The author wishes to thank the International Research and Exchanges Board, the Foreign Area Fellowship Program, and the Russian Research Center of Harvard University for support and assistance. Grateful acknowledgment is also due to the officers and staff of the Central State Historical Archive in Leningrad (TsGIAL) and the Central State Archive of Ancient Acts (TsGADA) for their generous assistance in making available the archival materials used in this work. An earlier version of this paper was read at the annual convention of the AAASS in New York; the author is grateful to Professor Georges Florovsky for his comments and criticisms.

1. Verkhovskoy, P. V., Uchrezhdenie Dukhovnoi kollegii i Dukhovnyi reglament, 2 vols. (Rostov-on-Don, 1916), 1: 684.Google Scholar

2. The parish clergy (or “white clergy” ) were socially and juridically distinct from the other main category of church service people—the celibate monastic clergy (or “black clergy” ). Strictly speaking, the term “parish clergy” (prikhodskoe dukhovenstvo) refers only to the clerics in a parish church, not to those serving in other kinds of churches —cathedrals (sobory), endowed churches (ruzhnye tserkvi), private chapels (domovye tserkvi), or convent churches (tscrkvi pri devich'ikh monastyriakh). However, all elements of the white clergy constituted a single social group, sharing a common juridical status and displaying internal mobility among the various kinds of churches. Especially in the provinces, the formally nonparish churches were often assigned some parishioners to supplement an inadequate economic base. Hence the discussion here will embrace all segments of the white or parish clergy.

The clergy of any given church, however, were divided into two main categories: the ordained clergy (sviashchcnno-sluzhiteli) and the churchmen (tscrkovno-slushiteli or tserkovniki). The upper stratum of ordained clergy consisted of the ranks of protopop or protoierei (archpriest), pop or sviashchennik or ierei (priest), and diukon (deacon). The lower churchman stratum embraced two ranks, diachok and ponomar1, who were responsible for guarding the church, ringing the bells, keeping the church clean, reading, and various menial chores. The two strata were sharply distinguished in spiritual and juridical status; the ordained clergy also received a much larger share of parish income and enjoyed greater esteem than the lowly churchman.

3. The term dukhovnoe soslovie (clerical estate) has been widely used in the historical literature; see, for example, Kliuchevsky, V. O., “Istoriia soslovii v Rossii,” Sochineniia, 8 vols. (Moscow, 1956-59), 6: 276–466 Google Scholar; Vladimirsky-Budanov, M. F., Gosudarstvo i narodnoc obrasovanie v Rossii XVIH-go v. (Iaroslavl, 1874), pp. 85 Google Scholar and passim; and Latkin, N., Uchebnik istorii russkago prava pcrioda imperii (XVIII-XIX St.), 2nd ed. (St. Petersburg, 1909), pp. 157–75Google Scholar. However, the term soslovie was not used in this sense of corporate estate in the eighteenth century, but gained currency only in the mid-nineteenth century; see Lazarevsky, N., “Sosloviia,” Entsiklopedicheskii slovar', 86 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1890-1907), 30: 911–13Google Scholar. Both state and church documents in the eighteenth century refer to the exact rank, to the clergy (dukhovenstvo), or to the “clerical rank” (dukhovnyi or sviashchennyi chin); see, for example, TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 14, g. 1733, d. 181: 3, and op. 51, g. 1770, d. 470: 35 ob. Here we shall follow the conventional terminology and let the picture drawn by the data define the social meaning of “estate” or soslovie.

4. An important conception in eighteenth-century administration was that of the “Synodal” or “ecclesiastical command” (Sinodal'naia or dukhovnaia komanda) as separate from the “secular command” (svetskaia komanda). In administrative practice as well as theory the clergy belonged to the Synodal command, all the rest of society to the latter. This special status was noted by one traveler in the late eighteenth century, Tooke, who observed that the clergy, “as it is sometimes particularly mentioned in manifestoes and in several places, is distinct from other classes.” See Tooke, William, A View of the Russian Empire, 3 vols., 2nd ed. (London, 1800), 2: 115.Google Scholar

5. For a discussion of the reform movement in the 1860s see Papkov, A. A., Tscrkovnoobshchcstvamyc voprosy v epokhu Tsaria-Osvoboditelia (St. Petersburg, 1902)Google Scholar.

6. Znamensky, P. V., Prikhodskoc dukhovcnstvo v Rossii so vrcmcni rcformy Petra (Kazan, 1873), pp. 19, 82 Google Scholar. See my article, “The Disintegration of Traditional Communities: The Parish in Eighteenth-Century Russia,” forthcoming in Journal of Modern History. 7. Ioann Znamensky's work, Polozhcnie dukhovenstvo v tsarstvovanie Ekateriny II i Pavla I (Kazan, 1880)Google Scholar, is little more than a summary of the legislation in Polnoe sobranic zakonov. More important are the many diocesan and seminary histories, which often include valuable materials on the clergy; perhaps the most widely used monograph is the study of Moscow by Rozanov, N., Istoriia Moskovskago eparkhial'nago upravleniia, 3 vols. (Moscow, 1869-71)Google Scholar. The only previous work to make extensive use of the Synodal archive is V. E. Den's series of articles, “Podatnye elementy sredi dukhovenstva XVIII v.,” Izvcstiia Rossiiskoi akadcmii nauk, 1918, nos. 5-7, 13-14. Znamensky's views and materials have been closely followed in two more recent accounts: Smolitsch, Igor, Ceschichtc der russischen Kirche, 1700-1917 (Leiden, 1964)Google Scholar, and Kartashev, A. V., Ochcrki po istorii russkoi tserkvi, 2 vols. (Paris, 1959).Google Scholar

8. The chief archival source is the Synodal archive in TsGIAL, fond 796. It contains invaluable policy papers, census data, diocesan reports, seminary registers, and clergy petitions and judicial cases. The Synodal decrees are available for 1721-41 in Polnoe sobranie postanovlenii i rasporiazhenii po vedomstvu pravoslavnago ispovedaniia, 10 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1869-1916), hereafter PSPR; for 1741-62 in PSPR. Tsarstvovanie Elizavety Petrovny, 4 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1899-1911), hereafter PSPREP; for 1762-96 in PSPR. Tsarstvovanie Ekatcriny Aleksecvny, 3 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1910— I5), hereafter PSPREA; and for 1796-1801 in PSPR. Tsarstvovanie Pavla Petrovicha (St. Petersburg, 1915), hereafter PSPRPP. Descriptions of approximately one-third of the eighteenth-century holdings of the archive are available in Opisanie dokumentov i del, khraniashchikhsia v arkhive Sv. Sinoda, 31 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1869-1917), hereafter ODDS. Additional archival materials on the central provinces are preserved in the archive of the Moscow Synodal Chancellery in TsGADA, fond 1183.

9. For the very different development of the Ukraine see E. Kryzhanovsky, “Ocherki byta iuzhno-russkago sel'skago dukhovenstva v XVIII v.,” Rnkovodstvo dlia sel'skikh pastyrei, 1861-64.

10. The history of ecclesiastical administration in Vladimir Province is very complicated. Until the 1740s only the Suzdal diocese existed, and the balance of the area belonged to the massive Synodal Region. To improve and strengthen church administration in the province, new dioceses were established in Vladimir and Pereslavl in 1744. Only in 1788, when the state decided to align eparchies with the boundaries of provinces, was a single Vladimir-Suzdal diocese established; it remained essentially unchanged in the nineteenth century. For pertinent legislation see PSPREP, 2: 660, 692, 745; PSPREA, 3: 1388, 1394. The standard work on ecclesiastical administration is still Pokrovsky, I. M., Russkie eparkhii v XVI-XVIII w., 2 vols. (Kazan, 1913).Google Scholar

11. See, for example, the oft-quoted prescriptions of the Stoglav of 1551 and the Sobor of 1667 in Znamensky, Prikhodskoe dukhovcnstvo v Rossii, pp. 6, 8-9.

12. Znamensky, P. V., Prikhodskoe dukhovcnstvo na Rusi (Moscow, 1867), p. 36.Google Scholar

13. Znamensky, while showing that access remained open, emphasized the hereditary patterns taking shape in the seventeenth century, but he had only scanty evidence for his view. He was sharply criticized for exaggerating this hereditary element in pre-Petrine Russia by Vladimirsky-Budanov, who argued that outsiders were still regularly entering the clergy (Gosutdarstvo i narodnoe obrazovanie, p. 98). See the balanced assessment of this issue in Golubinsky, E. E., Istoriia russkoi tscrkvi, 2 vols., 2nd ed. (St. Petersburg, 1901-10), 2, pt. 2: 83.Google Scholar

14. See the documents in Skvortsov, N. A., Dukhovcnstvo moskovskoi eparkhii v XVII v. (Moscow, 1916), esp. p. 10.Google Scholar

15. In his instruction on ordination procedures a Riazan hierarch in the mid-seventeenth century made no mention of checking a candidate’s social origin, but only sought to establish that he be of the minimum age, literate, and of good moral character. See Sladkopevtsev, P, “Preosviashchennyi Misail, arkhiepiskop riazanskii i muromskii,” Riazanskie eparkhial'nye vedomosti, 1866, no. 13: 385.Google Scholar

16. Seventeenth-century materials on the general region around Moscow show that although a priest often had his sons serve as churchmen, there usually was no clear line of hereditary succession of priests in a given church (see Kholmogorov, G. and Kholmogorov, V., Istorichcskic materialy dlia sostavleniia tserkovnykh letopisei moskovskoi eparkhii, 11 vols. (Moscow, 1881-1911 Google Scholar).

17. See Vladimirsky-Budanov, M. F., “Gosudarstvo i narodnoe obrazovanie v Rossii s XVII veka do uchrezhdeniia ministerstv,” Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnago prosveshcheniia, 169 (October 1873): 165-220, and 170 (November 1873): 36–70.Google Scholar

18. Although no data are available for Vladimir Province, there is some material on nearby areas to indicate how rapidly churches were proliferating. In the Ruzskaia desiatina of Moscow Province the number of churches increased from eight to thirty-five between 1600 and 1700 (Kholmogorov, Istoricheskie materialy, 1: 255-56). In the Kolomna diocese (which embraced the area south of Moscow) the number of churches grew at the rate of 27 percent in 1674-1700 (from 500 to 636 churches); see Pokrovsky, Russkie eparkhii, 2: 28-29.

19. The archives abound with references to election certificates, and a report showing that they were routine in the Vladimir diocese is in TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 44, g. 1763, d. 79: 1-1 ob.

20. For a convenient published description of the ordination process see Rozanov, Istoriia MEU, 2, pt. 1: 102-7 and pt. 2: 133-45.

21. Monastic domination was challenged in the eighteenth century by an influential Moscow archpriest, Petr Alekseev. He argued that a widowed priest should be allowed to become a hierarch without tonsure and that “monasticism is not a prerequisite for the hierarchical rank but even forms a hindrance.” See P. Alekseev, “Rassuzhdeniia na vopros: Mozhno li dostoinomu sviashchenniku, minovav monashestvo, proizvedenu byt' vo episkopa?” Chteniia OIDR, 1867, 3, pt. 5: 25.

22. TsGIAL, f. 796, pp. 63, g. 1782, d. 543: 3 ob.-12.

23. Ibid., op. 70, g. 1789, d. 40: 1-39.

24. PSPREA, 1: 653.

25. TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 65, g. 1784, d. 274: 38. See also op. 79, g. 1798, d. 428: 3-3 ob.

26. TsGADA, f. 1183, op. 1, g. 1737, d. 117: 2-2 ob.; TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 62, g. 1781, d. 195: 21-21 ob., 38, 39-40 (separate cases).

27. The impact of a conscription could vary considerably: whereas only 6 percent of the churchmen and clerical youths were drafted in Riazan, a devastating 25 percent were taken in the Rostov diocese. ODDS, 19: Prilozhenie 1.

28. For exposing a priest for some misdeed, an informer often hoped to receive the position of the guilty cleric as a reward; see, for example, the petition of a diachok who makes such a request in TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 55, g. 1774, d. 131: 2, 32 ob. A good lesson on the dangers of collective responsibility is given in the case of a Pereslavl churchman: for failing to inform on his priest (who neglected to give church services on mandatory state holidays), the churchman received a severe thrashing along with the priest. See Malitsky, N., Istoriia pcreslavskoi eparkhii, 2 vols. (Vladimir, 1905-18), 1: 91–92.Google Scholar

29. TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 65, g. 1784, d. 274: 11-11 ob., 16, 29, 31, 60-61 ob., 192 ob., 200-200 ob.; see also d. 237: 1-12.

30. Bolotov, A. T., Zapiski, 4 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1871-73), 1: 149 and 2: 794.Google Scholar

31. Polnoe sobranie zakonov rossiiskoi imperii, 45 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1830), 6: 4022; hereafter PSZ.

32. TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 62, g. 1781, d. 195: 63-64.

33. For a picture of the pattern in Moscow see the following: PSPREA, 1: 403; Rozanov, Istoriia MEU, 2, pt. 2: 33-34, 69, and 3, pt. 1: 23; and Skvortsov, N. A., Materialy po Moskve i moskovskoi eparkhii za XVIII vek, 2 vols. (Moscow, 1911-14), 1: 78, 100; 2: 499.Google Scholar

34. See the cases in Suzdal in 1728 (ODDS, 8: 106) and Pereslavl in 1756 (TsGADA, f. 1183, op. 1, g. 1756, d. 176: 1-26).

35. PSZ, 20: 14807.

36. TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 62, g. 1781, d. 51: 22-23 ob.

37. The Vladimir seminary was comparable to Riazan and the Moscow Slavonic- Greek-Latin Academy (2 to 3 percent), but higher frequency is to be found in the Kolomna seminary (13 percent) and Rostov (15 percent). TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 71, g. 1790, d. 417: 87-152, 385-454; d. 418: 486-590; op. 74, g. 1793, d. 94: 349-421.

38. PSZ, 6: 4022; see also PSPR, 1: 109, 3: 1090.

39. Katekhizis sokrashchennyi dlia sviashchenno- i tserkovno-sluzhitelei (Moscow, 1798), p. 19.

40. TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 42, g. 1761, d. 65: 19-19 ob.

41. PSPR, 10: 3217;PSPREA, 1A03, 3: 1499.

42. ODDS, 21: 37.

43. TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 62, g. 1781, d. 195: 47.

44. Zhivopisets, 1772 (2nd ed.; St. Petersburg, 1773), chast’ 1, list 3, p. 15.

45. TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 18, g. 1737, d. 32, chast' 1: 197-211, chast' 2: 148-51 ob.; chast' 3: 86-90 ob.: TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 25, g. 1744, d. 134: 49-51 ob.; Malitsky, N., Istoriia suzdal'skoi dukhovnoi seminarii (1723-1788 gg.) (Vladimir, 1905), pp. 5–7.Google Scholar

46. The seminary at Trinity-Sergius Monastery had ninety-two students in 1742 (the year it opened) and 151 students in 1763. See Smirnov, S. K., Istoriia troitsko-lavrskoi seminarii (Moscow, 1867), pp. 26, 238 Google Scholar. In Vladimir the new seminary, after opening in 1750, still had only sixty-eight students in 1755. See Malitsky, N., Istoriia vladimirskoi dukhovnoi seminarii, 3 vols. (Vladimir, 1900-1902), 3: 1–5.Google Scholar

47. See, for example, the cases in TsGADA, f. 1183, op. 1, g. 1738, d. 14: 14 ob. and g. 1755, d. 401: 1-16.

48. PSZ, 10: 7734.

49. TsGADA, f. 1183, op. 1, g. 1739, d. 38: 6 ob.-7, 11-11 ob.

50. Malitsky, N, “Obuchenie pereiaslavskikh sviashchenno-tserkovno-sluzhitelei katekhizisu,” Vladimirskic eparkhial'nye vedomosti, 1905, no. 5: 136 Google Scholar. PSPREP, 1: 128, 377; Nadezhdin, K, “Ocherki istorii vladimirskoi seminarii,” Vladimirskie eparkhial'nye vedomosti, 1865, no. 1: 63, n. 1Google Scholar. Lestvitsyn, V, “Stavlennicheskaia tetrad'ka vremeni mitropolita Arseniia Matseevicha,” Iaroslavskic eparkhial'nye vedomosti, 1881, no. 13: 97–102 and no. 14: 106-9.Google Scholar

51. TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 18, g. 1737, d. 32, chasf 2: 148-51 ob.; Malitsky, Istoriia vladimirskoi dukhovnoi seminarii, 3: 1-5. For similar data on Kolomna, Rostov, Riazan, and Nizhny Novgorod see TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 18, g. 1737, d. 32, chast' 2: 110-11 ob., 324-60 ob., 641-50 ob.; chast' 3: 73-84. Somewhat exceptional, however, were those seminaries closely associated with a monastery: Trinity-Sergius and Aleksandro-Nevsky Seminaries consistently enrolled a number of children of lay monastery employees. On Trinity-Sergius Seminary see Smirnov, Istoriia troitsko-lavrskoi seminarii, p. 26, and the list in TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 25, g. 1744, d. 134: 107-21; on Aleksandro-Nevsky Seminary see Chistovich, I., Istoriia S.-Pctcrhurgskoi dukhovnoi akademii (St. Petersburg, 1857), pp. 7, 11, 45 Google Scholar. By far the most heterogeneous school was the Moscow Academy, where clerical children were only 32 percent of the student population in 1728 (ODDS, 9: 571); however, here also the number of outsiders gradually declined, and by 1744 the sons of clergy were 88 percent of the students (TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 24, g. 1743, d. 496, chast' 2: 124-34 ob.).

52. TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 74, g. 1793, d. 94: 349-421.

53. Ibid., op. 71, g. 1790, d. 417: 87-152, 385-454; d. 418: 486-590; op. 74, g. 1793, d. 94: 349-421.

54. Ibid., op. 64, g. 1783, d. 217: 65-66 ob.; d. 566: 1-1 ob. See also Den, “Podatnye elementy,” no. 14: 1524-34.

55. The state originally exempted only the ordained clergy (priests and deacons), not the churchmen, from the poll-tax registration (PSZ, 6: 3481, 3492). The Synod, however, vigorously opposed such a policy and eventually prevailed (ODDS, 1: 275, and Prilozhenie 23; PSZ, 6: 3901).

56. For a convenient summary of the legislation and data see Den, “Podatnye elementy,” nos. 5-7, 13-14.

57. PSPR, 5: 1661; PSZ, 7: 4802.

58. PSZ, 7: 5202; PSPR, 6: 2098; PSZ, 8: 5264.

59. TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 56, g. 1775, d. 142: 1-1 ob.; see also d. 179: 1-1 ob.

60. Ibid., op. 20, g. 1739, d. 14: 169; ODDS, 18: Prilozhenie 16.

61. PSPREP, 1: 278; ODDS, 23: 23; PSZ, 12: 8981; TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 27, g. 1746, d. 123: 1-6.

62. PSPREP, 3: 1000, 4: 1400.

63. Ibid., 4: 1729.

64. TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 48, g. 1767, d. 547: 454-66 (Pereslavl diocese); op. 46, g. 1765, d. 276: 176-77 (Vladimir diocese).

65. Ibid., op. 56, g. 1777, d. 119: 1-1 ob.

66. Catherine received a petition from sixteen churchmen in Vladimir Province and ordered the Synod “to try to appoint these poor people to vacant clerical positions” (ibid., op. 56, g. 1775, d. 142: 1). When the Synod attempted to apply this decree to other cases, the Senate objected that Catherine's order had related to the special Vladimir case, hence the previous prohibitions must be enforced (ibid., d. 119: 147 and d. 179: 1-96).

67. Ibid., op. 58, g. 1777, d. 15: 20-22; see also op. 62, g. 1781, d. 497: 1-3.

68. Metropolitan Platon of Moscow wrote in February 1783 that “from the reports submitted during the current census of Moscow diocese, it is evident that there are a great many unappointed clerical children.… There is no need whatsoever to accept and install those coming from the poll-tax registry.” TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 62, g. 1781, d. 585: 385. See the similar reports from other dioceses in op. 64, g. 1783, d. 338: 33-34 ob.; d. 566: 1-1 ob.; d. 370: 1-1 ob.

69. Ibid., op. 65, g. 1784, d. 443: 5; op. 63, g. 1782, d. 543: 13-21 ob., 67-132; op. 64, g. 1783, d. 217: 65-66 ob.

70. According to data from the 1730s, very high proportions of the clergy’s sons were reported “to have studied” (meaning literacy): 69 percent of the youths in the Suzdal diocese, 88 percent in Vladimir uezd, and 94 percent in Pereslavl uezd (cities included). See TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 18, g. 1737, d. 253: 66 ob.-67; ODDS, 18: Prilozhenie 15.However, a note of caution is in order: the sources do not explain how the information was compiled, whether from unreliable reports (skazki) or a real examination (osmotr).

71. In data filed on the Pereslavl diocese, the bishop reported a total of 4, 278 clerics and sons in the second reirisziia in the 1740s. From this group 730 had died, leaving a balance of 3, 548. All were still in the clerical estate in 1756, with these exceptions: two transferred to Moscow University, one went to the Moscow typography, and forty-three ran away (total: 1.2 percent); another twenty were expelled from the clerical estate for various crimes (0.7 percent). TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 36, g. 1755, d. 344: 380-403; see the similar data a decade later in op. 48, g. 1767, d. 547: 452-52 ob.

72. For the 1769 razbor see ibid., op. 58, g. 1777, d. 143: 1; for the 1784 rasbor see op. 65, g. 1784, d. 443: 678-85; and for the 1788 razbor see op. 71, g. 1790, d. 55: 1-156.

73. PSPREP, 3: 1054.

74. See, for example, the cases in Kolomna in 1770 (ODDS, 50: 418) and Tula in 1785 (TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 66, g. 1785, d. 441: 1-12).

75. A recent study by S. M. Troitsky shows that in the 1750s the clergy's offspring rarely obtained administrative appointment—composing only 3.4 percent of the central officials and 6.0 percent of the provincial employees. Much more important in staffing the bureaucracy was the hereditary group of chancellery employees (prikaznye liudi). See Troitsky, S. M., “Sotsial'nyi sostav i chislennost' biurokratii v seredine XVIII v.,” Istoricheskie zapiski, 89 (1972): 295–352 Google Scholar. On the development of this estate of prikaznye liudi see Vladimirsky-Budanov, Gosudarstvo i narodnoc obrazovanie, pp. 174-87. After the provincial reforms in 1775, however, the government sporadically engaged in active recruitment of personnel from the seminaries, and by the mid-nineteenth century officials of clerical origin became much more numerous, especially in Vladimir Province. See the data on Vladimir Province in Pintner, Walter M., “The Social Characteristics of the Early Nineteenth-Century Russian Bureaucracy,” Slavic Review, 29, no. 3 (September 1970): 435–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

76. TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 74, g. 1793, d. 94: 349-421.

77. Among the innumerable decrees against unauthorized clergy movement were the following: PSPR, 1: 116; PSPREP, 1: 71; PSPREA, 1: 266; PSPRPP, 182.

78. See Rozanov, Istoriia MEU, 3, pt. 1: 135-37 and n. 323.

79. For examples of conscientious enforcement of regulations by the diocesan authorities see TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 49, g. 1768, d. 81: 1-1 ob.; TsGADA, f. 1183, op. 1, g. 1738, d. 181: 4-4 ob. For a case in which the bishop of Vladimir issued supplementary restrictions see “Episkop vladimirskii Pavel,” Vladimirskic cparkhial'nye vedomosti, 1910, no. 31: 560.

80. PSPR, 1: 120; ODDS, 2, pt. 1: 378; PSPR, 2: 850, 890, and 7: 2488; ODDS, 10: 378.

81. PSZ, 8: 6066.

82. PSPREP, 3: 1002.

83. TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 48, g. 1767, d. 547: 14 ob.; see also ODDS, 50: 69.

84. Smirnov, Istoriia troitsko-lavrskoi seminarii, p. 552. See the fascinating text of a public debate held at the seminary in 1781 on “what career one should choose.” The text refutes arguments for selecting a lay profession instead of church service, with a special invective for bureaucratic careers (pp. 578-83). From the impressive data on the exit of seminarians from the clerical estate in Moscow Province in the 1780s it is clear why the ecclesiastical officials were so deeply troubled over such transfers (see the report on Moscow in TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 62, g. 1781, d. 588: 117-24 ob.).

85. “Po povodu pechataemago nizhe ‘Uchrezhdeniia’ Simona, episkopa riazanskago,” Riacanzkie eparkhial'nye vcdomosli, 1866, no. 19: 543-44.

86. A. Sokolov, “Simon Lagov,” ibid., 1884, no. 10: 183.

87. For examples of the reluctance of bishops to release widowed clergy who applied for transfers to the lay command see the two Kolomna cases in TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 64, g. 1783, d. 89: 1-7 and d. 236: 1-2 ob.

88. See the petition of a Vladimir priest, for example, in TsGADA, f. 1183, op. 1, g. 1737, d. 32: 2-2 ob.

89. Intraclerical disputes were so common that the bishop of Vladimir used this fact to justify the need for district ecclesiastical offices (TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 54, g. 1773, d. 140: 241 ob.-242). That the Vladimir diocese was no exception is evident in the inventory of cases handled by the Riazan consistory at the end of the century (see Dobroliubov, G, “Ukazatel' materialov dlia istoriko-statisticheskago opisaniia riazanskoi eparkhii,” Trudy Riazanskoi uchennoi arkhivnoi komissii, 17, pt. 2: 107-8, 110, 114-16. 123 Google Scholar).

90. For the classic denunciation of clerical motivation see Metropolitan Dmitrii’s statements in Shliapkin, I. A., Sv. Dmitrii Rostovskii (St. Petersburg, 1891).Google Scholar

91. For example, one Suzdal petitioner claimed his “father’s position” (ottsovskoe mesto) and declared it was in the family “from ancient times” (ODDS, 8: 106); see a later example from the Vladimir diocese in TsGIAL, f. 796, op. 56, g. 1775, d. 142: 1. Similar materials abound for all the other central provinces, and Vladimir is by no means unique; see, for example, op. 66, g. 1785, d. 236: 3-37; d. 239: 1-1 ob.; and d. 247: 1-13. Typical of pleas for mercy and charity are the following cases: op. 42, g. 1761, d. 65: 2-2 ob.; op. 56, g. 1775, d. 280: 3; op. 62, g. 1781, d. 195: 28-29 ob., 30 ob., 32 ob., 39-40.

92. See O dolzhnostiakh prcsvitcrov prikhodskikh ot slova bozhiia, sobrannykh pravil i uchitelei tserkvi sostavlennoe (St. Petersburg, 1776), and Tikhon, , Nastavlenic o sobstvcnnykh vsiakago khristianina dolzhnostiakh (St. Petersburg, 1791), p. 98 ob.Google Scholar

93. Znamensky, Prikhodskoe dukhovcnstvo v Rossii, p. 120.