The Kherson Eparchy during the Administration of Leonty (Lebedynsky) and Ioannikiy (Horsky) (1874-1877)

Abstract

The article examines the episcopal administration of Leonty (Lebedinsky) and Ioannikiy (Gorsky) in the Eparchy of Kherson during the period of 1874-1877. The relevance of the topic is determined by the need to consider the role of the personal factor in the implementation of the national-religious policy of the Russian Empire in the multicultural territory of Southern Ukraine. The purpose of the study is a comprehensive analysis of the personal management strategies of the mentioned hierarchs as tools for implementing this policy, as well as clarifying the logic of personnel rotations that ensured the translation of experience in countering heterodox influences from the western borderlands of the empire to the steppe Black Sea region. The methodology is based on the principles of a microhistorical approach, which allowed focusing on the individual traits of church figures as relayers of the state will. The systemic-historical method was used to analyze the eparchial administration as an integral mechanism, alongside the comparative-historical method for contrasting the diametrically opposed administrative styles of Leonty and Ioannikiy. The source base of the study consists of a vast array of official church periodicals, specifically the complete corpus of publications from the journal ‘Pribavleniya k Khersonskim eparkhial’nym vedomostyam’ (Eng. ‘Supplements to the Kherson Eparchial News’) for 1875–1877, which includes reports on visitations, sermons, and administrative acts of the hierarchs. Reliance on a diachronic analysis of these materials within the defined chronological interval allowed for the verification of the personal management strategies of the hierarchs. The procedure for working with the data was based on identifying markers of management practices: types of administrative actions, educational decisions, and methods of interaction with the heterodox environment. The comparative profile of the hierarchs was formed by contrasting the level of their public activity and the ways they adapted their previous experience to the realities of Southern Ukraine. In the results of the study, it was determined that the appointment of Leonty (and to a lesser extent Ioannikiy) to the Kherson cathedra was not accidental but corresponded to the Synod’s strategy of engaging experienced administrators from "difficult borderlands" to strengthen the positions of Orthodoxy in a multicultural region. It was established that both hierarchs, despite their short tenure, adapted their previous experience to Southern Ukrainian realities, transforming former methods of rigid confrontation with the Union and "Polonism" into more flexible forms of ideological integration. In the conclusions, it is substantiated that the activities of Leonty (Lebedinsky) and Ioannikiy (Gorsky) ensured the institutional continuity and consistency of the imperial religious course in the Diocese of Kherson. The effectiveness of religious policy in the region depended not only on bureaucratic circulars but also on the ability of the bishops to personalize these decisions. It is emphasized that the system of control over parish life and religious education they created became the foundation for the long-term religious unification of Orthodoxy, the results of which left a noticeable mark on the church-social consciousness of Southern Ukraine in subsequent historical periods. Emphasis is placed on the importance of studying such short-term "transitional" stages of episcopal service for a holistic understanding of the mechanisms of Russian imperial administration on Ukrainian lands.