Professor-Ascetic

Contents N.N. Lisova. Preface Chapter 1. Chapter 2. Chapter 3. Chapter 4. Chapter 5. Chapter 6. N.N. Lisova. Preface One of the most interesting and prolific historians of the Palestine Society was Professor of the Kyiv Theological Academy, Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences Alexey Afanasyevich Dmitrievsky (1856–1929), a leading specialist in the historical liturgics of the Orthodox East, a great worker of Russian church science 1 . A student of N. F. Krasnoseltsev, who began his creative career in Kazan under his leadership, Dmitrievsky always emphasized the “strong influence” that the teacher had on “all his pedagogical and scientific-literary activities” 2. Already Dmitrievsky’s master’s thesis “Divine services in the Russian Church in the 16th century” 3 has been recognized as “a very solid contribution to the science of archeology in general and the archeology of Orthodox worship in particular.” On December 16, 1883, A. A. Dmitrievsky was elected associate professor at the department of liturgics and church archeology at the Kyiv Theological Academy 4. From that time on, his further scientific life was connected with the oldest of the Russian Theological Academies. Convinced that the divine service of the Russian Church is in many ways a “mirror of the divine service of the Orthodox East” (this is one of his main theses), Dmitrievsky turned primarily to the study of the Orthodox liturgical heritage, which was kept under wraps in the inaccessible monastic book depositories of Athos, Patmos, Jerusalem and Sinai. The scientist did not start from scratch. In the field of historical liturgics, he was a worthy successor to such major specialists as I. D. Mansvetov (at the Moscow Theological Academy), N. F. Krasnoseltsev (at the Kazan Theological Academy), Archpriest Grigory Debolsky. His peers and colleagues were N.V. Pokrovsky (at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy) and A.P. Golubtsov (at the Moscow). Close interest in the liturgical heritage of the East is characteristic of Dmitrievsky’s great predecessors: Bishop Porfiry (Uspensky) and Archimandrite Antonin (Kapustin) 5 . But, as biographer A.A. rightly emphasizes. Dmitrievsky, “and the most famous of them, who earned themselves a worthy reputation for collecting manuscripts, their descriptions and finds interesting for science, did not have a definite plan in their studies. Their activities were random, which could not but affect the results of their work. They were gatherers rather than explorers. Dmitrievsky, setting out on his trip to the East, set certain tasks, which he sought to accomplish as far as possible” 6. Moreover, Dmitrievsky was repeatedly reproached - some for the fact that he often “threw himself away”, being distracted by other subjects; others for setting themselves impossible goals. “Dmitrievsky’s work remains unfinished both because the works were not published and because the work program that our liturgist drew up for himself was, without a doubt, overly ambitious in nature and remained unfulfilled; it would have remained unfulfilled even if Dmitrievsky had had greater funds and if the circumstances for his work had been more favorable” 7 . Fortunately, Dmitrievsky “wasted” his time, as a rule, with great benefit for other areas of church historical science. In particular, without these “deviations” and “hobbies” of his, the whole scientific epic associated with his service in the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society (IPOS) and works on the history of Russian affairs in the Holy Land and the Middle East would not have taken place. He came to the Palestine Society in 1907, but went to this, so to speak, for almost twenty years. His scientific interest in the libraries and ancient repositories of the Christian East made him not only a scrupulous archaeographer (dozens of voluminous Greek manuscripts were copied by him in his own hand, accurate to the letter), but also a tireless traveler. In 1886, during the summer vacation, he went on his first academic trip and spent several months on Mount Athos. Having assessed the richness and diversity of the handwritten material subject to systematic frontal examination, he submits to the Academy Council a request for a year-long business trip to the countries of the Orthodox East (Athos, Sinai, Jerusalem, Patmos, etc.). Dmitrievsky described this first big trip to the East (1887–1888) in detail in the published Report 8. In Jerusalem, where he first of all met the head of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission, Archimandrite Antonin (Kapustin), he found in the Patriarchal Library the ancient “Charter of the services of Holy and Paschal Weeks in Jerusalem” (in a copy from a manuscript of 1122), extremely important for the history of Jerusalem worship. The library of the Sinai monastery “provided such a number of liturgical manuscripts,” Dmitrievsky wrote in a report on his trip, “which I have not seen in other eastern libraries... Suffice it to say that the Sinai library contains up to 55 handwritten euchologies, from the 8th–9th centuries, up to the 18th century” 9 . Upon his return, Dmitrievsky presented to the Council of the Kyiv Theological Academy a plan for publishing a scientific “Description” of the liturgical monuments he had studied. The entire “Description” was to consist of two parts (three volumes): “Greek Typicons” in two volumes and “Euchology” in one volume. However, the preparation and process of publishing the “Description” moved very slowly. Meanwhile, Dmitrievsky actively continued both his pedagogical and literary work in the “Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy”, in the magazine “Guide for Rural Shepherds” and other publications. In 1889–1890, he published materials about the monument he discovered, which characterizes the statutory order in the ancient Palestinian Lavra of St. Savvas the Sanctified 10. In 1891, his book “Modern Worship in the Orthodox West” was published, compiled from articles in the “Guide for Rural Pastors” 11, in 1894 - “Patmos Sketches”, which in content represented a continuation of the previous work (description of churches, worship and the charter of the Patmos Monastery of St. John the Theologian) 12. Finally, in 1895, the first volume (“Types”) of the main work of A. A. Dmitrievsky’s life was published - the fundamental “Description of liturgical manuscripts stored in the libraries of the Orthodox East” 13. Reviewers of this work (it was submitted as a doctoral dissertation to the Kazan Theological Academy) noted that its enormous significance for the science of Orthodox liturgics can only be compared with the significance of the multi-volume work of Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) for the science of Russian Church History 14 . The first volume of the “Description” contains almost completely (pp. 1–163, V–VIII) the Charter of the Great Church, i.e., the Sophia Cathedral in Constantinople (IX–X centuries), setting out the worship of both the fixed and mobile annual church circle, as well as the associated rites of Vespers, Matins and Liturgy (according to a 15th century manuscript from the library of the Russian St. Andrew monastery on Athos) and the Sinai canon (X-XI centuries), first discovered and published by another outstanding researcher of eastern antiquities, Archimandrite Antonin (Kapustin), and which, as A. A. Dmitrievsky showed, is one of the monuments of the ancient Typica of Constantinople. The second section of the “Typics” consists of the patronal typikons of eastern and western (Italian) Greek monasteries. The second volume of the “Description” - “Euchologia” - published in 1901, is a continuation of the work of the Dominican Jacob Gohar, famous in European science, “Euchologion” (since then Dmitrievsky has been given the title of “Russian Gohar”) 15. The third and last volume of “Descriptions” that saw the light appeared only in 1917, when Dmitrievsky practically retired from liturgical studies and was a full-time employee of the Orthodox Palestine Society 16. It represented the first (broken in mid-sentence) half of the second part of the “Typics” and included: 1) the Jerusalem Savvinsky Typikon in various editions, 2) 19 typikons of the Athos monasteries and the beginning (the first two pages from the prepared 70 printed sheets of “Additions” to the Typical of the Great Church (i.e. to the first volume of the “Description”). Releasing this volume in unfinished form, Dmitrievsky had a presentiment that he “desperately hoped” for the end of his major work. “Will the light of God, during the author’s lifetime, see materials related to the Greek Euchologia, especially those collected in Roman libraries, on which the great liturgist of the 17th century worked? monk of the Order of Predicators Jacob Gohar, and whether the materials for the Yugoslav Euchologia collected in the libraries of Sinai, Athos and other places, some of which have already perished in the fire, will be published - all this is known to one God” 17. We have named only the main scientific work of A. A. Dmitrievsky, which brought glory to him and Russian liturgical science. The complete list of the scientist’s books and articles includes more than two hundred publications on a variety of church-historical and theological issues 18 . Recently, efforts have been made to publish the unpublished, although quite ready for publication, works of the scientist 19. Among them is the monograph “Archimandrite Leonid (Kavelin) - the third head of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem” offered to the reader. The manuscript is organically included in a number of numerous scientific and biographical publications by A. A. Dmitrievsky about Russian figures in Jerusalem and the Orthodox East 20. In origin, this is a large unpublished section from the famous monograph “The Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society and its activities over the past quarter of a century” 21. The manuscript was discovered by the late Archpriest Fr. Anatoly Prosvirnin (later Archimandrite Innocent) while working on the scientific heritage of Archimandrite Leonid (Kavelin) 22. Father Innocent hoped to publish the manuscript and managed to do the initial work of preparing it for printing. But the publication did not take place. In 1997, hieromonk (now hegumen) Sergius (Dankov) proposed a manuscript for publication in the then-prepared anniversary collection of “Theological Works,” dedicated to the 150th anniversary of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem. But for space reasons, publication had to be postponed until this issue. The creative history of the manuscript is shed light by the correspondence of A. A. Dmitrievsky, stored in the Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire, with members of the Council of the IOPS in connection with the work on the mentioned historical note “The Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society and its activities over the past quarter of a century” 23. A deep and thoughtful researcher, A. A. Dmitrievsky believed that the history of the activities of the Palestinian Society itself must be preceded by an equally detailed history of government and church institutions that preceded the appearance of the Society in the Holy Land: the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem, which arose in 1847; Palestine Committee, created in 1859; and the Palestine Commission under the Asian Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which existed in 1864–1889. The leaders of the Society Council hurried the historian, fearing that the manuscript, growing in chronology and volume, would not be completed on time. Let’s say right away that this is how it happened: the history of the Palestine Society was brought up by A. A. Dmitrievsky only until 1889. – the time of its merger with the Palestinian Commission. The most significant for the history of our manuscript is the letter of A. A. Dmitrievsky to the vice-chairman of the Society N. M. Anichkov dated May 15, 1906 24, which, due to its importance, we risk, despite the volume, reproducing here in full. “Your Excellency, venerable Nikolai Milich! Your alarming letter made a deep and, I will not hide, difficult impression on me. It is clear from everything that a fatal mistake has occurred, although, as it seems to me, it is still correctable. You approached me with a proposal to write a historical Note, without being familiar with either my character or my various scientific works, which have made me famous among people of science here in Russia and abroad. Father Archpriest I.L. Yanyshev and V.V. Latyshev, when they recommended me, then, I dare to think, they had in mind my scientific literary activity, and when they told you: “Well, now you can rest assured - your business is in the right hands,” they, of course, meant my perseverance and ability to work. My last merits, which are now no secret to many figures of the Palestine Society who had the opportunity to work with me during two months of last summer, exclude any possibility of sounding the alarm and fearing that the task I had undertaken would not be completed (one could only doubt that, in a broad sense, the historical Note would not be completed by the anniversary). And it never occurred to the aforementioned very respectable scientists, before whose authority I bow, and to me myself that the idea that complete unquestioning obedience to someone else’s will, contrary to historical truth, and complete renunciation of one’s self, should play an important role here. To write a historical Note for the Society does it mean to write not what is in the documents and what the facts eloquently speak about, but what is pleasing to modern figures of the Palestine Society and not only those who have retired, but those who are still happily living? “But this is such a generous sacrifice and such high self-denial, which I have never been able to make, and which, frankly speaking, disgusts my moral feeling. Linking my hitherto impeccable literary name with a work that is false in content, insincere, but paid a decent fee - this is not in my principles. It was from this side that neither you nor the most respected I.L. Yanyshev and V.V. Latyshev knew me, on whose recommendation you began relations with me. I have always been a man of duty, honor and truth, and in this respect I was in no way inferior to my superiors, my colleagues, or my listeners - students. You can also learn about this main trait of my character “from reliable sources” - from professors of our Academy who are in St. Petersburg and, obviously, not among my well-wishers. These “reliable” witnesses, when they told you that the work I had undertaken would not end well and “Society would be placed in the most unpleasant situation,” they were telling the truth and undoubtedly had this trait of my character in mind. I cannot have any troubles with the Society on any other basis, since your “reliable sources” that I am a fundamental “enemy” of the Palestinian Society do not need extensive, detailed refutations. You, Nikolai Milich, just need to remember the facts (and a historian can only rely on this evidence). There has been a department of the Palestine Society in Kyiv for four years, and for all four years in a row I have been the only speaker at the ceremonial meetings. Of the four speeches delivered at these meetings, two were published in the “Messages”, and one was published by the Society as a special brochure. The enemy of the Society hardly took upon himself the thankless task of speaking on behalf of the Society and in its interests, and the chairmen of the department, His Eminence Platon Chigirinsky and the Metropolitan of Kiev, hardly turned, even out of scrupulousness and a sense of delicacy before the Society and its August Chairman, to the enemy of the Society with a proposal to speak on behalf of the Society. (Here, the speeches could have touched on facts that were sensitive to the Society, although they actually existed, such as the poor maintenance of pilgrim ships, the exploitation of pilgrims by the Greek clergy, the lack of attention to pilgrims by the consulate and its officials - but all this does not relate to the essence of the matter. Only a blind person can deny the truth of all this). At the request of the Society, I attracted the gifted Professor V. to work for the benefit of the Society. Rybinsky; last Lent, he personally led and convinced his fellow colleagues, professors of the Academy, to conduct (with great trouble for himself and astonishing tension for outsiders) Palestinian readings in our religious and educational society, in the presence of 1000 or more listeners; he persuaded his rector, as the headman of a religious and educational church, to preach sermons on Palm Sunday at the all-night vigil and Liturgy and gave 31 rubles to the plate collection for Palestine. with kopecks; crucified, proving to the rural priests and the Kyiv clergy the need for sacrifice, when A.P. Belyaev sent out subscription sheets to churches with an invitation to donations (these sheets were met with very little sympathy), and in his church he collected 7 rubles per sheet. donations, etc. Sapienti sat. If the Society has all such enemies, then I can only congratulate and wish that it has fewer friends who inform its leaders of its “reliable information.” The second mistake in this case lies in the fact that the Society did not develop a strictly defined framework for its historical Note and did not understand what nature this Note should be. When I arrived in St. Petersburg and began to talk about my work, you, Nikolai Milich, directly stated that it was necessary to touch upon the Palestine Committee and the Palestine Commission as the immediate forerunners of the Palestine Society, and even drew my attention towards the Spiritual Mission. Then, when I entered the room intended for my work, I found on the shelves a number of official reports of the Society and official newspaper notes, and on the floor a whole heap of 20 years of undescribed and unresolved affairs of the Palestine Commission. As aids, Archimandrite Leonid V. D. Yushmanov brought to my desk “Report on measures taken to improve the life of Russian fans in Palestine,” B. P. Mansurov’s report on his trip to Palestine in 1858 and his book “Orthodox Worshipers in Palestine.” Everything, therefore, suggested that the starting point in my work should be the archive of the Palestine Commission, which I actually began to analyze. After reviewing some documents, I found that 1) Russian institutions in Palestine could celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of their existence in 1909 and that 2) for a coherent documentary history it is necessary to familiarize yourself with the archive of the Palestine Committee or, at least, with the report of B.P. Mansurov for the entire existence of the Committee. In this sense, I gave you a memo before my trip to Moscow. Upon returning from the trip, you already told me that the anniversary would be the Society’s 25th anniversary, and that I should only touch upon in general terms (this is not the same as in “a few words”) the institutions that preceded the Palestine Society, and you also determined the nature of this essay, in the words of M.P. Stepanov, referring to a printed report to the Heir Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich, written by Khitrovo in 1890 and printed in 10 copies as a manuscript. At that time I had already finished studying the archives of the Commission and read the report recommended to me, written hotly and in such a polemical tone (against Patriarch Nicodemus and the Holy Sepulcher clergy) that I recognized such a tone as inappropriate for the anniversary Note, which I immediately admitted to A.P. Belyaev. Having thus clarified only now the center of gravity in my work, I turned to the history of the Palestine Society, but here I was immediately struck by the chaos that reigns in the Society’s archives. In the case “Education of the Society” given to me, I came across several printed announcements about the message of V.N. Khitrovo in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment, a printed brochure by V.N. Khitrovo “Orthodoxy in Palestine”, a report on the schools of Archimandrite Leonid, letters from 1880 from Golovin, Arsenyev from 1881, a list of founding members - and nothing more. It was impossible to go far with this material. The case revealed the existence of correspondence between V.N. Khitrovo and Archimandrite Leonid, Archimandrite Antonin, Countess Kutyatina and others, and I turned to these secondary, but very useful sources for me. A lot of time was spent studying this unofficial material, and therefore I only had no more than a week left to familiarize myself with the minutes of the meetings of the Council of the Society: I managed to read the minutes only until 1889, i.e., before the fusion of the Society with the Palestine Commission. Having worked very diligently for two whole months, I left St. Petersburg with the hope of returning for the Christmas holiday and with the first and (perhaps) second chapters of the Note entrusted to me - but man proposes, but God disposes, says popular wisdom. I consider it useful to remind you of one apparently insignificant circumstance that took place during my stay in St. Petersburg and left an indelible mark on my soul. At the request of V.D. Yushmanov, I agreed to turn my speech “Modern Russian Pilgrimage to the Holy Land” into a reading for the people and publish on behalf of the Society a separate brochure with the title “Types of Modern Russian Pilgrims in the Holy Land.” When the proof of this brochure came to you for review, you, although very delicately, but persistently began to ask me, for purely practical reasons, to remove from it my most innocent remarks about the uncleanliness of Russian pilgrim ships, about the corruption and exploitation of Russian pilgrims by the Greek Holy Sepulchre clergy, about the negligence in the treatment of our pilgrims by officials of the Jerusalem consulate, etc., not while denying the factual correctness of these remarks. Since the brochure was intended for the common people and since it had already been published in its entirety in an academic journal, I reluctantly yielded to your desire, harboring in my soul a feeling of anxious fear for the possibility of a repetition on your part of new persistent desires in relation to future serious work. In this fear we should look for an explanation of the reasons for my conversation with you in the presence of A.P. Belyaev, a few days before my departure from St. Petersburg, on the issue of censorship of the future historical Note. If my Note will be subjected to the same merciless censorship as the mentioned brochure, and, moreover, for reasons not of scientific significance, but only for the sake of one or another person who took an important part in the activities of the Society and made mistakes, but for some reason necessary for the Society, then, I said, it would be better for us to part with the task of compiling the Note now and with the figures of silence and in an elevated dithyrambic tone entrust it safer to an official office, which will also cost the Company less. You were in a hurry somewhere on business, you hushed up this conversation, and we parted with you without finishing the conversation. I didn’t get to St. Petersburg for Christmastide, as I expected, but it was not my fault. Trains did not run on the Kovel road due to the “strike”. I, of course, could have slipped into St. Petersburg along the Moscow-Voronezh road, but the newspapers were trumpeting about civil unrest being prepared there on January 9 and about a new general strike on the railways. Fearing that I would miss the start of classes at the Academy, on January 10, when our academies were persistently called to activity by the newly promulgated “temporary” rules, I decided to postpone my trip. This decision of mine was also supported by the consideration that I did not yet need new materials for the first chapter of the Note, and I expected to have copies of the materials promised to me in Kyiv. On Christmastide I received the first disturbing news about the sad fate of my speech about the Athonite kelliots. This article, based on official data repeatedly published by the Economic Directorate of the Holy Synod “for the attention of Russian donors” and on letters from Russian people addressed in no secret to the Society, was recognized by Nikolai Milich as not suitable for publication, since it allegedly touches upon the Synod, the ministry, the embassy, etc. The article was actually written with the good intention of helping the Russian government, the Palestinian Society and the Russian people to understand what the Athenian Kelliots are and how they should be treated, and in it, if anyone is offended, it is F.I. Uspensky, director of the Archaeological Institute in Constantinople, who patronizes these scoundrels (see “Church Gazette”, 1906, No. 16), albeit platonically (for the sake of receiving support from them for school work), but casting some unseemly shadow on our The Constantinople embassy, overly trusting his not entirely correct certification of the Kellyots. Comparing these new unfavorable news for me with my immediate impression of the printing of the brochure “Types of Russian Pilgrims” and the conversation with you, on the one hand, and on the other hand, having before my eyes the first chapter of the historical Note, in which some figures of the Palestinian Commission of blessed memory are depicted (not by me, but by the facts of the documents) from an ugly side, I thought deeply and very naturally about the fate of my work. The question arose before me: should I continue the work and am I working on it in vain? With my characteristic frankness, I expressed my doubts in a letter to I. I. Sokolov. I won’t hide that I started to lose interest in the work itself. In order to avoid all kinds of misunderstandings and delicacies, I decided on the issue of the Spiritual Mission and, in particular, on the activities of Archimandrite Leonid (Kavelin) in Palestine, an “impartial account” of which, in the words of the Society’s report (“Messages”, vol. III, p. 132), if “it ever sees the light of day, it will undoubtedly constitute one of the darkest pages of the East’s relations with us,” to separate it into a special independent speech, which is sent for publication in “Messages,” I now no longer have enough determination. Talking about the Kellyots is a good lesson. Based on the above, you can now see that I did not stop working for the Palestine Society for a single day, and the first chapter of the Note was written in a volume of no less than 25 printed pages. (Believe me, I will not grieve if it remains the property of my portfolio). And if this chapter has not been completed, it is partly because the repeatedly promised and urgently needed documents were not delivered to me on time, partly because Easter and the usual bustle with exams have arrived. However, judging by the last letter, my work does not satisfy you, since “The Palestinian Society needs the history of its 25th anniversary, and not other (sic!) institutions that came before it.” And here again I have to strongly disagree with you. The Society arose out of a protest against the hopeless existence of the Palestine Commission, existed side by side with the latter for about seven years and even vigorously fought against it, in order to ultimately absorb it in 1889. From the Commission, the Society inherited not only its tasks, but a magnificent church, shelters for men and women, huge plots of land, capital of 130 thousand, etc. This Commission is not “other institutions” alien to the Society, but its own, so to speak, the roots. And if in the biography of a famous writer a historian cannot help but remember in “a few words” the writer’s parents and the environment in which he grew up, then the author of the historical Note will make a major mistake if, on your advice, he recognizes the date of May 21, 1882 as the beginning of the existence of the Society. Even suppose the impossible. If your historian really dares, contrary to historical truth and in defiance of the elements, to take as the subject of the Note only the 25th anniversary of the Society (I dare to say that the readers of the Note will be perplexed on many issues), then in this case, the starting point for him should be the significant date of 1871, July 12, i.e., the day when the late V.N. Khitrovo first set foot on the shore Palestine (let your historian, not a clerk or a record-keeper, not forget this). In view of what has just been said, I think that it is somewhat risky for “some members” of the Society’s Council to take upon themselves the work of preliminary familiarization with the Note. (For this alone, and, of course, best of all, the chairman of the scientific department of the Society and for diplomacy with the addition of a vice-chairman), and a truthful documentary historian does not exclude the opportunity to reckon with bare names and figures (and then, perhaps, in a truncated form), presented in chronological order and decorated with several engravings... The prospect is not tempting for everyone, and one can look for people for such work in St. Petersburg. For some reason, you are even worried about my trip to the Archaeological Congress in Vladimir and invite me to St. Petersburg at the beginning of June. Our school year, due to the former “strike,” ends only on June 15, and, therefore, I cannot leave Kyiv before this time. The congress is supposed to take place on June 20–30, and I expect to get to St. Petersburg on July 2 or 3, that is, I will be two weeks late. But the trip to Vladimir is determined by an urgent need - not only for scientific benefits, but also for practical reasons, in view of the order from our Religious and Educational Society, where I am a zealous figure and the head of the church, to attract Vladimir icon painters as suppliers of the icon shop being opened at the Society. There is no need for you to worry about this trip of mine, since the period of work assigned to me by the Society of 90 days (“The Society expects the continuation of each trip to be no more than 18 days”) will be exhausted in excess: 60 days (2 months) last summer and 1 ½ months in the coming one. I have given answers in good faith to all the questions you raised. Your business now is to decide whether I am a suitable historian of the Palestine Society for you or whether you should look for another, more compliant one, but at the same time I would earnestly ask you not to be guided in your decision by your “personal impressions” and not completely trust the “reliable information” of some professors of our Academy. If you find it inconvenient to deal with me, then take the trouble to inform me, at least through V.D. Yushmanov and as soon as possible. In conclusion, I can only add that the Historical Note in the volume and according to the plan that I have outlined and are possible on the basis of the documentary data available to me (although, perhaps without end), will be ready by the expected time. Take a deep bow from my wife and convey our deepest respect to Lyubov Iosifovna, Vera Nikolaevna and A.P. Belyaev. With deep respect and devotion, I have to be your humble servant, Professor Alexey Dmitrievsky. P.S. The Sokolovs went abroad.” Despite the rather harsh tone of the letter and the disagreement it caused between A. A. Dmitrievsky and N. M. Anichkov, Alexey Afanasyevich successfully completed work on the book (though, as noted, within the framework of only the first period of the existence of the Palestine Society), published it and was rewarded at an official reception on the occasion of the anniversary of the IOPS in Peterhof in 1907. In connection with the death of the secretary Professor Dmitrievsky of the A.P. Belyaev Society was invited by the Council to take his place. He remained secretary of the IOPS from 1907 to 1917. In his last years, when the scientific life of the Society, due to circumstances beyond anyone’s control, was reduced to a minimum, Dmitrievsky continued to work on preparing a critical study of Gohar’s Euchologion. In this regard, he made two reports to the Russian-Byzantine Commission of the USSR Academy of Sciences: “On the unsatisfactory publication of texts in Gohar’s Euchologia (1924) and “Byzantinist of the 17th century Yakov Gohar” (1926). Dmitrievsky's third report to the Russian-Byzantine Commission (October 21, 1926 and June 9, 1927) was called “Explanations to the “Charter” of Constantine Porphyrorodny.” These were his last, unpublished, scientific speeches... He died on August 10, 1929. Based on his own historical and liturgical research and 23 years of experience in teaching historical liturgics, Dmitrievsky managed to educate an entire school of liturgists, including Bishop Gabriel (Chepur), Professor Archpriest Vasily Prilutsky, Professor Archpriest Korniliy Kekelidze (later Academician of the Academy of Sciences of the Georgian SSR), Professor N.N. Palmov, A.Z. Neselovsky, V.I. Barvink and others. Unfortunately, his works on the history of Russian Palestine did not find worthy successors. The monograph about Archimandrite Leonid (Kavelin) is published by us based on the manuscript of the Russian National Library (f. 253, No. 176), in the author’s version, with modernization of spelling. The manuscript has gaps, explained by the nature of its origin (a chapter taken by the author from a large book and adapted by him - not quite consistently - for a separate publication in the form of an abstract in the Council of the IOPS). We noted these gaps (almost breaks in the text at the beginning and end of an autoquote from a large book) in the publication. The scientific apparatus of the manuscript has been preserved in the form in which it was presented by Professor A. A. Dmitrievsky. Lev Kavelin, his upbringing and military service Among the few courageous true fighters devoted in soul and body for the Russian cause and for the benefit of the Orthodox Church in the Middle East, without any doubt, a prominent and honorable place should belong to the third head of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem, Archimandrite Leonid (Kavelin), who ended the days of his earthly, not short and very fruitful existence, with the rank of vicar of the Moscow Trinity-Sergius Lavra. As the head of our Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem, Archimandrite Leonid remained here for about two years, and this time in the life of our Mission was the most alarming, in view of the unrest and disorder that arose in it on the part of the lower members of the Mission subordinate to him, sharp clashes with our Jerusalem Consulate and misunderstandings with the Greek Patriarchate of Jerusalem; and in his activities during this time it is therefore difficult to indicate any positive results aimed at maintaining Orthodoxy and improving the life of our pilgrims in the East, but this activity is undeniably important due to its negative side. By the strength of his remarkable mind, the fortitude of a very strong character, a clear understanding of the main tasks and aspirations with which our Jerusalem Spiritual Mission was called into existence, and the inability to compromise with strong and powerful people, Archimandrite Leonid, by his own example, almost completely ruining his career, proved that the “Palestinian” or “Jerusalem cause” is “the work of human hands.” and was spoiled from the very beginning” by “attentives to the matter”, “who considered themselves wiser” than others and “continued to spoil and distort the work they had begun” 25 . Archimandrite Leonid, in the world Lev Alexandrovich Kavelin, came from the nobility of the Kaluga province and was born on February 19, 1821 26 in the hereditary estate of his father in the village of Grive, Vozelsky district. His father, A. A. Kavelin, the brother of the father of the famous scientist and publicist K. D. Kavelin, served in the Klyastitsky Hussar Regiment and retired as a headquarters captain; on his mother’s side, he belonged to the famous Nakhimov family, which gave Russia the hero of Sinop and Sevastopol - Admiral P. S. Nakhimov. The origin of a noble noble family and the fact that his father belonged to the military class by occupation had already completely determined his upbringing and his career for the future ascetic, an armchair scientist and expert on Palestine and a leader in the Orthodox East. Lev Alexandrovich in 1835, in the 14th year of his life, was placed by his parents in the 1st Moscow Cadet Corps, having as his comrades the late Minister of War P. S. Vannovsky and the trustees of the districts: Warsaw - A. A. Apukhtin and Kharkov - N. I. Vorontsov-Velyaminov. The time spent in the Cadet Corps left an indelible mark on the soul of Archimandrite Leonid, and he used to talk about the corps with warm feeling and affection among his close friends, even at the end of the days of his life. He especially warmly and cordially recalled the place of his upbringing in 1878, when the Cadet Corps celebrated the centenary of its existence, appearing at the corps’ celebration and taking part in its solemn Divine service, and then describing his native holiday in the article “Celebrating the centenary of the First Moscow Cadet Corps.” As an excellent student of the corps, Lev Kavelin was honored to be present with some of his comrades at the exemplary Borodino maneuvers organized by Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich, and then described them in his “Impressions of the Borodino maneuvers,” recognized by the corps authorities as the best essay, then published (this was his first literary experience) in the “Magazine for reading students of military educational institutions” for 1839. In 1840, Lev Aleksandrovich graduated with honors from the Cadet Corps course and entered the Volyn Life Guards Regiment as an ensign, remaining in it for twelve whole years, until 1852 27 . But the gifted guards officer did not follow the well-worn rut of his comrades, who devoted their free time from military service to pleasures and entertainment available to carefree, well-to-do intelligent youth, but, feeling an attraction to literature, devoted his leisure time and energy to studies in it, in which, in addition to his natural talents, he was helped by an excellent home education and knowledge of languages: German, French, English and even Polish. Lev Aleksandrovich became an employee of the famous magazine “Mayak”, which titled itself “a magazine of modern enlightenment, art and education in the spirit of the Russian people”, and was published by S. O. Burachk - he published several translated stories from Polish and poems, for which Archimandrite Leonid always had a certain weakness until the end of his life. About the muse of his youth and about what the young officer Kavelin lived, one of his comrades, also a poet, writes the following in dedication to him: “She does not know [i.e. e. muse] of people and light, No one knew her or caressed her... And really - well, I told the truth, And not to match the elegiac poet, Which is contrary to itself Sad in poetry, does not see the world under the sun And, having exchanged ... for chervonets, Gives the blues and bliss and space.” But, however, we are not interested in these leisure activities of the pen and imagination, to which youth very often devotes time to carefree and ideal impulses, but in those literary and scientific works of his during these years, in which the future “Old Speaker”, as Archimandrite Leonid liked to call himself, was already evident. While still a guards officer, he published the following scientific and historical literary articles: “A brief explanation of the plan of the ancient city of Kazan” (Mayak, 1843, vol. III), “The relationship of Abgar, the king of Edessa, with our Lord Jesus Christ” (Ibid. 1844, vol. XIII), “St. Abraham, Bulgarian martyr" (Ibid.), "Visit to the Bulgarian ruins by Peter I and Catherine II" (Ibid., vol. XIV), "A look at ancient Poland with comments about Lithuania and Russia" (from Polish) (Ibid., vol. XV), "Redemption of Kostroma from the Tatar invasion: the miracle of the icon of the Theodore Mother of God" (Ibid. 1845, vol. XIX), “Monuments of Belarusian writing” (illustrated) (Ibid. 1845, vol. XX). Along with these works of a historical and literary nature, completely unusual articles at this time appear from the pen of a young guards officer, namely: “Hostile actions of evil spirits against man” (Mayak. 1844, vol. XVI), “Something about superhuman magic” (Ibid. 1845, vol. XX), a critical and bibliographical essay about the book “The Life and Deeds of a Schemamonk Theodora" (Ibid., vol. XXIII), etc. These last works of the pen of Lev Aleksandrovich Kavelin would have been almost incomprehensible to us if in his soul at that time a longing for ideals of a higher order had not already been revealed and if his religious mood, brought up from childhood in the same pious family atmosphere, had not, unnoticed for him, little by little begun to carry him along a different path of life, which had little in common with the first. At this time, he began to develop a rapprochement with the rector of the Sergius Hermitage near St. Petersburg, Archimandrite Ignatius (Brianchaninov), 28 who belonged to the secular rank by birth and upbringing, had a tremendous influence on the youth of higher and aristocratic circles, for example, on Ivan Andreevich Polovtsev, later Juvenal, Archbishop of Lithuania; Lev Vasilyevich Krasnopevkov, later Leonid, Archbishop of Yaroslavl, and others. This rapprochement did not remain without a trace for the young L.A. Kavelin, who almost even chose the Sergius Hermitage as the site of his first monastic exploits. Entry into monasticism. Life in Optina Hermitage under the leadership of Schemamonk Macarius. Service in Jerusalem as a member of the Spiritual Mission In 1852, unexpectedly for everyone, almost on the eve of the Eastern War, the young guard captain Lev Aleksandrovich Kavelin retired and exchanged his brilliant guards uniform for the modest cassock of a novice in his native Optina Hermitage, placing himself under the strict command of the stern ascetic, the famous elder of the desert Makaria (Ivanov); †1860. “This abrupt transition from the guard to the monastery,” says the best of Archimandrite Leonid’s biographers, Professor D. A. Korsakov, “struck not only Kavelin’s fellow soldiers, but also most of his relatives and acquaintances, of whom only very few properly understood this transformation. And indeed, the religiosity and piety of the cadet and officer could not yet explain his tonsure into the monastery. What was the immediate reason that forced Kavelin to change his guards uniform to a monastic hair shirt - this remained a secret, which the father archimandrite took with him to the grave. He did not like to talk about it, and therefore we should not set out in print those explanations that we happened to hear from his relatives and colleagues, perhaps erroneously. In any case, in the personal life of Captain Kavelin’s guard, something very serious apparently happened, which changed his entire future fate” 29. There were many reasons why Father Leonid chose Optina Pustyn as a quiet refuge for himself. First of all, this monastery was native to him, since it was located only a few miles from the estate of his father, Alexander Alexandrovich Kavelin. His parents loved this monastery, and as a child, the religiously minded young man often prayed there with his pious mother. About the mother of Archimandrite Leonid and her remarkable religious mood, we find the following interesting lines in the diary of the Optina hieromonk Euthymius (Trunov) on August 23–25, 1860: “On Tuesday, in the monastery hotel, Mrs. Maria Mikhailovna Kavelina, the wife of the Kozelsky landowner, captain Alexander Alexandrovich Kavelin, from the Nakhimov family, cousin, died Sevastopol hero-admiral and mother of the monk of our monastery, Hieromonk Leonid. A year ago, when she was on the edge of the grave, she asked Elder Macarius, according to her faith in him, to pray to the Lord so that He would extend her days for a meeting with her beloved son, Father Leonid, who was then absent from the monastery. The elder then told her: “You will recover, but we will die together.” Having recovered, she told her loved ones: “Fear my death: the life of an old man is connected with it.” For her pious life and her death was peaceful. She deeply revered our monastery: she fasted during all fasts and partook of the Holy Mysteries at the monastery. This was the case during the current Dormition Lent. After communion, she was supposed to go to a holiday with her family, but for some reason she suddenly postponed her departure, telling the elders: “For some reason I don’t want to go.” And she stayed - and the next day she fell ill and grew weaker every day, and on the 23rd, having received the Holy Mysteries ten minutes before her death, she said her last words: “I cannot express to you my joy: in all my life I have not felt as calm as I do now.” And then she fell asleep forever. On the 25th, according to the Liturgy, the funeral service for her body was performed in the presence of her husband and children: Hieromonk Leonid (Leo - captain of the guard); Mikhail, a retired lieutenant, and close relatives. Another of her sons served in the Holy Synod, and her daughter Alexandra was a nun in the Borisov Maiden Monastery. Elder Macarius was present at the blessed death of the noblewoman Maria, calling her death “reverendly” and said: “I consider myself happy that God vouchsafed me to see a righteous death.” Long before the death of Mrs. Kavelina, the elder often began to tell his students: “It’s time, it’s time to go home.” Now he began to repeat these words even more often. But he still looked, thank God, quite strong, although he was already 72 years old” 30. Under the influence of the living religious memories of another, better haven for oneself, instilled from childhood by his beloved mother and deeply embedded in the soul, this turning point took place in the life of Father Leonid. This is the first thing. Secondly, at that time Optina Pustyn gained honorable and loud fame in our Fatherland among lovers of a truly ascetic life for the severity of its monastic rules, borrowed by it with the revered Russian piety of the people of the Holy Mount Athos, the strict ascetic life of the ever-memorable elders of the monastery - the schema-monk Father Leonid (Nagolkin), a disciple of the schema-monk Theodora; Macarius (Ivanov) – a student of Father Leonid; and the later famous Father Ambrose (Grenkov), a disciple of this latter, and others, who attracted to the walls of their monastery everyone who was looking for an answer to requests “even to life and piety.” The latter circumstance was a new, no less strong motivating reason why the young guards officer was looking for a peaceful shelter for himself in the Optina Monastery, since the severe monastic feat in the community of such young enthusiasts as Ivan Andreevich Polovtsev, a monk Juvenaly (who died in the rank of Archbishop of Lithuania), and some other peers from secular educated people, could not seem like a heavy, unbearable yoke... Lev Alexandrovich chose the deserted skete of John the Baptist as the place for his monastic exploits, about which he wrote with admiration: “Many memories remain in the depths of my soul about the loving shrine of Optina. There I learned for the first time the value of solitude... My prayer was warm here, evoked by the reverent, touching chants of the monks... But the secluded monastery especially captivated me... "I revere you, silent monastery, I love you, loving desert." Here, under the guidance of his beloved Elder Macarius, who was experienced in spiritual life, a student of Schemamonk Leonid, whose name Lev Alexandrovich later took in monasticism, he underwent a harsh school of monastic obedience, entering the monastery in 1852 first for probation and only almost two years later, after a difficult trial, on April 27, 1854, he was identified as a novice among the brethren of the Kozelsk Vvedenskaya hermitage. “Never in my life have I been so happy,” Father Archimandrite Leonid said about these first steps of his monastic life, “as on that day when the elders blessed me to put on a simple desert sheepskin coat” 31 . Passing under the leadership of Father Macarius the hard test of monastic unconditional obedience, Father Leonid was assigned by his elders - Macarius and Leonid - to that work that was close to his soul, useful for the Russian pious people and glorious for the monastery, zealous for the spiritual enlightenment of their Fatherland: scientific literary works. The new novice monk of the Optina Monastery, Leonid (Kavelin), was entrusted with the responsibility, together with another new monk Juvenaly (Polovtsev), to begin translating ascetic patristic works, the fruit of which are the following publications of the monastery: “Works of Paisius Velichkovsky”, “Questions and answers of the elders Barsanufius and John”, “The words of our Reverend Father Isaac the Syrian” spiritually ascetic" (M., 1854), "Our Reverend Father Abba Dorotheus's soul-helping teachings in Russian translation" (M., 1856). The love of historical research prompts Father Leonid to compile a “Historical Description of the Kozelskaya Vvedenskaya Optina Hermitage” and the skete attached to it in the name of St. John the Baptist (St. Petersburg, 1857). After this, it is not at all surprising that the ever-memorable Moscow Saint Philaret, who did not like to idly lavish his praises, when the need arose, attested Father Leonid (Kavelin) for this initial period of his monastic life: “This man, who was once with dignity in the imperial service, then, after renouncing the world, for a long time, also with undoubted dignity, passed monastic life in the monastery, mainly famous for its spiritual well-being." On February 26, 1855, Lev Kavelin was tonsured into the ryassophore, and in 1857, on September 14, into the mantle. “Today,” Hieromonk Evfimy writes in his diary, “at the Divine Liturgy, Father Archimandrite Moses tonsured into the mantle, among the other (seven), two distinguished men: Lev Alexandrovich Kavelin from the noble nobility, and from the clergy, Mikhail Chebykin, who graduated from the course of the Kostroma Seminary († March 18, 1906 in Optina desert in retirement in the rank of abbot). The first was named Leonid, and the second - Mark. What fate is prepared for them is a matter of the wisdom and mind of God, but, it seems to me, their fate is extraordinary. Lord help them to end the course of their temporary life in good deeds, in faith, hope and Divine love” 32. This event was preceded by the arrival at the Optina monastery of the Odessa Bishop Polycarp, whom the highest spiritual authorities intended to appoint as heads of our second Mission in Jerusalem, eventually replacing him with a young inspector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Doctor of Theology, Archimandrite Kirill (Naumov), who was elevated to the rank of Bishop of Melitopol. At the direction of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow and pilgrim-writer A.N. Muravyov, Bishop Polycarp arrived at the Optina monastery to form the staff of clergy for the new Jerusalem Mission he was forming. His choice settled on Juvenalia (Polovtsev) and Leonid (Kavelin), who, with the blessing of the monastery’s Archimandrite and Elder Macarius, agreed to join the Mission as its members 33 . Lev Aleksandrovich reported interesting details about this change in his life in a letter to St. Petersburg to a certain priest Stepan Onisimovich 34, signing it as follows: “much-sinning monk Lev Kavelin.” We present this letter, full of biographical interest, in its entirety: “I haven’t informed you about myself for a long time,” writes Lev Alexandrovich, “partly because I didn’t have anything special to tell you about myself, except that I still live, move and am, by the grace of my long-suffering Lord the Lord, when suddenly an event happened completely unexpectedly, about which I consider it my duty to inform you. On the 5th afternoon, His Grace Polycarp, Bishop of Odessa, arrived at our monastery from Moscow with a verbal instruction from the Moscow Archpastor and a letter from A.N. Muravyov. The order was to select several people in our desert for the Jerusalem Mission with the goal that, taken from one monastery, they would maintain unity of spirit and purpose in the upcoming task. Vladyka was pointed directly at Father Juvenaly and me. You know that this lot has already fallen to me twice: initially Father Juvenaly invited me, but I did not dare agree to this, although I saw this as an opportunity to visit holy places - the cradle of Christianity, where my thoughts often gravitated in the past. Another time, Mr. Chief Prosecutor Count Tolstoy, upon the refusal of Father Yuvenaly, suggested that I go to the Mission through Prince Obolensky, his relative, but since the composition of the Mission was not yet known, then, fearing to fall into a circle of people completely unknown to me and, perhaps, not like-minded, I refused decisively. Now, when quite unexpectedly for the third time and without any relation to the first two cases the same offer was made to me, I involuntarily wondered how to look at this matter. Should we consider it a title of God or not? Not daring and not daring to take on the solution of this issue, I responded to the convictions of the Most Reverend Polycarp that if the elders find it necessary to send me, I will go unquestioningly, but I myself cannot decide this, both from a feeling of my unworthiness, and also because I myself do not have the strength to sign, perhaps, eternal separation from the monastery, the elder-father, benefactors and homeland. To my surprise and everyone’s, Father Archimandrite and Father Macarius complacently agreed to let the Most Reverend Polycarp and me go, calming the anxiety of our hearts by the fact that they see in the Right Reverend a man of the Spirit of God, looking at this matter with the eyes of faith, not reason, spiritually, not spiritually... and the Right Reverend sincerely won us over with his spiritual conversation and loving appeal. So, we agreed, God’s will be done, and now, in anticipation of the decisions of our fate, we strongly pray: if this work is from man, may it be ruined, if from the Lord - may His holy will be done over us - behold, His servants, do whatever you want in a peaceful spirit. Several more people from our brethren followed our example. Vladyko, apparently delighted with the success of his trip, went to St. Petersburg to report on the necessary changes in the project and composition, means and activities of the Mission. For God's sake, hasten to meet the Lord; your experienced advice will be very useful to him. The matter is too important for a zealot of Orthodoxy to be cold-blooded towards it, and the Bishop needs, really needs, good participation, while everything has not yet been formally approved. Your love for my unworthiness, valued dearly by me, gives me the courage to hope that, after meeting and talking with the Lord, you will not leave me to inform you about how you look at this matter - and you will say what you think, sincerely, without hesitation. Our elder testifies to you and your family his respect and goodwill, and I ask you to convey my sincere bow to everyone and everyone, and to your firstborn in particular, for his brotherly greetings and writings. Sorry. I entrust myself to your fatherly love and holy prayers with reverence and unchanging love for the Lord; I am and will remain your unworthy pilgrim, many-sinful monk Although the appointment of Bishop Polycarp to Jerusalem did not take place, the monks of Optina Pustyn chosen by him retained their accepted place in the Jerusalem Mission and under its actual head, Bishop Kirill (Naumov). “To Jerusalem,” according to Bishop Porfiry (Uspensky), “two hieromonks from Optina Hermitage were appointed – Leonid and Juvenaly, both nobles and both favorites of the synodal chief prosecutor” 35. By decree of the Holy Synod on October 20, 1857, Father Leonid was appointed a member of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem, and therefore on October 22, Bishop Gregory (Yutkevich) of Kaluga ordained him to the rank of hierodeacon, and on the 29th of the same October - to the rank of hieromonk. Father Leonid stayed in Jerusalem as a member of the Spiritual Mission only from February 1, 1858 to May 20, 1859, but this period dragged on only because Bishop Kirill was very undesirable to let him go from the Mission, so as not to give rise to rumors in St. Petersburg and complaints about the head of the Mission, on the one hand, and on the other hand, it was desirable for Father Leonid to see rare church-political celebration in Jerusalem, “the like of which,” according to Father Leonid, “has not been seen in the annals of Jerusalem since the time of the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius” 36, - to be present at the solemn meeting of the August Russian pilgrims: the Chairman of the Highest Approved Palestine Committee, Grand Duke Admiral General Konstantin Nikolaevich, his wife Grand Duchess Alexandra Iosifovna and their first-born - baby, Grand Duke Nikolai Konstantinovich. The distinguished guests of the Holy City came to Palestine not so much to satisfy their religious needs - to venerate the Life-Giving Sepulcher of the Lord and visit all the venerable holy places of Jerusalem and its environs, which they did almost every day from April 30 to May 9 inclusive - but, by the will of the Sovereign Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich, they had to inspect and select convenient plots of land in Jerusalem or its immediate environs on which the Palestinian The committee intended to begin the construction of Russian charitable buildings and a majestic Russian church. At the end of these celebrations, he took up the position of a full-time member of the Spiritual Mission and was counted again among the monks of the Kozelsk Optina Hermitage. This petition was respected, and the Holy Synod, on March 19, 1859, by its decree “for excellent service,” awarded him a loincloth. On his way to Russia in July, he visited the Holy Mount Athos for the first time in order to get acquainted with the life of the monasticism of this Mountain in general, and the Russian monasticism here in particular. He expressed his deep impressions in the Book of the monastery for honored visitors in the following terms: “The time spent on Mount Athos, under the hospitable roof of Russik, whose fathers received him with truly Christian hospitality and love, will remain one of the best memories of my stay in the East. A review of Athos from an ascetic perspective convinced me that it was and still remains an unquenchable lamp in which the oil of purely monastic life burns: here, and only here, anyone can find a perfect example of all types of asceticism, which are mentioned by the saints. fathers, - from comfortable hostels to people living a silent life, completely unconcerned with everything earthly. Having received spiritual benefit and edification from the interview and spiritual communication with the fathers and brethren of the Russian Monastery on Athos, I cannot help but express my heartfelt desire that those of the visitors to this Holy Monastery who do not have the arrogance to consider themselves completely healthy in their souls would not limit themselves to just an external survey of the shrine of Athos, but, taking advantage of their more or less short stay here, would hasten to inquire about spiritual doctors, which the common love and respect of the whole brotherhood will point out to them; Let everyone be convinced by their own experience of the benefits of their soul-saving advice and healing dissolved in love. Taste and see that the Lord is good and His grace will not fail in those who do His will. Former member of the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission, sinful hieromonk Leonid, a wretched Optina resident.” The reason for Father Leonid’s quick abandonment of service in our Jerusalem Spiritual Mission was his complete divergence in views, beliefs and way of external everyday life, alien to the ascetic mood of his superior, the Most Reverend Kirill, Bishop of Melitopol. “Archimandrite Leonid,” Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow wrote to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D. A. Tolstoy, on December 10, 1865, “is not a supporter of his predecessor (Kirill, Bishop of Melitopol), and therefore resigned from the membership of the Mission out of dissatisfaction and did not turn out to be his supporter in Russia” 37 . The grounds for this “displeasure” were indicated by Father Leonid himself in his conversations with Father Archimandrite Antonin (Kapustin), when the latter came to Jerusalem (in 1865) to investigate the unrest that occurred in the Spiritual Mission in 1864. “By his own admission, Fr. Leonidas,” wrote Father Archimandrite Antonin to the Holy Synod, “the reason for the first removal from the Mission was that His Eminence Kirill, the then head of the Mission, who had promised him clergyship under it back in Russia, upon arrival here took upon himself this duty and demanded that the members of the Mission be in a spiritual-filial relationship with him” 38 . To more clearly understand the reason for the disagreement with Bishop Kirill and the deep grief experienced on his part, we will use the letter of B. P. Mansurov to the Chairman of the Palestine Commission, Prince D. A. Obolensky, from Jerusalem dated October 15, 1858: “Fathers Juvenaly and Leonid received us,” wrote B. P. Mansurov, “with heartfelt joy and, of course, us charmed. You already know, dear friend, that they were both dissatisfied with the bishop because he did not use them for anything, did not trust them with anything and kept them just like novices. Leonid positively wanted to leave Jerusalem and had already submitted a petition to the Bishop about this. We found both him and Juvenal very dissatisfied with the bishop. Both of them knew about the Vladyka’s bad impression of me, they heard that I allegedly used a lot of credit in St. Petersburg, had hostile feelings towards the bishop and was going to Jerusalem with the desire and opportunity to take it into my hands and redo everything that was bad in the Mission. Both good, worthy and highly Christian fathers saw in this an opportunity to rely on me and the Consulate in order to change their position as they wanted, and were supported in their hopes by gossipy ladies’ and non-ladies’ letters from St. Petersburg, from where they were written that the enemies of the Most Reverend Kirill were strong and were expecting through me to find an opportunity to summon him to Russia. Kirill himself, irritated by the unknown about my instructions, reinforced the idea of ​​​​his weakness, for he often carelessly and biliously expressed that if he was sent a chief prosecutor for the Mission, he would abandon Jerusalem. For all these reasons, the first courtesies of Fathers Juvenaly and Leonid were completely on our side, and although from the first conversations I explained to His Eminence Kirill that I had come to help him and not to hinder him, yet knowing that Fathers Leonid and Juvenaly have great connections in Russia and, by the way, that Yu strongly supports N.P. Maltsev, who with feminine simplicity is ready to fight against Cyril and enjoys enormous influence at the Court in the eyes of the Bishop, then His Eminence Cyril was very concerned about the possible complete transition of Leonid and Juvenal to our side, as if against him. From the very beginning I learned and understood the tactics of both fathers, but being convinced that in the liberation of the Bishop from the gossip of his subordinates, the unity and freedom of his power and the retention of his subordinates from gossip and complaints and the Chief, lies the only condition for the success and dignity of our Mission, I (without saying or expressing anything to Fathers Leonid and Juvenaly) took the side directly of the Right Reverend and only by frequent conversations with him (without touching at all fathers), and less often - with fathers and removing myself from listening to their complaints - unconsciously (for I learned everything from myself) I took away from them the hope of support against the Bishop... Fearing that Fathers Leonid and Juvenaly would not write letters of complaint against him to St. Petersburg, wishing that Leonid, by leaving the Mission, would not arouse assumptions about the intolerable character of him, Cyril, - and fearing, out of distrust of me, that they would not find an intercessor and support in me, - the Reverend, convinced from my behavior that for now he had nothing to fear from me, due to the boastfulness known to you and akin to him, he began recklessly being nice to Fathers Leonid and Juvenaly, convinced the first to delay his departure to Russia, reassured the second in matters of pride, promising to make him the Head of a future Mission somewhere, and began to say about me that he was pleased with me for now, but that my personal official position in St. Petersburg had recently become very precarious, because V.K. had let me deal with the Jerusalem case out of boredom; that he, Kirill, holds me completely in his hands and I myself renounce in writing the convictions expressed in my book - that in the M.I.D. I have so little credit and support that I myself told him, Kirill, that he should write ten lines against me in St. Petersburg and force him to summon me from Jerusalem; that I am so ingratiating myself with him, Cyril, only because it depends on him to ruin my career, and that he is no longer afraid of me, for he holds the sword of Damocles over me, etc. in this spirit. Then, in relation to the Consulate and Dorgobuzhinov, Kirill developed the same theme that I was leading D by the nose, that this latter is a zero in character, that the Consulate should be the obedient servant of him, the Bishop, and will dance to his tune, that all we have to do is hold all of us in our hands, etc.” “You know, dear friend,” continues B.P. Mansurov, “to what extent Kirill is talkative and immoderate in his speeches; on the other hand, you know how holy, good-natured and honest Leonid and Juvenaly are. These wonderful people, worthy of all respect, unconsciously turned into sources of all sorts of rumors and gossip in Jerusalem; they wish only the best for everyone and, out of jealousy, are eager to serve the cause in a way other than celebrating Matins and Mass every day. It is impossible not to love and respect them, but they are just children in matters of everyday life and diplomacy; The oppression of His Eminence Kirill disturbs the calm of their spirit, and the nervous, febrile peculiarity of Jerusalem life takes them out of their character.” “I can’t help but tell you a few words about Fathers Leonid and Juvenalia,” B.P. Mansurov returns to this issue once again, “it is impossible not to love, respect and honor these worthy and wonderful people; You can simply fall in love with Juvenal in a Christian spirit. Both of them make the most gratifying impression on everyone here and on me, and it was difficult to choose the best spiritual representatives of piety and meekness. They could be used to make wonderful tools for everything, but His Eminence Kirill spoils them and will ruin them; He has a great sin in that he did not know how to gain love and trust in their soul, which is asking for love and trust. In relation to them, his generalship expressed itself completely and in the most unfortunate way; they are mere children in political matters, but in the matter of supervising and edifying their admirers, their kind cannot be found. He completely brushed them off from this matter, sending them only occasionally to his fans for investigations and to convey urgent orders. His Eminence Kirill acts on his fans only with general sternness (sometimes really necessary), therefore, Leonid and Juvenaly are always only police officials, and not shepherds and exhorters. Why not give them a share in the fans' confession? This would bring them closer to their spiritual children and would interest them in the matter of moral observation of our wanderers. Leonidas and Juvenal cannot yet be used in political and diplomatic matters, for they live only in Christ - but what cannot be achieved with them in the matter of edification and attracting hearts? Through them, police supervision of pilgrims would turn into beneficent guidance. Instead, our pilgrims only fear our bishop and complain about his unattainable greatness. Even in relation to us, the Eminence acts either himself or through his dragoman and kavas. It is precisely here that the lack of warmth of the heart appears in Cyril, and it is very natural that Leonid and Juvenaly do not love him, do not trust him, and are not attracted to them by the spirit of participation in the holy cause. This is all very pitiful, especially since both of these fathers will either leave on their own or be sent away by the bishop to receive dumb sheep instead. They should hinder him by attracting others too much. Apparently, the Eminence wanted to assure my subordinates that I was completely in his power, that he was so strong that everything must bow before him, and that the consul and I, involuntarily, must be his humble, obedient servants. All this was brought to light involuntarily and unconsciously because Fr. O. Yu. and L. began to regret our pitiful situation and grieve that now His Eminence Kirill would finally turn them into a ram’s horn. We didn't understand this at first, until they finally spoke out good-naturedly and frankly. To this I answered them only that they could draw any conclusions they wanted, but that I myself was very pleased with the Bishop, especially since he did not force me to lag behind any of my thoughts or abandon any of my plans. Nothing could surprise them more than this, because (the Eminence constantly repeated that) it would force me to abandon not only my intentions, but also my convictions” 39. But the reasons for the discord with Bishop Kirill lay not in the personal insults of Father Leonid and in the failure to fulfill the promises given to him upon leaving Russia, but much deeper: in the complete dissimilarity of their internal spiritual disposition and views on the monastic vows they had voluntarily taken and the ascetic deeds that had taken root in his soul under the influence of the Optina elders. We clearly see a reflection of this in the letter of a member of the third Jerusalem Mission, Hierodeacon Arseny, dated February 8, 1865, addressed to the Russian Jerusalem Consul A. N. Kartsev. “During our previous service in the Jerusalem Mission under the Right Reverend Kirill with Father Leonid,” he writes, “we did not agree on the concepts of arbitrary poverty, humility, prayer, patience, fasting and much more. Father Leonid always turned out to be a fanatical formalist and conservative of the letter. Even at that time, the influence of the monastery on Fr. Leonid was very noticeable: his smooth manner and refined methods of monastic conversation showed him to be a student of the cenobitic Optina Hermitage, where special attention was paid to the presentation of a decent appearance. The views of Father Leonid were strange and not similar to the direct beliefs of the Orthodox. I will say the following as an example. All of us in Jerusalem, under His Grace Kirill, ate beef, with the permission of the Ecumenical Patriarch, without any embarrassment of conscience. Father Leonid did not eat beef itself, but only cabbage soup and beef soup, not wanting to be a sinner like us” 40. In his letter to Prince D. A. Obolensky dated July 4, 1861, Father Leonid himself gives a vivid picture of his relationship with His Eminence Kirill and his views on the latter’s activities in Jerusalem as the head of the Mission. “I have news from Jerusalem on the 8th of this month,” writes Father Leonid, “this is a letter from Fr. Juvenal, who left there with a load of the most unpleasant impressions and, describing the composition of the “bishop’s house” (the Mission was destroyed), expresses himself as follows: “and Fadlala (dragoman) and Vasily Andreevich (Levinson) as advisers to the great diplomat at lunches, dinners and other exploits of the worthy leader of the cohort. “Alas, alas,” he adds, “spiritual Jerusalem, worthy of weeping and bitter laughter.” I don’t know if the same will be said about. Juvenaly upon his arrival in St. Petersburg, because he himself is a bit of a diplomat, and therefore I am telling you his real review, which I ask you to share with those who still care at all about the future of the Jerusalem affair, which, instead of bringing honor to Russia, now dishonors it, and in whose person?.. But who is to blame if we believe in nothing and no one, believing that the “holiness of life” is an attribute of the rank, from which it follows that “our ladies” consider sextons and sextons the most sinful people, and the most holy is Cyril, who was elevated to the rank of bishop by them, and supported by them in his above-mentioned exploits, for which he also annually receives funds from generosity (of course, the Empress). Is it possible to cheat so blatantly? It’s sad and painful to know this, and is it really impossible to expect any favorable change in the near future” 41. But no matter how difficult the moral atmosphere that surrounded him was, no matter how limited the scope of his activity, the time spent by Father Leonid during these years in Jerusalem was not in vain, and was used by him for the goal that he set for himself when leaving Russia: to study the history and life of Eastern monasticism. “Hieromonk Leonid,” wrote Kirill, Bishop of Melitopol, to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A.P. Tolstoy, on April 17, 1858, “has an assignment to study local monasticism as a person who knows a lot about the matter and is very interested in the matter of monasticism. I hope that his observations will bring us a lot of benefit in the future, especially when the Lord is pleased to give the government the idea to take care of the fate of our Russian monasteries” 42. As a pupil of the Optina elders, famous for their spiritual life - Fathers Leonid, Macarius and Ambrose - he, on behalf of Bishop Kirill, took on the duties of the confessor of Russian pilgrims, and as a lover of monastic life and “interested in the work of monasticism,” he willingly began in Jerusalem to study in practice modern Eastern monasticism, which he had hitherto known only in theory, from the ascetic creations of ancient ascetics; and, as an “Old Speaker” and a person inclined to literary pursuits, he “managed to become acquainted in some detail with all the holy places” and compiled a very interesting book about Jerusalem, “Old Jerusalem and Its Environments” (From the Notes of a Monk-Pilgrim. M., 1873), which has not lost its scientific and practical interest to this day. “Living in Jerusalem, I used the time free from church and official duties (as a member of the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission),” writes Father Leonid about the origin of the book, “partly to talk about holy places with people who know them closely, partly to visit these holy places with the aim of thoroughly studying them; During trips around the outskirts of the Holy City and distant holy places, such as Jordan and Galilee, I tried not so much to follow the instructions of Western writers, but to repeat the precious legends of our first pilgrim “Monk Daniel”, and had the pleasant opportunity to make sure that these legends of “a holy man, ancient in days and book of greatness, who lived in Galilee for 40 years and in the Lavra of St. Sava 20 years old,” completely agree with the Greek legends and largely refute the testimony of Latin writers, based on the testimony of the Franciscans and various “cicerones” from “Casanova,” the owners of which, constantly competing with the Greeks in the possession of holy places, managed to distort and eclipse many Orthodox legends about holy places, which, unfortunately, was reflected in the writings of some of our newest pilgrims” 43. During this first stay in Jerusalem, Father Leonid had a spiritual rapprochement with the rector of the Savvinsky Lavra, Father Joasaph, “a worthy imitator of the reverend desert fathers, who had well studied the area of ​​the desert of the Holy City and all the traditions and tales about it, which are vividly preserved in his blessed memory” 44. He was elected by him to be his confessor, to be a leader in a new environment for him among the Greek Holy Sepulcher clergy and Palestinian monasticism and an experienced guide to the shrines of Jerusalem and when he visited the ruins of the desert Jordanian monasteries 45. Upon returning to Russia from Jerusalem, heading to his native nest - to the peaceful Optina Hermitage, Hieromonk Father Leonid in Moscow saw Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, who took an ardent, lively part in the affairs of our Mission in the Orthodox East, and, undoubtedly, clarified to him the true position of this Mission in the proper light, being able to retain the attention of such a high and authoritative patron and secure it strong support for his energetic activities for the entire subsequent period of his life. When Father Leonid wished to visit St. Petersburg for his own purposes, Metropolitan Philaret wrote the following kind letter about him on September 29, 1859 to the hieromonk of the Trinity St. Petersburg metochion: “Give the Optina Monastery to Hieromonk Leonid decent and, if possible, comfortable accommodation in the cells of the metochion. The duty of hospitality requires that the hosts, if necessary, push themselves aside in order to provide comfort to the guest” 46. Return to Optina Pustyn and appointment as head of the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission. Packing for Palestine and traveling there The return of Father Leonid to his native Optina Pustyn was greeted with joy by his elder Macarius, who greeted him like this: “God has brought you back to remember us” 47 . And these words in the mouth of the seer turned out to be prophetic. Father Leonid soon had to endure two losses “for a tender and kindred feeling” and find himself “a complete orphan in my heartfelt feelings.” In 1860, on August 23, his beloved mother, Maria Mikhailovna, died in his arms at the monastery, and two weeks later she was followed by the “most blessed” elder Schemamonk Macarius, mourned by him and enthusiastically glorified in a “detailed biography” (“The Last Days of the Life of Elder Macarius,” 1861), examined in manuscript and approved by his great admirer this elder, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, who called the author of the biography “a loving disciple of the unforgettable elder” 48. In this peaceful haven, Father Leonid, as well acquainted with the state of affairs in Jerusalem and the needs of our Russian pilgrims, was entrusted with the assignment in the same year, 1860, to write a “Report on measures taken to improve the life of Russian Orthodox worshipers in Palestine.” “I left Jerusalem in May 1859 (on May 21 I was on the island of Chios, I remember this very well); I wrote this “Report,” says Archimandrite Leonid in a letter to V.N. Khitrovo on November 20, 1888, “at the urgent invitation of Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich in Optina Monastery in 1860 (B.P. Mansurov considers Jerusalem, 1859 as the place of its writing), the rest were given to me not by B.P. Mansurov, but by the late D. A. Obolensky (head of affairs of the Palestinian Committee), with whom we were friends. In this “Report” I own only one historical part 49, everything else, i.e. the contemporary state of affairs of the Palestinian Committee, was borrowed by me literally from the material delivered to me through the same D. A. Obolensky, which, in all likelihood, is the work of Boris Pavlovich, he is also in the answer 50. That’s why I didn’t want my name to appear on this “Report,” because it is only half mine, which is indicated in Boris Pavlovich’s book (i.e., “Basilica of Constantine”).”51 Regarding another assignment from Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, Father Leonid even planned to visit Jerusalem a second time together with the famous pilgrim A.S. Norov and submitted a petition on this occasion to the Palestine Committee with the following content: “His Imperial Highness was pleased to entrust me with the compilation of a “Guide for Russian pilgrims of the Holy Sepulchre” 52. I’m getting ready to travel to the East and I know in advance that my notes will look like a scroll in which “Pity and grief” is written, but still it is better, according to the words of the Wise One, to be in a house of weeping than in a house of unbridled fun, and therefore I prefer traveling through the mournful, long-suffering East to riding on the railways of cheerful Europe" 53 . Expense of 500 rubles. this trip was authorized by the Grand Duke and the Palestine Committee, and the money was even received by Father Leonid in his hands, but was later returned, since this trip “due to circumstances beyond his control” did not take place, and it was not possible to go on a foreign vacation planned for this year to visit holy places. On behalf of the same Palestine Committee, Father Leonid was engaged in “composing Slavic inscriptions on iconostases and other church accessories of Russian churches in Jerusalem” and “composing drawings for the interior decorations of these churches,” and for his work, according to B.P. Mansurov, received 150 rubles from the Committee 54. In addition to the above-mentioned works, during these years of his rest in the monastery, Hieromonk Leonid devoted himself to peaceful armchair academic studies, devoting to them all his leisure time remaining from the fulfillment of his monastic duty, and focusing his attention either on the Holy City he had left and its shrines, then on the traditions and regulations of his monastery, then, finally, delving into the study of the history of monasticism and his beloved monuments of ancient times. During this time, the following articles were published from the pen of Father Leonid: “A Look at the Historical Destiny of the Holy City” (Home Conversation. 1860. No. 30), “The Place of Prayer for the Chalice” (Spiritual Conversation. 1860. No. 38), “Lent in the Holy City of Jerusalem” (Soulful Reading. 1863. Books II–IV), “The Journey to Jerusalem of Priest Lukyanov (beginning)” (Kaluga eparch. Ved., 1863); “On the Holy Places of Palestine (Jerusalem)” (Published by the editors of the magazine “Reading for Soldiers”, nine drawings. St. Petersburg, 1861) 55; “The last Russian desert dwellers (materials for the history of Russian monasticism)” with biographical sketches (Home Conversation. 1862. No. 20–26); “Collected letters of Hieroschemamonk Macarius in two volumes (1862–1863)”; “A voice in defense of the writers of the Pechersk Patericon - St. Simeon, Bishop of Vladimir and Suzdal, etc. Polycarp, arch. Kiev-Pechersk Lavra" (Readings in the Moscow Society of History and Russian Antiquities. 1850. T. IV, mixed. P. 116–126); “The village of Nikolo-Gostunskoye with its antiquities” (Ibid. 1861, pp. 187–198); “Review of the Kaluga Optina Monastery and the churches that were there until the beginning of the 18th century” (Kaluga eparch. Ved., 1861), “Church-historical study of the ancient region of the Vyatichi, included from the beginning of the 15th to the end of the 17th century. part of the Krutitsa and part of the Suzdal diocese" (Readings in the Moscow Society of History and Russian Antiquities. 1862. Book II, research. I-VIII and 1-156, 1862), "Church-historical description of the abolished monasteries located within the Kaluga diocese" (Ibid. 1853. Book I. Research. I–VIII, 1–170), “Review of manuscripts and early printed books in the book depositories of monasteries, city and rural churches of the Kaluga diocese” (Ibid. 1865. Book IV, mixed. pp. 1–115), etc. The peaceful scientific and literary pursuits of Father Hieromonk Leonid were interrupted by his appointment for the second time to serve in our Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem, but already as an independent head of the Mission, which appointment took place in the Holy Synod on November 29, 1863 with his elevation to the rank of archimandrite, which took place on December 6th of the same year. The choice for a high and responsible post in Jerusalem as the head of the Mission fell on the father of Archimandrite Leonid (Kavelin) on the recommendation of the ever-memorable Metropolitan of Moscow Philaret, who on July 9–10, 1863 wrote the following about him to the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod: “For the Jerusalem Mission, in my opinion, the first candidate may be the Optina hieromonk Leonid and the second – Archimandrite Juvenaly. Both of them were already in the Jerusalem Mission under the command of the Bishop of Melitopol. The first is more thorough and experienced, the second is resourceful” 56. In a note submitted by the Holy Synod in 1866 to the Sovereign, it is said about the Mission: “When appointing Archimandrite Leonid, the Holy Governing Synod was guided not only by his fame as a monk of honest rules and impeccable life, but also by his close acquaintance with the work of the Mission and with various local peculiarities and conditions from his previous service with this Mission, when it was under the command of the bishop Melitopol Kirill" 57. “Personal dexterity and experience mean everything,” according to the “Note” of B.P. Mansurov, “in activities on such a distant point as Palestine that the leaders and managers of the national property require “trust” and “an inevitable share of personal arbitrariness,” on the one hand, and on the other, “complete and unlimited trust in all the details of financial affairs” 58 with “moral responsibility” in the absence any bureaucratic, shy official control" 59 . And, despite such a nationwide source of funds for “church affairs in Palestine” with an insignificant increase of 20,000 per year from its solid dividends, the “Russian Society of Shipping and Trade”, through the mouth of its authorized representative, does not hesitate to openly declare that it is the benefactor of our government and supposedly “almost for free” gives it everything it needs in the East, also making “sacrifices” for this cause. “Society,” writes B.P. in his report. Mansurov, - at the first steps it encounters issues of worship, derives monetary benefits from them and is forced not to neglect them, because by doing otherwise, it harms its affairs and cedes victory to dangerous rival enterprises. Thus, society is completely led into all the interests of worship and by the force of things is forced for its own benefits (sic) to seek the same results that our government must seek for state purposes. From such a like-minded desire, both will benefit (sic), but the government will benefit even more (?!) society, because the latter must certainly sow for the harvest and make donations, in which the former may find it difficult (sic). In a word, through society, the government can acquire almost for nothing what has cost it sacrifices” 60. What actually are the benefits of the Society to the “difficult” Russian government, offered supposedly “almost for free”? Orthodox Russian pilgrims in Jerusalem need charitable institutions built according to the requirements of their habits and living conditions, and a Russian Orthodox church. “All this,” according to the “Note,” “can be done easily without opposition from the Porte and the Western powers, because the Society will act in a commercial spirit, the said business will take the form of speculation, which can be patronized by our diplomacy openly and strongly, because the Porte has promised to promote the development of a commercial enterprise that will be beneficial to it... The Church will organize itself (sic) without expenses from the treasury, that is, money, sacrificed by the people. For a long time now, our leaders in the Orthodox East have been persistently declaring the need to have their own consuls, and in particular in Jerusalem, in order to put our poor fans, defenseless and disadvantaged, under his protection, since the Consul General in Beirut, to whose jurisdiction Jerusalem is also subordinate, is a rare guest in Jerusalem. The Shipping and Trade Society promises “strong and wealthy consuls” in the East and is “ready to assume part of the necessary expenses through co-agents,” but with the goal, first of all, to “better familiarize ourselves with our trade relations” and through this make “the patronage of diplomacy more valid for ourselves.” In Constantinople there is an urgent need for a hospice and a hospital for our fans. The Shipping and Trade Society “in speculative forms” is not averse to establishing a kind of hotel for Russian pilgrims in “a house for agencies, shops and coal warehouses.” Here (in a crowded and dirty room!) “it is possible and necessary to set up a small hotel for those visiting Constantinople.” There is no “Russian church representation” in Smyrna, Beirut and Alexandria. Society “is faced with the need to start this business out of commercial calculations.” Jaffa, as a port for our worshipers in Jerusalem, has always been, and to this day, “during all the bad seasons,” “difficult and dangerous.” When landing on shore, the Shipping and Trade Society, with a light heart and without pity or compassion for our pilgrims, points them to an insignificant and meager commercially, but geographically convenient pier in neighboring Kayfa, forcing our pilgrims to make a difficult and dangerous overland journey to Jerusalem over several days. “In terms of trade,” according to B.P. Mansurov, “Kaifa is a very important point for society, because it can export from here an unlimited amount of cargo (sic) delivered by the agricultural industries of the Kishon and Ezdrelon valleys” 61. For fans during the pilgrimage season from September to March, a shelter is created here and “for the sake of commercial interests” a “proper Russian consulate” is established, which combines the responsibilities of the shipping company’s agencies, in view of which it is not averse to even “accepting all expenses for these items” 62. Treating, in particular, the establishment of a “separate Russian consul for all of Palestine” as a matter of “primary and urgent necessity,” the curious “Note” we quote from B.P. Mansurov finds “it is necessary and much more profitable now to purchase a building in Jerusalem for the consulate and together for a shipping office,” and, according to the author of the “Note,” the costs of acquiring the building “can be divided between the government and society if, however (the concession is more than strange), these cannot be used for collections in favor of religious institutions out of respect for the fact that all of the above is arranged for our fans.” “The society's agencies in Jerusalem can be connected with the office of the consulate in order to quickly develop the activities of both and provide the consulate with more funds and a larger number of employees under the guise of commercial agents. Of course, the Jerusalem consul should not be an obvious agent of society (sic) and a participant in a speculative enterprise - such a role would harm his political significance - but nothing prevents him from taking upon himself the main leadership of the affairs of society and even being a responsible person before this last (sic) "63. The “Note” does not pass silently on an important factor in our activity in the East - the Spiritual Mission, but does not try to appease with the promise of its own premises for residence and the assignment of our future hospitable establishments to the “main leadership of the head of the Mission and the Russian consul,” but with the condition: “the shipping society should also participate in its management, both to give the shelter a less political and more commercial character, and because the society will participate to a significant extent in the maintenance and construction of the institution.” 64. So that all these three factors “help each other in achieving a common goal and cannot argue with each other about the superiority of rights and power,” the “Note” tries to distinguish their activities in advance. “Political patronage and assistance in matters of civil public life,” according to her, “will be the responsibility of the consul; care for the morality and religious activities of worshipers should be the direct responsibility of the Spiritual Mission; finally, concern for the material needs and well-being of fans is entrusted to the Spiritual Mission together with the agency of the shipping company (sic), because in this aspect of the matter lies its own benefit and a duty more accessible to it” 65. In conclusion, it is impossible not to note, if only for the sake of curiosity, the idea that the Russian Society of Shipping and Trade, which sought to obscure our government in the East and cover it with its commercial speculative flag, proposes to “disguise, if possible, the role of the government in new activities” in St. Petersburg and seriously considers this even “necessary.” The author of the “Note” formulates his desire in such a strange phrase: “in a word, it is necessary to put the whole business in St. Petersburg in the form of a private charitable enterprise, formed at the direction of the commercial benefits of the shipping company, but patronized by the government for the sake of a charitable purpose and “for the sake of its sympathy for the successes of society”” 66. It is not without intention that we have drawn your enlightened attention for a long time to the main provisions of this curious “Note” - B.P. Mansurov’s report on his trip to Palestine in 1857, since it was greeted in St. Petersburg by the shareholders of the Shipping and Trade Society with complete delight, and its author was recognized as the most suitable person for the implementation of the measures and institutions he was designing in Palestine, with the complete trust and his “personal dexterity and experience.” It is not surprising, therefore, that the stated guiding ideas of this “Note,” as they were entirely the basis of our activities in the Orthodox East, were carried out with persistence and even rare tenacity by the so-called Palestine Committee, which transformed into the Palestine Commission in 1864, erasing and destroying everything that stood in the way of this forward movement, serving two masters: God and mammon, the Church and speculation. Under the pressure of this stubbornness, the talented and devoted Bishop Kirill died in Jerusalem, and this was almost the end of our other figure in Jerusalem - Father Archimandrite Leonid (Kavelin), about whom, despite the brevity of his stay there, we intend to talk in this meeting. At the beginning of 1858, with the Supreme approval, the Palestine Committee was created under the chairmanship of Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, with the goal of taking care of improving the situation of our pilgrims in Palestine, and at the end of the same year, “circles for collecting alms for improving the life of Orthodoxy were established in those places from where the rays of the true faith spread throughout the world, that is, making a feasible material contribution to the holy cause and acceptance by some selected persons of asceticism in a cause pleasing to God” 67. The calculation turned out to be quite correct. From the report of the Palestine Committee from 1858 to April 15, 1860, it is clear that during this time donations were received along with circle fees in the amount of 176,623 rubles 37 kopecks, and interest on the collected capital increased to 7,000 rubles; The Russian Society of Shipping and Trade, which in the “Note” we quoted above promised 30,000 rubles in silver annually, ultimately allocated 30,000 rubles for the Jerusalem case, but “with the contribution of the entire amount within three years” and, finally, from the personal funds of the Sovereign Emperor, 500,000 rubles were granted for the same case. Thus, a substantial amount of donations quickly accumulated in the hands of the Palestine Committee, with which it was already possible to begin the acquisition of the necessary land and the construction of Russian hospitable charitable institutions on it. For the final resolution of this important issue in the life of Russian colonization in Palestine, the expected arrival in Jerusalem of the Chairman of the Palestine Committee, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, was expected, who was supposed to personally approve the choice of a suitable site for the planned structures. This visit, as is known, took place at the end of April, with a stay in Jerusalem until May 9, when all the assumptions of B.P. Mansurov and his employees, who arrived in Palestine in advance of the Grand Duke’s arrival, received approval and approval. During all this time, only the former chief manager of the destinies of our fans in Jerusalem, the head of the Mission, Bishop Kirill, remained in the shadows and, as it were, in disdain, if we do not mean the kind personal attention of the Grand Duke and the highest awards bestowed upon him. Such ignoring of our head of the Mission is all the more strange and incomprehensible since there were already heated complaints and protests from Jerusalem about the impossible relations between the head of our Mission and the agent of the Russian Shipping and Trade Society in the role of consul in Jerusalem and that these squabbles and complaints had already become known to the Sovereign Emperor, who put the following resolution in a letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs dated March 17, 1859: “I’ll wait for my brother to write to me...” 68. In August 1858, the Palestine Committee sent to Jerusalem “an official of the maritime ministry who had never dealt with Palestine, or church, or eastern affairs,” V.I. Dorgobuzhinov 69, without any diplomatic school, taken from the office to perform the duties of an agent of the Russian Shipping Company and trade with the rights of a Russian consul. The new leader in Palestine was greeted, quite naturally, by the former owner and manager of our local affairs, Bishop Kirill, with distrust and bewilderment regarding his real “unclear new position.” “The orders of the ministry, information from the Constantinople embassy, ​​mediocre through the embassy from Mr. Mansurov, without any preliminary notifications, without any explanation regarding my appointment and the state of change, put me,” Bishop Kirill wrote on June 19, 1858 to E. P. Kovalevsky, director of the Asian Department, “in extreme confusion. Reading and re-reading the instructions and combining them with the newly acquired information, I am finally completely lost, not knowing what to do, not understanding why I exist here. Until now I understand two things, which, however, in themselves are also not very clear. Firstly, I see some change in the principle on which the existence of my Mission is affirmed. They propose to cover us with the company of the Shipping and Trade Society. But either I have become completely stupid or, in fact, there is something unclear in the new principle, only in any case I do not see the light around me, no matter how much I strain my mental gaze. Among various open and independent religious institutions, the independent Russian Mission took an honorable place and, while maintaining its dignity, managed to earn general trust and respect. I believe that only in this form can it remain a worthy representative of the Russian Church and - let me express the thought in full - only under this charter can it exist, at least in its current composition with a bishop at its head. I will say more: shipping and trading establishments, very appropriate along the Mediterranean coast, appearing in the worshiping city of Jerusalem, will most likely surprise the world and arouse the greatest suspicions: what is it, they will say, Russia is still hiding behind the fans? She organized a Spiritual Mission for her fans, and established a trading society for her fans.” 70 However, His Eminence Kirill met the representatives of the “new principle” in Jerusalem, B.P. Mansurov and his protege Dorgobuzhinov, at first kindly, without, however, hiding his concerns “for the possibility of some reasons for misunderstandings.” On October 7, 1858, Bishop Kirill directly stated to our ambassador in Constantinople A.P. Butenev that he “even foresees the emergence of these questions” 71 . And indeed, it was not long before the expected conflicts between the old masters in Jerusalem and the new ones were expected. “Everything that I could ever fear in relation to our business in the East from the confusion of the beginning,” Bishop Kirill wrote in his report on February 19, 1859, “all this came out, precisely out, which is the most deplorable of all. Not only our admirers, but also the Greeks and Turks rushed to me after my arrival (from Damascus) with enthusiastic expressions of their joy at my return, and along with a loud murmur against the consul for acting against me... It turned out that the question was about the principle itself, about representation in Jerusalem, about the significance of the consul in connection with the Bishop - the head of the Mission. I don’t know to what extent the public agent who runs the consulate was convinced of the truth of the position I expressed to him, that I cannot be put on the same level as the last admirer in Jerusalem, that if the flag “covers all Russians, then it only protects me”... I don’t know what we will get to next, but now our affairs in Jerusalem are going very badly. An extremely imprudent course of action. The manager of the consulate is more and more supported in Jerusalem society by the idea that he and I are not walking along the same road; our relations are strained to the point that I am afraid to leave the house, afraid to take on any business, even about fans, for fear of again raising any issue that we will not resolve, or giving rise to suspicions with which I have already been completely undeservedly offended...” “The consequences will not stop,” Bishop Kirill concludes quite thoroughly, “as long as the cause continues to exist, and this is already extremely bad for our cause in the East. As an agent of society, Mr. Dorgobuzhinov is no longer walking along the same road with me, we are not under the same leadership, we are not doing the same thing, and if we do the same thing, then with completely different types, which is even worse. I had reassuring assurances from Mr. Mansurov about society’s interference in our business; deeds now speak clearer than words and justify my long-standing fears more than the assurances of His Excellency. Merger of titles in one person. Dorgobuzhinov did not destroy the difference in his aspirations for service in the two departments: the beginning of a real division here, and this division will not end either with a change of persons or with the passage of time. It could have been discovered not so early and not so sadly, but this is already a minor evil. Having adopted numerous goals that were not very related to the business of trade, the Shipping and Trade Society gave its agents the idea of ​​​​some kind of semi-overt, semi-secret representation in the East and the appointment to be observers of the progress of political and church affairs throughout the East. Agents are thus introduced into the circle of activities of officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, having received funds for greater representation, naturally lay claim to their activities: a clash here is inevitable, unless over time all consular posts will pass into the hands of agents of society” 72. But the representatives of the “new principle” who arrived in Jerusalem tried to closely unite together, having in their soul the main figure in Palestinian Russian affairs B.P. Mansurov, with the aim of inflicting a sensitive blow on the old principle and the old master - the head of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem. Thus, a unanimous “triumvirate” 73 was formed, as the author of “Memoirs of a Devotee of the Holy Sepulcher” V. Kaminsky calls these figures - a “triumvirate” consisting of B.P. Mansurov, V.I. Dorgobuzhinov and the main builder of our buildings, academician-architect M.I. Eppinger. Our minor figures who took part in the construction of Russian charitable institutions, quite naturally, as independent and subordinate people, grouped around their principals and supported the “said triumvirate.” The members of the “triumvirate” tried with all their might to seize control of our affairs in Palestine into their tenacious hands and to eliminate any interference in them by the head of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission, Bishop Kirill, who extremely constrained them with his high rank and the authority that he had acquired through his previous very fruitful and respectable activities in Palestine. By setting up new shelters for Russian pilgrims in private houses in the city of Jerusalem with money, although collected in the circles of Russian Orthodox churches, but at their complete disposal, according to their plans and tastes, the leaders of the “triumvirate” led by B.P. Mansurov tried to place these shelters and their inhabitants, our pilgrims, outside of any even indirect influence on them of their dangerous rival - the head of the Mission. Busy with the search for convenient plots of land for the construction of planned Russian charitable institutions within the city and adjacent suburban areas, the members of the “triumvirate” never tried, even out of decency, to invite the head of the Mission, Bishop Kirill, to their meetings, despite the fact that simultaneously with the construction of hospices there was also talk about the creation of a majestic Russian Holy Trinity Cathedral. Therefore, there is nothing strange in the fact that when the Chairman of the Palestine Committee, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, appeared in Jerusalem for pilgrimage and other purposes, the leaders of the “triumvirate” did not consider it useful for themselves to interfere in the planned enterprise of our head of the Mission and tried in every possible way to divert the attention of the Most August Admirer from this sharply conspicuous anomaly, providing the latter with expressions of signs of their personal attention and the transfer of His Majesty to him awarded awards. Cleverly bypassing this delicate and difficult issue for themselves during the Grand Duke’s stay in Jerusalem, B.P. Mansurov and his comrades, after the prince’s departure, were free to begin construction without any participation of Bishop Kirill in them, inviting him only to the church ceremony at the foundation stone of the cathedral. It is not surprising that this anti-canonical, unnatural and incomprehensible to unprejudiced people act of impoliteness towards the Russian bishop aroused complete bewilderment on the part of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow. “The Agency of the Society of Shipping and Trade in Jerusalem, a city not seaside, not a trade one,” Vladyka wrote to St. Petersburg regarding Bishop Kirill’s report for 1858, “is so abnormal that it itself cannot help but feel in a rather awkward position without comrades, without work. Is there any untruth here? What is the shipping company doing or what does it want to do? Not visible. It wants to build a church, premises and a hospital for worshipers. But doesn’t this belong more to the Spiritual Mission than to the Shipping and Trade Society? Meanwhile, the Shipping and Trade Society has in its hands the money collected for charitable institutions in Jerusalem and is taking care to continue to receive large quantities into its hands. Foreign governments spend hundreds of rubles per agency to ensure the movement and acquisition of thousands; what if we, having spent thousands on an agency, do not gain even hundreds” 74 . But this sad fact does not end the complete discord among Russian leaders in Palestine with obvious disdain for the head of the Russian Spiritual Mission. After the Grand Duke left Jerusalem, the members of the “triumvirate” became even stronger and more decisive in their actions. G. Dorgobuzhinov, relying on the support of B.P. Mansurov, took away from Bishop Kirill the last stronghold of his influence on pilgrims - the Russian hospital, created through the efforts of the head of the Mission with funds donated for this item into his hands and the full disposal of the Empress 75. However, the unsatisfactory progress of Russian affairs in Palestine and the personal desire of the Sovereign Emperor, to whose attention, as we know, unfavorable rumors about the state of these affairs in Palestine were brought, our Palestinian leaders were called upon by the urgent need to issue special measures that would precisely delineate in Jerusalem the spheres of activity of our representatives: the head of the Mission and the agent of the Shipping and Trade Society with the duties of the Russian consul. It is hardly necessary to add that in these measures, approved by the Highest “for execution” on December 11, 1859, the Palestine Committee tried in every possible way to preserve its basic principle of freedom of action inviolable. “The duty of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem,” says the Committee’s journal, “is to entrust the moral and spiritual edification of the entire Russian flock, church representation, the production of divine services, the management of the affairs of the Mission, pastoral supervision of our fans and all the moral conditions of their life, participation with advice and instructions in the charity of our pilgrims, transmission of their comments on this subject to the consul and assistance to him in improving the life of fans. Subordinate all Russian hospitality establishments in Palestine to the authority of the civil authorities, that is, the Russian imperial consulate, whose responsibilities include all political, diplomatic, civil and police representation and administration - all acquisitions of lands and houses, all economic management of shelters, hospitals and buildings on the basis of instructions from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs" 76. The Palestinian Committee then corrected its first important mistake as an agent of shipping and trade with the rights of a consul and an official of the Maritime Ministry, Mr. Dorgobuzhinov, who aroused the discontent and distrust of the head of the Mission, replaced the officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with K. A. Sokolov, and after his death, which soon followed, with A. N. Kartsev, who had already served in the East before that time. The Mission's desire to have a real consul in Jerusalem from among the officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was thus realized, but with the replacement of the agent by the consul, things in Jerusalem did not improve. A. N. Kartsev, who retained the title of diplomatic agent and the duties of an agent of the Shipping and Trade Society with a reward for this from the funds of the Palestine Committee of an additional 2000 rubles, arrived in Palestine already well informed in our affairs and received in St. Petersburg from persons close to the Committee very detailed instructions regarding the course of action here. The “triumvirate” that existed until then and was in charge of all affairs received only the replacement of one person with another, but remained as before in full force, and the acquisition of a nihilist official, “without any faith or morality,” as Archimandrite Leonid characterized A. N. Kartsev, had the most deplorable effect on the further course of our affairs in Palestine. The Consul of Jerusalem, relying on his connections, bureaucratic and aristocratic, used all means: insinuation and slander, slander and gossip, in order to discredit the personality of the head of the Spiritual Mission, Bishop Kirill, and make his further stay in Jerusalem with him impossible. In a report dated May 19, 1863 to the Asian Department “about the immoral behavior of the head of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission,” the consul, “intelligent and cautious, able to charm with archpastoral virtues,” - this is how he characterizes Bishop Kirill, - does not hesitate to call him a person “with acting abilities,” accuse him of alcoholism “to the point of delirium tremens” and consider him “dumb and a submissive instrument" in the hands of the Greeks, supposedly "allowing him to calmly indulge in all weaknesses and passions." In a private letter to the Ambassador of Constantinople N.P. Ignatiev, Mr. Kartsev goes even further in his insinuations. Bishop Kirill, in his words, is a “buffoon”, a drunkard, a lover of the fair sex, etc., etc. But the richness of all these colors is necessary for the Jerusalem consul only in order, in the end, to remove from Jerusalem a high-ranking clergyman who is undesirable for him. “In conclusion,” writes A.N. Kartsev in a report to the Asian Department - if the Imperial Ministry deigns to take my present report into account and make an order to recall Bishop Kirill from Jerusalem, then I would consider it more useful for the unity of our actions and Russian interests in Palestine to appoint not a bishop, but an archimandrite, known not only for his mental abilities, but also for his kind, honest behavior and strict exemplary life, as the new head of the Spiritual Mission; it is necessary to pay special attention to this when choosing a head for the Spiritual Mission, which has its seat in the city of Jerusalem” 77 . This conclusion is in no way connected with the essence of the report and, of course, it is not the business of a secular person - the consul - to indicate to the highest spiritual authorities, and together with his immediate superior authorities - the Ministry of Foreign Affairs - in what rank it considers it more useful for the cause to send a new head of our Mission to Jerusalem - as bishop or archimandrite. The point is not in the rank, but in the personal merits of the future leader, but this was reflected in the secret long-standing desire of our Russian leaders in Palestine to get rid once and for all of the representative dignitary of the Russian Church near them, who was constraining them with his high hierarchical position, and to replace him with a person more modest in title in the hierarchy. It is to the credit of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that it did not take the insinuations of the Jerusalem Consul with full confidence and ardently stood up for its chosen head of the Mission - Bishop Kirill. The Ministry, based on the reports of its agents, and for political reasons, did not recognize the stay of Bishop Kirill of Melitopol in Jerusalem as “unnecessary and all the less harmful”, and the very question – “whether it is necessary to replace him with another person”, quite reasonably and thoroughly left it “to be decided by the highest spiritual authorities”, and the replacement of the bishop by an archimandrite in Jerusalem, in the opinion of the Ministry, would even “present a lot of inconvenience” and, under the present circumstances, “will look like a drastic, the turn of events is too abrupt" 78. But those who were interested and desirable, they tried to bring the incriminating report of Consul A.N. Kartsev to the attention of the Sovereign Emperor Alexander II, who, after reading it, wrote the following Highest resolution on it: “It is extremely sad if all this is true. But even these rumors would be enough not to leave him in place.” In the Holy Synod, Bishop Kirill did not have any support at this time, and Metropolitan of Moscow Philaret and Chief Prosecutor A.P. Akhmatov treated him very unfavorably, and the fate of Bishop Kirill was decided. On June 22, 1863, he was removed from the post of head of the Mission in Jerusalem and assigned to the jurisdiction of the Kazan Archbishop 79. The further sad fate of Bishop Kirill, who was awaiting a formal trial in order to justify himself before the Holy Synod and aroused the most sincere and ardent sympathy for himself among the local Holy Sepulcher clergy, and among native Christians, and Turkish local authorities, and even among the leaders of Western faiths, can no longer interest us, since it is not directly related to the subject of our speech, but we cannot ignore the “Notes” from persons close to the Palestinian Committee and submitted to the Holy Synod in order to determine the maximum requirements for the future head of our Spiritual Mission. “The main qualities that will be required from the rector of the hospice monastery in Jerusalem,” according to this “Note,” should be: strict piety, strength of character, ability to deal with the Russian common people and experience in monastic management. From such a clergyman there is no need to demand at all any pompous scholarship, nor the ability to endure the condition of sociability with foreigners, nor even knowledge of Greek and Arabic. The abbot will deal exclusively with Russian fans within the Russian monastery, therefore, the main condition is the ability to manage the fans and the household on the same basis as is done in monasteries in Russia. All local relations with the Greek clergy and the Jerusalem authorities will remain the lot of the diplomatic representative of the government, that is, the consul (sic) and partly the head of the Spiritual Mission" 80 . Further, in the “Note” every effort is made to prove that the “too high importance” in his rank of the head of the Mission, despite the fact that common pilgrims “easily submit to the authority of a spiritual nature,” prevents him from taking upon himself daily concerns about the welfare of the material needs of fans,” and therefore a special spiritual position is being designed - the abbot of the governor or abbot, who would be on a general basis directly under the authority of the Holy Governing Synod, and directly through the consul would report money to the Palestinian Committee, from which he would receive sums for the maintenance of shelters” 81. The “Note” we are analyzing was subjected to serious critical analysis by Metropolitan Philaret “in a dissenting opinion,” and the wise Bishop on the affairs of Jerusalem expressed an absolutely fair conclusion: “The Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem and the construction of church and hospitality buildings there, which in subject and purpose should be one, were carried out by two actors: 1) the spiritual authorities with the consent of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and 2) the Jerusalem Committee, composed of secular persons. These actors each went their own way, and it is not surprising if they did not come to unity... It is difficult to be satisfied with both what exists and what is expected” 82. Metropolitan Philaret, in particular, recognized the appointment of Archimandrite as head instead of the bishop for our Mission, although it was a “kind of decline” and not “ascent from strength to strength,” 83 however, he yielded to the persistent desire of our leaders in Palestine and recommended, as we know, Hieromonk Leonid (Kavelin) as the “first candidate” for the head of the Mission as a “thorough and experienced” person. By decree of the Holy Synod of November 29, 1863, Hieromonk Leonid of Optina Hermitage, with the Highest permission, was appointed head of the Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem with elevation to the rank of archimandrite and conferring the degree of abbot of a first-class monastery 84. Summoned from Kursk to St. Petersburg, on July 25 he arrived at “his account” and was paid here with passing money: two horses for 63 rubles. 39 kopecks, daily allowance 30 kopecks. for 36 days – 6 rubles. 90 kopecks, but only 70 rubles. 29 kopecks, and for maintenance in the capital until September 105 rubles, and only 180 rubles. 85. On December 6 of the same year, Father Leonid was elevated to the rank of archimandrite, and on December 23 of the month he was granted a miter and a golden pectoral cross with precious stones from His Majesty's Cabinet 86. Thus, the dreams of the leaders of the Palestinian Committee about replacing the bishop in Jerusalem with an archimandrite came true. This is stated in detail by the “Note” dated April 15, 1860, heard in the Committee and presented to Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich. “During the restoration of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem in 1857,” we read in this “Note,” “a bishop was placed at its head, instead of the former archimandrite. This matter was decided and the instructions of the Jerusalem Mission were drawn up without communication with the Metropolitans of Moscow and St. Petersburg. Now experience has shown that almost the entire clergy and many statesmen are convinced that appointing a bishop and not an archimandrite as the head of the Mission was a mistake. On the part of the Spiritual Department, one Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod was guilty of this mistake, who was invited to the Asian Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to read the instructions, after which this instruction was sent to the Holy Synod already highly approved for the orders that depended on him.” In the Highest approved Committee for taking measures to establish charitable institutions in Palestine on December 11, 1859, under the chairmanship of His Imperial Highness Grand Duke General-Admiral Konstantin Nikolaevich, the question of this arose when discussing the need to end the misunderstanding between His Eminence Kirill and the actual civil councilor Dorgobuzhinov, which had received such sad publicity. Moreover, all members of the Committee and, by the way, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, who even then admitted his mistake, attributed these misunderstandings primarily to the incorrect position of the Russian bishop in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. The long-term stay and independent action of a bishop in a foreign diocese seems to be a violation of respect for the local hierarchy, is contrary to church canons and is allowed only by the Latin Church, in which we so often see a mixture of church affairs with political calculations. Therefore, the members of the Committee found that the episcopal rank of the head of our Mission gives representatives of other powers an erroneous concept of the very purpose of the Mission and the opportunity, sincerely or slyly, to attach to our bishop the same importance that heterodox bishops, censors and enemies of the Greek Orthodox Church have in holy places. For these reasons, the members of the Committee believed that the only sure and fundamental way to avert misunderstandings between our spiritual and civil authorities in Jerusalem in the future was to continue to appoint an archimandrite instead of a bishop as the head of the Mission. This opinion was in agreement with the thought conveyed from Jerusalem by the Most August Admirer, Grand Duke Admiral General Konstantin Nikolaevich. The note from State Secretary Mansurov to the Religious Department concerns proposals to increase the composition of the Mission and to build a separate cathedral church. These assumptions have the apparent purpose of acquainting the Orthodox inhabitants of the East with those features that have appeared in our worship over time. Without speaking about the increase in expenses that would be required to implement these assumptions and which is only a minor inconvenience, we point out other circumstances that must be taken into account in this case. In matters of the Church and worship, great and small things receive dignity and bind the Orthodox people to themselves in proportion to their antiquity. It can be said affirmatively that, contrary to other worldly affairs, the improvement of church institutions should consist in a return to the first centuries of Christianity, and not in moving away from them. In this respect, the Greek Church has an inherent advantage, purchased, perhaps, by its oppressed position: the advantage of antiquity and the most extreme desire to preserve ancient customs. So, for example, in spiritual singing she only cares about not drowning out a single word of prayer songs with chants; Even recently, special Patriarchal messages appeared prohibiting the introduction of the Viennese chanting in Greek churches. In other details, when reading the Gospel at the small and large entrance, the Greek Church also preserved antiquity, which is dear to our fans. Therefore, there is no reason for us in Jerusalem to display our liturgical features, especially since during the present reign and in Russia itself, to the delight of all Orthodox, we are striving to replace Western novelties in music and painting with Eastern sobriety. Moreover, the thought of building a new splendid church does not seem to be entirely consistent with the thoughts and feelings that attract worshipers to the land of humility and the Tomb of the Redeemer. Will this not be interpreted both by our Western enemies and by our fellow tribesmen, with the real excitement of passions, as a sign of some distance from the common root of the entire Universal Church? These thoughts, even if they were erroneous, are so closely connected with purely ecclesiastical considerations that, without a doubt, the members of the Committee will recognize it as necessary to first seek the opinions of the metropolitans on these subjects, if not all, then, to reduce time, those of Moscow and St. Petersburg” 87 . On September 23, 1863, the new head of the Spiritual Mission, Hieromonk Leonid, presented a memo to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Prince S. N. Urusov, on the issue of what “is necessary for the spiritual and material structure of the Jerusalem Mission.” In this note we find a lot of important thoughts and characteristics for understanding the subsequent sad events in this Mission. Here is its verbatim text: "1. To establish the Mission in a spiritual sense, it is essential to change its current composition, as it is not at all consistent with its purpose. Currently, the Mission consists of three members: two hieromonks, one hierodeacon and 6 choristers 88 . The existing members of the Mission, not fully satisfying their purpose in spiritual and moral terms, do not at all have those abilities to serve in the Mission, which constitute an essential necessity for members of a small community, which, due to the force of circumstances, must, due to circumstances, keep itself morally and materially isolated both from non-believers (Catholics and Armenians), and from co-religionists (Greeks) and, what is most difficult, from the very environment (in other words) that it must serve spiritually, meaning the environment of our pilgrims; the depravity of this environment is fairly well known to everyone from official and private information. Given this situation, it is obvious that the more the members of the Mission are morally closer to each other, the more successful the work of the Mission will be, and this consciousness and unity is lacking in the current Mission, made up of heterogeneous individuals and assembled completely at random, without due attention to their internal merits and external abilities. From this, by the way, it happened that the Spiritual Mission, which is supposed to have six choristers on staff, now has no choristers at all in the literal sense of the word 89, which visitors to holy places rightly complain about, and some have stated this in print. 2. Regarding the material needs of the Mission, based on close acquaintance with local (sheet 4) circumstances, much could be said, but, given the lack of financial resources, it is only necessary to petition that its real budget be preserved for the new Mission. Given the well-known and annually increasing high cost of the first necessities of life in Jerusalem, if it is necessary to order a lot from Russia, it is not possible for the head of the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission to satisfy the inevitable expenses of the mission from his personal salary, such as: the daily reception of native visitors, coupled, according to Eastern custom, with refreshments for everyone, the maintenance of a horse and saiza, the hiring of horses for members of the Mission and choristers for the meetings and farewells of the Patriarch and other significant persons. and travelers, trips to serve and visit nearby holy places, office expenses and sending correspondence to Jaffa and, finally, the inevitable baksheesh - gifts for every service, large and small. For all this, His Eminence Kirill had at his disposal (rev.) except 3,500 rubles. salaries special amounts. The consul receives an additional allowance from the Palestinian Committee of 2,500 rubles. silver In view of the above-mentioned costs, forced by the peculiarity of local circumstances and the preoccupied position of the head of the Mission in Jerusalem in relation to representation, it is necessary to add a special amount (500 rubles in silver) to the salary of the head of the Mission for “emergency needs”, which will at least partially cover those costs. Thus, the current budget of the Mission (14,650 rubles) can be distributed among its members in the following form: The salary of the Head of the Mission, Archimandrite... is 2000 rubles. For emergency needs... 500 rubles. 2 hieromonks (1000 rubles each) ... 2000 rubles. Dragoman from local Christians... 600 rubles. 6 civilian singers, 500 rubles each. ... 3000 rub. For a hired sexton from the monastics... 300 rubles. To hire a servant... 500 rubles. For the maintenance of the church... 1000 rubles. For a common table of 90 for the head of the Mission 1000 rubles, 2 hieromonks and 1 hierodeacon 500 rubles each. each, and dragoman and 6 singers 250 rubles. each, total... 4250 rub. 3. Regarding the singers, it should be noted: experience and time have shown that in the Jerusalem Mission, subject to daily services for pilgrims, it is impossible in the selection of singers to achieve that inherent goal (for which [inc.] the staff was supposed to have singers from among students) 91 without increasing the number of members of the Mission. And since, due to financial difficulties, this is out of the question, in the present case all that remains is to maintain at the Mission a choir of singers of the six people required by the staff, who would, at their choice, satisfy essentially two main conditions: they were people who were trustworthy in behavior, good singers in their voices and knowledge of singing. To collect singers exclusively from monastics, although it would be highly desirable (sheet 6), this presents insurmountable difficulties if we take into account how our monastic monasteries value good singers and with what difficulty they form and maintain their small choirs. For all these reasons, only one thing is possible: without going beyond the limits of staffing, to form a small choir of six (civilian) singers for the new Mission. Time and experience have also proven that whatever the composition of the singers, they, as persons who do not constitute the Mission itself, but only belong to it by necessity, must be distinguished from the members of the Mission by their personal rights, so that the dismissal of the unreliable and incapable and their replacement with new ones (from among the pilgrims) would depend directly on the head of the Mission, without forcing him to resort to lengthy correspondence about this. In order to encourage some and motivate others, it would also not be superfluous to grant the head of the Mission the right to distribute wages among the singers according to the degree of ability and diligence of each, and also to fine for neglect of their duties with one-time deductions from the salary (with the return of the withheld upon correction). In a word, it is necessary to oblige the head of the Mission to maintain at least the required number of singers, with the release of the regular amount allocated for their maintenance (4,500 rubles) at his complete disposal, with the right to both distribute this amount among them, and to dismiss and replace some persons with others at his personal discretion. Through this, in addition to the moral guarantee that the behavior of the choristers (whether they consist of (sheet 7) monastics or secular persons) does not cast an unfavorable light on the Mission itself, the benefit is also acquired that under such conditions the dismissal of those who turn out to be incapable and unreliable will not be associated with any costs for the government in the future; The need for the above-mentioned measure was also recognized by His Eminence Kirill, about which he made a presentation to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on November 17, 1860, in which, among other things, he wrote: “in order to avoid the difficulties that I encountered with hitherto lengthy correspondence about the members of the Mission, I would dare to ask for the right to remove at least the singers and replace them with new persons as needed, without waiting for special permission from the authorities.” 4. To protect the financial interests of the Mission, it is necessary to eliminate the loss arising from the current procedure for sending its salaries not in specie, but in bills of exchange, and the Mission loses from 10 to 15% of the amount assigned for maintenance, which, given the high cost of the former due to the difficulty of life in Jerusalem, cannot but be felt. When departing for the place of service, it is necessary to provide now the same funds and allowances for the necessary expenses that the members of the former Mission received, in accordance with the estimate of one-time costs for sending the Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem, Supremely approved on the 30th day of March 1867.” 92. “A note about the persons from whom it is proposed to form the Jerusalem Mission of a new composition. a) Hieromonk John of the Smolensk House of Bishops, originally from the nobility, with the surname Boyko, enjoys the special trust and personal favor of His Eminence Anthony and from the spiritual side is known to me personally for his abilities and moral qualities. If God blesses, I would like to prepare from him a successor for myself in the Jerusalem Mission, who could replace me in the event of illness, death, recall, etc. due to accidental circumstances, and at present, in addition to serving, will help me in written studies and be used for assignments on external affairs of the Mission of a spiritual and political nature. I have been notified by telegram from Smolensk that His Eminence Anthony blesses him to serve the Mission. b) of the Zadonsk Bogoroditsky Monastery, Hieromonk Gideon is known to me personally both for his moral qualities and for his abilities, which are essential for the Mission due to its limited composition: he knows well (rev.) the Church Charter, in terms of administration and economic affairs he can manage the general meal of the Mission, be a confessor for pilgrims and oversee the deanery in the very house of the Mission, where it is supposed to be placed pilgrims from the white clergy and monastics. Regarding Fr. Gideon, I have information that if he is awarded the appointment of a member of the Mission by the Holy Synod, he will unquestioningly accept the expression of God’s will about him. c) Kozelskaya Vvedenskaya Optina Hermitage, Hierodeacon Dosifei would be useful to the Mission in this very responsible position of sacristan due to local circumstances, for which he has a special ability and preparation; I know him very well in terms of his moral qualities. Regarding the appointment, I have information that if he is awarded it by the Holy Synod, he will accept it unquestioningly and, moreover, with pleasure, for he was appointed to the first Mission by His Eminence Polycarp. d) Hierodeacon Arseny, a member of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, who was among the members of the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission until 1860 (l. 10), could be useful to the Mission with his knowledge of church services in Greek, especially during frequent common services with the Greeks, who, in the form of church communication, managed to teach their hierodeacons to serve in the Slavic language, expecting the same from us in return. He is also capable of keeping track of the general affairs of the Mission. For love of St. places, asking me to accept him as a member of the Mission, Fr. Hierodeacon Arseny promises to correct some conspicuous shortcomings, or, better to say, oddities, which, in my opinion, stem from a lack of correct guidance at the beginning of his monastic path and therefore can easily be corrected if one wishes to subordinate oneself to this guidance for the future, to which Fr. Arseny expresses complete and sincere readiness. In general, I know him as a modest person and capable of studying languages. Moreover, I ask permission to take with me to Jerusalem to serve as my cell attendant, known to me personally for his abilities and moral qualities (def.), the cassophore monk Gabriel, who has a leave form from the Irkutsk Bishops' House, which is a form for changing to another for the veneration of St. I have the honor to present this place. To form a singing choir, I invited five civilian singers and to manage them as a regent from the court singers of Sergei Voznesensky with the title of psalm-reader and granting him the same rights and benefits in service that psalm-readers of our other foreign Missions enjoy. With such a composition of the singing choir (of choristers, among whom one with the title of psalmist will be regent), I hope for the first time, before the vast Trinity Cathedral comes under the jurisdiction of the Mission, not to be at the expense of correcting the cathedral daily services and to give our pilgrims the consolation of delighting their religious feeling with harmonious and reverent singing with correct and unhurried reading. Note: The persons named in this note (fol. II) belong to the following. dioceses: Hieromonk John - to Smolensk (at the House of Bishops); Hieromonk Gideon - to Voronezh (in the Zadonsk Bogoroditsky Monastery); Hierodeacon Dosifei - to the Kaluga (Kozelskaya Optina Hermitage); the ryassophore novice Gabriel - to the Irkutsk diocese; Hierodeacon Arseny (at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy); singer Sergei Voznesensky is here (in St. Petersburg). If the named persons are awarded appointment to the Mission, then I would suggest sending them from their current place of residence directly to Odessa, where, connecting with the head of the Mission, they will go with him on their further journey. In conclusion, I have the honor to add that the continued stay in Jerusalem of Professor Levinson, assigned to the Mission, is more than useless in relation to the Mission for well-known (reverse) confidential reasons, which is also agreed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs” 93. Another note from the same date from Father Leonid concerned the choir of singers for the Mission and, in particular, the appointment of the regent of this choir, S. Voznesensky, “with the rights and benefits of crown service.” “Keeping in mind,” this note says, “that one of the reasons for the unsatisfactory state of the current singing choir at the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission is that this choir does not have a regent who, both in knowledge of the art of singing and in his good behavior, could lead them in both of these respects, I, to make up for this deficiency, invited a new composition to serve in the Jerusalem Mission to manage the choir of singers, the court singing chapel of the choir Sergei Voznesensky from the clergy, who completed a course of science at the Moscow Theological Seminary, who is known to me very well both for his knowledge of singing and for his exemplary good behavior, through which he can have a moral influence on the rest of the singers. Agreeing, at my invitation, to enter service in the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission, for which he first had to leave and resigned from the choir of court singers, S. Voznesensky, for his part, presented only one condition (inverse): that he, while in the Mission, continue to enjoy the rights and benefits of crown service. And therefore, bearing in mind the benefit that the acquisition of such a skillful and well-behaved regent for the management of the choir of singers can bring to our Mission, I consider it my duty to earnestly ask for Mr. Sergei Voznesensky to be enlisted in the service of the Mission with the title of psalm-reader and with the provision of the same rights and advantages as psalm-readers of our other foreign Missions. I have the honor to present the papers presented by Mr. Voznesensky along with his application for enrollment in the service of the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission.” The appointment of a regent to the Mission, who graduated from the Moscow Theological Seminary, Sergei Voznesensky, who was not required by the staff, caused Father Leonid to petition the Palestinian Committee to assign him a salary of 600 rubles. salary, 250 rub. canteens with the issuance of 150 rubles in advance from this allowance from the funds of this Committee. Despite, however, the fact that B.P. Mansurov found that “a well-maintained choir of singers is one of those items that our pilgrims value most, and that this matter is directly included in the category of measures relating to improving the life of Orthodox fans in Jerusalem,” for his part, “useful to satisfy,” however, it was not respected by the Committee, was not respected in view of the resolution of September 26, 1863 of its Chairman, State Secretary Golovin, the following contents: “Due to the well-known Supreme Regulation, which clearly states that the Palestinian Committee is a temporary institution, the management of which should be considered after the completion of the Jerusalem buildings, I do not consider the right to authorize permanent expenses, which must be repeated annually” 94. Only 150 rubles were issued from the Committee. Mr. Voznesensky “on account of the payment for hiring him from September 1,” and this extradition was motivated by the fact that Mr. Voznesensky “as regent, had to go to Jerusalem now and, if necessary, take advantage of the opportunity to take a reliable person to this position” 95. The opposite happened in the Committee when Father Leonid raised the issue of assigning one-time funds to send singers and members of the Mission to Jerusalem. Despite the agreement of the Chairman of the Committee to accept these expenses at his expense, B.P. Mansurov informed Prince S.N. Urusov that “the expenses for travel expenses of members of the Spiritual Mission cannot be attributed to the amounts of the Committee and that the Committee can only assume such expenses that are directly related to improving the life of Orthodox fans in Palestine and to the arrangement of Russian buildings being erected there” 96. In order to fulfill the promise given to Father Leonid, the Chairman of the Committee, the Minister of Public Education, dated August 28, 1863, No. 794, addressed to the Minister of Finance Reitern, after a most humble report, informed that the Sovereign Emperor “has deigned to give Hieromonk Leonid 5,000 rubles at a time for this subject.” from the State Treasury in the event that the Minister of Finance recognizes this as possible,” and even indicated the source for this - from the balances intended for the opening of Novorossiysk University, postponed on the 22nd day of August “until next year.” The Minister of Finance expressed his consent on August 31. On November 11, in a letter addressed to B.P. Mansurov, Father Leonid, notifying that he “must immediately prepare for departure, and therefore needs money both for himself and for the singers” 97, asked for this money, which was received by Father Leonid. All of the above assumptions and petitions of Father Leonid, according to the definition of the Holy Synod of October 21 - November 1, this year. No. 2481, were brought to the Highest attention by the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod and on the 18th day of November they received approval from the Sovereign Emperor with the difference, however, that 8,000 rubles were assigned for sending new members of the Mission to Jerusalem and for recalling the old ones, “based on the Highest command of December 22, 1862. in equal parts to the account of the amounts allocated for extraordinary expenses for the ecclesiastical department and for amounts from the State Treasury” 98. In November 1863, Archimandrite Leonid petitioned the Palestine Committee for the appointment of the following amounts: 1) from 1000 to 1500 rubles. for the maintenance of the newly built church, the sacristy, its premises and for the hiring of a sexton and church watchmen, 2) an increase of 500 rubles. sums for the hiring of servants and for the maintenance of the Mission house, 3) for the sending of one or two sets of vestments and for the replenishment of old sets, 4) for the acquisition of a second altar Gospel for daily use, an altar cross, a font, wedding crowns and a full range of liturgical books. The members of the Committee, “taking into account that at the disposal of Father Archimandrite Leonid are sums released annually from Her Imperial Majesty the Sovereign Empress to meet the various needs of the Spiritual Mission (mainly for issuing benefits to the poor natives and their churches), they refused funds for the maintenance of the church and the improvement of the sacristy, the hiring of a sexton and church servants, leaving him to make a petition for the amount collected from the “circle collection” for new vestments and church utensils to be submitted to the most merciful discretion of the Empress through her secretary Mr. Moritz, and to request a circle of liturgical books free of charge through the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Prince Urusov, from the Holy Synod” 99 . In the same types of “essentially necessary” improvement of the material life of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem, Father Leonid raised the question with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that money for the maintenance of the Mission should be sent to Jerusalem not in bills of exchange, but in specie, and that he recognizes that the costs of sending and insuring this coin are more profitable for the Mission to accept on its budget than “the losses that it incurs when exchanging bills with a local monopolist banker." Shipping on a general basis can be made through the steamships of the Shipping and Trade Society 100. But, despite the consent of the Ministry, this matter, as we will see below, remained unimplemented in practice and money was still sent by bills. Continuing his concerns about arranging the affairs of the Mission entrusted to his care and leadership, Father Leonid raised on May 7, 1864 the question of establishing at the Mission “an initial school for free teaching of reading and writing to local natives with the appointment as a mentor of the student Krylov, who was a singer at the said Mission,” whom he intended to return to his homeland. Father Leonid outlined his views on this issue in great detail in a special presentation to the Holy Synod, heard at a meeting on August 19/28, 1864. “In the Instructions sent to me from the Holy Synod, by the way, it is said,” this submission says, “that among the measures for successful action on the native, mostly poor and oppressed population, for their enlightenment, free teaching of their children to read and write, without a doubt, would be the best and most reliable measure, but, unfortunately, such a school has not yet been established at our Mission, therefore it is recommended to the head The mission should consider on the spot whether a similar school could be opened at the Jerusalem Mission, on what basis, in what size and what annual costs it would require for its maintenance, and present its assumptions on this subject to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. To fulfill the desire of the Holy Synod expressed here, it is necessary, in the opinion of Archimandrite Leonid, first of all, to take care of acquiring a teacher, Russian by origin and Orthodox by faith, who, with a practical knowledge of the native (Arabic and Greek) languages, would combine the ability to teach native children in these languages the primary subjects of public schools: reading, writing, the Law of God, accounting and church singing. Finding such a ready teacher and agreeing to go to Jerusalem is difficult and expensive, but preparing him requires time and money. Currently, as part of the former Mission, a person personally known to him, Archimandrite Leonid, and who satisfies all the necessary conditions for this is a seminary student Ivan Krylov, who, as a singer, does not bring any significant benefit to the Mission with a very weak voice, is not capable of loud church reading due to innate shyness, but is very capable of a teaching position, knows oriental languages ​​(Arabic and Greek) well and has good behavior and honest. And as for his expulsion along with other singers from the Mission, the head of the Mission petitioned only because with a limited number of singers (6 people) during the daily service it is positively impossible to include among the singers even one person who does not satisfy the main conditions: a clear knowledge of church singing and reading and a willingness to exclusively devote himself to this activity, now, having seen from the given Instructions (fol. 185), that the desire of the Holy Synod to establish a primary school at the Mission cannot be fulfilled otherwise than by acquiring in advance for it a capable and trustworthy teacher, Archimandrite Leonid petitions that the student Krylov, as already expelled from the Mission, taking into account the above reasons, be favored to remain with it in excess of the staff for the establishment of a primary school, in the rank of caretaker and teacher thereof: 1) with the preservation in service of the rights and benefits that he had hitherto enjoyed in the rank of full-time choirmaster of the Mission, 2) with the assignment to him of the same salary that he had previously received with the rank of choirmaster, i.e. 500 rubles. salary and 250 rubles. the salary that Professor Levinson, who was at the Mission for educational studies, received from the sums of the Spiritual Department, 3) for the establishment and annual maintenance of the primary school in such an amount as, according to local circumstances, would be considered possible and convenient, assign the remaining 750 rubles. (from the same Levinson salary shown above).” To this, the head of the Mission adds that in the East, the establishment of a school is not limited to its external structure and the invitation of parents to send their children to a newly built school, but consists mainly in attracting the children of poor parents to free education through material benefits to their poor families, which is why at all local schools: Greek, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant and Armenian, there are kitchens that supply children with free food, which they take away with them upon leaving the classrooms. themselves home and share there with their poor parents, brothers and sisters, thereby saving their families from the labor of caring for daily food. Moreover, the students of each of these schools receive from them free of charge all educational aids and, in the form of encouragement and competition with others, frequent gifts, also aimed at providing for the main material needs of them and their families: that is, cash benefits or things - underwear, clothes, etc. Therefore, the above-mentioned amount for the annual school allowance is 750 rubles. it cannot yet be considered completely sufficient, it can only serve to lay the foundation for a future school, the development and success of which will depend on the moral and material support (rev.), which, probably, will not be denied to it by people who sympathize with the high goal expressed in the desire of the Holy Synod to establish such a school, the need of which has really long been felt by the native Orthodox population. Until the decision of the Holy Synod is received regarding these assumptions, in case they are approved, in order to avoid unnecessary costs for the treasury, the head of the Mission intends to invite student Krylov to postpone his departure from Jerusalem; if he is left at the Mission, then the amount assigned to him for travel expenses (400 rubles in silver) can be credited to him in the past six months, 1864. Note: From the files of the Economic Administration it is clear: 1) the former ordinary professor (l. 187) of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, court adviser Levinson, who was attached to the Jerusalem Mission, was entitled to a maintenance of 1,500 rubles from special funds of the Theological Department; 2) By the highest order of His Imperial Majesty, which followed on the 20th day of July 1864, Professor Levinson, for more than 24 years of diligent service and the special labors he undertook for the benefit of the Church and spiritual enlightenment, was allowed to receive a pension of 1000 silver rubles per year from spiritual and educational capital. The economic management, taking into account: 1) that, after assigning 1000 rubles in pension to Professor Levinson, only 500 rubles remain from his previous salary, while the head of the Mission asks for annual leave for the maintenance of the school of 1500 rubles. and, moreover, he recognizes this amount as insufficient; it can serve, in his opinion, only for starting school; 2) that with limited funds, the success of the school may be doubtful, and its closure subsequently, after its establishment, would make a more unfavorable impression than non-existence; and 3) that there is already an Orthodox Greek school in Jerusalem, - believes that the proposal to establish a school at the Mission should be postponed until more favorable circumstances, but, in order to maintain the moral influence of the Mission, from the remaining allowance of Professor Levinson, 500 rubles. provide a portion, in the form of a one-time benefit, to an already existing Greek Orthodox school, according to the ideas of each time the head of the Mission. The proposal to establish a school in Jerusalem for the free education of poor children was submitted for consideration to the Palestine Commission, and the opinion expressed on this subject by the members of the Commission is in full agreement with the conclusion of the Economic Administration stated here, and therefore the Holy Synod left this proposal without respect” 101. Another petition from Father Archimandrite Leonid to send for the Mission a full range of liturgical books of 117 titles (including the Menaion of Menstruation) in the amount of 114 rubles. 93 kopecks, borrowed from the amounts of 318 rubles that were in cash. 89 kopecks “for offering books to the Members of the Imperial Family, appointed, by the Highest Command, to supply books to the Orthodox churches in the Turkish dominions” was respected by the Holy Synod, since the Economic Administration under the Holy Synod “due to the lack of other sources” recognized it as legal to attribute the expenditure specifically to these funds 102. This conclusion of the Economic Administration is all the more strange because on August 22, 1863, Father Leonid submitted the “List of books (Slavic press) that it would be desirable to have at the disposal of the head of the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission for distribution to our coreligionists in the Slavic language, who annually visit the Holy Sepulcher among 7,000 people or more” to the Palestine Committee, which did not find funds to satisfy it and received the mark of B.P. Mansurova: “Keep in mind when the necessary money will be available” 103. There were 24 titles on this list and among the books, by the way, were named: “The First Teaching to the Youths”, “The Basic Education of Man” by Bishop Demetrius of Rostov - 20 books, St. Tikhon of Zadonsk and Voronezh “The Word on the Exodus of the Soul”, “Spiritual Alphabet” - 12 books, “Flowers from the Garden” by St. Ephraim the Syrian, St. Gennady on faith, “The beginnings of Christian teaching,” “On the office of a Christian,” and various liturgical books and sequences. On March 16, 1864, by decree of the Holy Synod, the question was raised about the dismissal from service, along with other former members of the Mission, of the supernumerary dragoman of the Mission, Fadlala Sarruf, who in 1862 was awarded the rank of collegiate registrar 104, but Archimandrite Leonid recognized his service in the Mission as useful and asked to leave him in his previous place and in a letter addressed to N.P. Ignatiev dated June 24, 1865 certified it from an excellent point of view. “I,” wrote Archimandrite Leonid, “out of conscience, I must say that Mr. Sarruf does his job honestly and behaves completely decently, doing his scientific works in his free time” 105. While the staff of the new Mission was being formed and measures were being sought to spiritually and materially improve its life, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Holy Synod were developing new instructions for its head in order to more accurately outline the range of his responsibilities in relation to the management of the Mission, in relation to the Patriarch, the native Arab clergy and population, to the Russian consul and to Russian pilgrims. These instructions remained guidelines for the heads of the Mission for a long time, and therefore it is natural to become more closely acquainted with their content in full. We do not know the author of the Ministry's instructions, but the drafting of the instructions of the Holy Synod belongs to Metropolitan Philaret of Kyiv, and comments on it were written by Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow and a certain P. I. Solomonov. On February 27, 1864, No. 686, an instruction was issued to the head of our Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem, Archimandrite Leonid, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and it says: “On the occasion of the appointment of Your Eminence by the Spiritual Authority as the head of our D. Mission in Jerusalem, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs considers it necessary, in addition to the instructions that will be given to you from the Holy Synod, to explain what, in its opinion, will be range of responsibilities assigned to you. By order of the Government, care for new buildings to provide shelter for our pilgrims, as well as supervision of all buildings erected for this purpose, as well as care for the material needs of pilgrims, are entrusted to special persons at the discretion of the Palestine Committee. The Imperial Consulate, by the very essence of its duties, communicates with local authorities, takes care of the safety and interests of our subjects, resolves disputes arising between them, etc. Then the range of actions of the Spiritual Mission consists, in addition to conducting worship and satisfying the spiritual needs of our subjects, as well as those Orthodox Christians of all nationalities who would turn to the head or members of the Mission for this purpose, in maintaining friendly relations with the local clergy, in transferring according to the affiliation of those sent from Russia in donations, as well as in assisting our Consulate in those cases when it turns to the Mission. To this, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs considers it its duty to add that, in its opinion, through the prudent distribution of donations placed at the disposal of the Mission, Your Reverence can conveniently maintain good relations with the Orthodox clergy and the Orthodox in general, delve into the true needs of our fellow believers, provide favorable assistance in eliminating and ending those hostile relations that, unfortunately, often arise between Greeks, Armenians, Arabs, Syrians and others. At the same time, you must constantly try to ensure that your actions do not arouse the suspicions and jealousy of the highest Greek Clergy and do not have the appearance of any interference in their rights. In cases where Your Reverence needs any orders from local authorities, you should submit a request to our Consulate, which will not fail, to the extent possible, to satisfy your requests. If the Holy Synod would like to take into account your petition to supply the Mission with books of spiritual content for sale to churches and schools, as well as to private individuals, at a reduced price, then this will give you a new means of monitoring the development of Orthodox schools and entering into friendly relations with the local clergy and with our fellow believers.” Vice-Chancellor Prince A. Gorchakov Director Adjutant General Ignatiev Decree of the Holy Governing Synod To the Chief of Jer. Spiritual Mission to Archimandrite Leonid. No. 1143. “By decree of E. I. V-a, the Holy Governing Synod regarding the departure of our Spiritual Mission to Jerusalem ordered: to provide Your Reverence with the following instructions. 1. By election of the Holy Synod, you are entrusted with the leadership of the Spiritual Mission located in Jerusalem. 2. The essence of the responsibilities assigned to you by this rank is explained in main terms in the instructions approved by the Highest on the report of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on December 21, 1863. 3. Without leaving the circle of your actions outlined in this circle as Head of the Jerusalem Mission, you must unswervingly take care of maintaining spiritual unity with the Jerusalem clergy and strengthening in them the feelings of respect, trust and love for the Russian Church, as one of the same faith with Jerusalem. 4. It is also your concern, when the opportunity arises, to provide possible assistance in your position to the Greek Clergy in the fight against Roman and Protestant propaganda and in spreading enlightenment in the spirit of Orthodoxy among the native tribes. 5. Among the measures for successful action on the native, mostly poor and oppressed population, for its enlightenment, free teaching of children to read and write, without a doubt, would be the best and most reliable measure; but, unfortunately, such a school has not yet been established at our Mission; why is it recommended that you consider on the spot whether a similar school could be opened at the Jerusalem Mission, on what principles and in what size, and what annual costs it would require for its maintenance, and present your assumptions on this subject to Mr. Ob. Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. 6. During your service in the Holy City, you will be in relations with the Imps located there. Ross. Consulate. While maintaining in these relations the dignity befitting a clergyman, you will not fail to observe the due unanimity and Christian harmony and will not lose sight of the fact that the Consul is the official representative of our Government in Jerusalem and the body of all relations with local secular authorities. 7. Satisfying the spiritual needs of Russian fans is one of the main concerns of the Mission. In this regard, the Mission must show cordiality, attention and sympathy to all who seek its protection and guidance; she, of course, will also take care to provide Russian fans with the most frequent opportunities to hear divine services in the Slavic language in holy places; To those who wish, she provides information and explanations in oral conversations about all local customs, the knowledge of which is useful or necessary for the pilgrim, and about all the holy places honored by Christians; For those wishing to visit holy places accompanied by an experienced companion, the Mission provides all possible assistance that depends on it. 8. Sharing concerns about Russian fans with the members of your Mission, you should try to incite them to a reverent behavior through spiritual edifications, advice, suggestions and examples from your own life. If any of the admirers, having allowed themselves to live a clearly seductive life, completely despises your pastoral warnings, then all you have to do is warn the Consul in confidence about this. 9 . If there are other religions in the Jerusalem Mission, there may be cases of meetings with persons belonging to them. It is desirable that in these and other cases the clergy of other faiths should be convinced that the Russian Church, caring for the immutable preservation of its primitive purity and integrity, does not cease to nourish for the entire Christian world those sublime feelings of love, participation and religious tolerance that have been emblazoned on the history of Russia since ancient times. 10. In the order of internal administration, the Mission observes the rule that, in the event of absence or serious illness of the head of the Mission, the management of its property and the authority over those in the Mission passes to the senior with him, unless, by any special order of the highest Spiritual Authority, a special clergy person is appointed. 11. You, as the head of the Mission, are entrusted with monitoring the behavior of the persons attached to it, distributing duties and activities among them, and generally guiding them, so it is your responsibility to eliminate the displeasures that arise between them, if any, to sort out their complaints, and make impartial, legal satisfaction. 12. As a matter of supreme administration, the Mission is under the authority of the Holy Synod, using, in necessary cases, the assistance of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 13. Accordingly, the Head of the Mission, in cases exceeding his authority, receives permission and orders from the Holy Synod. 14. The Head of the Mission, for his part, in the indicated cases, enters the Synod with reports and representations. 15. Upon entering the management of the Mission, you must submit to the Synod detailed inventories of all the property of the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission that you have accepted, then reporting at the end of the year about changes in the property inventories, if any. 16. During your stay in the Holy City, you are entrusted with collecting, as far as possible, information about the progress of church affairs, religious movements and any event of note in the church in the East, and promptly presenting it through the mediation of the Synodal Chief Prosecutor. In the same order, you are presented with information about the secret tricks of heterodox propaganda, as soon as they become known to you in some way, about which you must carefully take care, threatening the danger of seducing the children of the Orthodox Church, and about the measures that, in your opinion, are necessary to weaken or destroy them, and in general about everything that is in the close circle of your management and in the diverse environment surrounding you and to you touching, something remarkable will happen, or for some reason, but such that, by its nature, cannot be included in the official report to the Holy Synod. 17. After each year, you must submit to the Holy Synod a report on the management of the Mission entrusted to you. This report should include information about the composition of the Mission and its actions, indicating the consequences of the Mission’s activities; about the number of Russian fans; about donations sent to the Mission both for its needs and for the needs of local Christians and for the benefit of the Holy Sepulcher treasury. 18. The annual reports, in the form of special appendices, contain information about the composition of the Greek Clergy and non-Christian missions, their relationship to our Mission, the state of spiritual enlightenment in the Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria Patriarchates, etc. 19. Likewise, at the end of each year, you submit to the Holy Synod, along with your own form list, the same information about the service of the members of the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission, as well as a report on the use of the amount allocated for the Mission according to the staff. 20. In conclusion, it is not superfluous to note in general that no instruction can and should not embrace all the contingencies that may unexpectedly occur in a certain sphere to the aspiration acting on the path of its path, otherwise it would too constrain its freedom and in many cases would harm the work itself. Therefore, someone acting rationally, having in mind his main goal and the path to it, outlined in general terms, can add other things to it with his own consideration, just so as not to deviate from the goal indicated to him and not to leave the circle destined for him. You can also follow this same rule when necessary. With the attribution of which instructions, for proper execution, and in necessary cases of guidance, send your decree to your Highness. March 23 days 1864 Chief Secretary N. Sergievsky Secretary Mich. Nikolsky." The instructions of the Holy Synod were given to him under the Decree of March 23 of the same year, No. 1143. But Father Archimandrite Leonid understood perfectly well that written instructions, no matter how comprehensive and precisely regulating the activities of not an automaton, but a living person with a sound mind, a warm heart and a strong will, are not enough, and it is also necessary to come to an agreement and come to terms with those people with whom he will have to constantly meet in his activities and act, often yielding to their views and beliefs. By the time the third Mission was installed in Jerusalem, the Supremely approved Palestinian Committee had already completed its task and built here the supposed godly hospitable buildings. Its August Chairman, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, was appointed to Warsaw as governor of the Kingdom of Poland and left St. Petersburg. In April 1864, the Committee was replaced by the Highly Approved Palestine Commission, which was attached to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Its members, according to the Highest order, were appointed as a representative from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs - the director of the Asian Department, from the Spiritual Department - the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod or his comrade, and B.P. Mansurov, well knowledgeable in Jerusalem affairs. The chairmanship of the Committee was entrusted to the Minister of Public Education Golovin. Since the members of the Commission, due to their complex duties, could not devote much time to Jerusalem affairs in the Palestinian Commission, the actual manager and executor of these affairs both in St. Petersburg and even in Palestine was B. P. Mansurov, who in Palestine was nicknamed “Mansur Pasha,” and in St. Petersburg the members of the Commission mostly wrote in the minutes: “I agree with the opinion of B. P. Mansurov. So-and-so." Naturally, therefore, before leaving for Palestine, Father Archimandrite Leonid had a conversation with this influential member of the Commission and received from him the necessary instructions on the issues of his upcoming activities. He was also encouraged to do this by his personal acquaintance with him during his first stay in Jerusalem. But meetings and conversations on Jerusalem issues brought little comfort or joy to Father Archimandrite Leonid. This meeting convinced in the clearest way that for the leaders of the Palestine Commission, the head of the Spiritual Mission in the rank of archimandrite, who happily combined “strict piety”, and “firmness of character”, and “the ability to deal with the Russian common people”, and “experience in monastic management”, which the leaders of the Committee were looking for in the “memorandum” they submitted to the Holy Synod, with “learning, more correctly - with a love of science and with the ability to endure the conditions of sociability with foreigners,” thanks to his knowledge of the languages ​​of French, German, English, Polish, partly Greek, Latin and Serbian, which was a condition for the predecessors of Father Archimandrite Leonid by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs - all this was just some beautiful words, but in reality they, apparently, were not happy with the new choice of the Supreme Spiritual Authority as the head of the Archimandrite Mission Leonid and did not even hesitate to express their displeasure to his eyes. Father Archimandrite Leonid vividly recalled these impressions from his conversations with B.P. Mansurov in St. Petersburg in a letter to V.N. Khitrovo dated April 9, 1879, when he received distressing rumors about the destruction of the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission: “... although I,” wrote Archimandrite Leonid, “had long foreseen this, and therefore it is not I who should be surprised by this outcome.” affairs. Every garden that My Heavenly Father does not plant will be uprooted (Matthew 15:13). This whole undertaking was the work of human hands and was spoiled from the very beginning. No matter how much we talked about this to the founders of the business, they did not want to hear anything, considered themselves wiser than us, and continued to spoil the business they had started. To place the head of the Mission in unconditional subordination to the consuls, who were appointed in vain, was their main idea. One of the leading figures in the Palestinian cause, with nervous indignation at my respectful but firm and strong arguments about the impossibility of building a lasting edifice on this rotten foundation, exclaimed: “Yes, I see what needs to be done. Drive the monks out of here (and I specifically said that it would be necessary to establish hospice monasteries - male and female) and appoint a priest with 12 children here - and then everything will be fine.” Well, now it comes down to this end. Mark my words that the chaplain of the Consul General among the hieromonks will not hold out for long, and the last word of the wise program will be fulfilled literally. What do you want with such beliefs? Do not forget that the Consulate General will continue to do one thing: to uncontrollably manage the sums collected from the entire Russian people through the churches, while the monasteries receiving strangers could be maintained with little support from the government themselves, through voluntary offerings. But who cares? If things were arranged according to a well-known pattern, no one would care about the rest. Judge, O Lord, those who offend us" 106. In the note “On the incidents that happened in the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission since the return of the consul,” submitted to the Holy Synod in 1865, and in a letter to Metropolitan Philaret on August 20, 1866, this conversation with B.P. Mansurov is conveyed in a rather sharp phrase: “I see that things will only go well in Jerusalem when there is a pawn in your place” 107. There was also some discussion on the issue of the attitude of the head of the Mission towards our pilgrims to Jerusalem, but, surprisingly, B.P. Mansurov’s views on this issue are more than original, to say the least. “Jerusalem,” said B.P. Mansurov to Archimandrite Leonid, “is the same as London and Paris, and because no matter what our pilgrims do in it, the spiritual and civil authorities can look at it with indifference” 108. In a word, there is no doubt that the interlocutors made a very unfavorable impression on each other and parted with the full conviction that it was hardly possible to wish for good in Jerusalem from their joint activities. This alone did not foretell much good for Archimandrite Leonid in his beginning independent service in Jerusalem as the head of the Mission. From St. Petersburg, Archimandrite Leonid went to Jerusalem via Moscow and Constantinople. In Moscow, he wished to receive a parting blessing from his patron, Metropolitan Philaret, who, in prayerful memory, presented Archimandrite Leonid with a prayer book from 1861 with a handwritten inscription: “Give prayer to the one who prays. Lord, grant a prayer pleasing to You to Your servant, Archimandrite Leonid, that he may find grace before You and may he walk by Your grace. In Moscow. March 16, 1864" 109. Knowing well that the views of B.P. Mansurov are shared by the Jerusalem Consul A.N. Kartsev, as the main conductor of all orders of the former Palestinian Committee and the nascent Palestinian Commission, and, moreover, a person who was used for his “remarkable frugality and rare prudence” in the conduct of the economic affairs of the Committee and recognized as a person not only worthy of respect, but also certified “brilliantly good” for his reports, Father Archimandrite Leonid, not without embarrassment, accepted the duties of the head of the Mission and, during a meeting with Ambassador N.P. Ignatiev in Constantinople, did not fail to express to him his fears about the possibility of clashes with Mr. Kartsev. “I dare to remind Your Excellency,” wrote Archimandrite Leonid N.P. Ignatiev on May 25, 1865, “and that, at my very appointment, I told you confidentially my fear that, judging by the information that has reached me, how boldly the city consul acts in relation to my predecessor, I cannot expect anything good from him in relation to me. You responded to this with a reassuring promise that Mr. Kartsev would not stay in Jerusalem for long. My fears were completely realized. Intoxicated by the ease of victory over my predecessor and setting himself the goal of finally enslaving the Spiritual Mission in my person, but having encountered resistance in what he least expected, being carried away by his personality, he entered into an alliance with the Greek Patriarchate (with which he had hitherto been at enmity in the case of the Most Reverend Kirill) and, seeing my reluctance and lack of skill (of which I am not ashamed admit) to fight against intrigues with equal weapons, acts with unceremoniousness, which even outside observers are rightly surprised, saying that this can be done with Russian clergy who have no support from anywhere” 110. But even in the person of N.P. Ignatiev, as we know well from his frank correspondence with his father, Archimandrite Antonin and Kartsev, Archimandrite Leonid did not meet with powerful support, since he completely stood on the side of Mr. Kartsev and always treated him patronizingly, considering him an intelligent and businesslike diplomat. Before leaving for the East, Archimandrite Leonid, in addition to instructions, received from the Holy Synod letters of recommendation to the Patriarchs: Ecumenical - Sophronius and Jerusalem - Kirill, since the Mission should follow “through Constantinople, the place of residence” of the named Patriarchs; and to the patriarchal governor in Jerusalem, Meletius, Metropolitan of Petra of Arabia. Of these letters, the most interesting is the letter to His Beatitude Patriarch Kirill of Jerusalem. Since this saint expressed his readiness, during the stay of Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich in Jerusalem, to be present at the consecration of our godly buildings in Jerusalem in person, and since these buildings were nearing completion and in the summer of 1864 it was planned to consecrate the Mission’s house church in the name of the holy Queen Alexandra, to which the new head of the Mission was instructed to pay his attention first of all, the question arose in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs about an invitation to this celebration of the Head of the Jerusalem Church. Having encountered no obstacles to the invitation of His Beatitude Kirill to take part in the consecration ceremony of Russian charitable institutions being built in Jerusalem 111 and finding that it would even be some omission on our part not to notify His Beatitude about the upcoming completion of work and the consecration of our charitable buildings, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, however, found it “necessary” that “the invitation to His Beatitude’s participation in the consecration be expressed in such a way that subsequently The Patriarch of Jerusalem did not derive from it the right to directly intervene in the affairs of our charitable institutions 112. In view of this, the Holy Synod, in a letter to Patriarch Kirill, wrote the following: “Commanded by the Author and Finisher of our faith, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the all-perfect love, which has lived from time immemorial in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, will not cease to manifest itself visibly in the mutual relations of the Church of Jerusalem to its much-loving Sister, the All-Russian Church. Your Beatitude showed a new sign of this immutable and truly sacred love, expressing to the Sovereign Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, when His Highness was in Palestine, a God-loving desire to take part in the consecration of churches and buildings being built near the Holy City for the shelter of Russians arriving in Jerusalem to worship the Holy One. To the Life-Giving Sepulcher of the Lord. With joy in Christ we accepted this good intention of Your Beatitude, especially since it truly constitutes the desire of our hearts. Now, having learned that the construction of some of the above-mentioned buildings, as well as the house church in the name of St. The great martyr Queen Alexandra is approaching its end, we, in addition to the joyful remembrance of the expressed intention of your brotherly love, add our unchanging prayer to the Lord for the preservation of your health and prosperity, so that your Beatitude can all the more freely, in fulfillment of our common desire, call upon your blessing for the Russian charitable institutions being established near Jerusalem when they open ... " Archimandrite Leonid, in addition, was entrusted, during a personal meeting with Patriarch Kirill, to repeat the invitation to the Patriarch on behalf of the Holy Synod, and “if any difficulties are expressed on the part of His Beatitude, to explain that the Holy Synod, in view of these difficulties, will, of course, be grateful if His Beatitude deems it possible to entrust His Vicar in Jerusalem, His Eminence Meletius, to consecrate the designated buildings" 113. In a letter of authorization or recommendation to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Holy Synod briefly informed that in place of Bishop Kirill of Melitopol, “for the same supervision and care of our children visiting the Holy City in Christ,” they elected Arch. Leonid,” known to him for his piety and good qualities of mind and heart,” and “entrusted” him to the “benevolence” and “wise leadership” of the Patriarch 114. A letter of recommendation for Father Archimandrite Leonid to Metropolitan Meletius of Petra of Arabia was written by Isidore, Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, at the request of the Holy Synod. While passing through Constantinople, Archimandrite Leonid carried out exactly the instructions assigned to him by the Holy Synod, saw both Patriarchs, and judging by the response letters of the Patriarchs - Ecumenical Sophronius and Kirill of Jerusalem to our Holy Synod, he was received by them cordially and kindly. Patriarch Sophronius of Constantinople, in his message dated May 2, 1864, to the Holy Synod, stated that he “provided the appropriate instructions to the worthy and valiant arch. Leonid” and that he “will continue to provide him with possible assistance in such cases out of fraternal affection for your venerable fraternal merits” 115. Patriarch Kirill of Jerusalem, refusing a kind invitation to the celebrations in Jerusalem on the occasion of the opening and consecration of our charitable institutions, gave in his letter to the Holy Synod motivated grounds for refusal, not devoid of historical interest. “My beloved Holy Archimandrite Mr. Leonid handed us two of your divine messages,” wrote Patriarch Kirill of Jerusalem on June 3, 1864. “With the most lively spiritual love, we kissed them and joyfully received them, from the bottom of our hearts sending thanks to Our Benefactor and Savior for keeping you healthy in soul and body in His holy grace. Having provided the holy archimandrite with our heartfelt wishes, we sent him to the Holy City of Jerusalem, where, having arrived, by the grace of God, healthy, he took upon himself the work of the ministry entrusted to him, which, of course, will be carried out with dignity, since he had already lived there before and showed an example of good character and impeccable behavior, being under the command of our Most Reverend brother, the Bishop of Melitopol. We accepted the reminder of the promise we gave to the most pious Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, made to us by your love in your fraternal letter, regarding the consecration of the already established small house church in the Russian hospice in Jerusalem, and decided, at the most convenient opportunity, to prove by deed the boundless gratitude that our patriarchal throne owes in relation to the benefactor of the Russian Imperial Home. But, unfortunately (as your love in Christ is not unknown), the terrible disasters that befell the entire Eastern Church from the Danube principalities, which even now place us and the entire Church in the most difficult difficulties, do not give us the opportunity to now take the path to Jerusalem. Therefore, with sorrow, postponing the fulfillment of our promise until the time of building, with the help of God, a large church, we instructed our vicar, the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Petra, Mr. Meletius, to consecrate the small church, when he is invited to it by the holy Archimandrite Mr. Leonidas. Through your holy prayers, in which we believe and which we ask from the heart, beloved brothers, may the Holy Eastern Church of Christ be freed from unjust persecutions and may it enjoy what is due to it, with the assistance and patronage of the most sovereign defender of Orthodoxy, the Christ-loving and most luminous Emperor, on whom, after God, the entire Orthodox Eastern Church, stricken with sorrow, places its hopes. May our Lord and Savior preserve the prosperous and bountiful grapes over which grace from above has placed you, divine hierarchs, undamaged forever, and may it spread more and more, shining with the glory of piety to the consolation and help of the Orthodox Churches aggravated by disasters. Your most holy and God-preserved congregation, humble brother in Christ and most ready to serve, Patriarch Kirill of Jerusalem. Constantinople. July 3, 1864" 116. The above letter from Patriarch Kirill should be considered an official expression of judgment about the new head of our Mission as a person of “good character and impeccable behavior,” but we also have other data, also official, although they got into the documents by accident, from which it can be seen that Patriarch Kirill was dissatisfied with the appointment of Archimandrite Leonid as the head of our Mission and did not expect any good from this appointment. “It may very well be,” wrote Archimandrite Antonin (Kapustin) in his investigative report in 1865 to the Holy Synod regarding the unrest in the Mission, “that the previous disagreement (1858) between Father Leonid and His Eminence Kirill of Melitopol and, as a result of it, the latter’s unfavorable recommendations about him (by the way, who enjoyed the sympathy and favor of the entire Holy Sepulcher clergy) before Patriarch, contributed to the ill will of the members of the Jerusalem Patriarchate towards the new head of the Mission. At least I remember that in October 1863, when it became known in Constantinople about the appointment of Father Leonid as head of the Jerusalem Mission, His Beatitude spoke to me that “no good will come from this.” He reminded me of his response at that time, as a kind of prophecy, here now, when I introduced myself to him for the first time on September 11” (i.e. 1865) 117. Consequently, here too we must look for one of the reasons for the failure that befell our third Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem. The first steps of Father Leonid as the head of the Mission. Consecration of the house church in the name of Queen Alexandra. The clash with the Greek clergy, leaders and collaborators in the construction of charitable Russian institutions in Jerusalem of the Palestinian Commission. Consul A.N. Kartsev and clashes with him. Conflict with members of the Spiritual Mission Archimandrite Leonid arrived in Jerusalem on May 12, 1864 and settled with all the members of the Mission not in the Greek Archangel Monastery, as was previously the case with our first two Missions, but directly in his own premises, already completed construction - in Russian charitable buildings, immediately handing over to the Patriarchate the Archangel Monastery, which was in the temporary possession of the Mission, and performing divine services either on Golgotha or in Gethsemane at the tomb of the Mother of God, sometimes even in the new chambers of the Mission, and little by little preparing for the upcoming consecration of the house mission church. June 28 was designated as the day of consecration of Russian buildings pleasing to God and the house church in the name of the holy Queen Alexandra. On the eve of this day, a solemn Great Vespers was celebrated in the mission church in the presence of the Patriarchal Vicar Meletios, Metropolitan of Petra of Arabia, invited to this celebration at the request of the Holy Synod by the head of the Mission. During Vespers, Russian and Greek singers sang. The clergy of the Patriarchate invited to the celebration stayed overnight in the Mission. At one o'clock in the morning on June 28 the bell rang for matins, and at 2 o'clock matins began. After singing Glory to God in the highest, Metropolitan Meletios with all the clergy left the church with a litany, walking around the Mission house three times and reading the Gospel each time against the western entrance. At the end of the religious procession, the rite of consecration of the church began, and then followed the Liturgy, for which crowds of pilgrims of different nationalities gathered: Russians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Arabs, Copts, and Abyssinians were present. The service, performed, as the day before, by Greek and Russian singers, ended at 9 o’clock in the morning. At 12 noon, a gala dinner for 125 people was held at the men's shelter. The Metropolitan was placed at the head of the long served tables, with five Greek bishops on his right side, and the head of the Mission and representatives of the Greek clergy on his left. The secretary of the consulate, T.P. Yuzefovich, took his place opposite the metropolitan; in the absence of the consul, he acted as the owner; On either side of it sat employees at the consulate who took part in the construction, General V.V. Voloshin (Voloshinov) and many other honored guests. “There is nothing to say about Russian hospitality and, moreover, royal hospitality 118,” notes a participant in these celebrations, the author of “Memoirs of a Devotee of the Holy Sepulcher,” V.K. Kaminsky, “there is nothing to say, it was as satisfactory as possible, despite the fact that this day belonged to Peter’s fast and, therefore, the meal was Lenten, which is arranged with great difficulty in Jerusalem. At the end of lunch T.P. Yuzefovich proposed toasts to the Sovereign Emperor, a generous donor to Russian charitable institutions, to which those present responded with an exclamation of “hurray,” and the singers sang the national anthem. The Head of the Mission, Archimandrite Leonid, raised a toast in honor of His Beatitude Patriarch Kirill, Metropolitan Meletius, Patriarchal Vicar of the Jerusalem Synod, the entire Orthodox clergy, the guests present, the creators of charitable institutions - B. P. Mansurov, architect M. I. Eppinger and his closest collaborators, and the singers accompanied each toast by singing “many summer." The dinner ended with the performance of the Greek anthem by Greek singers, and the guests began to go home." 119 In the same room, a second table was then set for the fans staying in Jerusalem, serving on our buildings, and workers numbering 73 people. “They were all also treated,” according to V. Kaminsky, “to a generous royal meal, and dispersed with joy.” Many, however, remained in the Russian buildings until the evening and attended the all-night vigil in the newly consecrated church on the occasion of the holiday in honor of the apostles Peter and Paul 120. From the description we presented of the celebrations on the occasion of the consecration of the house mission church in the name of Queen Alexandra, it is clear that the main owner of Russian charitable buildings, Consul A. N. Kartsev, was absent from these celebrations, taking advantage of vacation from May to December 1864. Meanwhile, in the fall, shelters, male and female, began to function in our charitable buildings, accepting pilgrims coming from Russia. Taking advantage of his position as the sole owner of the buildings and guided by the instructions he had from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Holy Synod, Archimandrite Leonid paid serious attention to the rules existing in our shelters, especially the women's shelters. Due to the nature of his decisive and persistent character and his rigoristic monastic views, Archimandrite Leonid wanted to pull together all the inhabitants of Russian charitable institutions, members of the Mission subordinate to him and those who happened to live here in order to regulate their internal moral life in accordance with the holiness of this place and the voluntarily accepted feat of pilgrimage. These good intentions of the new head of the Mission did not please the random inhabitants of Russian charitable institutions. But we prefer to speak in the words of Father Archimandrite Leonid himself: “With the arrival of the new Mission in Jerusalem and its installation in the midst of our buildings, I,” Father Archimandrite wrote in 1865 to the Holy Synod, “without touching on the material side of the matter entrusted to the consulate, considered it my pastoral duty to pay special attention to the spiritual and moral side of the matter. Personal observation, verified by questioning people who live here permanently, soon showed me that the beliefs of the main figure in the Jerusalem cause, Mr. Mansurov, expressed to me personally in the words that Jerusalem is the same as London and Paris, and because no matter what our pilgrims do in it, the spiritual and civil authorities can look at it indifferently, were not simple words. These personal beliefs were adopted as the basis for the actions of local executors of the will of Mr. Mansurov. So, for example, only shortly before my arrival, free entry for men was prohibited to the women’s shelter, and during the first months after its opening, even consular officers went there to spend time freely. The head of the shelter was the nun Magdalene, a woman strict with herself and therefore with others. Having gotten to know her better and convinced of her readiness to honestly fulfill her duties, I began through her to introduce moral order in the women's shelter, in accordance with the purpose of this institution 121. By the way, it was discovered quite by accident that the closest assistant to the caretaker of the orphanage, appointed by the consulate, was engaged in the shameful profession of a “pimp,” for which she enjoyed the general attention of Mr. employees in our so-called strange-housing establishments. Having learned about this with horror, I asked the city consul to dismiss her from her post and expel her from Jerusalem. Although he was apparently embarrassed by my discovery, he showed that he considered it fair to fulfill my request, asking only for one thing - that this woman be deported upon his departure on vacation. According to rumors, this shameless woman, angry with me for the loss of my place and profitable trade, appeared to His Beatitude the Patriarch of Jerusalem while passing through Constantinople and brought a complaint against me on behalf of Russian admirers for the persecution allegedly raised by me and Mother Magdalene against them in Jerusalem and thereby embarrassed His Beatitude.” But the matter did not stop there. Archimandrite Leonid continued to keep the women’s shelter under his “constant and vigilant supervision” even after, in which he was given full assistance, out of the fear of God, by his spiritual daughter Mother Magdalene, who expressed “full readiness not to allow anything contrary to Christian duty and conscience in the place entrusted to her management.” “This,” writes Archimandrite Leonid, “revolted against me and all the employees at our institutions and under the patronage of Mr. Mansurov, and they began to conduct an intrigue against me, directed, as is noticeable, from afar, with an accurate and skillful hand (which is very possible given their active correspondence with St. Petersburg), which was revealed by decisive actions only with the arrival of the consul.” It should be remembered that with the departure from Jerusalem of the main builder, the architect M. I. Eppinger, who was awarded rank and money, the Jerusalem “triumvirate”, which acted so energetically and unanimously in the fight against Bishop Kirill of Melitopol, although it lost one of its prominent representatives, did not disintegrate. With success, the place of the one who left in the “triumvirate” was taken by the assistant to the chief architect, architect V. A. Dorogulin, “the inseparable friend of the city consul,” as Archimandite Leonid characterizes him, having as his like-minded people and supporters the architect M. F. Granovsky, a doctor at the Russian hospital Mazaraki and his wife, as well as a former teacher of military educational institutions, writer-pilgrim V. Kaminsky - people very benefited by B.P. Mansurov and very devoted to him. The first two, frankly, were among those against whom the harsh reprimands of the rigorist - the head of the Mission were directed mainly, in order to stop their visits to the women's shelter, and, undoubtedly, these people loved to live and have fun, organizing gatherings of singers in their evenings “for singing songs and romances” and “abundant drinking bouts”, for which there was no end to slander and gossip. They did not like the stern ascetic - the head of the Mission, and they began to strain every effort to get rid of him. "G. The employees here,” writes Archimandrite Leonid, “express their firm intention not to tolerate among themselves even one more or less silent witness to their actions. Who, knowing this, will decide to wage a struggle that is powerless and fruitless and, moreover, harmful to our great interests - both political and spiritual; and on the other hand, which of the people who have not lost shame and conscience will decide to be a silent witness to what is happening here, which is exactly what the city employees on the construction sites want? 122 In particular, Mr. Mazaraki entered into a hostile relationship with Archimandrite Leonid out of his own personal calculations, fearing the loss of a profitable position at a Russian hospital, paid for by an apartment and a salary of 2,250 rubles. (subsequently, Russian doctors discharged from Russia received only 1,500 rubles, since Archimandrite Leonid took with him from St. Petersburg a student of the Medical-Surgical Academy, the Syrian Sarruf, as a mission dragoman, contrary to the wishes of B.P. Mansurov, who nominated another person for this position, and since there was a rumor in Jerusalem that Sarrouf would eventually occupy the position of doctor at our Mazaraki hospital). V. K. Kaminsky, a former student of the Nizhyn Law Lyceum and a teacher at military schools, gained fame in literature with his “Memoirs of a Devotee of the Holy Sepulchre” (St. Petersburg, 1859), of which only the first part has appeared in the world, while the other three parts, prepared for publication, remain in manuscript and are stored in the library of the Orthodox Palestine Society without hope, however, in their entire form ever see the light of God. The latter is explained by the author’s lack of special information on issues of Palestinian studies, which are touched upon quite often in his “Memoirs,” as well as by the extreme passion and even bile with which his “Memoirs” are permeated when he touches on contemporary Palestinian figures and writes his direct impressions, observations and characteristics. Since V.K. Kaminsky took an ardent part in the Jerusalem mission riots as a person quite disposed towards the “members of the Mansur party”, giving all the denunciations of the Mission members against the father of Archimandrite Leonid a “literary form”, and in the accusatory denunciations against the father of Archimandrite Leonid it was mentioned that by the “fierce persecution” of the latter “this admirer was allegedly driven, as many here (i.e. in Jerusalem) are convinced, to the grave,” then we Let us focus on this personality in a little more detail, fortunately we have valuable material for his impartial characterization in the mentioned unpublished “Memoirs”. “I read a lot,” writes V.K. Kaminsky in his memoirs about himself, “I thought a lot, I learned a lot and use a lot; I apparently do a lot of good, and I seem to destroy everything myself; all my fruits perish from my irritability, my irascibility darkens the brightness of my mind (sic) and upsets me and puts me in a most dangerous position" 123. “My nerves, weak from birth,” says Mr. Kaminsky about himself in 1852, “were completely upset (sic), I lost sleep, appetite and became completely ill without any specific illness. After three and a half months, I was close to going to bed and never getting up again; I didn’t dare count on longevity; my health was very fragile” 124. So, he was a degenerate, a physically and morally sick person who did not know where to lay his poor lonely head and did not have a definite conscious goal, but was constantly hanging around in the space between Chernigov and Jerusalem and fell entirely into the hands of our leaders on Russian buildings, headed by B.P. Mansurov. It is not surprising, therefore, that he was in constant opposition to both Bishop Kirill of Melitopol and his successor, Archimandrite Leonid, whom he characterizes in his memoirs in the most incorrect terms 125. The death of Mr. Kaminsky was not a surprise for anyone, much less for Kaminsky himself, and Archimandrite Leonid is guilty of it only insofar as it happened precisely during his stay in Jerusalem, and only unscrupulous slanderers could put this death in a causal connection with the character of Archimandrite Leonid. “And now,” writes Archimandrite Leonid in a letter to N.P. Ignatiev dated June 24, 1865, “it has positively become known to me that letters were written to me on behalf of admirers, composed by order of the late Kaminsky, a previously suspicious man (even before the Mission arrived in St. Petersburg, he wrote complaints that his own people wanted to poison him, wanted to marry him by force in order to take advantage of his pension, etc.) n. daydreaming) and irritable that everyone was afraid of him. But, taking advantage of these well-known painful properties of him, the coalition that took place against me so turned him against me that he, not knowing me at all, was ready to harm me in any way he could as a personal worst enemy. Dying, he sent me to tell me that he had nothing against me, but I, knowing about his causeless hatred of me and wanting to say goodbye to him in a Christian way, that is, to forgive him personally for his anger towards me, wanted to visit him to calm his soul, but he refused to accept me. For such an anti-Christian act, of course, most of the blame falls not on Mr. Kaminsky, but on those who, knowing his painful disposition of spirit, slyly used it for their own dark purposes, without any thought of how much they harmed him mentally.”126 Architect V. A. Dorogulin and his assistant M. F. Granovsky, “under the patronage of Mr. Mansurov” and accustomed to living in Jerusalem, not restraining either their free morals or hot temperament, when they encountered severe rigoristic suppression of their lusts in relation to women’s shelters, they rebelled against him and decided to wage the most base intrigue against him. To this end, they attracted to their side not only the mission singers, whom “for this purpose they began to gather in the evenings to sing songs and romances,” ending these evenings with “abundant drinking bouts, during which they condemned the actions of the boss and scolded him.” Among those dissatisfied against Archimandrite Leonidas, members of the Spiritual Mission were also involved - hieromonks John and Anatoly and hierodeacon Arseny, on which the family of Doctor Mazaraki and, mainly, his devout, but gullible and talkative wife, Russian by birth, well informed with all the details of Jerusalem life, worked on this with a zeal worthy of better use. It must be said, however, that a significant share of the blame for this intrigue, in addition to the clergy subordinate to him, also lies on the conscience of Father Leonid himself, who recognized the choice of employees as his “greatest mistake.” As soon as the choice of new members of the Spiritual Mission became known, the former chief, Archimandrite Porfiry (Uspensky), gave the following review about these members: “Archimandrite Leonid (Kavelin) (from the military) was appointed to Jerusalem in place of Melitopol Bishop Kirill (from the military), and this bishop was ordered to go to Kazan and live there in some monastery. Leonid selected hieromonks, hierodeacons and singers from among the most uneducated to match his suit. So, our third Spiritual Mission in the Holy City is zero” 127. This characterization of a man who is bilious and extremely offended by the inattention of the spiritual authorities to his work in the Spiritual Mission is undoubtedly exaggerated, since among the appointed members of the Mission was Hieromonk John from the nobility, Father Hierodeacon Arseny - candidate of theology of the St. Petersburg Academy, regent of Voznesensky, who graduated from the Theological Seminary and courtier of the singing chapel - but in the end result of this Mission, Archimandrite Porfiry turned out to be prophetically right. Archimandrite Leonid, undoubtedly, was careless in his recommendations when appointing new members to the Mission, and for this he had to bitterly repent. Father Hieromonk John, for example, upon appointment “from the spiritual side” was known to Father Archimandrite Leonid “personally for his abilities and moral qualities”, “a useful assistant in written studies” and “for assignments on external affairs of the Mission of a spiritual and political nature” and even “a person who could replace him in the event of illness, death, recall, etc., accidental circumstances” and from whom he “would like to prepare a successor according to the Jerusalem Mission" 128, according to his memorandum to the Holy Synod and the Ambassador to Constantinople N.P. Ignatiev, it turns out that "even when he was a guest in Optina Hermitage, at the first acquaintance with him, Fr. confessed in a conversation. Leonid that, being at the Smolensk bishop’s house, in his youth he felt great mental harm from inevitable meetings and relations with the female sex and would therefore like to leave there”; a man who accepted his assignment in the Mission “with visible pleasure and gratitude, promising to be a sincerely obedient and spiritually devoted son,” but upon arrival in Jerusalem “from the first day he discovered completely opposite feelings towards him, that is, anger and hatred, which reached extreme limits and led him to truly insane actions.” The reason for the grief and displeasure of Hieromonk John towards Archimandrite Leonid is that, upon his arrival in Jerusalem, the latter, for his own spiritual benefit, forbade him to confess and receive women 129, while Mrs. Mazaraki “trumpeted throughout the city about his high virtues” (barely 30 years, in monasticism since 1860), and he himself “has a high opinion of himself,” contrary to the prohibition, “he began to receive praying mantises in his cell and become acquainted with them under the pretext of spiritual edification, for which he himself had an urgent need, without, however, realizing it.” The appointment of Hieromonk John to the Mission as a member of “a mistake, which was too late to correct,” was also recognized by Palestine scholar A. N. Muravyov 130 . Hieromonk Gideon, in his submission to the Holy Synod, is “personally known” to Father Archimandrite Leonid both “for his moral qualities and abilities essential for the Mission”, as “knowing well the Church Charter” and “the economic part” and “able to be a confessor for pilgrims and oversee the deanery in the very house of the Mission, where it is intended to place pilgrims from the white clergy” 131, according to a memorandum to the Synod and the envoy, turned out to be a person whom Father Archimandrite Leonid “did not know briefly, but decided to take with him out of necessity, based on the recommendations of people”, apparently well-intentioned as a capable person, and “due to the small number of the present composition of the Mission, during daily worship he could not help but pay attention to the strength, years and abilities for external obedience” and, as he frankly admitted with deep regret, “contrary to the moral properties that should be put in the foreground” 132, he behaved “double-minded” in relation to Archimandrite Leonid and, due to a falsely understood spirit of camaraderie, “hesitant” in his relations towards him. Hierodeacon Arseny, a former member of the Spiritual Mission (until 1860), certified in his presentation to the Holy Synod on the good side as a person useful to the Mission “with his knowledge of church services in Greek,” “capable of keeping track of the general affairs of the Mission,” “although not without some “oddities” stemming from a lack of correct leadership at the beginning of his monastic path and easily corrected if he wishes to subordinate himself to this leadership.” 133, and in the report, Hierodeacon Arseny appears to us constantly “embarrassed and unsettled in his life,” accepted into the third Mission “at his urgent request” and “out of compassion for his cramped position in the academy.” About the regent of the mission clergy, who graduated from the course of the Moscow Theological Seminary, Sergei Voznesensky, in a presentation to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Prince S. N. Urusov, Archimandrite Leonid says that “he is well known to him both for his knowledge of singing and for his exemplary good behavior, through which he can have a moral influence on the rest of the singers.” 134, and in the memo about the same regent it is already said that “he is not behaving well; drinks heavily from time to time” and the choir itself is recognized as in need of “reformation”, since “after filing a denunciation, the singers do what they want, considering the consul their superior” 135. All these persons could easily organize themselves and come to an agreement on the question of how to lead an attack against the energetic actions of the new head of the Mission. Some entered this coalition out of personal revenge, others out of false wounded pride, and still others simply out of a misunderstood spirit of camaraderie. To begin the speech, it was necessary to wait for a favorable time, which was recognized as the arrival of Consul A.N. Kartsev in Jerusalem from vacation, which took place on December 7. On December 12, after the all-night vigil, the consul already had his first confidential conversation, which Archimandrite Leonid reproduced in detail “as far as possible” in a memo to the Holy Synod and Ambassador Ignatiev. “Everyone is complaining about you,” the consul began his conversation. “Who are all these people, I asked,” writes Archimandrite Leonid, “and what are they complaining about?” “Yes, everything,” was the answer. “I repeat to you that this is too unfounded, and if you deign to name those who are complaining and explain what exactly they are complaining about, then I am ready to answer you like a brother.” There was no response to this. Speaking in his usual manner jokingly about the most serious things, he suddenly switched to a different tone and asked, as if in passing: “You told the secretary about me that you don’t like my night trips to the city and that I would do better if I got married.” I answered this: “Yes, from my spiritual experience, when he advised me about getting married, I definitely told him that it was better to get married than to live uncleanly, but I don’t remember whether the reference was made to you.” To this the consul responded with impatience and cynicism: “So know once and for all that I don’t want to know your beliefs on this matter. I cannot do without women and therefore I brought with me one Hungarian 136. And I warn you that you should not care what happens in my house.” I answered this prank coldly: “I, Mr. Consul, I know everything you tell me as news, and I take this opportunity out of conscience and the pastoral responsibility that lies on me to tell you that your kept woman, whom you brought with you, has already managed to declare in the city that you promised to place her in the consular house, that is, inside Russian charitable institutions, and even promised to make her the director of a women's shelter. To this I will tell you directly that I cannot allow such an obvious temptation, and if you do not voluntarily give up your intention, I will have to bring this to the attention of those persons who can prohibit you from doing so.” Trying to hide the conversation that apparently worried him, he again switched to a joking tone and, among other things, said: “I don’t intend to stay here for long, no more than two years.” To this I replied: “And if things go the way they are now, I would like to stay even less.” To this he enthusiastically answered: “Yes, but then the head of the Mission will no longer be here, but two hieromonks will remain, one of whom will be the eldest” 137 . After this tense conversation A.N. Kartsev hastened to get close to the lower members of the Spiritual Mission and win them over to his side and make visits to them. The Mission was just waiting for this to start a campaign against their boss. On December 29, the first complaint was submitted to the consul against Archimandrite Leonid, which, being filled with trivial and even sometimes implausible facts, cannot, however, be passed over in silence, since it accuses Fr. Archimandrite Leonidas has such complaints that are similar to the complaints of the clergy of the Church of Constantinople, which we will discuss later. It must therefore be admitted that there is some grain of truth in this complaint. 1. “The state of Fr. Leonidas seems unnatural to us, - the members of the Mission write in their complaint, - his face turns purple at times, swelling and falling alternately, and his eyes become completely yellow... Then a look at his face leads to involuntary horror. In this state, he sometimes runs along the corridor in a sleeping suit and breaks as much as he can (reverse) with his fists on the doors of his subordinates, shouting and cursing. Meeting him at this time is unsafe, because at this time he is completely imbued with the desire to insult. 2. During the Divine Liturgy, he is absent-minded and forgetful, so it is often necessary to prompt him to shout. Often serves in an anxious state of mind; leans on the Holy See with his hands and makes very important mistakes, which we will not mention here. During the Liturgy of one successive hieromonk, Fr. Leonid breaks the silence of the Holy Altar and involuntarily entertains the attention of the servant with various sounds similar to singing, engages in conversations, tugs at the vestments with a desire to correct something and, finally, makes superior comments, most of them the most unfounded and unfair, gives various household orders and tells the news. And all this is not due to simplicity, which is not visible in Fr. Leonida, but out of undisguised disrespect for the holiness of the place. During services in holy places: at the Holy Sepulcher, on Golgotha, in Gethsemane, Fr. Leonidas, so to speak, is absorbed in fussiness: he runs from his place, talks rudely to the pilgrims (l. 4), pushes them with his hands or drags them from one place to another. Once, during the bishop's service in the altar of the Church of the Resurrection, during the Cherubic Song, Fr. Leonid became attached to the serving hieromonk from the previous mission and started a quarrel with him. And before the time of communion, he bowed to the hieromonk’s feet, asking for forgiveness. The hieromonk, with a movement of his hand, admonished him in view of all the employees, of whom there were a lot. After admonition and reconciliation, Fr. Leonid approached the Chief Bishop with a complaint and claim against the same hieromonk. 3. One day, just before the moment of communion, Fr. Leonid called to the altar of the Mission Church and reconciled imaginary enemies who had not previously said a single offensive word to each other, and forced Hierodeacon Arseny to ask for forgiveness from the regent of Ascension. Instead, the matter ended with a brief explanation of the misunderstanding, the cause of which, as it later turned out, was Fr. Leonid. At the end of the Liturgy, being irritated by the simple form of explanation, with shouts and curses, he unexpectedly ran into the hierodeacon’s apartment and, beside himself, uttered blasphemy. This incident, especially the last word, will be written (reverse) in a separate letter from the hierodeacon, because Fr. The archimandrite was only the youngest member of the Mission, Fr. hierodeacon. Once before the service in Gethsemane, Fr. Leonid asked Hierodeacon Arseny if he had confessed yesterday in order to begin communion today? And to the hierodeacon’s answer that there was no confession, but that he had no sins that would exclude him from communion, Fr. Leonid decisively explained that he himself would not serve the Liturgy and would not be allowed to serve until the latter confessed. Then he offered himself as a confessor and confessed to the hierodeacon in excitement, without an epitrachelion, which is why he had to read the prayer of permission afterwards in church. Unexpected coercion to confession by Hierodeacon Arseny was repeated more than once, with the aim of removing him from his long-time confessor, His Eminence Meletios, when direct prohibitions and threats not to confess to His Eminence turned out to be invalid. 4. Repeatedly Fr. Leonidas dishonored and slandered the Higher Greek Jerusalem hierarchy: he slandered our saints, full of grace and spirit, and insulted the humble archpastors of Jerusalem, which weighed heavily on our hearts, covered our faces with shame (l. 5) and brought tears; forbade Russian pilgrims to stay in Greek monasteries with the aim, among other things, of depriving the Greeks of their income; interfered in the management of Greek monasteries, condemned their deanery, personally scolded the abbots of the monasteries, slandered the abbesses, encouraged pilgrims to make penny donations to holy places, and interpreted in a different direction the ancient custom of worshipers spending the night in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. During the cathedral bishop's service in the Church of the Resurrection, he is engaged in localism in view of the people and serving bishops; with his own hands he removed the hieromonks of the Mission from the places appointed by the ecclesiarch and placed them above the Greek abbots, to the obvious displeasure of the Greeks and the temptation of the people, who respected the character and routines of the local hierarchy. 5. O Leonid does not allow the members of the Mission to read teachings in his church, and the people, meanwhile, the flower of Russian piety, filling the church more than four hundred daily, are likened to a thirsty land, asking the hieromonks to give them the water of life - the grace-filled teaching of Christ in Jerusalem, free from all worldly cares, and to pay attention to the labors of their further wanderings. Parents who came with their children ask the missionaries to teach their children the Law of God, but Fr. Leonidas forbids this to the missionaries on the grounds that boys should not be allowed to join the monks for fear - we are ashamed to say - the sin of Sodom. This is said by the head of the Mission, the archimandrite, to the Academician Missionary, whose direct duty is to spread the light of the word of God and thereby repay the expenses of the Church for his upbringing. However, it seems that this is not the main reason for the prohibition, as expressed by Fr. archimandrite, and his hatred for the monks who completed their courses in religious institutions, especially in the Academies. 6. O Leonid demanded from the senior hieromonk of the Mission, Fr. Gideon, so that he would not confess to officials and all employees at the Consulate and Russian buildings, but would send them to him. When they did not agree to confess to Fr. Leonid, but they wanted it from the hieromonk, then Fr. Leonid allowed himself to do it to them after trouble, and reprimanded the hieromonk. The Bogomolets who permanently live in Jerusalem, especially the honored and (l. 6) learned professor Mr. Kaminsky, famous for his writings and irreplaceable in Jerusalem for his complete historical study of the geography of the Promised Land and currently for his tireless work on compiling an index of Palestine, are being pressed, insulted and driven out of Jerusalem by all possible measures. Others are persecuted by suspicions of bad behavior and often comes to their cells with heavy abuse. We saw many pilgrims crying with tears of deep sorrow, and heard them call our leader names that were too heavy for our clergy. With members of the Mission Fr. the archimandrite treats him arrogantly and contemptuously, excludes him from any participation in the affairs of the Mission and at the same time uses every effort to quarrel among the members of the Mission. He called the hierodeacon Arseny three times to his face a brute and a scoundrel, once in front of the hieromonk of the Mission and the singers, another time in front of the regent, the third time in the hierodeacon’s apartment immediately after his service, and the surprising thing is that all this slander was without any reason on the part of his victim. This appeal decisively shocked the already weak health of the hierodeacon, who arrived in Jerusalem with the following doctoral certificate, which had already been presented to you. Hierodeacon Arseny was forbidden to serve more than twice a week, although he could have done it more often (it seems, in order to be able to ask for a second staff of hierodeacon and refer to the fact that daily service and communion is impossible for a hierodeacon alone). Then he intended to introduce him, against his will, to hieromonasticism, so that, thus, without a special order of the Holy Synod (l. 7) exclude the hierodeacon from the Mission, because there is no third hieromonk on the staff of the Mission. And now, after your arrival, the other day I persuaded the city regent to write a false denunciation against Hierodeacon Arseny; He promised the regent his friendship and protection for this perjury. The regent has already told you about this in the presence of the Mission’s singers. Shortly before your arrival, the second hieromonk Fr. Ioannou read his letter to St. Petersburg, with the notification that the hierodeacon and some of the singers had fallen ill from the uncomfortable and damp apartments. This is completely unfair: our apartments have all the amenities and we are all happy with the premises. The Mission's singers are not satisfied with their well-deserved salaries. They complain about the non-delivery of the promised raising and passing money. He receives a sum of money from the Government for 7 singers, 750 rubles for the 4th. and the 3rd - 500 rubles each, and there are five singers in total (one singer with a senior salary and one with a junior salary are missing). For the missing choristers, cash choristers performed the position for six months at obvious detriment to their health; treats them inhumanely and rudely; reproaches them with the names of civilians, calls them to their faces pigs, animals, scoundrels and mice, which he can always easily crush. 7. He kept the table money of the Mission members for the month of December 1863 and did not return it. He calculated the previous Mission from the salaries of the members and singers of the new Mission, without deducting anything from his salary, and still does not return the amount withheld to us, although we have long heard about sending this money to Fr. Leonid to return according to his belongings. Members of the Mission also know to whom they were distributed and whether Fr. Leonid money received from the Imperial family for distribution to the poor: but we have seen more than once that Fr. Leonid drove away from himself without mercy and with offensive words the truly poor people who turned to him with a request for benefits. Church funds, very significant ones - candles, purses and cups - are disposed of either arbitrarily and selfishly, or without the knowledge of the members of the Mission, who even asked that the existence of these sums be hidden from the Consulate. He announced his intention to present a report on the expenditure of staff sums (for church servants, emergency expenses and sextons) in the most general terms, probably with the aim of hiding large balances known to us. In confirmation of all of the above, we have the honor to sign Your Nobleness, Most Gracious Sovereign, most humble servants, members of the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission: Hieromonk Gideon, Hieromonk John, Hierodeacon Arseny. December 29, 1864, Jerusalem" 138. This complaint was followed by other complaints and reports: on December 31 - a report about an arbitrary audit of church sums and about the seizure of the Mission's church, and from January 6, 1865 - a complaint against Archimandrite Leonid about his incorrect denunciation of members of the Mission, accepted by Consul A. N. Kartsev and then launched to achieve the intended goal - to remove Archimandrite Leonid from Jerusalem. Then, when the members of the Mission refused to obey their superior, and he was forced to temporarily stop even participating in the services of the mission church, a report dated January 3 followed in the name of His Eminence Metropolitan Peter of Arabia Meletius from members of the Mission and random pilgrims about the abandonment of the church by Father Leonid due to dissatisfaction with the sacristan, who did not want to change the assignments for better ones, etc. Both these complaints and others who followed Archimandrite Leonid later from persons who had absolutely nothing to do with him, such as the Serb Euthymius or the German baker R. Lentholt, the consul received him “favorably” and made it clear to the complainants that he “accepted them under his protection” and “transferred them to their destination,” that is, to Constantinople to Ambassador N.P. Ignatiev, and from there they went to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Holy Synod. In the Mission, thanks to this, “complete demoralization” appeared among its members, about which on December 31, 1864, Archimandrite Leonid was forced to report in detail to the ambassador in Constantinople, as he hoped that from there “order could sooner be restored, disrupted by the intervention of the consulate so unceremoniously.” On January 7, 1865, members of the Mission filed a complaint against Archimandrite Leonid and. O. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod to Prince S.N. Urusov, supporting it with a new denunciation in a letter addressed to him dated January 21 of the same year. In the explanation of Father Archimandrite Leonid regarding this completely incorrect complaint, we are presented with curious features of the internal life of the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission under its former head. “Having my duty to arrange food for the monastics and singers serving in the Mission in such a way as to deprive them of the reason to visit city taverns (lokanda), I,” writes Father Archimandrite Leonid, “following the example of the previous Mission, hired a cook-cook (Turkish subject), Russian by faith and origin), Sylvester Ivanov, with payment to him from the amount allocated for hiring for Mission ministers (500 rubles in silver per year, 225 piastres per month) and his assistant 90 piastres per month, providing him with government dishes and firewood to maintain a table in the kitchen of the Mission for the monastics and choristers with a fee from each of the monks for lunch of 15 rubles. ser. per month, and from singers - 12 rubles for lunch and dinner, and 10 rubles for one lunch. ser. per month. Moreover, so that there would be no delay in payment on the part of the singers to his detriment, he took upon himself to pay the following amount from their canteen money in advance for each month, which he did until January 1 of the current year (and from January, everyone paid the canteen personally). In addition to the members of the Mission and the singers, at the request of the sutler, I allowed him to provide food, on whatever monetary terms he wanted, for pilgrims of clergy, as well as the secretary of the consulate, Mr. Yuzefovich, and the official M.F. Granovsky, who works in our institutions.” 139 Meanwhile, the unrest in the Mission continued to grow, and on January 16, members of the Mission, in a letter addressed to Archimandrite Leonid, refused to worship with him in the Mission’s house church. This letter read as follows: “You avoid meeting with us; the doors of your rooms are closed to us; The only meetings we have with you are at the throne of the Lord. Isn't it true, oh. Archimandrite, is this very unnatural, contrary to the spirit of Christian piety and the canons of our Orthodox Church and the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist? And when we clarify the abnormality of Your Eminence during the Holy Divine Service, which brings us under responsibility, and when we reflect that immediately after the service and communion of the Holy Mysteries of Christ, you allow yourself to make unfair denunciations and express unfounded complaints about your fellow servants, then there is no longer any doubt that our collective service is an impudent insult to the Lord. Let us honor our Creator and Redeemer with the fear of God. We will not serve together until a happier time, when the Lord will overshadow your heart with peace from above and when we will not be afraid of mortal sin when serving. So, Your Reverence Fr. Archimandrite, take on the painful task of inviting your co-celebrants from somewhere other than us on the day you wish to serve the Liturgy. We pray to the Lord that this truly deplorable state of our Missionary Community will not last long. Hieromonk Gideon, Hieromonk John, Hierodeacon Arseny" 140. On January 25, Archimandrite Leonid responded to this daring letter from the members of the Mission with “a memo on measures for the speedy restoration of legal order in the Jerusalem Mission,” recommending that the Holy Synod remove all rebels from Jerusalem and appoint new members in their place. “The members of the Mission, who rebelled against me at the instigation of Mr. Mansurov’s party and under the patronage of Mr. Consul, themselves predetermined the business they had started, both by arbitrary actions and by telling everyone that this matter could only have one outcome: either we will survive the head of the Mission from here, or, if he remains, we will leave ourselves. And indeed, after an open uprising, which was followed by a series of truly unheard-of actions, such as: the seizure of the church, church funds and property and the unauthorized disposal that continues to this day, then the excommunication of me from concelebrating with them by an act (like a cathedral decision), a lot of insolence, done collectively and separately, not only in my apartment, and in the church of God, just before the service, open disobedience, taken to the extreme to the temptation of everyone, disdain for authority - further service in the Mission, neither for me with them, nor for them with me, became positively impossible. And therefore, if the Higher Authorities would like to recall me on the basis of their cumulative denunciations, then after everything that I have endured and endured from them so far, I will accept this dismissal as a reward for grief in patience, sent from above. If, in order to restore order, the Higher Authorities wish to recall the members of the Mission who have rebelled and have arbitrarily subverted the legal order, then I consider it a duty of conscience to indicate how all this can be arranged without new costs for the government (reverse). In place of the two current hieromonks I recommend: a) Hieromonk Anatoly, who was at the Mission (in a singing vacancy) of the Moscow Diocese of the Nikolo-Ugreshsky Monastery, whom I know very well, for I lived with him in the monastery at Optina Pustyn for 12 years; he, as a monk of spiritual life, can be especially useful in the rank of confessor. b) Hegumen Demetrius, currently on pilgrimage (until Easter) in Jerusalem, living in retirement in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, who can bring particular benefit to the Mission as an excellent expert in church singing, and contribute to the reform of the current singing choir, which has been thrown into disarray by the resulting disorder. Moreover, the current regent, having retreated into a drunken life, cannot be more tolerant here. c) In place of the current hierodeacon of the Mission, Fr. Arseny, who, due to an imaginary illness, but in reality due to laziness and stubbornness, refuses all obedience except for church services, is constantly embarrassed (by the passion of love of money), is argumentative and grumbles, and due to these qualities has the most harmful influence on the singers (as people of the same rank as him: he outraged them, wrote denunciations to them, etc.), can be invited to temporary service at the Mission (with production of the content required by the state) from the Greek Patriarchate, Hierodeacon Gabriel, who is well versed in the service in the Slavic language; he is the nephew of Metropolitan Meletius and therefore his invitation will be pleasant to the Greeks and will serve to strengthen the spiritual connection with them. This hierodeacon can serve at the Mission either until a person capable of holding this position appears on the pilgrimage, or until someone arrives at my invitation and at my own expense. Thus, the identification of new members of the Mission (if it is decided before Easter), who completely replace the current ones in their abilities and qualities, will cost without any new costs. Regarding the dismissal of those who refuse all obedience and whose actions have perverted the legal order, it should be noted that since they will not be dismissed for any extraneous valid reason (illness, etc.), namely for a strike and rebellion against the boss, it will not be unfair to provide them with funds for the journey only in the amount that is really necessary for returning to where they will be assigned, which I believe is quite sufficient: for the hieromonks - according to 400, and the hierodeacon - 300 rubles. ser. For this item you can use: 1) 15% ticket for 500 rubles. ser., kept in the Mission's cash register and donated to its benefit by a private person; 2) 304 rub. ser. from the singer's sum available in cash (from accumulation on the occasion of the abandonment of one singer in Odessa due to illness). And the missing 300 rubles. ser. I propose to supplement from my salary, for I alone am to blame for calling such persons, although according to what is said in Scripture: “no one knows a person, only the spirit of a person living in him.” After the main troublemakers are expelled, the singers, excited by them, will easily calm down; whoever of them wishes to leave himself, there is no reason to keep, because after Easter there is no special need for them for the whole summer, and through Abbot Demetrius it is easy to write out the necessary votes for the winter with the money that Your Excellency, at my urgent request, allocated for the benefit of the singers and which, according to my idea, should serve to ensure the conditions concluded by me with a civilian singer for 7 years. Upon restoration of legal order, it is necessary to prohibit Mr. Consul from interfering in the internal affairs of the Mission, not only due to personality and intrigue (as explained in detail in my memo) for the destruction of the Spiritual Representation in the Holy City, but also for no other reason, because due to local circumstances, with daily contact with a disorderly worship environment, with tireless intrigues from without and within, the head of the Mission, whoever he is neither was (conv.), without complete trust in him from the highest authorities, there is no way to keep his subordinates in complete obedience and decency, if they hope to get out of obedience and find themselves obvious (as happened now) support in another government that directs affairs and views that are not at all spiritual. Moreover, the place of consul in such an important point, unfortunately for the Mission, is occupied by a young, inexperienced man, devoted to all passions to the point of cynicism, who, being intoxicated by his easy success in the fight against my predecessor and wanting to rule here inseparably and limitlessly, cannot tolerate next to him a person who is not completely mute and insignificant, and therefore wants to destroy not only me, but also the very place of the head of the Spiritual Mission, passing it on to his protégés. Jerusalem, January 1865" 141. In a letter addressed to the ambassador in Constantinople, giving detailed explanations regarding the complaints of members of the Mission against him for the incorrect payment of their salaries, Fr. Leonid repeats the thoughts of his memorandum to the Holy Synod with a request either to recall him from Jerusalem, or to remove the indignant members of the Mission. In Jerusalem, however, the intrigue continued its insidious work. Consul A.N. Kartsev, as can be seen from the letter of Hierodeacon Arseny addressed to him dated February 8, 1865, continued “to be curious to know all the events that were out of the ordinary, no matter whether they related to the whole society or to an individual, and with repeated reminders of my promise he accelerated his determination to fulfill this promise.” “The wonderful finale of the loud score, played in front of the consul upon his return from Russia by a choir of heterogeneous sufferers,” according to Father Hierodeacon Arseny, was his “huge” letter addressed to A. N. Kartsev. It is therefore not at all surprising if, as this eloquent writer of denunciations puts it, the head of the Spiritual Mission has become the talk of the town in the literal sense of the phrase. “We can say,” adds Father Arseny, “in the language of sacred poetry, that the stacks of Jerusalem were filled with the glory of Fr. archimandrite, the idle lovers sitting at the gates talk about him; the wine-drinking friends of the feasts talk idle talk about him. The Turks began to call the kings of hearts (in cards) no longer kings, but Russian archimandrite” 142. The position of Archimandrite Leonid in Jerusalem was extremely difficult at this time. Experiencing deep moral upheavals and in need of outside advice, he confidentially reported on the events taking place in the Mission to the Patriarchal Viceroy, Metropolitan Meletius, who gave the following advice: “If the consul were on your side, then, of course, it would be easy to reconcile them. And now my advice to you is to remain silent and endure.” With great cordiality and warmth, Archimandrite Leonid was treated (January 11, 1865) by his confessor, “the humble rector of the Lavra of St. Savva the Sanctified, the 70-year-old elder Abba Joasaph, who, as a spiritual father and leader, knew not only all his actions, but also his very feelings and thoughts, just like his deceased old man" (Makariy). “Remember,” Abba Joasaph consoled Archimandrite Leonid, “the words of the Savior: If they expelled Me, then they will expel you too; if they kept My word, then they will keep yours... Who was St. Savva the Sanctified? And in his life we ​​read that he was expelled twice from the monastery he had built by the brethren he had gathered, and they urgently demanded from the patriarch another leader, slandering the monk. But they were confused by the question: “Did you choose him, or did he choose you?” So it is with you: you are annoyed, forbidden and expelled by the very ones whom you chose and pointed out to the authorities. What to do... Be silent and be patient while the authorities sort out the matter” 143. Father Leonid also complained about his sadly difficult situation to the Ambassador of Constantinople N.P. Ignatiev, who, unfortunately, while admiring the personal and diplomatic talents of A.N. Kartsev, did not stand on the side of Archimandrite Leonid and did not, it must be said truthfully, show proper impartiality and correctness in this matter. “I,” Archimandrite Leonid wrote to the envoy on February 4, “being pressed on all sides: by the personally hostile actions of the consul and his subordinates against me and by my former subordinates, who, in anticipation of the benefits promised to them, became obedient instruments in the hands of the former, I am in the position of a commander on a foreign voyage, against whom the crew rebelled and, tying him up, threw him into the cabin before arriving at the port. So I, being morally bound hand and foot, i.e. made it impossible both morally and physically to correct the duties assigned to me, I had to, yielding to violence and in order not to increase the troubles and bitterness (which had reached extreme limits under the influence of passions), withdrew from the official duties of the head of the Mission until the restoration of legal order, which had been corrupted to the root, and, being truly unwell, I sit hopelessly in my apartment, waiting until the Lord will be pleased to put a limit to this unheard-of insolence and self-will..." “It is difficult to describe in words,” this letter goes on to say, “the unrest of the pilgrim environment, in the absence of any concern for the moral side of the matter on the part of the consul and with the positive impossibility for me in my current position to counteract not only secret, but also obvious evil. (All ways of my communication with the pilgrims were stopped). No one dares to come to me openly, for under some pretext such a one will be called a spy and sent out of Jerusalem, and some come at dusk. To my question: “What does visiting at such a time mean?” - they answer: “You yourself know...” All that remains, on the advice of the experienced, is to endure and remain silent until it pleases the Lord either to remove my soul from this moral mire, or to tame the storm that has risen against me for the sake of my sins, although not those of which the informers driven by pride and arbitrariness accuse me, but, unfortunately, not the blind and conscious instrument of the cunning and evil intrigue of ambitious people. However, the Lord is strong, if He pleases, to untie this new knot of the so-called “Jerusalem affair,” to the glory of His holy name. But I, surrendering myself and this matter entirely to the will of God, always good and perfect, calmly await orders from the highest authority, praying only to the Lord to shorten the time of self-will that is tempting for me” 144. The hope and deep consciousness of his rightness of Father Archimandrite Leonid were not in vain. The highest spiritual authorities looked unfavorably on the actions of the consul in Jerusalem and called them “an incomprehensible harassment to maintain disorder among the spiritual staff of the Mission and the spirit of self-will and disobedience of its unworthy members,” and called the above-mentioned letter from Hierodeacon Arseny “a long article, the content of which would be enough for several issues of “The Bell” (Herzen) or “Iskra”” (humorous magazine), about which on March 11, 1865, in relation to No. 1279 and. O. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod was brought to the attention of Comrade Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is worth noting here a resolution on this matter, issued from the pen of the highest secular authorities, who obviously took the side of the consul, with the following content: “It may very well be that the demand of the city consul put forward by Arseny is nothing more than an invention on his part, in order to show the spiritual authorities that the representative of the government is supposedly on the side of those rebelling against the boss. According to Arseny’s words and actions, this can be considered a success” 145. In the Holy Synod, already before the receipt of this letter from Hierodeacon Arseny, a decision on the Jerusalem issue took place on February 15, and it was decided: “1) Mr. The Synodal Chief Prosecutor should enter into communication with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and ask for its order to immediately send Hieromonk John and Hierodeacon Arseny to Odessa; 2) place them in the monastery of the diocese entrusted to him until further orders concerning these persons; 3) to allow the head of the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission, Archimandrite Leonid, to invite monastics from among the worshipers or local clergy until the filling of the hieromonastic and hierodeaconal vacancies at the Mission to officiate at it, and to enter the Holy Synod with a special proposal for the appointment of new members of the Mission for this vacancy” 146. This decision of the Holy Synod was forwarded to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the presence of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod on March 10 this year. No. 56, in which, condemning the actions of the Jerusalem consul, this latter writes to a fellow Minister: “Your Excellency, please agree that to preserve the dignity of the Russian Church in the Holy Land, two conditions are necessary: allowing its representative to fulfill the spiritual duties assigned to him by the Holy Synod, completely independently and independently, and such a course of action on the part of the representative of our government in Jerusalem, which would tend towards support, and not to frustration Spiritual Mission. Meanwhile, from the actions of Mr. Kartsev, judging by his own words (letter dated January 10), we can conclude that our consulate acted under the influence, apparently, of completely different considerations... The consulate not only should not have accepted complaints against Archimandrite Leonid from persons directly subordinate to him, and should have given them advice to present their claims to him in writing, but should have immediately, through indoctrination and observation, taken measures to convert those who were agitated and indignant to the path of legal submission. Until receiving an answer (from the government), he could always maintain order with his influence and thereby avoid the inevitable censure of our Church and nation, temptation for fans and fellow believers and triumph for non-believers, perhaps even for the Greeks. Instead, Mr. Kartsev accepts written and verbal complaints from members and singers of the Spiritual Mission against his direct and immediate superior, although these complaints were submitted en masse from all members or singers of the Mission, and for that alone should not have had any effect by law. It was not difficult to foresee that the acceptance of these complaints, naturally, gives the dissatisfied a reason to think that the consulate is taking them under its protection... It is impossible, I think, to deny the influence on the recent events in Jerusalem, firstly, the unfortunate circumstance of the change of the Most Reverend Kirill, which gave rise to the idea of ​​seeking the destruction of the Spiritual Mission; secondly, the unsuccessful choice of our representatives due to inexperience and lack of serious authority, not meeting the strict conditions of the difficult situation in the Holy City; and, thirdly, personal mistakes and lack of tact on the part of the father of Archimandrite Leonid, both in the choice of the people he took, and in his relationship to the environment surrounding him...” 147. “I,” added the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, “do not accept unconditional defense of the actions of the real head of the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission. In my mind, as well as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, there is one goal - preserving the dignity of the Russian Church and the Russian name - a goal before which individuals disappear. But the desire to achieve this particular goal leads to the need to support the importance of the head of the Russian Spiritual Mission" 148. It was quite natural on the part of Father Archimandrite Leonid to want to get out of this situation, which was extremely offensive to him personally and humiliating to the Russian Church, whose representative he was in Jerusalem, and to ardently request to be relieved of his position. “As for me,” Archimandrite Leonid wrote to N.P. Ignatiev in a letter dated January 20, 1865, “I, having recently been nothing more than an honorary prisoner in our hospice institutions, convicted without trial or direct guilt, am so burdened with sadness from everything that I see and hear around me that, if it pleases me to be dismissed from here, I will accept this news as a consolation sent by God for suffered sorrows, especially since, staying here, I foresee nothing good: the goal of the skillfully conducted intrigue has already been half achieved - this is to put me in the eyes of everyone in a position humiliating for my rank and dignity, and thereby paralyze at the beginning and at the root the activity to which I am called by the will of the spiritual authorities... I earnestly ask, for the sake of His Holy Name, to hasten to save me from this present, humiliating not for my personality, open to all blows, but also for the Church, which was pleased to honor me with the title of its representative in the Holy City. Meanwhile, hardly anyone from the lower clergy of our hierarchy has now been subjected to such disgrace and reproach as I have. And who did all this? The people I invited, who received through me an honor that they had not enjoyed before, a means of livelihood that they did not even dare to dream of, but they were young, inexperienced people, and therefore easily became, with the help of flattering promises, instruments of a dark intrigue that has its own goals.” “I,” Father Leonid repeats in a letter to him dated May 21, “with pleasure am ready to give up my place to anyone and consider the most unfortunate day in my life that day on which I decided to accept as obedience to the highest hierarchical authority a place surrounded by so many intrigues both from my own and from false brethren, flattering, according to our historian, even to this day. Believing with all my heart the Providence of God, I have no doubt that time will reveal the truth, and God’s justice will not leave without punishment those who now, when reminded of this, respond with frantic mockery and laughter” 149. Patriarch Kirill of Jerusalem and his attitude towards Archimandrite Leonid. Prohibition of religious services in holy places during Holy and Easter weeks. Participation in this matter of Consul Kartsev, Ambassador N.P. Ignatiev, Metropolitans: Moscow Philaret and St. Petersburg Isidore, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Holy Synod But our Jerusalem leaders sought not just the removal of Archimandrite Leonidas from Jerusalem, but the destruction of the very title of head of the Mission, instead of which two hieromonks would then remain at the consulate, one of whom was the eldest, which was not without lust expected by the indignant members of the Mission - Hieromonk John and Hierodeacon Arseny - and which was very much in the hands of the Jerusalem Patriarchate. That is why the consul and the Patriarchate unite in their further actions aimed at completely discrediting the personality of Archimandrite Leonid and pointing out to the Russian government persons who, in their opinion, are worthy of replacing Archimandrite Leonid. From the letter of Consul A.N. Kartsev to our ambassador in Constantinople dated March 6, 1865, it is clear that when the Patriarch met on February 18 in Rome, upon his return from Constantinople, the consul heard from the Patriarch about some “reprehensible actions” of Archimandrite Leonid, allegedly “requiring church punishment, that is, temporary excommunication from sacred rites." From this letter from the consul, one could think that Archimandrite Leonid did not go to meet the Patriarch with the intention, and not with his departure to the Lavra of St. Savva; that the Patriarch, on the eve of the Week of Orthodoxy, when Archimandrite Leonid came to him for an audience, “denied” him that and the next day after the procession in the Holy Sepulcher Church, at the reception “he was very dry in his manner”; that when the Patriarch visited Russian buildings and churches in order to indicate the place for the patriarchal throne, Archimandrite Leonid “locked himself in his apartment, from where he even sent out his cell attendant, saying that he did not need anything, that he was sick and would not open the doors for anyone”; and that when parting with him, the consul, the Patriarch did not hide his indignation at the archimandrite and expressed that “it is rare to see such a combination of tactlessness and ignorance in one person” 150. True, from the letter of Archimandrite Leonidas to the envoy in Constantinople dated March 18, 1865, it is clear that all this was presented by the consul in a distorted form. “The Patriarch,” writes Archimandrite Leonid, “at his audience on the eve of Orthodoxy Week, received me very favorably and asked me with sympathy about the circumstances surrounding me. After listening to me, he said: “Where obedience is neglected, there is one step to insolence. My advice to you is to yield to force, to evade the official performance of your duties (so as not to present to others the tempting spectacle of division) until order is restored by a higher authority.” At the same time, I asked His Beatitude to apologize that, to my extreme chagrin, I could not be at the official meeting of His Beatitude as the head of the Mission, which openly rebelled against its leader, so as not to present to fellow believers and non-believers the seductive spectacle of division and self-will, and that for the same reason I would be deprived of the consolation of meeting His Beatitude as I would have wanted and should have (in the normal state of affairs) during a visit to our home church. His Beatitude consoled me with fatherly attentiveness and repeated his advice: to endure in silence until legal order is restored.” But the Patriarch, apparently, was insincere with his father, Archimandrite Leonid, and in his soul harbored hostility against him for those messages to N.P. Ignatiev about the Holy Sepulcher clergy, which he made, at the request of the ambassador, in the letter that was shown to him last before he left Constantinople. The Patriarch’s letter to N.P. Ignatiev in Constantinople dated March 11, 1865 clearly tells us for this, depicting, by the way, with quite bright strokes, the remarkable unanimity and like-mindedness in this case of the Russian consul A.N. Kartsev and the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Reporting on the successful achievement of the Holy City and his meeting “with the fullness of spiritual joy” “with the entire Orthodox community of Christ and with the entire sacred brotherhood” and on the celebration of the Triumph of Orthodoxy on February 21, during which prayers were offered for the Russian royal house and for the family of the ambassador, “solemnly defending and representing the sacred interests of the Most Holy Mother of the Church,” Patriarch Kirill continues: “therefore, having given our weary body a little reassurance, for several days we were busy with the usual visits, receiving congratulatory greetings from all the people here, of whom we especially retain (l. 79) in our ears alive and sweet to this day the heartfelt congratulatory voice of our spiritually beloved son, the Russian consul A. N. Kartsev, with whom we entered into frequent communications regarding the unpleasant clash between yours, that took place here recently. With heartfelt sorrow, having confirmed with my own ears both from my like-minded people and from strangers about what we talked with Your Excellency orally in Constantinople regarding the Superior (who has only been with us until this day) of the local Spiritual Mission, in every possible way desiring to preserve the agreement, which, in the eyes of the various nationalities here, is necessary between the Imperial Consulate and the local Spiritual Mission, for the glory of the glorious name of the Russian, we think that the continuation of such a state should be prevented, and we are confident that just as much as the Imperial Government, the Holy Synod, through the prudence and political wisdom of Your Excellency, will hasten to make the necessary correction, restoring the required order and harmony, for which our fatherly heart will feel great spiritual joy. What was previously written to Your Excellency by the local Archimandrite Leonid, we did not leave to do the proper research before our Most Holy brother, Metropolitan Meletios of Petra, who fatherly prays for Your Excellency. His Holiness presented us with a written document from His Eminence the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, by which one devotee of St. Petersburg is given permission, according to her ardent desire, to go to the Holy City and put on the monastic image on the Holy and Terrible Golgotha, as a result of which His Priesthood began to perform the rite. The local Russian consul, Mr. Kartsev, and Archimandrite Leonid himself have information about this document. Here's the thing about it. Our Most Holy brother, St. Peter’s Metropolitan, told us much more about this regarding the behavior of His Eminence towards our monastery here, which we will verbally present to Your Excellency when, with God, we see each other.” In a letter dated March 18, Archimandrite Leonid informs the ambassador about the consul’s new outrageous actions against him. “Having learned from his like-minded people,” he writes, “that some of the pilgrims of the clergy, despite secret and obvious prohibitions, dare to visit me, Mr. Consul settled his official of special assignments, M. F. Granovsky, at the very entrance to the Mission house (downstairs) with instructions to observe everyone who comes to me, and simply drive some away, and exhort others not to come; at the same time, they let some of the clergy who visited me know that if they continued to visit me, they would be dishonorably expelled from Jerusalem under various pretexts. (I have evidence for all this). Moreover, according to the (secret) information that reached me, during my absence from Jerusalem to the monastery of St. Sava to fulfill my Christian duty, the members of the Mission, having picked up the keys to my office (for which, as they say, they bribed my employee), entered it and rummaged through all the papers, looking for support in them for previous and new denunciations” 151. On the 18th of March, a letter from St. Petersburg 152 was received in Jerusalem from Metropolitan Arseny of Kyiv, in which he informed Archimandrite Leonid that the Holy Synod was removing the indignant members of the Mission from Jerusalem. Since this letter fell into the hands of the consulate and was opened, its contents immediately became known to the consulate, the Patriarchate and interested parties, among whom this news very naturally caused “terrible confusion.” In order not to miss the opportunity to annoy Archimandrite Leonid, the indignant members of the Mission presented the Patriarch with copies of Archimandrite Leonid’s secret letters. “The Patriarch, from his very arrival, indignant against me with Mr. Mazaraki (in particular) and some of his own, having read my secret reports about the progress of the affairs of his Patriarchate, about the attitude of the Greeks towards us and especially about the attitude of the Greek clergy towards our admirers and admirers 153, came into terrible indignation and, as they say, gave his word by all means to facilitate the recall from here. In particular, His Beatitude did not like the letter I wrote on October 4 last year to His Eminence Metropolitan Isidore, in which, having made a correct (factual) overview of the state of our worship and the attitude of the Greek clergy towards it, I asked His Eminence for advice on how I should act in the circumstances surrounding me. I understand well that the picture I painted in this letter directly from life, although with an unskillful brush, could not please His Beatitude, much less his viceroy, who was in question. What should I do if I begin to hide the truth from those who honored me with their trust to find out about it? On March 20, when Archimandrite Leonid decided to ask, through his dragoman, for an audience and blessing “to participate in the upcoming church processions of Holy Week, the Patriarch announced that he was “dissatisfied with the archimandrite” and directly pointed out as the reason the letters in which Archimandrite Leonid “denigrated all of us and especially insulted my vicar, and in his person and myself”,” in particular, the content letters dated October 4 to Metropolitan Isidore of St. Petersburg. “Let everything now remain as it is, and when the decree of the Holy Synod comes out, I will demand an explanation from the archimandrite and then we’ll see,” the Patriarch said to the dragoman of the Mission; The dragoman noted that the synodal decree concerned “the internal affairs of the Mission,” but the Patriarch stopped all further conversation. On March 26, Archimandrite Leonid obtained a personal audience with the Patriarch, who apparently received him favorably. When asked by Father Archimandrite what letters His Beatitude mentioned in his conversation with the dragoman of the Mission, the Patriarch stated that when leaving Constantinople, he read from our ambassador a letter from Father Archimandrite “with some complaints about the Patriarchate.” The Archimandrite not only did not deny the existence of such a letter, but even tried to prove that he had enough grounds to criticize the Patriarchy, because “the Patriarchy, in the person of its viceroy, constantly secretly and openly supports the members of the Mission who rebelled against him, which maintains and feeds the disorder.” Although this meeting ended “apparently affectionately,” but on the same day from Hieromonk Gideon, with the support of Doctor Mazaraki, the Patriarch accepted a complaint against Archimandrite Leonid, similar in content to the one that he had previously submitted to the Patriarchal Viceroy. On Saturday of the sixth Week, the secretary of the consulate, on behalf of the consul, announced to Archimandrite Leonid on behalf of the Patriarch that “until the end of the matter, he forbids him to visit him and participate in church ceremonies and services of Holy Week.” We currently know about this case an interesting letter from Consul A.N. Kartsev to Ambassador N.P. Ignatiev dated April 3/20, 1865. “On Lazarus Saturday, March 27,” writes Mr. Kartsev, “the Patriarch sent his deacon Parthenius to me in the morning with a request to tell Father Leonid that during the upcoming services of Holy Week and Easter he should not come to the church for sacred rites, since he prohibits him from performing the sacrament, but asks me to convey this to the archimandrite in order to avoid a public scandal in front of the whole cathedral by imposing a ban on him, as a warning to his father Leonidas, who spread rumors that he would appear at the Liturgy on Palm Sunday. Despite all my desire to be away from these spiritual strife, I had to fulfill the will of the Patriarch, and a warning was made on the same day through the secretary of the consulate entrusted to me, since at that time the archimandrite refused to receive me” 154. Archimandrite Leonid tried to get this order from the Patriarch “in exact words” on paper, but the consulate refused him, citing the fact that the order was given verbally, through “third hands” and that it “cannot vouch for the accuracy of the words.” Meanwhile, to the greater insult and humiliation of Archimandrite Leonid, all other members of the Mission were invited by the Patriarch to the ceremonies of Holy Week in the Holy Sepulcher Church through Doctor Mazaraki. “The rumor about the ban imposed by the Patriarch on the head of the Russian Spiritual Mission was not slow to spread throughout Jerusalem and was repeated with various additions and explanations.” This undeserved new insult resonated with severe pain in the heart of Archimandrite Leonid: “a representative of the Russian Church is deprived of priestly service on such sacred days and is excommunicated, as a villain or a criminal, from church service” 155. On March 29, a synodal decree was received on the removal from Jerusalem of the indignant members of the Mission against their boss, and its contents were reported to the consul, who, as it turned out, already had a copy of it sent from the Asian Department. This circumstance aggravated the moral suffering of Archimandrite Leonid, since the consul did not prevent the already recalled members of the Mission from complaining about him to the Patriarch and transferring from the latter the ban on priestly service “until the end of the matter.” “I ask from you,” wrote Archimandrite Leonid to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod on March 30, 1865, “one protection: to fulfill the desire of those who are hostile to me by my speedy recall from here. Time will not slow down to tell why they needed it. Bringing congratulations to Your Excellency on the holiday of the Holy Resurrection of Christ, I ask you to kindly remember that the last altar server in our fatherland will spend this great day more joyfully than the head of the Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem, who, due to the intrigues of those skilled in them, is prohibited from performing sacred acts. But where is the force equal to this punishment? Forgive the sorrowful word. I repeat: “my soul is sorrowful even to death.” 156 In a letter dated April 20 addressed to Ambassador N.P. Ignatiev, Archimandrite Leonid, greeting him on Easter, writes that for him this great holiday, “thanks to our consul and his colleague Doctor Mazaraki, will be the most sorrowful in his life” 157. In these difficult days of mental anguish, abandoned and abandoned by everyone, Father Archimandrite Leonid hurried into the shadow of the peaceful monastery of St. Savva the Sanctified, drawing from the life of this great ascetic comforting lessons of patience, and from her “humble-wise” elder Abba Joasaph in his ingenuous conversations, coming from the heart and accompanied by an “unearthly smile”, - “healing balm” for a suffering heart. “Father Joasaph, confessor of the entire Jerusalem consecrated cathedral,” Archimandrite Leonid writes to Metropolitan Philaret, “did not hide his sympathy for me from anyone. He knew exactly why the Russian consul hated me so much, and he spoke about the Patriarch like this: “our Patriarch is a kind man, but overly trusting, he has unlimited faith in his associates, which they take advantage of. And since you were slandered by him, as you yourself know, besides your consul, a person close to him and needed by him (the main character in the intrigue against me, an ally of the city consul and a favorite of Mr. Mansurov, a doctor at the Russian hospital in the city of Mazaraki), he believed everything without verification.” “The Patriarch’s arrogant behavior toward you,” said the same elder, “is not approved by all those who hold the peace of the church dear; everyone condemns his inappropriate interference in your relationship with the consulate.” Regarding my relationship with the pilgrims, which I also more than once trusted in the advice of the elder, he said: “ours cannot part with the idea that Russian pilgrims should completely belong in the same way as before, when this number did not exceed 200 people a year. This is impossible! 158 In a letter from Archimandrite Leonid to the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod dated March 25, 1865, we find an unflattering description of the consul as a representative of Russia and indications of means to establish order and peace in Russian charitable institutions. “If there is no hope (as N.P. Ignatiev promised),” wrote Archimandrite Leonid, “for the replacement of the consular post in Jerusalem by a family man, respectable and with a moral and religious view of the matter, then there is no hope for improvement of the matter. The current consul, due to his moral qualities, will not tolerate a comrade in anyone; he needs and is kind to flatterers and pleasers, with whom he is surrounded. The honor of the Russian name means nothing to him, and when I remarked to him about his actions that he needed to take care of it, he laughed under my breath, as if I had said the greatest nonsense. The moral codes of his actions are easily expressed in the following words: “let’s say I hate you and do everything that depends on me in order to harm you, but in official relations this does not interfere, in my opinion, with us being friends.” I confess frankly that I would not want to meet a person of such convictions, not only in the Holy City of Jerusalem, but also on the highway. Judge what it’s like to deal with him, having numerous experiences that, due to the strength of these convictions, a person is ready to achieve his goals using the lowest means (which is proved by the entire course of the matter, which I described to you in detail)” 159. From a slightly different perspective, the personality of the consul is illuminated in a letter from Archimandrite Leonid to the Constantinople Ambassador N.P. Ignatiev. “You,” writes Father Archimandrite Leonid, “deign to speak of the Jerusalem consul with flattering praise for him. Without denying his merits as a skillful diplomatic official and a secular educated person, I now, at your invitation, having seriously considered in the face of the all-seeing and all-knowing God, the attitude of Andrei Nikolaevich Kartsev towards me, I cannot, unfortunately, refuse a bitter complaint that he acted and to this day continues to act against me as against his personal enemy and, moreover, with the oblivion of everything that, it would seem, was so natural to remember: i.e. that we are Russian and Orthodox, we both belong to the same class by origin, we both have mutual respected and respectful acquaintances, we are in a foreign land and have one common cause. Proud of the idle title of friend of the Turkish Pasha, our Mr. the consul is not ashamed to openly declare his hatred of the head of the Russian Spiritual Mission, thinking to see in him one of the persons described in Mandite and other works of French literature. From December last year, 1864, until now, Andrei Nikolaevich’s main activity has been focused on one thing - to remove me from Jerusalem at all costs, and what is especially hard to see is that all the means leading to this goal seem to him, as a person unsteady in his Christian convictions, to be good. Now I clearly understood the meaning of the monotonous questions that were repeatedly addressed to me in the Asian Department. Yes, you know Andrei Nikolaevich better. Oh, if I knew him as closely as I do now, then nothing would be able to force me to serve with him!!! - as a person who wholeheartedly hates intrigue and cunning of all kinds. You deign to assume that we did not get along with the consul due to a misunderstanding and some intrigue. No, he launched a systematic persecution against me, solely out of pride, out of revenge for an imaginary insult. The courage and unceremoniousness with which all this is done surpasses any description, and the ability to disguise it where necessary only proves that Mr. Kartsev, as an intelligent person, being well insured against all accidents by his secular connections, considers himself completely safe, no matter how he acts in relation to a “simple archimandrite” (recently dealing with a cunning bishop), who has no other protection than God and His holy truth, but before that, as with all that is holy, Andrei Nikolaevich cares little. In saying this, I am not telling a lie and do not abolish his undeniable merits as an efficient official, an intelligent (and believing only in his own mind) and a secularly educated person; but I can’t call him a Russian in my soul, because I don’t see in him the fundamental properties of the Russian soul - straightforwardness and generosity - even in relation to a real enemy, and I was not his enemy and I don’t want to be, while he treats me as an enemy whom he decided to destroy (according to his concepts) “at any cost” 160. In a letter to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, Father Archimandrite Leonid once again returns to the personality of the consul and paints his moral character in full. “In Jerusalem, calling myself a representative of our highest spiritual power, in fact I,” wrote Archimandrite Leonid to the Metropolitan of Moscow on August 20, 1866, “was almost subordinated completely not to such a person as, for example, the envoy and minister in Constantinople, but to a nihilist official, without any faith and morality, who, taking advantage of the remoteness of the place and relying on his aristocratic and bureaucratic connections in the capital, seeing that I did not intend to be his obedient instrument and servant, launched a formal persecution against me, starting by personally disturbing the clergy through his agents, seducing them as people inexperienced in life with such promises (to manage the Mission instead of the boss), against which they could not resist; taught him to draw up a denunciation, which he corrected and rewrote in his office, supervised their further actions until the very end, received and bribed fans and especially female fans to write slanderous letters to Constantinople to the Patriarch (written by the same person, i.e. V. Kaminsky); and, finally, to top it all, in my absence, secret papers were stolen from my office with the help of double keys by Hierodeacon Arseny, in association with a gentleman who was at the consulate (i.e. M. F. Granovsky), from which copies were taken and then read to the Patriarch, which achieved the final goal of the intrigue, for His Beatitude barely managed to arrive in Jerusalem, he brought down his anger on me, not deigning to neither ask nor listen to any explanations from me. Moreover, he openly expressed that he did not need any Spiritual Mission, and that pilgrims should be content with the completely spiritual care of them by the Greek Patriarchate as their fellow believer. The insolence of the consul and his confidence in the impunity of his actions against me reached the most cynical impudence. Thus, he allowed himself to detain my letters and open them, forbade employees in our institutions to confess to me, threatening to lose their place, forbade pilgrims to come to me under the threat of expulsion with dishonor from Jerusalem, and finally, he himself did not visit and forbade Mission officials from visiting the Mission church during my service. Once, getting excited, he allowed himself to say to my face: “I dealt with the bishop, but it’s not difficult for me to deal with you,” “don’t forget that I serve in a department where it is a rule to protect one’s own at all costs.” To this cynical outburst I had no choice but to answer, that I consider myself happy that I serve in such a department where this rule does not exist... The combined quest of the Greek Patriarchate and the consulate for a simple hieromonk to be appointed rector in my place, with an indication of the person, shows at what price Mr. consul complicity in his intrigue with the Greek Patriarchate" 161. All the unrest among the Russian people in Jerusalem, the indignation of the members of the Russian Spiritual Mission, the bickering with the Spiritual Mission and the misunderstandings of Archimandrite Leonid with Patriarch Kirill and members of the Holy Sepulcher Brotherhood in the exaggerated and one-sided coverage of A. N. Kartsev could not help but worry our ambassador in Constantinople N. P. Ignatiev. In a letter dated March 25 addressed to Archimandrite Leonid, he, with his characteristic directness and decisiveness, “without knowing about which, according to Father Archimandrite Leonid himself, he would never have decided to exchange his solitude for the heavy cross of the Jerusalem service, service to the One God for the service of not one, but many masters,” asked Father Archimandrite Leonid “with noble indignation” the question: “Is it really not for glorification?” The Orthodox Church, not to establish a good opinion about the Russians, about its representatives abroad, about the Russian clergy, about the unanimity of the Russian people, did you not come to the Holy City to establish peace, silence, harmony and love, but for an obvious quarrel.” “With sincerity and trust in those noble motives that inspired this question in you, I answer: “Yes, God is my witness that with these good intentions, in order to achieve these very good goals, I decided,” Archimandrite Leonid frankly stated in his answer, “to lift such an important matter on my weak shoulders, but at the same time I did not hide either from myself or from you the whole difficulty of the task ahead, because, as you are not unaware of: 1) my initial assumption about the most significant transformation of the Mission, that is, about giving it a monastic structure to protect once and for all the strength of its internal order, was left unfulfilled; 2) with the establishment of the new Mission in Jerusalem, the “Jerusalem Cause” entered a new phase of its existence, as a result of which new misunderstandings and inconveniences were not slow to appear, which had not existed before and could not be foreseen; 3) I ask, finally, to kindly remember that I did not have to continue the work, which had been somewhat well-organized by my predecessors: there was not a trace of any kind of economy, and I had to almost from the bottom extract or beg as favor the most necessary for the material (obv.) organization of the Mission, which armed those on me back in St. Petersburg, whose indirect influence, even with the current structure of the hospitality institutions, has not yet lost its strength. What did I find morally? Also complete chaos. The attitude towards the former Mission of the Consulate and the Greek Patriarchate is known to you and, it seems, neither the ways nor the means by which constant discord with the former and friendship with the latter were worthy of imitation. Until the last day of my predecessor’s stay in Jerusalem, he was with the consulate (in separation, apparently?), and the Greek clergy, according to their original policy, tried with all their might to maintain this separation, which was beneficial to them; They continue to adhere to this policy now and, I say with confidence, they will adhere to it constantly as long as there are people like Mr. Mazaraki, for no one seems so dangerous (false dangers generated by prejudices) as the Greeks, unanimity between the Mission and the consulate; They know well the brilliant future that awaits the Russian cause and influence here, when at the head of both institutions there will be people imbued with the high feelings expressed in your letter, and there is too much evidence that the Greeks, more than anyone else, do not want this future for the Russian cause out of self-interest..." “You deign to reproach me for putting you in a hopeless position regarding the matter,” continues Father Archimandrite, “but it seems to me that if anyone is put in a hopeless situation in this matter, that is, a difficult position (by clever intrigue), it’s me alone. There is always a decent way out for the matter: one - in accordance with the urgent solicitation of the consul, to recall me, which I asked Your Excellency at the very beginning of the intrigue (in December), and which, of course, such a person as my ill-wishers want to make me out to do (who are looking for one thing: serene peace for themselves) would not do. Another way out is also in your will: this is to reconcile me with the consul. I have already written to you that all my attempts to do this are currently meeting with an insurmountable obstacle in the statement made by the consul to the whole of Jerusalem: remove me from Jerusalem at all costs, and my good intentions will be interpreted as follows: “what, my dear, he’s chickened out, look, he’s afraid of losing his place” (and whether I’m afraid of this, you know), but you, if you wish, can easily reconcile us. To do this, you just need to write us a collective letter with an exhortation for reconciliation, address it to the consul. He will then call me to him, and I am ready, in a Christian way (without any explanations leading to anything), to satisfy his pride, to ask him for Christian forgiveness in everything for which he considers me guilty against him and in a friendly, sincere manner to extend his hand to assist him in our common cause. I can give you the honest word of a Russian Orthodox person that my reconciliation will be complete and sincere, with complete oblivion of the past. The consul, for his part, can prove his sincerity and make amends for the past if he tries to reconcile me with His Beatitude, since there are no other obstacles to this except his intrigue, in which the main role belongs to Mr. Mazaraki, who expects a reward for this, which can easily be promised for the opposite action ... " “I had the honor to receive your letter of trust dated the 9th in Jerusalem on the 21st of this month of June. I will not hide, - the Archimandrite wrote on June 24 to Ambassador N.P. Ignatiev, - that what upset me most in your letter was the opinion you expressed at the beginning of it, as if it was impossible to establish peace in Jerusalem with an exhortation in absentia, whereas all the softening time has done so in favor of this noble desire. Not only now, when I am writing these lines, but since the middle of May, when, finally, those expelled from the Mission by decree of the Holy Synod, the excitement they created out of malice subsided. The desired silence was established in the Mission, and there was no open displeasure with either the consulate or the Greek Patriarchate (since Holy Week), because I firmly decided to protect myself from all external troubles - with silence and patience, of which I have my co-workers as witnesses: Hieromonk Gideon and Anatoly. I have already written to Your Excellency that upon receiving your previous letter, my first mental movement was to immediately go to Mr. consul and sincerely extend his hand to him, asking for oblivion of everything that had separated us until now - but he refrained from doing so solely because he, having set himself the idea of ​​expelling me from Jerusalem “at any cost,” would not appreciate the noble motive of my action, but would attribute it to another, camouflage reason, and therefore I found myself forced to postpone this intention for the time being, asking for your beneficent mediation. The Patriarch, as I already wrote to you, has long since softened, receives me kindly and lovingly, but restrains himself from expressing complete forgiveness to me only by the force of a secret alliance with the consul, concluded against me through Mr. Mazaraki. I have no doubt that a few of your lines to us (i.e. to me and the consul) inviting both of us to sincere reconciliation in the name of everything that should be equally dear to both of us can completely put an end to this, and here all the characters are already noticeably bored with the matter, which then, of course, will not be repeated, because the Providence of God gave everyone its own lesson in it. For example, I do not at all think of justifying myself in the fact that, having found myself face to face with an inveterate evil (of our worship environment), I, without commensurate with my strengths and means, entered into an open struggle with it, while the personal monetary interests of the Greek clergy (but not the Patriarchate as a community) are closely connected with this evil. I hope to fully disclose this to you in confidence in a special note in order to receive specific advice on what exactly can and should be sacrificed to the main principle - maintaining peace with the Greek clergy” 162. “I repeat that time has done so much in favor of eliminating good relations that Your Excellency’s noble desire to completely pacify the consul and me with an “absentee admonition” is completely feasible, if only you would like to take on the high role of a mediator-peacemaker in the way that I dared to point out to you (in a previous letter), fully sympathizing with your conciliatory view and being ready to do on my part everything that depends on me to achieve what you indicated goals" 163. But this appeal to Ambassador N.P. Ignatiev - to take upon himself mediation in the reconciliation of the consul with Archimandrite Leonid - remained a “voice crying in the wilderness” and did not have the desired success. The ambassador blindly believed the Jerusalem consul and continued to share Jerusalem reports with extraordinary generosity with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and through it with the Holy Synod; and in a private letter dated June 20, 1865 addressed to the director of the Asian Department Stremoukhov, he allowed himself to make several ironic remarks about Father Leonid. “Archimandrite Leonid constantly writes from Jerusalem,” this letter says, “expressing a desire to live with everyone in peace, asking for an open letter from me for reconciliation with Kartsev, etc. When you read his letters, filled with a Christian sense of humility, etc., you involuntarily become perplexed about his spiritual qualities and character. I can’t believe that a person who talks everything about honor, honesty, truth, etc., could be self-interested to such an extent as they talked about him. Archimandrite Leonid claims that the past will serve him as a good lesson and that if he is destined to remain in Jerusalem, he will never quarrel with anyone. Strange man, why didn't he say this before? Surely he sensed trouble... Andrei Nikolaevich tells fabulous things about Archimandrite. One must be surprised how such an individual was chosen. Kartsev claims that Leonid and Sarruf, even if they got along with the consulate, they could not stay in Jerusalem due to their relationship with the local clergy, because they were spat on by everyone, and especially by our fans” 164. In a letter dated May 18–20, N.P. Ignatiev delivered from Jerusalem to Vice-Chancellor Prince A.M. Gorchakov a handwritten letter from Patriarch Kirill describing the personality and behavior of Archimandrite Leonid. This letter of the Patriarch, which served as a complement to the message on the same occasion to the Russian Holy Synod, had great hopes both in Jerusalem and in Constantinople, and, as we will see below, not without reason. “Archimandrite Leonid, who a year before took over the place of the rector of the local Church Russian Mission, His Grace Bishop Kirill of Melitopol,” wrote Patriarch Kirill to the ambassador to Constantinople, “became with his disorderly and incorrect behavior and treatment not only a temptation among reverent Russian admirers and among the very members of the said Church Mission, but, what is most regrettable, the cause unlimited reproach to the Russian name from the various heterodox peoples and communities watching us and surrounding us with hatred. Having recently arrived in this Holy City from Constantinople, we have used various methods to calm the irritation that has taken possession of the spirit of the Russian admirers of this year, who both privately and publicly swore to us about the behavior of the said Archimandrite Leonidas, who is constantly not only in a cold and controversial relationship with the members of the Jerusalem Church Mission, which is under his insistence, but also with the Imperial Russian himself consulate, which makes the worst impression on everyone visiting this Holy City from all corners of the universe. Not tolerating that such a deplorable state of affairs should continue any longer before our eyes, we write today, moved by a pure feeling of brotherly love in Christ for the Holy Synod, and, having briefly outlined what is relevant here, we submit for its consideration, as a valid measure for correcting this situation, the replacement of the said Archimandrite Leonid with another person sufficiently capable of worthy representation with all the various local citizens and Church members. by the authorities. We considered it necessary to convey this opinion of ours primarily and recommend it with this paternal letter to Your Lordship, since your well-known thoughtfulness and political insight, without a doubt, worthily weigh the political significance of the Holy City of Jerusalem in relation to the European world, in the confidence that in this way the fastest and most solid healing of the bad state of affairs will be provided, which will greatly rejoice our paternal heart, from which we send to yours Fatherly good wishes and blessings to Your Excellency, begging the Heavenly King, may your precious years be in health and prosperity" 165. Fortunately, for the benefit of the cause, to defend the dignity of the Russian Orthodox Church and the good name of Archimandrite Leonid, powerful defenders, strong in word and influence, appeared in the Holy Synod in the person of the First Hierarch of the Moscow Church, Metropolitan Philaret, unforgettable in the annals of our hierarchy, and the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, A. P. Akhmatov and his successor, Count D. A. Tolstoy, who were in his judgments on the “Jerusalem issue”, undoubtedly, under the influence of the views and views of the Moscow Bishop. Chief Prosecutor A.P. Akhmatov, having familiarized himself with the contents of the papers on the issue of unrest in the Russian Jerusalem Spiritual Mission, delivered by the ambassador to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs before February 1865, made rather weighty, accusatory remarks to the Jerusalem Consul A.N. Kartsev and put in his good word in defense of Archimandrite Leonid. “From my communication dated February 20, No. 15,” he wrote to a fellow Minister of Foreign Affairs, “Your Excellency, please know about the measures recognized by the Holy Synod as necessary to restore order in the Mission, shocked by the insolence and self-will of its members who rebelled against their immediate superior. From time to time it will be necessary to wait for an indication of what should be done next. Now I allow myself to present to the attention of Your Excellency some of my thoughts regarding the position adopted by our consul in Jerusalem in relation to what happened. Your Excellency, please agree that in order to preserve the dignity of the Russian Church in the Holy Land, two conditions are necessary: ​​allowing its representative to fulfill the spiritual duties assigned to him by the Holy Synod, completely independently and independently; and such a course of action on the part of the representative of our Government in Jerusalem, which would tend to support, and not disrupt the Spiritual Mission. Meanwhile, from the actions of Mr. Kartsev, judging by his own words (letter dated January 10), we can conclude that our consulate acted under the influence, apparently, of completely different considerations. With the discovery of dissatisfaction among persons serving at the Mission against its chief, in my opinion, there was only one legal way for the consulate to act. At the first appearance of this circumstance, one of the few that could serve as a reason for the intervention of secular authorities in the internal life of the Spiritual Mission, the consulate not only should not have accepted complaints against Archimandrite Leonid from persons directly subordinate to him, and advised them to present their claims to him in writing, but should have immediately, through indoctrination and observation, taken measures to convert the agitated and indignant to the path of legal submission. At the same time, the city consul always retained the right and direct duty of a government agent, without giving notice on the spot, to report to the minister about everything that, in his opinion, should have been subject to the information, attention and decision of the Government. Until he received an answer, he could always maintain order with his influence and thereby avoid the inevitable censure of our Church and nation, temptation for fans and fellow believers and triumph for non-believers, and secretly, perhaps, for the Greeks. Instead, Mr. Kartsev accepted from members and singers of the Spiritual Mission submitted written and verbal complaints in his name against their direct and immediate superior, although these complaints were submitted en masse from all members and singers of the Mission and for that alone should not have had any effect by law. It was not difficult to predict that the acceptance of these complaints naturally gave the dissatisfied a reason to think that the consulate was taking them under its protection. With a more correct and careful method of action on the part of the consulate, one could expect other consequences. At the very least, the rebels, in all likelihood, would not have gone as far as now, when they forced Archimandrite Leonid by their actions to completely withdraw from the priesthood, arbitrarily seized church property and sums at their disposal, and refused their boss even external signs of respect. It is impossible, I think, to deny the influence on the latest Jerusalem events: 1) the unfortunate circumstances of the replacement of His Eminence Kirill, which gave rise to the idea of seeking the destruction of the Spiritual Mission, 2) the unsuccessful choice of our representatives due to inexperience and lack of serious authority, who did not meet the strict conditions of the difficult situation in the Holy City, 3) personal mistakes and lack of tact of the father of Archimandrite Leonid, both in the choice of the people he took, and in his relationship with the environment, his now surrounding. From these words, Your Excellency, please see that I do not accept unconditional defense of the actions of the real head of the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission, in my mind, like the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, there is one goal - to protect the dignity of the Russian Church and the Russian name, a goal before which individuals disappear. But the desire to achieve this particular goal leads to the need to support the importance of the Head of the Russian Spiritual Mission. These considerations alone determined the latest orders of the Holy Synod and these thoughts, which I considered it my duty to present to your attention today. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs cannot be unaware that throughout Russia, complaints from clergy against the hierarchical authorities cannot be accepted by any judicial or administrative places or persons, not excluding the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, who is the closest of all government officials to church institutions. Without this condition there would be no Church, and I would not have accepted the place I now occupy. In the instructions given to Archimandrite Porfiry at the initial establishment of the Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem, it was very correctly said: §17. The leadership of the persons attached to the Mission is completely provided to him, and the consul does not accept their complaints either against the archimandrite or against each other. I don't know why this § was excluded from subsequent instructions; one might think that this was done on the assumption that this rule was generally known. Unfortunately, this assumption was not justified and became the reason for very regrettable events. Accepting the petition of the indignant members of the Spiritual Mission against their boss, Mr. Kartsev, perhaps, thought that by refusing he would deprive them of the opportunity to bring their complaints to justice. If so, then he was mistaken, for the lists of all the past letters and letters submitted by the members and singers of the Mission were sent here by mail and with the addition of those that are unknown to the Mr. Consul or have not yet been submitted to the Ministry. It is also very unfortunate that Mr. Kartsev did not prevent the delicate circumstance of Russian subjects and members of the Russian Church turning to the Patriarchal Vicar, Metropolitan Meletius, with a complaint against their superiors. This fact was already a consequence, and an understandable consequence, of the complete, in view of everyone, assertion of the legal authority placed over them. I allowed myself to convey to Your Excellency my view of the state of our Jerusalem affairs with the frankness that my even more personal deep respect and sympathy for Prince Alexander Mikhailovich and you inspires in me than official relations, knowing to what extent the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is always animated by a patriotic desire to promote, in ways that depend on it, the protection of the interests of Orthodoxy and the Russian Church, represented in the Holy City by our Spiritual Mission.” 166. In addition to this letter, the next day, Chief Prosecutor A.P. Akhmatov at the same address, referring to Hierodeacon Arseny’s letter to Consul A.N. Kartsev, “curious to know all the events that are out of the ordinary” in the life of the Spiritual Mission and which, according to A.P. Akhmatov, could provide suitable content for the “Bell” and “Iskra”, already accuses the Jerusalem the consul “in pursuit of maintaining unrest among the spiritual staff of the Mission and the spirit of self-will and disobedience in its unworthy members,” while at the same time refusing to “judge the morality of the actions of the consul” 167. In May 1865, the Holy Synod received a message from Patriarch Kirill of Jerusalem dated April 13, 1865 with the following content: “The Most Holy Governing All-Russian Synod, in Christ God the beloved and longed-for brother and co-servant of our dimension. Your beloved Eminence, we embrace you brotherly in the Lord in holy love and warmly greet you. When more than a year ago, the Most Reverend Archimandrite Mr. Leonid, accompanied by new personnel, was sent here by the head of the Russian Spiritual Mission here, to take the place of our Most Reverend brother in Christ, Mr. Kirill, Bishop of Melitopol, we received his Eminence, as being supplied with letters of recommendation to us from the Holy Governing Synod, as it should be - with fatherly love and with heartfelt joy, and, being temporarily in Constantinople at that time, in the same spirit they recommended him to our vicar, His Eminence Metropolitan of Petra of Arabia, Mr. Meletios, feeding themselves with pleasant hopes that the newly identified persons would set themselves the goal of maintaining the necessary connection of friendship and goodwill in relation to the spiritual communities located here and worthily representing the Russian Church. But, unfortunately, our hopes were disappointed. Even when we were in Constantinople, we heard from various Russian pious admirers of the All-Holy Sepulcher many complaints about the local Russian Spiritual Mission, and especially about the behavior of its head, Archimandrite Leonid. We spoke with sorrow about him with the Excellent Envoy, General Ignatiev, regarding the reports that reached His Excellency about various gossip, which had its sources mainly in the disorderly behavior of His Eminence. And when, some time ago, we arrived in the Holy City, we received countless oral complaints from many Russian admirers of both sexes and, by the way, clergy of the Spiritual Mission, about the disorderly and lawless behavior and actions of Archimandrite Leonid, against whom complaints were also received by the Imperial Russian Consulate, with which His Reverence is in open rift. The general displeasure of Russian admirers against him and the sworn accusations against him are of such a nature that they forced us, in order to tame the general irritation, by virtue of the patriarchal power belonging to us, to prohibit His Eminence from taking part in sacred ceremonies performed in all-holy places. With mortal sorrow in our fatherly hearts about this state of affairs, we are now fulfilling the duty of sincere brotherly love, bringing the above to the attention of the Holy Governing Synod, partly because we yield to the general voice addressed to us by the most pious Russian worshipers who came this year to worship the All-Holy Sepulcher, and partly out of confidence that the Holy Governing Synod, in its prudence and prudence, completely will take care to put an end to such a bad state of affairs, replacing the said Archimandrite Leonid with some other person, since His Eminence, with his bad behavior, not only arouses displeasure and dislike among Russian admirers, but also gives the non-believers in our region a reason to complain about the honor of the glorious Russian name, about which we have never ceased and will never cease to care. In conclusion, we recommend to your fatherly love the most reverend hieromonk Mr. John and the most reverend hierodeacon Mr. Arseny: both of these members of the Spiritual Mission undeservedly suffer from the unfair cruelty towards them of the said archimandrite Mr. Leonid, and we fraternally ask Your Eminence to be merciful to them and paternally grant them forgiveness if they, as people, have sinned. I have no doubt at all that Your Eminence will appreciate as it should the importance of what we have written, we stop speaking, asking you from God for long, healthy, saving days. Your highly respected Eminence in Christ God, beloved brother and completely devoted Patriarch of Jerusalem Kirill" 168. In the Holy City of Jerusalem April 13, 1865 169 Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow called this message “unmerciful”, “unpeaceful” and “unpleasant” and recommended on May 21, 1865, through the Chief Prosecutor, “to respond to it not from the Holy Synod, but, on its instructions, through its leading member “explanatory and pacifying”, “in the most modest terms””; and in order to “show this idea more clearly,” he also attached his draft letter, “what and how one can write to the Patriarch.” This answer is composed in the following expressions: “The Most Blessed Bishop, the most venerable Archpastor, the Holy Governing All-Russian Synod, having become accustomed to receive from Your Beatitude and extend to us the word of peace and mutual brotherly love and wishing to preserve this comforting communication with you, the Most Blessed Bishop, unclouded by any extraneous shadow, allowed me to utter before you a word of deep sorrow, with by which he listened in your message to the expression of a very unfavorable view of the head of the Russian Spiritual Mission in the Holy City of Jerusalem, Archimandrite Leonid. Surprise was added to the sorrow that this man, who had once served with dignity in the imperial service, then, after renouncing the world, for a long time, also with undoubted dignity, passed monastic life in a monastery, mainly known for spiritual well-being, during the short time of his stay in Jerusalem, he was accused of disorderly and lawless behavior, however, without any specific indication: by whom he is accused, what illegal actions he allowed himself, and whether the accusations were supported by legal ones evidence. The Holy Synod has information based on documents that hieromonks John and Gideon and hierodeacon Arseny submitted complaints and denunciations to the consulate against Archimandrite Leonid, partly such that cannot be considered by the secular authorities, partly not containing any real guilt, partly revealing their illegal interference in affairs that are foreign to them, and, consequently, accusing them themselves: the Archimandrite is of nothing legal not convicted in any way. The most important fault of the said two hieromonks and the hierodeacon is that they arbitrarily removed Archimandrite Leonid from command and assumed power. In order not to burden Your Beatitude with details here, but in order to more clearly provide you with evidence of the truth, herewith is attached an extract from the case available in the Holy Synod. The Holy Synod has no doubt that Your Beatitude, if you had in mind this information, based on undoubted documents, then, with your characteristic generosity and foresight, you would have refrained from decisively condemning Archimandrite Leonid until the matter was brought to legal clarity. Apparently, the fact that Archimandrite Leonid is the spiritual son of His Eminence Meletios of Petra, the vicar of your Throne, could also have disposed you towards this. This venerable man, without a doubt, would not have decided to have a man of “disorderly and lawless behavior” as his spiritual son. Based on everything stated here, the Holy Synod found it fair to allow me to most respectfully ask you, Your Beatitude, not to deprive Archimandrite Leonid of your merciful view, until the matter about him and his subordinates receives legal clarity. The Holy Synod will not allow any of the clergy of the Russian Church to be in your presence who is truly unworthy of your merciful view. Your Goodness and love for the Lord will not allow the mistakes of lesser brethren to fall even as a speck of dust on the pure, age-old mutual love of the Hierarchies and Churches. This message on behalf of the Holy Synod had a long and not devoid of interest history 171. In Constantinople, “on the way,” this message was “stopped,” and this circumstance on the part of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow caused a perplexed question (September 16, 1865) to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Tolstoy: “Shouldn’t the Holy Synod give a fair answer with all modesty to one who defends the unjust side and carelessness of employees in someone else’s territory?” 172, and their Holy Synod even sent an “official” request to Ambassador N.P. Ignatiev, “where did the letter (of Metropolitan Isidore of Novgorod) go and why there is still no answer” 173. In reality, the following happened: Jerusalem Consul A.N. Kartsev, having arrived for a short time in Constantinople “for personal explanations on the case of Fr. Leonida,” according to N.P. Ignatiev, “came into despair from the content of the Synod’s response to the Patriarch, saying that the latter would “be offended and angry.” To reassure the consul, the ambassador “comforted him with the hope” that “the letter (message) probably will not reach Jerusalem before the resolution (issue) of Leonid’s recall is received.” This “hope” of N.P. Ignatiev based it on a telegram from the director of the Asian Department N.P. Stremoukhov: “stop the synodal message to the Patriarch of Jerusalem.” In a letter addressed to the director of the Asian Department dated June 20, expressing his bewilderment regarding the inconsistency and hesitation he noticed in this matter, N. P. Ignatiev clearly expressed his “hope” and his view on this issue as follows: “I am very glad if this letter is replaced with a letter that is more successful and agrees with the circumstances” 174. But the reason for the appearance in Constantinople of N.P. Stremoukhov’s telegram “about stopping on the way of the message” and the bewilderment of Ambassador N.P. Ignatiev are explained without difficulty. The letter of trust of N.P. Ignatiev to the Comrade Minister of Foreign Affairs dated May 18/30, 1865, communicated to the Holy Synod, although it gave a slightly different view of the matter of the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission, was “unclear” and “not quite convincing.” “According to the information I collected from the local temporary vicar of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, as well as from several Russian admirers who returned these days from Jerusalem, it turns out,” the Ambassador of Constantinople wrote in this letter, “that the Patriarch did not even think of imposing a ban on Archimandrite Leonidas, but, considering himself offended by the actions of the head of our Spiritual Mission, allowed only him to participate in the divine service for the saints places directly dependent on the Patriarch. According to existing custom, none of the Russian clergy ever serves in holy places without first asking for the blessing of the patriarch. However, it cannot be otherwise, according to church rites. The Archimandrite has already invited several clergy to replace the members of the Mission dismissed by the Holy Synod and is conducting divine services without hindrance in the church of the Russian orphanage.” They accuse Archimandrite Leonid, according to N.P. Ignatiev, of insatiable obvious greed, rudeness, excessive temper and arrogance, a restless desire to interfere in everything and take everything and everyone into his own hands, of offensive, unworthy of the monastic title, treatment of subordinates, with admirers, with members of the consulate and with the consul himself. A good reason (sic) makes us suspect the archimandrite of improper distribution of money donated by the Empress and delivered to Jerusalem by Mr. Dokhturov. An official of the local post office, Nikolaevsky, who also returned from Jerusalem, claims that the head of the Mission “demands receipts from persons to whom he gives salaries or benefits, without fully giving out the money due to him.” The relationship of Archimandrite Leonidas to the Patriarch and the Greek clergy, according to N.P. Ignatiev, are distinguished by “unbridled hatred”, his dragoman Sarruf “is actively engaged in inciting the barbarian population against the Greek clergy,” and Archimandrite Leonid “supports him in this direction and tries to oust Doctor Mazaraki 175 from the Russian hospital mainly in order to assign the physician Sarruf there and take over the hospital.” On the contrary, the Jerusalem consul A.N. Kartsev is portrayed in the letter of Ambassador N.P. Ignatiev as the most innocent, gentle lamb and a victim of official duty. “Russian travelers,” writes Adjutant General N.P. Ignatiev, do full justice to our consul and admit that, despite the antics of Father Leonid, he continues to show him the appropriate outward respect and satisfies the most captious requirements with his external relations to the Spiritual Mission (?). Without allowing any partiality and without trying to justify our consul, who could, perhaps, have prevented such a temptation with more skillful actions, I consider myself, however, obliged to repeat to Your Excellency my deep conviction that the further stay of Father Leonid in Jerusalem cannot be tolerated and would not correspond to either our political or moral interests, or the dignity of the Orthodox Church, or Russian honor, or our good name in the East. The sooner the ugly situation in which the Russian Mission in Jerusalem finds itself ends, the better.” Ambassador N.P. Ignatiev, in the end, proposes to call by telegraph Archimandrite Antonin, the rector of the embassy church in Constantinople, who was at that time on a scientific trip to Romania, to send him to Jerusalem “to bring our Spiritual Mission into some order, to tame the impulses of Fr. Leonidas and for personal negotiations with the Patriarch"; about the members of the Mission subordinate to Father Archimandrite Leonid, the envoy, in particular, adds that they refuse to return to Russia until they receive a response from the Most Reverend of Kherson to the letters with which they addressed to their current boss, asking for leave to holy places, and decides to “order the consul to send the disobedient monks with kavass by force,” although he admits that this extreme measure “will produce significant impression between the local Orthodox and non-Orthodox clergy" 176. Ambassador Ignatiev’s proposal to send Archimandrite Antonin to Jerusalem to resolve the “Jerusalem Question” was met with sympathy both in the Ministry and in the Holy Synod, which hoped to resolve all misunderstandings between the Patriarch and the Russian Orthodox Church through personal negotiations. Only Moscow Metropolitan Philaret remained with doubts on this issue and, as it turned out, not in vain. “If Archimandrite Antonin is sent to Jerusalem,” Metropolitan Philaret asked in his note to the Holy Synod on July 9, “then with what commission? If as a mediator and conciliator, can one expect success? Acting modestly and peacefully, will he also dare to say some firm words to the Patriarch in order to resolve his prejudices against Archimandrite Leonidas, and to the consul to explain to him the wrongness of accepting denunciations transmitted from him and the investigation? Will it have enough power to make the indignant monks obedient? – It’s difficult to decide to say this. Is it reliable to appoint Archimandrite Antonin as the head of the Mission for a time, and transfer Leonidas to his place for the same time? In this case, Leonid’s lot will not be burdened, the displeasure of the Patriarch and the consul will be deprived of food; Antonin will only need to accept the Mission and manage it, learning from the unfortunate experience of his predecessor the rules of caution” 177. The Decree of the Holy Synod, sent to Archimandrite Antonin on June 16 as the “temporary head of the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem,” ordered that he: 1) having accepted from Archimandrite Leonid, as soon as possible, the affairs, property and sums of the Mission, set about, according to the immediate instructions of the envoy, putting in proper order everything that would be necessary for the improvement of the Mission; 2) in discharging the duties assigned to the head of the Mission, as well as in relations with the local consulate and the Greek clergy, he was guided by the instructions given from the Holy Synod to the head of the Mission, Archimandrite Leonid; 3) in matters that will be subject to urgent information or require immediate order of the Holy Synod, he entered into it directly with reports or referred to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, and 4) collected on the spot the most detailed and reliable information about the disorders that occurred in the Mission, which information he presented with an impartial opinion to the Holy Synod.” In the decree of the same date, Archimandrite Leonid was ordered to hand over the affairs, property and funds of the Mission to Archimandrite Antonin and “immediately go to Constantinople and remain at the embassy church there until further notice” 178. In an additional decree of June 6, when it became known at the Synod that Hieromonk John and Hierodeacon Arseny had already left Jerusalem 179 and arrived in Odessa, where they were assigned to stay: Hieromonk John - in the Bishop's House, and Hierodeacon Arseny - in the Assumption Monastery, then, “having considered the circumstances set out in the last review of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, based on their considerations, previous ones, in general with regard to our Jerusalem Spiritual Mission,” the Holy Synod recognized the need, together with our envoy in Constantinople N.P. Ignatiev, to call Archimandrite Leonid from Jerusalem and send Archimandrite Antonin there “not only for the pacification and admonition of the disobedient members of our Mission in Jerusalem and personal negotiations on this matter with the local Patriarch.” “The recall of Archimandrite Leonid from Jerusalem turns out to be necessary, in addition to the needs explained by Adjutant General Ignatiev, and in order to prevent possible clashes with Archimandrite Antonin, while carrying out the assignments assigned to him” 180. The decision of the Holy Synod of June 23 was, at the request of N.P. Ignatiev, communicated to him by telegraph, and he only “spoke about his thoughts for the first time” to Father Archimandrite Antonin, who was “greatly afraid” from this surprise 181 . But, despite the telegram from Count A.P. Tolstoy, the decree on the business trip of Father Antonin was delayed in the Holy Synod. The reason for this was that N.P. Ignatiev informed the Holy Synod in his attitude on August 10 that he, “taking advantage of the short stay in Constantinople of our consul in Jerusalem, convinced him to promote reconciliation, at least external, tangible, between the Patriarch and Archimandrite Leonid, so that, in the event of a call from this latter 182, there would be attributed by public opinion to the displeasures that occurred last spring. To achieve this reconciliation, which aims to protect the dignity and power of the Holy Synod, however, some time will be required” 183. “If reconciliation can take place, then,” Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow quite rightly noted, “it must take place during Archimandrite Leonid’s stay in Jerusalem, for otherwise it would not have mattered and would not have made the desired impression. Therefore, we should not be in too much of a hurry with the departure of Archimandrite Leonidas from Jerusalem” 184. Hence the delay in the Holy Synod with the sending of decrees to their destination. But since “the Synod hesitated on the decision of Antonin’s business trip and the fate of Leonid, the former, according to N.P. Ignatiev, will have to be detained here until August 30” on the occasion of the highly solemn day. It is curious that Nikolai Pavlovich [Ignatiev], in a private letter addressed to the director of the Asian Department on June 20, considered it “necessary to explain what exactly should be explained to Leonidas when he arrives in Constantinople,” that is, what position he will be in here, that Archimandrite Antoninus “will not agree to move to Jerusalem completely” and that “both Missions should be subordinated to him.” He repeats this question of his “regarding the final appointment of Archimandrite Leonid and in relation to the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs on August 10, already upon receipt of the synodal decrees on the transfer of Archimandrites Antonin and Leonid one to the place of the other.” “Timely notification of this,” the ambassador wrote, “would have saved Father Leonid from a long stay in Constantinople in an uncertain situation and would have given him the opportunity to undertake a further journey before winter.” In the postscript, the ambassador adds: “I remain committed to the desire that the uncertain position of Father Archimandrite Leonidas in Constantinople should not continue, but, on the contrary, that the further appointment would be finally decided.” Archimandrite Antonin's journey encountered new difficulties: the steamships of the Russian Society stopped voyages due to cholera, and he faced the sad necessity of being quarantined for several weeks in many ports. “Now cholera is so strong,” wrote N.P. Ignatiev to the Asian Department, “that it would be a sin to send a sick person like Antonin on a long journey. Moreover, long quarantines have been established everywhere and, due to the stupidity of Turkey, the same ship is forced to withstand quarantine in all the ports where it calls. More than a month may pass before Antonin gets to Jaffa” 185. The arrival of Archimandrite Antonin in Jerusalem and the first meetings with Archimandrite Leonid, Consul A. N. Kartsev and the Patriarch. Reception of the Mission and departure from Jerusalem of Father Archimandrite Leonid. The first orders of Archimandrite Antonin for the organization of the Jerusalem clergy. Report to the Holy Synod about the unrest in the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission. Displeasure in the Holy Synod and Metropolitan Philaret with the report of Archimandrite Antonin. Correspondence on this matter between Ambassador N.P. Ignatiev and Father Antonin. A. N. Kartsev’s explanation of the reasons why the Patriarch did not write a response to the Holy Synod and his message. Correspondence between Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod Count D. A. Tolstoy and Vice-Chancellor Prince A. S. Gorchakov regarding N. P. Ignatiev’s promise to persuade Patriarch Kirill to write a letter to the Holy Synod. Encouraging letter from N.P. Ignatiev to Father Antonin to supplement his report to the Holy Synod about the unrest in the Mission with a private letter addressed to him and to encourage Patriarch Kirill to respond to the message of the Holy Synod. Letter from Father Antonin addressed to the ambassador dated April 4 and message of the Patriarch to the Holy Synod dated April 24. Extreme displeasure against Father Antonin from the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod for the letter dated April 4 and in the Holy Synod for the second message of Patriarch Kirill. Criticism of the message by Metropolitan Philaret, who, having rejected the authorship of the Patriarch, proposed a draft response message to the Patriarch. The most submissive report to the Sovereign Emperor and. O. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod about the unrest in the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission and in the case of the Patriarch’s excommunication of Father Archimandrite Leonid from joint service in holy places. A critical analysis of this most humble report by the director of the Asian Department N.P. Stremoukhov. Refusal of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D. A. Tolstoy to continue polemics with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and his idea of ​​​​closing the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission. Metropolitan Philaret's arguments in favor of preserving the Mission. Sacrifices on the part of Ambassador N.P. Ignatiev: the removal from Jerusalem of the beloved and, in his opinion, irreplaceable consul A. N. Kartsev in Corfu, the loss forever for Constantinople of Archimandrite Antonin, who was left as the head of the Mission in Jerusalem, and the satisfaction of the Holy Synod in the case of Archimandrite Leonidas. N.P. Ignatiev’s persistent and repeated letters to Father Archimandrite Antonin were to obtain an apology letter from Patriarch Kirill and leave them unanswered. An attempt by Archimandrite Leonid to complete the “Jerusalem Question” and the answer to this from the Holy Synod. Letter from Patriarch Kirill to the Holy Synod and the appointment of Archimandrite Antonin as head of the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission and the latter’s dissatisfaction with the response to this letter The decree appointing Father Archimandrite Antonin as the temporary head of the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission was signed on June 16, 1865, but he entered Jerusalem and settled on Russian buildings in rooms “designated for important visitors to the Holy Place” only on September 11. “It’s as if the beloved and unforsaken City ceases to be a desert,” Archimandrite Antonin describes his first impressions of Jerusalem in his diary. – To the left you can see a large building of American missionaries, and in front there are beautiful Russian buildings. All the intervening space has been bought up and is beginning to be built up by private individuals of different nationalities and religions.” A solemn meeting was arranged for the newly arrived head of the Mission, both outside the city and in the Mission church. Archimandrite Leonid greeted his successor and investigator in a brotherly manner, treated him to dinner, and in the evening they, according to Archimandrite Antonin, “sat with Fr. Leonid long after midnight, turning over a thousand things in thought and language and constantly returning to the main subject.” Consul A.N. Kartsev paid the newcomer a visit, and the next day arranged a dinner for his unit together with Archimandrite Leonid... “The Lenten table turned out to be so fat and plentiful that I really don’t know what to think about the fast table,” Archimandrite Antonin noted in his diary about this dinner. “When we returned, we sat with Abba for a long time, practicing vocabulary.” In our opinion, one of the remarks in his diary speaks quite expressively about Archimandrite Antonin’s attitude towards the Jerusalem consul. After reading the documents about the dome, he noted: “an honor to the mind and activity of the consul. Nikolai Pavlovich Ignatiev should be pleased with him.” Consul A.N. Kartsev, after his first acquaintance with the personality of Father Archimandrite Antonin, was in positive admiration for him and wrote to Ambassador N.P. Ignatiev: “I am so convinced of the impartiality of Father Antonin that I declare myself guilty in advance of everything that he recognizes as fair to accuse me of before you” 186. At first, the relationship with Patriarch Kirill was not without misunderstandings. “The elder,” according to Archimandrite Antonin, “was upset that during my visit to him I was silent all the time and did not add anything to his accusatory review of Father Archimandrite Leonid. He was also offended by the fact that I did not bring him any paper of recommendation from the Holy Synod.” On September 15, Archimandrite Leonid began handing over the Mission to the new chief, and it turned out that its reporting was found in exemplary order. “For sitting at midnight with the owner,” the diary says, “and accepting from him those and other sums, all in gold pieces: Austrian, Chinese, Russian and French - this will be much more than in Constantinople.” The difference has been revised. On the 17th the archive was received, on the 18th there was a visit of both archimandrites to the Armenian Patriarch; On the 19th, Archimandrite Leonid said goodbye to Patriarch Kirill and the Bishops and spent the night at the Holy Sepulcher; on the 20th, he donated his library to the Mission, and on September 21, after a fraternal meal, Archimandrite Leonid said goodbye to Archimandrite Antonin and left Jerusalem. “Leaving the Holy City of Jerusalem, I,” wrote Archimandrite Leonid A.S. Norov about his departure from Jerusalem on November 2, 1865, “of course, out of Christian duty, said goodbye to everyone, starting with His Beatitude, and was greatly consoled by the sincere greetings and frank expression of sympathy for me from all well-meaning persons of the Greek clergy, especially His Eminence Nicephorus and Father Tabor Joasaph and the entire Holy Sepulchre brotherhood. All Russian admirers with my brotherhood and father Archimandrite Antonin accompanied me to Poklonnaya Hill with well-wishes and blessings.” This is how the third Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem ended the short days of its ill-fated existence. Having moved “to the command department and sat down in the small hall where my ill-fated predecessor usually sat, chewed feathers and bitten off his own and others,” Archimandrite Antonin began to carry out his urgent work and read archival papers. On October 8, Father Antonin informed the ambassador in Constantinople about the departure there from Jerusalem of the former head of the Mission, Archimandrite Leonid, and that he, in pursuance of the decree of June 16, reported to the Holy Synod on September 26 that he had entered “in temporary management of the affairs of the local Spiritual Mission,” and with the next mail hopes to present “an account of the form in which he found the affairs of the Mission and what he finds necessary to do to establish lasting order in it.” In the same letter, thanking the ambassador for the appointment of the Athonite monks Vissarion and Martyrios 187 to the Athenian Mission Church, for the prosperity of which, from old memory, he cared for the hierodeaconal vacancies, he asked the ambassador to appoint the singers of the Jerusalem Mission - Kozuboky and Belavin - in their place in Athens. At the same time, Father Antonin expressed his view on the singing places at the Mission, which he intends to carry out in a future report to the Holy Synod, that he considers it more expedient to “replace in general all persons of secular rank belonging to the Mission with monks”; further petitions the ambassador for the award of Hieromonk Anatoly, 60 years old, as a person very suitable for clergy” and “who has rendered considerable service to the local church, replacing with himself completely and even more than the retired hieromonk John”; and, finally, about the appointment to the staff of the Mission for a very long time here of a well-known person, the confessor of Hieromonk Veniamin 188, about whom “he had heard nothing here except some favorable reviews.” Father Antonin added: “In my opinion, Father Benjamin is not only possible, but also necessary to be included in the Mission in order to paralyze third-party spiritual influence on our fans in Jerusalem.” On October 18, the report to the Holy Synod was copied out completely and with a bewildered question: “And what will come of it - God knows” - it was sent to the post office. Archimandrite Antonin, although he did not find complete impartiality in this report about the unrest in the Mission, tried in every possible way not to offend anyone and to say what was pleasing and pleasant to every person who was in one way or another involved in the matter of unrest in the Jerusalem Mission. This is partly quite understandable if we take into account that he, in the end, “agreed to be the rector of the Mission and for which, according to Metropolitan Philaret, “he had no difficulties either from the consul or from the Patriarch.” “Father Archimandrite,” Archimandrite Antonin reported to the Holy Synod about Archimandrite Leonid, “had a commendable zeal for the morality, good name and interests of Russians visiting and living here. The consul was no less concerned about their peace, contentment and safety, and most of all about peace. Father Archimandrite grieved about the honor, dignity and true benefits of the Patriarchate; no less than that, Mr. Consul has rendered and daily renders good services to the Patriarchate with his kindness, respect and excellent attention, so that, while paying tribute to fair praise to one, we at the same time have no reason to blaspheme the other. Of course, the political circle of vision of the consul was broader than the spiritual and official circle of the head of the Mission, which is why their view of the same objects, naturally, could not be completely the same. In addition to differences in views, one must also assume the characteristic dissimilarity of people, called upon to help each other and, for the most part, sympathize. Father Archimandrite seemed heavy, harsh, suspicious, tactless and almost proud. to the consul, and this, in turn, seemed to the first to be insufficiently respectable, sincere and benevolent.” “In conversations with various persons belonging to the Patriarchate, although I did not encounter any sympathy for Father Archimandrite in anyone, they nevertheless responded with sincere respect for his truly monastic life.” “One can wish with all my heart that his dignity (i.e., Archimandrite Leonid), as a true monk, and his zeal, the venerable saint, find themselves a completely open, unrestricted field. Wherever monastic life in our fatherland requires an organizer, a corrector, an examiner, Father Archimandrite can be considered an excellently qualified figure.” The thoughts of Father Archimandrite Antonin about the internal structure of our Mission in Jerusalem are not without interest. “It would be best for us to return,” he writes, “to the original, most convenient and natural, and for the East, the most familiar and decent plan - to give the Spiritual Mission the appearance of a purely monastic institution, without making it for the first time either a hostel or what we call a regular monastery, but simply a monastery for monks with a unique charter, adapted to the conditions of the place, to the type of service. One might think that with the animating and attractive idea of ​​the “Jerusalem brotherhood” and with the brilliant material conditions of life at the monastery, and most importantly with the established moral and administrative order of things, it would be filled with the chosen ones of Russian society, people of deep piety with a genuine desire for a quiet contemplative life. Gradually improving and forming into the most appropriate composition, our monastery, without any vain noise, could once truly become a Mission, and not only a Mission, but also a propaganda of Orthodoxy. This, of course, is the maximum of our desires and assumptions. One must strive to achieve it, but even without achieving it, it is possible to keep the small monastery of Jerusalem in full and desired order, recognizing its one general ascetic character and populating it with simpletons in word and mind” 189. “The leadership of the Mission, if not forever, then in the form of experience, can be united with the already existing quite prominent and important position of rector of our embassy church in Constantinople. This boss will primarily have a missionary character, shielding himself where and from whom he is needed with his superiority. He can spend part of the year (for example, in winter, during the pilgrimage period) in Jerusalem, and the other part in Constantinople. In Jerusalem, his viceroy will always live - a hieromonk, or perhaps - an abbot, a man of spiritual life and administrative experience, who will not overwhelm the local consul with his weight and will not irritate the pride of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem with his official superiors. The rest of the brotherhood of the Jerusalem monastery may consist of two hierodeacons, seven singers (with a regent) and two psalm-readers - all with a leader of 15 people. In order to get as little as possible out of the current provisions for the maintenance of the monastery, you can allocate the same amount of annual salary, distributing it in the most appropriate way.” “Our current consul in Jerusalem,” Father Antonin says in his report about A.N. Kartsev, “could be offered another place of equal honor, partly as evidence that we know how to follow that general policy of prudence, according to which it is not considered a particularly commendable thing for oneself to unite with a stranger to enslave one’s own, but, on the contrary, is encouraged to stop the temptation between one’s own in order to in every possible way remove the interference of strangers; partly to prevent the development among foreigners of the belief, if not fundamental, then still very widespread, that the supposedly enslaved Russian Church has no justification for a clergyman; partly, finally, in order to give the opportunity, as they say, for the talents of an official who has been sitting too long in one place to shine in another field.” Trying to find out the real reason for the clashes that arose between the consulate and the head of the Mission, Archimandrite Antonin in his report, in our opinion, came very close to the truth and quite clearly exposed it. “In 1857, when I was in Jerusalem,” wrote Archimandrite Antonin, “along with many others, I found that the situation of the Russian Mission that was there before the war did not provide adequate guarantees of its peace and the beneficial effect expected from it in the region. That is why, upon returning to Athens, I spoke and wrote to whomever I could, about establishing a Russian consulate in Jerusalem, independent of the Beirut one, to assist the Mission (sic) in its relations with local authorities and in its service to fans. We definitely needed our own flag in Jerusalem, which would cover and protect so many helpless newcomers here from all sorts of unforeseen accidents that so easily arise in a restless region. And the desired flag (sic) appeared. But at the same time, a new power appeared, placed hand in hand with the head of the Mission. At the beginning, our Jerusalem consul really seemed to have only the above-mentioned meaning and, with all the circle of rights, actions and relations under his control, adjoined the Mission as a part of the whole (there is some factual inaccuracy here), serving it mainly as an intermediary, almost like a dragoman at the Mission of the 2nd period (Reverend Kirill) [Note. A. A. Dmitrievsky]. The consul's subordinate attitude towards the head of the Mission could have been maintained for some time on the dignity of its chief. But even then, multiple attempts were already made by the consul to truly be what he was by his name and by his significance in the circle of consuls of other nations, that is, the highest and, therefore, the only powerful representative of his government in a foreign land. Under the Mission of the 3rd period (Father Leonid), the subordinate role of the consul was no longer out of the question. But there should also be no talk about the subordinate position of the head of the Mission. Meanwhile, if not officially, but nevertheless really, this subordination appeared by itself as a result of special circumstances. Simultaneously with the establishment of the consulate, Russian religious shelters and extensive institutions began to be established in Jerusalem, requiring complex, deliberately adapted management. For reasons of the government, it turned out that this kind of management is more convenient in the hands of the consul rather than the head of the Mission. The measure of necessity is without a doubt, and therefore the best. However, its consequence was that the entire Mission with its head [since the Mission’s house constitutes only one part (fifth) of the so-called “buildings” by the general name], with the transfer of all Russian institutions in Jerusalem to the management of the consulate - the Mission, which until then was considered, if not the owner, then the manager of everything that was ours here - suddenly saw itself without property, without rights, without power, without strength, even without an advisory voice in arrangement of our Palestinian affairs. She seemed to take up residence at the consulate herself and, naturally, began to realize that she was not a Mission more, but less than one of the embassy churches. Such a revolution in the mutual relations of the two departments should naturally have aroused in one side regret about the lost significance, and in the other - a certain amount of arrogance over it. Hence the mutual coldness of the two authorities.” “Then, daily experience showed that a decisive line defining the range of actions of the consulate and the Mission, despite all the authorities, was not drawn, and that clashes in the rights of one and the other side and all the regrettable consequences of two disparate, discordant orders are possible. Finally, since the environment in which both departments are destined to operate consists mainly of admirers who, due to the essential nature of their temporary title, are inclined more towards the spiritual side, and their material position here is placed in direct dependence on the secular one, the internecine strife of the former easily extends to the mass of admirers, mainly those who have chosen Jerusalem as their place of permanent residence. Hence the intrigues, which arise and multiply all the more conveniently because the limitedness and emptiness of the life of the local Russian society, which is crowded and lagging behind the direct work, finds food and delight in them. Unfortunately, the field in which clashes between two departments are possible is not limited to the walls of Russian institutions, but extends to other walls - the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, with which, in any case, special relations are easily established on both sides, which in the event of discord lead to nothing so much as to the acceleration and development of intrigue, for it is easy to understand: neither the Mission with its church and its worship, nor the consulate with its mistakes constitute a subject that is especially welcoming to the Patriarchate, and any confusion in them, as in someone else’s camp, should naturally be pleasant to her, who defends first of all and above all her own, both from enemies and equally from friends.” Archimandrite Antonin also considers the clash between our Mission and the Patriarchate to be quite natural. Given the somewhat more active or even only direct and sincere nature of the Mission’s actions, according to him, it would inevitably fall into discord with the Patriarchate. “Just the brilliant appearance of our worship here, even just the strict order of our church, naturally, should already seem unpleasant to the Patriarchate, which they place, as it were, in the shadow and in an unfavorable comparison with us. What can we say about possible attempts on our part to teach the Greeks about church order, as was recommended to the head of the Mission of the 1st period (Father Porfiry)? That’s why it’s easy for us not to get along with the Patriarchate here and shouldn’t seem like an unforgivable fault.” Further, “no matter how hard we try to hide from the Greeks our intentions to control their actions here, the meaning that was once acquired by the head of our Mission here (Orthodox, as the Greeks maliciously expressed about the Most Reverend Melitopol), they cannot forget and not feel daily. It would be in vain to think that by placing the Mission (only on the basis of its recognition) in an “equal to equal” relationship with the Patriarchy, one can expect from the latter a favorable view of the former. Patriarch Kirill, without hesitation, says that he does not recognize any third-party boss here, that the only Orthodox boss here is himself. In this opinion about the leader in our Mission, His Beatitude is doubtful that he will ever, at least soon, change.” Thus elucidating the possible causes of the unrest that occurred in our Spiritual Mission under Archimandrite Leonid (Kavelin), Archimandrite Antonin does not at all think of placing the blame for them on the shoulders of the ill-fated Archimandrite Leonid; on the contrary, he justifies his course of action, at least in relation to the Patriarchate, and expresses his ardent wishes that the successors of Archimandrite Leonid follow his course of action in this regard, having for means support from our spiritual and secular government. “Like Father Archimandrite Leonid, zealots of their superior importance, his successors,” according to Archimandrite Antonin, “are not only possible, but it is also desirable for them to appear more often, for nothing would recommend us here at the present time more than persistent adherence to the same system, even if it were not finally recognized as satisfactory... The Head of our Mission, even a nominal one, has a very important meaning for the East. Even while systematically weakening his power and strength due to one or another government consideration, we must directly try to show that we value him and will never compromise. For we did not take up the role of actors in the East for one Patriarch, not even for one Patriarchal Throne. We must have in mind the development of Orthodoxy in general, counteraction to propaganda, the struggle for moral influence, the Eastern question, finally. For the first time, we entered the political field under the banner (long desired) of purely spiritual interests and purely ecclesiastical significance, having achieved so many conquests in the East, and we barely stepped out, now, being afraid of something, we are in a hurry to overthrow it and put up a consular flag in its place.” If, “contrary to the apparent desire of the Jerusalem Patriarchate to reduce the weight of the head of our Spiritual Mission, our government will support his importance and even strengthen it, so that she understands that her arrogant treatment of him and the unseemly prohibition of him to serve in holy places were not ignored by the Russian government, then once and for all the dream expressed by the Patriarchate openly and even somewhat offensively: “it did not work out with the bishop; “We didn’t succeed with the archimandrite, let’s try to deal with ordinary priests,” that is, to make the members of the Mission and its head, as Metropolitan Philaret put it, “a trampling upon everyone,” on the one hand, and on the other, the increased desire of the Jerusalem Consulate from our Mission “to create, in some way, a parish church of worshipers” - will forever recede into the realm of vain pipe dreams.” As is clear from the analysis of this very extensive report to the Holy Synod about the unrest in the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem, Archimandrite Antonin tried in every possible way to spare the pride of each figure involved in this issue and devote to him, one way or another, several kind and pleasant lines, on the one hand, and on the other, thanks to his long-standing excellent acquaintance with church issues in the East and here, in Russia, express with all frankness my thoughts and plans about the better organization of our Spiritual Mission in the East and our relations with the Eastern Churches. The unfortunate fate of Archimandrite Leonid and the investigation entrusted to him by the Holy Synod of all the details of this sad story in the life of the Jerusalem Mission served for him only as a favorable reason for this. That is why Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, who took the favorable outcome of Father Leonid’s case to heart, was dissatisfied with the reading of this report. “Reading this report left me with a feeling of sorrow,” wrote Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count Tolstoy, “both about the fact that the unpleasant case does not come out of its confusion, and about poor Archimandrite Leonid, on whom alone the whole burden of this case is being brought down - there are many more guilty than him; and, finally, about Archimandrite Antonin himself, who serves with signs of dignity and with the hope of a more significant and more useful service, but in the present case he presented experience that does not correspond to his dignity” 190. “It must be shown that the Holy Synod will find the report of Archimandrite Antonin unsatisfactory and will take measures to further discover the truth of the matter. The closest in the very order of the matter and not a hopeless measure would be a detailed questioning of the recalcitrant members of the Mission who are already in Russia separately, on points of question carefully drawn up” 191. Metropolitan Philaret is also trying to give an explanation of why this report from Archimandrite Antonin turned out to be “unsatisfactory.” “Thus it turns out,” in the opinion of the Metropolitan, “that the proper information has not been collected on the most important parts of the case and the order of the Holy Synod has not been fulfilled. This would have been too unexpected from a person who had already enjoyed the good name and trust of his superiors for a long time, if it were not partly explained by the effect of his deep respect for the reviews of high-ranking persons, which closed before the investigation of ill-intentioned, skillfully carried out suggestions on the part of members of the Mission who were unkind to Archimandrite Leonid” 192. In other words, Metropolitan Philaret remained with the initial opinion we cited above, which he expressed regarding the letter of N.P. Ignatiev when sending Archimandrite Antonin to Jerusalem for investigation, i.e., that Archimandrite Antonin would hardly dare to say “some right words” to the Patriarch and the consul, which could dispel the prejudice of one and confess to the wrong actions of the other. The news of dissatisfaction with the report of Father Archimandrite Antonin to the Holy Synod of Metropolitan Philaret quickly reached Jerusalem and confused its author, who in a letter to N.P. Ignatiev openly expressed his anxiety and even fear to him. “Remember, Father Archimandrite, like me,” wrote N.P. Ignatiev, “persuaded you, when you were still in Constantinople, before your trip to Athos, not to write yourself about the unification of two Missions under one of your leadership, predicting the impressions and reviews of a friend? Apparently, I know him, and your leaders in general, better than the monastics. I prefer to conduct this matter through the Ministry of Internal Affairs on my behalf, and when I received your long report to the Holy Synod, I guessed that it was there that my friend would not like it. How did I ruin your little head, as you put it? On the contrary, I helped you as much as I could. You would have raised a storm if you had sent a projector from Constantinople. If I were with you in Jerusalem, of course, I would try to persuade you to release some things from the report. But you are so brave that it’s just a disaster.” Father Archimandrite Antonin now, with all his difficulty, fell upon another duty entrusted to him by the Holy Synod in an additional decree and by the ambassador upon leaving Constantinople - to explain to Patriarch Kirill the severity and incorrectness of the public excommunication imposed on Archimandrite Leonid from spiritual communion with him in services in holy places, and at the same time to persuade him, through personal negotiations and persuasion, to give an answer to the Russian Holiness To the Synod on the message of Metropolitan Isidore of Novgorod in accordance with the dignity of the Russian Church. The message of Metropolitan Isidore of Novgorod back in August was accepted by Patriarch Kirill of Jerusalem and read by him with displeasure, and therefore left unanswered. From a confidential letter from the consul in Jerusalem Kartsev to the envoy N.P. Ignatiev dated January 16–28, 1866, we learn that Patriarch Kirill received Metropolitan Isidore’s letter at the end of August and considered it “a response to his message to the Holy Synod.” “If in that message His Beatitude Kirill, according to the consul, decided to respectfully make some representations to the Holy Synod regarding the modus operandi of Archimandrite Leonid, then he was in no way prompted to do this by any personal displeasure against Father Leonid, but solely by the desire for peace and the elimination of all temptations and further love for the Russian Orthodox Church, to which honor is so close to His Beatitude.” In the same letter, the consul told the ambassador that Patriarch Kirill, if he were confident that the Holy Synod would fulfill his request, would have petitioned “for the confirmation of Father Archimandrite Antonin in the position that he has been fulfilling here for more than 4 months to the full honor of Orthodoxy,” but, not having this confidence and fearing reproaches for wanting to interfere in the affairs of the Russian Church, “he limits himself only to warm prayer at the Holy Sepulchre.” Lord, so that the Head of our Church, Christ the Savior, will instill in the Holy Synod the good will to establish Father Antoninus in Jerusalem” 193. “In order to prevent any misunderstandings and knowing fully the opinion of the Holy Synod on this matter, I,” wrote the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod to the Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding this letter from the consul, “I make it my absolute duty to respectfully inform Your Excellency that the Holy Synod does not at all look at the letter of Metropolitan St. Petersburg as a response to the message of the Synod to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and has long been awaiting a response His Beatitude Kirill for a final discussion of the matter. If this response does not work out, then, in all likelihood, the Holy Synod will be forced to take measures depending on it, since the actions taken by the Patriarch regarding the representative of our Mission cannot be left without consequences by our Church. As for Archimandrite Antonin, the Holy Synod gave him only a temporary business trip to Jerusalem to examine the case of Archimandrite Leonidas, and does not at all intend to appoint him to this position.” “In advance of the proposal to the Holy Synod, I have the honor to inform Your Excellency about this with the question of whether you will find an opportunity to persuade your envoy in Constantinople to convince His Beatitude Kirill to complete this matter, as General Ignatiev himself proposed before, in accordance with the dignity of the Russian Church, or if it is impossible, to declare this positively in a short time, so that the Holy Synod will be able to proceed to the final orders that he recognizes as necessary to make in his relations with the Patriarch of Jerusalem" 194. In a letter addressed to the Vice-Chancellor dated February 15, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, in support of his considerations, cites from a letter from Ambassador N.P. Ignatiev his proposal and words on this case. “In his letter to Mr. Stremoukhov dated May 11/23, 1863, communicated to my predecessor,” writes Count Tolstoy, “he (i.e., Ignatiev) said: “Let them instruct me to personally explain to the Patriarch when he returns to Constantinople, and I will undertake to settle the matter.” In his private letter to Your Lordship dated the same date, he repeats the same thing, namely: “I hope that the Patriarch will soon return to Constantinople, and then I can reach an agreement with him.” Judge, prince, is such a promise clear enough? Based on it, the Holy Synod made orders and instructions to our ministers, for this is what Mr. Ignatiev wrote on May 18/30. Mukhanov: “If, beyond expectations, the Holy Synod hesitates to call Father Leonid, then will I be allowed by telegraph to invite, on behalf of the Holy Synod, Archimandrite Antonin to go to Jerusalem to bring our Spiritual Mission into some order, to tame the impulses of Father Leonid and for personal negotiations with the Patriarch. It turns out that this archimandrite, in his very lengthy report to the Holy Synod, does not even mention his negotiations with the Patriarch.” So, it is obvious that General Ignatiev only had in mind to expel Archimandrite Leonidas from Jerusalem and replace him with Antonin, and that not a single one of his promises was fulfilled.” “I considered it an obligation to present to Your Lordship the true words of Mr. Ignatiev in order to explain the difficult position of the Holy Synod in this unfortunate matter, which can have much more important consequences for both Churches than our Constantinople Mission believes. Therefore, I would like to see this matter completed as quickly as possible, in accordance with the merits of our Church, which is so close to my heart, and with the elimination of any regrettable conflict with the Patriarch of Jerusalem.” Regarding this demand of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, addressed through the Asian Department, N.P. Ignatiev writes a “completely confidential” letter to Archimandrite Antonin in Jerusalem dated March 9, 1866. This letter is interesting, by the way, also because it characterizes before us with complete frankness the view of N.P. Ignatiev on this, in his opinion, purely accidental conflict between Patriarch Kirill and our Holy Synod; on his personal relationships and sympathies with Patriarch Kirill, who helped him a lot in the “Bulgarian question, which degenerated into a “schism””; and in general on his views on the issue of the relationship of the Russian Church to the Eastern Orthodox Churches. “Petersburg (out of politeness I don’t want to say “Spiritual Department”),” writes N.P. Ignatiev in this letter, “is wise, confusing and, of course, there will be no end to our work. It looks like everything will go smoothly, then everything will get mixed up again. And you are expecting a telegraphic notification, you will have to send snail mail with the Synodical Decree, which we, secular people, will not get any sense of. A.N. Kartsev will explain to you why I could not write to you with the previous ships, and also why today I am answering several of your letters at once. I transmit and forward the letters I receive from you promptly. I did the same with your wonderful and interesting article about the Christmas celebration. You are a master at writing, scholarly, profound, entertaining, and diplomatic. Your thoughts (in your letter dated January 14) about the strange course of action of the Holy Synod and about the circumstances in Jerusalem are correct and thorough. What can you say now about the new wise statement of the Chief Prosecutor and the Asian Department? I asked Kartsev to show you my official attitude towards him and convey my opinion. It's not thunder from a cloud. It’s a joke to say what they are threatening: a break with the Greek Church, the closure of the metochion, the expulsion of Greek monks from Russia, the cessation of cash benefits and income, etc. Give them a letter from the Patriarch with full confession and a promise to be smart for the future. I fought back, but the spiritual authorities stand their ground, and you know my rule... It’s like children playing with fire. You, of course, remember my correspondence with St. Petersburg, which I showed you last spring, when it was about your trip to Jerusalem, in mid-May, to prevent a clash between the Holy Synod and the Patriarch and the unpleasant correspondence between them regarding what happened in the Jerusalem Mission, and most importantly, the ban imposed on Father Leonid, who presented this act in his reports as a deliberate insult to the Russian Church. I proposed in a private letter to instruct me, upon the Patriarch’s return to Constantinople, to explain to him personally and confidentially, and then remind him that you could have personal negotiations with the Patriarch if the quarrel with Father Leonidas continues. They didn’t answer me anything. It was soon explained that the Patriarch did not impose a general church prohibition on Father Leonid, but only allowed him to serve in holy places for a while, and that Father Archimandrite continues to serve as a priest in our Russian Church. The Patriarch even sent him a deacon for the splendor of his service. I, of course, never returned to this purely ecclesiastical, or rather personal, issue. You are probably as convinced as I am that the Patriarch did not intend to offend the Russian Church - the strength and strength of Orthodoxy. By the end of summer, a response letter from the Holy Synod was received and the matter took a different turn. Finally, the Holy Synod sent you to Jerusalem, providing you with written instructions (decree). I thought that the matter was over, settled, and from day to day I was only waiting for a decision regarding the future structure of the Jerusalem Mission. Now the question is being raised again, because the Chief Prosecutor is starting a case completed between the Patriarch and the Holy Synod. Until the final explanation of the frivolous act of the Patriarch regarding Father Leonid and the determination of the future relationship of His Beatitude to the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission, the Chief Prosecutor considers it impossible to resolve the case presented to us peacefully and assumes that the Holy Synod “will proceed to final orders in its relations with the Patriarch of Jerusalem” if the matter of the ban is not completed “in accordance with the dignity of the Russian Church.” The funniest thing is that I never proposed anything positively and, of course, did not even think of proposing it either to the Holy Synod, or even less to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to which this question should not concern, in accordance with my rules: not to interfere in the affairs of the clergy, etc. One thing I decided to propose, as you know, is the unification of the two Missions under one heading to prevent local clashes. Come up with, most revered and respected father, an outcome from this delicate matter that could satisfy your Holy Synod. Abroad, something is very, very demanding and exacting, mainly with the Greek clergy. I don't know what they do at home. You, of course, know better than I the difficulties of the Chief Prosecutor’s task and to what extent it is necessary to act carefully and prudently in the present case, especially when explaining with the Patriarch. In response to the misunderstanding, I said that although I doubt the possibility of presenting the desired answer of the Patriarch, I will convey to you and the consul the request of the Holy Synod to satisfy, as far as possible, decent confidential negotiations with His Beatitude. Now the important matter is in your hands. I am convinced that you will do everything possible to protect the dignity of the Russian Church, which is dear to you no less than to the Chief Prosecutor. Help end disagreement, which could have the most bad and unexpected consequences for the chief prosecutor. I wish you success from the bottom of my heart and may God help you. Write to me frankly and in detail about the impression on you made by the current outburst of St. Petersburg in your opinion.” Completely confidential. “It has come to my attention that the Holy Synod and the Chief Prosecutor are indignant with me because, when you left Constantinople, I did not give you a formal instruction (sic) to demand satisfaction (as in worldly duels - God forgive me!) from the Patriarch (?) of the Russian Church, who was insulted in the person of his representative Father Leonid. They are also dissatisfied with you because you yourself did not think to talk about this with the Patriarch and did not come up with any satisfaction or solution (in clerical language - one piece of paper is not enough to submit the case to the Archives). They reproach you for the fact that in the “long report” you did not tell the Holy Synod anything about the clash that took place between the Patriarch and Father Leonid, about the prohibition to serve in holy places and about your explanations to the Patriarch, about his response regarding a sensitive circumstance, etc. I don’t remember whether this was mentioned in your wonderful and intricate report, you know better; If not, then it's a pity, really. You would perfectly clarify the misunderstanding, come up with explanations for everything, calm down the agitated baseness (apparently, in the Spiritual Department there are more of them than in ours, and they are eager to fight) and thereby prevent a clash, which is frivolously caused. Conciliation in the present case is a special merit to the Orthodox Church. The temptation will be great if the personal quarrel between the Patriarch and Father Leonid is allowed to grow into a rift between the Synod and the Patriarch. In order to help the trouble while there is still an opportunity, do you not consider it possible, in the form of an addition to your report to the Holy Synod, to write to me (I act involuntarily contrary to the rules, the Holy Synod involves me in the affairs of the Church) such a letter that I could send in the original to St. Petersburg. In order to connect this letter with the general correspondence, you could begin your message approximately in this way: “You ask me whether I happened to speak with the Patriarch about the prohibition imposed on Father Leonid, and why I did not report to the Holy Synod anything about my negotiations on this subject with His Beatitude, and also how this unfortunate issue can be resolved in accordance with the dignity of the Russian Church, etc.” It would be desirable if they said that you spoke about this with the Patriarch and with various personalities, and expressed your opinion about the unfortunate circumstance and about the final outcome. I will send your letter with the addition of my comments for reinforcement. For your information, I consider it useful to warn you that immediately upon receiving a copy of the chief prosecutor’s letter, where they reproached me about your silence, I responded to Prince. Gorchakov that I find it strange that the Spiritual Department forcibly wants to interfere with me, as une attaere de discipline ecclesiasxigue, and that they make me responsible for the silence of an archimandrite who has a special assignment from the Holy Synod (in a word, he set a decent lesson); that, however, this time what I can do is ask you in a private confidential letter about the reason for the observed silence about the said circumstance and about your opinion regarding the best outcome of the matter. To this I added that although the reason for your silence to this day is, of course, unknown to me, but that, in all likelihood, you considered it useless to return to an unpleasant issue, which you perhaps considered resolved by order of the Holy Synod. I hope that your letter will be written with tact, your usual art, which will protect both me and you, and the dignity of the Russian Church, and the Patriarch, and will spill like a tub of sea water on the reader in St. Petersburg. Do not leave your advice and guidance to Kartsev, so that out of excess zeal he does not cause us new troubles. Now Andrei Nikolaevich regrets that he did not prevent the quarrel, which took on unexpected dimensions in Jerusalem” 195. Father Archimandrite Antonin took to heart the advice of N.P. Ignatiev, given to him in a “completely confidential” letter, and immediately sent, in the spirit desired by him, a letter addressed to him dated April 4, 1866 with the following content: “Your Excellency allowed me in your last letter,” wrote Archimandrite Antonin, “three questions: “Did I happen to talk with His Beatitude Patriarch Kirill about the ban he imposed on the father of Archimandrite Leonid? Did I inform the Holy Synod about my negotiations on this subject with His Beatitude? What ending can be given to the regrettable matter of prohibition, in accordance with the dignity of the Russian Church? I hasten to answer Your Excellency’s questions kindly proposed to me, thanking you for this honor and for the trust that is bestowed upon me. In response to the first question, I can tell you the following: soon after my arrival in Jerusalem, during my second meeting with His Beatitude, I asked him for permission to speak with him alone. Left alone with me, the Patriarch, guessing my intention, spoke about the displeasures that had occurred between him and the former head of the Mission, he himself began his complaint against the father of Archimandrite Leonid, reproaching him for indecent treatment in church, for unfriendliness towards his colleagues, for despotism towards fans, and in particular female admirers, for his bad comments about the Patriarchate, for inciting all Russians against it, prohibiting them from making donations to the Holy Sepulchre. The Patriarch became irritated with every word and, noticing that I wanted to enter into a more detailed conversation with him about what had happened, he said abruptly: “Leave him, let him go with God (the father archimandrite was then still in Jerusalem). He wasn’t for this place, he wasn’t.” I did not consider myself to have the right to resume my interrogative conversation with His Beatitude on any occasion. Not only was I not authorized by the Holy Synod to interrogate the Patriarch, but I was not even officially recommended to him by either department as an investigator. As a result of the decree of the Holy Synod of July 16, 1865, No. 1178, guided by the instructions of the Holy Synod and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs given to the head of the Mission in 1864, as well as following the advice of Your Excellency, I was primarily concerned here with restoring peace between the Patriarchate and the Mission, in which I found it incompatible to assume the tone of a judge over one or the other, fully convinced that between His Beatitude and the Holy Synod are conducting direct communications on the matter of our Mission, which should clarify everything that one or the other side would like to know. What was briefly conveyed to me by the Patriarch and his viceroy, His Eminence Meletius, in the form of an accusation against the father of Archimandrite Leonid, I did not fail to inform the Holy Synod in my report dated October 18, 1865, No. 6. At the end of February or beginning of March, His Beatitude, regarding the letter he received from the actual Privy Councilor A.S. Norov, for the first time definitely expressed to me the reason for his refusal to Father Archimandrite Leonid to serve with him in holy places. He said that he did not want to have prayer fellowship with a man who had allowed his church to be in tempting disorder; Moreover, he made a faint hint that on the very day of his arrival in Jerusalem, Father Leonid left for the monastery of St. Sava on purpose so as not to meet him. From this it could be concluded that the Patriarch, among his displeasures against Father Leonid, also had a personal grudge on his part. I recently mentioned this review of His Beatitude in my letter to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. In response to what was proposed to me by Your Excellency, I have the honor to express my opinion regarding the best outcome of the matter that arose between Patriarch Kirill and the Holy Synod. Regarding the first measures taken against the father of Archimandrite Leonid, I regretfully see myself forced to answer you with complete silence, in which I ask you to apologize.” 196 In addition to his letter dated March 9, N.P. Ignatiev wrote the following to Father Antonin dated May 3/15. “To return to the investigation entrusted to you (sic), explain to me who your acquaintance is targeting, pointing out that you accused the deputy to please one significant person. Is it me that the humble acquaintance means? You know my opinion on this unfortunate matter. I do not want an explanation at all, but an immediate end to the constant clashes and useless, if not extremely harmful, personal struggles, gossip, etc. I resolutely refuse to understand why the Holy Synod so stubbornly opposes the union of the two so-called Spiritual Missions. One must assume that upon receipt of the Patriarch's answer, the issue will be resolved immediately - one way or another, the acquaintance overdid it. Although a final decision is desirable, in this mood I would prefer a long delay before my trip to St. Petersburg. Having personally been to Moscow, I might have persuaded him, using my previous acquaintance.” 197 On May 26, Father Archimandrite Antonin also fulfilled another assignment from N.P. Ignatiev: to persuade the Patriarch to give an answer to the Holy Synod to his message of May 26, 1865, written on behalf of the leading member of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Isidore. In this matter, the Jerusalem Consul A.N. Kartsev worked with his usual zeal, preparing for the Patriarch, as Metropolitan Philaret rightly guessed, a draft response message to the Russian Holy Synod. This is the second message of Patriarch Kirill with the following content. “The Most Reverend and Most Venerable Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, Chairman of the Holy and Sacred Russian Synod, in Christ God, the most beloved and honored Brother and Co-Servant of our Dimension, Mr. Isidore. We embrace your Most Reverend and God-protected Eminence fraternally in the Lord with all our hearts, kiss you with a holy kiss, and greet you with the liveliest pleasure. No matter how pleased we were to receive the fraternal letter to us from Your Most Reverend and God-protected Eminence dated June 25 of last year, having read it with due attention and as representing your fraternal head, we were struck with deep sorrow. We did not think that with our sincere and boundless devotion, which we have long cherished for the one-faith Church of sovereign Russia and its spiritual leaders, we showed disrespect for the Holy Russian Synod by the fact that, in caring for the dignity and good name of the Russian society residing in the Holy City, as well as for preserving the evangelical love for like-mindedness with it, we considered it useful to help put an end to the situation that had previously opened up here. The Russian Mission through the removal of its head, the Most Reverend Father Archimandrite Leonid, regarding whom all the God-fearing Russian admirers visiting the Holy City thought that he was the only culprit of the evil and the main source of the temptation that occurred. Regarding this so regrettable circumstance, for which we should expect approval for ourselves, since we acted in an evangelical manner in order to stop the unrest that was revealed, which was causing great dishonor to the local Russian society, we, beyond expectation, brought upon ourselves the displeasure of the Holy Russian Synod and, as we see, we are in danger of falling into condemnation for our moderate action and fulfillment of a duty as little valuable as it is precious and venerable the queen of all virtues is love, which serves as the basis of the relationship of man, created in the image of God, to his neighbor. Upon our return from Constantinople to the Holy City in February last year, we found, beloved Brother in Christ, that His Reverence had previously fled to the Holy Lavra of our venerable and God-bearing Father Sava the Sanctified, leaving the administration of the Spiritual Mission entrusted to him. In confirmation of the news that reached us before, we learned that this man is in complete rupture with Russian admirers and members of the said Mission. In the Holy City, countless statements against His Eminence and many bitter complaints from the most pious Russian pilgrims in Jerusalem reached our ears. Not a single soul came to us without expressing bitter complaints against him: one accused him of irritability, another of swearing, a third of humiliating treatment, a fourth of threats, a fifth, finally, of insulting the shrine of God, where sometimes he, dressed in priestly robes, would run out like a madman, with a broken voice, with curses on his lips, throwing himself on one, then on the other, which alienated Russian fans from the desire to attend services in a Russian church during the rest of the time Mr. Leonid was here. In view of such unrest, in view of general complaints, what should the spiritual leader of the Jerusalem Church do, to whom everyone turned their eyes for representation and protection, seeking from him justice, attention to their complaints, help and satisfaction? Without a doubt, he had to satisfy the warring parties and put an end to the embarrassment. But this was no longer possible, since evil had already reached its extreme limits long before that time, and general alienation and immeasurable disgust were noticeable against His Reverence. What should he have done? Take the side of one and trample underfoot the complaint of an entire people? Neglect the general opinion and block the hearing from the voice of the people? What should he have done? To boldly push away many from yourself and accept one into your arms and perform sacred acts with him, to a greater increase in temptation and to greater confusion of the conscience of all? We do not know how we should act in such a difficult case and we fraternally ask the Holy Synod to resolve this perplexity for us. It would be appropriate (they will answer us, perhaps) to write to the Synod itself. But what else did we do, exactly as we wrote to him, in order to replace this man who had disturbed the general peace and caused so much temptation among the local pious Russian society. If, acting in the spirit of justice and in order to preserve the dignity and good name of the Russians, we incurred the wrath of the Holy Synod of Russia, then how much more would we have suffered if, through human weakness, we had fallen into a real mistake, giving even a small reason to increase displeasure against this spiritual authority. And if Mr. Leonidas had been a model of virtue, then how would they have written and spoken so much against him, starting from the time of the deputy of His High Reverence, the Bishop of Melitopol, of blessed memory. Why now is nothing reproachful written or said against a good and truly virtuous man, the Most Reverend Holy Archimandrite Mr. Antonin? If Mr. Leonid were the same in his behavior and course of action, who would dare to raise their voice against him. Now Antonin’s affairs are honey and milk; perfect harmony and love reign between the most pious Russian admirers, members of the Mission, the Imperial Consul and His Reverence, who deservedly enjoys love, good name and honor not only from his own people, but also from all non-believers and foreigners; truly, at first a person is visible. The Most Holy and Venerable Mother of all Churches has never ceased to fraternally, in the union of faith, love and honor her Sister - the Holy Orthodox Church of Sovereign Russia, and will never cease until the end of time. She unceasingly prays for her to the Lord, who rose three days from the All-Holy and Life-Giving Tomb, and convey this bright and true truth, Holy Brother, to your Holy and Sacred Synod. The Primordial Church of Christ also desires that the heads of the local Russian Mission be people who are truly pious and venerable in their way of acting, such as the Most Reverend Holy Archimandrite Mr. Antonin is today: gentle, meek, peaceful, virtuous, God-fearing, brotherly, kind, loving, whom we fatherly love and honor, and the whole world. This man, with his virtues and talents, does honor to himself, and to his government, and to the Church to which he belongs and which did very well if, taking into account our reviews of His Reverence and the general good opinion and love that he enjoys, it appointed him to the Holy City as the Head of the Mission, for which everyone here, and we ourselves, would be very grateful. This is what we, Holy Brother, have to respond to your letter to us dated June 25 of last year. May your brotherly love for us and your Holy Synod judge with justice and with your characteristic wisdom whether we acted badly in causing the removal from here of the person who caused the general temptation here. Having nothing more to say, we resume the expression of our sincere fraternal feelings to your God-protected Eminence and to your entire Holy and Sacred Synod, asking you from the Lord for long life, health and complete happiness. In the Holy City of Jerusalem, April 24, 1866. Your God-protected Eminence, Beloved brother in Christ and completely devoted Patriarch Kirill of Jerusalem" 198. But N.P. Ignatiev’s hopes to calm the minds in St. Petersburg and, especially, in Moscow did not come true. On the additional private letter of Archimandrite Antonin to N.P. Ignatiev dated April 4, there is the following ironic resolution of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod: “A good answer.” His note dated July 5 addressed to the director of the office of the Holy Synod for presentation to Comrade Chief Prosecutor N.V. Tolstoy already openly expresses the Chief Prosecutor’s displeasure. “Ignatiev and Kartsev,” this note says, “did not comply with the vice-chancellor’s instructions and deliberately avoided the matter, allowing the Patriarch to write a very irritable letter to the Metropolitan. Archimandrite Antonin, who was under their influence, not only did not fulfill the instructions of the Synod, but even avoided answering” 199. In particular, regarding the Patriarchal response of April 24, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow wrote to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D. A. Tolstoy: “The question is difficult,” says the Moscow Bishop, “not because it is difficult to see the truth, but because the already presented and proven truth is met with non-peaceful confrontation, and after such an experience, a new presentation of the truth can promise not success, but only increase disagreement. The Russian hierarchy, undoubtedly, is located, according to the Apostle, to guard the unity of the spirit in the union of peace, no matter how the Jerusalem hierarchy is located. But, on the other hand, one should not betray the truth. The defenselessness of the truth should not give rise to the predominance of untruth, which is harmful both now and in the future. To protect the dignity of the Patriarch, it must be assumed that he signed the message on April 24 out of excess confidence in the one who inspired and composed it. No attention was paid to the truth presented in the message of the leading member of the Holy Synod and its evidence in the message of the Patriarch.” Having then presented to the Holy Synod “samples of the language and content of the Patriarchal Message,” Metropolitan Philaret says that “the message cannot be left without an answer, and that the answer should not be slavishly compliant, but, with possible peacefulness, exculpatory for the Holy Synod” 200. Through and. O. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod Yu. V. Tolstoy was presented to the Sovereign Emperor with a detailed note in August 1866 regarding all the disorders and clashes that arose in the Jerusalem Mission during the recent administration of Archimandrite Leonid, and copies of correspondence on this matter with Patriarch Kirill, in which on behalf of the Holy Synod the intention was expressed for the Patriarch’s message of April 21, recognized as “unsatisfactory”, respond with a letter to His Beatitude “in modest words, but with insistence” and confirm to the Patriarch “the fairness of the demands of the Holy Synod, pointing out the immodesty of the expressions he used”, Archimandrite Antonin “instruct him to certainly and steadily present to him all the unpretentiousness of the demands of the Holy Synod” 201 . The response message of the Holy Synod, compiled by the Metropolitan of Moscow on behalf of the Novgorod Metropolitan Isidore dated June 26, 1866, reads as follows: “Most Beatitude Vladyka, highly revered Archpastor. The message of Your Beatitude was greeted by me with deep respect and hope that from it the light of perfect peace will shine between the two Orthodox Hierarchies, so beneficial for the perfect peace of the Orthodox Churches. But, with the sincerity befitting our service, I must confess to you, Most Blessed Master, that this light was revealed to me not free from some sad shadows. In your Beatitude's message, with an expression of deep sorrow, it is said that you never thought that you had disrespected the Holy Russian Synod. Let me explain and make an excuse. Neither the All-Russian Synod instructed me to write, nor did I write in my message that you disrespected the All-Russian Synod. In my message, the view of the All-Russian Synod on the matter of Archimandrite Leonid was set out, which is different from your view, which often happens in affairs, without violating the mutual respect of the two parties who have different views. In conclusion, on behalf of the Synod, I most respectfully asked you, Your Beatitude Vladyka, not to deprive the archimandrite of your merciful views until the matter about him and his subordinates receives legal clarity. The action of the All-Russian Synod was obviously guided by the spirit of peace, reverence for the Holy Throne of Jerusalem and perfect respect for Your Beatitude. Your message mentions Archimandrite Leonid that he fled from your presence. If you pay attention to the detailed statement of the matter enclosed with my message, in a special note, then you will be pleased to see that he did not flee recklessly, but evaded as a precaution so that his subordinates, who had disobeyed, would not discover confrontation against him in your face and would not cause temptation in the solemn assembly, and he decided on such evasion on the advice of your governor, Metropolitan Meletius. If Archimandrite Leonid had such respect for your governor that he obeyed his leadership, then there can be no doubt that he retained due reverence for Your Beatitude. With difficulty I submit to the need to utter another word found in the Message of Your Beatitude: You attribute anger to the All-Russian Synod. I firmly testify that there was nothing of the kind either in the dispositions of the Holy Synod or in my humble message. In unfortunate circumstances, it is natural to feel sorrow, but as far as the All-Russian Synod is from allowing anger to be involved in its actions, it is equally unexpected that it should be exposed to such a charge. The Synod knows the word of the Apostle that the anger of a man does not bring about the righteousness of God. In order not to bother your attention any longer with my explanations, I will limit myself to admitting that I am at a loss whether it would be useful to offer a message from Your Beatitude to the All-Russian Synod, or whether it would not be more useful for me to bear the burden of grief alone, and, in the hope of a perfect word of peace, to preserve a world of silence for both Hierarchies. However, I am sure that, in any case, the All-Russian Synod will not allow Archimandrite Leonid, who had the misfortune of losing your favor, to return to Jerusalem, and will leave Archimandrite Antonin in Jerusalem, at least until another one is found that meets the requirements of the ministry there. I humbly place this matter and these communications at the foot of the Most High Archpastor of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the source of peace, and I pray to Him that by His all-effective grace the Mother of Churches, the Jerusalem Church, and the All-Russian Church, may continually preserve in perfect unity of peace and love until the end of the age. With this thought and deep respect for Your Beatitude (which feelings are shared with me by the entire All-Russian Synod), I have the heartfelt duty and consolation to be and remain unchanged. But despite the fact that the Holy Synod, in the words of Metropolitan Philaret, adopted “firm conclusions to protect the dignity and strength of church government under the shield of the sovereign defender of the Orthodox Church, the most pious Sovereign Emperor 203, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, represented by the director of the Asian Department, subjected this most submissive note to the obligation of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod himself merciless critical analysis and came out ardently in defense of the Patriarch of Jerusalem and the actions of the Constantinople ambassador and the Jerusalem consul, directly calling this message a note “one-sided, written to prove the correctness of Archimandrite Leonidas” and the groundlessness of the accusations of his opponents. The view of the Ministry is in complete disagreement with the views of the Holy Synod: for example, the Patriarch refused to allow Archimandrite Leonid to concelebrate with him at holy places, in the opinion of the Ministry, so that this reluctance “would not lead to the complete exclusion of members of the Russian Church from the concelebration of other members of the Mission.” Consequently, Father Archimandrite Leonid was, so to speak, a scapegoat. Further: “The opinion about the insult by the Patriarch of the Russian Church in the person of the representative of Archimandrite Leonid, in the opinion of the Ministry, cannot also be considered valid, since the Head of the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission cannot be recognized as a representative of the Russian Church, which itself does not have the right of representation. This right is the exclusive property of His Imperial Majesty. Moreover, such representation is impossible within the meaning of the canonical rules of the Orthodox Church, which to a certain extent subordinate any visiting clergy to the local diocesan authorities, which is inconsistent with the title of representative.” Thirdly, it is difficult to allow, according to the defense, that the Patriarch would admit his actions were “rash” after he had expressed in writing his “disapproving opinion of Leonid’s behavior,” and it would be more difficult to allow him to vouch for himself and his successors that he would “not remove anyone from the Russian clergy who is guilty from reporting in praising the name of the Lord.” The Ministry, finding it difficult to demand an apology from the Patriarch, shares the opinion of the Holy Synod regarding the warning to the Patriarch for the future - “to prevent the possibility of repetition of such regrettable events” and recommends that in relation to the Greek clergy the Head of the Mission be guided by the instructions given on March 23, 1857 to the first Mission; Archimandrite Antonin, who is sent to Jerusalem, should not be entrusted with any sensitive assignments, since the Head of the Mission does not have “the character of a representative of the Russian Church.” In view of the above considerations, in the opinion of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it would be highly desirable that our main spiritual superiors, in order to respect the most important interests of the Orthodox Church and finding in the particular difficulty of the current situation of the Throne of Jerusalem a new and strong reason for generosity and leniency, would agree not to continue the correspondence at all, limiting themselves, in order to prevent the resumption of such regrettable events in the future, to the measures proposed above by this Ministry. There is no doubt that such a moderate course of action, consistent with brotherly love and Christian condescension, will be fully appreciated by the Patriarch and will indeed prevent temptation and discord in the future” 204. Tired of the futility of correspondence with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with the Ambassador of Constantinople and the Patriarch of Jerusalem on the case of unrest in the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission and regarding the Patriarch's response to the Holy Synod, consistent with the dignity of the Russian Church, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count A. P. Tolstoy, in his letter dated October 4, 1866 addressed to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, expressed a fairly clear idea about the closure of the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission 205: “The Church is powerless before the authority of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,” wrote Count Tolstoy. The wise Moscow High Hierarch did not, however, find it possible to share this point of view with the Jerusalem Mission of the Chief Prosecutor and defended its continued existence on the following, very respectable, grounds: 1. “In this case, the peace of the hierarchy, violated by the Patriarch, would remain unrestored. 2. The Patriarch, who placed his actions somewhat above fraternal relations with the All-Russian Synod, would see his strength and his victory in the destruction of the Spiritual Mission, and this, of course, would not lead to an improvement in relations between the hierarchies, and to maintaining the dignity of the All-Russian Synod in the face of the Patriarch. 3. It is another thing not to establish a Mission, and another thing to destroy an established one. The first, in the face of an unfavorable view, can subject one to a grave reproach for lack of activity; the second would have the unpleasant appearance of falling. 4. Western envy of Russia, which does not leave the Orthodox Church alone (of which a recent example is the disclosures about the union of the supposed Patriarch of Constantinople with Rome), in the destruction of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem they would find a happy opportunity for unfavorable, offensive and harmful sentiments for Orthodoxy. 5. If the Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem were destroyed, what would happen to the church there built for it at great expense and splendor? Сия церковь была бы печальным памятником падения Миссии. Что, наконец, делать в безысходном состоянии дела? There is hardly anything better than leaving the Mission in its current transitional state, awaiting a better time, since Archimandrite Antonin, although unsatisfied with the explanation of the matter, has no difficulties for himself either from the consul or from the patriarch. Deceived in his expectations of good results for resolving the “Jerusalem Question” from the additional letter of Archimandrite Antonin and the letter of Patriarch Kirill, N.P. Ignatiev realized that sacrifices were necessary on his part, and among these, in the first place was the removal from Jerusalem of his beloved consul A.N. Kartsev. “I never expected,” wrote N.P. Ignatiev on October 7/19, 1866, “that the Holy Synod would need so much time to discuss and resolve a simple matter. And there's no end in sight. I think that they will decide not before receiving visible satisfaction with the removal of Kartsev... to a better place in Corfu” 207. Both the ambassador himself and Patriarch Kirill made this concession extremely reluctantly and with great regret, fearing that his successor, Consul Kozhevnikov, in the words of Nikolai Pavlovich, “smart, well-behaved and calm,” would not replace the talented A.N. Kartsev, who dreamed of escaping from Jerusalem, which had bored him 208. The second victim on the part of N.P. Ignatiev was the loss forever of his “soulfully beloved” father, Archimandrite Antonin, whom he always warmly hoped to see near him in Constantinople as an indispensable assistant and adviser to him on issues of a church nature and whom, however, in the end, Patriarch Kirill of Jerusalem “pulled” from him for our Jerusalem Spiritual Mission. His third and most difficult sacrifice for N.P. Ignatiev is the pacification of the Holy Synod by delivering, at all costs, from Patriarch Kirill a letter of response in the spirit desired by our Holy Synod. But all attempts by N.P. Ignatiev in this direction were fruitless due to the stubbornness of the “stubborn” (as N.P. Ignatiev characterizes him) old man Patriarch Kirill 209 and the complete silence on his requests of the “diplomat” Archimandrite Antonin. There were attempts by the ambassador to satisfy the Holy Synod even after 1866, but all of them did not yield results. These attempts are interesting only from the perspective of Ambassador N.P. Ignatiev on the Jerusalem issue. “The shore is close,” N.P. Ignatiev wrote on April 10/22, 1868 to Father Archimandrite Antonin 210. – It depends on you to achieve your arrival in Constantinople. First of all, I will tell you in confidence that Count Tolstoy (Chief Prosecutor) and Metropolitan Isidore of Novgorod continue to be angry with the Patriarch of Jerusalem for the excommunication of Father Leonid and for the correspondence with the Synod (indecent, in our words), and to complain about you “for Catholic” decrees, for the diplomatic report and for the stubbornness of the Patriarch. It was decided: 1) to leave you, in any case, in Jerusalem, until the Patriarch apologizes to the Holy Synod, the Russian Church for insulting it in the person of “Leonid”; 2) leave Arch Leonidas in Constantinople, and you in Jerusalem in the current uncertain situation. I became your lawyer through conviction and the desire of my heart. After repeated disputes, I am promised to release you from Jerusalem if your health makes you wish to return to Constantinople or if you prefer to be in Byzantium. The question of the representative of the Russian Church at the Ecumenical Throne has advanced significantly. Our idea of ​​​​forming a Russian monastery in Jerusalem to replace the current absurd and uncertain structure of the Mission is also accepted. In order to put this idea into a definite form and give it an official course, it is necessary that you provide me with your full consideration, not forgetting the multifaceted discussion and the material part, i.e., the distribution of buildings between the monastery and the consulate, indications of the required funds, etc. The final summoning of Father Leonid, the resolution of your uncertain situation and your return here are subject to one condition, which I did not have time to overcome: the Chief Prosecutor insists that the Patriarch of Jerusalem take advantage of the first opportunity (notification of the receipt of money sent to him by the Synod, etc.) in order, although in passing, but definitely, to express regret “that misunderstandings could have arisen between the Jerusalem and Russian Churches and that His Bliss could have aroused the displeasure of the Holy Synod with his actions regarding Father Leonid, while it could not have occurred to him to offend our Church, and so on.” I am promised that if the weakest apology in this sense is found in the letter of the Patriarch, then our proud hierarchs (and especially the thunderous Prosecutor) will have mercy and will immediately remove from Father Leonid the title of head of the Jerusalem Mission and will dispose of the final arrangement of the affairs of our two frustrated Spiritual Missions. Is it really possible that, with your characteristic eloquence, power of persuasion, quiet insinuation and undoubted diplomatic talent, you will not manage to convince the Patriarch, at the right opportunity, to put an end to a matter intolerable to him and to us. That he should write a few conciliatory words, especially since he constantly stated exactly what he was asked to express on paper, i.e., that he had no intention of insulting the Russian Church and that his rash act did not relate to the Synod, but personally to Father Leonid. In a word, your return to Constantinople is in your own hands. Now blame yourself if you sit longer in Jerusalem and if the quarrel with the Patriarch grows into a rift between the Holy Synod and the Church of Jerusalem. Between us it is said that the irritation of the Chief Prosecutor was such that there was talk of the immediate closure of the Jerusalem farmsteads in Russia and the expulsion of the Greek monks. I had difficulty proving the inappropriateness of such orders. It goes without saying that you will be able to instill in the Patriarch the idea in writing to include the desired phrases with notification of the receipt of money, so that he will not even notice from here why and how this advice was given” 211. From N.P. Ignatiev’s letter dated June 18/30 to Father Archimandrite Antonin, we learn that the latter “refused to persuade the Patriarch” to write a letter of apology, as well as to draw up a project for the Russian Monastery in Jerusalem. “If our brother, a secular figure, struggles with all sorts of obstacles and failures, does not lose interest in his work, does not lose heart, then shame on you, monk,” encourages his respected father Archimandrite Antonin Nikolai Pavlovich, “a shepherd and spiritual warrior, to fall into apathy, into indifferentism and not do everything possible to help achieve our common goal. It's shameful and bad, oh. Archimandrite, I did not expect this from you. However, I am not a vindictive person, and I hope to deliver it by future mail, apply it in the form of a healing plaster and heal the wound inflicted by Father Leonid and the Holy Synod on the Patriarch of Jerusalem, only with a letter from the Chancellor on behalf of the Sovereign. I suggested this idea to please the old man and answer his greetings for the royal anniversary. I hope that at least this time your stubborn old man will thank me. Will you really not take advantage of this to smooth out the roughness between the Patriarch and the Synod in the way I indicated? You hinted to me, spoke about the false position in which the Spiritual Mission is located regarding the consulate. Who is to blame for the continuation of this situation if not you yourself? The opportunity is presented to make an attempt to establish a monastery, to get out of the current provisions, etc., but you don’t want to put a finger on it. Unfortunately, in most cases we do what you do: complain, criticize, consider yourself a “pariah”, the oppressed – as much as your heart desires, but help, arrange things properly and take responsibility for your opinion – no. “My house is on the edge”" 212. But Archimandrite Antonin responded to this admonishing and reproachful letter from the ambassador with silence. In the resolution of the Holy Synod of August 14, 1868, in response to the petition of Ambassador Ignatiev for the return of Archimandrite Antonin to Constantinople and for the release of Father Leonid to Mount Athos to improve his health and for scientific work, it is said that “The Holy Synod, finding it inconvenient to dismiss Archimandrite Leonid, according to his request, from the ministry entrusted to him in Constantinople, especially since his stay there may be necessary for immediate relations with Archimandrite Antonin on the Jerusalem matter entrusted to this latter, at the same time recognized it as impossible to recall Archimandrite Antonin from Jerusalem until he fulfilled the instructions of the Synod to the fullest extent” 213. This decree was received in Constantinople when Father Antonin was there as a guest of Archimandrite Leonid and Ambassador N.P. Ignatiev. Thus, with the receipt of the decree, the dreams of Father Archimandrite Leonidas with his personal efforts to put an end to the uncertain situation in Constantinople failed. But the solution to the complicated case came from where it should have been expected first of all and most likely. In July 1868, even before leaving for his permitted leave in Constantinople, Archimandrite Antonin received from the Holy Synod 22,457 rubles from the church circle collection in the churches of the Empire to the Holy Land for transfer to Patriarch Kirill of Jerusalem. Having fulfilled this synodal order with complete pleasure for both parties, Father Archimandrite Antonin considered it a favorable occasion for himself to turn to Metropolitan Isidore of Novgorod with an extensive letter, very curious in content, in which he depicted the significance of the Mission, its urgent needs, and the anxieties of his soul that he had experienced in Jerusalem since his arrival here. “I consider it my duty to express to Your Eminence my deepest gratitude,” wrote Archimandrite Antonin, “for the adoption by the Holy Synod of a new and long-desired measure by the Mission: the transfer of various amounts intended for the local Patriarchate through the hands of the head of the Mission. His Beatitude Patriarch Kirill, who had not received money from us for the Holy Sepulcher for so long and easily understood the reason for this, without hiding it from anyone, expressed his grief and chagrin to us. His expression: “Russians don’t like us,” was heard in his mouth almost every day, accompanied by sighs and other external signs characteristic of an irritated person. In proportion to this, the joy with which he greeted the bill of exchange for 22,457 rubles handed over by me (on July 19 of this year) was extraordinary, similar to a child’s. At the same time, he assured me that he had long been in a hopeless situation, having nothing to buy either bread for the Patriarchate or butter for the church. Even before this favorable circumstance, His Beatitude, having inquired from me about the anniversary holiday of His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, expressed his readiness to honor a rare day in the annals of Christianity in a special way. The above-mentioned circumstance inspired him even more to this determination. And indeed, on August 5, he himself, together with the Mission, celebrated the Divine Liturgy at Holy Golgotha, and, in addition to the honorable name of the 50-year-old priest, all Russian bishops, the entire consecrated rank and all the Christ-loving people of the most pious Kingdom of Russia were commemorated. On the same day, the Patriarch sent a congratulatory letter to the Moscow Bishop. May I be allowed to express the hope that after this mutual spontaneous step towards rapprochement between the Holy Synod and the Patriarch, the temporary displeasure between the two Churches will end, to the general joy of Orthodoxy, and mine in particular. Therefore, I ask permission to focus the speech on my own person and business. The sending of money to the Patriarch through the leadership of the Mission, in addition to the Consulate, which took place recently, pleasantly convinced me that my ideas in the Holy Synod about the affairs here are beginning to receive his favorable attention. During my almost two-year stay here, this was my first consolation in the above sense. After my considerable service abroad, quite unexpectedly for myself, I had the misfortune of losing the trust of my superiors. The bitter conviction of this forced me not to make frequent submissions to the Holy Synod, which apparently led to nothing other than increasing troubles for me and further delaying the matter. With all this, having learned (privately) that the project for the new structure of the Mission outlined in my report to the Holy Synod (dated October 18, 1865) was found impracticable, I hastened in my letter to Your Eminence to express my thoughts on the same subject in a different form. But even so, apparently, he did not do what was right in the eyes of his Church. At least, until very recently, I did not see any sign from anywhere that could assure me of this. But even having now received this sign, I do not at all think of deluding myself with repeatedly unrealistic hopes and consider it necessary to continue to pester Your Eminence with my proposals, in the hope that at least one of many will receive your approval. From the circumstance that the Holy Synod once sought to convince Patriarch Kirill of the need for a second letter from him to the Holy Synod (for which, unfortunately, it was considered appropriate to resort to the medium of the same wrangling personality, Consul Mr. Kartsev), I had to conclude that the Holy Synod meant to leave me completely in Jerusalem, since such a circumstance was offered to His Beatitude as a reason to contact with his letter to the Holy Synod. Fearing that such an order regarding me would not actually follow, contrary to the draft structure of the Mission set out in my Report (October 18) and my new assumptions about the same subject, explained in my confidential letter to Your Eminence, I thought to warn it with a formal petition to the Holy Synod to return me to Constantinople, but I refrained from doing so partly for fear of incurring something new on myself the displeasure of his superiors, partly because the Patriarch, despite the requests and suggestions of the consul, refused to write a second letter, declaring that in his previous letter he set out everything that he considered it his duty to say to the Russian Church, moreover, clearly and definitely expressing his desire to see me here at the Mission, as a result of which I, seeing my final consolidation here delayed, and perhaps even completely canceled, did not consider it necessary to try to prevent it from happening. If even now I knew that such an intention really exists and is ready to be fulfilled, then I would again turn to you, Most Gracious Father and Archpastor, with the most humble request to return me to Constantinople to preside over the Embassy Church. Unfortunately, not receiving any positive news from anywhere about the intentions of the Holy Synod, I am at the same time embarrassed by private rumors that the Mission is threatened with complete subordination to the Patriarchate as the final outcome of the (allegedly) complicated matter here. This incredible assumption is so hard to hear that, ready to give it faith, I see myself forced to talk about it as a serious matter. I cannot imagine that anyone in the Holy Synod (or any other department) could consider such a measure desirable. Having so easily achieved, under the Mission of His Eminence Kirill, the difficult task of an independent position for the Mission, can we now suddenly, without any compelling circumstances, ourselves renounce the acquired right? On the contrary, now a favorable opportunity is seen to secure him for himself more than before. The Patriarch will be glad to resume good relations with the Holy Synod on terms that are least flattering to his pride. Now it is possible not only to maintain its complete independence for the Mission, but also to demand from the Patriarchate greater freedom of action than before: for example, you can demand definitely established days in the week and year of Russian worship in holy places, so that there is no embarrassing need to go every time (certainly to the Patriarch himself) and beg his permission to serve in one or another of the holy places (of which there are three: the Holy Sepulcher, Holy Golgotha and Holy Gethsemane), and thus giving him the opportunity to imagine, or show the appearance that he is doing us every time an indulgence and a favor” 214. The following events took place in Jerusalem this summer: Patriarch Kirill, who joyfully accepted a bill for 22,457 rubles. from Archimandrite Antonin, recognized for himself this event as a favorable moment to renew temporarily broken fraternal relations with the Holy Synod of the Russian Church and break through the tension and mutual cooling that had lasted between these Churches since 1865 for several years. Patriarch Kirill was encouraged and persuaded to take this conciliatory step, both in writing and through Archimandrite Antonin, by Ambassador N.P. Ignatiev, who was very friendly towards him and, for his part, provided many useful services for the Jerusalem Church. It was pointless to prolong the wrangling with the Holy Synod over the incident with his father Archimandrite Leonid, but also since he persistently sought a repeated letter from the Patriarch with submission to the Russian Holy Synod and a powerful patron and defender of Archimandrite Leonid, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow passed away into eternity on November 19, 1867, and with him, naturally, weakened in the Holy Synod and the severity of the “Jerusalem issue”. This letter from Patriarch Kirill is very interesting in content and deserves special attention. “The Most Reverend and Most Honorable Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg and other members of the Holy Governing Synod of the Russian. We greet your most honored and venerable Eminence in the Holy Spirit with a heartfelt brotherly kiss, beloved brethren in Christ and fellow servants of our fellowship. Always highly appreciating the fraternal unanimity and like-mindedness of all the Holy Churches of God and constantly trying in every way to maintain and strengthen their spiritual unity and strong union in Christ, as far as this depends on us, we feel the greatest spiritual pleasure and joy every time we have the opportunity to communicate with your most honored and venerable Eminence and to express our deep heartfelt gratitude for those the thoughtful and generous services that you and other God-loving members of the Holy Governing Synod provide to us, considering this a sacred and brotherly duty. With our sincere heartfelt disposition towards Your venerable fraternal Primacy, finding the opportunity presented to us for communication and exchange of thoughts favorable, we, through our present message, mentally hurry with cheerful feet to the person of Your Eminence and greet you with a heartfelt brotherly kiss in Christ, sending ardent thanksgiving to the Almighty, Our Holy Church safe and sound from all preserving the temporary situation by His Divine grace, and arranging everything related to it by His omnipotent and wise Providence. But, beloved brethren in Christ, the Mother of the Churches, to whom spiritual direction and temporary care has been entrusted to us by God in these sad and fraught with temptations days, constantly finding in the midst of our misfortunes the greatest consolation and reinforcement in family participation and love, with such readiness always revealed by her holy sister - the Orthodox Russian Church, we consider it our sacred duty to express our deepest gratitude to her goodwill, not only for the benefits she has shown since time immemorial in need, but also for those that she continues to provide until very recently, burning, as experience testifies, with pious zeal for the Church of Jerusalem and the Holy Places worshiped here. The most beautiful and God-loving proof of this warm participation and selfless readiness to make sacrifices for the benefit of the Zion Church on the part of its sister, the Russian Church, is the alms sent annually and now in just a few days received and transferred to us from Your Eminence through the mediation of the Most Reverend Archimandrite of the Russian Church who lives here and our most beloved son in spirit, Archimandrite Antonin, compiled from donations collected in Russia in circles established for the benefit of the All-Holy Sepulchre, which is under the direct merciful patronage of Your Eminence, evidence obliging us to owe eternal gratitude to Your Eminence, other members of the Holy Synod and the entire Orthodox Christian multitude of the children of our Sister - the Orthodox Russian Church. But, most beloved brethren in Christ,” the Patriarch writes in his message dated June 16, 1868, “more than one material aid sent by you in difficult moments of trials will awaken in the depths of our souls ineffable spiritual joy and eternal gratitude to Your Eminence, who is venerable to us. No, these feelings were even more aroused in us by the conviction that by this action the Holy Governing All-Russian Synod again brotherly extends its hand to the Church of Jerusalem with meekness and brotherly love in Christ, consigning it to eternal oblivion, which was done unduely, by the action of a hater of all good, and which for some time outraged and cooled the unanimity and unity existing among us in Christ. But may God be blessed for everything and, by the way, for His wise consideration of us. Behold, the fraternal peace in Christ will shine again and even more clearly with the favor and power of the true God and our Savior Christ, and Divine love will reign between us and God the Creator, which, according to the false saying of our Lord, serves as a clear sign of His true and faithful disciples, on the one hand, to the glory of the peacemaker God, who promised to be with His Holy Church until the end of the age; on the other hand, to the prosperity of all Orthodox Christians and the protection of the always longed-for great blessings in our God-protected Church. As a result of this, our most venerable Brother in Christ, and the Jerusalem Church, always burning with the desire to maintain direct relations and communion with its Sister - the Russian Church, rejoiced with indescribable joy when, several years before this, it saw the establishment of the Russian Church Mission, and brotherly gave it a hand in order to jointly protect and support the interests of both Churches, as well as the fraternal unity that existed between them in Christ and like-mindedness is forever inseparable and unharmed. In the midst of such favorable circumstances, the permanent Russian Church Mission, which has been with us for a long time under the prudent and experienced leadership of the Most Reverend Archimandrite Antonin, who lives with us, fills us with deep gratitude to Your Eminence and at the same time gives us the solid right to brotherly offer at the discretion of Your Eminence and other members of the Most Holy Governing Synod from a pure heart and deep conviction the petition instilled in us, whether it would not be recognized as possible to entrust the pacified and put in order of the local Russian Church Mission finally to the reasonable and experienced management and abbotship of Archimandrite Cyrus Antonin, so that in this way our joy will forever be fulfilled and our just gratitude to Your Eminence and other members of the Holy God-protected Synod will forever remain unchanged. Now, raising prayer hands to our Savior who rose three days from the God-receiving Tomb, may Your Eminence preserve until your deepest and vigorous old age the glorious and eminent in the spiritual management of the verbal flock entrusted to you from above, and to the other members of the Holy Synod, together with the entire sacred Russian clergy, may He grant pain-free health and the years of Methuselah and yes will send down from the All-Holy and Life-Receiving Sepulcher of the Lord grace and blessing to the most pious and sovereign Imperial House, the magnanimous defender of the Church of Zion with all the rest of the Christ-named Russian people, we conclude our word, asking all of you from God for everything useful and saving for the body and soul. In the Holy City of Jerusalem, June 16, 1868. Your Eminence in Christ, beloved Brother Patriarch Kirill of Jerusalem" 215. Upon receipt of the letter we have cited, in accordance with the petition of Patriarch Kirill of Jerusalem expressed in it, the Holy Synod, having become acquainted with it through Metropolitan Isidore of Novgorod, who presented his letter in the report dated August 23 of the same year, by its decrees dated April 19 and May 27, 1869 No. 709, announced that “he has been confirmed in the position of rector of our Mission in Jerusalem who is now in Jerusalem, by special order of the Holy Synod, is the rector of our Mission in Constantinople, Archimandrite Antonin,” “and the rector of our Mission in Jerusalem, temporarily left in Constantinople, Archimandrite Leonid, will be transferred to the post of stauropegial Resurrection, “New Jerusalem” monastery,” and the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod was presented with changes in the composition of our The missions in Jerusalem and Constantinople are to be brought to the attention of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs “for orders dependent on the Ministry”, and the first member of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Isidore, “to respond to the message of the Patriarch of Jerusalem with a letter, which, upon signing by His Grace Metropolitan Isidore, is to be transferred to the Office of the Chief Prosecutor for delivery to its destination” 216. In pursuance of the resolution of the Holy Synod of May 27, the Metropolitan of Novgorod sent the following message to Jerusalem: “To His Beatitude Kirill, Patriarch of Jerusalem, health, peace and rejoice in the Lord. The Most Holy Governing Synod of the Orthodox All-Russian Church, sending a fraternal kiss to Christ, greets Your Beatitude and hastens to notify you, the venerable Brother and Fellow-Servant in Christ, that we have found it useful to confirm our Archimandrite Antonin, who is now in Jerusalem, as rector of the Orthodox Russian Mission at the autocephalous Throne of Your Beatitude. The Holy All-Russian Synod rejoices that such an appointment is in accordance with the desire and your measure, expressed in the most God-loving message of Your Beatitude, and at the same time asking for your holy and effective prayers to God for the All-Russian Church, it retains the undoubted hope that your love, which is dear to us in Christ, will not refuse beneficial assistance to Archimandrite Antonin so that he worthily carries out the ministry entrusted to him to the glory and exaltation of the holy Orthodox faith and in careful observance of the unity of spirit in the union of peace and love of the Churches of Jerusalem and All-Russia. Mentally kissing you with a holy kiss in like-minded love for you in the Lord, I abide Your Beatitude, the most benevolent of the All-Russian Governing Synod, Primitive Member Isidore, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg. SPb. 1869 June 4" 217. Although the decree of the Holy Synod retained the terminology of the message of Patriarch Kirill, nevertheless, Archimandrite Antonin, having received the decree of the Holy Synod approving him as abbot allegedly “unexpectedly,” as he wrote to Father Archimandrite Leonid, remained very dissatisfied with it and expressed this energetically in his diary. He was offended by the expression “abbot” instead of the more flattering “boss”, on the one hand; and on the other hand, there is a complete silence about the monetary allowance (the decree speaks of allowances only for the father of Archimandrite Leonid) for travel expenses from Constantinople to Jerusalem, which Ambassador N.P. Ignatiev also petitioned the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for. In a letter to Father Archimandrite Leonid regarding this appointment in Jerusalem, Father Antonin poured out his feelings in a more extensive and flexible form. “The Holy Synod,” writes Archimandrite Antonin, “sent through the consulate a letter to the Patriarch about my appointment as “Rector of the Russian Orthodox Mission to the Autocephalous Throne” of His Beatitude. So, the Mission no longer has a leader and it ceases to be Spiritual. What is this? Mistake or innovation? I cannot decide, because I have not yet received either a decree or any notification from anywhere. The letter asks the Patriarch to “provide me with necessary assistance so that I can carry out my service with dignity.” It’s like yesterday that I went to work, and under any convenient occasion I will find myself unworthy of my title. But I have been serving the Holy Synod for 25 years. Nothing. What to do? Patience, said “St. Peter"" 218 . Thus ended the days of service in the Orthodox East to the Russian cause of the ill-fated third head of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem, and the fruitful, energetic and multi-useful activity of the fourth head of the same Mission, Archimandrite Antonin, officially began, which began in the Holy Land actually several years earlier, and for the personality of Archimandrite Antonin’s father, not so alien to thorns and sorrows. Sove B.I. Russian Gohar and his school // Theological works. Sat. 4. M., 1968. P. 39–84; Uspensky N.D. From personal memories of A.A. Dmitrievsky // Ibid. pp. 85–89; Priest L. Makhno. List of works of prof. Alexey Afanasyevich Dmitrievsky in the order of their publication // Ibid. pp. 95–107; O. Mikhail Arranz. A. A. Dmitrievsky: from the manuscript heritage // Archives of Russian Byzantinists in St. Petersburg. St. Petersburg, 1995, pp. 120–133. Dmitrievsky A. A. Unforgettable memory of professors A. S. Pavlov and N. F. Krasnoseltsev // Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy. 1899. No. 1. pp. 59–104. Dmitrievsky A. A. Divine services in the Russian Church in the 16th century. Part I. Services of the weekly and annual circle and the order of the sacraments. With application of Greek texts. Kazan, 1884. XVI+434+135+XXIV p. Sove B.I. Russian Gohar and his school. P. 42 with ill. Dmitrievsky A. A. Funeral of His Grace Porfiry (Uspensky) and Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy I. D. Mansvetov. (A brief outline of their scientific and literary activities) // Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy. 1886. No. 3. pp. 331–391. O. Mikhail Arranz. Dmitrievsky: from the manuscript heritage. pp. 132–133. Dmitrievsky A. A. Traveling in the East and its scientific results. Report on a foreign business trip in 1887/88, with appendices. Kiev, 1890. P. 193. Dmitrievsky A. A. The canonical rules of St. Savva the Sanctified, handed over by him before his death to his successor, Abbot Melitus. (Rediscovered monument to ascetic writing from 524) // Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy. 1890. No. 1. pp. 170–192. Dmitrievsky A. A. Modern worship in the Orthodox East. Historical and archaeological research. Vol. 1 (introductory). Kyiv, 1891. P. 153. Dmitrievsky A. A. Patmos essays. From a trip to the island of Patmos in the summer of 1891. (From the journal “Transactions of the Kyiv Theological Academy” for 1892, 1893 and 1894). Kiev, 1894. P. 310. Dmitrievsky A. A. Description of liturgical manuscripts stored in libraries of the Orthodox East. T. 1. Typical. Part I. Monuments of patriarchal statutes and monastery typikons. Kiev, 1895, XX+CXLVII+912+XXV p. Archimandrite Anthony (Khrapovitsky). Review of the master's thesis of A. A. Dmitrievsky // Protocols of the Kazan Theological Academy for 1886, pp. 263–300. Quote by: Sove B.I. Russian Gohar and his school. P. 56. Dmitrievsky A. A. Description of liturgical manuscripts stored in libraries of the Orthodox East. T. 2. Euchologies. Kiev, 1901. XII+1058+XXVII+32 p. Dmitrievsky A. A. Description of liturgical manuscripts stored in libraries of the Orthodox East. T. 3 (first half). Part 2. Typics. Petrograd, 1917. VIII+768+IV p. Right there. P. VIII. About the handwritten heritage of the scientist and the fate of the unpublished volumes IV and V of the “Description”, see: O. Mikhail Arranz. A. A. Dmitrievsky: from the handwritten heritage. pp. 124–133. Priest L. Makhno. List of works of prof. Alexey Afanasyevich Dmitrievsky in order from the publication // Theological works. Sat. 4. M., 1968. pp. 95–108. See for example: Dmitrievsky A. A. Our collectors of manuscripts and early printed books: V. I. Grigorovich, Bishop Porfiry (Uspensky) and Archimandrite Antonin (Kapustin) / Publication with comments by F. B. Polyakov and B. L. Fonkich // Byzantinorussica 1994. T. 1. P. 165–197. Dmitrievsky A. A. Head of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem, Archimandrite Antonin (Kapustin) as a figure for the benefit of Orthodoxy in the East. (On the occasion of the tenth anniversary of his death. With ten drawings and a portrait) // Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy. 1904. No. 11. pp. 319–380; Bishop Porfiry (Uspensky) as the initiator and organizer of the first Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem and his services in favor of Orthodoxy and in the study of the Christian East. (On the occasion of the centenary of his birth) // Communications of the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society. 1905. T. XVI. Vol. 3. pp. 329–361; Vol. 4. pp. 457–547. Dept. ed.: St. Petersburg, 1906. P. 124; Sovereign defenders and patrons of the Holy Land and the august pilgrims at the Life-Giving Sepulcher of the Lord // Messages of the IOPS. T. XVIII. Vol. 1–4. pp. 422–430; In memory of a member of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem, Fr. Abbot Parthenius, killed on the Mount of Olives // Messages of the IOPS. 1909. T. XX. Vol. 4. pp. 298–308; Count N.P. Ignatiev as a church and political figure in the Orthodox East. (According to his unpublished letters to the head of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem, Father Archimandrite Antonin (Kapustin)). St. Petersburg, 1909. P. 79. (Department. Ott. from “Messages of the IOPS”); In memory of B.P. Mansurov // Communications of the IOPS. 1910. T. XXI. Vol. 3. pp. 446–457; My “forget-me-nots” for the grave of Fr. Archpriest Alexander Petrovich Popov // Messages of the IOPS. 1912. T. XXIII. Vol. 3. pp. 394–414; In memory of V. N. Khitrovo. 1903–1913 (To the 10th anniversary of his death) // Messages of the IOPS. 1913. T. XXIV. Vol. 2. pp. 263–272; In Bose, the deceased Metropolitan of St. Petersburg Anthony and his relations on church affairs with the Orthodox East // Orthodox Interlocutor. 1914. No. 4. pp. 598–606; No. 5. pp. 920–931; His Imperial Highness Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich is a devotee of the Holy Land. Obituary // Messages of the IOPS. 1915. T. XXVI. Vol. 3–4. pp. 408–416; In memory of the bibliographer and inspired singer of the Holy Land S. I. Ponomarev. (According to his correspondence with Father Archimandrite Antonin and V.N. Khitrovo). Petrograd, 1915. P. 57. Dmitrievsky A. A. The Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society and its activities over the past quarter of a century. 1882–1907 Historical note compiled on behalf of the Society's Council. St. Petersburg, 1907. VIII+332 p. Priest Anatoly Prosvirnin. Works of Archimandrite Leonid (Kavelin) // Theological works. Vol. 9. M., 1973. P. 227. Archive of foreign policy of the Russian Empire. F. RIPPO, op. 873/1, no. 183. Letter from Professor of the Kyiv Theological Academy A. A. Dmitrievsky to Vice-Chairman of the IOPS N. M. Anichkov. Kyiv, May 15, 1906. Original // AVP RI. F. RIPPO, op. 873/1, d. 183. l. 11–14 rev. From a letter from Archimandrite Leonid to V.N. Khitrovo, 1879, April. 9th. St. Petersburg, 1879. “I was heartily pleased,” wrote Archimandrite Leonid V.N. Khitrovo in 1889, on February 29, “to receive your dear letter on my birthday, February 19 (the year was 69”). Consequently, all biographers of Father Leonid are mistaken in the year and day of birth (February 22, 1822): Journal of the Ministry of Public Education (hereinafter: ZHMNP). 1891, No. 12, dept. 1. P. 126; Soulful reading (hereinafter: DC). 1891. Part III. P. 606: approx. A; Read General history and ancient Ross. 1892. No. 2. P. 4, etc. DC. 1891. Part III. P. 610. Church Bulletin. 1891. No. 44. P. 701. Nilus S. Shrine under a bushel. 1911. Sergiev Posad. pp. 192–193. Church Gazette. 1891. No. 44. S. 1558. Nilus S. Shrine under a bushel. 1911. Sergiev Posad. In particular, about Father Juvenal, His Eminence Porfiry reported the following on November 30, 1856: “Count Tolstoy, in my place in Jerusalem, chose the deacon of the Optina Hermitage Juvenal (from the nobles) and keeps him here in his mother’s house, so that during the first negotiations and the resumption of our Mission in Jerusalem, he would be revealed to the world, “as a great faster and man of prayer for our souls.” (Bishop Porfiry (Uspensky). The Book of My Genesis. Vol. VII). A. A. Dmitrievsky's mistake. This refers to Stepan Onisimovich Burachok, lieutenant general, writer and publicist, publisher of the Mayak magazine. (Note by N. N. Lisovoy. - N. L.). Ep. Porfiry (Uspensky). The book of my existence. P. 45. B.P. Report on measures taken to improve the life of Russian Orthodox worshipers in Palestine. St. Petersburg, 1860. Archbishop Savva (Tikhomirov). A collection of opinions and reviews of Metropolitan Philaret on the affairs of the Orthodox Church in the East. St. Petersburg, 1886. P. 448. The letter, in a copy, written by the hand of Father Archimandrite Leonid, was found in his archive and communicated to us by Archbishop Nikon, the former Bishop of Vologda. We had the quoted letter from B.P. Mansurov to Prince Obolensky in a copy, rewritten by the hand of Archimandrite Leonid and kept in his posthumous papers. This highly interesting letter was kindly communicated to us by Archbishop Nikon, formerly of Vologda, to whom we are obliged, as the executor of the late father of Archimandrite Leonid, for delivering to us other valuable letters to Archimandrite Leonid (Kavelin), for example. from Athos, from the father of Archimandrite Antonin and other persons. We consider it our moral duty to express to His Eminence Archbishop Nikon our deep gratitude for his high trust and enlightened assistance in collecting useful materials for the present work we have undertaken. Palestinian Committee Case No. 20 (Asian Department No. 923). L. 12 rev.–13. Archpriest F.I. Titov. His Grace Kirill (Naumov), Bishop of Melitopol, former rector of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem. Kiev, 1902. P. 131. Archim. Leonid (Kavelin). Old Jerusalem and its surroundings. M., 1873. S. 2. DC, 1885. Part III. P. 501. Letter to A. S. Norov from Father Archimandrite Leonid dated November 2, 1865 (Archs of the Holy Synod No. 232. Dept. II. No. 212. Cited. 13, 1881; No. 44. P. 158). Archbishop Savva. Decree. Op. T. V. M., 1887–1888. P. 33. Archimandrite Leonid calls Metropolitan Philaret “the father and benefactor of all the disciples of the venerable elder Hieroschemamonk Macarius.” Letter from Father Leonid to Metropolitan Philaret dated 1868 (From the Metropolitan’s papers. No. 21). In one of his first letters to V.N. Khitrovo regarding the publication of his bibliographic book “Palestine and Sinai” (St. Petersburg, 1875), Archimandrite Leonid wrote about this report somewhat differently. (No. 49. Mansurov B.P. Report on measures taken to improve the life of Orthodox fans in Palestine). “This work, attributed by you to Mansurov, does not belong to B.P. Mansurov, but entirely to me, written on behalf of His Highness Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich.” (Letter from Father Archimandrite Leonid to V.N. Khitrovo dated September 10, 1876). This brochure, according to B.P. Mansurov, “was compiled in one part by Father Archimandrite Leonid, who was at that time a member of the Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem, and in the other part by me. This brochure was published in many thousands of copies at the end of 1862, and the main editors of newspapers and magazines took upon themselves the work of sending out these copies free of charge to their subscribers.” Archimandrite Leonid owns the 1st chapter: “The historical beginning of the pious custom of visiting St. places" (Mansurov B.P. Basilica of Emperor Constantine in the Holy City of Jerusalem. M., 1886. pp. 17–18). “They print stupid and unscrupulous (sic) little books,” Bishop Kirill wrote about this Report from Jerusalem to St. Petersburg to his relatives on December 28, 1851, “full of the most blatant lies and hardly having the opportunity to deceive anyone. The very name of the first Benefactor of our lands (i.e., Empress Maria Alexandrovna, the August Wife of Alexander II), not to mention others, is treated with insulting silence, and thus they are placed in such a position that one has to make a choice only between silence for the time being and correspondence, which will again raise war there, the highest anger and some inventions worse than the first, the most absurd and harmful. It seems that there are bad juices in the body of the matter; let them make an abscess and let the malignant matter gather in one place. If you need to make an incision, do so at once, in order to expel the pus at once. We don’t always have enough patience, but we also don’t know how to create miracles. We have to wait." (Letter from Archpriest F.I. Titov, Professor of the Kyiv Theological Academy). But this book was diligently distributed by the Palestine Commission among our pilgrims and Russian people through governors, through monasteries and churches (Case of the Palestine Commission 1864 No. 1) and sometimes brought significant income to the Palestine Committee (ibid. - estimate). Letter from father to archimandrite. Leonid V.N. Khitrovo dated November 20, 1888 Palestinian Committee No. 20 on Asia. department. (State Archive No. 931. L. 4–5). Right there. No. 14, and according to Asian district No. 931. L. 19. The publication date is incorrect. Related work by Fr. We were unable to find Leonid. - (Approx. N.L.) . Savva. Letters of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, to the Highest Persons and Other Persons. T. II. P. 188. Archive of the Holy Synod No. 232. Dept. II. No. 154 and 212. Mansurov B.P. Note presented to Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich. 1859. pp. 98–99. Mansurov B.P. Orthodox fans in Palestine. St. Petersburg, 1858. P. 105. Case of the Office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. 1858. No. 389. Khitrovo V.N. Week in Palestine. (From travel impressions). St. Petersburg, 1876. P. 62. Archpriest F.I. Titov. Eminence Kirill Naumov... P. 400–401. Case of the Office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. 1858. No. 889. Mr. Kaminsky calls this triumvirate “smart and useful.” (Notes of worship of the Holy Sepulcher. Part III. L. 40). Archbishop Savva. Collection of opinions and reviews... P. 348. Archpriest F.I. Titov. Eminence Kirill (Naumov)… P. 417–418. Palestinian Commission Affairs. 1884. No. 44. L. 74. Archive of the Holy Synod for the Office of the Chief Prosecutor. 1863. No. 160. Archive of the Holy Synod. 1857. Case No. 4214. Archbishop Savva. Collection of opinions and reviews... P. 401. Archive of the Holy Synod. (The case of A.A. Dmitrievsky is not indicated. - N.L.). File of the Archive of the Holy Synod. (The case number is not indicated. - N. L.) Of the persons making up the current Mission, upon dismissal from it, only four seem to have an inalienable right to an allowance to return to Russia: Hieromonk Christopher (from the Kaluga diocese), Hierodeacon Anastasy (from Odessa) and two students: Mikhail Yakimansky and Ivan Krylov (from St. Petersburg), and the rest, as those who entered the service at their own request from the environment pilgrims can ask for a one-time benefit as a favor, but not by right. The singers include: two students who have no voice at all; a sexton with a sleepy and unpleasant voice; two monastics: hierodeacon Maxim and monk Daniel, whose removal is necessary for well-known reasons. In this regard, it is necessary to keep in mind that monastic members of the Mission should not eat meat, so as not to tempt the pilgrims; Due to the local circumstances of the region, it is necessary to order everything needed for the monastic meal from Odessa, due to which the costs of maintaining the common meal almost double. In the former Mission for scientific purposes, three students were taken among the singers: one soon left of his own free will, and about the two who remained there until now, His Eminence Kirill, who invited them to the Mission, was forced to respond in a letter to the Chief Prosecutor dated April 17, 1858, that with the current composition of the Mission they do not bring the benefit that could be expected from them. Case of the Holy Synod No. 1563 (according to Archive No. 4355). Palestinian Committee Case No. 43; according to the Asian Department No. 957. L. 1. Palestinian Committee Case No. 29; according to the Asian Department No. 931. L. 16–17. Archive of the Holy Synod No. 4355, and the file of the Holy Synod No. 1563 (4355 - according to the Archive). L. Archive of the Holy Synod. L. 183–188. Archive of the Holy Synod. No. 1563. Palestinian Committee Case No. 925 (4355); for the Asian Department No. 936. L. 11–12. Archive of the Holy Synod No. 1563/4355. Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Moscow. (Case number not provided). pp. 39–40. In a letter to V.N. Khitrovo dated January 1, 1879, Archimandrite Leonid says the same thing, but with a slight variation. “The Consul wants,” writes Archimandrite Leonid, “to play the role of complete master not only in property terms, disposing uncontrollably of the collection made through the churches, but also the honor of the members of the Mission and its relations.” File of the Archive of the Holy Synod. 1865. No. 3156; Christian reading. 1900. Part I. P. 226. File of the Archive of the Holy Synod. 1865. No. 3156. DC. 1891. Part III. P. 616. Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs... (Case number not specified). P. 32. File of the Archive of the Holy Synod. 1864. No. 763. (Leaf not specified). File of the Archives of the Holy Synod 864. No. 921. File of the Archive of the Holy Synod. 1864. No. 763 and 921. 3196 piastres, or 159 rubles, were spent on preparing the church for consecration. 81 k., and the costs of the consecration, including wax candles for distribution to pilgrims, wooden oil and dinners for honored guests and employees - first and second, amounted to 13,291 piastres, or 664 rubles. 561/4 k. (Affairs of the Palestine Commission. 1864. No. 80 issue. 1865. No. 23). Spiritual celebration on the occasion of the consecration of the church. Communication of the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society (hereinafter: IOPS). T. XII. pp. 68–72. Metropolitan Philaret did not entirely approve of Archimandrite Leonid’s mode of activity. “The rector of the Mission does not say,” notes Metropolitan Philaret in this regard, “whether he paid attention to the order of the men’s shelter, which would protect the women’s shelter, but with effort he penetrates into the unclean secrets of the latter and discovers them.” (Archbishop Savva. Collection of opinions and reviews... P. 424). Memoirs of a devotee of the Holy Sepulchre. Manuscript from the library of the IOPS. Part IV. L. 60–61. “The new head of our Mission,” writes V. Kaminsky, “has completely poisoned everyone’s peace and life in general. This man, with his vile passions: despotism, lust for power, pride, greed, ambition, self-love, expressed in him with fury and fury, sometimes accompanied by cunning, etc., etc., surpassed all previous and present inquisitors in the Catholic world. He demands brazenly unconditional and not a hair's breadth of undeserved obedience, tries to enslave everyone to himself, to take possession of the soul and conscience of everyone, under the pretext of spirituality, and then in order to extract his own interests from anyone he can, otherwise he is ready to wipe him off the face of the earth; raised a general persecution of worship, so that they would not stay too long in Jerusalem and so that they could not unravel his evil, insidious soul (Ibid. Part IV. L. 29). Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs... (Case number not specified). Archimandrite Porfiry (Uspensky). The book of my existence. St. Petersburg, 1902. T. VIII. P. 56. Case of the Holy Synod No. 1563, according to the Archive – No. 4355. L. 2. File of the Archive of the Holy Synod 1865. No. 3156. File of the Archive of the Holy Synod No. 1563, according to Archive No. 4355. L. 2. Case of the Holy Synod No. 1563, according to Archive No. 4355. See answer. sheet: N.P. Ignatiev knew well the cheerful character of his favorite, consul A.N. Kartsev, and looked condescendingly at his youthful, unchaste adventures, forgiving them for the sake of his talent in the diplomatic service after A.N. Kartsev’s trip to Paris in 1866 and “the successful completion of the delicate assignment entrusted to him.” Case of the Office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. Dept. II, according to Archive No. 231. Archive of the Holy Synod No. 224/3156. Report dated March 31, 1865. Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. L. 15 rev. The source of the quote by A. A. Dmitrievsky is not indicated. – N.L. “Father Joasaph, to whom, when you told your sorrows and bewilderments, he,” recalls Archimandrite Leonid, “would smile with his unearthly smile and say: “Be patient a little, it will be better.” There is a God." What could be simpler than these words, but what a balm they shed on the heart, thirsting for other food, other consolations than those that the lied world offers us.” (From a letter from Archimandrite Leonid to V.N. Khitrovo dated December 24, 1887). Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (Case number not provided). L. 55–56. Case of the Office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. Dept. 11. No. 231. Cardboard No. 293. Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. P. 30. The decree of the Holy Synod of February 20 was received in Jerusalem only on March 29. “The system of exploitation of our pilgrims, brought to perfection,” wrote Archimandrite Leonid in 1866 to Metropolitan Philaret, “is the work of one party, which has spread its networks almost throughout Russia. She annually sends her collectors to the Holy Sepulchre, providing them with, instead of a form, formal receipts (sealed and signed by Metropolitan Meletius, usually called St. Peter), stating that the things he brought from Russia were received in good order; This secret embassy explains, as I found out, the return of some spare praying mantises to Jerusalem three and four times; others, well-intentioned, are burdened with these instructions, but do not dare to listen to St. Peter, about whom his three nephews (young deacons, deliberately well trained in the Russian language) convince simple-minded fans that he is the very same St. Peter, who has the keys of heaven and hell; the sale of prayers of permission, which are also secretly given the full significance of Roman indulgences, has recently increased even more. I myself made sure that they are sold not only personally, but also for absent relatives. So, one fan boasted that he bought gold for the whole family: grandfather, father, mother and uncles. St. Peter secretly tonsures our praying mantises, but now only those who can pay him well (for example, one old shema woman who died in my hands paid him several thousand for this). It is quite difficult to conceal this, and therefore, following his example, others are engaged in this trade, so that of the 600 women who come annually, quite a few come home with changed names, without changing in any way their seductive life in the Holy City. If the representative of the Russian Church in Jerusalem becomes for our common people what Paris is for the educated classes, and now “Russian outrages” are no wonder to anyone, and all the moral measures that could and should be taken against the spillover of this evil, the Greeks consider an encroachment on their income and put insurmountable obstacles for them, deliberately encouraging “imaginary freedom” to increase the number of imaginary pilgrims, out of a thousand of them, barely one tenth deserves this honorable name.” (Christ. Reading. 1900. Part 17. pp. 227–228). Russian Archive. 1913. Book. 3–4. P. 583. From N.P. Ignatiev’s letter to Consul Kartsev dated May 26, 1865, we learn that the ambassador found the announcement of the Patriarch of Jerusalem prohibiting Archimandrite Leonid from performing divine services in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher “offensive both for him and for the entire Russian clergy, and asked for an explanation about this” (Card. No. 293. Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs 1865. L. 33). Backed up against the wall A.N. Kartsev, dodging in different ways, explained his tactless act by fatigue after a sleepless night spent returning from the Jordan, by the lack of free time before the start of the church service in the Holy Sepulcher Church to see the Patriarch in order to talk with him about such an “unpleasant assignment,” for which he allegedly even expressed his displeasure to the Patriarch’s messenger, adding that if this is an extreme decision Patriarch, then it could have been transferred to the head of the Spiritual Mission “besides him” and that the messenger allegedly stated that “His Beatitude Kirill resolutely does not want to have anything to do with Father Leonid and that he considered it useful to give this warning to me, sparing only the dignity of the Russian Mission, and in order to give me the opportunity to save him from a public scandal” (Carton No. 293. Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. L. 37). From the report of Archimandrite Leonid to the Holy Synod dated April 20, we learn that in a special letter he demanded from the consul confirmation of “the prohibition for him to participate in church ceremonies and services of Holy Week and Easter until the end of the matter” and that the consul refused him this. Cardboard No. 293. Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. L. 15. Christ. Reading. 1900. Part 1. pp. 226, 227. Card. No. 293. Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. L. 19–20 and 23. The source of the quote is not indicated. – N.L. Cardboard No. 293. Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. L. 39–40. Cardboard No. 293. Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 1868. File of the Archive of the Holy Synod No. 224/3156. L. 187. Archive of the Holy Synod. No. 139. L. 133, 134. The charter, in the original and in translation, is on file at the Office of the Holy Synod. Dept. 2, 1 tbsp. to this day register No. 119. (From the manuscript it is not clear to which place this footnote refers. - N.L.). Archive of the Holy Synod, inventory. L. 13; document No. 18 and 24. The sympathetic letter of Archimandrite Antonin dates back to this time. “I bring you earnest gratitude for your kind letter,” wrote Father Archimandrite Leonid on April 12, 1865, “and the participation expressed in it for my situation, about which if you are interested in learning more, I recommend to your God-loving attention the bearer of this letter, Father Abbot Demetrius, who, as my dear friend, knows a lot about me. Although I am unworthy, I will say in the words of the great Saint: “Glory to God in everything, for temptation is a work of art,” and so on. Although I am a weak monk, I am not afraid of my cell and consider it a desirable land; honor is familiar to me with its thorns and therefore I can say goodbye to it without pain, for I did not seek and did not desire, but was sought. But I don’t agree with humiliating the dignity of spiritual power in one’s own person and living in peace with evil, slyly making excuses for the impossibility and difficulty of fighting it, I am always ready for anything, and I am sure that none of the right-thinking people can do anything here unless they have as their comrade a person with more or less understanding of the spiritual interests of the matter... and here we are dealing with one thing: to enslave and humiliate spiritual influence at all costs, with the oblivion of honor Russian name and everything that is dear and sacred in the eyes of a right-thinking person.” Arch. Savva. Collection of opinions and reviews... P. 444. From a letter to gr. N.P. Ignatiev to Archimandrite Antonin dated December 29, 1869 File of the Archive of the Holy Synod No. 3113. Somewhat later, N.P. Ignatiev also became more familiar with the personality and moral character of the Jerusalem businessman Dr. Mazaraki, when in 1868, on behalf of Patriarch Kirill of Jerusalem, Mr. Mazaraki came to Constantinople to intercede on the issue of the Holy Sepulcher estates in Romania. “Now, I can’t say “thank you” for your insidious advice,” N.P. Ignatiev wrote to Father Archimandrite Antonin in 1869, “Mazaraki to go to Constantinople. Let him go somewhere to a slum, otherwise here, perhaps, the Greeks will make me sick” (Letter dated March 14, 1869). During the announcement of the “Bulgarian schism, when Patriarch Kirill of Jerusalem did not sign the protocol of the Council of Constantinople and was dethroned, the city of Mazaraki turned out to be his ardent opponent.” “Patriarch Kirill is holding up well, despite the storm that has broken out over him. Imagine,” writes I.P. Ignatiev to the Jerusalem consul Yuzefovich, “at the head of the Jerusalem opposition, in addition to interested clergy, is Mazaraki, known to you, shamelessly declaring his desire to take revenge on Russia for his removal from the hospital (he was, according to N.P. Ignatiev, replaced by a Russian doctor) and the failure to receive any money that was due to him (as if Mazaraki had benefited Russia, was married to a Russian, was treated kindly by Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, has several relatives in the Russian service, but remained an ardent Greek at heart and a hater of Russia and the Slavs). He is a dexterous, intelligent, written man, and therefore dangerous.” (Letter dated November 12/24, 1872). Archimandrite Leonid, who had very unfriendly feelings towards the Mazaraki family, gives an interesting description of Mr. Mazaraki’s wife. After it became known to Father Leonid that “the return of the doctor and doctor to the buildings has become impossible” (letter from Archimandrite Antonin to Archimandrite Leonid dated February 22, 1869), Archimandrite Leonid writes the following to Father Antonin: “The disgrace of the low intriguer Mazaraki is still a small retribution for the evil that he inflicted on the “Russian cause” in Jerusalem for several years... Yes, his Jezebel will not have her malice in vain, of course, if she does not repent, which is more convenient for her to achieve outside Russian buildings.” (Letter dated February 18, 1869). Arch. Savva. Collection of opinions and reviews... P. 440–441. File of the Archive of the Holy Synod No. 224/3256. L. 165. Hieromonk John and Hierodeacon Arseny, despite the order of the Holy Synod of February 20, did not leave Jerusalem and continued to enjoy the favor of the Patriarch and the consul. The latter found it possible not to rush to send them to Russia, since through him they submitted a petition to the Archbishop of Kherson Demetrius about the impossibility of leaving Palestine and returning to their homeland. “I am obliged,” wrote Hieromonk John, “to fulfill the vow I made at the Holy Sepulcher to worship all the Holy Places in Palestine, which, due to obedience during the Mission, I could not fulfill until now, and, suffering from rheumatism in my legs, I, on the advice of the doctor, must live this summer in the infirmary for swimming in the warm spring waters.” Archbishop Demetrius, in pursuance of the decree of the Holy Synod, selected interrogation points from the members of the Mission sent to him and, having certified them very well, proposed that Hieromonk John and Hierodeacon Arseny be assigned, at their request, to some monastery in Russia, and the latter, in his opinion, “could even be used, not without benefit, for school service.” They cannot be strictly blamed for the riots they caused in Jerusalem: “they are explained not by any bad intention on either side, but by mutual misunderstanding, lack of proper understanding of each other,” and therefore the gracious archbishop recommended limiting himself only to “proper reprimand for the temptation caused by their deed.” (Case of the Archive of the Holy Synod No. 224/3156. L. 176–177). As for Archimandrite Leonid, Dimitri, Archbishop of Kherson, in the same report to the Holy Synod No. 1340, admits that Archimandrite Leonid “is more useful to appoint as abbot of the monastery inside Russia,” but to “beware of returning to Jerusalem in every possible way, since he put himself in a very unpleasant position with the Greek clergy,” except for his business with his subordinates, and the return this “will do neither honor to the Holy Synod nor benefit the cause of the Mission.” “For the establishment of the Jerusalem Mission,” in his opinion, “it is necessary to detain Father Archimandrite Antonin there for two or three years, who in the present case is absolutely irreplaceable. It is necessary to elect a hieromonk to him from the bachelors of the Academy or from the inspectors of the Seminary, who, under the leadership of Father Antonin, could not only become familiar with, but also get used to everything, study the language, customs and orders, and then reliably replace Father Antonin. Another hieromonk or two must be chosen from among the simple, but kind, reverent and pious elders who could be the confessors of Russian fans. With such a composition, it is hoped that the Mission will not only be peaceful in itself, but also capable of fulfilling its purpose.” In parallel, it is useful to cite here the view of the establishment of the Jerusalem Mission in a normal position by the father of Archimandrite Leonid, expressed by him with his characteristic frankness in a letter to A. S. Norov dated November 2, 1865: “From everything that I learned in Jerusalem about our Russian affair, I draw the bitter conclusion that there is no blessing of God on it as in such a matter, which was based on lies and intrigue, continues to harm him to this day. The amendment consists of one thing: to appoint as consul there a person, firstly, a family one; secondly, completely Russian, understanding that not only a person “without faith and rules” cannot be called Russian, like a real consul, who assures all his people that Russian influence in Jerusalem is strengthened day by day more and more by the fact that he spends his nights in an ugly revelry and in a card game with the pasha. If this one sincerely believes, then judge for yourself how correct our view of the Jerusalem case is. When I put aside more that I have had for this time so far, I will once again return to my Jerusalem impressions in order to describe to you the sad state of Orthodoxy in the Holy City and what can be expected from such a state in the not distant future.” File of the Archive of the Holy Synod No. 3153. Arch. Savva. Collection of opinions and reviews... P. 442–443. Russian Archive. 1913. Book. 3–4. P. 587. The appointment of these persons to diaconal vacancies took place even despite the certification of the arch. Peter, the rector of the Athens Mission, who wrote about them on February 1, 1866 to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count Tolstoy, as follows: “The singers of our choir, monks Vissarion and Martyrius, due to their lack of education and the moral deficiency associated with it, by grace only tolerated in the choir and as singers, are by no means worthy to take deacon places at churches abroad, where from each member of the clergy, for the honor of the Russian clergy, a kind of representativeness is required, that is, a decent education and a life that is not only honest, but also morally skillful.” (Case of the Archive of the Holy Synod No. 232. Dept. II. No. 212. L. 98). Fathers Martyrius and Vissarion then entered the regular position of hierodeacons at the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission, and Father Vissarion always enjoyed an excellent reputation among Russian pilgrims here and was an active and devoted collaborator with Father Archimandrite Antonin until the last days of his life, which ended in Jerusalem. A Moldavian by birth, who achieved the rank of hieromonk from among the chief officer children on Mount Athos (1842), having been enrolled in 1840 among the brotherhood of the Little Russian Ilyinsky monastery, Father Veniamin served for some time during the siege in Sevastopol with the Holy Cross community; in 1861, on the proposal of Bishop Kirill, he was appointed a member of the Mission and held this rank until 1863, when he was dismissed from its composition. This dismissal followed a review of him by the new head of the Mission, Archimandrite Leonid, who certified him as follows: “Without touching on his moral qualities, in relation to the matter, I must say that the lack of development and limitations both for external services for the affairs of the Mission, and for internal ones for the benefit of his small community (for example, in terms of economic affairs), makes this person completely inappropriate for my appointment as a senior member of the Mission abroad.” Upon dismissal, he was given a one-time allowance of 100 rubles and was left to take care of “his future arrangements.” In 1864, Archimandrite Leonid complained to the Holy Synod that Father Benjamin did not leave for Athos and continued to live in Jerusalem, trying to “throw a shadow on our new members of the Mission and sow suspicions against them and their intentions in the Greek clergy. Not limiting himself to this, for selfish reasons he receives female admirers for confession and conversation and, meeting admirers, convinces them not to stay in Russian buildings, intimidating them with the severity of the rules established there.” Archimandrite Leonid added something new to his previous description of Father Benjamin: “This is a man who devoted himself to serving mammon, that is, collecting money and acquiring rewards in a roundabout way.” There is a significant amount of truth in the characterization of Archimandrite Leonid. This is how, at least, this figure of our Mission was known to us at the end of his life, at the end of the 80s of the last century, but he had ardent defenders in the person of Ambassador I.P. Ignatiev, who characterized Father Veniamin as a man “not malicious, but only slandered,” who has every right to remain in Jerusalem, in the city in which everyone seeks the salvation of the soul, and Father Antonin, who recommended him for the post of member of the Mission, in the following expressions: “the duty of justice requires returning to a person without guilt the place taken from him.” (Case of the Archive of the Holy Synod No. 232. Dept. II. No. 212. L. 2. P. 4–6). Father Benjamin ended the days of his life in Jerusalem, leaving an unforgettable memory among the elderly Russian pilgrims living out their lives here, by donating a fairly large orphanage for free apartments for them. This shelter was transferred by Father Veniamin to the Orthodox Palestine Society and is called the “Veniaminovsky Compound”. In the appointment of spiritual authorities to places of political importance and varied worldly relations, it would not be found tolerable to sacrifice in some way “the virtues of strict monastic asceticism in favor of the practical wisdom of life.” Arch. Savva. Collection of opinions and reviews... P. 445–446. From a letter from N.P. Ignatiev to Father Antonin dated March 9, 1866 File of the Archive of the Holy Synod No. 232. Dept. II. No. 2120. L. 78–79. Letter from N.P. Ignatiev to Archimandrite Antonin dated May 3/15, 1866 Archive of the Holy Synod. No. 1356. File of the Archive of the Holy Synod No. 232. L. 150–151. Arch. Savva. Collection of opinions and reviews... P. 457–458. From the papers of Metropolitan Philaret in the Archives of the Holy Synod. Arch. Savva. Collection of opinions and reviews... P. 458–460. Arch. Savva. Decree. Op. P. 463. From the papers of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow. The idea of ​​closing the Jerusalem Mission or transforming it into a “monastery” or monastery was later expressed by Ambassador N.P. Ignatiev. “To end the uncertain situation in which our Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem is located,” wrote N.P. Ignatiev on May 28, 1868 (No. 165 in the Asian Dep.), “it would be necessary to transform it into a monastery similar to the Greek farmsteads existing in Russia, or to completely abolish it, appointing a hieromonk and hierodeacon to fulfill the demands of our consulates and admirers there. In this latter case, these clergy, remaining aloof from the management and administrative concerns of hospitality institutions, could be in the same position as the rectors and clergy of our Embassy and Consular churches abroad. In the event that the Holy Synod intends to form a Russian monastery at our hospitable institutions in Jerusalem, it would be possible to instruct Archimandrite Antonin to enter into an agreement with our Consul, Col. council Kozhevnikov, for joint presentation of a detailed project.” (Archive of the Holy Synod No. 1976/377. L. 20). “In Palestine we need,” wrote N.P. Ignatiev at the same time, “either to establish a Russian monastery, separating, of course, the buildings needed for the Consulate, or to leave (according to Kartsev’s thoughts) a hieromonk or a priest with the appropriate clergy to perform the requirements. Otherwise, there will be no misunderstandings and clashes between the Spiritual Mission, the Consulate and the Patriarch.” (Archive of the Holy Synod No. 232. Section II. No. 212. L. 210). Archive of the Holy Synod. Op. No. 13, document. No. 43–44. From a letter from N.P. Ignatiev to Father Antonin dated October 7/19. 1866: “I wish you,” wrote N.P. Ignatiev to A.N. Kartsev on January 18/30, 1867, already on the occasion of his appointment in Corfu, “the best for the New Year. May I wish you final deliverance from captivity... in Jerusalem and a speedy transfer to heaven on earth - Corfu? (Russian Archives. 1913. Book 3–4. P. 622). “His Beatitude makes sure that Kartsev is left in Jerusalem without fail until the reconstruction of the dome is completed and all the consequences of this enterprise are clarified. In all likelihood, such a decision does not correspond to the wishes of A.N. Kartsev himself, who wants to get out of Palestine as quickly as possible. Like the Patriarch, I also fear the future machinations of the French consul and the Latin clergy. We need to keep our ears sharp to avoid undermining.” (Letter from Count N.P. Ignatiev to Archimandrite Antonin dated January 17/29, 1867). “Do you know,” Ignatiev wrote to A.N. Kartsev on December 29, 1865, “about the existing proposal to appoint you to Corfu? No matter how sorry it would be for me to part with such a Jerusalem consul like you, but, obviously, leaving you forever in the Holy City would mean interfering with your career. Whether this assumption comes true or not, I am convinced that you will crown your stay in Jerusalem with a glorious end to the tricky dome question.” (Russian Archives. 1913. Book 3–4. P. 603). “I don’t want to believe,” Ignatiev wrote to him enthusiastically on March 2, 1866, “that you would not be able to achieve everything.” (Ibid., p. 610). “I am sure that it would be enough for me to hint at this idea (the question of the Holy Sepulchre dome and French projects) for you to comprehend its full significance in further negotiations and point everything out in a deft way, characteristic of you, to Patriarch Kirill.” (Ibid., p. 589). Nikolai Pavlovich Kozhevnikov sends Nikolai Pavlovich Kozhevnikov to Kartsev to “learn from him wisdom” and direction on the “proper path.” (His letter to Father Antonin dated October 7/19, 1866). Our famous pilgrim-writers A.N. Muravyov and A.S. Norov once took an ardent part in the fate of Father Archimandrite Leonid and in the reconciliation of the Russian Holy Synod with Patriarch Kirill of Jerusalem. Their intervention in the “Jerusalem Question” did not please either Patriarch Kirill or the Constantinople Ambassador N.P. Ignatiev. The last intervention of the Epitrope of the Holy Sepulcher A.N. Muravyov called “inappropriate” and informed Archimandrite Antonin that the Patriarch had left his letter “unanswered.” (Letter from N.P. Ignatiev dated December 29, 1865 to Archimandrite Antonin). Regarding the “interference” of A. S. Norov, we have information in the letter of Father Archimandrite Antonin to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count Tolstoy, dated March 26, 1866. A. S. Norov’s letter, according to Archimandrite Antonin, “apparently deeply offended the Patriarch. He did not recognize the right of the writer to teach him, although he gave full justice to his zeal for the good of the Church. He found the expression “carried away, they acted passionately and recklessly” very offensive, and the threat at the end of the letter to the Patriarch to stop sending offerings from Russia to the Holy Sepulcher caused him to completely indifferently remark that he leaves Mr. Norov free to do what he pleases and to rebel all of Russia against the Throne of Jerusalem, if he is able to do so; that it was natural for Mr. Norov to defend Father Leonid, who cleverly took advantage of the man’s weak side, telling him a thousand things about his constant prayer for his deceased wife, etc. Taking advantage of the opportunity, the Patriarch said that regarding Archimandrite Leonid, he acted not out of desire, but with complete and cold deliberation, and that at one time he notified the Ministry about what had happened (probably the section of our envoy in Constantinople), and the Holy Synod. To prove his words, he also ordered his secretary to bring the code of Patriarchal Charters, from which His Beatitude’s letter to Mr. Ignatiev in Constantinople was read aloud to us. The Patriarch responded that the indecent actions of Father Archimandrite Leonid prompted him not to want to see such a priest in his church and in ministry with him.” (Case of the Archive of the Holy Synod. Dept. II. No. 212. L. 102–104). N.P. Ignatiev wrote about A.N. Muravyov on May 21, 1866 to Vice-Chancellor Prince A.S. Gorchakov: “The matter with the Patriarch of Jerusalem is being settled. If, as I hope,” says Ignatiev, “he writes, then the Holy Synod should not continue to succumb to the suggestions of A.N. Muravyov - to be offended by the fact that the Patriarch of Jerusalem does not want to recognize his self-proclaimed guardianship over the Eastern Church. I believe that the best outcome, the surest warning against future clashes, the most economic means, is to unite both Spiritual Missions, according to my calculations, under one heading, as I assumed. It would be a great pity if they wanted to leave Father Antonin in Jerusalem. It would be better if they left him to us in Constantinople. It will be a pity to part with such a respectable and excellent person).” (Ibid., l. 114). From a letter from Count N.P. Ignatiev dated April 10/22, 1868 From a letter to gr. N.P. Ignatiev dated June 18/30, 1868 File of the Archives of the Holy Synod No. 1563/435. L. 220. File of the Archives of the Holy Synod No. 1563/435. L. 226–228. June 1868 File of the Archive of the Holy Synod No. 232. Dept. II. No. 212. L. 21–23. Letter from Archimandrite Antonin to Archimandrite Leonid. July 1869 (“St. Peter” Metropolitan Meletius of Petro-Arabia. - N.L.).