Historical teaching about the Fathers of the Church. Volume II

Contents Chapter I Chapter II Chapter III Chapter IV Chapter V Chapter VI Chapter VII Chapter VIII Chapter IX Chapter X General information about Philaret’s ministry in St. Petersburg. Establishment of the Commission of Theological Schools, its composition and range of actions. The St. Petersburg Theological Academy was called to life in place of the former Alexander Nevsky Seminary and the appointment of Archimandrite Evgraf, who had hitherto been the rector of the Trinity Lavra Seminary, as its rector. Summoning to St. Petersburg the teacher of the Trinity Lavra Seminary, Hierodeacon Philaret. The state of his spirit when this challenge was announced to him. Grief on this occasion of Metropolitan Platon. Departure of Hierodeacon Philaret from the Lavra and Moscow. Road and arrival in St. Petersburg. Philaret's service in St. Petersburg at various levels of hierarchical dignity, in the ranks of hierodeacon, hieromonk, archimandrite and bishop, lasted not much more than ten years (from the end of December 1808 to March 15, 1819) and was devoted almost exclusively to the education of spiritual youth. 1808 is a remarkable year in the history of Russian theological schools. This year, on June 26, the Sovereign Emperor Alexander I approved a plan for the transformation of religious schools; in the same year the Commission of Theological Schools was formed. Six persons were appointed members of the Commission: St. Petersburg Metropolitan Ambrose (Podobedov), Bishop of Kaluga Theophylact (Rusanov), Privy Councilor M.M. Speransky, Synodal Chief Prosecutor Prince A.N. Golitsyn, court confessor P.V. Krinitsky and Chief Priest of the Military Clergy I.S. Derzhavin. The scope of the Commission's activities focused on the organization and management of all theological schools in Russia. The commission took upon itself all the worries about the implementation of the highest approved project on the transformation of theological schools. It was decided to begin the transformation according to the new plan of the academy, seminary and schools of the St. Petersburg district. On February 17, 1809, the St. Petersburg Theological Academy received a new charter. Students from four former higher theological schools, namely: Alexander Nevsky, Kyiv, Moscow and Kazan, and from 23 seminaries, totaling 100 people who were to form the first year of the new St. Petersburg Academy, were called to the newly established academy for higher education. In addition to former professors, she also needed new mentors from different seminaries. The rector of the Trinity Lavra Seminary, Archimandrite Evgraf (Muzalevsky-Platonov), a close acquaintance of Philaret, was confirmed as its rector. A little later after Evgraf was summoned to St. Petersburg, Filaret was also summoned there. He owed this challenge to rector Evgraf, who made the name of the gifted Trinity teacher known in St. Petersburg and recommended him to the Commission of Theological Schools as a very useful employee in the new St. Petersburg Theological Academy. It is clear that Hierideacon Philaret could not indifferently leave the place of his education and initial teaching activity, where he enjoyed the special favor of Metropolitan Plato; when the call to St. Petersburg was announced to him, he expressed his sorrowful feelings with hot youthful tears; but despite all this, apparently, without any particular regret about his former place of service and without any particular fear of a new one, the young monk set off for St. Petersburg. Monastic obedience obliged him to accept a new calling without complaint, and the excess of spiritual strength, the thirst for lively activity and new impressions, so characteristic of a young, gifted man, could captivate him with new hopes. But what is accepted and felt quite easily by the young, was very difficult for the old man, who lives more in memories of the past and present. Metropolitan Platon was losing his beloved child in spirit in Hierodeacon Philaret, and, understandably, Philaret’s summons to St. Petersburg upset him extremely. But be that as it may, the order of the Commission of Theological Schools had to be carried out without delay. Hierodeacon Philaret’s departure to St. Petersburg followed very quickly, after the shortest preparations; Not only did he not have time to visit his parents in Kolomna, but he didn’t even have time to write to them about himself. He left the Trinity-Sergius Lavra on the fourth day of the Nativity of Christ, and from Moscow on the eve of the New Year. He went half ill, but on the road, despite the hasty driving and insomnia, he recovered 2. However, this is a long journey, especially if we take into account the routes and means of communication of that time, the journey, in frosts that reached 30 degrees, did not remain without consequences for Filaret’s health. On the way, he caught a cold in his legs, so that in his later years he felt pain in his legs, and on the advice of a doctor he often had to keep them in a horizontal position when sitting 3 . After five days of travel, on the feast of the Epiphany, at dawn, a matting carriage drawn by a pair of post horses finally enters the Moscow outpost of St. Petersburg. Sitting in it, short in stature, handsome in appearance, with an unusually intelligent face, with expressive eyes like fire, sparkling eyes, the monk looks with curiosity at the tall, often solid buildings on both sides of the wide, slender streets of the northern capital 4 . Many thoughts and feelings probably filled the soul of the young hierodeacon at that time. He could have thought about the extraordinary change in his circumstances, he could have been afraid of their course, he could have admired the beauty of the northern capital, he could have marveled at the small number of churches of God there... But could the newly arrived monk think that he would so soon occupy a high and influential position in St. Petersburg? The newcomer’s path to the northern capital lay in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, where he had to stay with an old acquaintance, fellow countryman, teacher and colleague at Trinity Seminary, now rector of the St. Petersburg Academy, Archimandrite Evgraf. Before we begin the story of Philaret’s life in St. Petersburg, we will give an idea of ​​those persons under whose command and in relations with whom he was supposed to be. The main persons in the then highest church administration in general and in the Commission of Theological Schools in particular: Metropolitan of St. Petersburg Ambrose (Podobedov), Archbishop of Ryazan Theophylact (Rusanov) and Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod Prince A.N. Golitsyn. The main persons who were of great importance in church administration in general and in the spiritual and educational department in particular were at that time: the leading member of the Synod, Ambrose (Podobedov), Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg; Theophylact (Rusanov), Archbishop of Ryazan; and Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, Prince A.N. Golitsyn. Ambrose was the son of a priest of the town of Stogov, Pereyaslavsky district, studied at the Trinity Lavra Seminary, upon completion of the course he was a teacher in the lower grades, became a monk, and then was transferred to the position of teacher at the Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy. His rise was facilitated by the word he said over the tomb of Moscow Archbishop Ambrose Zertis-Kamensky, who was killed in 1771 during popular outrage in Moscow over the plague, which made him known to Empress Catherine II. He was soon appointed first prefect and then rector of the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy. Four years after the plague, he had the opportunity to speak a sermon in the presence of Empress Catherine II, who arrived in Moscow to celebrate the Kuchuk-Kainarzhi Peace. The Empress liked the sermon. In accordance with the desire expressed by the Empress to see Ambrose in the omophorion, he, some time later (July 5, 1778), was ordained at the Trinity Lavra to the rank of Bishop of Sevsky, vicar of Moscow. The Empress, who was present at his consecration, presented him with a rich bishop's sacristy, a diamond panagia and three thousand rubles - a very significant sum for that time. Soon Ambrose from Sevskaya was transferred to the independent Krutitsky department, and after the abolition of the latter in 1785, he was appointed to Kazan, where he gained the general love of the population and earned the reputation of a skillful church administrator and owner. He was distinguished by his special love for the construction business and his knowledge of it. In 1795, Ambrose was summoned to attend the Holy Synod and invariably enjoyed the favors of Empress Catherine II, who granted him a diamond Cross to wear on his hood and a lifelong pension of two thousand rubles, until the Empress’s death. Under Emperor Paul I, Ambrose was also distinguished by the special attention of the Sovereign, for whom he arranged, among other things, a solemn meeting in Kazan, when the Sovereign arrived there along with his eldest sons Alexander and Constantine. In October 1799, Ambrose was appointed administrator of the St. Petersburg diocese, with the rank of archbishop and First Present in the Holy Synod. On the eve of his death, Emperor Pavel Petrovich sent Ambrose a white hood. Ambrose remained in the rank of Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and First Present in the Holy Synod during the reign of Emperor Alexander I, until 1818. Ambrose was a remarkable saint in many respects. He was distinguished by his rare good nature and ingenuousness, his constant accessibility, kindness, friendliness and tireless activity for the benefit of the church. He especially cared about the theological schools entrusted to his care, about the splendor of churches and church services. Not distinguished by particularly outstanding abilities and learning, he was unshakably firm in his beliefs and rules. The hobbies of that time were alien to his healthy and stable spiritual nature: neither Masonic mysticism, nor the brilliant French education that reigned then in high society and even among some clergy did not evoke sympathy in him; on the contrary, he treated them with restraint and distrust. Avoiding rapprochement with people of the new direction, not alien to extremes, Metropolitan Ambrose valued relations with people who were steadfast in their convictions and who knew how to distinguish between the good old and the bad new and vice versa. Thus, he sincerely respected Metropolitan Plato and conducted an active and frank correspondence with him. He was also on good terms with Methodius (Smirnov), Archbishop of Tver, famous for his learning and strictly Orthodox beliefs 5 . Filaret always considered Metropolitan Ambrose his benefactor. And indeed, Ambrose contributed greatly to his rise; but we will see that Filaret, in turn, will provide him with great services and thus fully pay for his patronage. Another influential person in the Synod and especially powerful in the affairs of the spiritual and educational department was Theophylact (Rusanov), Archbishop of Ryazan, who died in 1821 as Exarch of Georgia, with the rank of Metropolitan, one of the most remarkable personalities in the history of the Russian Church during the reign of Alexander I. Theophylact, born in 1765, was the son of a sexton in the Arkhangelsk province, Onega district, Naberezhskaya volost. Having received his initial education at the Olonets Seminary, in 1788 he entered the Alexander Nevsky Main Seminary, where, while still at school, he became close to the famous M. M. Speransky, who arrived there from the Vladimir Seminary. Theophylact was a man with great talents, thirsting for extensive activity, but at the same time with extremely ambitious inclinations. A legend has been preserved that friends, Neva seminarians, Rusanov and Speransky, cast lots among themselves as to which of them should remain in the clergy and which should enter the secular service. It was as if Theophylact’s lot fell to be a clergyman. Whether this legend is fair or not, it shows that Theophylact decided to devote himself to serving the church not only by pure and disinterested calling, but was not a stranger to ambitious calculations, and since at that time it was more advantageous to serve the church in the rank of monk, he chose the latter. Theophylact was not mistaken in his calculations. Having supplemented his seminary education with a thorough study of new languages, of which he could even speak fluently in French, as well as familiarity with German and especially French literature, with philosophy, aesthetics and history, Theophylact was, in his education, superior to many members of the clergy of that time and acquired the reputation of a comprehensively educated person. In his views, tastes and way of life, he was also little like his other brothers: he behaved freely, dressed elegantly, and even adopted some of the techniques of secular society. This gave him access to aristocratic houses, where he was a pleasant conversationalist and a welcome guest. There is no doubt that the favor of secular people towards him and the dislike of some clergy contributed to his rapid rise. Having completed his course at the Alexander Nevsky Seminary in 1792, he was soon, precisely in 1795, elevated to the rank of archimandrite. At first, after completing the course, he served primarily as a teacher of law in prominent secular educational institutions, namely in the Greek, land, gentry and artillery corps. At the end of 1798, while still an archimandrite, Theophylact was granted the title of member of the Holy Synod, and at the end of 1799 he was appointed Bishop of Kaluga. While in Kaluga, Theophylact had the opportunity to become closely acquainted with Prince A.N. Golitsyn, who often visited his Kaluga estates. When the actions of the Commission of Theological Schools were opened, Theophylact, as an educated man, turned out to be the right person and was summoned to St. Petersburg. There he renewed his previous connections and acquaintances in secular society, acquired many new and influential acquaintances, became famous for his sermons, became known to the Emperor as a wonderful bishop, and earned the favor of the Dowager Empress. In 1809, Theophylact was elevated to Archbishop of Ryazan. To the credit of Theophylact, it must be said that he greatly valued the reputation of a learned man and he himself volunteered to be a professor of literary sciences at the newly opened St. Petersburg Theological Academy, being already an archbishop and a member of the Synod. If we take into account that at that time it was not customary for a bishop to teach a course of not only secular, but also spiritual sciences, and that this even seemed somehow humiliating to their dignity, then Theophylact’s voluntary challenge to be a professor serves as clear proof of his love for science and understanding of its demands declared by the time, which he tried to satisfy as much as possible. The importance of Theophylact both in the Synod, and in the Commission of Theological Schools, and in society gradually increased. He began to be considered a strong rival of the St. Petersburg Metropolitan Ambrose, and, it seems, he himself was no stranger to claims to the position of the leading member of the Holy Synod. Speransky and, until some time, Chief Prosecutor Prince Golitsyn supported Theophylact’s hopes. The extent to which Theophylact's importance rose at that time is shown by the rumor that spread at that time that the government intended to appoint some bishops as members of the State Council. Theophylact was put forward as the first candidate for such an important post, as a result of which in the circles of clergy close to Metropolitan Ambrose and dissatisfied with Theophylact, the latter was nicknamed Brianne - the name of the famous French bishop, participant in the revolution. In view of the claims and successes of Theophylact, the friends of Metropolitan Ambrose advised the latter to even voluntarily cede the see to a strong rival and retire from St. Petersburg to Novgorod in advance, but the Metropolitan maintained his dignity and answered the advice of his friends decisively: “I did not appoint myself, I cannot remove myself from my post.” Everything, apparently, favored Theophylact’s hopes, but he lacked a sense of proportion: he did a lot of damage to himself with his arrogance, ardor of character and tendency to interfere in all matters. As a result, he often had clashes with strong and influential people. He cooled the disposition towards himself even among his former patrons. In 1810, he came into conflict with Golitsyn and Speransky himself. This clash arose over the scientist Fessler, who, on the recommendation of Speransky, was summoned from Berlin to study at the Academy of the Department of Jewish Language and Philosophy and soon, due to his scholarship and influence on students, became a dangerous rival of Theophylact here. Having received the program of his philosophical lectures in his hands, Theophylact subjected it to severe criticism, accusing the author of extreme idealism, destructive of both philosophy and religion, of mysticism and illuminism, and managed to oust him from the Academy, despite Speransky’s zealous defense of him. Prince Golitsyn, who had already begun to become interested in mysticism, also did not like Theophylact’s criticism of Fessler. From the very first time, Theophylact also reacted carelessly and tactlessly to the new luminary, which at first modestly, and then increasingly increasing its brilliance, ascended in St. Petersburg - to Hierodeacon Philaret, summoned from the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. With his arrogance and arrogance, as we will see, he challenged him to fight and in this fight he finally lost the sympathy of Prince Golitsyn, which, to a greater extent and extent than before to Theophylact, transferred to his new, young rival 6. To understand the position of Hierodeacon Philaret, who had newly arrived in St. Petersburg, it remains for us to say a few words about his patron, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Prince Golitsyn. Prince Alexander Nikolaevich Golitsyn, a descendant of Prince Boris Alekseevich Golitsyn, the tutor of Peter I, who lost his father as a two-week-old baby, was initially raised by his intelligent mother, nee Khitrova, was mercifully despised in his orphanhood by the Great Empress, Empress Catherine II, who ordered him to be placed at her own expense in the Corps of Pages, received the so-called secular education, quite easy and shallow. But one cannot deny him a remarkable natural intelligence and many commendable moral qualities, thanks to which he was able to acquire general favor from childhood. Due to his high origin and the patronage of the Empress, this skill brought him the love of Grand Duke Alexander Pavlovich, who was slightly younger than him. Spiritual communication between the Grand Duke and Prince Golitsyn, which began with joint children's games, later turned into sincere and unchanging friendship between them. When Alexander Pavlovich turned twelve years old, sixteen-year-old chamber-page Golitsyn was appointed gentleman to His Highness. When four years later (1793) Catherine married her sixteen-year-old beloved grandson and created a special small Court for him, the twenty-year-old Prince Golitsyn was appointed chamber cadet there, and the Empress provided him with the necessary means for a decent maintenance. Proximity to the brilliant and refined Court of Catherine put its stamp on Prince Golitsyn, and he became a courtier in the full sense of the word. With a remarkable good nature, an inquisitive mind and an extraordinary liveliness of character, without receiving a solid education, he completely indulged in each of the hobbies that mastered him. From a young age, being influenced by the French encyclopedists who were then in fashion, he subsequently completely changed - he was extremely devout, and then, with his characteristic passion, fell into mysticism. Rising quickly through the ranks of court and military service, Golitsyn, even under Emperor Pavel Petrovich, at first enjoyed his favors, but then, due to some carelessness in his own words, as well as due to the slander of his enemies, he fell into disgrace. The enthroned Alexander I immediately remembered his favorite, returned him first of those removed from Moscow under his parent, bringing him closer to himself again, and finally, after the resignation of the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, Yakovlev made him the Synodal Chief Prosecutor. He was given the special right to report matters to the Emperor personally, for which purpose he was named Secretary of State. This circumstance gave him greater importance in the Synod than his predecessors had. Although Prince Golitsyn possessed many good qualities, later, with an even greater rise in his power, he began to more and more betray his former complacency and kindness, became despotic and sometimes allowed himself to treat the highest representatives of the church hierarchy harshly 7 . These were the main characters in the central church administration in St. Petersburg. Besides them, there were also some other persons who were related to the life and fate of Hierodeacon Philaret; but we will talk about them during the story itself about his life in St. Petersburg, to which it is time for us to return. The first time of Filaret's life in St. Petersburg. Introducing him to the above-mentioned persons. Acquaintance with St. Petersburg and its surroundings. We have already said that upon his arrival in St. Petersburg, Hierodeacon Philaret stayed in the apartment of the rector of the Academy, Archimandrite Evgraf, who received him like a relative. Both the host and the guest had little means of subsistence; Their premises were so cramped that there was nowhere to put a bed for a guest, and he had to lay his bed on the floor. He lived like this for two months before receiving a permanent position 8. Immediately upon his arrival in St. Petersburg, Hierodeacon Philaret was overwhelmed by the complex currents of life there. The first time, of course, was devoted to familiarizing himself with the new situation, with new faces, with the city and its environs. His leader in this was the same obligatory master, Archimandrite Evgraf. Having been kindly received by Metropolitan Ambrose, with whom he had the honor of dining the very next day after his arrival and who then took care that the newly arrived monk would not be bored on a foreign side, 9 Philaret received a far less affectionate welcome from Archbishop Theophylact of Ryazan, who was then in the full force of his power. When Filaret came to him along with rector Evgraf, he, who considered himself the first scientist of his time in Russia, succumbed to the temptation to examine the newcomer and teach him some scientific advice. After the newcomer’s first words, Theophylact asked him a question: “What is truth?” “I,” Filaret later recalled, familiar only with the old Wolffian and Leibniz philosophical concepts, “answered that logical truth is this and that, metaphysical truth is that. Theophylact was not satisfied and asked: what is truth in general? I found it difficult, I didn’t know what to answer. Thanks to the rector, he brought me out of the confusion with a joke: to this question, he told Theophylact, Christ the Savior did not give an answer. Theophylact's questions turned to languages. Having learned about my acquaintance with the ancient languages ​​- Hebrew, Greek and Latin, he recommended that I definitely study one of the new ones, and especially French, assuring that everything remarkable in science is written in it or translated into it. This made me turn to learning French." This was followed by Theophylact’s advice to Philaret to get acquainted with Swedenborg, as he advised everyone, being an admirer of the Swedish mystic and spirit seer. In this case, Philaret followed the advice of Theophylact, but subsequently found that both councils of the Ryazan ruler were of little use and usefulness for him. Regarding the French language, he notes that “maybe it would be better if I knew German,” and about Swedenborg that “read a few pages and my head would hurt,” and that “after all, he did not have much patience to get acquainted with his works” 10. No matter how you look at the conversation between the strong archbishop and the young hierodeacon, it surprises you with its lack of tact, politeness, delicacy, and even just condescension towards the novice scientist, the conditions of whose preparation for the scientific field, moreover, were probably well known to Theophylact. If he absolutely wanted to instruct a newcomer, then he could do this in a delicate manner, quietly involving the subject in a conversation about some academic subject. But this was not done, so it took the intervention of the rector to hint at the inappropriateness and difficulty of the question. This, of course, could not help but leave an unpleasant aftertaste in Filaret’s soul. The spark of struggle between two talented people who, it would seem, could peacefully work in the same field, was sown. The first meeting of Hierodeacon Philaret, shortly after his arrival in St. Petersburg, with Prince Golitsyn is extremely interesting. Here is how Sushkov reports about it from the words of Filaret himself: “There was a holiday in the Tauride Palace. The clergy were also invited to admire the magnificent fireworks display. Metropolitan Ambrose also took with him Hierodeacon Philaret, who had recently arrived from the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, to whom, of course, everything seemed strange: this was not a spiritual festival, and the galloping of so many quadruples with carriages and carriages, and motley crowds of men and women, fussily scattering in all directions without a visible goal, and sounds reaching the ear without words, and music, like thunder, interrupting everything. this chaotic hum and chatter. Here a short man, adorned with a star and a ribbon, with a sword, with a three-cornered hat and in something - a cloak, not a cloak - is walking hurriedly through the yard, in some kind of silk cape over an embroidered uniform. So he climbed up to the choir, where the clergy were decorously seated. He walks wobbly among the members of the St. Synod, nods his head to them, shakes their hands, casually says a word to one or another, and none of them is surprised at his attire or at his free manner with them. A strange creature, the hierodeacon thought, looking at him. But then the Metropolitan takes him by the hand, leads him to the little gentleman, explains to the little gentleman where and when the monk arrived at the Alexander Nevsky Lavra; and the monk, not knowing to whom he was led and what to talk to him about, absentmindedly bowed to him in silence, looked at him and stepped aside. When the domino left, he asked: who is this gentleman? “Our Chief Prosecutor,” they told him. “What a clumsy savage I seemed to him then! – the bishop once said with a grin, recalling his first meeting with Golitsyn. “What must he have thought of me?” And now it’s funny how my ignorance of secular conditions will come to mind, my bewilderment when looking at his dominoes, my awkward surprise from him. I was completely lost in this noise and confusion. And how was I supposed to know that dominoes belong to masquerades, which I had never even heard of... I was ridiculous then in the eyes of the Synod members. So I remained an eccentric” 11. Prince Golitsyn, of course, forgot the hierodeacon presented to him in such an unusual setting. Soon, in the same year (1809), he had to visit the prince on the occasion of St. Easter. At the same time, he noticed that His Excellency’s rooms in which visitors were received were decorated with books. “A good sign for scientists,” he said to himself then 12. This introduction to the prince was also fleeting, but later we will see that Philaret will have to become close friends with the prince and have influence on him for the good. While getting acquainted with new faces, Hierodeacon Philaret had to familiarize himself with the new area. He examines a city hitherto unknown to him and its attractions, but, however, not deliberately, but taking advantage of suitable occasions - either necessary visits to members of the Holy Synod, or assignments assigned to him. So, on the occasion of the exam of singers who were supposed to enter the newly opened schools, he visits the Peter and Paul Cathedral, marveling at its internal majesty and unusual decorations. 13 The outskirts of the city also attract his attention. Together with his service comrades, he takes a trip to Peterhof, Sergiev Hermitage, Tsarskoe Selo, Pavlovsk and Gatchina. All these places, of course, make an impression on him in accordance with their characteristics, but at the same time it is clear that he undertook a trip to them not out of simple curiosity, but mainly as a distraction and because convenient opportunities presented themselves for this purpose. He even seems to apologize (to his parents) for allowing himself such fun, pointing out that for the trip to Peterhof and the Sergius Hermitage the crew was given by his Eminence and, therefore, the trip did not require expenses, and the amount required for the trip to other places was 50 rubles. It didn’t seem so big at all when they spread it out among five comrades. 14 All this was done, so to speak, casually. His main concern was to enter closer into the circle of his new responsibilities. The care and concern of Filaret's parent about his fate. Metropolitan Platon's continued grief over his departure and the latter's renewal of his petition for his return from St. Petersburg. The reasons for the slowdown in Filaret’s written communications with those close to him. While Hierodeacon Philaret was getting acquainted with St. Petersburg and finding out the state of local affairs, his father in Kolomna was extremely concerned, having had no news about his son for quite a long time. In order to find out at least some information about him and thereby reassure himself, he makes an earnest request to deliver the necessary news about his son to other persons who had the opportunity to know about him, and to the son himself. In the draft papers of the Kolomna Cathedral Archpriest Mikhail Feodorovich Drozdov, his letter to the prefect of the Trinity Seminary Samuil, an admirer of Philaret, was preserved, with the following content: “Your Reverence! Most honorable Mr. Father Prefect! Forgive me generously that I, without having the honor of being known to you, dare to bother you with this letter. Extreme need prompted me to do this. I don’t receive any news about Filaret. In his last letter he wrote to me that, perhaps, upon request, he will be sent to the Commission of Theological Schools, and in this case, I can receive news about him from Your Reverence, also several books and a portrait of the Great Man (Metropolitan Plato) 15, but since then I have not received any letters from him. I think, and there is a rumor that he has already left; but when, how, and whether he is calm in spirit, I don’t know. I humbly ask Your Eminence to deliver at least some information about these circumstances to a person who is saddened and who is taking a significant part in the fate of Philaret. If you don’t have enough time to write to me, then at least explain this letter to the sender in words. Give at least a little consolation to a sad heart. For such your beneficent condescension towards me, I will forever remain grateful with true respect Your Reverence's most humble servant, Usp. Ave. Michael. January 24th day, 1809." The father also wrote to his son, asking him for news about himself. Here is his draft letter to his son: “Reverend Father Hierodeacon Philaret! We are all alive. (Having further reported news about home circumstances, Philaret’s parent asks after several points) But where is Philaret now, is he healthy, is he calm in spirit, how did he get to his appointed place, what does he exercise, what does he do, what position does he serve, does he find even a little pleasure, who does he contact, what is his new acquaintance like, what is his behavior like, the turn of events in the course of affairs, is there any hope for a calm life, what does the climate change seem like to him, what is the new life, what are the reinforcements of life, what kind of appearance do the still unfamiliar bosses show him, in what disposition did his former bosses and benefactors let him go - in short, what happened to him and what is happening now? These are the questions that I privately propose to myself; but no one answers them. When leaving for the Lavra, I personally asked a relative to notify me there, even if he inquired about unimportant circumstances; but received nothing in response. I recently wrote to Father Prefect Samuel, but he hasn’t answered anything yet and I don’t know whether he will answer. Filaret alone could answer all this; but his voice cannot be heard too far from eight hundred miles from the cold climate; I don't receive letters from him. The latter received a written message from the Lavra on December 25 last year (1808); I didn’t receive any more: I don’t know how to send a letter to him, and I don’t know where to write it. I am sending this with the court councilor Timofey Semenovich Serebryakov, supervisor of water communications. He promised me to find you, Father Filaret! He is a supportive person for me. With him, I ask you to briefly inform me about the circumstances of your life and your place of stay and how to write letters sent to you.” Metropolitan Platon was also extremely interested in knowing about his beloved pet. He constantly asked Philaret’s former colleagues at Trinity Seminary if they had any news from St. Petersburg about him, especially since he wrote to St. Petersburg more than once and asked for his return. Former service comrades at Trinity Seminary also eagerly awaited news of him. 16 Hierodeacon Philaret from St. Petersburg did not write for some time, even to people close to him, probably because, under the influence of new impressions, with enthusiasm and jealousy, having devoted himself entirely to new duties, in the most careful fulfillment of which he saw his first and direct duty, he absolutely did not have time to write. There is, however, evidence that he wrote to his father twice soon after his arrival in St. Petersburg, but these letters probably did not reach their intended destination, and if they did, they were not preserved for us. Sending a letter to his father dated February 14, 1809, he writes at the beginning of it: “This is the third time I’ve written to you from St. Petersburg.” 17 Probably, soon after his arrival in St. Petersburg, Filaret wrote to Metropolitan Platon, but no reliable news about this has survived. 18 Writing to his parent, Metropolitan Platon and his Trinity comrades, in addition to lack of time, was perhaps also hindered by the fact that his position in St. Petersburg at first was rather uncertain and the course of affairs there seemed to him, as he later wrote to his father, very incomprehensible. 19 Metropolitan Platon, extremely upset by the summons of Hierodeacon Philaret to St. Petersburg, several times (up to four times) began to work for his return to the Trinity Lavra Seminary. For the first time, he wrote to the Holy Synod on December 28, 1808, in a report that he sent about the departure of Hierodeacon Philaret and Greek teacher Semyon Platonov, who had been summoned to St. Petersburg with them: “How they, the teachers Drozdov and Platonov, expressed their reluctance to go to St. Petersburg and want to remain as before at the Trinity Seminary, which reluctance they expressed by shedding tears; then I, especially about Hierodeacon Philaret, earnestly ask the Holy Rule. The Synod should send him back to the Trinity Seminary, where, in accordance with his desire, he can have better success for the common good, and as I especially applied fatherly care to him in discussing his upbringing, this will greatly serve to console my old age; and his single departure can conveniently be rewarded from other schools.” 20 In this report, for the greater success of his petition for Philaret, Metropolitan Platon even noticeably tried to weaken his merits before the Holy Synod. When this was soon followed by the summons to St. Petersburg of the Prefect of Bethany Evgeniy Kazantsev (later Archbishop of Yaroslavl), and the Synodal decree on this occasion stated that if Philaret had not yet been sent, then he would be considered by the Commission of Theological Schools, then Plato, delighted by this, asked the Synod a second time (in a report on the prefect) for the return of Philaret to console him old age. When prefect Eugene was dispatched, Plato wrote to the Synod for the third time about the same thing. 21 And this repeated zealous request of the elder metropolitan, apparently, was supposed to be respected in the Synod - to return Philaret to him, but there is reason to believe that the latter himself did not want to return, preferring service in St. Petersburg to service at the Trinity Lavra Seminary. At least, Archbishop Evgeny Kazantsev in his diary conveys the following: “Upon receiving a presentation from M. Plato, before judging it in the Synod, M. Ambrose called Philaret and, announcing Plato’s desire, asked his consent. He answered the same as when he was summoned from the Lavra to St. Petersburg: that, having accepted monasticism, he had renounced his will and surrendered himself to the will of the authorities” 22. Metropolitan Platon, meanwhile, attributed the entire failure of his petition for Philaret to the reluctance of the Synod members to fulfill his request. In a letter to his vicar Augustine dated January 31, 1809, he wrote with bitter feeling: “They won’t give up Philaret! Very unconscionable: for what is there to consider when it was decided to leave him here? But what to do? Tolerate? There is no end to patience!” The refusal of the Synod to return Filaret, whom at that time the Commission of Theological Schools intended to appoint to the St. Petersburg Academy as a bachelor of theological sciences, was motivated by “his appointment to a very important position 23.” Subsequently, we will see that Metropolitan Platon will make another attempt to return Philaret to himself. Complaining about the higher church administration for not fulfilling its petition for Philaret, the Moscow Saint also complained partly about Philaret himself. From one letter from Filaret to his parent, we can conclude that M. Platon was dissatisfied with Filaret for some time because he wrote to him little. “What they complain about me in the Lavra,” he writes, “I know that. It is true that I am silent. And there were people there who were too talkative. I didn’t write what I felt, but they said what I don’t know. However, it is written here, just not to me personally, that I am forgiven 24.” From this it is clear that M. Plato himself recognized the valid reasons for Filaret’s silence. And in general one can hardly doubt that in the depths of his soul Filaret had truly filial feelings for his former high patron. Afterwards, he wrote to him more than once, spoke warmly of him as his second father, and with heartfelt sympathy regretted his senile ailments. 25 The first positions of Hierodeacon Philaret in St. Petersburg. Teaching and supervision in the seminary. Ordination to hieromonk. Appointment as rector of the Alexander Nevsky School with retention of previous positions. His works on teaching philosophy at the seminary and their successful results. The beginning of a particularly close relationship between Philaret and Metropolitan Ambrose. The death of the rector of the Academy, Archimandrite Evgraf, and the appointment in his place of the rector of the Trinity Lavra Seminary, Archimandrite Sergius. The last attempt of the metropolitan Plato to return Filaret to himself. His appointment to the position of Bachelor of Theological Sciences at the Academy. The difficulty of a new position, especially teaching Church history. Adding something new to the previous teaching subjects - Church Antiquities. Filaret's tireless and comprehensive activity as a teacher. His influence on the students of the Academy. At first (in 1809 and 1810) Filaret was little known in St. Petersburg. He was known only in a close circle of St. Petersburg theological educational institutions, and there, however, not everyone suddenly had time to properly recognize and appreciate him. As a former outstanding teacher of rhetoric at the Trinity Seminary, he, according to rumors at the time, was deliberately summoned to St. Petersburg to teach this subject at the reformed St. Petersburg Academy, due to the weakness of the former teacher. 26 This is also confirmed by the fact that immediately upon his arrival in St. Petersburg, the Commission of Theological Schools instructed him to compile a literature summary in Latin, which required him to state which books he would use to teach lessons and with which subjects to begin teaching students. The abstract was presented and reviewed by the Commission of Theological Schools. Knowing Filaret especially closely as his former student and then colleague at Trinity Seminary, the rector of the Academy, Evgraf (on whose recommendation he was summoned to St. Petersburg), three times petitioned the Commission of Theological Schools to appoint him bachelor of the Academy, but all three times were in vain. The obstacle came from Archbishop Theophylact, 27 who already had his own candidate for academic service - the prefect of the Kaluga Seminary, Hieromonk Leonid Zaretsky. As a result, Filaret had to wait a whole year for the academic department. He was supposed to begin his educational career in St. Petersburg, at the seminary there. For some time he taught Russian literature there; then he was appointed there as a professor of philosophical sciences “with the rank of academic bachelor” and an inspector. Even before, when he studied and taught at Trinity Seminary, his heart was not in philosophy; It wasn’t there even now. He calls her “cold”; he preferred theology, in which, according to him, he found consolation. Due to his dislike for philosophy, he considered himself poorly prepared to teach this science. The position of inspector of the seminary, obliged to observe the behavior of two or three hundred people, and, in addition, to sit on the seminary board, the members of which were all newly appointed, also seemed to him difficult and unsuitable for him. But he knew how to get used to and adapt to everything, and after a little time, both of these difficult positions seemed quite interesting to him. 28 The salary assigned to the new professor and inspector of the seminary, 650 rubles, was, of course, insufficient for living in St. Petersburg. “It is less here,” writes Filaret to his father, “than the former Trinity.” To make it more convenient to subsist on this amount, the bachelors, including Filaret, started a common table, although Filaret had to go far to participate in it. 29 On March 28, 1809, on the very day of Easter, Hierodeacon Philaret was ordained as a hieromonk by Metropolitan Ambrose, and in August of the same year he was appointed rector of the Alexander Nevsky Theological School, retaining his previous positions and with the salary for the new position in addition to the previous one. Although Filaret, as we have seen, reluctantly took upon himself the teaching of philosophy, here, as in everything, submissive to the will of God and the will of his superiors, he approached the matter with usual zeal and zeal. He spared neither his labors nor his expenses for success in teaching. He bought Kant's works at his own expense, for four small books of which he paid 25 rubles. The efforts of the young teacher were crowned with complete success. The seminary exams in philosophy were very successful. Of the seminary teachers, only the philosophy teacher was honored to receive exceptional gratitude and approval from Their Eminences of Novgorod (Ambrose) and Ryazan (Theophylact). With all this, Filaret himself judged his success very modestly: “I know,” he writes to his parent on this occasion, “that from this one should not draw either good conclusions about oneself or bad ones about others; I know that this is a case that has little significance, but I consider it a gain for some, so that such a case can support my power of attorney with those with whom I deal, and from whom I never hide the fact that I am new to my business.” 30 From the time of his ordination to the hieromonk and his first successes in teaching philosophy at the seminary, one must think that Philaret’s especially close relationship with Metropolitan Ambrose began. Noticing the outstanding personal merits of Philaret and, perhaps, hoping to have in him a strong accomplice in clashes with his power-hungry rival, Archbishop Theophylact, the High Hierarch sincerely fell in love with the young hieromonk, shared his experience with him and diligently contributed to his further rise. In turn, Filaret had sincerely filial feelings for him, lovingly used his advice and guidance, served him faithfully, cared for his peace of mind, warned and cautioned him in difficult and dangerous cases. Among his educational works at the seminary, Hieromonk Filaret was saddened by the sudden death of a person close to him, the rector of the Academy, Archimandrite Evgraf, which followed on November 11, 1809. The Commission of Theological Schools appointed him to replace him, also a close acquaintance of Philaret from the Trinity Lavra Seminary, its rector, Archimandrite Sergius, in whom he hoped to have and then, indeed, had a good leader for himself. 31 At the beginning of 1810, Metropolitan Platon made the fourth, last and equally vain attempt to ask the Holy Synod for Philaret to take the rector’s position at the Trinity Lavra Seminary (after Sergius, who was transferred to St. Petersburg). In this case, those in power no longer asked about Filaret’s consent or disagreement to the move, but did not directly express their permission. 32 Agreeing with the parent that it is good to be in the Sergius Lavra, and recognizing that “by the way, the great school of being there is that everything is concentrated around one center, and therefore the movements of the most wandering stars can be more conveniently brought into rules,” Filaret at the same time admits that “in relation to the Lavra (Troitskaya) and the Lavra (Nevsky) and to the choice between them, he is a passive being.” 33 He was not released to Metropolitan Plato directly because they considered him more needed in St. Petersburg than in Moscow. On February 8 of the same 1810, Hieromonk Philaret was transferred to the post of bachelor at the St. Petersburg Academy, where he taught part of Dogmatic Theology, as a benefit to the rector, and Church history. His salary was now set at 1,100 rubles. A lot of work was required from the teacher of these sciences. “Only these works,” he writes to his father, “if not within my strength, at least according to my taste... There is silence and books around me.” 34 Especially when teaching Church history, Philaret had to follow a new path. The Trinity Lavra School gave him almost no preparation for this; it was necessary to re-create science, write an abbreviation, sticking to several of the best writers. However, Filaret, with his extraordinary talents and zeal for his work, overcame the difficulty. The fruit of his labors in teaching Church history was subsequently the well-known “Outline of Church Biblical History.” 35 Soon Filaret added a new one to his previous teaching subjects. “Together with History,” he writes to his parent, “I was ordered to teach Church antiquities - a subject that is also uncultivated in our country. I don’t know what God will help me do.” 36 But we know that he always knew how to find himself and not lose himself in the most difficult situations. Soon, he compiled (in 1810) the concept of the science of Church antiquities. 37 Thus, for this science too, he did everything he could, and was the first to do it in Russia. Truly one cannot help but be amazed at the strength of a man who, within six months, had to take over three departments, who had to teach what was not taught to him, and who at the same time taught, made notes, and wrote entire books for the leadership. With his lectures on Dogmatic Theology and Sacred History, he gained special respect from the students of the Academy, and due to his academic authority, he generally had enormous moral influence on them. At least, it is known that, on the occasion of one student disorder in the dining room due to dissatisfaction with the food, he “was instructed by the board to assist the inspector and housekeeper (Archimandrite Jonah) by looking after the students in these critical circumstances, but, thank God,” he writes to a parent about this incident, “this happened without further worries.” Philaret's preaching in St. Petersburg. Who was the first in St. Petersburg to recognize his talent as a preacher and encourage him? Criticism of Filaret's first three sermons from his ill-wishers. Protection of the preacher by the Metropolitan and Methodius, Archbishop of Tver. A royal reward for the preacher and his ordination to the rank of archimandrite. Royal mercy to the preacher's father. New sermons of Archimandrite Philaret and their outstanding success. Carrying out various assignments for him. The rise of Philaret's importance and the weakening of the influence of Archbishop Theophylact. Although Filaret’s works in teaching the subjects entrusted to him at the Academy were of great value in themselves and were accompanied by useful results, it was not they who mainly glorified him in St. Petersburg, but his sermons, which he began to speak on various occasions since 1810. First of all in St. Petersburg, Metropolitan Ambrose saw in him a remarkably gifted preacher, just like Plato in the Trinity Lavra. Philaret's first sermon, which attracted the attention of Ambrose, was delivered on the feast of the Annunciation in the Nevsky Lavra. The preacher's ill-wishers, supporters of Theophylact, thought to damage the preacher's first success by accusing him of borrowing from Massillon, but in vain: the preacher directly rejected this accusation as an unworthy slander. Not having at first the intention of disseminating his sermon, after this slander, he distributed copies of it to everyone who wanted it with the goal of proving in fact the lack of similarity between his sermon and Massillon’s sermon on the same day, and to his parent, in addition, in refutation of the slander, he pointed out his little acquaintance with the French language, in which Massillon’s sermon was written. 38 The second sermon was delivered by Philaret on Easter Day 1811, also in the Nevsky Lavra. Leonid Zaretsky, patronized by Theophalict, with the aim of humiliating her dignity, called her an ode in prose, but Metropolitan Ambrose, on the contrary, really liked her. He advised Philaret to spend more time writing sermons and himself assigned him to prepare a sermon for the Lavra holiday - Trinity Day, and he himself also assigned the topic: “On the gifts of the Holy Spirit.” The sermon was brilliant and thoughtful. Theophylact, who was curious to read it in the Lavra altar even before it was pronounced, out of envy of the early glory of the preacher, accused him of pantheism for it. Filaret was extremely upset by such a serious accusation and with dignity insisted on a thorough examination of the suspected work. The sermon was carefully reviewed by the Metropolitan and passed the censorship of a strict judge, famous for his firmness in dogmas, Methodius, Archbishop of Tver, who gave the following review about it: “It is worthy of a high-ranking mentor and does not contain anything contrary to Orthodoxy.” After this, the sermon, together with Methodius’s review, was sent by Ambrose to Prince Golitsyn and through him was presented even to the Emperor himself. It was ordered to be printed. Soon the Metropolitan ordered Filaret to compose a new sermon, to which Prince Golitsyn, Speransky and others were invited to listen. A sermon on the 4th week after Pentecost on the text The Exemplars of Sin and Death was preached, the listeners liked it and was also published. All three sermons for 1811, printed, were presented to the Tsar, who was pleased with them and granted the preacher (June 30, 1811) an unusual reward: a precious pectoral Cross “For excellence in preaching the Word of God,” and a week later, on July 8, the young preacher, being only 28 years old, was ordained in the Kazan Cathedral to the rank of archimandrite. 39 The parent of Archimandrite Philaret was also sought out by royal mercy, whom the Sovereign Emperor deigned to bestow, especially in consideration of his son’s merits, with a golden pectoral Cross. 40 After that, Archimandrite Philaret said several more sermons in the same year 1811, for example, at the consecration of the Kazan Cathedral (September 16), at the consecration of the chapel church in the name of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (September 17), at the same place during the funeral service for the body of Count Stroganov (October 3), in the Lavra Lazarus Cemetery Church on the fortieth day after his death (November 5), on Christmas Day Christ, in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. At the beginning of 1812 (January 17), he pronounced a word in the Annunciation Church of the Nevsky Lavra during the funeral service for the body of Count Zavadovsky. Some of these sermons were delivered in the highest presence of the Sovereign Emperor and other persons of the Royal House. They were eagerly awaited, listened to with attention and discussed carefully. The entire St. Petersburg nobility spoke loudly about the preacher. His name became known throughout Russia. Evidence of his fame as a preacher, which spread far beyond the borders of St. Petersburg, is the following excerpt from a letter written at the end of 1811 by the rector of one of the provincial seminaries to a clergyman in St. Petersburg: “His Reverence, Father Archimandrite Philaret, when he was still in the Trinity St. Sergius Lavra, and then his excellent talent adorned the Evangelical pulpit for some time, and then his name began to be famous - even in other dioceses. And now in St. Petersburg his preaching gift has increased even more. I recently had the pleasure of reading one rare work of his oratorical pen - the Word for Holy Easter, moreover, the newspaper informed us that, in glorifying the Christian virtues of Count Stroganov, he delivered a wonderful speech over his tomb. How I would like to see and have this wonderful fruit of his genius. I ask you, as my constant benefactor, to acquire this treasure for me; Of course, he, knowing that omne bonum est sui communicativum, 41 will not refuse you this, but I myself do not dare ask him.” 42 Carrying out his duties with rare zeal, zealously preaching the Word of God on various occasions, Archimandrite Philaret successfully fulfills at the same time the various assignments assigned to him. Thus, in 1810, on behalf of the Commission of Theological Schools, he translated from Latin into Russian a summary of the philosophical sciences called from Berlin by the scientist Fessler 43 to teach these sciences at the St. Petersburg Academy; in 1811 he translated from Latin an essay by the same Fessler on ancient and modern philosophy, or eastern and western. 44 In July 1811, by appointment of the Commission of Theological Schools, he reviewed the district and parish schools located in St. Petersburg; at the beginning of 1812, on behalf of the same Commission, he took upon himself the work of forming a class for reading Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers and guidance for the passage of clergy positions for the students who had completed the course at the St. Petersburg Seminary. The assignments assigned to Archimandrite Philaret sometimes went beyond the boundaries of the school and had a broader purpose. He had to work hard in resolving some religious issues that interested the society of that time and even the Persons of the Highest Family. The Jesuits at that time, as is known, conducted strong and successful propaganda in favor of Catholicism in Russia, and especially in its main centers. This confused many. Empress Elizaveta Alekseevna herself wanted to know more closely how the Orthodox and Latin churches differed from each other. The highest authorities instructed three learned dogmatists, Archbishops Theophylact of Ryazan, Methodius of Tver and Archimandrite Philaret to solve this problem, directly on the basis of Holy Scripture. The fruit of Philaret's research on this subject was in 1811 a thorough treatise, An Exposition of the Differences Between the Eastern and Western Churches in the Doctrine of the Faith. The manuscript was presented to the Empress through Prince. A.N. Golitsyn. By successfully fulfilling the assignment, Archimandrite Philaret, of course, attracted the attention of the Sovereign even more. Philaret's fame as a preacher, his special closeness to Metropolitan Ambrose and his influence on the latter were extremely displeasing to Archbishop Theophylact. Theophylact, dissatisfied with them, decided to publicly denounce both the patron and the protected. He liked to touch on contemporary events in his sermons and sometimes made very strong hints. And so, in one of his sermons in 1811, he presented an elderly old man, burdened with affairs, in whose place a young man governs according to his own will, hiding behind the authority of the old man, which he managed to completely master. All of St. Petersburg started talking that this hint was directed directly against Metropolitan Ambrose and Bachelor Philaret. Ambrose was extremely offended, but he did not know how to stop Theophylact’s mouth, fearing that he would not leave him alone in the future. Filaret pointed to a means to stop the mouth. On his advice, during a meeting in the Synod, the Metropolitan opened the Helmsman and, silently placing it before Theophylact, pointed his finger at the following place: “Let it not be allowed for a bishop in another city that does not belong to him to teach publicly; Theophylact remained silent and has not preached in St. Petersburg since then. 45 His importance apparently began to diminish and in its place the importance of Filaret began to increase. Appointment of Archimandrite Philaret as rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Particular difficulties of his new ministry. His teaching activities. Attitude towards other teachers and students. Preaching works. Filaret's participation in the events of 1812. Death of Metropolitan Platon. The founding of the Bible Society and Philaret’s attitude towards it. The importance of Filaret in society. His royal reward. Special assignments. Completion of the 1st academic year and new awards for Filaret. His appointment as a member of the Commission of Theological Schools. Soon after his ordination to the rank of archimandrite and three years after his arrival in St. Petersburg, Philaret was entrusted with both an honorary and responsible post: in March 1812, he was appointed to the place of Sergius, who was appointed bishop in Kostroma, the rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, on the proposal of Metropolitan Ambrose, despite the fact that Archbishop Theophylact had someone else in mind for this position candidate - his favorite, Archimandrite Leonid Zaretsky. What happened now was exactly the opposite of what happened immediately after Filaret’s arrival in St. Petersburg. Then, under the influence of Theophylact, he was not allowed into the Academy and Leonid Zaretsky was preferred to him; here, with the weakening of Theophylact’s importance, Leonid had to cede the rectorship to Philaret. A difficult burden fell on Fr. Archimandrite Philaret. “Ask God for strength, or help in weaknesses and patience,” he writes to his parent on this occasion. – There are people who console me a lot; There are also those who are concerned (probably Theophylact and his supporters). Whatever pleases God be done.” 46 Since the opening of the Academy, the third rector has been appointed in his person, but the first two, Evgraf and Sergius, were in it for a very short time and did not yet have time to properly establish the Academy. This concern fell almost entirely to Philaret. Given the small number of learned people at that time, it was necessary to elect mentors capable of being educators of mentors; some had to be found with the greatest difficulty; some were required to be intimidated by justice and the benefit of the cause; the insufficient experience of some had to be made up for; worthy replacements had to be found without delay to replace the useful figures who had retired; the entire course of affairs at the Academy had to be given proper direction. 47 All this required a lot of insight, a lot of diligence, and a lot of firmness. And all these qualities necessary for the establishment of the Academy were demonstrated in abundance by its new rector. Having become the head of the Academy, he established an order in it that became exemplary for all Academies, and quickly raised it to the proper level. 48 And it is also remarkable that he himself did not receive an academic education, but rather grew up with the Academy and carried out its transformation among many other extraneous works constantly entrusted to him by the highest authorities. 1812, March 27th, Archimandrite Philaret was appointed rector of the Novgorod Yuriev first-class monastery. From the same time, he was present at the St. Petersburg Theological Consistory with the rank of rector. 49 The years of management of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy by Archimandrite and then Bishop Philaret (1812–1819) were the years of its glory. The rector himself was especially an adornment for the Academy and an example for all its leaders. He, above all other members of the Academy, declared himself in the development of the theological sciences entrusted to him and in the matter of their talented teaching. He primarily bore the scientific and academic work at the Academy on his shoulders. The glory of his academic teaching is evidenced by the senior students of the Academy, fathers to children, children to their children, etc.; His scientific works also testify to this, and they have retained their high purpose to this day. 50 From his pen, thorough scientific treatises and entire scholars and educational manuals quickly came out. Few of the theological sciences were not newly developed and taught by him. Thus, while reading canonical church law, he taught interpretive notes on the first 39 apostolic canons. In all likelihood, he would have completed their analysis to the end if he had not had to bear the labor alone, which he was supposed to share with two bachelors. Reading hermeneutics, he first proposed general concepts and main principles of science, and then proceeded to the interpretation of Holy Scripture itself, that is, he proposed experiments in theory and practice, so that the foundations of practice in theory and the benefits of theory in practice could be seen. Initially, the Book of Genesis was studied, with the teacher trying to resolve questions regarding the name, scripture, time, subject, intent and internal order of the holy book. The fruit of the research of a hardworking and talented professor was the interpretive “Notes on the Book of Genesis,” fully processed and published much later. The same teaching of hermeneutics gave him the occasion to compose Introductiones in singulos libros Veteris Testamenti in supplementum libri classici conscriptae and begin to explain Psalm LXVII, as the most difficult of the psalms. 51 Being strict and demanding of himself, he was just as strict and demanding of his colleagues, the instructors of the Academy, regardless of rank or face. For the benefit of the matter, he even decided to oust the influence of Archbishop Theophylact from the Academy. “The influence on the Academy,” Philaret himself says in his memoirs, “was retained by Theophylact because he took upon himself to lead the literature class in the new Academy, so he revised the students’ essays after the mentor. When rector Sergius wanted to demand that the students write a sermon on this class, Leonid (Zaretsky, teacher of literature), at the suggestion of Theophylact, announced to the rector: let him, the rector, read them in advance, then Leonid will read them, and finally Theophylact. The rector announced that he would not allow this; first of all, their mentor should read them for censorship from the literary side, then the rector - from the theological side, and then, if he wants, Theophylact. But they did not agree to this: and that is why the students did not write sermons for two whole years. 52 In order to eliminate the gap in the students’ studies and not leave them completely without exercises, Theophylact assigned them to translate the works of the famous writer Ancillon, a member of the Berlin Academy of Sciences and an educator under the heir to the Prussian throne. The teacher of literature at the Academy, Archimandrite Leonid, and his patron himself, Archbishop Theophylact, also took some part in the translation work. When a decent volume was compiled from these translations, Theophylact corrected it and prepared it for publication under the title “Aesthetic Reasonings of Ancillon, translated from French, by students of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, under the leadership of Theophylact, Archbishop of Ryazan.” The publisher, valuing Ancillon’s work too highly, mainly for the elegance of its content and external presentation, did not notice or, perhaps, did not attach importance to the fact that many of Ancillon’s sensible thoughts as an aesthetician were intertwined with incorrect concepts and ideas of him as a philosopher and Christian. Despite these shortcomings, Theophylact nominated the book as one of the textbooks for students in the literature class. Theophylact was apparently in a hurry. Having encountered a delay in the consideration of the book by spiritual censorship (it was examined by the Tsar’s confessor, Protopresbyter Krinitsky), Theophylact passed it through secular censorship. But he failed to bring her into the Academy. Its rector Filaret rebelled against this. Seeing in Theophylact’s intention an encroachment on his rector’s rights and on the rights of the Commission of Theological Schools, from which permission was not sought to introduce the book to the Academy, Filaret, having become acquainted with the contents of the book even before its publication, wrote, on the instructions of the Metropolitan, strong comments on it, in which he accused it of being in a non-Orthodox direction, of naturalism and pantheism. The controversy that followed on this occasion on the part of Theophylact was not allowed to be published, and the book itself was withdrawn from use. 53 What difficulties, what obstacles did Rector Filaret have to overcome in the early days of his service at the Academy, and how wisely and skillfully he influenced both the mentors and students of the Academy, he himself testifies to this: “Under the two rectors who preceded me,” says Filaret, “the Academy, due to external influences, had a disjointed direction. The incident of struggle between the departments of theology and literature (see above) became the reason that students did too little work on essays. There were students who almost abandoned theological studies because the academician teacher aroused in them a strong passion for the mathematical sciences. I came without sufficient preparation for what was laid before me. I should have been taught what was not taught to me. Our libraries of that time were not poor in old books, but they did not provide information about the progress of science in the near future. For all that, when it was explained to the students that they needed unity and strengthening of the direction corresponding to their purpose and the dignity of the Academy, this reminder turned out to be a seed thrown onto good soil; my lessons were taken with attention; The students’ studies intensified, and, finally, worthy masters of theology emerged from passionate lovers of mathematics.” 54 In general, Filaret’s influence on students, both as a professor and as a rector, was great and irresistible. With his lectures on Dogmatic Theology, Sacred History and Interpretation of Sacred Scripture, he gained their special respect and inspired in them a great disposition to study Sacred Scripture. 55 He tried and, by his insight, knew how to find among them the most capable, and in every possible way encouraged and elevated them. They had in him a talented mentor, a protective boss and a fair connoisseur of their works and successes. Combining in his person high learning with the most sincere piety, he took care to give them direction in a pure Orthodox Christian spirit. Paying tribute to abilities and hard work, he especially appreciated this spirit in students. This is evidenced by the following special case. One of the Academy students, Alexander Protopopov (later Archbishop Afanasy of Tobolsk and Siberia), submitted his next sermon for consideration; the instructor of literature at the Academy, Archimandrite Leonid, wrote in his sermon: “The arrangement and style of this word are quite good”; but rector Filaret, having read it, wrote on it: “The spirit of this word is more precious than the syllable itself.” 56 Guiding the youth with power, dominating them with his authority, he was at the same time accessible and sociable to them. The doors of his apartment were open to those who wanted to express their needs and receive advice and help. Students could ask the rector for participation and help not only for themselves, but also for others who needed it. About one of these cases he writes - and more than once - to his parent: “Let me bring you a request. In Ch. (probably some village in Kolomna district) there is a priest, and here (in St. Petersburg) there is one priest, my friend is his wife’s uncle, and one student is her brother. S. drunk; his wife is unhappy; her relatives don't know how to help. Therefore, both they and I ask you, if possible, to take care of his correction with advice, a reprimand, a threat, as you judge.” 57 We will have occasion to talk about other similar cases later, when we talk about Philaret’s leadership activities during the second academic year. Along with his labors in teaching and managing the Academy, its rector, Archimandrite Philaret, continues to strive in preaching the word of God. Due to the established close relationship with Prince A.N. Golitsyn and, probably, at the latter’s special invitation, our vita often delivers his sermons in his home church. So, on October 1, 1812, he speaks a word on the consecration of this church in the name of the Holy Life-Giving Trinity; On October 23 of the same year, he delivered a conversation on the Lord’s Prayer there; in 1813 there was a word for the Nativity of Christ. Thanks to the growing fame of the preacher, the pulpit of the Great Church of the Winter Palace, from which Plato of Moscow once taught the mighty of the earth, became available to him. He delivers a word there on Great Friday 1812, in the presence of Their Majesties, Empress Elizaveta Alekseevna and Empress Maria Feodorovna, Their Imperial Highnesses, Sovereigns Grand Dukes and Sovereigns Grand Duchesses. In 1813, he pronounces his famous word about the Cross on Great Friday in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. Soon after the appointment of Archimandrite Philaret as rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, as we know, the great events of 1812 began. Filaret, as a true patriot and deep thinker, was sensitive to them. A year before their onset, he wrote to his parent about the war-loving Napoleon: “Furit, lacessit, et dum audit querelas, tacet: ipsum autem silentium minax plerisque videtur. Belli, jam parati et prope instantis rumores ad vos etiam pervenisse crediderim: quos tamen publica pacis species promit ac cohibet.” 58 Seeing with a deep mind the enemy’s intentions, he well understood what his weakness was and what Russia’s strength was. It is to the great honor of the rector of the St. Petersburg Academy that in the time of the disastrous trial of our fatherland, he knew how to maintain firmness of spirit and with his wise orders supported him in those entrusted to his care, who, as we know, did not leave St. Petersburg during this troubled time. He successfully disseminated his reasonable views on the events of 1812 and his assessment of them from a religious point of view in society and thereby contributed to its calm. Their fruit was his wonderful “Discourse on the moral reasons for our incredible successes in the war of 1812,” published somewhat later, precisely in 1813. Echoes of the events of 1812 were also the word at the tomb of His Serene Highness Prince Golitsyn Kutuzov-Smolensky, pronounced in 1813 in the presence of the Grand Dukes Nikolai Pavlovich and Mikhail Pavlovich, and the word that made a great impression on the elected St. Petersburg public, 59 the word about the voice crying in the wilderness, pronounced in 1814, January 18th day, in the house church of Prince Golitsyn, and a prayer service compiled on behalf of the highest authorities to commemorate the deliverance of the Church and the Russian State from the invasion of the Gauls and with them twenty languages, which is still performed in our church on the day of the Nativity of Christ. In November 1812, Filaret, who was quickly ascending the steps of fame and at the same time feeling the burden of responsibilities weighing more and more heavily on him, had to mourn the death of his former benefactor, Metropolitan Plato. Already at the end of 1810, he received sad news from the Sergius Lavra that the elder’s health was weakening day by day, that he had difficulty reading and writing, that he had been unctioned with oil, that he had given away his inheritance. 60 To his own greeting on the name day of the Bethany Elder (November 18), the latter could no longer answer himself and instructed the rector of the Trinity Seminary (Evgeniy Kazantsev) to do so, adding: “Don’t forget to write that I am weak and cannot answer myself.” In February 1811, one student who graduated from the Trinity Seminary (Dmitry Shkinsky) wrote to Philaret’s parent about the state of health of Metropolitan Plato: “The venerable elder of Bethany, with whom I had the honor of speaking, frightened me with his weakness. Withered sunken cheeks, trembling hands, barely moving legs - everything proves his short stay with us. It’s a pity, it’s painfully pity for the righteous friend of humanity.” The providence of God, apparently, preserved the righteous elder only so that he would provide encouragement and consolation to Russia, which was suffering from Napoleon’s invasion, and soon after the latter fled from our borders, on November 11, 1812, the Lord took to Himself the soul of the prayer book for the fatherland. Having received the news of the death of his benefactor, Filaret wept bitterly for him and barely found the strength to read his spiritual will - it was so filled, according to Filaret, with tenderness 61 . The rector of the Trinity Seminary, Evgeniy (Kazantsev), reports in his diary that M. Platon very much wanted Philaret to deliver the funeral eulogy for him, but the latter avoided this honor by writing in response to Evgeniy, who conveyed M. Plato’s desire, a few words in praise of the great saint, as Gregory of old in praise of the Great Basil, and in conclusion, according to Evgeniy, about himself modestly, about Plato magnificently: “Truly he was the Great Basil, but I am not Gregory.” 62 Evgeniy Kazantsev himself, who was most devoted to Plato and especially the latter’s favorite pet, honored Plato with a warm funeral oration, and upon his return from St. Petersburg from the beginning of 1810 until the death of the Bethany elder, he was almost inseparably with him. 63 For Filaret, the fulfillment of a wish m. Plato, in addition to the motives of humility, was hampered, perhaps, by the increased concerns about the Academy entrusted to him, in view of the close completion of his students’ first year, and by the increasingly complex nature of his extraneous activities. At the end of 1812, the Bible Society arose in Russia. They hastened to establish it in our country according to the model and exact standards of English society. The latter's agents Paterson and Pinkerton came to St. Petersburg and through Prince. Golitsyn began to bother about founding the same society in Russia, at first only to distribute the Bible among foreigners and non-Russians living in Russia and only in their languages. Convinced by the arguments of foreign educators, Prince. Golitsyn came in with a most humble report on the urgent need for the formation of the Bible Society, and his report was approved by the Highest on December 6, 1812. The first meeting of the society took place on January 11, 1813 in the house of Prince. Golitsyn, in the presence of many high dignitaries and clergy of different faiths. “Among four people from the Greek-Russian clergy,” Filaret writes to his parent, “I was invited. I didn’t like the fact that they deal exclusively with people of other faiths, while our own people are in the same need as those, and those who are obliged to take care of this do not want or cannot take care of it. Therefore, when I left the first general meeting, I was at a loss whether to leave my name on the list of members. But before I had time to explain myself to the president of the society (book) A. N. G., the journal of the meeting was brought to me for signature, in which the names of P. mitrololit, P. Seraphim, Fr. confessor, and one of them has already signed. Having been together in the meeting, I saw that it was too late to separate from the magazine, and I also subscribed. However, I subsequently communicated my thoughts, and received a promise that, having received a sufficient amount, the Society would present it to the Holy Synod for printing the Slavic Bible, according to the rules of the Society. Let the children not take away the bread!” 64 From this letter it is clear that Filaret was critical of the newly founded society and tried, to the best of his ability and importance, to give it the proper direction in the interests of the Russian church. We will see later that his efforts will be crowned with success, although they will cause him a lot of trouble. Thanks to his talents, tireless hard work and responsiveness to all reasonable demands of the time, Archimandrite Philaret became a prominent public figure. He has a wide circle of acquaintances. He is visited and invited by noble nobles and prominent dignitaries. He is respected by famous scientists and writers. Among close friends and admirers, not to mention Prince. A.N. Golitsyn, he considers Olenin, Turgenev, Muravyov, Speransky, Lubyanovsky, Derzhavin, Karamzin and others. He is invited to important celebrations and to prominent public meetings to give speeches. 65 Reading his works gives the greatest pleasure to the first-class minds of that time. Thus, Speransky, yearning in his solitude in Perm (from September 28, 1812 to September 19, 1814), read Filaret’s articles and, pronouncing a judgment on Shishkov’s book “On the Old and New Syllable,” which was published in the second edition, notes: “But I don’t know either one or the other: I know only the syllable of Karamzin and Filaret.” 66 The outstanding merits of the rector of the Academy, Archimandrite Philaret, to which the attention of prominent public figures were riveted, found themselves a fair and completely worthy assessment from the highest authorities. A little over a year after his appointment as rector of the Academy, the Emperor granted him the Order of St. Vladimir, 2nd degree, on June 29, 1813. Such an unusual sign of royal attention (Filaret still had no orders) honored “Filaret’s tireless labors with the title of rector and professor of theological sciences at the Academy, his activity in the education of worthy servants of the altar of the Lord and edifying eloquent teachings about the truths of faith, which animated his word and life” (words of the Highest Certificate). Among the works on the Academy, its rector and professor in 1813, on behalf of the Commission of Theological Schools, reviewed the St. Petersburg Theological Seminary in terms of education and presented to the Commission his assumptions regarding the conduct of tests in general (to care less about the beauty of student answers, to value thoroughness more than their speed, to show each student for what he is, to test him not only to the teacher, but also to the rector and other teachers). 67 The commission, having approved his assumptions, decided to introduce the type of test he indicated at the Academy. Following this, they were proposed rules for compiling rank lists of Academy students, and these rules were also approved. Meanwhile, the time was approaching for the end of the first academic course, which was supposed to provide especially clear and convincing evidence of the highly useful activity of the talented and tirelessly hardworking Fr. rector of the Academy. On August 13, 1814, an academic conference was established. In the first ceremonial meeting of her Fr. the rector makes a speech about the fate of the newly created monastery of spiritual enlightenment, about the spirit in which its further existence should develop. 68 The Academy received three honorary and three ordinary doctors of theology, 26 masters, and several honorary members. 69 Members of the conference, honorary doctors of theology, Metropolitan Ambrose of St. Petersburg, Archbishop Mikhail of Chernigov and Archbishop Seraphim of Minsk, on the same day, on the first occasion of electing doctors of theology, recognized Fr. rector of the Academy, Archimandrite Philaret, who, thus, was the first in our country to bear this title, not just as an honorary title, but as a distinction, deserved, in the words of the diploma, “by the brightest evidence of sacred and ecclesiastical learning, presented partly in academic readings, partly in church speeches, and especially in classical works, processed according to academic readings and published with the honor and approval of the authorities, and crowned with sincere implementation of Christian teaching in practice." This recognition of Philaret’s scientific merits by the highest religious educational institution (the Commission of Theological Schools) was soon followed by a new recognition of them by the royal authorities. On August 7 of the same 1814, for the successful completion of the first academic course, excellent work and ability to educate youth, Filaret was awarded the Highest Rescript, with the expression of all-merciful favor, and was awarded a lifelong pension of 1,500 rubles per year. 70 “Thank God, who continues your blessing on your unworthy son,” writes Filaret to his parent on this occasion. Happy with these events, he is not so much rejoiced as surprised, remembering with what danger and uncertainty he entered into a task that has now been so successfully completed. He also calms down from concern for his poor health, seeing that, in case of fatigue, a piece of bread has already been prepared. Thank God for everything! May He grant to deserve beyond merit what has been received and to justify the desires and mercies of the Blessed One of the Blessed! 71 In such a humble spirit, Philaret spoke about his merits, recognized equally by both the Sacred and the Royal authorities! As a necessary and useful figure in spiritual education, Filaret was appointed on August 30, 1814, a member of the Commission of Theological Schools, although even earlier, without being a member, he was invited many times to its meetings regarding the transformation of religious educational institutions of the St. Petersburg district. Opening of the second course of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Continuing works on the Academy by its rector and professor. He published classical works on the main branches of theological sciences. The rise of the importance of the Academy due to the works and merits of Filaret. Filaret’s closeness to the students of the Academy, moral influence on them and care for them. Filaret’s concerns about the external improvement of the Academy entrusted to him. Philaret's preaching. Outside assignments assigned to him. Filaret's zealous participation in the works of the Bible Society. Appointment of Filaret as rector of the Moscow Stavropegial Novo-Spassky Monastery and member of various committees. With the opening of the second year of the Academy, its rector did not rest on his laurels, but continued to put in hard work. “There’s a lot to do,” he wrote to his parent at the time, “and Wanting to harmoniously harmonize the mutual relations of educational subjects and determine their volume according to the time of teaching, he compiled a “Review of theological sciences in relation to their teaching in higher theological schools” 73 and examined with strict attention all the notes on the most important subjects of teaching, presented by the Academy’s mentors, each in his own subject. In the “Review” he draws special attention of teachers, among the historical books of the Old Testament, to the book of Genesis, from the teaching books - to the books of Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, and in the Prophetic books - to the book of Isaiah. The Psalter, representing a kind of abbreviation of the Old Testament, concludes the reading of the Old Testament books. Of the New Testaments, the Gospel of John and the letters of the Apostle Paul to the Romans, Corinthians and Hebrews are especially indicated. In his notes, the rector revealed such a breadth of vision that even up to now some of the sciences he had enumerated have not received independent significance and remain in conjunction with other sciences (prophetic theology and symbolic theology) 74 . In relation to notes for all other subjects, Fr. the rector reduced or expanded their volume in relation to the purpose and time of their teaching, and established certainty of concepts in those points and questions that could themselves become subjects of misunderstandings or give rise to them. The year 1816 is a year of especially intensified activity of Filaret for the benefit of the Academy entrusted to him and at the same time for the benefit of the entire Russian theological school in general. By this time, the fruits of his scientists and educational works at the Academy are ripening, valuable major works on the main branches of theological sciences appear. Thus, this year his Outline of Church Biblical History is being published. This book, formed from the lessons of the first academic course (1809–1814), has not yet lost and, it seems, will never lose its high dignity. In the same year, his Notes on the Book of Genesis, also compiled from lessons for the first academic year, appeared. The essay was dedicated to the Sovereign Emperor Alexander Pavlovich, who had just returned from the battlefield. In the eloquent preface, the author says, among other things: “Among the joyful hosts who meet You, look, with Your usual condescension, at this small hand, raising to You certain grains from the breaking of spiritual bread. You will not allow, Most Pious Sovereign, to explain here why it is especially fitting for You to offer spiritual bread. Why are they bringing only some grains, forgive the spiritual poverty of the one who brings?” Despite such a modest response from the author about his work, the latter had enormous value for its time, which it has not lost to this day: it was the first experience in Russia of a completely learned, thorough explanation of Holy Scripture, a work that is extremely remarkable both for the deep Orthodox Christian spirit with which it is imbued, and for the philological thoroughness of the interpretation. The scientific works of the rector highly raised the importance of the Academy entrusted to him. “Not out of vanity with some rotten instrument, like the rector of the Academy,” Filaret wrote to his parent at that time, “but with thanksgiving to God alone, I can say that the name of our place is not blasphemed now, and there is no shame in walking our path. This is how God disposed the hearts of many higher ones” 75. This is confirmed by the testimony of one of those who were then (in d) his students at the Academy, namely the famous Yuryevsky Archimandrite Photius (Spassky): “The strength, beauty, dignity and glory of the Theological Academy was only Filaret” 76. For all his fame, Rector Filaret continues to be very accessible to Academy students. Powerfully acting on them with the power of his mind and scientific authority, he knew how to instill in them complete confidence in himself. They could freely come to him at any time, declare their affairs and needs, and intercede with him even on behalf of strangers. So, one evening, a student of the Academy, Mikhail Glukharev (who entered the Academy in 1814, later the famous Altai missionary, Archimandrite Macarius) entered Philaret’s cell with a gold watch in his hand, saying that one young man, in dire need of money, wanted to sell it. Filaret, having learned that the watch was valued at only 200 rubles, without hesitation at all, gave Glukharev 500 rubles for it. The needy one (Yu.N. Bartenev) was completely saved from difficult circumstances and all his life he remembered this generous purchase of the magnanimous rector. 77 It is clear how educationally beneficial such generous generosity could act on sensitive and receptive youth to everything good... And how Rector Filaret felt about the plight of the Academy students themselves is best shown by the following incident with student Pyotr Spassky (he entered the Academy in 1815 and, having failed to study, dropped out due to illness; later the famous Yuryev Archimandrite Photius), about whom he conveys in his autobiographical notes: “Peter Spassky, having become ill, heard from no one knows that Filaret is compassionate, He is very merciful, and Photius knows him. Then a thought came to him: go and ask to be sent to his father’s house for treatment. On this occasion, having come, he sees Philaret’s compassion and mercy towards him alone. Going to Philaret, he called on the Lord for help and stood at the door in his hallway room. According to the report, soon after Filaret came out to him: his face looked like an Angel of God; he regretted his illness, took upon himself the responsibility of looking for means to alleviate it, etc. etc., so,” the autobiographer adds, “the student Peter loved him and thought that in his entire life he would never find anyone else after his heart,” 78 although he later paid his benefactor, as is well known, with black ingratitude. Taking care of the internal life of the Academy entrusted to him, Rector Filaret did not spare any worries and labors to give it external improvement. In 1817, on March 3, he was appointed a member of the Highest Established Construction Committee at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Filaret often had to be present during the work and even climb the scaffolding to observe the construction of a four-story building, 45 fathoms in a straight line, with turns and a courtyard structure. But he was not at all burdened by this; After the rapid construction of the building (built in a little over three months from the foundation), he rejoiced at the successful completion of the assigned task and found that being in the air and in motion could further strengthen his poor health. 79 During his difficult work at the Academy, he continues to zealously preach the Word of God. So, in 1813, he uttered the following words: on the day of the Solemn Crowning of the Kingdom and Holy Confirmation of Sovereign Alexander Pavlovich, September 15; conversation from Psalm LXXXIII, after the consecration of the Church of the Most Holy. Theotokos, in memory of the appearance of the all-honorable icon of Her Kazan, arranged in the house of Count Kochubey, November 13; word on the day of the Entry into the Church of St. Mother of God, in the house church of the book. Golitsyn. On the second day of the Nativity of Christ, he was honored to preach for the second time in the palace church, in the presence of Her Imperial Majesty the Empress Maria Feodorovna and Their Imperial Highnesses. The word was said on the topic of love for the world. “The lively picture of court life drawn in this word by a bold hand,” says Sturdza, “was somehow not liked by the faithful and kind Empress Maria Feodorovna, probably because she attributed to the clever monk the intention to expose the vanity of vanities in the very sanctuary of sovereign power. Immediately after the service, the Empress approached Prince A.N. Golitsyn and, as if demanding an account of his suspected intent, said: “I really don’t know what Fr. wanted. Filaret. Can you, prince, explain to me what his word was leading to?” It is unknown how the Chief Prosecutor calmed Her down.” 80 After this, Filaret no longer preached in the Palace. The complex duties of his service at the Academy and various extraneous assignments were probably the reason that in general in 1815 and 1816 he rarely preached. During 1813, he only gave a conversation on Great Friday, on a text from the prophet Isaiah: You see how the righteous perish, and no one accepts it with their hearts, etc. (Is. 57:1), in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. In a letter to his grandfather from this time, pointing out his increased worries and labors, he says among other things: “You see that there is already one sermon a year,” 81 although he utters one more word during this year, after the consecration of the Church of the Resurrection of Christ at the house of Count Alexei Kirillovich Razumovsky, July 30th day. Since 1817, Filaret's lively preaching of the Word of God began again. So, he pronounces the word on Great Friday in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra; speech on the consecration of the church in the name of the righteous Elizabeth, built at the orphan school in 1812, administered by the St. Petersburg Women's Patriotic Society, May 27; word before the burial of the body of Lieutenant General Count Pavel Alexandrovich Stroganov in the Annunciation Church of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra in the Highest presence of the Sovereign Emperor Alexander Pavlovich and the Grand Dukes Tsesarevich Konstantin Pavlovich and Mikhail Pavlovich, July 5. With complex work at the Academy, with the obligation to preach the Word of God from time to time, during the second academic year Archimandrite Philaret was constantly assigned extraneous assignments. Thus, the Commission of Theological Schools, wishing to have correct and detailed information about the state of the schools in the Moscow district, a year after its opening, in 1815 instructed Filaret, as one of its members, to survey the Moscow Academy with some seminaries and schools in its district. On the way there, the rector of the St. Petersburg Academy examined the seminaries - St. Petersburg, Novgorod and Tver, where at that time the first course of education under the new plan took place. Then he reviewed the seminaries of Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Vladimir, Spaso-Bethans and Moscow, along with the schools located near them and on the way between them. This assignment, one must think, was as difficult as it was pleasant for Archimandrite Philaret. Only six years have passed since he arrived in St. Petersburg from Moscow, and now he again arrives in Moscow for a while, but already with an important assignment, being an archimandrite, rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Doctor of Theology and Knight of the Order of St. Vladimir 2nd degree. He was destined to audit the very educational institutions where he had so recently studied, the Moscow Theological Academy, transformed from the Trinity Lavra Seminary, and the Kolomna District Theological School, sheltered on the site of the former Kolomna Seminary, his native one, a school of which his parent was the rector at the time of the audit, and his son-in-law (sister’s husband) was the teacher. According to people of that time, Filaret “conducted himself when visiting the Kolomna School with subtle dignity: treating his son-in-law as an ordinary teacher, he addressed his parent with the word “father” and invited him to sit down” 82. Let us note in passing that this meeting between Filaret and his parent was the last: at the beginning of the next year, 1816 (January 18), the worthy Fr. Archpriest of the Kolomna Assumption Cathedral and rector of the local theological school Mikhail Feodorovich Drozdov died. Filaret was extremely upset by the death of his father. Being himself a deep believer, he consoled his mother and all his close relatives in the loss with warm words of faith. 83 Having fulfilled the instructions of the Commission of Theological Schools with all diligence and knowledge of the matter, Archimandrite Philaret in the shortest possible time presented to it a detailed report on the state of the theological educational institutions he had reviewed. The reward for the auditor for the successful fulfillment of the assignment was the full gratitude expressed by the Commission of Theological Schools, and from the side of the highest authority, on the recommendation of the Commission, the most merciful grant in 1816, under the Royal Rescript, was Panagia. And in all subsequent times, the Commission of Theological Schools had in the person of Philaret a very useful and necessary member for itself, closely familiar with the state of the educational and economic part in the St. Petersburg and Moscow academies and in many seminaries and schools in both districts. In addition to concerns about religious educational institutions, the educational influence of the learned rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy extended to secular schools and to the whole society. In all the perplexing questions and difficult cases of that time, his voice was needed, his decisive opinion was needed. He declared himself a thorough resolution of religious issues already in 1811, having compiled, at the request of Empress Elizabeth Alekseevna, an Exposition of the difference between the Eastern and Western Churches in the doctrine of faith. The same assistance in resolving these issues was needed in 1815. “The enterprise of the Jesuits,” says Sturdza, “increased from day to day at that time. The Sardinian envoy to our Court, Count de Maistre, served as their speaker at the Court and in the highest circles of society. Obvious seductions of our boyars, pupils of the Jesuit college, began; in all the drawing rooms noble ladies boldly spoke in favor of Latinism; in a word, the bitter fruits of a hundred years of perverse upbringing have ripened and revealed themselves. The Synod and the Court and the Chief Prosecutor perked up” 84. One of the boyars mentioned by Sturdza, seduced by the Jesuits, turned out to be a 16-17-year-old youth, the nephew of the prince. A.P. Golitsyn. The uncle hastened to entrust the lost young man to the special care of the rector of the Academy. The shocked young man was at first reluctant to listen to the beliefs of his spiritual mentor and stubbornly remained silent, no matter what questions he asked him. It took a lot of work, patience, and condescension in order to finally touch with life-giving speech the ears that had been muffled by Roman teaching, in order to resolve the language bound by the Jesuits. But little by little meekness conquered stubbornness, and the young man spoke frankly; the delighted Prince A.N., appreciating the progress of Filaret’s convictions, asked him to put on paper his conversations with his hesitant interlocutor. “I began to write,” says the rector devoted to the prince in a letter to his parent, “not knowing what would happen. I rummaged through a lot of historical, canonical and fatherly books for reliable references; sometimes he got so tired that he forced him to read and write instead of himself, and he only listened and dictated. And I don’t know when I would have finished this if I had not limited myself to what was most necessary, leaving behind much that, perhaps, some would also like to. But even so there are about ten printed sheets” 85. They were, at the request and insistence of the prince. A.N. Golitsyn, published in 1815 under the title: Conversations between the searching and the confident about the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Greek-Russian Church. As a historical reinforcement of the truths set out in the “Conversations”, there is placed with them “An extract from the district letter of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, to the eastern patriarchal thrones. The blind admirers of the Pope were greatly alarmed when they read these strictly logical, truth-driven “Conversations,” and for several years they then wrote in French their objections to this book. Since 1816, Filaret's especially zealous participation in the activities of the Bible Society began. Distributing the Holy Scriptures in all languages, the Russian Bible Society felt the need for a Russian translation. Circumstances loudly demanded this: many had difficulty understanding the Slavic text of the Holy Scriptures; others turned to foreign translations; Many lovers of the Word of God have long expressed a desire to have the Holy Books in Russian. The first mover of this sacred work was a convinced zealot for the benefits of the Word of God, the rector of the Academy, Philaret. At his insistence, addressed both to the Bible Society and to the Holy Synod, the latter recognized the need to translate the Holy Scriptures into Russian. This was brought to the attention of the Sovereign Emperor, and on February 28, 1816, the Sovereign gave the order to the Holy. Synod, in which he says that, paying attention to the actions of the Russian Bible Society, he sees with regret that many of the Russians, due to the nature of their upbringing, having been removed from the ancient Slavic dialect, have difficulty using the Holy Books published only in the Slavic language and therefore others resort to foreign translations, and the majority cannot have even this. Taking into account that in the Greek Church the people are allowed to read the Holy Scripture. Scriptures in the modern Greek dialect, the Emperor finds it useful that for the Russians, under the supervision of clergy, a translation of the New Testament into the modern Russian dialect should be made. In fulfillment of the highest will, the translation of the Old and New Testaments into Russian began immediately. The translation of the Holy Books from Greek and Hebrew was entrusted to the teachers of the Theological Academies. Philaret was responsible for the translation of the Gospel of John; The Gospel of Matthew was translated by priest G. P. Pavsky; translate other books of the Holy. The writings were entrusted to the bachelors of the Academy. Notifying his grandfather about the good deed undertaken, Filaret writes among other things: “Somehow this intention will seem to your old-timers: some write to me and from the merchants about this with desire and joy. Pray that the Lord will strengthen our weak and unworthy hands in order to worthily sow the holy seed of His Word." 86 The translation task took the ascetics three whole years. In 1816, instead of the meager Novgorod St. Oryev Monastery, the Moscow Stavropegial Novo-Spassky Monastery was given to him to manage. Along with encouragement from his superiors, his work continues to multiply. In 1816 and 1817, Filaret was appointed a member of the Committee for the Affairs of Persons of the Clergy of the Greek-Russian Confession in the Finnish Judicial Places, which opened in St. Petersburg, a member of the Imperial Humane Society and a member of the Main Board of Schools and took part in the work of the latter, undertaken to organize public education, clarified by the previous half-century of experience, - continuing at the same time to be an active member of the Commission of Theological Schools. Appointment of Filaret as vicar of the St. Petersburg Metropolitanate, leaving him in his previous position as rector of the Academy. His consecration to the rank of bishop. His activities held the rank of St. Petersburg vicar. Prince Golitsyn is the Minister of Spiritual Affairs and Public Education. Filaret's attitude towards him. His works on the Academy. Printed work. The dismissal of Metropolitan Ambrose and the appointment of Archbishop Mikhail of Chernigov in his place. The attitude of the new metropolitan towards Filaret. The latter was given the task of inspecting the Moscow Theological Academy, some seminaries and schools. Royal award. Appointment of Filaret as Archbishop of Tver. The outstanding abilities of the rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, his extremely fruitful service in this hotbed of spiritual enlightenment, the most successful fulfillment of many important assignments by him, and the extraordinary zeal, scholarship, knowledge of the matter, diligence, hard work, and selflessness, most clearly demonstrated in all these types of service to the church, attracted the special attention of the highest authorities to him. Metropolitan Ambrose of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, who sincerely loved and worthy of him, wished to promote his rise in hierarchical dignity and decided to elect him as an assistant to the episcopal ministry. Filaret himself talks about this in his memoirs: “After finishing the second year (academic), I and my mentors came to Ambrose after a thanksgiving prayer to receive a blessing for rest. He tells me: “Look what I write.” He wrote a proposal to make me a bishop. I answered: “If you want to have me as an instrument of your actions, if I please you, then let your will be done. If you want to reward me with a bishopric, then this is not a reward, but a feat. I am honored with awards beyond my merits.” “Well, it’s none of your business,” said the Metropolitan” 87 . Burdened with the affairs of a vast metropolitanate and not having a vicar for the St. Petersburg diocese (until then there were only vicars of the Novgorod metropolis, Old Russian bishops), and at the same time anticipating his imminent death, he asked for the Highest permission to establish a vicariate for the St. Petersburg diocese and presented the rector of the Academy, Philaret, with this title. The merits of the person presented were too well known to the Sovereign, and He, by the Highest Decree on July 28, 1817, approved his election to the title of vicar of the St. Petersburg diocese, with the naming Bishop of Revel and remaining in the position of rector of the academy and rector of the Moscow Novospassky Monastery. On August 5, in the Trinity Cathedral of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, his ordination was performed by Metropolitan Ambrose, Michael, Archbishop of Chernigov, and Seraphim, Archbishop of Tver. In the exaltation of his devoted servant, the High Hierarch, of course, found great moral satisfaction for himself. His worthy past gave every reason to expect even greater services from him for the Church. Filaret, of necessity, had to serve exclusively in St. Petersburg during his service as Bishop of Revel, which lasted almost two years. His need for immediate assistance to the elderly Metropolitan Ambrose and his remaining duties at the academy never allowed him to visit Reval or the Baltic side in general. His activity in the rank of bishop was at the very source of power and therefore had even greater significance. He was the real right hand of Metropolitan Ambrose and Prince A.N. Golitsyn. Prince Golitsyn at that time rose even more than before in his official position. Under the influence of mystical ideas, he came to the idea that the Ministry of Public Education should be united with the Ministry of Spiritual Affairs, that the basic principles of the sacred union should be applied to public education. The Emperor immediately agreed with these thoughts of Prince Golitsyn and on October 24, 1817, issued a Manifesto on a double ministry. Prince Golitsyn was appointed head of this ministry. Given the close relationship between Eminence Philaret and Prince Golitsyn, one could expect that the former would be a particularly trusted confidant and necessary adviser to the strong minister. And his position really became like that. Without his advice, and often without his editorship, almost no more or less important paper was compiled in the department of spiritual affairs and public education, and he was privy to such ecclesiastical and political secrets that not everyone in his position could have access to. Fortunately, he was a wise adviser and a strong guard in keeping secrets. Years of vicariate required Philaret to work for the Metropolis of St. Petersburg and for the entire Russian Church. From his works on managing the Academy, it is necessary to mention his proposal in 1817 to introduce the teaching of English into it; He himself took care to find a mentor on this subject from outside scientists. There was either no time or no reason to preach to him during this period. Of his printed publications during this time, only one brochure is known entitled “Do not quench the Spirit.” 88 A remarkable event in the first year of Philaret’s vicariate was the dismissal of Metropolitan Ambrose to the Novgorod diocese. Filaret himself talks about the circumstances of the dismissal in his memoirs: “Metropolitan Ambrose began to ask for retirement due to Emperor Alexander’s displeasure that he had built a sacristy for himself, lined with ermine from the cover that was on the coffin of the Tsar’s daughter. The Emperor, having learned that the Metropolitan in such vestments went to the water on January 6 (1818), ordered that it be said that the ermine was assigned only to persons of the Royal Family and that he forgives the Metropolitan for this only because of his old age. This incident upset Ambrose, and he resigned." 89 The elder, who had recently suffered a lot of troubles during his ministry in St. Petersburg, had to live in Novgorod for a very short time: on March 26, 1818, he was dismissed from St. Petersburg, and on May 21 he died at the age of 76 from birth. Upon receiving the news of his death, Eminence Philaret honored the memory of his deceased patron with a solemn memorial service in the Lavra. In place of Ambrose, first the St. Petersburg Metropolitan, and then the Novgorod Metropolitan, was appointed Archbishop Mikhail of Chernigov, who was then present at the Synod. A student of the famous “Friendly Society”, who studied at his expense at Moscow University and the Academy, he was distinguished throughout his life by a certain mystical shade in his religious views, which, however, did not in the least harm the purity of his Orthodoxy. He was very pious, zealous in prayer, kind, meek, peace-loving, although in necessary cases he was firm and persistent, and he devoted all his free time from official duties to science. For all his inclination towards mysticism, Vladyka Mikhail did not approve of everything in the actions of Prince Golitsyn, who sometimes went beyond measure in his mystical hobbies. Although the vicar of St. Petersburg Filaret held a similar view on the extremes of mysticism, the metropolitan, knowing his close relationship with Golitsyn, did not completely trust him, just as Filaret himself was not completely confident in him. Therefore, Filaret did not consider his position under the new metropolitan in the rank of his vicar to be firm. “He (Metropolitan Michael), - this is how Filaret reports in his memoirs, - upon his accession to the metropolitanate, he wanted to send me to Kamenets-Podolsk. I said that I am not yet at all burdened by my position (vicar), I am ready to serve in this rank again, but if Your Eminence has someone else in mind and wants to let me go, it is too much for me that you are appointing me to a second-class diocese. I'll be happy with third grade too. So he left this matter (for the time being)” 90. During his vicariate, in 1818, Filaret had an order from the Commission of Theological Schools to inspect the Moscow Theological Academy and seminaries - Moscow, Bethany, Tver and Novgorod, as well as some district and parish schools. At the Moscow Academy at that time, its first course had ended, the auditor had to evaluate and direct the initial experiences of the workers in it, and it was also necessary to select, based on testing, professors and teachers for the newly opened Kazan district. At the same time, he, together with the Moscow Archbishop, was given the opportunity to elect external full members of the newly opened Conference of the Moscow Theological Academy. For the successful fulfillment of this assignment, the Right Reverend Philaret was awarded the Highest Diploma on August 26, 1818, to the Order of St. Anne, 1st degree. The following year, 1819, the lot of the highest, independent service of the church fell on the Most Reverend Philaret: on March 15, he was most mercifully commanded to be the archbishop of the Tver diocese and, at the same time, a member of the Holy Synod. Evaluation of Filaret's ministry in St. Petersburg. The fruits of his tireless activity there for ten years. The image of his life in St. Petersburg. Moral qualities. Attitude towards the people around him. A general judgment about the significance of the St. Petersburg period of his life for him. The elevation of Right Reverend Philaret to the rank of archbishop and to the title of Member of the Holy Synod followed, when two more years had not passed since his ordination as bishop, only seven years had passed since his appointment as rector of the Academy and ten since his arrival in St. Petersburg as a hierodeacon. What a rapid, one might say, phenomenal rise! This extraordinary phenomenon in the history of our church is perfectly explained by our famous leader, His Eminence Nikanor, Archbishop of Kherson. “In the unusually rapid ascension of Saint Philaret,” he says, “through the degrees of the hierarchical ladder, from one high to the highest and highest degree, dull myopia is ready to see nothing more than a rare success in life. Of course, by making mistakes herself, she tries to lead everyone into making a serious mistake. The truth is that the unusually rapid rise was not an accidental gift of happiness, but the reward of high merit; was the fruit of a generally recognized highly valuable, as intense, as beneficial mental feat; was a movement of feeling and premonition of the Tsar’s heart, moved by the hand of God, as well as the Tsar’s co-workers, who then directed the fate of the Church of God, themselves being guided by God’s Providence; was a predestination of Providence, which in the relatively young hierarch Philaret, as once in the relatively young Apostle Paul, prepared for itself and predicted the chosen instrument for people.” 91 Indeed, if we carefully and impartially consider these ten years of preparation for Philaret’s occupation of such an important position in the church, then this elevation will not seem surprising and undeserved. Rare, outstanding abilities, tireless, prolific activity, remarkable, quickly acquired theological learning under the most inconvenient and unfavorable conditions and the always impeccable rigor of the life of the new archbishop and member of the Holy. The Synod gave him an undoubted right to do so. His works alone at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy amaze with the enormity of the results. Almost three courses at the Academy were held under his closest and enlightened leadership. Having fully justified the government's concerns, they gave the Church famous archpastors and pastors, theological schools - enlightened and trustworthy mentors, spiritual and secular science - talented and hardworking workers, and society - worthy members. From the first course, consisting of 78 students, 8 archpastors subsequently graduated, namely: Grigory Postnikov, Doctor of Theology, Metropolitan of St. Petersburg (1856–1860); Afanasy Protopopov, Archbishop of Tobolsk (1832–1842); Moses Platonov, Doctor of Theology, Exarch of Georgia (1832–1834); Kirill Bogoslovsky-Platonov, Doctor of Theology, Archbishop of Podolsk (1832–1841); Meletiy Leontovich, Archbishop of Kharkov (1835–1840); Gabriel Gorodkov, Archbishop of Ryazan (1837–1858); Venedikt Grigorovich, Archbishop of Olonetsky (1842–1850) and Pavel Podlipsky, Archbishop of Chernigov (1836–1859). From the second course, consisting of 36 students, 4 archpastors subsequently emerged, namely: John Dobrozrakov, Doctor of Theology, Archbishop of Donskoy (1847–1867); Nathanael Pavlovsky, Archbishop of Pskov (1844–1849); Irinarch Popov, Archbishop of Ryazan (1863–1867) and Ioannikiy Obraztsov, Bishop of the Caucasus (1849–1858). Of the first and second year church pastors, one should point out Archimandrites Polikarp Goitannikov, Doctor of Theology, member of the Imperial Russian Academy († 1837) and Makariy Glukharev, famous for his apostolic works († 1847); on the archpriests who left a good memory both through their service and through their scientific works: Gerasim Petrovich Pavsky, Doctor of Theology († 1863), Joakim Semenovich Kochetov, Doctor of Theology († 1851), Timofey Ferapontovich Nikolsky († 1848), Alexey Ivanovich Malov, honorary member of the Imperial Russian Academy († 1855), Ivan Mikhailovich Skvortsov, Doctor of Theology († 1863), Ivan Ivanovich Grigorovich, member of the archaeographic commission († 1852). Of the secular scientists who were educated at the St. Petersburg Academy under Philaret’s rectorship, the best known are: Ir. Vetrinsky, Vasily Sebrzhinsky and Stefan Raikovsky. At the same time, the hardworking and intelligent mentors who were Filaret’s students are not listed. It should only be noted that the first graduating class provided 12 mentors for the St. Petersburg Academy and 8 mentors for the transformed Moscow Academy. The first leaders and mentors of the transformed Kyiv Academy were also Filaret’s students. These are the kind of people the glorious rector of the St. Petersburg Academy, Filaret, prepared for the service of the church and the state! 92 And how many other labors did Philaret undertake during this time, and what great benefits were they accompanied by for the church and society! Observing his ministry in St. Petersburg, one cannot help but wonder where he got the time and energy to successfully perform so many difficult and important duties. Since 1810, his educational and scientific, preaching and church-administrative activities became more and more complicated, almost to the point of being impossible to combine many positions in one person. Subsequently, he himself admitted that he had never worked as hard as during this time. According to his own admissions, during all this time he could not even afford the walk necessary for his studies; 93 he considered freedom from studies to be the time when he had only one thing on his hands at a time, and not three or five 94 . And all this despite his naturally weak health. Truly, the power of God is made perfect in weakness (2 Cop. 12:9). This time of Philaret’s extensive activity includes a fact reported in the biography of Archbishop Athanasius of Tobolsk, who, being a 1st year student at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, when remembering Philaret, professor and rector of the Academy, among other things said that “over the course of a six-year course, he almost alone read all theological sciences to students, that he suffered from intense studies with hemorrhoids, and sometimes spat at lectures there was blood all over the handkerchief and that this learned worker later said more than once that he sometimes, going to class, doubted whether he would return home alive.” 95 Is it possible after this to be surprised at his unusually rapid rise? His extraordinary talents, works and merits were unusually rewarded. It is now interesting to know how Filaret himself felt about his such rapid, extraordinary rise? Many in his place, in view of such successes, would have felt dizzy, but he went through a good school, early learned modesty, self-absorption, self-restraint; He had already been restrained beyond his years, cautious in thought, in word, and in deeds. Now, amidst the unstable elements of St. Petersburg, he not only did not lose these qualities, but developed them even more in himself. Successes do not seduce him and do not prevent him from working more and more on himself; honors do not puff up or hinder further mental and moral improvement. In response to wishes for every possible success received from his parents' home, he exclaims: "Utinam bonum esse contingat, minus sollicitum, an bene mihi sit 96." He is still very attached to his family, and upon receiving letters from them he sheds both sweet and bitter tears. He patiently endures comments and reprimands from his loved ones for his silence and slowness in correspondence with them, meekly endures from his grandfather the accusation of pride, which he does not directly and decisively recognize in himself, as not corresponding to his years, much less his relationship with his father and grandfather, to whom he owes the best rules of life. 97 He does not strive to possess power; he is also burdened by the power that was assigned to him by the title of inspector (of the seminary), saying that he was not born for this position at all 98. He showed the same dislike for power and rewards, as we have seen, when Metropolitan Ambrose announced to him the latter’s intention to elect him as his vicar. He values ​​silence and books most of all. 99 His lifestyle corresponded in every way to his modest scientific works. He is extremely moderate in food and not picky about clothing. At first, when his salary in St. Petersburg was extremely insufficient, he “still does not have a table, eats like a Christian - bread and water with wine, spends only 20 kopecks of rye and wheat bread a day” 100. Then, out of economy, he is content with a modest common table and patiently endures the need to walk to it from afar 101. He sews his clothes from nankee for 1 rub. 80 k. allocated arshin, for the winter he buys a Kalmyk sheepskin coat for 25 rubles, calling it a fair amount 102. He rejoices at the ban on foreign cloth and other materials announced in the newspapers of that time, wanting this useful teaching against luxury to be valid and successful 103. Only later, when his salary was increased, did he allow himself to make a pair of dresses for 150 rubles, and then only in order to keep up with other brothers who dressed in St. Petersburg not nearly as modestly as those like them in the Sergius Lavra 104 . And subsequently, with his elevation to episcopal dignity, his luxury did not increase. One of the foreigners, namely the Quaker Stefan Grellier, who was in St. Petersburg in 1818–1819, speaks of the Right Reverend Philaret, who was then vicar of St. Petersburg, Bishop of Revel: “His chambers are not extensive, without any decoration, with simple necessary furniture, like a monastic cell. This is a man of science and an expert in dead languages; no less, signs of great humility are visible in him. He is respected as a pious and spiritual man. Both from our own observations and from what we have been told about him, we think that he deserves this good reputation." 105 In relation to others, he is extremely tactful: he is respectful towards his superiors, but without flattery and servility; in unclear and delicate relations with them he is inclined to maintain his own dignity and show the necessary firmness of view and character; with his equals he was attentive and polite, although he did not make special friends with anyone and carefully guarded himself from the temptations of excessive frankness and communication; he is attentive and caring towards inferiors. He is sincerely devoted to Metropolitan Ambrose, whom he calls his benefactor, and has proven his devotion to him on many occasions... In relation to Prince Golitsyn, who greatly contributed to his rise, he shows feelings of great gratitude, but does not reveal any special servility. Prince Golitsyn, an extremely impressionable man prone to various kinds of hobbies, was apparently strongly influenced by the integral, concentrated, self-absorbed, gifted spiritual nature of Philaret, a truly and deeply religious man, and also a wonderful preacher. Here, apparently, one of those influences of spiritual superiority was at work, which is difficult to resist. And there is no doubt that Filaret had a good influence on Golitsyn and contributed greatly to freeing him from his passion for encyclopedists and towards religiosity. And in relation to Archbishop Theophylact himself, whose enemy he became more for reasons that depended on the latter, he did not harbor hostile feelings for quite a long time. Despite the bitter aftertaste of the first meeting, despite the offensive removal, due to Theophylact’s influence, from holding a position at the Academy, despite the grave accusation regarding the sermon on Trinity Day, Filaret shows the most considerate respect for him. Thus, having learned in 1811 that His Eminence Theophylact was going to go to his Ryazan diocese and would be in Kolomna on the way, he warned his parent about this, advised him to meet him as respectfully as possible, gave the necessary instructions on how to receive him in his home, and again wrote a second time: “You will have the pleasure of seeing His Eminence the Archbishop of Ryazan. Hasten to present yourself to this famous saint and benefactor of your son. I dare to hope that His Eminence will favorably accept even if you ask him to grace our house with his presence” 106. Only then, when Theophylact, by a number of his actions, revealed hostility towards Philaret and insulted the metropolitan himself, Philaret entered into a struggle with him, and entered, moreover, not of his own free will, but according to the duties of his service and at the written proposal of the highest authorities, apparently regretting the dispute that had begun and the very notes that he should have written on the book published by Theophylact, calling them unfortunate notes 107 . In conclusion of our sketch of the St. Petersburg period of Philaret’s life, we will allow ourselves to form a general judgment about the significance of this period for him and indicate some of its characteristic features, which to a certain extent owe their origin to his stay in St. Petersburg or, at least, were partly conditioned by this stay. Filaret left the Trinity Lavra Seminary for St. Petersburg with strong inclinations both mentally and morally. He went through a good school, which gave him the opportunity to serve the church and fatherland with honor in every place. He had a solid formal education. With a great natural mind, he was enriched in the Platonic school with strong logical thinking; For further scientific studies, he had a thorough knowledge of ancient languages ​​at his disposal; he masterfully mastered the word and knowledge of teaching verbal sciences; behind him were the first very successful experiments in preaching the Word of God; but all this knowledge was for him nothing more than a framework into which significant content still needed to be invested. And in St. Petersburg, with the many and varied demands placed on him, a wide field for further self-education opened up for him. He performs there for himself, as it were, a rehearsal of the Trinity Lavra formation and, noticing various gaps in his knowledge, with his characteristic rare curiosity and tireless zeal, he fulfills them. Teaching at the St. Petersburg Seminary of Literature and Philosophical Sciences served to further strengthen his formal education. Called to teach theological sciences at the Academy, he had to re-study and partially create entire sciences, and do all this with a lack of necessary aids and in a very short time. What a work of mind it was, what a mass of knowledge it was necessary to acquire, what resourcefulness and skill in assimilation, distribution and teaching! Filaret came out of all these difficulties with honor, leaving behind a living memory at the Academy, which is passed on from its senior students to the next, from fathers to children and will pass on to future generations. A wider field also opened up for Philaret’s preaching work in St. Petersburg. His previous sermons, which sometimes necessarily bore the character of rhetorical exercises, were now replaced by more real in content, more sublime in spirit, more authoritative in tone. As they no longer had the same circle of listeners as they had before the preacher at the Trinity Lavra, they involuntarily forced the latter to respond to the events of his current life and evaluate them from a religious point of view. He had to give sermons in the presence of highly educated and high-ranking persons, in front of persons of the Royal Family, and this obliged him to a lot. The well-deserved fame of the preacher, both then and subsequent, convincingly testifies that in this respect he improved a lot in St. Petersburg. Thanks to meeting and communicating in St. Petersburg with people of various degrees of mental development and different positions, his mental horizons generally expanded. When analyzing and evaluating other people's opinions, he developed an amazing critical talent; when necessary, to respond to the demands and needs of the moment, he showed extraordinary resourcefulness and efficiency; With the changeability of opinions and institutions of that time, wise caution and persistent firmness of convictions were created. Among the features that Philaret brought from St. Petersburg, some attribute his subordination, in part, to the influence of mysticism. If we admit to some extent the validity of this opinion, then this should be done with great reservation. From a very early age, Filaret was distinguished by his religious and poetic imagination and desire for knowledge of the mysterious. He could have received the makings of such a disposition in his hometown - Kolomna and in the environment of his home upbringing. The Trinity-Lavra school could further nourish and support this mood in him, which is partly evident from his letters to his family at that time. Due to such a predisposition to everything mysterious, having met and become closely acquainted with the main representatives of mysticism in St. Petersburg, he, of course, could not help but become interested in them. The head of educational affairs at the Academy, Archbishop Theophylact himself, advised him to get acquainted with the works of Schwedenborg; other high-ranking mystics drew his attention to the dreams of Eckarthausen, Jong-Stilling and Mrs. Gion - to stories “about the prevorsky visions.” He explored all this with his characteristic curiosity, but, possessing a strong critical mind, vigilant attention to every thought, every expression, rare caution, he was not carried away by anything harmful to Orthodoxy from these dreamy teachings. Tempting everything, the wise explorer, according to the apostle, retained only good things for himself. In addition to the strongholds against the passion for mysticism, rooted in his own spiritual nature, he fortunately also had wise warnings against this direction. When, at the first stages of his acquaintance with mysticism, this trend made a noticeably strong impression on Filaret, and he joyfully welcomed the religious movement it caused in our fatherland, Metropolitan Ambrose fatherly warned him against being carried away by its extremes, remarking: “Wait, what will happen, you are not yet experienced.” The elder’s advice fell on reliable ground. The entire influence of mystical teachings on Philaret was limited only to what at one time gave him excitement and a reason to more often direct his thoughts into the depths and heights of Orthodox mysticism, into the mysteries of the Cross of Christ, into the mysteries of the action of the Holy Spirit in the souls of the blessed. In this way, he created several exemplary oratorical works, especially his two words - on the Nativity of Christ in 1811 and 1812. about self-abasement as the path to the birth of Christ in us; word from 1812 on the consecration of the church in the house of the prince. Golitsyn about the internal church; conversation of 1814 on the text: How beloved is Thy village, O Lord, and the famous word of 1813 on Great Friday. In addition to the motivations, reasons and reasons for achieving a high level of mental development and theological learning, which Filaret found for himself in St. Petersburg, he found there the most favorable conditions for preparing for his future high administrative activities. In St. Petersburg, a wide field opened up for his insightful and observant mind to study the entire governmental system concentrated there, especially the area of ​​​​higher church administration. Standing at the very source of power, he quickly learned the course of general and church affairs, the intentions of government officials, the causes and effects of many important government events. Close relations with persons vested with the highest power, and the trust he enjoyed in them, made this acquaintance easier for him. Since his appointment as rector of the Academy, he himself has already participated in many important events, his opinion was carefully listened to, and his advice was valued. The first experiences of using power already gave every reason to expect great administrative talents from him. He possessed all the necessary conditions to subsequently become an exemplary ruler: an extensive mind, subtle observation, wise caution, extraordinary tact and a rare ability to influence the governed with authority. This is precisely how Filaret proved himself in subsequent fields of service to the church. He brought from St. Petersburg a sensitive responsiveness to all the needs and demands of the time and, along with it, a wise conservatism, which did not allow him to get carried away by the temporary, momentary splendor of many undertakings, forcing him to thoroughly weigh everything and, along with the good new, appreciate the good old. See our first issue: Childhood, adolescence, youth, years of study and teaching at the Trinity Lavra Seminary of Metropolitan Philaret (1782–1808). See letter to family. 109th; Wed letter to family Philaret from the Lavra prefect Samuil 1st in addition. to F.'s letters to the family. See the brochure “From the memoirs of M. Philaret”, page (not indicated in the original - Note el. ed.) See letter to K. Rod. 109th; Wed Sushkova “Notes”, p. 38. See art. P.M. “From the Past” in “Russk. Vest." 1868, vol. 74 pp. 456–462; Rukov. to Russian Church East. Znamensky, p. 421; Art. about Metropolitan Filarete S. Ponomarev in “Tr. Kievsk. Spirit. Academician." 1867 No. 4 p. 522; and about K. Dobronravin in “Stran.” 1868, April, p.13. See art. about Theophylact R-ova in the “Bulletin of Europe” 1873, No. 11, 12; Art. Π. M. “From the Past” in “Russian. Vestn." 1868, vol. 74, pp. 460–513; Rukov. to Russian Church East. Znamensky, pp. 426, 428. See next P. M. “From the Past” in “Russian. Vestn." 1868, vol. 74, pp. 478–481, and Rukov. to Russian Church East. Znamensky, pp. 422, 446. See letter to family. 109th; Wed Sushkova “Notes on the life and times of St. Philaret”, p. 39. See letters to family. 109th and 114th; Wed letter to Philaret's parent from the Lavra prefect Samuil 2nd in Appendix. to the letters of Phil. to relatives. See the brochure “From the Memoirs of M. Philaret.” See Sushkov’s “Notes”, p.224. See letter to family. 113th and 114th. See letter to family. Filar. from the Lavra prefect Samuel 4th. See letter to family. Philaret from the Lavra prefect Samuil. The later story of Mr. S. Peshkov about the cooling of relations between him and Plato that supposedly followed after Philaret’s departure to St. Petersburg and the interruption of correspondence between them due to the fact that Plato did not personally answer his letter is not confirmed by anything and in itself seems unlikely. Wed. article “Filaret Drozdov M. M.” in “Russian Antiquity”, 1885, p.569. See Chistovich “Ist. St. Petersburg Spirit. Academician." p.183, in Note. See letters to family. from the Lavra prefect Samuel 1st and 2nd. See the architect's diary. Evgenia Kazantseva, p. 10, in the Note. See Decree of the Holy Synod addressed to M. Plato dated December 21, 1810. See letters to family. 116th and 128th. See letter to family. Philaret from the Lavra prefect Samuil 2nd. Didn't Theophylact take advantage of the examination performed on him at the first meeting to eliminate Filaret? See letters to family. 110th and 112th. See letters to family. 112th and 113th. See letters to family. 118th and 119th. It would take too much time if we decided to enter into a detailed consideration and evaluation of his works on teaching Church history. Our task is mainly to provide biographical information from the St. Petersburg period of Filaret’s life. Those who wish to get to know him better as the author of “The Outline of Church Biblical History” are referred to an excellent article on this subject, published in the Philaret Collection. See letter to family. 125th. Published by Chistovich in Ist. St. Petersburg Spirit. Academician." pp. 211–213. See letters to family. 133rd and 134th. Every good thing has the ability to be communicated (transferred to others). See A.A. Titova. Manuscripts belonging to I.A. Vakhrameev. Issue III, page 296. The translation was published by Chistovich in Ist. St. Petersburg Spirit. Academician." pp. 193–196. A notebook of this translation was found among Speransky’s papers during his disgrace and expulsion from St. Petersburg. See Sushkov’s “Notes”, page 41. Only Sushkov incorrectly attributes the origin of this translation to the time of Philaret’s rectorship at the Academy. It is more likely to date it to 1811. Cp. Art. S. Ponomarev about Met. Filar. in Labor Kyiv. Spirit. Academician 1868, vol. 1, p. 573. See art. P. M. “From the Past” in “Russian. Vestn." 1868, vol. 74, p. 493. See Speech by the Rector of the Academy, Archimandrite. Philaret at the establishment of an academic conference in the “History of St. Petersburg Spirit. Academician." Chistovich, p. 232. See Address on behalf of St. Petersburg. Academician m. Philaret in Christian Reading, 1867 Oct., pp. 649–650. See the track record of M. Filaret. See Address on behalf of St. Petersburg Academician. M. Philaret on the day of the fiftieth anniversary of his archpastoral service. See Chistovich “Ist. St. Petersburg Spirit. Academician." p. 191. Wed. Art. about M. Filaret S. Ponomarev in “Trud. Kievsk. Spirit. Academician." 1867, T. 4, p. 525 et al. K. Dobronravina in “The Wanderer”, 1868, T. 2., p. 18. – Explanation of Psalm LXVII, according to the editors of “Orthodox. Review,” where it was published for the second time, written for Olenin in 1813. See “Orthodox. Review." 1869, Vol. 1, pp. 341–364. See the brochure “From the memoirs of the late Metropolitan Philaret. Moscow", pp. 9 and 10. See Sushkova “Notes on the life and times of St. Philaret,” pp. 92–94; Art. Π. M. “From the Past” in “Russian. Vestn.”, 1868, April, pp. 509–511; Art. S. Ponomarev in “Trud. Kievsk. Spirit. Acad.,” 1868, T. 2, pp. 137–139; and “Rukov. to Russian Church Stories" by Znamensky, p. 428. See the answer, M. Philaret to the Address of the St. Petersburg Academy in “Christ. Thu,” 1867, Oct., pp. 651 – 652. Of the 1st academic year students, special mention should be made of G.P. Pavsky, later known as Archpriest, Doctor of Theology († 1663), who, listening to Philaret’s lectures, acquired a special inclination to study the Holy Scriptures and, in a living desire to reach the very root of science, studied the Hebrew language perfectly and then wrote a grammar, compiled an anthology and lexicon of this language. See "Weird." 1867, No. 1, p. 13, Note. 3. See letter to family. 139th; Wed letter 174. “He goes berserk, he attacks, and when he hears complaints, he is silent: but silence itself seems threatening to many. I am ready to think that rumors about a ready and almost approaching war have reached you; only the sight of peace in society suppresses and restrains these rumors” (see letter to gen. 130th). The then Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Prince. A.N. Golitsyn spoke about him this way in a letter to Comrade Minister of Internal Affairs O.P. Kozodavlev: “My dear Lord, Osip Petrovich! I have the honor to forward to Your Excellency ten copies of the word spoken at the tomb of Prince Smolensky by our famous preacher, Archimandrite Philaret. I hope this essay will give you great pleasure. The public received him with special praise." See “Kyiv Eparch. Vedom.”, 1867, No. 24, p. 821. See Diary of Evgeny Kazantsev, page 14. So, A.N. Olenin, the director of the public library, before its opening (January 2, 1814), asked him to write a speech on this occasion and outlined its subject, which order Filaret, however, due to his difficult duties, had to refuse. See Life of Count Speransky, op. Baron Korf, pp. 77 and 87 Note. For assumptions, see Chistovich in “History of St. Petersburg. Spirit. Academician." pp. 222–224. See this speech from Chistovich in “History of St. Petersburg. Spirit. Academician." pp. 230–233. For the highest Rescript, see Chistovich, page 327. Printed under this title as a separate brochure. See the rector's notes from Chistovich, pp. 273 – 275. See "Thurs." in General Love. Spirit. Enlightened." 1868, book. IV, p. 107. See art. about Metropolitan Filaret G. S. Ponomarev in “Trud. Kyiv. Spirit of Akad." for 1868 T. II, p. 147. See extract from the notes of Photius in “Ref. General Love. Spirit. Enlightened." for l868, book. IV, pp. 106–107. See letters to family. 196th and 198th. Hers. Eparch. Ved. 1868, No. 1 pp. 26–27. See book. N.P. Gilyarov-Platonov “From what we experienced,” pp. 74–75. Further reporting some details about Filaret’s visit to the Kolomna School, the same author says: “The inspection was not long, the questions were not difficult; but one of them, apparently very simple, the students found it difficult to answer, and when called “who will say?” answered the brother (of the author). The question was about what a bush is. Filaret asked his brother a few more questions, asked his last name and wrote it down in his notebook; the brother was at the height of the celebration; his students congratulated him and Herodion Stepanovich himself (teacher, son-in-law of the auditor) thanked him for helping out.” See letters to family. 180th and 181st. Hers. diocesan led 1868, No. 1, p. 22 See the brochure “From the Memoirs of Metropolitan Philaret”, page 13. See the brochure “From the Memoirs of Metropolitan Philaret”, page 14. See Teaching on the day of remembrance of St. three saints and commemoration in B. of the deceased saint. m. Filareta, January 30 1889 For the list of the above-mentioned persons who received their education at the St. Petersburg Academy under Rector Filaret, see Art. prot. K. Dobronravina “The Wanderer” 1868, April, p.22. 94 See letter to genus. 173rd. Wed. letters 164, 166, etc. See “The Wanderer” 1867, January, p. 14, Note 2; see “The Wanderer” 1868, August, p.94. “Oh, if only I could be a good person and worry less about whether I will be fine.” (See letter to family 112.) See letters to family. 111th, 115th, 116th, 117th. See letters to family. 118th, 126th. See Kievsk. Eparch. Led. 1868, no. 3, pp. 111–112. See letters to family. 131st, 132nd. See letters to family. 159th, 160th, 161st and 162nd.