1830 г.

Draft note from Metropolitan Philaret regarding the exclusion of important provisions from the report of the Holy Synod by the State Council 227 Most Gracious Sovereign From many examples it is known that Your Imperial Majesty’s full care for the welfare of the people entrusted to you by God gives everyone, even outside of official duties, the freedom to present their opinion for the benefit of the public, and your generosity also covers those whose opinions in their dignity are not equal to their zeal. I dare, in turn, to take advantage of this freedom and trust in this generosity. By the highest decree, given on the 6th day of this December, Your Imperial Majesty granted new benefits to the clergy, perhaps not so much deserved as calling for merit. The report of the Synod on this subject was considered in the State Council, which, not limiting itself to considering it, since church law is in contact with civil law, revised the rules drawn up by the Synod relating to church government, and rejected some, and changed some. But as members of the State Council, by their ranks and by their belonging to different religions, it is not possible to know the details of church and spiritual school administration: in the presentation of the acts drawn up by him and submitted for approval by Your Imperial Majesty, there were some features that should be accompanied by no small difficulties for the spiritual authorities in fulfilling the beneficial intentions of Your Majesty. To see these difficulties and hide them from Your Majesty’s attention only because it is difficult to decide to discover them, would it be consistent with loyal zeal? But how difficult it is to touch something that has already been imprinted with the highest name! In the midst of these bewilderments, I remember that two years before this, on this very matter, before it was in the Synod and in the State Council, Your Majesty deigned to demand my feasible opinion: and it seems to me that through this a lot now falls on me, which, I don’t know if anyone else would have taken, and which is even more difficult for all members of the Synod to take in the present state of affairs - a difficult lot for the unquestioned to speak before Your Majesty and set forth emerging difficulties. 1) In the second paragraph of the highest decree, December 6, it is depicted: to create new staffs of seminaries on the assumption that the students, after their education in parish and district schools supported by their parents, reached the seminary and were recognized as capable of continuing the sciences in them, were, without exception, kept as state dependents 228. The idea that students in district and parish schools should be supported by their parents was expressed by the State Council as a general rule. Not only does it not correspond to Your Majesty’s intention to teach greater ways to educate spiritual youth, but it also deprives them of the benefit that they already partly enjoyed. If a poor priest with a large family has two or three sons in the district and parish schools: in this case, according to the consideration of the authorities, one or two of them have received half or one full allowance from the school until now. This benefit is absolutely necessary for many, and its withdrawal must be accompanied by a pitiful cry of poverty. 2) The rule that seminarians, without exception, be supported by the state, produces inconvenience due to excessive generosity. In diocesan cities, a considerable number of seminarians live in the houses of their parents or close relatives, priests and deacons, who do not rent apartments for them, are not burdened with supporting them with themselves, and, like scholars themselves, serve as the best guards and repeaters of classical lessons for their children. It is not necessary to take such seminarians into state support without exception, it is not useful, it is burdensome for the school economy, and it is especially difficult for residential placement, since there are quite a few such seminaries that have from 400 to 700 seminarians. 3) In the second paragraph of the highest decree, all seminarians are supposed to be supported by the state without exception. But in the 8th paragraph of the highest approved regulation attached to this decree, those seminarians who, in the middle of the course, declare a desire to be free from the obligation to serve in the spiritual department, are told that they cannot use the content from the seminary, but only the teaching 229. Due to such a contradiction between the rules, the authorities will either be at a loss, which they prefer to adhere to, or will act differently. 4) The fourth paragraph of the highest decree ordered: the distribution of pupils to places should be carried out in accordance with the rules, in the provisions hereby transmitted (§ 1–9) indicated in detail. But of these §§, for example, § 6 does not talk about assignment to places, but about supplying students with books and establishing church libraries 230 . I dare say that the office of the State Council should have paid much more attention to the drafting of acts that should be consecrated in the name of Your Imperial Majesty. 5) The eighth paragraph of the highest decree ordered that to the amount allocated for the salaries of the clergy, all balances that may be from other amounts at the disposal of the commission of theological schools 231 should be added for the same use. This commission made 50,000,000 rubles of capital from insignificant candle cinders and brought the state that age-old benefit that it uses and can continue to use annually more than 2,000,000 rubles for numerous theological schools, for the poor of the clergy and for the installation of buildings for the ecclesiastical department, without demanding anything from the state treasury, which, of necessity, these expenses would fall if the commission had not existed. Such an economic system is worthy of preservation, maintenance and, if possible, strengthening. If, while the highest means now bestowed to improve the condition of the clergy were gradually put into action, the commission of theological schools was not obliged to give away all the remains, and, with its usual frugality, increased its capital, for example, by two million rubles: it would receive 100,000 rubles for the future. annual income, which could always be used in favor of the clergy and religious schools. But the sooner the funds of the commission of theological schools are depleted by such strengthened orders as the present order of the State Council, the sooner there should be an urgent need to again resort to the special mercy and bounty of Your Imperial Majesty. 6) The Synod, when drawing up its report on the present case, had in mind, among other things, that to ordain unlearned priests as priests is not in accordance with both the benefit of the church service and the will of Your Majesty especially expressed for this purpose, but that sometimes there are no people who have completed the seminar course willing to enter rural places, scarce or remote, and it has become a custom, although not based on any law, to determine the places at the request of those interested. In order to avert this difficulty in filling places, the Synod in its report laid down, firstly, a rule to, following the example of some secular authorities, give bishops the power to appoint those who have completed the seminary course to places, at the discretion of the need; secondly, an exception to this rule in favor of those who have distinguished themselves by teaching and behavior, so that this, above all others, preserves by custom the accepted right to enter the clergy, at their request. The State Council, for unknown reasons, destroyed the above-mentioned rule, which was necessary for governance, and did not submit it to Your Majesty’s approval; and the exception, which was necessary only in connection with the general rule, was not destroyed and was approved. Thus, the difficulty that the Synod thought to avert, not only remained not averted, but even increased. The disciples, who only by custom considered themselves to have the right to choose places, could be persuaded not to follow the accepted custom from the world, and to submit to the spiritual law of church obedience: now they are authorized by law not to submit to such a conviction, and church obedience is not confirmed by the same law, as the Synod assumed in its report 232. 7) From the time when the management of theological schools was determined by the statutes, a kind of prejudice arose in some diocesan authorities that they were excluded from the management of these schools. But the active participation of bishops in the management of religious schools, as much as it essentially belongs to their responsibilities, is just as necessary for the improvement of these schools; for the supervision of academic boards and commissions of theological schools is remote and remote, and the audit inspection is only temporary. Members of the Synod and the commission of theological schools tried to destroy the above-mentioned prejudice of the diocesan authorities with private suggestions; but success in this was imperfect. Therefore, the Synod found it very necessary in its report to place a rule against this prejudice, expressed with due precaution and against the opposite extreme of autocracy. He intended to give the diocesan bishops, in the highest name of Your Majesty, an authorized confirmation that they would also actively and fully govern theological schools, without violating school regulations, as they actively and fully govern dioceses, without violating church rules and state laws. The State Council, for unknown reasons, and this rule of the synodal report was destroyed; meanwhile, the urgent and urgent need for it is evidenced by the comments to which, in Your Majesty’s own eyes, some seminaries were subjected to the morality of some of their students 233 . July 25. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod on what orders need to be made to remove obstacles in the conversion of Cheremis To the Holy Governing Synod from its member Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, a report. A list from the report of the missionary, Epiphany archpriest, Alexander Pokrovsky 234 about the disorder caused by ill-intentioned suggestions in the Cheremis in relation to the Christian faith, presenting 235 to this Holy Synod, I consider it my duty to ask the Holy Synod for special attention and assistance in this matter; because one missionary, with all the purity and completeness of his zeal, cannot act with satisfied success where obstacles appear from everywhere, and help in removing these obstacles is almost nowhere to be seen. To remove these obstacles, in my opinion, the following, or similar to the following, orders are certainly and strictly necessary: 1) Instruct the Bishop of Vyatka 236 to pay the strictest attention to the way of thinking, behavior and especially to the selfish views of the clergy serving in the Cheremis villages; and those who are suspected of greed or ill-intentioned suggestions to the Cheremis, or who do not show zeal for the instruction and confirmation of the Cheremis in the Christian faith, are immediately, without starting long-term investigations, removed from the Cheremis villages to the Russians, and to other districts, to the same positions; and with those who are formally convicted and proven of selfish claims or spreading harmful suggestions, after they are removed from their places, they will be dealt with according to the severity of the laws. 2) since in the affairs of the Holy Synod there may be signs of dissatisfied reliability not only of ordinary Cheremis priests, but also of those who are given special assignments from their superiors (an example is that Vyatka missionary, a city priest, who, instead of preaching in the villages, under the pretext of his illness, through the zemstvo police called Cheremis from the villages to the city, to his home), then to order His Eminence Vyatka or himself more often survey the districts where the Cheremis live, or send the most honest and faithful people from the white or monastic clergy to inquire from the Cheremis themselves whether they are suffering oppression from the local clergy, and when this is revealed, then proceed according to the previous point. 3) The order to resettle Russian families in Cheremis villages should be stopped until the minds are completely calmed; because any preparation for this will give rise to ill-intentioned disclosures, as can be seen from the missionary’s report. 4) Instruct the Eminence of Vyatka, through the deans and other local clergy, as well as through relations with the civil authorities, to certify the Cheremis that both in the construction of churches and houses of worship, and in other matters, they will not be burdened. 5) Since the destruction of the Chembulat stone, idolized with special respect by the Cheremis, would serve as obvious proof for them of the insignificance of their old faith, then seek a secret order so that this stone should be blown up without prior announcement, because ill-intentioned people can take advantage of premature announcement to create unrest among the people; and when the stone is destroyed, then even the least-minded will understand that he is not God, and an indication of this event will be useful and edifying. That it is possible to begin this safely, this is proven by the fact that the idolized Nemdekobar (Nemdinsky bridge) was destroyed last fall by a missionary. Your Holiness's humblest novice. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow No. 262. July 25, 1830 The Holy Synod, by decree of August 23, the same year 1830, ordered the bishop of Vyatka to immediately begin to fulfill the assumptions set out in the report of the Metropolitan of Moscow 237. August 16. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod regarding the placement of Cheremis boys in religious schools At the same time, I present a list from the report of the missionary at the Cheremis, Epiphany archpriest, Alexander Pokrovsky, dated 4 days of this August 238. One of the important circumstances of this report is the voluntary choice of a Cheremis Christian boy for a religious school, which was later turned by the father of this boy into a reason for grumbling and indignation of minds. This was foreseen in advance, and therefore the commission of theological schools ordered that half the number of boys be taken from Cheremis, non-Christians. This is where the choice had to begin, in order to let the Cheremis understand that this is a general measure of the government towards the formation of their tribe, and not a special burden imposed by Christianity. The local authorities did not understand this; the precaution taken in advance by the higher authorities remained in vain. To prevent the consequences of this indiscretion from spreading, I considered it my duty, without delay, to give a precautionary instruction to the missionary and communicate precautionary thoughts to the Reverend of Vyatka. Herewith I present lists of prescriptions for the former and relations to the latter (B and C). If the Holy Synod finds my opinion consistent with the revealed circumstances, then may it be pleased to give it the necessary force by order of the Holy Synod. The end of the missionary’s report, with all his modesty, makes it clear that he finds hidden obstacles to the mission’s work, which, due to the lack of necessary assistance, he not only cannot avert, but is also officially afraid of discovering. What I found necessary to answer him, the Holy Synod deigns to see in the above-mentioned list from the instructions given to him. No. 289. August 16th, 1830 The following documents are attached to this. B. List of instructions to the missionary, Epiphany Archpriest Alexander Pokrovsky. The department's report, dated August 4, states the following: 1) As it is clear from the report that the election of Cheremis children to a religious school by ill-intentioned people turns into an occasion for outrage of minds, and as this circumstance was foreseen by the authorities in advance, and therefore it was ordered to take half of the children from Christians, and half from pagan Cheremis, then you should not take any part in the election of children from Cheremis Christians until several children from Cheremis pagans are elected, and until the agitation of minds will calm down, and those who act on this subject on behalf of the local authorities will put into practice the order outlined above in this matter. 2) As for the personal explanation of the real reasons for the disorder created in the minds of the Cheremis, then (as the continuation of your stay in the mission may be necessary, especially on the occasion of the permission and instructions expected from the Holy Synod on the presentation made from me) you have to use diligence to replace the personal explanation with a written report. 3) But if the circumstances are such that you consider a personal explanation absolutely necessary, and your further stay in the mission is completely useless: in this case, it goes without saying that you have the right and duty to return and give an account of your actions. Correct: Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow B. List of relations with the Most Reverend Kirill, Bishop of Vyatka, dated August 16, 1830. The missionary, Archpriest Pokrovsky, informed me that a Cheremis boy was voluntarily chosen for him to attend a religious school, but that, subsequently, the father of this boy used this circumstance as a burdensome one, to outrage minds. Your Eminence knows that this difficulty has been foreseen by the authorities, and according to this provision, half the number of boys is to be taken from Cheremis Christians, and half from Cheremis pagans. Why, so that such a taking of children would not be considered a burden, which is connected solely with the Christian faith, precaution requires that the election of Christian children should not be started until several pagan children have been chosen, and thus it will be revealed that there is nothing to complain about Christianity. What prompts me to bring this consideration to your attention is nothing other than fear of the consequences of negligence. The Holy Synod, by decree of September 12, the same 1830, ordered the bishop of Vyatka that young Cheremis, if sent by the Vyatka civil governor, upon acceptance, should be sent to a school for their intended education 239. December 1st. The protocol of the meeting of the special committee, the highest established in Moscow, designed by Metropolitan Philaret, for the purification of goods on the occasion of cholera 1830, December 1st day, according to the highest order of His Imperial Majesty, announced to the Moscow military governor-general, on the 7th day of November, the undersigned listened: Firstly, the above-mentioned highest command, which, as a result of the all-submissive request of the Moscow merchants to stop the actions of the committee established in Moscow to clear goods, was given to the Moscow military governor-general: 1) the request of the Moscow merchants to consider and discuss in all detail, in a special committee, inviting to it whoever is deemed necessary, especially from doctors known for their knowledge and experience; 2) if this committee recognizes it as possible and safe to stop or weaken the measures proposed for the purification of goods, then it undertakes to draw up an act about this, with a common signature, which will be submitted to the Sovereign Emperor, and await the highest permission; Secondly, the aforementioned all-submissive request of the Moscow merchants; Thirdly, the report of the Moscow Provisional Medical Council and the comments attached to it on the said request; Fourthly, the report of the same council and attached to it the different opinions of the members of the committee for the purification of goods, and the comments of the same council; Fifthly, the opinions of twenty-four members of the temporary medical council, set out in writing by each of them, to resolve the question: should the contagiousness of cholera disease be recognized in goods and things, and to what extent? From a comparison of the opinions of members of the temporary medical council, it turned out that three of them (Mukhin, Zubov, Tyazhelov) allow infection in things and goods under certain conditions; eighteen (Loder, Vysotsky, Ramich, Richter 1st, Gebel, Cyrus, Richter 2nd, Seideler, Herzog, Brosse, Paul, Jänichen, Sussm, Leventhal, Gaiman, Ryazantsev, Zint, Markus) reject it; one (Oppel) recognized it, but, convinced by certificates, does not consider the fumigation of goods necessary; one (Goaz) believes in fumigating goods and things to calm those who are afraid of infection; one (Treiter) responded that he had no cases proving the contagiousness of cholera through goods and things, but for safety it was necessary to fumigate some goods, for example, cloth, with lime chloride, and ventilate others. The undersigned, having listened to this whole matter with such attention as was required by the importance of the subject, according to its consequences, and to which the highest command of His Imperial Majesty equally obliged, after a satisfied examination and study of the subject and based on consideration of the circumstances and relations thereof, unanimously adopted the following reasoning and conclusions: 1) The rules of the quarantine regulations on the purification of goods and things were established on the basis of experiments and observations on the contagiousness of the plague, and were used as precautions against cholera only on the basis of guesses and conclusions. Therefore, these rules had to be observed until the type and degree of contagiousness of cholera was determined by accurate and reliable experiments and observations; As soon as it is possible to do this last thing, then the old rules, conjecturally adapted to the new disease, must be replaced with new ones, precisely and unshakably established on new experiments and observations. 2) Until now, nowhere in Russia has it been possible to make such a large number of diverse, correct and well-attested experiments and observations on cholera, nor to have so many doctors capable of this, as happened in the last three months in Moscow, where, under the supervision of 24 elected doctors who made up the temporary medical council, more than 7,500 people were treated for cholera, and 52 bodies of those who died from cholera were subjected to anatomical and chemical research. So, here a verification can and therefore must be made of opinions about the contagiousness of cholera, hitherto speculative, disagreeing with each other, supported by indications of rare cases, thoroughly studied, and unreliably attested. 3) Although the opinion of the members of the temporary medical council about the non-contagiousness of cholera through goods and things is not unanimous, but, in addition, a strong majority of votes almost destroys the opinions of those who disagree: these latter destroy themselves, because, upon careful examination, they turn out to be inconsistent with themselves and with obvious circumstances. Mukhin says: “The poison of cholera is not volatile, like the poison of the plague.” Then he says: “Countless examples confirm to us that beds from under the sick and dead, clothes, being consumed by healthy people, gave rise to cholera in them.” Finally he says: “More by similarity than by experiment, one can positively and with probable accuracy recognize the contagiousness of cholera in goods and things that accept the plague infection.” If he bases his opinion more on the similarity of cholera with the plague than on experiments, then it follows that he falsely mentioned countless examples, since a doctor who treated no more than 300 people for cholera could not have had countless examples; Moreover, the similarity of cholera with the plague is contradicted by what he himself said above about the difference in the poison of these diseases. Zubov says about cholera: “This epidemic disease does not depend on changes in the air, nor on food, nor on cramped housing or thin clothing.” Then he, despite himself, says: “People of advanced age, leading a drunken life, susceptible to colds, stomach burden and other errors in diet, are more often exposed to the effects of this disease.” Tyazhelov, one of those who disagreed with the majority of votes, refers definitively to experience, presenting as an example of infection through things the fact that a patient with toad received cramps in the legs, using a foot bath to soothe the water from the baths of cholera patients. But if contagiousness of this kind truly existed, then it is impossible that during the treatment of 7,500 patients it would have been noticed only once, and therefore one cannot help but conclude that the convulsions of the above-mentioned toad patient should be attributed to another cause not noticed by the doctor. 4) On the contrary, the opinion of those who reject the contagiousness of cholera through things, as strong as the overwhelming majority of votes, is just as convincing based on the experiments and evidence given in support of it. Members of the medical council, both about themselves and about many others in hospitals, testify that their clothing, after varied, prolonged, repeated contact with patients, without the use of cleansing agents, never had any effect of infection on anyone. People who recovered from cholera used fur-lined clothing during their illness, without cleansing agents, and after their recovery, they used them without relapses and without infecting others. During the autopsy of the bodies of those who died from cholera, which, for four weeks, took four or five hours almost every day, neither of those who performed the autopsy, nor of the doctors present, nor of the servants, became infected, despite the fact that, except for the first days, almost no precautions were taken. And more importantly, the doctor who opened the bodies (Jänichen) wounded his hands several times, and, cauterizing the wounded places with lapis, continued his studies harmlessly. The disabled man, who was drunk at that, received an abscess from the same wound, proving the harmful effect of the moisture of a dead body, but did not get cholera. Of the foreign researchers of cholera, those who in some respects attributed its contagiousness, did not recognize its contagiousness through things and goods (Moro de Jonès, Gravier). 5) It is fair, notes one member (Ramikh), that trade in Moscow, which stopped during the raging cholera, resumed in November, when the disease weakened; and goods, local and imported, especially on the occasion of the present winter season, received great circulation among the people. So, if an infection were hidden in them, then this would have to be revealed either in certain cases, or at least in general in the renewal of the infection and in the increase in the number of sick people. But if this did not follow, then from here comes new experimental proof that infection does not exist in goods. 6) If we assume that cholera is transmitted through things, then out of 7,500 patients, of whom about 1,500 remained in their homes and therefore did not have strict medical and police supervision, how many things in their homes should be suspected of being infected? Incomparably more than goods lying in shops and storage areas, which sick people do not have the opportunity to touch. From this it follows that if it were necessary to fumigate goods, then it would be incomparably more necessary to fumigate all things in houses, in the whole of Moscow. Fortunately, the present experience of an almost complete cessation of the disease indisputably proves the non-existence of this universal infection, otherwise a cleansing would be required that is not only inconvenient, but completely impossible to carry out accurately. And after the plague, not all houses were cleansed, but only, according to reliable information, those that were infected and escheated. 7) If we also assume, as was feared based on previous guesswork about cholera, that infectiousness may exist in goods brought from the Nizhny Novgorod fair, then since these goods arrived not only in Moscow, but also in St. Petersburg and many other cities, and everywhere, in large numbers, have already entered into circulation among the people, it is necessary to admit one of two things: either that the infectiousness of these goods does not exist in Moscow, just as it did not turn out to be in St. Petersburg, or that, together with the goods in Moscow and Moscow, in which they spread, the goods in St. Petersburg, and Petersburg itself, in which they spread, and all the cities into which something could have been brought from the Nizhny Novgorod fair should be fumigated. 8) Finally, if, despite the strength and importance of evidence of the non-infectivity of cholera through goods, despite the lack of correct and well-tested experiments to the contrary, out of an abundance of caution, it was necessary to fumigate goods in Moscow, then this measure would lead to a number of consequences, which incomparably, to the highest degree, should arouse the precautions of the government. These consequences are: damage to color, beauty, purity, consequently a significant decrease in the value of goods, loss of large capital, the duration of the current stoppage of activity, and the complete collapse of many factories, the fall of many thousands of people who had food from factories into inaction, into helplessness, into the danger of hunger and despair. 9) From all these considerations, decisive conclusions regarding the present case emerge: first, in places where there was cholera, goods should not be fumigated, in accordance with the personal order of His Imperial Majesty, given on the 23rd day of August; second, since, due to the dissimilarity of cholera with the plague, the rules of the quarantine regulations adapted to the plague are not in all respects consistent with the need for preventive measures against cholera, then instruct the Moscow provisional medical council to draw up an accurate, not based on guesswork, but based on experience, statement about what protective police measures are really needed against the disease of cholera, and submit it, after consideration in the St. Petersburg medical council, to His Majesty's highest discretion, no later than next March. 240 This note was written by Metropolitan Philaret on the occasion of the publication of a personal imperial decree in the name of the Holy Synod, dated December 6, 1829, on strengthening the lower methods for the education of spiritual youth and for providing church clergy with comfortable maintenance. The decree is published in volume 2. full collection zak., for 1829, No. 3323, pp. 833–838. The above paragraph has not been written out in full. It lacks the words: “and they were provided with housing and food, and the least of them with clothing.” (2nd full collection of orders, No. 3323, p. 834, column 1). 8 of the “Regulations”, which Metropolitan Philaret points out, reads as follows: “since a considerable number of students of theological schools, who benefited from them not only the teaching, but also the content, do not enter the clerical rank, and thus, without the benefit of this rank, the methods of education belonging to the ecclesiastical department are exhausted, then, following the example of other institutions, it is decided that everyone who completed a course in the highest theological schools on the support of these schools, was obliged, if the authorities demanded it, in gratitude for his upbringing, to serve in the spiritual department for at least four years; and whoever wishes to be free from this obligation must declare this desire at least half of the seminary course, and from that time on he can no longer use the content from the seminary, but only the teaching. This measure should serve, on the one hand, to the benefit of the school economy, and on the other, to the easy occupation by capable people of teaching and clerical positions in the department of theological schools and dioceses.” § 6 reads as follows: “based on the observation made that some clergy, especially rural ones, do not retain the knowledge acquired in schools due to lack of benefits, ensure that every student entering the theological class receives books of sacred scripture at the expense of the biblical sums available to the Synod and keeps them with him forever; so that children of insufficient parents and other spiritual and educational books received from schools should also be kept with them forever, and in churches, as far as possible, the required number of spiritual books should be kept, a list of which should be compiled in the Synod.” Clause 8 is stated as follows: “For the production of these salaries (of course, benefits to the clergy of poor parishes), 500,000 rubles will be allocated to the Holy Synod, starting in 1830. annually from the state treasury, so that this amount is not used for any other items, and that all remainders that may be from other amounts at the disposal of the commission of theological schools are attached to it for the same use.” The Metropolitan is referring to § 5 of the provisions, which reads as follows: “In order to preserve the advantages, rightly assigned to students of theological schools who have distinguished themselves above others in their teaching and good behavior, then students with an academic degree will continue to be given the right to be assigned to clergy positions at their request, especially in front of students who have completed the seminary course.” From a handwritten draft. authentic Inventory No. 113, document. No. 4. Archpriest A.E. Pokrovsky, transferred from the Epiphany Church in Elokhov to the Verkhoi Spassky Court Cathedral, deceased. in 1860. The list from the missionary's report is not printed. Kirill (Bogoslovsky Platonov), later Podolsk; †Mar 8 1841 File of the Archives of the Holy Synod, No. 1471, Part I, up to 1834; ll. 247, 248 The list mentioned does not fit. File of the Archives of the Holy Synod, No. 1471, part 1, up to 1834, pp. 269, 277, 278, 291. From a handwritten original, stored in Moscow. spirit. acad., pak. No. 2, doc. No. 1, pp. 1–10.