Founding the Latvian Orthodox Church

Following the full occupation of Livland in the summer of 1917 by the German army and the civil war/war of independence in 1918/19, the Orthodox Church in the new republic of Latvia was devastated: a large number of parishes had been destroyed outright in the fighting, while others were barely functioning. Most clergy and church property had been evacuated to Russia in 1915, including the bishop, the consistory, the seminary, the diocesan newspaper, and the monasteries. Although Bishop Platon (Kulbusch) was able to visit Riga in the summer of 1918 and establish something like order, this rapidly broke down following Platon’s subsequent murder in Tartu and new bouts of fighting. Due to the sheer extent of the damage, it was only in February 1920 that the Latvian parishes convened a church council (sobor / saiema) to begin building a Latvian Orthodox Church. Jānis (Pommers), a Latvian serving as bishop of Penza, was chosen to head the new diocese, although he was unable to take up his new position until 21 June 1921. The council created a Synod to administer the fledgling national church: it also resolved to maintain the canonical links with Moscow, which endured until Jānis’ murder in 1936. The new bishop’s job was far from easy: he was confronted with ethno-linguistic divisions between the Russian and Latvian members of his flock, occasionally hostile decisions from the Latvian government, and a poverty-stricken parish network and administration.

The following six letters to Archbishop Jānis discuss the formation of the Latvian Synod, the material position of the Latvian Church, the efforts to return Riga’s seminary from Nizhnii Novgorod, preparations for the archbishop’s arrival, and the perspectives of individual priests on the situations in their parishes.

No. 1. Letter from Archpriest Aleksandr Makedonskii, 8 June 1920

[From] the Synod of the Latvian Orthodox Church

To His Grace Bishop Jānis (Pommers)

During the war, the Latvian Orthodox Church suffered greatly, if it was not destroyed in general. With the approach of the Germans from Kurland and Lifland, the most valuable church property and utensils were evacuated to Russia, together with the administration and officials. Most priests also left Latvia. During the German occupation, the Latvian Orthodox Church was temporarily managed by the Estonian bishop Platon [1], but he is no longer among the living. The Germans took the cathedral, the Alekseevskaia church and the episcopal palace for their needs. The Alekseevskaia church and the episcopal palace are still in the hands of Catholics [2], while the cathedral, containing the throne of the Latvian bishops, is closed. The position of the Orthodox Church, especially materially, is extremely difficult. Of the 120 parishes in Latvia, only half have priests [3]. In order to improve their material condition, many priests have been compelled to work as teachers, secretaries, and officials in Latvian state offices while also fulfilling the duties of parish clergy.

All of this would be tolerable if we had an archpastor, a bishop who could unite us, guide us and establish internal peace in the Latvian Orthodox Church. Internal peace is a cornerstone on which we can firmly stand, but we lack it. On 25, 26 and 27 February of this year, thanks to the efforts of the parish council of the Riga Vosnesenskaia church, the first Orthodox church council in liberated Latvia was called [4]. The council elected a temporary administration with 12 members under the name “the Synod of the Latvian Orthodox Church” and entrusted this synod with taking care that the Latvian Orthodox Church has its own Latvian bishop as soon as possible. At the suggestion of Marsan, a former member of the Moscow council, our council unanimously resolved to ask for your agreement in nominating you as bishop of the Latvian Orthodox Church so that we can put this to a vote.

Considering the extreme circumstances, the Synod of the Latvian Orthodox Church wishes to use this opportunity and ask you not to refuse giving your strength for the good of Latvia. You will have much, very much, to do, but the soil here is blessed - Orthodoxy has put down deep and thankful roots in Latvia.

Simultaneously, we have sent a letter to Patriarch Tikhon with a request that he not refuse to bless your departure to Latvia. We also presented the protocols of the council from 25-27 February to the Patriarch.

Vice chair of the Synod priest A. Makedonskii [5]

No. 2. Letter from Archpriest Ioann Borman, 10 January 1921

Holy Father!

I most humbly ask forgiveness for turning to Your Grace with this private letter. But the matter is so important that I am compelled to act thus. Obviously, as you know, our Latvian Orthodox Church remains without its head, a bishop, and this balefully affects its spiritual life. Through many letters we have turned to Your Grace with most humble requests that you return to us as the ruling bishop, bringing to your attention the poor state of our Church. But we have still not had any news from you about whether you accept our request or not. So we remain in anticipation. With this letter, I humbly dare once more to turn to Your Grace and in the name of the Latvian Orthodox parishes call on you to accept our most humble prayer and mercifully return to us in Latvia to be our bishop. Your routine and the material side of life will be fully guaranteed here. Be an independent bishop and church builder. Here the times have so fundamentally changed that is necessary to start a new life - to begin the difficult but long anticipated work of reordering our Church. If we cannot turn Latvian souls to Orthodoxy, its days here will be numbered. I do not want to think that the Holy Faith could die, but if this happens then, of course, we will be to blame for this terrible event. But this has not occurred yet.

Without an intelligent and energetic bishop-leader, we will not be capable. Your Grace is well acquainted with the soul of the Latvian. Your bright personage is extremely necessary for our dear Latvia in this difficult time. Since we through Holy Orthodoxy entered the light and became guides for our younger brothers, none of us can remain indifferent upon seeing Holy Orthodoxy live through difficult days in our motherland. It is necessary for us, conscientious Orthodox toilers, with our hearts and souls to hasten to the aid of the people and explain to them that it follows not only to relate to Holy Orthodoxy (which has brought Latvians so much good) with honour and reverence: they must witness it, confirm it in themselves, because only in the Holy Faith is there happiness and eternal life. We, parish priest-toilers, are incapable of realising this great work without a bishop-leader. And if Lord Jesus, the heavenly first pastor, does not send one to us quickly, then the best of the current parish priests will rapidly scatter, and our parishes will be left without pastors and will scatter among various stables. We, the current parish priests, cannot reach concord among ourselves without a bishop: we have no unity - everyone does as he wills. It is clear that such a poor position will lead our Church to wither away, to die. All of the above pronouncedly evinces that it behoves Your Grace to come to your motherland at the first opportunity and take upon yourself supreme leadership of our Church. It is impossible to forget one’s motherland because it is holy for all her sons.

We would quickly see Russian bishops among us, if we could only agree on them. However, I am convinced that you, Your Grace, know wonderfully well that a foreign bishop who does not know our language cannot turn people’s hearts towards Orthodoxy: if that is the case, better to be in general without a bishop. Of course, the priests of the Russian parishes warmly desire to see that we have a Russian bishop: however, they understand that at the present time it is necessary for the bishop to know Latvian. Indeed, the Latvian government can only recognise a bishop who knows fundamentally the language of our people. As such, it does not follow that the Russian parishes would look askance, with distrust, at a bishop from the Latvians. I am convinced that you will meet with full recognition from the Russian parishes.

We discussed the possibility of sending a special deputy who would invite Your Grace to come as soon as possible to your motherland, where everyone awaits you and yearns for you. But under the present circumstances doing this is not easy, since it would be extremely difficult for a deputy to reach you.

I hope that my private letter reaches Your Grace and, completely convinced, you rapidly come to us, to your unforgettable motherland, as bishop of our Church. With unspeakable joy and unfeigned love we will accept you and will loyally serve you. There is too much work here, but this work is blessed: we need to create, to build, a new Church. Although I did not live in Russia, I believe that the Russian Church now stands before reforms, it cannot live by the old ways. This is all the more the case for our Church. It cannot remain under the old Russian order. It is necessary to purify the Holy Orthodox Church from everything old fashioned that fetters it and leads it to full corruption. There is nothing eternal under the sun. Everything moves and changes, new forms are born at the behest of a new spirit - all this is an old, old truth. And it will be easiest to realise these changes in our Church because it is fully ready for them.

With these lines I want to end my letter. I would be extremely happy if it has convinced you, Your Grace, of the fact that it is necessary for you to come to us as quickly as possible. With the help of the Latvian consulate in Moscow, this will be made easy for you. And it would be a great joy and blessing for us if you give your spiritual energy for the good of your dear motherland. It is necessary to save that which can still be saved, and your presence here is now essential.

Asking for your holy prayers and fatherly blessing, I remain in deep humility and obedience

Ioann Borman

Archpriest of the Riga Voznesenskaia church

No. 3. Letter from D. P. Briantsev, 19 June 1921

RSFSR

13th Nizhnii Novgorod secondary school

Your Grace, holy father!

I have the duty to most respectfully turn to you with the following letter.

As its rector, I am a representative of the former Riga ecclesiastical seminary: now I am the chair of the school soviet of the 13th Nizhnii Novgorod secondary school, the school which our seminary became in accordance with the reform of educational institutions in Soviet Russia.

After evacuation in 1915, our educational institution found shelter in Nizhnii Novgorod and began to function as the Riga seminary: it now functions as a Soviet school.

According to the peace convention, cultural valuables should be returned to their original place: in view of this, the property of the Riga seminary and ecclesiastical school (which was also evacuated to Nizhnii) should be returned.

But the Riga seminary and ecclesiastical school functioned without break throughout their asylum and continue to function: they have maintained their property, which at the current time has huge value. Therefore from the autumn of the previous year, the question was raised before the Latvian Ministry of Education about the return to Riga of the seminary and ecclesiastical school, not as an archive but as a functioning educational establishment, with all its teaching personnel. The Latvian Ministry of Education has not given its response.

In the spring of this year, I raised the same question before the Latvian consulate in Moscow. The consul responded that he is prepared to give any cooperation to the unhindered import of the property of both schools and the returning teachers.

Thus from this side cooperation is fully guaranteed. But our corporation considers this insufficient. They would like to guarantee themselves and the schools a future existence in Riga. As we have managed to protect these schools in Soviet Russia, we do not want to allow the thought that after so much suffering for these schools we would have to bury them when we come back. Moreover, we are not convinced of the possibility of a future existence in Riga. True, we do not have any official information about this, but the silence of the Latvian Ministry of Education disturbs us. The Riga clergy are so few that they are not in a position to support the ecclesiastical school: they cannot raise the question before the government as they do not have representatives. So we are completely ignorant of how they will treat us in Riga when we return.

From the Patriarch’s conversation with one of our messengers, it became known to us that the Patriarch sympathises with our return to Riga and the possibility of opening theological courses with subsidies from him, if not the former ecclesiastical school itself.

From the same source, it became known to use that you, father, have been appointed by the Patriarch to Riga. We do not know if you have accepted this appointment, but we are nourished by the hope that this will be so: as such, I, as the representative of the seminary, turn to you, father, with this petition.

[If] you go to Riga before we do, then we earnestly ask you to quickly raise the question about our return. We know well that the seminary and the ecclesiastical school cannot exist on their previous basis, but let the Latvian government take us just as an educational establishment and give us the opportunity to exist as a government general educational institution in which we will open pastoral courses: we have more than enough pedagogical energy to do both. Our school owned buildings at no. 9 Pushkinskii boulevard and no. 90 Suvorovskaia ulitsa. Now these buildings are occupied. We ask you to raise a petition about their return. In the consulate they said that their return is unlikely, but compensation is obligatory. On this basis, we are nourished by the hope that in Riga they will give us buildings for our school. However, this needs a high petition. There is hope of success because our pupils are in the government, and they are well disposed towards us.

According to evidence we have received, there is a vast need in Riga for activists in favour of the Orthodox Church. We are animated by the desire to again serve to the advantage of the Orthodox Church in the Baltic region. Up to eight people from both institutions desire to return to Riga. We are only disturbed by the danger that on arrival in Riga we will be left without employment and without means: this not only disturbs us, but does nothing less than horrify us, because we completely do not know Latvian. We need support on arrival in Riga, otherwise we will be in a penurious position.

We send this letter with the express hope that this is the quickest and truest means to reach our goal. I am nourished by the hope that you will honour me with a response to this epistle.

Together with my letter, a pupil from the seminary sends his letter, a person entirely well disposed to his former school and stricken with heartache about the needs of the Orthodox Church in Riga.

Asking for your holy prayers for myself and our school, I sincerely remain your loyal

Dimitrii Petrovich Briantsev [6]

P. S. I am the nephew of His Grace Arsenii, former archbishop of Riga [7]: I was appointed as rector in March 1918, but I have not managed to take priestly rank.

No. 4. Letter from Pavel Smirnov, treasurer of the Latvian Synod, 2 July 1921

Your Grace!

Asking for your episcopal blessing, I dare to communicate to you the following.

With inexpressible impatience, we, all Orthodox Russians and Latvians, await your speedy arrival in young Latvia. We are preparing for a celebratory meeting with you, and we dream of meeting you at the Daugavpils train station with a cross procession [attended by] a full compliment of the city’s clergy and parishioners. I think only of such a meeting, although the Synod still has not prepared the ceremony. Since the train from Rezekne arrives in Riga at 8:40 in the evening, then it would be best of all for you to arrive in Riga on Saturday 3 or 10 July (we need to conclusively sign off on this): cross processions from all of the Riga churches will go to the train on its arrival. After meeting by the carriage in the station, Your Grace will dress in the chapel [8] in full archepiscopal vestments and the procession, accompanied by the singing of the united choirs, will move to the cathedral for prayers and mutual greetings. On the next day (Sunday), you will perform in the cathedral the first celebratory liturgy together with all the city’s clergy (in the other churches it could be that the liturgy is not performed on this day) and with singing by the joint Russian and Latvian choirs of the Voznesenskaia church (the conductor is our seminarist Mikhelson [9]): the choirs will sing together during the liturgy, that is in Latvian and Russian, so that the Latvians and Russians will be spiritually satisfied and united. To this liturgy it is possible to invite the Cabinet of Ministers and the diplomatic corps. Without a doubt, the service will be very celebratory.

How do you relate to our suggestion?

Protodeacon Konstantin Andreevich Dorin [10] can serve in Latvian. In general, he serves well and was a favourite of the slain Bishop Platon (of Estonia). We have deacons at the Pokrovskaia church (Father Razumovich, who it seems was personally known to you in Vilnius, although he is a little touched in the head), the Aleksandr Nevskaia church (a hierodeacon), and the Blagoveshchenskaia church (Nikol’skii). Father Dorin said that we have archepiscopal vestments, but no mitre, archepiscopal crook, eagle rugs, or pallia: such holy things we ask you to bring yourself. If the Holy Patriarch has given you a pair of vestments, these will not be superfluous. We hope that you will travel not as a refugee but as a diplomatic person and that they will not touch your baggage: this, of course, you will organise yourself in Moscow at our consulate. We have no holy anointing oil or crosses, so it would follow to bring them with you in sufficient quantities, for which we would be deeply thankful!

All live in the hope of soon seeing you among us, the destitute and the persecuted! We believe that with your arrival our work in favour of native Orthodoxy can be renewed, we will summon a local council, choose a new church administration (a Synod) and begin to work together.

Forgive the comradely advice (we were almost classmates in the seminary - I am a friend of Boris Piatnitskii) - do not bring either Soviet or imperial money with you (if you do, only 500 rouble notes and completely new ones, uncrumpled): it has no value. It is best of all to transfer [such money] into valuables (gold, jewels) or foreign currency (English, American or German). Then you will lose nothing: again, our Moscow consulate can help you with this.

In Rezekne, some members of the Synod will meet you: at stations along your route where there are churches, you will meet the clergy and members of the parish councils. We will warn them about this.

I personally returned to Latvia around a year ago and serve as an assistant tax inspector in Riga: in my free time, I spend much time and energy in social service. I am a member of the ‘Russian Association in Latvia’ and of the executive committee of the Union of Russian Teachers, the Russian National University, and the Russian Club: I am also a member of the Pokrovskii parish council. But most of all I spend my time and energy on church matters: I am the treasurer of the Synod (together with the departing Mr Upeslei) and was the vice chairman of the second Council, or rather the congress of clergy and laity of the Orthodox Church of Latvia in August of last year. If the Lord helps, I will continue to work for Orthodoxy!

Simultaneously I send to the Patriarch a copy of a very interesting letter from Constantinople to my colleague on the Synod Mr Upeslei.

On this I finish my letter.

I ask your forgiveness and blessings with brotherly love

Your servant

Pavel Smirnov [11]

No. 5. Letter from Sergei Osipov, 3 August 1921

Riga ecclesiastical school

Administration

Your Grace, holy father!

I have the duty to inform Your Grace that the re-evacuation of the Riga ecclesiastical seminary and school has finally taken a decisive and favourable turn. Permission has been received from the provincial division of education, the military censor, and other local authorities for transporting all of the seminary and school property from Nizhnii: on 3 August, A. A. Eglita gave me the lists and documents required for receiving in Moscow the appropriate permissions and orders for a carriage. If matters go just as successfully in Moscow, then in the [second] half of September (the time, true, is very late) to Riga will return the extremely valuable and rich theological, educational, and church-musical library, a sold science classroom, and valuable church property.

With the presence of such educational property (to which should be added the property of the diocesan Illukste school [12]), it will be possible to open in Riga a general school with serious religious education and theological courses. Even if the government does not immediately give a subsidy, then the seminary and school buildings […] and the seminary land, when rented out, can fully guarantee our new school until such a time when it has gained a position in the state.

It would be very sad if the three religious educational establishments are not united upon return to Riga and thus worthily serve the Church at such a difficult time. Your Grace’s leadership of the Latvian Church gives us hope that this will not be so and that ‘our labours and illnesses’ will not be for nothing.

We ask for your episcopal blessing for the final completion of our affair.

[…]

Sergei Osipov

No. 6. Letter from Archpriest Nikolai Piatnitskii, 30 August 1921

Your Grace, dearest archpastor and father!

I greet your arrival in the Riga diocese, now the Latvian Autocephalous Church [13], native to you! From my soul I am joyful about your arrival, since the firm faith that you alone can put the administration of this Church into order, protecting it from further decay, inspires life in us. To great sorrow, my joy is sadly clouded by the fact you have been deprived of your episcopal shelter and are compelled to huddle in the cathedral cellar [14]. Although this does an undeserved bloody insult to all Orthodoxy [in exchange for] those enlightening activities which led our dear Latvia to an autonomous life, we mourn [especially] for you, because you are directly condemned to live through all of this and take this into account. I fear that you will long have to bear this living cross, regardless of whether your health frays in the damp cellar.

Magnanimously forgive me, Your Grace, for my delayed letter: my illness was to blame for this, a boil in the left ear which has already tormented me for a month.

I learned of your election to the Latvian episcopal cathedra in 1919 in the city of Irkutsk from the now-deceased Professor Kaelas [15]: Pavel Pavlovich Smerdinskii [16] confirmed to me in Moscow about your future transfer from Penza to Riga [17], regretting that because of the Soviet devastation it was necessary to put aside the transfer, even though church affairs in Riga strongly suffered from this. I was quickly convinced about the justice of this by my bitter experience on arrival in Riga, and Your Grace is now reaping what others through their inactivity have sown. The one comfort is that the flock felt and was conscious of the fatality of the absence of the archpastor and with great love and tears of affection greeted Your Grace’s arrival in Riga and your first holy service in the cathedral. I can assure you that everyone awaits your episcopal visit. And while it is our general desire that our rulers rapidly become conscious of their insult […].

What can I say to Your Grace about myself? With joy I strove to [return to] my motherland. I arrived here at the beginning of December 1920, convinced that some place for me would be found so that, [after] living into my old age, I could rest in peace with my father in the Riga Pokrovskii cemetery. But it seems that I was late, and all those who returned earlier had already taken grip of the situation. I saw the sympathy of my colleagues, but no one was prepared to share with me even a small shred of that which had been grasped. It was necessary to be concerned about an apartment and my daily bread. It seemed to me that the Synod could make me the second priest in Jelgava or provide me with a place in Jūrmala: regarding Jelgava, the Synod could say nothing definitive and the place in Jūrmala was, for some reason, given to Father Shalfeev [18]. Searching for a place along side me was the priest Stiprais. The most guaranteed places, in the Synod’s opinion, were Ventspils with Ugāle and Saldus with Aizpute. The names of the places available were presented to Father Stiprais and myself. The right of [first] choice was presented to Father Stiprais as he had arrived earlier from Soviet Russia: he chose Ventspils with Ugāle, and I satisfied myself with Saldus and Aizpute. On 5 January 1921 I was elected as the parish priest by the Saldus parish council. In my choice of Saldus, I was guided by the fact that the church here was well preserved, has a good parochial house and 63 pūrvieta [19] of land which I calculated would guarantee me the most necessary things for existence.

In my calculations I was not mistaken, although I had to endure and worry about much while I received all this. The house was occupied by the district hospital. I temporarily resided in the half-destroyed building of the parish school, in a smoky and cold room in the quarters of the kitchen girls. Earlier the parish here had [already] been small but under priest Agranomov, when the law about freedom of confession was announced, nearly all deviated to Lutheranism. There were very few Orthodox people, and they lived in the hope of dividing the church land among themselves. The land question is the heaviest for a priest: the Orthodox claimed the land as their property, as did the town in order to increase urban space and acquire for itself a source of income, since the land is of high value. Already in the winter the town petitioned to alienate the church land in its favour in order to increase building space. They were refused, but they then entered a petition for the second time.

The least pleasant thing in the land question was that the Orthodox confirmed that they had accepted Orthodoxy because Archpriest Gabiin promised them the land […] Thus the majority of the parish council was hungering over the church land, and they cynically announced that if they did not receive the land, they did not need Orthodoxy and the Church. When this same question was raised in discussions about the priest’s and psalmist's wages and these hungering people did not receive the land, they departed from the assembly with threats to leave Orthodoxy. From the agrarian inspection the parish property was returned at the end of April (the house in reality in June). Then the material maintenance of the clergy was defined: 20 pūrvieta were presented for the use of the priest, 5 to the psalmist, and the remaining 38 were rented out: from this money, I receive 1,600 roubles a month as a wage, the psalmist 1,000 roubles, and 10,650 roubles are assigned to the repair of the church and the parochial house. In material terms I consider myself quite secure, but in moral terms this place is very difficult for me: service in an almost empty church, the impossibility of gathering Orthodox children of school age to teach them religious lessons and unfriendly, envious relations with the flock because of the good apartment and land. This wears on me.

In conclusion to my letter, I give deep thanks to Your Grace for your kindness and care about improving my position by presenting me the position of priest in Jūrmala. Truly, I am ashamed of myself. I have an excellent apartment and comparative material sufficiency, while you, Your Grace, are compelled to live in a cellar: and you, ignoring your own penurious position, concerned yourself with improving my position! For the mean time, please leave open the question of Jūrmala until my personal presentation to Your Grace.

Asking for your episcopal prayers and your holy blessing on me and my house, I remain the humble servant of Your Grace

Archpriest Nikolai Piatnitskii [20]

Notes

[1] For Bishop Platon (Kulbusch), see our biography at https://www.balticorthodoxy.com/platon-kulbusch

[2] The Alekseevskaia church refers here to the Alekseevskii monastery, founded in 1897: it was located alongside the episcopal palace. Today, it remains in the hands of the Catholic Church.

[3] Aleksandr Gavrilin notes that 31 out of 120 Latvian parishes did not have priests as of 1921. See A. Gavrilin, ‘Pravoslavnaia Tserkov’ na territorii Latvii vo vremia Pervoi mirovoi voiny’, Pravoslavie v Baltii, no. 4(13), (2016), p. 45.

[4] The council (or saiema) was held in the Latvian parliament. For a description, see S. Rimestad, The Challenges of Modernity to the Orthodox Church in Estonia and Latvia (1917-1940) (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2012), pp. 117-121.

[5] Aleksandr Makedonskii (1867-1942) graduated from the Riga seminary in 1888, after which he served in various parishes. In 1918, he became head priest of the Riga Blagoveshchenskaia church, where he remained until his death.

[6] Dimitrii Briantsev (1869-after 1921) was inspector of the seminary from 1912 to 1918.

[7] Archbishop Arsenii (Briantsev) (1839-1914) was archbishop of Riga between 1887 and 1897.

[8] The Riga train station had an Orthodox chapel from 1889 to 1925, when it was demolished.

[9] Ivan Petrovich Mikelson (1871-1939) graduated from the Riga ecclesiastical seminary in 1893: he served as choir master in several high-profile parishes.

[10] K. A. Dorin (1878-?) served as a protodeacon in the Riga cathedral until 1932, when he was defrocked for mishandling church funds.

[11] P. Smirnov worked as a tax inspector and church elder in Bauska.

[12] This refers to the Illukste diocesan girls school: founded in 1881 along with a convent, it was evacuated to Nizhnii Novgorod in 1915.

[13] This is an error on Piatniskii’s part: the Latvian Orthodox Church was autonomous of Moscow, not autocephalous.

[14] In protest at the transfer of the Orthodox Alekseevskii monastery (and part of the episcopal palace) to Riga’s Catholics, Archbishop Jānis lived in the cathedral’s cellar for several years.

[15] Professor Aleksandr Kaelas was a professor at Moscow University and a member of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1917-18. On 21 March 1919, he was offered the opportunity to become the bishop of Estonia: however, he refused the position, hoping to teach at the University of Tartu. He died in Irkutsk in April 1920.

[16] P. P. Smerdinskii was a graduate from the St Petersburg Ecclesiastical Academy in 1896 and a member of the chancellery of the Synodal ober procurator from 1897.

[17] From 22 April 1918 to 21 June 1921, Jānis was bishop of Penza.

[18] Nikolai Vasil’evich Shalfeev (1863-1944) lived and worked as a priest in Livland/Latvia for most of his life: during the war, he became a military chaplain and left the Baltic as the Russian army retreated in 1917. Returning in 1918, he was arrested by the Bolsheviks and exiled. He conclusively returned in 1921, remaining at the Riga Ioannovskii parish until his death.

[19] A pūrvieta was approximately one third of a hectare.

[20] Nikolai Ivanovich Piatnitskii (1866-1936) graduated from the Riga seminary in 1887 and served in various parishes in Livland. He accompanied the Baltic Teacher’s Seminary when it was evacuated to Chistopol in 1915. He did not remain long in Saldus: in 1922, he was transferred to Jelgava, where he was speaker in the city council between 1926 and 1929.

Source

All letters were taken from Istoriia v pis’makh: iz arkhiva sviashchennomuchenika arkhiepiskopa Rizhskogo Ioanna (Pommera) (Tver: Izdatel’stvo Bulat, 2015), vol. 1.

Translator

James M. White