His Eminence Philaret, Archbishop of Chernigov and Nizhyn

Contents A. His works on the education of the flock 1) Arrangement of buildings of educational institutions 2) Improving the life of mentors 3) Strengthening the development of students 4) Opening of new educational institutions a) Theological school in Starodub b) School for girls of the clergy, in Chernigov c) Parochial schools 5) His donations B. His literary activity (On his work on the education of the flock and his literary activity) The unexpected news of the death of a wonderful person somehow weighs especially heavily on the soul. And this heavy impression is all the stronger because the image of a face lost forever, with his death, becomes clearer, purer, and dearer to us than ever. Living among us, wonderful people sometimes walk their path with private modesty; sometimes a vague and distorted concept of them reaches us through clouds of rumors and gossip generated by various confused relationships. And wonderful people pass by, often not recognized, not appreciated as they should be, and - it’s bitter to say - how often only their death seems to open our eyes to whom we have lost! But this humane sadness for the deceased intensifies even more when we lose a truly worthy person: his past then grows upon us in its essential and bright outlines. And fear involuntarily creeps into our souls: did we value him enough during our lifetime? Did we pay attention to his deeds, did we give them due respect? And God forbid everyone, in response to these questions, hears a painful reproach in their soul...... These are the thoughts aroused in us by the memory of His Grace Philaret, who was so suddenly and so quickly stolen from us by death (August 9, 1866). The flock of Chernigov, now heartily mourning the death of their archpastor, will be joined, of course, by the flocks of Riga, Kharkov, where he was successively a saint, and the Moscow Theological Academy, where he studied and where he later was rector. The word about him will be heard there more heartily and more vividly than anywhere else; Memories and stories about him will flow from there more clearly and meaningfully: he was so close to them, he lived the same life with them for several years. But there is no doubt that friends of spiritual enlightenment everywhere in Russia will deeply regret him, and many voices will respond with respectful words. Influenced by our heartfelt grief over his unexpected loss, we also bring a few sincere comments about his activities, as a modest gift to his fresh grave. Wonderful people often leave us, and we are in no hurry to collect information about them. What, for example, do we know about the life and fate of the Most Reverend Archpastor of Chernigov, a man like whom we have only one or two, and even few? We know only its official differences, and even then hardly: how many, for example. Do they know that the late Vladyka was the archpastor of three dioceses, an honorary member of the Academy of Sciences, an honorary member of the Conference of the Moscow Theological Academy, a full member of the Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities, a Doctor of Theology?.. We are not talking about his inner life, about his personality in fact, about his gradual development. How many people even know his pastoral activities? After all, only from the middle of 1861 can one obtain some information about it from the Chernigov Diocesan News. But who in our public receives this publication, excluding the Chernigov flock? Therefore, it is not surprising if we know little about him. That is why, for our part, we hasten to collect a few scattered indications about his activities. We do not at all detect a bold intention to compose a complete sketch of it. Such labor would be too great; it would require much more time, and much more knowledge and aids than we have. The activity and significance of the Most Reverend Philaret, for its depiction, will require the work of perhaps more than a dozen people. We give what we can. We will only touch upon his works in the matter of disseminating public education and especially his literary works, as matters that are more familiar to us. But here too we apologize in advance for our involuntary mistakes. A. His works on the formation of the flock Before us are sources speaking about his service at the Chernigov department; It is only about this activity that we want to say a few words, within the limits we have chosen. His Eminence Vladyka took charge of the Chernigov flock in April 1859 and served it for only seven years. During this time, the religious and moral education of the people through the clergy and the improvement of the life of the clergy were two main and inseparable objects of the Vladyka’s concern. Both of them were closely connected with one another, and in both of them he almost started over again, gradually expanding the range of his actions and did not omit any means for the success of the matter. Leaving others to outline his concerns about improving the life of the clergy, we will only talk about his work on the education of the flock. In this matter, he paid attention to the arrangement of buildings of educational institutions, and to improving the life of mentors, and to enhancing the development of students, and to the opening of new educational institutions... 1) Construction of educational buildings Long before his arrival at the diocese, back in 1853, orphans from the seminary were taken to free apartments, because the building in which they found shelter had become so dilapidated that it was impossible to live in it safely. The situation of the pupils in the apartments became incomparably poorer in material, mental and moral terms than before. Having drawn attention to this situation of theirs, the Lord immediately began to seek means to improve it. With a power of attorney, he turned to the clergy of his diocese, inviting him to give to the benefit of the seminary part of the church funds remaining in excess and, if possible, from his private funds. The clergy reacted quite sympathetically to this call of their Master: already in August 1862, a capital of 12,752 rubles was formed, which made it possible to enter the Holy Synod with a proposal for permission to begin construction. Having received permission in October 1863, Vladyka, with hope in God, immediately began to carry out the work. In March 1864 The foundation stone was laid for the new building. By this time, the construction amount had already increased to 28,631 rubles, and by January 1, 1866, to 56,447 rubles. With this amount, by January 1, the construction of the stone building was completed, the old buildings were rebuilt, and the balance of 5,249 rubles and various materials worth 1,457 rubles were saved. All that remains is to arrange a kitchen in the finished building, as well as dining and sleeping facilities. With the help of the expected allowance from the spiritual and educational capital, the board of the seminary hopes to open premises in a new building for state-funded students and boarders, with full accessories, from September of this year. 2) Improving the life of mentors Fully aware that scientific work can be successful only when a person is not in poverty, when he lives in a quiet place, Vladyka in 1864 took the trouble to arrange several apartments for its teachers in the classical building of the seminary. In attention to their great needs, Vladyka in November 1865 deigned to make an order: until the funds of the Chernigov department dry up, to allocate 960 rubles from the enormous sums of it as an allowance to the seminary mentors. per year, i.e. 80 rub. for everyone. His example also had an influence on the clergy: donations were also sent from some districts to benefit the mentors of the seminary and theological educational institutions of the Chernigov diocese. Finally, in March 1866, the Bishop entered the Holy Synod with a proposal for the deduction of 4 ½ percent from church sums in the Chernigov diocese to improve the living conditions of the mentors of the local seminary, as well as permission to increase the percentage subject to deduction, if the local clergy, over time, recognizes this as possible and necessary, in order to compare the Chernigov seminary in terms of salaries with other seminaries. This idea was approved by the Holy Synod in April of this year. 3) Strengthening the development of students In 1862, the beginning of a student library was laid in Chernigov. Seminaries. Vladyka immediately donated all his works to the foundation of the library. With this measure, the love of reading, which was hitherto rather weak, was developed in the pupils. In November 1865, the Bishop proposed to open pedagogical classes at the Chernigov Seminary in 1866 to prepare seminary students for successful studies in rural parish schools. 4) Opening of new educational institutions a) Theological school in Starodub The clergy of the four northern districts of the diocese, Starodubsky, Novozybkovsky, Mglinsky and Surazhsky, as too distant from the diocesan city, have long harbored a desire for a theological school to be opened in their region, which would bring them closer to their children. This desire came true soon after the arrival of the Most Reverend. Philaret in Chernigov. Diocese. In the second half of 1861, capital was already collected, donated by the clergy of the diocese, for the opening of a theological district school in Starodub; was immediately purchased there for 4,000 rubles. house, and on October 1 of the same year the opening of the school had already taken place. The children of the four named districts, who had previously studied either in Chernigov or Novgorod-Seversk, from that time had the opportunity to continue their studies in Starodub, and thus they were brought closer to their relatives. The opening of this school met with lively sympathy from all classes of the local region 1 . In 1864, at the suggestion of the Bishop, the clergy of Starodub and three adjacent counties expressed their readiness to form an insurance premium with annual contributions in order to protect the buildings of the Starodub religious school from fire. b) School for girls of clergy, in Chernigov The clergy of the entire diocese experienced an even greater need for school to educate their daughters. And only with the arrival of Rev. Philaret, the idea came to open a school for girls of the clergy; all means were sought to quickly create capital; donations came not only in money, but even in grain bread and flour, which the church clergy, together with the elders, then sold in cities or trading towns, at prices as favorable as possible, choosing the most favorable time for this. And canvases, linen and other things useful for the school were presented to spiritual guardianship in kind. The business matured slowly but firmly and was finally crowned with success. At the request of the Reverend. Philaret, the Holy Synod in April 1865 allowed the opening of a school for girls of the clergy in Chernigov, for which to buy a wooden house of the Noble Assembly for 9,000 rubles; and on January 30, 1866, the opening of this school was already taking place. How welcome, what a timely event this opening of the school was, can be seen from the fact that the clergy of the entire diocese, deeply delighted by the founding of this institution, hastened to express their filial gratitude to the archpastor; the clergy of some districts marked their joy with various donations in favor of the school (more than 320 rubles had been received in money by July 15); the clergy of the Novozybkovsky district hastened to make a new contribution to the establishment of a church of God at the school; The clergy of the Konotop district decided to contribute 25 rubles annually. As an allowance for the maintenance of an orphan chosen by him at the school; the clergy of Glukhovsky district presented 30 rubles. In 1866, to support a half-boarder at the school and expressed a desire to maintain one scholarship student there, in memory of His Eminence, with the surname “Gumilevskaya” assigned to her 2 . Donations continue to this day; There are also considerable donations from secular persons. Until 1860, in the parishes of the Chernigov diocese there were only 20 schools for male and female village children. Arriving in the diocese in 1859, His Eminence Philaret noticed when looking around it that the villagers did not know the simplest prayers; He immediately confirmed to the priests that, according to the decrees of the Holy Synod, they should teach parishioners prayers, that they should open schools for children of both sexes, placing them either in their homes or by clergymen, and that they should teach children the most necessary prayers, reading the church and civil press, the most important legends from sacred history, and, if they wished, writing. By the end of 1860, 769 parish schools had already been established at the churches of the diocese, and in them there were 5,777 boys and 1,292 girls. In 1861, the Bishop made it obligatory for the deans to deliver to the consistory every month information about parish schools, in the established form: how many new schools were opened, how many students were enrolled, who opened the schools, where they are located, what cases in the life of the schools deserve special attention, how many mentors and mentors there were, and among the students, how many children were Cossacks and state-owned peasants, of both sexes. And although schools were closed from May 1 to October 1, on the occasion of children doing field work, the business did not stop, it did not weaken. In 1861 the number of students increased to 10,504 boys and 1,769 girls; There were 8 schools under the Edinoverie churches, with 56 boys and 20 girls, and schismatic churches with 54 boys and 8 girls. Surveying the diocese in the summer of 1861, Vladyka already found schools in a very satisfactory condition in many villages, and he expressed his gratitude to the zealous priests and their assistants with special joy and gave God’s blessing from his sincere soul for further success in this matter. In September 1861, at the request of the Bishop, an order was made by the Chernigov Chamber of State Property so that, for the placement of rural schools, one room would be allocated in the vacant houses of the abolished volost boards, if a real need for this was discovered, at the request of the parish priests. By May 1862, there were already 843 schools, with 923 teachers, 15,116 boys, 2,361 girls (including 5,781 boys and 772 girls, children of temporarily obliged peasants). That same May, Vladyka made sure that the schools were used to support the brotherhoods. “Let holy Christian love awaken in the kind hearts of Russians,” he said. The spirit of love, smarter than any cunningly devised organizations, will unite the best members of rural communities in close circles for the benefit of schools and other charitable causes. There will be peace for everyone when the schools are under the care of the brotherhoods.” There is reason to think that his wish was heard. “With such heartfelt concern for schools, it is not surprising that he was heartily concerned about the slightest weakening in schools and even quiet successes in their further development. In June 1862, demanding from deans a comparative statement of schools in 1861–1862, he wanted them to explain why the number of pupils and female students had increased insignificantly in 1862 compared to the previous year. Having read in one magazine in 1862. an experienced statement that children are more likely to grasp the mechanism of reading from the civil press, and therefore it is much more useful to start with the latter, and not with the Slavic one, Vladyka immediately invited the priests to believe this observation and not hesitate to inform him of the consequences. At first, most of the teachers of rural schools agreed that it was best to teach children in the civil press, and only a few preferred the church seal. But it soon turned out that Little Russian children learned the church seal more easily and more comfortably, and that the very structure of the Little Russian dialect was closer to the church language than to the civil language, which they pronounced with terrible difficulty. Further: the Bishop affirmed the idea that the goal of spreading literacy among the common people is the development of their morality on religious principles, that the study of prayers and sacred psalms, forming the mind and heart of students, acquaints them with their duties to God and neighbor and can subsequently make them good Christians and honest citizens. Moreover, experience has shown that those who have studied reading church books can easily read books of the civil press, while, on the contrary, those who have studied the civil press cannot read church books freely and accurately. The children themselves were more willing to ask for Slavic primers rather than Russian ones; when studying glory. ABC, they had some help from their parents and older comrades, who had been walking the same path until now. Finally, the common people were more likely to agree to teach their children church literacy rather than civil literacy, and they rejoiced heartily when they sometimes saw their children praising the name of God in churches in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. As a result of all these circumstances, Vladyka, back in September 1862, recognized the initial study of church literacy as more useful for the moral education of common people. This measure increased in parents the beneficial sympathy for the education of their children 3 . By November 1863, already in 88 parishes of six counties, a desire was expressed to establish and maintain rural schools. In 1863, there were already 848 parochial schools in the diocese, with 15,057 boys and 2,019 girls enrolled. Of this number of schools, 568 were located in houses built for purse money, or on church land, or in the houses of clergy, or in church houses, and the remaining 280 in public houses, in the houses of private individuals and parishioners. Having repeatedly confirmed to the clergy about the spread and improvement of church schools, the Bishop demanded from him detailed reports about the obstacles to the development of schools and about the means to eliminate them. In 1863, assistant deans were established and they were entrusted with the supervision of rural schools. The Bishop tirelessly confirmed to local deans and their assistants to look after rural parish schools, to supervise teaching in them and to submit detailed reports about them to the consistory twice a year. At the same time, he drew attention to the fact that books that are harmful to children and hunter-teachers that are dangerous to people’s morality should not appear in schools. And, finally, he asked the Chernigov Provincial Presence for Peasant Affairs and the Chamber of State Property to make an order so that the premises of schools, heating and supplying them with servants would be entrusted to the parishioners; and the Provincial Presence for Clergy Affairs stated that he considers it possible for priests to receive remuneration for their labors in rural schools from the society they serve, whatever it may be, according to a public verdict. Nowadays, rural parish schools exist in almost all parishes of the Chernigov diocese 4. In this regard, the Chernigov diocese took first or second place throughout Russia, after the Kyiv diocese. Rejoicing in spirit at such a success, the attentive Archpastor expressed his favor in various ways to the persons who zealously performed this good deed: he declared to them his approval, gratitude, blessing, spiritual gratitude, with inclusion in their service record and, with their diligent church service, elevated deacons to the priestly rank, and awarded priests with legguards. The Bishop did not forget the wives and daughters of the clergy who took part in teaching the children: he declared to them his sincere gratitude and blessing. Regardless, he repeatedly asked those who were zealous for education to receive the blessing of the Holy Synod. Undertaking a survey of the diocese for the last time, he ordered that the deans be notified in advance so that, when he passed, they would deliver to him reports on the state of the parish schools, indicating in the reports the names and surnames of the students, the successes of each of them, in whose house the school was located and who the teacher was. Pupils of parish rural schools were to be gathered in the church. Thus, a few days before his death, the guardian Archpastor cared in spirit about the successful formation of his flock, so close were the children and their successes to him. According to the purpose of our work, we do not say a word here about the activities of the Bishop to improve the life of the clergy; We pass in silence his concerns about parish trustees, about the trustee capital for the clergy of the diocese, about the compilation of local pension capital to provide for orphaned families and old age, about his attention to church brotherhoods, about the double renewal of the Yelets monastery, about the construction of the Consistory, etc., etc. We will only mention, by the way, the formation of the flock Chernigov, the opening by the Bishop of a printing house at the Ilyinsky Monastery (in 1862), the founding of the “Chernigov Diocesan News” (from July 1861), the opening of libraries of books and magazines of spiritual content at the cathedral churches of some cities, supplying churches and clergy with various edifying works, mainly the fruits of his labors. Finally, acting in word, convincing others to work zealously in various fields of service, the Archpastor himself, at the same time, took an active part in everything by deed. Thus, in 1860, he donated a considerable number of books (“Overview of the Diocese” and “Cathedral Monasteries”) to the Chernigov Trusteeship for the Charity of the Poor Clergy, for which the proceeds were 270 rubles. In July 1861, having learned that some parishioners did not want to buy books for their children, he donated up to 200 books from his own library to schools, then for 25 rubles. Primers and the same number of books “School of Piety”. In September of the same year, he sent out 172 copies of various books for distribution to the best pupils and female students of parish schools 5. In February 1862, he delivered 25 rubles in favor of the Chernigov brotherhood; in October of the same year - again 25 rubles. In 1863, he gave 500 rubles from his labor money. for the construction of a building for orphans, 500 rubles. to a spiritual school for girls; at the end of the same year - he donated 500 rubles again. to the seminary for the construction of a building, 500 rubles. in favor of a school for girls of clergy. In 1864, he sent 400 rubles. for the arrangement of apartments for mentors. In 1865, for the establishment of the Ilyinsky printing house, he donated 2820 rubles. the monastery of Ilyinskaya so that he and his parents are remembered; if after this they did not want to support the printing house and sold the machines and fonts, 2,500 rubles would always remain in percentage circulation for the employees in the church. Finally, Vladyka donated all his works to the foundation of the student library at the seminary; in favor of the seminary, he published “Letters of the Most Reverend Lazar Baranovich” (Chernigov, 1865, 2nd edition). We mention facts only that are stated and generally known; and as for his secret donations, known only to God, they were hardly more significant: it was not without reason that the Most Reverend. Vladyka, at the end of his life, acquired the title “merciful.” We have already spoken about his assistance to seminary mentors and ask the reader not to forget that such facts of the active participation of His Eminence Vladyka have been taken by us only over the past six to seven years. Yes, these are donations of effective love, immediately responding to a crying need. After this, the reader will agree that one of the seminary mentors said quite rightly in his speech to the Reverend. To the Bishop: “In a short time, in the course of six years, you have done a lot of good and benefit to the Chernigov diocese. Every year, it seems, Thy wisdom and mercy have been revealed by significant and large beneficent institutions.” Such prolific activity of the Archpastor of Chernigov could not fail to attract general attention. Both private individuals, the clergy of the diocese, and the Government itself paid due tribute to the wise and caring hardworking Vladyka. In 1866, all the clergy of the Chernigov diocese, in the addresses sent to him, recognizing and appreciating his vigilant care for the welfare of the diocese, expressed their filial gratitude to him. The Holy Synod, back in 1861, recognized the significant increase in parish schools in the Chernigov diocese as a welcome phenomenon in the matter of public education, brought this to the attention of the Sovereign, and declared its complete gratitude to the Eminence; then in 1864, for his enlightened pastoral care and efforts to increase church income, as the main source for the maintenance of religious educational institutions, he declared his gratitude to him. Finally, in 1866, the Sovereign Emperor, for his archpastoral concern for the welfare of the seminary under his jurisdiction, most mercifully deigned to declare the Highest favor to him. We are silent about its other differences. B. His literary activity Let us now turn to his literary works. And, first of all, we will present a chronological list of his works, indicating reviews of the most important of them, and then we will say a few words about the nature and significance of his literary activity. 1. Maxim the Greek. Historical research. (Moskvityanin, 1842, No. XI, pp. 45–96). Two of Maxim's works are also presented here in their original form. 2. Where did the indigenous people of Livonia originally receive Christianity from - from the East or the West? (Moskvityanin, 1843, No. VII, pp. 85–102). 3. A few words about the book Stoglav. (Moskvit. 1845, No. 12, pp. 136–139). 4. Cyril and Methodius, Slavic enlighteners. (Readings at the Imperial Society of History and Antiquities of Russia at Moscow University, year 2, 1846–1847, book 4). (Review in Otech. Zap. 1847, vol. 50, department VI, p. 101). 5. Addition to the article “Cyril and Methodius, Slavic enlighteners.” (Readings in General History and Ancient, year 2, 1846–1847, book 5.) This article was translated into German and published in Mitau in 1846 as a separate book. “Reference Encyclopedic Dictionary”, Starchevsky, (St. Petersburg, 1848, vol. XI, p. 92) says that the study on Cyril and Methodius was translated into German and published in Leipzig in 1847, we do not know to what extent his testimony is true. The entire article was reprinted this year in the book: “Cyril and Methodius Collection.” M. 1865, pp. 43–80. 6. Divine services of the Russian Church before Mongol times. (Readings in General History and Ancients, year 2, 1846–1847, book 7). Individual prints – M. 1847, 42 pp. Review by Mr. Kavelin in Sovremennik, 1847, vol. III, in the article about book 7 of “Readings”; reprinted in “Works of Kavelin”, M. 1859, vol. 2, p. 383. In addition to his own research, Rev. Filaret reported to the Editorial Board of “Readings” several monuments of our ancient writing, providing them with his notes: 7. Contents of the “Golden Chain” manuscript, belonging to the beginning of the 14th century. (Readings General History, year 2, 1846–1847, book 2). 8. Message from Gennady Joasaph, Archbishop of Rostov and Yaroslavl (“Readings”, year 2, 1846–1847, book 8). 9. Contents of the message of Joseph of Volokolamsk to Ivan Ivanovich (Chelyadnin). (“Readings”, year 2, 1846–1847, book 8). 10. History of the Russian Church. (This history was not published in order of periods; thus, the 4th period (patriarchate) was published first (in Riga 1847), then the third period was published (in Moscow, 1847), the second period appeared after the 4th and 5th; but since its periods began to be published in 1847, we, not wanting to split the titles, assign under 1847 the place of the entire “History” in order of periods). Period 1. From the beginning of Christianity in Russia to the Mongol invasion (988–1237). M. 1848 VIII and 175 pp. Second edition, Kharkov, 1849. Third edition, M. 1857. Fourth edition, M. 1859. 304 pp. Period 2, Mongolian. From the devastation of Russia by the Mongols to the division of the Metropolis (1237–1410) M. 1848, 127 and III pages. Second edition, M. 1852. Period 3. From the division of the metropolis to the establishment of the Patriarchate (1410–1588) M. 1847, 180 and 4 pages. Second edition, M. 1851. Period 4. Patriarchate (1588–1720). Riga. 1847, 117 pp. Second edition, Kharkov, 1853, 326 pp. Period 5. Synodal (1721–1826). M. 1848. Second edition, M. 1859 140 and VIII. p. The first four periods of the “History of the Russian Church” were published in the third edition, M. 1857, they were joined by the fifth volume, either in the 1848 edition, or in the 1859 edition. All five periods were published in the fourth edition, in two volumes, Chernigov, 1862. The first volume included periods 1 and 2; and in the second volume - periods 3, 4 and 5. VIII and 175; 127 and III; 180 and IV; 216 and IV; 140 and VI and II pp. Reviews (both in this and other cases, we indicate reviews in alphabetical order of periodicals, to facilitate the reader, in case of amendments and additions to this list): b) Journal of the Ministry of Public Education, 1848, part 57, department. VI, p. 96. c) News of the 2nd Branch of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, 1854, volume 3, p. 40; 1858, volume 6, pp. 77–78, note by Mr. Chistovich about the “History of the Russian Church” by Bishop Macarius, compared with the History of the Russian Church by Bishop Philaret; – 1858, vol. 7, p. 321. d.) In “History of the Russian Church”, Archbishop. Macarius, we encounter many comments and corrections to various works of the Rev. Philareta; deeply aware of the full power of these corrections, although often very fragmentary, we indicate them here, each in its place: volume I, pp. 22, 25, 27, 37, 38, 79, 82, 143, note. 69, 77, 87, 113, 117, 207, 215, 290. Volume II, pp. 5, 7, 253, note. 6, 18, 512. – Volume III, pp. 6, 8, approx. 4, 11. Volume IV, p. 174, approx. 220; pp. 305–306, appendix. No. 1; p. 337, appendix. No. 15. Volume V, p. 19, note. 22; page 20, approx. 25; p. 92, approx. 123. e) Moskvityanin, 1848 No. 1; Letters to the Editor regarding reviews of “The History of the Russian Church”, Moskvit. 1849 part III, p. 89 and part V, p. 121. About them J. M. N. Pr. 1849, part 64, dated. VI, p. 241. f) Domestic Notes, 1848, vol. 56, department. V, p. 59; dept. VI, p. 132 (about the period of the patriarchate); 1848, t. 59, dep. VI, p. 49 (about the third period); 1849, t. 62, dep. VI, p. 77. g) Russian Conversation 1859, vol. III (book 15) Criticism, p. 2, - short but apt review - N. Gilyarov. h) Russian Bulletin, 1860, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 238 – 245, article by A.N. Afanasyeva; i) Contemporary, 1849, vol. 14, Russian. Literature, pp. 71–84; vol. 15, Bibliography, pp. 1–26, – two articles by A.N. Afanasyeva; A sequel was promised, but it never happened. j) Son of the Fatherland, 1848, No. 11, pp. 1–78, article by Savelyev-Rostislavich: “Analysis of the opinions of M. Pogodin about the beginning of Russia (in defense of historical truth and the author of the “History of the Russian Church”). j) Northern Review, 1848, vol. I. Page. 36–60. 11. Holy Great Martyr Demetrius of Thessalonica and Thessalonica Slavs. (Readings in General History and Ancients, year 3, 1847–1848, book VI). 12. Blessed John Moschus Spiritual Ray, translated from Greek. M. 1848. Second edition, M. 1853. 13. Epistle of Leo, Metropolitan of Russia, to the Romans or Latins, about unleavened bread, with information about the author of the epistle. (Vremennik, 1850, book V). 14. Words and Conversations spoken in Riga. M. 1850, 2 parts. 15. Historical and statistical description of the Kharkov diocese (published separately, at different times; we publish it together). Section 1. Brief overview of the diocese and detailed consideration of the monasteries. M. 1852, 266 pages. Second edition, Kharkov, 1859, 322 columns. Department 2. Kharkov and Valka counties. M. 1856. 334 columns. Department 3. Akhtyrsky, Bogodukhovsky, Sumsky and Lebedinsky counties. M. 1865, 606 columns. Section 4. Chuguevsky districts of the military settlement. Zmievsky and Volchansky counties. Kharkov, 1857. IV and 336 columns. Department 5. Izyumsky, Kupyansky and Starobelsky counties. Kupyansky and Starobelsky military settlement districts. Kharkiv 1858 IV and 462 columns. Reviews: a.) Bulletin of the Russian Geographical Society. 1859, volume 27, no. 10, dept. IV, pp. 31–43. b.) News of the 2nd Department. Imperial Academician Sciences 1859, volume VIII, issue. 1, pp. 58–59. In this, as well as in other years of the “Sunday Reading”, we encounter several conversations and words of the Reverend. Philaret, but we do not indicate them separately, because they were included in the later edition of his “Words”. Slichi: Word for week 3 after Pentecost; words in the 16th day of August, in the village of Vozdvizheniya, in week 24 and conversations on Psalm 50 (Sunday Reading, 1854, Nos. 11, 19, 23, 31 and 47–50). 16. The life of our venerable father, Abbot Theodosius of Pechersk (X3 May 1074), described by the Venerable Nestor, translated into modern Russian. (Scientific Notes of the 2nd Department of the Imperial Academic Sciences. St. Petersburg 1856, book 2, issue 2, pp. 129–192). Review: Russian Bulletin 1856, vol. III, no. 12, June, book 2, Modern Chronicle, pp. 261–263, article by N. Popov. 17. Word against enmity, biased towards denunciations, M. 1856. Second edition, with Little Russian translation. Chernigov, 1859 8/ 0. 12 pages 18. Review of Russian spiritual literature, from 862 to 1720 (Teaching Notes of the 2nd Department of the Imperial Academic Sciences, 1857, book 3, pp. 1–300). Selected issues – St. Petersburg. 1857. Second edition, Kharkov, 1859, 447 pp. (however, with minor changes). – Appendices: 1, Alphabetical index of writers, compiled by the author himself; 2, Alphabetical index of works compiled by N.A. Dobrolyubov and 3, Chronological index of writers and works compiled by M.I. Sukhomlinov. a) Spiritual Messenger, 1862, No. 7, art. I. Serbinova. b) News of the 2nd Department. Imperial Academician Sciences, 1858, vol. 6, issue 1, pp. 92–96, art. P. Savvaitova; issue III, pp. 223–247, art. I. Chistovich; volume 8, 1859, issue. III, pp. 161–185, article by Bishop Macarius on the writings of Metropolitan Kirill II of Kyiv (reprinted in “History of the Russian Church,” Archbishop Macarius. St. Petersburg, 1866. T. V. Appendix No. IV, sire. 383–408); 1859, volume VIII, issue. III, p. 226. c) History of Russian. Church, Archbishop. Macarius, vol. V, p. 9, approx. 7; p. 19, pr. 22; p. 20, pr. 25; pp. 128–129, approx. 205; p. 153, approx. 218; – p. 181, pr. 248; pp. 385, pr. 2; p. 386, pr. 5; p. 396, pr. 24; pp. 405, 407,419 and 421. d) Fatherland Notes, 1857, vol. 112, no. 6, dep. 2, pp. 75–87, article by A.N. Pypin. e) Russian Bulletin, 1857, vol. X, no. 15, pp. 352–392, article by F.I. Buslaev “on nationality in ancient Russian literature and art”; reprinted in “Historical Essays”, Buslaeva, vol. 2, p. 64; comments on this article - Russian Conversation, 1857, No. 4 (book 8) dep. III, pp. 79–108, art. Iv. Kr.....neva, and S. Otech. 1857, no. 45. f) Wanderer, 1862, No. 9 dep. III, p. 109. 19. Conversations about the suffering of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 parts, M. 1857, 222 and 220 pages. Second edition, St. Petersburg. 1859. 2 parts (with a portrait of the author). 220 and 230 pp. Reviews: a) Spiritual Conversation, 1858, No. 37. b) Wanderer, 1860, No. 3, dep. III, p. 71, article by M. Arkhangelsky. 20. The voice of God to the sinner. Teachings. Chuguev. 1857 165 pp. Third edition, Chernigov, 1860 II and 168 pp. 21. Analysis of Mr. Smirnov’s essay: “History of the Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy” (in the brochure: “26 Demidov Awards, June 17, 1857.” St. Petersburg, 1858, pp. 171–176). 22. Research on the death of Tsarevich Dimitri (Readings in General History and Ancients, 1858, book 1) Individual prints - M. 1858, 32 pages. 23. Biblical books of 1507 (News of the 2nd Department of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, volume 8, issue 2, pp. 144–149). 24. Ryazan hierarchies, two articles (Christian Reading 1859, vol. 1, nos. 2 and 5, pp. 178–184 and 351–393). 25. Words and Conversations. St. Petersburg 1859. Three parts. III and 374, III and 425, III and 344 pp. (with a portrait of the author). Second edition, 4 parts, Chernigov. 1863 II, 196, 225, 179 and 175 pp. We do not know whether the “Speech on the First Visit to the Novozybkov Edinoverie Churches” was included in this collection. (Christian Reading 1859, vol. II, p. 494, reprinted in Chernigov. Eparch. Izv. 1861, No. 1). Five of his words were included in the book: “Selected teachings of 12 archpastors of the Russian Church, with their portraits.” M. 1861, 444 pp. (Review in Dukh. Vestn. 1862, No. 3). 26. Historical teaching about the fathers of the church. St. Petersburg 1859 Three volumes. XXX, 240 and IV, VIII and 384, VIII and 450 pp. a) Spiritual Messenger, 1864, vol. VIII, art. I. Serbinova. b) News of the 2nd Department. Imperial Ak. Sciences 1860, vol. 9, pp. 52–54. c) Fatherland Notes, 1859 No. 10, pp. 101–112, art. P-skago. d) St. Petersburg Gazette 1859 No. 242. e) Wanderer 1860, No. 1, dep. III, pp. 7–13, art. M. Arkhangelsky. 27. History of the Russian Church. St. Petersburg 1860, pp. 144 and VI (abbreviation of his extensive history). Review: Christian Reading 1861, part 2, sec. III. pp. 97–109. 28. Gennady, Patriarch of Constantinople (XV century). (Orthodox Review 1860, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 511–534). 29. Historical review of hymns and hymns of the Greek Church, with notes and a photograph of ancient musical notations, St. Petersburg. 1860 IV and 358 pp. Second edition supplemented, Chernigov 1864 VI, II, nen. 464 and II nen. p. Review: a) Spiritual Messenger, 1862, No. 1, art. Serbinov (On Mr. Serbinov’s critics, see the book by A. Bukharev: “On the modern spiritual needs of thought and life, especially Russian.” M. 1865, pp. 386–407. Objections to the same article by Mr. Serbinov in “Chernigov Diocesan News,” 1865 No. 8, Journalism, pp. 244–246). b) Izvestia 2 Dept. Imp. Academic Sciences 1861, vol. X. p. 56. c) Wanderer, 1862, No. 12, dep. III, p. 189, art. P. Matveevsky. 30. Chernigov hierarchs. (Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy, 1860, book 2, pp. 169–281). This is an excerpt from the “General Review of the Diocese of Chernigov”, published in 1861. 31. Historical information about the schismatics of the Chernigov diocese. (Proceedings of Kiev. Theological Academy 1860, book 3, pp. 205–235). 32. Review of Russian spiritual literature, 1720–1858 (dead writers). St. Petersburg 1861, 212 pp. Second edition, supplemented by 1720–1858 (The book, however, mentions writers who died in 1859–1862). Chernigov. 1863 310 pp. Reviews: a) Bibliographic. Notes, 1861, vol. III, no. 7, column. 203–205. b) Spiritual Bulletin, 1862 No. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, articles by S. Ponomarev. Notes from Imp. Academic Sciences, volume 4, book 1, St. Petersburg. 1863, pp. 87–91, article by Academician P. Pekarsky. c) News of the 2nd Department. Imp. Academician Sciences, vol. X, vol. 1, pp. 56–57. d) Book Bulletin, 1861, No. 9, p. 6, Book No. 957. e) Orthodox Review, 1862 No. 3, art. F. Alekseev (pseudonym of Professor F. Ternovsky). f) Wanderer 1862, No. 9, dep. III, p. 109, article by A. Filonov; 1863, No. 5, dept. III, p. 24 (actually a reprint of the preface to the “Review”). 33. General overview of the Chernigov diocese. (About the pagan inhabitants of the region and the beginning of Christianity; about the hierarchs; about the district of the diocese and the state of the flock; about the schism). Chernigov. 1861 134 pp. 34. Cathedral Chernigov monasteries: Ilyinsky (Troitsky), Yeletsky and Borisoglebsky (with the appendix of several unpublished works of St. Demetrius and many letters and a plan of ancient Chernigov. Part 1861, 178 pp. 35. Russian saints, revered by the entire church or locally. Experience describing their lives. At first they were attached to Chern. Eparch. Izv. Sheets and more, with 5 No. 1861, then nine months were published separately, January - September, each book separately, Parts 1861-1865 150, 144, 154, 138, 194, 150, 174, 152 and 208 pp. Section III, months September - December. With a chronological and alphabetical index of saints. Second edition. Chernigov 1865 IV nen. 612, 12 and 14 pp. p. 6 Reviews: a) Spiritual. Bulletin, 1862, No. 5 and 9, art. I. Serbinova. b) Domestic. Notes, 1863 No. 9. c) Wanderer 1863, No. 7, dept. III, p. 1, art. P. Matveevsky. d) History of Rus. Church, Archbishop. Makaria, vol. IV, p. 141, pr. 251; p. 194, approx. 258; p. 255, approx. 357; pp. 318 and 319, app. No. VI; p. 320, app. No. VII; pp. 337, app. No. XIV. In June 1861, the publication of “Chernigov Diocesan News” began, with the most active, almost exclusive cooperation of the Reverend. Philareta. Here is a list of articles and publications, the ownership of which cannot be doubted: 36. Letters to the Reverend. Lazarus, Archbishop of Chernigov and Novgorod-Seversk, translation of many letters from Polish and notes explaining the contents. (Chern. Eparch. Izv. 1861–1865; we do not indicate numbers, because these letters have already been published separately). – 37. When should a person’s upbringing in faith begin? (Chernig. Eparch. Izvest. 1861, No. 1 (listed in Soulful Reading 1861, No. 5 and in Home Conversation 1861, No. 20). There are separate reprints (see Book. Bulletin 1861, Nos. 14 and 15, p. 207, Book No. 1282). 38. Why do you stand idle all day? (ibid.). 39. Description of the Novgorod-Seversky Spasopreobrazhensky first-class monastery (ibid., No. 1, 2, 3, 5). 40. Bibliography: a) The Holy Gospel in Russian; b) The Book of Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, c) Review of the Four Gospels, Grechulevich; d) Review of the messages of St. Apostle Paul to the Corinthians, M. Golubev (ibid., No. 1). The speech during the visit to the Novozybkov churches (Chern. Eparch. Izv. No. 1.) is indicated by us above (see here under No. 25). His words for different days (Chernig. Eparch. News of 1861 No. 2, 7 and 1862, No. 15, 17–18), as well as the Words about the coming of the Messiah (1861 No. 9, 10, 11, 12 and 1862 No. 1 and 2) are not indicated by us separately, since they were probably included in the publication of “Words” 1863. 41. The appearance of the Lord to Saul (ibid., No. 2). 42. On the use of the gift of speech (ibid.). 43. Obituary: Archimandrite Venedikt Kurkovsky, Abbot of the Novgorod-Seversky Monastery (ibid.). 44. New wine in old wineskins (ibid., No. 3). 45. Loyalty in small things (ibid.). 46. ​​St. Icons of the first six centuries (ibid.). 47. Russian voice in defense of the Greek Church (ibid.). 48. Events on the island. Crete in 1860 (ibid.). 49. Bibliography: a) History of Chronicles. Church, Cheltsova; b) M. Bogoslovsky: Holy History, c) Outline of the Life of St. Philippa Metr. Moscow; d) Tales of St. Princes Boris and Gleb, ed. Sreznevsky; e) The communal Sarov hermitage, Hieromonk Abel; f) Memoirs of a devotee of St. Grob, V. Kaminsky (ibid.). 50. Abgar, Prince of Edessa and the miraculous image of the Savior (ibid., No. 4). Rev. Philaret is generally credited with the following, collected by him from many different ancient and new sources: 51. Rules for monastics (Chernig. Eparch. Izv. 1861, No. 4). 52. Decrees on the church clergy (ibid. The latter were later reprinted in almost all Diocesan Gazette, in the official part; in Poltava. Eparch. Vedom. 1864. Official part, Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6). 53. Contents of religious educational institutions and the clergy (ibid., No. 5, extract from the articles of “The Wanderer” of 1861, No. 5 and 6, with comments by the Right Reverend). 54. Bibliography: a) Accusatory Theology, Archimandrite Innocent; b) About Western religions, priest. Benescriptova; c) The teaching of the Orthodox-Catholic faith in conversations; d) The wisdom and goodness of God in the destinies of the world and man; e) Gradual development of ancient philosophical teachings, Or. Novitsky (ibid., No. 6). 55. Nezhinsky Monastery; at the same time, the unpublished works of Met. Stefan, (ibid., No. 6, 7, 9, 10, 11). 56. Epistles of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer (ibid., No. 8). 57. Bibliography: a) Letters to friends from Mount Athos, monk Meletius; b) On the necessity of the priesthood, St. An. Predtechensky; c) The truly ancient and truly Orthodox Church of Christ, Met. Gregory (ibid., No. 8). 58. A few questions (ibid.). 59. Bibliography: The Triumph of Christ. Teachings on the Talmud. (ibid., no. 10). 60. The two sons are not the same. Matt. 21:28–31 (ibid., no. 11). 61. Ability to live (ibid., No. 12). 62. “And we will go there” (ibid.). 63. Bibliography: a) Moral theology, Bishop Plato of Kostroma; b) A reminder to the priest about the duties when performing the sacrament of repentance; c) Liturgics, St. D. Smolodovich; d) Liturgics, A. Chernyaeva; e) Athonite Patericon; f) Words to the Vologda flock, Reverend. Innocent; g) Christian principles, Tirsha; h) Preparation for confession, Archpriest of Theology; i) Selected words and speeches of Prot. Raevsky (ibid.). In total, during 1861, dismantled by Rev. Filaret 31 books; We have omitted the titles of several, reviews of which are not important and are too general and condensed. 64. False prophets (Chernig. Eparch. Izvest. No. 1, p. 7). 65. Unauthorized teaching (No. 2, p. p. 57). 66. Testament of St. Ephraim, translation from the Syriac text, with notes (No. 5, p. 155; No. 6, p. 179), 67. My soul, my soul! Get up, write a hundred? (No. 5, p. 167). 68. Behold the bridegroom is coming at midnight... Take care of my soul! (No. 6, p. 197). 69. Rural Shepherd (No. 8, p. 251, regarding the story in Sovrem. 1891: “Mud and Gold”). 70. Don’t be afraid, I’m with you (No. 9, p. 283). 71. Brotherhoods (No. 10, p. 315). 72. Talk of suburban schismatics about books (No. 10, p. 329). 73. To the biography of Chernig. Bishop Anthony Stakhovsky (No. 8, p. 278). 74. Deaconesses (No. 10, p. p. 344). 75. Don't trust yourself (No. 11, p. 363). 76. Do not humiliate another (No. 11, p. 368). 77. To the fourth point of the Jesuit instructions (No. 12, p. 423). 78. Burial of Gentiles by a priest (No. 12, p. 427, regarding Chekhov in Dikanka.) 79. To the life of Met. Stefan Jaworski (No. 12, p. 456). 80. Notes about the priest. Scriptures (No. 1, p. 14, four articles 1, 3, 4, 5; No. 3, p. 103; No. 7, p. 217; No. 10, p. 336; No. 16, p. 511). 22 notes, without the 2nd one, which is not relevant here. 81. Notes of modern times, (No. 16, p. 516). 82. About ancient schools, almshouses and brotherhoods (No. 17, p. 546). 83. Teaching of the Ap. Paul on the Antichrist (No. 19, p. 608). 84. Christian Liberty (No. 20, p. 647). 85. Folk wisdom; a collection of proverbs about the Divine, about faith, about salvation, about litigation (No. 20, p. 656). 86. About the message of the Ap. Paul Galatians (No. 21, 695; No. 22, p. 736; No. 23, p. 775; there was a continuation in 1863). – Later it came out as a separate book: “Experience of explanation on the message of Ap. Paul to the Galatians." Part 1862, 174 pp. 87. Acts of Union 1742–1747 (No. 1, p. 26; No. 4, p. 134; No. 8, p. 265; No. 9, p. 294; No. 10, p. 352 and No. 11, p. 391). 88. Explanation of the Lord's Prayer. (No. 3, p. 87; No. 4, p. 193; No. 5, p. 162; No. 6, p. 190; No. 7, p. 223). 89. Dumnitsky Mother of God Monastery (No. 1, p. 36; No. 3, p. 111). 90. Glukhovsky Peter and Paul Monastery (No. 4, p. 149; No. 5, p. 171). 91. Rykhlovsky Monastery (No. 7, p. 234; No. 13, p. 463 and No. 15, p. 495). 92. Kozeletsky St. George Monastery (No. 16, p. 519; No. 17, p. 556 and No. 18, p. 593). Published separately: Kozelets. Georgiev. third-class husband Monastery. Part 1862. 36 pp. 93. Krupitsky Monastery of St. Nicholas (near Baturin). (No. 21, p. 703 and No. 22, p. 748). 94. Gamaleevsky Kharlampiev Monastery (No. 23, p. 795 and No. 24, p. 834). Released separately: Gamal. Harl. convent. Part 1862. 43 pp. 95. Nizhyn and its district (No. 19, p. 625; No. 20, p. 674). 96. Useful and harmful members in society, translation from the works of St. John Chrysostom (No. 22, p. 727). 97. Education in public schools (No. 23, p. 783). 98. Bibliography: a) The Book of Job in Russian translation, with a brief explanation (No. 3); b) Historically. description of the Tambov diocese, op. priest Khitrov; c) Christian martyrs who suffered in the east since the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks; d) On the changes in the order of the liturgies indicated in the “Pomeranian Answers” ​​and in the “Spiritual Sword”, op. Igum. Varlaam; e) Letters about the schism, Melnikova (all in No. 10); f) Divine services, holidays and rituals of modern Jews, op. A. Alekseeva (No. 12); g) Words of the rector of Sibirsk. Spirit. Feofan Academy; h) Words to the Tambov flock, his own (No. 18); i) Answers to objections to the true faith (No. 18); j) Spiritual and moral Christomathy, A. Nevsky; j) Children's World, Ushinsky (No. 18). In total, the bibliography of 1862 contains nine articles about eleven books. 100. Modern news (ibid., pp. 452, 491, 562, 590, 646, 665 and 825). 101. Comments on the draft charter of general education institutions and on the draft general plan for the organization of public schools (In the book under the same title, St. Petersburg, 1862, Part 1, pp. 1–5). 102. Comments on the draft general charter of the Imperial Russian Universities (In a book under the same title, St. Petersburg, 1862, Part 1, pp. 21–22). 103. Chernigov. Part 1863, 80 pages. 104. Speech to the nobles, when they were sworn in, during elections (Chernig. Eparch. Izvestia 1863, No. 12, p. 385 and Wanderer 1863, No. 6, department IV, p. 84). 105. Additions to the “Review of Russian Spiritual Literature 862–1720” (Chernig. Eparch. Izvest. 1863, Nos. 16, 17, 18, 20 and 21. Ibid., 1864, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14, 17, 21, 23 and 24). 106. Description of the Nezhinsky and Kamensky monasteries (Cherniga Eparch. Izvest. 1863, pp. 117 and 185). The description of the Kamensky Assumption Convent was later published as a separate book. Part 1863, 19 pages. 107. Description of the city of Ostra and its district (ibid., pp. 38, 55, 217, 265, 430, 472 and 495). 108. Description of Chernigov and its district (ibid., pp. 273, 305, 566, 657, 698 and 714; ibid., 1864, pp. 89, 152, 216, 246 and 271). 109. Prophet (ibid., 1863, p. 1). 110. Marriages between close relatives (ibid., p. 112). 111. About degrees of kinship (ibid., p. 737). 112. Notes on the Contemporary (ibid., pp. 21, 49, 100, 375, 408, 457, 529, 625 and 705). a) Historical review of the councils that took place in the first three centuries of Christianity, the work of St. A. Pomortseva. Eagle. 1861 (Chernigov. Eparch. Izv. 1863, No. 5, p. 145). b) The Case of Patriarch Nikon, op. N. Subbotina. M. 1862 (ibid., No. 5, p. 152). c) Notes on Moral Orthodox Theology, works. Archpriest P. Solyarsky. 2 volumes. St. Petersburg 1860–1862 (ibid., no. 6, p. 177). d) From the history of the Preobrazhenskoe cemetery. M. 1862 (ibid., p. 182). 114. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. Part 1864, 2 parts. In the 1st part – 6 nen., IX, 375 and 2 nen., in the 2nd – 4 nen., XII, 527 and 1 pp. (with and without a portrait of the author). Second edition, Chernigov, 1866, two parts. Review in Orthodox Review 1865, No. 1. 115. Historical teaching about the fathers of the church (abbreviated) Part 1864. 307, VIII and 1 nen. Reviews: a) Book. Bulletin 1865, No. 14, p. 270. b) Rights. Review 1866 No. 6, p. 182, art. priest N. B-va. 116. St. John Chrysostom: Raising children, translation from Greek. (Chernig. Eparch. Izvestia, 1864, pp. 1, 33 and 65). 117. Notes on the Holy Scriptures (ibid., pp. 161, 257, 305, 529, 657 and 689 and 1865, pp. 1, 33). 118. Service book of Rev. Lazar Baranovich (ibid., p. 332). 119. Closed monasteries in the Chernigov diocese (ibid., pp. 338, 401, 445, 459 and 474 and 1865, pp. 99, 171, 347, 378 and 477). 120. Glukhovsky district (ibid., pp. 577, 609, 663, 693 and 726. And 1865, p. 81). 121. St. Prince Michael of Chernigov (ibid., p. 433). 122. Maksakovsky Spassky Monastery (ibid., ibid., pp. 537 and 568). 123. Notes on the Contemporary (ibid., pp. 13, 57, 126, 145, 492, 522, 554, 679, 716 and 750). Here, in No. 17, pp. 526–528, is a review of Zolotov’s “History of Russia in Pictures.” 124. Seminar education at the beginning of the 19th century (ibid., p. 170). 125. Religion and morality (Chernigov. Eparch. Izvest. pp. 3 and 39). 126. Zybkovsky district (ibid., p. 7 and 1866 No. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ....) 127. Chernigov diocesan administration (ibid., pp. 45–51). 128. Notes on the Contemporary (ibid., pp. 52, 86, 147, 445, 507, 631 and 668). 129. Kiev Council of 1691 (Church Decrees; ibid., p. 65). 130. Addition to the description of the Seversky Monastery (ibid., p. 135). 131. Mglinsky district (ibid., pp. 218, 232, 264, 339, 408, 426, 469, 541, 563 and 592). 132. The teaching of the Evangelist John about the Word (ibid., p. 193). 133. Explanation on the Evangelist John (ibid., pp. 291, 323, 355, 387, 451, 489 and 515 and 1866 pp. 1, 33, 133, 193, 225, 258, 289, 321, 353). 134. Speech at the opening of the Provincial Zemstvo Assembly (ibid., p. 611). 135. Starodubsky district (ibid., pp. 613, 657, 691, 731, 745 and 1866, pp. 25, 57, 114, 153, 161, 243, 279, 306 and 346). 136. Additions to the “Review of Russian Spiritual Literature of 1720–1862” (ibid., Nos. 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 17 and 19, 1866 Nos. 2, 6, 7 and 8). 137. Saints of the South Slavs. Department 1, months January–June. Part 1865 4 nen. page Dept. 2nd, months July–December. Part 1866, 290 pages, with indexes. 138. Letters to the Reverend. Lazar Baranovich, with notes. 2nd edition (the first was in Chern. Eparch. Izvestia, 1861–1865), in favor of the Chernigov Seminary Part 1865 253, I nen. And VII pp. Review in the Book Bulletin 1865 No. 15, p. 284. 139. Appeal to the Chernigov flock (Chernigov. Eparch. Izvestia, 1865, part of the unofficial No. 20, p. 265). 140. A note about the modern. Something about theological educational institutions (Chern. Eparch. Izv. No. 1, p. 13 regarding Pevnitsky’s article in the Proceedings of the Kiev. Theological Academy 1864) 141. The state of the split in the priesthood in recent years (ibid., No. 14, p. 393). (Is it his?) 142. Holy ascetics of the Eastern Church (ibid., No. 14. Apparently, the beginning of an extensive work, but only one sheet of it was printed). 143. Bibliography: Comparative review of the Four Gospels, comp. Archpriest V. Grechulevich (ibid., No. 13, p. 391). We stop at 16 No. Chern. Eparch. Izvestia; there is no doubt that in the following issues there will appear a considerable number of articles by the deceased Lord. So that the reader can quickly glance at the essence of the list we have presented, we will make from it the following brief index of works, according to their content. (The numbers under the titles indicate the numbers of the chronological list) I. Explanation of the Holy Scriptures: 41, 80, 83, 86, 117, 132, 133. II. Translations from the Church Fathers: 56, 66, 96, 116. III. Dogmatics: 109, 114. IV. Sermons: 14, 17, 19, 20, 25, 38, 104, 134. V. Moral teaching: 42, 44, 45, 51, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 75, 76, 84, 85, 88, 125, 139. VI. Church legislation: 3, 52, 110, 111. VII. Lives of the saints: 35, 121, 137, 142. VIII. Patrology: 26, 115. IX. History of the universal church: 4, 5, 11, 28, 29, 46, 50, 74. X. History of the Russian Church: 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 16, 24, 27, 82, 118, 129. XI. Description of dioceses: 15, 30, 31, 33, 95, 103, 107, 108, 120, 126, 127, 131, 135 XII. Monasteries: 34, 39, 55, 89–94, 106, 119, 122, 130. XIII. Russian history: 22. XIV. History of spiritual literature: 1, 7, 13, 18, 23, 32, 136. XV. Criticism and bibliography: 21, 40, 49, 54, 57, 59, 63, 73, 79, 99, 105, 113, 143. XVI. Upbringing and education: 37, 101, 102, 124. ХVII. Notes on modern: 43, 47, 48, 53, 58,99, 70, 72, 77, 78, 81, 97, 98, 100, 112, 123, 128, 140, 141. XVIII. Editions: 12, 36, 87, 138. Before we continue talking about the literary activities of Rev. Philareta, we must make the necessary reservation. While compiling a list of his works, we encountered insurmountable difficulties that prevented us from giving our work the desired completeness and impeccable fidelity. So, we could not find here, in Poltava, “Chernigov Diocesan News” for all the years of their publication, we could not even collect all of their issues in a single year; not to mention other aids necessary for bibliographic work. We were forced to turn to Kharkov for help, from where we received two entire volumes of “Chern. Epar. Izvestia". We consider it our most pleasant duty to testify to our heartfelt gratitude to His Eminence Archbishop Macarius for the cordial attention with which he immediately fulfilled our request. - this difficulty in finding all the necessary benefits in the province prevented us from adding several more articles to the list in a timely manner. Filaret, whom we met later. These are the articles: Research about the preacher of the 13th century, Bishop Serapion of Vladimir (Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers, 1843, part I). Testimony from the times of the apostles on how the name Jesus should be written and the cross depicted (ibid., part I). We assume that he probably also owns translations from the following church fathers: Blessed Augustine, Bishop of Hippo: A Word on Christian Teaching (Chern. Eparch. Izvestia, 1863, No. 21, p. 773). Blessed Jerome: Letter to Gavdentius about the education of the young Pacatula, in the same place, 1866, No. 5, p. 129. It is very possible that there will still be omissions and other types of errors in the list and our article, but we repeat what we have already said before: “we apologize in advance for our involuntary mistakes.” - For this we turn to our business. You can be positively confident that the list of works presented by us. Filareta did not attract your attention, reader. And yet, even if you skimmed through it, you probably thought to yourself: “However, the Most Reverend wrote a lot. Filaret." – For further conversation, all we need is your impression. Now imagine, reader, all the complexity and difficulty of diocesan administration of vast dioceses, add to this these enormous, extremely diverse literary works - and you, of course, will bow with respect to such a wide and versatile activity of the late Archpastor! ... But forget, perhaps, about the burdens of diocesan administration, stop only on the literary productivity of the Reverend. Philaret, look - one list of his works took up several pages - and you, of course, will say that, with the exception of Metropolitan Eugene of Kyiv (1837), in the entire host of our archpastors there is only one more, distinguished by such prolific and essentially important activity, like the ever-memorable, now deceased Vladyka of Chernigov. And his twenty-five-year literary activity did not diminish at all over the years; on the contrary, the further it went, the more it intensified. Look at the list for the years 1861–1866, and you will see that in these years the Most Reverend. Filaret especially often reminded readers of himself; as if his strength not only had not weakened, but did not even need rest, as if they were still developing more and more: heterogeneous works, each more serious than the other, were published every now and then... Where is the answer to such prolific activity? The answer lies in his undeniably great and varied talents, in his enormous learning, in some circumstances that belonged to his time and in some properties that belonged exclusively to his nature. We will not talk about the strength and nature of his talents, about the degree of his learning: to whom his writings have not told anything about them, our reviews will not help at all, no matter how accurate they are. Let us move on to the historical circumstances among which his activities began and developed. To do this, we must go back to the beginning of the forties and recall a number of figures of that time. You don’t need any information to remember at first that, after the death of Metropolitan Eugene, we do not have a single spiritual writer left with such a varied scope of activity. Who were the others?.. In the “Review of Russian Spiritual Literature (1720–1858)” we meet, in the forties, many dozens of writers; but of these we can cite here, of course, only the most remarkable ones, those with whom we can, more or less, put them on the same level as our author. These were: Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, archbishops: Gregory of Kazan, Ignatius of Voronezh, Innocent of Kherson, Jacob of Nizhny Novgorod, Archimandrite Gabriel; Archpriests: Veniaminov (now Archbishop. Kamchatsky), Golubinsky, Grigorovich, Debolsky, Kochetov, Malov, Nikolsky, Nordov, Pavsky, Putyatin, Skvortsov; monk Iakinthos Bichurin; professors of theological academies: Avsenev, Amfitheatrov, Gorsky, Delitsyn, Karpov, Sidonsky, Shimkevich; We will also add Nadezhdin to them. Among the secular ones, it seems, one is Muravyov. – With deep respect we remember and present these names, so to speak, all-Russian-famous; We are ready, however, to admit that we have missed several names through oblivion, and we are willing to increase the number of remarkably gifted spiritual figures, in the forties, to 40. So?... We will not at all allow ourselves to analyze the activities of each of these persons, we only dare to say two or three words about their general activity, about the complexity of the works of all of them. These persons are so well known to you, reader, that you yourself, of course, can easily remember the volume and nature of their activities; remember well, look at our author’s “Review of Russian Spiritual Literature (1720–1858)” - and you will be convinced of the relative monotony and poverty (don’t be afraid of this word) of the poverty of spiritual literature at that time, with so many highly talented figures. From the “Review” you see that the existing spiritual activity, in the forties and somewhat later, was predominantly distinguished by a religious, moral and preaching character. If there were works of other content, there were relatively few of them. From the “Review” you see that if other works were compiled, for example. on canon law, church antiquities, translations and interpretations of the Holy Scriptures. Scriptures, church history, etc., then a significant part of them, for various reasons, remained in manuscript. Of the works that were published, others were published in a limited number of copies; Most of the effective works were scattered in special periodicals (which even now are not yet circulated in the public). Other writers did not put their names on their works, especially under articles in spiritual magazines, and remained unknown to the public; others printed too little; still others, undoubtedly talented, published almost nothing and limited themselves only to classroom or official studies. All of them were either specialists in some science, or they were involved in a small department of spiritual literature. So it can be said positively that among all of them there was almost no one who was distinguished by multifaceted and rapid activity. As a result of all this, their literary works remained known only in the clergy, or more precisely, in some of its circles. Hardly a dozen of the names we named have penetrated into secular literature and the public... His Eminence Philaret appears. In his foreground were the history of Russian spiritual literature and the history of the Russian church - subjects that, more than others, are capable of attracting the curious attention of society. He prepared for this task for a long time, within the walls of the Academy, until his priesthood. (We do not know a single work of his performed during the period of his rectorship). That is why in his writings he immediately appeared fully armed with learning and the brilliance of rare talents. He was one of the first to establish relations with secular literary bodies, or at least with learned societies. He began to publish his works both separately and in various publications, mainly secular ones. Naturally, with all this he quickly expanded his circle of fame. From his very first step in literature, people started talking about him noisily; The Moscow Society of History and Antiquities hastened to elect him as a full member; magazine criticism placed high hopes on him. The periods of his “History of the Russian Church”, in which for the first time a story was heard about times relatively close to us and interesting, were met with lively curiosity, loud approval and attracted the attention of the public to him. His literary fame was soon consolidated firmly and unshakably: there were too few people similar to him in learning in the forties; they had their own circle of activities and did not indulge in analyzes of his works; magazine criticism positively could not compare with him in breadth of knowledge and depth of views; for the most part, she greeted him with respectful reviews; it is clear that the rest of the public greeted his works with only silent respect. And His Eminence Philaret understood very well this whole situation of his activity. He, of course, was pleased with the thought that with his scientific works he had taken a place for himself that was inaccessible to many, but even in this place he did not allow himself to calm down. Almost after him, a new powerful figure appeared, also fully armed and just as diverse; Others, undoubtedly gifted and hardworking, also appeared as secondary luminaries; The historical, meaningful study of the state of the church and the clergy has become the subject of a considerable number of scientists, not only spiritual, but also secular. These successes, without any doubt, pleased our author, but even more encouraged him to new activities. As if avoiding the slightest rivalry and as if trying to leave everyone far behind him, he tirelessly and with even greater energy applied labor to labor. Inspired by success, the historian of the Russian Church soon became an encyclopedist in the spiritual field, but in this encyclopedism one could see quick and serious preparation. Open any major work of his from the 50s and 60s, and you will immediately be amazed by the boundless abundance of references and quotations in it; they are filled with the names of many hundreds of studies, monuments, publications, manuscripts... With great amazement you look at this enormous amount of erudition and think: “Lord! When did he have time to read all this? How could I retain in my memory and apply all this mass of information to the case?” Moreover, despite all the abundance of quotations and references, we positively affirm that both of them were still rather sparingly made by him, often distinguished by extreme conciseness (and - unfortunately - sometimes uncertainty and inaccuracy). Considering all this, I’m ready to think that he wrote his books, cited quotes, put in references by heart, approximately, so that the matter would not stop. – Here we need to turn to his personal properties, as far as we know them from the stories about him. His whole life was devoted to reading and work. He gave himself to society and the public only when absolutely necessary. There was no time between his hands. His science-loving spirit did not allow him a single moment of inaction. People who stood close to him told us that he worked, and rested, and ate, and drank, always with a book in his hands, and that at that very moment he made the notes and extracts he needed. “One must be surprised,” says one who knew the late Bishop closely: “one must be amazed at his tireless activity. He did not go to bed except with two burning candles. At night he often woke up, took a candle, went to the library, took out a book or manuscript and sat down to work. Apparently, he did not put off such activities until the morning; even during sleep he was occupied with some mental task.” 7 This partly explains the amazingly fast productivity of this multi-talented hard worker. We say “partly” because we cannot help but recognize another, inner strength in him - a bright energetic desire to take on everything, to be, if not a pioneer, in everything, then to succeed more than others, to leave a wide mark on everything, a good memory. Over time, he no longer had a special task, a specific issue, the solution of which would occupy him exclusively; acting on a vast stage became his cherished thought. He was not embarrassed by the huge size of the field, nor the variety of subjects, nor the lack of many necessary data and sources. Without thinking at all about the difficulties, he bravely plunged into the work he had begun; quickly became familiar with its actual situation and, enthusiastically, hastened to draw concise, decisive conclusions from it. After this, it is not surprising that, given his enormous erudition and his fast work, the most diverse books and articles appeared one after another into the light of God. This diversity was most noticeable in the last 10 years of his life, when, it would seem, a person could already feel tired. He didn't know him at all. Physical infirmities did not at all overpower his spirit. – His moves from diocese to diocese were for him a new impetus for new activities. In the new place, he seemed to sense new strength within himself. He immediately looked around the field for his literary work, quickly spotted uncultivated corners and immediately decided what he needed to do, what, first of all, to take on. It is clear that quite a few such gaps opened up, and he took on everything at once. Since the 1860s, we have noticed in him a particularly intense attention to major phenomena of life and the movement of modern thought, and here he hastens to say his abrupt, bold word. Looking at this seething, rushing activity, I’m ready to think that he wanted to act alone in everything. And yet circumstances led him to this. He not only determined the range of activities for himself, but also pointed out to others the work for which, in his opinion, the time had come. He made sure that a certain work was completed as successfully as possible and for this purpose he indicated how to split up the work and where to combine forces. But seeing that his advice was being accepted indifferently, seeing that the harvest was plentiful, but the workers were few, and that some of them were engaged in scholarly luxury, others were immersed in diocesan administration, others were simply lazy, and the work remained untouched, and finally, realizing, perhaps to himself, that almost all the workers were much inferior to him in knowledge, and in talent, and in love for work, he boldly took on himself that work, the execution of which required the intensive labor of a dozen people. At the same time, one involuntarily recalls one major circumstance that confirms our last assumption. It was precisely, with his swift and flexible nature, that he trusted solely in his enormous reserve of strength and did not always pay due attention to someone else’s voice, someone else’s homogeneous research (especially analyzes of his works), but almost always himself, with his own labor, compiled, revised, and supplemented his works... Thus, the two most expensive treasures of a scientist - time and labor - were not always preserved as they should have been. In the last years of his life, his physical strength weakened to the point that he could not write while sitting - he did not stop before this: he began to write lying down, with a trembling hand... As a result of this weakening of the body, as a result of these bold hopes for his information and as a result of hasty work, several omissions and inaccuracies appeared in his works, and any painstaking researcher could catch these mistakes. But hardly anyone could compare with him in his ability to delve into the depths of a matter - to briefly and sharply outline the essence of the subject, to clearly and accurately define the meaning of the writer. There was a breath of freshness and truth from some of his studies, or rather, from many, many pages. In this case, his very language, usually dry and unclear, received irresistible strength, vitality and happy originality. His flexible resourcefulness was able to capture the subtlest nuances of expression in order to more clearly highlight the features of an object or person. In his sentences, he did not like to waste words and always expressed himself abruptly and strongly, boldly and confidently. At first it was difficult to come to terms with this property of his verdicts, especially since they were often not supported by evidence or extracts, but were pronounced unfounded; but the critical power of the author and his erudition later forced one to believe such condensed verdicts, although they resemble resolutions. Indeed, he always spoke as if he had authority. It is impossible, however, not to remember that his sentences sometimes resonated with inexorable severity, and in court about figures of the ancient period - often with inaccuracy. Here we see that he sometimes judges by first impression, self-confidently avoiding more careful research. In this case, his views and conclusions need to be revised and verified from time to time. In our literature, every time there was talk about the Most Reverend. Filaret, one could come across an interesting admission that his works are still not fully appreciated by our spiritual criticism. Indeed it is. Why is this? We do not risk making a mistake if we say that the main reasons for this phenomenon were the following: 1) for our assessment, his works required information at least the same as what he possessed, and we have few similar persons; 2) the extreme poverty of spiritual periodicals in our country, even before 1860, where analyzes of his works could be published, and 3) the very criticism of spiritual works, especially the works of a high-ranking person, for a long time seemed to us some kind of delicate matter, for a long time it was not in use among us. Whether it was the lack of traditions, the fear of offending the dignity of the saint, or something else, they kept our criticism from taking such a step, no matter how honest and serious it might be. And quite rightly, the Spiritual Messenger noted in 1862 that criticism in spiritual journalism is still such a young child, which God knows when it will grow up. The “Spiritual Messenger” was the first to make an open, bold speech about the writings of the Reverend. Philaret, a speech based on hardworking study of them. So what? Many, many looked at this criticism with amazement, marveling at her courage and inventing behind-the-scenes hints; and very few have done justice to its efficiency. Let us leave aside, as unworthy gossip, hidden guesses as to why such criticism appeared in the Kharkov magazine; Let us pay attention only to what has been said about the content of this criticism. The extent to which her attempt seemed new and daring can be seen from the fact that even the learned editors of the Orthodox Review hastened to make it known to the general public that the criticism of Dukhovn. Bulletin on Rev. Filareta is reminiscent of Moska’s courage against the Elephant. In the public, as far as we know, there were few votes for these articles; and the majority of her, familiar by ear with the works of the Reverend. Filaret, was puzzled partly by the boldness of the tone of the criticism, and partly by her too low opinion of the merits of the works of a long and well-known author. Most Reverend Himself Filaret was greatly offended by these articles: many times, both in his prefaces and in his writings, he mournfully complains about the harshness and one-sidedness of the verdicts about his works and, not wanting to remain in debt, directs his heavy, irritated reproaches and ridicule at the persons who allowed such verdicts. We readily agree that the spirit of pickiness and ridicule really shows up in the articles of Spiritual. Messenger" about the books of the Reverend. Philareta; but these properties could be found in abundance... for example. at least in “Chernigov. Eparch. Izvestia", where famous writers were placed in the ranks of fools 8 and - as we have already seen - in "Orthodox. Review”, where they called honest workers “pugs”. This means there is no point in blaming this sad disorganization of speech on one “Dukhovn. Messenger" ... That time has passed, and now, judging calmly, we speak with deep conviction that the criticism of the "Spiritual Messenger", in its content, is right in many respects: gaps, various mistakes in the works of the Reverend. Philaret were indicated in it with such convincingness that the Reverend himself. Filaret hastened to recognize some of them and partly take advantage of the works of criticism. But the prevailing tone of this criticism, its presentation, far from being alien to hooks and quibbles, could, in fact, be significantly softened. In some explanation of this tone, we can only say that it is difficult for a person who has taken up his work with love to protect himself from ardor of speech if he encounters many reasons for this in the book he is examining, and especially if the book belongs to a person who, according to his circumstances, should not have allowed any sharp shortcomings in it: to whom much is given, much is exacted from him. This only explains, but does not at all justify, the bullying tone of these critical articles. This criticism is also blamed for the fact that it focused exclusively on the dark sides of the works of the Reverend. Philareta. But this was allowed in her partly in the interest of science, but also because enough laudatory speeches had already been spoken to him, although often without evidence. And the result is that the person who takes on the analysis of the works of the Most Reverend. Philaret, it will be impossible to ignore the critical articles about them “Ecclesiastical. Vestnik": their polemical nature can be easily eliminated, and then the future critic will find a lot of useful materials in them (of course, mainly the articles of Mr. Serbinov). Yes! no matter what they say about these articles “Spiritual. Vestnik,” nevertheless, one cannot help but express gratitude for them to the editors of this magazine and the people on whom the appearance of its critical articles in print depended. Having thus shown, although in concise terms, the historical course of the literary activity of the Reverend. Philareta, we think that everything we have said so far allows us to draw a general conclusion about the reasons that contributed to the development of his abundant activity and its significance. And as far as we know, this conclusion belongs to the majority of people who are familiar firsthand with the works of the Reverend. Philareta. And so, enormous talents, armed with deep learning, constant work, imbued with passion, ever-productive reading, a seething thirst for scientific activity, swift courage to penetrate into everything, a laconic conciseness of conclusions, unflagging attention to many movements of modern thought and (who can blame him for this?) the thirst to acquire a good name for himself - this is what produced the abundance of work that amazes us so much. But due to the scientific circumstances of the time, due to his life situation, due to the heterogeneous mass of work and the hasty nature of his activity, in many of his works, with the extraordinary width and spreading of their field, you do not see a strictly thought-out plan, you do not find a complete solution to the problem, in accordance with modern requirements of science; so that almost all of his works are predominantly materials happily collected and successfully grouped. And in this regard, his significance is extremely great: in many areas of spiritual science, without his books, one cannot take even a step. His works, as a guide for further work, constitute an abundant, precious and irreplaceable contribution to the treasury of spiritual literature. The “Chernigov Diocesan News”, which he created, in which he took a continuous, widest part, for five years, and with his works gave them one of the first places among similar publications, is the same primarily collection of useful materials. They, however, were valued not so much by the mass of the public as by the learned worker, and even he, looking at the contents of another issue, thought to himself: “Ah! ok: if the opportunity arises, I’ll ask for help.” Several works of the Reverend. Filaret are still ongoing, while others have just begun in Chernigov. Eparch. Izvestia". How would you like to know as soon as possible what is already finished in the manuscript and whether his works scattered in Izvestia will be published separately? 9 It would be desirable that not only his most important works be published (such as: “Descriptions of the Chernigov Diocese”, “Notes on the Holy Scriptures”, “Explanation of the Evangelist John” and others); but so that his bibliographic articles, journal notes and echoes are not forgotten, and on such phenomena that have not lost their significance to this day; united by the type of content, his articles would be a coherent outline of some phenomena of the past and would remain a monument to the many-sided vigilance and sensitivity of the Reverend. Lords to the different movements of our time). If in secular literature they value every small review of a gifted critic, to the point of even reprinting it in his collected works; then, according to the law of justice alone, a similar fate should befall the critical notes of such an author as the Reverend. Filaret. But we are guided here not by the authority of his name, but by the essence of his articles themselves: to evaluate the merits of the book, to point out its weaknesses, to pronounce an apt conclusion and to express ourselves in lively, concise and lively language - in all this, the Most Reverend. Filaret was a true master. Anyone who wants to get a clear and precise understanding of the books he has reviewed must read his reviews. It is a pity that there were few books worthy of his analysis. In his bibliography we find a long series of articles on “Reviews of Russian Spiritual Literature.” It is clear that all these articles are not at all an analysis of books belonging to him, but a number of additions and changes, sometimes extremely significant. The additions relating to the 1st part of the “Review” amount to more than 170 pages, the additions to the 2nd part – more than 100 pages. We extremely regret that death prevented the Bishop from publishing both parts of the “Review” in a new, corrected and significantly expanded edition. Who will undertake such work after him? If only there was a modest worker who would dare to insert and merge the materials already prepared by the Lord. 10 He devoted a lot of work and time to a detailed description of his diocese. Here, not limiting himself to personal work, he sought the help of others: back in March 1863, copies of the program for describing a village or town were sent through the dean to all the churches of the Chernigov diocese, so that if any of the priests prepared a description of the program, he would immediately deliver it to the Right Reverend. Thus, the Lord, working tirelessly himself, taught others to work according to his instructions. Probably his voice did not sound in the desert: in recent years, a rare issue of “Chernigov. Eparch. Izvestia dispensed with articles about various localities of the vast diocese. There were articles about her in other publications, as can be seen from our list. It is desirable that at least what remains be published. Finally, there is, of course, no need to say that his literary works and all his activities were always imbued with zeal for the purity of Orthodoxy. Suffice it to remember how he protected schools from uninvited teachers! How vigilantly he followed the books published for the people! 11 How energetically he grows in his dogmatics against those who dare to shake the holiness of the faith!.. People who knew him closely will, of course, convey many touching facts about how the Bishop rejoiced at every manifestation of goodness and respect for those principles under the influence of which our life took shape. 12 This is how the Reverend appears to us. Filaret in his works on the dissemination of public education and in literary activities. That is why our magazines, our Society of History and Antiquities, our Academy of Sciences and all lovers of spiritual literature (not to mention institutions and ecclesiastical persons) recognized him as a scientist who had long since earned himself a well-deserved and honorable fame. That is why the Holy Synod honored him with the degree of Doctor of Theology. That is why the Sovereign Emperor, in his rescript to the Eminence, expressed that his scientific works constitute an adornment of the spiritual literature of our country. And that is why we now sincerely mourn the death of the Most Reverend Bishop!.. Yes! indeed, his loss, the further, the more strongly it will be felt by many!.. Just recently we heard a lot of good news from those who came from Chernigov about the paternal kindness and attentiveness of the deceased Saint; just recently, the learned specialists who visited him in Chernigov spoke to us with true respect and amazement about the multifaceted and deep information of the Right Reverend... And so, suddenly this life was interrupted, so active, so prolific, which still promised so much good for the Church and the enlightenment of Russia... But - thank God for everything! The shepherd died, having accomplished many good things; the shepherd died in the midst of his pastoral feat, surveying the extreme limits of his vast diocese; the shepherd died, reverently remembering, before the end of his life, all the Russian saints 13 and confessing the Orthodox faith out loud to the entire Russian Church 14 and in his book leaving us, as it were, a dying covenant - what to believe, how to believe and how to repel attacks on the faith... Faithful to the end, forgive and pray for us, Holy Master! Previously published obituaries of Rev. Philaret, expressing unanimous condolences on his death, speak mostly about his significance in hierarchical and literary terms 15; and about his last days of life, about his posthumous procession from one end to the other of the diocese, which would be most interesting and newest for those who honor his memory, we found almost nothing anywhere. Only excerpts from private letters printed by us in Polt. Eparch. Vedomosti reported something about the sad circumstances of his death. “Black. Eparch. Izvestia" was somewhat late. This is why, in addition to the obituary of Rev. Philaret, placed in No. 16 of the Poltava Eparchs. Vedomosti”, we report excerpts from letters and stories of eyewitnesses and participants in the sad event. In these passages, by the way, the deceased saint gives us more than one instructive lesson from beyond the grave. On August 7, His Eminence Bishop consecrated, for the last time, a church in the village of Fastovtsy (Borzen district). During the liturgy and especially during the consecration of St. gifts, he cried a lot; but no one, of course, understood the reason for these tears. After the consecration and lunch, one of the founders of the church asked the Bishop for a blessing - to purchase a new bell, larger than the old one. The Bishop kissed both him and the priest on the head and said: “The bell and the real one gather the faithful to prayer; so instead of a new bell, it would be better to make a sacrifice to God if your old church is moved to the cemetery. We, old man, won’t have long to live with you, so it will be more useful for us and for others, just like there will be a church in a cemetery.” From there, Vladyka went to the village of Kachanovka (of the same district), where he spent the night in the house of a landowner. Having never dined, he ate here with gusto. The next day, at 8 o’clock in the morning, I went to the village of Rubanka (Konotop district), where I was until one o’clock. After having breakfast here, I went to Konotop, where I arrived on the same 8th, at six o’clock in the evening. Having visited, first of all, the Assumption Church, he already felt such weakness there that he said: “I’ll rest with you” and sat down on the chair given to him. Church books were brought to him for examination, but he glanced at them hastily. Then, having visited the cathedral church, he remained in it for just as long. People who managed to approach him for a blessing noticed that his hands were cold as ice; This time he did not have the slightest gaiety and gentle smile with which the archpastor usually greeted his flock. From the cathedral church he hastily went to the apartment, to the house of the city archpriest and dean, Fr. Stefan Ivasutich. Soon after arriving, he asked for tea and peace. But before he had drunk tea, he fell ill, extremely weak: the disease had already begun to develop. The doctor was immediately sent for; all necessary measures have been taken; but the disease did not yield, it became fierce. Neither poultices, nor rubbing, nor medicine, nor all the efforts of the doctor, nothing could help. The Doctor was amazed at the Vladyka’s patience, how he meekly endured the illness; everyone just shakes his head, and occasionally says: “Doctor, help me, help: I’m in trouble, I’m in trouble!” But in general, he spoke very little and quietly the entire time; he didn’t say anything in particular to anyone, but kept crossing himself and praying. If he was thirsty, he would only make a sign with his hand, pointing to the ice filled with pieces. At 12 o'clock in the morning they sent for another doctor, but it seemed that Vladyka himself was already aware of his hopeless situation. At 1 o'clock he himself called the abbot of the Krupitsky monastery, who was with him, Archimandrite Augustine and said to him: “confess me.” Father Archpriest Ivashutich asked the doctor about the Vladyka’s situation, he said: it’s bad! It took a long time for Fr. to gather his courage. The archpriest, in order to offer the Vladyka unction with oil, then made up his mind and said. Vladyka answered: “Do what you need to do; hurry, hurry, hurry! I feel bad... And you, doctor, he continued, be here.” And everyone is baptized, everyone is praying. And from time to time he shook the doctor’s hand, took him by the shoulder, asked him for water - and he inseparably stood by him and gave him ice to swallow. At two o'clock in the morning they began to unction him with oil; but already after reading the seventh Gospel, the dying suffering began; at five o'clock in the morning they read the funeral service, and at five o'clock Vladyka breathed his last. The bell rang 12 times in the Assumption and Cathedral Church. The next day, Wednesday the 10th, his body was taken to the cathedral. On Saturday, the 13th, an official arrived from Chernigov with instructions to Archimandrite Augustine and the police chief to conduct the body of the Right Reverend with due honors, singing and clergy, along the entire road to Chernigov, changing the clergy. On Saturday, the Vladyka’s coffin was closed: only on the fifth day after his death was slight decomposition noticed, and before that the people continually said goodbye to him every now and then. On the 14th, Sunday, a liturgy was served in the cathedral; Clergy from the district gathered for the funeral service; after the funeral service and the farewell eulogy spoken by Fr. Archpriest Ivashutich, the Vladyka’s coffin was taken out of the church. His small coffin (it is known that the Vladyka was very short) was upholstered with white glaze and gold braid, with tassels. They lowered him into another prepared large coffin, lined with iron and hammered him with nails. The top of the coffin was covered with black cloth, trimmed with white braid. Four deacons stood on the sides of the coffin, on the roads, two with candles, two with ripids; the sad chariot quietly set off, and the priests sang: “Helper and patron be my salvation” and other songs of the great canon. The road was watered with water and covered with flat bread; There are pine trees on the sides, from the cathedral to the cemetery church itself. And around there is an immense crowd of people! At this time there was an Assumption Fair in Konotop; for fear of cholera, she was taken out of town; but the people abandoned the fair and fled to the last farewell of the good bishop. Two and three miles away, people escorted the body of the Right Reverend out of the city and one after another said to him: “Forgive me, Vladyka! Sorry, sorry! On the fourth day of the journey, on Wednesday, the 17th, they brought the body near Chernigov, to the village of Gorbov, where the body spent the night in the church. On Thursday, at 10 o'clock, on the Desna River, the body of the Right Reverend was met by the vicar of the Kyiv Metropolis, Bishop Porfiry, the governor and perhaps a hundred clergy. Everyone has green candles in their hands; everyone is in mourning. The honors were given in the best possible way. When the Vladyka’s body was taken from the bridge near Chernigov, he was met by students of the gymnasium, seminary, girls’ theological school, orphanage, and other educational institutions. Establishments. And, God! How the children cried! The coffin was brought into the city by people who were zealous for the deceased. Let's not even talk about the train ceremony, the solemn order, especially around the coffin. In the cathedral where the body was brought, a memorial service was immediately sung. The next day, Friday, the 19th, after the liturgy, funeral service and words, in the same solemn order, the procession moved to the burial place, to the Eliinsky Monastery, where, finally, the body of the Most Reverend. Archbishop Philaret and lowered into the grave in the cathedral church. Until now, the ashes of only two bishops have rested there - His Eminence Heraclius and Victor..... Rest, O Lord, the soul of your departed servant. See Chernig. Eparch. Izvestia, 1861 No. 15. Part of the official Page 185–187. Charter of the school in Chernigov Diocesan News of 1865, No. 21, unofficial part, p. 280. Distribution of educational subjects by grade, ibid., 1866, no. 1, p. 3. Act of its opening, ibid., 1866, no. 4, p. 56. See articles: about the spread of literacy among the villagers of Chern. Dioceses, Chern. Eparch. Izv. 1861, h official. No. 10, pp. 118–124; List of schools established before 1861 at the churches of Chern. Dioceses, which consisted of up to 25 or more students, in the same place, 1862, No. 14, part. Official. pp. 168–180; List of literacy schools by December 1861, ibid., 1862, No. 13, part Official, p. 137; Statement on the number of schools in Chern churches. Dioceses, ibid., 1862, No. 20, pp. 189–190, In 1865, at the churches of Chernigov. The diocese consisted of 848 schools, with 924 teachers and teachers, 14,302 boys and 1,786 girls. (*) Given the poverty of our children's literature, of course, not all of these books were entirely suitable for children. See Chern. diocesan Izv. 1861, No. 10, official part, pp. 121–122. Let us note at the same time, as a feature, that the life of St. Anthony of Pechersk is placed in the May book, on the 7th (pp. 66–77), according to the testimony of the ancient calendar, the Menaion of M. Macarius and other sources of the 16th century about the day of death of St. Anthony. Meanwhile, in the chronological and alphabetical indexes, in the December book of “Russian Saints” (pages 1 and 2), the day of death of St. Anthony is shown as July 10 and the note says: “the number indicated here means, as in other cases, the number under which the life of the saint is placed.” We point out this contradiction in order to save others from vain searches in the July book. We don’t know when we began to celebrate the memory of St. Anthony on July 10, but the Lavra celebrated this day back in the 16th century (Russian Saints, May, pp. 76–77, note 93). Why there was such a change in the celebration of the death of St. Anthony - let those who are able allow it. See “Message” 1866, No. 68, September 1, p. 3, “Obituary.” Chernig. Eparch. Izvestia 1862, No. 1, p. 15, article 2. The newspapers brought the news to us that the entire library of the Reverend. Philaret, all his manuscripts were bequeathed to Chernigov. Seminaries; We hope that the editors of Chernig. Eparch. Izvestia will not hesitate to print a catalog of these treasures: among them there must be many rare, extremely wonderful things. We think so, by the way, on the basis of the book he donated to the seminary in 1866 “Rerum Moskoviticarum auctores varii... etc. Francofurti.M.D.C.” (See Chern. Eparch. News of 1866, No. 10, part OFFIT., p. 164.) In addition to the stock he has collected, we willingly express a desire to bring on our part a considerable share of amendments and additions to the 2nd part of the Review, both printed and not yet in print. We bring our wish to the attention of the editors of “Chernigovsk. Eparch. Izvestia” and we hope that, out of respect for the memory of the Reverend. Masters, will give space to our notes on the pages of his publication. See his attitude towards the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod about the book of A. Suvorin: “Boyarin Matveev” M. 1864 (Chernigov. Eparch. News, part of the unofficial 1866 No. 14, pp. 254–256). About the life and work of the Reverend. We have not come across any information about Vladyka anywhere, except for a few words about his rectorship in the book: “Fiftieth Anniversary of the Moscow Theological Academy,” M. 1864, and in the article: “about the opening of a school for girls of the clergy in Kharkov” (Khark. Gub. Ved. 1856, part Unofficial No. 36) about his participation in this matter. His portraits, published during his compositions, are indicated by us in the chronological list. We do not know whether his portrait was placed in the famous Munster publication: “Portrait Gallery of Russian Figures” and in the publication of Mr. Krasovsky: “Portraits of Clergymen.” In the Kharkov Seminary we saw an excellent half-length portrait of him, life-size, painted in oil paints and unusually similar. See his work “Russian Saints”, 12 months. Part 1861–1865 His "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology". 2 volumes. Part 1861–1866 Modern Leaflet 1866, No. 66. Voice No. 228; Severn Post No. 179; News No. 68; Soulful Reading No. 9.