VI. После отставки (1896–1913)

The first time after retirement (1896) passed completely unnoticed - in the efforts to build a house in Gatchina, as a summer house, and then, over time, a permanent shelter in this small, quiet town. These troubles were very useful, diverting attention from the drastic change in life. Only upon returning to Petrograd, in late autumn, for permanent residence, did the lack of usual activity become felt and the melancholy mood of a person, knocked out of his usual rut, appeared. Soon, however, I gained control of myself: in the first two years, my active participation in collaboration on the “Church Bulletin” helped (see above for the calculation of my works during this time), and then, from 1898, I undertook a great deal of scientific work, which for several years focused all my attention and did not give me a single moment of boredom. I took up this work not only in order to fill my idle time, but also in order to fulfill the promise given to my listeners in my farewell speech to use “the remainder of my strength for the work that I served in the academic department.” The persistent convictions of the unforgettable Fr. were of no small importance to me. Protopresbyter I.L. Yanyshev to continue my scientific activities even after, as he said, too early retirement. He advised me to process and publish a course of my academic lectures, or at least part of them. Under the influence of these motives and convictions, I decided to first process the lectures on the last part of dogmatic theology, embracing the doctrine of God the Sanctifier, that is, the grace of God, the Church and the sacraments. This part of science has long attracted my attention because, compared with its other parts, it has been little developed in our theological literature. In addition, my previous works were also useful: my doctoral dissertation (on the seven sacraments of the Church) and the controversy over the Aquilonian dissertation (on the Church). In view of the assumed broad plan, I even compiled a general introduction to this part of dogmatic theology, which was included in my later work. But during my work it soon became clear that if I don’t want to be superficial, then God forbid that I could work through at least the first third of what was proposed, that is, one teaching about the grace of God, and therefore I decided to limit myself to the latter. I stuck to my favorite method of research – historical-dogmatic. I followed the same path as when compiling my doctoral dissertation, but more confidently and calmly, pursuing the same tasks and goals. This was, in the full sense of the word, a continuation of my doctoral dissertation, so in this regard, the remark made to me once by Professor A.P. Lopukhin, the then editor of Christian Reading, in which my new work was published in parts, is completely fair: “The doctrine of the grace of God in the works of the ancient holy fathers and teachers of the Church before the blessed. Augustine. Historical and dogmatic research." “It seems,” he said, “you, A.L., are composing and presenting a second, new doctoral dissertation.” With these words A.P.L. I probably wanted to emphasize the seriousness and vastness of my work, but I was hardly fully aware of how accurately and successfully he defined the identity of the process of my inner theological experience. Historical-dogmatic research on the grace of God is indeed a repetition of work that is completely similar to the previous one (on the church sacraments) in another area (on the grace of God), with the same methods of research and with the same final result. This new research has once again confirmed the validity of my theory regarding the historical fate of the disclosure of the dogmatic teaching of our Orthodox Church. The same main goal was pursued both then, twenty years ago (in 1877), and now (in 1898). Calmly, not distracted by anything, I began to study the patristic works again, and not only the most ancient fathers and writers of the Church (up to Origen inclusive, as for a dissertation on the sacraments), but also subsequent centuries, up to St. John Chrysostom inclusive. The enormous number of volumes (several dozen) of patristic works, especially the golden age of patristic writing, required a lot of time and labor. It was a very happy circumstance that I always had all the patristic creations at hand. After his death, in 1881, Fr. Archpriest I.V. Vasilyev received ownership of the entire Greek Patrology series of the Minya edition (104 volumes) 476. This was a huge advantage for me. Without such happy conditions, I would hardly have taken on such a big job, and even if I did, I would have cooled down, and in the best case, it would have dragged on for many years, at the risk of not being completed. Although our academy had this publication, it was completely impossible to have it all at hand at all times, since it was in constant circulation among professors and students. He began publishing his work in Christian Reading long before it was finished, barely completing half of it and far from completely processing it. The culprit of such haste was mainly Fr. Protopresbyter I.L. Yanyshev. He hurried me in every possible way, fearing that I would postpone my work or drag it out endlessly, calculating that if my work began with printing, then I would inevitably have to continue it and finish it. Although anyone who knows my ability to get involved in work and keep up with it should have calmly waited and not rushed me; I knew myself from this side and yet I involuntarily succumbed to outside suggestions. As a result, it turned out that the first half of my work would require significant revision, not in essence, however, but in presentation and some changes in plan. Much as it originally came from my pen has remained in the same form. Be that as it may, my work was completed in 1902 and was published as a separate edition (330 pages). The final result regarding the patristic teaching about the grace of God turned out to be the same as regarding the teaching about the sacraments, that is, that the concept of grace among the ancient holy fathers was at first as broad and not strictly defined as the concept of “sacrament”, and then, gradually narrowing, it finally received the precisely defined volume with which it appears in our time, having gone through a period of Pelagian and semi-Pelagian disputes and Western scholastic development. At the end of the work, after a set of patristic teachings on grace and human free will, a patristic formula was obtained that expresses the teaching of the Orthodox Church about the process of our salvation, in contrast to heterodox teachings about this. In conclusion, several comments are given regarding the enormous importance of understanding the patristic views on this subject for the correct understanding and coverage of all Western disputes, starting with Blessed. Augustine and the Pelagians, the theories of medieval scholastics and, finally, the soteriological teaching of current Roman and Protestant theology. As it was published in Christian Reading, and especially after a separate edition of my work was published in 1902, very approving reviews of it were heard both verbally and in print. A particularly flattering and detailed review was given in the Church Gazette (1902, No. 46) by their editor and chairman of the Spiritual Educational Committee of the Holy Synod, Archpriest P. A. Smirnov, once a very gifted and very respected bachelor of the Moscow Academy in the same department of church archeology that I held at the same academy 477 . In view of such reviews, I even dared to submit my essay to the Educational Committee for the Metropolitan Macarius Prize. Upon review, it was awarded a full prize of 1,000 rubles. During my scientific studies, the desire and disposition for journalistic work completely disappeared, and an unfavorable mood for it was created. A few years later, the urge to see her appeared again, but then something happened that was completely unexpected for me and deeply saddened me, namely: my involuntary removal from the Church Messenger. The reason for this was the article “The Three-Term Formula (Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality)”, written by me at the end of 1905 and sent to the editors of the Church Messenger. This article was not published. There was a difficult explanation for me... All this excited me greatly. However, I did not want to leave the article unpublished. It contained, among other things, the idea of ​​how to understand the act of the Tsar’s will on October 17. In connection with theological and dogmatic principles, it was explained that this is the self-limitation of the Sovereign, which is fully consistent with the entire Christian worldview, the idea of ​​the Highest, Divine will in its relation to the free created will of rationally free beings, which is granted a significant share of self-determination, throughout the entire space of the history of the world, from creation to redemption and after redemption, in the action of God’s grace, in the process of our salvation. I decided to send the rejected article to Tserkovnye Vedomosti, the official organ of the Holy Synod, a journal competing with Tserkovnye Vestnik. My article was published in Church Gazette, 1905, No. 51. This article marked my transition to the staff of Tserkovnye Vedomosti. Then, soon, in the same “Church Gazette”, another article of mine was published (1906, No. 7), which also touched upon the issue of autocracy - “On the Question of Autocracy,” which examined and assessed various newspaper rumors about it at that time. And, finally, the third, entitled “A few thoughts on the education of the people’s will - according to the principles of the Christian Orthodox faith and sound pedagogy” (“Church Gazette”, 1906, No. 31). This article carried out patristic views on free human will in its relation to the Divine will and recommended the following of these principles in relation to the political education of our popular will in the person of its representatives in our highest new state institutions. This includes many thoughts from my work on the grace of God. These articles, and even several reviews in the same “Church Gazette” of the theological works that were newly published at that time, ended my journalistic, and indeed all literary activity. As for the academic “Church Bulletin,” after 1905 not a single printed line of mine appeared in it. This is how my many years of collaboration in this academic body dear to me came to a disastrous end. The following years, 1906–1910, brought me the loss of my closest and dearest people, in the person of Professor F.G. Eleonsky † 1906) and protopresbyter I.L. Yanysheva † 1910). The last years of the life of Professor F. G. Eleonsky, my friend, close relative and inseparable companion of my entire life, starting from childhood, were also spent in retirement, moving from place to place and in tireless scientific and literary works. He retired a year after me, in 1897, nervously upset. In these last nine years of his life (1897–1906), he changed many places of residence, lived in the Poltava province, and in the Crimea (in Alupka), and in Moscow, and finally in Tsarskoe Selo, where he died on November 3, 1906. But nowhere did he give himself rest, constantly busy solving scientific questions that interested him - mainly about the texts of the Bible - Hebrew, Greek and ancient Slavic, especially about the Old Slavic translation, about the works of the Elizabethan correctors of this translation. In order to study these last questions, he even deliberately settled in Moscow (where he spent about two years) to study the manuscripts of the Rumyantsev Museum. During these nine years, he published many scientific articles in “Christian Reading”, “Church Bulletin” and in the “Theological Encyclopedia” published by A.P. Lopukhina. These works, together with all his earlier works, are named in the “Biographical Dictionary” of A. S. Rhodessky. He could not remain without work even in the last days of his life, during which time he was engaged in translating the works of St. John Chrysostom for academic publication. His former colleagues, including me, and his family, seeing the extreme decline of his strength, unsuccessfully tried to distract him from this work, but he died, one might say, with a pen in his hands. May peace be upon this talented, tireless and conscientious worker. The last years of the life of Protopresbyter I. L. Yanyshev († June 13, 1910) were also spent in the energetic, multifaceted activity of this remarkable, outstanding church and social figure, who left a deep mark on the life of not only the highest theological school. During the 27 years of managing the court clergy, he was the same highly authoritative boss, a caring organizer of all aspects of his life, including the material, as he was at the academic rector: by the way, he built a beautiful and extensive “House of Charity for retired clergy, widows and orphans of the court clergy” - a material monument worthy of his glorious name. At the same time, he took an active, lively part in all church-social movements of that time, especially in the activities of the society for religious and moral education in the spirit of the Orthodox Church and in the works, on his own initiative established (1892), “of a commission for preliminary clarification of the conditions and requirements that could be the basis for negotiations on the union of Old Catholics with the Orthodox Russian Church.” In the society of religious and moral education, often being personally present, he inspired everyone with his energetic speeches, and in the Old Catholic Commission, working with passion, he was, one might say, its soul. We invariably saw him in its meetings, which took place either in the chambers of Archbishop Anthony (Vadkovsky) of Finland, its former chairman, before his appointment to the metropolis, or in the council hall of our academy, when the chairmanship passed to the rectors: Rev. Sergius (Stragorodsky) and Rev. Feofan (Bistrov) 478. Sometimes the commission met in the apartment of Fr. I.L. Yanyshev, in a house newly built through his efforts for the protopresbyter of the court clergy and his office, a house adjacent to the above-mentioned “House of Charity.” Appointed in November 1905 to be present at the Holy Synod (together with Protopresbyter of the military and naval clergy A.A. Zhelobovsky), Fr. I.L. Yanyshev took a lively, active part in his works. Having soon (in 1907) completely lost his sight, already blind, he steadily, however, attended meetings of the Holy Synod and even carried out some of its difficult instructions. So, for example, he was entrusted (October 12, 1909) with reviewing the “Brief Exposition of the System of Theology” compiled by Moscow Academy professor M. M. Tareeva (based on his own work in 5 volumes - “Fundamentals of Christianity”). This assignment was not only difficult, but for some reasons also very sensitive: the author of the mentioned work showed great originality in his theology and therefore aroused a lot of bewilderment and objections. Nevertheless, the order was carried out, and a review was given (February 12, 1910), favorable to the author. This was four months before the death of I.L. One had to be amazed at the freshness and strength of his thought and memory when, not being able to read the manuscript himself, he listened to the reading of it and the multi-volume printed work of Professor Tareev, asked him to mark the places that attracted his attention, and then, when compiling a review, to look for what he had previously noticed. The lecturers were the wife of his late son E.P. Yanysheva and her sisters, and they were amazed by the energy of his thoughts and remarkable memory. Among the conversations with him, among other things about this work, I was surprised at the same thing, and at the same time at the extent to which he was deeply interested in the most abstract theological subjects and questions. He did not lose interest in all other issues of our political and social life at that time - during the era of the Japanese War, the revolutionary movements of 1904–1905, the convening and opening of the State Duma in 1906. At the same time, he was an optimist, especially regarding the State Duma, at the opening of which he was present and which he enthusiastically welcomed. He had the good fortune to celebrate his 50th anniversary twice, first of all his service - in 1899, and then - in holy orders (I think in 1900/01), and on this occasion he was honored with a rare award - portraits of Sovereigns Alexander III and Nicholas II showered with diamonds. In 1906, he was the first of the white clergy to receive the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called, is the first time in the entire existence of this high order. The weakening of his strength and, in particular, the complete loss of vision forced him to abandon first the teaching of the law to the royal children, and then, in 1906, his duties as “head of the court clergy.” He remained only the royal confessor, which he was until the last days of his life. Despite some attempts on the part of various holy fools and holy fools to shake his position as the royal confessor at one time, he invariably enjoyed favor and great attention at the Court. In the last years of his life, having lost his sight, he went during Lent, during the first and Holy Weeks, for several days to Tsarskoe Selo, accompanied by his daughter-in-law, the aforementioned E.P. Yanysheva, to whom the royal family also received considerable attention. In the year of his death, 1910, on Holy Week, as usual, he went to Tsarskoe Selo, stayed there, according to the wishes of the royal family, and Easter week, but, despite her persistent offer to stay longer for health reasons, he decided to go home to his Petrograd apartment, declaring to his companion: “I don’t want to cause trouble to the high owners; I’ll probably die here, and this will be a poor payment for their cordial hospitality.” These words reflected his characteristic, characteristic (and well known to us academicians), rare delicacy. If not the origin, then the intensification of the disease that brought him to the grave dates back to the 100th anniversary of our Petrograd Academy, December 17, 1909. Here he caught a cold, undressed, in the cold lobby. In general, this anniversary did not particularly please him. His native academy, which he knew for more than half a century (since 1845, the time of his admission to the student body) and of which he was a brilliant rector for 17 years (hence, almost 1/5 of a century), showed him very little attention: its authorities (the rector at that time was the Most Rev. Feofan (Bystrov), a man of a completely different spirit) did not greet him, as if he were an ordinary guest, and only some of the professors, his former students and admirers met and saw off their dear guest. During the act, it was a pity to look at his deathly pale face. The entire act, which lasted a very long time, about six hours, he sat motionless. Protopresbyter I.L. passed away. Yanyshev June 13, 1910, on Elagin Island, at the court dacha of the royal confessor. His death was quite remarkable. In the consciousness of the approaching end, he wished to gather all the people close to him and at his farewell, he said a kind and edifying word to everyone, revealing full memory and clear consciousness. He remembered me too, and regretted that he did not hear my voice; Unfortunately, I was not able to be present at the last minutes of his life. By the way, he asked to leave his body alone after his death, at least for two or three hours, since, he said, at this time the separation of the soul from the body occurs; it does not happen suddenly. The funeral service was performed in the Peter and Paul Cathedral, with special permission (usually only for persons of the Imperial family), with the participation of all members of the Holy Synod, headed by Metropolitan Flavian of Kyiv; Metropolitan Anthony was absent due to treatment in the Caucasus. Excellent speeches were delivered by Archpriest of the Peter and Paul Cathedral A.A. Dernov (now protopresbyter, head of the court clergy) - for the communion, and protopresbyter of the army and navies E.P. Aquilonov - at the funeral service. The first described the deceased as the head of the court clergy, the second - as the rector of the academy and a church and public figure. To the grave - at the Volkov cemetery, where the deceased's wife Alexandra Efimovna, his son L. I. Yanyshev (who was a civil engineer) and daughter A. I. Albova were buried, in the family crypt - the body of the deceased was carried out by two Eminences who were then present in the Holy Synod - Archbishop of Yaroslavl, now Lithuanian Tikhon (Bellavin) and Bishop of Poltava, now Archbishop of Riga John (Smirnov) 479, disciple of the deceased. Several speeches were made at the graveside. Of these, the eloquent speech of Archpriest P.N. Lakhostsky, which characterized the deceased as an energetic figure in the society of religious and moral education in the spirit of the Orthodox Church, is especially remarkable for its inspiration. Thus ended the long (83 years) life of this wonderful man, who left a large, indelible mark on our church and, especially, spiritual and educational life. During his lifetime Fr. I. L. Yanyshev very often had to take advantage of his hospitality and conduct conversations with him on a wide variety of subjects and issues. As before, he was broad-minded and did not deviate one iota from his principles, which he followed throughout his life. At times it was necessary to argue with him, but this did not diminish the deep respect for his personality. His death was a huge loss for me. He was that dear thread that connected him with the past glorious page of the life of his native academy and which introduced him into the circle of church and social movements of recent times. Through another person, also venerable, close and very friendly to me, through my brother-in-law, N.M. Anichkov, since 1884 the director of the Ministry of Public Education, and in the year of my resignation (1896) - a fellow minister of public education, then (1898) a senator, vice-chairman of the Palestine Society and, finally (1905) a member of the State Council, fate deigned to introduce me into contact with another environment, with the secular scientist, educational and administrative world. In the apartment of N. M. Anichkov I had to meet with Count I. D. Delyanov, his fellow minister in the ministry, Prince M. S. Volkonsky, and many of the university professors and scientists: vice-president of the Academy of Sciences P. V. Nikitin († 1916); Academician V.V. Latyshev; inspector and professor of the Historical and Philological Institute N. P. Nekrasov; V. N. Khitrovo, a famous remarkable figure in the Palestine Society and its secretary; Honored Professor A. A. Dmitrievsky, our outstanding church archaeologist, a great expert on the East and successor to Mr. Khitrovo on the secretaryship of the Palestinian Society, and many others. Unfortunately, we were destined to lose recently (June 10, 1916) this venerable relative of ours, N.M. Anichkov, a far from ordinary public figure. My 50th anniversary (November 18, 1913). I had no intention of celebrating the 50th anniversary of my activity. What kind of celebration, I thought, could there be for a person who has not been in the service for 17 years, and who has even stopped literary activity for 6-7 years? Therefore, I didn’t tell anyone about the time of my anniversary, and when they asked me about it, I remained stubbornly silent, believing that it would pass unnoticed, and my Gatchina solitude would not be disturbed by anything. But what happened was completely different. First, long before November, it seems in July 1913, news of my anniversary appeared in one of the secular newspapers (in the “Petersburg Leaflet”), and then, shortly before November, two large articles by Professor Archpriest P. I. Leporsky were published in the “Church Bulletin”, dedicated to my 50-year activity, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of my service and activity. Secular newspapers picked up the news, and celebration was inevitable. It took place in the most modest surroundings, in Gatchina, in my house (in which we settled permanently in 1912), in a close family circle, among relatives and close friends. From relatives, except for members of my family, my wife Sofia Iosifovna and son Nikolai Alexandrovich Katansky (senior candidate for judicial positions at the Petrograd District Court) and his wife Maria Ier. Katanskaya, those who arrived from Petrograd were present: my cousin, Emeritus Professor Alexander Ivanovich Sadov, and my cousin Nadezhda Fedorovna Eleonskaya, the daughter of my late uncle and friend Fyodor Gerasimovich Eleonsky. From close acquaintances: my fellow countryman, former professor at the Kyiv Academy, F. S. Ornatsky (after retirement from academic service, living in Gatchina and being a member of the Spiritual Educational Committee at the Holy Synod) with his wife Soph. Iv. Ornatskaya and sister-in-law Nad. Iv. Dievskaya. Present here was the archpriest of the Gatchina Jaeger Church, who sanctified our celebration with prayer. V.A. Levitsky, one of the most respected Gatchina shepherds. This modest family holiday was graced by the presence of delegates from the Petrograd Theological Academy - Honored Professor N.V. Pokrovsky and Professor Archpriest P.I. Leporsky, who arrived from Petrograd and brought with them a greeting address from their native academy. After the prayer service, those present were offered a modest meal, among which the arriving academic delegates conceived the idea of ​​involving me in the compilation and publication of my “Memoirs,” which was already mentioned at the very beginning of this work of mine, in the preface. On the occasion of the anniversary, many greetings were received. Let us mention some of the most typical ones. Our theological academies, of which three - Petrograd (since 1896), Kazan (since 1897) and Moscow (since 1904) the hero of the day was an honorary member at that time, honored him with greetings: the first, Petrograd, - with the above-mentioned address, Kazan - with an official paper outlining the resolution of the council on the occasion of his anniversary and with a description of his works, Moscow - by presenting through the delegates (professors S.P. Smirnov and A.P. Orlov) a beautiful icon of St. Sergius, in a silver gilded robe and icon case, with a decent inscription engraved on a tablet. Only the Kiev Academy did not respond, the honorary member of which was elected two years after the anniversary (December 21, 1915, approved February 18, 1916) - “in respect,” as the diploma says, “for half a century of professorial activity and scientific works on the study of the history of Orthodox Christian dogmas” 480. The address of the Petrograd Academy expresses the following: “your tireless scientific works, always solid and strictly verified by critical Orthodox theological thought, will undoubtedly leave a deep mark on academic science. But the Academy keeps the best memories of you not only as a learned Orthodox theologian who paved new paths in specialized scientific research, but also as an excellent, always responsive professor and a man of advice and reason. Both in the academic council and in the board of directors, you set an example worthy of emulation, firmly standing guard over justice and order and, thus, maintaining balance in the course of academic life.” In a written greeting from the council of the Kazan Academy, the following assessment of the scientific works of the hero of the day was given. “In your person, the Kazan Academy has long seen a learned historian-dogmatist, a theologian who combined solid knowledge with a definite view of theological science and mainly of dogmatic theology, to the study of which you devoted many years of your activity. Your articles on the historical study of dogma, which appeared in the early 70s of the last century and constituted undoubted news in Russian theological science of that time, outline the path for the study of the subjects of dogmatic theology. And your major works from the field of patristic theology: Dogmatic teaching about the seven church sacraments in the works of the most ancient holy fathers and teachers of the Church... (1877) and the Doctrine of the grace of God in the works of the holy fathers and teachers of the Church before Blessed. Augustine (1902) represent the actual implementation of your view of the historical study of dogmas according to the historical method. The qualities inherent in your major theological works: consistency of a well-known scientific direction, content, clarity and distinctness of the conclusions and ancient patristic dogmatic formulas affirmed in them - rightly made these works a valuable contribution to our Russian theological science.” They honored me with greetings: a telegram - Metropolitan Vladimir of Petrograd, letters - Archbishop Alexy (Opotsky), a member of the Holy Synod, who was retired in the Moscow Donskoy Monastery, my former student friend, Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Volyn, along with an extensive letter characterizing the professors of old and new times, who sent a beautiful icon Pochaev Mother of God, Archbishop of Finland Sergius (Stragorodsky), telegrams: Archbishop of Yaroslavl Tikhon (Bellavin), Bishop of Elisavetgrad Anatoly (Kamensky), my former listener (graduated in 1895), member of the State Duma, Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod V. K. Sabler, who greeted me “on the 50th anniversary of such a useful for the Orthodox Church scientific and pedagogical activities." This last telegram was completely unexpected for me and all the more pleasant in view of our previous clashes, especially regarding the dissertation of E. P. Akvilonov. Received partly as a telegram, partly as a letter: from the rector of the Nizhny Novgorod Seminary, from the Nizhny Novgorod Archive Commission, from the editorial office of the Church Messenger, from former colleagues at our native academy - professor of Petrograd University, Archpriest V. G. Rozhdestvensky, professor Archpriest S. A. Sollertinsky, Professor A. A. Bronzov, Professor N. N. Glubokovsky and from my former students archpriests – F.A. Znamensky (graduated in 1869, archpriest of St. Isaac's Cathedral), G. I. Titov (graduated in 1873, member of the Educational Committee at the Holy Synod), M. G. Berezin (graduated in 1878, rector of one community of sisters of mercy in Petrograd), N. G. Kedrinsky (graduated in 1879, at that time the time of the confessor of Their Imperial Majesties), A. A. Dernov (graduated in 1882, rector of the Peter and Paul Cathedral, now protopresbyter of the court clergy), A. P. Ustinsky (graduated in 1882, rector of the church of the Novgorod Tithe Monastery), A. V. Rozhdestvensky (graduated in 1882, archpriest Petrograd Kazan Cathedral), I. I. Dobronravova (graduated in 1884, rector of Petrograd St. Andrew’s Cathedral). Some of my former listeners who do not have holy orders have not forgotten me either. Greetings received from A.D. Popov (graduated in 1871, member of the School Council under the Holy Synod), D. I. Tikhomirov (graduated in 1881, member of the Educational Committee under the Holy Synod), V. Troitsky (graduated in 1877, vice-director of the office of the Human Society), P. P. Zubovsky (graduated in 1887, director of the office of one from ministers), A.V. Kartashev, former acting Associate Professor of the Petrograd Academy. The greeting of this latter is very characteristic. By the way, this is what is expressed in his letter: “in a time when the bright, noble appearance of the old academy is being distorted by the stains of base political passions, you involuntarily rest your thoughts on the representatives of the old, pure generation.” These lines do great honor to A.V. Kartashev, who was far from alien to a passion for these particular political passions, thanks to which this gifted man left his service at the academy. A lot of greetings were received from relatives and good friends, including from the venerable Honored Professor of the Kyiv Academy A.A. Dmitrievsky, from V.N. Tychinin (a student of the Moscow Academy, graduated in 1888, director of the Mogilev academic school), Archpriest Krasovsky (a student of the Moscow Academy, Archpriest of the Admiralty Cathedral) and from a completely unknown admirer of mine, a certain V.M. Trofimov, from Arkhangelsk, a port official customs, familiar with my writings thanks to his struggle with the schismatics. I read a lot of very flattering things that touched me to the depths of my soul in these greetings, especially from my former students, who retained a grateful memory of me and expressed considerable love and respect for their old professor. I thought about citing the text of some of these telegrams and letters, but I postponed this intention in order to avoid reproaches of self-praise, although it occurred to me that the jubilee praises, by custom, of course, more or less exaggerated, characterize not only the hero of the day, but also his congratulators: some good sides and qualities that they noticed in the hero of the day, obviously find an echo in their souls and, therefore, are related to them and testify to their spiritual appearance and mood, according to the proverb “similis simili gaudet”. This is how my half-century anniversary passed. His last act took place at the academy. On the occasion of a thank-you visit to Metropolitan Vladimir and the rector of the academy, Most Rev. Anastasia (Alexandrov) I was within the walls of my native academy and here I met with the esteemed editor of Christian Reading, Professor N.I. Sagarda, my former student (graduated in 1896, the year I left service at the academy). Sagarda, with great insistence, demanded from me some article for the academic journal he edits, as a souvenir of my anniversary. This was the final impetus for the compilation of my “Memoirs,” for which I more than once grumbled at the venerable professor, as well as at the above-mentioned members of the delegation from my native academy, who came to me on November 18, 1913 in Gatchina and persuaded me to do the same. In the end, it cannot be said that I remained ungrateful to all these venerable persons who called me to this work - perhaps not completely useless for the history of my native Petrograd Academy, the Academy of Moscow and my native Nizhny Novgorod Seminary, which is close to my heart, and in general for the history of our theological school. The work I took upon myself was not easy. I had to work a lot, and most importantly, go through everything that worried me over the space of many decades, since 1847. In my chronicle I tried to maintain impartiality, not hiding my mistakes, mistakes, hobbies and other people’s infirmities and shortcomings, but giving everyone, in my extreme understanding, their due. May the readers forgive me if I violated the strict rule of writing “sine ira et studio” in any way. I finish my chronicle at the 81st year of my life (November 19, 1916 I turned 80 years old) with the words of the great St. John Chrysostom: “Glory to God for everything!” This edition from the library of Fr. I.V.V-va was also used in the preparation of his doctoral dissertation. It served me well even then. Now it was even more convenient; there was no need to transport dozens of volumes and empty the library cabinets of the unforgettable Fr. archpriest. In the conclusion of the extensive editorial of this issue of Church Gazette it is said: “Only a deeply learned and experienced professor, thoroughly familiar with the patristic works and with the classical languages ​​of antiquity, with an ardent love for the specialty of the subject, could understand the multitude and variety of data for the research he undertook and complete this work, which is truly capital. Our theological science made a valuable contribution to it.” Rev. Feofan (in the world – Vasily Bystrov), petrogr., Ph.D. Petrogr. acad. (1896), prof. scholarship holder, 1897 – acting Associate Professor, 1897 – monk, 1901 – archim., acting. d. inspection Petrogr. academician, 1905 – mag., extraord. prof., academician, 1909 – rector. Petrogr. academician, ep. Yamburg, 1910 – bishop. Tavrich., 1912 – ep. Astrakhan.; 1913 – ep. Poltavsky. Rev. John (in the world - Ivan Smirnov), Vladimir, Ph.D. Petrogr. acad. (1867), 1868 – teacher. Ryazan. Sem., 1869 – Mag., 1875 – Inspectorate. Ryazan. semester, 1883 – prot., rector of Ryazan. Sem., 1901 – monk, archim., 1902 – bishop. Cheboksary, 1904 – ep. Poltava, 1910 – ep. Rizhsk., 1912 – archbishop. By the way, the motives for election are interesting, expressed in the diplomas of other academies: Petrograd - “in honor of many years of professorial service and diverse scientific and literary activities”; Kazan - “in consideration of scientific and theological activities and spiritual and literary works”, Moscow - “in respect of long-term professorial activity in the Moscow and St. Petersburg academies and scientific works on dogmatic theology.” From these motives it is clear that my journalistic and journal activities have not been forgotten, and have earned authoritative recognition of their value. I consider this a great reward for my hard work of this kind. You might be interested in: