This essay forms part of a larger study of the interaction between the Orthodox church and processes of political and social change in imperial Russia. Research for this project has been supported by grants from the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung, the American Council of Learned Societies, the International Research anil Exchanges Board, and the Fulbright Faculty Research Program. For access and cooperation particular thanks is due to the expert staff at the Tsentral'nyi gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv SSSR in Leningrad.

1. For a famous account by a foreigner, see Marquise de Custine's lacerating remark that the Russian clergy are nothing more than “a militia dressed in a uniform rather different from that of the secular troops of the empire”; Russia. 3 vols. (London: Longman. Brown, Green and Longmans, 1844) 3: 341. The religious writer A. N. Murav′ev conceded difficulties in refuting Roman Catholic propaganda about the subservience of the Russian Orthodox church; sec. especially, his letter of 5 June 1859 to M. P. Pogodin in Tsentral'nyi gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv SSSR [hereafter TsGIA SSSR], fond 832. opis′ 1, delo 83, II. 132–45 ob. [hereafter the customary Soviet form and abbreviations for archival notation will be used].

2. The most serious effort to reassess (he church's relationship to serfdom in the imperial period was a passionate, but superficial, pamphlet published (anonymously) under the title L'Église russe a-t-elle fait quelque chose pour l'affranchisement des paysans en Russia? (Geneva, 1861); see also the review by A. Popovitskii in Strannik, no. 12 (1862); 483–495. In addition, some authors tried to demonstrate that the church had played an important civilizing role in pre-Petrinc Russia and. in particular, had intervened on behalf of the common people. See, for instance. Shchapov, A. P., “Golos drevnei russkoi tserkvi ob uluchshenii byta ncsvobodnykh liudei,” Pravoslavnyi sobesednik, no. 1 (1859): 40–76 Google Scholar; Dumitrashko, N., “Zabotlivost’ pastyrei tserkvi russkoi ob ispravlenii i uluchshenii narodnoi zhizni v drevnie vremena,” Rukovodstvo dlia sel'skikhpastyrei, no. 29 (1860): 285–299 Google Scholar. Typically superficial is the essay, based solely upon rather familiar printed literature, by Ivanov, N. I.. Sel'skoe dukhovenstvo Tverskoi gubernii XVIII i nachala XIX si. v otnoshenii k krepostnomu pravu (Tver, 1915)Google Scholar.

3. Typical of the 1920s and 1930s are the following works: Dmitriev, A. D., Tserkov’ i krest'iunsivo na Rusi (Moscow-Leningrad, 1931)Google Scholar; Kvalev, F., Pravoslavie na sluzhbe satnoderzhaviia v Rossii (Moscow, 1930)Google Scholar; Piskarev, V. I., Tserkov’ i kreposlnoepravo v Rossii (Moscow, 1930)Google Scholar; Temkin, M. B., Tserkov', krepostnoepravo i revoliutsiia (Moscow, 1930)Google Scholar; Nikol'skii, N. M., Isloriia russkoi tserkvi, 2nd. ed. (Moscow, 1931)Google Scholar. For Soviet examples, see Fedorov, V. A., “Istoriografiia krest'ianskogo dvizheniia v Rossii period razlozheniia krepostnichestva.” Voprosy istorii, no. 2 (1966): 155 Google Scholar; T. G. Frumenkova, “Pravoslavnaia tserkov’ i klassovaia bor'ba v Rossii v period krizisa krepostnichestva” (Kami, cliss.. Gosudarstvennyi pedagogicheskii institut im. A. I. Gertsena, Leningrad. 1986); Korzun, M. S., Russkaiapravoslavnaia tserkov’ na sluzhbe ekspluatatorskikh klassov (X v. – 1917 g.) (Minsk, 1984)Google Scholar.

4. See, for example, Cracraft, James, The Church Reforms of Peter the Great (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1971). ix, 210. 306. passimGoogle Scholar.

5. Pipes, Richard, Russia under the Old Regime (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1974), 245 Google Scholar.

6. See the pertinent chapters in Igor Smolitsch, Geschichte der russischen Kirche, vol. 2, ed. Gregory L. Freeze in Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte, Band 45 (Berlin, forthcoming).

7. This statistieal analysis is based on published sermons by leading bishops and parish clergy from the first half of the nineteenth century; it includes as well the sermons in a collection first published in the late eighteenth century but reprinted and still widely used in the first half of the nineteenth century. The data base is drawn from the following: Antonii. arkhimandrit. Beseda sel'skogo sviashchennika k prikhozhanam, 4th ed. (Kiev, 1854); V. B. Bazhanov, protoierei, Pouchitel'nye slova i rechi, 2nd. ed. (St. Petersburg, 1837); Evgenii (Bolkhovitinov), Sobranie pouchitel'nykh slow 4 pts. (Kiev. 1834–1835); Evsevii (Il'inskii), episkop Podol'skii, Sobranie sochinenii i perevodov, 3 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1858) [vol. 3: Slova]; Filaret (Gumilevskii), episkop Khar'kovskii, Slova i besedy (Moscow. 1850), vol. 1; Ignatii (Semenov), episkop Donskoi, O pokaianii. Besedy pred Velikim Postom i v Post (St. Petersburg, 1847); Iliodor (Chistiakov), episkop Kurskii, Slova i besedy, propovedannoi k Kurskoipastve, 2nd. ed. (St. Petersburg, 1844); Innokentii (Borisov), arkhiepiskop Khar'kovskii, Slova, besedy i rechi k pastve Khar'kovskoi, 2 vols. (Khar'kov, 1847–1848); Kirill (Bogoslovskii), arkhiepiskop Podol'skii, Polnoe sobranie slov i rechei, 3 vols. (Moscow, 1854); Aleksei Malov, sviashchennik, Pouchitel'nye slova. 3 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1822–1824); Nikanor (Kleinent'cvskii), mitropolit Novgorodskii i S.-Peterburgskii, Izbrannye slova i rechi, 3 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1857); Vasilii Nordov, protoierei, Tserkovnye poucheniia, 2nd. ed. (St. Petersburg, 1850); Polikarp, arkhimandrit, Besedy i slova (Moscow, 1835); loann Pospelov, sviashchennik, Kratkie poucheniia (St. Petersburg, 1853); Gavriil Rozov, protoierei, Slova na voskresnye i torzhestvennye dni (St. Petersburg, 1854); Sobranie pouchenii, sochinennykh S.Peterburgskoi dukhovnoi akademii studentami v Aleksandronevskoi lavre (St. Petersburg, 1835); Sobranie raznykh pouchenii, 3 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1776, and many subsequent editions); Sergei Sokolovskii, protoierei. Pouchitel'nye slova (Moscow, 1842); Pavel Sokolov, protoierei, Slova i rechi na raznye dni i sluchai (Iaroslav', 1835).

The sermon literature is far too voluminous for systematic content analysis, but a perusal ot other sermons confirms the basic pattern described above. See, for example, the following collections; (Postnikov), Grigorii, Besedy s dukhovenstvom Kazanskoi eparkhii (St. Petersburg, 1855)Google Scholar; (Amliteatrov), Filaret, Besedy, 2 vols. (Kiev, 1849)Google Scholar; (Gumilevskii), Filaret, Slova i besedy, 2 vols. (Moscow, 1850)Google Scholar; (Drozdov), Filaret. Slova i rechi, 3 vols. (Moscow, 1847–1861)Google Scholar; and (Smirnov), Innokentii, Sochineniia, 3 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1847)Google Scholar.

8. This is true of the most widely disseminated manual, first published in 1776 and reprinted frequently until the midnineteenth century: Parfcnii, O dolzhnostiakh presviterov prikhodskikh (Moscow, 1776, and many later reprintings). The same holds true for other pastoral guides, including Sturdza, A. S., Pis'ma o dolzhnostiakh sv. sana, 2 vols. (Moscow, 1840–1841)Google Scholar; (Amfiteatrov), Antonii, Pastyrskoe bogoslovie (Kiev, 1851)Google Scholar; (Naumov), Kirill, Pastyrskoe bogoslovie (St. Petersburg, 1853)Google Scholar. Only the last volume, which devoted several pages to the priest's relationship to “the rich and the poor” (pp. 208–210), made even a perfunctory effort to address the problem of social relations within the parish. Yet, it too was highly abstract, making no explicit reference to serfdom or the religious and moral problems it raised. For a general survey of the literature on pastoral theology in Russia, see (Pustynskii), Innokentii, Pastyrskoe bogoslovie v Rossii za XIX v. (Sergiev-Posad, 1899)Google Scholar.

9. This reticence corresponded to the more general attitude in prereform Russia, where authorities suppressed any such attempts at open social commentary. Hence, as Daniel Field has argued, even the serfowners—not to mention so disinterested a party as the clergy—failed to develop an ideological shield for serfdom. See Field, The End of Serfdom (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976), 39.

10. Typical was the injunction in 1840 from Nikanor: “Do not complain, Christian soul, if some misfortune or catastrophe befalls you: this is the cross of Christ—bear it with good spirit” (Nikanor, Izbrannye slova i rechi 3: 333).

11. While clerical writers did portray the inevitable trials and tribulations of human existence as a kind of existential purgatory before the real life that begins after death, this argument was not used simply to reconcile the poor with their low station. It applied no less to the rich and powerful, who were also admonished to expect hardships and reverses. For a typical example see “Slovo o uteshenii, kakoe dostavliaet Evangelie neschastnym,” Khristianskoe chtenie 20 (1825): 85–109.

12. Political holidays, a major innovation that commenced with the reign of Peter the Great, constituted half of all formal church holidays—as indicated, for instance, in the list in Kratkoe ob″iasnenie tserkovnogo ustava dlia Belogradskikh seminaristov (Moscow, 1800), 30–39. Apart from services to celebrate events in the imperial family (coronation, namedays, and the like) or historic state holidays (such as the victory at Poltava), the church also held extraordinary services (to denounce the Decembrist uprising, give thanks for the victory over Turkey in 1809, and seek divine blessing for the military intervention in Hungary in 1849); see TsGIA SSSR, f. 796, op. 107, g. 1826, d. 468; op. 90, g. 1809, d. 835; op. 130. g. 1849, d. 693. As noted above, “political” sermons—celebrating tsarism, lauding a particular member of the imperial family—made up a substantial portion of sermons (more than 11 percent).

13. The Russian church collected no hard data on the frequency of church attendance, but sermons and episcopal reports—from earlier as well as later periods—speak to the serious hindrances to regular church attendance (and hence exposure to church teachings).

14. Efforts to increase sermons and catechism instruction commenced in the niideighteenth century but acquired real urgency only in the early nineteenth. Particularly important were the Synod's deliberations in 1818–1821, which ended in a stern demand that the clergy actively instruct the people in catechism to combat their ignorance and superstition (TsGIA SSSR, f. 796, op. 99. g. 1818, d. 1283).

See, for instance, the Synod's angry complaint about the rarity of catechism instruction in a resolution of 1844 in TsGIA SSSR. f. 796, op. 125, g. 1844, d. 565, 1. 1–1 ob. Nor was its embittered resolution mere rhetoric; accompanying data show that only in rare cases did catechization embrace more than 5 percent of the parishes (most notably, in Penza, Podolia, and Poltava). For data, see the reports in TsGIA SSSR. II. 2–201; see also the reports from the 1850s in TsGIA SSSR, op. 132, g. 1851, d. 96. which demonstrate that conditions had improved little toward the end of the Nikolaevan era.

15. For the Synod's detailed instructions on simple homilies and catechization in 1821. see TsGIA SSSR, f. 796, op. 99, g. 1818, d. 1283, I. 38–38 ob.; for its reiteration in the 1840s, see ibid., op. 125, g. 1844, d. 565.

16. For data and references, see Freeze, Gregory L., The Parish Clergy in Nineteenth-Century Russia: Crisis, Reform, Counter-Reform (Princeton. N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1983), 6 Google Scholar.

17. (Postnikov), Grigorii, Besedy s dukhovenstvom Kazanskoi eparkhii (St. Petersburg, 1855), 12 Google Scholar.

18. Complaints about scholasticism and artificial erudition are ubiquitous; see, for instance, the remarks by Metropolitan Filarct (Drozdov) in TsGIA SSSR, f. 796, op. 99, g. 1818, d. 1283. 1. 14.

19. Nordov, Tserkovnye poucheniia, 352,355.

20. For example, see the sermon in Sobranie raznykh pouchenii 2: 17 ob. –18.

21. The spiritual hierarchy argument can be found in Kirill, Polnoe sobranie slov i rechei 2: 82; Malov. Pouchitel'nye slova 2: 108, 3: 48–61. For examples of the social contact argument see Evgenii (Bolkhovitinov), Sobranie pouchitel'nykh slov 4: 17, 45, 84–90; Kirill, Polnoe sobranie slov i rechei 2: 68. Nikanor wrote that “slaves like the liberty that their owners enjoy; but it they are freed, they will be ruined, because they do not know how to govern themselves”; Nikanor, Izbrannye slova i rechi I: 181–182. For evidence of the squire's role in enforcing religious observance and exercising moral control see Kolchin, Peter, Unfree Labor: American Slavery and Russian Serfdom (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987). 74–75 Google Scholar; and Hoch, S. L., Serfdom and Social Control in Russia: Petrovskoe, a Village in Tambov (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 160–186 Google Scholar.

22. Platon, Sochineniia, vol. 6 (St. Petersburg, 1780): 132. Sokrashchennyi katekhizis, appended to Sobranie raznykh pouchenii 3: 47 verso.

23. (Zadonskii), Tikhon, Nastavlenie o sobstvennykh vsiakogo khristianina dolzhnostiakh (St. Petersburg, 1789), 110–112 Google Scholar. This volume had gone through forty-eight reprintings by 1870; for examples of reports on the production and sale of the book, see TsGIA SSSR, f. 796, op. 141, g. 1860, d. 393; op. 142, g. 1861, d. 1645. Composed before the erection of formal ecclesiastical censorship, Tikhon's volume did not labor under the burden of governmental hypersensitivity to any discussion of serfdom in Nikolaevan Russia. Moreover, Tikhon was so popular a spiritual figure and his texts already so well known and widely disseminated that it was hardly feasible (even for the vigilant censors of Nikolaevan Russia) to amend the original text. His work consequently was exceptionally candid in its discussion of serf-squire relations.

24. The familial conception of squire-serf relations found reflection in the Fifth Commandment, whereby the duty to obey one's parents provided the rationale for obedience to authority in general—elders, teachers, tsars, and squires. For a typical extrapolation (which was echoed in virtually all the catechisms, school manuals on religion, and sermons), see (protoierei), Ioakim Kochetov, Nachertanie khristianskikh obiazannostei po ucheniiu greko-rossiiskoi tserkvi (St. Petersburg, 1838), 123–127 Google Scholar, which discusses the squire-serf relations in a chapter on “family relationships.” His framework for discussing serfdom was hardly atypical; see. for instance, Innokentii. Slova, besedy i rechi 1: 244–245.

25. For typical examples, see Kirill, Paslyrskoe bogoslovie, 209; Filaret, Slova i rechi 3: 207; (Rozanov), Evgenii, Pouchitel'nye slova, 2 vols. (Moscow, 1848) 1: 116–117 Google Scholar; (Kazantsev), Evgenii, Slova pokoinogo Evgeniia, arkhimandrita laroslavskogo (Moscow, 1873), 25 Google Scholar.

26. Thus Archimandrite Polikarp summarized well the church's view that not wealth or power, but humility was the true measure of human greatness—a moral quality that implicitly denigrated the customary and philosophical justifications for elite predominance. See Polikarp. Besedy i stova, 116.

27. Typical was the argument in the Synod's collection of sermons that one should not envy elites, given the temptations and obligations of possessing wealth and power; see Sobranie raznvkh pouchenii 2: 118 verso–123. For examples of sermons admonishing elites, see (Voskresenskii), Gavriil, Pouchitel'nye slova (Kazan, 1850) 1: 62 Google Scholar; (Kazanskii), Evgenii, Slova pokoinogo Evgeniia, arkhiepiskopa laroslavskogo (Iaroslavl', 1872)Google Scholar; (Drozdov), Filaret, Slova i rechi 3: 227 Google Scholar; (Bolkhovitinov), Evgenii, Sobranie pouchitel'nykh slov 3: 400–417 Google Scholar; Bazhanov, Pouchitel'nye slova i rechi, 158; Malov. Pouchitel'nye slova 1: 162–170, 2: 85–93; Rozov, Slova na voskresnye i tonhestvennye dni, 23–28; Sobranie raznykh pouchenii 2: 70 verso–74, 83.

28. Framed within the larger “mutual responsibility” thesis, such statements tended to be terse, without explicit reference to such problems as the maltreatment of serfs. Typical in this respect was a guide to the composition of sermons, which recommended that the priest summon the serf “to love, respect, and obey his lord and superior [state] authorities,” but the latter—conversely—should “care for their subordinates in any misfortune, and help them during famine, fire, etc.” See Viktorin, Arkhimandrite, Temy dlia poucheniia prostomu narodu. Pnsobie dlia propovednikov Slova Bozhiia v sel'skikh tserkvakh (St. Petersburg, 1858), 79 Google Scholar.

29. Innokentii, Slova, besedv i rechi, 1: 244–245. Note the circumspect use of the interrogative, which is particularly suggestive in so inflammatory a passage.

30. (protoierei), Ioakim Kochetov, Nachertanie khristianskikh obiazannostei po ucheniiu grekorossiiskoi tserkvi, 3rd cd. (St. Petersburg, 1838), 124–124 Google Scholar. The first and second editions appeared in 1824 and 1825; a fourth edition, entitled Cherty deiatel'nogo ucheniiu very. ili kratkoe izlozhenie khristianskoi nravstvennosti po dukhu pravoslavnoi-kafedral'noi tserkvi, 2 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1846) 2: 139–141.

31. Bazhanov, B. V., Ob obiazannostiakh khrislianina (St. Petersburg, 1839), 183–187 Google Scholar. Kochetov instructed the serf, “in the event of dissatisfaction and oppression not to grumble but to endure everything with patience” (Kochetov, Nachertanie khristianskikh obiazannostei, 125). Similarly, Bazhanov admonished peasants to “endure with patience all unpleasantness, disappointment and injustice” that might emanate from their masters (Bazhanov, Ob obiazannostiakh khrislianina, 189).

32. Filaret, Slova i rechi, 2:173.

33. See, in particular, Kotovich, A. N.. “Pochemu dukhovnye molchat? Dukhovenstvo i tsenzura v pervoi polovine XIX v.,” Khristianskoe chtenie, no. 1 (1907): 806–838 Google Scholar. For a fuller account, the standard work on prereform ecclesiastical censorship, see the same author's Dukhovnaia tsenzura v Rossii, 1799–1855 gg. (St. Petersburg, 1909).

34. TsGIA SSSR, f. 796, op. 128, g. 1847. d. 2121, II. 1–19. For the case of a priest whose sermon had sparked a peasant disorder, sec TsGIA SSSR, f. 797 (Kantseliariia ober-prokurora), op. 22, otd. 2, st. 1, d. 202 (1852 file). For some early instances in which sermons caused a political storm, see the published documents on the 1790s in “Propovednik Tobol'skoi seminarii v 1793–94 gg..” Pamiatnik novoi russkoi isiorii, 3 (St. Petersburg, 1873): 399–408, and “Uchrczhdenie propovednicheskoi tsenzury na Viatke pri preosv. Lavrentiie Baranoviche v 1794 g,,” Trudy Viatskoi uchenoi arkhivnoi komissii, 1905 g. (Viatka, 1906), vyp. 3, otd. 3: 108–113.

35. See “Moskovskii propovednik-oblichitel',” Russkii arkhiv, no. 12 (1873): 2,325–2,330.

36. Before 1855, when the number of church periodicals sharply increased, the church had few significant periodicals—Kliristianskoe chtenie (published by the St. Petersburg Ecclesiastical Academy), Trudy Kievskoi dukhovnoi akademii (published by the Kiev Ecclesiastical Academy), and Tvorenie sviatykh otlsev (published by the Moscow Ecclesiastical Academy). Significantly, in the 1840s the Synod had rejected various proposals to establish a provincial ecclesiastical press, including an ecclesiastical equivalent of the provincial weeklies published by the government. In 1845, for instance, the Synod spurned a proposal to open a diocesan periodical in Saratov; two years later it turned back a similar suggestion from the Pskov diocese. See Pravdin, A., “Predpolozhenie ob izdanii dukhovnogo zhurnala v Saratove,” Saratovskie eparkhial'nye vedomosti. no. 8 (1870): 147–152 Google Scholar; TsGIA SSSR, f. 797. op. 13. d. 31802. II. 1–2 ob.

37. TsGIA SSSR, f. 796. op. 131, g. 1850. d. 527, II. 1–2.

38. It could be argued that, before 1764, when the church had to manage a large and increasingly obstreperous population of peasants, it had greater interest in upholding the principle of master-peasant relationships. At the same time, because it had to help enforce the serf order (for example, by returning fugitives from its estates), the church became directly involved, if only as a third party, in squire-serf relations. Secularization in 1764 eliminated this role and emancipated the clergy to assume a more disinterested posture.

In law if not in fact clergy could not own serfs, but sporadic evidence suggests that, imperial statute notwithstanding, clerics occasionally bought and sold serfs. For examples, see “Krepostnye liudi u dukhovenstva,” Chteniia Obshchestva islorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh, 23 (1910), chast’ III. 7–8 ; Rostislavov, D. I., “Zapiski,” Russkaia starina, 27 (1880): 552 Google Scholar; TsGIA SSSR. f. 796, op. 117. g. 1836, d. 783, II. 1–2 ob (a file involving the sale of serfs in Poltava in 1836).

39. For the social and educational profile of nineteenth century clergy, see G. L. Freeze, The Parish Clergy in Nineteenth-Century Russia. For the earlier transformation of the clergy into the closed estate, see idem. The Russian Leviles: Parish Clergy in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977) and Bryner, E.. Der geistliche Stand in Russland. Sozialgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Episkopat und Getneindegeistlichkeit der russischen orthodoxen Kirche im 18. Jahrhundert (Göttingen, 1982)Google Scholar.

40. For the development of the spiritual domain, which meant at once the absolutization of religious competence even as worldly responsibilities were diminished, see Freeze, G. L., “Handmaiden of the State? The Church in Imperial Russia Reconsidered,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 36 (1985): 82–102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41. The clerical role in the inventory reform proved a sobering experience. From the outset, local hierarchs warned that the conferral of such important social responsibility would place the parish clergy in an extremely difficult situation, enjoying the trust of neither squire nor serf (TsGIA SSSR, f. 796, op. 123, g. 1842, d. 686). Their warnings were not unfounded. In 1855, in fact, the government was chagrined to learn that serious disorders, attended by anticlerical outbursts, had ensued from its attempt to involve the clergy in agrarian reform. As the metropolitan of Kiev explained to the chief procurator of the Synod, the clergy were first given the explicit responsibility to protect the serf from violation of the inventories (which defined precisely what dues the serf owed his squire), but a subsequent—and secret—decree annulled this obligation. The result, predictably, was the peasants’ belief that the clergy had betrayed them (presumably because of bribes from nobles) and sought to conceal the “golden manifesto” conferring their complete liberty (ibid., f. 797, op. 26, otd. 3, st. 1, d. 28, II. 13–36 [letter of 27 April 1857]).

42. Filaret (Drozdov), Pis'ma vysochaishim osobam, 2 vols. (Tver', 1888) 2: 33.

43. Gavriil (Gorodkov). Slova i rechi na gospodnye i bogorodkhnye prazdniki i na drugie stuchai, 116. The identical metaphor, positing a true fatherland in the afterlife, appears often in prereform ecclesiastical literature; see, for instance, the 1844 sermon by Archbishop Innokentii of Khar'kov (Slova, besedy i rechi 1: 281) and Bazhanov. Pouchitel'nye slova i rechi. 43.

44. Grigorii (Postnikov), “Slovo na novyi god,” Khristianskoe chtenie, 1853, chast’ 1: 3). In a similar vein Archbishop lliodor of Kursk wrote, “the world is an alien land for us. It is. for us, just like a hotel where the traveller stays for a brief time” (“Pouchenie,” ibid., 1852. chast’ 2: 3). For Archimandrite Feodor see Freeze, G. L., “Theologie und Politik in Russland mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Die Laicisierung von Archimandrit Feodor (Bucharev),” Kirche im Osten 28 (1985)Google Scholar, and the literature cited therein.

45. This policy originated in the 1760s, a period of considerable unrest in the village, but reached its apogee under Paul, whose accession to the throne sparked widespread peasant disorders in which, to a considerable extent, the clergy were involved. The result was a decree in 1797 that formally established the clergy's responsibility to help subdue peasants and enjoined the bishops to secure the appointment of only reliable clergy. For pertinent materials, see the senate directive of 1762 requiring priests lo exhort their parishioners to obedience (TsGIA SSSR, f. 796, op. 43, g. 1762. d. 162, II. 1–3 |synodal decree of 7 July 1762. disseminating this demand]); Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii. Pervoe sobranie [hereafter PSZ(I)], 45 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1830), 21: no. 15,143; 24: no. 17,769, 17,958; 26: no. 19,479; TsGIA SSSR, f. 796. op. 78, g. 1797, d. 123, 1. 12.

46. Antonii, Pastyrskue bogoslovie, 148. For a concrete example, sec the case from Kiev in 1850, where a priest was punished by monastic incarceration “for intervention in the affairs of a squire's estate management” in TsGIA SSSR, f. 796. op. 132. g. 1851, d. 124. I. 262.

47. The Synod, responsible for processing commendations for clerics, encountered only a few such cases—involving clergy in Nizhnii Novgorod in 1797, Tambov in 1811, Kiev in 1836, Tver’ in 1827, and Kursk in 1851 (TsGIA SSSR, f. 796, op. 78. g. 1797. d. 694. II. 1–8; op. 92. g. 1811, d. 875; op. 107, g. 1826, d. 704; op. 108. g. 1827. d. 809; op. 132. g. 1851. d. 1735). But such cases—a handful for the entire half century of prereform Russia—were extraordinarily rare and, by their very infrequency, demonstrate that the clergy did not play a significant role in helping to subdue peasant disorders. For pertinent data and a more general discussion of anticlerical incidents, see Freeze, Gregory L.. “A Case of Stunted Anticlericalism: Clergy and Society in Imperial Russia,” European Studies Review 13 (1983): 177–200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48. TsGIA SSSR, f. 796. op. 117. g. 1836. d. 607. II. 1–5 . For other cases of the failure to dissuade, see the liles on the Perm’ and Lithuania dioceses in 1842 and 1847 respectively (TsGIA SSSR, f. 797, op. 12, d. 30088 and op. 17. d. 40141).

49. TsGIA SSSR. f. 796, op. 108. g. 1827. d. 345, II. 1–2.

50. TsGIA SSSR, f. 796, op. 129, g. 1848, d. 243, II. 1–1 ob. For further examples, see the file on Orenburg diocese in 1847 and the still more sensational case in Novgorod in 1852 (TsGIA SSSR, f. 797, op. 17, d. 39509 and op. 22, otd. 1. St. 2, d. 240).

51. Filaret's response is of particular interest; explicitly noting that the church had no authority in such matters (and hence should, in theory, not meddle in secular issues), he nonetheless found the issue so important that he dared urge the Synod to act on the matter—and not simply return the peitition to the serfs as “irrelevant” to ecclesiastical competence (TsGIA SSSR. f. 797, op. 2. d. 9009, II. 1–1 ob.) For other examples, see an 1834 case, where a bishop's complaint led to official prosecution of a squire in Volhynia, and a synodal file from 1854, where the Synod exhibited extraordinary zeal in pursuing a female serf's complaint of sexual abuse by a squire (TsGIA SSSR, f. 796, op. 115, g. 1834, d. 1383, II. 1–3; op. 135, g. 1854, d. 13654, 1. 2).

52. TsGIA SSSR. f. 796, op. 134, g. 1853, d. 670, II. 26ob.–27.

53. TsGIA SSSR, f. 496, op. 121, g. 1840.d. 1160, II. 7ob.–8. For two similar cases from 1847 and 1851, see ibid., op. 128, g. 1847, d. 1653; op. 132, g. 1851, d. 1897.

54. TsGIA SSSR, f. 796, op. 128, g. 1847. d. 864, II. 1–2. For analogous cases, in which the clergy were denounced as the main fomenters of peasant disorders, see the reports from Kiev in 1827, Volhynia in 1842, Saratov in 1845, Tambov and Kursk in 1851. and Chernigov in 1853 (ibid., op. 108. g. 1827. d. 98; op. 123, g. 1852, d. 866; op. 126, g. 1845, d. 1305; op. 132, g. 1851, dd. 1578 and 1897; and op. 134, g. 1853, d. 1376).

55. Compilation of a petition was evidently the most usual form of clerical involvement. Examples from the synodal archive include Mies from the dioceses of Khar'kov in 1817. Riazan in 1816, Tver’ in 1822. Saratov in 1842, Perm’ in 1836. Tver’ in 1848, and Voronezh in 1849 (TsGIA SSSR. f. 796, op. 98. g. 1817, d. 317; op. 99, g. 1817. d. 1144; op. 103, g. 1822. d. 1244. 1. 198 ob.; op. 117. g. 1836. d. 213, I. 17; op. 123, g. 1842. d. 539; op. 128, g. 1847, d. 950; op. 132. g. 1851. d. 124.1. 93). Such reports were by no means comprehensive; some appeared as special reports, others were included in general files on “extraordinary incidents” sent periodically to the Synod. Significantly, many others were altogether unreported to the Synod; as klirovye vedomosti of parish clergy demonstrate, many incidents never went beyond diocesan files. For example, see the incident reported on a service record in Tver’ diocese (but absent from synodal files ) in Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Kalininskoi oblasti, f. 160. op. 1, d. 15844, 1. 129.

Typical of administering oaths of unity was the case of I. Lukin, a priest in Nizhnii Novgorod. In 1826, according to a report filed with the Synod, “after having brought out the cross and Holy Scripture [from the parish church], he permitted [the unruly serfs] to kiss these in an oath to each other that they would never obey the executor of the estate or its squires, and they would stand together until the end of their lives” (Polnoe sobranie postanovlenii i rasporiazhenii po vedomstvu pravoslavnogo ispovedaniia. Tsarstvovanie Nikolaia Pavlovicha [hereafter PSPRNP| |Petrograd. 1915], no. 36). Similar incidents involved a priest in Penza diocese who administered “an oath of disobedience to the squire,” and another in Nizhnii Novgorod in 1851 who purportedly “allowed [the serfs) to kiss the Word of the Holy Scriptures and the Living Cross to strengthen their [solidarity]” (TsGIA SSSR. f. 796, op. 98, g. 1817. d. 1222. 1. 1 ob.; op. 132, g. 1851, d. 1414, 1. 2 ob.)

For instances of clergy disseminating rumors of emancipation, see an 1847 example in which an inebriated sacristan in Polotsk diocese allegedly spread “certain ridiculous ideas about some kind of freedom” for the serfs (TsGIA SSSR, f. 796. op. 128. g. 1847, d. 907, 1. 2). That same year Polotsk had two other cases of a similar nature, presumably part of the same wildfire of rumors (ibid., op. 128, g. 1847, dd. 864 and 950). Other archival files involve clergy in the dioceses of Riazan (1818), Orel’ and Smolensk (1826). Kherson (1843), Kursk (1847); see TsGIA SSSR. f. 797, op. 2, d. 7425, II. 11–20; f. 796, op. 107, g. 1826, d. 310; op. 124, g. 1843, d. 804; op. 128, g. 1847. d. 1653.

56. As the Synod complained in its decree of 20 August 1774, “the clergy, heedless of the horror of their future condemnation, invoke Pugachev's name in divine services [as the legitimate Tsar Peter III] and. wherever the brigand goes, they receive him, thereby giving cause to the simple folk to embark on a ruinous path” (TsGIA SSSR. f. 796, op. 205. d. 75, I. 7; also ibid., d. 74). For a detailed Soviet study, which explicitly recognizes the significant involvement by parish clergy in the Pugachev Rebellion, see 1. Z. Kadson, “Krest'ianskaia voina 1773–75 gg. i Tserkov'” (Kand. diss., Leningradskoe otdelenie Instituta istorii, 1963). For a balanced assessment, with references to the main sources and literature, see Dorothea Peters, Politische und gesellschaftliche Vorstellungen in der Aufstandsbewegung unter Pugačev (1773–1775), Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte (Wiesbaden. 1973), 129–132.

57. For a discussion of these disorders, see M. DcPule. “Krest'ianskoe dvizhenie pri Imp. Pavlc Petroviche 1797 g. i dnevnik Kn. N. P. Repina,” Russkii arkhiv, no. 3 (1869): 525–577; Rubinshtein, N. L., “Krest'ianskoe dvizhenie v Rossii vo vtoroi polovine XVIII v.,” Voprosy istorii, no. 11 (1956): 34–51 Google Scholar; and E. P. Trifil'ev, Ocherki iz istorii krepostnogo prava v Rossii: Tsarstvovanie Imp. Pavla Petrovicha (Khar'-kov, 1904), with the devastating critique by N. P. Pavlov-Sil'vanskii, reprinted in his Ocherki po russkoi istorii XVIII-XIX IT. (St. Petersburg, 1910). 154–205. The central archives of the Synod contain a number of interesting cases, all demonstrating clerical involvement in serf disorders in Pskov, Tver', and Nizhnii Novgorod (TsGIA SSSR, f. 796, op. 79, g. 1798, d. 67; op. 78, g. 1797. dd. 295 and 274). For rich materials from the provincial archive in Vladimir (the data from which were only partially reflected in central archives), see Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Vladimirskoi oblasti, f. 560 (Suzdal'skaia dukhovnaia konsistoriia), op. 1. dd. 1087 and 1088; A. V. Selivanov, “Opis’ del arkhiva Vladimirskogo gubernskogo pravleniia,” Trudy Vladimirskoi uchenoi arkhivnoi komissii 1 (1899): 31. 34–35; 2 (1902): 24. 30–31; 5 (1903): 22–24; 6 (1904): 39–40. Further materials on Vladimir are to be found in Valk, S. N., ed., Krest'ianskoe dvizhenie v Rossii v 1796–1825 gg. (Moscow, 1961), 34, 79Google Scholar.

58. Nicholas's statement can be found in TsGIA SSSR, f. 797, op. 3, d. 10043, 1. 1. For a typical example, see the case of a sacristan in Orel’ who interpreted an imperial manifesto to mean a command that serfs refuse to obey their masters (TsGIA SSSR. f. 796. op. 107, g. 1826, d. 310. 11. 1–3). Other specific cases in the synodal archive include files from Kiev. Perm', and Pskov dioceses (ibid., dd. 461, 103, and 611). For the synodal proclamation, see “Vozzvanie ot Sviateishego Pravitel'stvuiushchego Sinoda k chadam Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi po sluchaiu gosudarstvennogo opolcheniia,” Khristianskoe chtenie (1855) I: 246–251. For the popular response, see the diocesan reports from Voronezh. Saratov, Perm', Simbirsk, and Samara in TsGIA SSSR, f. 796, op. 137, g. 1856. d. 2398. II. 216. 275–275 ob.; TsGIA SSSR, f. 797, op. 25, otd. 2, st. I, d. 228, 210. 199. 193, 202, as well as the reports in printed literature: Iudin, P., “Sinodal'nye vozzvaniia,” Russkaia starina, no. 7 (1913): 104–108 Google Scholar; Ignatovich, I., “Volneniia pomeshchich'ikh krest'ian ot 1854 po 1862 g.,” Minuvshie gody, no. 5/6 (1908): 105–108 Google Scholar; Barsov, N., ed., “Pis'ma prot. I. M. Skvortsova,” Trudy Kievskoi dukhovnoi akademii. no. 4 (1887): 631 Google Scholar; Krest'ianskoe dvizhenie v Rossii 1850–1856 gg. (Moscow, 1963). 488–493, 498–500, 510–516.

59. “Graf Benkendorfo Rossii,” Krasnyi arkhiv 37 (1929): 152. For typical examples of slanderous accusations against clergymen by the nobility, see the cases from Perm and Smolensk in 1836 and from Vladimir in 1851 (TsGIA SSSR, f. 796. op. 117. g. 1836. d. 243 and d. 607; op. 132. g. 1851, d. 979). In one interesting case, a priest in Volhynia diocese had been forcibly relocated because of a false accusation, and the church sued the squire for damages on the priest's behalf (ibid., op. 127, g. 1846, d. 1445). Metropolitan Filaret is quoted in a letter from the bishop of Vladimir, dated 22 December 1842. in response to Filaret (“Pis'ma Preosv. Parfeniia k raznym litsam,” Vladimirskie eparkhial'nye vedomosti, no. 17 (1880): 506). The main archival file, bearing witness to the state authorities’ distrust of parish clergy (especially its lower sacristan ranks), is in TsGIA SSSR, f. 797, op. 30, otd. 1. st. 2. d. 278. Apart from the extracts published in Gurskaia, I., “Tserkov’ i reforma 1861 g.,” Krasnyi arkhiv 52 (1935): 182–190 Google Scholar, see the discussion by Stupperich, Robert, “Die russische Kirche bei der Verkündigung der Bauembelreiung,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osleuropas 13 (1965): 321–330 Google Scholar; S. Nikol'skii. “Osvobozhdenie krest'ian i dukhovenstvo,” Trudy Stavropol'skoi uchenoi arkhivnoi komissii 1 (1910–1912): 1–20; Stephany Kyriakos, “The Church and the Emancipation of the Serfs in Russia. 1857–1861” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University. 1985); and S. V. Rimskii, “Tserkov’ i krest'ianskaia reforma 1861 g.” (Kand. diss., Universitet Rostova-na-Donu, 1982).

60. See Gregory L. Freeze, “Sin and Penitence in Imperial Russia: Ecclesiastical Courts and Popular Morality” (manuscript).

61. Napominaniia sviashchennika ob obiazannosliakh ego pri sovershenii tainstv pokaianiia. 2 vols. (Kostroma, 1859–1861) 1: 305; also 2: 246–251.

62. The literature on Russian confessional practice is highly unsatisfactory, tending more to summarize canon law and later legislation, with little hard information on daily practice. See Alvazov, A. I., Tainaia ispoved' pravoslavnoi voslochnoi tserkvi, 2 vols. (Odessa, 1894)Google Scholar; Zabelin, P., Prava i obiazannosti presviterov po osnovnym zakomim Khrislianskoi tserkvi i po tserkovno-grazhdanskim postanovleniiam russkoi tserkvi. 2nd. ed. (Kiev, 1888). 211–233 Google Scholar; Walty, Jean-Nichols, “Bussdisziplin in der Tradition des Ostens,” in Liturgie el remission des peches (Rome, 1975), 251–264 Google Scholar; Bukowski, A., Die Genugtuung für die Sunde nach der Auffassung der russischen Orthodoxie (Paderborn, 1911)Google Scholar; G. Schroeder, “Die Lehre vom Sakrament der Busse in der Russisch-Orthodoxen Kirche’ (Phil. Diss., Griefswald [DDR], 1979). For the nominal right to report impenitents, see, for example, the injunctions in a volume routinely distributed to new clergy: Nastavlenie ot arkhipastyria k sviashchenniku (St. Petersburg, 1797 [with numerous later reprintings]), 8 ob. The bishops’ annual reports, as well as their visitation logs, show virtually no concern for “irreligion” among provincial nobles in the prereform period; data on confession and communion, similarly, demonstrate that the frequency of confession and communion among this group was surpassed only by that of the clergy. See, for instance, the files for confession and communion from 1850 in TsGIA SSSR, f. 796. op. 132, g. 1851, d. 636. Perspicacious bishops, however, did—wisely—register some concern, even amidst the repression and reticence of Nikolaevan Russia. See, for instance, an instructive sermon by Evgenii (Bolkhovitinov) in his Sobranie pouchitel'nykh slov 3: 105–106 [sermon from I834| and an article in the journal of the St. Petersburg Ecclesiastical Academy: “O kholodnosti k vere. primechaemoi v liudiakh obrazovannykh.” Khristianskoe chtenie (1834) 3: 310–323.

63. See Freeze. “Sin and Penitence in Imperial Russia.”

64. See. for example, the reports on penance in 1803 and 1811 in TsGIA SSSR, f. 796. op. 84. g. 1803, d. 80. 11. 14–22 (involving noble squires in Poltava. Kolomna, Orenburg, Smolensk, and Orel’ dioceses) and op. 92, g. 1811. d. 172. 11. 26–28 (report on Chernigov diocese). In the more sensational cases, where the brutality bordered on sadism and the emperor so commanded, the incarceration could even be lifelong. For instance, a Tambov noblewoman was sentenced in 1821 to permanent seclusion in a convent “because of her brutal treatment of serf's” (TsGIA SSSR, f. 796, op. 101, g. 1820. d. 1272, unpaginated). For other cases, see the decisions involving a noblewoman in Tver’ (“for flogging her serf girl to death”) and a noble in Tver’ (“lor brutal mistreatment of his serfs”) in ibid. f. 796. op. 92. g. 1810, d. 1181. 1. 101; op. 99. g. 1818, d. 144. Similar files include incidents in Smolensk. Orel, and Orenburg in 1803 (ibid., op. 84, g. 1803. dd. 703. 658, 549. 20) and Voronezh in 1821 (ibid., op. 102. g. 1821. d. 124a).

65. See, for example, the Synod's refusal to reduce the sentence of a Kursk noblewoman in 1801 in TsGIA SSSR. f. 796. op. 82, g. 1801. d. 563.

66. Sec, for example, a case in Orenburg in 1852, where the priest drew six months’ monastic incarceration for a hasty burial that was intended to conceal the death of a mistreated serf (TsGIA SSSR. f. 796, op. 133. g. 1852. d. 13. 11. 1–15).

67. In fact, however, when the clergy concluded marriages without the squires’ permission, the church gave priority to the sacrament and, consonant with its general tendency to avert annulment and divorce, refused to nullify the marriage. See. for example, the case from Voronezh in 1851 in TsGIA SSSR, I. 796, op. 132, g. 1851. d. 280. and also (G. L. Freeze, “Bringing Order to the Russian Family: Marriage and Divorce in Imperial Russia, 1760–1860. Journal of Modern History, forthcoming.

68. Some squires quite literally tried to breed a larger population of serfs. An early and astonishingly bald statement of this goal is contained in a published “instruction” to an estate steward, who was enjoined to arrange “good matches” and, in the event of peasant resistance, “to compel them to do this in a proper manner.” See “Sochinennyi gospodinom slatskim sovetnikom Petrom Ivanovichem Rychkovym nakaz dlia derevenskogo upravitelia,” Trudy Vol'nogo ekonomkheskogo obshchestva 16 (1770): 34. See also the materials in N. I. Buranovskaia, “Votchinnaia instruktsiia serediny XVIII v. kak istochnik po istorii krepostnogo khoziaistva,” Trudy istoriko-arkhivnogo instituta 16 (1961): 387. A related and recurring problem was the soldatki—women whose husbands had been conscripted into the army for good and who tended to remarry, whether voluntarily (to ensure their own sustenance) or at the behest of the squire. Such bigamy was vigorously contested by the church; see a typical case from Kaluga in TsGIA SSSR, f. 796, op. 78, g. 1797. d. 280.

69. In the Synod's nakaz to the Legislative Commission in 1767, among the sundry grievances lodged against the nobility it placed particular slress on violations of marital canons at the behest of noble squires. See the synodal nakaz in Sbornik imperatorskogo russkogo istoricheskogo obshchestva, 148 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1867–1916) 43: 57. The Synod's concern over involuntary marriage can be seen in a synodal decree from 1775 in TsGIA SSSR. f. 796, op. 56, g. 1775. d. 403. For cases where the Synod annulled coercive marriages, see the files from Nizhnii Novgorod and Kaluga in 1797. Pskov in 1801, Kursk in 1821. Poltava and Kaluga in 1831. and Riazan in 1843 (TsGIA SSSR. f. 796. op. 78, g. 1797. dd. 280 and 363; op. 82, g. 1801. d. 636, 1. 1–1 ob.; op. 102. g. 1821. d. 138; op. 112. g. 1831. dd. 130 and 1060; op. 124. g. 1843. d. 1150).

70. TsGIA SSSR, f. 796. op. 78. g. 1797, d. 507.

71. TsGIA SSSR. f. 796. op. 85, g. 1804. d. 497; op. 92. g. 1811. d. 595. 1. 15–15 ob.

72. As inventories of diocesan archives from 1844 demonstrate, most had come to assemble lull sets of parish registers and confessional lists only from the late eighteenth century (TsGIA SSSR. f. 796. op. 125, g. 1844, d. 185). The improvement in documentation is also apparent in divorce and annulment records, where from the late eighteenth century (he diocesan consistory demonstrated greater capacity to provide verifiable data on birthdate and kinship ties. For the reform in parish records, see TsGIA SSSR. f. 796, op. 112. g. 1831. d. 36; op. 116, g. 1836. d. 815; PSPRNP, nos. 343. 348. 357.

73. For typical cases of physical abuse of clergy in the Nikolaevan era, sec the liles involving the battery of priests by squires in Pskov diocese (1834) and Kursk diocese (1851) in TsGIA SSSR, f. 796. op. 115. g. 1834. d. 710; op. 132. g. 1851. d. 1407. For a graphic description of the priest's unenviable plight in serf villages, see Belliustin, I. S.. Description of the Clergy in Rural Russia, trans, and ed. Freeze, Gregory L. (Ithaca, NY.: Cornell University Press, 1985)Google Scholar.

74. Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Kalininskoi oblasti. f. 103, op. 1. d. 1291, 11. 6 ob., 7 ob.

75. “Pis'mo arkhimandrita Innokentiia Borisova k M. A. Maksimovichu,” Russkii arkhiv, 1894. tom 2. no. 6: 297.

76. See. for example, accounts that seminarians were especially drawn to V. G. Belinskii's “Letter to Gogol” in Freeze, Parish Clergy, 137.

77. TsGIA SSSR, f. 796. op. 87, g. 1806. d. 677.

78. Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperil, 2-oe sobranie (hereafter PSZ[2]), 1: 175; reiterated in 1851 in TsGIA SSSR, f. 796, op. 132. g. 1851, d. 1444. 11. 2–7.

74. PSZ(1), 24: 17,909; TsGIA SSSR. f. 796, op. 78, g. 1797. d. 223. For publication by the clergy and evidence of actual enforcement, see S. B. Okun’ and E. S. Paina, “Ukaz ot 5 aprelia 1797 g. i ego evoliutsiia,” Issledovaniia po otechestvennomu istochnikovedeniiu (Leningrad, 1963). 283–299.

80. Alexander's augmentation of the original law can be consulted in TsGIA SSSR, f. 796. op. 99, g. 1818. d. 56, 1. 5; PSZ(1). 35: 27240 (14 February 1818). For examples of clerical use of the law see the reports from laroslovl', Vladimir, Penza, Kazan', and Chernigov in TsGIA SSSR. f. 797. op. 2. d. 8974. 11. 1–87. Although bishops were not explicitly enjoined to report these matters to the Synod, the latter's archive includes some telling files that suggest how zealously ecclesiastical authorities in several dioceses—notably. Vladimir. Kazan’ and laroslavl'—attended to this responsibility (TsGIA SSSR. f. 796, op. 99, g. 1818, dd. 91, 96, 799, 800). The rescission of the law is in TsGIA SSSR. f. 797, op. 2, d. 6342; f. 796. op. 99. g. 1818. d. 56. 1. 22.

8. TsGIA SSSR. f. 796. op. 116. g. 1835, d. 1032a, 1. 129 ob.

82. See. for example, its response to a query from the senate in 1837 in TsGIA SSSR, f. 796. op. 118, g. 1837. d. 1379, 11. 1–2 ob.

83. For an early intertwining of antinoble and anti-Catholic sentiments, see the lacerating comments of a late eighteenth century prelate, Georgii (Koniiskii), bishop of Mogilev, in his Slova i rechi (Mogilev, 1892), 40, 184, 266–267. For an example of (he government's special measures in the western borderlands see a decree of 1832 that stipulated that serfs in the western provinces must be accorded sufficient time for prayer during Lent to prepare properly for communion at Easter (PSPRNP. no. 420).

84. TsGIA SSSR, f. 796, op. 121, g. 1841, d. 39. 1. 21 ob. (synodal resolution of 29 February 1840).

85. See the public sermon by the archbishop of Khar'kov, Innokentii, in his Slova, besedy i rechi, 1: 238–239 for a view of the squires’ negligence. The investigation into the building of chapels is in “Dokladnaia zapiska po voprosu ustroistva pravoslavnykh tserkvei v pomeslichich'ich imeniiakh zapadnogo kraia” (Otdel rukopisei Gosudarstvennoi Publichnoi Bibliotcki im. M. H. Saltykova-Shchedrina, f. 52, d. 14, 11. 1–17). Local governors filed reports giving essentially (he same dismal picture; sec. for instance, the account submitted by the governor-general of Kiev in 1856 in TsGIA SSSR. f. 796, op. 138, g. 1857, d. 935, 1. 4 ob.

86. TsGIA SSSR. f. 796, op. 127. g. 1846. d. 1881, 1. 15 ob. Nearly identical complaints came from Minsk and Mogilev (ibid., 11. 18 ob. – 19). 20 ob.– 21). The Synod found the prelates’ critiques valid and incorporated them in a general resolution of 3 November 1847 (ibid.. 11. 26–27). Eventually. Ihe church's remonstrations triggered a formal order from the minister of interior (ibid., op. 132. g. 1851, d. 1538. 1. 2–2 ob.). For later complaints by bishops in the western provinces, see the reports from Polotsk in 1851 and 1853 (ibid., op. 132. g. 1851, d. 2363. 11. 90 ob., 105: op. 135. g. 1854, d. 160, 1. 34) and Minsk in 1855 (ibid., op. 137. g. 1856, d. 2399, 1. 532 ob.).

87. TsGIA SSSR. f. 796, op. 132, g. 1851, d. 2363. 1. 179 ob. The same complaint appeared in the bishop's report from Penza in 1849 (ibid., op. 131. g. 1850, d. 2005, unpaginated).

88. TsGIA SSSR. f. 796. op. 137. g. 1856, d. 2398. 11. 68 ob., 81 ob.; for similar complaints in the same year (1855), see the reports from prelates in Saratov, Kaluga, and Ekaterinoslav in ibid., 11. 272 ob., 491, 339 ob.

89. For data on the schools and their pupils, see the reports on the early 1840s in TsGIA SSSR. f. 796, op. 127, g. 1846. d. 954, 1. 79–79 ob. In 1850 the bishop of Arkhangel'sk explained that the schools suffered not only from material problems (buildings, teaching materials, and the like), but also from the opposition of peasants, who “absolutely do not want their children to go to school, finding it more useful for themselves to train them to perform work at home” (TsGIA SSSR, f. 796, op. 132, g. 1851, d. 2357, 1. 21). Seealso the replies assembled in the 1840s in ibid., op. 127, g. 1848, d. 954. For a later, but still applicable overview of these problems, see the summary of a survey from the early 1860s in Nachal'nye narodnye uchitishcha i uchastie v nikh pravoslavnogo dukhovenstva (St. Petersburg, 1865). The bishop of Vladimir's complaint can be found in TsGIA SSSR, f. 796, op. 132, g. 1851, d. 2363, 1. 273 ob.

90. TsGIA SSSR. f. 796, op. 137, g. 1856, d. 2399, 1. 219 ob.

91. TsGIA SSSR, f. 796, op. 137. g. 1856, d. 2399, 1. 183; similar comments were expressed by the bishop of Minsk (ibid., 1. 537 ob.).