His Eminence Smaragd (Kryzhanovsky) at the Kharkov See

So everything was put aside in favor of Smaragd’s long stay in Mogilev, where he was “very used to it,” because “everything here was pleasant for him and corresponded to his external and spiritual feelings” 1 . It happened, however, differently even before the expiration of the third anniversary of the Mogilev priesthood of Smaragd, who on April 6, 1840 was transferred to Kharkov to the place of the deceased († February 29, 1840) Archbishop Meletiy Leontovich, who had once transferred his inspectorate to him at the Kyiv Academy. This was a surprise 2 and, therefore, was motivated by some collateral reasons. True, Met. Filaret referred to “higher considerations of management” 3 , but it is more likely that the latter were a cover for the hostile feelings of influential individuals 4 . In any case, this transfer was an undoubted demotion, unpleasant for Smaragd 5, although he retained his previous degree in the hierarchical order 6, and he himself, like the Kharkov Archbishop, was awarded the Order of St. Vladimir, 2nd degree of the Grand Cross for “constant zeal for the good of the Orthodox Church and active concern for the spiritual flock, which distinguished his ministry” 7. Nevertheless, he did not hesitate to set off for a new field in the Kharkov diocese, where he immediately took up business, rejecting the Consistory’s offer to send him a crew to the border of the province and, offended, asking “not to worry about anything and to abstain from everything similar to ceremonies” 8. This gave a definite plan for all relationships in advance. Smaragd arrived in Kharkov on May 20, 1840 at 6 o’clock in the afternoon and already at the first reception of the members of the Consistory with the secretary, on the third day, he showed expressively that he would maintain disinterested legality in everything and would not tolerate abuses, which were maintained due to the condescension of the sickly Meletius 9. In the absence of strict supervision, disorder appeared everywhere. The new archbishop found the extreme “poverty of the house” of the bishop 10, which “was so impoverished in funds that Smaragd decided to send Hieromonk throughout the Diocese to collect alms, both monetary and grain, to help the house” 11, which lived almost on private alms 12 if the owner had to “dodge” 13. From here it is clear what a vast field there was for Smaragd in the Kharkov diocese, in which he could not help but discover his usual energy. And we know that about his archpastoral service in Kharkov, he himself boldly reported to his successor Innokenty (Borisov) that “there were no consistorial affairs of any importance left after him, except for the matter of restoring the abolished Akhtyrsky monastery” 14. This speaks of pastoral activity, but there is no information about it in the press yet. It is only known that Smaragd was very generous in rewarding the clergy, although slander suspected selfish motives here too 15, in 1841. consecrated the newly built Muronositsky Church of the Exaltation of the Cross 16, and on October 1 of the same year, during his bishop’s prayer, a cross was erected on the completed construction of the cathedral bell tower 17. But by the very nature of his character, there is no doubt that all this is too little, and we must look for data that is more consistent with Smaragd’s personality. We find them primarily in the “Memoirs” of Fr. Archimandrite Ierotheus (Dobritsky), from where we write out his entire message about the Kharkov period, and the reader from this passage will receive a fairly specific concept of all the work. Here are, in extenso, the own words about our Kharkov Archbishop of a person close to him, who knew all the intimate circumstances and aspects of life 18. His Eminence Smaragd, living in Kharkov, could not soon forget about Mogilev. Vladyka did not like many things in the Kharkov diocese. The good nobility and the rich merchants treated their Archpastor very cordially and, according to the ancient custom, wanted to bestow their zeal on the Lord. The latter was disappointing news for the Right Reverend, especially because the House of Bishops was extremely poor, and its own means of maintenance were insufficient. The Bishop was invited to dinners and spiritual evenings; they wanted to console him and (especially) to be consoled by the holy, God-inspired conversation: but the Archpastor was not free to communicate. All Kharkovites were surprised at this restraint and asked us: “Why can’t we, Kharkovites, please the Lord? How could you serve him?” Many personally and repeatedly spoke out before the Archpastor and said: “Master! why don't you love us? All the Archpastors loved us!” The Reverend was constantly focused on himself (bored). He could not easily forget his independent life in Mogilev and the circumstances that accompanied his move from Mogilev to Kharkov. The Reverend in Polotsk and Mogilev loved business and solitude more. Traveled out of town; he loved walking through the garden and fields of his own household with people close to him, officials: but in Kharkov he encountered embarrassment in all this, and remained alone because the Bishop's house was three floors, walking up the stairs was an inconvenient thing, and there was nowhere and nothing for it. The rector of Seminary 19 was in St. Petersburg on the 20th. And with the Father Rectors, Vladyka most often liked to spend (free) time in conversation instead of relaxing. The Kharkov clergy, due to their small numbers, judging by the space and population of the city, was busy with their own affairs. The garden or vegetable garden at the House, and the entire Bishop’s courtyard, was a desert; it was impossible to freshen up with air: in summer the dust is constant among the commercial, noisy, crowded city; and by this time, in the month of May, the movement itself had arrived; except for the main Bishop's building, everything in the Bishop's house was ruins; there were no household means to restore dilapidations; the country house - Vsesvyatskoye - was in disrepair; and even trips out of town were very visual. Vladyka did not allow himself to rest after lunch at all: and it was impossible even to walk around the courtyard because there was a passageway through the Bishop’s Courtyard to lower Seminarskaya Street. Food for the soul was scant; The Lord did not feel any rest in his body either. It was especially unpleasant that there was no decent Cathedral in the city. The Cathedral was the name given to a small, once monastic, and at that time former Home Church of the Intercession of the Most Holy Theotokos, (at that time) very poor church, in which, despite the large crowd and the zeal of the people for the splendid bishop's service, it was impossible to perform conciliar services. And therefore, just as the former Archpastors officiated at the city’s Dormition Cathedral, so did His Eminence Smaragd. Just before the Archpastor’s arrival in Kharkov, the regent of the singing choir also died; the choir was upset: and Vladyka loved singing; and in Mogilev he often found spiritual pleasure in his chambers listening to the singing of especially small singers, comforting them in a fatherly manner. In Kharkov, it seems, the Eminence did not take advantage of this pleasure even once. And there was no Protodeacon. The Archpastor invited one Deacon from Mogilev to occupy the Protodeacon position: but the summoned one did not justify the Archpastoral hope and did not reassure the Eminence 21... And everything else, in Kharkov, which I do not mention, how deliberately things turned out unfavorably for the Bishop, especially for the first time. These circumstances, of course, are insignificant and could not act on the soul of the Archpastor: however, I consider it necessary to keep all this in mind, so that it would be better to determine the morality and impressionability (not reproachful morality) of the Holy Hierarch of God. The accumulation of the circumstances described above, although truly not worthy of attention, did not, however, give the Archpastoral heart any opportunity to rest; and one thing after another bothered him all the more because the less taken together was worthy of the Great Worker. Despite this, however, everything unimportant that worried the Vladyka also concerned society, which always sympathized with its Archpastor in good and bad cases. Kharkov society can be called exceptional: it was also demanding of everything elegant. Of course, such, one might say, unnatural position of the Archpastoral in Kharkov was allowed by high Divine Providence, according to the unknown destinies of God, not otherwise than for the humility of the great Hierarchal soul by insignificant accidents. But the main thing is ahead! There were also very regrettable clashes (relations) on the part of the secular civil (authorities), which were completely inconsistent with the spirit of the zealous Archpastor, who cared about the well-being of the flock of Christ. I will only speak about one incident that absorbed, so to speak, the entire life of the Archpastor. Soon the Right Reverend went to survey his new flock; I was in Chuguev with the main commanders (the famous Inspector) of the military settlement of the Reserve Cavalry, who always respected (a man of high Christian morality, who always respected) their Archpastors. Everything was fine. But the Vladyka, in his sincere, trusting simplicity, probably spoke out with frankness 22. By the way, the time has come to present the clergy for awards; and the Inspector of the Reserve Cavalry, General, later Count, Alexey Petrovich Nikitin, asked the Bishop to introduce Chuguevsky, Divisional Dean, Archpriest Mikhailovsky to the Order of St. Anna of the second degree. The dean Archpriest already had a gold cross on his pectoral on the St. George Ribbon, a very modest man, but a widower and young. The Reverend had his own view and his own assumptions regarding what was presented and the presentation. The Bishop could not nominate Archpriest Mikhailovsky for the award; but the most imprudent thing about this act is that the Archpastor did not answer the General, and did not let the Military Settlement Administration know about his order 23. This circumstance served as a reason for new, even greater troubles for the Right Reverend. Following this, before (all in general) the Spiritual authorities in St. Petersburg, secular nobles and other influential persons further and further... extraordinary denunciations and slander arose about the Right Reverend from the most unfavorable side; and beyond all belief (from a person of high Christian morality, who always respected the Archpastors). All the actions of the Archpastoral in St. Petersburg were presented in a false sense, in a reprehensible form, and that the Right Reverend, with his authority, supposedly allows the bodies of the dead to be buried in churches. The Archpastor at that time knew nothing about all these intrigues and such (unusual) and powerful opposition. Finally, all the high Spiritual Authorities, who knew His Grace Smaragd as the most zealous, worthy and not reproachable Archpastor, were put into (great) bewilderment (regarding such slander against the Saint of God). Several letters from High Persons were received at once by the Bishop (from St. Petersburg). He was informed about the rumors spread (in the capital) about His Eminence, they were surprised by them, they asked about the reasons for these rumors, they asked him to notify (calm down the Spiritual) Authorities, since the evil news was only private 24. Vladyka, despite his domestic troubles, was greatly (even more) shocked by these challenges. I didn’t know what to answer because there was nothing fair in the evil rumor, except for one case, about permission to bury the body of a deceased person in the church. It happened like this: The landowner of the Volchansky district of the village of Velikiy Burluk, Andrei Yakovlevich Zakharzhevsky built a beautiful stone church in that village, and for himself made a grave in it with a stone crypt: but, not having time to ask the Highest permission for the position of his body in that church, he died in March 1841. The chief of staff of the Reserve Settled Cavalry, Lieutenant General Voin Dimitrievich Zadonsky, son-in-law of the late Zakharzhevsky, immediately sent the trusted Official G. V-ts to the Most Reverend Smaragda, asking His Eminence to personally come to the village of Velikiy Burluk, and bury the body of the late Andrei Yakovlevich in the church. At that time there was a complete mudslide; the last snow melted quickly; It was impossible to ride either on a sleigh or on wheels in a cart. Vladyka answered G. V-tsu that he could not go himself. “Go,” added the Archpastor, “back, and in my Archpastoral name, tell the Dean that he, without any doubt, will commit the body of the deceased in the church, in the grave that has been arranged.” “We invited O. Dean,” said G. V-ts (Major V.): but he, the Dean, you know Vladyka, a suspicious man and a restless character, did not agree.” “Well, then go and send him to me,” answered the Archpastor, “I will personally give him permission.” “I myself could barely travel 80 versts in a day by postal service,” said G. Official, “and now, if I go back to the Dean, send the Dean to you and then wait for him in V. Burluk, it will take a week of time; the last path will go away, and the body of the deceased has been standing for the third day without burial.” “So this is what I came up with: call the housekeeper to me,” said the Bishop. The housekeeper (Fr. Hierotheus) immediately appeared. The Eminence, taking me by the shoulder with his hand, in front of the G. Official, tells me the whole story; and adds: “You go to Burluk and bury the body of Andrei Yakovlevich in the church, in a grave arranged, according to rites. He is a builder of the church, a man of pious life: it is worthy and righteous for him to lie in the church, built and decorated with his zeal. Take the domestic horses, the man and the Hierodeacon with you.” I fulfilled my obedience, and this whole story is over as usual. As a reward for our modest labors with the Hierodeacon and the full-time minister and for horse runs, for everything in general I received (28 rubles 56 1/7 k. in silver, i.e.) one hundred rubles in banknotes (hundred-ruble banknotes); and separated them. And he gave the Eminence a sealed letter from the owner of the estate, the daughter of the deceased (Andrei Yakovlevich) Elisaveta Andreevna (Z.). This whole affair is so modest, initiated solely by the personal intrigues of the Archpastor’s ill-wishers. After this accident, that is, after the death and burial of the body of Andrei Yakovlevich Zakharzhevsky, the Right Reverend in the summer of 1841 went to view the remote Starobelsky and Belovodsky churches. On the return journey, as ordered along the route, it was necessary to go to Velikiy Burluk and spend the night in order to go to Kharkov the next morning. (I accompanied the Archpastor.) Vladyka, I did not even expect to find in the house of the landowner, Voin Dmitrievich Zadonsky, who, as the Chief of Staff of the Military Settlement, permanently lived in Chuguev. By chance, the Archpastor found Warrior Dmitrievich in Burluk; The General was extremely happy about the unexpected Archpastoral visit. “I’ve built myself a new wooden (huge) house,” said the General; - and I want to go live in it in the morning: I ask you, Vladyka, to consecrate my new house.” The Eminence had some doubts. “I didn’t prepare to serve in the morning, now it’s too late,” answered the Archpastor. “You, Most Reverend, will only bless the water to consecrate and sprinkle my house.” The next morning, the Archpastor fulfilled the wish of his most reverent host. General 25 was pleased and grateful with all his heart (Regardless of this, I heard that Voin Dimitrievich), as a true Christian, recognizing the Holy blessing as a great gift from God for himself, his family and for the whole house (he donated the benefits of his zeal to the Archpastor personally. I can believe this - because) for the fact that I (who then accompanied the Archpastor on his journey) on behalf of the Bishop sprinkled the house With holy water, after the consecration of the water, His Excellency granted me an honorary reward (two hundred rubles in banknotes). Often (in Kharkov) the Archpastor was invited to the funeral. (And in Kharkov, a rich city filled with honorable nobility and merchants, everyone considered it an honor and Christian consolation to invite the Right Reverend during such (regrettable) accidents.) When visiting the Diocese in cities and villages, the Archpastor was invited to celebrate the Divine Liturgy. His Eminence almost never (rarely ever) refused; and, having satisfactory health, for the glory of God, he gladly fulfilled the pious desire of his Christ-loving children. And how could one not fulfill, not satisfy their sincere love! It happened - we were driving along a route, to a known place, by an unavoidable deadline; - and suddenly, in the middle of the road they shout; stop! We look: a deputation appears to the crew with a request to turn a mile, two, five to the side; and visit a house in a village or hamlet. No amount of convincing on the part of the Archpastor that it was impossible to fulfill the desire of the God-lover, no amount of refusal helped. “Your will, Master; and we will turn the horses to the farm. Don't insult us! - said the pious Kharkovites. There was nothing to do: I had to go to the farm. Sometimes the Archpastor would come into the house; bless everyone; sits down for three or four minutes; with love, with a smile, sometimes he will make a fatherly, merciful remark for the delay caused on the way. But for Christ-loving hosts, a visit to the Holy Church constitutes a spiritual delight, an epoch in life 26 . Gratitude to the Archpastor is limitless. The entire retinue is received with love, cordiality, treated and thanked. Yes, the people of Kharkov are truly kind people and loyal to their Archpastors. They adhered to Abrahamic customs. The former Kharkov Eminence Innocent I, as a comrade at the St. Petersburg Academy, and the beloved friend of the Eminence Smaragd 27, wrote to him one day from Kharkov with surprise and spoke with love about the people of Kharkov. Before, while he himself was not in this country, sometimes Vladyka recalled in a conversation some mysterious words of his friend the Saint: but did not understand their meaning. Now we are ready to repeat that Kharkov residents are kind people. Sometimes we would approach the border of the county: the coachman would hold back the horses; the crew is approached by: the next district Leader of the district, the Zemsky Police Officer, the District Chief and several other Nobles, zealous and influential. Meanwhile, all the authorities of the abandoned district escort the Archpastor from district to district; and all this in full dress uniform; and to celebrate, they offer the most zealous hospitality for their dear guest. The archpastor, however, always recognized as inappropriate even good-natured invitations on the road, although he obeyed them. He loved to carefully carry out the route so that there would be no delay anywhere for either the clergy, or the owners who were intended to have rest and overnight stays, or for the horses, or for the people to waste time waiting. In order to arrange the proposed review of churches, the Bishop ordered the Spiritual Boards and deans to make detailed orders and calculate the time of sacred services only where it was appropriate and where the parishioners themselves would wish to ask the Archpastor for this. And he did not travel without informing the Clergy, so that no one would get into trouble or be offended in case of disorder 28 . It would be a holy, God-pleasing, and even more beneficial holy work to set an example of self-sacrifice and impartiality towards everything temporary. And I hope that my conviction will be correct if I say that the Most Reverend Smaragd was “established in the same thought, in the same understanding” (1 Cor. 1:10), as the following circumstances will show. The archpastor was in a rich, enlightened country, among people of all shades of reason, faith and weakness. And under these circumstances, of course, he had to conform to the great Teacher of Languages, who declared (1 Cor. 9:22) about himself: “I have become all things: that I may save every one.” He “sought not his own benefit, but that of others, that they might be saved” (1 Cor. 10:33). And how could the Most Reverend Archpastor act with the zealous children of his good flock, when they wanted to serve him with all their, one might say, soul, as we have already talked about. Applying our cold feelings to the state of heart of people who are kinder and more hospitable, we believe that anyone could be offended if his zeal were rejected; the other, perhaps, will become embittered. We judge by our own consciousness. Here, for example. Vladyka, having visited (once) the village of Bobrik, celebrated the Divine Liturgy in the village church. Then he was invited to the kind young Master G.R. to eat. The hospitable host, who had just met the Archpastor here, after all, asked permission from the Bishop to give His Eminence a carriage. The Eminence refused to accept. (“Why do I need it; and where should I go with it?” said the Vladyka. “You just bless it: we ourselves will deliver it to you at the House,” answered G.R.). Despite this, the Lord has not yet returned from the journey; and the crew had already been delivered to the Bishop's House of G. R–m 29. The matter did not end there. Having learned about this crew, Honorary Hereditary Citizen and Cavalier, K. N. K., and having examined it, found it in disarray; and upon the arrival of the Bishop, he asked His Eminence to allow him K. to furnish the crew in his G.K. in the best possible way. crew establishment. Meanwhile, any such zeal was accepted both involuntarily and with heart disease. At the same time, Vladyka always recalled with pleasure the independent life of Mogilev, in which nothing like this happened, although the department there was not famous for its abundance. Speaking of the Archpastor’s inattention to his personal property, it can be added that the venerable landowner M.I. Sh. (Maria Ivanovna Shagarova), who then lived in Akhtyrka 30, instructed me (I think) to transfer two diamond rings into the ownership of the Archpastor for the installation of the Bishop's miter. At the same time, the Akhtyrsky Cathedral actually entrusted several items with expensive stones and (it seems) one hundred rubles in banknotes for the construction of the cathedral Bishop's miter (and not into the property of the Bishop) for the runs to Moscow, where the Right Reverend intended to send a trusted person for the construction of the Cathedral front sacristy and for the remodeling of the old Cathedral (Bishops) miter. All this, as well as the expenditure of the above-mentioned money, was reported (by me) in due time; and reports (mine), or the case is in the Kharkov Spiritual Consistory. But expensive things, M.I. (Maria Ivanovna) donated, and belonging to the Archpastoral property, were not taken by the Bishop for personal custody, and were left with me. I presented them to the Archpastor only when I had to go to Mtsensk for permanent residence 31. The Lord did not have any valuable or other unnecessary items. There were only quite interesting books: but, with frequent translations, the Eminence had to part with the books. He left part of his library to Polotsk schools; and donated the best (most) of the books to the Mogilev Theological Seminary 32. The Eminence, in the full sense, was a wanderer; and, one might say: “with one rod” (cf. Mark 6:8) he crossed the path of his distant translations 33. (Good Kharkovites cannot be blamed for bribery if they, out of their good nature, served the House of Bishops in any way, or their Archpastor from their zeal, Kharkov is rich in all kinds of products. As soon as something is received from abroad - oranges, lemons, pineapples, or Don fish, grapes - everything used to be the first thing for blessing brought by Kharkovites for the Archpastor; tea, sugar and the like for good people favored the custom. But the Right Reverend accepted these offerings with pain in his soul and heart, although with a smile, perhaps, on his lips, obeying zeal, and most of all, the circumstances of the insufficiency of the Bishop’s House; and he always recalled with pleasure the independent life of Mogilev, in which nothing of the sort happened.) (By the way, tell the cases how the Kharkovites loved to treat us. I lived, I can say, in solitude, engaged in my obedience; I never visited anywhere myself. One evening a Kharkov merchant, Maloross, G. S., came to see me; and we spent the evening modestly; I treated the pleasant visitor to what God sent. The next morning, very early, I went out into the front room; and I see a head at my door sugar, a pound of tea, wine, etc. What is this and where from? From G. S., the servant answered. But there would be no end to the stories about the good nature of the Kharkovites; therefore I cannot help but talk about the last case, which is even more typical. When the decree was received to move the Eminence to Astrakhan, many years. landowners and others sought to Kharkov to receive a farewell blessing from the Archpastor. I, as the housekeeper and at the same time the treasurer of the Kharkov House of Bishops, was already preparing all the property and accounts of the House of Bishops for delivery, and was extremely busy. At this time, a landowner from Sumy district came to me, with whom I had met once, and when leaving Kharkov, I could hardly ever see each other. My visitor was with the Archpastor, and with sorrow he told me: “The Bishop is leaving us!” “Probably you won’t leave him?” "Don't know; as the Lord wills,” I said. After not talking with me for long, the good Master stood up and, bidding me farewell, gave me fifty rubles. banknotes. I was embarrassed and didn't take it. “I have not earned your favor, and I cannot serve you in any way,” I said to the Honorable Guest. “For God’s sake, accept,” the beneficent Master addressed me: “we may never see each other; I ask you to take this as a keepsake and pray.” I have come to terms with it. Such was life in Kharkov. What I know, I submit to the judgment of God and man.) Meanwhile, even in this state of non-covetousness, there were several deplorable accidents and insults. But the Vladyka did not drop a single word for the insults 34 . This is the legend of Fr. Hierotheus about the Kharkov ministry of the Reverend. Smaragda. It actually depicts to us only the situation and mood in which the latter worked, and thereby more accurately determines the true value of the work he performed. The question now is what was undertaken and achieved by the archbishop. Smaragd? In his own words, the situation he found in the Kharkov diocese was quite satisfactory. After his first trip, he wrote to the Holy Synod as follows: “Due to my recent move from the Mogilev to the Kharkov Diocese and the need to be in the Diocesan city to carry out accumulated business, ordain proteges, and the possible arrangement of the very premises of the home choir and the Bishop’s sacristy, neglected due to the very long-term painful condition of my Predecessor, it was not possible in the past summer of 1840 to have enough free time for an extensive overview of the churches of the Kharkov Diocese. However, in addition to the churches and two monasteries of the Diocesan city, I managed to inspect 124 parish churches in the month of September in three districts - Izyumsky, Starobelsky and Volchansky" 35. “All of them, with the exception of the five poorest, have decent splendor, are kept clean and tidy and, due to the diligence of the parishioners, are sufficiently supplied with everything necessary for Divine services.” “The clergy who are with them, and especially the Priesthood, are sober, pious, economical and peace-loving. The dean’s supervision over him for the most part turned out to be correct.” “The religious condition of the parishioners seemed to be in a very satisfactory state. There are no schisms or heresies at all among Little Russian parishioners; But the schismatics visiting from Great Russia are a very insignificant number here, and they do not borrow their reinforcement and multiplication from anywhere else.” “The errors noticed by the Priests for the most part consisted in their not entirely correct maintenance of church notebooks, which defects were either directly by me or through the Consistory, instilled in someone who should be corrected. In general, there were no significant faults or circumstances that merited special attention from the Higher Authorities during the inspection of the churches” 36. The picture presented now has a light coloring, but against its background there were actually quite a lot of shadows and dark spots. Here, first of all, it is necessary to include various defects among the clergy. Smaragd strove to ensure that it stood at the height of its position, but in fact it happened that priests degraded their dignity by living a shameful life 37 or were tempted by non-compliance with the law 38 . Drunkenness 39 was especially developed, which Smaragd called abominable 40 and vile, tracking down drunken diseases with determination, but not without condescension 41 . There were even whole parables about why it was necessary to “disperse the drunken company to different places” 42 . At times, priests inspired so little confidence that they had to be appointed only to two-part parishes under the care of rectors 43 . Sufficient reverence in the worship service was not always noticed 44 - and even the Kharkov priests sinned against correct performance 45 . There were cases when others were appointed to parishes for a period of probation 46, and widowers were advised to better accept monasticism 47. There were quite a few homeless loitering priests who could not easily be evicted from Kharkov and given a home 48 . It was impossible to leave parishes idle for a long time 49, although often there were no worthy candidates 50, whom Smaragd did not always successfully expect from among the students of theology of the Kharkov Collegium 51. Of course, the other members of the clergy were even less impeccable. Here the archpastor actually tried not to let such persons into Kharkov 52 and remove them from there 53 . The deacons turned out to be unsatisfactory 54 even at the council 55 and sometimes - “to the great surprise of Smaragd and to the complete disgrace of the Collegium teaching” - they could not and did not know how to read Slavic 56 . The lower clerks abounded in the noted qualities 57 , were illiterate 58 , and unfriendly in the localities 59 . they allowed “intricate cases” 60 in the form of suspicious scams 61 and at times they were so bad that it became necessary to exclude them from the clergy 62 . Smaragd was not embarrassed by reprimands - and in their form, Smaragd’s resolutions breathe external severity. Therefore, his reputation for severity was established, and we hear such a decisive response about him that “his cruel stick is remembered by more than one clergy of the Kharkov diocese” 63. Both literally and figuratively, this opinion is certainly not justified by the facts. First of all, there is no doubt that all such measures were taken on valid grounds after proper judicial clarification, before which only removal from office was allowed 64. The first sources here were the deans, who were obliged to report to the archbishop about events “at that very moment” 65 with all thoroughness, without allowing for uncertainty. These were responsible people, and about each of them Smaragd said that “the Dean has faith, like a juror” 66. However, they all always had to be wary of equal responsibility 67 . They were charged with the duty of observing the law, but were not allowed to be burdensomely picky 68 . Then, in more complex and important cases, an investigation was appointed. Here Smaragd expressed his view in a comment to the Starobelsky Ecclesiastical Board, to which it is declared that “for the sake of the very dignity of the Church Office, for the sake of the importance of the oath to which its members are obliged, and for the sake of the holiness of the dignity that those members bear, in the future, in every possible way, observe impartiality and truth on earth, for fear of weakening the power of attorney of the diocesan authorities. What impartiality and truth in particular should be observed by the first present archpriest. Chernyakov, not allowing other members to conclude dissenting opinions; What do I pastorally hope from him, Archpriest Chernyakov?” 69 According to these principles, all kinds of petitions were heard, and persistence in them was sometimes crowned with success 70, although it happened that Smaragd “once and for all forbade the writing of meaningless requests” 71 and generally sought to prevent judicial conflicts 72. It was strictly required not to aggravate the fate of the defendant by unnecessary delays 73 and not to complicate the investigation by involving side data 74 or mixing matters 75 . Therefore, Smaragd rejected from the proceedings what belonged to the secular court 76 and confiscated from the latter 77 what was within his control. No personal belief was valid on its own without objective verification. In this case, Smaragd did not exclude even himself from control 78 and did not directly accept influential statements 79 and evidence 80 for execution. The Consistory and its secretary were always under his vigilant records, from which neither negligence, blunders, nor violations 81 escaped. A consistory decision was approved by trust only in the absence of funds for one’s own inquiry 82 . In every case, Smaragd took into account all the circumstances 83, and one-sidedness was certainly countered 84. Throughout the entire process, strict legality was observed, and no place was given to simple archpastoral discretion. Smaragd knew his worth and jealously guarded his prerogatives against any claims, rejected intrusions into his competence from unauthorized persons 85 or institutions 86, and he himself did not hesitate to point out to others the violation of church orders 87. This was done by him due to simple legality, for the necessary relationships with secular institutions were always carried out with due diligence 88. Equally, Smaragd considered his lawful judicial conclusions not subject to appeal under the powers of the bishop’s authority, 89 which was then applied with steadfastness. However, first, categorical warnings were made regarding possible punishments 90 and it was instilled in every possible way to prevent the very wrongdoings 91 by taking the most careful measures to correct morality 92 . In the decisions themselves, precise motivation was given from existing laws, which were used with due prudence 93 both in punishments 94 and in other archpastoral acts, for example, in appointments to priestly 95 and deacon 96 places and even in the dismissal of an expelled student to another diocese 97 . Everywhere Smaragd puts forward the principle of where he is “in the right” and where he does not have the latter. Penalties were imposed with the aim of making the perpetrators “sense of all the vileness” of the offenses 98 . Naturally, when dosing punishments, all excusable conditions were involved, which is why the archbishop almost never strengthened them himself 99 , but very often lowered, softened and canceled them 100 . Here, a norm that was obligatory for everyone prevailed, “so as not to burden the fate of the defendant and not to show pandering to the inveterate” 101 - “not to weaken the power of church laws and not to pander to the guilty” 102. Often Smaragd first “made admonitions, endured, condescended and expected correction” 103 in order to gradually accustom him to meekness, patience and experience 104. The defamed person was not deprived of benefits, if only because it is indecent for a priest to beg 105, and requests for leniency were not satisfied due to the impossibility, for example, of leaving in the same place the person announced here publicly in a seductive life 106. All sorts of excuses were accepted with respect, such as youth 107 various accidents 108 , economic needs 109 , lack of funds 110 and especially the poverty of the family, which invariably aroused the mercy of Smaragd 111 even to the “scoundrel” 112 , and - in the absence of all this - manifestos 113 were used. By contrast, it is not superfluous to note that the archpastor was attentive to the merits of the clergy, he hastened to reward those who distinguished himself and promised incentives to all of them in advance. 114 We now see that Smaragd associated negative measures with positive influences and was aimed at improving the pastorate of the Kharkov diocese. For this reason, he always looked for prepared candidates and took care of their education, personally conducted examinations 115 and recommended useful publications 116. In the mutual relations between members of the clergy, legal subordination was observed, but in such a way that the deans were not too burdensome 117 and the priests did not offend with income 118, did not exploit the work of lower clergy 119 and did not take positions that did not belong to themselves 120. Smaragd tried in every possible way to ensure that the clergy were provided with houses and contents 121 but, if possible, without detracting from church funds 122, which had to be carefully guarded 123, although any greed in their acquisition was prevented 124. All types and types of extortion were strictly prosecuted 125. The transfer and enrollment of places and the simultaneity of relatives in the clergy were allowed 126, but it was instilled that there is no heredity 127 and that a deacon cannot be a deacon with a father-priest 128, and relative care should not extend to writing petitions for an adult son 129. Due to the conditions of that time and to ensure pastoral activity, Smaragd persistently repeated 130 the need for “parishioner approval,” which did not require much time, because a good person can earn it in a short time 131. The parishioners were willing to have a beneficial influence on them through voluntary readiness, and therefore they were not allowed to be assigned to another church without their own consent 132 . Likewise, parishioner opinion was required when electing 133 and accepting members of the clergy 134, which created in advance a favorable ground for beneficial reciprocity. For this reason, complaints 135 and recommendations from individuals 136 were allowed, who had the right according to their merits 137, but all statements were checked legally and, despite the position of the individuals, were rejected when they did not comply with the laws 138 and the rules of church deanery 139. If a parish could vote for pastors in appropriate cases 140, then it should have acquired a moral basis for this through its ecclesiastical distinctions, without which it would be deprived of such an advantage 141. Private parishioners were also involved in church work, but in a strictly defined area 142 and only under the condition of spiritual readiness 143. In church and internal parish life, Smaragd cared for the sacred reverence and strict inviolability of Orthodoxy. On the first point, for example, he was careful in allowing infirm priests to perform the liturgy 144 . In the second respect, prettiness was observed in the design of churches 145, in the iconostases, newfangledness 146 with carved images was approved 147, unseemly canopies over thrones 148 and mixed choirs 149 were condemned, illegal customs 150 and festivals of a pagan nature were prohibited 151. Along with this, available methods were used to develop church construction 152, where it was recommended to take all formal precautions 153. The penetration of harmful influences into parishes was prevented, for example, from a schism, which sharply differed from Orthodoxy and was paralyzed by the excitement of pastoral energy 154, and special provision was sought for such parishes 155. The subject of Smaragd's deliberate concerns were the poor and those in need of clergy. The guardianship “did not abound in capital” 156 - and the archbishop used other measures to despise the elderly 157 and orphans 158, offering to take an orphaned daughter 159 or support her 160, not to offend the widow 161, trying to help fire victims 162. But material poverty penetrated into the episcopal house itself, the funds of which suffered after the death of the Reverend. Meletius 163, but in general he was so poor 164 that he had to work for a decent coachman through the Manager of the Kharkov Chamber of State. There are 165 properties. Smaragd naturally warned against all possibilities of reducing income 166 and petitioned for increased funds, both household and personal 167. The bishop's sacristy was meager, and therefore the production of necessary things was entrusted to the wealthier churches 168. The cathedral did not have abundant funds 169, and the archbishop took care of increasing the maintenance of the cathedral 170. Let us add that Smaragd tried to streamline monastic life, humbling the “disgusting monastic pride” 171 and eliminating incapable abbots 172. This is how the archpastoral service at the Kharkov See of the Most Reverend is depicted according to official data. Smaragda. As far as we can see from here, he was still more involved in work, streamlining existing relationships and clearing the ground for further creative work, leaving behind a good memory in all these respects 173 . However, he only had to live in Kharkov for about 1.5 years. It is clear that - due to the shortness of his stay - the Bishop was still an archbishop alien to this city 174, but he had already begun to get used to it and become emotionally attached, gaining authority in the most intelligent circles 175. Of course, they say that even after Smaragd allegedly spoke disapprovingly of the religious state of the Kharkov diocese 176. This is not justified by his reports to the Holy Synod 177 and his own words that “the Kharkov flock is truly blessed by God and deserves to be respected by every shepherd” 178, why the archbishop fell in love with her 179, wanted to die there 180 and subsequently asked to arrange a cell for him in the Akhtyrka monastery that was being restored at his initiative 181. However, according to the actual state of things, he “strongly had a presentiment of not being in blessed Ukraine for long,” 182 although he did not expect that he would have to leave Kharkov so quickly and unmotivated. Naturally, the transfer to the outskirts of remote, deaf and abandoned Astrakhan, which took place on December 31, 1841, deeply affected Smaragd, forcing him to remember his constantly deplorable life, the useless labors for the soul and the grave sorrows of his service, and the continuous struggle with suffering, to which the archpastor saw no end, except the end of his days. Smaragd was surprised that as soon as he became familiar with the Kharkov flock and the circumstances, and behold! I was delighted with her, meanwhile I tried to conduct all my affairs in favor of the latter and according to the utmost understanding of my conscience. The root and source of disfavor were not clear, and Smaragd himself only hoped that his successor Innokenty (Borisov) would “distinguish truth from lies, reality from the slander of two or three enemies, who do not know what they are doing and saying,” introducing him to the passions of Christ 183. There were only dark rumors about gullibility in unreliable people and about various particular cases, such as the Kharkov ruler who first forbade placing the body of the deceased in the church, but “then the decision changed through his steward” (i.e. Father Hierotheus) 184, but an exaggeration and even a direct distortion of the facts 185. In general, the real reason for the transfer was quite mysterious and was not based on indisputable real phenomena 186, forcing one to assume the special efforts of various enemies, who were also in Kharkov 187. This means that this event was all the more sorrowful for Smaragd, who fell ill from grief and did not retire “solely out of holy obedience to the will of God,” blessing the Lord, who punishes, cleanses and attracts the sinful soul to himself through trials 188. They pointed out that in Astrakhan there was a higher place than the previous departments 189, but only by retaining the rank acquired by Smaragd earlier was the “movement to a lower diocese” outwardly brightened up, and, however, Metropolitan. Philaret “saw here the good dispensation of God’s will and royal power, that the administration of the Astrakhan diocese was coming into the firm hand it required,” why did the Moscow saint ask Smaragd: “What should you do, Holy Master, when God’s fate leads you from difficult to difficult fields? Of course, the Lord sees that forty churches can withstand the strength of your spirit! Yes, if these are those whose shrine was especially poorly protected; and if you cleanse them of the unworthy, then your reward may be more than for a thousand others” 190. See "Memories" about. Hierotheus on l. 17. † Archbishop Nikanor, Biographical Materials I, p. 69. “Memoirs” of Fr. Hierotheus on l. 20, 22, 23. See letters from M. Philaret to Smaragd in “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1870, book. XII. pp. 38–39. Father Hierotheus writes in his “Memoirs” (on pages 20–22): “We can affirmatively say that the reason for the move of the Archpastor from Mogilev to Kharkov was the following incident, after the late Archpastor (Smaragda), almost known to me alone, especially now. The rapprochement of the Orthodox Clergy with the former Uniate clergy began; and the Orthodox had permission to serve together as priests in the Uniate churches by mutual agreement with the Uniates. At this time, I don’t remember whether it was at the end of 1839, or at the beginning of 1840, one Uniate priest, in Cherikovsky, it seems, district, invited an Orthodox priest, the Dean, to celebrate the Divine Liturgy in the Uniate Church on a church holiday. The Orthodox Dean arrived in the morning at the village to the Uniate Church for the sacred service, but the Uniate priest quickly and in advance dressed himself with his comrades, the Uniate Priests, gathered the people into the church and did not allow the Orthodox Dean to perform the sacred service. The Orthodox priest, the Dean, was offended, secretly reported to the Right Reverend about the incident and added that the Uniates, although they express their consent to reunite with the Orthodox, are in fact deceiving, and so on. This was indeed the case from the beginning due to lack of understanding and especially due to the lack of education of some Uniate clergy. Vladyka also did not want to lose sight of this circumstance and many similar things that he knew. I reported everything to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count Protasov, in St. Petersburg. The Chief Prosecutor immediately responded, but so insultingly and rudely that the Most Reverend could not stand such an outburst from Count Protasov. I have forgotten the expressions set out in relation to the Chief Prosecutor: however, I remember precisely that Count Protasov, noticing to the Archpastor his interference in the affairs of reunification, added that His Eminence did not understand the goals of the Government. Having received such an attitude, the Vladyka was greatly offended; called me and, conveying this attitude to me, said: “Read what the Count writes!” I read it and couldn’t give an answer to it. But the Archpastor at the same time handed me a draft paper and added: “Perhaps rewrite this answer.” In response, the Eminence, complaining to the Count about his remark, which was very offensive to the Archpastoral rank, asked G. Chief Prosecutor to change his unfavorable opinion about him, the Eminence, and that he, the Eminence, himself well understood his duties and the benefits of the holy Church. – And the Count could not withstand the rebuff from the Lord. However, instead of wasting time on objections and fruitless correspondence, and, most likely, to prevent such clashes regarding the reunification of the Uniates with Orthodoxy, he arranged things differently. In a very short time, His Eminence Smaragd was most mercifully awarded the Order of Saint. Vladimir of the second degree of the great cross and at the same time almost simultaneously appointed to be transferred from the Mogilev second-class Diocese to the Kharkov third-class department. Hierotheus also relates Smaragd’s words to him in 1843: “everything depends, as you see, on any one person” (i.e. Count N.A. Pratasov). See "Memoirs" about. Hierotheus on l. 20–22 and 104. Prot. T.I. Butkevich, Innokenty Borisov, p. 138. Innokenty (Borisov) himself asked for this from Vologda on January 13, 1842: see in the Synodal Archive, file of the Office of the Chief Prosecutor No. 28.672, l. 15. See the Kharkov Spirit case. Consistory of 1840 No. 185, which also contains a copy of the Highest Charter cited by us in the text. Wed. and I. Borichevsky on page 290. See the Kharkov Spirit case. Consistory of 1840 No. 15, where on the report of the latter dated April 30, 1840, Smaragd noted: “Received. in Mogilev Belorussky May 8, 1840 Thank you for your feedback, but, however, I ask you not to worry about anything and to refrain from anything similar to ceremonies.” Wed. prot. T.I. Butkevich, historical and statistical description of the Kharkov Cathedral of the Assumption Cathedral, p. 98. In this case, Smaragd’s successor Innokenty acted completely differently, about which see o. T.I. Butkevich, Innokenty Borisov, p. 139. Cm; u † A.N. Sergeev in “Russian Antiquity” 1909, February, page 218: “Meletius was a merciful, kind and indulgent ruler; they said that he dissolved the consistory, which, taking advantage of the weakness of the diocesan leader, was distinguished by not entirely plausible actions.” Smaragd, of course, knew about this and, during the aforementioned reception, made it clear in his characteristic, characteristic way. When he entered the members of the Consistory, at that time, under the window of the hall, a beggar was asking for alms. Smaragd quickly approached there with the words: “Come in, come in, old man! They don’t serve anything here, they just take it themselves” and then “he told those present a fitting edification for the occasion”... See letters from M. Philaret to Smaragd in “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1870, book. XII, p. 39. See letters from Innocent of Kherson to Gabriel of Ryazan in “Readings in Society and Russian Antiquities” 1869, Vol. 1, dept. 5, p. 99. See “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1899 No. 13, pp. 646–647. See Smaragd’s letter to Innocent dated February 3, 1842 from Kharkov in the Ryazan Diocesan Gazette, 1896, No. 16, p. 558: “but the Bishop’s house (in Kharkov) is very poor, and God knows how hard it is to support it, the staff brethren, ministers and singers. Moreover, a lot of dilapidations and a lack of house services and benefits weighed down my life here.” See "Ryazan Diocesan Gazette" 1896 No. 16, p. 557. Cf. to this † archbishop. Philaret, Historical and Statistical Description of the Kharkov Diocese, department V (Kharkov 1859), stlb. 203 words † Archbishop Nikanor, Biographical materials 1, p. 240. See K.P. Shchelkova, Historical chronology of the Kharkov province (Kharkov 1882), p. 211. † Archbishop Filaret, Historical and statistical description of the Kharkov diocese, dep. II (Moscow 1857), column. 10; O. T.I. Butkevich, Historical and statistical description of the Kharkov Cathedral of the Assumption Cathedral, p. 99; K.P. Shchelkov, Historical chronology of the Kharkov province, p. 212. We quote from the Kyiv edition of “Memoirs” of Fr. Hierotheus (l. 23–33 ver.) when replenished from the Ryazan edition (p. 22 ver. – 34 ver.) and with constant demolition with it; Some explanatory notes, marked with the initials N.G., belong to us, and the rest were made by Fr. Hierotheos. Previously there was the Kharkov Collegium, which was renamed the Theological Seminary by decree of the Holy Synod on October 16, 1840 No. 15.010, about which see also K.P. Shchelkova, Historical chronology of the Kharkov province, p. 212, and more details from prof. I.L. Brodovich in the Theological Encyclopedia, vol. XII (St. Petersburg, 1911), st. 297–302. – N.G. It was the Master of Kazan Spirit. Academy, Starokharkov Preobrazhensky Kuryazhsky Monastery rector (until July 1, 1842), Archimandrite John (Obolensky), who occupied the Kharkov rector in 1830–1841, then was the rector at his native Academy until May 7, 1844, when he was appointed to the Ryazan Monastery, where he died on August 17, 1851; “on the order” he was summoned to St. Petersburg in 1840. See about him. at Prof. P.V. Znamensky, History of the Kazan Theological Academy, vol. I (Kazan 1891), pp. 26–31. See also K.P. Shchelkova, Historical chronology of the Kharkov province, pp. 195–196, 213. – N.G. It was obviously V.F. Nikitsky (about whom see Archpriest T.I. Butkevich, Historical and statistical description of the Kharkov Cathedral of the Assumption Cathedral, pp. 212–218). On the certificate of this deacon about the protege Mikhail Titov there is (in the file of the Kharkov Spiritual Consistory of 1840 No. 581) the following resolution from Smaragd: “When was this Titov promoted to protodeacon? - this is not indicated, while this is the main thing here. Father Klyuchar has this, below this, to add and testify, and Nikitsky, for his carelessness in signing and in general for his noticeable absent-mindedness, inflict the strictest reprimand, with a signature: henceforth, both in this case, and in general, in the most important position of Protodeacon, which he, Nikitsky, occupies, be more attentive and more sedate, and error-free (for almost every time in the service As a bishop, he makes important mistakes that confuse me). Moreover, he must confirm that if he continues to make similar signatures on henchmen’s affairs, signifying absent-mindedness: then this matter will be entrusted to Protodeacon Sulima, who, apparently, is much more sedate and thorough than this Nikitsky in his actions.” – N.G. I cannot confirm the conversations; I did not personally participate in the conversation. But the consequences made everything clear. – O.I. It is known that the two main military settlement commanders - General A.P. Nikitin and Chief of Staff V.D. Zadonsky patronized Archpriest Grigory Dyukov, for whom they successfully interceded with the archbishop. Meletius (see † Archbishop Philaret, Historical and statistical description of the Kharkov diocese, department IV, Kharkov 1857, column 18 ff.). The same thing was repeated at Smaragda, but the latter, on November 18, 1840, ordered Zadonsky to be notified that, due to the lack of legal grounds, the diocesan authorities could not petition for a monetary reward for priest Dyukov for his exemplary activity in studying the cantonists of the law of God (see the case of the Kharkov Spiritual Consistory of 1840, August 16 - November 18). It is possible that Fr. Hierotheus probably mentioned the last name, and he was talking specifically about Fr. Dyukov. In any case, our information about Fr. Mikhailovsky on the spot were fruitless, because there were no settlement archives in Chuguev, and where they arrived or disappeared is unknown. – N.G. This is what the Spiritual Authority thought: but slander and malice seem to have crossed the last high thresholds (the last high threshold), as the consequences will prove. I hope that the original letters in question, received on this occasion, could not have been lost by His Eminence Smaragd (they are with his heirs); and historically, over time, my memories will be confirmed. – O.I. On December 22, 1856, in a letter to me, the Archpastor deigned to notify me that “Warrior Dimitrievich Zadonsky, who is in Burluk, has now actually died. The man was good. May he abide in the kingdom of heaven!” (Ο.I.). See also in our “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 10, p. 1242, and separately: Letters from Archbishop Smaragd to Archimandrite Hierotheus (St. Petersburg, 1911), p. 87. This is not what happened in other Orthodox Dioceses. “It happened that they were waiting for me; I enter the room: and in the room and the light of God is not visible from tobacco. Such..!" – the Archpastor sometimes complained for our edification. – O.I. This was Innokenty (in the world Ilya Feodorovich) Alexandrov, who occupied the Sloboda-Ukrainian and Kharkov See from May 19, 1832 to June 22, 1835 and died as Bishop of Yekaterinoslav - in retirement in the Kuryazhsky Monastery on April 3, 1869. See about him and † A.S. Rhodessky on pp. 37, 168–169. – N.G. And elsewhere ο. Hierotheus writes (fol. 74 rev.): “The Reverend always notified the Clergy in advance before leaving to visit the Diocese. He never bothered anyone by accidentally running over him; never had in mind the goal of supposedly catching someone in trouble; knew human weakness in such cases; but he only wanted everything to be in order and satisfactory for his arrival and, for general peace.” Here, for example, is a hand-written draft of a decree sent throughout the Kharkov diocese in the summer of 1840 (in the file of the Kharkov Spiritual Consistory of 1840, archive no. 227, l. 2-3): “His V. Rev. Smaragd Arch. Kharkiv and the Archpastorsky, intending to inspect, if possible, all the churches of the Starobelsky and Izyum districts, ordered to instruct the Izyum Spiritual Board: 1) so that it, having immediately communicated with the local civil authorities, would designate a route along which it would be possible to easily bypass these churches; 2) in this route include military-settlement churches, not all of them, however, but only those that stand on the way to churches that are part of the same Diocesan Department; 3) in the itinerary, designate where and in which more plausible churches the Bishop’s service can be had, arranging it so that the service takes place every other day or two days later, at the request of the Messrs. landowners and parishioners and so that every day it would be possible to inspect more than 5 churches, at a distance of up to 40 miles, and have a profitable overnight stay for both His Eminence and the Bishop’s retinue; 4) take care to designate stations where on what day it would be possible to change horses, of which 16 or 18 of the common ones should be promptly posted in decent places, along country roads, for which supply of horses hard money can be paid; 5) where difficult passages in a carriage are expected, there should not be an inspection of churches; 6) designate the route from August 24, i.e. from the day of departure from Kharkov to the 20th of September, and present it to His Eminence no later than the 22nd of the current month according to the following approximate schedule...” - N.G. This refers, of course, to the settlement Bobrik (or Great Bobrik), in Sumy district, and the local landowner Grigory N. Rakhmanov, about which see † Archbishop. Philaret, Historical and statistical description of the Kharkov diocese, dep. III (Moscow 1857), stlb. 373–376. N.G. M.I. Sh. subsequently was the Abbess of the Moscow Khotkovo Nunnery Monastery (Fr. Hierotheus. - This is Maria Ivanovna Shagarova - Magdalene in monasticism, was transferred from the Brusensky Monastery to the Abbess of the Intercession Khotkovo Monastery in 1849 and died in October 1859. See † M. Stroev st. 231 and † o. S.K. Smirnov, Pokrovsky Khotkov Convent, Moscow 1858. She is mentioned many times in the letters of M. Philaret to Anthony (Medvedev), viceroy of the Lavra, vol. I, pp. 64, 234, 252; vol. II, pp. 59, 253–255, 256–257; 283, 284–285, 380, 384, 394–395, 398, 410–411, 413, 425–426, 449–454, 465, 482, 494–495; vol. III, pp. 107, 150–151, 353, 354, 384, 369, 424. And this happened with the appointment of Fr. Hierotheus as rector of the Mtsensk Peter and Paul Monastery on March 17, 1847. – O.I. For which the Eminence received gratitude and blessing from the Holy Governing Synod. – O.I. Namely: With two nephews and three companions from Polotsk, from Mogilev, Kharkov and from Astrakhan, the Vladyka had only two carriages for his personal quarters and for all the Archpastor’s wretched belongings and all his companions. And nothing more. - Ο. AND. When leaving, for example, from one Bishop's House, and after the last farewell and blessing, getting into the carriage, the Archpastor at the carriage meets his former House steward, who dares to remove the bearskin from under the Saint's feet. She, he says, belongs to the House of Bishops. From another... Diocese, from which the Bishop deigned to leave, they write that the things left by His Eminence are not needed by the House of Bishops; and therefore some (in spoiled form) return with a letter from the house Treasurer; and for the rest, the Treasurer asks the Bishop to instruct him to transfer them according to His Archpastoral appointment, and to return them for these things. The House of Bishops has got some money! The archpastor did not object a word, took out the money, and gave it to the person who demanded it to be sent. And the Archpastoral's belongings and carriages remain to this day in the same... Bishop's House. The Bishop did not give any order about them (Ο.I.) · Cf. and in our “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 5–6, p. 756 and separately: Letters from Archbishop Smaragd to Archimandrite Hierotheus (St. Petersburg, 1911), pp. 20–21. See the Kharkov Spirit case. Consistory No. 227 of 1840, which states that 339 rubles were borrowed from the sums of the bishop’s house for this trip. 11 3/7 kop. See the Kharkov Spirit case. Consistory of 1840 No. 227. Ibid. 1840 No. 94 about the debauchery of a widowed priest. V. Vinogradov, whose acquittal request Smaragd found “false.” Ibid. 1840 November 5 – December 9 about priest. Bashinsky, who allegedly served a memorial service for the suicide Tsukorov. See, for example, the Kharkov Spirit case. Consistory 1840 February 22 (Nos. 13–39) about priest. F. Titov, sent to a monastery for three years. Ibid. 1840 No. 185 about the entire clergy of the village of Brannikova (cf. note 42). For both expressions see ibid. 1841 February 21 No. 37 about the drunkenness of the priest. F. Prikhodin (cf. note 43) and sexton D. Chernyavsky. Another example. January 15, 1841 Kharkov dean Fr. Malinovsky reported that at 41 1/2 o'clock in the afternoon he found some priest or deacon on the street, unconsciously drunk. Smaragd gave the following resolution: “after this drunkard has sobered up, announce to him for such a nationwide temptation a ban on priestly service, wearing a cassock and blessing of hands, and then strictly, in what should be, interrogated him, and present him with an opinion, keeping him in custody in the Consistory, until a special order.” Upon proper clarification of the matter, Smaragd decided: “it would be necessary to relegate him to a clerk for a very long time, but respecting his first fall, his own confession and repentance for this vile and seductive drunken act, his six-day detention in the Consistory and the hope of future correction, without delegating him to a clerk, to deal only with him according to the determination of the Consistory of January 16, returning him and cassock." Ibid. 1840 No. 180 about the intemperate life of the village of Brannikova priest. A. Fedorov, deacon G. Lebedev and sexton V. Gagolev (cf. note 40). Ibid. 1841 February 21 No. 37 and 1841 November 4 No. 11 about priest. F. Prikhodine (cf. footnotes No. 41, 73). Ibid. 1840 August 5 (No. 147) about priest. S. Illarionov and P. Kulchinovsky, who admitted that St. the gifts “splashed up” (cf. footnote No. 69); 1841 No. 48 about the shedding of the holy gifts. M. Golubov. Ibid. 1840 No. 424 about the non-existence of the Kharkov archpriests Mayevsky, Rogalsky, Prokopovich and priests Taranovsky, Klevanov and Mukhin at the royal prayer service. Ibid. resolution of Smaragd of October 31, 1841 at the request of Priest. P. Maslova about assignment to the village of Novaya Ryabina. Case of Kharkov Spirit. Consistory of 1841 No. 23 on the complaint of the court owl. M. Kusakova at the priest. Romanov for his refusal to sing a prayer service and bless the water; at the end of all, Smaragd suggested “to advise Romanov on his own behalf, so that he, as an elderly, widowed, uneducated and inebriated, should eventually ask to join the staff, or to a monastery where they would like to accept him.” Ibid. 1840 No. 307; 1840 No. 262. Ibid. 1840 No. 73 about Deacon I. Dmitriev, who asked to take the place of his father, the priest of the village of Brattsovki, who had been dismissed for work, the following resolution followed on May 31, 1840: “how the protege Dmitriev appeared to the Saint without showing him the appropriate signs of veneration: then, pending study of how one should appear to the Holy Ordersman (about which quite depicted in the Bishop's official and according to the tradition of all Great Russian Dioceses it is known), his request was refused; and after studying, he is allowed to appear, to which he was called.” Ibid. 1840 No. 130: Smaragd on June 12 refuses to appoint the deacon of Valok as a priest to the local city Nativity of the Mother of God Church and orders “to offer this place to students of Theology.” Ibid. 1841 No. 269 at the request of the sexton of the village Babaev A. Cherevanetsky to move to the Kharkov Ascension Church. Ibid. 1840 No. 9 about the sexton Gr. Shcherbatsky, in a resolution dated March 12, 1841, instructs “and in general, to pay special attention to (Dean) Malinovsky’s (dean) Malinovsky’s (dean) Malinovsky’s special attention to the city sextons who do not understand Irmoloy’s singing and those who are unfit in time to be deported from the city to the villages with the idle places staffed by clerks with the best and most capable, corresponding to the dignity of the city of Kharkov.” Ibid. 1841 No. 264, where the Smaragd resolution of August 26 reads: “I would like the Diocesan city of Kharkov to be completely cleared of drunken and unreliable people,” which is why it refuses to appoint Deacon P. Povyatovsky there. Ibid. 1840 No. 264: fear that deacon D. Lukashev, who was sent to the parish, “may again indulge in intemperance.” Ibid. 1840 No. 567 - about the drunken behavior of the deacon of the cathedral Peter Poniatkowski, about whom, even after a favorable review by Fr. A. Kustova Smaragd ordered that “he, from now on, the archpriest will report on this very thing: does Poniatovsky drink vodka, if he drinks, then to what extent, and if he doesn’t drink, then from when did he stop, and is there even a small hope for him, Poniatovsky, to stop for the entire future?” Case of Kharkov Spirit. Consistory of 1840 No. 43 on the appointment of the disciple Pravednikov as a deacon to the church of the village of Borok. Ibid. 1840 May 24 No. 37 about the sexton P. Rodionov, appointed by the Consistory “to a ministerial position to keep him from drunkenness and other acts” and asking to be released from this position, and - according to the resolution of Smaragd - “for such an absurd request of a sexton convicted of drunkenness, and the vain efforts of the Diocesan Authorities, he should punish the most severely." Ibid. 1840 July 23, No. 263: sexton M. Dikarev, who asked for permission to marry, “to give instructions in the Consistory so that before entering into marriage, he would study all the subjects of the clergy with initiation into the surplice: for if now, alone, he did not have time to prepare himself for the fact that every cleric needs to be called; then all the more so, upon entering into marriage and with intensive economic activities, he will not have the opportunity to study subjects that are necessary for his entire life.” Ibid. 1840 No. 33: the negligent sexton P. Romanovsky is removed from office for careless service. Ibid. 1840 No. 11 about the “misunderstanding of musical singing and church regulations” by sexton P. Dolzhansky. Ibid. 1840 No. 85: “drunken weakness” of sexton N. Butsky. Ibid. 1840 No. 33 about sexton M. Toransky, that he is “illiterate and therefore intolerant in the clergy.” Ibid. 1840 No. 75 about sexton Ushinsky, so that he “should be thorough in his intentions and not change places so often.” Ibid. 1841 No. 33 about the sexton of “reprehensible behavior” P. Rodionov. Ibid. 1840 No. 91, that sexton D. Shchekin, when betrothed to the priest. A. Zbukarev took 100 rubles from his daughter Evdokia. on the security of a ticket issued to him by the Consistory, but then, obviously, he did not marry and did not repay the debt. Ibid. 1841 No. 37, where the resolution of October 3: “sexton Dimitry Chernyavsky, as a result of being convicted of drunkenness and unauthorized absences from his post, and at the same time not knowing how to count objects, and therefore not only useless for the clergy, but harmful in it, due to the temptation he causes, should be completely excluded from the department of the Kharkov Diocese and sent away to the Provincial Board for the election of a type of life.” Ibid. 1840 No. 32 about the sexton A. Zhukovsky, that this “petitioner again wants another wife for himself, but does not understand clergy matters and, therefore, in the clergy, due to illiteracy, should not be tolerated.” Prot. T.I. Butkevich, Innokenty Borisov, p. 47. Case of Kharkov Spirit. Consistory of 1840 No. 220: the priest of the Nicholas Church in Volchansk, Ilya Nikolaevich, accused of drunkenness, “to refuse the priestly position in the St. Nicholas parish until the case is resolved, and his actions will be examined and presented in court.” Ibid. 1840 No. 68 prot. N. Makedonsky, who delayed for a week to report that Deacon St. Krasovsky drowned on July 12. Ibid. 1840 No. 29 in the case of the taking of brocade from the village of Protopopovka by the priest of the settlement Olshana Al. Yastremsky. Wed. footnote No. 75. Ibid. 1840 No. 63 0 ordination to the priesthood of the church of the village of Shtepoki deacon E. Protopopov resolution dated August 16: “Deacon Protopopov should be instituted as a priest, and Dean Milostanov should be subjected to due responsibility for contradictory recommendations (for if D. Protopopov were really bad; he could not have corrected himself in such a short time).” Ibid. 1840 No. 185 in a resolution dated March 10, 1841: “Dean Bazhenov, in addition to a strict reprimand, for inaccurate supervision of the Clergy under his supervision, to announce on my behalf that for such omissions, if they occur in the future, he Bazhenov has to be published in the Diocese, with the removal from the Dean, honorary between Clergy, positions." Case of Kharkov Spirit. Consistory 1841 No. 15, where, on the complaint of the priest of the Demyanovka settlement, Leonty Fedotov, about harassment by the dean archpriest Ivan Ivanov, Smaragd wrote on January 21 that the latter, indeed, “is not entirely easy for the clergy under his jurisdiction,” which is why he instructs Archpriest Starobelsky to examine the statement. Chernyakov, “who has the duty of his oath and priestly conscience to enter into the position of priest Fedotov, and present his opinion to me,” and to accept the Demyanovskaya church into his deanery from Fr. Ivanova. Ibid. 1840 August 5 (No. 147) according to the report of the dean prot. I. Ivanov about the priests S. Illarionov and P. Kulchinsky, from whom St. gifts (see footnote No. 44). Ibid. 1841 No. 59 about Deacon Grigorovich, who achieved appointment as a priest to the St. Nicholas Church in the city of Nedrigailov, although at first “his whimsical request was denied.” Ibid.1841 No. 91 about sexton P. Rodionov. Ibid. 1840 No. 133 on the complaint of a peasant woman. Lopani A. Vakulinkova at priest. John Yastremsky about his failure to bury her deceased son Vasily Smaragd wrote on November 13, 1841 that if the accused had informed him about everything in a timely manner, then “through this, hopefully, the present paperwork would have been rejected.” Case of Kharkov Spirit. Consistory of 1841 No. 37, where in the resolution of August 14 we read: “As the priest Prikhodin (convicted of drunkenness) states that the investigative case about him has already been completed, which has already passed for more than two months: then immediately demand it from the Zmeevsky D. Board with an explanation: why it lasts so long and through this the fate of the accused priest is burdened Prihodina? – Wed. footnote No. 43. Ibid. 1840 No. 42 about the illegal inscription of the saint. settlement of Dvurechnaya V. Agnivtsev wrote on the decree of the Consistory of Smaragd on January 20, 1841: “It is in vain that the Consistory proposes to carry out further inquiries in such a matter, which is completely obvious and conclusive. The main thing here is that priest Agnivtsev violated the rules of subordination by writing an absurd inscription on the decree, which could mean obstinacy; and Agnivtsev himself does not reject this and cannot reject it in any way, explaining only that he made that inscription supposedly out of his simplicity, i.e., out of his extreme imprudence in this case, - which both the D. Board and the Dean also recognized as insolence... Other circumstances, such as, for example, about his Agnevtsev being drunk on the 29th day of last August, as if those belonging to the essence of the case and unproven, leave without attention and thus the whole matter is considered over.” Ibid. 1841 No. 50 about the deacon of the village of Kunyeva A. Lebedintsev, accused of inciting the peasants, was also added that he was related to his local priest; Against this point, Smaragd noted: “this is not listed on the formal lists, and this does not apply to the real subject.” Ibid. 1840 No. 29 at the request of priest A. Yastremsky, who, justifying himself in the case of taking brocade from the church of the village of Protopopovka (see footnote No. 66), asks for a preliminary investigation of the dean of St. Stefanovsky and over his colleague O. P. Fedorovsky, put forward the following resolution on February 19, 1841: “The absurd request is refused (by the way) because it contains different matters, with which different matters it is prohibited by law to accept petitions and carry out paperwork based on them.” Ibid. 1840 December 9, No. 185, Smaragd’s resolution from this date reads: “Let the wine merchant prove to Priest Feodorov and Deacon Lebedev (convicted of drunkenness and bad behavior) their claim (about their failure to pay him for hot wine) in court.” Ibid. 1840 July 20, No. 212, where Smaragd writes to the Kharkov governor “about the suspension of the proposed investigation in the Valkovsky Zemsky Court, since the priest Bashinsky (who allegedly insulted the Stanovoy Bailiff) is not subject to the jurisdiction of that court, and about sending a deputy from the civil side to his clerk, Dean Archpriest Silvansky.” Case of Kharkov Spirit. Consistory of 1840 No. 383, at the request of the homeless priest Vasily Butov to be included in any Kharkov church, Smaragd on October 30 drew the attention of the Consistory that “the petitioner has an external appearance. rather doubtful in relation to the sober conduct of life,” and when Fr. Butov declared that such an idea was unconvincing, then on May 6, 1841, Smaragd wrote: “indeed, it would be impossible to judge by appearance if the certificate did not certify otherwise.” Ibid. 1841 No. 50, where an investigation is ordered into the application of the chairman of the Izyum Zemsky Court to transfer deacon Andrei Lebedintsev from the village of Kunyev for inciting his peasants to escape; Moreover, (Smaragd) is left to Lebedintsev to justify himself if he really was innocent of this offense and criticism that was important to him. Ibid. 1840 No. 296; 1840 No. 63: The Consistory decided to dismiss from the clergy the students of the Collegium A. Kalinovsky and Jacob Dzhunkovsky, based on medical evidence, but Smaragd ordered to first send those expelled under the ecclesiastical deputy to the Medical Council and, what turns out to be, report to him, ordering “with those asking for a secular rank, due to a painful condition, to continue to do so.” Ibid. 1840 August 16 - November 18: instructions to the secretary that in official relations he does not know how to signify the titles of addressees. 1840 No. 44 of August 3: “noted to the secretary so that from now on matters relating to petitioners and proteges will be recorded in the certificate.” 1840 No. 119 on prepared black paper to Count N.A. To Pratasov, as the Chief Prosecutor of the “Governing... His Imperial Majesty,” Smaragd, dutifully, wrote: “it’s stupid that they still don’t know how to write the title of Chief Prosecutor.” 1841 No. 73 regarding the premature communication of some consistory information, Smaragd wrote on August 27: “The secretary is entrusted with inquiring: how does the petitioner know the conclusions of the Consistory that were not put into effect, and were not agreed upon by me, and so on, such as constitute an office secret? How often do I notice that such matters do not have proper and up-to-date secrecy in their proceedings: I put this on notice both to the entire presence of the Consistory and its Secretary, and especially to the chief executives, confirming to them strictly that such disorders do not occur in the Chancellery at all, for fear of unpleasant consequences for them.” Case of Kharkov Spirit. Consistory 1840 No. 485, where on the Consistory journal about the movement of the priest. N. Popov to the Akhtyrskaya Assumption Church and about refusing this to another competitor, priest. Petrusenkov, Smaragd on May 25 put forward the following resolution: “I personally do not know how the seekers of the place are: I do not find a sufficient reason to disagree with the opinion of the Consistory.” Ibid. case January 30, 1840 February 12, 1842 (Nos. 4-77); in the case of what happened at the priest. M. Bogu(o)slavsky, during the morning sickness and vomiting in the altar of Smaragd, returning the matter to the Consistory, invites it on July 30, 1841 to “add: 1) shouldn’t the All-Merciful Manifesto of April 16th last be taken into account (when considering this case) and to what extent?.. andˆ2) shouldn’t the members of the Izyumsky D. Board announce any reprimand for their obvious biased opinion on this same case? After which the whole matter should be immediately submitted to me for decision. But when adding to the matter, pay attention to the fact that a) that in the defendant’s family it is obvious, due to his misconduct, there is a harlot daughter, and b) that the Dean, despite the previous priest Bogoslavsky’s bad behavior and the very probable case of his vile drunkenness that arose in 1840, even without investigation, carelessly and further recklessly certified him, Bogoslavsky, as decisively good in behavior, what should the Dean do? It should not have been if he had been more attentive to all the circumstances that accompanied Bogoslavsky’s life and is now accompanying him.” Ibid. 1841 No. 165. When only the first was accused in the “case of causing offense to priest Leontovich by the Dean Archpriest of Silvansky,” Smaragd put down the following resolution on October 25: “The Consistory made a one-sided judgment on this subject: for although the priest Leontovich is indeed not innocent in the points listed in the Consistory’s case, it is nevertheless impossible to recognize the Dean Archpriest as right. Silvansky for the fact that he, having received the attitude of the District Board with demands that were not entirely correct and without considering the case on the spot, and at the same time did not delve into the fact that Kulik died suddenly, was buried on the same day without a church clergy and was not from the Annunciation parish, but from St. George, published the priest Leontovich in the Deanery District, so that he, Leontovich, could not help but seem offensive, especially if he did not judge for the good and strictly adhere to the Gospel law, which commands Christians not to pay attention to insults, even unimportant ones: and therefore all this should be brought to the attention of the Archpriest of Silvania, with the collection of one half of the money following the unstamped paper; since in this matter both of the above-mentioned persons are wrong.” Case of Kharkov Spirit. Consistory 1840 February 14 – May 25; on the attitude of the Director of the schools Korzhenevsky about awarding the law teacher ο. P. Akimov has the following resolution from Smaragd on May 25: “I leave this matter, which actually relates to the priestly duties, to my own, further discretion.” Ibid. 1840 No. 153, where in relation to the Kharkov Treasury Chamber that priest Korochansky was appointed to the village of Ugroed against the wishes of the parishioners, Smaragd on May 28, among other things, wrote: “but about the assignment of priests to parishes, notify the Manager of the Chamber and give him a report on this - no duties are assigned to the Diocesan Administration by any existing legislation.” Ibid. 1841 No. 254; a special statement to the assistant trustee of the Kharkov educational district, Prince N.A. Tsertelev Smaragd achieved that the act scheduled on Sunday, May 10 in the morning, during the liturgy, was canceled at the Kharkov district school. Ibid. 1840 No. 153; Regarding the construction of a fence with gatehouses in the settlement of Derkachi, Smaragd orders that we first seek consent for this from the Chamber of State Property. Ibid. 1840 No. 29, where, to some protest of the priest. A. Yastremsky, against the ruling on January 31, 1841, to send him for 40 days to the Bishop’s House of Smaragd on February 19, among other things, indicated: “according to the laws, the Diocesan Bishop has every right to take any clergyman to his place for probation for 40 days, and no complaint against such a Pastoral Court can have a place (see § 118 of the Draft Charter Spiritual Consistories); therefore, this obstinate Yastremsky must submit to such a court if he does not want to be subjected to the most severe punishment and ejection.” Case of Kharkov Spirit. Consistory 1840 No. 95; by a resolution dated December 5, Smaragd orders the priest of the village of Bobrik, P. Trukhmanov, upon taking a subscription from him as determined by the Consistory, to announce on his behalf with the strictest suggestion in the Spiritual Board that if there is the slightest inclination towards drunkenness in the future, he will inevitably and forever be relegated to a clerk and placed in a parish farthest from his present residence. Ibid. 1941 No. 167, where in the case of drunkenness of the priest. P. Feodorovsky, who was certified by the dean as good in behavior, Smaragd wrote on December 8: “The consistory should always have similar circumstances in the future, and from those deans who previously reported to the Chief about the beginning intoxication of a clergyman or clergyman, then suddenly report about his extreme inveterateness in drunkenness, - strictly demand: for every passion intensifies in a person gradually, and, therefore, if reports follow at the beginning of the passion: then it is convenient for the authorities to stop it; otherwise, when passion, beyond the knowledge of the Diocesan Authorities, reaches its inveterateness, then the authorities usually have little success in correcting the inveterate. That is why the dean is always guilty of failing to report the initial offenses of indulging in passion and of covering up – sometimes even well-intentioned – his weaknesses.” Ibid. 1841 October 6 (No. 335) in the case of sexton N. Chernigovsky. Ibid. 1841 No. 49; permission of the Consistory P.P. I am planning a marriage with the girl S. Podkobylnaya, who is in a spiritual relationship with him, according to a secret Synodal decree on January 31, 1838. Smaragd on July 24 states “with this, however, that secret decrees, on the basis of which such permissions are given, should not be prescribed in decrees to priests.” Ibid. 1840 No. 29 on taking into the bishop's house according to 118 Draft of the Constitution. Spirit. Consistories (see footnote No. 89). Ibid. 1840 No. 130; 1840 No. 24: since “there is no legislation on the basis of which it would be possible to produce deacons who have not studied in Theology, or similar students (who have not completed the proper seminary course) to be ordained directly to the priesthood, before the end of 39 years of age, I find myself not in the right to ordain... a priest.” Case of Kharkov Spirit. Consistory of 1840 No. 53 in the resolution of May 26: “I do not intend to ordain clerks who have not studied in schools as deacons, unless a need or some special motivating reason arises,” why Smaragd refuses such a request to sexton A. Nevpryagin (ibid. 1840 No. 569) and P. Kuvicinsky (ibid. 1840 No. 188). Ibid. 1840 No. 181 about the student M. Zalessky, expelled from the higher department of the Kharkov Collegium, who asked for a ticket to travel to Kiev, resolution dated August 21: “... and I find myself not in the right to dismiss him to the Kiev Seminary without the demand of the Kiev Diocesan and School Authorities.” Ibid. 1840 December 9 (No. 185) about the drunken sexton V. Glagolev. It seems that only once (ibid. 1840, No. 15 in the resolution of October 15) Smaragd deliberately emphasizes that the drunken sexton A. Popov “was in the monastery in menial, difficult work and, moreover, on his own pay.” Ibid. 1840 December 9 (No. 185) in the resolution of March 10 and August 12 about priests Fedorov, Pavlov, and Voitov, deacon Lebedev and sexton Glagolev. Ibid. 1840 January 30, 1842 February 12 (Nos. 4–77) about priest. M. Boguslavsky (see footnote No. 83). Ibid. 1840 January 15, 1841 July 25 about the peasant Gr. Ivanenkov, who, out of respect for his widowhood and large family, was allowed by the Consistory to serve a 2.5-year penance at his place of residence, which Smaragd agrees to only for this case. Case of Kharkov Spirit. Consistory of 1840 No. 29 about the priest. A. Yastremsky. Ibid. 1840 No. 50 about the priest. I. Ponomarev. Ibid. 1840 No. 75 about supernumerary priest. P. Krasnopolsky, about whom Smaragd’s resolution of March 3 reads: “... since it is indecent for him to feed on alms, then suggest to him that he immediately choose for himself a sexton position and enjoy the income received for it, with such encouragement from me that with further good behavior in life, he will be allowed to serve in the priesthood.” Ibid. 1840 September 17, 1841 February 13 (Nos. 87–110) about priest. M. Silvansky, who asked to leave him permanently in the village of Mayaki. Ibid. 1841 No. 109 about the Kharkov sexton A. Sedakov, who “in respect of his youth and in the hope of correction” is only being sent away from Kharkov for living inappropriately for his rank. See also footnote No. 41. Deacon F. Grevisirsky was promoted to priest due to the fire and “solely because of the accident that befell him by God’s permission” (ibid. 1840, No. 50), which is why his request for benefits was denied (ibid. 1840, No. 118). Ibid. 1840 No. 47: priest. On May 26, 1841, N. Zhadanovsky’s penance was postponed until next autumn, “when the field work is completed, so that through his stay in the Bishop’s House in such a busy economic time, he and his family would not lose their daily food.” Ibid. resolution dated May 24, 1841 on whether it is possible to leave Deacon M. Naumov, sentenced to transfer, at the Krasnokutsk Nicholas Church, so as not to “burden the fate of the petitioner,” “since he has a house and farm in Krasnokutsk.” Idid. 1840 No. 93 in a resolution dated February 28, 1841: “In respect of the fact that the priest Vinogradov (sentenced by the Consistory to 25 rubles) is now banned and, therefore, has no means of acquiring money, having fined him 3 silver rubles in this case.” Ibid. 1840 September 2 - 1841 June 3: Sexton Rudenko is sent to the monastery not for 3, as determined by the Consistory, but only for 2 months, “in respect of the poor condition of his family.” Ibid. 1840 No. 45 about the formerly banned priest. Gr. Semyonov, who was admitted to religious correction and worship, but again showed negligence and was again removed from his priestly position for this; The Consistory refused to assign him to the church of the settlement of Alekseevka, but Smaragd wrote on March 4, 1841: “... now it would be no longer necessary to assign him to a priestly place anywhere, but should relegate him to a clerk (which he has long deserved), but solely in feelings of compassion for his ill-fated family, I allow the Consistory one more time, but for the last time, to assign him to Alekseevskaya Church of the Intercession, to earn parishioner approval and to exercise the priestly office, for a period of four months.” On July 25, the Consistory decided to demote this priest to the rank of clerk, but on October 25, Smaragd decided: “The priest Semyonov fully deserves the punishments determined for him by the Consistory: however, in order not to burden the fate of the unfortunate and innocent family, we should still delay in carrying out those punishments and putting them into effect,” and then find out “if he, Semyonov, is of sound mind, and is there any melancholy in it? On December 15, it was reported about the continuing negligence of Fr. Semyonov from “excessive melancholy, darkening his mind,” and only now Smaragd ordered to “resolutely refuse.” Case of Kharkov Spirit. Consistory of 1841 No. 16 about the deacon of the village of Grafsky Trufanov, who “should have been punished to the fullest extent of the laws,” but Smaragd, “condescending only to the poor and through him the unfortunate family,” allowed him to apply for a deacon’s vacancy at the Kharkov Ascension Church. Ibid. 1840 No. 43 about the priest. V. Agnivtsev, 1840 January 30 about priest. M. Boguslavsky (cf. footnotes No. 74, 8) draws on the manifesto of April 15, 1841 to forgive their guilt. Ibid. 1840 No. 288 in the resolution of August 5 on the release of Fr. George Mayevsky from his presence in the Consistory due to illness: “Although it would be very desirable that this venerable Archpriest would continue to be our collaborator in the Consistory, and with his experience and good advice would contribute to the management and improvement of the Diocese here: however, seeing his real weaknesses, Fr. Archpriest, we cannot but relieve ourselves from our labors and improve his health. For this reason, prepare a report on my behalf to the Holy Synod with a request to him, Fr. Archpriest Mayevsky, dismissal from the Consistory; and from the care of the Bishop’s sacristy, now, in due course, dismiss him, with gratitude for the labors incurred.” Ibid. 1840 No. 580, where Smaragd announces his Pastoral blessing (to the cathedral) to the Archpriest of Pechersk to agree to his request and not wish him, with greater calm, and to Deacon Sulima for their work useful for the Diocesan Department, since they collected and presented 1,000 rubles for the construction of a new bell for the cathedral. 15 kopecks banknotes. Ibid. 1840 November 23 - December 11 Smaragd distinguishes the priest of the Trekhizbyanskaya settlement V. Pavlov from his young colleague Panteleev, for he is “quite advanced in years and is very diligent about the splendor of the church entrusted to him, moreover, he already has children in the field of domestic service.” Ibid. 1841 No. 11: for the efforts to decorate the Kharkov Kaplunovskaya Church, renamed the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, Smaragd expresses “warm pastoral gratitude, with its inclusion in the service record,” priest. Nasedkin, reassuring the latter that “his further care is for the benefit of St. the churches will not be left without due retribution.” See, for example, the Case of the Kharkov Spirit. Consistory of 1840 No. 46 about the sexton E. Kozlovsky; 1840 No. 95 about Vissarion Kalashnikov, who asked to become a deacon; 1840 No. 62 about sexton Vasily Kalashnikov. Ibid. dated November 8, 1840 in a letter to A.S. Sturdza about his book “Letters on the Offices of the Holy Orders,” which is recognized as “deserving of announcement throughout the Diocese so that priests, especially those who have completed a course in theological teaching, would write it out for themselves.” Ibid. 1841 No. 15 about the dean archpriest. I. Ivanov. Ibid. 1840 No. 59 resolution dated July 19, 1841: “... The dean must carefully ensure that priest Rashevsky does not offend the clerks in their income in the future, and that if in the future similar complaints are received from Rashevsky’s clerks against him, then the present paperwork will then be put on record for dealing with him, Rashevsky, to the fullest extent of the laws.” Ibid. 1840 No. 33 about the sexton of the Kolontaevka settlement, resolution dated November 1: “... since the Kolontaevsky priest Grandorovsky, instead of occupying this ignoramus with clergy matters, burdened him with menial labor as a day laborer, and through this took away from him the means to improve in reading and singing: then order the local Dean to do about this a fair search and present it to me with an opinion, adding to this how much the priest Grandorovsky should pay the sexton Toransky for his daily work to the same priest Grandorovsky.” On May 22, 1841, approving the resolution of the Consistory, Smaragd orders that “the local Dean present to him a handwritten receipt from the sexton Toransky in full satisfaction with his priest Grandorovsky; and so that other priests do not dare to use sextons for their menial work, to the detriment of improving them in ceremonial objects and without any remuneration for them: then the priest Grandorovsky for the above-mentioned oppressive actions for the sexton Toransky should be published in the Bogodukhovsky district.” Case of Kharkov Spirit. Consistory 1840 No. 235; On July 9, Smaragd ordered: “the custom of baking prosphoras by priests should be destroyed immediately wherever it exists,” and on November 18 he confirmed: “we should try to introduce the baking of prosphoras by honest widows and girls of the only spiritual rank gradually and, if possible, through which the proper order will be observed, and those widows and girls will have some allowances from the churches for maintenance and will not be as much of a burden to the Trusteeship as they are now.” Ibid. 1840 No. 4 dated December 18, 1841: “the parishioners of Nizhne-Barannikovsky who submitted petitions to me personally are required to sign in the Consistory that the parishioners who entrusted them with the petition will certainly build houses with a guardhouse for the clergy.” Ibid. 1840 No. 42 dated March 12, 1841: “... through the Dean it is decent to announce to the Landowner or its Manager that if they do not try to satisfy the local clergy with the content, and even from the new priest a similar complaint will be received about the poverty that the previous priests endured at the Volokhov Church: then this church is to be closed, with the expulsion of all its parishioners to neighboring parish." Ibid. 1840 No. 104 at the request of landowners A. Shtenger and E. Ilovaiskaya on the consecration of the Belyavskaya church they built in the village, resolution dated December 11, 1841: “although the petitioners should have been refused the dedication of the said church due to the fact that its decoration has not yet been completed, and because the land under the church has not been demarcated by legal order and proper proportions and the clergy and clergy are not provided with residential buildings; but, condescending to their present request, and most of all respecting the spiritual needs and difficulties of the parishioners, and also because in the current winter time it is impossible to survey the lands, and the landowners do not deny the satisfaction of all the needs of the clergy and clergy, I bless this church to consecrate this church according to its rites, however, Messrs. to the landowners with a preliminary announcement that if their church, at a convenient time, is completed with the proper splendor and the clergy are not provided with houses and a legalized additional proportion of land: then, according to the complaint about this parable, the newly built church will be closed, with the prohibition of worship in it until the demarcation of the land, satisfactory for the clergy, has been completed, with the construction of houses for it.” Ibid. 1840 No. 41 resolution dated February 28, 1841 and: “to announce to the petitioner (Captain N.K. Kashinsky) with other Verkhosum parishioners (who asked to open their church) that they will then be allowed to have divine services in their church when it is restored with the necessary repairs, and when a house is built for the priest’s residence, without permission dismantled by Lieutenant Colonel Mazurovskaya.” Case of Kharkov Spirit. Consistory No. 76 of 1840, in a resolution dated October 29, Smaragd recommends that the church in the Belka settlement be remodeled, if possible, “with the amount donated from the parishioners, without touching the purse money.” Ibid. 1840 No. 53 on the occasion of the theft of church money in the Church of the Intercession in the village of Kamenny Suburb due to careless storage, it is prescribed to fencing church storehouses and all church openings, such as: doors, windows and lids of chests and boxes. Ibid. 1841 No. 35: a petition book is issued for the construction of the Nicholas Church of the Bolshaya Pisarevka settlement, but so that the collectors “do not wander around the city of Kharkov during the upcoming fair.” Ibid. 1840 No. 27 recalls the strict duties incumbent on the clergy regarding non-extortion. Ibid. 1840 No. 136: priest Konstantinov, who took 105 rubles for the wedding. 22 1/5 kop. The consistory fined 50 rubles, but Smaragd reduced it to 25 rubles. "due to a bad year." Ibid. 1840 No. September 28 – October 28: Sexton A. Vasilkovsky is transferred from Kantakuzovka to Akhtyrka “in the hope that with his relative Archpriest Kotlyarevsky he will sooner improve in clergy subjects.” Ibid. 1840 No. 73 about Deacon Dmitriev, resolution dated June 4: “Her Brantsovsky priestly place is hereditary, which must certainly pass from father to son.” See also footnote No. 140. . Ibid. 1840 No. 45 about Deacon N. Bezpalov, who asked to visit his father in the village of Vasilievka, refusal with reference to the “rules of the Spiritual Regulations.” Case of Kharkov Spirit. Consistory of 1840 No. 36 at the request of the priest. N. Bazilevich on behalf of his son: “It is prohibited in the future to submit requests to parents instead of older children.” Ibid. 1840 No. 162; “Announce to Dolzhansky (the psalmist who applied for the deacon’s place) to appear for his ordination as a deacon anywhere, only with approval from the parishioners. What I told him before, and repeating it many times, is burdensome for me; but he should be ashamed to ask for a week’s rent, and with further persistence it will not be with impunity.” Ibid. 1840 No. 8 about sexton I. Loginov. Ibid. 1840 No. 12: “without the desire of the parishioners (of Belopolya) to expel them from the Transfiguration Church (to which they have long belonged) to the cathedral church is also recognized as inconvenient and embarrassing for their conscience and religious feelings.” Ibid. 1840 October 15 at the request of sexton P. Malinovsky for relocation. 1840 September 17 - 1841 February 13 (Nos. 87–110) about priest. M. Silvansky, who is allowed to “look for another place where the parishioners wish to receive him.” 1840 No. 33: “Give the Khrushchev-Nikitov parish the freedom to choose for itself the most reliable clerk.” Ibid. 1840 No. 53: “to determine the priest Korochansky desired by the parishioners (of the Boromli settlement”). In the resolution of October 31, 1841 on the definition of priest. P. Maslova to the village of Novaya Ryabina - for six months, so that after he would submit the approval of the parishioners and the clergy. Ibid. 1840 December 9 (No. 185): sexton V. Glagolev... “to be issued a ticket for three months to find a place in a parish in which the parishioners wish to accept him and give approval for this subject.” 1841 No. 16: Deacon Trufanov “to ask from Ascension clergy and parishioners if they wish to have him at their parish, in a clerical vacancy, which is completely at their will.” 1841 No. 74: priest. V. Vinogradov, assigned to the Cheryomushkovo Theological Church for six months, that he “during the stated period obliges to earn and present (Smaragda) approval from the landowner, parishioners and clergy, certified by the Dean.” 1841 No. 46 on leaving a supernumerary priest. P. Dmitriev at the Brantsov Church asked: “Do the local landowners and parishioners want to have him as their parish priest?” Case of Kharkov Spirit. Consistory of 1842 January 9 - November 5, where Smaragd on January 9 prescribed the Spirit to a member of Bogodukhovsky. Board of Fr. Pokrovsky to thoroughly investigate the complaint of the landowner, second lieutenant N.P. Karpov on the unseemly actions of the priest. village of Kupyevakhi Ioann Malizhinovsky. Ibid. 1840 No. 31, where Smaragd agrees to promote A. Silvansky to the priesthood, “but not to Slavgorodok, for which General Korsakova wants to find another priest.” Ibid. 1841 No. 264, where on August 25 Smaragd announced to the homeless deacon P. Poniatovsky that “without the approval of the local landowner, General Dunina, he cannot be placed as a deacon in the next. Staraya Vodolaga,” but Marya Dimitrievna Dunina, indeed, “enjoyed the respect of the whole province, and hardly anyone was more worthy of (her) respect” (see † Archbishop Philaret, Historical and statistical description of the Kharkov diocese, department II, Moscow 1857, column 325 ff.). Ibid. 1841 No. 46, where there is such a relation Smaragda dated March 19 addressed to the corps commander of the reserve cavalry, Lieutenant General Vl. Charles. Sivers: “Due to the most respectful attitude of Your Excellency dated February 21, No. 614 regarding the ordination of Deacon Theophylact Polnitsky as a priest of the Sukhareva settlement at the Nicholas Church, which is in the 2nd Cavalry District of the Ukrainian military settlement, if it turns out to be worthy, I have the honor to answer Your Excellency, that first through the Diocesan Examiner, and Then I myself, personally, tested this deacon in his knowledge of all subjects related to the priestly rank and title, and, unfortunately, I found him very weak in the knowledge and understanding of those subjects, since he studied only at the district school, and in general cannot explain theological truths and the teachings of religion. How can the decree of St. The Governing Synod forbids the ordination of such people to the priesthood, and their ordination is generally allowed; at the Kharkov Collegium, about 70 students are completing the course of theological teaching: then I, this time, deacon Polnitsky, refused him the priesthood until the proper, as it should be, improvement.” Further, it is suggested that Sivers either “elect a presbyter who is a teacher and has completed a course in theological teaching,” or “entrust Smaragda to choose a priest with such qualities as are required for the worthy performance of priestly duties.” Ibid. 1841 No. 25; here, in a resolution dated October 3, at the request of the sexton M. Raevsky to move him to Belovodsk, Smaragd, among other things, writes: “the correction of the sexton position by the stable wardens, as the closest to the throne of the Lord and to the holy mysteries of Christ, I find contrary to the order of St. church, despite the fact that G. Manager of the (Derkul Military Horse) Factory intended to replace the sexton position with horse breeding ministers.” Case of Kharkov Spirit. Consistory 1840 No. 73; at the request of the Brantsov parishioners in favor of Deacon Dmitriev, who had already been denied the priestly vacancy after his father (see footnote No. 137...), Smaragd wrote on September 30: “following the subsequent granting of the Brantsov priestly place to the student of Theology Prokopyev, to refuse the petitioners their inappropriate request.” Ibid. 1840 No. 48; in the case of the transfer of deacon E. Pravednikov to the priest of the village of Burleya, Smaragd on November 5 remarked to the Consistory: “approval from landowners who offend the priest in using church land is insignificant and disrespectful.” Ibid. 1841 No. 295 in the case of the election of trustees to the Kharkov Dormition Cathedral Smaragd on August 19 “The cathedral members stated that trustees should primarily be elected to receive voluntary alms from Christ-loving donors. As for the church sums themselves, in order to use them for business it is not at all necessary to elect trustees, but they must be spent on a legal basis, by the Council members themselves, with permission each time from the Diocesan Bishop.” Ibid. 1840 September 16 – April 11, 1841 (nos. 1–348); about the Kupyansk merchant Afinogenov, who refused the offer to again elect him as a church elder for the Intercession Cathedral Church, Smaragd on February 25, 1841. He wrote the following resolution: “The honor was offered, and then we don’t need Afinogenov. Immediately elect another elder, albeit the simplest and poorest, but with Christian humility and due respect for the Church Pastors, about whom the Savior Himself in His Gospel said: “Listen to you; He listens to Me” (Luke 10:16). Ibid. 1840 No. 252 about the prohibited priest. A. Gorodnitsky, who “is allowed to celebrate the liturgy once a year, without danger associated with his physical and moral condition,” and under the responsibility of the dean. Ibid. 1841 No. 174 about the prohibited priest. North Salaev, who asked, for the salvation of his soul, to be allowed to perform priestly services only during all four annual fasts. The same was observed by Smaragd in other dioceses. So, in Mogilev about priest. Avvakum Tsekhanovich, who suffered from epilepsy, he died on February 23, 1839. gave the following resolution: “I have no reports about this man, without which, as well as without a long-term and diligent test of his life and health and without an undoubted certificate of his suitability for the priestly position, it is impossible for him to be allowed to serve as a priest,” then on May 30 (apparently, due to the importunity of his wife, who is now forbidden to come to him asking for pardon and priestly service for her husband) Smaragd wrote: “without a very long-term trial and without complete abandonment of drunkenness until the very end, an applicant for service cannot be allowed..; to instruct the local dean that, after carefully verifying his current way of life, he should be informed to me at the same time as notifying me whether he is now experiencing fits of epileptic illness, and from now on, every two months, he should be reported to me in all fairness about his behavior and health, for which the dean has to exercise local reliable and secret supervision over him, so that the real truth in this case can be known.” Case of Kharkov Spirit. Consistory No. 132 of 1840 allowed the choir to be expanded in the church in the village of Koravanskoe “with all possible decency and decoration.” Ibid. 1841 No. 47, at the request of the clergy and parishioners of the Annunciation Church in the Zorikovka settlement, Smaragd wrote on February 28: “in my opinion, it is best to restore the old, ancient iconostasis, on which there are the faces of all the holy saints of God; for such an iconostasis is more consistent with the statutes and order of the holy churches; and the newfangled plan of the iconostasis presented here can only be accepted out of necessity, when, that is, the old iconostasis would not be suitable for renewal at all for some reason, and moreover, with the limitation indicated by my hand on the plan itself.” Ibid. 1840 No. 4, where on July 12, Smaragd “allows the iconostasis to be set up (in the church of the Nizhne-Barannikova farm) according to plan... with the exception, however, that there are no carved images on the top of the iconostasis, but there is only one icon painting throughout the entire iconostasis.” Ibid. 1840 No. 76 resolution of October 29: “... As for the canopy requested over the throne, I do not bless it; because, instead of the expected beauty, it can make the altar (the church in the Belki settlement) dark and cramped, and to avoid dust on the Throne, you should have a spacious cover that would cover the altar both from above and from all other sides; In general, I don’t like such canopies over church altars, especially since they are made here very rudely and tastelessly.” Case of Kharkov Spirit. Consistory in a resolution dated March 14, 1841 on V. Belogorsky’s petition for a sexton position in the village of Kupyevakha, about which Smaragd received information that some “girls together with men” were singing there in the choir, why was he interrogating the Consistory if there was such indecency anywhere else. Ibid. 1840 No. 133 about unauthorized burials of relatives in gardens. Ibid. 1840 No. 413 according to the report of the dean prot. I. Nikolaevsky about the entertainments once performed by pagans in honor of the idol of Kupala, Smaragd orders on November 26 to circularly ask the clergy of the Kharkov diocese whether such pagan celebrations are being held anywhere else. Ibid. 1840 No. 176; Smaragd refuses to establish a house of prayer for the clergy and parishioners of the settlement of Petropavlovka and then insists on a complete renovation of the dilapidated church, where he allows service only for 1.5 years. Ibid. 1840 No. 235; allowing the continuation of the construction of side chapels at the Church of the Intercession in the Olshanoy settlement, Smaragd on July 9 ordered: “The dean should delve into all the materials and work, as well as the bidding and conditions for them, and report to me in detail about everything.” Ibid. 1840 No. 447; by a resolution dated November 26, “Dean (4 districts of Starobelsky district) Razdolsky (on his report) Smaragd orders to inform him: a) under whose jurisdiction these schismatics are; b) how many souls there are in each of the designated settlements; c) whether any assistance from the Civil Authorities is needed in converting them to Orthodoxy and what it may consist of; and in general, what prudent measures on the part of this Dean are expected to be most useful in the present matter, besides the already taken meek evangelical convictions?” Ibid. 1841 No. 37 in a resolution dated February 24: “The Borovsky parish is infected with schismatics and, therefore, requires special trustworthiness on the part of the local clergy.” See footnote No. 155. . ), why on November 4, 1841, Smaragd ordered (ibid. 1841 No. 11): “to Borovaya, where the petitioner (Priest F. Prikhodin: see footnotes Nos. 41, 43...) was drinking to the detriment of the Orthodox Church, among inveterate schismatics, not to let him in anymore.” On Starobelsky's report, Spirit. Board about the caught schismatic priest Smaragd May 5, 1841 orders “immediately, where appropriate, to report and demand notification: what progress this case took, and what was done with the caught schismatic priest,” and against the words “Old Believers,” “Old Believers,” the Bishop wrote “schismatic,” “schismatics,” corrected “priest” to “priest,” and regarding the “retired soldier,” he noted: “inquire about this schismatic through the local Clergy: for there should be no split between retired soldiers, who are required by law to shave their beards.” Case of Kharkov Spirit. Consistory of 1841 No. 11 in the resolution of November 4: since in the village of Borovoye, where there are schismatics, there has been no priest for a long time: then the Consistory has to immediately elect there an honest, sober and reverent priest, and if difficulty was encountered in assigning such a person to the Borovoye church, due to the poverty of the parish: then wouldn’t it be necessary to ask for an allowance from the treasury for him, which was provided by the decree of St. Synod for poor priests transferred to parishes infected with schismatics?. Wed. footnote No. 154. . Ibid. 1841 No. 74; about the priest In V. Vinograd, assigned to the village of Cheremushnoye, Smaragd invites the Consistory to consider “whether he should not give any part of the income to the former decrepit Cheremushinsky priest Alexandrov.” Ibid. 1840 No. 135–367; on a request for help from the wife of the sexton Elena Popova, whose husband was put on trial and was in prison, and she and her children were in poverty, Smaragd on October 16 ordered “the Consistory to immediately consider this petition, instructing the member of the Guardianship, Priest Malinovsky, to clothe the petitioner’s children for an orphan’s sum, which is under the authority of the Guardianship.” Ibid. 1840 59; for the daughter of the priest Nedrigailov Ser. For a long time, Smaragd was assigned to Antonova first as a priest and then as a deacon. Ibid. 1840 No. 218 that A. Vasyutinsky, who was ordained deacon at the Volchansky Cathedral in place of his father-in-law E. Veselovsky, supported the girl, the daughter of the latter, as his dependent. Case of Kharkov Spirit. Consistory of 1840 No. 101 on the complaint of P. Kruchinina, resolution dated January 21, 1841: “if sexton Kokhanov really offends the widow: then take the strictest measures to fully satisfy her obligation, and if he Kokhanov does not reassure the offended widow: then refuse him his place, position and all sexton income.” Ibid. 1840, No. 115 resolution of December 30: To the bereaved widow of the sexton M. Brailovskaya “to be given a lump sum from the Trusteeship for the establishment of a household 50 rubles allocated. and inform the Collegium Board about the acceptance of her son for full, government support. And then give the local Dean the responsibility of assigning her, based on convenience and opportunity, to the position of a butter-bakery, from which she could receive rewards from the church and its parishioners, and in this homely way could improve her condition.” Ibid. 1840 No. 119 petition to the Chief Prosecutor for the release of one hundred rubles. to maintain the state of the priest. M. Gnedich. damaged by fire. Ibid. 1840 No. 380 about 768 rubles. 1977 kopecks, wasted after the death of Meletius due to the “mistake of the Consistory”, which trusted the steward of the House of Bishops, Hieromonk Job (see footnote No. 166...). For complaints about this, see ibid. 1840 No. 227 in the resolution of April 27, 1841 on the return of 339 rubles. 11 3/7 kop. borrowed for runs when touring the diocese; 1841 No. 402 on the exemption of the Bishop's House from the contribution to the City Duma of interest and assessments for two shops belonging to it. And Smaragdov’s successor, Innokenty (Borisov), on March 6, 1842, asked for help from the Kharkov House of Bishops, about which see in the Synodal Archives, file of the Office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod No. 28.672. Case of Kharkov Spirit. Consistory of 1840 No. 448. Ibid. 1840 No. 339 about hieromonks Job (see footnote No. 163...) Alexander, who leased out the land of the Bishop's House without the knowledge of their superiors, for which the punishment of the Consistory of Smaragd is reduced by half. 600 rub. assign. The additional ones who went to Meletius were no longer appointed and given to Smaragada, why on November 30, 1841 he writes to Count N.A. Pratasov “particularly and confidentially”, asking “to use... 600 rubles of surplus money. banknotes following him according to the rank of Archbishop,” and on November 29, with an official paper No. 132, he asks for the above 600 rubles to be given to him. Ass. (168 rubles 60 kopecks) for 1841 and for all future years, dated January 2, 1842 there is a note that on the occasion of the petitioner’s transfer to Astrakhan it was accepted to take note. In total, the Kharkov Bishop's House received 11,078 rubles in 1840. 90 kopecks ass., i.e. 3.165 rub. 40 k. cep., and in 1841 171 rubles were subtracted from here. 43 k. ser. additional, allotted to Meletius, why now it was only 2,996 rubles. 80 k. cep. See about this in the Synodal Archives, case of the Office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod No. 28.782. See Kharkov Spirit. Consistory case of 1840 No. 383, where there is a handwritten proposal dated July 31 of the last Smaragda to invite 10 churches to produce the specified things, at least by 1841, for the extremely insufficient sacristy of the Bishop's House, “if it is possible, for voluntary donations from the lovers of Christ, but if there are none: then it is allowed to be used for this sacred and for all The diocese has a beneficial need for several church purse sums”; all the desired items were purchased and, by order of Smaragd, included in the inventory of the bishop's sacristy, and large donations were brought to the attention of the Holy Synod. Ibid. 1841 No. 398 about arrears accrued by the City Duma for the building of the cathedral. See o. T.I. Butkevich, Historical and statistical description of the Kharkov Cathedral of the Assumption Cathedral, p. 139, where it is reported that Smaragd ordered not only to continue issuing housing benefits to the cathedral residents, but also to determine it at the rate - instead of 2,500 rubles. at 8,750 rub. banknotes. Case of Kharkov Spirit. Consistory of 1840 No. 390 about Hieromonk Vlasie, who was dismissed from the House of Bishops to the Starokharkov Monastery, who had hostile relations with Hieromonk Sergius. Ibid. 1841 No. 396; Satisfying the request of Hieromonk Sergius, on April 14 Smaragd appointed his housekeeper Fr. Hierotheus, to whom he transfers the monasteries and from Abbot Adrian, as not fulfilling § 31 of the Deanery instructions on visiting subordinate monasteries and reporting this to the diocesan authorities. See I.O. Samoilovich, Reference book for the Kharkov diocese (Kharkov 1904), pp. 9–10: “The Most Reverend Smaragd left behind the memory of a direct and open archpastor; he highly valued the priesthood and was aware of his merits; did not like to bow to anyone, but always energetically defended his rights; He did not like to bring the guilty before the chancery court of the consistory, but more often ended the cases in his own court - sometimes, however, in a rather original form” (which one, at least for an example?). See “Ryazan Diocesan Gazette” 1896 No. 16, p. 557; 560. A.I. Malevich reports (in the “Mogilev Diocesan Gazette” of 1909, No. 19, p. 708, and in the book “Mogilev Diocese,” vol. I, issue II, part 2, p. 171) that “in Kharkov, Smaragd was elected an honorary member of the local university.” See “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1895 No. 15, p. 394. See footnotes Nos. 35–38 and their text. . See "Ryazan Diocesan Gazette" 1896 No. 16, p. 557. See letters from M. Philaret to Smaragda in “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1870, book. XII, p. 40. See “Ryazan Diocesan Gazette” 1896 No. 16, p. 557; Wed and page 558. Wed. to this story, which † Prot. N.K. Smirnov reports (in “Strannik” 1888, No. 2, pp. 437–438) from the words of Protodeacon A.A. Chervonetsky, who served in Kharkov in the bishop's choir at Smaragda. “On one highly solemn day in the latter’s living room they were talking about new rumors from St. Petersburg (that Archbishop Anthony Rafalsky of Warsaw would be Metropolitan of St. Petersburg). Vladyka (Smaragd) listened to the conversation and inserted the following remark: “Yes, that means I won’t be with you for long in Kharkov. Warsaw will take precedence - they will send me somewhere to Siberia!” - “Why is that, Vladyka?” “But this is my godson! “The Bishop did not explain the term he used, but many guessed that the word godson was used precisely in the popular sense in which they call someone punished or disgraced - generally taught a lesson. Afterwards, one of those present at this meeting explained the riddle, telling the story of Smaragd’s first acquaintance with Anthony. Rev. Smaragd, when he was still an archimandrite - inspector of the Kyiv Academy, was sent to audit the Volyn Seminary, which was located in the provincial town of Kremenets, near the Pochaev Lavra. Smaragd found the educational part of the seminary good, but economically it made a difficult impression on him; and at first, having visited the Bursat canteen and tasted the food, he, in his natural harshness, uttered the following judgment: “the seminarians are starving, but the housekeeper seems to be very well fed” and at the same time pointed his cane at Fr. economy. This housekeeper was none other than the prominent priest Rafalsky, who later reached high ranks... But Smaragd’s prediction came true much earlier (before Anthony became Metropolitan of St. Petersburg): he was transferred from Kharkov to Astrakhan under Metropolitan Seraphim, and under Anthony he was transferred from Astrakhan to Oryol and was summoned to St. Petersburg to attend the Holy Synod. See "Ryazan Diocesan Gazette" 1896 No. 16, pp. 557–558. See the letter of M. Philaret to Smaragd dated April 25, 1842 in “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1870, Vol. XII, p. 40. If this was the case with the burial of A.Ya. Zakharzhevsky, then see about this above, footnote No. 25 and the text to it, and it should be noted that Smaragd could not have any special predilection for his son-in-law V.D. Zadonsky, because at the end of 1840 I did not know his name and patronymic; see the Kharkov Spirit case. Consistory of 1840 August 16 - November 18, where on the draft of Zadonsky’s attitude with the address “Gracious Sovereign” to him, Smaragd wrote: “It would be necessary to find out what the name and patronymic of this General are, and how to title him at the beginning, and such titles, as I already noted to Mr. Secretary, are now inappropriate and show one pedantry (excluding full Generals)". Another similar example also speaks of Smaragd’s prudent correctness in such cases and convinces of the falsity of unseemly rumors. Governor General N.A. Dolgorukov January 5, 1841 Smaragd asked for the deceased chairman of the nobility G.N. Rakhmanov (see footnote No. 28): “pending the receipt of the Highest permission for this, permission to prepare a grave in the settlement of Velikiy Bobrik in the chapel of the newly built Rakhmanov church.” This was followed by the following resolution on January 6: “To instruct the Bobrikovsky Clergy, so that they do not interfere with the manager of the estate of Mr. Rakhmanov, to prepare for this case a grave in the parish of the newly built stone church there, for the burial of the body of Mr. Rakhmanov, when it is transported from Moscow. As for the demand of Mr. Governor-General that Rakhmanov’s body, until the time of burial, be preserved in the local house church: this demand cannot be fulfilled by the force of the existing decree, according to which dead bodies are not ordered to be kept in churches for more than a day; and therefore the manager of Mr. Rakhmanov’s estate must arrange so that until the time of burial, this body is preserved either in the family crypt, or under guard in the same unfinished church in which it is to be buried. However, regarding the burial itself, the Bobrikovsky clergy can expect a second order from the Diocesan Authorities.” See the Kharkov Spirit case. Consistory of 1841 No. 60. After the two examples given, it is hardly reasonable to assume that Smaragd allowed abuses in such cases. Doesn’t explain the mystery of Smaragdov’s transfer from Kharkov to Astrakhan and Fr. Hierotheus, in “Memoirs” (l. 34–36 ver.) of which we read the following: “The slander of S.P. Burg, no matter how powerful they were, turned out to be slander: “The Bishop was clear in conscience.” But no matter how much the good nature of the Kharkovites cared to reassure their Archpastor, it lay even more heavily on the saint’s heart (for sad circumstances almost invariably accompanied the life of His Eminence Smaragd in Kharkov). And finally, the Just Lord deigned to look upon the patience of the Archpastor, and arranged a new translation for the Bishop, after one year and seven months of his mournful Archpastorship in Kharkov. But before this translation took place, or, perhaps, in those hours when no one had yet thought about the translation, a strange, mysterious unnatural, or, I will say more, incident followed me, although not related to my real “Memoirs” - an incident that I attribute to the action of evil spiritual forces, probably by God’s permission, which led both the slander of the Lord, and this time contributed to ill-intentioned people in all circumstances. In Kharkov, a certain K-v (G. K-pov) served (lived), deprived of monasticism and the priesthood, who was once the Abbot ... of the (Novosilsky) Holy Spiritual Monastery and the caretaker of the Theological Schools, who claimed kinship with the Most Reverend I-v, who was once Bishop of V. [obviously, Bishop of Vologda (March 8, 1841 – December 31, 1842) Innokenty Borisov]). After the All-Night Vigil in the Kharkov Cross Bishop's Church, which took place before Sunday on December 22 (21), 1841, K-v came to my cell with the question: “Have you heard the news?” “I haven’t heard any,” I said. “Archbishop Stefan of Astrakhan died on the 19th of this month,” continued K-v. “Perhaps,” I said, “but this cannot be stated as certain.” (It must be remembered that at that time there were no telegraphs, railways, or other improved means of communication, especially between Astrakhan, St. Petersburg and Kharkov.) “And I assure you,” continued K-v, “and I will add that Archbishop Smaragd has already been assigned to be transferred to Astrakhan, and His Eminence Innokenty from Vologda has been appointed to Kharkov.” This inconsistency in the conversation made me extremely worried (upset), and I began to refute the news very simply. From Astrakhan to Kharkov it is about 1,300 versts; and mail, especially at that time, could not reach from Astrakhan to Kharkov in three or four days. “But suppose,” I say, “news from Astrakhan would reach Kharkov about the death of the Most Reverend Stephen: but until now (December 21) it could not reach St. Petersburg for 2,000 miles; and especially in such a short time the post office could not pass through St. Petersburg. deliver the information you say to Kharkov about the transfer of our Lord to Astrakhan.” “And I assure you of the truth of this news,” K-v confirmed. “How could the Holy Synod manage to instantly, so to speak, make its decision on the transfer of His Eminence Smaragd to Astrakhan, and therefore ask the Most High Sovereign Emperor for approval of such a proposal, although it may be possible; and by what fate could this news reach you, three days later, after the death of Archbishop Stephen?” – I said indignantly. K-v stood his ground. I did not dare to disturb the Vladyka about this, indeed, at that time absurd, or at least untimely conversation. But what a surprise when, three weeks later, a decree from the Holy Governing Synod was received on the appointment of His Eminence Smaragd to the Astrakhan See! The Eminence, obviously, did not lose anything from this move, but he was extremely offended *), foreknowledge and tangibly feeling the new strength and opposition of G.P., who, one might say, played with the fate of the Saint from the time of the transfer of His Eminence from Mogilev to Kharkov**). And assuming that such a restless service is the same as “going against the grain” (Acts 9:5, 26:14), the Archpastor decided to leave the service and live in solitude, especially the zealous visitors of Messrs. The nobles, representing Astrakhan in their concept, God knows what kind of exile. The Bishop fell ill from embarrassment. However, having somehow recovered, and although with difficulty calming down, with God, he went to Astrakhan, where he arrived on February 18, 1842. Regarding the K-pov mentioned above, one must think that this is the former abbot of the Novosilsky monastery Augustin, Orlovets by birth, born around 1785, he was called Alexey Ilarionov Kutepov in the world. Having graduated from the Oryol Seminary in philosophy, from May 7, 1808 he was deacon of the Transfiguration Church in Oryol, but soon became a widower and in 1809 he again entered the Seminary to complete the full course, and the deacon’s place was listed with him until 1810. Afterwards he was assigned to the Oryol House of Bishops and was a teacher at the Seminary (cf. and † Prof. N.I. Barsov, Materials for the biography of Innokenty Borisov I, St. Petersburg, 1884, p. 18); in 1813 he became a monk with the name Augustine; in 1816 he was moved to the Moscow diocese, and from there to Tula, where on September 9, 1816 he was appointed (instead of the dismissed Moses) as the builder of the Novosilsky monastery and, in the position of rector, the caretaker of the Novosilsky theological school; On November 17, 1817 he was promoted to abbot. For his labors and material sacrifices in establishing subordinate schools, in 1824 he was awarded a golden pectoral cross and received gratitude from the Commission of Theological Schools. But in 1830 The seminary Board began a case about Augustine’s embezzlement of school funds, but he showed persistence and - dismissed from school service - refused to obey and did not hand over the amounts to the appointed successor, Hieromonk Joseph, and he himself demanded the Spirit from the Commission. Schools for their expenses are 17,000 rubles. In this regard, accusations arose regarding “disgraceful drunkenness, gambling riotousness and insulting the holy church.” Therefore, in 1834 (September 24 – October 17) Fr. Augustine was deprived of the priesthood and monastic rank. His further fate is unknown - except that he somehow ended up in Kharkov in the early forties. See about him in the article “Novosilsk Theological School” in the “Tula Diocesan Gazette” of 1859, No. 3, pp. 73–74 (although instead of the last number, 90 is printed there). Priest Grigory Alferyev, Efremov Theological School ibid. 1908 No. 44–45, official part, pp. 550–552. Priest Ioann Nechaev, About theological schools of the Tula Diocese ibid. 1911 No. 1–2, official part, pp. 20, 21, 22–23. † Ep. Nikodim (Kazantsev), My first life and inspection at the Tula Seminary ibid. 1911 No. 10, part unofficial, pp. 208–209 - with an addition dated April 2, 1867: “I heard today that he (Fr. Augustine (after cutting his hair) lived as a tramp in Kharkov and ended his life there.” Notes of the Right Reverend Nikodim (Kazantsev), Bishop of Yenisei and Krasnoyarsk, part II in the edition † A.A. Titov in “Soulful Reading” 1911, No. 10, p. 136: “Hegumen Augustine lost everything, even monasticism; I almost ended up as a soldier. It's horrible. And there seem to be few visible major crimes. His procrastination with some woman, and the delay in his six-month salary for schools - these are two things that I know.” † Π.M. Stroev, Lists of hierarchs and abbots of monasteries of Russian churches, St. Petersburg. 1877, stlb. 796. Letters from M. Filaret to Filaret Gumilyovsky, Moscow 1884 pp. 8–9 and approx. 7 and in the “Additions to the Works of St. fathers" 1883, book. IV, pp. 665–667 and approx. 7. Clergy Gazette for the Transfiguration Church in Orel for 1809–1811. According to the inventory of the Tula Spirit. The consistory lists a case that began on February 10, 1831 and ended on December 13, 1838, regarding the deprivation of Fr. Augustine of holy orders and monasticism and his sending to the Provincial Board. In the Synodal Archive, files of the Commission of Theological Schools No. 1.856; 2.024; 3.713; 4.841; 6.088 and 9.133 (see and according to their Inventory, St. Petersburg 1910, pp. 184, 193–194, 283, 351, 424, 596). *) On l. 111th “Memoirs” Fr. Hierotheus writes: “When the decree was received on the transfer of His Eminence Smaragd from Kharkov to Astrakhan, His Eminence was very upset.” **) We are, of course, talking about the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Pratasov, to whom Smaragd’s remark by Fr. Hierotheus (in his “Memoirs” on l. 104) in 1843, when, “instructing the latter to report his money (15 thousand rubles. Ser.) to the Safe Treasury for an increase from interest, he said: “In Kharkov I wanted to make an experiment; and now I am sending the rest, which was collected in good time, just in case, to ensure my life, which is weakening day by day and is exhausted; but there is no hope for service: and everything depends, as you can see, on any one individual...”, that is, he complained most of all about the Mogilev and Kharkov clashes (about G.P.).” Wed. about the relationship of Smaragd to the head of the Kharkov province (from November 12, 1840 to February 20, 1849) Sergei Nikolaevich Mukhanov in our “Christian Reading” 1911, No. 7–8, pp. 978–979, and separately: Letters from Archbishop Smaragd to Archimandrite Hierotheus (SPb. 1911), pp. 54–55. See "Ryazan Diocesan Gazette" 1896 No. 16, pp. 557, 558. Count N.A. is hardly sincere. Pratasov wrote to Smaragda on January 7, 1842: “I have the honor to greet you, Gracious Sovereign and Archpastor, with this Royal appointment to the place higher than you have occupied hitherto, I wish with all my heart that the Almighty will give you the strength to carry out the work necessary for the organization of the Diocese entrusted to Your Eminence.” See in the Synodal Archives, file of the Office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod No. 28.672, l. 8. See "Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment" 1870, book. XII, pp. 40, 41.