Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) and spiritual censorship in the 19th century

Dmitry Andreevich Karpuk – candidate of theology, teacher and secretary of the department of church historical disciplines, head of graduate studies and archives of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) is one of the most prominent bishops of the 19th century. Bishop Macarius became widely known not only in the Russian Empire, but also beyond its borders due to his fundamental research in theology and church history. When he was an inspector and professor at the capital's theological academy, he first had to face spiritual censorship. And from that time on, Metropolitan Macarius was associated with her for a long time. Firstly, first as a member of the St. Petersburg Spiritual Censorship Committee, which operated at the academy. Secondly, as the author of theological works and church historical studies. Despite the episcopal status and authority of Bishop Macarius in scientific circles, spiritual censorship in the person of its various representatives approached his works quite strictly. Some works had to be seriously reworked; others had to wait years for permission to publish. Thirdly, in 1870, on the initiative of the then chief prosecutor of St. The Synod established a Commission to revise the existing statutes of spiritual censorship, and Metropolitan Macarius was appointed its chairman. The proposals of the Commission, submitted for consideration by the Holy Synod, allow us to assert that Bishop Macarius was a man of extremely broad views, on some issues even ahead of his time. Key words: Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov), Archbishop Innocent (Borisov), Metropolitan Grigory (Postnikov), Count D. A. Tolstoy, St. Petersburg Theological Academy, spiritual censorship, Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, St. Petersburg Theological Censorship Committee. Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) (1816–1882), thanks to prizes named after him and numerous scientific works, is well known not only as the Moscow Metropolitan, but also as the largest theologian and church historian of the 19th century. A graduate of the Kyiv Theological Academy, Macarius (Bulgakov), in the rank of hieromonk, by decree of the Holy Synod, was transferred to the St. Petersburg Theological Academy in 1842. In the capital's academy, where he was appointed at the request of the then rector Archimandrite Afanasy (Drozdov) 1, Macarius stayed for 15 years, until 1857, and passed all titles and positions, ranging from assistant inspector to rector and from bachelor to emeritus full professor. It was at the capital's theological academy that he first encountered spiritual censorship. And from that time on, Metropolitan Macarius was associated with her for a long time, probably like no other of his contemporaries. Firstly, first as a member of the St. Petersburg Spiritual Censorship Committee, which operated at the academy until the end of the 50s. XIX century Secondly, as the author of theological works and church historical studies. Subsequently, despite the episcopal status and authority of Bishop Macarius in scientific circles, spiritual censorship in the person of its various representatives approached his works quite strictly. Some works had to be seriously reworked; others had to wait years for permission to publish. Thirdly, in 1870, then Archbishop Macarius, who knew firsthand all the positive and negative sides of spiritual censorship control, had the opportunity to radically change and improve (improve) the situation in this area. On the initiative of the then Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D.A. Tolstoy, a Commission was established to revise the existing statutes of spiritual censorship. It was Bishop Macarius who was appointed Chairman of the Commission. So, by decree of the Holy Synod of October 16 - November 17, 1844, Archimandrite Macarius was appointed a member of the St. Petersburg Spiritual Censorship Committee instead of the inspector of the academy, Archimandrite Joasaph (Pokrovsky). Like his predecessor, Father Macarius was a supernumerary fourth member of the censorship committee. His responsibilities included reviewing articles for the academic journal Christian Reading and generally overseeing the progress of the committee 2 . Biographer of Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov), Professor Archpriest Theodore Titov, believes that Archimandrite Macarius was the most desirable censor for his superiors, who saw him as an executive and responsible person. But the authors who submitted their manuscripts to the St. Petersburg Spiritual Censorship Committee also treated Father Macarius with great reverence and respect. It was important for them that Archimandrite Macarius was a neat, noble and, most importantly, humane person. It was thanks to all these qualities that Father Macarius soon became the most popular representative of the capital’s spiritual censorship. This was explained, firstly, by the fact that he was lenient towards the author’s mistakes or overly original thoughts, which was not welcomed by the highest church authorities. Secondly, and this was also extremely important, he always censored works and allowed them to be published as soon as possible, while some of his colleagues could delay manuscripts not only for months, but even for years. Archimandrite Macarius's love to be precise and accurate in everything was reflected 3. It was Archimandrite Macarius who was asked to “see that the manuscript does not lie lying around for a long time on the committee shelves, as sometimes happens” by such persons as Archbishop Innokenty (Borisov), Bishop Anatoly (Martynovsky), Y. K. Amphiteatrov, O. M. Bodyansky and others. 4 This is how the professor of the Kyiv Theological Academy Y. K. Amphitheatrov addresses his former student about of your manuscript: “Accept, for the sake of all the saints, take her under your care and protection and destroy her soul and mine... Do me a favor. Be kind, let me pass... How glad I would be if my bitter work was imprinted with your name. Baptize, that is, correct, and you are there as long as you want. However, I have no heresies” 5. It is noteworthy that in this case we are talking about “Readings on Church Literature, or Homiletics,” a work that would later become “the basis for the creation of the Russian national style of church preaching, which flourished in the 2nd half of the 19th – early 20th centuries.” 6. Archimandrite Macarius developed very close and even, one might say, friendly relations with Archbishop Innocent (Borisov). Thus, the latter in October 1846 writes about his Lenten teachings: “Good health and success in scientific and generally useful works, the most venerable Fr. Macarius. If there is a moment of freedom between them, then deign to give it to us and listen to our request. The point is this. In the same mail, a small collection of Lenten teachings intended for publication is sent from me to your censorship committee. I would like to get them back as soon as possible. So that, if I get permission, I can print it before Lent. There is apparently still a lot of time, but the printing house here is so slow that it is difficult to expect it to finish printing in advance. Meanwhile, taking care of speeding up the matter, I at the same time ask you to put aside all etiquette and, without being embarrassed by anything, officially note, or tell me privately, what, in your opinion, should be excluded or changed: everything will be done with all accuracy, even if for this purpose half a book must be left unused” 7 . Of course, Father Macarius showed maximum punctuality and delicacy when reading the materials of such a venerable author. Less than three weeks later, he already answers Vladyka Innocent that he reviewed and approved his manuscript: “At the same time, I dare to bring to your Eminence my sincere gratitude for the spiritual pleasure that I experienced in abundance when reading this manuscript. Taking advantage of the right given by you to indicate my bewilderments on it, in some places I expressed them with pencil strokes (although usually all such places were marked by censors in red ink. - D.K.); but all of them, as you can see for yourself, are completely unimportant and, at your discretion, can be wiped off with an eraser” 8. In response to this, Bishop Innocent in the next letter expresses regret that the censor was too lenient with his texts: “But you are too kind: we would like you to be more severe.” However, even after reading the next manuscript of the eminent author, Father Macarius again asks for forgiveness for his interference in the author’s text: “And this time, I confess to you, I could not be a strict critic. You know that this requires a lot of time, complete caution and intelligence. However, in two or three sermons I changed or edited something, according to my extreme understanding. If you wish, destroy my betrayals, and let everything be as before. It is not for us, I will say frankly, the disciples of your disciples, to be your teachers in anything." 9 Saint Innocent (Borisov), Archbishop of Kherson (1800–1857) In passing, it should be noted that Archimandrite Macarius was directly involved in the publication of the academic journal “Christian Reading”. And his responsibilities in this case also included searching for authors and materials. In 1847, Father Macarius turned to Bishop Innocent with a request to send a few words and teachings for an academic publication, without hiding the fact that they affect the popularity, and therefore the circulation of the magazine and, accordingly, its financial situation: “Do not, for the sake of God and your countless admirers, endow our “Christian Reading” with your sweet and edifying teachings. For us, in particular, this is not disinterested: what’s the truth?” 10. Four years later, in 1851, already a rector and bishop, Bishop Macarius again begged Bishop Innocent to revive the capital’s academic journal with his conversations. Thus, the relationship between two outstanding contemporaries was mutually beneficial. It was on the initiative of Archbishop Innocent that in 1847 Archimandrite Macarius was awarded a doctorate. The fact is that this year Father Macarius published “Introduction to Orthodox Theology.” This work was proposed to be presented to Nicholas I. On behalf of the Holy Synod, Archbishop Innocent was to review the work of Father Macarius and answer whether this book could be presented to the emperor. In his review, Bishop Innocent noted that “this book, both in terms of the importance of its content, and in the way the subjects are presented, and in the significance of the work that it cost the author,” can be presented as a gift to the head of state. At the same time, the bishop expressed the opinion that it would be quite fair for Father Macarius, “both for this new scientific work and for the previous ones, especially on the history of the Russian Church,” to be awarded a doctorate 11. This petition of Bishop Innocent, as well as that of Metropolitan Anthony (Rafalsky) of St. Petersburg, was granted, and on October 31, 1847. Archimandrite Macarius was awarded the degree of Doctor of Theology. As for the censorship activities of Archimandrite Macarius, the pre-revolutionary researcher of spiritual censorship A. N. Kotovich drew attention to a curious detail, namely, that only those close to him at the Kyiv Theological Academy had the opportunity to use the censorship benevolence of Father Macarius. In other words, Father Macarius “gave reviews of individual works only as an exception - for the sake of his fellow countrymen” 12. As already mentioned, the number of those who applied included Bishop Innokenty, Professor Y. K. Amphitheaters. In addition, Father Macarius contributed to the publication of studies by Archpriest John Skvortsov, a professor at the Kyiv Theological Academy, “A Brief Outline of the History of the Old Testament Church” (fourth ed.) and “A Brief Outline of the History of the New Testament Church” (third ed.). It was also Father Macarius who gave permission for the publication of “Sunday Conversations” (St. Petersburg, 1847) by Archbishop Iliodor (Chistyakov) of Kursk. However, the relationship between Father Macarius and Bishop Iliodor should be mentioned separately. Vladyka Iliodor, heading the Kursk and Belgorod diocese, noticed the special talents of the then Mikhail Petrovich Bulgakov in the seminary. And from that time on he began to especially patronize him. The bishop provided him with financial support, invited him to stay at his house during the holidays, and in 1837, after he graduated from the Kursk Theological Seminary, he sent him to the Kyiv Theological Academy 13. But that's not all. Archimandrite Macarius initially prepared his aforementioned “Introduction to Orthodox Theology” for publication in the form of three issues, each of which was gradually sent for consideration by spiritual censors. In the St. Petersburg Spiritual Censorship Committee, the materials were reviewed by Archimandrite Avvakum (Honest). Next, the manuscripts were submitted for consideration to the Holy Synod, which entrusted the study of these texts to Archbishop Iliodor. The latter allowed all three issues to go to press without any critical comments. Only in his first review did he recommend replacing the original author’s title “Encyclopedia of Orthodox Theology” with another, “more consistent with the essence of the matter” 14. Such cases of mutual assistance and interaction between censors and authors were no exception. Rather, on the contrary, one can see in this a certain rule when authors, especially those who write a lot and often, established a special trusting relationship with one or another censor. Subsequently, as Archbishop of Kharkov, Vladyka Macarius, directing through his brother Archpriest Alexander Bulgakov, rector of the Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg, his sermons for censorship to the capital committee, gave him the following instructions: “And take the trouble, brother, to ask the secretary - Chistovich 15 so that the manuscript is considered as soon as possible, and precisely o. Sergius 16, who censored my sermons before” 17. Archimandrite Macarius was dismissed from the post of supernumerary member of the St. Petersburg Spiritual Censorship Committee according to his own petition by the decision of the Holy Synod of January 9 (16), 1848, having thus worked in this position for just over three years. It is interesting to note that, being a supernumerary employee of the censorship committee, Archimandrite Macarius performed this position completely disinterestedly, without receiving any remuneration for his work. Only once during the entire period of his censorship service did he receive material compensation in the amount of the annual salary of a full-time spiritual censor of 228 rubles. 75 k. silver. The petition for this reward was accepted by the full-time members of the St. Petersburg Committee at their meeting on January 16, 1847: “Taking into account that the inspector of the academy, Archimandrite Macarius, being a supernumerary member for more than two years, during the entire period of his service in the committee did not receive any remuneration for his work, and meanwhile, in addition to the articles assigned for publication in the Christian Reading, he also considered others essays, as well as took part in the consideration of essays that were subject to the general judgment of all members of the committee” 18. Through the conference (since 1869 - Council) of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, this petition was sent to the Synod, which did not ignore it. True, there is also an interesting detail here. The fact is that, when applying for a one-time salary, the members of the academic conference drew attention to the fact that Macarius’ predecessor, Archimandrite Joseph, having worked in the same position for just over a year, received an annual salary of 228 rubles. 75 rubles. Macarius, who had been working for more than two years at the time of his appeal, was asked by the academic conference to be given 300 rubles. However, the Synod did not support this petition 19. The subsequent activity of Macarius (Bulgakov) was associated with spiritual censorship, but only as an author, obliged, like all spiritual writers in general, to submit his manuscripts for preliminary consideration and approval of spiritual censors. And everything was not always smooth for Bishop Macarius here. This is especially true for theological works, although some difficulties also arose with historical research. Already the first serious theological work of Archimandrite Macarius, “Introduction to Dogmatic Theology,” caused a mixed reaction. On the one hand, as already noted, there are gratitude and a doctorate. On the other hand, in private letters from Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) to A.N. Muravyov, A.S. Khomyakov to A.N. Popov, bishop, later Archbishop Philaret (Gumilyovsky) to Archpriest A.V. Gorsky, a lot of the most impartial criticism was expressed against the work and the author himself 20 . It is noteworthy that the “Introduction” was submitted to the Holy Synod in 1848 to obtain permission for a second edition, but after a second censorship by the Archbishop, later Metropolitan Gregory (Postnikov), this was given only in 1852. 21 The continuation of the “Introduction,” as is known, was the 5-volume “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” (T. 1. 1849; T. 2. 1851; T. 3. 1851; T. 4. 1852; T. 5. 1853). This fundamental work drew a line under all previous attempts to present in a systematic manner the basic tenets of the Orthodox faith. One of Bishop Macarius' correspondents for this book even called him “Makarius the Great” 22. It is noteworthy that the same Archbishop Gregory (Postnikov), who censored the first edition of Dogmatics and did not express a single complaint, when submitting the work for censorship for the second edition, was no longer so complacent and drew attention to a number of shortcomings, which, however, he allowed to be eliminated only if the work was submitted for the 3rd edition. And indeed, from the 3rd edition of “Dogmatics” by Bishop Macarius began to appear in a revised form and in 2 volumes 23 . The “Guide to the Study of Christian Orthodox Dogmatic Theology,” compiled by Bishop Macarius in 1853, had an even more dramatic fate. The author’s original title was as follows: “A Brief Outline of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology.” This book, which was a condensed summary of the previous five volumes, was supposed to become a textbook for students of theological seminaries. After approval by the St. Petersburg Spiritual Censorship Committee, the manuscript was submitted to Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) for censorship. The Moscow saint submitted his review only in November 1862. In the covering letter, the 10-year delay was explained by the burden of “summers and studies,” as well as the need to point out the numerous shortcomings of the work, which was intended as a teaching aid for seminaries. However, the final review took up less than three book pages. Most of the comments are of a general nature. For example, according to the reviewer, the essay had many unnecessary sections, which were fully justified in a 5-volume edition and unnecessary in a short manual. On the other hand, the sections on the Holy Trinity and the Face of the Savior were presented, in the reviewer's opinion, inappropriately briefly. However, the final verdict was positive for the author: ““The Outline” can be a useful guide for a seminar course: but for this, it seems, it is not superfluous to take into account the thoughts proposed here and use some labor of revision” 24. As a result, Bishop Macarius was forced to seriously rework his “Manual” and published it only in 1869. A historical study devoted to the history of the Old Believers had a less dramatic, but also difficult, fate. In 1853 At the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, on the initiative of Archbishop Gregory (Postnikov), a special missionary department was established to train “pupils to work with schismatics.” In 1855, the doctrine of the schism was introduced into the general course of academic teaching, and since 1857, separate departments for the “Teaching of the Russian Schism” were established in all theological academies. As a teaching aid, Bishop Macarius prepared and in 1855 published “The History of the Russian Schism, known as the Old Believers.” Reviewer of this study Gregory became Archbishop again. In his review, the greatest expert on the schism noted that Bishop Macarius’s work was written in detail and based on a serious source base. At the same time, Bishop Gregory did not like the fact that such a solid study says nothing about Martin the heretic: “But this History, as History, has, in my opinion, an important drawback, the fact that it nowhere pays attention to the legend about Martin the heretic and the Council that was held against him; for the schismatics, refuting the reality of this legend, and to this day everywhere extremely disgrace the Orthodox Church. Therefore, the author of the said story certainly had to say a strong word somewhere in defense of the Orthodox Church. But as it is not said anywhere, this gives schismatics a new opportunity to blaspheme the Orthodox Church” 25. By this time, Bishop Macarius had already published quite a few articles on the ancient period of Russian church history. Moreover, at this time the first three volumes of his multi-volume “History of the Russian Church” were already being prepared for publication. It can be assumed that Bishop Macarius believed that the legend about Martin the heretic was a forgery (which it actually was). However, on the one hand, he did not oppose the official point of view. On the other hand, in order not to be considered an amateur in the field where he claimed to be an expert, Bishop Macarius never included the required section in his “History of the Russian Schism”, but limited himself to just one sentence and a reference to the study of Archbishop Ignatius (Semyonov) of Voronezh “The History of the Schisms of the Russian Church” 26, noting that this work says “absolutely everything that is possible” to say against the schismatics in defense of the authenticity of the Acts of the said Council, and to which I could not add anything” 27. This is where this censorship story ends. As for Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, he subsequently thanked the author for this work, noting in a letter that in this work “I came across subjects more accurately and more fully presented than those who worked in this field” before Bishop Macarius 28 . In the future, Bishop Macarius was destined to play a very important role in the history of spiritual censorship. This was connected with another attempt of the Holy Synod, on the highest orders of Emperor Alexander II, to carry out a reform of spiritual censorship in 1870. The need for such a reform after all the transformations that took place in the state in the 60s. XIX century, was obvious both to authors, translators and publishers, and to the members of spiritual censorship committees themselves. The era of the Great Reforms significantly changed the situation in the country. The abolition of serfdom, the subsequent zemstvo and judicial reforms, the adoption of a new university charter - all this could not but affect the sphere of censorship. On April 6, 1865, a decree “On the granting of certain reliefs and conveniences to the domestic press” was adopted, which significantly weakened civilian censorship control. The state slowly, but nevertheless began to move from preliminary censorship, as the most strict, to punitive, more liberal censorship. According to the new law, all periodicals whose editors declared a desire to be published without censorship, original works of at least 10 printed sheets, and translated works of at least 20 sheets were exempt from preliminary censorship in St. Petersburg and Moscow. Of course, the relaxations applied only to the capitals, but all the most important magazines and newspapers were published there 29 . Everywhere, publications of government agencies, educational institutions - academies and universities, as well as various kinds of learned societies, publications in ancient classical languages, drawings, plans and maps were exempted from preliminary censorship. The author and publishers of all publications published without prior censorship were subject to prosecution in case of violation of censorship and other laws, and the editors of periodicals were subject to administrative penalties. Serious changes also took place in the ecclesiastical department. Until the middle of the 19th century. on the basis of the only existing statute of spiritual censorship in 1828, the main censorship institutions were the St. Petersburg and Moscow spiritual censorship committees, which functioned at the corresponding theological academies. Since the 60s. XIX century What seems to be spontaneous, and therefore ill-considered, decentralization begins to occur. The Holy Synod began to vest censorship powers in various institutions and individuals, from that time on subordinate and reporting directly to the Holy Synod or diocesan bishops, and not to the capital's spiritual censorship committees. And then this process only gained momentum. So, by the beginning of the 20th century. these institutions included the Commission at the Georgian-Imeretian Synodal Office, the department of the protopresbyter of the military and naval clergy, the Educational Committee at the Holy Synod, the School Committee at the Holy Synod, the St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kiev and Kazan Theological Academies, the Supervisory Church Singing Council at the Moscow Synodal School of Church Singing, the Restoration Society Orthodox Christianity in the Caucasus, Council of the Kazan Brotherhood of St. Guria, Altai Spiritual Mission, Russian Spiritual Missions in Japan, China, Korea and Urmia, Censorship Committee of the Aleutian Diocese, censors of diocesan bulletins, sermons and catechetical teachings and local foreign publications 30. Each structure had its own powers, which were not always clearly defined. As a result, sometimes confusion occurred, leading to conflict situations, as happened, for example, after the publication, with the permission of the Kyiv Theological Academy, of a monograph by its own professor N.I. Petrova “Essays on the history of Ukrainian literature of the 19th century” (Kyiv, 1884) 31. And although a whole case that appeared on this issue in the bowels of the synodal office arose later than the events described, it is obvious that the disorder in the spiritual-censorship department began precisely in the period under consideration, i.e. in the 60s. Since the rules of 1865, which concerned exclusively civil censorship and did not affect the ecclesiastical department, were temporary, it is obvious that it was necessary to develop a full-fledged censorship charter. To implement this task, by decree of the emperor, on November 2, 1869, a special Commission was established to review the existing regulations on censorship and the press, chaired by the chief administrator of the II department of His Imperial Majesty’s Own Office, Prince S. N. Urusov. Prince Urusov, shortly after the start of the Commission’s activities, turned to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D. A. Tolstoy, with a proposal to join in this work to reform censorship control and develop rules relating exclusively to the ecclesiastical department. Count Tolstoy fully supported this appeal and already on January 9, 1870, in his attitude to the Holy Governing Synod, he proposed to establish a special commission to develop new rules of spiritual censorship, emphasizing that the charter of 1828 was outdated. Moreover, the chief prosecutor’s proposal already contained a list of persons who were supposed to deal with this issue. Thus, the Commission was to include an employee of the St. Petersburg Spiritual Censorship Committee, Archimandrite Efrem (Ryazantsev), Archpriest. Ioann Yakhontov, professor of St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences I. A. Chistovich, legal adviser to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod V. A. Stepanov, acting director of the Office of the Chief Prosecutor I. A. Nenarokomov and member of the same office A. I. Zabelin, who was involved in all the paperwork of the Commission 32. Thus, if approved (and another decision was hardly possible), the Holy Synod had only to appoint a chairman, which, on its instructions, was the Archbishop of Lithuania Macarius (Bulgakov). At the same time, the decree especially emphasized that the draft amendments must be prepared as soon as possible. This instruction was taken into account and carried out by the members of the newly formed Commission, and already on May 10 of the same year, Bishop Macarius, being a punctual and diligent man, submitted a report to the Holy Synod on the fulfillment of the instructions assigned to the Commission and forwarded to the Synod a note with proposals for reforming spiritual censorship 33 . The first part of the report was the historical and analytical part, which examined the current situation in the sphere of spiritual and censorship control in the state. It was especially noted that the year of birth of spiritual censorship is 1720, when under Peter I the first decree was issued, which from that time provided for control of book products produced by church printing houses in Moscow, Kyiv and Chernigov. Separately, the members of the Commission dwelled, of course, on the charter of 1828, which was hopelessly outdated by the middle of the 19th century. The obsolescence consisted, among other things, in the decentralization of spiritual and censorship control that had been occurring since 1860. After all, with the publication of the Diocesan Gazette, special censors now appeared in every provincial city. The adoption of the academic charter of 1869, on the one hand, removed censorship committees from the jurisdiction of higher theological schools, and on the other, academies were given the right to independently, under the responsibility of the rector, publish their own works, notes, theses, etc. For many contemporaries involved in publishing, the line drawn in official powers was far from obvious. Thus, the Commission recorded the changes that had occurred and proposed to restore order in the field of spiritual censorship control. But not only that. The members of the Commission did not limit themselves to proposing only certain façade changes. Former (Arch. I. Yakhontov, I. A. Chistovich) and current (Archimandrite Ephraim) censors took full advantage of the opportunity to talk about the problems existing in the field of spiritual censorship control. Firstly, the members of the Commission noted that preliminary spiritual censorship in Russia does not achieve its main goal: “The purpose of our existing preliminary spiritual censorship is to protect Orthodox society from the spread in it of teachings and opinions that are contrary to the Orthodox faith and the Church. Error and its teaching spread in the spirit can have two sources: either lack of development of the mind in relation to known objects, therefore] misunderstanding, ignorance, or ill-intention, i.e., evil will, or both. Action directed against ignorance, not combined with evil will, can have only one form of instruction, teaching, enlightenment. What is needed here is a positive, educational, and guiding course of action. Shy measures, by the very nature of the ignorance at which they are aimed, can very easily lead, as they often do, to embitterment, to the arousal of evil will. There remains another source of actions that arise from ill-intention, or from the deliberate spread of errors and harmful teachings. But it is extremely difficult to prevent all possible manifestations of evil will. If the disseminator of this or that false teaching is blocked from the path of action through the press, he will adopt another method - either the written word or the spoken word, will gather around himself a crowd, a sect, a party of like-minded people, and will become a more dangerous force, the more it is hidden from society and publicity and open persecution, which is exactly what was done and is being done by all sectarians in general, and our schismatics, or their leaders - false teachers" 34 . The Commission also drew attention to the fact that theological literature of Catholics, Protestants, etc. is quite legally published in the country. Many works that are heretical from the point of view of Orthodox orthodoxy were then published in Russian and were freely distributed among Russian Orthodox people. The spiritual censorship of the Russian Orthodox Church, naturally, could not prevent this. Secondly, the members of the Commission expressed, as it seems, a seditious thought - seditious for the bygone era of Nicholas I, seditious for the approaching era of K. P. Pobedonostsev: “Preliminary censorship belittles every thought, every inquisitiveness, as soon as they leave the once accepted system; does not provide any growth and development of living activity of the mind aimed at theological teaching; dulls all energy in writers, constantly reminding them not to say an unnecessary or conventionally incorrect word. Meanwhile, not only correct research, but sometimes the very deviations in teaching can only serve to clarify and confirm the Divine truth of Orthodox teaching, which cannot be shaken by human wisdom” 35. To confirm that they were right, the members of the Commission appealed to examples from the history of the Ancient Church. It was noted that the first centuries of Christianity, when there was no censorship and everyone could freely express their opinion on this or that issue, are considered the most important period in church history in all respects: “In all periods of the history of the Church, the comparatively least respectable times are those in which no contribution was made to the treasury of doctrine, and the most respected are those in which such, and often very grandiose, contributions were made, authoritative for all centuries. But what were these times like? These are the great eras of the first, second, third, fourth and fifth centuries - the era of apostolic men, the era of apologists, the era of the luminaries of the universal Church - Vasiliev, Gregory, Chrysostom, Athanasiev and other great leaders of the Orthodox Church - the era of not indifferent, but a living attitude towards Christian teaching, when human thought, although sometimes mistaken, even deeply mistaken, She always treated the word of life and salvation with energy. False teachings and heretical errors passed and fell, but the truth of Orthodox teaching became clear and revealed on all sides at ecumenical councils and in the writings of the Holy Fathers and teachers, and its great monuments remained as the eternal heritage of the Orthodox Church" 36 . Thirdly, the Commission agreed with some critics from among anonymous church publicists on the following issue. The fact that all church literature was published with the permission of the Church gave all works, even the most insignificant, church-wide authority. At least, some part of ordinary believers perceived various kinds of brochures and even leaflets this way. But the worst thing is, and the members of the Commission also drew attention to this, that some books were passed with errors (through the fault of both the authors and the censors), and under existing conditions these errors acquired a kind of canonicity and became increasingly widespread. The fourth point, one of the most important and interesting, confirmed what authors and publishers talked about so much and often - the arbitrariness of censors: “Preliminary censorship opens up wide scope for the arbitrariness of censors. Not to mention the fact that they themselves may be at different degrees of education, they can sometimes, out of suspiciousness and personal fears, fear of responsibility, delay and prohibit something that in fact does not contain anything directly wrong or harmful and dangerous. There are examples from censorship practice that the censor prohibits something only because it is safer for him to prohibit it, although he himself is not completely convinced that, if approved, what he is prohibiting will seem harmful and dangerous” 37 . This point is especially valuable because the censors themselves spoke about the arbitrariness of the censors! Fifthly, the Commission, again turning to the church past, drew attention to the fact that no repressive measures were taken against dissidents in ancient times: “False teachers and heretics openly preached their teaching among Christians, and spread it not only orally, but often through their writings. And meanwhile, neither from the side of St. The apostles, neither their immediate successors, nor they themselves personally, nor the errors they preached, either verbally or in writing, ever encountered any purely external obstacle or constraint. The apostles and then the shepherds of the Church only observed all the false teachings that appeared, notified Orthodox believers of their appearance in order to protect them from possible deviations to the side of false teachings; they exposed, instructed, and convinced the false teachers and heretics themselves; sometimes they wrote their own refutations of their works, even entire books; sometimes, finally, when they considered it necessary, they gathered at councils, examined this or that heretical teaching, condemned it, excommunicated the heretics themselves from the Church, and announced all this throughout the entire community of believers. In the Church that was the end of the matter” 38. Presumably, the members of the Commission in this part of their report implied that the practice of persecution could be abandoned even now. At present, it is already difficult to say which of the members of the Commission expressed what thoughts when discussing these issues, and which of them belonged to Archbishop Macarius. However, there is no doubt that, by signing the final document, Bishop Macarius testified his agreement with the provisions set out there. And this is very indicative of understanding the views of Bishop Macarius on contemporary church reality. The final conclusion of the Commission was extremely disappointing. Spiritual censorship control had many flaws, and most importantly, it did not lead to its main goal: it did not protect society from the spread of various kinds of false teachings and heretical views. It became clear that something needed to change. The members of the Commission did not come up with anything special and proposed to follow in the footsteps of civil censorship legislation, almost completely repeating the main provisions of the decree on the Temporary Rules of 1865, and in some places making even more liberal concessions. So, the Commission proposed exemption from preliminary censorship: all publications of the Holy Synod and diocesan bishops; all publications of theological academies and theological educational societies; all publications of spiritual content (i.e., the works of the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church and all other works of ancient theological literature) in ancient classical languages, as well as translations from these languages; all works of clergy with spiritual and moral content; brochures containing extracts from the works of the Holy Fathers, prayers and chants from liturgical books and lithographic sacred images published by clergy 39 ; b) in both capitals, i.e. in St. Petersburg and Moscow: all spiritual periodicals, if the publishers themselves so desire, with exemption from the obligation to pay the deposit imposed on publishers of secular newspapers and magazines; all original spiritual works of at least 10 printed sheets, and translated ones of at least 20 printed sheets 40. Further, the Commission, trying to eliminate the vagueness and vagueness of some provisions of the charter of 1828, proposed to approve clauses according to which all works that were subject to preliminary censorship would not be allowed to be published, and those printed without prior censorship would be subject to prosecution: a) if they contain either blasphemy, or defamation of saints, or censure of the Orthodox faith or the Church, or abuse of Holy Scripture and Holy sacraments; b) if they contain blasphemy, that is, caustic ridicule demonstrating clear disrespect for the dogmas, ecumenical canons and sacred rites of the Orthodox Church; c) if they reject or undermine the divine authority of Holy Scripture, refute the truths of Orthodoxy of the Greco-Russian Church and reject or undermine the dogmas of the Orthodox Church; d) if these writings are aimed at attracting and seducing Orthodox Christians into another, even Christian, religion, or into a sect or Old Believers; e) if sacred images published in books, or separately for public use, are presented in a seductive manner. The most radical decision of the Commission was the proposal to abolish the capital’s spiritual censorship committees and to introduce their members into the civil censorship committees: “Spiritual censorship should be combined with secular censorship into one general censorship under the supervision of the Main Directorate for Press Affairs under the Ministry of Internal Affairs and united in such a way that no danger to faith and the Church could occur and the rights of the ecclesiastical authority of the Holy Synod would not be violated in the least.” 41 According to the members of the Commission, such cooperation would be extremely useful and effective, firstly, for direct control over literature and, secondly, in economic terms, since a reduction in staff would lead to a reduction in the cost of paying censors 42 . Subsequently, during the discussion of this project in 1881, it was this provision that caused the most criticism from individual representatives of the highest church authorities. The Commission's draft, as is known 43, was considered, corrected, supplemented and approved by decree of January 20, 1871. Then the draft of transformations was transferred to the Prince Urusov Commission, the last meeting of which took place on November 6, 1871. The project did not receive further progress, and in 1881, under Chief Prosecutor K. P. Pobedonostsev, by a synodal decree of May 20 previous decree of January 20, 1871 was canceled 44. The next attempt to reform spiritual censorship, also unsuccessful, was made only in 1905. Then, on January 23, by decree of Emperor Nicholas II, a Special Meeting was established to revise the existing decrees on censorship and the press, chaired by D. F. Kobeko. The Holy Synod sent Bishop Antonin (Granovsky) of Narva and Archpriest A.P. Rozhdestvensky to the conference from the spiritual department. The final decision of the Conference regarding spiritual censorship boiled down to the following three provisions: 1) abolish preliminary censorship for all books of religious content; 2) recognize it as necessary that the editor of an Orthodox spiritual magazine belong to the Orthodox confession, and 3) maintain preliminary censorship for drawings and images, including spiritual content, published in separate sheets, as well as illustrated open letters 45 . It would seem that the issue of preliminary censorship was finally resolved, but the church authorities did not agree to abolish preliminary censorship and immediately convened another special purely church meeting, which formally worked until 1911. In the end, it “disintegrated partly due to the death of some of its members, partly due to their compilation of the service, and partly due to a change in the type of service” 46. Before the revolutionary events of 1917, the Russian Orthodox Church was unable to decide what principles should be followed in the field of spiritual censorship control. Returning to Metropolitan Macarius, it should be emphasized that Vladyka, having himself been a spiritual censor, having repeatedly suffered various kinds of embarrassment from other spiritual censors as an author, clearly saw the increasingly numerous flaws and shortcomings in the sphere of spiritual censorship control that existed in Russia in the 19th century. Having headed the Commission to revise the existing statutes of spiritual censorship in 1870, Metropolitan Macarius tried to radically change the situation in this area. It is difficult to say what the adoption and implementation of the project proposed by the Commission would have led to. Some of his provisions were extremely radical, if not revolutionary for their time. On the other hand, the Church had to move towards the liberalization of spiritual censorship control in order to somewhat soften the tension that was developed and accumulated (and this is the most dangerous and terrible thing) under conditions of constant pressure. The final proposals of the Commission indirectly, of course, indicate that Metropolitan Macarius was somewhat ahead of his time. He was ready to make such radical changes that other bishops were afraid to even think about. What exactly the decisions of this Commission speak about is the breadth views of Bishop Macarius. The behavior and views of the Bishop in 1870 were not some kind of adventurous exception. Nor was it vulgar indulgence to his patron in the person of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D. A. Tolstoy. Somewhat later, Macarius, already the Moscow Metropolitan, will again show the breadth of his views and the kindness of his soul in a completely unexpected way. Unexpected for everyone, even for many of those around him, people who knew him well. We are referring to the material assistance provided by Metropolitan Macarius to the professor of the Moscow Theological Academy E. E. Golubinsky for the publication of his “History of the Russian Church.” It is well known that Golubinsky in his work criticized many of the provisions of Metropolitan Macarius, who, nevertheless, allocated the necessary amount for the publication of this study. This act showed Bishop Macarius as a hierarch with a broad outlook and rare tolerance for the opinions and beliefs of others, including his opponents and even opponents, of which he had many. Subsequently E.E. Golubinsky dedicated the second volume of his “History of the Russian Church” to Metropolitan Macarius, and in his memoirs noted that with his action the bishop surprised not only him, but also many of his contemporaries in general: “It was to be expected from a man of ordinary qualities of soul, as everyone expected from the Right Reverend Macarius, that he would meet his emerging rival, if not with open, then with hidden anger, and would refuse him the means to publish, if not rudely, then somehow plausible. But the Most Reverend Macarius did not act as expected, but on the contrary, acted as was not at all expected; and this undoubtedly testifies that he had far from ordinary soul qualities. He was capable and willing to sacrifice his personal pride for the benefit of science” 47. This story caused lively discussion not only among the clergy, but also among secular writers and intellectuals. N.S. Leskov, for example, believed that such an act is characteristic only of a true lover of enlightenment, who puts the interests of science above any considerations of pride, which distinguishes and is characteristic of mediocrity 48 . Sources and literature sources RGIA. F. 675. Op. 1. D. 8. Letter from Hieromonk Irenaeus, Builder of the Phillipine-Iranian Desert, to Metropolitan Macarius, July 28, 1851. RGIA. F. 796. Op. 123. D. 751. On the appointment of Hieromonk Macarius as a bachelor to the St. Petersburg Academy in the theology class of the Kiev Academy. RGIA.F. 796. Op.127. D.1611. About the manuscript entitled: Encyclopedia of Orthodox Theology, edition 1, 2 and 3. RGIA. F. 796. Op. 128. D. 2142. About the book entitled “Introduction to Orthodox Theology” op. Archimandrite Macarius. RGIA. F. 796. Op. 128. D. 244. On remuneration of the inspector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy Archimandrite Macarius with an annual salary. RGIA. F. 796. Op. 132. D. 1903. About the essay of the rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Bishop Macarius of Vinnitsa, entitled: 1) “Introduction to Orthodox-Dogmatic Theology”, 2) “Orthodox-Dogmatic Theology”, volumes IV and V and 3) “A Brief Outline of Orthodox-Dogmatic Theology”. RGIA. F. 796. Op. 135. D. 1951. About the manuscript of His Grace Macarius, Bishop of Vinnitsa entitled “The History of the Russian Schism known under the name of the Old Believers.” RGIA. F. 796. Op. 136. D. 409. About the new draft of an additional article to the history of the “Russian Schism” by the Bishop of Vinnitsa. RGIA. F. 796. Op. 151. D. 1422. On the revision of the statute of Spiritual Censorship in a special Commission. RGIA. F. 796. Op. 167. 1886 D. 2258. On the revision of regulations on censorship and the press. RGIA. F. 796. Op. 196. Dept. II. Art. 2. D. 76. At the proposal of the chief prosecutor to establish a Central Publishing Committee under the Holy Synod. RGIA. F. 802. Op. 9. 1884 D. 42. On the issue of the rights of the Councils of Theological Academies regarding censorship of books submitted for their consideration. RGIA. F. 807. Op. 2. D. 1355. Journals of meetings of the St. Petersburg Spiritual Censorship Committee for 1855. Barsov N.I. Letters of Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow to Innocent, Archbishop of Kherson and Tauride // Christian Reading. 1884. No. 5–6. pp. 798–817. Barsukov N.P. Life and works of M. P. Pogodin. Book 10. St. Petersburg, 1896. Volkov A.A. Amphitheaters Yakov Kosmich // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M., 2001. T. 2. P. 206. Grinchenko N.A., Patrusheva N.G., Raskin D.I. Censorship in Russia in the 19th – early 20th centuries. // Russian writers, 1800–1917: biogr. words M., 2007. T. 5. P. 775–791. Karpuk D.A. Spiritual censorship in Russia in the second half of the 19th century. (based on materials from the St. Petersburg Spiritual Censorship Committee Foundation) // Christian Reading. 2015. No. 2. pp. 210–251. Kotovich A.N. Spiritual censorship in Russia (1799–1855). St. Petersburg, 1909. Leskov N. S. Church intriguers. Historical paintings // Historical Bulletin. 1881. T. 8. No. 5. P. 364–390. Macarius (Bulgakov), bishop. The history of the Russian schism, known as the Old Believers. St. Petersburg, 1855. Letters of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, to Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow // Church Bulletin. 1883. No. 13. pp. 10–11. Polunov A. Yu, Solovyov I. V. The life and works of academician E. E. Golubinsky with the appendix “Memoirs” of E. E. Golubinsky. M., 1998. Razdorsky A.I., D.B.K. Iliodor (Chistyakov), Archbishop. Kursk and Belgorod // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M., 2009. T. 22. pp. 233–235. A collection of opinions and reviews of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, on educational and church-state issues. T. V. Part 1. M., 1887. Titov F. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. Kyiv, 1895. T. I: Years of childhood, education and ecclesiastical school service, Metropolitan. Macaria (1816–1857). Titov F., prot. Moscow Metropolitan Macarius Bulgakov. Kyiv, 1915. T. III: The Lithuanian period in the life of Metropolitan Macarius (1868–1879). Diocesan activities of the Metropolitan in Lithuania and applications. Chistovich I.A. History of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. St. Petersburg, 1857. Dmitry Karpuk. Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) and Ecclesiastical Censorship in the 19th Century. Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) is one of the most eminent bishops of the 19th century. He was best known, not only in the Russian Empire but also beyond its borders, for his fundamental studies in dogmatic theology and church history. During his years as inspector and professor of St. Petersburg Theological Academy, he made his first encounters with ecclesiastical censorship, with which he was connected for a long period thereafter: first as member of the St. Petersburg Ecclesiastical Censorship Committee, which was based in the Academy, and then as the author of a number of works in theology and church history. His status as an authoritative bishop notwithstanding, the ecclesiastical censors were stern in their evaluation of the works of Metropolitan Macarius. He was forced to rework certain of his publications and to await permission to print the publication over several years. In 1870, at the initiative of the Ober-Procurator of the Holy Synod, a Commission for the reconsideration of the Statute of Ecclesiastical Censors was established, and Metropolitan Macarius was appointed as the president of this commission. The recommendations of this commission, brought before the Holy Synod for consideration, allow us to evaluate Metropolitan Macarius as a person of broad ranging views who, in some respects, was ahead of his time. Keywords: Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov), Archbishop Innocent (Borisov), Metropolitan Gregory (Postnikov), Count Dimitry Tolstoy, St. Petersburg Theological Academy, thelogical censorship, Ober-Procurator of the Holy Synod, St. Petersburg Committee for Theological Censorship. Dmitry Andreyevich Karpuk – Candidate of Theology, Lecturer and Secretary of the Department of Church History, Dean of the Graduate Program and Head Archivist at St. Petersburg Theological Academy RGIA. F. 796. Op. 123. D. 751. L. 1–3 Chistovich I.A. History of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. St. Petersburg, 1857. P. 419. Titov F. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. Kyiv, 1895. T.1: Years of childhood, education and ecclesiastical school service, Metropolitan. Macaria (1816–1857). P. 216. Kotovich A.N. Spiritual censorship in Russia (1799–1855). St. Petersburg, 1909. P. 405. Volkov A.A. Amphitheaters Yakov Kosmich // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M., 2001. T. 2. P. 206 Titov F. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. pp. 216–217. Barsov N.I. Letters of Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow to Innocent, Archbishop of Kherson and Tauride // Christian Reading. 1884. No. 5–6. pp. 801–802. Titov F. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. pp. 218–219. RGIA. F. 796. Op. 127. D. 1611. L. 17–19. Kotovich A.N. Spiritual censorship in Russia. P. 406. Razdorsky A.I., D.B. K. Iliodor (Chistyakov), Archbishop. Kursk and Belgorod // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M., 2009. T. 22. P. 234. RGIA. F. 796. Op. 127. D. 1611. L. 1–14. Chistovich I. A. (1828–1893) – professor at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Archimandrite Sergius (Nazareth) is a member of the St. Petersburg Spiritual Censorship Committee. Titov F, prot. Moscow Metropolitan Macarius Bulgakov. Kyiv, 1915. T. III: The Lithuanian period in the life of Metropolitan Macarius (1868–1879). Diocesan activities of the Metropolitan in Lithuania and applications. S. C^XII. Titov F. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna... T. I. P. 226. RGIA. F. 796. Op. 128. D. 244. L. 1–3. Barsukov N.P. Life and works of M. P. Pogodin. St. Petersburg, 1896. Book. 10. pp. 4–6. RGIA. F. 796. Op. 128. D. 2142. L. 7. RGIA. F. 675. Op. 1. D.8. L.1. RGIA. F. 796. Op. 132. D. 1903. L. 17–18. Right there. L. 23–24; A collection of opinions and reviews of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, on educational and church-state issues. M., 1887. T.^ Part 1. P. 354. RGIA. F. 796. Op. 135. D. 1951. L. 3–3 vol. See: Macarius (Bulgakov), bishop. The history of the Russian schism, known as the Old Believers. St. Petersburg, 1855. P. 3. RGIA. F. 796. Op. 136. D. 409; F. 807. Op. 2. D. 1355. L. 18–20. Letters of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, to Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow // Church Bulletin. 1883. No. 13. P. 10. Grinchenko N. A., Patrusheva N. G., Raskin D. I. Censorship in Russia in the 19th – early 20th centuries. // Russian writers, 1800–1917: biogr. words M., 2007. T. 5. P. 783. RGIA. F. 796. Op. 196. Dept. II. Art. 2. D. 76. L. 44–46. RGIA. F. 802. Op. 9. 1884 D. 42 RGIA. F. 796. Op. 167. 1886 D. 2258. L. 3; RGIA. F. 796. Op. 151. D. 1422. L. 1–2, 9. The note specifically stated that the works noted in the last two paragraphs were to remain under the supervision of local diocesan bishops. RGIA. F. 796. Op. 151. D. 1422. L. 4 vol. – 5. Karpuk D.A. Spiritual censorship in Russia in the second half of the 19th century. (based on materials from the St. Petersburg Spiritual Censorship Committee Foundation) // Christian Reading. 2015. No. 2. P. 228. RGIA. F. 796. 1886 Op. 167. D. 2258. L. 17. RGIA. F. 796. Op. 196. Dept. II. Art. 2. D. 76. L. 25–25 vol. Polunov A.Yu., Soloviev I.V. The life and works of academician E. E. Golubinsky with the appendix “Memoirs” of E. E. Golubinsky. M., 1998. P. 213. Leskov N. S. Church intriguers. Historical paintings // Historical Bulletin. 1881. P. 390.