![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Post-Soviet scholarship has produced a plethora of new studies on Konstantin Pobedonostsev, focusing on his political “conservatism” and its current relevance. This scholarship, however, has marginalized two critical dimensions – the religious (so important to Pobedonostsev) and the transnational (so powerful a force because of post-1870 globalization). This study offers a critique of the new scholarship and draws on archival materials to reassess Pobedonostsev’s role as chief procurator (ober-prokuror) of the Holy Synod. Here it is argued that: (1) Pobedonostsev was not the embodiment of sterile negativism (as many claimed), but rather insisted that the change be gradual and based on Russian reality, not foreign models; (2) Pobedonostsev’s influence declined not only in the government (as is well known), but also in the Church; (3) Pobedonostsev became increasingly alienated from the “Church” and clergy, coming to identify with “simple believers”; (4) to meet their needs, Pobedonostsev laboured to build parish schools and reopen parish churches, and in the 1890s focused on religious writing; (5) at odds with the Church hierarchy, Pobedonostsev increasingly identified with the parishioners as the real repository of piety.
RÉSUMÉ
La recherche post-soviétique a produit une abondance d’études sur Constantin Pobiedonostsev, avec l’accent sur son « conservatisme » politique et sa pertinence actuelle. Cette recherche a pourtant marginalisé deux dimensions critiques – religieuse (si importante pour Pobiedonostsev) et transnationale (une force tellement puissante à cause de la globalisation post-1870). Cet article propose une critique de la nouvelle recherche et s’appuie sur les documents d’archive afin de réexaminer le rôle de Pobiedonostsev en tant que procureur-général (ober-prokuror) du Saint Synode. L’article affirme que : (1) Pobiedonostsev n’incarnait pas le négativisme stérile (comme beaucoup d’études l’ont prétendu) mais insistait pour que le changement soit graduel et basé sur la réalité russe et non sur les modèles étrangers; (2) l’influence exercée par Pobiedonostsev baissait non seulement dans le gouvernement, ce qui est bien connu, mais également dans l’Église; (3) Pobiedonostsev devenait de plus en plus aliéné de l’« Église » et du clergé, et s’identifiait aux « croyants simples »; (4) afin de subvenir aux besoins de ces derniers, Pobiedonostsev travaillait pour faire construire les écoles communales et rouvrir les églises paroissiales, et dans les années 1890 il se concentrait sur les écrits religieux; (5) en désaccord avec la hiérarchie de l’Église, Pobiedonostsev s’identifiait de plus en plus aux paroissiens en tant que dépositaires de la piété.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. Grosul, Russkii konservatizm XIX stoletiia; V. Stepanov, “Revisiting Russian Conservatism”; Khristoforov, “Nineteenth-Century Russian Conservatism”; Repnikov, “Contemporary Historiography”; Kotov, “Sovremennaia nefeodal'naia monarkhiia.” See the specialized encyclopedia (Shelokhaev et al., Russkii konservatizm), online journal Tetradi po konservatizmu (http://essaysonconservatism.ru/), and arch-conservative and nationalist sites like Russkaia narodnaia liniia (http://ruskline.ru). On contemporary Russian conservatism, see Rozenfel'd, Krizis.
2. For the master’s thesis, see: Pobedonostsev, “O reformakh.” The first volume of his magnum opus on civil law (Pobedonostsev, Kurs grazhdanskogo prava) appeared in 1868, underwent multiple printings, and acquired the reputation of a classic (see for example, Kornilov, Kurs, 391).
3. Wortman, “Russian Monarchy,” 153. On Pobedonostsev’s role in the reform, see the detailed analysis in Nol'de, Pobedonostsev i sudebnaia reforma. Earlier scholarship emphasized Pobedonostsev’s liberalism in this phase, with the rightward turn coming much later (for example: Byrnes, Pobedonostsev, 69–71). Recent scholarship identifies an early conservative orientation that steadily intensified, largely because of his experience on the judicial reforms (Shafeev, “Politicheskie vzgliady”; Kharitonov, “Konservativnaia Kritika”; Surzhik, “Problemy,” 63). Revisionists, citing a lack of direct evidence, deny that Pobedonostsev was the author of an anonymous article – long attributed to him – published in Alexander Herzen’s underground Kolokol (for example: Surzhik, “Problemy,” 66–72).
4. Melent'ev, “Formirovanie.”
5. Pobedonostsev, Moskovskii sbornik; Pobedonostsev, Reflections. On the textual composition, see Surzhik, “Problemy,” 100; Pobedonostsev, “Russkie listki.” For a painstaking attempt to identify Pobedonostsev’s anonymous publications in the 1870s, see: Vedernikov, Bud' tverd.
6. Lukoianov, “Imperator Nikolai II.” For the attempts on his life in 1901 and 1905, see: Mel'gunov, “K.P. Pobedonostsev”; Pobedonostsev, “Mat' moiu,” 8–9.
7. General A. A. Kireev welcomed Pobedonostsev’s appointment as chief procurator but quickly became disillusioned. See: Kireev’s diary entry of 20 April 1880 (Nauchno-issledovatel'skii Otdel Rukopisei. Rossiiskaia gosudarstvennaia biblioteka [Department of Manuscripts of the Russian State Library, or NIOR RGB], f. 126, op. 3, k. 8, l. 230); Medovarov, “Pobedonostsev glazami Kireeva.”
8. For the historiography, see: Dykstra, “Evil Genius”; A. Solov'ev, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskie vzgliady,” 3–19; Polunov, K.P. Pobedonostsev, 3–38. Apart from major biographies by Polunov (K.P. Pobedonostsev and Pobedonostsev. Russkii Torkvemada) and Firsov (Konstantin Pobedonostsev), there have been more than a dozen dissertations (accompanied by many monographs and articles): Zhirovov, “Politicheskie vzgliady”; Polunov, “Vedomstvo” [kandidatskaia]; Polunov, “Pobedonostsev” [doktorskaia]; Peshkov, “K.P. Pobedonostsev kak ideolog russkogo pravoslaviia”; Timoshina, “Politiko-pravovye”; Ban, “K.P. Pobedonostsev”; Zhitenev, “Tserkovnoprikhodskie shkoly”; Melent'ev, “Formirovanie”; Surzhik, “Problemy”; Kovalenko, “Razvitie”; Shakhnazarov, “Filosofsko-antropoligicheskie vozzreniia”; Novikov, “Rossiiskie conservatory”; I. Stepanov, “Pobedonostsev”; Iskhakova, “Formirovanie”; Remorova, “Lingvostilisticheskie osobennosti.”
9. The only monograph on Pobedonostsev was Sofia Evenchik’s 1939 candidate dissertation (“Reaktsionnaia deiatel'nost'”), published three decades later (Evenchik, “Pobedonostsev”). To be sure, the 1920s saw the publication of core Pobedonostsev documents (chiefly to make him Exhibit A as “reactionary”), as well a few substantive essays (notably, Got'e, “K. P. Pobedonostsev”). It bears noting that the early Soviet publication of sources was subject to political editing, as in the case of a diary by a Synodal archivist published in Krasnyi arkhiv. See the unexpurgated text, and commentary, in Firsov, “Byt' mozhet.” Western scholarship has also been very limited. An early hyper-negative account, published by an émigré, was M. Hunterberg’s Russian Mephistopheles. Three early Western studies (Steinmann and Hurwicz’s Pobjedonoszew, Shoob’s “Pobedonostsev,” and Adams’s “Ideology”) attest to Pobedonostsev’s fame, but relied on a small set of printed sources. A later wave of monographs (Byrnes, Pobedonostsev; Simon, Pobedonoscev; Sorenson, “Thought and Policies”) made only marginal use of unpublished sources. Freeze, Parish Clergy, 398–448 draws extensively on archival materials, but focuses on counter-reforms in the Church, not Pobedonostsev.
10. Lanshchikov, “Predotvratit'.” See the critique in Polunov, “K. P. Pobedonostsev. Velikaia lozh'.”
11. For example, the Institute of Russian Civilization (http://www.rusinst.ru/) has published Kiiatov and Lebedev, Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev v vospominaniiakh and Pobedonostsev, Gosudarstvo i tserkov'. But there are many other reprints of his work, such as: Repnikov, Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev: Izbrannoe; Tomsinov, K. P. Pobedonostsev. Iuridicheskie proizvedeniia. Two classics from the mid-1920s were also reprinted in 2003 and 2014: Pobedonostsev i ego korrespondenty and Pobedonostsev, Pis'ma k Aleksandru III.
12. The Moscow historian Aleksandr Iu. Polunov made some use of the Synodal and chief procurator collections, especially in his first monograph (Polunov, Pod vlast'iu), but few have emulated his example. Some studies, however, do offer new materials: Surzhik, “Problemy” and Maiorova, “Ia zhivu.”
13. Prezidentskaia biblioteka imeni B. N. El'tsyna. “Pobedonostsev” See: https://www.prlib.ru/search/archive?key=победоносцев
14. Only recently, for example, has his birthdate been corrected, replacing the traditional 21 May 1827 with 18 November 1827. See Shilov, “Kogda rodilsia.”
15. Typical “secularist” approaches are to be found in a new monograph by Borisova and Kharitonov, Gosudarstvenno-pravovye vzgliady, which is typical of most other post-Soviet scholarship.
16. Kovalenko, “Razvitie,” 78–9; A. Solov'ev, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskie vzgliady,” 179–226; Peshkov, “Pobedonostsev kak pravoslavno-russkii”; Firsov, Pobedonostsev, 40–1, 109–13.
17. Despite the pioneering work by Polunov, the deluge of post-Soviet scholarship makes nominal (if any) use of these central Church archives: Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (RGIA), fond 796 (Kantseliariia Sinoda) and fond 797 (Kantseliariia ober-prokurora). Instead, the new scholarship seeks to valorize Pobedonostsev’s conservativism and role in the state, not the Church, and hence demonstrates little familiarity with the basic sources. For example, Novikov (“Rossiiskie konservatory”) makes no citations to the Church archives and lists only Pobedonostsev’s personal fond (1574) in the bibliography (without, however, any citations in the text). Timoshina (“Politiko-pravovye vzgliady”) lists the chief procurator’s chancellery (incorrectly as f. 794) and Pobedonostsev’s fond (correctly as f. 1574), but cites no files from the former and only two for the latter. There are, to be sure, exceptions – in other words, works that focus not on Pobedonostsev but particular questions. For example see: Sukhova, Vysshaia dukhovnaia shkola; Ban, “K.P. Pobedonostsev”; Alekseeva, Sviateishii Sinod.
18. On the history of globalization see: Hopkins, Globalization in World History; Demel et al., WBG Weltgeschichte, 5: 195–208, 279–463; Stearns, Globalization in World History, 98–137; Osterhammel and Petersson, Globalization; Baldwin, Great Convergence; Hunt, Writing; Iriye, Global and Transnational History. On the Russian case, see: Freeze, “Globalization”; and Aust, Globalisierung, 13–329.
19. Witte, Vospominaniia, 1: 387–8. The conservative S. Sheremetev expressed the same in 1891 (Shokhin, “Vospominaniia S. D. Sheremeteva,” 87).
20. Alexander III note on Pobedonostsev letter of 20 November 1886 (Pobedonostsev i ego korrespondenty, 2: 120).
21. Lukoianov, “Imperator,” 54.
22. As A. A. Kireev wrote in his diary (7 January 1883): “Pobedonostsev groans and moans über die Schlechtigkeit der Zeiten, but does nothing.” NIOR RGB, f. 126, k. 3, d. 9, l. 275.
23. See, for example, Shafeev, “Politicheskie vzgliady.”
24. Salekhov, “Konservatizm.”
25. Pobedonostsev, Istoricheskie issledovaniia; Pobedonostsev, Istoriko-iuridicheskie akty. See the overview of his historical research in Nol'de, “Obzor,” 97–100; I. Stepanov, “Pobedonostsev kak istorik.”
26. Polunov, K.P. Pobedonostsev, 62.
27. Pobedonostsev – F.M. Dostoevskii, 9.6.1879 (Grossman, “Dostoevskii,” 138).
28. A. Solov'ev, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskie vzgliady,” 80–1.
29. Pobedonostsev, “O reformakh,” 548.
30. Pobedonostsev, “S'ezd iuristov,” in Pobedonostsev, Sochineniia, 235.
31. Freeze, “Globalization and Orthodoxy.”
32. Pobedonostsev – E.F. Tiutcheva, 20.5.1880 (NIOR RGB, f. 230, k. 4409, d. 2, l. 31 ob.).
33. Pobedonostsev – Alexander III, 6.01.1888 (Pobedonostsev, Pis'ma k Aleksandru III, 2: 168).
34. In a letter to Alexander III on 23 May 1883, Pobedonostsev proposed a bureaucratic legerdemain: a divorced noblewoman (denied permission to remarry) should enter into an illegal marriage, of which the emperor would suspend prosecution, thereby avoiding any formal change in existing law. Pobedonostsev, Pis'ma k Aleksandru III, 2: 33–5. In a conversation with General A. A. Kireev, Pobedonostsev sought to refute criticism from conservatives about the sharp increase in divorces: “It is necessary to leave a ‘little window’, for if we are too rigorous in applying all the laws, then you may well lead things to the point of provoking a whole revolution against the Church.” Kireev, increasingly disenchanted with Pobedonostsev, could only exclaim “what terrible words.” NIOR RGB, f. 126, k. 3, d. 9, l. 3 ob. (diary entry from February 1884). A few months later the disenchanted Kireev confided in his diary: “Lord, what have we come to? Someone like Pobedonostsev has given in! I would never have expected that of him!?” (diary entry of 23.8.1882 in Ibid., l. 135). Officially, however, Pobedonostsev rejected such appeals for imperial mercy, as in an 1892 petition: “Since marriage is a sacrament, subject to ecclesiastical authority, permission to satisfy the petition cannot be given” (Pobedonostsev – Petersburg gradonachal'nik (mayor), 22.5.1892, in RGIA, f. 797, op. 62, otd. 2, st. 3, d. 206, l. 3).
35. Pobedonostsev – Alexander III, 18.4.1886 (Pobedonostsev, Pis'ma k Aleksandru III, 2: 103–4).
36. Pobedonostsev – E.F. Tiutcheva, 12.6.1878 (NIOR RGB, f. 230, k. 4408, d. 13, l. 21 ob.); Pobedonostsev – E.F. Tiutcheva, 31.03.1877 (Maiorova, “Pishu ia,” letter 9). See also Chicherin, Vospominaniia, 2: 276.
37. Pobedonostsev, Prazdniki Gospodni. See Mirkina, “Prazdniki.”
38. Kempiiskii, O podrazhanii Khristu. Pobedonostsev’s preface defended the publication of this popular Catholic devotional text: “The book, Imitation of Christ, without doubt does not have the authority of the Church if one looks at it from a dogmatic point of view; however, there are many books that lack dogmatic authority, but nonetheless constitute the favourite reading of simple and pious people” (v). Pobedonostsev’s translation has been reprinted at least 20 times, most recently in 2015.
39. Pobedonostsev, Posobie blagochestivomu chitateliu. Another text, Pobeda, pobedivshaia mir, consisted of W. S. Lilly’s The Christian Revolution and parts of St. Augustine’s Confession; it too went through multiple editions.
40. On the contested history of Russian Bible translations, see Batalden, Russian Bible Wars.
41. At mid-century the poet Vasilii Zhukovskii prepared a translation of the New Testament, and when Pobedonostsev published the text in 1895, he did so because of its faithful reproduction of Church Slavonic. Zhukovskii, Novyi zavet (1895), i (Pobedonostsev’s preface).
42. The full translation appeared in 1906 as Pobedonostsev, Novyi zavet, which had been preceded by the publication of individual books. Pobedonostsev’s Book of John (Sviatoe Evangelie Gospoda nashego Iisusa Khrista ot Ioanna na slavianskom i russkom iazykakh) appeared in 1902, with this caveat: “Published upon the order of the chief procurator of the Holy Synod in a small number of copies and not for public circulation” (Arsenii, Dnevnik, 2: 327). A similar reservation accompanied his translation of the Book of Acts (Pobedonostsev, Deianiia sviatykh apostolov, ii). The Biblical scholar Nikolai Glubokovskii explained that “the Synod did not permit him to publish Zhukovskii’s translation of the New Testament” and that is why he arranged for a printing in Berlin (Zhukovskii, Novyi Zavet [2008], 514). It was not the only time Pobedonostsev evaded Church censorship. In 1883, for example, he sent the editor of Russkii arkhiv the manuscript of Andrei Murav'ev (“O sostoianii pravoslavnoi tserkvi v Rossii”), found in the papers of Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov), with this comment: “It is very curious and deserves to be published. It is not quite convenient to do this in Church journals” (Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv literatury i iskusstva (Russian State Archive of Literature and Art, or RGALI), f. 46, op. 1, d. 575, l. 54). The editor, Petr Bartenev, obliged, by publishing the text as Murav'ev, “Zapiska A.N. Murav'eva.”
43. The most important exception is the recent dissertation by the philologist Remorova, “Lingvostilisticheskie osobennosti”; see also the shorter treatment in Grekhnev, “K voprosu” and Korolev, “Novyi zavet.”
44. Pobedonostsev, “38 pisem,” 601.
45. Pobedonostsev – Nikanor, 16.3.1884 (Pobedonostsev, “Perepiska Pobedonostseva s Nikanorom,” 347).
46. Serafim – Flavian [undated, 1900–01] (RGIA, f. 796, op. 205, d. 744, ll. 47–8).
47. Comments during a visit to the Kyiv Academy in fall 1880 (Sukhova, Vysshaia dukhovnaia shkola, 348).
48. Florovskii, Puti russkogo bogosloviia, 520, suggests the term narodnichestvo, but treats Pobedonostsev’s popular Orthodoxy negatively. See the fuller exposition in Sorenson, “Thought and Policies.”
49. Pobedonostsev, Moskovskii sbornik, 165.
50. Ibid.
51. Religious policy, for example, constitutes a third of the Simon monograph (Konstantin Petrovic Pobedonoscev, 163–248).
52. Pobedonostsev, Gosudarstvo i tserkov', 1: 438.
53. I. Solov'ev, Samoderzhavie i dvorianstvo, 27–8.
54. Pobedonostsev – E.F. Tiutcheva, 20.12.1881 (Teslia, “Russkii konservator,” 159).
55. Pobedonostsev, “Iz chernovykh bumag,” 205.
56. Pobedonostsev – Nicholas II, 12.10.1902 (Kurov, “Iz pisem,” 179).
57. Pobedonostsev – E.F. Tiutcheva, 20.12.1881 (Teslia, “Russkii konservator,” 159).
58. See, for example, his letter to the bishop of Tomsk in April 1898 (Pobedonostsev, “38 pisem,” 599).
59. Pobedonostsev, Moskovskii sbornik, 22.
60. Pobedonostsev, “Mat' moiu,” 18.
61. Writing to Tiutchev (14 January 1881) shortly after a meeting, Pobedonostsev did not mince words: “It is terrible to think that the minister of education is a jackass (osel). It is still more terrible that many do not understand this, or do not want to understand, and in all seriousness agree with him.” Evenchik, “Pobedonostsev,” 163.
62. Bogdanovich, Tri poslednikh samoderzhtsa, 414.
63. Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev i ego korrespondenty, 2: 346–7. In fact, he was the grandson of a priest, not a mere deacon.
64. Isidor, diary entry of 16.11.1881 (RGIA, f. 796, op. 205, d. 450, l. 38 ob.).
65. Pobedonostsev – N.P. Giliarov-Platonov, 14.11.1883 (Dmitriev, Razumevaiushchie, 216). Pobedonostsev ridiculed the tendency to make this or that official all-powerful, a common mistake by “people in Europe and Russia who do not understand how our administration works.” Tverskoi, “Iz delovoi perepiski,” 654.
66. Polunov, “Lichnost',” 132; Polunov, “Pobedonostsev … Velikobritanii.”
67. Polunov, Pobedonostsev. Russkii Torkvemada, 193; Teslia, “Russkii konservator,” 153. For his role in the famous “senseless dreams” speech of Nicholas II, see: Andreev, “Kak mechtaniia”; Lukoianov, “Imperator,” 54.
68. Pobedonostsev – E.F. Tiutcheva, 2.12.1881 (NIOR RGB, f. 230, k. 4410, d. 1, l. 138 ob. 139).
69. Although many attributed the appointment of I. L. Goremykin as minister of interior to Pobedonostsev, it was actually due to lobbying efforts by others. See D. A. Andreev’s comments in the collective review: Polunov, “K. P. Pobedonostsev v obshchestvenno-politicheskoi,” 118.
70. See the examples cited above (note 22). For an impressive exception, see the brief article by Krylov, “Ober-prokuratura.”
71. The traditional view still prevails (for example, Kovalenko, “Razvitie,” 84), chiefly on the basis of critical comments by prelates – whose very critique reflected a growing determination to defend Church interests. Another oft-cited source is the Synodal archivist, Apolinarii L'vov, a disaffected civil servant eager to criticize the chief procurator and exaggerate his power. See Firsov’s introduction to “Byt' mozhet” and Krylov, “Ober-prokuratora,” 38–9.
72. The chief procurator knew how to leverage state influence, citing reports from the government and persuading the Synod to take action. In June 1880, six weeks after assuming office, Pobedonostsev used a report from the Military Ministry about recent recruits (showing an unusually high proportion had missed confession and communion) to trigger a Synod circular to diocesan authorities to take appropriate action (RGIA, f. 796, op. 161, g. 1880, d. 1503, l. 1–1 ob., 6–9 ob.).
73. Pobedonostsev – S.A. Rachinskii, July–August 1884 (Alekseeva, Sviateishii Sinod, 30). For statistical analysis of the Synod under Pobedonostsev, see: Firsov, “Sviateishii Pravitel'stvuiushchii Sinod.”
74. Pobedonostsev – Alexander III, 9.09.1892 (Pobedonostsev, Pis'ma k Aleksandru III, 2: 261).
75. Evidently fearing a negative reaction by the Synod, Pobedonostsev rebuffed the proposal. Pobedonostsev – N.I. Subbotin, 27.11.1893 (Pobedonostsev, “Perepiska N.I. Subbotina,” 589).
76. Pobedonostsev – E.F. Tiutcheva, 18.7.1881 (NIOR RGB, f. 230, k. 4410, d. 1, l. 82–82 ob.).
77. RGIA, f. 796, op. 442, d. 1351, l. 6, 29 ob.
78. Typical were his lacerating comments in a letter to Bishop Savva of Tver (Karnishina, “Ober-Prokuror Sinoda,” 29).
79. As Pobedonostsev complained to the bishop of Tver, all the problems of the Church were blamed on him, although “he [did] not have power, everyone regard[ed] him as the person responsible.” Ibid.
80. The chief procurator sometimes acted separately from the Synod by responding directly to queries from diocesan bishops. See, for example, his response for advice from the bishop of Ufa in 1899 (RGIA, f. 797, op. 69, t. 1899, 1 otd., 1 st., d. 9, l. 26, 28).
81. Pobedonostsev – S.A. Rachinskii, 24.4.1880 (Maiorova, “Pobedonostsev v pis'makh,” 279).
82. Pobedonostsev – E.F. Tiutcheva, 23.7.1880 (NIOR RGB, f. 230, k. 4409, d. 2, l. 44).
83. Pobedonostsev – I.S. Aksakov, 25.11.1880 (Otdel rukopisei Rossiiskoi natsional'noi biblioteki (Department of Manuscripts of Russian National Library, or OR RNL), f. 14, d. 658).
84. Pobedonostsev – E.F. Tiutcheva, 22.06.1881 (NIOR RGB, f. 230, k. 4410, d. 1, l. 74–75 ob.).
85. Pobedonostsev – E.F. Tiutcheva, 9.8.1880 (NIOR RGB, f. 230, k. 4409, d. 2, l. 49).
86. For example, two months into office, Pobedonostsev received a lengthy proposal from a priest in Khar'kov (RGIA, f. 1574, op. 1, d. 9; f. 797, op. 49, st. 1, d. 31).
87. Blagovidov, Deiatel'nost'. Hostility to a clerical role in schools was commonplace in contemporary Europe and culminated in French anticlerical legislation. To Pobedonostsev’s horror, the liberal Russian press welcomed this policy: “Golos [a liberal paper] is exulting, but this jubilation is terrible.” Pobedonostsev – Dostoevskii, 9.06.1879 (Grossman, “Dostoevskii,” 138).
88. Pobedonostsev – Synod, 7.9.1882 (RGIA, f. 796, op. 163, g. 1882, d. 222a, ll. 1–4). For the general file on creating parish schools, see RGIA, f. 797, op. 797, op. 54, otd. 2, st. 3, d. 167, which includes Pobedonostsev’s report to Alexander III and the latter’s comment: “I hope that the parish clergy will prove worthy of its high calling in this important matter” (l. 1).
89. RGIA, f. 796, op. 163, d. 222a, l. 14 (“Ob''iasnitel'naia zapiska”).
90. Pobedonostsev – Alexander III, 28.3.1883 (Pobedonostsev, Pis'ma k Aleksandru III, 2: 26–7).
91. Pobedonostsev – Alexander III, 30.7.1883 (Pobedonostsev, Pis'ma k Aleksandru III, 2: 39).
92. See, for example, Kovalenko, “Razvitie traditsii,” 164. Pobedonostsev ridiculed liberal critics of parish schools in a letter of 7.05.1900 (Pobedonostsev, Gosudarstvo i tserkov', 1: 603).
93. According to a 1911 report, performance in zemstvo and parish schools was practically identical (Ban, “K.P. Pobedonostsev,” 125). See also the balanced assessment in Krasnitskaia, “Nachal'noe dukhovnoe obrazovanie.”
94. Zhitenev, “Tserkovnoprikhodskie shkoly,” 299; for detailed data, see Ban, “K.P. Pobedonostsev.” Witte, as minister of finance, supported funding for parish schools precisely because “the people themselves, in many places, prefer parish church schools to our secular schools” (Witte, Vospominaniia, 1: 387–8). See also the balanced assessment in Polunov, Pobedonostsev. Russkii Torkvemada, 196–208.
95. See the complaint by a peasant of Nizhnii Novgorod (5.07.1883) in RGIA, f. 797, op. 44, otd. 1, st. 1, d. 65, l. 61.
96. As he wrote to the future Alexander III in 1874, the parish reorganization came at a time when the liberal bureaucrats were making concessions to other religious groups: “Is it not strange that, on the one hand, from a falsely understood liberalism, in every possible way they make it easier for other confessions to satisfy freely their religious needs, to open churches and mosques in whatever number they wish, but on the other hand close Orthodox churches in parishes, which as it is are already dispersed over enormous expanses and deprive the local population of the churches that their fathers and grandfathers had created.” Pobedonostsev, Pis'ma k Aleksandru III, 1: 26 (13.05.1874). The chief procurator received strong support in private communications, such as that by a peasant in 1883 (RGIA, f. 797, op. 44, otd. 1, st. 1, d. 65, l. 61–84).
97. Pobedonostsev – E.F. Tiutcheva, 24.11.1881 (NIOR RGB, f. 230, k. 4410, d. 1, l. 129 ob.).
98. Pobedonostsev – S.A. Rachinskii, 24.4.1880 (Maiorova, “Konstantin Pobedonostsev,” 279–80). For the text see RGIA, f. 796, op. 205, d. 646, ll. 2–3 ob. See also Pobedonostsev, “Perepiska K.P. Pobedonostseva s Nikanorom,” nos. 7/8, 347.
99. RGIA, f. 797, op. 50, otd. 3, st. 5, d. 182, ch. 1–2; Freeze, Parish Clergy, 418–26.
100. “Protokol soveshchaniia O.o. chlenov Sviateishego Sinoda i eparhial'nykh preosviashchennykh o novykh pravilakh ustroistva prikhodov i prichtov” (RGIA, f. 796, op. 154, d. 1178a, ll. 148–182 ob.).
101. The laity became increasingly assertive about their right to choose local clergy and control parish finances. One such attempt, by the Voronezh zemstvo, in 1881 met with a strong rejection by the Synod (RGIA, f. 796, op. 162, g. 1881, d. 2218, ll. 1, 4–4 ob.). Such assertiveness caused Pobedonostsev to file a complaint in 1887 with the Ministry of Interior, which issued an edict prohibiting such actions (RGIA, f. 796, op. 168, g. 1887, d. 2014, ll. 1–2 ob.). For the failed attempt in 1893–94 to revise the 1864 statute on parish trusteeships (prikhodskie popechitel'stva), see RGIA, f. 796, op. 174, g. 1893, d. 1292, ll. 1–353. On the broader problem of abortive parish reform in the 1890s, see: Beglov, “Konformizm.”
102. Pobedonostsev – E.F. Tiutcheva, 24.9.180 (NIOR RGB, f. 230, k. 4409, d. 2, l. 71).
103. Pobedonostsev – Archbishop Palladii of Kazan, 6.7.1883 (Sukhova, Vysshaia dukhovnaia shkola, 377n.). In 1883 the Synod adopted a resolution about the need to raise the religious-moral level of seminarians in response to an anonymous memorandum, but deleted the most acerbic passage about the spiritual condition of clerical youth (RGIA, f. 796, op. 164, g. 1883, d. 909, ll. 1–12). A committee of bishops, chaired by the metropolitan of Moscow and with no visible role of Pobedonostsev, received its charge in April 1884 and submitted its proposal four months later (RGIA, f. 796, op. 165, g. 1874, d. 522). Although critics complained that the academy statute lowered standards and reduced the output of graduates, new data controvert that claim (Sukhova, “K.P. Pobedonostsev,” 172).
104. Freeze, Parish Clergy, 435–6.
105. Isidor’s diary, 7.03.1883 (RGIA, f. 796, op. 205, d. 451, l. 255).
106. Pobedonostsev transmitted a critique from the bishop of Mogilev, but failed to elicit a positive response in the Synod (Pobedonostsev – Synod, 6.10.1883). RGIA, f. 796, op. 165, g. 1884, d. 522, ll. 26–29.
107. Pobedonostsev – V.K. Plehve, 3.7.1882 (Gossudarstvennyi Arkhiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii (State Archive of Russian Federation, or GARF), f. 586, op. 1, d. 1017, l. 14–14 ob.); Pobedonostsev – Bishop Sergii, 26.5.1884 (RGIA, f. 796, op. 205, d. 629, l. 17).
108. RGIA, f. 796, op. 169, g. 1888, d. 496, ll. 21–23 ob.
109. The secondary literature, including general biographies, gives considerable attention to this question. For example, see the account in Polunov, K.P. Pobedonostsev; Polunov, Pobedonostsev. Russkii Torkvemada, and his multiple articles cited therein.
110. See, for example, the fascinating account of the American ambassador who had extended, regular conversations with Pobedonostsev: Pleshkov, “Endriu Dikson Uait.”
111. For complaints about Catholic and Protestant propaganda, see Vsepoddanneishii otchet, 111–23.
112. Polunov, “Protestantizm i katolichestvo”; Surzhik, “Problemy,” 129. Pobedonostsev was far less generous with respect to Jews (Firsov, “Pobedonostsev i ‘evreiskii vopros’”). At the same time, the cautious Pobedonostsev warned against zealous conversion to Orthodoxy. Thus, when the bishop of Riga reported a movement of Estonians and Latvians to convert, Pobedonostsev urged caution: “I advised him to act with extreme caution in this important matter (which, I dare think, is unclear and ambiguous). It is difficult to believe that the sudden movement [to convert] was absolutely sincere and disinterested.” Pobedonostsev – D.A. Tolstoi, 14.7.1883 (NIOR RGB, f. 230, k. 10802, d. 6, ll. 18–19).
113. Pobedonostsev, “Pis'mo,” 477.
114. Pobedonostsev – Alexander III, 11.11.1881 (Pis'ma k Aleksandru III, 1: 350–1).
115. Pobedonostsev – N.P. Ignat'ev, 7.12.1881 (Kantor, “Pis'ma,” 66).
116. For an overview and references to the literature, see: Friz, “Religioznaia politika.”
117. Polunov, “K. P. Pobedonostsev,” 102. For a famous example, see: Dalton, Offenes Schreiben, with French and English translations. See also Pobedonostsev’s response in 1898 to a letter from England in Kurov, “Iz pisem,” 178–9.
118. In an 1893 letter about sectarians, Pobedonostsev declared that “this evil is spreading and intensifying.” Although state authorities had prosecuted and deported members, such “measures are only auxiliary,” for the Church must be the main agency to repulse this threat – through “services and singing in church” as well as instruction in the schools. See his letter in Pobedonostsev, “Pis'ma K. P. Pobedonostseva Preosviashchennomu Illarionu,” 153.
119. RGIA, f. 796, op. 174, d. 1292. See also Beglov, “Konformizm.”
120. An observation made early by N. Firsov (“Pobedonostsev”). For examples of such secretarial service, see: Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev i ego korrespondenty, 2: 163–4, 383–4, 464.
121. For example, in 1890 the archbishop of Kherson raised a perennial issue – the pernicious effect of Sunday bazaars, which induced believers to forego church services in order to buy and sell at the bazaar. When the local governor refused to act, he appealed to Pobedonostsev for help, but found nothing more than a recommendation “to appeal in the established order.” RGIA, f. 797, op. 60, otd. 2, st. 3, d. 306, ll. 1–3.
122. Even earlier Pobedonostsev relied on aides; in 1884–85, for example, lay officials were responsible for questions about parish reorganization (RGIA, f. 796, op. 165, g. 1884, d. 1263, ll. 1–25). But Sabler indeed loomed ever larger in Church administration. See, for example, Isidor’s diary entry of 5 May 1888, where Sabler reports the chief procurator’s view that the bishop of Kaluga must be relocated because of an “unseemly circular” directing local monasteries to make donations to his episcopal residence (RGIA, f. 796, op. 205, d. 454, l. 668 ob.). See also: RGIA, f. 796, op. 205, d. 454, l. 718 ob. (Isidor’s diary, 25.10.1889); Ibid., d. 698, ll. 10–11 (Metropolitan Antonii [Vadkovskii] to Flavian, 16.1.1900); op. 205, d. 631, ll. 1–23 (Sabler’s correspondence with Metropolitan Sergii); op. 205, d. 741, ll. 1–132 (Sabler’s correspondence with Flavian [Gorodetskii]). See the anonymous denunciation (calling Sabler an “unbeliever” (bezbozhnik)) in RGIA, f. 1574, op. 2, d. 280, ll. 36–7 ob.) as well as the critique in the L'vov diary (RGIA, f. 796, op. 205, d. 778, l. 18; Firsov, “Byt' mozhet”).
123. Pobedonostsev – Alexander III, 4.5.1893 (Pobedonostsev, Pis'ma k Aleksandru III, 2: 275). Pobedonostsev increasingly complained of his age and exhaustion, especially toward the end of his tenure (for example, see: Pobedonostsev, “38 pisem,” 604–5).
124. L'vov diary, 19.11.1892 (Firsov, “Byt' mozhet,” 36).
125. Galkin, “Sudebnaia reforma,” 148. See also: Pipes, Russia, 241; Savitskaia, “Pravoslavnoe dukhovenstvo,” 17–18.
126. Pobedonostsev – E.F. Tiutcheva, 20.5.1880 (NIOR, f. 230, k. 4409, d. 2, l. 31–31 ob.).
127. On the first “sobor,” see RGIA, f. 796, op. 105, g 1884, d. 161, ll. 1–2. See also Pashkov, “Sobory episkopov.” Pobedonostsev was sceptical about the meetings (given his low estimate of most bishops), opposed publicity (to avoid criticism if they failed to produce results), and resisted using the word “sobor” to avoid raising expectations. See his letter to Giliarov-Platonov, 5.9.1884 in Dmitriev, Razumevaiushchie veroi, 224. In the event he found his scepticism to have been justified; see his critical letter to Nikanor in Pobedonostsev, “Perepiska K.P. Pobedonostseva s Nikanorom,” 374. See also Lobanova, “Vosstanovlenie,” 53.
128. RGIA, f. 796, op. 105, g 1884, d. 161, ll. 1–2.
129. A.N. L'vov diary (Firsov, “Byt' mozhet,” 102).
130. Savva, Khronika, 6: 239.
131. Isidor, diary of 30.3.1889 (RGIA, f. 796, op. 205, d. 454, l. 699).
132. Pobedonostsev – Amvrosii (2.1.1899), RGIA, f. 1574, op. 1, d. 140, l. 2.
133. In 1882, in a note to K. P. Plehve (director of the Department of Police), Pobedonostsev claimed that everywhere ‘the main source of ruin consists of agitators coming from outside the seminary,” and eliminating this problem was the key to establishing order in all the schools. GARF, f. 586 (V.K. Pleve), op. 1, d. 1017, l. 14–14 ob.
134. RGIA, f. 796, op. 205, d. 629, l. 14–14 ob. (printed letter of 6.01.1891).
135. Arsenii (Stadnitskii), Dnevnik, 2: 22 (entry 14.2.1902), with relevant documents (2: 201–4). Responding to disorders in Perm in 1901, Pobedonostsev’s original message began by saying that “it is impossible to tolerate this foolishness any longer – decisive measures are needed”) but he deleted all that in favour of a moderate “it is impossible to wait any longer.” RGIA, f. 796, op. 183, g. 1902, d. 281, l. 2.
136. Freeze, “Handmaiden of the State?”
137. Firsov, Russkaia pravoslavnaia tserkov', 23–215; Orekhanov, “Istoricheskii kontekst.”
138. Pobedonostsev – Nicholas II, 25.3.1905 (Kurov, “Iz pisem,” 186). “Gaponovtsy” refers to those priests who supported, or emulated, Fr. Georgii Gapon, the priest who led the mass demonstration on Bloody Sunday (9 January 1905), which ended in a blood bath and signalled the beginning of the 1905 Revolution.
139. Pobedonostsev – S.D. Sheremetev, 16.03.1905 (“Mat' moiu,” 6). See also Reikhardt, “Perepiska Vitte i Pobedonostseva.”
140. Arsenii (Stadnitskii), Dnevnik, 3: 90 (entry of 14.5.1905).
141. Pobedonostsev, “Mat' moiu,” 10. Pobedonostsev was paraphrasing a letter from 1873 by Murav'ev, whose phrase was a telling revision of the Nicene Creed (“I believe in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church”). Murav'ev, “Dva pis'ma A.N. Murav'eva,” 416.
142. In the famous “Decree on the Separation of the Church from the State, and the Church from the School” (20/23 January 1918), the new Bolshevik regime nationalized all parish church schools and abolished religious instruction. The decree unleashed a tsunami of popular protests, as parishioners – despite threats of repression – leapt to the defence of “their” schools. Typical declarations, sometimes from a whole deanship or city-wide fraternity, are found in: Moscow: GARF, f. r-3431, op. 1, d. 554, ll. 177–8, 183; f. a-353, op. 2, d. 696, l. 49. Local soviet authorities were, understandably, loath to implement the “Decree.” Even in Petrograd, the authorities reported in late September 1918 that “in the majority of raions, the parish church schools continue to exist, and religious instruction is practised almost everywhere (within the limits of the conducted inquiry).” GARF, f. a-353, op. 2, d. 691, ll. 3–4 ob.
143. Freeze, “From Dechristianization to Laicization.”
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Gregory L. Freeze
Gregory L. Freeze is the Victor and Gwendolyn Beinfeld Professor of History at Brandeis University. He has published a number of books and articles on Russian religious and social history, including a recent collection of essays in Russian: “Gubitel'noe blagochestie”: Rossiiskaia tserkov' i padenie imperii (St. Petersburg: Izdatel'stvo Evropeiskogo Universiteta, 2019).