3/2006 The Chorus of Nations: Constructing and Describing Group Unity

“Два или двадцать миллионов?” Языки официальной статистики и религиозного раскола в Российской Империи

Ирина Пярт

Материал публикуется на английском (на английской части сайта)

SUMMARY:

В статье анализируются варианты статистической репрезентации религиозного раскола в Российской империи (начиная с XVIII в.), исходившие как от церковных и государственных властей, так и от интеллигенции и самих раскольников. Возникший в эпоху Просвещения официальный язык описания религиозного диссиденства конструировал границы между регулярными и нерегулярными религиозными практиками и определял религиозную “норму”. Тем не менее, статистическое описание раскола было далеко от этой практики рационализации религиозных различий. Государство постоянно колебалось между желанием “сделать видимым” и сегрегировать – и желанием “скрыть” и ассимилировать. В статье осмысливаются расхождения в языках описания между различными агентами статистического изучения раскола. Провал государственных имперских практик “зафиксировать” раскол и ввести религиозное однообразие подтверждает точку зрения, согласно которой религия не стала интеграционной силой для господствующей национальности в Российской империи.

1.A. S. Prugavin. Staroobriadchestvo vo vtoroi polovine XIX veka. Moscow, 1904. Pp. 1-18.↩

2.Alexander Gershchenkron. Europe in the Russian Mirror: Four Lectures in Economic History. Cambridge, 1970. P. 136; Robert Crummey. The Old Believers and the World of the Antichrist: the Vyg Community and the Russian State, 1694-1855. Madison, WI, 1970. P. xii; Jane Burbank and David L. Ransel (Eds.). Imperial Russia: New Histories of the Empire. Bloomington, IN, 1998; Peter Waldron. Religious Reform after 1905: Old Believers and the Orthodox Church // Oxford Slavonic Papers. 1987. Vol. 20. Pp. 110-139.↩

3.See M. Foucault. Governmentality // G. Burchell et al. (Eds). The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago, 1991. Pp. 87-104.↩

4.D. Darrow. Census as technology of Empire // Ab Imperio. 2002. No. 4. Pp. 145-176.↩

5.A. Etkind. Khlyst. Moscow, 1998.↩

6.The Vyg Old Believers were freed from the double-tax payment because they engaged in supplying ore for Peter I’s works in Olonets. Opisaniie dokumentov i del po Sv. Sinodu. St. Petersburg, 1868. P. 482; see also R. Crummey. Old Believers and the World of the Antichrist.↩

7.See Lavrov’s argument on the social differentiation among Old Believers: while the well-off could afford paying the double-tax, the majority of Old Believers remained under the cover of the Orthodox church. A. Lavrov. Religiia i koldovstvo v Rossii. Moscow, 1998. Pp. 60-74.↩

8.Rossiiskii Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Drevnikh Aktov (RGADA). F. 248. D. 3631. L. 3ob.-4. The estimate was composed by combining data from two different sources: revizskie skazki and the registers of dissenters.↩

9.The government’s means for exposing secret schismatics were coercive and humiliating. There was a proposal for Old Believers to wear a special uniform decorated by a red patch, and old-fashioned dress and bizarre hats for women. But the repetition of this order in the legislation of Peter I, Anne I, and Elizabeth indicates its failure. Other proposals were made to mark the boundaries of Raskol. For example, Peter I proposed that the persons refusing to take oath in churches had to be categorized as schismatics. (Sobranie postanovlenii i rasporiazhenii po vedomstvu Sv. Sinoda. Vol. 2. P. 568). In 1737 the Senate proposed that men and women who failed to come for confession for three years would automatically be categorized as raskol’niki. Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii (hereafter PSZ). St. Petersburg, 1830. Vol. 12. P. 487.↩

10.Opisanie dokumentov. P. 182. If in 1720, 5,579 men and women from Moscow and Moscow province registered as double-tax payers, in 1721 only 127 did so.↩

11.Opisaniie. P. 25. Priests who failed to report back about the number of dissenters in their parishes were subject to punishment.↩

12.Sobranie postanovlenii. P. 539.↩

13.Lucy Wooding. Rethinking Catholicism in Reformation England. Oxford, 2000; Patrick Collinson. The Religion of Protestants: The Church in English Society 1559-1625. Oxford, 1982.↩

14.“Manifest Pravitel’stvuiushchego Senata”, 14 December, 1762 // Sobranie postanovlenii po chasti raskola (further Sobranie). London, 1863. P. 3; N. N. Pokrovskii. Antifeodal’nyi protest uralo-sibirskikh krest’ian-staroobriadtsev v XVIII veke. Novosibirsk, 1974. P. 286.↩

15.Senatskii arkhiv. Vol. XII. P. 124; PSZ. Vol. XV. Pp. 894-895.↩

16.PSZ. Vol. XV. P. 895.↩

17.RGADA. F. 248. Op. 112. D. 42.↩

18.RGADA. F. 248. Kn. 3621. L. 69-69 ob.↩

19.Sobranie postanovlenii po chasti raskola. Moscow, 1858. P. 2.↩

20.Catherine II’s decree on 3 March 1764. RGADA. F. 248. Kn. 3631. L. 69.↩

21.Perhaps this was the reason why Old Believers in Isetsk province appealed to the government en masse in 1783 to be registered as schismatics. Sobranie, 1841. P. 710.↩

22.Ibid.↩

23.RGADA. F. 248. Kn. 3621. L. 321.↩

24.Laura Engelstein. Castration and the Heavenly Kingdom. A Russian Folktale. Ithaca, NY, 1999.↩

25.Sobranie postanovlenii po chasti raskola. London, 1863. Vyp. 1. P. 16.↩

26.Ukazatel’ zakonov o vlastiakh i ustanovleniiakh dukhovnykh. Moscow, 1852. P. 281.↩

27.“Postanovlenie Sv. Sinoda”, 2 December 1842 // Sobranie. Moscow, 1858. P. 409; N. V. “Raskol” // Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ Brokgauz-Efron. St. Petersburg, 1899. Vol. 26. P. 298.↩

28.Gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv Moskvy. F. 16. Op. 109. D. 10, 1826. L. 5-5ob.↩

29.Sobranie. London, 1863. P. 256.↩

30.“Potemkin village” was a term coined by the Saxon envoy G. A. W. von Helbig to indicate his scepticism toward the attempts of the Russian government to present a successful picture of the colonization of the Southern provinces of the Russian Empire during his official journey in 1787, on which he accompanied Catherine II to the south. Potemkin was the key figure who helped organize the appearance of blossoming agriculture in the region in order to impress the foreign attachйs.↩

31.Prugavin. Ural’skoe staroobriadchestvo. As cited in I. A. Kirillov. Statistika staroobriadchestva [izdanie zhurnala “Staroobriadcheskaia mysl’”]. Moscow, 1913. P. 22.↩

32.Vasil’evskii. Gosudarstvennaia sistema otnoshenii k staroobriadcheskomu raskolu v tsarstvovanie imperatora Nikolaia I. Kazan, 1914. P. 39.↩

33.Mel’nikov-Pecherskii, as cited in Kirillov. P. 24.↩

34.Taking into account that the recent reported figure for the whole of Russia was 910,000, the MVD multiplied it by 11 (the coefficient of error) and received 10 million.↩

35.Vasil’evskii. Gosudarstvennaia. P. 39.↩

36.Statisticheskie tablitsy Rossiiskoi imperii. St. Petersburg, 1863. P. 207.↩

37.“A. B. Bushen” // Brokgauz and Efron, Entsyclopedichskii slovar’. St. Petersburg, 1891. Vol. 5. Pp. 129-130.↩

38.The aggregate figure was 6,340,927. Kirilov. P. 14↩

39.On religious ascription and its limits, see Paul Werth. The Limits of Religious Ascription: Baptised Tatars and the Revision of “Apostasy,” 1840-1905 // Russian Review. 2000. Vol. 59. No. 4. Pp. 493-511.↩

40.Nadiezhda Kizenko. The Prodigal Saint. Father John of Kronstadt and the Russian People. Philadelphia, 2000. Pp. 3-5.↩

41.On zemstvo statisticians, see Robert E. Johnson. Liberal Professionals and Professional Liberals: The Zemstvo Statisticians and Their Work // T. Emmons and W. Vucinich (Eds.). The Zemstvo in Russia. Cambridge, 1978; on zemstvo in general, see Charles E. Timberlake. The Zemstvo and the Development of a Russian Middle Class // Edith W. Clowes, Samuel D. Kassow, and James L. West (Eds.). Between Tsar and People. Educated Society and the Quest for Public Identity in Late Imperial Russia. Princeton, 1991. Pp. 164-179.↩

42.The Populists had a vested interest in Old Believers and Sectarians, believing them to be genuine antagonists of the tsarist regime. Populist historians also emphasized regional autonomy and self-government of dissenters, an idea that appealed to some zemstvo activists. A. Shchapov. Zemstvo i raskol. St. Petersburg, 1862.↩

43.E. I. Krasnoperov. Podvornoe issledovanie ekonomicheskogo polozheniia sel’skogo naseleniia Okhanskogo uezda Permskoe gubernii, proizvedennoi v 1890-91 gg. // Raboty statisticheskogo buro uchrezhdennogo pri Permskoi Zemskoi Uprave. Vyp.1. Perm, 1896.↩

44.Timberlake. The Zemstvo. P. 164.↩

45.Johnson comment on this criticism is based on Lenin’s critique of zemstvo statistics in his “Development of Capitalism in Russia”, reproaching them for their failure to notice the class differentiation among peasants. Johnson. Liberal Professionals and Professional Liberals. P. 358.↩

46.Perepis’ Moskvy (1871, 1882, 1902, 1912); St. Petersburg (1862, 1863, 1864, 1869, 1881, 1890, 1900, 1910, 1915).↩

47.Kirilov. P. 18.↩

48.Ibid.↩

49.Ibid. P. 19.↩

50.A. Kotel’nikov. Istoriia proizvodstva i razrabotki vseobshchei perepisi naseleniia. St. Petersburg, 1909. P. 41.↩

51.David Darrow. Census as a Technology of Empire // Ab Imperio. 2002. No. 4. Pp. 145-176.↩

52.Kotel’nikov. Istoriia proizvodstva. P. 39.↩

53.Pervaia vseobshchaia perepis’ naseleniia Rossiiskoi imperii 1897 goda. Vyp. 6. Nalichnoe naselenie oboego pola po uezdam i gorodam s ukazaniem preobladaiushchikh veroispovedanii i soslovii. St. Petersburg, 1905.↩

54.Kotel’nikov. Istoriia proizvodstva. P. 40. On the role of missionaries in late Imperial Russia, see Heather Coleman. A Science of Sects / Paper presented to AAASS, 2000, and BASEES, 2001.↩

55.Kirillov. P. 15.↩

56.The case was commented on by Rosanov in “Russkie mogily”, see V. Rozanov. V temnykh religioznykh luchakh. Moscow, 1994.↩

57.For example, the entire population of Tavatui identified themselves as pomortsy, a group of Old Believers with a strong sense of their confessional identity and history.↩

58.RGIA. F. 1290. Op. 11. D. 2562.↩

59.J. Cadiot. Searching for Nationality: Statistics and National Categories at the end of the Russian Empire (1897-1917) // Russian Review. 2005. Vol. 64. No. 3. Pp. 440-555.↩

60.On the changes of the legal status of dissenters, see V. Rozhkov. Tserkovnye voprosy v Gosudarstvennoi Dume. Rome, 1970; M. Reisner. Gosudarstvo i veruiushchaia lichnost’. St. Petersburg, 1909; Ju. Klukina. “Grazhdanskaia vlast”, tserkov’, staroobriadtsy v nachale XX veka: tri versii prava svobody veroispovedania: po materialam Ural’skogo regiona’ / Unpublished paper, cited with author’s permission.↩

61.Prior to 1907, Old Believers and Sectarians had to register their marriages in either an Orthodox church or, from 1874, with the local police, otherwise their marriage ceremony had no legal status. Although these metriki could become the basis of demographic and religious statistics, in practice Old Believers tried to avoid by all means to submit their internal documentation to the external authorities. In 1910 the Tobolsk governor noticed that of 27 registered communities, only 5 submitted their metriki, and that the submitted documents were very inaccurate. Klukina. “Grazhdanskaia vlast”. P. 7.↩

62.Source: Statisticheskie svedeniia o staroobriadtsakh (k 1 ianvaria 1912 goda). Moscow: Izdanie Departamenta dukhovnykh del MVD, 1912. Pp. 5-24. Reproduced with the permission of the author from Ju. Klukina. “Oni ne govoriat nam o tochnoi statistike permskogo raskola…” (K voprosu ob ofitsial’noi statistike staroobriadchestva kontsa xix – nachala xx vv.) // V ural’skie arkheograficheskie chteniia: Materialy nauchnoi konferentsii. Ekaterinburg, 1998. Pp. 81-85.↩

63.There were 23,869 “conversions” to Old Belief and Sectarianism registered in 1905-1911.↩

64.According to 1912 Census 995,375 (55.1%) men and women belonged to priestly Old Believers, and 811,681 (44.9%) to the priestless ones.↩

65.A number of Old Believer communities (both priestly and priestless) refused to register with the authorities in fear of persecutions and were called neobshchinniki.↩

66.Alexander Etkind. Khlyst. Moscow, 1998. Pp. 32-33 and elsewhere.↩

67.J. Cadiot. Searching for Nationality. P. 450.↩

68.For example, Prugavin (see his “Staroobriadchestvo”), Old Believer critics and contemporary scholars like I. V. Pozdeeva, and others.↩

69.The report of the Over-Procurator of the Holy Synod estimated the number of Old Believers and Sectarians in 1894-95 as 13 million. See Vsepoddaneishie otchety ober-prokurora Sv. Sinoda za 1890-95 gg. St. Petersburg, 1891-98.↩

Ab Imperio

Ab Imperio

“Два или двадцать миллионов?” Языки официальной статистики и религиозного раскола в Российской Империи

Сноски

Примечания