His Eminence Archbishop Smaragd (Kryzhanovsky) at the Astrakhan See

The holy ministry of Archbishop Smaragd in Astrakhan (1841–1844), Orel (1844–1858) and Ryazan (1858–1863) and his death (November 11, 1863). Appendix: “The case of priest John Semov with the Oryol Diocesan Administration under Archbishop Oryol (November 12, 1844 - June 5, 1858) Smaragda (Kryzhanovsky).” Smaragd was hurried from above to leave Kharkov for Astrakhan - and on February 3, 1842 at 9 o’clock in the morning, having borrowed money (1,239 rubles 64 kopecks) from the Consistory 1, he left the Kharkov diocese forever 2, although from there they continued to remind him from a not entirely pleasant side 3. On February 18, 4, on a “magnificently bright and warm day,” Smaragd was solemnly received in his new cathedral city, having crossed the Volga on the eve of the departure of the ice 5. An oppressive anxiety gripped the archpastor's soul, and upon entering the cathedral, he threw himself in a long and fervent prayer to God before the throne 6 . “The country was unknown to him and alien to his heart” 7, meanwhile the tasks ahead were difficult and complex. His immediate predecessor, V. Astrakhan, Stefan Romanovsky (from March 1 to December 4, 1841), who caused him so much grief due to the revision of the Volyn Seminary, and now “made friends” with Smaragda, “saving a lot of work for him” 8. He also inherited a difficult inheritance (from Bishop Vitaly Borisov-Zhegachev: March 12, 1831 - December 4, 1840) - disorders of diocesan administration, the plunder of more than ten thousand church money from the cathedral and the theft of the entire sum of the bishop's house; but Reverend Stefan did not find anything better than to disperse and put on trial the people in contact indiscriminately, and the bishop's treasurer, Hieromonk Ossia, who was also in charge of the St. John the Baptist (Ivanovo) Monastery, was imprisoned, and he was taken for interrogation through the entire city behind a guard of soldiers with guns 9 . The diocesan administrative order was completely upset, turning into continuous litigation and investigative proceedings. Everything was so stagnant that work even from 1832-10 turned out to be unfinished. Discipline was shaken, and already after Stefan’s death there was such an incident that Abbot Paphnutius, who he brought to Astrakhan, was almost stabbed to death in one of the cells of the Ivanovo Monastery by an attacking monk 11 . It got to the point that the Holy Synod took special measures as a result of the unrest in the spiritual diocesan department in Astrakhan, which arose after the death of the Reverend. Stefan 12. It is clear that all this plunged Smaragd into an “anxious mood” 13, but in a speech during his first ministry, he decisively declared that he would act only with the sword of the spirit 14. It was not easy to even begin work given the widespread church-administrative disorganization, about which Smaragd on February 26, 1842 (for No. 61) reported to the Holy Synod from Astrakhan that he “found the newly entrusted diocese in almost all parts in complete disorder” 15. Nevertheless, the new archbishop, who strictly protected the prestige of his power 16, quickly put an end to all the neglected cases 17, restored the innocently injured figures 18 and brought the church-governmental machine into normal order 19, not hesitating to eliminate unsuitable people 20, but collecting the necessary ones 21 and consoling in every possible way in the distant outlying foreign land 22, where he rightly feared for exposed himself to the harmful climate and suffered a lot from it 23 . Everywhere it was necessary to keep up and delve into it yourself: Smaragd rarely considered and decided cases without the Consistory, or corrected, supplemented 24 and changed 25 its decisions, strictly observing the speed of production in others 26 and in himself 27, traveled around the diocese 28 and personally checked the knowledge of prayers of the parishioners, disposed the latter to financially support the clergy and - in view of the obvious insufficiency of 60-odd churches for the entire vast space of the Astrakhan diocese 29 - developed church construction, forcing rich people to donate to churches 30 and encouraging all guardians of church welfare 31. With him, through the diligence and dependence of the first-ranking merchant I.I. Plotnikov furnished the Church of the Nativity of Christ, which had fallen into disrepair, and the rebuilt chapel in the name of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker was joined by another - in honor of the Virgin Mary - the Burning Bush; the second was consecrated by Smaragd himself, who spoke an edifying word. In 1843, merchant of the 1st guild A.A. Goloshchapov set up an almshouse in Black Yar for 10 people in a good house, backed by a capital of 44 thousand rubles. banknotes. In 1842 Smaragd took part in the establishment of orphanages in Astrakhan and in ensuring the fate of fire victims after 15 fires in Astrakhan 32. “In this Asian city, the church is deprived of that importance, that piety, as in Moscow” 33, but Smaragd significantly changed such a disadvantageous situation. In the cathedral he established a strict and majestic order, which he took care of back in Kharkov 34 , and in Astrakhan he supported it in every possible way 35 , gathering there the best readers and singers and organizing the cathedral clergy 36 , arranged the richest sacristy 37 , organized the most excellent choir, which attracted even non-believers and completely captivated the inspector of the Astrakhan province Prince P.P. Gagarin 38: - the latter even especially noted in his Most Submissive Report the church good dispensation in Astrakhan, as Smaragd was informed by the synodal decree of 1845. Using home remedies, he renovated the outside of his cathedral; requesting 231.125 rubles. for the construction of a new cathedral church with a bell tower and other buildings in the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Monastery; asked for more than 23 thousand rubles. for the renewal of the bishop's house, the church of the cross, the Consistory, the singing corps and other services; On November 1, 1841, at the Trinity Cathedral, he consecrated the church in the name of the Epiphany before the late liturgy, and after it he baptized one pagan there, which is why this church received the name “baptismal”: in 1844 he corrected and decorated the adjacent stone house for the residence of the cathedral brethren; took care of eliminating the dilapidations of the Intercession-Boldinsky Monastery and the Astrakhan St. John Chrysostom Church 39; due to the crampedness and inconvenience of the building of the Theological Seminary, he proposed moving it to another place, although the last question went so far away from Smaragd that even Metropolitan was surprised. Filaret, saying (April 2, 1844): “truly I will require imams’ patience and prayers” 40. In the same way, the Astrakhan archpastor tried to make up for the lack of clergy in his diocese by inviting those who wished from all over Russia 41, encouraging the clergy with rewards with unprecedented generosity 42 and not giving them offense to anyone or in front of anyone, cleansed this class of dirt externally and internally and elevated it in the eyes of the civil authorities and the people, in every possible way encouraged them to be church teachers 43 and proper theological awareness 44. All this was not cultivated by rewards alone. On the contrary, Smaragd monitored the clergy 45 of all ranks and positions 46 in all legal ways, brought them to justice for all sorts of church omissions 47 and was not embarrassed by penalties, but tried to achieve through them direct beneficial action 48 and correction of the guilty 49 . He was a strict formalist of judicial proceedings 50, striving to ensure impartial legality for everyone 51, showing possible mercy to everyone 52, encouraging every member of the church to fulfill his Christian duty 53. At the same time, for orphans and the oppressed, Smaragd was a protective father and patron, he persecuted and defeated bribery and oppression, he did not tolerate and despise snitches and litigators, he did not accept denunciations without verification 54, paying “cautious attention to the judgments of his flock” 55. He did not forget both the great and the small 56, to the delight of the seminarians he improved their food and maintenance, for these are “people, not piglets,” he warmed, clothed and put the singers to rest 57. On issues of school education, the Astrakhan ruler had to extend even to the Mozdok school, which was then subordinate to the Astrakhan Seminary 58. The subject of concern is the Reverend. Smaragd also served schismatics, and he was especially attentive to converted Old Believers 59 . Under him, the Kalmyk mission also developed, which needed to be resurrected, as can be seen from the following words of the letter to him dated December 31, 1842, Metropolitan. Philareta 60: “God gives Your Eminence all such dioceses that present many opportunities for exploits. Is it not possible to begin to enlighten the pagans sitting in darkness? The disposition of the Kalmyks under one of your predecessors, released by the action of secular power, could you have made known in St. Petersburg by secret communication the true circumstances of what was happening then, and perhaps the blocked path would have been opened and equalized.” Although the mission among the Kalmyks promised little success in appearance, 61 but the Reverend. Smaragd took on this task with usual energy. The “secular authorities” again wanted to reduce everything to nothing, denying the Kalmyks’ desire for Christianity, and Nicholas I himself allowed them to act “with extreme caution” 62, but Smaragd did not agree with the skeptical note of the military governor 63 and testified that - despite all the difficulties - 100 people a year were converted in a decade, why “if prudent measures are established, a very significant number can be diverted from pagan error every year.” With these hopes, the archpastor asked the Holy Synod to form a special committee of clergy and secular persons to develop the best and most reliable rules for the conversion of the Kalmyk people, and when the main trustee of the latter declared the need to appoint one priest to temporarily correct the needs of officials in six uluses, Smaragd more rightly proposed a “bright idea” - to give a special priest with a cleric and build an ulus church 64 . In general, he looked at this issue with appropriate seriousness and attracted all the best forces of the diocese to its resolution 65, encouraging all useful figures in this field 66. The Kalmyk language class, opened at the Astrakhan Theological Seminary in 1833 in missionary interests, was carefully supported and went so successfully that already in 1843 the students began translating a short sacred text into the Kalmyk language. history and catechism, and also worked on lexical aids 67. All this and much more speaks about the success of the Kalmyk mission of the Archbishop of Astrakhan 68. Not without connection with Kalmyk missionary work at the request of Smaragd through Prince P.P. Gagarin's Majesty ordered the construction of three churches: on the Salt Lakes near the Abasinsky village (Astrakhan district), on the estate of Count Kushelov-Bezborodko (in Krasnokholmsky district) and a camp church for officials. In 1842, the archbishop himself undertook a difficult journey into the Kalmyk steppes to consecrate a church built in the village of Aksai in the name of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker 69. In general, Reverend. Smaragd completed the difficult task assigned to him of “establishing the diocese,” which his predecessor brought to humiliation 70 , and he corrected and elevated it, for which he was sent 71 as a wonderful administrator 72 . Even in Astrakhan, this archpastor taught more by doing, instilling in his subordinates reasonable efficiency in his very teachings 73 . The results of the undertakings and efforts were obvious and satisfactory to everyone, if in his farewell speech Smaragd could confidently say the following to the Astrakhan people: “I leave you as a souvenir of my feasible labors, which in such a short time I managed, with the help of God, to use for the good of your flock. When you look at the splendor of your cathedral - of which there are few in all of Russia 74 - your church, remember under whom its renovation followed; Every time you stand before this throne and this altar, remember by whose unworthy hands they were consecrated; When you see these solemn vestments of the Lord triumphant in heaven, remember whose haste they were made. When the renovation of the dwelling inhabited by your saints begins, bring to mind who, from the generosity of the Monarchs, asked for funds for its renewal. When the famous Spasskaya monastery is rebuilt and the foundation of a nursery for spiritual youth is laid, remember who was the first to prepare everything for the beginning of these extensive works. When you see the priests and deacons ordained by me, remember also their most unworthy saint. Your love may find many occasions to remember me.” Apparently, the flock also valued their archbishop and had affection for him, if he himself then asked: “Didn’t all of you, God-loving children, show me due respect and reverence? Didn't you flock to the churches with all haste when the harmonious and solemn sound of your cathedral bell announced my sacred service to the Throne of the Lord? Weren't you careful not to offend my ears with any vicious act? Didn’t you value my visits to your homes, appreciate it greatly when I partook of your meals, and were in some kind of heavenly delight when I blessed my spouse, children, relatives, and the labors of your hands? Isn’t it you?.. But is it possible for me, with one foot already standing on the path, to count all the signs of your love, which has captivated my heart forever? I even hear that almost everyone is mourning my departure from here” 75. All available printed information confirms these statements 76 . We read that “there is not a single person in the (Astrakhan) diocese who could say anything unpleasant and offensive to the memory” of Smaragda; on the contrary, “The Astrakhan flock gratefully preserves the memory of his good deeds” 77. The Astrakhan activity of this archpastor is “free from complaints” 78 - and he is portrayed as “an administrator who discovers new ways and means to achieve his goals and leaves a long and beneficial mark on himself” 79. “In the Astrakhan diocese, all classes were generally pleased with Archbishop Smaragd for his frankness, direct and strict and prompt fulfillment of all petitions with which both spiritual and secular people addressed him”; he “was strict and fair in such a way that in Astrakhan he left a good memory of himself among all spiritual and secular people” 80. And much later - already in 1863 and 1864 - nothing but good things were heard in Astrakhan from competent people about Smaragda 81 . There they thanked him for his active management and regretted him 82. He then showed rapid and inexhaustible energy - and if its onslaughts sometimes made it difficult, then first of all for the owner himself, but in essence it was always directed towards creation and was invariably kind to any insufficiency, supporting, encouraging and strengthening the poor, wretched, offended... It is not surprising that the three-year management of the Astrakhan diocese was “glorious” for the Right Reverend Smaragd 83 . Given these relations, it was painful for him to part with Astrakhan when, on November 12, 1844, a decree on transfer to Orel 84 followed, but this was hardly regrettable for him 85, like a demotion from a second-class to a third-class diocese, since the hierarchical degree was retained for him 86, and it is not yet clear from anywhere that this transfer took place not with the good will of the Holy Synod 87 . It is more likely that Smaragd was pleased with this due to external advantages 88 and hygienic conditions, for - pleased with his material independence from voluntary donations at the Astrakhan See in comparison with Kharkov 89 - he suffered painfully in Astrakhan from the hot climate 90 and himself asked for his movement 91 . However, it was difficult for him to leave his flock, where this archbishop, before leaving it, promoted many of the clerks to deacons 92. The people of Astrakhan saw off their archpastor with rare cordiality 93 , and during his farewell speech almost everyone in the church burst into tears with him 94 ; on the Volga “the common people stopped the carriage and filled the air with loud cries of zeal”; quite a lot of people accompanied us even to the first station 95. O. Hierotheus states in “Memoirs” on fol. 103 that “The Eminence did not receive a monetary allowance for the lift when transferring him from Kharkov to Astrakhan,” meanwhile, according to the decree of the Holy Synod on January 12, 1842 No. 110, Smaragd’s successor Innokenty (Borisov) was given passes for 10 horses for travel from Vologda to Kharkov (see Fr. S.V. Petrovsky, Odessa Transfiguration Cathedral, now the Cathedral, Odessa 1908, p. 35 in appendices). Such a discrepancy in one and the same case would be very strange. Therefore, the news of Fr. T.I. Butkevich (Innokenty Borisov, pp. 138–139) that Smaragd, in addition to the runs, was ordered to give another thousand rubles to raise, but he did not wait to receive the money and borrowed 1,239 rubles through the Consistory. 64 k. from the sums of diocesan care for the poor of the clergy. Despite any conditions, we have now been unable to find a clear case in the Kharkov Spiritual Consistory, but we found documentary evidence in the Synodal Archive - in the files of the Office of the Chief Prosecutor No. 28.672 and the Holy Synod of 1842. No. 3; in which it is read that, having taken a loan on February 3, Smaragd issued a power of attorney to receive it in return from the amount allocated to him to the member and treasurer of the priestly trusteeship. Jacob Golikhovsky, and in the first there is a report from the Consistory dated February 13, 1842 No. 702, that everything was received from him intact and in good order. This means that the only thing that follows from this is that Smaragd was completely indelicately and forcibly rushed to leave Kharkov. See in the Synodal Archives, file of the Office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod No. 28.672, l. 31; Wed at prot. T.I. Butkevich, Innokenty Borisov, pp. 138–139. Due to the dislike of his successor, Innocent, towards Smaragd, many different captious and mercantile cases were initiated from Kharkov. So, in 1842 they exacted from the housekeeper Fr. Hierothea 20 rub. 99 4/7 k., allegedly spent by him in managing the economy of the Kharkov House of Bishops (see in the Archive of the Astrakhan Spiritual Consistory, according to register No. 37.984, May 28, 1842 - January 13, 1843), and in 1843 Innocent himself, with a special attitude, asked from what amount 50 rub. to Protodeacon Vasily Nikitsky(t)sky (see pp. 797, 21) when he was moved from Kaluga to Mogilev diocese (Archive of the Astrakhan Spiritual Consistory No. 39.327, November 30, 1844). So in the Synodal Archive, file of the Office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod No. 28.672, l. 40. “Addition to the Astrakhan Provincial Gazette” for February 28, 1842, No. 9, p. 39. “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1899, No. 13, pp. 644–645. In "Memoirs" Fr. Hierotheus is reported (fol. 36 ver.) that Smaragd was transported across the Volga by Vice-Governor Iv. Feud. Gezhelinsky, known and friendly to him since the Polotsk times (cf. I.S. Zhirkovich in “Russian Antiquity” 1890, vol. LXVII, September, pp. 668–674), as the Vitebsk vice-governor (in 1837–38). We know that in 1844 it was dangerous to cross the Volga near Astrakhan already in the month of January (see the book: Ivan Sergeevich Aksakov in his letters, part I, vol. 1, Moscow 1888, p. 63). “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1899 No. 13, pp. 645 and 649. “Memoirs” of Fr. Hierotheus on l. 37: “The Bishop drove up to the most majestic Astrakhan Cathedral; entered this most magnificent church; fell before the holy throne and lay for a long time, cried and thanked God that He had vouchsafed him to see Astrakhan not as a distant Asian desert, but as the holy city of God. He stood up, reverently venerated the holy altar, blessed the countless host of new zealous children of his flock, and calmed down.” 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, page 43... See “Church and Public Bulletin” VI (1879), No. 46, p. 6 b, as well as in the “Memoirs” of Fr. Hierotheus on l. 111 and rev. Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette" 1899 No. 13, p. 646 - according to the "Memoirs" of Fr. Hierotheus on l. 38. “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1899 No. 13, p. 648. See also on p. 1067, 19. Archbishop Vassian, Description of the Astrakhan Transfiguration Monastery (Astrakhan 1893), p. 75, and in the “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1893 No. 22, pp. 631–632, as well as ibid. 1904 No. 2, p. 64 (in the reprinted obituary of V.I. Askochensky “The Most Reverend Apollinaris, Bishop of Chigirinsky, Vicar of the Kiev Metropolis”). “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1899 No. 13, pp. 648–649. Ibid. 1895 No. 15, p. 390. See in the Synodal Archives, file of the Office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod No. 28.672. See, for example, in the Archive of the Astrakhan Spirit. Consistory No. 38.339 (October 8 - December 16, 1842) on confirming the clergy of the city churches, so that there would be a ringing sound when His Eminence traveled to the churches to serve liturgies. "Church and Social Bulletin" VI (1879), No. 46, p. 6 b; “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1884 No. 11, p. 191 (and by Archpriest N.T. Kamensky separately on p. 112); 1899 No. 13, p. 646. “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1880 No. 1, pp. 11, 13; 1884 No. 2, p. 28: No. 11, p. 191, 2 (and in Archpriest N.T. Kamensky separately on pp. 110–112, 3): we are talking here about Archpriest. I.F. Pavlinov and partly about the Secretary of the Consistory E.I. Veselovsky. See also in the Archives of the Astrakhan Spirit. Consistory No. 40.064 (September 26, 1844 - April 8, 1845) on the dismissal of the cathedral archpriest Andrei Ivanov, on the appointment of Fr. Pavlinkova, and the keymaster is Rev. N. Strakhov, who was later replaced by priest Baseganov. See, for example, about the Consistory in its Archive No. 37.582 (January 2, 1842) about the “transfer” of the 1st and 2nd tables to the priest. Petrov and others. Vasily Martynov, No. 38.965 (June 12, 1844 - January 8, 1844) about the appointment of inspector Dukh to those present. Seminary of Hieromonk Vassian. See, for example, “Church-Public Bulletin” VI (1879), No. 46, p. 5 in that “Smaragd sent the seminary inspector, Hieromonk Vasily, who with his drunkenness tempted the seminary students, from the seminary building to the remote seaside Churkinsky monastery.” See the Archives of the Astrakhan Spirit. Consistory No. 37.811 (March 17, 1842 - February 10, 1847) on the notification of the property of the archbishop. Stephen and about the prohibition of Archpriest from the priesthood. Chudnovsky and about the removal of Abbot Paphnutius from the management of the St. John the Baptist Monastery; No. 39.709 (April 26 - May 16, 1844) at the request of Abbot Paphnutius and Archpriest. Chudnovsky not to enforce the ruling on them in the case of the accounts being built on them for the Bishop's House; No. 37.760 (March 5 - May 14, 1844) on the deportation to the Churkinsky Hermitage, under the strictest supervision, of the treasurer of the Bishop's House of Priests. Dimitry Bednyakov. For information on the calling and placement of various persons in the Astrakhan diocese, see the Archive of the Astrakhan Spirit. Consistory No. 37.758 (March 5 – May 29, 1842) about Fr. N. Strakhov; No. 38.398 (November 1–11, 1842) about Fr. Hierothea; No. 37.862 (April 3, 1942 – March 1, 1944) on the acceptance of a student of Akhtyrsky spirit as a singer of the bishop’s choir. V. Stetsenkov Schools; No. 38.082 (July 4 – November 26, 1844) about the novice of the Kharkov House of Bishops Martinian Fedorovsky; No. 38.255 (September 5–15, 1842) about some churchmen of the Kharkov diocese who wished to enter the Astrakhan diocese. “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1899 No. 13, p. 647. See letters from M. Philaret to Smaragda in “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1870, book. XII, p. 41. See also “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1899 No. 13, pp. 647–648. See also below, pp. 1080, 89 {footnote paragraph beginning: “See. “Memories”... rev. - 40." Edited by A.V.} . Thus, in lengthy resolutions on February 24 and December 18, 1842 (in the Archive of the Spiritual Consistory No. 37.705) on the false, slanderous and tricky story about the marriage of the official Furtakov, Smaragd murderously smashed all consistory decisions and brought all participants to strict liability, butˆ1) did not allow the dean to accept a private complaint Furtakov, as interference in a “petition case”, where the complainant himself must seek the “established procedure”; 2) condemned the premature appointment of a formal investigation, when it was simply necessary to demand answers from those responsible; 3) canceled the too lenient punishment, emphasizing that it “weaken the power of the Consistory, which is obliged to express such power over its subordinates on the basis of laws.” For example, the Consistory sentenced novice Tikhomirov to material deprivation (income and salary for two months) for drunkenness and riotousness at meals, but Smaragd on September 16, 1842 applied measures of spiritual and church correction (see in the Archives of the Astrakhan Spiritual Consistory No. 38.281). On August 10, 1843, Smaragd approved the protocol of the Consistory, but added: “and how Archpriest Balykleisky, carrying out an investigation back in the month of April, without any reason, kept it in his possession until the 16th of July, and then presented it with omissions and without the proper form in some cases (which, as well as the lack of execution and malfunction of it, noticed for some time by the Diocesan Authorities, does not present an entirely advantageous opinion about him), then for such actions, which are not consistent with the dignity of a trustworthy spiritual dignitary, make him, Balykleisky, a reprimand with confirmation explained in the conclusion of the Consistory, and under the fear of unpleasant consequences for him.” See the Archives of the Astrakhan Spirit. Consistory No. 38.674. In the case of the novice Lebedev, who spoke sermons of his composition in the St. John the Baptist Monastery, Smaragd, having canceled the Consistory’s opinion on January 5, 1844, as “completely unfounded,” handed it over for a new decision, and when approving the latter on May 20, he added: “this protocol, submitted to me for consideration on the last day of April 28, could not be revised by me before the 20th May, due to an illness that happened to me since Easter (which was then March 26), known to the Consistory and Diocese, from which I hardly now feel some relief.” See the Archives of the Astrakhan Spirit. Consistory No. 39.079. See also in the Archives of the Astrakhan Spirit. Consistories No. 38.268 (April 11, 1842) on visiting churches up the Volga in 1842 and No. 39.185 (September 22, 1843 - October 25, 1844) in 1843; No. 39.740 (May 3, 1844 – November 12, 1847) on the (proposed) survey of the churches of the diocese in 1844. See "Memoirs" about. Hierotheus on l. 38. “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1895 No. 15, pp. 391 – 392, 390, 391. See also in the Archives of the Astrakhan Spirit. Consistory No. 39.936 (August 4 – October 30, 1844) announcement to the merchant Mich. Kozlov, the headman of the cathedral, with archpastoral gratitude for the increase in the candle and purse amounts collected over the past years. See in “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1884 No. 13, pp. 223–224 (and separately in Archpriest N.T. Kamensky, pp. 123–124). See in the book: Ivan Sergeevich Aksakov in his letters, part 1, vol. 1, pp. 98–99. See the Kharkov Spirit case. Consistory of 1842 No. 26, where there is Smaragd’s own handwritten statement dated February 3 with the following content: “At the Astrakhan Cathedral there is no decent protodeacon, and at the Astrakhan Bishop’s Choir there are no bass voices. And since in the populous and numerous, blessed, flock of Kharkov there are many capable and gifted people, I humbly ask the Kharkov Spiritual Consistory to announce the above for the Kharkov Diocese so that there will not be any of the bassist, even mediocre, deacons, clerics, or disciples who wish and agree to move to the Astrakhan Diocese, to service actually at the department newly entrusted to me, and are there under my special patronage. The money spent on moving can be received from me.” The sexton of Novaya Ryabina, Pyotr Romanovsky, and the sexton of Petropavlovka, Pavel Lyubarsky, agreed to this proposal, which was reported to the Reverend. Smaragda August 18, 1842 Thus, on the report of the “negligence and lack of reverence” of the cathedral deacon Neznaev, Smaragd on April 29, 1842 ordered the Consistory to “make a thorough judgment based on the laws, taking into account, among other things: 1) that in the Cathedral, as the first diocesan place of dignity, there should be clergy in all respects of exemplary behavior and especially God-fearing, reverent, humble and unquestioningly obedient people to the legitimized authority, and 2) that examples of arrogance and disrespect for authority similar to those described here, noticed among cathedral ministers, cannot remain without a harmful influence on other members of the diocese, who are not yet fully experienced and trustworthy, if such examples remain unpunished.” See the Archives of the Astrakhan Spirit. Consistory No. 37.836. See also in the Archives of the Astrakhan Spirit. Consistory No. 37.636 (January 19 - February 19, 1842) according to the report of the cathedral archpriest Andrei Ivanov and key priest Fr. Vasily Ivanovsky about why they do not agree to include Deacon Ivan Skvortsov in the cathedral brotherhood; No. 38.264 (October 9–28, 1842) on granting the protodeaconate to Nikolai Chernyaev. For this purpose, we specially sent the housekeeper of the Bishop's House, Fr. Hierotheus, who was entrusted with acquiring various things for the bishop's sacristy and other places (see in the Archives of the Astrakhan Spiritual Consistory No. 38.667, February 3, 1843 - August 17, 1844), for example, the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Monastery (No. 38.678, February 5, 1843), which then had large funds, if in 1843, 200,000 rubles were allocated to him at a time. silver, with a reference to these tickets to the Economic Administration of the Holy Synod (No. 38.880, May 10 - December 8, 1843). Prince Pavel Pavlovich Gagarin, who was then chairman of the State Council and died on February 21, 1872 (see Collections of the Imperial Russian Historical Society, vol. LX, St. Petersburg 1887, p. 127 a), was the head of the audit commission in Astrakhan, where Iv was also an official. S. Aksakov. Smaragd observed the proper attitude towards the prince. P.P. Gagarin and, for example, on Easter itself he appeared to him with singers (see Iv. S. Aksakov in his letters, part I, vol. 1, p. 105). Regarding the Bishop's House, Boldinsky Monastery and Chrysostom Church, see also in the Archive of the Astrakhan Spirit. Consistories No. 37.723 (February 20, 1842 - November 17, 1849), No. 37.726 (February 20, 1842 - August 25, 1847) and No. 40.187 (November 18, 1844 - October 15, 1845). See “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1871, book. XIII, p. 32. Cf. and “Soulful Reading” 1888, No. 12, p. 416. See about all this “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1880 No. 6, pp. 91, 92; 1884 No. 11, pp. 190–192, No. 12, pp. 210–211 (and by Archpriest N.T. Kamensky separately, pp. 112–114, 117); 1895 No. 18, p. 455; 1899 No. 13, pp. 645–646. “Church and Social Bulletin” VI (1879), No. 26, p. 5b. See also in the Archives of the Astrakhan Spirit. Consistories No. 38.078 (July 2, 1842 - September 11, 1843), 38.831 (April 19 - 22, 1843), No. 39.010 (July 2, 1843 - May 26, 1844) and No. 39.868 (July 12, 1844 - August 26 1845). See the Archives of the Astrakhan Spirit. Consistory No. 39.530 (February 4 - April 17, 1844) on confirmation to clergy, so that sermons are submitted for censorship in a timely manner; No. 40.065 (September 27, 1844 - January 25, 1845) at the suggestion of Smaragd with the attachment of two sermons - priest. Leontyev and priest. Alexei Zorin - one content for research, which of them composed it. Wed. pp. 1066, 26. 1076, 72. Ibid. No. 39.652 (March 17, 1844 – May 30, 1845) and No. 39.669 (April 3 – December 9, 1844) on Smaragd’s proposals to extract various publications. Having personally reviewed the clergy records of the Chernoyarsk dean, Smaragd on January 29, 1843 imposed punishment on two sextons and two deacons (see in the Archive of the Astrakhan Spiritual Consistory No. 38.649), and in 1844 he ordered that the district clergy, upon arrival in Astrakhan, appear before the district dean and announced to him the reasons for his arrival, about his apartments and about his departure (ibid. No. 39.933, August 2 - 31, 1844). See the Archives of the Astrakhan Spirit. Consistory No. 39.254 (October 23, 1843 - January 18, 1844) about the failure to appear of the Seminary inspector, Master Hieromonk Vassian (see pp. 1081, 92), appointed to serve on the 22nd of October in the Kazan Church. See Ibid. No. 39.427 (January 10 - February 21, 1844) at the suggestion of Smaragd, about the opening, due to whose omission on January 9, on Sunday, there was no early liturgy in the cathedral. In the case of the deacon of the city Gostinno-Nikolaevskaya Church I. Kasatkin, who fell asleep from intoxication at the funeral meal, Smaragd on July 29, 1843 attracted the dean, Archpriest. Martynov, as having concealed “such a vile act,” and in response to the subsequent justifications, he noted that the dean “deacon Kasatkin was punished very weakly and with his important guilt, even if it were the first, inappropriately; and weak punishments lead more to relaxation and repetition of the same crimes rather than to correction”; Moreover, “in order for subordinates to have the proper respect and legitimate fear for the abbot, for this the abbot himself must behave in all respects in the most careful manner, not allow them to disrespect himself and make them know that he, the abbot, did not turn a blind eye to everything that went beyond the boundaries of decency, order and duty.” See the Archives of the Astrakhan Spirit. Consistory No. 39.059. Deacon Zalessky, sentenced by the Consistory for insulting her in a letter to a four-month penance, Smaragd first (July 17, 1842) shortened the term “in respect of poverty and the possible disorder of his condition from his long stay in the monastery,” but for persistence he later (September 30) strengthened his previous measure and gradually brought the culprit to obedience and repentance. See the Archives of the Astrakhan Spirit. Consistory No. 37.613. Based on a private complaint from the landowner Smirnova against her parish priest, Smaragd, having ordered (March 8, 1842) the dean to “investigate” about the denunciation, ordered on his behalf to decorously announce to “Mrs. henceforth left without any action” (see in the Archives of the Astrakhan Spiritual Consistory No. 37.768). At the request of the baptized Kalmyk girl Ivanova for grievances from Deacon Oginsky, by resolution of September 28, 1842, this complaint, as illegally filed, was left without action, and an investigation was opened against the deacon (see ibid. No. 38.307). Due to the misconduct and quarrel of the Aksai deacon Stefanov with his parish priest of Murom, Smaragd punished both on October 25, 1842, but the deacon, “as if he was the first to start unsubstantiated accusations,” was transferred to another place, because “he is waging a long-term feud, which the Diocesan Authorities, concerned about their mutual relations, cannot stop.” litigiousness." See the Archives of the Astrakhan Spirit. Consistory No. 38.378. Ibid. No. 38.121 (July 21, 1842 - September 21, 1843) on the protection of Enotaevsky priest Spiridon Ivanov from denigration of his behavior by Dean Livanov, with a remark to this latter. On July 29, 1843, Smaragd showed leniency to the above-mentioned (p. 1072, 47 {footnote paragraph beginning: “In the case of the city deacon...” Edited by A.V.}) Deacon I. Kasatkin in the following form: “Although Deacon Kasatkin should have been dealt with to the fullest extent of the laws for such a vile act; but since he did this for the first time again, then in respect of this, and especially condescending to his youth and inexperience in life conduct, and hoping that after his fatherly corrective measures, he would feel his essential duty - to be sober, in all respects blameless, immediately, forbidding him from sacred service and wearing a cassock, he was sent to the Spassky Monastery for obedience for one month, and then, if possible, from The archimandrite and the brethren gave an approving review of him, after confession from the Diocesan confessor, allowed him to serve for 2 weeks in the Church of the Cross, and (then), obliging him with the strictest signature for the last time not to drink, release him to the parish under the especially attentive supervision of the dean.” See the Archives of the Astrakhan Spirit. Consistory No. 39.059. See the Archives of the Astrakhan Spirit. Consistory No. 39.995 (August 28, 1844 - May 29, 1846) at the suggestion of Smaragd to issue an order regarding the addition of bishops and monastic ministers to any church to monitor their performance of Christian duty. See Church and Social Bulletin VI (1879), No. 46, pp. 6–7; Wed No. 47, p. 6 b – c. See letters from M. Philaret to Smaragda in “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1870, book. XII, p. 42. See “Church and Public Bulletin” VI (1879), No. 46, pp. 6 b – 7 a. See ibid. VI (1879), No. 47, p. 6 c. See "Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette" 1895, No. 15, p. 392. "Ryazan Diocesan Gazette" 1896, No. 16, pp. 559–560. See Smaragd’s letters to Innocent in the Ryazan Diocesan Gazette, 1896, No. 16, p. 560. See "Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment" 1870, book. XII, p. 42. See Iv's bad opinion about the Kalmyks and the mission among them. S. Aksakov in his letters, part I, vol. 1, pp. 115, 125–126, 163. See F.M. Yushtina, Review of government measures to spread Christianity among Kalmyks (supplement to the “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” Nos. 21–24 for 1883), Astrakhan 1883, p. 37. See † archbishop. Nikanor (Kamensky). The Orthodox mission among the Astrakhan Kalmyks in its past in the “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1910, No. 14–15, pp. 534–536. The priest of the camp church in the Kalmyk uluses received a salary of 200 rubles. from the special means of the rich (p. 1070, 36 {footnote paragraph beginning: “For this purpose we were specially sent...” Edited by A.V.}) Spaso-Preobrazhensky Monastery, about which see Fr. Vassian in the description of this monastery (Astrakhan 1893), p. 1893 and in the “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1893 No. 16, p. 469. See † archbishop. Nikanor (Kamensky), The Orthodox mission among the Astrakhan Kalmyks in its past in the “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1910, No. 14–15, pp. (534–536). See, for example, in the Archive of the Astrakhan Spirit. Consistory No. 40.050 (September 19, 1844 - November 3, 1845) on encouraging the retired Grachevskaya village constable Yastrebov for his exemplary zeal in appealing to the Orthodoxy of the Kalmyks. See N. for more details on this. F. Leontyeva, Brief sketch of the history of the Astrakhan Theological Seminary (Astrakhan 1892), p. 17. See F.M. Yushtina, Review of government measures to spread Christianity among the Kalmyks, pp. 52–55, and in general about the Kalmyk Orthodox mission and the activities of Smaragd, see ibid., pp. 36, 37, 38 ff., 41 ff., 49–51, 55–56 (and about Yushtin himself, see the reprint from the “Astrakhan Diocesan Vedomosti" 1887 article by Archbishop N. Kamensky († Archbishop Nikanor) "31st Astrakhan and Epataevsk Archbishop Afanasy", 1856–1870, p. 19). See "Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette" 1884 No. 2, p. 44, No. 11, pp. 191–194, No. 22, p. 365 ff. (and in Archpriest N. T. Kamensky separately, pp. 108, 113, 114–116, 132 ff.); 1899 No. 13, p. 646. Cf. at o. I.I. Savvinsky on page 363 ff. See Church and Social Bulletin VI (1879), No. 46, p. 6 b. Ibid. VI (1879), no. 47, p. 6 in. “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1884 No. 13, p. 220. Thus, prohibiting Chernoyarsk Archpriest Vasily F. Pavlinov from speaking sermons without submitting them for preliminary censorship, Rev. Smaragd wrote on October 24, 1844 that the samples delivered to him “are mostly incoherent, absurd in their form and expression and in many other respects, and, revealing the preacher’s lack of education and negligence, could not serve to edify the parishioners, but could only revive in them disgusting and perverted concepts and feelings about the true word of God. Why should he (Proprietor V. Pavlinov) notice that one reasonable word would be much more useful than ten unreasonable ones.” See the Archives of the Astrakhan Spirit. Consistory No. 39.468. About the extraordinary beauty of the Astrakhan Cathedral, see also † P.I. Aksakov in his letters, part I, vol. 1, pp. 103, 134, 162. See “Addition to the Astrakhan Provincial Gazette for January 27, 1845, No. 4, pp. 29–32; “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1895 No. 18, pp. 455, 454; Wed 1884 No. 12, p. 210 (and by Archpriest N.T. Kamensky separately on pp. 116–117). Only the “Old Resident of Astrakhan” († Archpriest L.A. Smirnov) testifies in the “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1899 No. 13, p. 649, allegedly “succumbing to the influence of the party, the Eminence Smaragd gained the upper hand (i.e. I.F. Pavlinov) with his drastic measures and peculiar orders for the diocese soon brought upon himself the disfavour of the Holy Synod.” This is undoubtedly an echo of the irritation of the “party” that prevailed under Stephen and was overthrown under his successor; but it is expressed in such moderate and general forms that it decisively speaks in favor of Smaragd, whom otherwise these people would have certified in more harsh and specific terms. See "Church and Public Bulletin" VI (1879), No. 46, pp. 7 a, 6 b. “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1880 1, p. 13; 1884 No. 12, pp. 211–212 (and by Archpriest N.T. Kamensky separately on p. 118). See Church and Social Bulletin VI (1879), No. 47, page 6 δ. “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1895 No. 15, pp. 390–391. † Archbishop Nikanor (Brovkovich), Biographical materials I, p. 248. See M. Philaret to Smaragda in “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1870, book. XII, page 36, where the date is "March 6, 1839" is clearly erroneous, for the letter refers to the post-Astrakhan period of Smaragd’s ministry and specifically to Orlovsky. See “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1884 No. 12, p. 209 (and Archpriest N.T. Kamensky separately on p. 116). Wed. to this and in the Archives of the Astrakhan Spirit. Consistory No. 40.263 (December 11, 1844 – March 28, 1845). “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1895 No. 15, p. 392; 1899 No. 13, p. 649. Ibid. 1884 No. 12, p. 209 (and by Archpriest N.T. Kamensky separately on p. 116). Ibid. 1899 No. 13, p. 649. Ibid. 1899 No. 13, p. 648. “Oryol Diocesan Gazette” 1906 No. 20, p. 596. See "Memoirs" about. Hierotheus on l. 38 rev. Wed. letter from Smaragd to the archbishop. Innocent from Astrakhan dated May 12, 1843 in the Ryazan Diocesan Gazette, 1896, No. 16, p. 560: “Here there is a monastery rich in fishing, which, despite the dilapidation of its walls, has accumulated in half a century one and a half million money ass. Now, by the will of the sovereign, about a million has been given to create capital for the benefit of the Eminences, from whom some receive the slightest salary.” See "Memoirs" about. Hierothea, l. 127. See above, pp. 1067, 22 {footnote paragraph beginning: “See. letters from M. Philaret... page 41..." Edited by A.V. }. 1068 {end of paragraph before this footnote. Edited by A.V. }. See "Memoirs" about. Hierothea, l. 39 rev. – 40. “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1884 No. 12, p. 209 (and by Archpriest N.T. Kamensky separately on p. 116). For a description of these wires, see the Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette, 1895, No. 18, pp. 451–457; 1884 No. 12, pp. 209–210 (and by Archpriest N.T. Kamensky separately on pp. 116–117); “Addition to the Astrakhan Provincial Gazette” for January 27, 1846, No. 4, where the “Farewell word of Archbishop Smaragd” and the “word of Archimandrite Vassian” (Chudnovsky, then rector of the Astrakhan Spiritual Seminary, † January 3, 1883 by the Bishop of Perm) were printed: see about him in N.F. Leontyev in the “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1893, No. 14–15, pp. 401–409, and in the introduction to the book he published: Description of the Astrakhan second-class Spa Transfiguration Monastery, compiled in 1851 by the rector of this monastery Archimandrite Vassian, Astrakhan 1893, pp. 1–9). See Church and Social Bulletin VI (1879), No. 47, pp. 6 – 7. “Astrakhan Diocesan Gazette” 1895 No. 18, p. 457.