INFORMATION TO USERS
This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will a find good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again - beginning below die first row and continuing on until complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.
University Microfilms international 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 USA St. John's Road, Tyler's Green High Wycombe, Bucks, England HP10 8HR
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77-9815
FRY, Gary Dean, 1949- THE DOUKHOBORS, 1801-1855: THE ORIGINS OF A SUCCESSFUL DISSIDENT SECT.
The American University, Ph.D., 1976 History, Europe
Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan48ioe
© COPYRIGHT
GARY DEAN FRY
1976
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. THE DOUKHOBORS, l801-l855: THE ORIGINS
OF A SUCCESSFUL DISSIDENT SECT
by
Gary Dean Fry
Submitted to the
Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences
of The American University
in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree
of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
History
Signatures of Committee
Chairman :
Acting Dean of the Co^ege
-ltd Date
1976
The American University Washington, D.C. 20016
THE AMESICM UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES......
PREFACE ......
ABBREVIATIONS ......
INTRODUCTORY NOTE ......
CHAPTER
I. LITERATURE ON THE DOUKHOBORS
II. "WE LIVED, WE DWELT ON THE GREEN EARTH, [BUT] WE DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING. . . THE EARLY HISTORY AND DOCTRINE OF DOUKHOBORISM. 30
III. THE MILKY WATERS : THE DOUKHOBORS IN THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER I, PART.. 1 ...... 79
IV. "INTRIGUES WERE ON FOOT. . . .": THE DOUKHOBORS IN THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER I, PART 2 ...... 14I
V. ORTHODOXY, AUTOCRACY, AND HERESY: THE DOUKHOBORS IN THE REIGN OF NICHOLAS I, PART 1...... 200
VI. "... A TERRIBLE INQUISITIONAL TRIBUNAL": THE DOUKHOBORS IN THE REIGN OF NICHOLAS I, PART 2...... 264
VII. PATTERNS OP DOUKHOBOR CULTURE, l80I-l855 .. . 322
VIII. "NEW DOUKHOBORISM"...... 387
IX. A SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ...... 399
X. THRONE AND SECT: CONCLUDING REMARKS ...... 420
BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 435
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OP TABLES
Page
1. Subdivision of the Doukhobor Population for the Years 1826 and 1827...... 2l8
2. The Establishment of Provincial "Secret Consultative Committees" ...... 266
3. Population Figures of the Doukhobor Milky Waters Villages for 1838...... 291
4. Population of the Caucasian Doukhobor Villages in the Late Nineteenth Century...... 311
5. Five Categories Detailing the Relative Economic Strength of Doukhobors in Akhalkalak District in 1886...... 337
6. Doukhobor Immigration to Canada for l899...... 395
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PREFACE
I have employed the Library of Congress system of
transliteration except for the omission of soft signs. The
names of rulers and localities well known in English have
been anglicized. The spelling of "Doukhobor" conforms to
standard English usage.
The New Style or Gregorian calendar was not adopted
in Russia until 1918. In the nineteenth century the Old
Style or Julian calendar used in Russia was twelve days
behind the New Style; in the eighteenth century there was an
eleven day difference. In all cases I have rendered dates
in both Styles for the sake of clarity.
A number of institutions warrant mention for their
aid and support in the preparation of this dissertation. I
wish to thank the Special Collections staff of the University
of British Columbia Library for its guidance and assistance
during the initial stages of research for this study.
Similarly, the Slavic specialists of the Library of Congress'
Law Library were especially helpful. Finally, the Russian
and East European Center of the University of Illinois
(Urb ana-Champ a i gn) deserves particular mention and my
gratitude for deeming the present study worthy of support
through its Summer Research Laboratory.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABBREVIATIONS
PPSZ (Pervoe) polnoe sobranle zakonov Rossllskol Imperil] 46 vols. St. Petersburg: Gosudarstvennaia tip., I83O-I839.
PSPR Polnoe sobranle postanovlenii 1 rasporlzhenil po vedomstvu pravoslavnago Ispovedanlla Rossllskol Imperii. 5 series. 19 vois. St. Petersburg: Sinodalnoi tip., I869- 1915.
SPSR Sbornik pravitelstvennykh svedenii o raskolnikakh. Edited by V. Kelsiev. London: Trübner, I86O-I862.
SPR Sobranle postanovlenii po chasti raskola. 2 vois. St. Petersburg: Tip. ministerstva vnutrennikh del, I858.
SPR (1875 ed.) Sobranle postanovlenii po chasti raskola. St. Petersburg: Tip. ministerstva vnutrenniky del, I875.
VPSZ (Vtoroe) polnoe sobranle zakonov Rossllskol Imperii. 55 vois. St. Petersburg: Gosudarstvennaia tip., 183O-I884.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. INTRODUCTORY NOTE
This dissertation endeavors to trace the critical
first fifty years of the Doukhobor settlement established by
Alexander I in l802. With his decision to grant the
Doukhobors* wish to be settled in "a separate colony,"
Alexander gave immediate and definite shape to what was
theretofore an amorphous history of individuals scattered in
many parts of the Russian Empire and united solely by a
common religion. Only from l802 were the Doukhobors con
fronted with the task of constructing among themselves the
economic, political, and spiritual relationships that would
determine the subsequent growth or decay of the sect as a
real community of the faithful. Only from l802 did the
Doukhobors collectively confront a government that could
either tolerate or destroy them. During the reigns of
Alexander I and Nicholas I, the basic shape and place of the
Doukhobor community in Imperial Russian society were deter
mined by a complex interaction of state and sectarian
attitudes and policies.
Between 18OI and 1855 the autocracy created a legal
milieu in which the Doukhobors could exist as religious dis
senters. The creation of a legal order tolerant of "errors
of faith" proceeded from a rational ordering of state
affairs that consciously removed the peaceful confession of
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2
dissenting religion as a target of governmental sanctions.
Alexander’s pursuit of such a policy derived primarily from
an early adoption of Enlightenment precepts that evolved
into a highly ecumenical spiritualism. Nicholas’ policy
toward dissenting religion was largely a function of his
devotion to a bureaucratization that implied a depersonalized
standardization in state policies that was often blind to
matters of faith. Under Alexander and Nicholas the
Doukhobors came to be regarded as subjects of the Tsar
rather than "heretics."
The legal order which the autocracy constructed for
the Doukhobors was characterized by carefully prescribed
limitations on sectarian activity. Although the state
countenanced the existence of dissenting faith, it was not
agreeable to the unbridled growth of a force subversive of
the Orthodox Christian civilization on which the autocracy
was based. The Doukhobors were thus subjected to a legal
regimen of checks and balances the aim of which was to con
trol rather than suppress the sect. The general thrust of
the state’s controlling efforts was to enforce a geographic
and cultural isolation of the Doukhobors, a condition the
sectarians themselves found salutary.
Between l802 and I855 the Doukhobors responded to
the autocracy’s attitudes and policies by constructing a
cohesive religious community. Prior to Alexander's
establishment of a Doukhobor colony the sect existed as a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3
dispersed collection of individuals united only by an
adherence to common religious beliefs. From l802 the
Doukhobors were forced to establish among themselves the
economic, political, and spiritual relationships incumbent
upon any social collective. The stability and resiliency of
these relationships determined the subsequent course of
Doukhobor history.
To a large degree the Doukhobors accommodated them
selves to the boundaries of the legal order established over
them by the autocracy. The sectarians paid their taxes,
supplied military recruits, and generally refrained from the
zealous propagation of their faith. Yet within the auto
cracy’s prescribed limits the Doukhobors attained a measure
of collective self-assertion in their religious and social
conduct that ensured the survival of their own unique cus
toms, traditions, and theology. This mixture of accommoda
tion and collective self-assertion reflected the Doukhobors’
own inner system of checks and balances which secured their
"right" to exist in Imperial Russian society while maintain
ing a degree of insulation from that society. The migration
of over 7,000 Doukhobors to Canada at the end of the century
indicates the measure of success that the sect enjoyed in
establishing and preserving its cultural and spiritual
integrity over the decades.
The core of the following dissertation consists of
a detailed examination of the legal and cultural status of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4
the Doukhobors In the reigns of Alexander I and Nicholas I.
We are presenting, in essence, the transcript of a half-
century of dialogue between Throne and Sect in which each
sought a modus vivendi with the other. The dialogue was at
times stormy, but it never degenerated into official reli-
obscurantism or radical sectarian zealotry.
The 1899 exodus of 7,427 Russian Doukhobors to
Canada marked the culmination of a ten-year schism within
the Doukhobor brotherhood.^ The Doukhobors who left Russia
were highly ascetic followers of Peter Vasilevich Verigin’s
(1859 -1924 ) ’’new Doukhoborism,’’ essentially a reformed
Doukhoborism aimed at reviving the sectarian asceticism of
the early years of the century. Verigin’s flock represented
the purified essence of Doukhoborism distilled over the
course of a turbulent century by dogged adherence to the
simple credo of ’’Trud i Mirnaia Zhizn" (’’Toil and Peaceful
Life’’). The Doukhobors who migrated to Canada were the
direct recipients of the attitudes, psychologies, and
philosophies engendered by the successful pioneering efforts
of their forebears from l802 to 1855.
dukhobortsev i kratkoe izlozhenie ikh veroispoyedanlia (North Kildonan, Man.: J. Regehr, 1944), p p . 6 5 - 1 1 6 ; and M. Tebenkov, ’’Dukhobortsy, ikh uchenie, organizatsiia i nastoiashchee polozhenie’’ (Part 2), Russkaia starina 87 (September l89o); 493-526.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5
The notion of "success" in history seems more of a
highly subjective, if not irritating, intrusion than a
viable criterion for analysis. Still, varying degrees of
success are explicit in the historian’s use of such terms
as "growth," "development," "stagnation," and "decay."
Societies and cultures, as American sociologist Robert
Nisbet notes, do not literally "grow" or "develop" in a
biologic sense; they do not "decline" or "decay." These
terms are metaphors, part of the "metaphor of growth," the
"oldest, most powerful and encompassing" mataphor in Western
thought.^
The idea of success, then, is a qualitative judgment
applied to the growth metaphor. There are two criteria for
historical success open to us. The first is essentially
religious. The metaphor of growth is inherent to Christian
ity. As historian Ernest Lee Tuveson writes, "Christian
history tends to be developmental. Events are inter
connected by an organic series of links." Progress, more
over, is explicit in this organic process.^ For the
Doukhobors, history is ongoing Revelation, the incessant
unveiling of a Divine Order. The Doukhobors adhere to a
pects of the Western Theory of Development (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969), pp. 3-8. ^Ernest Lee Tuveson, Millennium and Utopia: A Study in the Background of the Idea of Progress (New York: Harper, 1964), p. 6.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6
metaphor of growth that tends toward perfection and the City
of God; all their history is inseparable from ultimate
success.
The second criterion for historical success is more
secular. Success in history can be reduced to survival, the
continued real and energetic existence of ideals and insti
tutions dedicated to the simple dignity and welfare of man.
The credo of the Doukhobors, "Trud i Mirnaia Zhizn," is one
such ideal. Its survival, made certain during the years
1801 to 1855, certainly reflects a successful chapter in the
history of mankind.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LITERATURE ON THE DOUKHOBORS
The Doukhobors have enjoyed more scholarly and popu
lar attention than most native Russian sects. Much of this
consideration, of course, is attributable to the extensive
publicity attending the sect’s exodus to Canada in the late
nineteenth century. Unfortunately, the bulk of the litera
ture on the Doukhobors has concerned itself with their
Canadian experience. Accounts of the sect’s history in
Imperial Russia pale before those appearing after the 1899
"emancipation." In I89 I a student of the Doukhobors con
cluded that existent literature on the group suffered from
"narrow and unseemly prejudice," incompleteness, and "chance"
or accidental observations.^
The earliest systematic account of the Doukhobors to
appear was a sympathetic exposition of their religious and
N. Astyrev, "V gostiakh u dukhobortsev irkutskoi gubernii," Severnii vestnik, 4 (April I891 ): 53. Nikolai Mikhailovich Astyrev (1857-1894) was a "belletrist" who specialized in subjects of Russian folk life. Prom I888 until his death he was a government statistician stationed in Irkutsk. Astyrev’s article provides a rare glimpse of a small, isolated group of Doukhobors settled in the village of Kotinsk in northern Irkutsk province. The author displays considerable knowledge of Doukhobor history and histori ography. See "Astyrev," Entsiklopedicheskii slovar, ed. by P. A. Brockhaus and 1. A. Efron (St. Petersburg: Brockhaus- Efron, 1891 -1907 ), 2: 402.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. social precepts published as an appendix to Robert Pinkerton’s
translation of The Present State of the Greek Church in Russia
by Platon, Metropolitan of Moscow.^ Although this tract was
subsequently reprinted several times,^ its author has yet to
be positively identified. At least one bibliographer
attributes the piece to Platon (1737-1812),^ but the extreme
sympathy of its author for the Doukhobors would seem to pre
clude such an origin. The most likely author is Ivan
Vladimirovich Lopukhin (1756-1816), an envoy sent by
Alexander 1 to investigate the Doukhobors in the southern
provinces in l801. Intellectually, Lopukhin was very
receptive to Doukhoborism, and he is often cited as the
"probable" author of the tract appearing in Platon's volume.^
In a footnote at the end of the piece Pinkerton wrote that
Platon, Metropolitan of Moscow, The Present State of the Greek Church in Russia, trans. by Robert Pinkerton (New York: Collins and Co., 1815), pp. 248-268.
^M. Tebenkov, "Dukhobortsy, ikh uchenie, organi zatsiia i nastoiashchee polozhenie" (Pt. 1), Russkaia starina, 87 (August l8$6): 257-270; "The Russian Doukhobortsi (Spiritwrestiers ) at the Beginning of this Century (A Paper Written in I805)," New Century Review, 1 (January-June I897): 419-431; Dukhobortsy v nachale XIX stoletsia; zapiska I805 goda (Moscow: Izd. "Posrednika," 1907).
^Maria Horvath (Krisztinkovich), A Doukhobor Bibli ography Based on Material Collected in the University of British Columbia Library (Vancouver: Univ. of British Columbia Library, 1972), no. 459.
^A. 1. Klibanov, Istoriia religioznogo sektantstva v Rossii (60-e gody XlXv.-1917g.)(Moscow: Nauka, 1965), p. 87; A. P. Shchapov, "Umstvennyia napravleniia russkago raskola," Delo, 10 (October 1867): 330.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9
the "Interesting particulars concerning the Duhobortsi" were
taken from a Russian language manuscript "composed by a
gentleman of the first respectability in Petersburg."^ In
1805 , the date of composition assigned to the tract, 1. V.
Lopukhin was a senator, certainly a respectable position, and
he had, as we shall see, first-hand experience with the
Doukhobors. In any event, the piece appended to Platon’s
volume provides a contemporary and systematic, if idealized,
account of Doukhobor religious principles. During Robert
Pinkerton’s I816 visit to Tauride province the Doukhobors
he encountered vouched for the veracity of the tract.^
The first comprehensive study of Doukhobor history
and theology was attempted by Orest Markovich Novitskii
(l806-l884) in his 0 dukhobortsakh (1832).^ Novitskii was a
student at the Kiev Academy and he prepared his treatise on
the sect to fulfill requirements for a degree in theology.^
Although the volume was critical of the Doukhobors, it raised
the ire of Church officials. In I833 Metropolitan Filaret of
Platon, Present State, p. 268.
^Robert Pinkerton, Russia: or. Miscellaneous Obser vations on the Past and Present State of that Country and its Inhabitants (London: Seeley and Sons, 1833), p. 167.
^Orest Markovich Novitskii, 0 dukhobortsakh (Kiev: Kievopecherskoi lavr, I832).
^See "Novitskii," Entsiklopedicheskii slovar, 21, 258.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10
Moscow (1782-1867) wrote to Ober-Procurator S. D. Nechaev
that 0 dukhobortsakh portrayed the Doukhobors in an all too
attractive light while surrounding Orthodoxy with "a dis
paraging air. The Doukhobors themselves apparently agreed
with Filaret’s estimation, for when they learned of the
existence and content of Novitskii's volume, they eagerly
sought to purchase it. Baron Haxthausen learned that in some
cases Doukhobor communities paid over 500 silver rubles for a
claimed that a deputation of Doukhobors journeyed to Kiev to
thank Novitskii "for his service to their cause," and so
aroused the suspicion of the police that the book was
banned.
Novitskii's work, based on personal observations and
government records, is generally regarded as the most sub
stantial and comprehensive treatment available of Doukhobor
history in the nineteenth century.Of major value are
^°"lz pisem mitropolita Pilareta k S. D. Nechaevu," Russkii arkhiv, 31 (1893): 1^6.
^^August Freiherr von Haxthausen, The Russian Empire, its People, Institutions and Resources, trans. by Robert Farie (London: Chapman and Hall, 1856), 1; 28l.
^^William Hepworth Dixon, Free Russia (London, I87O), 1, pp. 255-256. Dixon strains his credibility when he claims that Novitskii was a "satirist" who composed his book on the Doukhobors "meaning to laugh at them." Such was not the case.
^^Astyrev, "V gostiakh u dukhobortsev," 53; Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1: 28l. In a telephone conversation with the Doukhobor historian Eli Popov in Grand Forks, British Columbia in October 1974, the writer was told that Novitskii remains
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11
Novitskii’s extensive quotations from unpublished archival
material from the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The author’s
narrative, described by Filaret as "idle talk," which con
nects the many citations is of interest insofar as it describes
the attitude of a young theological academy student toward a
heretical sect.
Novitskii was a professor of philosophy at the
University of Kiev until I85O. When the chair of philosophy
which he held was then closed in the aftermath of Nicholas
I ’s reaction to the revolutions of l848, he became a univer
sity censor. A revised and enlarged edition of his I832
study was prepared by Novitskii and published in l882.^^ The
second edition is generally less objective than the 1832
issue. By 1882 Novitskii had apparently developed a less
"disparaging" attitude toward Orthodoxy.
Invaluable information on the Doukhobors in nineteenth
century Russia is provided in the travelogues and memoirs of
visiting clerics from Europe and America. Robert Pinkerton’s
Russia contains an account of the author’s visit to the
Doukhobor Milky Waters colony in I816. Pinkerton, an emissary
of the British and Foreign Bible Society and co-founder of
the Russian Bible Society, was intrigued by the Protestant
the "only" source available for Doukhobor history during the period 18OI-I86O.
^ Orest Markovich Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia i verouchenie (Kiev: Universitetskaia tip., l882).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12
content of Doukhobor theology. Quakers William Allen (I77O-
1843) and Stephan Grellet (1773-1855) visited the Milky
Waters in 1819 .^^ Initially attracted to what they believed
to be Russian Quakers, Allen and Grellet were ultimately re
pelled by the Doukhobors’ seeming crudity and deviousness in
matters of "vital religion." Beyond concerns of faith,
Pinkerton, Allen, and Grellet provide insights into the
economy, politics, and psychology of Doukhobor society during
the Milky Waters period. Equally valuable in this regard are
other travelogues. Ebenezer Henderson (1784-1858) was a
Scottish linguist. Biblical scholar, and missionary who
travelled extensively in Scandanavia and Russia from I806 to
1823.^^ His Biblical Researches and Travels in Russia^*^ con
tains an account of a visit to the Doukhobor Milky Waters
colony in I818. Xavier Hommaire de Hell (1912-1848), a
French explorer and geologist, studied the Crimea and the
south of Russia from I838 to l84l. Although Hommaire de Hell
tions from his Correspondence, 2 volsl (Philadelphia: Henry Longstreth, 1Ü57); Stephan Grellet, Memoirs of the Life and Gospel Labours of Stephan Grellet, ed. by Benjamin Seebohm, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Henry Longstreth, i860).
^^William Lee, "Henderson," A Religious Encyclopedia: or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, ed. by Philip Schaff, 3 vols. (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1882-1883), 2:970.
^"^Ebenezer Henderson, Biblical Researches and Travels in Russia: Including a Tour in the Crimea and the Passage of the Caucasus (London: James Nisbet, 1826).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13
was concerned primarily with geology and geography, his wife,
Jeanne Heriot (I815-I883), interested herself in the
historical and ethnographic aspects of Russia.Presumably
it was her account of the Milky Waters Doukhobors which was
published in Travels in the Steppes of the Caspian Sea, the
Significant information on the Doukhobors was published by
two geographers, Jean Baptiste Benoit Eyries (1767-1846) and
Conrad Malte-Brun (1775-1826), in l8l9.^*^ Although Eyries
travelled widely, there is no direct evidence that he or his
collaborator ever visited Russia. Nevertheless, the two
provided the first reasonably accurate population figures and
geographic layout of the Milky Waters colony to appear in the
West. The
is unknown.
August Freiherr von Haxthausen (1792-1866) provided
the most valuable foreign account of the Doukhobors in the
"Hommaire de Hell," Larousse du XXe siècle, 6 vols. (Paris: Librairie Larousse, 1928-1933), 3:1057-1058.
^^Xavier Hommaire de Hell, Travels in the Steppes of the Caspian Sea, the Crimea, the Caucasus (London: Chapman and Hall, 1847).
^*^"Eyries," Laroupse du XXe siècle, 3:380; "Malte- Brun," Larousse du XXe siècle, 4:6315
^^Jean Baptiste Eyries and Conrad Malte-Brun, Nouvelles annales de voyages . . . (Paris : Gide Fils, 1819 ), 2:300-305.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14
opposition led to his dismissal from the Prussian civil
service, Haxthausen was invited to Russia by Minister of
State Domains Count P. D. Kiselev (1788-I872). In April
1843 Haxthausen began a planned tour of 7,000 miles through
European Russia, the Crimea, and the Caucasus. He returned
to Prussia in the spring of 1844 to compose a record of his
experiences.
S. Frederick Starr, a Haxthausen scholar, notes that
no aspect of the German’s work has been "so thoroughly ne
glected" as his investigations of Russian sectarians.
Haxthausen was deeply enamored of Russian Orthodoxy, but he
was fearful lest the Church's "subjection to outward forms"
cause it to lose ground to the sectarians. "Deep wounds
will be inflicted" on the Russian Church, he warned, if the
"speculative tendencies" manifested in the sects were not
actively combatted.^^ Although appalled by sectarian
theology, Haxthausen was impressed by some of the social
institutions developed by the sects, especially the Russian
Mennonite colonies.
^^See S. Frederick Starr, "August von Haxthausen and Russia," Slavonic and East European Review, 46 (July 1965):462-478.
^%bid., p. 473. 24 Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1:278.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15 Haxthausen visited the Milky Waters colony in the
late summer of 1843, just after the sect was exiled to
Transcaucasia. His account owed much to Novitskii for back
ground information, but invaluable first-hand knowledge was
gleaned from Johann Cornies (1789-1848), the leader of the
Mennonite settlements situated near the Milky Waters. In
Haxthausen we find the most frequently cited account of the
crisis which racked the Doukhobor colony in the I83O ’s and
led to the Caucasus exile.
The first scholarly studies of the Doukhobors
appeared in 1829 in Western Europe. Theophil Eduard Lenz,
a German theologian, published in Church Latin his brief
Commentâtionis de duchoborzis, a theological discussion of
Doukhoborism spiced with a brief history of the sect.
Lenz was impressed by the similarity of Doukhobor and Quaker
doctrines. Unfortunately, he did not reveal his sources.
The same year, a French priest from Lorraine, Henri-Baptiste
Grégoire (1787-I831), published the fourth volume of his
Histoire des sectes religieuses.^'^ This work contained a
chapter on Doukhobor history and theology composed from
information provided by an unidentified Kazan professor.
^^Ibid., p. 281.
^^Theophil Eduard Lenz, Commentationis de duchoborzis (Dorpat: Severin, 1829).
^^Henri-Baptiste Grégoire, Histoire des sectes religieuses, 6 vols. (Paris: Baudouin, 1028-1845).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16
The generally sympathetic treatment given the sect is
attributable to Grégoire’s admiration for Jansenist
m i l l e n a r i a n i s m . T h e Lenz and Grégoire volumes are not
particularly rich sources. Their major significance lies in
the fact that they appeared prior to the published accounts
of Novitskii, Pinkerton, Quakers Allen and Grellet, and
Haxthausen.
Native Russian accounts of the Doukhobors are
extremely rare for the first half of the nineteenth century.
Except for Novitskii, few Russians apparently shared the
interest of foreign visitors in the sect. Perhaps, as Peter
Chaadaev believed, the ideological straitjacket of Orthodoxy
precluded the "great debates" of Western Christendom which
prompted interest there in Russian "heretics." We do, how
ever, possess the primary accounts of I. V. Lopukhin and
Vasilii Vasilevich Vereshchagin. Lopukhin, a child of the
mystical Masonic circles of the late eighteenth century, was
an emissary of Alexander I sent to Kharkov to investigate
the Doukhobors in the autumn of I8OI. His reports on the
return to the southern provinces of Doukhobors exiled by
Paul provided the impetus for the establishment of the Milky
On Grégoire see Clarke Garrett, Respectable Folly: Millenarians and the French Revolution in France and England (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), pp. 23- 24, and Ruth F. Necheles, The Abbe Grégoire I787-I831: The Odyssey of an Egalitarian (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Publishing Corp., 1971).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17
consider more fully the career of this remarkable individual.
Vasilii Vasilevich Vereshchagin (1842-1904) abandoned
an early parental-imposed naval career to become an artist.
In 1862 he entered the Academy of Pine Arts in St.
Petersburg. The following year he went to the Caucasus in
search of subjects for his canvas. There he sketched and
earned his living by teaching drawing in a Tiflis school for
girls. He also visited the Caucasian Doukhobor settlements
established two decades earlier when the sect was exiled
from Tauride province. After an abortive trip to Paris for
study in l864, Vereshchagin returned to the Caucasus. In
1866 he exhibited the painting for which he earned his first
critical acclaim, "Dukhobory na molitve. In I867
Vereshchagin accompanied General Konstantine Kaufmann on
his campaign in Central Asia. This was only the first of
many military expeditions in which the painter took part.
The horrors of war made a pacifist of Vereshchagin, and his
stark rendering on canvas of battle scenes earned him
considerable renown.
senatora I. V. Lopukhina," Russkii arkhiv, 22 (1884): 85- 101.
^*^H. Rayment, "Vereshchagin," Bryan’s Dictionary of Painters and Engravers, rev. by George C. Williamson, 4th ed., 5 vols. (London: G . Bell and Sons, 1926-1930), 5:283- 285.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18
Vereshchagin’s account of Doukhobor life in the Cau
casus is contained in his Autobiographical Sketches. A s a
pacifist, the painter was sympathetic toward the Doukhobors.
He was, however, critical of various aspects of the sectar
ians’ religion. The main value of Vereshchagin’s observations
was the discerning eye he leveled at the Doukhobors’ economic
and cultural life. In his obituary which appeared in the New
York Times, Vereshchagin was credited with having "a ’nose
for news.” ’ ’’It was his luck . . . to be always at the cen
ter Of the situation, always where what was of most . . .
interest was going on. The painter died in the sinking of
the battleship Petropavlovsk on April 13, 1904.
"Serious" Russian study of religious dissenters-
began only in the middle or late I85O’s. Scholarly
^Vasilii Vasilevich Vereshchagin, Vassili Veresh chagin: Painter-Soldier-Traveller, Autobiographical Sketches, trans. from German and French by F. H. Peters (London: Bentley, I887), 1: 55-95. Portions of this volume were later published in Russian under the title Dukhobortsy i molokane v zakavkazy (Moscow: Kushnerev, 1900).
^^New York Times, April I6, 1904, p. 8. Vereshchagin was well-known in America through his frequent visits and exhibitions. See Joseph 0. Baylen and Jane G. Wayant, "Vasili Vereshchagin in the United States," Russian Review, 30 (July 1971 ): 250-259.
^^Michael Cherniavsky, "The Old Believers and the New Religion," Slavic Review, 25 (March I966 ): 1; Donald W. Treadgold, "The Peasant and Religion," in The Peasant in Nineteenth Century Russia, ed. by Wayne S. Vucinich (Stan- ford: Stanford University Press, 1968 ), pp. 74-81.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19
Russian studies on the Doukhobors can be divided into the
two schools of "statist" and "populist" scholarship.
Although these terms are generally employed within the
broader area of peasant historiography, they can be applied
to sectarian histories as well with only minor alterations
in definition. The statist school pointed to the divisive
influence of the Doukhobors within the larger Russian
society by stressing the heretical nature of Doukhoborism
and its danger to Orthodox civilization. To this end the
statists expounded on the sectarians' rejection of secular
as well as spiritual authority. They were, moreover, sus
picious and fearful of the Doukhobors' radical introversion.
In 1867 Fedor Vasilevich Livanov began publishing
the articles on Molokans and Doukhobors which culminated
eight years later in his four-volume Raskolniki i
ostrozhniki.^^ Livanov was a minor bureaucrat in the
Ministry of Internal Affairs. He literally pilfered the
material from the Ministry’s archives which formed the basis
^Michael B. Petrovich, "The Peasant in Nineteenth- Century Historiography," in Peasant in Nineteenth-Century Russia, pp. 191-230 ; Cherniavsky, "Old Believers," 1-2.
^^Fedor Vasilevich Livanov, "Tambovskie molokane i dukhobortsy v iB vekie: istoricheskii ocherk," Vsemirnyi trud (l867)j 245-297; "Molokane i dukhobortsy v Ukraine i Novorossii XVIII-ye vek," Vestnik Evropv, 5 (October I868), 673-7OI; and Raskolniki i ostrozhniki: ocherki i razskazy, 4 vols. (St. Petersburg: Tip. P. P. Merkuleva, 1872-1875).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of his writings.Although broadly statist in attitude,
Livanov's work displays a large measure of fairness, perhaps
even respect, toward the Doukhobors. Unlike the other
statists we shall discuss, Livanov was not a professional
historian or theologian. After 1875 his literary output was
devoted to travelogues and the study of Russian literature.
In 1880 a cursory and wholly unsympathetic account
of Doukhobor history and beliefs appeared. Although the
article was unsigned, it is usually attributed to Arsenii,
Metropolitan of Kiev.Arsenii's piece served as an
example for other statist scholars. Ivan Nikolaevich
Kharlamov (1855-I887), the son of a priest, spent the last
years of his short life studying the Schism and various
sects. His output on the Doukhobors was neither extensive
nor original.Kharlamov borrowed extensively from the
earlier work of Novitskii and Livanov to demonstrate the
divisive influence of Doukhoborism in Russian Orthodox
Livanov," Entsiklopedicheskii slovar, 17a:645.
^^Other statist writers, as well, displayed a rela tively even sbholarly balance, especially when dealing with the earliest appearance of the Doukhobors in Russia. See, for example, Tebenkov, "Dukhobortsy," 1:257-293, and N. G. Vysotskii, "Novye materialy iz ranneishei istorii dukhoborcheskoi sekty," Russkii arkhiv, 52 (1914): 6O-8 6.
^^"Dukhovnye khristiane. Ocherk," Vestnik Evropy, 6 (November 1880 ): 1-34.
^^Ivan Nikolaevich Kharlamov, "Dukhobortsy. Istor icheskii ocherk," Russkaia mysl, 5 (1884), no. 11: 138-16 I; no. 12: 83-114 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. civilization. In a similar vein was Ivan Fedorovich
Nilskii's K istorii dukhoborchestva i molokanstva.
Nilskii (1831 -1894 ) was a theological academy professor in
Pskov and he devoted the whole of his life to the study of
Russian dissenters. He was particularly concerned with
the Doukhobors' introversion and its subversive potential.
On the basis of scant evidence, for example, Nilskii
asserted that the Doukhobors maintained their own police
force to hide the sect’s activities from Imperial 42 authorities.
The populist school tended to push the matter of
religion to the background, preferring instead to stress the
progressive socialist elements of sectarian society. Sergei
Mikhailovich Kravchinskii (1852-I895), the famous "Stepniak"
of Populist fame, emphasized the "rationalist" elements of 4 3 social Doukhoborism as opposed to its religious content.
Afanasi Prokofevich Shchapov (I83O-I876) came from a
Siberian family of Old Believers and devoted most of his
scholarly life to the study of the Schism. Shchapov
^^Ivan Fedorovich Nilskii, K istorii dukhoborchestva i molokanstva (St. Petersburg: Tip. Eleonskii, 1886).
^^"Nilskii," Entsiklopedicheskii slovar, 21:153-154.
^^Nilskii, K istorii dukhoborchestva, p. l4.
^^See Kravchinskii’s chapter on the Doukhobors in his Russian Peasantry: Their Agrarian Condition, Social Life,and Religion (London: George Routledge and Sons, I888), 2, pp. 505- 549.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22
believed the Doukhobors to be characterized by a "communal-
organizational mental direction" which provided for less
internal religious quarreling and more communal-social re
form. In the early i860's he was fired from his teaching
position at Kazan University and exiled to Siberia for
participation in a requiem mass for peasants killed in an 45
The Doukhobors are fond of quoting, without giving
the source, Paul’s injunction to the Corinthians that "the
letter kills, but the spirit gives life" (II Corinthians,
III, 6). The rejection of the written word, a principle
whose Russian origins date from the seventeenth century
heretic and Khlysty founder, Daniel Filippov, has been a
constant and thorny feature of Doukhobor history. The
traditional Doukhobor suspicion of the printed word creates
myriad problems for the historian seeking to approach the
sect on its own, as opposed to the state’s or Orthodox
Church’s, terms. Doukhobor records simply do not exist.
Yet, while "the letter kills," a vast and detailed compen
satory oral tradition has been carefully cultivated. The
^^Shchapov, "Umstvennyia napravleniia russkago raskola," 332.
^^See Anatole G. Mazour, An Outline of Modern Russian Historiography (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1939), PP- 69-70.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23
core of the Doukhobor oral tradition is an extensive 46 repertoire of psalms.
The historian must approach the Doukhobor psalmody
with extreme caution. The psalms are not historical records,
although some may be intimately connected with historical
events. As Francis Mealing, a student of Doukhobor folklore,
has noted, the Doukhobors make "no conspicuous distinction
. . . between historical and religious materials; history is
not so much an independent sequence as it is a chronologic 4 7 manifestation of religious experience." The historical
content of the psalms is thus only incidental to the larger,
apocalyptic record with which the psalmody is concerned.
According to Doukhobor tradition the most fertile
period of psalm composition was in the late eighteenth and
early nineteenth centuries. The reign of Savelii Kapustin
from 1805 to 1820 witnessed special growth and elaboration
in the Doukhobors’ psalm repertoire. Doukhobor psalms can
have any of a number of textual bases; Orthodox hymns.
Biblical texts, and hymns garnered from other Russian and
The psalms represent only one of eight categories of Doukhobor religious lyrics. They are, however, the most important category. See Kenneth Peacock, "The Music of the Doukhobors," Alphabet, 8 (December 1 9 6 5 -March 1 9 6 6 ) : 36-3 8. 4? 'Francis Mark Mealing, "Our People’s Way: A Study in Doukhobor Hymnody and Folklife" (Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, 1972), p. 361.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24
foreign (Mennonltes, Baptists) sects have all provided lyrics
for Doukhobor psalms.
The traditional repository of the Doukhobor psalmody,
always referred to as the Zhivotnaia kniga or Book of Life,
has been the collective memory of the sect. To the present
day the psalms are transmitted from generation to generation
chiefly through memorization. In the late l890’s, I. M.
Tregubov, a close associate of Tolstoy's, began recording
Doukhobor psalms in the Caucasus. In 1909 V. D. Bonch-
Bruevich published the Zhivotnaia kniga dukhobortsev, a
collection of over four hundred psalms collected by himself
and Tregubov.Since that time, a number of psalm antholo
gies have appeared.The p
produced historical source.
The exigencies of twentieth century life in Canada
necessitated a degree of compromise in the traditional
^°Ibid., pp. 314-315; Peacock, "Music," 37-38.
^^Vladimir Dmitrievich Bonch-Bruevich (1873-1955) was a close associate of Lenin's and the Bolshevik historian of religious dissenters in Russia. The Zhivotnaia kniga dukhobortsev, reissued in Winnipeg in 1954, was originally part of Bonch-Bruevich's vast Materialy k istorii i izuch- eniiu russkago sfektantstva i raskola (St. Petersburg: Tip. B. M. VoIfa, 1908-1961).
^^Chief among these are contained in Mealing, "Our People's Way"; Kenneth Peacock, ed., Songs of the Doukhobors (Ottawa: National Museum of Canada, 1970), and Twenty Ethnic Songs from Western Canada (Ottawa: National Museum of Canada, 1966); Doukhobor Society of Canada, Doukhobors: Their Faith (Canora, Sask: N. N. Kalmakoff, 196l).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25
Doukhobor aversion to the printed word. A number of
Doukhobor histories by Doukhobors have thus appeared. These
histories are generally not sophisticated from the academic
historian’s point of view; they are essentially "popular"
histories based on Doukhobor oral tradition. The first of
these to be composed was Vasilii Nikolaevich Pozdniakov’s
"Narrative" which was probably completed in early 1908.
Pozdniakov was born in I869 in the Caucasus Doukhobor
settlement of Bogdanovka in Tiflis province. In the early
1 9 0 0 's he migrated to Canada and then to California. The
"Narrative" is a brief history of the Doukhobors by a dis
illusioned admirer of Peter Vasilevich Verigin, the leader
of the faction which exited Russia in 1899. The primary
value of the "Narrative" is the glimpse it provides of
Doukhobor life in the Caucasus in the late nineteenth
century. The original Russian manuscript of Pozdniakov's
"Narrative" is lost. The English translation, edited by a
mysterious "A. M. S.", is found among the papers of Joseph
Elkinton (1859-1920), a Quaker, at Swarthmore College.
The most sophisticated of the Doukhobor histories is
a documentary account by Vasilii Andreevich Sukhorev, a
private secretary to P. P. Verigin, the Canadian Doukhobor
leader in the 1930's. Sukhorev's Dokumenty po istorii
^ Peter Brock, ed., "Vasya Pozdnyakov's Dukhobor Narrative," Slavonic and East European Review. 43 (December 1964): 1 52-1 7 6 ; (June 1965): 400-4l4.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26
dukhobortsev is largely an attempt to interpret available
historical documentation according to Doukhobor oral tra
dition. The bulk of his material concerns the Doukhobors’
Canadian experience. Sukhorev's treatment of the period
I8OI-I855 is extremely sketchy, and relies solely on
Imperial ukases.
Since Sukhorev, three other comprehensive Doukhobor
histories have been authored by Doukhobors. Again, these
volumes present only brief and general accounts of the
sect’s history prior to I8 9 8 . Peter Nikolaevich Malov's
Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, zhizn i borba commemorated the
Doukhobors’ fiftieth anniversary in Canada.Simeon P.
Reibin’s Trud i mirnaia zhizn is a general condemnation of
Doukhobor leaders by a disgruntled former interpreter of
P. V. Verigin’s. E l i A. Popoff’s Historical Exposition on
the Origin and Evolvement of the Basic Tenets of the Douk
hobor Life-Conception is a brief intellectual history.
For our purposes the chief value of these volumes is their
reliance on Doukhobor oral tradition as source material for
the sect's history in Russia.
^^Peter Nikolaevich Malov, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, zhizn i borba (Thrums, B. C .: By the Author, 1948) .
^^Simeon F. Reibin, Trud i mirnaia zhizn: istoriia dukhobortsev bez maski (San Francisco : Delo, 1952).
^^Eli A. Popoff, An Historical Exposition on the Origin and Evolvement of the Basic Tenets of the Doukhobor Life-Conception (Grand Forks, B. C . : n.p., I9 6 6 ).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27
The exodus of Doukhobors from Russia in 1899
occasioned the appearance of two histories by Westerners
intimately connected with efforts to secure the sect's
release. Joseph Elkinton's The Doukhobors is an extremely
sympathetic account of the sect by a Philadelphia Quaker.
Aylmer Maude (1858-1938), Tolstoy's English translator,
wrote A Peculiar People to chart his disillusionment over
the sect's seeming betrayal of Tolstoyan principles. In
particular, Maude was critical of the "hypnotic influence"
exercised by the leader within the Doukhobor brotherhood.
Elkinton and Maude made extensive use of Novitskii, Pinker
ton, Allen, Grellet, and Haxthausen in brief accounts of
the period l801-l855.
Most of the twentieth century literature on the
Doukhobors has been confined to various facets of the
sect's Canadian experience. Scholars have delved into the
economic, educational, political, sociological, and
psychological aspects of Doukhoborism in the Canadian
environment.
been neglected.
Russia, their Migration to Canada (Philadelphia: Perris and Leach, 1903).
Aylmer Maude, A Peculiar People : the Doukhobors (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1904).
^"^A number of dissertations dealing with the Doukhobors have appeared, all concerned with the sect's
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28
The best and most recent study of the Doukhobors In
Russia Is contained In a chapter of A. I. Klibanov's Istoriia
religioznogo sektantstva v Rossii. Although this study
generally skims Doukhobor history before the Great Reforms,
its analysis of the sect’s later nineteenth century social
and economic development is a model of the best in Soviet
scholarship.^^ The single comprehensive attempt at a
history by non-Doukhobor authors to appear since Maude
(1904), The Doukhobors by Ivan Avakumovic and George Wood
cock, provides only a perfunctory account of the sect’s
Russian history.
In summary, we must conclude that little has
appeared in the last eighty-four years to alter Astyrev’s
Canadian development. No dissertation on the Doukhobors’ history in Canada or Russia has been attempted. See the following: Charles Frantz, "The Doukhobor Political System: Social Structure and Social Organization in a Sectarian Society" (Ph.D. dissertation. University of Chicago, 1958); Carl Henry Gross, "Doukhobors," in "Education in British Columbia" (Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1939), pp. 270-291; Gordon Kiyoshi Hirabayashi, "Russian Doukhobors of British Columbia: A Study in Social Adjustment and Con flict" (Ph.D. dissertation. University of Washington, 1951); F. Raymond Laliberte, "Origines idéologiques des Doukhobors du Canada" (M. A. thesis. University of Montreal, 1962); Mealing, "Our People's Way."
^^See Ethel Dunn, "Russian Sectarianism in New Soviet Marxist Scholarship," Slavic Review, 26 (March 1967): 128-140.
^^Ivan Avakumovic and George Woodcock, The Doukhobors (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29
l891 appraisal of literature on the Doukhobors. A more
recent (1972) estimation concludes that the last sixty years
of scholarship in Doukhobor studies has been "a period of
mediocrity and unflagging ethnocentrism, blemished by
occasional true disasters. . . The available histories
of the Doukhobors are for the most part poor. This lack of
quality is glaringly apparent in very elementary errors of
historical fact which have surfaced in recent scholarship.^^
The following study will hopefully help to remedy this
situation.
^"^Mealing, "Our People’s Way," p. 358.
^^Gordon Hirabayashi has Paul I initiating "a liberal regime toward the Doukhobors," and establishing the sect at the Milky Waters. Alexander I, not Paul, deserves credit for these policies. See Hirabayashi, "Russian Doukhobors," p. 13. Such an error is perhaps excusable for a sociologist; historians are another matter. In his other- wide authoritative The Old Believers and the World of Anti christ : The Vyg Community and the Russian State 1694-1855" (Madison, Wi s .: University of Wisconsin Press, 1970), Robert Crummey unaccountably writes that the Doukhobors were "conspicuous victims of persecution" during the reign of Alexander I (p. 199).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER II
"WE LIVED, WE DWELT ON THE GREEN EARTH,
[BUT] WE DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING. . . .":
THE EARLY HISTORY AND DOCTRINE
OP DOUKHOBORISM
Origins and Early History
The origins of the Doukhobor sect are obscure. The
allusions that we find in Doukhobor psalmody to an early,
"pre-sectarian" existence do little to lift the shadows:
We lived, we dwelt on the green earth, [but] we did not know anything, nor [did we] grasp what was taking place in our world. The throne is Christ’s he built it-the righteous lord with the people, with the true [ones], with the elect, chosen from among the world’s peoples. They came to God of their own will and desire, to the Living God [they] gave surety, on the green earth shed [their] tears. They came together, all the true [ones], the righteous, in the church assembly of the faithful: Christ the light. . . . Where we were, where we lived, we did not know this, we did not grasp [lt].l
Mealing, "Our People’s Way," pp. 152-153; V. D. Bonch-Bruevich, ed., Zhivotnaia kniga dukhobortsev (Winni peg: Regehr’s Printing, 1954), p. 1 6 2 . All psalm citations are taken from English translations that Mealing obtained from British Columbia Doukhobors. In each case we shall also cite the Russian original contained in Bonch-Bruevich.
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31
The psalm exemplifies the nature of the historical content
of Doukhobor oral tradition; history, bathed in allegory,
is the "chronologic manifestation of religious experience."
On a more familiar mythic level, the Doukhobors affirm their
direct descent from Shadrach, Meshack, and Abednego, the
Hebrew captives in Babylon thrown into the furnace by
Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 3:1-30).^
Scholarly theories as to the origins of the Doukho
bors can be divided into two categories: those which derive
the sect from external, European roots, and those which
regard it as a purely native Russian phenomenon. In most
cases these theories are based upon ideological affinities
between the Doukhobors and various other groups.
A number of researchers have noted the similarities
between Doukhobor doctrine and those of the Catharist and
Bogomil heresies.^ Frederick Conybeare, the late Harvard
orientalist, in particular argued that the "parallelism"
between Doukhobor and Cathar tenets "cannot be accidental."
The Cathari (Greek for "pure ones") were heretics centered
in southern France in the thirteenth century. Their
Doukhobors," Revue de Paris, 10 (October 1901):
^Frederick Conybeare, Russian Dissenters (Cambridge: Harvary University Press, 1921), pp. 275-279; Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu, The Empire of the Tsars and the Russians, trans. by Z. A. Ragozin, 3 vols. (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1 8 9 3 -1 8 9 6 ), 3:443; Maude, Peculiar People, p. 7; Peacock, ed., Songs, p. 5-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32
rejection of ecclesiastical authority and sacraments, and
their doctrine of the soul (as the image of God) and its
transmigration were viewed by Conybeare to be too close to
Doukhobor belief to be the result of coincidence.^
M. M. Speranskii (1772-1839), the famous advisor of
Alexander I and a former seminarian, was among the first to
note the similarity between the Doukhobors and the Bulgarian
Bogomils. In an l8l7 letter to 0. P. Kozodavlev, Minister
of Internal Affairs, Speranskii wrote that Bogomil doctrine
could have "easily" penetrated southern Russian and "little
by little be spread even to Saratov.The Bogomil heresy
originated in tenth century Bulgaria, and there is little
doubt that Bogomil dualist tendencies, based on earlier
Manichean doctrine, are exhibited in Doukhobor theology.
Yet, while Bogomil penetration into Russia is more likely
than that of the Cathari, positive evidence of the influ
ence of either on the Doukhobors remains to be established.
The most probable foreign source for the origins of
Doukhoborism lies in the person of Quirinus Kuhlman
Conybeare, Russian Dissenters, pp. 275-279. Cony beare 's work has recently been contested. See Mealing, "Our People’s Way," pp. 383-384; Treadgold, "Peasant and Religion," p. 293, n. l8.
^"K biografii grafa M. M. Speranskago. TV: Pismo Speranskago k 0. P. Kozodavlevu o dukhobortsakh," Russkaia starina, 109 (February 1902): 302. On Bogomil history and theology see Janko Lavrin, "The Bogomils and Bogomilism," Slavonic and East European Review, 8 (December 1929): 269-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33
(1 6 5 1 -1 6 8 9 ). Born in Breslau, Kuhlman’s early education in
his hometown and at Jena was directed towards a career in
science and law. At the age of eighteen the "frail and
delicate" Silesian underwent a religious awakening while
severely ill and he subsequently embarked on a spiritual
vocation. In 167 3 in Leiden Kuhlman met some followers of
Jacob Boehme (1575-1624) and immediately fell under the
spell of the Bavarian mystic’s "theosophy.From 1673
until his death Kuhlman wandered about Europe and the Middle
East preaching the advent of an earthly Kingdom of God. In
April 1689 he entered Russia and began attracting large
audiences in the German enclave outside of Moscow. Kuhlman’s
preaching, especially his "political prophesies" of an Asian
threat to Europe, aroused the attention of the regent,
Sophia. In October she had Kuhlman burned as a heretic.^
Central to Kuhlman’s teaching was the image of the
approaching millennium. He believed that "true Christianity"
began to die with the apostles, and that the massive struc
ture of historical Christendom had become a neo-Babylon.
His Neubegeisterter Bohme (c. 1674) was a Boehmist-derived
^See John Joseph Stoudt, Jacob Boehme: His Life and Thought (New York: Seabury Press, 1968).
^On Kuhlman see Robert L. Beare, "Quirinus Kuhlman: The Religious Apprenticeship," Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 68 (September 1953): 8^8- 862% and A Russian, "The Protomartyr of the Mystic Way in Infant Russia," Theosophical Review, 23 (1899): 489-497.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34
prophecy of the imminent millennium coupled with a warning
to all temporal leaders of their responsibilities for usher
ing in the thousand-year kingdom. Chiliasm and a mystical
religious union of all peoples were the twin pillars of
Kuhlman's teachings.^
Kuhlman’s prophecies rested on several assumptions
as to the spiritual nature of man and knowledge. He
believed that every person is made in the image of God,
that each individual preserves within him the "divine
light." The divine light sufficed for the true Christian’s
spiritual sustenance; sacraments and Scriptures were unnec
essary. All knowledge, in fact, was for Kuhlman "inner
knowledge." The intellect’s reliance on science and reason
was a vain and futile dependence for it obscured the inner
light
When we turn our attention below to Doukhobor the
ology, we shall see the apparent similarity between Kuhlman’s
teachings and those of the Doukhobors. One anonymous Russian
writer asserted bluntly that "Kuhlman left a seed in the
very soil of the country which gave him death for his
teaching-the sect of the Douhobortzi. . . . Novitskii
^A Russian, "Protomartyr," 493; Beare, "Kuhlman," 853- 854.
^J. B. Severac, La secte russe des hommes-de-dieu (Paris: Edouard Comely, 1 9 0 6 ), p. 97; A. Russian, "Proto- martyr," 492.
^^A Russian, "Protomartyr," 497.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35
noted the doctrinal resemblance between Kuhlman and the
Doukhobors, but he also indicated a difference in their
ChristologiesOther scholars have concluded that the
"character" of Kuhlman's teachings "points particularly to
their influence" on the Doukhobors,but no direct link has
been established. The issue of Kuhlman's influence on the
Doukhobors, as that of the Gathers and Bogomils, must remain
in. the realm of conjecture. Equally uncertain is the oft-
stated Boehmist influence on Doukhoborism through the person
of the Ukrainian philosopher, Gregorii Skovoroda (1722-
1794)
Novitskii, 0 dukhobortsakh, pp. 13-14. The author noted that while Kuhlman taught the return, "with great fame and miracles," of an incarnate Christ, the Doukhobors preached "not the outward and visible coming of Christ. . . but his inner and secret penetration into the soul of every m a n . "
^^Zdenek V. David, "The Influence of Jacob Boehme on Russian Religious Thought," Slavic Review, 21 (March I9 6 7 ): 4 7. ^^On Skovoroda and his role in the development of Doukhoborism towards the end of the eighteenth century see Leroy-Beaulieu, Empire of the Tsars, 3:441; Serge Bolshakoff, Russian Nonconformity: The Story of "Unofficial" Religion in Russia (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1950), ppT 103- 104; V. I. lasevich-Borodaevskaia, Borba za vieru (St. Petersburg: Gosudarstvennaia tip., 1912), pp. 212-213; Paul Miliukov, Outlines of Russian Culture, Pt. I: Religion and the Church, ed. by Michael Karpovich, trans. by Valentine Ughet and Eleanor Davis (Philadelphis: University of Pen- Pennsylvania Press, 1942), pp. 95-96; "Nechto o Grigorie Saviche Skovorode," Russkii arkhiv, 49 (1911): 601-634.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36
Paul Miliukov formulated a rather elaborate scenario
for the development of Russian sectarianism.^^ Miliukov
maintained that the roots of "spiritual Christianity," a
rubric under which he placed the Doukhobors (among others),
were purely native Russian. "Spiritual Christianity"
evolved from the sect of Khlysty, or flagellants, which
originated in the central Transvolga region during the late
seventeenth century. Its prime characteristic was a radical
"spiritualization of faith," i.e., a doctrine of an inner.
Divine light and its primacy over all external ritual and
Scriptural trappings. Miliukov differentiated "spiritual
Christianity," with its mass populist base, from a more
scholarly "evangelical Christianity" derived from Western
Protestantism. The latter, although it resembled "spiritual
Christianity" in the repudiation of ecclesiastical tradition,
placed a Calvinist reliance on the Gospels, and in Russia
saw its principal spokesmen in Matvei Bashkin and Dmitri
Tveritinov.^^
Miliukov, Religion and the Church, pp. 77-121. The most comprehensive treatment of Russian sectarianism is Karl Konrad Grass’ Die russischen Sekten, 2 vols. (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1907). Grass intended to write a third volume exclusively on the Molokans and Doukhobors, but it never appeared.
^^Bashkin was banished to a monastery in 1553 for allegedly rejecting the visible Church, its sacraments, and the doctrine of the Trinity. Tveritinov’s radical reliance on the Scriptures led him to repudiate ecclesiastical author ity. Imprisoned in 1714 for heresy, he ultimately recanted and was restored to Orthodoxy.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37
Orest Novitskii’s earlier researches tend to support
Miliukov’s scenario. Novitskii identified Prokopy Lupkin as
Doukhoborism’s first spokesman. A retired Moscow strelets,
Lupkin was arrested and condemned for heresy in the latter
part of Peter the Great’s reign. He taught the efficacy of
a ’’spontaneous inner revelation’’ born of the Holy Spirit’s
descent into his soul and those of his followers. Novitskii
lamented that the origins of Lupkin’s beliefs were ’’obscure,"
but recorded his boast that his opinions were "circulated in
many parts of Russia.
Although not identified as such by Novitskii, Lupkin
was a member of the Khlysty sect. He survived Peter’s con
demnation to figure prominently in the trials of Moscow
Khlysty in the 1730’s. Although Dmitri Tveritinov is
frequently cited as Doukhoborism’s immediate precursor,
Lupkin and the more broadly based Khlysty movement seem a
more likely origin. Novitskii largely discounts Tveritinov’s
^^Novitskii, 0 dukhobortsakh, p. 12. 17 I . Sokolov, "Vliianie protestantstva na obrazovanie khlystovskoi, dukhoborskoi i molokanskoi sekt," Strannik, 2 (1880): 244-245; Miliukov, Religion and the Church, pp. 91- 92.
^^John D. Buhr, The Origin of the Doukhobor Faith: A Contribution to Doukhobor and Mennonlte History in Russia and Canada (Vancouver, n.p., 1972;, pp. 23-24; Leroy- Beaulieu, Empire of the Tsars, 3:441; Strannik, "Les doukhobors," 870.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38
Influence.^^ Both Kllbanov and Bolshakoff cite the Khlysty
as the parents of the Doukhobors.^®
Doukhobor oral tradition itself contains some evi
dence pointing to the sect’s Khlysty origins. Legends of
the origins of the Khlysty center largely about the figure
of Daniel Filippov, an army deserter and legendary leader of
the ’’People of God" (Bozhie liudi) , the earliest Khlysty.
The following very old hymn, still sung by the Doukhobors,
purports to describe Filippov’s conversion to a new faith:
A young man was walking, And as he passed he wept profusely. Letting forth sorrowful sighs. Jesus Christ Himself met him and asked: "Why are you weeping, young man?" "How can I help weeping? I have lost the golden book. I have dropped the church key into the sea." "Do not weep any more, young man; I shall write out another golden book. I shall cause the blue sea to dry up. And recover the church key, And I shall put you on the road of truth."22
According to Doukhobor tradition, the "young man" (Filippov)
one day cast his Bible, "the golden book," into the Volga
"in a fit of despair." This act of purification occasioned
the visit of the Holy Spirit, and Filippov was set upon the
A. I. Klibanov, "The Dissident Denominations in the Past and Today," Soviet Sociology, 3 (Spring 1965): 48; Bolshakoff, Russian Nonconformity, p. 97-
^^On Filippov, see Grass, Sekten, 1:78-95; Severac, La secte russe, pp. 82-109.
^^Peacock, ed., Songs, p. 59-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39
"road of truth" to recover the "church key." The hymn repre
sents a tenuous link between the Doukhobors and the Khlysty.
Nevertheless, the very existence of the hymn, and its con
tinued use, evidence some link, if only in the popular
tion.
Our brief inquiry into the earliest origins of the
Doukhobors must remain inconclusive. The only definite con
clusion afforded by the available data is the great extent
to which various strains of Montanist heresies, both foreign
and native Russian, interacted with one another. The pre
cise roots of Doukhoborism must remain hidden, but Khlysty
origins are likely. As the historian A. N. Pypin wrote:
" ’Russia is the land of results all ripens there in shadow ?4 and silence.”’
In 1802 a group of Doukhobors from Tambov province
was questioned in Alexander Nevsky monastery about the
origins of the sect. They replied that "different people,
at different times" came to them from the Ukraine with
teachings that had circulated there for some considerable
^^Ibid., pp. 5, 59 -6 0 .
^\uoted in: A Russian, "The Hidden Church on Russian Soil," Theosophical Review, 25 (I8 9 9 ): 202.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40
time. Prom where and by whom in the Ukraine did
Doukhoborism issue?
The most frequently cited story of the first
Doukhobor involves a mysterious stranger who supposedly
appeared in the Kharkov province village of Okhach in 1740.
The stranger is usually described as a retired Prussian army
officer and a Quaker. Novitskii wrote that the officer
initially gained the villagers’ confidence with tales of
foreign lands, and that he ultimately succeeded in planting
’’his religion" in the minds of the peasants. The stranger
remained in Okhach until his death, rotating his place of
residence among various households.
The precise source of the story of the Quaker
officer is unknown. In a 1792 letter to the Kharkov gov
ernor, Gavriel, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg,
wrote that the origin of the Doukhobors was to be found
among the Anabaptists or Quakers, but he made no mention of
a Prussian officer. Novitskii, while giving credence to
the existence of an officer in Okhach, neither asserted nor
^^Novitskii, 0 dukhobortsakh, p. 6.
^^Ibid., pp. 9-10; Pilaret, Archbishop of Chernigov, Istoriia russkoi tserkvi, vol. 5: Sinodalnoe upravlenie, 1721-1826 .(Kharkov, Universitetskoi tip., 1853), P . 82.
^'^Letter quoted in Pinkerton, Russia, p. 175.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41
denied his being a Quaker.A positive appraisal of the
Okhach story is impossible, although it has received varying
measures of acceptance in recent scholarship.^^
The first known leader of a group of Doukhobors was
Siluian Kolesnikov. We possess little information on
Kolesnikov, who resided and preached in the Ekaterinoslav
village of Nikolsk from about 1750 to 1775. In a document
prepared in 1790, a group of Ekaterinoslav Doukhobors iden
tified this "first teacher" of Doukhoborism as a generous,
intelligent, and eloquent man having "worldly experience."
The document also noted Kolesnikov’s ability to write. Un
fortunately, the Ekaterinoslav group failed to relate (if,
indeed, it knew) the source of its teacher’s doctrine.
Possibly he came from Kharkov. The fact that Kolesnikov was
a man of some learning suggests that he was probably not
native to Nikolsk. He may have been an ex-soldier. In any
event, Kolesnikov’s sons, Kiril and Peter, carried on their
^^Novitskii, 0 dukhobortsakh, p. 10.
James H. Billington, The Icon and the Axe: An Interpretive History of Russian Culture (New York: Vintage Books, 1970), p. 177; Buhr, Origin, p. 32; Miliukov, Religion and the Church, p. 93» On differences between the Quakers and Doukhobors, see Clarence Marsh Case, Nonviolent Coercion: A Study in Methods of Social Pressure (New York: Century, 1923), pp. 113-11?; Joseph Elkinton, "The Doukhobors: Their Character and Economic Principles," Charities and the Commons, 13 (3 December 1904): 254.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42
Kirll Kolesnikov appeared on a list of Doukhobor teachers
provided to Quakers visiting the Milky Waters colony in
1819.^^
By the middle of the eighteenth century, Doukhobor
ism was established in Kharkov, Ekaterinoslav, and Tambov
provinces. We have little information as to the development
of the Kharkov and Ekaterinoslav factions. Considerably
more data is available on the Tambov Doukhobors due to the
researches of P. V. Livanov.
Around the year 1765 a fugitive exile from Siberia
arrived in the Tambov village of Goreloe. The fugitive,
named Semen and described by Livanov as a Doukhobor, found
refuge in the home of a prosperous wool merchant, Ilarion
Pobirokhin. Semen soon vanished from Goreloe, but not before
admits that the Ekaterinoslav Doukhobors were probably in fluenced by foreign "mystics." Buhr asserts Kolesnikov’s acquaintance with the writings of the German philosopher, Karl Eckartshausen, a follower of Jacob Boehme. Serge Bolshakoff, a not altogether reliable source, writes that translations of Eckartshausen’s works prepared by the Russian Masonic mystic, Alexander Labzin (1 7 6 6-I8 2 5), were read by Kolesnikov. Certainly Kolesnikov’s literacy allows for the possibility of his being influenced by foreign sources, but Labzin was born only nine years before the Doukhobor’s death. See Miliukov, Religion and the Church, p. 94; Buhr, Origin, p. 32; Bolshakoff, Russian Nonconformity, p. 100.
^^Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, p. IO6 .
32r.-Livanov, "Tambovskie molokane i dukhobortsy," 245- 297.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43
converting his host to a new religion. Seman taught a radi
cal Montanist doctrine; he rejected the validity of the
sacraments and icons, and he denied the authority of the
Church hierarchy. He urged Pobirokhin to cease church
attendance. In the civil sphere Semen espoused the complete
freedom and equality of all. Secular authorities he re
garded as persecutors. Recruits were urged to desert from
the military. Semen further taught the value of illegal
passports in concealing oneself from the government. Upon
Semen’s departure for Goreloe, Pobirokhin took it upon him
self to spread the new faith.
In 1867 Livanov noted that the memory of Ilarion
Pobirokhin was ’’still kept" in Tambov province. Described
as an eloquent man with the power of persuasion, Pobirokhin
was something of a Biblical scholar even before the arrival
of Semen. He was fond of discussing religious matters and
had a reputation for such among the peasants of Goreloe.
Moreover, being a wool merchant, Pobirokhin had trade con
tacts in neighboring provinces; as Semen taught him, so he
instructed others near and far. After Semen vanished, we
^^Ibid., pp. 245-246. Livanov’s estimation of 1733 as the year of Semen’s arrival in Goreloe is probably erron eous. Popoff states that Pobirokhin’s active years in Goreloe were from about 1775 to I8 0 O. Vysotskii cited the year 1765 for Semen’s entry into Goreloe. See Popoff, Exposition, p. 6 ; Vysotskii, "Novye materialy," 72-23.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44
are told, Poblrokhin’s home became a refuge for other 34 Siberian fugitives and a center for the new religion.
Livanov identified Pobirokhin as the individual
largely responsible for the formation of modern Doukhobor
doctrine. Pobirokhin believed in the existence of the
"inner enlightenment" of God's word in the soul of every man.
Proceeding from this basis, he was the first Doukhobor to
declare himself to be the living Christ. Initially, by sheer
force of his personality, Pobirokhin was able to secure the
loyalties of his followers for his status as first among
"generations of the righteous." Later, his authority was
reinforced by a staff of twenty-four assistants, twelve
apostles and twelve "avenging angels," whose job it was to
maintain strict mass adherence to his teachings.
Ilarion Pobirokhin was exiled to Siberia sometime
around 1790. His place as leader was taken by his son,
Savelii Kapustin. Kapustin returned to Tambov province in
the 1 7 7 0 '5 as a fugitive deserter. He initially settled in
Morshansk district of Tambov and adopted the name "Kapustin"
to hide himself from the authorities. He assumed the role
of a "retired corporal." Sometime before 1790 he returned
to his father's village of Goreloe.^^
^^Livanov, "Tambovskie molokane i dukhobortsy," 246-247.
^^Ibid., pp. 247-248. ^^Ibid., pp. 263-264.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45
Ilarion Pobirokhin's attempts to establish a "cult
of the personality" did not go unchallenged. In particular,
the claims of the first Doukhobor Christ aroused the ire of
his son-in-law. Semen Matveev Uklein. The resulting schism
gave rise to the first recognizable leader of the Molokan
sect.
There is considerable dispute over the origins of
the Molokans. Generally, the Molokans and Doukhobors are
collectively labeled "spiritual Christians," and it is
assumed that one preceded the other. Which group came first
is the subject of controversy. Livanov believed that
Molokanism appeared in Tambov province "much earlier" than
Doukhoborism. He traced the origins of the "milk drinkers"
to followers of Tveritinov, who supposedly spread the new
faith to various provinces in the first years of the
eighteenth century.Other scholars, and the Molokans
themselves, trace Molokan roots to Uklein's disputes with
Pobirokhin.
^^Kharlamov, "Dukhobortsy," 8 3.
^^Livanov, "Tambovskie molokane i dukhobortsy," 248. Haxthausen traced the origins of the Doukhobors to a schism among the Molokans wrought by Savelii Kapustin. See Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1:288-289.
^^Karl Konrad Grass, "Sects (Russian) 4. Molokani," Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. by James Hastings, 12 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1 9 0 8 -1 9 2 6 ),
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46
Semen Matveev Uklein was a court peasant (dvortsovii
krestianin) in Tambov engaged primarily as a tailor. In his
travels he happened one day into the village of Goreloe, and
there he met Ilarion Pobirokhin's daughter and fell in love.
Uklein, already married, abandoned his wife and Orthodoxy
and adopted Doukhoborism. He settled in Goreloe and married
Pobirokhin’s daughter. As Livanov deduced, Uklein must have
possessed some "particular quality" of character which
enabled him to compel Pobirokhin to present a daughter to a . ^ 40 married man.
Pobirokhin*s position within the Goreloe Doukhobor
community often meant that the word of God was reduced to
the word of Ilarion Pobirokhin. This Uklein, clearly an
able and ambitious fellow in his own right, was unable to
accept. After an abortive attack on him by several of
Pobirokhin*s henchmen, Uklein abandoned his wife and
Doukhoborism and became a Molokan leader. Again it is
difficult to establish whether Uklein founded the Molokan
sect, or simply unified Tambov Molokans under his aegis.
11: 341-342. As Grass notes, however, the very term "Molokani" was applied as early as the seventeenth century to all sectarians who drank milk and consumed non-fasting foods during Lent.
^^Livanov, "Tambovskie molokane i dukhobortsy," 249.
^^Ibid., pp. 249-251.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47
Livanov supported the latter view.Kllbanov and Konrad
In 1785 the Archbishop of Ekaterlnoslav, Amvroslia,
derisively coined the term "Dukhobortsy," or "Spirit-
wrestlers," to describe the followers of Siluian Kolesnikov
found in his province.The name was proudly adopted by
the sectarians. Livanov wrote that from the end of the
eighteenth century into the beginning of the nineteenth
the government and the Orthodox clergy did not differentiate
between the Molokans and Doukhobors; in all official docu
ments, he asserted, the sectarians were lumped under the
rubric of "Molokans. This, however, is not entirely true.
Although, as we shall see, the government had difficulty in
distinguishing between the two sects, at least as early as
1 798 the term "Doukhobor" was employed in both ecclesiastical
and civil documents relating to the sect.
^^Ibid., pp. 2 49-2 5 1 . 4 2 A. I. Kllbanov, ed., Kritika religioznogo sektant- stva (Opyt izucheniia religioznogo sektantstva v 20-x-nachale 30 -x godov) (Moscowl *'Mysl", 1974), p. 254; Grass, "Sects," pp. 341-342. 4 3 Novitskii, 0 dukhobortsakh, p. 1 5 ; Tebenkov, "Dukhobortsy," 1:271. 44 Livanov, "Tambovskie molokane i dukhobortsy," 278.
^^See, for example, PSPR, series 4, 1:236, 3 7 5, 406; PPSZ, 25:19,097.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48
Kllbanov writes that Doukhoborism, first actively
appearing about ten years before Pugachev’s rebellion (1773-
1774), spread readily in the "atmosphere of defeat" of the
peasant struggle which Pugachev’s failure exemplified and 46 manifested. Although this Marxist interpretation of the
Doukhobors’ spread cannot by itself totally explain the
phenomenon, there is no doubt that the simplicity and anti
authoritarian elements of the sect’s doctrine fitted the
aspirations of many segments of the peasantry. Prom its two
centers in Tambov and Ekaterlnoslav the Doukhobor heresy
spread by the end of the century to Kharkov, Saratov,
Voronezh, Archangel, and Kursk provinces, to the Don Cossack 47 territories, Finland, and into Siberia as far as Kamchatka.
In the southern regions Doukhoborism spread primarily through
its own efforts. The whole of southern European Russia con
tains no natural geographic barriers. In the more exotic
areas such as Archangel and Siberia, the sect’s diffusion
was no doubt aided by the state’s exile system.
From its very beginnings Doukhoborism enjoyed a wide
reception aimong the various categories of state peasants.
Kllbanov, Istoriia religioznogo sektantstva, p. 86. The author notes, however, that Molokanism was "particularly successful" in competing for adherents with Doukhoborism because of its "lesser radicalism." The Molokans did not absolutely reject the Scriptures as revealed truth, nor did they entirely reject the validity of certain Orthodox dogmas and sacraments.
^^Novitskii, 0 dukhobortsakh, p. l6.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49
particularly the odnodvortsy. Novitskii wrote that the
sect attracted "only common and uneducated people," the
peasantry. Few merchants or artisans were to be found among
the Doukhobors. The historian and ethnographer A. S.
Prugavin noted that the "sympathies and assistance" of "the
highest classes of Russian society" which so aided the
Skoptsy in urban areas were unavailable to the Doukhobors.
In his My Past and Thoughts Alexander Herzen related
the story of a Novgorod Doukhobor who, summoned before the
soon to be crowned Tsar Paul I, refused to doff his cap.
Enraged, the Tsar demanded of the sectarian: " ’Before whom
are you standing in your cap?” ' The Doukhobor calmly replied
Kllbanov, Istoriia religioznogo sektantstva, p. 85. The odnodvortsy were descendants of Moscow servitors settled on the southern and eastern frontiers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. By the eighteenth century the odnod vortsy had evolved into a category of the state peasantry. They did, however, own their own lands. Most-of the odnod vortsy lived in the provinces of Kursk, Tambov, Orel, and Voronezh. See Jerome Blum, Lord and Peasant in Russia from the Ninth to the Nineteenth Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971), PP. 478-479, and Thomas Esper, "The Odnodvortsy and the Russian Nobility," Slavonic and East European Review, 45 (January 1 9 6 7 ): 124-134.
^^Novitskii, 0 dukhobortsakh, pp. 16-17.
^^A. S. Prugavin, Raskol vverkhu: ocherki religioz- nykh iskanii v privilegirovannoi sredie (St. Petersburg: Obshchestvennaia polza, 1909), pp. 63-64. Breve, the public prosecutor in Tolstoi’s novel. Resurrection, puts off the case of a Skopets because of the fear that an "educated jury" in the city might acquit the sectarian.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50
that he stood before " 'Pavel Petrovich.*" Paul Immediately
ordered the unfortunate Doukhobor into penal servitude in
the mines. The sentence was later altered to imprisonment
for life in a monastery.
Whether true or apochryphal (Herzen claimed to have
heard the story partly from a government official, partly
from Novgorod post-drivers, and partly from an attendant at
the monastery), Herzen's anecdote points rightly to the
position of official notoriety achieved by the Doukhobors by
the end of the eighteenth century. Although Catherine XT's
reign marked a period of religious toleration,things
changed precipitously under her son and successor as the
growing number of Doukhobors came to the attention of the
increasingly unstable Tsar Paul. In a ukase of August 28/
September 8, 1799 that exiled thirty-one Doukhobors to the
mines at Ekaterinburg, Paul noted that this "vile sect"
(gnusnaia sekta) had betrayed the "paternal leniency"
(otecheskoe sniskhozhdenie) it had hitherto received from the
Throne by repudiating that very tsarist power which allowed
^^Alexander Herzen, My Past and Thoughts, trans. by Constance Garnett (New York: Vintage Books, 1973), P P • 272- 273.
5^See, for example, PPSZ, l8: 13,255, 21: 15,581, 22: 1 6 ,2 3 8. For further evaluations of the reign, see Crummey, Old Believers, p. 196; Novitskii, 0 dukhobortsakh, pp. 20-21; and Alan W. Fisher, "Enlightened Despotism and Islam Under Catherine II," Slavic Review, 27 (December 1968): 542- 553.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51
comprehensive ruling from the Throne on the Doukhobors, Paul
warned that harsh exile awaited all those who rejected the
Orthodox Church, its sacraments, and saints, and who
repudiated "the Sovereign and established powers.
Orest Novitskii penned the following description of
the relationship between the Doukhobors and the rest of the
nation as it existed at the end of the eighteenth century:
. . . the nation, as zealous guardian of the holy faith, despised the Doukhobors and fled from them, as [from] pests : it saw the scorn with which they regarded all that it accepted from its fathers as the sacred property of faith, it knew of the disrespect with which they responded to important decrees of the Church [which asserted] the faith and hope of Christians.55
Our brief discussion of the origins and early history
of Doukhoborism calls for two final observations. Firstly,
the difficulties in determining the rapid spread of the
Doukhobor sect are more apparent than real. In his study of
Melanesian cargo cults Peter Worsley reminds us that
Westerners often underrate the ease with which ideas and
information are transmitted in societies lacking modern
54 Ibid., 26: 19,352.
^^Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, p. 54.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52
systems of communication.^^ In Imperial Russia the exile
system, labor migration, and trade routes were the real, if
unspectacular, methods of communication whereby Doukhobor
ism was spread.In secret instructions to laroslav and
Kostroma provincial officials in I8 5 3, Internal Affairs
Minister D. G. Bibikov (1792-1870) ordered the plotting of
the dissenter population on maps with notations as to dis
senter proximity to navigable rivers, trading routes, and
other natural lines of communication.^^ Bibikov’s purpose,
of course, was to curtail the spread of dissenting religion.
Secondly, if by the turn of the century the Doukho
bors were truly the pariahs described by Novitskii, they
bore the nation's enmity almost in spite of themselves.
From the time of their origins to the end of the eighteenth
century the Doukhobors maintained a low profile. Despite
Semen's advice to Ilarion Pobirokhin, the sectarians
generally attended Orthodox church services, including Holy
Communion; they were baptized and married according to
Peter Worsley, The Trumpet Shall Sound: A Study of "Cargo" Cults in Melanesia, 2nd ed] (New York: Schocken Books, 1 9 6 8 ), p. 5 0 .
Irkutsk province, owed its origins to an exiled starichok who wintered there once. Ilarion Pobirokhin, the early Doukhobor leader in Tambov province, was a wool merchant who utilized his trade contacts to spread the faith. See Astyrev, "V gostiakh u dukhobortsev," 55; Livanov, "Tambov skie molokane i dukhobortsy," 246-247.
^^SPSR, 4: 55-5 6.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53
Orthodox rites. In sum, while adhering to the Doukhobor
faith the dissenters still "fulfilled all external [Orthodox]
obligations of religion.This passivity of the Doukhobors
during their early history conforms to the characteristics of
what the Italian historian of religions, Vittorio Lanternari,
labels as an "endogenous" movement. Endogenous movements
are those nativistic cults and sects generated by "dissen
sions within the pattern of one society." Salvation for
these movements lies through a passive adherence to inner
spiritual and ethical standards, leaving the way open for a
measure of external accommodation to the larger society.
While the endogenous characteristics of early
Doukhoborism cannot lay to rest speculation as to possible
foreign influences,they do tentatively indicate that the
^^Lopukhin, "Zapiski," 100.
^^Vittorio Lanternari, The Religions of the Op pressed: A Study of Modern Messianic Cults, trans. by Lisa Sergio (New York: New American Library, 1965), pp. 245-248.
^^Opposite of endogenous movements are those gener ated by conflict between societies or conflict with an ex ternal force. Such highly volatile religious reactions are characterized by a belief in salvation to be gained through immediate action in militant and violent struggle. In their violent opposition to the Nikonian reforms and the Petrine secular state, the Old Believers were reacting against what they held to be foreign and external penetration of "Holy Russia." They did not display the endogenous or organic pas sivity characteristic of the Doukhobors. See Michael Cher- niavsky. Tsar and People: Studies in Russian Myths (New York: Yale University Press, 1 9 6 I), p. II8 .
^^As Lanternari notes, the distinction between inter nal and external catalysts of religious movements is not absolute; the distinction, rather, must be viewed in a dia lectical sense.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54
sect's roots are to be sought within the ecumenical fabric
of Russian folk religion. Of more importance is the inter
nalization of spiritual values which endogenous movements
display and which Senator Lopukhin noted in the Doukhobors.
This internalization provoked a psychology of accommodation
toward Russian society which proved a valuable asset to the
Doukhobors in the nineteenth century.
DOCTRINE
Leroy-Beaulieu characterized the religious doctrine
of the Doukhobors as "one of the boldest efforts of untutored
popular thought." At the same time he noted its "occasional
obscurity" and its lack of a "well-defined theology.
This estimation highlights the difficulties in assessing the
theological content of Doukhoborism. The major tenets of
Doukhobor faith are "bold" and obvious; yet the sect's
"system," if indeed it can be called such, defies precise
definition and classification.
The Doukhobors have been variously described as
"Unitarians," "pantheists," and "rationalists." They have 64 been called "Russian Quakers" and Anabaptists. The
^^Leroy-Beaulieu, Empire of the Tsars, 3:443.
^^Harold S. Bender, "Dukhobors," Mennonite Encyclo- pedia (Scottdale, Pa.: Mennonite Publishing House, 1956), 2: 107-108; Prugavin, Raskol vverkhu, pp. 63-64; Henderson, Biblical Researches, p. 385; Maude, Peculiar People, p. 8.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55
Doukhobors are all and none of these. Time and geography
have effected myriad variables within Doukhobor theological
doctrine. What was applicable in nineteenth century Russia
has become outmoded in twentieth century Canada. Religious
practices existent in the Tauride and Caucasus colonies were
unknown in isolated Doukhobor enclaves in Irkutsk province.
A major factor in defining Doukhobor theology has
been the reluctance of the sectarians themselves to discuss
their doctrines. Livanov complained that the Doukhobors
presented themselves as a "mysterious" sectI. V.
Lopukhin, the probable author of the l805 tract contained
in Platon’s Present State, noted that the Doukhobors "con
ceal their opinions in regard to mysterious [theological]
points. . . . Even Baron Haxthausen, who found the
Doukhobors to be the "only exception" to the general
Russian disinclination to "philosophical subtleties" and
"fully developed systems," was frustrated. He found that
whenever the Doukhobors "spoke of the higher and dangerous
doctrines of their Sect, it was in an equivocal and
^Por contemporary subdivisions of Doukhobors in Canada see Charles Frantz, "Historical Continuities in an Immigrant Russian Sect: Doukhobor Ideology and Political Organization," Canadian Slavonic Papers, 5 (1961): 47-53. For a description of nineteenth century variations in Russian Doukhoborism due to geographic displacement see Astyrev, "V gostiakh u dukhobortsev," 64-65.
^^Livanov, Raskolniki i ostrozhniki, 2: 279.
^^Platon, Present State, pp. 263-264.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56
ambiguous manner, and with such a multitude of fantastic
expressions as would have done honour to a sophist gifted
with the most acute dialectic powers.
The Doukhobors' traditional reticence regarding
their doctrine is understandable. In Russia, outside in
quiries as to their faith were, in general, mere preliminar
ies to banishment and imprisonment. At the very least
theological inquiries occasioned ridicule and derision.
Moreover, under such intimidating conditions, reticence was
accompanied by other, more sophisticated devices designed to
frustrate external penetration of the sect's "mysteries."
The Doukhobors were obliged to conform to many external
vestiges of the Orthodox faith. This accommodation served
mainly to assuage hostile reaction to the more "heretical"
aspects of Doukhoborism. It also perhaps led to the un
witting adoption of many Orthodox hymns and holidays, and to
a degree of respect for some of Orthodoxy's most revered
saints. In addition, external hostility gave rise to a
rich reservoir of oral allegory designed to transfer cardi
nal points of theology safely from generation to generation.
Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 2: 279.
Aylmer Maude, "The Doukhobors," Outlook, 60 (10 December 1 8 9 8 ): 914.
^^Platon, Present State, p. 265; Elkinton, "Doukho bors: Their Character, '* 254; Novitskii, Dukhobortsy : ikh istoriia, p. 1 5 6 ; Vereshchagin, Autobiographical Sketches, p. 61.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57
All of these devices-reticence. Orthodox adaptation, and
allegory-present obstacles to precise descriptions of
Doukhobor theology. And, when we consider that the Doukho
bors were largely illiterate peasants who transferred their
Doukhobors in Tauride province told Robert Pinkerton ,,72 in 181 6 that their doctrines were "as old as the world
The hyperbole aside, Doukhoborism does contain major ele
ments of various heresies which arose on the periphery of
early Christianity. A profitable systematic approach to the
Doukhobor religion proceeds through those features of
Gnosticism, Manicheism, Montanism, and Millenarianism which
it contains.
The Gnostics believed that the road to divine know
ledge, or gnosis, lay not through Christ and the Scriptures,
but through a superior spiritual awareness gained via
"illumination." Beyond Biblical revelation. Gnosticism
posited "hidden revelations" through which certain ascetic
adepts could achieve true knowledge. The key to this
"Among hundreds of them not one can read; among thousands not one can write. With the exception perhaps of two very rare books, they have none containing an account of their doctrines." One of the "rare books," Haxthausen indicated, could in some cases be the I832 edition of Novitskii’s 0 dukhobortsakh. See Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1: 28l.
"^^Pinkerton, Russia, p. I6 9 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58
knowledge was the mystical illumination of a "divine spark"
within the adept. A key belief of Gnosticism was the inher
ent evil of the material world, also a major feature of
Manicheism. The latter heresy proposed a radical dualism
between an evil god of material creation and a benevolent
God of spiritual salvation. Doukhoborism contained elements
of both Gnosticism and Manicheism.
The most easily recognizable of the early heresies
in Doukhoborism is Montanism. Montanists rejected the for
malism of the official church's hierarchy and its encumber
ing regulations. They regarded the external trappings of
the official church as superfluous and as dangerous rivals
to the spiritual content of the Christian faith. Montanists
generally banned all activity regarded as reflective of sub
mission to a vain material world. The rejection of military
service has been a traditional feature of Montanist-
influenced sects. Millenarianism combined elements of
Gnosticism, Manicheism, and Montanism as it posited a
paradisiacal end to the conventional, material world. As we
^^See Roger Mehl, The Sociology of Protestantism, trans. by James H. Parley (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1 9 7 0 ), pp. 335-336, and Ninian Smart, The Religious Experi ence of Mankind (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1 9 6 9 ), ppT! 334-335, 355-356. The notorious Doukhobor practice of parading in the nude is simply a method of protesting attachment to material things.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59
shall see, Doukhoborism is a decidedly millenarian 74 theology.
The earliest accounts of Doukhobor religious doctrine
were derived from a number of sources. Orest Novitskii
gathered material from various "confessions" given by
Doukhobors to secular and ecclesiastical authorities from
179 1 on. Primary among these were confessions delivered by
Ekaterinoslav Doukhobors to the provincial governor in 1791,
and an l802 "conversation" between Evgenii, Metropolitan of
Kiev, and a group of Doukhobors from Tambov. In I832 the
manuscripts of these discussions were found in the library
of the Alexander Nevsky monastery. Robert Pinkerton
published a number of documents bearing on Doukhobor reli
gious doctrine in his Russia. Chief among these was the
text of a conversation between the rector of a St. Peters
burg seminary and three Doukhobors from Kharkov dated 1792.
As we have concluded, the Doukhobor "tenets of faith" con
tained in Platon's Present State were probably composed by
I. V. Lopukhin. These tenets are generally regarded as an
Mehl, Protestantism, p. 2 3 6; Smart, Religious Experience, pp. 342-3^3. For a discussion of the historical links between Montanism and millennial prophecies, and for the evolution of millennialism into a heresy, see Norman Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970), pp. 19-36.
"^^Novitskii, 0 dukhobortsakh, pp. 44-47.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60
accurate, if idealized, description of the Doukhobor faith.
In 1816 Pinkerton had the "satisfaction" of hearing Tauride
Doukhobors "distinctly state their principles in the very
terms" of the document contained in his translation of
Platon’s volume.
The core of Doukhobor religious doctrine is a simple
mixture of Gnostic "inner feeling" and Montanist rejection
of all externals. "The chief and distinguishing dogma of
the Duhobortsi is the worshipping [of] God in spirit and in
truth; and hence they reject all external rites, as not
being necessary in the work of salvation. Novitskii
characterized the Doukhobor conception of religion as the
"knowledge and acknowledgment of God . . . according to an
inner feeling and experience. . . . The following
Doukhobor psalm is attributed to the Tauride Doukhobor
leader, Savelii Kapustin. It is entitled "A Spiritual
Wrestler":
A Doukhobor is one, whom Christ has chosen for His incarnation. Deity dwells on earth in flesh, from which is manifest eternal wisdom. It was necessary for Jesus Christ to have a body and to be a man, for through the mouth of man the Lord speaks. The Apos-
"^^Pinkerton, Russia, p. I6 7.
Platon, Present State, p. 257.
'Novitskii, 0 dukhobortsakh, p. 48.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6l
tolic Church and Mount Zion, [this] Is the Doukhobor Community. Amid the mountain dwells the Divine Spirit; the wisdom and power of God among men. Dwelling with them is the spring of living water [that] joy ously brings forth eternal life. Their good deeds, good life will triumph over the world . . . whose end is coming soon. Then the Doukhobors will be made known to all mankind and the One Christ shall be the worthy King. Around him shall all peoples be gathered. [But] their honour shall come . . . only [after] a time of grief and trials. There shall be a horrible struggle, but . . . the Kingdom of God will be established in the e a r t h . 79
Doukhobor religious doctrine revolves around the definition
contained in the psalm's first sentence: "A Doukhobor is
one, whom Christ has chosen for His incarnation." By exten
sion, the "Apostolic Church" is the entire "Doukhobor commun
ity," and the "wisdom and power of God" is incarnate within
this community. The unstated assumption of the psalm, of
course, is that one must acknowledge the imminence and inner
presence of Christ. For the Doukhobors the Christ essence
exists in every man awaiting only recognition; "deity dwells
on earth in flesh, from which is manifest eternal wisdom."
Ultimately all will respond to the Christ within, and "then
the Doukhobors will be made known to all mankind. ..."
Significantly, the definition of a Doukhobor as Christ in
carnate is given within an apocalyptic context. The psalm's
final millenarian vision leaves little doubt as to the
earthly trials of the Doukhobor Christs.
"^^Mealing, "Our People's Way," pp. 270-271.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63
Doukhobors answered: "'How? To prevent this, reason is
given to us. I know what is good, and what is bad.'
Max Weber defined "religious rationalization" as a
process which carries out "the most radical devaluation of
all sacraments as means to salvation.The Doukhobors
have been termed rationalists^^ because in their efforts to
approach divinity they "demand . . . of reason a consider
able return." Specifically, they "wish to understand and
are thus led to reject that which, in . . . the dogmas even
of the Orthodox Church, does not appear sufficiently intel
ligible and logical.Proceeding from their principal
^^Quoted in ibid., pp. 182-183.
^ % a x Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. by Talcott Parsons (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958), p. l4?.
frequently used system in classifying Russian religious sects employs the terms "rationalists" (Western) and "mystics" (Eastern). The Doukhobors, along with the Molokans and Stundists, are usually allotted to the former category, and the Skoptsy and Khlysty to the latter. How ever, as Miliukov and Klibanov have noted, this system is somewhat arbitrary insofar as rationalist and mystic ele ments frequently coexist in one sect. A prime example are the Molokans with their orthodox (rationalist ) and "Reaper" (mystic) factions. The Soviet scholar Klibanov divides sectarian groups into those of "democratic origin," which arose out of the "contradictions" of serfdom, and "bourgeois sectarianism," which arose in the post-Reform period on the basis of capitalism's "contradictions." He places the Douk hobors in the former category. See Livanov, Raskolniki i ostrozhniki, 2: 279; Severac, Le secte russe, pp. 136-137; Joseph Wilbois, Russia and Reunion, trans. by C. R. Davey Biggs (Londin: A. R. Mowbray and Co., 1908), p. 199; Miliukov, Religion and the Church, p. 78; Klibanov, Istoriia religioznogo sektantstva, pp. 322-323.
^^Severac, Le secte russe, pp. 136-137.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62
This first and primary tenet of Doukhoborism appalled
many observers. Haxthausen believed that the sect demon
strated "how easily the highest spiritual mysticism may grow
into atheism." He remarked that "the self-deification of
these people was on the point of entirely destroying the
idea of the Divinity"; all matters of good and evil were re
duced to conceptions of "the I and the Not I. The
apparent Doukhobor division of good and evil into categories
of "we" and "they" was first noted by Gavriel, Metropolitan
of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, in a 1792 letter to the
governor of Kharkov province. Gavriel observed that the
Doukhobors respected only those individuals in whom they saw
the "image of God; that is, perfect holiness." This trait,
lamented the Metropolitan, made the Doukhobors "zealous
propagators" of their sect.
In the face of such criticism of their central doc
trine the Doukhobors had a simple answer. In a 1792 "con
versation," the rector of St. Petersburg's Nevsky Seminary
asked three Kharkov Doukhobors how they could depend on
themselves "without danger." Were they not afraid, he
asked, that "opinions" and "foolish imaginations" might be
mistaken for "Divine inspiration"? To this one of the
Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1: 299.
^^Quoted in Pinkerton, Russia, p. 175.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64
belief in the "divine spark" in every man, the Doukhobors
thus rejected icons, sacraments, and the priesthood as unin
telligible and illogical. Livanov extended the "rationalist"
tag to describe Doukhobor social practices such as the dis-
avowel of official leaders and the periodic adoption of 86 c communism.
A measured mixture of "self-deification" and reason
is contained in Doukhobor conceptions of the ecclesia. In
1792 the Kharkov Doukhobors defined a church as
. . . one Church, holy, apostolical, spiri tual, invisible . . . in which no worship is paid to any material objects; where those only are teachers who live virtuous lives ; where the word of God is obeyed in the heart, on which it descends like dew upon the fleece . . . ; where there are no such noisy, ostentatious, offensive, and idola trous meetings and vain ceremonies as with [the Orthodox]; no drunken and insulting pastors and teachers like yours ; nor such evil dispositions and corruptions as among VOU.87
Livanov, Raskolniki i ostrozhniki, 2: 2 7 9. Ivan Kharlamov, the statist historian of dissenting religion, hesitated to apply the term "rationalist" to the Doukhobors. Khalamov's main problem was in isolating those features of Doukhoborism which could be called "rational." Was ration alism a "personal inclination of the intellect" to judge on a "sufficient basis"? Was it perhaps the predominance of moral over dogmatic significance? Kharlamov finally decided that the term "rationalism" was mistakenly applied to a whole range of "desultory," crude, and unclarified Doukhobor reflections which were boldly presented under the guise of a "system." Ultimately, Doukhoborism was not a coherent system, and was therefore not "rational." See Kharlamov, "Doukhobortsy," 138-140.
^^Quoted in Pinkerton, Russia, p. I8 0 . The Doukho bors were addressing an official of the Orthodox Church.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65
In the late nineteenth century, V. D. Bonch-Bruevich received
a Doukhobor manuscript in which a church was described as
being "constructed in the souls and hearts of men" who love
and serve God.^^
Icons and the Scriptures were particular banes for
the Doukhobor Christs. " ’Icons are made by the hands of
man,’" Nikolai Astyrev was told by Irkutsk Doukhobors, " ’how
can they be worshipped?' In 1792 the Kharkov trio noted
that the only true "image" of Christ was in the soul; those
who would worship it must do so "in spirit and in truth.
A number of visiting clerics attempted to distribute Bibles
among Tauride Doukhobors in the early nineteenth century.
The experience in I818 of Ebenezer Henderson, the Scottish
missionary, was typical. The Doukhobors "told us," wrote
Henderson, "we were much mistaken if we imagined they had
not the Bible among them— they had it in their hearts ; the
Vladimir Bonch-Bruevich [V. D. Olkhovskii], "Obriady dukhobortsev," Zhivaia starina, l4 (1905): 241-242.
^^Astyrev, "V gostiakh u dukhobortsev," 6 3.
^^Quoted in Pinkerton, Russia, pp. 176-177. In 1897 Arthur St. John was in an Orthodox peasant’s hut in Trans caucasia with several of the peasant’s Doukhobor "friends." A priest entered the home and began crossing himself and bowing to an icon handing in a corner. The Doukhobors present "were indignant that he [the priest] should pay all that attention to a mere picture while there were human beings present, in whom was 'God,' and of whom he had not yet had the civility to take any notice." See Arthur St. John, "An Inconvenient Visit to the Caucasus," Part 2: "The Doukhobors," New Order, 5 (February 1899): 19.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66
light thus imparted was sufficient, and they needed nothing
more.".,91
A number of social corollaries followed from the
Doukhobors’ vision of themselves as Christs incarnate.
Theoretically, all were equal within the Doukhobor community
for all had within them the divine essence. The society
ideally governed itself without the aid of leaders or
"supreme powers." Moreover, insofar as the Christ essence,
recognized or not, was found in every man, all human life
assumed for the Doukhobors a radical equality and sanctity.
In theory, therefore, they refused to acknowledge the
authority of all temporal powers and renounced the taking
of human life. This aspect of Doukhoborism worried Imperial
authorities, for it contained the seeds of anarchy. In 1792
Metropolitan Gavriel wrote: "The opinions held by them not
only establish equality, but also exclude the distinction of
ruler and subject; such opinions are therefore the more
dangerous, because they may become attractive to the
peasantry. In l8l7 M. M. Speranskii, then governor of
Penza province, wrote to the Ministry of Internal Affairs
^ Henderson, Biblical Researches, p. 385. See also Pinkerton, Russia, p. 168. During his visit to the group of Irkutsk Doukhobors about I8 9 O, Astyrev noted their extensive use of Scriptures. When he remarked that other Doukhobors spurned the use of the Bible, his hosts retorted that such was "perhaps" the case in "other places," but that they "respected" the Holy Book. See Astyrev, "V gostiakh u dukhobortsev," 6 3.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67
that "the doctrine of the Doukhobors is so close to the
spirit of liberty and civil equality, that the least curva
ture or deviation left of this line— where presently they
still stand— could produce a very powerful shock in the
people.
The Soviet historian Klibanov labels the Doukhobor
belief in man as "the living temple" as an "ideology of
antifeudal protest." He maintains that an ideology of
"bourgeois individualism" was founded in the peasant milieu
by the sectarians’ radical reliance on inner conviction,
dedication to personal freedom, and their "confidence in
man’s intellectual and moral strength.Interestingly,
Imperial Russian civil and ecclesiastical authorities, as
we have seen, looked upon Doukhoborism in essentially the
same secular manner.
A certain folk ecumenism in Doukhobor religion de
fies intelligible discussion. In an I897 visit to a
Doukhobor worship service in the Caucasus, Arthur St. John
"hear[d] the name of Buddha mentioned," and although he
failed to understand any'significance in this, he felt "that
there [was] a breadth and comprehensiveness about this sort
^^"K biografii M. M. Speranskogo," 300-301.
^^Klibanov, "Dissident Denominations," 46.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68
of brotherhood."^^ Similarly, Henry Lynch (1962-1913), an
English merchant who travelled extensively in Transcaucasia,
recorded that Elizavetpol province Doukhobors in I898 wor
shipped "images of birds and beasts. Despite these
Eastern and pagan manifestations, various aspects of Doukho
borism can be examined in terms of traditional Christianity.
Predictably, many of these elements appear vague or even
contradictory, befitting their unsophisticated peasant
source.
Nineteenth century Doukhobors characterized the Holy
Trinity as "a being beyond comprehension." They acknowl
edged the unity (edinstvo) of God in the Trinity, but in
trisecting this unity they employed their own peculiar
images. Novitskii reported that Ekaterinoslav Doukhobors
constructed a trinity of the power, wisdom, and will of the
one God. In the Tambov Doukhobor trinity, the Father was
light, the Son life, and the Holy Spirit peace. In man the
latter three elements were manifested in memory, reason, and
will respectively.^"^ To Vereshchagin was described a simi
lar scheme during his i860 visit to Doukhobors exiled from
^^Arthur St. John, "An Inconvenient Visit to the Caucasus," Part 1: "Utopia Discovered," New Order, 5 (January 1 8 9 9 ) : 2.
^^Henry F. B. Lynch, Armenia : Travels and Studies, vol. 1: The Russian Provinces (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1901), p. 104.
^"^Novitskii, 0 dukhobortsakh, pp. 48-49.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69 98 Taurlde province to Transcaucasia. I. V. Lopukhin, the
probable author of the 180 5 tract contained in Platon’s
Present State, described a Doukhobor trinity composed of
height, breadth, and depth: "The Father is high, and none
can comprehend him; the Son is broad in intelligence; and
the Holy Ghost is deep, past searching out. Astyrev
found that his Irkutsk Doukhobor hosts adopted only the first
person of the Trinity, the Father; the others, he was in
formed, were not needed.
The essence of Doukhobor Christology is the reincar
nation of Christ in man as a Gnostic "divine spark." Beyond
this basic tenet the Doukhobors’ conception of Christ
appears, in the words of Vereshchagin, "very obscure.
Two features of equal import figure prominently in the
sect’s Christology: Christ’s teachings and his death. Both
features, moreover, emphasize the historical Christ who
"died in the flesh, [and] was resurrected no other way than
spiritually through divine power in every person wishing to
accept him.
Vereshchagin, Autobiographical Sketches, p. 58.
^^Platon, Present State, p. 258.
^^^Astyrev, "V gostiakh u dukhobortsev," 62.
trans. by N. N. Kalmakoff (Canora, Sask.: Doukhobor Society of Canada, 1961), p. 3-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70
Despite the fact that a Doukhobor is defined as one
In whom Christ resides, the sect is not antinomian. The
Doukhobors acknowledged the existence of sinners among them,
although in some cases, as we shall see, those who strayed
from the path were identified as "imposters." A confession
of sins before God and the entire society was generally
accepted as adequate punishment for a transgressor; further
lapses resulted in expulsion from the Doukhobor community.
On a larger plane, the Doukhobors believed in original sin
and in man’s early "fall" from grace. This calamity, how
ever, was resolved, at least for the Doukhobors themselves,
in Christ’s death and spiritual resurrection into their
bodies.
In their radical reliance on the divine essence
existent in the individual the Doukhobors denied the
efficacy of external intermediary agencies. Priests, sacra
ments, and religious symbols were regarded as unnecessary,
even blasphemous. The nearest thing to a sacrament within
Doukhobor theology is a seven-stage "spiritual baptism"
whereby the believer achieves a state of gnosis and can "by
his spiritual eyes behold the angels.Metropolitan
Gavriel described the Doukhobor attitude toward sacraments
^°^Platon, Present State, pp. 260, 262-263.
^*^^Por a description of the seven-stage "spiritual tism" see ibid., pp. 259-260.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71
as "a spiritual reception of them.For most of the
nineteenth century the Doukhobors did not practice any form
of fasting. Beginning in l893 the Doukhobor leader Peter
Verigin began teaching his followers a "new Doukhoborism"
which advised vegetarianism and sexual continence. This
attempt at ascetic regeneration, the elements of which were
characteristic of the earliest Manicheans, was later
abandoned in Canada.
Doukhobor eschatology is essentially millenarian.
To a large degree, the idea of a "religious advance" toward
perfection, inherent in millenarianism, was a substitute for
the intermediary (between the believer and God) authority of
an official church which the Doukhobors rejected.The
sect abandoned the security of the traditional ecclesia for
the promise of the millennial paradise.
Doukhobor psalmody is replete with apocalyptic
imagery. The following psalm is paraphrased from a passage
in the Book of Matthew:
^^^Quoted in Pinkerton, Russia, p. 175.
^*^^Platon, Present State, p. 26l; Maude, Peculiar People, pp. 1 6 6 -1 6 7 .
^^^On this theme see Tuveson, Millenium and Utopia, p. 1 1 6 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72
The last day will come; the Lord says : I shall pour fire from my spirit upon all flesh, I will prophesy and do mira cles in the mountain of heaven, and signs in the plains of the earth; bloodshed and fire-smoking vapours ; the sun will not shine, the moon [will be covered] in blood, even before the coming of the Lord’s day, great and most holy; and it shall be that day, that whoever calls the Lord’s name, that one will be saved.108
In another psalm, constructed in the form of a dialogue,
God’s "children" lament that passage into His Kingdom is
blocked by "doors of steel" and "gates of brass." The Lord
replies : "I will break down the steel doors, I shall tear
down the gates of brass, and shall scatter the fierce
watchers [guards], but you I shall lead into my own heavenly
kingdom, and will reign with you [there] for ever.
Still another psalm juxtaposes a future paradise with
present suffering:
Our Lord God has readied for us a drink, sweeter than melted honey; our Lord God has readied for us imperish able robes, priceless, lasting for ever; our Lord God has readied for us the king dom of heaven, on account of our great suffering, [our] torment on earth. They beat us and they tortured us on ac count of the word of God . . . on account
^^^Mealing, "Our People’s Way," p. 120; Bonch- Bruevich, ed., Zhivotnaia kniga, pp. 115-116.
^^^Mealing, "Our People’s Way," pp. 146-147; Bonch- Bruevich, ed., Zhivotnaia kniga, p. 157.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73
of our witnessing for Jesus Christ. But we are glad and we r e j o i c e . HO
In one of the best and most recent attempts to sound
the various nuances of Doukhobor traditional culture Francis
Mealing draws a find distinction between chiliasts and
millenarians. The former, he writes, expect a "specif
ically imminent supernatural re-ordering of the world," a
single and immediate historical event that will radically
alter existence. For millenarians, however, the apocalypse
is neither a single event or imminent; rather, the world’s
"reordering" is a constant, on-going phenomenon, the
essential "state of all history." Mealing considers the
Doukhobors to be millenarians, for the "uncertainty of life,"
especially in nineteenth century Russia, created a need for
an apocalyptic continuum.
As Mealing admits, the distinction between chiliasm
and millenarianism is one of degree, not of kind. The
vagaries of life in nineteenth century Russia for religious
minorities evoked highly variable degrees of apocalyptic
expectation. Accordingly, Doukhobor psalmody displays a
situational apocalyptic imagery. The earliest psalms, com
posed during the late eighteenth century years of persecu
tion and exile, counsel perseverence and meek suffering. In
Bruevich, ed., Zhivotnaia kniga, p. 205.
^^^Mealing, "Our People’s Way," pp. 385-386, 4l3-4l4.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74
these psalms we detect a historical, on-going reordering of
the world. The following psalm, attributed to llarion
Pobirokhin or Savelii Kapustin, was probably composed in the
late eighteenth century :
Righteous folk lived on earth, knew God and accepted all: reproach and sub mission, reviling and slander, beating and injury, suffering and sickness; on account of all this, the Lord loves them, calls them to Himself, strengthens them with [His] word, names them [His] sons, welcomes them into His p a r a d i s e . H 2
Still another of "the original olden time psalms" advises
the accommodation to suffering typical of endogenous move
ments. The "they" refers to earthly powers of persecution
and malice :
God is with us, know [ye, all] peoples and be humbled, for God is with us. . . . If again they grow strong, again they will be overcome, for God is with us. . . . We shall not be destroyed by fear of them, for God is with us. [They that] trust in Him, all that [are His] ser vants are saved by Him, for God is with us.. . . 113
Other psalms, however, speak of an imminent, chiliastic re
ordering. In a psalm quoted above, "the last day will
come," with fire, miracles, and bloodshed. A more historic
apocalyptic image is contained in a psalm sung during the
Zhivotnaia kniga, p. I8I.
^^%ealing, "Our People’s Way," pp. 218-219; Bonch- Bruevich, ed., Zhivotnaia kniga, pp. 239-240.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75
visit of Tsar Alexander I to the Tauride Doukhobor colony in
I8l8:
Thus says the Lord, the holy God of the Israelites. I made, I created. . . . I made the earth, [and] man [that] is in it : I set out the heavens with my own hand; I ordered all the stars ; I raise up the king with truth, all his paths are just; he will build all my city; he will bring back my people [that were] taken captive without ransom and without a b r i b e . H 4
The "king" may or may not refer to Alexander. Here the
apocalyptic imagery is precise, for the creation of the
universe to the final emancipation of the Lord’s "captive"
people. Yet even if the psalm is allegory, it communicated
the Doukhobors’ real gratitude for the Tsar’s establishment
of their Milky Waters colony; it expressed hope, moreover,
for the "king’s" future benevolence. The year iSlS wit
nessed a highpoint in Doukhobor chiliastic consciousness.
In subsequent chapters we shall have occasion to
note social manifestations of Doukhobor chiliasm/
millenarianism. For the present we need only add that
Doukhobor eschatology, essentially optimistic, was attended
by the figure of "Antioch," the Antichrist. "Our only
fear," reads a Doukhobor psalm, "is [of] Antioch [told of]
in Your holy writings. He opened his mouth fiercely, he is
^^^Mealing, "Our People’s Way," pp. 174-175-
(d. 163 B.C.), called Antiochus Epiphanes, the Syrian king whose persecution of the Jews occasioned the Maccabean revolt.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76
[the one that] rose up against your servants. He wants to
cut us off from the love of God, from eternal happiness,
from the kingdom of Heaven.Doukhobor references to
Antioch, however, are infrequent. The Doukhobor conception
of Antichrist did not assume the mythic proportions evident
The pacifist painter Vasilii Vereshchagin visited
the Doukhobors in Transcaucasia in the mid-l860's. Despite
his obvious sympathy with fellow pacifists, Vereshchagin was
quite confounded by the sectarians’ Biblical exegesis. The
Doukhobors held in special honor the three figures of
Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, the Hebrew names respectively
of Shadrach, Meshack, and Abednego (Daniel 1: 6-7). When
queried the sectarians explained that the revered trio were
the only people to stand to the end by the cross on which
Christ was crucified. Vereshchagin then countered that the
three heroes were actually Old Testament figures and could
not possibly have been present on Calvary. To this the
Doukhobors reponded that ’’it was not their business to
^^^Mealing, ’’Our People’s Way," pp. 126-127; Bonch- Bruevich, ed., Zhivotnaia kniga, pp. l44-l45-
^^"^See Cherniavsky, Tsar and People, pp. 76-77-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77
criticize, it was enough to believe what had been handed
down by their fathers.
Vereshchagin’s anecdote demonstrates the folk or
’’popular’’ essence of Doukhobor Christianity. At the very
least Christian folk religions contain and enshrine for
posterity aberrations of orthodox tradition and literature
such as that recorded by Vereshchagin. At the most folk
variants of Christianity are notable for their residual ele
ments of paganism, witchcraft, and astrology which in the
folk mind are vital elements of a total world view.
Russian Orthodoxy contained its own residue of folk
elements. The water sprites and forest fiends that inhabited
Turgenev’s "Bezhin Meadow’’ are a case in point. These
elements were variously promoted, supported, tolerated, or
fought against by the Church.What distinguished Doukho
bor Christianity as a folk variant and anathematized it in
the eyes of the Russian Church was its radical rejection of
^^^Vereshchagin, Autobiographical Sketches, p. 60.
^^^On folk varieties of Christianity see the provac- ative studies of Eugene D. Genovese, Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made (New York: Random House, 1976), ppT 159-284, and Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971).
^^*^As we shall see, nineteenth century Doukhobors invoked a number of "healing psalms" to counter the effects of sorcery and witchcraft.
^^^See Dmitri Obole Medieval Russia," in The Religious World of Russian Culture, ed. by Andrew Blane (The Hague: Mouton, 1975), 2: 43-54.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78
the spiritual and material world of Orthodox civilization.
This rejection amounted to a theological and social chasm
between the sect and the rest of Russian society.
The significance of Doukhobor Christianity as a folk
religion was its cohesive impact on the Doukhobor brother
hood. In a hostile environment the very inconsistencies,
gaps, contradictions, and "mistakes" of the Doukhobor faith
served to bind the brotherhood together and set it apart from
the aggressor. Eugene Genovese, the American Marxist
historian of black slave culture, asserts that the
Christianity of the slaves formed the basis of a "protona
tional consciousness" within the American Black community.
The same can be said for Doukhoborism and its followers, for
"it was enough to believe what had been handed down by their
fathers."
^^^Genovese, Roll, Jordan, Roll, p. 284.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER III
THE MILKY WATERS: THE DOUKHOBORS
IN THE REIGN OP ALEXANDER I,
PART I
Russian society collectively experienced a psycho
logically violent withdrawal from Enlightenment hopes and
excesses during the reign of Alexander I. The feature
attraction of Madame Tatarinova’s salon in I8O6 , the cas
trated religious mystic Selivanov, testified to the journey
Russian aristocratic society travelled from the days of
Diderot during the reign of Catherine the Great. Parallel
ing the societal withdrawal was the Emperor’s own perplexing
evolution. From Czartoryski and the Secret Committee
Alexander’s inclinations shifted to Prince A. N. Golitsyn
(1773-1844) and the Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs and
Public Instruction, betraying a definite change in auto
cratic temperament. Much has been written of this intrigu
ing period of ’’anti-Enlightenment. Nevertheless, for a
See, for example : Billington, Icon and the Axe, pp. 2 6 9 -3 0 6 ; David, ’’Jacob Boehme,’’ 43-64; N. Dubrovin, ’’Nashi mistiki-sektanty. Aleksandr Fedorovich Labzin i ego zhurnal Slonskii Vestnik," Russkaia starina, 82 (September 1894) 1 4 5-2 0 3, 82 (October 1894): 101-126, 82 (November 1894) 5 8-9 1 , 82 (December 1894), 98-132, 83 (January 1895) 5 6-9 1 , 83 (February 1895): 35-52; Prugavin, Raskol
79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80
proper understanding of the forces affecting Doukhobor
history during these intellectually troubled times, a brief,
hopefully non-repetitive discourse is in order.
A fundamental and frequently ignored aspect of the
period is that the intellectual waves buffeting Russia did
not impact solely on the islands of aristocratic society in
the two capitals. The countryside as well absorbed the alien
mystical-religious currents so fashionable in the cities.
Haxthausen discovered the translated works of the German
mystic, Johann Heinrich Jung-Stilling (1740-l8l7), among
vverkhu; A. N. Pypin, Religiozniia dvizheniia pri Aleksandrie I (Petrograd: Izd. "Ogni," 1916), and Russkoe masonstvo XVIII i pervaia chetvert XIX v. (Petrograd: Izd. "Ogni," 1 9 1 6 ); N. A. Smirnov, ed., Tserkov v istorii Rossii (Moscow: Nauka, 1967), pp. 206-226; Stuart R. Tompkins, The Russian Mind from Peter the Great through the Enlightenment (Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1953), P P . 53-57; Donald W. Treadgold, The West in Russia and China, vol. 1: Russia 1 4 7 2 -1 9 1 7 (Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1 9 7 3 ), pp. II6-I5I; Judith Cohen Zacek, "The Russian Bible Society and the Russian Orthodox Church," Church History, 35 (December 1 9 6 6 ): 411-437.
Russian Empire, 1: 286. Jung-Stilling, along with Karl Eckartshausen, was heir to the mystical tradition which issued from the teachings of Jacob Boehme. Boehme taught that salvation lay solely in adherence to an "inner light" which came directly from God; ritual and ceremony were meaningless to those attuned to the "inner light." The works of Jung-Stilling— chiefly through the efforts of Alexander Golitsyn and Rodion Aleksandrovich Koshelev (1749-1827), close associates of Alexander I— became best sellers in Russia from I813 on. The influx of many German Pietists to Russia during Alexander’s reign was
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81
Stephen Grellet and William Allen were pleased to find (I819 )
many provincial Russian clerics acquainted with "experi
mental" or "vital" religion stressing spiritual substance
over sacramental formalism. The rector of an Orthodox
monastery in Ekaterinoslav attended a Molokan worship service
with Grellet and was "much affected" by the simple, non
ceremonial piety and faith of the sectarians.^ Groups of
Molokans even joined the newly founded (1812 -I813) Russian
Bible Society and were among the first to receive the modern
Russian translation of the New Testament.^
The links between the mystical-religious currents in
the capital and the countrside were many. The Russian Bible
Society was certainly significant in this regard, especially
during the years I813 to 1824 when it was headed by Prince
Alexander Nikolaevich Golitsyn. Under Golitsyn’s leadership
the Society proved more than simply the disseminator of
occasioned by the apocalyptic prophecies of Jung-Stilling. See David, "Jacob Boehme," 43-4'4; M. 0. Gershenzon, P. lA. Chaadaev: zhizn 1 myshlenie (St. Petersburg: M. M. Stasiulevich, 1908), p. 27; Ernest F. Stoeffler, German Pietism during the Eighteenth Century (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973), pp. 256-265.
Ibid., 1: 462; Miliukov, Religion and the Church, p. 103 . The Russian Bible Society was initially designed to spread the Scriptures to non-Orthodox populations within the Empire only; the Holy Synod had the exclusive right to pub lish the Bible in Church Slavonic for the Orthodox. In l8l4 representatives from the Orthodox Church were elected to serve in the Bible Society, and Scriptures in modern Russian began to be issued to the Orthodox. See Zacek, "Bible Society," 4l4-4l8.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82
Russian Bibles. The Prince was deeply committed to a New
Testament "creedless Christianity" which linked him with
such German mystics as Jung-Stilling. Consequently, the
Russian Bible Society provided a "major platform" for the
spread of mystical German Protestantism during Golitsyn's
tenure. The Prince's power and influence were increased in
1817 when Alexander named him to head the newly established
Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs and Public Instruction.^
Russian Masonic lodges proved another link between
aristocratic intellectual life in the capital and the
religious currents of the countryside. In its heyday under
Catherine II Russian Masonry was particularly enamored of
Boehmist theology, and the fascination continued when the
lodges were permitted to reopen under Alexander (his grand
mother ultimately suppressed them).^ The idea of an "inner
spiritual regeneration," institutionalized in the Masonic
lodges, was reciprocally sublimated in the various "sects
and schisms" which abounded in and around St. Petersburg.
Groups of Skoptsy and Khlysty in particular enjoyed the
^David, "Jacob Boehme," 53; James T. Flynn, "The Role of the Jesuits in the Politics of Russian Education, I8OI-I82O," Catholic Historical Review, 56 (July 1970): 260; Zacek, "Bible Society," 419. See also selected letters of Golitsyn for the years I8l2-l824 published as "Kniaz Aleksandr Nikolaevich Golitsyn (v ego pismakh)," Russkii arkhiv, 43 (1 9 0 5 ) : 360-403.
^David, "Jacob Boehme," 49-51 ; Pypin, Russkoe masonstvo, p. 38O.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83
patronage of society's upper circles. The castrated
"divine," Kondrati Selivanov, was once received by Alexander,
and spent many years ministering to the nobility of St.
Petersburg.^ The mystical seances of Mme. E. Tatarinova,
the German widow of a Russian army officer, have been
regarded as aristocratic imitations of sectarian divine
worship services.^
The intellectual links between capital and country
side, so implicit in the Selivanov-Tatarinova circles and
Masonic doctrine, became even more explicit in the person of
Ivan Vladimirovich Lopukhin.^ The son of a landowner,
Lopukhin was plagued by a sickly childhood and received much
of his education at home. He entered military service in
^"Dokladnaia zapiska D. P. Troshchinskago imperatora Alexandra o skoptse Selivanove, l802," Russkii arkhiv, 38 (1900 ): 449; Albert P. Heard, The Russian Church and Russian Dissent: Comprising Orthodoxy, Dissent, and Erratic Sects (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1 B87), p. 269; "Iz zapisok lurievskago arkhimandrita Potiia o skoptsakh, khlystakh i drugikh tainykh sektakh v Peterburge v l8l9g.," Russkii arkhiv, 11 (1873): 1434-1454; Miliukov, Religion and the Church, p. 103; Maurice Paleologue, Alexandre 1er: un tsar enigmaticue (Paris : Librairie Pion, 1937), P- 36; Severac, La secte russe, pp. 130-131-
^Billington, Icon and the Axe, p. 286; "Dopolnitel- nyia svedeniia o Tatarinovoi i o shlenakh eia dukhovnago soiuza," Russkii arkhiv, 10 (I872): 2334-2354; Anatole Mazour, The First Russian Revolution, 1825 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 19&9), pp. 32-33; Miliukov, Religion and the- Church, p. 103; Prugavin, Raskol vverkhu, p. 106 .
^See la. Barskov, "Lopukhin," Russkii biografiche- skii slovar, 25 vols. (St. Petersburg: Tip. glavnogo upravleniia udelov, 1914), 10: 650-682.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84
1775, but retired seven years later for reasons of health.
In 1782 Lopukhin was appointed counselor (sovetnik) of the
Moscow criminal court (palata ugolovnago suda), and later he
became court president (predsedatel). In judicial affairs
Lopukhin was interested chiefly in the reformatory aspects
of law. He once wrote that it was better to acquit many
criminals than to convict one innocent individual.
In 1785 Lopukhin retired from the courts and assumed
an active role in the literary and philanthropic activities
of the Masonic publicist, N. I. Novikov (1744-l8l8). In
1789 Lopukhin underwent a religious conversion upon recovery
from a lengthy period of illness. The following year he
published his Nravouchitelnyi katekhizis istinnykh fran-
masonov, a defense of Russian Masonry which went through
several editions. Love of God and one’s fellow man and the
call for constant inner, personal improvement were the
fundamentals put forth in the Katekhizis.
The arrest of Novikov in April 1792 capped Catherine
II’s campaign to rid Russia of "the notorious new schism" of
Masons. The Empress initially ordered Lopukhin into exile,
but he was permitted to remain in Moscow "for the sake of
See Gilbert H. McArthur, "Catherine II and the Masonic Circle of N. I. Novikov," Canadian Slavic Studies, 4 (Pall 1970 ): 529-546.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85
his aged father." Prom 1792 to 1796 Lopukhin lived and
wrote in Moscow. In 1796 Tsar Paul summoned him to St.
Petersburg and appointed him a state secretary. The follow
ing year Lopukhin returned to Moscow as a senator.
In 1800 Lopukhin completed a senatorial inspection
of the provinces of Kazan, Viatka, and Orenburg in which he
displayed particular consideration for the peasantry. The
following year Tsar Alexander I ordered him to undertake a
journey to southern Russia to study the status of sectarian
religion in the region. Lopukhin's activities cemented the
intellectual link between capital and countryside and there
by determined the Doukhobors' fate for the next forty years.
Alexander I succeeded to the throne upon the murder
of his father on the night of March 11/12, l801. Prom the
start the new tsar made it clear that religious dissenters
would be regarded from what Novitskii labeled a "civil"
point of view (as opposed to the "religious or governmental
point of view"); dissent and heresy would not be actively
persecuted but merely prevented from indulging in "displays"
which violated the rules of public orderWithin weeks of
his accession (April 9/21, l801), Alexander issued a re
script to all military and civil governors outlining his
^^Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, p. 55.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. policy toward religious dissenters. Instead of the "sever
ity" hitherto employed against heretics, the Tsar advised
the use of kindness, patience, and "diligent insistence which
alone are able to mollify the fiercest of hearts and divert
[them] from deep-rooted obstinacy. ..." Henceforth, the
"slightest persecution" was to be avoided; care was to be
taken so that "general peacefulness everywhere is not
violated.Alexande
realized immediately.
On the first day of his reign Alexander released
from j ail or exile all those arrested without trial. One
week later, on March 17/29, I8OI, he ordered the recall of
Doukhobors banished during the reign of his father.The
civil governor of New Russia was notified to expect the
arrival of Doukhobors being returned from exile in
Ekaterinburg. The local police were ordered to closely
observe the conduct of the returned sectarians. The
Doukhobors were not to be allowed to congregate together in
their homes for the purpose of worship services. Positions
of authority in the villages where the Doukhobors resided
^^SPR (1875 ed.), 2: 20. In I803 the Malorussian governor-general was ordered to "turn a blind eye" toward raskolnik clergy in his territory. The governor was cau tioned, however, that this indulgence should not appear to the dissenters as official sanction for their religion. See SPR, 2: 22-23. 1 2i A. S. Lebedev, Dukhobortsy y slobodskoi Ukrainie (Kharkov: Gubernskoe pravlenie, 1890), p. 12; "0 poselenii dukhobortsev v Novorossiiskom krae," Russkaia starina, 98 (May, 1899 ): 396.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87
were to be held only by Orthodox residents. In November of
I80I Senators I. V. Lopukhin and lUrli Aleksandrovich
Neledinskii-Meletskii (I75I-I828), the latter a minor poet,
were dispatched to Kharkov province to investigate the status
of the returning dissenters.
Lopukhin's account of his travels provides one of
the few glimpses of Doukhobor life available for this early
period. Proceeding to the city of Kharkov, Lopukhin and his
entourage spent a day and a night in Belgorod. Here the
Senator dined with two officials intimately connected with
investigations and "admonitions" of Doukhobors carried out
under Catherine II, the Kharkov diocesan bishop and a former
land ispravnik.Lopukhin "thoroughly" questioned the two
officials about the Doukhobors, but received little "satis
faction." The bishop's judgment of the sectarians was "very
severe," punctuated with "excessive fervor." The land
ispravnik's comments "consisted only of invective.
Arriving in the provincial capital of Kharkov,
Lopukhin immediately presented himself to the governor and
^^Platon, Present State, p. 250.
^^The zemskii ispravnik was the chief of the dis trict (uezd) police. The office was established as part of Catherine's provincial reforms of 1775. The ispravnik was elected (until 1862) by the nobility of the district. He was directly responsible to the provincial governor and, through the latter, to the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
6-87.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. requested various documents dealing with the past and present
status of Doukhobors in the province. Lopukhin learned that
during Catherine II's reign "several" of the local Doukhobors
were summarily imprisoned and "not returned." Under Paul, in
response to gubernatoral complaints, the general-prokuror^^
exiled entire Doukhobor households to penal servitude. In
August I8OI, however, the sectarians previously imprisoned
and exiled began returning to their former homes in Kharkov
province in response to Alexander’s wishes. In October,
Lopukhin learned, the newly returned Doukhobors began to be
"admonished" (uveshchat) by parish priests and officials of
the land police (zemskaia politsiia).
Lopukhin was disturbed by the rapidity with which
the provincial authorities began "admonishing" the returning
Doukhobors. He bluntly told the governor that rebellion
would surely ensue; the Doukhobors "did not have time to
rest quietly" before they were accosted by civil and
ecclesiastical officials. Lopukhin ordered the governor to
general-prokuror was the highest official in the central bureaucracy, supervising all activities. The office was created by Peter the Great in 1722. The general-prokuror's functions were taken over by the Minister of Justice when Alexander created the ministries in l802.
^^Lopukhin, "Zapiski," 87. The zemskaia politsiia was the rural police force established by Catherine II ’s provincial reforms of 1775. There were precise instruc tions as to how dissenters were to be "admonished." See Alexander V. Muller, ed. and trans.. The Spiritual Regulation of Peter the Great (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1972), pp. 23-26.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. recall the "teams" sent to the districts to "counsel" the
Doukhobors. The governor apologized to the Senator, but
noted that arrangements for the "admonishment" of the sec
tarians had been made in his (the governor’s) absence.
Lopukhin was assured that "there will be no violent
consequences.
The following day (c. November 12/24, 18OI) the
governor, "pale, with papers in hand," rushed to Lopukhin’s
lodgings with the news that a rebellion (bunt) had broken
out among Doukhobors in Iziumskii district, "where an
admonition was performed." The worried governor informed
Lopukhin that the sectarians, several of whom had already
been arrested, renounced recognition of the Tsar and Jesus
Christ, and vowed never to pay taxes or fulfill state obli
gations. The Iziumskii land court (zemskii sud) was
investigating the incident.
Lopukhin calmed the governor by assuring him that
this "rebellion" would be subdued and others prevented. The
problem, as Lopukhin saw it, was that the interrogations of
the Doukhobors were "needless" and "unskillful"; they
Lopukhin, "Zapiski," 87. The district "teams" in cluded a priest and a land court (zemskii sud) assessor. The latter was an official elected by the district nobility to serve on the zemskii sud. There were two assessors from the nobility on each court. In certain areas two assessors elected by state peasants also sat on the court.
^^Ibid., pp. 87-88. The nizhnii zemskii sud was part of the district police apparatus. It consisted of the police chief (zemskii ispravnik), two assessors elected by the no bility, and two assessors elected by state peasants (in areas where such abounded).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. served only to embitter the sectarians. The Senator defended
the Doukhobors by showing the governor that the "heretics"
were "full of reverence" toward Jesus Christ.Regarding
the Tsar (part of the "admonition" consisted of asking the
Doukhobors what they thought of the recent coronation),
Lopukhin noted that the Doukhobors' lack of respect and
understanding of all ceremony "is well known." Nevertheless,
as reports from the questioners indicated, the Doukhobors
considered all tsars as both good and evil; rulers were
created by God, as all men, but they represented divine
punishment for m a n ’s sinful nature. Questions concerning
taxes only served to embitter the sectarians for they,
"being now ruined and indigent," required aid themselves.
To alleviate the situation Lopukhin ordered the governor to
release the arrested Doukhobors and suspend the land court’s
inquiry. The governor agreed and departed, leaving
Lopukhin to compose a report to the Emperor.
Lopukhin’s first report to Alexander was dated
November 12/24, l801.^^ The Tsar was informed that the
governor received transcripts of interrogations and copies of Doukhobor psalms and "melodies." Lopukhin thus quoted from one of the psalms: ’’’We worship not the copper, silver, gold, or iron Christ, or the Christ of castings or the written word, but Christ the Son of God, Savior of the world.’"
^^Lopukhin, "Zapiski," 88-89 .
^^Lopukhin wrote that his companion. Senator Neledinskii-Meletskii, was "ill and still asleep" when the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91
Kharkov authorities did not fully understand the "direct
essence" of his ukases concerning the Doukhobors. Attempts
to admonish and convert these sectarians, "scarcely liber
ated from heavy bonds," created a highly unfavorable and un
fair image of them. The Doukhobors, only recently returned
from the hardship of exile, found themselves harassed anew by
bungling inquisitors. Thus, to their questioners the sectar
ians retorted with a "fanaticism" and "ferocity, which in
their hearts is nonexistent. ..." In truth, wrote
Lopukhin, the prejudices exhibited by the Doukhobors against
the established powers were much more apparent than real.
The sectarians "all display faith and reverence . . . for
the incarnate Lord." Moreover, from conversations with
Kharkov Doukhobors Lopukhin found "particular gratitude to
ward Your Imperial Majesty, [and] a readiness to obey monarh-
ical power and to fulfill all land obligations." Lopukhin
then outlined the remedial measures he ordered the Kharkov
governor to adopt. The report ended with several comments
which the Senator had relayed to local officials in explana
tion of Alexander’s "august will" concerning the "general
treatment" of Doukhobors. Central among these was the
first report to Alexander was written. When he awoke, and read an advance of Lopukhin’s report, Neledinskii-Meletskii, "in all his common sense and benevolence," found his com patriot’s conduct too lenient toward the sectarians. Never theless, "from a certain tenderness peculiar to his charac ter," Neledinskii-Meletskii agreed to support Lopukhin’s report.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92
injunction that spiritual dealings with the Doukhobors
should be carried out by priests "of true devotion and ardent
love for the law of God and Evangelical learning. ..."
Those clerics "excelling in the lustre of scholarly learning
and skill in [religious] disputes" must be kept from
antagonizing the Doukhobors.
Alexander received a second report from Lopukhin in
Kharkov dated December 3/15, I8OI. Sometime between his
first and second dispatches to St. Petersurg Lopukhin met for
a period of several days with a sizeable group of Doukhobors
from both Ekaterinoslav and Kharkov provinces. The Senator
met secretly with the dissenters so as not to arouse "unnec
essary inquisitiveness" in Kharkov’s Orthodox population.
He was impressed by the faith and the "very fundamental and
correct concepts of Christianity" displayed by the sectar
ians. Lopukhin, however, counseled caution when confronted
by the Doukhobors’ prejudice against external vestiges of
faith. "Agreeing with them . . . that everything essential
is contained within," he "convinced them of the necessity
and benefit of going to temples, fulfilling all outward
Lopukhin, "Zapiski," 89-91. Senatorial inspection teams possessed "almost unlimited powers." In the eighteenth century the Senate was empowered to initiate in spections; in the nineteenth, the tsar’s consent was re quired. See George L. Yaney, The Systematization of Russian Government: Social Evolution in the Domestic Administration of Imperial Russia, 1711-1905 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1973), p. 292.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93
obligations, and obeying all regulations of the church" in
order to avert Orthodox hostility. On their part, the
Doukhobors "took a liking" to Lopukhin, and they conversed
openly with him. Although "nearly no one" from the group
was able to read or write, "each" spoke "like a book" about
their tenets of faith. On the last day of their meetings
the Doukhobors presented a petition to Lopukhin in which
they asked to be established "in a separate colony." The
petition expressed the sectarians* "loyalty and real zeal
toward the soveriegn.
Lopukhin’s second dispatch ot the Emperor was a
skillful rendering of the Doukhobor request. The report
began with a hearty defense of the sectarians in the face of
unfavorable reports issued by Kharkov officials. As was
first suggested, wrote Lopukhin, the incident in Iziumskii
district was caused by a "premature admonition" of the Douk
hobors accomplished quite incompetently "with questions which
were imprudent and useless." The Senator then offered a
short explanation of the Doukhobor "manner of faith," noting
that although the sectarians rejected all outward manifesta
tions of religion, "they recognize the sovereign as delivered
from God and they consider it a duty to obey him, as well as
all other authorities established by him." Finally
Lopukhin relayed the Doukhobor request for a separate colony.
^^Lopukhin, "Zapiski," 91-92.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94
presenting two reasons for Alexander’s assent to the sectar
ians’ petition. Firstly, the Senator acknowledged the
ultimate goal of joining the Doukhobors to the Russian
Orthodox Church ”by means capatible with the true spirit of
Christianity.” Placing these sectarians in their own
settlement would facilitate such an end because competent
priests would be able to counsel them en masse. Such a
task, Lopukhin contended, would not be theologically diffi
cult ; "it is not so much necessary," he wrote, "to prove the
benefit and need of ceremony as [it is to prove] that no
ritual is able to obstruct the essential . . . inner worship
which is truly fundamental and which they [Doukhobors] do
not reject." Secondly, the Doukhobors’ dire economic plight
("Their poverty. Sire, is extreme. . . .") required the sort
of solution envisioned in the separate colony scheme. The
sectarians had returned to Kharkov propertyless and desti
tute. Their former belongings, ordered sold prior to exile,
were disposed of at confiscatory prices. In short, state
aid to the Doukhobors in the form of a separate colony
could help alleviate their "pitiful" economic plight while
demonstrating "great generosity" and a "holy respect for
mankind by an earthly ruler.
When he sent his second report to Alexander, Lopukhin
still had not received a reply to his first dispatch. The
^^Ibid. , 92-94.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95
Senator had grave doubts that the Tsar would accept his com
munications. He believed in the "sagacity and benevolence"
of the Emperor, but feared the influence of sycophants and
others "of the type who wish to curry favor" by denouncing
him (Lopukhin). Yet Lopukhin’s fears were groundless. On
the eve of their departure from Kharkov the senators received
a rescript from Alexander (dated November 27/December 9,
1801 ) expressing the Tsar’s "true gratitude" for their con
duct in the "Doukhobor affair." Citing his complete agree
ment with their principles and actions, Alexander charged
Lopukhin and Neledinskii-Meletskii with insuring that their
instructions were "put precisely into effect and serve as a
model of conduct for the local authorities in the future
when dealing with this type of people [Doukhobors]."^^
Concurrent with his rescript to the senators,
Alexander issued a ukase to the governor of Kharkov province.
Announcing his support for Lopukhin and Neledinskii-
Lopukhin wrote that "slanders and misunderstand ings" spread that he was "a great defender of any sect or schism." Just prior to the Senator’s trip to Kharkov an un named bishop announced to the Senate that Lopukhin was "a protector and supporter of all dissenters." The reason for this slander, wrote Lopukhin, was that he, in conversation with the bishop, denounced the use of "cruelty and corporeal torture" as methods of curbing dissent. See ibid., p. 95.
^^Ibid., p. 96 . Lopukhin noted that Alexander’s re script "calmed and pleased" the apprehensive Neledinskii- Meletskii. The latter subsequently wrote to the Emperor to admit that he was "not in the least" able to share in the Sovereign’s gratitude because he only signed what Lopukhin had written concerning the Doukhobors.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Meletskll, the Emperor ordered the governor "to accept their
principles and guidance" in all matters relating to the
Doukhobors:
Reason and experience long ago ascer tained that the intellectual fallacies of simple folk are only deepened by debates and elegant admonitions . . . but by degrees are obliterated and disap pear through good example and tolera tion. Here is the principle which the local authorities must strive to observe concerning the admonition of these Dou khobors upon their return to their homes [from exile]. These admonitions must by no means have the appearance of in terrogations or contests [conducted] in an open manner of violence . . . but we must subtly reveal ourselves to them through the good character of the clergy, through their lives, through their conduct ; and finally, in ordinary circumstances of conversation, we must direct [the Dou khobors] while seeming not to do so. . . .30
Furthermore, in order that this patient counsel be more
effective and to demonstrate to the Doukhobors that the
government cared for them, detailed information was to be
gathered by the governor on the dissenters’ economic plight.
Their general wants, housing and agricultural conditions,
and ability to pay taxes were all to be ascertained and com
municated to St. Petersburg. This information was to be
gathered "with discretion and common sense.
I. V. Lopukhin left Kharkov in late December of I8OI.
Predictably, his efforts on behalf of the Doukhobors met
with some opposition.. He wrote that his actions were
^°SPR, 2: 22. ^^Ibid., pp. 22-23-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97
rebuked by "learned monks," "pious elders," and "those who
think of themselves as philosophers and beyond— as they say—
prejudice." Lopukhin ignored the criticism until (the
precise date is unspecified) an unnamed Orthodox spokesman
blamed him in the Synod for the "harmful multiplication" of
Doukhobors. In response to his critics Lopukhin privately
circulated copies of an essay which he composed defending
his activities in connection with the Doukhobors. In July
of 1806 the piece was offered for publication in Alexander
Labzin’s journal, Sionskii vestnik, under the title "Glas
iskrennosti." Unfortunately, Sionskii vestnik closed down
before Lopukhin’s essay could appear. In I817 "Glas
iskrennosti" was published in the newly revived pages of
Labzin’s journal.
According to the "Glas iskrennosti," the source of
all religious differences is the "search for the best manner
of divine worship. ..." This search, unaccompanied by
"enlightenment," gives rise to two polar errors. At one
pole is the total absorption of the believer onto the
"sacramental path" where rites, regulations, and symbols are
deified, and superstitious, slavish worship of externals re
sults. Others fall into the error of the opposite pole.
"Understanding that the essential is not confined in the
^^Lopukhin, "Zapiski," 97-98
^^Barskov, "Lopukhin," 663.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. exterior, but not understanding the benefit of the exterior
and its necessity as a means for the internal, they reject
the external, they scorn imagery, but they do not grasp the
truth, they do not know the essential interior of the
spirit." The Doukhobors, Lopukhin contended, were caught in
the latter error. They failed to understand that pure con
templation of the Divine cannot be accomplished solely within
a body "defiled by sin." Such contemplation must be purified
by the cleansing of the body through external ritual. Thus,
"complete rejection by the Doukhobors of any exterior . . .
is a great error." Yet this error did not justify the
persecution suffered by the Doukhobors. "From the beginning"
these sectarians had outwardly observed "all external obli
gations of religion." Their spiritual errors were to be
countered by spiritual persuasion. Lopukhin’s actions
toward the Doukhobors were thus directed toward this end; oi| "never" did he "approve of a single sect."
Lopukhin’s "Glas iskrennosti" was a reasoned attempt
to explain the motives behind his actions on behalf of the
Doukhobors in I8OI. To a large degree, Lopukin’s motives
laid the basis for Alexander’s Doukhobor policy. Some
historians have unfortunately sought to exaggerate the
senator’s carefully delineated religious stance.These
^^Lopukhin, "Zapiski," 98 -IOI.
nosti" Lopukhin proclaimed the Doukhobors "to be hidden
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. artificial extensions of affinity between Lopukhin and the
Doukhobors contribute little to our understanding of both
during this critical period.
In 1801 the area known as "New Russia" comprised the
provinces of Kherson, Tauride, and Ekaterinoslav. The
region was bounded on the north by the provinces of Podolia,
Kiev, Poltava, and Kharkov, on the east by the Don Cossack
lands and the Sea of Azov, on the south by the Black Sea,
and on the west by the Dniester River, which separated it
from Bessarabia. Most of New Russia was composed of terri
tories gathered by Russia from Turkey under Catherine II
through the Treaty of Kutchuk-Kainardji (1774), the annexa
tion of the Crimea (1783), and the Treaty of Jassy (1792).
The northern portion of New Russia (northern Kherson
and Ekaterinoslav provinces) began to be settled substanti
ally by free Russian Old Believers in the period 1731-1756.
Around 1750 the government began actively to recruit a popu
lation to settle the northern New Russian region along the
Dnieper River. Old Believers from Moldavia and Poland were
saints of his new church." As we have seen, such an inter pretation is highly dubious. See Billington, Icon and the Axe, pp. 280-2 81.
^^Hommaire de Hell, Travels, p. 9 6 ; A. A. Skalkov- skii, "Russkie dissidenti v Novorossii," Kievskaia starina, 17 (1887): 777.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100
pardoned and Invited to return to Russia to settle in this
area. Between 1750 and I76O "significant numbers" of the
raskolniki established "crowded and rich settlements" on the
Zaporozhie frontier along the Dnieper. During the Russo-
Turkish war of 1769-1774 Old Believer settlements were
founded at the government's behest in various parts of what
would later be Kherson province.
Simultaneous with its recruitment of native dis
senters for settlement in New Russia, St. Petersburg adver
tised for foreign colonists. During the early part of
Catherine II's reign invitations for foreign settlers were
published in newspapers of various European countries, in
cluding England, Scotland, Denmark, Sweden, Austria, Holland,
and the German states. A manifesto of I763 offered foreign
colonists the opportunity to live in closed, self-governed
colonies. Religious liberty was guaranteed. In 1764 pro
fessional colonization agents began to be employed by the
government and a special bureau with an annual budget of
200,000 rubles was established to deal with problems arising
from the colonization effort.
^'^Skalkovskii, "Russkie dissidenti," 771-772.
^^Prank H. Epp, Mennonite Exodus: The Rescue and Resettlement of the Russian Mennonites Since the Communist Revolution (Altona, Man.: D. W. Priesen and Sons, 1962), p. 14; Robert Kreider, "The Anabaptist Conception of the Church in the Russian Mennonite Environment, 1789 -I87O," Mennonite Quarterly Review, 25 (January 1951): 21.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101
The first significant foreign group settled in Russia
was a group of the Moravian Brethren from the Hernnhut
colony. In September I769 the Brethren colony was estab
lished in Astrakhan where the Volga and Sarpa Rivers meet.
In 1770 a Hutterite colony migrated from war-ravaged
Wallachia (where the group had settled in I767) and
established a community about one hundred miles northeast of
Kiev.^^
The most important foreign colony in New Russia was
founded by Mennonites during the period 1788-1796. An ini
tial Mennonite settlement was placed along the Dnieper about
sixty versts from Ekaterinoslav. Later a second colony was
formed on the east bank of the Molochnaia River, north of
the Sea of Azov in the Melitopol district of Tauride prov
ince. In 1813 the "Milky Waters" Mennonites numbered 2,446
colonists in 17 villages. By I839 their number had grown to
6,649 in 23 villages.
Hommaire de Hell, Travels, p. 158; Bertha W. Clark, "The Huterian Communities," Part 2: Journal of Political Economy, 32 (August 1924): 479- The Hernnhut community was established on the Saxon estate of Count N. Zinzendorf in the 1720's. Hernnhut attracted a variety of religious separatists, and formed the core of the Moravian Brethren movement.
^*^Epp, Mennonite Exodus, pp. 14-15; Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1: 423-424; Hommaire de Hell, Travels, pp. 78-79.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102 The Mennonites in southern Russia enjoyed a largely
autonomous existence until the I830's. Management of the
colonies was largely in the hands of the colonists them
selves. The mayor (schulz) and two assistants formed a
court of original jurisdiction in civil and minor criminal
cases. The court could levy fines and labor sentences.
Except for felonies, tsarist police officials had no author
ity within the Mennonite settlements. The colonies were
exempt from military requisitions and were subject only to 42 those taxes which the colonists levied on themselves.
Under these conditions the Mennonite settlements in New
Russia grew and prospered, becoming what has been termed a
"spiritual and cultural monopoly" in the region. Certainly
the Germans were "a most industrious and religious class of 4 3 people, deservedly held in high estimation."
In 1801 New Russia was a recently acquired, sparsely
populated, and decidedly non-Orthodox region that St.
Petersburg was anxious to populate. Yet the government was
In 1838 the Ministry of State Domains replaced the Fifth Department of His Majesty’s Own Chancery, and the German colonies were placed with the state peasantry under its direction. This move ended the extensive autonomy hitherto enjoyed by the Mennonites.
^^Grellet, Memoirs, 1: 455; Kreider, "Anabaptist Conception," 24-25; PPSZ, 26: 19,873-
^^Kreider, "Anabaptist Conception," 22; Mary Holder- ness. New Russia. Journey from Riga to the Caucasus (London: Sherwood, Jones and Co., 1823), p. 161 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103
unwilling to abandon the area to natural population growth.
The beginning of the nineteenth century witnessed the whole
sale settlement of new lands through administrative
decree.Twenty years into the century and English
traveller, Mary Holderness, remarked that "the whole of the
government of the Taurida, with the exception of the Crimea,
is one united mass of colonization."^^
In January l802 Alexander agreed to the Doukhobors’
request that they be settled in a"separate colony." The
Tsar chose the Milky Waters region of Melitopol district in
Tauride province, near the recently established Mennonite
settlements, as the site for the Doukhobor colony. The
ukase announcing Alexander’s decision was issued on
January 25/February 6. Eight days prior, perhaps mindful of
the resentment and trouble that the colonization decree
might bring, the Emperor issued instructions that any
criminal cases involving dissenters that reached a criminal
tribunal (palata ugolovnogo suda) must be presented to the
Senate for review if the tribunal found the defendant
liii Yaney, Systematization of Russian Government, p. 149.
^^Holderness, New Russia, p. 107.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104
guilty. Such review was to occur before punishment was 46 actually executed.
The ukase which announced the establishment of the
Doukhobor colony was issued to M. P. Miklashevskii (I756-
1847), the civil governor of New Russia. The instructions con
tained two reasons for the Emperor’s decision. Firstly, Alex
ander was moved by "the ruin these people have suffered" to
grant their wish for a settlement. Secondly, the partitioning
of the Doukhobors from Orthodox society (for which end, in
1802 , the Milky Waters site was deemed wholly adequate) was
reckoned as "a reliable means" for the ultimate suppression
of the heresy. Isolated "on the abundant fields lying along
the course of the Molochnaia River," the Doukhobor sect 47 would surely whither and die.
The conditions under which the Milky Waters colony
was to be established were extremely favorable from the
SPR (1875 e d .), p. 21. There were three levels, or instances, of courts in pre-Reform Imperial Russia. Courts of the first instance, having original jurisdiction, included district courts (uezdni sud), city courts, guild halls, aulic courts, the peasants’ village and village district administra tion (volostnye sudy), and others. The variety of judicial bodies having original jurisdiction was "extravagant." The civil and criminal tribunals (palaty) represented the second level of the judiciary. This second instance was an appellate, or review, instance. The third instance, also having a review function, was the Ruling Senate. See Samuel Kucherov, Courts, Lawyers and Trials Under the Last Three Tsars (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1953), P P . 1-2, and "Administration of Justice under Nicholas I of Russia," American Slavic and East European Review, 7 (1948): 127.
^'^PPSZ, 26: 19,873.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105
Doukhobors’ standpoint. "Reliable, moral, and modest govern
ment officials" were to be chosen to assist the movement of
the sectarians to the appointed lands. Only Doukhobors were
to be settled in Tauride province, and "on all sides" they
were to be separated from "persecuting neighbors." Each
soul migrating to the Milky Waters was to be given up to
fifteen desiatinas of land. The Doukhobors were granted an
exemption from all state taxes for a period of five years
(to begin in l802). Each household was to receive a 100
ruble loan from the Treasury for expenses incurred in
travelling to the colony. Repayment of the loan was sus
pended for ten years. When this period of exemption expired,
the loans were to be repaid over twenty years so that each
year each household was obligated for no more than five
rubles. Finally, Doukhobor representatives were to be
escorted by state officials to the colony site immediately
to plan the settlement. Plans for the colony were to be
drawn up and submitted for Alexander’s approval.
In the early summer of l802 Governor Miklashevskii
forwarded plans for the Milky Waters colony to the Tsar.
Along the western bank of the Molochania River in Melitopol
district the Doukhobors were granted 4,940 desiatinas of
"favorable" (udobnyi) land and 566 desiatinas of "unfavor
able" (neudobnyi) land. On July 1/13 Alexander forwarded
formal approval of the colony plan to Miklashevskii. In his
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106
rescript to the governor the Tsar indicated that the names
of the villages to be established on the Doukhobor lands
could be chosen either by the sectarians themselves or
Miklashevskii. The village names, however, were not to con- 49 tain any "overt or improper" allusions to the sect.
The amount of land allotted for Doukhobor settlement
indicates the number of colonists the government initially
figured to locate in Tauride province. If the total land
grant of 5,506 desiatinas is divided by 15, the maximum
number of desiatinas allowed to each male colonist, we get a
figure of 367- Doubling this number to account roughly for
females, we arrive at a total of 734 adult colonists.
First to arrive at the Milky Waters was a group of
30 families numbering 296 colonists from Ekaterinoslav
province. This contingent established the village of
Bogdanovka.Soon after, more Doukhobors, from Ekaterino
slav and Kharkov provinces, arrived, and to the fledgling
colony were added the villages of Spasskoe and Troitskoe.
By l808 nine villages composed the Milky Waters colony.
Five of the settlements, Bodganovka, Spasskoe, Troitskoe,
Terpenie, and Tambovka, lay along the Molochnaia River
49"P"Poselenie dukhobortsev na r. Molochnoi," Russkaia starina, 100 (October 1899): 240.
^^Novitskii, Dukhobortsakh: ikh istoriia, pp. 63, 83. Skalkovskii is mistaken in naming Terpenie as the initial village. Terpenie was not founded until l805 when a group of Tambov Doukhobors arrived in Tauride province.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107
proper. Pour were positioned on the estuary of the river
where it met the Sea of Azov. These were the villages of
Rodionovka, Efremovka, Goreloe, and Kirilovka.^^
Permission to settle at the Milky Waters was ini
tially granted only to those Doukhobors residing in the
provinces of New Russia. The January 25/Pebruary 6, l802
ukase was not a blanket permission for all "spirit
wrestlers. Gradually, however, the government extended
the 1802 privileges. Predictably, new groups of Doukhobors,
whether composed of charlatans or the heretofore secreted
faithful, appeared in many places. The Milky Waters colony
ultimately came to include sectarians (and those professing
to be) from Tambov, Voronezh, the Don lands, Astrakhan,
Penza, Tver, Kherson, Archangel, Siberia, and elsewhere.
Doukhobors in jail and those belonging to the state peas
antry had apparently little trouble in getting to Tauride
province. Those belonging to private landowners, naturally.
Ibid., p. 83; Skalkovskii, "Russkie dissidenti," 778. Such names as Bogdanovka ("God’s Gift"), Terpenie ("Patience"), and Troitskoe ("Of the Trinity") indicate that the Doukhobors chose their village titles carefully and, in some cases, symbolically.
^^Elina Thorsteinson, "The Doukhobors in Canada," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 4 (1917-1918): 10; PPSZ, 27: 20 ,123.
^^Buhr, Origin, p. 24; Novitskii, 0 dukhobortsakh, pp. 2 6, 29-30; Vladimir Snesarev [Harry Trevor], Doukhobo'rs in British Columbia (Vancouver: University of British Columbia, 1931), pp. 4-5.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108
Alexander’s treatment of the Doukhobors, so different
from that of Paul, had a profound effect on the sectarians.
’’They reiterated among themselves that this change was a re
sult of persuading the government of the truth of their
teachings. ..." Orest Novitskii’s research into the sect
turned up a variety of odd and eccentric behavior during the
initial period of Alexander’s benevolence (1802-1804). Some
Doukhobors, of course, remained "calmly complacent" in the
knowledge of a benign tsar. For others the period of tolera
tion evoked a chiliastic fanaticism and zeal born of years
of meek suffering.
In Saratov province a self-styled Doukhobor prophet
persuaded a group of followers, including women and children,
to sequester themselves in a cave which was thereupon set
afire. The intended sacrifice was prematurely halted, but
not before a number of the zealots died of suffocation.
Those repenting their actions were forgiven and returned to
their homes. The "depraved" were exiled to hard labor.
In Astrakhan in l802 a "mob" identified as Doukho
bors suddenly emerged from a village marketplace and began
spreading (rasseivat) their doctrine among the locals.
Hauled into court, the Doukhobors refused to recant their
"errors." Moreover, they refused to recognize the
^^Novitskii, 0 dukhobortsakh, p. 28.
^^Ibid., p. 29.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109
court’s— or any other— authority over them. The majority of
the offenders were pardoned by the Emperor. The leaders of
the demonstration were deported to the Kola peninsula.
Interestingly, a local assessor who entered into ’’careless
and totally unnecessary’’ discussion with the Doukhobors on
the topic of ’’supreme power’’ was ordered dismissed. Hence
forth no one was to ’’bring up such absurdities of reason
with simple people.
In the summer of l802 the Tambov Penal Chamber for
warded a Doukhobor disobedience case to the Senate for
review in accordance with Alexander’s instructions of
January 17/29, l802. A peasant named Diakov and his family
had expressed "obvious disobedience" toward their landlord
and "displayed during [their] trial disobedience to all
legal authority, originating from errors of faith." The
Senate, investigating further, learned that Diakov was
turned over to the authorities by his owner after announcing
his conversion to Doukhoborism to the local priest during
Easter. The unfortunate Diakov household was exiled to the
ninsula.
Outbreaks of aberrant Doukhobor activity attending
the sect’s "emancipation" by Alexander were noticeable, but
not common. Generally, the Doukhobors were "calmly
^^Ibid., pp. 28-29; PPSZ, 27: 20.545.
^'^SPR (1875 ed.), pp. 21-24.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 110
complacent" and content to reap the benefits of Alexander’s
benevolence within the limits set forth. There is evidence
that not a few charlatans posed as Doukhobors and succeeded
in gaining the benefits of settlement at the Milky Waters. This
contention is especially strong in Doukhobor oral tradition.
Vladimir Snesarev was told by Doukhobors at Brilliant,
British Columbia (c. 1931) that common murderers and thieves
were released from prison to go to the Milky Waters. "The
contemporary Doukhobors,’’ Snesarev found, "speak with great
bitterness about this fact," and regard pseudo-Doukhobors as
the main cause of the colony’s problems in the I8 3O ’s.
The historian Eli Popoff, himself a Doukhobor, contends that
indiscriminant permission for those professing to be
Doukhobors to be settled at the Milky Waters led to reper
cussions which "are felt within the Doukhobor movement to
this day.
One of the areas in which new groups of Doukhobors
appeared during the initial years of Alexander’s reign was
Tambov province. Because only those Doukhobors living in
the New Russian provinces were initially permitted to settle
in Tauride, the formulation of a policy dealing with those
^^Snesarev, Doukhobors in British Columbia, p. 5.
^^Popoff, Exposition, p. 8.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ill
residing elsewhere was necessary. In February of 1803 the
Tsar began devising such a policy upon being informed by
Minister of Internal Affairs V. P. Kochubei (1768-1834) of
the existence of considerable numbers of Tambov Doukhobors.
In a preface to his instructions to Governor
Palitsyn of Tambov, Alexander wrote:
A general rule accepted by me in contrast to my [autocratic] heritage consists of . . . not regarding [diver gences from Orthodoxy] as heresy, but as breeches in the general safety and order. From this basis you must pro ceed in all matters relating to the raskolniki.60
Firstly, Palitsyn was to insure, with the assistance of the
diocesan bishop, that all Tambov villages containing Doukho
bors were serviced by "gentle and moral clergy." The
Doukhobors were to be converted through the kindness and
"holy living" of exemplary priests, not through "disputes
and coercion." Secondly, the civil authorities were to
guard against Doukhobor proselytism. Sectarian temptation
of the Orthodox or any expression of contempt or insolence
toward the Orthodox clergy were not to be tolerated.
Thirdly, in the absence of any evident disruption of social
order, the Doukhobors were not to be harassed. Lastly,
Palitsyn was ordered to insure, insofar as it was possible,
that encounters between priests and dissenters which might
^°PPSZ, 27: 20,692.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. lead to "disputes and discord" be avoided. Specifically,
priests were not to visit Doukhobor homes.
The terms of the February I803 ukase indicate that
conversion of the Doukhobors was not uppermost in Alexander’s
mind. As the "Most Pious, Most Orthodox Tsar," he of course
advised the use of exemplary priests to convert (obratit) the
sectarians "to the path of truth." The remaining instruc
tions, however, were concerned with the maintenance of public
order and the non-harassment of the sectarians. These aims
were to be achieved by avoiding that intercourse between
priests and the Doukhobors necessary for conversion. The
reference to conversion was subdued and essentially defen
sive in nature and it can only be regarded as a concession
Ibid. In 1792 three Kharkov Doukhobors sketched an image of an ideal church in which there were "no drunken and insulting pastors and teachers . . . nor such evil dis positions and corruptions as among [the Orthodox]." Various nineteenth century accounts of the parish clergy lend support to the Doukhobors’ generalization of a vile and drunken parish priesthood. It was this image (or reality) which Alexander’s instructions to Palitsyn sought to combat. Novitskii maintained that Alexander’s tolerant attitude toward the Doukhobors was echoed in the actions of the Orthodox clergy. "The [Church] hierarchy in the very begin ning of the present [nineteenth] century," Novitskii asserted, "showed in their relations with the Doukhobors a spirit of particular gentleness and Christian love . . . and even the admonitions and explanations [of the errors of Doukhobor faith] were offered in calm and tranquil conversa tions." See Charles F. Henningsen, Revelations of Russia: or. The Emperor Nicholas and His Empire in l844, 2 vols. (London : Nenry Colburn, 1Ü44), Ti 324 ; Robert Lyall, Travels in Russia, the Krimea, the Caucasus, and Georgia, 2 vols. (London, T. Cadell, n.d. ), 1: 6; Pinkerton, Rus'sla, p. 1 8 0 ; Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, pp. 107-108.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 113
to Orthodox elements. Alexander was personally reluctant
"to do violence to conscience.
On August 21/September 2, l803 Alexander issued
further instructions to the Tambov authorities. Citing what
he believed to be police incompetence as the main reason for
various unspecified problems with Doukhobors in the province,
the Tsar wrote to the new Tambov governor, Koshelev:
If in your actions with these people [Doukhobors] you are able to discern tolerance from neglect and inattention to errors of reason from indulgence, then you will find the supreme and essential rule [to guide] your be havior toward them, and a large part of the difficulty and complaints will be ended. 63
The policy, then, created by the February and
August 1803 ukases to deal with Doukhobors not as yet per
mitted to migrate to the Milky Waters was one of patient
tolerance geared toward the maintenance of public order
rather than conversion. The efficacy of this course, how
ever, would never be known. In l804 agents representing
Doukhobors residing in Tambov province carried a petition
to Alexander requesting permission to be settled in the
Tauride colony of their brethren "in order to avoid insult
and persecution."^^
^^PPSZ, 27: 20,629. ^^Ibid., 27: 20,904.
^^Ibid., 2 8: 2 1 ,5 5 6. The ukase cited herein applied only to Tambov Doukhobors. As quoted in the SPR, however, the decree applied to Voronezh province Doukhobors as well.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114
The Emperor agreed to the request. He reasoned that
by means of such migration, a source of dissension in Tambov
would be removed and the Doukhobors, being settled in one
place, would be more easy to control. The Doukhobors them
selves were allowed to designate the precise time of their
migration to the Milky Waters "so that the majority of their
number is dispatched to there, and so that in such a manner
this sect does not leave behind [in Tambov] any of its
following.
The conditions under which the Tambov Doukhobors
were settled in Tauride were similar to those imposed on the
first colonists. Each male soul was given up to fifteen
desiatinas of land and all those settled were granted an
immunity from all state taxes for five years (to be computed
from 1 8 0 5 )• The Tambov Doukhobors, however, were not
allotted a travel loan. Those moving to the Milky Waters
had to pay their own way. Representatives from the Tambov
group were sent to Tauride before the main body to survey
and choose lands for settlement.
The Tambov Doukhobors began moving to the Milky
Waters at the beginning of I8 0 5 . During the course of the
year almost 500 sectarians made the journey. However, con
trary to Alexander’s expressed wish, not all of the
Doukhobors left Tambov. In 1 806 the Ministry of Internal
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 115
Affairs received a complaint from Doukhobors in three Tambov
villages that local authorities harassed and impeded their
efforts to migrate to the south. Moreover, the officials
extorted money from the sectarians. Presumably the com
plaints were remedied. This would not be the last time, how
ever, that the Doukhobors would suffer from the venal
Imperial officialdom.
Among the group of Tambov Doukhobors to arrive at
the Milky Waters were Savelii Kapustin (1743-1820), his son,
Vasilii Kalmykov, and his father-in-law, the odnodvorets
Nikifor Kalmykov. At the Milky Waters Kapustin apparently
retained the authority that he attained following the exile
and death of his father, Ilarion Pobirokhin. Kapustin
founded the village of Terpenie which became the administra
tive and spiritual center of the Milky Waters colony. In
Terpenie Kapustin built the so-called "Orphan's Home"
(Sirotskii Dorn), a hermitage originally intended to support
elderly or destitute Doukhobors. The Orphan's Home was also
used as a training center where young girls were taught
Doukhobor psalms.
^Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: ikh istorii, pp. 65-66. The venality and corruption of the Russian bureaucracy that afflicted the Doukhobors throughout their history in Russia is legendary. For contemporary accounts by foreign travel lers see Henningsen, Revelations of Russia, 1: 106-113; Holderness, New Russia, pp. 119-121, and Lyall, Travels, 1 : 91-9 6 .
^^Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, pp. 65, 83-84.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116
Kapustin is known as the Moses or "Law-Giver" of the
Doukhobors. Born in Tambov province in 1743, Kapustin was a
tall man with a "youthful build." He served in a guards
regiment from which he deserted when about thirty years of
age. The name "Kapustin" was evidently adopted to foil
attempts to trace the young deserter. Livanov, citing as
evidence a "secret note" of a Melitopol district (Tauride
province) police official, connected Kapustin's service in
the guards with his discovery of "European freethinkers"
that buttressed the Doukhobor concepts he learned from his
father. By all accounts Kapustin's intellect was second
only to an eloquence which "conquered all who only saw and
heard" him. The Doukhobor leader is often likened to the
Anabaptist prophet, John of Leyden.
Considering the diversity of people assembled at the
Milky Waters (including those merely posing as Doukhobors),
Kapustin's remarkable abilities matched a grave need. He
was aided, of course, by subordinates, including his father-
in-law, Nikifor Kalmykov. Yet the main factor in the coal
escence of the colony was Kapustin himself. By force of
his eloquent and magnetic personality he was able to mold a
"complete theocratic government" at the Milky Waters from
^Popoff, Exposition, p. 11; Livanov, "Tambovskie molokane i dukhobortsy," 264-266; Skalkovskii, "Russkie dissidenti," 779.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117
characterization from information supplied by neighboring
Mennonites in 1843:
Kapustin's distinguished personal and natural qualities, his genius and elo quence, soon gained him the supremacy of authority and command : all subjected themselves willingly to him, and he ruled like a king, or rather a p r o p h e t . 71
The decision to allow Tambov Doukhobors to settle at
the Milky Waters opened the way for others. In l804 members
of the sect living in Voronezh province were apparently
given permission to join their comrades (see note 64, p. 113).
In February l805, in response to a query from Ekaterinoslav
governor P. I. Von Berg, Doukhobors living in the fortress
of Azov, excluding those in military service, were granted
passage to the Milky Waters. In this instance Alexander
hastened to add that the "settlement is [to be] accomplished
without any restraints. . . ." Azov Doukhobors, however,
were granted only a two year tax exemption.
The increased influx of Doukhobors to the Milky
Waters colony prompted the issuance of further instructions
to Tauride officials. In December l804 Alexander ordered
Popoff, Exposition, p. 12.
"^^Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1: 289.
Doukhobors were in active communication with Doukhobors liv ing in neighboring cities and the governor deemed such contact detrimental to the state's interest.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 118
that Doukhobors "arriving afresh" in Tauride province be
settled as near as possible to their comrades at the Milky
Waters. A "precise declaration" was to be made to the
Doukhobors that once settled they would receive no further
assistance from the government. Furthermore, all sectarians
migrating henceforth to the colony would do so at their own
expense. While Tauride authorities must "protect the
colonists from all restraints and be favorable to their
settlement," care was to be taken that the Doukhobors did 73 not harbor fugitives or attract others to the sect.
Although the Doukhobors received favorable treatment
in the establishment of the Milky Waters colony, they re
tained obligations to the state. Primary among these, in
the temporary absence of tax obligations, was the duty to
provide military recruits. Theoretically, the Doukhobors
were pacifists. Insofar as the essence of Christ, acknow
ledged or not, resided in every man, it was the most heinous
of sins to take human life. Still the Doukhobors bent to
necessity. There appear to have been no large-scale inci
dents of refusal to perform military service or even bear
arms. Doukhoborism was, however, identified as the cause of
several isolated revolts involving individuals or small
groups.
^^Ibid., pp. 30-31.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119
In 1805 Emanuel Herzog Richelieu (1766-1822),
governor-general of New Russia, "pleaded” to Minister of
Internal Affairs Count V. P. Kochubei that Doukhobors re
siding in Tauride's Melitopol district (site of the Milky
Waters colony) be released from recruit obligations for a
period of five years. Richelieu was convinced that such
action was justified because so many of the Milky Waters
colonists had just returned from banishment and exile and
were generally physically unfit for military service.
Kochubei forwarded Richelieu's report to Alexander. The
Tsar, however, did not agree with his governor-general's
estimation, and refused to dismiss the Melitopol Doukhobors
from military obligations. He recommended that sectarians
be assigned to naval service should any prove "unsuitable" 74 for army duties.
The Milky Waters Doukhobors apparently fulfilled
their recruit obligations with few problems. As occurred in
Orthodox communities, the Tauride colony at times satisfied
its recruit quotas with thieves, slackers, and other
undesirables. In I8 13 three of the Milky Waters villages
petitioned that they be allowed to substitute money for
recruit bodies on the basis of an 1 8 OI law which permitted
^ Ibid., pp. 32- 3 3. Richelieu, who returned to ser vice in the French government in lSl7, was "much beloved" by his charges in New Russia. See Grellet, Memoirs, 1: 475.
75Livanov, Raskolniki i ostrozhniki, 4: 338-339.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120
such for "frontier" villages lying within a 100 verst zone
stretching along the Russian border from the Black to the
Baltic Seas. As a result, the communities of Goreloe,
Kirilovka, and Efremovka were exempted from providing re
cruits for a period of twelve years. Instead, the Doukhobors
paid compensatory sums ranging from the legally established
figure of 360 rubles to an exorbitant 1,000 rubles per
recruit. The three villages, as we shall see, lost their
exemption in 1825.
In January l806 four Penza province appanage
peasants (udelnye krestiane)'^'^ tapped for recruit duty de
clared themselves to be Doukhobors and refused to take the
oath for military service. The Tsar ordered the induction
of the four peasants anyway and ruled that henceforth
Doukhobors were to be taken into the military without the
administration of the oath.
The first recorded instance of Doukhobor refusal to
bear arms occurred in l807 when several of the sectarians
declined to take up weapons against the Turks. In that same
year two Cossacks, declaring themselves Doukhobors, refused
direct orders from their superiors and renounced submission
to all military authority. The rebels were sentenced to
~^^PPSZ, 27: 20,019; 39: 30,320.
owned by the Imperial family.
^^SPR, 2: 33-34.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121
death by a military court, but the sentence was commuted and
the two were exiled to a monastery. In l809 three Doukho
bor privates in a Kiev garrison regiment refused to accept
ammunition for their weapons and were sentenced to Siberian
exile. This rebellion prompted Alexander to punitive action.
He ordered that all Doukhobors in military service be admon
ished as to the gravity of disobedience to their superiors.
First offenders were to be punished with hard labor. Then,
"if after this they should persist in their opinion," the
recalcitrants were to be sent to work in the Nerchinsk
mines.
In 1817 Voronezh Doukhobor Simeon Matrossov was
presented by his landlord for military service, but he re
fused to take the oath. This prompted St. Petersburg to
reiterate that Doukhobors were to be accepted for service
"without being compelled to take the oath." The I817 ukase,
however, specified that such Doukhobors were to be sent to
units serving in the Caucasus.Such was the fate of a
number of peasants belonging to a cavalry officer named
Kologrivov who cited adherence to Doukhoborism as the reason
for their refusal to be handed over as recruits in I8 1 8.
"^^Elkinton, Doukhobors, p. 246; Novitskii, Dukho- bortsy: ikh istoriia, pp. 116-117.
^°PPSZ, 3 0 : 2 3,8 5 6. ^^SPR, 2 : 5 2.
^^Opis del arkhiva Gosudarstvennogo Soveta (St. Petersburg! Gosudarstvennaia tip. , 1 9 0 B), Î! 262,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 122
In 1820 the familiar refrain was repeated again:
Doukhobors refused to take the oath for military service.
This time the Department of Laws of the State Council
(Gosudarstvennyi Sovet)^^ reviewed the issue. Predictably
the Council reaffirmed all previous decisions. "In every
circumstance where the Government requires an oath from its
citizens," the Doukhobors were to comply with the imposed
obligations without being forced to take an oath. If the
sectarians committed crimes while fulfilling their obliga
tions, they were to be punished as if, in fact, they had
taken the oath. Alexander approved the State Council’s
decision on January 8/20, 1820.^^
Available accounts of Doukhobor disobedience in the
military show that most of the offenders were not Milky
Waters recruits. Incidents of disobedience were isolated,
perpetrated by individual (and perhaps opportunistic) zeal
ots. The Milky Waters Doukhobors under Kapustin’s
^The State Council was established by Alexander in March of I8OI. Composed of twelve members, the Council’s chief (and nebulous) function was to review all important affairs of state. M. M. Speranskii’s reforms of I8 1 O em powered the Council to examine drafts of all proposed laws and regulations before their submission to the tsar. Its purpose, however, remained consultative. The Council was divided into four departments dealing with laws, military affairs, economic matters, and civil and ecclesiastical affairs.
^^PPSZ, 37: 2 8,0 8 6 ; S. V. Maksimov, Materialy dlia istorii russkago sektantstva. Delo o dukhobortsakh nakhodi- ashchikhsia v Sibiri, 1817-1820g. (Riazan: Tip. bratstva sv. Vasiliia, 1897), pp. 21-22.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123
authority were apparently loathe to jeopardize their newly
won position by engaging in a wholesale campaign of dis
obedience.^^ Moreover, there is some evidence that Doukho
bors were used in non-combative positions, such as in
hospitals or as teamsters. Tauride Molokans told Stephen
Grellet in 1819 that none of their sect inducted into the
army actually bore arms, being used instead mainly in supply
positions.In any case, the Doukhobors were much more
fortunate than the Skoptsy in terms of military obligations;
any of the latter found actually castrated were to be 87 inducted into the army.
Although the establishment of the Milky Waters
colony formed the basis of St. Petersburg’s Doukhobor policy,
the founding principle of the Tauride effort, accommodation
bellious acts in the military ’’fell to the Doukhobor sect generally, because [such incidents] were not the result of particular, accidental circumstances, but were truly the fruit of inspiration of Doukhobor teachings about authority and soldiers.’’ Such a contention, insofar as it implies a coordinated pacifist campaign on the part of all Doukhobors, is unfounded. See Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, p. 117. ^^Lally Bernard [Mary Agnes Pitzgibbon]. The Canadian Doukhobor Settlements: A Series of Letters (Toronto: William Briggs, 1899), P. 9; Grellet, Memoirs, 1: 450-451.
^'^PPSZ, 29: 22,422; S m , 2: 34.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 124
through isolation, transcended the confines of southern
Russia to effect the lives of Doukhobors elsewhere. Insofar
as a discernible policy evolved for Doukhobors outside the
Milky Waters after the abortive Tambov effort of I8 0 3, it
tended to be more restrictive and less benign. Indications
of such a policy appeared during the years 1 8 0 5 -I8II.
In 1800 a group of Doukhobors from the Perekop dis
trict of Tauride province was exiled to the Ekaterinburg
mines by Paul.In I805 this group, comprising 20 males
and 13 females, petitioned the Tsar for permission to be
settled at the Milky Waters. A commission established by
Alexander to examine former penal affairs received and re
viewed the Doukhobors* request. The commission judged that
the transfer of the sectarians from Irkutsk province (where
they now resided after being moved from Ekaterinburg) to the
Milky Waters would be very "inconvenient" because of the
large distances involved. Furthermore, it was learned that
when the Perekop group was exiled, ten children belonging to
the sectarians were ordered to be placed under the care of
the Tauride police and clergy to be raised in the Orthodox
faith. The return of the parents, the commission decided,
would almost certainly lead to "perverse treatment" of the
children. Besides these reservations, it was noted that the
exiles— since their removal to Irkutsk— were regular
PPSZ, 25: 1 9 ,0 9 7 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 125
taxpayers and were not undergoing hard labor. Thus,
Alexander was advised to refuse the petition of the Perekop
Doukhobors.
The Emperor agreed with his commission’s judgment,
but was unwilling to let the matter stand. In a ukase of
July 2 8/August 9, l805 he ordered the Irkutsk authorities to
set aside lands for the Perekop Doukhobors and to settle the
group on the designated site on the same basis as the Milky
Waters colonists were established. To aid Irkutsk officials
Alexander forwarded a copy of the instructions originally
given to Governor Miklashevskii for the founding of the
Milky Waters settlement. The Perekop Doukhobors were to
receive the same rights and privileges as the Tauride
colonists.
The Irkutsk affair indicated the extent of Alex
ander's commitment to the policy of accommodating Doukhobor
wishes by effecting their isolation. It also showed limits
to the Tsar’s willingness to accommodate. These limits were
to be observed in other contexts.
In 1 8 0 7 , two years after the establishment of the
Perekop colony, the Tsar ordered Siberian authorities to
deliver to Siberian military service any Doukhobors there
^Ibid. , 2 8: 21,845.
^^Ibid. As to their children, Alexander ordered the Tauride governor to report their location and status to the Senate.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 126
engaged "In evident temptation, violating the general order
and tranquility. . . In I8IO Doukhobors at the Milky
Waters petitioned for the return from Siberia of several of
their colleagues exiled for "adhering to the Doukhobor
heresy." Alexander solicited a report on the matter from
the Irkutsk governor and learned that the Doukhobors in
question had been exiled for "misleading" other peasants to
the sect. He denied the Tauride Doukhobors’ request. In
181 1 the Emperor prescribed exile to the Kola district of
Archangel province for any Doukhobor enticing others to the
sect. Those only "contaminated by this heresy," however,
were to be sent to the Milky Waters.^A s these decisions
indicate, the obvious reason for Alexander’s unwillingness
to accommodate Doukhobors found outside the protective con
fines of the Milky Waters was his desire to maintain the
"general safety and order" of the Empire. The Tsar had no
intention of tolerating, or even overlooking, Doukhobor
criminal activity. The Milky Waters, the boundaries of
which formed a cordon sanitaire, was a haven only for those
guilty merely of "errors of reason."
by reports of the spread of Doukhoborism in Siberia. 92 SPR, 2: 36-3 7.
of age belonging to those exiled to Archangel or sent to Tauride province were to be placed in garrison schools (males) or nunneries (females).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127
If the government was wary of Doukhobors residing
beyond the isolation of the Milky Waters, it was equally
concerned about the potential dangers of repentent Doukho
bors. During Alexander’s reign it is difficult to identify
a wholesale conversion effort of the type Nicholas I
embarked on later. Steps were taken, however, to insure
that those Doukhobors who did happen to convert to Orthodoxy
did not become liabilities.
The pattern of the state’s response to Doukhobor
conversions to Orthodoxy was first outlined in I8O6 . The
widow and son of an odnodvorets had previously been exiled
to the Kola region of Archangel province by a Caucasus court
for Doukhoborism. The widow, Daria Skuratova, declared her
repentence and conversion to the Orthodox faith. The son
announced a similar repentence shortly thereafter. It was
decided to return the exiles to their former residence in
the Caucasus. The ukase (April 12/24, 1 8 0 6 ) decreeing
Skuratova’s return ordered several steps to be taken before
she and others following a similar course in the future were
moved. Archangel ecclesiastical authorities were ordered to
examine the widow and son to insure the truthfulness of
their declared conversion. After being satisfied, church
officials were to report the conversion to the Synod and to
the secular authorities. The latter were to arrange for
Skuratova’s transfer to the Caucasus. Spiritual authorities
in the Caucasus were to be notified of the widow’s impending
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 128
return in order that they might place her under strict obser
vation and supervision. On this basis Skuratova and all
repentent "renegades from Orthodoxy" were to be dealt with.
After 1 8 0 6 , then, the conversion of exiles from
Doukhoborism normally occasioned a carefully supervised
return to one’s former place of residence. The norm, how
ever, was not without exceptions. Sometimes it was deemed
wise to keep repentent Doukhobors in their places of exile.
There were at least two cases in which Don Cossacks, exiled
for Doukhoborism, were not returned to the Don lands. In
1807 a Cossack named Nazarov recanted his adherence to the
heresy, but was assigned to military duties in Vyborg near
the place of his exile. About the same time a Don Cossack
exiled to Olonets province was "restored" to Orthodoxy, but
he too remained in his exile residence.
In sum, the government’s policy of accommodation
toward the Doukhobors, begun with the founding of the Milky
Waters colony in 1802, was soon qualified with measures of
caution. These cautionary measures were designed primarily
to prevent the spread of the sect, a development St.
Petersburg considered dangerous for social stability. A
wholesale attack on Doukhoborism, however, was never
^^Ibid., 2 9 : 2 2,0 9 2 .
^^Ibid., 29 : 22,732; Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, pp.1 1 0 -1 1 1 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129
undertaken. Conversions to Orthodoxy were studiously 96 monitored, but not actively sought.
Blanket permission was never given for all Doukho
bors within the Empire to migrate to the Milky Waters. Bulk
migrations of the sectarians, involving hundreds, apparently
lapsed for a period of about eleven years after the transfer
of the Tambov Doukhobors to Tauride province in 1 8 0 5 .
Thereafter, the government was peppered with petitions from
individuals and small groups all requesting transfer to the
Milky Waters. Novitskii’s researches in the archives of
the Ministry of Internal Affairs turned up a number of such
requests.
^Novitskii argued that St. Petersburg did in fact undertake an active campaign for the conversion of Doukho bors. He maintained that (1) the major obstacles to con version were sectarian fears of reprisals by their former brethren and anxiety over the loss of economic security within the community which conversion would entail, and (2) that the decision to return repentent Doukhobors to their former homes (from either exile or the Milky Waters) was a conscious attempt to overcome these obstacles. He further asserted, on the basis of an unspecified source, that about forty households of Milky Waters Doukhobors were enticed to convert and return to their former residences. The question revolves largely around one’s interpretation of the state’s disposition of converted Doukhobors, e.g., the Skuratova case. Certainly a campaign of the type undertaken by Nicholas I ’s government involving carefully chosen mission aries was never considered by Alexander. In 1824 the Tsar did, however, make conversion more attractive by allowing repentent dissenters to settle wherever they wished. See Novitskii, 0 dukhobortsakh, pp. 42-43, and Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, pp. 109-110; SPR, 2: 82.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130
A veritable campaign to gain admission to the Milky
Waters was undertaken by three Doukhobors from Penza province
in 1 8 0 5 . Odnodvorets Ivan Stupnikov and appanage peasants
Gavrilo Ivanov and Vasilii Nikimin presented a series of
three petitions to Internal Affairs Minister V. P. Kochubei
over the course of two years (I8 0 5-I8 0 6 ). The petitioners
claimed that they found "not the least kinship" living among
their Orthodox neighbors. They complained of constant
harassment involving verbal abuse and the disproportionate
selection of recruits from among their families. The
Doukhobors noted that they had complained to Penza authori
ties about such abuses, but had received no answer. They
wished, thus, to be settled at the Milky Waters.
An investigation of the affair revealed that neither
the local authorities or the Department of the Appanage
(udel)^^ had received complaints from the Penza Doukhobors.
It was further learned that "many people" in Penza were
calling themselves Doukhobors in a vain attempt to escape
recruit duty. Thus, D. A. Guriev (1737-1825), head of the
Appanage Department, refused the Doukhobors’ request in
October, l809.^^
lands owned by the royal family. All peasants residing on such lands were under the supervision of the Appanage Department.
^^Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, p. 115.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 131
The Penza affair, although typical insofar as it
expressed the common complaints of harassment of Doukhobors
everywhere, was atypical in that the petitioners failed.
As Novitskii’s researches show, individual Doukhobor requests
for transfer to the Milky Waters were normally granted. No
doubt many of the petitioners succeeded because of geography.
Requests from Skaterinoslav (l805) and Tambov (l8l5) ,
provinces previously allowed to send all of their Doukhobors
to the Milky Waters, were honored. Another reason for
granting these petitions, and others from Doukhobors living
elsewhere, was the desire to prevent the ’’contamination’’ of
the Orthodox. In I8IO seventeen Cossack Doukhobors from
the Don lands were allowed to go to the Milky Waters. In
1815 sixty of the dissenters from Archangel were dispatched
to Tauride province. Other, more specific motives often
prompted the state’s decisions. In I819 two Doukhobor
women whose husbands were taken for recruits in I817 were
permitted to settle at the Milky Waters. These unfortun
ates, owned by a private landowner, were apparently
ostracized by their Orthodox neighbors following their
husbands’ induction.
^^One possible reason why the Penza Doukhobors were refused was that the petitions were submitted in the name of all Penza Doukhobors. The granting of such a request would have entailed the migration of all Penza Doukhobors, a move the government obviously did not relish in I8 0 9 .
^^^Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, pp. 66-71.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 132
As certain of the above cases Indicate, Doukhobors
living outside the Milky Waters suffered mightily at the
hands of their Orthodox peers. Novitskii wrote of a "totally
hostile" relationship between Doukhobors and the rest of the
nation. A most cruel and effective device for dealing with
individual dissenting households within the commune was to
levy inordinate recruit obligations on them. The usual pro
cedure for choosing the recruit quota levied on a commune
involved drawing lots or following a pre-set list of those
eligible. Yet landowners and communes had the right to send
any of their number to military service without adherence to
normal procedure. Those deemed lazy, troublesome, or
dangerous by their neighbors were readily packed off to the
army. Religious dissenters were especially liable to such
a fate. Thus, the only viable alternative for many
Doukhobors was to petititon for removal to the Milky
Waters.
Interestingly, admission to the Milky Waters colony
was not the sole aspiration of many Doukhobors during the
first half of Alexander's reign. In January I8II two Tambov
Doukhobors, odnodvorets Grigorii Loponosov and appanage
peasant Pavel Surkov, presented a petition to Alexander
Lord and Peasant, pp. 466-467, and John Shelton Curtiss, The Russian Army under Nicholas I, 1825-1855 (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1965), p. 234.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 133
asking that a Doukhobor colony, on the Milky Waters model,
be established in Bessarabian lands "newly conquered from
the Ottoman Porte by the victorious [army] and arms of Your
Highness. ..." The petitioners claimed to represent the
wishes of over 3,000 Doukhobors, "and perhaps even more,"
than residing in the provinces of Tambov, Saratov, Riazan,
Astrakhan, Orenburg, and Voronezh. Loponosov and Surkov
suggested two possible areas for the new settlement: along
the southern banks of the Danube near the city of Tulcea or
along the river’s north bank between the cities of Izmail
and Kiliya.^*^^
St. Petersburg seriously considered the Doukhobor
petition. The matter was brought before the Committee of
Ministers in April l8l2. There it was decided that the
circumstances of a possible war against France, with the
potential for a Bessarabian area of operations, made it im
possible to grant the Doukhobor request.There is
evidence, however, that some Doukhobors illegally crossed
the Turkish border and established settlements on islands in
Petition quoted in Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, pp. 6 8-6 9 . According to Surkov and Loponosov, the bulk of the Doukhobors, 1,666 males and 1 ,0 6 3 females, who wished to be settled in the Danube area were from Saratov. Those who expressed such a wish from Tambov included 154 males with households of an unspecified number. Saratov Doukhobors, unlike their brethren in Tambov, were never given blanket permission to go to Tauride province.
^^^Ibid. The Grande Armée invaded Russia on June 12/24, l8l2.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 134
the Danube. In 1834 Izmail city authorities reported to St.
Petersburg that a group of 522 Doukhobors and Molokans,
"suffering from want and need" on their island refuges,
wished to return to Russia and be settled in Tauride 104 province.
The existence of over 3,000 ("and perhaps even more")
Doukhobors in provinces other than Tauride did not escape
the attention of the government. It is probably no coin
cidence that in April of l8ll, three months after Loponosov
and Surkov tendered their petition, Alexander imposed harsh
penalties on any Doukhobors found enticing others to the
sect. Other measures followed, all designed to facili
tate the state’s efforts to confine the spread of religious
dissent. In June l8ll the newly formed Ministry of Police
was given jurisdiction in "affairs concerning dissent
ers. The "special chancellery" (osobennaia
VPSZ, 10: 8 ,0 9 6 . Dissenters in this area were a source of unceasing irritation to Nicholas I. In 1847 the Emperor ordered the Ministry of Internal Affairs to under take "secret observation" of dissenters in the southwestern Ukraine and "to take without delay measures for the cessa tion of their harmful dealings with Bukovinian raskolniki." "Foreign raskolniki" from Bukovina were apparently crossing the border "for talks" with Russian sectarians. Nicholas was worried about unspecified "harmful intentions" on the part of foreign dissenters. See SPSR, 2: 179.
nikh del, 3 vols. (St. Petersburg: Tip. ministerstva vnutrennikh del, I8 5 8-I8 6 3), 3: Part 4, pp. 78-79»
1 0 6 p ^ , 24,590. ^°'^Ibid., 31: 24,687.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 135
kantsellarlla), a secret police apparatus that the head of
the new ministry. General A. D. Balashev (1770-1837), was
authorized to create, presumably had its hand in dissenters’
activities. One year later a Ministry of Police circular
informed provincial administrations that registers of dis
senters were to be forwarded to the Ministry once a year on
the first of January. The circular emphasized that infor
mation on dissenters was to be gathered carefully and with
the "least publicity" to insure accuracy. We should not,
however, exaggerate the influence of the Ministry of Police.
Balashev was not a particular favorite of Alexander’s; there
is no evidence that the Tsar concerned himself much with the
activities of the Police Ministry or its "special
chancellery." In the countryside, neither the Ministry nor
the chancellery "was greatly feared.
The "special chancellery" exercised authority over all existing police organizations. Within the lineage of Russian secret police organizations Balashov’s apparatus was direct heir to Paul’s "secret office" (tainaia ekspedit- siia) which Alexander abolished in 1 8 OI. See N. P. Eroshkin, Ocherki istorii gosudarstvennykh uchrezhdenii dorevoliut- sionnoi Rossii (Moscow: Izd. ministerstva prosveshcheniia RSFSR, I960), pp. 1 8 1 , 203-204, and P. S. Squire, "Nicholas I and the Problem of Internal Security in Russia in 1826," wnSlavonic and East European Review, 38 (June I960): 433- ^°^8PR, 2: 40-41.
^^*^Squire, "Problem of Internal Security," 434, 436.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 136
Information as to the disposition of the Milky Waters
colony during the first half of Alexander’s reign is sketchy.
The isolation imposed on the Doukhobors by the government
was effective. We do have, however, the experiences of the
Reverend Robert Pinkerton, who visited the Tauride colony in
1 8 1 6 . Pinkerton was in Russia at the time under the aus
pices of the British and Foreign Bible Society. He along
with John Paterson provided the impetus for the establish
ment of the Russian Bible Society in I8l2-l8l3 in St.
Petersburg.
Pinkerton visited two villages at the Milky Waters,
one of which was Terpenie. His recorded impressions are
brief, forming a random compendium of his conversations
with the Doukhobor colonists and their Mennonite neighbors.
Pinkerton was acquainted with Doukhoborism prior to his
visit.
In 1 816 Pinkerton found the Milky Waters Doukhobors
to be settled in eight villages with a total population of
2 ,5 0 0 residents. His general impression of the colony
was highly favorable. The Doukhobors’ "neat and clean
dress," he wrote, "comfortable-looking huts, and industrious
habits, their numerous flocks, and extensive and well-
Pinkerton’s translation of Platon’s Present State containing an appended essay on Doukhobor religious beliefs was published in I8 1 5 .
1816 there were nine Doukhobor settlements at the Milky Waters.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 137
cultivated fields, widely distinguish them from the common
Russian peasantry." In every aspect, the Doukhobors veri
fied the opinion of their Mennonite neighbors that they were
"a peaceable and industrious people. . . .
Pinkerton found the Doukhobors proficiently disci
plined in matters of faith and doctrine. The first sectar
ian he encountered was a female, whom he met on the
approaches to an unidentified Milky Waters village.
Pinkerton inquired of the woman "where the chief person of
the place resided." She answered with the brief platitude
that " ’among us, no one is greater than another.’" The
second Doukhobor Pinkerton met was an elderly shepherd tend
ing a flock of sheep. The Englishman asked the man whether
he was able to read, and received the rather nebulous re
sponse that ’’’yes,'" he could " ’read the word of life.’’’
Pinkerton thereupon wrote that he "naturally assumed that
the old gentleman could read the Bible, and that he offered
the sectarian a tract on the Russian Bible Society. The
Doukhobor refused the document, "saying that he could not
read our books, but only the book of life which he had
learnt by heart. ..." Pinkerton then began a discussion
of the chief doctrines of the sect "as given in [his] work
^^^Pinkerton, Russia, pp. I6 7, I6 8.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 138
on the Greek Church." He found that the old Doukhobor could
repeat some of the articles "distinctly.
As these encounters indicate, Savelii Kapustin was
apparently successful in molding a doctrinal unity among the
disparate elements of the colony. On their part, the
Doukhobor rank-and-file appeared satisfied, even grateful,
with their fate. Pinkerton talked with a man who, after
sixteen years of Siberian exile, "spoke with great feeling,
when contrasting his former sufferings with his present
prosperous circumstances.
The doctrinal proficiency of the Milky Waters
colonists was matched by an equally proficient reservedness.
"Their whole aspect, and manner of intercourse with
strangers," Pinkerton found, "indicate a degree of shyness
and distrust which is quite extraordinary; hence, also,
their evasive answers to all direct inquiries respecting
their sect." Neighboring Mennonites as well were disturbed
by the "reserve and shyness" of the Doukhobors. Pinkerton
rationalized that such reservation was the natural fruit of
years of "severe persecution." Possibly because of his
evident familiarity with their religious tenets, Pinkerton
Ibid., p. 166. The reference is to the tract, probably written by I. V. Lopukhin, contained in Pinkerton’s translation of Platon’s Present State
^^^Pinketon, Russia, pp. 167-168.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 139
was addressed "warmly" by some of the Doukhobors. They
dutifully advised him against the use of images in worship.
Pinkerton learned that the Doukhobors' "shyness and
distrust" gave rise to various vague rumors and accusations
on the part of their neighbors. The sectarians were sus
pected of "immoral habits" because "in speaking of females and
children they did not use the common expressions of ’My
wife,’ ’My child’ . . . but ’My sister,’ ’Our child’ ..."
Moreover, the Mennonites accused the Doukhobors of being
hypocrites because they denied the fact when some of their
number were convicted of drunkenness. When Pinkerton con
fronted the Doukhobors with these charges they remained un
disturbed. " ’We are accustomed,” ’ they said, "’to every
kind of false accusation. ' "
In the second Milky Waters village he visited,
Pinkerton entered "one of the best-looking houses. . . ."
He discovered that he was in the "chancery, or place where
the civil affairs of the sect are transacted." Although he
does not name the village. Pinkerton must have been in
Terpenie, with the house he visited being the so-called
"Orphan’s Home." Here the Englishman asked to see some of
the Doukhobor "seniors." This request was viewed suspic
iously by the sectarians present, but Pinkerton was received
by one of the Doukhobor Elders. The meeting was brief, but
^^^Ibid. , pp. 1 6 8 , 1 6 9 . ^^"^Ibid. pp. 1 6 8 -I6 9 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 140
one point of significance was recounted. The Elder whom
Pinkerton encountered had just returned from St. Petersburg
where he had been "a deputy to the Government." As to the
functions of the "deputy," nothing was said; yet the fact of
a Milky Waters representative, however unofficial, in the
capital is significant. Apparently the Doukhobors were en
gaged in a primitive lobbying effort in St. Petersburg. The
Elder mentioned a senator "and other gentlemen" who had
shown "kindness" to him and a small delegation of his com
rades during their stay in the city.
Alexander's establishment of the Milky Waters
colony was a landmark in Doukhobor history for it wrought
the first and only mass gathering of the sect. The nucleus
thus formed on the southern reaches of Tauride province
would grow and prosper. A portion of this nucleus would
ultimately leave Russia for the Canadian prairies. The
formation of the colony, however, did not mean an end to the
Doukhobors' problems. Already in 1 8 1 6 , during the reign of
benevolent Alexander, "intrigues were on foot in order to
ruin them. ...",.119
118 . Ibid., pp. 1 6 6 - 1 6 7 . ^^^Ibid., p. 1 6 9 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER IV
"INTRIGUES WERE ON FOOT. . . .":
THE DOUKHOBORS IN THE REIGN OF
ALEXANDER I, PART 2
Count Alexander Andrault de Langeron (I7 63-I8 3I) was
one of many French emigres who fled to Russia during the
French Revolution. He ultimately became a general in the
Russian army and participated in the capture of Paris in
l8l4. Langeron returned to Russia following the French cam
paigns. In November I815 he was appointed governor-general
of Kherson, Tauride, and Ekaterinoslav provinces, military
governor of Kherson province, and gradonachalnik of Odessa.^
See "Lanzheron," Russkii biograficheskii slovar, 10: 6 0 -6 5, and Eric Amburger, Geschichte der Behordenorgan- isation Russlands von Peter dem Grossen bis 1917 (Leiden: Brill, 1 9 6 6 ), p. 400. The office of general-gubernator was established by Catherine II in 1775. Although these offi cials were personal representatives of the tsar and superior in authority to the provincial governors, Catherine initi ally appointed only twenty to rule over forty provinces. When Paul ascended the throne he relieved the governors- general of their duties. Alexander I resurrected the office in the borderlands and in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Mili tary governors (voennye gubernatory) were appointed in provinces where military rule was deemed necessary. Although these officials were rare in European Russia, they continued to function in Siberia and the Caucasus until 1917. The authority of military governors was superior to that of civil governors. The gradonachalniki possessed wide admin istrative powers in those cities in which they were established. With authority equal to that of provincial
I4l
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 142
A contemporary regarded the Count as "an excellent general,
but better fitted for the field of battle than for the
management of civil affairs. In I816 Langeron proposed in
his capacity as governor-general of New Russia that the
Doukhobors be evicted from Tauride province for leading
"dissipated lives.Pinkerton's portent of "intrigues"
against the Doukhobors was not idle speculation.
Based on evidence supplied by two informers,
Langeron charged the Doukhobors with actively recruiting
Orthodox converts. "Whole households" of Orthodox apostates
were supposedly discovered in Tauride province who, under
questioning, asserted that one Savelii Kapustin ("a retired
corporal") was their "tutor." In July of I816 a Melitopol
land court assessor entered Terpenie and arrested the
seventy-three year old Kapustin. The district court in
Orekhov questioned Kapustin, severly ill at the time, for
weeks, but no evidence supporting the charges was gathered.
Nevertheless, Langeron recommended to A. D. Balashev,
governors, the gradonachalniki were subordinate only to the Ministry of Internal Affairs or the governors-general. Special duties of these officials included the supervision (nadzor) of trade and commerce. See Yaney, Systematization of Russian Government, pp. 71-73, and Eroshkin, Gosudarst vennykh uchrezhdenii, p. 226.
^Skalkovskii, "Russkie dissidenti," 7 8O.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 143
Minister of Police, that the Doukhobors be moved. 4 Ekaterinoslav Archbishop lov supported the Count.
When the Doukhobors learned of Langeron's charges,
they immediately dispatched a series of counter-charges to
Alexander. The sectarians reminded the Tsar of his ukase
of November 26/December 8, l801, which directed that they be
"left in peace" and protected from "all insults" against
their religion.^ This meant, argued the Doukhobors, that
the imprisonment and interrogation of Kapustin were illegal.
Moreover, the refusal of Orekhov authorities to provide
proper medical care for the sick and elderly Doukhobor
amounted to torture. The petition further claimed that
eighteen innocent Doukhobors had been imprisoned (at the
prompting of a few "slanderers") for propagating the faith,
only to be later released "without any recompense" for the
injustice. The Doukhobors also asserted that on the night
of February 11/2 3, l8l6 an Orthodox priest, accompanying a
land court assessor, appeared drunk and "committed various
indecent acts" while attempting to borrow a horse and cart
in the village of Terpenie. Finally, in a direct thrust at
their chief accuser, the petitioners told of a meeting
between Langeron and two envoys from the Milky Waters where
^Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, pp. 87-89, 108-109.
^The ukase is found in SPR, 2: 21-23.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 144
the annoyed governor-general claimed that if he were tsar,
he would shoot all the Doukhobors "with cannon and muskets.
In October I816 Alexander ordered the Committee of
Ministers to conduct a full Investigation of the affair.
This action brought three Immediate developments. Firstly,
Kapustin was released from jail on ball and Immediately went
Into hiding. Secondly, the affair of the drunken priest was
Investigated by Spiritual Affairs Minister A. N. Golitsyn,
and the unfortunate clergyman was dispatched to a monastery
for four months. Lastly, the Taurlde provincial governor,
following a personal Inspection of the Milky Waters, re
ported to the Ministry of Internal Affairs that Langeron’s
charges against the Doukhobors were "groundless." He
recommended that the sectarians remain In his province.^
On December 9/21, 1816 Alexander Issued two ukases
dealing with the Milky Waters Doukhobors. These landmark
decisions were designed to prevent the occurrence of another
Langeron affair, and they reflected a continuing faith In
those principles which prompted the Emperor's Initial re
solve to establish the Taurlde colony. The first decree
ordered the transfer of all responsibility for the Milky
Waters settlement from the Ministry of Police to the
^Petition quoted In Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: Ikh Istorlla, pp. 88-90.
'^Ibld. , pp. 9 5 -9 6 ; Livanov, Raskolnlkl 1 ostrozhnlkl 4: 3 3 2.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 145
Ministry of Internal Affairs. Under the new administration
"all manner of care for the disposition and preservation
[sokhranenle] of these colonies" was to be taken so "that
the colonists are given the benefit of the protection of the
law. . . . As we noted previously, Alexander was never
too keen on the Ministry of Police or Its head. General
Balashev. The Tsar no doubt believed that the Doukhobors
would receive more solicitous treatment under the Ministry
of Internal Affairs' management.^
The second ukase of December 9/21, I816 was addressed
directly to Count Langeron. After acknowledging the Count’s
recommendation that the Doukhobors be moved and alluding to
the sectarians’ counter-petition, Alexander launched Into an
explanation of why the Taurlde colony was established. The
Tsar wrote that the settlement of the Doukhobors at the
Milky Waters occurred partly because of the misery which the
group had suffered, "and partly In consideration of their
protection from Improper and useless claims In regard to the
manner of their religious beliefs." The formation of the
colony, moreover, marked the Isolation of the sect and the
end of Its proliferation.^^
°PPSZ, 33: 26, 549.
^The Ministry of Police was abolished In October of 1819 and Its entire apparatus was absorbed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. See PPSZ, 3 6: 27,964, and Eroshkln, Gosudarstvennykh uchrezhdenll, p. 204.
^°PP8Z, 33: 2 6,5 5 0 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 146
"For the past several years," Alexander continued,
"the Government has received no complaints from any side re
garding disorders, and has every reason to suppose that the
measures adopted are wholly adequate." Local authorities
"of various provinces spoke repeatedly of the Doukhobors In
an altogether favorable manner regarding their behavior.
..." "Certainly" the Doukhobors, though having a "zeal
for God," are In error:
But Is It proper for a Christian Govern ment to attempt the return of those In error to the bosom of the church through brutal and coarse means, through tor ture, banishment, and other similar meth ods? The doctrine of the Savior of the world, appearing on earth . . . to save the lost. Is not able to be realized by force and oppression. Is not able to be employed for the ruin of the lost, whom It seeks to change to the path of truth. True faith Is produced by the grace of God through conviction. Instruction, kind ness, and most of all through good ex ample. Cruelty . . . never persuades, but embitters more. All measures of severity, exhausted on the Doukhobors In the thirty years before I8OI, not only failed to destroy this sect, but more and more In creased the number of Its followers.Ü
These reasons "prove It sufficiently clear" that the Doukho
bors did not deserve expulsion from Taurlde province. What
the sectarians did warrant was protection from all false
charges prompted by their religious dissidence.
The ukase then directed Langeron to conduct an
Investigation of the Doukhobors In "the spirit of true
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 147
Christianity." The entire "manner of life and behavior" of
the Milky Waters colonists was to be examined In order to
determine "securely" their future disposition. The Count
was to be discerning In evaluating Individual reports and
charges ; In particular, the accusations of Informers, former
Doukhobors converted to Orthodoxy, were to be carefully
examined for possible motives "of malice and revenge." If
the Milky Waters colonists were actually discovered to be
hiding deserters or attracting others to the sect, they were
to be dealt with accordingly. Such proceedings, however,
were to be conducted so that the Innocent did not suffer un
justly. In every case the Doukhobors must be "able to feel
that they live under the security and protection of the laws;
only then Is It possible to expect from them love and
alleglence to the Government. . .
The December 9/21, I816 ukase to Langeron was
Alexander's most forceful and elegant statement In behalf of
the Doukhobor cause. In no uncertain terms the decree pre
scribed toleration and protection for a dissenting religious
minority In Imperial Russia. The significance of the
rescript did not escape the attention of those In St. Peters
burg who happened to read It. The French ambassador, the
Comte de Noallles, reported on March 4/l8, I817 that the
December document on the Doukhobors "merits attention
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 148
because of the principles of religious tolerance which It
establishes.„13
Early In I817 Count Langeron set about his appointed
task of Investigating the Milky Waters colonists. He
ordered the governor of Taurlde province to appoint reliable
officials to determine whether the Doukhobors were providing
refuge for fugitive peasants, deserters, and convicts. For
this task the governor chose the chief of police of the
Crimean town of Bakhchisarai, Ananich.
The Initial stages of Ananich’s Investigation were
devoted to determining the whereabouts of Savelll Kapustin.
After his release from jail the Doukhobor leader myster
iously disappeared. Aware of Kapustin's position within the
Milky Waters community, and mindful of the original charges
of proselytlsm leveled against him, Ananich was naturally
curious as to the fate of the Doukhobor "Law-Glver."
The Doukhobors told Ananich that Kapustin died on
November 7/19, l8l7 In Goreloe and was burled the following
day. The policeman was evidently Inclined to accept the
Noallles' report Is quoted In Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich, Imperator Aleksandr I. Opyt Istorlcheskogo Issledovanlla, 2 vols. (St. Petersburg: Ekspedltslla zagotovlenla gosudarstvennlkh bumag, 1912), 2: 260-261. The text of Alexander's decree was published In a St. Petersburg newspaper.
^^Novltskll, Dukhobortsy: Ikh Istorlla, p. 9 6 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 149
Doukhobors* story, but the court assessor who had originally
taken Kapustin Into custody In the summer of I816 was
skeptical. The assessor's attempts, however, to uncover In
consistencies In the Doukhobors' account of Kapustin's death
were unsuccessful. All those questioned faithfully recounted
the same story. Kapustin's alleged grave was finally opened
In an effort to settle the matter. The corpse showed the
deceased to be a red-bearded male ; Kapustin was known to have
had brown hair with no beard. Yet even In the face of this
evidence, the Doukhobors remained adament: Kapustin, they
repeated, died on November 7/19, I8 1 7. The authorities were
apparently unwilling to press the matter. The face and
figure of the corpse "were no longer recognizable," thus 15 precluding positive Identification.
The matter of Kapustin's death might have ended on
this Inconclusive note had not Haxthausen visited Taurlde
province some twenty years later. From the neighboring
Mennonltes Haxthausen learned what the authorities evidently
suspected, that Kapustin lived beyond I8 1 7, cloistered In a
hiding place. After I8 1 6 , It was learned. KaputstIn's wife
lived for a period of years on an Island at the mouth of the
Molochnala River, about three miles from the village of
Terpenle. Periodically, "persons of most consideration
^^Llvanov, Raskolnlkl 1 ostrozhnlkl, 4: 334-335; Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1: 291.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 150
among the Dukhobortzi" (probably the Elders) applied for
passports for the ostensible purpose of leaving the colony
to purchase horses. The authorities became suspicious, sus
pecting secret rendezvous between the supposedly deceased
Kapustin and his subordinates. At least once officials
searched the residence of Kapustin's wife, but found nothing.
Finally, In l820 a Mennonlte happened upon a cave on a
Molochnala River Island, and learned that Savelll Kapustin
had. In fact, spent the final four years of his life there.
The Doukhobor leader died In 1820. Haxthausen visited the
cave In 1843. The hiding place was evidently maintained as
a sort of shrine after Its occupant's death, for a bed and
stove still remained.
In keeping with the Instructions given to Langeron
In the December 9/21, l8l6 ukase, Ananich examined the
"manner of life and behavior" of the Milky Waters colonists.
In his report to the Taurlde civil governor, Lavlnskll,
Ananich touched upon almost every facet of the Doukhobors'
lives. He noted that the sectarians did not conduct worship
services In a church, but gathered for the purpose In
various places. Religious services were not patterned from
any literature; the Doukhobors did not have a "Book of
Divine Service." Regarding their economy, Ananich found
"all" the sectarians "Industrious" In their various
^^Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1: 291-292.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 151
agricultural pursuits. He was particularly Impressed with
their herds of livestock. The policeman reported that there
was one "chief" (golova) for all nine villages of the
colony. Each village was headed by one elected official.
The duties of the golova and the nine elected village heads
consisted of tax collection, executing the orders of the
district land court, and performing "all types of correc
tions." Ananich closed his dispatch by claiming that theft,
robbery, and "corruption due to drunkenness almost never
happen" among the Taurlde Doukhobors.
Governor Lavlnskll received Ananich's report In
December of I8 1 7. The following month the governor himself
visited the Milky Waters colony and forwarded a report of
his findings to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Lavln
skll 's report generally echoed that of Ananich. The gov
ernor related In more detail the manner of Doukhobor worship
services and noted the general legal and economic
efficiency of the colony. "The manner of life and behavior
of the Melitopol colonists," Lavlnskll wrote, "Is clearly
distinguished from [that of] other [Orthodox] residents.
Lavlnskll's report went on to answer charges that
the Doukhobors harbored deserters and fugitives and
attracted others to their heresy. Regarding the first
4: 18 Ibid., pp. 3 36-3 3 7.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 152
accusation, the Governor reported that forty Individuals
were Interrogated due to suspicion of their being deserters,
but that all were deemed Innocent. Moreover, It was learned
that two Informers, who had figured In Langeron's charges
and who had originally cast suspicion on the forty suspects,
were renegade Doukhobors ostracized from the colony for
stealing. Regarding alleged attempts by the Doukhobors to
attract others to the sect, Lavlnskll reported that up to
sixty Orthodox laborers were regularly employed by the Milky
Waters colony without occasioning any conversions. Moreover,
the village of Alexandrovsk, wholly Orthodox and surrounded
by the Doukhobor villages, remained completely free of
heretical Infection. Finally, Lavlnskll noted that the
Doukhobors did not "make the least obstruction" to those
wishing to leave the fraternity; In fact, the Orthodox
Church had already received over thirty of the group.
Upon learning of Lavlnskll's favorable report on the
Doukhobors, Count Langeron reaffirmed his previous (I8 1 6 )
position on the matter In a memorandum to the Ministry of
Internal Affairs:
The Doukhobor sect I judge [to be] very dangerous for the Christian re ligion and for morality In general. Its followers are not raskolnlkl, ad hering to Christian principles, but are people having no religion; they have neither a church or clergy, and they do not accept the sacraments. In con sequence, as I previously reported, and
^^Ibld., pp. 337- 3 3 9 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 153
I at present remain of the same opinion, they [Doukhobors] should move to an other area, where the residents are not Christian. . . .20
In support of his position Langeron Included with his memor
andum a copy of a statement by Ekaterlnoslav Archbishop lov.
The Archbishop supported the active suppression of the
Doukhobor sect, and called for an Immediate end to all hiring
of Orthodox workers by the heretics. In addition, lov ad
vised the "vigorous prosecution" of all Orthodox Christians
who converted to Doukhoborlsm. Minister of Internal Affairs
0. P. Kozodavlev received Langeron's memorandum cooly. He
dutifully Informed the Committee of Ministers of the
Langeron-Iov protests, but noted that the Doukhobors were
guilty only of religious dissent, not of criminal activity.
The Langeron afflar (I8 1 6 -I8 1 8) marked the first
serious challenge to the Doukhobors’ existence at the Milky
Waters. Certainly the personal attitude and policies of
Alexander contributed to the ultimate failure of Langeron’s
assault. However, the Tsar’s reaffirmation of his l802 de
cision to establish the Milky Waters settlement, which
practically assured the colonists of an untroubled existence
as long as the Sovereign lived, was as much a function of
the Doukhobors’ actions as It was of the Emperor’s character.
p. 100.
21. Ibid., pp. 100-101.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 154
The reports of Ananich and Lavlnskll Indicated, as did the
success of the Doukhobors In concealing Savelll Kapustin, a
degree of cohesiveness which the sect rarely approached In
Its subsequent history. This cohesiveness. In turn, created
a life style that "clearly distinguished" the sectarians
from their Orthodox neighbors and duly Impressed tsarist
officials.
The Internal unity which the Doukhobors attained by
1 81 6 approached that of a political entity. A measure of
the protonational consciousness of the Milky Waters colony
was revealed In a curious Incident during the spring of 1 8 1 7 .
In December of 1816 Alexander decided that "the nomenclature
designating the Melitopol colonists [as] Doukhobors Is not
proper. ..." Because the Doukhobors were only one group
among many colonists settled on the New Russian border under
control of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, they should be
referred to "simply" as Melitopol colonists In all official
correspondence.
The Doukhobors were outraged at Alexander’s purely
administrative decision. They Immediately composed a peti
tion wherein they expressed pride In their ancestors’
endurance of violence and mockery for the name "Doukhobor."
They noted further that the appellation served to distin
guish them from the Orthodox and other dissenters who
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 155
worshipped the crude externals of true religion. In May of
1 817 the Tsar repled diplomatically that "the Melitopol
colonists are not forbidden to call themselves Doukhobors."
He refused, however, to revoke the ukase of December l8l6.^^
The defeat of Langeron In December of I816 signaled
official recognition of the Milky Waters colony’s right to
exist. The settlement thereby gained a measure of security
that would last at least as long as Alexander remained on
the throne. Doukhobors living In other parts of the Empire,
however, were not so fortunate. Langeron was not the only
bureaucrat who frowned on St. Petersburg’s Doukhobor policy.
As the years passed, access to the Milky Waters became In
creasingly difficult as recalcitrant officials and land
shortages served to frustrate the hopes of many who sought
admittance to the Taurlde home of their brethren.
In May of I816 Afanasll, Bishop of Penza, reported
to the provincial governor that one of his priests had dis
covered a "large number" of Doukhobors "who with every hour
propagate and Increase themselves. ..." The heretics,
Afanasll continued, refused to attend church services In
cluding Holy Communion, denied priests entry Into their
homes, refused to baptize their Infants, lived with wives
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 156
"arbitrarily, without a wedding," and "fearlessly" mouthed
abuses at their Orthodox neighbors and Icons. The Bishop 2 4 requested an Immediate Inquiry Into the situation.
Afanasll also reported the Doukhobors' existence to
A. N. Golitsyn, then Ober-Procurator of the Holy Synod.
Golitsyn In turn Informed the Ministry of Police of the
matter, and recommended that the "major Instigators" within
the Penza sect be sent to the Milky Waters "without . . .
any punishment." All the other Doukhobors were to be en
trusted to the "particular attention" of the local authori
ties who were to bring about "by decent means" their conver
sion to Orthodoxy. The Penza governor, upon receipt of
Golitsyn's recommendation from the Ministry of Police, asked
Afanasll and the Penza Udel Bureau manager to provide him
with a list of the names and residences of the Doukhobor
leaders. The Udel Bureau replied with a petition from fifty-
one Doukhobors In nine households requesting their transfer
to the Milky Waters. Beyond this the Bureau noted the
existence of eight Doukhobor households which did not
express a wish to leave Penza.
Mikhail Mikhailovich Speranskll became governor of
Penza In the fall of l8l6. A former seminary student.
N. Evgrafov, ed., "Penzenskle dukhobortsy v l8l6 godu (Otzyvy Speranskago, knlazla A. N. Golitsyna 1 0. P. Kozodavleva)," Russkll arkhlv, 27 (1889): 389-390.
^^Ibld., p. 390.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 157
Speranskll was on excellent terms with the Bishop of Penza
and was dutifully concerned with local Orthodox Church In
stitutions.^^ After being briefed on the Doukhobor situa
tion, the new governor wrote to D. A. Guriev (1751-1825),
Minister of Finance and head of the Department of the
Appanage (udel). He complained to Guriev that the Udel
officials In Penza were apparently encouraging the Doukho
bors to seek admittance to the Milky Waters, a total un
acceptable policy. "I know only one method for the
suppression of schism," Speranskll wrote, "[and] It consists
of this: parishes Infected by It must be staffed by priests
of exemplary lives, gentle. Instructive, uncontentlous, and
secure In their maintenance.
Guriev replied that 0. P. Kozodavlev, Minister of
Internal Affairs, had been Informed of the Penza situation
by Prince Golitsyn, and had declared his support of the
Ober-Procurator's Initial recommendation. Further, Kozodav
lev, "In the spirit of true Christianity" and mindful of
Alexander’s ukase of December 9/21, l8l6, had written:
Countless examples In the history of the church, and In the very events with those called Doukhobors, show clearly the uselessness of all brutal and vio lent measures of severity. It Is possl-
^^Marc Raeff, Michael Soeranskv: Statesman of Imperial Russia 1772-1^39 (The Hague : M. Nljhoff, 1957), p. 241.
^"^Evgrafov, ed. , "Penzenskle dukhobortsy," 390-391.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 158
ble to expect that these-or other devi ates from the Orthodox church-wlshlng and determining sincerely to convert to It, when seeing that we who reckon our selves Its faithful sons are not guided by the spirit of Its Head . . . then these erring people [will] quickly see them selves as martyrs of the true faith [and will not] agree to retreat from their manner of thought concerning religion and to be joined to that church whose adherents act so contrary to the doc trine of Christ....
Guriev then expressed his "full agreement" with Kozodavlev,
and asked Speranskll to arrange for the migration of all
Doukhobors In Penza wishing to go to the Milky Waters.
Speranskll wrote to Kozodavlev on March 8/20, l8l7
to express his dissatisfaction with St. Petersburg's
Doukhobor policy. The letter was prefaced by a warning.
With the Doukhobors, Speranskll wrote, the Issue was not
beards, old books, or "the formation of fingers," but "the
very essential dogmas of faith." In the civil sphere, the
consequences of "ordinary schism" need not concern the
state ; "but the doctrine of the Doukhobors Is so close to
the spirit of liberty and civil equality, that the least
curvature or deviation left of this line— where presently
they still stand— could produce a very powerful shock In the
people."
^^Ibld., pp. 391-393.
^^"K blografll M. M. Speranskago," 300-301.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 159
Speranskll then proceeded to outline a brief history
of the government's dealings with the Doukhobors. Paul, of
course, recognized the danger and persecuted the sect.
With the accession of Alexander, "everything abated" because
I. V. Lopukhin "found In the Doukhobors very gentle worship
pers of spirit and truth." Speranskll conceded that perse
cution was no longer a viable option In dealing with the
sect. Yet, alternatives "remain still undecided." The
policies espoused by Senator Lopukhin were "obviously . . .
Inadequate," for his opinions were not always faithful to
hard facts.
Speranskll found considerable fault In the govern
ment's decision to settle the Doukhobors at the Milky
Waters. Such a policy seemed to him "frankly" Inadequate
because Its essence was "Indifference, with a certain tinge
of patronage." Patronage was perhaps acceptable when deal
ing with "simple" and "crude" schisms, but applied to the
Doukhobors It was disastrous. Colonization of the sect at
the Milky Waters was nothing but "true encouragement" to the
group. "What differences In land. In taxes. In obligations,"
During Speranskll's tenure as head of the Second Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (1 8 0 2 -1 8 0 7 ), P. S. Kaisarov (1777-1854), another Ministry employee, was commissioned to compose a "full history" of the Doukhobors. Speranskll now recommended that Kaisarov's study, completed and filed away In the Ministry archives, be considered before deciding on "firm and safe rules" for the Doukhobor problem. There Is no evidence that Kaisarov's report was ever utilized.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 160
wrote Speranskll; "God save us If our peasants, or particular
landowners, learn of these differences."^^
Speranskll next reflected on the doctrinal history of
the Doukhobor sect :
. . . harmless, and perhaps honorable In Its beginning. It subsequently— due to measures of Its expansion— was distorted by verbal traditions and was dismembered Into various doctrines, such that now It Is hardly possible to recognize Its first, elementary features. In various provinces the articles of this doctrine are quite diverse ; the very name Doukho bor has been altered. In one place they call themselves Molokans, In another- Subbotnlkl. . . . [In some areas] there are among them certain ceremonies and songs; In other places there are none. Gener ally there are no ties or clarity In [their religious] conceptions.
Despite these differences, however, the Doukhobors were all
"obstinate" In their refusal to fulfill obligations Imposed
by the authorities. Far from being the "very meek lambs"
which Lopukhin described, the sectarians were actively In
tolerant and scornful of Orthodoxy’s representatives and
In the final portion of his letter Speranskll re
lented somewhat from his carefully calculated, yet strident,
position. Stories abounded of the Doukhobors’ "Impudent
ridicule" of Orthodoxy and their evasion of recruit obliga
tions. Speranskll admitted, however, that he did not know
what to believe. "If half of this that Is spread about
32 Ibid., pp. 302- 3 0 3.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I6l
concerning their harm Is true," he wrote, "then they are
truly dangerous." He finally conceded that accusations can
not be derived from "rumors." Kozodavlev was asked to post
pone affirmative action on the Penza Doukhobors' petition.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs did not respond to
Speranskll's letter. In October of 1817 the Penza governor
again wrote to Kozodavlev. Speranskll said that he had
visited the petitioning Doukhobors and had learned that now
only six households numbering thirty-four Individuals wished
to go to Taurlde province. These, he relented, would be
permitted to migrate, but not until the spring of I8 1 8.
Homes and grain had to be sold before the Doukhobors could
leave. The necessary arrangements were being made with the
Taurlde governor. One of the Doukhobors had been sent ahead
to the Milky Waters to Inspect home sites for the Penza
sectarians.
At this point plans for the migration were halted.
On October 26/November 7, 181 7 Speranskll was Informed by
Kozodavlev that due to the settlement of a large group of
Doukhobors from Finland at the Milky Waters, the further In
crease of the colony ' s population had been suspended by
Alexander In April of I8 1 7. On receipt of this Information
Speranskll asked the Udel Bureau manager to explain the
^^Ibld., p. 3 0 3.
^^Evgrafov, ed., "Penzenskle dukhobortsy," 393-394.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 162
situation to the Penza Doukhobors "so that they do not think
that the local authorities, on their own volition, troubled
their migration." The manager apparently had difficulty In
explaining the migration ban, for he summoned three of the
Doukhobors to Penza to meet with Speranskll. In a note to
Kozodavlev recounting the meeting, Speranskll reported that
the Doukhobors accepted his explanation "without distress.
Marc Raeff, Speranskll's biographer, notes that some
of the governor’s actions during his tenure In Penza (I816 -
1 8 1 9 ) suggest "political reaction and cultural obscur
antism."^^ We, as Raeff, need not dwell on these charges.
The Speranskll episode Is really only a footnote to Doukho
bor history. Rather than "cultural obscurantism," It
Illuminates the distress which probably afflicted many state
officials In their attempts to accommodate Alexander’s
religious tolerance with their own more traditional attitudes
toward their duties as governing agents. In Speranskll’s
case this accommodation was complicated by the governor’s own
particular religious outlook better described as paternalis
tic than obscurant. On their part, the Doukhobors would not
suffer for long under the I817 ban on further migration to
the Milky Waters.
3-Ibld., pp. 394- 3 9 5 .
^^Raeff, Speransky, p. 24l. Raeff refers to Speran skll ’s participation In the Russian Bible Society’s efforts In Penza.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 163
In the wake of Napoleon’s invasion of Russia In June
of 1 8 1 2 , Alexander underwent a religious ’’conversion. ’’ The
Emperor’s biographer, N. K. Schllder, noted that the ’’diffi
cult trial’’ which was ’’ravaging’’ the Empire during this
period ’’produced anxiety’’ In the Tsar’s soul and effected
the conversion. There Is considerable evidence that
Alexander’s spiritual awakening was not Inspired by tradi
tional Orthodoxy. The two Individuals most responsible for
the Tsar’s conversion, A. N. Golitsyn and R. A. Koshelev,
were adepts In the German Protestant type of mystical
pietism, and they exercised a powerful Influence on
Alexander’s religious development.
Prom October l8l2 to December I815 Alexander spent a
total of thirty-five months outside Russia pursuing Napoleon
across Europe. The campaign afforded the Tsar a multitude
of opportunities for an ecumenical sampling of religious
experiences. In Silesia he visited parishes of the Moravian
Brethren. In Baden he conversed with Johann Heinrich Jung-
Stllllng, and In Heidelberg he began his famous relationship
with the ’’Livonian prophetess,’’ Baroness Krudener. In
London Alexander "showed great cordiality" toward represen
tatives of the Quaker faith. At the Place de la Concorde In
Paris he held an Easter service on the spot where Louis XVI,
^^N. K. Schllder, Imperator Aleksandr Pervyl: ego zhlzn 1 tsarstvovanle, 4 vols. (St. Petersburg : Sl Suvorln, 1 8 9 7 -1 8 9 Ü), 3: 322.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 164
a Catholic, was guillotined.^^ It Is a long way from Paris
to the Milky Waters of Taurlde province; yet, one Is struck
by the seeming Inevitability In Alexander’s spiritual de
velopment which occasioned his visit to the Doukhobor
colony In the spring of 1 8 1 8 .
The primary source for Alexander’s visit to the Milky
Waters Is the diary of Vasllll Romanovich Marchenko (1782-
l84l), a stats-sekretar^^ and former civil governor of Tomsk
province who accompanied the Tsar on an extended journey
through western and southern Russia from February to June
1 8 1 8 . According to Marchenko the Emperor’s personal contact
with the Doukhobors began In Kiev after Alexander had mounted
his carriage for the trip to Warsaw. Thirty peasants repre
senting the Milky Waters colony presented themselves before
the Tsar’s carriage with a petition. Alexander, anxious to 40 depart, ordered Marchenko to deal with the petitioners.
The Doukhobors complained to Marchenko of Count
Langeron’s continuing persecution. The petitioners declared
that they had come to Kiev without the knowledge of Taurlde
^^Ibld., pp. 3 2 2-3 2 3; Bllllngton, Icon and the Axe, p. 283; Pypln, Rellgloznlla dvlzhenlla, pp. 295-395.
^^A chief secretary who headed a department In the chancery of the State Council. Marchenko was named stats- sekretar In 1815 after spending a number of years In the highest circles of tsarist advisers.
^^’’Avtoblograflcheskala zaplska gosudarstvennago sekretarla Vaslllla Romanovlcha Marchenkl. 1782-l838gg.,’’ Russkala starlna, 86 (May, 1 8 9 0 ): 315-316.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 165
authorities, and that they Intended to follow the Emperor to
Varshava in order to beg for his protection. "Striving to
avert unpleasant consequences," Marchenko promised to deliver
the Doukhobors' complaints to the Tsar. He then offered to
arrange their safe return to Taurlde and to send a letter to
Langeron so that the sectarians would not be punished for
their "wilful absence." Marchenko warned the group that If
they refused his offer they would be sent home as "passport-
less fugitives." The Doukhobors discussed the matter and
finally agreed to return to their villages. They furnished
Marchenko with a list of their names; the list, however, 4l contained sixty, not thirty, names.
Marchenko reported his meeting with the Doukhbors to
Alexander when he caught up with the Imperial party In
Warsaw. The secretary expressed his "fear concerning the
spread of the harmful principles of the Doukhobors." The
Tsar admitted that the sectarians' doctrine was "harmful and
dangerous," but noted that he did not wish "to enslave
[poraboshchat] conscience." As long as the Doukhobors ful
filled their civil obligations, the Emperor continued, they
would be allowed their heresy. Still another directive was
then dispatched to Langeron ordering non-interference In
Doukhobor affairs.
316.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 166
Marchenko does not say what prompted Alexander to
visit the Milky Waters. Probably the weight of years of Im
personal dealings with the sectarians motivated the decision.
In any event, after a six week stay In Warsaw, Marchenko
followed the Tsar to the Doukhobor "capital" village of
Terpenle In May of I8 1 8. Marchenko "was surprised at the
wealth of the Inhabitants" of Terpenle. Around a "treeless
hermitage" (the Orphan's Home), he wrote, were spread huts
built from "stout logs, encircled by haystacks of grain and
an Innumerable multitude of cattle." Alexander spent one
full day (and probably two nights) In Terpenle, "surrounded
by the peasants." When he left, a crowd of the Doukhobors
approached Marchenko to thank him for his aid In securing
the Emperor's protection. The secretary admitted In his
diary that such gratitude was totally undeserved.
Marchenko evidently arrived In Terpenle some time
after Alexander. His account of what took place between the
Tsar and the Doukhobors was taken from conversations with
the sectarians ("the very same who went to Kiev") on the day
of the Imperial party's departure. Marchenko learned that
the Sovereign spent "both nights" In discussion with the
Doukhobors, "often bringing out books, trying through texts
to prove the falseness of their doctrine." The dissenters,
however, remained adamant. They explained to Alexander that
^^Ibld., pp. 3 1 6 - 3 1 7.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 167
"there are no tsars In nature; God did not create them." The
Emperor was chosen by his predecessor and anointed by a
metropolitan "because he knew how to flatter better than il il others." Marchenko, unfortunately, did not record Alex
ander's reply to this theory of tsarist succession.
Marchenko portrayed the Imperial visit to the Milky
Waters as a confrontation. There Is evidence, however, that
some degree of accord was reached between the Doukhobors and
their august visitor. Marchenko himself asserted that when
Alexander returned to St. Petersburg he consulted with
Alexander Golitsyn and then again ordered Count Langeron to
desist from troubling the sect. Schllder wrote that after
the Tsar witnessed a Doukhobor religious service he announced
to the worshippers that he was their "defender." Later
Alexander supposedly told one of his travelling companions
that the sectarians were "'virtuous people.
As Alexander was leaving Terpenle, the Doukhobors
presented him with a petition.This document contained
the names of over twenty Doukhobors who had been exiled from
various provinces "not for any crimes, but only for being
^^Ibld., p. 317. ^^Ibld.
^^Schllder, Imperator Aleksandr Pervyl, 4: 107. The gratitude shown Marchenko supports Schllder's account of the Tsar as the Doukhobors' "defender."
^"^Marchenko unaccountably falls to mention the pe tition. Novitskii found the document In the Ministry of Internal Affairs' archives. See Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: Ikh Istorlla, pp. 75-76.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 168
Doukhobors." The petition requested that the sectarians be
released and sent to the Milky Waters. Included In the peti
tion were the names of eight Doukhobors from Taurlde province
who were exiled to Tobolsk In I816 supposedly for expressing 48 a wish to be sent to the Milky Waters.
Alexander’s response was Immediate. On May 23/June 4,
1 818 Count A. A. Arakcheev (1769-1834) relayed to the
Ministry of Internal Affairs the Emperor’s order that all
Doukhobors mentioned In the Terpenle petition be dispatched
to the Milky Waters. The ban of April I817 was to be
revoked. Minister of Internal Affairs 0. P. Kozodavlev sub
sequently notified Siberian authorities of the Tsar’s
command and ordered that the exiles be furnished with "all
necessary allowances" for the journey to Taurlde province at
the state’s expense. Kozodavlev warned that none of the
returning sectarians was to be lost "by exhaustion In
transit.
Most of the Doukhobors mentioned In the Terpenle
petition were transferred to the Milky Waters. It was
The exile of the Taurlde group was probably Langeron’s work. Bureaucratic evasion of Alexander’s bene volent policies was not uncommon. A group of Molokans told Stephen Grellet In I819 that Alexander’s "benevolent views towards them and his orders In their favor have been evaded, so that some of their families are yet separated by banish ment." See Grellet, Memoirs, 1: 462.
^^SPR, 2 : 5 6.
Maksimov, Delo o dukhobortsakh, p. 3-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 169
learned, however, that two of the exiles, Pararaon Borovkov
and Egor Popov, were formerly privates in the infantry who
had been sentenced in September I8II to hard labor in Siberia
for renouncing Orthodoxy and refusing to recognize the
authority of their military superiors. The Borovkov-Popov
case created a problem for Internal Affairs Minister
Kozodavlev, Insubordination in the military was a crime for
which the Doukhobors were liable. Borovkov and Popov were
legally tried and sentenced for this crime. Their release
now, reasoned Kozodavlev, would necessitate a wholesale re
view of all previous laws on the Doukhobors to insure com
pliance with the Tsar’s (I8 1 8) clemency. The Committee of
Ministers, "not finding it necessary to abolish severe laws
on account of the Doukhobors," decided to simply present the
information on Borovkov and Popov to Alexander. Alexander
Golitsyn, Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs and Public In
struction, proposed during the Committee’s deliberations that
anyone showing himself to be a Doukhobor should be sent to
the Milky Waters, thus avoiding all court action.
In December I818 Alexander ruled that in the future
"when Doukhobors are revealed, then, before . . . they are
surrendered to court, or even before . . . the local
authorities make any arrangements concerning their committal
for trial," the particulars of the case were to be reported
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 170
to His Majesty. Popov was ordered released from hard labor
(Borovkov had died on his way to Siberia in I8II), but was
to remain in residence in Siberia.It was only then
learned, however, that Egor Popov had died in the Nerchinsk
mines in l8l6.^^
The ukase of December I818 was significant.
Alexander, fresh from his Milky Waters visit, ordered in
effect the suspension of all legal moves against Doukhobors
pending his review of each case. The impact of this deci
sion was manifested in an incident which occurred in Irkutsk
province in 1820. In May of that year a Doukhobor, Ivan
Kavalev, was accused of spreading heretical precepts among
his Orthodox neighbors. The latter, hearing that they
should not worship icons or give the sign of the cross, re
nounced Orthodoxy and declared themselves Doukhobors. The
Irkutsk governor ordered the local land court to begin legal
proceedings against the dissidents. However, when M. M.
Speranskii, then governor-general of Siberia, learned of the
Kavalev affair, he ordered the immediate suspension of the
land court’s activities. Speranskii invoked the ukase of
December I8 1 8, which had been subsequently communicated to
all levels of the Imperial bureaucracy by a Ministry of
Police circular dated January 10/22, I8 1 9 .
^^Maksimov, Delo o dukhobortsakh, p. 4.
^\bid. , pp. 1 8 -2 0 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 171
The year I818 was a memorable one for the Doukhobors.
Alexander's visit to the Milky Waters symbolized official
sanction for the existence of the Doukhobor heresy within
Russia’s borders. Moreover, the visit brought about immedi
ate legal privileges and the release of some Doukhobors from
the rigors of exile. A Doukhobor psalm, sung during
Alexander’s visit to the Milky Waters, tells of a just ’’king"
created by God who will return all of the Lord’s people
"taken captive without ransom.Whether the "king" re
fers directly to Alexander is unclear, but it is doubtful
that the Doukhobors chose this particular psalm at random
for their Imperial visitor.
Quaker connections with Russia date from the time of
George Fox (1624-1691), the Quaker founder. Pox wrote twice
to Tsar Alexis, in 1656 and I6 6I, but the texts of the
letters are lost. As we have seen, stories of a wondering
Quaker in Russia in the eighteenth century figure promin
ently in theories of the origins of the Doukhobors.
Catherine the Great was inoculated for smallpox by an English
Quaker in 1768.^^
^^Mealing, "Our People’s Way," p. 174.
^^Richenda C. Scott, Quakers in Russia (London: Michael Joseph, 1964), pp. 29-30, 4l. See also Arnold B. McMillin, "Quakers in Early Nineteenth-Century Russia," Slavonic and East European Review, 51 (October 1973): 567- 5 7 9 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Daniel Wheeler (1771-1840) was the first Quaker to
spend considerable time in Russia. In 1817 at the request
of Alexander, IVheeler went to Russia to cultivate swamp lands
in the vicinity of St. Petersburg. He spent fifteen years on
the task and enjoyed much success. The groundwork for
Wheeler’s appointment was prepared during Alexander’s war
time stay in London in l8l4. At that time the Emperor met
with Quakers William Allen and Stephen Grellet. According
to Allen the Tsar showed a great interest in the Quaker
faith and ’’appeared pleased’’ when informed that the Quakers
suffered little persecution in England.
In November of I818 Allen and Grellet arrived in St.
Petersburg. Their Russian visit was part of a general
European tour designed to establish a network of correspond
ents ’’who have at heart the promotion of real vital
religion. . . .’’ Alexander was absent from the capital when
the Quakers arrived, but Alexander Golitsyn proved a
gracious host. The Tsar first met with Allen and Grellet in
early February of I8 1 9 . He ’’recalled with inner emotion’’
their previous meeting in London in l8l4, ’’saying that this
meeting provided for him cheer and firmness of spirit amidst
^^Scott, Quakers, pp. 57-60; Elkinton, Doukhobors, pp. 252-253.
^^Allen, Life, 1: l49. For biographical sketches of Allen and Grellet, see Scott, Quakers, pp. 47-50. Briefly, the author comments that Grellet’s facial features betrayed "a fatal hint of the bigot" which he was. Allen, however, possessed "wisdom . . . deep charity, [and] statesmanship."
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 173
all the difficult circumstances in which he found himself at
that time." When the Quakers informed Alexander of their
intention to tour parts of the Empire, the Tsar observed
that they "should be pleased with some of the people in the
South. . .
Allen and Grellet travelled to southern Russia in
the spring of I8l9 equipped with letters of introduction
from Prince Golitsyn. In Tauride province the Quakers first
visited the Mennonite colony village of Altona. From there
on May 17/29 they journeyed about five versts to Terpenie,
accompanied by the Silesian-born superintendent of the
Tauride colonies, Samuel Contenius (1 7 4 9 -I8 3O). In Terpenie
the visitors were conducted to the Orphan’s Home where they
met with several of the Doukhobors.
Grellet wrote that his group was escorted "to the
abode of the chief man among them," described as ninety years
old, nearly blind, but "robust" and "very active in body and
m in d . I t is intriguing to speculate whether the "chief
man" was Savelii Kapustin. In 1819 Kapustin was seventy-six
years of age. It is improbable, however, that the Doukhobors
Aleksandr Pervyi, 4; 132. See also the section on Alexander and the Quakers in Pypin, Religiozniia dvizheniia, pp. 397- 418.
^°Allen, Life, 1: 405; Grellet, Memoirs, 1: 447-448.
^^Grellet, Memoirs, 1: 455.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 174
would have revealed their supposedly deceased leader to
Contenius, a state official.
The Doukhobors, wrote William Allen, "were well
dressed according to the custom of the country, but there
was something in their countenances which [he] did not quite
like." Through Contenius, the Quakers informed the Doukho
bors that they heard in England of the persecution which the
sectarians had suffered, and of Alexander's "humane inter
position . . . on their behalf." The Doukhobors were then
asked to expound on their religious principles. Allen
described the sectarians' response:
It soon appeared, however, that they have no fixed principles; there was a studied evasion in their answers, and though they readily quoted texts, it is plain they do not acknowledge the author ity of scripture, and have some very er roneous notions. I was anxious to ascer tain their belief respecting our Savior, but could learn nothing satisfactory. . . . they appear in a very dark state; they have driven out from among them, all those persons called Duhobortsi, who receive scriptural truth. . . . My spirit was greatly affected and I came away from them much d e p r e s s e d . 62
Stephen Grellet was equally upset with the Doukhobor variety
of folk Christianity. They looked upon Christ, he com
plained, "in no other light than that of a good man," and
they denied the validity of the Scriptures. The sectarians'
Allen, Life , 1: 405.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 175
"chief speaker" was "very evasive" in several of his replies
to the Quakers’ inquiries.
Johann Cornies, the Mennonite leader, told Haxthausen
in 1843 that Contenius had "arranged" a "religious colloquy"
between the Doukhobors and the Quakers. The colloquy, which
at times apparently became more of a dispute, lasted half a
day. Besides Christ and the Scriptures, the debate touched
on Doukhobor worship services and marriage rites. To the
manner of the latter, the sectarians "declined giving an
answer." Grellet wrote that the Quakers departed on the
evening of the 17th/29th "with heavy hearts.
The following day Allen and Grellet returned to
Terpenie. Again the Doukhobors "manifested great ignorance
on the subject of religion, and the interview did not prove
more satisfactory than that on the preceding day." On this
second day of their visit the Quakers did attend a worship
service which they dutifully described. At no time during
the service, wrote Grellet, did the Doukhobors appear
serious. The Quakers attempted some "gospel labor," but the
sectarians proved unresponsive to the missionaries'
entreaties. Grellet recalled that while he was speaking the
Doukhobors "appeared restless" and several times sought to
end the Quaker's pleas by inviting him to retire to the
^^Grellet, Memoirs, 1: 455-456.
^^Ibid., p. 4 5 6; Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1: 2 9 7-2 9 8 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 176
Orphan’s Home. Allen and Grellet again returned to Altona
"with heavy hearts.
The Quakers did not return to Terpenie, but they
encountered groups of "Doukhobors" elsewhere. On May 24/
June 5, 1819 in Simferopol Allen and Grellet met with "five
or six of the people called Duhobortsi. ..." This group,
the Quakers decided, was "of the right sort" because they
"prized" the Scriptures and had even attempted to purchase
Bibles from the Bible Society in St. Petersburg. Unfor
tunately, the money was lost in the mail.
In Nikolaev on June 10/22, 1819 the Quaker pair "met
a number of the Duhobortzi. ..." This group had read the
Scriptures and had "seen the gross errors under which they
had been." The Quakers concluded, however, that "their
eyes [were] only partially opened. ..." The Nikolaev
"Doukhobors" told Grellet that "several" of the Milky Waters
colonists desired to read the Scriptures and that "they [the
Milky Waters group] think that they see farther than their
old men and elders.
The sectarians whom Allen and Grellet encountered in
Simferopol and Nikolaev were not Doukhobors in the strictest
sense. As Speranskii observed in I8 1 7, it was difficult to
^^Allen, Life, 1: 405; Grellet, Memoirs, 1: 456- 4 5 7.
^^Allen, Life, 1: 409.
^"^Grellet, Memoirs, 1: 473-474.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 177
categorize the many varieties and gradations of isolated
groups of zealots who abounded in southern Russia during
this period and called themselves "Doukhobors," "Molokans,"
or whatever.What is definite is that the Quaker travel
lers encountered a few dissidents who had departed from the
Milky Waters fraternity without converting to Orthodoxy.
One such individual, described as a Molokan, told Grellet
that he "was formerly among the Duhobortzi," but left their
ranks after reading the Bible. Grellet was convinced that
the true piety of the Milky Waters Doukhobors had been
"darkened by their leaders." In Nikolaev the Quakers en
countered a group of Molokans who "were originally
Duhobortsi. ..." These individuals told Allen that "many"
of the Milky Waters Doukhobors "read the Scriptures 69 privately, and teach their children to read them."
Allen and Grellet were well pleased with a group of
Molokans in Simferopol. These sectarians were "well . . .
acquainted with the things of the kingdom of God," and were
fervent readers of the Scriptures. Whereas the Milky Waters
William Allen classified the various groups he en countered into "three distinct sects": Spiritual Christians or Molokans (they accepted the Scriptures), Doukhobors (only at the Milky Waters; they rejected the Scriptures "a. are not Christians"), and Sabbatarians ("those who observe the seventh day, abstain from swine’s flesh, and think that the Jewish dispensation was not fully abrogated by Christ"). See Allen, Life, 1: 411-412.
^^Grellet, Memoirs, 1: 456; Allen, Life, 1: 419.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 178
Doukhobors were secretive, the Molokans spoke extensively
and openly with their receptive Quaker listeners.
The visit of Allen and Grellet to the Milky Waters,
although painfully depressing for the Quakers, was to become
for the Doukhobors a fondly memorable event. During the voy
age to their new Canadian home in 1899 a group of Doukhobors
gathered in the cabin of a steamship and "spoke with appre
ciation" of the Allen-Gellet visit to Joseph Elkinton. The
sectarians told of a prophecy, purportedly from Stephen
Grellet, which foretold of their persecution, exile, and
final deliverance to a foreign country "among a people of a
different language." There, the prophet continued, the
Doukhobors would prosper and be visited by members of the
Quaker brotherhood."^^
There is no doubt that the story of the Grellet
prophecy as related to Elkinton is apocryphal. Yet the
significance of the prophecy goes beyond the matter of its
authenticity. To a collective conscience highly attuned to
apocalyptic imagery, the Allen-Grellet visit assumed in l899
the sacredness of revelation however vaguely the memory of
the meeting was transmitted over the years.
Grellet, Memoirs, 1: 467; Allen, Life, 1: 4l6.
"^^Elkinton, Doukhobors, pp. 197-198, 253.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 179
Historians commonly characterize the second half of
Alexander's reign as a period of increasing conservatism,
even reaction. Numerous events are usually cited as causal
factors in the Tsar's departure from his early liberalism.
In December 1 818 Alexander's favorite sister. Grand Duchess
Catherine, died, a loss that profoundly disturbed him. In
March of 1819 August von Kotzebue, a confidential agent of
the Tsar's in the Baltic area, was assassinated by a revo
lutionary group. In 1820 the revolts in Naples summoned
Alexander to the Congress of Troppau, where, in November,
he received word of a "mutiny" in the Semenovskii regiment.
About this time Metternich's warnings of the dangers of
groups spreading new religious and political ideas began to
have an effect on the Emperor. By 1821 Alexander was "fully
disillusioned with his divine calling." He even considered
abdication.^^
^ See, for example : Sidney Harcave, Russia: A History, 6th ed. (New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1968), pp. 218-224; Allen McConnell, Tsar Alexander I: Paternalis tic Reformer (New York : Thomas Y. Crowell, 1970), pp. 155- 1 5 6 , 1 6 8 ; Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, A History of Russia, 2nd ed. (New York : Oxford University Press, 1969), pp. 353-355; Edward C. Thaden, Russia Since I8OI: The Making of_ a New Society (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1971), PP- 85-90. For a carefully reasoned dissenting opinion see Patricia Kennedy Grimsted's portrait of Alexander in her Foreign Ministers of Alexander I: Political Attitudes and the Con duct of Russian Diplomacy. I801-l825 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969), pp. 32-65. 73Qrand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich, Le tsar Alexandre 1er, trans. by Baron N. Wrangel (Paris: Payot, 1931), p. 2 3 1; Stuart R. Tompkins, "The Russian Bible Society— A Case of Religious Xenophobia," American Slavic and East
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. l80
The Tsar’s spiritual crisis paralleled a larger
societal disillusionment with "experimental religion." By
the early 1820’s the vogue of German mysticism was receding.
Led by such arch reactionaries as Mikhail Leontevich
Magnitskii (1 7 7 8-I8 5 5) and Archimandrite Potii (179 2 -I8 3 8),
the forces of traditional Orthodoxy reasserted themselves.
Alexander himself was swept up in this intellectual reaction.
Upon his return from Troppau he told Daniel Wheeler that
" ’there are societies of men in different places, who are
disseminating bad principles under the cloak of bringing in
Christianity. . . .'"7^ The Tsar, moreover, moved against
these societies. In August of 1822 he ordered the closing
of all Masonic lodges and other "secret societies." Madame
Tatarinova, widow, mystic prophetess, and one-time confidant
of the Tsar, was evicted from her residence in the Mikhailov-
skii Palace. In May 1824 after a vicious campaign by Potii,
Alexander Golitsyn was relieved of his duties as Minister of
European Review, 7 (1948): 265; Schilder, Imperator Alek sandr Pervyi,T: 232; A. N. Pateev, Le problème de 1 ’individu et 1’homme d'état dans la personnalité historique d'Alexandre I, empereur de toutes les Russies, Vol. 4: Les derniere 10 années de la vie et du gouvernement d'Alexandre (Prague : Association russe pour les recherches scienti- fiques, 1939), p. 45.
"^^Daniel Wheeler, Memoirs of the Life and Gospel Labours of the Late Daniel Wheeler (London: Charles Gilpin, 1 8 5 2), p. 6 7.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 181
Ecclesiastical Affairs and Public Instruction, and that
ministry was abolished.
The late nineteenth century populist commentator
Kravchinskii ("Stepniak") believed unequivocally that "the
second and reactionary half of Alexander I ’s reign again
changed the position of the Dukhoborzy much for the worse.
Certainly the Orthodox resurgence boded ill for the various
religious sects. The French ambassador, Auguste de La
Ferronays, reported that in January of 1820 the government
ordered the publication of a "small work" designed to counter
the heretofore freewheeling influence of the Skoptsy in St.
Petersburg.
Absolute characterizations of Alexander’s final
years must be approached with extreme caution. Daniel
Wheeler was "grieved" in 182 3 to learn that the Tsar’s
apparent conservative shift in foreign affairs had lost for
him many admirers in England. "We know of no difference
here," Wheeler wrote, "in regard to the government of the
internal affairs of this country.With regard to the
Doukhobors, La Ferronays, the French ambassador, wrote in
^^David, "Jacob Boehme," 54; Tompkins, "Religious Xenophobia," 263, 267; Zacek, "Bible Society," 427-433-
"^^Kravchinskii, Russian Peasantry, 2: 521.
"^^Mikhailovich, Imperator Aleksandr I, 2: 330.
^Wheeler, Memoirs, p. 73- At Troppau Alexander in formed Meternich that Russia would henceforth support inter vention in foreign countries to suppress revolution.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 182
April 1820 that it was "remarkable" that the government still
lent "the distinction of its protection" to "this immoral,
anarchic, and most dangerous of all sects. ..."
Alexander’s Doukhobor policy from I819 on remained on a
fairly even keel while adhering to previous trends. As in
the past the Tsar continued to be solicitous of public order
and security.
In July of 1819 Alexander approved a decision of the
Committee of Ministers banning the election of Doukhobors to
community positions (dolzhnosty). Those Doukhobors then
occupying such offices were ordered removed.The election
ban was not a novel innovation. In late 1813 an Orthodox
Christian in the Caucasian town of Alexandrov petitioned the
authorities to allow local Molokans to be elected to commun
ity positions. Hitherto Molokans in the town, comprising
half the population, had been subject to de facto exclusion
from community posts because they refused to take oaths re
quired for office holders. The "burden" of community service
thus fell solely to the Orthodox, a condition the latter
deemed intolerable. In early l8l4 the affair reached the
Committee of Ministers. The ministers agreed that the
Orthodox residents of Alexandrov shouldered an unfair
^^Mikhailovich, Imperator Aleksandr I, 2: 330.
^°SPR, 2: 60.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 183
responsibility (causing harmful diversions from their own
occupations), and that the "irresponsible emancipation" of
Molokans from community service could induce others to join
the sect. However, the Committee was unwilling to assent to
non-juring Molokans in positions of public trust. In
January of l8l4 the Caucasian governor was ordered to sub
mit recommendations for "sufficient remuneration" to be paid
by the Molokans to support the salaries of Orthodox officials.
On September 1/13, l8l4 the Committee approved a yearly
exaction of 88 rubles, 66.5 kopeks from the Alexandrov
Molokan community.A similar annual tax was imposed on
Doukhobors living in Orthodox communities in the l8l9 ruling.
In May of 1820 Alexander permitted certain categories
of dissenters to hold community positions in those cities
and towns where the Orthodox population was too small to
provide adequate personnel. Dissenters belonging to so-
called "priestless" sects "who pray for the Tsar and who
accept [lawful] marriage rites" could occupy community
posts, but only if sufficient Orthodox residents or Old
Believers were not available. Again, however, it was
emphasized that Doukhobors and Molokans were to be banned
from all community offices.
^^Ibid., p. 42; PPSZ, 32: 25,529.
^^SPR, 2: 66-67.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 184
In June l820 St. Petersburg for the first time
ordered the forced removal of Doukhobors from a particular
area. All Doukhobors residing in Ekaterinoslav province were
ordered moved to areas where "their like-minded sympathizers"
lived. This was done "to banish [the Doukhobors] from places,
where, found among other [Orthodox] residents, they spread
their false doctrine.The Ekaterinoslav Doukhobors were
presumably dispatched to the Milky Waters. For orthodox
Doukhobors such a fate would not have been unwelcomed. Yet
we know from the experiences of Allen and Grellet that
pockets of sectarians existed who called themselves Doukho
bors, but were doctrinally something else. For these un
fortunates the forced removal from Ekaterinoslav homes must
have proved a hardship.
In 1819 two sensational outbreaks of Doukhobor fer
vor occurred in the Siberian provinces of Tomsk and Tobolsk.
In Tomsk two peasants, Nikolai Igolkin and Fedor Mochalov,
entered a district government office and asked that they be
registered as Doukhobors. As proof of their religious per
suasion the two zealots destroyed a number of icons before
the startled district officials. News of the incident was
immediately relayed to M. M. Speranskii, appointed governor-
general of Siberia in March of I8 1 9 , who in turn notified
Minister of Internal Affairs Count V. P. Kochubei. The
^^Ibid., pp. 6 7-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 185
culprits were eventually handed over to the courts for dis
turbing public order, not for religious dissidence. In
Tobolsk a number of peasants refused to participate in the
construction of a fence for the local Orthodox church. In
words "not characteristic of Christians," the dissidents de
nied the sanctity of the church. A land ispravnik investi
gated the incident and learned that the rebellious peasants
were Doukhobors who had "received their religion from their
own reason [razum]" with the help of one Fedor Burnashev, a
Tomsk commoner (meshchanin). As Burnashev was implicated in
the Igolkin-Mochalov affair as well, he was exiled to
Irkutsk.
The two incidents brought about a major shift in
legal procedure in affairs involving Doukhobors in Siberia.
Above we noted that in December of I818 Alexander ordered
the suspension of all legal moves against Doukhobors pending
his review of each case. In his report toKochubei con
cerning the Igolkin-Mochalov case, Speranskii suggested:
In the future . . . in order that cul prits are not left for a long period of time without being subject to legal action, would it not be agreeable to allow the handing over of such temptors to the court, as before, with only the stipulation that they be judged not for [religious] dissidence, but for external conduct, [involving] tumult or breaches of . . . o r d e r ? ° 5
Maksimov, Delo o dukhobortsakh, pp. 12-18.
^^Quoted in ibid., p. l4.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 186
Alexander agreed with Speranskii's recommendation. On
March 7/19, 1820 he ordered that "disseminators of the Douk
hobor sect and other raskolnik heresies" in Siberia be im
mediately subject to legal action without any prior review.
The rule was to apply only for criminal conduct, not for mere
religious dissent. Time and distance were the reasons given
for this amendment to the l8l8 law. The Tsar was reluctant
to allow religious "temptors" their freedom for the extended
periods of time required to dispatch the particulars of
their cases across the Siberian expanse to St. Petersburg
and back.
If some Doukhobors were subject to increasing legal
strictures in the interests of public safety, St. Petersburg
remained solicitous of the Milky Waters settlement. In this
respect a seeming land shortage at the colony was of par
ticular concern. In its attempts to solve the land problem
the government betrayed no reversal of its early liberal
policies.
In the years following the initial 1802 land grant
of 5 ,5 0 6 desiatinas the Doukhobor colony increased its land
holdings as the population grew. Precise land figures for
these years are unavailable. We do know that St. Petersburg
°SPR, 2: 6 1 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 187
continued to grant a maximum of fifteen desiatinas to each
soul settling at the Milky Waters. The geographers Jean
Baptiste Eyries and Conrad Malte-Brun published a figure of
37,114 desiatinas for a population of 1,153 males in 1819.^"^
Orest Novitskii asserted that in 1820 the colony possessed
45,412 desiatinas for a population of less than 2,000
males.These figures indicate that the Milky Waters
Doukhobors maintained a surplus of from 15,000 to 20,000
desiatinas. Strangely enough, St. Petersburg did not
acknowledge this excess until 1820.
In I8l6, 228 Doukhobors from the Caucasus region
arrived at the Milky Waters. The following year 90 more
sectarians went to Tauride from Finland. When Tauride
officials reported to St. Petersburg that the Milky Waters
settlement had agreed to accept the Finnish group, they
added that the newcomers (on top of the Caucasus group)
would certainly place a strain on the colony’s lands. The
Ministry of Internal Affairs in collaboration with the
Ministry of Finance recommended that an additional 6,000
desiatinas of land be made available to the Doukhobors. On
April 3/15, 1817 Alexander and the Committee of Ministers
Eyries and Malte-Brun, Nouvelles annales, 2: 302.
^Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, p. 79.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 188
agreed to the land addition. At the same time further migra
tion to the Milky Waters was ordered halted.
One month later Count Langeron reported that accord
ing to the Seventh Revision (I8 1 7) the Doukhobors actually
possessed over 20,000 desiatinas of "unnecessary land."
Tauride officials were charged with investigating the claim,
but the matter appears to have received no more attention at
the time.
In December of I819 Tauride officials relayed to St.
Petersburg a Doukhobor petition requesting an addition of
5 ,2 9 6 desiatinas of "favorable land" to the Milky Waters
colony. The vice-governor of Tauride province supported the
Doukhobor request. He asserted that a land shortage had
"actually" developed at the Milky Waters due to the arrival
"from various provinces" of new Doukhobors.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs communicated with
Count Langeron upon receipt of the Doukhobor petition. On
January 28/Pebruary 9, 1820 Minister of Internal Affairs
V. P. Kochubei obtained confirmation that the Doukhobors
°^Ibid., pp. 71-72; PPSZ, 37: 28,254.
^^PPSZ, 37: 2 8,2 5 4. The term "revision" (reviziia) applied to the census of male serfs.
^^Ibid. Alexander, as we have seen, admitted more Doukhobors to the Milky Waters after his 1817 ban. In I818 after his visit to the Doukhobors, and again the following, year, the Tsar assented to various petitions requesting transfer to the Milky Waters. See Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, pp. 77-78; Maksimov, Delo o dukhobortsakh, pp. 4-5.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 189
possessed excess lands. Nevertheless, a Ministry memorandum
to the Council of Ministers dated March 21/April 2, 1820
supported the land increase. The memorandum admitted that
the Doukhobors maintained "a surplus above the legal propor
tion" of fifteen desiatinas per soul. Yet the land increase
was supported because of the continued influx of settlers
into the colony attested to by Tauride officials. In fact,
"from many places these dissenters go to the Milky Waters—
without orders of the Government— and there are settled with
the community’s consent." Furthermore, the additional lands
in question were already being used by the Doukhobors on a
quitrent (obrok) basis for cattle pasture. On April 6/lB,
1820 the Council of Ministers approved the Internal Affairs
memorandum. On April 24/May 6 Alexander assented to the
Committee’s decision.
Approval of the Doukhobor request for additional
lands is not consistent with the theory that the state’s
Doukhobor policy entered a reactionary phase during
Alexander’s final years. Even with the knowledge that the
Milky Waters colony maintained what was, in effect, an
illegal surplus of land, St. Petersburg granted the sectar
ians still more. Although Alexander was more mindful in
1820 of the warnings against toleration provided by such
people as Fotii and Metternich, he was too much the
92 PPSZ, 37: 28,254; s m , 2: 61-62.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 190
"alienated prince" to allow himself to be wholly swayed by
the influence of others; toleration remained a cornerstone of
his character and policies. The Tsar’s actions in regard to
the Molokans are another case in point.
Molokans were apparently dispatched piecemeal to
various areas of New Russia during the first twenty years of
Alexander’s reign.At least twice in I8II and l8l4 groups
of Molokans petitioned unsuccessfully for allotments of land
in Bessarabia. In I818 agents representing Molokans from
Tambov province visited the Milky Waters to investigate the
possibility of settlement there. However, "finding out about
the diversity of their heresy from that of the Melitopol
colonists, [the Molokans] did not wish to be joined with
them. ..." They requested instead to be colonized in Q 4 another district of Tauride province.
As noted above, William Allen and Stephen Grellet
were exceedingly impressed with the Molokans they encoun
tered in Ekaterinoslav and Simferopol. In a letter to
Alexander dated June 8, I819 the Quakers requested on behalf
of the Molokans that the sectarians be granted lands "near
the Maloshnaia" with the same civil and religious privi
leges as were given to the Mennonites. In their letter the
^^Shalkovskii, "Russkie dissidenti," 774.
^^P P S Z , 37: 28,254.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 191
missionaries hastened to point out the distinctions between
the Molokans and the Doukhobors.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs’ memorandum of
March 21/April 2, 1820 supporting the Doukhobor land in
crease dealt in part with the Molokan problem. Citing the
l8l8 Tambov Molokan request to be settled in Tauride prov
ince, the memorandum indicated the availability of over
400,000 desiatinas of land near the Doukhobors and Mennon
ites that could be colonized. The Ministry estimated that 96 the Molokans would require about 30,000 desiatinas.
In January of l82I Alexander ordered Lieutenant
General I. N. Inzov (1768-1845),^"^ Contenius ’ successor as
superintendent of all Tauride colonies, to convert an area
of 2 9 ,7 2 1 desiatinas formerly in possession of the Nogai
Tatars into a Molokan colony. All Molokans in New Russia
and other provinces were henceforth to be colonized
’’exclusively’’ in an area located south of the Mennonite
colonies on the right bank of the Molochnaia River. The
first village of the colony was to be populated immediately
by Molokans ’’found already present on the New Russian
^^Allen, Life, 1: 398-399; Grellet, Memoirs, 1: 474.
^^PPSZ, 37 : 28,254.
^"^Inzov was described as ’’a man remarkable for his personal character and the deep interest he took in the establishments under his direction. ’’ Allen and Grellet met Inzov in 1819 and ’’endeavoured to secure his friendship for the poor Molokans.’’ See Hommaire de Hell, Travels, p. 79; Allen, Life, 1: 422-423.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 192
border." Each soul was to be allotted no more than fifteen
desiatinas of land. Excess lands, it was emphasized, were
not to remain in the Molokans’ possession.
We have little information on life in the newly es
tablished Molokan community. That which we do possess, how
ever, provides for an interesting comparison with the
Doukhobors. In an I8 3O letter from a neighboring Mennonite,
William Allen was told that the Molokans numbered over 8OO
colonists in three large villages. Most of the settlers mi
grated from the provinces of Tambov, Orlov, and Ekaterino
slav. Unfortunately, the Mennonite wrote, "it grieves [the
Molokans] much that they cannot maintain order and harmony
in their colony, but they do not appear to have a suffi
ciently organized system of discipline."
Haxthausen visited the Molokan colony in 1843. By
then the population had risen to about 3,000. The German
was favorably impressed. "The villages were pretty, the
people looked comfortable, and were well-behaved, and [he]
heard them praised as worthy and sobor. ..." Yet Haxthau
sen also noted evidence of internal dissension within the 100 colony.
SP R , 2: 72-7 3.
99 Allen, Life, 1: 412.
^Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1: 2 8 3, 2 8 6-2 8 7.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 193
During the final five years of his reign Alexander
followed no firm policy with regards to new migrations to the
Milky Waters. At times the decision of April 3/15, l8l? was
invoked to prevent new additions to the Tauride colony. At
other times the Tsar unaccountably dispatched Doukhobors to
the area. In the summer of 1822, for example, Alexander
ordered the "expulsion" of all Doukhobors found in the Don
Cossack troops to the Milky Waters.
The continued, if sporadic influx of Doukhobors to
the Milky Waters prompted St. Petersburg to provide new lands
for the colony in the spring of 1820 as noted. Tauride
officials supported the Doukhobor land increase at the time.
In September of l820, however, the civil governor of Tauride
province reported to the Ministry of Internal Affairs that
the Doukhobors now possessed an excessive average of 37.5
desiatinas of land per soul. The governor asserted that the
excess land afforded the Doukhobors "extraordinary" wealth
which they used to gain and support new converts to the
sect. Naturally, the governor continued. Orthodox peasants
in the vicinity of the Milky Waters were easily tempted by
the Doukhobors’ obvious wealth. He recommended that the
sect’s land allotment be reduced.
-"^^SPR, 2: 76-77. 10 ^^^Varadinov, Istoriia ministerstva, 3, Part 4: 129-131
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 194
In November of l822 Alexander decided that Doukhobors
were not to possess more land than the fifteen deslatlnas per
soul allotment granted to state peasants. Each Doukhobor
village In Taurlde province was to "divert [for Its use]
only that land necessary for Its population. ..." The re
maining lands were to be broken up Into "various plots from
4 to 6,000 deslatlnas In appointed places where It would be
possible to establish new villages." Excess lands were to
be used "exclusively" for Doukhobors who would gain access
to the Milky Waters In the future. Presently the unused
lands were to be "restored to the care of the Doukhobors,"
with the exaction of a twenty kopek annual tax for each
deslatlna of excess land. If, however, the Doukhobors did
not agree to the tax, "the Ministry of Internal Affairs will
then consider other means through which to elicit monetary
benefit from these lands.
The ukase of November 1822 apparently caused little
hardship for the Doukhobors. The twenty kopek tax was not
overburdening and the Tsar specifically left open the door
for new migrations to the Milky Waters. In effect, no land
was actually confiscated from the Doukhobors. For this they
could be truly thankful, for at least once neighboring Nogal
Tatars complained to local officials that the Doukhobors had
103,8PR, 2: 77-78.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 195
unfairly annexed valuable pasture lands formerly used by the 104
In September of 1822 William Allen had an audience
with Alexander In Vienna. The Quaker reported that the Tsar
now "was far from being satisfied" with the Doukhobors, "of
whom he has no favorable opinion.If such was truly the
case,^^^ the Doukhobors did not suffer any particularly ad
verse consequences of the Emperor’s changed opinion. The
final years of Alexander’s reign saw no decisive changes In
the Doukhobors’ situation. The sectarians gained few new
privileges during this period, but their losses were minimal.
In June 1823 Alexander decided to require the Min
istry of Internal Affairs to review all cases Involving
Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: Ikh Istorlla, pp. 156- 157. Reportedly, 600 Tatars were forced to move elsewhere after the Doukhobors appropriated their pastures. For their part, the Tatars may not have been blameless. Mary Holder- ness discovered that the Nogals living In the Milky Waters region possessed a "moral character . . . of the worst des cription, and there Is hardly any kind of mischief which they will not perpetrate." Horse stealing, she noted, was a notorious Nogal avocation. The Doukhobors may thus have felt justified In encroaching on the Tatar lands. See Holderness, New Russia, pp. I4l-l42.
^°^Allen, Life, 2: 54.
^°^The Tsar’s statements to Allen may possibly have been a veiled expression of dissatisfaction with meddling English Quakers. Friends In Russia towards the end of Alexander’s reign were subject to "particularly oppressive" surveillance. See McMlllln, "Quakers In Early Nineteenth- Century Russia," 578.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 196
dissenters issuing from penal tribunals before sentences
were carried,^ out. The decision was a safeguard to the
1818 law which suspended all legal moves against Doukhobors,
even simple committal for trial, pending the Tsar’s review
of each case. In I825 Minister of Justice D. I. Lobanov-
Rostovskll (1 7 5 8-1 8 3 6) Informed the Committee of Ministers
that "frequent" violations of the 1823 review order
occurred. The Committee ordered the Ministry of Internal
Affairs to Inform the provincial governors that the review
requirement was "not superfluous" and was therefore to be
followed.
In 1822 agents from the three Milky Waters communi
ties of Goreloe, Klrllovka, and Efremovka petitioned the
Ministry of Internal Affairs for permission for all nine
villages to satisfy recruit levies with cash payments. The
agents cited a decree of September 21/October 3, I8OI which
ruled that cities and villages lying within a 100 verst-deep
zone stretching along the length of the Russian border from
the Black to the Baltic Seas were exempt from supplying
recruits; Instead, 360 rubles were to be collected for each
recruit. The petitioners noted that on the basis of this
decree the three villages they represented were In the
practice of paying sums of money up to 1,000 rubles Instead
^°"^SPR, 2 : 80 -8 1 . ^°®Ibld., pp. 90-91.
^°^PPSZ, 2 6: 2 0 ,0 1 9 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 197
of providing bodies. The Doukhobors wished that the privi
lege be extended to the six other villages, which lay beyond
the 100 verst limit, because "In these last are found many
aged and childless couples. . . .
The Ministry of Internal Affairs ruled Immediately
against the Doukhobor request. Moreover, the Ministry ex
pressed surprise that Goreloe, Klrllovka, and Efremovka were
exempted from actual recruit levies, and requested an expla
nation from the Taurlde authorities. The Taurlde governor
replied that since 1813 the three villages had been exempt
because they were found within the 100 verst zone mentioned
In the 1801 ukase. The governor added that the 1 8 OI rule
had always applied to Taurlde province, but the Doukhobors
had petitioned for their exemption only In I8 1 3. At that
time a provincial land surveyor validated the sectarians’
claim.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs decided that the
Taurlde governor’s explanation was erroneous. In a memor
andum to the Committee of Ministers dated April 11/23, 1825
V. P. Kochubei, Internal Affairs minister, asserted that the
1801 law ought not to apply to Taurlde. That province,
Kochubei reasoned, lay more on the north-eastern shores of
the Black Sea, and Its borders ran toward the Sea of Azov
and "the Asiatic shores," not to the Baltic. Thus, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 198
Doukhobor villages, "although they [were] on the frontier,"
were not to be exempted from recruit levies on the basis of
the 180 1 law. Moreover, all other "frontier" villages In
Taurlde province, even those which were Orthodox, were not
to be exempted. Alexander approved Kochubei’s position on
April 14/26, 1825.^-^^
The loss of recruit exemptions by the three Doukhobor
villages was not a catastroplc development. In a sense the
most significant provision of the April 1825 ukase was that
which denied to all Taurlde frontier villages the I801 re
cruit exemption. The parity under law thus displayed
between dissenter and Orthodox residents of Taurlde province
Is Indicative of the entire Alexandrine era of Doukhobor
history. The Doukhobors had garnered a measure of legal
equality, even privilege. In Russian society undreamed of
under Alexander’s predecessors. Despite the recruit exemp
tion loss, there were few residents of Goreloe, Klrllovka,
or Efremovka who would have denied the meteoric rise of
their fortunes. Yet uncertain days lay ahead. To those
receptive to such portents the signs of trouble were already
appearing on the horizon that stretched north from Taurlde
toward St. Petersburg. In March of I825 a "Secret Commit
tee" was formed to deal with dissenters’ affairs at the
urging of the reactionary Admiral A. S. Shlshkov
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 199
(1754-1841).Under his successor the Doukhobors would
have cause to longingly invoke the name and reign of
Alexander I.
SPR, 2: 89; Crummey, Old Believers, p. 199; Varadlnov, Istorlla mlnlsterstva, 3, Part '4:' I9I-I92.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER V
ORTHODOXY, AUTHOCRACY, AND HERESY:
THE DOUKHOBORS IN THE REIGN OP
NICHOLAS I, PART I
The following pages are an attempt to sketch a por
trait of Nicholas I ’s government through an examination of
legislation on Doukhobors and other religious dissenters
deemed "particularly pernicious." Much of what follows
applies primarily to those Doukhobors, chiefly state and
privately-owned peasants, who did not reside at the Milky
Waters. In the next chapter we shall return to the history
of the Milky Waters colony as It evolved under the legisla
tive patterns here examined. We should keep In mind Michael
Chernlavsky's observation that "In general, legislation on
the Raskol can serve as a touchstone for the evolution of
government policy In Russia as a whole.
Nicholas I ’s policy toward the Doukhobors did not
evolve with a rational consistency and homogeneity. With
only slight reservations we must agree with the appraisal
of Robert Crummey, historian of the Vyg community of Old
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 201
Believers, that Nicholas’ government "was often inconsistent
and more frequently exhibited Inflexibility, Insensitivity,
and heavy-handed good Intentions than malice or deliberate
cruelty" In Its treatment of dissenters.^ Inconsistency
arose as a result of the tension created when the state’s
Ideological goals. In Nicholas’ case embodied In Official
Nationality, clashed with the real needs of the Empire.
The essential aim of Official Nationality was a
restoration (or reaffirmation) of the "Identity of goals" of
church and state.^ The Byzantine roots of the "Identity of
goals" tradition were Imparted to Muscovite Russia through
the Orthodox Church and provided the "pervading sense of
eschatologlcal direction" with which historians usually
characterize pre-Petrine Russia.^ The "Identity of goals
concept Implied the mutually reinforcing tenets of social
order and espousal of Orthodoxy as embodied In the existence
3gee the chapter entitled "Official Nationality, the Ideas" In Nicholas Rlasanovsky’s Nicholas I and Official Nationality In Russia, 1825-1855 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967), pp. 73-183.
^Muller, ed., Spiritual Regulation, p. xv. See also : Dmitri Stremooukhoff, "Moscow the Third Rome: Sources of the Doctrine," Speculum, 28 (January 1953), 84- 101; Cyril Toumanoff, "Moscow the Third Rome : Genesis and Significance of a Polltlco-Rellglous Idea," Catholic Histor ical Review, 40 (January 1955), 417-447; Robert Lee Wolff, "The Three Romes : The Migration of an Ideology and the Making of an Autocrat," Daedalus, 88 (Spring 1959), 291- 311.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 202
of the God-given tsar. In many respects the most perfect
post-Petrine achievement of "identity of goals" was obtained
under Alexander I, albeit the guiding religious goal was
more ecumenical and non-doctrlnal than Orthodox. Nicholas’
Official Nationality was a nominal attempt to continue the
Alexandrine "symphony" under a more Orthodox banner. Sergei
Semenovich Uvarov (1786-1855), the architect of Official
Nationality, expressed the simplistic unity of the Orthodox
universe: "There are only two orders of Ideas, as there are
only two civilizations: ancient civilization before Christ,
and modern civilization after Christ. The homogeneity
born of Christ In "modern civilization" Is Inherent In the
tenets of Official Nationality : Orthodoxy, autocracy, and
nationality.
Theoretically the means to achieve the "Identity of
goals" existed In Nicholas’ Russia. Indeed, even within the
framework of Peter’s church reform, the means had always
existed. Both church and state were required to enforce the
"eschatologlcal direction" Indicated by Orthodoxy, and the
goal of social equilibrium as defined by the autocracy.
Before his Installation a candidate for the priesthood
"shall In church publicly condemn specifically all schis
matic sects, together with an oath that he shall not shelter
by silence whomever he finds In the parish . . . to be
(Paris : Glde, l848), pp. 229-230.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 203
clandestine schismatics." Moreover, "a priest, because he
Is the pastor of those entrusted to him, must watch whether
schismatic monks and teachers, or sychophants and hypocrites,
enter the house of any parishioner.No less specific In
structions were given to the secular authorities. Civil
governors were "obligated. In every circumstance and with
all powers granted to them, to assist the Orthodox spiritual
authorities In the protection of the claims of the church
and the firmness of Its faith, observing thoroughly that
heresy, schisms, and other prejudices and Ignorance gener
ated by error are not spread among the trustworthy Inhabi
tants of their provinces. ..." Also, all matters relative
to deviations from Orthodoxy, "or concerning violence and
Insolence against the Orthodox church and Its clergy," were
to be dealt with according to legal dictates.^
The "Identity of goals" concept Is useful In Identi
fying trends In Nicholas’ treatment of dissenters. It Is
also of value In Isolating those forces In Nlcholaevan
society capable of vitally affecting religious dissenters.
Writers and scholars have traditionally attributed success
to the "Identity of goals" Idea as they painted a grotes
que portrait of Nicholas’ behavior toward religious dissi
dents. S. M. Kravchlnskll, the Populist writer, labeled
^Muller, ed., Spiritual Regulation, pp. 59,
\ P 8 Z , 12: 10,303, arts. 3 2, 240.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 204
Nicholas I ’s reign the "goomiest period" of Doukhobor
history. In his study of the Vyg community, Robert Crummey
implies actual realization of "identity of goals" In what he
describes as Nicholas’ "murder" of certain Old Believer In
stitutions. Nicholas Rlasanovsky, a student of Official
Nationality, writes that the Tsar was "particularly sensitive
to every offense, or Imagined offense, against religion," and
waged a "determined struggle" against native religious dis
senters. Harvard historian Richard Pipes’ recent Interpre
tation of Imperial Russia tows this traditional line.
Summarizing Nicholas’ sectarian policy. Pipes writes that
"the harassment resumed, military expeditions being sent out
to destroy sectarian strongholds, especially those of the
more radical sects." Soviet scholars, moreover, make much
of the "’theories’ and practices of persecution for what
were called ’religious crimes’" contained In tsarist legis
lation of the first half of the nineteenth century.^
This blanket ethos attributed to Nicholas’ Russia
Is more Ideologically apparent than historically accurate.
The more tentative appraisal of Orest Novitskii Is closer to
Kravchlnskll, Russian Peasantry, 2: 522; Crummey, Old Believers, p. 207; Rlasanovsky, Official Nationality, p. 224; Richard Pipes, Russia under the Old Regime (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1974), p. 239; Smirnov, ed., Tserkov v Istorll, p. 207. A more balanced treatment of Nicholas’ religious policies Is presented In Hugh Seton- Watson. The Russian Empire 1801-1917 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), pp. 214-218.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 ^
the truth: under Nicholas the requirements of public wel
fare necessitated that "all heresy be primarily regarded
from a political, or governmental, point of view.The
"political" or "governmental" basis of Nicholas I ’s politics
provided for a wide range of sectarian policies that Ideo
logically oriented Interpretations of the reign often Ignore.
Inconsistencies In policy, as we shall see, naturally arose.
Nicholas could variously be a kind and moral protector of
dissenters’ rights, or a stern, almost vengeful, taskmaster.
Inconsistency In sectarian policy grew from the tension
between Ideological and real goals, the need to appease the
official Orthodox Church while adhering to a secular and
rational self-interest In affairs of state. We are thus
offering a revisionist Interpretation of the reigns of
Alexander I and Nicholas I. The period I8OI to 1825,
traditionally viewed as one of reform turned to reaction,
saw Instead a liberal homogeneity In policy toward reli
gious dissidents In compliance with the Intellectual clime.
The seeming highly Ideologic "reaction" of the next quarter-
century was essentially a rule of realpolltlk which allowed
for consequences often contradictory to the nominal alms of
the official Ideology.
Peter’s church reform effectively subordinated the
Orthodox Church hierarchy to the whims and wishes of the
^Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: Ikh Istorlla, p. 123.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 206
autocracy. This aside, was the clergy on the diocesan and
parish levels equipped to provide a bulwark against the
spread of heresy In the countryside? By all accounts the
clergy had by the nineteenth century become the "festering
social problem" that was Its destiny following the Petrlne
reform. While It may be too much to agree with one
commentator that the clergy was "without morals," for the
most part this Inbred caste was "corrupt and Ignorant," and
"over-burdened with work and families.More Important,
the Church was wholly Incapable of forcing the government,
through a "moral Influence," to a mission of the type re
quired to effectively curtail religious dissidence. Most
contemporary observers saw the clergy as a docile tool In
the hands of the state,but on Its part the government was
Russian Parish Clergy In the Eighteenth Century," Slavic Review, 33 (December 1974): 641-662.
The Muscovite Empire, the Czar, and His People, trans. by John Brldgeman (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1854), p. 79; William Palmer, Notes of a Visit to the Russian Church In the Years l840, 1841 (London! Kegan Paul, Trench and Co., 1882), p. 201.
bishop who was sent to Siberia for opposing the divorce of a grand duke. Another bishop "was shut up In a madhouse for speaking strongly to the Governor of the province." Re garding religious dissent, one Synodal official told Palmer simply that "our business Is . . . to keep In view the Raskolnlks. ..." See Palmer, Notes, pp. 391, 230.
^^See, for example. De Lagny, Russians, pp. 22, 88, and Astolphe de Custlne, Journey for Our Time : The Russian Journals of the Marquis de Custlne, ed. and trans. by
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 207
highly suspicious of the serviceability of Its "tool." In
his "Brief Survey of Public Opinion for 1827," Count Alex
ander Khristoforovich Benckendorff (1781-1844), head of
Nicholas’ Third Section, wrote:
One must not deny the efforts of the government to give to the clergy the best, most suitable education for Its calling, but a young priest, being sent to a village, deprived of all society, becomes wild and acquires the outlook, character and even habits of the sur rounding peasants. In his thoughts and feelings he joins with the class which furnishes him with the means to exist. The poverty and subordination of the peasantry force him to encourage hope and passionate wishes In his flock. Thus the state Is unable to rely In Its views upon the clergy. . . . In Russia all church high positions and wealth appear as the property of monks, not having any In fluence on the nation. . . . The clergy generally are controlled poorly and are Impregnated with a pernicious spir it. The clergy In the majority of cases distributes unfavorable Information and spreads Ideas of freedom among the people. Good priests are highly un common. 14
Phyllis Penn Kohler (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1951), pp. 252-259.
^^A. Kh. Benckendorff, "Graf A. Kh. Benkendorf o Rossll V l827-l830gg.," Krasnyl arkhlv, 37 (1929): 152-153- A. Sergeev, the Soviet editor of these annual reports sub mitted to Nicholas under Benckendorff’s name, believes that the surveys were actually the work of Maksim Iakovlevich von Pock (1 7 7 7-1 8 3 1 ). Von Pock was recruited by Nicholas to be Beckendorff’s senior assistant. According to Professor Squire, the "excellent style and presentation" of the annual reports "clearly Indicate" von Pock’s authorship. See Squire, "Problem of Internal Security," 449.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 208
Benckendorff’s suspicions were echoed by others. Count
Nicholas Aleksandrovich Protasov (1798-1855), Nicholas’ Ober-
Procurator of the Holy Synod from 1836 to 1855, told English
theologian and archeologlst William Palmer that a segment of
the Russian clergy was "liberalized," and that even among
the bishops were to be found some who were heretics or
"heretlcally Inclined." In conversation with the monks of
the St. Sergius monastery. Palmer was told that Russia was
ripe for "an explosion of heretical liberalism," and that
the secular clergy, "Infected with liberalism," were "kept
In an hypocritical orthodoxy only by fear of the people."
"Liberalism" In these Instances was vaguely described as
"new and strange opinions . . . written by heterodox or
unbelieving foreigners, Lutherans, and others,
The efficacy of the clergy as a valuable ally of
the state was thus highly suspect. The church-state unity
Inherent In the slogan "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nation
ality" was more sham than real. The responsibility for
goals to be fulfilled by sectarian policies passed solely
^^Palmer, Notes, pp. 119-120, 202, 206. The reser vations of Benckendorff and Protasov expressed a fear that plagued the Russian autocracy from the very emergence of the secular state under Peter the Great. In the Spiritual Regu- latlons we read that "the common people do not understand how the spiritual authority Is distinguished from the auto cratic." An "ambitious cleric" Is able to set himself up as a "second Sovereign" with power equal to or greater than that of the autocrat, sowing seeds of dissension and revolt. See Muller, ed., Spiritual Regulation, pp. 10-11.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 209
to the secular state. This was of vital importance for the
Doukhobors. The elimination of religious dissent was
ordinarily a primary concern of the Russian Orthodox Church;
but was such a course consistent with state Interests and
aspirations?
The roots of Nicholas I ’s sectarian policy are to be
found In a series of bureaucratic machinations which began
In the final months of the previous reign. During the last
year of Alexander I ’s life the government was paying In
creased attention to the Doukhobors. The state's main con
cern was the Increasing number of Doukhobors In the terri
tory of the Don Cossacks. As late as l824, fifty-four Don
Cossacks, having converted to Doukhoborlsm, were dispatched
to the Milky Waters for settlement. The following year 156
new Doukhobor converts were reported In the Don lands.In
April of 1825 a report was sent to the Committee of Minis
ters from Adjutant-General Prince A. I. Chernyshev (1785-
1 8 5 7), who was to become Nicholas’ Minister of War In I8 3 2.
The report noted that among the Don troops Doukhobors
"appear and visibly multiply." Chernyshev remarked that the
fifty-four Cossack Doukhobors forwarded the previous year to
Taurlde province all came from only two small villages, and
^^Varadlnov, Istorlla mlnlsterstva, 3, Part 4 : 225- 2 2 6; Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: Ikh Istorlla, pp. 8I, I20-I2I.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 210
while such a measure was perhaps beneficial for Doukhobors
of civil status, the dispatch to the Milky Waters of Cossack
Doukhobors obligated to military service "produces the
opposite effect." These Cossack apostates "elude military
service because, settled with their co-rellglonlsts In
Crimea, they not only find there all the benefits of a
peaceful and abundant life, but they become fully free of
the worry, labor, and danger which are Inseparable from
service In the Don" and could perhaps stir others "to prefer
the status of Crimean colonists to that of Cossacks.
Continuing, Chernyshev cited a report sent to the War Minis
try by Cossack Ataman Lieutenant-General A. I. Ilovalskll
which suggested that the Doukhobor heresy among the Don
troops could be "totally destroyed" If the dissenters were
denied passage to Taurlde and transferred Instead "with the
rank and obligations of Cossacks" to the Caucasian lines.
There, forced to serve "with arms In hand against mountain
robbers," the Doukhobors would soon lose their faith.
The Committee of Ministers thought that Implementa
tion of the Chernyshev-Ilovalskll plan "would perhaps con
tribute toward the restraint of others from falling to this
[Doukhobor] sect." It then commissioned the Ministry of
Internal Affairs to communicate with the governor of
Georgia and the Caucasus, General A. P. Ermolov (1777-1861),
17VPSZ,- 1: 126.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 211
to choose appropriate lands for the settlement of Doukhobor
Cossacks. The Committee also directed that the designated
area be made known to the Don Cossack authorities. On
July 25/August 6, 1825 Alexander assented to the Committee’s
position.
Upon learning of St. Petersburg’s decision General
Ermolov raised a serious objection. He reasoned that If the
Doukhobor heresy could not be tolerated among the Don troops.
Its spread could have even more harmful consequences In the
Caucasus region, "where without this [Doukhoborlsm] are
found already many sects and schisms. . . . Dissenters
In the Caucasus, "due to the proximity of foreign borders,
are not able to be curbed . . as conveniently as within
Russia." Thus, the spread of Doukhoborlsm among Caucasian
line Cossacks, many of whom were committed to the Old
Belief, must be prevented at all costs. Modifying the
Chernyshev-Ilovalskll plan, Ermolov suggested that Doukhobor
Cossacks be settled beyond the present boundaries of the
Caucasian oblast along new lines of fortifications. There,
separated from other Cossack troops, the Doukhobors would
"from necessity be aroused to defend their property and
^^Ibld.
^^Por an account of the religious diversity In the Caucasus region and the problems thereby raised see V. S. Tolstoi, "Iz sluzhebnykh vospomlnanll V. S. Tolstago (Poezdka v Osetllu v 184? godu)," Russkll arkhlv, 13 (1875), 265- 268.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. households with weapons" while being denied the opportunity
to propagate their heresy.
In presenting Ermolov's proposal to the Committee of
Ministers, V. S. Lanskol (1753-1831), Minister of Internal
Affairs, voiced his own reservations. In his opinion
Ermolov's suggestion was "unlikely" to fulfill the required
ends, for the Doukhobors, finding themselves beyond the major
line of defense, would easily be able to flee over the bor
der or even "enter Into secret Intercourse with neighboring
mountaineers."
In February of 1826 the Committee of Ministers,
having opted for Ermolov’s plan despite the Ministry of
Internal Affairs’ objections, received the new Emperor’s
approval to settle apostate Cossacks from the Don on lands
which General Ermolov was to choose "according to his dis
cretion." Only the Minister of Finance, E. F. Kankrln
(1774-1844), shared Lanskol’s reservations.
Apparently much of the credit for overriding the
objections of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to Ermolov's
proposal lay with the chairman of the Department of Laws of
the State Council, V. A. Pashkov (1764-1834). His memor
andum, approved by Nicholas, typified the attitudes that
would motivate the Tsar’s policies toward the Doukhobors.
Noting his disagreement with Lanskol, Pashkov wrote:
^^VPSZ, 1: 126. ^^I
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 213
. . . as is well known, the Doukhobors, due to their principles or by reason of the essence of a heresy totally pe culiar from other dissenters, strive for the destruction of all that Is dear In the world for true sons of the Church, Throne,and Fatherland; [as Is well known] the Doukhobors, screening themselves somehow with modesty and temperate be havior, a guise so reliable, are suc cessful In snaring the weak and the skeptical and thus spread their society, producing from time to time greater numbers. . . .23
The authorities, moreover, were finding It difficult to halt
the spread of this heresy that "threatens dangerous conse
quences for the State." Thus, Ermolov's proposal was
"totally well-founded and even salutary" for a number of
reasons. Firstly, being placed along the first lines of
settlement before hostile peoples, the Doukhobors would be
forced to protect themselves. Faced with such a contingency
the heretics "will themselves then understand the necessity
and benefit of the established power emanating from the
Government and of full submission to It, and quickly they
will feel that no society Is able to exist without rulers or
authority." Secondly, the placing of the Doukhobors on the
Caucasian lines would curb the proselytlsm "so harmful and
contrary to the public welfare of the Empire." The move
would also serve as a "moral lesson" for those Orthodox
Christians who might be tempted to join the heresy. Thirdly,
positioning Doukhobors along the Caucasian frontier negated
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 214
the need for sending "good citizens" there. Hence the gov
ernment through one action attained "two philanthropic
alms": It excluded "the wicked from the good," thereby re
moving chances for temptation, and It allowed those obedient
to authority to "profit by peaceful sojourn In the places of
residence of their ancestors," free from the dangers of
border warfare. The memorandum closed with the suggestion
that If there were not enough Doukhobors In the Don troops
to fulfill defensive needs In the Caucasus, then It would be
"totally beneficial" to use Doukhobors from other 24 provinces.
The attitudes apparent In the above bureaucratic
machinations Indicated the burgeoning of a new style of
sectarian policy from St. Petersburg. Paul’s wholesale con
demnation of sectarian societies was gone, as was Alexander's
mystical embrace of such groups. In their stead Nicholas
constructed a policy based on the tacit understanding of a
symbiotic relationship between the state and Its religious
dissenters. The 1825-1826 decisions culminating In the use
of Doukhobors from the Don Cossacks along the Caucasian
frontier represented only the rudimentary beginnings of the
Ibid. Ermlov's plan applied only to Doukhobors found among the Don Cossacks. There Is no evidence that It was extended to Include Doukhobors In other areas. In his article on Russian religious dissidents, A. A. Skalkovskll erroneously Implied that the measure was Intended for all Doukhobors settled In Taurlde province. See Skalkovskll, "Russkle dlssldentl," 784.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 215
government's new bent. The nominal aim was the destruction
of heterodox religious elements, but the usefulness of their
continued existence on fringe areas of the Empire was
plainly understood. Under Nicholas the Doukhobors were not
persecuted, but rather subjected to a regimen of "rational
ized subordination and discipline.As V. A. Pashkov
asked: "Because In military activities It Is Impossible to
manage without the loss of life. Is It not appropriate for
the Government to employ on the border, requiring a strong
defense, a population of people who, due to their doctrine
and principles, are harmful for the general good, rather
than to keep such within the State?
The first measures of Nicholas I's reign regarding
religious dissenters were apparently a continuation of
Alexander's policies. In January of 1826 the government
ruled that dissenters should not be prosecuted for perform
ing marriages, baptisms, burials, and other rites according
to their own beliefs. The following month. In response
to a petition from Old Believers In Ekaterinburg,
^ T h e phrase Is part of Sidney Monas' description of "bureaucratization." See Monas' "Bureaucracy In Russia under Nicholas I," In The Structure of Russian History : Interpretive Essays, ed. by Michael Chernlavsky (New York: Random House, 1970), p. 269.
^^SPR, 2: 94-95.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 216
St. Petersburg reiterated In more explicit language that
dissenters were not to be "harassed needlessly" by the
police or the spiritual authorities for performing marriages
In a non-Orthodox manner.
These elements of toleration, however, were quali
fied by an element of precaution. In February 1826 provin
cial authorities were ordered to furnish to the Ministry of
Internal Affairs every January 1 registers of Old Believers
and "dissenters of various sects." Later In the year the
same authorities were directed to furnish these registers
to the newly established Third Section of His Imperial
Majesty’s Own Chancery.
The years l826 and 1827 mark the first attempts to
calculate the actual number of dissenters. The figures
proved most unreliable for a number of reasons. Dissenters
generally sought to conceal their religious persuasion from
the authorities. The parish clergy, moreover, were usually
reluctant to Indicate any sizeable concentrations of dis
senters In their parishes. Such an admission on their part
usually resulted In a formal Investigation. In many parish
registers the number of dissenters was reduced yearly In
order to demonstrate priestly competence and avoid Inquiry
^^Ibld., pp. 96-98.
^^Ibld., p. 99; VPSZ, I: 449, Part 3-
^^Varadlnov, Istorlla mlnlsterstva, 3, Part IV: 157-158.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 217
and possible censure. Confusion and Inaccuracies also arose
In computing dissenter strength due to the number of local
agencies keeping such records. Lists kept by the local
police, volost government, and clergy were often not Identi
cal. Dissenting Individuals and households moving from one
parish to another were often deleted from one list but not
added to another.To further compound the problem. Inter
nal Affairs’ officials were charged with collecting the
figures on dissenters without publicity, "extremely circum
spectly and discreetly so as not to arouse apprehension
among the perverted."
For 1826 and 1827 the total number of Doukhobors
was calculated at 27,722 and 24,4l4 sectarians of both
sexes respectively.
A. V-skll, "0 talnykh 1 lavnykh raskolnlkakh," Pravoslavnoe obozrenle, 13 (April 1864): 347-348. The author’s findings were taken from data gathered by the Min istry of Internal Affairs on laroslav, Nlzhnll-Novgorod, Kostroma, and Saratov provinces. Haxthausen discovered that "little or nothing" could be learned about sectarians from the civil or ecclesiastical authorities because (1) the latter were "afraid to speak," and (2) "they know nothing . . . as all the sectarians here have a great Interest In keeping their affairs as secret as possible." See Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1: 246-247.
^^Varadlnov, Istorlla mlnlsterstva, 3, Part IV, 157- 1 5 8 . Unfortunately, the number of Doukhobors— Indeed, of any sect— was never known "for certain." See Ethel Dunn, "Canadian and Soviet Dukhobors: An Examination of the Mech anisms of Culture Change," Canadian Slavic Studies, 4 (Sum mer 1 9 7 0 ), 3 0 1 . The official penchant for secrecy during Nicholas’ reign has been well documented. See Sidney Monas, The Third Section: Police and Society In Russia under Nicholas I (Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 1961), p. 8 7.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 218
TABLE 1
Subdivisions of the Doukhobor Population
for the Years 1826 and 1827
Subdivision 1826 1827
Males of various estates 10,175 9,529
Females of various estates 10,933 9,930
Landowners’ peasants— male 2,926 2,462
Landowners’ peasants— females 3,688 2,493
Source: The figures are compiled from pro vincial lists cited In Varadlnov, Istorlla mlnlster stva, 3, Part IV, 158-179.
Note: In tsarist legislation the phrase "various estates" usually applied to merchants, meshchane, Cossacks, state and udel peasants, and odnodvortsy.
As Table 1 Indicates It was probably much easier for those
of "various estates" to live as recorded Doukhobors than for
those belonging to landowners. Yet the fact that over 6,600
Doukhobors belonged to landowners Is not Insignificant. In
his "Kratkoe obozrenle sushchestvulushchlkh v Rossll
raskolov, eresel 1 sekt" (1853), I. P. Llprandl (1790-1880),
the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ expert In sectarian
matters, noted that "there are "landowners who do not pay
attention to the religion of their peasants, especially as
schismatics are generally very prompt In fulfilling their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 219
land obligations."^^ The figures further show a slight pre
ponderance of female Doukhobors, a condition born out in
other studies. In l864 an unidentified commentator, noting
the larger proportion of women in figures on registered dis
senters, reasoned that "due to their position in society,
women have much less to fear in declaring themselves dis
senters." He hastened to assure his readers that the pre
ponderance of women did not confirm the notion that schisms
Despite their imprecision, the data collected in the
years I826 and 1827 did serve to indicate to the government
the geographic areas of Doukhobor concentration.^^
The document is contained in SPSR, 2: 150. Ivan Petrovich Liprandi was an army officer who served as an aide to New Russian Governor-general Prince M. S. Vorontsov (1 7 8 2-1 8 5 6) in Odessa in the l830»s. Around l840 Liprandi retired from the military and entered the civil service, first with the Ministry of Internal Affairs and later (I8 5 6) with the Appanage Department. Liprandi played a major role in the investigation and arrest of M. V. Petrashevskii and his "circle" in April of 1849. See "Liprandi," Entsiklopedicheskii slovar, 17a: 727.
^^V-skii, "0 tainykh i iavnykh raskolnikakh," 345.
^^It is apparent from the figures of later censuses cited by Varadinov that only in the data for I826 and 1827 were the Doukhobors listed exclusively and not lumped with the Molokans. Only one province, Viatka, is recorded as having Doukhobors and Molokans in I8 2 6. This reflects (1) the lack of official expertise in the area of dissenting faiths, and (2) probable confusion on the part of dissenters themselves as to which group they belonged. The figures here cited probably contain Molokans as well as Doukhobors. In his "Kratkoe obozrenie" Liprandi complained that provincial officials dealing with dissenters had no comprehension of the "significance of the different sects." As late as I867 the term "Molokan" was used in Tauride to denote members of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 220
Predictably a large percentage of the sect was located in
Tauride province (in 1 8 2 6, 2,523 males and 2,574 females ; in
1 8 2 7, 2 ,7 1 7 males and 2,630 females), the site of the Milky
Waters colony. Large groups of Doukhobors (and/or Molokans)
were also found in Tambov (in I8 2 6, 5,104 sectarians of both
sexes ; in 1827, 4,8l6) and Saratov (in 1826, 8,04l sectar
ians of both sexes; in 1827, 8,5 8 5). The fact of these
latter concentrations was not lost on the government.
Governmental concern over dissenters began to be
expressed in more explicit terms in the spring and fall of
1 8 2 6. In April St. Petersburg ordered that landowners'
peasants converting to Doukhoborism were to be handed over
as army recruits. Those unfit for military service were to
be exiled to Siberia. A second provision denied passports
to Doukhobors of the Milky Waters colony for travel outside
the settlement to w o r k . I n September of I826 dissenters
of all types were prohibited from constructing "anything"
resembling a church. Existing houses of worship, however.
the Doukhobor and Spiritual Christian sects. See SPSR, 2: 1 5 1 , and Z., "Sostoianie raskola v tavricheskoi gubernii," Pravoslavnoe obozrenie, 22 (March, I8 6 7) : 325.
^^SPR, 2: 100-101. Novitskii asserted that the Doukhobors were using their passports in attempts to contact and convert Orthodox peasants. The stated aim of this ukase of April 10/22, 1826 ("so by these means to hamper as much as possible their communication with Orthodox residents") im plies that the Doukhobors were indeed guilty of such activ ity. See Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, p. 124.
37VPSZ,. 1: 584.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 221
Survey of Public Opinion for 1827" explained the official
apprehension manifested in these ukases:
. . . in all of Russia only the peasantry of Russian nationality finds itself in a condition of slavery. . . . Among the peasantry travellers are met with who tell them of their condition; the vil lage clergy likewise expound to them. The doctrines of many sectarians com pel them to feel their position, and the refuges of these very sectarians (schismatic hermitages) are able to be viewed in this regard as Jacobin c l u b s . 38
In 1 82 8 the Russian Orthodox Church inaugurated a
spate of missionary activity designed to combat sectarianism.
Predictably, the impetus for the missions originated in the
civil sector. In January 1828 the governor-general of Penza
province, A. N. Bakhmetev (1774-1841), sent a memorandum to
Bishop Irineia of Penza in which it was explained that re
doubled efforts on the part of the local clergy were nec
essary to curtail the spread of religious dissent. Irineia
subsequently notified Bakhmetev of injunctions relayed to
all blagochinnye (city clergy) and parish priests demanding
"that they intensify their zeal and at every favorable
opportunity demonstrate to the dissenters their error, in
structing them through reasonable counsel and in a spirit of
kindness." The Bishop lamented, however, that the govern
ment's expectations of success against the dissenters could
not be satisfied due to the large number of Molokans and
^^Benckendorff, "0 Rossii v l827-l830gg.," 152.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 222
Doukhobors in his province. Irineia then recommended that
missionaries be established in each district (uezd) infected
by dissent, and that the local civil authorities be requested
to cooperate with the mission effort.
The Holy Synod was informed of Irineia*s corres
pondence with Bakhmetev. On April 6/18, 1828 the Synod
announced approval of the Penza bishop's plan to appoint
missionaries in each district "for the struggle with schism."
The success of the program was to be reported to the Synod.
One month later Nicholas ordered Serafim, Metropoli
tan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, to request the Holy
Synod to adopt measures for the conversion of dissenters in
Perm province to the Orthodox faith. Although the major
effort of the Perm mission was directed mainly against Old
Believers,the provisions of the Synodal ukase (May 16/28,
1 8 2 8) demonstrated the government's realization of the
^ PSPR, series 5, 1: 182. Although Irineia was alarmed, the census figures for Doukhobors in Penza province for 1826 and 1827 showed only 662 and 639 sectarians of both sexes respectively. See Varadinov, Istoriia ministerstva, 3, Part 4: 164, 175.
^^Ministry of Internal Affairs statistics showed only a negligible number of Doukhobors in Perm province. The missionary effort in Perm was directed towards converting resident Old Believers to edinoverie. Based on tenets de veloped by Moscow Metropolitan Platon at the end of the eighteenth century, edinoverie preserved the rites of the Old Belief, but in terms of organization and hierarchy was joined to the official Russian Orthodox Church. The first edino verie parish was formed in Moscow in I8OI. By I851 there were 179 edinoverie churches numbering 160,000 parishioners. See Smirnov, ed., Tserkov v istorii, p. 222.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 223
necessity for understanding and persuasion— rather than out
right suppression— of religious dissenters. Those priests
designated as missionaries were to possess "thorough know
ledge" of the "slander" leveled against Orthodoxy, and they
were to be provided with "old-print and old-written books"
so as to be able to prove the fallacies of the Old Belief.
For these persuasive efforts to have an effect, "influential
and obstinate dissenters" were not to be allowed to prevent
others from entering into contact with the missionaries.^^
The Perm missions proved successful. In August of
183 3 Ober-Procurator S. D. Nechaev (1792-1860) informed the
Synod that due to the Perm success he had suggested to the
Emperor the establishment of similar missions in other areas
infected with religious dissent. Nechaev added that in his
opinion missionaries would be of particular value in Saratov 42 province.
Nicholas agreed with Nechaev’s proposal. It was
decided to establish a missionary effort in Saratov on the
same basis as that in Perm. A small financial grant was
authorized for those "priestly servitors" chosen as mission
aries "so that they willingly leave their families . . . for
the propagation of the true faith." Nicholas cautioned that
^^PSPR, Series 5, 1: 191. 42 Ibid., I: 5 0 0 . Nechaev was no doubt aware of the 1 8 2 6 -1 8 2 7 census figures of Doukhobors in Saratov noted above.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 224
the missionary activity, as well as the choice of mission
aries, be conducted with "extreme care.
The Synod, upon review of Metropolitan Serafim’s
original proposal for Perm, informed the Saratov bishop of
the Tsar’s decision. It was specifically ordered that the
names of those chosen as missionaries for their ability,
education, enthusiasm, and "upright behavior" be forwarded
to the Synod. The Saratov bishop was also directed to
solicit information and advice from his counterpart in Perm 44 province.
The tone of these instructions is significant.
Missionaries were to be chosen by criteria emphasizing
education and "upright behavior." They were to be knowledge
able in the ways and doctrines of dissenters. They were to
instruct the wayward "through reasonable counsel and in a
spirit of kindness." The civil authorities who inaugurated
and closely monitored the missions appear to have realized
the futility of those former methods of conversion which
Senator Lopukhin inveighed against at the beginning of the
century. The missions reflected a reasoned effort at per
suasion rather than a brash ideological onslaught. The
mission clergy, as well as the dissenters, were to be
subjected to a state-directed "rationalized subordination
and discipline" in their efforts.
43t
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 225
Other sources as well betray an official attitude of
moderation. In May of 18S4 Metropolitan Filaret cautioned
Nechaev against the use of police summonses when investigat
ing Molokan activities. Was it not better, questioned
Filaret, "to attempt without a formal demand to see whomever
it is possible to see, with good hopes and without fear of
harmful consequences?"^^ Nicholas acted with similar re
serve when informed of the existence of a dissenters' poor-
house in Viatka province. After ordering that only those
truly ill or aged be housed in the structure, the Emperor
charged the local authorities with insuring that "the dis
position of the poorhouse building is improved so that those
living in it do not suffer from lack of space and untidiness,
and illness is not increased.
How effective was the missionary effort? The exten
sion of the program into Saratov indicates some degree of
success. Count N. A. Protasov, Nechaev's successor as Ober-
Procurator of the Holy Synod, displayed considerable satis
faction with conversion efforts during an interview with
William Palmer, the English clergyman, in 1840.^"^ It was
^^"Iz pisem mitropolita Filareta," 2l8.
^^SPR, 2: 119-120.
^"^Palmer, Notes, p. 277. All levels of the Church hierarchy seemed ever optimistic over efforts to convert dissenters. Father Zotik, a priest in the Transcaucasian town of Shemakh in the I8 5O 's, "persistently assured" V. S. Tolstoi that local Molokans were prepared to convert to Orthodoxy; but "he did not speak as to the reasons for their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 226
only natural, however, that Protasov struck an optimistic
stance before Palmer. More telling evidence suggests that
the conversion effort was unsatisfactory. In his secret
"Kratkoe obozrenie" composed toward the end of Nicholas'
reign, I. P. Liprandi painted a bleak picture. In the
cities, wrote Liprandi, the clergy were unable to act
effectively against dissenters because the great number of
parishioners prevented stringent policing. In rural areas
dissenters formed a wealthy class of people, thus providing
obstacles to their eradication "which, due to the existing
situation of our rural clergy, a large part of them [the
clergy] are not in a position to conquer.
We cannot assume, of course, that the Orthodox
clergy was overly enthusiastic about the state's ideological
moderation in dealing with dissenters. The- experience re
counted by Joseph Neave, an English traveller, is probably
symptomatic of the clergy's response. It also indicates the
weaknesses of the missionary effort. In Tiflis Neave came
across a group of Molokans "sorely persecuted" by a mission
ary sent from St. Petersburg. Continually frustrated in his
efforts to convert the heretics, the missionary finally
failure to fulfill this intention." See V. S. Tolstoi, "Iz sluzhebnykh vospominanii V. S. Tolstago (Kavkazskie molokany i skoptsy)," Russkii arkhiv, 22 (l884): 57.
^^SPSR, 2: 149.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 227
asked the civil authorities to exile them. The local magis
trate, however, considered the Molokans to be "good citizens,"
and skillfully managed to quash the priest's request. Later,
in St. Petersburg, Neave again encountered the Tiflis mis
sionary. The latter "was talking largely about the success
of his work in the south, and the numbers that he had
brought back into the fold. ..." Ultimately, however, the
missionary's "immorality and untruthfulness being known," he
was "quietly disposed of, probably to a monastery to end his
days.
The initial decisions of Nicholas' government re
garding dissenters were largely fragmentary, geared to deal
with particular circumstances.^^ The situation was confus
ing enough to prompt St. Petersburg in 1829 to send to the
provincial governors extracts from ukases dealing with dis
senters enacted as far back as 1731 in an attempt to achieve
a semblance of uniformity in dissenters’ affairs. Situations
not covered by the laws were to be immediately reported to
Joseph James Neave, Leaves from the Journal of Joseph James Neave, ed. by Joseph J. Green (London: Headly, 1911), pp. 139-141. The magistrate saved the Molokans from exile by making the exile orders subject to the approval of the local Orthodox prelate. The latter, "to his honor," would not sign the orders.
^*^Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, p. 126.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 228
that given the Tsar's penchant for order a more fundamental
sectarian policy be erected.
The immediate impetus for a comprehensive policy
arose from a proposal by Internal Affairs Minister V. S.
Lanskoi. Lanskoi, perturbed by the increasing sectarian
population (especially Doukhobors and Molokans), sought to
curtail this growth by proposing that individuals of various
stations (specifically, merchants, meshchane, Cossacks,
state and udel peasants, and odnodvortsy) shown to be dis
senters be banished to western Siberia. The choice of lands
for such settlement was to be left to the governor-general
of Western Siberia with certain qualifications. Separate
Doukhobor villages were to be established containing no more
than 100 souls, and these settlements were to be separated
from the nearest Orthodox village by a distance of twenty-
five versts. The Committee of Ministers began an investi
gation of Lanskoi's proposal and charged the governor-general
of Western Siberia with finding sites for the settlements.
Nicholas, however, favored military service rather than
banishment for dissenters. He ordered the State Council to
review the entire affair.
^^Varadinov, Istoriia ministerstva, 3, Part 4, 228 Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, pp. 126-128.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 229
In the course of Its deliberations, which continued
into 1830 , the State Council drew up a set of "leading
principles" which formed the core of a landmark ukase promul
gated on October 20/November 1, I830. This decree, directed
at "Doukhobors, Ikonobors, Molokans, Judaizers and others
recognized as particularly pernicious heresies," provided a
uniformity previously lacking in sectarian affairs. Its
twelve articles contain both punitive and administrative
edicts.
The punitive articles outlined offenses and punish
ments. The first article of the ukase stated bluntly that
"all raskolniki . . . accused of spreading their heresies
and attracting others to them, [and] also [accused of]
temptation, unruliness and insolence against the church and
clergy of the Orthodox faith are to be handed over to the
courts.The second article set the punishments of the
guilty. Those fit for military service were to be sent to
the Caucasus Corps, and those unfit were to be settled in
the provinces of Transcaucasia.^^ Article six denied
53,VPSZ, 5: 4,010.
tantamount to a death sentence. The Caucasus Corps averaged a death rate of 67.0 per thousand annually, mostly from disease. Only 5-8 per thousand were combat casualties. The death rate of the Russian Army as a whole before the Crimean War averaged 37.4 men per thousand annually. Other European armies of the period suffered death rates of about 20.0 per thousand. Robert Lyall, a contemporary travellar, noted that Georgia was called "the cemetary of the Russian army." Charles Frederick Henningsen (l8l5-l877), who served with
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 230
temporary leave or retirement to dissenters sentenced to
military service in accordance with article two. Article
eight sentenced to permanent Transcaucasian exile any dis
senter who succumbed a second time to heresy following an
initial Orthodox conversion.
The tenth article applied to "the teachers and fol
lowers of those sects whose heresy is joined with brutal
cruelty and fanatical attempts on the lives of themselves or
others." Followers of these sects were to be dealt with in
accordance with the laws for murder or intention of suicide.
Although specific groups were not mentioned, this article
was clearly intended for the Skoptsy and Khlysty sects. The
latter two groups sought to approach their conception of the
divine through self-mutillation and flagellation respec
tively.^^ Article eleven denied to Doukhobors, Molokans,
the Russian Army in Circassia and later with the Confederate forces in the American Civil War, estimated an annual loss of 15,000 soldiers in Transcaucasia, with considerably higher losses in some years. See Curtiss, Russian Army, pp. 249- 251; Lyall, Travels, 2: 52; Henningsen, Revelations of Russia, 2: 325-326. Provisions for the transportation to and settlement of dissenters in Transcaucasia were outlined in a December 13/25, 1832 ukase. See SPR, 2: 136-137.
^^Haxthausen wrote of a sect of "self-immolators," or Morelshchiki, who yearly came to the government's atten tion through a mass immolation of twenty to a hundred of their adherents. This was accomplished by setting fire to a house filled with the sectarians, or by burning themselves in a hole dug in the ground, "with the accompaniment of wild songs." Certainly the tenth article of the I83O ukase applied to this group. See Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1: 248-249.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 231
et al. the opportunity to serve in community positions wield
ing "powers of law or administration."
Six administrative articles provided logistical and
legal support for the punitive measures. Article three
charged Georgian authorities with designating a place "most
convenient" for the settlement of exiled dissenters.
Significantly, in their selection of a "convenient" area
Georgian officials were ordered to consider (1) the popula
tion requirements of the border areas, and (2) the need to
curtail the dissenters* methods of proselytism. The fourth
article ended further colonization on the New Russian border
(Tauride province, site of the Milky Waters colony), and
decreed that dissenters wishing to be settled with their
coreligionists were to be henceforth dispatched to
Transcaucasia.
Article five provided incentives for conversion to
Orthodoxy. Dissenters converting before having their sen
tences carried out were to be returned to their former
communities or landowners. Those converting after they had
been exiled by the courts were permitted to return to the
inner provinces to any city or rural community they wished.
The latter were granted a three-year exemption from all
taxes and had the right to choose their tax status. In all
cases conversions had to be certified by the local spiritual
authorities.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 232
The seventh article specifically applied all punitive
measures to Doukhobors appearing among the Don Cossacks.
Article nine provided for a judicial review of sorts. Before
any sentence was carried out, the provincial authorities were
obligated to report to the Ministry of Internal Affairs which
in turn, through the Committee of Ministers, advised the
Emperor as to the disposition of the case. The final arti
cle provided for changes in land administration in New
Russia because of the suspension of sectarian colonization
there.
The ukase of October 20/November 1, I83O is note
worthy for two reasons. Firstly, its tone was as evocative
of Nicholas* reign as the ukase of December 9/21, I816 was
of Alexander's. Law and order were the mutually reinforcing
themes of Nicholaevan Russia; the twelve points of the I830
decree indicated to the Doukhobors (and others) just where
they fit in Nicholas’ bureaucratic universe. Significantly,
the ukase demonstrated a rationality of law rather than
ideology. Lanskoi * s original scheme calling for the exile
of persons of "free status" (i.e., merchants, Cossacks,
odnodvortsy, etc.) was abandoned. The first article of the
ukase specified the crimes of commission for which dissenters
were liable: proselytism, temptation, and insolence and
to each dissenting soul and transferred excess lands— pre viously apportioned to dissenting colonists— back to the Treasury.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 233
unruliness toward the Orthodox Church and its clergy. Simply
being a dissenter was not a crime.
The legislation of October I83O is significant for a
second reason. The ukase indicated, explicitly and implic
itly, the direction which Nicholas* sectarian policy would
take for the next two decades. Most subsequent rulings con
cerning dissenters were expansions, modifications, or clari
fications of the 1830 regulations. These variations pro
ceeded along three basic tacks.Firstly, the punitive
measures set forth in I83O were variously sharpened and
blunted in order to coerce, cajole, or woo dissenters into
acceptable behavior patterns in those areas where they
appeared most abundent. As we shall see, Tambov and Saratov
provinces received considerable attention in this respect.
Secondly, other restrictive measures followed upon article
eleven of the I83O ukase which denied dissenters the right
to hold community positions. Significantly, article eleven
was the only punitive measure leveled against dissenters not
convicted of religious crimes. The next twenty years would
see more of such rulings. Finally, the administrative side
Some legislation, of course, simply served to iron out problems left unanswered in I83O. For example, in I837 the question arose as to the disposition of those dissenters native to the Transcaucasian area convicted of religious crimes. It was decided that these unfortunates should be sent to the military or exiled to Siberia. See VPSZ, 12: 10 ,525. A number of ukases dealt with dissenters in Siberia. See VPSZ, 11: 8,772, 22: 21,125; SPR, 2: 386- 387.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 234
of the 1830 legislation betrayed a geographic shift in the
government’s sectarian policy. Henceforth the relative com
fort of colonization in Tauride would be replaced by the
harsh rigors of settlement in Transcaucasia.
The striving for order and uniformity in sectarian
affairs, so evidenced by the I83O decree, was typified by
other legislation in the early I83O ’s . In June of 1831 a
Secret Consultative Committee was established in Moscow by
Nicholas "to give a more uniform course to affairs concerning
dissenters in Moscow and its province." The Committee was
charged with achieving "consistency and precision" in re
solving problems arising from dissenters’ activities, and
with bringing the wayward back into the Orthodox Church
through a policy of "safe" toleration which would ignore the
existence, but not the spread, of heretical doctrines.
The ukase specifically asserted that "a spirit of toleration"
was not incompatible with stringent measures designed to
maintain the security of the Empire.
The government also sought to produce conformity in
those foreign religions previously invited to settle in
Russia. In I832 pastors of the Evangelical Lutheren Church
in Russia found guilty of spreading "false opinion and
doctrine" not in conformity with Evangelical Lutheran
59 SPR, 2: 128-130 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 235
orthodoxy wore ordered to be punished by "severe censure or
even dismissal.
Statistics gathered in 1826 and 1827 revealed sig
nificant numbers of Doukhobors (and/or Molokans) in Tambov
and Saratov provinces. In the years 1834-1835 the govern
ment turned its attention to these provinces and their
sectarian problem.
The immediate impetus for the state’s actions at
this particular time was a report in February 1834 by Min
ister of Internal Affairs D. N. Dludov (1785-1864) which
noted the "pernicious" spread of Doukhobor and Molokan in
fluence in the province of Tambov.Earlier, in January of
1834, Tambov authorities were instructed that "public dis
plays" of Doukhobor or Molokan doctrine were to be prohibited,
and that the sectarians were not to "deviate from the
^°VPSZ, 7: 5,870.
^^Haxthausen wrote that the Molokans "in general are peaceful and quiet, though sometimes fanaticism breaks out." Shortly before Haxthausen visited Nikolaev uezd in Saratov province in 1843 a Molokan rushed into an Orthodox religious procession, seized an icon, threw it to the ground, and "trampled it underfoot." The zealous Molokan was instantly murdered by the enraged Orthodox processioners. Novitskii accused the Doukhobors of Tambov with being "inclined" to corrupt the Orthodox through "public expressions" of their doctrine. See Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1: 287; Novit skii, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, pi 126.
^^PSPR, Series 5, 1: 522.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 236
observance of the general rules of public welfare, as deter
mined by law.The following month, in the aftermath of
Bludov’s report, Serafim, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St.
Petersburg, informed the Holy Synod of the Emperor’s wish to
redouble efforts in Tambov for the conversion of Doukhobors
and Molokans.
Serafim offered a four-point program to the Synod
outlining the missionary effort in Tambov. Parishes in
fected with Doukhobors and Molokans were to be provided with
"spiritually enlightened" priests who through force of speech
and exemplary living would be capable "instruments of con
version." The Tambov bishop was empowered to transfer
priests at his discretion and according to the "requirements
of service." So that difficulties did not occur "due to the
poverty of these parishes" infected with dissenters, the
Tambov bishop was authorized to request an auxiliary salary
for the parish priests from the Holy Synod.These mea
sures were adopted by the Synod on February 18/March 2, 1834.
In May of 1834 St. Petersburg learned that the civil
governor of Tambov had decided to levy a special tax on
Molokans and Doukhobors in his province. The monies thus
raised were to be used to provide Orthodox officials for
those communities lacking a significant Orthodox
^^SPR, 2: 150-151.
^^PSPR, Series 5, 1: 522. ^^Ibid.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 237
population.Such uncharacteristic initiative, however,
did not settle well with Nicholas. The Tambov authorities
were ordered to "postpone" implementation of the special
t a x J 7
The government launched its strongest effort against
dissenters in Tambov province in March of I835. The governor
and the Tambov diocesan bishop were ordered to furnish St.
Petersburg with a list of Molokan leaders, indicating "their
opinion as to whether it would be effective or favorable to
send these heretic leaders to the Transcaucasian provinces."
The governor was further ordered to imprison up to ten new
converts to Molokanism if they refused to name their
"seducers." The effect of this measure on other dissenters
was to be reported. Finally, the Tambov governor was
asked to give his opinion as to whether newly converted
Molokans should be dealt with as their seducers, i.e.,
sentenced to military service or exile in Transcaucasia.^^
A ukase of July 8/20, I819 provided for the col lection of an annual tax from Doukhobor communities as a whole in payment for "liberation" from the right to hold community positions. See SPR, 2: 6 0 . The ukase of October 20/November 1, I83O said nothing about such taxes.
^^SPR, 2; 159 -160 . Nineteenth century Russian governors were not inclined or expected to be initiators of such fiscal programs in their provinces. See Frederick Starr's estimation of the Russian governorship in his De centralization and Self-Government in Russia, I83O-I870 (Princeton : Princeton University Press, 1972), pp. 122-123.
^^SPR, 2 : 174-175.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 238
As noted above, a missionary program for Saratov
province was inaugurated in the autumn of 1833 in response
to Nicholas’ wishes. In October l833 Iakov, Bishop of
Saratov, forwarded to the Holy Synod a list of those dis
tricts which required missions, accompanied by the names of
those priests most qualified to man them. On February 2 3/
March 7, 1834 the Synod approved Iakov’s plans.
The missionary effort in Saratov did not progress
effectively. In april of 1835 the Synod was notified that
information had reached the Tsar that in Saratov province
the "Doukhobor or Molokan sect" was still multiplying. It
was noted that approximately 6,000 of these dissenters
existed in Saratov, and that "in several places" they were
extraordinarily zealous.
To remedy the Saratov situation, the Tambov bishop,
by now a veteran in such matters, was requested to submit
recommendations to the Synod. Synodal member Grigorii,
Archbishop of Tver, was entrusted with condensing and fitting
the Tambov recommendations to suit the problem in Saratov.
The Archbishop’s scheme was adopted by the Synod on May 5/17,
1835.
^^PSPR, Series 5, 1: 524.
"^*^Ibid. , 1: 596 . The wording indicates the con fusion regarding the differences between Doukhobors and Molokans.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 239
Grigorii’s proposals formed a code of conduct for
those priests entrusted with the conversion of Doukhobors
and Molokans. They were notable for their passivity and
restraint. Those appointed to missionary service were to
acquire "sufficient knowledge" of Doukhoborism to be able to
demonstrate its fallacies. Beyond doctrine, the priest was
to be versed in "what is unpleasant and tempting for these
people" which compelled them to forsake the true faith.
He was to identify the leaders of the sectarian community,
and discover their personal idiosyncrasies. Grigorii further
advised the missionaries to become personally acquainted with
the dissenters in order to better decide upon effective
methods of action. Ideally, the priest was to engage dis
senters in religious conversation without the participation
of the civil authorities in order to prevent any appearance
of intimidation. Contact with dissenters was to be made
"beginning with those who are less hardened, but nevertheless
have some influence in the community, and, through persuasion
of them, attract others gradually.
awareness that something other than insanity or ignorance motivated conversion to sectarianism. A noblewoman, speaking to William Palmer, phrased it thus: " ’There is a craving among the people for religion. The Church does not satisfy it, so they go off to the sectaries, who do more to satisfy it than the Church.’" See Palmer, Notes, p. 399.
^^PSPR, Series 5, 1: 596.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 240
If the missionary was unable to approach the sectar
ian community through its leadership, it was desirable to
"secretly" enter into contact with the civil authorities or
landowners for aid in weakening the influence of the heretic
leaders. Once their leadership was discredited, the sectar
ians would be willing to engage openly in "general conversa
tion and admonishment" with the priest.
If it was possible, a mass meeting of the dissenters
of a community was to be organized for collective admonish
ment. The priest was to "strive to converse and exhibit the
bases of truth simply, clearly, calmly, thoroughly, with
kindness, patience and love, being wary of inappropriate
fervor, dictatorial tones, passionate rebukes, rigorous
censure and blame which . . . only irritate and produce sus
picion against the validity of the defended faith" [Ortho
doxy] . Finally, "the faithful attendant of truth is not to
forget that only through good is evil conquered," and thus
patience, not malice, was always to be employed when con
fronted with sectarian obstinacy.
These instructions, as those levied on previous
missionaries, were clearly an improvement over those methods
Ibid. Grigorii*s code also instructed the priest to prevent public worship services by the dissenters, to expel from the parish those heretics engaged in proselytism, to visit the homes of dissenters afflicted by illness or other misfortunes, and to report all activity to his bishop.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 241
of "admonishment" which so appalled Prince Lopukhin. In tone
they were also far removed from the spirit of the October
1830 ukase. This, however, is not surprising. The I83O
decree was directed against dissenters guilty of criminal
activity. As such it had a legalistic flavor that Grigorii*s
instructions, aimed at the conversion of noncriminal dis
senters, lacked. Unfortunately, some elements of the
Orthodox clergy were not sensitive to Nicholas’ distinction
between criminal and non-criminal dissenters. For these
zealots, heresy itself was criminal.
Grigorii’s code of conduct was essentially meant to
prevent the excesses of over-zealous priests, but such
excesses remained a fact of sectarian life in Russia. In
1844 a new Orthodox diocese was established in the northern
Caucasus region. leremiia, the first bishop of the diocese,
was "bilious, ambitious and inclined toward fanaticism."
His religious fervor predictably aroused the ire of resident
dissenters, mostly soldiers, "among whom were honorable and
distinguished people." leremiia’s "steep and not altogether
sensible measures" against dissenters ultimately led to the
intervention of Prince M. S. Vorontsov (I782-I856), viceroy
and commander-in-chief of the Caucasus. Vorontsov ordered
the exemption of line Cossack troops (among which were many
Doukhobors) from the control of the diocese.
^^G. I. Filipson, "Vospominaniia Grigoriia Ivanovicha Filipsona," Russkii arkhiv, 22 (l884). Part 1: 38O-38I.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 242
Vorontsov's action complemented Grigorii's instruc
tions sent to the Saratov missionaries and both typified the
official attitude of patience and toleration in the service
of peace and public order. If this attitude was not always
practiced by provincial authorities, it was rarely allowed
to disappear totally from the collective bureaucratic con
sciousness. As late as 1853 V. S. Tolstoi, an emissary of
Prince Vorontsov’s, found it necessary to counsel Trans
caucasian officials "to appoint wise and learned clergy who
should know how to converse with . . . Molokans," for the
latter were "generally greater scholars in the Holy
Scriptures. ..."
With the exception of article eleven, the ukase of
October 20/November 1, 183O applied solely to dissenters con
victed of "temptation, unruliness and insolence against the
church and clergy of the Orthodox faith. . . ." Theoreti
cally, dissenters not engaged in criminal activity were not
subject to punitive measures. Over the next two decades,
however, Nicholas’ government erected an ingenious structure
of restrictions with a two-fold purpose. The state sought
Vorontsov’s intervention was finally sparked when an ataman of line troops was punished for suspicion of being an Old Believer.
"^^Tolstoi, "Iz sluzhebnykh vospominanii (Kavkazskie molokany)," 59.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 243
firstly to isolate dissenters from the rest of Russian
society in order to prevent heretical proselytism. Secondly,
Nicholas was anxious to subject the sectarian population of
the Empire to those duties and obligations incumbent on his
Orthodox subjects. The permeable wall the state sought to
construct between dissenters and Orthodox Christians was thus
fraught with a basic contradiction which created difficulties
for the government. It was, nevertheless, one solution to
the problem of a dissenting population viewed as potentially
dangerous for the state.
The government’s predicament was typified in the
area of military service. Normally, as we have seen, draft
calls were imposed on village communes which then chose the
required number of recruits from those liable according to
some pre-arranged order. Often, however, the customary order
was bypassed in order to deliver religious misfits or other
undesirables to the military. Doukhobors presumably found
themselves as recruits through both processes, large
^ William Palmer was told the not atypical tale of a miscreant— employed as a household servant— who was threatened with being "made a common soldier" because of his strange religious proclivities . The unfortunate zealot was finally made a soldier after several sessions with a priest failed to dampen his desire "to retire into the solitude of the forest." See Palmer, Notes, pp. 399-400. In 1834 a fugitive peasant from an estate in Tambov, professing Molok anism, was discovered in a Molokan settlement in Transcau casia. The fugitive’s owner refused to take him back, seek ing instead as recompense to have him counted as part of the estate’s draft call. The Ministry of Internal Affairs, with the Tsar’s consent, inducted the peasant into the army, but refused to honor the landowner’s request for recompense. See VPSZ, 9: 7,515.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 244
concentrations of the sect selecting recruits according to
some sort of order, and small groups remaining subject to
the hostile vagaries of Orthodox neighbors.
Many Doukhobors served obediently— if not altogether
faithfully— in the military. St. Petersburg, however, re
mained suspicious of possible pacifist influences on the
Orthodox and consequent disturbances. The 1825 report of
Prince A. I. Chernyshev regarding Doukhobors in the Don 78 Cossacks is a case in point. Desirous of tapping
Doukhobor manpower, yet aware of the possible danger, the
government in l8s4 struck a compromise with itself. It
allowed Doukhobors in Tauride province (the Milky Waters
colony) to attach Muslims to their community for tax
T^The Doukhobor Ivan Mahortov, veteran of Sinope and Sevastopol, spoke rather proudly to Joseph Elkinton of his twenty-eight years in the Russian navy. He noted, however, that he "always served in arms under a silent protest. . . ." See Elkinton, Doukhobors, pp. 58-61. At least one account asserts that the Doukhobors refused to fire on the enemy in the war against the Turks in 1829. See M. I. Tugan- Baranovskii, Velichaishaia v mirie koimunisticheskaia organisâtsiia' (obshchina dukhoborov) (Kharkov: Izd. vserossiikago tsentr. soiuza potrebiteln. obshchest., 1919), p. 1 .
^^VPSZ, 1: 126. That such suspicions were not un founded was demonstrated in Tver province in 1838. In the community of Nikolsk a sect of dissenters (specific type un known) was discovered whose members halted childbirth after the arrival of the first male. An investigation showed that the practice was designed to lessen the impact of recruit levies on the sectarian community and shift the burden onto Nikolsk’s Orthodox population. It was also learned that the custom had spread to the Orthodox residents. The authori ties finally decided to create a separate recruit levy on the sectarians. See VPSZ, 13: 11,586.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 245
purposes and then to hire them as substitutes for Doukhobor
recruits.
The law on military substitutes exemplified the
state’s wish to reap benefits from its religious dissenters
while excluding them from participation in the social fabric.
Myriad problems, however, were raised by such a policy. In
1836 Molokans exiled to Transcaucasia were freed from payment
of monies (for transportation to initial military posts,
uniforms, and other military accouterment) normally collected
when recruits were conscripted. The reason for this was the
"very poor condition" in which the Molokans found themselves
at their place of exile. Thus the government, seeking to
isolate the sect yet extract maximum benefit from it, was
squarely faced with the contradictions inherent in its dual
policy.
A duplicate policy was followed in the civilian sec
tor. In 1834 Molokans in the Caucasus city of Kizliar were
ordered to pay an annual tax for the "relief and equaliza
tion" of Orthodox Kizliar residents "forced" to assume the
^^Ibid., 9: 7,535, art. 38. In 1837 Molokans in Tauride petitioned for similar rights, but were refused. It was reasoned (belatedly it seems) that such a right could serve as an enticement for the Orthodox to join the sect. Orthodox Christians had the right to hire substitutes, but rarely could afford to do so. The sectarians, as we shall see, were generally more wealthy. The consideration raised by the Molokan petition led to the revocation of the Doukho bor right to hire substitutes in I839. See SPR, 2: 257-259; VPSZ, 13: 11, 184, l4: 12,316; Dunn, "Canadian and Soviet," 303.
^°VPSZ, 11: 9 ,653.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 246
entire responsibility for community government. An l844
decree directed that in those Don Cossack stanitsy where the
population was all or mostly dissenters, the stanichnyi
at aman and the stanichnyi sud were to be Orthodox Christians.
Such were to be chosen, if necessary, from other stanitsy.
Recompense, presumably in the form of a tax, was to be
collected "from those regions which fall to the lot of the
dissenters.
In 1835 a ukase ordered city authorities to insure
that the positions of gorodskoi golova, starosta, and
remeslennyi glava were filled "without fail" by Orthodox or
edinoverie Christians. In l842 the government found it
necessary to enforce this edict by requiring written state
ments from all elected officials "that they do not belong to
any of the dissenting sects. . .
Ibid., 9: 7,671, 19: 17,516. The Kizliar tax was based on the election prohibitions contained in the ukases of July 8/20, 1819 (SPR, 2: 60 ) and May 27/June 8, 1820 (SPR, 2: 66-67). In Kizliar, Molokan merchants were directed to pay ten rubles per soul annually, with dissent ing meshchane paying five rubles per soul. A stanitsa was simply a Cossack settlement composed of one large, or several small, villages. The ataman and the sud (court) were elected offices of the stanichnoe pravlenie, the administra tive apparatus of the stanitsa.
^^SPR, 2: 187-188, 413-414. The gorodskoi golova was the elected head of the city administration. Elected starosty headed various categories of the urban populace such as the merchant and student populations. The remes lennyi glava was an annually elected "prefect of artisans" chosen by urban craftsmen. All of these positions were created by Catherine II's charter on city government (1785). The 1835 electoral law was prompted by the election of dis senters to various positions in the city of Ekaterinburg.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 247
In rural communities dissenters were granted the
right to participate in minor community positions, although
Doukhobors and others belonging to "particularly pernicious"
sects were denied access to offices of "power and adminis
tration." They were permitted to be designated as foresters,
desiatskie, and watchmen. Surprisingly, care was taken to
insure that the number of dissenters chosen to these "lowest
executive positions" corresponded to the proportion of dis
senters within the entire community. This was done to
equalize the burden between Orthodox and dissenter popula
tions. In those areas such as Tauride province, where rural
communities were composed entirely of dissenters, the exis
ting order of community government was to remain unchanged.
Beyond denying dissenters access to influential com
munity positions, Nicholas’ government sought to exclude
them from urban areas. Cities were regarded as lucrative
areas for "pernicious" heretics intent on the seduction of
Orthodox Christians. A May 1835 ban prohibited Doukhobors
and others belonging to "particularly pernicious sects" to
The 1842 ukase was designed to prevent election of dis senters— especially Skoptsy— who concealed their heresy behind a posed adherence to Orthodoxy.
^\ P S Z , 13: 11, 189, 14: 12,090. A desiatskii was a minor rural police agent elected by the men of ten house holds. He was responsible for maintaining order in his desiatok. Care was also taken to prevent "pernicious" dis senters from occupying "commanding positions" in state and privately owned mines and factories. See SPR, 2: 127-128, 269-270.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 248
be registered in urban communities outside the Transcaucasian
provinces. Service in the Caucasus Corps was the punishment
reserved for those who defied this ban. A ukase of November
1835 further limited urban registration by specifying seven
cities in Transcaucasia where dissenters could live. The
cities designated were Nukha, Shemakh, Kuba, Shusha, Lenkoran,
Nakhichevan, and Ordubat.^^ Taken as a whole, these communi
ties presented a mixed blessing to potential Doukhobor resi
dents. There were "many rich sectarians" in Shemakh who
could possibly aid their co-religionists in resettlement
there.Yet Shemakh suffered frequent earthquake damage.
Similarly, the climate of Kuba was so unhealthy that in I825
an unsuccessful attempt was made to transfer the city ten
miles to the north. Swamps surrounding Lenkoran made it
equally inhospitable.^^
In less substantive areas Nicholas’ government was
no less intent on excluding dissenters from the social
VPSZ, 10: 8,167, 8,563. In 1844 the government found it necessary to require written statements from those registering in cities that they did not belong to the Skoptsy, Doukhobor, Iconobor, Molokan, or Judaizer sects. In 1851 dissenters were "strictly forbidden" to register in Bessarabian cities. See VPSZ, 19: 17,7^8, 26: 25,855.
^^Tolstoi, "Iz sluzhebnykh vospominanii (Kavkazskie molokany)," 59.
^^Elisee Reclus, The Earth and Its Inhabitants, Vol. 6: Asiatic Russia (London! J. S. Virtue, 1891), pp. 128- 130
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 249
fabric. In I835 Semen Shvetov, a Molokan from Tambov
province, was denied promotion to "honorary citizenship" be
cause he was a leading figure in Tambov’s Molokan community.^
Two years later a ukase prohibited Doukhobors (and followers
of other sects which did not recognize Orthodox priests or
marriage, and did not "pray for the Tsar") from receiving
"any social distinction," especially that of honorary
citizenship. To enforce this ban, provincial authorities
were ordered to provide St. Petersburg with a brief bio
graphical sketch of every intended recipient of the honorary 8q citizenship award.
The various prohibitions discussed above were
designed to prevent the enticement of Orthodoxy’s unwary
into "particularly pernicious sects." There are indications
that the government’s concern over Orthodox-sectarian inter
course had some justification. Nicholas was personally
informed that Tambov Molokans, desirous of new converts,
attracted Orthodox Christians into their homes, and even
One of the more interesting exclusions was an 1845 ban on the employment of dissenters in icon painting shops. The stated aim of the prohibition, to prevent "improperly rendered icons," indicates that such malfeasance was not unknown. See VPSZ, 20: 18,590.
^^SPR, 2: 185-186. The special rank of "honorary citizenship" was created in 1832. It was meant to honor governmental officials and people with higher education who did not belong to the nobility. Upper level merchants and industrialists were also eligible for the honor. See Starr, Decentralization, pp. 22-23-
^^SPR, 2: 261-263.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 250
entered themselves into Orthodox households "under various
pretenses. It was not uncommon for dissenters and Ortho
dox Christians to be in each others’ employ. To counter
this a ukase of January I836 prohibited Molokans and Orthodox
Russians from entering each others’ homes. It also banned
the issuance of passports to Molokans for travel outside
their places of residence.
The government, however, would not impose an absolute
ban on Orthodox-sectarian intercourse. In May of 1836 the
Tambov Office of State Property asked St. Petersburg whether
the ban of January I836 applied to families composed of
Orthodox and Molokan members. In November Nicholas ruled
that
. . . taking into consideration that ac cording to our good laws no one is to be persecuted for errors of faith as long as he does not violate rules of public order, [he] found, that it does not follow to separate members of one . . . household for dissidence of faith, but should someone from the Molokans, or a dissenter in general, attract to his sect an Orthodox member of his own fam ily, with such must be dealt according to the law on corrupters.92
^°Ibid., p. 196 . ^^Ibid., pp. 196 -197 .
^^Ibid., pp. 228-229. Isaac Hourwich’s familiarity with the case of a Stundist (a sect originating from German colonists which arose in Russia shortly after the Emancipa tion in 1861 ) exiled for "corrupting" his daughter-in-law led him to conclude that "under the conditions of peasant life indeed no dissenter can escape the charge of seeking to make converts among members of the Orthodox Church." See Hourwich, "Religious Sects in Russia," in Case of Russia, ed. by Alfred Rambaud et al. (New York: Pox Duffield and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 251
If the government proved hesitant in separating
families "for dissidence of faith," dissenters were not so
restrained in exploiting the state’s position. In early 1837
Count Protasov informed the Ministry of Internal Affairs of
a set of Tambov "foundlings" being raised and educated in a
Molokan family "although their belonging by birth to the
Molokan household is not proven.In 1843 the Viatka
Secret Consultative Committee^^ reported that it was not un
common for dissenters (type unspecified) there "to accept
into their care and for adoption young children of the
Orthodox confession and to gradually infuse in them their
[heretical] errors.
Restrictions on dissenters in one area of activity
often fostered concessions in another. St. Petersburg may
have been often blind to the difficulties its sectarian
Co., 1905)5 pp. 379-380. Born in ViV;a, Isaac Aaronovich Hourwich (1860-1924) abandoned an early medical education for the law. In 1888 he published a study of peasant migra tion to Siberia. Two years later, after his second arrest for revolutionary activity, Hourwich fled from Russia to the United States. In the States he became a prominent statis tician and lawyer. See Percy W. Bidwell, "Hourwich," Dic tionary of American Biography, ed. by Dumas Malone (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1932), 9: 257.
^^SPR, 2: 267-268. The Tambov orphans were ordered placed in Orthodox homes.
^^Beginning in I838, "secret consultative committees, modeled after that in Moscow, were established in many prov inces to deal with dissenters’ affairs. We will examine these bodies in more detail in the following chapter.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 252
policies presented, but provincial officials were not. In
1836 G. V. Rosen (1782-1841), governor of the Transcaucasian
region, asked the Ministry of Internal Affairs for permis
sion to issue passports to dissenting settlers on the Trans
caucasian border for work in localities other than their
places of residence. Rosen argued that such permission would
help alleviate the economic problems caused by the ban on
dissenters entering Orthodox households. In l842 a Saratov
landowner petitioned the Ministry of Internal Affairs to
allow his Molokan peasants to transport the estate’s grain
to market. In both cases the government gave its consent.
The restrictive measures enacted by Nicholas’ govern
ment in the I83O’s displayed a restraint— even hesitation—
usually ignored in broad-brushed portraits of the era. The
state’s ideological interests seemingly lay with the aggres
sive suppression of sectarians. Yet, as we have seen,
economic, legal, and moral considerations all played a role
in the regimes’ attitude toward dissenters. In its efforts
to curtail the sectarians, the autocracy was utlimately
^^SPR, 2: 230-231, 395-396. Rosen specified that the dissenters be employed as factory laborers, as postmen of post stations in non-Orthodox areas (excluding cities), or as teamsters on trade routes through the Caucasus. Migrant labor was not uncommon in nineteenth century Russia. Prom 1826 to 1857 the total number of passports issued for migrant labor jumped from 574,000 to well over 1,000,000. A passport was required for an Orthodox Christian only if his work took him over thirty versts from home. See Blum, Lord and Peasant, p. 452. Dissenters needed passports irrespective of the distance to be travelled.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 253
limited by a bureaucratic rationality that dictated that "no
one is to be persecuted for errors of faith as long as he
does not violate rules of public order. . . .
Perhaps the state’s most characteristic posture
toward the Doukhobors and other dissidents in the I83O ’s is
contained in a series of ukases originally designed to
entice the heretics to the true faith, but ultimately bent
to a new purpose.
The ukase of October 20/November 1, I83O designated
Transcaucasia as the area for future placement— voluntary or
otherwise— of dissenters. Transcaucasia, laden with danger
and hardship for potential residents, bore little resemblance
to New Russia. St. Petersburg, mindful of Transcaucasia’s
unsavoriness, launched a number of incentives designed to
lure heretics back to the true faith.
Article five of the October 1830 ukase provided for
the return to the inner provinces and a three-year tax
exemption for all exiled sectarians converting to the
Orthodox faith. In 1835, in response to an inquiry from the
Ministry of Internal Affairs, Nicholas reaffirmed and
clarified his previous position. Those repentent dissenters
of "pernicious heresies," upon certification of their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 254
Orthodoxy by local spiritual officials, "must be returned to
the interior provinces with a three-year immunity from pay
ment of taxes. . . Furthermore, those returning to the
fold had the right to be registered in the city or rural
community of their choice provided they were acceptable to
the local residents. The repentent were prohibited, however,
from returning to those communities in which they lived
prior to their exile to Transcaucasia. In September of I836
permission was granted for repentent dissenters to remain in
the Transcaucasian provinces if they so desired. Three
years later those dissenters electing to remain in Trans
caucasia after conversion to Orthodoxy were granted the
three-year tax immunity formerly reserved only for those re
turning to the inner provinces.
Despite the insulation provided by an immense
bureaucracy, St. Petersburg was not unresponsive to indi
vidual cases involving repentent dissenters. The brothers
Iakov and Elisei Pachin were Molokans residing in Tauride
province. In defiance of an 1837 ban,^*^^ the brothers
unsuccessfully attempted to hire a Tatar as a recruit
replacement for their household in 1838. The attempt
frustrated. Firs Pachin, Elisei's son, was tapped for
^^VPSZ, 10: 8,082. ^^Ibid., 11: 9,538.
^°°Ibid., 14: 12 ,338.
^°^SPR, 2: 257-259; VPSZ, 13: 11, l84.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 255
military duty. Soon after the Pachin brothers converted to
Orthodoxy and petitioned for Firs’ return, citing the reluc
tant recruit’s desire to join the Orthodox Chruch as well.
Nicholas consented to the Pachins’ request. Young Firs was
returned and his place was taken by the Tatar.
The government’s wooing of the dissenters continued
into the l840’s. In l844 provincial authorities were
ordered to halt court proceedings involving dissenters if the
accused converted to Orthodoxy. In l846 those dissenters
settled voluntarily in the Transcaucasian region were per
mitted to return to the inner provinces with a three-year
tax exemption upon their conversion. Such converts were
allowed to return to their former homes without the assent
of the former community. Dissenters exiled as criminals
were allowed to return to the inner provinces, but not to
their former homes nor where there were no Orthodox
parishes.
Officially, the government’s efforts to entice the
heretics to the Orthodox Church were successful. Ober-
Procurator Protasov showed William Palmer reports which
claimed 10,000 converts annually for the years I837-I839,
and a total of over 85,000 from l837 to l840.^*^^
^^^SPR, 2: 318- 320. The Orthodox retained the right to hire substitute recruits.
^°^VPSZ, 19: 17,753; 8PR, 2: 462-464; VPSZ, 22: 20,
^^^Palmer, Notes, p. 277.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 256
V. s. Tolstoi, a minor chinovnik in the Caucasus, claimed one
instance of the conversion of an entire Molokan village.
Naturally, true conversions are impossible to ascertain.
Many dissenters no doubt claimed adoption of the Orthodox
faith for the rewards which conversion offered. At least one
individual converted to, and lapsed from. Orthodoxy three
times. The latter case forced the government to reiterate
its 1830 position of offering "only one forgiveness" to re
pentent dissenters. An I861 report on "secret" dissenters
suggested that Count Protasov’s claims were largely illusory.
Local records of dissenters and Orthodox converts, the
report found, were often falsified to show the parish clergy
in the best possible light.
There is some evidence that the government towards
the end of the 1830 ’s was growing less concerned with
achieving "true" conversions, and more occupied with the
problem of utilizing dissenters in the development of fringe
border areas. The decisions in I836 and 1839 granting
"repentent" dissenters the right to remain in Transcaucasia
with tax exemptions point to this policy change. Normally,
dissenters returned to the inner provinces were subject to
^^^Tolstoi, "Iz sluzhebnykh vospominanii (Kavkazskie molokany)," 58-6O. 106 ,, VPSZ, 11: 9 ,494.
^^"^V-skii, "0 tainykh i iavnykh raskolnikakh," 346-347.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 257
strict civil and ecclesiastical observation. Such control
was impossible in Transcaucasia, as General Ermolov noted in
1825. Still, newly "converted" heretics were permitted to
remain there, despite the fact that dissenting colonists
voluntarily settled in Transcaucasj.a were permitted free
exercise of their religion and were thus in a position to
"corrupt" again their former brethren.
In 1830 Nicholas chose Transcaucasia as the place of
exile for dissenters. In the late I83O 's he allowed "con
verted" dissenters to remain there with tax exemptions. By
the end of the l840’s, as we will see in the next chapter,
the Tsar was granting an eight-year tax exemption for those
heretics willing to be settled in Transcaucasia.The
shift in policy is unmistakable and its significance for the
Doukhobors proved immense.
Much has been made in this chapter of the restraint
and moderation which characterized the state's relationship
with the dissenters. Accordingly, before shifting our gaze
to the main bulk of Doukhobors at the Milky Waters, an
examination is in order of those dissenters forced to
experience two of the more undesirable rigors of Nicholas’
^°^SPR, 2 : 300-301.
109 VPSZ,. 23: 22,806, 24: 23,756.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 258
Russia: service in the Caucasus Corps and labor in the
mines of eastern Siberia.
The ukase of October 20/November 1, I83O sentenced
errant dissenters to military service. In I831 the question
arose as to the disposition of dissenters already in the
military who were found guilty of religious crimes. Pre
dictably, the 1830 regulations were extended to such of
fenders, i.e., they were to be sentenced to the Caucasus
Corps and deprived of temporary leave and retirement. Yet
it was stressed in a ukase of January I832 that dissenters
found in military service who acted "in the customary manner"
and committed no breach of the law were "to be left in
those commands where they are found, in peaceful confession
of those doctrines to which they adhere. . . .
It was not unusual for sectarians to outnumber
Orthodox Christians among the lines of Cossack troops
stationed in the Caucasus region. Often entire regiments
were composed "almost to a man" of dissenters of various
types : Old Believers, Molokans, Doukhobors, Subbotniks,
and even Skoptsy. Yet, in the estimation of one military
observer, "these were the best, most brave and reliable
regiments. Presumably, the I832 ukase allowing the
"peaceful confession" of heretical doctrines contributed to
^^^Pilipson, "Vospominaniia," 38O.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 259
the efficiency and reliability of the predominantly dis
senting Caucasus regiments.
A brief glimpse of sectarian life in Caucasian mili
tary service is afforded by an experience of Prince Mikhail
Semenovich Vorontsov, appointed viceroy and commander-in-
chief of the Caucasus in l844. Entering a stanitsa, Voront
sov was greeted by Cossacks bearing the traditional bread
and salt. Curiously, the Prince received two portions of
bread and salt from two separate groups of men. Vorontsov
inquired as to the division of the stanitsa and an elder
from the largest group explained that he represented the
community's dissenters. "'None of us are christened at
birth,'" stated the elder, "' and we have no church for our
faith prohibits such things; we are married without a
marriage ceremony, we die without repentence and without the
administrât ion of Holy Communion.'
Later Vorontsov learned that most of the inhabitants
of the stanitsa, and the regiment of which it was a part,
were dissenters, but that they were prohibited from
Kravchinskii, the Populist writer, claimed that one commander in the Caucasus begged the Emperor not to send him any more Doukhobors or Molokans because of their "de moralizing" influence. Problems undoubtedly arose in dis senters’ regiments. We cannot, however, verify the accuracy of publicist Kravchinskii’s story. See Russian Peasantry, 2 : 522-523.
^^^Pilipson, "Vospominaniia," 379. Although no name is provided for this group, the elder’s description indi cates that they may well have been Doukhobors.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 260
practicing their faith. Reportedly, the Prince’s "lips
trembled from emotion" as he explained to the dissenters
that "in Russia there is toleration. ..." Vorontsov then
ordered the stanitsa officials to allow the dissenters free- 114 dom of worship.
Vorontsov’s actions certainly cannot be regarded as
typical. The Prince himself was an unusually competent and
energetic man. Son of S. R. Vorontsov (1744-1832), ambassa
dor to Great Britain from 1784 to l806, Mikhail passed his
early years in London where he received a brilliant educa
tion. He began his military career in the Caucasus in l803,
and after distinguished service in the Napoleonic wars he
was appointed governor-general of New Russia in 1823.
Vorontsov played a major role in the development of the Nev/
Russian econor’/ during the second quarter of the century.
Under his tutelage Odessa fulfilled the commercial potential
foreseen by its founders in 1795. He directed the construc
tion of the first highway on the Crimean peninsula. Voront
sov took great interest in agriculture, and was a great pro
ponent of large-scale grain cultivation. In Odessa he
founded a society for the development of rural economics.
Vorontsov was, in fact, an admirer of the "economic example"
set by the Milky Waters Doukhobors. In sum, when he
^^^Ibid., pp. 379-380.
^^^Skalkovskii, "Russkie dissidenti," 778.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 261
assumed command of the Russian forces in Trasncaucasia in
1844, M, S. Vorontsov was a highly capable administrator as
well as an experienced military l eader.He had, moreover,
first-hand knowledge of the Doukhobors.
If Vorontsov was an unusually capable man, his
decision to enforce "toleration" of dissenting religion was
consistent with others concerning unjust and illegal treat
ment of dissenters. A case in point was an I837 incident in
the eastern Siberian mining community of Nerchinsk.
In late I836 the Ministry of Internal Affairs learned
that eight Nerchinsk miners had been sentenced to military
service for converting to Doukhoborism, and that Lieutenant-
General S. B. Bronevskii (1786-I858), governor-general of
Eastern Siberia, had ordered the sentences fulfilled. The
Ministry noted that Bronevskii’s actions were illegal be
cause the sentences had not been reported to St. Petersburg
prior to execution. An investigation of the affair was
launched and Bronevskii was ordered to halt the execution of
the sentences.
See "Vorontsov," Entsiklopedicheskii slovar, 7 : 222-223; Curtiss, Russian Army, pp. 230-231. As Curtiss notes, Vorontsov was one of the "better" viceroys in the Caucasus. He made serious attempts to curb the abuses and hardship which service in the Caucasus entailed.
^^"^Memorandum quoted in VPSZ, 12: 9,959. Article nine of the October I83O ukase required provincial authori ties to submit judicial decisions concerning dissenters to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. See VPSZ, 5: 4,010.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 262
In his own defense Bronevskii cited an obscure mili
tary regulation allowing him to carry out sentences in
volving non-noble offenders if the number of such did not
exceed nine.He also reminded the Ministry of Internal
Affairs that the "remoteness of the Siberian region" would
have meant a great delay in securing the necessary clear
ance from St. Petersburg, and "the offenders must be kept at
the expense of the treasury. . . ."
Noting that incidents involving "dissenting sects"
were "exempted" from the normal flow of judicial procedure,
the Ministry of Internal Affairs vigorously objected to
Bronevskii's plea. "Without exception," stressed Internal
Affairs Minister D. N. Bludov, "all affairs concerning dis
senters appearing before Penal Tribunals, whatever the
number of accused and even if none of them should be sen
tenced to punishment, are to be presented for review to the
Ministry of Internal Affairs." The execution of the
sentences of the eight Doukhobors was ordered suspended
pending review by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the
Committee of Ministers.
The fate of the eight miners is not revealed in the
available source material. Presumably they were ultimately
^^^Por the basis of Bronevskii's contention, see ibid., 11: 9 ,038, art. 590.
^^^Ibid., 12: 9,959.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 263
punished for their conversion to Doukhoborism. What is
significant in this case, and that involving Vorontsov’s
intercession on behalf of the Caucasian dissenters, was a
recognition of dissenters’ rights and the willingness of
some state officials to enforce those rights. The two in
cidents just described cannot be regarded as typical. They
are, however, atypical examples of the success of a moral
and legal norm which Nicholas’ government sought to impose,
and which subordinate officials often frustrated. If, as
Kravchinskii claimed, the reign of Nicholas I was the
’’gloomiest period’’ of Doukhobor history, the source of that
’’gloom’’ cannot be found in the Emperor’s politics. Rather,
the tragedy of the Doukhobors under Nicholas lay with a
sect grown comfortable under a regime which, if not exactly
benign, demonstrated a begrudging tolerance of dissenting
religion.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER VI
. . A TERRIBLE INQUISITIONAL TRIBUNAL":
THE DOUKHOBORS IN THE REIGN OF NICHOLAS I,
PART 2
As long as they did not make a particular nuisance
of themselves, Russia's sectarians were left in the peaceful
practice of their faith. The principal reason for this
toleration, as described in the previous chapter, was a con
scious policy decision emanating from the Throne which dic
tated that no one was to suffer for "errors of faith" as long
as public order was not violated. Yet tolerance was also a
function of the lack of nadzor, or administrative super
vision and control, which remained a fact of provincial life
throughout much of Nicholas’ reign. Administrative defi
ciencies, as Prince M. S. Vorontsov learned, sometimes led
to abuses of sectarian rights ; more often, however, the
opposite was the case. Much of I. P. Liprandi's "Kratkoe
obozrenie" (1853) is an indictment of the Ministry of
Internal Affairs’ incompetence and laxity in combating the
spread of religious dissent.^
SPR, 2: 229; Starr, Decentralization, pp. 35-37; SPSR, 2: 150-151.
264
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 265
Beginning in the l830’s, Nicholas' government
attempted to upgrade the efficiency of all areas of provin
cial administration. The functions of the governors-general
were transferred to the civil governors in 1837. Henceforth
the central ministries, principally the Ministry of Internal
Affairs, were to be responsible for supervision and control
of all provincial functions through the agency of the gov
ernorship. This broad policy shift had its corollaries in
more specific areas. The mid-l830's brought reforms in the
police apparatus which "considerably reinforced" the presence
of the police in the countryside.^ It was probably no acci
dent that in I837 Khlysty began to be actively rounded up by
the police in the forests of Novgorod and Vologda provinces.^
The drive for a more efficient nadzor was explicit
in an I838 decision to establish provincial consultative
committees to deal with dissenters' affairs. Hitherto such
bodies had existed only in Moscow and St. Petersburg; their
into from two to five stany presided over by inspectors appointed by the governor on the nobility's recommendation. Each inspector was a member of the land court (zemskii sud) and the number of permanent court assessors from the nobility in each district was reduced to one. Prior to this elabora tion of authority, the police apparatus in each district as a whole consisted of the police chief (zemskii ispravnik) and four assessors. See John P. Ledonne, "Criminal Inves tigations Before the Great Reforms," Russian History, 1 (1974 ), 105 . See also Starr, Decentralization, pp. 33-34, and Yaney, Systematization of Russian Government, p. 333.
% onas, Third Section, p. 272.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 266
establishment in the provinces reflected an unabashed con
cern for greater local consistency and efficiency in dealing
with dissenters. The chronological founding of the
provincial "secret consultative committees" is contained in
Table 2.
TABLE 2
The Establishment of Provincial
"Secret Consultative Committees"
Month, Year City
November I838 Petrozavodsk, Tambov December I838 Chernigov May 1839 Tver, Saratov February 1842 Viatka April 1844 Irkutsk January 1845 Ekaterinburg January 1846 Kharkov March 1846 Kostroma December l846 Vitebsk March 1847 Tobolsk, Ufa April 1847 Mogilev November 1849 Nizhnii-Novgorod, Simbirsk, Archangel May 1851 Samara, laroslav May 1852 Kursk July 1856 Vologda
Source : SPSR, 2: 177; Izvelchen:: iz rasporiazhenii. po delam 0 raskolnikakh pri imperatorakh Nikolae i Aleksandre II,
E. L. Kasprowicz, 1882), pp. 7-8.
The chronology testifies to St. Petersburg’s apparent
satisfaction with the committee's labors. Each committee
was normally composed of the provincial governor, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 267
diocesan bishop, the chairman of the local Chamber of State
Properties, and a gendarme staff officer. On certain com
mittees other personages were directed to participate besides
the established membership. In Ekaterinburg two officials
from the local mining industry (which "employed" not a few
dissenters) were included on the consultative committee's
roster. In Vitebsk and Mogilev the local governors-general
were permitted to sit on committees.^
The provincial "secret consultative committees" were
nominally independent of their more august parent bodies in
St. Petersburg and Moscow. Their specific duties appear to
have accrued sporadically over a period of years. The most
vital function of the provincial committees was simply to
review all "affairs" involving dissenters prior to any court
action. Any incident "in which is revealed an obvious vio
lation of existing laws" was to be given "further movement,"
i.e., was to be submitted to the courts. Those incidents,
however, involving "only one aged dissenter or others who
are not observed or accused of any illegal activities" were
Varadinov, Istoriia ministerstva, 3, Part 4, 372- 373; SPSR, 2: 177. In 1842 Nicholas ruled that those holding the positions of chairman of the Chamber of State Properties or gendarme staff officer temporarily— due to the illness or absence of the regular officials— were not to be invited to meetings of the consultative committees. Secrecy was deemed most vital for the efficiency of these bodies. See SPSR, 2: 178-179.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. "properly under the rule of toleration" and were not to
occupy the committees' attentions further.^
The provincial committees appear to have performed
their duties well, perhaps too well. In l849 reports reached
Nicholas that "some" of the committees had evolved into seats
of judgment making "final decisions and defining measures of
penalty" in cases appearing before them. The Tsar chastised
the committees for departing from their intended purpose of
review and ordered the Ministry of Internal Affairs to in
sure that judicial functions were properly retained by the
courts only.^
Bureaucratic innovations in the capital accompanied
the drive for efficiency that occasioned the founding of
the provincial consultative committees. In 1839 adminis
trative sections within the Ministry of Internal Affairs
were added to deal specifically with dissenters' affairs.
A department within the Holy Synod was likewise charged with
dealing solely with dissenters.^
All of these administrative acts followed close upon
the heels of a much belated ukase which symbolized most
forcefully the government's striving for order and
efficiency in sectarian matters. As we have frequently
^SPSR, 2: 152; S ^ , 2: 356.
^Ibid., 2: 523- 524.
"^Varadinov, Istoriia ministerstva, 3, Part 4, 373.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 269
noted, decisions emanating from St. Petersburg often dis
played a lack of discrimination in delineating sect types.
Specifically, in censuses and ukases there appeared to be no
understanding as to the differences between Molokans and
Doukhobors. In I836 the Synod, at Nicholas' insistence,
forwarded to the Ministry of Internal Affairs five "Molokan"
petitions delivered to Nicholas during a tsarist visit to
Tambov. The petitioners insisted that contrary tothe govern
ment's understanding they were not Molokans, but "Spritual
Christians.” As such, they should not have been prohibited,
as were Molokans proper, from hiring Orthodox laborers or
from obtaining passports for travel. Following the Ministry
of Internal Affairs' review of the petitions, Nicholas
ordered on April 4/l6, 1837 that "in order to avert similar
solicitations from Molokans or Doukhobors in the future, and
for the prevention of confusion on the part of the civil
authorities in executing existing or future decrees," all
decisions relating specifically to Molokans, Doukhobors, or
"Spiritual Christians" were to be applied in "identical
strength" to followers of the other two sects. The reason
given for his decision was that although the three sects
"differ among themselves somehow . . . [all] are recognized
as pernicious in the spirit of their doctrines.
°SPR, 2: 255-256.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 270
The ukase concerning the Molokan petitions (although
it failed to note essential distinctions), as those estab
lishing various provincial and central bureaucratic bodies
to deal with dissenters, show a government inching, albeit
laboriously, toward greater intellectual and administrative
expertise in sectarian matters. Such expertise would have
grave consequences for dissenters who violated the fragile
boundaries of toleration established by Nicholas.
In the midst of the plethora of legislation in the
1830 ’s dealing with Doukhobors in Transcaucasia, Bessarabia,
Siberia, and various inner provinces, St. Petersburg was not
oblivious to the bulk of Doukhobors at the Milky Waters.
The Tauride colony, however, appeared sufficiently stable,
politically and economically, to preclude any decisive
changes in its status.
In 1832 Novitskii counted 8OO households numbering
3,985 colonists (2,005 male and 1,980 female) at the Milky
Waters.^ Contemporary accounts were unanimous in their
estimates of Doukhobor prosperity and colonial efficiency.
In 1832 Prince M. S. Vorontsov, governor-general of New
Russia, wrote :
The greater part of the Doukhobor people are prosperous and even rich.
^Novitskii, 0 dukhobortsakh, pp. 26-27.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 271
having an enormous cattle-raising enterprise and improved sheep breed ing, In their domestic way of life and thrifty economy they are among the best of the government’s colonies, and their organization may even serve as an economic example.10
Moritz Wagner (I813-I887), a German zoologist and explorer,
wrote that "in no other part of the empire were the fields
and gardens so blooming, the cattle so thriving, as on this
colony on the Milk River.Haxthausen, visitng the Milky
Waters village of Bogdanovka in 1843, remarked that the
Doukhobor dwellings were similar to neighboring Orthodox
settlements, "but the whole had an appearance of greater
wealth, order, and cleanliness. . . .
The Milky Waters settlement attained its economic
preeminence despite a radical decline in the quality of its
leadership following the death of Savelii Kapustin in 1820.
Upon Kapustin’s death the leader’s mantle fell nominally to
his son, Vasilii Kalmykov. Vasilii carried his mother’s
maiden surname because he, at Kapustin’s order, was born in
his maternal grandfather's household. This was done to
Review of Der Kaukasus und das Land der Kosaken, in den Jahre 1843-1846, by Moritz Wagner, in Westminster and Foreign Quarterly Review, 50 (n.d.): 271. Excerpts from Der Kaukasus (Dresden: Arnold, l848) were translated and quoted in the review.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 272
lessen the chance of an ultimate term of military service
for the child.
Vasilii Kalmykov (1792-1832) possessed none of his
father’s qualities. His addiction to "drunkenness and per
versity" made him an ineffectual leader of the Milky Waters
colony. During Vasilii’s "reign" we receive the first indi
cations that the Orphan’s Home was used for a "reprehensible
purpose." Novitskii asserted that "girls forced out from
the Orphan’s Home nearly all the old men and women" supported
there and became concubines for Vasilii. Nevertheless, the
Doukhobors seem still to have regarded their leader "with
reverence.
Vasilii died in I832 and his son, liarion Kalmykov
(c. 1817-1841), succeeded to the leadership. Ilarion, like
his father, was overly fond of alcohol, and while he still
nominally held the reigns of power, real responsibility for
the community fell to the Elders. Haxthausen claimed that
young Ilarion, only fifteen years of age when his father
died, was assigned "six young girls one after another" so
as "to obtain issue from him as soon as possible.The
pp. 33-34; Buhr, Origin, p. 43; Sukhorev, Dokumenty po istorii dukhobortsev, p. 4l. Haxthausen mistakenly named Ilarion as Kapustin’s son. Ilarion was Vasilii Kalmykov’s son and Kapustin’s grandson.
^^Notivskii, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, p. l42.
be certain that Haxthausen was referring to Ilarion Kalmykov
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 273
colony was perhaps overly anxious to Improve upon the decid
edly poor Kalmykov strain. Ilarion died shortly after being
exiled to Transcaucasia with the entire Milky Waters colony
in l84l. He left two young sons.
The lack of competent successors to Kapustin in the
1820 ’s and 1830 's spelled disaster for the Milky Waters
colony. The dissipation of the Kalmykovs ultimately wrought
a lethal confrontation between (1) the Doukhobor rank-and-
file who gradually learned of the leaders* corrupt ways, and
(2) the Elders, into whose worried hands power fell as the
Kalmykov's dissoluteness became apparent. This confronta
tion would not escape the eye of an increasingly watchful
government.
It is apparent that during Nicholas' reign the Milky
Waters Doukhobors became increasingly introverted. Wagner
wrote that "the colonists grew rich, but withdrew them
selves more and more from their neighbors, and would allow
no stranger to witness the mysteries of their divine
worship. . . . I. F. Nilskii, the statist historian of
religious dissenters, claimed that during Nicholas' reign
the Milky Waters Doukhobors formed their own police force.
because he put the latter at fifteen years of age when his father died. This reference can only apply to Ilarion.
^^Wagner, Der Kaukasus in Westminster Review, 271.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 274
"with whose assistance they hid from the local authorities
all that occurred among them. . .
What exactly did occur has never been definitely
established. No single source provides an entirely satis
factory explanation for the troubled 1830 's. Threads from
the various sources, however, weave a fabric replete with
corruption, dissension, and violence.
Haxthausen was the first to compose an account of
the convulsions which racked the Milky Waters in the 1830 's .
His narrative, however, is somewhat nebulous. It is
apparent that as the incompetence of Kapustin’s successors
revealed itself, the resulting power vacuum was filled by
the Council of Elders. Yet something occurred to alter the
Elders' function from that of a simple regency to a more
sinister and active despotism. Haxthausen wrote simply that
too many of the Doukhobor rank-and-file "had been initiated
into the secret mysteries and suspicion, mistrust, and
denunciation arose: they [the Elders] feared discovery.
As to the "secret mysteries," Haxthausen is unclear.
Probably, as Novitskii maintained, they referred to the
debaucheries of Vasilii and Ilarion Kalmykov.
^^Nilskii, K istorii dukhoborchestva, p. l4.
^^Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1: 292. The author probably received his information from the neighboring Mennonites.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 275
In any event, "the Council of Elders constituted it
self a terrible inquisitional tribunal. The principle,
’Who so denies his God shall perish by the sword,’ was inter
preted according to their caprice. ..." A court of sorts
was established in Savelii Kapustin’s former home at
Terpenie; it was called "the place of paradise and torture."
An execution site was supposedly located on an island in the
Molochnaia River where "a mere suspicion of treachery, or an
intention to go over to the Russian Church, was punished
with torture and death." Within a few years (probably the
middle l830’s), around 200 people allegedly "disappeared,
leaving scarcely a trace behind.
In 1843 Haxthausen and Johann Cornies, the Tauride
Mennonite leader, visited "the place of paradise and tor
ture" accompanied by a Doukhobor. The latter was questioned
by Cornies regarding the crimes which allegedly occurred
there, but the sectarian "at first gave evasive answers, and
then observed a gloomy silence.
Novitskii’s acount of these events was garnered
largely from Haxthausen. Whenever the scandalous activities
(Haxthausen’s "secret mysteries") of the Doukhobor leader
ship became known to more and more of the rank-and-file,
wrote Novitskii, "mistrust and apprehension" arose, and the
Elders became fearful of "intrigue and treason." The
^^Ibid., p. 293. ^°Ibid., p. 301.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 276
Council of Elders thus inaugurated its "bloody inquisition."
Departing from Haxthausen, Novitskii accused the Elders of
indulging in "scandalous orgies," and he set the number of
victims at 400.^^
Moritz Wagner, the German zoologist, encountered a
group of exiled Doukhobors on their way to the Caucasus in
the early l840’s. Unidentified informants, possibly mem
bers of the military escort party conducting the sectarians,
told Wagner that at the Milky Waters "there existed . . . a
sort of secret tribunal, which disposed secretly of all of
their society who were suspected of divulging mysteries."
Wagner heard, moreover, that at least one army deserter,
pursued by the police, was found dead in the millstream of
a neighboring Mennonite village. It was surmised that the
Doukhobors had murdered the unfortunate fugitive to insure
his silence after having sheltered him. The Russian sectar
ians then attempted to shift the blame upon the Mennonites.
No positive proof was ever discovered of Doukhobor culpa
bility, wrote Wagner, but over 100 sectarians were arrested.
Thirty were exiled as murderers.
In 1834 the government launched an investigation of
alleged crimes at the Milky Waters. The inquiry lasted five
years and uncovered evidence of at least twenty-one actual
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 277
murders. Haxthausen wrote that "bodies were found buried
alive, and many mutilated." Beyond this little can be said,
for the investigative commission’s report, if existent, has
never been revealed. Novitskii believed that evidence of
other executions was lost forever in the soil and waters of
the Milky Waters area. In 1839 Nicholas decided to exile
the entire Doukhobor colony to Transcaucasia.^^
Doukhobors themselves have variously denied or
excused the reports of malfeasance at the Milky Waters.
Anastasia Verigin told Joseph Elkinton that she lived
"peaceably" at the Milky Waters until she made her exile
journey to the Caucasus in l842. Doukhobors living at
Brilliant, British Columbia told Vladimir Snesarev (c. 1930)
that only " ’impostors’ used violence and that honest
Doukhobors suffered meekly and patiently" the ravages of the
1830 ’s. Only one Doukhobor historian, Peter Malov, gives 24 credence to Haxthausen’s account.
Most observers have been content to cite the murders
and rumors of murders as the sole cause of the decision to
^Novitskii, Dukhobortsy; ikh istoriia, pp. 14B-145; Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1: 293. Precisely how the authorities learned of the Doukhobors’ problems is unknown. Possibly neighboring Mennonites (recall Wagner’s story of the dead deserter) or Orthodox residents relayed suspicions. Novitskii asserted that no Doukhobors, even those who con verted to Orthodoxy during the period, testified against their brethren; "they stubbornly kept fearful silence."
^^Elkinton, Doukhobors, pp. 53-5^; Snesarev, Doukho bors in British Columbia, p. 6; Malov, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, p. 51.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 278
exile the Milky Waters colony in 1839 .^^ However, other,
less sanguine causes no doubt contributed to the state’s
decision. With the scepticism of the scientist which he was,
Moritz Wagner labeled stories of alleged Doukhobor murders
as "vague accusations" which gave the authorities an excuse
for "commissions of inquiry." The real reason for their
exile, contended Wagner, was that the Doukhobors were guilty
of giving refuge to military deserters. Moreover, fines and
extortion by threats of exile for this crime "filled many an
official pocket" with Doukhobor money.According to one
account, a single irate police official brought about the
forced Caucasian migration because of Doukhobor objections
The historian John Buhr states bluntly that "the Russian Government, as the Orthodox Church, had nothing to do with the banishment of the Doukhobors to the Caucasus. They were only dispersed because they could not live peace fully together among themselves. The leader and a few of his henchmen were killing off any Doukhobors who would stand in their way." See Buhr, Origin, p. 45. Haxthausen included in his account of judicial murder the charge that the Doukhobors put to death unhealthy infants. Novitskii believed Haxthausen’s charge; Kravchinskii thought it "absurd." Reports of infanticide in various Russian sects were carried in the Western press. See Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1: 298; Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, pp. 154-155; Kravchinskii, Russian Peasantry, 2: 512; "Religious Sects and Socialism in Russia," International Monthly Magazine, 1 (November I85O): 461-463; Jean Finot, Modern Saints and Seers, trans. by Evan Marrett (London: William Rider and Son, 1920), p. 38.
^^Wagner, Der Kaukasus in Westminster Review, 272.
^"^Elkinton, Doukhobors, pp. 261-262.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 279
That the Doukhobors were guilty of harboring desert
ers is, in Wagner’s words, "highly probable." Haxthausen
learned that Molokans residing in the Milky Waters area re
garded "their three villages as a secure asylum, and place
of refuge and concealment to runaways and criminals."
Probably, as Novitskii believed, the Doukhobors did like
wise. Snesarev concluded from conversations with the
Doukhobors of Brilliant that sectarian "contempt of court,
and general insolence in their relationship with the
authorities were responsible for the major part of the
persecution.
Soviet historians predictably point to an economic
cause for the 1839 exile. A. I. Klibanov contends that
Savelii Kapustin rose to power by basing himself on the
"prosperous elements" of the Doukhobor community. Kapustin
and the Council of Elders were thus able to dispose of the
community’s wealth as they saw fit. "Inequality of property,
and the gradual emergence of capitalist and hired-labor
categories in the peasant milieu," writes Klibanov, led in
exorably to the development of "social contradictions"
^^Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1; 287; Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, p. 145.
^^Snesarev, Doukhobors in British Columbia, pp. 9-10.
^'^Klibanov, Istoriia religioznogo sektantstva, p. 88, and "Dissident Denominations," 48-49.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 280
have seen, the Doukhobors did in fact hire outside labor for
a time. In the next chapter we will discuss the gradual
breakdown of the Milky Waters communal system in the years
following Kapustin’s forced seclusion in I816. These facts
support Klibanov’s interpretation.
Economic difficulties almost certainly created some
tensions within the Milky Waters colony. In 1833 the Minis
try of Internal Affairs submitted to the Committee of
Ministers a petition from the Milky Waters Doukhobors re
questing permission to travel to "other provinces" in order
to seek employment. The petition cited crop failure as the
reason for the travel request. The government decided on
October 17/29, 1833 not to approve the Doukhobor request.
However, Tauride province authorities were ordered to locate
jobs for the needy sectarians in the Crimean area. The
Doukhobors were to be permitted to work outside their colony
until the harvest of 1834.^^ The Doukhobor request and the
manner in which the state acted upon it indicate the gravity
of the 1833 crop failure. It is probable, therefore, that
economic hardship gave rise to some of the tension which
afflicted the Milky Waters during the early and mid-l830’s.
Still another source of conflict among the Doukhobors
arose during this period. Sometime in late I831 or early
^ SPR, 2: 147. Molokans residing in Tauride province petitioned for similar rights and were given the same answer as the Doukhobors.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 281
1832 Doukhobors in the Milky Waters village of Troltskoe
complained to the Tauride civil governor that "many" of their
number were converting to Orthodoxy in order to avoid con
scription into the military. These conversions occurred
among Doukhobors in line for immediate military service and
were therefore carried out to frustrate this calamity.
Moreover, lists submitted by the Troltskoe group showed that
similar conversions had taken place in the Doukhobor villages
of Bogdanovka, Kirilovka, Rodionovka, and Efremovka. The
petition noted further that as those converting to Orthodoxy
were "immediately transferred to Christian communities," the
recruit obligation became "particularly burdensome" to the
remaining Doukhobors. Thus, in order to prevent the "utmost
ruin" of the Milky Waters colony, the Troltskoe petitioners
asked that those lapsing from Doukhoborism not be freed from
their military obligation, and that said persons not be
attached to Orthodox communities until this obligation was
fulfilled.
In relaying the Troltskoe petition to Ober-
Procurator P. S. Meshcherskii (I778-I856) in February of
1832, Minister of Internal Affairs D. N. Bludov appended a
counter-complaint from several of the Doukhobors who had
converted to Orthodoxy. On their side, former Doukhobors
Avinai Demeniev and Igor and Khariton Pozniakov complained
32PSPR, Series 5, 1: 426.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 282
of "persecution done to them by the Doukhobors who are in
dignant for their leaving the sect. ..." Demeniev and the
Pozniakovs asserted that "unnecessary taxes" and designation
for recruit duty "without order" fell to those sectarians
announcing departure from the heresy. The counter
petitioners therefore requested (and thereby betrayed a keen
knowledge of Russian law) that they be freed from recruit
obligations and "payment of money for it" in compliance with
an 1826 ruling concerning Muslim dissenters.
Bludov’s memorandum to Meshcherskii made it clear
that the Tauride governor agreed with the Demeniev-Pozniakov
petition. The governor urged M. S. Vorontsov, the governor-
general of New Russia, to apply the 1826 ruling to the lapsed
Doukhobors. The Minister of Internal Affairs, however,
found himself in a quandary. He believed that all Doukhobors,
even repentent ones, should assume obligations incumbent
upon faithful Orthodox peasants ; yet he realized that
application to Doukhobors of the I826 ruling could "arouse
in their co-religionists the desire to accept holy christen
ing." The Ministry of Internal Affairs, deciding that the
issue was essentially a religious one, ultimately put the
matter to Prince Meshcherskii and the Holy Synod. On
^^Ibid. A ukase of June 17/29, 1826 decreed that "dissenters of the Mohammedan or Pagan "law" who received Holy Baptism were to be freed "for all time" from "personal recruit obligations and from personal payment of recruit money." See VPSZ, 1: 409.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 283
March 4/16 , 1832 the Synod ruled not to apply the terms of
the 1826 ukase to Doukhobors converting to Orthodoxy.
Rather, the repentent sectarians were directed to assume re
cruit obligations in those Orthodox communities to which S4 they would be attached.
The charges and counter-charges leveled within the
Doukhobor community in this affair did not include accusa
tions of murder or physical abuse. It is probable, however,
that this conflict over recruit obligations was part and
parcel of the crimes which Haxthausen chronicled and which
the commission of inquiry found evidence of from 1834 to
1839 . In any event, the above affair was solid evidence of
the dissension within the Milky Waters colony which the
government would cite in support of its I839 exile decision.
Internal dissension at the Milky Waters was the
excuse St. Petersburg gave for the Transcaucasian exile.
There existed, however, more practical reasons for the move.
In 1803 the population of the region known as "New Russia"
was approximately 1,030,000 people. Over the next forty
years the area more than tripled its population to 3,127,000
residents (l844). In I838 official Ministry of Internal
Affairs figues showed a total population of 56,343 in
Melitopol district, with the Milky Waters Doukhobors number
ing 4,481. New Russia was rapidly filling with Orthodox
^^PSPR, Series 5, 1: 426.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 284
residents, and the dissident enclave at the Milky Waters was
losing its isolation. This fact was not lost on St.
Petersburg.
As we noted in the preceding chapter, the ukase of
October 20/November 1, I83O halted the further settlement of
Doukhobors at the Milky Waters. In late December of 1834,
522 Molokans and Doukhobors entered Russia from Turkish
lands to which they had previously fled. These dissenters,
"suffering from want and need" on island settlements in the
Danube River, had received promises of amnesty (for deser
tion) and financial aid should they return. "In such a
manner," noted Internal Affairs Minister D. N. Bludov, "was
presented the chance to increase the population and curb
desertion to the Danubian islands. ..." The new arrivals,
however, "declared a wish to be settled in Tauride province
among their co-religionists."^^
In compliance with the I83O ban, the Danubian dis
senters were ordered to the Transcaucasian provinces. Un
willing to make the journey, a group of the dissenters
of Russia to the 1917 Revolution, trans. by L. M. Herman (New York: Macmillan, 1949), p. 346; "Statisticheskie dannye . . . ," Zhurnal ministerstva vnutrennikh del, 31 (January I839), 320. Novitskii wrote that due to the Orthodox influx the continued stay of the Doukhobors at the Milky Waters "no longer suited the assumptions" behind their original settlement there. See Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, p. l45.
^^VPSZ, 1 0 : 8,096 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 285
reiterated their desire to settle at the Milky Waters, noting
that "without doubt" their brethren would willingly accept
them. The authorities in Simferopol, transfer point for the
returnees, typically balked at this point, and an appeal was
made to St. Petersburg for "resolution of this matter."
In response to the Doukhobor-Molokan request, the
Ministry of Internal Affairs restated that "the spread of
the settlement of these pernicious dissenters in the New
Russian region is definitely discontinued." Rather, they
should be offered settlement in Transcaucasia. Nicholas
agreed, but noted that if the dissenters "resolutely"
declined the state’s proposal, they should be allowed to
return abroad.
The affair of the returning Danubian "deserters" is
significant, for it provides yet another explanation for the
government’s decision in I839 to exile the Milky Waters
colony to the Transcaucasian area. Internal Affairs Minister
Bludov stated specifically that the Danubian dissenters were
permitted to return to Russia with amnesty and subsistence
aid "to increase the [Russian] population." Yet the re
turnees were categorically refused residence at the Milky
Waters. Clearly the state had decided that its population
requirements in New Russia had been satisfied, and that
other areas, principally Transcaucasia, were more deserving.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 286
St. Petersburg-had previously established and generously
supported colonies of German settlers in Georgia.Simi
larly, it appeared that the Doukhobors were now to assume
again the role of pioneers.
Thus, for a variety of reasons, the Milky Waters
Doukhobors were ordered to be "moved" to the Transcaucasian
region on February 17/March 1, 1039. Only those converting
to Orthodoxy were permitted to remain in Tauride province.
Recompense was ordered for the Doukhobors* immovable property
left behind.
For some reason (probably to allow for time in order
to work out the details of the migration), word of the
Tsar's decision was communicated to the Doukhobors only in
January of l84l. At that time, the governor-general of New
Russia, Prince M. S. Vorontsov, issued a proclamation to the
Doukhobors informing them of the imminent migration and out
lining the conditions under which it was to take place.
Vorontsov's proclamation is significant in a number
of areas.After an introductory statement of the divine
^^Lyall, Travels, 2: 156. ^^SPR, 2: 330-331.
^^The text of the proclamation is found in Sukhorev, Dokumenty po istorii dukhobortsev, pp. 53-55, Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, pp. 146-148, and Buhr, Origin, pp. 45-47.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 287
origin of government and law, reasons for the forced migra
tion were presented:
You, Doukhobors, have abandoned the dogmas of the Orthodox Church. . . . Due to lack of enlightenment and perverted ideas from the Bible . . . you disturbed the peace of the Church and through your lawless actions destroyed public order. As enemies of the government and its laws you deserved punishment long ago, but Emperor Alexander I . . . ignored your guilt and the punishment you deserved. . . . For all favors and benefits he asked only one thing: that you live in peace among yourselves and not violate the government’s laws. And what resulted from this care for you? Scarcely had you settled on the given lands when, in the name of your religion and the orders of your leaders, you started to kill human beings, treating them cruelly. You gave shelter to de serting soldiers ; you kept secret the crimes of your brethren, and in your behavior toward the government you showed contempt and disobedience.
Officially, then, the crimes for which the sect was punished
were murder, the harboring of deserters, and insolence and
disobedience toward the government. In commission of these
offences, the Doukhobors were told, they "forfeited" the
protection of the government and would "be sent to such dis
tricts where [they could] no longer do harm to [their]
neighbors."
The opening condemnations of Vorontsov's proclamation,
however, gave way to four rather lenient administrative pro
visions designed to facilitate settlement in Transcaucasia.
Firstly, "the gracious Tsar" allowed the Doukhobors to
"exchange" their Milky Waters lands for territory in the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Akhalkalak district of Georgia. Secondly, the sectarians
were permitted to either sell their movable possessions or
take such with them. Thirdly, a commission was to be estab
lished to evaluate immovable property for compensation.
Lastly, lands owned by the Doukhobors could be sold, or
turned over to the state for a certain price. In every case,
land transactions were to be completed by May 15/27, l84l,
the appointed date for the start of the migration. The
Doukhobors were urged to give "serious consideration" to
Vorontsov’s proclamation. Those wishing to convert to
Orthodoxy could remain in Tauride province. It was
emphasized that no one going to the Caucasus was exempt from
military service.
As the Vorontsov proclamation made clear, the forced
migration was apparently in response to various Doukhobor
crimes, not the least of which was murder. Usually, however,
felons in Imperial Russia received exile to Siberia with
deprivation of all civil rights and forfeiture of all
property.The Doukhobors were sent to Transcaucasia, given
land, and were permitted to take or sell all movable and
fixed properties. Obviously, all of the state’s reasons for
the fixed migration were not set forth in Vorontsov's edict.
^^George Kennan, Siberia and the Exile System, 2 vols. (New York: Century Co., 1891), 1 : B27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 289
The Doukhobors accepted their exile with passive
resignation. The government’s decision appears to have
sparked the reemergence of the "sacred people" ethos lost
during the preceding decade. As God’s chosen people, the
Doukhobors had no doubt "that they would reap and harvest,
though settled even on rock." Older Doukhobors recalled
their earlier gathering at the Milky Waters; they were no
strangers to the rigors of pioneering. A "close" neighbor
of the Doukhobors in Tauride recalled that during this
period the sectarians often invoked the memory of Alexander
I as an "example" which the present government should follow
in relation to them.A Doukhobor psalm, first recorded in
the Caucasus in the late nineteenth century, tells of God’s
promise to care for his people in time of uncertainty. Of
particular interest is the reference to exiles:
Pray to me, I will hear you; ask of Me and turn to Me. When you ask of Me and turn to Me with all your heart, then I will show Myself to you; I will bring back your [people who are] pris oners, I will gather you from all lands, out of all towns, [who were] for My sake banished. My children, this I say to you, I give you My commandments, I will show you My justification. Who thus fulfills My word, the same will live forever.43
^^Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, pp. 152-153.
^^Mealing, "Our People’s Way," p. 173; Bonch- Bruevich, ed., Zhivotnaia kniga, p. 189.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 290
The origin of this psalm is unknown. Quite likely it, or
something very similar, provided a measure of hope for the
Doukhobors in the years following l84l.
The forced migration of the Milky Waters colony was
accomplished in five movements from l84l to 1845. Those
"most implicated" in the various crimes of the I83O ’s were
dispatched to Transcaucasia in l84l. Ilarion Kalmykov was
included in this first exodus. Subsequently, groups made
the journey during each of the years 1842-1845.
The exact number of Doukhobors who elected exile is
unknown. The Ministry of Internal Affairs gathered popula
tion figures for the nine Milky Waters villages in I838.
These figures are shown in Table 3- Haxthausen and Novit
skii wrote that each of the first three groups which jour
neyed to Transcaucasia (l84l-l843) numbered between 800
and 900 individuals. Novitskii placed the total figure
(1841-1845) at "not more" than 4,000, a figure generally
agreed upon by most commentators.^^ At least one source
cites a figure of 8,000 exiles, but the Ministry of Internal
Affairs' statistics quoted in Table 3 show this to be an
impossibility.
^^Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1: 296.
^^Ibid., 1: 296 ; Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, pp. 153-154; Malov, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, p. 51; Maude, Peculiar People, p. 147; Wright, Slava Boh'u, p. 19 . ^^Leroy-Beaulieu, Empire of the Tsars, 3: 443.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 291
TABLE 3
Population Figures of the Doukhobor
Milky Waters Villages for I838
Village Male Female Total
Terpenie 460 454 914 Bogdanovka 289 293 582 Troltskoe 224 200 424 Spasskoe 246 232 478 Tambovka 114 118 232 Rodionovka 201 225 426 Efremovka 373 341 714 Goreloe 278 303 580 Kirilovka ___1 1 58 130 TOTAL 2,257 2,224 4,481
Source: "Statisticheskie dannye," 320.
The exodus to Transcaucasia was frought with hard
ship from start to finish. Troubles arose for the Doukho
bors even before their departure from the Milky Waters. The
commission established to evaluate the colony’s immovable
property proved typically corrupt. Moritz Wagner encountered
a group of Doukhobors on their way to Transcaucasia in 1843
and was told that the sectarians were preyed upon by
"usurers and cheats, who gave them scarcely a tenth part of
the value" of their properties left behind. "And," Wagner
added, "not a few official personages made handsome profits"
off the Doukhobor plight. 47
47Wagner,, Der Kaukasus in Westminster Review, 272-273-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 292
Reforms of the exile apparatus under Alexander I
lessened the potential hazards of the exile journeys.^®
Exile way stations and an accompanying force of regular
guards no doubt facilitated the Doukhobors' movement. Ad
ministrative and logistic efficiency aside, the forced
journey had its ominous aspects. Available sources indicate
an aggressive and particularly large military escort. The
mother of Peter Verigin told Joseph Elkinton that she "was
driven with her children at the point of the bayonet" on
her exile trip. In l84l Xavier Hommaire de Hell, the French
geologist, and his wife met a group of the exiles on the road
from Taganrog to Rostov and noted that the sectarians were
"escorted" by two infantry battalions.
By all accounts the Doukhobor journey into exile was
characterized by "the most perfect decorum and the most
touching resignation. . . ." "Hundreds of wagons, heavily
laden" with household and agricultural implements, lumbered
along the directed route to the accompaniment of "hymns in
chorus." Occasionally the travellers would halt to imbibe
from "a great bottle of spirits." To zoologist Wagner,
whose chief scientific interest was the study of animal
migration, the Doukhobors appeared as "real apostolic
figures" and they "seemed to form among themselves one great
^^Kennan, Exile System, 1: 76-77.
Hommaire de Hell, Travels, p. 8l.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 293
family." Upon inquiring as to their destination, Hommaire
de Hell was told: " ’God only knows.
St. Petersburg initially selected two places for
Doukhobor settlement in Transcaucasia. The first comprised
an area within a region known as the Wet Mountains lying
west of the city of Tiflis in what would become Tiflis
province. In the valleys of the Wet Mountains the sectar
ians established two groups of villages, one each in
Akhalkalak and Borchalin districts. The first Doukhobors
to arrive in Transcaucasia in l84l settled in this area.
Shortly thereafter a second settlement was founded about 200
miles to the south-east in Elizavetpol district of what
would be Elizavetpol province.
Prom the start the Doukhobors suffered mightily at
the hands of various native populations. Peter Verigin’s
mother related to Joseph Elkinton how Circassian mountaineers
would periodically stone Doukhobor convoys as they made their
treacherous way through narrow Caucasian mountain passes.
Vasilii Vereshchagin visited the Doukhobor village of
Slavianka (Elizavetpol district) in 1863 and learned that in
the first years of exile the Doukhobors were the constant
^^Wagner, Der Kaukasus in Westminster Review, 271; Hommaire de Hell, Travels, p. 8 1 .
Sukhorev, Dokumenty po istorii dukhobortsev, pp. 58-59; Wright, Slava Bohu, p. 21.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 294
prey of neighboring Armenians and Tatars. Robbery and mur
der, wrote Vereshchagin, drove "many" Doukhobors to convert
to Orthodoxy and return to Interior Russia.
Climatic conditions ravaged the Doukhobors as much
as the local natives. Moritz Wagner visited the Wet Mountain
settlements In 1843 and found the exiles "all In the most
deplorable condition." The children, he noted, "looked pale
and thin, from Insufficient food.Lack of timber In the
Ellzavetpol region necessitated the "exceedingly laborious"
carriage of the product along dangerous mountain paths ; the
Doukhobors "could not think at first of making a permanent b4 settlement."
In late 1842 St. Petersburg launched an effort to
Improve Its program of settling dissenters In Transcaucasia.
In December a set of "rules of migration to the Transcau
casian region of dissenters of pernicious sects" was
promulgated to facilitate the voluntary migration of
biographical Sketches, pp. 56-57. Only with Prince M. S. Vorontsov’s assumption of command In the Caucasus In 1844 were the Circassians "almost wholly pacified." See Baron Haxthausen’s Tribes of the Caucasus, trans. by J. E. Taylor (London: Chapman and Hall, 1855), pp. 113-114. Real peace In the Caucasus, however, was not achieved until the capture of the legendary Muslim leader, Shamil, In 1859.
^^Wagner, Der Kaukasus In Westminster Review, 72.
^^Vereshchagin, Autobiographical Sketches, pp. 56- 57.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 295
sectarians. The major thrust of these "rules" was to pro
vide for coordination between Transcaucasian authorities and
officials of the Interior provinces to Insure efficiency In
the passage and settlement of dissenters wishing to relocate
In Transcaucasia. Significantly, Transcaucasian authorities
were ordered to provide a "favorable," yet Isolated place
for settlement. Dissenters, however, were to be dispersed
to a number of areas, and not concentrated together.
On May 2/14, 1843 Nicholas approved a list of "In
structions to local authorities on the matter of the settle
ment of dissenters of pernicious heresies In the Transcau
casian region. Considering the disastrous Initial years
of the Doukhobor settlements In Transcaucasia, these Instru-
tlons were highly significant. The government. In effect,
appeared ready to subsidize sectarian colonization of
Transcaucasia.
The 1843 Instructions applied to both judicially
exiled dissenters and those wishing to be voluntarily
settled with their brethren already In Transcaucasia. The
ukase began by providing the most comprehensive plan to date
^^SPR, 2: 410-413.
^^Dlsperslon of dissenters to various places within one region was an oft-stated Instruction to Siberian and Transcaucasian officials. The desire for dispersion was probably the reason that the Doukhobors were Initially es tablished In two Transcaucasian settlements.
^'^SPR, 2: 419-427.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2^
for the provisioning and dispatch o f dissenters from the
Interior provinces to Transcaucasia. Prom Stavropol, the
Initial collection point for all dissenters going to Trans
caucasia, to and through the Caucasus to final destination
points, the dissenters' journey was to be regulated and
monitored with the utmost precision. Provision was even
made for medical care for those taken 111 along the way.
The most noteworthy Instructions, however, concerned
the actual settlement of dissenters In their new homes. The
Transcaucasian Chamber of State Property was ordered to (1)
allot lands to dissenters In those areas designated by
higher authorities, and (2) "to render to [dissenters] assis
tance In the organization of dwellings, subsistence, and
home provisions." The State Property officials were further
directed to divide and provide boundaries for the allotted
lands so that "one settlement does not usurp for Itself all
the [good] land and thereby leave [for others] land which Is
unfavorable for settlement.
The 1843 Instructions were meticulous In their con
cern to allocate available human and natural resources to
provide for an efficient rural economy. Individual dis
senters, judicially exiled to Transcaucasia, were to be
settled "In already existing dissenting villages. In homes
of old Inhabitants." If, however, an Individual wished "to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 297
make a home and provide for- himself," he was to be allotted
a plot of land "where the settlement has free [excess]
land." Groups of dissenters judicially exiled as households
and "those willing settlers with small families" were to be
established only In those dissenting villages which possessed
"reserve" lands. Dissenters "settling In households of a
significant number" were to be assigned lands separate from
existing settlements "In those regions destined for this."
Sectarians lacking agricultural experience were to be
quartered with those more knowledgeable In the field. In
all cases, allotted land was not to exceed fifteen deslatInas
per soul or be less than five; the actual amount was to
depend on the quality of available lands. In circumstances
of "great convenience,"land could be allocated to households
In plots of from thirty to sixty deslatInas.
Once settled, the sectarians were to receive bounti
ful assistance from the Chamber of State Property. For
housing construction and provisioning, the new settlers were
to be given money, wood, agricultural Implements, and work
ing livestock. Until their homes were built, newly arrived
colonists were to be placed In already existent dissenters'
homes near their Intended settlement. "Necessary crop seeds
and grain for provisions" were to be supplied to the
settlers until the first harvest. Seed and grain supply.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 298
however, was to be In the form of a loan to be repaid over a
period of three years. Finally, If after all rendered
assistance the sectarians found their allotted lands "unfav
orable for settling," they were allowed to petition the
Chamber for other, more suitable plots.^*^
With all these benefits, the state reiterated still
another privilege designed to aid the sectarian economy In
Transcaucasia. In keeping with Nicholas’ decision of
November 28/December 10, 1836, dissenters In the Trans
caucasian region were still permitted to absent themselves
from their settlements for purposes of wage earning.
The Instructions of May 2/14, l843 amounted to whole
sale state subsidization of sectarian settlements In Trans
caucasia. Predictably, certain of the regulations were
specifically designed "for possible restriction of schism
beyond the Caucasus": dissenters exiled for crimes against
Orthodoxy were to be settled "In places presenting less
physical resources and favorablllty for life. Generally,
For the text of the I836 ukase see SPR, 2: 230- 231. Sectarians were permitted to travel for work only with in Transcaucasia, excluding cities. Passports were to be Issued for periods of not more than eight months. Local authorities were to Insure that dissenters working In their areas did not stay beyond the term designated on passports, and that the laborers did not leave the specified place of employment.
^^The authorities were further ordered to keep dis senters "under particularly strict supervision" so that they could not harbor fugitives or In any way "spread their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 299
however, the 1843 ukase was a positive attempt to Improve
the quality of sectarian life In Transcaucasia. There Is
no direct evidence that the Instructions were a specific re
sponse to the dire plight of the first Milky Waters
Doukhobors settling In the Tlflls and Ellzavetpol areas.
No doubt the lucrative benefits granted to sectarians (the
Instructions specifically applied to "followers of heresies
judged particularly pernicious: Doukhobors, Molokans,
Ikonobors, Judalzers, Skoptsy, and others. . . .") reflected
St. Petersburg’s wish to establish an economically viable
Russian population In Transcaucasia.^^
Not all of the Milky Waters Doukhobors chose to go
to Transcaucasia. "Many" who did found conditions so Intol
erable that they returned. Orthodoxy was obviously an
heresy." Interestingly, when forming communities of dis senters, offlcals were urged "to try to put these together from followers of different sects whose principles are not simi lar; for example, with Molokans settle Skoptsy. ..."
^^Subsequent legislation served this end as well. In 1849 St. Petersburg granted tax and duty Immunities to three classes of military veterans who, as dissenters, were sent to Transcaucasia : (1) those "corrupted to schism" after retiring from the military, (2) veterans handicapped by "full decrepitude or Injury," and (3) those ejected from the military for religious dissent before completing their terms of service. In 1852 both voluntarily settled and judicially exiled dissenters were permitted to be registered In any Transcaucasian city except Tlflls. Previous to 1852, as we have seen, dissenters were allowed In only seven specified cities. See VPSZ, 24: 23,339, 27: 26,336.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 300
acceptable alternative to some Doukhobors reluctant to test 64 their faith In a new. Inhospitable land.
The precise number of those Doukhobors who refused
to migrate Is unknown. Novitskii contended that a "signifi
cant number" preferred to convert to Orthodoxy and remain at
the Milky Waters, but stated that only twenty-seven souls
Initially did so. The figure of twenty-seven has been
accepted by most writers, but Is probably much too low.
If the figure of around 4,000 migrating Individuals Is cor
rect, the 1838 Ministry of Internal Affairs statistics cited
above Indicate that between 400 and 500 Doukhobors chose to
remain In Taurlde province. The most recent Soviet study
estimates that about 1,000 of the sectarians declined
migration.The number of Doukhobors who ultimately con
verted and were returned from Transcaucasia cannot be
estimated from available sources.
Haxthausen visited the Milky Waters villages of
Terpenle and Bogdanovka In July-August of 1843. Accompanied
exiled Doukhobor friends until his death In 1848. The last letter told of the deaths of all but two of his former friends due to the severe climate of the Wet Mountains. See David H. Epp, Johann Cornles: Zuge aus selnem Leben und Wlrken (Rosthern, Sask.: Echo-Verlag, 1946), pp. II6-II7, 119 , cited by Buhr, Origins, p. 48.
^^Novltskll, Dukhobortsy: Ikh Istorlla, pp. 153-154; Maude, Peculiar People, p. 147; Wright, Slava Bohu, p. 19.
^^Kllbanov, Istorlla rellgloznogo sektantstva.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 301
by Johann Cornles and a Doukhobor "who had gone over to the
Church," Haxthausen toured the settlements and was favorably
Impressed with the apparent health and prosperity of the In
habitants. He found that "many" Doukhobors had returned from
Transcaucasia "declaring their conversion to the [Orthodox]
Church." But, "that this conversion Is only pretended Is
more than probable," Haxthausen decided. The German advised
that the government establish schools at the Milky Waters
and "send hither pious and active clergymen" In order to
effect "an honourable conversion" of the Doukhobors.
Nicholas was a step ahead of Haxthausen. In April
of 1842 the government Issued a ukase dealing with the dis
position of Doukhobor lands at the Milky Waters. The
vacated lands were to be settled by willing "state peasants
of the Orthodox confession." If an Insufficient number of
such was to be found In Taurlde, "reliable" peasants from
Kharkov and Chernigov provinces could be "Invited."
Churches were ordered built and staffed In the former
Doukhobor villages. A school "for the education of Orthodox
children, and also those willing from the Doukhobors" was to
be built "In one of the Doukhobor villages.
If "secret" Doukhobors remained at the Milky Waters,
the state aimed to make their lives extremely "orthodox."
^"^Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1: 296-298.
^^SPR, 2:. 401-403.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 302
Perhaps the most telling sign of the times was the arrest
and trial of "Melitopol Doukhobor" Nikolai Vereshchagin for
vagrancy (brodlazhnlchestvo) In January of 1843.In
former days, when the strength of the Doukhobor community
was at Its peak, such an Ignominy was unthinkable. In I867
the Orthodox Church journal Pravoslavnoe obozrenle reported
that "after the migration of the Melitopol Doukhobors to the
Transcaucasian region, nothing attested to their existence
In Taurlde province.
Perhaps because of the trouble at the Milky Waters
revealed by Its Investigation (1835-I839), the government
Inaugurated a spate of restrictive measures In I8 39. On the
same day that he ordered their exile to Transcaucasia,
February 17/March 1, I839, Nicholas prohibited Doukhobors
from acquiring landed property more than thirty versts from
their official residences. Three months later the Tsar for
bade Doukhobors to hire Muslim recruit substitutes. In
November of 1839 provincial officials were ordered to provide
civil chambers and district courts with lists of Doukhobors
"found In towns and belonging to the merchant and burgher
[meshchanln] estates." The purpose of these lists was to
^^Opls del arkhlva Gosudarstvennogo Soveta, 3: l4l.
., "Sostolanle raskola v tavrlcheskol gubernll," 326.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 303
facilitate enforcement of the February ban on property acqui
sition. Still later St. Petersburg found It necessary to
reiterate that Doukhobors "and generally all . . . sects
recognized as particularly pernicious" were strictly for
bidden to hire Orthodox recruit substitutes. Vlolaters were
to be summarily Inducted Into the army with no credit given
toward the commune's normally-levied draft call.
The Milky Waters crimes may posslbley have raised
the level of official awareness of Russia's sectarian
"problem." In l84l Count L. A. Perovskll (1793-1856) was
named Minister of Internal Affairs. An energetic, forceful,
and able man, Perovskll Introduced Third Section techniques
Into many areas of the Ministry's activity. Including
sectarian affairs. Internal Affairs officials soon appeared
In various areas of the Empire "exclusively for the study of
the raskol. ..." Perovskll placed the Ministry of Inter
nal Affairs' sectarian activities under I. P. Llprandl.
In the same year as Perovskll's appointment the
government established a set of "rules for the Spiritual
Consistory" designed to strengthen Orthodoxy In the Interior
provinces. These regulations (not all of which applied to
the specific problem of religious dissent) were directed
"^^SPR, 2: 328-329, 346-348; VPSZ, l4: 12,316, 18 : 17,44ïï7”
"^^Monas, Third Section, pp. 247-248; Varadlnov, Istorlla mlnlsterstva, 3, Part 4: 445-446.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 304
toward (1) the immediate recognition and Identification of
outbreaks of "schism," and (2) methods of limiting such out
breaks through normal priestly functions (I.e., withholding
of, or conditional participation In, sacraments). Most of
the "rules" relating to dissenters are found In the Spiritual
Regulation or In other civil and ecclesiastical ukases
Issued prior to l84l In connection with missionary activi
ties . Nevertheless, the authorities deemed It necessary 74 to repeat them.
Perovskll's reordering of sectarian affairs became
apparent In a December 9/21, 1842 decree "on the order of
assignment of dissenting sects according to degrees of their
perniciousness. The phrase, "particularly pernicious
heresy," prefaced much legislation before 1842 dealing with
Doukhobors, Molokans, and the like. In 1835 a preliminary
attempt was made to define what was meant by a "particularly
pernicious" group.It was only In 1842, however, that a
^^See, for example, PSPR, Series 5, 1: 182, 191.
"^^The regulations were published simultaneously In the VPSZ, 16: l4,409, and In a Synodal publication, Ustav dukhovnykh konslstorll (St. Petersburg : Slnodalnol tip., 1841). The rules reiterated timeworn Instructions to parish clergy encountering dissenters, e.g., cooperate with the local civil authorities, "admonish" the dissenters as to their errors, keep the diocesan bishop Informed of develop ments In the parish, etc.
^^SPR, 2: 408-410.
"^^Ibld. , pp. 188-189 . Those groups "not offering prayers for the Tsar" and who "according to local opinion are to a similar degree recognized Injurious to the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 305
comprehensive ordering of sects was formulated according to
"degrees of perniciousness."
The precise rendering of various sects "according to
degrees of their perniciousness" was prepared by Ober-
Procurator Protasov In response to a request from Count
Perovskll. Three degrees were recognized: (1) "sects most
pernicious," (2) "pernicious sects," and (3) "less pernic
ious sects." The Doukhobors were Included In the first
category. They were "most pernicious" because they (1) re
fused to recognize the validity of sacraments or the author
ity of the Orthodox Church hierarchy, (2) they did not take
oaths and failed to "respect truth [vernost]," and (3) they
recognized no authority as being established by God. In sum,
the Doukhobors were "a destructive sect." Also considered
"most pernicious" were Judalzers ("Because they are worse
than heresy; they are a complete departure from Christianity.
. . ."), Molokans (for the same reasons as the Doukhobors),
Khlysty ("A blasphemous heresy because, not rejecting
external communion with the Christian Church, It Inserts
the worship of man,"), Skoptsy ("Also a blasphemous heresy
. . . disfiguring people and destroying posterity."), and
community" were to be judged "particularly pernicious." Groups thus Included were the Doukhobors, Molokans, Ikonobors, Judalzers, and Skoptsy.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 306
various "priestless sects" (". • . all powers of the present
age they regard as Antichrist. " ).
The "degrees of perniciousness" scheme Is normally
cited as evidence of Nicholas’ "systematic campaign of
persecution" against religious dissenters. In fact, the
scheme was requested simply because the Ministry of Internal
Affairs required "some guidance In the precise division of
dissenting sects." The accurate application of various
judicial and administrative edicts necessitated some delinea
tion between the various dissenting groups. The "Instruc
tions" of May 2/l4, 1843 which provided lucrative land and
fiscal privileges to dissenters In Transcaucasia were
specifically applied to "followers of heresies judged
particularly pernicious."
Yet Protasov's scheme, like Perovskll's raskol agents
In the countryside and the l84l "rules for the Spiritual Con
sistory," was a sign of the times. The Milky Waters crimes
raised the level of official awareness of Russia's sectarian
Ibid., pp. 408-410. Those considered as mere "pernicious sects" were prlestless Old Believers who accepted marriage and did "not refuse to pray for the Tsar," but who nevertheless rejected the priesthood and the sacrament of the Eucharist. "Prlestlst" Old Believers were considered "less pernicious"; they were regarded as "a schism" rather than a heresy because "more of the church Is preserved and the more hope they present for conversion."
"^^For example, see Hourwlch, "Religious Sects," pp. 374-375, and Rlasanovsky, Official Nationality, p. 224.
^^SPR, 2: 420.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 307
"problem." Within ten years this awareness would approach
near panic; St. Petersburg would be in the grips of a
raskolnik "crisis."
Information on the Doukhobors' first years In Trans
caucasia Is extremely sketchy. The accounts cited above by
Moritz Wagner and Vasllll Vereshchagin support Doukhobor
historian Peter Malov's characterization that the exiles
were "literally ravaged" In their first years, especially
the group settled In the Wet Mountains.Climatic exigen
cies apparently forced the first groups of settlers to live
Initially with neighboring Tatars and Armenians. Soon,
however, the Doukhobors withdrew Into their own Isolated
enclaves.
I. L. Segal, an Ellzavetpol province official, was
Intimately acquainted with the mode of life of the Trans
caucasian Doukhobors. In an article published In 1890 he
wrote :
The Doukhobors live separately from dissenters of other sects. . . . they are strictly Isolated from [other] dissenters and do not allow mixed marriages ; they willingly enter In to relations with the natives [rath er] than with dissenters of other
Malov, Dukhobortsy: Ikh Istorlla, p. 24. 8 ^^Vereshchagin, Autobiographical Sketches, pp. 56- 57.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 308
sects. . . . All other dissenters live mixed.
Ashton Wentworth Dllke (I85O-I883), an English traveller and
Russian scholar, visited Transcaucasia In I872 and found that
the Doukhobors were "reserved towards strangers and refused
to talk with [him] of their Ideas or worship.Veresh
chagin noted that although the Doukhobors "showed much less
distrust than the Molokans" whom he encountered, they "Indeed,
were not at once ready to talk." The general portrait we
have Is that of a chastened, wary people, humbled In their
new home by nature and the state. Ellzavetpol Doukhobors
told Vereshchagin that their Initial reticence was calcu
lated " ’so that we may know what we may say to you and what
we may not.’" Significantly, the sectarians wondered
whether their visitor was "an official or not.
The extreme hardship of the first years of settle
ment gradually gave way to more prosperous conditions. If
outsiders were Impressed by the Doukhobors’ reticence, they
were equally taken by the group's apparent well-being.
Vereshchagin remarked that the four settlements which
I. L. Segal, "Russkie posellane v ellzavetpolskol gubernll," Kavkaz (I89 O), quoted In Kllbanov, Istorlla rellgloznogo sektantstva, p. 89 .
^^Ashton Wentworth Dllke, "The Caucasus," Fort nightly Review, I6 (l874): 464. Dllke visited much of Russia and Central Asia, residing for several months In a Russian village to study language and peasant life.
^^Vereshchagin, Autobiographical Sketches, p. 70.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 309
composed the Ellzavetpol Doukhobor colony In I863 were "so
well built and well arranged as to be an object of envy of
the natives of the district.Henry Lynch, the English
merchant, visited the Wet Mountains and Kars colonies In
1898 and was convinced that "It Is true that these sectarians
are the flower of the peasantry In Russia.In the
following chapter we will examine the Doukhobors’ Trans
caucasian economy In more depth.
Doukhobor colonies were Initially established In the
areas of Tlflls and Ellzavetpol provinces. In I878 a third
group of Doukhobors settled an area near the city of Kars
on land acquired from Turkey by the Treaty of San Stefano.
The Kars settlement was populated by sectarians from the
Tlflls and Ellzavetpol colonies at the Inducement of St.
Petersburg.
Population figures gathered toward the end of the
century give some Indication of the Doukhobors’ success In
coping with the harsh Transcaucasian environment. Depending
on the source, two different figures are posited. The more
dubious statistic of 21,000 derives apparently from Lev
Tolstoi’s account of the Doukhobors published In The Times
^^Ibld., p. 57.
^^Lynch, Russian Provinces, p. IO6.
^^In the mld-l880’s, about 200 Doukhobors lived In Erevan province with "Insignificant groups" of the sectar ians In Terek oblast and Dagestan. See Kllbanov, Istorlla rellgloznogo sektantstva, p. 90.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 310
(London) in 1895. This figure Is Inexplicably accepted by
the Doukhobors themselves and Is cited In various scholarly
and popular accounts of the sect.
The more accurate figure of 12,448 was arrived at by
Henry Lynch from census statistics of 1 8 8 6 . Lynch Is
supported by other data gathered between 1885 and 1894. The
figures In Table 4 are a breakdown by colony and village of
the Transcaucasian Doukhobor population. The numbers for
Tlflls and Ellzavetpol provinces were collected In the mld-
1880’s; those for Kars were accurate for January of 1894.
From 1845 to 1886 the Doukhobor population enjoyed
an Increase of roughtly 200 percent. This amounts to about
a 5 percent per year average Increase. Doukhobors continued
to be settled In Transcaucasia from the Inner provinces
after 1845. For the most part, however, these were piece
meal additions of Individuals or single households. There
Lynch, Russian Provinces, p. 103; Brock, ed. "Pozdnyakov’s Narrative," 161; Maude, Peculiar People, p. 150; Sukhorev, Dokumenty po Istorll dukhobortsev, p. 59; Thorstelnson, "Doukhobors In Canada," 14; Grlgorll Verigin, Ne V slle bog, a v pravde (Paris : Dreyfus et Charpentier, 1930), p. 181.
^^Lynch, Russian Provinces, p. 103. Lynch gave the following breakdown by province: Tlflls, 7,263, Ellzavetpol, 2,404, Kars, 2,766, and Erevan, 15. The Doukhobor population could not have risen to 21,000 by 1895, the year of Tolstoi's Times letter. According to Kllbanov the 1897 census showed 14,824 Doukhobors In the three Transcaucasian colonies. See Kllbanov, Istorlla rellgloznogo sektantstva, pp. 90-91.
^*^The government encouraged such migration. In I856 Alexander II granted requests by two Molokan (possibly Doukhobor) households that they be settled In Transcaucasia
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 311 TABLE 4
Population of the Caucasian Doukhobor Villages
In the Late Nineteenth Century
Tlflls Province Akhalkalak District Borchalln District Bogdanovka 779 Armashenl 255 Goreloe 1,277 Bashklchet 406 Efremovka 689 Karaklls 148 Orlovka 979 Rodlonovka 780 Spasskoe 658 Tambovka 504 Troltskoe . 657.
TOTAL 6,323 809
Ellzavetpol Province III. Kars Oblast Ellzavetpol District Kars District Novogoreloe 446 Gorelovka 472 Novospasskoe 202 Klrllovka 602 Slavlanka 1,426 Spasovka 817 Novotroltskoe 203 Terpenle 886 Novopokrovka 550 Troltskoe 269
TOTAL 2,277 3,396
TOTAL OF THE THREE COLONIES: 12,805
Source : Sbornlk statistIchesklkh dannykh o zemlev- ladenll 1 sposobakh khozlalstva v platl gubernllakh Zakavkazskogo krala (Tlflls, 1899), Appendix 1, pp." 10-11; A. M. Argutlnskll-Dolgorukov, Borchallnskll uezd Tlfllsskol gubernll. Ralon Tlfllssko-Karssko-Yerlvanskol zheleznol dorogl V ekonomlcheskom 1 kommercheskoin otnoshenllakh (Tlflls, 1897), pp. 278-279, 290-291; N. A. Abelov, Materlaly dlla Izuchenlla ekonomlcheskogo byta gosudarstvennykh krestlan Zakavkazskogo krala (Tlflls, 1867), 7: 212-213; V. P. Bochkarev, Karsskala oblast. Ralon Tlfllssko-Karssko- Yerlvanskol zheleznol dorogl. . . . (n.p., n.d.), pp. 505- 508, 512- 513, all cited by Kllbanov, Istorlla rellgloznogo sektantstva, p. 90.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 312
is no evidence of any mass migrations of Doukhobors to Trans
caucasia after 1845. Thus, the annual 5 percent average in
crease for the period 1845-1886 must be largely attributed
to the natural growth of the original migrating population
of 4,000. In this respect, the 5 percent figure compares
most favorably with statistics of subsequent (post-1886)
Doukhobor growth computed by Kllbanov and with the popula
tion data gathered by Deets In his study of Hutterlte
Tucked away In their Transcaucasian enclaves, the
Doukhobors were little affected by events In the Interior of
Russia. In 1852 a secret government study concluded that
official figures on raskolnik populations represented only a
fraction of the true number. Five years later, after more
"for joint domoclle with their relatives." The Tsar took the occasion to point out "that the migration from the Inter nal provinces of Doukhobors Is regarded as altogether bene ficial" as long as suitable lands were available. See SPR, 2 : 651.
^^Kllbanov calculates an average population Increase of 2.4 percent per year for Doukhobors In Ellzavetpol province for the period 1886-1897• For the same period his figures show only a 1.8 percent Increase per year for Douk hobors In Tlflls province. Deets' data presents an annual 3.5 percent Increase for a sample Hutterlte population (c. 1930 ) In a community described as "an unusually healthy place." See Kllbanov, Istorlla rellgloznogo sektantstva, pp. 90-91; Lee Emerson Deets, The Hutterltes: A Study In Social Cohesion (Gettysburg, Pa.: n.p., 1939), pp. 13-l4.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 313
official reports and much feverish activity to remedy the
situation, a secret memorandum lamented that "all measures
of the government against schism In the course of 200 years
not only have not been crowned with any success, but the
number of schismatics Increases more and more. . . The
final years of Nicholas’ reign witnessed a plague on St.
Petersburg, a plague of dissenters that created a crisis
mentality within the highest reaches of the Imperial
bureaucracy. Well might the Doukhobors be Isolated on the
southern borders of Transcaucasia.
The government’s Increased sensitivity to religious
dissenters In the final years of Nicholas’ reign Is Insepar
able from the general climate of distress In St. Petersburg
created by the February l848 revolution In Paris.The
heretofore latent understanding that heterodox religious
elements had within them vast potential for political dis
sidence rushed to the forefront of the bureaucratic con
sciousness.^^ There were, of course, specific cases which
^^Chernlavsky, "Old Believers," 4: SPSR, 1: 198.
^^See Monas, Third Section, pp. 2 38-282; Rlasanovsky, Official Nationality, pp. 218-219, 222-223, 233; Daniel Balmuth, "The Origins of the Tsarist Epoch of Censorship Terror," American Slavic and East European Review, l4 (December I960): 497-520.
^^In his "Kratkoe obozrenle sushchestvulushchlkh v Rossll raskolov, eresel 1 sekt" (1853), I. P . Llprandl be moaned the fact that only lately had the government begun to consider the political significance of religious dissidence. See SPSR, 2: 93.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 314
seemed to reveal political Intentions on the part of
religious dissenters. In 1848 a serious peasant revolt
occurred In an area of Perm province populated largely by
Old Believers.Prom l846 on a cult of "Napoleonlsts,"
originating from the ranks of the Khlysty, appeared In
Moscow "on a large scale." These zealots believed that
Napoleon Bonaparte was alive In Russia and, with Peter III,
would lead an army to depose the "pretender," Nicholas.
It Is doubtful that religious dissenters were any
more politicized after l848 than before. The political
mantle was left for others to don. It Is equally Improbable
that the government was seriously disturbed by the Napoleon-
1sts’ military "threat." Yet In the minds of many officials,
all dissidence, however Innocuous, assumed a political
dimension which transcended reason. Many sects, moreover,
provoked Instant and understandable suspicion In the years
following 1848 by their very real refusal to recognize the
authority of the Tsar and his agents. Such suspicion was on
the mind of the unknown author of an 1855 memorandum that
noted: "Schismatics, composed of many doctrines, sects and
E. A. Morokhovets, ed., Khrestlanskoe dvlzhenle v 1827-I869gg. (Moscow, 1931), pp. 84-85, cited by Monas, Third Section, p. 273.
^^SPSR, 2: 135-136; "Vnutrennee polozhenle Rossll V 1855 godu," Russkala starlna 105 (March 1901): 586. The Napoleon worshippers first appeared In Pskov In 1821.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 315
heresies, at the present time as never before attract atten
tion for a multitude of reasons.
Two documents from the Kelslev collection, smuggled
abroad and published In London In the early i860’s , give some
Indication of the crisis which enveloped St. Petersburg In
the early l850’s. They provide an Intriguing postscript to
Doukhobor history under Nicholas I by positing that bane of
all historians, the "If."
The first document, dated June 14/26, 1853, is a
secret order from Internal Affairs Minister D. 0. Bibikov
directing that certain Information be gathered on dissenters
In laroslav and Kostroma provinces. Although these were not
the only provinces to be Investigated by the Ministry of
Internal Affairs, the problem of religious dissidence In
them was considered especially acute. In laroslav over the
ten-year period from l842 to 1852, more than 1/8,000 resi
dents yearly were recorded as being absent "at confession
due to carelessness. Indolence, coolness toward Orthodoxy,
stubbornness, etc. The analyst of these figures rather
hastily concluded that the absentees were "secret" dissenters.
^"Vnutrennee polozhenle v 1855," 584. The memor andum was commissioned by P. V. Rldlger, a member of the State Council.
^^V-skll, "0 talnykh 1 lavnykh raskolnlkakh," 249- 250. The author Indicated that from 185I on the Ministry of Internal Affairs gathered especially precise data on dis senters In laroslav, Nlzhnll-Novgorod, Kostroma, and Saratov provinces.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 316
The scope and depth of the information requested make
Bibikov's order the most comprehensive effort yet to Isolate
and Identify religious dissenters. Firstly, Bibikov wanted
to know how many dissenters lived In the two provinces, and
why they were not all registered In the metrlkl. Moreover,
he wished to know precisely where the dissenters resided;
"all points of their population must be marked on a geo
graphic map of the province" with notations as to their
"distance and geographic relation to navigable rivers and to
other trading routes and other [means] of communication.
Secondly, Information regarding the various classes
represented In the dissenting population was to be gathered.
The names of all dissenters, with notations as to which of
them "reside constantly In one place," were to be provided.
If any absented themselves from their official residence,
where they went and the legality, duration, and reason for
the absence were to be noted. Further, Bibikov wanted to
know If dissenters entered these provinces from other places
and. If so, who were they and what was their business.
Metrlkl, or parish registry books, were records of the birth, baptism, marriage, and death of each parishioner. The Spiritual Regulation required all parish priests to main tain metrlkl, and to record those parishioners not being baptized, married, or burled according to Russian Orthodox rites.
^°°SPSR, 4: 55-56.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 317 Thirdly, the Ministry of Internal Affairs required
Information on hermitages "and other schismatic assemblages."
The locations of these refuges was to be plotted on a map,
and data gathered on the sources of their upkeep and the
names and classes of dissenters living In them. The exis
tence of new. Illegal hermitages was to be ascertained; If
such existed, "then where, when, and how many people are
gathered and who are these people.
Fourthly, "In what moral status [were] the schis
matics of laroslav and Kostroma provinces found. . . ."?
How did they differ from Orthodox residents In their manner
of life, occupation, and general "conceptions" and "atti
tudes"? If the dissenters were literate. Information as to
the sources and types of "books and manuscripts" was to be
gathered.
Lastly, detailed knowledge as to the various sects
and their doctrines was to be gained. Had the "false doc
trines of dissenting sects" changed or had they remained the
same? Had new sects formed? Generally, "It Is necessary
to ascertain the spirit and direction of schismatics, how
gossip passes among them, what do their hopes consist of,
with what schismatic communities of other provinces do they
structlon of "anything" resembling a church by dissenters. Including hermitages. See VPSZ, 1: 584.
103,SPSR, 4: 57.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 318
have relations, from where do they receive mentors, [and] what
Influence Is exerted on other [Orthodox] residents." The
"moral position" of sectarian leaders was to be ascertained,
as was the nature of their hold on the rank-and-file. Were
there any weak points In doctrine or leadership "which could
be profitably exploited"? In short, "the very skeleton of
the raskol" was to be revealed.
It Is Interesting (If futile) to speculate upon the
Impact which Bibikov’s Instructions might have had on Doukhobor
history If they had been passed to provincial officials In
Taurlde two decades earlier. Most certainly the dissolute
ness of the Kalmykovs would have been discovered and exploited.
Agents provacateurs may have been utilized to exploit the
rift over recruit obligations. Under heightened scrutiny,
the developments within the Milky Waters colony which led to
the crimes ultimately uncovered may never have occurred undis
turbed. Prompt action, based on the type of meticulous In
telligence outlined by Bibikov, may have brought an earlier
disbanding, or even dispersion, of the colony. The fact re
mains, however, that In 1833 the government did not possess
the type of Information It so anxiously began to gather In 1853.
The second document Illuminating the "crisis" of the
early I85O’s Is I. P. Llprandl’s "Kratkoe obozrenle," composed
In 1853. Of Interest here Is the author’s charge of official
Incompetence In the policing of religious dissenters. No
^°^Ibld. , pp. 57-58.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 319
level of authority, from the local police to the Ministry of
Internal Affairs, escaped Liprandi's indictment.
On the local level, the land police and city authori
ties were "debilitated" in their efforts to control religious
dissent due simply "to the burden of their routine affairs."
Yet this primary and unavoidable debilitation was compounded,
especially in rural areas, by "inattention and indulgence" on
the part of the police. There were "various reasons" for
this "inattention and indulgence":
. . . there are the landowners, who do not pay attention to the religion of their peasants, especially as schis matics are generally peasants very prompt in fulfilling their land ob ligations; other landowners, being diverted to service from their es tates, know altogether nothing that is occurring on them, and these peas ants and others take advantage of these circumstances and are carried away to schism.
Under these circumstances, the land police was almost forced
to "inattention and indulgence.
On the provincial level, authorities had responsibility
for the "supreme supervision of dissenters." But her offic
ials were hampered by the lack of expertise in matters of
religious dissent. Provincial officals were "often" sent to
the districts on business relating to dissenters, but "in these
situations what can be done by people who totally fail to
comprehend the essence of the mission imposed on them?" It
149-150.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 320
was "extraordinarily seldom" that reports forwarded to the
central ministries concerning dissenters were "accurate in
their outlook and intelligent in their recommendations." "On
the contrary," wrote Liprandi, reports "generally" displayed
a. "complete ignorance" of those sects which they presumed to
concern. Thus, the Ministry of Internal Affairs was forced
to develop its plans and policies from negligent and defec
tive intelligence from the provinces.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs itself, asserted
Liprandi, was the source of still more incompetence. The
"commissioned confidential agents" which this ministry some
times dispatched to investigate dissenters’ affairs were
often only superficial in their inquiries. Some agents even
attempted "to arouse" the affair under investigation "so as
to display their own activity" and gain career attention.
Those agents often relied on dubious informers who, being
"for the most part" outcasts from the very sects under in
vestigation, were prompted by vengence or the "enticement of
significant benefits." The unnecessary punishments which
often resulted from information garnered from informers were
sorely detrimental to the Ministry of Internal Affairs'
pp. 15 O-I5I
^°"^lbid.,, pp. 152-153152-153. Recall Langeron’s use of informers against the Doukhobors in I816. .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 321
There Is evidence that Liprandi's charges brought some
remedial action. For purposes of our inquiry, the major
significance of the "Kratkoe obozrenie," other than high
lighting the incompetence which the Doukhobors both benefited
and suffered from, was its tardiness. Like Bibikov’s instruc
tions, Liprandi’s essay exemplified an official attitude
manque as far as the Doukhobors were concerned. Established
in far Transcaucasia, the Doukhobors were shielded from the
sudden political interest that St. Petersburg developed for
religious dissenters in Nicholas’ final years.
Vasilii Vereshchagin visited Doukhobor settlements in
Transcaucasia in I863. Commenting on the vicissitudes of the
sect’s history over the previous hundred years, the painter
noted: "It is easy to see that the Duchobortzis retain a
vivid recollection of the persecution and insult which they
formerly suffered, and that though better times came after
ward [in the reign of Alexander 1] few of them would care to
return to the interior of Russia.
“ "Serious" study of dissenting religion within the Russian bureaucracy dates only from Nicholas I ’s last years on the throne. Some of the resulting reports are contained in the Kelsiev collection (SPSR). See Cherniavsky, "Old Believers," 1. Official incompetence, bungling, and lassitude, however, remained. Vasilii Ivanov Garkin was a "secret" Molokan for many years. In I863, feeling his secrecy to be unconscionable, Garkin petitioned the Ministry of Internal Affairs to remove his name from Orthodox registers. The request was ignored, and Garkin’s "secret" adherence to Molokanism continued. See "Proshenie molokanina Garkina ministru vnutrennikh del (I863)," Russkii arkhiv, 39 (1901): 629-63O.
^Vereshchagin, Autobiographical Sketches, pp. 57-58.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER VII
PATTERNS OF DOUKHOBOR CULTURE,
1801-1855
In this chapter we shall describe various aspects of
Doukhobor material and intellectual culture in the first
half of the nineteenth century. The discussion is divided
topically into five sections: economics, politics and
personality, worship and ceremony, marriage, and children
and education. Source limitations weighed heavily in the
selection of these five— perhaps arbitrary— topics; yet the
areas to be discussed do highlight salient features of the
Doukhobors' existence during the reigns of Alexander 1 and
Nicholas 1. The sources further dictate the necessity of
extrapolating certain information. Various facets of
Doukhobor culture during our period can only be inferred
from subsequent sources. This is especially true for
psychological studies undertaken only in the mid-twentieth
century. In all cases, extreme caution has accompanied the
use of extrapolated material to insure its proper applica
tion to the time period covered by this inquiry.
322
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 323
ECONOMICS
There is no direct evidence that Doukhobors estab
lished communistic economies prior to the nineteenth century.
It is difficult, of course, to isolate those features of
what has been termed Doukhobor "economic communism" which
differentiate it from the common mir system. At least one
economic historian has denied any substantial differences
between the Doukhobor and mir systems.^ What is certain,
however, is that the Doukhobors who congregated at the Milky
Waters came from a variety of economic and geographic back
grounds . ^
Savelii Kapustin is usually credited with establish
ing "a complete community of goods among the people.
Since Kapustin arrived at the Milky Waters only in 1805,
some form of private ownership of property was practiced
before his arrival. Under Kapustin’s "complete community of
goods," fields were worked in common, the harvest was
divided among all the households, and a common herd of live
stock was maintained by the colony. There is some dispute
over grain storage practices. On the basis of research
Doukhobors," in Report of the Doukhobor Research Committee, ed. by Harry B. Hawthorn (Vancouver: University of British Columbia, 1952), p. 50.
^Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1: 291.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 324
conducted among British Columbia Doukhobors, Snesarev con
cluded that each village had a common granary. The 1805
tract contained in Platon’s Present State, however, noted
that only two villages kept common granaries. The Soviet
historian Klibanov cites this as proof that "not all
colonizing Doukhobors established their economic mode of
life on the bases of collectivism." This view, however,
neglects to consider that Kapustin only arrived at the Milky
Waters in 1805, at which time the colony was less developed il than it would ultimately become.
The 1805 tract, most likely composed by 1. V.
Lopukhin, cited three sources of the Tauride colony’s wealth:
"one general purse, one general flock, and in . . . two
villages two common magazines for corn. ..." From these
sources, "every brother [took] according to his wants.
Governor Lavinskii’s second inspection of the Milky Waters
colony in I818 revealed that the surplus of goods in the
community did "not serve to distinguish one person from
another"; indeed, "wealth and poverty alike are found among
them all." Lavinskii noted that the communal livestock herd
Ibid.; Snesarev, Doukhobors in British Columbia, p. 2; Platon, Present State, p. 254; Klibanov, Istoriia religioznogo sektantstva, p. 87.
^Platon, Present State, p. 254.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 325
was drawn upon "when some misfortune strikes a member of
their group. . . .
The hub of the communal economy was the Orphan's
Home, established in Terpenie by Kapustin in I805. Ostensi
bly a refuge for orphans, the aged, and the destitute, the
Orphan's Home was "more a centre of spiritual and common
activity of the Doukhobors than an asylum. . . . Here the
aggregate property of all colonists was apparently monitored
and disposed of according to the settlement’s needs. The
"one general purse" was kept at the Orphan’s Home; periodi
cally, the common treasury was augmented by voluntary or
more formal, tax-like contributions. The Home also served
as the residence of the colony’s leader, and as lodging for
visitors. The Orphan’s Home was a continuous feature of
Doukhobor history, "although its strength seems to have been
correlated with the prosperity of the communistic enter
prise.
The economic collective as described above did not
survive Savelii Kapustin’s lifetime. Sometime before 1816
Kapustin dissolved the "public economy." Novitskii wrote
that the leader's action was "arbitrary" and resulted in a
^Quoted in Livanov, Raskolniki i ostrozhniki, 4: 337.
^Brock, ed., "Pozdnyakov’s Narrative," l62.
^Snesarev, Doukhobors in British Columbia, pp. 3-4; Frantz, "Doukhobor Political System," pp. 35-36.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 326
wholly Inequitable distribution of the communal wealth; he
even hinted that Kapustin derived considerable gain from the
change.^ In any event, when Robert Pinkerton arrived at the
Milky Waters in 1816 , he found that the practice of "having
all things in common" was no longer operative. Now "every
family" had "its own private property, cattle, fields, etc."
Communal grain fields, gardens, and flocks were still main
tained through a form of barshchina labor, but the proceeds
accrued solely to the Orphan's Home.
There is scant evidence detailing the breakup of the
economic collective. Probably, as Snesarev suggests, the
fact that some colonists arrived at the Milky Waters desti
tute and claimed a share of the wealth brought to the colony
by more prosperous elements led to animosities which
made to practice "economic communism" in the Caucasus and in
Canada. These, however, ended in failure as well.
^Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, pp. 84-85.
^^Snesarev, Doukhobors in British Columbia, pp. 5-6.
^^Prantz, "Historical Continuities," 44-45. Sectar ian organizations in Imperial Russia were not allowed to legally own more than a certain amount of property. The legal amount was apparently an arbitrary judgment on the part of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. This stricture, however, presented few problems for the Doukhobors. At every stage of their history in Russia, the lands owned by the sect as a whole were granted to them by Imperial fiat. They acquired little landed property on their own. See Dunn, "Canadian and Soviet," 304.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 327
The influence of neighboring Mennonites on the eco
nomic development of the Milky Waters Doukhobor colony was
pervasive. The Mennonite historian David Epp writes that
"Russian peasant life and the agrarian economy improved sub
stantially in the areas immediately surrounding the [Mennon
ite] colonies." Hommaire de Hell, the French geologist,
geographer, and explorer, visited the Milky Waters in 1839
and learned that the Doukhobors "admirably availed them
selves of the examples set them by the Germans, and soon
attained a high degree of prosperity." The Doukhobors par
took of the Mennonite experience in everything from agri
culture and animal husbandry to clothing and housing con
struction. It is difficult to image the fate of the Milky
Waters colony had it not availed itself of the Germans’
% p p , Johann Cornies, pp. 112-117, and Mennonite Exodus, p. 25; Hommaire de Hell, Travels, p. 8l; Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, p. 85. As Charles Frantz has noted ("Doukhobor Political System," p. 36), E. K. Francis’ study of early Mennonite institutions indicates an intrigu ing functional similarity between the Doukhobor Orphan’s Home and the Mennonite Waisenamt ("orphans’ office"). The Waisenamt may or may not have existed in early West Prussian Mennonite communities, but it did exist from the Germans’ earliest colonies in Russia. Haxthausen noted the Mennon ites ’ "Communal House" in the village of Khortitz. See E. K. Francis, "Mennonite Institutions in Early Manitoba: A Study of their Origins," Agricultural History, 22 (July 1948): 147-151; Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1: 424.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 328
All phases of the Mennonite economy were directed by
the "agricultural genius," Johann Cornies. Born near Danzig
in 1789 , Cornies migrated to Russia with his parents in l804.
He was a major figure in the development of large-scale
agriculture and livestock breeding on the New Russian
steppes. St. Petersburg yearly sent a number of Russian
students to Cornies for instruction in the Mennonite's agri
cultural methods. Cornies was also a pioneer in the develop
ment of the Mennonites’ educational system in Russia. He
was instrumental in the establishment of Mennonite schools
and their curriculum. In many ways, Cornies was equal in
intellect and energy to one of his most frequent visitors.
Prince M. S. Vorontsov, Governor-general of New Russia.
Quakers Allen and Grellet were tremendously im
pressed by the many-faceted Mennonite economy, especially
the "fine orchards of various kinds of good fruit," and the
flocks of sheep. "Beautiful flocks of Merino sheep,"
numbering between two and three thousand, met the approving
Quakers’ eyes. The Mennonites, moreover, possessed a
"large cloth manufactory" which was profitably managed by
an Englishman.
Haxthausen was equally enamored of the Mennonite
establishment. Besides their sheep industry, he observed
^^Walter Quiring, "Cornies," Mennonite Encyclopedia, 1 : 716-7 18.
^^Allen, Life, 1: 403-404; Grellet, Memoirs, 1: 453.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 329
that the Germans gained revenue from ferry operations on the
Dneiper River, and from a brewery and distillery. The Men
nonites also operated a communal store and a fire insurance
company. Haxthausen further remarked on the Mennonite in
fluence on local Nogai Tatars. The Muslims were particu
larly fond of Cornies, who lent them every type of
assistance.
In sum, the Mennonite presence in the Milky Waters
region was both pervasive and salutary. Despite the inner-
directedness of both groups, a measure of intercourse was
achieved between the Mennonite and Doukhobor colonies. Even
after the exile of the Doukhobors to the Caucasus, as we
have noted, Johann Cornies maintained contact with several
of his sectarian friends.
In 1816 Robert Pinkerton calculated that the Milky
Waters colony numbered about 2,500 people in its nine vil
lages. The Ministry of Internal Affairs’ statistics for
1838 showed 4,48l colonists. These are the two most reliable
^^Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1: 424, 426-427.
^'^The Mennonites were the model for A. Klaus’ es pousal of a colonist system of land tenure for all of Russia in his Nashi kolonii: opyty i materialy po istorii i statistik inostrannoi kolonizatsii v Rossii (St. Petersburg : Tip. V. V. Nusvalta, 1869).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 330
figures we have on the Doukhobor population during the Milky
Waters period.
Housing at the Milky Waters was "in the German
style.Klibanov describes "large houses" at the colony
which could contain up to eight families. Structures of
the latter type were common in Doukhobor settlements in
Canada, but available evidence indicates that the only "com
munity house" at the Milky Waters was the Orphan’s Home at
Terpenie. Francis Mealing’s recent study of Doukhobor folk-
life asserts that the Tauride colony’s huts were large
enough to contain "at least a small extended family" of
three generations.^^
The chief agricultural products of the Milky Waters
area in the nineteenth century were wheat and sheep. The
Doukhobor economy was built around these two staples.
Marino sheep were introduced into the area at the state’s
^^Pinkerton, Russia, p. 167; "Statisticheskie dannye," 320.
^^Hommaire de Hell, Travels, p. 8l. Mary Holderness concluded that German houses in southern Russia were "much better built than those of the other peasantry of the Crimea." Haxthausen wrote that the dwellings in the Doukho bor village of Bogdanovka "differed little from those in the surrounding Russian [non-sectarian] villages." See Holder ness, New Russia, p. l6l; Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1 : 2981
^'^Klibanov, Istoriia religioznogo sektantstva, p. 87; Elon Jessup, "A Utopia that Works: The Doukhobor Settlement in British Columbia— A Successful Experiment in Religious Communism— A Fragment of Old Russia," Travel, 40 (November 1922), 52; Mealing, "Our People’s Way," p. 426.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 331
request in the early nineteenth century by a Frenchman named
Reuvere. St. Petersburg continued to encourage sheep breed
ing throughout the first half of the century.As noted
above, the Mennonites maintained large flocks of Merinos.
In all probability, the "numerous [Doukhobor] flocks" men
tioned by Pinkerton and Governor Lavinskii contained valuable
Merinos purchased from the Mennonites. Prince Vorontsov took
note of the Doukhobors’ "improved sheep breeding." An island
in the Molochnaia River of 1,000 desiatinas served as winter
pasture.
Wheat cultivation in the southern Ukraine increased
sharply during the first half of the nineteenth century.
Most of the wheat was produced on large, privately owned
estates, but the Mennonites, Doukhobors, and even the Nogai
Tatars cultivated extensive tracts. The Doukhobors’ "exten
sive and well-cultivated fields widely distinguished them
from the common Russian peasantry." The high quality of
their lands, of course, contributed to the Doukhobors’
agricultural success. An 1839 survey by the Ministry of
Internal Affairs noted that the land of Melitopol district
"is generally fertile, and in good years grain is gathered
______. _ . Holderness, New Russia, p. 82; Walter M. Pinter, Russian Economic Policy Under Nicholas 1 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1967), p. 111.
^^Pinkerton, Russia, p. l68; Livanov, Raskolniki i ostrozhniki, 4: 337; Shalkovskii, "Russkie dissidenti," 778; Eyries and Malte-Brun, Nouvelles annales, p. 302.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 332
abundantly." Infrequent sandy and rocky conditions did not
significantly influence grain production.
Besides wheat and sheep, the Doukhobors engaged in a
myriad of other economic pursuits. A Ministry of Internal
Affairs report noted in 1839 that "considerable income" was
gleaned from "fine orchards" in several Melitopol villages,
"particularly the community, or orphans’ orchard in the
village of Terpenie.Governor Lavinskii learned that the
Doukhobors made cloth and weaved canvas, belts, girdles, and
shashes. Horses and cattle joined sheep on the Doukhobor
pastures. The sectarians had "their own vast and distin
guished stud farm [konskii zavod]."^^
The Doukhobor economy at the Milky Waters was not a
closed economy. Necessity dictated that the colonists
establish some economic contact with the outside. The
Mennonites, for example, possessed a near monopoly on the
local flour-milling industry,and we can assume that the
Doukhobors were forced to avail themselves of the Germans’
service. Neighboring Orthodox towns were a market for
^Liashchenko, History of the National Economy, pp. 346-346; Holderness, New Russia, p. 141; Pinkerton, Russia, p. 168; "Statisticheskie dannye," 324.
"Statisticheskie dannye," 324.
4: 337. '
^^Epp, Mennonite Exodus, p. 1?.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3æ
Doukhobor livestock and a source of goods not produced at
the colony. Doukhobors in Transcaucasia, however, told
Vasilii Vereshchagin that only after Alexander’s visit in
1818 were they able to transact business in Orthodox towns
"in peace. By I818 the Milky Waters colony was regularly
employing up to sixty Orthodox laborers from neighboring
villages.
The Doukhobors who gathered at the Milky Waters in
1802 were united solely by a common religion. The primary
effect of the economy which the colonists created was the
evolution of material ties in reinforcement of the spiritual
bonds. The development of these material ties, the experi
ence of living, working, and prospering together, was a
critical factor in the survival of the Doukhobors as a co
hesive sect throughout the nineteenth century.
In Transcaucasia the Doukhobors initially established
settlements in areas of Elizavetpol and Tiflis provinces.
In 1878 a third colony was founded near Kars. The
Elizavetpol district of Elizavetpol province was "one of the
^^Vereshchagin, Autobiographical Sketches, p. 57.
^^Livanov, Raskolniki i ostrozhniki, 4: 337-338. German colonists, as well, normally employed Orthodox laborers. The Moravian Brethren maintained a warehouse in Moscow until it burned down in l8l2. See Hommaire de Hell, Travels, pp. 159, I6I.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 334
very richest [districts] beyond the Caucasus, and present[ed]
great opportunities for the development of all branches of
rural economy.The economy of the Elizavetpol Doukhobor
settlements was based on the production of livestock and
grain.
The mountains of Elizavetpol province were "rich in
meadows" and provided an ideal geography for livestock pro
duction. According to 1. L. Segal, an Elizavetpol prov
ince official, Doukhobors in the province in I89 O possessed
about 50,000 head of sheep. From this vast herd the sec
tarians annually sold from 35,000 to 40,000 rubles worth of ,
wool to Armenian buyers who dealt with the Moscow market.
By 1885 the Doukhobors in the Elizavetpol district villages
of Novogoreloe, Slavianka, and Novospasskoe formed 4.4 per
cent of the district’s population; these same three villages,
however, owned about 26 percent of the district’s small
horned cattle and 17 percent of its horses.
Obviously this success in livestock production was
not an instantaneous development. The first years of
settlement in Elizavetpol were difficult. Tatar robbers
initially took a heavy toll of Doukhobor livestock. Yet, by
^^lu. A. Gagemeister, "Novye ocherki Zakavkazia," Zhurnal ministerstva vnutrennikh del, 20 (1847): 360.
^°lbid.
^^Segal, "Russkie poseliane," and Sbornik statis- ticheskikh, pp. 212-213, cited by Klibanov, Istoriia religioznogo sektantstva, pp. 92-94.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 335
1863 the village of Slavianka had a herd of 7,000 cattle with
"a splendid appearance." Moreover, the wool from Slavianka’s
sheep earned almost twice the rubles per pood (36.1 pounds)
than that of other, non-Doukhobor settlements.^^
The average share of land per soul for Elizavetpol
province in 1885 was 4.58 desiatinas. The average share for
the Doukhobor villages (Novogoreloe, Slavianka, and Novos
passkoe), however, ranged from 5.71 to 11.72 desiatinas. On
their extensive lands the Doukhobors established "the most
marketable grain production in Georgia. ..." A study by
Soviet economist V. D. Mochalov shows that Elizavetpol
Doukhobors managed to sell (c. l895) an average of from 100
to 200 poods of flour per year per household, with some
families marketing up to 500 poods. Still, "much more" was
kept in reserve. This was accomplished in a region where
the non-sectarian population was "hardly able" to satisfy
its own needs for grain products. Vereshchagin learned in
1863 that the Doukhobors gained their highest yields from
oats, with wheat and barley second.
^^Vereshchagin, Autobiographical Sketches, pp. 74-75.
^^Klibanov, Istoriia religioznogo sektantstva, p. 92; V. D. Mochalov, Krestianskoe khoziaistvo v Zakavkaze k kontsu XIX V . (Moscow: Akademii nauk S.S.S.R., 1958), pp. 152-153; Vereshchagin, Autobiographical Sketches, p. 73. In the Caucasus the Doukhobors were all settled at least 5,000 feet above sea level. In this area, barley can be safely culti vated up to 8,100 feet above sea level, and wheat, 7,400 feet. See Lynch, Russian Provinces, p. 107.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 336
The Elizavetpol colony cultivated other crops besides
grain and livestock. Segal calculated in 189 O that the
Doukhobors (and two Molokan villages) annually harvested from
45,000 to 50,000 poods of potatoes. Vereshchagin noted,
however, that "their potatoes . . . are nothing to boast of."
Beekeeping was another prominent activity. A "good bee-
master" in Slavianka could earn up to 100 rubles per year S4 from his honey.
The economy of the Doukhobors settled in Tiflis
province (Akhalkalak district) was based mainly on livestock
due to the preponderance of meadow and pasture lands. A
study by Kh. A. Vermishev in I886 concluded that the colonies
of the Akhalkalak Doukhobors were "much more well-off than
the neighboring population" because the sectarians occupied
the best lands. The figures in Table 5, gathered in 1886,
show the preponderant influence of the Doukhobors in the
economy of Akhalkalak district. As Table 5 shows, the
Akhalkalak Doukhobors, forming about I6 percent of the dis
trict’s population in 1886, possessed 20 percent of the
large-horned cattle, 43 percent of the small-horned cattle,
and 70 percent of the horses.
^ Segal, "Russkie poseliane," cited by Klibanov, Istoriia religioznogo sektantstva, p. 93; Vereshchagin, Autobiographical Sketches, pp. 72-73, 74.
^^Kh. A. Vermishev, Materialy dlia izucheniia ekonomicheskogo byta gosudarstvennykh krestian Zakavkazskogo kraia (Tiflis, 1886) , 3: 43, quoted in Klibanov, Istoriia^ religioznogo sektantstva, p. 91.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 337
TABLE 5
Five Categories Detailing the Relative
Economic Strength of Doukhobors in
Akhalkalak District in 1886
Category Figures
Population (in 69 district villages) 39,141 Doukhobors (in 8 villages) 6,323
Land owned (in desiatinas) 90,937 Doukhobors 32,085
Large-horned cattle 56,864 Doukhobors 11,483
Snail-horned cattle 152,310 Doukhobors 64,886
Horses 10,573 Doukhobors 7,075
Source: Sbornik statistiches- kikh, pp. 10-11, cited by Klibanov, Istoriia religioznogo sektantstva, p. 91.
In Kars after I878 "’the Doukhobors indisputably
formed the best and the most productive part of the popula
tion in the oblast.’" The Kars Doukhobors were primarily
sheep breeders, and their wool consistently brought more
rubles per pood than that of the neighboring Kurds. In I893
Henry Lynch was urged by local authorities to visit the Kars
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 338
Doukhobor village of Goreloe in order to see "what Russian
colonists can bring to pass.
To Vasilii Vereshchagin in the mid-l860’s "it [was]
evident that the Doukhobors [were] thriving. Two
characteristics— one doctrinal and one material— of the
Doukhobor lifestyle in Transcaucasia deserve mention. First,
initial problems with neighboring native populations neces
sitated some compromise in the Doukhobor doctrine of non
violence. Several accounts point to the Doukhobors* use of
violence against the depredations of local Tatars and Kurds.
The Verigin family (from which issued Peter Verigin, leader
of the Doukhobor faction which migrated to Canada) was
evidently "on best terms" with the Tatars, but only after
Prokopii Verigin had killed several of the Muslins.At
least once the Doukhobors attacked and destroyed a Kurdish
village in retaliation for the theft of cattle. John Bellows,
a clerk for the Dukhobor committee of the English Quakers,
visited two Doukhobor villages in Transcaucasia and wrote in
1895 that at the time of his visit the sectarians’ tenets of
non-violence had "lapsed." Bellows traced this "lapse" to
the Turkish war of I878 when the Doukhobors supplied horses
^ Bochkarev, Karsskaia oblast, p. 370, quoted in Klibanov, Istoriia religioznogo sektantstva, p. 94; Lynch, Russian Provinces, p. 9 6 .
^"^Vereshchagin, Autobiographical Sketches, p. 74.
^^Brock, ed., "Pozdnyakov’s Narrative," I6I.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 339
to the Russian army in the Caucasus. It seems apparent,
however, that the sectarians were forced to violent measures
upon their very arrival in the region.
Materially, the hardships of exile forced the
Doukhobors to adopt agricultural techniques far in advance
of their neighbors. Vermishev labeled the Doukhobors " 'very
great hunters'" of technical improvements. Various observers
noted the existence of iron ploughs, harrows, and winnowing
machines in the Transcaucasian Doukhobor villages. Although
the latter did not appear until the end of the century, it
is significant that the Doukhobors were the first to incor
porate such devices into their agriculture. Henry Lynch
wrote that "you do not see such [iron] ploughs among their
[Doukhobors'] neighbors. ..." Lynch and Vereshchagin were
both impressed by the Doukhobor's "spacious wagons," German- 40 style conveyances with railed sides sloping outwards.
The Orphan's Home in Transcaucasia was situated in
the village of Goreloe in the Akhalkalak district of Tiflis
province. There is some evidence that the Doukhobors re
verted to the economic communism of the early Milky Waters
^Frantz, "Doukhobor Political System," p. 95; John Bellows, Letters and Memoir, ed. by Mrs. John Bellows (London: Kegan Paul, n.d.), pp. 319-320.
^°Vermishev, Materialy, 3: 49, and 1. E. Petrov, Izvestiia Kavkazskogo otdela imperatorskogo Russkogo geogra- ficheskogo obshchestva (Tiflis, 1906), 18: 190, cited in Klibanov, Istoriia religioznogo sektantstva, pp. 92-93; Lynch, Russian Provinces, p. 107; Vereshchagin, Autobio graphical Sketches, p. 72.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 340
years during the period from l84l to 1865. At one point the
Goreloe Orphan's Home housed a treasury of 500,000 rubles,
which testifies to its central place in the Transcaucasian 4l Doukhobor economic administration.
After 1865, the Transcaucasian Doukhobor colonies
abandoned their more flagrant communistic practices. We
have little evidence of the mechanics of this development
beyond the formation of the so-called Large and Small
Parties, which arose apparently out of inequalities in the
distribution of the sect's wealth. Klibanov asserts from
his Marxist viewpoint that a small faction succeeded in
amassing control of a great percentage of the sect's live
stock and lands and then proceeded to "exploit" the economi
cally dependent masses.
Despite their economic predominance in Transcaucaisa,
there is no evidence that the Doukhobors exported their
example. Unlike the Mennonites in Tauride province, the
Doukhobors did not exercise an economically beneficial in
fluence on the surrounding populations. Lynch wrote that
"very little has been effected by the Russian settlers
[Doukhobors] towards raising the standards already prevail
ing" in Transcaucasia.^^
^^Brock, ed., "Pozdnyakov's Narrative," l62; Frantz, "Historical Continuities," 44-45.
^^Klibanov, Istoriia religioznogo sektantstva, p. 94.
43Lynch, Russian Provinces, p. 457.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 341
Our sources almost unanimously maintain that the
Doukhobors were more successful in their economic pursuits
than their Orthodox counterparts. Other Russian sects,
especially the Skoptsy, frequently provoked mention due to
their economic expertise. Haxthausen noted that St.
Petersburg’s Skoptsy "have the control of large property,"
and while the police apparatus could "generally discover
their money," it experienced considerable difficulty in
identifying "their persons." Robert Pinkerton and Haxthausen
were astonished at the "large portion" of the jewelry and
goldsmith trade controlled by Skoptsy in St. Petersburg,
Moscow, Riga, Odessa, and other cities. De Lagney contended
that "all the money-changers" of all the Russian towns that
he visited were Skoptsy. At least once, Molokan enterprise
led to a charge of counterfeiting.^^ The economic pursuits
and successes of various Russian sects demand a brief
examination of the relationship between religion and
economic activity.
Max Weber was the first to articulate the seventeenth
century observation on the apparent correspondence between
economic success and Reformed religion. Weber noted the
Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1: 251-252; Pinkerton, Russia, p. 263; De Lagney, Russians, p. 92; Finot, Saints and Seers, p. 39.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 342
salutary Impact of the Calvinist’s asceticism on the conduct
of his economic activities. The doctrine of predestination,
the idea of the "calling," led to the adoption of ascetic
and rational practices wholly promotive of material wealth.
The work of R. H. Tawney, with some variations, supported 45 Weber’s thesis within the Western European context.
In applying the Weber thesis to Russia, Alexander
Gerschenkron found that the "old-believing entrepreneur"
exhibited characteristics which Weber regarded as "the
specific capitalist spirit." Gerschenkron, however, sought
the origin of the Old Believer’s "capitalistic spirit" in
his peculiar social position, and not in his religious doc
trines. Confronted with the state’s hostility. Old Believers
were forced to accumulate wealth in order to maintain their
institutions and bribe government officials. Moreover:
In its defensive reaction against in tolerance, the group builds up a feeling of moral superiority to the outsider and then proceeds to bolster that feel ing by developing habits that both evi dence and vindicate it. Hence came the features of cleanliness, honesty, re liability, frugality, industry, and
On the Weber thesis and its various aspects, see Weber, Protestant Ethic ; R. H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1926); V. A. Demant, "The Weber Thesis: Controversy and Consensus," in Religion and the Decline of Capitalism, ed. by V. A. Demant (London: Faber and Faber, 1952), pp. 16-19; David S. Landes, The Unbound Prometheus : Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present (Cambridge! Cambridge University Press, 1970), pp. 22-24.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 343
thrift that were so generally observed to characterize the Old B e l i e v e r s . 46
Here Gerschenkron has isolated in the Russian context Weber's
"second independent source of Protestant asceticism" (the 4? first being Calvinism), the sects. While Weber emphasized
the doctrinal origins of the sect's asceticism, Gerschenkron 48 found social imperatives to be the most decisive.
In the Doukhobor experience we can detect both social
and doctrinal roots for the cultivation of traits conducive
to the accumulation of wealth. It is difficult, of course,
to precisely ascertain the cumulative impact of decades of
persecution on the economic activities of the Milky Waters
Europe in the Russian Mir ror: Four Lectures in Economic Hist~ory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), p. 34. In considering the Old Believers and how they may or may not relate to the Weber thesis, Gerschenkron inexplicably notes that "later protestant sects . . . are of little interest in connection with the problem under discussion here" (p. 17).
^"^Weber, Protestant Ethic, p. l44. Weber identified the Baptists, Mennonites, and Quakers as sources of this (independent from Calvinism) asceticism.
^^William Blackwell's study of Moscow Old Believers led him to cite the "institutional aspect," rather than the ideological, as the most important factor in the accumula tion of schismatic wealth. The "institutional" road to wealth was marked by capital accumulation through legacies, contributions, and "a communal way of life and enterprise." See William L. Blackwell, "The Old Believers and the Rise of Private Industrial Enterprise in Early Nineteenth-century Moscow," Slavic Review, 24 (September 1965) : 424. Count P. D. Kiselev (1788-1Ü72), Nicholas I's Minister of State Domains was convinced that the internal organization (i.e., the "institutional aspect") of schismatic sects was respon sible for their economic success. See Pinter, Economic Policy Under Nicholas 1 , p. 159.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 344
and Transcaucasian colonies. We can, however, cite various
Incidents Involving Doukhobors outside the protective con
fines of the colonies which could have led to the adoption
of ascetic habits compatible with economic success. From
these experiences we might Infer a collective "Protestant
ethic" carried to the colonies by Individuals.
In the late nineteenth century N. M. Astyrev, a
government statistician, visited the village of Kotlnsk In
northern Irkutsk province. The population of Kotlnsk was
predominantly Orthodox, but the village did serve as the
sole point of the "weak" development of Doukhoborlsm In the
province. Astyrev characterized the Orthodox attitude
toward the Doukhobors as one of "distrustful curiosity"
tinged "sometimes with concealed contempt." After his de
parture from Kotlnsk, Astyrev learned from newspaper
accounts that several of the Doukhobors were hauled before
a provincial court for uttering "sacrellglous words" In a
village meeting. The court sentenced the offenders to only
light punishment for acting "without clear reason." A short
time later a severe drought struck northern Irkutsk province.
The Kotlnsk community decided that Its affliction was caused
by Orthodox "Indulgence" of the heretical minority In Its
midst. It was resolved to reduce the Doukhobors' share of 4g arable land.
^^Astyrev, "V gostlakh u dukhobortsev," 55-56, 64.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 345
Astyrev learned nothing of the subsequent fate of
the Kotlnsk Doukhobors. He surmised only that land shortages
may have forced the sectarians to seek refuge In Transcau
casia. What Is certain Is that similar depredations were
visited on other Doukhobors by a hostile and suspicious
society. We have noted the Orthodox practice of Inequitably
drafting Doukhobor recruits. In some cases this resulted In
a deprivation of manpower which proved fatal to those remain
ing In the household. The Kotlnsk Doukhobors told
Astyrev, and Orthodox residents freely admitted, that they
were forced to shoulder disproportionate mlr duties and
obligations because of their refusal to support the local
Orthodox church.Extraordinary taxes for Doukhobor non-
participation In community service, urban residence and
travel restrictions, and Orthodox hostility In the market
place all contributed to the Doukhobor economic disadvantage.
The hardships of forced exile to Transcaucasia with fixed
property sold at confiscatory prices and the plundering of
Tatar neighbors were only the more spectacular burdens
forced upon the sect. Confronted thus by a hostile society.
It Is not difficult to Imagine a Doukhobor "defensive
left destitute when their husbands were taken for military service In 1817 . See Novitskii, Dukhobortsy: Ikh Istorlla, pp. 70-71.
^^Astyrev, "V gostlakh u dukhobortsev," 56.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 346
reaction" characterized by frugality and Industry. In any
event, the sect's economic success In the face of myriad
depredations speaks for Itself.
A doctrinal source for a Doukhobor "Protestant ethic"
Is more easy to document. The Doukhobor belief In the
"Inner voice," the "divine spark" existent In every man,
approaches the Calvinist’s "calling" which figures promin
ently In Weber's thesis.Various Doukhobor psalms Incul
cate traits Identical to those associated with the Calvinist
ethic. A psalm entitled "Be Devout," attributed to Ilarlon
Poblrokhln, could serve as an ethical blueprint for any
budding capitalist :
Be devout. Trust In God. . . . Follow [the path of] virtue, take yourself away from vices. Be prudent: looking to the end, take care of the means. Do not lose [any] chance for fair deeds. Do not be gin anything without forethought and do not hurry with [your] reasoning; do not be tardy, except under need and [then] for a little time. Do not believe all you hear. Not all, that you see, desire; not all, that you know, tell. . . . Keep yourself In check : do not use food with out hunger, without thirst do not drink. . . . From lack of self-control Is born sick ness, death. The temperate live health ily, long, and well. Be meek, not rude; more silent than talkative. . . . when an other gives you some order-obey and do not boast. . . . whatever you have need of, get by work[lng]. . . . What you take on loan-return; what you promise-fulf111. Be manly, willing to work; leave off from Idleness and sloth. If you wish
"Russian Doukhobors," p. 108.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 347
to begin something, test your strength first, then carry on and do not slacken. . . . Be careful to notice In life, the dif ferent cases of Inconsistency, misfor tune and grief. For that which the patient endure, the small-souled sigh, weep, and s o b . 53
The Frankllnesque aphorisms which comprise this psalm have
remained part of the Doukhobor oral tradition for two cen
turies. There Is little doubt but that these maxims were
designed and employed to combat the material and spiritual
attacks visited by a hostile Russian society. The Doukhobor
ethic, however, was buttressed by a political system which
gave It Institutional form. To that we now turn our
attention.
POLITICS AND PERSONALITY
Haxthausen concluded from his 1843 visit that:
It does not appear that the Doukhobors have ever had a common head. The vari ions Communes are frequently at variance ; but everywhere leaders arise among them, who soon acquire an absolute control over their neighbors, and secure perfect obe dience. 54
Haxthausen was essentially correct ; Doukhobor theory admits
to no leader. The strongman, however, has been a feature of
almost every stage of the sect’s development. This
^^Meallng, ’’Our People’s Way," pp. 128-130; Bonch- Bruevich, ed., Zhlvotnala knlga, pp. 149-150.
^^Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1: 288.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 348
dichotomy has proved a troubling characteristic in the
Doukhobors' history.
The Doukhobors constantly maintained the myth of
their classless, leaderless society. I. V. Lopukhin's l805
tract asserted that "no superior powers" existed In Doukho
bor society, and that the "society at large governs Itself
and each Individual" without the guidance of written law or
regulations. Robert Pinkerton was politely Informed In I816
that he could not be directed to the leader of the Milky
Waters colony because there was none. As Charles Frantz
phrases It In Weberian terms, "every believer had charisma.
The Idea that certain Doukhobors possessed more
charisma than others Is generally attributed to Savelll
Kapustin. From the Mennonltes (what Incredible gossips they
seem) Haxthausen learned that Kapustin attached "peculiar
Importance" to the doctrine of the transmigration of souls.
This, combined with the tenet that God resides In everyone,
enabled Kapustin to portray himself as the Inheritor through
Sllulan Kolesnikov of the soul of Jesus Christ. These
spiritual underpinnings, coupled with his extraordinary
personal attraction and oratorical skill, enabled Kapustin
to establish "the office of Christ" within Doukhobor society.
Further, Kapustin succeeded In establishing the Kalmykov
family as the ruling sacred dynasty by assuring his
^^Platon, Present State, p. 256; Pinkerton, Russia, p. 166 ; Frantz, "Doukhobor Political System," p. 25.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 349
followers that Christ’s soul would Implant itself in the
body of his son.
On occasion the succession broke down. In 1886 In
Transcaucasia the Kalmykov line ended with the death of
Lukeria Kalmykova. The Doukhobors believed, however, that
Christ was living "secretly" among them, and they need only
await His revelation. During periods of Interregnum, wealth
and the evident possession of "divinity"— usually evidenced
by one’s ability to recite obscure allegorical tales—
determined the selection of the new holder of "Christ’s
office." During the period following Kalmykova’s death,
Peter Verigin, "behaving mysteriously," succeeded In
establishing himself as leader.
To a degree the Doukhobors’ belief In the divinity
of their leader was a simple reworking of the common
peasant belief In the near divinity of the Tsar. In some
dissenting groups, this transferal was explicit In that they
regarded their leader as the true Tsar. The Skoptsy leader.
^^Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1: 289-290, 292.
^"^Brock, ed. , "Pozdnyakov’s Narrative," 20; Frantz, "Doukhobor Political System,’’ pp. 65, 66-67- As Frantz notes, a "vast body of rational and non-ratlonal symbols" was formed over the years of opposition to official society. The use of metaphors, allegories, and parables frustrated external attempts to penetrate the sect, but gave rise to a literature which many Doukhobors could not readily under stand. Those appearing to have a command of allegory were generally looked upon as divinely Inspired.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3^
Selivanov, portrayed himself as the dethroned Peter III.
As Frantz has pointed out, however, the Doukhobors combined
their belief In a divine leader with an "Ideological opposi
tion" to the state that denied all tsarist claims of
authority. The Doukhobors "redefined" the general peasant
belief In the divine Tsar In even more religious terms, thus
leading to "the substitution of a charismatic hereditary line
of leaders for the Tsars."
Directly below the leader In the Doukhobor hierarchy
was the Council of Elders. In the latter part of the
eighteenth century Ilarlon Poblrokhln allegedly chose twelve
"apostles" to aid hom In the management of the Tambov
Doukhobor community. To this body Poblrokhln later added
twelve "avenging angels." The precise duties of the apostles
and "angels" are unclear. As Livanov Indicated, they were
probably used as a form of political police to enforce
doctrinal unity among the Tambov Doukhobors.^®
With the colonization of the Milky Waters, an execu
tive Council of Elders replaced Poblrokhln's "angels." The
body of twelve apostles remained Intact. Again the precise
functions and responsibilities of these two bodies are
^^Sévérac, La sect russe, p. I30 .
^®Llvanov, "Tambovskle molokane 1 dukhobortsy," 248.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 351
unclear. The apostles were probably the leader’s closest
personal advisers, residing with him In the "capital"
village. The Elders were the administrators of the various
villages within the Doukhobor colonies. Elected to their
offices, the Elders coordinated and executed colony-wide
policies during the reigns of strong Individual leaders,
especially during Savelll Kapustin’s tenure from l805 to
1820 . They also acted as judges In cases of misconduct among
the rank-and-flle. The Elders could deprive miscreants of
participation In worship services. During periods of weak
Individual leadership, as under Vasllll and Ilarlon Kalmykov,
the Council of Elders ascended to a position of supreme
executive and judicial power, eclipsing both the leader and
his apostles. The number of Elders varied from twenty-four
to thirty. The village golova, noted by Ananich, was
probably one of the two or three Elders who resided In each
village. In the discharge of their administrative duties,
the Elders were assisted by village clerks who, as Vasllll
Vereshchagin learned, were usually discharged soldiers who
knew how to read. A system of messengers was maintained
to provide communication between the various villages.
Theoretically, the ultimate punishment for aberrant
behavior within the Doukhobor community was expulsion from
Frantz, "Doukhobor Political System," p. 34; Li vanov, Raskolnlkl 1 ostrozhnlkl, 4: 337; Platon, Present State, p. 25I; Brock, ed., "Pozdnyakov’s Narrative," 161; Vereshchagin, Autobiographical Sketches, p. 71.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 352
the society. This step was taken only after the failure of
several stages of admonishment Involving one or more coun
selors. Pinal expulsion was contingent upon a hearing
before "the whole society.As we have seen, this theory
gave way to the practice of judicial executions during the
troubled I83O 's. The Doukhobors employed another form of
"punishment." Following the example of Orthodox communities,
the Milky Waters colony fulfilled Its recruit quotas with
drunkards, slackers, and other undesirables.^^
Charles Frantz’s study of twentieth century Doukho
bor political Institutions focuses on several constants
applicable to our period of Inquiry. Frantz’s notion of the
"bad-boy deviation" goes far In explaining the Doukhobors’
acceptance of the Kalmykovs’ Irresolute and Immoral behavior
during the l820’s and I83O ’s . The leader’s attribute of
divine charisma gave rise to rank-and-flle tolerance of his
aberrant conduct. Moreover, the "role of ’bad-boy’ seems to
be the logical extension of the roles of deceit which were
permitted all Doukhobors, particularly toward outsiders."
The Image of Inscrutability which the sect carefully culti
vated for outsiders was an almost Inescapable excuse for
the "bad-boy deviation" which the Doukhobors countenanced.^^
^^Platon, Present State, p. 255.
^^"Avtoblograflcheskala zap1ska Vaslllla Romanovlcha Marchenkl," 317 64. Frantz, "Doukhobor Political System," pp. 71, 72.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 353
Frantz contends that the essence of the Doukhobor
political system lies In Its attempt to Integrate horizontal 65 and vertical conceptions of authority. Elements of hori
zontal, or egalitarian, authority emphasized the theoretical
(spiritual) equality of Doukhobors within the community.
The authoritarian, vertical conception was Institutionalized
In the hierarchy of divine leader and his Elders and apostles.
The Integration of horizontal and vertical concepts of
authority produced a number of problematic conditions.
First, It precluded the existence of well-defined positions
within the community. The periodic ascendency of the Coun
cil of Elders and our Ignorance as to Its precise normal
functions Indicate a definite fluidity In the Doukhobor
political structure. This fluidity. In turn, raised prob
lems In social control (especially In the I83O 's) when the
only well-defined community position, that of the divine
leader, went Into eclipse. Secondly, and this Frantz falls
to mention, the Doukhobor egalitarian concept of authority
was based primarily on spiritual equality; to a greater or
lesser extent, divine charisma was possessed by every member
of the collective. On the other hand, vertical authority
was based primarily on the colony’s material needs for
economic and political stability. The frequent and ulti
mately curtailed attempts at economic communism reflected
^^Ibld., pp. 22-23, 103 -119 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 354
unsuccessful moves to spiritualize (I.e., make egalitarian)
the vertical (material) concept of authority. As the prob
lems of the 1830 ’s show, the clash of spiritually and
materially based concepts of authority created a crisis of
conscience In many Doukhobors. The existence of the "bad-
boy deviation" only Intensified this crisis.
An examination of other sectarian political struc
tures highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the Douk
hobor system. When he was burned at the stake at Innsbruck
In 1536, Jacob Huter "did not leave [his] group organized
around the precarious stability of a personality." Within
the short period of three years (1533-1535), Huter fashioned
a political organization which assured Hutterlte stability
for centuries. Each Hutterlte community Is headed by (1) a
preacher who provides for spiritual needs, and (2) a wlrt,
or "householder," who presides over economic concerns.
These two are advised by a body of normally five elders.
All Hutterlte offices are elective, with the holder, barring
extreme Incompetence, keeping his position for life.Un
like the Doukhobors, then, Hutterlte political Institutions
are functionally divided between material and spiritual
Deets, Hutterltes, pp. 4, 16 , 31; Bertha W. Clark, "The Huterlan Communities,’’ Part 1, Journal of Political Economy, 32 (June 1924): 365-366.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 355
positions. Further, the Hutterltes do not rely on the "pre
carious stability of a personality."^'^
The Molokans suffered under an extremely loose
political organization. Molokan elders were not appointed
or elected; when one grew "up to the state of a father or a
mother In the Church," he or she was "acknowledge[d] In the
office for which the Lord has qualified them." Furthermore,
there Is no evidence that that the Molokans had even a
nominal leader of any sort. These conditions, coupled by
frequent disagreements over Biblical Interpretation, caused
the Molokans to "divide and separate themselves. Vasllll
Vereshchagin recorded the divisive fruits of Molokan
political practice:
. . . discord Is frequent among them; those who, from whatever cause, are discontented with the existing order of things Invent something new, sep arate themselves from the rest, and make a fresh party. The society thus formed then holds Its meetings In a separate house, under the guidance of a new teacher. Thus the difference, which at first was scarcely perceptible, grows greater and greater, and It last comes to an open quarrel. And so It has come about that the sect . . . has sundered Itself Into several com munities .
^^Comparlson of Doukhobor and Hutterlte Institutions, of course, must contain allowances for differing theologies.
^^Grellet, Memoirs, 1: 451; Allen, Life, 1: 4l2.
^^Vereshchagin, Autobiographical Sketches, p. 76. The painter divided the Molokans Into the "pure Molokans" and the more fundamentalist, ecstatic "Leapers." An 1867
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 356
As Frantz writes, one of the benefits of the Doukhobor
system was that It prevented the growth of "non-stratlfled
groups" such as clans and moieties."^® The loose Molokan
system was not so structured.
In the final analysis, the Doukhobor political sys
tem was based on the "highly personal" relationship between
the rank-and-flle and the leader. Philosophical abstrac
tions of government and authority did not Intrude themselves
on this relationship. When the Doukhobors migrated to
Canada, an Investigatory report by a Royal Commission con
cluded that the sect possessed a static political and eco
nomic system after the manner of the Orthodox mlr. Vladimir
Snesarev rightly took Issue with the report. "The communal
life of the Doukhobors," he wrote, "depended on the 'holy’
will of their leaders. When the will changed, the organiza
tion also changed. The type of pliant personality
study noted that differences In Scriptural Interpretation caused the Molokans to "have as many sects as they have con fessors." See Z., "Sostolanle raskola v tavrlcheskol gubernll," 336.
"^®Frantz, "Doukhobor Political System," p. 108.
"^^Hlrabayashl, "Russian Doukhobors," p. 37.
^^Report of Royal Commission on Matters Relating to the Sect of Doukhobors In the Province of British Columbia (Victoria, B.C.: King's Printer, 1913)s pp. 36-37; Snesarev, Doukhobors In British Columbia, p. 10.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 357
required by a system based on the "highly personal" relation
ship between the leader's "'holy' will" and his followers Is
our next topic.
In his 1818 report to the Ministry of Internal
Affairs, Governor Lavlnskll of Taurlde province wrote that
"the manner of life and behavior of the Melitopol colonists
Is clearly distinguished from [that of] other residents."
The Doukhobors managed themselves "gently and exceedingly
temperately, and they deal[t] severely with those prone to
drunkenness." Furthermore, Lavlnskll found that theft and
"other notorious vices" were almost nonexistent at the Milky
Waters colony ; by I818, not one case dealing with the Douk
hobors had been heard In any Taurlde court. The behavior
patterns thus described were a function of a sacred socio
political system which stressed humility and obedience to
authority.
From his earliest days the Doukhobor was programed
to humble himself to Divine authority. The theme of sub
mission, a constant refrain In Doukhobor oral tradition,
pervades the following "very old" psalm:
The Lord speaks out through the mouth of his son: Submit [yourselves], my people, under the sturdy hand of God,
"^^Quoted In Livanov, Raskolnlkl 1 ostrozhnlkl, 4: 337.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 358
love one another as your own selves, and the Lord God will lift you up . . . t o be blessed by heaven. . . . Do not trouble one another, but always be humble; it is a sin . . . to be obstinate . . . also, to be without humility. 74
Another psalm counsels the Doukhobors to "be obedient to
superiors" and to "serve as many as you can" so as to "please
all people by your deeds. The psalmists' precepts of
obedience reinforced the vertical conception of authority
which maintained the hierarchy of leader and Elders. In
some cases the vertical authority concept was further rein
forced In Doukhobors by the surrounding (Orthodox) peasant
milieu which placed the Tsar at the pinnacle of a highly
structured, authoritarian society. This reinforcement
occurred primarily In those small. Isolated Doukhobor com
munities outside the Milky Waters where Ideological opposi
tion to the state was necessarily less pronounced. In the
Irkutsk community of Kotlnsk, Astyrev found portraits of the
reigning Romanov family and other temporal rulers— Including
the Shah of Persia— on the walls of a Doukhobor cottage.
There were, of course, no Icons.
"^^Meallng, "Our People’s Way," p. 143; Bonch- Bruevich, ed., Zhlvotnala knlga, p. 155.
"^^Meallng, "Our People's Way," p. 130; Bonch- Bruevich, ed., Zhlbotnala knlga, pp. 149-150.
"^^Astyrev, "V gostlakh u dukhobortsev," 57.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 359
In 1952 Alfred Shulman, then a resident psychiatrist
at the Seton Institute in Baltimore, published a paper on
"the basic Doukhobor personality type. Shulman postulated
that the formulation of a personality type was possible be
cause of the Doukhobors* own "special heritage," and because
of the "consistent fashion" In which the oral tradition
transmitted certain attitudes and beliefs from generation to
generation. Although Shulman*s findings were based on
research conducted among Doukhobors In British Columbia, we
can reasonably Infer their applicability to Doukhobors In
Russia during the period under Investigation.
Shulman concluded that the general Doukhobor person
ality Is characterized by "quiet passivity, his lack of
what we would call normal aggression and self-assertion."
This "quiet passivity," In turn, leads to a radical depen
dence on others due to a programed Inability to assume
responsibilities or undertake assertive action. Passivity
further dictates submission, "In a passive, helpless
fashion," to abuse and persecution from forces outside the
Doukhobor community. The Doukhobor*s attitude toward his
community Is dictated by his passivity and dependence.
^^Alfred Shulman, "Personality Characteristics and Psychological Problems," In The Doukhobors of British Columbia, ed. by Harry B. Hawthorn (Vancouver: University of British Columbia, 1955), p. 12 4.
^^Ibld., pp. 128-136. Shulman further claims that Doukhobor passivity and dependence wrought a lack of creativity and self-esteem.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 360
Other facets of the Doukhobor personality are derived
from Its "quite passivity." Shulman found that "although
the direct manifestations of them are rare, hostile feelings
and attitudes characterize most of the Doukhobors to a
marked degree." Hostility arises from various stresses Im
posed on a dependent Individual by a social structure which
In many cases Is found to be unreliable. The unstable,
fluid Doukhobor political system disallows for stability and
direction, giving rise to frustration on the part of the
dependent Individual. Moreover, a community which depends
to a greater or lesser degree on cooperation Imposes various
stresses on the passive, dependent Doukhobor who finds cer
tain of his brethren unreliable. The "ever-present despotic
authority of the leader" can serve to repress manifestations
of hostility; yet this very authority Itself, with the con
stant threat of expulsion from the society, produces anxiety
and Insecurity.
Shulman*s construction of the Doukhobor personality
type conforms to various behavior patterns noted In our
study. The Doukhobors’ hostility to outsiders, their quick
submission to the authority of Kapustin and his dissolute
successors, and their quiet demeanor In the face of perse
cution and exile testify to the generally passive and
dependent Doukhobor character. Similarly, the apparent
^^Ibld., pp. 137, 142-143.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 361
"revolt" of the I83O 's which led to judicial executions, and
the frequent lapses from economic communism, were caused by
rare manifestations of hostility against an unstable socio
political order that failed to provide direction for the
dependent Doukhobor.
In sum, the Doukhobor political system variously re
inforced and undermined the Ideally passive and dependent
rank-and-flle personality. Ultimately, of course, the re
jection of authority was tantamount to the denial of the
Doukhobors' customs, traditions, and their very sacredness;
this was an unacceptable alternative and partly accounts for
the sect's longevity as a cohesive body. In an 1897 visit
to a Transcaucasian Doukhobor village, Arthur St. John
thought to himself : "What splendid soldiers they [Doukhobors]
would make, and what could [he] not do with a handful of
such men !
The psychology of dependence In the Individual Douk
hobor should not blind us to a collective self-assertion
which defied the pretensions of the surrounding Orthodox
civilization. The Doukhobors' "heretical" religion was the
most obvious manifestation of this collective self-assertion.
Yet It was the substitution of a hereditary line of
St. John, "The Doukhobors," 19•
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 362
charismatic leaders for the tsars that exhibited the most
blatantly political self-assertion. For all practical pur
poses the Doukhobors recognized the authority of the Russian
throne ; their many petitions to St. Petersburg bespoke of
this pragmatic accommodation. Nevertheless, the socio
political basis of Doukhobor society lay In the personal
relationship between the charismatic, Divine leader and the
rank-and-flle. St. Petersburg never successfully Intruded
on this relationship most subversive of tsarist prerogatives.
WORSHIP AND CEREMONY
Theoretically, the Doukhobors had no particular days
set aside for worship services ; they "account[ed] all days
alike.In Transcaucasia Vereshchagin noted that services
were held on Sundays and weekdays, late at night after the
day’s labors were completed. Saturday nights, he noted,
were "especially" spent In worship.Of course, Doukhobors
In the Taurlde and Transcaucasian enclaves could establish
a more regular worship regimen than their brethren Isolated
elsewhere In Orthodox villages. The latter were forced to
correlate their worship with that of Orthodox neighbors;
"for If they were to work on the holidays of their neigh
bors, they say, they should subject themselves to double
^^Platon, Present State, p. 252.
^^Vereshchagin, Autobiographical Sketches, p. 66,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 363
persecution, and might be represented as disobedient to the
laws of the empire.
Outside of the "capital" villages, the Doukhobors
usually held their services "In the open air." When weather
conditions made this Impossible, services were held In pri
vate homes. The sectarians generally dined together when
they worshipped In a private household. The food was pro
vided by the community at large for these worship feasts.
In the capital villages, worship was conducted at
the Orphan’s Home, the leader’s residence. In Terpenle the
Orphan’s HOme was a two-storied structure with a small
"gallery" or veranda along one side of the upper level.
Three "spectral-looklng statues" stood In the courtyard.
The Inhabitants of Terpenle assembled In the courtyard for
services conducted by Savelll Kapustin, who officiated from
the gallery.
The Doukhobor worship service was "extremely simple,"
consisting for the most part of recitations of prayers and
psalms. The recitations were conducted both by Individuals
and the group en masse. Individual renderings of prayers
^^Platon, Present State, p. 252.
^^Plnkerton, Russia, p. l69; "Avtoblograflcheskala zaplska Vaslllla Romanovlcha Marchenkl," 317; Livanov, Raskolnlkl 1 ostrozhnlkl, 4 : 336.
^^Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1: 300-301.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 364
and psalms were interspersed among group singings. Textual
errors In the delivery of psalms were not uncommon, and they
were Immediately corrected. Vereshchagin witnessed a service
In Transcaucasia and noted that "the mistakes are mostly made
by the men; the women know the prayers better, and the
corrections come chiefly from their side.
The period of psalm recitation lasted until the
available repertoire was completed, or until the congrega
tion was exhausted "and snoring [was] heard from the corners
and comfortable places. At this point, Vereshchagin re
corded that the entire congregation retired to a courtyard
to conduct a curious ringed ceremony which marked the con
clusion of the service. There Is some evidence, however,
that the ringed ceremony was the most Important part of the
Doukhobor worship. The services witnessed by Stephen
Grellet (I819 ) and Arthur St. John (I897) consisted almost
entirely of this circular ritual.
The ringed ceremony was conducted Indoors and In the
open air by segregated groups of men, women, boys, and girls
formed Into one large circular assembly. To the accompani
ment of psalm singing, the men began the ritual by Individu
ally passing down the male ranks, grasping each member In
turn by the right hand and bowing three times and kissing.
Vereshchagin, Autobiographical Sketches, pp. 62- 63.
^'^Ibld., p. 6 3.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 365
After each Individual "salute," the worshipper turned and
bowed twice In the direction of the women. When each man
finished his series of salutes, he assumed a position at the
end of the male rank and another began. When all the men
completed their turns, the boys began the same sequence of
kissing and bowing through their ranks, followed by the
women and girls. At the end of the ritual the entire assem
bly knelt to the ground and bowed heads. This was followed
by "general salutations," en masse, from each of the four
groups to the other three. Vereshchagin found the bowing to
be "very awkward." Grellet lamented that "no seriousness
appeared over [the worshippers] at any time.
Arthur St. John Inquired as to the significance of
the three bows and the kiss. He was told that the bows
represented the three parts of the Trinity, Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit. The kiss signified the "love and brotherhood"
that bound the community’s faithful. The final act of
kneeling and bowing to the ground, St. John learned, was a
gesture of supplication for the forgiveness of sins.
Teaching and preaching, then, had no place In the
Doukhobor religious service. Worship was confined to
The description of this ceremony Is compiled from the accounts of Grellet, Memoirs, 1: 456-457, Arthur St. John, "An Inconvenient Visit to the Caucasus," Part 3: "A Meeting of Splrlt-Wrestlers," New Order, 5 (March 1899): 47, and Vereshchagin, Autobiographical Sketches, pp. 64-65.
^^St. John, "Splrlt-Wrestlers," 48.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 366
individual and group recitation of hymns and psalms. The
Milky Waters period was the first great epoch In the evolu
tion of Doukhobor psalm texts. Under the guidance of
Savelll Kapustin, existing psalms (especially those of
Kapustin’s predecessor, Ilarlon Poblrokhln) were categorized
according to the occasions for which they were best suited,
e.g., weddings, funerals, or special festival days. Kapus
tin himself composed new psalms and amended many of the
older onesDoukhobor psalms were derived from many
sources. Some were merely hymns taken from the Orthodox
Church. Others were based loosely on Biblical texts. The
psalms and prophecies of David were an especially rich
source for Doukhobor texts.
With a liturgy revolving solely around memorized
psalms and hymns. It was not uncommon for the texts to
assume a sacred Importance that transcended all meaning and
understanding on the part of the worshipper. Vereshchagin
was Impressed by the obvious Ignorance of the Doukhobors as
to the meaning of their dally recitals;
Both the old and the young, but es pecially the old, have a very Imper fect understanding of what they say
^®Peacock, ed., Songs, p. 21.
^^Llvanov, Raskolnlkl 1 ostrozhnlkl, 4: 336; Vereshchagin, Autobiographical Sketches, p. 60. For exam ples of psalms taken from the Biblical writings of David, Matthew, and Luke, see Mealing, "Our People’s Way," pp. 234- 235, 238-239, 277, and. In Russian, Bonch-Bruevich, ed., Zhlvotnala knlga, pp. 251, ]54-255.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 367
and gabble the words off by rote with out any regard to the sense. If I asked them to explain a passage the old men would answer, ’Who can under stand It? The wisdom of God Is hard to grasp’; or, ’God knows ; I know not. So prayed our fathers before us, so pray we and teach our children to pray. As for what It means, we leave that to G o d . ’92
The psalms. In essence, were reckoned as divine In themselves.
Their recitation was for many a mechanical, programed Incan
tation that precluded any comprehension of textual coherence
or meaning. When mistakes were made In recitation, the
Doukhobors usually started again at the beginning. Often
omissions were noticed only when the psalms seemed to end
too soon.^^
The psalms were generally delivered In the manner of
a hymn sing. In group recitations, one member of the congre
gation would begin solo to establish pitch and tempo; the
remaining worshippers would then join In. Doukhobor singing
Is characterized by ’’the prolongation of one syllable
throughout a long series of sustained tones." As musicolo
gist Kenneth Peacock notes, syllabic prolongation Is an
ancient musical device. The Doukhobors claim that It was
employed to confuse the authorities as to what was being
sung, an explanation which Peacock finds applicable to the
^^Vereshchagin, Autobiographical Sketches, p. 65.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. earliest Christian sects. Vereshchagin believed that the
Doukhobors’ singing was ’’always In such a sad and pensive 94 strain as to make one quite melancholy."
Peacock describes Doukhobor singing as a "musical
gestalt," a "perfect transliteration Into sound of the
Doukhobor philosophy of cooperative communallsm.In fact,
the entire Doukhobor worship service. Including the ringed
ceremony with Its prostrations and embracing, reflected In
spiritual and ceremonial form the temporal social collective.
Of course, services conducted by Doukhobors stranded outside
the Taurlde and Transcaucasian colonies varied from the norm
described above. Astyrev noted that the service he wit
nessed among Irkutsk Doukhobors contained no ceremony as re
ported In other accounts of the sect. Still, the Kotlnsk
group attained Peacock’s "musical gestalt" In their "uniform 96 and lifeless" recitations of psalms.
We had occasion above to compare the loose political
organization of the Molokans to the more tightly controlled
Doukhobor system. There Is a similar disparity between the
controlled, communal Doukhobor worship service and the more
Individualistic, ecstatic rantlngs which characterized the
services of the Molokan "Leaper" faction. The Leapers, as
^^Ibld., p. 64; Peacock, ed., Songs, p. 20, and "Music of the Doukhobors,’’ 39.
^^Peacock, "Music of the Doukhobors," 39.
^^Astyrev, "V gostlakh u dukhobortsev," 6l, 64.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 369 Vereshchagin witnessed, spoke In tongues, groaned, twitched
and trembled "as If . . . drunk," and leaped ecstatically
about during their enthusiastic and energetic religious ser
vices. Even the worship of more orthodox Molokans was
characterized by weeping and frequent arguments over
Biblical Interpretation. Prom all this we can conclude an
Intriguing correlation between the political organizations
and religious services of Doukhobors and Molokans. The
free-wheeling, disputatious Molokan system contrasted
sharply with the more ordered and controlled Doukhobor
practices. As the populist historian of dissident religion,
A. P. Shchapov, noted, the Doukhobors' communal mentality
provided for less Internal religious quarreling while afford- 98 Ing vast potential for communal-social reform and order.
Beyond their ordinary religious services, the Douk
hobors celebrated special sacred festival days. These cele
brations generally corresponded to certain Orthodox
religious holidays. The major festivals honored by the
Doukhobors were Anunclatlon, Christmas, Epiphany, Easter,
Holy Trinity, St. Peter's Day, the Feast of the Assumption,
^^Vereshchagin, Autobiographical Sketches, pp. 87, 91. ^^Shchapov, "Umstvennyla napravlenlla russkago raskola," 332.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 370
functioned to enforce Doukhobor celebration of Orthodox
holidays. However, various tenets of Doukhobor theology
were amenable to Orthodox festivals. The Doukhobors’
Chrlstology, for example, was certainly consistent with the
celebration of Christmas and Easter. The sect employed
special psalms In Its recognition of the various holidays.
The Doukhobors engaged In other festival activities.
Vasllll Pozdnlakov mentioned an annual three-day feast among
the Transcaucasian Doukhobors. Each village held the feast
at a different time of the year, and the village Elders
would Issue an Invitation to the Orphan’s Home. We have no
Information as to the reason for these feasts ; Pozdnlakov
called them simply "a custom.Perhaps they were a type
of thanksgiving celebration In honor of the sect’s leader.
Weddings, funerals, and memorial services for former
leaders were other ’’special sobranle days." In Canada, a
Doukhobor’s release from prison Is usually attended by a
Bonch-Bruevich, "Obrlady dukhobortsev," 242-243» The author obtained his Information from a Doukhobor who lived In the Tlflls province village of Troltskoe.
^^^See psalms In Mealing, "Our People’s Way," pp. 192 , 234-235, 238-239, and, In Russian, Bonch-Bruevich, ed., Zhlvotnala knlga, pp. 214-215, 251, 254-255.
^*^^Brock, ed. , ’’Pozdnyakov’s Narrative," 153-164.
^*^^Hlrabayashl, "Russian Doukhobors," p. 68.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 371
was common in Russia. Funerals traditionally took about
twenty-seven hours to complete. After a religious service
and an all-night vigil by the family, a funeral supper was
held. About six weeks after death, the deceased’s family
gave another meal to mark the final departure of the soul
from the body. This festival, called Commemoration, was
especially elaborate for a dead leader.
Doukhobor social activity was confined chiefly to
these sobranle days; the sectarians enjoyed a few of what
may loosely be described as recreational activities. Sports
and dancing were severely proscribed. Steam baths, a tra
ditional rural Russian activity, visitation, and the eating,
talking, and singing of sobranle days were the only approved
outlets for socialization.
Before leaving this section on worship and ceremony.
It Is necessary to touch upon the sensitive topic of witch
craft. Belief In "the agency of witchcraft and sorcery" was
not uncommon In rural Russia In the nineteenth century.
Epidemics, the premature drying up of a milch cow, and
generally any natural condition adversely affecting the
^"^%rock, ed. "Pozdnyakov’s Narrative,’’ l65; Mealing, "Our People’s Way," pp. 369, 371-372, 675.
^^^Hlrabayashl, "Russian Doukhobors," pp. 67, 71; Holderness, New Russia, pp. 257-258; Platon, Present State, p. 264.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 372
peasant’s ’’prosperity and peace of mind’’ could be attributed
to the powers of darkness.
Doukhobor belief In witchcraft Is evidenced by the
existence of a considerable number of so-called ’’healing
psalms.’’ As Mealing notes, there Is no distinction In prac
tice between religious and healing psalms "except that the
latter are more likely to be used magically by some, as mere
prescribed gestures performed verbally." Some of the heal
ing psalms are simply prayerful pleas to protect the In-
cantor from warts, fear, appendicitis, or sore throat ; others
are Intoned to bring sleep, to provide for a safe journey,
or "to Invoke forgiveness for a child." Certain of the
healing psalms, however, are directed against sorcery.
Three of these are entitled: "Against Pear Brought By the
Evil Eye," "Against Witchcraft on the Way," and simply
"Against Witchcraft." In his researches among Canadian
Doukhobors, Mealing learned that people Identified as com
municators of healing psalms within the sect are now regarded
as near apostates by their brethren; as one Informant put
It, ’’’It’s not very progressive. ’ " We can reasonably assume
that a belief In witchcraft and In the countering powers of
the healing psalms was common to the Doukhobors In Russia.
^*^^Thomas Stevens, Through Russia on a Mustang (New York: Cassell, I891), pp. 291, 295.
^^^Meallng, "Our People’s Way," p. 289.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 373
Worship and ceremony for the Doukhobors were primar
ily means of celebrating the faith. They served a secondary
function as the only acceptable methods of socialization and
recreation within the brotherhood. On another level Doukho
bor worship In all Its "heretical" splendor was an assertive
challenge to Orthodoxy laid down by a proud people certain
of their faith and history.
MARRIAGE
We are particularly Interested In Doukhobor marriage
practices for two reasons. First, the apparent Informality
of Doukhobor marriages, as well as those of various other
sects, gave rise to vague rumors and Innuendo of Immoral
ity . Secondly, sectarian marriages were of particular
Importance to the government. Recognition of the Orthodox
marriage rite figured prominently In the 1842 classification
of various sects "according to their degree of pernlclous-
ness."^^^ Moreover, the period l801-l855 witnessed a number
of legislative acts dealing with various aspects of
sectarian marriages. Interfaith marriages provoked par
ticular governmental attention.
^Pinkerton, Russia, pp. 168-169; Evgrafov, ed., "Penzenskle dukhobortsy," 390; J. G. Kohl, Relsen Im Inneren von Russland und Polen (Dresden: Arnoldlsche Buchhandlung), p. 351.
^°^SPR, 2: 408-410.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 374
Doukhobor marriages were quite Informal. V. R. Mar
chenko visited the Milky Waters with Alexander I’s entourage
In 1818 and reported that "young people are joined among
them [Doukhobors] upon the common assent and blessing of
the parents, and, after their own prayers under the open sky, 109 the marriage Is considered concluded." Governor Lavlnskll
Informed the Ministry of Internal Affairs In 1818 that "love
joins the Doukhobor marriage" which was accomplished "with
out any great ceremony" after the prospective partners
"declared] themselves to their parents" and asked for their
consent.I. V. Lopukhin, the probable author of the l805
tract contained In Platon’s Present State, claimed that
"reciprocal consent" that the two parties resolved, to live
together was sufficient to conclude a marriage. He added,
however, that "sometimes . . . this mutual consent Is not
made evident till the bride has become a mother." In all
cases, a man could not refuse to take as a wife a woman whom
he had seduced. Refusal brought expulsion from the sect
Ebenezer Henderson, the Scottish missionary, rather
obliquely noted after his visit to Taurlde that "It not
^*^^’’Avtoblograflcheskala zaplska Vaslllla Romano- vlcha Marchenkl," 317.
^^^Quoted In Livanov, Raskolnlkl 1 ostrozhnlkl, 4: 3 3 6.
^^^Platon, Present State, pp. 261-262.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 375
unfrequently happens that proofs are given of a connection
between the parties previous to any announcement of their
mutual determination to marry.
V. D. Bonch-Bruevich ("Vladimir Olkhovskll") gave a
more detailed account of the simple Doukhobor marriage cere
mony. Parental consent was "customarily" granted to the
requesting partners. On an appointed evening the bride,
bridegroom, and their friends and relatives gathered at the
home of the bride. The couple to be married, dressed In
their best clothes, stood facing each other with their
parents. The father of the bride normally conducted the
"ceremony" by asking the couple whether they wished to live
together and whether they loved one another. Receiving an
affirmative answer, the bride’s father then declared the
couple’s mutually professed love to be the word of law. The
bride and bridegroom then repeated this brief benediction,
bowed to the bride’s father, and rose and kissed him and the
bride’s mother three times. The marriage was thus con
cluded.
Mealing learned from Interviews with older Doukhobors
In British Columbia that It was not uncommon In Russia for
parents to choose marriage partners for their children. The
^Bonch-Bruevich, "Obrlady dukhobortsev," 266-267. Astyrev found a similarly simple marriage rite among the Irkutsk Doukhobors. See Astyrev, "V gostlakh u dukhobort-^ sev," 62.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 376
prospective bride and bridegroom would generally oppose
their parents, but they had no power to escape the union.
" ’The words of the parents were final,” ' Mealing was told,
’’’and most of the time the unions worked out quite well. ’
It Is probable that "love marriages" were not as common as
most sources would lead us to believe. Pauline Young found
that among the Russian Molokans marriages based on mutual
affection were "very
case for Doukhobors.
Mealing’s research Indicates that divorce among the
Russian Doukhobors was nonexistent. Lavlnskll reported,
however, that cases of Incompatibility were usually aired
before the village Elders, and If an acceptable solution was
not found, separation was allowed. The party deemed most
responsible for the "divorce" was then excluded from worship
services for a certain period of time. Children of separated
parents were left to the care of the mother or father.
The Canadian Royal Commission on Matters Relating to
the Sect of Doukhobors concluded In 1913 that there was no
evidence of "general laxity In observing the [Doukhobor]
marriage vows, or any lowering of the standard of
^^^Meallng, "Our People’s Way," pp. 661-662.
^^^Paullne V. Young, "The Family Organization of the Molokans: A Study In Primary Group Relations," Sociology and Social Research, 12 (September-October 1927), 58.
^^^Meallng, "Our People’s Way," p. 662; Livanov, Raskolnlkl 1 ostrozhnlkl, 4: 336-337*
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 377
morality. . . . It Is wholly understandable, however,
that Doukhobor marriage customs, especially when accompanied
by a pre-marltal pregnancy, gave rise to rumors of Immoral
behavior. The Doukhobor practice of referring to wives as
"sisters" only heightened such suspicion.
Doukhobor marriage practices, beyond providing a
basis for the "degrees of perniciousness" scheme, were
generally Ignored by the government. However, when a
Doukhobor attempted to marry outside the sect, St. Peters
burg was not so docile.
In l8l4 Karl Biller, an Ekaterlnoslav Lutheran
pastor, asked the Holy Synod whether he could marry a
Lutheran bride to a Doukhobor. If so, were any resulting
children to be allowed the Doukhobor faith, or was the
father to be made to agree to raise his offspring as
Lutherans or Orthodox? The Synod found Itself unable to re
solve Biller’s questions because "the Doukhobor sect Is
found outside any established confession of the Christian
religion. . . .
Report of Royal Commission, p. 46.
^^^Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1: 300; Pinkerton, Russia, pp. 168-169 .
^^^PPSZ, 32: 25,610 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 378
The quandary in which the Synod found itself in I8l4
was gradually worked out over the next thirty years. Slowly
the state’s position on the matters of mixed marriages and
resulting children was clarified to Insure the purity of the
Orthodox rite. In 1821 the Committee of Ministers ruled
that a group of Orthodox wives of Tambov Molokans need not
be forced to follow their husbands to a new settlement In
Taurlde province.In 1827 an Orthodox woman from Taurlde
requested that her marriage be dissolved because her husband
had abandoned here In l8l9 to enter the Doukhobor sect. The
Synod agreed to the woman’s request ; It reasoned that If the
wife was ultimately reconciled with her husband, she would
live at the Milky Waters and be subject to heretical
corruption herself.
In December of 1828 the civil authorities were
granted jurisdiction In all affairs Involving marriages of
dissenters. This move prefaced a number of regulations
dealing with dissenter-Orthodox Intermarriage published In
l84l. At that time marriage between Orthodox and dissenting
partners was declared Illegal when not performed according
to the Orthodox rite. The union of an Orthodox bride to a
dissenting and non-Russian groom was allowed, but only with
^^^VPSZ, 3: 2,507.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 379
the Emperor’s consent. In all cases of legal intermarriage,
the dissenting partner was obliged to sign a deposition
agreeing to raise children In the Orthodox faith.
Henry Lynch recorded the Impact of the l84l regula
tions on Transcaucasian Molokans and Doukhobors towards the
end of the century. He noted that the requirement to raise
children of Inter-falth marriages In the Orthodox religion
Imposed a ’’riveted Isolation" on the sectarians, for In most
cases they refused to educate their children In a religion
"which they abhor.
In sum, Doukhobor marriage practices were extremely
Informal. As such, the provoked understandable suspicion
and even hostility on the part of outsiders. The Russian
government condemned as "most pernicious" those native
sects that denied the validity of the Orthodox rite, but did
not tamper with the Doukhobor practice. The state did, how
ever, strictly monitor the tolerance It granted to this
manifestation of sectarian self-assertion. The conditions
under which Inter-falth marriages could be concluded were
rigidly regulated. The essential Impact of all these cir
cumstances was to enforce the "riveted Isolation" on which
the Doukhobors thrived.
^^^Ibld., 16 : 14,409; Ustav dukhovnykh, pp. 12-13.
^^^Lynch, Russian Provinces, pp. 456-457-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 380
CHILDREN AND EDUCATION
During a visit to the Milky Waters village of
Bogdanovka In 1843 the Mennonlte Johann Cornles directed
Haxthausen's attention "to the loose connection existing
between parents and children, a necessary result of their
principles and doctrine." Theoretically, Haxthausen ex
plained, "the act of generation and of being born" was not
regarded as establishing any special bond between parent and
child; that part of God In each Doukhobor recognized no
temporal father or mother. Hence, children were referred to
by parents as "ours" (the community’s), and not "mine.
Predictably, however, "natural sympathies and In
stincts" prevailed over Doukhobor dogma. Haxthausen found
little difference between the Doukhobor parent-chlld rela
tionship and that of other Russian peasants. The former
avoided only the "outward signs" of the bonds of love and
In theory, Doukhobor children were "equal In spirit"
with their elders. For all practical purposes, children
were In "the strictest subjection" to their parents.
^^^Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1: 299-300; Pinkerton, Russia, p. 1^9.
^^^Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1: 300.
Russia and Reunion, p . ,205.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 381
Shulman found that this "subjection" began from birth. An
extended period of breast feeding continued for several years.
This and the Inauguration of bowel training at the age of
several weeks encouraged a "rather Infantile dependence" on
the parent which on an expanded level became an Imperative
for social conformity.
Shulman further found that the Doukhobor "Indulgence
given to dependent behavior" continued through childhood
Into adulthood, when the community and Its leadership
assumed the role formerly occupied by the parents. The
critical process In the evolution of this dependence was the
system of education. In Russia Doukhobor education was
quite simple. From the time he was able to speak, the child
was Instructed by his parents In the memorization of prayers
and psalms. As the child grew older, parental oral Instruc
tion was reinforced by the larger community, especially In
worship services.The following Is an example of the
type of psalm taught to a child of six or seven years;
[The Lord] created the person, little fellow. The young lad grows up, he acts God’s will; where they fight, they kill— he does not go there; where they jump about, they dance— he does not look there; he takes part In spiritual talk; he does not hold back his word among the unrighteous; Indeed, he ex poses the unrighteous. Woe be to you
^Shulman, "Personality Characteristics," p. 126.
^^^Platon, Present State, pp. 256-257; Pinkerton, Russia, p. 168.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 382
scribes, pharisees, unrighteous hypo crites; on the path to paradise, on God’s path, you do not go-and you block the path for those who desire [to walk it] . 130
The psalm Is short, simple, and instructive, the perfect
stylistic and doctrinal vehicle for the child’s education.
As the youngster grew, the psalms committed to memory became
more numerous and elaborate. In Irkutsk province Nikolai
Astyrev met a ’’young woman" who knew forty-two psalms "by
heart.
Predictably, education beyond that provided by the
community was almost unheard of. We do possess one anecdote
Involving a Doukhobor family In the Taurlde town of Orekhov.
The sect was granted permission to locate a family In
Orekhov so that the father could act as an observer before
the district court In civil affairs concerning Doukhobors.
The father decided to send his son to the local parochial
school after receiving assurance from a sympathetic official
that the boy would not be forced to make the Orthodox sign
of the cross. An "evil joker," however, told the Doukhobor
father that his son had. In fact, been compelled to make
the forbidden gesture. The man Immediately withdrew his son
^^^Meallng, "Our People’s Way," p. I6O; Bonch- Bruevich, ed., Zhlvotnala knlga, p. 170.
^^^Astyrev, "V gostlakh u dukhobortsev," 63.
^^^Eyrles and Malte-Brun, Nouvelles annales, p. 303.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 383
The Doukhobor attitude toward secular education Is
best seen In the sect’s post-1899 Canadian experience.
Canadian efforts to educate the Doukhobors represented the
gravest threat yet to the sect’s cultural Isolation, and the
results were Initially disastrous for the forces of ’’en
lightenment.’’ By 1922 eleven schools had been established
among British Columbia Doukhobors; by February of 1925 nine
of the schools had been burned, presumably by protesting
Doukhobors. Only one arsonist was ever caught and con
victed.
In Its 1913 Investigations of newly arrived Doukho
bors, the Canadian Royal Commission garnered three major
reasons from the sectarians regarding their traditional
antagonism toward education. First, the sectarians claimed
that "school education" prepared people for military ser
vice. Secondly, education was regarded as a device for
"thieves" and "cheaters" to glean "easy profit" from simple
people. Thirdly, "school teaching separates all the people
on the earth." Education was seen as acting to disintegrate
men Into "endless grades and divisions" which was not con
ducive to brotherhood. Moreover, the educated person
"within a short period of time leaves his parents and rela
tives and undertakes [an] unreturnable journey Into all
^^^Gross, "Education In British Columbia," pp. 278- 279.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 384
kinds of speculation, depravity, and murder [sic]
life.
As an intriguing postscript on the subject of educa
tion, Astyrev was Impressed with a certain "intellectual
curiosity" among the Irkutsk community of Doukhobors, "the
cream of the local peasantry." During Astyrev’s visit to a
Doukhobor household the topic of conversation was a recent
eclipse. In response to a number of "shrewd" questions from
the sectarians, Astyrev explained the mechanics of the
phenomenon. The whole episode was very "comforting" to the
statistician; "It was obvious that these people [were] not
alien to gymnastic thoughts. ..." Astyrev further noted
that questions of an "abstract character" held little
Interest for the Doukhobors, but "questions of a greater
practical nature" were eagerly pounced upon. The Doukhobors
were especially Interested In the mechanics of the "portable
Iron stove," I.e., the railway, which was then being built rla.135
The Doukhobor attitude toward children and their
education was focused In equal measure on (1) the revelation
of the sect’s soclo-rellglous Ideology, and (2) the
obfuscation of external secularization and culturlzatlon.
Report of Royal Commission, pp. 51-52. See also: Jessup, "Utopia that Works," 38, and William George Smith, A Study In Canadian Immigration (Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1920), p. 221.
^^^Astyrev, "V gostlakh u dukhobortsev," 6O-6I.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 385
The attainment of these ends depended in large measure on
the psychology of dependence which was nurtured in the
Doukhobor from birth, especially through the device of
religious instruction based on rote.
A FINAL NOTE
Sectarians have been called "the Intelligentsia of
the people" because they regarded "spiritual creativity,"
embodied In communal enterprises, reflection, and adherence
to a vital faith, as the supreme value to be fulfilled by
their lives.The world the Doukhobors made was first and
foremost an Isolated world designed for the physical susten
ance and ultimate spiritual salvation of the sect. This
aspect of the sectarians' existence was characterized by a
large measure of collective self-assertion expressive of
their spiritual creativity. Within the confines of their
community the Doukhobors recognized no limits beyond those
self-imposed by a rigidly sacred world view that encompassed
all facets of everyday life.
The Doukhobors, however, paid a price for their
creative self-assertlveness. Beyond the communal gates the
sect faced an agressive counter-culture which Imposed re
strictions and obligations In return for conditional
autonomy. The beauty of the Doukhobor world was Its
V. Muratov, Russkoe sektantstvo (Mosocw, n.p., 1919), p. 31.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. fine-lined construction which combined accommodation to the
aggressor with a measure of self-determination. While this
symmetry resulted In survival. It also wrought a neutral. If
not moribund artistic culture. Northing approaching
Avvakum's Life was ever possible within the Russian Doukho
bor world. Survival hung In the balance.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER VIII
"NEW DOUKHOBORISM"
The story of the Doukhobors’ final years in Russia
and their emigration to Canada is perhaps the most chroni
cled period of the sect’s history.^ The following pages
represent no more than an outline of this story, designed
primarily to evidence the continuing vitality of the sect.
After the death of Ilarlon Kalmykov In l842 the
Doukhobors were ruled for a number of years by the Council
of Elders. Ilarlon’s two sons, Peter and Vasllll, were too
young to ascend the dynastic throne. Peter Kalmykov became
representative sample: Helen D. Atwater, "The Doukhobortsl or Spirit Wrestlers," Independent, 52 (10 May 1900): 1121- 1124; Wladlmlr Blenstock, ”L ’emigration des Doukhobors," Revue blanche, 23 (1 November 1900): 431-435; P. I. Blrlu- kov, Dukhobortsy: sbornlk statel, vospomlnanll plsem 1 draglkh dokumentov (St. Petersburg: I. N. Kushnerev, 1908), pp. 23-217; John M. Gibbon, Canadian Mosaic: The Making of a Northern Nation (Toronto : McClelland and Stewart, 1938), pp. 370-379 ; S. Khomiakov, Dukhobory (Moscow: "Delo," 1912); Aylmer Maude, Tolstoy and His Problems (London: Richard, 1901), pp. 262-326; Anton P. Shcherbak, Tsarstvo russklkh muzhlkov: dukhob ory (Los Angeles : Russian People’s Unlver- slty, 1910); N. Syrkln, "Die Duchoboren und das Duchoboren- tum," Sueddeutsche Monatshefte (July 1911): 73-79.
387
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the official leader In the raid-1850’s, but his brief reign
ended with his death In l864. At that time, Peter’s wife,
Lukeria Kalmykova, assumed her husband’s position at his
deathbed behest.^
Lukeria Kalmykova proved an especially adept leader.
Under her guidance the Transcaucasian Doukhobor settlements
grew and prospered. Henry Lynch, the English merchant,
visited the village of Gorelovka several years after
Lukeria’s death In 1886, and wrote:
The evidence of her work and example Is written In the appearance of this model village, and In the demeanour of Its Inhabitants. All were well clothed and clean and well nourished; It was a pleasure to see them go about their business In their quiet, earnest way. I saw no poor people In Gorelovka, not a sign of the habitual squalor of the East.3
In 1878 at the request of St. Petersburg, Lukeria moved a
sizeable contingent from the Ellzavetpol settlements to
populate the new Doukhobor colony In Kars.^
Malov, Dukhobortsy: Ikh Istorlla, p. 25. Ilarlon Kalmykov’s other son, Vasllll, ’’was a very peculiar and mysterious personality. ’’ Among other aberrations, he ’’usually’’ wore women’s clothing.
^Lynch, Russian Provinces, p. 111.
^After 1855 the population of the Transcaucasian Doukhobor settlements was periodically augmented by new emigrants. In I856, as we saw, Alexander II decreed that ’’the migration from the Internal provinces of Doukhobors Is regarded as altogether beneficial In each case. . . . ’’ See SPR, 2: 651 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 389
The death of Lukeria Kalmykova In 1886 occasioned a
dispute over the Inheritance of the Orphan's Home property.
A "Small Party" led by Kalmykova’s brother and a "Large
Party" under the leadership of Peter Vasilevich Verigin both
claimed trusteeship over the considerable wealth of the
Orphan’s Home. The dispute revolved essentially around the
question of Lukeria’s successor as leader. The bitterness
of this Issue was revealed by the decision of the disputants
to present the matter before a Russian court. The court
ruled In favor of Kalmykova’s brother. The Soviet historian
Kllbanov argues that the Small Party "constituted an organi
zation of prosperous rural property-owners who exploited the
rank-and-file Doukhobors," and through bribes to the tsarist
authorities succeeded In gaining the court’s decision.
Western accounts generally support Kllbanov’s Interpretation.^
In the period Immediately following Lukeria Kalmy
kova’s death, Peter Verigin campaigned actively to succeed
her. He "was behaving mysteriously and telling propheti
cally to the people that ’the time of the second advent of
Christ Is coming, and everybody ought to pray to God that
"Dissident Denominations," 49. As we noted above, sectarian communities could not legally own or control more than a certain, but varying, amount of property. Individuals could own unlimited amounts. Thus, Lukeria Kalmykova legally "owned" the Orphan’s Home property, but In Doukhobor prac tice was only the trustee. The court’s decision awarding the community’s wealth to Kalmykova’s brother was wholly legal. See Dunn, "Canadian and Soviet," 304.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 390
He giveth him [Verigin] the understanding to recognize
Christ.’"^ Verigin’s prophecies were apparently successful
In gathering a large following about him. The legal defeat
of the Large Party and Verigin’s subsequent banishment to
Archangel, which lends credence to Kllbanov’s view of col
lusion between the Small Party and tsarist authorities, only
Increased his standing within the Doukhobor community.
From 1887 to 1902 Peter Verigin was In exile, first
In Archangel and later In Siberia. In exile, he became
acquainted with Tolstoi’s writings and In 1893 he began In
structing, through messengers, his followers In Transcau
casia with the precepts of a "new Doukhoborlsm." The "new
Doukhoborlsm" advised Its adherents to adopt vegetarianism,
refrain from using Intoxicants (tobacco and alcohol), avoid
sexual relations, refuse all military service, and adopt
economic communism. Some of these tenets, of course, were
not new. Abstention from alcohol and the refusal to bear
arms were traditional Doukhobor precepts; economic communism
had been practiced at various times. Yet most of these more
traditional Injunctions had been allowed to lapse. During
the Russo-Turklsh War of 1877-1878 the Doukhobors engaged
Brock, ed., "Pozdnyakov’s Narrative," I63.
"^Ibld. , 167; Maude, Peculiar People, pp. I66-I6 7. See also P. V. Verigin, Plsma dukhoborcheskago rukovldltella Petra Vasllevlcha Verigina (Christchurch: Tchertkoff, 1901 ).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 391
actively and profitably In the Russian war effort.^ Veresh
chagin noted that the sectarians "openly drink and smoke and
grow tobacco.Verigin's "new Doukhoborlsm" was a reforma
tion, a return to an original and pure sectarian asceticism.
Most of the Large Party adopted Verigin's "new
Doukhoborlsm.Of more practical Import to the sect's
fortunes, however, was Lev Tolstoi's first meeting with a
group of Verigin's Doukhobors In Moscow In the winter of
1894 -1895 . Tolstoi was Impressed by the sectarians and thus
began his famous campaign on behalf of the Large Party
Doukhobors which led to their exit from Russia In 1899.
Tolstoi's major contribution to the Doukhobor cause
was a series of letters published In the Western press out
lining the sect’s Increasing persecution under Nicholas II
The Doukhobors convoyed food and weapons for the Russian Army during the Russo-Turklsh War. See Dunn, "Canadian and Sovlety," 303.
^Vereshchagin, Autobiographical Sketches, p. 69 .
^°The "chastity Ideal," predictably, created a split among Verigin’s followers. Ultimately, the ImpractIcallty of the ban on sexual relations led to Its abandonment. See Brock, ed. , ’’Pozdnyakov’s Narrative," I68.
^^Por accounts of Tolstoi’s relations with the Douk hobors see; J. W. Blenstock, ed.^ and trans., Tolstoi et les doukhobors: faits historiques réunis et traduits du russe (Paris : Stock, 1902); N. N. Gusev, Lev Tolstoi protly gosudarstva 1 tserkvl (Berlin: J. Ladyschnlkow, 1912); Lallberte, "Origines Idéologiques des Doukhobors"; Aylmer Maude, Leo Tolstoy (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1918), pp. l84- 186, 202-205, 258-267, 273-274; Ernest J. Simmons, Leo Tol stoy (New York: Vintage, i960 ), 11: 111, 227, 231, 236, 250-251, 275, 277, 384; Leo Tolstoy, "Lettre aux Doukhobors émigrés au Canada," Revue blanche, 23 (November 1900): 436-440.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 392
and requesting financial aid for the Doukhobors' emigration.
The writer’s efforts began In 1895 when he sent an associate,
Pavel Ivanovich Blrlukov (1860-1931), to Transcaucasia to
Investigate the Doukhobors’ situation. Most of Tolstoi’s
subsequent news releases were based on the accounts of
Blrlukov, who was arrested and exiled for his trouble In
1897 .^^ Tolstoi’s appeals did not fall on deaf ears. Prom
1895 to 1899 the English press abounded with commentaries on
religious persectutlon and atrocities In Russia. Many of
the ’’most fiendish” tales were undoubtedly fabrications, at
the least hearsay; they did, however, enjoy a wide and
receptive audience.
See Leo Tolstoy, On Civil Disobedience and Non-Violence (New York: New American Library, 1967), pp. 162-174; J. M. Meyer, ed. , ’’Three Letters by Tolstoj,” International Institute of Social History Bulletin, 6 (1951)1 32-38; [Lev Tolstoi], ’’Persecution of Christians In Russia,” Contemporary Review, 68 (November I895): 645-650. Many of these documents were written In collaboration with three of Tolstoi’s followers, Vladimir Chertkov, P. I. Blrlukov, and Ivan Tregubov. The profits from Tolstoi’s novel. Resurrection (for which he was excommunicated from the Orthodox Church), went to the Doukhobors.
^^Alfred Erich Senn, ”P. I. Blrlukov: A Tolstoyan In War, Revolution, and Peace,” Russian Review, 32 (July 1973): 282.
^^*Por examples of this literature see: Benjamin 0. Flower, ’’The Exiled Christ In Christian Russia," Arena, 19 (March I898) : 388-396 ; Friends of Russian Freedom, The Religious Persecutions In Russia, Being an Account of the Russian Non-Conformists and the Treatment Meted Out to Them by the Government (London: Chappie and Kemp, 1897); John C. Kenworthy, "English Opinion and Russian Persecutions," New Order, 1 (December 1895): 1-3, and "Religion and Revolu tion," New Order, 5 (December 1899): 183-187; Jonas
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 393
It Is doubtful that the Doukhobors in their Caucasian
Isolation suffered any particularly severe depredations under
the last tsar. In fact, Tolstoi’s famous letter to The Times
(London) of October 11/23, 1895, which aroused so much con
sternation In the English public, was prompted by the
Russian authorities’ over-reactlon to one event: the historic
burning of arms on the night of June 28-29/July 10-11,
1895 .^^ On Peter Verigin’s Instructions, a faction of the
Large Party In the Tlflls province village of Goreloe
gathered their firearms and destroyed them In a bonfire to
the accompaniment of prayers and hyms. Unfortunately, the
celebrants were viciously attacked by a group of the state’s
Cossacks sent to maintain order. None of the Doukhobors was
killed, but many were flogged and subsequently exiled. The
Incident became a cause célèbre In those Russian and English
circles working on behalf of the Doukhobor emigration.
In early I898 the Russian government gave the Doukho
bors permission to leave Russia provided that they did so at
their own expense and agreed never to return. By 1899
Stadllng and Will Reason, In the Land of Tolstoi; Experl- ences of Famine and Misrule In Russia (London: James Clarke” 1Ü97H Tolstoi’s Russian followers published numer ous works for Western consumption. The most famous of these was Vladimir Chertkov’s Christian Martyrdom In Russia: Per secution of the Spirit-Wrestlers (or Doukhobortsl) in the Caucasus (London! Brotherhood Publishing Co., Ib97).
^^For a personal account of this famous night, see N. S. Zlbarov, 0 sozhzhenll oruzhlla dukhoboraml (Purlelgh: Tchertkoff, 189971
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 394
sufficient funds had been raised, chiefly through the aus
pices of English and American Quakers, to allow the Doukho-
bors to leave Russia. Those Doukhobors in the military or
in exile, of course, were not granted leave until their terms
of service or sentences were completed. The choice of
Canada was apparently made for two reasons: the availability
of land, and the "successful” settlement of Russian Mennon-
ites there some twenty years previous. The Canadian govern
ment, moreover, agreed to grant the Doukhobors exemption
from military service.
In January of 1899 the first of Verigin’s Doukhobors
began arriving in Winnipeg, Manitoba via Cyprus and Newfound
land. The monthly censuses of immigrant Doukhobors for
the year 1099 contained in Table 6 were compiled from
Canadian Department of the Interior statistics.
Maude, Peculiar People, pp. 37, 39; Gibbon, Canadian Mosaic, pp. 370-379- For a time in the mid-l890's, St. Petersburg briefly considered still another forced mi gration of the Doukhobors to the Amur region of eastern Siberia. The building of the Trans-Siberian Railway created a demand for a Russian population in the area. Although plans for the Doukhobor movement collapsed, other sectarians (Molokans, Skoptsy, Khlysty) found themselves in the region. See Dunn, "Canadian and Soviet," 304-305; Donald W. Tread- gold, "Russian Expansion in the Light of Turner’s Study of the American Frontier," Agricultural History, 26 (October 1952): 150.
^^The Transcaucasian Doukhobors did receive some aid from abroad prior to their exodus. Arthur St. John went to the Caucasus in 1898 to take money, letters, and "sympathy" to the Doukhobors. See St. John, "An Inconvenient Visit to the Caucasus," Part 6: "Turned Out," New Order 5 (June 1899): 82.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 395 TABLE 6
Doukhobor Immigration to Canada for 1899
Month No. of Immigrants
J anuary 2,078 February 1,973 May 1,036 July 2,335 September 4 December 1
TOTAL 7,427
Source: Ewart P. Reid, "Douk hobors in Canada" (M.A. dissertation, McGill University, 1932), p. 49.
Over the next fourteen years slightly over 400 more Doukho
bors made their way to Manitoba. Nearly all of these were
freed exiles and their families. Peter Verigin was released
from Siberian exile in 1902 and immediately left for the new 18
The Doukhobors were initially settled in three
colonies in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The
three colonies— the North or Thunder Hill Colony, the South
Colony, and the Saskatchewan Colonies composed of the Duck
Lake and Saskatoon settlements— together amounted to an area
of over six hundred square miles. From 1907 to 1912 about
^^Ibid.; Smith, Canadian Immigration, p. 205.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 396
5,000 Doukhobors followed Peter Verigin to British Columbia
following a dispute with Canadian authorities over land
registration and payment. Afuer a struggle over the succes
sion of leadership after Verigin’s death in 1924, a small
faction left British Columbia for Alberta.
The first year on the Saskatchewan prairies was ex
tremely difficult. The Doukhobors’ crops were in poor shape
due to the late planting, and many sectarians were forced to
seek employment outside the colonies. A large number of
Doukhobors found work with the railroad. By 1917, however,
Verigin’s British Columbia group was able to incorporate it
self (under a Dominion charter) under the name of the
"Christian Community of Universal Brotherhood." The total
assets of the Community amounted to about three million
dollars.
In Canada the Doukhobor collective faced the strong
est challenge yet from a surrounding society seeking its
Columbia, see Aubrey Fullerton, "Doukhobors and Their Utopia: Problems of Communists in Canada," Sunset, 38 (February 1917): 31-32, 66-68. For an account of the train sabotage which resulted in Verigin's death, see W. W. Bride, "The Spirit Wrestlers," British Columbia Digest, 1 (October 1946): 30-34. On the movement to Alberta, see William E. Mann, Sect, Cult and Church in Alberta (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1955), PP- l8-19.
^*^Herbert P. Archer, "The Doukhobors in Canada," New Order, 5 (November 1899): 160; Hirabayshi, "Russian Douk hobors," p. 21. On the economic activities of the Christian Community of Universal Brotherhood, see "The Doukhobor Story from Russia to the Castlegar District," Castlegar Historical Review, 1 (November 1952): 1, 4, 12; Snesarev, Doukhobors in British Columbia, pp. 71-74.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 397
cultural assimilation. The Doukhobor response has been to
bifurcate into various groups in proportion to the amount of
cultural absorption accepted.Education has been an
extremely thorny issue between the sectarians and the
Canadian government and has aroused animosity and violence
on both sides.
Not all of the Transcaucasian Doukhobors went to
Canada. By 1917 there were from 17,000 to 20,000 Doukhobors
in Russia. In the years before the Revolution these sec
tarians enjoyed a large measure of economic prosperity. In
the early 1920’s, however, land shortages in Transcaucasia
led to new migrations. Some of the Doukhobors returned to
the Milky Waters region. Others settled farther north in
the Ukraine. A large contingent of the sectarians was
granted land in the Don region.
Klibanov characterizes Russian Doukhoborism at the
beginning of the present century as having formed "its own
hobors, see Frantz, "Historical Continuities," 47-53.
^^George Godwin, "The Doukhobors," Chamber’s Journal, 20 (April 1930): 223, 224; Smith, Canadian Immigration, pp. 224-224; John P. Zubek, "The Doukhobors: A Genetic Study on Attitudes," Journal of Social Psychology, 36 (November 1952): 223-2 39.
^^Avakumovic and Woodcock, Doukhobors, p. 278.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 398
type of ’old belief’ within sectarianism"; only "deadened
tradition— ’dress and name,’" remained. Klibanov maintains
that by the turn of the century the Doukhobors (and the
other sects) "no longer had anything in common with the in
terests of the people," and had "merged their socio-political
standpoint with [that] of the liberal bourgeoisie."^^
To this day Doukhobors still reside in the Trans
caucasian settlements which they established under Nicholas
I. In 1968 Klibanov visited the villages of Bogdanovka,
Rodionovka, Tambovka, Gorelovka, Efremovka, Orlovka, and
Spasskoe in Georgia. The Doukhobors’ economy is still based
largely on cattle, and, in terms of the quotas set by Soviet
planners, the sectarians are highly successful. In I968
there were sixty Communist Party candidate members in
Gorelovka and about 100 Komsomol members. Ethel Dunn quotes
one "authority" as claiming that not more than a third of
the Transcaucasian Doukhobors now consider themselves as
"believers.
Klibanov, Istoriia religioznogo sektantstva, pp. 117 , 121, and "Dissident Denominations,*' 50. V. D. Bonch-Bruevich, however, noted a certain degree of revolu tionary revitalization among Transcaucasian Molokans at the beginning of the present century. See Bonch-Bruevich, I^ mira sektantov: sbornik statei (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izd., 1922), pp. 105-106.
^^Dunn, "Canadian and Soviet," 321-322. See also P. Putintsev, "Dukhobore," in Kritika religioznogo sektantstva, pp. 151-158.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER IX
A SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
The historian is often in a position to profitably
draw upon the resources of history’s offspring disciplines.
Our study of a dissident religious culture existing within
a much larger and stratified society possessing an estab
lished, official church lends itself particularly to a
sociological purview. The richness of literature on the
sociology of religion provides a number of possible tacks on
which to launch our inquiry.^ We shall, however, limit our
discussion to an examination of church-sect typologies and
their relevance to the Doukhobors’ historical development.
Sociologically, our approach appears extremely narrow;
historically, however, the most critical characteristic of
the Doukhobor sect’s evolution was its radical opposition
to the Orthodox Church and its society.^
Social Scientific Studies of Religion: A Bibliography (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1967).
applied to the Baptist movement in Soviet Russia, see R. Beerman, "The Baptists and Soviet Society," Soviet Studies, 20 (July 1968 ): 67-80 , and Stephen P. and Ethel Dunn, "Some Comments on Sectarianism in the Soviety Union," Soviet Studies, 20 (January 1969): 410-412.
399
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHURCH-SECT TYPOLOGIES: THE CLASSICAL FORMS
The classical form of the church-sect typology was
that which was first presented by the German theologian,
Ernst Troeltsch, in 1911.^ Troeltsch's studies of pre-l800
Christian Europe led to his formulation of characteristics
for separate, distinct, and radically opposed "church-type"
and "sect-type" institutions. Troeltsch's church is an
"overwhelmingly conservative" institution which accepts the
secular order and dominates the masses. The church utilizes
the civil state and its ruling classes in becoming a vital
ingredient in the existing social order; in fact, it
stabilizes and to a large degree determines the social order.
In principle, the church is universal insofar as it strives
"to cover the whole life of humanity." It is the sole dis
penser of the means of grace through its clergy. Membership
is a recognized and automatic obligation born naturally by
all.
In contrast to the church, Troeltsch’s sect has a
small membership which aspires after "personal inward per
fection" and "direct personal fellowship" without the inter
mediary of a priesthood. The sect’s attitude toward
Christian Churches, trans. by Olive Wyan, 2 vols. [New York: Haper and Row, I 9B 0), 1: 331-343. Troeltsch’s scheme was an elaboration on the ideas of his friend and mentor. Max Weber. See Reinhard Bendix, Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait (Garden City : Anchor Books, 1962), p. 314.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 401
"official" society may be one of tolerance, indifference, or
overt hostility, for it has no universalist pretensions to
dominate the social life of the broader order. Troeltsch’s
sect is generally affiliated with the lower classes, or at
least those groups opposed to the official state and society.
Membership in the sect is voluntary.
Troeltsch’s typology, while it has served as the
basis for most subsequent church-sect formulations, has been
criticized for being too rigid and static "to account for 4 the genesis and continuing dynamic of religious bodies."
Specifically, Troeltsch denied that a sect is an undeveloped
church. The researches of theologian H. Richard Niebuhr and
Liston Pope, a sociologist, into American Protestantism
modified the more static elements of the Troeltsch typology.
In particular, Niebuhr and Pope sought to study the manner
in which American sectarian organizations, enjoying relative
freedom, reconciled themselves to the secular order.
Niebuhr admitted that in Protestant history "the
sect has ever been the child of an outcast minority, taking
its rise in the religious revolts of the poor. ..." On
this point Niebuhr is an orthodox Troeltschean. However,
the sect’s original radicalism "is almost always modified
in the course of time by the natural processes of birth and
death, and on this change in structure changes in doctrine
^Kreider, "Anabaptist Conception," l8.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 402
and ethics Inevitably f o l l o w . T r o e l t s c h ’s sect is possi
ble only for one generation, for the advent of offspring
compels first generation sectarians to assume the identity
and character of a church to educate and discipline the new
comers. Succeeding generations rarely equal the pitch of
religious fervor that animated the first generation. As a
result, compromises (less isolation, increased wealth) in
the sect's original ethics and practices creep in. The
sect becomes a church.
In his 1942 classic, Millhands and Preachers, Liston
Pope described a similar sect-to-church evolution from data
gathered on religious institutions in Gaston County, North
Carolina. For Pope the critical factor in the sect’s prog
ress to church status is its sustained success in gaining
adherents. In the process of reaching out to gather new
believers the sect "accommodates gradually to the culture it
is attempting to conquer, and thereby loses influence over
those relatively estranged from that culture. As the sect
tunnels its way into the surrounding culture it becomes
"entrenched" within that culture. A number of developments
occur in this transition from sect to church: a propertyless
Richard Niebuhr, The Social Sources of Denomina- tionalism (Cleveland: World Publishing Co., 1957), PP- 19- 20. The volume first appeared in 1929.
^Liston Pope, Millhands and Preachers (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1942), pp. 118-119.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 403
membership becomes propertied and the poor become rich, the
sect moves from the "cultural periphery" of the surrounding
society to its center, renunciation of official society be
comes an affirmation, a "self-centered" and personal reli
gion becomes a "cultural-centered" social institution, etc.
Pope concludes that the emerging church cannot return to its
original sectarian form because "the unique social naivete
and pristine enthusiasm are irrevocably lost
CHURCH-SECT TYPOLOGIES: RECENT VARIATIONS
Recent variations of church-sect typologies have
tended to be elaborations on, rather than true modifications
of, the classical types. Sociologist Russell Dynes has
quantified the relationship between the classical "sect type
of religious organization" (after Pope’s model) and lower
socio-economic statusBenton Johnson, a theologian and
sociologist, has dissected the "processes of justification"
"^Ibid., pp. 122-124. Pope lists twenty-one "facets of transition" from sect to church.
Ibid., p. 120.
9Russell R. Dynes, "Church-Sect Typology and Socio- Economic Status," American Sociological Review, 20 (October 1955): 555-560.
^^Benton Johnson, "A Critical Appraisal of the Church-Sect Typology," American Sociological Review, 22 (February 1957): 88-92. Johnson opposed the sect’s "ethical orientation" to justification to the church’s more formal "liturgical" process.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 404
the critical church-sect distinction based on acceptance or
rejection of the larger environment.^^ In both cases
Johnson has buttressed the typology first constructed by
Troeltsch.
The most provacative recent work has been that of
sociologists Peter L. Berger and Bryan R. Wilson. Berger
argues that the Weber-Troeltsch "polar types" of church and
sect have exhausted their usefulness. The "overly dichot-
omous perspective" of the classical typologies has obscured
a real "continuum" between church and sect. Berger’s study
of lay leadership in a number of Protestant parishes in
southwestern Germany revealed an "inner circle" (ecclesiola
in ecclesia) of church leaders that displayed sectarian
characteristics in sharp contrast to the rank-and-file mem
bership. This "inner circle" formed, in essence, a sect in
its pronounced withdrawal from the main body of church mem
bership: "This elite constitutes a social subworld; it lives
by its own rules, self-contained in its separation from the
larger society." Berger concludes that sectarianism is more
of a "process" than a "structure," a process which could
occur within the "social structure of a church.
^^Benton Johnson, "On Church and Sect," American Sociological Review, 28 (August 1963): 539-549.
^^Peter L. Berger, "Sectarianism and Religious Sociation," American Journal of Sociology, 64 (July 1958): 41-44.
^^Ibid., p. 43.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 405
Wilson isolates five elements which could either
effect or retard a sect’s evolution to a church or denomina
tion.^^ These elements are (1) the factors attending the
sect’s emergence, (2) the internal organization of the sect,
(3) the sect's degree of separation from the world, (4) the
coherence of sect values, and (5) "group commitments and
relationships" within the sect. From an examination of
these elements, Wilson describes four "sub-types" of sects.
Into one of his sub-types, the "introversionists," Wilson
places the Doukhobors.
Wilson defines an introversionist sect in terms of
its total rejection of worldly ethics, specifically those of
the surrounding society, and its substitution of "higher,"
inner values. He maintains, however, that the introversion
ists’ rejection of the world can occur only when "social
institutions" have gained a measure of autonomy from one
another and when "religious expression and practice have
ceased to be a necessarily public performance for all members
^^Bryan R. Wilson, "An Analysis of Sect Development," American Sociological Review, 24 (February 1959): 3-15.
^^Wilson’s other sectarian sub-types are: (1) the "conversionists," who seek to alter men and the world, (2) the "adventists," who predict and prepare for drastic change in the prevailing world order, and (3) the "gnostics," who accept "in large measure" the world’s goals, but who attempt to achieve these through "new and esoteric means." These sub-types are not mutually exclusive.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 406
of the wider society.Thus, Wilson claims that introver
sionist movements cannot arise in feudal societies, a point
which the Soviet historian Klibanov infers in his contention
that Doukhoborism appeared only when "capitalist relation
ships" appeared within the ranks of the Khlysty. Wilson
identifies agriculture as the prime economic mode through
which the introversionists establish and maintain their
separation from the world.
We shall now transpose the fruits of our brief foray
into sociological theory onto Doukhobor historical develop
ment from 180 1 to 1 8 5 5. As our starting point we will adopt
Roger Mehl’s succinct characterization of a sect as "a closed
religious group which is constituted by opposition to the
established institutional churches and by opposition to the
world.Although this definition skirts the evolutionary
aspects of sectarianism discussed above, it highlights the
essentials of Doukhoborism in Imperial Russia.
Bryan R. Wilson, Magic and the Millennium: A Sociological Study of Religious Movements of Protest Among Tribal and Third-World Peoples (New York: Harper and Row% 1973), p. 1 3 .
^"^Klibanov, "Dissident Denominations," 48.
^^Wilson, Magic and the Millennium, pp. 44-
^^Mehl, Sociology of Protestantism, p. 2 3 0.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 407
THE DOUKHOBORS, l801-l855:
THE SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
Turning Mehl’s definition around, it is opposition
to official society which constitutes the "closed religious
group" that is the sect. Although the Doukhobors, as other
dissenters, were generally "very prompt" in the fulfillment
of tax and recruit obligations,^^ they made no secret of
their contempt for Orthodox Russian society. "The nation,"
wrote Orest Novitskii, "as zealous guardian of the holy
faith, despised the Doukhobors and fled from them, as [from]
pests. . . Ideological opposition to official society,
buttressed by severe hostility from that society, made of
the Doukhobors a "closed religious group." This is the most
salient sociological feature of Doukhoborism in Imperial
Russia.
As a closed religious group, the most easily docu
mented characteristic of the Doukhobors was their secretive
ness. In 1816 Robert Pinkerton found that the Doukhobors’
"whole aspect, and manner of intercourse with strangers
indicate a degree of shyness and distrust which is quite
extraordinary."^^ A few years later Ebenezer Henderson
^°SPSR, 2: 149-150.
^^Pinkerton, Russia, p. I6 9 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 408
found the sectarians "uncommonly close, and evidently influ
enced by a suspicion that we had some design against them.
All observers, sympathetic or otherwise, were struck by the
Doukhobors' suspicion of outsiders and their "evasive
replies to questions. Doukhobor secretiveness was a mani
festation of that separation from the world which figured
prominently in the sect’s growth and prosperity during the
first years of the Milky Waters colony and later in Trans
caucasia. Secrecy, however, was a double-edged sword. While
it insulated the sectarians against penetration from without,
it also was a major cause of the problems which plagued the
sect in the troubled years before the 1839 exile.
Bryan Wilson identifies two complementary manifes
tations of a sect’s separation from the world: isolation
and i n s u l a t i o n . I s o l a t i o n refers to the physical or geo
graphic separation achieved most easily by groups adopting
a communal mode of organization. Isolation is aided and
reinforced by an agricultural means of existence. The sub
sistence nature of agricultural activities allows for a
^&enderson. Biblical Researches, pp. 384-385-
^^Nilskii, K istorii dukhoborchestva, p. 14. Charles Frantz, doing field work among the Doukhobors of Orescent Valley, B. 0. in the mid-1950’s, was received with similar suspicion. Frantz was variously accused of being a Canadian, American, or Russian spy, a R. C. M. P. detective, a Communist, a Quaker, and a Molokan. See Frantz, "Doukho bor Political System," p. 127.
^^Wilson, "Sect Development," 10-11.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 409
large measure of Independence from the surrounding society.
Further, agricultural pursuits "permit direct expression for
folk virtues and simple moral precepts in an uncomplicated
pattern of work and activities.
For roughly the first twenty years of its existence
the Milky Waters colony enjoyed a high degree of isolation
on the fertile steppes of Tauride province. Later, in Trans
caucasia, the mountains provided for a much longer period of
isolation. There is little doubt that these periods were
profitable for the Doukhobors. "Geographic isolation from
other groups helped to hold the Doukhobors together. . . .
The cohesive effect of physical isolation was reinforced by
a self-sufficient agricultural economy that lent an "almost
mystical role" to the soil in Doukhobor culture.
Physical isolation is generally accompanied by a
multifaceted insulation "calculated to protect sect values
by reducing the influence of the external world when contact
necessarily occurs.Insulation may take on a variety of
^^Wilson, Magic and the Millennium, p. 45.
Jamieson, "Economic History of the Doukhobors," p. 48.
^^Ibid., pp. 48-49. An agricultural basis for sec tarian stability and cohesion has been explored in studies of other groups. See Deets, Hutterites, pp. 9-11, and Walter M. Kollmorgen, "The Agricultural Stability of the Old Order Amish and Old Order Mennonites of Lancaster County, Pennsyl vania," American Journal of Sociology, 49 (November 1943): 233-241.
^^Wilson, "Sect Development," 10.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 410
forms; rules of behavior, ritual, distinctive dress, and
even architecture can serve as devices for insulation.
The Doukhobors adopted a variety of insulating mech
anisms. In Transcaucasia Vasilii Vereshchagin’s painter’s
eye was curious about the sectarians’ dress, a style "not
found anywhere in Russia. The adoption of German clothing
and housing construction from neighboring Mennonites in
Tauride served equally to distinguish the Doukhobors from
their Orthodox Russian peers. Klibanov writes that in their
perfection of customs and traditions, including "peculiar
forms" of dress and the education of their children, the
Doukhobors "were isolated into an ethnographic group." "It
appears," he concludes, "that Doukhobors are not Russian,
but ’Doukhobor.
Despite their renown as "Spiritual Christians," the
Doukhobors, as we have seen, displayed a decidedly ritualis
tic nature. Ritual played an important screening role in
the sect’s insulation, and "with time acquired an ever
^ Vereshchagin, Autobiographical Sketches, pp. 71- 7 2. The author was particularly intrigued by a short, blouse-like archaluk, "embroidered in soldier fashion" and worn by all, and by a peculiar headdress worn by the women.
^^Klibanov, Istoriia religioznogo sektantstva, p. 8 9 . In a Caucasian Molokan village about mid-century, V. S. Tolstoi was "unpleasantly surprised" when his sectar ian hosts referred to their brethren as "we" and spoke of Orthodox neighbors as "Russian." This was particularly troubling for Tolstoi because of rumors of an approaching "eastern war." See Tolstoi, "Iz sluzhebnykh vospominanii (Kavkazskie molokany)," 57.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 411
increasing significance."^^ The future Bolshevik, V. D.
Bonch-Bruevich, sailed to Canada with the fourth and final
large party of Doukhobors to leave Russia in May of 1899.
He found that "ritual appears as an impassible Chinese wall
between the external world and the members of the Doukhobor
fraternity. . . . In this instance, Bonch-Bruevich was
referring to Doukhobor celebrations of weddings, funerals,
and various religious holidays.
The factors that contributed to the "impassible
Chinese wall" were not constants. Geographic isolation was
especially difficult to maintain on the open Tauride steppes.
When the initial years of struggle in the Tauride colony
passed, and the first generation of "radical" Milky Waters
colonists melted away, changes in the sociology of the
Doukhobor "sect" occurred. The sect, as it grew and pros
pered, began to take on the features of a church. The
tragedy of this evolution became apparent in 1839. Later,
history repeated itself in Transcaucasia as an initial
period of hardship and depredation evolved into one of
settled, self-satisfied contentment. Peter Verigin’s "new
Doukhoborism" was essentially the reaffirmation of a
sectarian ethic gone astray. Doukhoborism required
p. 89.
^^"Olkhovskii" [Bonch-Bruevich], "Obriady dukhobort- sev," 2 6 9 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 412
periodic waterings of exile and struggle to insure its
vitality.
The Doukhobors’ movement along what Peter Berger
labels as a church-sect "continuum" is evidenced on a number
of levels. We may begin by discussing the sect’s status as
a "closed society" with manifest secretiveness. Evidence of
secrecy, the impression that something is being kept secret,
is usually apparent to outsiders attempting to penetrate a
"closed society." Such manifestations, however, are the
superficial tip of an iceberg of inner societal workings.
As sociologist Georg Simmel has shown,the "secret society"
organizes and maintains an internal order all its own, re
pleat with tensions, conspiracies, and pretense. Henry
Hawthorn, a Canadian sociologist with a special interest in
the Doukhobors, has applied some of Simmel’s conclusions on
secret societies to the Doukhobor Sons of Freedom in British
Columbia.Certain of Hawthorn’s findings are applicable
to our inquiry.
^^Georg Simmel, The Sociology of Georg Simmel, ed. and trans. by Kurt H. Wolff (Glencoe, 111. : Free Press, 1950), pp. 3 0 7-3 7 6.
^^Henry B. Hawthorn, "A Test of Simmel on the Secret Society: The Doukhobors of British Columbia," American Journal of Sociology, 62 (July 1956): 1-7.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 413
Simmel postulated that every secret society, by vir
tue of its existence outside "the norms of the environment,"
contains a measure of freedom or autonomy that approaches
anarchy. This "near-anarchic autonomy," which Hawthorn
sees as a vital condition for the rise of the radical Sons
of Freedom, allowed for the unbridled ascendency of the
Council of Elders following the death of Savelii Kapustin in
1 8 2 0 . In cutting their ties to offical society, in creating
and preserving their autonomy, the Doukhobors were subjected
to a priesthood more authoritarian than that of their
Orthodox enemies.
The rise of the Elders was possible because of
another characteristic of the secret society: the lack of a
"strong pattern of internal authority." The latter is an
important debilitation designed to frustrate attempts to
penetrate and attack the secret society. When combined
with the sect’s radical autonomy, the lack of clear patterns
of authority facilitates the rise of power factions. Of
course, during period of strong leadership the Doukhobors
could reconcile their belief in the inner divinity of all
with the transcendent charisma of the leader with
^^Simmel, Sociology, pp. 3 6O-3 6I.
^"^In 1835 Tambov authorities were ordered to furnish St . Petersburg with a list of Molokan leaders in the prov ince in order to better combat the sect. See SPR, 2: 174- 175.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4l4
"superficial ease.During the reigns of dissolute and
clearly immoral leaders as the Kalmykovs, however, the dis
satisfaction and even rebellion of the rank-and-file were
predictable, especially as there was no mechanism to provide
for public scrutiny.
In one sense, then, the ascendency of the Elders and
their harsh "inquisitional" rule reflected the advent of a
formal "church." The Elders became the sole dispensers of
grace and literal salvation; to defy them meant death. In
another sense, however, the Elders formed Berger's ecclesiola
in ecclesia, an inner circle of church leaders that displayed
characteristics of a sect. This view is all the more
acceptable when we consider the position of the Doukhobors
at the time of the Elders' rise. By the 1820's a psychology
of persecution had been supplanted by a psychology of
"success and dominance.The sect had achieved a measure
of economic success. This engendered intercourse with a
rapidly encircling Orthodox population to the extent that
Orthodox laborers were regularly employed within the Milky
Waters colony. Moreover, a modus vivendi with the state had
been reached. A tsar had even visited the colony and pro
nounced its inhabitants to be "virtuous people." All this
^ Hawthorn, "Test of Simmel," 4.
^^Berger, "Sectarianism," 43.
^'^Pope, Millhands and Preachers, p. 123.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 415
conforms to Liston Pope’s scenario of the sect "accommodat
ing" to the surrounding culture and becoming an emergent
"church.Under these conditions the Elders can be re
garded as radicals, an ecclesiola in ecclesia, attempting to
reestablish an original sectarian asceticism. Klibanov
notes this trend, but he phrases it in Marxist terms. In
"all examples" of pre-Reform sectarianism, he writes, attempts
were made to solve the "fundamental contradictions of social
life" along various lines of "social utopias," read sectar
ian asceticism. Yet, after a brief period of progress the
old social contradictions arose again, read accommodation to
the surrounding culture, developed, and sharpened.
In Transcaucasia observers charted the Doukhobors’
lapses from ascetic practices and ethics which marked the
sect's first years there. As Bryan Wilson notes, the "co
herence of sect values" is one of the primary elements of
sect development. Often "actions to reduce external ten
sions may . . . generate new internal tensions as the sect
departs from older practices and v a l ues.In Transcau
casia, as General A. P. Ermolov predicted in 1825, Doukhobor
pacifism was sorely tested and ultimately found wanting in
Haxthausen perceived this trend among Old Believers in large cities such as Moscow and St. 'Petersburg. See Haxthausen, Russian Empire, 1: 272.
^^Klivanov, Istoriia religioznogo sektantstva. P- ^^Wilson, "Sect Development," 12.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4l6 il il the face of depredations visited by h o s t i l e neighbors.
Vereshchagin recorded other manifestations of the erosion of
sectarian ethics. "The dogma of obedience to the authori
ties," he found, "is beginning, under the stress of practi
cal necessity, to come into force with [the Doukhobors];
and, on the other hand, the favorite dogma of the Duchobort-
zis, 'Pear nothing and trust in God,' is beginning to lose
its significance."^^ These efforts "to reduce external
tensions," born of "practical necessity," led at the end of
the century to Peter Verigin's reactionary "new Doukhoborism."
Perhaps the most evident test of a sect's ascetic
vitality is the degree to which ritual has become formalized,
deprived of meaning, and deadened by rote repetition. While
Doukhobor ritual may have served as an "impassible Chinese
wall" to outsiders, behind that wall it often attained the
nadir of ecclesiastical formalism. Vereshchagin was im
pressed by the obvious ignorance of the Doukhobors in Trans
caucasia as to the meaning of their daily worship recitals.
Bonch-Bruevich, who accompanied the Doukhobors to Canada,
phrased the moribund condition of Doukhobor ritual in no
uncertain terms:
For intimations of Doukhobor violence against Tatar neighbors see Brock, ed., "Pozdnyakov's Narrative," l6l.
^^Vereshchagin, Autobiographical Sketches, pp. 6l- 62 .
^^Ibid., p. 6 5.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 417
A very large mass, educated exclusively in the Doukhobor midst, to a great de gree has already forfeited that al legorical, spiritual understanding of all their ceremonies. This mass regards the ritualistic aspect, as something unconditionally compulsory, without which one must not live and for the sake of which it is possible to sacrifice everything, including one’s life. Here ceremony was cast into specific form, occupying the place of a particular religious-churchly ritual, often de void of any meaning, but maintained due to tradition. 47
When we recall the source of this tradition, the reign of
Kapustin which witnessed the most fertile period of psalm
composition and classification, we see at once the polar
ends of Berger’s sect-church continuum.
CONCLUSIONS
It is possible to identify salient characteristics
of "church-type" and "sect-type" religious institutions.
These polar types are not mutually exclusive and rigid social
structures, but rather they represent opposite ends of a
"continuum" along which religious bodies travel in response
to a variety of stimuli. Since Troeltsch first formulated
the classic church-sect dichotomy, sociologists have empha
sized the sect's capacity to approach the "church" end of
^"^"Olkhovskii" [Bonch-Bruevich], "Obriady dukhobort- sev," 2 6 9 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4l8
the continuum.The most conspicuous sociological feature
of Doukhobor history has been the group’s cyclical advance
and retreat along the church-sect continuum. During periods
of exile or voluntary migration, a "psychology of persecu
tion" has served to enforce the geographic isolation and
ideological insulation of the group. At such times the
Doukhobors have displayed the characteristics of a sect-type
body best lumped under the phrase, "sectarian asceticism."
With almost fatalistic persistence, however, the stimuli
under which this asceticism was fostered have been eroded.
The very fruits of Doukhobor asceticism such as economic
success have served to undermine the conditions under which
they were born. The passage of time and the ascendency of
new generations invariably dissipated the initial zeal and
radicalism which enforced rigid asceticism. During such
periods the Doukhobors manifested characteristics of a
church-type body. Fortunately for the continued vitality of
the group, the advent of church-type characteristics in
variably provoked an internal crisis which compelled a large
portion of the sect to retreat into a rigid asceticism. In
1839 this retreat was aided, perhaps even forced, by the
intervention of the Russian government. In I898 Peter
Verigin’s "new Doukhoborism" succeeded with Quaker aid in
The evolution of a church to a sect is just as possible given the conditions existent, for example, in the Soviety Union today.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 419
again revitalizing a moribund "sect." In the present
century the rise of the radical Sons of Freedom has marked
the continuation of ascetic revitalization.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. THRONE AND SECT:
CONCLUDING REMARKS
When Alexander I created the Milky Waters colony in
January of l802 he gave form and the strength of collectivity
to what had been an amorphous group of individuals united
solely by a common faith. Over the next five decades Throne
and Sect groped toward a modus vivendi compatible with the
needs and aspirations of each.
THRONE
The highly personal nature of the autocratic system
meant that the tsar’s personal inclinations would be trans
lated into state policies. Although the two individuals who
occupied the throne from I8OI to 1855 had distinct person
alities, each in his own way was committed to a policy of
rationalization and order in state affairs that proved not
necessarily inimical to religious dissidence.
Alexander’s rational ordering of state affairs pro
ceeded from an intellect which demanded translation into
practice of underlying spiritual and ethical values. The
420
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 421
ness In basic political commitments that remained fairly
constant throughout his reign. In his rescript to Count
Langeron in December of I816 Alexander wrote that "the doc
trine of the Savior of the world, appearing on earth to save
the lost, is not able to be realized by force and
oppression. ..." Further, "all measures of severity, ex
hausted on the Doukhobors . . . not only failed to destroy
this sect, but more and more increased the number of its
followers. The Emperor’s words were a perfectly reasoned
synthesis of his early Enlightenment education under La
Harpe and his later adoption of a highly ecumenical
spiritualism.^
At the conclusion of her study of the prison reform
movement in the reign of Alexander I, Judith Zacek asks
whether some of the philanthropists of the era might have
had "a wider vision" which transcended their own special
^The phrase is Grimsted’s, Foreign Ministers, p. 39.
^PPSZ, 33: 26,550.
^Compare the passage from the I816 ukase just quoted with one penned by Alexander’s contemporary and ad mirer, Thomas Jefferson, in his Notes on the State of Vir ginia : "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites." The passage is quoted in Fawn M. Brodie, Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History (New York: Bantom Books, 1975), p. Î94.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 422
activities to embrace "part of a vast, general attempt to
transform, modernize, and liberalize Russian society along
Western lines.Zacek here points to the essence of the
Alexandrine period. The intellectual impetus for social
transformation, however, came from a kenotic ideal of love,
service, and charity. For the Doukhobors, such people as
I. V. Lopukhin and, above all, Alexander performed a podvig,
a "disciplined holy deed," in their services.^ The processes
of social reform and "modernization" under Alexander were
inseparable from the spiritual climate of the times and the
Tsar’s "sense of personal mission."
Nicholas I ’s conservatism was that of the bureaucrat
rather than the religious obscurant. Although a defender of
Orthodoxy, Nicholas was in a real sense a prisoner of his
own bureaucratic mind. As a recent scholar of Nicholaevan
Russia astutely points out, bureaucratisât ion "implies a
separation, sometimes an extreme separation, of skill from
affect, duty from emotion.Duty for Nicholas was law, and
it perhaps grated his emotion to rule in I836 that "accord
ing to our good law no one is to be persecuted for errors
Judith C. Zacek, "A Case Study in Russian Philan thropy: The Prison Reform Movement in the Reign of Alexander I," Canadian Slavic Studies, 1 (Summer, I9 6 7 ): 210.
^For a discussion of the significance of the podvig in Russian history, see Billington, Icon and the Axe, pp. 66, 6 5 1 .
^Monas, "Bureaucracy in Russia," p. 2 6 9 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42 3
of faith as long as he does not violate rules of public
order. . . .
Nicholas' Doukhobor policy was determined as much by
his bureaucratic mind as Alexander's was by spiritual and
ethical proclivities. It is difficult, for example, to
separate Nicholas' various bans on Doukhobor urban residence
and the holding of urban administrative offices from the
general thrust of his policies toward the cities. The Tsar's
wish to establish Orthodox hegemony in the cities was an
integral part of a larger program that aimed "to eliminate
disorder and confusion from city government," and to estab
lish "disciplined, orderly public participation in the
affairs of urban society. In this instance, duty jelled
comfortably with emotion.
Bureaucratization, as Sidney Monas reminds us fur
ther, implies a "depersonalization of administration-
uniformity, standardization, abstraction, a rationalized
subordination and discipline. In many cases the drive for
rationalization and order emanating from the Throne was
aimed at ensuring equal assumption of duties, obligations.
refusal to separate members of one household for religious dissidence.
^Lester Thomas Hutton, "The Reforms of City Govern ment in Russia, 1 8 6 O-I8 7 0," (Ph.D. dissertation. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1972), p. 12.
^Monas, "Bureaucracy in Russia," p. 269.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ,424
and even privileges between dissenting and Orthodox popula
tions. In 1 8 3 2, we recall, St. Petersburg ruled that re
cently repentent Doukhobors were not to be exempted from
recruit obligations in those Orthodox communities to which
they were newly attached. In 1834 Nicholas refused to allow
Tambov authorities to levy a special tax on Doukhobors and
Molokans. In other legislation that we reviewed the Tsar
lifted travel restrictions on sectarians in Transcaucasia
and Saratov. In April of 1842 all odnodvortsy owning serfs
and belonging to the Doukhobor or Molokan sects were ordered
to sell their serfs to the Treasury and not acquire new
ones. This law, however, came almost a year after Nicholas
authorized the Treasury in July of l84l to begin the purchase
of serfs belonging to Orthodox odnodvortsy. R e s t r i c t i o n s
on dissenters, of course, remained. In the interests of
public order, an emphasis on a vertical authority of
"rationalized subordination and discipline" at times super-
ceded the horizontal concepts of uniformity and standardiza
tion. Still, in its drive for rationalization and order the
Throne often pursued a standardization that was blind to
religion.
representatives of the odnodvortsy, was designed to ease the financial burden on serfs owned by the "one-homesteaders."
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 425
All this is not to say that the Throne supported
sectarian religion. For a variety of reasons the state was
obliged to consider its relationship with its ally, the
Orthodox Church. Alexander and Nicholas sought to control
overt manifestations of dissident religion. In I803
Alexander forbade Tambov Doukhobors to bury their dead "in
common church cemeteries." Rather, a small plot was to be
designated for sectarian burials in each village where
Doukhobors resided.The aim here, obviously, was to
restrict open displays of Doukhobor mourning, as well as
maintain the sanctity of Orthodox cemetaries. In a similar
move in 18433 Nicholas banned "outward expressions of
heresy" during the burial of dissenters. Specifically pro
hibited were gowns, hoods, or any other special clothing,
public singing, and all activity "giving occasion for tempta
tion of the Orthodox.The Throne’s attempts to control
overt manifestations of sectarian religion attained two
ends: they demonstrated support for the Orthodox Church
ally, and they curtailed possible disruptions of public
order. The latter was of primary importance, for sectarians
were outside the influence of the social and political
12 SPR, 2: 39-40.
^^VPSZ, 1 7 : 1 7 ,2 1 8.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 426
control that Orthodoxy exercised over the masses in its l4 support of the Throne.
Stephen and Ethel Dunn, American scholars of Russian
dissenters, believe it is "essential for every student" of
sectarian religion to know that "it was part of tsarist
policy to lump all sectarians or simply all dissidents into
one political grouping— more or less harmful— with the
deliberate intention of confusing the population.In
point of fact the Throne was more discerning in its politics
than the Dunns would have us believe. The state had an
interest in curtailing the spread of sectarianism, but only
once, in 1842, did the state "lump" all sectarians into one
harmful political grouping.At all other times, with one
exception, the Throne maintained a critical intra-sect dis
tinction between criminal and non-criminal dissenters. The
Skoptsy formed the one exception. Anyone found actually
castrated was immediately subject to military service or
exile.
For a number of reasons the Skoptsy were the only
conspicuous objects of that relentless persecution of
In this regard see Eugene Genovese’s account of white attempts to control black religion through supervision of slave funerals in Roll, Jordan, Roll, p. 194.
^^Dunns, "Sectarianism in the Soviet Union," 4l2.
^^SPR, 2: 408-410. I refer here to the "degrees of perniciousness" scheme.
^^PPSZ., 29: 22,422; SPR, 2: 34.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 427
religious dissenters described in traditional accounts of
Imperial Russia. The practice of castration as a means to
divine grace and salvation was no doubt psychologically re
pulsive. Deaths or "murders" were not unusual consequences
of the operation.The Skoptsy, moreover, had a reputation
for zealous proselytism and an ability to conceal themselves
particularly harsh treatment. More significantly, the
Skoptsy were denied privileges granted to other dissenters.
In 1847, for example, all dissenters in Transcaucasia con
verting to Orthodoxy were permitted to return to the inner
provinces with a three-year tax exemption except the
Skoptsy. In i860 "dissenters of all sects, except the
Skoptsy," were permitted to register in various Siberian
ommunities.
We have frequently mentioned the Throne’s efforts
to closely monitor judicial proceedings involving dissenters.
See Tolstoi, "Iz sluzhebnykh vospominanii (Kavkaz- skie molokany)," 55, 58, and William Macmichael, Journey from Moscow to Constantinople in the Years I8 1 7, I818 (London : John Murray, 1819), pp. 31-32.
Skoptsy in the Caucasian town of Shemakh offered money for the construction of an Orthodox church. See Tolstoi, "Iz sluzhebnykh vospominanii (Kavkazskie molokany)," 59-
^^See, for example, SPR, 2: 61, 74, and VPSZ, 11: 8,8 7 7. In 1850 a special island prison was ordered built "strictly for Skoptsy." See VPSZ, 25: 24, 194.
^\ P S Z , 22: 20,889 ; S ^ , 2: 573.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 428
Both Alexander and Nicholas required provincial authorities
to relay the particulars of court cases involving dissenters
to St. Petersburg before finalizing them.Such procedure
was not extraordinary or special; only in 1857 were provin
cial governors given the power to approve judicial punish
ments without referring back to St. Petersburg. Still,
the frequency of ukases outlining the required process of
review is indicative of the Throne’s attention to sectarian
affairsWe cannot assume, of course, that the primary con
cern of the state lay with sectarian civil rights. The
frequently enforced methods of review do indicate, however,
that striving for rationalization and order which character
ized the Throne’s whole approach to the "problem" of
dissenting faiths.
In summary, the period I8OI-I855 witnessed the
Throne groping toward a sectarian policy that acknowledged
in primitive and practical form the "right" of dissenting
religion to exist in Russia. In their own particular ways,
Alexander and Nicholas created a legal order in which the
Doukhobors could live.
^^SPR, 2: 5 7-5 8; VPSZ, 5: 4,010.
^^Starr, Decentralization, p. 119.
^^PPSZ, 3 2: 2 5,7 1 8; VPSZ, 7: 5,231, 13: 10,872, 1 1 ,3 9 0 , 15: 1 3 ,2 1 7.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 429
SECT
George Hume was an English businessman who first went
to Russia in 1857 to introduce reaping and threshing machines
to the Mennonites. He was perplexed by the multitude of
dissenting sects, including Molokans, Sabbatarians, Khlysty,
and Doukhobors, found in Transcaucasia. "All these," wrote
Hume, "representing all the forms of dissent from the Ortho
dox Greek Church, and it seemed to me strange to find all
these various religious forms being practised in the depths
of mountain fastnesses. Hume’s words lead us to reflect
upon the "riveted isolation" of the Doukhobors which both
Throne and Sect sought to enforce. Isolation for the Douk
hobors implied both geographic separation and cultural
insulation.
Even on the lowlands of Tauride province, the Douk
hobors enjoyed a considerable measure of geographic isola
tion. Alexander chose the Milky Waters area for the
Doukhobor colony for this very reason. The nearest Doukhobor
village to Orekhov, seat of the Melitopol district court,
was Bogdanovka at a distance of 53 versts; the farthest,
Goreloe, lay 143 versts from Orekhov.
^^George Hume, Thirty-five Years in Russia (London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent and Co., 1914), p. 283.
^^"Statisticheskie dannye," 334.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 430
The "mountain fastnesses" of Transcaucasia enforced even
more the "riveted isolation" of the Doukhobors that im
pressed Henry Lynch. As French historian Fernand Braudel
notes, a "separate religious geography" seems to emerge for
mountainous regions, a "favoured refuge" of "aberrant cults"
and a world apart from the more homogeneous lowlands.
This geographic separation complemented the cultural
insulation which the Doukhobors deemed vital for their sur
vival. Livanov wrote that in Russia there existed a
Doukhobor narod "having its own civil and church laws, and
possessing little awareness of the Empire’s public law.
The Soviet historian Klibanov speaks of "the land of
’Du k h o b o r i i a w h e r e the sect perfected and defended its own
"tenor of life.
The location of "Dukhoboriia" changed often in the
course of Doukhobor history, but it ever retained a mystical-
political attraction for sectarians consigned elsewhere.
Penza Doukhobors in l8l9 wished to go to the Milky Waters
"not due to persecution . . . or any other particular reason,
but solely because they . . . wish[ed] to be removed from
terranean World in the Age of Philip II, trans. by Sian Reynolds, 2 vols. (New York: Harper and Row, 1975), 1: 34- 38.
^^Livanov, Raskolniki i ostrozhniki, 2: 279.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 431
their native residence for a joint life with their comrades.
. . In response to questioning Irkutsk Doukhobors in
the late nineteenth century, N. A. Astyrev related what he
knew of the climate and general living conditions in Trans
caucasia. The Doukhobors listened "carefully," and asked
how far the area was from Irkutsk and what would be the cost
of passage to there.
The Russian history of the Doukhobors "inevitably
structured their way of thinking." The Throne’s attempts to
isolate the sect invariably placed the Doukhobors in a
pioneering situation, the perfect condition for a religion
that advocated non-secularization.^^ Scholars have occas
ionally noted the impact of the frontier on Russian
history.These studies deserve further consideration in
light of the concept of "Dukhoboriia."
The most salient social features of the Russian
frontier experience were the creation of a "nationalizing
^*^Evgravov, ed. , "Penzenskie dukhobortsy," 395.
^^Astyrev, "V gostiakh u dukhobortsev," 58-59.
^^Patricia Anne Solberg and John Peter Zubek, Doukhobors at War (Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1952), p. 22.
^^See, for example, Skalkovskii, "Russkie dissidenti, 771, Treadgold, "Russian Expansion," 147-152, Joseph L. Wieczynski, "The Frontier in Early Russian History," Russian Review, 31 (April 1972): 110-116, and Wieczynski, "Toward a Frontier Theory of Early Russian History," Russian Review, 33 (July 1974): 284-295.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 432
tendency" and the "encouragement of democracy and individual
ism" among pioneering populations.^^ In the Doukhobors'
case, the "nationalizing tendency" as embodied in the politi
cal concept of "Dukhoboriia" is most obvious. The
sectarians were not Russians, but Doukhobors. This proto
national consciousness was fostered and supported by the
physical rigors attending settlement in a virgin geographic
area and by a faith that demanded cultural insulation and
nonsecularization.
Democracy and individualism, as we have noted, were
not characteristic of the internal workings of the Doukhobor
sect. Still, a collective consciousness of independence
from the larger Russian society did develop among the Douk
hobors. This independent mentality was reflected in the
collective self-assertion which the sect displayed in its
political and religious practices. Ever on the frontier,
the Doukhobors could afford a healthy measure of self-
assertion and self-reliance. For its part, the Throne was
content to employ the frontier as a "safety valve" for its
Doukhobors.
The one feature of Russian Doukhobor development
that does not conform to theories of frontier influence was
the sect's accommodation of the Throne. Even on the
frontier the Doukhobors were dissenters, a veritable
^^Treadgold, "Russian Expansion," l48.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 433
infection of heretical folk religion on the body of Orthodox
civilization. The Doukhobors were thus forced to mute the
more anarchic elements of their ideology to fit the legal
order prepared for them by the Throne. At its best,
accommodation was exemplified in the sectarians’ belief in
the power of the petition ; as other Russian peasants, the
Doukhobors had a degree of faith in the state’s benevolence
if only the Tsar could be reached. At its worst, accommoda
tion damaged the asceticism so necessary for the very life
of the sect.
In their studies of the Hutterites, Lee Emerson
Deets and Bertha Clark isolate a number of factors that con
tributed to Hutterite "survival." Included among these sur
vival factors are isolation, strong leadership, communal
tendencies, a sense of unity born of persecution, homogeneity
of membership, and an "absolute certainty" that the
Hutterite "way" was correct.To a greater or lesser
degree, Doukhobor survival was a function of all these fac
tors. The last element, however, the "role of absolute
certainty," deserves the most emphasis.
The "absolute certainty" of the Doukhobors is con
tained in the theological doctrine of their possession of
^^See Deets, Hutterites, pp. 4-6, 19, 60-61, and Clark, "Huterian Communities," 2: 484-485.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 434
the Christ essence. In terms of history the Doukhobors’
’’certainty" transcended doctrine to embrace the sect’s mis
sion of "Trud i Mirnaia Zhizn." A psalm, composed in the
late eighteenth or early mineteenth century, asserts the
Doukhobors to be "people of a wandering, pilgrim nature"
ever moving from a state of oppression and "confusion" to a
"land of enlightenment, of truth.This is the "absolute
certainty" of the Doukhobors, the certainty of a history
perceived as the constant unfolding of enlightenment, grace,
and salvation. In the first half of the nineteenth century
the Doukhobors were successful in creating a social collec
tive with sufficient strenth to support this certainty.
^^Mealing, "Our People’s Way," p. 4l4.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bibliographies
Berkowitz, Morris I. and Johnson, J. Edmund. Social Scientific Studies of Religion: A Bibliography. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1967.
Horvath [Krisztinkovich], Maria. A Doukhobor Bibliography Based on Material Collected in the University of British Columbia Library. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Library, 1972.
Sheriff, Peggy. "The Doukhobors: A Select Bibliography." Unpublished manuscript. University of London, 1959.
Primary Sources
Published Government Documents
Opis del arkhiva Gosudarstvennogo Soveta. St. Petersburg: Gosudarstvennaia tip., I90 Ü.
[Pervoe] polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii. 46 vols. St. Petersburg: Gosudarstvennaia tip., I83O- 1839 .
Polnoe sobranie postanovlenii i rasporiazhenii po vedomstvu pravoslavnago ispovedaniia Rossiiskoi Imperii. 5 series. 19 vols. St. Petersburg: Sinodalnoi tip., 1869- 1915.
Report of Royal Commission on Matters Relating to the Sect of Doukhobors in the Province of British Columbia. Victoria, British Columbia: King’s Printer, 1913.
Sbornik pravitelstvennykh svedenii 0 raskolnikakh. Edited by V. Kelsiev. 4 vols. London: Trubner, I86O- 1862.
Sobranie postanovlenii po chasti raskola. 2 vols. St. Petersburg: Tip. ministerstva vnutrennikh del, I858.
435
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 436
Sobranie postanovlenii pochasti raskola. St. Petersburg; Tip. ministerstva vnutrennikh del, I875.
Ustav dukhovnykh konsistorii. St. Petersburg: Sinodalnoi tip.,1841.
[Vtoroe] polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii. 55 vols. St. Petersburg: Gosudarstvennaia tip., I83O- 1884.
Memoirs, Letters, Reports, Surveys
Allen, William. Life of William Allen, with Selections from his Correspondence. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Henry Longstreth, 1847.
Astyrev, N. "V gostiakh u dukhobortsev irkutskoi gubernii." Severnij vestnik 4 (April I891 ): 52-6 5.
Bellows, John. Letters and Memoir. Edited by Mrs. John Bellows. London: Kegan Paul, n.d.
Benckendorff, A. Kh, "Graf A. KH, Benkendorf o Rossi v 1827-I830gg." Krasnyi arkhiv 37 (1929): 138-174.
Bienstock, J, W., ed. and trans. Tolstoi et les doukhobors: faits historiques reunis et traduits du russe. Paris: Stock, 1902 .
Bonch-Bruevich, V. D., ed. Doukhobors: Their Faith. Translated by N. N. Kalmakoff. Canora, Sask.: Doukhobor Society of Canada, I 96 I.
Iz mira sektantov: sbornik statei. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoé izd., 1922,
_. Materialy k istorii i izucheniiu russkago sektantstva i raskola. 7 vols. St. Petersburg: Tip. B. M. Volfa, I 908 -I916 .
_ [Vladimir Olkhovskii]. "Obriady dukhobortsev." Zhivaia starina 14 (1905): 233-270.
Zhivotnaia kniga dukhobortsev. Winnipeg: Regehr’s Printing^ 1954.
Brock, Peter, ed. "Vasya Pozdnyakov’s Dukhobor Narrative. Slavonie and East European Review 43, Part I (December 1964): 152-176, Part II (June I965 ): 400-414.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 437
Chertkov, Vladimir. Christian Martyrdom in Russia: Perse cution of the Spirit-Wrest1er5 (or Doukhobortsi) in the Caucasus. London: Brotherhood Publishing Co., i w r .
Custine, Astolph de. Journey for Our Time: The Russian Journals of the Marquis de Custine. Edited and translated by Phyllis Penn Kohler. Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1951.
DeLagny, Germain. The Knout and the Russians; or, the Muscovite Empire, the Czar, and His People. Trans lated by John Bridgeman. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1854.
Dilke, Ashton Wentworth. "The Caucasus." Fortnightly Review 16 (1874): 463-464.
Dixon, William H. Free Russia. London: Hurst and Blockett, 1870.
"Dokladnaia zapiska D. P. Troshchinskago imperatoru Aleksandru po delu o skoptse Selivanove, l802." Russkii arkhiv 38 (1900): 449.
"Dopolnitelnyia svedeniia o Tatarinovoi i o chlenakh eia dukhovnago soiuza." Russkii arkhiv, 10 (1872): 2334-2354.
Doukhobor Society of Canada. Doukhobors: Their Faith. Canora, Sask. : N., N. Kalmakoff, 1961.
Dukhobortsy v nachale XIX stoletsia: zapiska l805 goda. Moscow: Izd. "Posrednika," 1907.
Evgrafov, N., ed. "Penzenskie dukhobortsy v l8l6 godu (Otsyvy Speranskago, kniazia A. N. Golitsyna i 0. P. Kozodavleva." Russkii arkhiv 27 (I889) : 389-395.
Filipson, G . I. "Vospominaniia Grigoriia Ivanovicha Filipsona." Russkii arkhiv, 22 (1884): 331r390.
Friends of Russian Freedom. Religious Persecutions in Russia, Being an Account of the Russian Non- Conformists and the Treatment Meted out to them by the Government. London : Chappie and Kemp, 1897.
Gagemeister, l u . A. "Novye ocherki Zakavkazia." Zhurnal ministerstva vnutrennikh del 20 (1847): 351-389.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 438
Golitsyn, A. N. "Kniaz Aleksandr Nikolaevich Golitsyn (v ego pismakh)." Russkii arkhiv 43 (1 9 0 5 ) : 360-403.
Grellet, Stephen. Memoirs of the Life and Gospel Labours of Stephen Grellet. Edited by Benjamin Seebohm. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Hnery Longstreth, i860.
Haxthausen, August Freiherr von. The Russian Empire, its People, Institutions and Resources. Translated by Robert Farie. 2 vols. London: Chapman and Hall, 1856.
Tribes of the Caucasus. Translated by J. E. Taylor. London: Chapman and Hall, 1855.
Henderson, Ebenezer. Biblical Researches and Travels in Russia: Including a Tour in the Crimea and the Passage of the Caucasus. London: James Nisbet, I E 2 E~ .
Henningsen, Charles Frederick. Revelations of Russia : or. The Emperor Nicholas and His Empire in l844. 2 vols. London: Henry Colburn, 1844.
Herzen, Alexander. My Past and Thoughts. Translated by Constance Garnett. New York: Vintage Books, 1973.
Holderness, Mary New Russia. Journey from Riga to the Caucasus. London : Sherwood, Jones and Co., 1Ü47.
Hommaire de Hell, Xavier. Travels in the Steppes of the Caspian Sea, the Crimea, the Caucasus. London: Chapman and Hall, 1847.
Hourwich, I. A. "Religious Sects in Russia." Case of Russia. Edited by Alfred Rambaud. New York: Fox Duffield and C o ., 1905.
Hume, George. Thirty-five Years in Russia. London : Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent and Co., 1914.
"Iz pisem mitropolita Filareta k S. D. Nechaevu." Russkii arkhiv 31 (1893): 41-48, 120-146, 211-229.
"Iz zapisok lurevskago arkhimandrita Fotiia o skoptsakh, khlystakh i drugikh tainykh sektakh v Peterburge v I8l9g." Russkii arkhiv 11 (1873): 1434-1454.
"K biografii grafa M. M. Speranskago. IV: Pismo Speranskago k 0. P. Kozodavlevu o dukhobortsakh." Russkaia starina, 109 (February, 1902): 300-306.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 439
Kohl, J. G. Relsen Im Inneren von Russland und POlen. Dresden! Arnoldlsche Buchhardlung, 1841.
Leroy-Beaulleu, Anatole. The Empire of the Tsars and the Russians. Translated by Z. A. Ragozln. 3 vols. New York: G . P. Putnam's Sons, I893-I896 .
Lopukhin, I. V. "Zapiski I. V. Lopukhina." Russkii arkhiv 52 (1914): 318-356.
"Zapiski Moskovskago martinista senatora I. V. Lopukhina." Russkii arkhiv 22 (1884): 85-101.
Lyall, Robert. Travels in Russia, the Krimea, the Caucasus, and Georgia. 2 vols, London: T. Cadell, n.d.
Lynch, Henry F. B. Armenia: Travels and Studies. Vol. I: The Russian Provinces. London: Longmons, Green and Co., 1901 .
Macmichael, William. Journey from Moscow to Constantinople in the Years 1817, 1818i London: John Murray, 1819.
Marchenko, V. R. "Avtobiograficheskaia zapiska gosudars- tvennago sekretaria Vasiliia Romanovicha Marchenki. 1782-l838gg." Russkaia starina 86 (May I89 O): 291 -317.
Muller, Alexander V. Editor and translator. The Spiritual Regulation of Peter the Great. Seattle : University of Washington Press, 1972.
Neave, Joseph James. Leaves from the Journal of Joseph James Neave. Edited by Joseph J. Green. London : Headly, 19 II.
"0 poselenii dukhobortsev v Novorossiiskom krae." Russkaia starina 98 (May I899 ): 396.
Palmer, William. Notes of a Visit to the Russian Church in the Years 1840, 1841. London: Kegan Paul, Trench and Co., 1882.
Peacock, Kenneth, ed. Songs of the Doukhobors. Ottawa: National Museum of Canada, 1970.
______. Twenty Ethnic Songs from Western Canada. Ottawa : National Museum of Canada, 1966 .
Pinkerton, Robert. Russia : or. Miscellaneous Observations on the Past and Present State of that Country and its Inhabitants'! London : Seeley and Sons, I833.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 440
Platon, Metropolitan of Moscow. The Present State of the Greek Church In Russia. Edited and translated by Robert Pinkerton. New York: Collins and Co., 1815-
"Poselenie dukhobortsev na r. Molochnoi." Russkaia starina 100 (October I899 ): 240.
"Proshenie molokanina Garkina ministru vnutrennikh del (1863)." Russkii arkhiv 39 (1901): 629-630.
"The Russian Doukhobortsi (Spirit-wrestlers) at the Beginning of this Century (A Paper Written in I805)." New Century Review 1 (January-June I897): 419-431.
St. John, Arthur. "An Inconvenient Visit to the Caucasus." Part II: "The Doukhobors." New Order, 5 (February 1899 ): 18-2 0 .
______. "An Inconvenient Visit to the Caucasus." Part III: "A Meeting of the Spirit-Wrestlers." New Order 5 (March 1899): 47-48.
"An Inconvenient Visit to the Caucasus." Part VI: "Turned Out." New Order 5 (June 1899): 8I-8 3.
______. "An Inconvenient Visit to the Caucasus." Part I: "Utopia Discovered." New Order 5 (January I899 ): 1 -3.
Stadling, Jonas and Reason, Will. In the Land of Tolstoi : Experiences of Famine and Misrule in Russia. London : James Clarke, 1897.
"Statisticheskie dannye . . . ." Zhurnal ministerstva vnutrennikh del 3I (January 1839).
Stevens, Thomas. Through Russia on a Mustang. New York: Cassell, 1891 .
Sukhorev, V. A., ed. Dokumenty po istorii dukhobortsev i kratkoe izlozhenie ikh veroispovedaniia. North Kildonan, Man.: J. Regehr, 1944.
Tolstoi, Lev. "Lettre aux Doukhobors emigres au Canada." Revue blanche 23 (November I9 OO): 436-440.
______. On Civil Disobedience and Non-Violence. New Yorkl New American Library, I967.
______. "Persecution of Christians in Russia." Contem porary Review 68 (November 1895): 645-650.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 441
Tolstoi, Lev. "Three Letters by Tolstoj." Edited by J. M. Meyer. International Institute of Social History Bulletin 6 (1951 ): 32-3 8.
Tolstoi, V. S. "Iz sluzhebnykh vospominanii V. S. Tolstago (Kavkazskie molokany i skoptsy)." Russkii arkhiv 22 (1884): 55-60.
______. "Iz sluzhebnykh vospominanii V. S. Tolstago (Poezdka v Osetiiu v 1847 godu)." Russkii arkhiv 13 (1875): 265-268.
Uvarov, S. S. Esquisses politiques et littéraires. Paris: Gide, IMÏÏ!
Vereshchagin, V. V. Dukhobortsy i molokane. Moscow: Kushnerev, 1900.
______. Vassili Vereshchagin : Painter-Soldier-Traveller, Autobiographical Sketches. Translated by F. H. Peters. London : Bentley, I887.
Verigin, P. V. Plsma dukhoborcheskago rukoviditelia Petra Vasilevicha Verigina. Christchurch: Tchertkoff, 1901 .
"Vnutrennee polozhenie Rossii v I855 godu." Russkaia starina 105 (March I 901 ): 579-596.
Wagner, Moritz. Review of Der Kaukasus und das Land der Kosaken, in den Jahre 1843-1846. Dresden: Arnold, 1848. Westminster and Foreign Quarterly Review 50 (n.d.): 261-274.
Wheeler, Daniel. Memoirs of the Life and Gospel Labours of the Late Daniel Wheeler. London : Charles Gilpin, ÏÏÏ52:
Zibarov, N. S. 0 sozhzhenii oruzhiia dukhoborami. Purleigh: Tchertkoff, 1899.
Secondary Sources
Amburger, Eric. Geschichte der Behordenorganisation Russ- lands von Peter dem Grosser bis I917 . Leiden: Brill, 1966.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 442
Avakumovic, Ivan and Woodcock, George. The Doukhobors. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968.
Bendix, Reinhard. Max Weber : An Intellectual Portrait. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1962,
Bernard, Dally [Mary Agnes Pitzgibbon]. The Canadian Doukhobor Settlements: A Series of Letters. Toronto : William Briggs, 1899.
Billington, James H. The Icon and the Axe : An Interpretive History of Russian Culture. New York: Vintage Books, 1970.
Biriukov, P. I. Dukhobortsy: sbornik statei, vospominanii pisem i drugikh dokumentov. St. Petersburg : I. N. Kushnerev, 1908.
Blum, Jerome. Lord and Peasant in Russia From the Ninth to the Nineteenth Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971.
Bolshakoff, Serge. Russian Nonconformity: The Story of "Unofficial" Religion in Russia. Philadelphia: Westminster- Press, 1950.
Braudel, Fernand. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II. Translated by Sian . Reynolds. 2 vols. New York: Harper and Row, 1975.
Brockhaus, F . A. and Efron, I. A., eds. Entsiklopedicheskii slovar. 43 vols. St. Petersburg: Brockhaus-Efron, IÜ9I-I907.
Brodie, Fawn M. Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History, New York: Bantom Books, 1975.
Bryan's Dictionary of Painters and Engravers. Revised by George C. Williamson. 4th ed. 5 vols. London: G. Bell and Sons, 1926-1930.
Buhr, John D. The Origin of the Doukhobor Faith: A Contri bution to Doukhobor and Mennonite History in Russia and Canada. Vancouver: n.p., 1972.
Case, Clarence Marsh. Non-violent Coercion: A Study in Methods of Social Pressure. New York: Century, 1923.
Cherniavsky, Michael. Tsar and People : Studies in Russian Myths. New Havenl Yale University Press, I96 I.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 443
Cohn, Norman. The Pursuit of the Millennium; Revolutionary Mlllenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970.
Conybeare, Frederick C. Russian Dissenters. Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 1921.
Crummey, Robert. The Old Believers and the World of Anti christ: The Vyg Community and the Russian State 1694 -1855. Madison : University of Wisconsin Press , 1970 .
Curtiss, John Shelton. The Russian Army under Nicholas I, 1825-1855. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, Ï 9 F 5:
Deets, Lee Emerson. The Hutterites: A Study in Social Cohesion. Gettysburg, Pa.: n.p., 1939.
Demant, V. A. "The Weber Thesis: Controversy and Consen sus." Religion and the Decline of Capitalism. Edited by V. A. Demant. London: Faber and Faber, 1952 .
Elkinton, Joseph. The Doukhobors: Their History in Russia, their Migration to Canada. Philadelphia : Ferris and Leach, 1903.
Epp, David H. Johann Cornies: Zuge aus seinem Leben und Wirken. Rosthern, Sask.: Echo-Verlag, 1945.
Epp, Frank H, Mennonite Exodus : The Rescue and Resettle ment of the Russian Mennonites Since the Communist Revolution. Altona, Man.: D. W. Friesen and Sons, ÏWT.
Eroshkin, N. P. Ocherki istorii gosudarstvennykh uchrezh- denli dorevoliutsionnoi Rossii. Moscow: Izd. ministerstva prosveshcheniia RSFSR, 1950.
Eyries, J. B. and Malte-Brun, Conrad. Nouvelles annales des voyages, de la géographie et de 1 'histoire . . 1 ! i i Paris : Gide Fils, I8I9 .
Fateev, A. N. Le problème de 1'individu et de l'homme d'état dans la personnalité historique d'Alexandre I, empereur de toutes les Russies. Vol. IV: Les derniere 10 années de la vie et du gouvernement d'Alexandre. Prague : Association russe pour les recherches scientifiques, 1939.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 444
Filaret, Archbishop of Chernigov. Istoriia Russkol Tserkvl. Vol. V: Slnodalnoe upravlenie, 1721-1Ü26. Kharkov : Universltetskol tip,, 1Ü53.
Finot, Jean. Modern Saints and Seers. Translated by Evan Marrett. London: William Rider and Son, 1920.
Garrett, Clarke. Respectable Folly: Millenarians and the French Revolution in France and England. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975.
Genovese, Eugene. Roll, Jordan, Roll : The World the Slaves Made. New York: Random House, 1976.
Gerschenkron, Alexander. Europe in the Russian Mirror: Four Lectures in Economic History. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1970.
Gershenzon, M. 0. P. la. Chaadaev: zhizn i myshlenie. St. Petersburg: M. M. Stasiulevich, 190b.
Gibbon, John M. Canadian Mosaic : The Making of a Northern Nation. Toronto : McClelland and Stewart, 193W.
Grass, Karl Konrad. Die russischen Sekten. 2 vols. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1907.
Grégoire, Henri-Baptiste. Histoire des sectes religieuses. 6 vols. Paris : Baudouin, Ib2b-lb45.
Grimsted, Patricia Kennedy. The Foreign Ministers of Alexander I: Political Attitudes and the Conduct of Russian Diplomacy, 1301-1325. Berkeley : University of California Press, 1969 .
Gusev, N. N. Lev Tolstoi protiv gosudarstva i tserkvi. Berlin: J. Ladyschnikov, 1912.
Harcave, Sidney. Russia: A History. 6th ed. New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1966.
Hastings, James, ed. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. 12 vols. New York: • Charles Scribner's Sons, 1908 - 1926 .
Heard, Albert F. The Russian Church and Russian Dissent : Comprising Orthodoxy, Dissent, and Erratic Sects. New York: Harper and Brothers, 18Ü7.
lasevich-Borodaevskaia, V. I. Borba za veru. St. Petersubrg: Gosudarstvennaia tip., 1912.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 445
Izvlechenlia iz rasporlazhenll po delam o raskolnlkakh prl Imperatorakh Nlkolae 1 Aleksandre II, popolnennyia zapiskaiu Melnikova. Leipzig: E. L. Kasprowicz,
Jamieson, Stuart. "The Economic History of the Doukhobors." Report of the Doukhobor Research Committee. Edited by Harry B. Hawthorn. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, 1952.
Kennan, George. Siberia and the Exile System. 2 vols. New York: Century Co., 1891.
Khomiakov, S. Dukhobory. Moscow: "Delo," 1912,
Klaus, A. Nashi kolonii: opyty i materialy po istorii i statistik inostrannoi kolonizatsii v Rossii. St. Petersburg: Tip. V. V. Nusvalta, 1869.
Klibanov, A. I. Istoriia religloznogo sektantstva v Rossii (60-e gody XIXv.-1917gT). Moscow : Nauka, 1965.
______, ed. Kritika religloznogo sektantstva (Opyt izucheniia religloznogo sektantstva v 20-x-nachale 30-x godov). Moscow: "Mysl," 1974.
Kravchinskii, S. M. [Stepniak]. The Russian Peasantry : Their Agrarian Condition, Social Life, and Religion. 2 vols. London : George Routledge and Sons, l8o6.
Kucherov, Samuel. Courts, Lawyers and Trials Under the Last Three Tsars. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1953.
Landes, David S. The Unbound Prometheus : Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1969.
Lanternari, Vittorio. The Religions of the Oppressed: A Study of Modern Messianic Cults. Translated by Lisa Sergio. New York: New American Library, 1965.
Larousse du XXe siecle. 6 vols. Paris : Librairie Larousse, 1928-1933.
Lebedev, A. S. Dukhobortsy v Slobodskoi Ukrainie. Kharkov : Gubernskoe pravlenie, 1890.
Lenz, Theophil. Commentâtionis de duchoborzis. Dorpat: Severin, 1829.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 446
Llashchenko, P. I. History of the National Economy of Russia to the 1917 Revolution. Translated by L. M, Herman. New York: Macmillan, 1949.
Livanov, P. V. Raskolniki i ostro.zhniki: ocherki i razskazi. 4 vols. St. Petersburg: Tip. P. P. Merkuleva, 1872-1875.
McConnell, Allen. Tsar Alexander I: Paternalistic Reformer. New York : Thomas Y. Crowell, 1970.
Maksimov, S. V. Materialy dlia istorii Russkago sektantstva. Delo o dukhobortsakh nakhodiashikhsia v Sibiri, l8l7-l820g. Riazan: Tip. bratstva sv. Vasiliia, i w r .
Malone, Dumas, ed. Dictionary of American Biography. 20 vols. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1928-1936.
Malov, Peter. Dukhobortsy: ikh istoriia, zhizn i borba. Thrums, B . CTI Peter Malov, 1948.
Mann, William E. Sect, Cult and Church in Alberta. Toronto : University of Toronto Press, 1955.
Maude, Aylmer. Leo Tolstoy. New York : Dodd, Mead, I918 .
______. A Peculiar People : The Doukhobors. New York : Punk and Wagnalls, 1904.
______. Tolstoy and His Problems. London : Richard, 1901.
Mazour, Anatole. The First Russian Revolution, 1825. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1969.
______. An Outline of Modern Russian Historiography. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1939.
Mehl, Roger. The Sociology of Protestantism. Translated by James H. Farley. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970 .
Mennonite Encyclopedia. 4 vols. Scottdale, Pa.: Mennonite Publishing House, 1956-1959.
Mikhailovich, Grand Duke Nikolai. Imperator Aleksandr I. Opyt istoricheskogo issledovaniia. 2 vols. St. Petersburg: Ekspeditsiia zagotovlenia gosudarst- vennikh bumag, 1912.
Le tsar Alexandre I. Translated by Baron Wrangel. Paris : Payot, 19 31.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 447
Miliukov, Paul. Outlines of Russian Culture. Part 1: Religion and the Church. Edited by Michael Karpovich. Translated by Valentine Ughet and Eleanor Davis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1942.
Mochalov, V. D. Krestianskoe khoziaistvo v Zakavkaze k kontsu XIXv. Moscow: Akademii nauk S.S.S.R., 1958.
Monas, Sidney. "Bureaucracy in Russia Under Nicholas I." The Structure of Russian History: Interpretive Essays. Edited by Michael Cherniavsky. New York: Random House, 1970.
______. The Third Section : Police and Society in Russia Under Nicholas I. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961 .
Muratov, M. V. Russkoe sektantstvo. Moscow: n.p., 1919.
Necheles, Ruth P. The Abbe Grégoire I787-I83I: The Odyssey of an Egalitarian. Westport, Conn.: Green wood Publishing Corp., 1971.
Niebuhr, H. Richard. The Social Sources of Denominational- ism. Cleveland: World Publishing Co., 1957.
Nilskii, I. P. K istorii dukhoborchestva 1 molokanstva. St. Petersburg: Tip. Eleonski, 1885.
Nisbet, Robert A. Social Change and History: Aspects of the Western Theory of Development. New York : Oxford University Press, 1969.
Novitskii, 0. M. Dukhobortsky: ikh istoriia i verouchenie. Kiev: Universitetskala tip., 1Ü82.
0 Dukhobortsakh. Kiev: Kievopecherskoi lavr, 1832.
Obolensky, Dimitri. "Popular Religion in Medieval Russia." The Religious World of Russian Culture. Edited by Andrew Blane. The Hague : Mouton, 1975.
Paleologue, Maurice. Alexandre 1er: un tsar enigmatique. Paris : Librairie Pion, 1937.
Petrovich, Michael B. "The Peasant in Nineteenth-Century Historiography." The Peasant in Nineteenth-Century Russia. Edited by Wayne S. Vucinich. Stanford : Stanford University Press, 1958.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 448
Pinter, Walter M. Russian Economic Policy under Nicholas I. Ithaca, N. Y . : Cornell University Press, 1967.
Pipes, Richard. Russia under the Old Regime. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1974.
Pope, Liston. Millhands and Preachers. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1942.
Popoff, Eli. An Historical Exposition on the Origin and Evolvement of the Basic Tenets of the Doukhobor Life-Coneoption. Grand Forks, B. C.: n.p., 1966.
Prugavin, A. S. Raskol vverkhu: ocherki religioznykh iskanii v privilegirovannoi sredie. St. Petersburg: Obshchestvennaia polza, 1909.
Pushkarev, Sergei G. Dictionary of Russian Historical Terms from the Eleventh Century to 1917. Edited by George Vernadsky and Ralph T. Fisher, Jr. New Haven : Yale University Press, 1970.
Pypin, A. N. Russkoe masonstvo XVIII i peryaia chetvert XIXv. Petrograd: Izd. "Ogni," 1916.
______. Religiozniia dvizheniia pri Aleksandre I . Petrograd : Izd. ’’Ogni,’’ 1916.
Raeff, Marc. Michael Speransky: Statesman of Imperial Russia 1772-1839 . The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1957.
Reclus, Elisee. The Earth and Its Inhabitants. Vol. 6: Asiatic Russia. London : J . S. Virtue, I891 .
Reibin, Simeon P. Trud i mirnaia zhizn: istoriia dukhobort- sev bez maski. San Francisco: Delo, 1952.
Riasanovsky, Nicholas V. A History of Russia. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1969 .
______. Nicholas I and Official Nationality in Russia, 1825-1855. Berkeley : University of California Press, 1967 .
Russkii biograficheskii slovar. 25 vols. St. Petersburg : Tip. glavnago upravleniia udelov, I896-I918 .
Schaff, Philip, ed. A Religious Encyclopedia: or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal and Practical Theology. 3 vols. New York : Punk and Wagnalls, IÜÜ2-I883.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 449 Schllder, N. K, Imperator Aleksandr Pervyl: ego zhizn 1 tsarstvovanle. 4 vols. St. Petersburg: A. S. Suvorln, 1897-1898.
Scott, Richenda C. Quakers In-Russia.' London: Michael Joseph, 1964.
Seton-Watson, Hugh. The Russian Empire lSOl-1917. Oxford: Clarendon, 1967 I
Sévérac, J. B. La secte russe des hommes-de-dieu. Paris : Edouard Cornély, 1906.
Shcherbak, Anton P. Tsarstvo russkikh muzhikov: dukhobory. Los Angeles: Russian People's University, 1910.
Shulman, Alfred. "Personality Characteristics and Psycho logical Problems." The Doukhobors of British Columbia. Edited by Harry B. Hawthorn. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, 1955.
Simrael, Georg. The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Edited and translated by Kurt H. Wolff. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1950 .
Simmons, Ernest J. Leo Tolstoy. New York: Vintage, I96 O.
Smart, Ninian. The Religious Experience of Mankind. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969.
Smirnov, N. A., ed. Tserkov v istorii Rossii. Moscow: "Nauka," 1967.
Smith, William George. A Study in Canadian Immigration. Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1920.
Snesarev, Vladimir [Harry Trevor]. Doukhobors in British Columbia. Vancouver : University of British Columbia, 1931.
Solberg, Patricia Anne and Zubek, John Peter. Doukhobors at War. Toronto : Ryerson Press, 1952.
Starr, Frederick. Decentralization and Self-Government in Russia, I83O-I87O. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972 .
Stoeffler, Ernest P. German Pietism during the Eighteenth Century. Leiden : E. J. Brill, 1973.
Stoudt, John Joseph. Jacob Boehme: His Life and Thought. New York : Seabury Press, 1968 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 450 Tawney, R. H. Religion and the Rise of Capitalism. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1926.
Thaden, Edward C. Russia Since 18OI: The Making of a New Society. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1971-
Thomas, Keith. Religion and the Decline of Magic. New York : Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971.
Tompkins, Stuart R. The Russian Mind from Peter the Great through the Enlightenment. Norman, Okla.: Univer sity of Oklahoma Press, 1953.
Treadgold, Donald W. "The Peasant and Religion." The Peasant in Nineteenth-Century Russia. Edited by Wayne S. Vucinich. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1968 .
______. The West in Russia and China. Vol. 1: Russia 1472-1917 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973 .
Troeltsch, Ernst. The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches. Translated by Olive Wyan. 2 vols. New York : Harper and Row, i960 .
Tugan-Baranovskii, M. I. Velichaishaia v mirie kommunisti- cheskaia organisâtsiia (obshchina dukhoboro-vH Kharkov: Izd. vserossiikago tsentr. souiza potrebiteln. obshchest., 1919.
Tuveson, Ernest Lee. Millennium and Utopia: A Study in the Background of the Idea of Progress. New York : Harper, 1964.
Varadinov, N. V. Istoriia ministerstva vnutrennikh del. 3 vols. St. Petersburg: Tip. ministerstva vnutrennikh del, 1858- 1863.
Verigin, Grigorii. Ne v sile bog, a v pravde. Paris : Dreyfus et Charpentier, 19 30.
Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capital ism. Translated by Talcott Parsons. New York : Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958.
Wilbois, Joseph. Russia and Reunion. Translated by C. R. Davey Biggs. London : A. R. Mowbray and Co., 1908.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 451
Wilson, Bryan R. Magic and the Millennium: A Sociological Study of Religious Movements of Protest Among Tribal and Third-World Peoples. New York: Harper and Row, 1973.
Worsley, Peter. The Trumpet Shall Sound: A Study of 'Cargo' Cults in Melanesia. 2nd ed. New York: Schocken Books, 1968.
Wright, J. F, C. Slava Bohu: The Story of the Doukhobors. New York: Farrar and Rinehart, 1940.
Yaney, George L. The Systematization of Russian Government: Social Evolution in the Domestic Administration of Imperial Russia 1711-1905. Urbane., Ill : University of Illinois Press, 1973.
Periodicals
Archer, Herbert P. "The Doukhobors in Canada." New Order 5 (November 1899): I6O-I61 .
[Arsene, Metropolitan of Kiev.] "Dukhovnye khristiane. Ocherk." Vestnik Evropy 6 (November 188O): 1-34.
Atwater, Helen D. "The Doukhobortsi or Spirit Wrestlers." Independent 52 (10 May I9 OO): 1121-1124.
Balmuth, Daniel. "The Origins of the Tsarist Epoch of Censorship Terror." American Slavic and East European Review 19 (December I960): 497-520.
Baylen, Joseph 0. and Weyant, Jane G. "Vasili Vereshchagin in the United States." Russian Review 30 (July 1971): 250-259.
Beare, Robert L. "Quirinus Kuhlman: The Religious Apprenticeship." Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 68 (September 1953): 828-852.
Beerman, R. "The Baptists and Soviet Society." Soviet Studies 20 (July 1968): 67-8O.
Berger, Peter L. "Sectarianism and Religious Sociation." American Journal of Sociology 64 (July 1958): 4l- Tfir.
Bienstock, Wladimir. "L'emigration des Doukhobors." Revue blanche 23 (1 November I9 OO): 431-435.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 452
Blackwell, William L. "The Old Believers and the Rise of Private Industrial Enterprise in Early Nineteenth- century Moscow." Slavic Review 24 (September 1965 ): 407-424.
Bride, W. W. "The Spirit Wrestlers." British Columbia Digest , 1 (October 1946): SO-Wl
Cherniavsky, Michael. "The Old Believers and the New Religion." Slavic Review 25 (March 196 b): 1-39.
Clark, Bertha W. "The Huterian Communities." Journal of Political Economy 32, Part 1 (June 192T)1 357- 374, Part 2 (August 1924): 468-486.
David, Zdenek V. "The Influence of Jacob Boehme on Russian Religious Thought." Slavic Review 21 (March 1962): 43-64.
"The Doukhobor Story from Russia to the Castlegar District." Castlegar Historical Review 1 (November 1952): 1, 47 12.
Dubrovin, N. "Nashi mistiki-sektanty. Aleksandr Fedorovich Labzin i ego zhurnal Sionskii Vestnik." Russkaia starina 82 (September" 1894): 145-203, (October 1894 ) : 101-126, (November 1894): 58-91, (December 1894): 98 -132, 83 (January 1 8 9 5 ) : 56-91, (February 1 8 9 5 ) : 35-52.
Dunn, Ethel. "Canadian and Soviet Dukhobors: An Examina tion of the Mechanisms of Culture Change." Canadian Slavic Studies 4 (Summer 1970): 300-326.
_ . "Russian Sectarianism in New Soviet Marxist Scholarship." Slavic Review 26 (March 1967): 128- 140.
, and Dunn, Stephen P. "Some Comments on Sectarian ism in the Soviet Union." Soviet Studies 20 (January 1969): 410-412.
Dynes, Russell R. "Church-Sect Typology and Socio-Economic Status." American Sociological Review 20 (October 1955 ): 555-560.
Elkinton, Joseph. "The Doukhobors: Their Character and Economic Principles." Charities and the Commons 13 (3 December 1904): 252-256.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 453
Esper, Thomas. "The Odnodvortsy and the Russian Nobility." Slavonic and East European Review 45 (January 1967): 124-134.
Fisher, Alan W. "Enlightened Despotism and Islam Under Catherine II." Slavic Review 27 (December 1968): 542-553.
Flower, Benjamin 0. "The Exiled Christ in Christian Russia." Arena 19 (March I898) : 388-396 .
Flynn, James T. "The Role of the Jesuits in the Politics of Russian Education, I8OI-I82O." Catholic Historical Review 66 (July 1970): 249-265.
Francis, E. K. "Mennonite Institutions in Early Manitoba: A Study of their Origins." Agricultural History 22 (July 1948): 144-154.
Frantz, Charles. "Historical Continuities in an Immigrant Russian Sect : Doukhobor Ideology and Political Organization." Canadian Slavonic Papers 5 (196 I): 31- 53.
Freeze, Gregory L. "Social Mobility and the Russian Parish Clergy in the Eighteenth Century." Slavic Review 33 (December 1974): 641-662.
Fullerton, Aubrey. "Doukhobors and Their Utopia : Problems of Communists in Canada." Sunset 38 (February 1917): 31- 32, 66-68.
Godwin, George. "The Doukhobors." Chamber's Journal 20 (April 1930): 223-224.
Hawthorn, Harry B. "A Test of Simmel on the Secret Society : The Doukhobors of British Columbia." American Journal of Sociology 62 (July 1956): 1-7.
Jessup, Elon. "A Utopia that Works: The Doukhobor Settle ment in British Columbia— A Successful Experiment in Religious Communism— A Fragment of Old Russia." Travel 40 (November 1922): 37-39, 52.
Johnson, Benton. "A Critical Appraisal of the Church-Sect Typology." American Sociological Review 22 (February 195771 88-92.
______. "On Church and Sect." American Sociological Review 28 (August I963 ): 539-549.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 454 Kenworthy, John C. "English Opinion and Russian Persecu tions." New Order 1 (December 1895): 1-3-
______. "Religion and Revolution." New Order 5 (December 1899): 1 8 3- 1 8 7.
Kharlamov, I. N. "Dukhobortsy. Istoricheskii ocherk." Russkaia mysl 5 (l884). No. 11; I38-I6I, No. 12: 83-114.
Klibanov, A. I. "The Dissident Denominations in the Past and Today." Soviet Sociology 3 (Spring 1965): 44-60.
Kollmorgen, Walter M. "The Agricultural Stability of the Old Order Amish and Old Order Mennonites of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania." American Journal of Sociology 49 (November 1943): 233-241.
Kreider, Robert. "The Anabaptist Conception of the Church in the Russian Mennonite Environment, 1789 -I870." Mennonite Quarterly Review 25 (January 1951): 17- 33.
Kucherov, Samuel. "Administration of Justice under Nicholas I of Russia." American Slavic and East European Review 7 (1948)1 125-138.
Lavrin, Janko. "The Bogomils and Bogomilism." Slavonic and East European Review 8 (December 1929): 269-283.
Ledonne, John P. "Criminal Investigations Before the Great Reforms." Russian History 1 (1974): IOI-II8.
Livanov, P. V. "Molokane i dukhobortsy v Ukraine i Novorossii XVIII-ye vek." Vestnik Evropy 5 (October 1 8 6 8): 6 7 3- 7 0 1 , 8 0 9 - 8 3 6.
______. "Tambovskie molokane i dukhobortsy v I8 vekie: istoricheskii ocherk." Vsemirnyi trud 3 (I867): 245-297.
McArthur, Gilbert H. "Catherine II and the Masonic Circle of N. I. Novikov." Canadian Slavic Studies 4 (Pall 1970): 529-546.
McMillin, Arnold B. "Quakers in Early Nineteenth-Century Russia." Slavonic and East European Review 51 (October 1973): 567-579.
Maude, Aylmer. "The Doukhobors." Outlook 60 (10 December 1898 ): 913 -915 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 455
"Nechto o Grlgorie Saviche Skovorode." Russkll arkhlv 49 (1911): 601-634.
Peacock, Kenneth. "The Music of the Doukhobors." Alphabet 8 (December 1965-March 1966): 35-44.
"Religious Sects and Socialism in Russia." International Monthly Magazine 1 (November I85O) : 461-463.
A Russian. "The Hidden Church on Russian Soil." Theosophi- cal Review 25 (1899): 201-213.
______. "The Protomartyr of the Mystic Way in Infant Russia." Theosophical Review 23 (1899): 489-497.
Senn, Alfred Erich. "P. I. Biriukov; A Tolstoyan in War, Revolution, and Peace." Russian Review 32 (July 1973): 278-285.
Shchapov, A. P. "Umstvennyia napravleniia russkago raskola." Delo 10 (October I867) : 319-348.
Skalkovskii, A. A. "Russkie dissidenti v Novorossii." Kievskaia starina I8 (I887): 771-782.
Sokolov, I. "Vliianie protestantstva na obrazovanie khlystovskoi, dukhoborskoi i molokanskoi sekt." Strannik (188O), No. 1: 96-112, No. 2: 237-260.
Squire, P. S. "Nicholas I and the Problem of Internal Security in Russia in 1826." Slavonic and East _ European Review 38 (June 196077 431-458.
Starr, S. Frederick. "August von Haxthausen and Russia. Slavonic and East European Review 46 (July 1968): 462-478.
Strannik, Ivan. "Les Doukhobors." Revue de Paris 10 (October 1901): 865-898.
Stremooukhoff, Dmitri. "Moscow the Third Rome: Sources of the Doctrine." Speculum 28 (January 1953): 84-101.
Syrkin, N. "Die Duchoboren und das Duchoborentum." Sudduetsche Monatshefte, July 1911, pp. 69-79.
Tebenkov, M. "Dukhobortsy, ikh uchenie, organizatsiia i nastoiashchee polozhenie." Russkaia starina 87 Part 1 (August I896 ): 257-293, Part 2 (September 1896 ): 493-526.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 456
Thorstelnson, Elina. "The Doukhobors in Canada." Mississippi Valley Historical Review 4 (1917-1918): 3-4^7
Tompkins, Stuart R. "The Russian Bible Society— A Case of Religious Xenophobia." American Slavic and East European Review 7 (September 1948): 251-265.
Toumanoff, Cyril. "Moscow the Third Rome: Genesis and Significance of a Politico-Relgious Idea." Catholic Historical Review 40 (January 1955): 417-447.
Treadgold, Donald W. "Russian Expansion in the Light of Turner’s Study of the American Frontier." Agricul tural History 26 (October 1952): 147-152.
V-skii, A. "0 tainykh i iavnykh raskolnlkakh." Pravoslavnoe obozrenie 13 (April l864): 345-357.
Vysotskii, N. G. "Novye materialy iz ranneishei istorii duk- hoborcheskoi sekty." Russkii arkhiv 52 (1914): 60-86.
Wieczynski, Joseph L. "The Frontier in Early Russian History." Russian Review 31 (April 1972): 110-116.
______. "Toward a Frontier Theory of Early Russian His tory." Russian Review 33 (July 1974): 284-295.
Wilson, Bryan R. "An Analysis of Sect Development." American Sociological Review 24 (February 1959): 3-15.
Wolff, Robert Lee. "The Three Romes: The Migration of an Ideology and the Making of an Autocrat." Daedalus 88 (Spring 1959): 291-311.
Young, Pauline V. "The Family Organization of the Molokans: A Study in Primary Group Relations." Sociology and Social Research 12 (September-October 1927) : 54-60.
Z. "Sostoianie raskola v Tavricheskoi gubernii." Pravo slavnoe obozrenie 22 (March 1867): 323-341.
Zacek, Judith C. "A Case Study in Russian Philanthropy : The Prison Reform Movement in the Reign of Alexander I." Canadian Slavic Studies, 1 (Summer I967): 196-211.
______. "The Russian Bible Society and the Russian Orthodox Church." Church History 35 (December 1966 ): 411-437.
Zubek, John P. "The Doukhobors: A Genetic Study on Attitudes." Journal of Social Psychology 36 (November 195277 223-239.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 457 Newspapers
New York Times. Obituary, April l6, 1904.
Dissertations
Frantz, Charles. "The Doukhobor Political System: Social Structure and Social Organization in a Sectarian Society." Ph.D. dissertation. University of Chicago, 1958 .
Gross, Carl Henry. "Education in British Columbia." Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1939.
Hirabayashi, Gordon Kiyoshi. "Russian Doukhobors of British Columbia: A Study in Social Adjustment and Con flict." Ph.D. dissertation. University of Washington, 1951.
Hutton, Lester Thomas. "The Reforms of City Government in Russia, 1860 -1870 ." Ph.D. dissertation. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1972.
Laliberté, F. Raymond. "Origines idéologiques des Doukhobors du Canada." M.A. dissertation. Uni versity of Montreal, 1962.
Mealing, Francis Mark. "Our People’s Way : A Study in Doukhobor Hymnody and Folklife." Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, 1972.
Reid, Ewart P. "Doukhobors in Canada. ’’ M. A. dissertation, McGill University, 1932.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.