Soon after ascending to the throne, Catherine issued an ukaz [decree] concerning the introduction of monastic lists and the confiscation of monastic holdings by the treasury. This measure was uncalled for by any state considerations, whatsoever.  It provided the state treasury with an income of 3 million per year,  i.e., a mere pittance, which could in no way cover even a minute portion of those expenses spent for the feeding and lavish support of her favourites and the other parasites who found comfort and ease at this time.

When this measure was being promulgated, neither law nor morality were taken into consideration. “The property rights and the intention of those individuals from whose offerings ecclesiastical properties had come into being, were violated. All these holdings had been left, for the most part, in accordance with the final testaments [of the donors], that their souls might be commemorated in a monastery beloved by them, and this last request of the dying should not have been subject to any change. Nevertheless, not only were these heartfelt offerings to the church confiscated for worldly pursuits, but even the very commemoration of the donors’ soul[s] could no longer continue to be carried out, due to the abolition of the cloisters.” – Posyelianin. “Russkaya tserkov’ i russkiye podvizhniki 18-go veka” (“The Russian Church and the Russian Podvizhniks [Spiritual Contendors] Of the 18th Century”)

The most acute protest concerning the confiscation of ecclesiastical properties was expressed by Arsenii (Matzeevich), the Metropolitan of Rostov, who, on previous occasions, had already fought for ecclesiastical rights.

“From Apostolic times,” Metropolitan Arsenii wrote to the Synod, “ecclesiastical estates were not subject to anyone except the Apostles; and, after them, [these] were left to the hierarchs, to be at their sole discretion and disposal. The first to begin confiscating church properties was the [Byzantine] tsar’, Julian the Apostate, while amongst us, from the time of Prince Vladimir – and this, not only during the reigns of pious princes, but also during the period of Tatar sovereignty – church properties remained unhampered.

“During [the reign of] Peter the Great, Musin-Pushkin issued a decree concerning the income obtained from ecclesiastical properties, and management thereof. This decree of Musin-Pushkin’s exceeded not only the decrees of the Turks, but the decrees of the ungodly, idol-worshipping Roman caesars, as well.

“St. Cyprian of Carthage, on being brought to the site of his execution, commanded the members of his household to pay a tax of 25 pieces of gold; but had Musin-Pushkin’s decree been in effect at the time, there would have been nothing wherewith to render such a benefice. Yet, although Musin-Pushkin’s decree exceeded even pagan customs, the church and the poor hierarchs nonetheless – even if unwillingly so – became accustomed to bearing up under such need, because they were at least not questioned further concerning what had been given.

“But now, when such torments have begun, even prisoners and shut-ins have become more fortunate than [we] poor hierarchs; and it is not from pagans that we bear such torments, but from our own [people], who put themselves forth as Orthodox: the Empress’s enthronement manifesto states that she ascended the throne in order to uphold Orthodoxy, to which the previous reign [allegedly] posed a peril.”

In indignation, Metropolitan Arsenii submitted to the Synod one protest after another, against the seizure of monastic holdings and the interference of secular individuals into spiritual matters.

“Woe to us poor hierarchs,” he wrote, “for it is not from pagans, but from our own supposedly right-believing sheep that we bear such torments.”

About the members of the commission, he spoke as though they were godless, saying that they “but hardly [nasilu] believe in God.”

On Orthodoxy Sunday, when the enemies of the Church are given over to anathema, he added (to the usual, appointed rite): “Anathema to those who abuse churches and monasteries.”

Catherine was extremely irritated by Metropolitan Arsenii. She called him “an hypocrite, pushy and ambitious, a mad liar  [byeshenyi vral’yo].” But she feared Metropolitan Arsenii, whom the people honoured as a saint and as a steadfast confessor of Orthodoxy.

Desiring to show her piety, [Catherine] decided to set off for Rostov after her coronation, in order to be present at the transfer of the relics of St. Dimitrii of Rostov to a new silver reliquary; consequently, she wrote to her staff-secretary: “Whereas I know the ambition and madness of the Vladyka [Master] of Rostov, I die, fearing lest he place the reliquary without me!” And she ordered that a major and some soldiers be stationed [at the site].

On Catherine’s orders, an investigation was decreed into the activities of Metropolitan Arsenii, and she commanded that the Synod judge its member, as a criminal, with evil intent.

In mid-March, at home in Rostov, Arsenii, having returned to his monastic cell after vespers, said to his cell-attendant: “Do not lock the door for the night. I will have guests at midnight.” The cell-attendant was dumbfounded. And truly, at midnight, officer Durnovo came to him and asked for his blessing. “I am no longer an hierarch,” Metropolitan Arsenii responded, and did not bless him. The Metropolitan wanted to say farewell to the city, i.e., to venerate the relics and icons in the cathedral. But he was not allowed to do so. In Moscow, Metropolitan Arsenii was imprisoned as a state criminal, under heavy guard, in the Simonov Monastery. He was questioned in the palace, in the presence of the Empress. In the course of this [interrogation], he spoke so harshly that the Empress plugged her ears, and his “mouth was riveted.”

On April 14th, court was held during the Synod’s session, in accordance with which Bishop [sviatityel’] Arsenii was deprived of his hierarchical rank and, after being unshorn from monasticism, was given over to a secular court, the duty of which it was to condemn Arsenii to death for his insult to [Her] Majesty.

The Empress ordered that he be spared secular trial and, being left his monastic dignity, be exiled to a far-distant monastery. Arsenii was called to a session of the Synod, in order that the [Empress’] ukaz concerning him might be effected. Throngs of people awaited developments in the case.

On July 4th, the Church of the Three Hierarchs of Moscow, adjacent to that Chamber of the Cross where Arsenii had been condemned, suddenly collapsed.

Arsenii arrived at the last earthly judgment to be held over him as though he were going to a [divine-] service. He wore an hierarchical mantiya [mantle] with three stripes, an omofor, a white klobuk [cowl], and a panagiya [a round icon of the Virgin with the Christ-child, suspended from a chain] upon his breast; in his hand he held a bishop’s posokh [staff].

When the ukaz depriving him of his [hierarchical] dignity was read out, the members of the Synod – one after another – began to remove his vestments: one metropolitan removed his klobuk, another – his omofor, a third took away his posokh. The indignant Metropolitan, on the spot, foretold their sorry fate to the hierarchs disrobing him.

To Dimitrii Syechenov, he foretold that the former would choke on his own tongue; to Amvrosii Zertis-Kamenskii, death at the hands of a butcher: “Thou shalt be slain like an ox!”; to the Bishop of Pskov, Gedeon: “Thou shalt not see thine eparchy [diocese].”

The Metropolitan’s prognostications came to pass. Dimitrii was choked by a strange inflammation of his tongue; Archbishop Amvrosii of Moscow was slain during the Muscovite plague by the rebellious people from whom he had vainly sought refuge in the Donskoi Monastery; Bishop Gedeon, soon after Arsenii’s condemnation, was removed to his eparchy by imperial decree, and died on the road, without having reached Pskov....

By the sovereign decree of the Synod, Arsenii was exiled to the Nikol’skii Karel’skii Monastery. On the Synod’s report [concerning him], Catherine placed a superscription to “send him to a far-distant monastery, to be watched by a sensible person, with the decree that it not be possible for him to corrupt people who are weak and simple, either in written form, or verbally.”

The sviatityel’ turned out to have no property. All his belongings consisted of books: in Church-Slavonic, Czech, Russian, Polish and Latin. Meagre funds were allotted for the support of the imprisoned sviatityel’: at first, 10, later 15 kopeykas per diem. He was given no ink, pens or paper, and no one was allowed to visit him; and, as for going out, he was only allowed to do so under guard, only in order to go to church, and then, invariably, only during the hours of the [divine-] services.

In 1767, hiero-deacon Ioasaf Lebedev denounced Arsenii, to the effect that Arsenii was insulting the Sovereign-Lady. The Empress decided: “to deprive him of the monastic dignity and, re-naming him Andrei Vral’yo [Andrew the Liar], to send him to live in Revel, without any chance of departure [therefrom],” in a casemate that was nothing other than a stone sack.

This casemate was located on the water-gates and sooner resembled a grave in its dimensions. It was 10 feet long and 7 wide. [Arsenii] accepted this decision with humility. His monastic attire and his klobuk were removed from him, and instead of them he was attired in a convict’s syermyaga [doulas] and tryeukh [three-cornered hat].

It was ordered that he be conveyed to his place of incarceration “secretly, in a closed sledge; [that he be] shown to no one; [that] no conversations be held with him; [that he] not be asked about his name and condition; and [that] Petersburg be by-passed, as quickly as possible.”

The Empress wrote to Tisenhausen, the commandant of Revel: “We have an important bird in a strong cage. Take care, lest it fly away. I trust that thou shalt not subject thyself to answering greatly [for any failure in this regard]. The people have venerated him exceedingly, from of old, and have become accustomed to considering him one of their own. But he is nothing more than a great rogue and hypocrite.”

It was ordered that Arsenii be kept under strict watch; the officers and soldiers were forbidden to talk with him. “Arsenii,” writes Posyelianin, “humbled himself in the final years of his life; not before men, but before the almighty hand of God, from which he decided to accept his suffering with patience. He read the Holy Scriptures, and upon the wall of his gaol he inscribed the [following] words with coal: ‘It is good that thou hast humbled thine self.’ There exist depictions of Metropolitan Arsenii, which relate to this period of his life. He is standing by the wall of his confining casemate. His thin face, still full of energy, is expressive of profound thought. His large eyes are full of great sadness. His arms, as though from inner suffering, or perhaps from the cold, are tightly pressed together upon his breast. He is wearing a polushubok [a short jacket] and a tryeukh. There is light entering through a small window, sealed with a grate. There is a piece of bread on the window [-sill]. On the wall [hangs a picture, in which], in smaller dimensions, he is shown in hierarchical vestments. On the reverse of this depiction is the inscription: “Andrei Stradalyets” (“Andrei the Martyr”). – Posyelianin. “Russkaya tserkov’ i russkiye podvizniki 18-go vyeka” (“The Russian Church and the Russian Podvizhniks [Spiritual Contendors] Of the 18th Century”)

On February 26th, 1772, Arsenii fell seriously ill. With the commandant’s permission, a priest confessed and communed the sviatityel’.  On the third day, at 8 o’clock in the morning, Arsenii’s earthly torments came to an end. That same day, after the “evening dawn,” Arsenii was interred in the Russian Nikol’skaya Church. The clothing left by the prisoner was given to the poor. [His] books – the Gospel, the Psalter, and the Church calendar were given to the father-confessor of the reposed, the priest Kondratov. Then, the priest and the entire command had to sign a pledge to the effect that, under threat of the death-penalty, they would keep silent about all this, to the end of their days. Thus was it thought to smooth-over the memory of the unfortunate Metropolitan of Rostov.

St. Arsenii was a victim of masonic fanaticism. The fight against masonry, which he ardently and zealously carried on during Elizaveta’s reign, his manly defence of the Orthodox Church, which was being persecuted by the masons, could not pass without punishment for Arsenii. A pure confessor of Orthodoxy and a profound patriot, Arsenii knew that he could look forward to frightful torments, but he did not waver, coming out boldly against the forces of darkness, and obtained a martyr’s crown. Neither torments nor the threat of death could force him to abjure his convictions.

The historian Solovyov writes: “It is impossible not to recognize Arsenii’s courage, to the end, in his defence of his opinion. He asked for condescension; he asked that his opinion be read attentively, fully, hoping that [the readers] would be convinced by his reasons, but he did not sacrifice his convictions in order to receive forgiveness [and] commutation of punishment. He concluded his request with the words: ‘I even now affirm that it was improper to take away villages from the Church.’ “His personal convictions were not shaken by either royal wrath or by the uprising of his [clerical] brothers against him; nor by his being deprived of the hierarchical dignity; nor by exhaustion [istoma] in a frightful and stuffy gaol; nor by Shishkovskii’s inquests; nor by threatened execution.

"Dedicating himself to sacrifice on behalf of ecclesiastical property, Arsenii did not act secretly, nor craftily, but wrote and spoke openly, boldly, with self-denial, because he viewed his cause as God’s cause, to stand for which, and to sacrifice himself for which, he considered it to be his sacred duty. The people commiserated with him, as with an unfortunate shepherd; they venerated him as a truthful, pious, zealous defender of Orthodoxy...” [Snyegiryev]

The seizure of monastic and church properties placed the eparchies in quite a difficult position. The hierarchs denied themselves the basic necessities, and barely managed to make ends meet, yet this economizing helped matters but little. Diocesan educational needs remained unsatisfied. Spiritual education institutions were allowed a mere pittance. Broad promises to support the spiritual [and] moral enlightenment of the people remained on paper. The requests of the hierarchs in Petersburg, concerning assignations [of funds], were denied. The construction of churches and schools ceased. The absence of funds for repairs resulted in the collapse of cathedrals, bishop’s homes, and seminaries. Catherine’s policies brought about a complete destruction of monastic life. “Places sanctified by the podvigi [spiritual feats] and grace of the saints, marked by the ardour of people’s striving toward them, became wastelands. And if a few of these hermitages were rebuilt, then the greater number of them were devastated forever. And there are many places in the Vologda region, in this ‘Russian Thebaid,’ where, in a poor parish church, sometimes even without a congregation, repose the relics of a great ugodnik [God-pleaser], who created the hermitage, which stood for centuries for the enlightenment and consolation of the people, and was abolished in that unfortunate year of 1764.” [Posyelianin.]

“As a result of the reform of monastic life and concerns about the spiritual [and] moral enlightenment of the people, four-fifths of Russia’s monasteries were closed. The twenty-two-year-old youth, Pushkin, residing in Kishinyov, once expressed his written opinion that the seizure of church properties inflicted a mighty blow against the enlightenment of the people.” [Russkii Arkhiv (“The Russian Archive”), 1866, p. 1141.]

The Age of Catherine was an era of persecution [unleashed] against the Orthodox, of both the New and the Old Rite. The ‘Raskol’niki’ (Schismatics) were likewise subjected to persecution most-cruel. The authorities devastated their churches, tore up [their] old books, [and] chopped up [their] ikons with tyesaki [short sabres]. They were shot, sent off to hard-labour, impressed into the army, [and] doubly-taxed. The persecuted staroobriadtsy [Old Ritualists] burnt themselves upon pyres, concealed themselves in the narrow dales of the Urals and of Siberia, [and] fled abroad, seeking “The Japanese Tsardom.” The foes of Orthodoxy, on the other hand, enjoyed complete liberty!



Translated by G. Spruksts from the Russian text appearing in “Ot Petra Pervago do nashykh dnei: Russkaya intelligentsiya i masonstvo” (“From Peter the First to Our Days: the Russian Intelligentsia and Masonry” by V. F. Ivanov. Selection excerpted from Section 5: “Antitserkovnaya politika, masonstvo i pravoslaviye” (“Anti-ecclesiastical Policy, Masonry and Orthodoxy”) of Chapter 5: “Tsarstvovaniye Yekateriny Vtoroi” (“The Reign Of Catherine the Second”),  pp. 202-208.  English-language translation copyright © 1997 by The Russian Cultural Heritage Society, The St. Stefan Of Perm’ Guild, and the Translator.  All Rights Reserved.  Reprinted by permission from “KITEZH: The Journal Of the Russian Cultural Heritage Society”.