Глава VII. Греко-русский пантелеимоновский процесс

Russian monks who entered the Panteleimon Monastery in 1840 together with Fr. Jerome, although they settled in it at the urgent request of the Greek monks, these latter did not even think of considering them equal to themselves. The Greeks looked at the Russians as strangers, their slaves, who were obliged to work for the monastery for poor shelter and an extremely meager table, to be subjected to all kinds of deprivations, needs, etc. The small number of the Russian brethren, the hopelessly difficult situation of the monastic finances and the almost complete scarcity of personal funds - all this forced the Russian brethren to temporarily put up with their humiliated position in the monastery. The visit to Athos and in particular the Russian Panteleimon Monastery in 1845 by Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich 163 raised the prestige of the Russians in the eyes of the Athonite Greeks, and from then on the Russian Athos residents themselves began to look at themselves as members or representatives of the great Russian nation. The influx of Russian monks that soon followed, a very significant influx of donations into the hands of the Russian confessor, who, as before, continued to maintain unanimity among the brethren of different tribes and shared everything with the Greeks, and also the excessive arrogance and arrogance of these latter in relation to the Russians prompted our compatriots to raise their voices in self-defense, and to declare their rights in the monastery. However, these statements began with very moderate demands and only then gradually grew and grew, thanks to the internal turmoil that had begun. So, when the number of Russian brethren, after the Crimean campaign, increased over a hundred people, they expressed to the abbot and the Greek brethren the desire to hear readings in Russian or Slavic at meals, at least twice a week, namely on Wednesday and Friday, and the meal on these days would be blessed by a Russian hieromonk. Hegumen Gerasim and the well-meaning part of the Greek brethren, bearing in mind the concerns of the Russian brethren “about the welfare of the monastery” and “steadfast labors,” agreed to the request of the Russians, but the zealots resisted unreasonably and for a long time did not come to the meal in those days when the reading was in Slavic. This happened in 1857, and in 1866 the current order regarding reading at meals was established, i.e. one day read in Greek, and the other day in Slavic. The same order was established regarding psalmody in the church. This first demand of the Russians and the effort with which they achieved its satisfaction showed both of them in the most obvious way that an amicable joint life of monks of different nations in one monastery is hardly possible unless the conditions of this cohabitation are precisely regulated and the rights of both nationalities are not delineated. The initiative in this matter belonged to the Greeks, who suggested that the Russians draw up a “charter” for living together. The Russians, although they were surprised at this proposal from the Greeks, since in general terms these conditions had already been worked out back in 1840, when they entered the Panteleimon Monastery, nevertheless agreed to it. But when the “charter” worked out by the Greeks was presented to the Russian brethren for approval, it was here that “the thoughts of many hearts were opened.” The Greeks in this “charter” demanded: a) a reduction in the number of Russian brethren to one quarter or at least one third of the total number of Greek brethren, c) that the abbot of the monastery should always be of Greek origin, and b) that Greek monastics occupy a dominant position in the monastery. The Russians did not agree to approve the “charter” developed by the Greeks. In the monastery, unrest occurred among the Greek monks, embittered by the Russian refusal. Discontent against the Russians increased even more among the Greeks when, from 1858, Russian steamships with fans began to come directly to Athos and stop in sight of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery. At this time, at the request of the captain of the Russian steamship, the Turkish quarantine official built himself a small house near the monastery and raised a Turkish flag over it. This was done in such a way that by registering the passports of passengers, the Russian ship would not linger for a long time near Athos. The Greeks saw in all this the machinations of the Russians: it seemed to them that all this was done at the request of the Russians and at the request of the Russian consulate in Constantinople, with the aim of putting the monastery under the supervision of the Turkish authorities. The Russians tried to reassure the Greeks, to show the benefits for the monastery from the arrival of Russian steamships to Athos and from the settlement of a Turkish quarantine official near the monastery, but the Greeks did not listen to the beliefs of the Russian monks and continued to worry. The Greeks demanded the removal of the flag with a threat that if their demand was not met, the house itself would be blown up. This demand was satisfied, but the Greeks did not calm down. One of the next nights, the barrel to which Russian steamships were tied disappeared under water. At first it was assumed that this was done by someone outside the monastery, but upon investigation it turned out that the sinking of the barrel was the work of several Greek monks of the monastery of St. Panteleimon, led by the confessor of the monastery, Hieromonk Nifont. They did not want to make this matter public in order to calm worried minds, and therefore further investigation was stopped. But even after this, calm was not restored in the monastery: the dissatisfied continued to worry and demanded from Hegumen Gerasim and Hierodeacon Hilarion, his assistant, these “adamantine defenders of Russian rights,” as our compatriots, the monks, called them, that they stop supporting the Russians, otherwise they threatened them with death. One night at the door of Fr. abbot and Fr. Hilarion turned out to have a dagger and a pistol drawn on them - very unambiguous hints, which is what the dissatisfied elders condemned to do. It was difficult to foresee how all these unrest and anxieties would have ended if the dissatisfied themselves had not helped their happy outcome. Apparently wanting to intimidate the other brethren of the monastery, the dissatisfied twenty-seven monks, led by Fr. Nifont left the brethren of the Panteleimon Monastery, which helped to establish, at least for a while, peace and harmony in the monastery. The events described took place in 1863. The following years, almost until 1870, passed relatively peacefully for the Russian monastery on Athos. There were many reasons for this circumstance. To improve the extremely upset finances of the Panteleimon Monastery, in 1858 the previous collectors were sent to Russia to collect alms a second time: Hieromonk Macarius Semykin and Schemamonk Fr. Seleucus 164. To replace these persons as an alms collector, on August 28, 1862, the very handsome and gifted hieromonk Arseny (Minin) left Athos. With him, the Athonite elders sent the following shrines to Russia: a cross with part of the Life-Giving Tree, part of the stone of the life-giving Sepulcher, part of the relics of St. the great martyr and healer Panteleimon, the miraculous icon of the Tikhvin Queen of Heaven, etc. 165. Thanks to the remarkable success of this mission, which we will talk about in more detail below, donations generously poured into the Russian Panteleimon Monastery, and the most inveterate opponents of the Russians could not help but see to whom they owe the real well-being of the monastery. The Greek monks had to put up with the circumstances, willy-nilly, since the material advantage was completely on the Russian side. Soon, other circumstances followed that convinced the Greeks that the moral strength of the Russians had increased significantly. In 1866, from July 27 to 29, the Russian envoy to the Ottoman port N.P. Count Ignatiev lived on Athos, who was most clearly convinced of the bad attitude of the Greeks towards Russians and from then on became a powerful defender of Russian interests on the Holy Mountain. “This visit not only supported the importance of this monastery,” says the writings of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery, “but also gave him the opportunity to be a mediator in certain relations between the Holy Mountain and representatives of the Russian government and made him the decider of some actions that have an impact on the fate of Athos itself” 166. The stay of Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich on Athos on June 16 and 17 in 1867 also did not pass without a trace for the history of Russian monasticism on Athos. This visit 167, like the previous ones, eloquently said that the Russians on Athos are remembered within their fatherland not only by ordinary mortals who bring their last pennies here for the salvation of their souls, but also by the great Sovereign of a powerful power, whose representative was his son, that therefore the Russians cannot be bullied and that in difficult circumstances they will always find powerful defenders for themselves. The joint peaceful life of Russian monks with Greek monks in the Panteleimon Monastery on Mount Athos did not last long, however. Within the walls of the monastery in 1870, one important event took place, which in the future was to have a significant impact on the internal structure of the monastery and on the fate of Russian monks on Mount Athos, which did not escape the attention of the ill-wishers of the Russian monks. The essence of this event is as follows. The very old abbot Gerasim, wishing to prepare, in the event of his death, a worthy successor to occupy the abbot's throne in the monastery of St. Panteleimon, chose Fr. Macarius as a man outstanding among the rest of the brethren in intelligence and in his exemplary monastic life in all respects. In this case, Abbot Gerasim imitated the example of his famous elder, Abbot Savva, who chose him as his successor, also during his lifetime. Modest and unassuming Fr. Macarius, elevated to the rank of archimandrite back in 1868, when His Eminence Alexander, the former bishop of Poltava 168, was praying on Mount Athos, well aware that his present election as successor to Fr. Abbot Gerasim will not like the Greek monks and may even lead directly to unrest in the monastery - for a long time and decisively he refused the high honor of ever standing at the head of his “litany”. But his excuses and fears were not accepted as reasonable, and Fr. On October 15, 1870, Macarius was declared the “designated successor” of the elder abbot. Among the Greek monks of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery, immediately after this announcement, as Fr. Macarius, there were dissatisfied people who began to confuse and worry the rest of the monks of the monastery, who calmly reacted to what had happened, a fact that was usual in the life of Svyatogorsk monasteries. And one might think that this one circumstance, taken by itself, would hardly have fanned the long-smoldering spark of the hidden hostility of the Greeks towards the Russians to the strength that manifested itself on the Saint. Woe to the rare turmoil and seductive troubles in the history of monasticism, if this event had not been mixed with a whole series of other facts with which the Russian name was in one way or another associated. These side events, most of which, according to eyewitnesses, “are completely random and completely insignificant and at another time would have gone unnoticed,” even occurred on Athos and outside Athos. A) “There is a Greek monastery of St. Paul and George, writes K. Leontiev (also N. Konstantinov). – He is not rich and not too poor, and by the way he has lands in Bessarabia. The brethren of this monastery, leading a strict cenovic life, had long been dissatisfied with their abbot because he did not live in the monastery, and if he returned to Athos, then each time for a short time, and lived in Constantinople with monastic income 169 under the pretext of various business concerns. The brethren said: "If you are an abbot, live here and rule over us; if you want to live on the side, we can elect you to the epitropes (trustee for the affairs of Athos) and then leave. You can no longer be an abbot over us." The abbot resorted to the protection of the Patriarch. The Patriarch (Anthimus) sent an exarch to Athos on his behalf, who, with the help of the Athonite protate (synod) and one insignificant Turkish Christian official 170, began to investigate this matter. The St. Paul monks, mostly ardent Cephalonians, ardently defended their age-old right to change abbots. Protat was divided. Representatives of the vast majority of monasteries were in favor of the brethren of St. Paul; they wanted to support the independence of Athos in its internal matters. Iver, the rich and influential Vatoped, the Bulgarian Zograf and Russik 171 were in favor of the St. Paul brethren. Some of the poorest Greek cenobii went over to the side of the abbot and the Patriarchate. The struggle was long. The St. Paul brethren were decisively besieged in their monastery. The Cephalonite monks locked themselves in and did not want to let in either the abbot, or the exarch, or the Turkish official... After the patriarchal exarch left Athos, the St. Paulites stood their ground and chose for themselves an abbot not from among themselves, but one Greek, who had recently lived in a special cell and had once belonged to the brethren of the Greco-Russian monastery of St. Panteleimon." B) “As luck would have it, almost at the same time, in the Greek monastery of Xenophe, adjacent to the Russian monastery, the old abbot died and the Xenophian monks, like those of St. Paul, preferred to elect as their abbot one Greek hieromonk from the same monastery of St. Panteleimon..." C) “The current Ecumenical Patriarch Anthimus occupied the patriarchal throne at the time when the Serai cell (our Russian St. Andrew's skete) became a skete: he, so to speak, opened this skete and always maintained a special disposition towards it. More than once, during his removal from the patriarchal throne, he used to say, as can be heard, that he would certainly do something for the Serai people when he became Patriarch again. Last winter, according to the same eyewitness to the events, he remembered his promise. He sent Abbot Theodorit a cross, an archimandrite's mantle and a letter in which he declared St. Andrew's monastery a stauropegial or patriarchal monastery. Father Theodoret was called in this letter not a dike, as the abbots of dependent monasteries are usually called on Athos, but an abbot (a title given here only to the heads of twenty independent monasteries). All these signs of patriarchal favor towards Father Theodoret and his monastery did not, however, free St. Andrew's monastery from its dependence on Vatopedi. The Vatopedi spiritual authorities themselves had recently made Father Theodoret an archimandrite” 172. D) Finally, in the Little Russian monastery of St. Prophet Elijah, located on the land of the Greek Pandocrator monastery, at that time there was a lively struggle over the honor of being a dike of the monastery, after the death of Father Paisius. We will return to this struggle later, but now we will only note that in this struggle all the Little Russians were divided into two parties: at the head of the larger one was Fr. Andrei, elected to the rank of dikea and recognized in this rank by the Pandocrator monastery, and the minority party was led by the intelligent Fr. Innokenty, who was a housekeeper at the monastery for 26 years under the late abbot. This struggle assumed monstrous proportions and created a terrible temptation on Athos, so that the Solunsky consul K. Leontyev, who was visiting Athos at that time, had to intervene, however, not without the request of the Pandocrator Greeks and put an end to this scandalous feud. Of the events outside Athos, the so-called “Bulgarian schism” must be put in first place. The disagreements that began in 1859 between the Bulgarians and the Patriarchate of Constantinople, caused by changes in the organization of the latter, were ultimately resolved by the fact that the Great Church of Constantinople on September 16, 1872 declared the Bulgarians schismatics and excommunicated them from the Church. To this very decisive, but not alien to political-ecclesiastical, act, the Church of Constantinople sought consent and approval from the Holy Synod of the Russian Church, which, although it did not openly defend the Bulgarians, did not give its consent to excommunicate them from the church and left the “message of the Ecumenical Patriarch and members of the Council of Constantinople addressed to the Holy Synod on the Greek-Bulgarian church question” unanswered 173. This one act alone was enough to hurt the pride of the Greeks, who have been having disputes with the Bulgarians for many years that are far from ecclesiastical in nature, and to arouse hatred of the Russian name in general. At the same time, heated voices were heard in the East in favor of declaring the Russians schismatics, but representatives of the Eastern Church refrained from this unwise act. However, it was from this time that society and especially in the press in the East established complete solidarity between Russians and Bulgarians and even identified both. Thus, an accusation arises against Russia of Pan-Slavism, the essence and meaning of which no one clearly understands or understands well, but which, surprisingly, has become a terrible bogeyman not only for politicians of the East 174, but even for the enlightened West and remains so to this day. After the “Bulgarian schism”, among the above-mentioned events, the fact of the removal from the Russian part of Bessarabia, in the early seventies of the expiring century, of the Athonite Greek monks, who were in charge of the local lands - forests and lands that belonged to the Greek Athonite monasteries, had a great influence. The Russian government at this time found it inconvenient, in view of the various abuses and disorders it noticed in the management of these lands and forests, to leave them any longer in the hands of the Athonite monks and decided to take over the management of them, pledging, however, to pay the monasteries, minus the amounts required for the public education of the inhabitants of the local region and for the costs of managing the monastic lands, three-fifths of all income received from these lands. The Athonite epitropes, expelled by force from these places, led by the famous rich Vatopedian epitrope Ananias, came to Athos in terrible anger against the Russian government and Russians in general, looking for an opportunity to pour out their anger on the innocent Russian monks living on the Holy Mountain. The fact of the announcement of Fr. seemed to them to be such a convenient opportunity. Macarius as the “nominated successor” of the elder abbot Gerasim in the Russian Panteleimon Monastery and dissatisfaction with him among some brothers of his Greek origin. Appearing among the latter, the epitrope Ananias and his comrades openly and fervently instilled in the dissatisfied patriots the following thoughts: “Why are you looking at the Russians? Now is the time to push them back. They took away the Bulgarians from the Church, and Metohija from the monks. “I would be the first,” added the merciless Fr. Ananias, “gave a million piastres if he could push back the Russians thoroughly and, if the opportunity arises, remove them from Athos.” In the fact of the election of Fr. Macarius as successor to Fr. To Abbot Gerasim, they saw the capture of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery into the hands of Russian monks, who, according to them, without any doubt, would expel the Greek monks from it and make it Russian property. To more strongly convince their fellow tribesmen, they pointed as an example to themselves and to those above-mentioned, completely random facts that took place in the life of the Holy Mountain of the described time and which for people who were calm and sober about the events they were experiencing were not at all convincing. But the troublemakers knew who they were dealing with and acted boldly and persistently. Therefore, before time had yet passed, they advised their fellow tribesmen to do their best to prevent the election of Fr. Macarius as the successor to Abbot Gerasim and thereby prevent the disastrous Pan-Slavic movement, which, as it seemed to the instigators, on the basis of these facts, had almost engulfed the entire Mount Athos. To frightened minds they painted terrible pictures of pan-Slavic machinations and insidious plans to wipe out the Greek element from the face of the Athos land. Deprivation of a monastery and even a piece of daily bread - this is what the instigators pointed out in the future to their supposedly short-sighted patriots. In a word, the malice and persistence of the instigators did their job, and unrest began among the Greek brethren of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery, which then, complicated and confused by new facts and phenomena in the life of the Holy Mountain and outside it, turned into an open, one might say, general persecution of Russian monks, which engulfed the entire Mount Athos. In connection with the unreasonable speeches of embittered instigators, the extremely unscrupulous and extremely passionate and fiery attitude of the Constantinople press towards the events that took place on the Holy Mountain is a new insignificant factor that contributed to the strengthening of the hostility of the Greeks towards the Russians. In fact, what was the Constantinople periodical press like at this time? What are its principles and direction and what is its moral significance in society? The correspondent of Moskovskie Vedomosti, who is well acquainted with Constantinople life in general and the customs of its journalism in particular, gives us a very detailed answer to these extremely interesting questions. “Among the curious objects in Turkey,” he writes, “is undoubtedly the periodical press. Currently, many newspapers are published both in the capital and in the provinces. The newspapers published in the provinces serve, with a few exceptions, as organs of the governors-general and limit themselves, apart from official communications, to praising the orders and actions of the authorities. In Constantinople, in addition to Turkish, Armenian, Greek and Bulgarian newspapers, French ones are also published. The latter are published by foreigners who arrived here with the sole purpose of finding a means of living. In another place this circumstance alone would be enough to deprive these newspapers of all meaning and importance, but, owing to the general anomaly of affairs in Turkey, they play the most important role here. Their publishers, taking advantage of the privileges and rights granted to foreigners in Turkey, are very little embarrassed when choosing news and when discussing government actions 175. Since, on the other hand, they are read by all foreigners staying in Turkey and dispersed to Europe, Turkish statesmen, who to a certain extent value the public opinion of European nations, of necessity became interested in their direction and reviews. Unable to prevent them from making unfavorable comments, they try to win them over with generous benefits and gifts. These benefits and gifts constitute the main income of publishers. The latter, having in mind only to make a fortune for themselves, willingly sell their services to anyone who wants to buy them, as a result of which they often change their views and directions. It is in vain that anyone would look in these newspapers for a conscientious disclosure of the beliefs and views of the persons writing in them. Everything that is printed in them is written to order. Following the example of foreigners, or, more correctly, entering the magazine field for the same reasons as them, the publishers of Greek newspapers also care little about honest service to the truth, as a result of which the local newspapers should be read only as a curiosity, treating with extreme distrust all their assurances of impartiality and integrity. In order to influence the reader in the sense they desire, the mentioned newspapers consider all means permitted" 176. Based on this unflattering, but completely impartial and correct description, as we can judge from our direct acquaintance with the periodical press of Constantinople at the time we are describing, we can unmistakably conclude that this press was not at the height of its calling and we will look in vain in it for impartiality, a calm and sober attitude to the events being experienced and “honest service to the truth.” Narrow nationalism, the spirit of partisanship and admiration for the weight of the purse - this is what moved the pen of the Constantinople publicists. Therefore, it is not at all surprising if in their heated articles on political issues and church affairs we constantly come across extremely one-sided and even downright incorrect judgments, ignorance of well-known facts of history to everyone, or incorrect coverage and manipulation of them, deliberate suppression or distortion of phenomena and facts that contradict the views and views they hold, and the desire to highlight, although side effects, but speaking in favor of their tendency, and, of course, they do not spare at all the density of colors and strong words needed to excite the minds of their gullible readers. Everything that has been said now is quite applicable to those articles that were written in Constantinople newspapers regarding the above-mentioned Athos events and in particular regarding the disagreements that arose between the Russian and Greek monks of the Panteleimon Monastery. “In the Constantinople newspapers,” writes K. Leontyev, “a polemic immediately began between the Greeks themselves on this matter. One newspaper called the Athonite Greeks pan-Slavists because they rely on Russian influence, because they live on Russian alms, 177 because many of them are disposed towards Russia and succumb to the suggestions of the Russian confessors of the Panteleimon Monastery, Fathers Macarius and Jerome, who allegedly place abbots according to Greek cenobia on the Holy Place, as if of their own free will. Woe (Xenophus and St. Paul). The opponents of this newspaper, touched to the quick, turned the same weapon against it and almost called the Patriarch himself a pan-Slavist because, among other things, he made the St. Andrew’s Russian monastery patriarchal and, as if by doing so, tried to insult the ruler of Vatopedi, and because he took the side of the Athonite opposition in the St. Paul affair” 178 . In a word, everywhere and everywhere Constantinople publicists saw the machinations of Pan-Slavism, which they hated, and they filled entire columns of their unscrupulous newspapers with evidence of its existence within the boundaries of their beloved Ottoman Empire. “By all means” they tried to assure the Turkish government that Pan-Slavism was a dangerous enemy of Turkey and Hellas. It is therefore not at all surprising that these publicists not only noted with pleasure all of the above events on Athos as evidence of the undoubted existence of Pan-Slavism within Turkey, but did not remain silent about the intervention of the Russian Solunsky consul in the affairs of the Elias monastery and even the very fact of the visit and stay on Athos of the Russian consuls - Bitolsky (Mr. Yakubovsky, later the Solunsky consul) and Solunsky (Mr. K. Leontyev), whose newspapers they even called them agitators of pan-Slavic ideas. “The names of these two consuls,” writes K. Leontyev, “especially Solunsky, have been incessantly appearing in the newspapers lately. Then one of these consuls is portrayed as an ardent pan-Slavic writer, while in Russia we do not have not only a single pan-Slavic newspaper, but also any political article or book signed with his name 179. Then, having some huge sum at his disposal, he bribed all the poorest Greek monasteries on Athos in favor of Russia. Then he lives in St. Andrew's monastery, where ten Russian monks and clerks help him, while there it is very difficult to find at least one free monk for correspondence. Then he sent somewhere an article proving that the whole of Athos was the prey of the Russians. Then he is Katkov's agent in Macedonia. Then one (Bitola) consul hurries to another on Athos from Thessaloniki, and both of them confer there about Pan-Slavism, while we know here that these two officials were never together on Athos, and that the Thessalonica consul was lying sick, almost dying in the city of Kavala, 150 and 200 versts from Athos at the time when the Bitola consul visited the Holy Mountain alone.” 180. We consider it completely unnecessary to make here extensive extracts from the Constantinople newspapers of the time we are describing in order to see the vile lies, heavy slander and unscrupulous insinuations that the Constantinople publicists wrote about the Russians in them, since we will deal with this journalism in the next chapter. Both during the “Greek-Russian Panteleimon trial” in 1874 and 75, and somewhat later, during the Russian-Turkish War of 1877 and 1878, the same slander against Russian Athonite monks was leveled and they were written in the same language. Greek newspapers in Constantinople, without a twinge of conscience, repeated on their pages during the war verbatim what they wrote about the Russians regarding the “Panteleimon Trial.” Now, bearing in mind the general nature and direction of the Constantinople press, which we indicated above, we will only make an attempt to classify the numerous organs of this press according to their sympathies and antipathies towards the Russian monks on Athos. The most ardent and powerful opponents of the Russian monks on Athos were the large Greek newspapers: “Νεολόγος” and “Φράχη”. The last of them, for the extremeness of its views, passion and persistence in conveying them to the public, was repeatedly closed, but each time it was resurrected, changing only its sign (it was called “Επτάλογος”, “Κωνσταντινούπολις”), but always remaining true to its Russophobic direction. To these Greek newspapers we must add the French Constantinople newspaper “Phare du Bosphore,” which was published in “some kind of German-Greek spirit,” as the late K. Leontyev described it, and in polemics against the Russians did not differ at all from the aforementioned Greek newspapers. The malicious article of this French newspaper under the title “Russians on Athos” was analyzed in detail by K. Leontyev in his excellent article “Pan-Slavism on Athos” and a serious answer was given to each accusation. The Russian side was supported and represented by representatives of the “Reasonably Patriotic Press” newspaper: the reputable and very conscientious “Βυζάντις”; the three-day “Θεαλής”, which entered its fifth year of existence in 1874, whose articles on Athonite affairs were always written with animation and genuine sincerity (see No. 717, Oct. 8, ??. 1871; No. 726, Oct. 31, the same year, and other issues); the daily "Εποχή" 181 and some other newspapers were just born in the month of April 1875. The semi-official “Ανατολιχος άστήρ” and the young “Μιχρά Ασία”, founded in 1874, tried to maintain complete impartiality in discussing the events that took place and look at the matter without any preconceived ideas, but they did not always succeed in this impartiality. Life, public opinion, which was very passionate about the events that were taking place, involuntarily drew the conductors of these newspapers away from the path they wanted to follow, and they unwittingly paid tribute to the time and their national origin. Among the numerous organs of the Constantinople press of this time, the strange, to say the least, humorous newspaper “Μενιππος”, which began to be published from the first month of 1874 and only once a week on Fridays, stands out quite noticeably. Surprisingly, this Greek newspaper should be called an ardent champion and defender of the interests of Russian monks on Athos and a merciless opponent of their enemies in Constantinople and Athos, that is, the Greeks. Sharply and sometimes, one might say, to the point of indecency, she systematically consistently and ardently attacked these latter, pointing out to them the ridiculousness of their position in the role of defenders of Orthodoxy and nationality, as well as the primordial rights belonging to the Greek nationality, which (i.e. rights) no one claimed and which no one had ever trampled upon. Despite, however, all this, when reading the articles of the newspaper “Μενιππος” we involuntarily have doubts about the sincerity and selflessness of serving its interests of the Russian Athonite monks. Respectable contemporaries of the “Greek-Russian Panteleimon trial” assure us that at one time the far from good-natured “humor of this newspaper had an effect on readers who “for a whole week fed on the“ exciting ”articles of the extreme Russophobic newspapers “εολόγος” and “Φράχη”,” as if reconciling and calming way. We willingly take their word for it, but we cannot hide our immediate impression received from our acquaintance with the newspaper “Μενιππος,” which was completely unknown to us until then. Now, almost twenty years after the events that the newspaper treats, its “humour” has completely evaporated and we had to make a great effort to get acquainted with the nature of its direction by reading several issues filled with indecent and blasphemous antics 182 addressed to the enemies of the Russian monks on Athos. Thus, the events that took place within the walls of the monastery of St. Panteleimon, on Mount Athos in general and outside the Holy Land where the Russian name was somehow mixed in, due to the incitement and incitement of influential and wealthy people, but very hostile against the Russians, and mainly due to the extremely biased attitude towards all the events of that time by the influential Constantinople journalists, who passionately wrote against Russia in general and Russian monks on Mount Athos in particular - all this taken together strongly armed public opinion against the Russians not only in the East, but even later in the distant West. It is not surprising, therefore, that one unimportant event in the life of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery on Mount Athos was enough, namely the desire of Abbot Gerasim, on the occasion of his serious illness in 1873, to announce Fr. Macarius as the actual abbot of the monastery, so that not only the fathers of this monastery of Greek origin, but the entire Athos, the entire, one might say, Greek nation, would rebel against the Russians. Thus began the famous “Greek-Russian Panteleimon trial,” which for a long time worried public opinion in the East and was the subject of a lively and comprehensive discussion in the European and our Russian press. Gloomy pictures, provoking deep reflection, represent life in Svyatogorsk during these difficult years. “Where yesterday and before Christian love and unity, the very foundation and rule of our piety, like a shield and armor protected our fellow believers against any insidious intent and attack, now,” a contemporary characterizes the life of Athos during this time, unspeakable hostility and contentiousness arises, and passions flare up to the point that any distinction between fair and unjust, canonical and illegal disappears, confusion and perversion of concepts appears and, even worse, because of earthly aspirations and desires, faith itself, which, apparently, is the focus of all struggle, is forgotten. Any Orthodox Christian can be amazed and lead to initial thoughts about the future by the fact that this stormy stream of passions, in the treatment of weak people, in its uncontrollable desire captures that sacred Mountain, which for the venerable hermits, who have broken all earthly ties, serves as a place of rest and reinforcement when ascending to the heights of heaven, who come and live in the sacred refuges there in order to to strive in virtue and chastity and, away from various worldly temptations, to take care of one’s spiritual perfection. And who would believe that the venerable Athos has become a disgrace of passions and disputes, that in this sacred place of spiritual asceticism and self-denial in our days scenes are ready to play out that are shaking at the foundation of respect and reverence, instilled in Orthodox believers by the mere name of the Holy Mountain” 183. At this time, “the relations between the Greek and Russian monks became so irritable that the holy monastery never ceased to be a spectacle of quarrels and disputes, completely indecent for those living in secular society, and especially for the fathers who devoted themselves to the monastic and ascetic life” 184. As soon as the intention of Fr. declaring Abbot Gerasim during his lifetime to be the actual abbot of Fr. Macarius, as they, already extremely hostile against the Russians, became agitated in the monastery and began to consult about what they needed to do at this, in their opinion, critical moment. They invited the confessor Elder Savva from the Dionysia Monastery to the meeting. “Amen, our monastery has disappeared! Hegumen is a schismatic, Deacon Hilarion is a schismatic and Russian schismatics!” - shouted the irritated voices of the dissatisfied at this meeting. Some of them confessed to Fr. confessor that they planned to burn the monastery and were then ready to even suffer for this godly deed, in their opinion, if they were persecuted by the protat and the Turkish government in order to receive martyr’s crowns. These absurd speeches of the hotheads frightened the elder confessor, who began to persuade the Protestants, advising them to abandon this intention, since with this insane act they would only bring “joy to the devil and heretics.” The dissatisfied heeded the elder’s advice and decided to leave their intention unfulfilled, but they did not calm down at all and continued to worry and disturb the peaceful life of the Russian monks. Thus, Hieromonk Eugene, anti-prosop of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery, sent to defend a piece of land belonging to the Mother of God Skete of Xylurgus, but unjustly seized by the Pandocrator Monastery, instead of fulfilling his direct duty, in the presence of the kinot, expressed in the most brazen manner outrageous slander against the Russians. In the monastery, the Greek housekeeper forbade the new monk to work in the Russian half, saying: “a monk must do his cell work.” The Russians brought a complaint to Fr. Hilarion to these actions of the representatives of the monastery. Fr. Hilarion took the side of the Russians and even wanted to change the steward out of obedience, but the Greeks not only did not allow this to be done, but even began to ask Fr. Hilarion no longer supports the Russians, saying: “We are all at your feet. Besides you, we don’t want to know either Jerome or Macarius.” But oh. Hilarion continued to stand his ground and remained on the side of the Russians, with whom he even moved into the building, fearing trouble from the rebels. On the night of January 9, 1874, “the reservoir was released and the very beginning of the water source was blocked with boards, the water was diverted to the side.” The same thing happened again on the night of January 11th, with the difference that this time the waters could not be drained. The Russians, fearing for their lives, established a permanent guard in the corridors of their building. Then the Greeks demanded the removal of Fr. Nathanael, who was later antiprosop in Kareya (about him, see above), from the post of grammarian. Although Fr. Nathanael conducted business well and behaved, as noted in the diary, “so delicately that even the elders were surprised at his modesty, for he never endured any conversation in Greek with Russians or a bad opinion about Russians,” however, Fr. Jerome promised to satisfy this request of the Greek fathers Eugenius, Anastasius and Eleutherius, who also threatened, if this request was not fulfilled, to chop into pieces the hated grammarian. These fathers promised peace and silence in the monastery if “this first evil in the monastery will be removed from the position he occupies and their request will be respected.” January 15 Fr. Nathanael was removed from office, and his place was taken by Fr. Evgeny. However, the promised peace did not materialize. The Greeks demanded that Fr. Hilarion moved to the Greek half, and when he refused to respect their request, they demanded the monastery seal from him. On January 17, they stopped commemorating the names of Fathers Jerome, Macarius and Hilarion at litanies in the church. A priest who decided not to obey this order was banned from serving in the priesthood. Then the Russians, seeing that there was no end in sight for the demands and impudence of the Greeks, decided through Fr. Jerome to ask the abbot for blessings on the division. Father Gerasim agreed to this desire, but the Greeks did not want to hear about any division and satisfaction of the Russian monks, since “the monastic land,” in their words, “is the property of the Greek nation.” Almost two whole days passed in these useless negotiations - January 26 and 27. On January 28, Abbot Gerasim decided to establish sympractors or three assistants for himself, who were supposed to discuss the grounds on which the division itself could be made. When Fr. Jerome learned that these simpractors, among other things, would manage the internal affairs of the monastery and manage the monastic property, so he directly and decisively declared: “As long as I am alive, I will not allow anyone else to dispose of this object; the wallet is in my hands and so is the will.” Fr did not agree. Jerome responded to the demand of the Greeks to remove the Kelliots who come for alms from the monastery port, making, however, the concession that the Greeks can refuse alms to the Greek Kelliots. This last order of the sympractors led to a quarrel between the Greek and Russian gatekeepers, and the former even heatedly expressed himself about bread like this: “I don’t want it, I’d rather eat this cracker, but my own, not Russian.” Although the sympractors o. Gregory, Agathon and Agapius did not achieve recognition of their power by the Russian brethren, but this did not prevent the named persons from seizing power into their own hands and declaring that the monastery was already governed by sympractors, as representatives of the brotherhood, and not by the abbot. The unrecognized rulers immediately demanded from the Russians the issuance of the monastery seal, which was handed over to them, but under the condition, stated by the Russians in advance, that there were three keys to the place where the seal was kept, one of which would be kept by Fr. Hilarion, another among the Sympractors, and a third among the Russians. However, the simpractors did not stop there. The very next day, i.e. On February 20, they demanded that the Russians return all monastic documents and chrisovuls, which one of the Russian monks (Father Azaria) had put in proper order. The Russians refused to comply with the Greek demand. Then these latter spread a rumor that the Russians were forging documents, that they intended to send them to Constantinople, etc., and directly stated that without issuing documents they would not let Fr. Macarius, who was preparing to leave for Constantinople, since his situation in the monastery was unbearably difficult. The Greeks stopped inviting him for solemn services, to read the prayer of permission as a confessor, and even, remembering that his grandfather Fr. Macarius was a schismatic, and an absurd rumor was spread around Athos that he had not been baptized, “and so he was a Lipovan or Molokan as a heretic.” Fr. advised the Russians to issue documents. Hilarion, but they stubbornly refused, fearing, of course, for the integrity and integrity of these documents. Then the Greeks submitted a petition to the Protat, signed by 100 people, in which they accused the Russians of misappropriating monastic documents. But the matter did not stop there: the Greeks began to threaten the Russians that if they did not issue monastic acts, they would take away the monastery seal from them. The threat was grave. The Russians finally decided to issue the acts, but with the condition that they be placed in a fireproof chest, which would stand either in the library or in the sacristy, and the keys to this chest would be kept by one of the Greeks and the other by the Russians. The Greeks feignedly agreed to all the demands of the Russians, but when they received the monastery documents into their hands, they did not fulfill a single demand of the Russian brethren, they did not even give a receipt for receiving them from the Russians. The transfer of documents by the Russians to the Greeks took place on February 25. The Russians now understood in the most obvious way that peace in the monastery cannot be established through measures of meekness, leniency and all kinds of concessions to the dispersed Greek monks; intervention from outsiders and the authoritative word of those in power is necessary. It was decided to send Fr. Macarius to Constantinople so that he would outline the course of all the circumstances that happened in the monastery to the Russian envoy Count N.P. Ignatiev, so that he would take measures depending on him to protect Russian interests on Athos. The Greeks learned about this intention of the Russians and tried to prevent 185 the departure of Fr. Macarius, who was ordered to be captured in the monastery port, but he slipped away unnoticed from the watchful eye of the monastery guards and on March 15, 1874 boarded a ship bound for Constantinople. This is the first solution. Secondly, they decided to appeal to the protat with a request that he, through measures depending on him, reconcile the two warring nationalities. The protate of Athos immediately sent him to the monastery of St. Panteleimon issued a letter of remonstrance, but when it did not have the desired effect of calming troubled minds, he decided to form a six-member commission of epitropes, which, after a comprehensive study of the causes of these unrest, was supposed to “stop the disagreements that had arisen and restore again the desired peace and silence in this sacred community.” The commission came to the Panteleimon Monastery on March 21 and, seeing that simple conviction in this case could not improve matters in view of the onset of Easter, left the monastery empty-handed. After the holidays, at the request of the elders, on April 23, a nine-member commission was already sent by the protate with the same instructions as before. Both of these commissions behaved extremely strangely, not to say directly hostile towards the Russian monks and “came to the monastery not in order, through impartial questioning and investigation, to form a correct and fair opinion about the existing discord,” as the “lover of truth” quite rightly notes, “but in order to adjust the decision, previously outlined and decided, based on tribal distinctions and contempt for the obvious rights of Russian monks and aimed at their complete enslavement" 186. Thus, at the very first meeting of the six-member commission, the question was already raised that Fr. Hilarion, as a supporter of the Russian monks, was removed from the meeting of the assembly of epitropes. Only the intercession of Fr. Gerasim prevented the epitropes from carrying out their unjust intentions. After the preparations for the meetings were completed, deputies of eight on each side were elected and a short break was announced, the envoys of the protat did not remain in a neutral room - the archandarikon (living room), as they should have done, but retired to the Greek half and there they had a long meeting with the Greeks behind closed doors. The Russians did not like this behavior of the judges, and they expressed a desire to talk with Abbot Gerasim, but they were flatly refused. At the evening meeting of the same day, it was decided that the representatives of the Russians and Greeks should set out their demands in writing and present them to the morning meeting of the next day. However, when on the morning of the 22nd the Russian commissioners presented their demands, the epitropes of the protat announced to them that they did not intend to make a full investigation, that they would only report everything that they saw in the monastery to the protat, who would already take measures depending on him to calm the dissatisfied. The Nine-Party Commission, which opened its meetings on April 23 and was investigating all the reasons for the disputes since the beginning of 1857, did not act as required the evidence is in her hands, but in accordance with the instructions that she received in advance from Kareya from the protat. This commission showed the highest degree of injustice and partiality towards the Russians when drawing up a new charter (κανονισμός) for the joint life of Greeks with Russians in the Panteleimon Monastery. In this canonism, which consisted of 22 paragraphs and was published on May 14, 1874, we read the following, by the way, interesting points: “1) This sacred monastery of St. the glorious Great Martyr Panteleimon, called Russian, was, is and will be Greek. 2) The abbot of this sacred monastery, both from ancient times and forever, will be a Greek, a loyal subject of the Ottoman Empire. 3) The number of Russian brothers is determined to henceforth be one third less than the always existing number of Greeks. 4) A common treasury should be established, within which the entire monetary capital of the monastery, hitherto in the hands of the Russians, unknown to the Greeks, and any other property that will be acquired in the future should be deposited.” At the end of paragraph 4: “Russian brethren are allowed, for the sake of language, to have their own confessor separately, only for purely spiritual matters, and appointed and removed by the abbot himself.” These points are enough for one to say that there could be no future for this canonism. And indeed, the Russian monks submitted their objections to this canonism to this commission before even the expiration of the twenty-four hours assigned by the commission for this. But when the commission, amazed by the speed of the response, refused to accept objections from the Russian brethren, then the next day, May 16, these objections were sent to Kareya through special delegates. The fathers sitting in the cinema silently listened to the statement of the Russian deputies and did not accept any objections from them. The delegates put the unopened paper on the table and retired to the monastery to announce their complete failure. The Russian brotherhood of the Panteleimon Monastery now clearly saw that on Athos it would not find truth and satisfaction of its legitimate demands, and therefore decided to transfer the dispute with the Greeks to the court of the Great Church. For this purpose, it elected more practical and intelligent delegates from among itself, putting at their head Fr. Macarius, provided them with the necessary papers and the necessary powers and sent them to Constantinople to present the whole essence of the matter before Patriarch Joachim II and the council of clergy and laity under him 187 . The Greek brotherhood of the Panteleimon Monastery did the same: for its part, it sent its delegates to Constantinople. Thus, the arena of the struggle between the Russians and the Greeks is transferred to Constantinople and concentrated in the Patriarchate in the meetings of the Holy Synod and the Mixed Council 188 under the Ecumenical Patriarch, in the Russian embassy, in the courtyard of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery in Galata and on the pages of Constantinople newspapers, through which its echoes penetrate into the local society, which was keenly interested and anxiously awaited the outcome of this struggle. We have at hand a letter from one contemporary who took an active part during the Greco-Russian Panteleimon trial, addressed to the late professor of the Kyiv Theological Academy F. A. Ternovsky. It depicts in bright colors the whole difficulty of the situation of the Russian Athonite monks at the moment, on the one hand, and the ardent participation of the Russian ambassador in Constantinople N.P. Ignatiev, which he took in their fate, on the other. “March, April and May passed in a most restless state,” this letter says, “and we were in a tense, difficult and mournful state. The decision of the protate was so partial to nationality and so unfair that the Russians had to protest and file a complaint with His Holiness the Patriarch, as a result of which at the end of May our archimandrite Fr. Macarius, and in early June – Fr. Azariah and I (i.e. Father Panteleimon) with some brothers. Our case, empty in itself, developed and mixed with other issues, took on very extensive dimensions, so that in the end it turned out that we were dealing not only with the protate, but also with the synod of the patriarchate, even with an entire nation, agitated to extreme fury by the newspaper thunder over the past five or six years. Our desire to split with the Greeks: to cede the coastal Russik to them, and to rebuild the mountainous Russik for ourselves, or vice versa, presented a very difficult and almost impossible to implement question, 189 and therefore our business was completely without movement for more than a month and was barely considered until the second month. During the examination, quite heated debates took place, reaching the point of division of opinions 190, and the bombardment was serious. Finally, after disagreements in the assembly and evidence presented on our part, the members of the synod to the mixed commission (from the lay members who have the right to disagree and not accept the patriarchal decision) came to the conclusion that the Russians cannot be refused to have a monastery on Mount Athos. All that remained was to check the acts to which we referred in the petition - whether they exist and what they were, but at that time the Jerusalem case turned up (about the incitement of the Arabs by one of the employees in the Russian agency in Acre), which was warmly received here and, in combination with ours, introduced a terrible word, according to the fascination of the entire Greek nation: philitism, and pushed our case back indefinitely with the danger of taking the opposite turn. If it were not for the sincere participation of the Russian ambassador, so invaluable and beneficial for us, then not only our request and everything, although the actual evidence would not have any significance and would remain [would] be left without satisfaction, then the Greeks would have driven us out of Athos, which was the main task of all the oppressions and insults they made to the Russians. They have had this idea for a long time, and the plan to oust the Russians from Athos was drawn up last year by a commission here, which is why our Greeks (i.e., Panteleimon’s members) and members of the protat acted so boldly. But, finally, the other day there was a decision, which, however, may change at the next meeting, as has happened more than once): our Fr. Archimandrite Macarius should be confirmed as abbot (without separating us from the Greeks) and send two bishops with him to introduce him to full rights in order to bring everyone into his obedience, and whoever does not want to, should be humbled, that is, forced against his will or removed from the monastery. Consequently, the decision is completely in our favor, and what more could we wish for? But this can be said when it was not with the Greeks. This decision only shows our curiosity, etc., but in essence the Greeks can, not now, but tomorrow, reveal their claims and expel us from the monastery, even with our abbot. And this is not a guess. We have heard more than once about their conference among themselves that it is necessary to calm the Russians while Mr. Ignatiev is ambassador in Constantinople, and when Mr. Ignatiev is not there, then we can deal with the Russians as we please, because no one 191 stood up for them before, no one will stand up for them even after "192. The quick, of course, relatively and favorable for the Russian monks on Athos, end of the Greco-Russian Panteleimon process in Constantinople, in addition to the persistence and energy on the part of the Russian delegates, who directed all efforts to defend their rights to the monastery and to a place for themselves among the Svyatogorsk inhabitants of other nations, as well as strong support for Russian interests from the Russian ambassador N.P., powerful at that time in Constantinople. Ignatiev, the circumstances that happened within the walls of the monastery of St. helped a lot. Panteleimon. On May 8, 1874, Abbot Gerasim died at the age of 103. The Greek delegates began to ask the Ecumenical Patriarch to immediately send one of his synod bishops to the monastery as a vicar. This measure, in their opinion, was necessary in order to prevent and eliminate confusion and disorder that could occur in the monastery, but secretly they flattered themselves with the hope of having one extra like-minded person on their side in the monastery. But their plan, unexpectedly for them, was destroyed by a telegraph dispatch addressed to the Ecumenical Patriarch, informing that in the monastery, until the election of a new abbot, all affairs were ruled by a mixed epitropy of Greeks and Russians. On the Greek side, Fr. Hierodeacon Hilarion, and on the Russian side, Fr. confessor Jerome and housekeeper Fr. Paul. On the ninth day after the death of Abbot Gerasim, the epitropy invited the brethren of the monastery, according to Svyatogorsk custom, to begin electing a new abbot. According to the decision of the brethren on October 15, 1870 and the will of the late abbot, Fr. Archimandrite Macarius, who, by a majority of 406 votes to four, was immediately elected as the successor to the late abbot. About the election that took place through a special delegate of the economist Fr. Paul's monastery notified the Ecumenical Patriarch, who, however, did not approve the present election, but proposed to rename it, in the presence of deliberate patriarchal exarchs. The Patriarch did this in those ways in order to calm worried minds, to remove from himself all sorts of complaints and the fact that Fr. Place Macarius above all suspicion. “And so that what has been legally and canonically decided, decreed and determined by the proper care and authority of the Holy Church of Christ, is actually fulfilled, since recently the former abbot Gerasim reposed in the Lord, we,” wrote Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim II in the siggilion (letter) regarding the election of Fr. Macarius, - they decided to send as exarchs the most sacred metropolitans of the Nicaean cyrus Ioannikis and the Derkiy kirk Joachim (who later became the Ecumenical Patriarch under the name Joachim IV, †1887), so that they, having gone to the said sacred monastery, would at the same time announce to everyone the unchangeable decision of the Church to put an end to temptations and unrest, instilling harmony and peace with decent advice and exhortations, at the same time invited all the fathers of the monastery to the straightforward and impartial election of the abbot, under the supervision of those same exarchs and in the presence of two authorized by the council of the Holy Mountain "193. On July 11, the elected exarchs went to Athos, and on the 20th of the same month, after two authorized representatives from the Karean kinot 194 arrived at the Panteleimon Monastery and when, with the help of the vekilkai-makam (like our bailiff), the four main instigators from the Greeks were removed from the monastery, a re-vote was started in the Russian Intercession Cathedral 195. Under the supervision of the said exarchs, every brother of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery, without distinction of nationalities, must cast his vote for a candidate for the hegumen throne. Casting a vote consisted of signing one's name under the act of electing Fr. Archimandrite Macarius. The act was signed by 424 people, i.e. the number of votes cast was slightly more than during the ballot, and Fr. Macarius was thus declared elected abbot. “When everything was done so in order and lawfully,” we read in the sigillion, which states Fr. Macarius as abbot, - since by the great majority of votes of the most reverend fathers the canonical abbot was elected, the most reverend hieromonk and archimandrite Cyrus Macarius, a reasonable and virtuous man, tonsured and member of this sacred monastery, whom, by common petition, was presented to us as worthy and capable of governing that sacred monastery in a manner pleasing to God, diligently begging from our Church of Christ recognition and confirmation of the decree and his abbess by our patriarch and the synodal siggilide on parchment, then we determine in writing together with the most sacred bishops who are here and our most honorable brothers and co-servants in the Holy Spirit, so that, by virtue of the above-stated general decision of the Holy Synod and the venerable people's council, about the abiding and living together in love of all the fathers who labor in the aforesaid the sacred community of Saint Panteleimon, without any privilege or tribal distinction, and on the enjoyment of all of them, without exception, equal rights, a decision that has the meaning and force of inevitable and unchangeable at all times, as based on the sacred canons and paternal statutes, consistent and similar to the anciently established orders, definitions and statutes of all sacred communities, now elected by a majority vote to be the abbot of this sacred monastery and canonically having guarantees for himself and in immaculate living, the most reverend Archimandrite Cyrus Macarius was and was called and recognized by everyone as the abbot and head of the hostel (cinenarch) of our aforementioned patriarchal and stauropegial monastery of St. Panteleimon, called Russik, and until the end of his life he held the abbotship in it according to the rules and regulations of the hostels. And his reverence obliged, as superior to all the brethren, to observe and incite everyone to virtue and to observe their communal life exactly according to the ancient regulations for those who choose a communal life, presenting himself first as an example of virtue and immaculate life, to have care and concern for the benefits and benefits of this sacred monastery, to diligently take care of the maintenance and needs of it and to rule the house with judgment, using without any tribal differences and the advice of men who are most experienced and superior to others in sense and age, and discuss matters with them, because salvation is in much advice (Prov. XI, 14) according to the inflow. And all the brethren in the hostel must obey and submit to this canonical abbot of theirs and listen to his proposals and admonitions, no one resisting or contradicting at all, but doing, not resisting or contradicting at all, but doing everything that is commanded from him. And whoever does not want to obey, after the first and second admonition, according to the word of the Apostle (I Corinth. V, 6, 13), let him be expelled so that he does not infect others. However, all the brethren who are now ascetic and who subsequently have to act out of sacred love for community life must have everything in common, each having equal rights and eating the same, except if someone, due to bodily weakness or for some other inevitable reason, encounters an obstacle to eating the same food as other brethren, according to the reasoning and testing of the abbot, who has the right to arrange for everyone according to his weakness, therefore not being subject to penance, either himself or those about whom he arranges it that way. And first of all, they must live in harmony and spiritual love, having a brotherly disposition according to God, as if one soul dwelling in many bodies and collectively caring for the place of their repentance (i.e., the monastery), 196 each acting as the abbot commands. And whoever, whoever is sanctified or layman (Belets), overcome by rudeness or arrogance, will ever dare secretly or openly, directly or indirectly, by words or deeds, to introduce confusion, inequality and disorder into the communal order and structure of this sacred monastery, or, contrary to the canons, will want to arouse desires for tribal distinction and privileged position, to put obstacles in the way of equal enjoyment of rights and rights for all ascetic fathers. to isolate anything that belongs to the common brotherhood, or in any way to cause disturbance and harm to this sacred community and to the fathers who are now or will subsequently live in it, and in general wants to pervert, even in the smallest way, what is synodally defined in this charter, such, no matter the rank and degree, may he be excommunicated from the Holy Life-giving and Indivisible Blessed Trinity, one by the nature of God, and cursed and not forgiven and guilty of all paternal and conciliar oaths" 197. Re-voting or re-balloting Fr. Macarius was promoted to abbot, in the presence of metropolitan exarchs, with strict observance of all formalities prescribed by law and developed by practice, and passed with calmness and decorum, rare in such cases, as evidenced by an outsider, but completely trustworthy casual observer, the famous French learned archaeologist and traveler Count Melchior Vogüe. “Never in our lives,” writes this traveler, “have we ever been present at an election that would have had such a unique character. The day was Sunday: curiosity (la curiosite) forced us to spend the whole night in the church to be present at the Russian solemn service, to hear the magnificent singing, to observe the expression of these faces, who fervently prayed before the altar for their Tsar. The pale-faced monks spent the whole night on their feet, illuminated by the brilliant darkness of wax candles: no sadness, except the sadness of the sky, was reflected on their faces. We fell asleep at dawn and were awakened early in the morning by the ringing of bells. We had already begun to gather to attend the new ceremony when we were told that this bell was calling the monks to their meetings. An event so long awaited, which was about to burst out loudly throughout the entire Eastern Church, an event around which everything that remained passionate in the spiritual world was grouped, took place before our eyes quietly, peacefully, so that it was impossible to notice even the slightest sign of any excitement. No suspicious sound disturbed the silence of the monastery, except that some extraordinary concern was visible on some faces, and here and there quiet whispering could be heard in the corners of the long corridors. A person not forewarned might have thought that the monks were gathering as usual for the morning service" 198. The patriarchal sigillion we quoted above also testifies to the complete legality of the elections made. But, despite all this, those who were dissatisfied with the elections showed up - six members of the Karyan protate and six monks of the monastery of St. Panteleimon, and the first found that the protat representatives allegedly “did not comply with the instructions given to them” 199. The dissatisfied wrote a protest in very strong terms, and even threatened to “renew the Sicilian Vespers” 200, and sent it to the Patriarch, who, however, did not attach any importance to it, making a fatherly remark to the Protestants. Not reconciled with the fact of the election, the monks of the monastery of St. Panteleimon continued to worry and protest against the new order of life in the monastery. So, when on September 1 the Russian monks demanded from Fr. Evgenia and Fr. Anastasia the keys to the Panteleimon Cathedral, the latter refused to hand them over, and the para-ecclesiarch of the cathedral, Fr. John pasted portraits of the Sultan on the church door, decorating them with flowers, and hoisted a Turkish flag over the porch. A Turkish official, who was present, found such an expression of loyal feelings to the Sultan inappropriate and untimely, took down the flag with his own hands and said: “Allegiance and obedience to the government does not consist in displaying portraits and throwing away flags, but in carrying out his will.” This fact clearly showed the Russian monks that the fire of the Greeks’ hostility towards them had not yet gone out, and therefore, in order to remove evil from their midst once and for all, they suggested that the dissatisfied leave the monastery and seek refuge elsewhere. Endowed with money and the necessary items for life, the main leaders of the Greek brethren were removed from the monastery on September 6, which was now preparing to welcome the new abbot. On September 24, elected abbot and confirmed by the Patriarch, Fr. Macarius returned from Constantinople to Athos. The jubilant brethren, celebrating the happy outcome of the trial, gave him a brilliant meeting. On September 26, during the liturgy celebrated by the Nicene Metropolitan Ioannikios, in the presence of nine members of the protate and his secretary, Fr. Macarius received the signs of hegumen's dignity: the pateritsa or hegumen's staff and the bishop's mantle with sources and was elevated to the hegumen's throne. “I realize,” said the new abbot of his brethren, who had ascended the throne for the first time, in an excited voice, “that it is beyond my strength to place this Calvary cross on my neck, but, remembering that the power of God is made perfect in weaknesses, I, a sinner, moved by mutual love and convinced by the circumstances of the time, and at the same time called to this high service by high-ranking officials of two nationalities, I decide, calling to the help of the Lord, the intercession of the Queen of heaven and earth and the intercession of St. great martyr and healer Panteleimon, the obedience entrusted to me, at the request of the great adamants of patience of our elders Jerome and Hilarion and yours, I accepted, knowing that this was the will of our deceased elder Fr. Abbot Gerasim" 201. Members of the Karean protate, after installing Fr. Macarius, immediately notified the Patriarch and the exarchs through special official messages, which stated that “the former legal order in the said monastery has been completely restored” and that “in accordance with the customs and orders of the Holy Mountain, they introduced, on the 26th of this month, on the day of remembrance of St. John the Theologian to the position of rector of the said monastery, Archimandrite Macarius, who was recently elected to this position by the majority of the brethren in the monastery” 202. On Sunday, September 28, the Patriarchal Exarchs read a prayer of permissiveness, by which all the monks who were somehow guilty during the troubles taking place in the monastery were forgiven, and special confessors were immediately elected for the Greek monks, and on Monday, September 29, the exarchs, having fulfilled the instructions assigned to them, left Athos for Constantinople 203. In November of the same 1875, the Ecumenical Patriarch issued a special letter of permission, which resolved all the voluntary and involuntary sins of the brethren of the Panteleimon Monastery, committed by them during the period of unrest experienced in it. Under the letter there are signatures of all synodal bishops 204. Thus ended the famous Greco-Russian Panteleimon trial, which caused a lot of noise on Athos and far beyond its borders, which gave rise to terrible enmity between the Russian and Greek nationalities, which has not ceased completely to this day, enmity unworthy of the Holy Mountain, as a place of silence and unceasing prayer for the entire Christian world, looking with reverence at this place of the highest spiritual exploits. The situation at that time was difficult for the Russian monks, who were under the fear of the oppressive thought that not today, but tomorrow they would find themselves outside the threshold of the monastery, even outside of Athos, dear to their soul and heart, for the sake of which they left everything and broke ties with their dear distant homeland, but the situation of those who were destined to stand guard over Russian interests was incomparably more difficult. What terrible moral suffering the elders, Fr., experienced during this time. Macarius and Fr. Jerome - one can hardly imagine this, at least approximately. People who stood close to the elders at this difficult time in their lives cannot talk without tears about the sleepless nights they spent either in prayer or at work, about various other kinds of hardships, moral suffering, etc. Did the modest and unseeking Fr. Macarius, who retreated into the silent desert from everyday worries and squabbles and wanted only peace and silence for constant good thoughts, that he would be thrown out of the monastery into the very abyss of human passions and human malice? And it was necessary to have enormous willpower, all-forgiving Christian love for people, complete obedience to duty, devotion to one’s “throwing” and consciousness of the rightness of the cause itself in order to stand unshakably in the midst of all these squabbles, vulgarities, malicious slander and insinuations. It was here that the future abbot of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery on Athos, like gold in a crucible, was refined, tempted and morally strengthened, so that he could always emerge victoriously from all kinds of trials and difficulties. For these high qualities of the mind and heart of the great elder Fr. Macarius 205 Providence, perhaps, sent him a great adviser and powerful support in the person of N.P. Ignatiev, the Russian ambassador to the Ottoman port, who provided indispensable service to the success of the Russian cause on Athos during the Greco-Russian Panteleimon trial. The Russian Athonite monks vividly preserve in their grateful memory these services of their “ktitor,” as they call N.P. Ignatiev, and for a long time at the great exit for the liturgy the names of Nicholas and Helena, dear to each of them, will be remembered, that is, count and countess. A fairly detailed description of this visit was made by an eyewitness, the famous Fr. Seraphim of Svyatogorets “The current Russian Panteleimon Monastery on Holy Mount Athos.” St. Petersburg, 1852. The story of the Holy Mountain monk Seleukios about his life and wanderings through holy places: Russian, Palestinian and Athos. St. Petersburg, 1860. P. 229. Russian on Mount Athos of the Panteleimon Monastery, Hieromonk Arseny. M., 1890. P. 20. Ed. 7. M., 1886. P. 160. For a description of this visit, see the book: Russian Monastery of St. Panteleimon on Mount Athos. pp. 136–159 and more thoroughly in a separate brochure: “Two-day stay on Holy Mount Athos of His Imperial Highness Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich.” St. Petersburg, 1868. The visit of this bishop to Athos is described in a special brochure entitled: “A visit to Athos by the Russian archpastor of Poltava, and formerly the abbot of the Solovetsky Monastery during the bombardment of it by the British.” Odessa, 1869. A noteworthy coincidence. The current abbot, Fr. Andrei was ordained a hieromonk by the same Right Reverend Alexander and on the same day that Fr. Macarius was elevated to the rank of archimandrite. Having the monastery seal at his disposal, the abbot even made debts on behalf of the monastery. This official, Mr. Aristokli Pasha, is still in the civil service and teaches philosophy at one of the highest Turkish educational institutions. He is credited with drawing up the “canonism of the Holy Mountain”, proposed by Patriarch Joachim II to Mount Athos, who long and stubbornly refused to accept it. But the Patriarch insisted on his own and achieved recognition and approval by the Turkish government, which recently published it in the book “Destur” or in the collection of laws. This “canonism” has no practical significance on Mount Athos to this day. In this matter, Russik even resorted to the mediation of the Russian ambassador in Constantinople, Count N.P. Ignatiev, who influenced the final resolution of this issue in the Patriarchate. Russian Bulletin. 1873 Book. I V. P. 665. “Whatever opinion the All-Russian Synod gives on this matter,” wrote the late Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow on June 8, 1866, “the most likely consequence is that both sides (i.e., the Greeks and Bulgarians) will be dissatisfied and will not accept it; consequently, there will be no benefit, the advising party will be offended, and the peace between the Churches and peoples, more or less, will suffer damage” (Sava, Archbishop. Collection of opinions and reviews of Metropolitan Philaret on the affairs of the Orthodox Church in the East. St. Petersburg, 1886. P. 362). K. Leontyev gives us an excellent description of the understanding by publicists of the East of Pan-Slavism, which does not exist among us, in his excellent article “Pan-Slavism on Athos.” “The Russian breeds bees on the Holy Mountain,” writes K. Leontyev, “perhaps according to the Russian method. He is a Pan-Slavist! And his son? The son who almost tricked his father into coming here, oh! his son, of course, is an agent of Ignatiev, Fadeev, Katkov. Do the Greeks respect Russian confessors? Pan-Slavism. At present, all newspapers and magazines published in Constantinople are subject to strict and very restrictive government censorship and are therefore extremely empty and meaningless. Moscow Gazette. 1875, No. 7. Here, obviously, we mean the monasteries that receive money from Russia from their Bessarabian estates. Vatoped, according to K. Leontyev, receives from 90,000 to 150,000 rubles. silver, Zograf from 50,000 to 60 thousand rubles, Xiropotamus (?) and the St. Paul Monastery have estates in Russia with secure incomes (Russian Bulletin. 1873, Book I V. P. 165). The Greek Iversky Monastery owns the St. Nicholas Monastery in Moscow, which brings it rich income. Russian Bulletin. 1873 Book. I V. P. 677. K. Leontyev writes the absolute truth here, because numerous of his articles published in Russian newspapers and magazines were signed with a pseudonym. Russian Bulletin. 1873 Book. I V. P. 677. This newspaper, with issue No. 4, is already beginning to deal with church issues and publishes an editorial under the following title: “T ο᾿ πατριαρχείον ο Ἁθος.” “Having promised,” this article says, “that we wish to deal with all issues that concern our church and people, we believe that it is time to investigate the events that have taken place recently on Mount Athos, events of an ugly nature,” etc. As a sample, we will take several issues of this newspaper at random and translate the humorous telegrams that were included in them. “Athos, November 1. Near the monastery of St. Panteleimon, a small hole (τρυπίτσα), equal to the nose of a needle, was discovered by the holy fathers of the sacred cathedral, and it was proven that this is a big move by which the Russians sacrilegiously intend to drag nationality and Orthodoxy into their fatherland. A litany about the imprisonment of the hole was performed.” “From there, same day. Yesterday a large swarm of ants appeared, emerging, like a thick cloud, from a certain crack in an old tree near the monastery of St. Panteleimon. This is something other than Russians turned into ants in order to put us to sleep and take Hellenism and Orthodoxy from us, but the fathers are vigilant over the ants. The following petition has been added to the current “peaceful petitions”: περ έξλοθρευσεως τών μορμήγχων. “From there. Midnight. A solemn litany is performed about the removal and destruction of Russian monks. We place our hope in God that he will hear our humble prayer and destroy all their damned ones for the sake of Hellenism and Orthodoxy” (No. 35. Νοεμβρ. 8). “Athos. October 9. Russians get up at night and carry bags of Hellenism and Orthodoxy to Russia. Hurry up! Hellenism is dying, Orthodoxy is dying.” “From there. Today. A large crowd of mice and mosquitoes has formed, plotting against Hellenism and Orthodoxy. Inform Butir, Ialem, Ananias, Ikiadi, Psychari, Caratheodori, Kalliadi, Mavrogeni and Chia, so that they stand guard, because Hellenism is perishing, Orthodoxy is perishing” (No. 31, October 11). All other articles and newspapers were written in this manner. Christian Reading. 1874 Book. VIII-IX. pp. 835–836. Regarding the question about the Athos Monastery of St. Panteleimon. St. Petersburg, 1874. P. 54. Letter about. Jerome from March 1, 1874 to the fathers in Moscow. Regarding the question of the Athonite monastery of St. Panteleimon. St. Petersburg, 1874. P. 59. Throughout the so-called Panteleimon trial, the Russian brethren prayed in their churches for the granting of peace and silence with special petitions and prayers deliberately composed for this occasion. These are the petitions for the Great Litany. The members of this council, at least some part of it, were very hostile towards the Russian Athonite monks and did not hesitate to utter outrageous insinuations about them at council meetings. An example of this kind of speeches can be the “reading” at the meeting of the synod and mixed council on August 21, 1874, which was later published in Athens as a separate brochure under the following title: “Ανάγνωσμα εν τη κατά την κά Αυγούστου συνεδριάσεί συμβολιουύπό την προεδρείαν τηςΑ θειοτάτης Παναγιωτητος του οικουμενικού υπό πατριάρκου Ί ωακείαμ του Β᾿ περί του ςητήμαος ". Εν Αθην. 1874 έτ. (Reading at the meeting of the Holy Synod and National Council on August 21, chaired by His Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim II on the issue of the sacred monastery of St. Panteleimon on Mount Athos. Athens, 1874.) Very weighty objections to this reading were published in the newspaper “B”. υζάντις "No. 1824 and in Moskovskie Vedomosti, No. 271 and further for the same year 1874. The same is said in the letter from Fr. Arseny from Moscow dated July 22 to the same professor F.A. Ternovsky. Here about. Panteleimon obviously refers to the stormy meeting on September 18, 1874 on the issue of the nationality and citizenship of the abbot of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery. His Holiness Patriarch Joachim II, finding it unfair and biased the demand that the abbot of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery on Athos be a Greek and certainly a Turkish subject, which was insisted on by the Protat canonry and some members of the mixed council, since in other monasteries of the Holy Mountain, although the abbots are Greek by origin, but not all of them are subjects of the Sultan, he proposed to postpone discussions about citizenship abbot until the development of a general canonism for the entire Holy Mountain. This proposal of the Patriarch caused a whole storm on the part of the members of the mixed council, who were not disposed towards the Russian Athonite monks, so that its five members were: I. Ikiadi, K. Caratheodory. S. Mavrogeni, A. Psihari and Kalliadi resigned from the mixed council. The Russophobic newspapers “Neológoj” and “Qr£kh” were also very dissatisfied with this proposal of the Ecumenical Patriarch, who hastened to accuse the Patriarch of pan-Slavism and the members of the synod and the rest of the mixed council of bribery with Russian money. The excessive zeal of these press organs in this case and their indecent antics against the head of the Church of Constantinople and the venerable members of the synod and council did not go unnoticed in the spheres of the Ottoman government, which, through the official organ "Turquie", made a serious rebuke to these Greek newspapers. “We consider it our duty,” says the Turquie newspaper, “to express our regret that the two local Greek bodies continue their work (i.e., discussions regarding the withdrawal of five members from the mixed council) with excessive energy, only disturbing public opinion, and even allow themselves to cast a stain on the sincerity of the Ecumenical Patriarch and the majority of the members of the said institutions. They forget that the one who now sits on the see of Constantinople was recently elevated to it, by the general election of both the clergy and the people, which, of course, could not have happened if the experience of the past had not convinced everyone of the high abilities and devotion of this archpastor to the interests of the church community” (Christian Reading. 1874 Book XI. P. 388). To your great satisfaction, we can testify that the hopes of this kind of Greek nation were not realized. In the person of our current humane and highly enlightened ambassador to the Ottoman port A.I. Nelidov, the Russian monks of the monastery of St. Panteleimon have a strong patron and tireless defender of their interests. Letter about. Panteleimon from Constantinople to Professor Ternovsky, August 26, 1875. Russian monastery of St. Great Martyr and Healer Panteleimon on Holy Mount Athos. 7th ed. M., 1886. Among the representatives from the kinot was the now living abbot of Simonopetra - Archimandrite Neophytos, who throughout the process was on the side of the Russians and openly spoke in their defense before members of the protate. This circumstance brought Fr. Neophyta with the late Fr. Macarius, who, remembering his services, was on friendly terms with him until his death and even obtained for him before the Holy Synod of the Russian Church the right to collect alms in Russia for the construction of a dilapidated and poor monastery, which in May 1891 burned to the ground. (See our note about the fire of this monastery in “Church Gazette” for 1891, No. 30.) F. Neophyte spent two years within the borders of our fatherland, was received very cordially everywhere and returned to Athos not empty-handed... According to a Moskovskie Vedomosti correspondent, before the re-vote, the exarchs invited the brethren to sign two papers of their choice. On one it was written: “We obey the decision of the Great Church and agree to proceed with the election of the abbot,” and on the other: “We do not obey the decision of the Great Church and do not agree to proceed with the election of the abbot.” The first paper was supposedly covered with 415 signatures, and the second with 118 (Moskovskie Vedomosti. 1875, No. 203). It should be noted that the translation of this document, although close to the original, has many rough edges and even inaccuracies. Russian monastery of St. Panteleimon on Holy Mount Athos. 7th ed. M., 1986. pp. 237–239. Syria, Palestine. Mont Athos, voyage au pays du passe. P. 327–328. Moscow Gazette. 1875 No. 210. From the words of Fr. Macarius to the brethren regarding his appointment as abbot. Both of these letters in Russian translation were published in Moskovskie Vedomosti. 1875 No. 272. Moscow Gazette. 1875 No. 267. The full text of this charter was published in the Constantinople newspaper “Μικρά Ασία” (No. 195 for 1875). Count N.P. Ignatiev highly appreciated Fr. Macarius expressed his respect for his outstanding merits on the occasion of his death in a telegram addressed to Fr. Jerome, archimandrite - abbot of the Simon-Canonite monastery in the Caucasus. Here is this telegram: “Peace to dust, eternal memory of the valiant ascetic Archimandrite Macarius, a faithful servant of the church. The death deeply saddened me. May the blessing of Fathers Jerome and Macarius be unforgettable” (Ignatiev. June 22). You might be interested in: