[Rec. on:] Anthony [Vadkovsky], Metropolitan. St. Petersburg and Ladoga. Publication of the highest approved society for the dissemination of religious and moral education in the spirit of the Orthodox Church

Anthony Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and Ladoga. Publication of the Highest Approved Organization for the dissemination of religious and moral education in the spirit of the Orthodox Church. 1915. Pp. 1 – 290; 1–186. Ts. 2 r. In a brief preface, the author, M.B., says: “Having known the saint for 24 years, I wanted to gratefully honor the memory of my spiritual father and leader and collect with a loving hand all the oral traditions about him from close relatives, students and friends, as well as share excerpts from his deeply edifying letters.” The author has arranged the information gleaned from these sources in chronological order, giving the form of a story about the life of Metropolitan Anthony from the day of his birth until his death. The entire biography compiled using this method is located in 30 chapters, sometimes very small in volume, for example. 1 1/2 pages. Simplicity of construction, clear, pure language, concise, noble style make reading the book easy to master, and the high value of the content gives the story such interest that once you start reading, you no longer want to interrupt it until the end. On page 290 the story stops. What follows is an appendix containing “letters from Metropolitan Anthony.” Having experienced a variety of deep experiences while reading a story, he involuntarily becomes attached to this external occasion in order to stop his passive state of being a listener chained to the narrator and freely understand the mass of acquired and experienced impressions, believing that further on he will not encounter anything significantly new. After all, usually “applications” are necessary and interesting only for checking and explaining the literary work built on them, as on its basis. But that's not the case here. What is presented to the reader’s attention is not documents, but a live conversation between a person and his parents, brothers, sisters, and friends, an intimate conversation that, of course, was never intended for publication. The venerable publisher introduces the reader to the innermost sanctuary of the family and cell hearth of Metropolitan Anthony. For this reason, the “appendix” is read with the same captivating interest and unflagging fascination as the story. The reason for this is the attractive personality of the author of the letters, a life full of various changes in the external situation, sometimes deeply tragic, sometimes cheerful. A characteristic feature of the book under consideration is that it deals not so much with the depiction of the official and public activities of Metropolitan Anthony, but with his moral personality, his home environment and private relationships with persons of the most diverse social positions. The task of the biography is to answer the question - what kind of person was M. Anthony. From a simple objective retelling of different moments in the life of Metropolitan Anthony, starting from the moment of his birth, a whole living image of a man emerges, who in amazing harmony combined a wonderful mind, the kindest heart, a subtle taste for everything elegant and rare courage in the voluntarily chosen feat of following Christ, selflessness and service to others. Let's take a look at some of the retellings. Ch. 1. Parents of Metropolitan Anthony. His birth, childhood. In 1846, August 3 in the village. Tsarevka, Gremyachki too, Kirsanovsky district, Tambov province. priest Vasily Iovlevich Vadkovsky had a son, Alexander. On his birthday, they were waiting for the arrival of a landowner who wanted to talk at the Assumption Post. For the guest of honor, everyone was busy cleaning the house; Vasily's wife Olga Nikiforovna fell ill and moved from the house to the cellar. Here, as if in a cave, God’s boy Alexander was born. He grew up as a meek, quiet, infinitely kind child; He rarely took part in games, helped his mother with housework, swept rooms, swept ceilings, and Olga Nikiforovna always called him her assistant. Often little Sasha sat next to his mother and used to say, comforting her: “We are poor now, but when I grow up and get a job, I will buy you, mother, a velvet fur coat and a silk dress.” The rather thorny path of education was passed quite successfully. Alexander Vasilyevich Vadkovsky was retained at the Academy with the rank of associate professor; he occupied a room in the apartment of one of his senior colleagues, using a table for a small fee. This half-student life of a “freeloader”, in some respects shy for an independent person, did not correspond to Al’s house-loving inclinations. You. Often visiting one of his colleague and fellow students, an already married man, he met there with his wife’s sister. She was a businesslike, serious girl. Acquaintance and mutual sympathy ended in marriage. Two years after completing the course, A.V. got married and, despite the extreme poverty of his support, lived on the remote outskirts of the city the happy life of a modest worker of spiritual science. A.V.'s wife Elizaveta Dmitrievna was a wonderful woman, kind, intelligent and surprisingly modest. She treated A.V.’s relatives cordially and loved them dearly. Unfortunately, she was distinguished by poor health and, while still a bride, warned A. V. that he would live no more than 7–8 years, to which he replied: “let these years be ours.” And indeed Elizaveta Dmitrievna was often ill. A.V. used to say: “although there is a proverb that a husband loves a healthy wife, this is nonsense. If I love, then I love the patient. They lived in perfect harmony for seven years” (p. 25). So time passed until 1879 and no one, like A.V. himself, suspected that a decisive moment was being prepared in his life, which would put him on a different path. On December 3, 1879, his dearly beloved wife died, leaving two children, 6 and 4 years old, in his care. It was difficult for the young widower to oversee their upbringing. The children adored their father. The girl addressed him with touching words: “Don’t take another mother, dad; she will not love us, and we will not love her.” Borya expressed a desire for dad to put on a golden hat and a golden dress, as he saw in church when his father took him to the bishop's service. The children prayed morning and evening, prayed for the health of their father, relatives, and nanny; they remembered their mother and brother Igor for their repose. Before going to bed, A.V. always came to bless them and say goodbye; without it they could not sleep. The children were unusually kind, affectionate, and cordial; they seemed like angels who were not destined to remain long on this sinful earth. Borya once had a dream: he and his dad were traveling on a ship, another ship arrived and took him, Borya, then Lida, and “you, daddy, remained the same on the ship.” (Pages 26–27). Boris died on November 8, 1882, and Lydia on the 15th. With their death, everything that tied him to life ended for A.V. On the day of Lydia’s funeral, he wrote to his parents: “Who will give tears to my eyes and sighing to my heart. The light of my eyes has faded, my red sun has set, the treasure of my heart has perished, I have lost the soul of my life... My dear children, my consolation and joy are gone. How long, O Lord, will You bring forth Your wrath on me. Punish, Lord, but also have mercy, send comfort to my sorrowful soul. My grief is great and immeasurable: like the ancient sufferer Job, I have lost everything, but the Lord is still merciful to me, He did not lay His hand on my skin. I have no more words, only bitter tears flow, who will erase them? On December 3 of the same year, he wrote to his parents: “Lord, how great is my loss. Until now, I cry every day, especially in the evenings. I am aware of my cowardice, I call on all the powers of my mind for help, but my torn heart grieves and is sad. Children were like an extension of my existence. This was the soul of my life. With them I united all my thoughts, all my feelings, I worked for them, with them I entered into discussions of future life plans, with them I prayed, sat at the table, drank, read, walked, walked... And all this disappeared like a dream, like a dream. And now I walk alone with bitter thoughts in my soul about my unhappy fate. Lord, why did You take away my last joy, my last consolation. Others have many children, and they have wives, and Your hand has not touched them. Others live in poverty, cannot feed their children, and would bless You if You reduced their family, but You did not. Who will confess your ways, O Lord? I don’t complain, let this not happen, but I will only tell you the sadness of my heart. I must have angered the Lord with my grave sins, and He is calling me to prayer and repentance. I am now learning to pray again as I prayed in the days of my youth. I especially loved, I remember, often saying the words of the psalm: “do not forsake me, O Lord my God, do not depart from me.” With these words on my lips, I sometimes woke up at night from a sound youthful sleep. Apparently my soul had a presentiment that great sorrows awaited me in life. And now, shouldn’t I most of all pray that the Lord will not leave me and not let me fall into the abyss of despair? (page 30). This first wreck of Alexander Vasilyevich’s family ship was followed by a new path of his selflessly working life, ascension from glory to glory and great inner, moral growth. A remarkable feature of the church ministry of the professor-monk is his unusually fruitful practical activity, despite the variety of ministries to which he was appointed by the church authorities. He was tonsured into monasticism on March 4, 1883, and on November 14, with the rank of archimandrite, he was appointed rector of the Ioannovsky Monastery. “The monastery, previously abandoned, with four, five wretched, decrepit monks living out their lives, in a short time became unrecognizable and came to a flourishing state, thanks to the tireless labors of Archimandrite Anthony. He was involved in every detail of the monastery, behaved simply, and during the year and a half of his reign, he shared a meager meal with abuse” (p. 42). And at the same time, he did not weaken his professorial activity at all. In 1885, an episcopal missionary council was held in Kazan, at which Archimandrite Anthony was appointed secretary and rapporteur of the council. “Smoothly, calmly, efficiently, with his usual tact and dignity, the archimandrite - professor carried out the complex duties assigned to him and made a “charming impression” on K.P. Pobedonostsev, who participated in the meetings of the cathedral.” Departing from Kazan, at parting about. the prosecutor said archimandrite. Anthony to prepare for the move. Indeed, soon a notice arrived about the appointment of Archimandrite Anthony to the post of inspector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy” (p. 44). “It was a difficult time for the (academic) administration. The new undesirable statute of 1884 was put into effect, which was considered embarrassing and offensive to professors and students. Fr. happened to become the conductor of this charter in the St. Petersburg Academy. Anthony. Moving to St. Petersburg to a new place of ministry, Fr. Anthony could not hope for a particularly warm welcome. The St. Petersburg Academy was not used to seeing monks as bosses in its midst, and this monk, in addition, was an alien from outside. But oh. Anthony, gentle, delicate, noble and highly enlightened, was able to quickly dispel prejudices. After only a few weeks of service, he became closely and friendly with the professors and found an intimate environment as a student... With the move to the capital, Archimandrite Anthony captured a new range of activities and surrounded a new range of people. Here his prominent administrative activities began. Here, gradually, these activities began to reflect those views, that worldview that his own mother, the Kazan Academy, instilled and nurtured in him, those convictions that developed among the idealists of the seventies” (p. 53). On April 15, 1887, Archimandrite Anthony was appointed rector of the Academy, elevated to the rank of Bishop of Vyborg and made second vicar of the St. Petersburg Metropolis. “Very interesting are the character of the management of the Academy entrusted to him by the Eminence Anthony and his “superiorship” over the students... The basis of his relationship with the students, the Eminence once and forever laid high Christian moral principles, which excluded any hint of a “bossial” tone, any “repression”, or narrow external discipline. He considered the ideal order of student corporate life to be one in which the students themselves, without any external promptings, would quite consciously and confidently fulfill their direct responsibilities and would themselves strictly monitor compliance with the conditions of the student dormitory. “Then,” the Reverend Anthony used to say, “both calls and inspection control would be unnecessary, then the doors of all rooms in the academic premises would never be locked.” In student, Rev. Anthony saw first of all a person, an independent personality; he respected all the rights of this moral person, and at the same time demanded from her strict fulfillment of the legal duties imposed on her by the well-known principles of social life. There was one thing he could not stand in a person’s personality: a conscious lie. “I am ready to forgive my student everything, but I can never forget lies,” he said more than once. The sincerity and directness of His Eminence Anthony himself were extraordinary: in his conversations with students, he always directly, without any concealment, expressed to them what he thought and felt; he simply and trustingly shared his personal impressions and his spiritual mood with students. The warmth, cordiality and spirit of fatherly love that marked his relationship with the family of Academy students is evident from the fact that he directly called it his own family, which to a certain extent replaced his early lost or his own family. He said more than once, addressing students: By the will of God, I lost my wife and children early, and from then on you replaced my lost family; to you, my children, I dedicated my strength and life; you, the best young people from the spiritual world, serve as joyful joy in my life.” Bishop Anthony served as rector for five years, and then he received a new appointment - as archbishop of the newly opened Finnish diocese. A completely new calling, new environment, new people. However, even here he is not embarrassed, he is not lost; but soon he finds his bearings and directs all his spiritual energy to the work of serving Archbishop Anthony. “This land (Finland), as evidenced by the most comprehensive report on. prosecutor for 1892, presents few favorable conditions for the correct flow of church life. The parishes are scattered over long distances (60, 80, 230, 400, 600, 800 versts), there are few churches, and there are almost no schools. Orthodox Christians live among Lutherans and sects of the Lutheran direction, and often do not have any opportunity beyond the distance of their parish to attend Orthodox services or perform the duty of confession. Orthodoxy in Finland is a small grain, but the vast majority of the population is entirely Lutheran. The Orthodox there are like abandoned orphans. Lutherans treat them proudly... To call the Orthodox population of Finland to a better life, to revive and direct their church life on a real path - this is what His Eminence Anthony set as his task. His desire was to warm them up, to enlighten them, so that seeing the light of life of Orthodox Lutherans, they would recognize all the superiority of Orthodoxy over their dry and narrow religious teaching... In order to better govern the region, he petitioned for the establishment of a spiritual consistory in Vyborg. Every year he himself surveyed the diocese. During the review, he always spoke a lesson to the people and tested youth and children in the knowledge of the law of God. How difficult and difficult these detours were can be seen from the fact that to visit three parishes of Finnish Karelia in 1895, it was necessary to travel 230 kilometers on horseback over the course of two days. Sometimes, when touring the diocese, the Right Reverend, due to the impossibility of coming on horseback, rode in a boat, putting a hood on his head; In some places it was extremely difficult and dangerous to travel.” “Thanks to such labors and the extraordinary energy of the archbishop, the cause of Orthodoxy in Finland quickly moved forward, and the Orthodox-Russian spirit of the flock rose. The number of schools and churches also increased. Within a few years the flock became unrecognizable. Even the most remote corners of gloomy Finland were revived by the Orthodox gospel. Under Archbishop Anthony, a nunnery was founded in Lintul” (p. 116). During the administration of the Finnish diocese and the scientific activity of Archbishop Anthony, he received a particularly important application, which brought him great fame. At this time, he stood at the head of the scientific commission, which was tasked with discussing the old Catholic issue in the form of clarifying the possibility of uniting the Eastern and Western churches. The answers to the Old Catholics developed by the commission gained European fame as an extremely important document of modern church history. Along with the question of the reunification of the old Catholics with the Orthodox Church, a desire arose for rapprochement with the Orthodox Church and the British. In connection with this matter, the Most Reverend Anthony was appointed as the representative of the Russian Church in England on the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of Queen Victoria and carried out this difficult mission with brilliant success. Since then, his popularity abroad and especially in England has increased to a degree never before achieved by Russian bishops (with the possible exception of Metropolitan Philaret). Archbishop Anthony returned to Russia with doctoral degrees from the most famous centers of English learning - the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and with expressions of warm sympathy from his many English admirers, who expressed their feelings of respect for the dear guest of England with a valuable gift in the form of a collection of church vessels of highly artistic work (p. 121). The service of His Eminence Anthony in the rank of Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and first-present member of St. Petersburg is outlined by the features of a high moral character. Synod. Moreover, here - in this service, everything is original, inseparable from the personality of the Lord and new. Wide popularity and height of position, in the natural order of things, gave rise to the proper kind of temptation: to enslave oneself to the passions of arrogance and to surrender in peace to the selfish use of the occupied strong position. But this is not at all what we encounter in the ministry of Metropolitan Anthony: deep, sincere humility and amazingly energetic activity, which, without a doubt, shortened the Vladyka’s life, perhaps by many years. “He had an infinitely kind, golden heart. His broad charity knew no bounds. Nobody talked about her, few people even knew about her. Even the ruler himself had no idea what his right hand was doing. He helped his numerous relatives, helped students, helped everyone who turned to him, and doing good was a pleasure for him. He himself was distinguished by a rare lack of money. His modesty was limitless. He never cheated on her. How touchingly and simply he treated, for example, his former schoolmates at the academy and seminary, despite the fact that some did not occupy a prominent position and were poor; demanded that they say “you” to him, as before, help them, bother for them. In letters to them he signed: “your school friend Anthony” (p. 166). The Bishop holyly fulfilled the Savior’s covenant to visit the sick. When, during the days of the terrible cholera epidemic, the entire population of the capital was gripped by panic, Vladyka Metropolitan, like a bright Guardian Angel, appeared in hospitals to console and encourage those dying in severe torment.” “During Bright Week, the bishop visited prisons. The doors of even the most terrible casemates of the Shlisselburg fortress opened before him... Let us give space here to the story of a young scientist left at the St. Petersburg Academy, and then a Shlisselburg prisoner “forever” - Novorussky" 1 . “This was in July 1904. We were still isolated from all living things, and we knew about the very fact of the war only through smuggling. Suddenly, out of the blue, an old woman appeared, Princess Maria Mikhailovna Dondukova-Korsakova, who was friends with the Metropolitan, and a week later he himself appeared. He entered each cell in order, the door was closed behind him, and the bellhops and their superiors put their ears to the gap left. “Here, Mikhail Vasilyevich, is where we met!” This was the first phrase after we kissed. In an empty, damp and gloomy cell, we sat side by side on two stools. He is in a simple black wool cassock, and I am in prison uniform. I expected to be met with something like a reproach or reproach for being here. Nothing happened. Neither in his words nor in his tone did my intense attention notice anything of the kind; his eyes were suspiciously moist. But I would not dare to say whether this tear refers to me personally, or whether it is the result of a previous conversation with one of my comrades. The conversation was the most insignificant. He asked what I was doing, and I showed him various collections that I was currently organizing. As I said goodbye, I told him; that I had a premonition, I was waiting for him to visit us. “You see, your premonition was justified. I’ve been planning to do this for a long time, but it was impossible to do this before.” After such a visit, Prince. Dondukova-Korsakova began to convince us to enter into correspondence with the Metropolitan and write to him about our needs. She was told that under the present circumstances this was not feasible: after all, corresponding with the Metropolitan through the gendarmerie censorship would be humiliating for himself. Then the Metropolitan asked where permission should be to receive closed letters from us, which was officially announced to us. This was already in January 1905” (p. 163). During the ministry of Metropolitan Anthony, a great era fell, marked by events that required especially hard work, sensitivity and tact from the primate of the Russian Orthodox Church. Of course - a formidable speech against the Orthodox Church of Leo Tolstoy, a solemn declaration of religious and political freedom and preparatory work for the convening of a Russian local council. It fell to the lot of Metropolitan Anthony to respond to these events of great historical significance, to respond officially, on behalf of the Orthodox Church. And it is impossible not to admit that his way of acting, his formulas containing a fundamental solution to church and political issues are such that they will serve as the best pages in the history of our hierarchy. “The Tolstoy question, put forward by the resolution of the Holy Synod, grew - in the fair words of our biographer - into a whole epic” (p. 218). As is his custom, the author depicts this epic very briefly: he limits himself to an almost literal reprint of the documents depicting it. And yet, re-reading these documents this time, you feel complete moral satisfaction. The resolution of the Holy Synod on the excommunication of L. Tolstoy, in its truthfulness, clarity, simplicity and power, is in the precise sense a conciliar message of the Orthodox Apostolic Church, alien to the rhetorical pomposity, loud words of anathematism that characterize the mid-century papacy and even Byzantium. This message is a sure judicial verdict, completely adequate to the crime. And we can safely say that if the opportunity had arisen to convene an ecumenical council, it would have approved this message of our Holy Synod without changing one iota or a trait in it. Of course, one does not need great legal and canonical education and experience so that in the entire synodal legal proceedings one does not find many “reasons for cassation”: the naivety of our spiritual process is a well-known fact; but all the more clearly does the truth of life appear in this naivety - the sentence and the bitter truth for the condemned. An attempt to point out these reasons was made in the documents attached below - letters from Tolstoy’s wife and himself. And how easily and at the same time strongly these attempts are repelled by Metropolitan Anthony’s response letters, breathing with strength, nobility and love! These letters breathe the spirit of faith and love and further thicken the tone of such a proud - feudal-lordly spirit of L. Tolstoy. “One day an English preacher talked to him, urging him to look deeper into his errors and turn to the Lord Jesus Christ. Imagine his horror when, after listening to his heated speech, Tolstoy replied that this is how he feels about Christ: “if they told me now that Jesus was waiting for me on the path in the garden, I would calmly look out the window and through the man I would ask Him to wait until I finish an interesting conversation with you” (p. 228). The initiative and outcome of the Tolstoy case belonged entirely to Metropolitan Anthony. In the person of Metropolitan Anthony, the Orthodox hierarchy found an authoritative representative and energetic conductor of the great principles of freedom of conscience and independence of the church from state tutelage. In this regard, Metropolitan Anthony occupied a rare high position in the history of our hierarchy. “The Church should not persecute and punish people for converting to another faith, for changing their religious beliefs. For the church there is no concept of “crime”, there is the concept of “sin”, and there is no punishment, there is “correction”. “If you see a brother deviating from the truth, preach, rebuke, exhort with great patience and edification, but do not resort to violence, do not put him in prison, do not exile to Siberia, do not imitate the medieval Inquisition” (p. 241). The highest decree of December 12. 1904 “on plans for improving the state order” in paragraph 6 - m demanded expansion of religious tolerance. Metropolitan Anthony was invited to the Committee of Ministers. There he definitely and forcefully declared the incompatibility with the spirit of the church of persecution of superstition and presented a note on desirable changes in the management of the Orthodox Church. In his opinion, “the very nature of the church is alien to violent measures, which greatly weaken its internal strength.” He considered it “necessary, along with the liberation of the clergy from police guardianship over sectarianism, to liberate the church from the excessive guardianship of secular power” (p. 241). But what especially sharply and highly distinguishes Metropolitan Anthony from a number of ordinary hierarchical and clergy persons in general is his church-canonical way of thinking. The Bishop was an energetic opponent of the interference of the clergy in the field of politics. “Do not serve any parties. The shepherd must be above them. You narrow your tasks, which are so vast. The significance of political groups is temporary. Today some win, but tomorrow others take over. The tasks of the priesthood are eternal, the ideals of the Christian world are irreplaceable. Don’t humiliate them” (p. 243). Usually calm and even, Vladyka Anthony suddenly showed unusual firmness of spirit, tried to take the rudder of the church ship as firmly as possible into his hands and, despite party cries, decisively cut off the “politicians”, both on the right and on the left. During these memorable years, the Bishop showed wise tact and complete impartiality. He said: “We, bishops, have been entrusted by God himself with the leadership of the people of God and the shepherds of the church. We have a vow to avert everything that is contrary to the rights of the authorities.” Metropolitan Anthony's last speech at the Synod was against the involvement of bishops in Duma activities. Speaking negatively on the issue of elections to the State Duma of Bishop Nikon of Kremenetsky, the bishop remained faithful to his principle, which he nobly served throughout his life - “a shepherd for the church, and not for the political platform; An Orthodox country should not get carried away by the examples of other countries” (p. 243). Great morality, a person, rising above his contemporaries, acquiring the sincere worship of good people, embitters the moral lower classes and from here receives a crown of thorns - the inevitable companion of holiness. The bishop had to experience a lot of extremely caustic grief. But he meekly and with humility endured the cross that befell him. And this gentle patience of his involuntarily bowed before him his enemies, at least the most sensitive at heart. The wealth of inner spiritual experience under completely exceptional circumstances of life and a high degree of education placed the bishop at the highest level of knowledge and created in his person the image of an archpastor who possessed complete submission to the will of God and Christian tolerance towards people. A distinctive feature of the ruler’s character was his complete lack of seeking. He enjoyed enormous influence in the highest spheres and, if he wished, could have directed the course of affairs at his own discretion, but he never used this influence, always submitting to the decrees of the Holy Synod. What have they accused him of? Regarding philosophical meetings, he was accused of Rozanov’s speeches and Merezhkovsky for communicating with “heretics.” For his attempts to update the outdated forms of marriage law, he was reproached with disrespect for the canon; they accused him of going to Shlisselburg with Christian love, taking bail for Novorussky, etc.” (246 pages). “The struggle for the true greatness of the Orthodox Church, the firm defense of one’s bright, life-giving convictions, the intrigues of open and hidden enemies - all this, of course, could not but affect the health of the Bishop - the Metropolitan. Difficult emotional experiences broke the strong nature of the saint. At 4:35 am on November 2, 1912, the saint fell into eternal sleep” (p. 254). Such was the life of Metropolitan Anthony, filled with an amazing variety of external positions and conditions; and yet, in all this diversity, an invariably identical moral personality appears. Traits of the moral character of Metropolitan. Anthony did not succumb to the pressure of external influences. What is especially striking is that, by nature inclined to family life and having already completely lived with it, Metropolitan Anthony endured his family catastrophe with extraordinary courage and remained as before an infinitely kind, complacent, philanthropic person. Naturally, questions arose: how, by what means was this man able to cope with the complete shock of his entire being and be reborn from a gentle family man into a strict monk and an unparalleledly active bishop? This question is resolved by M. Anthony himself in his intimate correspondence with family and friends. It is clear with what deep interest in life his letters are distinguished, revealing this secret place of his soul! In 1883, on March 31, being a hieromonk, he wrote to his parents. “What can I say about my life and existence? I miss the times of complete loneliness, and often I continue to grieve heavily over the loss of my children” (add. p. 14). The following year, in the rank of archimandrite, he wrote: “I feel as if I were dead. Nothing makes me happy, nothing attracts me, I don’t feel sorry for anything, I don’t even feel sorry for myself. My soul is dead, like a desert, cold, like a grave” (p. 21). In 1887 from St. Petersburg, being the rector of the academy, architect. Anthony wrote: “I enjoy attention from high-ranking officials, my colleagues and students treat me lovingly and friendly, so I really need to thank God for His undeserved mercies towards me, but I keep groaning, and often grumble and complain about my unhappy fate” (p. 33). In a letter dated 1889 to O.S.L., Archbishop Anthony writes: “Before, my heart often ached when returning from somewhere to my apartment from the consciousness that I was going to some homeless place. Now I’m glad when I get liberation from the vanity of people that is alien to me and come home. Being alone, with myself, with my thoughts and feelings, without any interference from anyone, now often gives me true pleasure. This is how human moods and habits change” (p. 158). In 1893, on March 28, he writes: “The soul that lives by Christ is always peaceful and joyful, no matter what earthly conditions it is destined to exist in. The most precious thing about Christ is that He is life. I mean to always live with the object of eternity and with the object of joy. It is not life that exists today and disappears tomorrow; it is not life where there is no joy. So, if there is life, then it is certainly eternal and joyful life. And the understanding of such a life is given to us by the Risen Christ” (p. 167). “I now experience joyful, spiritual moods more often than sad moods. There was a time when a melancholy, lonely mood was dominant in me. But the Lord had mercy on me and gave me joy. The joy of Christ is the best joy in the world. Pray for me that the Lord will give me the strength to be His true disciple, not looking back and not living according to the elements of the world” (p. 168). From the Ilyinsky (on Valaam) monastery he writes: “A mental revolution is taking place in me. Previously, I felt at ease in public and feared solitude as a deprivation of freedom, but now I feel that only solitude gives freedom. Here there is complete peace around me, no struggle for existence. There are no predatory animals on all the Valaam Islands. There are deer here. Nobody touches the birds, and they do not show much fear or hostility towards people. There are so many good people around me, true ascetics, that you involuntarily fall into a repentant mood and a sincere desire to become better and purer” (p. 169). Without any commentary, the quoted own words of M. Anthony clearly indicate what his soul was nourished by in his experiences, amazingly varied, and what imparted amazing stability to this “most humane of people”; it is an unremitting desire for “life in Christ.” “The presentation to the Empress took place,” said M. Anthony in one of his letters, “and was of a completely official nature. With the grand duchesses I had long conversations about various subjects, and I expressed my thoughts and views quite frankly and calmly, just as if I were talking with you. I have no fear whatsoever. In conversations I forget the official position of the interlocutor and see him as just a person, which in fact constitutes our only inalienable advantage, if only we worthily bear this high title given to us by God without any merit on our part” (p. 154 appendix). “One provincial elder, a priest, who happened to have an appointment with the Bishop, was so captivated by his friendliness, kindness, and attentiveness that he immediately burst into tears from an excess of grateful feelings and subsequently could not talk about him calmly. When asked what remarkable things he saw in the capital, he answered the same thing: “Metropolitan Anthony, the kindest, most affectionate... who hugged me, sat me down next to him on the sofa and asked about all the little things in my life, and then helped significantly with advice and deeds... I have never seen anything like this in my life, the elder insisted” (p. 184). It’s time, however, to finish my review, or better yet, my excerpts from the book under review. These statements are her best advertisement. This prisoner was a pupil of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy when the Metropolitan was its inspector. You might be interested in: