He was expelled from the service on the 3rd point, without being brought to trial, partly out of love for humanity, partly in the hope of getting back money in this way. Our calculations turned out to be incorrect, however. There were a lot of troubles and troubles that fell mainly on my lot (I voluntarily volunteered to work on this matter 403), and this whole very unpleasant story ended with the fact that about half of the amount lost by the pension fund was somehow saved. I return to other, more important interests and aspects of academic life for the period 1869–1884. I will conclude this period with some touches that characterize the internal life and mood of the students of the “Yanyshevsky” time. Life of students. Inspection. The influence of the rector Archpriest I.L. Yanysheva. The inspectors of the academy at that time were already middle-aged professors who enjoyed authority among students: K.I. Luchitsky (1869–1874), M.O. Koyalovich (1874–1878), I. F. Nilsky (from 1878). Kirill Ivanovich Luchitsky, professor of old times (since 1839), who was already a bachelor at the time when rector I.L. Yanyshev was still a student (1845–1849), successor and friend of Archimandrite Chrysanth (Retivtsev), married to the sister of General N.I. Bobrikov, a famous general. lips Finland, knew and understood the students well; with a strict personal character, he was, however, quite lenient towards their weaknesses. The students talked about him, calling him “Cyrillic” (that was his nickname among them): “Sin, but don’t get caught, but if you get caught in some important offense, you have no mercy.” With such a somewhat formal attitude towards the inspector's duties, K.I.L. the students put up with it and had nothing against it. His successor, Professor Mikhail Osipovich Koyalovich, had a different attitude towards the inspection matter. A man of strict principles, and, moreover, a historian, accustomed to assessing life phenomena from the point of view of these principles, he delved deeply into the mood of the student environment that existed at that time and sought to seriously influence it. Gifted with a great ability for analysis and prone to generalization, and sometimes to strong exaggeration, at times he was very worried about seemingly unimportant student offenses and bored students with his lectures, reprimands and suggestions; He brought to the attention of the council, however, only important offenses. They were afraid of him and did not particularly like him, although they respected him very much as an excellent professor and a person extremely steadfast in his principles. His successor, Professor Ivan Fedorovich Nilsky, a man of hot temperament and not particularly even character, who also tried to treat his inspector duties far from formally, was even less to the taste of the students than his predecessor (M. I. K-ch). It was heard that he often had arguments with students. In general, however, during this period of time there were no any important incidents in student life. The years 1869–1884 passed completely calmly, and we know what kind of years they were. The calmness of student life at that time must be attributed, in addition to the authoritative for students and, in general, tactful inspection, to the following reasons: the above-mentioned separation of students, their accommodation in hostels separately for courses and departments, the intensification of their studies in view of strict exams, increased demands from semester, candidate and especially master's theses, and most importantly - the great revival of home academic life, which diverted attention from the events and movements of general political and metropolitan life. Almost continuously there were debates, trial lectures on competitions for occupying academic departments (sometimes there were quite a lot of competitors), defense of dissertations by private assistant professors pro venia legendi, other ceremonial meetings on various occasions, for example, on the occasion of the annual act on February 17, etc. All this greatly occupied the students and encouraged them to live with domestic, academic, and more or less scientific interests. Undoubtedly, the personality of the then rector I.L. was also very important in this regard. Yanyshev, who had great tact and enormous influence on students. He not only knew how to smooth out some of the rough edges in the actions of his inspection staff, the professors he respected, but also provided truly invaluable services to the inspection through frequent conversations with students on various occasions, either at home academic or in general public life. He kept himself very close to the students. Very often meeting them, either on walks in the academic garden and around the house, or on the Obvodny Canal, or in the Lavra and other places, often completely unexpectedly for them, as one of the students of that time writes (Professor A.A. Bronzov in his memoirs about I.L. Yan-ve) 404, he invariably entered into conversation with them. He often walked around the student rooms, often appeared in the dining room and here, from time to time, he made whole speeches about the then frequent proclamations of our rebels, analyzed them (as he himself told the writer of these lines), quite confident that the students had already read these underground leaflets and that it would be absurd to make an “open secret” out of them, especially since the students themselves, in his words, sometimes brought him the proclamations they received. In order to distract students from domestic and foreign politics, he occasionally organized home academic concerts, in which some of the academic teachers (for example, Professor N.P. Rozhdestvensky) took part. Thanks to this general structure of academic life, God saved the academy during this time both from unrest about domestic affairs and from outbreaks of a revolutionary nature - from the action of underground literature. And in this case, we repeat again, much should be attributed to the influence of the then rector. That he had a lot of worries and anxieties is evidenced by one phrase he said to me when he left the academy: “All the time I was rector, I felt like I was on a volcano at the academy.” The students greatly revered Fr. I.L.Y., loved him, but at the same time they were afraid of his watchful eye. They were, one might say, hypnotized. He impressed them with his entire personality - an excellent professor, vigilantly caring for all aspects of the rector's academic life, and especially with his remarkable oratorical talent. They often heard him not only in private conversation, as mentioned above, but also in the academic church, where he often preached, and in the academic hall, at debates and various kinds of ceremonial meetings. But once a year he especially appeared before them in all his glory, when on Great Friday, during the removal of the Shroud, he delivered his thunderous speeches in the Lavra Cathedral, when all of Petrograd 405 gathered to listen to him, and when students flocked there in droves to listen to their eloquent rector. As a wonderful speaker (only Archpriest I.V. Vasiliev, also an excellent improviser-preacher, could compete with him), he influenced students both in the sense of developing their preaching talents and teaching them the art of pronunciation. On the eve of delivering sermons in the academic church, he invariably invited academic student preachers to his place and forced them to deliver a prepared sermon. I heard a story about this, by the way, from one of the then students, later our famous professor V.V. Bolotov. “I bring,” he said, “my sermon to the rector. Made me say it. I read it and it stops. Not like that, he says, but this is how you pronounce it,” and he read it himself. Believe it or not, I didn’t recognize my sermon; she seemed different to me... I. L. Yanyshev very often performed divine services in the academic church himself, invariably on all holidays and many Sundays. He served exemplarily. Possessing excellent diction and an expressive, pleasant voice, he put meaning into every word he uttered, read some prayers inimitably, especially the reading of the canon of St. Andrew of Crete and prayers for the prayer service on the day of the Nativity of Christ - a wondrous prayer, composed, as it turns out 406, on behalf of Metropolitan Ambrose, by Philaret (Drozdov; † Metropolitan of Moscow), when he was still only an archimandrite. This wonderful prayer, alas!, completely lost its beauty in the pronunciation of I.L.’s successors. along the river. I. L. strictly followed the reverent, leisurely, meaningful reading in the choir, personally guiding the students in this matter. He really encouraged good singing. Often he himself attended academic choir rehearsals, giving advice, since he himself had a good voice and musical ear and taste. He did not tolerate noise and conversations in the church during services and did not hesitate to reprimand even the professors of the academy for this, as was the case once at Matins on the Bright Resurrection of Christ, when he went out to the professors standing on the left choir through the side altar door and scolded them. Something similar happened, as he told me, in Wiesbaden, when he had to indoctrinate a select audience of his compatriots. In this state of affairs, everything disposed the students to a good religious mood, and phenomena of the opposite nature were not noticeable among them. In particular, their attendance at divine services was, in general, careful, without coercion and without any noticeable influence from inspectors. After all that has been said, it is clear how “fair” those handed out around 1881–1884 were. in some circles it is said that in the Petrograd Academy in “Yanyshev’s time, churchliness was in decline.” These speeches came either from the camp of ill-wishers of the new academy system in general or, in particular, from the circle of enemies of Archpriest I.L., as persons from the white clergy, and were, in all honesty, completely unfair. If anything was truly in decline, it was learned monasticism: during the 17 years of rectorship of Fr. I. L. Yan-va did not ordain a single student as a monk. And this is because this very time (70-80s), a time of strong fermentation among young people, had little disposition towards monasticism, and the rector himself had an aversion to the system of recruiting the most capable students to become monks, which was practiced during his student days (he himself, according to him, experienced the effects of this system), and therefore did not care at all about breeding a nursery of young learned monks at the academy. Thus, if we identify churchliness with monasticism and think that where there is no monasticism, there is no longer churchliness - which, we believe, is hardly fair - then we must admit that churchliness in our academy, in Yanyshev’s time, was really in decline. In October 1883, the Petrograd Academy said goodbye to its glorious rector, appointed confessor to Their Imperial Majesties and manager of the court clergy. At farewell in the academic church, he delivered a sincere, as usual, eloquent sermon, and at the fraternal academic meal we heard many of his speeches in response to numerous toasts, and he once again showed himself to be the brilliant speaker that he always was, resourceful, witty and at the same time very friendly and amiable. The Academy lost a lot, a lot in the person of this unforgettable rector. It was extremely unfortunate to let him go, especially since a completely different influence was in the air, which was fully expressed in the academic regulations of 1884 407 Second period of service - under the influence of the academic charter of 1884 (1884–1896) Change of the academic charter of 1869. The greatest atrocity of March 1, 1881 was accompanied, as we know, by enormous consequences in relation to the direction of our entire policy - domestic and foreign. It did not remain without influence on our academic life. Already at the end of this 1881 (November 19), a commission was established, under the chairmanship of Archbishop Sergius of Kazan (Lyapidevsky; † Metropolitan of Moscow), to revise the academic charter of 1869. 408 The main mover and leader of the new transformation was K. P. Pobedonostsev, the then chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, just as in the previous period – Count D. A. Tolstoy. At the same time and in parallel, similar work began on revising the university charter. His reform was persistently prompted by the needs of life. During the life of our universities there were many things that were not entirely prosperous. Quite a lot of disorder and even abuses were observed there, resulting from the broadest self-government granted to the councils. Such phenomena were determined by their multi-component nature, and most importantly, by the heterogeneity of their faculties: lawyers, doctors, philologists, mathematicians, natural scientists had their own interests, concepts, predilections, etc., separate from others, and the general orderly flow of university life was often disrupted by the struggle of faculties, the formation of parties, and biased decisions on matters (for example, in elections to the positions of rectors, deans, in replacing departments, etc.). Nothing like this was and could not be in theological academies, given the homogeneity of the composition of the sciences of the academic departments (= faculties) and their teachers, who came from the same spiritual environment, knew each other perfectly and were able to evaluate the scientific interests of their comrades - specialists in quite similar specialties. It is therefore not surprising that we had neither parties nor their struggle, at least in our academy; As far as we know, there were none in other academies except Moscow; but there they appeared from the local conditions of town life, and not from the action of the charter of 1869; their origin dates back to 1863 (see Chapter IV of my “Memoirs”). The honor of the academy and the good name of all members of the council and all academic teachers were a matter of special concern to us. The decisions of academic affairs in general and closed voting in the council, in particular, were striking in their absolute fairness, which our former unforgettable rector, Fr. I.L. Yanyshev 409. Only one case of thoughtless, hasty voting 410 remains on our conscience. And how we later lamented this incident! In a word, to be honest, academic life in 1869–1884 flowed quite normally, very fruitfully and, moreover, at an accelerated pace. It cannot be said, however, that we did not want some changes in the charter of 1869. The most general desire was a change in the grouping of teaching subjects, the formation of only two departments instead of three, and some other, smaller specifics. But we were far from wishing for a change in the general system and the basic principles of that charter, which breathed new life into the academy, welded all its parts into one whole and directed it towards prolific scientific and at the same time broad church and social activities. Unfortunately, people who lived by the old academic traditions, reinforced by the mood that prevailed in a significant and influential part of society, among opponents of the reforms of the reign of Emperor Alexander II, seized the opportunity to return the spiritual and academic system to the principles of the old charter - the beginning of the 19th century. It is not known exactly in what form the academic charter of 1884 was initially drafted by the aforementioned commission chaired by Kazan Archbishop Sergius (although, I remember, something on this subject was subsequently published in Christian Reading), and this is not particularly important, since the commission, apparently, did not develop anything coherent, but presented several projects, that is, probably a project with a considerable number of individual opinions 411. Then all this was sent out to “certain eminences” for consideration. The charter of 1884 was finally formed at a “special meeting” of three persons: Moscow Metropolitan Ioannikiy (Rudnev), archbishops Leonty (Lebedinsky) of Warsaw and Savva (Tikhomirov) of Tver. The materials for this meeting accumulated over three years (1881–1884), so there is a lot of material. It is all the more surprising that the “special meeting,” according to rumors, spent no more than three evening sessions on this work. We are unlikely to be mistaken that such speed of work (at three in the evening, as they joked then, “over evening tea”) the statute of 1884 was mainly due to Metropolitan Ioannikiy, who was always distinguished by his great energy and despotic character. So we looked at this charter, approved on April 20, 1884, as the work primarily of Metropolitan Ioannikis, and it cannot be said that we were grateful to him for that. What was this charter? Its most important difference from the previous one was the destruction of departments and, along with them, the principle of specialization embodied in them, the strengthening of the individual power of the rector, and the reduction of the council to the level of a kind of advisory body under the rector of the institution. True, instead of the previous three departments, two new departments appeared, through the formation of two small groups of subjects, dividing the students into two halves. But these small groups 412 contributed little to the specialization of academic education and returned it largely to the previous multi-subject nature, due to the large increase in the number of subjects compulsory for all students, and most importantly, these new departments were plants that had no roots, thanks to the destruction of the previous structure of departments. The new charter rejected all the previous wise organization of departments - these cells in which educational work originated and scientific and pedagogical work developed. The meetings of the departments had to stop, along with the destruction of their centers, the rector’s assistants, who now turned into members of the board, which was in charge not of the “educational part” (previously, the rector’s assistants were his assistants precisely “in the academic part”), but mainly economic and partly inspection. In place of the previous administrative and pedagogical system, the power of the rector has been raised to the height of, in essence, the sole manager of academic affairs, since according to §22 of the new charter, “the rector is the closest head of the academy, responsible for its welfare in all parts of management.” Everything came down to him alone and from him alone, the successful and prosperous course of academic life depended on his energy, the degree and breadth of his knowledge in numerous academic subjects, on his pedagogical experience, administrative tact, and economic abilities. Advice... but what was this advice? And what could it be under such a structure, if not a meeting of respectable learned men who appear at meetings completely unprepared for solving Soviet affairs, without preliminary study and familiarity with them, without draft decisions on any important matters previously developed in the departments. Therefore, it is not surprising that Soviet meetings turned into lengthy conversations of verbose people, with countless statements of different opinions and judgments, and often the same thing by different persons, with the play of the egos of individuals. Previously, the members of the council, as we saw above, were disciplined in the departments and obeyed the directives developed in the latter. Now each member of the council represented only himself, with the desire to advance something in front of other members. The discord was terrible. It very often happened that the rector himself did not bother with a preliminary thorough acquaintance with the affairs, which further increased the disorder in the Soviet meetings. It was extremely difficult for the participants in the previous Soviet meetings of 1869–1884 to now be present in the council, and they left the Soviet hall for the most part nervously upset, with a sediment of bitterness in their hearts and a strong excitement of bile. The main leaders and trustees of the Petrograd Academy for the 12 years of the described time (1884–1896) were: the former Metropolitan Isidore, for most of this time (about 9 years, from 1884 to 1892), then his successor, Metropolitan Palladius (Raev) for the last 3 years of my service. The wise elder Metropolitan Isidore 413 and during this period of time treated the academy as before - calmly, benevolently. There is no doubt that it was to him that we owed the fact that the ensuing reaction was not expressed in any major facts, and the smoking out of the “Yanyshev spirit”, as well as the expulsion of “liberalism” from the academy (see below about the rector - Rev. Arseny), were little noticeable to us. He, apparently, was in no hurry to implement Pobedonostsev’s ideals. This can be seen from the story of one master’s thesis in 1886 (see below), from the above-mentioned, very characteristic attitude of his towards K.P. Pobedonostsev’s attacks on the “Church Bulletin” under my editorship, from his good-natured and mocking attitude towards the persons closest to the Chief Prosecutor, the conductors of his ideas and direction 414. His phenomenal equanimity greatly helped him maintain his previous line of behavior in relation to the academy. His successor, Metropolitan Palladius (Raev) 415, differed in many ways from his predecessor. He did not have such a remarkable, far-sighted mind, such worldly wisdom and equanimity of character as Metropolitan Isidore, but he agreed with his predecessor in a very friendly, respectful attitude towards academic science and in his reluctance to be a zealous servant of the Pobedonostsev reaction. Metropolitan Pallady, a graduate of the Kazan Theological Academy, master of its fourth year (1852), served for a long time (14 years, 1852–1866) in seminaries (Nizhny Novgorod and Petrograd), remembering the academy only as its student, and not as a professor, nevertheless retained sincere respect for academic science and the desire for its success. As for the reaction of that time, he even stood in direct and sharp opposition to the entire synodal chief prosecutor regime of that time. In this regard, something must be attributed to the circumstances of his service in Petrograd (1863–1869), during the period of Tolstoy’s reforms, when he naturally obeyed the trends of that time, moving in a circle of people who were ardent supporters of these reforms: the Archbishop of his native Nizhny Novgorod, Most Rev. Nektary, and, in particular, the pillars of the reform - Archpriests I.V. Vasiliev and I.L. Yanyshev, for whom he had deep respect 416, which he retained until the end of his life. But in particular, the history of his appointment to the Petrograd Metropolis had a great influence on his direction. Excellent in divine services, a lover of magnificent surroundings, especially a good bishop's choir (he took from Ryazan the now famous regent of the metropolitan choir I. Ya. Ternov), Rev. Palladius, when he was Exarch of Georgia, really liked Emperor Alexander III and Empress Maria Feodorovna and, apparently, was intended to be the successor of Metropolitan Isidore. Far-sighted people foresaw this 417, but the synodal leaders (K.P. Pobedonostsev and V.K. Sabler) for some reason did not want such an appointment - perhaps the influence of other hierarchs 418 came into play here, and they nominated their own candidate - according to rumors, Archbishop of Chisinau Sergius (Lyapidevsky), but were not successful; the appointment of Exarch Palladius to the Petrograd Metropolis in 1892 took place, and, moreover, with his appointment as the first member of the Holy Synod 419. All this, of course, became known to him and could not dispose him to have friendly relations with the Synodal Chief Prosecutor's Office. The story that soon unfolded with E. P. Akvilonov’s master’s thesis (“The Church. Scientific definitions of the Church and the apostolic teaching about it as the body of Christ.” 1894) further confirmed Metropolitan Palladius in this mood. In this characteristic story, I also had to take a close part as a partly responsible person, since E. P. Akv-va’s dissertation was written under my supervision. The dissertation was passed at the academy; there was also a dispute that gave a positive result; only the approval of the Holy Synod was required. But suddenly the movement of the case regarding the approval of E.P. Akv-va's master's degree was stopped by a telegram from K.P. Pobedonostsev from Crimea. It turned out that this was done following a protest from Moscow; The schismatics were allegedly worried about this dissertation. Articles against the work of E. P. Akvilonov appeared in the “Brotherly Word” of Professor N. I. Subbotin. The famous Archimandrite Pavel (Prussky), then dying, was drawn into this polemic, on whom the editor of the “Brotherly Word” relied 420. I had to talk more than once with Metropolitan Palladius about this whole story. With all the decisiveness and frankness characteristic of him, he explained why the aforementioned protest came from Moscow, supported by the synodal secular authorities. Here he saw the hand of Sergius (Lyapidevsky; then, from 1893, Metropolitan of Moscow) and his friend, Professor N.I. Subbotin. “After all, this whole matter,” he said, “is directed against me, and not at all against Akvilonov or you. They want to prove that I don’t live up to my position.” Perhaps Metropolitan Palladius somewhat exaggerated the antagonism of Moscow and the chief prosecutor’s office against himself and exaggerated things too much, but there was probably a significant amount of truth in his opinion. However, it was not just personalities and external circumstances that mattered here. Here, at the same time, the important question of the dogmatic definition of the Church was resolved. Metropolitan Palladius, together with some of the hierarchs (Archbishop Anthony (Vadkovsky) of Finland, Bishop Vissarion (Nechaev) of Kostroma) stood on the side of the new definition outlined in E. P. Akvilonov’s dissertation, while others, the majority, stood on the side of the old one (see details below). The latter prevailed, and Metropolitan Palladius felt in a very awkward position, although he could console himself with the thought that he stood up for scientific progress, and that’s how we looked at this matter. Be that as it may, Metropolitan Palladius retained his position in the Petrograd Metropolis and was even honored to perform, as the first member of the Holy Synod, the coronation of the Sovereign Emperor Nicholas II in 1896 421, which for some time encouraged him and supported his declining forces († 1898). Metropolitan Palladius treated the Academy very kindly, respectfully, and left behind, in general, a good memory. The only thing that marred it was the very unsuccessful appointment of his favorite hieromonk and then Archimandrite Isidore (Kolokolov) to the position of inspector, and even the dismissal of Professor N.A. Skabalanovich from the post of editor of the “Church Bulletin”, on the complaint of the head of military educational institutions (regarding some note in “Ts.V.” regarding these institutions). But he made up for his first mistake with the successful appointment to the post of inspector of Professor N.V. Pokrovsky, a rather long-term (6 years, 1893–1899) and active inspector, and the second mistake, although without his direct participation, was corrected by itself by the election of a worthy successor to N.A. Skabalanovich in the person of Professor A.P. Lopukhin. Not everyone in the academy revered and loved Metropolitan Palladius, but this is partly explained by the reflection of synodal trends that penetrated into our midst. One thing is certain, that Metropolitan Palladius was a man of a kind heart and very kind manner; We did not feel the burden of a powerful hand in his presence. Rectors and inspectors of the Petrograd Academy 1884–1896. During these 12 years there were five rectors and six, or even seven, inspectors. A bit much, compared to the “Yanyshevsky” time, when for all 17 years there was one rector, and there were only three inspectors. Such a frequent change of commanding officers was hardly useful and served for the benefit of the academy. The rectors were: Rev. Arseny (Bryantsev), Rev. Anthony (Vadkovsky), Archimandrite Boris (Plotnikov), Rev. Nikandr (Molchanov), Rev. John (Kratirov). Inspectors: until 1885 - the former, Professor I.F. Nilsky, then - Archimandrite Anthony (Vadkovsky), Archimandrite Mikhail (Gribanovsky), and. Dr. Associate Professor Hieromonk Anthony (Khrapovitsky), acting. Inspector Hieromonk, then Archimandrite and Inspector Isidor (Kolokolov), and finally Professor N.V. Pokrovsky. The successor of Archpriest I. L. Yanyshev was Rev. Arseny (Bryantsev) 422. I. L. Yanyshev tried very hard to ensure that his successor was one of the existing oldest professors of the academy. He pestered many people with this kind of proposal, including me 423 . But no one responded to his proposal. They looked for a successor for him for quite some time, until they settled on the Most Reverend. Arseny, then a Petrograd vicar, who, as a master of the Kyiv Academy, seemed suitable. Rev. Arseny, a man of not outstanding intelligence, rather good-natured and friendly in his manners, with a practical mindset, was not created for an academic rectorship, but in order to be a good, even outstanding diocesan bishop, which he later found himself in Riga, in the difficult post of diocesan commander, where he managed to get along with everyone and earned considerable love and respect. His scientific authority in the academy was very low. As a very practical man, he used the changing trends in higher spheres and in public sentiment so that it seemed that he had revolutionized academic life. He decided that his main mission was to expel from the Petrograd Academy, as he put it, the “Yanyshev spirit”, “liberalism”, to instill churchism, which was supposedly in decline under his predecessor, and monasticism, which indeed was far from flourishing under I. L. Yanyshev. Tasks and goals of academic science Rev. Arseny understood in a very unique way, which was once expressed in accusing many professors, including the one writing these lines, of liberalism. Personally, however, he did not bring such an accusation against me (and, as far as I know, against other colleagues). His words were conveyed by one, then a young associate professor, later a venerable professor - I. G. Troitsky. He then published his master's work, “The Religious, Social and State Condition of the Jews in the Time of the Judges” (1885). When considering this work by one of those present at that time in St. It was subjected to severe criticism and disapproval by the Synod of Bishops (Blessed Seraphim (Protopopov), Bishop of Smolensk), however, not in its entirety, but only in some particulars. On this occasion, Metropolitan Isidore called the rector, Rev. Arseny, and he received a decent suggestion from the Metropolitan, with an order to reprint several pages, after which the author was promised confirmation of a master's degree. When this was done, the approval took place. Intimidated by the boss's reprimand, Rev. Arseny had a deliberate conversation with the young author, reproaching him for liberalism. In this regard, the name of Professor Katansky was also mentioned, who was charged with the fact that “he comprehends (?!) dogmas.” Regarding this grave accusation, I did not consider it necessary to explain myself to the Reverend. Arseniy and until the end of his rectorship there was no conversation between us on this matter. The decision of Metropolitan Isidore on this matter is very characteristic, showing the breadth of his views and doing him great honor as a scientifically enlightened hierarch. True, one can assume that this outcome of the matter was partly predetermined, perhaps by the Reverend. Seraphim, a very smart, scientific person (see Chapter II of my “Memoirs”, when Archimandrite Seraphim was an auditor of the Nizhny Novgorod Seminary). Rev. Seraphim, even earlier, before his report to Metropolitan Isidore, called on the author of the dissertation and talked with him a lot, leaving in his young interlocutor the impression of a very smart man, quite broad-minded and a great dialectician. Be that as it may, we lived quite peacefully with the Rev., who was not devoid of good nature to a large extent. Arseny, for about four years (1883–1887), supplementing himself with reserves of scientific mood and excitement, preserved from previous times. His farewell, however, was cold, and the Academy was in no hurry to elevate him to the rank of its honorary member; this happened only ten years (1897) after leaving us (in 1887) 424. Since 1885, his inspector, after Professor I.F. Nilsky, was Archimandrite Anthony (Vadkovsky; † Metropolitan of Petrograd) 425, who differed very favorably from the Most Reverend. Arseny's dedication to scientific interests, extremely noble, sympathetic character and considerable administrative tact. He immediately put himself on the best terms with both his colleagues and students. Imbued with great sympathy for the academic student body and faith in it, he tried to enter into close relationships with the students and for this purpose, among other things, started theological interviews with them in his apartment, inviting academic teachers here as well. I also attended these meetings. I especially remember well the conversations with the participation of E. P. Akvilonov (student LXIII k. 1886) on the topic of the Church, that is, on the same topic on which he wrote his master’s thesis. To tell the truth, I didn’t quite like E.P. Akvilonov’s arguments at that time in terms of the methods of interpreting the subject - more oratorical than strictly scientific. From the time of inspection of Fr. Anthony still remembers the debates at board meetings about the dangers for student youth from getting involved in politics and the possibility of involving students in the ranks of revolutionaries. Father Inspector resolutely did not want to believe in such a possibility, believing that students of theological academies were completely insured against such hobbies due to their high mental development. We, other members of the board, objected to him, in particular, I remember, Professor M.O. Koyalovich. “Don’t be, oh. inspector, we’re too sure of that,” he said. – Anything is possible nowadays. The revolutionary socialist infection, once it has entered the spiritual organism, is like a well-known secret physical disease from which one can never be cured radically.” To these warnings Fr. Anthony replied that if something like this happened, which he, however, did not believe at all, then he was ready to suffer for his optimism; in that case, “I’ll go to the monastery,” he remarked. Unfortunately, our fears came true. One of the best students who graduated in 1886 (M. Novorussky, originally from Novgorod, 3rd on the list), left at the academy even as a professorial fellow, 426 was caught in a terrorist act, in a speech in front of the Anichkov Palace with homemade bombs. According to rumors, he even turned out to be one of the handlers of this terrorist act. Exiled to the Shlisselburg fortress, he sat there for many years, but recently he was released and, according to rumors, taken on bail by one of the Eminences. This unfortunate student is remembered by me, by the way, for the following incident. Before the final final exam in my subject, he suddenly turns to me with a request if I could allow him to take the exam in dogmatic theology earlier than the day appointed for his other comrades, separately from them. This completely unusual request (they usually asked for a delay) surprised me greatly. With the permission of the rector, he was allowed to take the exam and answered all the questions perfectly, which surprised me even more. When he was taken into custody, then it became clear why he was in a hurry to pass the exams, obviously wanting to be free as soon as possible in order to indulge in his criminal activities. This very sad story did not, however, have any tangible consequences for the academic authorities and, in particular, for the inspector, probably because it took place at the end of the summer or early autumn, when the culprit was already a graduate of the academic course and was not among the students, being listed as a professor's fellow. There is no need to talk about how hard it affected the well-being of the entire academy. Rev. Anthony (Vadkovsky), rector of the academy (1887–1892). Having become the successor of Rev. Arseny by rector, Rev. Anthony remained as friendly with his colleagues, very likeable, noble in character as he was as an inspector. There was not a shadow of unnaturalness or artificial importance in him. Having spent his entire service in an academic environment, he highly valued the interests of academic science and had broad views, very much reminiscent in this respect of I. L. Yanyshev, with whom he sympathized in many ways; this was clear from frequent conversations with him. As chairman of the council, he conducted meetings with tact and noticeable skill, at the same time revealing at times some firmness of character, limiting, as far as possible, the disorderliness of the debate that had already begun to take root. By the way, he displayed a rare trait, characteristic only of exceptionally noble characters, namely the ability to admit his mistakes and hobbies. Once, for example, he ardently and sharply insisted, in one of the Soviet meetings, on the immediate standing of one candidate for occupying the academic department (namely E. P. Akvilonov); but the council, according to the established practice of not running at the same meeting when the motion was made, but postponing the ballot until the next meeting, objected, and the matter was adjourned. At the next meeting, the Eminence Rector considered it necessary to solemnly apologize to the council for his vehemence and harshness. There was another case - at a board meeting, when he allowed himself to be somewhat harsh in his attitude towards me (we were talking about firewood for academic buildings) 427 . And again he did not hesitate to admit that he was wrong and apologize to me (however, a considerable time later, when I reminded him of this incident, during his farewell visit after leaving the academy). His weak side as a rector was his dislike for economic classes, which he himself was aware of. “I don’t like farming,” he once said, “and I don’t understand farming.” It probably depended on this reason that he did not sufficiently study the economic affairs of the board and did not prepare for board meetings, so that sometimes he became acquainted with the affairs at the meeting itself 428. However, in all his affairs he did not show much energy, and in this respect he was little like Archpriest I. L. Yanyshev. In any case, he was, however, the best, most respected and beloved rector during the last period of my academic service. His rectorship was truly a bright streak in the history of the academy during these twelve years (1884–1896). His attitude towards students remained, in essence, the same, but, apparently, he reduced his optimism, and the students’ attitude towards him somehow became distorted towards the end of his rectorship. Students even began to suspect him of encouraging espionage, having a hard time experiencing disappointment in the formerly beloved inspector and rector. This was especially revealed in relation to one hitherto unexplained story 429. I had to become closely acquainted with this new mood of the students. Once, in the spring, during final exams, two fourth-year students (L-th and G-th) came to me and asked me for advice on how to behave in relation to the rector and how to look at him. They declare that the students’ mental state is extremely difficult, that they would not like to give up their previous view of the rector, who was once dearly loved and respected. They tell you what they are doing. We talked for a long time, several hours (from five to ten o’clock in the evening). I reassured them in every possible way and proved that their suspicions were completely unfounded, that I knew the Reverend very well. Anthony, and that he is completely incapable of what he is suspected of, that this is a pure misunderstanding. They left me much calmer, and there was no student outburst. They turned to me, probably because I was one of the members of the board, which, according to the charter of 1884, was in charge of matters concerning the behavior of students, and that in the past, as an assistant to the rector for the theological department, I declared myself to act in a pacifying manner (see above, regarding one exam). This was towards the end of the rectorship of Rev. Antonia. He left the rectorship in 1892, enjoying almost the same favor from the students as before. And the corporation of academic teachers conducted it with great and sincere regret. The council immediately elevated him to the rank of honorary member of the academy. Inspectors during the rectorship of Rev. Anthony were: and. d. inspector, hieromonk, and then inspector, Archimandrite Mikhail (Gribanovsky, 1887–1889); temporarily and D. Inspector, Hieromonk Anthony (Khrapovitsky, 1889–1890); And. d. inspector, hieromonk, and then inspector, Archimandrite Mikhail (Ermakov, 1890–1893). There are too many changes for the five-year rectorship of Rev. Antonia. It is not surprising, therefore, that the main burden of the inspection lay on him. O. Mikhail (Gribanovsky) 430, one of the best students of our academy, graduating in 1884, gifted and sympathetic in character, enjoyed the favor and respect of the students. Father Anthony (Khrapovitsky) 431, also a very gifted student of ours from the class of 1885, was popular among the students, stood very close to them and encouraged them to accept monasticism. O. Mikhail (Ermakov), from the graduates of the Kyiv Academy in 1887, its candidate 432, held close and firmly to the Most Reverend. Anthony, believing in his star, in which he was not mistaken. After Rev. Anthony (Vadkovsky) was appointed, in 1892, as rector by Archimandrite Boris (Plotnikov) 433, master of the Kazan Academy (graduated in 1880), a man of a wonderful soul, noble character, who has distinguished himself with a considerable number of published works. About him Rev. Anthony told us that his successor would be “stronger” than him, meaning Archimandrite Boris’s greater scientific competence than his. Unfortunately, the new rector was far from distinguished by either strong physical health or energy and strength of character. Sick, very lethargic, rather spineless, he was a bad chairman of the council and board. The meetings of both, especially the board, in the absence of any preparation for them on the part of the rector, lasted indefinitely, the board - for five or more hours (from 11, 12 o'clock in the afternoon to 5 o'clock in the evening), the council - however, no more than the usual time (from 6 o'clock to 9½ o'clock in the evening), but this was because it was impossible to continue them longer (at 10 o'clock in the evening the gates of the Lavra were locked, through which we had to pass to return by houses); Without this circumstance, we would have to sit up all night, and even in this case we would hardly have time to resolve all the matters scheduled for the meeting. When discussing Soviet affairs, terrible confusion reigned. Archimandrite Boris served as rector for a very short time, just over one year (from October 30, 1892 to December 13, 1893). To top off all these troubles, after Archimandrite Mikhail (Ermakov) etc. A hieromonk was appointed inspector and soon an archimandrite, who was soon confirmed as an inspector, Isidor (Kolokolov), a man completely unsuitable for this position. Of the pupils of the Petrograd Gymnasium, far from being the best in terms of success during the course at our academy, he was graduated in 1891 as a 2nd category candidate (under No. 32), he was distinguished by a greater disorder of character and even behavior, but at the same time, outstanding sprightliness and ostentatious efficiency. After completing the academic course, while serving at the Tiflis Seminary, first (1891) as a teacher, and then (1892) as an inspector, he made a strong impression on the then Exarch of Georgia, Rev. Palladia (Raev), was close to him, and after the transition of the Most Reverend. Palladium to the Petrograd Metropolis, at his insistence he was appointed (1893) acting. inspector of our academy, despite, as was heard, strong objections in the Holy Synod against this appointment 434. Soon a dark story played out at the academy, connected with the name of the new inspector 435, strong unrest began among students, with them submitting an application to K.P. Pobedonostsev, not collectively, however, but on behalf of each student individually, according to the permission they received from the chief prosecutor. Archimandrite Isidore was forced to leave the academy in the same 1893 and returned to the Caucasus again, where he was given the position of manager of the Caucasian missionary monastery, at the suggestion, no doubt, of Metropolitan Palladius, who continued to believe in the supposedly extraordinary missionary abilities of Archimandrite Isidore. This bad experience with the inspection of Fr. Isidore (Kolokolova) prompted Metropolitan Palladius to look for a candidate for the post of inspector of the academy among its existing professors. For this purpose, he turned first of all to me, as a person well known to him for a long time and, in addition, temporarily (upon the dismissal of Archimandrite Isidore) acting as inspector as a then senior member of the board. He persistently convinced me to accept the position of inspector, pointing out, among other things, the material benefits from it; but I resolutely refused, and allowed myself to point out two of my colleagues who, in my opinion, could be good inspectors, namely, Professor I. S. Palmov and Professor N. V. Pokrovsky. Metropolitan Palladius especially sympathetically accepted the candidacy of the first (I.S. Palmov), as he was well known to him from Ryazan, where the Most Reverend. Palladius was once a bishop, and asked to offer the inspectorate first of all to him, and if he refused (as I had reason to think, which I told the Metropolitan), then to Professor N.V. Pokrovsky. And so it happened: I. S. Palmov resolutely refused, and N. V. Pokrovsky accepted the offer and was then for five whole years (1894–1899) a good, very energetic inspector who delved into all academic affairs. And such an inspector could not have been more useful, especially at that time, a time of frequent changes of rectors and considerable disorganization of academic life. Rev. Nikandr (Molchanov) 436 - the successor of the rector Archimandrite Boris (Plotnikov), master of the Moscow Academy, a Muscovite by birth, one of its most talented students (who graduated from the course at No. 3 on the graduation list) - fully justified his last name (Molchanov): he was extremely reserved, uncommunicative, withdrawn into himself, but not without a certain degree of friendliness in his manner. As a rector, he was not outstanding in one way or another. There was, however, much more order and harmony in the course of academic affairs under him than under his predecessor; nevertheless, he enjoyed very moderate authority in the academy. Apparently, his predominant interests were not scientific, academic... In this respect, he had significant similarities with Rev. Arseny (Bryantsev), but, as a more intelligent and self-possessed person, he showed this trait not as clumsily as he did. It was noticeable that Rev. Nikandr took great account of trends in the highest synodal spheres and adapted to them, which was revealed especially clearly in the following case. Regarding the aforementioned controversy that arose due to the dissertation of E. P. Akvilonov, I compiled an article: “On the formulation of a treatise on the Church in the science of dogmatic theology” (“Church Bulletin”, 1895, No. 15–16), where in conclusion the idea was expressed that “it would be time, it seems, to free ourselves from exclusive concern for schismatics,” not to put ourselves under their censorship and expect that they they will say about us, and also - “to abandon the extremely suspicious censorship, to leave it to the Roman papal, Jesuit church.” In view of this conclusion of the article, I considered it necessary, without exposing the rector, as the censor of the Church Bulletin, to responsibility, to submit the article for preliminary consideration by the metropolitan, about which I warned the right reverend rector. Metropolitan Palladius approved the article and allowed it to be published without any changes to it. It would seem that this is how it all should have ended, but in reality it was not so. Having received the manuscript from me and having heard my statement about the Metropolitan’s decision, Rev. Nikandr submitted the article for typesetting, but when the proof for his censor’s signature was received, he considered it necessary to send this proof to K.P. Pobedonostsev, without telling anyone, neither me nor the editor of Ts.V. What was this for? Responsibility for the article fell entirely on the Metropolitan, and not on him. K.P. Pobedonostsev, having received the proofreading, became very indignant, summoned the then editor of the Church Messenger, Professor A.P. Lopukhin, very much condemned the conclusion of the article, said: “Why is Prof. Did Katansky add this conclusion? and we could have done without it.” And when he learned that the article was being published after the review and approval of the Metropolitan, he remarked in irritation: “Well, let him (Katansky) publish whatever he wants.” On the same topic, that is, about too much attention of our church government to the opinions and sentiments of schismatics, the then Archbishop of Finland Anthony (Vadkovsky), our former rector, spoke in very harsh terms at a meeting of the Holy Synod. This whole matter regarding the dissertation of E. P. Akvilonov ended with a decree of the Holy Synod (dated February 4, 1895), in which “the petition for confirmation of Akvilonov’s master’s degree was rejected”, “the application of Ave. Kostromsky (Vissarion) to correct the existing in our Orthodox Church was left without consequences. Catechism for the Definition of the Church” 437, - in accordance with the work of Aquilonov, reviewed and approved by this Eminence, - certain rules were prescribed regarding essays for academic degrees and reviews of the Metropolitan of Moscow (Sergius Lyapidevsky) and the Most Reverend were attached. Sylvester, rector of the Kiev Academy, containing criticism of Akvilonov’s dissertation. Rev. Nikandr was our rector for less than two years (from December 13, 1893 to August 23, 1895). We carried it out without much regret. He was elected an honorary member of the academy five years later, in 1900, at the same time as his successor, Rev. John (Kratirov), who had just left (in 1899) the academic rectorship. Succeeded by Rev. Nikandra - Rev. John (Kratirov) 438 - one of the Elisavetgrad vicars, also a master of the Moscow Academy, was a man of a wonderful soul, very good-natured and sociable, already quite elderly, not distinguished by firmness of character, and did not have significant scientific authority. He was once my student at the Moscow Academy (1864), however, for a very short time, in the first half of this year, in the very first year of my service. The new rector greeted me with the words: “Ah, A.L., I’m your student, and not one of the best.” He graduated from the course with the 9th master's degree. Academic affairs went the same way under him, but no worse than under his predecessors, that is, not particularly smoothly. Under this rector, in 1896, I left the service at my native academy, so in the person of Rev. John, the beginning of my service coincided with the end. Rev. John served as rector for more than three years (from August 23, 1895 to January 16, 1899). As stated above, the very next year, 1900, he was elected an honorary member of the academy, which, no doubt, expressed his affection and love for the complacent and good-natured former rector. Composition of teachers from 1884 to 1896 During this period of time, for various reasons, there were many changes in the composition of teachers, mainly from the frequent change of administrative officials, especially inspectors of the academy, as well as from the increased retirement of old professors and from some other reasons. The frequent change of rectors did not directly and directly affect the fate of academic departments, since the rectors of academies, according to the charter of 1884, did not occupy full-time departments, and they were given the right to give lectures, but no more than two per week, on any subject with a full-time teacher. At the time described, they gave lectures on the following subjects: Rev. Anthony (Vadkovsky) - on the history of preaching, Archimandrite Boris (Plotnikov) - on general church history, Rev. Nikandr (Molchanov) - according to Holy Scripture, Rev. John (Kratirov) - in pastoral theology (however, I don’t remember well). Thus, these were, as it were, a kind of privat-docents. There were no other, real privatdozents of the previous period (1869–1884); they were not allowed under the new charter. Instead, they were replaced by candidates correcting the position of associate professor in full-time departments. These were almost, but not quite, the former privatdocents, who served as teaching assistants for full-time professors in some department of science, and then often replaced them as their successors. The current ones. d. Associate professors were directly made full-time teachers and closed the way for other candidates for full-time teaching. A good or not so good choice, etc. Doctor of Associate Professor decided the fate of the famous department for many years. One cannot help but regret the destruction of the former privatdocentur. So, the frequent change of rectors did not directly and significantly affect the fate of academic departments. Another thing is the even more frequent change of inspectors who occupied full-time departments. Here one of the objects suffered greatly, namely the Holy Scripture of the Old Testament. Over the course of twelve years (1884–1896), six teachers of this subject changed, namely: the extraordinary professor Archimandrite Anthony (Vadkovsky; from 1885 to 1887), and. Associate Professor and then Associate Professor Hieromonk Anthony (Khrapovitsky; from 1887 to 1890), Acting. Associate Professor, hieromonk, then Archimandrite Mikhail (Ermakov; from 1890 to 1893), acting. Associate Professor Hieromonk Sergius (Stragorodsky; from 1893, less than a year, in the same year he was already acting inspector of the Moscow Academy) 439, acting. associate professor, hieromonk, then Archimandrite Isidore (Kolokolov; in 1893, also for less than a year, several months) and finally, from February 25, 1894. – candidate, i. Doctor of Associate Professor, in 1896 - Master and Associate Professor A.P. Rozhdestvensky, then a long-term professor who occupies this department to this day. They ended the trials of this long-suffering department. Another department of Holy Scripture - the New Testament - was much happier. After the resignation of Professor Archpriest V. G. Rozhdestvensky in 1891, in the same year she was taken over with the rank of associate professor by Master of the Moscow Academy N. N. Glubokovsky, also a long-term professor who had hitherto been a teacher of this subject. But this time, especially the years 1885–1893, was the most brilliant time for learned monasticism, when it was headed by such outstanding personalities as the two Anthonys, whom we, unlike them, called the great and the small (“the great” is Rector Anthony (Vadkovsky), the small is Anthony (Khrapovitsky)), Mikhail (Gribanovsky) and Sergius (Stragorodsky). Other reasons for changes in the personal composition of teachers were: the death of some of them and the increased retirement of others, thanks mainly to the increase in pensions to the level of university ones (see more about this below). Resigned from the teaching staff: four ordinary professors, four extraordinary and one acting. Doctor of Associate Professor Namely: ordinary professors M.O. Koyalovich († 1891, August 23), I.F. Nilsky († 1894, August 11), M.I. Karinsky (1894), E. I. Lovyagin (1895); extraordinary professors A. E. Svetilin (1884), A. I. Predtechensky (1885), Nik. I. Barsov (1889), Archpriest V. G. Rozhdestvensky (1891); And. Doctor of Associate Professor N. G. Debolsky (1887). Moreover, with the transition of the rector, Rev. Arseny, a teacher of moral theology, to a supernumerary position, in 1884 the full-time department of this subject remained vacant. They were replaced: in moral theology - associate professor master F. A. Tikhomirov (until 1894) and then, upon his retirement, associate professor master A. A. Bronzov. According to the Holy Scripture of the New Testament, the successor of Archpriest V. G. Rozhdestvensky was from 1891, as stated above, Associate Professor Master N. N. Glubokovsky. According to the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, Archimandrite Isidore was the successor from 1893, as noted above, and. Doctor of Associate Professor A.P. Rozhdestvensky. Upon introduction to the circle of theological sciences - Archimandrite Mikhail (Gribanovsky), and from 1890 - acting. Doctor of Associate Professor E.P. Akvilonov. The group of philosophical subjects also received new teachers - in the person of And. Doctor of Science, Associate Professor V. S. Serebrenikov (successor of A. E. Svetilin), and. Associate Professor D.P. Mirtov (successor of M.I. Karinsky), and acting. Doctor of Science, Associate Professor A. P. Vysokoostrovsky (successor of N. G. Debolsky). On the history and denunciation of the Russian schism - and. Doctor of Associate Professor P. S. Smirnov (successor of I. F. Nilsky). In Russian civil history - associate professor, master P. N. Zhukovich (successor of M. O. Koyalovich). In homiletics - and. Doctor of Associate Professor N.K. Nikolsky (successor of Nik. I. Barsov). In general civil history - associate professor master A. P. Lopukhin (successor of A. I. Predtechensky), who switched from comparative theology, excluded from the program according to the charter of 1884, to this subject. In Greek - successor to E.I. Lovyagina, since 1896, acting. Doctor of Science, Associate Professor, Priest M.I. Orlov. Moreover, a completely new department of “History of the Slavic Churches” was established at our academy, first, in 1885, as a non-staff department, and from 1887 – as a full-time department. Master I. S. Palmov, a great lover and expert on Western Slavism, was elected to this department first with the rank of teacher, and then as a full-time associate professor and extraordinary professor. There were long efforts and negotiations regarding the establishment of this department; M. O. Koyalovich fussed about it in particular - in front of K. P. Pobedonostsev, who first gave him hope, then again fell into thought. New lecturers also appeared on new languages: on French - I.I. Fosnakht (since 1886) and in English - A.I. Mikhailovsky (since 1888, instead of Nurok) and his successor Ch.V. Goodlet (since 1893). Thus, in 12 years, a total of 24 teachers (including lecturers) changed: 6 in the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, 15 in other subjects and 3 lecturers. Of these new colleagues of mine, the vast majority still serve in their native academy, already have the highest academic degrees and titles and are respectable professors, worthy substitutes for their predecessors. I will list them in order of seniority at the end of the academic course at our academy; they are all her pets (except for one, N.N. Glubokovsky). I. Ivan Savvich Palmov, Ryazan. native (1880 - the year of graduation from the academic course), since 1904 - Doctor of Church History, now supernumerary Honored Ordinary Professor, member of the Academy of Sciences. II. Platon Nikolaevich Zhukovich, Lithuanian. (1881), since 1901 – Doctor of Church History, supernumerary Honored Ordinary Professor. III. Feofan Alekseevich Tikhomirov, Novgorod. (1883), from 1891 - an extraordinary professor, in 1894 he left service at the academy, a gifted teacher, suffered from tongue-tiedness: this deficiency prompted him to leave academic service. IV. Alexander Alexandrovich Bronzov, Novgorod. (1883), since 1901 – Doctor of Theology, now supernumerary Honored Ordinary Professor. V. Archimandrite Mikhail (Gribanovsky), Tambov. (1884), Master 1888, Inspector (see above). VI. Alexander Pavlovich Vysokoostrovsky, Novgorod. (1885), a gifted teacher, for a long time, about 13 years, without having a master's degree, he was acting. Associate Professor; from 1909 – secretary of the council. VII. Archpriest Timofey Alexandrovich Nalimov, petr. (1886), master's degree in 1890, in 1896 - extraordinary professor, since 1906 - retired; in 1909 was elected by the council as rector of the Petrograd Academy, but did not receive approval. VIII. Archpriest Evgeny Petrovich Akvilonov, Tambov. (1886), from 1905 - Doctor of Theology, ordinary professor, died as a protopresbyter of the military clergy. IX. Vitaly Stepanovich Serebrenikov, Vyatsk. (1886), since 1909 - Doctor of Theology and Ordinary Professor, now Honored Ordinary Professor. X. Nikolai Konstantinovich Nikolsky, petrogr. (1887), since 1899 – Doctor of Church History and ordinary professor, member of the Academy of Sciences; in 1906 he left service at the academy. XI. Pyotr Semenovich Smirnov, Ryazan. (1887); since 1909 – Doctor of Church History and full professor. XII. Nikolai Nikanorovich Glubokovsky, Vologda. (1889), student of the Moscow Academy; since 1898 – Doctor of Theology and ordinary professor, corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences. XIII. Archpriest Mikhail Ivanovich Orlov, Novgorod. (1889), since 1908 – Doctor of Theology and full professor. XIV. Archpriest Alexander Petrovich Rozhdestvensky, Pskov. (1890), since 1911 – Doctor of Theology and full professor. XV. Dimitry Pavlovich Mirtov, Ryazan. (1891), since 1915 – Doctor of Theology and full professor. The time of completion of the academic course by all these venerable, now oldest professors 440 is worthy of note - in the decade from 1880 to 1890. Wasn’t this somewhat affected by the effect of the previous, not yet completely exhausted, leaven?.. We ask readers to pay attention to the marked (year indicated in brackets) time of completion of the academic course by named persons. French - Ivan Ivanovich Fosnacht, a native of Switzerland, since 1886 replaced the deceased A.I. Tepfer (successor since 1881 of A.I. Popovitsky). English - Alexey Ivanovich Mikhailovsky, candidate of the Kyiv Academy, was a lecturer at our academy from 1888 to 1893. His fate is remarkable: he was a psalm-reader in our Russian church in New York (1876-1879), a lecturer of English at the Kyiv Academy (1879-1888), then in ours (1888-1893), moved to Kazan Academy (1893); in Kazan, according to rumors, he was killed by revolutionaries during the troubled times of 1905–1906. – His successor since 1893 has been an Englishman, a native of Petrograd, Charles William Goodlet, a graduate of the Petrograd Commercial School, the son of one of his old teachers. Of the former teachers, 15 people remain, namely: I.E. Troitsky (history and analysis of Western religions, instead of comparative theology, excluded from the program), A. L. Katansky (dogmatic theology), F. G. Eleonsky (biblical history), T. V. Barsov (ecclesiastical law), Archpriest P. F. Nikolaevsky (Russian church history), Archpriest S. A. Sollertinsky (pastoral theology and pedagogy), N.A. Skabalanovich (new general civil history), N.V. Pokrovsky (church archaeology), A.I. Ponomarev (literature), A.I. Sadov (Latin language), A.P. Lopukhin (ancient general civil history). V.V. Bolotov (general church history). I. G. Troitsky (biblical archeology and Hebrew language), teacher V. I. Lamansky (Russian language and Church Slavonic) and lecturer L. P. Razmusen (German language). There also remained (an important person in the scientific life of the academy) - its former librarian, A. S. Rhodessky 441, an old servant, a candidate of our academy of the XXVI year (1865), successor to P. F. Komarov, but who inherited the spirit not of him, but of his predecessor, the unforgettable L. P. Razmusen. A. S. Rodossky was a librarian for 32 years (1876–1908) and contributed greatly to the increase in academic book wealth, the establishment of exemplary order in the library and its arrangement in new premises. In general, he was an excellent librarian, an expert on books and the history of his native academy. At the end of his life, a very valuable monument to his extensive knowledge in this area was a work worthily crowned with a prize from the Academy of Sciences: “Biographical Dictionary” 442. As a result, it turns out that the composition of academic teachers has changed greatly, it has been updated: 24 new ones have appeared, and 15 remain from the previous time. Doctoral and master's theses. And in terms of scientific and literary productivity, this 12-year period (1884–1896) lagged far behind the previous 14-year period (1869–1884): there were far fewer dissertations for doctoral and master's degrees. Five people were awarded a doctorate: 1) in 1888 - the extraordinary professor Tim. V. Barsov, for the essay “The Patriarch of Constantinople and his power over the Russian Church” (St. Petersburg, 1876) - the degree of Doctor of Church Law, “according to the conclusion of Metropolitan. Moscow" (Johnnicia), as stated in the decree of the Holy Synod (December 31, 1888) 443, 2) in 1889 - the degree of Doctor of Theology - Rev. Feofan (Govorov), former Bishop of Vladimir, the famous ascetic of Vyshensky, a wonderful theologian, - on the recommendation of the council of the Petrograd Academy, “for wonderful and numerous theological works” 444, as stated in the decree of the Holy Synod (January 27, 1890); 3) in 1892 – doctorate in church history – extraordinary professor N.V. Pokrovsky, for the essay “The Gospel in Iconographic Monuments, Mainly Byzantine and Russian” (St. Petersburg, 1892); 4) in 1896 – doctorate in church history – extraordinary professor A.I. Sadov, for the essay “The Ancient Christian Writer Lactantius” (St. Petersburg, 1895); 5) in 1896 – doctorate in church history – extraordinary professor V.V. Bolotov, for a set of “outstanding scientific works in the field of church historical science.” One cannot but recognize the very successful permission, according to the charter of 1884, to award the degree of doctor not only in theology (as was the case under the charter of 1869), but also in church history and church law. In addition to these five doctors, two more doctorates were planned: extraordinary professors Nick. I. Barsova and S.A. Sollertinsky, but the doctorate of the first did not take place due to an unfavorable review of his dissertation, and the doctorate of the second (S.A. Sollertinsky) due to some circumstances was very slow; He received his Doctor of Theology degree in 1899 (10 years after submitting his dissertation in 1889) for his essay “The Shepherding of Christ the Savior” (St. Petersburg, 1889). There were 17 master's theses. The following persons were awarded the Master of Theology degree: 1) 1889 – M. I. Savvaitsky – for the essay “The Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt”, 2) 1889 – priest Arseny Rozhdestvensky (now archpriest, rector of the embassy church in Vienna) – for the essay “South Russian Stundism”, 3) 1890 – T. A. Nalimov – “The question of papal power at the Council of Constance”, 4) 1890 – V. N. Samuilov – “History of Arianism in the Latin West (357–430)”, 5) 1890 – V. Lebedev – “Slavic translation of the book. I. Navin in surviving manuscripts and the Ostrog Bible,” 6) 1892 – V. S. Serebrenikov – “Locke’s teaching about the principles of knowledge and activity innate to the human soul, based on historical. critical research established and examined from the point of view of Christian teaching about the image of God,” 7) 1893 – N.K. Nikolsky - “On the literary works of Metropolitan. Kliment Smolyatich, writer of the 12th century,” 8) 1893 – I. Sokolov – “Church reform of Emperor Joseph II”, 9) 1894 – S. G. Runkevich – “History of the Minsk Archdiocese”, 10) 1894 – E. P. Akvilonov – “Church. Scientific definitions of the Church and the apostolic teaching about it as the body of Christ" 445, 11) 1894 - F. G. Kalugin - “Literary works of Zinovy, monk of Otensky”, 12) 1895 - A.P. Rozhdestvensky - “Revelation to Daniel about the seventy weeks. Experience of interpretation of verses 24–27 of the IX chapter of the book of the prophet Daniel”, 13) 1896 – I. E. Evseev – “The Book of the Prophet Isaiah in the Old Slavic translation”, 14) 1896 – A. V. Petrovsky – “Liturgies of the Apostles James, Thaddeus, Mary and the Evangelist Mark”, 15) 1896 – M. S. Palmov 446 – “Idolatry among the ancient Jews”, 16) 1896 – Af. Yarushevich - “The zealot of Orthodoxy, Prince Konstantin Ivanovich Ostrozhsky and Orthodox Rus' in his time,” 17) 1898 - A.I. Diamonds - “The Influence of Eastern Theology on Western Theology in the Works of John Scott Erigena” (we add this dissertation because it was approved and accepted for a master’s degree in 1895). Thus, over a 12-year period (1884–1896), five persons were awarded the doctorate degree, with three dissertations (two were honoris causa), or six (with four dissertations, if we include here S.A. Sollertinsky, who presented his dissertation in 1889 and was awarded the degree of Doctor of Theology in 1899). In the previous 14-year period (1869–1884) there were nine doctoral dissertations. 17 people wrote for the master's degree, and in the previous period - 35,447. Even if we add to these 17 dissertations from the previous 7, formally passed after 1884 (1884-1888) and counted by us to the previous time, at least half, 3-4 dissertations, then in this case the figure will be 20, 21 against 32, 31. These eloquent figures fully justify the remark of Professor Archpriest P. I. Leporsky (see above) that the abolition of specialties carried out by the charter of 1884 “had a disastrous effect on the theological thought and scientific productivity of the academy’s students.” For some reason, as noted above, the defense of doctoral dissertations at public debates was cancelled. The last doctoral debates in our academy were those between N.A. Skabalanovich and F.G. Eleonsky (May 26 and 28, 1884). Although the new charter of 1884 was approved on April 20, by this time it had not yet come into force, and therefore the dissertations of the mentioned persons were still carried out according to the previous order. The publicity of academic debates was almost completely banished in the statutes of 1884 and in the defense of master's theses. Public magisterial debates were replaced by “colloquia” in the presence of the council and “persons invited by the council” (§136 of the statute). All this was done out of antipathy to the old Tolstoy rule. However, as for the master's colloquiums, in our academy at least, they retained the same appearance and character - completely public debates: everyone who wanted came and was allowed to attend them, not excluding ladies. We don’t know how it was in other academies. We probably only know that at the Kyiv Academy they turned into purely intimate council meetings in the rector’s apartment (?!). This is correct, completely in the spirit of the charter of 1884. We were incomparably less legal - probably thanks to the great tolerance for our weaknesses of the ever-memorable Metropolitan Isidore (who was the Metropolitan of Petrograd until 1893). Our other, old hierarchs did not tolerate publicity with applause and expressions of sympathy and interest in theological debates, forgetting what happened in patristic antiquity, in the golden ages of Christianity, when they heatedly argued everywhere about religious subjects and when applause was heard even in churches, as in the time of St. John Chrysostom (which, however, this great saint did not approve of and which, of course, cannot be approved). The ideal of our old hierarchs was our Russian old, but not entirely good, time, when theological academies sat quietly in their corners, little known to society and completely uninteresting to it. It was into these blind corners that the peculiar zealots of spiritual enlightenment tried to drive them again... Council and board of the Petrograd Academy (1884–1896). According to the new charter, the council was no longer divided into general and private, but represented one indivisible whole. How he lived and acted is sufficiently clear from what has been said above about the rectors of that time. The board included all former assistants to the rector for academic affairs, deans of deceased departments: E. I. Lovyagin, M. O. Koyalovich, A. L. Katansky, and after the death of M. O. Koyalovich and the resignation of E. M. Lovyagin - Tim. V. Barsov and N. A. Skabalanovich. These board members usually presided over examination committees. It was somewhat reminiscent of the old days when they had done the same thing as assistants to the rector, but now they no longer played the same role as before. Now they had little relationship with the students and knew them little, they became acquainted with them only during exams and in general were no longer, as before, aware of student activities and moods. The official, and only unofficial, position of these 3 board members decreased not only in the board, but also in the council, and the position of the inspector increased. Previously (1869–1884), the inspector was inferior to the rector’s assistants in his importance, he followed them, which is why he signed after them in official papers. Now he, standing above them, took their place and became, as it were, the only assistant to the rector; his signature followed immediately after the rector’s, although sometimes he was only an acting assistant professor, a candidate of theology, but also an archimandrite. In a word, here too the return to the order of the old pre-reform (before 1869) time became very noticeable. Classroom sessions by academy teachers and students. The teaching of academic course subjects changed its character: specialization began to give way to the character of readings that they had before the charter of 1869 and which is well remembered by us, the old students of the academy of the pre-reform period. This can best be seen in the concrete example of teaching dogmatic theology. As we have seen, according to the statute of 1869, dogmatic theology was supposed to be “with a historical presentation of dogmas.” The Charter of 1884 destroyed this characteristic addition and thereby forced a change in the previous arrangement of readings on this subject, when, as we saw above, they were divided into three types of parallel lectures: 1) on the system of dogmatic theology and on the historical presentation of dogmas of the periods 2) biblical and 3) patristic, church. This order found support not only in the mentioned paragraph of the charter, but also in the fact that dogmatic theology was a separate subject. It was listened to only by students of the theological department, who were exempt from listening to many other subjects that were part of the course of other departments. Through this, the opportunity was given for a broad presentation of readings, for the specialization of the subject. The same happened with many other department items. Now, since 1884, with the abolition of departments, students had to listen to readings on a mass of subjects, in almost all subjects of the academic course, and therefore it was impossible to give their readings the same broad presentation. As for me, I made attempts to return to my previous manner of reading. So, in one year I read, together with dogmatic theology, a historical presentation of dogmatic data in Holy Scripture, in another year - the history of the dogmatic revelation of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity during the patristic period, in the third year - about the Face of Jesus Christ and about the grace of God, during the same period. But then I had to abandon this method and limit myself to one system of dogmatic theology, narrow my focus, and give up special courses. This was directed by the whole spirit of the statute of 1884 and the positive requirement of a special decree of the Holy Synod on the implementation of the entire program of each subject, not limited to just some of its departments. The abolition of private docents in academies (privat docents were entrusted with reading certain departments) was a clear expression of the statute’s reluctance to specialize academic teaching and was a logical consequence of the principles laid down in the statute. What happened to me, there is no doubt, happened to my other colleagues. I remember there was a loud murmur that with the new regulations, academic teaching was reduced to repeating the seminar program, and, unfortunately, there was a very significant amount of truth in this. As for the students, they, apparently, began to be less interested in the lectures of the teachers. Little by little, listening to lectures faded into the background, the classrooms began to be empty; It happened that the number of students a professor had was limited to three to five people. There were few people who wanted to repeat seminar courses, with some additions to them. And besides, there were a lot of lectures on numerous subjects of the expanded academic course; Carefully attending all lectures, even with the best intentions, was difficult and not feasible for everyone. In this state of affairs, the composition of the most valued essays began to focus primarily the attention of students. To raise the importance of their classroom activities and to encourage them to attend lectures, various measures were invented; By the way, we tried to determine the specific weight of points for exam oral answers and essays, so as not to reduce the value of the former and not to increase the weight of the latter too much. In these types, when deducing the total score from both, the system developed by Professor V.V. Bolotov, who had great mathematical abilities, among many others that distinguished this remarkable person, was adopted. Usually, at the end of the exams, he, together with Professor T. A. Nalimov, was engaged in compiling, or, better said, checking the compilation (made by the office) of exam and essay scores. But, no matter how they managed to make sure that “both the sheep were safe and the wolves were fed,” the force of things, however, took its toll, and it was very noticeable that things were moving towards the restoration of the pre-reform (before 1869) structure of academic academic life: lectures and listening to them, and at the same time partly (however, only partly, not like in our student times) examination tests faded into the background. The professors sadly had to be convinced of this and devote less attention than before to classroom studies, and more to scientists and literature. Then, the writer of these lines began to remember more and more often the words of my colleagues at the Moscow Academy, when I assumed the position of bachelor, that I “should not particularly worry about the preparation and finishing of lectures, since the lectures at their academy do not attract the attention of students, but studied the subject for myself.” Then I was full of strength and boundless energy and did not listen, but now... both have diminished greatly, and therefore I confess that in the last years of my service I did little lectures, devoting more time to scientists and literary pursuits. Academic publications. “Christian Reading” and “Church Messenger” were also going through difficult times. In 1888, with the founding of a completely official organ of the Holy Synod - “Tserkovnye Gazette”, with subscription required for all our Orthodox churches in Russia, the official part moved away from the “Tserkovny Vestnik”, which was accompanied by a drop in subscriptions to academic publications (“Tserkovny Vestnik” and “Christian Reading”). Subscriptions dropped to two thousand, instead of the previous six to seven thousand. This was accompanied by an editorial crisis: in 1893, after 8 years (1885–1893) of the editorship of Professor N.A. Skabalanovich, my successor, an experienced publicist, had to leave the editing of the Church Bulletin. It happened like this: a note was published in the “Church Bulletin” regarding military educational institutions, which aroused the displeasure of the military educational authorities. The head of the military educational institutions brought a complaint against “Ts.V.” to Metropolitan Palladius, and the Metropolitan, who was not distinguished for his steadfastness and, moreover, was very impressionable, considered himself forced to dismiss the editor. If Metropolitan Isidore had been at this time, he, no doubt, would have reassured the general with words, for example, like the following: “Why are you, general, so worried; You never know what they write about in the newspapers, calm down; So I’ll make a suggestion to the editor,” and that would be the end of it. Fortunately, N.A. Skabalanovich’s successor was a man of outstanding journalistic abilities, amazing energy and initiative. He not only saved the academic publications (“Ts.V.” and “Chronicles Read.”), united 448 under his editorship, from what seemed inevitable collapse, but also raised them to their previous heights, strengthened the subscription, mainly thanks to the publication of the translation into Russian of the complete works of St. John Chrysostom, - in the form of annual prizes (1 book each) to subscribers of academic publications. The result was amazing; gradually increasing, subscription to the Church Bulletin, by the day of its 25th anniversary in 1899, reached more than 7,200 copies! Despite my refusal (in 1885) to edit the Church Messenger, my passion for journalism continued throughout my service at my native academy, right up to my resignation, and even for some time after that, for two or three years. I was one of the most active employees of the “Church Bulletin”, published in it many, especially advanced, and other articles 449 and led permanent departments in it, namely reviews of magazine articles - first (until 1888) secular magazines, and then (until 1897) - spiritual ones. Of my articles during this time, the following are memorable to me for special reasons. In articles about our “spiritual-educational pensions” and “signs of our academic degrees” for doctors of theology and masters who do not have holy orders, I was to some extent the initiator in raising these issues and an active accomplice in their solution. Articles regarding increasing our spiritual and educational pensions will be discussed further. As for the article about the signs of our degrees, it was like this. In the 80s and 90s, the custom of marking persons with academic degrees with special signs became very widespread in all higher secular educational institutions of various departments; Absolutely everyone wore these signs: military, doctors, technologists, etc.; only we, the spiritual, were deprived of this honor. Wanting to correct this shortcoming, I decided to write the mentioned article; printed it just before August 30, 1885; not without the calculation that, perhaps, it would stir up talk among our highest hierarchy, who gathered on the occasion of the holiday (St. Alexander Nevsky) at the usual dinner on that day with Metropolitan Isidore, where we, the academy professors (however, only ordinary ones), were invited. And so it happened, the synodal authorities talked about this subject and were inclined to a positive solution to the issue of our scientific signs. We became aware of this, and our then rector, Rev. Arseny (Bryantsev) could already boldly initiate in the council (October 31, 1885) a petition to the Holy Synod for the granting of special breastplates for doctors and masters of theology who do not have holy orders, citing both my article in the “Church Bulletin” and the special attached written report of mine on this matter. The Holy Synod reacted very favorably to the council’s petition and on December 5, 1885, by its decree, it ordered the council of the Petrograd Academy “to take care of drawing up designs for breastplates for the doctor and master of theology.” A commission was formed - from ordinary professor A. L. Katansky and extraordinary professor N. V. Pokrovsky, to draw up a draft of drawings of breastplates. However, our first draft of drawings, which brought our signs closer to those of the university, was rejected by the Holy Synod, and, on the instructions of the Holy. Synod, the current drawings were developed. Professor N.V. Pokrovsky took a great part in the development of drawings. The article “about movements among our highest hierarchy” (Ts.V., 1887, No. 5) was of a rather sensitive nature. It consisted of historical information and was directed against the practiced and hitherto, unfortunately, preserved custom of transferring our bishops from one see to another, and could not please the hierarchs. In addition, it was written just at a time when the “Church Messenger” had just been subject to rector’s censorship; up to that time it had been uncensored. My article was to be published as an editorial in the first issue, subject to the censor signature of the then rector, Rev. Anthony (Vadkovsky). Due to the sensitivity of the topic, I had to first talk with Rev. Anthony, but, to my pleasant surprise, he did not find any obstacles to its publication and directly stated that he completely agreed with me. Such an outcome of this matter would hardly have been possible under his predecessor, Rev. Arsenia (Bryantsev). After the article was published, neither me nor the censor received any comments or reprimands; Our hierarchs may have grumbled to themselves, but they wisely remained silent. More than once I had to remind Rev. Anthony that he remained faithful to the opinion he expressed, since before his appointment to the Petrograd Metropolis (which was also allowed by ancient church practice - election to the capital see from bishops of other cities) he was the bishop of only one city - Vyborg, first as Bishop of Vyborg, vicar of the Petrograd Metropolis, and then as Archbishop of Finland and Vyborg. The article in “Christian Reading” (1893) “On the procession of the Holy Spirit, regarding the old Catholic question” owes its origin to the following circumstances. At the end of 1892, in December, at the insistence of Protopresbyter I. L. Yanyshev before the Sovereign Emperor Alexander III, the Holy Synod, by Imperial command, appointed “a commission to preliminary clarify the conditions that could form the basis of negotiations on the union of the Old Catholics with the Orthodox Russian Church.” This commission, chaired by Archbishop Anthony of Finland, included: Protopresbyter I.L. Yanyshev, Archpriest I.A. Smirnov (Chairman of the Spiritual Educational Committee at the Holy Synod), Archpriest I. A. Lebedev (member of the Spiritual Educational Committee), Archpriest Alex. A. Lebedev (rector of the Kazan Cathedral), professors I.E. Troitsky, A.L. Katansky and V.V. Bolotov (who is also the commission’s clerk). They also joined here, not being members of the commission, but diligently visiting it: General A. A. Kireev - as an amateur and V. K. Sabler. During the commission’s studies and in a private conversation (one evening, the three of us, with the Most Reverend Anthony), it became clear that there was a complete difference in the views of mine and V.V. Bolotov on the teaching of the ancient holy fathers on the procession of the Holy Spirit. In order to develop and justify my view, I published my article and thus kept the promise I made to my honorable opponent in the heat of the argument. The articles of the “Church Bulletin” about the Church (“On the scientific and theological definitions of the Church,” 1894; “On the formulation of a treatise on the Church in the science of dogmatic theology” and “On the Head of the Church Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit Paraclete,” 1895) were caused by the story of Aquilon’s dissertation. No one forced me to come to her defense, but I considered it my moral duty and was motivated by my inner need to clarify the essence of the dogmatic concept of the Church, in contrast to the church-historical, canonical, etc., and to eliminate the mass of misunderstandings that arise from this. These articles of the “Church Bulletin” about the Church, together with the article in “Christian Reading” about the procession of the Holy Spirit, are the last experiments in my independent theology during the period of my professorial service - according to the model and in the spirit of the ancient holy fathers of the Church, and not according to the leadership of Western scholastic, mainly Roman Catholic systems, and if they are of any value, then they owe this solely to the influence of the patristic works on their author. Double trip abroad. In 1886 and 1887, I, together with my wife, had to make two trips abroad to improve my poor health. The doctors prescribed Carlsbad waters for us. For two years in a row we had to endure a 4-week course of treatment. Both trips were very useful not only in terms of improving my health, but also in many other respects. On our first trip to Carlsbad, via Berlin and Dresden, in 1886, we were struck by the extraordinary changes in the improvement of Berlin. For the twenty years that elapsed after our honeymoon trip in 1866 and then in 1867, Berlin was unrecognizable; from a run-down city (much worse than Petrograd), which it was in 1866-67, it turned, thanks to billions of French indemnities, into the magnificent capital of Germany. Dresden (the distance from Berlin, by fast train, is only 3 hours!), compared to Berlin, turned out to be a quiet, provincial city, like Tver compared to Moscow. In Dresden, where we stayed for two days, quite unexpectedly (in the lobby of the hotel where we were staying) we ran into Ya. E. Smirnov, a former private lecturer at our academy, and then rector of our Dresden Embassy Church. He was warmly received in his apartment and toured our small but elegant church and its orchard, where magnificent duchess pears ripened. We then visited the famous Dresden Art Gallery with a painting of Our Lady, Raphael (Sistine Madonna), examined other remarkable places in Dresden and went to Carlsbad (8 hours drive from Dresden). Here we were met by our Russian priest N.P. Apraksin and psalm-reader N.V. Potashev, who were our leaders in a new place, in a foreign land. They formed the clergy of our Orthodox Church in the city of Prague itself, but in the summer they usually moved to Carlsbad for Russian visitors to Carlsbad waters. The Russian church in Carlsbad, which was then located in a private house (now a separate building has been built - with domes, in the form of an ordinary beautiful Russian church), in a remote, invisible part of this town, gave the impression of being very modest. In addition, the house was leaning against a rock, from which water seeped, which caused terrible dampness in the lower floor of the house, where the priest and psalm-reader had their apartment; the top floor was occupied by a church. Carlsbad, a small town located in a narrow valley along a very small river Tepla (the Czech name is from the hot springs flowing into it) and surrounded by picturesque forest-covered mountains, is like one vast hotel: all the houses are rented out for the summer as rooms for the sick. The town itself does not represent anything interesting, and if anything diversifies the monotonous life in it, it is only the crowds of people of all kinds of European nationalities flocking there for treatment, and walks through the surrounding towns. The indigenous inhabitants of Carlsbad, the Czechs, do not play a leading role in the city, giving way to the Germans and occupying lower positions (servants, cab drivers, postmen, etc.). This lower brethren is very friendly towards the Russians, but it is not they who give the tone of life. At the end of the treatment, my wife and I decided to take a trip to Paris to visit her homeland again, and probably for the last time. We drove from July 15 through Bavaria, Württemberg, Baden, past Würzburg, Heidelberg and Strasbourg. Despite the very early morning (4 hours), we managed to explore the famous Strasbourg Cathedral. I use the preserved diary (the only time in my life I kept a diary - only when traveling abroad, this and next year), which contains the following. From Strasbourg the road follows Alsace, cut through by the Vosges Mountains. The Vosges is covered with fir and occasionally pine trees; Sometimes there are also sparse birch trees. Countless tunnels; the train constantly cuts through the mountains. In the valleys is the Paris Canal, covered with barges and superbly maintained. Behind the last Vosges comes Lorraine; stretches the same Paris Canal, lined with poplars. The area is covered with fields of wheat, etc. We were very sorry that the Germans got it all. Starting from Avricourt (the French border), the area has changed (though not very much), and most importantly, the character of the buildings and everything you see has changed: you feel that this is truly “la belle France”. But the French people have become somehow ruder than before; for example, the conductors have lost their former politeness, and they are kind of dirty. Upon arrival in Paris, this impression was strengthened by the customs inspection, which was very picky and rude. We attributed this to the fact that the train was coming from Strasbourg... and that they were looking for contraband (Strasbourg pie) from us. The unfavorable impression of the Paris of that time intensified even more the next day, when, having settled in the Veretennikov Hotel 450, which was then well-known and promoted in the newspapers, we got up in the morning and looked out into the street (a small alley, close, however, to the central streets): and saw on the pavement a mass of garbage that had not been collected during the night (which was previously done by carts driving around Paris at night). Then it turned out that the whole of Paris, not only in the back alleys, but also in the central streets, had lost its former ideal purity from the time of Napoleon III. First of all, of course, we went to the center of the Russian colony, rue de la Croix (then called “rue Daru”, and now “rue Pierre le Grand”), where our Russian church and church houses are located, visited the native places and members of our clergy, including the rector, Archpriest V.A. Prilezhaev (successor of Father I.V. Vasiliev) and another priest, his wife’s uncle, Archpriest D.V. Vasilyeva. We lived in Paris for 25 days (July 16 - August 10), most often visited the Russian church, where we enjoyed the singing of a wonderful choir of French theater artists (this choir is so good that it fits the best Petrograd parish choir), several times we visited Cluny, the Luxembourg Museum, the Church of the Invalides, visited the Louvre many times, climbed the Arc de Triomphe, the Trocadero (where we saw from the tower all of Paris), the Montmarte cemetery, the Pere Lachaise cemetery, full of magnificent monuments to famous people and writers of France (La Fontaine, Corneille, Racine and many others, up to and including Arago and Thiers), were at the famous Grand Opera, in the Bois de Boulogne, traveled along the Seine by steamship, and along the underground circular road (Circulaire), visited the Jardin d'Acclimatation des Plantes, were in the house Russian embassy (rue de Frenelle). The most interesting were visits to Notre Dame, the Sorbonne, and the Invalides. On the occasion of August 15 (new style), the day of the Dormition of the Mother of God, a national church holiday, I went to Notre Dame. Driving on a tram past the place where the now destroyed Tuilerie Palace stood (not a single stone remains from it), I ask a French neighbor if this building will ever be restored - “jamais” (never) - I receive an angry, curt answer. “Why?” “Because,” my interlocutor answers, “get a cage, and a bird will appear.” The newly appointed Parisian Archbishop Richard, one of the Parisian vicars, served in the cathedral on this day. This is the custom of the Roman Church; future successors of diocesan bishops are usually appointed vicars, and in this case it is impossible not to give preference to the orders of this Church over our transfers of bishops from one see to another. It was almost then that the idea arose for me to write the above-mentioned article: “On movements among our highest hierarchy.” The bishop's service in the Paris Cathedral seemed to me, although solemn, but less magnificent than ours, especially in the parts (ceremonies) related to the person of the officiating bishop. At the end of the liturgy, when the archbishop walked into the sacristy to be unmasked, he struck me with his exquisite courtesy towards the persons who approached for his blessing, with bows and ingratiating (so it seemed to me) smiles. It was as if he was thanking the relatively few, for a city of many millions, visitors to the capital’s cathedral church on the day of its main church holiday. There were relatively few people, the church was far from full, so the thought inevitably came to mind about the decline of religiosity in France, at least in Paris. Of great interest to me was a visit to the Sorbonne, a very old building, representing a dark quadrangular structure with a small courtyard in the middle, lined with slabs. Several young abbots walked around here along with secular students. I looked for classrooms for a long time, finally found them, and they turned out to be very modest, to say the least - much worse than our academic ones. At this time, lectures were not given, but exams were in progress; I got into one of them in philosophy, at the faculty of l'ecole des hautes sciences. The meeting was not in the auditorium, but in one of the upper halls, far from unprepossessing, with a low ceiling and very modestly furnished. The examination was carried out by a commission of three professors (like ours); the students answered sitting and with the oratorical techniques and eloquence characteristic of the French; One student's answer was so long that I did not wait for it to finish. A visit to the Invalides House, with an inspection of the premises of its inhabitants and the church with the tomb of Napoleon I, is memorable for the conversation with the guard who accompanied us. I ask where Napoleon III is buried. “He is not here, only Napoleon I is here,” received an angry answer. “Where is Napoleon III?” There was no answer. To tell the truth, I asked these questions with a crafty goal - to piss off the Frenchman a little for the Crimean and Sevastopol war 451. The next year, 1887, we, on the advice of doctors, repeated the trip to Carlsbad. And this time we enjoyed the hospitality of Fr. N.P. Apraksina and his wife, and together with them, and even with several other compatriots whom they met during routine visits to the priest’s apartment after services, took frequent walks through the picturesque surroundings of this resort. The notebook preserved from this trip contains little of general interest. Only noted: the replacement of the unfortunate psalm-reader N.V. Potashev (who fell ill with mental illness and sent to a hospital in Petrograd) by Deacon N.M. Rudnev (for the vacancy of a psalm-reader), the nephew of Metropolitan Ioannikiy (Rudnev), then - I performed the duties of an elder in place of some aristocrat who was absent, who was listed in this position. The extremely meager collections during church services are interesting: for example, on the eve of the local feast of Sts. The apostles Peter and Paul collected only 1 guilder. “There were very few people,” it says in the notebook. The arrival of the Austrian Crown Princess Stephanie, wife of the unfortunate Rudolf, to Carlsbad is described in detail; prominent, quite beautiful. After describing the decorations of the city, almost exclusively with fir branches (both cheap and beautiful), it was noted: “Order during the meeting of the princess was maintained by citizens who performed the duties of troops, policemen, and firefighters: various tailors, merchants, shoemakers dressed up in military costumes and marched through the city.” From these same Czechs - shoemakers, tailors, etc. - it should be noted that Fr. N.P. Apraksin and the church choir (seven people). About one such singing shoemaker, Fr. April said that he was distinguished by a peculiar ambition: he refused, for example, to sew the maid’s shoes, declaring that he would sew them for the lady, but not for the servants. Many funny stories are dedicated in the notebook to the samovar that we brought as a gift to the landlady of our Carlsbad premises 452. I forgot to say that both years we lived in one of the best streets - Parkstrasse, just opposite the Jewish synagogue, a magnificent building, with an excellent cantor who could compete with the best opera singer. This synagogue constantly stood before our eyes, as if to contrast with our poor church. From Carlsbad we did not go straight home, but went to Prague and Vienna. Prague positively charmed us. We never expected it to be such a magnificent city, with such a wonderful location and very beautiful buildings, with a strong industrial and commercial movement, reminiscent in many ways, both in this last and other respects, of Moscow. In Prague there is also a kind of Kremlin - “Hradcany”. This is a rather elevated mountain, standing not only in the middle, like the Moscow Kremlin, but on the side of the city. Hradcan also offers extensive views of Prague; Historical monuments of Czech antiquity are concentrated here, as we will see later. To top off the similarities, a river flows at the foot of Hradcan - Moldava, or Voldava. A magnificent bridge is thrown across the river - no longer like the Moscow one, leading to Zamoskvorechye (a feature of difference), furnished with numerous, elegantly made statues, by the way, and the statue of “Nepomuk”. We started our tour of Hradcany from this place. From here there is a road going uphill between houses. Halfway up the mountain is the house of the chief military commander, and at the top is a huge palace and next to it is the house of the archbishop. In the palace we saw two magnificent huge halls - the Spanish and the dining room; the first is illuminated by a thousand candles, the second by three thousand. Then we admired the then-renewed majestic Cathedral of St. Witt, which, according to its construction, should compete with the Gothic churches of the West. The most interesting thing was a visit to the old Landstag hall, from the window of which three councilors were once thrown into a ditch, which, as our Czech companions told us, served as the reason for the 30-year war; then we saw Vladislav’s large “oath hall” and the hall of the “old diet”, and went down to the prison of the old tower. These Czech antiquities, although somewhat reminiscent of the Moscow Kremlin ones, but, of course, our Moscow Kremlin is immeasurably superior to the Czech Hradcany. In “Vysehrad”, located on a lower hill adjacent to Hradcany, we visited the cemetery church and here we had the opportunity to hear, instead of our reading of the psalter for the dead, an original, mournful singing, recitative, of some poems by a choir of old women and old men, over the body of a just deceased “probosch” (archpriest). We saw a lot of wonderful things in Prague, thanks to our friends Fr. Apraksin to the Czechs (especially Mr. Blazhey), who were given advance notice of our arrival there. We visited the town hall with a painting of Hus at his trial - inside it, and outside - the famous astronomical clock: with figures of the apostles, the Savior, death and a man with a bag and a stick - figures that come out every hour in a famous procession. Our Russian Orthodox Church is located near the town hall. It represents a large building, which, unfortunately, does not at all resemble our Russian church in its architecture. This is a former Roman Catholic monastery leased by our government for 30 years. We visited a Czech museum rich in antiquities, where we saw the famous Claredworth Manuscript. We toured a beautiful Czech theater, built with public money, as expressed in the corresponding inscription, and much more. In Prague, the sympathy of the Czechs for Russia and everything Russian is very noticeable. So, in some restaurants we met: in one (Chodera) a beautiful copy of Makovsky’s painting “Boyar Wedding”, and in another (Slavia) - Russian newspapers, including “Novoye Vremya”, “Niva”. Not to mention the joy that lit up the faces of the Czechs when they learned that we were Russians. On the other hand, we were extremely pleased at every step to encounter signs of the close relationship of these Western Slavs with us in some words, for example, in the count: one, two, tschi (the only difference from our “three”), four, five, etc. up to ten 453, or to meet inscriptions on the streets: street such and such, divadlo (theater), lekarna (pharmacy), etc. Professor A. S. Budilovich, who On the way back through Warsaw, we expressed surprise that the Czechs did not want to use such words as generally accepted ones (for example, pharmacy), I noticed: the Czechs unusually protect the purity of their language, and therefore even remake the names of sciences in the Slavic manner, such as, for example, “arithmetic,” calling it “accounting.” This is who, I thought, our writing and teaching brethren, who love to flaunt expressions borrowed from foreign languages, could learn from. In general, Prague amazed us with a very high culture, moreover, of a purely Slavic type. In addition, visiting her was of great importance for me personally: it made me enter, so to speak, into the taste of Western Slavism. Before, I had no interest in him. Only after visiting Prague did I feel the justice of the reproach once made to me by V. K. Sabler, when I was editor of the Church Bulletin, that I pay too little attention to the Western Slavs. This reproach was expressed in a note sent to me. From Prague we drove to Vienna, where we lived for ten days. Here, first of all, we went to our church, alas!, which amazed us with its squalor. To begin with, it was located in one of the invisible streets (Wallfischgasse), in a private house. It was impossible to even suspect that there was a church of God in this house: there was a boot hanging above the entrance from the street in this house (?!). The church was located on the top floor and had the appearance of a very poor house church 454. It was Sunday; there were quite a lot of people; Czech singers and other Slavs sang loudly, but not entirely harmoniously. The whole parable was familiar to me for a long time. The rector, Archpriest A. V. Nikolaevsky, my fellow countryman, close to me since my student days (see Chapter III of my “Memoirs”), the deputy also of our fellow countryman, Archpriest M. F. Raevsky 455 (a well-known public figure, an ardent and skillful defender of the interests of the Western Orthodox Slavs), was also a very worthy shepherd, although in a completely different way than his predecessor. Very representative appearance, Fr. Nikolaevsky made a strong impression with his exemplary performance of divine services, and as a person he had rare spiritual qualities. The remaining members of the clergy were also well known to me, as students of our academy: psalm-readers - K.Ya. Siletsky (Vladimir, candidate of 1880) and A.F. Skuratovich (Minsk, candidate of 1881); There was also a deacon, it seems, a graduate of the Moscow Academy (but I forgot his last name). Here, in the church, after the service, we met the venerable F.I. Uspensky, then a professor at Odessa University, then director of the Archaeological Institute in Constantinople, now a member of the Academy of Sciences. Under the leadership of these individuals, especially Fr. Archpriest A.V. Nikolaevsky, began sightseeing in Vienna and its surroundings. We started with the church of St. Stephen's, Vienna Cathedral. We visited it on August 15, new style. It was the day of the Dormition of the Mother of God. There was an archbishop's ministry. What struck us most was the presence in the church of a full musical orchestra with violins, cellos, drums and other orchestral accessories - up to and including green lampshades in front of the musicians, just like in theaters. During the service, the orchestra performed various musical, purely operatic pieces. Another feature: the Cathedral of St. Stefan was represented then (I don’t know how it is now) by a passage building, which, among other things, served to connect two streets: one could often see servants and other people passing through it with purchases. In general, we noticed even less religiosity in Vienna than in Paris during last year’s visit to the Parisian Notre Dame Cathedral, on the same Assumption Day. We traveled a lot in Vienna and its environs: in old Vienna (where the Church of St. Stephen is located and where we lived near it, on the Graben), with its dark buildings and narrow streets, and in new Vienna, with its wide avenues and luxurious buildings of the latest character, with the famous Ring, where the most beautiful, even magnificent buildings are located: museums (then just being rebuilt), parliament, town hall, university, elegant, as if in lace, Votivkirche, etc. We visited the Capuchin church, where the Austrian emperors and their families are buried, with rather elaborate, but impressive monuments, then the Ambraz collection, next to the Belvedere and in connection with it. The first contains knightly weapons and Roman and Egyptian antiquities (the mummies of people and crocodiles are remarkable). The Belvedere with its garden resembles Versailles, and with its art galleries and halls it resembles the Parisian Louvre, but is much poorer in paintings than the latter. The most remarkable of them: Ecce homo - Titian. We were also in the vicinity of Vienna, by the way - in Schönbrunn, where there is a palace and a lovely park. One place in particular in the park is remarkable: it is an area formed by a semicircle of trees planted and very skillfully trimmed; between them, as if in niches, 20 statues were placed, 10 on each side. We were, of course, in the Prater and in the Volksgarten, where the “Church of Theseus” is located with the marvelous statue of Canova “Theseus defeating the Centaur”. We traveled both on the rack railway to Kahlenberg and on the electric railway, to the outskirts of Vienna (by the way, to the dacha of Archpriest Nikolaevsky), to Roduan (35 minutes drive from Vienna), and we noticed that the Viennese dachas were furnished in a purely urban manner, not like our Petrograd ones, with shabby furniture. But, in general, we didn’t like Vienna much. It reeked of some rather nasty mixture of a sugary-sweet-bitter taste; one could feel the mixture of the most heterogeneous elements: Slavic with German-Magyar and Jewish-Polish. We returned home through Warsaw, where we met with A. S. Budilovich, then a professor at the University of Warsaw, dean of the Faculty of Philology. Under his leadership, we examined Warsaw, which seemed to us a very beautiful city, but almost not Russian at all. If it weren’t for the policemen and the frequently encountered officers and soldiers (by the way, very brave people), one would think that you were still abroad. We stopped in Vilna to explore this ancient city, and at the same time to visit my former colleague at the Moscow Academy, its once extraordinary professor, A.F. Lavrov, and then Archbishop Alexy of Vilna. We found him at the bishop's dacha, near the city. He received us very kindly and cordially. We remembered the old - posad - time. In Vilna, in addition to visiting the Holy Spiritual Monastery with a theological seminary, the Orthodox cathedral with the three Vilna martyrs who rest in it, and the veneration of the ancient Ostrobramskaya Icon of the Mother of God, we were able to see the pilgrimage of Catholics through the Passion of the Lord, with stations of these passions deliberately arranged near the city, according to Roman Catholic custom. We didn’t like Vilna at all; it seemed like a rather dirty, Jewish city. To form a different opinion about it, it would probably be necessary to live in it longer, and not for two or three days, as we had to do. People who lived in it for a long time, such as my friend and comrade Professor F. G. Eleonsky, spoke about it differently. My 25th anniversary. The following year, after my trip abroad, 1888, marked the 25th anniversary of my service. My holiday was very modest 456. I received a lot of greetings - both from my then colleagues at the Petrograd Academy, and from former colleagues at the Moscow Academy, as well as from my former students at both. Of these latter, greetings from letters from D.I. Tikhomirov 457, then a teacher at the Mogilev Theological Seminary (now a member of the Theological Educational Committee of the Holy Synod), and V.I. Bellavin (then a teacher at the Pskov Theological Seminary, now Archbishop Tikhon of Moscow) 458, who had just completed an academic course, including same 1888, - one of the most talented students of this course. They spoke with great warmth about my feasible labors in teaching dogmatic theology and about the benefits of my readings “for the theological development of students,” which was especially noted in the letter of V. I. Bellavin. It was also said with considerable sympathy (in a letter from D.I. Tikhomirov) about the arousal of “scientific interest” in students and about “my scientific and literary works”, about “valuable articles in the Church full of vital truth. Bulletin". My former students at the Moscow Academy did not forget me, and I received several greetings from them that touched me, namely from A. A. Tyazhelov 459, V. P. Slansky and S. I. Miropolsky 460. In the latter’s extensive letter, along with the good memory of me as a former teacher of church archeology at the Moscow Academy, there is the following, very comforting information regarding the fruits of teaching dogmatic theology at the Petrograd Academy. “As an inspector of theological educational institutions, who has observed their internal life for 18 years, I can state, to your consolation, that the teachers of theology in theological educational institutions who have left under your leadership are distinguished by rare qualities among their comrades. They combine their love for their subject with excellent scientific training, work with exemplary diligence, and are quite conscientious and have a beneficial influence on their students. They all remember you with gratitude; They are tied to you not only by respect for your high scientific merits, but also by your kindness, which I, your former student, was the first to experience.” The duty of justice and impartiality requires, however, to note that the said comforting phenomenon, which I heard about from other people (for example, from my former student comrade, Most Rev. Vladimir (Nikolsky), once rector of the Samara Seminary; † Bishop of Nizhny Novgorod), depended to a much greater extent on the general rise of academic education and the revival of theological thought at that time than on the activities of individuals, and that only a certain small a particle fell to their share, like me, a professor of that time. What especially touched me and, so to speak, brightened up my whole little holiday, was the following telegram that I received from the corporation of teachers of the Moscow Theological Academy. “Reverend A.L.! Highly honoring your talented scientific works, your truly honest service to spiritual journalism, we sincerely greet you on the 25th anniversary of your academic service today and wish you many years of continuation of your most useful activities. Professors and associate professors of the Moscow Academy." (Captions follow) 461 . I confess that it was extremely pleasant and comforting for me to hear such a flattering and, moreover, authoritative – from the vast majority of the corporation of academic mentors – assessment of my not only scientific, but also spiritual and journalistic activities. Probably this latter was the main reason for sending the said telegram from the Moscow Academy, dear to me, the first place of my service (1863–1867). Our private professorial printing house; typographic activity of Professor F. G. Eleonsky and my participation in it. 462. Soon after my anniversary, two years later, in 1890-1891, a new unusual job and concern fell on my head in managing the printing house, which at that time was the property of us and Professor F. G. Eleonsky, my colleague and close relative, my paternal uncle. The history of this printing house is interesting. It appeared as a result of the attempt of my friend and colleague F. G. El-go to escape from the grip of oppressive material need upon his transfer from Vilna, where he was a seminary teacher (1864–1870), to serve at the Petrograd Academy. Having entered it in 1870, with the rank of associate professor, already a family man, and soon having received an increase in the family to three people, besides himself and his wife, and then, out of his rare kindness, sheltering his sister-in-law, the widow S.K. Replovskaya 463 with four children, thus finding himself tenth, and receiving a salary of only 100 rubles a month, of course, without a government apartment, F. G. Eleonsky felt the hopelessness of his financial situation and decided to look for some means to improve it. Not soon, after four years, such a remedy was found. Together with the lecturer of the French language at our academy, A.I. Popovitsky, who in 1874 planned to publish the much-acclaimed liberal newspaper “Church and Public Bulletin”, F.G. El-yi decided on a bold undertaking - to found his own printing house, in partnership with A.I. Pop-m, on equal shares. They found a small printing house (Litvinova, on the former Prudki, on the Greek Avenue), with one inferior, old speed printing machine and with a small amount of font. They bought it for a small price (about two to three thousand rubles) and began to manage it. The entire burden of managing the printing house fell on F. G. El. alone, who received a special reward for this, in addition to a certain part of the dividend received at the end of the year for the payment of all costs and debts of the printing house. Things went very well. At that time there were relatively few printing houses in Petrograd; prices for printing work were quite high; Jews had not yet managed to take over the printing business, having previously devalued it in order to kill competition with them, as happened later, towards the end of the 80s and in the 90s. Since 1874, F. G. Eleonsky, thus, could breathe freely, in the sense of freeing him from the oppressive worries of a piece of bread for his large family. This printing house, which was then branded “Tip. A.I. Popovitsky and K.”, soon gained significant popularity among our academic and generally spiritual world; there was more than enough work for her, and this led to her expansion (purchase of a new printing machine, font, etc.) and, naturally, to a decrease in the dividend, which, in turn, had an unpleasant effect on the head of the company - A.I.P. - and his family, who expected big profits from the printing house. In view of such circumstances and the complete indifference of A. I. P-go to the common cause, my friend F. G. El-y began to convince me to buy A. I. P-go’s share and, instead of the latter, be his partner. He asked me to do this as a personal favor to him and made a promise that my participation in this enterprise would not involve me in any troubles and would not involve me in a practical sphere of activity for which I did not consider myself capable; said that he takes upon himself the entire burden of managing the printing house. So it was for the time being, for a whole 13-14 years, after I in 1876, after considerable hesitation, agreed to fulfill his desire and persistent request and became his partner instead of A.I. Popovitsky, buying his share, but at a significantly increased valuation, due to the expansion of the printing house. Since then, our printing house began to carry a new company, called “Type. F.G. Eleonsky and K-o”, by “K-o” I meant. At this time, over 13–14 years, the printing house expanded greatly and was enriched with a lot of work. It published, in addition to the “Church and Public Bulletin”, “Christian Reading”, our academic dissertations and works of professors, textbooks on the Law of God and the Sacred History of Archpriests: D. P. Sokolov, A. P. Rudakov, M. V. Cheltsov and others, numerous publications of the commission of public readings, works and publications of the society for the dissemination of religious and moral education in the spirit of the Orthodox Church, some publications of the Archaeographical Commission, some works on the Ministry of Public Education, many publications by the bookseller I. L. Tuzov and much more, and in recent years - even the daily newspaper “Den”. It was necessary not only to increase the number of fast printing machines (up to four or five), to expand the printing house premises, but also to install gas engines, a stereotype, not to mention the type and other printing supplies 464. The soul of the printing house was F. G. El-ii, a remarkably tireless and gifted worker. He somehow managed to work successfully and fruitfully in the scientific field - fulfilling his professorial duties with the utmost conscientiousness, even publishing his excellent doctoral dissertation in 1884 - and at the same time, he conducted the printing business with a firm and skillful hand. During this happy time, the printing house did not give me any troubles or worries. My participation in printing affairs was expressed only in conversations about them, and in discussing emergency situations in the life of the printing house, for example, during its expansion, purchase and installation of its large accessories, such as machines, gas engines, stereotypes and the like. But suddenly all this changed dramatically. Completely unexpectedly, and far from much to my pleasure, I had to change with F.G. El. roles: he would turn into my partner, and I would find myself at the head of the company and give it my last name, so that the printing house turned into “Type. A.L. Katansky and K.”, and this is how it happened. On one of the not particularly happy days for both of us, as it later turned out, F.G. comes to me. and states that he received from the director of the Economic Administration under the Holy Synod, A.G. Ilyinsky, an offer to take the place of manager of the Synodal Printing House. Asks for my advice. What could I do? On the one hand, I was very happy for my friend, in view of the expansion of the range of his practical activities, the recognition of his merits as an outstanding typographic figure, and the very significant increase in his well-being in his new position (up to 4,000 rubles in salary for a finished apartment), on the other hand, I was very discouraged and embarrassed by the unexpected work that fell to my lot, for which I recognized myself to be very little capable. I answered my friend in the sense that if I were guided only by selfish motives, then, of course, I should give advice - to refuse a flattering and very profitable offer, but I cannot do this in good conscience and accept the burden of managing our printing house, with the condition, however, of its sale as soon as possible. So, quite unexpectedly, I became a real typographer and little by little I got involved in the printing business. At first I walked around the printing house as a guest; it seemed that I had nothing to do; everything goes according to routine. But the more time passed, the more and more things turned out to be, and it ended with the fact that even if you sat in the printing house all day, you couldn’t change things. Both the work and the workers began to greatly occupy and excite them. Sometimes there is a lot of work, sometimes there is little work; drawing up invoices for work and receiving money for them, paying creditors to the printing house, balancing balances (income and expenses), paying typesetters and other printing workers, dealing with various clashes between them and the administration of the printing house (factors, meters, machine foremen, etc.) - all this took a lot of time and effort. Let me share with the readers my impressions that I gained from four or five years of close acquaintance with working typographic people. Little by little, good, even cordial relations were established with the typesetters, a very developed people, but who then (I don’t know how they do now) suffered from an all-Russian weakness for vodka. The initial hot temper in response to the rude antics and outrages of drunk people - which led to extreme insolence on their part - was soon replaced by a compassionate and patient attitude towards them. Not paying attention to their drunken enthusiasm, turning a deaf ear to their antics, you would quietly ask them to calm down, to send someone from their family in their place in order to receive money on account or in full. The quarrels mostly took place over wages, which one did not want to give to a very drunk worker. Sometimes, when such a worker asked for money in advance for his urgent needs (such as buying boots or repairing them), then, after examining a certain extreme need, for example, examining boots or other parts of a suit, you give him money, with the obligation to show the purchase or repair, which was usually done; but there was no way to guarantee that in the coming days the unfortunate man would not again find himself without boots or other accessories of the suit. We often had to wonder where the typesetters got money for drinks: we had no calculations or calculations, and there were several drunk people, and often just at a time when intensive work was going on at the printing house. During the investigation, the answer usually received was that “it’s impossible to get money for bread, but you can always get money for drink, anyone will give it.” There was a kind of brotherhood between the typesetters not only of one printing house, but also of others, and the receipt of money in one printing house was reflected in the workers of another. This fraternization, a kind of corporate connection among typesetters, sometimes, however, turned out to be useful for the owners, for example, in those cases when, due to a lack of work, they had to take very unprofitable work, by the way, most of the publications were published by the famous bookseller I.L. Tuzov, who did not like to pamper printing houses with high prices for typesetting and printing. In these cases, we turned to the oldest, most authoritative typesetters with the question of whether, in consultation with their comrades, they could be content with a certain reduced fee for typesetting (from 100 letters of a well-known font) and whether the printing house should take this work at all so as not to be at a loss. Workers usually agreed to a minimum wage just to avoid missing out on work. We also had home-grown typesetters from printing house students; they later turned out to be the best of the workers. Printing students, during their studies, were sent to public schools on certain days. There was also a typesetters' cash desk, set up by F. G. El-m. The intelligence of the typesetters was sometimes downright amazing. I often heard from them, when typing manuscripts, criticism of the typed text, such as the following remarks: “What nonsense, what nonsense; Was it worth printing? One speech in particular struck us at our typographic festival, December 6, St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, patron saint of all miserable typographers. As far as I know, all printing houses considered this day their special typographic holiday. So it was with us; a prayer service was served with the blessing of water; then followed “great consolation” for the brethren with an abundance of drinks and food. All the workers were present (up to fifty to sixty people) and, of course, we, the owners with their families. The former owner, A.I. Popovitsky, also attended these holidays even after he ceased to be the owner of the printing house. On one of these holidays, a drunken worker suddenly approaches him and says the following as a greeting: “You, A.I., write so easily and beautifully (meaning the articles “Ts.-O.V.”), not that it’s very deep, but it’s very, very pleasant to read you.” Remarkably true characterization of 465! F.G. and I had to listen to toasts with an outpouring of feelings from the workers. In general, it should be noted that the printing house gave me a wonderful opportunity to become closely acquainted not only with many outstanding literary and public figures of that time, but also with the advantages and disadvantages of our Russian working people and to feel, in essence, their beautiful soul, despite the ulcers and growths grafted onto it by the conditions of our people’s life and city, metropolitan life. In the end, I became so close to the working environment that I even parted with it with some sadness when the long-desired and expected time came to transfer the printing house to other hands. However, we had to wait a long time for this moment, that is, the sale of the printing house. They even threatened us that this was an impossible task, that there would be no buyer, given the extraordinary proliferation of printing houses in Petrograd and the takeover of the printing business by the Jews. But, fortunately for us, a buyer finally appeared in the person of a representative of one very reputable company - Partnership S.P. Yakovlev”, who had his own branches in some cities, except Petrograd, and wished to establish his own printing house here too. The matter could not have happened without a commission agent (in words, Mr. Leman), who had to pay a certain amount for the commission. The deal finally took place at the end of 1894 - however, under conditions that were far from favorable to us, for half the amount of its actual value (for 18 and a half thousand), but in cash and, moreover, in respectable, purely Russian hands (S.P. Yakovlev was a nobleman who was even in the court service, a chamberlain or a chamberlain cadet). There were much more lucrative offers from the Jews, but we rejected them. In the end, over the 21 years of its existence, our printing house brought in not much more than the government interest (that is, 5%) on the capital expended, as one would expect from a professorial printing house. She ate a huge amount of the money she earned herself, absorbed it into herself, thanks to her expansion and the enormous increase in her inventory, almost ten times its original volume. In addition, she suffered a big loss, 8 thousand rubles, on the printing of the newspaper “Den”, because she did not pay the cost of typing and printing for 8 months. We were ruined by excessive delicacy and trust in its publisher, a certain A. A. Greve, a former officer who wanted to gain literary fame (for a long time, for several years - it seems, two or three years, if not more - he carefully paid his bills, and then went on a spree), and, in particular, in the editor of this newspaper, I. V. Skvortsov 466. It seemed to us that this latter, as having come from our midst, as a graduate of the Moscow Academy, should have warned us against financial collapse, but instead he reassured us 467. This financial collapse, unfortunately, happened during my administration 468, shortly before the sale of the printing house and contributed greatly to its acceleration. Be that as it may, in 1894/95 fate was willing, to my great satisfaction, to remove from me the heavy burden of work that was not suitable for me. And two years later, in 1896, my friend and companion had to, in turn, leave the management of the Synodal Printing House, although very reluctantly, and even with considerable chagrin. The fact is that he had an excellent knowledge of the printing business, immeasurably better than me, an unusually efficient and ideally honest worker, he was, however, not persona grata with the Synodal Chief Prosecutor's Office and, in particular, with V.K. Sabler, mainly because he was not his chosen one, but was put in this place by his antagonist in the Synodal Administration - the director of the Economic Administration under St. Synod by A. G. Ilyinsky. On one unpleasant day, F. G. El-mu, without ceremony, was directly ordered to resign from the management of the Synodal Printing House, leaving him with one professorship at the academy; Until that time, he combined both services. True, F.G. should have left the printing service himself long ago. The unusually conscientious performance of his professorial duties (he annually compiled and taught new courses on his subject, not content with repeating old ones), together with the vigilant work of managing the huge Synodal Printing House, undermined his strength, despite his rather strong body. His extreme fatigue was noticed, and he had to look at him with great concern. However, the unexpected, undeserved, involuntary, abruptly proposed resignation had a far from beneficial effect on him. She further increased his pain, even subjected him to a rather long-term nervous breakdown and, there is no doubt, hastened his death (from degeneration of the heart) by many years. Although I consoled him, saying, half-jokingly, half-seriously, that he should pray for those people who, in order to preserve his health, made his working life easier, I myself saw that this was a bad consolation for him. Thus ended our printing enterprises, work and worries! The printing house once supported my friend and colleague during a difficult time in his life, but it also brought him to an early grave. Efforts about increasing spiritual and educational pensions. We had to wait a long time for our academic pensions to be increased to the size of university ones. The regulation on increasing the pensions of professors of the academies to these amounts was approved by the Highest only in 1894, on July 25, on the wedding day of Grand Duchess Ksenia Alexandrovna, that is, 25 years after the transformation of the academies, in 1869, on May 30. Until 1894, regarding pensions, there was a “regulation, 1876, October 24, on the rights and benefits of 469 employees at religious educational institutions.” This provision increased our academic pensions very slightly compared to the old ones (1828), namely: an ordinary professor was entitled to 1100 rubles. (instead of 800 rubles), an extraordinary professor - 800 rubles. (instead of 429 rubles), associate professor - 550 rubles. (instead of 429 rubles). Such a slight increase is explained by the fact that it was made from special amounts of the Holy Synod; “The Ministry of Finance refused then (1876) to accept the production of pensions for the spiritual and educational department on account of the amounts of the state treasury.” Although the government, especially the church government, was aware of the need to increase the pensions of persons serving in religious educational institutions, the difficult financial situation of our fatherland, after the Turkish War of 1877 and the troubled years after 1881, prevented the satisfaction of this need. The spiritual department, however, began from the late 80s to pursue the idea of ​​new spiritual and educational pensions from the state treasury, referring, among other things, to the debt of the state, which took from the synodal capital, back in the domestic war of 1812, several million and did not return these amounts to the Holy Synod. To account for and repay this debt, the spiritual department decided to ask the state authorities to increase spiritual and educational pensions from the state treasury. I had to be close to this matter, thanks to my acquaintance with the director of the Economic Administration at the Holy Synod A.G. Ilyinsky 470 , the vice-director of this department P.I. Ostroumov 471 and the head of the department S.V. Pravednikov 472 . From them I learned about the situation regarding our pensions. Fortunately, they all belonged to the spiritual world by origin, were students of our theological schools, and therefore were sympathetic to my speeches. During frequent meetings with them, I tried my best to convince them to energetically take up our cause and move it forward. Moreover, in 1887 he decided to speak out in print. In the Church Bulletin he published two large articles, “On the increase in spiritual and educational pensions.” In these articles, having collected all the data to compare our pensions, academic, seminary and school, with university, gymnasium, etc. d., having compared all this digital material, as well as data obtained from the archives of the Synodal Economic Administration on the number of pensioners arriving annually (over the last three years) at 4 academies, 55 theological seminaries (it was not possible to obtain regarding 182 theological schools), indicated the approximate probable figure of the annual expenditure on this subject and, in conclusion, asked our spiritual government to “intercede, in accordance with the established procedure, for increase, from state funds. Treasury, for the first time, at least only academic pensions, as being in the sharpest discrepancy with university pensions.” These articles, compiled in detail, with extensive digital material and conclusions from it, were presented by me, in the form of a separate print - a brochure, to A. G. Ilyinsky and his friend in Economic Management P. I. Ostroumov. But at first things didn't go well. A.G. Ilyinsky, who was more closely aware of this matter than anyone else, the main figure in it, as the head of the Economic Administration under the Holy Synod, who fully sympathized with its favorable outcome, at first, however, recognized it as untimely to begin the matter of our pensions. Having carefully read my brochure, he, however, noted that he would let me know when the favorable moment came. However, we had to wait a long time for this moment. My articles were published in 1887. Four or five years pass, and the matter does not move forward. During these few years, I continued to take every opportunity to remind those who should have known about it. Even once, I remember in 1891, when I had to draw up and read in a ceremonial meeting, on February 17, the annual report on the academy, in conclusion I allowed myself to talk about our pensions, and, I confess, I rather artificially pulled in the name of the then recently deceased professor of the Kazan Academy Porfiryev 473, especially respected by K. P. Pobedonostsev - deliberately for the latter, in order to touch a few shame him. K.P.P-v was also present on this day at our act 474. Finally, one truly wonderful day, probably in 1892 or early 1893, I received a notification from A.G. Ilyinsky that things were getting better, and advice to go with my brochure on pensions to the head of the Economic Administration department, S.V. Pravednikov, who was entrusted with leading this matter. Subsequently, it turned out that my brochure, by S.V. Pr-va’s own admission, was far from useful to him in drawing up the project and the explanatory note for it, and greatly facilitated and greatly accelerated his work. At the same time, I considered it necessary, on my own initiative, to appear with my brochure to Metropolitan Ioannikiy, then already of Kyiv, a well-known energetic figure in the material support of the clergy, and to some other members of the Holy Synod, as well as to the director of the office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, I.A. Nenarokomov 475, who had considerable weight and importance among K. P. Pobedonostsev. I did this in order to enlist their assistance in developing a draft of new academic pensions and in discussing a new regulation about them. All these faces were sympathetic to my troubles. Metropolitan Ioannikiy, as usual, received me dryly (for a long time, since my student days, I had not been his favorite), but also did not refuse his assistance, and after, as was heard, he even celebrated at an academic dinner in Kyiv, on the occasion of the successful outcome of the matter about our pensions. In the spiritual department, finally, everything went well, and the matter of our new pensions was transferred to the State Council. We were afraid that we might encounter some difficulties there and that our work would be slowed down. But, fortunately, it passed there too. And our joy was great when we received the first news about this from one of my acquaintances who served in the State Council (Assistant Secretary of State of the State Council, P.E. Tatarinov, who lived in the same house with me), whom I asked to follow the progress of our business. To celebrate, on the same day I wrote a small note to be placed in the Church Bulletin, risking being reproached by my acquaintance for violating clerical secrets. In all these troubles, I, as one of the closest candidates for retirement, had, of course, many purely selfish motives, but I should not deny myself noble motives. I will never forget the impression that my sick, dying, deeply revered colleague, Professor M. O. Koyalovich, made on me. “It would be necessary,” he said with tears in his eyes, “to resign. Oh how necessary. But I can't. How will I live? After all, you can’t rent an apartment with 1,100 rubles (the pension at that time). I would have to live in furnished rooms or a hotel, occupying some room.” Unfortunately, he never received a new pension, dying in 1891. It was used: in 1894 - M.I. Karinsky, in 1895 - E.I. Lovyagin, 1896 – me and in 1897 – F.G. Eleonsky. Retirement after 33 years of academic service (1863–1896). I have been thinking about resigning for a long time. It’s not that I didn’t feel the strength to continue serving, but there were many reasons for cooling off and disappointment. The main one was dissatisfaction with the general structure of academic life at that time according to the charter of 1884. There were other, private, reasons, such as troubles over the story of E. P. Akvilonov’s dissertation. But if it weren’t for the new pension, I would still have to serve for many years, until my strength was completely exhausted, and think the same thing that M. O. Koyalovich thought and said before his death. Regarding the intention I declared back in 1895, many reproaches were heard from my colleagues for leaving the service too early, as they said then, but there were voices, albeit very few, in favor of my decision. So, for example, the unforgettable professor V.V. Bolotov recognized me as happy that I could retire, and even once, in a conversation with me, expressed regret that he himself could not do the same, since he had not earned his pension. This opinion of a man who devoted his entire life to his native academy, an extraordinary devotee of science, is very significant. Even a year before my resignation, in 1895, I took care to elect and prepare a successor in the department, in the person of one of the best students who graduated from the course that year, P. I. Leporsky, now a venerable professor of our academy and the Historical and Philological Institute, archpriest and rector of the Petrograd Church of the Resurrection of Christ on Blood. I ended my last lecture at the academy, in April 1896, with the following farewell address to my audience, fourth-year students, then graduating students. Pointing to the main goal and task of all his readings - revitalization, stimulation and deepening of theological thought, to the previous broad setting of the readings under the statute of 1869 and to the change, reduction in the volume of the course after 1884, in conclusion he said: “With full awareness of the large gaps in our readings of recent years - in the sense of a lack of detailed substantiation of dogmatic provisions on the data of Holy Scripture and Church Tradition - in order to avoid extreme prolixity, discontinuities in systematic presentation - we console ourselves, however, with the thought that our labors will not completely be lost in relation to some development, revitalization and deepening of theological thought in you, future figures in the field of spiritual enlightenment. The future belongs to you, and you will then be the rulers of our religious thought and life. And God forbid that you do not turn out to be inert and poor in theological thought. If this wish of ours comes true, then we can say that our readings were not in vain for you. There are some similarities in your situation and mine. Both you and I will soon leave our dear academy. Let's wish each other all the best. Let me wish you honest and energetic activity as you enter the field of service to the Church and the Fatherland. And for me, who is also leaving, but now from the field of public service, please wish me to use the rest of my strength, in retirement, on the same work that I have been doing here, at this academic department, for almost three decades (29 years).” “I uttered the last words in great excitement, with a trembling voice and with tears in my eyes. My excitement was communicated to my listeners, and they greeted me with loud, prolonged applause. Thus ended my service at the academy. During the exams he still performed his duties. I have been officially listed as retired since June 1, 1896 (the order came on June 22, 1896). Langen, Das Judentum zur Zeit Christi. Beitrag zur Offenbarung und Religionsgeschichte, als Einleitung in Theologie des N.T. Freibur. 1866. Klee – Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. Mainz. 1837–1838. Schuane – Dogmengeschichte der vornicänischen Zeit Munster. 1862. Dogmengeschichte der paristischen Zeit Munster. 1862. Zobl – Dogmengeschichte der katholischen Kirche. Insbruck. 1865. Kahnis – Die Kirchenglaube in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung. Leipz. 1864 - the second volume of his three-volume work, the first of which is devoted to Lutheran dogmatics in its historical development (Die lutherische Dogmatik historisch genetisch dargestellt. Leipz, 1861), and the third to the system of Lutheran dogmatics (System der lutherischen Dogmatik. Leipz, 1868). Archpriest I. L. Yanyshev, b. in 1826, Kaluga, 1st mag. XVIII building. St. Petersburg. acad. (1849), left under academician. help first economy, then (1850) – tank. mathematicians, 1851 – priest. Wiesbaden Center, in 1856 - Prof. theologian and philosopher in Petrograd university, in 1858 - again a foreign priest. and so on, first in Berlin, and from 1859 - in Wiesbaden, in 1864 - teacher. the law of God and the Russian language. Princess Dagmar in Copenhagen, and from 1866 (November 28) - rector of Petrograd. spirit. academy. As can be seen from the “Historical Note” of Prof. Grigoriev, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Petrograd. university. “The number of his (Fr. I. L. Yan.) listeners increased every day. Several times he had to move from one audience to another, larger one. Finally, he began to read in the university assembly hall, but even that could barely accommodate everyone who wanted to enjoy his fascinating speech” (See: I.A. Chistovich “History of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy...”, 1889, pp. 24–25). Vlad. Nikol., in monasticism Chrysanthus (Retivtsev, Tver, 5th Mag. XX class. Moscow Academician, 1856), 1856 - teacher. Kostroma. Sem., 1857 – monk, 1858 – tank. Kazan. acad. by denunciation. and basic Bogosl., 1865 – tank. St. Petersburg acad. according to morals theologian, 1866 – archim., inspector. St. Petersburg academician, extraord. prof. according to dogmas. theologian together with rector Ioann (Sokolov), 1867 - member of the Academic. com. at the Holy Synod, 1869 – rector. St. Petersburg Sem., 1874 – ep. Astrakhan, 1877 – bishop. Nizhny Novgorod, 1878 – doctor. theologian (after being awarded the Kazan Academician), 1879 - retired to Moscow. Donskoy Mon., † 1884. P. V. Znamensky “History of the Kazan Theological Academy.” Kazan, 1892, issue. 2nd, pp. 256–258. They said then that he was summoned from the Moscow Academy by the rector, Rev. John (Sokolov), and inspector, Fr. Chrysanthus, with the goal of having a monk in him, but their calculations turned out to be erroneous. P. F. Komarov did not become a monk, in all likelihood because his transfer to the Petrograd Academy coincided with the change from its rector-monk to rector-archpriest (by the way, Komarov’s fellow countryman, a Kaluga resident). P.F. Komarov O. archim. Chrysanthus transferred, in October 1866, his chair of moral theology, and he himself took the chair of dogmatic. And on November 9 of the same 1866, Rev. John received an appointment to the Smolensk episcopal see. Leonid Andreevich Pavlovsky, St. Petersburg, 3rd Master. XXIV building St. Petersburg. acad. (1861), 1861 – teacher. St. Petersburg Sem., 1863 – tank. St. Petersburg academician, 1866 – priest, 1872 – left service under academician, 1877 – prot., in 1895. A.E. Svetilin, Ryazan, 8th Mag. XXVI building St. Petersburg. acad. (1865), 1865 – teacher. Smolen. Sem., 1867 – tank. St. Petersburg academician, 1875 – extraord. prof., † 1887. The close acquaintance between them dates back to the 1862–1863 years of the gr. D. A. Tolstoy in Paris, where he, not yet being chief proc. of the Holy Synod, compiled, or at least finally edited, his work - Le Catholicisme romain en Russie (1863), using largely the advice of Archpriest. I.V. Vasiliev, which the latter spoke about more than once to the writer of these lines, sometimes complaining about the forgetfulness of the services provided to a former friend, and now to his boss. The training committee was completely subordinate to the chief prosecutor. Nathanael Petrovich Sokolov, Saratov, 12th Master. XIII building Moscow. acad. (1842), 1842 – tank. Kazan. acad. in philosophy, 1847 – extraord. prof., 1850 – order. prof., 1858 – prof. church history, transferred to this department, against his wishes, by the then rector Ioann (Sokolov). He was distinguished by his extremely impressive appearance (huge height), aplomb and extraordinary practicality, and managed to win over the count. D. A. Tolstoy, offering him to translate his opus into Russian. “Le Catholicisme romain en Russie”, through which he gained a lot: after his resignation from academician. service in 1872 was assigned (in 1875) to the chancellor. Chief Prosecutor and, it seems, was then a supernumerary member of the Academic. com. at the Holy Synod. About him - in “History of Kazan. spirit. Academy" by P. V. Znamensky, see vol. 2, pp. 22–26 and 293–294, are very interesting essays and characteristics, as in everything and always, masterful. Of the general compulsory subjects, there were five non-theological subjects, under four departments (logic, psychology, history of philosophy, metaphysics, pedagogy), and only two theological subjects, under three departments (basic theology, Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments). Thus, counting departmental ones along with these compulsory subjects, we get the following. results: students of only one theological department studied more theological subjects than secular ones, namely seven versus five secular ones, while students of the historical and practical departments studied seven secular and six theological ones. The theological department was deprived of church history, the church historical department was deprived of dogmatic theology, and the church practical department was deprived of both subjects. Most of all, as they say now, the church history department was overloaded. Students of this department listened to 17 teachers (of both various sciences and languages), 14 teachers of church practice, 13 teachers of theology. The approval of articles that were far from coinciding with his assumptions expressed earlier in the commission meeting (see above) does great credit to his impartiality and tolerance in relation to other people's opinions. This not often encountered feature of a major scientist was expressed especially clearly, even strikingly, later when Rev. Macarius was already the Moscow Metropolitan, - regarding the publication of the work of Prof. E.E. Golubinsky (History of the Russian Church), a strong competitor and even a critic of the Eminence’s own work on the history of the Russian Church. Metropolitan Macarius not only allowed prof. E. E. Golubinsky printed his work, but even gave him material means for it!.. Perhaps the unusual nature of the new work of academic teachers, forced to develop new methods of teaching students, played a certain, of course small, role in the dislike for the fourth year. I couldn’t particularly like the extra, and even very uncertain, work. Arseny (in the world - Feodor Pavlovich Moskvin), Kostroma, 8th magician. V building. St. Petersburg. acad. (1832), 1823 – tank. St. Petersburg acad. according to Holy Scripture and librarian, 1826 – rector. Mogil. Sem., 1829 – Ryazan. Sem., 1831 – Tversk. Sem., 1832 – ep. Tambov, 1841 – archbishop. Podolsky, 1848 - Warsaw, 1860 - Metropolitan. Kievsky, † 1876. He called me to him, talked to me very graciously and advised me to appear to some provincial bishop who was present at the Holy Synod (I forgot his name), appointed to the commission for the consideration of Western liturgies - in view of the thought that was then fermenting (in connection with the Old Catholic movement), whether it was possible to establish a church community in the West, Orthodox in religion, but with Western rites. This Right Reverend, says the Metropolitan, “came without books, so you go to him and help him.” It was not for nothing that he began serving as a bachelor in St. Petersburg. acad. on Holy Scripture and librarian (1825–1829). He was the successor of Arseny (Moskvin) in the same positions. Alexey Viktorovich Beletsky, Novgorod, XXVI building, St. Petersburg. acad. (1865), candidate, and then mag., 1865 – teacher. Novgor. semester, 1868 – St. Petersburg. Sem., 1869 – secret. Council of St. Petersburg academician, 1873 – in the service of min. adv. enlightenment in Vilna educational institution. okr., 1833 – okr. inspection this env., 1889 – help. will take care Vilen. env. Prof. Illarion Alekseevich Chistovich, in 1873 - manager. chancellor min. adv. enlightenment for affairs of the Greek-Uniate religion, 1875 – vice-director. chancellor Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1883 - member of the council under the minister of people. enlightenment, 1888 – manager. control under the Holy Synod, † 1893. The successors of the first elected from the departments, for presence in the private council, were: from the theological - M. I. Karinsky, A. E. Svetilin, from church history. – I. E. Troitsky, F. G. Eleonsky, from the church-practical. – T.V. Barsov, N.I. Barsov, who replaced persons who were either appointed to the positions of assistant rector and inspector, or retired (N.I. Gloriantova, I.T. Osinina). Before exams in almost every subject, students had the custom of begging and haggling over the number of tickets. They also approached me when there was an exam in my subject. But I never allowed myself to enter into a deal with them, in the softest, polite, even friendly terms, but resolutely declaring that I do not have this custom, that I am ready to provide any leniency during the exam, but “in good conscience” I cannot reduce the number of tickets assigned by me for the exam, that I hope they will not want to rape my “conscience.” So the students left me with nothing, but without any irritation. It is remarkable, however, that later, during new exams, they nevertheless repeated their attempt and with the same success. In general, from all my practice I have drawn the general conclusion that with skill and good will, you can always get along with students and avoid conflicts. Many years later, when he was already a protopresbyter, Fr. I. L. Yan-v admitted to me that once when he examined the attic and, in particular, the water tanks (at that time there was no running water in our academy), he was horrified: in the tanks, not covered or poorly covered, something was floating... “I didn’t tell anyone about it” (probably except for the housekeeper), he added, but “of course, I took the most energetic measures so that such phenomena would not be repeated.” With the economy, priest. A. Sokolov (since 1867), to whom, according to Fr. I. L. Yan., the academy owed a lot to repay the debt. Vasily Gavrilovich Rozhdestvensky, Nov., 2nd Mag. XXVI building St. Petersburg. acad. (1865), from 1865 to 1867 – tank. Kazan. acad. in philosophy (logic, moral philosophy and history of philosophy), since 1867 - teacher. St. Petersburg Sem., 1869 – Assoc. St. Petersburg academician, 1874 – prof. theologian in St. Petersburg university, 1880 – extraord. prof. St. Petersburg acad. Ivan Stepanovich Yakimov, Vyatka, Ph.D. XXIX course St. Petersburg. acad. (1871), 1874 – mag. and associate professor, 1876 – sent abroad for a year, 1883 – extraord. prof. Nikolai Pavlovich Rozhdestvensky, Kursk, 1st Mag. XXVI SPb. acad. (1865), 1865–1869 – tank. Kazan. acad. according to basic and reprove. Divine service, 1869 (Jan. 31) – tank. and Assoc. St. Petersburg acad. according to basic theologian, 1877 – extraord. prof., † 1882. Mikhail Ivanovich Karinsky, Moscow, 4th Mag. XXIII room Moscow. acad. (1862), first teacher. Bethanskaya, then Moscow. sem., from 1869 – associate professor. St. Petersburg academician, 1871 – sent abroad, 1872 – extraord. prof., 1880 – doctor. Philosopher St. Petersburg uni and hordes prof. St. Petersburg acad. Mikhail Ivanovich Smolensky, Yaroslavl, Ph.D. XXXI k. St. Petersburg. acad. (1874), until 1876 – teacher. Kharkov. Sem., 1876 – assistant professor, 1881. Fedor Fedorovich Gusev, brother of A.F. Gusev (former prof. Kazan academician), Tver, Ph.D. XXIX building St. Petersburg. acad. (1871), 1871–1872 (Sept. 21 – Jan. 12) – priv.-assoc. in Anthropology; 1872–1878 – magician. and Assoc. Kyiv. acad., † 1878. Sergey Aleksandrovich Sollertinsky, Ryazan, XXIX building, St. Petersburg. acad. (1871). Vasily Ivanovich Modestov, from Novgorod students. Sem., was educated first at the Main. ped. Institute, and then to Petrograd. university, where, after completing the course, he was, it seems, a private assistant professor, and then a professor at Kazan, Novorossiysk and Kiev universities. Dimitri Menagios, 30th candidate. XXVII building Moscow. acad. (1870). Yakov Egorovich Smirnov, Vladimir, Ph.D. XXXV building St. Petersburg. acad. (1873), present time - rector of our Orthodox Church in Paris. Alexander Ivanovich Sadov, Nizhny Novgorod, XXXIII building, St. Petersburg. acad. (1876), 1876–1878 – office. Secretary of the Academic Council, 1877 – Priv.-Associate Professor, 1883 – Mag. and associate professor, 1887 – extraord. prof., 1896 – doctor. church ist. and ord. prof., 1891–1893 – editor. “Christ. Readings", 1902 – meritorious. hord. prof. Alexey Sergeevich Lebedev, Vladimir, Ph.D. XXXIII building St. Petersburg. acad. (1876), 1876–1878 – assistant professor, 1878 – scientific scholar. Smolny inst. and prof. Honey. academician, 1886 – mag., † rector of Voznesen. c. in Petrograd. Alexander Pavlovich Lopukhin, Saratov, Ph.D. XXXV building St. Petersburg. acad. (1878), 1879 – psalm. with Russian missionary. c. in New York, 1881 – mag. Theologian, 1882 – acting Secretary of the Council, 1883 – Assoc. compared to theologian, 1885 – associate professor. ancient general civil history, 1889 – extraord. prof., 1893–1903 – editor. “Church. messenger" and "Christ. reading." Alexander Aleksandrovich Priselkov, Tver, Ph.D. XXX k. St. Petersburg. acad. (1873), 1873 – assistant professor, 1884 – dismissed from service, 1887 – was accepted again (November 20), on the occasion of the presentation of his dissertation, † November 29 the same 1887 Ivan Gavrilovich Troitsky, Penza, Ph.D. XXXIX k. (1882), 1882 – teacher. Kursk Sem., 1883 – priv.-assoc., 1884 – acting. Associate Professor, 1886 – Mag. and associate professor, 1891 – extraord. prof., 1904 – doctor. Bogosl., 1905 – horde. prof., 1910 – honored hord. prof. Fyodor Gerasimovich Eleonsky, Nizhny Novgorod, 9th Mag. XXV building St. Petersburg. acad. (1863), 1864 – teacher. Lithuania semester, 1870 – associate professor. bib. ist., 1875 – extraord. prof., 1884 – doctor. theologian and hordes prof., 1897 – left service under academician, † 1906. Vasily Vasilievich Bolotov, Tversk, magician. XXXVI building, St. Petersburg. acad. (1879). Alexander Afanasyevich Tyazhelov, Tver, 7th master. XXV room Moscow. acad. (1866). Alexander Afanasyevich Avtonomov, Orlov., Ph.D. XXIV building St. Petersburg. acad. (1871), 1871–1872 – priv.-docent., in 1872 entered service in the credit office, was later a priest. at a private church in the city of Derviz in Lugano, Italy, then a lawyer. Gatchina. Nikol. orphans. Institute, member of the Spiritual-Censor. committee, priest Peterhof. courtier ts., Peter. Stable Ts., Archpriest of the Winter Palace, died in retirement due to illness († 1914). Gerasim Yared, Syrian-Arab, born. in 1840; Moscow Sem., 7th Mag. XXVIII building. St. Petersburg. acad. (1869), 1869 – teacher. St. Petersburg sem., from 1870 – priv.-assoc. academician, 1871 – monk, 1871 – rector. Pskov. semester, 1881 - Riga, 1882 - dismissed from office, 1883 - member of the Jerusalem Patriarchate, 1889 - ordained bishop and appointed Metropolitan of Seleucia, † 1899. Pavel Fedorovich Nikolaevsky, Nov., M.Sc. XXVI building St. Petersburg. acad. (1865), 1865 – priest. Peter. Vladimirsky sob., 1871 – associate professor, 1874 – priest. Holy Trinity community of sisters of the Mil., 1882 – extraord. prof., 1897 – doctor. church ist. and hordes prof., † 1899. Evgeniy Mikhailovich Prilezhaev, Olonets, Ph.D. XXXII building St. Petersburg. acad. (1875), 1875–1884 – Priv.-Associate Professor, 1884 – Director of Affairs of the Office of the Proto-Reverend, managing the court clergy (I. L. Yanysheva). Petr Ivanovich Lyupersolsky, Vyatka, Ph.D. XXIII building St. Petersburg. acad. (1859), until 1865 – teacher. St. Petersburg semester, 1865 – scholarship. min. adv. enlightened, 1869 – mag. St. Petersburg uni., sent abroad to prepare for a professorship, 1872 - gave competitive lectures at our academy, was elected associate professor, but did not receive dismissal from the min. adv. enlightened, 1872 – extraord. prof. Warsaw. university, 1875–1897 – order. prof. Nezhinsk. historical-philol. institute, † 1903 in Petrograd. Vasily Grigorievich Vasilievsky, educated. Yaroslav. family and St. Petersburg. uni., later extraord. and ord. his prof., hor. academician, famous Byzantine scholar and Hellenist. Nikolai Afanasyevich Skabalanovich, Litovsk. Sem., Ph.D. XXX k. St. Petersburg. acad. (1873), in the same 1873 – mag. and associate professor, 1884 – doctor. theologian and extraord. prof., 1891 – order. prof., 1885–1893 – editor. “Church. Vestnik”, 1898 – Honored. hord. prof. Nikolay Ivanovich Barsov, St. Petersburg. Sem., 3rd Master. XXV building St. Petersburg. acad. (1863), 1863 – teacher. St. Petersburg Sem., 1869 – Assoc. Academy, 1973 – extraord. prof., 1887 – and. d. ord. prof., 1889 – retired, † 1903. Nikolai Vasilievich Pokrovsky, bonfire, Ph.D. XXXI k. St. Petersburg. acad. (1874), 1874 – assistant professor, 1880 – master’s degree. and associate professor, 1883 – extraord. prof., 1892 – doctor. church ist., 1894 – order. prof., 1893–1899 – inspector. academician, 1898 – director. Petrogr. archaeol. inst., 1899 – deserved. hord. prof. academy. Vladimir Vasilievich Nikolsky, petrogr., 2nd magician. XXIII building. St. Petersburg. acad. (1859), 1859 – teacher. St. Petersburg Sem., 1862 – in foreign, from ob.-proc. St. Synod, business trip, 1863 – teacher. Learned. lawyer and other textbooks. head, 1865 – teacher. Alexander. Lyceum, 1874 – teacher. St. Petersburg academician, 1877 – extraord. her prof., in the same 1877 - inspector. Alexander. Lyceum, † 1883 – abroad, in San Remo. Alexander Ivanovich Ponomarev, Ufa, Ph.D. XXXI k. St. Petersburg. acad. (1874), 1874 – Priv.-Associate Professor, 1886 – Mag., Associate Professor, 1887 – Extraord. prof., 1900 – doctor. church ist. and hordes prof., 1901 – honored prof., 1905 – supernumerary. Anton Semenovich Budilovich, Vilensk. Sem., Ph.D. St. Petersburg uni., mag. and doctor., after academic service he was (1872) prof. Nizhyn Lyceum, then Warsaw University, rector. Yuryevsky University, member of the council of min. adv. enlightenment In 1866, L.P. Razmusen was allowed to manage the academic library, at the insistence of the rector, Fr. I. L. Yanysheva, despite the opposition of the rest of the academic administration and senior members of the corporation. For a long time (almost the entire time of his librarianship) he received his support from the rector’s personal funds, which Fr. himself told me more than once. I. L. Yanyshev. He was an ideal librarian, a passionate bibliophile and the most zealous guardian of the integrity of academic book property, for which he suffered - in a clash with prof. I. A. Chistovich: should have left librarianship. It's extremely unfortunate; It was difficult to even imagine a better librarian. Although he was an excellent lecturer of the German language, his real vocation was librarianship. The place of librarian after him was taken by P.F. Komarov, a failed bachelor of morals. theology (see above). And he was also an unimportant librarian, making him very sorry for his predecessor, L.P. Razmusen. Alexander Ivanovich Popovitsky, Astrakhan, 43rd candidate. XVIII building. St. Petersburg. acad. (1849), 1849–1853 – in Paris, 1853 – French teacher. language in different textbooks. institutions of Petrograd and employee of secular and spiritual magazines and newspapers, 1867 - teacher. French language in our academician, in the same 1867 - editor of “Sovrem. leaflet", ed. with magazine "The Wanderer" Rev. Grechulevich, 1874 – editor-publisher of “Church-social. Vestnik", 1885 - "Russian Pilgrim", 1899 - celebrated the 50th anniversary of his official and social activities, † March 29, 1904. Priest Georgy Ivanovich Titov, Kaluga, Ph.D. XXX k. St. Petersburg. acad. (1873), later mag. (1879), prot. churches of the palace Vel. Book Mikhail Nikolaevich, member of the Academic. com. at the Holy Synod, in 1914 he celebrated the 50th anniversary of the priesthood and was honored, on this occasion, with an outstanding Highest award (diamond insignia for the Order of St. Alexander Nevsky). In 1874 - I.S. Yakimova, A.F. Guseva; in 1875 - M.V. Simashkevich; in 1879 – priest. G.I. Titova, N.M. Bogorodsky, F.P. Eleonsky, A.P. Maltsev, in 1884 - F.A. Tikhomirova, A.A. Bronzova. After 1884, in 1885 - I. G. Troitsky, I. G. Rozhdestvensky, in 1886 - A. S. Lebedev, in 1887 - Hierom. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), in 1888 - D. I. Tikhomirov and I. A. Orlov. We include here the last three dissertations because their authors graduated from an academic course: D.I. Tikhomirov in 1881, and Hierom. Anthony (Khrapovitsky) and I. A. Orlov in 1885 In 1873 - N.A. Skabalanovich, in 1875 - S.V. Kokhomsky, in 1879 - M.V. Cheltsov, V.V. Bolotov, in 1881 - D.N. Dubakina, I.S. Palmov, A.P. Lopukhin, V.Kh. Preobrazhensky, V.I. Zhmakin, in 1883 - S.A. Sollertinsky, P.N. Zhukovich, A.I. Sadov, V.Z. Zavitnevich, in 1884 – G.E. Trusman. After 1884, in 1886 - G.V. Mirkovich, in 1888 - priest. Mikhail (Gribanovsky) and in 1889 - N.S. Sokolov. Mirkovich graduated from the course in 1878, and Hierarch. Mikhail (Gribanovsky) and Sokolov - in 1884 In 1880 - N.V. Pokrovsky, in 1886 - A.I. Ponomarev and in 1888 - I. I. Panov, who completed the course in 1871. If we include here the dissertation of I. V. Morev (“The Stone of Faith of Stefan Yavorsky”), who graduated from the course in 1885. This dissertation, written on this topic and approved by me, for some reasons came to light very late and was defended under my successor in the department in 1904. "Church Bulletin", 1913, 46–47. Yes, and as we will see later, after a difficult story and after my resignation. This is what they wrote in their submission to the theological department, heard at the council (meeting on May 26, 1877): “The author’s research constitutes a very conscientious and, moreover, independent work on an issue almost not touched upon by our theological literature. A strictly scientific method in revealing the subject on the basis of the first sources, the independence and originality of many conclusions, a critical attitude towards Western Christian theories and opinions, a consistent systematic grouping of the subject and, finally, a clear, simple and correct presentation - these are the advantages that give the scientific research of A. L. Katansky the right to occupy a prominent place in our educational and theological literature and, in our opinion, fully satisfy the conditions of a doctorate dissertation." In all likelihood, this increase is “from history.” exposition dogmas" - in the charter was made mainly at the insistence of Archpriest. I. L. Yanysheva and others. I. V. Vasilyeva. I had many conversations with them on this topic. And if so, then through them, did not some small drop of participation in this matter fall to my share? It is remarkable, however, that this is a kind of innovation in staging readings according to a system of dogmas. Theology did not come without some troubles for me. At the first exam, the chairman of the commission, prof. I. A. Chistovich and extraord. prof. I. T. Osinin, the assistant, made many objections to me and even what seemed to me unfair criticisms, and this was during the student answers, in the presence of all the students, which made me very angry. They apparently played the role of examiners of old times, when exams were testing not only for students, but also for teachers. And before that, I published, in the same “Christian Reading” (1871), a general, so to speak, guiding article - “On the historical presentation of dogmas.” Seraphim (Aretinsky), Orlov., 1st magician. VIII building Kyiv. academician, 1842 – inspection. Kazan. academician, 1846 – rect. Caucasus. family, 1848 – Mogil., 1852 – Kherson, 1858 – Tamb., 1860 – ep. Chigirin., 1865 – Voronezh., 1871 – archbishop. The duties of the rector at this time were entrusted to the senior of the rector's assistants, prof. V.I. Dolotsky (assistant to the rector for the church-practical department), who filled the position of rector with great tact and experience. Why did this happen? There is reason to think that this reflected a feeling of resentment for the rector’s attitude towards the previous history of the academy (see above). I remember that senior professors compared the new rector with the previous ones, who managed, they say, to compose entire systems of sciences (for example, Rev. Makariy Bulgakov), without taking vacations, etc. At the same time, perhaps, some influences from the circle of persons of the highest court clergy affected, among whom (Protopres. V. B. Bazhanov and Protopres. I. V. Rozhdestvensky) he was a wedge. prot. I. L. Yanyshev as confessor of Tsarevna Maria Feodorovna. However, perhaps I am sinning with unnecessary and unfounded suspicions. It was not published by Fr. I. L. Yanyshev, and his former student, prof. Kazan Academy, A.F. Gusev, according to his preserved records of academic lectures by Fr. I. L. Yan-va. Apparently, I. L. Yanyshev himself did not particularly want his work to appear in print. This is evident from his repeated statements (in confidential conversations) that “the academy council is hardly able to resolve the issue of his dissertation without submitting it to the Holy Synod for preliminary consideration.” As far as I remember, this custom began to be practiced in our academy after my resignation, that is, after 1896. The first such case was, however well deserved, the award of a doctorate to Prof. prot. P.F. Nikolaevsky in 1897, and then prof. V.V. Bolotov - it seems, also this year. Vel. Prince Konstantin Nikolaevich was a great lover of theology. Then they joked that the admiral of the fleet was engaged in theology, and the metropolitan - Innokenty (Veniaminov) of Moscow, chairman of the committee on the voluntary fleet - commanded the fleet. Metropolitan Innocent, the famous apostle of Siberia, Kamchatka and the Aleutian Islands, comes from Irkutsk, seminary image., Irkutsk family. (1817), priest. (1821), prot. (1839), archim. (1840), ep. Kamchatsky (1840), archbishop. (1850), Met. Moskovsky (1868) - successor to Metropolitan. Filaret (Drozdova). In addition to them, members of the council were: Rev. I. V. Vasiliev, book. YES. Obolensky, B.P. Mansurov (member of the State Council) and A.F. Hilferding. Then - K.P. Pobedonostsev (then a member of the State Council, but not yet the regional proc. of the Holy Synod), T.I. Filippov and the chief. priest army and navy P. E. Pokrovsky (once Archpriest of the Moscow Arkhangelsk Society, see: anniversary of the Moscow Academician, Chapter IV of my “Recollections”). The secretary of the council is A. A. Kireev, a later famous general, a secular theologian, a prolific writer and an ardent champion of Old Catholicism, who greatly sympathized with it. At the second conference, in Constanta in 1873, Archpriest was present. I. V. Vasiliev with A. A. Kireev. And why this work fell to my lot is explained by the fact that I was then a junior member of the council, nominated in October 1869 for the title of extraord. professor. Newly promoted professors were usually entrusted with the work of drafting either a report or an assembly speech, as if repaying the council for the honor bestowed upon a well-known person by being elected to the council. Besides me (No. 1), he had five more sons-in-law (I write by seniority of marriages): 2) Archpriest. Nice, then the Florentine Church - V.I. Levitsky (Master of the XXVII class of Peter. Academician, now Honored Metropolitan Archpriest), 3) P. A. Annin (Master of the XXIII class of Kyiv Academician), at that time the head of the department. chancellor chief proc. of the Holy Synod (then administrative department of the min. people's education, member of the council under the min. people's education, secret council). 4) A. A. Avtonomov, Priv.-Assoc. our academician, then an official, priest. and prot. (see about him above - about the composition of the teaching academy); 5) I.P. Lebedev, a doctor in mental illness (now retired, active stat. owl.) and finally 6) younger son-in-law, Nikolai Milievich Anichkov, university educated, at that time director. Novgor. gym and then surround. inspection Petrogr. textbook district (later - director of the department of the Ministry of People's Education, Comrade Minister of People's Education, under Count I.D. Delyanov, senator, vice-chairman of the Palestine Society, member of the State Council, acting secret council). Family I.V. was numerous (12 people), at the time described, it consisted of six daughters and three sons, who were still studying at that time (and now serving: the eldest Vlad. Joseph. - for min. Internal Affairs, the younger ones - Sergei and Boris Joseph. - for min. Justice - now members of Petrogr. circumn. court). By the way, Fr. I.V. V-v told me that he devoted several articles in this magazine to the Armenian Church, its history and its current state, proving that its non-Orthodoxy at the present time can already be said to have fizzled out and there are no more obstacles to its reunification with the Orthodox Church, i.e., he pursued an idea opposite to the main thesis of Prof. I. E. Troitsky about the Armenian Church. At the doctoral debate I. E. Tr-th was present, among other visitors, Fr. I.V. V-v hotly objected to the disputant and challenged him. By the way, the People's Minister was also present. Enlightenment, I.D. Delyanov, an Armenian by origin and religion, who did not take part in the debate, but was highly interested in its result. An interesting fact: I. D. Delyanov even considered it necessary to pay a visit to doctoral student I. D. Tr-mu, at his apartment - before the debate. I. D. Delyanov, it should be noted, was one of the most frequent and diligent visitors to our ceremonial meetings and debates. He was very friendly with Metropolitan. Isidore. Both of them had great similarities with each other - in their foresight of mind and calmness of character. In the review (“Tserk. Gazette”, 1915, No. 9) on the publication. L. K. Brodsky’s “Paris Letters” and others, we find an enthusiastic and completely fair review from the reviewer about the content of the “Letters” as “having a far from unusual interest,” representing “the richness, depth and subtlety of the author’s personal thoughts and religious and social experiences.” The reviewer recognizes as especially valuable the author’s observations on the movements of the theological and social life of the Roman Catholic world of that time, the times of Pope Pius IX, with whose actions the author perfectly introduces, revealing “extraordinary awareness,” drawing at the same time how the Roman Catholic movement was reflected in the life of the French clergy and people. The letters (11,12,13) ​​“describe the situation of the country during the revolution and the influence of the latter on church affairs.” “The author’s judgment on the issue of the union of the Anglican Church with the Orthodox Church deserves attention” (letter 54); “the author was directly involved in the discussion of this issue in England” (during a trip to London). The other day a review of “Paris Letters” appeared, and also a very sympathetic one, in April. book “Histor. Vestnik" for the current year 1916. Up to and including the French court. He was at an audience with Emperor Napoleon III regarding our Russian prisoners in the Crimean War, surprising the emperor with the glibness and ease of his speech. He also received Empress Eugenia in the magnificent church he built. See "Paris." letters,” pp. 252–253. For example, his story about one Russian young man who ended up in one of the dumps during a street demonstration in Paris during the time of Napoleon III, when the crowd shouted “Down with Napoleon!” is memorable. It turns out that, carried away by the screams of the crowd, this young compatriot also shouted, echoing the screamers, for which, beaten with brass knuckles by the police, he was imprisoned (in a real bedbug inn). From prison he wrote about. I.V., asking to be removed from there. I.V., of course, did not hesitate to fulfill his request, came to him and tried to free him, and received a promise not to get involved in French street demonstrations anymore. Characteristic is the recognition of this young man that our Russian police, compared with the French, are “angels of God.” I had to meet him during one of my visits to Paris. Huge in stature, dressed in armor. cassock, he still had the appearance of a Russian gentleman, a joker. There was nothing typically Jesuitical about him. Pavel Ivanovich Savvaitov, volog., 18th degree. XII building. St. Petersburg. acad. (1837), 1837–1842 – teacher. Vologda. semester, 1842–1868 – teacher. St. Petersburg family, from 1868 - member of the Archaeographical. commissions. † 1895. Or "Church Chronicle". This is the name of the originally conceived publication by A.P. Lopukhin (in the anniversary articles on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the “Tserk. Vestnik”, see No. 52 of the “Tserk. Vestnik”, 1899), meanwhile, in the presentation of the history of the journal (in I. A. Chistovich’s “St. Petersburg Theological Academy for the last 30 years.” St. Petersburg, 1889) it is everywhere called “Church messenger." How it really happened has faded from memory. It is hardly true, however, that I.A. Chistovich. And before him, from 1871 to 1874, its editor was Prof. I. V. Cheltsov. Rector I. L. Yan., who, like all rectors and his predecessors, was until that time (1871) the editor of “Christ. Reading”, refused to be an editor due to the large number of his activities and, in particular, in view of the year-long leave he received at that time. They, as well as other, most significant articles belonging to me, are indicated in the articles of Prof. prot. P.I. Leporsky on the occasion of my 50th anniversary (“Church Bulletin”, 1913, No. 46–47). “Tell Prof. Katansky, - once the Metropolitan instructed. Isidore to the rector I.L.Ya. - what does he, a professor of dogma. theology, it is a shame to print such news that, they say, the consecration of a bishop (I don’t remember which person) was carried out by such and such bishops together with such and such archimandrites and archpriests; after all, he knows well that persons of presbyteral rank do not participate in episcopal consecration.” This was the only case of reprimand from the complacent ruler, which I fully deserved. The compiler of the chronicle made a clipping from a secular newspaper, but I overlooked and did not exclude archimandrites and archpriests, who, being in concelebration with bishops, do not, however, perform consecrations. Somehow, the news (newspaper canard) about a significant, several percent, reduction in our monasteries spread across all secular newspapers; it also ended up in the “Church-community” Messenger" A.I. Popovitsky. In "Church" the “Bulletin” did not report such news, which was obviously false and completely incredible, of course. But K.P. Pobedonostsev, the then Chief Prosecutor, who had read various newspapers and confused “Tserkovny Vestnik” with “Tserkovno-Publicny Vestnik”, expressed to the rector in strong terms his displeasure at “Tserkovny Vestnik” and its editor. This was at an academic dinner (on the day of the act, February 17). I tried to dissuade both the rector and K.P.P., who was right there, but I hardly succeeded; even the rector said: “Take a good look and see if it got to Ts.V. this is news,” and K.P.P. stood his ground that he read, etc. The “boss” in his tone and treatment of me was hardly noticeable, and I behaved, with all the respect for his person, as a person not subordinate to him, which, by the way, made it clear in my very suit: I was dressed not in a uniform, an official vice-uniform, but in a simple tailcoat, although with an order and a white tie around my neck - as a sign of respect for his high position. A small thing, but characteristic; my father-in-law advised her (at that time Archpriest I.V.V. was still alive; it was not long before his death, in the same 1881). However, I was already quite well known to K.P. P-vu, and, by the way, it was precisely from the side of some independence of character, according to the story he remembers (1874-75) that he refused the invitation. Prince K.N. to the board of the society spirit. enlightenment And then, a year before the described audience, we met (in 1880) at the academy for the master's exam. By the way, is it not the impression of the aforementioned refusal that partly explains the more than attentive attitude of K.P. to me then for the exam? It may very well be that this refusal greatly increased my opinion of him. The same thing happened, it seems to me, in our long conversation at his chief prosecutor’s apartment. The note also contains facts that prove the complete opposite of what was stated in the article “Sovr. news." These facts, as far as I remember, were borrowed from the aforementioned angry letter from the Rev. Exarch to the Most Rev. Arseny. From the Academy's associate professors: I.S. Yakimov (for “Print Opinions”), N. A. Skabalanovich (“Church Chronicle”), A. A. Priselkov (“Review of Diocesan Reports”), I. G. Troitsky (“Review Journal”). From the teachers Peter. family: A.P. Maltsev and V.I. Zhmakin (both for “Review Journal”). A. P. Maltsev – Yaroslav, Ph.D. XXXV room Peter. acad. (1878), then (1879) – mag., later a highly respected rector of our embassy church in Berlin. V.I. Zhmakin - Samara, Ph.D. XXXVI room Peter. acad. (1879), from 1886 - mag., then petr. prot. and member of the Academic. com. at the Holy Synod. My editorial predecessor, Prof., was also present. A.I. Predtechensky, who had once criticized me, and now joined the general chorus and, what was especially pleasant for me, declared that I had fully embraced my role, had mastered the matter (something like that). I confess that my triumph as the innovator of the magazine was complete. Of this amount, about 2000 rubles. (I don’t remember the exact figure) came as remuneration for editorial work, the rest was payment for my articles. From this it is clear how much I had to write myself, and in the number of paid items I did not include everything that came from my pen; I mean many small notes, news, etc. There were issues that almost half consisted of various kinds of my articles. It is clear how overworked I was, while continuing to fulfill the duties of professor, board member, and assistant rector for theology. department. But thanks to this earnings, a small cash reserve was formed, which gave my wife and I the opportunity later, after retirement, to arrange our own shelter for our old age, in the form of a modest house in the city of Gatchina. It was, of course, impossible to do anything like this with the remainder of the professor's salary. Here I had the opportunity to become closely acquainted with the rather unattractive world of lawyers. One of them even threatened me with being taken to a commercial court. The fact is that the attorney-at-law we chose to conduct the case turned out to be a traitor in relation to our interests, and therefore I transferred the bill of exchange issued to him by Smelkov to secure the debt to another attorney-at-law, along with the one charged with conducting the entire collection case. This transfer served to accuse me of illegal “bill holder”; I even received a summons to appear in commercial court to answer, but the second lawyer, by letters from the first to me, proved the inconsistency of his accusations, and so on. arr., appear in comm. I didn't have to go to court. Prof. A.A. Bronzov “Protopresbyter I.L. Yanyshev" - dept. Ott. from magazines “Sober shoots” (St. Petersburg, 1911). Here the life of students (1879–1883) is depicted in bright colors, and the rector Fr. I.L. in the role of a subtle psychologist who knew how to influence students with the power of persuasion, often subtle irony, sarcasm, where it was necessary, condescending, and where it was required - a strict boss, sometimes a defender of students, the organizer of their fate in the service, and finally as a professor of moral theology. A very interesting book. One day Fr. I.L., due to ill health, refused to meet with Metropolitan. Isidore from delivering the usual sermon on this day. “How can this be, oh. archpriest,” said Metropolitan. “After all, the whole of Petrograd is waiting for you, a mass of people will gather, and suddenly there will be no sermon of yours.” No, as you wish, but you must preach a sermon, I ask you about it.” And it seems oh. I.L. fulfilled the Bishop’s wish, expressed in such a persistent and at the same time flattering form for our rector. See: I.A. Chistovich "Manager. figures of spiritual enlightenment." St. Petersburg, 1894, pp. 142–143. The author was unable to obtain from the academic archives the file on the doctoral dissertation (1872) of I. L. Yanyshev. For readers of “Christ. Reading" for those interested in official documents related to this case, we present an extract from the said documents. In a rather lengthy definition of theology. department, by the way, it was said: “The work done by the author is undoubtedly very significant and deserves full respect. But his views constitute something new in relation to established and accepted, although not quite clear, concepts from the field of morals. theology and sometimes, at least apparently, do not coincide with the presentation of the teaching on these subjects in our theologies. systems and symbolic books. Nevertheless, the department... considers allowing the author to publish it, especially since the attempt he made is not a teaching that he presents as generally accepted, but only an experience in explaining Orthodox teaching.” – The definition of advice is expressed as follows. words: “In view of the fact that the starting point of the essay is the consideration and discussion of passages of dogmatic significance from the patriarchal charters, Right. Confessions of faith and space. catechism, i.e., such statements of faith that are authorized by the blessing of the Holy Synod, about permission to publish op. prot. I.L. Jan-va to submit for the benefit of the Holy Synod.” – Then came the decree of the Holy Synod addressed to M. Isidore (dated November 13, 1872), which stated: “in the submission of your Government, it was not explained what exactly the difficulties encountered by St. Petersburg were. academic council regarding permission to publish op. prot. Yanysheva. As a result, the Holy Synod determines to instruct your Government to demand from the academician. advice that he indicate the places in the work where he encountered difficulties in obtaining permission to publish the said work. What to give your Prime Minister a decree on, with the appendix op. prot. Yanyshev, so that what follows will be presented to the Holy Synod, in a short time, with the return of the opus itself.” After hearing this decree made by M. Isidore in the council, the council determined: “op. rect. prot. I.L. Convey Yan-va to God. department so that the department will report to the council on the contents of the decree of the Holy Synod in a short time.” – There was no further movement in this case. Its members: chairman. Educational com. prot. I.V. Vasiliev, and after his death (a month after the establishment of the committee) - his successor, Archpriest. A.I. Parvov, director of the office. chief prosecutor I.A. Nenarokomov, professors of the academies - Petrograd I.F. Nilsky and I.E. Troitsky (who is also a clerk), Kyiv - V.F. Pevnitsky, Moscow - V.D. Kudryavtsev, Kazan - I.S. Berdnikov. At this time, I happened to meet in Petrograd with the venerable V.D. Kudryavtsev, my former colleague at the Moscow Academy. In his premises, in the hotel, I met, among other things, his fellow student M.I. Shavrov (2nd Mag. 1852 Moscow Academician), who was Peter’s teacher for a long time. seminary, and then - an official of special assignments under the chief prosecutor. Holy Synod. G. Shavrov, apparently, did not share the likes and dislikes of his principal and spoke approvingly of my editing of “Church. messenger,” and his wife, who happened to be here, directly introduced herself to me as my “reader and admirer” according to “Church. to the messenger." V.D. also responded sympathetically to my journal activities. Kudryavtsev. “Church. Bulletin" 1883 No. 44. This is what he said, addressing the teachers of the academy: “Your serious, honest, sometimes to the point of exaggerated idealization of honesty, approach to all academic affairs, especially. when it came to teaching, the election of officials, the evaluation of essays or the merits of exam answers, etc., such an attitude towards one’s duty imprinted in me forever and indelibly a deep respect for the entire academic fraternity.” I mean the election in 1876 of the Perm Archpriest Fr. E. A. Popov, who published a lot of works of different content, mostly of a practical, edifying nature. Prof. Nick. Iv. Barsov, amazed by the large number of his works in print, entered the council with a proposal to honor Fr. Popov master's degree in theology. without oral testing and dissertation defense. and without him having attended a full academic course (Fr. Popov had a seminary education). The Council, of course, could not agree with such a proposal, which fundamentally violated the rules of Acad. charter, but so as not to leave Fr.’s useful activities without any encouragement. Popov, decided - “in consideration of his long-term, extensive and fruitful theological and literary activity, to elevate him to the rank of honorary member of the Academy.” Prof.'s proposal Nick. I. Barsov was heard and a decision on it followed at the last meeting of the council before the summer holidays; Everyone was already very tired and in a hurry to rest. At the same time, a closed ballot for Fr. Popova as honorary members; the result was positive. Afterwards we very much regretted that this matter had not been postponed until the next meeting of the council, in accordance with the strictly observed rule up to that time - never to put a motion before the same meeting of the council when this proposal was heard. Soon we had to go through many unpleasant moments. Newspapers, rummaging through the numerous writings of Fr. E. A. Popov and finding many oddities in some of his pamphlets of a casuistic nature (mainly, I remember, in his instructions to prisoners and about confession), they laughed at Fr. Popov, and the Academy, which awarded him the title of honorary member. See I. A. Chistovich - “SPb. spirit. academy over the past 30 years,” pp. 196–197. “The projects developed by the commission were sent to some eminences. Then these projects, together with the works of the commission related to them and individual comments of the bishops, were subjected to careful consideration at a special meeting of the Metropolitan. Moscow Joannikia”, etc. Yes. arr., everywhere we are talking here not about one project, but about some several projects and related works, i.e., obviously, about individual opinions. The presence in the commission of representatives of 4 of our academies, professors in the amount of 5 persons, who, of course, defended the interests of academicians. science, makes the appearance of these individual opinions-projects understandable. The first group: 1) theory of literature and history of foreign literatures, 2) Russian language and Church Slavonic (with paleography) and history of Russian literature, 3) Hebrew language and biblical archeology. The second group: 1) history and analysis of Western confessions, 2) history and exposure of the Russian schism, 3) general civil history, 4) Russian civil history. Brief biographical information about him is reported in the first edition of my “Memoirs,” chap. III, p. 102. Here, for example, is what one of our young monastic assistant professors said. We gathered, several people, at Met. Isidore to discuss some matter of either an ecclesiastical or spiritual-scientific nature. Suddenly, among the discussions, they report that one of the most important officials of the synodal department has arrived. The footman reports. The Metropolitan, wincing, says: “Ask.” And, when the arrival enters, Metropolitan. Isidore, addressing the meeting, remarks: “The same is General Pritychkin.” This surname, very characteristic of the person who entered, who loved to interfere in all church and all kinds of synodal affairs, was probably borrowed by the Metropolitan from some very old comedy, from the times, for example, of Sumarokov. Metropolitan Palladium (in the world - Pavel Ivanovich Raev), Nizhny Novgorod, 3rd magician. Kazan. acad. IV degree (1852), from 1852 to 1863 – teacher. Nizhegorsk family, sacred Nizhny Novgorod church, priest (1861), insp. sem., archim. (1862), 1863 – inspection. St. Petersburg sem., 1864–1866 – its rector, 1866 – bishop. Ladozhsk., Vik. St. Petersburg, 1869 – ep. Vologda, 1873 – bishop. Tambov, 1876 – ep. Ryazan, 1881 – archbishop, 1882–1887 – archbishop. Kazan., 1887 – Exarch of Georgia, 1892 – Metropolitan. Petrogr., † 5 Dec. 1898. A significant role in this regard was played by the close, long-term friendship of Rev. Palladia with his fellow student in Nizhegorsk. sem., prot. pet-rogr. Smolensk Cemetery P. A. Matveevsky, brother-in-law of both Fr. archpriests (I.V. Vasilyeva and I.L. Yanysheva). From his friend, he heard a lot about the activities of these outstanding people and was involuntarily disposed to deep respect for them, and at the same time to sympathy for the direction of which they were the guides. This friendship had a strong impact on my destiny; thanks to her I became the son-in-law of Rev. I. V. Vasilyeva (see Chapter IV of my “Memoirs”). The Reverends wooed me. Palladius, then rector of Petrograd. seminary and then vicar Petrogr. Metropolis, together with the above-mentioned Archpriest. P. A. Matveevsky. Like I.D. Delyanov, who is my brother-in-law, N.M. Anichkov. Then the director of the department of public education said: “It seems to me. What after Met. Isidora Metropolitan of Petrograd will be the Most Reverend. Palladium; something often calls him to the Synod.” It was heard that Met. Ioannikiy, then of Kiev, was very much against such an appointment, pretending that the Most Reverend. Palladius was only a parish priest (in Nizhny Novgorod until 1861), while he (Ioannikiy) was already (from June 12, 1861) Bishop of Vyborg, Vic. Petrogr. He probably felt the same way about Rev. Palladius and Leonty, Metropolitan. Moscow (1891–1893), who was Bishop of Revel from 1860 They said that K.P. Pobedonostsev came to the Sovereign Imp. Alexander III with his candidate (Sergius Lyapidevsky), but the Emperor did not give him time to even propose this candidate, noting: “My wife (Imperial Maria Feodorovna) and I have already decided to appoint an exarch,” that is, the Most Rev. Palladia. However, according to E.P. According to Aquilon's careful information, Pavel (Prussky) was at that time in such a state that he could not consciously take part in the matter. How such an appointment was made, the protopr told me about it. I. L. Yanyshev. On one of the days, when some kind of divine service was performed in the Peter and Paul Cathedral by the court clergy, min. Dvora, gr. Vorontsov-Dashkov, approaches the prototype. I. L. Yan. and asks: “It’s time to decide the question, who should perform the coronation, what do you think?” “I would think,” Fr. answers. I.L., - that - the first member of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan. Palladium". “And I think so, and in this sense I will report to the Emperor.” It should be noted that gr. Vorontsov, as a Tambov landowner, knew Rev. Palladius, former bishop. Tambovsky, and was very fond of him. I remember that I happily hastened to inform my colleagues at the academy about this decision regarding the person who was to perform the coronation. I was glad for the distressed and humiliated Metropolitan. Palladia. Rev. Arseny (in the world - Alexander Dmitrievich Bryantsev), Smolensk, magician. XXIII building Kyiv. acad. (1867), 1867 – scholar of law. hymn. in Kyiv, 1868 – priest, 1873 – archimandrite, rector of Tavrich. Sem., 1882 – ep. Vyborg. and Ladozh., Vik. Petrogr., 1883 – rector. Petrogr. academician, 1887 – ep. Rizhsky, 1893 – archbishop, 1897 – archbishop. Kazan, 1903 – archbishop. Kharkov; † 1914. And to me even in particular, as a person who occupied the rector’s chair, according to previous customs, (dogma. theology), and perhaps for other reasons. He even told me that he was ready to contribute to my appointment through court influences. But the severity of the rector’s position, especially at that time, did not at all predispose both others and me to the idea of ​​​​taking on this difficult burden. Moreover, it was felt that another time had come, and Fr.’s desire could hardly come true. I. L. Yan., and even if it came true, then what awaited his successor? As for me, accept Fr.'s offer. I.L. was hindered, in addition, by the determination that had long been close to me not to exchange the modest post of professor for anything higher. So Rev. Arseny began to grumble. When meeting in Riga with one of his former colleagues, he, with his characteristic naivety, asked: “Why has the academy still not elected me as an honorary member?” Archim. Anthony (in the world - Alexander Vasilyevich Vadkovsky), tamb., 3rd magician. XII building Kazan. acad. (1870), from 1870 to 1883 – associate professor. Kazan. acad. according to homil., 1883 – monk, 1884 – archim., extraord. prof. and inspection Kazan. academician, 1885 – inspection. Petrogr. acad. with the rank of extraord. prof. according to the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament. Usually, two people were left at the academy as professorial fellows, but this time, at the insistence of one of the professors, unfortunately, a third (Novorussky) was added to them. I remember the council did this reluctantly. However, one of the members of the academician brought me under his shot. administration. It happened, especially in the last years of his rectorship, that the secretary would leave his seat, come up to the table where we were sitting at the head of the rector, and report matters to him, so that once one of the members of the board remarked: “It seems that our board meetings are turning into reports from the secretary to the rector,” a double hint of both the rector’s unpreparedness and the manifestation of some despotic habits. In the last years of his rectorship, the influence on him (to a small extent, however) of the spirit of the charter of 1884 was noticeable. There was a theft of all the antique silverware (spoons and forks) from the student canteen. A search and grave suspicions began... Jerome. Mikhail (Gribanovsky), tamb., XLI k. Petrogr. acad. (1884), 1884 – Ph.D., i.d. Associate Professor in Introductory in the circle of worship. Sciences, 1887 – i.d. inspector, 1888 – master of science, associate professor, archim., inspector, 1890 – present. embassy center in Athens, 1894 – bishop. Priluk., 1895 – ep. Kashir., 1896 ep. Tavrich.; † 1898, in Simferopol. Jerome. Anthony (in the world - Alexey Pavlovich Khrapovitsky) is from the nobility, raised. 5th Petr. anthem., who graduated with a gold medal, entered our academy in 1881, graduating. her in 1885. As a theological student. department., was distinguished by a remarkable memory, during exams he amazed with the accurate transmission of lectures and especially the texts of Holy Scripture (much better than many of the seminary students) and an extraordinary ability for philosophical thinking, rare, especially for a former student of the gymnasium. In 1885 – candidate, prof. scholarship holder, priest and assistant inspection Petrogr. academician, 1886 – teacher. Kholm family, 1887 – etc. Assoc. Petrogr. academician, 1888 – mag. and associate professor, 1889 – acting inspection, 1890 – rect. Petrogr. sem., archim., rect. Moscow academician, 1895 – rect. Kazan. academician, 1897 – ep. Cheboksary, 1899 – bishop. Chistopolsky, 1900 – bishop. Ufimsky, 1902 – ep. Volynsky, 1906 – archbishop. and member of the State Court. sov., 1911 – doctor. theologian, 1912 – member of the Holy Synod, 1914 – archbishop. Kharkovsky. Jerome. Mikhail (in the world - Vasily Ermakov), born. Petrograd, educated. real school, Ph.D. Kyiv. acad. (1887), 1887 – hierome, teacher. Kyiv. semester, 1888 – inspection. Orlov. Sem., 1890 – etc. inspection Petrogr. academician, 1891 – archim. and inspection this academician, 1893 – rector. Mogilev, then Volyn. family; 1899 – ep. Novgorod-Seversky, and then Kovensky, 1903 - bishop. Omsk, 1905 – ep. Grodno, 1912 – archbishop. Archim. Boris (in the world – Vladimir Vladimirovich Plotnikov), Krasnoyarsk, son of a stolonach. Krasnoyarsk spirit. Board, Ph.D. Kazan. acad. (1880), 1880 – teacher. Tomsk sem., 1884 – etc. Associate Professor Kazan. acad. in metaphysics, 1886 – Hierom., Mag., Archim., etc. inspection Moscow academician, 1888 – rect. Kyiv. Sem., 1892 – senior. member. St. Petersburg spirit. qualification com., then - in the same year - rect. Petrogr. academician, 1893 – present. c. at the Russian embassy in Constantinople, in 1899 - rector for the second time. Petrogr. acad. and ep. Yamburgsky, 1901 – present in the Holy Synod and chairman. School Council under the Holy Synod; † 18 Sep. 1901, in Gurzuf, near Yalta. Jerome. Isidore (in the world - Peter Kolokolov), petrogr. harvest; will educate Petrogr. hymn., cand. Petrogr. acad. (1891), Hierom. 1891 – teacher. Tiflis. semester, 1892 – inspection. this sem., 1893 – etc. inspection Petrogr. academician, architect, inspector, 1894 – manager. Caucasus. missionary. mon., 1896 – present. Nikitsky Mon. Vladim. ep., 1899 – present Moscow Zlatoust Monastery, 1902 – ep. Novgorod-Seversky, 1903 – bishop. Balakhnin., 1906 – bishop. Mikhailov, 1911 – manager. Omsk Pokrovsky Monastery, 1913 – released from management. this monastery, was transferred to live in the Vyatka bishopric, in the Phileisky monastery, and then - in Tryphon. Assumption mon. the same diocese. I will not go into details, since, on the one hand, they are inconvenient to convey, and on the other hand, there is reason to assume that, perhaps, Fr. Isidore, however, guilty of many things, including imprudent actions, was partly a victim of intrigue on the part of one of the monastic students graduating that year, who dreamed of taking his place (inspector) and inciting his comrades against the archimandrite. Isidora. Rev. Nikandr (in the world - Nikolay Dmitrievich Molchanov), Moscow, Ph.D. Moscow acad. (1878), 1878 – teacher. Tambov. Sem., 1884 – Mag., 1885 – Priest. and archim., rect. Tambov. Sem., 1891 – ep. Narvsky, 1893 (from November 13) – rector. Petrogr. academician, 1895 – ep. Simbir., 1904 – archbishop. Lithuania; f June 5, 1910, in Petrograd. This is a new one, compiled by Rev. Vissarion, on the basis of Aquilonov’s dissertation, the definition, as set out in the decree of the Holy Synod: “The Church is an established society of people from God, united in earthly life by the Orthodox faith, the law of God, the hierarchy and the sacraments and who are under one Head, the Lord Jesus Christ, in union with angels and people who have died in true faith and holiness.” This definition seems to me quite apt. It retains all the elements of the catechetical definition and adds thoughts about the close connection of the earthly Church with the heavenly (against Protestants) and about the Head of the Church - Jesus Christ (against the Papists). Unfortunately, critics of the dissertation did not notice these very valuable thoughts carried out in it, but paid attention exclusively to its truly numerous shortcomings, which I was aware of, and which depended on the mentality of the gifted author, a more brilliant speaker and spirited publicist than a strict scientist. He was born to be a more wonderful, even outstanding, shepherd than an armchair scientist. Why, I note by the way, I was very reluctant to give my consent both to his election to the academic department and to the topic, which, as it seemed to me, was beyond his strength. Several times I forced him to redo the manuscript he presented, and yet in the end the essay turned out to be completely not to my taste. For opponents of Met. Palladium it was a pure find. Their triumph was expressed in the above-mentioned decree of the Holy Synod. We wondered why Rev. Sylvester, who gave, however, a moderately critical review, did not reject the individual (not on behalf of the Holy Synod), as was heard, proposal of V. K. Sabler to consider this work. His review, together with the review of Mosk. Metropolitan Sergius (Lyapidevsky), attached to the decree of the Holy Synod. Thus, Rev. Vissarion suffered along with us because of Akvilonov’s dissertation. But the academy was grateful to Rev. Vissarion (once in the world - Archpriest V.P. Nechaev, former editor-publisher of “Soulful Reading”) for his truly enlightened attitude towards the dissertation, which was expressed by his election in the next 1896. to honorary members of our academy. It is wonderful that Rev. Nikandr, far from being devoid of subtlety of mind, never expected such a story to play out with Akvilonov’s dissertation. When it was published and the printing came to an end, another dissertation was published at that time - F. Kalugin’s “Literat. works of Zinovy, monk of Otensky." Rev. Nikandr once remarked in a conversation: “Akvilonov’s dissertation does not bother me at all, it will, of course, pass, but Kalugin’s dissertation is a different matter; she worries me very much.” In fact, it turned out just the opposite. All the more strange is his subsequent cowardice regarding my article aimed at defending my dissertation. Rev. John (in the world – Ivan Aleksandrovich Kratirov), Vologda, son of an archpriest, magician. Moscow acad. (1864)., 1864 – teacher. Vologda. semester, 1866 – Yarosl. Sem., 1871 – secret. owls and ed. Moscow academician, 1883 – prot. and rect. Kharkov. Sem., 1884 – editor. magazine “Faith and Reason”, 1893 – monk, archimandrite. and ep. Sumsky, 1895 – bishop. Elisavetgrad., 1895 (Aug. 23) – bishop. Narvsky and rect. Petrogr. academician, 1899 (Jan. 16) – bishop. Saratov., 1903 - retired, with his appointment as a member of Moscow. synod. offices and management Moscow Simonov Mon.; † 1909, 13 Feb. Jerome. Sergius (Stragorodsky), Nizheg. Sem., 1st edition. list of candidates Petrogr. acad. (1890), 1890 – monk, member of the Japanese spirit. missions, 1893 – and. D.Assoc. Petrogr. academician, in the same year - and. d. inspection Moscow academician, 1894 – present. embassy center in Athens, 1895 – mag. (awarded by Moscow Academician), 1897 - pom. beginning Japanese mission, 1899 – rector. Petrogr. sem., then - in the same year - inspection. Petrogr. academician, 1901 – rect. the same academy, ep. Yamburg, 1905 – archbishop. Finland, 1911 – member of the Holy Synod. We do not give their full “curriculum vitae”. Those wishing to familiarize themselves with the details of their career paths are referred to the “Memorable Books of the Petrograd Theological Academy”, published annually by the academy since 1887, since the rectorship of the Most Rev. Anthony (Vadkovsky), to whom she lent this very useful innovation. Rev. Anthony introduced these books into our practice, following the example of the Kazan Academy, where they were practiced during his service in Kazan. Alexey Stepanovich Rodossky, Ryazan, 32nd candidate. XXVI building St. Petersburg. acad. (1865), 1865 – inspection. and teaches. Kobrin. spirit. taught, 1869 – acting view taught this, 1870 – pom. Librarian, Academician, 1876 – Librarian, Academician, † 1908. “Biographical dictionary of students of the first XXVIII years of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy (1814–1869). To the centenary of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy.” St. Petersburg, 1907. Tim.V. Barsov was awarded a step. church doctors rights 10 years after the appearance of his dissertation (1878–1888), since it was considered in all, it seems, of our four academies. Metropolitan took it upon himself to pronounce the final, and, moreover, favorable, verdict regarding her. Ioannikiy, our former rector, during our student years with T.V. Barsov (see Chapter III of my “Memoirs”). – Above, when listing teachers for the period 1869–1884. Tim.V. Barsov is mistakenly called a Doctor of Theology. Here I must correct the inaccuracy I made above regarding the first case of awarding a doctorate for a body of scientific work. The first such person was not Prof. V.V. Bolotov, and Rev. Feofan (Govorov). However, E. P. Akvilonov was awarded a master’s degree only in 1896 for his new essay “The New Testament Teaching about the Church. An Experience in Dogmatic Research" (1896), representing a reworking of the above, which was the subject of controversy, as we saw above. M. S. Palmov graduated from the academy course in 1883. He submitted his dissertation at the same time, then it took a long time to process it, and only in 1896 was it published and defended. How persistent, however, are the students of the previous departments. By the way, Mr. Palmov, the brother of prof. I. S. Palmov, belonged to the theological department, and he could be counted among the masters of the previous “Yanyshevsky” period, through which the number 15 would increase by 1. 34 is shown above because D. V. Tsvetaev’s dissertation was omitted. Until 1891 he continued editing “Christ. readings" prof. I.E. Trinity; from 1891 to 1893 – prof. A. I. Sadov. From these articles you can mention. For 1885: “St. The Synod in the first years of its existence" (No. 7); “Newspaper complaints about our higher hierarchy” (No. 9); “The first day of the Resurrection of Christ” (No. 13); “On pensions for the spiritual and educational department” (No. 16); “The Present Method of Compensating the Clergy” (No. 21); “Religious and educational needs of our Church” (No. 25–26); “On the signs of our academic degrees” (No. 33). For 1886: “The question of the time of the establishment of the Church and hierarchy” (No. 9–10); “On the Church and church structure - regarding the new edition. Elagin: what we should desire for our Church” (No. 21–24, 27–30). For 1887: “On pensions for the spiritual and educational department” (No. 5–8). For 1888: “On movements among our highest hierarchy” (No. 5); “The Eastern Question as a question about the future triumph of Orthodoxy over Latinism and Protestantism” (No. 12); “New Jesuit fraud regarding the book of Mr. Livansky, ed. abroad" (No. 14); "Christ the Savior, the true Messiah" (No. 17). For 1889: “Orthodox and Roman, Catholic. concept of the Church - regarding the ed. abroad op. about the Church" (No. 7–8); “Something about the systematic falsification of the doctrine of the Church among the Papists” (No. 7); "Who Distorts the Truth" (No. 8); “On our translations of our fathers’ works and our spiritual enlightenment” (No. 10); “The structure of the universal Church, given to it by councils, and its destruction in the papacy” (No. 11); “On the inter-church unity of the Orthodox East” (No. 17); “Testimony of Protestantism about the truth of Orthodoxy - regarding Op. Reflections of a Protestant" (No. 19); “Comparison of Orthodoxy and Protestantism in points of mutual disagreement” (No. 20). For 1890: “On representatives of our church interests abroad” (No. 22). For 1891: “A broad understanding of our religious and educational needs” (No. 10); “Review of the Gospel narratives about the suffering and death of the Savior on the cross” (No. 16); “On modern Russian monasticism and its needs - regarding the ed. Elagin" (No. 19–20). For 1892: “The Old Catholic Question for the Orthodox East” (No. 46). For 1893: in “Christian Reading”: “On the procession of the Holy Spirit, regarding the old Catholic question.” In 1894: “On the scientific and theological departments of the Church” (“Ts.V.”, No. 42). In 1895: “On the formulation of a treatise on the Church in the science of dogmatic theology” (No. 15–16); “About the Head of the Church Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit Paraclete” (No. 18). For 1897: “Old Russian parish” (No. 31–32). For 1898: "High Church in Anglicanism" (No. 19–22). From there they later moved to furnished rooms on Capucins Boulevard. I talked about this war one time, sitting in the Tuilerie Garden, with two ragged French men who were soldiers in this war. When they found out that I was Russian, they said that they really love and respect Russians. “Why did you fight with us in that case?” - I ask. - “That’s all - Napoleon III, we didn’t want to fight at all.” In conclusion, the interlocutors, of course, asked me for donner quelque chose. So. arr., this conversation cost me several sous. Our samovar created a huge sensation both among the Germans and Czechs, and among our compatriots, Russians, Jews and Poles, who lived in the same house with us. The former looked at it with extreme curiosity, as a thing they had never seen, calling it “Russian locomotive”; the latter looked at us with envy, wanted to get to know us precisely because of the samovar, and even rebelled against the hostess: why, they say, are they not given a samovar when we drink from it in front of everyone - in the garden gazebo at the house. This account, which I heard in one of the bakeries from the lips of a Czech saleswoman, even brought me to a state of emotion; I was definitely in Russia at that time. Now a special building has been built on land that belonged to our embassy - in the form of a beautiful Russian-style church. I had to take some part in the preliminary efforts about its construction. At the request of Fr. prot. A. V. Nikolaevsky, I wrote a note to the then ambassador in Vienna. Prot. M. F. Raevsky, Nizhny Novgorod, 34th candidate. X building. St. Petersburg. acad. (1833), 1834–1846 – priest. in Stockholm, 1846–1884 – prot. in Vienna; in 1884. He caused a lot of trouble both to the Austrian government and to our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which is why, after his death, the latter was concerned about appointing a “simpler” rector of our church in Vienna. The choice fell on the priest. Revel Church Fr. A. V. Nikolaevsky. There was an article in advance about the arrival of my anniversary in Novoye Vremya, but when the next day after the anniversary, a reporter from this newspaper, Mr. Chekhov, the brother of the famous writer A.P. Chekhov, came to see me, he was told that it was not worth giving an account of my little holiday, since there was nothing special. Dmitry Ivanovich Tikhomirov, Novgorod, Ph.D. (1881), mag. 1888, teacher. Mogilev. seven, then served for min. adv. enlightened, member of the Spiritual Educational. com. at the Holy Synod. Vasily Ivanovich Bellavin (in monasticism Tikhon), Pskov., Ph.D. St. Petersburg acad. (1888), 1888 – teacher. Pskov. Sem., 1891 – monk, 1892 – inspector. Kholmsk. Sem., rect. Kazan. and then Hill. Sem., 1897 – ep. Lublin, 1898 – bishop. Aleut., 1905 – archbishop, 1907 – archbishop. Yarosl., 1914 – archbishop. Lithuania, 1917 - by election of Archbishop. Moscow Alexander Afanasyevich Tyazhelov, Tver, 7th master. Moscow acad. (1866), first teacher. Tversk. sem., then inspection. her, in 1888 - inspector. adv. learned. in Bezhetsk. passed away Vasily Petrovich Slansky and Sergei Irineevich Miropolsky, both Voronezh sem., masters of the XXV class (1866). V.P. Slansky from the teachers of the family. moved to the State Court. control, where he served until his death. S.I. Miropolsky first served in Voronezh. sem., then to Petrograd., was then a member-auditor of the Spiritual Educational School. com. at the Holy Synod. passed away Vice-Director of the Office of the Holy Synod. See about them in issue 1. my “Memories.” (1914), p. 189. “Belyaev, Vvedensky, Zaozersky, Kazansky, Kanterev, Kasitsyn, Kiparisov, Korsunsky, Kudryavtsev, Lebedev, Martynov, Muretov, Smirnov, Andrey Sokolov, Tatarsky, Tsvetkov, Shostin.” Surnames are not ordered by seniority of service, but alphabetically. Of these, my former colleague turned out to be almost one of the oldest of the then professors, the highly respected prof. V.D. Kudryavtsev, the rest are either my students (Kazansky, Kasitsyn, Smirnov, Tsvetkov), or those who completed the academic course after I left Moscow. academy. I apologize to the readers for allowing myself to occupy their attention with this side of my activity, which, apparently, is of a completely private nature and is of personal interest. But, as will be clear from my further presentation, the history of our private printing house is closely connected with the then life of academic teachers and, in particular, with the fate of prof. F. G. Eleonsky, this is on the one hand; on the other hand, as for my participation in the printing business, this kind of activity was of considerable importance to me: it took me a lot of time and effort, significantly distracted me from my work as a professor, but it introduced me to the circle of literary and, especially, church and public figures of that time, closely acquainted me with the book business and with the very interesting world of printing workers Widow, after the death in 1870 of P.L. Replovsky. Parfen Lukich Replovsky, Vifan. Sem., 3rd Master. Moscow acad. XXII century (1860), a very gifted man, was first (1860) a teacher. Yarosl. sem., from 1862 he was a deacon of the foreign church in Stuttgart, from 1869 - assistant professor. Kyiv. acad. according to church history; soon, it seems, in the same 1869, he moved to Kyiv. university, to the department of history of fine arts, with the removal of the priesthood. sana; in 1870 he ended his life tragically (by suicide). In our professorial printing house there were many fonts that were not available even in the large Petrograd private printing houses, namely: in addition to the abundance of Latin, Greek and Church Slavonic fonts (for entire printed sheets), there were Hebrew, Polish, Czech and even Japanese fonts, and mathematical symbols. The latter (fonts and characters) were purchased for the printing of the “Guide to the Study of the Japanese Language” by D. Smirnov, once a member of the Japanese mission, a hieromonk, who later withdrew his clergy and monasticism. Math. signs – for printing op. “Geometry” - one expert and lover of mathematics, Rev. Change F. Spassky, Ph.D. Petrogr. acad. (1859). I take this opportunity to refute the once persistent rumor and quite widespread opinion in spiritual circles that the “Church. Messenger" A.I. Pop-go is the organ of the prot. I. V. Vasilyeva. Those who knew this remarkable man well and were not prejudiced against him could not believe it. A.I. P-ii undoubtedly had great literary talent, and his articles were indeed interesting or, as the drunken typesetter put it, “pleasant to read,” but his lively, biting, sweeping, and very often tactless antics were completely out of character. I.V., distinguished by great tact, subtle and deep intelligence and great balance of character. The late Fr. The archpriest, in conversations with me, very often criticized the articles of A.I. P-go and was even indignant at him for the fact that with his tactlessness he was ruining that liberal direction in the spirit. journalism, which he serves and which, in general, Fr. himself sympathized with. archpriest. At the very beginning of my editorship, when I published 4 editorials in “Church. Bulletin" (No. 5–8: “Our secular educated world and the clergy,” where the idea was advanced of establishing theological faculties at our universities), Fr. I.V. V-v said: “These are real editorials,” and at the same time, not without pleasure, he added: “It seems to me that you, A.L., with your “Church. messenger" you will kill "Church.-common. messenger." As for me, despite my good personal relationship with A.I.P., I soon developed a purely hostile attitude towards the “Church. to the messenger." After one of this newspaper’s attacks against the Church. Vestnik”, the organ of A.I. P-go completely disappeared from the pages of the academic newspaper I edited, that is, it was subjected to the most severe, as we know, literary punishment - complete silence, and this continued until the end of my editorship. Iv. You. Skvortsov, Vladimir., Ph.D. XXXIV room Moscow. acad. (1879), once ranks. chancellor Holy Synod and pom. A. I. Popovitsky according to “Church.-common. messenger", professor. Petrogr. wives gymnasiums, then their inspector, assistant. director of the gymnasium of the department Imp. Maria, currently the director of the gymnasium of this department, occupies a fairly high position. One involuntarily comes to mind comparing him with A.I. Popovitsky, a truly noble man. When are things going on according to the publication “Church-common. Vestnik", in 1884, subordinated to K.P. Pobedonostsev censorship, soon turned out to be bad, F.G. El-m and I (in 1885) turned to A.I. P-m with a request to free us from printing his newspaper, and even offered him some compensation, in the form of a discount (500 rubles) from the accounts, in view of the long-term, 10-year printing of his newspaper and his attitude towards our printing house, how her ancestor. A.I.P., with his characteristic frankness, admitted that “his affairs are really bad,” and in order not to expose us to risk, he postponed the printing of “Ts.-O.V.” to another printing house. Soon, in the same 1885, he managed to get out of a difficult situation by starting to publish our first illustrated spiritual magazine, “Russian Pilgrim,” which also had great success, but was no longer published in our country. However, I don’t consider myself guilty of this. We're both to blame. F.G., too busy with his own affairs and, moreover, adhering to the principle of the need for wide credit, strongly recommended patience to me when he heard my alarming speeches about the debt of the Den newspaper. So we endured month after month, until the debt grew to 8 thousand. There was our case of recovery from a newspaper publisher in the District Court. We also received a writ of execution, but it gave nothing; We also, from our own pockets, had to pay a sworn attorney for his work on this case. from that time, precisely from 1876, it was necessary to compulsorily promote all employees in academies to ranks corresponding to their positions and academic degrees. Until that time, only some of the professors of our academy had ranks (Prof. K. I. Luchitsky, I. A. Chistovich, I. V. Cheltsov, E. I. Lovyagin, I. T. Osinin), the rest were listed in the clergy and did not have any ranks. It is interesting that only I, as someone who received the rank of horde, could take advantage of the “rights and advantages” of this position regarding rank. professor after the law was issued, that is, after 1876 (in 1877), which is why he was promoted directly to state councilor, a rank to which the title of horde gave the right. professor. The rest, my oldest colleagues, who became hordes much earlier than me. professors, were denied promotion to this rank, on the grounds that the law does not have retroactive effect, and they had to start with the rank of titular adviser, corresponding to the master's degree that they had upon admission to the position of academician. teachers. Over the course of two or three years, their gradual promotion to various ranks continued - up to the rank of state councilor, corresponding to the rank of hordes. professor. Andrey Grigorievich Ilyinsky, Kursk. Sem., Mag. Kyiv. acad. (1857), teacher. Kyiv. family, from 1861 – officials. Household ex. at the Holy Synod, 1878–1896 – director. this control, secrets. advisor; † 15 Nov 1898, retired. Petr Ivanovich Ostroumov, Vladimir. Sem., 7th Mag. Kyiv. acad. (1863), ranks. and vice director. Household ex. (1878–1896), director of this department (1896–1905), comrade. ob.-prosecutor of the Holy Synod (1905–1906), senator (1906), secrecy. advisor; † 13 Dec 1913 Stepan Vasilievich Pravednikov, Voronezh. sem., final course in Petrograd. university; in the service of the spirit. department since 1871, was first started. department, vice-director, and then director (from 1905) of Economics. ex., secret. advisor; † 13 Nov 1909 For this I was even condemned by one of my colleagues, prof. I. F. Nilsky, who, after reading the report, heatedly condemned me for the fact that I, unworthy of the academy, “begged” for pensions on its behalf; “Shame on you!” - he said. But, carried away by agitation, I paid little attention to methods that could lead to a known goal. While reading this passage from the report, I deliberately looked at K.P.P-va, and it seemed to me that he somehow frowned more than usual and felt as if awkward. Ivan Aleksandrovich Nenarokomov, Moscow. Sem., 9th Mag. Moscow acad. (1856), 1858 – teacher. Moscow family, then ranks. clerk. ob.-proc. Holy Synod, 1860 – secret. clerk. of the Holy Synod, 1864 – chief secretariat, 1867 – member of the Academic. com. at the Holy Synod, 1869 – director. clerk. ob.-proc. Holy Synod, secrets. advisor. You might be interested in: