The opening of the Tauride Department of the Imperial Orthodox Palestinian Society through the prism of the personalities of the ruling bishops: Bishop Mikhail (Gribanovsky) and Archbishop Nikolai (Ziorov)

Bliznyakov Roman Aleksandrovich ORCID: 0000-0002-9863-0267 PhD in History Head of the Scientific Research Laboratory; Institute of Social Sciences and International Relations; Sevastopol State University 33 Universitetskaya str., Sevastopol, 299053, Russia bliznyakov80@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

Last year, the recreated Crimean Regional Branch of the IOPS celebrated the 125th birthday of its predecessor, the Tauride Department of the IOPS. By the anniversary date, scientific studies devoted to the modern and pre-revolutionary activities of society in the Crimea appeared ^[1-3]. The historical retrospective, albeit small, already allows us to talk about the first achievements of the department recreated on the peninsula, however, there is a definite need to voice the difficulties of the current functioning, which are very consonant with the originally existing problems of the pre-revolutionary department.

The opening of the regional department at the beginning of the twentieth century, the first tentative steps towards its formation, as well as the initial analysis of the modern activities of the Crimean regional department, require a systematic review of the past ^[1]. No, not at all in order to become like the famous biblical wife of Lot, but in order to understand where to move on, because many factors of the century before last remain constant in the 21st century, for example, such as the multiculturalism of the region (Crimea), the presence of ancient Christian (both Orthodox and non-Orthodox) traditions. with the relative novelty of Russian Orthodoxy on the peninsula. The leadership and co-founders of the regional branch want history to be a mentor and teacher, as in Cicero's well-known expression. This is precisely the direct practical significance of this research.

In the light of the indicated textual background, we formulate the goal: to show the prehistory of the creation of the Tauride Department of the IOPS, the main difficulties of the early stage of functioning in such a multiethnic and multicultural region of the Russian Empire as the Tauride province through the prism of the personalities of the ruling Tauride bishops – Bishop Mikhail Gribanovsky and Archbishop (subsequently) - Nikolai Ziorov.

Before setting the main tasks, let us formulate a hypothesis: the difficulties of opening and subsequent functioning of the pre-revolutionary Tauride department of the IOPS were associated with the lack of proper Russianness in the region, which is true in a diachronic context and is relevant to the present socio-cultural background in the Republic of Crimea. The evidence of the relevance of the hypothesis is the conceptual and fundamental leitmotif of this scientific article. However, in the course of research, it is worth avoiding the temptation of confirmation errors and scrupulously analyzing the source base of artifacts from the past and documents generated by the modern socio-political system, public organizations and the media at the federal and regional levels.

The outlined tasks are as follows: to show the historical background in the Tauride province on the eve of the formation of the Tauride Department of the IOPS. To characterize the role of the ruling bishops in the process of opening and establishing the Department, to highlight the first steps of activity in 1900, and the newly achieved results already in the 20th century.

Materials, methods

The realization of the formulated goal and the solution of the tasks set directly depend on the researcher's choice of tools. The methodology of this research will be based on the addition of synchronous and diachronic methods while observing the basic historical methods — the principles of objectivity and historicism.

Of course, the specifics of the source base: the presence of a large text array of correspondence and a body of journalistic articles in diocesan gazettes with an extensive geography of the Russian Empire suggest the use of content and event analysis, the use of which will be justified after receiving the results using the latter. First of all, priority in this pair is given to content analysis – a meaningful analysis of arrays of homogeneous documents, in particular, obituaries from diocesan gazettes, touching upon the biographies and egohistory of personalities inscribed in the historical outline of events – Bishop Mikhail Gribanovsky and Archbishop Nikolai Ziorov. Content and event analysis were used to analyze Vladyka Nicholas' speech at the opening of the Tauride Department of the IOPS. The system of actions defined by the methods subtly determines by context and other linguistic markers which emotional expression a publication or speech carries — negative, positive or neutral tone, thereby allowing a subtle analysis of a person's reputation and her manipulations in relation to a wide audience or recipients of correspondence ^[4].

The source base of the research reflects the empirical stage of the author's work with the funds of the departmental archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation — the Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire (hereinafter – AVPRI, Moscow) and the State Museum of the History of Religion (hereinafter — GMIR, St. Petersburg). The following sources were selected as documentary research materials: previously unpublished documents — (AVPRI), first of all, the Foundation 337 of the Russian Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society for a detailed study of the creation of the Tauride Department of the IPPO (F. 337 /2 RIPPO, inventory 873/2, d. 41 — "Journal of the meeting of the Tauride Department of the IPPO, April 2, 1900") ^[5]. The author studied the case file, which includes the correspondence of the Society with the Tauride Department (F. 337/1 RIPPO, op. 873/1 D. 143 — "Correspondence with the Tauride Department of the Society from 1898 to 1911") ^[6].

In turn, the GMIR funds have such valuable sources as Reports from the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society (hereinafter — SIPPO) ^[7-16]. Based on them, the author of the article scrupulously analyzed the Speech of Archbishop Nikolai (Ziorov), spoken during the official opening of the department ^[7], the lists of officials for the first years of the department's existence ^{[8, p.195; 9. P. 191, 10, P. 67]} and other documents ^[11-16] that go beyond the chronological framework However, it is necessary to verify the relevance of our findings, which is important due to the narrowness of the time limits of this study.

The author of the article studied the issue we are interested in earlier, for example, in the regional periodicals — the Tauride Diocesan Gazette, devoting to this (jointly with M. A. Agatova) a source study ^[17].

In this article, the corpus of church periodicals has been significantly expanded, in addition to the information contained in the Tauride Diocesan Gazette, presented in this study both directly ^{[18, 19]} and indirectly-historiographically as factual material-the experience of previous research ^[17], the author introduces information from Riga, Smolensk, Kherson, Poltava Diocesan Gazette, Tauride Church and Public Bulletin, Warsaw Diocesan Bulletin ^[20-25].

The degree of development of the topic is quantitatively few, but it has its own well-established luminaries, for example, such as the ancient guardian of the Rostov Diocese, a full member of the IOPS, Candidate of Historical Sciences I. G. Sharkov ^[26]. In recent years, the authoritative IOPS Encyclopedia has undergone a reprint ^{[27, 28]} and, of course, essays on the history of the Tauride Department of the IOPS, the Crimean regional branch ^{[27, p. 782; 28, p. 813]} can be useful for anyone interested in such issues, as well as the publications themselves in full. They were published thanks to the efforts of the head of the scientific section of the international public organization "Imperial Orthodox Palestinian Society", a national luminary in the study of pilgrimage, S. Y. Zhitenev.

The work of the Mitrophoric Archpriest of the Simferopol and Crimean diocese Vladimir Kashlyuk, which touches on the main milestones of Bishop Mikhail Gribanovsky's life, is very interesting in the historiography of the issue from the standpoint of egohistory and the biography of the Tauride bishop ruling at the end of the 19th century ^[29].

The author got acquainted in detail with a very informative article by his Crimean colleague, and now an employee of St. Petersburg University, Vladimir Kalinovsky, shedding light on the activities of Archbishop Nikolai Ziorov in the State Council of the Russian Empire ^[30], which is very informative for understanding the political views of the Tauride archpastor, during which the opening of the IOPS regional department took place.

Further detailed study of the functioning of the Tauride Department of the IOPS after last year's publication (to date, the basic article) of the author on the study of the history of the regional department ^[1] (based on a comparative analysis of modernity and an inevitably increasing 130—year-old retrospective) seems multidimensional and phased, where, I think, the present study on the discovery of The department will take its proper place, filling another historical information gap. There is a further need, and not only for purely historical research, but also for works of a social science and political science orientation devoted to the activities of the modern Crimean branch of the IOPS.

In this study, we deliberately did not rely on the body of fundamental and general works by the luminaries of Russian science (such as N.N. Lisova, personally known to us) in the field of studying various aspects of the IOPS and Russian pilgrimage due to the extreme narrowness of the chronological and geographical framework, the local history nature of this study, carried out in the paradigm of a new local history, This contributes to a more successful and thorough examination of the structures of everyday life in order to identify ways of self—identification of a local group, for example, new members of the Tauride Department of the IOPS. In this model, the over-generalized work of recognized masters will only lead to a blurring of focus and will inflate the nomenclature of the list of sources and literature used, turning historiography into a bio-bibliographic index, unnecessarily burdening the reference part for work on microhistory.

Review

The opening of the regional departments of the society at the end of the 19th century is the next, most important stage in the organization's activities, undoubtedly associated with the name of the first Chairman of the IOPS, Sergei Alexandrovich. It was to him that the initiative to create the Tauride Department belonged, as evidenced by the letter of the Grand Duke addressed to the ruling bishop, Bishop Mikhail (Gribanovsky) of Tauride.

So, on January 17, 1898, Bishop Mikhail (Gribanovsky) of Taurida wrote to another addressee, Vasily Nikolaevich Khitrovo, about receiving a letter from the Chairman of the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society, Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, expressing his wish to open a department of the organization in the Taurida diocese. The ruling bishop, with a visible concomitant desire to resolve this issue, replied that, "to my great regret," he could not fulfill this aspiration of the Grand Duke, referring to the fact that "he has been ill for the 8th month and in bed for the 6th month" ^{[6, l.1]}. Further on in the text We find references to the state of "general exhaustion, complicated by lung and throat disease" ^{[6, l.1]}.

Anticipating the possibility of an early subsequent retirement due to health reasons, which was quite possible and suggested by the contents of the message, Bishop Michael, who was ill, stated in the same letter that "God helps to conduct the affairs of the diocese, but I am not fit for more." In this way, he clearly distinguishes between the possibility of solving diocesan affairs and the impossibility of embarking on such a responsible event as the opening of a regional department. And further on in the text: "It is absolutely necessary to open the department with personal relations, and not only can I not go out into the air, but I also receive only on urgent matters and rarely, as this affects my health" ^{[6, l.1-1, vol.]}.

Further on in the text of the letter, the ruling bishop makes an assumption about the future of the Tauride Department of the IOPS, which becomes almost prophetic and outlines the difficulties that have arisen throughout its subsequent almost eighteen-year pre-revolutionary history: "In such a sad situation, there is nothing to think about opening the department yet. And to tell the truth, if we manage to arrange anything later, then the department will be very bad. Our people are diverse, collective, and official. There is nothing strong, Orthodox, calmly thoughtful and pious in mind. The clergy are far from the people, I say this in comparison with native Russia. There is no patriarchy anywhere. In general, there is little hope of success. But in any case, I could count on existence if I were fit for business. We have to wait for now." According to Bishop Mikhail, the characterization of the state of the clergy and flock of the Taurida Diocese rightly required active episcopal participation for the proper functioning of the department.

Further in the letter, Bishop Michael repeatedly pedals on his not entirely satisfactory state of health, which, according to him, became the main reason for such a slow response to the high addressee. As if almost justifying himself, he writes in the subjunctive mood: "If I were healthy, of course, I would have written to you a long time ago, but only for four days the doctor allowed me to get up and write for an hour. I do not answer the kind Alexander Ivanovich Yakubovich for the same reason. It's all so sad that I'm not ashamed to say it" ^{[6, l. 2]}. The last dates of the message end with a wish for the health and God's blessing of the counterpart in the new year, 1898.

By the will of fate, it was in the coming year 1898 that the bishop-theologian, who graduated from the St. Petersburg Theological Academy in 1884 with the degree of candidate of theology, died. Academicism and zeal for monastic asceticism became his main characteristics, as well as providentialism about the future situation of the IOPS in the Crimea. About the fact of the adoption of monasticism by the best students of the Academy — "Mikhail Gribanov (so in the text) and Alexei Khrapovitsky", who "had a huge influence on the students", we find in the Speech of His Eminence Arseny, Archbishop of Riga and Mitava: "Oh, how pleased I was to greet my first tonsured monks with their acceptance of monasticism!" ^{[20, pp. 771 - 772]}. It was during his studies at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy that Mikhail Gribanovsky became friends with the future Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), who, together with the future Crimean bishop, supported a dispute between students about whether or not to accept monasticism in favor of monastic status.

His Grace Michael died on August 18, 1898 after a long illness. The funeral of the deceased was performed by His Grace Nikon, Bishop of Volsky, and His Grace Anthony, Rector of the Kazan Theological Academy. "Mikhail Alekseevich (Gribanovsky), who died in the world, was from the Tambov diocese, the son of the archpriest of the city of Yelatma." He enjoyed great respect and general love for his extraordinary kindness and cordial attitude towards all who turned to him for advice or help, and is known for several writings and studies on various issues of theological science" ^{[21, p. 1030]}.

The bishop of Simferopol had high awards — "the Orders of St. Anna of the 1st degree, St. Vladimir of the 3rd and 4th degrees and other insignia, was a member of the Brotherhood of the Most Holy Theotokos, the missionary society and other societies and institutions (for more information about Bishop Michael, see: ^[29]).

So, the Tauride bishop, monk, and associate wisely postponed the opening of the regional department not only for his health reasons, but also because of deeper problems: difficulties he saw that required thought and elaboration. He didn't refuse, he was justifiably slow. And, as fate would have it, this historic moment came under his successor, a more active and assertive bishop (later Archbishop). Nicholas (Ziorov).

His Eminence Nicholas, Archbishop of Warsaw and Privislensky, was indeed one of the "richly gifted natures" in this rank and status ^{[22, p. 1]}.

Describing the newly-appointed Tauride bishop at that time, we can safely say that in our church he is known "as an energetic, outstanding figure ... as a firm and undaunted defender of the interests of the Orthodox Church, as a thoughtful scientist and a brilliant teacher, a wise leader and administrator of many young generations of our spiritual and secular youth, and finally as a deep, a true patriot and especially as an eloquent speaker, preacher and improviser, who has already presented 16 issues of his talented words, conversations, and speeches to the Russian public" ^{[22, p. 1]}.

The assessment of his pedagogical activity is of considerable interest to us due to the range of characteristics: from the banal and warm, almost everyday ("Mikhail Zakharych was a living person and a teacher. And we always felt Mikhail Zakharych's care: our nutrition improved during his time as inspector. Especially memorable are the meat pies, which at that time seemed surprisingly attractive to a skinny bourgeois stomach" ^{[24, pp. 266-267]}), before realizing the versatility of the bishop's personality: ("Many people associate this name with the idea of a domineering and cruel ruler. But we, his disciples, will always sincerely say: "Archbishop Nicholas may have been like that, but we knew Mikhail Zakharovich Ziorov in a completely different way, and we love him and remember him with gratitude" ^{[24, p. 268]}). As we can see, the uncredited memory of the student with the caption in the article "Yuzhn. Kr." shows genuine love for the teacher, and this is an accurate focus on one of the positive aspects of the bishop's personality.

His track record before the southern and pacific provincial Simferopol included missionary work in America, where he proved himself "as a firm and undaunted defender of the interests of the Orthodox Church" ^{[22, p. 2]}, and successful teaching studies as an inspector of the Vologda Seminary, about which, again, we find only positive characteristics: "with his excellent lessons and attentive attitude to the needs of his students ... I have gained the warm affection of my pets" ^{[22, p. 6]}.

The Crimean period of his life is interesting to us, first of all, from the perspective of the opening of the Tauride Department of the IOPS. This event, which was unusual at that time, could have happened during the period of activity of a very active and determined bishop in the region. By September 1898, "the Tauride Diocese was widowed after the death of His Grace Mikhail (Gribanovsky) and was temporarily governed by His Grace Nicholas (Sofiysky), later Exarch of Georgia." The election of the new archpastor was a joyful event for the region. This can be seen in the positive tone of the welcoming words and speeches with which "representatives of the clergy and lay people greeted their new Bishop." He was compared to an apostle, to which Bishop Nicholas modestly and worthily retorted: "I cannot, however, agree with you regarding the title (our discharge) of an apostle given to me." Continuing: "In all conscience, I must tell you that I dare not even think about such a comparison, because I feel like an ordinary person in everything. Of what you're attributing to me, I can't even attribute a tenth to myself. Others have worked harder, but I have very little left. You've probably seen more than once in your life that people often experience the same thing as shiny objects. Sometimes, on a bright sunny day, you look at something shining from afar, just like a diamond of the purest water, and when you get closer, you pick up this diamond, and it turns out that it is the simplest glass... I'm afraid that you, too, when you observe me closely, will not be disappointed in me ..." ^{[22, pp. 6-11]}.

During His Eminence Nicholas' episcopal ministry in Crimea, "an intense and diverse activity" began: "Spiritual and educational institutions, the consistory, the candle factory, church farms, monasteries, churches, clergy, in general, the entire church and religious life of the diocese felt an unusually energetic and experienced helmsman" ^{[22, p. 12]}. The energy of the manager and the leader was directed in a new direction. During his reign, the flock of the Tauride diocese was not left without archpastoral cares and care ^{[22, p. 12]}, although, for all his caring disposition, he was very "demanding of colleagues and subordinates," especially "in the performance of their duty," but at the same time, everyone noted "and cordially responsive to the needs of the poor." and the destitute" of man ^{[25, p. 4]}.

Vladyka Nicholas inherited a difficult ecclesiastical administrative unit: "The Tauride diocese, which includes ancient Chersonesos, long-suffering Sevastopol, and wonderful Livadia, with royal palaces and dachas, presented many difficulties and slippery paths for its administration" ^{[25, p. 12]}. This was due, among other things, to the frequent visits of high-ranking officials, especially the august personages, to this region, which required "tact of life, intelligence, nobility and familiarity with the subtleties of etiquette from a representative of the diocesan church" ^{[25, p. 12]}. Having traveled to America and Europe, and often visited aristocratic salons, Bishop Nicholas "perfectly adapted here to all kinds of surprises and accidents, while maintaining his high hierarchical dignity and authority" ^{[25, p. 12]}, which, of course, can be traced to his epistolary communication with the first Chairman of the IOPS, Sergei Alexandrovich.

The Tauride province, and especially the Crimea, became very fond of the bishop. And when, on March 26, 1905, His Grace Nicholas received the news that he had been transferred to the oldest Tver see with the title of Archbishop, he was not at all pleased with this news: "he had already become familiar with the Taurichans and had grown fatherly in love with them." In addition, the course of treatment for the chronic disease that he suffered from was unfinished, therefore, "His Grace. Nikolai was forced to give up this high appointment and retire, with a place of residence in his beloved city of Yalta" ^{[22, p. 12]}.

In the service record of the bishop, during whose reign the Tauride Department of the IOPS appeared, one can single out representative activities in the State Council. "In 1906, in consideration of enlightenment, talents and independent character, and firmness of beliefs, His Grace. Nikolai was elected a member of the State Council, where he carried this high title with honor and fearlessness to the end of his days, enjoying authority and respect among members of the High Chamber of all parties" ^{[22, p. 12]}. Elected in 1906 from the monastic clergy, he was re-elected to it in 1915. The bishop had a clear political line: "The late bishop sided with the right in the upper house. He was an ardent opponent of the introduction of new religious laws" ^{[23, p. 16]}.

The last ecclesiastical appointment in 1908 was the calling of Vladyka Nicholas to the Archbishopric of Warsaw and Privislansk. Warsaw in those days, "a combat post for a military, civilian, and ecclesiastical administrator" ^{[22, p. 12]} was a touchstone for a true shepherd and patriot of his land on the eve and during the First World War. The bishop's steadfastness was evident in everything, for example, when in 1915 Warsaw was expected to be evacuated from minute to minute, "the Synod ordered ... Vladyka to leave Warsaw, but the latter remained in the capital of the Kingdom of Poland until the last Russian units left Warsaw; Archbishop Nicholas left with them" ^{[23, p. 16]}.

At the end of 1915 (according to the old calendar), Vladyka died. "Over the past two days, Archbishop Nicholas often fell into unconsciousness and on the 21st, at dawn, he rested." The funeral took place on December 23, 1915. "A funeral service was held at the Holy Spirit Church of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra by Metropolitan Pitirim of Petrograd, co-served by members of the Holy Synod. Archbishop Nicholas was buried at the Fraternal Cemetery, near the grave of Metropolitan Anthony. The funeral was attended by the entire staff of the Holy Synod, with the Chief Prosecutor ^{[23, p. 16]} A. N. Volzhin at the head, the clergy of the State Duma, members of the State Council" ^{[23, p. 17]}.

Nowadays, the historical portrait of Archbishop Nicholas is in the focus not only of scientific, but also of the historical and monument-preserving activities of the IOPS. So on May 9, 2013, IOPS members Alexander Panin and Semyon Vaksman visited the Nikolsky Cemetery, "where they identified the graves of active members of the Imperial Orthodox Palestinian Society – Bishop Anastasy (Alexandrov) and Archbishop Nikolai (Ziorov)" ^[31]. The members of the IOPS remember that it was during his episcopate that the Tauride Department of the IOPS was opened on April 2, 1900 in Simferopol, in the consistory building. As subsequent history has shown, Vladyka was very successful in ensuring the work of the department as its chairman.

In January 1900, Bishop Nicholas of Taurida also became the recipient of another "official letter from the Chairman of the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society (IOPS), Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich." The words of gratitude to the Tauride bishop "for his attention and support to the activities of the Society" were interspersed with lines in which hope was seen for "the establishment of a regional branch of the IOPS within the Tauride diocese" ^{[17, p. 21]}.

Bishop Nikolay (Ziorov) of Taurida and Simferopol and the local clergy were already determined by this time to implement the project for the opening of a local branch: "In early February 1900, the ruling bishop informed the flock through the diocesan gazette that on April 2, the day of the feast of the Entry of the Lord into Jerusalem, the opening of the Taurida Cathedral would take place in the building of the spiritual consistory. department of IOPS. All persons sympathetic to the Palestinian society were invited to make donations for the celebrations dedicated to the opening of the local branch." In the Tauride Diocesan Gazette, on behalf of Bishop Nicholas, "Guidelines for the operation of Departments of the Orthodox Palestinian Society" were published — preparatory work was underway for the opening of a local structure ^{[17, p. 21]}.

On April 2, 1900, on Palm Sunday, the IOPS regional office was established in Taurida. During the Solemn Divine Service at the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, a now-recreated shrine in Crimea (the history of the temple is described in the research of the founders of the Crimean regional branch: ^{[1, p. 25]}), Bishop Nicholas himself led the service, "after the Gospel, Priest Pavel Dobrovoy gave the appropriate teaching, and then one of the deacons conducted a circle gathering. to strengthen the resources of the Orthodox Palestinian Society" ^{[19, p. 531]}.

The fact that the mentioned donations, which the clergy relied on, were carried out even before the opening of the regional department in Simferopol, is evidenced by the agenda of the meeting of the Tauride Department of the IOPS dated April 2, 1900, No. 1. The meeting log contains information that "The members present are employees of the Society, chaired by His Grace, His Grace Nicholas Bishop of Tauride and Simferopol We listened to a letter from the Chairman of the IOPS, Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, to His Grace Nicholas, Bishop of Taurida and Simferopol, on Palm Sunday in 1899 for the Taurida diocese ^{[5, l. 1]}. After the establishment of the Tauride Department, donations were important both for the full functioning and for maintaining the proper level of pilgrimage and missionary activities, if we speak on an imperial scale.

At the end of the Divine Liturgy, Bishop Nicholas and his fellow clergy celebrated a prayer service to Christ the Savior in the cathedral. Then the invited persons followed to the building of the ecclesiastical consistory, where they were met by the ruling bishop. After the proclamation of the special litany, the bishop addressed the audience with a speech containing a historical tour of the Holy Land and a description of the plight of Christians ^{[17, p. 21]}.

Let's analyze his appeal to the audience using the tools of content and event analysis. The event analysis (analysis of events and facts) allowed us to highlight in His speech key historical milestones and institutional actions related to the veneration of the Holy Land, as well as the organization of pilgrimages. Vladyka Nicholas, addressing the audience, mentioned individual historical events and touched upon entire periods in the regional history of the Holy Land. He dwelt in detail on the events of the Old Testament and the New Testament.: "Both in Old Testament times and in New Testament times," he said, "Jerusalem has always been the place where the eyes of all believers were directed and where pious people aspired not only with their thoughts and their feelings, but also with their feet" ^{[18, p. 516; 32, p. 643]}.

Vladyka emphasized not only the primordial importance of Jerusalem for believers, but also cited examples of apostolic ministry as an example of a pious attitude towards holy sites: "The Holy Apostles, by their own example, showed Christians how to treat Jerusalem and its holy sites... It is also known that St. Peter the Great During their evangelism, the apostles advised newly converted Christians not to forget the poor of Jerusalem and collected alms for them themselves. But during the persecution of Christianity, it was not as easy to travel to Jerusalem for pilgrimage purposes as it was later, when Christianity became the state and dominant religion from a persecuted and persecuted religion" ^{[18, p. 516]}.

His performance is chronotopic and Palestine-centric. We see this as a manifestation of the dichotomy in dividing pilgrimages into primary and secondary ones. Vladyka is talking about the initial pilgrimages. The Holy Land is becoming a spiritual landmark and aspiration for millions who call themselves Christians: it. ".. The cradle of Christianity has always been there for all Christians... the subject of special attention and reverent reverence. And that's understandable.: everything is consecrated there by the most pure feet of our Savior; the most important Shrine of Christianity is concentrated there, from the Bethlehem manger to Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre inclusive; the most expensive and best monuments of Old and New Testament piety are there!" ^{[18, p. 516]}.

The speech of the Tauride bishop was imbued with the principle of historicism. There was a place in it for the era of Emperor Constantine the Great and Equal-to-the-Apostles Helena, as well as for events of a later time. The audience's active attention was drawn to the holy places by the story of the construction of temples, the finding of the Life-giving Cross, and the construction of the Church of the Resurrection. "During the time of Emperor Constantine the Great," we find in the text, "special attention was paid to the Holy Places of Palestine. The mother of Constantine the Great, Equal-to-the-Apostles Elena, herself undertook trips to Holy Places, and in places especially glorified in the life of the Savior, she built temples and erected various kinds of monuments; and at the same time, among other things, the Church of the Resurrection was erected at the place of suffering, death, burial and resurrection of the Savior, and at the same time The life-giving Cross of Christ. Over time, monastic monasteries began to appear here, of which the monastery of St. Sava the Consecrated, which still exists today, was one of the most important" ^{[18, pp. 516-517; 32, p. 644]}.

Bishop Nicholas did not ignore the aspect of the invasion of the Gentiles, and the frequent change of rulers of Palestine. His speech mentions the Persians (sixth century), Arabs, Turks, and emphasizes the loss of Christian control over their shrines. "The pious Byzantine kings and queens," he said, —spared no expense in maintaining churches and other monuments of Christian piety in Palestine. But the fates of God are inscrutable: both the city of Jerusalem and the whole of Palestine were very often made prey to the enemies of the faith of Christ, and especially with the advent of Mohammed and Islam. In the sixth century, it was attacked by the Persians, and then the Arabs, then the Turks began to own it. The situation of Jerusalem, Palestine and the whole of Syria, especially since the 11th century, has become very sad. The Temple of Jerusalem, the main Shrines of Christianity, were all in the hands of the infidels. The patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria have lost their former splendor and splendor, and have become the most unhappy of the flourishing and glorious, barely dragging out their existence" ^{[18, p. 517]}.

Bishop Nicholas touched upon the theme of European pilgrimages and Crusades from the perspective of the Eastern Church. Speaking about the transfer of the holy sites under the control of the Crusaders and the creation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Vladyka noted the deterioration of the situation of indigenous Orthodox Christians due to the policy of active proselytism in the region by the Latins. "True, during the era of the Crusades, for almost two centuries, Jerusalem and all the Holy Places in Palestine passed from the hands of the infidels into the hands of the Crusaders, even the kingdom of Jerusalem was formed; but the situation of the Orthodox population in these places still did not improve: the popes, and by their order, the kings of Jerusalem and others the feudal owners of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, in order to proselytize, in every possible way embarrassed the Orthodox in their former rights: much of what the Orthodox Syrians owned was taken away from them and transferred to the Latins; much of the most precious Shrine was taken to Europe, especially to Rome and other places in Italy; thus, a sad spectacle turned out: Christians of the West Those who came to liberate Eastern Christians from the infidels turned out to be worse than the infidels themselves, imposing an even heavier yoke on their brothers in the faith," concludes the Tauride bishop ^{[18, p. 517]}; ^{[32, p. 645]}.

The natural outcome of the Crusader states is the return of Palestine to Muslim rule. The expulsion of the Latins by the Seljuk Turks and the further rule of the infidels over the holy places also found their place in the historical excursion, which can be clearly seen in Bishop Nicholas' speech: "The fate of this kingdom is known: the Seljuk Turks expelled the crusaders from Palestine and Syria, and the Holy Places again fell under their rule, and so everything remains there to this day! After such severe historical blows, Palestine and Syria fell into extreme ruin, not only materially, but also spiritually" ^{[18, p. 518]}.

The situation in Palestine and Syria on the eve of the second half of the 19th century was characterized by the Tauride high priest as a further desolation of the territory, accompanied by a massive outflow of the local Christian population and the plight of the patriarchs. His Eminence's speech also contains a place to evaluate the activities of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission, and contains a reference to Bishop Porfiry's diary as an indisputable evidence of the plight of Christians in the region. "To judge this," concludes His Eminence, "one only has to read the diary of the famous Porfiry, who died as Bishop of Chegirinsky and was for many years in Jerusalem at the head of the Russian mission in the second half of this century, before the Crimean War inclusive! It becomes hard and painful when you read these mournful pages, written if not in blood, then undoubtedly in the tears of a Russian man, a deeply religious Christian. It is not good that even now, poor Syrians are fleeing from Syria and Palestine in droves to all parts of the world. In America alone, they are now counted in the hundreds, but how many more are there in Australia, Africa and other countries of the world?! With a knapsack on their shoulders and a basket in their hands, these sons of Damascus, Bethlehem, Beirut, and Jerusalem go from house to house offering their oriental wares. I even saw them near the Bering Strait..." ^{[18, p. 518]}. Thus, in an address at the opening of the Tauride Department, the topic of the persecution of Christians in the Middle East was raised to this day.

There is also a necessary reference in the speech to the brief history of Russian pilgrimage from ancient times to Modern times. His Eminence mentioned the most famous pilgrims (Daniel, Arseny Sukhanov, Pop Lukyanov, Barsky), emphasizing the tradition of charity in favor of shrines. "Russia has never forgotten Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulchre. Almost from the first days of Christianity, crowds of worshippers began to flock there, and not only ordinary people, but even the noble ones. There are also monuments of their pilgrimage labors, for example, Daniel Abbot, Arseny Sukhanov, Priest Lukyanov, Barskago and others," we find in the text of the bishop's published speech ^{[18, p. 518]}; ^{[32, p. 646]}.

It is not one-sided at all, not like in Soviet historiography, where one can read mainly about the backwardness and defeat of the vile tsarism in the Crimean War, it is said about the Eastern War by Vladyka. It is clearly interpreted as related to the protection of the interests of the Holy Sepulchre. "The Russian tsars and queens did not forget the patriarchs and the Holy Sepulchre with their "alms." And what exactly caused the Crimean War, if not the desire to protect the interests of the Holy Sepulchre?! "He asks, 'For our people, the most honorable thing is to listen to Russian pilgrims and wanderers on long winter evenings about Jerusalem, Bethlehem, the Jordan River and other Holy Places; and he has never refused and does not refuse to give his labor contribution to these Holy Places. Unfortunately, until recently we did not have a proper organization of either the pilgrimage or charity work in relation to the Holy Land. They went to the Holy Places themselves who wanted and how they could, and they passed on their contributions to the Holy Sepulchre through pilgrims" ^{[18, p. 519]}. One can clearly trace the idea that the Russian pilgrimage, as a phenomenon, has become widespread and organized only thanks to the activities of the IOPS, which are systemic in nature.

So gradually, in Vladyka's Speech, we come to the plot of the creation of the IOPS. The address to the audience clearly explains the purpose of one of the oldest public organizations in Russia — to inform, reduce the cost and streamline pilgrimages, charity. There was a place for personification. The Chairman of the society, Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, was mentioned in a positive way: "About twenty years ago, on the initiative and with the assistance of the Representatives of the reigning house, the Imperial Orthodox Palestinian Society was formed, of which His Imperial Highness, Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, has been chairman all the time. This society has set itself the goal of providing more accurate and more complete information about the Holy Land to all Orthodox Christians through the publication of books and pamphlets devoted to the study of the Holy Land and its monuments; to promote a cheaper and more convenient way of traveling to the holy places and, finally, to help the poor inhabitants of Palestine and Syria by setting up Orthodox schools., orphanages, hospitals, etc. And, thank God, this business is going very well so far!" ^{[18, p. 519]}

Vladyka also spoke about the long-planned opening of an IOPS department in the Taurida Diocese (in Simferopol). The event was deliberately timed to coincide with the day of the Entry of the Lord into Jerusalem. "Until now, our Tauride diocese did not have a Department of this society, although donations were collected in it on the day of the Lord's entry into Jerusalem. Currently, according to the wish of the August Chairman of the Society, His Imperial Highness, Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, it is planned to open a Department of this society in Simferopol. Today is the day of the entry of the Lord into Jerusalem, as the day from which begins the story of the sufferings, death and resurrection of Christ the Savior, which we spiritually contemplate during the divine services of Holy Week, and I have chosen to open this Department" ^{[18, pp. 519-520; 32, pp. 647-648]}.

The speech contained a direct appeal for donations and support from parishioners: "By addressing this message to all those who love Christ, I hope that I will provoke a lively response and see more than a dozen people on the list of sympathizers of this cause, as the Council of the Orthodox Palestinian Society, in its modesty, desires. May God's blessing be upon us all and upon our enterprise. Amen" ^{[18, p. 520]}.

Thus, complementing the event analysis of the speech of the Tauride bishop with conclusions supported by content analysis, we will conclude a number of generalizations. In a public speech by the ruling bishop, key actors and institutions were listed in relation to the history of the Holy Land after the Birth of Christ: Equal-to-the-Apostles Helena, Emperor Constantine the Great, the Holy Apostles, Byzantine rulers, Crusaders, popes, kings of Jerusalem, feudal lords. It was said about the conquerors, the Seljuk Turks. Russians Russian Palestine's prominent representatives were mentioned, such as Bishop Porfiry (head of the Russian Mission in Jerusalem), and famous Russian pilgrims (Daniel, Arseny Sukhanov, and others). Russian tsars and queens were mentioned in the context of charity. And, of course, the apotheosis of the speech was the words about the IPPO, about Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, about the IPPO council. Thus, the archpastor of the Taurida diocese justified the opening of the proposed department of the society here in Simferopol.

The content analysis allowed us to reveal the semantic dominants, rhetorical techniques and value orientations of the spoken and published text of Vladyka's speech, in which the main thematic blocks are clearly traced. Let's list them.

1. The theme of the sacredness of the Holy Land, with an emphasis on the fact that Palestine is the "cradle of Christianity", a place consecrated by the life of Christ; Vladyka lists the key shrines (Bethlehem, Golgotha, the Holy Sepulchre).

2. The question of the historical continuity of the veneration of Holy Places from the apostolic example and the Roman (Byzantine) tradition to the mass imitation of them by the prospectors of the Russian pilgrimage.

3. A line that reveals the stories of trials, hardships, and loss of Christian positions in the region. A description of the series of conquests and oppression of the Orthodox, emphasizing the suffering, above all, of the indigenous, Eastern Christians.

4. The postulate of covert criticism of the Crusader policy. The bishop emphasized the paradoxical situation when Western Christians, called upon to liberate Eastern co-religionists, themselves turned into a source of oppression for the Orthodox in the region.

5. The aspect of Russian charity. Emphasizing Russia's centuries–old connection with Jerusalem, the Russian tradition of donations and pilgrimages is an important topic of the speech. And, indeed, for centuries, the arrogant Greek holy tombs did not shy away from donations from the Rurikovich and Romanovs and their subjects, surviving on them during the difficult Ottoman period.

6. The direction related to the institutionalization of aid and pilgrimage. Substantiation of the need for the existence and development of IOPS as a structure that regulates charity and travel.

7. A story about sacrifice, which called for participation. The announcement of the creation of a department in Simferopol and an appeal to the "Christ lovers" asking for support required the presence of interested parties, which is always problematic in a distant province.

In the speech of the ruling bishop, ideological views and value orientations are well traced, the motive of Orthodox identity and solidarity is read. The text appeals to the sense of unity of the Orthodox, especially in relation to the Orthodox flock of the oppressed Eastern patriarchates and the local Levantine population, despite the historical cunning of the Greeks and their arrogance towards the Russians, who adopted Eastern Christianity from them. The theme of protecting shrines as Russia's national and religious mission is another important topic of appeal to the audience. The Eastern (Crimean) war is correctly interpreted by Vladyka through the prism of protecting the interests of the Holy Sepulchre, and the activities of the IOPS are logically and fairly presented as a continuation of this mission. The dichotomy between "friends" and "strangers," the clear division into Orthodox (Eastern Christians, Russian pilgrims) and "infidels" (conquerors), as well as the "righteous" charity and "selfish" proselytism of Latins, help to set up the flock of the region entrusted to the Bishop to help organize the pilgrimage and missionary activities of the IOPS in the Holy Land.

For a good perception of speech, rhetorical techniques were also used: pathos and sublime style — the use of emotionally saturated vocabulary ("reverent reverence", "sad sight", "sorrowful pages"), religious formulas ("God's blessing", "Amen"), which set listeners up for a direct attitude, if not to to the sacredness of what is happening, then at least to godliness. The appeal to authorities (references to the apostles, Equal-to-the-Apostles Elena, Bishop Porphyry, and royalty) created a sense of belonging of the Orthodox to their great feat. A narrative built on contrast using the antithesis was necessary to contrast the former greatness of Byzantine Palestine and the modern Ruler of the period of its history. The frequent comparison of the crusader "liberators" and the Muslim oppressors, the suffering of the local population (at the hands of the former and the latter), accompanied by the indifference of the Christian world to the situation of local co-religionists in the period on the eve of the bloc confrontation in the region, awakened listeners to sacrifice. The appeal to the public is not devoid of narrative dynamics. The transition from general history to particular subjects, from the past to the present, and specific calls for support for the activities of the newly opened Tauride Department created the effect of the significance of the current moment, increasing emotional tension among those who listened to Vladyka. The imagery and personalization of the problem forced the listener's imagination to draw a portrait of Syrian refugees with a knapsack and a basket, which he observed even within the limits of North America, which was well known to the bishop, which made the tragedy of Eastern Christians large‑scale and vivid, emotionally close to the Orthodox of Taurida.

Of course, the clergyman's speech had its own lexical features. They consisted in the high frequency of words with religious semantics: holy, holy, piety, pilgrimage, alms, Orthodox, patriarchy, proselytism, in the use of bookish and Church Slavonic vocabulary ("honorable", "this word", "Christ lovers"), in repetitions and parallel constructions that enhance the persuasiveness of the multiple: "Russia never I have not forgotten Jerusalem...", "they do not run from the good...", "they have never refused and do not refuse."

The pragmatic function of the text, which performs several functions at once, is also evident. For example, the information and historical component provides a brief outline of the fate of the Holy Land and Russian pilgrimage in the region. The ideological component forms the idea of the mission of Russia and the Orthodox in protecting Christian shrines. Of course, the propaganda and mobilization message can also be traced. It is he who justifies the need to create a regional department of the IOPS and calls for the participation of all concerned Christians in the region in the feasible activities of the newly opened department in Simferopol, including through direct donations.

The author of this study applied a non—standard method for a classic historical essay - content analysis. The choice of this tool is due to several factors — our practical journalistic work as a columnist, public activities and the specifics of the text array itself. Since the bishop's Speech was published in TEV, we have every right to consider it as a product of communicative correspondence and analyze this text array from this position. Speaking about the categories of analysis, one can note the problematic nature of Speech, its generally positive "mood", high-quality material with expert assessments and important comments based on serious analytics. The existence of a problematic situation in the article is confirmed by the speaker's consistent phrases: "our Taurida Diocese has not had a Department of this Society until now," or, for example, by the phrase "unfortunately, until recently we did not have a proper organization of either pilgrimage or charity work in relation to the holy land." The intonation of Speech and, accordingly, its presentation in a printed article varies from a negative tone when it came to Palestine under Muslim rule or the situation of local Christians ("after such severe historical blows, Palestine and Syria came to extreme ruin, not only materially, but also spiritually"), to a positive one when Russian Russians and our august personages played a role in the life of the region ("Russia has never forgotten Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulchre" or "for our people, the most honorable thing is to listen to Russian pilgrims and wanderers on long winter evenings — about Jerusalem, Bethlehem, the Jordan River, etc. holy places", "Russian tsars and queens did not forget the patriarchs and the Holy Sepulchre with their "alms".). By type of material, the speech is news from an official representative of the government (the ruling bishop), replete with expert comments, which were made by Vladyka himself, who knows firsthand about IPPO, the Holy Land, pilgrimage, etc. about the situation of Christians in the Middle East. The number of uses of words related to the Holy Land, for example, place names, speaks eloquently about the Palestine-centricity: the word "Jerusalem" and adjectives formed from its own name sounded 17 times, "Palestine" — 7 times, the phrase "Holy Sepulchre" — 4 times, which indicates the millennial aspiration of the Russian people to the Holy Land, about her spiritual and moral guidance for the Eastern Slavs. And Tauris was the closest spiritual access point in the real Cartesian dimension and in the sacred dimension, in the form of a place of power — ancient Chersonesos in relation to the Holy Land of the Eastern Mediterranean. Thus, the text cited and studied by the author ^{[7, pp. 643-648]} of Vladyka Nicholas' speech on Palm Sunday in 1900 is not just a historical artifact, a relic of the past, but also, above all, the program speech of the first chairman of the regional department, combining religious rhetoric due to his high status and occupation, historical argumentation and a direct call to action. As you can see, it was quite informative. With a clear statement of the goals and objectives facing the organization.

"At the end of the speech, the protodeacon proclaimed many years ..." ^{[33, p. 717]} and the subscription lists were provided to those present. The first collection of membership fees was carried out from seventeen (this figure is questionable, as described below) active IOPS members. By the day of the meeting, ten local members of the Palestinian Society had agreed to join the Tauride Department. In connection with this circumstance, "His Grace Nicholas declared the department of the society open and invited those present to elect officials for the first three years." In turn, "the assembly unanimously asked His Grace to assume the chairmanship of the newly formed department under his care, to which His Eminence expressed his consent" ^{[21, p. 717]}.

We will focus separately on the number of the department in the first year of its existence, since there is a significant discrepancy in the range of quantitative composition in the already published essays on the Tauride Department in the IOPS Encyclopedia and in the early works of the author of this article. In the IOPS Encyclopedia of 2022, on page 823, it says "... the total number of members of the society and those who agreed in advance to join it was 27 people" ^[27]. The wording is similar to the second edition of 2025, where on page 855 we read: "The total number of new members of the society and those who agreed in advance to join it amounted to 27 people" ^[28]. It seems that my mentor and senior colleague S. Y. Zhitenev was led to a similar conclusion by the following information from the source to which he refers: "After Vladyka declared the meeting open, subscription lists were offered to include applications for membership in the society, and 17 people signed up from among those present. Following this, taking into account that by the day of the meeting, 10 local members of the Palestinian Society had agreed to form the Tauride Department, His Eminence Nicholas declared the department of the society open and invited those present to elect the department's officials for the first three years" ^{[33, p. 718]}.

Let's question the initial membership of the society of 27 people. The same Reports of the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society for 1901 contain extremely clear information about the number of members and it was compiled at the opening of the department in the form of an indicator of 19 members ^{[33, p. 718]}. Here is an uncut quote: "Members of the society. At the opening of the department, 19 members of the society joined it, and in addition, 15 more members during the reporting year, so that by March 1 of this year (that is, already in 1901 – our italics), the department consisted of 34 members of the society, of whom 1 was honorary, 1 was valid for life, and 32 members were employees with annual contributions" ^{[33, pp. 716-722]}.

Leaving the embarrassing figure of 17 people who want to join the society in mind, let's turn to other sources to clarify the quantitative indicator. In the funds of the AVPRI, in the above-mentioned case 143 "Correspondence with the Tauride Department of the Society from 1898 to 1911" we find an Act dated April 2, 1900 with the note: "reported to the Council on May 19, 1900" ^{[6, L.17]}. It contains information that complements the SIPPO data, but differs in the quantitative indicator of those who have signed up by exactly 1 unit: "18 persons joined the number of members-employees of the Company with an annual 10-ruble contribution" ^{[6, l.17 vol.]}. This number is easily verified by mathematical calculations: "100 rubles were received from His Eminence for the needs of the Society, and 280 rubles were received in total with membership fees" ^{[6, l.17 vol.]}. Thus, the arithmetic is extremely simple: the Chairman (the ruling bishop) and 18 newly appointed members, for a total of 19 people. The information is confirmed by the signatures of the newly elected officials in the specified document.

The Tauride Diocesan Gazette also provides us with data that echoes the information from the SIPPO. In our study with M. A. Agatova, we also mistakenly indicated 18 members, rather than 19 (as it should be) (since it was more of a source-based nature and based only on the data of TEV): "There were 17 people who signed up for membership in the Society. Since, according to the Statute of the Orthodox Palestinian Society (§98), Departments are opened when there are at least 10 members of the Society in a certain area, the Chairman of the Meeting, His Grace Bishop Nicholas, declared the Tauride Department of the Orthodox Palestinian Society open. Then officials were selected. Under the chairmanship of His Grace, His Grace Bishop Nicholas, who has been and still is an honorary member of the Orthodox Palestinian Society" ^{[19, p. 532]}. Thus, the indicator of 18 terms appears in our previous 2017 study as an unlucky arithmetic addition of the numbers 1 and 17, and the highly respected S.Y. Zhitenev's number 27, apparently, turns out to be a simple addition of the numbers 17 and 10.

Rechecking the SIPPO data indicating the initial figure of 19 people, we now compare the information from the above-mentioned case from the funds of the AVPRI and the Taurida Diocesan Gazette. Case 143 provides a complete list of 18 people, without the person of the ruling Bishop ^{[6, l. 23 vol.]}. Here is a complete list of individuals who made donations and joined the membership of the Orthodox Palestinian Society on the opening day of the Tauride Department for the Tauride Diocesan Gazette and compare them. It follows from the text of the periodical: "His Eminence, who is already an honorary member of the Society, donated 100 rubles.; membership fees were made: Grigorieva Yu. Ya. 10 years old; Nikolaev N. N. 10 years old; priest Apolinary Popov 10 years old; Girs A.D. 10 years old; Vysotsky A. L. 10 years old; hieromonk Feodosiy 10 years old; Karapetov A. I. 10 years old; Yakubovsky F. P. 10 years old; priest Vlad. Stanislavsky 10 p.; Sokolov G. F. 10 p.; Kuzmenko P. F. 10 p.; priest Nikolai Mezentsev 10 p.; eparch. Supervisor A.V. Ivanov, 10 years old; Rector of the University of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Znamensky 10 p.; Sofia Orestovna Broams 10 p. (so in the source); prot. Alexy Nazarevsky, 10 p.; sacred. You. Nikolsky, 10 p.; Archpriest. Mikhail Markov is 10 years old" ^{[19, p. 533]}. Thus, on the opening day of the department, according to the TEV data, 18 people made contributions (and not 17, as it was printed, which brought down the author of this article and M. A. Agatov in 2017), not counting the ruling bishop, and 280 rubles were received, as indicated in the Act of the archival document ^{[6, L.17 vol]}. They were contributed by Bishop Nicholas (in the amount of one hundred rubles) and 18 newly joined IOPS members (10 rubles each), from which the indicated amount of 280 rubles appears. The Tauride Diocesan Gazette may contain a typo and mistakenly say that "270 rubles were received on the opening day of the Department" ^{[19, p. 533]}, the gazette refutes itself on the same page with a list of contributors. Thus, the initial strength of the department as of April 2, 1900, was still 19 people: the bishop, who was a member of the IOPS, and 18 newly minted associates. Further reflections in this vein will be superfluous, since history is a semantic reconstruction, and we risk stepping over a fine line and being tempted, due to the narrow chronological scope of the study, by the field of physical reconstruction, with its deviations from the leitmotif of the article.

The administration of the Tauride Theological Seminary was well represented in the Tauride Department in the person of the Rector, Archpriest Vasily Znamensky; inspector Grigory Fedorovich Sokolov; confessor of the theological educational institution Nikolai Mezentsev. The seminary's teachers also appeared in the company: Alexander Vasilyevich Ivanov (he is also the diocesan observer), Alexey Lukich Vysotsky, priest Vasily Nikolsky; Archpriest Alexey Nazarevsky, rector of the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral; Archpriest Mikhail Markov, the sacristan of the same cathedral; Platon Fedorovich Kuzmenko, Simferopol police chief; Sofia Orestovna Braams ^{[6, l. 17-17 vol., 23 vol.]}.

As we have already mentioned, Bishop Nicholas (Ziorov), the ruling bishop of the diocese, was elected Chairman of the Tauride Department according to the pre-revolutionary tradition. As a result of the vote, the following leadership of the Tauride Department of the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society was formed (April 2, 1900): the hereditary nobleman Sergei Baltazarovich Skadovsky became the comrade of the chairman, Alexander Vasilyevich Ivanov became the treasurer, Fyodor Shantelevich Yakubovsky was the candidate, the priest Vladimir Stanislavsky was the clerk ^{[6, l. 17 vol.; 8, p. 195]}. The fate of Vladimir Stanislavsky is tragic — the future dean of Kerch subsequently became a victim of Bolshevik repression in the Red Crimea in 1921 ^{[17, p. 21]}. For more information about the lists of officials, see: ^{[8, p. 195; 9, p.91; 10, p. 67]}.

The first steps of the regional office can be judged by correspondence with the parent organization. So on April 13, 1900, the clerk of the Tauride department asked the central office to send "a seal, receipt books, collection mugs, forms for meetings of officials and general meetings, pamphlets for readings about the Holy Land and a magic lantern with foggy paintings matching the pamphlets." At the same time, it was noted that "it was desirable for the department to have two lanterns for conducting readings in Simferopol and Sevastopol ^{[6, l. 15]}. Pamphlets for reading about the Holy Land, a magic lantern, fog paintings and prefabricated mugs were supposed to be delivered by the autumn of 1900, however, this did not happen within the specified time frame, as the clerk of the Tauride Department, Priest Stanislavsky, recalled in his letter dated October 23, 1900 ^{[6, l. 27]}.

On November 8 of the same year, the brochures were sent from St. Petersburg to Simferopol in a special container ^{[6, l. 28]}. A box with a magic lantern and 60 fog paintings on glass with views of the most remarkable areas of the Holy Land was sent separately. They promised to send the prefabricated mugs only after the Tauride residents indicated how many and which prefabricated mugs they needed for shipment: "whether large iron ones for strengthening outside buildings, large tin ones for indoor installation, or small manual ones for issuing to assemblers" ^{[6, l. 29]}.

On November 25 of the same year, Priest Vladimir Stanislavsky announced the receipt of parcels and asked for more vague paintings, since it is very difficult to limit oneself to 60 paintings for the needs of the diocese. As an alternative solution to the problem, he suggested purchasing visual aids for readings at the expense of funds available at the cash desk of the Tauride Department. Regarding the mugs, the Department requested "to send 10 large tin mugs for strengthening indoors and 10 small manual ones for distribution to collectors" ^{[6, l. 30]}.

There was also a first increase in the size of the Tauride Department of the IOPS. Crimeans informed the Society's Council about the membership of several other personalities: Peter Vasilyevich Davydov and Elizabeth Sergeevna Davydova, priest of the Taranov hospital Grigory Rybalsky, provincial engineer Sergei Petrovich Ivanov, priests Alexander Studenetsky (Melitopol), Averky Dikovsky (Old Crimea, Saly village), Peter Serbinov (Yalta), Evfimiy Berezov (Rubanovka village, Melitopol district), Mikhail Gradoselsky (Skadovsk, Dneprovsky district), Feodot Levitsky (Kerch) ^{[6, l. 31-31 vol.]}.

On February 9, 1901, a regular meeting of the Tauride Department of the IOPS was held, which drew a line under the outgoing year of 1900, the year of the opening of the regional department in the Crimea. In the foreseeable future, it was planned to expand the geography of Palestinian readings in the cities of the Taurida province: in Berdyansk, Melitopol, Yevpatoria, Yalta. Protocol No. 2 contains an appeal to the rectors of the churches and asks them to "take upon themselves the labor of conducting readings" about the Holy Land. The department continued to have a need for additional copies of pamphlets for conducting readings. She was in new units of magic lanterns, and in a batch of sets of fog paintings. Parish libraries, in their ongoing education of visitors, were recommended to purchase publications of the Palestinian Society ^{[5, l. 3]}. Thus, educational and missionary activities, and work with parishioners become one of the most important areas in the functioning of the regional department, which immediately faces the need for additional visual aids for normal functioning in the region. In 1900, the regional department passed the stage of formation and began to function, solving the tasks assigned to it, experiencing the first difficulties in solving routine issues. However, the department tried to solve them both by the parent organization and independently.

An interdisciplinary analysis of the opening of the Tauride Department of the IOPS, which took place on April 2, 1900, and a content and event analysis of the ruling bishop's key Speech delivered on the same day reveal stable patterns characteristic of the regional institutionalization of public organizations in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Let's put them in conclusion and list them:

1. An initiative from above with the support of the local elite. The opening of the department was initiated by Sergey Alexandrovich, Chairman of the IOPS, with the response of Bishop Nikolai (Ziorov), who became its first head, which confirms the constructed template based on content and event analysis as a working model for the formation of a layer of theoretical historical knowledge. The leadership included prominent representatives of the clergy and the local aristocracy (for example, S. B. Skadovsky). This ensured the administrative and financial resources and the stability of the regional representation.

2. Relying on the existing infrastructure. The society did not arise from scratch. In the south of Russia, there were already "seeders" of grains before the turn of the year 1900. Before the official establishment of the department in the Taurida province, IOPS commissioners operated (A. A. Gavrilov in Sevastopol, A. I. Mlinarich - in Yalta, in the South Caucasus). By this time, the coastal cities (Sevastopol, Feodosia) already served as logistics hubs for pilgrims heading to the Holy Land, which was facilitated by the active activities of the previously established and existing Odessa department.

3. A combination of spiritual and practical mission, which included active education of the local population. Spreading knowledge about the Holy Land among the inhabitants of Crimea;charity and fundraising (through subscription lists, Palm collection, etc.) for a spiritual and educational mission in the Holy Land. The Tauride Department has joined in practical assistance to Russian pilgrims: escort, information support, organization of transportation (including through partnership with ROPiT). That is why there are so many references to the Levant and the situation of local Christians in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Speech of the ruling Archbishop of Taurida. Crimea and the Northern Black Sea region were actively involved in the construction of the "Russian Palestine", which was important given its geopolitical position and frontiers. It was on the peninsula that the Russians began their acquaintance with the Holy Land a millennium ago. In fact, Tauris opened the Eastern Mediterranean to the inhabitants of the Dnieper region during the time of St. Vladimir.

4. Quick start and legitimization through collective participation. The appeal in the ruling bishop's Speech to "Christ lovers" found a response in the hearts of the caring flock and its elite. At the founding meeting, there was a quorum of 10 local IOPS members needed to create a department, which is why we first collected contributions from 18, as we have established, members, and formed the management team (chairman, deputy chairman, treasurer, treasurer's candidate, clerk).

5. Regional specifics. The department's activities took into account the position of the Crimea (the core of the Taurida province) As an auxiliary (the main one is Odessa) a transit point on the way to the centers of Christian pilgrimage and as a quarantine entry point for those returning (Feodosia). This has led to a focus on coordinating passenger traffic through ports and interacting with diocesan structures, especially in matters of secondary (domestic) pilgrimage. It is impossible not to mention the active educational activities aimed at popularizing Palestinian studies among the local population. In his manifesto Speech, Bishop Nicholas therefore gives a comprehensive historical overview of the Holy Land from ancient times to the present day.

6. Stability of the model. Despite periods of stagnation (the years of the First Russian Revolution, the troubles of the First World War), even up to (although there were times when the Tauride Department was "as always deaf" to the requests of the parent organization) until 1917, the regional representative office successfully fulfilled its tasks on the spot: stimulated interest in the Holy Land, supported pilgrimages and made all possible contributions. contribution to the development of Russian Palestine studies.

Conclusions

During the writing of the article, the first attempt in Russian historiography was made to show in detail the prehistory of the creation of the Tauride Department of the IOPS, to identify the main difficulties of the early stage of functioning in such a multiethnic and multicultural region of the Russian Empire as the Tauride province.

A hypothesis that has become part of theoretical knowledge has been confirmed: the difficulties of functioning of the pre-revolutionary Tauride department of the IOPS were associated with the lack of proper Russianness in the region, which limited its support from prospectors. The remark is also true in the diachronic context. It is relevant to the present of the Republic of Crimea, both to the practice of the newly recreated Crimean regional branch of the IOPS ^[1], and to the general socio-cultural background: the IOPS in Crimea should also work on the "conducting role of the Russian culture of the Cyrillic world", on strengthening the completeness of "Russianness in the daily life of Crimeans" ^{[34, p.5]} to spread knowledge about the Holy Land.

A similar conclusion was formulated based on the study of relics of the past — sources that shed light on the activities of the pre-revolutionary Tauride Department of the IOPS. It is verified by the empirical background of the functioning of the recreated Crimean Regional Department of the IOPS. The work of the particular structure in the past, as in the present, comes across limited human resources, a small number of genuine ascetics who are ready to bring information about the Holy Land to people free of charge as workers. In the past, the financial base of the structure, limited by a rather modest budget formed on the basis of a palm collection, played an important role in limiting the capabilities of the regional department. The indicators of the palm harvest in the region should become a separate independent study, shedding light on the narrowness of the economic base of the local structure. The modern Crimean branch reports zero figures to fiscal structures for 2025 and the first half of 2026. Today, as more than a hundred years ago, society in Crimea is faced with insufficient financial support from the financially active population on the peninsula, which, due to Soviet attitudes (Crimea has long been a red region), population displacement (including deportation of the local Christian population), and the return of non-Christians. His segment is certainly indifferent to the ideas of the IOPS.: The Republic focuses on team-building events of an interethnic nature, rather than on strengthening Orthodox religious companionship. A separate problematic aspect is the caution and avoidance of conflicts of interest with the Simferopol and Crimean Metropolia in launching the regional department of pilgrimage activities. Thus, we can talk about the similarity of the problems of the past and the present: before the Revolution, there were not enough "magic" lanterns and foggy paintings, but today there is a serious material base for solving urgent tasks. Due to bureaucratic delays, the Crimean regional office was not represented in the updated Republican Public Chamber in 2026, which indicates the need to strengthen work in this area. The present findings of the researcher correlate with his practical activities as the current head of the regional office.

So, the opening of the Tauride Department of the IOPS was the result of the synergy of three components: the convergence of church initiatives, local support for a caring population, and the logistical capabilities of the Primorsky region. The model formed in 1900 (a combination of spiritual leadership, secular administration and a certain financial base) proved to be very efficient, ensuring the department's activities were busy until the revolutionary events of 1917. Modern research, first of all, by the staff of the Research Institute "Sacred Landscapes of the Byzantine Frontier" of the Northern State University confirms the continuity of traditions and the similarity of problems of regional structures of society in Taurida: the Crimean Regional Branch of the IOPS, which was recreated in 2014, positions itself as the successor of the Tauride Department, although it was forced to shift the focus from pilgrimage to scientific and educational activities.

The formation of the Tauride Department of the IOPS took place in the Tauride province, in Simferopol, in the last year of the outgoing XIX century. Sergei Alexandrovich, the First Chairman of the IOPS, played a huge role in its institutionalization in the south of Russia. Of course, the ruling bishops Mikhail Gribanovsky and Nikolai Ziorov were his assistants in this matter. It was the last of them who became the first chairman of the regional branch and contributed to its establishment on the spot. The first steps of activity in 1900-1901 were aimed at systematizing the circle gathering, increasing the membership of the society in the field and strengthening the educational activities of the IOPS.

During the writing of the article, the initial quantitative indicator of the members of the Tauride Department was clarified and as of April 2, 1900, it amounted to 19 people: the person of the Chairman and 18 personalities of the newly minted members of the society, the first racing asset of the Tauride. Let's list some of the personalities by name. Thus, the members of the regional department were: Yulia Grigorieva, head of the Tauride Diocesan Women's College; Priest Apollinary Popov, dean of the Simferopol district and rector of the Peter and Paul Church of Simferopol; Nikolai Nikolaevich Nikolaev, secretary of the Tauride Spiritual Consistory; Afanasy Dmitrievich Girs, head of the 2nd table of the Consistory; Bishop Fyodor Panteleimonovich Yakubovsky, personal secretary; Priest Vladimir Stanislavsky, diocesan missionary; Hieromonk Theodosius (Ganitsky) Cross Church; the famous Crimean architect (at that time he was also the diocesan architect) Ambartsum Ivanovich Karapetov.

Taurida is an ancient Christian land, Crimea is the gateway to the Eastern Mediterranean. And so, at the end of the Empire, our peninsula received its own regional department with a center on the "bregah Salgira". It was Simferopol, and not Sevastopol with its great Christian heritage of Chersonesos, that by the end of the 19th century, through the efforts of Gury (Karpov), Mikhail (Gribanovsky) and other Simferopol bishops, became the true center of Russian Orthodoxy of the synodal pattern in Crimea. It was the provincial capital and, later, the Soviet provincial center that would reveal to the Orthodox world new living, enduring examples of piety (St. Luke of Crimea), and not just interjections of reminiscences of sighing for the ancient and medieval baggage of the historical Christian tradition on the peninsula.

Nowadays, the activities of the pre-revolutionary department need further study and systematization, in the analysis of personalities in the line of belonging to the IOPS, their activity in this field. The retrospective is important for optimizing the current work of the recreated Crimean regional office and requires frequent and conscious reference to the past.

The article is published in its final version as approved following the last positive peer review recommending acceptance for publication. It incorporates revisions made by the author in response to prior negative peer review reports that did not recommend publication. All peer review reports, including initial negative reviews, are published in open access alongside the article. All versions of the author’s revisions are archived in the publisher’s repository and may be made available upon reasonable request in accordance with Elsevier’s editorial policies and applicable data availability requirements.
Read all reviews on this article