1846 г.

May 2. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Baron L. K. Bode, about the bas-reliefs that were supposed to be made in the hall of the Kremlin palace Baron L.K. Bode 191, in a letter dated March 30, 1846, No. 58, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret: “The Sovereign Emperor deigned to command: in the Alexander Hall of the new Kremlin palace, bas-reliefs should be made, the subjects of which would be chosen from the life and exploits of St. Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky. Assistant director of the Moscow Armory Veltman 192, a famous archaeologist, on my instructions, selected the indicated objects and compiled a description of them. And since these objects should depict the life and deeds of the saint of God of the Greek-Russian Church, I consider it my duty, before presenting the mentioned objects to His Majesty, to inform your Eminence a description of them, and humbly ask you to take on the work attached to this description of the objects, numbering 14, to consider and make your comments and additions, and if it is possible to select new ones from the spiritual life of the saint; about what follows, honor me with your notification.” Attached to the letter is a description of “items for bas-reliefs from the life of St. Grand Duke Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky. 1) The wedding of the Grand Duke of Novgorod Alexander Yaroslavich with the daughter of the Polotsk prince Bryachislav, Alexandra, in 1239. The words of the chronicle: “when you get married in Toroptsi, fix that porridge (wedding dinner), and in Novgorod another.” Content . The bas-relief can depict a prince and princess receiving a blessing from the ruler of Novgorod and gifts from the authorities (clergy), mayor, boyars and from Novgorod. 2) Alexander at the Novgorod assembly. Prince Alexander orders the construction of gorodtsy (fortifications) along the borders of the Novgorod region against the invasions of Sveev, Livonians and Chud. 3) Alexander receives Livonian Master Andrei Velven, who arrived to negotiate peace between Novgorod and the Order. Image . Alexander, in vestments, on the throne, surrounded by the clergy, mayor, thousand and elders of Novgorod. The master enters the chamber with his retinue and is amazed by the beauty and greatness of Alexander, according to the master’s chronicle words: “having passed through countries and languages, I have not seen such a king either in the kings or in the princes of the prince, like that Grand Duke Alexander Yaroslavich.” 4) Vision before the battle on the Neva. Content. Prince Alexander is approaching the Swedish camp with his army, located on the Neva, near the mouth of the Izhora. The Izhorinin Pelguy meets him and tells him his vision on the shores of the Gulf of Finland: the sun illuminates the vast surface of the sea, a boat with oarsmen dressed in darkness appears on the sea, and in the boat there are two radiant knights, in scarlet robes, similar to the icon image of princes Boris and Gleb, and their voice was heard: “he will help our relative Alexander.” 5) Battle of the Neva (1240). Content. In the foreground, Prince Alexander fights with Master Birger and hits him in the face; according to the chronicle: Alexander “put a seal” on Birger’s face with his own spear; according to the chronicle 1206–1534, “and put a seal on the face of the king himself with your sharp sword.” Situation. Knight Gabriel Oleksich drives the prince, the son of Master Birger, to the shyaski (boats). Knight Sbyslav cuts his ax into the middle of the enemy. Knight Misha with a detachment of his squad destroys Swedish ships. Alexander's youth, Savva, cuts down the golden-domed tent of the master; the tent falls and the Russians proclaim victory. 6) Victory. Prince Alexander hoists a black banner on the bones of the enemy. Prisoners are brought before him; the remnants of the defeated Swedes are fleeing in the distance. 7) The siege and capture by Prince Alexander of the fortress built by the Germans on the shore of the Gulf of Finland, at the Koporye churchyard, 1241. The Russian siege weapons were vices (stone slings). 8) The Archbishop of Novgorod, with many boyars and elders, appear before Alexander in Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, asking to forget the guilt of the Novgorodians (the expulsion of his son Vasily), to return to Novgorod and protect it from the violence of the Swedes, Lithuania and Chud. 9) The battle on the ice of Lake Peipus, on Uzmen, at Voronya Stone, and the victory over the Germans who captured Pskov. 10) Meeting of the winner by the Pskovites. Content . Before the gates of Pskov, the clergy greeted Alexander “with crosses and sacred songs, glorifying God and Alexander.” The Pskovites strive for the prince; German captives, in knightly clothes, follow the Russian horsemen, according to the chronicle: “and there were many of those placed in his regiment and led barefooted next to the horses, who call themselves God’s rhetoric (gottesritteri). 11) Embassy to Prince Alexander from Pope Innocent IV. Content . Two cardinals: Galda and Gemont present themselves to the prince, with an offer from the pope to accept Latin. Alexander answers. “We know the true teaching of the faith, but we do not accept yours.” 12) Recognition of Prince Alexander as the Grand Duke. His ceremonial entry into Vladimir. Metropolitan Kirill, abbots, all the clergy, boyars and people, under the command of the thousand Roman Mikhailovich, meet him at the Golden Gate. 13) Illness of Prince Alexander and adoption of the schema, 1263, November 14. 14) Image of the tomb of Prince Alexander Nevsky, in the Nevsky Monastery. Notes. The combat formations of the troops were known to the Novgorodians; for example, in the battle with the Germans, near Kegola, under 1268. “And as if there was a German regiment standing on the river Kegol, and there you saw it, like a forest, the whole German land was united. The Novgorodians, without hesitation, went across the river to them, and began to set up regiments: the Pleskovichi stash on the right hand; and Dmitry and Svyatoslav are on the right above, and Mikhail is on the left; The Novgorodians stash in the form of an iron regiment, against the great pig (tête de porc). The formation called the pig's head always formed the center of the battle formation. Among the military siege weapons, the Novgorodians had vices, i.e., slings 193, in Polish proca, in Bohemian prak, - fronde, baliste. On Baron Bode’s letter, Metropolitan Philaret noted: “May 2. Reply, with comments and additions” Your Excellency, dear sir! By reference, dated March 30, this year, 1846, No. 58, Your Excellency informed me of a description of 14 items from the life of St. Blessed Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky for the bas-reliefs of the Alexander Hall of the Kremlin Palace, they demanded from me consideration, comments, and, if necessary, additions from the spiritual life of the saint. Since your Excellency was pleased to base this message on the fact that it concerns the life and deeds of the saint of God: then my consideration should concern the subject only from the church side. And in this regard I have no comments to make: because in the selected objects and the supposed image from the presentation in the bas-reliefs, nothing incompatible with the character and dignity of the husband, canonized by the church as a saint, can be seen. But if I were allowed to consider the subject in more than one ecclesiastical relation, and give the question more space, then I would offer comments regarding the subjects placed in the description under numbers 2 and 13. Under the number 2. Alexander at the Novgorod veche. What this is based on is not shown. In the Sofia vremennik, under the year 1239, it only says: Prince Alexander Yaroslavich from Novgorod cut down the city in Shelon. The prince could give orders in the palace; and send someone to the meeting. The incident is not of great importance. And wouldn’t it be better to make no mention at all of the Novgorod Republican Assembly in the Moscow palace of the All-Russian Emperor? Under the number 13. Illness of Prince Alexander and adoption of the schema. Is it necessary to include in the decoration of the solemn royal chamber the thought of a dying illness, although accompanied by the pious action of tonsure? If these remarks were found to require attention, then I would suggest the following instead of the two above-mentioned items. 1) The prayer of Prince Alexander in the St. Sophia Cathedral, as a guarantee of future victory. The Sofia temporary book says that when the news arrived that they were going to Ladoga, and when the king sent the ambassadors, they became proud: then Grand Duke Alexander went into the Church of St. Sophia, fell on his knees before the altar and began to pray: Judge, Lord, those who offend me, accept the weapon and shield. 2) Return of Grand Duke Alexander from a campaign against the Svei land and Chud, with captivity and booty. The Sofia temporary book says: all the seaside, they killed some, and took others full, and again returned to their land with many full; The earth was glorious because of its fear and thunder. Finally, since Your Excellency requires additions specifically from the spiritual life of the saint: I must answer this too. The great spiritual feat of Saint Alexander is revealed in the fact that in the Horde, having been forced to perform pagan rituals, with the obvious danger of life, and with the determination to suffer martyrdom, he refused this, and said to Batu: Tsar, I bow to you, since God is almost your kingdom, and I will not worship creatures, but I will worship the one God. One thing can counter doubt about the placement of this object in the decorations of the palace, namely, that Saint Alexander appears here at a spiritual height, as a Christian, and, as a Grand Duke, in political humiliation before a foreign king. However, having submitted all this to your Excellency’s consideration, I have the honor to be with true respect and devotion. June 20. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to I.G. Senyavin 195, with deprivation of the project of Bishop Vasily of Polotsk on the establishment of a spiritual-civil committee to manage schismatics I.G. Senyavin, in a confidential letter to Metropolitan Philaret, dated April 3, 1846, reported the following: “On my trips, recently, in the Belarusian and western provinces, I was saddened to find in many places in the local region schismatics who had been rooted for a long time, who not only were not subject to proper supervision, but were enjoying concessions from their superiors. I discussed this with the local spiritual authorities, who recognize, in all fairness, this state of affairs regarding schismatics as harmful, both as a temptation for Orthodoxy, and reprehensible in the eyes of non-believers. This is especially strongly expressed in the northern districts of the Vitebsk province and in some places in Lithuania, where the main part of the population belongs to the Western Church. Between different opinions on measures to weaken the schism and convert the erring, if possible, to the path of truth, the Right Reverend Vasily of Polotsk 196 considers it useful to subordinate them in religious and police relations to special provincial committees, composed of the diocesan bishop, the head of the province and the manager of the chamber of state property, on the grounds set out in the note sent to me by the archbishop these days 197. Your Eminence has constantly shown me a gracious favor, and it has given me even now the courage to submit the said note for your consideration, with the most humble request to honor me, gracious archpastor, with the communication of your conclusion on this subject. With feelings of sincere gratitude, I will accept this new sign of your favorable attention to me, and, guided by the path that you would like to indicate, I will present this matter to the respect of the government, if it is recognized by your Eminence as useful and executive and consistent with the purpose of its significance.” Metropolitan Philaret responded to this letter, dated July 20 of the same 1846, in the following terms. On the proposal to establish a spiritual-civil committee to manage schismatics. To judge this assumption, one must firstly pay attention to those, as the originator of the assumption expresses it, the thoughts that led to the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bforming a spiritual-civil committee. First thought: provincial authorities may extend the force of the laws on schismatics too far, as applied to cases. There are experiments that show this to be true. But if the inaccurate implementation of laws is taken as the beginning of the establishment of new government places, then there will be a lot of them. Second thought: nosy schismatic mentors can use various twists to achieve concessions in their favor. And it's true. But they will not become less cunning before the spiritual-civil committee. Third thought: being, solely, under civil authority, schismatics are convinced that, on an equal basis with people of other faiths, they have the right to complete freedom of religion. The laws do not give schismatics the right to think so; and dependence on civil authority does not lead to this conviction. However, it is true that schismatics are trying to establish themselves as a separate recognized religion. But if they are attempting to do this now, when they are subordinated to secular power mainly due to the civic quality of merchants, townspeople, peasants, in whom the character of a schismatic is considered only as a particular accident: then will they not strive for more than this, and will they not even achieve the desired independence if they are subordinated to a special spiritual-civil committee, namely, as the class of schismatics? Fourth thought: schismatics move away from the clergy and consider it hostile to them. What of this? If they are so disposed now, then even under the spiritual-civil committee, they will also move away from the clergy and address their needs only to the secular members of the committee. And consequently, the establishment of such a committee does not promise the best. The committee's department is supposed to include all orders regarding schismatics, conducting investigations and appointing investigators. Wouldn't this mean that the new committee would tear away a section of affairs and people so that the separation would not represent the correct limit, but an incorrect and indefinite break, difficult for both sides? And what instruments will the proposed committee use? Is it your own? In that case, what a vast new organization will be required for all the provinces! Or existing instruments of civil institutions? According to the proverb, raking in heat with someone else’s hands will not be pleasant for these hands, it will be inconvenient and unreliable. But how do the secret committees on schismatics that exist in some provinces now operate? This is a completely different matter. These committees meet only for deliberation; This meeting on the establishment remains secret, as does the very existence of the committee, if the establishment is carried out well. Then, the diocesan and civil authorities, in accordance with the previous meeting, manage and act on their own through the instruments given to them by law, as if there were no secret committee in the world, and consequently it does not interfere with the ordinary authorities in any way. Moreover, the existing secret committees have a very small number of cases in comparison with the proposed committees. The committee is asked to have lists of schismatics. Of course, it is not good not to have accurate information of this kind; but it is not as useful to have them as it is dangerous to acquire them. It is known from experience that when the government undertook to collect this information, albeit secretly, the schismatics learned about it in advance and immediately ordered to invite people who were not entirely firm in Orthodoxy, or who were in close ties with the schismatics, so that, out of convenience, they would be included in the schismatic lists, just in case. The drafter thinks that the schismatics are trying to hide the number of their coreligionists. This can only be said about some secret sects, such as the Skoptsy and Khlysty. In fact, the schismatics are trying to increase their numbers to show the government their importance. The author of the project thinks that by acquiring correct lists of schismatics, seductions would be stopped, many investigative cases would be stopped, and illegal marriages would be stopped. No evidence has been presented for this; and neither experience nor consideration leads to the conclusion that this is so. The schismatics, who are not recorded in the correct lists, seduce into schism and draw into schismatic marriages the Orthodox, who are correctly recorded in the metric and confession books: why won’t the schismatics do the same when they themselves are recorded in the correct lists? It is assumed that the spiritual-civil committee can remove harmful people, false teachers, impostors from schismatics. Why shouldn’t the secular authorities do this on the basis of the laws? If the spiritual authorities take part in this, then, in addition to the fact that it would not be in his character, he will more than now alienate schismatics from himself, who will have reason to attribute to him the persecution of their mentors. The project says that it will not be difficult for the spiritual-civil committee to establish schools for the children of schismatics. Hardly so. If schismatics do not trust schools run by secular authorities, they will even more not trust schools directly subordinate to spiritual authorities. Supervising people of prayer and stopping gatherings is also less convenient through the direct action of the spiritual authorities than through the action of the civil authorities, with the assistance, when necessary, of information from the spiritual authorities. The project wants the committee to observe what books schismatics use during worship and in the home circle, as much as circumstances allow. It is not difficult to foresee that circumstances will allow the bishop very little to know what books schismatics are using in the home circle, and of course the bishop will be less able to know than the police officer and police officer. Those used by schismatics during worship are already known: but what of that? Is it really possible to take them all away? How can this be reconciled with tolerance? And what consequences can we expect from such intolerance? The project raises these questions and does not provide any means of resolving them safely and reliably. The project expects from the spiritual-civil committee that schismatics will get used to looking at the diocesan bishop as their immediate superior and will become close to him. I think that the bishops would be pleased to drink fashion through the mouth of the project. But that’s not what it shows. We hear that in the dioceses of Perm and Saratov, co-religionists are not very close to the diocesan bishops, so that when they visit some co-religionist churches, no one takes his blessing. How can one think that it is easy to train even schismatics to become close to the diocesan bishop, as to their immediate superior? The project hopes that the bishop, as a member of the committee governing the schismatics, will be more comfortable entering into relations with them and giving instructions to them. This is more than doubtful. A schismatic may be more accessible in a simple meeting with a bishop, not as a boss: because in this case he does not care about the consequences and is less subject to observation by his like-minded people. But if a schismatic should come to the bishop who was announced to him as his superior, then he will first take care of the purpose and consequences of this relationship; and other schismatics will encourage him to stand for the old faith, as they say, putting both their society and the laws of tolerance in his support, and promising him glory if he proves himself a zealot. In this case, it may very well happen that a schismatic will say to the bishop: “I am a follower of the old faith; I obey the laws of the Sovereign and civil authorities as a loyal subject; but as a follower of Nikon, I can’t listen to you.” Or, to speak not from conjecture, but from experienced truth, let us assume that a schismatic will write in a request to the bishop how a deprived of the priesthood who was recently caught in Moscow by schismatics, being already under arrest, did not hesitate to write to the Moscow Chief of Police: “I have the honor to most respectfully explain, and with all my strength I affirm that the new order of rites from Patriarch Nikon was carried out incorrectly, corrupt, senseless, disgusting, soul-destroying.” What should the bishop, the leader of the schismatic, do in this case? Will it bring some sense? Vain and useless. For it is already known in advance that this man says what was told to him, which he himself does not understand and does not want to understand, and he speaks not out of his own conviction, but in order to become famous among the schismatics. Will disobedience and insult be punished with severity? This is not in accordance with the meekness characteristic of a bishop, and of course is not the best way to get closer to schismatics. Should I leave the daring one? Fine. But the schismatic will consider himself a winner over the leader declared to him and will be more important in the schism than before, and harmful to Orthodoxy; because for this insolence the schismatics will glorify him, at least as a confessor, if not as a martyr. Thus, it promises more convenience and benefit and is less threatening with difficulties, not an authoritative and formal, but a simple voluntary relationship between the bishop and the schismatic, whom the bishop, out of love for the salvation of souls, will carefully search for, and in which he will meekly and peacefully accept the dissenter, in which the schismatic will have less reason to act irritably, in which, finally, the offensive word or action of the schismatic will be less significant as a nuisance in private communication, and not an insult to the direct superior. From everything that has been said so far, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed establishment of a spiritual-civil committee to manage schismatics does not promise the desired success. But how to handle this difficult subject? The good use of methods that already exist, the action of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and secret committees on cases of schismatics, with all possible supervision and those conditions that the Most Pious Sovereign Emperor instills in the shortest, wise and beneficial way for those active in this field, and which are: The consent of the spiritual and civil authorities, the mode of action is meek and patient within the limits of existing laws, but firm and shrewdly guarded from an understandable step, careful selection and formation of capable tools, and vigilant monitoring of the fidelity of their action, precise storage of the secret where it is sometimes needed. To show the importance of these conditions, and together to show the drafter the possibility of acting well without the proposed committee, and the convenience of ruining the matter so that even the proposed committee cannot be corrected, I present an example. In the past decade, by order of the Holy Synod, the Edinoverie clergy acted on the schismatics of the significant village of Gorodets in the Nizhny Novgorod province, in which there was a schismatic chapel 198, and reached the point that the majority of the schismatics who belonged to it wanted to convert it to the Edinoverie Church. Just as it was impossible to break the chapel in half, and give half to those approaching the same faith, and the other to the schismatics: it was natural to prefer the better side and the majority of votes, and therefore it was decided to give the chapel to those turning to the same faith in order to convert it into the church. This decision was vested with the Highest permission. If in carrying out this there had been prudent action, if the right instrument had been used, if the secret had not been untimely broken, then after the successful execution of the definite, probably the minority of the schismatics would not have followed the majority into the same faith for a long time. But the execution was entrusted to the police officer, who was more profitable to have schismatics with their illegal monks and passportless vagabonds than to have co-religionists with whom everything was in legal order. He anticipated the schismatics, and probably gave them instructions, telling them the day of the prescribed fulfillment. By this day they had gathered several hundred schismatics from the surrounding villages, and they all stood near the chapel. The police chief appeared, took a look, and reported to the provincial authorities that although they did not offer resistance, he did not dare demand the keys to the chapel, so that no harmful disorder would occur. Having won this battle, the schismatics naturally attacked their new coreligionists in order to shake them. The matter ended with the fact that a new church was built for the co-religionists from the treasury, and the chapel remained with the schismatics, and the schism remained still strong in the village, instead of the fact that if the prescribed order had been faithfully carried out, it should have completely collapsed there 199 . August 5th. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with comments and considerations attached on three editions of the article on marriages Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, in a confidential relationship with Metropolitan Philaret, dated May 31, 1846, No. 4289, reported: “The chief administrator of the II department of His Imperial Majesty’s own chancellery, the actual Privy Councilor, Count Bludov reported, for preliminary consideration, the wording of the articles that should be included in the Code of Laws on Marriages and the Consequences thereof.” Since these articles require detailed considerations not only with the various cases that open up in cases of this kind, but also with the canonical decrees and rules of our church, then desiring, when considering them in a special committee, to keep in mind the opinion of your Eminence, based on many years of experience and knowledge of matters of spiritual administration, I consider it my duty to forward these articles in copies to your, gracious sir and archpastor, discretion with the addition “I humbly request that you communicate to me your comments and considerations regarding the editing of these, if possible, as soon as possible.” Regarding this, the Metropolitan wrote: August 3. Please forward the comments made. Then, on August 5th, he wrote to Count Protasov: Three notebooks of editions of articles on marriages, which should be included in the Code of Laws, which were forwarded to me, are returned to your Excellency, and I add the comments and considerations required of me on them. Considerations regarding the editions, section one on the marriage union, chapter one on marriages between persons of the Orthodox confession. Report. The change is proposed for the following reasons. 1) The words: when on any occasion their marriage was celebrated in a church and according to the rites of another Christian confession, they would show that this case is permitted by law: but this is contrary to the highest command, according to which mixed marriages should be recognized as legal only when celebrated in the church of the dominant religion. 2) Allowing the dissolution of a mixed marriage by the authorities of another confession would lead to insoluble confusion. For example: suppose that the Lutheran consistory dissolved a marriage due to an incompatible difference in morals and extreme disagreement of the spouses: what will the Orthodox spiritual authorities do with an Orthodox person rejected from the marriage in this way? According to church rules, it cannot recognize the actual cause, and therefore the divorce itself, and therefore cannot give permission for a new marriage, and, thus, an Orthodox person, either for a small fault, or even without guilt, will be placed in the most embarrassing position. Or: suppose that the Lutheran consistory dissolved the marriage for adultery, and, according to its rules, condemned the Orthodox person for adultery not to marry for six months. Of course, the Orthodox spiritual authorities, according to church rules, cannot respect this decision: and the convicted person will argue that the Lutheran decision on the Code of Laws has full legal force, and, thus, the civil law will be put in conflict with the spiritual, which is also recognized by the civil law in its force. There can also be some sort of clash with the rules of the Roman Catholic confession. 3) It is known with what ease marriages in the Lutheran confession are dissolved. Therefore, if Lutheran divorces are given power for Orthodox persons, it may happen that people prone to inconstancy will have the intention of committing mixed marriages not in the Orthodox Church, but in the Lutheran Church, so that it will be easier to break the union if they no longer like it. That this fear is not unfounded can be shown by frequent, they say, examples in Poland, where, when the Western Church does not allow divorce based on crimes, they deliberately introduce irregularity into marriages, so that later they can prove the instability of the marriage and get a divorce 200. September 26. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with an opinion on the proposed amendment to Art. 74. St. zak. citizen, vol. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, in a confidential relation to Metropolitan Philaret, dated August 28, 1846, No. 6476, wrote: “Having received, in the presence of your Eminence, dated August 5, No. 18, along with the return of the editors of the articles on marriages that should be included in the Code of Laws, compiled by you, dear sir and archpastor, for these comments and considerations, I owe I submit, for their communication, to bring my sincere gratitude and at the same time, forwarding again delivered to me from the manager of the 2nd department of His Imperial Majesty’s own Chancellery 201 notes regarding his proposed new edition of Article 74 of the Code Zak. Citizen, volume X, I turn to your Eminence with the most humble request for your message, dear sir and archpastor, on the content of this opinion.” Sep. 26, responsible today. Excellent count, dear sir. In relation to your Excellency, dated August 28, 1846, No. 6476, a note was sent to me about the proposed change to Article 74 of the Code of Laws. Citizen, volume X, I return it. Please see my opinion on this subject from the detailed note attached. About Article 74, Section I, Book I, Civil Laws This article is supposed to be changed. To ascertain whether this is really necessary, it is necessary to examine the considerations on which the assumption of change is based. I. At the beginning of these considerations it is said that this article hardly fully agrees with the teachings of the church and it is unlikely that the publication of the decree on November 23, 1832 was not a temporary measure. Hardly, and hardly - there is a double doubt, and not a double proof. And from doubt one cannot draw a firm conclusion. There is no church rule that would oblige the Orthodox spiritual authorities to certainly recognize as valid a marriage performed by a Roman Catholic priest. But there is an obligation to consider such a marriage according to the rules of the Orthodox Church; and there are cases in which it must be decisively declared invalid, such as, for example, if a Roman Catholic priest, through ignorance or inattention, bless the marriage of an Orthodox person who in the Orthodox Church, after the dissolution of a previous marriage, is not allowed to enter into a new one. Consequently, Article 74 does not contradict the teachings of the Orthodox Church, but it also facilitates the Orthodox spiritual authorities to fulfill their duties. II. The considerations state that this decree cannot, in fairness, be applied to those staying abroad and getting married in places where there are no Orthodox priests. The case presented here, upon careful consideration, can be considered non-existent. Marriage is not such a short-term action as admonishing the benefits of religion to a dangerously ill person; it can be delayed for several weeks or months, and thus, with the current convenience of communications, those wishing to get married can easily reach an Orthodox priest, domestic or foreign, or one of the Russian missions. The law that makes this delay necessary may even be beneficial, not favoring too hasty marriages with foreigners and giving time to more maturely think about the matter, the consequences of which should extend throughout life. Is it possible to imagine an unfortunate person thrown out of a shipwreck on a foreign shore? But such extraordinary cases cannot be taken into account in laws; because leniency in these rare cases would weaken the laws for other numerous and important cases. III. The considerations state that Article 74 is contrary to the political goal, preventing the commission of such marriages from which the children born must belong to the Orthodox Church. On the contrary, Article 74 does not prevent marriages and ensures their consequences for the Orthodox Church. A Roman priest will not oblige children to be raised in Orthodoxy; Only an Orthodox priest will do this; and a preliminary word of honor and subscription is the most reliable means of ensuring the upbringing of children in Orthodoxy. IV. Another objection to Article 74 is that its punishment falls not on one guilty person, but also on another innocent spouse. If we respect this reasoning, then marriage laws cannot exist. For example, the law orders the marriage of a husband who has entered into it from a living wife to be dissolved. Should this law really be abolished because an innocent person, a wife who entered into marriage out of ignorance of her husband’s bigamy, suffers from it? V. It is objected that the foreigner may not have known the rule he was violating. The answer to this is that a foreigner is guilty if he rushes into marriage with a person of a different religion and state, without inquiring about the rules and laws to which such marriage subjects him. The law says that no one can plead ignorance of the laws. And no law says or can say that a foreigner can do whatever he wants, under the pretext of ignorance of the laws. VI. It is objected that Article 74 raises difficult questions. The answer is that this is not enough to refute the law. There are fair laws, from which, by coincidence, difficult questions arise. In this case, it is similar to resolve issues, and not to destroy laws. VII. The considerations note that the presentation of Article 74 is insufficient because it refers to Roman Catholics and does not refer to persons of other foreign confessions. This is true. From this it follows that the presentation of the law should be supplemented, and not that the law should be destroyed or weakened. VIII. The remarks state that for the benefit of Orthodoxy, the law that all children from mixed marriages belong to Orthodoxy is sufficient. In response to this, it must be said that this law is sufficient if its implementation is sufficiently ensured; and Article 74 serves as such sufficient security. IX. The article, which is supposed to replace Article 74, sets a six-month period for the Orthodox Church to approve a marriage performed abroad by a priest of a different confession. But if Article 74 was condemned above because it gives rise to intractable questions, then this new article has the same drawback. What to do if the person married abroad dies within six months before the marriage is approved in the Orthodox Church, and a fetus is born from him? If marriage and its consequences in this case are firm and not doubtful, then what is the point of approval in the Orthodox Church? If the affirmation of marriage in the Orthodox Church is a necessary need, then can a marriage that is not affirmed in it and its consequences have full dignity? X. Anyone guilty of not confirming a marriage within six months is supposed to be punished with prison or monastic imprisonment, from 6 to 12 months. There are omissions here which should render the purported law invalid. The first omission is that there is no incentive to do so, nor any means of ensuring that the guilty person does not evade the law. The culprit, of course, will not come and tell his superiors: I missed the legal six-month deadline, put me in prison or a monastery. There is no obligation or incentive for outsiders to report this to their superiors. The Orthodox priest to whom he turns for any need will not interrogate him, for fear of offending an innocent person. Thus, the law will lie in the book and will not act to correct and reduce the guilty. XI. The second omission is that the supposed law, recognizing a marriage performed by an alien priest, does not allow the Orthodox spiritual authorities to consider its correctness. To show the consequences of this more clearly, let them be presented in the form of an example. Someone, an Orthodox Christian, wants to enter into a fourth marriage with a person of the Protestant confession; he will go abroad, and the Protestant preacher will perform the marriage, because in his confession there is no prohibition on this. Or, someone, an Orthodox Christian, wants to marry his own niece, who, fortunately, belongs to the Protestant confession; he will go abroad, and the Protestant preacher, by the indulgence of the general consistory (see the Evangelical Lutheran statute, art. 72), will perform the marriage. The same can be done even in Russia, in the hope that civil law does not threaten non-recognition of such a marriage. If such marriages are left untouched by the civil law and are not subjected to spiritual judgment, then it will be in clear contradiction with the rules of the Orthodox Church and will open the way for people possessed by passion to commit marriages condemned by the Orthodox Church, to temptation and harm to good morals. XII. Punishment by imprisonment will not be a sufficient protection of the law and taming those who violate it, because it is easy to avoid it. They will not send you to prison, in preference to a punishment that is more lenient, and, one might say, more conducive to the admonition of the guilty person. But they often won’t send to a monastery: a servant because of his work, a woman for the sake of a baby, or because of an illness that is not difficult to attribute to herself. From all of the above, it is clear that Article 74 does not fall under the objections that are presented against it, and the articles proposed in its place do not satisfy justice, the rules of the church and precautions against the proliferation of acts that violate the law and even offend the purity of marriage; that, however, the presentation of Article 74 requires changes, partly for addition, partly to agree on the inviolability of the law with some exceptional cases. The next draft of the new edition is based on this. 1) The marriage of an Orthodox person with a person of another Christian faith must certainly be performed according to the rites of the Eastern Catholic Church, and only then it is recognized as fully valid, with all the rights that follow from it. 2) If such a marriage is performed abroad, by a clergyman of a foreign Christian faith, and at the same time is not blessed by an Orthodox priest, due to the lack of one in the vicinity, then the parties are obliged, within eight months, to turn to an Orthodox priest, and, depending on the circumstances, to an Orthodox bishop, to consider whether this marriage is unhindered according to the rules of the Orthodox Church, and to receive from it approval thereof according to the rank; and then only this marriage is recognized as fully valid, with all the rights arising from it, from the day of the first commission of it by a foreign clergyman 202. October 19. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with an opinion on the case of money incorrectly issued by the 3rd department of the Moscow magistrate to the merchant Ivan Ignatiev Synodal Chief Prosecutor, Count N.A. Protasov, in relation dated May 16, 1846, No. 3883, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret: “The Governing Senate forwarded to me for conclusion an appeal case about money incorrectly issued by the 3rd department of the Moscow magistrate to the merchant Ivan Ignatiev, who bequeathed his entire estate in favor of the Simonov Monastery. Upon examination of the circumstances of this case, it turns out that in 1838, with the highest permission, the shops that belonged to them were sold, according to the wishes of the heirs of the merchant Ignatiev, for the completion of the bell tower with the church begun in the Simonov Monastery; but on the day of the sale, the former Moscow temporary court applied to the local synodal office to withhold from the amount received through the sale of the said shops the money incorrectly issued in 1828 to the merchant Ignatiev by the 3rd department of the magistrate. Against this, the synodal office and Ignatiev’s heirs declared a dispute, that the amount incorrectly issued to Ignatiev in 1828 cannot be replenished from the money raised by the sale of shops, but must be reimbursed from the amount received for the estate of Ivan the Great Kolosov, sold according to the claims of his creditors, including Ignatiev, or recovered from the members and secretary of the former 3rd department magistrate guilty of incorrectly issuing money to Ignatiev. The Moscow Chamber of Civil Court, having considered this case in 1842, determined: issued in 1828 to the merchant Ignatiev, 7559 rubles. 66 kopecks ass, from the amount of Papirat and Mikhail Kolosov, for compensation thereof, to recover with interest from the members and secretary of the 3rd department of the magistrate, who were in 1828, on whose estate and impose a ban, according to the proportionality of the penalty imposed. But against this decision, former members and the secretary of the abolished 3rd department of the Moscow magistrate, as well as the heirs of some of them, in 1844 brought an appeal to the Governing Senate, in which they explained that the Moscow provincial government, in 1824, transferred 8906 rubles to the 3rd department of the magistrate. 56½ k., remaining from the amount received from the sale of the factory of Pankrat and Mikhail Kolosov, since the case of the debts listed on the Kolosovs was then under consideration by the said department, which, in August of the same year, determined that this money, pending demand, should be deposited with the board of trustees. But this resolution remained unfulfilled; Meanwhile, the magistrate’s accountant included the said money in the sum of Ivan the Great, Gabriel and Ivan the Lesser Kolosov and, through the machinations of Ignatiev, gave it to him in 1828 without the magistrate’s determination. Therefore, when the question arose about the sale of the shops belonging to Ignatiev’s heirs, the temporary court, on June 21, 1838, referred to the synodal office, through the mediation of its prosecutor, to withhold the money incorrectly issued to Ignatiev from the amount received from the sale of the shops belonging to the heirs of his; but this relation was not discovered in the synodal office until September 19, and meanwhile the Archimandrite of the Simonov Monastery and the heiress of Ignatiev, wanting to quickly complete the sale of the shops, on the day of the final re-auction, September 23, with these subscriptions they pledged to be responsible for the payment of the money required by the temporary court; when the sale was completed, they filed a dispute against this collection, under the pretext that this money had not been announced while collecting information about the smooth sale of the shops, while not only the announcement, but also the collection itself by the temporary court had been carried out since 1837, that is, for 20 months, before the sale of the said shops. Therefore, those present of the former 3rd department of the Moscow magistrate ask to destroy the decision of the civil chamber, unfairly subjecting them to the collection of money incorrectly given to Ignatiev by the magistrate’s payer without determining the presence; reimbursement of this money should be made from the amount owed to Ignatiev by the merchant Ivan Kolosov the Great, located in the magistrate, or by collection from those who inherited the Ignatiev estate or, finally, from the members and secretary of the 3rd department of the magistrate, who left its resolution, held in 1824, without execution and thereby allowed the accountant to incorrectly combine the said money with another amount and before issuing it Ignatiev. Having previously presented my conclusion on this matter, I consider it my duty to forward it, in the original, to your Eminence, humbly asking you, dear sir and archpastor, to enter into a detailed consideration of it and provide me with the information necessary to refute the mentioned complaint, adding at the same time your conclusion on this subject. In this regard, the Metropolitan wrote: “October 19. Responsible, welcome back to the case.” In response, dated May 16, 1846, No. 3883, your Excellency forwarded to me the paperwork regarding the money incorrectly issued by the 3rd Department of the Moscow Magistrate to the merchant Ivan Ignatiev, who bequeathed most of his estate in favor of the Simonov Monastery, and demanded the necessary information regarding it, and my conclusion. It does not seem to me that there is any way to make any additions to the information contained in the case, except to explain the circumstances of the sale of the shops inherited from the merchant Ignatiev, which were the highest authorized to be sold, under the condition that, on the day of the highest approval of the ruling of the Holy Synod on this sale, no new claims and prohibitions would be brought against the heirs. This highest approval followed on August 16, 1838. The decree about this of the Holy Synod was heard in the synodal office on September 9, and auctions were scheduled for September 17 and 19, and meanwhile communication was made to ascertain whether there were any claims or prohibitions. On September 16, based on the information that no response had been received regarding this communication, it was necessary to postpone the auction and repeat the communication. But on the 17th day, notifications were received from the provincial government and from the 2nd department of the Civil Chamber about the freedom of the shops from claims and prohibitions, and the auctions that had been previously appointed and then postponed were again allowed on the 17th and 19th days. On this last day, the temporary court entered the synodal office with a notice of the demand made to the police that the income from the shops in question be collected to replenish 8906 rubles. 56 k. ass. mistakenly issued to the merchant Ignatiev in 1824. The dispatch of this communication is indicated on the 21st day of June: and the receipt, by the hand of the prosecutor of the synodal office, is inscribed as follows: received on September 19, 1838, in the afternoon at five o’clock. The reason for such slow delivery is unknown. 21 days later, the synodal office received the attitude of the 2nd Department of the Civil Chamber regarding the request of the temporary court to impose a ban on the shops in question for the above-mentioned reason. In this regard, by the way, it is mentioned that the report of the temporary court was written on June 21, and received on September 21. On September 23, the synodal office announced to Simonov’s archimandrite 203 and Ignatiev’s heirs that rebidding for the shops could only be allowed if they secured the claim that had arisen, on the basis of Article 452, X t. St. citizen zak.; which they signed on the same day, and then the auction took place. From consideration of these circumstances, it is clear that the synodal office strictly observed the power of the highest resolution, and that the slowness in delivering the relation of the temporary court should be assumed to have occurred outside the synodal office, because the same slowness turned out to be in delivering such a relation to the 2nd department of the civil chamber. As for the required conclusion, the question that in the present case requires protective care on the part of the ecclesiastical department, in my opinion, is the following: whether part of the claim should be 8906 rubles. 56 k. ass. Fall on that part of the same amount presented as security, which, by agreement with the heirs of the merchant Ignatiev, constitutes the property of the Simonov Monastery? I believe that it should not, for the following reasons. 1) From the resolution of the temporary court on February 11, 1837 (record from the case, pages 15 and 18), it is clear that not all 8906 rubles were given to the merchant Ignatiev by mistake. 56 kopecks ass., but only 7620 rub. 20 k. ass., therefore, 1286 rubles. Ass. The temporary court is looking against Ignatiev and his heirs completely unreasonably, with incredible inattention to the case. 2) From the definition of the 1st department of the civil chamber on October 21, 1842, it is clear that in the former 3rd department the case was carried out regarding the debts of Ivan the Great Kolosov, against whom the merchant Ignatiev had a claim of 39,084 rubles. and that in December 1828, 7,559 rubles were issued to Ignatiev in payment of claims against Ivan the Great. 66 k. is incorrect. (Case note pp. 144 and 149). Why is here, instead of 1824, the year 1828 is indicated, and, instead of the amount of 7620 rubles? 20 k., shown 7559 rub. 66 k., is not explained in the note from the case, and I have neither the time nor the convenience to go into the search for this discrepancy. But the important thing is that the chamber does not deprive the merchant Ignatiev of the right to receive money for a claim of 39,084 rubles, and therefore to receive 7,559 rubles. 60 k. Consequently, Ignatiev received the amount that rightfully belonged to him in exchange for a much larger amount. How can one blame him for the fact that the government office took this amount not from what belonged to him, but from another box? Is it fair to wrest back from him the amount he rightfully received, just because the government office made a mistake? 3) It would be possible to assign some share in this guilt to Ignatiev if it were proven that he knowingly received in his claim an amount taken from another case. But in order to prove this, it was necessary to subject it to examination during his lifetime, and give him a way to present his justification; because without research there can be no trial, and without trial there can be no recovery. But since this was not done, also due to the omission of the office, and now this cannot be done due to his death, then the blame again falls entirely on the members of the office, who did not bring the claim during Ignatiev’s life. 4) If government officials, from 1824 to 1837, were not prompted by legal obligation in this matter to take timely action to return the incorrectly issued money to their place, then they had a new incentive to discover this omission during the approval of Ignatiev’s will. The omission of this moment again casts upon them the previously admitted guilt. From this, in my opinion, it follows that the claim of incorrectly issued money should not fall on the merchant Ignatiev and his heirs, because Ignatiev did not receive one part of this money at all, but received the other part as his property, recovered in court; and that it should not, for the wrong action of officials of civil public places, punish the Simonov Monastery by taking away part of its property, which came to it through the free donation of benefactors, due to their zeal for the church, with the highest permission and in compliance with the legal order. Which of the officials should receive part of the recovery of the money that was incorrectly issued, or whether it can be returned by settling one claim with another, this is a matter for consideration by the secular authorities 204 . November 17. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Moscow military governor-general, Prince A.G. Shcherbatov, on the subject of choosing subjects for images on the seven side and three middle doors of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior Moscow military governor-general, Prince A.G. Shcherbatov 205, regarding, October 16, 1846, No. 741, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret Most Reverend Bishop, dear sir! With regard to September 28, 1843, No. 417, your Eminence delivered to me, in fulfillment of the highest will, the proposal of objects for bas-reliefs to the Cathedral of Christ the Savior 206. Now the Sovereign Emperor, having awarded the highest approval to the bronze gilded model of the church doors made by the vice-president of the Imperial Academy of Arts, Count Tolstoy, according to the drawing approved by His Majesty, deigned to order that the entrance doors be made in real size so that all the facades of the church would have doors according to the said model with two side doors, previously approved, with the image on them other figures and bas-reliefs. According to the drawings, approved by the highest authorities, seven images were assigned for the western entrance doors on the middle one, and three on one of the side doors. Consequently, now it is necessary to make a choice of plots for the seven side and three middle doors. By transmitting these drawings with this description, I, in accordance with the conclusion of the commission for the construction of a church in Moscow in the name of Christ the Savior, humbly ask your Eminence to make a selection of subjects from church history that correspond to the subject of the church being built and bring it to me for further orders from the commission. If, for your considerations, when choosing subjects, you need the very drawings of the doors, I will order them to be copied from those approved by the highest order and will deliver them to you upon request. Description according to the highest approved project of the large and small western entrance gates of the church: 1) Big gate, 13 arshins high, 7 arshins wide. 5 tops; On these bas-reliefs are depicted, in circles, at the top, the whole figure of Christ the Savior, measuring 2 arsh. 5 vershoks., two half-length images of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, measuring 1 arsh., and in the niches four Evangelists, in whole figures, measuring 1 arsh. 12 vershoks. 2) Small gate, 10 arsh high. 10 tops, 5 arsh wide. 14 inches; They depict, in circles, the whole figure of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, measure 1 arsh. 6 vershk., waist St. Great Martyr Alexandra and St. Archangel Michael, each measuring 14 vershok. In this regard, the Metropolitan wrote: November 16. You need either a list or the original for a look. Write about this. After that, Metropolitan Philaret, in a letter dated November 17, the same 1846, No. 432, wrote: To fulfill the requirement expressed in relation to your Excellency, dated October 16, No. 741, I need to keep in mind the highest approved drawings of large and small doors for the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. Therefore, I humbly ask you to either provide me with a list of the said drawings, or to give me the opportunity one day to review the original 207 . No. 432. November 17, 1846. November 27. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the current Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A.I. Karasevsky, with information about the actions and program of the committee for publishing books for the common people 208 By letter dated October 31, No. 18676, Your Excellency demands information from me: whether a committee has been established to publish edifying books for the common people, what actions it has taken, and what its program is. From the decree of the Holy Synod, July 22, 1843, it is clear that it is proposed to reprint, in separate books, the lives of saints from the Menaion, excerpts from the prologue, and from the writings of St. Demetrius and St. Tikhon of Voronezh. For this purpose, a committee was established by the highest command, announced on February 10, 1844. As a result, the committee prepared and the Moscow committee of the Prison Trustee Society published a book: St. Gennady on the Christian faith and life, in Slavic and Russian dialects. Two copies of it are forwarded herewith. Then the committee made an extract from the writings of St. Ephraim, adapted for the edification of the common people, and under the title: Flowers from the garden of St. Ephraim, after consideration by spiritual censorship, it was forwarded to the synodal chief prosecutor, and after not receiving a response within a year, relations with him were resumed. Supposed to be published: 1) The Hidden Life of Nikita. 2) The Life of St. Dosifei. 3) The Life of St. Titus of Pechersk. 4) Life of St. Sergius. 5) Life of Alexy, the man of God. 6) Life of St. Stephen of Pechersk. 7) St. Tikhon: A Word about God’s saving vision and the image of our salvation (a simple and generally understandable presentation of the main truths of Christian teaching). 8) His: Christian Instruction. 9) His: About spiritual wisdom. In conveying this information to Your Excellency, I have the honor to be with true respect and devotion. November 27, 1846 209 . November 27. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the antimension for the Church of Antioch Neophytos, Metropolitan of Iliopolis and the Lebanese Mountains 210, in November 1846, in a letter asked Metropolitan Philaret to allow him to print several antimensions for the Antiochian church. Metropolitan Philaret, in a letter from Metropolitan Neophytos, wrote: November 27. since the sample antimension, as the Right Reverend of Iliopolis writes, was sent from Antioch, and therefore should be recognized as transmitted from the most blessed patriarch: then in this regard it no longer requires consideration and approval of the local spiritual censorship. But since, according to the laws of the state, printing cannot be carried out except with the permission of the local censorship: then I propose that the censorship committee consider the attached drawing, and if there is no doubt, give permission to print it without further delay, because the urgent time of the Right Reverend Iliopolis is approaching the end. According to the resolution of Metropolitan Philaret, the Moscow committee for censorship of spiritual books, on December 13, 1846, again in its submission asked the Metropolitan to offer His Eminence Neophytos a certificate that the antimensions printed for him would not be distributed in Russia. At the committee’s presentation, Metropolitan Philaret wrote: December 20. The required certificate from the Eminence of Iliopolis was given, and with this attached, why the drawing was given to him. Return this with the attached subscription to the committee for information and references 211. In 1846, Baron Lev Karlovich Bode served as vice-president of the Moscow palace office. Veltman, Alexander Fomich, member of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities; mind. January 11, 1870. From pressing, straining, pulling. From rough. authentic, storing in Moscow spirit. acad., package No. 3, document. Nos. 17–19. Senyavin, Ivan Grigorievich, in 1846, held the position of Comrade Minister of Internal Affairs. Vasily (Luzhinsky), until March 6, 1839 bishop. Orshinsky, who managed the Belarusian. Uniatsk ep., at this time he was accepted into the fellowship of rights. church., and June 7, 1840 appointed. Ep. Polotsk; in 1866, March 27, dismissal. from the council. diocesan in the rank of archbishop. and appointed a member of the Holy Synod; mind. July 26, 1879 This note was not found in the papers. See Vol. 11, No. 199, pp. 266–268. With autogr., storage. to Moscow spirit. Academy, package No. 3, document. Nos. 20 and 21. With black authentic, storing to Moscow spirits acad., pak. No. 3, doc. No. 22–24. Bludov, gr. Dmitry Nikolaevich, later chairman. state advice; mind. February 19, 1864 With own black authentic, storing to Moscow spirit. acad., pak. No. 3; doc. Nos. 25–27. A copy of this opinion is available from the Archbishop of Tver and Kashin Savva. Melchizedek (Sokolnikov), transferred in 1821 to the Simonov Monastery from the Rykhlovsky Monastery, Chernigov diocese; in 1851 he was moved to Voskresensky (New Jerusalem), where he died. January 6, 1852 With own authentic, storage to Moscow diocesan bibliography, dept. IX, hp 192–198. Shcherbatov, book. Alexey Grigorovich, Moscow. military governor general: d. 15 Dec. 1848. See Historical. description of the church in the name of Christ the Savior in Moscow. M. Mostovsky, M. 1883, pp. 48–52. From my own. black authentic, storing in Moscow diocesan libraries, dept. VIII, sheet. 49–51. From my own draft. authentic, storing in Moscow diocesan library, dept. III, leaf. 21–22. His Grace Neophytos arrived in Moscow in 1843 to collect offerings for the benefit of the distressed churches of the Patriarchate of Antioch. He stayed at the Epiphany Monastery and died here on December 3. 1853. The funeral service over him was performed by Metropolitan Philaret himself. The case of the Muscovites. committee for qualification spirit. books, 1846, No. 49.