His Eminence Smaragd (Kryzhanovsky) at the Mogilev See

SMARAGD had to leave the Polotsk diocese, leaving a bright memory there 1, and with the usual speed he hurried to the appointed place. Having handed over all his affairs, he left Polotsk on July 13, 1837 2 sick from grief and under the sad impression of a large fire that devastated the city 3 and delayed his departure 4 . This distressing translation was painful for him, but the Mogilev diocese soon became pleasant for him, where he was also not freed from the troubles of the Uniate matter; however, all relations worked out much better here 6 . Smaragd entered his new see as the successor of his predecessors and, continuing their archpastoral exploits, then became concerned with church commemoration throughout the diocese of all the deceased Mogilev saints 7 . This was the strongest and best way to establish the spiritual kinship of Smaragd, who immediately became close to all classes of the Mogilev flock and naturally acquired wide sympathy for himself. Therefore, the solemn statement of the Reverend is not at all surprising. Nikanor (Brovkovich) 8 that in Mogilev “Archbishop Smaragd was honored, loved and received in the most excellent way not only by Russian landowners, but also by Polish ones - and at that time all the landowners there were Poles - and not only by landowners, but also by priests in their monasteries. I remember we were received most magnificently by the priests in their monastery in Ozeryany. The priests went out to tsvintar 9 to meet Smaragda Ave.; in sacred vestments, with a cross, banners and bells. In Ozeryany, he even entered the church in a robe, to the sound of the organ!.. And then the Catholics in Mogilev itself were extremely friendly to him, Smaragd. We, the singers, were received with congratulations; gave us gifts more generously than the Russians” 10. Regarding the converted Uniate clergy, Smaragd himself wrote to Governor General P.N. on August 2, 1839. Dyakov that when traveling around the diocese he often performed divine services with him, and “nowhere was decorum violated” 11 . Smaragd was unflaggingly interested in the Uniate cause and diligently contributed to its Orthodox crowning, and when it took place (March 25, 1839), he took direct part in the church celebration of this occasion in the city of Orsha on July 8, 1839, together with Bishop Vasily Luzhinsky, who was specially invited here by him († January 26, 1879 12. Smaragd appreciated all the greatest importance of the sacred matter of reunification and on May 12, 1839, “according to the Highest will known to him, he proposed to the Mogilev Consistory: all cases of persons seduced from Orthodoxy into the so-called union, having been reviewed and separated from others, be counted as completed proceedings, and the local spiritual authorities order that such persons be fraternally considered on an equal basis with the ancient Orthodox Christians and were not at all worried anymore” 13. In an effort to quickly and more firmly implement the formally completed act, Smaragd energetically eliminated the obstacles encountered - and, for example, we have the following expressive resolution of his on September 20, 1839: “for the very slow dissemination among the clergy of the decree on the reunification of the Greek Uniates to Orthodoxy, inflict a strict reprimand on the Belitsky Spiritual Board with the suggestion that if it continues If the Board has such a disorder and a careless attitude towards the most important matters and responsibilities, then there is nothing left to do but to close it, as it is unnecessary and serves as a burden for the Consistory and an obstacle to the speedy and proper flow of diocesan affairs” 14. Smaragd tried to actually establish the desired brotherly love and therefore specifically approved of the Orthodox clergy “for prudent communication with the reunited priesthood and people” 15, “accompanied by peace and silence” 16 - with “prudent courtesy” 17. Encouraging good zeal between the New Orthodox parishes, he especially praised those who “successfully bring together the ancient Orthodox clergy with the New Orthodox in priestly service, rituals and fraternal mutual agreement,” if “they care about the introduction of the joint service of the Old Orthodox clergy with the New Orthodox and about greater uniformity of rituals observed by this latter clergy, with ancient rules of the universal church" 18. Smaragd saw this as a guarantee of the triumph of Orthodoxy and did not develop militant missionary work among the Uniates, although he forbade any obstacles for those who converted 19 and showed them preferential leniency without excessive indulgence 20 . Smaragd himself followed all the details of the reunions and delved into all the details 21. Here, a simple appearance was not allowed at all, when “priests often boast only of their affiliations, and later on, those who were unjustifiably affiliated with them do not go to church and go to confession and receive Holy Communion. They do not begin the mysteries, remaining as before in a different faith, which is extremely unpleasant” 22. In these interests, it was suggested that, not limiting themselves to mere formalities, they should demand confession and communion from the reunited with an Orthodox priest, “for without this, any union is insignificant and fragile” 23, so this was ordered to be observed in the future with all care 24. It was necessary to retain and affirm the New Orthodox, protecting them from being seduced into Catholicism 25, which sought to expand 26. In this regard, Smaragd wanted to act in unanimity with the related spiritual authorities, without disturbing the general course 27. As for the union, it was not allowed to spread and develop artificially 28. Everything had to be directed towards ensuring that Uniatism would gradually merge with Orthodoxy and be absorbed in it 29 . Smaragd “was the successor of the unforgettable Mogilev Archbishop George of Konissky” in reuniting the Uniates in such a spirit that they submitted to the Orthodox truth, as dogmatically undoubted and primordial for them 30. With such fundamental views, it is quite natural that, “promoting this movement with zeal, perhaps even more ardent than the higher spheres desired, His Eminence Smaragd, with his direct Russian meaning, could not comprehend in any way that the newly reunited clergy from the union for many years, even decades, or even forever... should be the dominant elements in the whole region, at least the primary, purely exclusive objects of trusteeship.” attention, all kinds of encouragement, awards and support” 31. If the claims from this side were not satisfied, then for purely objective reasons - in the equality of all members of the Orthodox priesthood, in which some have the least right to special privileges only because they were previously mistaken. This means that Uniate discontent is devoid of legal and factual basis, as is clear from the fact that they were heard even more strongly at the address of Anatoly Martynovsky 32, almost the immediate successor in the Mogilev department (November 22, 1844 - July 17, 1860) of Smaragd. In the foreground he had the original Russian Orthodoxy - and, appreciating the discovery and protection of it by others 33, he served it with usual determination, for, having arrived in Mogilev at night, the new archpastor set to work in the morning 34. And the results of his labors were such that 15 years after his departure from here, “the priests, with the most enthusiastic praises and the warmest prayerful well-wishes, blessed the memory of the Right Reverend Smaragd for the fact that he defended his brethren from the lord’s arrogance, from the lord’s abuses to their destruction, and, it must be added, they blessed as energetically as they condemned the later system that was opposite to it, which stemmed from weakness of character, unable to resist the lord’s insistence, or even from secret instructions.” They said there that “Smaragd elevated the diocese, elevated the spirit of the clergy, elevated our brethren both in the eyes of others and in our own eyes” 35, leaving forever grateful feelings in the Mogilev flock 36. This merit of Smaragd is most obvious in comparison with his second successor in Mogilev, Anatoly Martynovsky, whom the archbishop probably also means. Nikanor. It is about the Reverend. Anatolia is told that he was too attentive to the landowners against the priests, 37 which is why the latter were necessarily placed in a dependent and oppressed position. Along with this, Anatoly’s principled views on the Orthodox white priesthood were extremely cruel, about which it was stated that “the priests are ignorant, self-interested, dumb” 38 . Anatoly even boldly proclaimed this differentiation: “And monks, monks are very much needed by the Holy Church. She was lost without them. The priests will sell Christ" 39. Smaragd thought and acted differently in relation to his closest employees. He decisively certified their “public service, due to the circumstances of the (Mogilev) Diocese, located among the Gentiles, not a little difficult” 40, and in every possible way encouraged the zealous. He needed zealous and enlightened shepherds, but there was such a lack of them that in response to the petition of Andrei Stratonovich, who graduated from the Mogilev Seminary, for dismissal from the clergy due to the lack of the necessary moral disposition for the priesthood and due to physical aversion to marriage, Smaragd (January 20, 1838) wrote: “in a request to refuse due to the need for the clergy for the Mogilev Dioceses; and if he cannot get married, which, however, is doubtful, then he is invited to become a monk” 41. It got to the point that the following resolution was possible (dated September 6, 1838): “There are no illiterate clergy anywhere in the world and there cannot be; and therefore suggest to the 21-year-old illiterate Ivan Shelyuta that he immediately ask for his dismissal from the clergy altogether” 42. They were attracted or asked from outside, but sometimes even graduating seminarians “knew the theological truths so poorly” that they “obliged themselves to subscribe to studying in all their perfection the lengthy catechism of Metropolitan Philaret” 43 . Smaragd fought against the poorly educated clergy 44 and, having observed this himself 45, on November 14, 1838, he ordered “to prohibit those who have not completed the course of Theological Sciences from asking to become priests for salaried positions, and in addition to this, immediately making a statement for all idle priestly positions, submitting it to the Seminary so that the students of Theology would sign up, if anyone wants to enter what position, for for the remaining idle vacancies he proposed to ordain some of the most worthy deacons” 46. Smaragd wanted pastoral service to be carried out through voluntary diligence on the part of the clergy and with the good participation of the flock, which is why he wanted the latter to have approval for members of the clergy 47 and demanded from the latter skillful handling of people 48, but did not allow coercion in the correction of priestly duties 49. This ensured favorable conditions for pastoral work, in which Smaragd especially valued church teaching 50 and also work on the construction and decoration of churches 51. Any ostentation was met with condemnation from him 52 . Smaragd provided for various opportunities in the parish church 53, delved into all the little details of the life of the clergy 54 and showed great care for orphans 55. Along with the positive work, there was also negative work - the fight against disorder and shortcomings in the spiritual environment, where there were many defects, including an addiction to gun hunting 56. Here Smaragd dealt quite harshly, not sparing the rod, but did not limit himself to external measures of forgiveness 57 and, for example, to eradicate alcoholic hobbies, he spread the printed “word about drunkenness” 58. Acting according to the law 59, the archpastor did not adhere to systematic severity 60 and allowed all kinds of leniency, taking into account all apologies and mitigations 61. In general, Smaragd cared a lot about the creation of churches 62, which were not enough in the Mogilev diocese 63, often traveled for personal viewing 64 and directly organized, he himself often sat in the Consistory 65, arranged the external splendor of the cathedral church service and started an excellent bishop's sacristy 66, carefully monitored the implementation of the statutory church everywhere reverence 67 and the decorum of the clergy 68, energetically guarded his honor and dignity 69, rejecting inappropriate claims, and carefully monitored the material interests of the church 70. A close subject of archpastoral care were religious educational institutions, which he specially inspected twice (in October-December 1837 and in July 1839). This was carried out on instructions from above, but it was carried out not formally, but with complete care 71. Under Smaragda, the separation of the district and parish religious schools took place, with premises in a special house 72. The seminary pedagogical work occupied the archbishop greatly, and he emphatically emphasized that “he was greatly consoled by the excellent successes of the students” 73 . No less concerned about primary public education in parish schools, Smaragd “tried to attract the more educated part of the clergy to this and strictly punished the teachers of the parish schools who were found to be negligent” 74. By establishing and strengthening Orthodoxy in the Mogilev diocese, Smaragd received support for the spread of his missionary influences 75 and tried to act energetically among schismatics - especially in the Gomel district 76, where they had long been settled in large numbers 77. The famous Vetka was located here, but then the city itself (now unemployed) Belitsa served as the center of schismatic propaganda, which was supported and fed from the Chernigov province. Therefore, Smaragd resolutely fought against the influx of fugitive schismatic priests from there, appealing to the Chernigov, Poltava and Kharkov governor-general, gr. A.G. Stroganov and to the Bishop of Chernigov Pavel (Podlipsky), and in his own country he suppressed schismatic illegalities in every possible way, prevented and eliminated seduction, trying to introduce unity of faith with the blessed priesthood. For this purpose, at his request, the Holy Synod, by decree of February 16, 1839 for the first time ordered the appointment of special missionaries for the conversion of schismatics of the Mogilev diocese: Smaragd then deliberately discussed the candidate for this responsible position with the Reverend. Chernigovsky Pavel 78. Work in this area was all the more difficult because the dissenters displayed clever “cunning” 79 , and the police and other authorities involved condoned them 80 , “eclipsing” cases that were unpleasant or dangerous for them, which is why formal rigor was required in all investigations and activities 81 . Smaragd did not allow the schism to be elevated by the illegal construction of houses of prayer 82 and, while suffering damage in seductions 83 , sometimes gained by joining Orthodoxy 84 . In general, for him, in this part, “the establishment of an anti-schism mission and, in general, the correct organization of missionary work within the Mogilev diocese” are stated 85. See A.I. Malevich in “Mogilev Eparchs. Vedomosti" 1909, No. 19, p. 708, and in the book "Mogilev Diocese" (historical and statistical description) vol. 1, Issue. 2, part 2 (Mogilev. Gub. 1910), p. 154: Smaragd “left behind a bright memory with his tireless labors in converting the Polotsk Uniates to Orthodoxy and the wise improvement of the revived diocese.” See the Polotsk Spirit case. Consistory 1837 No. 18, pp. 1–15. See "Memoirs" about. Hierotheus on l. 13 rev.–14. I.S. Zhirkevich mentions that Smaragd donated 50 rubles for the victims of the fire. banknotes (see in "Russian Antiquity" 1890, vol. 67, September, pp. 679–682). Commission Spirit. On June 30, 1837, the school instructed Smaragda to revise the Mogilev Seminary with its lower Theological Schools. On this relation there is the following note from Smaragd: “Receive. July 17, 1837 - On August 25, it was answered that since, due to the fire that happened in the city of Polotsk, I could not arrive by July 15, the assigned audit could not be carried out.” The case is in the Mogilev Spirit Archive. Seminaries for October 1837, No. 80 on the interior. See "Memoirs" about. Hierotheus on l. 14. About the Mogilev period, see “Memoirs” of Fr. Hierotheus on l. 14–22. February 12, 1838 Rev. Smaragd gave such an order to the Spirit. Consistory: “In the Belarusian-Mogilev Diocese, a general annual memorial service for the deceased Bishops who ruled the Mogilev flock has not yet been established. Why do I propose to the Consistory to order circularly to all places and persons under its jurisdiction that such a requiem mass be celebrated every year according to rites on Saturday of the first week of the Holy Pentecost, certainly after the hours, before the start of the Divine Liturgy. Attached is a name book with a list of deceased Bishops of the Right Reverends”, starting with Joseph Bobrikovich († April 9, 1634: see in the book “Mogilev Diocese”, vol. 1, issue 2, part 1, Mogilev on the Dnieper 1908, pp. 10–11) and ending with Pavel Pavlov (Morev † December 18, 1831, in Tobolsk), a total of 18 hierarchs (although Paul is considered the 20th: Mogilev diocese 1, issue 2, part 2, p. 121 seq.). See the decree of the Mogilev Consistory to Archimandrite Nikodim, rector of the Chonsky third-class Assumption Monastery dated February 14, 1838 No. 633. Biographical Materials 1, pp. 79–80. All this information is confirmed by Fr. Hierotheus, who (in his “Memoirs”) says that “during the review of the Diocese, Orthodox and non-Orthodox landowners and the Clergy met the Archpastor everywhere and treated him with reverence” (l. 14, rev.); “the Poles-landowners who occupied honorary administrative positions were very friendly and sociable” with Smaragd (fol. 17 ver.). In the revolution of July 19, 1839 (in the archives of the Mogilev Spiritual Consistory), Smaragd explains that in the local language “tsvintars” are called church graveyards, and prohibits the clergy from building them up without permission, and “the unauthorized, ugly and without any plan constructions that currently exist on them orders the dean to try to destroy them little by little insensitively.” A.P. Sapunov, Vitebsk antiquity V, 1, pp. 137–138. Even I.S. Zhirkevich admits (in “Russian Antiquity” 1890, vol. 67, September, p. 700) that Smaragd “in another province began to act differently and more leniently, and attracted the favor of the estate owners.” See Notes of Vasily Luzhinsky, Archbishop of Polotsk, in the “Orthodox Interlocutor” 1885, part I, pp. 186–190. Smaragd himself reports this in two letters to Governor General P.N. Dyakov, stored in the Mogilev Spirit. Consistory in the case of the reunification of the Greek-Uniate churches with the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church. On June 19, 1839, he reported from Orsha: “While currently visiting the Diocese entrusted to me, on the 17th of June I celebrated the Divine Liturgy in the city Orsha Cathedral, to which the former Greek-Uniate monastery in Orsha, Hegumen Favst, and other monastic brethren were invited for joint service. All of them, as well as the former Uniate theological district school, teachers and students, before the liturgy, made a solemn procession of the cross from the above-mentioned monastery to the Orthodox Cathedral, with the bells ringing, they were met by me with the clergy entrusted to me at the gates of the cathedral with the procession and icons according to the order. After which the former Greek-Uniate Abbot, with the hieromonks subordinate to him and with the ancient Orthodox clergy, was present with me in the sacred ceremony and preaching the word of God. What a new and, for many, astounding spectacle, there was a large number of Christians of all confessions that could not be accommodated in the holy church. The next day, that is, June 18, Abbot Favst and his brethren invited me to celebrate the Divine Liturgy in their former Greek-Uniate monastery, in which by that time the district New Orthodox clergy of the parishes closest to the city of Orsha had gathered. All of them, as well as some clergy of the ancient Orthodox Mogilev Diocese, performed the liturgy with me with remembrance, where according to the rite, the name of the Holy Synod and the Most Reverend. Bishop Vasily of Orsha; and then a prayer of thanks to the Lord God was offered with the proclamation of many years to His Imperial Majesty and the entire August Family; At one prayer service there were up to 50 both ancient and new Orthodox priests. During the said joint priestly service of the Old Orthodox and the New Orthodox clergy, a special silence was observed from the numerous people present of all Christian denominations, and general amazement and gratitude to God, who was so well-disposed towards us, was clearly revealed in the church. I consider it my duty to notify Your Excellency about such a joyful affirmation here among the former Greek Union of ancient Orthodoxy." On August 2, 1839, Smaragd writes to the same P.N. Dyakov: “On July 8, Bishop Vasily, who arrived from Polotsk in Orsha, at my invitation, performed a religious procession from the Orsha men’s monastery to the women’s monastery, commanding the ancient Orthodox clergy during this procession. As he approached with the church procession to the gates of the nunnery, in which the celebration of the Mother of God took place that day, for the sake of her venerable Kazan icon, with the ringing of the bells, he was met at the gates by me with the serving clergy and, uniting with me, upon entering the church, they performed the Divine Liturgy together; and then I spoke the teaching and the cross took place around the church, the circulation of the ancient and new Orthodox clergy, of whom there were up to 150 people. After the completion of the entire sacred rite, a blessing was taught according to the rite of the church, both by me and by Bishop Vasily, to the people, who then flocked in the number of no less than 12 thousand. All such combined services, and especially the last one, as the most solemn, served as widespread and experimental proof of the clear union of the former Greek Union with the Orthodox Eastern Church. The ancient Orthodox people, as far as I know, rejoiced at such an event, and those who were Uniates accepted it calmly and complacently. However, during my private teachings to the people about the accomplished unity of the so-called union with Orthodoxy, the ancient Orthodox parishioners announced to me that they did not yet want to confess and receive communion in the New Orthodox churches, and the New Orthodox responded that they could not suddenly decide to borrow the requirements from the Old Orthodox priests. From which it is clear that for the closest actual communication and merging together of the parishioners of both flocks, time and orders consistent with the circumstances are required.” See the Mogilev Spirit Archive. Consistories. Ibid., about the dean, Orsha Archpriest. John Lepeshinsky for the fact that on August 15, 1839, in the Yurtsevo New Orthodox Church, he and the cathedral deacon Stratonovich and the New Orthodox dean priest. Shchotkovsky performed the divine liturgy and procession around the church, and at the liturgy there were many New Orthodox Christians - confessors preparing for St. communion, which was administered to Fr. Lepeshinsky. Ibid., resolution of August 23, 1839 about the abbot Ioannikis, Archpriest. Potapia Tverdom. In the Mogilev Spirit Archive. Consistory of the resolution on the Sennen dean Fr. I. Kitovich (November 4, 1839), dean of churches in the district of arable peasants of Mogil. lips prot. Venedikta of Sambir (December 7), Dean of Mstislavl Ioanniki (September 25), Abbess of the Buinitsky and Barkalabovsky nunnery of Kapitolina (September 19). Ibid., in the case of the nomination of clergy for awards (August 23, 1839): about the dean priest. Holy Spiritual Church of Babinovich Jason Chulitsky and priest. Miloslavitskaya c. Klimovichsky district Koeme Savinich; about prot. I. Lepeshinsky and others. Trinity Cathedral Church in Mstislavl Pot. Solid. Ibid., resolution of September 26, 1838, which prohibits requiring converting Uniates to “subscribe on stamp paper, both because this is a godly deed, and because in this case the acquisition of stamp paper by persons of other faiths may hinder their desire to join.” Ibid., resolution September 4, 1837. In the case of Rogachevsky u. village of the Palace of the Uniate ascribed church of St. Andrei Khrutsky, and regarding the accusation that arose about him from the Greek-Uniate Consistory on August 10, 1838, Smaragd wrote: “this case (about breaking the head of the innkeeper’s son with a pipe until he bled) about the priest Khrutsky (concerning him alone) arose in the Uniate Department and before he, Khrutsky, joined the Orthodox Church, which has the best influence on him,” why stop now - “especially since if the Orthodox spiritual authorities decided to punish the Uniate clergy approaching Orthodoxy for unimportant errors committed in the Uniate, then this very thing would serve as a barrier for that clergy to enter Orthodoxy. On the other hand, in order not to give them the slightest connivance to the priest Khrutsky to commit any illegal acts in the Orthodox Spiritual Department and to further direct him to an honest and sober life, the decision of the Consistory should be announced to him (which decided to take him to the Bishop's House for a test of behavior for a month with his own content, so that he could see what he was subject to and what he will be subject to if he does not correct himself. And beyond this it is necessary oblige him, Khrutsky, with the strictest subscription to the transmission of a completely sober life, with an announcement to him that if one day information about his excessive consumption of hot drinks reaches the Diocesan Authorities, then the real matter will then be taken into account, and he, Khrutsky, as if he did not take advantage of the initial leniency towards him, will be subjected to special and the gravest punishment". 101 that “the boys of the reunited widow of the Uniate priest Evdokia Onusevich, by resolution of the archbishop (Smaragda), are sent to the local seminary for life.” See A.I. Malevich in the “Mogilev Diocesan Gazette” 1909, No. 19, p. 710, and in the book “Mogilev Diocese”, vol. 1, no. 2, part 2, page 161: “on each individual act of annexation we always find a resolution of the Mogilev Archbishop” (Smaragda). In the Mogilev Spirit Archive. Consistory resolution of April 8, 1888 regarding the accession of nobles of the Roman Catholic confession. Ibid., resolution October 24, 1837 Ibid., resolution November 3, 1837 Ibid., resolution of November 2, 1837 on the seduction of the noblewoman Lepitskaya to Catholicism, which admits that the priest. Leplinsky is completely guilty “in the present case” and - if he persists in renegade - will answer before the law for how he “arbitrarily and illegally blessed her marriage” (with the Catholic Karl Krupsky). Resolution October 20, 1837; here on the report of the priest. Abramovich about the conversion to Catholicism of the noblewoman Elena Zhdanovicheva (on her husband (Mikhnevicheva)) there is the following remark from Smaragd: “this priest did not confess or communion the newly joined; and he took the obligation on a piece of paper; he did not report the accession made to the Diocesan Authorities, and therefore he himself is much to blame for the fact that the one who accepted Orthodoxy apostatized from it.” In the Mogilev Spirit Archive. The consistory has a case about the illegally built stone Roman Catholic chapel by the landowner Artsimovicheva, about which Smaragd communicated with the governor. See A.I. Malevich in “Mogilev Eparchs. Vedomosti" 1909, No. 19, pp. 710–711, and in the book "Mogilev Diocese", vol. 1, no. 2, part 2, pp. 161–162: “Reuniting the exhortations of numerous Uniates of his diocese, Archbishop Smaragd vigilantly monitored his newly reunited flock and, with strict measures, prevented cases of brazen conversion of Uniates to Catholicism.” “The main seducers were, of course, the priests, who often interfered in the affairs of Orthodox parishes,” which is why Smaragd ordered “immediate measures to be taken to restrain the priests from brazen intrusion” (into the Voronovo parish). In the Mogilev Spirit Archive. Consistory “the case of slander by the Roman Catholic pleban Dubkovich, living in the borough of Oboltsy Kopys. y., men should not go to the Russian church.” In response to a secret request about this from Governor General P.N. Dyakov dated October 31, 1839. Smaragd, in a handwritten letter on November 11, states that “Oboletsky parish... belongs to the department of the Belarusian reunited Diocese, and, therefore, the order in this case belongs to Orsha Bishop Vasily, the administrator of this diocese,” but asks to notify him about the final decision of the issue, “so that he, according to the department entrusted to him, could carry out necessary precautions." Ibid. Smaragd, in a letter dated February 20, 1838 to Bishop Vasily (Orsha) points out (according to the report of the dean, Archpriest Pot. Tverdy) the inappropriateness of the restoration started by the landowner (Catholic) Adam Golynsky in the village. Koskov (Mstislav.u.) of a dilapidated Uniate church, for “the existence of this church is unnecessary for the Greek-Uniate confession, because one and a half miles from it there is a parish Unite church, to which belong the peasants of the landowner Golynsky, who lives in that village of Koskov - and for Orthodoxy it is harmful, because in this very village there are those affiliated with the Orthodoxy of the state Koskovo starostvo peasants, which peasants may have a reason to deviate from Orthodoxy.” Ibid., about. Lozitsa and Khotovnyanska churches. The latter was rebuilt in 1832 with the permission of Bishop Martusevich, but the Mogilev civil governor did not allow it to be completed, because everything was started without the knowledge of the government, and the Orthodox Zimnitsa parish was located nearby. On December 3, 1838, Bishop Vasily asked Smaragda to complete the construction and open services “for the spiritual benefit of the local Greek Uniates,” and on April 11, 1839, bringing “the unfeigned assurance of his deepest respect and devotion,” the famous V.V. Skripitsyn asks “to allow worship in two sealed churches: Mogilev district in Lozitskaya and Bykhovsky district. in Khotovnyanskaya, where the next ministry could now be usefully performed by an Orthodox and Uniate priest, which would be in accordance with the views of the government.” In a response letter dated April 24, Smaragd expresses agreement “with the condition, however, that the next service should take place in them through Orthodox and Uniate priests. This is especially necessary because, according to the report of the local dean, around the Lozovitsa and Khotovnyany churches there are a great many residents of the Orthodox confession, who, not seeing in those newly printed churches the divine service performed by an Orthodox priest, but only one Greek-Uniate service, in their simplicity and with outside instigations, can conclude more about the triumph of the union over Orthodoxy, rather than about the unity of the Orthodox rite with the Greek-Uniate and the coming rapprochement of the former with the latter; from which various perplexities and even unpleasant consequences for Orthodoxy in that part of the Diocese could arise.” Further, Smaragd asks Skripitsyn to “inform his opinion to His Eminence Vasily, so that he, on his part, would be pleased to give precisely such an order to the Greek-Uniate dean and local clergy, and notify him of a decisive order in this case regarding the Greek-Uniate part, so that he, for his part, could establish, in what follows, relations with the local Civil Authorities and give the appropriate order the clergy under his jurisdiction." See A.I. Malevich in “Mogilev Eparchs. Vedomosti" 1909, No. 19, p. 709 (and in the book "Mogilev Diocese", vol. 1, issue 2, part 2, p. 160), and also, cf. pp. 709–710 (“Mogilev Diocese” 1, issue 2, part 2, p. 161): “The archives of the Mogilev spiritual consistory contain a whole pile of files for 1838 and 39. containing thousands of names of Western Russian Uniates returned to Orthodoxy with subscriptions to remain faithful to the Orthodox rite. In the lists of reunited Uniates we meet not only entire parishes of peasants, but also a mass of gentry, temporarily seduced into Catholicism and now returned to the native faith of their Orthodox ancestors.” † Archbishop Nikanor, Biographical materials 1, p. 241. See Fr. M.E. Edlinsky, Anatoly Martynovsky, Archbishop of Mogilev, and his literary works (Kiev 1889), pp. 117 ff. See Mogilev Spirit. Consistory case (August 23, 1839) about awarding the pectoral cross to Archpriest. Rubanovsky, by the way, for the fact that he “brings the desired benefit to society by zealously, intelligibly and convincingly teaching (as a law teacher of the Mogilev Civil School, located at the Mogilev Gymnasium) to the noble youth of the dogmas and superiority of the Orthodox Faith.” Archbishop Nikanor, Biographical materials 1, p. 240. Archbishop Nikanor, Biographical materials 1, pp. 80, 239. See A.I. Malevich in “Mogilev Eparchs. Vedomosti" 1909, No. 19, p. 718 and in the book "Mogilev Diocese", vol. 1, part 2, issue. 2, p. 171: “with his short-term, but versatile and multi-useful Archpastoral activity, His Eminence Smaragd fully deserved the grateful memory of the grateful Mogilev flock.” See also Fr. M.E. Edlinsky, Anatoly Martynovsky, pp. 83 ff. Letter from Anatoly Martynovsky to Smaragd from Zhitomir dated February 25, 1844 (in the library of the Kyiv Spiritual Academy Aa. 83, 1), pp. 7–8; Wed the same letter from him dated 1844 without the date of month and day (ibid. Av. 83, 12), p. 9. Letter from Anatoly Martynovsky to Smaragd from 1844, without date of month and day, p. 10. In Mogilev Spirit. Consistory case on the nomination of clergy for awards (August 23, 1830) - at the very beginning. In the Mogilev Spirit Archive. Consistories. Ibid., on the petition of Vasily Rosanevich, who graduated from the Chernigov Seminary, to be admitted to the Mogilev diocese. Ibid. On July 23, 1838, the deacon of the Chernigov diocese, Pavel Shuranov, refused to accept him into the Mogilev diocese, because “this petitioner studied only at a district school, of which we have plenty of people”; September 3, 1838 at the request of Al. Bradovsky about the priesthood: “to refuse this minor deacon’s request with a penalty and for non-stamped paper, so that in the future he would not write ridiculous requests,” and at the same time to the sexton R. Petrovsky, who was looking for a diaconate: “to this drunken and undeserving sexton, his request to be denied”; October 7 about Deacon Vas. Bruevich, who was applying for a priestly position: “the applicant’s form indicates that he knows little about reading, singing and catechism: and therefore this request for any other transfer is to be refused.” “The petitioner Tsitovich (the sexton who asked to be ordained as a surplice) turned out in the exam that he reads against the accents, sings by hear erroneously, does not understand music at all and does not understand the church charter”; therefore, by resolution of July 27, 1838, he was refused, but was assigned to “correction of the position in the village. Teleshah, for a period of one year, so that, having studied everything that he does not understand, he would appear for a new test with the appropriate certificate of approval from whom, without fail.” The resolution of Smaragd on September 23, 1838 prescribes “for the useful purpose envisaged by Prince Meshchersky (establishing a singing choir at the Church of the Most High) to appoint the petitioner (expelled from the lower department of the Mogilev Seminary of Al. Sorokoletov) as a cleric to the Studenetsk Church under the decree for a period of one and a half years so that, after studying all the clergy items, came to me for an exam and for initiation into the surplice. And the Studenetsky sexton Galaktion Zhudra, as if he has little understanding of the objects necessary for him, should be refused the Studenetsky church.” Resolution on the petition of Deacon Sopotov to appoint him a priest. Resolution on January 19, 1839 on the petition of the sexton Andrutsky to leave him at the previous (Serovsky) parish: “Consider the consistories, taking into account the fact that as from my travel notes on the occasion of the former review of the Diocese, the sexton Andrutsky is not approved by the Serov parishioners, namely: all of them in the church complained to me that Andrutsky he is unkind, he is not happy with their arbitrary sacrifice, he is obstinate, and he doesn’t even miss a glass, which the local dean confirms.” July 16, 1838, at the request of the banned priest. Onuphry Goshkevich: “if local clergy and church ministers and parishioners wanted to have this drunken priest as a sexton in their parish, they would submit approval for this subject, without which I find myself not in the right to impose a disapproving person on them.” September 28, 1838 Priest. Kosmachevsky is encouraged to “look for another place,” because “Studenets parishioners have universal contempt for his extortion, mistreatment of them, desire for excessive drinks, and inability to serve.” Resolution on November 4, 1838 on the request of the sticharical deacon Gursky for the diaconate: “to ask deliberately the local dean what kind of character, treatment of people and general way of life this Gursky is, whether he is completely sober and in all respects, at the closest discretion, is expected to be reliable for the diaconal service.” Leaving the Golovenchitsky priestly place for the orphan E. Skorubskaya (see p. 667), Smaragd, by resolution on November 16, 1838, orders for the time being to determine an observer for the parish “however, at his own request, because in such a case coercion is not done.” In the presentation for awards of clergy (August 23, 1839), Prot. of the Resurrection Church in Mogilev, Andrei Dobrovolsky is encouraged for the fact that “by serving as an unblemished priest since 1810 and constantly delivering edifying sermons by appointment and without appointment, he acquired love and trust not only from his parishioners, but also from the Gentiles living in the city”; priest Jacob Bogdanovsky is charged with the dignity of “holding the position of spiritual deputy, associated with the edification of life and sermons, constantly in the parish and by appointment of the Diocesan Authorities in the Cathedral Cathedral of those who speak.” Priest Terenty Polikarpovich is presented with a reward (skufya) “also for bringing the stone Dubrovno church to its final order and splendor by his special trustee.” Resolution of November 8, 1839 in the Mogilev Spirit case. Consistory according to the report of the Chaussky dean Theodore Savinich about the donation of money and church vestments by various persons for the Chaussky churches: “To approve the efforts of Archpriest Savinich for the benefit of the church, and, however, to recommend him: diligently read and apply the Gospel words to your heart, from Matt. Ch. 5th, Art. 1st, 2, 3 and 4". In a handwritten letter to Count N.A. Pratasov dated November 17, 1839 (in the Archive of the Mogilev Spiritual Consistory) Smaragd agrees to the transfer (buried on July 30, 1832) of the body of gr. Dmitry Tolstoy from the wooden church of the village of Grudinovka (Bykhovsky u.) to a new, stone one, but before this, “the Diocesan Administration, for the orders and considerations subject to it, would need to know: on what basis the former wooden church will subsequently remain, and which of them will be considered parish and enjoy its rights and accessories.” Priest Smaragd accuses Kosmachevsky of “interfering in the parish affairs of his restless wife” (see pp. 665, 47). By resolution of June 2, 1838, Smaragd ordered the priesthood. It would be wise for the local dean to “understand his family situation and the behavior of his wife and come up with means to establish peace and honest cohabitation between them; Moreover, if his mother-in-law really serves as the reason for this disorder, then immediately expel her from Zhudrin’s house and completely from the village of Gladkovichi.” Resolution on November 16, 1838 on the request of an orphan, the daughter of a priest, Euphrosyne Skorubskaya (see pp. 666, 49): “to inform the Semyacharsky Board: if any of the students of Theology would agree to enter the Golovenchitsky priestly place with the marriage of this orphan, who has her own home.” In the Archive of the Office of the Bishop's House, there is a decree to the board of the last Spiritual Consistory dated March 30, 1840 about the sexton of the Zakruzhskaya Church, Dimitri Petrashna, who was charged with: rudeness and obedience to the priest, negligence in his position, and mainly the activity of rifle hunting, which was unusual for his spiritual rank. See A.I. Malevich in “Mogilev Eparchs. Vedomosti" 1909, No. 19, pp. 717–718 and in the book "Mogilev Diocese", vol. 1, no. 2, part 2, page 170: Smaragd recommended to Abbot Orestes “to combine superior strictness with monastic moderation.” By the proposal of the Consistory on May 20, 1839, Smaragd ordered that copies of this publication be sent “to all monasteries, to deans and to other significant Diocesan churches so that the authorities try, with the arguments contained in the said word, in every possible way to distract those prone to drunkenness from this most destructive vice.” On June 30, 1838, Priest Zhudro Smaragd determined “to be sent by confession to the Rector of the Seminary, Archimandrite Leonid (Zaretsky), for admonition and presentation to him of all the vile consequences of the destructive vice of drunkenness, and then to be allowed to attend the liturgy with the use of a cassock.” Resolution on August 24, 1837 about the priest Judro, accused of drunkenness: “to act in accordance with the legislation to eradicate crimes in persons of clergy rank.” The resolution of July 29, 1837 on Deacon Lakiz, sentenced by the Consistory to 50 prostrations and 40 days of obedience in the Bishop's House, Smaragd cancels the first punishment, and on September 3, 1838 orders “priest (Theodore) Bekarevich to respect large families and sobriety, instead of (appointed by the Consistory) 25 rubles, be fined only 15 rubles with the taking of a certain subscription and with the announcement that such leniency is being given to him for the last time.” Due to the concealment of the clergy of Zimnitskaya c. 7 rub. 45 k. of candle income, the Consistory decided to take four times from the rector, but Smaragd on November 13, 1837 orders to collect “only strictly”, “since the priest Zubovsky, in the poverty I saw, is raising more children on his own support, and since the reduction in the penalty does not cancel the essence of the previous decision, according to which four times more was arbitrarily imposed for guilt payment." Although on November 2, 1838 about the prohibited priest. John Petrashna Smaragd found it difficult “to replace one drunk person with another like him,” but on November 5 he still appointed him as a clerk. Priest On January 8, 1840, Smaragd decided to send John of Khondozhevsky to the Chona Monastery with a ban on priestly service and with his own allowance for 40 days, but on February 26 he made a new resolution: “for the sake of the petitioner’s old age, sobriety and the actual illness of his wife, to postpone the subordinate assigned to him from now on for six months and instead of 40 days, reduce it by half.” Priest Avvakum Tsekhanovich, relegated to the place of clerk, Smaragd July 8, 1838 does not exile to a district distant from Mstislavl “in respect for his orphanhood and epilepsy (albeit acquired through drunkenness).” On December 21, 1837, Smaragd allows “to be released home for the holidays, and after that to be sent out to pass through the subordination determined by the Diocesan Authorities.” See Art. Gr. Runkevich, Description of documents from the archive of Western Russian Uniate metropolitans 2, p. 1122 No. 3.462, where is a letter from Smaragd to the Uniate Metropolitan Josaphat Bulgak about a grant for the reconstruction of the church in Babinovichi. According to Fr. Hierotheus (in “Memoirs” on fol. 14 ver.), “at that time there were only about 260 Orthodox Churches in the Mogilev Diocese.” In the presentation of awards on August 23 and in the resolution on August 22, 1839, the audit of the diocese in the summer of this year is mentioned and, in particular, the review of the department of the Orsha deanery is stated; in the quoted (pages 666, 53) letter to Count N.A. Pratasov speaks about serving the liturgy in the village. Grudinovka Bykhovsky U. See also on page 655, 12. 669, 68 and A.I. Malevich in “Mogilev Eparchs. Vedomosti" 1909, No. 19, pp. 708, 712, and in the book "Mogilev Diocese", vol. 1, no. 2, part 2, page 163. † Archbishop Nikanor, Biographical materials 1, p. 238. † Archbishop Nikanor, ibid. I, p. 241. Thus, on October 3, 1838, Smaragd gave the following proposal to the Mogilev Ecclesiastical Consistory: “Multiple experiments have revealed that most of the clergy of the local diocese perform Divine services inaudibly, hastily and with little reverence, and therefore what is supposed to be sung according to the Charter, they read, and what is provided for reading, they read interrupted language very quickly, ugly, without observing the proper bows and other sacred rituals prescribed by the Charter. Some, as it comes to my attention, read entire matins and vespers in their homes, as they wish. Being almost constantly distressed by such unrest, I am forced to propose to the Spiritual Consistory that it strictly, with subscriptions, order all the clergy circularly that all sacred services be performed without fail in accordance with paragraph 25 of the Draft Charter of the D. Consistories, which paragraph should be literally written out and observed for the leadership in each church under the strictest fear of unofficial and hasty service punishment." In this sense, the Consistory for the Mogilev Diocese issued a decree, known to us in copy dated October 26, 1838, No. 6.552, addressed to the rector of the Chona third-class Assumption Monastery, Archimandrite Nikodim. In the archbishop's proposal. Smaragda Mogilev Spirit. The consistory dated August 31, 1838 states: “Klimovice district, village of Elny, parish priest David Kirilovich, during my personal visit to the Elnyan church on the 18th of August, being drunk, for this reason he could not even meet me due to his rank. Why, right there and then, was Kirilovich prohibited from serving in the priesthood, wearing a cassock and blessing hands, pending a judicial review of his actions. How could he, Kirilovich, not suddenly reach such a shameful state for a clergyman, but reached it gradually, and before this often indulging in drunkenness (as reliable news was received on the spot), but his local Dean John Sushchinsky neither in the form indicated his drunken life, nor did he report it to the Diocesan Authorities with deliberate reports, which obviously means the infidelity of the supervision; then the actions of both his Kirilovich and the dean Sushchinsky, who condoned him, having been published throughout the Diocese, subject both of them to judgment according to the laws.” In this sense, the Consistory issued a decree for the Mogilev diocese, known to us in copy dated September 30, 1838, No. 6.118, addressed to the rector of the Chonsky Assumption Monastery, Archimandrite Nikodim and the brethren. In another proposal - dated November 2, 1838 - Archbishop. Smaragd “depicted” the Mogilev Consistory as follows: “During my tour of the diocese, the meeting established for the Diocesan Bishop was carried out with only priests in vestments, sextons and sextons, almost all of them, came to me and to the church in their dirty ugly bikes, which they called cassocks, they were girded, moreover, torn, with the coarsest wool, sashes. In this form, the clerics appear at the Divine Service itself, not only not ordained, but even initiated into the surplice, the only reason being that they do not have surplices in the churches, the purchase of which is not at all the concern of the parish priests. In order to avoid once and for all such church disgrace, strictly, circularly order and ensure that within one year from the date of the order, everyone must acquire, if not two, then at least for the first time, one decent and well-made surplice, and that the clergy, who have the right to put on it, will certainly appear in it on all festive and solemn occasions. rank. For the opposite of this, it is sensitive to fine both parish priests and deans, who should know that every church sacristy has an integral part, among other things, and clergy surplices.” We had a decree of this kind in copy dated November 23, 1838 No. 7.257 addressed to the above-mentioned (pp. 667, 67) Archimandrite Nikodim. By resolution of September 15, 1837, Smaragd denies the priest. To I. Leplinsky and his wife in a “ridiculous request,” according to their complaint against the tenant Epelfeldova, “until something clearer will be revealed,” because the claim is not supported by evidence, meanwhile the petitioners reveal their own guilt, since the petitioner went beyond the limits of patience and allowed his wife to “reproach the tenant for allegedly illegal treatment with state-owned peasants, and this does not apply to the priest.” So, with the proposal of the Mogilev Spirit. Consistory of October 18, 1833, Rev. Smaragd brought to justice the former members of the board of the bishop's house: Archpriest Jacob Gladky, the housekeeper of this house, Abbot Flavian, and the former housekeeper, Archimandrite Nikodim, who was then the rector of the Chonsky Assumption Monastery, for the fact that under the bishop. To Gavril, without due precautions, they imprudently leased the bishop's farm of Barsuki to an unreliable and insolvent person, the Velizh merchant Epelfeld, who did not pay the agreed rental amount at all, which increased to 986 rubles. 90 kopecks, why, pending payment of it, Smaragd, with a special resolution on the unfounded explanation of Archimandrite Nikodim, ordered the third part of the arrears to be collected from him, i.e. 329 rubles. without 3 kopecks, from his own salary and cup share; In this sense, decree No. 6.720 was sent to the treasurer of the Chona Monastery, Hieromonk Alexei and his brethren, on October 29, 1838. Another time, the abbess of the Mozolovsky Ascension nunnery (in the borough of Mozolovshchina, 12 versts from the city. Mstislavl) Abbess Susanna reported to the bishop. Smaragd, - at his request, - that the tavern belonging to the monastery in the Bolakoravshchina farmstead, on June 2, 1830, was leased for ten years from the Mstislavl district to the landowner Kosma Polubinsky with a payment of 150 rubles. per year, for which a contract was concluded without asking permission from the diocesan authorities and on simple paper, meanwhile the tenant has already accumulated a debt of up to 500 rubles. Referring to inexperience and apologizing ignorance, the abbess asks to compel the landowner Polubinsky to pay the debt. Having ordered the latter, Rev. Smaragd ordered: “The abbess, for the unfounded order in this case, make a remark, confirming to all other Superiors and Mother Superiors and all the Clergy: not to give quitrent articles to anyone without the approval of the Diocesan Authorities, but upon approval to conclude, with whom he will follow, contracts legitimized on legalized paper,” about which the Consistory sent a decree to Don Archimandrite Nicodemus on March 30 1838 No. 1.797. About the economic enterprises of Smaragd in the bishop's house and the Barsuki farm (cf. in the book "Mogilev Diocese", vol. 1, issue 3, Mogilev on the Dnieper 1906, p. 51) is also reported by Fr. Hierotheus, noting in his “Memoirs” (fol. 16 and reverse) some of their financial riskiness. See the Mogilev Spirit Archive. The seminary has two cases “about the revision” of it by Smaragd, 1837 No. 80 on the internal part and 1839 No. 71 on the internal part. parts where there are actual reports along with “class logs” during these audits. Ibid., presentation to the Smaragda Commission Spirit. Schools dated February 1838 In the Mogilev Spirit Archive. Seminaries in nomination for the award of Rev. Rubanovsky, where Smaragd refers to the fact that he “has now personally examined all parts of the Mogilev Seminary.” See A.I. Malevich in “Mogilev Eparchs. Vedomosti" 1909, No. 19, p. 718, and in the book "Mogilev Diocese", vol. 1, no. 2, part 2, page 171. There were sporadic facts and conversion of Jews under Smaragda, which regarding the Mogilev tradesman Wulf Izrailevich Rottstein put forward the following resolution on October 17, 1838: “This Jew has been sufficiently trained in the Lord’s prayers and shows constancy in accepting the Christian faith. Make immediate arrangements for his baptism.” See † o. M.Ya. Moroshkina on page 148. About. Hierotheus says (in “Memoirs” on fol. 63): “there are many official acts in the Mogilev Consistory and on schismatic matters, expressing the energetic concern of His Eminence (Smaragda) for the conversion of the lost.” See also Fr. M.E. Edlinsky, Anatoly Martynovsky, p. 90. See details from A.I. Malevich in “Mogilev Eparchs. Vedomosti" 1909, No. 19, pp. 711–717, and in the book "Mogilev Diocese", vol. 1, no. 2, part 2, pp. 162–169. Smaragda’s expression in a letter to Mogilev Vice-Governor Iv. Iv. Khoroshkevich dated January 13, 1839 (in the Archive of the Mogilev Spiritual Consistory). In a letter to the same person dated January 11, 1839 about the members of the Belitsky Zemstvo Court and the Zemstvo Police. Resolution dated April 20, 1838: “To order the Belitsky Spiritual Board and together with Archpriest Perepechin that from now on there should be definitive reports on schismatic matters, naming persons, places, cases, circumstances and witnesses related to these cases; and reports like the present one, which are acceptable in general terms and without any evidence, are worthless, and it is impossible to carry out any proceedings based on them. For example, it is said here that the zemstvo police are eclipsing the investigations of the schismatic priests. This is definitely true: but the informer would need to think about how, and with what, and to whom exactly such an eclipse can be proven.” See the Mogilev Spirit Archive. Consistory two letters from Smaragd to Mogilev Vice-Governor Iv. Iv. Khoroshkevich is right. the post of civil governor, dated January 11 and 13, 1839, about two schismatic chapels in the village. Novaya Miloch (near Gomel), repaired contrary to the law on September 17, 1826, and about the chapel built in the village of Ogorodnya (Belitsky district), and the latter was reported by Ogorodnitsky Orthodox peasants. Resolution of October 25, 1838 on the report of Belitsky Spirit. Board on the seduction of the peasants of the village of Novy Krupets in the schism: “pay the strictest attention to such schismatic abuses and give this matter a speedy progress.” Resolution dated September 28 and November 8, 1838 on the accession to the Orthodox Church of the Old Believer of the Chernigov province, tradesman A. Bykhovtsov with all household members and on the approval of his marriage with Evd. Manuilova, who was seduced in her childhood into a schismatic faith. See A.I. Malevich in “Mogilev Eparchs. Vedomosti" 1909, No. 9, p. 717; pp. 706 and 708, and in the book “Mogilev Diocese”, vol. 1, no. 2, part 2, pp. 169 and 156.