In the section on the question: religious and national policies of Alexander 3? given by the author Peculiarity the best answer is National and religious policy of Alexander III. One of the main objectives of the national and religious policy of Alexander III was the desire to preserve the unity of the state. The path to this was seen primarily in the Russification of the national borderlands.
Not without the influence of Pobedonostsev, the Russian Orthodox Church was placed in an exceptional position. Those religions that he recognized as “dangerous” for Orthodoxy were persecuted. The chief prosecutor of the Synod showed particular severity towards sectarians. Often, children were even taken away from sectarian parents.
Buddhists (Kalmyks and Buryats) were also persecuted. They were forbidden to build temples or conduct worship services. The attitude towards those who were officially listed as converts to Orthodoxy, but in fact continued to profess their former religion, was especially intolerant.
The government of Alexander III showed a harsh attitude towards adherents of Judaism. According to the Temporary Rules of 1882, Jews were deprived of the right to settle outside cities and towns, even within the Pale of Settlement; they were prohibited from acquiring real estate in rural areas. In 1887, the Pale of Settlement itself was reduced. In 1891, a decree was issued on the eviction of Jews illegally living in Moscow and the Moscow province. In 1887, it was determined what percentage of the total number of students in educational institutions could be Jews (percentage norm). There were restrictions on engaging in certain types of professional activities, such as the legal profession. All these oppressions did not apply to Jews who converted to the Orthodox faith.
Catholic Poles were also persecuted - they were denied access to government positions in the Kingdom of Poland and the Western Region.
At the same time, in the lands of Central Asia annexed by the Russian Empire, the Muslim religion and Muslim courts were left intact. The local population was granted the right of internal self-government, which ended up in the hands of the local elite. But the Russian authorities managed to win over the working strata of the population by reducing taxes and limiting the arbitrariness of the nobility.
Alexander III refused to continue the liberal reforms begun by his father. He took a firm course towards preserving the foundations of autocracy. Reform activities were continued only in the economic field.
what did you find
Alexander III ascended the throne in 1881 after the murder of his father by the populists. An era of harsh reaction to the liberal reforms of the 60s began, an era of suppression of radical freethinking and a bloody struggle between the government and the revolutionary underground. At the same time, these were years of rapid economic growth in Russia and the strengthening of its position on the world stage. Russia again, as after the Patriotic War of 1812, became the most powerful power in the world.
After the liberal and radical ferment of the 60s, in the 80s a significant part of the intelligentsia was captured by conservative sentiments. In the minds of former freethinkers, as at the end of the 16th century, religious and mystical aspirations were again awakened; a new return to faith took place in society, timid, half-hearted, often painful, but noticeable. Archbishop Nikanor (Brovkovich) of Kherson wrote about the atmosphere of those years: “This is something new, a new trend, some kind of revival of the Russian spirit, the religious spirit. For how long, I don’t know... It was felt that this was a new trend - a new reign, that in all this... the spirit of K.P. Pobedonostsev."
K.P. Pobedonostsev(1827-1907), appointed chief prosecutor of the Synod in 1880, was indeed the main ideologist and inspirer of the government’s new protective policy. Not only in church, but in state affairs, he was the chief adviser to the tsar, the architect of the government's political course.
A lawyer by profession, a professor at Moscow University in the department of civil law, he had brilliant and versatile knowledge, was distinguished by a sharp, observant mind, and could formulate a thoughtful, weighty judgment on any issue. He is also known as a talented publicist, author of books and articles on church, legal and historical topics. Pobedonostsev took church affairs close to his heart and, unlike his predecessor, was an Orthodox man. This did not prevent him, however, in the spirit of the synodal era, in the spirit of Peter 1, from looking at the Church primarily from the point of view of state interests as one of the pillars of the inviolability of the state system.
But in contrast to Peter’s ideology of the Europeanization of Russia, which the Russian government adhered to for almost two centuries, Pobedonostsev treated the contemporary Western civilization with undisguised disgust. In European liberalism, he climbed the last step before total catastrophe; and in his reactionary policy was inspired by the hope of keeping Russia from repeating the disastrous dead ends of the Western path. “Russia needs to be frozen,” he said, “so that it doesn’t go rotten.”
Historians characterize his own political views as a kind of reactionary populism. Pobedonostsev believed in the strength of patriarchal folk life, in the spontaneous wisdom of the common people. “People feel it in their soul,” he liked to say. And in his religious views, he, a man of book culture, brought up on Western books, tried to identify with the common people, to merge with them. According to him, he loved to “disappear with his self in this mass of praying people... The people understand absolutely nothing in the words of the church service, or even in the “Our Father...”, but this does not matter, for the truth is not comprehended by reason , but by faith."
For him, the Church is, first of all, a “living, nationwide institution.” In Orthodoxy, he valued not holiness and asceticism, and not even truth, but its ordinary, familiar forms, its traditionalism. Pobedonostsov could not tolerate any kind of abstract conclusions, any vague philosophy. A man of unusually insightful mind, he experienced a skeptical distrust of reason, and even of church reason. He did not like dogmatic theology and considered it alien to the faith of the Russian people, Russian Orthodoxy, for “our common people are saved without any theology,” he said. He was also frightened by bright manifestations of spiritual asceticism. Pobedonostsev was thrown into confusion and disturbed by the spirit-bearing chosen ones of God, Bishop Theophan the Recluse and the Kronstadt shepherd John (Sergiev). At the beginning of the 20th century, he opposed the glorification of St. Seraphim.
He did not trust the hierarchy either. Pobedonostsev feared her independence, her initiative, her too great influence on the people, and therefore stood for the strictest government guardianship of the episcopate. He spoke out against the convening of the Local Council, because in the Church Council he saw a shade of democracy that he hated. Preserving the strength of state foundations, he was inclined to resist all innovations. His favorite word was “don’t.”
The famous Slavophile I.O. Aksakov wrote to him in 1882: “If they had asked you in those days; should we convene the Ecumenical Councils, which we now recognize as holy, you would have presented so many solid critical reasons against their convocation that they, perhaps, would not have taken place... Your soul is too painfully sensitive to everything false, unclean, and therefore you have become negative treat all living things, seeing in them an admixture of impurity and falsehood. But without this, nothing living in the world lives, and one must believe in the power of good, which will only exist in freedom.”
But thanks to K.P. Pobedonostsev is his concern for the construction of rural churches, the publication of religious edifying books and prayer books for the people, and material assistance to the clergy.
In 1883, under Pobedonostsev, important changes took place in the management of the military clergy. It was concentrated in the person of one chief priest of the guard, grenadier, army and navy instead of the previous three chief priests, and in 1890 a new regulation on the military clergy was issued. According to it, the chief priest was renamed protopresbyter of the military and naval clergy, and a board of 3 full-time and 2 supernumerary members was established under him.
In the 1980s, two new dioceses were opened; Ekaterinburg and Vladikavkaz. Thus, by 1890 there were already 62 dioceses within the Russian Church. In addition to the diocesan bishops, the episcopate included 3? suffragan bishops, and the metropolitans of St. Petersburg, Moscow and Nevsky had three vicars each.
District councils of bishops were a new phenomenon in church life. K.P. Pobedonostsev, at the very beginning of his chief prosecutor, stated that the government strives to “apply in practice the ancient canonical law of the hierarchs of the Orthodox Church to discuss the most important issues of faith and church life in a council.” Hope has awakened in church circles that the era of the revival of true conciliarity is beginning. But Pobedonostsev was filled with deep distrust of the ability of the Russian episcopate to independently, without state tutelage, resolve church affairs. He wrote; “Experience (admittedly sad) and observation confirm to me that our church hierarchy needs a layman and is looking for support outside the circle of church government... everywhere it needs a master.” And as an imperious “layman” and “master”, Pobedonostsev considered it useful to convene several district Councils, but not the All-Russian Local Council.
In 1884, in Kyiv, under the chairmanship of the elderly Kyiv Metropolitan Batog (Gorodetsky), a Council of Bishops of the southern and western dioceses was held. The Council discussed many important issues of church life; about the position of the clergy, about candle factories, about compliance with the rules for church singing, about public education, about measures against the influence of Catholicism and Jewry for the Orthodox people. But the most important topic of the conciliar discussion was the fight against the Stunda, which had become stronger in the southern dioceses - a sect of an extremely Protestant persuasion planted by German colonists, which later merged with Baptistism. The Council will address the flock with a message warning the faithful against deviating into false teachings, and especially into shtunda.
In the same year, 1884, in connection with the 50th anniversary of the hierarchal ministry of Metropolitan Isidore (Nikolsky), several bishops gathered in St. Petersburg. This meeting of bishops also received the name “cathedral”. In St. Petersburg they discussed the organization of education in parish schools and the content of church clergy. In 1886, under the leadership of the synodal official V.K. Sabler in Kazan, a district council of bishops of the Volga region was held, at which measures to counteract the Old Believer schism were mainly discussed. In the same year, the Siberian Council of Bishops took place in Irkutsk, which also focused on the anti-Old Believer mission. In 1888, in Kyiv, in connection with the solemn celebration of the 900th anniversary of the baptism of Rus', a very representative congress of bishops took place, which in history received the name of the Council.
At the head of the Russian hierarchy in the 80s was Metropolitan Isidore, who was first present at the Synod. He was born in 1799 in the family of a rural deacon of the Tula diocese. After graduating from the St. Petersburg Theological Academy in 1825 with a master's degree, he took monastic vows and was ordained as a hieromonk. Before the episcopal consecration, they will perform administrative and pedagogical obedience.
His priestly ministry continued for 58 years. Before his appointment to the St. Petersburg See in 1860, His Grace Isidore was Bishop of Polotsk, Exarch in Georgia, and Metropolitan of Kyiv. He was awarded the highest state and church awards, including the primate distinction - the right to perform services with the presentation of the cross. He was a man of great intelligence, hard work, tact, constant calm and evenness of spirit, the ability to get along with people and with fellow bishops, and with subordinate clergy, and with government officials. His rule was: “Seek nothing and refuse nothing.” A wise, careful, subtle church leader, he was also a remarkable spiritual writer, an expert on the Holy Scriptures, and the author of several exegetic works. After the blessed death of Metropolitan Philaret, His Grace Isidore took upon himself the main concern of translating the Bible into Russian. His charitable activities were also widespread. He was the chief trustee of the Imperial Humane Society. Metropolitan Isidore died at a ripe old age, in 1892.
Question 25. Russian monasticism in the 19th century: legal status, statistics, largest monasteries, internal structure of monastic life. Venerable Seraphim of Sarov and the Diveyevo Monastery.
In the 19th century, the Russian government had a different attitude towards monasteries compared to the 18th century. In popular piety, in Orthodoxy, in monasticism, the authorities learned to see one of the strongest spiritual supports of the state. Iterator Alexander 1 often visited Orthodox monasteries and talked with spiritually experienced ascetics and elders. In 1812, the monk of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, Abel, predicted the capture of Paris for him. He also visited the Valaam Monastery, where he talked with the famous ascetic elder Schemamonk Nicholas. Nicholas 1 and Alexander 3 treated the monasteries favorably.
Throughout the 19th century, new monasteries were opened and previously abolished monasteries were restored. In 1828, the Divnogorsk Assumption Monastery was restored in the Voronezh diocese, in 1844 - the Svyatogorsk Assumption Hermitage in Kharkov, in 1850 the Nilo-Sorsky Hermitage was restored, and in 1886 - the Mezhigorsky Monastery near Kiev. In 1881, the government transferred the right to renew and open new monasteries to the Synod.
The monastic staff of 1764 included 225 monasteries with 5105 monastics. But by 1907 there were already 970 monasteries (522 male monasteries with 24,144 residents, and 448 female monasteries with 65,989 residents). Thus, over the century the number of monasteries more than doubled, and the number of monastics from 1764 to 1907. increased almost 18 times.
Of the first-class monasteries, the four most famous were called Lavra - Kiev-Pecherskaya, Trinity-Sergius, Alecoandro-Nevskaya (since 1797) and Pochaevskaya Uspenskaya (since 1833). The abbots of the Laurels were local bishops, and they were governed by governors and spiritual councils. 7 monasteries were considered stauropegial and were under the jurisdiction of the Holy Synod: Novospassky, Simonov, Donskoy and Zaikonospassky in Moscow, Voskresensky in New Jerusalem, Solovetsky on the White Sea and Spaso-Yakovlevsky in Rostov the Great.
The financial situation of the monasteries was much more prosperous than in the first years after the secularization of church lands. Already by decree of 1805, monasteries received the right to acquire uninhabited plots of land as a gift and by will, but the purchase of land still required special permission from the highest authority each time, but the decree of 1835 granted diocesan sees and monasteries the right to purchase plots of up to 300 tithes The monasteries were given cash benefits and building materials from the treasury. Monasteries in the western regions of Russia, which suffered from Catholic and Uniate expansion, enjoyed particular advantage. Some monasteries were provided with special benefits. The Valaam monastery received the right to duty-free transportation of goods across the border.
The financial situation of the monasteries also improved thanks to donations from benefactors from different classes: especially from merchants. Merchants gave and bequeathed to the monasteries not only money, but also icons with gold and silver frames and stones, brocade vestments, bells, and built monastery churches and cell buildings at their own expense. Donations also came from wealthy landowners, and even more often from landowners. Countess Orlova-Chesmenskaya in 1848 bequeathed more than 1.5 million rubles to 340 monasteries; 5 thousand for each monastery. A considerable part of the monastery’s income was made up of voluntary donations from pious commoners, peasants, townspeople, and artisans.
While promoting the external improvement of monasteries, the spiritual authorities and the government issued decrees aimed at streamlining their internal life. These decrees provided for prudence in the acceptance of novices and tonsures, suppressed drunkenness, regulated the rule of leave for monastics, supported the communal rules, and prohibited collections of donations in entertainment establishments.
But the brightest light of the Sarov desert became the Monk Seraphim (in the world Prokhor Isidorovna Moshnin).
In the last years of his life, the elder took especially great care of the nuns of the Diveyevo monastery. While still in the rank of hierodeacon, he accompanied Father Pachomius on his trip to Diveevo, and Elder Pachomius then blessed him to take care of the “Diveevo orphans.” The Monk Seraphim spiritually cared for the sisters and helped them in everyday difficulties.
Through his exploits, filled with great love for God and people, he was honored to ascend to such spiritual heights that even in his outer appearance features appeared that conveyed a reflection of the radiance of the heavenly world. One pilgrim, healed by him, saw him standing in the air during prayer. A year and nine months before his repose, the monk was once again rewarded with a vision of the Queen of Heaven, accompanied by a host of saints. The Most Holy Virgin talked for a long time with the Monk Seraphim, entrusting the Diveyevo sisters to him. And at the end of the conversation She said, “Soon, My beloved, you will be with us.” In the last year of his earthly life, the saint was often seen kneeling at his coffin.
On Sunday, January 1, 1833, he communed the Holy Mysteries of Christ for the last time during the Liturgy, after which he blessed the brethren and said goodbye, “Save yourself, do not lose heart, stay awake, today our crowns are being prepared.” In his cell he sang Easter hymns, and the next day, at 6 o’clock in the morning, his cell attendant, passing by the Rev.’s cell, smelled burning. The holy ascetic always had candles burning in his cell, and he said: “As long as I am alive there will be no fire, but when I die, my death will be revealed by fire.” They opened the door, books and other things were smoldering, and the elder himself was kneeling in front of the icon of the Mother of God of Tenderness in a prayerful position, but already lifeless.
After his blessed death, Orthodox people came to Sarov with reverence to venerate the saint and pray at his grave. Through prayers to him, many manifestations of God's mercy were performed. On June 19, 1903, the transfer of the relics of St. Seraphim took place. The great prayer book and miracle worker was canonized as a saint of the Russian Church. “Son, give Me your heart,” He says, “and I myself will add everything else to you,” for the Kingdom of God can be contained in the human heart.” Such a prepared throne was the heart of the lamp of the Russian land, St. Seraphim.
Question 26. Church, social and educational activities of monasteries. Specialization of monasteries. Optina Pustyn, its significance in the history of Russian monasticism and in the spiritual life of Russian society.
In the 19th century, monasteries began construction work on a large scale: new spacious churches, brick cells and utility rooms, and hotels for pilgrims were erected. By the middle of the 19th century, only vague memories remained of the former poverty and ruin that Russian monasteries experienced in the 18th century.
The growing prosperity of the monasteries allowed them to carry out extensive charitable activities. They built schools for peasant children, opened children's and hospice houses, hospitals, and almshouses. The Trinity-Sergius Lavra, in addition to the usual charitable institutions, maintained icon-painting, singing and craft schools. Women's monasteries, the number of which increased significantly in the 19th century, were particularly zealous in their charitable deeds. In the first half of the century, religious enthusiasm captured a considerable part of the noble society, which led to an increase in tonsures among girls and widows of the nobility. After the reforms of the 60s, almost unhindered opportunities opened up for single peasant women freed from serfdom to enter monasteries. In the monastery, a peasant girl or widow found an environment close to her heart; monastic obediences were similar to her household chores.
Women's monasteries, as a rule, were poorer than men's. Even full-time monasteries received meager assistance from the state treasury, and most convents were registered as staff. Almost all new women's monasteries were created on the personal initiative of their founders. Many of them grew up from sister communities. These communities began with meetings of believing girls for some kind of needlework, which began and ended with prayer. Those who were literate read aloud the lives of saints and wrote other soul-helping things. Over time, these pious “gatherings” formed a community with sisters living together, and the common prayer grew into a statutory service, to which priests from nearby parishes were invited. Finally, the blueberry sisters turned to the bishop or the Synod with a petition to transform the community into a monastery. Long troubles began: quite often the spiritual authorities had suspicions whether the community was infected with sectarian sentiments. When these suspicions were dispelled and the efforts were crowned with success, some sisters were tonsured into the robe or ryassophore, while others remained novices. The initial funds for the newly founded monastery were donations from wealthy donors or the founders themselves,
So in 1823, the Boriso-Gleb Monastery arose in the village of Anosine near Moscow. Its founder was Princess Evdokia Meshcherskaya, who, having become a widow two months after her marriage, gathered pious peasant women around her for common labors and prayers. Under her leadership, Anosin, the Boriso-Gleb Monastery became famous for the high ascetic life of the sisters and the wide scope of charity.
In a similar way, the Spaso-Borodinsky Monastery arose, founded by M.M. Tuchkova, the widow of the famous general, who became famous in the Patriotic War of 1812.
Some of the communities were founded under the influence of elders. The founder of the Dmitrievsky convent in the village of Troekurov, Tambov diocese, was a desert-dweller, Elder Ilarnon (Fokin). The Kazan Diveyevo community, established back in 1780, as well as the “Mill” girls’ community, founded by the saint himself, were under the care of the Venerable Seraphim of Sarov. Elder Ambrose of Optina was the founder and spiritual father of the sister community in Shamordin.
The scope of charitable activities of all Russian monasteries in general is evidenced by the following statistical information: in 1887, the monasteries maintained 94 hospitals and 66 shelters for the elderly. two-thirds of these institutions were nunneries. And yet, charity did not and could not constitute the main content of monastic asceticism.
In the 19th century, monasticism experienced a genuine spiritual revival. After a series of disasters that befell the monasteries under Peter 1, Anna and Catherine 2, they again rose from ruin as centers of spiritual life, as living witnesses to the otherworldliness and holiness of the Church. Under the spiritual guidance of the disciples of the “wonderful old man” Paisius, ascetic asceticism was revived in the ancient Valaam monastery, in Sarov and Optina, in the Glinsk and Sanaksar hermitages, in the Novozersky and Nikolo-Babaevsky monasteries. Eldership took root in many monasteries, and the influence of the elders went far beyond the monastery walls, exerting a beneficial influence on the life of all layers of Russian society. Many hierarch-monks contributed to the revival of ascetic asceticism in monasteries.
Kiev Metropolitan Filaret (in the world Fedor Georgievich Amfitheatrov) was distinguished by his special love for monasticism. The Right Reverend Philaret also occupied the Kazan and Yaroslavl departments. In 1837, he became the successor of the deceased Nevsky Metropolitan Eugene. He was, perhaps, the first of the Russian bishops to understand the gracious meaning of eldership serving the world and, contrary to the prejudices of many of his brethren, who saw eldership as an encroachment on the hierarchical opening of the Church, he encouraged the elders in every possible way. Even when he was Bishop of Kaluga, he did a lot to root the elders in the Optina Hermitage, which was under his jurisdiction. In Kyiv, Metropolitan Philaret maintained close spiritual communication with the famous Pechersk ascetic, schema-monk Parthenius.
Alexander II also turned to the assistance of the influential Metropolitan of Moscow Philaret (in the world – Vasily Mikhailovich Drozdov, 1783–1867). He was a highly educated and independent-minded outstanding church leader and writer; he was considered a recognized authority in canonical and church-administrative matters. From 1817 - Bishop of Revel, from 1819 - Bishop of Yaroslavl, from 1821 until his death he headed the Moscow diocese. It was to him that Alexander I entrusted an important secret matter in 1823 - to draw up a manifesto on the transfer of the throne to Nikolai Pavlovich, bypassing Tsarevich Constantine. Under Nicholas I, Philaret was elevated to the rank of metropolitan and included in the permanently present members of the Holy Synod. However, Filaret did not like dignitary Petersburg and almost constantly lived in Moscow. Here, in addition to fulfilling his pastoral duties, he was engaged in literary activities, but mainly in translating the Bible into Russian. His brilliant sermons enjoyed great success, for which he was nicknamed the “Moscow Chrysostom.” Published in 1845, the collection of Philaret's sermons was translated into French and German. Filaret respected A.S. Pushkin.
Alexander II listened to the opinion of Filaret, as the most authoritative figure of the Russian Orthodox Church. From him, Filaret received a responsible assignment - drawing up the Manifesto of February 19, 1861, which proclaimed the abolition of serfdom. For this, the king awarded him a gold medal.
Knowing about Filaret’s influence on Alexander I, opponents of the peasant reform (during its preparation) asked him to “dissuade” the monarch from carrying it out. But to Filaret’s credit, he responded with a decisive refusal under the pretext that this was not within the scope of the responsibilities of the church hierarch. At the same time, in order to “calm down” the peasants in the conditions of the upcoming reform, Filaret drew up a special instruction for the parish clergy “On the duties of priests in the troubled days ahead.” According to this instruction, the priests were obliged to instill in the peasants that they should patiently await the royal will, carefully fulfill their duties, and not disobey under the threat of excommunication. In addition, the text of the sermon compiled by Philaret was sent to the parishes, with which the priests, after reading the Manifesto on February 19, 1861, were supposed to address the parishioners.
Among the reforms carried out in the 60s and 70s of the 19th century, church reforms also occupy a prominent place in Russia. They were not even mentioned previously either in general works on the reign of Alexander II, or in special studies devoted to the reforms carried out during his reign. True, earlier church historians, in their studies about the parish clergy, spiritual education, etc., also touched on these subjects. Among the “secular” historians, S.V. specially developed this topic. Rimsky in his doctoral dissertation. However, the author limited himself primarily to studying changes in the position of the parish clergy, the system of religious education, church administration and the court, without touching, for example, on the significant issue of changes in the position of the Old Believers.
Church reforms are in connection with other reforms carried out by the tsarist government in the context of the socio-political upsurge of the 50s and 60s of the 19th century. in the country.
The immediate reason for the start of church reforms, primarily in changing the status of the parish clergy, was the following circumstance. In 1858 in Leipzig, with the assistance of the historian M.P. Pogodin published a book by the parish priest of the Kalyazinsky district of the Tver province Ivan Bellustin (without indicating the author’s name) “Description of the Rural Clergy”. In 1858–1859 it was republished in Paris and London both in Russian and in translation into German and French, which made it possible for the general European public to become familiar with it. (For the main fragments of this book, see Appendix 3.4.) Despite the measures of the Russian authorities against the penetration of the book into Russia, it became widespread in the country and created a sensation. Alexander II also read this book. Bellustin’s book gave an impressive picture of the humiliated position of the parish, especially rural, clergy: their difficult material life, “all kinds of oppression, injustice, insults” that they had to experience from the spiritual and secular authorities. Bellustin came to the conclusion about the need for “radical reforms for the entire clergy” to raise the social status of the priest and significantly improve his financial situation, to introduce the principle of election to all clergy positions. The parish clergy, according to contemporaries, reacted to Bellustin’s book with sympathy, noting that “everything stated in it is true.”
At the turn of the 50s and 60s of the 19th century. In the church and secular periodicals, a lively discussion took place regarding the position of the Orthodox Church, its responsibility to society, and the raising of the material and moral level of the clergy. Questions were raised about overcoming bureaucratization in management, giving the Church greater independence, i.e. less dependence on the guardianship and control of secular authorities, the transformation of parish life, the introduction of religious tolerance, and finally, the range of issues of improving the system of theological education. The government itself was aware of the need to resolve these pressing problems.
The development of church reforms was entrusted to the highest departments of the central government - the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Holy Synod. It was decided to start with transforming the status of the parish clergy. In August 1861, Minister of Internal Affairs P.A. Valuev presented to Alexander II, previously agreed upon with the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, Prince A.P. Tolstoy secret report “On the transformation of the life of the clergy.” Moscow Metropolitan Filaret was also involved in the discussion of the report. Alexander II and Filaret approved the main ideas of Valuev’s report. On September 22, 1861, Valuev presented the emperor with a more detailed plan, the essence of which was to put an end to the casteism and isolation of the Russian Orthodox clergy, “bring it closer” to the rest of the classes, and raise its material and moral level. Valuev also proposed to include the “first present” members of the Synod in the State Council in order to attract the highest hierarchs of the church to participate in the political life of the country.
On November 24, 1861, Alexander II ordered the formation of a special Committee to develop church reforms. The Tsar’s brother, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, was placed at the head of the Committee. The work of the Committee was based on Valuev’s new report on church reforms presented in January 1862. It dealt not only with the legal status of the parish clergy, but also with the system of spiritual education and the attitude towards the Old Believers; The question of attracting parishioners to participate in the economic life of the parish church was also included. However, Konstantin Nikolaevich’s disagreement with Valuev’s program slowed down the matter. In May 1862, Konstantin Nikolaevich was appointed viceroy of the Tsar in Poland, and the main obstacle to Valuev’s project was removed; in June 1862 Valuev presented the project to Alexander II. On June 28, it was approved by the Council of Ministers, on October 6, approved by the Synod, then followed by the order of the emperor to form a “Special Presence” from the ecclesiastical secular persons at the Synod to find ways to better ensure the life of the clergy. It included all members of the Synod, ministers of internal affairs and state property, head of the III department, Prince V.A. Dolgorukov and the director of the Spiritual Educational Directorate of the Synod, Prince S.N. Urusov. Metropolitan Isidore of St. Petersburg was appointed Chairman of the Presence. Subsequently, it received the name of the Main Presence; provincial presences headed by diocesan bishops were created locally.
On January 17, 1863, the Main Presence opened its meetings and on March 21 approved the program of measures proposed by Valuev. Based on Valuev’s program, the Main Presence prepared a number of acts, which were subsequently approved by the emperor and issued in the form of decrees and resolutions.
On May 8, 1864, the statute “On the Rules for the Establishment of Orthodox Brotherhoods” was published. The creation of spiritual associations (“brotherhoods”) for preaching and missionary activities was envisaged (they were created mainly in the western provinces as a counterweight to the growing influence of Catholicism and Uniatism there). The parish clergy was entrusted with the responsibility of teaching rural children to read and write.
But the Main Presence set its primary task to revitalize the life of the church parish with the “Regulations on parish trustees in Orthodox churches” dated August 2, 1864. The “Regulations” provided for “care for the improvement and welfare of the parish church and the clergy in economic terms” and was filled with many good intentions . The duties of the trustees included: “maintenance and satisfaction of the needs of the parish church, raising funds for the repair and construction of church buildings, establishing schools, hospitals, almshouses, shelters and other charitable institutions, helping poor parishioners, burying the poor dead, maintaining cemeteries, as well as seeing that the parish clergy can take advantage of all the means provided to them for its maintenance.”
The “Regulation” provided for voluntary donations as the main source of funds for the trustees, but also recognized as legal the obligatory collection from those parishioners who drew up and accepted the verdict on it. The trusteeship received the right to petition the relevant authorities and organizations for the issuance of benefits to the poor by the treasury, spiritual or other departments.
The collection of donations was carried out separately for three types of their purpose: 1) in favor of the parish clergy itself, 2) for the improvement of the church and 3) for school and charitable institutions, without allowing these funds to be mixed at all.
Parish trustees were elected by a general meeting of parishioners by a simple majority of votes. In this case, the guardianship certainly had to include a priest and a village elder (in a volost parish - a volost elder). All matters (decisions, assignment of expenses, reporting, etc.) had to be conducted publicly. Every year, the trusteeship reported “the amounts and property in charge” to the general meeting of parishioners. Parishioners could appoint an audit commission to check the amounts spent. Church and parish guardianship enjoyed independence within the framework of its competence, and to resolve controversial issues it could turn to the diocesan bishop.
Church-parish trustees were created slowly (until 1882) and extremely unevenly across dioceses: in some dioceses they managed to create dozens and hundreds (in Samara - 177, in Podolsk - 266), and in others - just a few. According to S.V. Rimsky, there were parish trustees: in 1867 - 4048, in 1868 - 5327, in 1869 - 6870, in 1872 - 8873, in 1873 - 9257, in 1879 - 11616, in 1881 - 11950, in 1882 - 12074, 1883 - 11733, in 1894 - 14564, while some of the previously created trustees ceased to exist. “In general,” points out S.V. Roman, - during the years of reform, the number of trustees did not reach even a third of the total number of parish churches.” In 1868, the trustees collected 506.5 thousand rubles for church and parish needs; in 1883, this amount increased to 2 million 245.6 thousand rubles, but in 1868 less than 100 rubles fell per parish, in 1883 - 191.4 rubles, in 1894 - 2.8 million rubles, which was clearly not enough to fulfill those material and charitable responsibilities that were assigned to trustees by the “Regulation” of August 2, 1864. It is characteristic that they most willingly donated to the decoration and maintenance of churches (75%) and least of all to the maintenance of parishes (8%). The rest of the donations went to charitable activities in the parish.
At the end of the 60s, a number of decrees were issued that determined the legal status of the clergy. By decree of February 22, 1867, the long-established rule of hereditary transfer of parish church positions was abolished. As for the children of the clergy, the law “On the placement of children of the Orthodox clergy”, issued on May 26, 1869, defined their status as follows: “Children of the Orthodox clergy do not belong to the clergy, appearing only for information in the service records of their fathers,” and they were ordered to “belong to an urban or rural society.” However, the rights of these children to education in religious educational institutions, to appointment as clergy and clergy, to benefits from parish trustees remained “on the same basis.” They were exempt from poll tax and conscription. Thus, from now on not being considered persons of “clerical rank,” they retained its rights and benefits. Children of priests and deacons were given the freedom to choose a profession in government or military service.
The law of July 11, 1869 officially abolished the inheritance of clergy from fathers to children. According to the same law, church watchmen, sextons, psalm-readers, and other clergymen who remained on staff during the reduction of parishes, were expelled from the clergy. Thus, the caste structure of the clergy was significantly undermined, but in practice was not destroyed. Due to deep-rooted tradition, the heredity of the clergy continued to exist: the eldest sons of clergy continued to retain the places of their fathers. Thus, the clergy continued to be replenished with children of the clergy, and the influx of people from other classes into the clergy was minimal. In theological educational institutions, children of the clergy again predominated.
There was also a slight reduction in the number of parishes and parish clergy. On April 16, 1869, the regulation “On the composition of parishes and church clergy” was published. It provided for a revision of parish boundaries and a change in the composition of clergy in all dioceses of the country. It was planned to reduce parishes and equalize them according to the number of parishioners. It was intended to abolish small, sparsely populated parishes by merging them with others. When parishes merged, one of the churches was considered the “main parish church,” and the church of the abolished parish was “attached” to it. With the revision of parish boundaries, a new staffing table was introduced. Each main church was supposed to have only two clergy: a rector (priest) and a cleric with the rank of psalm-reader. In parishes with at least 1 thousand male parishioners, the rector was supposed to have two clergymen to help. If the parish turned out to be numerous, with a large number of settlements far from the church, then “assistant rectors” or, as they were called, “junior priests” were appointed to help the rector of the parish: newly ordained priests were usually appointed among these. The principle of “graduality” was introduced: the places of rectors, junior priests, deacons and psalm-readers were replaced by those who had served in their previous positions (of a lower rank) for at least three to four years. The age limit was also strictly observed: only those who had reached 25 years of age were to be ordained as psalm-readers and deacons, and, if possible, no younger than 30 years old, to the priesthood. For widowed and unmarried people, the qualification increased to 40 years.
The regulation of April 16, 1869 was introduced slowly, meeting resistance from both the parish clergy and parishioners. In most dioceses it was introduced in 1873–1878. and in fact did not live up to the expected results. Summing up the results of this reform, S.V. Rimsky, in his study of the church reforms of Alexander II, comes to the conclusion: “Despite the planned large-scale changes, only the number of the clergy decreased, and even then mainly due to the clergy. The number of parishes actually decreased very slightly - from 31,568 in 1870 to 31,119 in 1879. That is, we can talk not so much about a reduction as about freezing the number of parishes, with an increase in parishioners in each of them.” Considering the increase in the Orthodox population over these years by 7 million people, the average number of parishes increased from 1800 to 2000 believers.
Due to the reduction in the number of white clergy, the government allowance to the parish priest increased from 144 to 240 rubles. per year, and retired priests were given a pension of 90 rubles. per year, for widows of priests - from 65 (with children) to 55 (childless) rubles. in year. The clergy, as before, did not receive any government remuneration. These meager “extras” could not solve the problems of material support for the parish clergy, whose main source of livelihood continued to be payments for services.
A number of changes occurred in church administration. In 1867, the division of dioceses into three “classes” (bishoprics, archbishoprics and metropolitanates) was abolished. However, the Moscow, St. Petersburg and Kiev dioceses retained their significance as “first”, at the head of which only metropolitans were placed. All diocesan bishops received some independence: the right to build churches without the sanction of the Synod, give permission to enter the monastic rank, and independently resolve issues of spiritual education within their dioceses. In 1869, new consistories were approved and allocations for their maintenance were tripled. In the dioceses, the practice of choosing deans by the parish clergy themselves was restored, and dean councils (headed by deans) were formed. The clergy received the right to gather at congresses at three levels: deanery, school (according to school districts) and diocesan.
Since 1863, a revision of the system of training parish priests began, which was associated with a change in the status of the parish clergy and at the same time necessitated a reform of theological education.
In 1863, graduates of theological seminaries were officially allowed to enter universities (however, in practice this was done before). In 1864, children of the clergy were allowed to enroll in gymnasiums, and in 1867 - in military schools; At the same time, this also provided the opportunity to leave the clergy. At the same time, children of other classes, according to the decree of 1867, were allowed to enter religious educational institutions and in the future receive priestly positions and thus enter the clergy class (see Chapter 4, §5).
In the 60s of the 19th century, the persecution that the Old Believers were subjected to under Nicholas I ceased. The liberal public advocated in the press for the legalization of the “schism,” which believed that since the Old Believers do not violate state laws, persecution against them is illegal, moreover, it leads to the opposite results - they embitter the persecuted, provoke conflicts, and are also ineffective, because one cannot act with brute force against ideas, teachings, faith, and the persecuted themselves acquire an aura of martyrdom.
In 1864, the Committee on “Schismatic Affairs” was established. The “Rules” developed by him and approved in 1875 legalized a significant part of the Old Believers, who were given the right to freely conduct their worship, as well as travel abroad. Old Believer metric records of births (baptisms), marriages (weddings), and deaths (funerals) were recognized as having legal force. Old Believers were allowed to engage in icon painting (for their own needs), establish their own literacy schools, and hold some public (but not government) positions. But these rights did not extend to the Old Believer talk recognized as “harmful” (for example, to the Khlysty, Skoptsy, “runners” or “wanderers”), as well as to the sects: Doukhobors, Molokans, Subbotniks, Filippovtsy, Pomeranians, etc., which did not recognize only ecclesiastical, but also secular power with its regulations. But in 1875 a circular was issued against further “relaxations” for the Old Believers.
In 1870, preparations began for the reform of the church court. It was intended that all court cases on church issues be removed from the jurisdiction of diocesan bishops and transferred to specially created church courts. However, this case dragged on. In 1880, the new chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, K.P. Pobedonostsev opposed this reform.
Church transformations of the 60s–0s of the 19th century. monasteries were practically not affected. As soon as the conditions for those wishing to become a monk were more clearly defined, the task was set of transferring monasteries from non-communal to communal monasteries, with more strict rules of monastic life (see about this in Chapter 3. “Monasteries and Monasticism”). However, in the liberal press of the 70s, opinions were expressed about a radical transformation of the monasteries and their significant reduction. For example, in the article “Our Monasteries” it was proposed “to leave only a few monasteries, in which to introduce a truly ascetic life, depriving them, as hermit societies, of enormous wealth.” In the article “The Question of the Reform of Monasteries,” an opinion was expressed about the transformation of monasteries into secular charitable institutions, where monastic vows of an ascetic nature, formally required of monks, would have no place at all.”
As a result, church reforms under Alexander II somewhat revived the activities of the Russian Orthodox Church and softened the bureaucratic shackles that constrained it. However, they were shallow, since they did not touch upon the fundamental issues of governing the church and its relationship with secular authorities; moreover, they were inconsistent and incomplete.
In 1881 I.S. Aksakov (publisher of the newspaper “Rus”) and A.M. Ivantsov-Platonov (publisher of Sovremennye Izvestia) raised the question of further implementation of church reforms. First of all, they insisted on restoring the principle of “conciliarity” in the Russian Orthodox Church - the transfer of power in the church at all levels to the “conciliar”, i.e. elected representative bodies with the participation of the laity in them, the introduction of the election of priests and even bishops. These proposals were also supported by other representatives of the secular and church press. However, these statements remained good wishes.
2. Confessional policy under Alexander III.
The role of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod K .
P. Pobedonostseva
Under Alexander III, confessional policy was determined by professor of civil law K.P., appointed by Alexander II in April 1880 as Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. Pobedonostsev (1827–1907). He held this post for 25 years. Pobedonostsev was the son of a Moscow parish priest (later a professor of literature at Moscow University). His father gave him an excellent education. Contemporaries spoke about the young K.P. Pobedonostsev as a man of “quiet, modest disposition, pious,” with a versatile education and a subtle mind. He was predicted to have a brilliant career. His father prepared him for the priesthood, but his son chose a different path. After graduating from the School of Law in 1846, K.P. Pobedonostsev began serving in one of the Moscow departments of the Senate. In 1859 he became a professor at Moscow University. His course “Civil Law”, published in five editions, was a reference book for lawyers. He declared himself as a talented publicist and writer of liberal views. His pamphlets, in which he advocated glasnost and condemned the Nicholas era, were published abroad by A.I. Herzen. In the early 60s, Pobedonostsev took an active part in the development of judicial reform, defending the principles of an independent court, openness of legal proceedings and competitiveness of the judicial process. Since 1861, Pobedonostsev taught law to the heir to the throne, Nikolai Alexandrovich, and after his death, the new heir Alexander Alexandrovich (the future Alexander III) and the other children of Alexander II, the future Emperor Nicholas II, and at the same time taught civil law at Moscow University. In 1865, he left his professorship at Moscow University and finally moved to St. Petersburg, devoting himself entirely to public service. In 1868 he became a senator, and in 1872 - a member of the State Council. According to the famous lawyer A.F. Horses, Pobedonostsev’s speeches in the Senate and State Council made a great impression on listeners with their logic, clarity and power of persuasion.
In those years, Pobedonostsev was also involved in scientific and journalistic activities. He published several scientific and journalistic books, translations, documentary collections, and many articles on history and jurisprudence. The French Academy and all Russian universities elected him an honorary doctor of law.
By the end of the 70s, there was a turn in Pobedonostsev’s views towards reaction. After the assassination of Alexander II by Narodnaya Volya on March 1, 1881, he found himself at the center of the country's political life and significantly influenced the political course of Alexander III. Pobedonostsev was the author of the tsar’s manifesto on April 29, 1881, “On the Inviolability of Autocracy.”
Pobedonostsev attached great importance to the personal factor, following the principle: “People, not institutions.” He sought to resolve all matters related to the spiritual department alone. Here he relied on the local episcopate, strictly subordinating the parish clergy and religious educational institutions in the dioceses to it. The role of diocesan consistories has increased. The previous number of church parishes and church clergy was restored.
Pobedonostsev emphasized that the Orthodox Church was called upon to play a huge, if not decisive, role in strengthening the autocracy. In Orthodoxy, he pointed out, “the root of the entire life of the people, the main keys of all good and truth on earth.” Pobedonostsev firmly adhered to the position of an inextricable connection between the Church and the state. While serving as Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod for 25 years, he reduced its role as a collegial institution to a minimum, taking into his own hands all matters of higher church administration. The clergy, not without reason, regarded this as Pobedonostsev’s “autocracy.” Synod official A.N. Lvov wrote in 1891: “The entire center of gravity is not in the Synod, but in its office; whatever the manager wants to do, that’s what will happen.” Pobedonostsev often changed the composition of those present at the Synod in order to make it more “obedient.” The Synod bishops truly became “extras” in the Synod.
In his activities as chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Pobedonostsev went far beyond the confessional problems of the Russian Orthodox Church: he delved into issues of secular education, science, literature and art, monitored periodicals and even the repertoire of theaters. He continuously sent instructions to take measures against the “licentiousness” of the press. Under him, the number of church publications and circulation of spiritual literature increased. He himself often took up the pen and published his works in large editions; was a talented critic, but did not offer a positive program, because he opposed any changes.
Pobedonostsev sought to “raise the moral level” of the population, to “re-educate” them in the spirit of strict Christian rules - to the point of banning theatrical performances during Lent, the wearing of wreaths and the use of music at funerals.
Under him, the diocesan clergy was placed under strict control. Pobedonostsev entrusted “trusted” persons with supervision of the bishops. These persons sent to the dioceses were supposed to be with the bishops and send confidential reports to the chief prosecutor about their behavior. He carried out frequent transfers of diocesan bishops. It is estimated that for 1881–1894. 180 such movements were carried out. Some bishops were subjected to these “transfers” up to three or more times. Pobedonostsev sent obstinate archpastors to provincial dioceses - to Siberia, the Far East or Alaska, which caused deep discontent among the episcopate.
The church reforms carried out under Alexander II were revised. On January 9, 1882, Alexander III signed a “decree” on the termination of the law on April 16, 1869 on reducing the number of parish churches and clergy. Previous parishes were restored and new ones were created. During 1881–1894 An average of 250 new churches and 10 monasteries were opened annually. On February 16, 1885, the tsar issued a decree “On the closure of the [Main] Presence for the Affairs of the Orthodox Clergy and on the change of certain regulations concerning the organization of church parishes and the composition of clergy.” This law allowed diocesan bishops to open previously closed parishes and create new ones. The law of February 16, 1885 abolished the division of priests into parish rectors and assistant rectors, as well as clerics into psalm-readers and performing psalm-readers.
Pobedonostsev did a lot to strengthen the influence of the Orthodox Church on the life of society. He believed that, in addition to its own liturgical activities, it should have developed other forms of activity. He stimulated the establishment of church brotherhoods and activated the church press.
He attached great importance to church sermons, extra-liturgical interviews of priests with their parishioners, the organization of church charity, as well as holding celebrations during the celebration of church anniversaries: in 1881–1894. 17 of them were held, including the 1000th anniversary of the death of Cyril and Methodius, the 900th anniversary of the baptism of Rus', the 500th anniversary of the death of Sergius of Radonezh, the 50th anniversary of the reunification of the Uniates with the Russian Orthodox Church, the 100th anniversary of Orthodoxy in North America.
In the 80-90s there was a revival of the Byzantine style in church architecture and painting. Much attention was paid to expanding church publications for the people, establishing libraries at churches, organizing church charity, and establishing church brotherhoods, especially in the western provinces of Russia, designed to counteract Catholicism.
In 1883, a new statute for consistories was introduced, strengthening their administrative and disciplinary role in the dioceses. In 1884–1885 New charters of theological educational institutions were published, abolishing elections in seminaries and introducing the positions of confessors who performed supervisory functions.
Pobedonostsev was of the opinion that it was impossible to elevate the role of the Church without the assistance of secular power. “There is no need to deceive yourself,” he wrote in 1883, “our spiritual without secular ones are powerless.” Contemporaries noted the enormously increased power of Pobedonostsev as chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod.
A well-known church publicist of that time, A.M. Ivantsov-Platonov, wrote that “the chief prosecutor is currently the highest head and ruler of the Russian Church,” having “such power that no patriarch can have.” He is “not limited by anything, except that by imperial power” he has “more power than a minister in any ministry.” The publicist expressed a lot of unflattering words about the existing management procedures in the Synod itself. “The management of the Synod can hardly be called pastoral-ecclesiastical, and most likely should be called official, bureaucratic, like the management of other government departments.” He also noted that the highest secular officials in the Synod have a “predominant importance” in comparison with the episcopate present in it, which constantly feels the “accident,” the “unsteadiness” of its position; pointed to “the dominance of bureaucracy and paperwork from top to bottom, soulless official formalism”, to “the abnormally increasing importance of secular bureaucracy in the diocesan administration to the detriment of the importance of the spiritual administration itself.”
Pobedonostsev sought to raise the religiosity of Russian society. Although he cared about increasing the influence of the Church, it was his actions that fettered the initiative of the Church and lowered its prestige, undermined its authority among the people, i.e. led to the opposite results. Pobedonostsev needed only a priest “executor of demands”, and not an enlightened shepherd. This led to a diminishment of the role of the clergy. As the famous church writer and historian Archpriest Georgy Florensky wrote, “a reduced type of Orthodox churchliness was taking shape, simplified and very weakened.”
In the late 70s - early 90s of the 19th century, as Georgy Florovsky noted, “the return of the intelligentsia began to a time when religious inquisitiveness became more acute.” Pobedonostsev in every possible way opposed the spiritual contacts of the intelligentsia with the people, with, and dialogue with them. He closed the Societies of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment that arose in the 70s and 80s in Moscow and St. Petersburg, in which there were representatives of the highest circles of the capital and part of the professors (mainly theological academies). As noted by N.P. Gilyarov-Platonov and G. Florovsky, Pobedonostsev did not want to go beyond “applied semi-enlightenment”, “did not want the creative renewal of the Church.” “He was afraid that religious enlightenment would lead to Protestantism and freethinking.”
In connection with the development of the labor movement in the 70–90s. secular authorities demanded that the Orthodox Church provide assistance in the fight against the influence of populist and then social democratic propaganda on the working environment.
On the initiative of Pobedonostsev and the editor of Moskovskie Vedomosti M.N. Katkov in the early 80s in St. Petersburg, at St. Isaac's Cathedral, a special society was created to publish clerical-patriotic literature and distribute it free of charge among workers. During the famous Morozov strike of weavers in the Vladimir province in January 1885, clerical circles, with the blessing of the Synod and with the support of local authorities, distributed leaflets among the workers, which spoke of the “vacillations” that had arisen among the people, the need to “respect the law” and that all kinds of encroachments on state foundations are among the most serious sins; The text of the leaflets ended with a call to repentance.
In the 80s, spiritual censorship became stricter, and counter-reforms were carried out in the system of religious education. Since 1884, on the initiative of Pobedonostsev, parochial schools began to be intensively established, headed by the parish clergy and subordinate directly to the Holy Synod (about these schools, see Chapter 5. “System of Theological Education”).
Law of 1883 on Old Believers and measures against the spread of rationalist sects
In multinational Russia, although the Orthodox Church was “dominant and preeminent,” its influence did not extend to tens of millions professing Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Judaism, as well as Old Believers of various persuasions and sectarians who “fell away from Orthodoxy.” In the statistics of that time, the division of the population was not based on nationality, but on religious grounds (moreover, every Orthodox person was considered Russian!). The bulk of ethnic Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, and a number of peoples of the Volga region and the Urals (with the exception of Tatars, Bashkirs and Kalmyks) professed Orthodoxy.
According to the annual reports of the Synod, in 1840 the Orthodox population in Russia numbered 44 million people, in I860 - 52 million, in 1890 - 72.1 million. The share of the Orthodox population in Russia for these years was approximately 70–80%. Accurate information about the number of people of various faiths was obtained by the All-Russian Population Census of 1897. Of the 125.7 million people of both sexes (excluding Finland), there were: Orthodox 8,738,4480 people (about 70% of the total population), Old Believers - 2,173,738 (not included here) co-religionists included in the Orthodox population), Catholics - 10,420,927, Protestants - 3,743,200, other Christian denominations (representatives of various sects) - 1,121,516, Muslims - 13,829,421, Jews - 5,189,404, pagans - 655,503.
In the 1980s, a rather flexible policy was pursued towards the Old Believers. On May 3, 1883, a new law on Old Believers was issued. He confirmed the decree of 1875, which abolished many of the restrictions of Nicholas's reign, and even provided for new relaxations. Old Believers, in addition to the “harmful” talk (skoptsy, runners, khlysty, etc.), received a number of civil rights: to engage in industry and trade, to receive passports on a general basis. They were allowed to perform “public prayers and services,” including in specially constructed houses of worship, to open new prayer buildings, but with the permission of the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod and the Minister of Internal Affairs, to repair old ones, with the permission of the governor, but it was forbidden to erect bell towers.
In those areas where Old Believers made up the majority of the population (in the Urals, Novorossiya, Transcaucasia, Taurida and Arkhangelsk provinces), Old Believers were allowed to participate in elections and in holding public positions, but with the condition that they be placed “not in high positions, Moreover, their deputies must be Orthodox or fellow believers.” At the same time, strict supervision was established over the activities of Old Believers elected to public positions.
The 1883 law did not recognize the “schismatic spiritual hierarchy.” At the same time, he pointed out the danger of the spread of the schism: “Taking advantage of the favorable conditions of action among the dark, ignorant mass of schismatics, under a thick veil of secrecy, outside of any publicity, the leaders of the schism, on the one hand, hold the entire spiritual flock in despotic hands, and on the other hand , are dangerous rivals in the face of the Orthodox clergy who want to compete with them on equal terms in matters of spiritual leadership of the Russian people.” In this regard, it was recognized that this was a serious force against the government’s activities to “reunite with the Orthodox Church those who were lost and who had fallen into schism.” The law did not recognize the Old Believer clergy (mentors and leaders) as their spiritual titles, as a result of which they were forbidden to preach their faith. The official organ of the Synod, the Church Bulletin, frankly stated: “If schismatics are allowed to act unhindered, to open their churches everywhere, then the ancient Orthodoxy will then expand, and real Orthodoxy will narrow, be limited in scope, and what good will it take such a position as it occupies in ours? western outskirts."
The law of 1883 limited the charitable and educational activities of the Old Believers, which were considered as propaganda, with the goal of seducing them into schism. The activities of schismatic teachers and the entire system of education in schismatic schools were prohibited. However, these schools and teachers still continued their activities, but in deep secrecy. According to the law of 1883, although the Old Believers were allowed to “perform public prayer and fulfill spiritual needs according to their rituals both in private homes and in buildings specially designed for this purpose,” they were forbidden to call them churches. Although the law allowed “to correct and restore chapels and other prayer buildings belonging to them that are falling into disrepair,” however, “the external appearance of the buildings should not be changed,” i.e. “should not have the appearance of a temple,” for this would be a “public demonstration” of the schismatic faith. But since both the “correction” and the restoration of schismatic prayer buildings required permission from the authorities, this created the ground for the corruption of the latter. The law of 1883 allowed, in exceptional cases, the unsealing of prayer buildings sealed under Nicholas I, again with the permission of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which coordinated its permission with the Synod. The printing of monasteries (Old Believer monasteries) was strictly prohibited. The schismatics were forbidden to perform religious processions and public processions (the public wearing of their icons, with the exception of burials), for this was considered as “acts of public display of schism.” The strict ban on public propaganda of one's creed remained in full force. It was forbidden to wear one’s church vestments (monastic and priestly vestments) outside one’s home and place of worship, as well as “public schismatic chants in the streets and squares.”
In 1898, the Ministry of War obtained royal permission for persons from the Old Believers and other faiths to enter military service (if this was not prohibited by their religious rules), as well as “as an exception and for outstanding merit” to promote them to officer ranks.
Despite the preservation of a number of previous restrictions listed in the law of 1883, it still favored the revival of the activities of the Old Believers, which the church press wrote about with alarm. Thus, in 1884, the “Church Bulletin” reported: “In general, at present, the Old Believers feel very good and behave very boldly - they build chapels, arrange altars, their priests walk around with long hair and almost the same clothes that they wear Orthodox priests send out special missionaries to seduce Orthodox Christians into schism, without any fear of responsibility for seduction.” It was indicated that in just one year (since the decree was issued in 1883), the Old Believers-priests built 80 new chapels, “and in Zamoskvorechye even a residence for their bishop.”
Church and secular authorities noted with alarm the further spread of the “schism” in the 80s. The decision of the bishops’ council, held in July 1885 in Kazan specifically to develop measures to combat the spread of schism, said: “The schism exists in all the dioceses entrusted to us and is easily born to the Orthodox children, and therefore, with our archpastoral title, we consider it obligatory for us to apply for our part, labors towards his healing.” The Council demanded that special attention be paid to the preparation of Orthodox priests qualified in the fight against schism, well-read, possessing the necessary knowledge and polemical experience in disputes with schismatics. It was indicated that the parish priest should be an example for parishioners with his moral behavior, decency and, in general, his entire appearance. Priests were ordered to perform services in churches with special solemnity, attracting believers with the “greatness of Orthodox worship,” and to deliver “profound sermons in order to show the wisdom of the Orthodox religion.” Priests should be among parishioners more often and during off-duty hours, explaining to them the meaning of religious dogmas. It was assumed that the service itself, solemn according to all the rules, should distract believers from attempts to go into schism.
But an even greater danger for the Russian Orthodox Church was posed by the particularly widespread various kinds of rationalistic sects, the followers of which were people not only from the “common people,” but also representatives of the intelligentsia and the aristocratic elite.
The Old Believers attached paramount importance to rituals, or more precisely, to adherence to old rituals, in which they saw the essence of preserving “ancient piety.” In essence, they had no dogmatic differences with the dominant Orthodox Church. New, sectarian-type Christian denominations emphasized reason, which is why they are usually called “rationalistic.” They, on the contrary, practically rejected all rituals or reduced them to a minimum. Therefore, their divergence from the Orthodox Church was mainly on the basis of dogma.
Here it is necessary to give at least a brief description of the most significant rationalist sects, which became especially widespread in Russia in the post-reform era and posed the greatest danger to the Orthodox Church and secular authorities because they preached ideas of freedom and universal equality, consonant with the moods and aspirations of the broad masses.
Rationalistic sects appeared in Russia at the end of the 18th century. first in the Black Sea region, which began to be intensively populated not only by immigrants from Ukrainian and Russian provinces, but also by foreigners (mainly from Holland and German states). Among them are Baptists, Mennonites, Stundists, etc., who experienced religious persecution in their homeland and were invited by the Russian government to develop the Black Sea lands annexed to Russia. And in Russia itself at the end of the 18th century. The rationalistic sects of the Doukhobors and Molokans arose, and in the 19th century. and new rationalist confessions (Pashkovites, Tolstoyans, etc.).
Rationalistic confessions are characterized by: denial of the spiritual hierarchy (“everyone is equal before God”), the sacrament of confession (“there should be no intermediary between God and those who believe in him”), monasticism, veneration of saints, icons, and relics. The basis of the doctrine is the book of Holy Scripture, mainly the book of the New Testament.
Rationalistic sects became especially widespread in Russia during the post-reform period, which caused great concern among church and secular authorities. As a result, a number of radical measures were taken to eradicate them.
The Doukhobors were subjected to severe persecution. Although the Doukhobors were loyal to the authorities, they were law-abiding, they regularly paid taxes, but they believed that since all people on earth are equal, then there should be no authorities at all - neither secular nor spiritual. They refused to take oaths and oaths, from military service, and opposed any war. Therefore, they were listed among the “harmful sects,” and subsequent concessions to the Old Believers usually did not apply to the Doukhobors.
Doukhobors
This denomination arose in Russia in the 40s and 50s of the 15th century. in the Kharkov province. Siluyana Kolesnikova is considered its founder. By the end of the 18th century. followers of this sect were found in Taurida, Kherson, Astrakhan, Kursk, Voronezh, Ryazan, Penza, Tambov, Simbirsk, Saratov, Orenburg, Perm, Tver and even in Moscow provinces. Under Catherine II and Paul I, the Doukhobors were exiled forever to hard labor and settlement in Siberia, and were handed over as soldiers.
By a rescript of 1801 of Alexander I they were returned from exile. In 1802, 4 thousand Doukhobors were settled at the expense of the treasury on the free lands of New Russia along the river. Milk Waters, with allocation of 15 dess. land per 1 soul, providing a loan for establishment and exemption from taxes for 5 years. In 1820, the allotment to the Doukhobors was increased to 37.5 dessiatines. per capita, so that many of the peasants who fled to the south began to “enroll in the Doukhobors.” As a result, decrees abolishing this benefit followed in 1822. In 1830, new persecutions of the Doukhobors began. In 1841–1845 the bulk of the Doukhobors were evicted to Transcaucasia (southern Georgia). In the 80s of the XIX century. here, in the Elisavetpol and Kars regions, there were over 24 thousand Doukhobors. Some of the Doukhobors were left in the place of their previous residence (mainly in the Ekaterinoslav, Kaluga and Tula provinces).
The name “Dukhobors” was given to representatives of this sect in 1785 by Bishop Ambrose, who considered them fighters against the Holy Spirit, which the Doukhobors resolutely denied. They accepted this name, but put a different meaning into it: “We are champions of the Holy Spirit, we serve God by the Spirit, we receive from the Spirit, and we are awake by the Spirit.” They called themselves “fighters for the Holy Spirit”, “nominal Doukhobors”, saying “God is within us”, “we are living temples”. At the core of their teaching is the service and worship of God “in spirit and in truth.” They consider themselves champions of the kingdom of God on earth. Supporters of “not the letter, but the spirit, for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.” Christ is revered as a man endowed with divine intelligence. God is understood as goodness, wisdom and love dissolved in the world. They reject, like other evangelists, church rites, sacraments, church hierarchy, monasticism, the veneration of icons (which they contemptuously call “pieces of wood”), the veneration of the relics of saints, and the observance of other Orthodox rituals, which they call “idolatry.” They believe that good deeds will save the world. In their dogma, heaven and hell are understood spiritually. Jesus Christ is considered an ordinary person, believing that, unlike other people, the divine mind was embodied in him with special power. According to their teaching, the more righteously a person leads his life, the more powerfully the divine mind manifests itself in him. According to some Doukhobors, it is a Divine power that reveals itself in nature and in righteous people (first in the pious people of the Old Testament, then in the apostles, and later in those who belong to their Doukhobor confession).
Although the basis of their doctrine is the Holy Scripture, they take from it only what they consider “useful and true,” pointing out that the Holy Scripture is a “perishable book”; Many errors crept into it, because people wrote it. Therefore, the Doukhobors put in first place the oral, “living tradition,” passed down from generation to generation and called by them the “Animal Book” (i.e., “Living Book” or “Book of Life”), which they place above the Bible. This book consists of questions and answers, individual psalms of David, spiritual verses and Doukhobor prayers, conspiracies and spells, as well as traditions transmitted orally and sacredly preserved.
The Doukhobors believe in the immortality of the soul and in the transmigration of souls that were created by God before the creation of the world. Then because of your own? Out of pride, they began to be sent by God to earth and clothed with flesh. Upon the death of one body, the soul passes into another: the souls of the righteous into the bodies of people, and the souls of sinners into animals. The Doukhobors deny the resurrection of bodily flesh on the day of the Last Judgment, as well as the existence of “sensual” heaven and hell. On the day of the coming of the Last Judgment, the “fall of the old heavens,” the old order of unrighteousness, will take place; everything will be “equalized”, all barriers between people will fall (“fire will eat”), the kingdom of God will come, the kingdom of peace and reason. They accept the dogma of the trinity of God, but interpret it this way: God-father-memory, God-son-mind, God-holy spirit-will. They reject baptism, because “one must be baptized not with water, but with the word of God.”
The birth of a child is not accompanied by rituals. From an early age he is taught the basics of his own morality. The Doukhobors call their parents by name, their husbands call their wives “sisters,” and their husbands’ wives “brothers.” Marriages are celebrated solemnly, but without ritual and always out of love. Adultery, theft and drunkenness are excluded. They follow the commandment to “love your neighbor” and are compassionate even towards animals. Deaths and funerals are celebrated seriously and thoughtfully. The dying person himself sets out on his final journey stoically; the tears of loved ones for him are considered indecent, for death is considered a “change,” i.e. the transition of a person to another state. If one of them died, they said about him: “Our brother has changed.”
The morality and fulfillment of all instructions by the members of the community are strictly monitored by their mentors, who have indisputable authority in the community. The Doukhobors perform their prayers without any ritual: they place a table in the middle of the room, on which they place bread and salt, then chant psalms and spiritual verses.
The Doukhobors were distinguished by their great diligence and perseverance in adversity. In the spirit of Christian socialism, they lived in communities in which there was strict discipline. At the end of the 19th century. their main mentor, Pavel Verigin, developed the following rules of internal life in Doukhobor communities: “Abstinence from accumulating wealth, community of property, refusal of alcohol, tobacco and meat food. It should be noted that not all Doukhobors accepted these severe ascetic demands of Verigin.
In 1898, the Ministry of Internal Affairs gave permission for the Doukhobors to leave Russia. With the help of American and English Quaker spiritual communities and material support from L.N. Tolstoy (he donated his entire fee to the Doukhobors for the novel “Resurrection”), 7,400 Doukhobors moved to Canada in 1899.
In 1909, up to 15 thousand Doukhobors lived in different places in Russia. When the February Revolution occurred, the Doukhobors living in Canada sent a congratulatory telegram to the Russian people to Petrograd, and a request to the Provisional Government about their desire to return to Russia, but they were refused. Nowadays, up to 30 thousand Doukhobors live in Canada.
Molokans
As an offshoot of Doukhoborism at the end of the 18th century. The Molokans sect arose, which was also listed among the “harmful”. They preached the denial of secular power, because “it is needed for the sons of this world, and spiritual Christians are not obliged to fulfill human laws, they should even avoid those that contradict the word of God.”
The founder of the sect was a peasant from the Tambov province, Semyon Uklein, who became close to the Doukhobors, but then disagreed with them on issues of knowledge of God. In 1823, the Molokans were resettled to Molochny Vody in the Black Sea region, where the state allocated them land. Under Nicholas I they were persecuted and resettled in Transcaucasia. In 1885, there were 35 thousand Molokans in Transcaucasia.
Their creed is set out in the “Foundation of the Confession of Spiritual Christians,” which was distributed in manuscripts, and in the printed “Creed of Spiritual Christians, usually called Molokans.” Their doctrine was based on the Bible, but “with the exception of what is speculated in it.” They considered the New Testament to be the “cornerstone of truth.” According to their doctrine, he founded the true church, but it existed as such only until the 4th century, when the Fathers of the Church and the Ecumenical Councils “perverted Christianity.” Jesus Christ brought flesh from heaven, and with it he moved into the womb of the Mother of God. The Resurrection of the dead will be spiritual, not physical. The Last Judgment will be only for sinners, that is, for those who do not belong to their faith, as well as for the Molokans themselves who have sinned. . For all other Molokans, eternal bliss will come, and for the rest - eternal torment. God is Spirit and by spirit must truly be worshiped. Those ordinances found in Scripture are to be observed spiritually. For marriage, the blessing of the parents is sufficient.
Like other rationalistic sects, the Molokans denied the spiritual hierarchy “We have one bishop and teacher - Christ, and we are all brothers and priests, we have neither small nor large, we are all equal,” they say, but “there are only leaders by faith" (mentors). They denied civil power, because it is needed for the sons of this world, and spiritual Christians are not obliged to fulfill human laws, they should even avoid those that contradict the word of God, for example, avoid slave service to landowners, military service and oath. If this cannot be done openly, then one should hide from the government.
Teaching the word of God is true baptism, for baptism performed by immersion in water is an “empty rite.” Reading Holy Scripture is a true communion of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the communion performed with wine and bread (“carnal communion”) is an absurdity, and they also consider the sign of the cross as a “fiction.” Fasting is observed by Molokans only on the days of Christ’s suffering, and fasting consists of complete abstinence from all food. Otherwise, Molokans do not distinguish between fasting and fasting foods, they do not eat only meat, but eat eggs and dairy foods on fasting days, which is why they received the name “Molokan”. They agreed with this name, but in the sense that they “taste the milk of the word of the Gospel.” They called themselves (like the Doukhobors) “spiritual Christians” (or “true spiritual Christians”).
The Molokans were critical not only of the dominant Orthodox Church, but also of the Old Believers, saying that they had “straw for brains.” “God is spirit. He must be worshiped in spirit,” declared the Molokans. They laughed at the fact that “schismatics go to the chopping block for two fingers” (two fingers). They resolutely rejected the worship of icons, relics, and the cross; They believed that the worship of the Holy Spirit and Truth eliminates the need for churches. The temples themselves were called “idol depositories.” Therefore, the Molokans held liturgical meetings in large rooms, which were called “Zion’s upper rooms.” Their marriage is concluded only with the consent of those entering into it, with the blessing of the parents, accompanied by the reading of prayers. Each community elects a presbyter (mentor) with two assistants to monitor order during worship, read the Holy Scriptures and say prayers. They honor the king and the authorities established by him and legitimize prayer for the king. The transition to the Molokans was usually accompanied by the fact that the peasant first of all threw away the icons or chopped them into pieces as a sign of “contempt for the idol and the fight against paganism.”
Molokans are Puritans in their lifestyle, they observe a strict moral lifestyle, do not drink alcohol or smoke, their children do not have toys, girls do not wear or have any jewelry. When they asked their parents: “Aren’t your daughters jealous of Orthodox Christians’ jewelry? After all, girls are such a age that they love to dress up and adorn themselves.” To this the parents replied: “Our daughters love to decorate themselves with their souls, and not with earrings and rings. Whichever of them learns to read and write earlier, reads more, knows the words of God more and sings better than others in meetings, those are considered more beautiful than others.” Usually Molokans either as a family or as a community gather to read the Bible. They place an ordinary table in the middle, along the walls of the shop, men sit on the right, women on the left.
In the 20s of the XIX century. Among the Molokans, a sect called “common” appeared, which lived in a primitive communist community and had everything in common - farming, property, common houses and canteens. When at the end of the 19th century. They moved to Canada, then some of them took their communal communist principles to the extreme: they refused to take the land as their own, but only for common use and farmed on it together. They even refused to use draft animals: 10–12 people themselves harnessed themselves to plows and carts. They became strict vegetarians: they did not eat not only meat, but also milk.
Stundists and Baptists
Since the late 60s, in the Kherson and Kyiv provinces, and then in central Russia, a religious movement called Stundism began to quickly spread among peasants. It arose under the influence of German colonists and received its name from the German word Stunde (hour). Members of this denomination-fraternity gathered at a certain hour (usually on Sundays) to read Holy Scripture, pious reflection and singing religious hymns.
Such brotherhoods arose in Germany at the end of the 18th century. and penetrated into the south of Russia in connection with the founding of German colonies in this region. In the 70–80s of the 19th century, Stundism spread throughout the entire south of Russia, then to Ukraine, in the provinces of central Russia: Oryol, Kaluga, Nizhny Novgorod, Penza, Tambov, Ryazan and Moscow. Later, Stundism penetrated into the Middle Volga region - into the Simbirsk, Samara and Saratov provinces.
The essence of the Stundists' doctrine was as follows. They recognized only the Holy Scripture (Bible) as the source of their doctrine. They recognized the trinity in God, the incarnation of Jesus Christ and his redemption of the human race, repentance and prayer. The Church and its hierarchy were viewed as a “human” invention rather than a “divine” institution. The Russian Orthodox Church was called a “harlot”, and the clergy were considered “Pharisees”. Orthodox Christians were put on the same level as pagans, and they called themselves “spiritual Christians - brothers of the Bible”, their teaching - “evangelical confession”. They spoke with blasphemy about the Mother of God and Christian saints, and among them about St. Nicholas the Wonderworker (Bishop of Myra), especially revered by Christians. They denied the presence of angels, did not recognize the relics of saints, and rejected praying for the living and the dead. They openly opposed churches, icons, the cross, completely rejected the observance of fasts, and of the Christian holidays they recognized only the Nativity of Christ, Easter, Spiritual Day and Sundays. They denied the need for hierarchy in their environment, teachers and ministers as officials in their community. Of the sacraments, only baptism and communion with bread were recognized. For the authorities, the Stundists’ preaching of the idea of universal equality and community of property was dangerous.
There were two trends among the Stundists - the Old Stundists, who accepted the teachings of the Baptists and soon joined them, and the Young Stundists, who were close to the Molokans. At the beginning of the 20th century. the name “shtunda” was lost. The Stundists were close in their beliefs to the old evangelical Protestant denomination - the Baptists.
At the turn of the 60s and 70s, the Stundists, under the influence of persecution by the authorities, as well as massive confessional influence from the Baptists, began to switch to Baptists. The Stundists who converted to Baptists were baptized in the Baptist way, took icons and crosses from their homes and took them to churches, so as not to give rise to accusations of desecration of the shrines of the Orthodox Church.
Baptistism arose at the beginning of the 17th century. in England. He moved to Russia in the middle of the 18th century. from Germany with German colonists who settled in Novorossiya. In the 80s of the XIX century. it spread to the Volga region, and then to Siberia and even to the Far East. At that time, Baptist communities existed in 30 provinces of Russia.
Usually there were from 10 to 30 families in the community. They were dominated by artisans, workers and peasants. The Baptist community was a spiritual and labor collective with mutual assistance. There were close ties and mutual assistance between the communities.
In 1876 I.G. Onckel published the “Hamburg Confession of Faith of the Baptists,” containing the basics of their faith. Baptistism proclaims the rejection of hierarchy in its confession, “universal priesthood,” i.e. the conviction that every believer can be a preacher and missionary. Baptistism does not recognize icons and sacraments. Maintains belief in the Holy Trinity. Holy Scripture considers the only source of knowledge of God, the only instruction and rule of faith and life.
A member of the Baptist community is someone who has been baptized (hence the concept of “Baptist” or “baptized”), necessarily at a reasonable age, who through the Gospel and the grace of God has turned to Christ and believes in him with all his heart as the Savior. Those who wish to be baptized are led to a river or even running water. Here the texts of the New Testament about baptism are read to him. Then the person being baptized and the elder baptizing him take off their outer clothing and enter the water wearing only their underwear. The presbyter crosses his hands on the chest of the person being baptized, then, taking them or a girded towel with his left hand, closes the mouth of the person being baptized with his right, immerses him in the water and quickly lifts him up. Afterwards, the presbyter reads texts from the Acts of the Apostles. The person being baptized kneels down and the presbyter, laying his hands on his head, prays for the sending of the Holy Spirit upon him. Members of the Baptist community (“brothers” and “sisters”) present at the baptismal ceremony sing spiritual songs at this time.
Baptists believe in the second coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead. The main motto of Baptists is: “God is love.” A believing Baptist must care not only about his own spiritual salvation, but also about the good of his neighbor. “He who does not love his brother whom he sees,” they say, “how can he love God whom he does not see?”
They recognize marriage as a “sacred act.” They are recognized by secular authorities, for “they are established by God.” They consider it their duty to obey all laws, unless they restrict the free execution of the dictates of their faith. They agree to perform military service and hold civilian positions.
The Baptist community maintains strict discipline: offenses committed by members of the community are severely punished. For drunkenness, adultery, adultery, visiting places of entertainment, violating Sunday (not to mention committing criminal offenses), members of the community are punished by expulsion from it. Spiritual congresses and meetings are often held, where an atmosphere of elation and solemnity reigns.
There are two currents in Baptistism - “general Baptists” and “private Baptists”. The first believe that Christ atoned for the sins of all people, and their salvation depends on their free will. The latter are supporters of the Calvinist doctrine, according to which the salvation of some and the death of others were originally predetermined.
The World Union of Baptists, held in Philadelphia in 1911, accepted Russian Baptists into its membership.
By 1914, Baptist communities existed in dozens of cities in Russia, and their number, according to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, was over 31 thousand people (in all likelihood, these data are greatly underestimated).
During the First World War, Russian Baptists organized a fundraiser to organize infirmaries. After the February Revolution, the main figure of Russian Baptists, Prokhanov, created the Christian Democratic Party of Baptists “Resurrection”; they published the magazines “Christian”, “Sower”, “Morning Star”, “Conversation”, and subsequently “Brotherly Messenger”. They met the October Revolution with hostility.
Mennonites
Of the Protestant sects that took place in Russia at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, Mennonites and Seventh-day Adventists should be mentioned. The first arose in Holland in the 16th century. and received its name from the name of its founder Simonis Mennon. Followers of the sect preach humility, non-use of violence in the name of the public good, and oppose all wars and military service. They deny icons, church rituals and sacraments, with the exception of baptism, which is performed in their community on its members who have reached the age of 10. They believe in the second coming of Christ. Their mottos are: “Faith without works is dead,” “Salvation is by works,” and “Justification is by works.” Professional “secular” (social) work is considered by them as “service to God,” and the most godly occupation is agriculture. The most revered among them are those parents who chose the path of farmers for their children. Mennonites are model farmers.
In 1789, Catherine II invited 228 Mennonite families to Russia. They were granted freedom of religion and land plots of 65 dessiatines. for a family, financial assistance for resettlement to Russia, exemption from taxes for 10 years, from military and civil service. Mennonite families were settled in Southern Russia - since. Dairy in Melitopol district. Then the arriving Mennonite families settled in the Ekaterinoslav and Samara provinces, in the Crimea, Siberia and Central Asia. When the law on all-class conscription was passed, the Mennonites perceived it as an attack on their religious beliefs, which included refusal of military service. In 1880, in protest against this, 15 thousand Mennonites (approximately 1/3 of those living in Russia by that time) moved to the USA and Canada. Then a law was passed especially for them, according to which military service for them was replaced by the protection of state-owned forests. In the 1920s, under Soviet rule, when a wave of “dekulakization” began, most Mennonites moved to Canada.
Adventists
The name "Adventist" comes from the Latin word adventus (advent). Followers of this doctrine believe that the second coming of Christ will occur on the last (seventh) day of the week, which they considered Saturday. Hence their great reverence for the Sabbath. The sect was founded in 1833 by William Miller in the USA. Adventism spread to the south of Russia (in the Black Sea region) in the 80s of the 19th century. By 1912, there were up to 5,500 people in Russia who belonged to this sect. According to the teachings of Adventists, at the second coming of Christ the world will be destroyed by fire, and a new earth will be created for true believers (meaning Adventists). For them, reverence for both the Old and New Testaments is equally significant. They do not recognize the existence of either heaven or hell at the present time: according to their ideas, they will be created for believers and non-believers after the second coming of Christ and the Last Judgment.
Pashkovites
In the mid-70s of the 19th century, a sect of Pashkovites arose in high society circles in St. Petersburg, named after its founder, retired guard colonel V.A. Pashkov. Pashkov was fabulously rich, previously he was indifferent to faith in God and led a typically high-society life with all its pleasures. Pashkov was converted to faith - in the form of evangelism - by the English preacher Lord Restock, who arrived in St. Petersburg in 1874, and managed to convert the Russian aristocrats Princess V.F. to it as well. Gagarin, Countess N.F. Lieven, Count M.M. Korf, Count A.P. Bobrinsky, K.I. Chertkov and others, who began to gather for spiritual conversations in Pashkov’s St. Petersburg house. Pashkov's house on the French embankment in St. Petersburg became the center of the evangelical ministry of the Pashkovites. There Pashkov opened a cheap canteen for students and poor people. In St. Petersburg he opened sewing workshops and laundries to provide income to poor women. He and his followers read books of a spiritual and edifying nature to the workers.
In 1876, Pashkov asked for permission to establish the “Society for the Encouragement of Spiritual and Moral Reading,” the purpose of which was “to provide people with the opportunity to purchase at their very place of residence and at a cheap price books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and works of spiritual and moral content.” . Society during 1875–1877 has published about 200 titles of brochures with spiritual content. Special booksellers distributed them in all corners of the country. In 1875–1884 Pashkovites published a magazine of edifying content, “Russian Worker”. Pashkov published a Russian translation of the Bible at his own expense. In St. Petersburg, Pashkovites were also engaged in charitable activities, visiting prisons and having “comforting” conversations with prisoners. Pashkov himself preached his teachings in cab drivers' yards, in workshops and factories.
In 1877, Pashkov was forbidden to organize religious and edifying conversations in the capital. Then he transferred his activities to his estates in the Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, Tambov and Ufa provinces. During the Russian-Turkish War (877–1878), Pashkovites went to the theater of military operations to care for the wounded and sick. In 1878, church authorities were instructed to “exhort” Pashkov to stop his activities and return to the fold of the Orthodox Church, but “ "exhortations" remained unsuccessful.
Pashkov’s doctrine was based on the Protestant position on “justification by faith.” As a result of the Fall, man is completely powerless through his deeds to earn justification before God and gain salvation. Pashkov preached that Jesus Christ is “the only mediator, intercessor, leader and perfecter of faith,” that by our deeds we are not justified before God, but are justified by faith in Jesus Christ, that whoever believes in Him accepts Christ into himself, who never leaves him; he is not subject to eternal destruction, and if he sins, then by repentance before God he directly receives forgiveness, therefore no external means are needed for salvation. Pashkovites reject hierarchy and church sacraments (except for baptism and repentance in the form of oral preaching), rituals and veneration of saints, icons, crosses, relics, commemoration of the dead, and fasting. Their religious meetings were accompanied by the reading of prayers and Holy Scripture and the singing of chants, sometimes to the accompaniment of a musical instrument. According to Pashkov’s teaching, since “salvation was accomplished on the cross,” everyone who believes in Christ immediately receives remission of sins and is delivered from eternal death. If a person commits a sin again, then he only needs to repent - and he immediately receives forgiveness. Anyone who believes in Christ can understand the Holy Scriptures and interpret them to others. But he is obliged to do good deeds himself.
By the nature of their religious doctrine, the Pashkovites were close to the Baptists and Stundists. Therefore, Pashkov set out to unite all evangelists in Russia. On his initiative and thanks to his efforts, on April 1–5, 1884, a congress of representatives of evangelical denominations took place in St. Petersburg. Pashkov hired a large hotel, taking on all the costs of holding the congress. Up to 100 representatives of evangelical communities arrived at the convention. The congress discussed practical issues of spreading the Gospel in Russia. However, on the night of April 6, 1884, all participants in the congress were captured by the police and taken to the Peter and Paul Fortress. Then, after brief interrogations about the reason for their appearance in the capital and the nature of the congress, everyone, accompanied by gendarmes, was sent to the station, bought train tickets for them and warned them never to appear in St. Petersburg again.
On May 24, 1884, Alexander III ordered the closure of the Society. Its publications were confiscated. Pashkov himself and his family went abroad, where they settled in London. However, Pashkov’s followers continued to propagate his teachings in a number of provinces, for which they were repeatedly brought to justice. At the beginning of the 20th century. they formed the Evangelical-Christian Union, claiming a leading role among Evangelical Christians in Russia. The magazines “Christian” and “Vera” were published in St. Petersburg.
All researchers of the religious life of post-reform Russia noted the large number of sects, their vitality, their rapid, albeit secret, spread, and the emergence of new teachings and interpretations. “Heresy”, “schism”, deviation from Orthodoxy, along with “blasphemy”, “blasphemy”, “blasphemy of faith” were punished according to the “Code of Punishments” in secular courts.
The number of persons prosecuted for crimes of a religious nature has increased noticeably in post-reform times. If for 1874–1878. in 33 provinces (where new judicial institutions were introduced), criminal cases on these crimes were considered on average 316 per year, and in 1879–1883. – 378, then in 1884–1888. – 487, in 1889–1893. – 944 and in 1894–1896. – 1077. These data refer to 33 provinces in which new judicial statutes of 1864 were introduced. 16% of those convicted were sentenced to hard labor and exile, the rest to imprisonment. Among those convicted, 52% belonged to the Orthodox confession, 31% to the Old Believers and 17% to representatives of sectarianism.
Missionary congresses in the fight against sectarianism
To combat the spread at the end of the 19th century. In Russia, sectarianism convened special All-Russian missionary congresses.
The first congress took place in Moscow in 1887. At it, proposals were made to take the most radical measures against sectarians - even to the point of depriving them of citizenship. The same measures were applied to “persistent schismatics.”
At the second missionary congress, held in 1891, also in Moscow, the task was set, first of all, to understand the essence of the teachings of sectarians and schismatics, to determine how “harmful” some of them were. There was a call for “unity of action” against the onslaught of these sects on Orthodoxy, as well as to take administrative measures against the “seduction” of Orthodox Christians into these sects. The congress stated: “The rapid growth of these sects is a serious danger to the state.” The resolution of the congress proposed: “All sectarians should be prohibited from leaving their places of residence... The passports of sectarians should be marked in a special way, so that they are not accepted for work or residence anywhere until life in Russia becomes unbearable for them. Their children must be taken away by force and raised in the Orthodox faith."
The third missionary congress, held in 1897 in Kazan, appealed to the secular authorities to assist the internal mission by issuing laws to protect Orthodoxy and suppress the activity of sects that were dangerous not only for the church, but also for the state. “Belonging to certain confessions,” said the decision of the congress, “should be recognized as a discreditable circumstance that would give society the right to deport their followers to Siberia.” It was proposed to exile those who had seduced themselves without trial, according to the verdicts of rural gatherings.
The fourth missionary congress took place in 1908 in Kyiv. He noted the intensification of sectarians, especially Baptists, in Kyiv, Kharkov, Odessa, even in Moscow and St. Petersburg. The sectarians attracted mainly young people into their sects - peasants, soldiers, and artisans who came to work in these cities, set up their own schools, hospitals, and held their own congresses.
The fifth missionary congress took place from June 26 to August 4, 1917 in the Bizyukovsky monastery (Kherson province). The congress stated “unprecedented propaganda of sectarianism.” In its decisions, the congress set the task of fighting not only sectarianism, but also “socialism.” A decision was also made to involve monasteries in missionary work, to create special missionary schools, to regularly convene missionary congresses, and to establish a Missionary Council under the Synod. But this was no longer possible.
In addition, special bishops' congresses were held in 1885 and 1897. in Kazan, in 1886 - in Kyiv, in 1910 - in Irkutsk, discussing the problems of combating sectarianism.
L.N. Tolstoy and Tolstoyism
In 1882, the journal “Russian Thought” (No. 5) published “Confession” by L.N. Tolstoy, in which he outlined the foundations of his doctrine, which diverges from the dogmas of the Russian Orthodox Church. This issue of the magazine was immediately seized, and Tolstoy began the illegal distribution of his spiritual works - “The New Gospel”, “What is My Faith?”, “Critique of Dogmatic Theology”, “Church and State”, etc. In handwritten copies and in lithographed form they were distributed in Russia, were translated into French and German and became widely known abroad.
L.N. Tolstoy preached non-violence and universal love, demanded to be cleansed of “superstitions and rituals”, to separate Christianity as a teaching from the official church as a spiritual organization.
The essence of the creed of L.N. Tolstoy was as follows. Christ himself did not preach any dogmas: neither about the fall of his ancestors and original sin, nor about atonement, nor about his resurrection and divinity, nor about the church hierarchy, nor about worship with the sacraments, nor about faith in him, nor about the resurrection of people and the afterlife . All this was invented later and was the fruit of superstition or self-interest of the clergy. The Apostle Paul was the first to introduce dogmatics, and from the time of the Byzantine emperor Constantine the Great, when the church entered into an alliance with the state, the final break between church teaching and the teaching of Christ took place.
Tolstoy believed that Christ is the son of man, who taught only how to live, therefore his teaching can be accepted by all peoples of different beliefs and faiths. The Divine in him is the intelligence that exists in people. Living according to this reason means living according to God. There are five basic rules of an honest life: do not be angry, do not fornicate, do not swear, do not resist evil, do not kill another (even in war). This, Tolstoy believed, was the whole meaning of life and the whole essence of Christianity, the basis of human happiness. In his teaching, he went as far as denying power, courts, oaths and oaths, waging all kinds of wars and all violent resistance to evil, and even denying modern civilization. Thus, his teaching was directed against the existing political and social foundations, the prevailing morality and values accepted in society, which caused discontent among the secular and church authorities.
Tolstoy was called an “apostate from the faith.” To this he replied: “The fact that I renounced the church, which calls itself Orthodox, is absolutely fair. But I renounced not because I rebelled against the Lord, but, on the contrary, only because I wanted with all my might to serve Him better. Before renouncing the church and unity with the people, which is inexpressibly dear to me, having doubted the correctness of the church for some reasons, I devoted several years to theoretically and practically studying the teachings of the church: theoretically, I re-read everything I could about the teachings of the church. Studied and critically analyzed dogmatic theology; in practice, he strictly followed all the instructions of the church for more than a year, observing fasts and all church services. And I became convinced that the teaching of the church is theoretically an insidious and harmful lie, but in practice it is a collection of the grossest superstitions and witchcraft, completely hiding the entire meaning of Christian teaching. From here I came to the conclusion that all Orthodox rites, which are performed by priests and are considered Christian worship, are nothing more than various techniques of witchcraft, adapted to all possible cases.”
Tolstoy had many followers not only in Russia, but also abroad. N.N. interpreted his teachings. Strakhov, V.S. Soloviev, D.S. Merezhkovsky. Communities and settlements of Tolstoy's followers also arose. Their first colonies were founded in the Tver, Simbirsk and Kharkov provinces, then in Transcaucasia. Tolstoy's follower was Mahatma Gandhi.
Tolstoy's followers went further than what he preached: they denied the divine origin of Christ, considering him simply a “moral man.” They said that the teaching of Christ is higher than the teaching of Buddha, but lower than the teaching of Tolstoy. Of the sacred books, only the Gospel was recognized, excluding stories of miracles. They did not believe in the afterlife and the resurrection of the dead, the cross was called a “gallows”, the church temple was called a “stable”, and the priests were called “dolls stuffed with straw”. Some went so far as to refute the existence of God himself, saying that “God is only human love and conscience, and every person contains a particle of the Divine.” They denied the state, the police, the court; preached celibacy and vegetarianism.
At that time, a lot was said and written about Tolstoyism in France, England, Germany, Italy, and the countries of the East, where his followers were also found. In Russia, attacks began on Tolstoy from the official Orthodox Church and secular authorities. The Congress of Bishops in Kazan in 1897 declared Tolstoyism a “harmful sect.” The authorities were afraid that the peasants, having assimilated Tolstoy’s teachings about universal equality, would demand “equalization of the lands.” The idea of “black redistribution” of land was widespread among peasants in the 80s and 90s of the 19th century. In addition, the authorities feared that Tolstoy, due to his wide fame and popularity, could become a unifying principle not only for Tolstoyans, but also for Molokans, Doukhobors, Stundists, and Baptists who were close to them in spirit. As we noted earlier, Tolstoy was associated with some of these sects, especially with the Doukhobors, whom he even helped financially during their persecution and resettlement in Canada.
On February 24, 1901, the Holy Synod declared L.N. Tolstoy “outside the Church,” which actually meant his excommunication from the Russian Orthodox Church. Tolstoy was accused of rejecting the basic church principles: he did not believe in the sacrament of communion, he did not believe in the Most Holy Theotokos, in the divine-human nature of Jesus Christ. The “Message to the Faithful Children” published by the Synod says: “A world-famous writer, Russian by birth, Orthodox by baptism and upbringing, Count Tolstoy, in the seduction of his proud mind, boldly rebelled against the Lord and against His Christ and against His holy property, openly before everyone renounced the Mother who nurtured and raised him, the Orthodox Church, and devoted his literary activity and the talent given to him by God to spreading among the people teachings contrary to Christ and the Church.”
Pobedonostsev failed to raise the authority of the Orthodox Church and ensure “religious monolithicity” with harsh, sometimes repressive, measures. The liberal press also raised its voice against religious persecution. The new courts, which stood for the observance of the law, also opposed religious persecution. Persecution for faith alienated not only liberal, but also conservative figures who were loyal to it from the government, and fueled discontent in national regions.
The inconsistency of the government's confessional policy during the tenure of Chief Prosecutor K.P. Pobedonostsev under Alexander III was that, on the one hand, she sought to intensify the activities of the Orthodox Church, but, on the other, by strengthening guardianship and control over this activity, she practically deprived her of independence, which ultimately led to a crisis state of the Church, in what it turned out to be like at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. That is why it was at this time that various public circles in Russia and the Orthodox clergy themselves raised with particular urgency and urgency the question of the need for fundamental changes in the relationship between the Church and the state: first of all, the liberation of the Church from the tutelage of secular authorities, the provision of real independence to the Church
As stated above, these issues arose at the beginning of the reign of Alexander II, when church reforms were launched, but due to the limitations and inconsistency of the reforms, they were not resolved and could not be resolved. The confessional policy of Alexander III essentially abolished timid reforms in the status of the parish clergy, in the sphere of administration, spiritual education, censorship, and in relation to heterodox confessions.
In 1876, Volyn Archbishop Agafangel (Soloviev) addressed a letter to Emperor Alexander II against “the beginning of the worldly, which is displacing the beginning of the divine, in the Russian Church.” “Sovereign! This state of the Holy Church cannot continue any longer. If Orthodox laity take a close look at the current administration of the Church, falling away from it will occur not in tens, but in thousands and millions of people. The split should naturally increase."
Upon the accession of Nicholas II to the throne, the famous philosopher Vladimir Solovyov addressed him with letters, demanding “to free her from serfdom from the state and thereby give her life a new internal impulse.”
Representatives of the general public, including professors of religious educational institutions - academies and seminaries, protested against the subordination of the Church to the state. Not only the secular press, but also, perhaps even more, the church press wrote a lot about this; it was said at meetings of religious societies at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. At the same time, the most important means of reviving the activities of the Russian Orthodox Church was the demand for the restoration of the principle of “conciliarity” - the election from top to bottom of all church positions at joint meetings (councils) of clergy and laity and collective solutions to pressing church issues. The abolition of the synodal government and the restoration of the patriarchate were clearly stated.
In 1891, Archimandrite Anthony (Khrapovitsky) and the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy T.I. spoke in favor of restoring the patriarchate. Filippov In 1892, persistent rumors circulated among the clergy about the convening of an All-Russian Church Council “by the will of the emperor.” “The idea of convening an All-Russian Council has long been ripening in the minds of the wise archpastors of the Russian Church, and for many it has become the object of longed desires,” it was reported, for example, in the Church Bulletin.
summary of other presentations“The Internal Policy of Alexander 3” - Alexander III. Ministry D.A. Tolstoy. University counter-reform. Zemstvo bosses. Liquidation of the World Court. V.P. Meshchersky. Zemstvo counter-reform. Control over the volost court. In 1887, the property qualification for jurors was significantly increased. Ignatiev proposed convening a Zemsky Sobor. Resignation of N.P. Ignatieva. Governors received the right to suspend decisions of zemstvos. Ministry of N.P. Ignatieva.
“Counter-reforms of Alexander 3” - Portrait. Zemstvo counter-reform. Start. National and religious politics. Tasks. Judicial reform. Educators. Circular about cook's children. Reform in the field of education. Domestic policy of Alexander III. Judicial counter-reform (1887-1894). 1845-1894 – years of reign of Alexander III. Alexander ruled in place of his deceased brother. Replacing the peasant administration with the noble one. New appointments. Resignations.
“Counter-reforms in the domestic policy of Alexander III” - Peasants leaving the community. Education Policy. Ideology. Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions. Document. Measures to alleviate peasants' land shortage. Regulations on measures to protect public order. Change of government. Temporary rules on press. Police state. Alexander III. Personalities. Law on compulsory purchase by peasants of their plots. Domestic policy of Alexander III.
“Economic development under Alexander 3” - Features of industrial development. Characteristic. Economic recovery of the 90s. N.A. Vyshnegradsky. Characteristics of economic policy. N.H.Bunge. Trans-Siberian Railway. Results of economic policy S.Yu. Witte. Directions of economic policy I.A. Vyshnegradsky. Main directions of economic policy. Compare the economic policies of Alexander II and Alexander III.
“Alexander III and his domestic policy” - The Peasant Question. Resignations. Alexander ruled in place of his deceased brother. Counter-reform. Economy under Alexander III. Program of the reign of Alexander III. Rules regarding Jews. Domestic policy. Portrait. Temporary rules on press. Reign of Alexander III. All Jews were evicted from Moscow. Law on zemstvo district chiefs. Educators. Social origin of the populists. Judicial counter-reform.
“Counter-reforms of Alexander III” - Total length – 9332 km. Transsib is a railway that connects European Russia with Siberia and the Far East. Increased censorship. Basic ideas of kingship. Factory of the Mamontov brothers. Russia under Alexander III. A ban on Buddhists (Kalmyks and Buryats) to build temples and perform religious services. 1882 – prohibition of labor for children under 12 years of age. Creation of the “Department for the Protection of Order and Public Safety” - “secret police”.
LECTURE XL
A decisive turn towards reaction. – The role of Pobedonostsev. – Gr. D. A. Tolstoy, - Reaction in the Ministry of Public Education. – Noble reactionary policy in internal affairs. – The anniversary of the grant of a noble charter in 1885 and the noble reactionary movement associated with it. – Pazukhin’s program. – Elimination of the issue of transforming peasant institutions after the closure of the Kokhanov commission. – Law of July 12, 1889 on zemstvo chiefs. – Regulations on zemstvo institutions June 12, 1890 – Judicial novels. – New law on the press of 1882 and its regulations. – Persecution of people of other faiths and foreigners. - The Jewish question. – New orders in the army and in military educational institutions.
if you need BRIEF information about counter-reforms, read the chapter “Emperor Alexander III” from the Textbook of Russian History by Academician S. F. Platonov
"Turn to Reaction"
In my last two lectures, I described to you the first two, very short-lived, but at the same time very significant, periods of the reign of Alexander III, which, in essence, both had an introductory, transitional, and, depending on this, very oscillatory character.
With the collapse of Ignatiev's ministry and the transfer of power into the hands of Count Tolstoy in May 1882, the final sharp turn towards reaction began - a turn that was based on the reaction that had already been fully determined by that time in part of Russian society. From the moment of this turn, one might say, the true era of Emperor Alexander III began, painted in its true color. Along with the abolition of the Slavophile ministry of Ignatiev, those secret court organizations “Sacred Squad” and “Voluntary Guard” were also abolished very soon after, in the depths of which also peculiar constitutional movements and attempts were discovered, organized by the young Count Shuvalov with some participation of the then Minister of the Court, Gr. . Vorontsova-Dashkova. Concerning these attempts, a book by V. Ya. Bogucharsky, published last year, now gives a lot of new information, which caused significant controversy, mainly from B. A. Kistyakovsky, who criticized it, a very fruitful controversy, and this entire era was largely clarified anew .
After the coronation, successfully celebrated in May 1883, the government managed to seize the remnants of the revolutionary organization "People's Will" with the assistance of the traitor revolutionary Degaev and with the help of the internal discord that had arisen in the revolutionary environment at that moment, and then it was given into the hands of Tolstoy " “full power”, in modern language.
However, Tolstoy also had to spend a lot of effort and time on the final liquidation of the legacy of the “dictatorship of the heart”: under him, for three years, as you may have noticed, N. H. Bunge continued his activities; under him, the Kokhanov commission also worked for two years, and for the work of this commission the government finally had to prepare a special funeral according to the first category, having previously invited special experts from “society” to help it completely cancel its plans, who were selected from the number of the most reactionary nobles who loudly declared themselves at that time in different parts of Russia, and from the local administrators of the “strong hand”, like the Chernigov governor Anastasyev. Tolstoy, I repeat, had to spend at least two or three years on all this.
Counter-reforms in the field of public education
First of all, Tolstoy managed to restore the reactionary course of affairs in his old department, the Ministry of Public Education, which he headed for 16 years during the reign of Alexander II and where at that time, precisely in May 1882, the liberal minister Baron Nikolai was replaced by also considered a liberal , but now slavishly obedient to Tolstoy and Pobedonostsev I.D. Delyanov. Here, already in 1884, it turned out to be possible to implement a new university charter, based on the ideas of Katkov, Leontyev and Lyubimov, so that Katkov could finally, jubilantly, proclaim his famous triumphant cry: “Stand up, gentlemen, the government is coming, the government is returning.”
According to the new charter, university councils were deprived of all vestiges of autonomy, and the ministry was given the opportunity to draw up the program of the law and philology faculties in its own way, so that the universities had to remember the times of Shirinsky-Shikhmatov. It was decided to take the students with a tight rein, so to speak, by destroying in their midst any rudiments of corporate organizations, and at the slightest attempt to protest, turn them into soldiers. And several cases of the application of this harsh measure actually occurred during the reign of Emperor Alexander III.
This was the new regime in higher education; We can say about the secondary school that there was a desire to return it to the position of the Nikolaev class gymnasium, while preserving all the features of the Tolstoyan classical system. The most characteristic document of the Delyanov system specifically in relation to the secondary school is the well-known circular about “cook’s children,” as it was called for short in the public, which generally referred to children of the lower classes, who should certainly have been eliminated from gymnasiums, and in order to facilitate this, it was assumed to destroy preparatory classes in order to thereby complicate the opportunity for poor people to prepare children for first grade. Here the idea proclaimed by Emperor Nicholas back in 1827 in his famous rescript to Shishkov was again resurrected.
It was proposed to finally transfer the lower schools to the ecclesiastical department, in accordance with Pobedonostsev’s solicitations, and if de facto this did not happen in the 90s, then to a large extent, perhaps, thanks to the noble opposition, which, even being reactionary, did not want , let the matter of primary education out of your hands; This mainly failed because the government did not have the necessary funds. After all, the overwhelming majority of zemstvos did not agree to transfer their zemstvo schools to the spiritual department; these schools could, of course, be taken away from the zemstvo, but then it would be necessary to allocate government funds for them, and it was precisely the funds that were not enough; and, thus, thanks to this - and due to the fact that the vast majority of zemstvos did not agree to Count Tolstoy’s proposal to voluntarily transfer schools to the ecclesiastical department - these schools remained in the hands of the zemstvos.
But it must be said that the lowest type of public schools, namely the so-called literacy schools, schools that were often established by the peasants themselves and for which they did not even require teachers who had received special teaching licenses - these schools, according to the law of June 13, 1884, carried out by Pobedonostsev with the support of Delyanov, were transferred entirely to the department of the Holy Synod. This last circumstance, however, turned out in the end not to be particularly harmful in the development of primary public education, since this type of schools is extremely bad in itself, and zemstvos leaned towards it only in those cases when they did not have the funds for how much some properly organized schools, and the fact that literacy schools were transferred to the ecclesiastical department alienated the zemstvos from them and thereby forced them to sometimes make large allocations for public education and found new schools of a higher type. Such was the situation of public education in this reactionary era.
Class counter-reforms - support for the nobility
The new noble reactionary direction, which was pursued by the government under Count Tolstoy in internal affairs, most clearly reflected on the fate of the peasant question and on the reform of zemstvo administration. Both had a close connection with the work of the Kokhanov commission. The first manifestations of noble reactionary agitation, as you already saw last time, appeared back in 1881, during the discussion of the issues of compulsory redemption and the reduction of redemption payments. As soon as the material interests of the nobility were seriously affected, the noble reactionary agitation immediately put into motion rumors about the very anxious mood of the peasants and about the penetration of seditious ideas into the peasantry, which were developed there in the form of rumors about an imminent complete or so-called “black” redistribution lands, And these rumors, which perhaps had some basis, but were undoubtedly extremely exaggerated, made a very strong impression on Emperor Alexander III. Already in the speech of the sovereign, which he delivered in 1883 at the coronation of the volost elders, the first sharp warning was sounded to the peasants - not to listen to seditious talk and to obey in everything, as the sovereign put it, “their” leaders of the nobility. At first glance, this seems like a simple slip of the tongue - it would seem that the leaders of the nobility were leaders only nobility, but it seemed to Emperor Alexander that the leader of the nobility was the head of all power and society in the district.
Reception of volost elders by Alexander III. Painting by I. Repin, 1885-1886
Further rapprochement of the government with the reactionary types of the nobility was manifested in the method of eliminating the work of zemstvos, which were entrusted with discussing the peasant question by Loris-Melikov, and the work of the Kokhanov commission, as well as in a number of very significant acts related to the centenary of the noble charter in 1885.
For this particular occasion, a special Noble Bank was opened in 1885, the special task of which was to support noble land ownership with loans on preferential terms. The manifesto issued on this occasion expressed the wish, so that henceforth “Russian nobles retain a leading place in military leadership, in matters of local government and court, in spreading by example the rules of faith and fidelity and the sound principles of public education.”
In the grateful addresses of the nobles who followed in response to this manifesto, it was precisely from the most reactionary-minded nobility of some provinces, especially in the address of the nobility of the Simbirsk province, where the Alatyr leader of the nobility Pazukhin became the head of this movement, it was indicated that the nobility places its hopes on government, namely strong government power, the strengthening of which would allow the nobility to live peacefully in the villages. To these statements by the nobility, the government responded that legislative work would be directed in this spirit. This was extremely significant and completely ended all democratic and liberal ideas that still found some support in the ministry of Ignatieff and Bunge; all this was finally put to rest. And we see that, indeed, the liquidation of those works and projects that were prepared by the Kokhanov commission was entrusted precisely to Pazukhin, who was the most prominent and consistent representative of this noble reactionary trend. Pazukhin outlined his ideas quite clearly in 1885 in an article he published in the Russian Bulletin, and then appeared in the form of a separate brochure entitled “The Current State of Russia and the Class Question.” Here Pazukhin openly declared that the cause of all the ills of modern Russia was the classless system that was created by the reforms of the 60s, of which he considered the zemstvo and judicial reforms to be especially hateful.
“The social leveling, which began,” according to Pazukhin, “not with the peasant reform, but with the zemstvo reform, deprived the nobility of all service rights in both local and state government. The loss of official privileges had the consequence of weakening the connection between the nobility and the government, the disintegration of the nobility as a corporation and the gradual decline of its authority among the population. This abnormal political situation had an unfavorable effect on the property of the nobility.”
The same conditions, according to Pazukhin, undermined other classes. Simultaneously with the gradual destruction of estates, a “classless society, recently called the intelligentsia,” is emerging and growing. This concept, according to Pazukhin, “includes everything that is outside the life of the estate. This is that formless society that fills with itself all the cracks that formed in the people’s body during the era of reforms, and which now lies in a rather thick layer at the top of Russia.”
Pazukhin's antipathy to this layer is limitless. Its distinctive feature is groundlessness, alienation from the people.
“Losing all class and everyday features, the Russian person loses all national features.”
Pazukhin indiscriminately accuses the entire intelligentsia of a selfish desire to shake the foundations. Having thus established the diagnosis of the disease caused to Russia by the reforms of Alexander II, Pazukhin indicated in his article the path to healing.
“If,” he wrote, “in the reforms of the past reign we see a great evil in that they destroyed the class organization, then the task of the present should be to restore what was broken.”
It is not surprising that with such a mood among the nobility, which manifested itself quite sharply in the provinces, at that time rumors were spreading among the peasants about the impending restoration of serfdom.
Regulations on zemstvo chiefs and zemstvo institutions (1890–1891)
Dmitry Andreevich Tolstoy. Portrait by I. Kramskoy, 1884
These ideas of Pazukhin were extremely to the taste of the Minister of Internal Affairs, Count. Tolstoy, and he, having invited Pazukhin to the leadership of his office, instructed him to develop a project for the possible restoration of what was lost. The result of this work was subsequently, albeit in a significantly modified form, the Regulations on Zemstvo Chiefs on July 12, 1889 and the Regulations on Zemstvo Institutions on June 12, 1890. The guiding thought in both of these Regulations was, on the one hand, the desire to create a “strong and a power close to the people,” as was definitely expressed in government circles at that time, a power that would be able to exercise omnipotent administrative guardianship, and on the other hand, recognition of the need to provide the landowners-nobles with the opportunity not only to run their farms profitably, but and occupy an honorable and influential position in local life. And this, indeed, corresponded to the Regulations on zemstvo chiefs, who were invested with strong power and had the right of guardianship over individual peasants and over the bodies of peasant self-government and the court. This power was, indeed, concentrated in the hands of the local nobility, since these zemstvo leaders had to be appointed precisely from among them; at the same time, they were agents subordinate to the provincial administration. Soon, the degree of independence and independence from government power of zemstvo institutions, which they were provided under the Regulations of 1864, was also destroyed. According to the Regulations of 1890, zemstvo administration was introduced into the system of national institutions. In this case, Tolstoy very cleverly took advantage of the prevailing theory in state law, according to which the bodies of zemstvo self-government should be recognized as bodies of state power and zemstvo self-government does not exercise any purely public rights and obligations, but rather a part of state power; and so, having put this idea as the basis of its project and, of course, giving it a coloring corresponding to its mood, Tolstoy’s government from this situation came to the conclusion that since zemstvos are bodies of state power, then, therefore, first of all they must be dressed in the uniform of the Ministry internal affairs and subordinate to higher authorities of this department. Therefore, councils had to be subordinate to the governor's power, chairmen of councils had to be appointed by the government, and all decisions of zemstvo assemblies had to be placed not only under the control of the governor's power, but also had to receive force only after their approval by the governor. This aspect of the matter satisfied Tolstoy. According to the ideas of Pazukhin, who was the main creator of these projects, which were made, with some changes, by the Regulations in 1889 and 1890, the main task was precisely the destruction of the classless or all-class system introduced by the Zemstvo Regulations of 1864, and replacing it with a purely class system with so that in this case a complete advantage is given to the nobility. Accordingly, the electoral system in zemstvos was changed and the distribution of the number of zemstvo vowels by those curiae, which were now reorganized according to class, was changed. Most of all, the electoral system was changed in relation to the peasantry. The peasants formed a special curia, as in the Regulations of 1864, but, firstly, they were deprived of the right to elect persons who did not belong to their curia, which strengthened the estate of the curia; then, since the number of vowels from the peasants was extremely reduced and everywhere there was significantly less than the number of volosts in each district, and the choice of vowels was left to the volosts, it was therefore decided that the volosts would only have to elect candidates into vowels, and from them the governor will have to determine who should be a vowel. Thus, in the end, the vowels from the peasants were vowels by appointment of the governor and, of course, on the recommendation of the zemstvo chief.
The number of vowels from the nobility was enormously increased in all districts with an absolute decrease in the total number of vowels, and thus, according to the Regulations of 1890, zemstvo district assemblies became, in essence, almost noble assemblies, because there were representatives of the nobility here in almost all districts in the overwhelming majority. It must be said, however, that the Ministry of Internal Affairs failed to fully implement Tolstoy’s project. Count Tolstoy died before this matter was completed, and although I. N. Durnovo was appointed in his place, who was a fellow minister with him and was considered inspired by the same principles, but, having neither his talents, nor his character, nor his influence in particular, he could not defend the Regulations drafted by Tolstoy in its entirety in the State Council. In this way, the part of this Regulation concerning the conversion of zemstvo self-government bodies into public places completely subordinate to the governors was not fully implemented. The State Council changed the project in many ways, and the Regulations that came out of the State Council were not to such an extent destroying all self-government as one might expect, judging by Tolstoy’s original project.
However, this was a complete distortion of the 1864 Regulations, especially in relation to the peasantry. The restriction on peasants, which was expressed in the fact that in the end the peasants' representatives were appointed by the governor, was abolished only in 1906 by the law of October 5, as you know from the course on peasant law. For the same reason, I will not describe to you in detail the Regulations of July 12, 1889 on zemstvo leaders; I will only say that the entry into force of this Regulation was preceded by the development of some other laws, which in the same way sought to establish administrative guardianship over the peasants in the interests of the local nobility and to regulate the position of the peasantry in this way. Here we should mention two laws developed with the assistance of the same Pazukhin, namely the Law on the hiring of peasants for agricultural work, which was edited entirely in the interests of the landowners, and then the Law on peasant family divisions, which was one of the most typical examples of applying the idea of \u200b\u200btrusteeship to peasant legislation .
Counter-reforms in the judicial sphere
Of course, during this reactionary time, those distortions of judicial statutes that began, as you saw, even in the previous reign, continued in an intensified form. These distortions concerned, of course, primarily the increasingly narrowing of the role of the jury. But besides this, it was the Law of July 12, 1889 that seriously violated one of the fundamental principles of judicial statutes: namely, the principle of separation of judicial and administrative powers. It was violated in relation to cases, however, of secondary importance - in relation to less important crimes and less valuable civil claims - but also more often encountered in life. I'm talking about the destruction of justice of the peace. At the very moment of discussion in the State Council of the Law on Zemstvo Chiefs, Emperor Alexander - due to the fact that in the State Council the former Minister of Finance A. A. Abaza had expressed the idea of replacing zemstvo chiefs with justices of the peace on the English model - decided that the parallel existence of these authorities, indeed, will require us to spend too much money and, perhaps, will be a measure contrary to the idea of a strong government close to the people, and therefore indicated that justices of the peace should be completely abolished, and that judicial power, which is entrusted to them by law, should be divided: in part - for some more important cases - it should be transferred to district courts, and for more unimportant offenses - to zemstvo chiefs in rural areas, while for cities special city courts should be established with more simplified forms of judicial proceedings and less expensive, and the second instance in relation to them should be the congress of zemstvo leaders. This mixture of administrative and judicial authorities was carried out in the Regulations on Zemstvo Chiefs.
Seal under Alexander III
Then, of course, in this reactionary time and even before all these changes in the reforms of the 60s followed, the already difficult position of the press, of course, worsened enormously. In this regard, as soon as Tolstoy took office, already in 1882 he was concerned with the publication of new additional Temporary Rules on August 27, 1882, which added a whole series of extremely restrictive measures in relation to the press to those measures that were established by the Temporary Rules rules of 1865 and Timashev’s additions to them. According to these new Rules, firstly, a provision was introduced that those press organs that were temporarily suspended after three warnings could again begin to publish exclusively only under a special kind of preliminary censorship, namely: for newspapers it was established that every newspaper subjected to this punishment can again be published only with the condition that each issue on the eve of its publication, no later than 11 pm, is submitted to the censor. This, of course, was almost completely impracticable for daily newspapers, because, as you know, newspapers, whose responsibility it is to report the latest news, are printed at night, right up to the moment of distribution, and thus cannot be prepared for 11 o'clock in the evening the day before, or the novelty of the information must be compromised. Therefore, as soon as this rule was applied to Kraevsky’s “Voice” and Polonsky’s “Strana”, which were published in St. Petersburg and were then the most harsh liberal newspapers, then these newspapers had to cease to exist. The second rule, which was reintroduced, was the establishment of a special Areopagus of four ministers: the Minister of Public Education, the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Minister of Justice and the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, who were given the right, in case of detection of the harmful direction of any magazine or newspaper, to permanently stop this publication, and at the same time they could also completely deprive the editor of this newspaper or magazine of the right to publish any press organs forever.
All those draconian measures that were established by both new and previous legislation on the press were applied with particular severity to magazines and newspapers, especially in the first years of the Tolstoy regime. Thus, the press was subjected to punishments such as deprivation of the right to print advertisements, numerous warnings, which ultimately led to suspension and then, according to the new law, to submission under preliminary censorship, as deprivation of the right to retail sales, which painfully hit newspapers in economically. Very soon, a new method was used to finally terminate the magazine by decision of four ministers: this is how Otechestvennye Zapiski was terminated from January 1884 and some other liberal press organs of that time.
At the end of the Tolstoy regime, precisely in the 80s, in the last two or three years of Tolstoy’s life, the number of such punishments decreased significantly, and one could, as K. K. Arsenyev notes, even think that this was a symptom of a softening of the regime; but such a reduction in the number of punishments in fact, as the same historian of censorship explains, depended on the fact that there was no one and there was nothing to impose them on, since a significant number of liberal independent press organs were either completely stopped or put in such a position, that they did not dare to make a word, and in cases of doubt the editors themselves explained themselves to the censors in advance and bargained for themselves that small area of freedom that seemed to them to be censorship itself. In such circumstances, only a few of the liberal press organs survived this difficult moment, such as Vestnik Evropy, Russkaya Mysl and Russkie Vedomosti, which, however, constantly felt the sword of Damocles over them, and their existence also hung all this time on a thread.
Religious and national policy of Alexander III
Particularly difficult in this dark era of Russian life, as you will now see, was the situation of various people of other faiths, foreigners and, in general, the population of the outskirts of Russia.
True, with regard to issues of religious tolerance, at the beginning of the reign of Emperor Alexander III, on May 3, 1883, a law was issued that seemed to ensure some religious tolerance, at least in relation to schismatics and sectarians. But already in the near future the hopes raised by this law should have been completely abandoned; It was in relation to the sectarians that the government, led in this case by Pobedonostsev, showed particular severity, and sometimes even, one might say, ferocity, persecuting sectarians of the purest and most moral sects in nature, such as, for example, Pashkovites, Tolstoyans, Doukhobors, Stundists.
These sects were persecuted not because, like in the sects of the Skoptsy or Khlysty, any harmful and morally intolerant teachings developed, but simply because these sects were recognized as the most dangerous to the dominant religion. The Stundists and Doukhobors were especially persecuted, and the government sometimes even went so far as to take children away from their parents, so that there was nowhere to go further. In 1894, at the very end of the reign of Emperor Alexander III, prayer meetings were even completely prohibited for Stundists.
Measures against the Uniates in the Western Region and the Kingdom of Poland, and in some cases against the Lutherans in the Baltic region, were in complete harmony with this. At this time, in general, militant nationalism in Russia flourished more and more, and on the outskirts it reached its apogee. Most of all, Jews and Catholic Poles were persecuted at this time, the latter in the Western Region and even in the Kingdom of Poland itself. Lamaites, Kalmyks and Buryats were also persecuted - they were forbidden to build temples, conduct religious services, and some of them experienced special persecution in cases where they were officially listed as converts to Orthodoxy, and then in reality it turned out that they continued to profess their previous religion.
Jews in particular were subject to various types of restrictions. Thus, by temporary rules on May 3, 1882, Jews were deprived of the right to settle within even the Pale of Settlement itself outside cities and towns; they were prohibited from purchasing real estate in rural areas. In 1887, Rostov-on-Don and Taganrog with the district were removed from the Pale of Settlement; Thus, the Pale of Settlement, in which Jews had long had the right to live, was reduced. In 1891, it was forbidden for Jewish artisans to settle in Moscow, who had this right under the law of 1865, which allowed Jews who had received higher education and artisans to settle outside the Pale of Settlement. And so, as a result of the prohibition for artisans to settle in Moscow and in the Moscow province, a number of evictions were carried out in 1891, and these evictions were often carried out in the most outrageous forms: in total, about 17 thousand Jews were evicted, and they were evicted anywhere, with complete ruin, since these were the least affluent sections of the Jewish population.
In 1887, a percentage norm was introduced for Jewish children in educational institutions, the consequences of which are well known to everyone. In 1889, the admission of Jews to sworn attorneys was actually suspended, and without any legal basis they began to be retained as assistant sworn attorneys for the rest of their lives. In this regard, some change has occurred only in recent years.
The Poles were severely limited in their rights to public service in the Kingdom of Poland and the Western Territory, but in other areas of Russia they did not experience any special constraints.
Counter-reforms in the War Ministry
The reactionary spirit, which was felt everywhere and in many ways at that time, was also reflected in the order in the army. Here, those humane principles that D. A. Milyutin sought to introduce and strengthen during his twenty years at the helm of the War Ministry gradually disappeared. The government, which in many respects tried to improve the material life of the officers, which established preferential conditions for officers to receive tickets to theaters, etc., at the same time sought to educate the officers in a decidedly caste spirit, so that they felt completely separated from the rest population. In order to further develop this spirit among officers, special legislative norms were even issued for it. Thus, especially for officers, the criminal law prohibition of duels, which was valid for the entire population, was abolished. In general, participation in a duel is punishable by quite significant punishment; Meanwhile, for officers, duels in a certain order were not only allowed among themselves, but according to the new law they were allowed to resort to duels even in their clashes with civilians; in certain cases, the code of honor established at this time for officers even requires a challenge to a duel.
In an effort to educate in the spirit of caste those destined by their parents for an officer career from an early age, the War Ministry again rebuilt those military educational institutions that had been transformed under Milyutin in the spirit of humanity and reasonable pedagogical methods: under Vannovsky, the new Minister of War, they were again were transformed from military gymnasiums into cadet corps and the authorities tried to restore in them the regime of closed military educational institutions that reigned in them under Emperor Nicholas I.
The literature on this issue is listed below in the bibliography of the reign of Emperor Alexander III.
According to the “May rules” of 1882, it was only forbidden to come there new Jewish settlers already living In the villages of the Pale of Settlement, Jews were not expelled from there. (Note from the site creator)