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(According to his unpublished letters to the head of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem, Father Archimandrite Antonin Kapustin) “Without failures and trials it would be too easy to live on earth, but we were sent here to fight and work.” (From a letter from N.P. Ignatiev to Arch. Antonin, February 3, 1878) On June 20, the brilliant diplomat and great expert on our affairs in the Far and especially the Middle East, Count N.P. Ignatiev, passed away into eternity at his estate Krupodernitsa, Yuryev province. His peaceful death far from state affairs, after experiencing the apogee of his outstanding political career in semi-oblivion, did not provoke a lively exchange of thoughts and judgments in our periodicals. The assessment of his versatile and very fruitful political activity did not find its proper place in it and, in our opinion, was covered in a highly one-sided, incomplete and even offensively cursory manner. Obituaries and editorials mentioned the gallant appearance of N.P. Ignatiev in 1860. at the head of 19 Cossacks in the capital of China in Beijing in view of the English and French envoys with their victorious armies, as the savior of China, and that, according to the well-known Treaty of Aigun, he managed for his homeland to achieve free trade rights along the Amur, Ussuri and Sungari, to secure for Russia the left bank of the Amur River with all the harbors to Posiet Bay, to ensure Russian overland trade in Chinese possessions and to establish for This requires consulates in Urga, Mongolia and Kashgar. It goes without saying, and even in cursory obituaries they could in no way pass in silence his outstanding, one might say, downright brilliant service as the Russian ambassador on the shores of the emerald Bosphorus and the enormous influence that he enjoyed in the capital of Turkey under the late Sultan Abdul-Azis, placing the prestige of Russia at an unattainable height. The lively and ardent participation of the late Count N.P. Ignatiev in the Serbian-Turkish war and in the Herzegovinian uprising, preparation for our war with Turkey in 1877–1878, his advice and warnings during the mobilization of our troops, his, finally, San Stefano preliminary peace treaty - all these are such large-scale facts of the political activity of the deceased diplomat that could not be fully appreciated. impartiality until recently and demand the impartial judgment of history and distant posterity. Events on the Balkan Peninsula in the past and especially in our recent days clearly show that if the Russian government had followed the advice of its perspicacious and well-informed diplomat in the politics of the Middle East, our last Turkish war would undoubtedly have passed under easier conditions than it actually happened, and its results for us and for the Slavic states in the Middle East would have been immeasurably more beneficial than those that the notorious Berlin Treaty awarded us and the Slavs. By accepting the San Stefano Treaty, which was strictly thought out and suggested to Count N.P. Ignatiev by life, Turkey, as argued by the famous politician Charm, and as is clearly evidenced by the events of our days on the Balkan Peninsula, would have received much more benefits for itself, or at least would have been spared a lot of troubles and troubles on the part of the Slavic peoples that are part of it, and in particular, from the ill-fated Macedonians, until recently, uncontrollably striving for autonomy. Finally, in the brief obituaries it was mentioned, albeit in passing, that the deceased diplomat was one of the last Mohicans in the glorious galaxy of sincerely convinced Slavophiles who dreamed of restoring zemstvo cathedrals in Moscow for the good of their beloved fatherland. Nikolai Pavlovich had the good fortune to see, at the end of his days, the people's representation, the participation of all the best people of the country in the state affairs, already realized in practice, but, alas, to his great chagrin, this representation of the Russian people, promising perhaps to bring them undeniable benefits in the future, came to him in front of the eyes of the deceased count, not calmly and peacefully, but through a whole sea of ​​innocently shed native blood and hot tears. To our deep regret, no one mentioned or remembered the merits of Count N.P. Ignatiev for the Orthodox Church in general and for the Russian Church in particular, 1 while his merits in this regard are diverse and enormous, and we, daring to point out them now, are far from thinking, however, that our present lines are so exhaustive of this subject that nothing new can be added to them later. On the contrary, we are deeply convinced that the future historian of our fatherland, when the documents of the era we have just experienced become his full property, and the envy and selfishness of his contemporaries subside before the fresh grave of the deceased great Russian diplomat, the question of the outstanding role of Count Ignatiev in the church affairs of the Orthodox East and our fatherland will show him a place of honor next to such glorious names as, for example, the metropolitans of Moscow Philaret, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg Isidore, Archimandrite Antonin Kapustin and others. And we, under the fresh impression of the heavy loss suffered for our fatherland, if we take up the pen, it is because we express our deep respect for the deceased diplomat, on the one hand, and on the other, having at our disposal the intimate letters of Count Ignatiev that accidentally fell into our hands, in order to depict this side of his brilliant activity in the Orthodox East without embellishment, in the proper light, in his own words. At the beginning of his diplomatic service in Constantinople (1864–1876), N.P. Ignatiev seriously made it a rule not to interfere in the affairs of the clergy, he even complained to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Prince A. Gorchakov, that his “clerical department forcibly wants to interfere, as “une affaire de discipline ecclesiastique” in church issues, and even found this for himself “terrible,” but soon became convinced from experience that he could not avoid this bitter cup. Our ambassador in Turkey and almost all of our diplomatic agents in the Middle East, wherever they are, by their very position, by necessity, are forced to devote two-thirds of their time and labor to church issues, and therefore, willy-nilly and sometimes from scratch, they begin to study church history, canon law and the life of the modern Orthodox Church. And Count N.P. Ignatiev, along with issues of Serbian, Montenegrin, Romanian, Greek and Candyan, during the short period of his service on the shores of the marvelous Bosphorus, devoted perhaps the largest part of his time to issues from the life of the Orthodox churches on the Balkan Peninsula. It goes without saying that such a remarkable, talented diplomat had to put in a lot of hard work to keep abreast of affairs in the Orthodox East and avoid major missteps, wrong steps, or being bypassed by political rivals. And in friendly correspondence with the arch. Antonin, the former rector of the embassy church in Constantinople, the head of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem, whose wise advice he often used, Count Ignatiev openly admitted: “It’s a pity that you are not here, otherwise there is absolutely no one 2 to consult with in these difficult times; one has to grope in church affairs, guided only by Russian instinct and warm feeling” 3. Intense work in this direction took up all his free time, and he did not find time for rest and friendly correspondence. “Really, I now have so many worries and correspondence,” he wrote to the same Fr. arch. Antonin - that there is absolutely no time for a friendly conversation in absentia. You know that I’m used to devoting all my time to service, and leaving only scraps for myself.” 4 And justice demands that we admit that, with his talent, hard work, innate tact and truly “Russian flair,” he, in the end, managed to gain enormous popularity on the Bosphorus and do a lot of useful things for the Orthodox Church and the Russian cause in the East. At the very first stages of his stay in the East, Count Ignatiev was faced with the delicate task of resolving an issue that began during the reign of Emperors Alexander I and Napoleon Bonaparte I and stalled under his predecessor, Prince A. B. Lobanov-Rostovsky (1859–1868). L'affaire de la Coupole - the matter of restoring the dome over the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, which was in danger of falling, and the construction of a dome in the rotunda at the expense of the Russian, French and Austrian governments, served as the subject of his lively diplomatic correspondence. In the person of the Jerusalem consul A.M. Kartsov, he managed to have a very deft diplomat who was able to smooth out all the rough edges in this sensitive issue and bring the interests of different faiths to an agreement, and in the academician architect Epinger to acquire a talented executor of the project developed by Count Ignatiev for the construction of this dome, which once and for all removed from the greatest Christian shrine the dirt and impurity from heavy rain, falling on the edicule directly. “Tell Epinger,” he says in a letter to Fr. Antonin, - that my expectations were fully justified. After his departure, I informed Loutier (the French ambassador) of the draft instructions to the architects, but this representative of France stated that he only had the authority to authorize the construction of the notorious abri provisoire. He noted, however, that he personally had nothing against my editors, but did not have the right to accept it without receiving special instructions from Paris. I have given a copy of my project to Luthier and am now awaiting a response from Paris. Mr. Epinger’s letter was very useful to me and cut down Luthier’s argument, which was based on the argument of Berner and Maun” 5 . Therefore, Count Ignatiev was reluctant to release Consul A.N. Kartsov from Jerusalem, who had been transferred to Corfu, since the latter was already quite familiar with the issue of the dome, and meanwhile Count Ignatiev was still “fearful of the future machinations of the French consul and the Latin clergy” and considered it necessary for himself in this matter to “keep a keen eye in order to avoid undermining” 6 . The work on the construction of the dome was successfully completed in 1869, and the keys to the dome were handed over by the French consul to the governor of Jerusalem, who, in the presence of the Russian consul, handed them over to the Greek Patriarch of Jerusalem, while negotiating the right for Catholics to illuminate it on their holidays. Thus, with persistence and skillful diplomatic moves, Count Ignatiev managed to “end the disastrous, shameful for Christianity, destruction of the dome and its fall 7 onto the dome and St. Holy Sepulcher" 8 But perhaps the heaviest legacy from his predecessor fell to Count N.P. Ignatiev - this was the solution to a confusing and already quite spoiled church issue - the Bulgarian one. With a sense of keen interest, as an idealist Slavophile, Count Ignatiev followed all the complex vicissitudes of this issue, sincerely wishing for its successful resolution and, of course, with benefit for the Bulgarian church and without any particular shocks for the Greek church. “Church affairs are going very badly,” admitted Count Ignatiev, Arch. Antonin in 1866 - I achieved a new general meeting on the Bulgarian issue, but, of course, it only happened that the Greeks lost their temper, cursed the Bulgarians, and publicly called them rebels against the church and government measures. They were barely persuaded to form a commission to respond in detail to the known six points of the Bulgarian statement. The composition of the commission is bad...It’s unlikely that any good will come of it” 9 . For a favorable resolution of this sensitive issue, the count took advantage of every opportunity. After a solemn prayer service in the Russian church in Pera on the occasion of the deliverance of Sovereign Alexander II from the hands of the villain Karakozov, when the ecumenical patriarch not only served, but also delivered a sermon “appropriate for the occasion,” Count Ignatiev procured a precious panagia for him. “In commemoration of the Highest favor for the courage shown (at the prayer service) by the patriarch, the synod and the Orthodox society of Constantinople,” and also in order to “lubricate” (pardon the expression), Count Ignatiev wrote to Fr. Antonin, - a precious panagia was granted to the Ecumenical Patriarch. Solemnly handing it over to His Holiness Sophronius (who died on the throne of the Patriarch of Alexandria), I threatened the venerable elder a little with the statement that in the person of the Patriarch the Emperor wanted to express his favor to all our co-religionists in Turkey without distinction of nationalities and to commemorate the inextricable connection that exists between the Russian Church and the ecumenical throne, between the Russian Emperor and the Orthodox inhabitants of the East and etc., and therefore the granted panagia should remain after the death or retirement of Sophronius in the patriarchate, and not pass into the hands of the heirs. I wanted to prevent the panagia from passing into the hands of some niece, etc. At the same time, I did not fail to mention that the Tsar and Russia expect from the pampiapxa and from the synod the pacification of the entire flock entrusted by God to the ecumenical throne, etc., i.e. resolution of the Bulgarian case as quickly and justly as possible. It seems to me that the magnificent panagia is more likely to move and persuade the members of the synod than anything else... If not by washing, then by rolling, but I keep focusing on one thing.” 10 Ratuya in favor of the Bulgarian cause, N.P. Ignatiev petitioned the Russian government for support from our government for the journal of Burmov, a Bulgarian political figure and the first chairman of the Council of Ministers and the first minister in Bulgaria liberated by Russian blood. Count Ignatiev's dreams, however, did not come true: the Greeks stubbornly stood their ground. He had to not spoil our relations with the Great Church and protect them from possible sad collisions. When the Patriarch of Constantinople decided to convene an ecumenical council to resolve the Bulgarian question and therefore wanted to know the opinion of the Russian Holy Synod, Count Ignatiev tried in every possible way to prevent this idea. He suggested: “instead of a numerous council, which could lead to a scandal for the first time, or a dry written response to the last appeal of Patriarch Gregory to the Orthodox churches, respond with a short letter, instructing the apocrisiary to supplement and develop the thought of the Holy Synod orally and to lead the whole matter towards the reconciliation of the warring parties together with the Serbian metropolitan and the Athenian apocrisiary.” Count Ignatiev, for this “delicate but honorable assignment,” ordered to summon Arch. Antonin, in order to “make sure” that he is “a different person than some church leaders believe, to come to an agreement with him, give instructions, provide him with the appropriate powers, blessings, distinctions, etc., and send him to Constantinople” 11. The Russian Holy Synod, as is known, rejected the idea of ​​an ecumenical council in Constantinople, indicating for this a more neutral point - ancient Kyiv, but did not follow the advice of N.P. Ignatiev regarding the sending of the arch. Antoninus as his apocrisiary. The Greeks brought their idea to fruition at the council, narrowing it to the local, and, as Count Ignatiev expected, this council was resolved by a major church-political scandal. The Council proclaimed “ethnophilitism” as a heresy, and those who followed this teaching as heretics and schismatics, anathematizing the rebellious Bulgarian archbishops and their like-minded people. This scandal was further increased by the fact that Patriarch Kirill of Jerusalem (1845–1872) at his last meeting on September 17, 1872. refused to sign the protocol of the council, making the excuse of the need to quickly go to Jerusalem to meet Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich the Elder and his companions, who were going to the consecration of the Russian Trinity Cathedral in Jerusalem on Russian buildings, and the desire to find out the opinion of his Jerusalem synod on this issue. N.P. Ignatiev, even before the announcement of the curse to the Bulgarians, wrote to Jerusalem that “the Greek-Bulgarian question, despite our many years of efforts at reconciliation, has taken a very regrettable direction. God knows what will come of this. The Greeks are seriously plotting to declare the Bulgarians schismatics. Our situation will be extremely delicate, for a chasm will break between the Greeks and the Slavic world.” 12 Now, when the expected sad church event became an accomplished fact, and when the Jerusalem Patriarch Kirill refused to sign the protocol of the council, having gone to Jerusalem, Count N.P. Ignatiev was very happy about this event and through Arch. Smaragda asked Fr. arch. Antonin, so that the latter “maintains the good mood of the soul of the most blessed Cyril and influences his synod, so that the patriarch and the synod would not be in a hurry to send their answer to Constantinople” 13 But Count Ignatiev’s advice was already too late. The dissatisfied Phanariots managed to convince the clergy of the Holy Sepulchre, hostile to the patriarch, to persistently demand that Patriarch Kirill sign the conciliar definition of Constantinople and recognize the Bulgarians as schismatics, or, if he persisted, depose him. While the consecration of the Trinity Cathedral on Russian buildings was going on, and while Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich was in Jerusalem, the Jerusalem clergy, willy-nilly, were silent, but as soon as the distinguished visitors to St. The cities departed from it; those dissatisfied with the patriarch quickly brought the planned deposition to an end. On November 8, 1872, the Synod of Jerusalem demanded that Patriarch Kirill either sign the act before sunset or retire. Since the patriarch hesitated, on the evening of the same day he was deposed and declared a “schismatic.” On December 6, under the guard of soldiers, the deposed Cyril was sent to Jaffa, and from there on December 17 on the steamship Thalia to Constantinople. Procopius, Metropolitan of Gaza, was appointed locum tenens. Thus, from the Bulgarian question an unexpectedly new church question arose - the Jerusalem one. Count N.P. Ignatiev was terribly shocked by the events in the Zion Church. He, of course, felt sorry not so much for the weak-willed elderly Patriarch Kirill, who behaved far from irreproachably in relation to Russia, but for the fact that the Phanariot Greeks were gloating and, contrary to divine and human laws, trampling on “justice.” Upon receipt of sad telegrams from Jerusalem from Consul Kozhevnikov about the deposition of Patriarch Kirill by the professors of the theological school, headed by its rector, the great Archdeacon Photius 14 (great), together with the synod and the Holy Sepulcher clergy, with the exception of the Metropolitans of Nazareth Niphon, Bethlehem Spyridon and Petra of Arabia Nikephoros, Count N.P. Ignatiev in in his dispatch of November 14, 1872. in the name of Prince Gorchakov, he recognized “it is necessary to immediately telegraph to Chisinau to the viceroy of the patriarch, Archimandrite Patricius, so that he henceforth deposits into one of our banks the income from the lands entrusted to his supervision,” so that they are here in storage and safe from being taken over by our opponents, since we consider it consistent with our interests not to recognize anyone other than Blessed Kirill as patriarch of the throne of Jerusalem. In the form of fair retribution for the sequestration of the patriarch's church in Constantinople, a similar measure, it seems to me, should have been applied to all the possessions of the Palestinian patriarchate in Russia. Meanwhile, in order to give His Beatitude Cyril the opportunity to continue the struggle that he is enduring, it would be possible to allow him to temporarily dispose of his income and in this form give him an advance” 15. On the basis of the Highest Command, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs “made an order to impose sequestration on income from real estate belonging to the Holy Sepulcher in Bessarabia and the Caucasus,” which, through Chief Prosecutor Count Tolstoy, was brought to the attention of the Holy Synod on November 28 of the same 1872. “I foresee,” Count Ignatiev wrote joyfully to Jerusalem, “that when the treasury left by Cyril (here 60 thousand livres were found in the mine, of which ¼ was already used for bribery and bribes), the rebels plunder and devastate, then they will turn to us with a request to lift the sequester imposed in Russia. I'm waiting for this minute to offer St. fathers acceptance of various preconditions to alleviate our situation in Jerusalem from changing Hellenic fantasies. 16 “These conditions must be carefully considered,” writes N.P. in another letter to Jerusalem, “for it would be a sin to miss such an opportunity. My thought is (in a nutshell) the following: to wait coolly and silently for the moment when the new patriarch begins to bother about recognition and the lifting of the sequestration, and then present some preliminary conditions that determine the attitude towards the Greek monastery in a beneficial way for us, that is, regarding the position of the Spiritual Mission (the right to serve in Holy places at certain times, etc.) and our admirers and admirers (to terminate the possibility existing abuses), as well as to protect what is necessary in favor of Kirill” 17. “Without a doubt, your Lordship will notice,” Count N.P. Ignatiev wrote to Prince Gorchakov in a dispatch dated November 14/26, 1872, “that the Jerusalem Synod recognizes the Holy Sepulcher and everything belonging to it as the “national property of the Greeks.” It is enough to recall in a few words the generous offerings of all Orthodox churches and nations for the glorification of holy places in order to appreciate such a thought. In fact, Palestine owes all the decorations of its churches, all its wealth to the generosity of our Sovereigns and the willing offerings of our compatriots, regardless of origin. In 1880, the entire Orthodox population contributed to the Holy Sepulcher in order to pay off its debts. The Serbian prince Milos delivered 500,000 piastres at this time; the offerings that Moldavia and Wallachia shared at all times for the Jerusalem Church are known. From a legal point of view, the Greek claims are also unfounded. The Gatti sheriffs, on whom they think to rely, designate “Rum” the nation to which they grant ownership of the St. place - a name that is attached to the entire Orthodox population. The first Greek patriarch of Jerusalem was elected only in 1534, and until that time the Holy Sepulcher was in the possession of the Arab clergy. The Christian community, recognized as the owner of the Tomb of our Savior by the famous Gatti Sheriff, given in 1517 by Selim I, after the capture of Jerusalem to Patriarch Abdullah, an Arab by origin, also bears the name “Rum”. The desire to elevate the patriarchal throne of Constantinople above all others, to give it primacy like the throne of the Pope in the Western world, and to look upon the property of other churches as its property, is more and more manifested in the party of the fanatical Greeks. This party hopes, having become the ruler of the Orthodox world, to take away the wealth in favor of the Phanariots - the laity who rule the ecumenical patriarchy. Such a claim, untenable in itself, is absurd in Palestine, where, in fairness, it can be said that every step of the ground, every stone of the churches testifies not only to the persistent efforts of our diplomacy, but also to the blood that we have never spared when it came to protecting our coreligionists.”18 In order to defend and document this idea about the right of the entire Orthodox world to the shrines of Palestine, Count Ignatiev turned to various sources and many church and administrative officials for information. “Since the Hellenes began to claim that St. places in Palestine are a Greek heritage,” he wrote to Arch. Antoninus to Jerusalem, then it seems necessary to prove to the brainless Greeks that it is hardly beneficial for them to apply “phyletism” to Jerusalem. In these terms, I have already (confidentially) written to the Serbian Metropolitan, our Georgian Exarch, asking them to look for evidence of the rights of Serbs and Georgians. I ask you to convincingly assist me in these research related to the determination of the equality of all Orthodox peoples to holy places in Palestine, and the absence of exclusive domination of the Greeks. All your information and instructions in this sense will be accepted by me with gratitude, and used in a timely manner with benefit... You will remember that I have a kind of technique in this regard. Perhaps God will help, and we will finally achieve some sense, or at least get out of the current chaos." 19 Based on all this data, it should be concluded that the Jerusalem issue greatly worried Count N.P. Ignatiev, which he, however, openly admitted to Arch. Antonin. “The Bulgarian and Jerusalem affairs caused me a lot of grief and worries,” he wrote to him, “especially the latter. I still can’t understand how it happened that the entire monastery (local synod) “went out of hand,” and we failed to win a sufficient number of clergy over to Kirill’s side.” 20 Having dwelled on the “equality of all Orthodox peoples to holy places in Palestine, Count N.P. Ignatiev recognized that it was quite fair to financially help from the rich Holy Sepulchre estates and the persecuted Arab people in Palestine, with the aim of spiritually reviving this people and giving their children the necessary school education. It is not surprising, therefore, that when arch. Antonin, in a letter to Count N.P. Ignatiev, spoke about the need to help the Arabs, the latter, as can be seen from the letter of Arch. Constantinople mission Smaragda, accepted this petition with “love and readiness to help them.” 21 Consul Kozhevnikov, who was in Constantinople, in March 1873 even telegraphed Arch. Antonina: “support the Arabs whenever possible and do not intercede for the monastery without special orders, do not give it money.” “With your opinion,” wrote Count Ignatiev, Arch. Antonin, I completely agree regarding the benefits of the Arab gymnasium. I wrote about the need to allocate 10 or 12 thousand rubles annually from Russian incomes from the Holy Sepulcher to support the Arabs, I am waiting for the St. Petersburg decision. Your Jerusalem case has caused me a lot of trouble and trouble." 22 In March 1878, through the arch. Smaragda handed over 300 Turkish liras to Patriarch Kirill “for the poor Arabs in Palestine” 23 and cabled the following to Consul Kozhevnikov: “The Porte’s instructions will stop the persecution of the Arabs. You can help for Easter - 60 liras, but not in Jerusalem alone, but also in Bethlehem and Jaffa. Here the Arab deputation (led by Prof. Sarrouf) was given 40 liras.” 1873 March 31 Chief Prosecutor of St. At the Synod, Count D. A. Tolstoy brought to the attention of St. Synod, that, at the request of Ambassador N.P. Ignatiev “about the plight of the material resources of the former Patriarch of Jerusalem” Kirill, the Sovereign Emperor deigned to “assign to his beatitude an annual pension of 10 thousand rubles from the day of his deposition 24, including in this amount the costs of transferring it abroad, from the annual collection received in the circles of the churches of the Empire in favor of the Sepulcher the Lord to Jerusalem" 25. “To His Beatitude Kirill,” wrote Count Ignatiev Arch. Antonin, - was granted a pension from the Sovereign's (sic) pocket of 10 thousand rubles annually. This is incomparably more than a ministerial pension and twice what I could have received if I left the post of ambassador in Constantinople. I am afraid that the Arabs will milk us completely, but will not survive until the end. I petition for the provision of up to 10 thousand rubles annually from Bessarabian income in favor of Arab schools and the clergy. We are waiting for detailed instructions on Arab needs from Kozhevnikov in order to arrange this good deed.” 26 Count Ignatiev’s petition was respected, and the money was sent to the consulate in Jerusalem. “The money has already been sent to the Arabs at the consulate,” wrote N.P. Ignatiev. “Perhaps they will be able to use them for good.” With such support (about 30 thousand rubles) that I solicited for them, and with skillful use, the Arabs can quickly develop and take the place in the Orthodox community that is due to them in terms of population.” 27 Here, therefore, Count N.P. Ignatiev appears before us in a new, little-known role of an Arabophile. The new state of affairs in Jerusalem placed our Spiritual Mission in a sensitive relationship with Metropolitan Procopius of Gaza (1873–1875) elected to replace Patriarch Kirill and required the sanction of St. Synod, since the Sultan's berat with its approval was expected any day now. “We, Russians,” wrote Arch. Antonin, - having no reason to sympathize with those who rebelled against the legitimate authority and no reason not to recognize this authority, constantly and invariably adhered and still adhere to Patriarch Kirill, continuing the usual relations with him, and, after declaring him a schismatic, they served with him, remembered him in their church as a patriarch (and we still commemorate him), and after his expulsion from Jerusalem, they stopped all relations with the one formed in his place power. So far this situation does not present any significant inconvenience, but there is no doubt that it cannot exist for long. Our admirers naturally, no matter what, strive for St. places and, in addition to us, enter into relations with the Holy Sepulcher authorities, which we do not recognize, as a result of which every day there may be a reason for direct relations with them. Our situation will become even more difficult when the newly elected patriarch is confirmed as the Sultan... Orders (from the Holy Synod) may or may never be received for a long time, and it is almost better if they are slowed down as much as possible in order to wear down the position of the instigators of the unfortunate uprising with anticipation and uncertainty, and turn them to moderation. Meanwhile, it would be very desirable for me to know whether this is how the Holy Synod views the matter of Jerusalem and whether it does not find it more prudent now to begin its mission to draw closer to the people in whose hands, one way or another, the management and disposal of the Holy Synod should remain. in some places" 28 As for Count Ignatiev, he fully approved of the behavior of the arch. Antonina. “You acted very correctly,” he wrote to him, “by refusing official relations, that is, from recognizing the new patriarch until our Holy Synod recognizes him.” He himself, in turn, also decided not to recognize him and not to enter into relations unless absolutely necessary, but “to wait for an answer to everything from the Holy Synod” 29 . And when, after the peace letter of Patriarch Procopius dated January 10, 1873. The Holy Synod answered him with the same letter and thus resolved the question of our Spiritual Mission about relations with the Jerusalem Patriarchate, then Count N.P. Ignatiev was not entirely satisfied with this outcome of the matter. “You have permission from the Synod,” wrote Arch. Antonin, Count N.P. Ignatiev, - to be in relations with Procopius, but you need to make him feel coldness in order to force him to negotiate with him about providing guarantees for the future" 30 As a consolation for Count Ignatiev from the Jerusalem issue, all that was left in the end was the sequestration of the Holy Sepulcher estates in Russia, which he now wanted to use for church-political purposes. “Monastic and patriarchal estates in Bessarabia and the Caucasus,” he wrote to Arch. Antonin, are accepted (as a result of the Jerusalem and Constantinople unrest) into the government administration, with the prohibition of sending Greeks to manage income. These latter will be preserved in banks and handed over to St. places only through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There will be no obstacles with those with which we are satisfied, but others must blame themselves. Here the Greeks were positively pinned against the wall." 31. Later, Count Ignatiev used the same income as a means to reconcile Patriarch Cyril with the Holy Sepulchre brotherhood and to remove the incorrectly imposed “schism" from him. “It’s time for Hierotheus (1875–1882) to remember his promises regarding reconciliation with His Beatitude Cyril,” says Count Ignatiev in a letter to Fr. Antonin. – The finger of God apparently pursues and punishes even in the earthly field the leaders of the schism and the destroyers of the universal and Jerusalem churches: Lycurgus, Benjamin, Aneim, Protosynesius, and later the priest Evelpides died in the most unenviable way. Kirill is as good-natured and cheerful as ever. He says that Hierotheus will come here to visit the Saint - is that true? Let him stock up on a synodal act for reconciliation with Cyril, otherwise it will, perhaps, be seen here as the impossibility of making a decision without the consent of his synod, etc. No reasons will be taken into account, and I will urgently demand the fulfillment of the promise given from Smyrna (in writing) by Hierotheos and satisfaction to Cyril and Russia, which was offended by it. Then I will only ask the Sovereign for the return of income, etc. You know, dear father, my rule is to press me to the wall and steadily strive for the goal, and therefore you can be sure that I will not give up until the monastery satisfies our fair demands” 32. In connection with the Bulgarian issue, there is also the so-called “Greek-Russian Panteleimon process,” in which the late Count Ignatiev had to take an active part and work hard to resolve it in the interests of his homeland. The Greeks, offended by the Russian Holy Synod’s ignorance of the message of the Ecumenical Patriarch and his synod on the Bulgarian church question and the tacit refusal to share their point of view on this issue, in connection with the decision of our government to remove Greek monks from the monastic estates located in Bessarabia, plotted to leave even the Russians “schismatics.” When they failed to do this, they decided to pour out all their insidious anger on the innocent Russian Athonite monks who lived in the Panteleimon monastery along with the Greek monks. The closest reason for the hostility of the Greek monks against the Russians was the election of Hieromonk Macarius (Sushkin), a Russian by birth, as the successor to the elderly Greek abbot of the monastery Gerasim, which election took place, according to those who were at the church, on October 15, 1870. The Greeks of Athos, and after them those outside Athos - Constantinople and Athens, remained extremely dissatisfied with this election, accusing the Russian monks of “pan-Slavic machinations” and even insidious plans to enslave the entire Greek element on Athos. This is how the loud “Panteleimon trial” flared up, in the discussion of which the Russian, Greek and foreign press took an active part. The tempting dispute between the Greeks and the Russians arose with the permission of the Great Church of Constantinople with its synod and mixed council and even the Sublime Porte. “If it weren’t for the sincere participation of the Russian ambassador (Count Ignatiev), so invaluable for us,” the Russian Pantelemon monks admitted at one time, “then not only would our request and all the factual evidence would have had no meaning and would have remained unsatisfied, but the Greeks would have kicked us out from Athos, which was the main purpose of all the oppression and insults they made to the Russians. We have heard more than once about their meetings among themselves that it is necessary to calm the Russians down while Mr. Ignatiev is ambassador in Constantinople, and when Mr. Ignatiev is no longer there, then we can deal with the Russians as we please, because no one has stood up for them before, and no one will stand up for them even after” 33 . The late Count Ignatiev himself did not deny his ardent participation in this process. “You, of course, know,” he wrote about. Archimandrite Antonin - that, not content with persecuting the Bulgarians and Arabs, the Greeks want to survive the Russians from Athos, while the ardent Hellenes hoped that we would not dare to intercede for the poor monks. But it turned out differently. The Patriarch is now looking into a case that is taking a turn that is not entirely favorable for the horse breeders. Phanar will lay its paws on Athos, and the monasteries will pay. Documents 34, which you worked on together with Fr. Azariy (librarian of the Panteleimon Monastery, one of the Vyatka seminarians), came in very handy. Recently I was again (the first time Count Ignatiev stayed on Athos from July 27 to 29 in 1866) on Athos, and since the Greeks boasted that they would oppose our consul - the English and the German, I brought them the German ambassador and the American ambassador. I petitioned St. Andrew’s monastery for a collection in Russia for the construction of a cathedral” 35. As a result of this participation of Count Ignatiev, not only the approval of Fr. Macarius Sushkin as abbot of the Panteleimon Monastery on Mount Athos, but the complete transfer of this monastery was already forever in the hands of monks of Russian origin. “It was on Mount Athos that I played my role to the end,” wrote Count Ignatiev, Arch. Antonin. - Not only Fr. Macarius is serving as abbot safely, but all the monasteries are vying to curry favor with us, and the protate wrote me a letter of confession in the most humble manner. Now our relationship is restored to the previous footing, and everything is going well. Money began to be sent. Vatopedi alone has not yet been given the indulgence to “shed the fat” and take up “monasticism” 36 . Wanting to forever save his compatriots - the Athonite monks from the possibility of someday being exposed to a new danger of being removed from Athos and thus finding themselves without any shelter, Count N.P. Ignatiev, at the request of the elders he respected The Russian-Panteleimon monastery of Archimandrite Macarius and confessor Jerome, petitioned the former Caucasian governor of Grand Duke Mikhail Nikolaevich for the right to settle in the Caucasus in the Sukhumi district. Delegates sent to the Caucasus with the aim of choosing the most convenient place to build a monastery received special instructions, which were inscribed as follows: “About the Caucasus. A look at the chosen place, granted, at the request of His Excellency Ambassador N.P. Ignatiev, by the Sovereign Emperor of All Russia for the establishment of Athonite monasticism. 1875" 37 Now thriving in the Caucasus, under the skillful management of the arch. Hierona, the so-called New Athos Simono-Canonite Monastery, which, although a branch, is independent from it, of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery on Athos, owes its existence entirely to the wise foresight of Count N.P. Ignatiev. The Sinai cause grew thanks to the intervention of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in the election and consecration of the abbot of the Archbishop of Mount Sinai and Raifa, a certain Archimandrite Cyril, who had hitherto been the abbot of one of the metokhs in Beccapabia, a cunning, power-hungry man who had a very unique understanding of the duties of the owner of an autocephalous monastery. Unrecognized by his successor as abbot in Sinai, who died in 1859, abbot-archbishop Constantius I (1880–1884), who also occupied the throne of St. AND. Chrysostom and who became famous for his scientific and literary works, and who did not receive consecration from the Jerusalem Patriarch Kirill II (1846–1872), to whose spiritual jurisdiction the Archdiocese of Mount Sinai and Raifa had long been subordinated, Archimandrite Kirill, through intrigues, flattering promises and ingratiation with the fathers of the Sinai monastery, managed not only to get them of his election, but also to convince the Sinai monks of the despotic claims of the Jerusalem Patriarch and of the need, through the Egyptian government and the Sublime Porte, to seek his consecration from the Ecumenical Patriarch. Despite the two-time protests to the ecumenical patriarchy on this matter by Patriarch Kirill of Jerusalem, as an illegal encroachment on the prerogative of his throne, the election of Archimandrite Kirill as Archbishop of Mount Sinai was recognized as correct, and his consecration took place in Constantinople. Soon the events that took place in the Sinai monastery showed that the Patriarch of Jerusalem was right when he did not agree to the consecration of Archbishop Kirill, who, after taking the throne, tried in every possible way to weaken the significance of the monastery council, remove from the monastery the elders who were unpleasant to him and send the most influential of them to distant places as stewards. Arch. Cyril began to dispose of the Sinai monastery despotically: he arbitrarily spent the monastery money on his whims, limiting to the extreme the vital needs of the monks of the monastery, he even allowed himself to plunder the treasures of the monastic skevophilaky, etc. Such an orgy of arch. Kirill's life lasted for five whole years. When in 1865 on the feast of St. After the Great Martyr Catherine, Archbishop Kirill arrived at Sinai and wanted to use something from the treasures of the monastery, but this time he met strong resistance from the elders of the monastery. The refusal embittered the power-hungry archbishop, and he subjected the venerable elders of the monastery to all kinds of insults, including beatings and a hunger strike in prison. The elders brought a complaint against the archbishop-abbot to the Egyptian government, which summoned the archbishop from Sinai to examine the accusations. The cunning archbishop, however, directed the case against his accusers, and soon many of the influential elders of the monastery were sent into exile or removed from the monastery. Now the monks of the monastery of Mount Sinai decided to turn directly to Patriarch Kirill of Jerusalem for justice. The latter, after three times summoning the Sinai Archbishop Cyril from Constantinople to his trial, where he retired from Cairo when the latter did not appear, and when the complaints of the Sinai residents were recognized as solid and respectful, he granted the right to pronounce the final judgment on him to the fathers of the monastery in absentia. On January 21, 1867, the Sinai in full assembly decided to depose Arch. Cyril and elect a new candidate for archbishop, who turned out to be Cyril Rokidis, who took the name Kallistratus at consecration. On August 30, 1867, the consecration of the new archbishop took place in Jerusalem 38. However, those who were not satisfied with this outcome were Kirill, the former Archbishop of Sinai, who was deprived of the opportunity to live in grand style, the new Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory VI (1835–1840), who severely condemned the report of the Sinai about the changes that had taken place in the management of the monastery, obviously meaning the elevation of the authority of his throne, and even the Russian ambassador in Constantinople, Count N.P. Ignatiev. The latter, in this matter, at first directly stood on the side of Archbishop Kirill of Sinai 39 and looked at his case through the eyes of the Ecumenical Patriarch, but later, under the influence of Arch. Antonina, radically changed his view, linking it with the solution to the issue of acquiring for Russia the famous Codex Sinaiticus of the Bible of the 5th century, stolen by the scientist Tischendorf. “As for your acquittal in the case of the consecration of the new Archbishop of Sinai,” wrote Arch. Antonina, Count Ignatiev, - then your conclusions did not completely convince me, and I remained in the opinion (expressed by me, however, and Mazaraki 40) that it would be better and more worthy for the Nampíapxy of Jerusalem not to take upon itself alone the decision of the sensitive issue of the deposition of its old old man Kupull, and to leave the discussion and award to the entire church, that is, to all four patriarchs, according to former examples and according to what what Cyril of Sinai also asked for. 41 The result would have been the same, but no one could accuse the Patriarch of Jerusalem of partiality and haste. Friendship is friendship, and service is service. If the embassy occasionally puts obstacles in the way of His Beatitude Kirill, it is in order to make him feel in a tangible way that without our help or without our consent he will not go far. The Greeks are such a people that even though you are friends with them, it doesn’t hurt to keep a pebble in your bosom. Isn't it true? 42 “For your grace,” wrote Count Ignatiev, Arch. Antonin in another letter, I advocated for Callistratus throughout the winter, and our efforts were finally crowned with success. Kallistrat wants to do a good deed by settling in a monastery. For your sake, I made an enemy in Kirill, who reviles the embassy for lack of support... Why don’t you praise me for my efforts to pacify Mount Sinai and please you?” 43 In 1867, Count Ignatiev, as we said, stood on the side of the Sinai arch. Kirill completely, which is clearly proven by the above letter to Arch. Antonin. When the Sinaiites applied for interest on a capital of 30,000 left in a Russian bank (there were even two such notes, and one of them was squandered by Archbishop Kirill) by the late Archbishop Constantius, then, as the Sinaiites put it, there was “neither a voice nor an obedience” from Count Ignatiev, in fact, the Sinai capital was the ambassador until the matter was clarified "sequestration" was imposed. There was also no response from him to the request of the ephoria of the Russian Ambetevskaya gymnasium 44 in Cairo, regarding the desire to see her at the time of the trial of Archbishop Kirill at the head of the school, according to the will of the founder of the school, the administrator of its dikei of the monastery or his authorized representative 45. When Count Ignatiev’s view of the Sinai matter changed, the aforementioned “sequester” of the Sinai Monastery was credited to him. “It’s already been more than a month and a half since the Sinai Archbishop’s receipt for the entire amount and orders was sent to St. Petersburg,” wrote Fr. Antonin, Count Ignatiev, - and Fr. Cornelius came to thank me (to Constantinople) for delivering unexpected financial assistance (and not deserved), as well as for imposing a sequester, which saved (this is true) the monastery estates from ultimate ruin and plunder. A similar result would certainly have followed as a result of a strike between the creditor and Cyril and the inexperienced (ignorance of Russian laws, which many Greek clergy are distinguished by) monastery attorney” 46. Under the influence of changed views, now, when the Sinaiites again began to bother about transferring to them the above-mentioned 30 thousand note from the State Bank, Count Ignatiev, bearing in mind the previous requests of the Sinaiites, wrote Arch. Antonin the following: “Your Sinaites want to grab into their hands 30 thousand rubles of reserve capital kept for a rainy day in our bank. I know in advance that this money will disappear without a trace and uselessly in the pockets of the monks, but, taking into account your participation, I wrote to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs about this petition, asking to find out in the archives available in the Asian Department what purpose this amount originally had and whether the monastery can dispose of it arbitrarily. I am waiting for an answer, and then we will see what can be done to fulfill the wishes of the Sinites. His Eminence Kirill, during his administration, tried three times to get his hands on this capital, and I opposed this theft. The first two attempts were supported by Prince Lobanov and Novikov. I fought back as director of the Asia Department. The third time I flatly refused, being already in Constantinople, due to previous refusals and not succumbing to any intercession from Cyril’s numerous friends. Let the Sinaiites thank me that I saved them for the capital. A well-known case shows to what extent it is useful to resist the monastic desire to seize and spend more money. Isn't it true? “Speaking of the Sinai, you, of course, know that they take part in the management of the Cairo Ambed (Ambetyevsky) Orthodox School. The eforia refuses to recognize the deputy of the metropolitan (archbishop?) (Arch. Seraphim) as a member, and Kirill has no one to appoint except the archimandrite he left behind. They suggest that I submit this school, like all the others located in Egypt, to the Patriarch of Alexandria, because the Sinai monastery cannot cope with the euphoria. Let me know your personal opinion. The school is not going well and not in accordance with the means put at its disposal, and we, unfortunately, have a moral responsibility for its success, since the Sinaiites are of little use and they are not comfortable with running a school, it would seem more rational to transfer this educational institution to the local patriarch.” There can hardly be any doubt that Fr. Archimandrite Antonin, who ardently supported Archbishop Callistratus and the Sinai brethren, gave an answer to the question asked in the sense desired by the ambassador. For this, what eloquently tells us is that the Ambetev school in Cairo is at the head of the ephoria and still considers the Sinai archbishop or his authorized representative, and that this, by the way, excellent school, and before our eyes still continues to serve as a bone of contention between the current Alexandrian Patriarch (Photius Peroglou) and the Sinai archbishop (Porfiry Logofet). With the change in Count Ignatiev’s view, his attitude towards the dispute between the Sinaites and Cyril, the former archbishop, also changed. “Trustees of the Sinai monastery, for forgiveness,” wrote Count Ignatiev to Arch. Antonin, - they became convinced, apparently, that it was impossible to either take full possession or arrange their economic affairs without a preliminary amicable agreement with the Right Reverend Kirill (which I, a military man, advised, contrary to the opinion of militant monks who prefer war, packs, litigation, courts and enormous unrest to a peaceful outcome). The attorneys officially told me that an inspection of the estates and affairs convinced them that if we had not imposed a (much-reproached) sequestration on the estate and had not preserved it to this day, then chips would not have been found from the monastery property and would have been completely deprived of income, whereas now the monastery can receive everything safely. They only regret one thing (and this is fair) that we realized it too late and imposed a sequestration, so that the tenants and Kirill’s relatives had time to clean up some things. At the request of the monastery’s attorneys, we first lifted the ban from some of the estates, leaving the main one, and now that the documents that were in the hands of Kirill were issued to the attorney and the real estate was fenced off, the ban was lifted from all estates. Some kind of deal 47 was concluded between the attorneys and Kirill, by virtue of which the monastery pays its former shepherd a certain amount, and he returns some documents, renouncing any claim. In a word, we ended up doing what (prudent people) should have started without our intervention” 48 . What explains this duality of N.P. Ignatiev’s view of the Sinai case? The answer to this is given by the question that was accidentally mixed in here about the Codex Sinaiticus of the Bible of the 5th century, stolen by the scientist Tischendorf, and in the end, when the fact of the theft was discovered, presented as a gift to the Sovereign Emperor Alexander II. “Would you like to arrange another business for us,” asked the archbishop. Antonina Count Ignatiev, corresponding with him on the Sinai matter - in need of your diplomatic abilities and knowledge, discovered earlier? In other words, would you please help me put an end to the story about our stolen Sinai Bible? I instruct Cumani (I have so many visitors today that I don’t have time to write to you) to inform you of details about the current state of the issue. It is advisable to obtain an act from the Sinai monastery, certifying that the precious manuscript was presented by it to the Sovereign Emperor (in ownership), in return for which we could give three or four orders of any degrees, and, perhaps, 10-12 thousand rubles in addition. Of course, the less, the better and the more grateful we will be to you. Prepare the ground in Jerusalem, without publicizing too much and especially without irritating the monastic selfishness, and most importantly, tell me frankly your opinion. Perhaps with a promise to recognize the new Archbishop of Sinai (the one you consecrated unlawfully (sic!!) with the Patriarch on August 30) and the arrangement of relations between Jerusalem and our Holy Synod, one could get off cheaply, i.e., with some orders that would be transferred to the old Archbishop (sic!!), the new one - to his heir, the librarian and the most influential (violent) monk of the monastery (obviously, Arch. Neophytos). Is that so?” 49. “Diplomatic mediation in the case of the Sinai Bible” arch. Antonin aroused “sincere gratitude” on the part of Count Ignatiev, who had a happy idea, taking advantage of the confusion in the Sinai monastery, to resolve this issue “cheaply” to acquire the precious Bible codex of the 5th century into Russian ownership. “For your clarification of the issue of the Sinai Bible and for your negotiations on this subject with Callistratus and the Patriarch, thank you very much, Fr. archimandrite,” wrote Count Ignatiev, “not only from me, but also from the entire Russian scientific world, which is very interested in the outcome of the misunderstandings generated by the German, who wanted to once again ride at public expense and under the Russian flag to Sinai and Mount Athos. There is no doubt that the sooner the Bible is brought into the ownership of the Sovereign, and the less it costs the government, the sooner all obstacles to the resolution of these Sinai difficulties will be removed. I confess to you frankly (and completely confidentially) that one thing now confuses me: I told you that we are ready to donate a certain amount, and in your conversations you did not go beyond the limits I had set. But meanwhile, Lex, who went with his father, said both here and in St. Petersburg that the Sinai brethren (he refers to the Cairo courtyard) are ready to “donate the Bible for free, especially since it is already considered Russian (Alexandrovian) property in Sinai,” if only they recognized Callistratus and allowed the monastery to receive the money we sequestered to Egypt (from Bessarabian income, donations and etc.) This operation (i.e., paying for the Bible with our consent to the deposition of Cyril and the donation of money that did not belong to us) was extremely popular in St. Petersburg, especially the chancellor. Now he feels sorry for giving our money when he can get the Bible for free, and he accuses me of needless extravagance. What do you think? So far I have answered that I think it is more decent to give some amount of money that belongs to us, even if it is meager, so that we can say that we bought and did not steal the Bible. But in any case, since in St. Petersburg the hope of receiving the Bible for free and giving only orders has already sunk into people’s heads, I consider it necessary to promise less money than I originally expected. In order not to go beyond the amount indicated to you (from 5 to 8 thousand rubles), you can give, it seems to me, six thousand rubles, which will be five thousand and about 400 rubles in specie. Is it so? I foresee giving in addition 2 thousand for the Tavor Monastery, but I don’t know whether they will agree. Will try. In all other respects I will act according to your instructions (letter dated May 25). I look forward to your final (positive, and not just mocking) conclusions for immediate presentation both about the orders and about the rest” 50. The desire of the Russian government to purchase the Bible cheaply or for free - for only orders and for other people's money sequestered from the monastery, took full force. “I,” wrote Count Ignatiev, “already have orders (it was said between us) and so on for the Sinai monastery, but since the document is finally not in my hands, I don’t let go of the good things. I like to “pull things to the wall,” because otherwise you can’t squeeze anything out of the stubborn.” 51 “Why don’t you praise me for my efforts to pacify Mount Sinai and please you?” 52. “Are you finally satisfied with me,” wrote Count Ignatiev, Arch. Antonin, - by granting orders and money to the Sinai monastery (2 thousand rubles were given, according to your instructions, to the Tabor monastery)? They should have held back a little longer, because they didn’t quite fulfill it as they should, but the only thing he forked out was for you.” 53 Thus, Count Ignatiev calmed the Sinai storm without much effort on his part and acquired the most ancient codex of the Bible of high scientific value, if not for nothing, then at least for a very lenient sum of money, brightened up with Russian orders. The church affairs of the Patriarchates of Alexandria and Constantinople did not pass through the hands of Count Ignatiev. The Alexandrian cause arose in 1866, by virtue of the appointment by the Alexandrian Patriarch Nicanor, “mentally and physically ill,” of Bishop Meletius as his chief vicar in all of Egypt. The bishops of Pentapolis and Damiets were extremely dissatisfied with this appointment and refused to obey the order of their legitimate patriarch. To resolve misunderstandings, the Ecumenical Patriarch sent Archbishop Eugene as viceroy and locum tenens of the Alexandrian patriarchal throne, who, in turn, was refused to be recognized in this title by the sick Alexandrian Patriarch Nicanor. The latter, with the consent of the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem, deprived the arch. Eugene, chose Archbishop Nile as his vicar. Thus began the case of unrest in the Alexandrian church, which for a long time worried the entire Orthodox East and attracted the attention of the late Count Ignatiev, who in the end, indeed, managed to find a happy way out of it. “We can’t,” complained Count Ignatiev, Arch. Antonin, - to put in order the affairs of the Alexandrian Patriarchate. They fiddled with the sick patriarch, then with the clever Eugene, now with the lively Neil. Trouble, and that’s all! There is much more trouble with people dressed in black cassocks than with our brother” 54. “The disorder in the entire Eastern Church,” exclaims Count Ignatiev, “is terrifying! Neil, despite his cunning, did not know how to manage affairs in Egypt, and we have to agree to his removal. The trouble, and only with the Alexandrian throne, which has become a playground of the passions of several merchants" 55 "What a disorder in the Alexandrian church! - Count Ignatiev is indignant in another letter. - How can we be here to appease? Nile has put everyone against himself and can hold on with my help, but he does not want to hold out voluntarily, counting on the moral assistance of the Patriarch of Jerusalem and Antioch. You cannot imagine to what extent the mutual bitterness of the parties has reached (merchants, doctors, educated and decent people, unanimously against Nile; several lawyers are for him (it seems four) and the lowest rude class of the people). Local elections are impossible, because things will come to a massacre. I persuaded the Orthodox Egyptian communities to give 3 months to the patriarchs to enter into an agreement among themselves on this - this time giving them the choice of the future patriarch, in addition to Eugene and Neil, who each have their own small party, mutually at odds. What does His Beatitude Kirill think? We must find some way out of the ugly situation of the Alexandrian Patriarchate, which has become a playground of passions, a laughing stock for Gentiles and a disgrace for Orthodoxy.” 56 To speed up the resolution of this complicated issue and in order to influence the Orthodox Egyptian community with his personal authority, Count N.P. Ignatiev undertook a deliberate trip to Egypt, from where, out of “hurry,” due to his “wife’s ill health,” he was summoned to Constantinople, making a trip of 8.5 days. Here in Constantinople, it was decided, leaving the contenders for the Alexandrian throne alone, to offer this throne to a neutral person - the former ecumenical patriarch Sophronius III (1868-1866). “What do you say,” wrote to Arch. Antonin, Count Ignatiev, regarding the proposed sending of Sophronius to Alexandria in place of Nikanor and Nile, to pacify passions, etc.?” 57 As is known, this assumption came true with the blessing of the Eastern patriarchs. His Beatitude Sophronius took the throne of the Evangelist Mark in 1870, calmed the unrest in the Alexandrian church and peacefully ruled its ship for about 25 years, dying in 1899 on the throne at a ripe old age, surrounded by universal respect and love. Count Ignatiev considered the deposition of the Patriarch of Constantinople Anthimus VI (1845–1848, 1853–1855, 1871–1873) and the elevation in his place of Joachim II (1860–1868, 1873–1878) his business. “I can tell you a secret,” wrote Count Ignatiev, Arch. Antonin that Fomina will, in all likelihood, be replaced by Anthimus and Joachim will be elevated to the patriarchal throne" 58 "St. “We broke Anfim’s neck,” he writes in another letter to Fr. Antonin, - but by cunning he is still hanging on by a thread. Maybe we’ll finish this these days” 59 . In the month of October, the expected deposition took place, although the affairs of the patriarchate did not improve. His favorite Bulgarian question was nevertheless resolved by the successor of Patriarch Anfim, contrary to the expectations of the late Nikolai Pavlovich. The so-called Mirlikian question found an ardent champion in Count Ignatiev. He was interested in this question almost until his death. In 1850, the famous Russian pilgrim and spiritual writer A. N. Muravyov visited Myra Lycia. The outpost is here, on the site of the monastery of the new Zion, built by the uncle of St. Nicholas and served as this saint, highly revered in our Rus', not only as a cathedral church, but also as a tomb before the transfer of his venerable relics to Bar-grad in 1087 - only one majestic ruins, testifying to the monumentality of the church that once stood on this site, and a nondescript, darkened church-chapel, with a low quadrangular tomb of the saint, lined at the edges marble, but already significantly damaged by the Latin predators of the relics of St. Nicholas, A.N. Muravyov was imbued with a feeling of inexpressible sorrow. Upon returning to Russia, through Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, he obtained permission from the Holy Synod to collect donations throughout Russia for the restoration of the basilica in Myra Lycia. The money collected, with the help of our vice-consul in Rhodes. Duzzi and a resident of the town of Castel Rosso, closest to the Lycian World, Anton Agha, were used to purchase a plot of land on which stood the ancient basilica of St. Nicholas 60. The purchase of the plot and adjacent lands was easy. The restoration of the ancient basilica was also started, but, unfortunately, people with little experience and who did not understand the value of the monument and the need to carefully spare its venerable ruins got down to business. This was the chief master of the town of Castel Rosso, Carnava. The Crimean Russian-Turkish War stopped the constructions begun in Myra Lycian, which were resumed only in 1868. Fortunately for the cause, by chance at that time the French architect and archaeologist Salzman, who lived in Constantinople, found himself in Myra Lycian, who, having become interested in the ancient basilica, lived here for some time (from October 1858 to May 1860 g.), carried out scientific systematic excavations and drew up a grandiose plan for the restoration of this remarkable monument of the 4th century. But, since the residents of the town demanded the speedy opening of the church, and the lack of funds for the grandiose structure prevented its speedy completion, it was decided to limit itself to only opening the main nave and two side galleries, rebuilding the walls and covering the vaults. When all this was finished, the church, after consecration by the Pisidian metropolitan, was entrusted to the Greek clergy, who thus became its actual owner. The influx of donations to the Myra Church, however, did not weaken after that. Although Zaltsman’s plan did not come true, interest in the planned enterprise continued to live, at least in its initiator A. N. Muravyov. Therefore, when the late N.P. Count Ignatiev found himself ambassador to Constantinople, A.N. Muravyov decided to clarify the Mirlikian issue, and, first of all, to confirm the right of ownership of the plot of land under this church to the Russian government. Since Count N.P. Ignatiev remained for a very long time a principled opponent of land acquisitions in Turkey not only by foreign governments, but even by private foreign subjects, but he did not want to take the initiative in this delicate matter at that time. Unexpectedly, Count N.P.’s mother-in-law became the owner of the Mirliki land plot. Ignatieva - Your Serene Highness Princess Anna Matveevna Golitsyna, but already, however, after the Turkish government in 1870 issued a law by virtue of which private individuals from foreign nationals could acquire land property within Turkey. For his part, Count Ignatiev, so that our land and very valuable plot in Myra Lycian would not remain abandoned, in 1868 he decided to transfer it under the supervision of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery on Athos, which sent two monks from his midst to Myra Lycian to perform divine services in the mentioned unfinished church and to implement the grandiose church designed by the architect Zaltsman in honor of St. Nicholas on the ruins of an ancient church of the 4th century. Count Ignatiev in 1876 even obtained from the Holy Synod the right for these monks to collect donations for this item throughout Russia. The collectors, Hieromonk Afanasy and Monk Barsanuphius, managed to collect 3,605 rubles, which they then transferred for storage to the Economic Administration of the Holy Synod. The outbreak of the Russian-Turkish war of 1877–1878 stopped the gathering of these Athonite monks, and they themselves, due to the impossibility of returning to the Lycian Worlds, retired to Athos to their monastery. At the end of this war, Count N.P. Ignatiev, as is known, never returned to Constantinople to his post, and the Myra affair took a completely unfavorable turn for Russia. The Metropolitan of Hysidia, in whose possession the Lycian Myra is located, and the Ecumenical Patriarch, to whom the Pisidian metropolitan is subordinate, have long been thinking of getting their hands on a tasty Russian plot of land in the Lycian Myra, and most importantly, those donations of money that came here from Russia for the construction of the church designed by Salzman in honor of St. Nicholas. Taking advantage of the lack of control on the part of the Russian authorities during our war with Turkey, both of them unexpectedly laid claim to this site. In the text of August 4, 1879, they directly call both the land plot in Myra Lycia and the church built on it a pious gift from A. N. Muravyov in favor of the Eastern Church. Our Constantinople embassy had little interest in this area at that time and turned a blind eye to the seizure. However, this was not how Count N.P. Ignatiev calmly treated this matter, who valued the Mirlikian site both because he wanted to be the executor, as far as, of course, this was feasible, of the assumptions of the great Sovereign Nikolai Pavlovich, and because he dreamed, according to the nature of his religiously-minded soul, to create here a worthy monument in honor of his revered heavenly patron. “Remembering the thought of the late Sovereign Nikolai Pavlovich, who planned to restore the church in which St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, in order to enter into an agreement with the Italian government and the Pope on the return from Bari of the incorruptible remains of the Holy Saint, stolen from Myra in Lycia, I,” wrote Count Ignatiev to Lieutenant General M.P. Stepanov 61 just 11 days before his death, “while I was ambassador in Constantinople, acquired the land under the ancient cathedral from private people, the Turks, and I registered this area, in order to avoid political misunderstandings and accusations, in the name of the Russian government - in the name of my mother-in-law, Princess Anna Matveevna Golitsyna. But when I left the diplomatic career, then, fearing that our embassy would not protect Russian property, due to routine and the inherent fear of our diplomats of falling into difficulties and troubles, I turned to the late Grand Duke (Sergei Alexandrovich) and invited him, as the chairman of the Palestine Society, to accept as a gift from my mother-in-law the rights to the area of Myra in Lycia and the ruins of the church (along with stone tomb, sarcophagus from which the remains of St. the Wonderworker were extracted). At the same time, I pointed out to the Grand Duke that many of our pilgrims (as I personally had the opportunity to verify when I visited this area in 1867), on the way to Jerusalem, visit the historical location of the Cathedral of the Wonderworker. Until the 70s, two Greek monks took refuge there, serving funeral services and prayers, at the request of Russian pilgrims. The Grand Duke appreciated the idea of ​​​​transferring to the Palestinian Society the care of maintaining and eventually restoring the ancient church. Documented rights of my mother-in-law Princess Anna Matveevna were transferred to the August Chairman of the Palestine Society. Once or twice I had to talk with the late Grand Duke, who told me that our diplomats raised various obstacles (if I’m not mistaken, Vice-Consul Yugovich should have taken charge of protecting our interests on the spot, but did not perform his duty well). Since then, I have heard various rumors, but I really don’t know whether the idea of ​​​​the influence of the Palestine Society came true. The people of Athos approached me several years ago, proposing to establish a metochion there and send several Russian monks to live there. I replied that the matter concerned the Palestinian Society, and that I had no right to take any part. I turn to you, dear Mikhail Petrovich, with the most humble request - would you please also tell me what the situation is in this matter at the present time, and what was undertaken by the late Grand Duke to implement our idea? I will be very grateful to you for calming my mental anxiety by clarifying the reality” 62. The transfer of a land plot in Myra in Lycia, mentioned in a letter from Count N.I. Ignatiev, on behalf of Princess Golitsyna to Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, as the chairman of the Palestine Society, took place in 1886, and then from the Economic Administration the capital for the construction of the Myra Church in the amount of 78,046 rubles was transferred to the Palestine Society. 32 k., which has now risen to far beyond 100,000 rubles 63 and is kept in the office of the court of Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna. Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich warmly reacted to the idea of ​​strengthening this site for the Russian government and building a church on it according to Zaltsman’s plan and entrusted the management of this matter first to the Russian vice-consul in the Dardanelles V. O. Yugovich, and then in 1898, who served in the agency of the Russian Shipping and Trade Society in Constantinople (now an agent in Smyrna) G.P. Begleri. But both of these trustees, who, by the way, spent a lot of money from the mentioned capital on the construction of the church, complicated and confused this matter so much for various reasons that they had to abandon the idea of ​​​​the right to the ruins of the church in the Lycian Worlds and only present their rights to the land plot. But in this regard, we encountered great difficulties on the part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which was extremely undesirable to see this site in the hands of the Russians. The Patriarchate, not without intent, suggested to the Turkish government that the Russian plot should be recognized as having “lost its owners, due to the fact that, since its acquisition, it had not been processed and was subject, according to existing laws on land ownership, to sequestration and included in the cadastre in the name of the government,” which, moreover, for its part, recognized its supposedly important “strategic importance.” A new attempt to interest our Constantinople embassy in this area on the part of the Palestine Society was made in 1894, but a letter on this matter from fellow chairman Lieutenant General M.P. Stepanov remained unanswered by the embassy. Nowadays we might not even be able to talk about the Myralikian Russian site, since our rights to it have undoubtedly been lost, if the sad events of the most recent times had not reminded us of it. According to private letters to us from the agent of the Russian Shipping and Trade Society in Smyrna, G.P. Begleri, dated November 6 and December 22, 1908, “the Turks attacked the local (in Myra Lycian) Church of St. Nicholas, desecrated many icons and took away an ancient slab on which crosses and the year of the church’s foundation were carved” 64. This very sad news about the fate of the church, associated with the name of St. Nicholas of Christ, highly revered in Russia not only by the Orthodox, but also by the pagans, is curious in the sense that the abbot of the Myra Church, who rebelled for the desecration of a shrine revered by Christians, in his grief resorted for help to the Russian vice-consul in Rhodes, and this latter brought it to the attention of the Russian ambassador in Constantinople. Isn’t this a tacit recognition of Russia’s rights to a plot of land in Myra Lycia, and doesn’t our Constantinople embassy recognize it as timely to again now raise the question of legal rights to it? A solution to this issue in a favorable direction for us would, we have no doubt, be welcomed with great joy in Russia by all admirers of St. Nicholas of Christ, and would bring “calmness” to the immortal spirit of Count N.P. Ignatiev, who during his lifetime awaited a favorable resolution “with anxiety.” But the most outstanding merit of Count N.P. Ignatiev for the benefit of the Orthodox Church in general and the Russian Church in particular should be recognized as sending Arch. Antonin Kapustin to Jerusalem, who, with his powerful support, during his more than 25-year stay there managed to provide enormous and forever unforgettable services to the Russian Church and his fatherland. Transferred from Athens to Constantinople, at the request of Metropolitan Philaret 65, “for the benefit of church affairs,” Arch. Antonin found himself in the most ebullient whirlpool of church life and, due to the nature of his lively, responsive temperament, plunged into it, so to speak, headlong. By the time Count N.P. Ignatiev, architect, was appointed ambassador to Constantinople. Antonin was already a very competent expert on local church affairs and a very useful employee for a diplomat, volens nolens forced to become the arbiter of many church affairs. Count N.P. Ignatiev appreciated it as an architect. Antonina, first of all, his innate diplomatic tact and flexible, insightful mind. “Reading your letter, I,” Count Ignatiev once confessed to Antonin, “was even more convinced of your diplomatic abilities. Filaretov's subtleties and omissions. I am convinced that you will get along with everyone and, pardon the expression, if necessary, you will wrap everyone around your finger." 66 “With your characteristic eloquence, power of persuasion, quiet insinuation and undoubted diplomatic talent, you,” Count Ignatiev wrote to him in another letter, “will not manage to convince the Patriarch (Kirill), at the right opportunity, to put an end to a matter intolerable both for him and for us, that is, by statements on paper that in the case of the arch. Leonid (Kavelin) had no intention of offending the Russian Church” 67. “Your exploits, described in the letter of December 18,” says Count Ignatiev regarding the transportation of the bell from Jaffa to Jerusalem, sincerely and sincerely pleased me. So, the bell rings safely in Jerusalem! They did a great job - they proved that everything is possible for the Russians. We must expect, however, that the Turks, and especially the Latins, will get busy and throw away some kind of thing so as not to lose money. May God grant you to continue on your valiant path. Tea now Valerga (Catholic Patriarch) is starting to bite you. Even though he is quiet in appearance, he will say, but poorer than the militant archimandrite." 68. "The story about the Betjal incident (the clash with Catholics over an Orthodox Arab), - admitted N.P. Ignatiev, - interested me, but I foresee the outcome. The opposition you encountered is not new. The matter can be continued with them little by little, but the unity should not be violated. The Greeks and we are one church family, and, perhaps, Valerga will notice the discord and laugh. Your opinion about the two doctors is completely valid. I see that even in the diplomatic department (which, as you know, I never doubted) you are suitable as Valerga’s rival." 69 In addition to his natural diplomatic tact and his deep familiarity with Eastern church affairs, Count Ignatiev, as a devout Russian Orthodox man, appreciated his high religious disposition and his ability to masterfully wield the pen. “Thank you for your warm greetings from the Holy City,” writes Count Ignatiev after separation from Father Archbishop Antonin. “Of course, nothing can replace an oral conversation with you, but at least a correspondence exchange of thoughts will give me some consolation.” 70 “During Lent, your absence is felt even more heavily,” admits N.P. Ignatiev. I’m ashamed to confess, but I don’t want to fast, somehow my soul is not in the mood to confess, asks you to be a witness and does not willingly accept another spiritual father. Will you come back to us someday? More than once I have complained to myself that I succumbed to the idea of ​​​​settling the discord and removing temptation from Jerusalem.” 71 “We fasted during Holy Week and I,” Nikolai Pavlovich confesses frankly, “overcame the embarrassment caused by your absence. A test of sorts!” 72. “You are a master at writing,” Count N.P. Ignatiev attests to Arch. Antonin, “both learned, and deep, and entertaining and diplomatic.” 73 “Thank you for the official reply on April 4, but even more so for the friendly letter on April 8,” writes Count Ignatiev. – The first’s masterful presentation will come in handy when I forward the expected response from the Patriarch (Kirill) to St. Petersburg. The books are in your hands. It’s fitting that the “acquaintance” (as Metropolitan Filaret of Moscow is always called in correspondence) is wary of you and is afraid to give you a go, so as not to outdo him” 74 . “After the death of Philaret, we have no one, in my opinion,” Nikolai Petrovich admitted, “able to formulate and express opinions for the Holy Synod in various sensitive cases and responses to patriarchal letters, addresses of the Synod, etc. Who will undertake to write so diplomatically and so crookedly (is it?), but at the same time as Orthodox as you” 75 . The qualities of the mind, heart and high spiritual disposition of Father Arch. Antonin that we noted brought him closer to Count N.P. Ignatiev, who “spiritually became attached to him” 76 and “deeply and sincerely loved and respected” 77 . In the absence of Father Archimandrite Antonin, when he was in Jerusalem, Nikolai Pavlovich “sighed for him” 78, “very often remembered and grieved about his absence”, “regretted” that he “decidedly had no one to consult with in difficult times” 79, even “bitterly repented” 80 that in his “self-sacrifice”, “to establish peace and silence in St. Grade" 81, he went so far that he removed him from himself at such a distance. It is not surprising, therefore, that Nikolai Pavlovich constantly lived with the “hope” of “reacquiring and returning, at least temporarily,” Father Antonin 82 to Constantinople, and this desire, by his own admission, “becomes selfishness” 83. With such feelings for Father Antonin, Count N.P. Ignatiev, throughout his short-term political service in the Middle East, became his “sincerely devoted” 84 friend, “by conviction and attraction of the heart” 85, and even “lawyer” before the highest spiritual authorities and the Asian Department, in view of his almost continuous roughness in relations with the Jerusalem consulate. “Even on my last visit to St. Petersburg, I scolded because of you,” Count Ignatiev wrote to Father Antonin, “in the Asian Department, accusing me of constantly pandering to you - of wanting to humiliate consular dignity. It’s a sin for you to complain about me in any way and to confuse St. Petersburg’s views with mine.” 86 Even the “quarrelsome mood” 87 that often visited Father Antonin during his service in St. Grade, did not in the least violate N.P. Ignatiev’s good relations with him, and the latter continued to “love him in the old way” 88. Heartfelt friendly feelings towards Father Antonin did not prevent Count N.P. Ignatiev from repeatedly expressing his disapproval of his actions and actions, which were at odds with his personal views and beliefs. In the difficult moments of Father Arch. Antonin’s life, Count N.P. Ignatiev hastens to inspire him, dispel his inherent gloomy skeptical view of the question that worries him and infuse a spirit of cheerfulness for calm and fruitful work for the benefit of the saint. church and fatherland, and on occasion, fatherly scold him. “If our brother, a secular figure, struggling with all sorts of obstacles and failures, does not grow cold towards the cause and does not lose heart,” wrote Count Ignatiev to Father Antonin regarding his reluctance to draw up a project for a Russian monastery in Jerusalem and convince Patriarch Kirill to send a conciliatory letter to our Holy Synod, “then shame on you, a pastor and spiritual warrior, to fall into apathy, into indifferentism and not doing everything possible to help achieve our common benefit. It's a shame and not good, oh. Archimandrite, and I didn’t expect this from you!” 89. “Stay awake in Jerusalem, do your job with calculation and tact, but the matter will not be left to us. If you don’t have the funds, it’s unfortunate,” says Count Ignatiev regarding the land acquisitions of Fr. Antonina in Palestine, - but I can say that they don’t give them to me either, which does not prevent me, however, from constantly fighting, not counting on anyone’s help, because in our north they only want peace and absence of affairs in the East” 90. It hardly needs to be added that with these benevolent and friendly feelings of our omnipotent ambassador in Constantinople, Count N.P. Ignatiev, Fr. Archimandrite Antonin greatly valued them and used them for the success of the Russian cause in the Orthodox East throughout his service in the East, not only with gratitude, but also with great benefit. The real good results of these feelings were felt only after the blessed death of Arch. Antonina. As head of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem, Arch. Antonin, as you know, found himself unexpectedly for himself. When the “disorders in the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission” and the relationship of its former third chief, Archimandrite Leonid Kavelin, with the Jerusalem Patriarch Kirill II became extremely aggravated, Count N.P. Ignatiev proposed to the Holy Synod, in order to pacify matters in Jerusalem and to carry out an investigation in the Spiritual Mission, to send Fr. Archimandrite Antonin, who was at that time on his scientific journey through Rumelia and Thessaly. The Holy Synod, or rather the Moscow Metropolitan Philaret, who entirely stood on the side of Archimandrite Leonid, reluctantly agreed to have Father Antonin in the role of “mediator and conciliator”, since, for some reasons, he doubted that the latter, “acting modestly and peacefully, would decide to say some firm words to the patriarch in order to resolve his prejudices against Archimandrite Leonid and to the consul to explain to him the incorrectness of accepting denunciations transmitted from him and the investigation” 91. Nevertheless, yielding to the wishes of the Constantinople ambassador Count Ignatiev, on the one hand, and on the other, recognizing in Archimandrite Antonin, “serving with signs of dignity and with the hope of a more significant and more useful service, undoubted merits,” Metropolitan Philaret agreed to give him this delicate assignment, i.e., carrying out an investigation in the Jerusalem Mission, and then even allowed him to “accept mission and manage it, learning from the unfortunate experience of his predecessor the rules of caution” 92. “You, of course, remember my correspondence with St. Petersburg, which I,” wrote Count Ignatiev regarding this business trip of Archimandrite Antonin, “showed you last spring, when it came to your trip to Jerusalem. In mid-May, to prevent a clash between the Holy Synod and the Patriarch and unpleasant correspondence between them regarding what happened in the Jerusalem Mission, and most importantly, the ban imposed on Fr. Leonidas, 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 speak with him personally and confidentially, and then to mention that you could be entrusted with 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 Fr. Leonidas, and did not only allow him to serve in holy places for a while, and that Fr. the archimandrite continues to officiate 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 had no intention of offending 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 patriarch’s frivolous act regarding Fr. Leonid and determining the future relations of His Beatitude to the Russian Spiritual 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” 93. Soon, however, it became known that on this business trip Fr. Antonin in the Synod are unhappy. “It has come to my attention,” he wrote completely confidentially (in the same letter) to Fr. Antonin, Count Ignatiev, - that the Holy Synod and the Chief Prosecutor are indignant with me, that when you left Constantinople, I did not give you a formal instruction 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 Fr. Leonida. Yours are also unhappy because you yourself, but thought to talk about it with the patriarch and did not come up with any satisfaction or solution (in clerical language - one piece of paper is not enough to create a file in the archive). They reproach you for the fact that in your long report you did not say anything to the Holy Synod about the clash that took place between the patriarch and Fr. 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 an explanation for everything, calm the agitated baseness (there are more of them in the spiritual department than in ours: they just get into a 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 you allow a personal quarrel between the patriarch and Fr. Leonid grew to the point of a gap between the Synod and the Patriarch. In order to help the trouble - while there is still an opportunity - would you consider it possible, in the form of an addition to your report to the Holy Synod, to write to me (I am acting involuntarily against the rule. The Holy Synod is involving 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 Leonidas... and why I did not tell the Holy Synod anything about my negotiations on this subject with His Beatitude, and also, what ending can be given to this unfortunate issue in accordance with the dignity of the Russian Church, etc.” It would be desirable that, having said that you spoke about it with the patriarch and with various personalities, you 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 a reproach was expressed to me regarding your silence, I answered Prince Gorchakov that I find it strange that the spiritual department forcibly wants to interfere with me as une affaire de discipline ecclesiastique, and that makes me responsible for the silence of the archimandrite, who has a special assignment from the Holy Synod (in a word, asked a good lesson) that, however, this time all I can do is ask you in a private confidential letter about the reason for the observed silence about the specified circumstance and about your opinion regarding the best outcome of the matter. To this I added that, although the reasons for your silence until now are, 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 frozen water on the reader (Metropolitan Philaret) in St. Petersburg” 94. Arch. Antonin carried out the friendly advice of Count N.P. Ignatiev quickly and exactly, and for his “official reply” (dated April 4) he received from Ignatiev not only gratitude, but even flattering certification. The reply was recognized as a “masterful presentation.” “Serves it right,” adds Count Ignatiev, “my acquaintance (i.e., Metropolitan Philaret), is wary of you and is afraid to give you a go, so as not to outdo you!” 95. However, Fr. should have done differently. arch. Antonin could not, since the news that reached him from St. Petersburg about dissatisfaction with his investigation into the affairs of the Spiritual Mission, and most importantly, his extensive report to the Synod on this matter, greatly disturbed him. As can be seen from the letter to Count N.P. Ignatiev, alarming rumors from St. Petersburg plunged Fr. Antonina is even completely despondent. “Remember, oh. Archimandrite,” Count Nikolai Pavlovich wrote in consolation, “as I persuaded you, when you were still in Constantinople, before your trip to Athos, not to write yourself about the unification of the two Missions under one of your leadership, predicting the impression and response of an acquaintance (the count’s italics). Apparently I know him and your leaders in general better than the monastics. I prefer to conduct this matter through the Ministry of Foreign 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 get better. How did I “ruin your little head”? as you put it. On the contrary, I helped you as much as I could. They would have raised a storm if they had sent a projector from Constantinople! If I were with you in Jerusalem, of course, I would try to persuade you to let some things out of the report. But you are so brave that it’s just a disaster!” 96. The case of the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission and Patriarch Kirill II greatly worried Count Ignatiev. “To return to the investigation entrusted to you, explain to me,” he asked Arch. Antonina, - who is your acquaintance pointing at, pointing out that you accused the governor out of pleasure to a caustic 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 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 two so-called spiritual Missions. It must be assumed that upon receipt of the patriarch's response, the issue will be resolved immediately. One way or another, the friend will prevail! Although a final decision is desirable, in this mood I would prefer a long delay until my trip to St. Petersburg. Having visited Moscow personally, I might have persuaded him, using my previous acquaintance.”97 The case about Fr. arch. Leonidas and the unrest under him in the Jerusalem Mission lasted, as is known, until the death of Metropolitan Philaret and only with his death did it begin to be liquidated. Metropolitan Philaret all the time energetically insisted on receiving a letter of apology from Patriarch Kirill of Jerusalem, who, for his part, without admitting any particular guilt, hesitated in sending it. In Russia they wanted the restoration of the allegedly trampled on in the person of its representative, Arch. Leonid of the honor of the Russian Church and were waiting for a letter from the patriarch with the justification of Fr. Leonida. Consul Karpov, as an obviously hostile arch. Leonidas was demanded to be removed from Jerusalem, considering this as “apparent satisfaction.” Count Ignatiev and Arch. Antonin were claimed for their impartial and correct attitude towards this matter” 98. “Since, despite your high Christian virtues, you,” Count Ignatiev wrote to Father Antonin, upon his return from Russia, “due to the weakness inherent in man, prefer to all stories about my adventures or political considerations, the communication of news that concerns you personally, I will limit myself for the first time to conveying what I know about the opinion of the Holy Synod regarding the pacification of the Jerusalem and Constantinople Missions and indicating the means to achieve your arrival in Constantinople as soon as possible. The shore is close! It depends on you to reach his mainland sooner or later. First of all, I’ll tell you a secret that Count Tolstoy (Chief Prosecutor) and the Novgorod Metropolitan continue to be angry with the Patriarch of Jerusalem for the excommunication of Fr. Leonid and for the correspondence with the Synod, indecent (in our words), and to complain about you for the Catholic decrees, for the diplomatic report and for the stubbornness of the patriarch. It was decided: 1) to leave you, at least in Jerusalem, 2) until the patriarch apologizes to St. The Synod, “the Russian Church, for insulting it in the person of “Leonid”, leave Archimandrite Leonid in Constantinople, and you in Jerusalem in the current uncertain situation. I became, by conviction and desire of my heart, your lawyer. After repeated disputes, they promised me to release you from Jerusalem if your health makes you wish to return to Constantinople, or if you prefer to be in Byzantium.... The challenge of Fr. Leonida, the final 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.) so that, although in passing, he definitely expresses regret “that misunderstandings could arise between the Jerusalem and Russian Churches and that His Beatitude could arouse the displeasure of the Holy Synod with his action regarding Fr. Leonid, while it would never have occurred to him to offend our church, etc.” I am promised that if the weakest apology in this sense is found in the patriarch’s letter, then our proud hierarchs (and especially the loud prosecutor) will have mercy and will immediately remove Fr. Leonidas the title of head of the Jerusalem Mission and will manage the final arrangement of the affairs of our two disorganized 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, when the opportunity arises, to put an end to this unbearable matter for him and for 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 idea of ​​insulting the Russian Church, and that his rash act did not relate to the Synod, but personally to Fr. 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. Let it be said between us, 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 of ​​including the desired phrases in writing with notification of the receipt of money, so that he will not even notice from here why and how this advice was given” 99 This letter was understood in Jerusalem by Fr. Antonin in the sense that his fate was, as it were, predetermined by the Holy Synod, that is, that he needed to stay forever in Jerusalem. “From your letter of April 30, I see,” Count Ignatiev wrote to him, “that either I expressed myself poorly in my letter, or you did not understand me, but I did not even think of announcing to you that it has been decided (by the Holy Synod) to now leave you in Jerusalem in any case. Such an assumption really existed, but I think that I dispelled such a plan, and, on the contrary, convinced the majority of influential persons (in such matters) of the need either to return you to us, that is, to the inhabitants of Constantinople, on the terms known to you, or to call you to Russia and dedicate you to (diplomatic) relations with the Eastern Church, since, after the death of Philaret, we have no one, in my opinion, capable of drawing up and expressing for the Holy Church. The Synod’s opinion in various sensitive cases and responses to the patriarchal letters, the Synod’s appeal, etc. Who would undertake to write so diplomatically and so crookedly (is it?), but at the same time as Orthodox as you” 100. Count Ignatiev strained all his efforts to reconcile Patriarch Kirill of Jerusalem with the Holy Synod, pleasing the patriarch and asking for all kinds of assistance in this important matter from Fr. arch. Antonin, who was on friendly terms with Patriarch Kirill. “Trying to bring out in the most vivid image the cry of the patriarch, I,” writes Count Ignatiev, Fr. Antonin, - once again (the 10th, it seems) suggested that the Holy Synod take advantage of the presenting opportunity for final reconciliation and forgetting of the past. I don’t know whether this time my most Christian admonitions will have an effect on the members of the Holy Synod.” 101 In order to win over Patriarch Kirill to compliance and to gild the bitter pill for him - an apologetic letter to the Holy Synod that was offensive to him, Count Ignatiev, through Chancellor Prince Gorchakov, procures a benevolent letter from the Sovereign Emperor in the name of the Patriarch. “I am not a vindictive person, I hope to deliver it with future mail,” wrote Fr. Antonin, Count Ignatiev, - in the form of a healing plaster, apply and heal the wound inflicted by Fr. Leonidas and St. Synod to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, 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. Really, won’t you take advantage of this to smooth out the roughness between the Patriarch and the Synod in the way I indicated?” 102 Archangel Antonin finally heeded the friendly advice of the Constantinople ambassador, Count N.P. Ignatiev. The desired letter of apology to the Holy Synod, reluctantly, was written by the patriarch. The course of subsequent events, however, showed that this letter did not change the situation of Fr. arch. Antonin, who was then finally appointed head of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem and, thus, deprived of the opportunity to return to his beloved Byzantium. As for Fr. arch. Leonidas, exiled from Jerusalem to Constantinople to correct the duties of the rector of the Mission there, then all this time, while there were disputes between Patriarch Kirill and our Holy Synod, he felt in a new place in a nervous, restless state of mind. The uncertainty of his official position, disagreements with the clergy of the Constantinople Mission subordinate to him, who refused to recognize his authority as a temporary deputy, and the not entirely friendly and trusting attitude of the ambassador Count N. P. Ignatiev towards him - all this created an extremely difficult moral atmosphere for him in Constantinople, from which he tried to free himself by all means. Repeated trips to Athos for recreation and scientific pursuits, correspondence with his well-wishers in Russia and readily carrying out all sorts of, even delicate, assignments, although they somewhat entertained him and made him forget for a while the unsightly reality, but then again such a gloomy state of mind took possession of him that he began to dream of burying himself forever in the silence of the Athos cell, or even becoming one of the simple monks of his beloved Optina Hermitage. He was summoned to Russia and appointed rector of the first-class New Jerusalem Monastery near Moscow, after the death of Metropolitan Philaret, Arch. Leonid therefore accepted it with joy, as a desired reward for the misadventures and suffering he had experienced in the East. With what has developed so unexpectedly for the architect. Antonin and Fr. himself could not easily reconcile the outcome of his business trip to Jerusalem. arch. Antonin, nor his well-wisher Count N.P. Ignatiev. Both of them sought all measures to live close to each other, in mutual constant communication and, if possible, in like-mindedness, but their efforts in this regard were met with stubborn opposition in the highest spiritual spheres. Metropolitan Philaret, expressing his displeasure at the notorious report of Fr. arch. Antonin about the unrest in the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission, called his report “an experience inconsistent with his dignity,” and several times emphasized the idea he expressed there about the apocrisiary under the ecumenical patriarch, in the person of the rector of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Constantinople. 103 As for Count N.P. Ignatiev, he had the same idea about. arch. Antonin was once greeted with delight. “I’ll tell you a secret,” he wrote to Arch. Antonin, - that the idea of ​​​​the spiritual representation of the Russian Church in Constantinople and about more frequent and lasting communication of all autocephalous churches, I hammered into it not only to Patriarch Gregory VI (1867-1871), who sympathizes with this, but is still working hard, but even to our Synod. Things are heating up. The hitch is that I demand a categorical opinion from our shepherds on certain points, but the helmsman you know is shirking and diplomaticizing, wanting to reserve only the right of criticism, but not responsibility. But I don’t want to become fools and ignoramuses. I found a scythe on a stone" 104. The following year, after a trip to St. Petersburg, Count Ignatiev wrote to Arch. Antonin the following: “I resume my friendly correspondence with you, although I would sincerely prefer to replace it with a real conversation face to face. Some of your St. Petersburg leaders do everything at random, and in this way they spoil everything for me. I am now considering, by the way, the instructions for the future local spiritual representative of the Russian Church (this is the greatest secret), but I am convinced that “it’s not fodder for the horse.” Now they have realized what I wrote about three years ago, but they do not give the identity they have in mind for this and hide the candle under the table. There is talk of sending Fr. here. Romanov, from the white clergy, who knows many unnecessary languages ​​(up to 16).” 105 “It seems, I wrote to you,” says another letter from Count Ignatiev, “that they sent me new instructions for conclusion for the rector of the embassy mission in Constantinople. They wanted to entrust the establishment (in our opinion) of direct relations between the eastern hierarchs and our Holy Synod to a learned priest, who would communicate with the chief prosecutor. I took apart the instructions piece by piece and exposed the inconsistency of the circle of activity of the spiritual representative (he was entrusted, among other things, with visiting monasteries and churches in Turkey with the statement that “he was entrusted with St. Synod, to investigate the needs and wants of the Eastern Church” and to defend the black clergy against the white, and the dignity of the Holy Synod against the interference of the Chief Prosecutor. I don’t know whether the members of the Holy Synod will thank me, but they say that the chief prosecutor was seriously angry about this lesson. I don’t like to interfere in matters that don’t concern me, but unfortunately they asked for my opinion” 106. The main reason for Count Ignatiev's dissatisfaction with the chief prosecutor's instructions and all the St. Petersburg rumors about the apocrisiary of the Russian Church was the personality of the apocrisiary, which he only wanted to see in Constantinople. arch. Antonina. “I do not lose hope of seeing you here as an apocrisiary,” Count Ignatiev wrote to Fr. Antonin. – I was given instructions to analyze, prepared for the representative of our Holy Synod at the Eastern Church, and I took it apart piece by piece. Taking this opportunity to describe all the qualities necessary for the successful fulfillment of the difficult task of the person chosen by me personally, he directed the speech in such a way that the one to whom I gave to rewrite my draft remarked to me: “Your Excellency probably wants Fr. Antonin was appointed, because here everyone will understand that his portrait is being described.” After my (I dare to assure you, fair) criticism of the St. Petersburg, intricate, but not appropriate instructions, the matter ran aground temporarily, but will resurface again and, I hope, will go smoothly” 107 The count's hopes, however, were not destined to come true, although he stubbornly insisted on the need to have an apocrisiary in Constantinople. This issue of high ecclesiastical importance in St. Petersburg took an unexpected direction, which, unfortunately, buried it in the Synod archive forever. “I again raised the question of the apocrisiary,” wrote Count Ignatiev, “(You seem to know that with insistence and perseverance in pursuing a goal, hardly anyone can outdo me), and this time more successfully than before. It seems that the Holy Synod will decide to send a temporary apocrisiary on the Bulgarian issue to Constantinople for a trial, and this task will be entrusted to you. Let all this remain between us, for in St. Petersburg there are seven Fridays a week, and what is accepted now may change with my departure. My proposal was that, instead of a numerous council, which could lead to a scandal for the first time, or a dry written response to the last appeal of Patriarch Gregory to the Orthodox churches, to respond with a short letter, instructing the apocrisiary, i.e. you to supplement and develop the thought of the Holy Synod orally, and lead the matter towards reconciliation of the warring parties together with the Serbian Metropolitan and the Athenian Apocrisiary. To give a direct start to the matter, it was proposed - do not complain to me for the trouble I have caused you - to call you to St. Petersburg to verify that you are a “different person” than some church leaders believe, to come to an agreement with you, give you instructions, provide you with all the appropriate powers, blessings, distinctions, etc. and ask you to go to Constantinople to fulfill a delicate but honorable assignment, maintaining peace and love with by me (?). I know that you won’t like riding north if it coincides with winter, but I’m afraid that’s exactly what will happen.” 108 This important ecclesiastical question, posed in this way, had no practical result and remains unresolved to this day. Archimandrite Antonin, unexpectedly finding himself a resident of Jerusalem, began energetically to correct the duties of the head of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission, taking advantage of the experience and sad living examples of his predecessors - Bishop. Kirill (Naumov) and architect. Leonida (Kavelin). First of all, he tried to clarify his attitude towards the Jerusalem consul, with whom his predecessors had great disagreements. Even in the notorious report about the unrest in the Spiritual Mission, Arch. Antonin drew the attention of the Holy Synod to the abnormality of the position of the Mission in this regard, and this almost his only thought found sympathy from Metropolitan Philaret, who, on a report, noted: “The Holy Synod, without a doubt, will pay attention to this in order to correct the relationship between the head of the Spiritual Mission and the consul” 109. Therefore, Count Ignatiev had a serious idea “about the formation of a Russian monastery in Jerusalem to replace the current absurd and uncertain structure of the Mission.” “In order to put this thought into a certain form and give it an official course, it is necessary,” wrote Fr. Antonin, Count Ignatiev, “so that you convey to me your full consideration, not forgetting the multifaceted discussion and the material part, i.e., the distribution of buildings between the monastery and the consulate, indicating the required funds” 110, etc. “You are telling me in hints about the false situation in which the Spiritual Mission is located regarding the consulate,” repeats Count. Ignatiev in a letter to Fr. Antonin a little later. – Who is to blame for the continuation of this situation if not you yourself? The opportunity presents itself to make an attempt to establish a monastery, get out of a real relationship, etc., but you don’t want to put a finger to it” 111. But this idea of ​​the count did not receive its real implementation not only during the life of Fr. Antonin, but also after, under Arch. Raphael, when the late V.N. Khitrovo, secretary of the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society, took up this matter, with the assistance of the Holy Synod. The Palestinian Commission, which did not enjoy the sympathy of Count Ignatiev, took upon itself to separate the Spiritual Mission from the consulate. “Are you aware of Kozhevnikov’s project,” Count Nikolai Pavlovich asks Fr. Antonin, regarding the distinction between the Spiritual Mission and visitors of the 1st category. – For these latter, the southern side is separated, and there will no longer be direct contact with visitors, as with the current placement. I just don’t know if you’ll like saving 3 sides, accompanied by southern solar. It is true that for 3/4 of the year it is better not to have rooms in the Jerusalem sun, but maybe in winter it will be unpleasant for you. Please communicate your conclusion to avoid misunderstandings. Otherwise, perhaps, the Palestinian Commission will hesitate to reason without waiting for the response of those interested. This happens in St. Petersburg.” 112 Therefore, because of the Spiritual Mission, the Ambassador of Constantinople, Count Ignatiev, had to fight intensely in St. Petersburg, where in every possible way they wanted the elevation of secular power over spiritual power in Jerusalem. “On my part,” writes Count Ignatiev, “there was only a constant readiness to accept your opinions, defend them before the intolerable St. Petersburg officials and avoid any reason for a clash between two domestic institutions, placed by the offices in an abnormal relationship with each other. Even on my last visit to St. Petersburg, I scolded because of you in the Asian Department, accusing me of constantly pandering to you and of wanting to humiliate my consular dignity. It’s a sin for you to complain about me in any way and to confuse St. Petersburg’s views with mine. Don’t forget that there is the Palestinian Commission, which, like every amphibian, wags now in the water, now on land, and is elusive to our brother. Impersonal responsibility, combined with a purely bureaucratic direction, stubbornly resists opinions that are not similar to the main idea of ​​clerical activity.” 113 The duality of power on Russian buildings and their clashes continued under Fr. arch. Antonina and caused major misunderstandings. “I fully sympathize,” writes Count Ignatiev, “with the duality in the buildings and the ongoing bickering. You know that my idea was to build a monastery, and it is not my fault that there is a special department - the Palestinian Commission, which manages everything and does not allow outside interference. Your paper (on the delimitation of spheres) is cunningly and smartly written, but it is petty and will not serve any purpose, I tell you frankly. I will submit a copy to St. Petersburg with a complaint about your “encroachment,” and the Asian Department and the Palestinian Commission will be indignant with you. I doubt that with the current state of affairs it will be possible to achieve the result you want. The opinion you expressed is fair, but biased opinions are not recognized. It was in vain that you touched upon the additional salary of the consul - this is a sore point." 114 And indeed, the result of the mentioned paper turned out, as Count Ignatiev expected, negative. The fate of the Spiritual Mission in Palestine hung by a thread for some time. “They want to destroy the Spiritual Mission,” says Ignatiev, “as it does not correspond to the goal that was erroneously set during its establishment. They say that Russian missionary work is unthinkable in Palestine, and that the institutions “should simply have church clergy under the command of a rector for visiting worshipers.” On this basis, they have been demanding my recall for several months now (this is who the true savior of the Spiritual Mission is). You know, most respected father, my long-standing opinion: the mission really stands on a false foundation, which gives rise to constant misunderstandings. It would be simpler and better to establish a Russian monastery in “institutions.” I suggested this back in 1861. Then everything would be simplified, clarified, and within the framework. The Ministry does not reject this assumption, and the Holy Synod does not support it. That is why we have now settled on renaming the mission into abbotship. The boss is expected to be transferred as a bishop to Russia and, probably, they will entrust him, on my advice, with overseeing the relations of the Holy Synod with other Orthodox churches, thus filling the place that remains unoccupied - the Most Reverend Philaret in relation to church politics. It is unknown when this transformation will take place, but some signs lead me to believe that in September or October. They are seriously pestering me to present the final conclusion. Keep all of the above secret, seeing in this a new sign of my personal trust and sincere affection for you.” 115 This letter from the ambassador from Constantinople was accepted by Fr. arch. Antonin with great anxiety, and he began to think that the embassy also shared the opinion about the closure of the Mission, and therefore decided to protest with all the force of his word in a hot letter to Count Ignatiev, putting into relief the merits of the Spiritual Mission to Russia. To this letter, on behalf of Count Ignatiev, who went to Livadia at that time, Fr. Arch. Smaragd first responded, assuring that “the embassy never had and does not have the intention of destroying the Jerusalem Mission,” on the contrary, the embassy always responded with respect and great praise - reassured Fr. Antonina arch. Smaragd is about you and your actions in Palestine,” for “Church interests in the East are just as, if not more, sacred for me (that is, Count Ignatiev, who said this to Father Smaragd) as sacred as political Russians” 116. A little later, Ambassador Count Ignatiev himself answered on the same occasion. “I should,” he wrote, “do with you as I did with Thomas and send you a genuine message to the Asian Department in response to what was received three weeks ago and asked me why I still do not present my thoughts regarding the transformation of the Spiritual Mission into an abbotship. I answered ten days ago that I find it impossible in the present circumstances to touch upon the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission, “for its destruction would be interpreted by the ardent Greeks as a victory over us.” I expect storms and thunderstorms for your sake. In any case, my answer will delay the implementation of the St. Petersburg plans for several months. Without any doubt, however, correspondence will resume. I’m very glad that you get along with Yuzefovich (Jerusalem Consul). It would be high time to stop the abnormal relationship between the consulate and the Russian clergy” 117. By his restless nature, Fr. Archimandrite Antonin could not sit quietly in Jerusalem with folded hands. He boldly and decisively, as we have seen, entered into a struggle with both the all-powerful Palestinian Commission and its humble agent, the Jerusalem consul, on the issue of the rights of the head of the Mission in Jerusalem and its territorial boundaries on Russian buildings. He posed this question so acutely that the fate of the Jerusalem Mission at one time, as we said, hung in the balance, and Fr. the archimandrite was thinking either about returning to Russia, or about retiring with the pension of a thousand rubles requested by Count N.P. Ignatiev. The consciousness that the Russian Synod continues its displeasure towards him for his not entirely successful investigation into the case of unrest in the Mission under Arch. Leonidas and for his projects on the merger of the Jerusalem and Constantinople Missions in the person of the Apocrisiary under the Ecumenical Patriarch, although she worried about Fr. Arch Antonin, but did not prevent him from going forward along the path he himself outlined and recognized as the only useful one for the good of the Russian people. We mean his land territorial acquisitions within the Holy Land. Here, in this aspect of his very successful activity, Father Arch. Antonin remains completely alone. For territorial “seizures” of Fr. Antonin, as Count Ignatiev called his acquisitions, was looked at askance by the owners themselves - the Turks and especially the eternal rivals and irreconcilable antagonists of his Catholics, for whom every scrap he bought was a real eyesore. These acquisitions were viewed unfavorably in Russia by both the Holy Governing Synod and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs represented by the Palestine Commission. Here, finally, Fr. did not find complete and energetic support for himself. Antonin and his well-wisher and constant patron of the Constantinople Ambassador, Count N.P. Ignatiev, who, exclusively from a political point of view, looked at this side of Fr. Antonina, as of little use and unnecessary for Russia. “From the attitude received from the Asian Department, it is clear,” wrote Nikolai Pavlovich, “that the Ministries are worried about your purchases, and even more do not approve of the embassy, ​​and even oppose the territorial acquisition of our Spiritual Mission. I am more and more convinced that I was right when, back in 1862, I defended the idea of ​​​​transforming the Spiritual Mission into a Russian Palestine monastery. Then there would be meaning in your land interests. Now you are building on air. Do not be angry with me for reporting - obligatory - the reasoning of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding Jerusalem affairs 118. In 1868, at the end of it, Fr. arch. Antonin, as you know, acquired the notorious Oak of Mamre as Russian property. And he attached great importance to this happy acquisition 119. This matter, which dragged on for quite a long time, caused a lot of trouble for the late N.P. Ignatiev and was finally resolved in a favorable sense for Fr. Antonin, only with his energetic assistance. “The matter of the Mamvrian Oak will be settled,” Nikolai Pavlovich wrote to Fr. Antonin. – Thanks for the photo. We had to endure a considerable battle, because they did not want to grant us the right to acquire a new piece of land in Palestine, due to my refusal to sign, like other powers, a protocol on the real estate of foreigners, which would entail the loss of some rights and privileges” 120. On the occasion of Count Ignatiev's departure to Russia to organize his wife's estate, thanks to the incompetence of his temporary deputies, this matter, however, almost slowed down and was lost. “You caused trouble for the embassy with the Mamvrian Oak,” wrote Count Ignatiev. The Turks refused so decisively (during my absence) that now there is no way for them to back down. I had already mentioned this to the Vali, but the High Vizier flatly replied that our acquisition of the Oak of Mamre would be a complete violation of the established status quo in Palestine, and that this place is revered by Muslims equally with the Orthodox. Vali fears the incitement of Muslim fanaticism and points to the reports of the governor and to various mazbats compiled in this sense. I will still try to shake Porta’s convictions and for this purpose I will draw up a note based on the intricate (and, between us, rather strained arguments of your answer. What annoys me most is that the matter was almost settled before my departure, and my assistants ruined this issue for me in the end, like many others. You, for your part, hastened and made us a mess that now you can’t clear up. I will defend your views, but I foresee failure, and in this anticipation I would like to know in advance your opinion regarding the following resolution of the issue: leave the purchased place for us, and fence the Oak itself with the path to it with railings, as an object of general worship and accessible to everyone. The Turks claim that all Muslims have long revered this tree, for they recognize Abraham as a great prophet. You say that it is only by chance that Muslims come to worship. But the fact is that you never know, but they worship. Report your final conclusion for my personal information, but if possible with the first ship" 121. While persistently advocating the Hebron case, Count Ignatiev could not help but take into account his personal views on the territorial acquisitions of foreigners in Turkey. “In Jerusalem you are interpreting,” wrote Count Nikolai Pavlovich to Fr. Antonin, about the need for us to submit to the Turkish order, selling our honor for the imaginary right to buy in our own name (no one bothers us in someone else’s name - if only we had the money and the desire) pieces of land. But our duty is not to follow narrow local views, not to satisfy temporary whims, but to look forward and direct our path in accordance with the general Russian political interests. It seems that I explained to you back in Buyuk-Dere why we cannot sign a protocol on property (which Turkey convincingly asks us to do, and what the Vali is asking for), and why America, Italy, Persia and Greece followed our example. A discussion about the difference of views on this issue would lead me too far." 122 Apologizing for the long silence in responding to the letter and justifying himself by the complexity and multitude of matters, Count Ignatiev returns once again to the delicacy of the Hebron case and, in general, to the question of the land acquisitions of the Spiritual Mission, which he looked at, by the way, somewhat one-sidedly. “However,” he writes, “thank you that in the Turkish possessions there is only one Russian Spiritual Mission, and not several, and that not all Russian representatives are gifted with such peaceful, secret, exciting activity and such a restless gift for the fight against Islam and Latinism and tuti quanti, as one venerable, but extremely enterprising figure known to you and me. If there were several “Spiritual Missions”, or several acquirers of different land corners, then, really, it would be necessary to flee from Turkey - not the Turks, but the Russian representative, and even, perhaps, the Orthodox hierarchs, who would not live from Turkish and European suspicions. Jokes aside, your letter, dear and sincerely beloved father, doused me like varnish. If such unexpected “porridge” as your “oak” was brewing everywhere, then at least resign; in any case, give up politics and fuss with various muftis, beys, pashas over pieces of land that Russia does not need, for the illegal acquisition of which Russian money is wasted in vain (the graph’s italics). I can’t understand the purpose of all the Palestinian invasions lately. And what good is it for us to pave the way with our foreheads and shoulders for the English and Latins to enter the refuge of Hebron Muslim fanatics. We do not have enough money for the decent maintenance of existing buildings, for the establishment of a Russian hospital in Constantinople, for the completion of the restoration of the basilica in Myra Lycia and for various other enterprises that are truly useful for the Orthodox Church, for Russia and for our fellow believers, and we are chasing various sites in Palestine that are essentially unnecessary for us (we managed and can do without them), arousing only the envy of our opponents, who assume that we have some deeply thought-out state and church plan for activity in Palestine, and encouraging Catholics and Protestants to intensify their efforts and enormous funds in this country. In such an unequal financial struggle, we will ultimately be disgraced and crushed. Your will, it is not okay to spontaneously involve the Russian government in unexpected confusion and force us to use the acquired influence in Turkey for other high purposes to force the Porte to recognize as legal secret deeds of sale and illegal transactions tending to the sudden acquisition of various plots of land. Why tease geese for nothing?” “Being confident in the strength of your personal influence on me, you abuse my weakness and your power. This time, as always (Sis.), your wish has been fulfilled by me exactly. I did even more, incomparably, what you required. You write that “it is enough to transfer the Mufti of Hebron to another place, and that you leave it to others to dream of changing the local pasha.” This dream came true. I demanded at a conveniently chosen moment that Ali Bey be replaced in order to immediately put an end to the intolerable Palestinian difficulties, and the Supreme Vizier fulfilled my request. Ali Bey's successor was appointed Kiamil Pasha, not your old acquaintance, but a former Beirut kaymak, with whom Mokeev was on good terms, and who had never before (when they were in power) disliked the French. It’s up to you and Kozhevnikov to get along now on the spot, with the new governor, and wisely take advantage of the cruel blow that suddenly befell Ali Bey (supported by the Palace) and should have an impressive effect on your fanatics in our favor. Nothing more can be demanded from either me or Porta. It is up to you to reap the fruits of our victory here. “For a person who knows Turkey, it is not surprising that the Hebronians, as you say, worked for money for the fence at the Oak of Mamre. The contradictions found in your letters seemed much more strange to me. Either you say that “Hebron was hitherto considered the last refuge of Muslim fanaticism,” then you persuade me not for a minute to dwell on the thought that in Hebron the fanaticism of the inhabitants is felt, and that “there is only one mufti who is a fanatic”! How to agree with this? Be that as it may, perhaps with the appointment of a new governor, peace and quiet will return to you, and that you will cease to act as Ia Vismark in Palestine, not giving the poor Turks and infidels a moment of peace with their territorial conquests. The British, French and Austrians, and not only the Turks, are seriously concerned about the plans attributed to us to expand our possessions under the guise of a “Spiritual Mission” engaged in the acquisition of “estates” 123. “There are spiritual Bismarcks,” writes Count Ignatiev, “who are eager to stir up trouble! But Bismarck himself sorted it out, but in the East there are such brave men (especially in Palestine) that they will make a mess, but leave it to others to sort out something too steep, without even checking whether it is suitable for them and whether they have enough strength and appetite to clear it up.” “I have received, dear father, your thunderous letter of December 17 and a whole stack of Turkish documents. The trouble is that nothing can be done from the copies regarding land ownership. The whole point is in the original, which must be carefully sniffed out in order to achieve any sense and understand anything, given the existing procedure adopted in Turkish government offices. A copy is nothing more in the eyes of a Turk. A study and conclusion of the local authority is first required, and the final permission can be sought only after passing through the lower authority. You are well aware of the proverb: “You don’t go to someone else’s monastery with your own rules.” In this state of affairs, I had to be content with the present, so that the new governor of Jerusalem, Kiamil Pasha (cannot stand Latin, an educated man is your type, but has a weakness for Protestants, for England and for our friends the Prussians) 124 was ordered to consider in the most lenient and favorable manner the question of your acquiring land holdings in Palestine and transferring them to the name of the Spiritual Mission. I gave the corresponding instructions to Yuzefovich (I advise you to write a few words of instruction to the latter) and Kozhevnikov. Success is in your hands and consular. We are a strong reserve, ready when the ground is properly prepared in Syria and Palestine. Then copies of your bills of sale may be useful here. Until the Hebron case is firmly established, I am afraid to put the rest into action. When the first is settled, then we will pose the question in the most innocent way: “in order to avoid, they say, similar misunderstandings in the future, it would not be bad, they say, to give an order to the governor of Jerusalem to enter into an agreement with our Spiritual Mission on the transfer to its name of all other plots of land that are still, of necessity, registered with strangers and located in different places in Palestine.” So I intended to pose the question, but unexpected complications of the Hebron case forced me to pause in order to allow passions to subside and the agitated Turks and dragomans to calm down. Your friend the Mufti will be replaced by a new governor. The first dragoman becomes furious from your arguments, and even more from your seizures” 125. “You have gone far,” says Count Ignatiev, “in your thunderous demands to present black as white and white as black to the Turks, and in your eloquent, brilliant, but sophistical argumentation, trying, in imitation of Bismarck, to justify all sorts of seizures, acquisitions, etc. It is in vain that you believe that what was written “in French would come out smoothly, gallantly and extremely decently.” The master's work is afraid. You can say barbs in French and be rough and unpleasant, try to avert your eyes and deceive even the Turks and even your own people. In the same way, in Russian writing you can be kind, fair and moderate. The Russian language is richer and more flexible than French, and such a gifted and experienced writer as you, most venerable Father Archimandrite, provides the richest and most convenient material from which you can mold anything you want.” “The Consulate received a copy of the secret instructions given to the Pasha from the last ship. This is the result of our insistence here. The matter has returned to normal, and the further direction depends on the agreement of the local authorities with the consulate. The Porta cannot resolve the issue of land ownership here ab irato. We need a local investigation and the correct formulation of the issue in Jerusalem. And then everything will go smoothly. This result now depends entirely on you and Kozhevnikov.” “Talking about your territorial acquisitions, you seem to want to assure us that when a hodget or a deed of sale is in your hands, the main difficulty is eliminated, and the embassy has nothing left to bother about this issue. Do you really think that we are such naive people and ignoramuses that you can really imagine that you have already overcome obstacles when you bought a piece of land under someone else’s name? Nothing is less difficult in Palestine and Syria than buying any kind of property. The Arabs are so greedy that, perhaps, they would sell the Omar mosque if they could safely get a large sum. You know just as much as we do that it’s not about the purchase. Turks and representatives of all Christian faiths zealously guard every corner, every piece of land. The Arabs are counting on this envy, but in the meantime, why not steal, they think, money from a gullible foreigner. The main task, therefore, is to allow the government to purchase, and not to purchase a hodget in someone else’s name.” “If we begin to say, according to your recipe, Porte, that nothing has changed - regarding the Oak of Mamre - by your acquisition of a piece of land, then Server Pasha will immediately seize on this and ask me to draw up a positive protocol about this in order to consolidate the status quo ante. Where do we go with your theoretical reasoning then? In general, I really wish you would come here and take the trouble to talk with Porta about the famous Oak, then you would see how easy it is to deceive the Turks using the methods you recommend. “Every time we have to talk to Server about the Hebron Oak, he repeats like a parrot: “One of the oaks (the rest are of no importance in the eyes of the Gentiles) is highly revered by Muslims, every day we have new evidence of the extent to which it is necessary that this Oak does not become the exclusive property of anyone, but belongs to all religions. Despite all our desire to be pleasant to you, the Porte is not able to allow a change in this regard, etc.” In a word, if Porta is somewhat amenable to our demands regarding your new purchases, then it is not at all inclined to agree with your views regarding the Oak,” 126 Kozhevnikov called le célèbre chin d’Abraham. What do you want to do here? After all, it’s not a good idea to declare war because of the notorious Oak, while there is no big difference in value - whether the Oak is considered ours exclusively, or as if neutralized. If you wanted to cut it down (!?) or generally dispose of it differently, then I understand the importance for you of the question of who owns the tree itself, you or all of humanity. In the case of preserving the tree in its permanent form, “does it matter to you that it will be considered a common property if the land you purchased is recognized as belonging to you.” 127. This matter finally moved towards a happy ending. “I hope,” wrote Count Ignatiev, “that you, dear Father Archimandrite, are finally convinced of my readiness to do everything possible to please you.” “At the behest of the pike and at my request,” the real estate rights of Russian subjects in Turkey were secured, despite the opposition I encountered in St. Petersburg, between our consuls and many healers of the East, who stubbornly held the opinion that it was incomparably more worthy on our part not to sign the protocol than to accept for the Russians the rights granted to other foreigners. The local Consul General (Khitrovo) and Ivanov-Adreanopolsky hoped until the last minute that I would not succumb to your demand, which belittles the “magnificent” negative position we occupy. You are happy, well, thank God! Now translate the secretly “captured” lands into whose name you want (Russian) or the Spiritual Mission. I hastened to notify you by telegraph, and in order to hide your personal participation (from the Pasha) in this matter, I addressed the telegram to Kozhevnikov. Before August 1 it is cheaper than later. But don’t immediately scare the Turks and non-believers, but rather give them “a tablespoon in an hour.” I don’t see the practical significance of our territorial acquisitions - from the Russian point of view, but to be your way" 128 “Congratulations on the successful completion of the matter of transferring land plots. Here you and I,” says Count Ignatiev, “we manage things better on the quiet. Imagine that yesterday I had to answer the wise Palestinian Commission, asking me how, when, in whose name, etc. it is more convenient transfer the lands under the hospice houses. She would like to write down everything in Palestine in her name." 129 Everything that Count Ignatiev wrote about the Oak of Mamre also applies to other land acquisitions made by Arch. Elisaveta. They would have set up a shelter at the Oak first, but, perhaps, you’ll chase two hares and won’t catch either one well” 130. “Tell me detailed data and copies and plans regarding your possessions in Gorna, on the Mount of Olives, in Jaffa and Bet-Jala. I will try to do my best, although it will not be without difficulties. We need to please you not now, but when an opportunity arises, and such an opportunity may present itself, and it does not prevent you from being fully armed in a timely manner so as not to miss the favorable moment. I don’t fully understand the benefit for our Spiritual Mission of acquiring more and more pieces of Palestinian land, but I am ready to help you to the best of my ability and ability” 131. Count Ignatiev, according to the instructions of Arch. Antonin, also ardently defended the interests of Russian pilgrims. When the Syrian line was recognized as unprofitable for the Russian Shipping and Trade Society and was temporarily cancelled, Count Ignatiev ordered its restoration. “The shipping company got it from me for terminating the Syrian line and for not returning the money for the return ticket,” wrote Count Ignatiev, Arch. Antonin. - You will be satisfied in both. The Syrian line will resume these days. Orders will also be made regarding the issuance of money to the fan; you can prove that the return of the price of the return ticket will not provide the fan with the means to take out a new ticket on a foreign ship, and therefore the request for alms does not depend on the actions of the company, etc.” 132 Together with arch. Antonin, Count Ignatiev tried to improve even the contingent of Russian pilgrims to Jerusalem. “I wrote to St. Petersburg about the fans,” says gr. Ignatiev in a letter to Fr. Archimandrite Antonin, - forwarding a copy from your wonderful paper. I share your opinions, but I find some of the measures you propose to be too despotic (characteristic of your character) and capable of developing a spiritual-bureaucratic inquisition. On this basis, having reinforced your arguments about the need for a radical eradication of the developing evil of vagrancy, I made two or three liberal reservations regarding measures that seem practical to you.” 134 But even these “liberal” Count Ignatiev’s reservations regarding the “radical eradication of the developing evil of vagrancy” for some reason did not receive approval in St. Petersburg. Count Ignatiev in 1869, on March 14th, wrote to Fr. Antonin, by the way, the following: “Your project on the embarrassment of loitering admirers and on the demand for some relief regarding persons going to Jerusalem was subjected to severe criticism in the name of liberalism, freedom of conscience, protection of the individual, etc. It was flatly refused, and I received it for my approval and petition. Your and my considerations are recognized as inconsistent with the spirit of the times. Thank God that they listened to me in St. Petersburg, although regarding Muslim fans and imposed various obligations on them, among other things, an advance payment of 10 rubles. per person" 135. Undertaken by Count N.P. Ignatiev took some measures to “protect” fans from exploitation by the Greeks 136, stewards of St. places, although without tangible results. Count N.P. Ignatiev also took a very energetic part in the fight against heterodox propaganda in Palestine. Being at the zenith of his power in the Orthodox East, he tried in every way in his power to inflict a sensitive blow on Catholicism every time. It is known that the trip to the East of the French Empress Eugenie was greeted at one time by the Catholic mission with great hopes for its good results. These hopes, however, were not destined to come true. “Is the Patriarch satisfied with the outcome of the Bethlehem affair? Although I was against the slightest concession to the Catholics, i.e. France, but it’s not bad that the matter was settled before the arrival of Empress Eugenie, otherwise, perhaps, the French would have started new demands. In secret, for your and, perhaps, the patriarch's information, I will inform you that Empress Eugenie asked the papal nuncio, who is in Paris, for written information about what she could ask from the Sultan for the Latin Church during her trip to the East. They say that the nuncio communicated with Rome old and new and delivered a list of 82 points to the empress. Even if she manages to spend ten here, she will cause us trouble and worries. But I'm not afraid and I'm going to fight. Perhaps, with God’s help, we will not allow the Orthodox to be offended, especially since we are in a defensive position and do not want to tease anyone with an offensive maneuver (like the Jerusalem Spiritual Mission), knowing that “one man in the field is no warrior.” In order to force the French to be more careful now, I responded to Bure’s question about my thoughtfulness, that I was racking my brains to find 82 new demands in favor of the Orthodox before the Porte, in case of any statements from the Empress Eugenie, since we do not intend to remain at a loss and will not lag behind in a steeplechase race” 137 . The stay of the Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph and the Prussian Prince Albert in Palestine was an undoubted success for Catholicism and Protestantism, and these trips brought a lot of new excitement to Count Ignatiev. “What is this going on with you,” Count Ignatiev asks Fr. Antonina. - How is it that the Patriarch of Jerusalem foolishly believed that the Prussians could help him with the return of the Romanian monastery estates, and in order to appease them, he gave the Prussian prince 160 pis of Greek land near the entrance to the Church of the Lord 138. How did His Beatitude Kirill not realize that he thereby violates the great church principle of “non possumus”, making with his own hands an incorrigible breach in the stronghold of our intercession in the matter of monastic estates, based on the fact that “monastic estates cannot be alienated by the hierarchs, they do not belong to them, but to the Orthodox Church and are in the custody of the clergy.” “The French ambassador is very dissatisfied with the rapprochement between the Armenians and the Greeks, especially on the basis of Jerusalem or, better said, Palestinian. During his meetings with the new Armenian patriarch, I assigned my own people as translators, and therefore I know all the former conversations. Bure is trying to prove to Ormilian that the Armenians have no intention of moving away from French agents, from the Latins, and getting closer to the Orthodox. Bure even tries to prove not only to the Armenians, but also to the Orthodox, his indifference, arguing that France will patronize to varying degrees all Christian denominations in the East. It is clear from everything that the unanimity of the resistance of the Armenians and Greeks to the Latins in Palestine is frustrating French plans ... " “I forgot to thank you,” Count Ignatiev further writes, for the interesting details you reported about the stay of the Austrian emperor in Jerusalem. Franz Joseph was deeply impressed and spoke to me with delight and emotion about his pilgrimage. This is not the conclusion that the crown prince came to when he spoke about the dirt, disorder, false interpretations, fanaticism, etc., that he noticed in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It is strange that the clergy (people who voluntarily renounced all earthly goods and acquisitions) pay such attention to the generosity of visitors and attach such great importance to the cash flow. I am very glad that the Germans did not outdo our Most August Visitor to Jerusalem (Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich), who was taken to task so many times for maintaining economy...” “So we were afraid of the travel of foreign sovereigns and princes in the East, especially the Empress of France, and everything was blown to smithereens. One crown prince left (out of the blue) a significant trace of his trip and activities. But the Catholics achieved nothing" 139 “I gave the Latins a lot of nose,” wrote Count Ignatiev to Fr. Antonina, and so intimidated the Vali that he took back part of his (already given) promises from Proksh and Bure. The Franciscans receive only the smallest part of what they want, and the ceded place will be surrounded by walls on all sides, without the right to build buildings on it, etc. Proksch and even Bure are very unhappy that I got wind of a very secretly conducted business before they managed to issue the firman to the Catholics, and opened the eyes of the foolish Turks who let a wolf into the sheepfold. When I reproached the Vali for his compliance, he answered me: “Enter the position of the Sultan, can he refuse to Franz Joseph the empty building 140 located under the unfortunate monks and which is a constant subject of reproach for Turkey, every time a Catholic prince comes to Jerusalem, “when the Greek Patriarchate itself found it inconvenient to refuse a Protestant prince and gave him the place belonging to Orthodox community"?! You now see the consequences of the fact that the Greek clergy pokes its nose into the water if we don’t ask for a ford” 141. “What did the wise Bush, the Prussian dragoman, do in Palestine,” Count Ignatiev asks Fr. Antonina. “Vali claims that in order to resolve various Orthodox matters, about which I constantly bother Porto, he is only waiting for Kiamil Pasha’s answers to the requests sent to the governor of Jerusalem. Has Kiamil Pasha fallen asleep with you, or has he gone completely crazy?” “I could not derive all the benefit that I wanted from the Halki case, solely because Patriarch Cyril melted before the letter of the Latins, did not submit a petition and deprived me by his course of action of any basis for my complaints and demands. I don’t understand what happened to the Blessed One? However, I achieved: I robbed the concessions promised to the Austrian Emperor and Empress Eugenie, and I imposed such constraining conditions on Porto that the Latins were not happy and disappointed. They openly declare that they were deceived by the Turks, who were afraid of the Russians" 142 “The papal ambassador Frankie is up to a lot here,” wrote Count Ignatiev to Fr. Antonin, - but he claims that I am interfering with the wrong business and putting obstacles in his way. Let's see how it all ends, but it seems he will leave with his nose, despite the intrigues of the entire Catholic party, the sympathy of the Latins and the support of France and Austria" 143. Grateful posterity will not forget those seemingly trifles to which this great diplomat of ours in the Middle East drew his attention, which clearly characterize him both as a deeply believing Christian, of a purely Russian soul, and as a man of the most humane kind heart. Count N.P. Ignatiev, who loved “church splendor” 144, was responsible for the renovation of our embassy churches in Pera and at the dacha in Buyuk-Der. “I’m going to build a barracks, I’ve already purchased timber,” wrote Fr. Antonin Count Ignatiev. – There is not enough money, but they wrote to St. Petersburg and will probably send it. I'm only afraid that Fr. Leonid (architect Kavelin) will completely confuse us. He doesn’t like Pulaire’s plan, which you know, and Fr. The archimandrite is trying (for himself or for you, I don’t know) so that the church remains in its old place, and the apartment of the head of the mission is not in the garden corner. O. Leonid finds that the other side of the world is dark and “too quiet”; he prefers either the middle of the building or the end of the street. Regarding the iconostasis, this is what we think. The existing border is no good, and the painting is not Orthodox. They say that somewhere in Jerusalem you have six icons rejected by Mansurov, suitable for the iconostasis. Is it true? And do you agree to give them up to us for the church in Buyuk-Der? Do not forget that I do not lose hope that this church will be built as much for you as for us, that is, that you will serve in it. If the mentioned 6 icons (and the banners with them) could be given away for the embassy church, then all that would be left was to gild the iconostasis again, which I will do willingly, without resorting to the stinginess of the treasury, and paint a new local icon.” 145 Count Ignatiev's desire was satisfied immediately and evoked complete approval on his part. “They received the icons of the future Buyuk-Der Church,” he wrote to Father Antonin, “and they were not slow in returning the expense. Indeed, your zeal, expressed in the unusually quick delivery of the icons, surprised us somewhat, although I knew in advance that you would approve of the idea and rejoice at the splendor of your church in Buyuk-Der, about which you previously cared so much.” 146 “You convince me Fr. archimandrite,” Count Ignatiev wrote in the same letter, “to build a special church in Buyuk-Der. Haven't you heard that in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs we now have a greater fashion for saving than ever before? There is not enough money even to build a house (barracks) in Buyuk-Der, in a smaller form, and they don’t even want to hear about a special church. The trouble is that the ambulance is about. Leonid was in a hurry, did not warn me, and out of simple curiosity, he touched the throne. It seems that we will have to consecrate (small) the old church this year” 147. Count Ignatiev was quite pleased with this church. “The Buyuk-Derskaya Church was decorated,” he wrote to Fr. Antonin, - thanks to your assistance, it turned out quite decent, so that you, a whimsical architect, would not waste too much, although it was not built in the Byzantine style" 148. The construction of a hospital and a church attached to it for Russian travelers and for the numerous Slavs living in Constantinople, without refusal of medical care and to those poor foreigners and people of other faiths, whom poverty and need lead to the doors of the Russian hospital, in the countryside of Constantinople - Pancaldi - is also a tangible fruit of the high Christian disposition and philanthropy of the late Count N.P. Ignatiev 149. Thanks to the efforts of the late count, the Sovereign Emperor Alexander II took part in the creation of this hospital, who allowed 130,000 francs to be allocated from the treasury for this item, the late Grand Duchess Alexandra Petrovna in Bose, the nuns Anastasia, who supplied the hospital with linen and dishes and sent sisters from her St. Petersburg Intercession community to care for the sick for free, Russian Athonite monastery Panteleimonovskaya (250 Turkish liras, counting 8 rubles. 50 k. each), Andreevskaya (500 liras) and Ilyinskaya (1,000 rubles), Russian merchants Sushkin 1000 rubles. and Plotnikov 4000 rubles, Russian subjects Greeks Antoniadis 18759 francs, Demetriadis Yusufaki 1356 liras, Greek Zakharov 564 liras, Armenian Baltazar Shaburov, who assumed all the costs of constructing a new hospital building, the Turkish government, which paid for the site originally intended for the hospital and recognized as a waqf, 5,000 lire, etc. As for the church in the name of St. Nicholas with a house for singers, it was built exclusively at the expense of the Russian Athonite Panteleimon Monastery, which, according to tradition, supports the singers of this church from the monks of the monastery at its own expense. For the maintenance of the hospital, a collection was made throughout Russia, amounting to 39,000 rubles, and in 1876 Count Ignatiev requested a decree on collecting from Russian commercial ships passing through the Bosphorus, in the amount of three kopecks per flipper, and from the passports of Russian subjects coming to Turkey in the amount of 50 kopecks in gold each. The ceremonial foundation of the hospital and its church took place on April 4, 1874, and on May 9, a temporary hospital with 20 beds was opened in a private house near the old Armenian cemetery outside Taksim. The ceremonial consecration and opening of the hospital took place on December 6, 1875, in the presence of diplomatic representatives of the Greek, Serbian, Romanian and Montenegrin. Fr. was appointed the first rector of the hospital church, as assistant rector of the embassy church. Arseny, who died in the rank of archimandrite and governor of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra in St. Petersburg. The Russian hospital in Constantinople, in terms of its location and internal layout, leaves nothing to be desired. Located in a quiet countryside and with a cozy garden full of varied vegetation, giving the sick coolness and pleasure to their eyesight, at the same time this hospital from its windows offers a delightful view of the emerald Bosphorus, the Sea of ​​Marmara, the Princes' Islands and the Asian shores. A three-story stone building with longitudinal corridors in the middle, very comfortably furnished, equipped with all the necessary equipment and auxiliary rooms for treatment and hygiene, 4 separate wards for wealthy patients (with a fee of 3 rubles 20 kopecks per day) and 5 common spacious wards, free beds. 150 So versatile was the fruitful, tireless church-political activity of the unforgettable Count N.P. Ignatiev in the Orthodox East; So great and so instructive are his services for the benefit of the Orthodox Church here, unfortunately, not sufficiently appreciated by his contemporaries. The results of this fruitful activity, insofar as they managed to penetrate into life and become apparent, can be truly amazing. Now we can only regret and bitterly complain that the envy and ill will of Count N.P. Ignatiev’s political rivals prevented many of his wonderful plans and brilliant ideas from being realized in their time. But despite the indicated opposition to him from St. Petersburg, openly expressed from there more than once “the desire for calm and absence of affairs in the East” 151, to the anti-patriotic advice - “not to offend anyone and it is better to betray one’s own than to start a dispute” 152, despite “the lack of a guiding thought in our policy, which puts us in conflict with various St. Petersburg figures (who do not know what they are doing” 153, finally, to the very sad, but irresistible consciousness that “our entire power is concentrated in the St. Petersburg bureaucracy, and that ambassadors (representatives of the Sovereign) only propose, and the clerks, heads of departments and various clerical figures decide and decide” 154, Count N.P. Ignatiev, “guided only by Russian instinct and warm feeling” 155 12 whole years, remained an invariably tireless “Bosphorus worker” for the glory of his beloved homeland and for the benefit of the Orthodox Church, “devoting all his time to service, leaving only scraps for himself” 156. True, forced to constantly “argue, argue and trick with opponents and unnecessary allies” 157 and deprived of support “in the north”, “in his sincere zeal for the common good” 158, Count N.P. Ignatiev sometimes expressed a feeling of deep bitterness and at times even dreamed of “completely getting rid of returning to Constantinople” 159, but this temporary scum on his heart disappeared quickly, and he continued continue to vigorously struggle “with all kinds of obstacles and failures, always remembering our motto: “Without failures and trials it would be too easy to live on earth, but we were sent here to fight and work” 160. “Without losing interest in the matter and without losing heart” himself, N.P. Ignatiev warned his other employees against “apathy and indifference.” 161 After all that has been said, it is not surprising that Count N.P. Ignatiev, as a skilled diplomat, an energetic worker and an expert on affairs in the Middle East, enjoyed enormous influence in Constantinople in the spheres of the Ottoman government, among representatives of the highest Greek hierarchy and his colleagues - European diplomats, and gained love and respect not only among the local Christian, but even the Muslim population. The Turkish Sultan Abdul-Azis considered Count Ignatiev his “friend” and sought his friendship and support. “We are with the Sultan,” wrote Count Ignatiev to Fr. arch. Antonin, are the closest friends. For how long? Don't know. God alone knows. Today the Sultan sent his adjutant to me to congratulate me on my move to Buyuk-Dere (we moved a few days ago) and to ask about my health. Such tenderness has never been seen here. Foreigners squint and bare their teeth. You are a shrewd man, but you thought that we would quarrel over the Black Sea issue, and even start a fight. This circumstance only cemented the old friendship 162. Why fight when you can handle things your own way anyway” 163. The Turks admired his flexible mind, undaunted courage and persistent character, dignifying him with the honorary title "Ignat Pasha". The Greeks feared him and gloated over his failures, awaiting with undisguised impatience his removal from Constantinople. His fellow diplomats envied him and disliked him in his hiding place. But the Russians who lived in Constantinople and the southern Slavs, one might say, literally idolized him and loved him to the point of oblivion. “Russian subjects and our co-religionists (or rather fellow tribesmen) met me here,” wrote Count N.P. Ignatiev to Fr. Antonin in 1869, upon returning to Constantinople, with joy, almost triumph. Thanks to the kind people who are aware of my sincere zeal for the common good, for three days in a row steamships decorated with flags went out to the Black Sea. It’s a pity that “God doesn’t give a horn to a bearded cow.” 164 Eternal memory to you, Russian knight, undaunted, honest warrior for the glory of his homeland and for the benefit of the holy Orthodox Church! May your native land rest in peace. The St. Petersburg Slavic Charitable Society, in its brilliant meeting on November 30, 1908, in memory of Count N.P. Ignatiev, was not free from these reproaches, releasing four speakers to the department who characterized their ever-memorable chairman in only one political aspect of their activities. These speeches were as follows: K.A. Gubastova: “The mission of General N.P. Ignatiev in Beijing in 1859 and 1860.. and the Beijing Treaty”, P.D. Parensova: “Count N.P. Ignatiev, as a Russian and Slavic figure”, A.A. Bashmakova: “Ignatiev School of Diplomacy” and G.I Koncheva: “Bulgarian Memo Count N.P. Ignatiev") “But of my people here, more than half are all French,” characterizes the composition of the Constantinople embassy at that time, the archimandrite of the embassy church in Constantinople, Fr. Smaragd, later Bishop of Sukhumi, in a letter to Arch. Antonin on March 4, 1873 - if only the nails were clean, and there were gloves with a cane, and then at least the grass wouldn’t grow. The Bulgarian question has not been studied, your Jerusalem question has not yet begun to be studied. And they write and rewrite the darkness. But our Nikolai Pavlovich studied the Greeks, Turks, Bulgarians and others very well. Don’t scold him for some mistakes: after all, he’s the only one working here for us, and he works tirelessly... there are few good advisers in the Russian spirit.” Letter to the arch. Antonin dated June 25, 1867 The same dated October 7, 1866. Letter to Fr. Antonin May 3, 1866 The same dated January 29, 1867 The dome of the Holy Sepulcher Church began to crumble in 1851: the old lead sheets of the dome, torn off by the winds, let in rain that penetrated into the wooden beams of the dome, and dampness and rot formed, threatening the collapse of the dome. Entire streams of rainwater flowed along the walls of the church, showering the plaster and extinguishing even the burning lamps, and it was necessary, in order to protect the splendor of the church, to stretch a waxed cloth under the dome. Often the plaster falling from the walls injured pilgrims. At the initiative of the Russian Sovereign Nikolai Pavlovich, the defender of Orthodoxy, with the consent of the Emperor of the French, the patron of Catholicism, repairs began, and the Turkish Sultan also took part in this matter. On September 5, 1862, a protocol was signed between the Grand Vizier Ali Pasha to the Russian and French envoys and a Russian and French architect were appointed. However, disputes arose between the architects, and Catholics intervened in the matter, wanting to prevent the Russians from participating in this holy work. In 1865, thanks to the insistence of Count Ignatiev, a final agreement was reached between the disputing parties, and the dome was successfully completed in 1869. Letter to Fr. Antonin dated January 12, 1866 The same dated November 22, 1870. The same dated February 9, 1762. The same from September 21, 1872. We are inclined to see here the reason why Arch. Photius fell among the Russophobes and then transferred this title by succession to his co-name Photius the Lesser, the current Patriarch of Alexandria Case archive. Holy Synod No. 1806, 1872 Letter to Fr. Antonin from January 13, 1873 Case of the Holy Synod No. 1806 November 14/26, 1872 Letter to Antonin, January 13, 1873 Letter about. arch. Smaragda to the arch. Antonin from February 1873 Letter from Count Ignatiev to Fr. Antonin from 3/15"" February 1873 Letter from Arch Smaragd to Fr. Antonin dated March 15, 1873. Patriarch Kirill received a pension of 5,000 piastres from the Turkish Sultan a little earlier. With such unexpected material prosperity, it was quite natural that he “didn’t want to return” to Jerusalem, as Count N.P. Ignatiev wrote to Arch. Antonin, “but he still wanted to compete with his opponents” (letter dated July 1, 1873) Case of the Holy Synod No. 1806 of March 31, 1873 Letter to Fr. Antonin dated March 4, 1873 Case of the Holy Synod No. 1806 of December 22, 1872 Letter to Fr. Antonin dated January 11, 1873 Letter to Fr. Antonin dated December 15/27, 1875 A. Dmitrievsky “Russians on Athos. Essay on the life and work of abbot Macarius Sushkin" Of course, the acts of the Athos Panteleimon Monastery, collected by Fr. Azarius and published in Kyiv by the late professor of the Theological Academy F.A. Ternovsky. Kiev 1873 Letter from Count Ignatiev to Fr. Antonin dated June 27, 1874 The same from December 16/28, 1875. See details of this instruction in my book “Russians on Athos”, pp. 276–282 The Sinai case has its own long history, depicted in great detail by Prof. Kyiv Theological Academy by A. Voronov (Proceedings of Kyiv. Spiritual Academy. 1872, II, pp. 273–315, III, 594–668). This can clearly be seen from the message of Ambassador Ignatiev dated July 25, No. 200, addressed to Chief Prosecutor Count Yu. V. Tolstoy. In this regard, Count Ignatiev wrote that he “postponed until the matter was settled, the transfer of the amounts assigned to the monastery of Mount Sinai and coming to it through our consulate general in Egypt” (Arch Savva. Collection of opinions and reviews of Philaret, Moscow Moscow for Rights Affairs, Church in the East pp. 16–8 St. Petersburg 1886) See letter 18/30 1868. Doctor who served in a Russian hospital in Jerusalem The same idea was expressed by Count Ignatiev in his official report to Count Tolstoy on the Sinai case. She met with the complete approval of Metropolitan Philaret (Arch. Savva. Collection of opinions and reviews of Philaret on the affairs of the rightful church in the East pp. 167–169) Letter from Count Ignatiev to Fr. Antonin dated June 18/30, 1868 The same dated March 14, 1869 There is our special article about this school, published in the “Parochial School” for 1889, November, under the title “Russian (Ambetyevskaya) School in Cairo” Labor Kyiv. Spirit. Acad 1872, III, (pp. 620–621) Letter from Count Ignatiev to Arch. Antonin from March 4/16, 1870 Archbishop Kirill returned the right to lifelong use of income from three Bessarabian estates, given to him in December 1865, but without income until April 23, 1870, as well as all monastic things and the manuscript taken by the arch. Herman for printing, for which the monastery pays him 3 thousand Turkish liras in two terms and his debts, accepted by the monastery in December 1865 (A. Voronov Sinai case Proceedings of Kiev spirit acad. 1872, III, pp. 664–665) Letter from Count Ignatiev to Fr. Antonin from June 10/22, 1870 Letter from Count Ignatiev to Arkh. Antonin dated May 8, 1868 The same from June 18–30, 1866 The same from September 12, 1869. Letter from Count Ignatiev to Fr. Antonin dated March 14, 1869 The same dated January 7, 1870. The same from June 10/22, 1870. The same dated March 30, 1873. Discovery and restoration of the ancient Basilica of St. Nicholas in the Lycian Worlds pp. 14–10 St. Petersburg 1861 Companion of the August Chairman in the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society and a member of Her Imperial Highness Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna Count Ignatiev's dying letter to M. P. Stepanov dated June 9, 1908. The growth of capital depends on interest and on the income of the Alexander Nicholas Chapel of the church, located at the end of 2 Peskov Street in St. Petersburg It must be assumed that here we are talking about a marble slab above the lower southern doors, which had the date 1730 and carved crosses on it (Discovery and restoration of the ancient Basilica of St. Nicholas in Myra Lycian, p. 12). Arch. Savva Collection of opinions and reviews of Philaret, Metropolitan. Moscow on matters of rights. churches in the East p. 72 St. Petersburg. 1886 Letter from Count Ignatiev to Fr. Antonin from 6/18 Oct. 1866 The same from April 10/22. 1869 The same from January 12/24, 1866. The same dated March 21, 1866. The same from December 6/18, 1865. The same from May 8/20, 1866. The same dated June 19/30, 1868. The same from 7/19 Oct. 1866 The same dated January 17/29. 1867 The same dated March 14, 1869; from 12 Sep. 1869; January 7, 1870; March 4/16, 1870, etc. The same from April 16/28, 1868. Letter to Fr. Antonin from September 12. 1869 The same from 18/30 Dec. 1875 The same dated July 18/30, 1868. The same from March 4/15, 1870. Archbishop Sava. Collection opinions and reviews of Filaret on matters of Law. East page 456 Letter from Count Ignatiev to Fr. Antonin dated March 9, 1860 The same from May 3/15, 1866. The same from 3/15 Oct. 1866 Letter from Count Ignatiev to Arch. Antonin dated April 10/22, 1868 “Archimandrite Antonin goes very far beyond the limits of the assignment given to him,” wrote M. Filaret to Chief Prosecutor Count D. A. Tolstoy, “projecting that the head of the Jerusalem Mission be in Constantinople and have a vicar in Jerusalem” (Collected opinions and reviews on the affairs of the legal church in the East, pp. 449,450 and 455). Letter from Count Ignatiev to Fr. Antonin dated July 25, 1868 The same from September 12. 1869 The same dated June 19/30, 1870. Arch. Savva, Collection of opinions and reviews of Philaret of Moscow on matters of rights, churches in the East p. 449. The same from June 15/27, 1868. The same from November 9/22, 1873. Letter from Count Ignatiev to Father Antonin dated July 27, 1874 Letter about. arch. Smaragd, rector of the embassy church in Constantinople, to Fr. Antonin from August 30. 1874 Letter from Count N.P. Ignatiev to Fr. Antonin from December 16/28. 1874 A. Dmitrievsky. Chief of the Russian Spirit. Mission in Jerusalem Arch. Antonin, as a figure for the benefit of Orthodoxy in the East and in particular in Palestine pp. 37–38, St. Petersburg. 1904. Letter from Count Ignatiev to Fr. Antonin dated March 14, 1869 The same dated March 4/16, 1870. Letter from Count Ignatiev to Fr. Antonin from December 7. 1871 A new governor, Kiamil Bey, is appointed to Jerusalem, as Count Ignatiev characterizes him, a very ordinary man, sluggish, deaf, kind, semi-educated (in the French way), decent, but stupid, although he is reputed to be a healer “for spiritual matters of various Christian confessions.” He was in charge of this part in Porte, was the chairman of the Commission of Monastic Properties in the Principalities, and before that he was a member of the Turkish embassy in St. Petersburg and was almost even a chargé d'affaires. It’s easy to get along with him (he’s not a fanatic), and whoever sits on him first will ride. I am reporting this for Kozhevnikov’s information, so that our people don’t miss it and don’t let the Frenchman in” (letter dated September 12, 1869) Here is a description of the creator of the current Turkish constitution. Letter from Count Ignatiev to Fr. Antonin dated January 4/16, 1872 Hebron Mamre Oak, which cost enormous amounts for the late arch. Antonin and material and moral efforts to defend his property rights, to the sadness of his owner, noticeably withered and began to wither about his grief. Antonin told his friend the Kyiv rector of the Academy of Arch. Philaret (later Bishop of Riga). The latter, as a consolation, wrote the following on April 25, 1874: “You can regret Oak, but you shouldn’t cry. It's time for him to end his days. Ancient, it is said, all past and all new. Why should he still stay? If the memory of Abraham is needed, then the sons of Israel are better than your Oak to spread their forefather everywhere. One pity is that with the death of “Oak”, your buildings will remain with one grape. Yes, well, maybe this plantation, spreading in the place of the “Oak”, will provide as much benefit as the “Oak”, if only this one brings something other than acorns. Eternal memory to him! Letter from Count Ignatiev to Fr. Antonin dated November 8/20, 1873 Letter from Count Ignatiev to Fr. Antonin dated November 22, 1870 The same from May 12/24, 1871. The same from October 7/19, 1866. These opinions were expressed in the following six points: 1. So that the philanthropic government restores the saving measure it once adopted - not to let out of Russia those fans and fans who do not have (real and their own) 150 silver rubles - at least. The scenes of the most deplorable beggary that are repeated here every year make one wish for this with all one’s might and strive for it with all one’s efforts. 2. So that persons worthy to bow to St. places, it was supposed not to be allowed back to St. places before the expiration of ten years 3. So that those who return home can be observed to see if they are called by a new name, if they are engaged in trading in objects of national reverence that they brought from Palestine, and if they are not making secret collections for St. places. 4. So that people who are known to be inclined to excess in the use of strong drinks are kept in every possible way by the society to which they belong from traveling to St. places. 5. So that worshipers who have not reached the age of 35 are encouraged by someone to postpone the fulfillment of their pious intention to see St. places until later in life. 6. So that some department takes on the work, annually, at the end of the worship period (after Easter), publishes the names of everyone who visited the holy places, for general information and for private leadership.” (Kherson. Eparch. Ved. 1867). Letter to Fr. Antonin dated June 18/30, 1868 The same from January 13/25, 1873. Letter from Count Ignatiev to Fr. Antonin dated September 12, 1869 This place once belonged to the German Order of the Templars, and on it the majestic Church of the Resurrection is now built by the Germans. Letter from Count Ignatiev to Fr. Antonin from January 7. 1870 Of course, the place is the home of the righteous Joachim and Anna and the Nativity of the Mother of God. Nowadays there is a magnificent Catholic basilica here. Letter from N.P. Ignatiev to Fr. Antonin dated March 4/16, 1870 The same dated May 12/24, 1871. The same dated January 17/29. 1867 A special committee chaired by the ambassador’s wife, Countess E. L. Ignatieva, took an active part in the establishment of this hospital and in the development of the charter for it. Detailed information about the Russian hospital in Constantinople is provided in the brochure of Dr. V. Shchepotyev “Russian Nicholas Hospital in Constantinople” M 1907. Letter from Count Ignatiev to Fr. arch. Aikhovnyau from 4/» March 1870 The same from 7/12 Oct. 1866 The same dated June 18/30, 1863. It is worth noting that for some reason the closeness of Count N.P. Ignatiev to Sultan Abdul-Azis was not liked in St. Petersburg. This intimacy was condemned in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and did not look at it favorably, as K. S. Karpov reports, and Sovereign Emperor Alexander II, who made the following handwritten note on one of the dispatches from Count N. P. Ignatiev about Sultan Abdul-Azis’s devotion to us: “Se n’ai que faire de Son amitie” (Behind the scenes of diplomacy p. 13). Letter dated May 18/24, 1871 You might be interested in: