On the authorship of one letter attributed to the Hieromartyr Hilarion

I would like to say a few words about the authorship of one controversial letter, which in the collection of documents compiled by M.E. Gubonin, is attributed to Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky) 1, since the recognition of Bishop Hilarion as the author of this letter introduces a duality alien to him into the position of the hieromartyr. This letter was written regarding the Declaration on the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church to Soviet power, published on July 16/27, 1927 by Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky). It is a well-known fact that Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky) belonged to the number of Russian bishops who recognize Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) as the head (albeit temporary) of the Russian Church, and belonged to the so-called “commemoration” camp. After the publication of the sensational Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius calling for loyalty to Soviet power, Bishop Hilarion’s attitude towards His Eminence Sergius did not change radically. Without accepting some points of the Declaration, Hieromartyr Hilarion, however, did not consider its contents a sufficient reason for separation from the Deputy Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne. “No split!” – Archbishop Hilarion proclaimed. “No matter what they tell us, we will look at it as a provocation!” Already in November 1927, “Archbishop Hilarion managed to gather up to fifteen bishops in the cell of Archimandrite Theophan, where everyone unanimously decided to remain faithful to the Orthodox Church, headed by Metropolitan Sergius. “No split!” – Archbishop Hilarion proclaimed. “No matter what they tell us, we will look at it as a provocation!” 2 Bishop Manuil (Lemeshevsky), after being released from the camp upon his arrival in Moscow on February 10/23, 1928, received an offer from Metropolitan Joseph (Petrov) to join him with the promise of immediate elevation to the rank of metropolitan, to which Bishop Manuil gave the following answer: “I am a representative of the “Solovetsky” episcopate. All of us, unanimously and unanimously, in the number of 17 people, under the chairmanship of Archbishop Hilarion, swore an oath not to separate from Metropolitan Sergius, to maintain church unity and not to join any dissenting group. I have been instructed by the “Solovetsky” episcopate to report all this to Metropolitan Sergius.” 3 In a letter dated July 8/21, 1928, Bishop Hilarion wrote: “I see absolutely nothing in the actions of Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod that would exceed the measure of leniency or patience... Nonsense is written everywhere, whoever writes on the contrary. What kind of thing did they come up with? He is supposedly an apostate. And as they write, it’s like they’re crazy. They themselves fall into the pit and drag others along with them.” 4 About Metropolitan Joseph said: “He seems to have some kind of malice... You can’t do anything with him, even if you hit the wall with your forehead, everything will be the same.” 5 Archbishop Hilarion’s belonging to the group of Solovetsky bishops who recognized Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) is also mentioned by Protopresbyter Mikhail Polsky: “Less furious, but still a Sergian, was Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky), who condemned the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, but did not break off communication with him as canonically correct High Hierarch of the Russian Church." 6 Against the background of these data, the words of the letter dated October 22 (11/04), 1927, which is attributed to Bishop Hilarion, suddenly sound. It turns out that in November, Bishop Hilarion binds the “Solovetsky” bishops with an oath of allegiance to Metropolitan Sergius, and a little earlier, in October, calls him and the collaborating bishops “church adulterers”, quotes the words of some “blessed” that Metropolitan Sergius is “worse than a heretic: he bowed to the Antichrist, and if he does not repent, his fate will be in Gehenna along with Satanists,” quotes lengthy excerpts from the interpretations of the Apocalypse and the 2nd Epistle of the Apostle Peter by Bishops Ignatius (Brianchaninov) and Theophan (Govorov). 7 It also seems strange that after the downright desperate experiences outlined in the October letter, just 9 months later the Bishop already writes that he sees absolutely nothing “in the actions of Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod” 8 . I see absolutely nothing in the actions of Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod that would exceed the measure of leniency or patience... In addition, the letter was written, so to speak, in a mystical tone and in expressions not characteristic of Vladyka Hilarion: “The terrible thing that was foreseen 2-3 years ago, has not come close to us?” 9 Archbishop Hilarion used expressions of this kind, but in an ironic sense. In particular, he defined his impression of Gothic churches as “religious horror.” 10 In the epistolary heritage of the Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky) one cannot find such a pompous style, which the author of the controversial letter sometimes strays into: “And how could one not marvel at St. To the seer, when he saw before him...” 11 It should also be noted that neither in his scientific works, nor in articles, nor in the letters of the holy martyr there is a single quotation from St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov). But the main difference is in the very approach to assessing the Declaration. Vladyka Hilarion considers separation from the Deputy Locum Tenens a matter of “completely unfounded, absurd and extremely harmful”; he assesses it as “a very serious crime” primarily because “canons 13–15 of the Two-cr. The Council defines a line after which secession is even commendable, but before this line secession is an ecclesiastical crime” 12. In a similar way, he reasoned at the Council of 1917–1918 about the patriarchate: “We cannot help but restore the patriarchate; we must certainly restore it, because the patriarchate is the fundamental law of the supreme government of each local Church” 13. Although in the case of Metropolitan Sergius the situation was not as clear as with the question of the patriarchate, for Archbishop Hilarion both situations are close to each other. The author of the letter in question proposes something almost the opposite: “You cannot formally apply the canons to the solution of issues raised by church life, you cannot generally limit yourself to a legal attitude to the matter, but it is necessary to have a spiritual feeling that would indicate the path of Christ among the many paths trodden by wild animals in sheep’s clothing. Life has raised questions that can be resolved correctly, churchly correctly, only by stepping over custom, form, rule and guided by feelings trained in the recognition of good and evil.” 14 We see that here church canons are contrasted with “spiritual feeling.” This kind of opposition is alien to Hieromartyr Hilarion. For him, the canons themselves are spiritual, and a Christian’s affirmation in spirituality can only contribute to the correct understanding and observance of the canons, and not to “stepping over the rule.” Church canons are one of the most important forms of Sacred Tradition and following the canons, and not violating them, justified by “spiritual feeling,” is a necessary condition for the life of a Christian, and especially a priest: “Many of us are already talking about the “canonical Saturday,” and the canons are recognized as a heavy and even unnecessary yoke...,” wrote Archimandrite Hilarion in 1915 regarding the new edition of the “Book of Rules” with interpretations. – Left unattended are those deep moral truths that are scattered in abundance in the canons everywhere, the general spirit of the Church that breathes in the conciliar and patristic rules, that Orthodox church view of life that is preached in these rules is forgotten... But the First Rule of the Seventh Ecumenical Council says: “For those who have received priestly dignity, the written rules and regulations serve as evidence and guidance.” 15 In addition, the author of the letter complains that “contrary to the decree on the separation of Church and state, the Orthodox Church entered into a close, living union” with the atheistic state. 16 Meanwhile, at one time, Archbishop Hilarion himself, together with Patriarch Tikhon, made a lot of efforts to legitimize the position of the Orthodox Church in this particular state. To what has been said, we can add one more small, but important for the issue under discussion, detail. Archbishop Hilarion, unlike the author of the controversial letter, never kept a diary, as he himself admits in one of his letters to his sister: “I was very interested in the find that you are telling me about. Be sure to save everything. After all, I have never kept diaries in my life: there was no time for everything. And letters can replace diaries.” 17 Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin names Bishop Hilarion (Belsky) 18 as the author of the controversial letter, who ended up in the Solovetsky camp in 1927 and, as is known, belonged to the number of “non-remembering” bishops. Vladimir Moss attributes this letter to Archbishop Theodore (Pozdeevsky). 19 On some Internet sites (mostly schismatic or “anti-Sergian” in nature) this letter is posted under the name of the new martyr Mikhail Novoselov. 20 The letter in question belongs to the martyr Mikhail Novoselov seems most likely. In terms of its features, the controversial letter could quite harmoniously complement Mikhail Aleksandrovich Novoselov’s famous collection “Letters to Friends,” consisting of 20 messages. The similarity is already noticeable in the very structure of the letters. In addition to the usual greetings and farewells for letters, many of M. Novoselov’s letters, as well as the controversial letter, have an afterword - P.S. (in a letter - P.S. - Author's note). Each subsequent letter usually begins with a reference to previous letters, with a quotation from them or from the Holy Scriptures. At the beginning of the 16th letter, Novoselov writes that in the intervals between letters “sometimes he wrote down some thoughts in his notebook or on a piece of paper.” Likewise, the “Letter to a Friend” in question begins with the author’s references to thoughts from his notebook. In addition, in this letter we find significant quotations from the interpretations of the Apocalypse by Saints Ignatius (Brianchaninov) and Theophan the Recluse, and the letters of Mikhail Novoselov are richly filled with quotations from the holy fathers and authoritative church writers. Moreover, St. Ignatius is not only widely quoted in a number of letters, but excerpts from his works on topics make up almost the entire content of the 9th letter. The noted parallels are strengthened by the almost complete identity of greetings and farewells in both cases: “My dear friend!... Brother who loves you in the Lord...” - in the text of this letter. And: “My dear friends!... A brother who loves you in the Lord,” - in “Letters to Friends” (in most cases 22). At the end of the 18th letter (dated May 16, 1926) there is a complaint about the “situation” that prevented its writing: “Unfortunately, this letter was written with long interruptions..., and most importantly, it was written in a very diverse situation and the same moods: its shortcomings naturally follow from here.” 23 A similar complaint, and also about the “situation,” is contained at the end of the letter of controversial authorship: “I wrote this letter, tearing myself away from it many times, and in a situation that prevented the concentration of thought. Therefore, don’t blame me if it came out fragmentary and somewhat incoherent.” 24 The formal similarity is complemented by the similarity of the letters' contents. These are, first of all, the themes of eschatology, the ultimate destinies of the world, apocalyptic signs of the times, which Mikhail Alexandrovich discerns in contemporary events, in particular in schisms. These are cross-cutting topics for all letters, and, in addition, they are the main ones in letters from 7 to 10. We find the same sentiments in the letter dated October 22, 1927. Two passages from the Apocalypse deserve special mention here, namely, the appeals to the Angels of the Sardis and Philadelphia churches. 25 Mikhail Novoselov pays special attention to the interpretation of the passages of the Apocalypse relating to the Sardinian and Philadelphian churches in the 9th and 10th letters. 26 The Spirit of God is not an abstraction. He exists and manifests; He speaks and acts. Seek Him conscientiously... To this should be added the closeness of some of the individual thoughts of the letter writers. In particular, Mikhail Novoselov, in words from a letter from Yuri Fedorovich Samarin, speaks of the need for spiritual reasoning in order to remain faithful to the Church: “The Spirit of God is not abstraction. He exists and manifests; He speaks and acts. Seek Him conscientiously, seek Him always, and you will recognize Him among everything (that He is not). If, in your weariness, you decide by an act of external submission to satisfy the voice of your conscience, which wants your whole being to be imbued with the truth, the Spirit of God will withdraw from you, and you will find yourself before some idol” (12th letter). 27 It is not difficult to detect the closeness of the thoughts expressed to the ideas expressed in the controversial letter: “The difficulty of the present time for an Orthodox person is (written down in my notebook under January 1/14, 1925) that the present life of the Church requires from him a highly spiritual attitude towards himself. You cannot rely on official shepherds (bishops and priests), you cannot formally apply the canons to the solution of issues raised by church life, you cannot generally limit yourself to an external legal attitude to the matter, but it is necessary to have a spiritual feeling that would indicate the path of Christ among the many paths trodden by wild animals in sheep's clothing. Life has raised questions that can be resolved correctly, in a churchly manner, only by stepping over custom, form, rule and guided by feelings trained in the recognition of good and evil.” 28 For Mikhail Alexandrovich, ideas of this kind do not remain an abstract doctrine, but turn into a principle of life that helps him overcome the difficulties he encounters. For example, he recalls how, after becoming acquainted with another provocation of the Bolsheviks, the lines of Holy Scripture that arose in his mind stopped the indignation that flared up in him. At the same time, he heard an “inner voice” prohibiting him from condemning the troublemakers. Novoselov concluded this story with the following confession: “I accepted both the suddenly recalled text of Scripture and the secret voice as some kind of revelation, which has guided me since then, maintaining the peace of my soul in the most difficult moments of my personal, social and church life” (letter 7, P.S.). 29 One can also notice the closeness of some images used in both cases, in particular to describe the current state of the Church, which is in danger of being swallowed up by a world likened to the element of water: “the whole church ship tilted and hung over the abyss...” (letter 20-30, in the editorial footnote to the above phrase it is explained that “Novoselov means the Declaration of Loyalty of Metropolitan Sergius and his serious concessions to state atheism." - Ed.) 31; “Perhaps soon we will find ourselves as a small island among the ocean of wickedness...” 32 Both letters from which the last two quotes are taken date from the end of 1927 (October 22 and December 31). The similarity of the letter dated October 22, 1927 and “Letters to Friends” is also visible in the author’s penchant for using some emotionally charged epithets and characteristic somewhat pathetic expressions. For example, the author of the letter uses the epithet “creepy”: “The creepy thing that my soul foresaw 2-3 years ago, hasn’t it come close to us?” 33 Mikhail Novoselov quite often resorts to this and similar epithets in his “Letters to Friends.” “Terrible fear” 34 (letter 8), “formidable invasion” 35 (letter 9) and similar expressions are a harmonious and integral part of the “Letters”. After becoming acquainted with the next provocation of the Bolsheviks, the lines of Holy Scripture that arose in his mind stopped the indignation that flared up in him. Even more common in the “Letters” are the Slavicisms “mysterious viewer” and “to marvel.” Here is mentioned “the great seer ap. John" 36 (elsewhere - "the New Testament seer John the Theologian" 37, letter 10), tells "about the great seer, St. Gregory" 38 (letter 12), one recalls “the invasion repeatedly and confidently predicted by the seer Ignatius” 39 (letter 8), it speaks of “the great seer St. Herman..." 40 (letter 2). Not much less common in the “Letters” are forms of the verb “to marvel”: “Let us not marvel at the general impoverishment of faith and love”; “Let us therefore not be amazed at all the above” 41 (letter 10); “And one cannot help but marvel at spiritual sensitivity” 42 (letter 9); “How can one not marvel at His wonderful leadership” 43 (letter 17). In the controversial letter, these two terms are combined in one sentence: “And how could one not marvel at the Holy Seer when he saw before him...”. 44 The proposed analysis allows us to conclude that the letter in question dated October 22 (November 4), 1927 does not belong to Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky). In terms of style, structure, main ideas and themes, characteristic terms, expressions and images used, this letter should be recognized as belonging to the pen of the martyr Mikhail Novoselov. Hilarion [Troitsky], archbishop. [attributed]. Letter dated 22.10 (04.11) 1927 to N.N. regarding the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of July 16 (29), 1927 // Acts of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon and later documents on the succession of supreme church authority: 1917–1943./ Comp. Gubonin M.E. Ed. prot. Vladimir Vorobyov and others - M.: PSTBI, Brotherhood in the Name of the All-Merciful Savior, 1994. - P. 525–529. John (Snychev), Metropolitan. St. Petersburg and Ladoga. Hieromartyr Hilarion, Archbishop of Verei: Life and Testimonies. – [B.m.]: Ed. Sretensky Monastery, 1999. – P. 20. John [Snychev], Metropolitan. St. Petersburg and Ladoga. Metropolitan Manuel (Lemeshevsky): Biographical sketch. – St. Petersburg: [B. i.], 1993. – P. 104. John [Snychev], Metropolitan. Church schisms of the Russian Church in the 20s and 30s of the XX century... - Samara: [B.I.], 1997. - P. 272–273. Polsky M., protopres. New Russian Martyrs: In 2 hours – Part 2. – Chapter 3. Maxim, Bishop of Serpukhov. – Rep. playback Ed. 1957: M., 1992. – P. 28. Acts of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon... / Ed. prot. Vladimir Vorobyov and others; comp. M.E. Gubonin. – M.: PSTBI, Brotherhood in the Name of the All-Merciful Savior, 1994. – P. 529, 526–528. John [Snychev], Metropolitan. Church schisms of the Russian Church in the 20s and 30s of the XX century... - Samara: [B.I.], 1997. - P. 272. Acts of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon... / Ed. prot. Vladimir Vorobyov and others; comp. M.E. Gubonin. – M.: PSTBI, Brotherhood in the Name of the All-Merciful Savior, 1994. – P. 526. Hilarion, Archbishop of Verei, martyr. Letters about the West // Hilarion, Archbishop of Verei, Hieromartyr. Without the Church there is no salvation. – P. 483. Acts of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church 1917–1918: Acts XVII-XXX. – Reprint. – M.: Novospassky Monastery. – T. 2. – 1994. – P. 377. Hilarion (Troitsky), archimandrite. News of theological literature [Rec. on: A. Lavrov-Platonov]: Required publication: Rules of St. apostles, ecumenical and local councils and St. fathers Part II, ed. 3rd, M., 1915 // Christian: Journal of church and social life, science and literature. – Sergiev Posad. – 1915. – No. 10. – P. 390–391. Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop. Letter from L.P. Arkhangelskaya dated August 22, 1929 – Archive of A.V. Nikitsky. Tsypin, Vladislav, Rev. Russian Church: 1925–1938. – [B.M.]: Ed. Sretensky Monastery, 1990. – P. 122. Moss V. The Orthodox Church at the crossroads (1917–1999). – St. Petersburg: Aletheia, 2001. – P. 154. For example: http://www.paraklit.org/eres/documenti/Pismo_drugu.htm (accessed 06/13/2014), http://www.eshatologia.org/571-pismo-k-drugu.html (accessed 06/13/2014), etc. Novoselov M.A. Letters to friends. – M.: PSTBI, 1994. – P. 210. There, p. 1, 8, 9, 14, etc. Acts of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon... / Ed. prot. Vladimir Vorobyov and others; comp. M.E. Gubonin. – M.: PSTBI, Brotherhood in the Name of the All-Merciful Savior, 1994. – P. 529. Novoselov M.A. Letters to friends. – M.: PSTBI, 1994. – P. 103, 119, 123. Acts of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon... / Ed. prot. Vladimir Vorobyov and others; comp. M.E. Gubonin. – M.: PSTBI, Brotherhood in the Name of the All-Merciful Savior, 1994. – P. 524–525. Novoselov M.A. Letters to friends. – M.: PSTBI, 1994. – P. 75–76. Acts of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon... / Ed. prot. Vladimir Vorobyov and others; comp. M.E. Gubonin. – M.: PSTBI, Brotherhood in the Name of the All-Merciful Savior, 1994. – P. 524. Novoselov M.A. Letters to friends. – M.: PSTBI, 1994. – P. 82.