Archbishop of Ryazan Smaragd (Kryzhanovsky) in his administrative relations, hierarchical rule and personal life

Administrative and official relations of the archbishop. Smaragda (to the governors). – His personal life and priestly practice. – Traits of personal character and external appeal. – Relations to the clergy. In official and administrative terms, Smaragd is especially reproached for his proud autocracy, which, having a heavy impact on the subordinate clergy, caused unnecessary complications and harmful clashes with the secular authorities. It is true that Smaragd was a very self-confident person 1 and highly respected the bishopric, extolling his holiness almost to the level of the holy fathers 2 , although in this regard he was not the only exception among the then hierarchs 3 . Despite all this, the categorical thesis that he “rarely got along with the governors” is controversial. For the Polotsk period, everything convinces us that Smaragd lived then in peace and harmony with representatives of the civil administration 5, and were there temporary misunderstandings here 6? True, the Most Submissive Report of Count N.A. Pratasov on June 5, 1837 Smaragda says to justify his transfer to Mogilev that he, “without comprehending the types of government, put himself in an unpleasant relationship with the local civil authorities,” but in essence this statement is extremely strange, for why could the government’s “views” on church issues be clearer to the civil authorities? Is it because they were told to the latter, but kept secret from the immediate church rulers, and they, of course, did not comprehend these innermost secrets, having certain instructions and following their archpastoral duty? And if this is so, then who is to blame that with such politicking there were then mutual frictions and direct clashes?... Then, and in fact, the words of Count N.A. Pratasov are only partially true - for the Vitebsk military governor, Major General I.S. church affairs, where Smaragda could not be allowed to intrude without vigorous resistance 7 . However, these aggravations concern only the final half-year of the Polotsk priesthood, and earlier Smaragd was always quite in agreement and peaceful with all civil commanders 8 and with the Belarusian Governor-General Prince N.N. Khovansky 9, and with his successor, who arrived in Vitebsk on May 9, 1836, Adjutant General P.N. Dyakov 10, and with Vitebsk civil governor N.I. Schroeder 11, himself suffered from mutual disagreements 12 and due to the remoteness of their location in Vitebsk 13, he valued zealous and devoted officials sincerely and not platonically, worrying about possible incentives for them 14, and in St. Petersburg they did not always remember about the intercessor himself, who at the same time was asked about rewarding people for only 8 converted schismatics 15. We do not know anything definite about Mogilev and Kharkov, except for dark indications and anecdotal tales, but for the Kharkov period, some authoritative persons attest to the courageous rightness of Smaragd when he rebelled against the unnecessary claims of various authorities 16; however, he always carried out all the necessary relationships with civil regulations there with caution 17. Regarding the Astrakhan sanctity, Metropolitan. Filaret had “a rumor about some disagreement between Smaragd and the head of the province,” although “he knew that he was testifying to the contrary” 18, while others state that the Astrakhan vice-governor Iv. Feud. Gezhelinsky, formerly Vitebsk (1837–1838), had long and briefly known Smaragd from Belarus, met him with love in Astrakhan and ferried him across the Volga in his one-wheeler at the entrance there 19, and “the archpastor lived in great agreement with the military governor Ivan Semenovich Timiryazev, the Armenian Archbishop Seraphim” 20. The Oryol relationship is portrayed differently, but there is also a lot of exaggeration here. Yes, Metropolitan. Filaret wrote to Smaragd: “I came across a rumor about some disagreement between you and the head of the province, and I wanted to ask his relatives about this. I am pleased to learn from you that this is not true” 21. With the head of the Oryol province (December 25, 1849 to December 13, 1851) S.N. Mukhanov, Smaragd had great tension, which turned into sharp hostility, but even in this case, the Oryol archbishop fought for a just cause and showed only his archpastoral zeal in the difficult history because of the Peter and Paul Cathedral 22, as was the case with the next governor, N.I. Kruzenshtern, inappropriately became involved in church affairs 23, although, to the extent necessary, the Oryol Archbishop did not forget to “get in touch” even with the “correcting the post of governor of the province” 24. N.S. Leskov (in "Trifles of Bishop's Life") composed a great tale about the brutal war of Smaragd with the Oryol military governor, Prince Pyotr Ivanovich Trubetskoy 25, adding to reality 26 enough of his author's imagination about the piquant trick of some dark "Major" Schultz 27, who tried to create and fan troubles among the Oryol rulers 28. It is indisputable that both of these dignitaries did not have mutual friendliness 29 - and the whole question is in the reasons and assessment of this fact. At this point, Leskov himself helps best of all. If, according to him, Smaragd, being generally decisive and imperious 30, had a proud and unyielding character 31, then the prince. P.I. Trubetskoy was downright ridiculous, like the princess née Wittgenstein, but the administration exhibited completely negative qualities - tyranny and stupidity, and “unintelligibility” 32 . Naturally, these Oryol leaders clashed with each other, but the reason for this was, of course, inappropriate intrusions into the affairs of church administration on the part of the prince. P.I. Trubetskoy 33, who “found an insatiable pleasure to scold” Smaragd everywhere, 34 and the latter, being immeasurably smarter 35, overcame his shameless opponent everywhere. However, this did not exclude mutual official relations, and in necessary cases the archbishop appealed to the governor 36. However, the book P.I. Trubetskoy was too unsuitable, and if it was Smaragd and his leader who “dumped” him from the governor’s post, 37 then this should be seen as a secondary, but undoubted archpastoral merit. Trubetskoy's successor, V.I. Safonovich, was greeted by the archbishop with caution 38 and himself showed him full attention 39 . Finally, in Ryazan, “neither Governor Stremoukhov nor Smaragd were hostile to each other” 40. This means that the anecdotes about the Smaragdovs’ feuds with the governors 41 are greatly exaggerated if they say that he “didn’t get along with the latter at all” 42 , and, in essence, do not in the least diminish the hierarchical authority of this archpastor. Any enmity is not good, and aggravation between bishops and civil authorities is accompanied by particularly harmful practical consequences, 43 but here it was caused and created by circumstances and was aimed at protecting the rights of the church and the dignity of the clergy. The shortcomings of temperament here were more than covered by Smaragd's archpastoral fervor - and therefore one cannot too much condemn individual harshness where sacred zeal was necessary and clearly revealed. A thick shadow is cast over Smaragd’s personal life. They say that he poorly observed his monastic vows and almost renounced them openly, that he was a great sensualist-gourmet 44, performed church services with indecent haste and was even burdened by them, and some decide to penetrate into the hidden depths of his dying moods, thoughts and feelings and uncleanly exploit the assumption that the Archbishop of Ryazan died “without having time to confess” 45. Much in these accusations of unrecognized judges is reminiscent of the gospel moral teaching about the tendency of people to see bitches in the eyes of their brothers... Close people gave a convincing rebuff to all this 46 - and we will compare only the available evidence. The mystery of death is impenetrable to us, but even an outsider and a distant person can see that Smaragd was awaiting this inevitable limit with trembling reverence. Back on July 26, 1859 he said about himself: “it’s time to go to the yard, that sheep yard in which the Lord Himself is the Shepherd” 47, and “at the funeral [April 13, 1862] of the body of Archbishop Gabriel [Gorodkov], he himself shed quite a few tears, remembering his own impending departure from this multi-rebellious world” 48. Smaragd had long had a presentiment that “the end is already so close” 49, and was thinking of retiring so that “from the Archbishop of the most populous Ryazan Diocese, become the Bishop of his one poor and sinful soul” 50. Can we now doubt that the terrible hour of death was met with a prepared heart and internally involved in the sacrament of a new life?.. Let us not forget that - according to witnesses still alive - Smaragd, being already sick, celebrated the liturgy only a few days before his death. On other points, the data known to us states that Smaragd “from youth to old age sacredly preserved the purity of life” and was so scrupulous regarding virginity that “he avoided meeting women, which gave those close to him a reason to even laugh at himself, when, walking around the bishop’s courtyard (not in Orel) and seeing a woman, he hurried to go to his chambers: when it became necessary to receive ladies on business, the Vladyka received them no less than two" 51 . In general, Smaragd in this regard carefully avoided all temptations and seductions, instilling this in his subordinates 52, why unseemly rumors about him in this regard are more like gossip 53. It is equally firmly established that this archpastor did not drink strong drinks at all, he disdained drunks and eradicated drunkenness 54, and if sometimes he organized “institutions” on a grand scale and received from others, then “he never forgot himself during treats, never allowed himself the slightest excess in drinking and the interlocutor was, of which there are few, lively, varied, humorous, for the most part - infinitely affectionate, infinitely complacent; Russian soul to be plowed" 55. One can say no more than that this “Archpastor was not a regular faster” 56, “he did not live luxuriously, but very decently, he was hospitable and cordial” 57, and everything else is fairy tales and fantasies 58, for, for example, “in Mogilev his lifestyle was neither poorer nor more luxurious than his predecessors or successors” 59, and there “absolutely nothing was heard about deviations from the monastic rules” 60. The duties of the episcopal rank were guarded and observed by Smaragd to such an extent that before his consecration he gave up sniffing tobacco, which he used a lot in his youth 61 . In general, his life remained pure 62, and from early years until old age, Smaragd was always blameless, walking along his crusader path not reproachfully and holyly 63 with constant reverence, but without any hypocritical ostentation 64. Regarding divine services, the documents confirm 65 and everyone agrees that Smaragd was a truly church man, he loved and established solemn church splendor everywhere, and in all departments he was famous for his magnificent choirs, which surprised even St. Petersburg 66 . All authoritative voices agree that Smaragd, in essence, was spiritually reverent 67 and with his services inspired the deepest sympathy for himself 68, which sank indelibly 69. Thus, one of the Ryazan bishop’s singers, now the capital’s archpriest (in St. Petersburg) writes to us the following: “The Most Reverend Smaragd did not like long services, but the latter, thanks to the excellent choir under the direction of the famous (spiritual composer) Archpriest. M.A. Vinogradov, were always solemn and attracted masses of people. The external behavior of the concelebrants and the entire liturgical order were exemplary, for Smaragd was not shy about the place to immediately demolish the culprit. Entering the church and grunting (which was his habit), Smaragd, with his angry, completely dark (black) eyes - as if looking for someone - surveyed the pilgrims present and majestically walked to the altar. Never since have I met such a saint, observing whom during his service it was quite possible to say: this is the true Lord, the master of his position.” Apparently, it was not a matter of appearance or atmosphere, but of an inner reverence that captured others. This was evident throughout his service and at all moments, but was especially evident in those minutes when Smaragd presented the “pledge” at dedication 70 . Taking an active part himself, from time to time he sang alone (for example, at Easter “May God rise again”) very pleasantly and captivatingly 71 . Of course, here, too, an impetuous temperament was manifested in fast and unforeseen movements in spite of all obstacles, 72 in exclamations, etc. 73, and sometimes in handmade suggestions, 74, but this incontinence due to a lack of nature, character and upbringing was only slanderously distorted into blasphemous rudeness 75 and does not at all mean religious indifference, since it coexisted with the most sincere piety. It is very characteristic here that others, on the contrary, reproach this hierarch for “strict compliance with church decrees and customs,” calling him a hypocrite and a superstitious 76. It is indisputable, however, that Smaragd’s church bishop services were brief, but the question remains to what extent this unintentional shortening turned out to be an evil or temptation in the bishop’s pastorate. Some people have always thought about it completely differently. For example, we read that in Orel “many people were generally dissatisfied with Bishop Evlampius, especially because the service of his mass lasted three hours or more, 77 and on this occasion, on solemn service days, officials tried to be during his service only for the prayer service, which also lasted more than usual, comparatively, the services of others,” and at that time all sorts of disorder, bribery, etc. were established throughout the diocese. 78. Therefore, they praise that “under the Reverend Smaragda all this changed” and that “he celebrated mass in one hour, or a little more” 79 . Equally the later successor of Smaragdov in the Oryol See (1883–1889) - Simeon Linkov († July 31, 1899) was burdensome with his services, which, despite all the solemnity, seemed to the Orlyans only unnecessarily lengthy and tedious 80, but did not in the least contribute to the success of diocesan administration and did not interfere with the development of consistory lawlessness 81. In view of this, authoritative hierarchs found it necessary to balance the duration of the liturgical service with the weakness of those praying 82 . This means that in this regard, Smaragd, who himself loved church splendor and did not “allow” anyone to violate it or neglect it, should not arouse negative suspicions, regardless of persons and positions 83. A careful consideration of all the data convinces with factual and moral compulsion that all the complaints against the Reverend. Emeralds are partly exaggerated to the extreme, and partly completely fictitious. Then a new task arises for an impartial historian - to explain intelligently how such legends could be created and strengthened. There was undoubtedly no smoke without fire here - and we only need to enter into the psychology of the persons concerned to understand the source and process of this fabulous creativity. Everyone confirms that - with a strong disposition 84 - Smaragd, condemning the unbridled character of others 85, was himself possessed by “natural ardor” to an excessive degree, was uncontrollably hot, always capable of flaring up like gunpowder and burning every person 86. His temperament was heavy 87 and rude 88, having not experienced good disciplinary training 89, which he needed more than anything in the world, and Smaragd himself - with an uneven, “proud and unyielding” disposition 90 - did not know how to regulate himself and even liked to deliberately pretend to be menacing and ferocious 91. All his techniques were sharp, somewhat angular and fast 92 . His anger flared up suddenly and was unusual in degree and form of manifestation - without the slightest restraint. Smaragd never fell into a tone of tenderness 93 - and his fatherly solicitude was always strict and dressed in a harsh bark 94. His most fatherly affection was hidden in a prickly shell and was invariably rough 95 , so that being with him was not easy for the people close to him and for his relatives 96 . He laid down hard everywhere, although it was soft to sleep 97 - and while a person was convinced of the second, rumor spread and consolidated the initial bitter sensations - troubles, annoyance, irritation and chagrin. Smaragd was accustomed to calling all things by their most proper names in front of everyone, he was not at all embarrassed by faces anywhere, 98 he loved the truth and restored it immediately and without any delicacy in terms of means, he carried out justice decisively and carried out reprisals with his own hands. Hence the outward severity and outward rudeness that created a thunderstorm and obscured the tender rays of heartfelt warmth so much that the impression of horror spread all around, 99 and a tremulous feeling of severity and despotism remained in the memory. He affectionately called the singers “konalia,” beat them jokingly with a ruler, threw them out of the hall in irritation with his powerful hand 100 and generally used an unhooked rod 101 . It didn’t cost him anything to blow up (in Orel) a 54-year-old seeker for a fourth marriage with a thick “bulanka” (stick) in order to teach chastity 102. Moreover: - in Mogilev, Smaragd pulled the hair of the deacon and sexton in public 103 , and sometimes carried out manual reprisals (in Orel) even with a drunk priest 104 , while the litigator hit their foreheads, grabbing them by the hair 105 . In the heat of anger, the irritated bishop threw a plate at a footman (in Orel) 106, threw a bundle of papers at the secretary 107 or even threw a miter at the headman (in Astrakhan) 108 and called the entire seminary bureaucracy fools (in Orel) 109. Thus, with the “impressiveness” of rapid arousal, Smaragd sometimes allowed “intensified actions” 110. His witty words were always apt, characteristic and extremely caustic 111 - even in official resolutions 112 where he knew how to make special hints in the very outline 113. He is not a secular man at all - Smaragd did not embarrass others, but did not allow anyone to forget about his rank, and the well-born co-questioner, who inappropriately tempted him about the shamelessness of playing cards during Lent, venomously cut off that it was he who “can play the fool” 114. There were other methods no less caustic, if, for example, in Polotsk Smaragd deliberately took money from his protégé in the form of a supposed bribe and at a meeting of the Consistory he himself repented of this, forcing sworn industrialists to publicly self-flagellate in this regard 115, of which there were plenty everywhere in that era. For his jealousy, all sorts of titles and fortunes seemed to not exist at all. In Mogilev, during a religious procession to the Jordan, he, seeing the governor in a headdress, loudly sent a police official to “take off this fool’s hat” 116, and in Orel, the prim governor Princess Trubetskoy, born Wittgenstein, openly called “a boisterous German” and showed her such “wonderful rudeness” that she completely gave in 117. Smaragd did not hesitate to sharply touch upon these dignitaries even in his sermons 118 and did not at all find it difficult to solemnly put them in an extremely awkward position 119 . Under such conditions, “the easier it was to throw flammable materials on the fire of mutual irritation” 120. While in St. Synod, where at that time its members were not allowed to move freely 121, Smaragd, at the very meetings of the latter, sometimes allowed such sharp frankness that he caused a kind of whole temptation, when he made a menacing noise at the eminent hierarch, as if the sexton did not dare to complain about the bishop - and, having given Alexander Nevsky, the synodals hastened to send Vladyka Orlovsky home, as indecent for high-class environment for lack of subtlety 122, as well as for spontaneity and inflexibility in unparalleled truthfulness 123. In general, for everyone, Smaragd was an “irrepressible” man who supposedly neither feared God nor was ashamed of people and was a terrible “invincible commander” 124. On the basis of these facts, which expressed purely external habits of thinking and behavior, an atmosphere of something monstrous, tyrannical, capable of all sorts of excesses of feeling and will was always and everywhere created around Smaragd. Gradually, the vapors condensed and crystallized so much that if contemporaries did not want to look into the depths of things, then descendants cannot always even penetrate through the thick darkness of all kinds of false talk - and the only condescension on the part of the people of our time does not exceed the fact that amusing eccentricity and external buffoonery 125 began to be turned into a dogmatic characteristic, as if Smaragd - like many landowners of that time - was a great tyrant and a whimsical and strange original from a “creepy and gloomy anecdote” (A. A. Izmailov in the “Historical Bulletin” 1914, No. 1, p. 336). The historian of persons and events should be neither an apologist nor a panegyrist; his duty is to objectively interpret the facts of reality - and we are least inclined to justify the extremes of Smaragd’s rule, but we think, however, that all this must first be understood and then explained in accordance with all other conditions. Here, first of all, one should not allow harshness in the very assessment of the circumstances under discussion, as if they were purely personal anomalies of Smaragd alone. Unfortunately, this cannot be said at all, but it must be admitted that such methods were then too common and characteristic even of those hierarchs who, with extreme exaggeration, are considered the best 126. Here Smaragd does not at all stand out for any excess if we know that, for example, “under [Eminence of Astrakhan: 1826–1832] Paul I Sabbatovsky [† February 7, 1832] none of the clergy dared to walk through the bishop’s courtyard in a hat, even in winter” 127. Smaragd simply paid a sad tribute to that time, the mores of his environment and his temperament. All this is sad, but undoubtedly it does not allow excessive severity to what was as relative as it was ordinary. It is unfair to punish the accidental and transient as the principled and normal. This is only a weakness, which must be understood if it is not proclaimed by the person taken for strength and valor. And the latter is completely impossible to say about Smaragda, for he did not at all consider his manners and techniques to be legitimate methods of archpastoral treatment and management. On the contrary, this ruler himself saw his shortcomings earlier and more than others and, with his usual rudeness, equated himself with a bag of all dirt and impurity 128. Smaragd publicly confessed the “innate weaknesses” 129 of his nature, when, while raising others, he was not successful in this regard, which is why he called himself damned 130. This means that his appearance did not serve as an accurate reflection of his inner being, which did not at all put up with the shortcomings of a stormy temperament. This is completely indisputable regarding hierarchical management, since Smaragd adhered to the conviction that even “a priest, as a servant of Jesus Christ, who endured everything for the sake of our salvation, does not tend to lose patience” 131. If in fact, quite the opposite often happened to him, this inevitably created an internal burden for which relief and atonement were required. Hence, it is natural that the result of such sorrowful collisions was an increased desire to correct what had been done - and Smaragd always hurried to make amends for his impetuous words and energetic actions, not hesitating “in simplicity to ask forgiveness from an unjustly offended priest or sexton” 132 and even a seminarian 133, in turn, willingly excusing and forgetting all personal grievances 134, because they are not must pay attention according to the commands of the Gospel Law 135 and according to the example of Christ the Savior 136. The brighter the outburst of anger, the more heartfelt the warmth of mercy was, which took over so much that now cold justice fell silent before it 137. This trait was noticed back in the Academy 138 and was deliberately exploited throughout the entire archpastoral service of Smaragd, who was deliberately irritated with the hidden goal of obtaining special benefits and benefits from him. This was a tendentious abuse 139 - and the “victims” themselves sought for the hot-tempered ruler to “bless with a crutch”, and “become brave after the fight” 140. This makes sure that Smaragd’s main mood was love, condescension towards people and the desire for good. His methods were often rude and offensive, sometimes even insulting, but Smaragd did not show off at all and did not lie when he sentenced, dealing with the guilty: “I beat you, you brute, so as not to bring you to justice and not make you and your family unhappy” 141. Here his goodness extended to everyone - from small to large, from top to bottom. For him, the bishop's singers were always dear to him, like “little children” 142. In general, their situation at that time was quite terrible 143, and Smaragd directly cherished and pampered them, tried to condescend to them and adapt to them 144. And they retained touching memories of their archpastor 145 as the father of the household 146, the patron father of the choir, the most compassionate father, the God-given father-comforter, etc. 147. The same is true for seminarians, about whom Smaragd always and everywhere cared 148, knowing how to descend to their interests 149. This archpastor never despaired of a person and was ready to the end to see in everyone a regenerating spark of goodness, saving a drunken priest sentenced by the Consistory to be cut off and inspiring him to complete grace-filled renewal 150, while sometimes he himself risked official troubles 151. Sensitive to the grief of others 152, this hierarch showed every kind of mercy to those who sinned, was especially lenient towards those with large families and was unusually compassionate towards widows and orphans 153. Smaragd knew a good price for himself 154, extolled his bishopric 155 and rudely equated himself with the Moscow Metropolitan (Filaret) 156, but he became inseparably close to the clergy and wanted to have “communion with his loved ones even beyond the grave” 157. Everywhere he was only primus inter pares and unashamedly confessed that, being “first in the future, he remains first in enduring trials without complaint” 158. He ruled with the consciousness that he was obliged to express power on the basis of laws 159, and demanded worship for himself 160, but only as “obligatory signs of rank” 161, and therefore not as an offense to the clergy and not at all unprecedented for those and our days 162. Along with this, equal respect was no less firmly commanded to everyone and in general to the “Dirty shepherds, about whom the Savior Himself in His Gospel said: “Listen to you, He listens to Me” (Luke 10:16) 163. Such internal unity more than covered the shortcomings of conversion. The extremes were unnecessarily exaggerated by rumor and tradition 164, but in fact they harmed the cause all the less because the archpastor was not important and heavy, he loved simplicity and sincerity in himself and others 165, not allowing severity and oppression, which were then allowed by many hierarchs in relation to the clergy 166, and the perfect Smaragda is unknown, why he stands out favorably in terms of his humanity 167. Because of his formidable appearance, one could always see the kindness and gaiety of the most compassionate man and the wisest, most humane boss, who, in essence, had a tender, loving heart 168 and was distinguished by unparalleled warmth, extraordinary condescension and rare accessibility 169 . Due to his fiery temperament, Smaragd offended and temporarily upset many, of course; for that “this man scattered a heap of goods in his lifetime, but we don’t know if he destroyed anyone, even one person” 170. Transient outbursts of anger were extinguished by streams of love and forgotten, like sorrow after joy. One contemporary, who witnessed many cases of this hierarch’s temper, writes to us that they all ended in reconciliation, and here in Smaragd’s apologies there was so much charming affection, simplicity, tenderness that the offense was widely covered with calm and even pleasure. The “cool” bishop 171 turned out to be in fact “the most complacent of the bishops” with a purely “fatherly care” 172, suitable to renew and revive, which is why “capable people were sent under his archpastorship who needed to be corrected, guided and saved” 173, that is, disgraced people in general, especially learned monks, who had been shaken somewhere and had made their everyday lives difficult situation, - they sent in the confidence that “the Eminence Smaragd, as a strict person, may correct, but probably will not destroy in any way,” and “if he finds another weak brother incorrigible, then it means that the person is definitely not correctable” 174 ... After all, it was not without reason that in the “higher hierarchical world this idea arose and held on quite firmly,” which in practice often gave such happy results that such individuals pulled themselves up and straightened up, meanwhile “after him they soon fell completely and irrevocably and disappeared” 175. And the reason for this is that in the innermost depths of his thoughts and motives, this archpastor was always animated by heartfelt and creative love and tried to actually implement within himself his youthful confession: “The life of the heart is love. It is impossible for a heart that wants to live to exist without love,” but “love for oneself is unhappy, destructive,” and, on the contrary, “pure love for God,” as “the true and highest good,” “should be the only soul of our soul, the own life of our life” 176. Here another quality is outlined to us in the spiritual mood of the Reverend. Smaragd that in everything he strives for the glory of God and for the good of the Church of Christ. Entering, staying and leaving, the archpastor everywhere “taught as the only thing needed: faith in the crucified Redeemer, accompanied by good deeds, without which there is neither true happiness on earth, nor desired bliss in heaven” 177. And if Smaragd himself says that “the zeal of the house of God consumes him” 178; then this trait is confirmed by other witnesses, declaring that “zeal for the honor and splendor of the Church of God constantly consumed the heart of the Saint” 179 in his “long-term, zealous, useful and reasonable” archpastoral feat 180, when he revealed himself as a “true servant of truth, peace and love” so much 181 that in his face, supposedly, “mercy and truth has been met, justice and peace have been embraced” (Ps. 84:11) 182. All the noted qualities were associated with Smaragd's tireless, relentless and energetic efficiency and practical management. The administrative and pastoral machine worked regularly, firmly and confidently for him. Nothing lingered here, and everything moved unusually quickly and successfully 183. In general, Smaragd “in management was quick, quick-witted, decisive, just and lenient” 184, “he ruled the dioceses tirelessly and insightfully, efficiently and practically, righteously and mercifully” 185. A reputation was created as an excellent organizer and experienced administrator, which is why he was “sent to dioceses that needed to be humbled, pacified and revived” 186. Defending the Church of God and the clergy “to the death” 187, in internal government he tried to adhere to the principles of truth and impartiality, did not tolerate snitches 188 and abhorred the “Judain News” 189, avoided partiality 190 and provided everyone with all means of protection 191. Not sympathizing with the then consistory court 192, Smaragd sought to prevent judicial conflicts 193, did not allow delays in legal proceedings 194 observed objectivity 195 and strict accuracy 196 in order not to unnecessarily burden the guilty and not violate the law 197, preferred to act with the spiritual sword 198 and often decided without the Consistory 199, where he often went to meetings at all places of his ministry 200. For him there were no differences in position or condition, and the lower members of the clergy and the poor were equally dear to him 201, and he was even less harsh towards them 202. In general, he always and everywhere, with all the ardor of his temperament and zeal, stood up for the honor of the clergy 203 and tried in every possible way to raise and elevate it 204, taking care of the development of intelligence and enlightenment in him 205, loved and awarded honors with generosity, unparalleled at that time 206, everywhere sought measures and means for the best provision of all spiritual 207. He was very strict towards the clergy, but punished only in a fatherly manner 208 and made relief for the guilty 209 . Hot-tempered severity did not prevent him from listening to the harsh truth 210, allowing even young seminarians to debate with him, 211 and never turned into cold heartlessness, and therefore here an involuntary comparison with many others morally inclines in favor of Smaragd 212. The dominant feature of the latter was a kind of mystical admiration for the “spiritual class” with complete spiritual solidarity with it. Hence, the dignity of the clergy stood in front of everything and was protected with unshakable sharpness from inappropriate attacks on the part of any other persons and authorities. Here Smaragd, first of all, forced everyone to respect the ministry and priestly title. In the church, everyone had to observe equal decency, and violations of it were suppressed with energetic severity and expansiveness. We are rich in stories on this subject from all the dioceses of the sainthood of Smaragdov. There is no need to convey or list such news in detail. It is enough to note that all of them are very probable and vividly depict the archpastoral authority of Smaragd over everyone for the sake of church deanery, if (in Orel) he (at night) rescued (with a procession of the cross) a priest who was wrongly arrested with the holy gifts, and in the church he sent a subdeacon to an important lady who was baptized in kid gloves with a demand that she remove the dog’s skin. There were even more acute incidents, which were witnessed by competent persons. Thus, a certain (Astrakhan?) governor, passing through Orel, stopped here and attended the bishop’s liturgy, being near the right choir, from where an icon accidentally fell to the floor in front of him. The dignitary pilgrim was too lazy to pick it up and kicked it away in front of everyone. Smaragd did not respond in any way to this, but at the end of the service the protodeacon suddenly comes out to the pulpit and, without naming his person, in a terrible bass voice proclaims an anathema in general for trampling on the shrine. Struck by this, the governor fell and was carried out of the church in his arms 213. This episode clearly convinces that Smaragd least of all had human partiality, which was always so characteristic of his environment and caused such great sorrows... In administrative practice, this was revealed in the fact that Smaragd himself “did not bow his neck” and did not grovel before the powerful of the world and the clergy did not allow this to happen, defending him with a mountain with all his ardor. The general tone of all printed and oral news from all dioceses is strikingly consistent in the fact that - stern in appearance for the clergy - Smaragd was for the latter an ever-present patron and mourner, saving him from the arrogant bureaucracy and arrogant nobility and helping him defend the truth 214. Rare even in our century, this independence was downright extraordinary for those times, yet indisputable based on many facts. Smaragd did not like litigiousness in the clergy and eliminated it “with his own measures,” far from sweet, but such that did not expose class ailments too much and did not unnecessarily expose the guilty to all the consequences of judicial retribution. Slander against the clergy was even less patronized by the laity - and Smaragd intimidated the man who complained against the priest for accidentally hitting his son in the face with a plate of prosphyra with the full threat of church rules for illegally entering the altar, knowing that he was blackmailing a significant sum from the priest for reconciliation 215 . The same thing happened in more serious collisions. Here are examples coming from contemporaries and eyewitnesses 216. One day, a certain important military official came to complain about the priest to the Oryol Consistory, where Smaragd often came to meetings and to receive visitors. There was a very large audience, but this petitioner stood in front of everyone and was the first to address the archbishop. Taking the paper, the bishop read it carefully and, convinced of its groundlessness, openly and loudly began to scold the complainant, denouncing him that he himself was to blame for everything, and also dared to denounce his shepherd. He was embarrassed by the surprise, silently listened to fair reproaches and, without answering anything, left in shame. One Oryol landowner, a countess, extremely proud and domineering, disliked the second priest in her parish and used all measures to get rid of him. She did not succeed and served as a sign that Smaragd did not see punishable offenses here. The owner did not understand this or simply did not want to make peace and made an attempt to personally influence the bishop while passing through the village, inviting him to visit her. Smaragd came to the manor's house together with both priests, sharply refused any treat and began to denounce the hostess in front of everyone, not embarrassed by stunning expressions, after which he completely left. This is precisely the taste of Smaragd, which boiled with all spontaneity and turbulence 217. In this case, when defending the clergy against other, privileged classes, he revealed his temperament with particular intemperance and, as it were, deliberately allowed extremes of exquisitely rude treatment in words and manners 218. Such exaggeration testified with irresistible clarity to everyone that in all attempts on the clergy he saw and felt his own, personal insult. Here he merged to complete unity with everyone, as one who worked, was sick and suffered equally with them. At the same time, the most hot-tempered expansiveness no longer offended the victims, for it was perceived under the vivid impression that this is the ardor of a devoted and deeply interested father, who gets angry and punishes out of the direct movement of love, albeit stormy, but completely sincere and benevolent. Therefore, the main conviction of his subordinates everywhere was that Smaragd was strict, but fair and - most of all - merciful, especially towards widows, orphans and large families. He himself knew this about himself, always pursuing similar principles in life itself 219. Demanding regarding law and service, Smaragd was lenient towards human weaknesses and, if possible, tolerated weaknesses 220. There was no connivance or indifference here, but rather a reflection of a constant mental mood, imbued with a feeling of personal insufficiency, which was condemned and punished in others no more than in oneself. Everywhere Smaragd was worthy of his brethren, as if he were obsequious, and the clergy were drawn to him with the ease of attraction of equal to equal. Here is a review from 1836 from the Polotsk period from the Smolensk seminarian priest. Nikanor Lazuryevsky. He writes about himself: “My service is quite difficult, but believing that the exact fulfillment of any service is difficult, especially at the beginning, I want to be, as much as my health allows, a zealous executor of the difficult and varied instructions of my father Smaragd.” For all that, being in a foreign land and in rather difficult conditions, this priest was full of cheerfulness solely due to the inspiration of the diocesan bishop, saying the following: “For this we also have something to boast about... For us, Smolensk either does not give birth, or does not have beneficent people: and there those who are provided with a position convenient for fulfilling the commandments especially violate them... Love for one's neighbor, it seems, is completely unknown to the Smolensk monks, obsessed with covetousness and hatred of people... Here, in the Polotsk diocese, it is quite the opposite. Eg. Today I get on horses and go to my father, that is, to Bishop Smaragd. There is a matter - and I go to him easily, with pleasure and love, like to my own father. And I don’t feel any fear or trembling, like you tremble in Smolensk... 221. I’m going to Polotsk to take care of my church, which is so dilapidated that it’s scary to serve in it. I will ask for funds for the correction. And believe that I do not feel any slavish fear of my bishop, I go in a spirit of humility, like a son to his father, and I will express to him my needs in the most frank filial tone, of course, without forgetting who he is and who I am. I think that, by the grace of God and by the grace of His Eminence, I will succeed, and if not, then it’s not he who will be to blame, but I will be to blame for this” 222. Something similar to this is evidenced from everywhere that in all departments the majority remembered Smaragd well 223. And when the offended anonymous person reviled his ruler with an akathist pamphlet, both in Polotsk, and in Mogilev, and in Astrakhan, and in Orel, and in Ryazan, the grateful lips of the clergy repeated: “Oh, Smaragd, merciful Smaragd, wise archpastor! He elevated the clergy, elevated them in his own and outside eyes” 224. He was as much a boss as he was a sorrower of the subordinate clergy. Naturally, his personal authority - in general - stood high in the spiritual environment. Those close to him were inclined to assimilate Smaragda's gift of special - almost prophetic - insight 225, and other people in contact had some kind of mystical admiration for him 226 and, after many years, still retain a reverent memory of him 227. Its archpastoral significance stood out noticeably and was valued among the hierarchs. Even Metropolitan himself. Moscow Philaret tried in every possible way to postpone his departure from Moscow in order only to see Smaragd here when the latter was traveling to St. Petersburg for meetings of the Synod 228, other bishops communicated and consulted with him on the most important issues, and learned monks unknown to him appeared to express their respect 229. † Archbishop Nicanor, Biographical Materials I, p. 252. † D. I. Rostislavov in the “Bulletin of Europe” 1872, July, p. 230, and † G. M. Pyasetsky, History of the Oryol Diocese, p. 959. See A. Pravdin, Resolutions of the Saratov Rev. Jacob (Vecherkova, † May 20, 1850) in the “Saratov Diocesan Gazette” 1878, No. 4, p. 83, that this hierarch in 1842 expressed such a view regarding episcopal dignity; “The highest authority, and not the deacons, has the right to tell the archpastors what to do. But the point is to carry out the will of your rulers unquestioningly and with reverence. God acts through the rulers, and whoever does not obey his rulers does not obey God, he does not have the spirit of Christ, he is graceless, he is lost forever unless he repents. For such a one acts contrary to the word of God, which commands us to obey in every case not only the good and meek rulers, but also the obstinate” [1 Pet. 2:18]. Prof. prot. T. I. Butkevich, Historical and statistical description of the Kharkov Cathedral of the Assumption Cathedral, p. 99. S. D. Karpov even states (in “Russian Antiquity,” vol. IX, 1874, pp. 210–211) that “Smaragd in a short time subjugated the entire Vitebsk administration to his influence,” interpreting this in the unfavorable sense inspired by the “Notes” of I. S. Zhirkevich. See the letter of M. Philaret to Smaragd dated January 5, 1837 in “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1870, Vol. XII, p. 33: “I hear the mournful voices with deep sympathy, and I understand the difficulty and unpleasantness of your position, with the relations of the secular authorities unlike the previous ones.” These words may refer either to I. S. Zhirkevich, who was appointed on September 17, 1836 to Vitebsk as a military governor instead of N. I. Schroeder, who was favorable and obedient to Smaragd (see above 1912, No. 5, p. 573), or to Count N. A. Pratasov himself, who - with the same result for Smaragd - on June 25, 1836. S. D. Nechaev took over as chief prosecutor in the Holy Synod (see above 1912, No. 5, p. 572). See above “Christ. Reading" 1912, No. 5, pp. 573–574. See above “Christ. Reading" 1912, No. 3, p. 310; No. 5, p. 571. Prince Nikolai Nikolaevich Khovansky was governor-general of Vitebsk, Mogilev, Smolensk and Kaluga in 1826–1836; born December 1, 1777, died with the rank of infantry general and the rank of senator on November 20, 1837. See “Collection of the Imperial Russian Historical Society,” vol. LXII (St. Petersburg 1888), p. 404 b. Already on June 26, 1836, Smaragd wrote to Archimandrite. Platon (Rudinsky) that P.N. Dyakov “is a very fair and strict person, and completely opposite to your Vilna authorities [- of course, probably the Vilna Governor-General, who favored the Poles, Prince. Nick. Andr. Dolgorukov, about whom cf. above 1912, No. 9, pp. 949, 185 and see in Notes of gr. M. N. Muravyov in “Russian Antiquity” XIII (1882), book. 12, p. 627 –]. The Poles are persecuted more than Prince Khovansky” (see Father G.I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 222 and cf. 216). The tone is somewhat more minor in Smaragda’s letter to the same person dated August 9, 1836 (in G. Ya. Kiprianovich, Life of Joseph Semashka, St. Petersburg 2 1897, p. 136): “And our governor Schroeder was completely dismissed from service ..., according to the proposal of the governor of Belarus, Adjutant General Dyakov, who, having returned from St. Petersburg, brought himself confirmation in office Governor-General... Prince Khovansky was placed in the State Council "... P. N. Dyakov sometimes actively acted against Smaragd, asking for his transfer from Polotsk: see above “Christian Reading” 1912, No. 5, pp. 574, 518. Nikolai Ivanovich Schroeder, d.t.s., Oryol, Vitebsk and Ryazan governor since 1821; see "Collection of the Imperial Russian Historical Society", vol. LXII (St. Petersburg 1888), p. 451 a. See letter from Smaragd to S.D. Nechaev dated October 30, 1833 from Fr. G.I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 14 (attached). See letter from Smaragd to S.D. Nechaev dated February 22, 1834 from Fr. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 27. See Smaragd’s letter to S.D. Nechaev dated January 24, 1834 and February 19, 1836 from Fr. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., pp. 25–26, 39. See Smaragd’s letter to S.D. Nechaev dated 1836, without the date of the month, from Fr. G. I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 39. See about Smaragd’s relationship with the head of the Kharkov province (from November 12, 1840 to February 20, 1849) Sergei Nikolaevich Mukhanov in our “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 7–8, pp. 978–979 and separately: Letters from Smaragd to Archimandrite. Hierotheus (St. Petersburg, 1911), pp. 54–55. See above 1912, no. 9, pp. 953, 187 and 1913, no. 2, pp. 188, 74. See above “Christ. Reading" 1912, No. 7–8, p. 818. See "Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment" 1870, XII, p. 36. See "Memoirs" about. Hierotheus on l. 36 rev. Wed. above "Christ. Reading" 1912" No. 10, p. 1064, 5. See “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1899, No. 13, p. 647 - according to the “Memoirs” of Fr. Hierotheus on l. 39 rev. See "Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment" 1871, XIII, p. 35; M. Philaret's letter is dated January 7, 1847. See Letters, Archbishop. Smaragda to Archimandrite Hierotheus on pp. 50–51, 53, 54–55, 57–58, 62, 69, 76 and in Christian Reading 1911, no. 7–8, pp. 974–975 977, 978–979, 981–982, 986; No. 9, pp. 1137. 1144. See the letter from the archbishop. Smaragda to Archimandrite Hierotheus on page 66 and in “Christ. Readings" 1911, No. 9, p. 1134. See ibid, page 68 and in “Christ. Readings" 1911, No. 9, p. 1136. Born on April 7, 1798 (1800), was a military governor - first of Smolensk, then of Orlovsky, died on May 22 (September 11), 1871 with the rank of cavalry general and the rank of senator: see "Collection of the Imperial Russian Historical Society", vol. LXII (St. Petersburg 1888), p. 358 a. And she, of course, was (as cf. and above 1912, No. 2, p. 223), but in the legend she was so overgrown with monstrous legends that in Ryazan there are still rumors that “Smaragd anathematized the Oryol governor,” meanwhile this is an obvious fable, or refers to a completely different person (see below on pp. 174, 77). See “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1884, No. 13, p. 220 and Archpriest. N. T. Kamenskago († Archbishop Nikanor), Astrakhan Cathedral of the Assumption, p. 120. See † N. S. Lyskova, Trifles of bishop’s life in the Complete Collection according to the publication of “Niva”, vol. XXXV (St. Petersburg 1903), p. 69. See about this and † P. I. Bartenev in the “Russian Archive” 1907, Book. III, pp. 479–480. See above “Christ. Reading" 1913, No. 3, p. 319. † N. S. Lyskov, The Deceased Estate in the Complete Works published by Niva, vol. XX (St. Petersburg 1903), p. 120. Ibid., pp. 120 ff., 124 notes. † N. S. Lyskov, Trifles of hierarchal life in the Complete Works published by Niva, vol. XXXV, p. 65. See Letters of the Archbishop. Smaragda to Archimandrite Hierotheus on page 77 and in “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 9, page 1145, where in a letter dated December 23, 1857, Smaragd orders Hierotheus: “tell, on occasion, the governor” - regarding schismatic matters. † N. S. Lyskov, The deceased class in the Complete Works according to the Niva edition, vol. XX, p. 128. See in Letters of the Archbishop. Smaragda to Archimandrite Hierotheus on pp. 66, 69 and in “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 9, pp. 1134, 1137. This is, undoubtedly, in the entire Semov case, where Safonovich was clearly on the side of Smaragd (see above in “Christian Readings” 1913, No. 4, p. 540; No. 5, pp. 653–654), to whom he generally had to obey, being only meek and good-natured and not having independence (about which see P. A. Rossiev, Silhouettes in “Historical Bulletin” 1909, No. 8, pp. 416–417 and cf. Letters from Archbishop Smaragd to Archimandrite Hierotheus on p. 66, ₄ and in “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 9, p. 1134, 4), but Academician A. V. Nikitenko for April 16, 1861 writes (My story about myself, vol. II. St. Petersburg 1905, p. 14): “Sofonovich (Valeryan Ivanovich), the former Oryol governor, an intelligent and educated man, spent the evening with me. From him I received interesting information about the state of affairs and the state of minds in the province.” See Church and Social Bulletin VI (1879), No. 47, p. 7 b. Pyotr Dmitrievich Stremoukhov was the Nizhny Novgorod provincial leader of the nobility, at the end of 1862 he was appointed governor of Ryazan, he retired in 1866, then served as a member of the Council of the Minister of Internal Affairs and the Main Directorate for Press Affairs, in 1881 he finally left the service and no longer held any government position. He is still alive (1914, I, 31) and in a letter to us from St. Petersburg. dated 1913, X, 30 (Wednesday), received 1913, X, 31 (Thursday), reports: “I knew Archbishop Smaragd very little and my acquaintance with him did not go beyond official relations; His character seemed to me tough, grumpy and little conducive to the desire to get close to him. However, no clashes ever occurred between us.” This concerns the last year of Smaragd’s life, and other information “Christ. Readings” 1913, No. 3, pp. 317, 29–30, apparently belong to the previous time of the Ryazan period. † N. S. Leskov, Trifles of hierarchal life in the Complete Works published by Niva, vol. XXXV, p. 56. So P. A. Rossiev in the “Historical Bulletin” 1909, No. 8, p. 416, although this author puts forward this fact rather in favor of Smaragd, as an independent person who did not bow his neck to anyone. According to † Archbishop. Nikanor (Brovkovich), Metropolitan. Filaret told him in 1858: “It is always bad when a bishop does not get along with the secular authorities. When the secular, as they say, don’t hit the horse, they hit the shafts.” From the notes of Archbishop Nikanor: his apology regarding the complaints of the Ufa white clergy against him (Moscow 1909), p. 126 - based on a reprint from the “Russian Archive” XLVII (1909), book. 5, p. 76. In all likelihood, it is to Smaragda that † D. I. Rostislavov points in this sense, speaking (On the Orthodox white and black clergy, vol. I, p. 135, 1) about one archbishop who claimed that he “cannot be called a monk” - and, according to the author, “this was the absolute truth.” I. S. Zhirkevich writes (in “Russian Antiquity” 1890, vol. LXVII, August, p. 245) how “in Vitebsk he formed the idea that Smaragd should be a religious fanatic,” but when they met in October 1836, he quickly “discovered that he obeyed the prescribed church rules only outwardly.” See above 1913, no. 7–8, pp. 899, 73. See † D. I. Rostislavov in “Bulletin of Europe” 1872, July, pp. 231–232. Wed. and in † N. S. Lyskov, Trifles of bishop’s life in the Complete Works according to the publication of “Niva”, vol. XXXV, ch. X, pp. 69–70. It must be added that the news of bickering and refusals regarding proposals for communion do not agree with other dark legends about his too mysterious and “sudden” death in the presence of almost one “Princess”, who allegedly later took advantage of the capital and property of the deceased archpastor (see above 1913, No. 7–8, pp. 903, 77, 920); however, P. D. Stremoukhov writes to us (see pp. 164, 37): “I have never heard that Archbishop Smaragd died a not entirely natural death; the plunder of his property after his death could not have happened, since after his death all measures established by law were taken to protect this property until the arrival of his heirs, and no orders on my part for the arrest of Mrs. X [i.e. e. "Princess"] was not done.” See † archbishop. Nicanora, Biographical Materials I, pp. 251–252. See letters from the archbishop. Smaragda to Archimandrite Hierotheus on page 99 and in “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 11, page 1358. See letter dated April 15, 1862 ibid on page 117 and in Christian Reading 1911, No. 11, page 1513. See letter dated April 19, 1859 ibid on page 98 and in Christian Reading 1911, No. 10, page 1253. See “Oryol Diocesan Gazette” 1906, No. 20, p. 602 – according to the “Memoirs” of Fr. Hierotheus on l. 12 rev. 17 approx., 50 and rev. Oryol rumors about Smaragd’s closeness to some high-society widow (Kaleria Mikhailovna), who lived on her luxurious estate near Oryol, are not of a morally reproachful nature and do not necessarily lean towards censure. This is clearly evidenced by the very names of our known acquaintances and admirers of the Smaragdovs, such as the Kromsky landowners Pelageya Vasilyevna Shenshina and the owner of the village of Shakhova, Evdokia Ivanovna Movchan (cf. Historical description of churches, parishes and monasteries of the Oryol diocese, vol. I, pp. 463–464), with whom the archbishop visited more often. The first was present in Ryazan at the very death of the archpastor, and on this occasion dark legends arose (see above 1913, no. 7–8, pp. 903–904, 77), but the letters we published (in “Christian Reading” 1911, no. 1, pp. 117–133) letters to her from Smaragda speak of the complete purity of their relationship, and witnesses who are still alive strongly assert that P.V. Shenshin deeply respected and loved Vladyka for his “always attractive” church services, which provided spiritual and religious consolation. See, for example, the instructions of Smaragd Fr. Hierotheus in Letters to the latter on pp. 13, 4 and in “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 3, pp. 392, 4. Actually, only † D. I. Rostislavov directly hints at this with his phrase about Smaragda: “in the name of one young man, towards whom the deceased had a fatherly disposition, he deposited 30,000 rubles long before his death.” (see above 1913, no. 6, pp. 722, 60); but P. D. Stremoukhov writes to us (see pp. 164, 37): “I have never heard of this in Ryazan; I have also never heard of his bribery. The deceased did not enjoy the favor of the local population at all, so any slander against him is not surprising.” See Church and Social Bulletin VI (1879), No. 46, p. 6 b. This refutes the opposite legend † by N. S. Lyskova in “Trifles of Bishop’s Life in the Complete Works published by Niva,” vol. XXXV, p. 69. † Archbishop Nicanor, Biographical Materials I, pp. 237 note, and cf. page 247. See "Memoirs" about. Hierotheus on l. 53 rev. This is a dumb indication from Fr. Hierothea probably refers to the fact that - according to information reported to us from Orel - “Reverend. Smaragd loved the meat table there, for which he was constantly supplied from the savings of the Sevsky bishop's courtyard - at the Sevsky Spaso-Preobrazhensky Monastery - chickens, turkeys and, at certain times of the year, piglets. They were delivered by the housekeeper Ivan Nikolaevich Govorov (in monasticism Irinarh). Everyone knew about Smaragd’s love for meat, and the landowners always treated him to fish soup cooked in meat broth. Once, with one landowner, he was very pleased with such fish soup and, calling his cook, whom he took with him, told him: “This is the fish soup you always cook for me.” The cook replied: “Your Eminence! this soup is made from the strongest chicken broth,” but the bishop retorted: “Fool! They don’t ask you what it’s made of, they just tell you that you should know how to cook one.” There seems to be a lot of exaggeration here. At least, the latest news - about the ear - was not so long ago (in the 90s of the 19th century) used in the press (it seems by Nemirovich-Danchenko in the Niva magazine) to a completely different hierarch, and was learned by word of mouth by some others. Isn’t this one of the anecdotes that people’s idle talk weaves together about the bishop’s life and existence, which is far from being as sweet as it seems from the outside, to an envious eye (about which see also A., Judge with righteous judgment in the newspaper “Bell” No. 2. 129. For May 28, 1913, p. 3)?!... See "Memoirs" about. Hierothea, l. 109 rev. Even such a small detail in Leskov’s description, as if at his meals Smaragd called the servants with a “clap of hands,” turns out to be fabricated and incorrect, as see in the “Memoirs” of Fr. Hierothea, l. 124 rev. See † archbishop. Nicanora, Biographical Materials I, p. 236. † Archbishop Nikanor ibid. I, p. 247. See "Memoirs" about. Hierothea, l. 128 rev., approx. See "Memoirs" about. Hierothea, l. 18 rev., 49 rev., 50 and rev.: “The archpastor spent his youth so immaculately, so he lived to be sixty-three years old, until he left for Ryazan.” Ibid., l. 67, where Fr. Hierotheus recalls “the reverent custom of the Holy Hierarch of God in private, home life, alone,” namely: “When it happened that he drank tea or water: the number of times he began to take a cup, saucer, or glass in his hand, the number of times he would protect them with the sign of the Cross of the Lord. But when the Archpastor was in society, he did not do this, because he did not like hypocrisy and pretense.” For the Mogilev diocese, see above 1912, No. 6, pp. 668–669. For the Astrakhan translation, see above 1912, No. 10, pp. 1069–1070 and Fr. N. T. Kamensky († Archbishop Nikanor), Brief history of the Astrakhan diocese, p. 117. Regarding the care regarding singing and his successes in Orel, cf. Letters from the archbishop. Smaragda to Archimandrite Hierotheus on pp. 49, 74 and in “Christ. Readings" 1911, no. 7–8, pp. 973, no. 9, pp. 1142 and above 1913, no. 2, pp. 179–180; priest the village of Pokrovskogo on Lipovitsa in Maloarkhangelsk district. Oryol province, o. Joseph A. Arkhangelsky reports that Smaragd “was very fond of good singing; therefore, he did not spare money for the maintenance of the singers - and, indeed, the bishop’s choir with him was luxurious”; and N.I. Golubov, who was later the mayor of Ryazan, (dated December 2, 1910) wrote to us the following: “Archpastor Smaragd was a lover of music, both vocal and instrumental. Archpriest [Nikifor Alekseevich] Strakhov, who lived with him, brought the Oryol Choir to complete perfection. I personally heard about this from the executor of Empress Maria Feodorovna, mother of Emperor Alexander Pavlovich, Nikolai Petrovich Novosiltsev. Then I personally was honored to witness such an incident. In the early fifties, Smaragd, while surveying the diocese, stopped by the village of Dyadkovo, where there was the only crystal factory in Russia of the famous S.I. Maltsov (see above 1913, No. 7–8, pp. 909, 87). The latter, wanting to show off before the famous Archpastor, staged a choir of 120 people under the direction of his (serf) regent, who studied in the Imperial Chapel. But then something incredible happened: the bishop’s choir, singing “Bless my soul the Lord,” hypnotized everyone so much that Maltsovsky left his post in shame.” It should be noted that Maltsov, in all his churches, had his own choristers with rare voices, for example, in the “impossible bass” kind (see Vas. Iv. Nemirovich-Danchenko in “Russian Thought” 1882, No. 2, pp. 290–291), and “in Dyadkovo they sing so much that the bishop was surprised” (ibid. 1882, no. I, p. 345). About singing and singers at Smaragd and about Fr. N.A. Strakhov, see especially † Archbishop. Nikanor Brovkovich (Biographical materials I, pp. 67 ff., 234 ff.), who also mentions the successes of the Smaragdov Choir in St. Petersburg (I, p. 88). On this subject they object to us that the matter here was quite simple, for at that time among the clergy there were many excluded carefree, healthy and vocal people. But, firstly, it is all the more remarkable that other hierarchs of that time were not at all famous for their church choirs, as is quite certain for Smaragd and testifies to his special care in this area. Secondly, there was not such a great abundance of singing material. We refer to a document close to Smaragd in both place and time of action. This is the novel by V. Krestovsky (pseudonym of N.D. Zaionchkovskaya, nee Khvoshchinskaya) “Baritone” (see “Notes of the Fatherland” 1857, October, pp. 348–420; November, pp. 231–292; December, pp. 385–480), which refers to Ryazan (cf. † D. I. Rostislavova, On the Orthodox White and Black Clergy I, Leipzig 1866, p. 30) and in the person of the main character Alexei Alekseevich Ivanovsky depicts the Ryazan seminarian Ivan Ivanovich Alekseevsky, who was later a protodeacon in St. Petersburg and died here at the age of 84 on March 17, 1913. And here we read that although “there were a lot of these singers then” (p. 471), the regent still had to “catch voices” (p. 401). See "Memoirs" about. Hierothea, l. 128 and rev. See above 167, 49 - about P.V. Shenshina, but this is also true for Nadezhda Onufrievna Grevs, according to Lyudmila’s monasticism: she was deeply devoted to Smaragd, as a reverent bishop of God, revered him as her spiritual father and died, upset by his loss: see “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 1, p. 125, g, “Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities”, vol. 244, book. I for 1913, pp. 19, and, 32, 35 (mixed). All this is equally true for Varvara Nikitichna Yurasovskaya, the Volkhov landowner, about which see Letters from Archbishop. Smaragda to Archimandrite Hierotheus (on page 31) and to S.I. Trubitsyna in “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 5–6, p. 766, and in “Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities”, vol. 244, book. I for 1913, pp. 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 40–41 (mixed). In view of all of the above, the somewhat contradictory news of Ivan Sergeevich Aksakov (in his letters, part I, vol. 1, Moscow 1888) about the Astrakhan period, that “the Bishop, I must admit, is quite lazy,” that is, to serve (on page 103 of March 27, 1844), and “Smaragd does not serve well,” but majestically, seems very doubtful (p. 104). See "Oryol Diocesan Gazette" 1906, No. 20, p. 603 - according to the "Memoirs" of Fr. Hierotheus on l. 66, from where in the Letters of Archbishop. Smaragda to Archimandrite Hierotheus on pp. 88, 89 and in “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 11, pp. 1243, 1244: “This saint, in performing the Sacrament of ordination, was extremely attentive and reverent, although very lenient towards the abilities of those being ordained... Regarding the very action of the Archpastor in performing the ordination initiates, I can with true conviction, from ten years of presence, experience and observation, testify that His Eminence Smaragd, with the inimitable, so to speak, art of suggestion and fortitude, conveyed the “Divine Pledge” to the newly ordained Priest! Without special tenderness and fear of God it was impossible to be present when the Saint performed the Sacrament of ordination to Priesthood. More than one of the attentive ordainers shed tears of tenderness for St. throne, which clearly testified to the presence of the special grace of the Lord through the prayers of the Saint.” See “Church and Public Bulletin” VI (1879), No. 46, p. 6 c. Thus, the aforementioned (on page 171) Archpriest Vissarion Yakovlevich Nekrasov recalls that while serving in the village of Nikitkino, Yegoryevsky district. Ryazan province, he and the other two executors (Ershov and Voskresensky) occupied the entire place along the censing path of Smaragd, who pushed him so hard that he knocked down his comrades, but at dinner the archbishop took three beautiful pears from the table and presented them to the injured slayers with the words: “whom I offended, forgive the sick old man.” See † archbishop. Nicanor, Biographical Materials I, pp. 241 ff.; “Oryol Diocesan Gazette” 1906 No. 20, pp. 602–603; D. Z(akharievi)ch in “Russian Antiquity” 1883, vol. XXXIX, p. 423. † Archbishop Nicanor, Biographical Materials I, pp. 242 ff. Thus, the Polotsk leader of the nobility L. Belikovich, the worst enemy of Orthodoxy and Smaragd (see above 1912, No. 2, pp. 301, 21; No. 3, pp. 317, 126), slandered that the latter “during a service scolded the clergyman with obscene words at the moment when he remembered the royal name”: see o. G. I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 151. So † D. I. Rostislavov in the “Bulletin of Europe” 1872, July, pp. 233, 234. After Orel (from June 27, 1840), Rev. Evlampius († March 12, 1862) adhered to the same rules in Vologda (November 22, 1844 – June 16, 1852), about which see E.V. Gryaznov. From the school memoirs of a former seminarian at the Vologda Seminary (Vologda 1909), p. 203 and in the “Vologda Diocesan Gazette” 1903, No. 10, pp. 283–284. See above 1913, no. 2, pp. 176 and 178. See “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1895, No. 15, p. 391, and letters from M. Philaret to Evlampius himself in “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1877, I, pp. 19, 21–22. See also “The Life of Archimandrite Nikodim Kazantsev” in the “Theological Bulletin” 1910, No. 12, p. 648, that Evlampius “tortures the Orthodox and the clergy with very long services.” See G. M. Pyasetsky, History of the Oryol Diocese, p. 1017. P. A. Rossiev, Silhouettes in the “Historical Bulletin” 1909, No. 8, p. 418; “The Reverend Simeon instituted devout, long, magnificent services in the Oryol cathedrals,” but “I think he did not directly govern the diocese. With people like him, consistory “lawyers” - “life - no need to die.” Thus, regarding the long services of Bishop Antonin of Vitebsk (Derzhavin, † March 2, 1902, Archbishop of Pskov), Savva in his “Chronicle” says: “I praise his zeal, but I do not approve of excessively long services. We must spare the weakness of those praying and especially those serving together.” See vol. IX (St.-Tr. Sergius Lavra 1911), pp. (87–88,) 89. Of the many legends of this kind, let us note the following. Somewhere (in Orel) the governor did not come to the royal prayer service. Smaragd, having already reached the middle of the church, sent to say that he was waiting for him. He sends a handwritten letter about his illness, and Smaragd reads this message loudly and again sends a messenger to the governor with a reminder that, judging by the writing itself, the author is able to be in church. The governor appeared, and only then did the service begin, but after him Smaragd again made an energetic suggestion to the governor that he, as a chamberlain, had received from the Tsar a special distinction in some costume accessories (“white trousers”), and did not want to be in time for the Tsar’s prayer service. See even lower. See P. A. Rossiev, Silhouettes in the “Historical Bulletin” 1909, No. 8, p. 416. t. N. S. Leskov, Trifles of bishop’s life in the Complete Works according to the publication of “Niva”, vol. XXXV, pp. 72, 78. This is how Smaragd spoke about the Reverend. Astrakhan (1826–1832) Pavel (Sabbatovsky), about which see Fr. N. T. Kamensky († Archbishop Nikanor), Brief history of the Astrakhan diocese on p. 102 and in the “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1884, No. 2, p. 28. † Archbishop Nicanor, Biographical Materials I, p. 245, and in the Church and Social Bulletin VI (1879), No. 27, p. 3 a; O. Pl. Menchits ibid. No. 56–57, pp. 6 a. Archbishop Nicanor, Biographical Materials I, p. 77. See † prot. M. Ya. Moroshkin in the “Collection of the Imperial Russian Historical Society”. vol. СХIII (St. Petersburg, 1902), p. 148. "Church and Public Bulletin" VI (1879), No. 27, p. 3 a. † N. S. Leskov, The Deceased Estate in the Complete Works published by Niva, vol. XX (St. Petersburg 1903), p. 120. † Archbishop Nikanor in the Church and Public Bulletin VI (1879), No. 27, p. 3 a. b and in Biographical Materials I, p. 77: “Sometimes he (Smaragd) deliberately assumed this rudeness so that the wealth of cordiality would not burst out. It was prim modesty.” † Archbishop Nicanor, Biographical Materials I, p. 241. † Archbishop Nikanor ibid. I, page 80. † Archbishop Nikanor ibid. I, pp. 83, 81. † Archbishop Nikanor ibid. I, pp. 70, 72, 77. See "Memoirs" about. Hierotheus on l. 127 rev.–128 † Archbishop Nikanor Biographical materials. I, page 81. See "Church and Public Bulletin" VI (1879), No. 27, page 3 a. b. See † archbishop. Nicanor, Biographical Materials I, pp. 70, 72; "Church and Social Bulletin" VI (1879), No. 26, p. 5 b, and No. 27, p. 3 a. † Archbishop Nicanor, Biographical Materials I, pp. 233, 77, 78, 79. † Archbishop Nikanor in the “Church and Public Bulletin” VI (1879), No. 26, p. 5 c. "Church and Public Bulletin" VI (1879), No. 47, page 7 a. E. N. Ostrogorsky also reported to us about this same incident, which happened during his studies at the Oryol Theological Seminary (in a letter dated February 14, 1911). Archbishop Nicanor, Biographical Materials I, p. 243. “Church and Social Bulletin” VI (1879), No. 47, p. 47 a – b. † Archbishop Nicanor, Biographical Materials I, p. 244. See above “Christ. Reading" 1913, No. 3, pp. 318, 40. † G. M. Pyasetsky, History of the Oryol diocese, pp. 962–963. † Archbishop Nicanor, Biographical Materials I, p. 243. “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1884, No. 11, p. 191, 1 and separately from Archpriest. N. T. Kamensky († Archbishop Nikanor) on p. 113, 4. † G. M. Pyasetsky, History of the Oryol Diocese, p. 962. See "Memoirs" about. Hierotheus on l. 22 and 47 rev. It is Smaragda who is rumored to have adopted the well-known characteristic saying, now widespread everywhere, that “Ryazan people are bastards,” allegedly loudly pronounced in one church in the city of Ryazan during a service on the occasion that he saw some kind of malicious intent (“they wanted to kill the bishop!”) when a candle fell on his head from above. It's kind of like † ep. Nikodim (Kazantsev) wrote that “Vyatka is especially distinguished by impudence and audacity.” “The people of Vyatcha are terribly rude, stubborn, and self-willed. Due to the same ignorance, they are terribly vindictive.” See in “Proceedings of the Vyatka Scientific Archival Commission” 1912, no. III, p. 23; 1913, issue. I–II, p. 76. However, it is possible that the above incident was in vain attributed to Smaragd, as well as the natural play on words “Ryazan people - Re(e)zan people”, for the second is learned, for example, by Metropolitan Isidor Nikolsky of St. Petersburg († September 7, 1892), who in 1863 (after Smaragd’s death) spoke Reverend Leonty (Lebedinsky): “A vacancy has opened in Ryazan; but I won’t send you there to the Rezants” (see “Theological Bulletin” 1914 No. 1, p. 145). Thus, in the Ryazan diocese at Easter, one clergyman did not get along with the division of the collected eggs, because the priest wanted to take more, and the deacon demanded an equal share for himself and then trampled all the eggs in the tub while the drunken sexton cheerfully whistled and danced. An investigation began, which began to lean in favor of the priest, because the latter endeared himself to the dean by offering him a tub of honey. When all this matter came to Smaragd, he put down the following resolution: “priest-khapun, deacon-trampler, sexton-whistle, dean-sweetheart - (all) to the monastery for a month.” See in “Russian Antiquity” 1908, February, pp. (450–) 451. However, this case also applies (arbitrarily?) to the Vladimir diocese in N.I. Solovyov, Church and parish life in the half of the last century: everyday essays based on personal memories in “The Wanderer” 1909, April, p. 524. The following document is stored in the archives of the Ryazan Consistory. On some occasion, official gratitude was expressed to one high-ranking person, Smaragd, and he handed over this document with the following handwritten resolution: “to keep this in business, as a sign of so-and-so’s merciful attention to our unworthiness,” with the last two words written in huge letters, while the high title was written in the smallest. See “Oryol Diocesan Gazette” 1906, No. 20, pp. 603–604 - according to the “Memoirs” of Fr. Hierotheus on l. 125 and rev. † Archbishop Nicanor, Biographical Materials I, p. 238. † Archbishop Nicanor, Biographical Materials I, p. 230. † N. S. Leskov, Trifles of hierarchal life in the Complete Works of the Niva edition, vol. XXXV, p. 66, and it should be noted that Leskov characterizes this lady from the most unfavorable side, if she, with her “extraordinary [– in a bad sense –] upbringing” reached the point that “all the cab drivers were afraid of her”: The deceased class in the Complete Works of publication "Niva", vol. XX, p. 124. "Memories" about. Hierotheus on l. 18 ver.–19, from which for the original extracts see below on pp. 316, 169a. It is enough to recall at least one incident or anecdote about a religious procession organized at night by order of Smaragd to free a priest who was arrested with the holy gifts by the city authorities who were unfavorable to the archbishop. Although K. S. Leskov himself doubted the reliability of this event (Trifles of bishop's life in the Complete Works published by Niva, vol. XXXV, p. 65), it is still confirmed by Smaragdov's contemporaries and their closest successors. This is what Fr. says about the construction of the Oryol Peter and Paul Cathedral. Hierotheus in his “Memoirs” on fol. 46 ver.: see Letters of the Archbishop. Smaragda to Archimandrite Hierotheus on page 58 and in “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 7–8, p. 982. Even Metropolitan Innocent of Moscow († March 31, 1879) wrote to Bishop Nikodim of Yenisei († June 11, 1874) on February 6, 1869: “Do not think that the members of the Synod can do anything. Their job is only to sign what they bring or send and on some days (2 hours each), that is, on Wednesdays and Fridays, to listen to three or four cases, mostly the most ordinary ones, and that’s all!” See "The Wanderer" 1913, No. 7–8, p. 40. † Archbishop Nicanor, Biographical Materials I, p. 246. Cf. u † prof. Al. P. Lebedeva, Blind Leaders (Moscow 1907), pp. 36–37 approx. See “Church and Public Bulletin” VI (1879), No. 26, p. 5 b. † N. S. Leskov, Trifles of hierarchal life in the Complete Works published by Niva, vol. XXXV, pp. 67, 66, 74. See † archbishop. Nikanora, Biographical materials I pp. 70 and 73. This can be said, for example, about the Reverend. Innocent (Borisov). Archbishop Dmitry (Muretov, † November 14, 1883), called a “compassionate” and even “kindest ruler” (by † Eminence Neophytos in “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” XXXII [1910], No. 7–8, pp. 466, 470), in a letter to Metropolitan. To Kievsky Arseny (Moskvin, † April 27, 1876) from Odessa on December 18, 1867 he says: “The strange spirit of the local people! When the late Right Reverend Innocent treated them like pigs, beat them with a stick, forced them to dig ditches in his garden for several months to plant trees, then they were meek and obedient. When you treat them like humans, they raise their snout and are ready not only to get dirty, but also to tear them apart.” See A. N. Kotovich, Church issues in the recent past in “The Wanderer” 1909, No. 12, p. 785. And from other sources we know that, being by nature “boiling water”, Innocent - in the heat of irritation - swore even in the altar with unspeakable words, hit the readers there on the head with a book, tore their hair and pulled it out, beat on the cheeks: see Letters from Archbishop Nikanor to I.U. Palimsestov in the “Russian Archive” 1909, book. 6, p. 230, et cf. in I. U. Palimsestov, My memories of Innocent, Archbishop. Kherson and Tauride (published by the editors of the magazine “Strannik”, St. Petersburg, 1888), pp. 187, 195 ff. See Fr. N. T. Kamensky († Archbishop Nikanor), Brief History of the Astrakhan Diocese, p. 103, and in the “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1884, No. 2, p. 28. See in the “Oryol Diocesan Gazette” 1906, No. 20, p. 603 - according to the “Memoirs” of Fr. Hierotheus on l. 126. See Smaragd’s farewell speech to the Astrakhan flock in the Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette, 1895, No. 18, p. 453. See † G. M. Pyasetsky, History of the Oryol Diocese, pp. 962, 963. See in the archives of the Mogilev Ecclesiastical Consistory the resolution of Smaragd dated September 15, 1837 in the case of the refusal of the priest Leplinsky and his wife’s request for a complaint against the tenant Epelfeldova. See † o. N.K. Smirnova in “The Wanderer” 1882, No. 2, p. 433. Cf. and above “Christ. Reading" 1913, No. 3, p. 318. Thus, the priest of the village of Pokrovskoye on Lipovitsa in Maloarkhangelsk district of Oryol province, Fr. Joseph A. Arkhangelsky tells the following. Upon entering the theological class, he and two or three comrades were ordained to the surplice in September. When, after tonsuring their hair, Smaragd read a prayer, they were slow to rise from their knees, and the ruler, as a fast-moving and hot-tempered man, grabbed them by the hair so that they would rise faster, which was done. At the end of the service, they approached Smaragd for a blessing, and he asked: “Well, what? hurt?" “Yes, sensitively, Your Eminence,” one of them answers. “Well, come and have tea with me.” They set off, and soon Smaragd came to them, who, having learned that only one cup had been drunk, insistently said: “not enough, drink more,” but the young people thanked and refused. Then Smaragd called his cell attendant, and he brought on a tray the appropriate amount of prosphora, wrapped in white paper. The Archbishop handed them over to the seminarians, who, later unwrapping the prosphora, found there another three rubles for each. See above “Christ. Reading" 1912, No. 3, p. 307. See above “Christ. Reading" 1912, No. 7–8, pp. 817, 84. See above “Christ. Reading" 1912, No. 4, p. 435. See Church and Social Bulletin VI (1879), No. 26, p. 5 a. And it is worthy of note that the people themselves recalled not so much regrettable incidents as happy results. For example, in Orel, not so long ago, one deacon at the church of the Diocesan Women's School, “with sincere gratitude to the name and memory of Smaragd,” told how he received a deaconship because, as a bishop’s choirboy, he was caught stealing apples and severely beaten. † D. I. Rostislavov in the “Bulletin of Europe” 1872, July, p. 232. See Joseph Samchevsky in “Kyiv Antiquity” 1894, January, p. 39. † Archbishop. Nicanor, Biographical Materials I. pp. 243–244. † G. M. Pyasetsky, History of the Oryol Diocese, p. 961. “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1884, No. 12, p. 212 and separately from Fr. N. T. Kamensky († Archbishop Nikanor) on page 119. Information in this sense still comes from all the dioceses of the Smaragd archpastorship. See above 1913, no. 2, pp. 183, 48. See † archbishop. Nikanor (Kamensky), Oryol Archpastors, the Bishop's House, its sights, lands and personnel in the Collected Works (Kazan 1909), p. 549. † N. S. Leskov, Trifles of hierarchal life in the Complete Works published by Niva, vol. XXXV, pp. 79 ff., 81. See Church and Social Bulletin VI (1879), No. 47, p. 6 b. See letters from Smaragd to Prince N.N. Khovansky in the Russian Archive, 1901, II, p. 438. See “Notes of a Village Priest” in “Russian Antiquity” XVIII (1879), pp. 439 ff. Here are a few small facts conveyed to us personally by one of the Ryazan bishop choristers (St. Petersburg Archpriest V. Ya. Nekrasov). Once, when the smallest of them were playing knucklebones in the bishop's courtyard, the formidable Smaragd suddenly appears, heading to his garden, accompanied by the steward, Archpriest. Nikifor Alekseevich Strakhov. The boys were about to run away, but Smaragd stopped them and himself took part in this game along with them, and the next day he sent gifts. He was also lenient about catching songbirds in traps and, having caught our informant in the act, praised the latter as “well done” and sent him with the tit to the cell attendant Matvey. Trips around the diocese were a holiday for the singing boys, each of whom brought with him at least 30 rubles. teahouses This usually took place at the beginning of hot July, and Smaragd stayed on the road - not in front of the people - with patriarchal simplicity, sitting in the carriage only in a cassock, with his chest unbuttoned and his head uncovered. The singers were supposed to get to the villages before the bishop, but one day the latter decided, jokingly, to get ahead of them, and they rushed away from him - and so everyone rushed “into the launches” for about five miles without a break. Smaragd protected his singers from school adversity. In 1862, there was a consecration of the church in the Pavlovsky suburban area of ​​the Ryazan bishop's house (see above 1913, No. 3, p. 312), and secular authorities headed by the governor were also present. During the subsequent dinner, the singers performed various decent secular chants, which aroused general approval. Smaragd was especially moved after the cantata “Glory to the Clear Sun in the Sky” and, turning to the inspector of the Seminary, Rev. N. A. Ildomsky († May 19, 1865: see † A. S. Rodossky on pp. 166–167), said: “You grumble that the singers are doing poorly, but do you hear what the singing is like?!... from one ox, oh. Inspector, there’s no such thing as two skins.” See D. Z-ch (Daniil Stepanovich Zakharevich), candidate of the XIX course in St. Petersburg. Spirit. Academy (in † I. A. Chistovich on p. 435 and in † A. S. Rodossky on pp. 157–158), Bishop’s Choir under Archbishop Smaragd: memories of a former treble soloist (1837–1841) in “Russian Antiquity” 1883, vol. XIX, p. 421–429, especially pp. 424 ff., 429: “In general, we looked at the Right Reverend Smaragd as a father and a good memory of him, I believe, will be preserved by each of the former little singers of my time,” † Archbishop. Nikanor, Biographical materials 1, p. 67 ff. See "Church and Public Bulletin" VI (1879), No. 26, p. 5 b. † Archbishop Nicanor, Biographical Materials I, pp. 69, 72 and 76. See above “Christ. Reading" 1912, No. 1, pp. 66–67; No. 9, p. 948 approx.; No. 10, p. 1074. Priest I. A. Arkhangelsky (see pp. 307, 125a) says that “to the seminarians, the Reverend. Smaragd treated him very well; It happened that he would do recreations and come to them himself - he even took part in games, for example, rounders, etc.” † G. M. Pyasetsky, History of the Oryol diocese, pp. 959–960. Thus, in Polotsk, Smaragd allowed a banned priest, but received a certain reprimand from the Synod for this, about which see “Memoirs” of Fr. Hierotheus on l. 13. “Church and Public Bulletin” VI (1879), No. 47, p. 7 a – b; there was “the case of Smaragd’s reprisal against a drunken priest, from whom he, however, suffered cruelly, but whom, for a promise to continue to behave soberly, he forgave and even transferred to a better place, from a poor village in the very city of Oryol to a good parish.” See in “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 5–6, p. 764 (and separately on p. 29) Smaragd’s letter to Fr. Hierotheus dated August 28, 1853 about Protodeacon Dimitry Romanovsky, who lost his wife and daughter to cholera in the same week. See "Memoirs" about. Hierotheus on l. 123 et ver.: “So, truly! The Holy Hierarch of God, Archbishop Smaragd, in his life deserved one blessing and gratitude from his subordinates, whom he loved and richly rewarded for their good life and useful works; He punished the weak very leniently; Rarely, it happened, he was subjected to subordinateship for three weeks; the most serious crimes were sometimes limited to one month of repentance, or satisfaction (?), if this concerned only the Archpastoral mercy, and not the accuracy of the law, or the instructions of the Supreme Authority, which he could not transgress. He had mercy on the guilty, but most of all he was forgiving to sinners out of respect for the suffering of the unfortunate families of the innocent. He had special favor towards orphans and widows, and took every possible care to arrange their fate.” See the example in the Letters of the Archbishop. Smaragda to Archimandrite Hierotheus on pp. 76–77 and in Christian Reading 1911, no. 9, pp. 1144–1145. And N.I. Golubov wrote to us from Ryazan (December 2, 1910) that “judging by his condescension towards the weak, by his love for orphans, eternal memory of Smaragd should be sung.” See above “Christ. Reading" 1912, No. 9, p. 934–935; No. 10, p. 1073; 1913, No. 3, p. 316. See above “Christ. Reading" 1912, No. 4, pp. 435, 253; No. 7–8, pp. 818; No. 9, pp. 947, 173; No. 10, pp. 1066, 15. † G. M. Pyasetsky, History of the Oryol Diocese, p. 959. See † N. S. Leskov, Trifles of hierarchal life in the Complete Works published by Niva, vol. XXXV, p. 81. Cf. † D. I. Rostislavov in the “Bulletin of Europe” 1872, July, pp. 230–231. See Smaragd's letter to Fr. To Hierotheus dated April 19, 1859 on page 98 and in “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 10, page 1253. See the farewell speech to the Astrakhan flock in the Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette, 1895, No. 18, p. 453. See above “Christ. Reading" 1912, No. 10, p. 1067, 23. See above “Christ. Reading" 1913, No. 3, p. 318. See above “Christ. Reading" 1912, No. 7–8, pp. 811, 50. About the “sovereign treatment” of the clergy of the bishops of the Nikolaev (modern Smaragda) era and, in part, the most recent era, see the vivid illustrations of † prof. Al. P. Lebedeva, Blind leaders: four moments in the historical life of the church (Moscow 1907), pp. 50 seq., 53–54 seq. For the recent past, see Notes of Archpriest. V. G. Pevnitsky in “Russian Antiquity” 1905, book. IX, p. 572 about the Reverend. Palladia (Raeve), † December 5, 1898 Metropolitan of St. Petersburg. And about contemporary phenomena of this kind, let my mouth not speak here of the siege deeds of men... Let us only mention what we ourselves saw, like a venerable provincial priest, treated kindly by the Metropolitan. Anthony (Vadkovsky, † November 2, 1912), distinguished by his rare friendliness and gentleness, spoke about this with tears of grateful tenderness, for he was accustomed to a completely different treatment in his Kursk diocese. However, about the current “sovereign techniques”, see the competent evidence of “Bell” No. 2043 for February 6, 1913, pp. 3, column. 4–5 (“Modest Wishes” by Priest A. Smiryagin); No. 2098 for April 19, 1913, p. 3, column. 1–2 (“On the lord’s receptions” by Priest I.G.). See above “Christ. Reading" 1912, No. 9, pp. 941, 143. Yes, oh. E. N. Ostrogorsky testifies that when he was somewhat late to the church of the bishop’s house on the eve of his ordination to the deacon (December 25, 1854), Smaragd said to him: “boy! the archbishop was waiting for him,” and others thought that he wanted to hit, which the protege “did not feel at all.” Talks about. E. N. Ostrogorsky and another case, that once in Livny Smaragd loudly scolded one priest in the church, but the people on the street thought that “The Bishop was beating Fr. Nicholas"; then they even said that the pregnant wife of the latter had a miscarriage because of this, but “this is the plot.” In general, they exaggerate, invent and slander Smaragd about assault, although in this regard he, apparently, was not completely restrained and knew how not only to bless, but also to reward with pokes... See "Oryol Diocesan Gazette" 1906, No. 20, p. 603 - according to the "Memoirs" of Fr. Hierotheus on l. 124. Yes, ep. Nikodim (Kazantsev) writes that Reverend. Tula Damascene (Rossov: see above 1913, No. 6, pp. 721, 55) was cruel at the trial and gave more than 300 people as soldiers (see “Tula Diocesan Gazette” 1911, No. 12, p. 254 seq.), and Evgeniy (Bazhanov, † 6 1862) Tambovsky sent up to 500 people into military service. (ibid., p. 253). Prot. A. A. Balyaev, Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy and his correspondence with Kostroma Plato in the “Theological Bulletin” 1914, No. 1, p. 128 (dated February 1, 1868): “John [Sokolov] of Smolensk [† March 17, 1869] was expelled from the seminary and school from the time of his arrival [– and he was appointed bishop Smolensky November 9, 1866 –] 540 people; The clergy pesters us with fines. If the person fined comes to ask for forgiveness, then he doubles it; I tripled one, because he thought that he had said something wrong the second time, and came a third time.” See Letters of the Archbishop. Smaragda to Archimandrite Hierotheus on pp. 26, 53, 60 and in “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 5–6, p. 760; No. 7–8, pp. 977 and 984, as well as above on p. 310. Archbishop Nikanor, Biographical Materials I, pp. 70, 72, 74. See also in the “Memoirs” of Fr. Hierotheus on l. 52: “For many, in appearance, the Most Reverend Smaragd seemed very stern or strict and, as it were, inaccessible; but inwardly he was deeply conscious and merciful.” See “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1884, No. 12, p. 212 (and Archpriest N. T. Kamensky [† Archbishop Nikanor] separately on p. 119); "Church and Public Bulletin" VI (1879), No. 47, p. 6 in; No. 56–57, pp. 6 a. See also the speech of the inspector of the Astrakhan Seminary, Archimandrite. Vassian (Chudnovsky) at his farewell to Smaragd in the “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1895, No. 18, pp. 456–457. † Archbishop Nicanor, Biographical Materials I, p. 245. † N. S. Leskov, Trifles of bishop's life in the Complete Works published by Niva, vol. XXXV, p. 72. “Old-timer of Astrakhan” in “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1899, No. 13, p. 649. † Archbishop Nicanor, Biographical Materials I, p. 80. † Archbishop Nikanor in the Church and Public Bulletin VI (1879), No. 24, p. 5 b. † Archbishop Nikanor ibid. I, p. 245. See in the collection: “Some experiences of exercises of pupils St. Petersburg Theological Academy", pp. 87–88. See Smaragd’s farewell speech to the Astrakhan flock in the Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette, 1895, No. 18, pp. 455–456. See letters from Smaragd: - to I.F. Glushkov in the “Russian Archive” 1891, book. I, p. 379; – to S.D. Nechaev on February 7, 1835 at Fr. G.I. Shavelsky, the last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 33. See above “Christ. Reading" 1912, No. 3, p. 317. See "Oryol Diocesan Gazette" 1906, No. 20, p. 593 - according to the "Memoirs" of Fr. Hierotheus on l. 2. See "Memoirs" about. Hierotheus on l. 1. rev. See above “Christ. Reading" 1912, No. 10, pp. 1067–1068. See "Memoirs" about. Hierotheus on l. 6 and in the “Oryol Diocesan Gazette” 1906, No. 20, pp. 601–602 and 595. See also Letters of the Archbishop. Smaragda to Archimandrite Hierotheus on page 56 and in “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 7–8, page 980: “in letters, Smaragd often (sometimes) resolved such matters, gave such advice that saved the Diocesan Administration from fruitless correspondence and unpleasant worries.” See † archbishop. Nikanor in the “Church and Public Bulletin” VI (1879), No. 26, p. 5 b. ibid. VI (1879), no. 26, p. 5 b. See the words of Metropolitan. Philaret above “Christ. Reading" 1912, No. 9, p. 953. See "Memoirs" about. Hierotheus on l. 123 rev. ibid., l. 123 rev. See above “Christ. Reading" 1912, No. 10, p. 1073; 1913, No. 2, p. 179; No. 3, p. 318. See Smaragd's letter to Fr. To Hierotheus dated March 20, 1854 on page 76 and in “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 9, page 1144. "Memories" about. Hierothea, l. 105 rev.–106: “The honesty and firmness of the saint’s soul was so unshakable that, despite any significant or strong personality or acquaintance, the Right Reverend (Smaragd) never yielded to anyone’s demands without written and investigative evidence and a trial; “He especially religiously supported the state of the clergy against frequent attacks on his honor and tranquility.” Ibid., l. 123 reverse: Smaragd “during the investigation, he gave the accused the means of acquittal and therefore condescended to their requests, albeit illegal, for a change of investigators, with the condition that, after the leniency shown to justify himself during the investigation, if the accused is not acquitted then, then at the trial he may be subject to greater penalties.” See above “Christ. Reading" 1912, No. 9. pp. 947, 173; 1913, No. 3, pp. 318, 41. See ibid above. 1912, no. 7–8, p. 813. See ibid above. 1912, no. 7–8, pp. 814–815. See ibid above. 1912, No. 7–8, pp. 815 ff. See ibid above. 1912, No. 10, p. 1072. See ibid above. 1912, No. 9, p. 934. And regarding the subordinates at the bishop’s house, Smaragd referred to the fact that “according to the laws, the Diocesan Bishop has every right to take every clergyman to his place for a trial for 40 days”: see above 1912, No. 7–8, pp. 818, 89. See above “Christ. Reading" 1912, No. 10, p. 1066. See ibid above. 1912, No. 9, pp. 947, 173; No. 10, p. 1067; 1913, No. 2, p. 179, as well as below pp. 320, 324, 189a. See ibid above. 1912, No. 3, pp. 307, 321, 147; No. 6, p. 668. See Church and Social Bulletin VI (1879), No. 26, p. 5 a. b; No. 34, p. 6 a. Thus, they say that those who were more important among the spiritual subordinates at the Oryol bishop's house were assigned by Smaragd to more menial tasks and he himself monitored their execution, with which the lower clergy were satisfied. See above “Christ. Reading" 1912, No. 6, p. 662; No. 10, p. 1071. See, for example, “Church and Public Bulletin” VI (1879), No. 47, p. 6 b, c. See above “Christ. Reading" 1912, No. 9, p. 936; No. 10, p. 1071; 1913, No. 2, p. 184. See "Memoirs" about. Hierothea, l. 19 rev. See above “Christ. Reading" 1912, No. 9, p. 935; No. 10, p. 1071; 1913, No. 2, p. 183; No. 3, pp. 314, 17. Priest I. A. Arkhangelsky (see above on p. 307, ₁₂₅ₐ) says that Smaragd “was very strict, but fair; If he punished anyone, he punished him in a fatherly way.” Here is another example that St. Petersburg Archpriest John Ioannovich Demkin reported to us (March 11, 1913). On one of his trips around the Ryazan diocese, Smaragd arrived in Zaraysk, where the city mayor and other representatives came to him with bread and salt. Having accepted the offering, the ruler turns to the latter, what they trade, and when they hesitated, the head was questioned about it. The following dialogue followed. - “I’m in the leather department.” - “Well, how much is leather?” - “Yes, it varies: there are cheaper ones, there are also more expensive ones.” - “And the average price?” - “Such and such.” - “And before, what was the price of these leathers?” - “It’s much cheaper,” - “Yes, yes. Well, before you used to give priests (approximately) a nickel for glorification, and now you limit yourself to the same nickel.” And, taking this opportunity, Smaragd led a corresponding conversation about the material support of the clergy. Regarding the last subject, the archbishop also gave practical instructions on finding funds, advising, for example, to accompany all the dead for a fee, and in general he was very busy with this modern issue, for which purpose “Presences were established in the dioceses to find funds to improve the life of the Orthodox parish clergy” (see above 1913, No. 3, pp. 316–7), although - according to P. D. Stremoukhov (see above No. 2, pp. 164, 37) - “as far as he remembers, the activities of the short-lived committee on improving the life of the clergy, it seems, existed in Ryazan, under the chairmanship of the Archbishop (Smaragd), did not lead to any significant results.” See above “Christ. Reading" 1912, No. 9, pp. 934, 102, 934, 109–110, 938, 125, 945, 166; No. 10, pp. 1067, 24. According to the story of Fr. I. A. Arkhangelsky (see pp. 307, 125a), under Evlampy, priest Nikolai Lebedev came to the bishop's house under the leadership of Volkhovskaya; Having learned that all this happened because of family squabbles with his wife, Smaragd simply returned him to serve in Volkhov, and the consistory case about this “torn into small pieces.” See "Memoirs" about. Hierothea, l. 123 rev., and cf. above "Christ. Reading" 1913, No. 3, p. 318. Someone Iv. N. Golubov, who later was the mayor of Ryazan, during public exams as a student of the Oryol Seminary more than once boldly argued with Smaragd, who through this completely comprehended this young man, resolutely saying - regarding the hassle of assigning him to the parish, that he “will not go to the priesthood.” And so it happened. Both of them later met in Ryazan, where Golubov, due to his (first) police position, “had to bury his prophet,” Smaragda. This conclusion naturally appears, for example, when comparing the comments of † Fr. M. Y. Moroshkina about Smaragda (p. 148) with his description of the archbishop. Olonetsky († May 8, 1870) Arkady Fedorov (pp. 149–150). This incident was reported to you by Yves. N. Golubov. See above No. 2, pp. 174, 77. See even above No. 2, pp. 174, 77 and † N.K. Smirnov in “The Wanderer” 1882, No. 2, p. 433 ff. This case is about St. Michael the Archangel Church in Orel, Professor Mikhail Iv. Preobrazhensky († 1866) is transmitted from Fr. Vasily Semenovich Zverev, priest of the village of Lopushi, Trubchevsky district, who sent (dated January 25, 1894) to the editors of the Oryol Diocesan Gazette a brief “Notes on the life and work of His Grace Smaragd, former Archbishop of Oryol and Sevsky, from 1844 to 1858.” on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of his death. Two further cases are presented according to the “Memoirs” of Oryol Archpriest Erasmus Iv. Voznesensky, recorded in 1909. Priest V.S. Zverev reports that one rich landowner complained to Smaragd about her large-family deacon, adding: “believe my noble word.” “I believe, I believe, madam,” said Vladyka Orlovsky and then attacked with the following remark: “how could you yourself, through your servants, offend the deacon of your church; after all, he came to me and was examined, as it should be, by lies.” The pompous lady was completely at a loss and, in a hurry to leave, said: “Give me your pen, Your Eminence!” “No, lady,” objected Smaragd, “here you have no time for our hands, when the deacon’s sides hurt through your help. You would complain to us about the deacon that he is not good, and not dispose of it in your own way.” Another landowner complained to Smaragda about the insult from the priest during confession, and he pointed out that - in addition to church rules - the city law threatens those who do not keep the secret of confession to “excavate the tongue from behind the calico” (in the Nomocanon of the most necessary rules: from Lenten Vasily, chapter 75), that is, to stretch the tongue back through the neck. See also † N.K. Smirnov in “The Wanderer” 1888, No. 2, pp. 435–436. This was partly explained by self-will, despotism and neglect of the landowners and, in general, persons of the privileged classes in relation to the clergy. From this side they have repeatedly tried to derogatoryly touch upon even Smaragd himself. Iv. N. Golubov says that the wife of the well-known rich breeder S.I. Maltsov in the Oryol province, (No. 2, pp. 169, 61), was born a princess. - when the ruler was on this estate, - she deliberately noted, pointing to a pig with numerous piglets, as if he was jealous of this fruitful animal... The Archbishop did not directly object to this, but, turning to the accompanying Svensky Archimandrite Smaragda († 1859, X, 14: see Father Hierotheus, Bryansk Svensky Dormition Monastery, Orel 2 1895, pp. 206–209), expressively and loudly began to explain the origin of the title “prince” in the sense that in ancient times during extortions they wrote in books like this: whoever gives is a prince, and whoever does not give is dirt... According to Fr. V.S. Zvereva, the wife of a banned priest with a large family, making her way to Smaragd, met him in the courtyard, but did not recognize him, because he was chopping wood in the barn and was dressed only in a cassock. She started talking about her business. When he offered to immediately take her to the archbishop, the woman began to refuse and asked to hesitate, citing the fact that she was terribly intimidated, for the bishop was “strongly formidable.” Smaragd persuaded her, convincing her that he “although he is formidable, he is also merciful”; and then in the chambers he came out to her already in proper clothes. Popadya was scared to the point of fainting, but immediately got what she asked for. Here are a few facts from the “notes” of Fr. V. S. Zvereva. One priest unsuccessfully went to Oryol 12 times for initiation into the surplice and a diploma, but finally he prayed to the archbishop himself for mercy for the sake of his patience and poverty and received satisfaction. The confessor of the Oryol bishop's house, Hieromonk Simon, was strict and sometimes reported to his proteges that one or another was unworthy. “Well, what should we do? – Smaragd noted. “Give me the worthy ones,” so that you can dedicate No. 2, pp. 171, 65. There was an even more curious case. A certain sexton, assigned to sub-command in the bishop’s house, was appointed assistant to the latter’s gatekeeper, but found himself “warm company” here and continued his cheerful life, and in front of the bishop’s steward skillfully pretended that he was suffering from stomach pain. They reported to Smaragd, who decided that this was due to a sharp break in drinking vodka, and ordered him to send him a decanter of pepper so that he could take 1/4 of a glass. The results are clear... It ended well, however, for the malingerer, who was soon sent home. His Eminence of Smolensk was February 24, 1834 - May 16, 1859 Timofey Kotlerov, † July 24, 1862. See about him at † Archbishop. Nikanor (Kamensky), Collected Works, p. 484, and in K. Ya. Zdravomyslov, Hierarchs of the Novgorod Diocese from Ancient Times to the Present: Brief Biographical Sketches, Novgorod 1897, pp. 176–177; Wed and above 1912, no. 3, pp. 298, 10, no. 4, pp. 108, 233. See “Readings at the Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University” 1910, book. I, dept. III, pp. 6, 7. See above “Christ. Reading" 1912, No. 9, p. 947; No. 10, pp. 1077, 1078; 1913, no. 2, pp. 190–191; No. 3, pp. 319–320, 323. According to I. A. Arkhangelsky (see pp. 307 125a), “Reverend. Smaragd was an extremely intelligent, kind, humane man, although very strict and quick-tempered,” and St. Petersburg Archpriest I. I. Demkin writes to us that “in general, in the Ryazan diocese, Smaragd left behind a good memory among the clergy, who had a good leader in his person.” Ryazan Cathedral Archpriest Fyodor Mikhailovich Tolerov, who served for two years in the Ryazan Theological Seminary under this archbishop and was present at his burial, in a letter to us (received 1913, V, 24 - Friday) reports: “Smaragd’s character was direct, decisive, hot to the point of excess, which at first inspired fear and awe for the clergy, who were not yet well acquainted with the character of the Lord. Over time, they soon became convinced that Vladyka, despite his ardor, had a kind, benevolent heart and devoted to the clergy. He was the first defender of the clergy in various cases and complaints, regardless of person, which led to sharp conflicts with secular authorities, starting with the governor, and other informers - city and village - an experienced, persistent, fair defender. In many cases, he saved the clergy from consistory red tape, which was especially difficult for the clergy at that time, through his administrative and archpastoral measures. To the Reverend Almost all the priests of Smaragd, except for the city ones - those in power or some dean, remained without awards. Reverend Smaragd sought out the forgotten clergy. The village priests wore skufs, kamilavkas and crosses, not to mention legguards. At this Vladyka, the clergy perked up, seemed to come to life, fell in love with the Vladyka and ceased to fear and tremble despite his ardor, having become convinced that this ardor was good, not associated with bad consequences. In general, the Ryazan flock cherished His Eminence. Smaragd is held in high esteem and respect, and the clergy became so close to him as to a father and wise ruler.” Nothing reproachful is visible about the Ryazan rule of Smaragd and in the reports of his successor in the Ryazan see, Bishop Irinarch (Popov, † September 25, 1877), meanwhile, this latter was not inclined to give favorable reviews and his replacement in Podolia, the Reverend. Leonty (Lebedinsky) answered all questions (at the beginning of 1864) that in all parts there was “nothing worse” (see “Theological Bulletin” 1914, No. 1, p. 147). See † archbishop. Nikanor, Biographical Materials I, p. 70, and in the Church and Social Bulletin VI (1879), No. 27, p. 3 a. See in “Memoirs” about. Hierotheus on l. 52 ver., 53 notes, 75 rev., 84 rev., (in letters to him from Archbishop Smaragda on pp. 8, ₃, 14, ₄, 90 and in “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 3, p. 387, ₃, 393, ₄, No. 10, p. 1245 notes, 1253, 2 ), 114 ff. For example, Smaragd himself on May 28, 1861 (on p. 113 and in “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 12, p. 1509) wrote from Ryazan about. To Hierotheus about one Abbess of Oryol: “Why did your A... decide to write to me? He writes that when laying the foundation of the new monastery church, I was dissatisfied, and that, perhaps, as a result of this, cracks appeared and are appearing in it, which now require significant renovations; that I may give my blessing to intentional corrections.” Here, of course, Amphilochia (Agniya Feodorovna Obedkova), from January 11, 1861, abbess of the Bryansk Monastery, on March 27, 1867, transferred in this rank to the Orlovsky Vvedensky Monastery, where she died on August 3, 1874: see † M. G. Pyasetsky, Historical sketches of the Orlovsky Vvedensky Maiden Monastery (Orel 1896), pp. 152–160 and in the “Oryol Diocesan Gazette” 1891, No. 7, pp. 474–519, and also cf. “Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities” vol. 244, book. I for 1913, p. 19, 1 (mixed). Thus, in 1894, priest Vasily Semenovich Zverev (see on page 320) proposed to especially honor the 30th anniversary of the death of this hierarch with church services in his Oryol diocese; from there Fr. E. N. Ostregorsky wrote (February 14, 1912) to us: “I reverently and respectfully treat the memory of my ordainer and in my long service I have always remembered and remember the famous Archbishop Smaragd along with Philarets and Platos in my unworthy prayers.” And regarding the fiftieth anniversary of Smaragd’s death on Monday, November 11, 1913, we know the following. At the St. Petersburg Theological Academy on November 10, a funeral liturgy was celebrated and after it a requiem service was performed by the bishop's service of the Right Reverend Rector, Bishop of Yamburg Anastasy Alexandrov (cf. "Church Bulletin" 1913, No. 41, column 1385). At the Spaso-Vifansky Monastery, its treasurer celebrated a funeral all-night vigil on November 10 and a mass with commemoration according to the rite on the 11th. In Kyiv, at the Bratsky Monastery on November 11, a service was held for Fr. Inspector of the Theological Academy Archimandrite. Vasily (Bogdashevsky) funeral liturgy with requiem. At the Kharkov Bishop's See there was a commemoration on November 11, and advance notice was given throughout the diocese so that those wishing to honor the memory of the deceased saint. In the “Oryol Diocesan Gazette” No. 45 for November 10, 1913, a special note was placed (on page 1035) “In memory of His Eminence Smaragd, former Archbishop of Oryol”, that he “left behind a good memory and rich memories, which the old people in the spiritual department still share with the younger generation”, why the call was made: “let us lift up the ardent prayers to the Lord God for the repose of his soul and honor his memory with holy remembrance of him.” On November 11, in the Oryol Cathedral of Peter and Paul (from 8 o’clock) a divine liturgy was served, and after it a requiem service, which was served by the Right Reverend Gregory (Vakhnin) of Oryol; in the evening, in the premises of the Oryol Peter and Paul Brotherhood, from 7 o’clock, a meeting of the “Oryol Church Historical and Archaeological Society” dedicated to the memory of Archbishop Smaragd took place, where they spoke about. Chairman of the latter prot. Ilya Vasilyevich Livansky (about the general significance of the deceased archpastor for the Oryol diocese and especially about his interaction with Archimandrite Makariy Glukharev) and secretary Ivan Stepanovich Komyaginsky (about the fight against the schism in connection with the circumstances of the move of Smaragd to Ryazan): see “Oryol Eparch. Vedomosti" No. 46 for November 17, 1913, pp. 1330–1332. In Ryazan, on November 10, there was a notice in the chronicle of the Ryazan Bulletin, and in the Archangel Cathedral, where the body of Archbishop Smaragd rests, on the 10th, an all-night vigil was celebrated, on the 11th, a funeral liturgy and after it a memorial service, preceded by the word of the Right Ryazan Dimitri (Sperovsky), who served with the bishop Mikhailovsky Ambrose (Smirnov) in the miters of the late saint (see “Ryazan Diocesan Gazette” No. 23 for December 1, 1913, pp. 1005–1106, and “Church Bulletin” 1913, No. 51–52, st. 1615–1616 in correspondence with Fr. Principal Archpriest M.I. Lebedev). We know nothing about the commemoration of Archbishop. Smaragd in other places of his ministry (in Vitebsk, Mogilev, Astrakhan), although there were timely requests for this... We only know that in the Bethany Theological Seminary, where Smaragd once (in 1828) was rector, the rector (Archim. German Ryashentsev) stated that “there were many rectors here to remember everyone,” forgetting at least that Everyone celebrates the fiftieth anniversary of their death only once... And in Mogilev, something even more amazing happened: it was supposed to be commemorated with church services and special readings, but in fact they were afraid and did absolutely nothing, they didn’t even hold funeral services, supposedly due to “fear of the Jews”..., meanwhile, Archbishop. Smaragd began his Mogilev priesthood with an order that all the holy Mogilev saints be commemorated every year on Saturday of the first week of Lent (see “Christian Reading” 1912, No. 6, pp. 654, 7)... See letters from Metropolitan. Philaret to Smaragda in “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1871, book. XIII, p. 44. See † archbishop. Savva (Tikhomirova), Chronicle of my life II, p. 78 (about his meeting with Smaragd on June 16, 1853 in Moscow), 365–366 (about the letter from Bishop Nikodim Kazantsev of Cheboksary, † June 11, 1874, to Smaragd from March 19, 1858); III, pp. 33–34 (about the letter of the Bishop of Vyatka Agafangel Solovyov, † March 8, 1876, dated December 26, 1862 regarding the “project of the Holy Council” in Russia).