I. Предисловия

1. I.V. Nikitina, S.M. Polovinkin. “Moscow Abba” In one of the photographs stored in the archives of Fr. Pavel Florensky, next to Fr. Pavel, in the garden, behind a samovar, sits a round-faced, calm man, with a thick beard, smiling eyes, not young, but not an old man, but at an age corresponding to the prime of his creative powers. Next to the serious, internally collected, even seemingly tense Florensky, he seems “completely simple.” This is Mikhail Aleksandrovich Novoselov, widely known and authoritative in Moscow church circles at the beginning of the century - the “Moscow Abba”. Although the name “church leader” would hardly have been accepted by Novoselov himself, it is precisely because of its broad uncertainty that it is most acceptable here. Novoselov’s high authority among like-minded friends, mentoring and even senile, giving him the power to decide, demand and almost “give obedience,” was confirmed by a friendly nickname: “Abba Michael” [11, p. 219]. Mikhail Aleksandrovich Novoselov was born on July 1, 1864 into a traditional Orthodox family. Both of his grandfathers were priests. His paternal grandfather, Grigory Alekseevich Novoselov (died in 1893), was a priest in the village of Zaborovye, Vyshnevolotsk district, Tver province. Maternal grandfather, Mikhail Vasilyevich Zashigransky, served as a priest in the same province. Novoselov’s father, Alexander Grigorievich (1834–13 January 1887), was a famous teacher, director of first the Tula and then the 4th Moscow gymnasium. He was well acquainted with L.N. Tolstoy. Obviously, the younger Novoselov also inherited this acquaintance in his youth. Novoselov’s mother, Kapitolina Mikhailovna (died 12/12/1918), devoted her entire life to caring for her son. Novoselov graduated with a gold medal from the 4th Moscow Gymnasium and then from the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University [Op. 2, Preface]. For some time in 1886–1887. he taught ancient languages ​​at the Women's Classical Gymnasium S.N. Fischer [83. p.83]. In his youth, Novoselov became a zealous adherent and favorite student of L.N. Tolstoy. After graduating from the university, Novoselov decided to become a doctor (example of Bazarov?), for which he needed to study at the medical faculty for another 5 years. These plans were prevented by his father, who wanted his son to become a teacher of ancient languages. A compromise decision made not without the influence of L.N. Tolstoy, it was – to enter a teachers’ seminary [Oc. 2, p. 382]. Before taking the decisive step, Novoselov went to the village, where he taught at a rural school and reflected on the goals of his teaching activity. This is the subject of his first letter to L.N. Tolstoy, in whom the possibility of a future conflict has already been outlined: “I would like the past life of humanity to give young men an understanding of people and their actions in terms of their approach or distance from the teachings of Christ. Maybe this idea will seem strange and naive to you, but I seriously dwelled on it and so far I don’t see anything that could replace it” [Oc. 2, p. 383]. Physical work was also added to these activities: “At this time I plowed, dug potatoes, chopped cabbage, stirred oil, carried firewood - all this, of course, not to the extent that is desirable” [Oc. 2, p. 384]. After the death of his father, Novoselov decides to live according to the behests of L.N. Tolstoy: on earth by the labor of one’s hands. In a circle of like-minded people, he discusses plans for agricultural settlements of intelligent youth, which are intended to become a role model. Novoselov’s ardent, uncompromising character was manifested at this time in his denunciations of his most beloved teacher: “Lev Nikolaevich! my father in spirit! Tell me, why are you tormented? Why are we tormenting ourselves? and for what does Christ suffer? Tell me, are these sufferings really not so great that it would be worth making even a great effort and casting down the devil? Really, even with the most terrible outcome, the good that will follow your renunciation of the unjustifiable right to exploitation, really this good, I say, will not cover the grief that can be caused by the insane (sorry, I can’t say otherwise) behavior of the countess? [Works 2, p.394]. To these sometimes tactless denunciations and calls of L.N. Tolstoy answered very meekly: “Thank you for your letter; it made me think about a subject that I can’t stop thinking about, and it was useful to me, as always, truth and sincerity. Leo Tolstoy, who loves you” [Op. 3, vol. 64, p. 30]. In 1887, Novoselov reproduced L.N.’s handwritten brochure on a hectograph. Tolstoy "Nikolai Palkin". It ended with a search of Novoselov’s apartment and his imprisonment. Only Tolstoy's intervention saved Novoselov from exile to Siberia. Tolstoy personally appeared to the head of the Moscow gendarme department, Slezkine, and told him that the author of the pamphlet should be punished first of all. To this the general replied: “Count!” Your glory is too great for our prisons to contain.” The case was put on hold, and at the beginning of February 1888, Novoselov was released under open police supervision with a ban on living in the capitals. This prompted him to buy land in the same year in the village of Dugino, Tver province, where he created one of the first Tolstoy agricultural communities, which existed for about two years. In the end, this community disintegrated, like other Tolstoy communities. At the call of the teacher, members of Tolstoy's communities rallied at the end of 1891 and the first half of 1892. in helping the starving people of the Ryazan province. After this, the paths of Novoselov and Tolstoy diverge. Novoselov turns to Orthodoxy and opposes Tolstoy in print [Edition of the Religious and Philosophical Library, 8]. Giving credit to Tolstoy for the spiritual awakening of Russia, he clearly outlines the line dividing them: “There is no need to hide that Tolstoy, for example, stirred up the stagnant waters of our theological thought, made those who were calmly resting on a pillow stuffed with papyrus fragments and archaeological trivialities perk up. It was a powerful protest both against the extremes of the founding hobbies of the 60s, and against the deadness of scientific dogmatism and lifeless church formalism. And God save and enlighten him for this! No matter how one-sided almost everything is; what Tolstoy told us, but it was one-sided, it was necessary, since we, the Orthodox, forgot this side of Christ’s teaching, emphasized by him, or, at least, were lazy about it. Tolstoy’s call to chastity (also, admittedly, one-sided), abstinence, simplicity of life, service to the common people and to “life in faith” in general was very timely and valid. And we must, having rejected everything that is wrong in his writings, take into account and, most importantly, implement the good that he put forward in the Gospel as a reproach to us, and at the same time we must show that true understanding, and even more so the achievement of the moral ideal of the Gospel, is possible only under the condition of right faith, that is, in the Church" ["Religious and Philosophical Library", issue I, p. 59]. P. A. Florensky recorded a personal conversation with Novoselov, who asked Tolstoy: “But, Lev Nikolaevich, there is something mysterious in life?” To this Tolstoy replied: “There is nothing like that, friend Mikhail” [45, p. 133]. The “Open Letter to Count L.N.” sounds more sharply. Tolstoy regarding his response to the resolution of the Holy Synod” (1902): “You want to serve not Him and not His Father (the Lord), Whom universal Christianity knows and recognizes, starting from Orthodox and Catholic and ending with Lutheran, Stundist and Pashkovite, but some unknown impersonal principle, so alien to the human soul that it cannot resort to it either in sorrowful or joyful times.” the minutes of the existence of your Word are all good: God, Spirit, love, truth, prayer, but in the soul there is emptiness after reading them. You don’t feel life in them, the breath of the Spirit of God. You just can’t get out of the vicious circle of your own “I.” Forgive me if I accidentally offended you, L.N. I say “accidentally”, because throughout the entire writing I did not notice anything hostile towards you in myself. I am sad that they were on friendly terms. – I.N. and S.P.} is not now and cannot be, while He, my Lord and my God, stands between us, prayer to Whom you consider blasphemy, and to whom I pray daily, and I try to pray unceasingly. I have been praying for you and for your loved ones ever since, having parted ways with you, I, after long wanderings along the paths of Sectarianism, returned to the bosom of the Church of Christ." [Editions of the Religious and Philosophical Library, 8, pp. 6, 11, 16]. Tolstoy’s denial of the Living God and His Church forever separated Novoselov and Tolstoy. But this fundamental discrepancy did not shake their mutual sympathy, as evidenced by Tolstoy’s letters, in which Novoselov is mentioned very kindly. The books of Novoselov’s “Religious and Philosophical Library” were the last books that Tolstoy looked through a few days before his death, he liked them so much that he ordered D.P. Makovitsky to send him all the rest [62, p.407]. Evidence has been preserved of the question of Novoselov, who seeks Truth, addressed to Vl. Solovyov: “What is the most important and necessary for a person?” Solovyov’s answer read: “It is possible to be with the Lord more often, if you can always be with Him” [Religious and Philosophical Library, vol. I, ed. 3, p. 58]. Novoselov became close to Father John of Kronstadt and was loved by the latter, as well as by the Optina elders. Novoselov himself attributed his conversion from Tolstoyism to the influence of Father Alexy (Soloviev), Elder Zosimova Hermitage, a famous ascetic and confessor given to the Russian Church on the eve of the era of persecution [50]. Elder Alexy, like the Optina elders, saw in Tolstoy a false shepherd leading the verbal sheep of Christ’s flock away from the Church. Berdyaev in the book “Self-Knowledge” recalled his visit to Zosimova Hermitage together with Novoselov, Bulgakov and Florensky. an admirer of L.N. Tolstoy did not like the conversation with Father Alexy: “The conversation with him made a very difficult impression on me. He constantly scolded Leo Tolstoy with his last words, calling him Levka. I really respect L. Tolstoy, and this was unpleasant for me” [9, p. 188]. Obviously, the topic of Tolstoyism was one of the main ones in conversations about. Alexy with intellectuals, many of whom were captivated by Tolstoy's ideas. When Novoselov found out about. Alexia, it’s hard to say. The latter entered the Zosimov Hermitage, where he was tonsured a monk, only at the end of 1898, and began to receive people later. One thing can be said: the old man’s teaching fell on already prepared soil. An interesting piece of evidence about Novoselov is included in Andrei Bely’s book of memoirs, “The Beginning of the Century.” While studying at that time the types of “religious and philosophical eccentrics” in order to exhibit them in a number of his “Symphonies,” Andrei Bely “listened to rumors about Novoselov.” Consequently, he was already known in intellectual circles in Moscow and St. Petersburg, perhaps only as a converted Tolstoyan. In 1901, they met in L.A.’s apartment. Tikhomirov, where the issue of restoring the patriarchate was discussed. It is curious that Andrei Bely reacted with sympathy to Novoselov, the “blond bearded man,” whom he mistook for a man who, like himself, accidentally wandered into the company of unsympathetic “reactionary churchmen” [5, p. 156, 161–162]. Participating in the Religious and Philosophical Meetings of 1902–1903. in St. Petersburg, Novoselov took strictly ecclesiastical positions. In the debate on freedom of conscience on April 4, 1902, he said: “We will resolve the issue of freedom of conscience only when we enter the soil of true Christian achievement: in the proper sense, we commune with Christ. Otherwise there will inevitably be contradictions. These contradictions can only be resolved by introducing each of us to the truth that will make us free. Outside of this communion, all these will be lofty thoughts, but aimless” [16, p. 199]. Later, Novoselov read a report on Christian marriage. He considered both marriage and celibacy to be subordinate to the goal of salvation: “The Church says: marriage is good, celibacy is better. But what kind of marriage is good? A marriage that people enter into to serve God more conveniently. But which celibacy is better? Which aims at the closest union with the Lord. In celibacy, the latter is achieved with great success, but not by everyone. For others, married life is more saving - for various reasons: because of greater passion, because of less spiritual jealousy, because of the external circumstances of life, because of the moral support that those getting married find in each other, because of the bearing of the cross that marriage imposes on those who avoid the cross, and so on. In every situation, the goal is one – getting closer to God” [16, p. 274]. Following these words, Novoselov himself preferred the path of celibacy. The reaction of D.S. Merezhkovsky’s report included the words: “It’s boring to listen to sermons.” To this V.M. Skvortsov responded: “You may be bored, but I’m pleased. Let us be tolerant in this regard” [16, p. 279]. At these meetings between the intelligentsia and the Church, Novoselov’s firm position sometimes caused irritation in the ranks of the ever “seeking” and “seeking” intelligentsia, which turned its search into an end in itself and was suspicious of any “finder.” On December 12, 1904, a decree was issued, signed by Nicholas II, outlining a number of reforms, including freedom of religion. The press began discussing the proposed reforms in the Russian Orthodox Church. Soon, an article by Layman (Novoselov?) “On the need to restore the parish as a church-social unit” appeared, where the implementation of this idea was considered possible only “by the gracious initiative of the Orthodox Tsar,” but not on the part of the secular and synodal authorities [Op. 35]. The editor-publisher of “Russian Affairs” S.F. delivered a keynote article. Sharapov, who proposed to restore the patriarchal structure of the Church. Restoration must also come from above, “at the call of the Tsar”: The Local Council of Hierarchs must restore the life of the Church according to the ancient canons. From below the parish community must be restored. The bureaucracy is unable to solve these problems: “The bureaucracy has forgotten the Church. The Church has forgotten its earthly task - to be the natural people's organization of the Russian Kingdom. If the Church does not stop the revolution, civil strife cannot be prevented...” [81]. In the next issue of “Russian Affairs” Novoselov’s response to this article appeared: “I love your thought about the Church Council and about the speedy restoration of the parish community The voice of the Russian Earth is drowned out by both the bureaucracy and the intelligentsia The sad realization that there is little hope for bishops I believe that at the Council, where bishops, priests, clergy and laity should come together, hearts and minds will burst into flames Christ’s love and truth, which will lead us onto the path of true religious and social construction of our native land...” [Op. 36]. The topic of changes in the Church began to be widely discussed in the press. On March 17, 1905, the Holy Synod decided to petition the Emperor to convene an All-Russian Council in the spring of that year and elect a Patriarch. It was supposed to convene a Council in St. Petersburg, and the most likely candidate for Patriarch was the first hierarch, Metropolitan of St. Petersburg Anthony (Vadkovsky). Orthodox Muscovites saw in these plans an attempt by the “synodals” to take control of the situation under new conditions. On March 23, 1905, Novoselov “at a meeting of a private circle of Orthodox zealots of the Church, clergy and laity” read an essay “On the re-creation of living churchliness in Russia.” About 60 people attended the abstract, including F.D. and A.D. Samarina, prof. N.A. Zaozersky, Dr. A.A. Kornilov, V.K. Istomin and others. The abstract contained a request to the Emperor not to convene the Council immediately, as the Holy Synod requested, but to postpone its convocation until the end of the war with Japan. In view of the upcoming Council immediately after the war, to ask the Sovereign for the preparation by all members of the Church of considerations on various aspects of church life, which will be presented to the future Council as material for discussion [Op. 37]. The press was full of characterizations of the intentions of the Holy Synod as “hasty” and even “a church coup.” On March 31, 1905, Nicholas II wrote a resolution on the petition of the Holy Synod: “I recognize it as impossible to accomplish in the troubled times we are currently experiencing such a great undertaking that requires calm and deliberation, such as the convening of a local council. I imagine to myself, when the time is favorable for this, following the ancient examples of the Orthodox Emperors, to give this great cause movement and convene a council of the All-Russian Church for a canonical discussion of the subjects of faith and church government.” December 1, 1905 There was a time when the bishops had to give detailed answers on all questions of the future church reorganization. These answers were then published in the book: Reviews of diocesan bishops on the issue of church reform. Tt. 1–3. St. Petersburg, 1906. In the article “The Voice of a Layman,” Novoselov thanked the Tsar for “getting rid of the trouble of hasty decisions” and proposed forming a “Conciliar Preparatory Meeting” [Op. 39]. And indeed, the Pre-Conciliar Presence was approved at the highest level, the activities of which lasted from March 6 to December 15, 1906 and resulted in four voluminous volumes. In the same article, Novoselov called not to interpret the royal decree in a conservative sense: “We will not allow the inert defenders of the existing church order, supporters of the view that everything is well, who confuse the living and life-giving well-being of the Church with the dead beauty of the cemetery, we will not allow them to weaken and slow down the fulfillment of our hopes!.. we will not allow, under the pretext and cover of the Royal Order, the refusal of the Holy Synod to immediately convene Local Council - to bury the Tsar’s will on the need to transform the Church in an old bureaucratic chest!” [Op. 39]. Novoselov invested all his talents in the work of church enlightenment, which, in essence, was his publishing activity. Issues of the “Religious and Philosophical Library” aimed at the churching of Russian society, especially intelligent youth. “Religious and Philosophical Library” was published by Novoselov in 1902–1917. 39 issues were published in Vyshny-Volochyok, Moscow and Sergiev Posad, some of which went through several editions. In addition, Novoselov published “Editions of the Religious and Philosophical Library” and two series of “Leaflets of the Religious and Philosophical Library”: “Seeds of the Kingdom of God” and “Russian Religious Thought”. Novoselov was the compiler of most of the issues and the author of many of them. He also owns a number of prefaces. The purpose of the “Religious and Philosophical Library” was announced on the cover of a number of issues: “To meet the awakening interest in questions of a religious and philosophical nature in our society, a group of people united by Christian like-mindedness began to publish under the general title “Religious and Philosophical Library” a number of brochures and books that give a feasible answer to the questions raised by life.” The Kolokol newspaper explained this goal: “Christianity and the Orthodox Church are illuminated in them from those points of view from which they are most understandable to the Russian intelligentsia... The books explain those issues that are either forgotten or distorted in the understanding of the intelligentsia... To bring those who are straying from the faith to the Church, to give them the opportunity to experience living Christianity, Christianity with Christ, and the purpose of publication is “Religious and Philosophical Library...” [56]. All of Russia knew the little pink books of the Library. Issue 1 set the tone for the entire Religious and Philosophical Library. He called for a return to the “forgotten path of experienced knowledge of God.” “Saving spiritual knowledge” rests not on an intellectual, but on a moral basis. The mind by itself is powerless to come to the truth and know God. Christianity is, first of all, a “new life”: “Christianity can be approached from philosophical, historical, social and other points of view. Meanwhile, Christianity is, first of all, an essentially new life brought to the human soul by the God-Man” [Vol. XXVIII, p. 7]. Accordingly, knowledge is divided into head, soaring, airy and saving, heartfelt, acquired by the revelation of the Spirit of God [Vol. XXIX, p. 7]. A number of issues provide many examples of conversion to faith under the influence of religious experience. As a result: “So, by the knowledge of Truth, the Christian sages did not mean theoretical knowledge, obtained and assimilated by the forces of formal thinking, but some special penetration, entry into the otherworldly region of the eternal Truth, expressed in the “graceful sensation” of it given from above, in the illumination and illumination of the soul through the “touch” of the Self-Truth on it” [Vol. XXX, p. 23]. Hence the need to “connect theology (knowledge of God) with religious and moral achievement, thus placing it on the basis of internal experience” [Vol. XXX, p. 26]. This cannot be done by “our modern school theologians,” infected with Protestant rationalism, which kills the living beginnings of religious life, which gives rise to indifference, and often aversion to religion, and leads to atheism. School theologians replace faith with “orthodoxy, that is, correct opinion.” The idea of ​​the correct movement towards the Truth is replaced by the idea of ​​the correct opinion about the Truth. Orthodoxy is replaced by orthodoxy [Vol. XXX, p. 41–42]. Below orthodoxy is “metaphysical babbling” [Vol. II, p.33: words Μ.Μ. Speransky]. In the Preface to Issue IX, Novoselov expressed the idea that “only a religious person is capable of creating a social system in which both the highest ideals and the necessary social discipline are preserved” [p. IV–V]. Here he warns: “Bitter disappointment awaits every person who, having noble aspirations in his soul, thinks to find satisfaction in a social structure that is alien to a religious principle” [Vol. IV, p. IV]. An example of such a godless social structure is socialism, and Novoselov cites F.M.’s speeches against socialism. Dostoevsky, V.S. Solovyov, L.A. Tikhomirov. The latter believed that the restoration of correct religious consciousness is “the only means of healing the world” [Vol. IV, p. 109]. Religious consciousness requires freedom of speech, associated with religious freedom as God's Gift to man. Only here is the path to victory over harmful ideas revealed - the path of the word [Vol. VII]. Novoselov complains: “Strange as it may be, in Orthodox Russia, not only the “stepchildren” of the Church, but also its “sons” are not free. Instead of being the verbal flock of Christ, they are a dumb multitude, which, together with their “shepherds,” is shepherded by the rod of worldly overseers” [Vol. VII, p. 65]. In social life, all power is conditional and negotiable. Violence is meant to make it real. Hence the constant social struggle, the only way out of which is indicated by L.A. Tikhomirov: “God is the only force and authority around which people could group naturally, indisputably, each receiving his own place” [Vol. V, p. 23]. It follows that the ideal of social life is the Church. A number of issues are dedicated to the Church. First of all, the boundaries of the Church must be determined. Here the goal is “from different sides to limit the Divine realm of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (Orthodox) from the sphere of Catholic schism and Protestant sectarianism, falsely imagining themselves as bearers and possessors of the authentic Truth of Christ” [Vol. XXXI, p. 3–4]. Jesuitism was seen as Latinism taken to its logical limit [Vol. XXXVI]. Catholic mysticism is characterized as heated and frenzied daydreaming, which in Orthodoxy is characterized as “charm.” The mysticism of the Orthodox Church is sober, simple, based on humility. She calls not to the height of visions, but to a repentant vision of one’s sins [Vol. XXXVIII]. Humanism appears in the “Religious and Philosophical Library” as the essence of the history of modern times. The essence of humanism is “setting human development in all its most important manifestations on an unconditionally independent path, outside of any influence and control on the part of the Supreme Being” [Vol. XXVII, p. 6]. Humanism advocates autocratic development from oneself, through oneself and for oneself. In relation to knowledge it turns into rationalism, in relation to morality - autonomism, in relation to the ultimate goal of our life - eudaimonism. He is trying to replace the cult with culture. Its consequences are: deism, pantheism, positivism, materialism, which lead to total pessimism. Ultimately, stripping oneself of the image of God leads to stripping oneself of the human image, to assimilating the image of the bestial and satanic. Antichrist Vl. Solovyova is the most adequate exponent of the ideas of humanism [Vol. XXVII]. Much space in the “Religious and Philosophical Library” is devoted to the replacement of Christianity by modern godless consciousness. Love - the Gift of God - has been replaced by altruism, “the highest concept to which human thought has developed, leaving the soil of Christianity” [Vol. IX, p.7]. Altruism speaks about the evolution of morality: “Between altruism and one’s neighbor, humanity stands, which determines how and whom it should love or even hate” [Vol. IX, p. 19]. And this means the denial of morality. It turns out that behind the baseless good-naturedness lies immoralism. It is impossible to build a non-religious, autonomous morality. The only basis for morality is religion [Vol. X]. Self-reflection without “pure and fervent prayer” is also fruitless [Vol. XV, p. 34]. “Reverence” and “respect” for Christianity, which many humanists spoke about, means “denial of Divine dignity” [Vol. XVIII, p. 4]. The divinity of Christianity is proved by Grace, not human understanding. The meaning of life is not in the search for the maximum amount of pleasure, benefit, or stoic peace, but in the acquisition of the Holy Spirit, as it is said and shown by St. Seraphim Sarovsky N.A. Motovilov. The “Religious and Philosophical Library” was a notable phenomenon in the religious and philosophical life of the Silver Age. She was very popular. Many of the topics she touched on were common to the “Circle of Seekers of Christian Enlightenment”: the topic of experimental comprehension of dogmas, the topic of acquiring the Holy Spirit as the goal of Christian life, the topic of the Church, the topic of social activity of a Christian, the topic of sober Christian mysticism, criticism of humanism and socialism as its ultimate development, the topic of the secularity of modern culture, etc. The development of these topics can be seen in Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, Fr. Pavel Florensky, V.F. Erna, V.A. Kozhevnikov and other members of the “Circle of Those Seeking Christian Enlightenment.” Gradually, around Novoselov, at his “Thursdays,” a circle of people formed who called themselves the “Circle of Those Seeking Christian Enlightenment.” Otherwise, it was called either the “Novoselovsky Circle”, or, less often, the “Samarinsky Circle” (after the chairman) and even the “Kornilovsky Circle” (after the owner of the house on Nizhnyaya Kislovka, where the Circle often met). The Charter of the “Mutual Help Circle for the Purposes of Christian Education” (the original name of the Circle) dates back to 1907. Paragraph 1 of the Charter defined its goals: “The circle has the goal of helping its members, as well as outsiders who contact it, in mastering the principles of Christian education. The circle does not pursue any political goals and does not participate in the discussion of political issues.” The activities of the Circle are described in paragraph 2: “The Circle a) arranges readings and conversations on issues of Christian education, b) provides its members and outside visitors (guests) with books to read from its library, established with proper permission, c) publishes books, brochures and leaflets with appropriate content” [42]. The founding members of the Circle were: M.A. Novoselov, F.D. Samarin, V.A. Kozhevnikov, N.N. Mamonovi, P.B. Mansurov. They were joined a little later by: Archim. Theodore (Pozdeevsky, consecrated bishop of Volokolamsk in 1909), A.A. Kornilov, A.I. Novgorodtsev et al. [43]. The circle had a chairman (F.D. Samarin), treasurer, librarian, publisher, organizer of conversations and readings. A combination of these positions was allowed. The circle united strictly Orthodox theologians, philosophers, scientists, public and church leaders: Prince. E.N. Trubetskoy, book. G.N. Trubetskoy, Rev. Joseph Fudel, Fr. Pavel Florensky, S.N. Bulgakov, V.F. Erie, L.A. Tikhomirov, Fr. Evgeny Sinadsky, S.P. Mansurov, V.P. Sventsitsky, A.S. Glinka-Volzhsky, A.V. Elchaninov, S.N. Durylin, N.S. Arsenyev, N.D. Kuznetsov, S.A. Tsvetkov and others. In the winter of 1908–1909. under the Circle, a student circle arose under the leadership of F.D. Samarin, dedicated to the study of the New Testament. The circle was under the patronage of the bishop. Theodore (Pozdeevsky) and was spiritually nourished by the elders of the Zosimova Hermitage, Schema-Abbot German and Hieroschemamonk Alexy. The meetings of the Circle were closed: paragraph 14 of the Charter states: “The public is not allowed to attend the meetings of the Circle, and representatives of the press are also not allowed” [42]. In addition, guests were allowed to attend readings and conversations, on the recommendation of one of the members. Closed sessions were held in Novoselov’s apartment (Kovrigina’s house, near the Cathedral of Christ the Savior), and when the number of those present at the readings increased - in the house of Dr. A.A. Kornilov. Visitors to the readings were “persons of different ages and various occupations and activities, such as: priests, people engaged in teaching activities in secondary and primary educational institutions, public figures, doctors, young people of both sexes studying in higher educational institutions” [43]. The number of participants in the readings reached 60 people. It was possible to identify some of the themes of the readings: Bp. Theodore made reports about St. John Chrysostom and about Christian asceticism, F.D. Samarin about early Christianity [see. issue XVI "Religious and Philosophical Library"]. V.A. Kozhevnikov compared Buddhism and Christianity, M.A. Novoselov presented apologetic themes. The soul of the Circle was Novoselov. A review of him by N.A. has been preserved. Berdyaev, a man of a completely different mental make-up: “In his own way, M. Novoselov was a wonderful person (I don’t know if he is still alive), very religious, boundlessly devoted to his idea, very active, even troublesome, very sympathetic to people, always ready to help, especially spiritually. He wanted to convert everyone. He gave the impression of a monk in secret tonsure. His culture was narrow, he did not have broad intellectual interests. He loved Khomyakov very much and considered himself his follower. Didn't like Vl very much. Solovyov, did not forgive him for his Gnostic tendencies and Catholic sympathies. Orthodoxy M. Novoselov was conservative, with a strong monastic-ascetic bent. But at the same time, he did not have that clericalism and worship of the authority of the hierarchy that are characteristic of the right-wing movements of the Russian emigration. He recognized only the authority of the elders, that is, people of spiritual gifts and spiritual experience not associated with a hierarchical rank. He did not value bishops at all and regarded them as officials of the synodal department, bowing before the state. He was a monarchist, recognized the religious significance of the autocratic monarchy, but was an irreconcilable opponent of any dependence of the church on the state" [9, p. 186]. A largely similar description is given by V.A. Kozhevnikov in a letter to V.V. Rozanov: “...straightforward and unshakable, all on the patristic path, and will not exchange the resinous fragrant flowers of the dear desert and the incense of “incense smoke” for any orchids, for any captivating incense of the kingdom of dreams; and outside the “royal”, patristic path, for him all other spheres are the kingdom of dreams, and their horizons, depth and charms are only “charm” (in the ascetic sense)! Well, how can such a radical speak out about the main, “tormenting” topic of the problem of gender?..” [20, p. 136]. Novoselov’s place in the Circle was correctly determined by V.V. Rozanov: “Without any conditions or persuasion, they name almost the oldest among them, Mich. Al. Novoselova “Abba Michael.” And although some of them are immeasurably superior to the venerable and dear M.A. Novoselov’s scholarship and generally “intelligent qualities,” but, nevertheless, they honor him “like a father,” for his clear, kind character, for the purity of his soul and intentions, and not only listen to him, but almost obey him” [38]. O. Pavel Florensky assessed the value of F.D. as follows. Samarina for the Circle: “The living tradition of Slavophilism appeared to us in the person of Fyodor Dmitrievich. From his hands, we, the grandchildren, received a thread connecting us with the Slavophilism of the Golden Age" [65, p. 16]. N. S. Arsenyev characterized the role of V.A. Kozhevnikov in the Circle: “... I want to dwell on the main inspiring force of the circle, one of the most outstanding scientists with whom I have generally dealt in my life, a man of enormous knowledge, strong and inquisitive scientific thought, a talented, deeply independent researcher, who is directly amazing with the breadth of his grasp and extraordinary erudition - not the kind with which ordinary scientists are content, but something that goes deeper, based on the ability to inquisitively search and find more and more new data characterizing a subject or a given era. And at the same time, he was a thinker and a person who felt the thrill of beauty and was seized by ardent faith" [54, p. 300]. There is evidence of the special role of Fr. Pavel Florensky not only in the Circle, but throughout “Moscow young Slavophilism.” V.V. Rozanov in a letter to M.M. Spasovsky wrote on April 11, 1918 about Fr. Pavle: “This is the Pascal of our time. Pascal of our Russia, who is, in essence, the leader of all Moscow Slavophilism and under whose influence there are many minds and hearts in Moscow and Posad, and even in St. Petersburg” [64, p. 62]. From the very beginning, the Circle wanted to embody the Slavophile “conciliarity of consciousness.” V.A. Kozhevnikov wrote about F.D. Samarina: “His attention was focused on the project of spiritual unity, at the beginning of at least a small number of people who took religious needs to heart, into a group that would have the character not so much of a learned religious-philosophical society, but of a spiritual, intimate-friendly brotherhood, whose members would unite with each other through free spiritual communication, conversations, readings and practical activities in the church spirit, promoting, first of all, mutual spiritual growth, clarification and deepening of religious understanding and revitalization of religious edification, and then, to the best of our ability and ability, we would try in the same sense to influence the environment, mainly of modern youth” [21, p. 2]. Even during his first student years in the “Eschatological Mosaic” P.A. Florensky dreamed of a brotherhood that would counteract anti-Christian forces: “Little by little, a brotherhood was formed from individuals bound by bonds of love and like-mindedness, in connection with the approaching mystical thunderstorm and the strengthening of anti-Christian - spiritualistic and magical - social movements. Some of the brothers were ordained" [44. p. 70]. This youthful dream was embodied in the Circle, as can be judged from the letter of Father Pavel Florensky to V.V. Rozanov dated June 7, 1913: "Of course, Moscow “church friendship” is the best thing we have, and in friendship it is a complete coincidentia oppositorum. (p. 23) Everyone is free, and everyone is connected: everyone is in their own way, and everyone is “like others.” The whole point of the Moscow movement is that for us the meaning of life is not at all in the literary imprinting of our views, but in the immediacy of personal connections. We don’t write, but speak, and we don’t even talk, but rather communicate. The business of another, say Novoselov, Bulgakov, Andreev, Tsvetkov, etc., etc., for me and for each of us is not someone else’s business, not the business of a rival, which “the worse the better,” but my business, partly mine. Everyone is interested in perfection, just as success is often attributed to themselves. Therefore, it is natural that everyone wants to weave at least one straw into this nest, correct at least one mistake in the proofreading or help in some way. In essence, the names “Novoselov”, “Florensky”, “Bulgakov”, etc., inscribed on these works, do not mean the owner, but rather the style, variety, taste of the work. “Novoselov” - this means the work was performed in the style of Novoselov, i.e. in the style of “strict Orthodoxy”, a little monastic way of life; “Bulgakov” means in a professorial style, more for external, apologetic meaning, etc.” [1, p.304]. The position of the Circle, more focused on the elders than on the hierarchy, seemed suspicious to many. There were accusations of Freemasonry. Father Pavel Florensky wrote to Novoselov in 1913: “Once in the summer you had the imprudence to speak against monastic comfort. This was put on the line for you, especially since Fr. G. does not wear boots cheaper than 20 rubles. Etc. And now this company is against you, and at the same time - against those like you. It turns out that this case has been underway before, but now your speeches give reason for some hope. In any case, they can’t stand you and are only afraid of you, or, better to say, they were afraid of you before. They say, I don’t know how sincerely, that the Moscow ones, i.e. you are all “masons” (!!), who want to destroy the church, and that since the bishop says what, then it is so; the church still stood, etc. This is all nonsense." We cite this passage only because of the renewal of this nonsense. In contrast to the “Alexandrian” spirit of the Religious and Philosophical Society in Memory of Vl. Solovyov, the majority of whose members were only “near the church walls”, or even at a distance from them, the Circle was “inside the church fence” and connected the fate of Russia with the fate of the Orthodox Church: “There, in Solovyov’s society, there was still a certain jumble and some peripherality, sometimes even chaos and seductiveness of spiritual quests, some, perhaps, preparatory work, a preparatory phase, in any case, an undoubted loosening of the spiritual soil (with all the doubtful and negative aspects). Here, in the Kornilov circle, there was a strong rootedness in the life of the church, with all the breadth of scientific horizons and approach, and an enlightened sobriety that permeated all the work. It was a spiritual laboratory: there was a noisy arena there” [54, p. 306–307]. The circle, in the pre-revolutionary era of general spiritual confusion, was an attempt at genuine conciliar unity of people pursuing the goal of “salting” a decaying society. Although in this laboratory the conversations were sometimes quite heated. Priest Evgeniy Konstantinovich Sinadsky, in a letter to Florensky dated March 24, 1911, wrote: “I now attend evenings with M.A. New Everyone is terribly worried and screaming. I was somehow late and arrived in the middle of the meeting. There was such a cry, as if a riot was taking place. The passion is understandable, because... there the representative was of pure “self-affirmation”. Even philosophers were worried and passionately argued” [Archive of the priest. Pavel Florensky]. Regarding the expected election of V.A. Kozhevnikov to honorary members of the Moscow Theological Academy Fr. Pavel Florensky wrote to him on March 15, 1912: “This is a matter not only of your fame, but also of the strength of our common direction towards churchliness and national identity. That is why you do not have the right, no matter what the voice of your modesty, to resist our (that is, Reverend Theodore, mine, F.K. Andreev should also be included here) desire and intention” [46, p. 97]. At the end of 1912 M.A. Novoselov, F.D. Samarin and V.A. Kozhevnikov was approved by the Council of the Moscow Academy and the Holy Synod as honorary members of the Moscow Theological Academy. Submissions for the election of M.A. Novoselova and V.A. Kozhevnikov written by Fr. Pavel Florensky. This election was evidence of the high merits of the elected members of the Circle to the Church: “By this election, the Council of Moscow. Spirit. The Academy stated that he values ​​and highly values ​​the merits of these workers in the church field” [18, p. 863]. Around this time, Novoselov was honored, dedicated to the 10th anniversary of the publication of the Religious and Philosophical Library. Here is the entire note from Moskovskie Vedomosti: “Honoring M.A. Novoselova November 8, the day of the tenth anniversary of M.A.’s publishing activity. Novoselova, his friends and admirers gathered with him in the morning at the Church of the Savior on Bor to pray during the liturgy. At the end of the liturgy, a prayer service was served to Archangel Michael. During the day M.A. Novoselov received several telegrams from clergy and secular persons expressing gratitude for his useful activities for the Orthodox Church and wishes for the further prosperity and development of his publishing house. Personally M.A. Novoselov was greeted by His Grace Theodore, rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, who also expressed his deep sympathy for his activities and gave him an archpastoral blessing. From Moscow The Theological Academy was visited by Prof. N.D. Kuznetsov and Fr. P. Florensky, editor of the Theological Bulletin. In the evening I arrived at M.A. Novoselov on behalf of Fr. Herman, abbot of the Zosimova Hermitage, one of its hieromonks, Fr. Innocent, who on behalf of Fr. Herman was brought to M.A. Novoselov the icon of the Smolensk Mother of God and wished him success in his labors for the benefit of the Church. Members of the “Circle of Seekers of Christian Enlightenment” and closest friends of M.A. Novoselov presented him with an icon of Sophia the Wisdom of God, and Fr. Joseph Fudel blessed him with this icon and gave him a welcoming speech. In the evening, at the tea table at M.A. Novoselov was gathered by his friends, among whom were several professors, writers and scientists: S.N. Bulgakov, A.S. Volzhsky, V.A. Kozhevnikov, A.A. Kornilov, F.D. Samarin. But the Novoselovsky circle, consisting of Orthodox Christians caring for the good of the Church and the Fatherland, striving to promote the unity of bishops, clergy and laity, seemed to be in opposition to the synodal authority and did not meet with understanding from the most famous and authoritative hierarchs of the Russian Church. Metropolitan Vladimir, during a conversation with representatives of the Brotherhood of Moscow Saints, showed dissatisfaction with the excessive activity of the “laity” [12]. Tikhomirov's Moskovskie Vedomosti, an organ of the right, where publications by members of the Novoselovsky circle constantly appeared, starting in the 1910s, every now and then comes out in opposition to the Synod, as a bureaucratic force, hostile to the spirit of living church conciliarity. The failure of the synodal power, they believed, was especially evident in connection with the rise and ever-increasing influence of Grigory Rasputin. In March 1910, Novoselov published two articles here [Op. 8 and 9], where he directly calls Rasputin "an erotomaniac and a whip", referring to the private opinion of "one archbishop" (perhaps we are talking about Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky), who expressed himself in this spirit in a letter to F.D. Samarin [4]), and expresses surprise at the silence of the Holy Synod about him. Here for the first time publicly, with a full signature, from the Orthodox and monarchist, a well-known and authoritative person, an accusation was thrown: “the cowardice of the church authorities,” “shameful and criminal.” Novoselov, as if no longer seeing church authority in Russia, not believing in it, appeals not to it, but to “the moral consciousness and common sense of ordinary pastors and lay brothers,” of course, both Novoselov and others knew who was behind Rasputin, and, demanding from the Synod “to clarify the identity.” Rasputin,” they themselves, probably without wanting it, demanded from specific people, members of the Synod, bishops, a decisive action against the will of the Sovereign - with all the ensuing consequences for the Church and for Russia. At the end of 1911, a rumor began to spread in society about the impending elevation of Grigory Rasputin to the rank of priest. Moreover, the initiative in this matter was attributed to the “synodal hierarchs.” “Moskovskie Vedomosti” wrote on January 10, 1912: “Several time ago, under pressure from some circles of synodal hierarchs, the question of raising Grigory Rasputin to the rank of priest was raised” [26]. Many were outraged by this news, and some were ready to take action. Just recently, Bishop Hermogenes of Saratov and Tsaritsyn and Hieromonk Iliodor, who were close to Rasputin, threateningly demanded that Rasputin leave. Rasputin promised, but did not fulfill his promise, and bishop. Hermogenes and Jerome. Punishments rained down on Iliodor. The Synod accused the bishop. Hermogenes in “some stagnation in diocesan office work” and in the weakening of church discipline” in connection with the speech of Hieromonk Iliodor,” who “aroused passions.” On January 3, 1912, the Highest permission for the dismissal of Bishop followed. Hermogenes from his presence in the Holy Synod to the diocese entrusted to him. Ep. Hermogenes did not leave St. Petersburg at the time indicated to him. On January 18, at the request of the Holy Synod about the disobedience of Bishop. Hermogenes received the highest permission to dismiss the bishop. Hermogenes with the appointment of staying in the Zhirovitsky monastery, and Hierom. Iliodora - in the Florishcheva Hermitage. On January 24, a petition “St. Synod and Bishop Hermogenes. The voice of the laity." The petition was signed by Fyodor Samarin, Viktor Vasnetsov, Nikolai Druzhinin, Vladimir Kozhevnikov, Alexander Kornilov, Pavel Mansurov. Mikhail Novoselov, Petr Samarin, Dmitry Khokhmyakov, Gr. Pavel Sheremetev. The petition expressed bewilderment at the unusual speed of the proceedings. It is noted that the essence of the bishop's guilt. Hermogenes is not clear: “T. Oh, the thoughts that confuse the soul involuntarily arise: wasn’t the course of this matter determined by some considerations unknown to us?” With an obvious allusion to Rasputin, it was asked: “Don’t we see, for example, that obvious heretics and apostates, who boldly carry out their godless deeds, remain free from church court? “In conclusion it was stated that the conflict between the Holy Synod and the bishop. Hermogenes can only be decided by the Council [Op. 44]. On the same day, January 24, Novoselov’s article “The Voice of the Orthodox Layman. (Letter to the editor)." The article asked: “How long, in fact, will the Holy Synod, in whose face this criminal tragicomedy has been playing out for several years now, by this rogue, will remain silent and inactive? “And further: “Perhaps he does not know enough about the activities of Grigory Rasputin? In this case, I apologize for the indignant, daring word and respectfully propose to the highest church institution to call me to present data proving the truth of my assessment of the cunning seducer" [Op. 13]. These data, together with Novoselov’s anti-Rasputin articles, were collected by him in the book “Rasputin and Mystical Debauchery” (M., 1912). The book was printed, but printing was suspended due to the confiscation of everything printed [Op. 11]. The newspaper “Voice of Moscow” dated January 24, 1912 was confiscated. On January 25, at an evening meeting of the State Duma, a request was made to the Ministry of Internal Affairs to confiscate the newspapers “Voice of Moscow” and “Evening Time”. In the speeches of A.I. Guchkova and V.N. Lvov clearly indicated that the matter was not about the confiscation of newspapers, but about the individual about whom the confiscation took place. The entire Duma (except Baron Cherkasov) unanimously joined the request: both left and right. The case ended in nothing, but there was a lot of noise in the press. The Synod responded to the “Muscovites” in the “Additions to the Church Gazette”, where the required explanations were given in the case of Bishop. Hermogenes, his guilt and the legality of the punishment were explained, of course, without mentioning the name of Rasputin. Ep. Hermogenes was accused of dogmatic differences with the Holy Synod regarding the possible establishment of a corporation of deaconesses and the canonicity of prayer at the burial of non-Orthodox Christians, as well as of unwillingness to obey the decree of the Holy Synod on leaving St. Petersburg. At the same time, any connection with the bishop’s case was denied. Hermogenes with Rasputin. Here a reproach is expressed against the "Muscovites" who staged a "trial of the church authorities" through the newspaper, which brings temptation into the minds and harms the Church. Finally, the "Muscovites" are reminded of the rule of the Trullo Council, which prohibits a layman "before the people" to talk about the faith or "teach as a teacher" [58]. "Muscovites" - all members of the Novoselovsky circle - defending their understanding of the relations between hierarchy and laity, came out with a polemical article in the same “Moskovskie Vedomosti” with the same signatures (except for V.M. Vasnetsov). They argued that the Council's decree, to which the Synod refers, prohibits the laity only from teaching the dogmas of the faith in church, but does not prohibit them from expressing their judgment on the actions of representatives of the church authorities. The article once again directly stated the connection between the bishop’s case. Hermogenes with Rasputin and the demand for the convening of a special Council to investigate this matter was repeated [45]. The Royal Family was dissatisfied with this newspaper hype. On June 15, 1915, the Tsar informed the Tsarina about the opinion of Goremykin, Krivoshein and Shcherbatov to replace V.K. as Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. Sablera A.D. Samarin: “I’m sure you won’t like it, because he’s a Muscovite; But these changes must take place, and it is necessary to choose a person whose name is known throughout the country and unanimously respected” [76, p.215]. On the same day, Alexandra Feodorovna replies: “Yes, my love, I’m more than upset about Samarin, I’m just in despair - he’s from Ella’s unkind, sanctimonious clique, Soph’s best friend. Iv. Tyutcheva and Bishop Tryphon” [76, p.217]. The letter is full of unflattering characteristics of Samarin: “an ardent and narrow Muscovite”, “a terribly narrow, real Muscovite mind without a soul”, “will go against our Friend”, etc. June 16, 1915. The Tsarina writes: “A devoted servant does not dare to go against a person whom his sovereign respects and values” [76, p. 219]. The “Moscow clique” is, without a doubt, the Novoselovsky circle, to which both A.D. Samarin and Grand Duchess Elizaveta Feodorovna (Ella) were close. Samarin was appointed Chief Prosecutor on July 5, 1915, and was dismissed on September 25, 1915. Thus, with their appearances in the press, dictated by concern for the affairs of the Church, the Novoselovsky circle played into the hands of the enemies of the Church, the Tsar and the Fatherland, and acted for the amusement of the yellow press. What was to be done? To remain silent, seeing the disgrace inside the church fence? Speak knowing that every word you say will be used by the enemies of the Church? There were no easy answers here. A simplified answer to these questions was once given by the priest during his closeness with Rasputin. Ilidor: "They are shouting about Grigory Efimovich in all the Jewish newspapers in the most desperate way. He is attacked by the most disgusting, most insignificant part of people - our godless intelligentsia and ... stinking Jews. The attack of the latter proves to us that he is a great man with a beautiful angelic soul [Oc. 11, p. 12]. Jerome. Iliodor informed us of the decree Tsaritsyn’s believers: “You, harlot of the editorial board, will be nailed to the pillory in front of all of Russia, and your godless employee, Novoselov, will be whipped with filthy bath brooms” for insulting “the blessed elder Gregory” [Oc. 11, p. 9]. Iliodor changed his attitude towards Rasputin and opposed him. Even later, he wrote a book about Rasputin, which he called “Holy Devil.” From one extreme he rushed to the other. And now some, almost verbatim, repeat the admiration of the priest. Iliodor, trying to disavow his later insights [30]. Yes, the press hounded Rasputin, aiming at the Royal Family, but also such a right-wing newspaper as Moskovskie Vedomosti. Yes, lies were maliciously spread about Rasputin. But does it follow from this, by contradiction, that he was a “blessed old man”? And what was a loyal subject to do, who, not knowing the real Rasputin, saw that his proximity to the throne was becoming dangerous for the throne, even due to the fact that the press was slandering the nature of this proximity? It is appropriate here to recall the concept of “educational disobedience” by I.A. Ilyin: “There are cases when a subject, being a monarchist, is obliged to dare and disobey - not cowardly evading, not feigning obedience, but openly and justifiably refusing to obey” [68, p. 567]. Such disobedience is the “sacred duty” of a loyal subject. In certain cases of life, he must disobey the monarch “NOT contrary to his oath, but in fulfillment of his oath” [68, p. 570]. Then flattery, cowardly and irresponsible assenting is a violation of the oath [68, p. 572]. This may cause disfavor of the monarch, but “one of the first duties of a monarchist is often not to fear the disfavor that he will probably have to incur sooner or later on himself” [68. With. 574]. One type of disobedience is telling the truth to the monarch, knowing that it could lead to disgrace. Among the reasons for the collapse of the monarchy in Russia I.A. Ilyin pointed out that there were no people on the throne who could tell the truth to the Emperor at the cost of disfavor for themselves. Among the gratifying exceptions, Ilyin pointed to A.D. Samarina [67, p. 231]. The next clash between the Circle and the Synodal authorities concerned the complex dogmatic issue of veneration of the Name of God, which arose during the so-called. Athonite Troubles. In the Circle of Novoselov there was one of the most passionate defenders of “name-glory”. He himself did not speak in print on the dogmatic side of the matter, but organized the speech of others and published the works of the “Imyaslavites.” Novoselov was supported by Florensky, Bulgakov, Ern. They often had to urge Novoselov to be careful in his statements. Sometimes there were conflicts with him. The senior members of the Circle (Samarin, Mansurov, Kozhevnikov) did not dare to take a definite position and called for caution, especially after the condemnation of “name-worship” by the resolution of the Holy Synod. At this time F.D. Samarin even raised the question of abolishing or at least reorganizing the Circle [25]. May 26, 1913 Samarin, in a letter to Novoselov, calmed him down and urged him not to make “right now, under the first impression, any too hasty decision, the consequences of which will be irreparable”: “don’t rush, for God’s sake, and think again and weigh everything.” Samarin wrote about the impossibility of going with the name-slavers in this matter, despite every desire to maintain unanimity. Both the right and the left agreed in condemning name-glorification. The leftist press inflated the “Athos affair”: not interested in theological disputes, it took the opportunity to discredit the Church. Such representatives of the “new religious consciousness” as N.A. Berdyaev, was outraged by the “violence in spiritual life” on the part of church authorities [9, p. 202]. Ep. Nikon saw in the name-glorifying people the “poison of pride”, which forced the intellectual in the Church to behave as in the world, i.e. to declare oneself, to denounce, to reform, to teach. He accused Novoselov of the fact that, having received the title of honorary member of the Moscow Theological Academy, by publishing the “Apology” Fr. Anthony (Bulatovich) contributes to the dissemination of the doctrine condemned by the church [28]. The Synodal authorities foresaw that the participation of lay intellectuals in the work of the upcoming Local Council was fraught with the introduction of a spirit of political struggle, passions and ambitions into this work. The words of one “famous hierarch” were reported: “It is better to let convicts into the Council than intellectuals” [49]. Such a defender of name-glorification as S.N. Bulgakov, during the post-revolutionary discord, when he sympathized with Catholicism, where the “infallible” pope could end all disputes and discord with one word, cited more and more speeches by the “dearest” Novoselov in defense of the condemned imyaslaviya as an example of the lack of church discipline, which, in principle, does not exist in the Orthodox Church, which is capable of destroying it in extreme situations of theological disputes and church strife. Mr. Bulgakov wrote: “... was the decision of the most influential of the Russian bishops, supported by the Patriarch of Constantinople, and then the determination of the highest ecclesiastical authority of the Russian Church, the Holy Synod, authoritative for M.A. Novoselov and his associates? But let’s look ahead and ask ourselves: what about the opinion of the Local Council, even supported by the “Eastern Patriarchs”? will confirm the name-fighting theses. Then there will be an appeal to the elusive body of the Church and its no less elusive reception. And it will turn out, as has long been the case, the following picture: at the time when the church authorities will excommunicate M. A. Novoselov and others like him from the Church for heresy, he, in turn, will do the same against all dissident bishops, presbyters and laity, and each side affirms and will affirm about itself: Orthodoxy is me” [11, p. 218]. From here Bulgakov drew the false conclusion about the need for an “infallible” pope for the Church. But it was precisely papism that the Holy Synod accused Novoselov of [Op. 15]. In a letter dated October 10, 1912, Novoselov suggested that Florensky publish in the Theological Bulletin “a serious and impartial discussion of the disputable teaching.” But no “name-glorifying” or “name-fighting” materials appeared in the “Theological Bulletin”. There was no impartial discussion anywhere. In “Editions “Religiously; Philosophical Library" Novoselov published the "Apology" of Fr. Anthony (Bulatovich), “Analysis of the Message of the Holy Synod on the Name of God” by V.F. Erna and “Materials for the dispute about the veneration of the Name of God” (2 editions). After the condemnation of “name-worship” by the Holy Synod, Novoselov became despondent, and he began to think about closing the publishing house (see letter from I.P. Shcherbov to Novoselov at the end of May 1913). But Novoselov soon recovered and defended “name-glory” to the end. The only theological speech of Novoselov has been identified in the text marked November 9, 1919. In “name-wrestling” Novoselov saw the deepest deviation from Orthodoxy, and he considered the revolution and what followed it to be a punishment for deviation from the worthy veneration of the Name of God and blasphemy against Him (see. Novoselov's letter to P.B. Mansurov (?) late 1918 - early 1919). To consider the “Athos case” at the All-Russian Local Council, a subsection “On the Name of God” was created, headed by Archbishop. Feofan (Bistrov). The subsection did not advance further than collecting materials, and the Council did not have time to make a decision on this case. S.N. Bulgakov was confident that the issue would be resolved in favor of the “Imyaslavites” [70, p. 86]. At the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church 1917–1918. archbishop Sergius (Stragorodsky) and Prince. E.N. Trubetskoy submitted an application to invite Novoselov to the Council, but on October 6, 1917, based on the voting results, the addition of new members to the Council was considered undesirable. However, on March 9 (22), 1918 Secretary of the Council V. Shein sent Fr. Pavel Florensky, S.N. Durylin, S.P. Mansurov and M.A. Novoselov was invited to take part in the work of the Council Department on religious educational institutions in the development of a type of pastoral schools (instead of seminaries) [2, p. 240]. On January 30, 1918, Novoselov was elected a member of the Temporary Council of United Parishes of Moscow. A.D. was elected Chairman of the Council. Samarin, in whose apartment (Spiridonovka, 18) the Council met, which took a position of active defense in relation to Bolshevik violence against the church. The Council at its meeting on January 31 decided: “To notify all parishes that the Provisional Council would recognize it as desirable in the event of an open encroachment on churches and sacred and ecclesiastical objects to proceed as follows: the priest must explain to the visiting representatives of the current government that he is not the sole administrator of church property and therefore asks for time to convene the Parish Council. If this turns out to be possible to do, then the Parish Council should firmly and definitely indicate that churches and all church property are sacred property, which the parish under no circumstances considers possible to give away. If the authorities had not heeded the arguments of the rector of the church or the parish council and had begun to show their intention to carry out their demand by force, the parishioners would have had to sound an alarm bell to defend the church. At the same time, the Council considers it absolutely unacceptable for parishioners to resort to force of arms in this case. If there are other churches nearby, then it is advisable to enter into an agreement with them first, so that an alarm bell rings in them too, but to which the population of the surrounding parishes could come to the aid and, with their large numbers, repel the attack on the church” [72]. Soon the Council was dispersed, and the Cheka repeatedly tried to arrest A.D. Samarina in his apartment on Spiridonovka, but this was not possible due to his absence. He was arrested only in September [40, p. 245]. Novoselov managed to avoid arrest in this case. At this time, conditions arose for the implementation of the cherished plans of the members of the Novoselovsky circle to create a spiritual school of an ascetic orientation based on the precepts of the Holy Fathers. The circle initiated the creation of theological courses, which operated in April-June 1918 at Novoselov’s apartment. The courses were blessed by His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon. The courses were taught by: Bishop. Theodore - Holy Scripture; M.A. Novoselov - Holy Fathers, their lives and writings; M.I. Smirnov - Divine service; S.P. Mansurov - history of the Church; A.G. Kulyashov – apologetics; S.N. Durylin - church art. From mid-January 1919 it was planned to resume the activities of the courses. The teachers again included members of the Novoselovsky Circle: Bishop. Theodore - Holy Scripture; P.B. Mansurov – Orthodox Church in the East: M.A. Novoselov - Church historical essays (Christian martyrs), Church rites as an expression of the comprehensive and divine love of the Church for its children, course “Faith and Church” (1. Angels and demons in the life of the world and man according to the teachings of the Word of God, the Holy Fathers, lives and church rites; 2. The name of God; 3. Cross; 4. Early Christianity and Anti-Christianity; 5. In the light of Old Testament and New Testament prophecy; 6. From Tolstoy to the Church); L.A. Tikhomirov - Religious and philosophical foundations of history (the struggle for the Kingdom of God). However, the Theological courses could not be resumed. The activities of the Danilov Academy in the Danilov Monastery, where Bishop became rector, also did not develop to their full potential. Theodore [71]. In mid-November 1919, Novoselov moved to the Danilov Monastery. On November 30, 1919, he wrote to Fr. Pavel Florensky: “I am still happy with my position in Dan, to say the least, despite some inconveniences, such as the lack of a separate room. But the “corner” also gives more than the Kovriginskaya apartment, because I have leisure and silence for studying. Of course, I go to church every day, I also work physically - I shovel snow, sometimes I cook food...” Soon Novoselov went underground and hid with his many friends, mainly in Moscow and Petrograd. In 1922–1927 Novoselov wrote “Letters to Friends” (20 letters are known), which did not have a specific addressee and were intended for like-minded people. The subjects of the letters are very diverse: from current church issues to fundamental theological topics. With all his characteristic energy, Novoselov spoke out against the Living Churchers. “Renovationists” appeared long before the revolution: the “Church Social Revolutionaries” tried to replace the Christian way of life with a liberal social one. They prepared the ground for the “Living Churchers” - the “Church Bolsheviks”. Novoselov saw the cause of the revolution in the retreat from the faith of Christ: “God takes away from us what we ourselves have abandoned and are increasingly refusing” [32, p. 37]. The Bolsheviks are only instruments of God’s wrath, and therefore are not worthy of hatred. Novoselov insisted on the absence in the Church of a generally binding external authority in matters of faith and conscience: “It is not an individual person (the Pope) or even a Council (which can be rejected by the Church) that is infallible.” The Church itself is infallible in its conciliarity - the union of mutual love on which the knowledge of Christ's Truths is based. And what is important for the Church is not the Councils themselves, but conciliarity as the identity of the testimonies expressed at them with the faith of the entire body of the Church. In conclusion of the letter [10th. – I.N. and S.P.]. Novoselov points out the great harm from adopting the false Catholic view of the hierarchy as an infallible authority and guardian of unconditional truth, and the absurdity of identifying the hierarchy with the Church, which is especially dangerous in an era of church unrest and betrayal of Orthodoxy on the part of many Renovationist priests and bishops” [32, p. 37]. This view is different from the false freedom of Protestant subjectivism. Loyalty to the Church for the Orthodox is fidelity to the word of the Holy Fathers and prayer. The sacraments play a huge role in the knowledge of God. They are both the ontological and epistemological basis of the educational power of knowledge of the Truth. Unanimity is the result of the action of the conciliar principle of the Church. First of all, unanimity with the Gospel and patristic texts is necessary. It is on this path that it is possible to comprehend the Truth. The correspondence of M.A. is published below. Novoselova and Fr. Pavel Florensky, preserved in the archives of Fr. Pavel Florensky. Letters from Fr. Pavel are drafts inserted into the corresponding letters of Novoselov. Letters from other persons are, apparently, letters addressed to Novoselov and forwarded by Novoselov to Fr. Pavel. They were of general interest, mainly in connection with the Athos affair. Also included are all the surviving letters of Hieroschemamonk Anthony (Bulatovich), the only surviving letter of schema-abbot Herman Zosimovsky. Also included is selected correspondence from members of the Circle of Seekers of Christian Enlightenment F.D. Samarina, F.K. Andreeva, S.N. Durylina and others, helping to fill the coherence of events. Without these letters, much would be incomprehensible. The published correspondence covers 12 years: from the end of 1908 to April 1920. Most of Novoselov’s letters are of a business nature: they are orders, instructions, petitions. It is obvious that they clarified most of the fundamental issues during frequent meetings. The style of Novoselov's letters is laconic, full of efficiency and energy. Before us is a man of “business acumen,” a publisher, and an experienced polemicist. Sometimes the tone of the request is close to imperative: “Abba Michael” is visible. Draft letters from Fr. Pavel Florensky is extremely informative, obviously because he drafted the most important letters of principle. The publishers express their gratitude to Abbot Andronik (Trubachev) for the selection and provision of letters and other materials used and for his invaluable assistance in writing the preface, appendices and comments. 1. Hegumen Andronik (Trubachev). Priest Pavel Florensky is a professor at the Moscow Theological Academy and editor of the Theological Bulletin. – “Theological Works”, collection. 28, M., 1987. 2. Hegumen Andronik (Trubachev). Priest Pavel Florensky is a professor at the Moscow Theological Academy. - “Theological Works.” Anniversary collection of the Moscow Theological Academy. – M., 1986. 3. Hegumen Andronik (Trubachev). Moscow circle. - “Literary Irkutsk”, 1988, December: the same abbreviation: Russian religious philosophers and Abramtsevo. Materials of scientific conferences of the 80s. Abramtsevo. Materials and research. / Sergiev Posad, 1994, 6. 4. Letter from the archbishop. Anthony Volynsky to F.D. Samarina. – RSL, f.265. Room 181, No. 31. 5. Bely Andrey. Beginning of the century. – M., “Fiction”, 1990. 6. N.A. Berdyaev. Stylized Orthodoxy. – “Russian Thought”, 1914, No. 1. 7. N.A. Berdyaev. Revival of Orthodoxy. - “Russian Thought”, 1916. No. 7. The same: N.A. Berdyaev about Russian philosophy. 42. – Sverdlovsk, 1991. 8. N.A. Berdyaev. Russian spiritual renaissance at the beginning of the 20th century. and the magazine "Path". (To the tenth anniversary of “The Path”). - "Path". 1935, No. 49. Also: N.A. Berdyaev about Russian philosophy. 4.2. – Sverdlovsk, 1991. 9. N.A. Berdyaev. Self-knowledge. (An Experience of Philosophical Autobiography). – M., “Book”, 1991. 10. S.N. Bulgakov. Autobiographical notes. – Paris, 1946. pp. 84–85. The same in the book: S.N. Bulgakov. Quiet thoughts. – M., 1996. 11. S.N. Bulgakov. At the walls of Chersonis. "Symbol", 1991, July. No. 25. The same: St. Petersburg, 1993. 12. - RSL. f. 265. room 116. No. 59. 13. In search of Holy Rus'. (From letters of A.N. Rudnev to V.I. Leonova)."Nadezhda". 1980, issue 6. 15. Alexander Ivanovich Guchkov tells... - M., 1993. 16. S.N. Durylin. In your corner. (From old notebooks). – M., 1991. 17. Notes of the St. Petersburg Religious and Philosophical Meetings (1902–1903). – St. Petersburg, 1906. 18. N. Zernov. Russian religious revival of the 20th century. Per. from English 2nd revision – Paris, 1991. 19. Election of new honorary members of the Moscow Theological Academy. "Theological Bulletin". 1912, December. 20. How to fix a church disaster? - Moskovskie Vedomosti. 1912, January 19. 21. Letter from V.A. Kozhevnikov to V.V. Rozanov dated November 10, 1915. "Bulletin of the Russian Christian Democracy", 1984. No. 143; the same: “Questions of Philosophy”, 1991, No. 6. 22. V.A. Kozhevnikov. From the Circle of Those Seeking Christian Enlightenment. In the book: To Fyodor Dmitrievich Samarin († October 23, 1916) from friends. Sergiev Posad, 1917. 23. P.B. Mansurov. On the question of the Council. - Moskovskie Vedomosti. 1910, March 4. 24. Letter from P.B. Mansurova to F.D. Samarin dated June 25, 1906 - RSL. f.265, p.193, no. 12. 25. ״Letter from P.B. Mansurova to F.D. Samarin dated November 12, 1910 - RSL. f.265, p.193. No. 12. 26. Letter from P.B. Mansurova to F.D. Samarin dated May 28, 1913 - RSL. f. 265, paragraph 193. No. 12 27. "Moskovskie Vedomosti". 1912, January 10. 28. "Moskovskie Vedomosti". 1912, January-March. 29. Bishop Nikon (Rozhdestvensky). The poison of pride. - “Additions to the Church Gazette”, 1913, No. 33. 30. N.M. C. Honoring M.A. Novoselova. - Moskovskie Vedomosti. 1912, November 9 (22), No. 260. 31. O. Platonov. The truth about Grigory Rasputin. - “Russian Frontier”. 1992, No. 1 (13). 32. E.S. Polishchuk. Church and intelligentsia: on the history of dialogue. – “Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate”, 1991, No. 4. 33. E.S. Polishchuk. M.A. Novoselov and his “Letters to Friends.” – Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1991, no. 11. 34. E.S. Polishchuk. M.A. Novoselov and his “Letters to Friends.” - "North-East". App. "Siberian newspaper". Novosibirsk 1992. No. 8 (12). 35. M. M. Prishvin. Diary March 17, 1942. In the book: V.V. Rozanov. Pro et contra. (p. 36) Book. 1. St. Petersburg, 1995, p. 128. 36. M.V. Rodzianko. The collapse of the empire. - Kyiv. 1990. 37. K. Rodionov. Stories about experiences. - "Moscow". 1991, no. 7. 38. V. V. Rozanov. About difficult religious topics. - “New Time”. 1916, August 12. 39. V. V. Rozanov. Berdyaev about the young Moscow Slavophilism. - Moskovskie Vedomosti. 1916, August 17. 40. V. V. Rozanov. About yourself and your life. – M., 1990. 41. E. Samarina Chernyshova. Alexander Dmitrievich Samarin. - "Moskovsky Vestnik". 1990. No. 3. p. 213–244. 42. Monk Ambrose (von Sievers). “Don't bury me alive. The fate of Bishop Andrei, Archbishop of Ufa (Prince Alexander Alekseevich Ukhtomsky). - “Russian Thought”. Paris. 1994, June 1. 43. Charter of the “Mutual Help Circle for the Purposes of Christian Education.” RSL. f.265, room 118, no. 24. 44. Brief information about the activities of the “Circle of Those Seeking Christian Enlightenment” for 1908 - RSL. f. 265, room 118, no. 24. 45. P.A. Florensky. Eschatological mosaic. 4.2. – Context. 91. M., 1991. 46. P.A. Florensky. Op. T.2. At the watersheds of thought. – M., “Pravda”. 1990. 47. Correspondence of P.A. Florensky and V.A. Kozhevnikova. – “Questions of Philosophy.” 1991. No. 6. 48. F.I. Udelov [S.I. Fudel]. About Fr. Pavel Florensky. - Paris. 1972. 49. S.I. Fudel. Memories. - “New World”. 1991. No. 3, 4. 50. YES. Khomyakov. More about the All-Russian Church Council. "Moskovskie Vedomosti". 1910, March 11. 51. Elder Alexy of Zosimova Hermitage. - Paris. 1989. 52. M. Shaginyan. Man and time. – Collection Op. T.1. – M., 1986. 53. V.V. Shulgin. Years - M., APN, 1979. 54. H.S. Arsenyev. Gifts and encounters of life's journey. – Frankfurt am Main. "Sowing", 1974. 55. H.S. Arsenyev. About Moscow religious, philosophical and literary circles and meetings of the early 20th century. – Memories of the Silver Age. – M., 1993. 56. Protopresbyter M. Polish. New Russian martyrs. T.2. Jordanville, 1957. 57. "Religious and Philosophical Library". List of publications and press reviews. – M., 1911. 58. "Religious and Philosophical Library". List of publications and press reviews. – M., 1914. 59. B/p. Dismissal of the Right Reverend Hermogenes. - “Addition to the Church Gazette”, 1912, February 25, No. 8. 60. Letters from gr. L.N. Tolstoy to M. A.N. - “New Path”. 1903. January, February. 61. L.N. Tolstoy. Diaries. – PSS, t.50. – M., 1952. 62. S.A. Fat. Diaries. T.1. – M., 1978. 63. D.P. Makovitsky. Tolstoy's. T.4. – M., 1979. 64. N.N. Gusev. Chronicle of the life and work of L.N. Tolstoy. 2 vols. – M., 1958–1960. 65. M.M. Spasovsky. V.V. Rozanov in the last years of his life. New York. 1968. 66. To Fyodor Dmitrievich Samarin (†October 23, 1916) from friends. Sergiev Posad. 1917. 67. V.V. Zenkovsky. History of Russian philosophy. T. 2. Part 2. – L., p. 200. 68. I.A. Ilyin. Our tasks. Book 2. – I.A. Ilyin. Collection Op. T.2. Book 2. – M., 1993. 69. I.A. Ilyin. About the monarchy and the republic. – I.A. Ilyin. Collection Op.T. 4. – M., 1994. 70. S.N. Bulgakov. On the death of Tolstoy. - “Russian Thought”. 1910. December, p. 155–156. 71. Letters from Sergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov to Fr. Pavel Florensky (1918). "Started." 1993, no. 4. 72. S.M. Polovinkin. Moscow Theological Academy from February to October 1917. - “Started.” 1993. No. 4. 72. “The Temporary Council of the United Parishes of the City of Moscow, elected at the General Meeting of Representatives of the Parishes on January 30, at its first meeting on January 31, made the following resolution, which was considered necessary to communicate to all parishes of the city of Moscow” (leaflet). - Archive of Priest Pavel Florensky. 73. V.V. Grigoriev. The Imperial St. Petersburg University during the first fifty years of its existence. Historical note. St. Petersburg, 1870. p. 319. CVII. CXI. 74. Al. Streltsov. Alexander Grigorievich Novoselov. Obituary. – “Moskovskie Vedomosti”. 1887. January 16. No. 16. p. 4. 75. D.D. Languages. Review of the lives and works of late Russian writers. Vol. 7: Russian writers who died in 1887. – M., 1893, pp. 62–63. 76. Correspondence between Nikolai and Alexandra Romanov. 1914–1915 T.III. M. Pg., 1925. 77. L.P. Nikiforov. Memories of L.N. Tolstoy. – L.N. Tolstoy in the memoirs of his contemporaries. T. 1. – M., 1960. The same: Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy. Anniversary collection. – M.-L., 1928. 78. Vera Velichkina. In a hungry year with Leo Tolstoy. – L.N. Tolstoy in the memoirs of his contemporaries. T. I. - M., 1960. The same: Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy. Anniversary collection. – M.-L., 1928. 79. E.S. Polishchuk. Mikhail Aleksandrovich Novoselov and his “Letters to Friends.” – M.A. Novoselov. Letters to friends. – M., 1994. 80. A.F. Different paths. – Tauride Church and Public Bulletin. 1909. No. 8. 81. S.F. Sharapov. About the situation in Russia and its improvement. - “Russian Business”. 1905, February 12. No. 5. 82. B/p. Rasputin and censorship. – [?] No. 80. 83. Historical note on the 40th anniversary of the Women's Classical Gymnasium S.N. Fisher. From September 1, 1872 to September 1, 1912. Based on materials collected by G.B. Fischer, compiled by I. Vladimirsky. – M., Publication by former students of the gymnasium S.N. Fisher. 1912. 2. Bishop of the Catacomb True Orthodox Church Ambrose (Count Alexei von Sievers). Zealot of true Orthodoxy (M.A. Novoselov in the “catacombs”) “He who overcomes will I make a pillar in the church of My God, and he will no longer go out; And I will write on it the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name.” ( Rev. 3:12 ). The Catacomb Church of True Orthodox Christians (IOC) carefully preserves the memory of its church pillar, strengthened by sincere veneration of him as a saint. new martyr 1. Even before the revolution, the “Circle of Those Seeking Christian Enlightenment” (otherwise simply the “Novoselovsky Circle”) was noted for its ascetic orientation and its ardent nonconformism. In a sense, this was an attempt to revive the ancient Christian community. Even before the revolution, a certain wit called the entire circle of people spiritually connected with the “Novoselovskaya community” “revolutionary-minded Orthodox fundamentalists” 2, which was quite fair. Novoselov perceived the collapse of the Empire and the beginning of the persecution of the Church, although sorrowfully, but without surprise, for he saw in this an eschatological action. He continued his educational activities after the revolution, despite all its dangers. He participated in the work of the Danilov Academy, which continued illegally for decades 3. According to some sources, it can be judged that somewhere around 1921 he took monastic vows (secretly) with the name Mark. Apparently, he was tonsured by the bishop. Theodore (Pozdeevsky) 4. After the formation of the "Parallel Synod" 5 in the St. Danilov Monastery, Novoselov repeatedly carried out secret orders of Bishop Theodore, traveling a lot around the country. The emergence of "renovationism" was met negatively by Novoselov, like all the "Danilovites" 6. The "Danilovites" opposed any agreements with the Bolsheviks. It was at this time (1922-1927) that Novoselov sent out his messages, now known as “Letters to Friends” 7. In the Danilov Monastery in 1923, Monk Mark was secretly installed as Bishop of Sergievsky (for Sergiev Posad) 8 . The consecration was performed by the archbishop. Theodore (Pozdeevsky), bishop. Serpukhov Arseny (Zhadanovsky) 9 and bishop. Dmitrovsky Seraphim (Zvezdinsky) 10. It can be assumed that it was from this time that Novoselov’s secret “catacomb” activities began. He traveled a lot to cities and villages, founding secret communities and monasteries, participating in hiding Christian shrines from the atheists 11 . When in 1927 the “Declaration” of Metropolitan. Sergius (Stragorodsky), Novoselov’s like-minded people were not particularly surprised by this, having chosen the path of either martyrdom - prisons and camps - or confessional - exile and “catacombs”. It was the “Danilovites” who approved the movement of “non-rememberers” 12. In Petrograd this movement was led by Metropolitan. Joseph (Petrovykh) 13. At the very beginning of the movement, Novoselov rushed to the former capital of the Empire, where he supported like-minded people. His friend Fr. Feodor Andreev became one of the leaders of the “Josephites”. So. Shuttleing between Moscow and Petrograd, the secret bishop lived. Mark. Since 1927, he began to send out new messages, called “Answers to the Opponents,” where he interpreted what had happened and called for correct action in the future. The OGPU viewed his writings as the most harmful anti-Soviet propaganda. At the same time, Novoselov completely switched to an illegal status, hiding among the faithful and moving around the communities. He maintained an uncompromising adherence to Orthodoxy. Not only did he not accept the revolution, but he did not consider himself a citizen of the USSR and did not have Soviet documents. His phrase, which has become popular, says a lot: “Collective farms are ungodly antichrist institutions, and the Soviet government that established them is the power of the antichrist, and the founder of this power is Lenin himself, the real antichrist.” 14 It is difficult to overestimate the contribution that Novoselov made to the formation of the TOC - both by personal example and as a theologian. His influence is so great that even the most illiterate members of the TOC still remember what he said back in 1928! Novoselov was an active participant in the so-called “Nomadic Council” of the 15th IPC, which took place from spring to August 1928 in different places, hiding from the watchful eye of the OGPU. Many of his ideas were reflected in the documents of the Council, and the final Definition, where the “Sergian sacraments” were not recognized as sacraments, being called “heretical depravities”, and where the Sergians were anathematized, was developed under his direct leadership 16. Under the influence of Novoselov, name-glorifying clauses were introduced into the text of the Definition. Imyaslav residents were given unhindered access to the IPC. All his church activities aroused the rage of the OGPU, especially after the deputation to Metropolitan. Sergius, in which Novoselov participated 17. In the end, at the end of 1928, Novoselov was arrested along with a large group, so A.F. was also arrested in the case. Losev 18. According to some reports, Novoselov was betrayed to the security officers by someone from his entourage 19 . At that time, the case of the “Political Center of the All-Union Church-Monarchical Organization “True Orthodoxy”, the head of which Novoselov was recognized, was thundering in Moscow. On May 17, 1929, the OSO OGPU sentenced him to three years in the Political Isolator in Yaroslavl, under Article 58–10 20. And on March 3, 1931, the OGPU Collegium sentenced him to 8 years in prison in the same Political Isolator 21. Almost nothing is known about his time in prison, because... Novoselov did not write to any of the people close to him (he was deprived of correspondence or feared reprisals against the recipients). It is known that in prison Novoselov met with Archbishop. Andrei (Prince Ukhtomsky), who congratulated him on the church holiday 22. On February 7, 1938, the OSO again sentenced him to three years in the Political Isolator for counter-revolutionary activities (KRD) 23. According to the FSK archive, on January 17, 1938, Novoselov was sentenced to capital punishment, but there is no certificate in the case that the sentence was carried out. Apparently, he was soon shot in Vologda. According to one apocrypha, Novoselov was allegedly transported through Moscow to Siberia in 1940, and in the capital he and his guard visited friends. The rumor that secret Bishop Mark was shot at the beginning of the war in 1941 at a transit point, when, due to the threat of an approaching front, prisoners were often liquidated, seems somewhat more plausible. Great is the spiritual legacy of this blessed martyr! These are not only his numerous writings, not only his ascetic image, not only his many disciples, but most importantly, the living tradition of the Catacomb Church coming from him. Truly he was a Teacher of the Church and this tradition of teaching was preserved until 1986 25. First it was the Danilov Academy, which went underground, then the “Theological Courses” in his “catacomb community”, where after the arrest of the “abbas” Abbot Sergius (Gumilevsky) and Archpriest taught. Petr Pervushin 26. All this filled the minds and hearts of true Orthodox Christians with grace. For us, the faithful children of the Catacomb Church of True Orthodox Christians, who reverently honor the memory of the secret Bishop Mark - Mikhail Alexandrovich Novoselov - all that remains is to sing: “Holy Martyr Bishop Marko, pray to God for us!” See: Russias Catacomb Seints. – Platina California, 1988. (The book is based on the notes of I. Andreev (Prof. M.P. Andreevsky). These words are attributed to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod V.K. Sabler (reported by Fr. Petr Pervushin; see: Second Novoselovsky Archive (2NA). p. 3. p. 636). See: S.M. Polovinkin. MDA from February to October 1917 “Principles”, 1993, No. 4. Apparently, lecture notes and all developments of the activities of the legal Danilov Academy were in the confiscated First Novoselovsky Archive (1NA); a small part of the general cases is in 2NA, paragraph 18, p. 1 592. It is definitely known that the tonsure took place secretly in the Danilov Monastery. Archim. Daniil (Klimkov) indicated the time of tonsure in 1918, and Archpriest. Pyotr Pervushin - winter 1920–1921. See: 2NA, paragraph 3, pp. 640–642. The “Parallel Synod” arose in 1921 as a reaction to the inaction of the Patriarchal Synod regarding the campaign of confiscation of church property. Initially it included: Archbishop. Theodore (Pozdeevsky), bishop. Ambrose (Polyansky), Metropolitan. Seraphim (Chichagov) and others. After leaving the Synod, Bishop. Ambrose and Metropolitan Seraphim in 1924 due to different attitudes towards the compromises of Patriarch Tikhon. The Synod was replenished with like-minded people. See: 2HA, paragraph 9, pp. 27–37. The “Danilov group” grew out of like-minded people of the “Parallel Synod”: Archbishop. Theodore (Pozdeevsky) – Chairman: Bishop. Starodubsky Damascene (Tsedrik) – representative of the archbishop. Demetrius (Prince Abashidze, from the late 20s Schema-Archbishop Anthony, head of the “Ukrainian group”), later a representative of the “Josephites”; Ep. Chistopolsky Joasaph (Udalov); Ep. Serpukhovsky Arseny (Zhadanovsky): bishop. Dmitrovsky Seraphim (Zvezdinsky): bishop. Vyaznikovsky Nikolai (Nikolsky): bishop. Kovrovsky Afanasy (Sakharov); Ep. Suzdal Gregory (Kozyrev): bishop. Dubnensky Arkady (Ostalsky); Ep. Krasnokholmsky Sergiy (Kudryavtsev); Ep. Tambovsky Zinovy ​​(Drozdov); Ep. Lipetsk Uar (Shmarin): bishop. Ostashkovsky Gabriel (Abolymov); Ep. Ananyevsky Narfeny (Bryanskikh) – representative of the “Ukrainians”; and 8 more bishops (see 2HA, paragraph 9, p. 38 104). Wed: Met. John (Snychev). Church schisms in the Russian Church of the 20-30s of the XX century - Sortavala, 1993. p. 251. The “Letters to Friends” (20 letters), known in Samizdat and published, have distortions and lacunae. In total there were about 25 of these letters (see 2MN. P. 1). Message about. Peter Pervushin (2NA, paragraph 3. p. 650–651). Although the delivery was secret, information about it leaked even to the emigration. See: N. Zernov. Russian religious revival of the 20th century. Paris, 1991. pp. 121–122: “Novoselov became a bishop and died during the period of repression.” Ep. Serpukhovsky Arseny (Zhadanovsky Alexander Ivanovich. 6.3.1874 27.9.1937. Butovo) - graduated from the Moscow Academy of Arts in 1903, became a monk in 1899, from 1904 he was the abbot of the Chudov Monastery, from 1914 he was bishop of Serpukhov, vicar of the Moscow diocese, in 1931 Arrested for the first time. See: 2NA, paragraph 7, p. 337–518. Ep. Dmitrovsky Seraphim (Zvezdinsky Nikolai Ivanovich. 7.4.1884–1937) became a monk in 1908, graduated from the MDA in 1909. taught church history at Bethany Church. taught at the MDS, spiritual son of Elder Alexy Zosimovsky, since 1914 archimandrite and assistant to the governor of the Chudov monastery, bishop. Arseny (Zhadanovsky), since 1919 bishop. Dmitrovsky; vicar of the Moscow diocese, was repeatedly arrested, apparently executed. See: The life path of Lord Seraphim (Zvezdinsky) // “Vestnik RHD”. 1981, No. 133; Archbishop Seraphim (Zvezdinsky). - Paris. 1991; 2NA. paragraph 7, pp. 102–336. Message O. Peter Pervushina (2NA, paragraph 3, p. 655). The movement of “non-rememberers”, i.e. those who do not commemorate Met. Sergius during the Divine service, it was heterogeneous. The extreme opposition to the Sergians were the Danilovites and Andreevites. When by 1923 the renovationists controlled Petrograd almost completely, only the “Andreevites” were able to install their bishop there, and on November 19, 1923, the monk of the Danilov Monastery, Archimandrite. Grigory (Lebedev) was appointed bishop. Shlisselburgsky, and on December 30, 1925, Dimitri (Lyubimov), who was tonsured at the Danilov Monastery, became bishop. Gdovsky. The “Josephites” were led by Metropolitan. Joseph (Petrovykh). Among the “Josephites there were bishops: Bishop. Gdovsky Dimitri (Lyubimov), bishop. Gregory (Lebedev) of Shlisselburg, bishop. Koporsky Sergius (Druzhinin), bishop. Nikolsky Hierotheus (Afonik), bishop. Kargopolsky Vasily (Dokhturov), bishop. Voronezh Alexy (Bui), bishop. Izhevsk Stefan (Bekh), bishop. Serpukhovsky Maxim (Zhpzhlenko), bishop. Buguruslansky Stefan (Rastorguev), bishop. Perm Varlaam (Ryashentsev), bishop. Rostovsky Evgeniy (Kobranov). Ep. Ingrian Roman (Rupert), bishop. Donskoy Innokenty (Donskoy), bishop. Vytegorsky Modest (Vasilkov) and 26 other bishops. From “Answers to those who rebel” (2NA, paragraph 1). About the “Nomadic Council” see ZNA, paragraph 4. For the definition of a “Nomadic Council”, see ZNA, paragraph 3. The delegation was from Metropolitan. Sergius ca. November-December 1927. Then, not without Novoselov’s participation, a scandal broke out in the Patriarchate. See “Deputation Report” (2NA, paragraph 3, pp. 662–673). See KGB archive file for Moscow. region about the “Church-monarchical organization “True Orthodoxy”". In this case A.F. Losev was arrested on April 18, 1930. Opinion about. Peter Pervushina (2NA. p.Z. p.679). Archival file of the UKGB R-41328. Archival file of the UKGB N-7377. See: Monk Ambrose (von Sievers). "Don't bury me alive..." The fate of Bishop Andrei, Archbishop of Ufa (Prince Alexander Alekseevich Ukhtomsky) // “Russian Thought”. 1991, May 26-June 1. With. 17. Message about. Kosma (Trusova) (2HA, paragraph 7, p. 811). The full name of the educational institution was: “Theological courses of 3 levels.” They had a rich succession: the Novoselovsky Circle, the Danilov Academy, the illegal SPbDA. which was patronized by the schema. Makariy (Vasiliev, died 1944) and where Fr. Feodor Andreev. S.A. Askoldov and others. By 1960, the form of the Courses had changed. Until the 1960s they were led by Abbot Sergius (Gumilevsky), and after his death in 1965 A.S. Baron von der Schulz (d. 1982) became head of the community. Essentially, for a long time the courses were pastoral (“advanced training”). Since 1961, the three-stage form has included the opportunity for teenagers from 12 years of age (1st stage) to become acquainted with the basics of religious doctrine. Teachers came from different places. Hegumen Sergius (Gumilevsky Ilya Vasilievich, ca. 1880–1965) graduated from the Moscow Academy of Sciences in 1907. He defended his master’s thesis “The Teaching of St. Apostle Paul about the soulful and spiritual man" (Sergiev Posad, 1913). In 1918 he taught at the Danilov Academy. He was the confessor of the “professorial community” in Moscow. He was arrested several times. See: ZNA. paragraph 46, p. 108–192. Archpriest Pyotr Aleksandrovich Pervushin (1879–10.9.1980). OK. 1905 ordained priest. Worked in the secretariat of the Council in 1917–1918. In 1917–1918 - in the secretariat of the Patriarchal Synod. See: 2NA. p.Z. personal fund o. Petra Pervushina: ZNA, paragraph 46, pp. 239–273.