Известия высших учебных заведений. Поволжский регион: Гуманитарные науки (Mar 2024)
The reasons for archimandrite Innokentiy’s (Smirnov) sending from St. Petersburg to Penza in 1819
Abstract
Background. The article is devoted to the circumstances of the sending off from St. Petersburg to Penza in 1819 of the one of the most prominent church and public figures of his time, Archimandrite Innokentiy (Smirnov). As a censor, he missed the publication of E.I. Stanevich’s book “A conversation on the coffin of a baby about the immortality of the soul”, which allowed direct criticism of the prevailing “mystical” ideology and indirect at-tacks against the emperor. For this he received the strictest reprimand, and then was ap-pointed bishop of Penza and Saratov. Removal from the capital for Innokentiy meant for him the cessation of active participation in church and political life. The destruction of the circulation of “Conversations on the coffin of a baby...” and the forced departure of Inno-cent from St. Petersburg became one of the key moments of the religious and political struggle of the second half of the reign of Alexander I. As a rule, in the memoirs of con-temporaries and historiography, they are described as one event. However, a scrupulous analysis of the sources shows that the prohibition of the “Conversation on the coffin of the baby...” with a reprimand to the censor who missed the book and the removal of this censor from the capital are not so directly related; the censor error, although it was blamed on Innokenty, did not lead directly to exile. Opponents of Prince A.N. Golitsyn, when he was removed from all posts in 1824, blamed these events on him as one of the most unfair ac-tions in relation to the ideological opponent (especially since Innocent died a few months later at the age of 35). But even here, a detailed analysis of official documents, letters and memoirs shows that Golitsyn was not the initiator of the removal of archimandrite Innokentiy from Penza. These two theses – that Innokentiy’s exile was a direct consequence of his mistake as a censor, and that Prince A.N. Golitsyn was the culprit of the exile – none of the historians had ever disputed. This is the urgency of the problem. The purpose of this ar-ticle is to bring together and analyze the sources regarding the mentioned events and to identify the true cause-and-effect relationships between them. Materials and methods. The research is based on epistolary and memoir testimonies, both previously published (mainly in the periodicals of the 19th century) and remaining in manuscripts (Department of Manu-scripts of the Russian National Library, Research Department of Manuscripts of the Rus-sian State Library, Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts), as well as official documents, with rare exceptions, not published and stored in the Russian State Historical Archive (funds of the Holy Synod, His Imperial Majesty’s Own Chancellery, Commission of Theo-logical Schools). The methodology of the research is based on the principles of a systematic approach to the consideration of church and public life issues in the first third of the 19th century, which allows us to get away from subjective assessments that have developed in the historiography of stamps, and to identify the true cause-and-effect relationships between events. Results. Contradictions have been revealed in the description by memoirists and his-torians of the reasons for the removal of archimandrite Innokentiy (Smirnov) from St. Pe-tersburg, as well as new documents to clarify the details of the events; new conclusions have been drawn about the causes and consequences of the events described. Conclusions. The analysis of the material suggests that the removal of Archimandrite Innokenty (Smirnov) from St. Petersburg in March 1819 was not directly related to the prohibition of the book “Conversation on the coffin of a baby...”, and the initiator of his exile was not Prince A.N. Golitsyn.
Keywords
