Archbishop Smaragd in his activities for the reunification of the Uniates (1833-1837)

Activities of Rev. Smaragda on the accession of Uniates to Orthodoxy in the Polotsk region 1 With the noted internal unity of desires and goals, it becomes all the more mysterious why Smaragd did not immediately join Semashka and adapt to him, but went his own way - always independently and sometimes directly at odds with him? This question deserves special attention because its solution should better reveal the conditions and properties of Smaragdova’s work. The main initiator and inspirer of the Uniate revolution was Emperor Nicholas I, in whom the Uniates themselves saw the liberator of their church. 2 As the Grand Duke, he had already become acquainted with Uniatism and Poland on the spot, 3 and even before the decree of October 9, 1827, he was thinking about reuniting the Uniates and took measures himself. 4 There were even dreams of a widespread conversion of Jews in the Western Territory, 5 but it is natural that in such matters the Emperor could not delve into all the details and develop the plan itself, and from the previous time he inherited on the Uniate issue only the then generally dominant 6 policy of caution, gradualism and inconspicuous actions, 7 which so often upset and hampered the too brisk steps of Smaragd. His closest associate, Count D.N. Bludov, was previously unfamiliar with the Uniate problem 8 and used it only in accordance with the interests of his career, which is why, dreaming of receiving the portfolio of the Minister of Public Education, he was ready to completely abandon it as something unimportant. 9 Count Bludov’s assistant in this regard, F.F. Wigel (who replaced Gr. Iv. Kartashevsky, appointed trustee of the Belarusian educational district, as director of the Department of Spiritual Affairs of Foreign Denominations) was equally ignorant of Uniatism. 10 The active leader turned out to be Joseph Semashko. He already had Count Bludov as an associate, 11 and Nicholas I, inviting the latter to annex the Uniates, then presented him with a note from Semashka, 12 which he almost literally repeated. 13 Everything was focused on Joseph himself, while he maintained extreme mystery, 14 when in practice many tricks were allowed. 15 Not only did his father know nothing about the reunification projects, 16 but his closest friend Antony Zubko was not privy to them either. 17 Much was hidden from Metropolitan himself. Philaret 18 and even from the Holy Synod. 19 In the Secret Committee itself there were still the most secret meetings, unknown to it and not reported to it. 20 The resolution of the Uniate hierarchs on service books on February 7, 1834 was an unforeseen surprise 21 and frightened the Moscow saint. 22 The local authorities were not informed, and even on November 11, 1839, Governor-General P.N. Dyakov did not know about plans for reunification, 23 which they tried to arrange secretly 24 - by quietly transforming the union into Orthodoxy. 25 It seems that only in March 1839 did the authorities openly speak out for the first time that they were in favor of reunification, 26 however, Count N.A. Protasov was afraid of the publication of the Highest Decree on March 17 of this year, 27 and although publicity helped success, 28 - in St. Petersburg they still continued to keep the secret. 29 No clarity or definiteness was visible to an outsider's eye, and everywhere one sensed a kind of uncertain timidity. An excessively cautious policy was cultivated in the capital, 30 patronized by all the main rulers. Count Bludov's mottos were: prudence, gradualism, dexterity, inconspicuousness, 31 and Count N.A. Protasov imperatively instilled caution in both the official Skripitsyn, 32 and the Right Reverend Isidore, 33 The Synod timidly resisted accepting the Greek-Uniate Theological College under its jurisdiction and barely reconciled itself with its subordination to the Chief Prosecutor. 34 In general, it is absolutely certain that in the Uniate issue all the principals acted in disguise and in fear of being discovered. 35 Skillful maneuvering turned into cunning politicking, and impenetrable gloominess sometimes in many ways bordered on the secrecy of almost a conspiracy 36 ... Along with this, factual vagueness reigned for a long time among the majority. The closest participants directly testify that only under the influence of the Polish rebellion of 1831 did the very idea of ​​reuniting Uniateism with Orthodoxy gain certainty, but even then this event was seen by everyone only in the fog of the distant future. 37 Thus, the government's plans were completely hidden and remained elusive, 38 causing justifiable surprise at their mystery. Smaragd, not initiated into these secrets, 39 of course, could not profess symbols incomprehensible to anyone and naturally wondered, “why are we going towards our goal in secret?” 40 If this was necessary, it was still necessary to sufficiently enlighten Smaragd in order to demand solidarity from him. But there was nothing of the kind, which is why it is inevitable that this ruler did not recognize the principles unknown to him and did not agree with them in practice. He took different paths with Vasily Luzhinsky, 41 since the latter’s route was unclear and the course was too tortuous. Called to be an “accomplice for the actions of the Synod,” 42 – Vasily showed great fluctuations in his relations with the Orthodox hierarch 43 and generally behaved like a clever diplomat, 44 who, having been authorized by Count Bludov, actually worked in spite of him, 45 as he was disingenuous in front of Josaphat Bulgak. 46 Along with this, Vasily surrounded himself with mystery in everything 47 and again did not provide real support for a fundamental unification or life compromise. So, Smaragd did not join Semashka not at all out of prejudice, enmity and ideological denial, but for the reason that Joseph’s reunification plans were theoretically hidden from him, but practically aroused doubts, because they were not revealed with fundamental validity. 48 On the other hand, everything known about Semashka’s calculations could give rise to doubts, which were historically quite legitimate. A strictly hierarchical reunification was envisioned and carried out with the hope of re-educating the Uniates 49 through converted Uniate clergy. 50 For a person not privy to all the details, these principles should have inspired strong skepticism rather than deep faith, to which careful observation was not in the least conducive. Metropolitan Iasaphat Bulgak was a Roman Catholic at heart, 51 was afraid 52 and did not want to see 53 unity with Orthodoxy and was ready to turn the union into Latinism, 54 looking at seduction into the latter as a transition to a better rite, 55 and in general in his actions “based on the laws of the Roman Uniate Church.” 56 In turn, the Roman Catholic College, in a decree on September 9, 1801, directly stated that Uniateism and Roman Catholicism are one and the same confession. 57 Locally, the Basilians ruled everything, 58 and their authority was so high that even the best Uniate priests argued that without monasticism the secular clergy, scattered and humiliated by poverty, like a reed shaken by the wind, leans to one side or the other. 59 But the Basilian Order, which was purely Catholic in appearance, 60 was entirely imbued with a Latinizing mood, 61 in which it was very successful, if its pupil, Metropolitan Irakli Lisovsky (July 24, 1806 - August 30, 1809), being a “well-intentioned shepherd,” 62 however did not want reunification with the Orthodox Church 63 and proposed in 1802 either to annex all Uniates to Catholicism, or to convert all Russians to the union. 64 In this spirit, Bulgak tried to keep the entire white clergy 65 in ignorance, together with the Basilians, 66 who opposed his Russification aspirations, 67 for they were the greatest enemies of the Greek-Eastern rite and the Russian people, 68 considered the Orthodox faith inferior to the Jewish 69 and sought to re-educate the Uniates into real Roman Catholics. 70 Under such conditions, it seemed that the highest Uniate hierarchy and the Basilians could attract all the subordinate clergy, 71 which was also almost completely Catholic, to Latinism. 72 In any case, it was achieved that the Uniate bishops called themselves “the assistants of the pope,” 73 and the priests obeyed the demands of their superiors to cleanse rituals from Latin layers only by paying attention to the papal letter. 74 The people were in ignorance 75 and could not have any significant meaning, listening more to argumenta baculina than to pastoral exhortations. 76 Everything said that the Uniates in Russia were on the way to complete conversion to Latinism, 77 - and the highest government administration was ready to equate it with the last union, 78 seeing in it only a lower level and a part of the Latin Church. 79 In all respects, the Belarusian diocese, being Catholic, 80 in 1833 was in a state undesirable for reunification. 81 The Uniate clergy was rather hostile to him 82 and generally unreliable in this regard, 83 as polarized and imbued with Catholic tendencies, 84 and the Polotsk land was overflowing with the most stubborn Uniate priests who gathered here from Podolia and Volyn, where they refused to convert to Orthodoxy. 85 Uniate priests called and considered themselves priests, 86 and then in their actions they imitated the latter, 87 who conducted systematic propaganda against Orthodoxy or converted fictitiously. 88 The Uniate monks, of course, were in every possible way worse than the white priests 89 and, in fact, were only enrolled by Joseph Semashka in Orthodoxy “for general reunification.” 90 What was required here was a whole system for the re-education of the Uniate clergy and the re-creation of the entire church and liturgical system, 91 but this was prevented precisely by the Uniate hierarchy, which was more or less disobedient in all its clergy 92 and obedient to influential Catholic agitation in undermining any Orthodox updates in the Uniate church structure. 93 There was no unanimity in the Uniate clergy, 94 however many opposed the reunification 95 and persisted, 96 which was often the majority, 97 submitted defiant petitions, 98 prevented joint services, 99 etc. Naturally, in view of all this, not everyone could hope for a true reunification, and it was accomplished in a special way. Reunification subscriptions were taken from clergy, which - in case of sincerity - should have meant “already the end of the union,” 100 but the whole point is that the best of the Uniate clergy did not agree to such at all, 101 and most of the others, not having mastered Orthodoxy, 102 gave them only formally and even with the firm intention not to fulfill them. 103 It was necessary to collect these statements in a somewhat forced way, and - as a result of all - such subscriptions were often completely involuntary, 104 and their authors sometimes returned to the Union again and became the worst enemies of Orthodoxy, 105 and those who repented of their stubbornness again fell into the Uniate. 106 These documents were almost dominated by forced subscriptions, 107 false, 108 insincere, 109 which Vasily Luzninsky collected either with glasses of champagne, 110 or through intimidation. 111 Even Mikhail Golubovich, after Archbishop of Minsk († March 6, 1881), Semashko attracted to this through the “influence” of Count M.N. Muravyov. 112 In such ways it was not difficult to recruit paper supporters of reunification among the Uniate priests who knew how to behave “in the wind” and change according to it. 113 But the strength of these appeals was truly fickle - and Semashko was even afraid that the exiled Uniate priests would remain adamant if they were given even 300 rubles. per year. 114 And when Skripitsyn March 14, 1839 reported about the disobedient that now “everyone seems to be submissive and convinced of the need to obey,” 115 then he understood the arguments to be completely real and tangible 116 ... The people imitated only their masters, 117 but in fact the peasants in 1839 were indifferent to the rites of religion and simply followed their elders, 118 formally being counted among the mass reunion. 119 The latter was accomplished then, as it were, without the participation of the people and even while hiding the fact of reunification from them, 120 which is why the majority of them converted to Catholicism 121 and were later attracted by promises of benefits. 122 It is clear that there was no desired evolution of minds and hearts here. 123 Uniate priests served with equal indifference in the Uniate, Catholic and Orthodox ways, 124 often gravitated towards the past and falsely spread that there was a decree to go back to the Union. 125 A real reunion had not yet occurred, 126 and - according to Smaragd 127 - “for the closest actual communication and merging together of the parishioners of both flocks, further time and orders in accordance with the circumstances were required.” Even by 1864 in the Mogilev diocese, of the converted Uniate priests, “some, although not many, changed very little upon reunification,” even “did not seek changes according to the rules and customs of the Orthodox Church,” and two deans also found themselves in this category, raising the question: “what influence could they have on the transformation of their subordinates?” 128 Along with the stubborn monasteries, 129 the laity also refused to confess to the Orthodox. 130 The reunited were in the position of old enemies, 131 - and if the Reverend. Isidore (Nikolsky) was criticized for his partiality towards the reunited, but in Polotsk the Old Orthodox people fearfully shunned Vasily. 132 It is not surprising that in the Polotsk diocese the re-education of the former Uniate people has not yet been completed, 133 and its Orthodox members retain many Catholic features there 134 due to the “conservatism of former ritual habits” 135 and, at least, “unconsciously gravitate towards Catholicism for the sake of a loud organ, easy fasts and the opportunity to marry in close degrees of kinship, prohibited by Orthodox canons." 136 The preceding remarks indicate that the reunification enterprise according to Semashka’s plan seemed rather hopeless and could promise success only in such a distant future that it had to die in the process itself. For an outside observer, not at all privy to the calculations of Joseph’s subtle politics, such a view was completely justified. And Smaragd had the more right to be suspicious of such a modus agendi, since the Catholic landowners approved precisely the plan of general annexation, believing that the matter would drag on and turn back or come to naught. 137 This means that Smaragd practically did not join the Uniate reunifiers in his pessimistic view of Uniatism, as incapable of being revived on its own, and for this he had enough strong reasons 138 - in any case, no less than that of his immediate successor, the Reverend. Isidora (Nikolsky), who on December 2, 1837 wrote to Count N.A. Protasov the following: “The Poles do not care about faith, but about identity, which is favored by Catholicism. From the peasants they can be turned into Orthodox and Lutherans, if the landowner wants... The Uniate clergy are slaves of the landowners and have no idea of ​​their own except shearing sheep and dressing, in which the landowners diligently help them.” 139 It is now clear that Smaragd could not undertake the implementation of projects unknown to him, which in fact seemed doubtful in their immediate suitability. Meanwhile, by his very rank and assignment, he had to conduct reunification work, but here, due to the totality of conditions, everything was directed towards the maintenance and development of private appeals. This was supported by all historical and modern practice, which applied and approved such a method, 140 which found support, of course, in government instructions. The Polotsk diocese was opened (April 30, 1833) without proper preparation, but its obvious goal was to instill Orthodoxy at the expense of Uniatism. In this sense, Smaragd was informed at the Highest farewell audience, 141 where he received the authority to “act decisively.” 142 Even if there were some hesitations later, there was still no categorically expressed “Highest displeasure.” 143 The Holy Synod supported and encouraged Smaragd, 144 who found approval among the most influential persons, such as Chief Prosecutor S. D. Nechaev, Metropolitan. Filaret 145 and others. And when a more specific demand regarding suspension was made, Smaragd did not show persistence and obeyed. 146 Along with this, no other complete plan was seen anywhere, protected by theoretical harmony and practical adaptability, because - in the absence of a “uniform system” - “no system” reigned. 147 Historically, it is even inevitable that Smaragd chose the course of private appeals and found all the data to consider and proclaim it the most fruitful. Naturally, it “seemed to him that this method of annexation, due to its decisiveness, was the most reliable, although, without a doubt, it had its disadvantages and entailed considerable slander from the Poles and Catholics.” 148 In general, Smaragd’s policy on the Uniate issue is historically understandable and quite justified. It remains to consider some particular perplexities and objections regarding it. They say that Smaragd thought too frivolously and convinced others that almost all Uniates could be converted simply and quickly. 149 But he meant the actual masses of the people with the exclusion of Catholic landowners and the stubborn or flaunting Uniate clergy, for whom he did not close the doors of Catholicism, although he hardly wanted this and directed it there. 150 And about the people, it is indisputable that they - even in their inter-confessional indifference - were capable of succumbing to the general reunification takeover. It is not for nothing that the antagonists of Smaragd’s activity themselves testify that without the excitement and coaxing of the Uniate priests and lords, the reunification of peasants everywhere could have been accomplished with one word, 151 roughly arguing in the person of I. S. Zhirkevich that “the Vitebsk peasant is not a person. He has neither feelings nor religion. He listens to everyone who is in front of his eyes. The priest, the official, the landowner, they act with him like a machine... and in the current situation of the peasant, order him not only to convert to Orthodoxy, but also to Mohammedanism, he will do this unquestioningly, and will come to his senses in the new law only when he is fed. There were no examples of people dealing with religious issues when, instead of bread, there was tree bark and moss in the stomach, like the Vitebsk peasant. They will feed him, and he will consider this a good consequence of the change and will submit to it forever.” And Zhirkevich “did not know and did not understand that so many were standing on ceremony with them,” intending to complete the annexation of the Uniates “all of a sudden, at once and decisively without any hesitation.” 152 The population was often quite ready for Orthodoxy 153 and needed only the slightest command from the authorities or a brief intelligible order from the priest in order to unquestioningly obey 154 a firm order. 155 Here suspicious caution only confused the matter. On the contrary, it seemed that “if it had been announced that the once-followed annexation was certain, that the previous rumors about their (converts’) joining the union were absurd, and that no one could hope for that, then one could expect the restoration of the perfect calm in this part.” 156 After all, “in the end, anything could be done to the unfortunate Belarusian and subjected to any kind of rule. All his national identity, all his hopes and aspirations, protection and consolation in this earthly, sorrowful vale were concentrated around the wretched village church, where the lamp of Orthodoxy still glowed.” 157 In this case, what was needed was a decisive swing, 158 and Smaragd always advocated for this by all means, thinking of finally shaking and even crushing the entire Uniate movement. And his calculations were all the more legitimate and thorough because, according to “the totality of the existing conditions of the then Russian state and national life,” the Polish union was a “strange anachronism.” 159 Contrary to this, reunification seemed both normal and inevitable, as prepared by the entire previous course of events. Already “the return of our northwestern outskirts under Empress Catherine II under the scepter of Russian sovereigns gave a strong impetus to the Orthodox direction in the union” and caused significant appeals, 160 which developed throughout Belarus, despite the lack of planning and the ineptitude or antagonism of local authorities. 161 The church life of the Uniates had to successively and steadily move towards Orthodoxy, which is why “in the era of reunification it flowed not along a new channel artificially created for it by the leaders of reunification, but along the same channel, only expanded and cleared of stones that impeded the flow.” 162 And if Smaragd directed all the clean streams there, then wasn’t this historically natural and beneficial? They also emphasize that the Polotsk ruler acted accidentally, without fundamental deliberation, and by this alone introduces some confusion into the systematic work of others, rejecting all attempts to turn him to the true path. 163 He simply took it at a glance, planning well-known arrivals for joining 164 and using all sorts of means, not excluding vodka. 165 Let us leave aside the particulars that are close to insinuations. The most important thing has not been proven here, and, of course, because in fact it was completely different. We saw that Smaragd had certain guiding principles with a clearly defined goal, which was supposed to be carried out consistently and energetically. In this sense, he repeatedly asked for general government orders in order to establish legalized order. From above there were only refusals or contradictory answers, but nevertheless Smaragd strove for clarity and helped establish guiding points of view. There is no doubt that he - at least indirectly - contributed to the development of thoughts and advice for the leadership on the reunification of the Uniates in the original edition of 1834 by Metropolitan. Philaret, 166 not so much changed in essence by April 13, 1835. 167 The will of the Sovereign was such as “to act carefully, unhurriedly, but with due firmness,” and Count Bludov recommended “first gradually win over the Uniate clergy and then, through it, conquer the minds of parishioners to perceive pure Orthodoxy.” In turn, Met. Filaret wanted peace-loving compliance not to harm Orthodoxy, and outlined such a modus agendi. “It is more difficult to reunite the Uniate Clergy than the laity: but for that, a complete reunification of the Clergy and the laity would be more decisive, because it would make the guardians of unity those who, remaining outside the reunification, have every incentive to sway and distract the reunited. Therefore, we should not neglect private affiliations with the Orthodox Church: but we should also, with prayer and trust in God, think about general reunification.” At the same time, it was advised to instill that “the previous benefits will remain undisturbed even after joining” and that “the Orthodox Spiritual Authority ... will not forcibly demand a change in habits that are not contrary to morality, although, however, for newly initiated people, the rule of uniformity with the prevailing custom will probably be preferred.” 168 Met. Filaret actually reconciles the two trends, tilting the decision towards Smaragd’s practice, in comparison with which the other method even after seemed to him not indisputable. 169 To go from the particular to the general - this is the principle equally accepted by both hierarchs. And once at Met. This ensured systematicity for Philaret; we must recognize it in Smaragd as well. The second, no less than the first, sought order and was considered a supporter of it, since Chief Prosecutor S. D. Nechaev secretly asked him on April 10, 1834 to speak openly on the issue of the conversion of the Uniates, whether it was not necessary to prepare only general measures everywhere. 170 The answer has not been preserved, but according to all data it is clear that Smaragd tried with his private successes to contribute to the final triumph and in this regard was heading towards meeting Semashka. If both of them at one time did not know how to comprehend this and unite in solidarity, then it is completely inadmissible for us to defend that they had mutually exclusive systems, 171 and that Smaragd’s policy “went against the accepted (?!) plan for reunification.” 172 This is theoretically incorrect and factually exaggerated. There was only a noticeable difference in practice, and it is unlikely that only Smaragd was to blame for all the aggravations. The latter is reproached that, without paying attention to the interests of the Uniate, he caused conflicts of discontent with the Uniate clergy, 173 blaming the latter’s intrigues for all his troubles 174 and rudely pushing him away by surviving from converted parishes when it was necessary to retain and attract. 175 In his Uniate pogrom, Smaragd allegedly did not want to understand and reconcile that Vasily Luzhinsky could not leave the Uniate flock without churches and priests. 176 By contrast, it turns out that Smaragd seemed to have to be completely consistent with Uniatism and normalized in everything by its needs... It is enough to state this hidden but inevitable thesis to see the dubiousness of this view. In fact, the circumstances were so inexorable that one of the two was forced to sacrifice and give in. We think that this was neither the duty nor the mission of the Orthodox hierarch, but was an imperative duty for the Uniate bishop, sent to “accomplice the actions of the Synod” 177... It is also biased that Smaragd only repelled the Uniate priests. On the contrary, he willingly accepted and accommodated the obedient ones, while he removed the stubborn ones from the reunified parishes quite reasonably if they were engaged in agitation and seduction there. The needs of the Uniate movement, as independent of Orthodoxy, could not enter Smaragd’s horizons and arouse his sympathy for those who patronized them. And since this trait was assumed in Vasily, Smaragd opposed him for reasons of principle. But they object that nothing of the kind happened, because there were no actual reasons for the clash, meanwhile, the great hierarchical turmoil 178 is described with exaggeration as a rebellion in the Polotsk sanctuary. 179 Smaragd is portrayed as almost a restless tyrant, tyrannizing his employee, 180 quarreling without any reason and thereby frustrating the Orthodox reunification in the Belarusian region. This side of Smaragdova’s reunification work is artificially illuminated and commented on biasedly, but we have the opportunity to find out here some of its actual conditions. Joseph Semashko wrote in 1833. about Vasily Luzhinsky: “he is active, lives in harmony with the Reverend. Smaragd and by its nature will most likely turn the hearts of the Greek-Uniate clergy to this Eminence.” 181 In this direction, Smaragd always supported Vasily with readiness 182 and did not at all show any unfriendliness, which is why he could not change his address to him without sufficient reason. However, they state that “Luzhinsky never put any obstacles to the initiatives of St. Smaragda and agreed to all his demands, sometimes extreme, regarding the reunited parishes and the Uniate clergy.” 183 This categorical judgment does not cover all the facts, among which there are many that are contrary to it. In the Uniate camp there was no such peaceful obedience at all. The Uniate Consistory with all its members was hostile, 184 always defended and encouraged Uniate agitators 185 and went against Smaragd and even Luzhinsky. 186 The rebellious Uniates were convinced that the Consistory and Metropolitan were on their side. Bulgak, 187 about whom it was spread, as if - by his decree - those annexed were returning to the union again. 188 The Uniate priests in their persistence were protected by the authority and permission of the Uniate Consistory, 189 in view of the opposition and connivance of which they had to “take the strongest measures to achieve the goal of converting the lost” in order to show in general that “it is not always possible to profane the intentions of the government.” 190 Luzhinsky was not at all just an indifferent spectator or a passive quantity here. In addition to the fact that he was not energetic in curbing the Consistory, he also showed active opposition. It is known that unplaced and remote Uniate priests served as a dangerous evil of unrest and opposition, 191 and Vasily usually defended himself by recommending them as people of exemplary behavior and excellent rules. 192 He did not save the Selishchensky Uniate priest Yanovich, who was rioting and agitating, from a well-deserved penance, but through his intervention he gave him the courage to refuse an apology to Rev. Remezov. 193 Vasily tried to reintroduce the condemned and excommunicated as “good-behaving priests,” 194 and nominated a man (Ioann Ignatovich) as rector, “known to Smaragda for his ill-intentioned attitude towards the Orthodox Church.” 195 Sometimes Vasily directly prevented the Orthodox bishop from acting through members of the Uniate clergy. So. Yurovichi (Polotsk district) priest Isidor Knyshevsky, expressing his readiness to join, offers his services for the conversion of all parishioners (up to 5,000 souls). The corresponding acts are carried out, but at that time “the Uniate spiritual authorities, as if knowing nothing, decided to transfer Knyshevsky from Yurovich, meanwhile Smaragd decided to leave him in the Uniate for now, because “in the Uniate form he can be much more useful to the Orthodox Church.” When the question arose about encouraging Knyshevsky, Luzhinsky, with his own hand, entered into his form for the Governor General the worst information, which Smaragd found “a groundless curse, composed with the intention of harming” the recipient. 196 V p. Peschanka, Nevelsky U., had a wretched and indecent chapel built completely illegally, and Luzhinsky justified such cases by religious needs and material scarcity - contrary to Smaragd’s petitions. 197 There were too many facts of this kind, and they provided abundant material for suspicions that Vasily Luzhinsky - despite the “guarantees” for him of Smaragdov’s enemy, I. S. Zhirkevich, 198 - was not at all so zealous regarding Orthodoxy and was not averse to slowing down its successes. 199 This created the ground for mutual complications, which were all the more frequent and intense because the policy of the Uniate reunifiers was carefully hidden and itself raised fair doubts about the final goals. Of course, all these inconveniences could have been eliminated or mitigated with sincerity and peacefulness, but they were not available. Usually, Smaragd is most blamed for this, assimilation of an unseemly deception, as if he, promising one thing, at the same time thought another. 200 There is no need to refute such an unworthy reproach, since it is stated that - on the contrary - with Smaragd everything was clear and open even to his enemies. 201 In general, slyness was uncharacteristic of his ardent nature and contradicted the essence of his character. The latter was, of course, not easy and greatly interfered with the peaceful flow of life. Part of this was the reason for the Polotsk conflicts between the saints. However, one cannot blame everything on Smaragd, if he knew how to get along well with the secular authorities. And the other side was neither gentle nor humble and had many exciting qualities. Semashko and Luzhinsky both had a good supply of human passions, capable of capturing them at the most important moments of church work. The conflicts between them reached the point that they feared that even during the solemn act of final reunification they would not begin to settle personal scores, which is why Skripitsyn was afraid to leave them together for at least an hour. 202 Afterwards, it was again necessary to reconcile these reunited hierarchs, and about the project of Joseph’s ministry in Vitebsk in 1839. Skripitsyn was forced to report that this “new event gives rise to new rumors, which cannot always be vouched for, especially when a person (Joseph) is involved that is too well known to everyone and not loved by everyone, to say the least; At the same time, the diocesan leader himself (Vasily) had sincere, cordial respect for the first (Metropolitan Philaret of Kyiv), but for the last (Joseph) he can only show hostile submission with effort, because he was insulted by him too much.” 203 Vasily’s obstinacy was also not small, and he could not calmly get along even with the complacent reverend. Isidore (Nikolsky). 204 It is clear that Smaragd was not the only culprit here... Personal details exhaust our review of the Polotsk period, which we tried to place in real historical conditions in order to determine its actual significance from them. The latter was relative, but should not be commented on solely in a negative sense - as if there were solid dark shadows without any glimpses. There was a great inclination in this direction due to the influence and example of Joseph Semashka. I am not averse to seeing in all the energy of Smaragd only a random, impetuous attack, insignificant in the immediate result 205 and only frustrating the true reunification work with anarchic incursions. 206 Smaragd is even reproached for being “too zealous” 207 and exhibiting stormy, vigorous activity, which is characterized extremely unfavorably, 208 as is stated even with a formal readiness to recognize the merits of Smaragdova’s persistence regarding Uniate reforms. 209 There is a strong tendency to convince that Smaragdov’s priesthood from Polotsk was, perhaps, more harmful. 210 This extreme is regrettable not because it is actually unfair in relation to Smaragda, but because of more fundamental interests, because it prevents a correct understanding and objective assessment of the entire reunification matter in the Uniate. To rehabilitate Smaragd, it is enough just to recall that all the main features of his policy on the Uniate issue were motivated by the actual state of affairs and were either inevitable and legal, or historically excusable in their very defects, and he himself was completely devoted to Orthodoxy and served it with great selflessness, being in the very “nest of the Jesuits” - Polotsk 211 and not having fully trained employees either below or above. 212 This personal apologetics also contributes to broader historical insight. What is necessary in the historical course of events is certainly useful for historical progress, which does not occur without certain intermediate and preliminary stages. Among these was the Polotsk era of Smaragd’s life in the Uniate process, which significantly served the reunification movement. This is denied with a somewhat tendentious bias or misunderstanding, admitting a fundamental difference between his system and Semashkina. But in fact this did not happen, and both of them were only different sides of a harmonious action united by a common goal. From this point of view, it seems quite indisputable that Smaragd, with his private accessions, successfully prepared the final triumph, for he was shaking the foundations of the Uniate identity and for the converted Uniate clergy he gathered the converted Uniate flock, so that as a result a full-membered church was formed. It is no less important that it was Smaragd, under difficult conditions of service, who gave a firm, strictly Orthodox direction to the Uniate reunification work and ensured true completion. In all this one must see a positive participation, helping the normal flow even by moderating the one-sidedness of others and imparting practical suitability to abstractions. There was an internal solidarity in this, independent of actual conflicts and leaving its place for all figures. 214 In this sense, about the Polotsk period, on behalf of Smaragd, one can say in the words of the Apostle (1 Cor. 3:6, 8): I planted, Apollos watered, but God will increase... Plant and water are the same thing: everyone will receive his reward according to his labor. See † P. O. Bobrovsky. Russian Greek-Uniate Church during the reign of Emperor Alexander I, p. 362. See † P. O. Bobrovsky ibid., p. 233. See † P. O. Bobrovsky ibid., pp. 363–364 and in “Christian Reading” 1889, No. 5–6, p. 761. See † prof. D.I. Rostislavova in the “Bulletin of Europe” 1883, No. 8, p. 607. Smaragd treats the matter of annexing the Jews with restrained caution (see “Christian Reading” 1912, No. 5, p. 565), but also sees, for example, in († February 23, 1837) Met. Eugene (see S. M. Karpov, Evgeniy Bolkhovitinov, as Metropolitan of Kiev, in “Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy” 1914, No. 3, p. 283, 5) and († February 3, 1913) Archbishop. Demetrius (see Prof. F. I. Titov, His Eminence Demetrius Kovalnitsky, Archbishop of Kherson and Odessa, ibid., pp. 473–475). And in relation to the Kalmyk mission, Nicholas I urged to act “with extreme caution,” about which see above “Christ. Reading" 1912, No. 10, pp. 1074, 61. Everywhere there is inspiration, of course, from Count D.N. Bludov. In this sense, suggestions were made, for example, to the Eminence of Belarus Anastasius (Bratanovsky, † December 9, 1806 Archbishop of Astrakhan) that the reunification of the Uniates with the Greek-Russian Church, for which he sought permission, could not be achieved by force of power, and it was explained that any measure other than the measure of philanthropy, exemplary life in clergy and the voice of teaching must be strictly prohibited. See in the Archives of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, 1801, No. 53 and at Pl. Cm. Goryuchko, From the history of the reunification of Uniates in Belarus in 1795–1805 in “Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy” 1902, No. 6, pp. 217–219. See † I. O. Bobrovsky, Russian Greek-Uniate Church during the reign of Emperor Alexander I, pp. 365, 369; G. Ya. Kiprianovich, Life of Joseph Semashka, pp. 2 62. See † P. O. Bobrovsky, Russian Greek-Uniate Church, p. 359. See G. Ya. Kiprianovich, Life of Joseph Semashka, pp. 2 80. See G. Ya. Kiprianovich ibid., p. 2 62. See Memoirs of F. F. Vigel, part VII (Moscow 1866), pp. 137–138. See Fr. G.I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, pp. 2, 2. See G. Ya. Kiprianovich, Life of Joseph Semashka, pp. 2 76 and cf. 156. See G. Ya. Kiprianovich, Life of Joseph Semashka, pp. 2 206, 207. G. Ya. Kiprianovich ibid., p. 2 553 (as well as in the “Lithuanian Diocesan Gazette” for June 27, 1893, No. 26, p. 215 and in the “Kiev Diocesan Gazette” 1893, No. 16, p. 425). See Fr. G. I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 65. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 75. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 173. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 175; Wed G. Ya. Kiprianovich. Life of Joseph Semashka, page 2 116. See † P. O. Bobrovsky, Preparation of reforms of the Greek-Uniate Church (1803–1827) in “Christian Reading” 1889, No. 5–6, p. 759. See Fr. G.I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, pp. 120, 121. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., pp. 279, 1. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 194. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., pp. 263, 264, 277, 2. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 320. O. G. I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 329. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 333. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 337, 1. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 322. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 233. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 324. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., 306. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., pp. 231–233. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., pp. 314–315. Wed. to this and † prof. M. O. Koyalovich, Readings on the history of Western Russia (St. Petersburg 4 1884). pp. 323–324. See the archbishop. Anthony (Zubko, † February 15, 1884) in the “Russian Bulletin” 1864, vol. LIII, pp. 312, 326, 336, 338 and according to the publication of prof. M. O. Koyalovich in the collection “Seven Sermons of Metropolitan Joseph” (St. Petersburg, 1889), pp. 55, 72, 73. See also † o. M. Ya. Moroshkina in the “Bulletin of Europe” 1872, book. 7, p. 95: “until 1835, from the members of St. synod, only one, perhaps Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, was initiated into the types that our government had in mind regarding the Uniate Church in Russia.” According to † prof. I. N. Korsunsky (in “Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers,” part XLIV for 1889, p. 119), “until 1834, the highest spiritual government of the Russian Church had not yet been introduced into the very depths of the plan for preparing the work of the collective reunification of the Uniates.” Wed. at Prof. Pl. N. Zhukovich in a review of the dissertation of Fr. G.I. Shavelsky in “Journals of meetings of the Council of St. Petersburg. Spirit. Academy" for the 1909–1910 academic year. (St. Petersburg, 1911), p. 385: Smaragd was “not at all privy to the highest government plans regarding the reunification of the Uniates.” See Fr. G. I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 18. See Fr. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 74. See G. Ya. Kiprianovich, Life of Joseph Semashka, pp. 2 115. See Fr. G.I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, pp. 239–240. See Fr. G.I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 88. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 80. Wed. at Prof. Pl. N. Zhukovich in the “Journals of meetings of the Council of St. Petersburg. Spirit. Academy" for 1909-1910, p. 389: "Vasily kept Bulgak in complete ignorance about the true nature and purpose of his church-administrative actions." O. G. I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, pp. 110, 126. O. G. I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 41: “the appointment (to Polotsk) of the Orthodox bishop (Smaragda) introduced into the begun work of reunification a figure completely uninitiated in the secrets of reunification”; p. 238; "St. The Synod did not know the plan developed by Semashka, and even if it did know, it did not consider its implementation obligatory; Ave. Smaragda, who was leaving for Polotsk, did not acquaint him with this plan and did not oblige him to work together with the Uniate reunification bishops in coordinated work in the matter of reunification.” G. Ya. Kiprianovich, Life of Joseph Semashka, p. 2 212. G. Ya. Kiprianovich ibid., p. 3 109. See † P. O. Bobrovsky, Russian Greek-Uniate Church during the reign of Emperor Alexander I, pp. 117, 146; O. G.I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, pp. 4, 41, 42, 69, 260, 4. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 262. See also † archbishop. Anthony (Zubko), About the Greek-Uniate Church in the Western Region in “Russian Bulletin” 1864, vol. LIII, p. 339 and in published † by prof. M. O. Koyalovich collection: “Seven Sermons of Metropolitan Joseph” (St. Petersburg, 1889), p. 74. † P. O. Bobrovsky, Russian Greek-Uniate Church during the reign of Emperor Alexander I, p. 76. † P. O. Bobrovsky ibid., pp. 80, 164. † P. O. Bobrovsky, Greek-Uniate Church during the reign of Emperor Alexander I, p. 61. † P. O. Bobrovsky ibid., p. 80. O. G. I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 17. See prof. about them. N. I. Petrova, Essay on the history of the Basilian Order in the former Poland in “Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy” 1870, vol. II, pp. 428–494; No. 8, pp. 373–436; vol. IV, pp. 343–409. 1871, vol. I, pp. 295–374; vol. II, pp. 225–317; vol. III, pp. 118–189. 1872, vol. I, pp. 3–85, 161–272. †Prof. M.K. Bobrovsky in a letter to the rector of St. Tr. Vilna Basilian Monastery to Victor Bosyatsky from January 21, 1835 from † P. O. Bobrovsky, Russian Greek-Uniate Church during the reign of Emperor Alexander I, pp. 4, 331 and from prof. Pl. N. Zhukovich in “Christian Reading” 1907, No. 12, p. 771. † P. O. Bobrovsky, Russian Greek-Uniate Church during the reign of Emperor Alexander I. p. 243. † P. O. Bobrovsky ibid., pp. X, XIII, 119. See in the brochure printed by the definition of the Holy Synod: On the reunification of the Uniates with the Orthodox Church in the Russian Empire (St. Petersburg 1839), p. 16. See Pl. Cm. Goryuchko, From the history of the reunification of Uniates in Belarus in 1795–1805 in “Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy” 1902, No. 6, p. 175. See prof. N.I. Petrova in “Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy” 1871, vol. II, pp. 270–272. † P. O. Bobrovsky. Russian Greek-Uniate Church during the reign of Emperor Alexander I, p. 72; O. G. I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 30. † P. O. Bobrovsky. Russian Greek-Uniate Church during the reign of Emperor Alexander I, pp. 16, 17, 24, 25. † P. O. Bobrovsky ibid., p. 237. † P. O. Bobrovsky ibid., p. 11. G. Ya. Kiprianovich, Life of Joseph Semashka, p. 2 159. † Yu. F. Krachkovsky, Review of the work of Presbyter Izvekov, p. 4. † P. O. Bobrovsky, Russian Greek-Uniate Church during the reign of Emperor Alexander I, p. 361. See Fr. N.D. Izvekova in “Christian Reading” 1898, No. 1, p. 14, that “before the reunification, the Uniate clergy was united with the Roman clergy for mutual benefit and became so close to it that it could rather be considered the lowest rank of the Roman clergy than an independent class.” G. Ya. Kiprianovich, Life of Joseph Semashka. page 2 229. G. Ya. Kiprianovich ibid., p. 2 102. G. Ya. Kiprianovich ibid., p. 2 210. See letter from Fr. Nikanor Lazuryevsky from 1838 in “Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities” 1910, book. I, dept. III, page 6: "None of the parishioners came to my mossha, because “the jew's harp is silent" ... So it lasted until Palm Sunday, and from here everything went smoothly. The parishioners respected the Treasury Chamber, which began to treat them better than me - with sticks "... † P. O. Bobrovsky, Russian Greek-Uniate Church during the reign of Emperor Alexander I, p. 179. G. Ya. Kiprianovich, Life of Joseph Semashka, pp. 2 42, 56. † P. O. Bobrovsky, Russian Greek-Uniate Church during the reign of Emperor Alexander I, pp. XII, 1, 24, 39, 50, 57, 79. O. G. I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 155. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 6. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. VIII. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 27 ff. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 31 ff. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., pp. 3–4. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 21. See Fr. N. D. Izvekova, Historical sketch of the state of the Orthodox Church in the Lithuanian diocese from 1839–1889 (Moscow, 1899), pp. 289 ff. See Fr. N. D. Izvekova ibid., pp. 298–299. Letter from Smaragd, book. N. N. Khovansky dated February 22, 1834 in the Vitebsk Provincial Archive of 1834, bundle 3, file 3. See Fr. N. D. Izvekova, Historical sketch of the state of the Orthodox Church in the Lithuanian diocese from 1839–1889, p. 237. O. G. I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 25. O. G. I. Shavelsky, The Last Reunion, p. 305. Back in the 60s of the XIX century. Zhitomir Bishop Kaspar Borovsky gave instructions to priests not to introduce additional services in Russian, teaching how to do this under plausible pretexts: see † Metropolitan. Leontia, My notes and memories in the Theological Bulletin, 1914, No. 1, p. 153. Cf. and in M.P. Kobrin, A brief historical outline of the polonization of the Western Russian region and its consequences for Kholm Rus (Warsaw, 1902), pp. 15 ff. O. G. I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, pp. 293, 1. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid, pp. 217, 224, 250, 254, 259, 264, 265, 297. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., pp. 243 ff. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 303 about Polotsk, Lepel, Drissen and Sebezh districts. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., pp. 278, 281 ff. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., pp. 265 ff., 337, 345. Prot. M.K. Bobrovsky in a letter to Victor Bosyatsky dated January 21, 1831 from prof. Pl. N. Zhukovich in “Christian Reading” 1897, No. 12, p. 774. This is what † Archpriest himself thought at first. M. K. Bobrovsky, about which see G. Ya. Kiprianovich, Life of Joseph Semashka, p. 2 154. See Fr. N. D. Izvekova, Historical sketch of the state of the Orthodox Church in the Lithuanian diocese from 1839–1889, p. 121. O. N. D. Izvekova ibid., p. 239. G. Ya. Kiprianovich, Life of Joseph Semashka, pp. 2 127, 157, 169. See about Dean Stefan Pleschinsky from Fr. G.I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, pp. 286, 289, 1. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 318. † M.K. Bobrovsky with prof. Pl. N. Zhukovich in “Christian Reading” 1907, No. 12, p. 774. O. G. I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 263. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., pp. 82 ff., 193. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 81. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 280. See his Notes in “Russian Antiquity” XIII (1882), book. XII, p. 631. O. G. I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 322. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 290. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 317. Wed. in G. Ya. Kiprianovich, Life of Joseph Semashka, p. 2 169. For example, the Dolsky Uniates of the landowner Shishko said about faith that they were “like a master”: see in the Vitebsk Provincial Archive of 1833, link 21, file 51. This is how the adjutant of Governor General P.N. Dyakov, Captain Gamaley, testified: see Fr. G.I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 327. Cf. below pp. 627, 289 [see footnote 139]. Wed. in G. Ya. Kiprianovich, Life of Joseph Semashka, p. 2 212. See Fr. N. D. Izvekova, Historical sketch of the state of the Orthodox Church in the Lithuanian diocese from 1839–1889, pp. 260–261. O. N. D. Izvekov ibid., p. 261. O. N. D. Izvekov ibid., p. 283. O. G. I. Shavelsky, The Last Reunion, p. 357. See in the Vitebsk Provincial Archive of 1834, bundle 10, file 128, l. 1–20. See about the Uniate priest Grigorovich ibid. 1833, St. 21, no. 56, l. 1–39. About the spread of such - even fantastic - rumors in later times, see Metropolitan. Leonty in the “Theological Bulletin” 1914, No. 3, p. 554. O. G. I. Shavelsky, The Last Reunion, pp. 345 ff. See Fr. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 358. See letter from Eusebius (Orlinsky), Archbishop. Mogilevsky, to Bishop Nikodim of Yenisei on December 3, 1864 in “The Wanderer” 1913, No. 7–8, p. 24. See Fr. G. I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 353. See Fr. G.I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 352. About the Mogilev diocese in 1839, see Smaragd above, “Christ. Reading" 1912, No. 6. pp. 657, 12. See Fr. G. I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 361. See Fr. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 362. See Fr. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 369. See, for example, the priest. Vladimir Sorochinsky in the “Polotsk Diocesan Gazette” 1902, No. 4, pp. 136–137. See N. A. Loganov, Uniate affairs in the memoirs of A. F. Koni and in reality, p. 14. This is what the Reverend testified. Polotsk (now Archbishop of Irkutsk) Seraphim (Meshcheryakov) in his reading about the “religious and moral state of the Polotsk diocese in 1909” (at the solemn meeting of the Brotherhoods of the North-Western Territory on the day of the placement of the holy relics of the Venerable Euphrosyne, Princess of Polotsk) in the hall of the Spaso-Euphrosyne women's school: see. “Vitebsk Provincial Gazette” No. 119 for 1910 See letter from Rev. Isidore (Nikolsky) to Count N.A. Protasov dated December 2, 1837 at Fr. G. I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 47. Observations regarding the Belarusian Greek-Uniate Seminary also suggested this, as see Fr. G.I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 155 and in D.I. Dovgyallo, Vitebsk Theological Seminary (1806 16/XII 1906): Notes and Memoirs (Vitebsk 1907), p. 13 ff. (also in the Polotsk Diocesan Gazette, 1903, No. 15, p. 505 ff.). See Fr. G. I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 47. † Count D. A. Tolstoy in the “Journal of the Ministry of Public Education”, part CXLV (1869), No. 9, p. 9: “since 1832, private annexations of Uniates began in Belarus, carried out on the instructions of the local Orthodox bishops by the combined actions of clergy and secular persons. The highest government did not make any general orders on this subject; they were not caused by his initiative; The ministry did not oppose them, sometimes it was even content, but no more.” Ibid., p. 16, what kind of private annexation was Innokenty (Selno-Krinov) Volynsky († April 25, 1840) - like the Eminences of Polotsk and Minsk, but also undoubtedly for the Mogilev region, from where the archbishop. Gabriel wrote in 1836 that “here the conversion of Gentiles, especially Uniates, with the help of God, is being accomplished quite successfully, although in smaller numbers than in the Polotsk diocese,” and the Exarch of Georgia Evgeniy Bazhanov († July 6, 1862) greeted all such news about Uniate conversions in the Minsk, Vitebsk and Mogilev provinces with the most with heartfelt delight: see G. Ya. Kiprianovich, Life of Joseph Semashka, pp. 2 108, 134–135. See the mention of her in Smaragd’s letter to Prince. N. N. Khovansky dated June 2, 1833 in the Vitebsk Provincial Archive of 1833, bundle 13, file 52. Smaragd allegedly said to I.S. Zhirkevich: “I have been awarded such honor and mercy that the sovereign does not extend to all bishops; before my departure to the diocese (Polotsk), calling me, he ordered me to act decisively, declaring to me in words that in Polotsk I would be a perfect lord and ruler.” See in “Russian Antiquity” 1890, vol. LXVII. August, page 246. See Smaragd’s letter to Archimandrite Platon (Rudinsky), rector of the Vilna Holy Spirit Monastery, dated August 9, 1836 in G. Ya. Kiprianovich, Life of Joseph Semashka, page 2 136: “I have not noticed any of the highest displeasure, I do not see and I do not know. And where did your Prince Dolgorukov (Vilna Governor-General: see above No. 4, pp. 477, 40) come from to divulge such displeasure - I don’t know at all. Tell him on occasion that we are converting Uniates and will not stop converting until we can.” See Fr. G.I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 238; “The Synod and the Chief Prosecutor held the same opinion as Smaragd about the advisability of private annexations and managed to convince the Emperor of this, but Bludov for some reason did not make every effort to prove the opposite and defend his (?!) plan. The Synod supported St. Smaragda in the struggle with the Uniate bishops, which was not always in his favor.” See also † prof. I. N. Korsunsky in “Additions to the Works of St. fathers" part XLIV (1889), p. 119 seq. This author states (p. 124). as if Metropolitan Filaret gave Smaragd a warning “subtle hint of his haste” in the matter of private accessions, but even then and now it is difficult to see this in the words of the first to the second on September 11, 1833: “you are fulfilling your assignment more quickly than could be expected” (see “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1870, book XII, p. 28); here you can see more praise and encouragement, and not reproaches or warnings. After all, even on February 5, 1838, Metropolitan. Filaret wrote to Smaragd (ibid., p. 34): “But even those whose opinions you doubt give justice to the fact that you have gained a lot for the Church in the Polotsk diocese. This thing speaks for itself. It seems to me that you need to take into account the fact that in Polotsk they have become more careful now, namely, that the work you have done does not become damaged. Now, what is done belongs to you inalienably; and the care and responsibility for preserving what has been done no longer lies with you. The success of the system, which some have so exclusively loved, is yet to come." Thus, for the entire year and a half after February 1836, Smaragd annexed only one Butler parish with 229 people: see Fr. G. I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 191. See † Count D. A. Tolstoy in the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education, Part CXLV (1869), No. 9, pp. 20, 13. See Fr. G. I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 39. See Fr. G. I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 95. See Fr. G.I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 133, but here Joseph Semashko adopts his extreme interpretations of Smaragda, who never supported rumors that all stubborn Uniates would receive free permission to become Catholic. This is completely unnatural, because it undermined all the calculations of Smaragd’s policy at the very beginning... See Fr. G.I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 39. See "Historical Bulletin" 1892, No. 4, pp. 151-152. Wed. above pp. 365, 268. See Fr. G.I. Shavelsky, The Last Reunion, p. 38. This was Skripitsyn’s opinion: see Fr. G. I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 277. See Fr. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 322. See D.I. Dovgyallo, Lepel, district town of Vitebsk province (Vitebsk, 1905), pp. 59–60. See K. A. Voensky, Acts, documents and materials for the political and everyday history of 1812, vol. III in the “Collection of the Imperial Russian Historical Society” vol. CXXXIX (St. Petersburg, 1912), p. XVI. See G.I. Shavelsky, The Last Reunion, p. 278. See prof. Pl. N. Zhukovich, On the foundation and structure of the main theological seminary at Vilna University (1803–1832) in “Christian Reading” 1887, No. 3–4, p. 277. See † Yu. F. Krachkovsky, Review of the work of Presbyter Izvekov, p. 5. Wed. at Prof. I. M. Pokrovsky, Russian dioceses in the 16th–19th centuries, their discovery, composition and limits, vol. II (XVIII century), Kazan, 1913, pp. 777 ff. See L. F. Svidersky in his speech before the defense of his master’s thesis about John Krasovsky in Christian Reading, 1913, No. 12, p. 1489. See Fr. G. I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 238. See Fr. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 101. See Fr. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 102. See Opinions, reviews and letters of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, on various issues for 1821–1867, collected and provided with explanatory notes by L. Kl. Brodsky (Moscow, 1905), pp. 22 ff. See Fr. about this. G.I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 164 ff. See Opinions, reviews and letters from the Metropolitan. Filaret at L. Kl. Brodsky, pp. 25, 27, 29. See above pp. 629, 295 [see above footnote 145]. See the case of the Polotsk Spiritual Consistory of 1834, No. 7, p. 1, where on the relation of S. D. Nechaev there is only a note by Smaragd’s hand: “Received. 17 Apr 1834." See Fr. G.I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, pp. 110–111. See Fr. G.I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 107. Cf. letter from Smaragd to the book. N.N. Khovansky dated October 13, 1833 (in the Vitebsk Provincial Archive of 1833, bundle 21, file 48): “I just received news that the Sovereign Emperor is extremely consoled by the annexation of the Uniates, and that the Synod and other Governments will not spare any expense for the establishment of parishes.” See Fr. G. I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 103. See Fr. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 98. See Fr. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 133. See Fr. G.I. Shavelsky ibid., pp. 184, 1. See G. Ya. Kiprianovich. Life of Joseph Semashka. page 2 115. So about G.I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 42. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 111. I. S. Zhirkevich even reported to Count D. N. Bludov that “Smaragd just didn’t beat Luzhinsky, but scolded him both to his face and behind his eyes unbearably,” which is why it was recommended to especially reward Vasily: see in the “Historical Bulletin” 1892, No. 4, p. 153. Notes of Metropolitan Joseph Semashka I. p. 656. O. G. I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 216, that Smaragd asked Prince. N.N. Khovansky to support Luzhinsky in arranging iconostases in Uniate churches. O. G. I. Shavelsky, The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates, Belarusian diocese, p. 108. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 202. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 88. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 108. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 190. O. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., pp. 186 ff. and Wed 206. So the Uniate priest. Skorino in the village Porechye: see in the Vitebsk Provincial Archive of 1837, bundle 2, file 149. Ibid. 1833, St. 21, no. 61 in a letter to Smaragd, book. To N. N. Khovansky dated December 18, 1833 For later times wed. u † mit. Leonty in the “Theological Bulletin” 1914, No. 3, p. 551. See Fr. G.I. Shavelsky, The Last Reunion, p. 142. See in the Vitebsk Provincial Archive of 1833, bundle 21, file 48, l. 1–64. See ibid. 1834, St. 3, d. 3 in relation to prot. V. Luzhinsky book. To N. N. Khovansky dated November 28, 1833 See ibid. 1834, St. 3, no. 3 in the letter to Smaragd, book. To N. N. Khovansky dated November 3, 1835 See ibid. 1834, St. 14, d. 107, l. 1–120. See ibid. 1834, St. 14, no. 88. See “Historical Bulletin” 1892, No. 4, p. 153. Wed. and above “Christ. Reading" 1912, No. 5, p. 549. See Fr. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 110. See Fr. G.I. Shavelsky ibid., pp. 310–311. See Fr. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 338. See Fr. G.I. Shavelsky. The last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, p. 359. See † Count D. A. Tolstoy in the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education, Part CXLV (1869), No. 9, p. 10. See G. Ya. Kiprianovich, Life of Joseph Semashka, pp. 2 109, 146. 94, 107, 155. See Fr. G.I. Shavelsky, The Last Reunion, p. 75. See Fr. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., pp. 235, 236–237. See Fr. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 131. See Fr. G. I. Shavelsky ibid., p. 241. This is how Polotsk, taken from Russia, has long been, where the Jesuit Academy, which received university rights, also contributed (see K. A. Voensky in the “Collection of the Imperial Russian Historical Society,” vol. CXXXIX, pp. VII, XV), which is why there was also a need to transfer the bishop’s see to Vitebsk, which was directly expressed by Smaragd (see above “Christian Reading” 1912, No. 3, pp. 308, 56), but it came true later (cf. and † Archbishop Savva, Chronicle of my life III, p. 509). Even now they complain about the unpreparedness and “inadequacy” of psalm-readers in the Polotsk diocese: see “Polotsk Diocesan Gazette” 1913, No. 44–45, pp. 483–484, and “Additions to the Church Gazette” 1914, No. 7, p. 412a. And as for the higher clergy, it is very significant that, defending the project to open the fifth Theological Academy in Vilna, I. I. Nedumov categorically asserts that “for the fulfillment of its (broad national-Orthodox) tasks, not all local natives represent a sufficient guarantee,” for “among the students of Western theological seminaries, as we are well aware, there is often an element of uncertainty that does not have the proper strong stability in its beliefs and views, an element that sometimes even has some attraction to Poland "... See the weekly "Bulletin of the School" 1914, No. 8 for February 22 (St. Petersburg), p. 166b. However, it also happened later, when they made great demands, but provided little assistance and kept the Orthodox archbishop in Warsaw in a very unpresentable manner, about which see † Metropolitan. Leonty in the “Theological Bulletin” 1914, No. 3, pp. 559–560. Therefore, I. I. Nedumov places Smaragd among the best archpastors and bearers of apostolic ministry who stood guard over Orthodoxy in Lithuania and Poland, such as Metropolitans Macarius Bulgakov and Leonty Lebedinsky, Archbishops Ioannikiy Gorsky, Alexy Lavrov with their worthy associates: see "Bulletin of the School" 1914, no. 8 for February 22, p. 166a.