¹ P. V-v, ‘Kir Mikhail episkop kanadskii’, Staroobriadcheskaia Myslˈ (SM) (1916), nos. 9–10, p. 577; Fomichev, ‘Episkop Mikhail’, Slovo Tserkvi, no. 45 (1916), p. 900–1; unsigned obituary, Rechˈ, 28 Oct. 1916. Dates are Old Style on the Julian calendar, twelve days behind the Gregorian in the nineteenth century and thirteen in the twentieth.

² Peter Gatrell, A whole empire walking: refugees in Russia during World War I (Bloomington, IN, 1999), p. 62.

³ Anon., ‘Poslednie chasy zhizni episkopa Mikhaila i ego pogrebenie’, appeared in both SM, nos. 9–10 (1916), pp. 579–81, and Slovo Tserkvi, no. 14 (1916), pp. 901–2.

⁴ Gippius, diary, 29 Oct. 1916, in Zinaida Gippius, Dnevniki (2 vols., Moscow, 1999), i, pp. 429–30.

⁵ Lenin quoted extensively from Mikhail in Pravda, 1 Dec. 1912, during the election campaign for the fourth Duma: see ‘Dukhovenstvo i politika’, in V. I. Lenin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii (5th edn, 55 vols., Moscow, 1960–9), xxii, pp. 80–1.

⁶ Scherrer, Jutta, ‘Die Petersburger religiös-philosophischen Vereinigungen’, Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte, 19 (Berlin, 1973), esp. p. 110Google Scholar n. 87, which mistakenly states that Mikhail converted to the Old Belief in 1905. The most recent edition of the assemblies' proceedings wrongly claims that he graduated from the St Petersburg theological academy: S. M. Polovinkina, ed., Zapiski Peterburgskikh Religiozno-Filosofskikh sobranii, 1901–1903 (Moscow, 2005), p. 517.

⁷ Gregory L. Freeze, ‘“Going to the intelligentsia”: the church and its urban mission in post-reform Russia', in Edith W. Clowes, Samuel Kassow, and James L. West, eds., Between tsar and people: educated society and the quest for public identity in late imperial Russia (Princeton, NJ, 1991), pp. 226, 228.

⁸ John H. M. Geekie, ‘The church and politics in Russia 1905–1917: a study of the political behaviour of the Russian Orthodox clergy in the reign of Nicholas II’ (Ph.D. thesis, East Anglia, 1976), pp. 15, 107–8; S. L. Firsov, Russkaia tserkovˈ nakanune peremen (konets 1890-kh – 1918 gg.) (St Petersburg, 2002), p. 325.

⁹ William G. Wagner, Marriage, property and the law in late imperial Russia (Oxford, 1994), p. 178.

¹⁰ M. M. Sheinman, Khristianskii sotsializm: istoriia i ideologiia (Moscow, 1969), pp. 137–9; Gerhard Simon, Church, state and opposition in the USSR (London, 1974), p. 23; Geekie, ‘Church and politics’, pp. 65–7; James W. Cunningham, A vanquished hope: the movement for church renewal in Russia, 1905–1906 (Crestwood, 1981), pp. 314–15. Cunningham was mistaken to claim that Mikhail converted to the Old Belief in 1909 and became an Old Believer bishop ‘after the 1917 Revolution’: ibid., p. 344 n. 38.

¹¹ S. L. Firsov, ‘K voprosu o tserkovnom reformatorstve nachala veka: shtrikhi k portretu staroobriadcheskogo episkopa Mikhaila (Semenova)’, in A. N. Tsamutali et al., eds., Problemy sotsialˈno-ekonomicheskoi i politicheskoi istorii Rossii XIX-XX vekov: sbornik statei pamiati V. S. Dˈiakina i Iu.B. Solovˈeva (St Petersburg, 1999), pp. 322–32; Aleksandr Etkind, Khlyst: sekty, literatura i revoliutsiia (Moscow, 1998), pp. 249–53.

¹² I make no pretence to comprehensiveness. Press coverage of Mikhail's conversion alone was reputed to extend to almost every newspaper from Birzhevye vedomosti to Bessarabskaia zhiznˈ.

¹³ Arkhimandrit Mikhail, Kak ia stal narodnym sotsialistom (Moscow, 1907), pp. 4, 3, reissued in idem, Khristos v vek mashin (Moscow, 1907), here pp. 252, 251. The Russian National Library in St Petersburg also ascribes to Mikhail the anonymous memoir, Ot bursy do sniatiia sana (2nd edn, Simbirsk, 1913). However, this is the work of a priest rather than a monk, and its subject – the disputed legitimacy of re-marriage for widowed clergy – though taken up by fellow clerical reformists, was of no personal concern to him. Dr Katharine Aylett kindly procured a photocopy for me.

¹⁴ Mikhail, Kak ia stal narodnym sotsialistom, pp. 6–10.

¹⁵ Ieromonakh Mikhail, ‘Pisˈma o propovedi: pisˈmo 2-e’, Tserkovnyi vestnik (TsV), no. 11 (1905), p. 333.

¹⁶ See Mikhail's official service record (formuliarnyi spisok), St Petersburg, Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (RGIA), f. (fond) 796, op. (opis') 187, d. (delo) 674, ll. 73–5ob.

¹⁷ Nicolas Zernov, The Russian religious renaissance of the twentieth century (London, 1963), p. 99; Scherrer, ‘Die Petersburger religiös-philosophischen Vereinigungen’, p. 110 n. 87; Geekie, ‘Church and politics’, p. 65; Cunningham, A vanquished hope, p. 120; all probably relying on T. Manukhina, ed., Putˈ moei zhizni: vospominaniia mitropolita Evlogiia (Paris, 1947), p. 202, the memoir of a right-wing bishop, hostile to Mikhail.

¹⁸ A. A. Bronzov, ‘Tragicheskii konets’, TsV, nos. 43–5 (1916), pp. 782–3.

¹⁹ Russkiia vedomosti, 10 Nov. 1907, and Rechˈ, 11 Nov. 1907, denied reports to this effect in Novoe vremia, 9 Nov. 1907, but compare the defensive remarks by his principal Old Believer supporter in ‘Episkop Innokentii ob arkh. Mikhaile’, Staroobriadtsy, no. 1 (1908), p. 97: ‘The reptilian press shrieks that he is “a yid”. Although one could point to a mass of examples of Jews who became luminaries of the church … and although Jewish origins are therefore not in themselves unworthy of the Christian church, in which there are “neither Hellenes nor Hebrews”, it is only just to point out that archimandrite Mikhail is a “native-born Orthodox Christian”, to use the expression sometimes employed in official documents, because he was born into and raised in the established church.’ Emphasis in the original.

²⁰ Arkhimandrit Mikhail, Khristos i Varfolomeevskie nochi (Evreiskie pogromy) (St Petersburg, 1906), extracted in Pravoslavnaia Tserkovˈ i evrei: XIX–XX vv. Sbornik materialov k teologii: mezhkonfessionalˈnogo dialoga (Moscow, 1994), pp. 28–9.

²¹ ‘Programma russkikh khristianskikh sotsialistov’, in Mikhail, Khristos v vek mashin, p. 47.

²² ‘Novoe ispovedanie golgofskikh khristian’, first published in Novaia zemlia, no. 5 (1910). I refer to the version reprinted by Mikhail's Old Believer critics, Father G. M. Karabinovich and Ieromonakh Iov (Nemtsev), in order to expose his ‘dangerous, heretical and socialist opinions’. See Sobranie statei po delu episkopa Mikhaila Kanadskago (Moscow, 1914), pp. 90–113, here quoted at p. 99.

²³ See ‘Budushchee zhenshchiny’, in Ieromonakh Mikhail, Tserkovˈ, literatura i zhiznˈ (Moscow, 1905), pp. 201–17, reworked as ‘Zhenshchine nakanune eia osvobozhdeniia’, in Mikhail, Khristos v vek mashin, pp. 193–226, and Mikhail, Episkop, ‘Sviatyia imena: matˈ, zhena, dochˈ’, Tserkov', no. 18 (1910), pp. 457–60Google Scholar; no. 24 (1910), pp. 501–3.

²⁴ For Rozanov's contradictory views on Judaism, see Efim Kurganov and Genrietta Mondri [Henrietta Mondry], Vasilii Rozanov i evrei (St Petersburg, 2000), and Laura Engelstein, The keys to happiness: sex and the search for modernity in fin-de-siècle Russia (Ithaca, NY, 1992), ch. 8. Unlike the religious-philosophical assemblies, which were sponsored by the Orthodox church as a way of reaching out to the secular intelligentsia in 1902–3, the religious-philosophical society was a group of intellectuals, including Mikhail but few other churchmen, founded under the presidency of Sergei Bulgakov in 1905 and meeting regularly from 1906 to 1918: for its membership, see T. F. Prokopov, ed., Moskovskii Parnas: kruzhki, salony, zhurfiksy Serebrianogo veka 1890–1922 (Moscow, 2006), pp. 673–4.

²⁵ Arkhiepiskop Antonii, Evreiskii vopros i Sviataia Bibliia (Pochaev, 1907).

²⁶ Plamper, Jan, ‘The Russian Orthodox episcopate, 1721–1917: a prosopography’, Journal of Social History, 34 (2000), pp. 22–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Appendix 2.1.

²⁷ S.S.B., ‘O monashestve uchenom’, TsV, nos. 29–30 (1889), pp. 505–7, 521–3; reprinted in Episkop Antonii, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii (3 vols., Kazanˈ, 1900), i, pp. 416–27. On Pobedonostsev and the bishops, see Gregory L. Freeze, The parish clergy in nineteenth-century Russia: crisis, reform, counter-reform (Princeton, NJ, 1983), pp. 440–4.

²⁸ Mikhail, Kak ia stal narodnym sotsialistom, p. 11.

²⁹ Mikhail, Ieromonakh, ‘Aktivno ili passivno khristianstvo?’, Khristianskoe chtenie, 1 (1903), p. 438Google Scholar.

³⁰ G. S. Petrov, U pustogo kolodtsa: sbornik statei (3rd edn, Moscow, 1913), p. 235.

³¹ Episkop Nikon (Rklitskii), Zhizneopisanie blazhenneishago Antoniia, mitropolita kievskago i galitskago (17 vols., New York, NY, 1956–69), i, pp. 168–70.

³² Otchet o sostoianii Kazanskoi dukhovnoi akademii za 1898–1899 uchebnyi god (Kazanˈ, 1899), p. 50.

³³ Tserkovˈ, no. 17 (1908), p. 614.

³⁴ Mikhail, Tserkovˈ, literatura i zhiznˈ, p. 27.

³⁵ K. P. Pobedonostsev to Palladii (Raev), archbishop of Kazanˈ, 27 Dec. 1883, RGIA, f. 684, op. 1, d. 34, l. 11ob. On the mission to the Muslims, see Robert Geraci, Window on the east: national and imperial identities in late imperial Russia (Ithaca, NY, 2001). On the origins of the edinoverie, see Pera, Pia, ‘Despotismo illuminato e dissenso religioso: i vecchi credenti nell'eta di Caterina II’, Rivista Istorica Italiana, 97 (1985), pp. 501–617Google Scholar.

³⁶ S. I. Alekseeva, Sviateishii Sinod v sisteme vysshikh i tsentralˈnykh gosudarstvennykh uchrezhdenii poreformennoi Rossii, 1856–1904 gg. (St Petersburg, 2003), pp. 183–6.

³⁷ M. P. Chelˈtsov, Edinoverie za vremia stoletnego sushchestvovaniia v russkoi tserkvi (St Petersburg, 1900); S. Shleev, K voprosu: kakoi episkop nuzhen edinoveriiu (St Petersburg, 1905), esp. pp. 10, 15–16, 17–18; idem, Edinoverie v svoem vnutrennem razvitiiu (St Petersburg, 1910).

³⁸ Shleev's formuliarnyi spisok, St Petersburg, Tsentralˈnyi gosudarstvennyi arkhiv gorod S.-Peterburga (TsGA SPb), f. 19, op. 113, d. 4107, ll. 7ob–9; Otchet o sostoianii Kazanskoi dukhovnoi akademii za 1898–1899 uchebnyi god, p. 50. Tonsured in 1918, Shleev was assassinated as bishop of Ufa on 12 Sept. 1921: see Metropolit Manuil, Die russischen Orthodoxen Bischöfe von 1893 bis 1965: Bio-Bibliogaphie (6 vols., Erlangen, 1979–89), vi, p. 223.

³⁹ Gruppa Peterburgskikh sviashchennikov, K tserkovnomu soboru: sbornik (St Petersburg, 1906), p. ii.

⁴⁰ Chelˈtsov's formuliarnyi spisok, TsGA SPb, f. 19, op. 113, d. 4133, ll. 108ob–11. For his subsequent career, see Prot. M. P. Chelˈtsov, ‘V chem prichina tserkovnoi razrukhi v 1920–1930 gg.’, ed. V. Antonov, Minuvshee, 17 (St Petersburg, 1995), pp. 411–73.

⁴¹ The group, whose membership has never been fully established, gathered initially at the apartment of Father Nikolai Rudinskii, where more than fifty were attending meetings by the end of March: Firsov, Russkaia tserkovˈ, pp. 323–30, makes no mention of Shleev.

⁴² See the list of forty-seven clerical members at RGIA, f. 834, op. 4, d. 565, ll. 3–4, ‘Spisok lits sviashchennago sana, sostoiashchikh chlenami “Bratstva revnitelei tserkovnago obnovleniia”’, 26 Oct. 1906. Two months later, Shleev was falsely denounced, with a fourth ‘renovationist’, Father Petr Aksenov, for failing to pray for the tsar: St Petersburg city governor to synodal over procurator, 30 Dec. 1906, RGIA, f. 797, op. 77, 3 otdel, 5 stol, d. 3, l. 1.

⁴³ Cunningham, A vanquished hope, pp. 300–2; Nikon, Zhizneopisanie, iii, pp. 160–75.

⁴⁴ ‘Pervyi vserossiiskii edinovercheskii sˈˈezd v Peterburge’, Golos tserkvi (1912), April, pp. 91–105; May–June, pp. 145–63, published a transcript of the proceedings in response to mixed coverage in Rechˈ and Novoe vremia, beginning on 23 Jan. 1912.

⁴⁵ Tserkovˈ, no. 17 (1908), p. 614.

⁴⁶ Service records for Slobodskoi, TsGA SPb, f. 19, op. 113, d. 4108, ll. 145ob–47ob; Dokuchaev, ibid., d. 4133, ll. 77ob–79; and Murin, ibid., d. 4108, ll. 136ob–37ob. All three belonged to the Brotherhood of Zealots for Church Renewal in October 1906 (see above, n. 42).

⁴⁷ Ieromonakh Mikhail, Zakonodatelˈstvo rimsko-vizantiiskikh imperatorov o vneshnikh pravakh i preimushchestvakh tserkvi ot 313 do 565 goda (Kazanˈ, 1901).

⁴⁸ Idem, ‘Ustroistvo tserkovnago upravleniia v konstantinopolˈskom patriarkhate’, Pravoslavnyi sobesednik, 2 (1900), pp. 137–57, esp. pp. 142–3.

⁴⁹ Idem, ‘Ocherk preobrazovaniia stroia tserkovnago upravleniia v Konstantinopolˈskom patriarkhate v 1858–1900 gg.’, Pravoslavnyi sobesednik, 1 (1902), appendix, pp. 1–56, esp. pp. 12, 15–17.

⁵⁰ Idem, ‘Pisˈma iz Konstantinopolia’, Pravoslavnyi sobesednik, 1 (1900), pp. 610–18, 753–9; 2 (1900), pp. 290–5.

⁵¹ Children were to remain a focus of interest: Ieromonakh Mikhail, Lishniia, broshennyia, neschastnyia deti: Publichnyia lektsii (Moscow, 1904). For the national context, see Catriona Kelly, Children's world: growing up in Russia, 1890–1991 (New Haven, CT, 2007), ch. 5.

⁵² Mikhail, Ieromonakh, ‘O zadachakh tserkovnago prava’, Khristianskoe chtenie, 2 (1902), pp. 753–73Google Scholar, quoted at p. 757.

⁵³ Otchet o sostoianii S-Peterburgskoi dukhovnoi akademii za 1904 g. (St Petersburg, 1905), p. 27.

⁵⁴ Peter Ulf Møller, Postlude to ‘The Kreutzer Sonata’: Tolstoj and the debate on sexual morality in Russian literature in the 1890s, trans. John Kendal (Leiden, 1988); Engelstein, Keys to happiness, pp. 218–25.

⁵⁵ Ieromonakh Mikhail, ‘O brake (psikhologiia tainstva)’, in ‘Zapiski Religiozno-Filosofskikh Sobranii’, supplement to Novyi putˈ, no. 6 (1903), pp. 248–56, passim.

⁵⁶ Briusov, diary, 16 Nov. 1902, V. Briusov, Dnevniki, 1891–1910 (Moscow, 1927), p. 124.

⁵⁷ ‘Zapiski Religiozno-Filosofskikh Sobranii’, supplement to Novyi putˈ, no. 8 (1903), p. 307.

⁵⁸ S. P. Kablukov, diary, 16 June 1909, in V. V. Rozanov, Pro et contra: Lichnostˈ i tvorchestvo Vasiliia Rozanova v otsenke russkikh myslitelei i issledovatelei (2 vols., St Petersburg, 1995), i, p. 205. Compare, however, the generous review of Petrov's lectures in 1903 in V. V. Rozanov, Okolo tserkovnykh sten (2 vols., St Petersburg, 1906), ii, pp. 131–40, and the dismissal of Mikhail in idem, Mimoletnoe, ed. A. N. Nikoliukin (Moscow, 1994), p. 291.

⁵⁹ The Russian meshchanstvo still awaits its historian; on the workers, see Page Herrlinger, ‘Orthodoxy and the experience of factory life in St Petersburg, 1881–1905’, in Michael Melancon and Alice K. Pate, eds., New labor history: worker identity and experience in Russia, 1840–1918 (Bloomington, IN, 2002), pp. 35–63.

⁶⁰ For example, A[rkhimandrit] Mikhail (in collaboration with G[rigorii] P[etrov]), Bezsmertna-li dusha? Reshenie voprosa s tochki zreniiia evoliutsii (St Petersburg, 1906).

⁶¹ On Braun, see Richard J. Evans, The feminist movement in Germany, 1894–1933 (London, 1976).

⁶² Mikhail, Arkhimandrit, ‘Tipy oratorstva: Rechˈ v Obshchestve liubitelei oratorskago iskusstva’, Khristianskoe chtenie, 2 (1905), pp. 456–77Google Scholar, 625–34, at pp. 458, 463, 476–7.

⁶³ See, in particular, Smith, S. A., ‘Workers and supervisors: St Petersburg, 1905–1917 and Shanghai 1895–1927’, Past and Present, 139 (1993), pp. 38–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁴ Geoffrey Hosking, Russia: people and empire, 1552–1917 (London, 1997), part 4.

⁶⁵ Mikhail, Tserkovˈ, literatura i zhiznˈ, p. 19, countering Rozanov's claim that the common people were mere ‘dust’ in a church dominated by clerical ‘scribes’. Published in 1905, this pamphlet passed the censorship in Sept. 1904.

⁶⁶ Patricia Herlihy, The alcoholic empire: vodka and politics in late imperial Russia (New York, NY, 2002), ch. 5.

⁶⁷ Quoted in Mikhail Gorev, Kak trezvenniki ezdili na Valaam (2nd edn, St Petersburg, 1909), pp. 9–10.

⁶⁸ Ieromonakh Mikhail, O schastˈe i meshchanstve (St Petersburg, 1904), pp. 26–36. On Gumilevskii, see Adele Lindenmeyr, Poverty is not a vice: charity, society and the state in imperial Russia (Princeton, NJ, 1996), pp. 129–36.

⁶⁹ Simon Dixon, ‘The church's social role in St Petersburg, 1880–1914’, in Geoffrey Hosking, ed., Church, state and nation in Russia and Ukraine (London, 1990), pp. 173–4.

⁷⁰ Ieromonakh Mikhail, Otets Ioann Kronstadtskii: Polnaia biografiia (St Petersburg, 1903; 2nd edn, 1904). Historians still regard the book as a plausible secondary source: see, e.g., Nadieszda Kizenko, A prodigal saint: Father John of Kronstadt and the Russian people (University Park, PA, 2000), p. 291 n. 20, and passim.

⁷¹ Ierom. Mikhail, Znachenie obshchestvennogo bogosluzheniia (Po povodu otveta L.N. Tolstogo Sv. Sinodu) (St Petersburg, 1902); idem, Liubovˈ ili nenavistˈ, khristianstvo ili buddizm propoveduet Tolstoi? (Publichnyia Lektsiia) (St Petersburg, 1902, reprinted from Missionerskoe obozrenie); ‘Novaia knizhka grafa Tolstogo, L. N.“Obrashchenie k dukhoventsvu”’, Missionerskoe obozrenie, 1 (1903), pp. 1243–52Google Scholar, 1508–28; 2 (1903), pp. 113–32.

⁷² Princess's diary, 9 Aug. 1904, in Nadezhda Kornevaia, ed., ‘“Mne dano byl uteshenie”: dnevnik kniazhny M. M. Dondukova-Korsakovoi’, Istochnik, no. 3 (1995), p. 7; Novorusskii to Figner, Aug. 1905, in V. N. Figner, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii (6 vols., Moscow, 1929), iv, p. 200.

⁷³ Ieromonakh Mikhail, V pravednuiu zemliu (St Petersburg, 1903), p. 5.

⁷⁴ Idem, Pisˈma o voine (Moscow, 1904), p. 23. On Solovˈev and the ‘yellow peril’, see David Schimmelpenninck van der Oye, Toward the rising sun: Russian ideologies of empire and the path to war with Japan (DeKalb, IL, 2001), pp. 82–6.

⁷⁵ For an evocative account, see Arkhimandrit Sergii, Na dalˈnem vostoke (2nd edn, Sergiev Posad, 1903). Pessimistic bulletins from Japan reached Russia via Pravoslavnyi blagovestnik, the journal of the Orthodox Missionary Society.

⁷⁶ Mikhail, Pisˈma o voine, pp. 24, 26–7.

⁷⁷ See Walter Sablinsky, The road to Bloody Sunday: Father Gapon and the St. Petersburg Massacre of 1905 (Princeton, NJ, 1976), and Gerald D. Surh, 1905 in St. Petersburg: labor, society and revolution (Stanford, CA, 1989), chs. 3 and 4.

⁷⁸ Antonii, ‘O strashnom sude’, Moskovskiia vedomosti, 2 Mar. 1905; Gregory L. Freeze, ‘Church and politics in late imperial Russia: crisis and radicalisation of the clergy’, in Anna Geifman, ed., Russia under the last tsar: opposition and subversion 1894–1917 (Oxford, 1999), pp. 273–4; Herrlinger, Page, ‘Raising Lazarus: Orthodoxy and the factory narod in St Petersburg, 1905–14’, Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, 52 (2004), pp. 341–54Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ D. Filosofov, ‘Episkop Mikhail’, Rech', 29 Oct. 1916.

⁸⁰ Ieromonakh Mikhail, ‘Pochemu nam ne veriat?’, TsV, no. 5 (1905), pp. 138–41.

⁸¹ I. V. Preobrazhenskii, Tserkovnaia reforma: sbornik statei dukhovnoi i svetskoi periodicheskoi pechati po voprosu o reforme (St Petersburg, 1905), p. 51, reprinting an article by Mikhail published in Vestnik iuga and Zapadnyi golos, 24 Mar. 1905.

⁸² Arkhimandrit Mikhail, ‘Iz kogo dolzhen sostoiatˈ tserkovnyi sobor?’, TsV, no. 15 (1905), pp. 462–7.

⁸³ Idem, ‘“Pervosviatitelˈ” ili “pervoprisutstvuiushchii”?’, TsV, no. 19 (1905), pp. 587–90.

⁸⁴ Zhurnaly soveta S-Peterburgskoi dukhovnoi akademii za 1904–1905 gg. (St Petersburg, 1906), pp. 193–4, 16 Jan. 1905.

⁸⁵ K tserkovnomu soboru, p. iii.

⁸⁶ Synod resolution no. 1374, RGIA, f. 796, op. 209, d. 2241, l. 19.

⁸⁷ See Chelˈtsov, ‘V chem prichina’, pp. 419–20.

⁸⁸ Episkop Sergii, ‘Svoboda – dlia Tserkvi, no ne dlia nas: Rechˈ pri vruchenii zhezla novopostavlennomu arkhimandritu Mikhailu, dotsentu akademii, 20 marta 1905 g.’, TsV, no. 12 (1905), pp. 354–5.

⁸⁹ Otchet o sostoianii S-Peterburgskoi dukhovnoi akademii za 1905 g. (St Petersburg, 1906), p. 7.

⁹⁰ Vek, ot redaktsii (St Petersburg, n.d.), pp. 1–2; Scherrer, ‘Die Petersburger religiös-philosophischen Vereinigungen’, pp. 139–44.

⁹¹ D. V. Filosofov, Zagadki russkoi kulˈtury (Moscow, 2004), pp. 172–6, reprinting ‘Tserkovˈ i revoliutsiia’ from Vek, no. 18 (1907). Bulgakov, Sergeicontrasted the exclusive, confessional interests of ‘clericalism’ with the universal ambitions of ‘Christian politics’ in ‘Neotlozhnaia zadacha’, Voprosy zhizni, no. 9 (1905), p. 348Google Scholar.

⁹² Chelˈtsov, ‘V chem prichina’, p. 420.

⁹³ Etkind, Khlyst, p. 245, quoting Vek, 1 July 1907.

⁹⁴ [Arkhimandrit Mikhail], Byvshaia duma: vypusk pervyi – Po sledam Ka-De (Do Gelˈsingforsa): Rechˈ obvinitelˈno-zashchitelˈnaia (Simbirsk, 1906).

⁹⁵ See the advertisement in idem, Dni tvoreniia (St Petersburg, 1906).

⁹⁶ See, in particular, John Boyer, Political radicalism in late imperial Vienna: origins of the Christian Social movement, 1848–1897 (Chicago, IL, 1981), and idem, Culture and political crisis in Vienna: Christian socialism in power, 1897–1918 (Chicago, IL, 1995). Mikhail made no mention of the anti-Semitic mayor of Vienna, Karl Lueger, confining his interest to the Germans, Naumann and Stecker, and to Charles Kingsley, notably in Sviashchennik-sotsialist i ego sotsialˈnyi roman (St Petersburg, 1906).

⁹⁷ E. R. Norman, Church and society in England, 1770–1970: a historical study (Oxford, 1976), p. 177. For subtler possibilities, see Green, S. J. D., ‘E. S. Talbot: the making of a Christian socialist; the development of his mind in Leeds, 1889–1895’, Northern History, 37 (2000), pp. 261–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁸ See Catherine Evtuhov, The cross and the sickle: Sergei Bulgakov and the fate of Russian religious philosophy (Ithaca, NY, 1997), pp. 101–14, quoted at p. 112.

⁹⁹ ‘Programma khristiansko-sotsialˈnoi rabochei partii v eia okonchatelˈnoi formulirovke’, in Mikhail, Khristos v vek mashin, p. 38.

¹⁰⁰ A[rkhimandrit] M[ikhail], Khristianstvo i sotsial-demokratiia (St Petersburg, 1907), pp. 14–27, 27–31 (great men), quoted at pp. 27 (Bulgakov), 39 (socialist programme).

¹⁰¹ Like the ‘kadets’, the party was known by its initials.

¹⁰² See Maureen Perrie, The agrarian policy of the Russian socialist-revolutionary party (Cambridge, 1976), pp. 160–7; Terence Emmons, The formation of political parties and the first national elections in Russia (Cambridge, MA, 1983), pp. 81–8; and N. D. Erofeev, Narodnye sotsialisty v revoliutsii 1905–1907 gg. (Moscow, 1979). On the party's intellectual origins and ultimate fate, see V. P. Baluev, Liberalˈnoe narodnichestvo na rubezhe XIX-XX vekov (Moscow, 1995), and A. V. Sypchenko, Narodno-sotsialisticheskaia partiia v 1907–1917 gg. (Moscow, 1999).

¹⁰³ ‘Programma russkikh khristianskikh sotsialistov’, in Mikhail, Khristos v vek mashin, pp. 46–8, emphasis in the original. This programme had been largely anticipated in Arkhimandrit Mikhail, Prokliatyia voprosy i khristianstvo (St Petersburg, 1906).

¹⁰⁴ Emmons, Formation, p. 87.

¹⁰⁵ Antonii to Pobedonostsev, 4 Apr. 1905, RGIA, f. 1579, op. 1, d. 36, l. 2ob.

¹⁰⁶ Antonii to Vladimir, bishop of Kishinev, 21 Jan. 1906, RGIA, f. 796, op. 187, d. 775, l. 3.

¹⁰⁷ See synod resolutions permitting clerical participation in URP meetings in Ufa, 10 Jan. 1907, ibid., l. 20; to bless clerical participation in the Ekaterinoslav URP, 19 Dec. 1907, ibid. l. 32; to allow all clergy to join the URP, 15 Mar. 1908, ibid., l. 38.

¹⁰⁸ Bogoliubov, D., ‘Khristianstvo i sotsial-demokratiia’, Tserkovnyi golos, no. 5 (1906), p. 145Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁹ Like their contemporaries in the universities, students at the St Petersburg academy demanded representation on its governing body (see RGIA, f. 796, op. 187, d. 681) and professors demanded the freedom to fashion their own curriculum. A strike in October 1905 heralded the prospect of reform in the spring, but hopes were frustrated by a rearguard action led by Antonii (Khrapovitskii). See V. A. Tarasova, Vysshaia dukhovnaia shkola v Rossii v kontse XIX–nachale XX veka (Moscow, 2005), pp. 324–73.

¹¹⁰ RGIA, f. 796, op. 187, d. 674, ll. 2–3.

¹¹¹ Ibid., l. 4. The academy council received the synodal resolution on 11 Dec. (Zhurnaly sobraniia Soveta Akademii za 1906–1907 gg. (St Petersburg, 1908), pp. 93–4), subsequently reporting it without comment: Otchet o sostoianii S-Peterburgskoi dukhovnoi akademii za 1906 g. (St Petersburg, 1907), p. 7. P. N. Zyrianov, Russkie monastyri i monashestvo v XIX i nachale XX veka (Moscow, 2002), p. 224, confuses this verdict with Mikhail's subsequent banishment to the Valaam monastery.

¹¹² Chris J. Chulos, ‘Peasant religion in post-emancipation Russia: Voronezh province, 1880–1917’ (Ph.D. thesis, Chicago, IL, 1994), p. 125. On Anastasii (d. 1 May 1913), see Voronezhskaia starina, 13 (1914), pp. 1–109.

¹¹³ Antonii to Izvolˈskii, 7 Dec. 1906, ‘Po povodu pisˈma Dubrovina’, in S. L. Firsov, ed., ‘Pravoslavnaia Rossiiskaia Tserkovˈ v gody pervoi russkoi revoliutsii’, Russkoe proshloe, 5 (St Petersburg, 1994), p. 27. Mikhail Agursky, ‘Caught in a cross fire: the Russian church between holy synod and radical right (1905–1908)’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 50 (1984), pp. 173–7, speculates that Dubrovin's letter was the work of a trinity of influential right-wingers: A. A. Shirinskii-Shikhmatov, A. P. Rogovich, and the Moscow missionary, Father Ioann Vostorgov.

¹¹⁴ RGIA, f. 796, op. 187, d. 674, l. 9.

¹¹⁵ Synod resolution, 17 Jan. 1907, ibid., l. 10.

¹¹⁶ Ibid., ll. 11, 17, 23 (Mikhail's petitions); 14–15 (Voronezh consistory to synod); 12 (synod resolution, 7 Feb. 1907). By the end of January, Mikhail was in Moscow with Briusov and others: see M. Kuzmin, Dnevnik, 1905–1907, ed. N. A. Bogomolov and N.A. Shumikhin (St Petersburg, 2000), pp. 509–10.

¹¹⁷ RGIA, f. 796, op. 187, d. 674, l. 20.

¹¹⁸ S. Makovetskii, K voprosu o pravoslavii arkhimandrita Mikhaila (St Petersburg, 1907).

¹¹⁹ RGIA, f. 796, op. 187, d. 674, ll. 27–8.

¹²⁰ Ibid., l. 39.

¹²¹ Quoted by Firsov, ‘K voprosu’, p. 326. The original is at RGIA, f. 1569, op. 1, d. 93, l. 1.

¹²² ‘Episkop Innokentii ob arkh. Mikhaile’, pp. 96–7; A., ‘V mire staroobriadtsev: k delu episkopov Innokentiia i Mikhaila’, Russkiia vedomosti, 6 Feb. 1909.

¹²³ Archimandrite Nafaniil to synod, 22 Sept. 1907, RGIA, f. 796, op. 187, d. 674, l. 51.

¹²⁴ Anastasii to synod, 3 and 4 Oct. 1907, ibid., ll. 45–7.

¹²⁵ Mikhail to synod, 23 Sept. 1907, ibid., ll. 49–50; Anastasii to synod, 6 Oct. 1907, ibid., l. 52.

¹²⁶ Arkhimandrit Mikhail, ‘Sinodskie mery k ozdorovleniiu dukhovnoi shkoly’, Tovarishch, 25 Sept. 1907.

¹²⁷ Chief procurator's chancellery to synod, 12 Oct. 1907, secret, RGIA, f. 796, op. 187, d. 674, l. 53.

¹²⁸ Ibid., l. 56; Novoe vremia, 15 Oct. 1907.

¹²⁹ See Dixon, Simon, ‘Sergii (Stragorodskii) in the Russian Orthodox diocese of Finland: apostasy and mixed marriages, 1905–1917’, Slavonic and East European Review, 82 (2004), pp. 52–4Google Scholar.

¹³⁰ Timothy Ware, The Orthodox church (revised edn, Harmondsworth, 1980), pp. 301–2.

¹³¹ [Arkhimandrit Mikhail], ‘O razdelˈnom zhitelˈstve suprugov’, TsV, no. 22 (1905), pp. 673–5.

¹³² Idem, Sumashestvie kak povod k razvodu (St Petersburg, 1906), p. 4, quoted by Wagner, Marriage, property and the law, p. 178.

¹³³ ‘Zapiski Religiozno-Filosofskikh Sobranii’, supplement to Novyi putˈ, no. 6 (1903), p. 255.

¹³⁴ See Engelstein, Keys to happiness, part 2, esp. pp. 216–8.

¹³⁵ Arkhimandrit Mikhail, ‘Zakonnyi’ brak (problemy braka, materinstva, shkoly): sbornik statei (St Petersburg, n.d.), pp. 10, 15–17, reprinted from Stolichnoe utro, 14 Oct. 1907. For an earlier engagement with Artsybashev, see Ieromonakh Mikhail, Ottsam i detiam: publichnye lektsii, besedy, pisˈma (Moscow, 1904), pp. 66–89. For a fresh examination of male motives, see Lovell, Stephen, ‘Finding a mate in late tsarist Russia: the evidence of marriage advertisements’, Cultural and Social History, 4 (2007), pp. 51–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³⁶ Novoe vremia, 24 Oct. 1907.

¹³⁷ RGIA, f. 796, op. 187, d. 674, ll. 66–7. On Ianyshev's hostility to learned monasticism, A. Bogdanovich, Tri poslednikh samoderzhtsa (Moscow, 1990 edn), p. 430, 29 May 1907; Firsov, Russkaia tserkovˈ, p. 407.

¹³⁸ TsV, no. 33 (1907), pp. 1058–9; Engelstein, Keys to happiness, pp. 379–80.

¹³⁹ RGIA, f. 796, op. 187, d. 674, l. 70.

¹⁴⁰ Rechˈ, 1 Nov. 1907.

¹⁴¹ ‘Episkop Innokentii ob arkh. Mikhaile’, pp. 96–7. Firsov, ‘K voprosu’, p. 328, mistakenly gives 20 Oct. as the date of Mikhail's conversion and is misled by an erratic obituary in his account of the unfrocking.

¹⁴² Synod resolution, 5 Nov. 1907, RGIA, f. 796, op. 187, d, 674, l. 71.

¹⁴³ ‘Staroobriadtsy i arkhim. Mikhail’, Russkiia vedomosti, 10 Nov. 1907.

¹⁴⁴ ‘O staroobriadchestve’, TsV, no. 10 (1908), pp. 289–93, represents an Orthodox attempt to rebut this charge.

¹⁴⁵ F. E. Melˈnikov, Bluzhdaiushchee bogoslovie: obzor veroucheniia gospodstvuiushchei tserkvi (Moscow, 1911), made use of the critical writings of Chelˈtsov and Shleev: see pp. 23–8 and passim.

¹⁴⁶ Diakovskii, D., ‘K kharakteristike staroobriadchestva’, TsV, no. 20 (1909), p. 618Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁷ The phrase appears in metropolitan Antonii's diocesan report to synod, 1902, RGIA, f. 796, op. 442, d. 1966, ll. 59–59ob.

¹⁴⁸ On the synod's rearguard action to limit schismatic advances, see Waldron, Peter, ‘Religious reform after 1905: Old Believers and the Orthodox church’, Oxford Slavonic Papers, New Series, 20 (1987), 110–39Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁹ Komarova, O. A., ‘Staroobriadcheskaia periodicheskaia pechatˈ 1907–1917 gg.’, Staroobriadchestvo: istoriia, kulˈtura, sovremennostˈ, 6 (Moscow, 1998), pp. 10–16Google Scholar, esp. p. 12; F. E. Melˈnikov, Kratkaia istoriia drevlepravoslavnoi (staroobriadcheskoi) tservki (Barnaul, 1999), pp. 486–8, 502–6. The latter work was probably written between the late 1930s and late 1940s, see ibid., pp. 10–11.

¹⁵⁰ Komarova, ‘Staroobriadcheskaia periodicheskaia pechatˈ’, p. 14. However, ‘Omega’ also contributed an article to Slovo Tserkvi, no. 9 (1917), pp. 161–3, after Mikhail's death.

¹⁵¹ Melˈnikov, Kratkaia istoriia, p. 501.

¹⁵² Sovremennik, no. 2 (1911), pp. 376–7, reviewing Samoubiistvo: sbornik statei episkopa Mikhaila, prof. N. I. Kareeva, Iu. I. Aikhenvalˈda, N. Ia. Abramovicha, A. Ia. Lunacharskago, V. V. Rozanova, Ivanova-Razumnika (Moscow, 1911).

¹⁵³ Dimitrii Merezhkovskii, Bylo i budet: dnevnik, 1910–1914: nevoennyi dnevnik, 1914–1916 (Moscow, 2001 edn), p. 141.

¹⁵⁴ Tserkov', no. 1 (1908), p. 29. See also, Novoe vremia, 21 Dec. 1907. For an Orthodox denunciation of the confession, see Kolokol, 3 Jan. 1908.

¹⁵⁵ D. I. Bogoliubov, Religiozno-obschestvennyia techeniia v sovremennoi russkoi zhizni i nasha pravoslavno-khristianskaia missiia (St Petersburg, 1909), p. 3.

¹⁵⁶ Mikhail, Arkhim., ‘Na sˈˈezde’, Tserkovˈ, no. 29 (1908), pp. 1010–1Google Scholar; idem, ‘Moi vpechatleniia: s kievskago missionerskago sˈˈezda’, ibid., no. 30 (1908), pp. 1038–42; no. 34 (1908), p. 1161; Coleman, Heather J., ‘Defining heresy: the fourth missionary congress and the problem of cultural power after 1905 in Russia’, Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, 52 (2004), pp. 70–92Google Scholar, places the congress in context.

¹⁵⁷ Antonii (Vadkovskii), Rechi, slova i poucheniia (3rd edn, St Petersburg, 1912), pp. 110–11.

¹⁵⁸ ‘Publichnoe sobesedovanie arkhimandrita Mikhaila s sinodalˈnym missionerom o. K. Kriuchkovym v Kieve 20-go iiulia 1908 goda’, Tserkovˈ, no. 40 (1908), pp. 1358–60; no. 42 (1908), pp. 1420–2.

¹⁵⁹ Mikhail, Episkop, ‘Zametki’, SM, no. 7 (1914), pp. 630–1Google Scholar: ‘I am not a specialist in besednichestvo and know little about it … The business of active polemics with the synodal confession requires extreme caution.’

¹⁶⁰ Manukhina, ed., Putˈ moei zhizni, p. 203; Firsov, Russkaia tserkovˈ, pp. 400–1.

¹⁶¹ Arkhimandrit Mikhail, ‘V zashchitu staroobriadtsva’, Tserkovˈ, no. 1 (1908), p. 11.

¹⁶² Father Ioann Alˈbov in ‘Zapiski Religiozno-Filosofskikh Sobranii’, supplement to Novyi Putˈ, no. 2 (1903), p. 84, session iii.

¹⁶³ Antonii, diocesan report to synod, 1908, RGIA, f. 796, op. 442, d. 2290, pp. 207–8.

¹⁶⁴ Roy R. Robson, Old Believers in modern Russia (DeKalb, IL, 1995), ch. 3. Robson twice quotes Mikhail, without appearing to realize who he was: see pp. 41, 49 n. 41.

¹⁶⁵ See, for example, Rechˈ, 2 Nov. and 9 Nov. 1907, reporting Mikhail's interview with Russkoe slovo.

¹⁶⁶ Firsov, ‘K voprosu’, p. 328, mistakenly gives 22 Oct.

¹⁶⁷ The potential for mission among discontented Orthodox in America had been discussed at the Old Believers' congress of August 1908, which ruled it ‘premature’ to send greetings to Mikhail. Trudy deviatago vserossiiskago sˈˈezda staroobriadtsev … v Nizhnem-Novgorode, 2–4 Avguste 1908 goda (Moscow, 1909), pp. 43, 47–8, 52.

¹⁶⁸ ‘Proshenie ep. Innokentiia’, Staroobriadtsy, nos. 1–2 (1909), pp. 115–16; Petr Bellavin to chief procurator's chancellery, 24 Feb. 1909, RGIA, f. 797, op. 79, 2 otdel, 3 stol, d. 46, ll. 13–15. Few participants realized why they had been called to Moscow, though news of the forthcoming council was leaked by Novoe vremia on 24 Jan. 1909.

¹⁶⁹ ‘Osviashchennyi Sobor po delu ep. Innokentiia’, Tserkovˈ, no. 6 (1909), p. 214.

¹⁷⁰ The Feb. council's resolutions were published in full in ibid., no. 7 (1909), pp. 246–7.

¹⁷¹ Rechˈ, 6 Feb. 1909, following an interview with Bishop Innokentii in Russkoe slovo; Mikhail, Episkop, ‘Otvet o. Karabinovichu’, SM, no. 4 (1915), p. 350Google Scholar.

¹⁷² Press coverage of the August council was reviewed in Krasnyi zvon (1909), Sept., pp. 193–8; Oct., pp. 214–19.

¹⁷³ Compare Otkrytoe pisˈmo Ivanu Ivanovichu Novikovu (Moscow, 1911), with the response, Otvet na ‘otkrytoe pisˈmo’ chlena soveta staroobriacheskikh vserossiiskikh sˈˈezdov Fedota Ignatˈevicha Maslenikova (n.p., n.d.), free supplement to SM, no. 9 (1911). Press coverage included ‘Okolo dela ep. Mikhaila’, Utro Rossii, 25 Aug. 1911, and subsequent reports on 26–8 Aug.

¹⁷⁴ ‘Kak poiavilasˈ kanadskaia staroobriadcheskaia eparkhiia?’, in Sobranie statei po delu episkopa Mikhaila Kanadskago, pp. 11–19.

¹⁷⁵ Izvestiia po Kazanskoi Eparkhii, no. 29 (1913), p. 876; ‘K voprosu o predstavleniia kafedry episkopu Mikhailu’, SM, no. 3 (1914), pp. 317–18; no. 7 (1914), pp. 641–4.

¹⁷⁶ ‘Pisˈmo episkopa Mikhaila’, SM, no. 10 (1915), pp. 903–4.

¹⁷⁷ N. Zenin, ‘Na pisˈmo ep. Mikhaila’, ibid., p. 908; Episkop Mikhail, ‘Proshloe i sovremennyi zadachi staroobriadchestva’, ibid., no. 5 (1911), p. 354.

¹⁷⁸ It was the example of ‘hypocrites such as Gapon and Mikhail Semenov’ that prompted Bishop Nikon (Rozhdestvenskii) to protest in the State Council against a proposal to repeal the civil penalties for unfrocked priests in 1910: see Stenograficheskii otchet Gosudarstvennago Soveta, Session vi, Sittings 12 (15 Dec. 1910), 13 (17 Dec.), and 14 (18 Dec.), cols. 515–64, 576–674, 639–76 (at col. 530). Despite objections from chief procurator Sabler, the proposals were eventually carried by 58 to 54. For a moderate clerical voice in favour of reform, see K. P., ‘Ogranicheniia lits, lishaemykh sviashchennago sana’, TsV, no. 19 (1910), pp. 561–3.

¹⁷⁹ Volzhskii listok's denial was reprinted in Staroobriadtsy, nos. 4–6 (1908), p. 519.

¹⁸⁰ Mikhail, , ‘Otvet o. Karabinovichu’, SM, no. 4 (1915), p. 349Google Scholar. See also‘Obˈˈiasnenie episkopa Mikhaila’, Tserkovˈ (1910), no. 12, pp. 322–3.

¹⁸¹ ‘Pisˈmo arkhim. Mikhaila’, Tserkovˈ, no. 25 (1908), p. 879.

¹⁸² Mikhail, Episkop, ‘Otkrytoe pisˈmo episkopam, sobravshimsia v Moskve, i vsem staroobriadtsam’, SM, no. 8 (1910), pp. 479–88Google Scholar, at p. 488.

¹⁸³ ‘Ispovedanie golgofskikh khristian’, pp. 90–113 passim.

¹⁸⁴ Ieromonakh Mikhail, ‘Byl li Gogolˈ dushevnobolˈnym?’, Moskovskiia vedomosti, 1 Mar. 1902; idem, ‘Gogolˈ i Zhukovskii po voprosu o stradaniiakh: (K iubileiiam 21 fevralia i 12 aprelia 1902 g.), Vera i tserkovˈ, 1 (1902), pp. 630–55.

¹⁸⁵ Quoted in Evtuhov, The cross and the sickle, p. 110.

¹⁸⁶ Mikhail, V pravednuiu zemliu, p. 26.

¹⁸⁷ Mikhail, Episkop, ‘O taine stradaniia’, SM, no. 8 (1915), pp. 675–86Google Scholar, at pp. 682–3.

¹⁸⁸ Arkhimandrit Mikhail, ‘Evangelie meshchan’ (Renan i ego Iisus) (St Petersburg, 1906), pp. 23–5; idem, ‘Chudo Voskresenie’, Krasnyi zvon (1908), Apr., pp. 247–57.

¹⁸⁹ Rozanov, Okolo tserkovnykh sten, i, pp. 16–21, esp. pp. 18–19.

¹⁹⁰ Polovinkina, ed., Zapiski Peterburgskikh sobranii, p. 486, session xxi.

¹⁹¹ Mikhail, Episkop, ‘Sushchnostˈ religii voobshche i sushchnostˈ khristianstva’, Tserkovˈ, no. 9 (1910), pp. 233–6Google Scholar; no. 11 (1910), pp. 281–3, at p. 283, developing the critique of Tolstoy in Tserkovˈ, literatura i zhiznˈ, p. 71.

¹⁹² Arkhimandrit Mikhail, ‘Dvenadsatˈv pisem o svobode i khristianstveˈ, Tserkovno-obshchestvennaia zhiznˈ, no. 41 (1907), Letter 7, p. 1264; idem, ‘O vere i neverii: Golgofa i Voskresenie’, Tserkovˈ, no. 14 (1908), pp. 491–2.

¹⁹³ Merezhkovskii, Bylo i budet, pp. 141–5, emphasis in the original.

¹⁹⁴ ‘Ispovedanie golgofskikh khristian’, p. 104; ‘Ep. Mikhail o sude nad nim’, Staroobriadcheskii pastyrˈ, no. 10 (1913), p. 144, reprinting an interview with Birzhevye vedomosti; Etkind, Khlyst, pp. 250–2.

¹⁹⁵ Mark D. Steinberg, Proletarian imagination: self, modernity and the sacred in Russia, 1910–1925 (Ithaca, NY, 2002), p. 262 and passim.

¹⁹⁶ Gippius to Shaginian, 8 Aug. 1909, in N. V. Koroleva, ed., ‘Pisˈma Zinaidy Nikolaevny Gippius k Mariette Sergeevne Shaginian 1908–1910 godov’, in Zinaida Nikolaevna Gippius: novye materialy, issledovaniia (Moscow, 2002), p. 111; Catriona Kelly, A history of Russian women's writing, 1820–1992 (Oxford, 1994), pp. 340–2.

¹⁹⁷ Marietta Shaginian, Chelovek i vremia: istoriia chelovecheskogo stanovleniia (Moscow, 1982), p. 335. See also pp. 317–19, 325, 329–31.

¹⁹⁸ TsGA SPb, f. 19, op. 97, d. 54; RGIA, f. 796, op. 442, d. 2407, pp. 141–73; Mikhail, ‘Moi vpechatleniia’, Tserkovˈ, no. 31 (1908), p. 1062; Etkind, Khlyst, pp. 252, 464–5.

¹⁹⁹ Russkiia vedomosti, 17 May 1911.

²⁰⁰ Mikhail, Episkop, ‘V obˈˈiasnenie moego dela’, SM, no. 6 (1911), pp. 430–3Google Scholar; St Petersburg circuit court to synod, 2 Nov. 1913, RGIA, f. 796, op. 187, d. 674, l. 78.

²⁰¹ ‘Pisˈmo episkopa Mikhaila’, p. 904.

²⁰² Fomichev, ‘Episkop Mikhail’, p. 900.

²⁰³ Mikhail Prishvin, Sobranie sochinenii, ed. V. V. Kozhinov and others (8 vols., Moscow, 1982–6), i, p. 748.

²⁰⁴ Filosofov, ‘Episkop Mikhail’.

²⁰⁵ Evtuhov, The cross and the sickle, p. 45.

²⁰⁶ Merezhkovskii, Bylo i budet, p. 145, emphasis in the original.

²⁰⁷ See Simon Dixon, ‘The Russian Orthodox church in imperial Russia, 1721–1917’, in Michael Angold, ed., The Cambridge history of Christianity, v: Eastern Christianity (Cambridge, 2006), pp. 325–47, esp. pp. 330–5.

²⁰⁸ Filosofov, Zagadki, p. 306.