His Eminence Smaragd (Kryzhanovsky), Archbishop of Ryazan (+1863, XI, 11), on his life and work

In a historical sketch of the life and work of Archbishop. Smaragd (Kryzhanovsky), we have exhausted the factual data known to us from documents and literary and private communications, but here our task is far from over. This archpastor was one of those special personalities whose biography cannot and unfairly be limited only to a statement of facts, even the most detailed and accurate. The fact is that for such people, all these factual details are only an extremely fragmentary and too conditional reflection of their original nature, which is why they themselves find their illumination in the latter and cannot be truly understood until the true key to the recesses of the internal primary source of various life refractions is found. But from this side, the Reverend. Smaragd remains a tragic mystery, hitherto unexplained. It is beautifully said that his name became a sign of controversy 1 , which remains to this day, for for a long time it was impossible even to speak in defense of this era, meanwhile everyone was allowed to scold without prohibition 2 . During Smaragd's life, he had long had slanderous enemies 3, and all his hierarchical movements from department to department were accompanied by some inevitable and unpleasant rumors and complaints 4. And now the opinions of the clergy of the dioceses that were under the control of Smaragd are divided to the extreme - from extolling panegyrics to defamatory blasphemy 5 . Those close to the archpastor saw in these slander only “the eternal fate of the souls of the righteous, strong and motionless” 6, while he himself tried to forget and forgive his enemies 7; but it is known that “good glory lies, but bad glory flees.” The peculiar and exceptional features of Smaragd’s character gave rise to a lot of fictitious anecdotes about him 8, at least sometimes flattering ones, which imparted an epic mystery to his personality in posterity, and some particular unfavorable cases were painfully reflected on it 9. It is not surprising that at one time he was “subjected to human judgment” and “laid into the grave entwined with the same prickly thorns of human opinions” 10, and “with the death of the Saint, temptations appeared that applied to him in new forms, in new bindings” 11. As a result, it is stated that “neither during his life nor after, Archbishop Smaragd did not enjoy a good reputation: in this regard, a kind of public opinion developed about him, which was completely unfavorable to him” 12. Apparently, the matter is decided irrevocably; however, what raises doubts is, first of all, the fact that when in 1879, the Church Public Bulletin, known for its anti-hierarchical tendencies, irritatingly invited everyone to speak out about Smaragda openly and freely, this call was answered by voices from many who were certainly sympathetic, although the editors constantly, deliberately and passionately incited the opposite and threatened with the revelations they had, which they then did not dare to publish. All this is extremely suspicious and all the more inspiring doubt because they directly say about the detractors that they do not spare even their own father 13 . On the other hand, panegyrists are also too subjective and do not always display calm balance 14. The true dignity of Smaragd is not revealed and not categorically assessed, why does he expect himself, if not gratitude, then at least legal impartiality, as subject to the indefatigable judgment of history. Let’s be fair and look at the main accusations in order to get an objective assessment of the personality and activities of the person portrayed. The question of greed and bribery by Archbishop. Smaragda. - News of this and verification of it. – The state remaining after Smaragd’s death, motives and methods of its formation. The most important and current complaint is the archbishop’s selfishness and bribery. Smaragda, about which fantastic legends still circulate 15. Apparently, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow also believed the rumors on this score 16 , who was embarrassed by the inheritance he left 17 , for “due to the amount of savings, it was difficult for everything to come through the legal route, unless some accidents were assumed” 18 . Reverend Innokenty (Borisov) wrote on March 6, 1842 that Smaragd in Kharkov, “while leaving (the local Bishop’s) house (for transfer to Astrakhan), robbed it, one might say, to the last thread. In addition to the fact that all the leftovers from the past year were taken, they were not ashamed to plunder almost all the money in advance, for my six months, selling for them unusable and outdated things, not only their own, but even their steward’s (Ierotheos), things. Incredible shamelessness! And this was done not with just one house of Bishops, but with the whole Diocese... What, what I could not expect from the newly formed Bishops, this low passion... God be with him! Let him make money for trade on the Caspian Sea!” 19. And Innocent wrote this in such a disparaging tone about his teacher and predecessor, at a time when he maintained purely friendly relations with him and was confident in reciprocity!?.. It is clear that others were even less embarrassed and spread outright disgraceful rumors. The bad rumor was consolidated in Orel by a blasphemous “akathist” with exclamations: “Rejoice, Smaragde, great lover of money!” 20. Then he put it into wide all-Russian circulation, a well-known specialist in this area, a gifted gossip † N. S. Leskov in “Trifles of Bishop's Life” (Chapters X and XI). Finally, a decisive sanction was given by Smaragd’s former student in the Xth year (1829–1833) of the St. Petersburg Academy and then by its professor Dmitry Ivanovich Rostislavov († February 18, 1877), who stated that he was extremely acquisitive 21 . The vague rumor gradually grew stronger and eventually acquired the force of dogma, but it still remains dark in all significant details and relationships, although, for example, in the Oryol diocese (especially from clergy) most often all that is heard is that under Smaragda they “took, took, took,” and even “beat, beat, beat.” First of all, the data sources themselves are not entirely reliable. Yes, Reverend. Innocent was not at all impartial towards Smaragd and wrote exaggeratedly about his Kharkov affairs, without checking it personally and making many mistakes 22. Even more doubtful are all the vague gossip and guesses that circulated in some circles and found a response in the notorious “akathist.” It is completely unclear to us as to its culprit 23, or it is raised to motives of a personal nature in its origin 24 and distribution 25, and in its content, being a completely unskillful alteration of the church akathist of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, represents a continuous convolution of words, devoid of sufficient indications of specific real facts, which the author, as if, did not have at all 26. The testimony of Archimandrite Ierofey (Domnitsky) should inspire more confidence, for he served directly under Smaragda for over 20 years (from March 4, 1837 to to July 8, 1858, the day of his departure to Ryazan) and therefore directly states that “rare circumstances (edifying moments) of Smaragdova’s life could have eluded his close observation” 27. This intimate person says that in Orel, too, the life of the ruler was in every possible way holy, but it was in this city that a sad turning point occurred when acquisitive weakness took over, and those around him began to selfishly abuse it; such a regrettable crisis is assimilated by the influence of the cell attendant, who from Vanka has now turned into the all-powerful Ivan Andreevich, and even with an aristocratic surname (i.e. BonchBruevich) 28 . And Metropolitan of Moscow Filaret heard about the “importance of the secretary” Smaragdov 29, but in fact N.S. Leskov already glorified him as the “terrible Bruevich”, in whose hands he would fall terribly 30, but this did not eliminate all the suspicious bewilderments regarding such an unexpected and strange metamorphosis. If both - the bishop and the secretary - have long been inseparable (since the times of Mogilev), then how could it happen that only in Orel a subordinate pulled the boss into the abyss of greed? All this is incomprehensible and forces one to admit in the news under consideration an excessive exaggeration and tendentious distortion of the simpler fact that, wanting to rest in Orel, Smaragd was then more concerned about organizing his capital in order to use it to create a church 31, and for this he especially used the services of his close associate Bruevich. The latter is spoken of extremely unfavorably by Fr. Hierotheus 32, assimilating abuses to him in the sense of “throwing nets into the depths of supplicants’ pockets” 33, and generally attributes to him a disastrous influence on Smaragda 34, but here a natural exaggeration seemed likely due to antipathy towards the new favorite on the part of the former 35, removed from immediate proximity to the archbishop and on March 17, 1847, removed from Orel to Mtsensk as rector of the Peter and Paul Monastery. “From now on, he does not take upon himself the responsibility to speak” with complete determination 36 and does not at all give any reason to suspect the archpastor himself of bribery, even in complicity with his secretary. True, they categorically state that “in Orel there was a change in Smaragd’s attitude towards cases and petitioners, that change that served as the basis for the well-known rumor about bribery that existed at that time in the House of Bishops. This change is about. Hierotheus obviously (?!) attributes it to the influence of I.A.B., who became close to the Archpastor.” 37. In fact, Fr. Hierotheus does not have the slightest hint of the personal selfishness of the Oryol Archbishop, since he does not doubt the legality of the acquisitions 38 and notes the immutability of his highly moral state 39 , in which he decisively emphasizes his inattention to material interests 40 . This means that the question of Bruevich’s bribery must be separated from speculation on this matter about Smaragda himself. But this is precisely what has not always been done before and today. And if in the Oryol clergy many were able to distinguish the archpastor from his secretary on this issue, then there are even more who attribute everything in this regard to the former and still report that Smaragd inevitably returned the petitioner’s papers with the words “petition without a number,” when there were no credit cards inserted there... Regarding I.A. Bonch-Bruevich, our information is not entirely clear and does not entirely agree. Archbishop Nikanor resolutely protests against the serious criticism against this person and characterizes him on the kindest side 41. Other witnesses speak about him in an equally favorable tone, sometimes referring to their “priestly conscience” 42 , and information about his property wealth is either refuted 43 or directly confirmed 44 . In such contradictory fluctuations, a decisive tilt not in favor of Bruevich is given by Smaragd himself, who, in a letter from Ryazan dated April 22, 1859, reports the following to P.V. Shenshina: “A change has occurred between my servants and others around me. Ivan Ivanov is no longer with me. I couldn’t keep him with me any longer; because a lot of mischief, liberties and dishonesty were revealed behind him, which would be completely harmful for the future, for my interest and peace of mind. Iv. Andr. Although Bonch-Bruevich is still here, he is already getting ready to go on his way. Useless grass out of the field! – In his place, by May 15th, I expect the arrival of my own brother. Semyon Petrovich, from Kyiv... I hope to find in him an unselfish person, instead of a greedy and predatory wolf..., I hope to have an assistant in business, instead of a lazy and reckless ignorant... All this was done [having bought an excellent barrel organ from a carriage maker] without permission and against my wishes, the most ungrateful Br..vich, having his own plans and assuming his own benefits, which, however, did not come true" 45 . These words are too definite and undoubtedly convince that Bruevich came to Ryazan as an already accomplished businessman, who had formed and become experienced in this area much earlier, leaving behind a bad memory in the Ryazan diocese 46. From this side, it is now impossible to deny the varied news about Bruevich’s Oryol exploits in terms of bribery 47. This is all the more likely because at that time he had a strong influence with Smaragd 48, as they claimed something similar for his bishop’s economists in Kharkov (Fr. Ierotheus) 49 and in Ryazan (Archpriest Nikifor Alekseevich Strakhov) 50. This was an indisputable omission of Smaragd, but - alas! - such phenomena are too common and understandable in our episcopal position, which is why they are far from rare 51. The bishop cannot always find out about this in a timely manner 52, or due to living conditions he must sometimes endure trays, bows 53 and even extortions 54 in his institutions, as Smaragd himself openly admitted, who was unable to keep track of all the people around him and the surrounding circumstances 55, although he took precautions and warnings to this end 56. By this we do not justify anyone at all, but only put things in their place in a historical perspective and indicate their relative measure, which many are inclined to turn into an absolute scale to assess the moral personality of Smaragd. For the latter, there can be no talk here of even the most remote active complicity. He was more of an exploited victim, for the bribery was probably carried out in the name of the archbishop and the majority was adopted by him himself, which is where the rumor about his personal bribery began 57 . But these rumors were essentially incorrect and are refuted by solid data, where there is no hint of Smaragd’s covetousness. On the contrary, in various sources we read that, being an enemy of litigiousness and red tape 58, he tried everywhere to exterminate bribery at a time when in some places “sacrilege was used with impudence” by the bishops themselves 59. Smaragd eradicated this evil in Polotsk 60, and in Astrakhan 61, and in Orel 62, and in Ryazan 63, and he himself was clean in this regard during the Polotsk, Mogilev 64 and Ryazan periods 65. In Mogilev, he removed all persons suspicious of selfishness 66, in general, they had not heard of bribes there and did not dare to repair trays for the archbishop to such an extent that the memory retained how one landowner presented about two dozen peaches, and in the suburb of Vukolov, parishioners for their church feast of Sts. Peter and Paul were considered to have an indispensable duty to catch a live sturgeon in the Dnieper and present it to the ruler 67 . In Orel, Smaragd prudently destroyed unnecessary authorities for extortion from the clergy 68 and, in the event of abuses, threatened to organize an audit and even ask the synodal official to ensure that everything was in order and exactly in accordance with the laws, and that the employees had fear and apprehension. 69 For all this, suspicions about personal bishop bribery were false even for the Oryol time. 70 Smaragd did not allow extraneous influences and in litigation cases he gave the accused all the means for defense and justification, 71 and regarding family bias he boldly testified: “I have never encroached on other people’s places in order to imprison my relatives in them; and no one can blame me for this.” 72 Under such conditions, it is difficult to agree that a reasonable and decent person could simultaneously suppress in others and cultivate in himself the passion of unclean acquisition in the form of this or that bribery, of which we have no undoubted evidence. 73 Finally, the darkness of the sources on this subject extends to the very object of their testimony about the size of the Smaragdovs’ capital remaining after death. Some simply mention a “huge monetary inheritance,” 74 Metropolitan. Filaret indicates “about 100,000 rubles,” 75 D.I. Rostislavov tried to count not only the number of expensive things and pieces of material, even the many food supplies ordered from Moscow that were not allowed for the use of the monastic brethren, but he thoroughly found out from the tickets themselves and the years of their contributions to the Guardian Council, from where he deduced that in addition to those found there should have been more sums seized by good people. And this searcher of someone else’s inheritance claims that after Smaragd, “more than 150,000 rubles” were actually found, 76 while another already calls “four hundred and fifty thousand rubles,” 77 and Rostislavov himself values ​​all Smaragd’s property at over 1 1/2 million rubles in banknotes. 78 Once again, a suspicious contradiction emerges in these fantastic figures, which are so easily played with by envious and slanderous arithmetic... In connection with this (at † Mr. M. Pyasetsky) it is emphasized: as if Smaragd was stingy for poor relatives and did not help them, why one of the heirs, the nephew of the Ryazan ruler, teacher of the Chernigov Seminary K. G. Kryzhanovsky, at first even his brother hesitated about his share of the capital 79 . And there is something legendary here, for we know that, for example, in Mogilev near Smaragd “his own brother, a high school teacher, a lonely person (Semyon Petrovich), lived at the bishop’s house, and the widow of his other brother [Archpriest Gabriel] also lived with two sons who were brought up in the Mogilev seminary, and a little girl - a daughter who was brought up in girls' institute. Of course, this youth was brought up at the expense of his uncle 80. Smaragd himself wrote to Innokenty (Borisov) on July 28, 1836: “I lost a brother (I think, not unknown to you), who was the protector, nourisher and patron of all my relatives, who remain completely orphaned without him. Wanting to help my grief in whatever way I could, I decided to take two orphan nephews with me for education; for which purpose, as well as to console my relatives, I sent brother Semyon Petrovich from Polotsk to the Kyiv country.” 81 And in other sources we read about Smaragd’s “relative charity” 82, although he “deals with all his household, not always pleasantly, even sometimes harshly, not excluding some of his relatives who had the opportunity to live under the Archpastor. 83 We are informed that “Vladyka constantly helped his daughter-in-law, the widow with the daughter of his late elder brother Archpriest Gabriel Petrovich, and in Polotsk and his parent; also to his younger brother, Semyon Petrovich, a candidate at the Kyiv Theological Academy, a collegiate assessor, educated by him: and two nephews, the sons of his brother Fr. Gabriel, raised and kept with him. Of these, one [Peter] died at the Kyiv Academy, and the other [Konstantin], after completing the Academic course there, was a mentor at the Chernigov Seminary. In Kharkov... The Bishop made a monetary allowance to the above-mentioned daughter-in-law, widow, daughter and son for their departure to Kyiv, for their maintenance and for the purchase of a house there; sent them there to live; and continued to support his younger brother, S.P., who had neither wealth nor position.” 84. Smaragd valued the latter much more highly than himself for his talent, but this relative caused him especially a lot of grief. He suffered from the disease of binge alcoholism and, having lost all service, lived in Ryazan under Smaragd, “tearing his womb” with the mere consciousness that “children, having such a father, die, and must die.” On September 6, 1860, Semyon Petrovich died, leaving two boys in the care of his brother, one of whom soon died at the age of 71/2. 85 Smaragd especially helped “his beloved niece, Ekaterina Gavrilovna Florinskaya, the wife of the former Professor of the Vladimir Seminary, O. N. Florinsky, whose fate, with the help of God, Vladyka arranged and constantly consoled this worthy couple with his fatherly attention and care.” 86 In general, Smaragd always showed great concern for his relatives, near and far, and helped them in every possible way and means, 87 and it is not known from anywhere that they hesitated to accept his inheritance, transferred and divided according to the law - without any complications. 88 In view of all that has been said, more delicate caution would be required in judging such intimate family relationships, even if the message of Mr. M. Pyasetsky seemed probable, which is not the case at all. On the contrary, the heirs received everything calmly and showed a readiness to use Smaragda for good without any offense. At least oh. Hierotheus strongly hoped that “everything that the Bishop acquired would remain poor, even if only to his relatives,” and in this sense he wrote to one of the latter (Fr. N.I. Florinsky?), and he already answered on January 28, 1864: “I express my deep gratitude for writing about our deceased father, the Archpastor, and about how we should dispose of his legacy. I accept your love’s advice with love and heartfelt consent, and I wish from the bottom of my heart that the heirs of the deceased will take more care of widows and orphans. I wrote to my brother-in-law [i.e. That is, specifically to Konstantin Gavril. Kryzhanovsky], so that he would not leave the relationship from the deceased’s sister [Fyokla Petrovna Khomikovskaya] without participation” 89 90. Archbishop Nikanor, Biographical materials I, p. 229. So † apxhiep. Nikanor, in 1874 according to the Chronicle, Archbishop. Savva, vol.IV (St.-Tr. Sergius Lavra 1902), p. 723. See, for example, letters from Smaragd to Innocent in the Ryazan Diocesan Gazette, 1896, No. 16, p. 558. See “Oryol Diocesan Gazette” 1896, M 20, p. 596. † G. M. Pyasetsky, History of the Oryol Diocese, p. 958. See "Memoirs" about. Hierotheus on page 42 rev. – 43. In a letter to Fr. To Hierotheus from St. Petersburg on November 30, 1853, Smaragd says (separately on p. 55 and in “Christian Reading” 1911, no. 7–8, p. 979): “Oh, Lord! Forgive my enemies and me, powerless and unable to calmly, as I should, endure their devilish machinations, have mercy with Your compassion! M-v (see in “Christian Readings” 1913, No. 2, p. 188, vol. 4) managed to turn away many of the Nobles [Orlovskys] from me and instilled in them distrust of me. May the Lord reward him, as the message Himself!” See even higher “Christian Reading” 1912, No. 3, p. 307; No. 4, pp. 435–436; No. 7–8, pp. 817.84, where Smaragd recalls the “Evangelical law, commanding Christians not to pay attention to grievances.” See "Memoirs" about. Hierothea, l. 19 rev. Ibid., l. 84 rev., approx. The expression is taken from a letter dated April 19, 1859 from Ryazan to Fr. To the Hierotheus of Smaragd himself (separately on p. 98 and in “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 10, p. 1253), who says: “Do not spare me, my chosen friends, for me, if I am brought out of the depths of the [Orlovsky] evils, or, perhaps, am destined here to endure some other temptations in new forms, in new bindings.” Thus, the editors of the “Church and Social Bulletin” in No. 26 for 1879 (VI) on page 3c. So about † D. I. Rostislavov † Archbishop. Nicanor, Biographical Materials I, p. 15. For example, himself † archbishop. Nikanor is very strict, but hardly impartial in his harsh and derogatory reviews of Gregory (Postnikov, † June 17, 1860), Metropolitan of St. Petersburg (see Biographical materials I, pp. 289, 292, 295–296, 298–299, 306), whom Joseph Samchevsky, on the contrary, highly praises (in “Kievskaya Starina” 1893, No. 11, pp. 204–207). Thus, even we were informed that Smaragd had his hood on the table in the reception room of the bishop’s house (in Orel?), into which every petitioner was required to deposit the appropriate bribe. Some kind of funny game of the dark is supposed, completely unprofitable for the covetous person, for he was always at risk of even complete deception or was forced to verify every bribery mite in front of the giver... This reminds us of another fable, as if in the Voronezh Spiritual Consistory a “bear” was placed with a mug and a plate for lowering petitionary alms; but when we arrived in Voronezh for service in 1890 and inquired on the spot, it turned out that this “bear” was only in the dense forest of human gossip, especially biased in this regard towards the Consistories and the clergy in general. From the notes of the Right Reverend Leonid, Archbishop of Yaroslavl, in “Soulful Reading” 1906, No. 7, p. 356, where it is reported that Met. Filaret told Leonid after Smaragd’s transfer to Ryazan: “he robbed one diocese, he will rob another,” and regarding the Oryol period, see above No. 2, p. 188. See Letters of M. Philaret to the Highest Persons II, pp. 205, 222. See “Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities” for 1869, book. 1, dept. V, page 99. So at the conclusion of all the “ikos” and “kontakia”, but sometimes at the end of the latter there is a rather meaningless appeal: Ananias, Kanalia, Protokanalia! See “Christ. Reading" 1912, No. 2, p. 183. To clarify the matter, the common relations between Smaragd and Innocent are important here, which represent a lot of characteristic and mysterious things. These persons, apparently, maintained mutually friendly relations, but on Innocent’s part there seemed to be no complete sincerity, and he sharply revealed unkind feelings towards his immediate predecessor in the Kharkov department. This is clearly indicated by the excerpts given in the text (on p. 707), and there are also other facts testifying to Innocent’s empty pickiness towards Smaragd over insignificant kopecks (see above 1912, No. 10, p. 1064, h). For example, when “by the Astrakhan Diocesan Administration Fr. Hierotheus (Dobritsky) was summoned on February 18, 1842 from the Kharkov diocese (to Astrakhan) and appointed (there) as the steward of the bishop’s house,” then Innocent wrote the following resolution on the consistory journal: “Such changes in the steward when the Eminence changes are completely inappropriate and prohibited by law. At the very least, the consistory should not, after dismissing this unscrupulous person, allow him to make such expenses for the bishop’s house that show obvious robbery” (see Father Prof. T.I. Butkevich, Innokenty Borisov, p. 145). The tone of the resolution irresistibly shows that Innocent did not at all think about keeping Fr. Hierotheus, and objected solely for the sake of injury, which was all the stronger because when transferring Smaragd to Astrakhan, the Holy Synod urged “not to take away in this case, contrary to the Personal Highest Decree of 1726 November 26, people belonging to their former Bishop’s houses” (see in the Synodal Archive, file of the Office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod No. 28.672). As for Smaragd’s accusations of predation by Innocent, then... audiatur et altera pars. 1) The Kharkov bishop's house was poor in funds in itself and became even more impoverished when Smaragd arrived, because they stopped giving him 600 rubles. Ass. additional information from his predecessor Meletiy Leontovich († February 29, 1840), why he had to petition for the resumption of this leave (see above 1912, No. 9, pp. 945,161), as Innocent himself asked for help on March 6, 1842, since Smaragd’s petition did not have time to be completed (see the case of the Chancery in the Synodal Archive Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod No. 28.782). Famous and Met. Philaret, the “poverty” of the Kharkov bishop’s house (see “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1870, book XII, p. 39) was so great that, according to Innocent himself (in “Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities” 1869, book I, department V, p. 99), Smaragd according to Due to the lack of funds, “I decided to send the Hieromonk throughout the Diocese to collect alms, to help the house,” which lived almost on private alms (see “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1899, No. 13, p. 647–648), if the archbishop “with difficulty dodged to maintain the house itself, the staff brethren, ministers and singers” (see “Ryazan Diocesan Gazette” 1896, No. 16, p. 558). Under such conditions, Smaragd had nothing to plunder, but had to start everything almost from the beginning, and we saw that he acted in the latter direction. 2) Father Hierotheus asserts “the inattention of the Archpastor (Smaragd) (even) to the items of his personal property,” assuring also in relation to his departure from Kharkov that he “with one rod [er. Mrx. VI, 8] crossed the paths of long-distance transfers” (see “Memoirs” of Father Hierotheus, l. 32 ver., 33 ver. Kyiv ed. and cf. l. 32, 33 Ryaz. ed., and above 1912, No. 7–8, p. 808.34), - all claims of the opposite nature about the “looting” of other people’s things were illusory, although they were presented in this regard with extreme rudeness (see above 1912, No. 7–8, p. 808.34), meanwhile, it is indisputable that Smaragd in Kharkov “corrected the sacristy and carriages and put these items in the best condition” (see “Ryazan Diocesan Gazette” 1896, No. 16, p. 558). This means that the objective grounds for the disgraceful accusations were, in any case, shaky, and Innocent was all the more required to exercise special restraint since he was far from being just an acquaintance of Smaragd. On the contrary, the latter, as inspector of the Kyiv Theological Academy (from June 30, 1821 to November 30, 1826), considered and titled its pupil (1819–1823) Innocent “his beloved student” (see letter to A.I. Belyugov dated January 20, 1824 in “Christian Reading” 1909 g., No. 10, p. 1372) and then maintained the most respectful and friendly correspondence with him (see in the “Ryazan Diocesan Gazette” of 1896, No. 15–18 and 20), favorably welcomed the transition from Vologda to Kharkov, communicated from Astrakhan and Orel, received and arranged for his various protégés (for example, Geppner [see. “Ryazan Eparch. Vedomosti” 1896, No. 15, p. 501; “Russian Archive” 1891, book I, pp. 380–381; the last reunion with the Orthodox Church of the Uniates of the Belarusian Diocese, pp. 36–37 in the appendix. Archim. Jerome † November 11, 1876), not always impeccable (“Ryazan Eparch. Gazette” 1896, No. 15, p. 502), as well as relatives (ibid. 1896, No. 17, p. 592; No. 18, p. 639) and loved ones (ibid. No. 16, p. 560) in Polotsk, Astrakhan and the Oryol diocese, etc. Innocent outwardly responded in the same tone of mutual friendliness, but... at that time he wrote to others the most shameful things about the one who at that very time called himself before him “the once unworthy mentor” and considered him “a judge for himself, as a defendant or defendant" (see Ryazan Eparch. Gazette" 1896, No. 16, p. 558), sympathetically extolled his preaching and other literary works, etc. Since, under such conditions, such defamatory judgments about Innocent about him reached Smaragd, then it is not at all strange that the first was not always disposed to glorify, and preferred the second in Orel you shouldn’t hear about it, but it’s better to remember the Kharkov sterlet, as in the story of Archpriest. T. S. P(avlov) (who was a teacher at the Oryol Seminary at Smaragd: cf. † G. M. Pyasetsky, History of the Oryol Diocese, p. 946) is transmitted from Fr. prof. T. I. Butkevich (Innokenty Borisov, pp. 409–410). Hence it is not surprising that, considering Innocent “secret” or secretive (see Letters from Archbishop Smaragd to Archimandrite Hierotheus on p. 10 and in “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 3, p. 389), Smaragd wrote about him on May 24, 1853 that “the insidious Crimean, despite God’s visit [by illness], succeeds in the political world, and for us nothing but his ill will can be expected” (ibid. on p. 19 and in Christian Reading) 1911, no. 5–6, p. 753). If, according to the anecdotal and dubious case he reported, Fr. T.I. Butkevich admits that Smaragd has a fundamental dislike for Innokenty, then based on all of the above, such an idea is completely unfounded. Rather, the opposite is likely. There is news from the Metropolitan of Moscow Philaret himself (in † Archbishop Leonid in the “Soulful Reading” 1906, No. 7, p. 356) that “the Right Reverend Innocent has long considered Smaragd to be his persecutor,” and “the Right Reverend Innocent has strict thoughts” (then the ellipsis in the original), and he is exactly the same spirit and acted... Everything noted directly speaks to the bias of Innocent’s reviews of Smaragda, which had a special, purely subjective lining. O. T. I. Butkevich is inclined to explain the (imaginary) ill will by the fact that “Smaragd always bowed before the great dogmatic mind of the Moscow Saint Philaret” (Innokenty Borisov, pp. 410 and 408), who is considered “a supporter of systematic theology and a defender of scholastic traditions” (Archpriest G. P. Pavsky Christian teaching in a brief system - with an explanatory article published by N.K. Nikolsky, St. Petersburg, 1909, pp. 144, 145); however, Smaragd did not at all sympathize with the dominance of scholasticism in theology (see “Christian Reading” 1912, No. 1, p. 62 and cf. 70), and D.I. Rostuslavov (falsely) testifies (in “Bulletin of Europe” 1872, No. 7, p. 231) that he “did not forget the insult until his death” that “Filaret injected him with some well-aimed sarcasm,” and allegedly tried in every possible way to support and spread everything bad about the famous Moscow hierarch... This undoubted contradiction completely destroys all the noted guesses, and everyone must agree that there is no truth here, for veritas una, error multiplex... The difference in beliefs and views is another matter. Smaragd never liked atheists, materialists and dreamers in general - free people and opponents of the holy rules of the Right Faith” and spoke out sharply against anti-religious literature (see “Memoirs” of Father Hierotheus, l. 63 and 97 Kyiv. ed. and l. 63 and 98 and ver. Ryazan ed.; cf. Letters of Archbishop Smaragd to Archimandrite. Hierotheus on pp. 118–119 and in “Christ. Reading” 1911, no. 12, p. 1515), did not allow various new trends in church affairs (see “Christ. Reading” 1912, no. 9, pp. 942–3; 1913, no. 2, pp. 182–3), but never went to such extremes as to “revolt against the neologians with fire and sword,” as the rector of the Vyatka Seminary, Archimandrite, did in May 1837. Nicodemus († June 11, 1874, Bishop of Yenisei in retirement) in a summary of theological sciences, compiled by order of the Commission of Theological Schools and bringing the author closer to the all-powerful Chief Prosecutor, gr. N.A. Pratasov (From the notes of the Right Reverend Nikodim of Kazan in the “Proceedings of the Vyatka Academic Archival Commission” 1912, issue III. Vyatka 1912, p. 44). For Smaragd, only one thing is possible, that he, being a strict orthodox, did not sympathize with the theological innovations (neologism) of Innocent and - as vicar of Revelsky - brought before the St. Petersburg Metropolitan Seraphim a case about the latter’s lectures at the St. Petersburg Academy, although this mysterious episode is conveyed extremely vaguely (by † Archbishop. Savva, Chronicle of my life VII, p. 175), is not explained anywhere and is not confirmed by anything, and in the “secret inquiry about the way of thinking of Archimandrite Innocent,” suspected and accused of neologism, there is not the slightest indication of Smaragd’s involvement in this dark story (see † Prof. N. I. Barsov, Materials for the biography Innokenty Borisov I, pp. 19–25 and cf. 39–43, 45–47). Apparently, some antipathies existed between these individuals for a long time (judging by a vague hint in a letter from St. Iinokenty to A.I. Belyugov from St. Petersburg in the early 20s of the 11th century in “Kyiv Antiquity” 1882, book I I, p. 516), but certain complications are also possible on the basis of “neologism”, for Innocent was not always stable even in theoretical and theological attachments and, for example, in 1834 he tried to get a translation of the biblical books of Fr. prot. G. P. Pavsky in order to donate it to the Kyiv Academy (see Fr. Prof. T. I. Butkevich, Innokenty Borisov, p. 56), where he was then rector, and in 1843 (November 25) he spoke disparagingly about it as low-value work (see N. M. Vostokov in “Russian Antiquity” 1879, vol. XXIV, pp. 660–661). In general, it seems to us that the mutual relations of Smaragd and Innocent hardly serve to the honor of the second, and they do not attack either the first, but only inspire special caution regarding their opinions about each other. In any case, for his initial defamatory suspicions in Kharkov about Smaragda, Innokenty himself did not have his own observations even then and, apparently, succumbed to the influence and suggestions of various Smaragda enemies who were (cf. "Ryazan Diocesan Gazette" 1896, No. 16, p. 558 about “the slander of two or three enemies who do not see what they are saying and doing”) and among whom could be the Inpocentii’s own relative” (cf. above 1912, No. 9, pp. 950–953 and in the Letters of Archbishop Smaragd to Archimandrite Hierotheus on pp. 19–23 and in “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 5–6, pp. 754–758). According to † Archbishop. Nikanor, the akathist was “a product of the Oryol bursas” (Biographical materials I, pp. 229 and 246), and † G. M. Pyasetsky says (History of the Oryol diocese, p. 958 note, 665) that it was composed by “one priest” of the Oryol diocese, as there are some rumors about this now among the Oryol clergy. There is even such news (from Joseph A. Arkhangelsky, who was a student of the Seminary at Smaragd, a priest of the village of Pokrovsky, which is on Lipovitsa, in Maloarkhangelsk district: see Historical description of churches, parishes and monasteries of the Oryol Diocese, vol. II, p. 655), as if “Singing of praise to our father Smaragd” was written by the famous Pyotr Vasilyevich Kirelsky, who lived, died (September 25, 1856) and was buried (like his younger brother Ivan, † June 11, 1856) three miles from Orel in his village of Kireyevskaya Slobodka (see Russian Biographical Dictionary, vol. “Ibak-Klyucharev”, St. Petersburg 1897, pp. 695–700). About the latter we can only say one thing, that one can feel some dislike of Kireyevsky towards Smaragd, even on the occasion that the latter certainly wanted to transfer Fr. Makaria (Ivanova, † September 6, 1860), about which see “Christ. Reading" 1913, No. 1, p. 119, 4 et cf. 1911, No. 3, p. 387, h (Letters from Archbishop Smaragd to Archimandrite Hierotheus, p. 8, h). There is also no doubt that Kireyevsky - due to the very proximity of his place of residence to Orel - knew all sorts of information about Smaragda well and could well have remade the ready-made akathist of St. in relation to him. Nicholas the Wonderworker. Elsewhere †apxiep. Nikanor writes that the reputation of a selfish bribe-taker was created by Smaragda, who was dismissed from service due to moral weakness at the Oryol Seminary, to whom knowledgeable people attribute the composition of the blasphemous akathist that became famous”: see “Church-Public Bulletin” VI (1879), No. 27, p. 3c. According to some news, this was a secular person who switched to the civil service and wrote his akathist pamphlet in collaboration with (two) teachers of the Oryol Seminary. According to other rumors, we are being killed by Oryol old-timers, for example, the archpriest of the village of Gerasimova in the Karachevsky district (see Historical description of churches, parishes, and monasteries of the Oryol Diocese, vol. I, pp. 397–399) Yakov Feodorovich Angelov (who on February 6, 1913 celebrated the 50th anniversary of the priesthood: “Oryol Diocesan Gazette” No. 9 for March 3, 1913, pp. 270–272), - the akathist to Smaragda was compiled by the inspector of the Oryol Seminary, Archimandrite Irinarh (Lavrov), in the complicity of two more persons (from the teachers of the Seminary). If this is true, then one cannot but agree that here we have a sad example of ingratitude and vindictiveness. Father Irinarch, who was in humiliation and persecution, was promoted and exalted by Smaragd, who favored him and patronized him until he was forced by extremity to free himself from this restless and rebellious person, who left a very unflattering memory in the Oryol diocese. See about him Letters from Apxhiep. Smaragda to Archimandrite Hierotheus on pp. 24–25, 65, 68 and in Christian Reading 1911, no. 5–6, pp. 759–760; No. 9, pp. 1133, 1136. They say that - after the akathist to Smaragd - the “author” composed another libel, and about the then Oryol governor (Prince Trubetskoy?), I think, called “The Last Judgment” (or “The Governor’s Dream”). This rather long work is more elaborate and written in verse, depicting not only the governor, but also many civil officials. Both pamphlets provided material for the mutual picking of these Oryol rulers, who were at enmity with each other. Thus, the “akathist” was sent out everywhere and fell into the hands of the governor, who hastened to inject Smaragd with it and, having brought the manuscript, sarcastically interrogated the latter whether he had read this work. Smaragd answered in the affirmative and then did the same with a libel against the governor, but he reacted to this less calmly. To characterize this “creation,” we present two excerpts from the very beginning, and we hope to publish the entire “akathist” in another place, providing it with all sorts of research and comments. Kontakion 1st. “To the chosen one, lover of money, and a fair treasurer of spiritual ones, assigning to the world valuable gifts, and an inexhaustible sea of sweets, we sing to you with sorrow, the robber Smaragda: but you, as you had boldness towards Judas, from all troubles of the world by removing (strangling) your freedom, let us call to you: Rejoice, Smaragde, great lover of money!” Ikos, 1st: “Any image, channeling by being, but being a Jew by nature, show yourself the plunderer of the entire diocese: having foreseen the money-loving kindness of your soul, the cunning Smaragda, teach everyone to cry out to you: Rejoice, born from the womb of the Jew; Rejoice, for a stem worthy of a tree has come into existence; Rejoice, having astonished those who gave birth to you with your acquisitions; Rejoice, vessel not filled with gold; rejoice; the thirsty ark of Iskoriot, unsoldered; Rejoice, destruction of the Jewish love of money; Rejoice, myrrh of the passions of the fragrance; Rejoice, because robbery is done by you; Rejoice, for through you you bring lament to the entire diocese. Rejoice, Smaragde, great lover of money!” See "Oryol Diocesan Gazette" 1906, No. 20, pp. 594–595 - according to the "Memoirs" of Fr. Hierotheus on l. 4–5; Wed u † archbishop. Nicanora, Biographical Materials I, pp. 249–250. See "Oryol Diocesan Gazette" 1906, No. 20, pp. 597, 597–598, 599–601, 601, 597. See Trifles of bishop's life in the Complete Works of N. S. Leskov, published by Niva, vol. XXXV, St. Petersburg. 1903, p. 65. † Archbishop Hucanop, Biographical Materials I, p. 251. See "Memoirs" about. Hierotheus on l. 79 rev. – 81 rev., and especially for Eagle – l. 47 rev. – 48. Ibid., l. 127 rev., approx. See also Letters of the Archbishop. Smaragda to P.V. Sheshnina in “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 1, pp. 121–122. This is clearly evident in the reports of how I.A. Bruevich offered Smaragda his house in Orel to Smaragda, who wanted to retire, and then went with him to Ryazan, about which see Letters from the Archbishop. Smaragda to Archimandrite Hierotheus on pp. 93–94 and in Christian Reading 1911, No. 10, pp. 1248–1249. See "Memoirs" about. Hierothea, l. 42. See “Oryol Diocesan Gazette” 1906, No. 20, p. 597. See "Memoirs" about. Hierothea, l. 106. See, in "Church and Public Bulletin" VI (1879), No. 27, pp. 4a-b. See, for example, the Astrakhan Archpriest N. Vasilkovsky and I.P. from Enotaevsk in the “Church and Public Bulletin” VI (1879), No. 46, p. 6c; No. 47, p. 7a. We were not able to trace the fate of I. A. Bonch-Bruevich himself and his family. We know only from private information that he left behind five sons, two of whom have already died, and his daughters-in-law live in Orel. Indeed, Bruevich had his own house in this city (see Letters from Archbishop Smaragd to Archimandrite Ierofey on pp. 92–93 and in “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 10, pp. 1247–1248), but it was sold long ago; after the death of his wife, he himself recently lived in poverty and died in Kiev; the remaining children occupy an extremely modest official and social position (one at the postal department in Kharkov, the other in Kyiv at the city water supply) and do not have independent property security. Wed. Christian Reading" 1911, No. 1, p. 123. Thus, a very competent and knowledgeable person from the Oryol province, who knew and remembers Bruevich, categorically informs us that there is still a very poor memory of the latter there. According to him, Bruevich, indeed, made a good fortune, had two houses in Oryol, and gave each of his five sons an estate in different districts of the Oryol province: the youngest - 500 dessiatines in Kromsky district, which his granddaughter now owns, and his son Nikolai there - more than 200 dessiatines. and no less to his son Andrei in Dmitrovsky district, and the rest of the children received corresponding possessions from their father in Bolkhovsky district. With all this, our correspondent V.A. Shenshin certifies that Bruevich was undoubtedly rich (see “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 1, p. 123). Probably, the decisive statement of † P. I. Bartenev (in the “Russian Archive” 1907, book III, p. 480) applies specifically to him that “even the severity of Smaragd was not successful: the ruler of his consistory became so rich that the beautiful Oryol village of the famous I. V. Lopukhin came into his possession” (senator, author of “Notes”, † 22 June 1816). See Christian Reading 1911, No. 1, pp. 127-128. See Letters of the Archbishop. Smaragda to Archimandrite Hierophey on page 92, and in “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 11, page 1247, where a note is given on the manuscript of “Memoirs” of Fr. Hierotheus by one of the Ryazan clergy: “The bastard bribe-taker Bruevich, who served as such a dishonor for the Archpastor” (Smaragda). Yes, oh. E. N. Ostrogorsky wrote to us (1911, II, 14) about Bruevich: “This temporary worker, during Vladyka Smaragd’s visits to the city of Yelets, paid visits to every priest and for this he received an imperial from each, and there are about forty priests in Yelets, if not more. I know this because my brother, the archpriest, served in one of the churches in Yelets for almost 60 years.” See Letters of the Archbishop. Smaragda to Archimandrite Hierotheus on pp. 52, 92–94 and in “Christian Reading” 1911, no. 7–8, pp. 976; No. 10, pp. 1247–1249. See above 911, no. 9, p. 949. D. I. Rostislavov in June 1816 wrote from Ryazan to M. P. Pogodin that the steward of the apostle’s house near Smaragd (Prot. N. A. Strakhov) is “almost his alter ego”: see † N. P. Barsukov, Life and Works of M. P. Pogodin, book. XXI (St. Petersburg, 1907), p. 174. For example, about the abuses of the bishop's secretary under the Reverend. Evgenia Kazantsev († July 27, 1871) see Archpriest. I. Blagoveshchensky, Archbishop Evgeniy Kazantsev: biographical sketch (Moscow, 1875), p. 37. “Theological Bulletin” 1912, No. 5 (in the article “Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy P. S. Kazansky and his correspondence with Archbishop Plato of Kostroma”), p. 139: “clergy scolded him (Philaret, Archbishop of Chernigov, † August 9, 1866) as a bribe-taker for Parmen’s abuses.” According to † A. A. Titov (3 notes of Bishop Nicodemus in “Soulful Reading” 1911, No. 7–8, p. 367.2), about the St. Petersburg Metropolitan who enjoyed special influence. Seraphim (Glagolevsky, † January 17, 1843) to secretary A. I. Suslov. The Moscow archpriest of the Kazan Cathedral expressed: “it is known that yeast cannot exist without wort”... About P. F. Preobrazhensky under Bishop Macarius Bulgakov of Tambov († June 9, 1882, Metropolitan of Moscow) and about E.I. Korsunovsky under his successor Feofan Govorov († January 6, 1894), under whom financial abuses occurred as a result, see Notes of Archpriest V.G. Pevnitsky in “Russian Antiquity” 1905, book. IX, pp. 549, 550 ff., 553. About Smaragdov’s immediate successor in the Ryazan diocese, Rev. Irinarche (Popov, † September 25, 1877) prot. I. G. Molchanov testifies (Church chronicle of the Assumption Church in the village of Gorodkovich, Spassky district, Ryazan diocese, Ryazan 1898, p. 346): “he was a kind, truthful and impartial archpastor; Only those around him and close to him, unfortunately, were not entirely worthy people and often put him to shame.” Even the enthusiastic panegyrist of “Innocent Wisdom” (in the words of Bishop Nikodim Kazantsev in “Soulful Reading” 1911, No. 9, p. 68) - † prof. I. U. Palimpsestov reports (My memories of Innocent, Archbishop of Kherson and Tauride, St. Petersburg, 1888), allegedly Innokenty (Borisov, † May 26, 1857) robbed churches (p. 198 ff.), and some of his associates actually took “something like bribes” (p. 202). Prot. I. G. Molchanov, Church chronicle of the parish of the Assumption Church in the village of Gorodkovich, Spassky district of Ryazan, p. 343: “Speaking about the revision of archpastors, Smaragd also touched upon their retinue, which usually travels with them throughout the diocese. "What to do? A bishop cannot travel without an entourage. We need to perform a divine service. How to manage without an archdeacon and without choristers? But what they are doing, the bishop does not know at all, or he finds out after a long time, when all sorts of sins are covered up by a long time ago.” Prot. I. G. Molchanov testifies (ibid., p. 342) that regarding the bewilderment about some hostility towards him from the Ryazan Consistory, where he almost never visited, Smaragd only remarked: “that’s why they forgot you there, because you don’t know anyone”... See Letters of Archimandrite. Smaragda to Archimandrite Hierotheus on page 59 and in “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 7–8, p. 983, where on December 18, 1853 he testified that “it would be necessary to close some more Spiritual Boards (in addition to the already closed Kromsky)” as “unnecessary for extortion from the clergy of the authorities...”. Archim. Hierotheus, in his “Memoirs” about Smaragda, writes (l. 47): “Without compiling a complete description of the life of the Archpastor, I, as far as I know, am talking about his honesty, rightness and zeal for the well-being of the flock entrusted to him. The saint of God delved deeply into office work; I was fully convinced of the justice of what I was doing. But as for the circumstantial circumstances, the persons in contact: then the Right Reverend was a man; and the depth of their hearts, of course, was not revealed to him.” Archim. Hierotheus writes (ibid., l. 127 and reverse): “Ending our memories of the Most Reverend Smaragda, with complete frankness we are ready to speak about the condition of ourselves and others who served under the Archpastoral Person in various honorary (cannot be included here, I.A.B., i.e. Bonch-Bruevich) positions in the Bishop's House. The ruler had the habit, or caution, to carefully monitor that none of the elders of the household could. use any authority from outside; and therefore, this time, he treated his family not always pleasantly, sometimes even harshly, not excluding some of his relatives who had the opportunity to live under the Archpastor.” Our correspondent V.A.Sh., who was personally acquainted with Smaragd and Bruevich, writes that under this archbishop, indeed, there was bribery, but people who enjoyed his trust took bribes, and, in all likelihood, even on his behalf, which is why such fame began to spread about him, and he himself might not have known about this business of his associates. † Archbishop Nikanor, Biographical materials I, pp. 244 ff. See also “Christian Reading” 1912, No. 10, p. 1073; 1913, no. 2, p. 179; No. 3, p. 318. In “Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities” 1869, book. 1, dept. V, page 5 - this is what the Reverend says. Innokenty (Borisov) about his predecessor in Vologda, Bishop Stefan (Romanovsky, † December 4, 1841), transferred to Astrakhan, where he was succeeded by Smaragd, who never allowed such comments about this bishop, although the latter was never (according to the revision of the Volyn Seminary) his personal enemy and caused him a lot of grief. Didn't Innocent have a peculiar predilection for suspecting and accusing his fellow hierarchs of love of money, bribery, etc.? In this environment, examples of this are not uncommon even today, when some are distinguished by gossipy suspicion of a bad nature in general, and especially regarding their “brothers” and neighbors... † Archbishop Nicanor, Biographical Materials I, p. 238. See Christ. Reading" 1912, No. 3, pp. 322, 153. Father Hierotheus testifies (in "Memoirs" on page 12 and reverse) that in Polotsk Smaragd did not even save his regular salary, and it was spent without a trace. See “Christ. Reading" 1912, No. 10, pp. 1073. See Oryol Diocesan Gazette” 1906, No. 20, pp. 597, 599 (according to the “Memoirs” of Father Hierotheus on fol. 41 ver., 46 ver. – 47); “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1895, No. 15, p. 391; "Church and Social Bulletin" VI (1879), No. 34, p. 6a. † Archbishop Nikanor, Biographical Materials I, p. 247: “during Smaragd’s stay in Polotsk and Mogilev, we guarantee with our honor that he not only himself did not receive any offerings from anywhere, but also eradicated abuses of this kind in others.” M. Filaret, Letters to the Highest Persons II, p. 210: “in Ryazan nothing was acquired (by Smaragada), but everything was acquired in the dioceses that were under his control before.” See "Memoirs" about. Hierotheus on l. 15 rev. Letters from apxhiep. Smaragda to Archimandrite Hierotheus on page 59 and in “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 7–8, p. 983; see and above on pp. 718, 38. See Letters of the Archbishop. Smaragda to Archimandrite Hierotheus on page 52 and in “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 7–8, p. 976; Wed “Oryol Diocesan Gazette” 1906, No. 20, p. 599. See "Memoirs" about. Hierothea, l. 121 rev. See Letters of apxhiep. Smaragda to Archimandrite Hierotheus on page 118 and in “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 12, page 1514. At least, there is no such direct testimony about this as there is, for example, about the Tula, then Olonets, Eminence Damascene (Rossov, † July 31, 1855), whom Smaragd did not forget with his attention in retirement (see “Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities” vol. 244, book I for 1913, in a mixture of p. 12, 26). About Damascus, during the Tula period of his priesthood (November 6, 1821, December 19, 1850), Bishop Nikodim, (Kazantsev) writes (My first life and inspection at the Tula seminary in the “Tula Diocesan Gazette” 1911, No. 12, p. 254): “all his shortcomings lie in greed, which sometimes (perhaps without his knowledge, through his associates) turns into a real robbery.” And about Bishop Ioannikis of Vyatka (Obraztsov, April 18, 1880), the same Nicodemus writes (see “Proceedings of the Vyatka Academic Archival Commission” 1913, issue I–II, Vyatka 1913, p. 65) that when transferring one caretaker from Sarapul to Vyatka, “the bishop was seduced by apparently too decent a gift." See also † prof. Al. P. Lebedeva, Blind leaders: four moments in the historical life of the church (Moscow 1907), pp. 58 ff., 66 ff. † G. I. Pyasetsky, History of the Oryol Diocese, p. 964. See Letters to the Highest Persons II, p. 205. See "Bulletin of Europe" 1872, No. 7 (July), p. 231. See “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1895, No. 15, p. 394. D.I. Rostislavov even more diligently calculates other people’s money in his anonymous essay “On the Orthodox White and Black Clergy in Russia,” saying, undoubtedly, the following about Smaragda (vol. I, Leipzig 1866, pp. 281–282): “Another very recently deceased archbishop left two of his nephews an inheritance of 160,000 rubles. But here the following circumstances must be taken into account: 1) This capital, as can be seen from the date of the tickets of the guardianship council, was acquired over the course of only 16 years, and the deceased, both before and after these 16 years, was a bishop for almost the same amount of time, during which, in all likelihood, he should have had huge balances from his income. 2) In the name of one young man, towards whom the deceased had a fatherly disposition, he deposited 30,000 rubles long before his death. 3) According to very reliable rumors, one of the relatives of the deceased was able to somehow arbitrarily appropriate capital of even more than 30,000 rubles. 4) Again, according to reliable, one might say, irrefutable news, one person who was present with the deceased in the last days of his life found an opportunity, without the help of the civil chamber, to make herself the heir of this benefactor [see. below approx. 77). According to K.M., the deceased did not have any tickets from credit institutions for the last 6-7 years, although it was well known that he had more than once sent his governor to take 5,000 rubles to Moscow. 5) In addition to money, there remained a huge amount of clothing, pieces and cuts, excellent silk fabrics, carpets, silver and gold things, bishop's vestments, mitres, brocade, etc., etc. Having taken all this into account, we can safely say that if the deceased had not given away part of his money during his lifetime, if the other part had not been stolen before or after death, if all the property in things had been turned into money, then the capital would have been even greater than that of the previous deceased” (over 1 1/2 million rubles ass.). Compared with the actual facts (see below to approx. 74) it is fair to add to these fantastic calculations that here it is precisely courage that takes on imaginary cities and is cowardly in the face of real fortresses... † G. M. Pyasetsky, History of the Oryol Diocese, p. 964 note, 667. † Archbishop Nicanor, Biographical Materials I, p. 247. See "Ryazan Diocesan Gazette" 1896, No. 15, p. 501. See No. 2, pp. 209, 78. Ibid., l. 127 rev. – 128. See "Memoirs" about. Hierothea, l. 102 rev.–103; Wed above 1912, no. 2, pp. 210, 78. 81. See here, Genealogy of Smaragd (Kryzhanovsky), pp. 25–27, and above 1912, No. 2, pp. 212–215. See "Memoirs" about. Hierothea, l. 105 rev; Wed above 1912, no. 2, pp. 212, 84. See here, Genealogy of Smaragd (Kryzhanovsky), pp. 24, 25, 26–27, 32–33, 34a above 1912, No. 2, pp. 210, 211, 212, 213–215, 222, 223. See "Memoirs" about. Hierothea, l. 106 rev. End of chapter next. number.