Platon Levshin, Metropolitan of Moscow. Metropolitan Platon

Our website continues to publish articles by Doctor of Historical Sciences Yuri Kondakov on the history of secret societies in Russia (previous publications:,). In this article of the centuries we will talk about the relationship between Metropolitan Platon (Levshin) of Moscow and the Rosicrucians.

Unlike the Catholic Church, the Russian Orthodox Church has never given an official assessment of Freemasonry. Moreover, in the 19th and 20th centuries, not only individual Orthodox clergy, but even Orthodox church organizations prohibited their flock from joining Masonic lodges. In this regard, it is interesting to trace how the relationship with the Freemasons developed among one of the most authoritative Russian pastors of the second half of the 18th - early 19th centuries, Metropolitan of Moscow Platon (Levshin).
In Europe, the 18th century was the time of the formation of various Masonic systems, some of which were brought to Russia. The Order of the Gold-Pink Cross, which operated in Russia continuously from 1782 to the 20s of the 20th century, was destined to play a special role in Russian history. The Order enjoyed its greatest influence in the last decades of the 18th century. The center of his activity was Moscow, the diocese of Metropolitan Plato. In the 80s of the 18th century, the Order had a serious influence on Russian culture. Its founders I.G. Shvarts and N.I. Novikov developed vigorous activity. They founded publishing houses and magazines, scientific and student societies, and educational institutions. A huge amount of Masonic literature was published. During this period, the Rosicrucian Order managed to take control of most of the Masonic lodges in Russia.

Orthodox clergy were also involved in the orbit of the Order’s activities. The priests attracted the Freemasons because the churches were convenient for Masonic propaganda. At the highest levels of the Rosicrucian Order, ceremonies were held in which the participation of priests was necessary. At various times, the Order of the Rosicrucians and the lodges controlled by it included Metropolitan Michael (Desnitsky), priests Theophilus (Finikov), Job (Kurotsky), Hermogenes (Speransky), Theoktist (Orlovsky), S.I. Sokolov, I.M. Voinov, Professor F.A. Golubinsky, member of the Holy Synod V.I. Kutnevich.
Metropolitan of Moscow Platon (Levshin) was one of the leading figures of the Russian Orthodox Church in the second half of the 18th – early 20th centuries. He was born into a priest's family in 1737. Plato studied at the Kolomna Seminary, and then at the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy. Upon completion of his studies, he was accepted as a teacher at Trinity Seminary (he was tonsured a monk), and from 1761 he became its rector. In 1763, Plato was appointed teacher of the law to the heir to the throne, Pavel Petrovich. In 1766, Plato became a member of the Holy Synod, in 1770 - Archbishop of Tver, in 1775 - Archbishop of Moscow. All of Plato’s further activities were connected with Moscow. The Moscow Bishop looked for ways to modernize the practical activities of the Russian Orthodox Church and did a lot to raise the prestige of its ministers. “Plato worked a lot for the education of the clergy, guided by the ideas of European philosophers,” wrote N.V. Bessarabova, a researcher of the worldview and activities of the metropolitan. He wrote “A Brief Church Russian History” (Moscow, 1805 in 2 parts), developed the rules of “uniform faith” for the adherents of the old rite to join the Church, and he was the first to abolish the elections of parish priests in his diocese. At various times, Plato delivered about 500 later published sermons (20 volumes).
Metropolitan Platon encountered the Rosicrucians even before the official founding of the Order in Russia. In 1779, a circle was formed in Moscow, which included Freemasons I.G. Shvarts, N.I. Novikov, N.N. Trubetskoy, Yu.N. Trubetskoy, M.M. Kheraskov, A.A. Cherkassky, K.N. .Engalychev, F.P.Klyucharyov, Kh.A.Chebotarev. Together they formed a new lodge, "Harmony", which in 1782 sent I.G. Schwarz to Berlin. The result of the trip was the establishment in Russia of the Order of the Gold-Pink Cross (known in Russia as the “Martinists”). In 1779, on the initiative of I.G. Schwartz, the “Meeting of University Students”, “Friendly Scientific Society”, Pedagogical and then Translation Seminaries were opened at Moscow University. Metropolitan Platon welcomed the initiatives of I.G. Shvarts and N.I. Novikov. He not only gave the official blessing for the opening of the “Friendly Scientific Society”, but also at various times sent about fifty seminarians to study at the Pedagogical and Translation Seminaries.
At the end of 1779, I.G. Schwartz turned to the diocesan bishops with a request to send seminary students to him for training. Nevzorov was the first to be sent from the Ryazan seminary to Moscow. In 1782, the Philological (Translation) Seminary was added to the Pedagogical Seminary. Her students were actively involved in translating books published by N.I. Novikov (including Masonic literature). The "Invitation of the Friendly Society", issued in November 1782, indicated that the seminaries were designed for 35 places, but so far only 21 seminarians had been recruited. For three years, these young people were supposed to gain knowledge, and upon completion of their studies, return to their homeland and take on the “teacher rank.”

Metropolitan Platon (Levshin)

Freemasonry researcher M.N. Longinov called the “Friendly Educational Society”, which established the Pedagogical and Philological Seminaries, the concentration of practical activities of the Moscow Martinists (Rosicrucians). The peculiarities of the Masonic worldview were very clearly manifested in seminary training. Students of the Philological Seminary lived in Schwartz’s house and listened to his “evening” lectures there. At home, Schwartz taught a course in the philosophy of history. In addition, seminary students were actively involved in translating their favorite books. A.N. Pypin believed that such literary studies prepared students to accept Freemasonry.
It has been established that at least three of the students of the seminary - M.I. Nevzorov, V.Ya. Kolokolnikov and A.F. Labzin - were accepted into the Rosicrucian Order during their studies or immediately after their completion. Moreover, all three had previously been trained in Masonic lodges. Three more seminarians became Rosicrucians - M.I. Desnitsky, P.A. Sokhatsky and D.I. Dmitrievsky. Information has been preserved about thirteen Masonic students who studied at the expense of the Friendly Scientific Society.
It can be assumed that some of the students avoided involvement in Freemasonry. Among them was the future Metropolitan of St. Petersburg Seraphim (Glagolevsky). But it seems that the Rosicrucians also had a certain influence on Seraphim, since he decided to speak out against them only under strong pressure in 1824. In 1825, M.I. Nevzorov wrote to Seraphim: “I now dare to remind Your Eminence about the members of the learned Friendly Society that was once in Moscow. You, of course, will not consider it a shame to admit that you owe them a lot of moral and physical education, and much knowledge acquired with their help... Let the inner voice of your conscience tell your Eminence: when you studied with them, you taught... Did they distort the holiness of the books of divine revelation and teach you obvious and outrageous false teachings, contrary to church and civil decrees? On the contrary, haven’t they always taught their pupils to be honest citizens of Society, good sons of the Fatherland, faithful subjects of the Highest Authority, true Christians and adherents of the Church?” .

Metropolitan Platon's relations with the Freemasons were far from straightforward. A.N. Pypin wrote that Plato, “although he did not agree with some of the speculations of our Freemasons, in general, was favorable to the activities of the Novikov circle, and gave his blessing to the opening of the Friendly Society.” Most often, to characterize Plato’s relationship to Freemasonry, they use his review of the religious views of N.I. Novikov, given by order of the Empress. “As before the throne of God, so before your throne, most merciful empress, I deign to convey to you, according to my conscience and rank, that I pray to the all-generous God, that not only in the verbal flock, by God and you, most merciful empress, entrusted to me, but also there were Christians like Novikov all over the world,” Plato reported to Catherine II in January 1786. Among the hundreds of books published by Novikov, Plato found only six to be banned.
This cautious attitude of Plato towards N.I. Novikov’s “circle” (Rosicrucians) was determined by several factors. The Rosicrucians, in their religious views, were very different from most of the Russian Freemasons of that time. They were fanatical Christians who outwardly zealously followed the teachings of the Russian Orthodox Church. They not only constantly attended services and participated in the sacraments, but adherents of their highest degrees were directly required to lead a monastic lifestyle. The behavior of the Rosicrucians, who took their official duties seriously, were alien to corruption, and devoted a lot of money and effort to education and charity, should have impressed Plato. The Metropolitan knew nothing about the peculiarities of the religious views of the Rosicrucians and the secrets of their Order. It can be assumed that Plato looked at Novikov’s “circle” as “good” Masons who had taken the path of correction. They contrasted too much with atheists and rationalists, with people who visited lodges for the sake of prestige and magnificent ceremonies, and finally, with outright swindlers and adventurers (for whom the empress considered the leaders of the Rosicrucians). Plato, who was closely acquainted with the leaders of Novikov’s “circle,” tried to protect them from the unjustified suspicions of Catherine II.
But there was one more thing. Apparently, Plato was afraid of the Freemasons and did not want to openly oppose them. In a letter to Ambrose that he had been instructed to review Novikov’s books, Plato wrote: “I foresee a lot of difficulties, and perhaps even dangers, from this.” There is information that, having given a positive review of Novikov’s Christian views, Plato simultaneously sent the empress materials denouncing the Freemasons. Plato, in personal conversations with the Rosicrucian I.V. Lopukhin, whom he respected, “attacked the teachings of the Freemasons.” After one of these conversations, Lopukhin compiled a statement of Masonic teachings to prove that they do not contradict the teachings of the Church.
Plato broke off his official contacts with the Rosicrucians after the government began persecuting them. Catherine II, having begun the persecution of N.I. Novikov, did not ignore the students of the seminaries of the “Friendly Scientific Society”. A.I. Nezelenov published an undated note from the empress (judging by the text, dating back to 1784). Catherine II gave the order to begin an investigation into the “History of the Jesuit Order” published in Moscow (a corresponding decree was issued on September 23, 1784). The note gave an order to inspect the buildings in the village of N.I. Novikov and remove the trustee of Moscow University M.M. Kheraskov from his post. It continued: “The names of the eight seminarians must be known more than those who took monastic vows, so as not to be included in the Diocesan candidates for the Bishopric.” Metropolitan Platon, in his letters to Ambrose, described the persecution that befell Novikov, but did not express his attitude towards his “circle” in a single word. At the same time, he ordered the removal of all seminarians from the Pedagogical and Philological seminaries. He was even against the fact that seminarians who continued to study at the University and the Theological Academy received support from the “Friendly Academic Society”. In this case, only one argument was put forward: “so that suspicions do not fall on us without guilt.”

In the 18th century, the Russian Orthodox Church suffered a number of severe blows. The conciliarity and patriarchal administration were eliminated, the Church was headed by the Holy Synod, controlled by the chief prosecutor, and the secularization of church lands took place. The prestige of the church in Russian society has dropped noticeably. In this situation, the ideas of the Enlightenment, atheism and rationalism poured into Russia. The Church had nothing to oppose this expansion from abroad. The upper strata of society, who were precisely those who came under attack, at this time recoiled from the traditional Russian confession. Orthodoxy has ceased to be fashionable. There was a catastrophic shortage of theological academies and seminaries; education there was conducted mainly in Latin, and church sermons were read in the same language. There was an acute shortage of enlightened clergy and talented preachers. In this situation of “struggle for souls,” help came from the most unexpected quarter - from the Masonic lodges. Instead of corrupting morals and undermining the foundations of the state and the Church, some of the Freemasons, under the leadership of the Rosicrucian Order, came out in defense of the Faith and the Christian religion. It is no coincidence that Metropolitan Platon did not dare to publicly denounce the Rosicrucians and even spoke out in defense of N.I. Novikov.
The Rosicrucians managed to return part of the representatives of Russian privileged society to the fold of religion. People who pray, attend church, observe fasts and read spiritual literature in high society are no longer considered fanatics and retrogrades. Lectures by I.G. Schwartz showed that science and religion are completely compatible and do not contradict each other. The Rosicrucians were able to give a new direction of activity to the Masonic lodges (however, not all) that was safe for the government. All this did not escape the attention of spiritual and secular authorities. It is not for nothing that a number of clergy, members of the Holy Synod and the Chief Prosecutor were members of the Order. A group of Rosicrucians, who were under the patronage of Prince A.N. Golitsyn, worked around Alexander I. They were not affected by the 1822 ban on the work of Freemasons. Nicholas I not only did not take action against illegal meetings of the Rosicrucians, but tolerated adherents of the brotherhood in his circle. It must be assumed that the emperor was convinced that there was no danger from this side.

1. Bessarabova N.V. Worldview and activities of Metropolitan Plato (Levshin) // Questions of history. 2008. No. 1.
2. From the papers of Metropolitan Plato of Moscow // Readings in the Society of the History of Russian Antiquities. 1881. T. 4.
3. Longinov M.N. Novikov and the Moscow Martinists. St. Petersburg, 2000.
4. Lopukhin I.V. Masonic Works: Spiritual Knight. Some features about the inner church. M., 1997
5. Nezelenov A.I. Novikov in the Shlisselburg Fortress // Pokrovsky V.I. Nikolai Ivanovich Novikov, his life and works. M., 2010.
6. Letters of Plato, Metropolitan of Moscow to His Eminence Ambrose and Augustine. M., 1870.
7. Pypin A.N. Freemasonry in Russia. M., 1997.
8. Pypin A.N. Essential features of Russian Freemasonry in the 18th century // Pokrovsky V.I. Nikolai Ivanovich Novikov, his life and works. M., 2010.
9. Serkov A.I. Russian Freemasonry 1731-2000. Encyclopedic Dictionary. M., 2001.

Platon Levshin

Few Russian bishops before the revolution made such a contribution to the history of Russia as Metropolitan Platon (Levshin). He was called the “father of the Moscow clergy” and the “Russian Chrysostom.” The emergence of a theological school in Russian, the education of a whole galaxy of educated and worthy bishops from the Great Russian environment, and the revival of eldership in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra are associated with his name. His image is placed on the “Millennium of Russia” monument in Veliky Novgorod.

The future bishop was born on June 29/July 12, 1737 in the village of Charushniki near Moscow. His father, the clerk Yegor Danilov, received news of the birth of his son at the moment when he rang the bell for Matins. His mother, Tatyana Ivanovna, had a very great importance in raising the boy, who was named Peter (Plato is a monastic name).

Peter received his education first at the Kolomna Seminary, then at the Slavic Greek Latin Academy, where he and his brothers received the surname Levshin. After graduating from the academy, he was appointed as a teacher and later moved to Trinity Seminary.

In 1759 he was ordained hieromonk at Trinity Seminary.

Since 1761 - rector of the seminary.

From 1763 - court preacher and teacher of the law to the heir Pavel Petrovich, later - vicar of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra.

Plato's incredibly fast career was associated with his outstanding natural talents and efficiency. The years of study were very difficult for him. He lived in Moscow with his older brother Timofey, a poor sexton, and went to school “barefoot, with pennies for lunch,” and he carried new boots in his hands and put them on only at the entrance to the academy. But the young man did not complain. I learned Greek on my own, by ear and from random books, and later mastered French in the same way. Also, self-taught, he brilliantly mastered other languages, studied geography and history. He carried his passion for learning throughout his life, while maintaining a lively mind and a scientific mindset. While still in theological school, he became famous as an interpreter of Scripture and a preacher. It was his magnificent gift of speech that was noted by Catherine II when she visited the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, after which Plato was brought closer to the court and appointed a member of the Synod.

On October 10, 1770, Plato was consecrated Bishop of Tver and Kashinsky, immediately elevated to the rank of archbishop, but leaving the Trinity-Sergius Lavra as archimandrite.

In reality, he could only visit Tver on short visits, since he had a lot of worries in the Lavra and St. Petersburg. Only 1771 and 1774 he was able to dedicate it to his diocese. On his first visit he visited the monasteries of Kashin and Kalyazin, on the second he made a trip to Staritsa, Zubtsov, Rzhev, Ostashkov, Nilova Hermitage and Torzhok, all cities of the then Tver diocese.

Plato really liked Tver and its inhabitants. The young archbishop began to actively participate in the affairs of the diocese, especially concerned about theological schools and the moral state of the clergy. He managed to increase the funds of the Tver Seminary from 800 rubles a year to two thousand, thanks to which the number of students increased. At his initiative, religious schools were opened in Torzhok and Ostashkov.

Archbishop Plato's policy towards the Tver clergy was as follows. Traveling around the diocese, he tried everywhere to look for talented, educated priests, and it was to them that he gave key parishes. He “tried to oblige new priests to subscribe to the frequent delivery of sermons.” In addition, the archbishop encouraged “the citizens of Tver to establish, at their own expense, a decent teaching of science in natural language” (that is, a school teaching science in Russian).

Plato was a great lover of church splendor. “The Tver Cathedral,” he wrote in his “Autobiography,” “is quite extensive and good in structure, but inside there were bare walls, and the iconostasis was not bad, but it was poorly placed. The archbishop, having somehow collected the amount, greased the entire cathedral inside with his own and third-party artisans and painted it all with picturesque art, making new choirs; The iconostasis was put in order, the altar was restored and then consecrated, to my own and everyone’s satisfaction...” The enormous artistic work was appreciated by Catherine II, who, when visiting Tver, covered all the costs of decorating the cathedral from her own funds (about five thousand rubles).

Archbishop Platon actively wrote to convert the Rzhev Old Believers, hoping to bring them to Orthodoxy. The short time that he was allotted at the Tver department did not allow him to complete many projects in this area.

“In quiet times from business,” Plato wrote about himself, “he loved to stroll in the garden and to the Zheltikov Monastery, not far from Trekhsvyatsky, with his close spiritual friends. And he always avoided large gatherings. He lived like a monk, in solitude. Most of the trips were for services in the cathedral, in the parish church and in the monastery, where he never left, so as not to teach the people.”

Plato was engaged in establishing order in Moscow with the same energy as before in Tver. He paid special attention to theological schools and monasteries. He placed the Moscow Theological Academy in high esteem, built a dormitory attached to it, reduced the number of house churches, and united parishes so that they could comfortably support priests.

As Plato himself wrote, “in carrying out business, he did not look at strong faces, or requests, or tears, if he found it inconsistent with legal justice and with the disorder of the general order of the flock.” This is what happened, for example, when Emperor Paul ascended the throne. Paul loved his former teacher very much, corresponded with him for many years, but he was strongly impressed by the fact that during the coronation, the Metropolitan asked him to take off his sword at the entrance to the altar. “Here a bloodless sacrifice is being made,” the Metropolitan remarked to the emperor who entered the altar, “take the sword from your thigh.” Paul cooled even more noticeably towards him after Plato protested against awarding orders to the clergy.

At the very end of his life, the old metropolitan had to endure a terrible mental shock: the invasion of Napoleon, the capture and fire of Moscow. When the capital began to empty, its streets were filled only with those leaving or with convoys with military shells and the wounded. Metropolitan Platon arrived from the Lavra. In the Assumption Cathedral, he served the last service before the occupation of Moscow by Napoleon and delivered a sermon that encouraged the residents. Due to extreme weakness of health, the deacon conveyed his words to the people. The Metropolitan wanted to go to the Russian troops in order to be with them at the difficult moment of the retreat, but due to illness he was no longer able to do this.

As soon as the news of Napoleon's escape from Moscow arrived, Plato crossed himself and said: “Thank God, I will now die in peace.”

Metropolitan Platon died on November 11/24, 1812 in the Spaso-Bethans Monastery, which he founded, not far from the Trinity-Sergius Lavra and was buried there on November 14/27.

Pavel IVANOV

All ruling bishops of the Tver land-

Born in Ukraine, he was the fourth child in a family that lost its breadwinner early. After graduating from school, he spent a year in a monastery, where he worked in a candle workshop. He studied at the Kyiv and Odessa seminaries and learned to masterfully compose sermons. After serving in the army, he graduated from seminary and entered the Leningrad Theological Academy, where he defended his thesis on theology “Historical review of the relationship between the Russian and Roman Catholic Churches.” He worked as a referent in the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate (DECR MP), while continuing his postgraduate studies at the Moscow Theological Academy. In 1971, the Leningrad Metropolitan Nikodim tonsured the referent into monasticism, in the same year the newly tonsured man became a hierodeacon and hieromonk, and already in 1972 Nikodim elevated his employee to archimandrite and sent him to Argentina.

On December 16, 1973, Patriarch Pimen led the episcopal consecration of Plato, who was appointed Bishop of Argentina and South America (instead of Bishop Maxim). In 1977, the former candlemaker became archbishop and exarch of Central and South America (his predecessor in managing the exarchate was Archbishop Nicodemus).

In 1980, Platon had to replace the ill Archbishop Clement at the Sverdlovsk and Kurgan departments, and at the same time he received temporary control of the Chelyabinsk diocese. Plato's activities in the Urals were successful; in 1983 he was able to open a parish in Kamyshlov - the first in the diocese in thirty years. In addition, in 1981, the archbishop returned to the DECR, already as deputy chairman (he retained this position until 1986).

In 1984, Plato took the Yaroslavl and Rostov Sees after the retirement of Metropolitan John. The new bishop returned eight churches in Yaroslavl and more than fifty in the region to the Russian Orthodox Church, began the restoration of the Tolgsky and Spaso-Yakovlevsky monasteries, discovered many relics - princes Fyodor Rostislavich, David and Konstantin Fedorovich, Vasily and Konstantin Vsevolodovich, Saints Demetrius, Innocent and Ignatius, St. Abraham .

In 1990, Plato participated in the Local Council and made a proposal to reduce the number of votes required for a candidate from the Local Council to be included in the final list of candidates for patriarch, but it was not accepted. The archbishop himself proposed the candidacy of Metropolitan Pitirim of Volokolamsk. In addition, Plato took part in discussions, for example, proposing to address the parishioners of the ROCOR with a message.

Even during the patriarchate of Pimen, Platon was elected as a people's deputy and member of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR, worked on the Supreme Council Committee on Freedom of Conscience, and participated in the writing of the law “On Freedom of Religion.” According to modern sociologists, this law opened up “space for the formation of numerous new religious associations.”

In 1993, the archbishop was reappointed to the Argentine See. In 2000, he participated in the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, at which he spoke out against limiting the powers of the Local Council. On February 29, 2004 he was elevated to the rank of metropolitan.

However, such a passion for the young bishop could not please the empress’s confessor, Archpriest Ioann Pamfilov. This priest from the white clergy could not stand bishops and monks, openly saying that they had no place in the palace. Catherine the Great listened to her confessor and did everything with his blessing, and therefore she always gave preference to married priests, until she met the monk Plato. For John Pamfilov, not a single bishop was an authority; he knew that his spiritual daughter, Empress Catherine the Great, was above all church rulers. In addition, Catherine was his son's Godmother.

In 1775, the Holy Synod decided that Bishop Platon should be the bishop of the city of Moscow. Vladyka Platon was afraid of this appointment. He understood that now he would have to become the boss of the empress’s confessor, who does not recognize bishops. Plato personally wrote petitions to the heir, Tsarevich Paul and his wife, and to Prince Potemkin, and finally to Empress Catherine herself, so that they would help cancel this decision of the synod. To which the empress replied: " Follow my orders and everything will be fine!". Plato did not dare to contradict.

For seven years Bishop Platon ruled the Moscow See. He cared very much about the clergy of the lower classes, about ordinary monks, and saw how Archpriest John Pamfilov was inciting the empress against monasticism. In addition, until this time, no married priest was awarded the miter. However, Ioann Pamfilov remarked to the empress why some ignorant archimandrites could wear a miter, but a cultured archpriest could not. Empress Catherine practically ordered Bishop Plato to award the miter to her spiritual father. So in 1786, the first priest of the white clergy appeared in the Russian Church wearing a miter. This was Archpriest John Pamfilov, since then such archpriests have been called mitered, but in no other Eastern Orthodox Church are married priests awarded miters.
Bishop Plato himself considered this a disparagement of the miter. And he called Archpriest John “Papa Mitrus” and began to call him “Pope of the Married Clergy.”

This incident prompted Bishop Platon to ask the Empress to release him from his bishopric and from living in Moscow. The Empress replied that the bishop could live wherever he wanted, but would not resign from the see of Moscow, and if he did not have the strength to support and nourish this see spiritually, then he could choose an assistant, a Vicar bishop.

In order to somehow keep Plato in Moscow, the empress decided to grant Plato the title of Metropolitan of Moscow and award him with a white hood. It was such a leap over the level of archbishop. However, the mitred archpriest and confessor of the empress, John Pamfilov, did not bless the empress for such a step.

The heir Pavel Petrovich intervened in this matter, he began to demand from the empress’s mother to make Plato metropolitan. After all, the feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul was approaching and the name day of the heir, who wanted this liturgy to be served by the metropolitan in a white hood, and the heir knew that this day was also the birthday of Bishop Plato and would be a good gift for him. The Empress did not listen to her spiritual father and explained to him that Plato did nothing to deserve to walk around Moscow as a bishop for so long.

And on the feast of the apostles Peter and Paul, Archpriest John and Bishop Plato stand behind the same throne. Father John commemorates Plato as Metropolitan. Plato was embarrassed and whispered: “Father John, you are mistaken, I am a bishop.” To which I heard an answer from the archpriest: “I was told to pray this way.” Metropolitan Platon came out of the altar and bowed to the empress.

The next day, the empress awarded Plato again, now she gave a diamond cross for his hood.

What was the real attitude of the empress towards the metropolitan, this can be found out from her diary. There she writes that Metropolitan Platon in a white hood and a diamond cross will look out "like a Kremenchug peacock" and makes a note that this metropolitan "Ladying ka To cat, cowardly as a hare".

Metropolitan Plato could not help but see the negative sides for the Church in the reign of Catherine the Great. He writes: “Everything seems to be going for the worse. I am not surprised at the pitiful position of our clergy, knowing that secular principles are involved, which is why all the evil stems, it is they who are entrusted with all power. They do not consider us at all, and not only do they want to subjugate us , but are already considered subordinates. Oh, Good God... There is nothing comforting anymore. I’m overwhelmed with things to do. Sometimes, I walk, I think. My mental and physical strength is becoming scarce. I don’t think about anything else but peace and dismissal."

Metropolitan Platon did a lot for the Church under Catherine the Great. He abolished such punishment as “giving under the command.” That is, this punishment consisted in humiliating the priests with the dirtiest work in front of children and students... for example, chopping wood in a school, cleaning toilets, serving food in the dining room..." Plato forbade this by decree. Moreover, the metropolitan Plato, when he was already a priest and a seminary teacher, the Metropolitan of Moscow at that time, ordered to be flogged with a rod for poor work in front of all seminarians... And although the Empress already in 1767 abolished corporal punishment for priests by her decree, Plato achieved a decree banning the flogging of deacons. In addition, in the bishop's houses there were real prisons and even shackles for disobedient priests. Metropolitan Platon obtained from the Empress a ban on such punishment of priests by bishops.

They even asked for an independent bishop, who would submit not to the Holy Synod, but to state power and would have a special spiritual government with him.

How important the question of unity of faith was for Metropolitan Plato is evidenced by the fact that in 1807 the priest Polubensky was elevated to the dignity of protopresbyter - a very rare not only award, but also a position for that time. And this marked the special importance of the position of a priest of the same faith not only in Moscow, but also in the Orthodox Church.