Reform of the system of spiritual education 1808-1814

At the end of 1807, the sovereign raised the issue of raising the education and material resources of the clergy. Apparently, Speransky, who knew the existing situation from his past, showed an initiative in this matter. Golitsyn, probably under his influence, submitted a report to the sovereign on November 20 on the establishment of a special Committee for the discussion of this issue by people from among the clergy and persons holding senior government positions. Members of the Committee were appointed: Met. Ambrose, Bishop Theophylact, Protopresbyter Krasnopevkov, Chief Priest Derzhavin, Prince. Golitsyn and Speransky. In the development of this issue, along with Vladyka Ambrose, prominent hierarchs, then members of the Synod, took part. These were: Bishop Methodius (Smirnov), known for the good organization of educational institutions in the dioceses ruled by him, who then headed the Tver diocese; Archbishop Astrakhan Anastasiy (Bratanovsky), a member of the Russian Academy, who worked on this issue even before the formation of the committee (died in December 1806); ep. Kaluga, then Ryazan, Feofilakt (Rusanov), classmate and friend of Speransky, well educated in general sciences. Having been a member of the Synod since 1807, he soon became more influential than Met. Ambrose. The closest assistant to the metropolitan was then his vicar, bishop. Old Russian Evgeny (Bolkhovitinov), later Metropolitan of Kiev and a member of the Russian Academy. He was a graduate of the Moscow University and Academy, from the widows of priests, the prefect of the Petersburg Academy. The latter developed mainly the educational and administrative parts of the project on the improvement of spiritual education. While working out the economic part, Vladyka Anastassy raised the issue of assigning content for theological schools from the church's candle revenue. In July 1808, the Committee worked out: 1) a plan new organization of the entire spiritual education and 2) a plan to raise funds for the creation of a huge capital of the spiritual department.

Funds for the maintenance of theological schools were to be created without much burdening the state and the people. The capital was based on: 1) the economic sums of all churches, which were appointed to be placed in the bank for augmentation; 2) the annual candle income of the churches, also assigned to the premises in the bank; 3) an annual benefit from the treasury for only 6 years. But these calculations were upset partly due to the concealment by some of the receipts of economic and candle sums, mainly because of the war that soon began and the disasters caused by it.

In the same year, a commission of theological schools from the highest spiritual and partly also secular dignitaries, who sat in the previous committee, was put at the head of the entire spiritual and educational work. This was the first time a central institution was created under the Synod that was in charge of spiritual education in the state. Theological academies were made by the district bodies of the commission, for which special conferences were established with them, composed of local scientists and clergy. The closest care of the schools was still provided to the local bishops, but personally, without the participation of the consistories in it. The main goal of the project was to separate higher theological education from secondary and lower education. Bishop Eugene (Bolkhovitinov) was instructed to draw up a "predestination" for the reform. By 1814, by works, ch. arr. Speransky and Archbishop. Feofilakt (Rusanov) were developed, and then the charters of academies, seminaries and schools were introduced. Their main goal was not mechanical memorization of educational material, but its free. and creative assimilation, contributing to the development of students' own abilities.

In 1808, there were four theological academies in Russia (Kiev, Moscow, St. Petersburg and Kazan), 36 seminaries, 115 lower theological schools, with almost 28,000 students. On the basis of the Committee's project, the Commission of Theological Schools, formed in 1808 and being a branch of the Synod, united under its authority all theological schools under a single administration. The Academies were entrusted with direct supervision of the middle and lower spiritual institutions. The department was divided into districts according to the number of Academies. Uniform statutes were developed. The academies provided higher education to pupils who had already graduated from seminaries. Seminaries, one for each diocese, were secondary theological educational institutions. Lower schools, county schools (10 per diocese) provided children with primary education. In reality, schools were opened less than the planned number: only 300. There were three academies left: Kazan in 1818 was transformed into a seminary with the annexation of its district to the Moscow one. It was reopened only in 1842.

Theological schools were created in the form of mixed class schools, with general education and special courses together. Education in them became compulsory for the children of the clergy. During the reign of Alexander I, the number of students in them reached 46,000. The course of the lower schools was of an elementary nature, and children of other classes were admitted to them. The seminar course was composed of three two-year sections - Rhetoric, Philosophy and Theology. In the Academies, the course was divided into two two-year departments - general education and special theological. At the end of the course, Academy students were awarded candidate and master degrees and special salaries for these degrees if they were ordained. In 1814, the Commission of Theological Schools awarded several clergy with the degree of Doctor of Theology, also together with special salaries. Masters and doctors in the priesthood received special crosses.

Religious views and attitude to the church life of Emperor Nicholas I. The Holy Synod and the episcopate during the reign of Nicholas I. Ober-prosecutors of the Nikolaev era, their relationship with the Holy Synod.

In domestic policy, the protective course has intensified. It extended to the Church as well. The reaction to the recent dominance of Masonic circles hostile to Orthodoxy was uncreative, government-protective. The new course of the government was supported by the Metropolitans of St. Petersburg - Seraphim and Nevsky - Yevgeny (Bolkhovitinov), and the Moscow archpastor, Metropolitan Philaret, who called this turn "a reverse course to the days of scholasticism," evoked sorrowful feelings. To combat heterodox influences, heresies and sects, spiritual censorship was inhibited, but censorship was also directed against the manifestation of living theological thought. Frightened by the rampant "occult" mysticism, the zealots of the "reverse" began to treat ascetic mysticism, to the works of the holy fathers with cautious distrust: "clever prayer of the heart" was "destroyed and ridiculed as an infection and harm" (Metropolitan Philaret). The censorship did not allow A. S. Khomyakov's theological works to be published. Even the Orthodoxy of Metropolitan Filaret was under suspicion.

Under Nicholas I, the chief prosecutor's supervision over the course of church affairs was intensified. The chief prosecutor received ministerial powers. Despite the suspicious attitude of the Nikolaev court towards the leaders of the Alexander reign associated with Masonic circles, in 1833 the chief prosecutor instead of Prince P.S. Meshchersky was appointed secret freemason S.D. Nechaev. He treated the clergy with contempt and hostility, and immediately waged a real war against the hierarchs from the Synod, and in this struggle he did not disdain intriguing methods. He inspired false denunciations against the bishops, in which they were accused of political unreliability, and in order to give the denunciations the appearance of credibility, he urged the members of the Synod to express dissatisfaction with the gendarme pressure on the Church. Discontent with Nechaevs in the Synod became so great that the hierarchs decided to ask the sovereign to replace him with another person who was successful. After his retirement, he was engaged in astrology on his estate.

He was succeeded by Count N.A. Protasov. He was one of the most energetic and intelligent dignitaries of the Nikolaev era. He was educated by a Jesuit tutor, and that is why, probably, despite his sincere devotion to the Orthodox Church, a strong touch of Catholicism was always noticeable in his theological views. But we are unfriendly to Rome Protasov, and in his church-political views he was far from clerical Latin tendencies.

Protasov wanted to make the state strictly confessional and had a negative attitude towards the policy of wide religious tolerance pursued under Catherine and Alexander I. But he looked at the Church primarily from the point of view of state interest, benefit, saw in her one of the pillars of the government, and in this he was a faithful successor lines of Peter I and Archbishop Theophanes. He soon subordinated to himself the institutions that were previously under the jurisdiction of the Synod - the Spiritual and Educational Administration, transformed from the Commission of Theological Schools, subordinate to the Synod; the accounting part of the Synod, which he transformed into the Economic Committee. Count Protasov treated the members of the Synod arrogantly, rudely, allowing himself to shout at them and even tried to command them in a military manner. At the same time, however, he cared about the prestige of the Holy Synod and did not allow the heads of related ministries to interfere in church affairs.

Considering the ROC as his department, Protasov took the initiative in solving purely church affairs and even questions of a theological nature. At the end of the 1830s, he raised the issue of correcting Metropolitan Philaret's Catechism, which he saw as a Protestant connotation, which supposedly consisted of the absence of nine church commandments; borrowed by Metropolitan Peter Mogila in the "Orthodox Confession" from Catholic catechisms. Protasov placed the "Orthodox Confession" so highly that he introduced compulsory study of it in all Seminaries and insisted that it be declared a "symbolic book." The Chief Prosecutor strongly objected to the translation of the Bible into Russian and proposed to the Synod to declare the Slavic translation canonical. This intention was opposed by the Moscow Metropolitan. Filaret. Protasov's proposal was rejected by the Synod, but shortly after this failure, in 1842, Protasov achieved the removal from the Synod to his dioceses of Met. Moscow Philaret, and Kiev mit. Filaret (Amfitheatrova). The Moscow saint, however, even after being removed from St. Petersburg, did not leave Moscow anywhere, continuing to remain the focus of church life. Russian hierarchs regarded him as their leader and, when they came to Moscow, went to him for advice and guidance.

In 1843, Metropolitan Seraphim of St. Petersburg died, who knew how to maintain good relations with the autocratic chief prosecutor, because he fully sympathized with the Protasov church policy. His successor was Metropolitan Anthony (Rafalskiy), who was transferred from Warsaw, who attracted the attention of the inhabitants of the capital with the solemnity and beauty of the Divine services performed by him. After his death in 1848, Metropolitan Nikanor (Klementyevsky) took his place.

On the initiative of the Chief Prosecutor, the Charter of Spiritual Consistories was developed, approved in 1841. According to the Charter, diocesan consistories were advisory and executive bodies under diocesan bishops. Members of the consistories were appointed by bishops from among the most honored priests. In addition to them, the consistory states consisted of secular officials headed by a secretary who was appointed and dismissed by the chief prosecutor. Any decision of the diocesan bishop could be challenged by the secretary, in which case its execution was suspended. In essence, these secretaries were a kind of local "chief prosecutor", practically independent of the bishops and having a tremendous influence on the course of diocesan affairs. By a resolution of the Synod, the intermediate links between the diocesan authority and deaneries - the district spiritual boards - were abolished.

Under Protasov, the boundaries of the dioceses were brought into line with the administrative division of the country into the province. During the reign of Nicholas I, a number of new dioceses were opened: Olonets, Saratov, Novocherkassk, Simbirsk, Tomsk, Kherson, Warsaw, Kamchatka, Caucasian, Riga, Samara, Polotsk and Lithuanian. The end of the reign coincided with the Crimean War, which was unsuccessful for Russia. The clergy in the troops and in the places of hostilities raised the spirit of the soldiers and residents, took care of the wounded, consoled them, and admonished the dying. The Solovetsky Monastery bravely withstood the two-day bombardment of the British squadron. The Korsun convent near Sevastopol was converted into an infirmary, and the nuns served as sisters of mercy in it. In the midst of the Crimean campaign in 1855, the emperor, Nicholas I, died. Ober-Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.А. Protasov died a month earlier than the monarch, whom he deeply revered.

22. Slavophiles: basic ideas, church activities, theological works. Theology of A.S. Khomyakova.

Activities Slavophiles combined the deepest Western education with sincere devotion to the ROC and all the time striving to convey to the Russian educated class the spiritual treasures that it had accumulated. She contributed to the fact that many strata of Russian society remained in Orthodoxy. To Orthodoxy, the Slavophils were pushed by the feeling of patriotism, revived after the victory over Napoleon. Many of them were participants in this campaign, which had a profound impact on them. Thinking people were worried about the place of Russia in the general stream of world history, the question of Russia and the West. And from the very beginning, the most sensitive thinkers guessed that the main watershed between Russia and Western Europe is of a religious nature, that the originality of our historical destiny is connected with Orthodoxy. Depending on what assessment was given to this connection, two opposite directions emerged in social thought: the Westernizers and the Slavophiles. In contrast to the Westernizers, the Slavophiles saw in the originality of the Russian historical path, organically connected with the Orthodox faith, not the weakness, but the strength of Russia. They did not find the Russian, but just the Western European historical path to be pernicious and dead-end. The Slavophiles considered the great schism of 1054 to be the starting point in the spiritual wandering of the West. They saw a fatal mistake in Peter's reforms. Merging with Westerners in a critical attitude. to the present, they disagreed with them in explaining the reasons for negative phenomena.

One of the most profound Slavophile authors was A.S. Khomyakov(1804-1860), thinker, unusually versatile theologian, philosopher, historian, poet. In his youth he was a free-thinker and turned to Orthodoxy, like the Kireevskys, partly out of a feeling of patriotism, and partly under the influence of his wife, who was also associated with the Monk Seraphim. He continued the line of Met. Filaret, who completely freed himself from the influence of Protestantism and Latinism and realized the need to restore the traditions of patristic theology. The filial devotion to the Church of this extremely talented and witty man, an unsurpassed polemicist and dialectician, was based on his prayer experience. At the center of Khomyakov's theological thought was the Church, and his main theological work is entitled "The Experience of the Catechetical Presentation of the Doctrine of the Church." He developed the idea of ​​the catholicity of the Church. By conciliarity, he did not mean at all the "universality" of the Church. Catholicity, in his understanding, is not a human, but a Divine property of the Church. "It is not the faces and not the multitude of persons in the Church that keep the Tradition and the truth, but the Spirit of God, living in the whole of the church." His main thesis: The Church is one. Therefore, he always wrote about Western confessions as about societies that had separated from the One Church. Khomyakov believed that the root cause of Western schism was "lack of love." One of the results of his work is the book "One Church". Khomyakov believed that the truth should not be proved, but shown: “The power of reason does not reach the truth of God, and in human impotence, the impotence of proofs becomes apparent. Therefore, Christian knowledge is not the work of the mind of the examiner, but a work of grace and living. " He understood faith as the totality of religious experience. Known for his correspondence with the Anglican deacon Palmer (a member of the "High Church", which sought to unite first with the Roman, and after the failure, with the ROC or KP), whom he convinced of the truth of Orthodoxy, but Palmer joined Catholicism for practical reasons. During Khomyakov's lifetime, academic theology was suspicious of his ecclesiological views. But at the turn of the century, his authority and his influence on theological science were extremely great.

A remarkable representative of Slavophilism was Ivan Vasilievich Kireevsky, the eldest of the Slavophiles, who could claim to be the founder of the movement. He did not leave many works. I.V. Kireevsky and his brother Peter Vas. They are known for having moved to Optina Pustyn and established there, under the leadership of Elder Macarius, the publication of Orthodox literature. Much more works were left by the Slavophil of the younger generation, Yuri Fedorovich Samarin. His early works were devoted to the study and comparison of theology of Feofan Prokopovich and Stefan Yavorsky. These works helped to understand what is the difference between the Orthodox patristic tradition, both Catholic and Protestant, and that Orthodox tradition Is something deeply original and peculiar.

Initially, the teaching program and the level of knowledge acquired were low. Only in the second half of the 18th century. training courses were gradually expanded with the introduction of secular disciplines: history, geography, literature, mathematics; training in agriculture was introduced. But in the foreground were "sciences that are decent for the holy church and, especially for the clergy, are necessary." At the same time, the student was required only to memorize the material mechanically: for example, the history teacher was instructed: “the teacher's duty is only to observe that knowledge of history (for students) consists primarily of reading and remembering it, and much interpretation is not required”. At the end of the 18th century. In theological seminaries, teaching in German and French (by choice) began to be gradually introduced, which gave the seminarian the opportunity to earn money with translations and lessons. Some seminaries sent their best students to lecture at Moscow University, so that they "gather the fruit of knowledge and from the flowers of secular learning." At the same time, the sent ones gave a subscription that they would remain in the clergy and would be enrolled in their educational institutions.

Although during the XVIII century. the number of seminaries and students increased, but this growth was extremely slow due to the lack of teachers and funds for the maintenance of schools. Therefore, almost until the end of the century, theological schools did not exist in all dioceses, so that the knowledge and skills of ministry among many parish priests were of a "home" character, that is, passed from father to son. In other words, throughout the 18th century. special spiritual education has never become universal for the parish clergy, despite the repeated decrees issued to appoint to church positions only those who have completed training in seminaries or, at least, in religious schools.

In the 30s of the XVIII century. out of 125 thousand males belonging to the clergy, only 2,600 were trained in seminaries. In the middle of the 18th century. of the 303 protopopes and priests of Moscow and St. Petersburg, only 93 had a full seminary education. Even in 1806 (on the eve of the reform of the spiritual education system), when the number of pupils of theological schools exceeded 20 thousand, there were 3368 parish priests who did not complete the course of study at the theological school; this number turned out to be 1,166 illiterate.

But the higher spiritual school had certain successes. Its appearance dates back to the 17th century. The first higher theological educational institution was founded in 1632 at the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra by the Kiev Metropolitan Peter (Mogila) and was originally called the Kiev-Mohyla Collegium. In 1701 she received the status of the Theological Academy. In 1685, the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy was opened in Moscow. Its graduates later became famous state and church figures, poets, scientists. She also supplied cadres of teachers for theological seminaries, which in the first quarter of the 18th century. were opened in Novgorod, Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, Kolomna, Tula, Orel and other cities. On the basis of the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy, the Moscow Theological Academy was created in 1721, and in 1755 - the Moscow University.

In 1721, at the Alexander Nevsky Monastery, a Slavic school was opened, which was transformed in 1726 into a Slavic-Greek-Latin seminary, which, in terms of teaching level and the tasks of training spiritual scientists, was close to the Kiev and Moscow academies. In 1788 it was transformed into the Main Seminary, and in 1797 into the Theological Academy. The Kazan Theological Seminary, opened in 1723, and transformed into the Theological Academy in 1797 (see below for further changes in its status), followed this path.

In 1768, a special commission was established with the aim of expanding and streamlining the system of spiritual education. The results were as follows: if in 1764 there were two theological academies and 26 seminaries with 6 thousand students, then in 1784 there were 34 seminaries with 12 thousand students.

Note that theological seminaries in the 18th century. (and even later) supplied many of their graduates to Moscow University, to the Medical School, to public schools as teachers, to government service. So, after the provincial reform of 1775, a great need arose for clerks. By the decree of 1779, it was allowed to appoint seminarians to the civil service, which was used by hundreds of seminarians.

In order to train qualified personnel of teachers of theological seminaries, by the decree of Catherine II of May 6, 1788, it was ordered to send to the Main Theological Seminary at the Alexander Nevsky Lavra in St. Petersburg from the senior (theological and philosophical) classes of other theological seminaries, two of the best good behavior, behavior and teaching, and a better concept than others, ”and then send them to the same seminaries as their teachers. The training and maintenance costs were to be borne by the sending seminary. Among the first 30 best seminarians selected for this purpose was M.M. Speransky.

On October 31, 1798, the first Charter of theological academies was issued. It provided for teaching in the academies "a complete system of philosophy and theology", "higher eloquence", Hebrew (according to the books of the Old Testament), Ancient Greek and Latin, and from the new - French and German, Russian, general and church history, physics and mathematics. The rule of sending two best students from each seminary to the St. Petersburg Theological Academy was confirmed.

Theological education by this time had already acquired an estate character: only sons from clergy families were accepted in the seminary and academy. It was believed that the priest's son had to go to seminary. His individual interests and abilities were not taken into account. He had to complete the entire course of study, no matter how long it took. Therefore, it often happened when the incapable or lazy from year to year were left in the same class, so that in one class there were students aged 12 to 20 years.

Contemporaries and historians of the theological school paint an unattractive picture of the state of theological educational institutions at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries, of the life and everyday life of students of theological schools. The seminaries then limited themselves to teaching the Law of God, teaching reading and writing, church singing, elementary knowledge of theology, but most of all they “learned Latin and Greek”, and also “practiced” in composing sermons. The Holy Scriptures were studied in transcription, and the Bible itself was in the seminary library, usually in a single copy. The teaching was permeated with dead scholasticism and bureaucracy. “Pedagogical measures,” writes the theological school historian F.N. Belyavsky, - consisted only of punishments that are striking in their cruelty: rods, sticks, slaps, beating with rulers, tugging at the hair were the only means of encouragement. Under the influence of such a school, that Bursak type was developed, in the name of which any sensitivity, tenderness of moral feeling, conscientiousness were persecuted as a woman's traits unworthy of a decent student ”. Slightly better was the situation and the teacher, who could "for indulgence" be subjected to "uniform punishment, as shown about the students."

Theological seminaries suffered an extreme lack of everything. Seminary teachers, because of the meager pay for their labor, tended to give private lessons. According to the same author, "such crumbs fell on the maintenance of state-owned seminarians that, apart from rye bread, empty cabbage soup, seasoned with hemp oil, dry porridge, peas and kvass, they did not have to feast on other dishes." School buildings, especially in the provinces, were not repaired due to lack of funds and were poorly heated. Former seminarians recalled the "terrible cold" they experienced in unheated classrooms (they also served as dining rooms and bedrooms), with broken windows, broken doors, when during severe winter days the seminarians "huddled around the smoldering hearth, warming each other with their bodies, wrapped in pitiful clothes." It was not easy for the selfish seminarians, who lived in rented "corners" of private apartments, usually somewhere on the outskirts of the city, in such tightness and dirt that it astonished the beat-up police of that time. If any of the seminarians were lucky, then he could earn his living by teaching the children of a merchant or official to read and write, receiving as "payment" the remnants of dinner from the master's table. "The less fortunate ate alms, chanting spiritual cants under the windows of city dwellers, begging, and even petty theft in gardens and orchards."

Attempts were made by the spiritual authorities to put an end to the abuse of seminarians. The influential Moscow Metropolitan Platon (Levshin), in a special instruction, ordered to "correct" the students "more in a word, by moral shame, not to allow teachers in relation to their students such shame, touching honor, like a cattle, a donkey, etc., not apply in the punishment of belts, sticks, rods, slaps in the face, tugging at the hair. " The very fact that such an instruction appeared is evidence of how widespread such "pedagogical methods" were in the seminaries of that time. However, they continued to exist in the future, and the rod was "in use" even at the beginning of the XX century.

2. Reform of spiritual education (1808-1814)

At the beginning of the 19th century, in the context of other transformations carried out by Alexander I, a reform of the system of spiritual education was also carried out. Its task is to eliminate the negative aspects of this system, to impart unity and continuity to all degrees of theological educational institutions and training programs. At the same time, the important goal of raising the general educational level of theological educational institutions, and in academies, the development of theology was also pursued.

It should be noted that all the reforms and transformations in the Russian Orthodox Church of the synodal period were carried out at the initiative of the secular authorities. "Reforms never came from the Holy Synod, it only carried them out, acting under the pressure of the prevailing political trend or state power represented by the chief prosecutor," wrote a prominent historian of the Russian Church of this period I.K. Smolich.

In connection with the reform of public education in 1803-1804. and applying the new school and university structures she created, the government of Alexander I in 1808-1814. carried out a reform of spiritual education.

The Mogilev archbishop Anastasy Bratanovsky and the St. Petersburg vicar Yevgeny Bolkhovitinov were entrusted with developing the basic principles of reforming the system of spiritual education. The projects prepared by them in 1805 were consolidated into one under the title "Outlines for the transformation of theological schools." At the end of 1806, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod A.N. Golitsyn ordered the diocesan bishops to collect information about the situation of theological schools in their dioceses and send them to the Synod. Then, both the project of Anastasiy Bratanovsky and Yevgeny Bolkhovitinov, and the information delivered by the bishops were presented to the emperor, who ordered to transfer them to M.M. Speransky. To study these materials and draw up on their basis the final text of the law on the reform of the religious school, on November 29, 1807, a "Committee on the improvement of theological schools" was established, which included the St. Petersburg Metropolitan Ambrose (Podobedov), appointed its chairman, the Kaluga bishop Feofilakt Rusanov , Chief Prosecutor of the Synod A.N. Golitsyn, the tsar's confessor, Protopresbyter Sergiy Krasnopevkov, Chief Priest of the Army and Navy Ioann Derzhavin and State Secretary M.M. Speransky, who, according to his contemporaries, became the “soul” of this Committee. Speransky, who himself had gone through all the stages of spiritual education, perfectly knew his needs and the problems he faced.

The committee had three tasks:

1) consider the prepared draft of the reform of the theological school and the collected materials on this issue and, on their basis, develop the final draft;

2) calculate the amounts for schools and the salaries of parish priests;

3) look for ways to deliver these amounts.

The result of the Committee's work was the "Report on the improvement of theological schools, on the outline of the rules for the formation of these schools and on the preparation of capital for the maintenance of the clergy, with the addition of the staff of theological academies, seminaries, district and parish schools" presented to the emperor on June 26, 1808. The text of the report was written by Speransky. According to the definition of the professor of the Kazan Theological Academy P.V. Znamensky, the author of studies on the spiritual education of Russia, “the report presented such a new and fresh direction, such a harmonious, amazing in breadth and unity of the main view on the strength of its logical development in particular, an exposition of the plans for the establishment of theological schools that such work could only leave the Committee where Speransky worked. " In his report, Speransky deeply analyzed the shortcomings of spiritual education and identified the main directions of its reform. The "Report" was approved by Alexander I on June 26, 1808, and published in 1809. It served as the basis for the laws of 1808–1814. on the reform of the theological school.

MM. Speransky believed that the main disadvantage of the preceding theological school was the lack of continuity in education and the "excessive dominance of the Latin language." “The goal of enlightening the clergy,” he pointed out, “is without a doubt a solid and thorough study of Religion. To the knowledge of Religion, based on its dogmas, on the Holy Scriptures and legends of the ancients, one must know the most ancient sources and parts of the sciences directly belonging to them ... From this it is revealed that the main goal of spiritual enlightenment should be learning, in fact ". Spiritual education, Speransky pointed out, is designed to form "enlightened and pious ministers of the church." What was required was "not just an expert on sacred texts, mechanically reproducing them, but a theologian, an interpreter who understands the hidden meaning of Holy Scripture." The spiritual school was supposed to contribute to the training of highly educated representatives of the church hierarchy, to which state significance was attached. It was assumed that a solid theological knowledge would be an important factor in the appointment to high spiritual positions.

MM. Speransky wrote a general introduction to the charters of theological schools, outlining the general principles of spiritual education, and the first part of the academic charter, but the remaining parts of the charter were made by Theophylact Rusanov, for Speransky at the beginning of 1809 was diverted by Alexander I to develop a plan for the state transformation of Russia. By 1812, the statutes of theological educational institutions were practically prepared, but their approval was delayed due to Patriotic War 1812 They were approved only on August 30, 1814.

At the final stage of the Commission's work (implementation of the reform), the decisive role was played by the rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy Filaret (Drozdov), later the Metropolitan of Moscow. Researcher of spiritual education in Russia I.A. Chistovich wrote about him: “In 1814, Filaret took the most lively and active part in all decisions and orders of the Commission of Theological Schools. In this hot time, Filaret, one might say, carried the whole thing on his shoulders and at the same time presented the most extensive and complex projects, reviewed and supplemented the statutes, prepared educational institutions for the transformation and watched their transformations, organized the order of classroom activities in academies and seminaries, compiled synopses of theological sciences for academies and seminaries, reviewed the programs of academic and seminary teachers, selected and recommended textbooks and held in his hands all the threads of educational affairs in Russia. "

Reform 1808-1814 made significant improvements in the educational part. This was manifested in a noticeable rise in spiritual education, in the formation of Russian theology, patristics, church history and church law. At this time, the first steps were taken along the path of "reviving the faith": accessible "interpretations", sermons, catechisms in Russian were created. "

The reform contributed to an increase in the contingent of teachers, whom the theological school so needed, and to raise their professional level. The teaching staff of the seminaries from now on was formed mainly from graduates of theological academies, and from district schools - from graduates of seminaries. The spiritual school also provided many educated people for the growing up in the first half of the 19th century. contingent of officials of secular administrative institutions: more than a third of officials were people from the spiritual environment - pupils of theological seminaries. Since the reform introduced a new procedure for the appointment and transfer of priests, depending on the level of the theological educational institution they graduated and the certificate issued, it also changed the attitude of the clergy to their professional education. After the reform of 1808-1814. and the accepted firm requirements for the appointment of persons with a special spiritual education to clergy positions, the clergy became convinced that the more solidly they receive such an education, the more favorable the prospects for a spiritual career will become. Benefits for graduates of seminaries, and even more so for academics, served as an important incentive. The law gave the right to occupy priestly positions only to those who completed the full course of the seminary. At the same time, the places were determined strictly "according to the degrees assigned to each category of students," that is, the "best in success" graduates of seminaries received more advantageous priestly positions.

The well-known church publicist and church historian N.P. Gilyarov-Platonov, who himself emerged from the spiritual environment, wrote that as a result of the conducted at the beginning of the 19th century. reforms of the theological school “magic power was imparted to her: as before they resisted, so now they began to press. Finishing the course, being "graduated" has become a dream that controls all the thoughts of the growing clergy. Not only the title of "graduate" acquired magical power, but also the category in which the course is over; who finished the course in the first grade all his life then looked down on the second-rate, especially the third-rate. Twenty years after leaving school, he still saw in himself a creature, as it were, from a different dough, molded from wheat, not rye. "

Of course, it was not possible to solve all the problems. First of all, this related to the expansion of the network of theological educational institutions. By the beginning of the educational and spiritual reform in Russia, there were 3 theological academies - Moscow, Kiev and Petersburg (Kazan was temporarily transferred to the position of a seminary), 35 seminaries and 76 district schools with 25 thousand students. By the end of the reign of Alexander I, there were 3 academies; instead of the planned 56 seminaries, 39 operated, out of the planned 360 district theological schools, 128 were opened, and the number of parish schools instead of the foreseen 1080 was only 170.

During the XIX - early XX centuries. the number of religious educational institutions and those who studied in them did not undergo significant changes (see Table 6).

The strengthening of the reactionary government course, mainly in the field of education and censorship, in the last five years of the reign of Alexander I almost did not affect spiritual education. The leadership of the theological school did not find their own Magnitsky and Runic people who were smashing the universities at that time. Relative freedom of teaching, which was provided for by the reform of 1808-1814, continued to be preserved in the theological school. However, attempts were made to "take up" the spiritual school as well. Metropolitan Eugene (Glagolevsky), who was "first present" in the Synod, tried to act in this direction - "a man without a broad mind and talents", as his contemporaries spoke of him. Appointed in 1824 the Minister of Public Education A.S. Shishkov (after the resignation of A.N. Golitsyn) also tried to change the “contagious rules” of 1808–1814, but met opposition from the influential Moscow Metropolitan Filaret.

Table 6

The number of theological educational institutions and those who studied in them in I808-1914. (excluding parish schools)

Sources: Preobrazhensky I.G. Patriotic Church according to statistics from 1840/41 to 1890/91. - SPb., 1901. S. 162, 168; Review of the activities of the department of the Orthodox confession during the reign of Emperor Alexander III. - SPb., 1901. S. 559, 682–687; Titlinov B.V. Theological school in Russia in the 19th century. - Vilna, 1908. S. 73–104; Smolin I.K. History of the Russian Church. 1700-1917. Part 1. - M „1966. S. 667.

3. Spiritual education under Nicholas I

Under Nicholas I, the system of spiritual education underwent significant changes. They were carried out in the context of a reactionary policy in education and the press - in the direction of increasing oversight and regulation over them. On March 1, 1839, the "Charter of the Spiritual and Educational Administration of the Holy Synod" was published. A new management system for spiritual education was introduced. The Rule stated: “Considering the need for a close connection between the administration of the Orthodox Church and the upbringing of youth prepared for its sacred service, we recognized it as good to concentrate in the Holy Synod, as the single main spiritual government of our empire, the highest management of the spiritual and educational unit, which until now has been entrusted to a special Commission of theological schools, and the supervision of the widespread implementation of this part of the laws is entrusted to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. " Thus, the Commission of theological schools, independent of the Synod, was abolished. Instead, the School Committee of the Synod was established as its subdivision, and the entire system of spiritual education was given under the full supervision of the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod.

In 1840 a new seminar teaching program was introduced. It was decided to "press out" general education subjects and, first of all, philosophy, especially hated by Nicholas I. The charter demanded that all "secular knowledge" should be excluded from the programs of theological seminaries, and all teaching would be "permeable by the spirit of the church." From the texts studied in the seminary, Latin writers were required to exclude "places imbued with the spirit of the pagan world", and from ancient poetry to remove those works "in which passion and sensitivity prevail." It was instructed from them to “beware of young minds; let them be captivated by the word of Scripture and at the same time be imbued with its spirit. " In the Greek language, it was allowed to read only the works of the "church fathers", and when learning new languages ​​"to refrain from reading secular works, as well as from works written in the spirit of a different faith." Teaching civic history instructed "to avoid heightened criticism, an imprudent political direction that generates in immature minds a tendency to dream of judging what should not obey their judgments." In seminaries, the volume of general education disciplines was sharply reduced, philosophy was abolished.

The testimony of the rector of the Vyatka Theological Seminary Nikodim Kazantsev about the content of his conversation with the Chief Prosecutor N.A. Protasov. “Remember,” Protasov told him, “the seminary is not an academy. Professors come from the academies: they need to know a lot. Priests come from the seminaries in the villages. They need to know rural life and be able to be useful to the peasant even in his everyday affairs ... What is such a huge theology for a rural priest? Why does he need philosophy, the science of freethinking, health, selfishness and fanfare? What are trigonometry, differentials, integrals to them? Better harden a good catechism, church charter, music singing and enough! Let the high sciences remain in the academies. " At the same time, Protasov referred to the opinion of Nicholas I: “You know,” Protasov said to Nikodim, “when I reminded the sovereign that philosophy is read in theological seminaries, the sovereign exclaimed with anger and bewilderment:“ How? Do the spiritual have a philosophy, this wicked, godless, rebellious science? Drive her out! " ...

The teaching of philosophy was retained in a greatly abbreviated form only in theological academies, and in seminaries this subject was replaced by courses in logic and psychology. In the seminary curriculum published in 1840, pastoral theology and homiletics became the most important subjects. New subjects were also introduced, which, according to Nicholas I, were necessary for future pastors of church parishes: teaching agronomy, medicine, so that those who graduated from seminary, while fulfilling their priestly duties, could provide elementary medical care in the countryside and give rural parishioners useful advice on agronomy. In 1843, 58 students "excellent in science and good manners" were selected from theological seminaries and sent to the Gorygoretsk agronomic school (in Belarus). They had to take a three-year course in agronomy there in order to teach this subject in seminaries. In 1845, in the seminaries, where the course of agronomy was introduced, 4821 people studied this subject, and a year later, already 6864. In 1843, pedagogy courses were introduced in seminaries, and icon painting for those who had the ability to draw.

Due to the fact that the number of those who graduated from theological seminaries began to exceed the availability of vacant priestly places in parishes, in 1842 Nicholas I allowed the admission of graduates of seminaries to public service, canceling the existing restrictions. And in 1850, for the same reasons, by order of the Holy Synod, the compulsory education of the sons of the clergy in theological schools was canceled. In 1851, an order from the Synod followed to limit the number of students attending seminaries.

The life of seminarians traditionally remained the same as in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Poor (state-owned) seminarians were accommodated in state-owned dormitories (bursa). The daily routine at the seminary was as follows. The seminarians were raised at 6 o'clock. in the morning, at 7 o'clock. and then breakfast until 9 o'clock. preparation for lessons, from 9 to 12 o'clock. lessons, from one to two in the afternoon - lunch, in the afternoon rest or a walk, from 6 to 8 hours. evenings "home exercises", at 9 o'clock. dinner and at 10 o'clock. going to sleep.

On Sundays and holidays, all seminarians must be at church for services. In their free time, seminarians could read books, but only those allowed by the authorities, which strictly followed what the seminarians read. It was recommended to practice singing at leisure, but only of spiritual content. It was possible to leave the hostel in free time only with the permission of the superiors, to which every quit was certainly obliged to appear. During the holidays - Christmas (from December 24 to January 7), Easter (Holy Week before Easter and light after it) and summer (from July 15 to September 1), self-taught seminarians were allowed to go to their parents.

The oversight of the seminarians' compliance with the prescribed rules was entrusted to the seminary inspector, to whom “well-meaning” high school seminarians were assigned to assist. The inspector also supervised the behavior of selfish seminarians living in private apartments: he regularly visited them, monitored whether they were reading forbidden books and whether they were engaged in "unlawful entertainment."

In the 30s of the XIX century. special schools began to be created for the training of the daughters of the clergy. The first such school was opened in 1832 in Moscow.

In 1843, under the patronage of Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna, a three-year school for the daughters of the clergy was opened in Tsarskoye Selo. It taught the Law of God, church singing, Russian grammar, Russian and brief general history, geography, arithmetic, calligraphy, drawing patterns for sewing and "various handicrafts."

By the end of the reign of Nicholas I, 22 women's three-year religious schools were opened. In addition to spiritual and general education subjects for teaching girls about household chores, each school was supposed to have a vegetable garden, a garden, a farmyard, and a poultry house. Also introduced was training in the upbringing of children, caring for the sick, familiarization with the properties of medicinal plants.

4. Transformations in the system of spiritual education under Alexander II

At the beginning of the reign of Alexander II, in connection with the preparation of a number of reforms in the social, administrative, judicial and educational spheres, the question was raised of reforming the system of spiritual education. The preparation and implementation of reforms took place in an atmosphere of social and political upsurge in the country. The press of that time, spiritual and secular, vividly discussed the pressing problems of all aspects of life in Russia, including the problems of the position of the Russian Orthodox Church, the implementation of urgent reforms and, not least, the reform of spiritual education.

Among the numerous literature of the beginning of the 60s on the position of the clergy and the state of the theological school, the autobiographical work "Sketches of the Bursa" by N.G. Pomyalovsky, a former pupil of the theological school. In it, the writer, with merciless directness, revealed the soulless and cruel atmosphere of the education system and upbringing in theological schools.

The first steps towards the preparation of educational and spiritual reform were taken already at the end of the 50s. In 1858, in order to familiarize himself with the state of theological educational institutions on the ground, Alexander II visited the Yaroslavl, Vologda, Nizhny Novgorod and Lithuanian Orthodox theological seminaries. At the same time, the opinions of the rectors of theological academies and seminaries were requested on the necessary transformations in the system of theological educational institutions. In 1859, on the basis of the information they sent, a General Code was drawn up, for the consideration of which and the preparation of a draft reform, at the behest of the emperor, a special Committee was established under the Synod.

The preparation of the project went through a complex bureaucratic procedure. The project has been developed by the Committee for over three years. In 1863, the prepared draft was sent to the dioceses for discussion. The study and discussion of the project in the field took another three years. To develop the final version of the project, on March 19, 1866, under the chairmanship of Metropolitan Arseniy (Moskvin) of Kiev, a new Committee under the Synod was established, consisting of rectors of theological academies and universities, as well as four archpriests. It took the Committee more than a year to prepare the final draft. Finally, on May 14, 1867, the draft Charter on theological schools presented to the emperor was approved and received the force of law.

According to the Charter, from now on, it was allowed to enter theological educational institutions to accept children of all classes, including taxable ones. Theological seminaries received a certain degree of autonomy in dealing with their internal affairs. The teaching of general education disciplines expanded significantly. The division into main and secondary subjects was abolished. Teaching has become closer to life. The training program at the seminary was approaching the gymnasium; thus, it was easier for seminary graduates to enter universities. The charter forbade the previously practiced corporal punishment to be applied to seminarians, as well as such as "standing on their feet in the classroom, bowing to the ground, kneeling while doing morning and evening prayers, lunch and dinner, leaving after school", appointment in the form punishment of "physical labor". But the "hungry table" (bread and water for several days) and the "punishment cell" were left as punishment.

With a 6-year period of study at the seminary, the first two years the seminarians were "on state support," and the next four years, state support was provided only for those who made an obligation upon graduating from the seminary to choose the path of priestly ministry. "Worthy" seminarians (well-performing and "good behavior") were paid a stipend of 90 rubles. in year. Granting graduates of seminaries the right to enter universities led to the fact that "seminarians rushed to universities," the number of students entering theological academies decreased. The decrease in those wishing to go to the priesthood after graduating from the seminary was "an alarming symptom." "The clergy themselves increasingly used the right to educate their sons in gymnasiums in order to provide them with a secular career and relieve them of the constrained position of a parish priest or teacher of a seminary and theological school." In this regard, in 1871, a ban was again introduced for graduates of seminaries to enter universities.

On May 14, 1867, Alexander II approved L.D. Tolstoy "Regulations on the Study Committee of the Holy Synod." The former Spiritual and Educational Directorate, being unnecessarily "cumbersome", was abolished on the grounds that, according to the new charter of theological seminaries and schools, a significant part of the functions of managing them were relegated to their places. The staff of the Study Committee formed at the Synod was reduced to 10 people, including its chairman (clergyman), and its competence, limited to solving general matters, was also significantly reduced.

In 1867, the preparation of a new charter for theological academies began. The Synod addressed the theological academies with an order to send proposals in this regard. They sent their memoranda, which were submitted for study by a special commission that prepared the charter. correct development "in accordance with the requirements of the time. On May 30, 1869, the Charter was approved by the emperor.

Particular attention was paid to the development of theological sciences. From now on, persons of all classes, necessarily of the Orthodox confession, could enter the theological academy, with the presentation of a certificate (certificate) of graduation from a theological seminary or a classical gymnasium. The Charter paid special attention to the development of “ higher education for the enlightened ministry of the Church ”, which contributed to raising the level in the academies of theological science. The teaching program was significantly expanded. Specialization was introduced in three departments (or faculties): theological, church-historical and church-practical, while in the second and third departments "non-theological sciences" gained predominance over "theological". All subjects were divided into general education ("compulsory") and special ("detached"), The first included: 1) Holy Scripture; 2) an introduction to theology; philosophy (this also included logic, psychology and metaphysics); 4) history of philosophy; 5) pedagogy; 6) one of the ancient languages ​​(at the student's choice) and literature in it; 7) one of the modern European languages ​​(French, German or English). They were taught in all three departments. The theological department studied: 1) dogmatics and the history of dogmas, 2) moral theology, 3) comparative theology, patristics, 5) Hebrew, 6) biblical history. At the church history department, special subjects were: 1) biblical history of the Old and New Testaments, 2) general church history, 3) history of the Russian Church, 4) history and exposure of the Russian schism, 5) general secular history, 6) Russian history. The following special disciplines were taught at the church-practical department: 1) pastoral theology, 2) homiletics, 3) the history of preaching in the Orthodox Church and in the West, 4) church archeology, 5) liturgy, 6) church law, 7) theoretical literary criticism - history Russian literature with an overview of the most important works of foreign literature, 8) Russian and other Slavic languages. The charter allowed the introduction of additional subjects.

All training at the academies was designed for 4 years. For three years, students took a full course of both general education and special disciplines. Upon successful completion of the third year, the student submitted a "qualification paper", on the basis of which he was awarded the degree of candidate of theology. Only those who received all excellent marks in the final exam of the third year were admitted to the fourth year of the Academy. In the fourth year, students, under the guidance of professors, prepared for teaching in seminaries. At the same time, the student was given the right to choose the subject in which he specialized and subsequently taught it at the seminary. At the same time, in the fourth year, the student took master's exams and prepared a master's thesis, after which he received a master's degree in theology after public defense. The degree of Doctor of Theology was awarded after defending a doctoral dissertation and on the condition that the applicant already had a Master's degree in Theology.

According to the charter of 1869, theological academies received new staff of teachers, and their salaries were equal to that of the university (according to the university charter of 1863). Each academy provided for 9 ordinary and 9 extraordinary professors, 8 associate professors and 3 teachers of modern foreign languages. The academy could also have assistant professors (their number was not established) in the position of freelance teachers. To obtain the post of an extraordinary professor, it was enough to have a master's degree in theology, and an ordinary one - a doctor of theology.

The new Charter provided the academies with considerable independence - the right to choose the rector, professors (by secret ballot). The management of the academy, training and education of students were under the jurisdiction of the Academic Council, the economic part was under the jurisdiction of the Board of the Academy. According to the new charter, a representative of the white clergy could also be a rector, although preference was given to a person with a monastic rank. Theological subjects were taught only by clergy, and general education subjects could be taught by secular professors, which contributed to the appearance of secular professors in theological academies. The rector, his assistants (assistants), inspectors and professors, after their election, was confirmed by the Synod.

The academies received the right to organize public readings of their professors, found scientific societies, publish scientific works and sources, while they were not, as before, censored. Although the statutes of 1867-1869. provided the right to enter theological educational institutions to persons from all classes, however, representatives from outside the spiritual environment accounted for only 8% of the students.

According to the charters of theological schools and seminaries (1867) and the university (1869), the district academic administrations, introduced in 1808, were abolished, and the universities were deprived of the functions of being at the head of educational spiritual districts. Seminaries and theological schools were now headed by boards consisting of representatives of the teaching staff of these seminaries and the diocesan clergy. Spiritual censorship was removed from the jurisdiction of theological academies.

In 1868, the Charter of diocesan women's schools was issued, expanding the teaching program in them and establishing a six-year period of study. The maintenance of these schools was entrusted to the dioceses. Girls from non-spiritual families could also enter these schools for a special fee. Graduates of such schools usually enrolled as teachers in zemstvo and parish schools.

5. Theological school in the late XIX - early XX centuries.

The counter-reforms during the reign of Alexander III also affected the spiritual school. In the early 1980s, new statutes of educational institutions were issued (as a "correction" of the statutes of 1867-1869), with the aim of eliminating the autonomy of theological academies and seminaries, and strengthening supervision over academy students and seminarians. There were also reasons for this. The new trends of the 60s – 70s did not pass by the spiritual educational institutions either. The authorities noted with concern the participation of students of theological academies and senior seminarians in the populist movement. The facts of "nihilism" and even "atheism" noticed among the students of theological schools were also disturbing. Among students of academies and seminarians, they found "seditious" literature of socialist and atheistic content. Back in the early 60s, the Minister of Public Education A.V. Golovnin wrote in one of the "most subject notes" to the tsar: "Theological schools gave us well-known nihilists who tried to spread the most hideous, extreme teachings." This was noted somewhat later by the Moscow Metropolitan Innokenty (Veniaminov). In his treatise “A Few Thoughts Concerning the Education of Spiritual Youth,” he wrote with alarm: “Children enter the [spiritual] schools well-behaved, but they leave the school with a spoiled morality and not at all with a prayer spirit ... Freethinkers have already appeared in the theological academies. and even atheists ... and this evil spirit is already manifested in the seminarians. " Audits of seminaries carried out in the late 1970s revealed "a decline in the churchliness of students and a decline in discipline." This was one of the most serious reasons for the adoption already at the beginning of the reign of Alexander III of a number of measures to eliminate these phenomena in the theological school.

In 1881, a commission headed by Bishop Sergius (Lyapidevsky) was formed at the Synod to revise the statutes of theological educational institutions in 1867-1869. By the end of 1883, she presented to the Synod for discussion the drafts of the statutes of theological educational institutions prepared by her. After additions and corrections, the projects were presented to the emperor. On April 20, 1884, the "Charter of Orthodox Theological Academies" was approved. This Charter (it was called "anti-charter") aimed not so much at the scientific education of the future clergy and teachers of the Russian Church, as at training politically and confessionally reliable ecclesiastical administrative personnel, who, moreover, had to supply teachers for lower-level religious educational institutions. The charter canceled the election of rectors and inspectors, who were again appointed by the Synod. The competence of the councils of theological academies has been reduced, from which a number of administrative, educational and economic issues have been excluded. Departments (faculties) were abolished. The dependence of the academies on the Synod and those diocesan bishops in whose dioceses the academies were located increased. Since 1884, the Synod began to appoint as rectors of the academies only "learned monks" (persons of monastic rank who had academic degrees). From now on, candidates for teaching positions were not chosen, but were presented by the diocesan bishop and approved by the Synod. All theological and philosophical subjects were made compulsory for all students. The rest of the subjects were divided into two groups: verbal (theory of literature and general history, Russian and Church Slavonic languages, paleography, history of Russian literature, Hebrew and biblical archeology) and historical (history, analysis of Western European confessions, history and denunciations of the Russian schism, general and Russian civil history). Three specialties of academic degrees of master and doctor were established: 1) theology, 2) church history, and 3) canon law.

With the introduction of the academic charter of 1884, as noted by the famous theologian-academician N.N. Glubokovsky, who was a student of the Moscow Theological Academy in 1884-1889, began an era of "academic supervision, which led to powerless irresponsibility with the domination and an abundance of all kinds of constraints." According to the charter of 1884, the diocesan bishop received the right of "commanding" supervision over the direction of teaching and upbringing at the academy. The powers of the teaching governing bodies - the Council and the Board - were narrowed, the ballot (election) was canceled when occupying the professorial department, the first administrative positions were given to monks, regardless of their educational and even moral level, control by the rector of the academy was strengthened.

General subjects included Introduction to Theology, Old Testament Scripture, New Testament Scripture, Biblical History, Dogmatic Theology, Moral Theology, Pastoral Theology, Homiletics and Preaching History, Pedagogy, Church Law, Patristics, Church History, Church Archeology and liturgy, history of philosophy, logic, psychology, metaphysics and, in addition, six subjects of the first (verbal) or second (historical) special departments, provided for study from the 2nd year at the choice of students, as well as from the ancients (Greek or Latin) and one of the new (English, German, French) languages. A number of academies introduced their own subjects beyond those indicated (apologetics in Moscow, oriental languages ​​and ethnography of the peoples of the Volga region in Kazan). This multidisciplinary approach was recognized as the main reason for the decline in the level of theological education. Opinions were expressed: "It is better to study a little, but thoroughly, than a lot and superficially."

In the curriculum, specialization on issues of interest was canceled, and most of the disciplines were made "general education", which affected the decrease in their scientific level and the thoroughness of students' knowledge. The control of the inspector and his two assistants over the students has been strengthened. It was about strengthening church control over higher spiritual educational institutions, strict regulation of their scientific, educational and educational life, the desire to protect them from "harmful" secular influence and direct them to narrowly utilitarian church needs. As a result, of the 200 graduates who graduated from the academy every year, only a few were tonsured or ordained to the priesthood. They also reluctantly entered the spiritual and pedagogical field. Despite the fact that those who studied for four years at the academy were obliged to serve six years in the clerical department, the mass exodus of graduates of the academies intensified every year. At the same time, the theological academy was seen by its pupils as a means "to take advantage of the opportunity, with the official content, to become the gentlemen, to move from the rural clergy to the more privileged one - officials of the spiritual and secular departments" - wrote one of the auditors in 1908.

In 1889, the "Rules for the Consideration of Essays Nominated for Theological Degrees" were published. They severely constrained freedom of research in theology. The "rules" required that "the compositions contain such completeness and definiteness of presentation,<...>in which there would be no doubt about the truth of the Orthodox teaching, as well as the accuracy of expressions that would remove any reason for false questions. " They were categorically not allowed to defend "such works in which it is denied, at least with the semblance of scientific grounds, the reliability of such events to which church tradition and popular beliefs are accustomed to treat as reliable." Public disputes in defense of master's and doctoral dissertations were canceled; degrees were awarded based on feedback from reviewers. The level of the dissertations themselves dropped, which turned into simplified compilations that did not provide anything new and original. Censorship constraints led to the fact that scientists in theological academies began to focus on issues of archaeological, historical, philological, because a careless expression or a dubious thought could deprive the author of the required academic degree.

Spiritual censorship has intensified, which has led to a decrease in the theoretical level of theological research. The competence of the academic councils of theological academies was significantly reduced and their dependence on the diocesan bishops increased.

On August 22, 1884, the new "Charter of theological seminaries" was also approved. He also abolished the election of the rector and inspector of seminaries, introduced in 1867; new theological subjects were introduced into the curriculum: biblical history, history of the Russian schism, comparative theology, apologetics. In the philosophy course, the survey of philosophical doctrines was replaced by concise philosophy and didactics. Due to the reduction of philosophy and mathematics, the course in Russian literature increased, the teaching of church singing was expanded. The teaching of Latin and Ancient Greek was expanded. Learning new European languages ​​has become optional. "To improve religious and moral education" in seminaries, the position of "seminary confessor" was introduced. A seminary fee was introduced for non-clergy people. Strict control has been introduced over seminary libraries. Previously published journals of the liberal direction, books by N.G. Pomyalovsky, I.M. Sechenov, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, N.A. Dobrolyubova, N.A. Nekrasov, D.I. Pisarev, Victor Hugo. For reading these books, seminarians were put in a punishment cell. In the district theological schools, the teaching of Russian and Church Slavonic languages, as well as church singing, was strengthened.

However, the measures taken to "improve" theological educational institutions, as the beginning of the 20th century showed, did not bring the expected results. Revolutionary events of 1905-1907 affected seminaries and theological academies. Political organizations and circles were created within their walls. In the fall of 1905, dozens of seminaries and all four academies were engulfed in strikes. It came down to attempts on the life of rectors and inspectors of academies and seminaries. "The venom of Protestant reformism and political liberalism was spreading everywhere." Students demanded that they be given an advisory voice at the academy, exemption from inspector supervision, freedom of student gatherings and meetings, and the expansion of the course of secular disciplines in academic program, free specialization, expanding the admission of representatives of other classes to the academy. The teachers also demanded autonomy and democratization of the academic system, the restoration of the election of the rector's office, and the expansion of the composition of the Council and the Board of the University.

The government made some concessions. The provisional rules of 1906 for theological academies, adopted under the influence of unrest, the supervisory supervision of the bishop was replaced by his guardianship. A secular person was also allowed to take up the post of rector, the academic council was expanded by including representatives of junior teachers in it. The Council was given the right to finalize academic degrees and independently decide on educational issues.

After the defeat of the revolution of 1905-1907. the authorities again took a number of measures to “strengthen” the theological school. In 1908-1909. The Holy Synod carried out audits of theological educational institutions. The auditors found in them a lot of "Secular spirit and church liberalism, a decline in discipline." The Synod instructed the Academic Committee to revise the statutes and revise the staffs of academies, seminaries and theological schools. Particular importance in the new statutes was attached to the strengthening of religious and moral education.

On May 2, 1910, a new "Charter of theological academies" was issued. In 1912, some additions were made to it. The charter of 1910/1912 provided for an increase in departments in academies and, accordingly, an expansion of the staff of teachers. Departments of the history of the Byzantine and Slavic churches were opened, practical classes were introduced with students. But special attention was paid to "the religious and moral education of students and the strengthening of discipline." Attendance at worship services has become compulsory for both teachers and students. The rector of the university was awarded the episcopal rank, and the inspector - the rank of archimandrite. The teachers were required to give lectures "in a strictly Orthodox spirit." The academic autonomy returned in 1906 was abolished. The role of inspectors and their assistants, who were responsible for religious and moral education and for disciplinary supervision of students and seminarians, increased.

At that time, due to the reluctance of graduates of academies and seminaries to choose a spiritual path for themselves, there was an acute shortage of priests in the dioceses. The Holy Synod decided to organize in Moscow, Zhitomir and Orenburg special pastoral courses for deacons and persons with incomplete seminary education; those who graduated from these courses were immediately ordained to the priesthood.

In 1914, a project was submitted to the State Duma to establish a fifth Orthodox Theological Academy in Tomsk. The Duma approved the project, but the World War interfered with its implementation.

After February revolution 1917 A commission of representatives of theological academies worked out a draft of a new charter for theological educational institutions and presented it for consideration by the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1917–1918. Provided for the restoration of the principle of election, the open nature of teaching, more detailed specialization, as well as admission to theological academies of women in the position of "free listeners".

With the establishment of Soviet power and in pursuance of the decree of January 23, 1918 "On the separation of church from state and school from church", theological educational institutions were closed. However, in the early 1920s, attempts were made to revive the higher spiritual school. In 1920, the Theological Institute was opened in Petrograd, which existed until May 1923, and two years later - the Higher Theological Courses, which were closed by the authorities three years later.

Despite the unfavorable phenomena in the life of the Orthodox theological school, caused by changes in the political course of the Russian autocracy, its merits in the development of culture and, in general, in the spiritual life of the country were beyond doubt.

The most significant successes were in higher spiritual education, represented by theological academies. During the century under study, the number of students reached over 900 (i.e., tripled). The academies turned into large centers for the training of pedagogical personnel for the system of spiritual education and the development of Russian theology. They were important (and in fact the only) centers for the development of theological sciences in Russia, published basic research, had their own periodicals.

The leading place in this regard was occupied by the Moscow Theological Academy, especially in the development of patrology, Russian church history in the field of dogmatic theology, canon law, the history of spiritual literature, apologetics, and religious philosophy. The Academy published its own journal "Theological Bulletin".

The St. Petersburg Theological Academy conducted fundamental research in the field of dogmatic theology, canon law, and the history of the first centuries christian church, Byzantinology. Since 1821, the Academy has published the theological journal "Christian Reading", which published translations of the works of the church fathers, church history and theological writings, the works of Byzantine historians, as well as ancient philosophers.

The Kiev Academy successfully worked out the problems of liturgy, homiletics, comparative theology, and the history of Western churches.

A feature of the Kazan Theological Academy was its Missionary Department, which taught oriental languages, ethnography, the history of Islam, Buddhism, and missionary work. Much attention was paid to the study of the Old Believers. Graduates of the academy educated the peoples of the Volga region and Siberia, and also carried out missionary activities outside Russia - in North America, Korea, Japan, China. The journal "Orthodox Interlocutor" published by the Academy published materials of the acts of ecumenical and local councils, monuments of Old Russian literature (for example, "Stoglav", works of Joseph Volotsky, Maxim the Greek). The academy professors translated books of the Old and New Testaments, the Orthodox Catechism, and liturgical manuals for Russian missionaries sent to Eastern countries into Eastern languages.

Outstanding theologians and church historians worked in the system of higher spiritual education. Among them, the most prominent were: the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, theologian and church historian, Archpriest A.V. Gorsky, whose brilliant lectures were as popular as the lectures on Russian history by V.O. Klyuchevsky; Professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy V.V. Bolotov, who was called "the pride of Russian science"; Professor of the Kazan Theological Academy P.V. Znamensky is the author of many textbooks and deep research on the history of the Russian Church; professor of the same academy - a prominent scientist in the field of church law I.S. Berdnikov.

Some university professors taught in theological academies: for example, professor of Kazan University A.P. Shchapov was also a professor at the Kazan Theological Academy, V.O. Klyuchevsky gave his course in Russian history at the Moscow Theological Academy.

The theological school occupied a solid place in the general education system in Russia. Only for 1837-1891. 2 million 878 thousand people graduated from Orthodox theological educational institutions, including 28.6 thousand. - theological academies, 850.5 thousand. - seminaries and up to 2 million - diocesan schools. The system of spiritual education prepared not only a large contingent of church pastors and prominent church figures, but also those who worked in the "secular field" - in politics, science, literature and art. The pupils of the theological school were such famous people, as an outstanding statesman M.M. Speransky, famous historians A.P. Shchapov and V.O. Klyuchevsky, public figures and democratic publicists N.G. Chernyshevsky and N.A. Dobrolyubov, writers N.G. Pomyalovsky, G.I. Uspensky, N.N. Zlatovratsky, D.N. Mamin-Sibiryak, artists brothers A.M. and V.M. Vasnetsov.

6. Parish school

As discussed earlier in this chapter, the 1808–1814 reform. as the first stage of spiritual education, it provided for a parish school. It was intended for the primary education of children and other classes, primarily tax-paying.

In the first half of the 19th century. the parish school was not widely developed. According to I. Preobrazhensky, in 1841 there were 2,700 parish schools with 25 thousand students. The significant growth of parish schools began in the 1850s: in 1851 there were already 44,713 schools with 93,350 students, and in 1860 - 7,907 and 133,666, respectively. This was undoubtedly facilitated by the situation of social and political upsurge in connection with the preparation of the abolition of serfdom and the development of other reforms. The government itself was interested in the further expansion of parish schools. Alexander II, having familiarized himself on June 4, 1861 with those presented by the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod A.P. Tolstoy expressed his satisfaction with the information, and ordered "the success in the scrap business" to be reported to him "monthly." On June 26, 1861, the Synod issued a decree to the dioceses about this, the decree was brought to the attention of all parish priests against receipt, and it became binding. Roman. Already in 1861, the number of parish schools increased to 18,587, and the number of students in them to 320,350.

On January 18, 1862, Alexander II approved the decision of the Council of Ministers, which allowed the Church to continue to establish parish schools. At the same time, the Ministry of Public Education was ordered to open its primary schools throughout the country, while both departments were obliged to provide assistance to each other "as far as possible." However, the Ministry of Public Education was not inclined to hand over elementary education into the hands of "clergy", which "can and is only capable of corrupting and destroying." On this basis, serious friction arose between the Ministry of Public Education and the spiritual department, whose representatives believed that primary education in general should belong to the clergy, about which N.P. Gilyarov-Platonov in a note "On the initial education of the people", submitted to Alexander I.

The Zemsky Reform of 1864 allowed the Zemstvos to start their own primary schools. Thus, since the 60s, three types of elementary schools have been officially operating in the country - parish, ministerial and zemstvo. In the post-reform period, peasant "schools of literacy" also emerged spontaneously. They were created on the initiative of the peasants and at their own expense. The proliferation of such schools was caused, on the one hand, by the growing desire of the peasants for education, which was increasingly recognized by them as a practical necessity, and on the other hand, by the lack of existing primary schools(parish, ministerial and zemstvo). In addition, this form of education was “cheaper” and more accessible to the “peasant’s pocket”: the study took place in a peasant hut, and the unassuming “teachers” were from “visiting scholars” (retired soldiers, women “blueberries”, monks, “expelled from monasteries for worldly temptations ", as well as the peasants themselves who learned to read and write on the side) were usually content with copper pennies," a warm stove and a piece of bread. "Of course, the" quality "of such training left much to be desired, but the peasants were pleased that such a school taught rural children to read and write.The number of these schools grew rapidly in the 80s - early 90s: according to official data, in 1884 there were 840 registered, in 1888 - 9215, and in 1892 - already 15 143 with 365,464 students.

Meanwhile, the parish school, starting in 1864, began to decline rapidly, as evidenced by the following data given by S.V. Roman (see Table 7).

Table 7

Parish school in 1863-1881

Reform in the field of spiritual enlightenment in the 1830-1840s. was one of the most consistent and important aspects in the reign of Nicholas I and took place within the general framework of the internal policy of the emperor, responding to his ideas about the essence of autocracy, which controls public life.

The supreme authority saw the Church as a socially useful institution, which was called upon to ensure the spiritual unity of all components of the state. In this regard, Nicholas I and Chief Prosecutor Protasov understood the urgent need to reorganize the sphere that was previously under the control of the episcopate - the education of the future clergy.

Until the end of the 18th century, the structure of government and the system of teaching in theological schools remained practically unchanged. The sphere of spiritual enlightenment fully belonged to the episcopate and partly to the learned monasticism. The accumulated problems of spiritual education, consisting in a low level of teaching, poor academic performance, unsatisfactory living and learning conditions for seminary students, etc., required high-quality transformations within the framework of the theological school. In addition, the complication of the state apparatus and the increase in the bureaucratic system presupposed the introduction of the theological school into the structure of the state mechanism.

As noted above, in the process of administrative transformations carried out by the Chief Prosecutor N.A. Protasov, the role of the clergy in the Holy Synod was reduced to the formal fulfillment of the orders of the secular authorities. The only organization independent of the chief prosecutor's control was the Commission of Theological Schools.

The members of the Commission were experienced in pedagogy and were guided by the principles of the reforms of 1808-1814. So, in 1838, independently by the Commission of Theological Schools, the rectors of the seminaries prescribed a separate teaching of Russian Church history, which had previously been part of the course of general history. The work of A.N. Muravyov "History of the Russian Church". At the same time, a new Regulation was issued on the improvement of the entire spiritual and educational work. Moroshkin M.Ya. Materials for the history of the Orthodox Church during the reign of Emperor Nicholas I // Collection of the Imperial Russian Historical Society. T. 113. Book. 1. S. 424., which argued the need for the establishment of a class-professional nature of spiritual education.

This event partially corresponded to the position of the emperor, who believed that the main task of spiritual education was its practical benefits. However, on the other hand, abstract knowledge is a source of harm to society and the state. As you know, for Nicholas I, the ideal of the system of government and public life was military order and discipline. The principles existing in spiritual education did not fit into this system in any way. During the reign of Nicholas I, “the spiritual school was supposed to form in future priests a uniform, stereotyped consciousness, for, apart from the teachings of the Church and canonical rules, no other points of view or personal opinions were allowed in the spiritual sphere” Chistovich I.D. History of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. SPb, 1894, p. 436 ..

March 23, 1838 N.A. Protasov directly, without notifying the Commission of Theological Schools, presented to the Emperor a report, which indicated that "The Charters of Theological Schools, drawn up in 1814, require revision under the leadership of the Chief Prosecutor" Nikodim, Bishop of Krasnoyarsk. Notes // Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University. 1877. Book. 2. Part II. P. 39 .. The main attention was paid to the practical and theoretical aspects, such as the unsettled life of the seminarians; redundancy of "abstract" objects (philosophy).

The initiatives of the chief prosecutor demonstrated to the emperor the shortcomings in the field of spiritual education and the need to close the Commission of theological schools. The chief prosecutor, who concentrated all church administration in his hands, remained only an equal member of the Commission. Such a position of a dignitary, equal in authority to a minister, was abnormal for the Nicholas era.

On March 1, 1839, the created Spiritual and Educational Directorate of the Holy Synod took the place of the canceled Commission of Theological Schools. Spiritual and educational administration is endowed with the following functions: conducting affairs related to spiritual education and upbringing; capital management of the spiritual and educational department; collecting information about the educational process; monitoring the implementation of the highest decisions and orders.

A.I. Karasevsky, a former official of the Commission of Theological Schools, a man whose distinctive qualities were responsibility, delicacy and personal devotion to the chief prosecutor.

To implement the educational reform N.A. Protasov made an offer to choose the rectors of theological academies and seminaries, following the quality of the lecture notes and curricula that they presented when choosing the quality. The clergy summoned to St. Petersburg were to be given all the necessary conditions for their activities. The main goal is to study their opinions on the state of the spiritual and educational sphere in the Russian Empire. Nicholas I approves the proposal of the chief prosecutor.

Of all the submitted materials, N.A. Protasov chose programs for teaching theology, which was written by the rector of the Vyatka seminary, Archimandrite Nikodim (Kazantsev), and later by the bishop of Krasnoyarsk. This program most closely matched the views of the emperor and the chief prosecutor on the essence of the problem.

It should be noted that the reform itself was carried out not in accordance with the opinion of the clergy, but in accordance with the decisions of N.A. Protasov, which coincided with the position of the emperor. In his reports, the Chief Prosecutor consistently presented to Nicholas I information about the state of the spiritual and educational sphere. All modifications of the spiritual and educational work of N.A. Protasov did it gradually, communicating his proposals on each specific issue to the tsar personally. If necessary, consultations from the clergy, N.A. Protasov, ignoring the opinion of the members of the Holy Synod, turned to various archimandrites, avoiding the higher hierarchy AA Sokolov. The relationship of church authority to freedom of conscience and speech in the 19th century. Astrakhan: Steam type. V.L. Egorova, 1906. S. 24 .. This expressed the desire not to meet resistance from the authoritative clergy.

The activities of the chief prosecutor were aimed at simplifying educational process... He sought to limit the importance of the fundamental sciences, with an emphasis on the knowledge required for worship and with an emphasis on the general disciplines required for "practical life."

As A.N. Kotovich, N.A. Protasov tried from the spiritual sciences 102 "to expel the systematism that gives them the appearance of secular sciences" Kotovich A.N. Spiritual censorship in Russia (1799-1855). SPb, 1909, p. 171 ..

In 1840, Nicholas I approved the "New Rules" for teaching within the framework of theological educational institutions. According to the rules, the most important subjects were pastoral theology and homiletics, while philosophy was reduced to such disciplines as logic and psychology. In addition, the foundations of medicine, natural science and agricultural sciences were introduced. Latin becomes an ordinary general education discipline and ceases to be the language of teaching and communication. The teaching of icon painting begins in the seminaries. Academic and seminar courses are now six years instead of eight. Teaching is reduced to the elementary memorization of abstracts, from the teachers demanded "uniformity of teaching in the sense of depriving teachers of independence" Smolich I.K. History of the Russian Church 1700-1917. Part 1 / History of the Russian Church. M .: Church Scientific Center "Orthodox Encyclopedia", 1999. Book 8. Part 1. P. 452 ..

It is noteworthy that there was no categorical rejection of innovations in spiritual pedagogy on the part of the clergy. Reaction to the reforms of N.A. Protasova was generally ambiguous. Even when criticizing them, returning to past ideas was not discussed. "Even those church hierarchs who, in their youth, fully approved the principles of the reform of 1808-1814, now treated them with skepticism, not being, however, agreeing with the views on the tasks of the spiritual education of Nicholas I and Protasov" Moroshkin M.Ya. Materials for the history of the Orthodox Church during the reign of Emperor Nicholas I // Collection of the Imperial Russian Historical Society. T. 113. Book. 1. P. 158 .. Many hierarchs and representatives of scholarly monasticism, who condemned the Protasov transformations, provided support in terms of leadership and control over educational institutions. At the beginning, N.A. Protasov was perceived positively, expecting a certain improvement in the life of the theological school. Subsequently, the most radical innovations began to cause strong rejection. On the transformations of N.A. Protasov in spiritual education, many said in a negative way: "Protasov broke everything that with rare solicitude, diligent labor was planted for 20 years" Smolich I.K. History of the Russian Church 1700-1917. Part 1 / History of the Russian Church. M .: Church Scientific Center "Orthodox Encyclopedia", 1999. Book 8. Part 1. P. 429 ..

Despite the negative attitude of the higher hierarchy towards the reform in the field of spiritual education, it was obligatory. Because it was a requirement of the political system.

ON. Protasov here acted as an executor of the will of the sovereign and a conductor of pressure from the growing bureaucratic system. The results of the reform of spiritual enlightenment were: the formation of the Spiritual and Educational Administration; changes in the statutes of theological academies and seminaries and the educational process in general; detailed regulation of all educational issues; absolute control by the government.

The supervision of the chief prosecutor turns into his unlimited superiority over the spiritual school. The figure of the chief prosecutor began to express the general tendencies of bureaucracy. Khomyakov D.A. On the history of the national bureaucracy. Tula, 1904. S. 1 .. The sphere of spiritual education was captured by the bureaucracy.

So, the bureaucratic component in the spiritual educational process, which was not originally characteristic of the church environment, has become an integral part of the activity of the spiritual school. In this sense, the reform in this area, carried out by the supreme state power and the Ober-Prosecutor's Office, was of paramount importance.

V religious politics of Emperor Nicholas I, researchers distinguish two separate stages: periods up to 1830 and from 1830 to the end of the reign. Until the 1830s, Nicholas I was distinguished by a less active attitude towards the activities of the Holy Synod. Since the 1830s, the tsar has shown decisive action in the religious field.

The main directions of the church policy of Nicholas I include: the construction of Orthodox churches; measures to protect the deanery in churches and the implementation of their organization according to Orthodox canons; decisions on matters of church property; measures to increase the authority of the spiritual hierarchy; measures to improve the material situation of the clergy; missionary activity; marriage law. The main results of the policy of Nicholas I in relation to the Russian Orthodox Church were: an increase in the number of dioceses, churches and monasteries; an increase in the number of clerics; the growth of the material well-being of the clergy; increasing the efficiency of church government; the growth of the educational level of the clergy.

During the reign of Nicholas I, the Holy Synod, as the supreme body of the Russian Orthodox Church, underwent changes, as a result of which the authority of the emperor finally took the initiative in guiding spiritual life and began to actively influence the development of the system of church government.

1830s were marked by the creation of a special Office of the Chief Prosecutor, the Economic and Spiritual and Educational Directorate, headed by secular officials. All these institutions were now under the jurisdiction of the chief prosecutor. The Chancellery of the Holy Synod became directly subordinate to the Chief Prosecutor. As a result of the transformations, the meaning of the post of chief prosecutor has changed. The office work and secular officials of the Holy Synod were now headed by the director of the office of the chief prosecutor, and N.A. Protasov exercised general leadership and managed relations with the emperor and government organizations.

N.A. Protasov in the implementation of the Nikolaev church policy was significant. Using broad power, N.A. Protasov took control of all areas of church government. He effectively carried out the will of the emperor in the ecclesiastical department, responding to his ideas about the meaning of the post of chief prosecutor. Under N.A. Protasov took over the initiative of all important events regarding the Church to secular power.

In the Nicholas era, the state fully assumed the responsibility to protect the Russian Orthodox Church and to disseminate its teachings. The state power prevailed over the Church and at the same time patronized it, promoted the struggle against gentiles and sectarians, but at the same time the Church itself remained dependent. For the first time in the entire previous synodal period, the principle of priority of spiritual and religious values ​​over state-political values ​​was proclaimed at the state level, which was enshrined in the formulation "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality."

Reform in the field of spiritual enlightenment in the 1830-1840s. was one of the most consistent and important aspects in the reign of Nicholas I and took place within the general framework of the internal policy of the emperor, responding to his ideas about the essence of autocracy, controlling public life. The initiatives of the chief prosecutor demonstrated to the emperor the shortcomings in the field of spiritual education and the need to close the Commission of theological schools. The results of the reform of spiritual enlightenment were: the formation of the Spiritual and Educational Administration; changes in the statutes of theological academies and seminaries and the educational process in general; detailed regulation of all educational issues; absolute control by the government.

Theological schools of Russia have always been in the field of vision of the tsarist government. In the 17th century, these schools were primary (1). In the 80s of the 17th century, the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy was established, which later became the prototype of the Moscow Theological Academy.

The initiative to open it belonged to the patriarchy (2). Since the publication of the Spiritual Regulations in 1721, the opening of theological schools has become a state matter. Obsessed with the idea of ​​enlightenment, Peter I set out to raise the educational level of the Russian clergy. At the same time, the first emperor of Russia laid the foundation for the destruction of the estate system, without which it was impossible for the state to intervene in the affairs of theological schools. In particular, according to the decree of the emperor in 1723, it was necessary to collect from all the monasteries "young monks to teach which sciences is possible in these Slavic-Greek-Latin schools." Among 360 students of the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy, there were only 120 representatives of the clergy, that is, one third of the students (3). On the crest of the wave of reforms in the field of education under Peter I, new theological schools appeared - seminaries, which also recruited children not only from clergy. The first theological seminary was founded by Feofan Prokopovich in his own house in St. Petersburg at the end of the 20s of the 18th century. It taught theological and general education subjects (ancient languages ​​and mathematics). Later, such seminaries appeared in the Chernigov, Rostov, Novgorod, Tobolsk and Vladimir provinces. Under Catherine II, their curriculum expanded with the introduction of history and geography. Much was done to develop spiritual education in the 18th century, but there were no uniform rules for teaching in seminaries. The state system of education management in Russia has not been formed either.

The government did not manage the schools on a regular basis. The material conditions of their existence depended mainly on the capabilities of individuals who voluntarily assumed obligations for their maintenance.

In the age of secularization of church and monastic property, the government has repeatedly made attempts to finance schools from the state treasury. The idea of ​​state funding emerged in 1737, but it did not receive practical implementation at that time. In 1740, staffs were developed for the Novgorod and Alexander Nevsky Seminaries. These seminaries were supported by the state. But other seminaries lacked public funds. Empress Elizaveta Petrovna solved the material problem by returning church and monastery estates to their former owners. But Catherine II in 1764 again returned these estates to the state treasury and again made the problem of the material maintenance of schools a state one.

The empress substantiated her decision in the Commission's instructions on church estates. She wrote that “it's been 40 years since they started to get turned on, and they are still bad. Seminaries are composed of a very small number of worthy and reliable students, in a poor institution for the sciences and in poor content; seminarians ... are taught ... from inexperienced teachers ... do not know the history of the church or civil ... They are recruited in the seminary for the most part involuntarily and are kept indiscriminately ”(4).

Guided by the instructions of Catherine II, the government took several practical steps both in terms of the material content of theological schools and in training teachers for them. Three metropolitans - Plato, Gabriel and Innokenty - worked on the project of the upcoming reforms on behalf of Catherine II. Their project was drawn up and approved by the Empress in 1766. On the basis of this project, it was proposed to transform the Moscow Academy into a theological university, to open four "large" seminaries in Novgorod, St. Petersburg, Kazan and Yaroslavl with an extended course of study by introducing new subjects into the curriculum. New subjects included French, German, Hebrew, geometry, trigonometry, physics, metaphysics, polemical theology, and the interpretation of Scripture. In other dioceses, it was proposed to open "small" seminaries with a smaller course of study to educate candidates for church positions. The project also provided for the opening at monasteries in each diocese "2-3 small gymnasiums with primary education for preparing students for seminary and for educating the people." It was planned to open "non-standard literacy schools at the deaneries." Staffs were developed for theological schools, on the basis of which each "large" seminary received from the state for its maintenance 2000 rubles a year. But for "small" seminaries and lower religious schools, states were not developed. Nevertheless, under Catherine II, the number of theological schools increased markedly. Seminaries were opened not only in the already named large cities, but also in Astrakhan, Sevsk, Poltava, Irkutsk, Tambov, Slutsk, Minsk, etc. Russian Empire there were 26 theological schools. 6 thousand students studied in them. For them, Catherine II ordered to allocate 38,000 rubles from the state treasury annually (5).

Over time, it became necessary to form a centralized system of public administration of schools. Catherine II realized this problem and in 1762 ordered the government to develop a unified charter of education in Russia. Her decree caused great resistance both in spiritual and secular circles, because Catherine II did not reflect in it the specifics of spiritual and secular education. The decree simply referred to public education. For this reason, it was not executed. In the 80s, Catherine II nevertheless managed to establish a Commission on public schools, which developed a charter for all schools. It was imperially approved in 1786. A unified training program was adopted for theological and folk schools. Catherine II abolished corporal punishment of students. Graduates of theological seminaries were given the right to choose between church and secular services (6).

In 1788, the Alexander Nevsky Seminary was transformed into the main school for training teachers from graduates of "small" seminaries and gymnasiums. Under Paul I, parish district schools were also called “small schools,” which were opened not at monasteries, but at churches or in a priest’s house. The number of "small schools" in Russia continued to increase. Under Catherine II, they were opened in 31 provinces, as well as in the German Council, the Ufa Prikaz, in the city of Cherkassk of the Don Troops and the Tauride Region. During his short reign, Paul I continued to open "small schools" in the Little Russia and Podolsk prikaz, in the city of Narva. By the end of the 18th century. there were 115 of them in Russia. In 1797, an academy was established on the basis of the Kazan Theological Seminary (7).

Thus, by the beginning of the 19th century, three theological academies functioned in the Russian Empire (Kiev, Moscow and Kazan), as well as 36 theological seminaries. “Small” schools did not have a clear involvement in secular or spiritual education. Gymnasiums, like parish schools, could be opened through the efforts of not only the secular district authorities, but also dioceses.

State subsidies for schools under Paul I reached 180,000 rubles a year. But this money, as before, was enough for the maintenance of only higher educational institutions. "Small" schools continued to function "at the expense of monasteries or the students themselves." Often they were closed due to lack of funds for their maintenance.

By the end of the 18th century, questions remained unresolved about the organization of the inner life of theological schools. In particular, "small" schools throughout the century have not received special program training, full charter and precise rules for their relationship with higher education institutions.

In connection with the Europeanization of education in Russia, more and more attention was paid to the Latin language in schools. Church Slavonic and Greek were "poorly taught." But services in the Russian Orthodox Church were traditionally conducted in these languages ​​as well. Therefore, the need for the knowledge of the clergy of the Greek and Church Slavonic languages ​​for the church intensified.

Due to the lack of strict subordination between the schools, many seminaries combined the lower, middle, and even higher levels of education. The same was the case with theological academies (8). The commission on public schools, formed by Catherine II, was involved in the establishment of schools, but

not managing and controlling them.

Having become the successor of the state policy in the field of spiritual education, Alexander I made his contribution to the development and management of theological schools. However, he and his Secret Committee in the early years of the 19th century did not show special attention to the problems of theological schools of the Russian Orthodox Church. In the Manifesto of March 12, 1801, the 26-year-old emperor, promising to reign according to the behests and heart of the Great Catherine, mentioned the enlightenment of Russia as a whole. Without dividing schools into secular and spiritual, he promised to develop public education. The process of establishing "small" schools in the provinces not yet covered by it continued. In 1802, these schools were opened in the Tula, Pskov and Orel provinces. In 1803, their establishment took place in the Novgorod, Mogilev, Kiev, Caucasian and Kharkov provinces.

At the same time, Alexander I's adherence to "law and order" forced him to contribute not only to the opening of new schools, but also to nurture the idea of ​​organizing a linear system for managing educational institutions in Russia. According to the emperor, this system is good because it could function successfully without the constant intervention of the monarch and higher officials (9). But even in this idea, there has not yet been a priority attitude of the government of Alexander I to spiritual education.

In 1802, the Ministry of Public Education was established, and the next - the Commission of Public Schools was abolished. On its basis, the Main Board of Schools was formed under the Ministry of Public Education. The responsibilities of the Board already included not only the establishment of new schools, but also the management of all schools in the country.

1. Named decree "On the structure of schools"

On January 26, 1803, Alexander I issued a personal decree “On the structure of schools”. In it, the emperor conceptually formulated the task of creating a centralized structure for managing public education in Russia. On the eve of the issuance of this decree, the Board of schools established by the emperor was working on this problem. The documents of the Board say that at the request of the emperor, the members of this body had previously drawn up a joint report "On the dispensation and dissemination of sciences in our Empire" (10). Then the report served as the basis for the personal decree of January 26, 1803.

The decree was addressed to the Senate with the requirement to "communicate" with the Synod and work out a joint decision on the development of school education. Proposals on certain aspects of this problem have already been outlined in the decree.

One of the proposals concerned the division of schools into 3 types: parish, county (or gymnasiums), and universities. Here the demand was expressed that “every church parish or two parishes together ... must have at least one parish school” (11). The trusteeship over them in the state villages was entrusted to the parish priest and one of the most honorable residents of the parish. In the landowners' villages, the decree says, schools should be under the tutelage of the landowners themselves. In Chapter II of the decree ("On the instructions of schools on the educational part") teachers in parish schools were recommended to be priests and clergy.

The Synod was supposed to exercise control over their mentoring and teaching and monitor, "so that ... in a short time this was done ... without the slightest burden, both for the priests and for the parishioners." In other words, it was recommended to study at these schools in their free time from work and service. In accordance with this condition, the period of study in parish schools was determined. It began in the fall after the end of field work and ended before the start of this work next year. The order in the parish schools was recommended to be observed by the superintendent of the district to which they belonged, to control and manage them were ordered to the superintendents of either the university or the provincial directorate of schools.

The decree also defined a three-stage form of education. Graduates of parochial schools were admitted to district and provincial schools, and after graduation it was possible to continue their studies at the university. It is also mentioned here about theological seminaries as educational institutions that trained teachers for primary schools. Two were named suitable for this purpose.

seminaries - St. Petersburg and Moscow.

The decree gave general proposals for the formation curriculum for each type of school. In parish schools, it was recommended to teach pupils to read, write and the first steps of arithmetic, "to instruct in the principles of the law of God and in good manners in duties to the sovereign, the authorities and neighbors."

The uyezd and provincial schools were supposed to study the grammar of the Russian and local languages ​​(Polish, German, etc.), abbreviated geography, history, the initial foundations of geometry and natural sciences. It also provided for the study of Holy Scripture and history for the moral education of man and citizen. Among other things, the students of these schools were to receive practical knowledge "useful to the local industry and the needs of the region." The determination of subjects based on practical knowledge was entrusted to the district and provincial authorities.

In the curricula of universities, the already traditional knowledge of theological subjects was incorporated, which, as stated in the decree, were to be taught by clergy who graduated from the theological academy. The Synod undertook to recommend them to universities and monitor their activities. The supervision of teachers of all other subjects in all schools was to be carried out by the meeting of the university, which, in addition, was engaged in the assignment of ranks and classes to teachers (12).

Thus, the personal decree of January 26, 1803 reflected the desire of Alexander I to continue and strengthen the tendency of the "enlightened century" in the development of education in Russia, without dividing it into secular and spiritual. In this regard, the principles of the unity of civic education and double administrative trusteeship over schools were preserved. The Synod was responsible for teachers in parish schools and for teaching theological subjects in all educational institutions. General control and supervision over the schools was exercised by the secular administration represented by the superintendents of the university or the provincial school. Nevertheless, this decree introduced novelty to the management of educational institutions, since it contained proposals for the formation of a centralized structure for the management of public schools. At the top of the proposed linear management structure was the Ministry of Public Education.

The emperor's decree says almost nothing about the place and role of seminaries and theological academies in the proposed structure. The transformations of Catherine II in the management of these educational institutions remained unshakable. More attention was paid to theological seminaries in other personal decrees of Alexander I. The decree of July 17, 1802 was devoted to the introduction of medical knowledge into the seminar curricula. The emperor obliged the Synod to introduce medical subjects into the curriculum of seminaries. Alexander I motivated the need for this measure as follows: “It is known that in villages where there are no doctors, out of ignorance, an ingrained custom ... and according to the methods of using diseases ... often the mildest seizures become fatal. Wishing to open help to the villagers, I recognized it as good to entrust this duty to the clergy ”(13). The duty imposed by the emperor on the clergy to provide medical care to the population also corresponded to the spirit of Peter's and Catherine's times and did not carry any novelty. But this decree was followed by practical government measures.

On the basis of the well-known personal decree, the Synod adopted a resolution dated July 24, 1802. It applied to all theological seminaries. It prescribed to send 50 people from each seminary to medical institutes. This measure provided a solution to the problem. Ultimately, the dioceses have their own physicians - practitioners and teachers of "medical science". For a more efficient execution of the emperor's decree, the Synod joined forces with the State Medical College. The latter promised to compose brief instructions on the simplest treatments. The Synod undertook to send them to all schools, including seminaries, as well as to all rural churches for practical use. The lack of persons with medical skills among the clergy was also compensated by the fact that the Medical College at first agreed to send its medical specialists to the teaching service in theological seminaries (14).

So the Synod solved the immediate and long-term tasks of spreading medical culture among the population. But this circumstance did not radically change the established status of theological seminaries as educational institutions for the training of primary school teachers. Theological academies were not mentioned at all in the first decrees of Alexander I.

The main purpose of the personal decree of January 26, 1803 was to determine the priorities in the case. further development education in Russia. One of them concerned the continuity of the curriculum of schools at all levels, the other - the development of state aid and control over schools through the rangers of counties and universities. The status of the caretaker depended on the size of the school itself. For example, the district superintendent supervised the parish schools, the university superintendents and the provincial school directors supervised all the rest.

This main goal, conceptually formulated in the decree, makes it innovative, although it is based on the traditional concerns of the imperial power for the education of the people.

On the basis of this decree, the process of forming university districts began, where spiritual education was part of the national (15). Strictly speaking, the concept of "spiritual education" at this stage did not have any special essence of its own. It applied to all education in general. Theological schools could even be opened at universities. So, according to the highest approved opinion of the State Council on July 9, 1809, a theological seminary was established at the University of Vilnius. Her responsibilities included training teachers and organizers for parish schools in the western educational districts of the empire, where Catholicism prevailed (16).

In other regions of Russia, the opening of new theological seminaries was not observed at that time. But here parish and district schools were opened and restored. In particular, in the state for the St. Petersburg province of June 24, 1805, 18 newly opened parish schools were indicated (17). Moreover, this process of restoration began several years earlier than the decree of the emperor.

The historical and statistical information on the Novgorod diocese says that in 1801 the Tikhvin parish religious school was opened, in 1802 - the Aleksandro-Svirsky school. In the same 1802, studies at the Cyril Theological School were resumed, schools were opened in the Spassky, Starorussky and Kargopol monasteries. In 1805, the once neglected and forgotten ancient Novgorod school at the bishop's house resumed its work (18).

In general, information about the opening or restoration of parish schools, as well as "small" schools at monasteries and bishops' houses in Great Russia is presented in archival materials pretty sparse. The reason was not only the lack of special attention of the government to the problems of the Russian Orthodox Church, but also the inability of the Orthodox clergy, as a result of the secularization of church property, to adequately respond to the calls of Alexander I to raise public education to a higher level. The church bishops of the capital and neighboring cities and dioceses took part in the government program more or less effectively.

There was another reason for the lack of activity in the development of local education. In the resolution of the Senate of January 31, 1805 "On the establishment of rural parish schools and on the teaching of the teachings in them by clergymen", which was drawn up on the basis of a report from the Minister of Public Education, Count P.V. Zavadovsky, it is said that the establishment of rural parish schools is very difficult. The reason for this was the great resistance of the landowners, who, contrary to the decree of the emperor, did not want to be the trustees of the parish schools in their estates and thereby did not contribute to the teaching of their peasants to read and write and the law of God (19).

Unlike parish schools, guardianship over county and provincial schools is presented in documents in sufficient detail, but mainly also for the western provinces of the empire (20).

In the southeastern provinces of Russia, secular organizations and societies took care of the district schools and gymnasiums for obvious reasons. For example, gymnasiums and district schools were under the care of the Don Army. In 1805, the Don Army allocated 5650 rubles for the gymnasium on its territory, and 1250 rubles for the district school. The noble society of the Penza province allocated 2,250 rubles a year for the maintenance of the gymnasium (21). Part of the material costs for seven uyezd schools in the St. Petersburg province was covered by the Priesthood Society.

In the early years of the 19th century, state subsidies for the establishment and development of school education were considerable. One of the ways of financial support of educational institutions by the state was the "educational hazelnut" (22). It was used throughout Russia, but at this time it was most common in the western provinces.

The total annual cost of the school education development program in the first seven years of the reign of Alexander I amounted to 852,600 rubles. This included both state and public funds (Catholic orders, the Orthodox Church, noble societies in the districts, the Don Army, etc.), as well as personal donations from spiritual and secular persons. Of this amount, it was spent: on 43 grammar schools - 259,480 rubles, on 422 schools, excluding parish schools - 586,680 rubles and on a commercial gymnasium in the city of Odessa - 6,500 rubles. 45,440 rubles were spent annually on the administrative apparatus of university districts (23).

Thus, in the early years of the 19th century, the government of Alexander I paid great attention to the problems of education, but paid little attention to theological educational institutions. Only a new theological seminary at the Vilnius University was opened.

In other territories of the Russian Empire, the management of spiritual education and church life remained unresolved. The opening of new theological schools, mainly at the level of "small" schools, was unorganized and spontaneous here due to the insufficient material resources of the Orthodox clergy.

The government tried to solve the material problems of educational institutions in two ways, that is, at the expense of the state and the public. The community that took upon itself the care of parish, district and provincial schools was represented by Catholic monastic orders, Catholic churches, individual priests and representatives of the Orthodox clergy, secular noble societies and individual secular persons. The Don Army was also the trustee of educational institutions.

Among those who took part in solving the material problems of educational institutions, the Russian Orthodox Church found itself in the most disadvantageous position. Due to the secularization of church property back in the 18th century, it did not have the necessary funds for this purpose.

Russian landowners were reluctant to spend on the material costs of maintaining parish and district schools for their serfs.

At the same time, the state allocated funds only for the maintenance of higher educational institutions and "large" seminaries. They were fully supported by the state.

"Small" schools depended on the capabilities of individual Orthodox bishops and priests. This made them vulnerable from the material side. A need arose for special attention to the problems of the Orthodox Church and theological schools in its dioceses and metropolises. This need was recognized by the government of Alexander I already in 1807.

2. Report of the Special Committee "On the improvement of theological schools"

The government of Alexander I came to understand this problem largely thanks to such church bishops as Yevgeny Bolkhovitinov. I.K. Smolich writes that "the real initiator of the reform should be considered, as it is now established, the bishop of the Old Russian vicar of the Novgorod diocese Yevgeny Bolkhovitinov (1767-1837), later Metropolitan of Kiev (1822-1837)" (24). Evgeny Bolkhovitinov was an educated person. At one time he graduated from the Voronezh Seminary, then the Moscow Theological Academy. Simultaneously with his studies at the academy, he attended lectures at the university, was distinguished by his knowledge of French literature, and maintained close ties with the Novikov circle. As the vicar bishop of Novgorod, he had the opportunity to discuss the problems of spiritual education with the Novgorod and St. Petersburg Metropolitan Ambrose (Podobedov), who was very interested in pedagogical issues (25). The result of these conversations was the "Inscription" of the reform, compiled by Evgeny Bolkhovitinov on behalf of the Metropolitan (26). In his "Outlines" Evgeny Bolkhovitinov advocated “for reducing the role of Latin, including in teaching philosophy and theology, as well as for giving academic education a more scientific rather than didactic character. Academies, like universities, were supposed to become centers of ecclesiastical educational districts and acquire powers to supervise the spiritual schools of the highest and lower levels, as well as in the field of spiritual censorship ... The ideas of the “Destiny” were quite consistent with the views of Alexander I and the Synod ”(27). A significant drawback of this document was the lack of proposals for organizing a solid and permanent material base of spiritual education. Metropolitan Ambrose asked the author of the "Destiny" to state his point of view on the issue of overcoming the material poverty of theological educational institutions. But Evgeny Bolkhovitinov was not competent in these matters and asked the Metropolitan to release him from work on the project of the reform of spiritual education (28). The Metropolitan went to meet him and entrusted this work to the Astrakhan Bishop Anastasy Bratanovsky. But on December 9, 1806, Anastasiy Bratanovsky died of consumption and did not complete the work entrusted to him (29).

Taking into account the failures of individual work on the project of transforming theological schools, Alexander I signed a decree on November 29, 1807, which outlined the main motives for reforming theological schools. The main reason for the reform was the further development of spiritual education in the Russian Empire, which required the attention of the government. This attention was due to the need to "educate young people ... on the rules of morality and Christian teaching." The decree emphasized that this issue has always been in the focus of attention of the previous Russian governments, and he, Emperor Alexander I, wanted to “vigorously approve and expand the existing regulations to this part” (30).

By the same personal decree, Alexander I established a Special Committee and appointed its composition. The Committee included: the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, Prince A.N. Golitsyn, the first member of the Synod, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg Ambrose (Podobedov), members of the Synod, Bishop of Kaluga and Borovsk Feofilakt (Rusanov), confessor of the sovereign Protopresbyter Sergiy Krasnopevkov and chief priest of the Army and Navy Ioann Derzhavin. State Secretary M.M. was also appointed to the Special Committee. Speransky (31). In general, the newly established Committee consisted of 4 clergy and 2 secular persons. A special committee in the person of the appointed dignitaries was obliged to submit a report to the emperor, which would contain a program for the further development of theological schools. The main work on the preparation of the report was done by M.M. Speransky. Other members of the Special Committee took part in the coordination of certain of its positions, which were based on the practical experience of the formation of university districts. In other words, Evgeny Bolkhovitinov's idea of ​​reforming theological schools on the principle of university districts formed the basis of the report of the Special Committee, the main author of which is M.M. Speransky.

The report of the Special Committee "On the improvement of theological schools" was written by June 1808 (32). It consisted of four parts. The first part is titled "On theological schools", the second part - "On the maintenance of church clergy", the third - "On the calculation of the sums for the improvement of theological schools and the maintenance of the church clergy." The last, fourth part is entitled "On the methods of setting the calculated amounts." The first part of the report is devoted to the curricula of theological schools, the system of state control over their implementation. In the next three parts of the report, a program for the material maintenance of both schools and church clergy is given. The report also made a proposal to establish a Commission of theological schools under the Synod as the main administrative body for managing them.

In addition to a brief history of the development of theological schools in Russia, the first part of the report indicates the reasons for the need for reforms in this area. One of them is the lack of a complete charter of theological schools, the uncertainty of their relationship and interdependence, the uncertainty of the function of theological academies in this regard. Another reason was the lack of proper attention in the curricula to the ancient Greek and Church Slavonic languages, the knowledge of which was necessary for the church service. The third reason is the miserable maintenance of "school houses, teachers, libraries", the lack of funds for the purchase of teaching aids and for the maintenance of 1000 indigent students (33).

According to the reasons identified, the tasks for the transformation of theological schools were formulated. It is said that “theological schools should have a special administration”, that it “should be centralized, headed by the district academies” on the model of the already created university districts.

The second part of the report, "On the maintenance of church clergy," contains statistical information on the total number of churches in Russia and their income. This part says that out of 26,417 churches throughout the empire, only 185 clergymen had an income of up to 1,000 rubles a year. The bulk of the total number of churches had an annual income of 50 to 150 rubles. And some clergymen did not even have 10 rubles a year (34). The material poverty of the churches, shown in the report, convinced them of their inability to independently maintain religious schools. A program was needed to improve the financial situation of churches and to retain graduates of theological schools in the service in the church.

The report suggested creating a unified system for dividing the clergy and churches into classes. Church clergy, taking into account their annual monetary income, was proposed to be divided into 4 classes. The 4th class included clergy with an income of at least 300 rubles, and the 1st class - up to 1000 rubles. The rest of the clergy with an annual income of less than 300 rubles was proposed to be attached to the more well-to-do.

Service places in churches were also proposed to be divided into classes according to educational qualifications. The offices of the churches of the dioceses of the first category belonged to the highest level. These included the Novgorod, St. Petersburg, Tobolsk, Pskov, Vologda, Astrakhan, Irkutsk and Perm dioceses. Only graduates of theological academies could be rectors and priests of the churches of these dioceses. Office places of the second level were determined in the churches of the dioceses of the second category. The dioceses of the second category included Moscow, Yaroslavl, Tver, Mogilev, Minsk, Kaluga, Smolensk, Vladimir, Tula, Vyatka, Kostroma and Orenburg. In the churches of these dioceses, it was proposed to send graduates of theological seminaries with the title of “students” to serve as priests, but only if they were not included in the list of students of theological academies. In the church of sixteen dioceses of the third category, it was proposed to send graduates of theological seminaries who did not receive the title of "student" to the priestly service (35). To consider in more detail the system of assigning graduates of theological schools to church services, the Special Committee proposed to the future Commission of theological schools. Such a linear system of interconnection between theological schools and the church was supposed to become, according to the authors of the report, an incentive for priests and clergymen in their professional growth and when moving to a church place of a higher class (36).

The third part of the report, "On the calculation of the sums for the improvement of schools and the maintenance of the church clergy," begins with the division of theological schools into types and by districts. 4 VTSD of theological schools were determined: the highest of them was the theological academy, the middle one was the theological seminary. The county and parish schools were separated from the public education system and defined as lower theological schools of the 3rd and 4th categories.

All theological schools were divided into four educational districts. Each district was headed by a spiritual academy. The St. Petersburg educational district was presented in the report as an exception to the rule, since by that time it did not have a theological academy, but the “main” seminary, opened in 1788 under Catherine II, functioned here as a higher educational institution. This seminary became the center of the St. Petersburg educational district before the opening of the theological academy in 1809 (37). The remaining three theological academies (Kiev, Moscow and Kazan) were inherited by the government of Alexander I from the 18th century. They became the centers of the respective academic districts.

The Kiev district included the spiritual educational institutions of the Yekaterinoslav, Kiev, Chernigov, Minsk, Podolsk, Smolensk, Kursk, Voronezh, Oryol, Volyno-Zhitomir and Slobodsko-Ukrainian dioceses.

The Moscow district was made up of theological schools of Moscow, Yaroslavl, Ryazan, Kaluga, Vladimir,

Vologda, Tula and Kostroma dioceses.

The Kazan educational district includes the Kazan, Astrakhan, Tobolsk, Nizhny Novgorod, Vyatka, Irkutsk, Tambov, Perm, Penza and Orenburg dioceses.

The St. Petersburg district was formed from theological educational institutions of the Novgorod, St. Petersburg, Pskov, Tver, Mogilev and Arkhangelsk dioceses (38).

Thus, the Orthodox dioceses in Russia were geographically divided into 4 academic districts, which geographically did not quite coincide with the territorial boundaries of university educational districts, since the academic districts included theological educational institutions only of the Orthodox faith. In addition, the authors of the report did not take into account the western provinces of the empire, where Catholicism prevailed.

The third part of the report of the Special Committee is devoted to the definition of the qualitative and quantitative characteristics of each academic district in accordance with the class of dioceses. This part states that the diocese must have one theological seminary, 10 district schools and no more than 30 parish schools. Taking into account the number of dioceses in each district, it was supposed to have 36 theological seminaries, 360 district schools and no more than 1080 parish schools. Each type of theological schools was assigned its own category. Theological academies were of the first category, seminaries - the second, district schools - the third, and parish schools - the fourth. In accordance with the category of diocesan schools, the salaries of professors and teachers were also determined.

The report spoke about the need to take into account the specifics of theological schools. Teachers should not be prohibited from combining educational activities with “income-generating” church services.

A special committee proposed to the emperor "in the order of justice" to reduce the salary of teachers of theological schools so that their material wealth did not exceed the salary of teachers of secular schools, who were forbidden to combine teaching and bureaucratic service (39).

The report also contains digital calculations of the annual benefits of each type of theological schools in monetary terms. 55,800 rubles were planned for the maintenance of the theological academy. The exception was the St. Petersburg Seminary, for which it was calculated to spend 67,000 rubles annually (40). This difference in numbers is understandable. The idea of ​​establishing the St. Petersburg Theological Academy on the basis of the existing seminary was developed. Additional cash costs were required.

Theological seminaries, as secondary specialized educational institutions, were divided into three more categories in accordance with the class of each of the 40 Orthodox dioceses. The upper class included the Novgorod, Tobolsk, Pskov, Vologda, Arkhangelsk, Irkutsk, Perm and St. Petersburg dioceses. An amount of 17,000 rubles was planned for their theological seminaries. For the St. Petersburg Theological Seminary, an exception was made again and the expenses were increased to 19,000 rubles.

The second category included 12, and the third - 16 theological seminaries. In the first case, it was planned to spend 14,375 rubles for each of them per year, and in the second case, 12,850 rubles.

The same funding system was applied to county and parish schools. They were also divided into three categories according to the class of the dioceses. For the first-class uyezd schools it was planned to 1,500 rubles a year, for the second-rate schools - 1200 rubles and for the third-class schools - 950 rubles.

The staff for the schools of the St. Petersburg diocese was compiled separately. In the city itself, it was supposed to spend 2,750 rubles a year for each district school, and in the district towns of the diocese - 1,900 rubles (41).

The staffing table for parish schools, taking into account their grades from 1 to 3, was presented as follows: 550, 475 and 400 rubles. For the St. Petersburg diocese, an exception was made in this case. In St. Petersburg, the nominal amount for parish schools was 775 rubles, and in the district towns and villages of the diocese - 600 rubles.

In total, for 240 first-class parochial schools in the Russian Empire, the Special Committee planned annual expenses in the amount of 134,200 rubles, for 360 second-class parochial schools - 171,000 rubles, for 480 parish schools of the 3rd category - 192,000 rubles (42).

In general, it was planned to spend 234,400 rubles annually for 4 theological academies, 517,000 rubles for 36 seminaries, 420,850 rubles for 360 district schools and 479,200 rubles for 1080 parish schools. The total amount of expenditures for the development of theological schools amounted to 1,669,810 rubles (43).

Thus, for the first time in the history of theological schools in Russia, they received a staffing table. An analysis of his calculations shows the intentions of the government of Alexander I to promote the growth of the prestige of theological schools and their material well-being at the expense of church income.

This system of financial calculations initially took into account the multistage nature of spiritual education. St. Petersburg theological schools were in a more favorable financial position, which made it possible to attract the most qualified and highly paid scientists, teachers and educators to work in them. This made the St. Petersburg religious education the most prestigious in the country. Parish schools began to be considered not only rural theological schools. Their opening was provided for any parish of county and capital cities. Theological seminaries received the status of secondary specialized educational institutions, and higher education could be obtained in 4 theological academies.

But the sums planned by the Special Committee for theological schools were to be received not from the state, but from the Orthodox Church. Since, as stated in the report, the Orthodox Church, due to the stateization of church lands and property, did not have the necessary money for the development of church schools, at first state subsidies were needed to implement the program. At the same time, it would be necessary to undertake a search for sources and measures to restore the church's solvency. These searches were time consuming. Therefore, the speakers asked the emperor to allocate 2,000,000 rubles annually from the state treasury at the beginning of the reforms of theological schools (44). If we add up the planned monetary expenditures of the Special Committee for all types of theological schools, we get an annual sum of 1,669,450 rubles. 2,000,000 of this amount is 119.8%, which is 19.8% more than the cash expenditures of the Special Committee on annual expenditures for theological schools. This indicates the approximateness of these calculations. Nevertheless, the report indicates the exact timeframe for the injection of public funds into the proposed program. It is equal to the first six years of the transformation of theological schools (45).

A special committee indicated the sources of church income and also provided for an economic measure to increase the total planned amount of 1,600,000 rubles annually.

The parishioners were invited to put one fifth of the church income from services to the bank for a 5% increase. This would make it possible to have an additional money supply of 1,220,000 rubles by the end of each year.

Another source of monetary income for the church could be the sale of church candles, which would give, according to the calculations of the Special Committee, 3,000,000 rubles a year. It was proposed to put this amount in full in the bank for a 5% increase.

But church candles were sold not only in the church. They were sold in all shops. It was impossible to collect the planned amount from the sale of church candles with the help of a single synodal order. The members of the Special Committee proposed to the emperor to issue a personal decree that would prohibit the widespread sale of church candles and would make this sale a monopoly for the church. Therefore, according to the report, the church's candle income can be accumulated in the bank only from 1809, when there is an appropriate legislative framework and the churches will be able to collect the planned amount. After six years of centralized accumulation and a 5% increase in church income and government subsidies, it was planned to receive 24,949,018 rubles (46). In the opinion of the Special Committee, this money supply could well be enough for the further development of theological schools and the improvement of the life of the clergy without the participation of additional state appropriations.

Since the planned accumulation strategy was calculated for a six-year perspective, and the transformation of theological schools had to start earlier, the Special Committee proposed to extend the formation of educational academic districts in time. In the first 6 years, according to the report, it is possible to start establishing only the St. Petersburg District, for which 1,800,000 rubles from state allocations will be enough. At the same time, it is possible to resolve organizational issues of dividing theological schools into classes throughout the country. In 6 years in St. Petersburg, an academic course of study in new conditions should be completed. The schools in this district are aware of their place and role in the district management system. After 6 years, the accumulated experience could be used in the formation of the remaining three educational academic districts.

For the general management of all theological schools and the implementation of the planned economic program, the Special Committee proposed to form a Commission of theological schools. Its establishment "must precede all other measures." A special committee expressed its intention to transfer its affairs to her for church transformations and to be abolished as unnecessary (47). It was recommended to have the composition of the Commission of theological schools from among both clergy and secular persons. They were to be appointed by the emperor himself.

The duties of the members of the Commission were divided into "temporary and non-permanent". Temporary duties included drawing up the detailed staff of each school and its charter, appointing teachers and educators to schools, establishing libraries and classrooms in them, opening new theological schools and new academic districts (48).

The indispensable, or permanent, duties of the Commission were to be measures for the regular supervision of the work of schools, which included the consideration of complaints and petitions addressed to the Synod by their employees, as well as the approval of doctors of theology and the appointment of rectors of academies.

The commission of theological schools was also supposed to constantly monitor the material well-being of theological schools and control their financial expenses (49).

To ensure the economic connection of theological educational institutions with the Russian Orthodox Church, to find funds for the maintenance of schools, as well as to form a centralized accumulation of church income, the Commission of theological schools was instructed to develop a detailed staff of all churches, taking into account the proposals of the Special Committee.

In order to improve the life of the clergy, the Special Committee obliged each church, regardless of its belonging to one class or another, to build houses with estates and agricultural buildings (dwellings and mills) with church money. In turn, the Commission of Theological Schools undertook to ensure that 2/3 of the income remained for the church to improve its own financial situation.

In accordance with the division of churches into classes, the ranks of priests and clergy were proposed. As an example of such a division, the report gave the internal structure of the 1st and 2nd grade church. The 1st class church was supposed to have 2 or 3 clergy. One of the priests was obliged to be an archpriest by office, and a doctor of theology by scientific degree. The rest of the priests could be masters, candidates of theology, students. The title of the student corresponded to the position of a junior teacher. Either the best graduates of theological seminaries or graduates of theological academies who did not defend their dissertations could apply for this position (50). The educational level of the 2nd grade churches was somewhat lower. If the priests of the 1st class church, in accordance with their academic title, had the right to teach at the theological academy, seminary or district schools, then not all priests of the 2nd class churches were allowed to serve as teachers, but only one of them at the district and parish level. schools.

A special committee also developed the basis for the future subordination of theological schools. The report contains an approximate layout of different levels of education, each of which has a corresponding curriculum. After receiving a lower spiritual education, students could continue their studies in seminaries, and after seminaries - in theological academies. Here, a significant reservation was made that the students had the right not to study in parish, district schools and even seminaries, but immediately become students of theological academies. But this right could only be enjoyed by those listeners who had undergone good home preparation and successfully passed the examinations on a general basis for the corresponding courses of lower and secondary spiritual education (51).

The report of the Committee also stipulated the internal order of instruction in each of the types of theological schools. It was planned to admit children from the age of 6 to parish schools. Training course was designed for 2 years. Every year, students took exams in reading, writing and grammar of the Russian language, according to the basic rules of arithmetic, church music singing and an abbreviated catechism. Pupils who successfully passed the exams for both courses of study received a certificate with the right to continue their studies in the county schools. If the result was negative, they remained in the parish school for the third year. If even after the third year of study the students did not pass the final test, then they were given a certificate with the right to work in churches in the lower places of clergy, such as a sexton, a sexton, a bell ringer, etc. several parishes. The report says that the number of teachers in each parish school also depended on the number of children in parishioners, which should not have exceeded two.

The direct management of parish schools throughout the diocese was entrusted to the deanery superintendent, who received the right to accept and dismiss teachers of these schools. The caretaker of the deanery was obliged to accept them for service according to a certificate issued by the board of the seminaries. He submitted the results of his personnel changes to the diocesan seminary. But the lists of pupils of parish schools with their exam grades came from the dean to the board of district schools of the academic district (52).

District schools were designed for the number of children from one or several districts of the academic district who received parochial education and lived in the nearest districts. Their course of study was designed for 4 years and was divided into 4 classes. But the main subjects of the curriculum of the county schools (9 of them are indicated) are given not by grade, but simply listed. The right to finalize this training program was given to the future Commission. The 9 specified subjects included: a course in Russian and Slavic grammar, arithmetic, a course in church music singing "everyday and partisan", a course in written translation of texts from Greek and Latin, the beginning of sacred and church history, geography, a lengthy catechism and church charter, and also the local or neighboring language of the "peoples inhabiting the empire" and church office work in order to acquire skills in compiling registers of births, confession statements, etc. (53).

In the county school, 3 or 4 teachers were envisaged, who were accepted and dismissed by the board of the county schools of the district. When applying for a job, teachers were required to have a certificate of the board of a theological seminary. Their successes were reported by the district administration to the seminary administration. The management of the district school was entrusted to the rector, the appointment and dismissal of which should be in the jurisdiction of the academic government. The rector had to have a scientific degree, either a Doctor of Theology or a Master of Science in Literature. In the church hierarchy, he was obliged to be no lower than the archimandrite, abbot or archpriest of the cathedral city church. His competence included not only directing the district school, but also supervising the parish schools through the deanery superintendents (54).

The curriculum of the Diocesan Theological Seminary was composed of 6 grade subjects and designed for 4 years of study. The subjects were divided into two terms. In the first two years of their studies, the students of the seminaries had to master the first three classes of subjects in Russian. The second term of study included the subjects of the remaining three classes, which were to be taught in Latin. Each class of theological seminary was scheduled separately. The first three classes included verbal, historical and mathematical sciences, the second three classes - philosophical, theological sciences and languages. The class of verbal sciences included: rhetoric, "essay in the Slavic, Greek and Latin languages, analytical reading of classical authors, philology, aesthetics." The class of historical sciences was composed of "general and all-Russian history and geography" biblical history and geography, from "scholarly history and the history of the church with antiquities." The class of mathematical sciences included algebra, geometry, the basics of mechanics, mathematical geography and various applications to Easter, that is, to the first day of Easter and all days of the following week (Bright Week). The class of philosophical sciences was composed of logic, metaphysics, theoretical and experimental physics, moral teaching. The theological class included subjects of dogmatic and moral theology, hermeneutics of church rites. Finally, the language class was made up of optional German and French lessons.

Unlike county and parish schools, public examinations were recommended. They were supposed to be attended by the diocesan bishop, a representative of the provincial authorities, one of the noble persons of the city, members of the seminary board and one representative of the district academy.

Those who successfully passed these exams were supposed to be assigned one of three categories in accordance with the revealed knowledge. The knowledge of the 1st category graduates in terms of volume and level was equal to that of the university. A graduate who received the 1st category, like at the university, was awarded the title of "student". He had the right to study further at the theological academy, serve as a priest in a second-class church, and be a teacher in district and parish schools.

For graduates of the 2nd and 3rd grade, the room for maneuver has been reduced. They were not given the title of "student". A seminary graduate of the 2nd category had the right to be a teacher only in parish schools. But, like a student, he could turn out to be a student of the Medical and Surgical Academy, provided that after the recruitment of students to this academy, vacancies still remained. Graduates of the 3rd grade could serve as deacons and priests only in churches of the third and fourth grades.

For seminarians of the 2nd and 3rd grade, the report provided for the right to re-examination in the next academic year in order to increase their grade. But their additional preparation for exams had to take place outside the walls of the seminary.

It was planned to have at least six teachers in the seminary. They were to be accepted and dismissed by the decision of the seminar board. In turn, the Seminary Board was obliged to send information on the teaching staff to the "academic authorities".

The report provided for the Board of the seminary, consisting of three people: the rector of the seminary, one of the professors of the same seminary and an economist.

The rector, as in the district school, must certainly have a doctorate in theology, serve as an archimandrite, abbot or archpriest in a first-class church. In addition, according to his position, he was supposed to be a member of the Diocesan Consistory. In addition to the administrative service, the rector had the right to be a professor of theology. The appointment to the post of rector could be obtained upon the recommendation of the diocesan bishop in the board of the theological academy, where his candidacy was either approved or not approved.

The second member of the Seminary Board, according to the report of the Special Committee, was elected at the general meeting of the Seminary from among its professors for one year. The housekeeper, at the suggestion of the rector, was approved by the diocesan bishop.

The Spiritual Consistory, the report says, did not manage the Board of the seminary, but was engaged in collecting information on the results of its work. The same connection of the Consistories was provided for with other theological educational institutions of the diocese or metropolis. But the responsibilities of the Seminary Board included supervision not only of their own seminary, but also of the district schools through their rectors (55).

Three tasks were set before the theological academies: to prepare their students for holy orders, "to engage in the production of academic degrees" and the dissemination of knowledge in the district, and also to manage the educational academic district. In the light of the solution of these problems, the report of the Special Committee also gives a triune structure of the Academy.

For the training of specialists, it was proposed to form an institute in the academy, which would consist of 6 classes, similar to the classes of seminaries, but at a higher level of education.

In the language arts class, students of the institute had to study a course in the theory of "graceful writing", general philosophical grammar or word analytics, master practical exercises in essays, sermons and the interpretation of Holy Scripture.

Higher and applied mathematics were planned for the math class. The history class was supposed to be familiar with "different history and chronology." In the class of philosophical sciences, students had to master the full course of physics, metaphysics, and the history of philosophy. The class of theology was composed of subjects of polemical, moral and dogmatic theology, hermeneutics, that is, the art of interpreting ancient texts, homiletics, that is, the theory and practice of preaching, canonical and ecclesiastical law of the Greek-Russian Church. In the class of languages, it was proposed to master perfectly those languages ​​that were studied in the seminary.

Education at the Institute of the Theological Academy, as well as at the seminary, took place at the age of 4. Another 2 years were given to write a master's thesis.

All students of the institute were fully dependent on the church, and upon graduation, after passing public exams, they received either 1st or 2nd grade. The first category was assigned to masters. They could be appointed to both the bachelor's position and the seminary professor's position, if there was a vacancy. At the same time, the masters were sent to serve as priests in first-class churches. The master was given the right to choose between spiritual and any civil service. If the master remained in the spiritual service, then, together with the certificate, he was given an insignia in the form of a small cross on a gold chain in his buttonhole. Students of the 2nd grade remained in their former student degree and were sent to serve as priests in first-class and second-class churches (56).

To fulfill the second task of the theological academy, it was supposed to establish an academic conference. Her competence would include the assignment of degrees and titles to graduates of the institute and control over the publication of spiritual books and essays.

The third branch of the academy was supposed to be in charge of the district's theological seminaries. Hence the name of this department - the board of the academy. It included the rector of the academy, two representatives from the institute and two from the academic conference. The board of the academy was also obliged to manage the academy itself, as if to help the rector. It was supposed to collect lists of seminary graduates, assign them to service and further study. The board was obliged to take care of the development of libraries, classrooms and other necessary institutions for training in schools. The Board monitored the passing of public examinations in seminaries by sending a member of the academy to these exams, strictly monitored the distribution of jobs in the diocese in accordance with the degrees and scientific ranks of graduates of theological schools. The board of the academy was obliged to promptly report the results of its activities to the Commission of theological schools. The academic conference was also accountable to the commission of theological schools (57).

The rector of the academy was personally responsible to the Commission of theological schools, who was appointed by her from among the three candidates presented. One candidate was proposed by the diocesan bishop, two others - by an academic conference (58).

The proposed management system for theological schools was limited to the Commission of theological schools, which was established under the Synod.

Thus, the report of the Special Committee, compiled by the decree of Alexander I, is a detailed program of transformations of theological educational institutions. This program included detailed financial calculations for the states and material content of schools, for the centralized accumulation of church income, proposals for the formation of a synodal structure for the leadership of theological schools of the Orthodox faith on the principle of a linear management system.

The supreme governing body, which was to become the Commission of theological schools, directly supervised the theological academies. Theological academies were complex institutions of three departments - institute, conference and board, which corresponded to their triune administrative, educational and scientific task. The competence of the theological academies included the management of the work of seminaries in their educational district, the distribution and control over the placement of graduates of theological schools in the field. The duties of the theological academies also included overseeing the publication of educational literature and conferring the title and degree of student, candidate, professor, bachelor, master and doctor of theological sciences to graduates of the academic institute.

At the third level of government there were theological seminaries, which, through their boards, directed the district and parish schools. Primary spiritual education, proposed by the Special Committee, had two levels - parish and district. Seminaries were strictly assigned the status of secondary specialized educational institutions, and academies - the status of higher theological schools. The nature of the leadership of the boards of county schools, seminaries and theological academies was determined not only by the administrative subordination of lower schools to higher schools, but also by educational and methodological assistance from higher schools to lower ones. From bottom to top, this vertical link was informative.

General education subjects such as mathematics, history, Latin and modern foreign languages ​​were preserved in the curricula of theological schools, following the pattern of past years. However, in the hours of the curriculum proposed by the Special Committee, more attention was paid to the Church Slavonic and Greek languages, and the study of the Russian language was introduced. In addition, it was planned for the students to study the office work of the Russian Orthodox Church and theological subjects. The curriculum of theological schools, so rich in special subjects, corresponded to the task of introducing a linear management system and was aimed at increasing the prestige of the Orthodox faith in Russia.

In addition to its own management structure, the Special Committee has planned for theological schools and the structure of diocesan guardianship over them. The lower part of this diocesan vertical consisted of the institution of deanery for each parish school. The caretakers of the deanery, in turn, obeyed the diocesan bishops. At the top of this system was also the Synod.

The program of the Special Committee also presents the relationship between the two structures of management of theological schools. At the lowest level, double reporting was provided for the caretakers of the deanery - both to the diocesan bishop and to the boards of the theological seminary and the district school. At the middle and upper levels of government, seminaries and theological academies also sent their reports to both systems of synodal government. One report was sent to the Consistory, the other to the Commission of theological schools. On the basis of the information collected in the Consistories, reports were made by bishops and metropolitans to the Synod.

The program of the Special Committee also shows the direct connection between theological schools and the church through the strict assignment of graduates of theological schools to the service. This idea in itself was not new. It belonged to Peter I. But under the successors of Peter the Great, this idea did not receive further development. In the program of the Special Committee, it again became the basis for the assignment of graduates of theological schools to the service. Again, it was forbidden to serve in the spiritual sphere unskilled, without a special certificate of graduation from one or another spiritual educational institution, clergy and clergymen (59).

The program of material support for theological schools of the Special Committee is characterized by the desire to form a system of centralized accumulation of church incomes with minimal monetary costs to the state, which were supposed to be reduced to zero by 1814.

The condition for the implementation of this program was to reanimate the ability of the Russian Orthodox Church to maintain religious schools at its own expense. This reanimation was proposed to be carried out at the expense of the partial return of some of the economic rights of the church, taken away in the 18th century. It was recommended that each church be obliged to build and rebuild its own houses, as well as various agricultural buildings, using two-thirds of its own income. The sale of church candles was planned to be concentrated only in churches. The proceeds from this sale of the church were to be sent in full to the bank in the name of the Commission of theological schools.

In the opinion of the Special Committee, these measures, carried out from above through the implementation of personal decrees and resolutions of the Synod, should have yielded the desired economic effect.

In general, the program of the Special Committee is a set of comprehensive strategic developments for the upcoming transformations of theological schools within the synodal administration. The tactical issues of this program were proposed by the Special Committee to be solved by the future Commission of Theological Schools.

3. Commission of theological schools

After reviewing the contents of the report of the Special Committee and without making any significant amendments to it, Alexander I approved it. Based on this report, three personal decrees were issued, dated by the same date - June 26

1808. The first decree was addressed to the Synod for execution. In accordance with it, the Synod adopted its resolution (60). In the second decree, the emperor commanded the state treasurer F.A. Golubtsov should annually donate 1,647,000 rubles to the bank for theological schools from 1809 to 1814 (61).

Alexander I, not without reason, considered the sum of 2,000,000 rubles proposed by the Special Committee from the state treasury to be overstated. He cut it down to 1,647,000 rubles, which amounted to 82.3% of the total planned annual expenses. State Treasurer F.A. Golubtsov, within a month, fulfilled the order of the emperor and on July 22, 1808 allocated the sum called by the sovereign to the account for the organization of theological schools

1809 (62).

By the third personal decree of June 26, 1808, the emperor abolished the Special Committee and established the Commission of theological schools (63). It included the same persons who were in the Special Committee (64). But the responsibilities between them were clearly distributed. Metropolitan Ambrose and Archbishop Theophylact set about drawing up a plan for the sale of church candles in monasteries and churches, as well as for the centralized collection of church revenues (65). Secretary of State M.M. Speransky was instructed to write statutes for each type of religious schools separately (66). Prince A.N. Golitsyn took over the organization of the financial and personnel work of the Commission itself. The chief secretary of the Synod, A.D. Danilov (67).

Then the search for premises for the Commission began. The emperor also helped to solve this problem. In a letter to Prince A.N. Golitsyn to the Chief Secretary of the Synod A.D. Danilov dated July 13, 1808, it was written that the emperor "deigned" to allocate rooms for the Commission in the Mikhailovsky Castle. The author of the letter instructed the governor of affairs to take these rooms on the balance sheet of the Synod and carry out the necessary purchases of furniture and other items to work in them (68).

HELL. Danilov fulfilled this order, and already on July 25, 1808, a "blessing of water and a prayer service on the occasion of the opening of the presence of the Commission" took place as the supreme body of spiritual and educational institutions (69). Compiling the first annual "report" of the Commission of theological schools, A.D. Danilov reported to the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod for the amount spent on furnishing the rooms of the Mikhailovsky Castle and purchasing office supplies. The report is dated December 31, 1808. The registers attached to the "report" indicate the total amount spent on these acquisitions. It amounted to 2,256 rubles 10 kopecks (70).

In addition to this assignment, the ruler of affairs A.D. Danilov performed other tasks of the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod and a member of the Commission, Prince A.N. Golitsyn. These tasks are related to financial calculations when paying salaries to employees, when purchasing the necessary items and books. A guide to action for A.D. Danilov were warrants signed by the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod. On the basis of the same orders, the synodal treasurer G.A. Khlebodarov allocated money to him, which were spent on paying for the publication of books for theological schools, on monthly "salaries" and annual bonuses for the Commission's employees, on the issuance of cash loans to workers of auxiliary services (couriers, watchmen, cleaners, etc.), on the purchase of a special uniforms, to pay bills to peasants for the exploitation of their horses with a harness for the work of couriers, etc. (71). Essentially, through A.D. Danilov, all the financial operations of the Commission of theological schools took place. He was the chief accountant, cashier, and procurement officer of the Commission at the same time. Later, the staff of the chancellery expanded, and the ruler of affairs could confine himself to his direct duties, that is, the general management of the chancellery.

The office of the Commission of Theological Schools, according to the staffing table of August 1808, consisted of 12 people. This figure grew steadily and by December 1819 had increased to 22 people. Clerical workers were considered: the governor of affairs, freight forwarders and their assistants, registrars of business papers, "journalists", ie, compilers of minutes and reports of the Commission, as well as archivists, an accountant with assistants, the head of the executive table and the treasurer with assistants.

The commission of theological schools, together with the chancellery, existed in this form until 1839. Then, already under Nicholas I, it was transformed into the Board of theological schools. By 1839, her office consisted of 27 people. The positions of the architect and his assistant, chief controller of the counting commission were added to the above positions. Two more controllers and their four assistants were given to him, and a clerk was hired to help the ruler of affairs. At the same time, the service of the executor and the executive table were abolished (72).

There has been a trend towards an increase in clerical workers. The commission of theological schools was increasingly transformed from an administrative and methodological center under the Synod into the highest supervising and governing state body over theological schools.

The composition of the Commission itself has always remained stable. New persons were appointed only to replace seriously ill or deceased former members of the Commission. There is a slight quantitative difference only between 1808 and 1818. In 1808 there were 6 members of the Commission, from 1818 to 1825 there were 8 members of the Commission (73).

Two thirds of the total number of seats in it were occupied by metropolitans and protopresbyters of the Russian Orthodox Church. One third of the composition of the Commission belonged to high-ranking secular officials. This proportion of the qualitative composition remained until the last day of the Commission's functioning. Another stable tendency can be seen in the qualitative characteristics of the members of the Commission. Its entire composition was certainly formed from among the members of the Synod. The exception to the rule until 1812 was State Secretary M.M. Speransky. But in 1812, on the eve of the war with Napoleon, he was exiled to Perm with the highest permission. This link led to his automatic exclusion from the Commission. Until 1814, the Commission of Theological Schools consisted of only 5 members of the Synod: Metropolitan Ambrose (Podobedov), Archbishop Theophilact (Rusanov), Protopresbyters I.S. Derzhavin and P.V. Krinitsky, and finally, the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod A.N. Golitsyn. After 1814, two more members of the Synod were appointed to the Commission - Metropolitans Michael (Desnitsky) and Seraphim (Glagolevsky). Following them, the rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, a member of the Synod, Filaret (Drozdov), entered the Commission. Later changes in the composition of the Commission also took place, but they did not play a significant role for its qualitative characteristics.

After the opening of the Commission of Theological Schools on July 25, 1808, its members immediately set about solving the tasks assigned to them. In order to solve the problem of the centralized accumulation of church income for the material maintenance of schools, attention was paid to the income from the sale of church candles. In the name of the emperor, 3 draft reports were written on this issue, which did not exclude, but supplemented each other.

One project was drawn up by Archbishop Theophylact, the second - by M.M. Speransky and Metropolitan Ambrose of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, and the third included the proposals of the previous two projects and was approved at a meeting of the Commission on August 18, 1808. In addition to the named authors, the final draft of the report was signed by the Emperor's confessor Protopresbyter Pavel Krinitsky, Prince A.N. Golitsyn, chief priest I.S. Derzhavin and the chief secretary of the Synod A.D. Danilov (74).

Thus, the third project was the result of the collective work of the members of the Commission of theological schools. It provides a historical retrospective of the problem. It is said that Peter the Great tried to solve it in favor of the church by his “highest decree of February 28, 1721” (75). The Synod sent this decree to all diocesan bishops, but the mechanism for its implementation was not developed. As a result, wax candles, along with church candles, continued to be sold by merchants, bourgeois, and peasants at very different, very inflated, prices in favor of sellers (76). In 1755, Empress Elizaveta Petrovna, in Chapter 10, Article 4 of the customs regulations approved by her, secured the right of the peasants to trade in "small things, including wax candles" (77). The church again received no incentives to sell candles, and parishioners suffered from high prices for candles. To change the existing order of things, the authors of the project proposed from January 1, 1809 to renew the ban of Peter I on the sale of church candles "to both manufacturers and everyone involved in the candle trade." Violators of this prohibition had to be tried by the "civil government under the blasphemy laws."

The draft report proposes measures for the practical implementation of the ban on the sale of church candles to anyone other than the Church. It is said that as soon as from 1809 the church candles will belong by law to the spiritual government, each bishop through the city and zemstvo police must make a request to all organizations selling church candles to transfer them to the dioceses.

This transfer will be carried out in the form of buying candles from traders not at market prices, but at the prices of the church directory. Further, the diocesan bishops will make a request to factories and factories of wax candles to supply church candles only to dioceses and to prohibit their sale to private individuals.

The commission of theological schools also intended to demand information from the manufacturers on the prices of their candle products in order to select the cheapest manufacturers. The next stage in the creation of a church monopoly on income from the sale of church candles was to be associated with the conclusion of contracts between the consistories and the administrations of the selected factories for the production of the mentioned candles for the dioceses for one year. This year should be like a trial one. If it is completed successfully, then a contract with the same manufacturers can be concluded for a longer period by mutual agreement. The rest of the factories that will not be included in the list of manufacturers of church candles should be banned by the secular authorities.

It is also provided for the production of church candles by private individuals, if they had the opportunity to prepare special wax and make candle casting at home. But these persons must be known to the Consistory, which will also conclude the necessary contract with them for this production.

Receiving candles from suppliers was supposed to be assigned to priests and church leaders. For this operation in the consistories they must be given two books (incoming and outgoing). The first book is designed to record the number of candles received from suppliers and the money spent on them. The second book is for keeping records of the sale of church candles for cash to small city and county churches (78).

Unlike the piece-by-piece sale of church candles to parishioners, it is written in the seventh paragraph of the draft, churches and monasteries should be sold by weight and in bulk (79).

Church candles are very lightweight. Therefore, selling them by weight and in bulk to churches and monasteries should give a significant percentage of the profit after the piece sale of candles to parishioners. This economic measure would facilitate the continuous reproduction of church candles.

The draft report of the Commission also provides for measures to suppress abuse in the sale and purchase of church candles by private individuals. Members of the Commission invited suppliers to issue a new batch of candles to priests and church leaders in exchange for the stubs of candles that had already been used. For pounds of these cinders and wax, the suppliers were obliged to weigh the corresponding number of pounds of new candles. All these bargaining procedures must be recorded in the corded books. Priests and elders were also required to fill out statements on church amounts from the sale of candles. The consistories were entrusted with supervising these statements. Consistories, in turn, must organize an annual audit of the financial transaction for the sale and purchase of church candles in the field. The results of these revisions must be sent to the Synod.

Unlike the movement of business papers for the sale and purchase of church candles, which was limited by the synodal system of government, the movement of church income went beyond this system. The draft says that priests and church leaders should send the money received from the sale of church candles to the county treasuries for safekeeping. At the same time, the treasurer was obliged to sign the statements “in receipt of the sums of money received by him for saving” (80).

Further, the draft contains clarifying points on the economic and administrative relationship between sellers, buyers and the state bank for the accumulation of candle income. There are also specific penalties for failure to comply with the law on church candles. It is indicated that the wholesale of candles should be carried out only in special gurt shops. The buyer was obliged to have with him a written certificate in duplicate signed by either the steward, or the governor, or the treasurer of the bishop's house, monastery. A written certificate could also be issued to the buyer by urban or rural churches, signed by all the priests and clergy of a particular church. The certificate must indicate how many and what quality candles the authorized person needs to buy. The seller who was selling the goods had to make a note in this document about the price of the goods with the address of its manufacturer and seller, that is, the factory and the grocery store. The seller kept a copy of the written certificate for himself for accountability, and returned the original to the buyer. The written testimony should not have been drawn up arbitrarily. Therefore, the Commission proposed to develop a single sample for all dioceses and print it in the required quantity in the synodal printing house, and then send it to the addresses, that is, to the dean of the dioceses. The deans distributed these forms to their churches, monasteries and bishops' houses. Used certificates and blank forms were stored locally in the sacristy. Data from the written evidence used were entered into the income and expense books in the column "Whole church candles." In the same book, a record of "stubs" was kept.

Constant control directly in churches over private producers and keeping records of transactions for the sale and purchase of candles are assigned to church elders, who were supposed to prevent overpricing of goods and their smuggling sale (81).

Deans, priests and clergymen were entrusted with the task of overseeing the implementation of the law on the sale of church candles by Russian citizens. In the event of a violation of the law, the perpetrators were punished by the county and provincial police, as well as by the village government. At the suggestion of the Commission for illegally sold candles, the violator was withheld triple the proceeds in favor of the damaged church.

At the end of the collective draft of the report, a reservation was made that if practice shows insufficient effectiveness of the measures envisaged for the development of centralized accumulation of candle income, then the Commission is ready to revise, replace or supplement them (82).

Despite the seemingly very detailed description of the centralized movement of documents and proceeds from the sale and purchase of church candles, as well as the penalties for violating the future law, the emperor made a number of serious comments on the draft report of the Commission. He noticed the absence of the exact price of church candles in the text, which, in his opinion, would inevitably entail financial disruption on the part of sellers and buyers of the goods, as well as chaos and unpredictability of the operation for the sale of church candles. Alexander I also discovered that the source of money for the production of church candles by private individuals was not indicated.

Metropolitan Ambrose of Novgorod and St. Petersburg was the first to respond to the emperor's remarks. In addition to the Commission's draft report, he drew up his opinion on the sale of church candles (83). Metropolitan Ambrose (Podobedov) recalled that on April 17, 1808, an instruction was approved for the church elders. It indicates the cost of one pound of candles. It is equal to three rubles. The Metropolitan proposed to take this cost as a basis for the purchase of factory candles in the herd shops. About the cost of candles produced by private individuals, he wrote that it must be specified in each specific case in the contract concluded by the spiritual government with the manufacturer.

In addition, Metropolitan Ambrose (Podobedov) expressed the opinion that it is necessary to allow church elders to organize the production of candles directly in churches, if possible, to hire workers for this production and pay them for labor, based on the retail price of candles sold in churches (84) ...

Metropolitan Ambrose also indicated a source of money for the production of candles by private individuals and the church. He proposed to allow the elders not to send part of the church's cash from the sale of utensils for consignments and candle incomes to the state treasury, but to allow them to spend on the production of wax and wages to producers. Specifically, only the elders could determine the amount of money needed for these needs, who were obliged to regularly report on their expenses to the Consistory (85).

The Emperor accepted these additions and explanations from the Metropolitan. On the basis of the final version of the draft report, a personal decree of August 28, 1808 was drawn up (86).

But in this decree, on behalf of the emperor, several more additions were made to the already Highly approved program for church candlestick income. The additions mainly concerned the distribution of these incomes to the respective central institutions in which the church had to invest money for preservation and circulation. Among them are the State Loan Bank, the imperial orphanages and the "Orders of Public Assistance".

Thus, due to the turnover of funds from the candle income of the church, the government of Alexander I intended to solve the material problems of not only theological schools, but also hospitals, hospitals, orphans, and so on.

The decree defines, with some changes, the forms of punishment for violations of the law on the sale of church candles. All these violations are united by one concept - “forgery”. He was to be identified by the city and zemstvo police. Church elders, appointed "guardians of church property", were obliged to "prevent and suppress any theft" in churches and report to the police. Based on their denunciations, the police had to catch the offenders, conduct an inquiry, confiscate, and then return the stolen candles back to the church. In addition, for the first case of theft, it was also envisaged to recover from the culprit, that is, the "penalty", as written in the decree. It was twice the amount of the stolen candles and was completely transferred to the affected church. The second case of theft was followed by a punishment that was no longer of an administrative nature. The culprit's case was referred to the court. The details of the procedure for referring the case to court are not specified in the decree. Only it is said that it was necessary to make notes in the accounting book about the return of stolen church candles and receiving a double fine from the offender. Church elders were obliged to do this (87).

At the end of the text of the personal decree of August 28, 1808, the initial period of its validity as a law was determined - from 1809. In the light of this decree, the Synod adopted its resolution dated September 7, 1808. It defines a period of 6 months, allotted by the government to implement the adopted law (88). Then the Synod, on behalf of the emperor, made an order to the ruling Senate to distribute these government documents with the attachment of the Commission's report among the organizations of the secular civil service entrusted to it, which are involved in the implementation of the adopted law (89).

In the history of business relations between the Senate and the Synod, this was an unprecedented case when, contrary to the established tradition, the Synod gave orders to the Senate.

A month later, on November 16, 1808, the Synod held a hearing of the Senate on the results of the implementation of this order. It may seem that the Synod, as the highest state body, received under Alexander I a higher status than the Senate. But it is not so. In the written report of the Senate, the list of institutions to which the personal decree was sent for execution or for information included not only institutions of a secular state structure. In addition to ministries and ministers, provincial governments, governors-general and military governors, in addition to the list of government offices and local administrators, the list contains the Moscow synodal office, lists the dioceses and the names of diocesan bishops, also includes stauropegic laurels and monasteries, a synodal printing office, and finally , the Commission of Theological Schools itself (90).

This list of institutions from the secular and ecclesiastical systems of government testifies to the independence of the Senate in the execution of decrees and orders of the emperor. But in order to avoid infringement of the official rights of the Synod, the Senate made a note in its report that they had sent government documents to various services of the Synodal department not for execution, but for information.

Thus, the report of the Senate on its actions to disseminate the approved law is also taken into account.

Synod, which speaks of their quite traditional relationship, laid down by Peter I.

Nevertheless, from the formal point of view, the hearing of the Senate in the Synod was held for the first time in the entire previous history of their cooperation.

The collective work allowed by the emperor on the law on the centralized accumulation of the church's candle revenues, the measures taken to implement this law by interested government structures at all levels give reason to assert that the government of Alexander I took steps to solve church problems in a collegial way. In contrast to the previous practice of executing the emperor's decrees, this fact was preceded by extensive legislative work, primarily by the church hierarchs of the Orthodox faith themselves and members of the Synod.

In this process, not only senators and synodal bishops were active, but also archbishops and bishops on the ground, including the provincial dioceses farthest from the capital. Having taken the law on the church's candle income into account, the diocesan bishops, on its basis, but taking into account the peculiarities of their region, made up their own written order, which they sent to local churches and monasteries for execution. For civil executive bodies, the same scheme was proposed for the implementation of the law on the centralized accumulation of church candle income (91).

Reserving the right of the decisive vote, Alexander I shifted the main part of the responsibility for the implementation of the law to the diocese and the province. He tried to mobilize the central and local forces of the bureaucratic structures for the strict implementation of the imperial will on this issue.

Nevertheless, the new law on the accumulation of candle income for the church in a number of cases did not stand the test in practice. The first signs of non-compliance with this law were discovered already at the end of 1808.

Despite the fact that the law has been envisaged since 1809, its implementation on the ground under pressure from central government bodies began immediately after the publication of the decree.

In December 1808, on the basis of reports and statements of diocesan bishops, the Commission of theological schools summed up the first result of collecting money from the sale of church candles. The reports indicate the bodies provided by law, where this money was sent. When summing them up, the Commission discovered “large arrears,” that is, the calculated total money supply did not reach the planned 3,000,000 rubles per year. It would seem that such a result should be expected and understandable. The new law on church candle income was officially introduced in 1809. But the Commission of Theological Schools in its annual report on these revenues for the past year put forward other reasons for the "arrears".

One of the reasons concerned the decisions of the Synod, which, responding to the complaints of the churches about the lack or lack of funds for their existence and development, made concessions to the petitioners and sometimes allowed the proceeds from the sale of candles to be left entirely in the church. It should be recalled that this incentive is in favor of material well-being The Synod did not use the clergy arbitrarily, it relied on the well-known decree of the emperor. Thanks to incentive measures, the Tula Christmas Church, Ryazan, Tambov and other dioceses were in a privileged position (92). The commission noted that the Synod did not determine the exact time of their insolvency. Therefore, it was proposed to abolish all privileges of churches and dioceses from the beginning of 1809 and put them in the same economic conditions as non-privileged churches and dioceses.

The Commission saw the second reason for the arrears in the concealment of real income from the state by the church elders themselves. Diocesan reports indicated, it was stated in the report, that in a number of cases, during the application of punitive police measures to churches, unaccounted money savings were discovered. For example, in the Voronezh diocese, as punishment for arrears, two churches were sealed, and in the Tver and Tula provinces, the police forcefully collected from the church elders the income that was hidden from the state authorities (93). On the basis of these examples, the Commission proposed to amend the rights and obligations of church elders in a new, still inoperative law. It is said that the state should not completely trust them. Their service also needed to be placed under strict police supervision (94).

The third reason for the arrears of church incomes to the central state organizations was, in the opinion of the Commission, in the poor performance of the officials of the diocesan boards. They either slowed down or stopped the flow of church money to the relevant government institutions (95). Pointing to officials, the Commission nevertheless did not propose measures to introduce labor and financial discipline in the administrative apparatus of the dioceses. At the same time, in her report for 1808, she gave quite specific and well-reasoned proposals for the complete expropriation of church candle income. One of the proposals concerned the status of church leaders. Tough police surveillance was applied to them. The Commission returned to the problem of officials' diligence later in its quarterly report of April 24, 1809. The report says that for the first three months of this year, candle income went to the bank without address, along with other income of the church, and was spent for other purposes. The Commission proposed to send the candle income to the bank in the name of the Commission itself, bypassing the consistory. Such a measure would make it possible to reduce one instance of the bureaucratic apparatus on the path of the movement of these sums of money, would save the bank employees from unnecessary fuss and would enable the Commission to use this money in full for the development of religious schools (96). Probably, the desire of the Commission to protect the church's candle income from being misused by the emperor and the Synod did not attract due attention. Otherwise, there would have been no need for an additional Commission note dated May 10, 1809. The note says that the approved law on the organization of the exclusive right to sell candles by the church "has already perceived its effect." There is no doubt that a significant percentage increase will be obtained from the accumulation of this income in the bank. But for the convenience of using the accumulated funds by the Commission itself, it was necessary to separate the funds from the sale of candles from the general church income going to the bank, and put them on the account of the Commission of theological schools (97). This proposal, repeated twice, was finally reflected in the November 1809 personal decree. The right of the Commission to receive the candle income of churches to its own account in a borrowed bank was legalized, bypassing the consistory (98).

Regarding all other church revenues from the so-called purse fees, that is, from the funds of "volunteer givers" and from the contributions of trustees (99), the decree says that they must be sent to the consistory. Consistories, in turn, in the form of banknotes and cash must put these funds into their account in the same State Loan Bank for their circulation and percentage increment (100). The November 1809 decree, reproduced in the synodal printing house and sent to all dioceses for bishops, as well as sent to the Board of the State Loan Bank, was not the only one in the same year. On particular issues of the general problem in the centralized accumulation of church revenues, at the end of 1808 and 1809, personal decrees, decrees and orders of the Synod were issued in addition to the approved law of the order of ten. This dynamic of documents clarifying the basic law shows the complex process of practical implementation of the centralized way of accumulating church money, which did not arouse the proper sympathy of church elders and clergymen.

Nevertheless, thanks to the annual state audits of churches and consistories, the forced transfer of money unaccounted for by the elders to the bank, this law achieved its goal. The annual results of the Synod “on contributions to state places of church income from the sale of candles” showed that the government of Alexander I was satisfied with the collection of revenues received by the bank “only ... in the name of the Commission of Spiritual Schools” (101). But according to the basic law on the accumulation of income from the sale of church candles, the Commission could use them for the needs of theological schools only after the expiration of a five-year period. Therefore, she turned to citizens with a proposal “On private donations to schools,” and citizens responded to the Commission's call. The same monasteries and churches are mentioned in the reports of the Commission on Private Donations. But apart from them, personally clergy and secular persons are named. Among the patrons of theological schools of this period were Archpriests Milovsky, Simeon Yanovsky, John Speransky, G. Borisov, landowners Touzanov Orenburgsky, Panin Kaluzhsky, merchants A. Panov Novgorodsky, Posylin Moskovsky and other representatives of the wealthy strata of Russian society (102).

A feature of donations was their strict targeting. Thus, the money of Archpriest Milovsky was directed to the construction of a building for the Alatyr School, the contribution of the landowner Touzanov in 10,000 rubles was addressed to the repair of the building of the Orenburg Seminary. The Novgorod merchant A. Panov allocated 200 rubles for the maintenance of 4 students of the Sofia parish school in the city of Novgorod. The Kaluga landowner Panin took on 3 seminarians for his maintenance, and the Moscow merchant Posylin directed his 6,000 rubles "for the construction of a library and a physics study in the Astrakhan Seminary." Donations from churches and monasteries went to the maintenance of orphans and material support for the burs, established for the needy and needy students of theological schools and seminaries (103).

Thanks to donations from citizens, churches and monasteries, as well as thanks to subsidies from the government of Alexander I, which allocated more than one million rubles for the formation of the St. Petersburg educational district, the bishops of some dioceses already in 1809 could report on their successes in the development of theological schools. In particular, in his reports, Metropolitan Ambrose of Novgorod and St. Petersburg wrote that 15 district and 32 parish schools were opened in his metropolitanate. The St. Petersburg Theological Academy was established. By the end of 1810, several more district schools were opened in this metropolis, the total number of which was 39 (104). In the report of the Mogilev Archbishop Varlaam, it is said about the opening of 4 district and 15 parish schools in his diocese (105). The Pskov Archbishop Irenei reported to the Synod about the establishment of 9 uyezd and 16 parish schools (106).

Thus, in 1809, 52 district and 63 parish schools were opened in the three named regions. In connection with the opening of an increasing number of new theological schools and with an increase in the number of students in them, mainly from poor families and orphans, the problem of their material maintenance demanded special attention. The commission of theological schools on this matter drew up a special report dated March 18, 1810. The report indicated that there were up to 8 thousand poor students in the St. Petersburg Academic District. This accounted for one fourth of the total number of students in theological schools. Roughly the same picture emerged in other academic districts. The “spiritual government” is obliged, according to the Commission, to draw attention to this problem (107).

To solve this problem, the Commission of theological schools proposed a program to expand the system of bursa for poor and needy students at theological schools. Seminary boards and departments of diocesan bishops were to be engaged in their establishment. According to the program proposed by the Commission, the Bursa were not just dormitories at schools, but a kind of organization with its own administration, which was supposed to determine the category of poverty of the students living in them and, accordingly, to pay them cash benefits. The commission proposed to divide the bursaks into 2 categories - full bursaks and semi-bursaks. In the St. Petersburg district, a full-time student was offered an allowance of 50 rubles, and for a half-year student - 25 rubles a year. In the rest of the provinces, indigent students were entitled to an allowance of 40 rubles, and semi-students - 20 rubles a year (108).

The report also says that the voluntary donations already available will not be sufficient for the burs institution's program. Therefore, a new financial source of church income was found. It was proposed that money from the sale of corollas and leaves with a prayer of permission for the departed also be accumulated in a centralized way. But first, it was necessary to reform the very process of selling this paraphernalia of church funerals and burials. Its sale, like church candles, was not the prerogative of the church until a certain time. Corollas and leaves with prayer of permission were sold in various small and bookstores, and the income from their sale did not go to the church. The commission in its report asked the Synod and His Imperial Majesty from September 1, 1810 to give the church an exclusive right to this sale, forbidding the printing of permissive prayers and corollas in any other printing houses, except for the synodal ones. The Commission suggested that the church income from this sale be addressed directly to it, so that it could centrally distribute the funds received for the maintenance of the burs at theological schools. The report of the Commission was imposed with the highest resolution "To be according to this" and the signature of Alexander I (109), which gave it the status of a law. This historical document completed the process of lawmaking on the centralized accumulation of church revenues for the development of theological schools and academic districts (110).

Simultaneously with the adoption of laws on financial support for the development of spiritual education in Russia, work was underway to create a unified system of educational and scientific activities of theological schools. At first, M.M. Speransky. Taking as a basis the existing statutes of civil educational institutions and proposals for the statutes of theological schools of the Special Committee, he wrote statutes for district and parish religious schools, and also drew up a draft charter of theological academies (111). Then, referring to the large state employment, M.M. Speransky asked to be excluded from membership in the Commission of theological schools. The Synod granted his request (112). Further work on statutes and states was continued by Metropolitan Ambrose of Novgorod (Podobedov) and Bishop of Kaluga Theophilact (Rusanov). Together with the formation of the St. Petersburg Academic District, which Metropolitan Ambrose and Bishop Theophylact (113) were also involved in since August 27, 1808, their joint work began on the statutes and staffs of the future St. Petersburg Academy, seminary, district and parish schools of the district (114 ). The drafting of statutes and states was approved by the Commission on November 12, 1808 (115). Their publication began in February 1809. 600 copies of the academic charter in 3 parts, the seminar charter in 2 parts and the charter of the lower theological school were sent to the corresponding theological educational institutions of the St. Petersburg Academic District. Having received general approval, these statutes were distributed to all other academic districts (116).

The statutes of the lower theological schools provided for the admission of students from different strata of society. But a reservation was made that the children of the clergy are accepted primarily and only in these educational institutions (117). In accordance with the parental will, children from civilian families are allowed to study and be supported at the expense of the "father's boiler". Orphans were also recruited to these schools, as well as from poor families (118). Children of the last social status are called bursaks and semi-bursaks. They had to live in hostels and be fully or partially financially supported either by private individuals or by the Spiritual Board (119).

The statutes of theological seminaries provided for the same differentiated approach to the financial situation of students. But the situation was different in the theological academies. Their students, all without exception, received a scholarship, were on the full content of the Spiritual Board (120).

As in the report of the Special Committee, the statutes of the Commission do not indicate the number of lower religious educational institutions in one academic district. It is only emphasized here that no more than two teachers could work in each of these schools.

Thus, the number of students in a spiritual school of the lowest category depended, as before, on the capabilities of a particular teacher in it. The teacher in these schools, as stated in the programs and statutes, was appointed from among the clergy.

The rules for the functioning of theological seminaries were also transferred without change from the program of the Special Committee to their new statutes.

What was the enrollment of students in the lower and secondary spiritual schools is not specified in the statutes. This problem is classified as regional. Its decision was placed under the jurisdiction of the seminary authorities and the diocese, who themselves determined the number of students, taking into account local opportunities and needs for graduates of these schools.

The charter of the theological academy limited the number of students to 100 people. The fate of its graduates directly depended on the decision of the Commission of theological schools, which controlled the strict distribution of them to serve in all academic districts (121).

Theological seminary graduates were divided into three categories. This division depended on the quality of the final exams they passed. Graduates of the first category were awarded the title of "student", and the quality and volume of their knowledge was equated to the knowledge of university graduates. The students were recruited to attend the theological academies. In the absence of a vacancy, students who were not enrolled in the academy were sent to study at the medical-surgical academy, established on July 28, 1808 (122), or to the priestly service in monasteries and churches of the highest category. Students could teach both in parish and county schools, and, if there was a vacancy, in theological seminaries. For the next year, if they so wished, students had a priority right over new students of seminaries to be enrolled in either a spiritual or medical-surgical academy. Seminary graduates of the second and third categories were assigned to priestly and deacon services in churches and monasteries of the corresponding categories. Each of them in subsequent years had the right to raise his category by submitting an application to the Theological Seminary Board for retaking state exams. In accordance with the quality of this retake, the examiner could be assigned any category (123). The charter of theological academies, like seminaries, reflected their participation in the government's program for the development of medical science and medical services for Russians (124). The solution especially to the latter problem of this program was planned at the expense of their graduates (125).

The need to fight cholera and plague that hit villages and towns has prompted the government to worry about opening free pharmacies for poor Russians. The opening of pharmacies was carried out by the Imperial Philanthropic Society. Under his leadership, similar pharmacies were opened everywhere, but serving their visitors was entrusted to the Synod. In turn, the Synod gave an order to the diocesan bishops to take upon themselves the organization of work in the pharmacies that entered its balance sheet. The bishops wrote reports to the Synod indicating the number of workers and students needed for diocesan pharmacies. The reports, together with the order of the Synod, were sent to the Commission of theological schools for execution (126).

In order to fulfill the order of the Synod, the Commission at its general meetings adopted the idea of ​​dismissing the required number of students to the secular rank. They included not only graduates of seminaries, but also of theological academies, who did not write a dissertation and remained in the title of "student". They were sent to serve in the pharmacies indicated by the bishops both as workers and as students. But most often the second happened (127).

By the 20s, the fight against epidemics was over. The medical-surgical academy and medical schools established during this period gained strength and coped with professional problems on their own. But the work of caring for the sick and providing them with the first necessary aid has traditionally remained with the clergy.

The structure of the theological schools of all categories themselves, as described in the corresponding statutes, basically also coincided with the program of the Special Committee. But there are also additional conditions for the distribution, redistribution and dismissal of their graduates. It is said that the last instance in resolving these issues was the emperor, whose role was to approve or not approve the decisions of the Synod. This especially concerned the dismissal of teachers from clergy to secular rank (128).

The statutes say that according to the decrees of His Imperial Majesty and the corresponding resolutions of the Synod, dated as early as May 22, 1801 and May 31, 1804, diocesan bishops did not have the right to dismiss students at their request from theological educational institutions and priestly service for secular service. This rule is enshrined in the statutes. Therefore, dismissal from the clergy in the field, even physically ill people, was very difficult. Regardless of the reason for leaving the clergy, put forward by the plaintiff, his request had to go through several bureaucratic instances. The applicant for dismissal presented the bishop with a medical certificate of his health and his own explanatory note. If the matter concerned health, then the applicant must also have written testimonies from other people about his weakness. All these documents of the plaintiff were received by the bishop, who, on the basis of them, drew up his detailed certificate-petition and, together with the materials of the petitioner, sent it to the Synod. The Synod, having received these documents, instructed the Commission of Theological Schools to verify their reliability. In case of positive results of the check, the Synod adopted a resolution on the dismissal of the applicant to a secular rank and gave it to the emperor for approval. After the imposition of the resolution by His Imperial Majesty on the resolution of the Synod, the plaintiff was considered dismissed from the clergy (129).

But there were cases of a quick and positive solution to this issue in a different way. For example, at the request of Nikanor Zvozsky, a poetry teacher at the Kirillov School, Metropolitan Ambrose on January 11, 1809, compiled a report to the Commission of Theological Schools. It says that Nikanor Zvozsky was a wonderful poet. But due to his passion for creativity, he could not properly relate to the teaching business. Therefore, the teacher H. Zvozsky should be relieved of his duties at the Kirillov School, giving him the opportunity to engage in pure creativity, to serve only his muse (130). On the basis of this report, the Commission of Theological Schools drew up a submission dated February 9, 1809 (131), and on February 22 of the same year adopted a resolution "On the dismissal of Zvozsky's teacher to a secular rank." On the decree stands the resolution of the emperor "Be according to this" (132). The plaintiff's written request was not attached to the report of Metropolitan Ambrose. The fact that the Metropolitan acted on behalf of the teacher Zvozsky is only said in his report. This "minor" violation of the discipline of office work remained unnoticed in the higher authorities, which indicates a possible arbitrariness in the cases of dismissal and transfer on the part of church bishops and members of the Commission of theological schools.

As for the movement of cadres within the spiritual government, it was carried out according to a simpler bureaucratic scheme. The bishops were allowed to solve this problem themselves. The new hierarchical law stated that, if necessary, the bishop could dismiss and then appoint a clergyman "to the clerical servants of the consistories and spiritual boards." At the same time, in the synodal statute on bishops, a remark is made that it is necessary to take into account “so that impoverishment cannot follow in spiritual places” (133). The Synod exercised control over personnel policy in the dioceses through bishops' reports at the end of each year. The reports were accompanied by lists of those dismissed and transferred, indicating

causes and places of old and new services (134).

Thus, Alexander I did not immediately come to the idea of ​​a special reform of the theological schools of the Russian Orthodox Church. In the first years of his reign, the reform of education in general was carried out. University districts were formed, a linear system of their management was created. Attention to spiritual education has been shown in only a few aspects. At Vilna University, the Vilna Theological Seminary was opened as a center for the training of teachers in religious subjects for all educational institutions, as well as as the central governing body of all church life in the western regions of the Russian Empire.

In the first years of the general educational reform of public education, affecting the spiritual life of the country, the material resources of the Catholic Church and its monastic orders, as well as the monetary income of the Greek-Uniate Church, were attracted.

The problems of the Russian Orthodox Church and its theological schools have so far remained without the government's special attention. Nevertheless, in large dioceses and metropolises, the Orthodox clergy took an active part in the general educational reform of the state. In Novgorod, St. Petersburg, Moscow and Pskov, on the initiative and at the expense of church bishops, "small schools" were reopened or restored. They functioned in the homes of bishops and in the homes of priests.

But since this process depended on the material capabilities, intelligence and desire of individual representatives of the Orthodox clergy, the level of education in these schools was very different. Some of them were closed again because the priests did not have the necessary funds for their maintenance. A special state program for reforming theological schools of the Russian Orthodox Church was required.

This program was drawn up by a Special Committee in 1808. It provided for tactical and a number of strategic measures to reform theological schools of the Orthodox faith.

In this program, for the first time in the history of Russian education, the administrative division of "small schools" into secular and spiritual was carried out. Gymnasiums belonged to the secular ones. They were part of the management system of university districts. Schools at monasteries and churches began to be called parish schools in the same way and were "small schools" in academic districts.

Hours for teaching Church Slavonic and Greek languages ​​were added to the curricula of theological educational institutions.

As a result of the construction of a linear management system for theological schools, each type (parish school, district school, seminary, theological academy) had its own charter, which specifically described their rights and responsibilities. The charter strictly regulated the academic discipline and office work of a particular theological school and the types of theological educational institutions in their relationship. A strict subordination was introduced between schools, implying vertical subordination and accountability of lower theological schools to higher ones, as well as educational and methodological assistance from top to bottom along a linear system.

In order to fulfill the program approved by the emperor for reforming theological educational institutions and forming a linear management system, the Commission of theological schools under the Synod was created in 1808. The commission was the highest executive body of power for the management of theological schools. She was engaged in the provision and distribution of material resources between theological educational institutions, the distribution of graduates to the service. The commission carried out educational and methodological assistance and controlled the educational process of theological schools through theological academies, which were the main educational institutions in educational districts. An important source of material support for theological schools was money from the sale of church candles, collected in a loan bank from all Orthodox churches in a targeted way to the account of the Commission of theological schools. The annual proceeds from the sale of church candles were 3,000,000 rubles. This amount had an annual 5 percent increment at the bank. Thanks to such an economic measure, the Russian Orthodox Church by 1814 was able to independently maintain religious schools at its own expense. Until 1814, by order of Alexander I, the reform of theological educational institutions was carried out at the expense of the state and voluntary patrons, the first of which was the emperor himself.

Under Alexander I, state examinations were introduced in the subjects of the curriculum at all levels of spiritual education. They were received by a state commission, which certainly consisted of representatives of the secular and ecclesiastical authorities, as well as teachers of theological schools.

In 1809, the St. Petersburg Theological Academy was opened, and then four educational academic districts were formed.

Theological academies were formed in such a way that they consisted of three parts: an institute, a conference, and a board. This layout allowed the theological academies to be not only a higher educational institution, but also the middle link in the linear management of spiritual education.

The linear system of management of theological schools resembled in character an identical system of secular educational institutions, which was closed by the Ministry of Public Education.

But the management structure of theological schools of the Russian Orthodox Church was built autonomously. Its autonomy was determined by the fact that at its top there was its own supreme legislative and executive body, the embodiment of which was the Synod and its Commission of theological schools. The autonomy of the spiritual education of the Russian Orthodox Church was also determined by its own funds in a borrowed bank.

The assignment of graduates to church service, which was carried out by the Commission of Theological Schools, was carried out on the basis of applications from dioceses and metropolises. It was closely associated with the synodal structure of government. Two points should be noted in this distribution system, which testify to the absence of the class isolation of the clergy, which existed before the reform of theological schools. In parish schools, along with the compulsory admission to study of the children of the clergy, children of the laity, that is, parishioners, were also admitted. The second point was that when the graduates of secondary and higher religious educational institutions were assigned to the service, an alternative appeared for them. Due to state necessity or at the request of a graduate, it was possible to receive distribution not only for church, but also for secular service. This possibility of choosing a service existed even under Catherine II. But she had nothing to do with common system distribution of graduates, since such did not exist. Under Alexander I, this right to choose students of theological schools became part of the program of the linear synodal system of assigning them to the service.

4. Features of spiritual censorship

The reform of spiritual education was closely related to the reform of spiritual censorship under Alexander I. The initial changes in this area took place in 1804. The synod prepared for the emperor extracts from the imperial decrees of January 15, 1783, of July 27, 1787, of September 16, 1796, of February 9 and April 7, 1802. This selection of excerpts was intended to show the importance of the problem of creating a special spiritual censorship, which Catherine II and Paul I were thinking about.

The Synod report says that the urgency of this problem is determined by the main state task of strengthening the barrier to the penetration of revolutionary ideas into the consciousness of Russians. According to the Synod, this task can be effectively solved only by dividing censorship into secular and spiritual

In addition to a selection of extracts from past personal decrees on censorship and commentary on them, the Synod report proposes the staff of officials of the Moscow spiritual censorship, and also defines the spheres of its influence (137).

Confirmed report, compiled at the suggestion of the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod V.A. Khovansky, was returned back to execution on March 13, 1804 (138). A day later, on the basis of this report, an additional high decree was signed to the Synod (139).

On July 9 of the same year, on the basis of a personal decree, a joint resolution of the Senate and Synod "On Spiritual Censorship" was adopted in Moscow. In addition to generalities, it also contained the charter of censorship, which finally legalized its division into secular and spiritual.

The charter also defined the differences between secular and spiritual censorship. The first difference concerned the sphere of influence in the field of literature and publishing. The secular censorship was obliged to supervise textbooks and teaching aids in general subjects of schools, for foreign and fiction literature. The influence of spiritual censorship extended to books and writings related to Holy Scripture, exegesis of the law of God and the history of holiness in Russia.

The charter makes a reservation that books and essays emanating from the Academy of Sciences, Academy of Arts, Russian Academy and other "learned societies", as well as those coming from the Main Board of the schools, are subject to their own censorship. The above organizations should have their own censorship committees, which are responsible for the literature they publish (140).

It is quite obvious that the division into spheres of influence of the censors could only be conditional, since the authors of fiction repeatedly used the plots and moral lessons of the Holy Scriptures, and foreign books were devoted to the exegesis of the law of God. Nevertheless, the charter proposes just such a division in the field of censorship of literature. This uncertainty in the sphere of influence of the two censors contributed to their functional fusion and interchangeability.

In accordance with the new division of censorship, book publishing was also organized. Books and essays that were of spiritual value and related to church literature were proposed in the charter to be published either in the synodal printing house or in printing houses subordinate to the Synod. Secular books were to be published in secular printing houses.

But such a category as "spiritual value", in its original essence, also goes beyond the scope of church literature. Genuine content of this concept allows it to be used in the characterization of secular literature. Therefore, the division of the publishing business into departments could also only be conditional. The second point noted in the charter, distinguishing secular and spiritual censorship, concerned its administrative subordination. The secular censorship, as already noted in the personal decree, was established at universities, consisted of professors and masters who worked in it, and was accountable to the board of the district university.

Committees of spiritual censorship were formed in dioceses, subordinate directly to diocesan bishops, who were responsible for their work before the Synod (141).

Thus, functional responsibilities and the tasks of both censors were similar and absolutely coincided in their statutes. Both censors were obliged to monitor and admit to publication only those books that could contribute to "true enlightenment of the mind and the formation of morals." It is noted that each censor was personally responsible for the fact that in the books "there was nothing ... contrary to the law of God ... the laws of the fatherland ... the supreme power ... the social order and silence, morality and personal honor of any citizen" (142).

On the basis of the charter, each censor was given the right not only to prohibit books with similar flaws, but also to find the author of “harmful” work, initiate a case against him and submit him to court (143).

If the censor was not sure of his opinion and did not want to make a decision on his own, then he had the right to submit his written review of this or that essay for discussion at the general meeting of the censorship committee. At this meeting, his doubts were resolved by a majority vote of all those present (144).

According to the charter, such meetings of censorship committees were planned in advance for the current year. The plans were sent to the highest state bodies for control. The plan of meetings of the secular censorship committee was submitted to the Main Board of Schools under the Ministry of Education and the Spiritual Censorship Committee of the Synod. The plan of meetings of the spiritual censorship committees was sent for control to the Synod and the Senate (145).

The senior official of the censorship committee was considered the secretary who owned the seal and headed the office. The secretary kept a journal where he wrote down all the essays that were submitted to the committee for consideration. “This journal wrote the name of each manuscript or work, the number of pages in that, the day on which it was received ... the name of the publisher or writer, if known, the name of the owner of the printing house ... the name of the censor who read it, and the day of return from censorship with explanations ”(146).

The time of the check for censoring the submitted work was not precisely defined by the charter. It is only said that the censor is obliged to check and return the manuscript or essay back to the office personally to the secretary as soon as possible (147).

The charter determined the monthly report of the censorship committee on its work. The report consisted of extracts from the secretary's journal and his explanations to them. In the system of university districts, this report was submitted for discussion to the university council, and then to the relevant department of the Ministry of Public Education. It was also referred to the trustees of educational institutions for general information.

In the synodal system, the report of the censorship committee also consisted of extracts from the journal of the secretary of the chancellery with his annotation and the opinion of the diocesan bishop attached to them. This report was sent to the trustees of the schools and to the Synod (148). At first glance, it seems that the synodal scheme of censorship reporting coincides with the secular one. But in practice, the structure of the administration of spiritual censorship in the early years of the 19th century differed significantly from the secular one in that it was not strictly linear. It contained the elements of the ray structural system, that is, the regional one. During this period, there were three main spiritual censorship committees in Russia. One of them was established in St. Petersburg at the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, the other - in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, the third - in Moscow in the Stavropegic Donskoy Monastery (149).

In addition to censoring manuscripts and essays, the main censorship committees were engaged in collecting information from censors from localities in the respective regions. This information was processed and then sent to the trustees and to the Synod. Local censors were appointed by the Synod, approved by the emperor from among the hieromonks and priests in each monastery and church, including the court church of His Imperial Majesty (150).

In dioceses, they, in fact, represented the diocesan censorship committee under the bishop, which had a censorship office under the leadership of a secretary. The duties of the local censors included checking not only the works proposed for publication, but also the printed materials received by the diocese from large synodal printing houses. If the monastic and church censors in the regions discovered in it some kind of sedition, in their opinion, then they informed the diocesan bishop about it in writing. The latter added his opinion to the written presentation of the censors and sent information to the Synod with seditious books through the Consistory.

If the censors did not find anything "contrary to the law of God and the state" in the printed matter, then the report was drawn up by the secretary of the censorship committee and, together with the opinion of the diocesan bishop, sent it to the corresponding main censorship committee, in which a summary report was made. The summary report was sent to the trustees of the schools and to the Synod for control. In turn, the local printed matter, together with the opinion of the bishop and the annotation of the secretary of the censorship office, was sent to the main censorship committee, where the final decision on its distribution among the readers was formulated. This activity was also recorded in the report of the leading censorship committees to the Synod, which adopted a corresponding resolution on it (151).

Thus, the synodal censorship structure of government formed in the initial period of the reign of Alexander I was based on mutual control of local and main censorship committees. The Synod acted as the arbiter between them as the supreme controlling body of this structure.

But this administrative form of mutual control of censors with the participation of representatives of all monasteries and churches in Russia did not last long.

In 1808, in connection with the beginning of transformations in the management of religious schools and the formation of academic educational districts, the censorship department underwent some changes. The local censorship was abolished and the main censorship committees were left in St. Petersburg, Kiev and Moscow. They were not directly subordinate to the Synod. They were reassigned to the second branches of theological academies. This branch was called an academic conference.

The academic conference consisted of the diocesan bishops of the district, the rector of the academy, all its professors and honorary members of the academic district from among the clergy and secular persons (152). The conference, at a general meeting, elected a censorship committee of three for a period of three years. Only representatives of the same theological academy could be elected to this committee (153).

Even in the report of the Special Committee "On the improvement of theological schools" in the section "On the structure of theological academies" special conditions for the publication of books were stipulated. The report noted that only classic books can be printed and distributed. The definition of "classical" was assigned to the book by the Commission of theological schools as the highest censorship authority. Therefore, the censorship committee at the academic conference could put forward decisions of a recommendatory character. Scripture and time-tested theological books were considered indisputable classical literature. Censorship of these books was excluded.

But any new essay, written by a master or professor, underwent a personal censorship check. First, it went to the censorship committee. Then, in case of disapproval of the censor, he was discussed at an academic conference. If this discussion was positive, the academic conference accepted a petition to the Commission of Theological Schools to award the author a work with either a Master's degree or a Doctor of Theology degree. Together with the petition of the conference, the scientific work itself was sent to the Commission. The commission of theological schools discussed the new composition at its public conference. In case of a positive result of this discussion, the applicant for a scientific title was issued a patent and a cross on a gold chain to be worn around the neck (154). The work itself was proclaimed classic and recommended for publication and study in theological schools.

If a public conference of the Commission of Theological Schools did not approve of a new work, then it was not allowed for publication (155). Naturally, all the compositions could not be absolutely flawless in terms of compliance with the legalized canon of publications. Therefore, despite the collegiality of decisions, this form of censorship did not at all contribute to freedom of the press.

Regardless of the proclaimed collective responsibility, the censors of academic conferences, as in the old days, were personally responsible for their recommendations given to certain essays. But their responsibility, in comparison with the past, has been softened. The new charter of the censorship committee abolished administrative and judicial measures against unlucky authors and against the censors themselves for their mistakes (156).

Nevertheless, the practice of the censorship department in a number of cases did not comply with the provisions of the new charter. She made some adjustments to his theoretical developments.

The collective censoring of new printed materials was violated by the participation of the same persons in this process. For example, Metropolitan Ambrose of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, being the first member of the Synod and a member of the Commission of theological schools, successfully exercised the right of an archpastor, in whose metropolis a theological academy was opened. This right allowed him to regularly participate in the work of the academic conference and influence its decision. In an effort to preserve the purity of Orthodoxy, Metropolitan Ambrose has repeatedly put forward his proposals for the work under discussion, and not without success. Thanks to his negative review, such works as "Reflections on the Most Important Truths" of Jerusalem, the book "Letters from a Mother to Her Son about the Truths of the Christian Religion" »And other works (157).

The works that were censored were not only the works offered for publication. The lecture notes of the teachers were also censored, as well as the sermons of the priests, which were initially recommended to be presented in writing in the event of a censorship check.

Metropolitan Ambrose also took an active part in this service of the censorship department. But often the interests pursued by him clashed with the interests of other equally influential members of the Synod, the Commission of Theological Schools and other high censorship authorities.

As you know, the St. Petersburg Theological Academy was founded in 1809. For its successful work, a careful selection of professors was carried out. Three members were involved in the selection of professors for the new Theological Academy

Commissions of theological schools. These were Metropolitan Ambrose and Chief Prosecutor of the Synod A.N. Golitsyn, as well as the well-known legislator M.M. Speransky.

On December 1, 1808, when the idea of ​​opening the St. Petersburg Theological Academy was just hatching in the highest circles of state power, M.M. Speransky made a written proposal to the Synod on a number of professorial candidates for the future theological academy. He recommended to invite from Pedagogical Institute Professor Lodius for the class of philosophical sciences, the Greek Skinazu for teaching the Greek language, Doctor of Law Fessler for teaching the Hebrew language (158).

M.M.'s proposal Speransky entered the Commission of theological schools and was examined there for five months. On April 24, 1809, it was adopted, but with some reservation. The high assembly approved Skinaz's candidacy for the position of professor of the Greek language, on condition that he would soon submit the abstracts of his lectures to the Commission (159).

On May 14, 1809, Skinaza sent his notes to the Synod (160). Following his letter, the Commission received a note from Metropolitan Ambrose. In the note, Vladyka asked to dismiss the professor of the Greek language Skinaza “from this position” and to consider for this position the candidacy of the translator of the College of Foreign Affairs of the Apostle Clendo (161). As a result, Skinaza's lecture notes were not censored by the Commission. At a public conference of the Commission, held on December 20 and 23, 1809, a Decision was adopted to dismiss Skinaza from his post and to appoint Clendo, a translator of the Greek language, as a professor of the Greek language. Curiously, the definition says nothing about Clendo's lecture notes (162). Probably, their censor was Metropolitan Ambrose himself, which became a reason for the Commission not to demand them for its public discussion.

But after a while, Metropolitan Ambrose became disillusioned with his candidacy. In another note addressed to the Commission, he expressed his displeasure at the behavior of Clendo, who dared to keep the proofs of the Greek encyclopedia in his home, which was a violation of the rule that only printed books were allowed in home libraries (163).

By a Commission decree of April 23rd, 1810, Klendau was dismissed for showing liberty. His place in the theological academy was taken by Doctor of Philosophy Gref, on the recommendation of Prince A.N. Golitsyn (164).

Another protege of M.M. Speransky, Doctor of Law Fessler, with his notes in Latin and Russian, also suffered a fiasco. A devastating review of them was written by Feofilakt (Rusanov), a member of the Synod and head of the literature class of the theological academy, once a friend of M.M. Speransky. The latter tried to defend Fessler's candidacy, but Feofilakt (Rusanov) won this fight. In 1810 Dr. Fessler was dismissed from the academy. Taking into account the professional knowledge of Fessler, M.M. Speransky did not let the doctor of law go back to Germany and, with the consent of the emperor, invited him to work on laws in the State Commission (165).

The influence of Metropolitan Ambrose and Theophilact (Rusanov) in the censorship department was not always sufficient to approve their recommendations.

Hearing about the talented teacher of philosophy at the Bethany Seminary, Hieromonk Eugene, Metropolitan Ambrose began to take action to summon him to serve in St. Petersburg. Hieromonk Eugene's lecture notes on philosophy in Latin have successfully passed the censorship of the Commission of Theological Schools. On December 22, 1808, he was officially summoned to St. Petersburg for the post of professor of philosophical sciences at the theological seminary (166).

Some time later, the Commission received a note from Metropolitan Ambrose with a proposal to enroll Hieromonk Eugene as a philosophy teacher at the theological academy (167). The commission of theological schools reacted positively to this note and on February 23 decided to appoint Hieromonk Yevgeny as a teacher of philosophical sciences with the rank of bachelor and inspector of the institute of the Academy. But at the same time, the Commission made a request for the abstracts of Hieromonk Eugene on the subject (168). This time, the teacher's notes sent to the Synod did not receive a positive response either in the censorship committee or in the Commission of theological schools. On January 10, 1810, Hieromonk Yevgeny was relieved of both the post of inspector of the institute and from teaching in the class of philosophical sciences of the Academy (169).

In these cases, the loser was supposed to return to his previous service, that is, Hieromonk Eugene was supposed to return to the provincial Bethany seminary. But he was helped by the support of Metropolitan Ambrose. The influential bishop was able to convince the Synod of the merits of a hieromonk. On February 14, 1810, the Synod adopted the corresponding ruling. It said that on the basis of a personal decree, Hieromonk Eugene was sent to the Moscow Trinity Seminary as its rector (170).

So, on the one hand, Metropolitan Ambrose managed to help his protégé not to return to the Bethany seminary, and on the other hand, he could not leave a sympathetic priest to serve within his metropolitanate. This example testifies to the partial collegiality of the decisions of the top censorship leadership on the selection of personnel for the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. The well-known personality of the metropolitan was unable to exert absolute influence on the general meeting of the Commission of theological schools.

Nevertheless, the decisions of the highest censorship body most often depended on the results of the struggle between its individual members. This is eloquently evidenced by the following example of the participation of Metropolitan Ambrose in the activities of the spiritual censorship department. He is associated with Filaret (Drozdov), later a famous Russian theologian, poet and metropolitan of Moscow (171).

To understand how Filaret came to the attention of Metropolitan Ambrose, one should turn to the very sources of his biography. Filaret (Drozdov) was born into the family of the cathedral deacon of the city of Kolomna, Moscow province on December 26, 1782. At birth he was named Vasily. In the world he was called Vasily Mikhailovich Drozdov. Vasily Drozdov had his first success in spiritual education at the final exams of the Kolomna Seminary in 1806. They, as expected, were attended by the Moscow Metropolitan Platon, who especially noted the brilliant knowledge of the seminarian Drozdov and his ability to study. With the assistance of Metropolitan Platon, Vasily Drozdov entered the academic course of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. Here he first showed his ability not only for preaching, but also for versification, especially in ancient languages. He dedicated one of his quatrains in Greek to Metropolitan Plato. The saint learned about this, read the quatrain and was delighted. After graduating from the academic course, Vasily Drozdov received the title of "student" and was sent as a teacher of ancient languages ​​and poetry to the Kolomna Seminary. Since then, Metropolitan Platon began to closely monitor the development of Vasily Drozdov. In his correspondence with the vicar Augustine, Metropolitan Platon said: “And I have an excellent preacher - the teacher Drozdov. I will tell you his sermon and you will be surprised ”(172).

Despite the requests of the walkers from the inhabitants of Kolomna to leave Basil with them as a priest, the saint sent the teacher Drozdov to study at the Moscow Theological Academy. It is evident that Metropolitan Platon brought up his successor in the clergy in Vasily Drozdov. In 1808, the young Vitya was tonsured a monk and took the name Filaret. But on this, the influence of Metropolitan Platon on the "student" Vasily ended due to his own oversight. As a member of the Synod, at one of the meetings at a meeting with Metropolitan Ambrose, he boasted of his pupil Filaret, of his multifaceted abilities.

After graduating from the Moscow Theological Academy in 1809, Filaret (Drozdov) was summoned by a personal decree and resolution of the Synod to serve in St. Petersburg. Metropolitan Ambrose wanted to see him as a language teacher at the newly opened St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Metropolitan Platon did not have such great influence in the Synod as Metropolitan Ambrose, and the decree was adopted without taking into account his interests and plans for Philaret.

Nevertheless, Metropolitan Ambrose did not immediately succeed in achieving his goal regarding Philaret. He was prevented from doing this by Theophilakt (Rusanov), who proposed his candidacy for the literature class of the theological academy. Thanks to the support of the Empress Dowager, Theophylact (Rusanov's) influence on censorship turned out to be stronger than that of Metropolitan Ambrose. The lecture notes of Filaret (Drozdov) did not receive a positive response from the Commission of Theological Schools. At the same time, the lecture notes of the student of Theophilact (Rusanov), the prefect of the Kaluga Seminary, Hieromonk Leonid Zaretsky, were approved by the censorship. The commission of theological schools appointed him a bachelor of a verbal class at the theological academy (173).

But Metropolitan Ambrose did not want to yield to circumstances and return Filaret to Moscow. He secured his appointment at the Synod as an inspector of the Petersburg Theological Seminary. This fact is reflected in the March 1809 resolution of the Synod. Moreover, Metropolitan Ambrose ordained Philaret to the rank of hieromonk, brought him closer to himself, presented to the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod A.N. Golitsyn. Thanks to such a powerful patronage of the Petersburg sovereign and the chief prosecutor, who, in turn, was patronized by Alexander I himself, Filaret managed to show his talents in the capital to the fullest.

Metropolitan Ambrose entrusted him with prestigious sermons mainly on major holidays. On holidays, a huge number of people flocked to the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. Listening to Filaret's sermons in the Lavra, most Petersburgers felt the strength of his mind and high oratorical and poetic talent. The fame of the young Vitya in St. Petersburg began to grow rapidly. His patrons constantly reported to the emperor about Filaret's successes. Alexander I began to follow the young preacher more closely, contributing to the growth of his authority with his support. The emperor's powerful participation in the fate of Filaret allowed the latter to climb just as successfully up the “ladder” of both teaching and science. In 1810 he wrote Notes on the Book of Genesis. This essay has successfully passed the academic censorship. It was recognized as classic by the Commission of theological schools. On February 8 of the same year, Filaret received the title of bachelor of theological sciences and was transferred to the theological academy as a teacher of dogmatic theology and church history. On July 21, 1810, he was entrusted with teaching another academic course on the history and antiquities of the Church.

Archbishop Theophylact made a new attempt to ruin the career of the preacher Philaret. In 1811, at the common meal of Metropolitan Ambrose, he started a dispute about Philaret's preaching in honor of the Lavra feast of the Holy Trinity about the gifts of the Holy Spirit and accused the preacher of pantheism and apostasy from Orthodoxy. In response, Filaret insisted on convening a special censorship commission to check the written version of his sermon. Here, at the meal, Metropolitan Ambrose formed such a commission. It included: the Metropolitan himself, Bishop Methodius of Tver, then known as a strict Orthodox of Orthodoxy, Prince A.N. Golitsyn and M.M. Speransky. Each of them read Filaret's written sermon and found nothing reprehensible and contrary to Orthodoxy (174). The action of Feofilakt (Rusanov) to discredit Filaret the preacher failed.

This example of the internal relationship of church bishops testifies to the fact that oral church preaching, in principle, was not included in the list of works for compulsory censorship. But every preacher had a written version of it in case a similar incident was resolved or simply in case the text of the sermon was checked by the diocesan bishop.

The incident between Filaret (Drozdov) and Feofilakt (Rusanov) this time benefited the former. On July 8, 1811, he was elevated to the rank of archimandrite and wrote the book "The Outline of Church-Biblical History." The book successfully passed the censorship, and its author became a professor of theological sciences. On August 13, 1814, the Commission of Theological Schools awarded the book the status of a classic, and Filaret (Drozdov) - the scientific title of Doctor of Orthodox Theology. Two years earlier, he was appointed rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy (175).

The duel of representatives of the highest synodal censorship in the person of Metropolitan Ambrose and Archbishop Theophilact (Rusanov), popular in St. Petersburg circles, this time ended in favor of the Metropolitan. The latter's desire to see the talented Filaret (Drozdov) as a teacher at the young St. Petersburg Theological Academy was more than fulfilled. He became not only a teacher, but also its rector.

In addition to internal conflicts among members of the highest censorship body, the linear structure of the censorship administration under Alexander I was also influenced by secular high-ranking officials who were not officially part of its bureaucratic system. This is evidenced by the following historical fact connected with the fate of the secretary of the St. Petersburg Spiritual Censorship Committee, Archbishop Innokentiy. He showed loyalty to the book “Conversation on the coffin of an infant about the immortality of the soul” by a certain Stanievich and let it go to press. Contrary to the established rules, the book was published, bypassing the highest authorities of spiritual censorship. One of its first readers was Prince A.N. Golitsyn. He saw in the book offensive words addressed to the government and "fell into anger." Filaret (Drozdov) tried to soften the situation. He asked the prince to give up his intention to present to the emperor his idea of ​​Stanevich's book. At the same time, Filaret (Drozdov), the rector of the St. Golitsyn.

Why did Archbishop Innokenty have to apologize to Prince A.N. Golitsyn and what was the sedition of Stanevich's book, it was not possible to establish. Stanevich's book has probably not survived to this day. Nevertheless, in a conversation with Filaret (Drozdov), Archbishop Innokenty said that he was ready to endure any persecution for the truth. Then Prince A.N. Golitsyn ignored the request of Filaret (Drozdov) and reported to the emperor his opinion about Stanevich's book "Conversation on the coffin of an infant about the immortality of the soul" and about the position of Archbishop Innokenty.

The punishment was not long in coming. It was of an administrative nature. First, Innokenty was transferred to the bishopric and sent to Orenburg. Later, for health reasons, he was sent to Penza, where he died of consumption at the age of 35 (176).

So, by 1810, Alexander I, in the policy of supervising the publication of educational, scientific literature and preaching in Russia, was returning to what he tried to get away from in the first years of his reign. He, like Catherine II at the end of his reign and Paul I, began to tighten censorship. In 1810, secular censorship was transferred to the newly established Ministry of Justice. Spiritual censorship was established in 1808 as part of the synodal system of spiritual education. The collegiality of its supreme body in many cases was of a formal nature and manifested itself mainly in the form of a confrontation between influential church bishops and high-ranking officials. Their influence was determined by the degree of patronage of the members royal family, which allows us to consider the absolute power of the monarch as the highest and main instance of censorship in Russia.

I would like to start a report on the reform of spiritual education with the words of St. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, who, of course, on a different occasion, but very weighty once said: turn to destruction ”. In many examples of our recent history, we have seen how meaningless, hasty and excessive fluctuations of the foundations lead not to good fruits, but to destruction and destruction. And nevertheless, the purpose of my today's report will be to talk about the fact that the inevitability of the reform of spiritual education (even if the very word "reform" causes us a justified allergy) is absolutely inevitable and irrevocable under any circumstances.

Before proceeding directly to the story of the reform, I would like to briefly recall with what, in fact, our theological school approached that historical stage in the life of our Church, when the question of the reform of spiritual education arose on the agenda. We all remember that by the beginning of the changes that began to take place in our society in the year of the millennium of the baptism of Russia, our Church approached, having three Theological Seminaries: in Moscow, in St. Petersburg, then still Leningrad, and in Odessa - and two Theological Academies in our two capitals. In 1989, three new seminaries were opened: Kiev, Minsk in the Zhirovitsky monastery and Tobolsk. At the same time, theological schools of a new type began to appear - theological schools, two- or three-year, intended for the training of clergy. But in practice, as we well know, the graduates of these schools, as a rule, were ordained to the priesthood, and did not at all become psalmists, altar workers or other workers in the field of the church. In the same 1989, the first such schools were opened in Smolensk, in Stavropol (later they were transformed into seminaries), in Novosibirsk, and also in Chisinau - a school that later became the Novonyamets Seminary. The Chernigov School was opened. An icon-painting school was established at the MDA. At the Council of Bishops in 1989, a decision was adopted to reorganize the structure and content of the educational process in such a way as to provide compulsory higher theological education for pastors on the basis of theological schools in the near future. In the time immediately after the Council, the task of transforming theological seminaries into higher theological schools failed. We will talk about the reasons for this later. But it is obvious that the Church faced both personnel and financial difficulties and the fact that most of the entrants to theological schools at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s did not have sufficient training to study at the Higher Theological Schools. Only one Minsk Seminary in the Zhirovitsy Monastery was transformed into a Higher School with a five-year study period and, by the way, the bachelor's degree, which is issued to graduates of this seminary, is recognized by the Republic of Belarus.

Since 1988, there has been a significant increase in the number of theological schools and a manifold increase in the number of students. Thus, today the network of theological educational institutions of the Russian Orthodox Church includes five academies, more than twenty seminaries, four hundred religious schools; at several theological schools regency and icon-painting departments, diocesan schools for maidens were opened. In the 90s, several higher theological schools of a new type were created in Moscow, St. Petersburg, and some other cities, open by the nature of education, of which the most noticeable now are the Moscow Orthodox Theological Institute named after St.Patriarch Tikhon and the Orthodox University named after St. John the Theologian. at the Department of Religious Education and Catechesis.

And nevertheless, we must say that the increase in the number of theological schools, no matter how gratifying it may be in itself, cannot solve all the problems of the spiritual education of our Church. For several reasons: first, the society in which we live has changed, the character of students who enter theological institutions has changed, the disciplinary nature of theological schools has changed. By itself, the reproduction of old schemes, old standards could no longer bring results and could not be sufficient. Let's start, perhaps, with the simplest, with what everyone is familiar with, with the nature of the disciplinary process.

Vladyka Eugene said that in the 60s, 70s, 50s, entering a theological school was indeed an act of courage, confession, church responsibility on the part of that young man who, despite the entire social situation, decided to take this step. This threatened many with the most difficult consequences in life. Now this situation is absent. We know that students who have not entered one seminary or even, alas, excluded from the seminary find themselves in another seminary or theological school without much difficulty, that there are people of this kind who have already changed from three to five theological schools, continuing their studies everywhere and nowhere. not being able to complete it either by their moral qualities or by their intellectual level. It is clear that spiritual education requires special talents, but not a moral deed.

The age structure of students has changed. If in previous decades these were often quite mature people who not only served in the armed forces, but also acquired a certain kind of life experience. Often there were students whose age was approaching the third decade of life or stepped over this boundary. Now the main contingent of students is young people. Finally, the nature of discipline could not but change.

Of course, entering seminary was a conscious act of faith. But, on the other hand, it was much easier to maintain discipline in the seminary, because a seminary student who was fired for any misdemeanor in the 70s or in the first half of the 80s found himself in a position of extreme social insecurity: well, who was that in the Soviet a seminarian expelled from society, if he (there were such rare exceptions) did not become a renegade, but remained a believing church citizen? Where could he go beyond the janitors or church watchmen, and even then it was not so easy to get a job. And in addition to church consciousness, the situation - let's call a spade a spade - of fear of being outside the walls of the seminary greatly helped the then institute of educators and inspectors to maintain order in the theological school. Nowadays, these constraining social moments do not exist. We have already given an example that a person can enter another spiritual school. But even if, let's say, he changes the plans of his life, he can go to work anywhere, he can study at a secular university, engage in trade, he will not find himself in a situation of social bottom, it will depend on him. Consequently, the spiritual atmosphere in schools, on which the discipline is built, its foundations must certainly become different. This also should be taken care of by the reform of spiritual education, which we have spoken about today.

The age of the students certainly leaves its mark. Nowadays they say and often reproach today's theological schools for the fact that their graduates are not so willing to be ordained to the priesthood. How can he be ordained if he finishes at the age of 22-23? He did not solve his life problems. A prudent young man, even if he is married or already gravitates towards a monastic life, realizes that at the age of 22-24 he is not yet a priest, he is not ready for this service. Accordingly, one of the tasks of spiritual education will be for this period between the end of the theological school and the age of spiritual and church maturity to give a person such an education, such a qualification that he can usefully for the Church, it does not matter whether directly in church structures or in state structures, but connected with his Orthodox worldview, to work until the day when he feels ready to receive a blessing to accept the clergy. So the question is not only and not so much in some unpreparedness of people due to irresponsibility, but in their objective status.

Let us now turn to the changes that have taken place in society. Whether we like it or not, modern society is becoming, and has already become, to a large extent, more multi-confessional and pluralistic. Whether we like it or not, coexistence not only with a single dominant ideology, which led us to some reservations for church life, but with a multitude of opinions, trends, religious views, ideological systems, has become a reality of today both in Russia and the states to which the canonical the territory of our Church. Accordingly, the task of theological schools to a large extent is to train such a priest, such a church worker who is ready for dialogue in this multi-confessional and pluralistic society, who will not be embarrassed by the expression of another opinion that does not agree with his point of view (it does not matter whether inside the church environment or in the external environment), which will not appeal only to the powers that be, say that it would be forbidden to say certain sects, certain religious trends, which are doctrinal alien to us; we must defeat them not so much by appealing to civil law as by witnessing the truth of Orthodoxy. The priest, naturally, is now often called upon to communicate with people not only from the church pulpit, but also from the lecturer's chair, on radio, television; others are already gaining experience of communication on the Internet, in other diverse forms, for which the spiritual school should prepare. Well, how, according to the old seminar programs, could a priest be prepared to say, for example, a five-minute speech at the opening of a municipal kindergarten, with the head or chairman of the education department speaking before him, and after that the chairman of law enforcement will speak? And now it is necessary to say in 3-5 minutes something that would be different from what they say, that would be remembered as an expression of the point of view of a church person and something would lie on the heart. It is clear that neither homiletics, nor a practical guide for pastors in the old sense of the word, no other subjects prepared us for such tasks.

One more important point, which, undoubtedly, should be taken into account when preparing the reform of spiritual education. We notice the tendencies in the development of religiosity that are taking place in our society. Let me draw your attention to two of them. The first is the obvious discrepancy, “scissors”, between the number of people who call themselves sympathizers of the Russian Orthodox Church as the most respected institution in society; all sociological polls say that our citizens call the Church the most respected institution they trust: 70–80–85% speak positively of the Church. Even such respected institutions as the presidential power and the government are far ahead; I'm not even talking about the media and other socially significant institutions. A fairly large number of people call themselves believers. According to various opinion polls, 65–70–75% collectively call themselves Christians. Others do not undertake to characterize their confessional affiliation more precisely, but nevertheless this is a fairly large percentage. But on the other hand, if we honestly face the truth and say: what percentage of these people are Orthodox in the church sense of the word, that is, how many at least with some regularity visit churches, participate in the sacraments of the church, determine their own life as an Orthodox worldview, then we will see that the divergence is colossal. In the best case, 3-5%, overestimated optimistic figures - 7% of those who regularly (this is in the Slavic, non-Muslim parts of our Fatherland) take part in the Sacraments of the Church. And this divergence is a huge, vital and irrevocable field for the activity of the Church.

If you do not turn to those who consider themselves close to the church tradition, but are not really in the Church, the word of a spiritual qualified, educated pastor, then this sympathy will very quickly be replaced by the same indifference that exists in relation to religion in most countries of Western European civilization. when traditional confessions exist in an established niche, but the principled attitude of the majority of the population towards religion is as follows: "Don't touch me, I have my own views, leave me with your concerns about my soul and my religiosity." This is something that cannot be postponed for 10-15 years, when some hypothetical great figures of church enlightenment grow up - we must do this now. So, this is one tendency that makes the process of spiritual education reform irrevocable.

Another tendency in the development of religiosity in our society, which also cannot be ignored, is the situation that in recent years, perhaps in the last 10-15 years, the center of support in the population of our Church has changed. Let me explain what I mean. Over the past decades, maybe even centuries, the main support, the main foundation of religiosity was the rural population, which was both more traditional and stronger in faith, and less susceptible to the temptations of secularization that came to us from the West. Traditionally, the Russian peasant was the mainstay of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church in the empire until 1917. And now, after the Russian village has largely ceased to exist in the old sense of the word and has already been mourned by village writers, the last word has already been largely said - now we often find ourselves much closer to the situation of the first centuries of Christianity , when the centers of church life were large cities: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch. The more inhabitants there were in the city, the higher was the educational qualification of those who were there, the more Christians there were. And these cities were surrounded by the seas of the then paganism. To a large extent, we see this as a trend today: the larger the city, the more universities there, the more young people there, the more intensive the church life there. And on the contrary, often in regional, small towns, in villages, it barely flickers, simply because often there is no one to go to church because of general or very significant alcoholism rural population... And those strong parishes that exist in the villages are largely made up of people from the cities, gathered around this or that priest, who creates a base or this or that institution in the village. When I was in the diocese of Vladyka Alexander the other day, I had to see such a rural orphanage, created, by the way, by a graduate of our theological school and a graduate of Moscow University, priest Andrei Voronin - an excellent social institution, and people around are gathered, but in fact they work to a large extent. then it is not the inhabitants of this village that make up the backbone there, but those who have arrived; it is they who save the children of our compatriots who have drunk themselves intoxicated from this village and the surrounding areas, who cannot be called parents in the proper sense of the word. So, to a large extent, the mission of the Church - and these words of His Holiness the Patriarch were already quoted by Vladyka Alexander in today's greeting - depends on how much contact with the intelligentsia is established, how much we contribute to the churching of this particular part of our society.

Proceeding from this and from many other factors (all of them cannot be enumerated, I have only outlined some of them to start our dialogue), it was decided at the 1994 Council of Bishops to move to a new system of spiritual education, within which seminaries should become higher schools. and their goal remains the training of clergy. Academies, on the other hand, must be transformed into schools offering theological specialization. On the basis of the conciliar definition, a working group was formed to develop a detailed concept of a new system of theological education. Regular consultations were held with the MDA professorial corporation and several meetings with the SPbDA professorial corporation, and as a result, in December 1996, proposals were developed to reform the system of spiritual education. This project was considered at a meeting of the Holy Synod, held on December 27, 1996, and approved with some clarifications. I will mention the main points of this Synodal decision.

Theological seminaries and academies constitute a single system of higher theological education of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Theological Seminary is an educational institution of the Moscow Patriarchate that trains clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church. It is a closed educational institution. The term of study at the seminary is 4–5 years. Here you need to understand that “4–5 years” is stipulated not with the fact that this is a permanent situation. Seminaries are called upon to develop into five-year universities. Four years - simply because of the fact that it is impossible now to demand from all seminaries, by a certain date, to switch to a five-year system. But of course, only five-year seminaries have a future in the system of educational institutions of our Church. Upon graduation from the seminary, in case of a successful thesis, the graduate is awarded the title of bachelor. The Theological Academy is a higher educational institution of the Moscow Patriarchate, which trains clergymen, teachers for theological schools, theologians, and researchers for the institutions of the Moscow Patriarchate. Education at the Academy has a two-stage structure. The first stage is three years. At the end of the third course in case successful defense for a candidate's dissertation, a student of the Theological Academy is awarded the degree of candidate of theology. A three-year study at the Theological Academy and the availability of a Ph.D. degree in Theology gives the right to teach at Theological Seminaries. Second stage - fourth and fifth year, two years - postgraduate study. Upon completion of the fifth year of the Theological Academy, in case of successful defense of the master's thesis, the graduate is awarded the academic degree of Master of Theology. A person who graduated from the Theological Academy with a Master's degree in Theology has the right to teach at Theological Academies.

This Synodal Resolution also stipulates the status of the Orthodox St. Tikhon Institute as an open-type higher educational institution of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Theological School as a special educational institution of the Moscow Patriarchate that trains clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church. In subsequent years, curricula were developed for the Theological Seminaries, designed for five years of study, as well as for four departments of the Theological Academy: theological, biblical, pastoral and church history, and for the church history department there is a specialization in Russian or general church history.

If we talk about the changes that have come to the curriculum of theological seminaries, it is important to focus first of all on why it is necessary to establish the seminary as a higher educational institution. The fact is that an appeal to our contemporary, as we have already said, especially at the initial stages, implies that a priest has an adequate cultural educational level, and in terms of his spiritual level he should exceed those to whom he is addressing. And the task of theological seminaries is to give him such a level of education that would make him not a narrow specialist in a specific field of theological knowledge, but a person who is broadly educated enough that he could use higher education in order to attract people to the main thing - the Gospel evangelism, which , in fact, must be carried by every cleric, every church preacher. An integral feature of higher education is the replacement of the system of lessons, largely still adopted in our seminaries, with a system of lectures and seminars. The point here is not only the formal release of a fairly large number of hours due to the fact that the interview time is reduced, but also the very change in the nature of the relationship between the professor and the student. If the system "lesson-survey" implies a relationship "from top to bottom", of course, - a relationship that presupposes from a student a clearly learned concrete volume of material is not very important as deeply learned, but if it is well memorized and reproduced quite close to the text, then negative the result cannot be followed by the polling system. It justifies itself well in some classes of secondary school and contributes to the assimilation of many unloved and non-special disciplines by schoolchildren, but fundamentally differs from the lecture-seminar system, in which the teacher and students act largely as participants in the dialogue. Of course, one of them guides this dialogue and as a result, in the context of this communication, finds out the level of knowledge of the students, but the seminar assignment does not allow you to hide behind the learned paragraphs. Seminars “untie” the language, teach dialogue, teach the ability to formulate your thoughts, defend your point of view. In the Moscow Theological Seminary, from the third grade, seminars on six subjects, leading subjects of the educational cycle, have been introduced, for each subject there are two seminars per six months, four a year in total. Thus, each academic week, students have a seminar on one or another of these six subjects - twelve seminars per half year. The skill of this kind of communication has already shown itself to be very justified and has a positive effect on the level of preparation and on the development of students' abilities and theological skills.

The emphasis in the reform of spiritual education in terms of the curriculum is largely associated with apologetics, for it is apologetics and basic theology that are necessary for ourselves, for they teach us to formulate the provisions of our faith in the context of those objections that an unbelieving mind or representatives of other religions or other Christian denominations - apologetics and subjects close to it in content, church history, especially the newest, which in the old seminary plans was often simply a failure, and the history of the twentieth century could not be studied in any full value and it was schematically indicated in seminar plans, and a component of general humanitarian disciplines, which is quite noticeably expanded in the new seminar plan. This applies to both new and ancient languages, such subjects as the history of philosophy, rhetoric, stylistics, literature; however, each seminary can define and adjust this set of complementary disciplines. For example, having recently been in Zhirovitsy with an inspection, I had the opportunity to see how tactfully they approach this, introducing a number of disciplines specifically related to the history of the Church in Belarus, the history of the Belarusian state and some other aspects of the regional, and here even the state- regional character.

Thus, these tendencies, these changes in the curriculum should lead to the fact that in the coming years seminaries should become universities, and another problem is connected with this - the problem of registration, accreditation and licensing, because on the one hand, we now cannot to be completely outside the system of church-state relations, on the other hand, there is still a lot to develop and understand in what these relations should be in the field of spiritual education, and how to do so that support does not change control in relation to certain disciplines in our spiritual schools.

It must be said that the ideas of the reform of spiritual education are rooted in different ways in different seminaries. By the decision of the Holy Synod, this year an inspection of the spiritual educational institutions of our Church was carried out. And I must say that the picture is very, very different. On the one hand, there are theological seminaries or theological schools that are moving to the status of seminaries, which already fully correspond to the status of universities. Among such strong schools are the Tobolsk, Yekaterinburg, Smolensk, Zhirovitsk, Kostroma, Sretensky school, which received the status of a seminary, at the Sretensky Monastery, and a number of other educational institutions. On the other hand, there are religious educational institutions that only formally bear such a name ...

I had to see theological schools, where not only do they not know about the transition to the five-year plan or are not guided by it, but where the elderly parishioners of the cathedral sit together with the students, listening to the instructions of the archpastor, who addresses them and the students equally, while all this has such an undivided character, as in Lomonosov, when students of all courses are present together in the classroom, as it once was at the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy. I had to see this kind of isolation from liturgical practice, when there is no church in theological seminaries where students could undergo some kind of practice and where their education as clergy and clergymen would be carried out. Big problems arise with teaching staff. And in this context, of course, the question of the prestige and significance of the status of a teacher of a theological school in the present moment of our church development arises ... Obviously, it is necessary to somehow more actively support the work of those who labor in theological schools. And this is the part that can hardly be solved by the Study Committee itself or only in the context of the reform of spiritual education, but much and much depends on it.

I would like to end my speech today with words about where I started. The reform is underway, and we will never return to the state of theological schools that was 10-15 years ago, even if we internally somehow wanted to find ourselves in this more peaceful and, to some extent, less demanding time for us. And to what extent we will be its conscientious accomplices, and not passengers in a trolleybus that takes us no one knows where, so we scold the driver for being too many of us, and for being thrown on bumps, but in general we are aware of ourselves passengers, and not active co-workers in relation to what is happening. Mainly on this depends the future of our spiritual education and the good fruits of the process that we entered, reforming it in recent years.

Nevertheless, facts are known when the population of cities tried to resist the closure of churches in the 1920s. Immeasurably less is known of such facts about the village; however, it is also possible that the city unrest took place with a greater number of eyewitnesses. - Ed.