Skripitsyn, Valery Valerievich

In 1817 ^{[1] he} began his service in the guard, and then, after a long retirement, he transferred to the civilian department. At the suggestion of the Kursk governor M.N. Muravyov took the place of adviser in the Kursk provincial government. When in 1839 Muravyov received another appointment, Skripitsyn joined the service in St. Petersburg , joining the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Holy Synod , where he was involved in the reunification of the Uniate churches , in particular, he took part in the union of 1839 .

Subsequently, Skripitsyn transferred to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and in 1842 was appointed director of the Department of Spiritual Affairs of Foreign Confessions (from March 26, 1844 - with the rank of State Councilor, then - Privy Councilor); he held this position until the very end of his career, having served for many years under the ministers L. A. Perovsky (1841–1852) and D. G. Bibikov (1852–1855), who honored him with special trust. Under them, Skripitsyn’s activity took on a large scale: he carried out a whole series of fundamental transformations in relation to the clergy and diocesan administrations of foreign confessions, especially Roman Catholic; introduced the use of the Russian language in official relations of the Latin clergy not only with the central government, but also with each other, and also developed a charter for the Catholic consistory , in which he tried to harmonize the internal administration and the procedure for clerical work with the spirit of general state regulations and introduced the Russian language in clerical work.

According to Skripitsyn, the administration of Catholic monastic orders in Russia was entrusted to the local diocesan authorities. He took an active part in closing those Catholic monasteries in which there was no established number of monks; he also carried out the secularization of the church property of the Latin clergy within the Empire, and this secularization was carried out according to the most correct lustration, and the money fund of the Roman Catholic Church in Russia was formed. In relation to the Protestant clergy, Skripitsyn insisted on introducing the Russian language into the relations of the consistories with the ministry and achieved a settlement of pastoral income in Ingermanland parishes. Such an activity of Skripitsin created many enemies and ill-wishers for him, not only in Russia but also abroad; for many years he served as a target for European journalism, accusing him of “obscurantism”, “violence of conscience”, “barbaric administration”, etc.

In 1855, soon after being appointed Minister of the Interior S.S. Lansky , Skripitsin was fired for not fulfilling the concordat with Rome . Since that time, Skripitsyn lived permanently abroad, only occasionally coming to Russia. Deeply sympathizing with the reforms of Emperor Alexander II , he repeatedly published articles in foreign journals in their defense; subsequently, he composed of them a small volume, which he published in Paris without the author’s name under the title: “Melanges politiques et religieux” (did not go on sale).

Skripitsin died in Paris ; his body was transported to Moscow and buried in the Donskoy Monastery .

• Osip Przeclavsky (Privy Councilor, writer and publisher of the Petersburg Weekly) described V. V. Skripitsyna in this way:

[Skripitsin] was personified vanity, imagined himself the smartest and subtlest of people ^[2] .

[Skripitsyn] was a man remarkably smart and remarkably witty. This last quality, exactly what is called esprit in French, gives the mind itself (intelligentsia) a special shine, but it does not always turn out to be a useful aide to it. A popular saying, which has a well-known meaning, “the mind went for reason”, could be supplemented with an even more practical saying: “the mind went for wit”. This is the phase of the state of thinking in which brilliance appears to the detriment of the depth of thought and which the French determine by saying: “les liommes d'esprit sont souvent bêtes” [ smart people are often stupid ]. And this is not a paradox at all. Skripitsin was exposed to such partial eclipses from the passage of the planet of wit through the disk of the sun of the intelligentsia. [...] The late Skripitsin, with his natural mind, secular gloss and a shallow eclectic education, was not free from the main shortcoming in the majority of Slavic intelligentsia. He relied too much on himself and thought that he would comprehend and fulfill the conditions of his situation with one mind. The department that was entrusted to him is undeniably the most difficult to manage. The director deals with elements foreign to the Russian person, requiring information that is not taught in any educational institution and which even a genius cannot give any inspiration, no conclusions a priori. To be a good director of this department, it is necessary to study, at least, the essential foundations of each of the religions whose spiritual affairs he manages: this is the starting point, this is the ABC of the situation. I can not judge the other parts of this administration; but as far as Catholicism is concerned, I know positively that Skripitsin was little versed both in the fundamentals of this teaching and in the organic and disciplinary laws of the church. From here came frequent clashes and misunderstandings, which sometimes had important consequences, and which could not be discussed with a better knowledge of the matter ^[3] .

• Count Dmitry Tolstoy (statesman, writer, church historian, privy councilor) ^[4] :

Respecting Skrypitsyn as an intelligent, efficient, and completely Russian man, true to his convictions, I will not argue that he had special knowledge, but I can not agree with the author [O. A. Przetslavsky] that he was supposedly educated only eclectically. All his actions ex officio show in him a close and deep acquaintance with his subject. It is unthinkable to demand that the director of the department of non-religious confessions know in detail the organic and disciplinary laws of each confession: such knowledge could only be superficial, and therefore not only useless, but even harmful. In order to effectively manage the affairs of heterodox confessions, the director should know only the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire. The only rule he is obliged to follow should be tolerance, to the extent that the Code allows it. His duties are to supervise, so to speak, purely prosecutorial. He is not and should not be included in the proceedings of the canons of one or another church. No matter what she does, no matter how the competent church authorities reason, he does not care. He cares only about one thing, so that these actions and reasonings do not contradict the laws of the state in which they should appear outside, and do not violate anyone's, neither civil nor inter-confessional rights. And woe to the director, who will step down from this Foundation and arbitrarily stand on the ground of canons: any priests, any pastor pushes him! ... I cannot agree that Skripitsyn should be completely unfamiliar with the "ABC" of his position, as Mr. G. thinks. Przecławski. His knowledge of the history of his department is not in doubt and is proved by the work of his vice director, published under the title "Le catholicisme romain en Russie", undertaken on his initiative and written originally under his leadership. This work was only the beginning of a number of historical monographs of each of the religions included in the circle of department of the department, and was supposed to serve as reference material for the ministry. One cannot but agree that such a plan conceived by Skripitsin, in itself, already reveals in him not only an intelligent, but also a completely educated person.

I said above that Golovinsky accused Skripitsin of hatred of the Latin Church. Such an accusation, shared by many of his fellow believers, is completely unfair. Skripitsin was not at all an enemy of Roman Catholicism, just as he was not an enemy of Protestantism, or of any other profession. If a direction, apparently hostile, appeared in it, then it was provoked not by the teachings of the Latin Church, but by its confessional, from whom the revolutionary principles against Russia constantly flowed; just as he did not sympathize with the Baltic pastors, not as clergy, but as persecutors of Orthodoxy and all Russian in their area.

• Information about the murders of Jews by Christians to obtain blood. Compiled by the Privy Councilor Skripitsin (Director of the Department of Foreign Confessions), by order of the Minister of the Interior, Count Perovsky, to be presented to the Emperor Emperor Nicholas I, heir to the Crown Prince, Grand Dukes and members of the State Council. - St. Petersburg, 1844.
• “Melanges politiques et religieux” - Paris (not for sale).
• To the history of the Jews // " Citizen ". - 1878. - No. 23-25. - S. 485-495; No. 26. - S. 513-522; No. 27-28. - S. 546–556. (Reprint of the 1844 edition of "Information on the Murders by Jews of Christians for Blood", compiled by Skripitsin).

• Grekov V. Skripitsyn, Valery Valerievich // Russian Biographical Dictionary : in 25 volumes. - SPb. - M. , 1896-1918.
• Przeclavskij O.A. Recollection of Osip Antonovich Przeclavskago. State Secretary Turkul, biographical essay // Russian Antiquity . - T. 14. - September 1875. - Sue 684-714.
• Tolstoy D.N. In memory of V.V. Skripitsin. Objection to Mr. Przetslavsky // Russian Archive . - 1876. - No. 3. - S. 384—392.