Theodosius Yanovsky. Introduction of the poll tax

Raifa monastery from a bird's eye view

Archimandrite Theodosius was born in 1866 into a family of pious peasants in the Kazan province* Akil Grigoryevich and Akilina Mikhailovna Luzgin, and at baptism he was named Theodore. Theodore entered the Raifa Hermitage on July 10, 1897, already at a mature age - at the age of 31. In August 1902 he was tonsured a monk with the name Theodosius, and on March 16, 1903 he was ordained a hieromonk. He was the housekeeper of the Bishop's House in Kazan, the treasurer of the Assumption-Bogoroditsky monastery in the city of Sviyazhsk, and then hegumen of the Sviyazhskaya Makarievskaya hermitage and dean of all the monasteries of the Kazan diocese. By the decision of Vladyka Kirill, in July 1920 he was transferred to the head of the Raifa monastery. Abbot Theodosius was a well-known ascetic, a man of impeccable morality and firmness of faith, who did not have a high education, but had great spiritual and life experience. The monastery gladly accepted this news, because Abbot Theodosius was very respected among the Orthodox laity.
* Luzgins in the Kazan province lived in the villages of Pokrovskoye (Penki) and Mikhailovskoye of the Mamadysh district. Whether Theodosius was from one of these villages, I don't know.

Raifa Monastery. Monastery Square and Chapel of the Holy Spring
*
Theodosius became the rector of the Raifa monastery at a difficult time for the church. With the advent of Soviet power at the end of 1917, the persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church began, which took on a massive and fierce character after the issuance of a decree on January 23, 1918 "On the separation of the Church from the state." The first practical result of the decree was the closure in 1918 of spiritual educational institutions , including diocesan schools and churches attached to them. Arrests of clergy and clergymen and laity numbered in the thousands, and for many ended in martyrdom. According to some information, in 1918, 3,000 clergymen were shot and 1,500 were repressed; in 1919, 1,000 clergy were shot and 800 were subjected to repression (investigative file of Patriarch Tikhon, p. 15). During this period, Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev (Bogoyavlensky), Archbishops Andronik (Nikolsky) of Perm, Omsk Sylvester (Olshevsky), Astrakhan Mitrofan (Krasnopolsky), Bishops Lavrenty (Knyazev) of Balakhna, Vyazemsky Macarius (Gnevushev), Kirillovsky Varsonofy (Lebedev) suffered martyrdom. , Tobolsk Germogen (Dolganev), Solikamsky Feofan (Ilmensky), Selenginsky Ephraim (Kuznetsov), etc. In April 1918, a Commission was created in the People's Commissariat for Justice to implement the decree "On the Separation of the Church from the State", later renamed the VIII Department, called " liquidation." The instruction of August 24, 1918, prepared by this department on the procedure for applying the decree, already provided for a number of harsh confiscation measures, including the seizure of capital, valuables, and other property of churches and monasteries. Moreover, when the monastic property was seized, the monasteries themselves were to be liquidated. In 1918 - 1921. the property of more than half of the monasteries in Russia was nationalized - 722. On February 23, 1922, the decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee on the seizure of church valuables came into effect. Having received detailed development in the Politburo and the GPU, this decree became a tool with which the authorities made an attempt to destroy the Church. On March 19, V. I. Lenin wrote a well-known letter in which he finally formulated the meaning and goals of the campaign to confiscate valuables: “All considerations indicate that we will not be able to do this later, because no other moment, except for desperate such a mood among the broad masses of the peasantry that would either ensure the sympathy of this mass, or at least ensure the neutralization of these masses in the sense that victory in the struggle against the seizure of valuables will remain unconditionally and completely on our side ... We must it is now to give the most decisive and merciless battle to the Black Hundred clergy and crush their resistance with such cruelty that they will not forget this for several decades. Lenin suggested that after the seizure of church valuables, several trials be held in Shuya, in Moscow and in "several other spiritual centers", which should end in executions. Such processes have been carried out. Some of them, such as Moscow (April 26 - May 8, 1922), Petrograd (May 29 - July 5, 1922), Smolensky (August 1 - August 24, 1922), ended in death sentences for some of the accused. At that time, Hieromartyrs Veniamin (Kazansky), Metropolitan of Petrograd, Archimandrite Sergius (Shein) and lay martyrs Yuri Novitsky and John Kovsharov were shot in Petrograd. Archpriests Alexander Zaozersky, Vasily Sokolov, Christopher Nadezhdin, Hieromonk Macarius (Telegin) and layman Sergiy Tikhomirov were shot in Moscow. The rest were sentenced to imprisonment and exile. Thus, if the first stage of the persecution, 1918-1920, most often took place without observing any legal formalities, then the persecution of 1922 was carried out with the involvement of courts and revolutionary tribunals. The authorities did not limit themselves to direct repressions against the clergy and believers. Their intention was to destroy church government, for which a group of clergy was formed into a separate organization "Living Church", to which the Soviet authorities began to provide certain patronage. This group, hiding behind the ideas of reform Orthodox Church , marked the beginning of its split. In form, this movement, called "Renovation", was the usual reformation, calling for a return to the forms of church life from the time of the apostles: the translation of services into Russian, the remarriage of the clergy, the abolition of the celibacy of bishops, the transition to a new calendar style, and in the long term the removal of iconostases, separating the clergy from the people. In essence, the "Living Church" was an obsequious servant of the Soviet authorities, especially in its struggle with the Patriarchal Church, and was saturated with the "pernicious, stinking spirit of careerism, groveling and sycophanism" (Anatoly Levitin). Convened by the Renovationists on April 29 - May 9, 1923, the Council announced the deprivation of the Patriarch of the priesthood, and even monasticism, the restoration of the institution of the Patriarchate by the Cathedral of 1917 - 1918. was proclaimed a "counter-revolutionary act". The OGPU organized a visit by a delegation from the Sobor to the arrested Patriarch Tikhon to present these decrees. The Patriarch inscribed on them his resolution on their non-canonicity, if only because the 74th Apostolic Canon requires his obligatory presence at the Judicial Council for the possibility of justification. Describing the mechanism by which the Renovation movement was created, as well as how and for what purposes the Renovation Council was assembled, the head of the VI Department of the Secret Department of the OGPU E.A. Tuchkov wrote: “Before the creation of renovationist church groups, the entire management of the church was in the hands of the former Patriarch Tikhon, and hence the tone of the church was clearly given in an anti-Soviet spirit. then throughout the USSR. Until that time, both on the part of the GPU organs and on the part of our party, attention was paid to the church exclusively for informational purposes. Therefore, in order for the anti-Tikhon groups to take over the church apparatus, it was necessary to create such an information network that could be use not only for the aforementioned purposes, but also to direct the entire church through it, which we have achieved ... From that time, in contrast to Tikhon's anti-Soviet policy, a policy in the spirit of Soviet power began and the complete replacement of the old Tikhon bishops and prominent priests with their supporters .. This was the beginning of a split in the Orthodox Church and a change in the political orientation of the church apparatus ... In order to finally strengthen their position and obtain the canonical right to lead the church, the Renovationists began work on the preparation of the All-Russian Local Council, at which questions were to be decided mainly about Tikhon and his foreign bishops, the final establishment of the political line of the church and the introduction of a number of liturgical innovations into it.

Raifa Monastery. Trinity Cathedral, 1904-1910

*
And in this troubled time in July 1920, hegumen Theodosius became the rector of one of the largest monasteries - the Raifa desert. The situation was complicated by the fact that two years ago, on June 15, 1918, the peasants of the village of Belo-Bezvodnoye in the monastery killed Chekists Valentin Nesmelov (son of the philosopher V.I. Nesmelov), Fyodor Kopko, Pyotr Lavrinovich and four Red Army soldiers who came to the desert for a search and caused indignation of pilgrims by their behavior. Seven "comrades" invaded the monastery at night. The Chekists went to the Hotel and began to give orders for the seizure of the monastery property, without presenting any documents, and four Red Army soldiers unceremoniously burst into the temple, dragged the monk who was trying to prevent them from the altar by the hair and began to commit outrages there: they tore the antimension from the throne, rummaged in the tabernacle .. At this time, the alarm sounded in the bell tower, the peasants of the surrounding villages fled. The Red Army soldiers were disarmed and locked in a barn. While the representatives of the villages wrote the report on the detention of the bandits, the people arrived, it was impossible to restrain them, and lynching began. Three days later, a detachment of Red Army soldiers arrived at the monastery, about eighty people, to arrest the monks, who had absolutely nothing to do with the execution of the self-styled expropriators. The people again gathered and, having beaten off the monks, scattered the detachment. Then a detachment of 250 people arrived in Belo-Bezvodnaya, but the peasants took refuge in the forests, while the monks - some went to the Seven Lake Desert, some were sheltered in the villages, and someone was arrested. In 1923, Renovationist Archbishop Alexy arrived in Kazan and arbitrarily seized the church administration. Kazan vicars - Bishop Joasaph (Udalov) and Bishop Athanasius (Malinin), and after them all the monasteries refused to recognize the Renovationists. However, most of the parish clergy fell under the rule of the Living Churchmen, who demanded submission from the monasteries, but the latter were faithful Orthodox faith. Archimandrite Theodosius, as dean of all the monasteries of the diocese, contributed to the preservation of intact Orthodoxy in the monasteries. The Raifa monks were one of the few among the clergy of the Kazan Diocese who from the first day refused to accept the power of the Renovationists, considering them uncanonical: the Supreme Church Administration, sent to Kazan in May 1923, the false archbishop Alexy and the Kazan Diocesan Administration, headed by an illegal bishop. The Raifa monastery became one of the strongholds of Orthodoxy in the Kazan region. So, from the Raifa Hermitage, the Renovationist diocesan administration received a resolution that "The Brethren of the Raifa Hermitage do not recognize the Renovationist Higher Church Administration (HCU), as having broken unity with the One, Catholic and Apostolic Church, Archbishop Alexy and KEU, headed by an illegal archbishop." This decision was signed by 25 brethren and 18 novices. However, the triumph of renewal did not last long. On June 27, 1923, Patriarch Tikhon was released from prison and immediately sent messages to the All-Russian flock. His main concern after his release was to overcome the Renovationist split. With the utmost clarity, the Patriarch outlined in his message of July 15, 1923, the history of the seizure of church power by the Renovationists, which they used to deepen church schism, the persecution of priests who remained faithful to the canons, the planting of the "Living Church", the weakening of church discipline. The patriarch declared the church administration of the Renovationists illegal, the adopted orders invalid, and all the actions and sacraments performed and being performed by them without grace. A mass exodus of the parish clergy from "living church" began. Bishop Ioasaph received those who had fallen away through a special rite of repentance, and the churches where the false metropolitan Alexy served, he lit up with a small rank to the universal rejoicing of the people. Orthodox hierarchs were solemnly received in all churches - they strewed the road with flowers and greeted them with the ringing of Easter bells. Raifa, as one of the strongholds of Orthodoxy, was visited by Bishops Joasaph and Athanasius, the temples of the monastery were overflowing with believers. And although new exiles and arrests soon began, the feeling of moral victory and spiritual rightness to the very last days did not leave the hearts of persistent Raif monks. Even the arrest and removal from the Kazan diocese in May 1924 of Vladyka Joasaph, the main opponent of the Renovationists, did not undermine the courage of the monks. Yes, and Archimandrite Theodosius, as the dean of all the monasteries of the diocese, contributed to the preservation of intact Orthodoxy in the monasteries.

Raifa Monastery. Church in the name of the Georgian icon Mother of God

*
On August 21, 1924, Archpriest Arkady Preobrazhensky, who defected to the Renovationists, sent the following statement to the Living Church Administration: “On August 20 this year, I was called to Abbess Angelina, where Archimandrite Theodosius of the Raifa Hermitage, who considers himself dean of all the monasteries of the Kazan diocese , suggested that I refuse to unite with the Diocesan Administration and go over to the side of her secret enemies, i.e. Bishop Athanasius, Archimandrite Theodosius and other persons who clearly have communication with the declared criminals - Patriarch Tikhon, Bishop Joasaph and others. I refused such an offer At 10 pm on the same date, I was summoned to a meeting of the Parish Council, which suggested that I stop serving services in the church of the Feodorovsky Monastery.” On the same date, the Renovationist KEU brought to the attention of the TNKVD that "Archimandrite Theodosius brings constant confusion to civilians and transfers purely religious questions to political grounds, inciting believers against the Renovationists." The name of the abbot of the Raifa Hermitage was repeatedly mentioned in the Renovationist appeals to the authorities and in the Renovationist journal "Orthodox Church Bulletin", for example, in connection with the refusal of the Raifa monks to give the Renovationists the miraculous Georgian Icon of the Mother of God to wear. procession in the city of Chistopol. The secular authorities could not endure the influence of the Raifa monastery for a long time. After the exile of the monks of the Kazan Monastery of St. John the Baptist and Bishop Joasaph, it was the Raifa and Sedmiozernaya deserts with their abbots, Archimandrites Theodosius and Alexander, who seemed to be the main strongholds of Orthodoxy in the Kazan region. As many centuries ago, during the time of iconoclastic despotism and persecution of those who venerated icons, it was monasticism that came to the defense of the Christian faith. With a steadfast confession of Orthodoxy, it brought the day of his Triumph closer. This is something the secular authorities did not want to allow. In June 1924, the volost executive committee, hospital and school were transferred to the monastery from the village of Bolshiye Klyuchi, taking away most of the outbuildings and fraternal buildings. At that time, 25 monks and 18 novices lived in Raifa, and the rector was Archimandrite Theodosius, who, as best he could, protected the buildings remaining behind the monastery from the encroachments of worldly authorities. Theodosius was arrested and probably exiled, and in June 1928 the monastery was closed. The exact date and circumstances of the arrest of Theodosius, as well as his subsequent fate, are not known to me. Presumably, the arrest took place before June 1928 (perhaps even in 1924), because. at the moment of closing, Abbot Sergius (Guskov) was already the rector of the desert. However, Theodosius was hardly destined to outlive the rest of the Raifian inhabitants.

Raifa Monastery. Temple of the Reverend Fathers in Sinai and Raifa beaten. The first stone temple, 1708

*
The closure of the monastery had the opposite result: the abbot of the desert and the monastery itself acquired an aura of martyrdom, the homeless monks were sheltered by the peasants of the surrounding villages, and in the rebellious village of Belo-Bezvodnaya a community was organized, which included seven of the former Raifa inhabitants. Peasants from all over the area came to them for confession and for advice, the monks confessed, baptized, buried, and continued to preach the word of God. The faithful sons of the Church, monks and laity, continued to "illegally and illegally" come to the closed monastery on major holidays and hold services in the ancient Raifa-Sinai Church. Of course, according to the logic of that time, this was called a "counter-revolutionary conspiracy." In May 1929, consultations were held at the TatTsIK with representatives of the NKVD about the fate of the Raifa desert and its former inhabitants. They were considered indirect culprits of the mass resistance of the peasants to collectivization. The monks expelled from the monastery did not leave their church service. Local residents constantly came to them for advice, confessed and received spiritual guidance. The glory of the holy monastery and the unanimity of the peasants, who invariably opposed the closure of the monastery, the removal of the bells, the seizure of property and other repressions, could not but disturb the GPU. Shortly thereafter, under various pretexts and denunciations, Hieromonk Sergius, his sister, nun Varvara, novice Ivan Larionov, and others were arrested. Rumors spread that the arrested were being beaten, and that Sergius was completely shot by the GPU. The peasants again became indignant, and at the end of 1929 the authorities were forced to release Sergius on bail. However, this act of "good will" by the authorities did not reassure the peasants. They were still reluctant to go to the collective farms, in every possible way rejected anti-religious propaganda. Then the authorities "decided to bring three accusations against the monks at once: in agitation against the Soviet regime, in the murder of 7 Red Army soldiers in 1918, and in hiding the monastery property." On January 23, 1930, the GPU arrested those monks of the Raifa desert who did not enter the community and lived in the surrounding villages, and 16 more people who sympathized with them. When the seven monks who remained in the community on January 26 (on the eve of the patronal feast) began the vigil, they were already awaiting arrest and an unjust trial. On this day, many nuns from the closed Kazan Bogoroditsky, Fedorovsky and Sviyazhsky monasteries arrived in the desert. After serving the vigil, some went to spend the night with friends, while others, who did not have an overnight stay, with the blessing of the rector of the community, Hieromonk Joseph, settled down right in the church. On the morning of January 27, 1930, on the day of the Reverend Fathers in Sinai and Raifa, the last Divine Liturgy Raifa brethren. History repeated itself. The new venerable martyrs performed a service in memory of the ancient martyrs for the last time... Surprisingly touching, sad and, at the same time, solemn was the service that day. For the last time they partook of the Holy Mysteries, admonishing each other before the coming trials. And there was something especially poignant in the fact that they served that day not in green, but in red vestments, as if prophetically clothed in the color of martyr's robes. After the Liturgy, the brethren served a moleben before the venerable icon of the beaten fathers in Sinai and Raifa. And, truly, wonderful is Your Providence, Lord! While the brethren prayed to their heavenly patrons, the new barbarians who surrounded the temple, without knowing it themselves, repeated what had already happened many centuries ago, preparing martyr crowns for the Raifa monks. A detachment of the GPU from Kazan surrounded the temple right during the service. According to some testimonies, the policemen waited until the end of the liturgy, and already at the end they arrested everyone who was in the church and had time to finally take communion with the Holy Mysteries. Everyone was arrested, including infirm, deaf, half-blind nuns, sickly, elderly monks, without any explanation they pushed into trucks and all of them were taken to Kazan on the same day, where they were imprisoned. Along the snow-covered road, blown by the winds and urged on by rude guards, the monks rode away from their native monastery in order to acquire a martyr's crown far from it, some - the life of a confessor, camp and exile ... All the accused - from the elderly 62-year-old hieromonk Anthony to the twenty-three-year-old novice Peter - during interrogations, with amazing simplicity and frankness, they showed their readiness to suffer for Christ. They were charged with anti-Soviet activities. Of course, the monks were not ardent supporters of Bolshevism, but they shunned the political struggle, humbly believing that "Soviet power was set up for the sins of the people." A month later, on February 20, a meeting of the notorious "judicial troika" of the GPU of the Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic passed a verdict according to which hieromonks Joseph (Gavrilov), Anthony (Chirkov), Varlaam (Pokhilyuk), Job (Protopopov) and novice Pyotr Tupitsyn were shot on the Annunciation on April 7 . In the same case, those who were also present at the service were shot: the last abbess of the devastated Fedorovsky Kazan Monastery, Mother Sofia and the laity Vasily Gavrilov and Stepan Abramov from the village of Belo-Bezvodnaya. The monastery treasurer, Hieromonk Sergius, was tormented for several more months, trying to beat out of him information about the monastery sacristy. Having learned nothing from the monk Sergius, in the world of Pavel Ivanovich Guskov, he was shot on August 10, on the day of the celebration of the Smolensk Icon of the Mother of God. So in the 20th century, repeating the feat of the ancient Sinai and Raifa Fathers, new Raifa martyrs "beaten in Raifa" appeared. Eight more monks and novices, about twenty nuns and ten laity, arrested on January 27, 1930, were sentenced to 5 years in a concentration camp or exile to the north. Their names are known. In 1997, on April 6, on the day of the execution of 5 monks and a novice, the canonization of the Monks Martyrs Sergius, Anthony, Job, Joseph, Varlaam and Peter took place. All of them were lauded as St. the venerable martyrs of Raifa - with the celebration of memory on January 27 (new style), since due to the coincidence of the date of their death with the Annunciation, it would not be possible to give them a worthy memory on April 7. The church decided to honor the day of their arrest. At present, in the Raifa-Sinai Church, where that last Liturgy was celebrated, a chapel has been set up in the name of all the New Martyrs of Russia. Archimandrite Theodosius was hardly destined to outlive the rest of the Raifa inhabitants. Therefore, in the "Prayer to the Icon of the Georgian Mother of God", published by the Raifa Bogoroditsky Monastery with the blessing of Archbishop Anastassy of Kazan and Tatarstan, among the mentioned new martyrs and confessors of Raifa, the first is the name of Archimandrite Theodosius, in the world of Fyodor Akilovich Luzgin.

Raifa Monastery. The interior of the Church of the Reverend Fathers in Sinai and Raifa beaten

Prayer to the Georgian Icon of the Mother of God

Published by the Raifa Bogoroditsky Monastery with the blessing of Anastasy, Archbishop of Kazan and Tatarstan
(from Akathist Blessed Lady glorification to our Mother of God for the sake of Her miraculous icon "Georgian")
Your greatness and mercy, Mother of God, who will confess; and who will sing of Your wonders, glorious; Thou hast rejoiced the faithful children of the Church of Russia, Most Pure, godless barbarians, Thou hast confounded Thy Holiness: Thy marvelous icon has been preserved for us, our ailments are healed and spiritual sorrows are healed. Oh, All-Merciful Lady, Virgin Mother of God, do not deprive us now of Your protection, but with Your prayers, always preserve our country and people in the world and contribute to the restoration of the Raifa monastery. Like the Holy Mati of the Most Holy God, the Lady, Mary the Mother of God, with all this Saints, pray to rest in the heavenly villages of the soul of Your servant, the new martyrs and confessors of Raifa: Archimandrite Theodosius (Luzgin), Ub. Hegumen Sergius (Guskov), Ub. Hieromonk Anthony (Chirkov), Ub. Hieromonk Joseph (Gavrilov), Ub. Hieromonk Varlaam (Pokhilyuk), Ub. Hieromonk Job (Protopopov), Hieromonk Mitrofan (Kirillov), Hierodeacon Jerome (Sorokin), Hierodeacon Porfiry (Sovetnikov), Monk Savvaty (Agafonov), Monk Gelasius (Terekhin), Monk Nestor (Nikitin), Deacon Alexander Sebeldin, Ub. Novice Peter Tupitsyn, Novice Peter Rantsev, Ub. Vasily Gavrilov, Ub. Stepan Abramov.

*
Hermitage near the Raifa Lake and the Sumka River was founded in the first quarter of the 17th century. Miraculous hieromonk Filaret. She began to settle under the Kazan Metropolitan Lavrenty at his expense and some residents of Kazan. The monastery has 5 temples:
Cathedral in the name of the Holy Trinity with a chapel in the name of St. Demetrius of Rostov (built at the beginning of the 18th century and renovated in 1833)
Cathedral in honor of the Georgian Icon of the Mother of God with 2 aisles: in the name of St. Liberius, Pope of Rome, and in the name of St. John Chrysostom (1842)
Cathedral in the name Reverend Father in Sinai and Raifa beaten with a chapel in the name of St. Euthymius of Novogorodsky (built in 1662, services are no longer held in it).
Above the Holy Gates - in the name of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker.
In the name of the holy martyrs Faith, Hope, Love and their mother Sophia (built in the 17th century and renewed in 1795).
The main shrine of the monastery is the miraculous Georgian icon Mother of God.

*
After the complete closure of the monastery in 1930 and the tragic events that took place here, the spiritual life in the Holy Monastery was interrupted for many decades. At the same time, the Bolsheviks removed the largest bell from the belfry of the monastery, which, having fallen, completely sunk into the ground. According to eyewitnesses, after the fall and impact, the earth hummed for a long time. The bell was very large, weighing about 500 pounds. The icons, books, priestly vestments and everything that was not of material value that remained in the monastery were burned. Church household items and utensils were looted and ancient temples for decades involuntarily became silent witnesses of thousands of tragic human destinies. For many decades in former monastery first a prison was located, then a children's colony (the so-called special school). Temples were rebuilt and mutilated. But new times have come. The Raifa Hermitage became the first restored monastery of the Kazan diocese. Friends, visiting the Raifa Hermitage, do not forget to commemorate its rector, hegumen Archimandrite Theodosius - in the world Fyodor Akilovich Luzgin.

Theodosius Yanovsky

Archbishop of Novgorod, one of the most famous hierarchs of the first quarter of the 18th century, an employee of Peter the Great. F., in the world Feodor Yanovsky, came from the Polish gentry. Although more detailed information about his origin has not been preserved, but by many signs one can recognize the probable conjecture of the author of the History of St. Petersburg, Mr. Petrov, that one place on the list of the Smolensk gentry belongs to Feodosiev’s father, where Mikhail Stepanov is listed among the service people Yanovsky, who had 1200 children in the field and received 10 rubles. salary. This Mikhail Yanovsky, according to the list of 1679-1680, has 4 sons, including Theodore and Leonty. About F. it is known that his relatives lived in the Smolensk region and he had a brother Leonty. However, the above conjecture still does not have complete credibility, mainly because the years of Feodor Yanovsky (five years) indicated in the aforementioned list do not coincide with other data. When F. was born is unknown. But information about his teaching makes us attribute the time of his birth to the fifties of the 17th century. This information is also not entirely clear. According to Mr. Petrov, F. studied at the Zaikonospassky Academy in Moscow. But according to all other authors, including the historian Kyiv Academy Mr. Askochensky, F. studied at the Kiev-Mohyla Academy. This statement is undoubtedly the more reliable one. The period of study of F. falls on the time of 1663-1676, during the rectorship of Ioannikius Golyatovsky, and his schoolmates were such persons as Philotheus Leshchinsky, St. Dimitri Rostovsky and Stefan Yavorsky. It is difficult to say how extensive F.'s education was. It is not known whether he continued it in foreign Polish schools, following the example of his other peers. In his subsequent activities, he did not show much learning, but was considered an educated person. Feofan Prokopovich himself does not refuse F. in the latter capacity (in a letter to Senyutovich). Foreigners even called him a scientist (Berchholtz). F. had an extensive library of Latin books. But, in any case, in terms of his learning, Yanovsky could not be equal to such personalities as Stefan Yavorsky, Feofan Prokopovich and Feofilakt Lopatinsky. Not without reason, according to Feofan, loving scientists, F. preferred simple ones, and not a single literary work remained of him.

History finds F. a cassock novice of the Simonov Monastery. How he got here and what prompted him to become a monk is unknown. There is reason to believe that the first years of his monastic life were overshadowed by some sad incident for him. From a letter to F. Novgorod Met. Job, it is clear that F. for some kind of slander against the Simonov archimandrite was sent in chains to the Trinity Monastery. According to Mr. Petrov, this slander was simply a complaint about the harassment of Archimandrite Bartholomew, who, as is known, was indeed noted for his particular severity. Be that as it may, F. was among the criminals of monastic discipline. But Job, the future Metropolitan of Novgorod, who was then Archimandrite of Troitsk, took part in the exiled monk, freed him from his chains and brought him closer to himself. Having become the Metropolitan of Novgorod (in 1697), Job took F. with him to Novgorod. Obviously, F. attracted the attention of Job with some of his businesslike qualities. Apparently, there was not one personal disposition here, because later Job confessed that he had never seen gratitude from F.. But Job was one of the few bishops of that time who tried to meet the new demands of life, understood the benefits of education and valued educated, useful, talented people. Such a person, undoubtedly, seemed to Job F., and therefore he quickly elevated him. Around 1701, Job made Yanovsky abbot, and in 1704 archimandrite of the first-class Khutyn Novgorod monastery. The Khutyn archimandrites were usually the closest assistants to the Novgorod bishops for administration, and therefore F. was also assigned this role. It must be that soon after his arrival in Novgorod, F. became known to the sovereign, who often traveled along this road, and drew the royal attention to himself. Just as Job found valuable qualities in Janovsky, so Peter, who was so good at noticing talents, noticed them. It is very possible that a prominent archimandrite soon went to F. because he deserved the favor of the king. That more or less close relations had already been established between Peter and F. by 1704, this is evident from the fact that in a letter dated October 27, 1704, F. had the courage to complain directly to the sovereign about the disobedience of the former Khutyn cellar Benedict, who had taken possession of one ascribed monastery . This complaint indirectly served as a denunciation of Job, who, according to F. , did not render him any assistance in the fight against the willfulness of the cellar. The latter circumstance portrays Yanovsky's relationship to his benefactor in an unsightly light, but at the same time proves that the Khutyn archimandrite was no longer afraid of his master and could dare to do a lot, relying on the highest support.

Both Job and Peter appreciated in Yanovsky, apparently, administrative talents, love for education, readiness to contribute to the implementation of these goals. F. was an energetic man, possessing a practical mind, able to adapt to the requirements of the time, advanced in many church matters, alien to the old church conservatism. Scholastic education made the same impression on him as it did on Feofan Prokopovich: it inspired him with an aversion to Catholic clerical ideas, aroused sympathy rather for the antipode of Catholicism - Protestantism. Without showing his convictions in the field of ideological, scientific, literary, as Prokopovich, Yanovsky embodied them in practical activities. Peter needed such people, as they met his requirements. Therefore, F. did not stay long in Novgorod. At the beginning of 1708, Job sent him to Moscow for the printing house of Simeon of Polotsk. In Moscow, F. saw the sovereign, and the latter appointed him to St. Petersburg "spiritual judge" to manage the churches and clergy of the newly conquered cities - Yamburg, Narva, Koporye, Shlisselburg and new St. Petersburg. Job was only notified of the new appointment of his archimandrite and had to bless him for a new service. At the same time, Job gave the new administrator instructions regarding his activities. The terms of reference of F. according to this instruction were very extensive: he was granted almost all the rights of a diocesan chief, with the exception of those directly related to the hierarchal rank. In the newly conquered region, F. became the viceroy of the Novgorod bishop, to whose diocese this region was assigned. F. zealously took up the device of a new region. His main business was the construction of churches and supplying them with everything necessary, as well as the organization of church supervision over new clergy and new flocks. Then the second major enterprise F. was the construction of the Alexander Nevsky Monastery. It is not without reason to guess that the very idea of ​​building a monastery was suggested by Theodosius. For the latter, it was important, of course, to tie himself somehow more strongly with Petersburg than the temporary role of a church administrator. The monastery, of which he would have been the builder and archimandrite, gave him such a settled way of life. Be that as it may, but in 1710 the foundation of the Alexander Nevsky monastery was laid, and F. was appointed its builder. In 1712, at the end of February, he was officially appointed archimandrite of the future monastery. At the same time, energetically set to building. New Monastery at the time of its establishment, it was placed by a degree above all other Russian monasteries. His archimandrite received exceptional privileges: the right to use the episcopal mitre during divine services, to wear the St. Andrew's cross and to have green velvet tablets on a black mantle; in addition, F. was allowed to wear a cross on a miter, following the example of the Little Russian bishops.

F. reached his goal; he succeeded in this way in elevating and strengthening his honorable position in the new capital. With the appointment to the Neva archimandrites, his position as a church administrator in the newly conquered region received greater certainty. In the Nevsky Monastery, the construction of which had advanced greatly in two years, a special office was established, which became the central administrative body of the new church region. Standing firmly on his feet, F. no longer needed the support of Job and kept himself completely independent of him. Yanovsky's relationship with his former benefactor at that time finally deteriorated. Various circumstances contributed to this. With his independent and proud character, F., probably, gave many reasons for the dissatisfaction of his diocesan bishop with his independent actions. Then he shielded Job by participating in all sorts of important events; he, and not Job, married, for example, Anna Ioannovna in 1710. And most importantly, during the construction of the Nevsky monastery from the Novgorod diocese, several of the richest Novgorod monasteries were assigned to the new monastery, through the efforts of F.. Job could not be pleased with this. When they wanted to unsubscribe from him the Spirits Monastery, he complained that then he would have no one to send the service with. The monasteries assigned to the Nevsky were given to the full disposal of the Nevsky archimandrite, which also affected the bossy pride of the Novgorod lord. The extent to which relations between F. and Job worsened can be judged from one sharp letter from Job to F., written, apparently, around 1710-1712. “You were ordained,” Job wrote, “and consecrated and promoted, brother, to spiritual authority through me unworthy... , like a star from heaven, the evil all-sly adversary the devil and, curbing you like a bad nag, leads you and rides you, magnifying like a pig, or maybe he wants to, until he goes to perfect death and rejoices in the death of your soul ... Ride, as if goat, high, but be afraid, lest you creep deep. In so much you have reached fury, as if you put your mouth in your pride in heaven, and your tongue passes through the earth ... Heal, brother, from these fierce ones, I pray you, do not go into the will of the devil ... I’ll tell you: buoy, you’re not punished, rude, a selchug not human, a wild boar, you are like a fierce beast, you are an imitator of an angry velbud ... Reject stubbornness and disobedience from yourself, and be submissive, and be a true Archimandrite Theodosius, a true man, good, meek, patient, grateful and God-given, escaping from all malice. It seems difficult to find more gloomy colors than what Job portrayed here his former protégé, and the latter must have greatly annoyed his bishop if he called out such a formidable message. But F. was not afraid of the thunders of Job, who was no longer able to influence his fate. The very area of ​​his jurisdiction, legally listed in the Novgorod diocese, in fact, represented an almost independent church unit. However, Job, seeing the disobedience of F. and the impotence of his power over him, was ready to renounce his dubious rights himself. He wrote to Stefan Yavorsky that Petersburg, in fact, as the capital, belongs to the jurisdiction of the locum tenens patriarchal throne. But this dependence was completely fictitious. Neither Stephen nor Job had to exercise their rights in the sphere of management of F. Job himself, when F. was finally strengthened, maintained outwardly correct relations with him.

As a church administrator of the region entrusted to him, F. was distinguished by energetic activity. Under him, many new churches were built, so that by 1721 a whole network of them had formed. To supply the churches with clerics, clergymen were called from other dioceses, mainly from Novgorod. Since such a resettlement was difficult for the resettled, F. proposed calling the clergy in turn, for a while, so that the called ones would retain their former places and income from the latter. F. in general took care of the material well-being of the clergy of his region. For better administrative supervision, he chose special assistants-customers, providing them with appropriate instructions. F. was entrusted with the management of the naval clergy. He recruited hieromonks for the fleet, and he also gave special instructions to their chief, chief hieromonk. In his administrative orders, F., according to the thoughts of Peter the Great, paid special attention to the eradication of various shortcomings in church life. On his initiative, strict decrees were issued against the priests of the cross and the dragging monks. There were many schismatics in the new Petersburg region. F. zealously engaged in schismatic affairs. On schismatic affairs, he often participated in meetings of the Secret Chancellery. In relation to the schismatics, F. was a supporter of strict measures, and his sentences were mostly severe. He devoted many concerns to F. Nevsky Monastery. Abundant incomes went to the building from the ascribed estates, a lot of material and workers were delivered; in addition, at the request of F., special funds were also released. Several stone churches were built, including the large Annunciation Church; in 1720, the Trinity Cathedral was laid, and stone buildings for the brethren began to be built around it even earlier. To fill the brotherhood F. conceived to gather the best monks from all over Russia. By decree of the sovereign, it was ordered to send benevolent monks from various monasteries to the Nevsky Monastery, among other things, in the "hope of the bishopric", that is, in order to consecrate them as bishops, as from people known to the sovereign. This order caused great discontent in the monasteries, because people went to St. Petersburg, especially from Little Russia, where there were "scientists", with great reluctance. The "hope of the bishops" was, of course, accidental, and living in the north was considered a kind of exile. The summoned monks often did not appear, and they had to be demanded almost by force. A hospital was set up at the monastery, the construction of which began as early as 1712. The extensive monastic economy was also under the vigilant supervision of F., and he took measures against various abuses of the rulers.

During this period of time, F., as the administrator of the capital, had an undoubted influence on the general affairs of church administration. With his participation, for example, the paragraphs of the hierarchal oath were drawn up, published under the Senate decree on April 22, 1716, reminiscent of the future requirements of the Rules and hardly approved entirely by the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne. F.'s influence rested, of course, not on his official position, which was not so significant, but mainly on his proximity to the king. F. managed to enter into the confidence of Peter and enjoyed his unlimited location. In 1716-1718. F., together with the royal couple, traveled abroad for the treatment and execution of various orders of the sovereign. This joint stay further strengthened his court ties. Yanovsky also used the mercy of the sovereign to provide for his relatives, who, at his request, were granted several villages. In matters of church administration, after returning from abroad, F. enjoyed more influence than Stefan Yavorsky himself. He was contacted by government officials different occasions for decisions, and a lot depended on him. The nobles were ready to curry favor with him; Menshikov wrote the most respectful letters to him. Bishops turned to his mediation when they needed to intercede for something, and called him their benefactor.

However, with all the strength and importance of F. has already managed to make a lot of enemies. The higher hierarchy, of course, was dissatisfied with the extraordinary exaltation of a simple archimandrite, before whom the bishops had to bow their heads. Moreover, F. by his temper did not at all try to moderate the wounds inflicted on hierarchical pride. He had very little regard for other hierarchs and was not afraid of open clashes even with Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky. Their first clash occurred in 1712 over Stefan's well-known sermon on fiscals. When Stefan was called to the Senate on this occasion, F. was also present, who took the side of the senators against Stefan and, "struggling with the truth", "rebuked" Stefan. In 1713 there was another clash - over the case of Tveritinov. During the first investigation of this case in St. Petersburg, F. was also among Tveritinov's defenders. He announced that Tveritinov had attended confession and communion with him and had no church opposition. When, after the St. Petersburg court, which acquitted those accused of heresy, they ended up in a Moscow court, presided over by Yavorsky, they were not only condemned here, but F. was also convicted and subjected to a ban on priestly service, for having communed a heretic. However, this verdict, not pronounced directly, in general terms, had no meaning, since the entire Moscow court was cassated by the sovereign. But F. was greatly wounded by this indirect blow against him. With Stefan he couldn't have good relations because the complete difference of their views was clearly defined. Fortunately for F., Stefanov's star was setting more and more, and his, Fedosiev's, on the contrary, was rising. Together with Stefan against F., the entire old church party was also armed. In the circle of Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich, the Nevsky Archimandrite was directly called the introducer of "Luthor customs" and they said that the tsar loves him because he allows him "to the full", and by the way, there is modest fasting. In other words, F. was suspected of Protestant sympathies, just like Feofan Prokopovich. These suspicions were not based on real grounds, giving the right to really accuse Yanovsky of non-Orthodoxy, but they made F.'s name a subject of hatred in wide circles, offended by Peter's church events.

With the role of F., it seems somewhat strange that until 1720 he remained all in the rank of archimandrite. His younger comrades were ahead of him on the hierarchical ladder. In 1718, another famous employee of Peter, Feofan Prokopovich, who was much younger than F. and had only recently arrived in St. Petersburg, received the episcopal rank. And F., despite the royal favor, turned out to be bypassed, as it were. It's hard to say what the reason was. It is unlikely that the dislike for F. of the hierarchical circle could delay his movement. Peter did not at all take into account the hierarchical opinion, and even the formal protest of the locum tenens did not stop Feofan Prokopovich's initiation. Rather, the matter is explained by some extraneous considerations. Namely, perhaps the sovereign considered F. a natural candidate for the Novgorod cathedra, part of the diocese of which F. had long ruled, but at the same time found it necessary to postpone such an honorary appointment (Metropolitan Job died in 1716) for tactical reasons. For the proud Neva archimandrite, hierarchical humiliation, especially before Feofan, who also settled in St. Petersburg, apparently was very insulting. He decided to remind himself of himself and filed a defiant request for retirement, referring to his enemies overwhelmed. This curious request shows that F. knew well why he was not loved. “The hair of my head multiplies more,” he wrote, “those who hate me, and the reasons for which they hate, this is the essence. From the spiritual: 1) for ordering spiritual affairs, past the bishops, in this residence; and from other places of benevolent priests and deacons to St. Petersburg churches; 3) the Ryazan bishop for a conference on his teaching, at which of the spiritual, besides him, I was the only one, where I was smitten, fighting in truth, not a little of it. non-spiritual: 4) for assigning from the Novgorod diocese some monasteries and the Sergius Monastery of estates to the Nevsky Monastery; 5) for taking from the houses of bishops and the best monasteries, according to the registers filed from me, benevolent hieromonks and hierodeacons ... to the Nevsky Monastery; 6) for the change of the Tikhvin archimandrite. From non-spiritual, principled and non-principled persons: 7) for the cross and other dragging priests, elders and old women, whom he warned not to keep; ; 9) for Ivan Sinyavin, who offended the chief hieromonk and another hieromonk in the fleet, for whom, according to my position, and at their request, he asked for satisfaction, where appropriate, which was not only not committed, but also acts hostilely against them and me from the entire embassy; 10) for candles burnt in vain in churches, about which the priests were ordered not to burn them out of necessity; 11) for the most pure mysteries, about which the priests were ordered not to use them for apothecary medicine for healthy and sick babies, but after baptism, having communed with one, they would leave those who were not involved until the knowledge of good and evil. And there would be many other reasons for the aforementioned hatred, but they won’t fit on this paper ... For this reason, I diligently pray that the rest of my miserable belly be ordered to die in black silence, but it’s not worse that I suffer innocently. "But submitting such a request "F., of course, did not count on its execution. It was not for nothing that he presented as reasons for hatred of himself such acts of his, which for the most part just corresponded to Peter's views. The request had the effect that she apparently had in mind. The sovereign ordered on December 31 1720 put F. in the archbishops of Novgorod.

Erected to the Novgorod cathedra, F. took a leading place among the hierarchy. The official position of Stefan Yavorsky was more of an honorary appearance. Feofan Prokopovich was just beginning his career and behaved cautiously and evasively. Whatever his internal relations with Yanovsky, he outwardly showed the latter all respect, and, apparently, at that time there were no clashes between them. When the Synod was established, F. was appointed the first synodal vice-president and, together with Feofan, became the actual head of the new church institution. Evidently, neither the Novgorod nor the Pskov hierarch took any account of the President of the Synod Stefan. The humiliated position of Yavorsky in the new church institution is known, and F., along with Feofan, did not hesitate to stung once again on occasion Ryazan Metropolitan. So, in 1721, the Synod made Stephen a humiliating interrogation in the case of Lyubimov, who composed an akathist to Alexei, a man of God, approved by Yavorsky. As for the new church and government legislation, which the Synod marked itself in the first years of its existence, it is difficult to say exactly what share of participation in it belonged to F. superstitious customs, chapels, walking with icons from house to house, etc. - all these events greatly affected the church society of that time. But who was their soul, the initiator? F. or Feofan? It is categorically difficult to answer, because in their views both of these bishops converged with each other, and the indicated measures could equally come from one and the other. Since Feofan was smarter and more educated than F., it is more likely to attribute a large share of his participation to him. But F. here was not a passive spectator, but undoubtedly played an active role. As an administrator, F. was a zealous conductor of Peter's educational ideas. At his place in the Nevsky Monastery, in 1721, he started a school, in accordance with the requirements of the Regulations, which was supposed to serve together as a hotbed of teachers throughout Russia. It was ordered to gather here three people of priestly children 15-20 years old from each diocese, so that after training they would return back and become teachers in local diocesan schools. F. raised the school in Novgorod that had fallen after Job, expanding its course, inviting the best teachers and filling it with students. Then, under the administration of F., a whole network of lower schools was founded throughout the Novgorod diocese (13), the foundation of which is unjustly attributed by many to Job. On the initiative of F., a general order of the Senate was issued so that the secular inhabitants would also send their children to bishops' schools. The schools of the Novgorod diocese were supplied by F. with textbooks, the lack of which the then education suffered so much, and certain routines were introduced into them. F. actively engaged in the eradication of schism and superstitions as a diocesan bishop; he cared about the well-being of monasteries and churches and, to his credit, was not indifferent to the fate of the lower clergy.

But along with the positive qualities of Feodosiev's activity in the rank of bishop, negative traits of his character and behavior apparently began to develop in him. F. never differed monastic inclinations and led an open and secular life. The high official position gave him reason to be even less shy in this respect, since he often had to act as a hospitable host to various distinguished visitors. Peter himself loved a fun pastime, disliked asceticism and looked through his fingers at the rumors about the life of the Novgorod bishop. The king himself visited him and had fun. Bored in Moscow, when he was there for the coronation of the empress in 1724, F. even thought of starting regular assemblies with clergy, modeled on sovereign assemblies. But what is worse, for his luxurious and open life in need of funds, F. even resorted to illegal sources. The huge income of the Novgorod department was not enough for him. Over time, the investigation discovered that F. practiced extortion, bribes and plundered church property. After his tenure, Novgorod churches and monasteries did not have many valuables. F.'s abuses began to be revealed during the life of Peter the Great. In 1724 Ivan Nosov, a nobleman of the Novgorod bishops' house, filed a denunciation against the bishop's judge, Archimandrite Andronicus, accusing him of embezzling church property. The denunciation, in fact, was directed at F., because Andronicus was only the executor of his will. The synod instructed the monastic order to investigate the matter. But F. protested this decision, demanding that the case be entrusted to him, as a diocesan bishop, with one of the synodal members. The synod decided to consult with the Senate, and since the influence of F. was then strong, the conference decided to entrust the investigation to the Novgorod bishop, to whom the Synod also attached the synodal adviser to the Simonovsky archimandrite Peter and chief prosecutor Boltin. Nosov, seeing that the case fell into the hands of the most interested person, complained about the biased conduct of the investigation, and he began to directly denounce F. The Synod again had a conference with the Senate and insisted that Nosov's complaint be left without consequences. But the Senate decided to better present the case to the sovereign. The sovereign ordered the Synod to investigate the case together with the Senate, and F. was removed from the investigation. But, due to the illness and death of Peter, the matter somehow slowed down. With the growth of power and importance, F's arrogance also increased. What tricks he allowed himself to do can be seen, for example, from the case of the diamonds granted to him. In 1721, the empress granted him diamonds for a panagia. There were not enough diamonds to decorate the panagia, and F. did not hesitate to write a daring letter to Makarov's office secretary, asking for more diamonds and adding that the empress should not be stingy, since he would not put the panagia in the coffin with him, but she would return to the office. Diamonds were sent to him. Such antics then got away with him. Then, oddly enough, but towards the end of the reign of Peter F. began to sharply express dissatisfaction with some church and state events. F., as we have seen, was a man of a new spirit, who tried to keep up with the requirements of the time. But there is reason to suspect the sincerity of his commitment to the new church-political currents. Promoted by the sovereign, placed in the position of his employee, he could not and did not want to go against the government's mood, but, on the contrary, tried to please the sovereign as much as possible and anticipate his intentions. Otherwise, F. would not have created his own career. However, with his imperious selfish nature, with his greed, Yanovsky could easily join, under other conditions, with our clerical hierarchs, who had such an exaggerated concept of hierarchal power and stubbornly defended their property privileges. At least, such a mood manifested itself in him towards the end of Peter's reign. When he was only an archimandrite, he tried to belittle hierarchical rights, which he himself did not possess, and having become a bishop and an important spiritual dignitary, he himself entered into a taste of hierarchical power and began to painfully feel its humiliation by new orders. In the Synod and the spiritual circle, he began to express dissatisfaction with the predominance of secular power in spiritual affairs. Government measures aimed at belittling the hierarchal honor irritated his hierarchal vanity. Similarly, in relation to monasticism, he willingly approved and invented rules for raising monastic discipline that did not concern him. But when it came to material benefits, he also began to grumble. As an archimandrite of Neva, he did not feel the burden of the government's church-property policy. As a Novgorod hierarch, he felt it and began to complain to no less conservative party about the offense of the church rank. The well-known "announcement" of monasticism in 1724 seems to have filled Theodosiev's measure of patience. Regarding him and the new monastic states, he dared to complain sharply to the sovereign himself. The result was a strong anger of the latter, so that F., already through the empress, humbly begged for forgiveness.

The latter fact sufficiently shows what kept F. under Peter. Under an iron monarch, it would have been madness to openly protest and reveal one's mood, and F. restrained himself, perhaps involuntarily, keeping pace with the government course in the Synod. With the death of Peter, this restraint disappeared. Hoping for the weakness of the female ruler and, perhaps, for his position, F. gave himself full rein. At the very accession of Catherine, he tried, it seems (according to Bassevich), to extract material benefits from here for himself, without showing any special devotion to Peter's wife. In the Synod, he stopped restraining his discontent. According to subsequent testimonies, after the coronation of the empress, when it was about raising the name of the empress, he said: "What kind of prayer will be, what to pray according to the decree?" On the death of Peter, he expressed that this death is God's punishment for the fact that Peter "touched spiritual affairs and estates." “The sovereign of blessed memory,” ironically F., “was very anxious to overthrow this spiritual government and for this he oppressed us with states and a lack of salaries; and now look, holy fathers, we are alive, but he is dead, he is gone.” Such speeches clearly showed that F. was just as ungrateful to his benefactor Peter as he was to his first benefactor, Job, and at the same time they revealed the true physiognomy of F., bringing him closer to the camp of opponents of Peter's church reforms - whatever Such a metamorphosis was not explained: whether by the insincerity of the former tactics, or by the offended vanity and pride of the hierarch, who had become addicted to power. "Papal swings", in the terminology of the Regulations, found F. on the other hand. According to some foreigners, F. seemed to be plotting a whole coup in order to become almost a patriarch himself. But even without trusting this dubious news, there is no doubt that F. was not content with his synodal role and wanted to play a more significant one. He was offended that he was not appointed president of the Synod and expressed his resentment by defiantly ordering him not to be called vice president, but simply archbishop of Novgorod: the title of vice president reminded him that he was not president ... The ambitious plans of the Novgorod archbishop hurt, of course, his colleagues in the Synod, and most of all - Feofan Prokopovich, who was his main rival. The clash of their interests was inevitable, especially since F. himself began to be burdened by his closest associate. In order to get rid of Theophan, F. decided to initiate one court case against him. Apparently, an indirect denunciation of the Pskov bishop about the theft of church property by the bishop's judge was inspired from here - similar to Nosov's denunciation of F. But F. did not calculate all the chances, starting a fight with Prokopovich. By his behavior, he placed so many weapons against himself in the hands of opponents that it was not difficult for them to destroy him, instead of exposing themselves to his blows.

Already the incident with the diamonds showed that F. did not have much respect for Catherine. With the death of Peter, this disrespect began to break through with daring antics. Subsequently, it was established that the Novgorod bishop scoffed in indecent terms at the crying of the empress at the coffin of her late husband. Treating the empress in this way, F. began to allow a lot. On April 12, 1725, he arrived at the Palace Bridge, and his carriage was not allowed to cross the bridge, just as other carriages were not allowed to pass. F., getting out of the carriage, began to shout at the sentry with a threat: "I myself am better than the Most Serene Prince," - this was a daring hint. Then, entering the foyer of the palace, he shouted here at the officer on duty, why they were not letting him in, saying (according to the testimony of the officer): our sticks are bigger than those. The mangy sheep don't know who they don't let in." The Empress was informed about this. Then, on April 16, when the order of the empress to send a memorial service for Peter in the Peter and Paul Cathedral was announced in the Synod of F., something offensive seemed to F. here, and he angrily complained about the tyranny that the church had waited for, that worldly power commands the spiritual pray that is contrary to the word of God. The synodal members did not show sympathy for these lamentations and ordered a memorial service, which was to be attended by all the synodal members, leaving, however, F. to do as he knew. Angry F. answered: "I will go and I will serve, because I am afraid that they will not be sent into exile. But will God hear such a prayer?" On April 20, the empress herself sent Pospelov, chamber junker, to F. to say that all the clergy should be at the memorial service. F. answered: “we are ready,” but at the same time he complained about the insult from the sentries who did not let him into the palace on April 12, and said that he was still afraid to go to the palace, no matter how the sentries scolded him, unless they would take him captive . When Pospelov offered to ask Her Majesty's mercy for insult, F. replied that it was also the case with the late sovereign, when he was not allowed into the Admiralty, and he did not receive any satisfaction for this. The conversation was transferred to Catherine. On April 21, after a memorial service, the empress instructed to invite all the spiritual to the table, F. responded to such an invitation that it was impossible for him to be in Her Majesty's house, since he was dishonored, "would you please send a messenger to see them off." He didn't go to dinner.

The whole incident with the memorial service created, of course, an unfavorable attitude towards F. from the court. Feofan Prokopovich, along with other synodal members who did not like the arrogant F., decided to take advantage of this moment to deliver a decisive blow to the Novgorod bishop. Feofan made a denunciation in which he recalled various obscene antics of Yanovsky, and, among other things, reported two very important facts. On Holy Week 1725, the synodal members were not invited to the royal dinner, to which the senators were invited. Offended and angry, F., not hiding his annoyance, in front of Feofan began to say threateningly: "He will still be cowardly, it's not enough just to wait." Feofan explained in a denunciation that at first these words seemed terrible to him, but then he began to think whether they related to some kind of "untruths and deceptions" of Her Majesty's servants, and he calmed down. But then he soon heard from the synodal comrades that F. in their presence was still uttering nasty words “about the disorder and about the beginning of the state, that no one is spiritually benevolent, all deviating together; what blessing of God is there to wait for. Truly, soon God’s wrath will subside to Russia, and when civil strife begins, then everyone will see from the first to the last. A thunderstorm gathered over F.. Theophanes made his denunciation on April 22, and on April 25 there was already a confidential meeting about the denunciation. Count Golovkin, Admiral gr. Apraksin, Count Tolstoy and synodal members - Feofan and three archimandrites: Peter Smelich, Alexei Kondoidi and Rafail Zaborovsky. All the latter confirmed Theophan's denunciation. Meanwhile, F. made another tactless step. April 25 was the consecration of the new ship; F. was not invited to the celebration; then he appeared without permission, which surprised everyone. Two days later, on April 27, the empress ordered F. to be arrested in his courtyard.

It is significant that the fall of the Novgorod bishop was greeted with joy by all. His synod colleagues gave such testimonies about him, to which, it seems, it is difficult to add anything. “From the very beginning,” wrote the Archbishop of Tver Theophylact Lopatinsky, “as I was appointed to the Synod, I saw Bishop Theodosius always scolding every rank of people, from small to great, without any exception, calling insane, non-Christians, bitter Turks and all kinds of barbarians, atheists, idolaters - the Russian people. He remembered many times St. Metropolitan Philip, who was strangled in the days of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, for which, for de murder, God uprooted his royal tribe, so that there was no heir to the Russian kingdom after him; and after the repose of the blessed memory of Peter the Great, he added and the fact that for the deprivation of Varlaam Ovsyannikov and taking him to the guard, God also killed Peter the Great. Until what was done according to his synodal desire in the Senate or in another government by decree of the sovereign, or the word was about the spiritual state, he, Archbishop Theodosius , saying angrily: as long as there is tyranny over the church, until then it is impossible to hope for good.But there is no monarchy in the church and never has been. The illness came to the sovereign from the immeasurable misogyny and from God's vengeance for his encroachment on the spiritual and monastic rank, which he wanted to exterminate. His excessive desire to follow secret deeds shows "his painful heart, thirsting for human blood." Archimandrite Gabriel testified:

"After the death of the b. and v. d. of the memory of the sovereign, (Theodosius) said: I de for this time always thought that the death of my life would be from his hands." “We no longer see the Mercy of God,” said Theodosius, in the words of Archpriest Peter, “nothing spiritual regulations act; and what kind of Christianity to hope, everything wants to be tyranny; the spiritual power is very exhausted, not that the Turkish faith wants to be, but even in the Turks this is not done; not what is right according to St. writing ... and what will come of it - there is nothing good to expect. "And how the fate of F. was met in general in hierarchical circles, testifies to the "announcement" of F. by the Kazan Metropolitan Sylvester (see Chistovich's Feofan Prokopovich, appendix II , from the file of the arch. St. Synod of 1731, No. 292) "Former depraved," wrote Sylvester, "full of envy and pride, the Nevsky archimandrite and the Novgorod bishop, like a predatory wolf crept in sheep's skin; he loved only himself, but hated his brethren very much; still he, in his sharp-heartedness, day by night thought up how to do dirty tricks to his brother, and sometimes he would seek someone to devour. "Having counted all the" evil "deeds of F., Sylvester concluded about him:" He, the wicked Yanovsky, he is a naughty goat, who is he like, that he shamelessly created many temptations before the people and offended many for dirty tricks, and scolded saints and holy hierarchs with various blasphemy? And in everything he is like the ancient heretics: the insane Arius and the vile Nestorius.

During the investigation, F. confessed to many of the speeches attributed to him, but justified himself by saying that he spoke not out of malice, but "out of stupid jealousy." From the impudent words heard by Theophan addressed to Catherine, he at first denied, and then declared that he had said that the empress would be a coward, "out of stupidity", "in such force that now they are appeasing senators so that they manage good deeds, but save God, when there is some disagreement in them towards the common good, then the spiritual will be appeased so that they exhort them towards the consent of the common good. But F. did not believe well, since the facts were evident. From one anonymous letter to F. we learned that he spoke obscenities at the address of the empress even at the coffin of Peter. All this made F.'s guilt undoubted, and soon he was convicted. On May 11, 1725, a decree was signed announcing the crimes of Theodosius. The decree even somewhat exaggerated the data of the investigation. The old case on Nosov's denunciation was immediately included in F.'s guilt. On May 12, with drumming, the verdict was publicly announced, by which the Novgorod bishop, instead of a well-deserved death penalty, was sent to a distant Korelsky monastery in conclusion. On June 21, F. was already at the place of his exile. Here he was imprisoned in an underground cell under the church. He asked for a confessor, confessed, took communion and asked to receive communion more often in church, in stole with staves, like a bishop, but the Secret Chancellery did not allow this, and it was ordered to give the exiled communion only once a year, in his dungeon. But soon the fate of the prisoner worsened. The investigation into his case had not yet been completed at the time of the announcement of the verdict. Firstly, an inquiry was sent to Moscow regarding the mentioned anonymous letter; the information collected confirmed that F. had spoken obscene words that he was charged with. Then another new fact was revealed. It turned out that F. in 1724 in his diocese led subordinates to a special oath of allegiance to himself. This oath was a repetition of the oath specified in the Regulations for synodal members, with the addition at the end of the promise to obey "my own correct authority, the great lord of the Holy Governing Synod, vice-president, His Grace Theodosius", etc. (see the oath in the "Description of Affairs and documents of the archive of the Holy Synod", vol. V, No. 199). The oath of allegiance to the bishop was an unusual matter, and some plans of F. were suspected in it. At the conference of the Senate with the Synod, it was decided to present the oath to the empress. By order of the latter, the oath sheets were taken away and destroyed. In connection with both of these facts, on September 8, 1725, a new decree was announced to the Synod about the former Archbishop of Novgorod. The decree prescribed: “from the former bishop of Novgorod Theodosius for his malicious theft, that, while in St. Russian state, the rank of Theodosius bishop and priest should be removed from him and be a simple elder." On October 17, this decision was carried out, and F. became a simple monk Fedos. "The monk" was transferred to another, worse prison in the same monastery, a cold and damp. True, after a while they took pity on the prisoner and gave him a better dungeon. But, struck by everything that happened and the harsh conditions of the new existence, F. did not live long. On February 5, 1726, he died in his imprisonment. His body was ordered first delivered to St. Petersburg, but then they ordered to bury him on the way in one of the monasteries - Kirillov or Alexander-Svirsky. The coffin was brought to the first monastery and buried here.

No one resolutely, it seems, felt sorry for the unfortunate F. He had the sad fate of dying without participation to his misfortune: so much by his character did he arm everyone against himself. And remembering his relationship to Job and Peter, one has to agree with the opinion of such impartial persons as Theophylact Lopatinsky about him, that F. reaped what he himself sowed.

Affairs of the State. Archive, VI section, No. 91, 158. - "Russian Archive", 1864, issue. 2 ("The true case of the Novgorod archbishop Theodosius"). - Files of the archive of St. Synod 1721-1720 and "Description of cases and documents of the archive of the Holy Synod" over the years, vols. I-VI (according to the index). - "Complete collection of decrees and decrees according to the leading orthodox confessor." for 1721-1725 - Files of the archive of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra and the published first two volumes of their "Descriptions". - Letters of Theodosius to Peter the Great, Catherine and others, stored in the State. Archive. - Journals of the Supreme Privy Council in the cabinet papers of Peter the Great. - "Chronicles of Russian literature and antiquity", ed. N. S. Tikhonravov, 1859, book. 2 (Job's letter to Theodosius). - "Notes" of Count Bassevich ("Russian Archive", 1865). - "Berchholtz's Diary", part II, M., 1858 - "Collection of the Imperial Russian Historical Society", vol. XV (reports of the Prussian envoy Mardefeld). - P. Petrov, "History of St. Petersburg", 1885 - I. A. Chistovich, "Metropolitan Job of Novgorod, his life and correspondence" ("Wanderer", 1861, February). - V. I. Askochensky, "Kyiv with its oldest school - the Academy", Kyiv, 1856 - G. V. Esipov, "Schismatic Affairs of the 18th Century". - I. A. Chistovich, "Feofan Prokopovich and his time", St. Petersburg, 1868 - I. Ya. Moroshkin, "Theodosius Yanovsky, Archbishop of Novgorod" ("Russian Antiquity", 1887, Nos. 7, 10, 11). - G. V. Esipov, "Chernets Fedos" (originally printed in "Notes of the Fatherland" 1862, No. 6, and then in the collection "People of the Old Age", 1880). - "Historical and statistical description of the St. Petersburg diocese", vol. I, St. Petersburg, 1869 - S. M. Solovyov, "History of Russia", vols. XVI and XVIII. - Ustryalov, "History of Peter the Great", vols. IV and VI. - S. G. Runkevich, "History of the Russian Church under the St. Synod", vol. I, St. Petersburg, 1900 - Ambrose, "History of the Russian hierarchy", vols. II, VI. - Pavlov, Description of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. - E. Prilezhaev, "Novgorod diocesan schools in the Petrine era" ("Christian Reading", 1887, book No. 6). - K. Ya. Zdravomyslov, "Hierarchs of the Novgorod diocese". - F. Ternovsky, "Moscow heretics in the reign of Peter the Great" ("Orthodox Review", 1863, April). - his own, "Stefan Yavorsky" ("Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy", 1864, vol. I). - N. Tikhonravov, "Moscow Freethinkers of the Beginning of the 18th Century" ("Russian Bulletin", 1870, book 9, etc.). - "Exiles of the 18th century in the Arkhangelsk Territory" ("Arkhangelsk Provincial Gazette", 1876, Nos. 24-26). - Makary Bulgakov, "History of the Kyiv Academy". - N. I. Solovyov, "The fate of Theodosius, Archbishop of Novgorod" ("Russian Antiquity", 1901, January).

B. Titlinov.

(Polovtsov)

Theodosius Yanovsky

(Fyodor Mikhailovich) - Archbishop of Novgorod (Velikonovgorod) and Velikolutsky

Theodosius was born into a noble family in the Smolensk region.

According to P. Petrov, Theodosius studied at the Moscow Zaikonospassky Academy, and according to the historian V. Askochensky, at the Kiev-Mohyla Academy.

The period of his education is considered to be the 80s of the XVII century. How extensive Theodosius' education was is not known; it is also unknown whether he continued his education abroad following the example of his peers. He did not show much learning, but was considered an educated person. According to Archbishop Feofan of Novgorod (Prokopovich; † 1736), Theodosius, loving scientists, preferred simple ones, and not a single literary work remained of him.

He was a cassock novice of the Moscow Simonov Monastery. It is also unknown how he ended up in the Simonov Monastery and for what motives he accepted monasticism.

For slandering Archimandrite Simonov of the Monastery Bartholomew (it was a simple complaint about the severity of Bartholomew), Theodosius was among the violators of monastic discipline and was exiled in chains to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. Archimandrite of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery Job (later Metropolitan of Novgorod; †

1716) took part in it and freed him from the shackles. In 1697, Archimandrite Job, having received an appointment to the Novgorod cathedra, took Theodosius with him.

In 1701, Metropolitan Job ordained Theodosius to the abbot, and in 1704 he appointed him archimandrite of the Novgorod Spaso-Varlaamiev Khutyn Monastery.

Metropolitan Job knew how to appreciate educated people, distinguished business qualities. Archimandrite Theodosius did not show himself as a writer, he was not noticeable as a preacher, but he possessed remarkable abilities as an administrator, and therefore became the closest assistant to the Novgorod bishop. Soon he became known to Tsar Peter I. Between Archimandrite Theodosius and the Tsar, friendly relations. On October 27, 1704, Archimandrite Theodosius, bypassing Metropolitan Job, wrote directly to the tsar, complaining about the cellar Benedict. From that time on, Archimandrite Theodosius began to rely more and more on higher state power, ignoring their immediate spiritual leader. This was especially evident in 1708, when Metropolitan Job sent Archimandrite Theodosius to Moscow for the printing house of Simeon of Polotsk. In Moscow, Archimandrite Theodosius met with the tsar and was appointed spiritual judge in St. Petersburg to manage the church affairs of the newly conquered cities: Yamburg, Narva, Koporye, Shlisselburg. Metropolitan Job was just notified of the new appointment of his archimandrite and had to bless him for a new ministry. Metropolitan Job gave him instructions regarding his practical activities. Apparently, both Metropolitan Job and Tsar Peter I valued in Feodosia administrative talents and a love of enlightenment. Theodosius was an energetic man, possessing a practical mind and able to adapt to the requirements of the time. Peter I needed such people.

The main business of Archimandrite Theodosius was the construction of churches and supplying them with everything necessary, as well as the organization of church supervision over the clergy and flock. In addition, Theodosius undertook the construction of the Alexander Nevsky Monastery, trying to tie himself as tightly as possible with St. Petersburg. Construction began in 1710. In 1712 Theodosius was appointed archimandrite of the future Lavra. Now he no longer needed the support of Metropolitan Job and behaved completely independently, although formally remained under his subordination, since St. Petersburg at that time belonged to the Novgorod diocese. Relations between Archimandrite Theodosius and Metropolitan Job finally deteriorated, as evidenced by one sharp letter from the Metropolitan to Theodosius, written, apparently, around 1710-1712. It is difficult to find more gloomy colors than those with which the Right Reverend Job now portrayed his former favorite. But Archimandrite Theodosius was not afraid of the wrath of Metropolitan Job, since he could no longer influence his fate.

At the beginning of 1721, Archimandrite Theodosius was consecrated Bishop of Novgorod and Velikolutsk and elevated to the rank of Archbishop. By decree of Peter I, Archbishop Theodosius of Novgorod became the first vice-president of the Holy Synod.

Archbishop Theodosius was an energetic church administrator. Many new churches were built in the diocese entrusted to him. He took care of the material well-being of the clergy of his diocese. He paid special attention to the eradication of various shortcomings in church life. Zealously fought against a split in the diocese, participated in meetings of the Secret Chancellery.

But, as historians note, having achieved a high position, Bishop Theodosius deviated from monastic ideals, led an intemperate secular life, and even decided to start assemblies, like the Petrovs. All this required a lot of money, and Theodosius began to resort to illegal sources. With the acquisition of power, pride also increased in him, he began to reckon with people less.

On April 27, 1725, Archbishop Theodosius was arrested for harsh remarks about Empress Catherine I.

On May 11, 1725, he was sentenced, according to which he was exiled to the distant Nikolo-Korelsky Monastery of the Arkhangelsk diocese in conclusion. On June 21 of the same year, he was already in the monastery. He was imprisoned in an underground cell under the church. But soon his fate worsened even more. At the time of the announcement of the verdict, the investigation into his case had not yet been completed. With the revelation of new facts of the crime, on September 8, 1725, a new decree was announced, according to which the rank was removed from Theodosius; "dark" Theodosius was transferred to the worst prison in the same monastery, cold, damp. Struck by everything that happened, Theodosius did not live long.

On February 5, 1726, he died in his confinement as a simple "black Theodos". By special order, he was buried in Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery.

No one resolutely felt sorry for the unfortunate Theodosius. He had the sad fate of dying without sympathy for his misfortune: "reaped what he sowed."

Literature:

Runkevich S. Alexander Nevsky Lavra 1713-1913: historical research Doctor of Church History S. G. Runkevich. - St. Petersburg, 1913, p. 17-347, 560, 807.

Moroshkin I. Ya. Theodosius Yanovsky, Archbishop of Novgorod // Russian antiquity. - 1887, July, October, November.

Chistovich I. A. Feofan Prokopovich and his time. - St. Petersburg, 1868.

Chistovich I. A. Metropolitan Job of Novgorod, his life and correspondence // Wanderer. - SPb., 1861, February.

Prilezhaev E. Novgorod diocesan schools in the Petrine era // Christian reading. - St. Petersburg, 1887, No. 6.

Tolstoy M.V. Stories from the History of the Russian Church. - M., 1901, p. 629. Runkevich S. G. History of the Russian Orthodox Church under the control of the Holy Synod. - St. Petersburg, 1900. - T. 1.

Tikhonravov N. Moscow freethinkers of the early 18th century. and Stefan Yavorsky // Russian Bulletin. - 1870. - Prince. 9 and others. Ternovsky F. Stefan Yavorsky // Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy. - Kyiv, 1860-1917; 1864. - Vol. 1.

Esipov G. V. Schismatic affairs of the XVIII century. - St. Petersburg, 1861-1863. Esipov, V. Chernets Theodosius // Otechestvennye zapiski. - 1862, No. 6.

Solovyov S. M. History of Russia since ancient times: in 6 books. - 3rd ed. - SPb., 1911. - Prince. 4, p. 257, 277, 427, 803, 804, 806, 809, 810, 817, 863, 910-917,1190. Ustryalov N. G. History of the reign of Peter the Great. - St. Petersburg, 1858.

Pavlov A. M. Description of the Holy Trinity Alexander Nevsky Lavra, with chronological lists persons buried in churches and cemeteries of the Lavra. - St. Petersburg, 1842. Zdravomyslov K. Ya. Hierarchs of the Novgorod diocese from ancient times to the present: Brief biographical sketches. - Novgorod, 1897.

Askochensky V. Kyiv with its oldest school and Academy: in 2 volumes - Kyiv, 1856. Stroev P. M. Lists of hierarchs and abbots of monasteries of the Russian Church. - St. Petersburg, 1877, p. 37, 51, 269.

Bulgakov S.V. Handbook for clergymen. - Kyiv, 1913, p. 1407. Tolstoy Yu. Lists of bishops and episcopal departments of the All-Russian hierarchy since the establishment of the Holy Governing Synod (1721-1871). - M., 1872, No. 21.

Grigorievsky M. Nikolaevsky Korelsky Monastery. - Arkhangelsk, 1898, p. 18.19. Brief historical description of the monasteries of the Archangelsk diocese. - Arkhangelsk, 1902, p. 296-297.

Church issues in Russia, or Russian spiritual records of Braila. - 1896, p. 40, 47. Historical and statistical description of the St. Petersburg diocese. - St. Petersburg, 1896, no. 1. Exiles of the XVIII century. in the Arkhangelsk Territory // Arkhangelsk Gubernskie Vedomosti. - 1875, No. 24-26.

Lists of bishops of the hierarchy of the All-Russian and episcopal departments since the establishment of the Holy Governing Synod (1721-1895). - St. Petersburg, 1896, No. 21. Denisov L.I. Orthodox monasteries Russian Empire: a complete list of all 1105 currently operating in 75 provinces and regions of Russia. - M., 1908, p. 6.

Ambrose (Ornatsky), archbishop. History of the Russian Hierarchy: in 6 volumes - M., 1807-1815. - V. 1, p. 81.

Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan. History of the Kyiv Theological Academy. - Kyiv, 1843. Files of the archive of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra and published two volumes of their description. Letters of Theodosius to Peter the Great, Catherine and others, stored in the State Archives. Chronicles of Russian literature and antiquities: in 5 volumes / Ed. N. Tikhonravova. - M., 1859-1863. - T. 2 (Job's letter to Theodosius). Notes of Henning-Friedrich Bassevich. - M., 1858. - Part 2, and also // Russian archive. - M., 1865, No. 1, 2, 5, 6.

Berkhholz F. V. Diary of Kammer Junker Berkhholz, kept by him in Russia during the reign of Peter the Great from 1721 - 1725. Per. with him. I. Ammon. - M., 1857-1860, in 4 hours. Orthodox interlocutor. - Kazan, 1897, December, p. 730-733.

1907, January. - With. 106; April. - With. 551-556; July-August, p. 290. Historical Bulletin. - SPb., 1896, April, p. 156.159.

1868, July, p. 402. Russian antiquity. - St. Petersburg, 1877. - T. 18, p. 719. - 1879. - T. 24, p. 746; v. 26, p. 14, 22, 23.195.

1882, October, p. 304. - 1886, January, p. 19, 20, 34. - 1888, February, p. 419. - 1901, January. - 1904, October, p. 114. - 1910, May, p. 404-422.

The true case of the Archbishop of Novgorod Theodosius // Russian archive. - M., 1864, no. 2. Russian archive. - M., 1901. - Prince. 1, no. 3, p. 359.

Complete Orthodox Theological Encyclopedic Dictionary: in 2 volumes // Ed. P. P. Soykina. - SPb., b. g. - T. 2, p. 1675. Russian biographical dictionary: in 25 volumes - St. Petersburg; M., 1896-1913. - T. 25, p. 346-356.

N. D[urnovo]. Nine hundredth anniversary of the Russian hierarchy 988-1888. Dioceses and Bishops. - M., 1888, p. 19.

- Wikipedia has articles about other people with the name Theodosius (name). Wikipedia has articles about other people with this surname, see Yanovsky. Archbishop Theodosius Archbishop of Veliky Novgorod and Velikolutsky ... Wikipedia

Janovsky surname. Known bearers: Yanovsky, Abel Efimovich (1865-1922) Russian writer and lawyer. Yanovsky, Alexander (born 1935) pseudonym for the Soviet cameraman S. L. Yanovsky. Yanovsky, Alexander Arkadievich ... Wikipedia

Theodosius male name Greek origin refers to two-component theophoric names: other Greek. Θεός ("God") + δόσιος ("given") " given by God". In the Russian name-book, the name with the reverse order of the components Dositheus is known, and etymologically ... ... Wikipedia

Hegumen Theodosius (d. September 29, 1425) clergyman of the Russian Orthodox Church, named Archbishop of Novgorod. Biography Before being elected archbishop, he was, for some unknown time, hegumen of the Klopsky monastery near Novgorod ... Wikipedia

Main article: Diocese of Novgorod The episcopal see in Novgorod was established at the end of the 10th century after the baptism of Rus' by Prince Vladimir. Bishop Joachim, who arrived with the prince from Korsun, became the first bishop of Novgorod. Until the middle of the XII century ... ... Wikipedia

There are articles on Wikipedia about other people with the name Feofan and the surname Prokopovich. Check neutrality. The talk page should have details... Wikipedia Wikipedia

Years. It is not known whether he continued his education abroad following the example of his peers. Subsequently, he did not show much learning, but was considered an educated person.

Under Job of Novgorod

As a church administrator of the region entrusted to him, Theodosius was distinguished by energetic activity. Many new churches were built under him. He took care of the material well-being of the clergy of his diocese. He paid special attention to the eradication of various shortcomings in church life. Zealously fought against the Old Believer schism in the diocese, participated in meetings of the Secret Chancellery.

At the same time, as historians note, having achieved a high position, Theodosius deviated from monastic ideals, led an intemperate secular life, and even decided to start assemblies, like the Petrovs. All this required a lot of money, and Theodosius began to resort to illegal sources. With the acquisition of power, pride also increased in him, he began to reckon with people less. In the mid-1720s, this resulted in a conflict with the influential Archbishop Theophan (Prokopovich) - Theodosius wrote a denunciation of Theophan to the Synod, where he indicated that in Pechersk Pskov monastery 70 icons lie on the floor with their torn frames and precious decorations removed. In turn, Theophanes, after one regular rudeness of Theodosius in relation to Empress Catherine, reported to her about the insults he had committed.

Opal and death

Ratings

Theodosius was an energetic man, possessing a practical mind, able to adapt to the requirements of the times. According to Feofan (Prokopovich), Theodosius, loving scientists, preferred simple ones, and not a single literary work remained of him.

Literature

• Runkevich, S. G., Alexander Nevsky Lavra 1713-1913, St. Petersburg, 1913, 17-347, 560, 807.
• Moroshkin, I. Ya., "Theodosius Yanovsky, archbishop of Novgorod," Russian antiquity, 1887, № 7, 10, 11.
• Chistovich, I. A., Feofan Prokopovich and his time, St. Petersburg, 1868.
• Chistovich, I. A., "Metropolitan Job of Novgorod, his life and correspondence," Wanderer, 1861. Feb.
• Prilezhaev, E., "Novgorod diocesan schools in the Petrine era," Christian reading, 1887, № 6.
• Tolstoy, M.V., Stories from the history of R.Ts., 629.
• Runkevich, S. G., History of the Russian Church under the direction of the Holy Synod, vol. I, St. Petersburg, 1900.
• Tikhonravov, N., "Moscow freethinkers of the early 18th century," Russian messenger, 1870, book. 9 etc.
• Ternovsky, F., "Stefan Yavorsky," Proceedings of the KDA, 1864, vol. I.
• Esipov, G. V., Schismatic affairs of the 18th century.
• Esipov, G. V., "Chernets Theodosius," Domestic notes, 1862, № 6.
• Solovyov, S. M., Russian history, book. IV, 257, 277, 427, 803, 804, 806, 809, 810, 817, 863, 910-917, 1190.
• Ustryalov, N., History of the [reign?] of Peter the Great, vol. IV, VI.
• Pavlov, Description of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra.
• sane, Hierarchs of the Novgorod diocese.
• Askochensky, Kyiv.
• Stroev, stb. 37, 51, 269.
• Bulgakov, 1407.
• Tolstoy, Yu., No. 21.
• Grigorievsky, M., Nicholas Korelsky Monastery, Arkhangelsk, 1898, 18, 19.
• Brief history. description of the monasteries of the Arkhangelsk diocese, Arkhangelsk, 1902, 296-297.
• Church Issues in Russia or Rus. spirit. ved., Braila, 1896, 40, 47.
• ist.-stat. description of St. Petersburg. dioceses, issue. 1, St. Petersburg, 1896.
• "Exiles of the 18th century in the Arkhangelsk Territory," Arkhangelsk lips. ved., 1875, № 24-26.
• Lists of bishops, № 21.
• Denisov, 6.
• Ambrose, History of the Russian hierarchy, part I, 81.
• Macarius, Metropolitan, History of the Kyiv Academy.
• Files of the archive of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra and published two volumes of their description.
• Letters of Theodosius to Peter the Great, Catherine and others, kept. in the State Archive.
• Chronicle of Russian. lit. and ancient., ed. N.S. Tikhonravov, 1859, book. 2 (Job's letter to Theodosius).
• "Note of Count Bassevich," Russian archive, 1865.
• Diary of Berchholtz, part II, M., 1858.
• Orthodox interlocutor, 1897, Dec., 730-733; 1907, Jan. 106; April, 551-556; July-Aug., 290; 1908, Apr., 505, note.
• Historical messenger, 1896, April, 156, 159.
• Orthodox review, 1863, Jan., 56-72; 1868, July, 402.
• Russian antiquity, 1877, v. 18, 719; 1879, vol. 24, 746; vol. 26, 14, 22, 23, 195; 1882, Oct., 304 p/s; 1886, Jan. 19, 20, 34; 1888, Feb. 419; 1901, Jan.; 1904, Oct., 114; 1910, May, 404-422.
• Russian archive, 1864, no. 2 (The true case of Novgorod archbishop Theodosius); 1901, book. 1, No. 3, 359.
• BES, vol. II, 1675.
• RBS, vol. XXV, 346-356.
• N.D., 19.

To

Archbishop Theodosius(in the world Fyodor Mikhailovich Yanovsky; 1673 - February 3, 1726, Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery) - Archbishop of Novgorod (Velikonovgorod) and Velikolutsky. He was defrocked on May 12, 1725.

Biography

Born in 1673 in a noble family in the Smolensk region.

According to P. Petrov, Theodosius studied at the Moscow Zaikonospassky Academy, and according to the historian V. Askochensky, at the Kiev-Mohyla Academy.

The period of his education is considered to be the 80s of the XVII century. How extensive Theodosius' education was is not known; it is also unknown whether he continued his education abroad following the example of his peers. He did not show much learning, but was considered an educated person. According to Archbishop Feofan (Prokopovich) of Novgorod, Theodosius, loving scientists, preferred simple ones, and not a single literary work remained of him.

He was a cassock novice of the Moscow Simonov Monastery. It is also unknown how he ended up in the Simonov Monastery and for what motives he accepted monasticism.

For slandering Archimandrite Simonov of the Monastery Bartholomew (it was a simple complaint about the severity of Bartholomew), Theodosius was among the violators of monastic discipline and was exiled in chains to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. Archimandrite of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery Job took part in it and freed him from the shackles. In 1697, Archimandrite Job, having received an appointment to the Novgorod cathedra, took Theodosius with him.

In 1701, Metropolitan Job ordained Theodosius to the abbot, and in 1704 he appointed him archimandrite of the Novgorod Spaso-Varlaamiev Khutyn Monastery.

Metropolitan Job knew how to appreciate educated people, distinguished by business qualities. Archimandrite Theodosius did not show himself as a writer, he was not noticeable as a preacher, but he possessed remarkable abilities as an administrator, and therefore became the closest assistant to the Novgorod bishop.

Soon he became known to Tsar Peter I. Friendly relations were established between Archimandrite Theodosius and the Tsar. On October 27, 1704, Archimandrite Theodosius, bypassing Metropolitan Job, wrote directly to the tsar, complaining about the cellar Benedict. Since that time, Archimandrite Theodosius began to rely more and more on the highest state power, ignoring his immediate spiritual leader. This was especially evident in 1708, when Metropolitan Job sent Archimandrite Theodosius to Moscow for the printing house of Simeon of Polotsk. In Moscow, Archimandrite Theodosius met with the tsar and was appointed spiritual judge in St. Petersburg to manage church affairs in the newly conquered cities: Yamburg, Narva, Koporye, Shlisselburg. Metropolitan Job was only notified of the new appointment of his archimandrite and had to bless him for a new ministry. Metropolitan Job gave him instructions regarding his practical activities. Apparently, both Metropolitan Job and Tsar Peter I valued administrative talents in Feodosia and a love for enlightenment. Theodosius was an energetic man, possessing a practical mind and able to adapt to the requirements of the time. Peter I needed such people.

The main business of Archimandrite Theodosius was the construction of churches and supplying them with everything necessary, as well as the organization of church supervision over the clergy and flock. In addition, Theodosius, while remaining the Khutyn archimandrite, undertook the construction of the Alexander Nevsky Monastery, trying to tie himself as tightly as possible with St. Petersburg. Construction began in 1710

In 1712 Theodosius was appointed archimandrite of the future Lavra. Now he no longer needed the support of Metropolitan Job and behaved completely independently, although he formally remained subordinate to him, since St. Petersburg at that time belonged to the Novgorod diocese. Relations between Archimandrite Theodosius and Metropolitan Job finally deteriorated, as evidenced by one sharp letter from the Metropolitan to Theodosius, written, apparently, around 1710-1712. It is difficult to find more gloomy colors than those with which the Right Reverend Job now portrayed his former favorite. But Archimandrite Theodosius was not afraid of the wrath of Metropolitan Job, since he could no longer influence his fate.

The period of his education is considered to be the 80s of the XVII century. How extensive Theodosius' education was is not known; it is also unknown whether he continued his education abroad following the example of his peers. He did not show much learning, but was considered an educated person. According to Archbishop Feofan (Prokopovich) of Novgorod, Theodosius, loving scientists, preferred simple ones, and not a single literary work remained of him.

He was a cassock novice at the Moscow Simonov Monastery. It is also unknown how he ended up in the Simonov Monastery and for what motives he accepted monasticism.

For slandering Archimandrite Simonov of the Monastery Bartholomew (it was a simple complaint about the severity of Bartholomew), Theodosius was among the violators of monastic discipline and was exiled in chains to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. Archimandrite of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery Job took part in it and freed him from the shackles. In 1697, Archimandrite Job, having received an appointment to the Novgorod cathedra, took Theodosius with him.

In 1701, Metropolitan Job ordained Theodosius to the abbot, and in 1704 he appointed him archimandrite of the Novgorod Savior-Varlaamiev Khutyn Monastery.

Metropolitan Job knew how to appreciate educated people, distinguished by business qualities. Archimandrite Theodosius did not show himself as a writer, he was not noticeable as a preacher, but he possessed remarkable abilities as an administrator, and therefore became the closest assistant to the Novgorod bishop.

Archbishop Theodosius was an energetic church administrator. Many new churches were built in the diocese entrusted to him. He took care of the material well-being of the clergy of his diocese. He paid special attention to the eradication of various shortcomings in church life. Actively fought against a split in the diocese, participated in meetings of the Privy Chancellery.

But, as historians note, having achieved a high position, Bishop Theodosius deviated from monastic ideals, led an intemperate secular life, and even decided to start assemblies, like the Petrovs. All this required a lot of money, and Theodosius began to resort to illegal sources. With the acquisition of power, pride also increased in him, he began to reckon with people less.

On April 27, 1725, Archbishop Theodosius was arrested for harsh remarks about Empress Catherine I. Probably, the case against Theodosius was inspired with the active participation of Feofan (Prokopovich).

On May 11, 1725, he was sentenced, according to which he was exiled to the distant Nikolo-Korelsky Monastery of the Arkhangelsk diocese in conclusion. On June 21 he was already in the monastery. He was imprisoned in an underground cell under the church. But soon his fate worsened even more. At the time of the announcement of the verdict, the investigation into his case had not yet been completed. With the revelation of new facts of the crime, on September 8, 1725, a new decree was announced, according to which the rank was removed from Theodosius; The "dark" Theodosius was transferred to the worst prison in the same monastery, cold, damp. Struck by everything that happened, Theodosius did not live long.

On February 5, 1726, he died in his confinement as a simple "black Theodos". By special order, he was buried in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. No one resolutely felt sorry for the unfortunate Theodosius. He had the sad fate of dying without sympathy for his misfortune: "reaped what he sowed."