От составителя

The correspondence between K. Zederholm and Elder Macarius of Optina published in this edition is a unique monument of the relationship between a confessor and a spiritual son, as well as a valuable source characterizing the system of higher administration of the Russian Church in the mid-19th century. The correspondence also significantly complements the existing opinion about the significance of the Optina elders in the life of Russia in the 19th century: the elders not only enlightened Russian society, but also had a significant influence on the activities of the highest administration of the Russian Church. Optina Pustyn back in the 19th century. received all-Russian fame due to the great Optina elders successively replacing each other over the course of decades. It’s as if these wonderful saints of God came out of the pages of ancient patericons in order to lead their spiritual children to salvation. The spiritual succession of humble ascetics was based on the fact that each subsequent elder was not only a spiritual son, but also a companion of the previous one. The eldership in the Optina Hermitage began with the arrival in 1829 of the 1st Monk Leo (Nagolkin) at St. John the Baptist Skete. Following him, the Monk Macarius (Ivanov), a nobleman by birth, moved to the monastery, and before entering the monastery of the Optina Hermitage, he labored under the leadership of Elder Athanasius (Zakharov), a disciple of the Monk Paisius of Velichkovsky 2. After the death of Elder Leo in 1841, Father Macarius became his successor, a recognized elder. Many people from all classes flocked to him, seeking spiritual advice and consolation. Some of them became spiritual children of the venerable ascetic. The spiritual son of the elder also became a convert from Lutheranism, the Russian German Konstantin Zederholm, who, after graduating from university, with the blessing of his spiritual father, took the position of an official on special assignments under the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod 3. In 1860, the blessed death of Father Macarius followed, and his place was taken by the most famous elder of Optina, the Monk Ambrose (Grenkov). The spiritual children of Elder Macarius went to Father Ambrose, and among them K. Zederholm, who entered the monastery of St. John the Baptist in 1862 after retiring. At the monastery, Zederholm became a monk with the name Clement and labored under the leadership of Elder Ambrose until his death in 1878. After the Venerable Ambrose departed to the Lord in 1891, his successor was the Venerable Joseph (Litovkin), who bore the heavy cross of eldership until 1911. The golden chain of the Optina eldership was cut off by the persecutors of the Church: after the revolution, the Optina Hermitage was closed, and the last elders: the Venerables Anatoly (Potapov), Nektary (Tikhonov), Nikon (Belyaev) and Isaac (Bobrakov) - suffered persecution from the godless authorities 4. If the ancient elders of the Egyptian desert led students mainly in monasteries and monasteries, as a result of which there were almost no letters left from them to their spiritual children, then the Optina elders conducted a very extensive correspondence. “Father Father Macarius,” recalled the biographer of St. Macarius of Optina, Archimandrite Leonid (Kavelin), “in every mail he received many letters from those who turned to him with spiritual advice and solutions to their perplexities, in addition to those sent from different places with the opportunity, and out of his love for his neighbors he wrote answers on behalf of his spiritual father and co-secretary of the late elder Father Leonid, and then, after his blessed death... continued to write himself or dictated answers suitable for everyone’s strengthening and consolation in sorrows” 5 . In Optina Hermitage they believed that the letters of the elders would be very useful not only for those to whom they were addressed, but also for any reverent reader seeking spiritual consolation and advice. “Read these letters,” said the Monk Ambrose of Optina about the letters of Elder Macarius. “I have no doubt that in them you will find abundant edification, and consolation in your sorrows, and a solution to the perplexities that you encounter.” 6 True, after the death of the Monk Leo, the first book dedicated to the Optina Monastery and its elders contained not the elder’s letters, but his spiritual teachings, recorded by Father Leo’s disciple, the ryassophore monk Pavel (Tambovtsev) 7 . But soon after the repose of St. Macarius, in 1862–1863, the monastery prepared for publication a whole collection of letters from the deceased saint of God: four volumes of letters to nuns, one to monks, and one to the laity 8 . Subsequently, the letters of Elder Macarius were published as an appendix to his biography and to various publications devoted to the history of Optina Pustyn. However, in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Not all letters of St. Macarius of Optina were published. In addition, the letters were published with abbreviations and without indicating the addressee. After the revolution, the publication of letters from the Optina elders ceased, however, even during the Soviet period, individual zealots continued to study the heritage of the Optina Hermitage. Thus, thanks to the researcher A.D. Chervyakov, the manuscript collection of the Optina Hermitage of the Manuscripts Department of the Russian State Library was described in detail 9 . Along with the general revival of the Russian Church, a new period of studying and publishing the letters of the elders of the Optina Hermitage began. For obvious reasons, the leading place in the publication of the elders' heritage was taken by Optina Pustyn, revived in 1987. In the early 1990s. Reprints of the letters of the Monk Macarius were published, and then at the publishing house of Optina Pustyn the letters of the Elder Macarius were prepared for printing in modern spelling and indicating the addressees of the messages. In addition, a collection of teachings of the Monk Macarius was published, compiled on the basis of his letters by the resident of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite John (Zakharchenko) 10 . The publication of letters from the Optina elders was also carried out in other places. In 1989, on the initiative of Metropolitan Pitirim (Nechaev), on the basis of the Publishing Department of the Moscow Patriarchate, the preparation of a collection of letters of the Optina elders in modern spelling began. The work on publishing the collection was completed by the publishing house of the Sretensky Monastery 11. In 1992, a collection of lives and teachings of the elders appeared, compiled at the Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville. In Russia, this collection was published with minor changes by A. I. Yakovlev 12. The next stage was the preparation and publication of full-text letters of St. Macarius of Optina. Activities to develop the archive of St. Macarius are being carried out by a group of philological researchers from Petrozavodsk State University. Archival texts of Elder Macarius' letters, typed in pre-revolutionary orthography, were posted on the group's website, and in 2010 the publication of letters from the Optina Elder began 13. The time has come to turn to the letters of the disciples of Elder Macarius. These letters could not have been published in the 19th century, since many of the elder’s addressees or their closest relatives were still alive. In connection with their present publication, it seems particularly important that the Monk Macarius, before his blessed death, ordered that those letters from his spiritual children, which, as he believed, could not be kept, be burned 14. It is likely that these letters also included some unsurvived letters from K. Zederholm. However, a significant part of Zederholm’s letters were not only not destroyed, but were carefully preserved in the archives of Optina Hermitage and, by the grace of God, have been preserved to this day. The subject of the letters mainly concerns the activities of Zederholm as an official of special assignments under the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod. K. K. Zederholm prepared reports and notes on various issues of church life, using the constant support and advice of his spiritual father. “About my service, I am firmly convinced that I can be useful only if I have the happiness of using your, dear father, instructions and directions. For the benefit of the church and my soul, do not leave me under your leadership,” he wrote to Elder Macarius 15. Zederholm's letters contain important information about the activities of the Holy Synod and the Chief Prosecutor's Office in the first years of the reign of Alexander II, and provide the opinions of St. Philaret of Moscow and other bishops on various issues in the life of the Church. Thanks to correspondence, it is possible to clarify the opinion of the venerable elders Macarius and Ambrose of Optina on important theological issues. By the middle of the 19th century. in the Russian Church there is a need to understand various theological problems. In Russian society, the so-called Slavophiles preach new theological opinions. The activity of Catholic proselytism in Russia and the acquaintance of the Russian nobility with Latinism in the West acutely raises the question of the theological assessment of the sacramental life of the Catholic Church, as well as its missionary and social activities. The Synodal decision to resume the translation of the Holy Scriptures into Russian once again initiates a discussion of both the need for translation and the methodological principles of its implementation. The pan-European process of secularization reaches Russia, and the question arises about the Church’s adequate response to the challenges of new times. On the theological views of the Slavophiles The most important role in the development of the ecclesiology of Slavophilism was played by A.S. Khomyakov. Not content with the humble position of a layman who defended the Orthodox faith on the basis of church books, Khomyakov writes his own catechism, which is actually opposed to the catechism of St. Philaret of Moscow accepted by the Church. Such audacity of a self-proclaimed church teacher, which essentially became audacity, was negatively assessed by the Optina elders. “Samarin was very mistaken in recognizing him as a teacher of the Church. It would be good for Khomyakov if he always remained, according to the same Samarin, a modest layman. Khomyakov says: “...work for the benefit of others... is prayer... higher than the babbling of Slavic words in front of the Suzdal plaque.” Here, firstly, there is a confusion of concepts. Although work for the benefit of others is necessary, it is not prayer and does not replace prayer. Secondly, Khomyakov presented his mixed concept in blasphemous, blasphemous expressions, inappropriate for a believing Orthodox Christian... Khomyakov admits that in many cases he allows himself to disagree with the so-called opinion of the Church. Individuals have opinions, but what the holy, spirit-bearing fathers agree with constitutes the teaching of the Church, from which believers do not separate. When Khomyakov contradicts St. fathers and, embarking on high theology or philosophical speculation, wants to say something of his own, he gets confused, speaks both immodestly and unfairly, falls into contradiction with himself and even simply into inconsistency. His experience of “catechetical presentation of the Church” was unsuccessful. On the very first page of this “Experience” we read: “God hears the prayers... of those who have not yet been called by Him from non-existence into being.” Khomyakov expressed the idea of ​​God's foreknowledge in such a clever way that his words reveal an inconsistency that does not agree with the Word of God. Theological truths require theological precision of expression, and, according to St. John Climacus, only dispassionate and spiritual people should touch Theology. Khomyakov, who spoke so much about the Church, should not have forgotten that according to the 19th canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the Holy Scriptures must be explained in accordance with the Scriptures of the Holy Father,” this is what K. N. Leontyev conveyed in the 1870s. Opinion of the Optina elders about Khomyakov’s theology Hieromonk Clement Zederholm 16. Father Clement himself very subtly noticed the reason for the deviations from the teachings of the Church of the founder of Slavophilism: “His dialectics, his passion for word debate carried him away to the point that he sometimes entered into disputes with Orthodox people about the most significant issues, contradicted and fell into some deviations. Whether he was talking to an atheist or a non-believer, he was completely Orthodox; but he began to talk with the Orthodox, and as soon as he told him “yes, yes” twice, Khomyakov already became bored, and he wanted to say: “no, no, not quite like that” 17. But the warnings of the Optina elders remained “a voice crying in the wilderness”: Khomyakov’s speculations were accepted by many as the teachings of the Church, and the number of his admirers and followers only multiplied. “They are opening a new era in the history of the Orthodox school,” wrote the publisher of theological works of his like-minded person, Yu. F. Samarin 18 . Samarin's words turned out to be prophetic: the Slavophiles really were the founders of a new theology, the tree of which subsequently grew quite large and gave many branches. Like A.S. Khomyakov and his followers, “indulging in high theology” and wanting to “say something of their own,” only followed St. in words. fathers, but in fact they “synthesized” their works, contrasting the historical Church with holiness. This opposition ultimately separated the newly minted theology from school theology, the theology of St. Philaret of Moscow, Ignatius of the Caucasus, Theophan the Recluse, John of Kronstadt and the great elders of Optina Hermitage 19. The time has come to turn to the roots of this new theological tree and evaluate the good quality of Khomyakov’s notes in the words of the holy elders: “Their view and wisdom on spiritual things and objects follows their own reason, and not the teaching of the Church and St. fathers" 20. Several different topics are raised in the letters in connection with the Catholic Church. First, St. Macarius expresses concern about the proselytizing activity of Catholics in Russia. The elder proposes to draw the attention of the church authorities to the Latin preacher Sawyer, who sought to lure representatives of the St. Petersburg educated society into his skillfully placed networks. The words of the reverend elder were heard: on the instructions of the chief prosecutor, one of the bachelors of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy carefully listened to Sawyer’s sermons in order to find a pretext for his expulsion from the capital 21 . The second theme that emerges in the letters concerns the social and missionary activity of the Latins, which attracted the attention of Orthodox Christians in Russia. Catholic missionaries were compared with Orthodox ones not in favor of the latter. Elder Macarius, however, does not find anything to emulate in the Catholic mission. In his opinion, the successes of Catholics are imaginary: they are achieved “with money, machinations and Jesuitism” and are carried out not through the conversion of pagans or Muslims, but as a result of the seduction of the Orthodox. The most difficult theological issue addressed in the correspondence concerns the grace of the Catholic Church. The question arises in connection with the bewilderment of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, who, according to Zederholm, “asked many people (and high clergy): “Who is the new Israel? “Do all Churches (i.e. Eastern and Latin) have the name Noah’s Ark,” and received evasive answers.” “How should we think about the sacraments, and especially about the Eucharist among the Latins? Is it possible to think that they have the true sacraments, that is, the True Body and True Blood of the Lord? Perhaps these questions should not be answered directly and decisively, but then some kind of internal uncertainty remains. And when they brought me to Orthodoxy, I, according to the order of joining, promised to believe that outside the Orthodox Church there is no salvation. And in Cheti-Minea similar expressions are found in different places. Why do our Eminences avoid giving a positive answer to the Count’s questions?” – Zederholm himself was perplexed 22 . From the answer of the reverend elders, we can conclude that they unequivocally denied Catholics their orthodoxy: “Only an orthodox Church can be called New Israel, but one damaged by heretical wisdom cannot.” Consequently, the Catholic sacraments do not have a saving effect: “... alien to the spirit of truth ... how will they be a saving refuge for anyone.” Regarding the reality of the Catholic sacraments, Saints Macarius and Ambrose write the following: “In the Orthodox Church it is believed that the bread and wine in the sacrament of the Eucharist are transubstantiated by the invocation and invasion of the Holy Spirit. And the Latins... considered this invocation unnecessary and excluded it from their liturgy. So, let him who understands himself understand the Latin Eucharist” 23. Thus, the venerable Optina elders do not find in the Latin Church a role model for the Orthodox. The activity of Catholics should not confuse true believers. About the translation of Holy Scripture As is known, the translation of the Holy Scriptures, which began to be carried out during the reign of Emperor Alexander I, caused a long discussion in the Russian Church 24. At the end of the 1850s. The controversy has not yet died down: Saint Philaret of Kiev, unexpectedly for his Moscow brother, came out with sharp criticism of the idea of ​​​​translating Scripture. One of the main arguments of opponents of the translation was the thesis that the Russian language cannot adequately express the inspired truths of the Bible. There were also complaints about certain expressions of previously translated texts. The Optina elders recognized the need for translation, but noted the problems associated with its implementation. In their opinion, the Church Slavonic text, which most fully expresses the truths of Scripture, should remain superior to the Russian text. The task of the Russian translation is to explain the Slavic text to those who do not speak it well. To do this, you should print two texts in parallel with the interpretation of difficult Church Slavonic words in footnotes. In addition, it is necessary to compile special biblical dictionaries of Church Slavonicisms. The opinion of the elders about the importance of the Church Slavonic language for biblical texts fully corresponded to the views of the most zealous supporter of the translation, St. Philaret of Moscow. This is precisely the position that the Russian Church has taken for more than a century and a half: the liturgical text of Scripture must remain unchanged. On the propaganda of anti-religious ideas The reign of Emperor Alexander II is characterized by a change in value orientations in Russian society. The commoners, acting on the basis of their own ideological principles, become the leading social force of society. Journalism is acquiring great importance as a means of disseminating new ideas and values. In magazine and newspaper articles, the clergy and monasticism, the moral and religious foundations of Orthodoxy are criticized 25. The dangerous trends in secular and even religious periodicals for the Church greatly worried the church zealots of the synodal department. This problem is also touched upon in correspondence. In response to Zederholm's question on how to counter the magazine's freethinking - by strengthening censorship or a printed refutation, the elders answered that they must act by all means: contact the minister demanding a ban on anti-religious articles and publish their own church educational magazine. Thus, active counteraction to dangerous trends is possible only with the unity of the church-state position, which Zederholm was involved in coordinating in the synodal department. Letters from K. K. Zederholm are published for the first time from handwritten autographs stored in Zederholm’s personal collection of the Manuscript Department of the Russian State Library 26. The response letters of Elder Macarius of Optina are published from the originals kept in the same collection 27 . The letters are published in accordance with modern spelling and punctuation, but with maximum preservation in the autographs of the stylistic features of the speech of that era, with the exception of those words that could be replaced without compromising the writing style in accordance with the norms of the modern Russian language, such as “protchii” with “others”. The use of lowercase and capital letters in letters was not unified, even if the author of the letter himself highlighted a phrase or word by writing in capital letters. The dates of the letters are given in modern spelling and appear at the bottom of the postscripts. Zederholm's letters also give the place where the message was written. In the text of the letters, the abbreviations necessary to clarify the meaning are deciphered; in some cases, explanatory words are included. The correspondence is provided with footnotes necessary to clarify quotations and statements that require commentary. The footnotes provide a brief historical background; for more detailed study of the topics covered in the letters, the reader is referred to the sources listed at the end of the notes, the annotated index, or the appendices. The appendices contain additional materials related to the letters. These are mainly notes from Zederholm, which are mentioned in the correspondence. Also included in the appendices are a note by the first secretary of the Russian embassy in Athens, V. S. Neklyudov, which is quoted several times in correspondence, and a note by the famous poet V. M. Zhemchuzhnikov, which is published along with comments compiled by K. Zederholm. All notes included in the appendices are published for the first time. At the end of the publication there is an annotated index containing brief information about the personalities mentioned in the correspondence. The compiler expresses gratitude to the staff of the Manuscripts Department of the Russian State Library. Konstantin Zederholm - official of special assignments of the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod and spiritual son of the Optina elders Konstantin Karlovich Zederholm was born on July 23, 1830 into a Lutheran family. His father, Karl Albertovich Zederholm, is a doctor of philosophy, an evangelical pastor who gained fame in Moscow both for his teaching activities and for his numerous writings. “Our family was good and respectable, but, you know, a dry, German family,” Zederholm later recalled 28 . As a student at the Faculty of History and Philology at Moscow University (1847 - 1851), Zederholm decides to leave Lutheranism. His conversion to Orthodoxy was probably influenced by his passion for Russian culture. “Tertiy Ivanovich, make me Russian,” he said to his youth friend T.I. Filippov. “To do this, first of all, you need to become Orthodox,” answered the pupil of Archpriest Matthew of Constantinople 29 . The desire to accept Orthodoxy also determined the philological priorities of the Russified German: Zederholm specialized in the study of the Greek language, planning to travel to the East to join the Orthodox Church. Probably, this difficulty was due to the rigid position of the father, who was even removed from the post of superintendent for his calls to the Lutheran Germans not to accept Orthodoxy. However, one of Zederholm’s close acquaintances, I.V. Kireyevsky, convinced him not to postpone joining for an indefinite future, but to try to gradually convince Zederholm Sr. of the inflexibility of his intention and accept Orthodoxy in Optina Hermitage. Kireevsky also notified Elder Macarius about a young German who had sincerely converted to Orthodoxy, so that when Zederholm arrived in Optina Pustyn at the beginning of August 1853, they were already expecting him 30 . The anointing of the future Optina hieromonk took place on August 13, 1853 in the St. John the Baptist Skete of the Optina Hermitage. One of the neophyte's successors was the Monk Macarius of Optina himself. Zederholm received a new name, Constantine (in Lutheranism he was Carl Gustav Adolf) 31. From this time on, K. Zederholm became the spiritual son of Elder Macarius. Having accepted Orthodoxy, Zederholm immediately wished to become a monk of Optina. According to Zederholm, as soon as he first found himself in the monastery, he said in his heart: “You will end your life here” 32. However, Elder Macarius was in no hurry to bless the neophyte. The confessor suggested that Zederholm test himself in the world in the field of teaching or other service that the Lord would indicate to him, complete his dissertation and choose a career he liked. At first, Zederholm hoped to quickly write a master’s thesis “On the life and writings of Cato the Elder” in the department of Roman literature of the Faculty of History and Philology and get a job as a teacher at Moscow University. At the time of writing the work, he, on the recommendation of the same Kireyevsky, got a job as a teacher with Elizaveta Alekseevna Zhukovskaya, the widow of the famous poet V. A. Zhukovsky. Zederholm taught Zhukovskaya's children not only languages ​​- Russian and German, but also history, geography and arithmetic 33. E. A. Zhukovskaya was very pleased with her teaching and even made a promise from her children’s teacher that he would not leave teaching until her death. Also, with the blessing of the elder, Zederholm translated from Greek the soul-helping teachings of Abba Dorotheus. The promise made by Zhukovskaya limited the freedom of K. Zederholm, and he was forced to refuse the offers of Princess Urusova, and then the Kireevskys, to become their home teacher. In addition, being busy with teaching prevented the young teacher from paying due attention to his teaching. Therefore, at the beginning of 1856, having asked for the elder’s blessing, Zederholm decided to leave teaching with Zhukovskaya and devote all his time to preparing for the master’s exam and dissertation 34. The separation was peaceful. Zederholm maintained warm relations with the Zhukovsky family. Correspondence with children E.A. Zhukovskaya continued even after the death of Elizaveta Alekseevna 35. However, writing the master's thesis was delayed. Zederholm did not just want to get a master's degree, he sought to give an ecclesiastical assessment of the subject of his research. This approach, however, did not find understanding in the university environment. According to K. N. Leontyev, Zederholm was reproached for being too critical of the famous Roman thinker. Leontyev believed that the position of the author of the dissertation was due to the “young zeal of a Christian proselyte”: Zederholm, “by condemning Cato, satisfied his need to condemn the entire pagan Rome” 36. This is probably why, despite his brilliant knowledge of languages, Zederholm never stayed at the university. Meanwhile, by the middle of 1856, Zederholm found himself in a difficult situation: “I heartily regret you, my beloved spiritual child of the Lord, that you are in such mental disorder, due to your unstable residence and failures or slowness in writing your dissertation,” Elder Macarius wrote to him in February 1857. 37 To solve his pressing material problems Zederholm is again assigned as a home teacher, now to N.P. Kireevskaya. In the same year, the young scholar completed a translation of Abba Dorotheus, which was subsequently published by the Optina Hermitage. The time of Zederholm's creative quest coincided with the change of reigns. In September 1856, Count A.P. Tolstoy, a talented administrator and pious Christian close to Optina Pustyn, became chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod. On the advice of T.I. Filippova, Chief Prosecutor, offers K. Zederholm the position of an official on special assignments at the Chief Prosecutor's table. The Chief Prosecutor's proposal completely coincided with Zederholm's desire to serve the Church and immediately received the full approval of Elder Macarius. “Pay attention to your dissertation and, without exhausting yourself, do it without laziness, bearing in mind your useful service with Count Tolstoy,” he wrote to his spiritual son back in October 1856. 38 Thus, when by the end of 1857 Zederholm’s master’s thesis was completed, the Orthodox German no longer thought about another place of service and was immediately accepted into the service in synodal department 39. Chief Prosecutor's Office by the mid-19th century. was already a fairly expanded department, in fact a special ministry, performing two main functions: preparing all documentation for the Holy Synod and ensuring relations between the Synod and the emperor and secular departments. In addition, the chief prosecutor, as a major official, could pursue church-state policy, naturally in accordance with the opinion of the emperor. A.P. It was important for Tolstoy to have like-minded people around him, especially since in the previous era under Chief Prosecutor N.A. Protasov's officials from the chief prosecutor's office were not particularly ecclesiastical. To the Optina residents T.I. Filippov and K. Zederholm were soon joined by another prominent official of the chief prosecutor’s office and admirer of Elder Macarius P.I. Solomon. In addition, the chief prosecutor’s employees were also the grandson of Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov) N.A. Sergievsky and brother of Archimandrite Leonid (Kavelin) D.A. Kavelin. Thus, during the time of A.P. Tolstoy's chief prosecutor's office was under the blessed protection of the Optina elders. It would be difficult to find a better place for the future Optina monk. The head of Zederholm, Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, was not only distinguished by his piety and was close to the Optina Hermitage, but was also passionate about the idea of ​​​​the unity of the Russian and Greek Churches. Thus, the excellent knowledge of the Greek language of the new official of special assignments turned out to be quite in demand. A completely trusting relationship was immediately established between the manager and the subordinate. The Chief Prosecutor dined every day with his closest employees, which certainly included Zederholm, and openly discussed important issues with them. A.P. Tolstoy showed considerable concern for his new employee and like-minded person. Zederholm received a government apartment, and in addition to the table, he also had an open loan from the chief prosecutor. But a great consolation for the zealous servant of the Church was the state of mind of A.P. Tolstoy. “I will say about the count that I am sincerely glad to have such a boss, pious, devoted to the Church,” Zederholm wrote to the Monk Macarius after several months of service in the department 40. The first thing Zederholm took up was not related to Eastern Orthodoxy. The Chief Prosecutor instructed the new employee to write a note on countering the Old Believer schism. During the new reign, a revision of the government's confessional policy towards greater liberalization began. Proposals were made to legalize the Old Believers. The opinion has become widespread that persecution and oppression of schismatics and sectarians only contributes to their greater spread. An influential dignitary, the emperor’s brother, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, also shared this position. In May 1857, through the Moscow Governor-General A. A. Zakrevsky, the Old Believers submitted a number of petitions proposing to establish an Old Believer hierarchy independently of the Holy Synod, subordinate to secular authorities. It is characteristic that Zakrevsky, in his most humble report, commenting on this petition, contrasts the interests of the Orthodox Church with the interests of the Orthodox clergy. In his opinion, the clergy are financially interested in the illegal situation of the schismatic clergy. The Tsar ordered a discussion of Zakrevsky's report in the Secret Committee on Schism and the Council of Ministers 41 . This demarche of the schismatics and especially the subsequent discussion of the problem of schism in the highest bodies of state power greatly concerned the Holy Synod. The primacy of the Orthodox Church in Russia was called into question. Since Grand Duke Constantine and his like-minded people argued their proposals to legalize the schism by the fact that any restriction of the Old Believers only contributes to its greater spread, a significant need arose for theological justification of the benefits for the Church of state restrictive measures in relation to schismatics and sectarians. The Chief Prosecutor instructed his new employee to write such a note. K. Zederholm turned for help to the Metropolitan of Moscow, who pointed to church canons and historical evidence in favor of the fact that heretics and schismatics should be treated calmly as long as they do not proselytize among the Orthodox. In the latter case, the duty of the Orthodox authorities is to protect their subjects from heretical influence. In addition, Saint Philaret drew Zederholm's attention to the writings of St. Augustine, who, based on his own experience, testified that reasonable constraint brings spiritual benefit to the heretics themselves, facilitating their conversion to Orthodoxy. These considerations received the full support of the Optina elders, and Zederholm compiled a note so consonant with the thoughts of the Moscow saint that its composition was long attributed to Metropolitan Philaret 42 . A.P. Tolstoy used Zederholm’s note to argue the position of the Synod during the debate in the Council of Ministers, which ended favorably for the Church: it was decided to leave the existing system of government actions in relation to schismatics unchanged 43 . The next task entrusted to Zederholm was related to the translation of the Holy Scriptures into Russian. By the time Zederholm entered the service, this issue, which had been dragging on for many years, was already close to being resolved. As is known, the translation of the Holy Books, which began under the auspices of the Bible Society at the end of the reign of Alexander I, was stopped due to the intrigues of ideological opponents of the Russian Bible 44 . Attempts to resume translation in the Nicholas era were unsuccessful. The situation changed at the beginning of the next reign, when the many-year expectations of the constant champion of the translation of the Holy Scriptures, St. Philaret of Moscow, finally came true. Even before A.P. Tolstoy assumed the post of Chief Prosecutor, during the coronation celebrations in the summer of 1856, the Holy Synod, at a visiting session in Moscow, made a historic decision to translate the Bible. However, due to the change of chief prosecutor, the preparation of the protocol was delayed, and the decision did not receive the force of a decree. Tolstoy, who had an ambivalent attitude towards the translation, asked for the opinion of St. Philaret of Kyiv, who submitted a detailed note to the Synod with sharp criticism of the decision. After reporting to the emperor about this disagreement, the chief prosecutor invited St. Philaret of Moscow to refute the arguments of his brother and then submitted both notes for synodal consideration. In the fall of 1857, at a meeting of the Synod, the Moscow saint's note was approved, and at the beginning of 1858, the Synod made a final decision to begin translating the Bible 45 . However, A.P. Tolstoy was in no hurry to formalize the protocol of the synodal decision. The question of the Russian Bible was related to the topic of the unity of the Church, which was of great concern to the Chief Prosecutor. Even in his all-submissive report of 1856, in which the count notified the special opinion of the Metropolitan of Kyiv, Tolstoy drew the tsar’s attention to the need to send a request to the church East on such an important matter. The Chief Prosecutor's desire to obtain the opinion of the Greek Church largely determined his position in the matter of translating the Holy Scriptures. By the beginning of 1858, Tolstoy managed to receive some notes from the Greeks, which expressed doubt about the need for translation. We are talking about the writings of Archdeacon Alexander Laskaris, a student at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, and Archimandrite George (Vegleris), a teacher of Greek at the same academy. Lascaris, in particular, expresses concern that the translation of the Bible will be followed by a replacement of the liturgical language, and also doubts that the Russian language is capable of conveying the meaning of the text, for “the language of Holy Scripture should be higher than the spoken language” 46 . The opinions of the Metropolitans of Moscow and Kyiv, the notes of the Greeks living in St. Petersburg and other documents on the case of the Russian Bible were proposed to be summarized by K. Zederholm. Tolstoy hoped that the note written by his new employee would attract the attention of the synodal members and an official request would be made to the Eastern patriarchs. The chief prosecutor was determined: “... if the Synod does not agree to these final arguments, the count will inevitably resort to the last resort: he will turn to the sovereign and announce to the Synod the highest order to make a request for this transfer to Greece,” Zederholm wrote to Elder Macarius 47. The intention of A.P. Tolstoy to request the opinion of the Greek Church on the translation of the Bible was fully shared by the Optina elders, therefore, in his note, K. Zederholm tried to substantiate as convincingly as possible the need to appeal to the Eastern patriarchs. However, the position of the Synod remained unchanged, and the Chief Prosecutor still did not want to put pressure on the synodal members: on March 20, 1858, a formalized protocol of the synodal decision on the translation of the Bible was signed, and on May 5, the Synod’s decision was approved by the emperor. Probably another reason for A.P. Tolstoy’s refusal of his desire to obtain approval from the Greek Church for the translation of the Holy Scriptures was the aggravation of the situation in the ecclesiastical East: the Eastern patriarchs needed to solve their own problems. After the end of the Crimean War, under pressure from European powers, a new round of Westernization began in the Ottoman Empire. In February 1856, Hatti-Humayun was published - the Sultan's decree, according to which the position of Christians in Turkey changed significantly. On the one hand, the new act confirmed and even somewhat expanded the religious rights of Christians. But at the same time, the autonomous existence of Orthodox subjects of the Ottoman Empire, established after the fall of Constantinople, when the patriarch headed his flock not only in church but also in state terms, was actually abolished 48. The main negative consequence of Hatti Humayun for the religious minority of the Ottoman Empire was the loss of all previous rights and privileges, which the Turks abolished under the plausible pretext of equality of all before the law. Under pressure from the Turkish authorities, reforms began in the administration of the Church of Constantinople. At the beginning of 1858, a church-people's assembly of the Church of Constantinople was elected. The majority of it were laymen, as a result of which the meeting was secular in nature. By the beginning of 1860, the meeting developed a charter for the governance of the Church of Constantinople. According to the new regulations on church governance, the principle of forming the Holy Synod and the procedure for selecting the patriarch have changed significantly. If previously the Synod was composed of four irremovable metropolitan-geronts, without whose consent not a single important decision could be made, now the Patriarchal Synod consisted of twelve bishops, replaced every two years. The election of the patriarch was carried out by the church-people's assembly: three candidates were proposed by the general assembly, of which one was elected by secret ballot by the Holy Synod. In addition, a mixed council was formed, consisting of four bishops and eight laymen, which received significant influence on church affairs. The transformations carried out weakened the importance of hierarchical power, which was beneficial for Turkey, which was being reformed according to the European model, and for the Western powers. At the same time, the reforms led to a strengthening of the national principle in the Church of Constantinople 49 . Another consequence of the Sultan's decree of 1856, which provided for the right of every Christian community to reorganize, was the aggravation of Greek-Bulgarian relations. The growth of national self-awareness of the Bulgarian people, fueled by Western propaganda, led to the consolidation of the Slavic nation, which received in the mid-19th century. opportunity for official recognition by Turkish authorities. The national Slavic movement was not properly taken into account by the Greek hierarchy, which did not respond adequately to the demands of the Bulgarians. The first visible evidence of the aggravation of the Greek-Bulgarian question was the Adrianople clash of 1858, when the Greek hierarchy refused to allow the Bulgarians to serve in the Slavic language. In 1860, the conflict reached its climax: commemoration of the Patriarch of Constantinople ceased in the Bulgarian Church of Constantinople. Ten years later, the Turkish Sultan established the Bulgarian Exarchate, and on May 11, 1872, the Bulgarian Exarch Anfim proclaimed the independence of the Bulgarian Church, which was not recognized by the Eastern Patriarchs 50. Russia could not remain aloof from the turbulent events in the ecclesiastical East, since this region had traditionally been in the zone of foreign policy interests of the empire. At the same time, secular departments, participating in resolving church issues, defended purely state interests, ignoring the religious aspect of problems and issues. The Russian Church was often just an instrument of government policy. As you know, after the defeat in the Crimean War, Russia lost its former political significance in the East. It was possible to influence Eastern affairs only by relying on unity in faith between the Russian and Eastern Churches, while Jerusalem remained the center of gravity of all Orthodox Christians in the East. Therefore, Russia’s primary foreign policy task was to ensure a reliable presence in the Holy City. At the beginning of the reign of Alexander II, two departments gathered at once to solve this problem: the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, traditionally in charge of all eastern affairs, and the Naval Ministry, headed by Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich. In 1856, under the patronage of Konstantin Nikolaevich, the Russian Society of Shipping and Trade (ROPIT) was founded to provide pilgrimage to the Holy Land. In the same year, an employee of the Maritime Ministry, B.P. Mansurov, went to Jerusalem to compile a guide to holy places for pilgrims. Mansurov, however, returned to St. Petersburg not with a guidebook, but with a whole foreign policy program for Russia’s actions in the “eastern question.” In his opinion, the strategic task of ensuring Russia's presence in the East can be solved by maximizing the weakening of Greek influence and supporting the national identity of the Arabs and Slavic peoples. The social activities of Western powers must be countered by the strengthening of the Russian presence through the acquisition of real estate. Providing normal conditions for Russian pilgrims and humanitarian activities will be a convenient cover for diplomatic actions. Mansurov considered ROPIT one of the main instruments of Russian foreign policy in the East, whose commercial interests completely coincided with the views of the government, especially since money for the purchase of real estate and accommodation for pilgrims could be collected from all over Russia as donations 51 . Mansurov’s program received approval at court, and on February 27, 1858, the highest order was issued to hold a circle collection in all Orthodox churches for the needs of Orthodox pilgrims in Palestine. Meanwhile, in 1857, the new head of the foreign policy department, A. M. Gorchakov, took the initiative to restore the Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem, which had been closed since the beginning of the Crimean War. In his most comprehensive report on this issue, Gorchakov noted that the new mission should resist Western influence, changing the role of humble observers to active and worthy representatives of the Russian Empire. To give the mission the proper status, a bishop, Bishop Kirill (Naumov), was placed at its head, while the problems of the bishop being on foreign canonical territory were not taken into account. In addition, Bishop Kirill's double subordination contributed to the fact that the latter listened more to the recommendations of the Minister of Foreign Affairs than to the synodal instructions 52. The interference in the affairs of the Russian spiritual mission by ROPIT agents, together with the ideologist of the commercial project of Russian pilgrimage B.P. Mansurov, who acted, as A.A. Dmitrievsky aptly put it, “erasing and destroying everything that stood in the way of this forward movement with serving two masters: God and mammon, the Church and speculation,” made the stay of mission members in the Holy Land extremely difficult 53 . A.P. Tolstoy, from the first months of his ministry, tried to use the entire administrative resource of his department so that church opinion on the Eastern question would be taken into account both in secular ministries and by the emperor. Affairs related to the Eastern Church soon became the main occupation of K. Zederholm. By 1858, between the chief prosecutor's office, which expressed the views of the Holy Synod and the Optina elders, and the government, a clear divergence of positions on the eastern question had emerged. Secular ministries cared little about the canonical aspects of the reforms carried out in the Church of Constantinople; in addition, in the Greek-Bulgarian conflict, the Russian government, for political reasons, supported the Slavs. On the contrary, for the Chief Prosecutor and his employees, the determining point of Russia’s participation in the affairs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople was the church benefit. Zederholm's knowledge of the Greek language and his love for Eastern Orthodoxy determined the immersion of the spiritual son of Elder Macarius in all the many matters related to the Eastern Church. Zederholm wrote several notes related to the Greek-Bulgarian feud, changes in the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Russian spiritual mission. These notes were written in accordance with the opinion of the chief prosecutor, but underwent mandatory testing by the elders of the Optina Hermitage. The opinion of St. Philaret and other bishops who wished to provide assistance was also taken into account. The most important notes were discussed and approved by the Holy Synod. The main idea of ​​the notes is that Russia in the East needs not only to follow political views, but also to pay special attention to the church side of the issue, first of all, not allowing divisions between the Russian and Eastern Churches. The activities of the Chief Prosecutor's Office bore certain fruits: despite the fact that a split between the Greeks and Bulgarians could not be avoided, the unity of the Russian and Eastern Churches remained unbreakable. In addition, the chief prosecutor's office influenced the discussion by the church-people's assembly of the structure of the church government of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The original project, which was defended by secular members of the assembly, assumed a significant weakening of the hierarchical principle. “It is worthy of insightful reflection what moral consequences may occur if the patriarch is the work of the laity,” St. Philaret of Moscow wrote about him. Thanks to the timely and decisive actions of the chief prosecutor's office, which carried out constant correspondence with the Metropolitan of Moscow and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it was possible to convince the spiritual members of the church-people's assembly to protest the project, and the new charter for the management of the Church of Constantinople was adjusted. “For this article,” the Moscow saint wrote regarding the procedure for electing the patriarch in the new edition of the charter, “we must thank God. This is not what was in the previous information, but what the note on December 11 suggested.”54 Thanks to the support of the Russian Church, the eastern hierarchs were able to reject another reform imposed by the Ottoman government. Taking advantage of the fact that some Greek archpastors were abusing their position in material terms, Turkish officials proposed to determine a salary for the Greek clergy, which would be paid from a special tax on Christians. Thus, the bishops were deprived of an important opportunity to communicate with their flock, and the Turks acquired a new source of income. Despite the fact that some of the secular members of the church-people's assembly supported the reform, and Russian diplomats did not entirely favor the Greek hierarchy, the system of material support for the eastern hierarchs remained unchanged. In order to establish closer communication between the Greek and Russian hierarchy, the Chief Prosecutor decided to introduce Russian society to Greek modern literature. For this purpose, A.P. Tolstoy skillfully used the opinion of one of the employees of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs about the state of the Orthodox Church in the newly formed Kingdom of Greece. In April 1858, the envoy to the Greek Kingdom, Actual State Councilor I.P. Ozerov, in a letter to the director of the Asian Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, described the plight of the Greek Church. According to his observations, “the churches of God, and their ministers, and the people who pray in them, all together bear the stamp of squalor, uncleanness and disorder... All parts of the spiritual government are weakened by one another, and all together by the secular power, which interferes in everything soullessly and unconsciously... Spiritual education in Greece presents us with just as little comfort.” To improve the position of the Orthodox Church in the Greek Kingdom, Ozerov proposes to strengthen relations between the Russian and Greek Churches, to provide sympathy and support for the Greek Church at the state level. As one of the measures to promote the rapprochement of the two Churches, the diplomat proposed organizing an exchange of modern theological literature 55 . Ozerov’s note was reported to the sovereign, who imposed a resolution favorable to the chief prosecutor: “It’s a pitiful picture, I completely agree to all the proposed measures” 56 . Having learned about Ozerov’s note, and then receiving from the Minister of Foreign Affairs a copy of the note with the sovereign’s resolution, A.P. Tolstoy immediately began to act. The chief prosecutor took the initiative to create a Russian-Greek society, the purpose of which is to disseminate and popularize Greek spiritual and secular literature in Russian society. K. Zederholm took part in drawing up the charter of the new society on behalf of Tolstoy. The draft charter of the Russian-Greek society was sent to Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov), who generally approved the idea of ​​the chief prosecutor, but pointed out that it was necessary not only to acquaint Russian society with modern Greek literature, but also the Greeks with Russian literature 57 . The adjusted charter was approved by Metropolitan Gregory (Postnikov), who agreed to be its chairman. Having first secured the Emperor's verbal approval, the Chief Prosecutor in November 1858 submitted to Alexander II an all-submissive report with the company's charter for the highest approval 58 . But the sovereign did not dare to immediately officially approve Tolstoy’s initiative and sent the charter for discussion to the Committee of Ministers, where it was practically buried. In August 1859, the chief prosecutor, despairing of waiting for a discussion of such an important matter for him, nevertheless tried to bring the enterprise he had planned to a successful conclusion. In a personal conversation with A.V. Golovin, a close associate of Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, he explained to the latter the essence of the initiative he had taken. “I remain in my conviction,” wrote A.P. Tolstoy, sending Golovin the charter of the society with a request to present it to Konstantin Nikolaevich, “that if, for political reasons unknown to me, our government views this matter differently, then it is much better not to undertake it” 59. The chief prosecutor's demarche had positive consequences: at the end of October 1859, A. M. Gorchakov notified Tolstoy that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not object to the establishment of a Russian-Greek scientific society. However, the following year Metropolitan Gregory died, and Tolstoy’s project was never realized. In addition to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Chief Prosecutor's Office, while defending the Eastern Church, had to confront Russian journalism, which was on the side of the Bulgarians. Already at the beginning of 1858, articles by Hristo Daskalov with sharp accusations of the Greek bishops 60 appeared in the magazines “Russian Messenger” and the Slavophile “Russian Conversation”. The author, in a very sarcastic tone, blamed the Greek clergy for all the troubles of the Bulgarian Christians, sympathizing with the Muslims: it is characteristic that the Patriarch-Martyr Gregory was called a victim of the “just revenge of the Turks.” The Greeks were asked to “conform themselves to the spirit of the times and the hatti-humayun” and “to repent of all sins.” Daskalov’s articles were very negatively received by the Patriarch of Constantinople, as reported to A.P. Tolstoy by Archdeacon Alexander Laskaris. “When this was discussed at the Synod,” Laskaris quoted from a letter he received from Constantinople, “it was decided that while you are in a Christian country, you should not respond to the articles. If the Russian government and the Holy Synod, with all the severity of censorship, approve of such articles, this means that they approve of what was published by the enemies of the Church. You would do well if you returned to us” 61. The Chief Prosecutor himself was dissatisfied with the appearance of articles discrediting the Greek Church, but, given the general mood of the government, it was necessary to act very carefully. At this time, Bishop Kirill (Naumov), in a letter dated April 15, 1858, informed Metropolitan Gregory that reports had appeared in some newspapers published in Russia that the issue of switching to the Gregorian calendar was being discussed in Russia. These articles, according to the head of the Russian Spiritual Mission, are perceived negatively in the East. The chief prosecutor, having secured the support of the synodal members, skillfully took advantage of this occasion in order to take control of the Synod of the publication of articles about the Eastern Church. At first, A.P. Tolstoy prepared a most humble report, in which he outlined the concerns of Bishop Kirill and asked for the highest command to enter into relations with the Ministry of Public Education, so that this would not happen again 62. Having received the consent of the emperor, the chief prosecutor sought from the new minister of public education (from March 23, 1858 - E. P. Kovalevsky) a circular order dated June 6, 1858 that “from now on, ALL articles and individual places in articles about our Church, about the state of Orthodoxy in the East, about the Greek clergy will not be allowed to be published without a spiritual censorship" 63. Then, on June 19, Tolstoy informed E.P. Kovalevsky about Daskalov’s articles, written “not out of sympathy for the needs of the Bulgarians, but to instill in the Russian people hatred of the Greek people and the Church of Constantinople, from which our fatherland received the light of faith” 64. At the direction of the minister, the Moscow Censorship Committee requested explanations from the editors of Russkiy Vestnik and Russkaya Beseda, as well as censor N.F. von Kruse, who had missed the articles. Satisfied with Kovalevsky's reaction, the Chief Prosecutor sent a notification through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Patriarch of Constantinople about the negative reaction of the Holy Synod to the appearance of Daskalov's articles 65 . Meanwhile, Archdeacon Alexander Laskaris wrote a response to Daskalov’s articles, but did not want to publish it under his own name. Then the chief prosecutor instructed T.I. Filippov to draw up a refutation, using information from Lascaris, which, using administrative pressure, Tolstoy intended to publish in the Russky Vestnik and Moskovskie Vedomosti. “It would seem fair to me to publish the response to Daskalov forwarded herein in the next issue of Russky Vestnik, as the first culprit of the temptation, and in the next issues of Moskovskie Vedomosti for the sake of the many readers of this newspaper,” the chief prosecutor wrote to Kovalevsky 66. In the article “Answer to Mr. Daskalov” compiled by Filippov, which received the approval of the Optina elders, numerous false statements of the accuser of the Greeks were quite thoroughly refuted. However, the count had to face serious resistance from the editor of the Russian Messenger. M. N. Katkov flatly refused to print a refutation, answering the Moscow Censorship Committee that he did not know the law by which the editors of a private magazine could be forced to print anything. Such a bold response was probably a consequence of Katkov’s awareness of the uncertain position of the chief prosecutor in view of the general direction of government policy. Moreover, the editor of Russkiy Vestnik wrote a lengthy explanatory note in which, in addition to an apology for Daskalova’s article, he defended the right for a secular magazine to print articles about the Orthodox Church without spiritual censorship. According to Katkov, only a free and broad discussion of church problems can improve the health of the Church: one should “speak freely about the position of the Church and the clergy in our fatherland; publicity regarding this subject is more important than in any other area of ​​life.” A zealous apologist for the purifying value of journalism, anticipating the “church teaching” of L.N. Tolstoy and F.M. Dostoevsky, in order to overcome “indifference to the great interests of religion” in Russian society, encourages Russian writers to “speak to the public in the tone ... of religious conviction” 67. In a similar spirit, A. S. Khomyakov wrote the explanation of the editors of “Russian Conversation” 68. Katkov’s courage turned out to be completely justified: having received explanations from the editors of the mentioned magazines, the trustee of the Moscow educational district A.N. Bakhmetyev wrote to Kovalevsky that Daskalov’s articles were published quite legally, since they “do not concern the dogmas of Orthodox teaching, but reveal the abuses of the Greek clergy in Constantinople, as is explained in strong and magnificent language in Katkov’s note” 69 . The secular magazine censor N. F. von Kruse also wrote an explanation that was more like accusing the chief prosecutor of incompetence 70 . As a result, only Moskovskie Vedomosti 71 published Filippov’s article without indicating the author, and the censor’s daring justification did not have any significant negative consequences for him. The appearance of a response to Daskalov could not but go unnoticed by the Slavophiles. “...This is true priesthood,” A. S. Khomyakov, a former employee of “Russian Conversation,” described the work 72 . The Chief Prosecutor was forced to again resort to the help of his employee and instructed Zederholm to draw up an objection to Katkov’s note. In addition, Tolstoy turned to St. Philaret of Moscow with a request to comment on the censor’s response 73 . In his response to Katkov, an active official of the synodal chief prosecutor’s office first of all drew attention to the obvious bias of “an article remarkable in its depth and eloquence” (as N.P. Barsukov called it). “In confirmation of the true Orthodox feelings of Mr. Daskalov,” testified the spiritual son of Elder Macarius, “Mr. Katkov gives a description of the meeting of the Right Reverend Kirill with the Bulgarians of Constantinople. In Mr. Katkov’s note, the last lines of this description remain incomprehensible: he did not dare to write out Mr. Daskalov’s note, explaining them and at the same time testifying to the opposite of what Mr. Katkov wanted to prove. G. Daskalov says that, accepting a blessing from the Greek Bishops, the Bulgarians quietly swear an oath in their minds: “St. may his blessing be with me, and may his deeds fall upon his head.” Contrary to the Gospel commandment to bless those who curse us, the Bulgarians, according to Mr. Daskalov, curse those who bless them. We would very much like Mr. Katkov frankly explained to us how he judges this new, unusual way of expressing respect for the holy order.” Further, K. Zederholm showed how harmful Katkov’s method of improving it was for the religious state of Russian society. Public criticism of the abuses of the clergy, open and free journalism, which, according to the editor of the Russian Messenger, will cleanse itself of incorrect opinions, can only contribute to a greater humiliation of the Church, an increase in blasphemy and blasphemy against Orthodoxy. After all, church apologists, according to Zederholm, will have to confront the prevailing misconceptions in the magazine community, and this is much more difficult than overcoming official censorship, which, in fact, is proved by Katkov’s refusal to publish a refutation of Daskalov’s false article 74 . In his answer, Zederholm expressed the opinion of both the Optina elders and St. Philaret, who had a negative attitude towards the right to resolve church problems appropriated by journalists. The prevailing errors in the magazine community, about which the spiritual son of Elder Macarius writes, due to the rapid development of Russian journalism, with the beginning of the reign of Emperor Alexander 2, began to pose a real threat to the Church. Not only in church, but also in secular magazines, issues related to church life, the position of the clergy, and religion in general are actively discussed. The tone of the discussion is predominantly accusatory. At the same time, not only the clergy is criticized, but also faith and Christian morality itself. “The Orthodox Church, always militant on earth, protected for many centuries in our fatherland, now, due to our sins, is approaching to be persecuted again,” wrote St. Philaret of Moscow to Elder Macarius in May 1859. 75 “Insolent antics... magazines,” noted one of the “Optina residents” in 1857, “managed to undermine in our young generation faith and sympathy for Orthodoxy in the broad meaning of this word, while developing at the same time unconditional love and worship of everything Western, starting with the so-called concepts of faith” 76. The Synod was faced with the task, on the one hand, to protect the inexperienced reader from seductive glances, and on the other, to strengthen the church education of Russian society. At the same time, the opinion about the positive significance of a broad discussion of church issues was so widespread that Zederholm, as mentioned above, had to polemicize not only with noted liberal Westerners like A. I. Herzen, but also with the conservative publicist M. N. Katkov and Slavophiles 77 . In addition, some church publicists also succumbed to general liberal tendencies 78. Thus, the chief prosecutor’s office did not have to count on sympathy in the magazine community and had to act on its own. Thus, in 1857, an employee of the economic administration at the Holy Synod, A.D. Ushinsky, an admirer of the Optina elders, wrote a brochure denouncing anti-church journalism, “Modern Ideas and Orthodoxy,” which received approval in the Optina Hermitage. Zederholm's activities in the synodal chief prosecutor's office received the full approval of the Optina elders, but often did not meet with understanding even in the family circle of the zealous guardian of the church house. “Yesterday we had Const. Karlovich,” M.P. Pogodin wrote to his daughter Alexandra, Zederholm’s daughter-in-law, in June 1858, “and I found him in a tense state. He could become a fanatic, and I advised him to leave his service: its subjects constantly bother him, and since he takes everything too close to his heart, he can also upset his physical health.” 79 Working hard for the good of the Church, K. Zederholm did not forget about his intention to become an Optina monk, waiting for a favorable moment to leave the service. The pious boss of the future monk fully approved of his aspirations and took them into account during his official’s business trips on special assignments. In the summer of 1858, the spiritual son of Elder Macarius made a pilgrimage to the Kiev Pechersk Lavra at government expense. “With the blessing of Father Fr. Macarius began to ask to go to Kyiv. Most of all I needed rest, and I always need mental strengthening. The count, under the guise of a business trip, sent me to Kyiv, i.e. I was given government travel allowance, runs, etc. My comrade was the Archdeacon of Constantinople Alexander Lascaris, who came to St. Petersburg to complete his education at the Theological Academy and wished to visit the Russian Shrine. On June 15th we left P.B., stayed in Moscow for several days, held a fast here in Optina, and stayed in Kyiv from July 5th to July 19th. Kiev is a wonderful city, surpassing Moscow in shrine, the only city in Russia, and even in the world,” this is how Zederholm described his trip to his brother Maxim 80. In 1860, the long-standing desire of the champion of Greek Orthodoxy came true: Zederholm, together with P. I. Solomon, visited the East. The official purpose of the trip was to get acquainted with educational institutions with a view to sending representatives of the Russian clergy there to teach the Greek language. At the same time, Tolstoy obtained permission to visit monasteries in order to assess their need for Russian alms 81 . But Zederholm was more interested in the Athonite elders, with whom he resolved his own spiritual issues. “I stayed on Mount Athos from June 23 to July 16... we examined all the monasteries,” he wrote to his brother 82 . If it were not for Solomon, who was in a hurry to St. Petersburg, and who was entrusted with the responsibility for fulfilling the official purpose of the trip, the future Optina monk would probably have remained in the monastic republic for a long time. Zederholm later outlined his impressions from conversations with the elders in a separate article published in 1867. 83 Soon after Zederholm’s return from the East, his confessor, the Monk Macarius of Optina, reposed in the Lord, and Zederholm passed on to Elder Ambrose. Until Tolstoy's resignation in February 1862, Zederholm remained his faithful collaborator, unlike his longtime friend T. I. Filippov. Filippov initially had his own views on the problem of the Old Believer schism: his position did not coincide with the opinion of the chief prosecutor, St. Philaret and the Optina elders. Intensified contradictions led to Filippov’s break with his former like-minded people. Zederholm was very upset by the loss of mutual understanding with his old friend, the reason for which, however, he did not hesitate to tell Filippov himself 84. Tolstoy's resignation from the post of chief prosecutor allowed Zederholm to fulfill his long-standing desire: to enter Optina Pustyn for obedience. In the desert, he soon took monastic vows with the name Clement. But even after his resignation, the good relations between the Optina monk and his former boss remained unchanged. Tolstoy built his faithful official a comfortable house in the skete of St. John the Baptist of Optina Monastery according to the plan of the Monk Ambrose, where Zederholm labored for the last fifteen years of his life. At the monastery, Father Clement’s main obedience was managing the library and being a clerk under Elder Ambrose. Zederholm was also involved in translating patristic works and compiling biographies of the elders and ascetics of the Optina Hermitage. In 1873, Zederholm managed to serve his former boss and benefactor. A.P. Tolstoy, while abroad for treatment, experienced an urgent need for spiritual support. After the urgent request of the pious wife of the former chief prosecutor, the Monk Ambrose decided to send Zederholm to the exhausted count. Zederholm was ordained a hieromonk and, in a short time, having completed all the necessary documents, hurried to Geneva, where A.P. Tolstoy was located. Father Clement arrived just in time and managed to confess and give communion twice to the count, who died in his arms 85. Father Clement briefly outlived his former boss: five years later, on April 30, 1878, he died peacefully after a short illness. The monastery of St. John the Baptist of Optina Monastery was founded in 1821 on the initiative of St. Philaret (Amphiteatrov), at that time Bishop of Kaluga. The first head of the monastery was the Monk Moses (Putilov). For a detailed life of the Monk Macarius, see: The Legend of the Life and Deeds of the Elder of the Optina Hermitage, Hieroschemamonk Macarius / Compiled by I. L. Rev. of the same Hermitage. introduced by Metropolitan Filaret. M., 1861; Same. 2nd ed. M., 1881 (the book was reprinted in 1995); Biography of the Optina elder Hieroschemamonk Macarius / Comp. Arkhim. Agapit (Belovidov). M., 1997, as well as a short and lengthy life of St. Macarius on the official website of Optina Pustyn. About K. Zederholm, see: Lives of deceased skits: Skete cemetery in Optina Hermitage. Vvedensky Stavropegic Monastery, Optina Pustyn, 2010. pp. 161–175; Leontyev K.N. Father Clement Zederholm, hieromonk of Optina Monastery // Poli, collected. op. and letters: In 12 volumes. St. Petersburg, 2003. Vol. 6. Book. 1. pp. 253–351, as well as the introductory article of this edition. There is extensive literature about Optina Pustyn and its elders. See, for example: Historical description of the Vvedenskaya Optina Hermitage and the Forerunner Skete / Newly compiled by E.V. Sergiev Posad, 1902; Kontsevich I. M. Optina Pustyn and its time. N. Y., 1970. Chetverikov S., archpriest. Optina Pustyn. Paris, 1988, as well as materials on the history of the monastery and the lives of the Optina elders on the official website of the Optina Monastery. A legend about the life and exploits of the blessed memory of the elder of Optina Hermitage, Hieroschemamonk Macarius. M., 1881. P. 98. Quote by: Pitirim (Nechaev), Met. Priceless spiritual heritage // Letters of the great Optina elders. M., 2009. P. 10. See: Historical description of the Kozel Optina Hermitage and the monastery of St. John the Baptist / Comp. Lev Kavelin. St. Petersburg, 1847. 4.2. pp. 63–84. Letters to the Laity were republished in 1880. See: Chervyakov A.D. Collection of the Optina Vvedenskaya Hermitage: Fund 214 // Manuscript collections of the State Library of the USSR named after V.I. Lenin: Index. M., 1986. T. 2. Issue. 2. pp. 272–287. See: Macarius of Optina, St. Letters to worldly persons. M., 2011; Soulful teachings of St. Macarius of Optina: (Excerpts from letters] / Compiled by Archimandrite John Zakharchenko. Kozelsk, 1997. See: Letters of the great Optina elders / comp. A. D. Chervyakov, entry, Art. Metropolitan Pitirima. M., 2001; Same. 2nd ed. M., 2003; Same. 3rd ed. M., 2007; Same. 4th ed. M., 2009. Also, the publishing house of the Sretensky Monastery has prepared a collection of letters from the Venerable Elder Macarius in the series “Letters on Spiritual Life”. A word for your benefit: [Collection of letters] / Venerable Macarius of Optina. M., 2006. \See: Great Elders of Optina Hermitage. M., 2003. See: Collection of letters of St. Macarius of Optina to lay persons. T. 1: A – I; T. 2: K – S. Petrozavodsk, 2010–2011. See: The Legend of the Life and Deeds of the Elder of Optina Hermitage, Hieroschemamonk Macarius, of blessed memory. M., 1881. P. 98. See letter 13 of this edition. It should be noted that, answering questions regarding church life to his spiritual son, Elder Macarius often pointed out that his answer was the result of a joint discussion with the Monk Ambrose of Optina. Fetisenko O. L. Venerable Ambrose of Optina on “theology of the laity”: Elder Ambrose and Fr. Clement Zederholm on the theological works of A. S. Khomyakov and T. I. Filippov // Christianity and Russian Literature. St. Petersburg, 2006. Sat. 5. pp. 264–266. Leontyev K. N. Father Clement Zederholm, hieromonk of Optina Hermitage. P. 256. Samarin Yu. F. Preface // Khomyakov A. S. Complete. collection cit.: In 4 volumes. Prague, 1867. T. 2.P.42. See more about the theology of the Slavophiles and their followers: Khondzinsky Pavel, priest. Dogma of Love // ​​Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Met. Selected works, letters, materials. M., 2007. P. 52–106; It's him. Synodal reform and ecclesiology of the first Slavophiles: A. S. Khomyakova and Yu. F. Samarin // Bulletin of PSTGU 1: Theology. Philosophy. 2011. Issue. 5 (37). pp. 57–70. From letter 28 of this edition. OR RSL. F. 214 Opt. 61. L. 30–40 vol. See letter 55 of this edition. Two works by the Venerable Elder Hieroschemamonk Ambrose, written by him during the life of the Venerable Elder Hieroschemamonk Macarius (Ivanov), and, of course, with his blessing // Letters of the Great Optina Elders. P. 506. See: Chistovich I. A. History of translation of the Bible into Russian. St. Petersburg, 1899, pp. 16–258. See more about social and cultural changes in Russian society during the era of great reforms: Yakovlev A.I. Essays on the history of Russian culture. M., 2010. Part 5. Leontyev K. N. Father Clement Zederholm, hieromonk of Optina Pustyn // Poly. collection op. and letters: T. 6. Book. 1. P. 254. See the letter of I.V. Kireevsky to the Monk Macarius of Optina (Orthodox German Hieromonk Clement (Zederholm). Optina Pustyn, 2002. pp. 34 - 36). See: Chronicle of the monastery in the name of St. John the Baptist and Baptist of the Lord, located at the Kozelsk Optina Hermitage: In 2 vols. M., 2008. T. 1. pp. 280–282. Leontyev K. N. Father Clement Zederholm, hieromonk of Optina Hermitage. P. 258. See: Dolgushin D., priest. V. A. Zhukovsky and I. V. Kireevsky: From the history of the religious quest of Russian romanticism. M., 2009. pp. 165 – 166. Zederholm began teaching the children of Zhukovskaya not in 1854, as Dolgushin writes, but in September 1853 (letter of St. Macarius to Zederholm dated September 29, 1853 // Collection of letters of St. Macarius of Optina to lay persons. T.1. P. 511). See: Collection of letters of St. Macarius of Optina to lay persons. T. 1.S. 544. Dolgushin D., priest. V. A. Zhukovsky and I. V. Kireevsky S. 166. Note. 110. E. A. Zhukovskaya died on November 27, 1856. Collection of letters from St. Macarius of Optina to lay persons. T. 1. P. 552. The official registration of Zederholm took place on March 1, 1858 (Case of the Office of the Chief Prosecutor “At the request of Master Konstantin Zederholm to appoint him to serve in the Spiritual Department of the Orthodox Confession” // RGIA. F. 797. Op. 1858. Dept. 1. Art. 1. D. 44). From letter 21 of this edition. See: Bezhanidze G.V. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod A.P. Tolstoy and St. Philaret // Filaret’s almanac. M., 2008. Issue. 4. pp. 106 – 118. RGIA. F. 1275. Op. 1. D. 3a. L. 95. For more information about the reasons for stopping the translation of the Bible, see: Bezhanidze G.V. Saint Philaret (Drozdov) as a man of the Church during the reign of Alexander 1 // Filaret’s almanac. M., 2011. Issue. 7. pp. 113 – 139. See: Chistovich I. A. History of translation of the Bible into Russian. St. Petersburg, 1899. pp. 269 – 294. OR RSL. F. 214. Wholesale. 58. L. 34, 37 vol. – 38. See letter 15 of this edition See: History of the Christian Church in the 19th century: In 2 vols. T. 2: Orthodox East. Book 1: History of the Greek Churches in the 19th century. St. Petersburg, 1901. pp. 35 – 41 See: Gerdt L. A. Constantinople and St. Petersburg: Russian church policy in the Orthodox East (1878 - 1898). M., 2006. pp. 39–47. See: History of the Christian Church in the 19th century: In 2 vols. T. 2: Orthodox East. Book 2: History of the Slavic Churches in the 19th century. pp. 350 – 358. See: Vakh K. A. Jerusalem project of Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich // Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich and the Russian pilgrimage to the Holy Land. M., 2012. pp. 11–35. See: Titov F.I. His Eminence Kirill (Naumov), Bishop of Melitopol, former rector of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem. Kiev, 1902. pp. 109–119. See: Dmitrievsky A. A. Essay on the life and work of Archimandrite Leonid (Kavelin) // Dmitrievsky A. A. Russian spiritual mission in Jerusalem / Comp. and ed. preface N. N. Lisova. M., 2009. P. 204. A collection of opinions and reviews of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, on the affairs of the Orthodox Church in the East. St. Petersburg, 1886. P. 6 – 8; The note of December 11 is the opinion of St. Philaret on the transformations in the Patriarchate of Constantinople dated December 11, 1858 (see: Collection of opinions and reviews of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, on the affairs of the Orthodox Church in the East. pp. 7-15). RGIA. F. 797. Op. 28. Dept. 1. Art. 2. D. 207. L. 2–6 vol. OR RSL. F. 214. Wholesale. 30. L. 60–61 vol.; see: Collection of opinions and reviews of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, on educational and church-state issues: In 5 volumes / Ed. edited by Rev. Savva, Archbishop. Tverskoy and Kashinsky. T 4. M., 1886. P. 350 – 351. OR RSL. F. 214. Wholesale. 30. L. 44–55. RGIA. F. 797. Op. 28. Dept. 1. Art. 2. D. 207. L. 36–37. See: D, Daskalov X. K. Turkish Affairs // Russian Bulletin. 1858. T. 13. February. No. 4. Book. 2. Department: Modern. Chronicle. pp. 245–265; T. 14. March. No. 6. Book. 1. Dept.: Modern. Chronicle. pp. 35–52; T. 15. May. No. 9. Book. 1. Dept.: Modern. Chronicle. pp. 33–51; It's him. Revival of the Bulgarians, or Reaction in European Turkey // Russian conversation. 1858. Book. 2. Dept. 5. pp. 1–64. RGIA. F. 797. Op.28. Dept. 1. Art. 2.D. 151. L. 18 vol. – 19. RGIA. F. 797. Op.28. Dept. I. Art. 2.D. 151. L. 1–1v. RGIA. F. 797. Op.28. Dept. 1. Art. 2. D. 151. L. 32. Barsukov N.P. Life and works of M.P. Pogodin: In 22 books. Book 16. St. Petersburg, 1902. P. 267 et seq. See: Khomyakov L.S. About the Greek-Bulgarian feud: A note on Mr. Daskalov’s article in “Russian Conversation” // Complete. collection cit.: In 8 vols. M., 1900–1904. T. 3. pp. 455–458. Barsukov I.P. Life and works of M.P. Pogodin. Book 16. pp. 280–281. OR RSL. F. 214. Wholesale. 31. L. 9–15 vol. See: Reply to Mr. D. // Moskovskie Vedomosti. 1858. 5 Aug. N° 93. pp. 864–866; Aug 7 No. 94. pp. 874–876; Aug 9 No. 95. pp. 885–886; Aug 12 No. 96. pp. 894–895; Aug 14 No. 97. pp. 904–906. The same year the article was published as a separate brochure. Khomyakov A. S. Full. collection op. T. 8. P. 356. As O. L. Fetisenko notes, an objection to T. I. Filippov’s article can be considered an editorial commentary on the article by Y. Destunis “The Greek Voice in Defense of Byzantium,” published in the 2nd book. “Russian Conversation” for 1859 (see: Fetisenko O. L. Tertiy Filippov - the first editor of “Russian Conversation” // “Russian Conversation”: history of the Slavophile magazine: Research, materials. Article-by-article painting. St. Petersburg, 2011. pp. 121 – 122). The Moscow saint pointed out the inconsistency of the censor's response with the Charter on spiritual censorship (OR RSL. F. 214. Opt. 31. L. 16). Chronicle of the monastery in the name of St. John the Baptist and Baptist of the Lord, located near the Kozelsk Optina Hermitage. T. 1. P. 448. Quote from a letter from Lev Kavelin to Archbishop Athanasius (Sokolov) of Kazan, written on the advice of St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov) and the blessing of the Optina elders (see: Chronicle of the monastery in the name of St. John the Baptist and Baptist of the Lord, located at the Kozelsk Optina Hermitage. Vol. 1. pp. 427 - 430). RGIA. F. 1108. Op. 1.D. 6. L. 4 rev. OR RSL. F. 107. K. 6. Unit. hr. 26. L. 22–22 vol. OR RSL. F. 214. Wholesale. 60. L. 51–55 vol. OR RSL. F. 107. K. 6. Unit. hr. 26. L. 34. See: From memories of a trip to the East in 1860 // Orthodox German hieromonk Clement Zederholm. pp. 309 – 312. See: Chronicle of the monastery in the name of St. John the Baptist and Baptist of the Lord, located near the Kozelsk Optina Hermitage. T-2. P. 85; Fetisenko O. L. Venerable Ambrose of Optina on “theology of the laity”: Elder Ambrose and Fr. Clement Zederholm on the theological works of A. S. Khomyakov and T. I. Filippov // Christianity and Russian Literature. St. Petersburg, 2006. Sat. 5. pp. 270 – 295. See: Chronicle of the monastery in the name of St. John the Baptist and Baptist of the Lord, located near the Kozelsk Optina Hermitage. T 1. P.694 – 698. You might be interested in: