Alexey Beglov

Zemstvo's Projects of Reforming Orthodox Parishes in 1860 - 1890-s.

Aleksey Beglov - Senior Researcher, Institute of World History, Russian Academy of Sciences, religion07@rambler.ru

The article examines the attitude of the Russian Zemstvo movement of the second half of the lgth century to the reform of the Orthodox parish. Dmitry Samarin's paper "The Parish" (1867 - 1868) is studied in detail. It shows that Slavophile oriented members of Zemstvo were critical towards the actual status of the parish and wanted to see it as an independent unit though a subject to the power of Bishop. They saw it as a public institution with property and an elected priest. Understanding of the parish as a public institution led to the constant attention of the Zemstvo to its fate and the regular appearance of projects of its transformation. These projects included providing clergy with regular salary and converting the parish into a small regional unit. The author comes to the conclusion that obstacles to the implementation of these projects were not oN1y the negative reaction of the Spiritual Department, but deep fragmentation of Russian society, which created mistrust between the clergy and active laymen - members of Zemstvo.

Keywords: history of the Russian Orthodox Church in the 19th century, the reform of the Orthodox parish, Zemstvo institutions, parish guardianship, Church property, the election of the clergy, and the financial position of the clergy, the discussion about Church transformations, small territorial unit, J.F.Samarin.

The research was supported by the Program of Fundamental Research of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences "Traditions and Innovations in History and Culture".

page 172
One of the elements of the crisis of the synodal system of state-church relations and the state ecclesiasticism formed by it1, which was increasingly recognized by contemporaries in the second half of the XIX century, was the crisis of the Orthodox parish. After the first and - as soon became clear-unsuccessful attempt to revitalize parish life by establishing parish wardens in 1864, 2 the issue of parish reorganization regularly came into the focus of attention of the episcopate, clergy, and synodal officials. But, in addition, even in the era of the great reforms, the parish question interested Russian society and remained in its field of vision for all the pre-revolutionary decades. Of course, the intensity of discussion on this issue varied in different periods, depending on the socio-political situation, and the locomotive of such discussion turned out to be different social groups: Slavophiles, Zemstvos, and finally, between the two Russian revolutions, deputies of the State Duma.

D. F. Samarin (1827-1901) became a pioneer of public discussion of the parish theme, publishing in 1867 and 1868 a series of essays under the general title "Parish" in the newspaper of I. S. Aksakov "Moscow".3. In all likelihood, Samarin was prompted to write them by the correspondence controversy that arose between him as chairman of the Spassky guardianship of the Samara Diocese and the diocesan authorities. In the spring of 1867, Samarin sent the diocesan bishop the report of the Board of trustees for the past year with a request to publish it in the local diocesan gazette. The report was printed with a reference made by the editorial staff that it was submitted to the Bishop with a report from such and such a date. The word "report" confused Samarin. It showed that the diocesan authority, which was responsible for editing the vedomosti, considered guardianship as an institution subordinate to itself. This went against Samarin's view of guardianship and the parish in general, which he decided to put in writing.4
1. Smolich I. K. Istoriya Russkoy Tserkvi [History of the Russian Church]. 1700-1917. Ch. 1-2. Moscow, 1996. Ch. 1. P. 21.

2. About this, see, for example: Rimsky S. V. The Russian Church in the era of Great Reforms: (Church reforms in Russia in the 1860-1870s). Moscow, 1999. pp. 328-362.

3. Samarin D. Prikhod//Moscow. 1867. N101, 103, U5, 107, u8, 151, 153; 1868. N3, 4, 5. Then it was published in two separate editions. Essays I-V: Samarin D. Parish, Part 1, Moscow, 1867; Essay VIII: Samarin D. Parish, Part 2, Moscow, 1868.

4. Previously, he wrote a letter to the diocesan gazette with a request to clarify that the guardianship report was not submitted to His Grace at the time of the report.-

page 173
For Samarin, the parish is first of all a social institution, a "social group", but the life of which is inextricably linked with the life of the whole, the entire church organism. And since, Samarin notes, in the Orthodox world the Church retains "the significance of a living and integral organism," we should especially value the parish. The most important characteristic of this institution for the author of the essay is the independence of its internal life, which is expressed in the fact that the parish chooses the clergy and disposes - after paying a "certain salary" in favor of the hierarchical authorities - of church funds. Of course, the parish of modern Samarin does not have such independence, it had it "in the old days", and then gradually lost it under the onslaught of the clergy. However, the author emphasizes that the pressure of the ecclesiastical authorities on the parish is only a projection of the pressure that the hierarchy and clergy were subjected to by the state authorities in the XVIII-XIX centuries. The clergy's loss of independence (especially after the secularization of church estates) led to an attack on the rights of the laity, a gradual decrease in their independence, and the closure of the "ecclesiastical sphere" "among the clergy alone." Since the rights of parishes were not enshrined in the law, they could not "resist" this pressure.5
The process of loss of parish independence can be most clearly traced in the example of the gradual elimination of the right of parishes to dispose of church property. Samarin traces the main milestones of this process. Initially, the parishes themselves managed all the property of their church and its revenues.6 But then the hierarchs began to deny the right.-

those, and when writing. Vedomosti published this amendment, but the editors made a reservation that they did not consider D. F. Samarin to be right and that parish trustees were "not independent" of the diocesan authorities, but this issue should be "clarified in print" in addition to the diocesan Vedomosti. Minister of Internal Affairs to the State Council on amendments and additions to the charter on public charity and a note by the [Office of the Chief Prosecutor] on the need to involve charity of parish organizations in the case/ / RGIA. F. 797. Op. 96. D. 137. Ll. 467-467 ob. Here, officials of the Chief Prosecutor's Office confidently associate the writing of the essay with the controversy in the diocesan gazette.

5. Samarin D. Parish, part 1, pp. 1-7.

6. As an example of such an "original situation", D. F. Samarin refers to letters to the Senate of Pskov church elders who complained in 1730 about harassment by the bishop (Samarin D. Parish, Part 1, pp. 16-23). A modern account of this conflict: P. S. Stefanovich Parish and parish clergy in Russia in the past year. XVI-XVII centuries. Moscow, 2002. pp. 309-310.

page 174
the rights of individual parish churches to their property and income were supported in this regard by the Synod. In 1723, 1747, 1799, and 1806, the latter issued decrees on various occasions that concentrated the management of church fees and the disposal of church property in the hands of the clergy.7 The apogee of this process was the reform of the church economy, which followed the report of the committee of theological schools in 1808. At that time, the funds accumulated in the parish churches by January 1, 1808, were taken away, and in some places-with the participation of the police, and then-candle revenues, which were ordered to be sent to the maintenance of spiritual and educational institutions.8 In fact, Samarin draws attention to the fact that everything donated to the temple of God was now considered by the hierarchy as the property not of this temple or parish, but of the entire local church in general "within one state" and therefore was not managed by local communities, but by the clergy.9 He considers this situation abnormal:

We do not say a word against attributing to the income of churches the maintenance of clergy or ecclesiastical educational institutions; but we cannot recognize it as either just or practical to take away from the churches what belongs to each of them, to deprive them of the main source of their income, to merge the income of each individual church into one general collection for the whole of Russia centralisation, abolish local funds, disregard local interests, and replace the self-government of parish communities with a church-administrative bureaucracy.10
Moreover, the author of the essay notes that the interests of churches and parish societies were sacrificed not so much to the general church as to the estate interest.11 He dwells in detail on the various negative consequences of the evolution that has taken place: from the decline of the parish economy to the cooling of parishioners to the interests of parish churches and the loss of trust on their part in church fees and church administration. 12
7. Samarin D. Parish, part 1, pp. 23-25.

8. Ibid., pp. 34-37, 49-52.

9. Ibid. Parish, part 1, pp. 26-27.

10. Ibid. Coming. 4. 1. p. 57.

11. Ibid. Coming. 4. 1. p. 59.

12. Ibid. Coming. 4. 1. pp. 58-62.

page 175
At the same time, it shows that traces of past parish rights are scattered in the current imperial legislation. The provisions of the Ecclesiastical Regulations on the choice of a priest by parishioners have not been repealed. The churchwarden is still called a representative of the parish, its trustee, although in reality he has become a "free servant" who helps the clergy manage church funds. This is understandable: since the rights to property are not recognized by the parish, then how can it entrust anyone with this property to dispose of 13. " What, in fact, could a company deprived of all rights entrust to its lawyer?",- asks Samarin 14. In fact, a parish is recognized only as a territorial district, not as a society or legal entity. However, the author notes that the rights that remain in the laws can only be realized by society. Any parish meeting, despite the fact that it is mentioned in the legislation, will be considered an illegal gathering until the parish is recognized as a legal entity. Without this, the parish has no voice or significance, and the church administration will always act apart from it and treat it "as a person under guardianship." 15
But now, Samarin is convinced, the secular and spiritual authorities, having issued Regulations on parish guardianship, have recognized the failure of the previous order. The author of the essay describes this "beneficent law" as the "first step" in the revival of the parish community, which for the first time is given the correct legal organization of the parish. 16 He does not perceive guardianship as an independent organization, but only as one of the" institutions "(along with the church, school, poorhouse) of the "parish society", that is, as an organ of the parish, as an institution through which the parish community can exercise its original rights, its independence 17. However, diocesan authorities did not assess the status of guardianship in this way. And this, according to Samarin, was not accidental, after all, " providing in its management

13. Samarin D. Parish, part 1, pp. 12-14, 63-71.

14. Ibid., p. 70.

15. Ibid., pp. 72-74.

16. Ibid., pp. 4-5, 37-38, 74; Samarin D. Parish, part 2, p. 20.

17. Samarin D. Prikhod. Ch. 2. pp. 17-19, 26-28. Samarin D. F. Sobranie statei, rechey i dokladov [Collection of articles, speeches and reports]. Vol. 1. Krestyanskoe delo [Peasant business], Moscow, 1903. Vol. 2. Articles about the parish]. Articles of diverse content, Moscow, 1908, vol. 2, pp. 49-63.

page 176
In this respect, the new institution runs counter to the concepts and prevailing customs that have become ingrained in our country in recent times, and thus calls the parish unit to live independently."18
The author shrewdly noted that the revival of the parish should have led to a change in the entire system of relations between it and the church administration. Indeed, the involvement of parishioners in the care of the church economy will encourage them to " look into the purse and candle fees and even make inquiries whether he himself has the right to them." If the parish feels that the ground is getting stronger under it, it will want its voice to be heard when appointing clergy. This, in turn, will change the relationship between the administration and the parish clergy. Now the power of the church administration over the clergy is almost unlimited and acts without control. But if a living connection is established between the parish and the priest, the parish will not be "an indifferent and indifferent spectator of the undeserved adversity that could befall its priest" on the part of the diocesan authorities. "All this is even inevitable, if only the Provision on parish guardianship does not remain a dead letter," concluded Samarin.19
Therefore, in the opinion of the chairman of the Spassky Guardianship, the church administration reacted to the guardianships extremely cautiously, defending the existing bureaucratic order. In a number of dioceses, there was direct opposition to the opening of guardianships, and for two years the Regulations of 1864 were not even published. In other places - and most of them, according to Samarin-there was a tendency for diocesan authorities to subordinate guardianship to themselves, to turn them from public institutions into their own executive bodies, treating the parish still "as if it were a minor." In a number of such cases, he also considers his polemic with the Samara Diocesan Vedomosti 20.

The mutual misunderstanding between the trustees and the administration was particularly pronounced in the issue of managing the guardianship of church funds. Relevant petitions

18. Samarin D. Prikhod. Ch. 2. P. 2.

19. Ibid., pp. 2-5.

20. Ibid., pp. 7-9, 20-25.

page 177
Samarin considered this to be quite legal and natural on the part of the guardianship authorities.:

Surely they [the trustees "as legal representatives of the parish"] could not really remain equally stifling spectators of the deduction of a part of the candle fee in secret amounts? Surely they could not have taken up the task of supplying the churches with everything they needed without first making sure that they would not be forbidden to look after the proper storage and preservation of church property?22.

However, these petitions were rejected "with complete unanimity in many dioceses." 23 Meanwhile, Samarin writes, if the trustees, taking care of the improvement of parish churches, do not simultaneously participate in the church economy, it will decline, because the diocesan authorities will even more actively withdraw church revenues for diocesan needs. In support of this forecast, the chairman of the Spassky Guardianship cited the words of one of the deans of the Samara diocese, who demanded that the parishes of his district hand over the candle collection in full, referring to the fact that "there is no need to transfer candle profits to the purse", since the parish trustees should now take care of the church. Samarin saw a way out of this conflict in the fact that the question of the proper attitude of guardianships to the church economy should be resolved by legislative means.24
In general, according to the observations of the author of the essay, there was a certain ambivalence in the attitude of the church administration to parish trustees. On the one hand, the diocesan authorities sought to put the guardianships under control, on the other hand, they refused to perceive them as parish institutions-

21. Samarin D. Prikhod. Ch. 2. P. 30.

22. Ibid., p. 28. In 1869, after the Synod issued a decree prohibiting trustees from claiming to dispose of church funds, D. F. Samarin wrote a special article for Sovremennye Izvestia, in which he proved the right of trustees to these amounts. He insisted that the trustees, observing the amounts of the church, declaring consent or disagreement on the corresponding expenses, act on the basis of Instructions to church elders, according to which "the most honorable parishioners" are called to participate in the pouring out and counting of church money. See: Samarin D. F. Collection of articles, speeches and reports. Vol. 2. P. 88 - 96.

23. Ibid., pp. 28-29, 32-34.

24. Ibid., pp. 35-38.

page 178
tuts, as authorized representatives of the parish. The reasons for this ambivalence were clear: the administration in no way wanted to recognize the independence of " the parish as a church unit." Therefore, she sought, as Samarin noted, if not to condemn the trustees to death, then " sentence them to exile." The place of guardianship is not in the church, he reproduced the corresponding state of mind, they are "not a church institution", wouldn't it be better for them to leave the church and join the zemstvo institutions, this "would be more peaceful for me, but for you <guardianship> would be even more profitable". Then the trustee will be able to donate to the church, but, of course, will not be able to "enter" into the church's property, " but this is essentially an empty matter."25. In the next thirty years, the clergy and the episcopate will indeed perceive guardianships as "non-ecclesiastical" institutions, that is, not subordinate to the spiritual authority, and will insist on their "secularization", primarily administrative 26.

But how, in Samarin's opinion, should we build relations between the parish and the guardianship as its body and the diocesan authorities? It can be said that the rights of the bishop and the rights of the parish in relation to temple and church property were perceived by him as a kind of antinomy. The rights of the parish did not abolish the authority of the bishop. The latter is called to observe that church property is not "alienated and diverted from its purpose" and that it is treated "according to the rules of the church". At the same time, a parishioner's sacrifice to the church is a sacrifice to God, in the sense that the donator does not intend to take it back, but at the same time it is a sacrifice to the parish church. After all, when a parish builds a temple, it offers a sacrifice to God, but it implies that it will be used by him, and his temple will not be abolished or moved to another place without his will. So, says the chairman of the Spassky Trusteeship, the protection of church property, that is, ensuring that it remains in exactly the church to which it was donated, should belong to the parish. He should also own the economic management of the temple of God with all its revenues, since he builds and maintains it at his own expense. 27
25. Samarin D. Prikhod. Ch. 2. P. 6.

26. See: The case of revising the regulations on parish guardianship / / RGIA. F. 796. Op. 174. D. 1292.

27. Samarin D. Parish, part 2, pp. 15-17.

page 179
Thus, the church of God, as much as it is God's, is under the bishop's control; as much as it is also a parish's, it is under the parish's control, " he sums up his reasoning.28 At the same time, Samarin was sure that the more the parish, represented by the guardianship, would value its independence and realize its right and cherish it, the more circumspect it would treat the rights of other institutions, the more it would respect the local bishop and his assistance to its activities.29
It is difficult to say whether Samarin's program of reviving the parish through the development of parish wardens ' activities had a direct impact on the zemstvo's attitude to the parish question in the 1860s, or whether the views of this author were a reflection of the already existing sentiments of Slavophil-oriented zemstvos. Be that as it may, the latter perceived guardianship as an institution close to them and acted in the spirit of Samarin's concept. Already in the first years after the publication of the Regulations on Guardianships in 1864, provincial zemstvo assemblies raised their voices in support of guardianships and petitioned the diocesan authorities to open them.30 The trustees of the nobles, who were often also active zemstvos," in order to revive the parish " claimed the right to dispose of the church treasury and church economy, and declared the need to leave the candle collection in churches.31 All this made it possible for an anonymous author from the Office of the Chief Prosecutor in 1898 to say that Samarin's way of thinking is still "the way of thinking of our zemstvos."32
28. Samarin D. Prikhod. Ch. 2. P. 17. It should be said that D. F. Samarin in these arguments was very close to the understanding of the right of ownership of donated items, which was widespread among the widest strata of the Russian population, including among the peasantry. See for more information about ideas about the right of ownership on the example of icons donated to the temple: Shevtsova V. Orthodoxy in Russia on the eve of 1917, St. Petersburg, 2010. pp. 321-325.

29. Ibid., p. 23-Samarin D. F. Collection of articles, speeches and reports, vol. 2, p. 59.

30. Ibid., p. 7.

31. Presentation of the Minister of Internal Affairs to the State Council on changes and additions to the Charter on public approval and a note by the [Office of the Chief Prosecutor] on the need to attract charity of church parish organizations to the case / / RGI A. F. 797. Op. 96. D. 137. Ll. 466 ob. - 467. Sr.: The Case of revision of the regulations on parish guardianship / / RGIA. f. 796. Op. 174-d. 1292. L. 152.

32. Submission of the Minister of the Interior to the Council of State on amendments and additions to the Statute on Public Charity and a note from the Office of the Chief Executive-

page 180
Having encountered stubborn resistance from the ecclesiastical authorities and failed to achieve any results, zemstvo leaders somewhat later began to petition for the transformation of the parish structure to higher authorities. And the initiative in this matter also belonged to Samarin. In December 1880, he, being the vowel of the Moscow Provincial Zemstvo Assembly, suggested that the assembly petition the government authorities (the Ministry of Internal Affairs) to change the status of the Orthodox parish. His project included five points: 1) parishes as ecclesiastical societies should be given the rights of a legal entity; 2) the "ancient right" to choose clergy should be restored and "petitioned" to the local bishop; h) the right of a parish to acquire and retain movable and immovable property "by all means permitted by law" should be recognized; 4) the property of each parish church should be restored. recognize it as "its inalienable property" and transfer it to the management of the "local parish society"; 5) extend such an organization to both urban and rural parishes. Zemstvo Assembly December 18, 1880 It unanimously adopted the proposal with only one amendment. In the last paragraph of the petition, it was added: "It goes without saying that Old Believers and other schismatics living in the parish should not be forcibly attracted to these societies, even if they are officially registered in it." 33
As we can see, this project fully corresponded to the ideas of its author, outlined by him thirteen years earlier. Interesting arguments of the speaker, which justified the right of the zemstvo to make a petition on the church issue. Samarin pointed out that although the affairs of public charity and charity were legally assigned to the zemstvo, they could not be fully engaged in them. First, because its main task is still economic, and not charitable. And secondly,

prosecutor's office] on the need to involve the charity of church parish organizations in the case/ / RGIA. f. 797. Op. 96. D. 137-L. 469.

33. Samarin D. F. Rech 'ob organizatsii prikhodskikh obshchestv, skazannaya v soesenie Moskovskogo gubernskogo zemskogo soboraniya 18 dekabrya 1880 g. [Speech on the organization of parish societies, said at the meeting of the Moscow Provincial Zemstvo Assembly on December 18, 1880]. Samarin D. F. Sobranie statei, rech' i dokladov [Collection of articles, speeches and reports], Vol. 2, pp. 131-136; Report of the Moscow Provincial Zemstvo Board on the issue of providing the supreme government with petitions of the Moscow Province Zemstvo on the organizations of parishes / / Moscow Provincial Zemstvo Assembly. 1883. N30. P. 3.

page 181
because for successful charity work, in addition to provincial and county organizations, institutions "close to the population" are necessary; the zemstvo does not have such institutions. Such an organization, which stands closer to the people and for which charity is a natural and not secondary matter, is precisely the Orthodox parish. However, now he is placed in extremely unfavorable conditions and will not be able to fully fulfill his vocation to charity. "So that life can arise again in this society", it is necessary to recognize the rights of a legal entity, the right to acquire and retain property, etc. In this argument, the parish is already placed in two contexts, in which it will be considered by the zemstvo residents, and then by the state authorities in subsequent years: This is the question of organizing a modern system of public charity and creating a small territorial unit on which the zemstvo can rely in its work.

Meanwhile, the Moscow governor, who by law could block the execution of certain decisions of the zemstvo, did not allow this petition to proceed. He considered that the provincial zemstvo had overstepped its competence by putting forward a proposal that concerned the entire empire. As a result of the governor's protest, the case was again considered at the emergency February 1881 session of the Moscow Provincial Zemstvo Assembly. The latter did not recognize the arguments of the governor as reasonable and remained in its previous opinion. As a result, this dispute was referred by the Governor to the Senate for consideration. In the Senate, the case waited for its turn for two years. 34 Meanwhile, the initiative of the Moscow zemstvo was supported by other zemstvo assemblies. In 1881, similar projects for the transformation of the parish were made by the Voronezh Provincial and Zolotonosha Uyezd zemstvo assemblies of the Poltava Province. In 1883, the Poltava and St. Petersburg provincial zemstvo assemblies joined them. The secular press (both liberal Westernist and Slavophil) actively and, according to A. Y. Polunov, "almost unanimously" supported the petitions of the zemstvos. "Kak blagovest

34. Doklad Moskovskoi gubernskoi zemskoi pravy po voprosu o predstavlenii vyssheemu govemmentu intercession of the Moscow Gubernia Zemstvo on the organization of parishes. 1883. N30. pp. 1-9.

page 182
it swept across the Russian land, "wrote I. S. Aksakov's Rus newspaper about the petition of the Moscow zemstvo 35.

In February 1883, a decree of the Senate was issued regarding a clash between the zemstvo and the Moscow governor in connection with the parish transformation project. The highest court sided with the zemstvo and left the governor's protest without consequences. As a result, the petition of the Moscow Provincial Zemstvo Assembly was given a legal course, and it was submitted to the Ministry of Internal Affairs.36 However, this still did not guarantee its success. The Ministry of Internal Affairs forwarded the draft to the ecclesiastical department, and it was submitted to the Synod for consideration. As a result, on July 18 - August 8, 1884, the Synod issued a special decree "On the application of the Moscow Provincial Zemstvo Assembly for changes in the structure of urban and rural parishes"37.

It is not difficult to guess that the Synod rejected the zemstvo project and criticized it on all points. But above all, he rejected the very possibility that "third-party agencies"could be the initiator of any changes within the ecclesiastical department. The synodals even noted with some irony that although the cause of charity "is not alien to any department", this does not mean that any of them can "make proposals for changes in the course of the affairs of another"38. In other words, the Synod considered that the right to make any proposals for church transformation belongs only to it. Bureaucratic rhetoric is also typical: it was not a question of concern for all members of the Church, but only a violation of interdepartmental subordination. Moreover, the Synod denied even the existence of a crisis in parish life. He called the idea of its decline contained in the zemstvo draft offensive and unfair "in relation to our people." Higher education members-

35. PolunovA N. Y. Under the authority of the chief prosecutor. Gosudarstvo i tserkva v epokhu Aleksandra III [State and Church in the Era of Alexander III]. Moscow, 1996, pp. 90-91.

36. Doklad Moskovskoi gubernskoi zemskoy pravy po voprosu o predstavlenii vyssheemu govemmentu intercession of the Moscow Gubernia Zemstvo on the organization of parishes [Report of the Moscow Provincial Zemstvo Council on the issue of granting the supreme government the petition of the Moscow Province Zemstvo on the organization of parishes]. 1883. N30. pp. 7-9.

37.Cit. According to: Note on the activities of the special Meeting at the Synod to develop a draft regulation on the Orthodox parish, draft regulations and materials to it/ / RGIA. F. 796. Op. 445. D. 202. Ll. 488-491 vol.

38. Note on the activities of the special Meeting at the Synod for the development of the draft regulations on the Orthodox parish, draft regulations and materials to it/ / RGIA. F. 790. Op. 445. D. 202. L. 489 vol.

page 183
The church authorities considered that parish life is "clearly" manifested in the fact that parishioners donate to the church and show affection for their parish church. They attributed the absence of other manifestations of parish activity, in particular organized charity work, to the geographical features of our country - the territorial dispersion of parishes and economic reasons - their poverty.

In response to the proposal of the Moscow zemstvo to recognize the parish as a legal entity and allow it to acquire property, the Synod argued that it is sufficient that each parish "still forms a special ecclesiastical and social unit"-"in the order of spiritual administration". From the Synod's point of view, it was more convenient to assign property to the church, rather than to the parish, since the composition of the parish could change, which would entail requirements for the division of parish property. When assigning property to the parish church, this problem did not arise. But it turned out that parishioners who formed, for example, a new parish had to leave the property they had donated to the old parish church. And such property could, in particular, include family icons placed in the church 39. According to the Synod, the zemstvo's proposal to grant parishioners the right to manage the church's economy "did not require discussion", since it was considering draft rules that "among other things" intended "to allocate a certain share of participation in managing the income and expenses of the church and representatives from parishioners"40. Obviously, they were referring to the rules on the management of the church economy drawn up by the EP commission. Palladium (Raeva), the results of which six years later were reflected in the new instruction to churchwardens 41.

The most detailed reaction of the Synod was caused by the proposal of the zemstvo to allow the election of clergy by parishioners. This one

39. Compare: Shevtsova V. Orthodoxy in Russia on the eve of 1917, p. 322.

40. Note on the activities of the special Meeting at the Synod for the development of the draft regulations on the Orthodox parish, draft regulations and materials to it/ / RGIA. F. 796. Op. 445. D. 202. L. 490 vol.

41. Beglov A. Zakonodatelstvo Rossiiskoi imperii o pravoslavnom prikhodke k nachale 1890-kh gg. [Legislation of the Russian Empire on the Orthodox Parish by the beginning of the 1890s: (Review of the main legislative acts)]. History and modernity. 2006-2010. Moscow, SPb., 2012. pp. 371-388.

page 184
its members considered the question completely unacceptable. They called the practice of elections that existed at the time only a temporary measure in the situation of a shortage of worthy candidates for the priesthood and insisted that the existing system that linked ordination to the priesthood with the school and educational qualification was an important historical achievement. The synodal definition pathetically stated that "the restoration of the right of parish elections today would, in fact, be a turn to the former times of ignorance, from which our fatherland emerged through a series of centuries-old efforts"42. At the same time, the Synod maintained that the right of parishioners to express their wishes about a candidate before the bishop has not been abolished and can still be used today. Let's pay attention to this remark. The drafters of projects for the transformation of an Orthodox parish will appeal to him more than once in the pre-council period. The Synod's conclusion was categorical and predictable. It ruled that the petition of the Moscow zemstvo "should not be granted" 43.

After such a rebuke, the zemstvos should have lost the desire to come up with any projects for the transformation of the parish for a long time. However, they did not show complaisance. Already in 1885, the Moscow Provincial Zemstvo repeated its previous request, and the Moscow City Duma proposed to transfer parish guardianship to the administration of the mayor in order to activate their charitable activities. For the same purpose, in 1890 the St. Petersburg Provincial Zemstvo called for a wider development of the network of parish wardens in the uyezds.44 These petitions still could not have had any consequences, but the zemstvos did not abandon their attempts to initiate even small-scale changes in the parish structure, showing by their efforts that this area of church life was close to them and they felt responsible for it.

42. Zapiskaia o deyatel'nosti osobnogo Soversheniya pri Synode dlya razrabotki proekta polozheniya o pravoslavnom prikhode [Note on the activities of the special Meeting at the Synod for the development of the draft regulations on the Orthodox parish, draft regulations and materials to it]. RGIA. F. 796. Op. 445.D. 202. L. 491 ob.

43. Ibid.

44. Polunov A. Yu. Under the power of the chief prosecutor. S. od; Izvestiya i zametki [News and Notes]. Concerns of the zemstvo about the development of parish guardianship / / Guide for rural pastors. 1890. N43. P. 206.

page 185
As early as 1877, the Konotop County Assembly of Chernihiv province took the initiative to provide the parish clergy with permanent maintenance. In general, as early as 1866, that is, two years after the establishment of the zemstvos, the Minister of the Interior made it a duty for the zemstvo assemblies to deal with the issue of securing the clergy. Responding to the relevant circular, the Zemstvos began to investigate this question, but for the most part their research did not then turn into a practical plane.45 In the 1870s, the situation changed somewhat. It must be said that other zemstvos also took the same initiative as Konotop. In 1874, the Odessa provincial Zemstvo petitioned the government to provide Orthodox parishes at the expense of parishes, just as the Catholic and Protestant clergy of the Empire are provided. The Okhansk uyezd zemstvo of the Perm Province in 1875 asked the government to allow it to make a breakdown of the amounts that were supposed to be paid to the clergy as maintenance (500-600 rubles a year to the priest), for rural parishioners-according to the number of audit souls, as well as for merchants assigned to the city, and for petty - bourgeois society. Preparatory work in this direction was carried out in 1879. Pskov provincial zemstvo. In the same year, this issue was also discussed by the Moscow Zemstvo. But the Konotop project turned out to be the most developed and-as it seemed - the closest to implementation.46 It is equally important that the project itself and the discussion that unfolded around it reflect in detail the conditions under which the zemstvos were ready to engage in the material support of the clergy, and the reaction to these initiatives of both the ecclesiastical authorities and ordinary clergy.

The Konotop zemstvo proposed to abolish the "mandatory" method of collecting funds for the maintenance of the clergy, that is, payment for trusts and annual rounds of the parish to collect ruga. The "manual" method was unanimously recognized by both the clergy and society,

45. Runovsky N. Ecclesiastical and civil legal provisions concerning the Orthodox clergy during the reign of Emperor Alexander II. Kazan, 1898. p. 318.

46. I. L. Attempts of the zemstvo to improve the life of the clergy/ / Guide for rural pastors. 1880. N 10. P. 302. It must be said that back in the 1860s, some vowel zemstvos from among the clergy came up with fundamentally similar initiatives, but then they were not supported by other zemstvos. See: N. B. What has our zemstvo done for the Orthodox clergy and the clergy mutually for the zemstvo during the past 1866 year? // Orthodox Review, vol. 22, 1867, No. 2, pp. 58-60 (2nd pagin.).

page 186
47. Zemstvos proposed to abolish the fee for "obligatory services" (baptisms, weddings, funeral parting words, funerals), and to establish a fixed fee for non-obligatory services (molebens, custom-made services, etc.). In return, the zemstvo was obliged to provide the clergy with a permanent salary at the expense of a special tax from parishioners, which the zemstvo would collect according to the layout developed by it. It was assumed that the rector would receive from 750 to 850 rubles, depending on the number of parishioners, and the psalmist-300 rubles a year. At the same time, the clergy had to firmly adhere to the established fee for non-mandatory trusts. Violation of it was proposed to qualify as a crime of office. The zemstvo itself was going to monitor the exact observance of the tax rate and, in case of violations, submit it to the ecclesiastical authorities for imposing penalties on violators.48 This project was submitted by the county council to the Chernihiv governor in early 1877 with a request for permission to discuss its initiative with the clergy. The governor sent the draft to the discretion of the Minister of Internal Affairs, who forwarded it to the Synod, and the latter-for review to the Chernihiv Bishop, who sent it to the clergy of Konotop district. The Chernihiv Consistory also provided its review. She suggested that the zemstvo, in addition to the obligations specified in the draft, take on providing clergy with houses for the clergy, reduce the list of free trebs, and make the fee for non-mandatory trebs more flexible in the case of a voluntary agreement between the priest and the parishioner. But most importantly, the consistory insisted that the zemstvo should be removed from control over the clergy. Complaints from offended parishioners, in her opinion, should have been sent to the diocesan authorities without any involvement of the council. Meanwhile, it was precisely this point that the zemstvo considered to be a matter of principle for itself.49
47. Cf.: Extract from the most recent report of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod Count D. Tolstoy on the department of the Orthodox confession for 1877 St. Petersburg, 1878. pp. 276-277; Extract from the most recent report of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod Count D. Tolstoy on the department of the Orthodox confession for 1878 St. Petersburg, 1879. p. 266 - 267 et al.

48. I. L. Attempts of the zemstvo to improve the life of the clergy. pp. 303-305.

49. Extract from the report... for 1877. pp. 278-280; I. L. Attempts of the zemstvo to improve the life of the clergy. pp. 305-309; St. A. P. II. Where did Konotopskoe stop?

page 187
The district clergy reacted ambiguously to the proposals of the zemstvo. The real possibility of replacing "charitable donations" with strictly established content inspired him with hope. The total income of some priests exceeded the salary projected by the zemstvo, sometimes by 500 rubles, but they also expressed support for the project "in view of its good idea." Others expressed skepticism about some of its details. In particular, they expected opposition to the project implementation from landowners, since the layout of the tax on parishioners developed by landowners provided that the contribution of landowners would exceed the contribution of villagers. They also expressed concern that payments from the zemstvo cash register would not be regular, that they would have to go to the council several times for one payment, as happens with zemstvo teachers and paramedics. But most importantly, everyone categorically opposed the idea of control by the zemstvo over the clergy. The priests drew attention to the fact that the draft law does not provide for a mechanism to protect clergy from non - payment by parishioners for non-obligatory trusts, but only parishioners from extortion by the clergy. They pointed out that the zemstvo does not have representatives of the clergy, and when dealing with conflicts with parishioners, it would take an accusatory bias against the clergy. 50 As one observer summed up, it was not the financial basis of the project itself that was the reason why the clergy did not dare to accept it, but a deep distrust of the impartiality and justice of the zemstvo institutions, in which they actually have neither a voice nor influence, and in which, in fact, the leadership of affairs belongs the same landlords-landowners, under whose influence during serfdom priests were placed under the leadership and transferred from one parish to another 51.

zemstvo in providing local clergy with a salary for mandatory requirements of correction?//A guide for rural pastors. 1880. N36. pp. 12-22.

50. I. L. Attempts of the zemstvo to improve the life of the clergy. p. 309; Sv-k A. P-iy. What did the Konotop zemstvo stop at ... pp. 12-22.

51. [I. L.] Can we hope for an improvement in the life of the clergy by the zemstvos?//A guide for rural pastors. 1880. N 11. P. 335.

page 188
Moreover, it was not only memories of the era of serfdom that repelled the clergy from zemstvo institutions. The fact is that some of the zemstvo residents were extremely unfriendly to the clergy in their midst. During the first years of the existence of zemstvos, the government received petitions from them to eliminate clergymen from participating in zemstvo affairs. Such requests were formulated by the St. Petersburg, Moscow, Smolensk, Tambov, Tver and other zemstvo assemblies. The zemstvos considered that the clergy did not even have the right to participate in zemstvo institutions, since they were exempt from duties in their favor and since worldly interests should be "generally alien to persons of ecclesiastical rank" .52 One of the church journals wrote in 1879::

It is hard for our rural clergy, over whom various civilized zemstvos find special pleasure in sneering, treating priests as perfect obscurants and ignoramuses... Zemtsy raise up a real persecution of priests. This is a kind of Kultur-kampfna for the national field, a struggle against "popishness", whose leaders parody the leaders of the Western socialist anti-church party.53
All this did not contribute to the elimination of the long-standing distrust between representatives of different classes, between the zemstvo and the clergy. And with such distrust of the zemstvo, it was unthinkable to expect the clergy to agree to its interference in the relations of the clergy with parishioners. The discussion around the Konotop project lasted for more than three years. The Consistory, relying on the opinion of the clergy, demanded that the zemstvos abandon the idea of controlling the priests. And the Zemstvos did not consider it possible to make this particular concession. As a result of these disagreements, the attempt of the Konotop zemstvo to reform the material support of the clergy, even in its own district, ended in failure.

52. N. B. What has our zemstvo done for the Orthodox clergy and the clergy for the zemstvo in return for the past year 1866?//Orthodox Review, Vol. 22, 1867. N1. pp. 1-18 (2nd pagin.); N2. pp. 57_73 (2nd pagin.); Runovsky N. Ecclesiastical and civil legal provisions concerning the Orthodox clergy during the reign of Emperor Alexander II. pp. 317-318.

53.Cit. in: Runovsky N. Church and civil legal provisions concerning the Orthodox clergy during the reign of Emperor Alexander II. p. 318.

page 189
However, the attention of the zemstvo to the parish did not weaken. Subsequently, zemstvo residents increasingly raised this topic in the context of discussing the tasks of public charity 54 and in the context of discussing the problem of"small zemstvo units". In addition to the desire to "crown the building" - to create an All-Russian representative office, zemstvos during this period sought to "find the foundation" in the form of a "small zemstvo unit" that would be closer to the local population than the uyezd zemstvo.55 It is interesting that the authors themselves, who are close to zemstvo circles, recognized that the question of a small zemstvo unit historically grew out of the question of the restoration of the parish and out of the controversy about the "all-family parish" 56. Recall that after the abolition of serfdom, the peasant community was assigned the rights of both economic and administrative self-government. The lowest administrative unit was a peasant parish, which united several rural communities. Moreover, the volost administration was of a class, peasant nature. Despite the fact that the post-reform legislation consolidated both the economic and social class isolation of the peasantry, already in the 1860s there were voices calling for the latter to be liquidated, to create a new administrative unit-an all-family parish, in which the administration would be built strictly on the territorial, and not on the estate principle.

In the understanding of the zemstvos (with a few exceptions), the "all-family volost" was a volost administration reformed on the basis of zemstvo self-government, without vesting the volost bodies with judicial and estate-administrative functions.57 But back in the 1870s, the noble projects of the all-family parish were formulated, which in fact

54. Submission of the Minister of Internal Affairs to the State Council on amendments and additions to the Charter on public charity and a note by the [Office of the Chief Prosecutor] on the need to involve church parish organizations in charity work/ / RGIA. F. 797. Op. 96. D. 137. Ll. 464 ob. - 465.

55. Gradovsky A.D. Vsesoslovnaya melkaya edinitsa [Vsesoslovnaya melkaya edinitsa [All-Russian small unit] [first published in 1882] / / Melkaya zemskaya edinitsa. Collection of articles. 2nd ed. [Issue 1.] St. Petersburg, 1903. pp. 459-469; Zakharova L. G. Zemskaya kontreforma 1890 g. Moscow, 1968. pp. 36-42; Polunov A. Yu. Under the power of the chief prosecutor. p. 90.

56. Bazhaev V. G. Razvitie voprosa o melkoi zemskoy edinitse v zemskoy srede v sovremennoe vremya (1901-1902) [Development of the issue of the Small zemstvo unit in the zemstvo environment in recent times (1901-1902)]. Collection of articles. 2nd ed. [Issue 1.] St. Petersburg, 1903, p. 344.

57. Bazhaev V. G. Razvitie voprosa o melkoi zemskoi odinite v zemskoi srede v sovremennoe vremya (1901-1902) [Development of the question of a small Zemstvo unit in the Zemstvo environment in modern times (1901-1902)].

page 190
they had in mind the revival of the rule of the nobles over peasant self-government.58 Thus, two directions were defined in the approach to the reform of local government in post-reform Russia. Conventionally, they can be designated as zemstvo and estate-administrative divisions. Moreover, both of them had plans to involve the parish in the planned changes. So the topic of the parish began to be discussed in the context of local government reform. In this regard, the parish attracted attention not only from various social forces, but also from the secular bureaucracy. Thus, the idea of involving an Orthodox parish in the construction of a new system of local government was discussed in the commission of State Secretary Kakhanov, who worked in the early 1880s to improve this system. However, the commission rejected the idea of " waking up the long-dormant elements of parish societies in Russia." She pointed out that parishes were too small and very different from each other in terms of territory and population, and that there were many confessions in Russia. All this, in the opinion of the commission members, made it inconvenient to include parishes in the local government system60. These arguments by opponents of parish reliance will then be repeated with a certain regularity 61. But it is characteristic that secular statesmen openly acknowledged the lack of life, the "hibernation" of the Orthodox parish, and representatives of the ecclesiastical department tried in every possible way to deny this. They and the official church seal have repeatedly pointed to the parish as at least a model for the local government system. Already in the 1900s, the Church Bulletin wrote that only a parish could provide a "ready-made scheme" for a small zemstvo unit.-

58. Samarin Yu., Dmitriev F. Revolutionary conservatism. R. Fadeev's book "Russian Society in the present and future" and the assumptions of St. Petersburg nobles about the organization of an all-family parish. Berlin, 1875; Skalon V. Y. Vopros o melkoi zemskoy edinice v obshchestvennykh sobraniyakh [The question of the small zemstvo unit in public meetings]. Collection of articles. 2nd ed. [Issue 1.] St. Petersburg, 1903. pp. 321-322; Gessen I. V. Vopros o melkoi zemskoy edinice v literaturei (do 1901 g.) [The question of the small zemstvo unit in literature (before 1901)]. Collection of articles. 2nd ed. [Issue 1.] St. Petersburg, 1903, pp. 421-423.

59. Skalon V. Yu. Vopros o melkoi zemskoy edinice v obshchestvennykh sobraniyakh [The question of a small zemstvo unit in public meetings]. p. 323, Kudryavtsev P. In the field of parish life. III. K voprosu ob uchastiya priestnika v obshchestvennykh delakh [On the question of the priest's participation in public affairs]. 1905. N18. pp. 6-7.

60. Hesse V. M. Rural society and civil parish in the works Board art sekr. Kakhanova// A small zemstvo unit. Collection of articles. 2nd ed. [Issue 1.] St. Petersburg, 1903, p. 398.

61. Gessen I. V. Vopros o melkoi zemskoy edinitsa v literaturei (do 1901 g.) [The question of the small zemstvo unit in literature (before 1901)]. pp. 431-432, 433a-434a.

page 191
In this respect, it has an advantage over all other existing institutions (for example, a peasant parish).62.

But most often, representatives of the second, estate-administrative approach to local government reform sought to rely on the parish and involve a priest in local government. As early as the turn of the 1860s and 1870s, Prince Vasilchikov's project was discussed in the press, in which the all - family volost coincided with the parish in its territory, and the volost board necessarily included (along with the elected volost foreman and 2 - 4 vowels) the church elder. 63 In 1888, A. Evreinov published Notes on Local Reform In which he proposed making the all-family parish 64 the lowest unit of local government. In 1902, Prince V. P. Meshchersky's newspaper Grazhdan suggested restoring the parish "as the main state unit", which was to operate "under the leadership of the church" in the person of a parish priest "in alliance with a representative of the state" - the zemstvo chief, who from 1889 was appointed from among the nobles to oversee peasant self-government.65 Representatives of this direction also expressed the idea of making parish guardianship bodies of local government, including them in the existing administrative vertical. It is difficult not to agree with one of the church's publicists, who pointed out that if the aspirations of representatives of the estate-administrative approach were realized, parish institutions and, in particular, parish guardianship would receive "the character not so much of a church brotherhood, a religious and educational union, as an organ of the Ministry of Internal Affairs", and the priest as an indispensable member of the guardianship he would have been "as much an official of the Ministry of Internal Affairs as a spiritual pastor." 66
62. Lemke M. K. Vopros o melkoi zemskoy edinice v literaturei (1901-1902 gg.) [The question of the small zemstvo unit in literature (1901-1902)]. Collection of articles. 2nd ed. [Issue 1.] St. Petersburg, 1903, pp. 439-440.

63. Gessen I. V. Vopros o melkoi zemskoy edinitsa v literaturei (do 1901 g.) [The question of the small zemstvo unit in literature (before 1901)]. pp. 423-424.

64. Ibid., pp. 433a-434a.

65. Lemke M. K. The question of the small zemstvo unit in literature (1901-1902). pp. 439-441-

66. Kudryavtsev P. In the field of parish life, pp. 6-8.

page 192
Representatives of a different approach to local reform, supporters of the actual small zemstvo unit, usually mentioned the parish when discussing the possible territorial limits of this unit. The fact is that among the zemstvo residents, three options for territorial coverage of a small zemstvo unit were discussed: a zemstvo volost, which would coincide with a peasant one, a zemsky district, which should include several volosts, and a parish. Back in the 1880s. The Ryazan provincial vowel Prince Volkonsky proposed that the zemstvo all-family parish should coincide with the parish, the oldest and most "organic" territorial unit. The idea of the territorial coincidence of a small zemstvo unit and a parish had its supporters at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. And critics of this idea usually gave the same arguments that were voiced twenty years earlier in the meetings of the commission of State Secretary Kakhanov.67 However, in the vast majority of zemstvo projects, it was only about the coincidence of the name and borders of these units, the church and zemstvo parish. There is no doubt that the model for the zemstvos was the English situation, in which at the end of the 19th century there was a parish-a church unit and a parish-a lower unit of local government. 68 However, zemstvo leaders, trying to reproduce this situation, did not take into account the historical development of the relevant institutions. In England, the church parish has indeed been the focus and nurturer of local government for centuries. During the 19th century, it gradually lost its administrative functions.69 The end of this natural process was observed by Russian Anglomaniacs who studied local self-government in England at the end of the 19th century. In Russia, however, the church parish has long lost its functions as a local self-government unit, and to establish an administrative parish next to it meant not returning to the traditional and "organizational forms".-

67. Gessen I. V. Vopros o melkoi zemskoy edinice v literatere (do 1901 g.). p. 431-432; Bleklov S. Vopros o melkoi zemskoy edinice v zemstvami, komitetakh o sel'skoi promyshlennosti i obshchestvennykh sobraniyakh za 1902 g. i nachalo 1903 g. [The question of the small zemstvo unit in literature (before 1901)]. Issue 2. St. Petersburg, 1903, pp. 134-138.

68. Wed. Gessen V. M. Sel'skoe obshchestvo i volost v trudakh komissii ust.sekr [Rural society and volost in the works of the commission of art. Kakhanova, p. 398.

69. Vinogradov P. G. Local self-government in England / / Small zemstvo unit. Collection of articles. 2nd ed. [Issue 1.] St. Petersburg, 1903, pp. 56-60.

page 193
instead of creating a new, artificial situation. It is clear that in this situation, the juxtaposition of two parishes, a small zemstvo and a church unit, would inevitably lead to their interaction and mutual influence. This influence, in turn, could lead to changes in the structure of the church parish, and the direction of these changes could not be predicted.

Meanwhile, among the zemstvo residents, there were also those who went further and proposed that the church parish should be given "governmental significance" 70. Such a reform had in mind the preservation of the peasant class system and the peasant community. This line of thought was clearly archaizational in nature. The adherents of this trend hoped to re-establish a local community that would have all the rights of self-government, both in lay and ecclesiastical terms, and would be collectively responsible to the crown administration. At the same time, they relied on the works of A. A. Papkov, who drew an ideal picture of an independent, self-governing parish in pre-Petrine Russia.71 There were also those among the zemstvos who suggested that the functions of a small zemstvo unit should be assigned to parish trustees. With such a project in 1901-1902. The chairman of the Kozelskaya uyezd of the Kaluga province of the zemstvo council made a speech. He proposed to include guardianships in the system of zemstvo bodies, to transfer them under the supervision of county zemstvo assemblies, to expand the program of activities of guardianships, to give them the initiative in finding funds. It is interesting that one of the points of this project was supposed to give all members of the clergy a permanent allowance.72 The Kozel initiative was consonant with the project of the Slavophile A. I. Koshelev, who, being an opponent of the small zemstvo unit, in the early 1880s.-

70. Shakhovskoy M. L. The small zemstvo unit: A report read in the Kharkov branch of the "Russian Assembly" on February 27, 1904. Kharkov, 1904. pp. 11-12, 14; Blekloe S. The question of the small zemstvo unit in zemstvos, committees on agricultural industry and public meetings for 1902 and the beginning of 1903.A small zemstvo unit in 1902-1903. Collection of articles. Issue 2. St. Petersburg, 1903, pp. 134-138.

71. Papkov A. A. Drevnerusskiy prikhod: Kratkiy ocherk tserkovno-prikhodskoy zhizni v Vostochnoy Rossii do XVIII v. i v Zapadnoy Rossii do XVII V. The Old Russian Parish: A Brief sketch of Church and parish life in Eastern Russia up to the 18th century and in Western Russia up to the 17th century. 1897. Vol. 1. N2. pp. 251-284 (3rd pagination); N3. pp. 373-395 (3rd pagination); Vol. 2. N4. pp. 42-67 (2nd pagination).

72. Bazhaev V. G. Razvitie voprosa o melkoi zemskoi odinite v zemskoi srede v sovremennoe vremya (1901-1902) [Development of the question of a small Zemstvo unit in the Zemstvo environment in modern times (1901-1902)].

page 194
He promised to reform local government on the basis of parish wardens, expanding their powers and creating road, health and other voluntary wardens on their model.73 However, a significant part of zemstvo residents were skeptical about such projects, believing that before including the parish in the local government system, it was necessary to restore the viability of the parish community as a church institution.74 That is why, after the first Russian Revolution, the attention of both zemstvo leaders and deputies of the State Duma, into whose ranks many active Zemstvos have joined, will again and again return to the question of reviving the parish as such.

The ideas formulated by the zemstvos in the 1860s and 1890s, first of all about the need to achieve the independence of the parish, about the need to allow parishioners to dispose of church funds and to elect a parish priest, will meet us more than once already in the Duma izvod. Did the zemstvo projects have a chance of success in the new historical situation, 20 years after the initiative of Samarin and Konotop zemstvo? We have seen that most diocesan bishops jealously guarded their prerogative to dispose of church funds. Relevant examples are already given by Samarin. However, the situation changed even in the 1900s - some bishops were already ready to grant the laity significant powers in the management of the church economy. On the other hand, clerical officials perceived the views of the Zemstvo residents on the prospects for the revival of the Orthodox parish as a "fog of misunderstandings" and were confident that any intrusion of zemstvo leaders and lay people in general into the parish sphere would be the beginning of "complete decomposition of this cell of the church organism"75. But it seems that the main obstacle to the zemstvo initiatives lay in a different plane. The Konotop project of material support for the members of the clergy clearly showed that the local clergy were extremely wary of the zemstvos. Contemporaries also accused the white clergy of being categorical-

73. Gessen I. V. Vopros o melkoi zemskoy edinitsa v literaturei (do 1901 g.) [The question of the small zemstvo unit in literature (before 1901)]. p. 434.

74. Ibid., p. 434a.

75. Submission of the Minister of Internal Affairs to the State Council on amendments and additions to the Charter on public charity and a note by the [Office of the Chief Prosecutor] on the need to involve church parish organizations in charity work/ / RGIA. F. 797. Op. 96. D. 137. Ll. 466-466 ob.

page 195
The majority of the population is opposed to the "self-rightfulness of the parish", seeing in this signs of its official psychology 76. But there was more to it than that, although to some extent the contemporaries were right. The fate of the Konotop project showed the deep disunity of society. Class boundaries, eliminated de jure, continued to exist in social practices and in the minds of the Russian population. The disunity of society, the mutual distrust of representatives of its various groups also took place within the church and, I think, were a greater obstacle to the zemstvo projects of parish reconstruction than the resistance of the ecclesiastical department.

Bibliography/References

Archive materials

Russian State Historical Archive (RGIA).

F. 796 (Office of the Holy Governing Synod).

F. 797 (Office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod).

Literature

Bazhaev V. G. Razvitie voprosa o melkoi zemskoy edinitse v zemskoy srede v sovremennoe vremya (1901-1902) [Development of the issue of the Small Zemstvo unit in the Zemstvo environment in recent times (1901-1902)]. Collection of articles. 2nd ed. [Issue 1.] St. Petersburg, 1903, pp. 329-377.

Beglov A. Zakonodatelstvo Rossiiskoi imperii o pravoslavnom prikhodke k nachale 1890-kh gg. [Legislation of the Russian Empire on the Orthodox Parish by the beginning of the 1890s: (Review of the main legislative acts)]. History and modernity. 2006-2010. Moscow, SPb., 2012. pp. 371-388.

Bleklov S. Vopros o melkoi zemskoy edinitsa v zemstvami, komitetakh o sel'skoi promyshlennosti i obshchestvennykh sobryakh za 1902 g. i nachalo 1903 g. [The question of the small zemstvo unit in zemstvos, committees on agricultural industry and public meetings for 1902 and the beginning of 1903]. Collection of articles. Issue 2. St. Petersburg, 1903. pp. 90-201.

Vinogradov P. G. Local self-government in England / / Small zemstvo unit. Collection of articles. 2nd ed. [Issue 1.] St. Petersburg, 1903, pp. 56-86.

Hesse V. M. Rural society and civil parish in the works Board art sekr. Kakhanova//A small zemstvo unit. Collection of articles. 2nd ed. [Issue 1.] St. Petersburg, 1903, pp. 378-417.

Gessen I. V. Vopros o melkoi zemskoy edinice v literaturei (do 1901 g.) [The question of the small zemstvo unit in literature (before 1901)]. Collection of articles. 2nd ed. [Issue 1.] St. Petersburg, 1903, pp. 418-437.

Gradoyesky A.D. Vsesoslovnaya melkaya edinitsa [All-Russian small unit] [first published in 1882]. Collection of articles. 2nd ed. [Issue 1.] St. Petersburg, 1903, pp. 459-469.

Doklad Moskovskoi gubernskoy zemskoy pravy po voprosu o predstavlenii vyssheemu govemmentu intercession of the Moscow Gubernia Zemstvo on the organization of parishes / / Moskovskoe gubernskoe zemskoe sobor. 1883. N30. pp. 1-9.

Zakharova L. G. Zemskaya kontrreforma 1890 g. Moscow, 1968.

76. Polunov A. Yu. Under the authority of the chief prosecutor. p. 92.

page 196
I. L. Attempts of the zemstvo to improve the life of the clergy//A guide for rural pastors. 1880. N10. pp. 300-314.

[I. L.] Can we hope for an improvement in the life of the clergy by the zemstvos?//A guide for rural pastors. 1880. N11. pp. 332-340.

News and notes. Concerns of the zemstvo about the development of parish guardianship / / Guide for rural pastors. 1890. N 43. P. 206.

Extract from the most comprehensive report of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D. Tolstoy, on the Department of Orthodox Confession for 1877, St. Petersburg, 1878.

Extract from the most comprehensive report of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count D. Tolstoy, on the Department of Orthodox Confession for 1878, St. Petersburg, 1879.

Kudryavtsev P. In the field of parish life. III. On the question of a priest's participation in public affairs//A guide for rural pastors. 1905. N18. p. 5-29.

Lemke M. K. Vopros o melkoi zemskoy edinitse v literaturei (1901-1902 gg.) [The question of the small Zemstvo unit in literature (1901-1902)]. Collection of articles. 2nd ed. [Issue 1.] St. Petersburg, 1903, pp. 438-458.

N. B. What has our zemstvo done for the Orthodox clergy, and the clergy for the zemstvo in return, during the past year of 1866?//Pravoslavnoe obozrenie [Orthodox Review], vol. 22, 1867, No. 1, pp. 1-18 (2nd pagin), No. 2, pp. 57-73 (2nd pagin).

Papkov A. A. Drevnerusskiy prikhod: Kratkiy ocherk tserkovno-prikhodskoy zhizni v Vostochnoy Rossii do XVIII v. i v Zapadnoy Rossii do XVII V. [Old Russian Parish: A Brief sketch of Church and parish life in Eastern Russia up to the XVIII century and in Western Russia up to the XVII century]. 1897-Vol. 1. N2. pp. 251-284 (3rd pagination); N3. pp. 373-395 (3rd pagination) Vol. 2. N4. pp. 42-67 (2nd pagination).

Polunov A. Y. Under the authority of the Chief Prosecutor. The State and the Church in the era of Alexander III. Moscow, 1996.

Roman S. V. Russian Church in the era of the Great reforms: (Church reform in Russia, 1860 - 1870-ies). M., 1999.

Runovsky N. Ecclesiastical and civil legal provisions concerning the Orthodox clergy during the reign of Emperor Alexander II. Kazan, 1898.

Samarin D. Prikhod. Ch. 1. Moscow, 1867.

Samarin D. Prikhod. Ch. 2. Moscow, 1868.

Samarin D. F. Collection of articles, speeches and reports, vol. 1. Krestyanskoe delo, Moscow, 1903.

Samarin D. F. Collection of articles, speeches and reports. Vol. 2. Articles about the parish. Articles of diverse content, Moscow, 1908.

Samarin Yu., Dmitriev F. Revolutionary conservatism. R. Fadeev's book "Russian Society in the present and future" and the assumptions of St. Petersburg nobles about the organization of an all-family parish. Berlin, 1875.

Sv-k A. P-i. Where did the Konotop zemstvo stop in providing the local clergy with salaries for mandatory corrections? // Guide for rural pastors. 1880. N36. pp. 12-22.

Skalon V. Y. The question of the small zemstvo unit in public meetings//A small zemstvo unit. Collection of articles. 2nd ed. [Issue 1.] St. Petersburg, 1903, pp. 314-328.

Smolich I. K. History of the Russian Church. 1700-1917. Ch. 1-2. Moscow, 1996.

Stefanovich P. S. Parish and parish clergy in Russia in the XVI-XVII centuries. Moscow, 2002.

Shakhovskoy M. L. Small zemstvo unit: A report read at the Kharkov branch of the "Russian Assembly" on February 27, 1904. Kharkov, 1904.

Shevtsova V. Orthodoxy in Russia on the eve of 1917, St. Petersburg, 2010.

page 197
[I. L.] (1880) "Mozhno li nadeiat'sia na uluchshenie byta dukhovenstva zemstvami?" [Can we Hope to Improve the Life of Priests through Zemstvo?], Rukouodstuo dlia sel'skikh pastyrei 11: 332 - 340.

"Doklad Moskovskoi gubernskoi zemskoi upravy po voprosu о predostavlenii vysshemu pravitel'stvu khodataistva Mosk. Gub. Zemstva ob organizatsii prikhodov" (1883) [Report of Moscow District Council about the Submission to the Government of an Application for Creating New Parishes], Moskovskoe gubernskoe zemskoe sobranie 30: 1-9."Izvestiia i zametki. Zaboty zemstva о razvitii prikhodskikh popechitel'stv" (1890), Rukovodstvo dlia sel'skikh pastyrei 43: 206.

Bazhaev, V.G. (1903) "Razvitie voprosa о melkoi zemskoi edinitse v zemskoi srede v noveishee vremia (1901 - 1902)" [Recent Evolution of the Issue of Elementary Unit of Zemstvo in Localities], Melkaia zemskaia edinitsa. Sbornik statei, s. 329 - 377. 2-е izd. [Vyp. 1.] Saint-Petersburg.

Beglov, A. (2012) "Zakonodatel'stvo Rossiiskoi imperii o pravoslavnom prikhode k nachalu 1890-kh gg. (Obzor osnovnykh zakonodatel'nykh aktov)" [Legislature of the Russian Empire Concerning Parishes in the Early 1890-s (Review of Key Legislative Acts)], Religii mira. Istoriia i sovremennost'. 2006 - 2010, s. 371 - 388. Moscow, Saint-Petersburg.

Bleklov, S. (1903) "Vopros о melkoi zemskoi edinitse v zemstvakh, komitetakh o sel'skokhoziaistvennoi promyshlennosti i obshchestvennykh sobraniiakh za 1902 g. i nachalo 1903 g". [The Issue of Elementary Unit of Zemstvo, the Committees of Agriculture and the Public Meetings for 1902 and Early 1903], Melkaia zemskaia edinitsa v 1902-1903 gg. Sbornik statei, s. 90 - 201. Vyp. 2-i. Saint-Petersburg.

Gessen, I. V. (1903) "Vopros о melkoi zemskoi edinitse v literature (do 1901 g.) [The Issue of a Elementary Zemstvo Units in the Literature before 1901], Melkaia zemskaia edinitsa. Sbornik statei, s. 418 - 437. 2-е izd. [Vyp. 1.] Saint-Petersburg.

Gessen, V.M. (1903) "Sel'skoe obshchestvo i volost' v trudakh komissii st. sekr. Kakhanova" [Rural Society and Region in the Works of the Commission of Secretary Kakhanov], Melkaia zemskaia edinitsa. Sbornik statei, s.378 - 417. 2-е izd. [Vyp. 1.] Saint-Petersburg.

Gradovskii, A. D. (1903) "Vsesoslovnaia melkaia edinitsa (vpervye - v 1882 g.) [A Elementary Unit for all Estates (in 1882 for the First Time], Melkaia zemskaia edinitsa. Sbornik statei, s. 459 - 469. 2-е izd. [Vyp. 1.] Saint-Petersburg.

I.L. (1880) "Popytki zemstva к uluchsheniiu byta dukhovenstva" [Zemstvo's Attempts to Improve the Life of Priests], Rukovodstvo dlia sel'skikh pastyrei 10: 300 - 314.

Izvlechenie iz vsepoddanneishego otcheta ober-prokurora Sviateishego Sinoda grafa D. Tolstogopo vedomstvu pravoslavnogo ispovedaniia za 1877 g. [An Extract from the Official Report of Count D. Tolstoy, Ober-procurator of the Holy Synod, on the Office of Orthodox Confession, for 1877] (1878) Saint-Petersburg.

Izvlechenie iz vsepoddanneishego otcheta ober-prokurora Sviateishego Sinoda grafa D. Tolstogo po vedomstvu pravoslavnogo ispovedaniia za 1878 g. [An Extract from the Official Report of Count D. Tolstoy, Ober-procurator of the Holy Synod, on the Office of Orthodox Confession, for 1877] (1879). Saint-Petersburg.

Kudriavtsev, P. (1905) "V oblasti tserkovno-prikhodskoi zhizni. III. K voprosu ob uchastii sviashchennika v obshchestvennykh delakh" [Church and Parish Life. III. The Question of Priest's Participation in Public Affairs], Rukovodstvo dlia sel'skikh pastyrei 18: 5 - 29.

Lemke, M. K. (1903) "Vopros о melkoi zemskoi edinitse v literature (1901 - 1902 gg.) [The Question of Elementary Zemstvo Unit in Literature (1901 - 1902)], Melkaia zemskaia edinitsa. Sbornik statei, s. 438 - 458. 2-е izd. [Vyp. 1.] Saint-Petersburg.

page 198
N. B. (1867) "Chto sdelalo nashe zemstvo dlia pravoslavnogo dukhovenstva i vzaimno dukhovenstvo dlia zemstva za istekshii 1866 god?" [What Has Been Done by the Zemstvo for Orthodox Priests, and Vice Versa, by the Priests for the Zemstvo, in 1866?], Pravoslavnoe obozrenie 22 (1): 1 - 18 (2-i pagin.) 22 (2): 57 - 73 (2-i pagin.).

Papkov, A.A. (1897) "Drevnerusskii prikhod: Kratkii ocherk tserkovno-prikhodskoi zhizni v Vostochnoi Rossii do XVIII v. i v Zapadnoi Rossii do XVII v". [Parish in Ancient Russia: a Brief Essay on Church and Parish Life in Eastern Russia before 18th Century and in Western Russia before 17th Century], Bogoslovskii vestnik 1 (2): 251 - 284 (3-ia paginatsiia); (3): 373-395 (3-ia pagin.) 2 (4): 42 - 67 (2-ia pagin.).

Polunov, A. Iu. (1996) Pod vlast'iu ober-prokurora. Gosudarstvo i tserkov' v epokhu Aleksandra III [Under the Sway of the Ober-Procurator. State and Church in the Times of Alexander III]. Moscow.

Rimskii, S.V. (1999) Rossiiskaia Tserkov' v epokhu Velikikh reform: (Tserkovnye reformy v Rossii 1860 - 1870-kh godov) [The Russian Church in the times of Great Reforms (Church Reforms in Russia in the 1860 - 1870-s)]. Moscow.

Runovskii, N. (1898) Tserkovno-grazhdanskie zakonopolozheniia otnositel'no pravoslavnogo dukhovenstva v tsarstvovanie imperatora Aleksandra II [Church-State Law Concerning Priesthood in the Times of Alexander II]. Kazan.

Samarin, D. (1867) Prikhod [Parish]. Ch. 1. Moscow.

Samarin, D. (1868) Prikhod [Parish]. Ch. 2. Moscow.

Samarin, D. F. (1903) Sobranie statei, rechei i dokladov. T. 1 (Krest'ianskoe delo) [A Collection of Articles, Speeches and Reports. Vol. 1 (Peasants Affaires)]. Moscow.

Samarin, D. F. (1908) Sobranie statei, rechei i dokladov. T. 2 (Stat'i o prikhode. Stat'i raznorodnogo soderzhaniia) [A Collection of articles, speeches and reports. Vol. 2 (Articles about the Parish. Various Articles]. Moscow.

Samarin, Iu., Dmitriev, F. (1875) Revoliutsionnyi konservatizm. KnigaR. Fadeeva "Russkoe obshchestvo v nastoiashchem i budushchem" i predpolozheniia Peterburgskikh dvorian ob organizatsii vsesoslovnoi volosti [Revolutionary Conservatism. The Book by R. Fadeev 'The Russian Society in Present and in Future' and the Proposals of the Russian Nobility About the Formation of a District for All Estates]. Berlin.

Shakhovskoi, M. L. (1904) Melkaia zemskaia edinitsa: Doklad, prochitannyi v Khar'kovskom otdelenii "Russkogo sobraniia" 27 fevralia 1904 g. [An Elementary Zemstvo Unit. A Paper Read at the Kharkov Branch of the "Russian Assembly"]. Khar'kov.

Shevtsova, V. (2010) Pravoslavie v Rossii nakanune 1917 g. [Orthodoxy in Russia on the Eve of 1917]. SPb.

Skalon, V. Iu. (1903) "Vopros o melkoi zemskoi edinitse v obshchestvennykh sobraniiakh" [An Issue of Elementary Zemstvo Unit as Discussed in Public Assemblies], Melkaia zemskaia edinitsa. Sbornik statei, s. 314 - 328. 2-е izd. [Vyh. 1.] Saint-Petersburg.

Smolich, I. K (1996) Istoriia Russkoi Tserkvi. 1700 - 1917 [A History of the Russian Church, 1700 - 1917]. Ch. 1 - 2. Moscow.

Stefanovich, P. S. (2002) Prikhod i prikhodskoe dukhovenstva v Rossii v XVI - XVII vekakh [Parish and Parish Priests in Russia in the XVI-XVII Centuries]. Moscow.

Sv-k A. P-ii. (1880) "Na chem ostanovilos' Konotopskoe zemstvo v dele obespecheniia mestnogo dukhovenstva zhalovaniem za obiazatel'nye treboispravleniia?" [What Is the Current State of the Issue of Securing the Priests' Remuneration for Performing Obligatory Offices], Rukovodstvo dlia sel'skikh pastyrei. 36: 12 - 22.

page 199
Vinogradov, E. G. (1903) "Mestnoe samoupravlenie v Anglii" [Local Government in England], Melkaia zemskaia edinitsa. Sbornik statei, s. 56 - 86. 2-e izd. [Vyp. 1.] Saint-Petersburg.

Zakharova, L. G. (1968) Zemskaia kontrreforma 1890 g. [Counterreform of Zemstvo in 1890]. Moscow.

page 200

Permanent link to this publication: