The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

Diocesan bishops and secretaries of spiritual consistories in the first half of the 19th century: the analysis of conflictness in the relations


UDC 271.22-(47)

V.V. Vyatkin



Events of the Synod period in the history of the Russian Church are considered. In the first half of H_H of century in dioceses the formation of government agencies — spiritual consistories was completed. Many consistories faced counteraction of the bishops who were still resisting church reform of Pyotr of l.

This article considers the events of the synodal period in the history of Russian Church. ln the first half of the 19th century, the formation of governmental bodies - eparchial consistories - was completed. Many consistories faced the opposition of archiereis who still resisted the church reform of Peter l.

Petrovsky reforms introduced huge changes in church life. Along with the Synod the spiritual consistories protecting a course of the state towards submission to themselves Church were open. It caused counteraction from bishops — adherents of pre-Pertine orders. Opposition of bishops and consistory secretaries became concrete manifestation of the conflict of two parties of the diocesan power.

The role of the consistory secretary was big — he managed office in which all office-work of a consistory concentrated. The Synod reminded the archbishop Arkady (Fedorov) once: "You will desire to agree how duties of the secretary of a consistory" [1, l are important. 194].

For reflections concerning the nature of the relations between diocesan bishops and secretaries of spiritual consistories the Orenburg conflict of the secretary of Vasily Mamin with the bishop Ioanniky (Obraztsov) gives rich food.

Everything began in 1836 when Ioanniky fired Mamin who gained "omnipotent" value in a consistory by then. Being a lawyer, it became objectionable to Ioanniky who won round three members of presence; they also complained of the secretary that he in a consistory, in fact, behaves as the prosecutor. Protecting itself, Mamin addressed the chief prosecutor of the Synod. Having considered its case, the Synod did not consider valid the complaint to it. Mamin was returned to a sekretarstvo, but for the sake of a compromise with Ioanniky issued to the secretary the reprimand for "impudence" in relation to the bishop, having accused the last of arbitrariness. The conflict, however, on it did not end — complaints of conflicting parties fell down: the bishop complained to members of the Synod, Mamin complained to the chief prosecutor. The first accused the opponent of a lie, impudence, "dishonesty", the disrespectful attitude towards members of presence and even of abuses, the second — of lawlessness, self-interest and an arbitrariness; the secretary showed the facts, the bishop — the offended feelings. As a result in 1837 the Synod fired Mamin for "impudence" and violations in office-work and appointed audit. Auditors did not find abuses of the secretary, but established the bishop's lawlessness. Nevertheless Ioanniky avoided punishment, and Mamin was not reinstated. The pre-revolutionary historian wrote: "In the Synod... found it necessary to protect prestige of the diocesan power" [2, page 973].

In 1844 inspected also the Penza diocese where there was a conflict between the bishop Ambrose (Morev) and the consistory secretary Oshanin. The last addressed to the Synod with the complaint to the bishop that it began to take away office places for the family, ".sdelatsya. unfair, self-interested and cruel" [3, page 251]. Such action of the secretary caused the response hierarchal complaint. Ambrose accused Oshanin of neglect rules of office-work. The bishop counted on the favourite — the archpriest Ostrovidov, the member

Bulletin of the Russian state university of I. Kant. 2010. Issue 12. Page 7 — 10.

consistories, and on the nephew Morev, the assistant to the secretary. Authorized representatives restored "attendees" against the secretary, and that faced "sneers and impudence".

Audit of 1844 did not lead to an order. Besides, Ambrose prosecuted the secretary of Criminal chamber for failure to provide a consistory of the official report received by it about the unauthorized device at church of a side-altar. Crime in Oshanin's actions was not, and the chief prosecutor protected it. As a result of the next audit (1846) the Synod condemned Ambrose's actions against the secretary, having called the bishop the main responsible for disorders. "In the Synod all were against it" [3, page 258]. In the course of audit it became clear, "that in many affairs and cases. Ambrose expanded the rights hierarchical further limits, laws decided" [3, page 258], deleted clergy from arrivals without the investigation and court. Issued to Ambrose the reprimand "in very tough expressions" [3, page 265]. But the bishop on it did not calm down. Wishing to revenge, he deprived of the secretary of a salary for time of a disease and again prosecuted. The synod forced Ambrose to take away business from court again. Soon Oshanin asked about resignation: ".presledovaniye. absolutely deprived of me forces and health. when will minute of my disposal come?." [3, page 268]. The end was put by the Synod: "charges, .vozvodimy on Oshanin, an essence of the investigation of personal displeasure of the bishop to it." [3, page 271].

In 1845 the Synod came up against a conflict situation and in Pskov where the consistory was "the obedient tool" of her member — the archpriest Znamensky — both the archbishop Nafanail (Pavlovsky), and the consistory secretary holding in hand. In the diocese, abuses began to be multiplied, and the Synod sent to Pskov the new secretary — Svaratsky-Svarika, having aimed it at public prosecutor's duties. The bishop began to hate Svaratsky, planning to appoint instead of him the candidate for secretaries. Nafanail did not allow to himself the secretary, restored against him members of a consistory, and as a result speed of hearing of cases was sharply reduced. Management of the diocese became a little capable. Complaining to the Synod, the bishop accused of all the secretary, having incriminated him "excess of the power". "I beg the Synod to save me from the secretary" [3, page 201] — Nafanail asked. In response to it Svaratsky, wishing "to protect the truth and force of the laws" [3, page 201], reported about disorders in the diocese. Justice this time won. Having acquitted the secretary, the Synod found guilty Nafanail, having forced it to speak according to Svaratsky's complaints.

The example of the Perm diocese where the secretary of a consistory Ivan Arkharov and the archbishop Arkady (Fedorov) confronted is especially remarkable. Both that and another collected at each other the compromising material. In 1848 Arkharov notified the Synod on an arbitrariness of the bishop and that his messages in the Synod are not always true. Arkady underwent criticism for domination to dioceses of his relatives and oppression of clergymen - "natives". In a denunciation it was also said that Arkady restores clergy and officials of a consistory against Arkharov. He placed particular emphasis on violations by the bishop of laws (sometimes to the detriment of state interest). In the response complaint the archbishop claimed that Arkharov "is not held by a position properly because leaves presence before members." [4, l. 209]. Despite a lack of charges, Arkady asked about Arkharov's replacement with other official.

The synod appointed commission of inquiry and by results of check in 1850 made Arkharov a strict remark "for non-compliance with a debt of subordination", "frequent absence in the workplace." [1, l. 204 about.]. The reprimand was issued to the archbishop: "With an extreme regret surveyed your orders. harmful to service and moral benefit. dioceses. Any. movement of clergy. finds. the addiction which is opposite to laws is besides extremely indecent for your dignity" [1, l. 205]. History received final end in 1851: Arkharov lost a position and was fired from spiritual department; approximately then Arkady appointed to less prestigious department to Petrozavodsk also left the diocese.

Fight of bishops against secretaries in different places went differently and with different result. Having joined in 1866 management of the Polotsk diocese, Savva (Tikhomirov) admitted: "To remove one secretary and to receive on his place another. for me did not cost big work" [5, page 258]. Many bishops wanted to change secretaries. We find in Filaret (Drozdov's) letter: "Preosvyashchenny Perm (bishop Melety. — Century of V.) writes me what it for success in affairs needs to change the secretary, but to inform on it is afraid. Preosvyashchenny would wish that changed the secretary without his denunciation or gave it the reason to enter with a denunciation that visible need of this denunciation reduced displeasure which the denunciation will make on the place" [6, page


The research of a subject leads to the following conclusions. The majority of the conflicts between diocesan bishops and secretaries of spiritual consistories were the share of the first half of the 19th century when the regional component of a Synod system was fulfilled, was

the Charter of consistories which limited the power of bishops is adopted and, stopping their despotic bents, it is a lot of them annoyed. Harmonization of church life was reached hardly. The audits caused by the conflicts showed imperfection still of the formed consistory system. Petrovsky church reform dragged on. In the conflicts contradictions of the secular and church beginning in Synod Russia were reflected. Entering the conflict with bishops, secretaries were eager for legality in diocesan management. During audits, serious abuses of diocesan bishops, their despotic bents were shown.

Development of a Synod system gave to secretaries considerable force. But figures, equal with bishops, they did not become. And in the second half of the 19th century, and at the beginning of the 20th century the bishops managed to change objectionable to them secretaries.

It is possible to allocate several factors of opposition of secretaries and bishops:

a) legal — independence of secretaries, whose appointment depended on the Synod;

b) material — identical salaries of secretaries and bishops;

c) an education factor — by the beginning of the 20th century the secretaries and bishops were equal also by training, having spiritual academy. As a sample for secretaries the prominent church historian — the secretary of the Moscow consistory N.P. Rozanov could serve;

d) psychological — love of power of bishops, conceit inherent in them.

List of sources and literature

1. State archive of Perm Krai. T. 198. Op. 1. 256.
2. N Chernavsky of M. The Orenburg diocese in last its and real. Orenburg, 1901 — 1902.
3. Materials for the history of Orthodox Church in reign... Nicholas I / under the editorship of N.F. Dubrovin//the Collection of Imperial Russian historical society. SPb., 1902. T. 113. Prince 2.
4. State archive of Perm Krai. T. 37. Op. 1. 417.
5. A.A. Titov. About notes of the archbishop Savva//the Russian archive. 1905. No. 2. Page 237 — 294.
6. Correspondence of Filaret, the Metropolitan of Moscow, with S.D. Nechayev. SPb., 1895.

About the author

Valery Viktorovich Vyatkin — an edging. east. sciences, dots., Perm institute of railway transport, e-mail:


Dr. Valery Vyatkin, Associate Professor, Perm Railroad Transport Institute, e-mail:

Jeffrey Watson
Other scientific works: