Icon and Axe

III. THE CENTURY OF SCHISM

1. Letter to Oxenstierna of Apr 1, 1628, cited in Vainshtein, Rossiia, 110. It was characteristic of Swedish diplomacy to speak of the war in the singular, Roussel referring in a letter to the Tsar a few years later of “the great civil war which God has sown in all corners of Christendom.” Cited by B. Porshnev, SkS, I, 1956, 65, and note 144. In Germany also, the war was viewed as a single, sustained holocaust, though the term “Thirty Years’ War” is an artificial, Germano-centric designation. (See F. Carsten, “A Note on the Term Thirty Years’ War,”’ History, 1958, Oct, esp. 190–1).

Many of the best general histories of seventeenth-century Europe make little or no mention of Northern and Eastern Europe (see, for instance, G. Clark, The Seventeenth Century, Oxford, 1947, 2d ed.; C. V. Wedgwood, The Thirty Years’ War, London, 1957, p; C. Friedrich, The Age of the Baroque, 1610 to 1660, NY, 1952, p; and even the deliberately comparative work of R. Merriman, Six Contemporaneous Revolutions, Glasgow, 1937). Works which make some effort to include the region are D. Ogg, Europe in the Seventeenth Century, London, 1925; W. Reddaway, A History of Europe from 1610 to 1715, London, 1948; and particularly W. Platzhoff, Geschichte des europäischen Staatensystems, 1559–1660, Munich-Berlin, 1928. See the recent discussion of a “general crisis of the seventeenth century” which “reached its most acute phase between 1640 and 1670’s” E. Hobsbawm, “The General Crisis of the European Economy in the 17th Century,” PP, 1954, May, 38; also the second part of this important and richly documented article, PP, 1954, Nov, 44–65; the article of the Czech historian J. Polišenský, “The Thirty Years’ War,” PP, 1954, Nov, 31–43; and the monographic and documentary work of Vainshtein, Porshnev, and others in the USSR, which make possible a much richer picture of interrelationships than has yet been drawn in the general historical literature of any European country.

2. Estimates vary widely on all casualty counts of this era; but the Khmelnitsky massacre probably killed about 200,000, or more than one third of the Jewish population of Eastern Europe. See various estimates in N. Hanover, The Abyss of Despair (from Yeven Metzulah: literally “deep mire”), 122, note 1; also Dubnov, History, I, 66, 153–8; H. Graetz, History of the Jews, Philadelphia, 1895, V, 15; Mélanges Derenbourg, 76.

3. As cited opposite the preface in Merriman, Revolutions.

4. For some idea of the distinctive Swedish contribution to modern war and statecraft, see M. Roberts, Revolution, and O. Ribbing, “Nordic Characteristics of War,” Revue internationale d’histoire militaire, 1955, no. 15, 231–2.

For this innovation in the European conduct of war see the volume by G. Zeller in P. Renouvin, ed., Histoire des relations internationales, 1955, II, 207–8. For an excellent, continent-wide treatment of the pivotal and much-neglected First Northern War as a kind of extension and amplification of the brutal stages of the Thirty Years’ War see E. Haumant, La Guerre du nord et la paix d’Oliva, 1893. For the horror of this war in Russia see Bobrovsky, Perekhod, 113–24.

5. Pierling, La Russie, III, 36–310, 445–8; Rome et Démétrius, 1878, 145–6; Tsvetaev, “Snosheniia s Abissiniei XVII v,” RA, 1888, kn. 1, 205–10. Yury Krizhanich, the Croatian Catholic, prepared a memorandum in 1641, long before his first visit to Russia, placing Russia in a strategic context that included the Balkans, Ethiopia, and India. See S. Belokurov, Iz dukhovnoi zhizni moskovskago obshchestva XVII v, M, 1902, 88–106; also JGO, 1964, Oct, 331–49.

6. See Hanover, Abyss; another contemporary Jewish account entitled “Time of Troubles” (Meir of Szczebrzeszyn, Tzok Ha-itin, Cracow, 1650); the article on the Polish and Ukrainian “deluge” (potop) by D. Maggid in Zbirnik prats’ zhidivs’koi istorichno-arkheografichnoi komisii, Kiev, 1929, II, 247–71; and the tale of how Polish Protestants were also made scapegoats during this period by J. Tazbir, “Bracia Polscy w latach ‘potopu,”’ in L. Chmaj, Studia nad arianizmem, Warsaw, 1959, 451–90.

7. S. Hoszowski, “L’Europe centrale devant la révolution des prix XVI^e et XVII^e siècles,” AESC, 1961, May-Jun, esp. 455–6.

8. For a sober, documentary study of the sweeping population changes in the relatively insulated central region of Moscow see Yu. Got’e, Zamoskovny krai v XVII veke, M, 1937.

9. F. Prinzing has shown (Epidemics Resulting from Wars, Oxford, 1916, esp. 76) that the plague killed even more people in Germany during the Thirty Years’ War than battles.

Precise statistics are not available prior to the eighteenth century, and estimates must be made with caution. V. Koretsky estimates (VI, 1959, no. 3, 121–2) that one third of the population died of famine alone at the onset of the Time of Troubles. A foreign visitor at the time, J. Margeret (Estat de l’empire de Russie et grand duché de Moscovie, 1860, 72), estimated that there were 120,000 public burials in Moscow alone. N. Firsov (Golod pred smutnym vremenem v moskovskom gosudarstve, Kazan, 1892, 6–7) says that there were 500,000 deaths. Even if one takes the lowest figure, assumes that it suffices for all of Great Russia and also includes plague and war casualties, one would still seem to have a total of at least one third of Got’e’s population estimate of 600,000–700,000 for the Moscow region (Krai, 167).

Statistics are more fragmentary but even more appalling for the early plague-ridden years of the 1654–67 war. Apparently 80 per cent of the tax-paying population of the foreign quarters of Moscow were felled (L. Abtsedarsky, Belorusy v Moskve XVII v, M, 1957, 20); and Brückner’s statistics (Beiträge, 48–52) on monasteries and other traceable blocs of the population indicate that fatalities were rarely below 45 per cent. Only nineteen of 362 servants of the boyar Boris Morozov survived —suggesting that the mortality rate was even higher among the poor, for whom statistics are hardest to find. Collins (Present State, 45) estimates total casualties at no less than 700,000–800,000; and Medovikov (Istoricheskoe znachenie tsarstvovaniia Alekseia Mikhailovicha, M, 1854, 76, note 2) estimates 700,000. This would be about one tenth of the empire as newly expanded at that time. For a general account of the plague of 1654–6, see E. Volkova, Morovoe Povetrie, P, 1916.

10. Collins, Present State, 45; Berkh, Tsarstvovanie, 129.

11. Evreinov, Istoriia nakazanii, 34. See also the various prescriptions for cutting off limbs, 25–32, and the intensification of legal cruelties in the late seventeenth and particularly the early eighteenth century discussed 48–72.

12. Olearius, Voyages, 204–5.

13. Passages from the Diary of General Patrick Gordon, Aberdeen, 1859, 53.

14. Florovsky, Chekhi, 405, note 1. Even among the generally sober and well-informed Dutch, Adrian van Nispen groups an account of Muscovy together with that of Iceland, Greenland, and Siam (Verscheyde Voyagien, Dordrecht, 1652). It was widely believed that the Ob River led to China. See Lubimenko, “Role,” 50 and ff., for other misconceptions of the pre-Petrine period.

15. Theses of J. Bothvidus (praes.) A. Prutz (resp.), Theses de Quaestione utrum Muschowitae sint Christiani?, Stockholm, 1620 (repr. Lübeck, 1705). See A. Galkin, Akademiia v Moskve v XVII stoletii, M, 1913, 9, note 3. This thesis is not as primitive as Rushchinsky, Miliukov, and others imply. As late as 1665, the treatise by a former Lutheran pastor at Reval/Tallinn, Esthonia, asks the same question: J. Gerhard (praes.) J. Schwabe (resp.), Tsurkov’ Moskovsky sive dissertatio theologica de religione Ritibusque Ecclesiasticis Moscovitarum, Jena, 1665.

1. THE SPLIT WITHIN

1. V. Riazanovsky, Obzor, I, 147–8; D. Tsvetaev, Obrusenie zapadnoevropeitsev v moskovskom gosudarstve, Warsaw, 1903. For usage of the term already at the beginning of the sixteenth century against Nicholas of Lübeck, see Budovnits, Publitsistika, 139. For a typical plea to save “rossiiskie blagochestiia ot prelesti antikhristovoi khitrosti” see the eighteenth-century Old Believer tract “O poslednem vremeni i o pastyriakh tserkovnykh,” Manuscript section of the Lenin Library, rukopisi T. F. Bolshakova, no. 78.

For a general account of the schism which tends to relate it to the process of Westernization see Kliuchevsky, Sochineniia, III, 256–318; also S. Zenkovsky, “The Russian Church Schism,” RR, 1957, Oct, 37–58; Kharlampovich, “K voprosu o sushchnosti russkogo raskola staroobriadchestva,” UZKU, LXVII, 1900, no. 12, 133–52; V. Belolikov, Istoriko-kritichesky razbor sushchestvuiushchikh mnenii o proiskhozhdenii, sushchnosti i znachenii russkogo raskola staroobriadchestva, Kiev, 1913; and N. Chaev and N. Ustiugov, “Russkaia tserkov’ v XVII v,” in N. Ustiugov, et al., eds., Russkoe gosudarstvo v XVII veke, M, 1961, 295–329.

2. Got’e, Akty, 14. Monastic translators of sacred texts during the Smuta also pledged to work “bez vsiakie khitrosti,” Kh Cht, 1890, Sep-Oct, 440.

3. Avvakum, as cited in N. Subbotin, Materialy dlia istorii raskola za pervoe vremia ego sushchestvovaniia, V, 298–9. The ten volumes of this documentary collection (M, 1875–87) are still the basic source material for study of the early schismatics.

4. See Ashukin, Krylatye Slova, 641; and the often-reprinted popular story Khitraia Mekhanika. pravdivy rasskaz, otkuda i kuda idut den’gi, Zurich, 1874.

5. V. Goncharov, “Ia nenavizhu,” in Den’ Poezii, M, 1956.

6. Malinin, Starets, 50, 54; Fennell, Correspondence, 20, 14. See also 22, where Ivan praises Kurbsky’s martyred messenger for preserving blagochestie even in an erring cause.

7. See Yu. Arsen’ev, Oruzheiny prikaz pri Tsare Mikhaile Fedoroviche, P, 1903; Rainov, Nauka, 380–4; Raikov, Ocherk, 113, on weathervanes; and articles by Lappo-Danilevsky, ZhMNP, 1885, Sep; and I. Lubimenko, RES, IV, 1924. Clocks with bells had arrived in Moscow as early as 1404, but became fixtures on the Kremlin walls only after the Time of Troubles. See V. Danilevsky, Tekhnika, 128.

8. L. Cherepnin, ed., Skazanie Avraamiia Palitsyna, M-L, 1955, 253.

9. Cited in S. Platonov, Skazaniia o smute kak istorichesky istochnik, P, 1913, 206.

10. For concise summary discussion of this work, commissioned by Philaret in 1630, see Cherepnin, Istoriografiia, 123–8; for the weakness of the case against Boris see G. Vernadsky, “The Death of the Tsarevich Dmitry,” OSP, V, 1954, 1–19.

11. Pascal, Avvakum et les débuts du raskol, 1938, 20.

12. S. Platonov, Moskva i Zapad, 72.

13. On these “church people” (tserkovnye liudi) who clustered about the churches see Yarushevich, Sud, 146–9; for the degradation of the concept of tsardom during the smuta see E. Shmurlo, Istoriia, 260–2; for the religious revival thereafter, Pascal, Avvakum, 1—73.

14. Povest’ XVII veka, 82–115, for texts; Zenkovsky, Epics, 374–97. 409–22. N. Baklanova’s erudite arguments for eighteenth-century authorship of these tales are too permeated with a priori antagonism toward (and ignorance of) the seventeenth century to merit credence in the absence of a more objective investigation (see TODL, IX, 1953, 443–59; XIII, 1957, 511–18.)

15. A. Burtsev, Materialy dlia istorii russkago raskola [no place, no date; copy in Shoumatoff collection, Princeton], second set of pages, second illustration after 24; Rovinsky, Kartinki, I, 38.

16. Cht, 1893, III, 13–16.

17. At least forty of these lavish creations were built between 1620 and 1690 according to Hamilton, Art, 135–7– V. Shkvarikov counts forty for the second half of the seventeenth century and tweny-nine churches destroyed in the fire of 1658. Ocherk istorii planirovki i zastroiki russkikh gorodov, M, 1954, 182.

18. See J. Keep, “The Regime of Filaret (1619–1633),” SEER, 1960, Jun, 334–60; also Yarushevich, Sud, 147–8, 334–5; and P. Nikolaevsky, Patriarshaia oblast’ i russkiia eparkhii v XVII veke, P, 1888; S. Chernyshev, “Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich i Patriarkh Filaret Nikitich Romanovy v ikh vzaimnykh otnosheniiakh,” TKDA, 1913, nos. 7–8; A. Shpakov, Gosudarstvo i tserkov’ v ikh vzaimootnosheniiakh v Moskovskom gosudarstve, Odessa, 1904–12, 2v.

19. BE, XLVI, 484.

20. The Latin original of Mogila’s Confession is reprinted with commentary in OC, X, 1927, Oct-Dec; see also Karmirēs, Dogmatika, II, 989–97 and particularly 575–92. P. Panaitescu, “L’Influence de l’oeuvre de Pierre Mogila,” Mélanges école roumaine en France, I, 1926; also the long biography S. Golubev, Kievsky mitropolit Petr Mogila i ego spodvizhniki, Kiev, 1883–98, 2v; subsequent material and information in Legrand, Bibliographie hellenique, IV, 104–59; and the short account by Hugh Graham, “Peter Mogila—Metropolitan of Kiev,” RR, 1955, Oct.

21. On this lesser known work of Mogila see A. Amfiteatrov, Russky pop XVII veka, Belgrade, 1930, 69; also 53–4, 56 ff., and 7–14 for the “duality of belief and irrationalism in the seventeenth-century Russian church.

22. Sobolevsky, Obrazovannost’, 14–8.

23. Tsvetaev, Literaturnaia bor’ba, 89–99, 109–25.

24. A. Galkin (Akademiia v Moskve v XVII stoletii, M, 1913, 12) and K. Kharlampovich (Vliianie, I, 115–17, 128–38) both conclude on the basis of independent analysis that Rtishchev’s “academy” was founded in 1645, though Kharlampovich effectively argues that there were no Ukrainian monks prior to 1649. Lewitter (“Poland,” SEER, 1949, May, 422–9) seems to doubt that it was a very serious institution.

N.A.A.’s biography of the patriarchs indicates (Cht, 1847, IV, 123, III, 35–6) that Philaret established a monastic study center modeled on that of Mogila even earlier at the Chudov Monastery, though Galkin (11) is doubtful and S. Belokurov (Adam Oleary o Grekolatinskoi shkole Arseniia Greka v Moskve v XVII v, M, 1888, 43) flatly denies its existence prior to 1653.

The accelerating influx of Ukrainian clergy into Muscovy during the “deluge” of the First Northern War is treated by V. Eingorn, Cht, 1893, II, ch. 4, 98–210; as well as Kharlampovich. For the apologetic life of Rtishchev see DRV, ch. V, T. III, 18–34; also RBS, XVII, 334–42, 357–66.

25. From the text of a long contemporary description of the events of July 5, 1648, in Kursk, in the useful anthology (ed. S. Piontkovsky, intr. by K. Bazilevich) Gorodskie vosstaniia v moskovskom gosudarstve XVII v, M-L, 1936, 113. Also on these events see P. Smirnov, Pravitel’stvo B.I. Morozova i vosstanie v Moskve 1648 g, Tashkent, 1929; and M. Tikhomirov, Pskovskoe vosstanie 1650 g: iz istorii klassovoi bor’by v russkom gorode 1650 goda, M-L, 1935. A. Speransky’s review of the latter in IM, 1934, no. 40, 24–36, reveals the problems of applying Marxist categories to the complex social tensions of old Russian cities. M. Shakhmatov, ed., Chelobitnaia “Mira” moskovskago tsariu Alekseiu Mikhailovichu 10 iunia 1648 g, Prague, 1934, gives a more positive and purposeful image of the rebels’ program (based on a copy of their program found in Tartu) than do most other Russian accounts based on other versions of their petition. M. Tikhomirov, “Dokumenty zemskogo sobora 1650,” IA, 1958, no. 4, 141–3, vigorously challenges the official Och (6) for depicting the sobors as “some kind of inert mass only answering yes or no in response to a government proposal.” For annotated text of the Ulozhenie edited by Sofronenko, see PRP, VI. For the relation of the Ulozhenie to the zemsky sobor and the urban riots see the analysis by P. Smirnov in ZhMNP, 1913, no. 9–10, 36–66; also A. Zertsalov, Novyia dannyia o zemskom sobore 1648–1649 gg, M, 1887.

26. Pierre Chevalier, Histoire de la guerre des cossaques contre la Pologne, (1663), repr. BRP, 1859, VII, 121.

27. V. Berkh, Tsarstvovanie tsaria Alekseia Mikhailovicha, P, 183T, 52–60. Alexis knew about Ankudinov by 1648, and perhaps about some of the list of thirteen others of the early seventeenth century cited on 55.

28. P. Strove, Istoriko-sotsiologicheskie nabliudeniia nad razvitiem russkago pis’mennago iazyka, Sofia, 1940, 8, also 4–5; Vinogradov, Ocherki, 6.

H. Ludolph—in the preface to the first systematic printed grammar of the Russian language in 1696—considered the Ulozhenie the only printed book in vernacular Russian. (Grammatica Russica, Oxford, 1959, second and third unnumbered pages of the preface). For a detailed study of the language of the Ulozhenie see Chernykh, Iazyk Ulozheniia 1649 goda, M, 1953, esp. 732, emphasizing its importance.

Crimes against the faith were included for the first time within a civil code in part I, and the rights of the sovereign set forth in essentially secular terms in part II. See PRP, VI, 22–36.

29. Cited in S. Mel’gunov’s stimulating Religiozno-obshchestvennye dvizheniia XVI–XVIII vv v Rossii, M, 1922, 12. See also N. Korenevsky, Tserkovnye voprosy v Moskovskom gosudarstve v polovine XVII veka i deiatel’nost’ patriarkha Nikona, Kiev, 1912, 20 and ff; for more details, N. Kapterev, Kharakter otnoshenii Rossii k pravoslavnomu vostoku v XVI i XVII st, Sergiev Posad, 1914, 2d ed. For Paissius’ meetings with and recognition of Nikon see S. Belokurov, Arseny Sukhanov, M, 1891, ch. I, 181–2.

30. Bartenev, Sobranie pisem, 210; M. Khmyrov, “Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich i ego vremia,” DNR, 1875, no. 10, 105.

31. Bartenev, Sobranie, 191–2, note 24.

32. Pascal, Avvakum, 151; and the discussion and references, 148–98.

33. Kapterev, Kharakter, 363–4; O. Ogloblin. Moskovs’ka teoria III Rimu XVI–XVII stoletii, Munich, 1951, 39–41; Belokurov, Sukhanov, 23 ff.; 165 ff. Whether or not the later idea of a Russian conquest of Constantinople actually motivated Russian policy at this time is not clear; but the idea was frequently expressed by panegyrists in the Tsar’s entourage, and the secretary to the Queen of Poland wrote as early as January, 1657, that Alexis himself “has a grand design in mind to liberate Greece from oppression.” P. des Noyers, Lettres, Berlin, 1889, 291.

34. For concise categorization see Shmurlo, Istoriia, 244–60.

35. Pascal, Avvakum, 194.

36. Both the pledge which Nikon extracted from the Tsar and his major arguments for patriarchal authority were taken from the ninth-century Byzantine treatise of Patriarch Photius, the Epanagoge, which was an extreme statement even within Byzantium. Kapterev, Patriarkh Nikon i Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich, Sergiev Posad, 1909–12, 2v. M. Zyzykin (in his erudite but inadequately documented Patriarkh Nikon, ego gosudarstvennyia i kanonicheskiia idei, Warsaw, 1931–8, 3v) defends the canonical validity of Nikon’s position on the basis of its conformity with the Epanagoge rather than with Byzantine tradition as a whole. See also the general article on the Epanagoge in Russia by G. Vernadsky, Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbücher, 1928, no. 6, esp. 129–42. For a brief survey see M. Spinka, “Patriarch Nikon and the Subjection of the Russian Church to the State,” CH, 1941, Dec, 347–66; and for a critical bibliography by R. Stupperich, ZOG, IX, 1935, 173–80.

Nikon studied the Epanagoge from a translation made by Slavinetsky from a sixteenth-century German compendium of Byzantine texts, Jus Graeco-Romanum, and other Byzantine texts from Venetian digests and translations. Little use seems to have been made of the 500–700 manuscripts brought back by Sukhanov or of Nikon’s own library—though the entire problem has never been systematically and objectively studied. See Belokurov, Sukhanov, 331 ff.; M. Tikhomirov, ed., Sokrovishcha drevnei pis’mennosti i staroi pechati, M, 1958, 26–30.

37. Zyzykin, Patriarkh, II, esp. 315–18.

38. Rainov, Nauka, 454 ff.

39. For a concise summary of the controversies over Nikon’s fall see Platonov, Histoire, 443–8. Many documents of and on Nikon—particularly those dealing with his long ordeal prior to the council—are printed with admiring commentary in W. Palmer, The Patriarch and the Tsar, London, 1871–6, 6v. The basic collection is still N. Gibbenet, Istoricheskoe izsledovanie dela patriarkha Nikona, P, 1882–4, 2v, which (like Platonov) specifically seeks to balance the incomplete and generally antagonistic picture presented by Solov’ev, Istoriia, Kn. VI, 192–281. A good summary of Nikon’s reforms is in N. Korenevsky, Tserkovnye voprosy; and the troubled, early history of book-correction in Muscovy is admirably set forth in P. Nikolaevsky’s “Moskovsky pechatny dvor pri patriarkhe Nikone,” Kh Cht, 1890, Jan-Feb, 114–41; Sep-Oct, 434–67; 1891, Jan-Feb, 147–86; Jul-Aug, 151–86.

On Nikon’s actual reforms (the extra-ecclesiastical extent of which are often not fully appreciated) see, in addition to works already cited, details about his rituals for processions in Kh Cht, 1882, II, 287–320; his building program in Cht, 1874, III, ch. I, 1–26; his opposition to tent roofs in Trudy V-go arkheologicheskago s’ezda v Tiflise 1881, M, 1887, 233; his architectural program and its impact in Istoriia russkogo iskusstva, M, 1959, IV, 162–78; and his opposition to the Ulozhenie in RA, 1866, II, 53–66.

On the opposition to the Nikonian reforms in Solovetsk see I. Syrtsov, Vozmushchenie solovetskikh monakhov-staroobriadtsev v XVII veke, Kostroma, 1888, 47–56; also 11–19 for indications that the antipathy to Solovetsk had origins in his earlier experiences in the north. See also N. Barsukov, Solovetskoe vosstanie 1668–1676, Petrozavodsk, 1954.

40. Kapterev, Patriarkh, I, 81–105; A. Preobrazhensky, “Vopros o edinoglasnom penii v russkoi tserkvi XVII v,” PDP, CLV, 1904, 7–43. For a neglected characterization of Avvakum, see S. Mel’gunov, Veliky podvizhnik protopop Avvakum, M, 1917.

41. Mooser, Annales, I, 21. On hops (thought by some to have caused the plague) see Rainov, Nauka, 454–60; also the study of V. Bakhtin and D. Moldavsky, TODL, XTV, 1958, 421–2; Gudzy, History, 469. For similar superstitions about tea, coffee, and even potatoes see PS, 1867, no. 5, 67 ff.; no. 6, 167 ff.

Tobacco was admired by Ivan IV, subjected to increasing though generally ineffective prohibitions in the seventeenth century (Michael outlawed it in 1634, and Alexis considered applying the death penalty for smoking), and came into widespread use in the early eighteenth century. See V. Picheta, Istoriia moskovskago gosudarstva, M, 1917, 68; E. Ragozin, Istoriia tabaka i sistemy naloga na nego v Evropy i Amerike, P, 1871, 19–20.

42. RIB, XXXIX, 1927, 282; see also Aakum, Life, 23–4; discussion in Hamilton, Art, 151–61.

43. N. Andreev, “Nikon and Avvakum on Icon-Painting,” RES, XXXVIII, 1961, 37-44.

44. See E. Ovchinnikova’s analysis of the frescoes in the Moscow church of the Georgian Mother of God in TGIM, XIII, 1941, 147-66; and N. Romanov on the painting of Nikon by Daniel Vukhters in Pamlatniki iskusstva razrushennye nemetskimi zakhvatchikami v SSSR, M-L, 1948, 200-16. See also Ovchinnikova, Portret v russkom iskusstve XVII veka, M, 1955.

45. Pascal, Avvakum, 62-4, 341-2.

46. P. Znamensky, “Ioann Neronov,” PS, 1869, I, 238, 266-7, 271-4.

47. P. Smirnov, “Znachenie”; Subbotin, Materialy, V, 176 (on Avvakum), and VIII, 137-53 (on Morozova et al.); Tikhonravov, “Boiarynia Morozova,” Sochineneiia, II, 12-51; A. Mazunin, “Ob odnoi pererabotke Zhitiia boiaryni Morozovoi,” TODL, XVII, 429-34. For a popular account see S. Howe, Some Russian Heroes, Saints and Sinners, London, 1916, 322-59; and the magnificently detailed and illustrated study of the transposition of history and myth into the Surikov painting by V. Kemenov, Istoricheskaia zhivopis’ Surikova, M, 1963, 275-445.

48. Amfiteatrov, Pop, 171-4. Objections were repeatedly raised against printing holy scripture because of the need to change the physical appearance of the letters. Glaring inaccuracies did occur in early Russian printing. See F. Otto, History of Russian Literature, Oxford, 1839, 33-4.

49. Shchapov, Sochineniia, II, 596.

50. Ibid., 593.

51. Pascal, Avvakum, 64.

52. Syrtsov, Vozmushchenie, 110-11; P. Smirnov, Istoriia raskola, 91. See also “Iz istorii russkago raskola: D’iakon Fedor,” PS, 1859, Jul, 314-46; Aug, 447-70.

53. Cited by I. Khromovin in his prefatory article (Staroobriadcheskaia Mysl’, 1912, 10, 971) to the edition of Kniga o vere edinoi istinnoi pravoslavnoi, M, 1912, published as a special supplement to this Old Believer periodical. On this work, apparently compiled by Nathaniel of Kiev, a former Uniat, and sponsored in Moscow by Stephen Vonifatiev, see Subbotin, Materialy, IV, 143; Mel’gunov, Dvizheniia, 18.

54. Cited by S. Solov’ev in BZ, 1858, no. 9, 276. For a concise and documented treatment of Vyshensky see Chizhevsky, Aus zwei Welten, 129-41. Solov’ev’s version (and dating) of this work is here used, however, because it is referenced and seems drawn from the manuscript.

55. Selections from Vyshensky’s dialogue of 1614 between the Devil and the pilgrim, in Chizhevsky, 138-9.

56. Cited in A. Florovsky’s valuable Le Conflit de deux traditions—la latine et la byzantine—dans la vie intellectuelle de l’Europe orientale aux XVI-XVII^e siècles, Prague, 1937, 16, 6.

57. Avvakum, Life, 134; Florovsky, Le Conflit, 12, note 22; N. Kapterev, Patriarkh Nikon i ego protivniki v dele ispravleniia tserkovnykh obriadov, M, 1887, 94-7, note 1.

58. Cited in Florovsky, Le conflit, 9.

59. For the influence of Ephrem on Russian eschatological teaching see F. Sakharov, Eskhatologicheskie sochineniia, esp. 141-91; also Avvakum, Zhitie, 110, 133; Subbotin, Materialy, VIII, 361.

60. Belokurov, Arseny, 220-3; and 218-27, for his debates of 1650 with the Greek clergy of Wallachia (Preniia s Grekami o vere), which were widely circulated among Old Believers, and his report to Nikon on Orthodox practices from Egypt to Georgia (Proskinitariia); Sukhanov is the only contemporary figure cited in the early account of the coming of the Antichrist in Subbotin, Materialy, VII, 1885, 234-51. See also Archimandrite Leonid’s account of Russian pilgrimages to Jerusalem during the fourteenth to seventeenth centuries in Cht, 1871, I, ch. 2, 79-122.

61. On the older Tikhvin legend see K. Plotnikov, Istoriia, 14; the Georgian icon, first brought from the Georgian monastery on Athos in 1648, was credited with having miraculous powers, particularly against the plague. Two of the great monuments of the period (the Moscow Temple of the Georgian Mother of God and the Iversky Monastery just outside Moscow) were dedicated to this icon. See Kondakov, Icon, 149, 179; S. Loch, Athos: The Holy Mountain, NY [1954?], 169-70.

With the first printing of the Kormchaia Kniga during this period the concept of Moscow as the “third Rome” received increased popular attention. The original words of Philotheus’ letter to Ivan were reproduced as the statement of Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople to Tsar Fedor at the time of the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate. See N. Levitsky, “Uchenie raskola ob antikhriste i poslednikh dniakh mira,” Strannik, 1880, Aug, 529 ff.

The passage “From Zion …” is from the eschatologically oriented section of Michah 4:2.

62. “sviatoe tsarstvo,” Gibbenet, Izsledovaniia, I, 48 and 46-9. See Archimandrite Leonid, Istoricheskoe opisanie stavropigial’nogo Voskresenskogo, Novy Ierusalim imenuemogo, monastyria, M, 1876. Boris Godunov had intended to build a church in imitation of that at the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem inside the Moscow Kremlin, and the building of the bell tower of Ivan the Great was apparently related to this more grandiose project. (Istoriia russkogo iskusstva, III, 480-1). The idea of building a similarly modeled “New Jerusalem” had occurred in the West at the time of the crusades (see V. Tapié, La Russie de 1659 à 1689, 1957, 200), but never received as much attention as in Russia. The theme of liberating Jerusalem gained favor in popular art during the Time of Troubles (see Rovinsky, Kartinki, II, 479-80), and encouraged a popular identification of the liberated city of Moscow with the New Jerusalem.

63. P. Pascal, “Un Pauvre Homme, grand fondateur: Ephrem Potemkin,” in Mélanges Jules Legras, 221-9; P. Smirnov, Istoriia, 66-9. See Daniel.9: 20-7.

64. Zakharius Kopystensky, archimandrite of the Monastery of the Caves, in his Palinogodiia, RIB, IV, 1878, 315-6.

65. P. Smirnov, Vnutrennie voprosy, xciii-xciv. For other examples of the computation among the fundamentalists see Subbotin, Materialy, IV, 1881, 14 ff.; 155-7; 282-4; and in White Russia, Pamiatki polemichnogo, IX, 200.

66. Revelations 13:17-8. See H. Guy, The New Testament Doctrine of the “Last Things,” Oxford, 1948, 146-9; also W. Bousset, The Antichrist Legend, London, 1896; and the fascinating if fantastic The Computation of 666, London, 1891, by “Two Servants of Christ.”

67. V. Farmakovsky, “O protivogosudarstvennom elemente v raskole,” OZ, CLXIX, kn. 24, 1866, 633. F. Livanov, Raskol’niki i ostrozhniki: ocherki i razskazy, P, 1872, 4th corr. ed., I, 394. In addition to this rich if somewhat unscholarly and romanticized collection see, for the Old Believer conception of Antichrist, two anonymous publications: Kniga ob antikhriste, Pskov, 1876 (a book of sermons) and Veshchaniia sviatago ob antikhriste i poslednei sud’be sego mira, M, 1888. There are other valuable studies of this concept among the early Old Believers, by F. Sakharov, Tambovskiia Eparkhial’niia Vedomosti, 1878, nos. 20, 21, 23, 24; N. Levitsky, Kh Cht, 1890, Nov-Dec, 695-738; and I. Nil’sky, Kh Cht, 1889, Jan, 693-719. Levitsky discusses the computation of 666 made from the word for “emperor” in “Uchenie,” 556. For the computations of 666 on Napoleon see E. Benz, Die abendländische Sendung der östlich-orthodoxen Kirche, Mainz, 1950, 29; H. Schaeder, Die dritte Koalition und die Heilige Allianz, Königsberg-Berlin, 1934, 59, note 109.

For the impact of the concept of Antichrist on Russian culture generally see the detailed and perceptive article of the early Soviet period by B. Kisin in LE, I, 169-81; also N. Nikol’sky’s article “Apokalipticheskaia literatura,” ibid., 183-91.

68. Syrtsov, Vozmushchenie, 99-108; P. Smirnov, Istoriia, 54-5; Voprosy, lxxxi-lxxxvi. In the latter work, Smirnov concludes that the work was not written by Theoktist, who died in 1666, but by someone else writing between his death in 1666 and Alexis’ in 1676.

69. V. Peretts, “Slukhi i tolki o patriarkhe Nikone v literaturnoi obrabotke pisatelei XVII-XVIII vv.,” IAN (L), V, 1900, 140-3; P. Smirnov, Istoriia, 90; Subbotin, Materialy, VII, 421; Levitsky, Kh Cht, 1890, Nov-Dec, 704-5.

70. P. Nikolaevsky, Patriarshaia oblast’, 29-31.

71. Subbotin, Materialy, VI, 233-4.

72. Ibid., 229. The literal accuracy of these quotes is subject to considerable question, because they occur only in polemic Old Believer literature. Nevertheless, the fact that they were widely accepted as correct gave them the force of truth; and the quotes do seem to reflect the attitudes adopted by much of the post-Nikonian church.

73. On the treaty of Andrusovo as a turning point in the history of Eastern Europe see Z. Wócik, Traktat andruszowski 1667 roku i jego geneza, Warsaw, 1959 (with lengthy English summary). On the new trade statute, which in many ways marked the beginnings of protectionist mercantilism in Russia, A. Andreev, “Novotorgovy ustav 1667 g,” IZ, XIII, 1942, 303-7.

74. V. Ikonnikov, “Blizhny boiarin A. L. Ordyn-Nashchokin, odin iz predshestvennikov petrovskoi reformy,” RS, 1883, Oct, 17-66; Nov, 273-308. A good general study of the growth of diplomatic sophistication and of centralized bureaucratic power in this period. See also G. von Rauch, “Moskau und die europäischen Mächte des 17 Jahrunderts,” HZ, 1954, Aug, 29-40; and the Swedish designation of Ordyn-Nashchokin as “the Russian Richelieu,” 36, note 2.

75. Belokurov, Arseny, 215-18; L. Lavrovsky, “Neskol’ko svedenii dlia biografii Paisiia Ligarida Mitropolita Gazskago,” Kh Cht, 1889, no. 11-12, 672-736; E. Shmurlo, “Paissy Ligarides v Rime i na grecheskom vostoke,” Trudy V-go S’ezda russkikh akademicheskikh organizatsii za granitsei, Sofia, 1932, ch. I, esp. 538-87; “Russkaia kandidatura na pol’sky prestol v 1667-1669,” in Sbornik statei posviashchenykh P. N. Miliukovu, Prague, 1929, esp. 280; documents in Legrand, Bibliographie hellenique, IV, 8-61; and Mélanges russes, P, 1849-51, I, 152-9; 611-13.

76. “Da pobeditel’ budesh’ vsego mira/I da ispolnit mir toboiu vera,” I. Eremin, “Deklamatsiia Simeona Polotskogo,” TODL, 1951, VIII, 359-60. This declamation of 1660 on the recapture of Polotsk is according to Eremin (354-6) the first use of stylized syllabic verse in Russian. The Orel rossiisky is reprinted with an introduction by N. Smirnov as PDP, CXXXIII, 1915, vii, 65-78. See also the flowery verse on the occasion of the birth of Peter the Great with references to the deliverance of Constantinople in Gudzy, History, 505-6; bibliography 510, note 14; and, in addition, I. Tatarsky, Simeon Polotsky, ego zhizn’ i deiatel’nost’, M, 1886; I. Eremin, ed., Simeon Polotsky: Izbrannye sochineniia, M-L, 1953.

A. Beletsky postulates a substantial previous literary career for Polotsky in Polish and Latin as well as White Russian (Sbornik statei v chest’ A. I. Sobolevskogo, L, 1928, 264-7). A. Pozdneev relates Polotsky to the traditions of musical versification and partsinging of the Polish baroque in “La Poésie des chansons russes aux XVII^e et XVIII^e siècles,” RES, 1959, 29-40. The best general study of Polotsky’s work is L. Maikov, Ocherki iz istorii russkoi literatury XVII i XVIII vv, P, 1896, 1-162. For a good, critical study of Polotsky’s polemics with the Old Believers (showing him to be more interested in matters of dogma than of ritual, generally ignorant of the Eastern fathers, but devoid of any general plan or ulterior motives) see D. Yagodkin, “Simeon Polotsky kak polemist protiv raskola,” Strannik, 1880, Sep-Oct, 73-110; Nov, 316-82; Dec, 542-56.

77. Cited in the excellent article by I. Eremin, “K istorii obshchestvennoi mysli na Ukraine vtoroi poloviny XVII v,” TODL, X, 1954, 217, 219. The Sinopsis first appeared in 1674 and underwent many editions, remaining the most widely known history of Russia for most of the eighteenth century.

78. L. Maikov, Simeon Polotsky, O russkom ikonopisanii, P, 1889; Imperial charter of 1669 in AAE, IV, 224-6.

79. Picture in the manuscript entitled Dukhovnoe lekarstvo. See A. Uspensky, Tsarskie ikonopistsy i zhivopistsy XVII veka, M, 1910, II, 314-16. Uspensky calculates (II, 24) that there were sixty foreign artists in the armory alone by 1662; Ovchinnikova (Portret, 25-6) notes the presence of another Dutch painter in Russia in the forties even before Vukhters but challenges Vukhters’ authorship of the painting of Nikon, believing it to have been done later and thus exonerating Nikon from a violation of Muscovite attitudes toward art. V. Nikol’sky (Istoriia russkago iskusstva, M, 1915, I, 143) discusses changes in style and themes.

Numerous portraits of Russian diplomats were painted abroad by foreign masters under Alexis (Istoriia russkogo iskusstva, IV, 452-3). By 1670 there were fifty German prints on the walls of the room of Alexis’ son in the Kremlin (Zabelin, Domashny byt, I, 169-70). The large number of manuscript books produced during this period in the posol’sky prikaz combine the essentially rationalistic philosophy of Spafary with the realistic portraiture of Bogdan Saltanov. See I. Mikhailovsky, Vazhneishie trudy Nikolaia Spafariia (1672-1677), Kiev, 1897; and I. Kudriavtsev, “Izdatel’skaia deiatel’nost’ posol’skogo prikaza,” in Kniga: Issledovaniia in materialy, VIII, 1963, 179-244.

80. Livanova, Ocherki i materialy po istorii russkoi muzykal’noi kul’tury, M, 1938, 189. The text of Pastor Gregory’s Act of Artaxerxes, long presumed to have been lost, has been discovered in two different copies: one apparently belonging to the Saxon doctor in Moscow, Rinhuber, was found in Lyon and published in Paris in 1954 under the editorship of A. Mazon and F. Cocron; the other, apparently belonging to the Russian statesman A. Matveev, was published in M-L, 1957, under the editorship of I. Kudriavtsev. For a general discussion of Gregory’s repertoire see the article by A. Mazon in TODL, XIV, 1957; and, particularly for documents dealing with the organization of the theater in Moscow, S. Bogoiavlensky, Moskovsky teatr pri tsariakh Aleksee i Petre, M, 1914. For the musical involvement (in addition to the catalogue of these plays and ballets set forth in Gudzy, History, 517) see Gozenpud, Muzykal’ny teatr, 13.

On Polotsky and the “school dramas” see Gudzy, History, 522-7; Livanova, Ocherki, 179-85; A. Beletsky, Starinny teatr v Rossii, Ann Arbor, 1964 (repr. of M, 1923).

81. Collins, Present State, 33.

82. Cited from instructions to Ivan Gebden in J. Patouillet, Le Théâtre de moeurs russes, des origines à Ostrovski, 1912, 23. On music at the Tsar’s second wedding, Findeizen, Ocherki, I, vyp. iii, 311-13.

83. Carlisle, Relations, 142.

84. Tikhonravov (as cited in J. Patouillet, Théâtre, 24), referring to van Staden’s mission abroad to recruit players for the new theater.

85. One ambassador was sent to Northern Europe, a second to Rome and Central Europe, a third to Western Europe (including Spain); and in the following year a fourth ambassador was sent as the first permanent Russian ambassador to Poland. See von Rauch, “Moskau,” 38-42; N. Charykov, Posol’stvo v Rim i sluzhba v Moskve Pavla Meneziia (1637-1694), P, 1906; A. Popov, Russkoe posol’stvo, 1-27; D. Likhachev, Puteshestviia russkikh poslov XVI-XVII vv, M-L, 1954, 426-41.

86. On this Tituliarnik or Koren’ velikikh gosudarei of 1672 (second edition 1673-7) see Ovchinnikova, Portret, 65-70.

Under Tsar Michael, Russians sometimes used the title “emperor,” particularly in dealings with the West. See the usage on May 1, 1633, in the proclamation of the recruiter of Tsarist mercenaries in Scotland (A. Steuart, Scottish Influences, 34). The Respublica Moscoviae et Urbes, Leiden, 1630, indicates that the title “Magnus Dominus, Imperator” was used even in 1613. The French referred to Alexis as “empereur” in 1654 (Berkh, Tsarstvovanie, I, 85), but attached the title to the name Alexander, which hardly bespeaks intimate familiarity with Russian reality. Cromwell and Charles II both addressed him as “emperor” (Ikonnikov, “Ordyn-Nashchokin,” 283, note 1).

87. A. Vel’tman, Le Trésor de Moscou (oroujeynaia palata), M, 1861, 2d rev. ed., 45.

88. Savva, Archbishop of Tver, Sacristie patriarcale dit synodale de Moscow, M, 1865, 2d ill. ed., 9-10; Sidorov, Graviura, 218-19, print facing 216; also 203-4.

89. “… wie soll ich gnug preisen/ den unverglichen tzar, den Gross-Herzog der Reussen?/ der unser teutsches Volk mehr als die Reussen liebt,/ und ihnen Kirch und Siz, Sold, Ehr und Schatze giebt./ o hochst-gepriessner tzar, Gott wolle dich belohnen,/ wer wolte doch nicht gern in diesem Lande wohnen?” cited by N. Likhachev (Inostranets-dobrozhelatel’ Rossii v XVII stoletii, P, 1898, 6) from the manuscript given by Gregory in October, 1667, to Johann Allgeyer, a native of Stuttgart who had previously traveled with Olearius to Russia.

90. Postal service had been farmed out as a concession to foreigners and was notoriously insecure as a means of diplomatic communication. See Shlosberg, “O nachale,” 75-7 and bibliography 77, note 5; also I. Kozlovsky, Pervaia pochta i pervye pochtmeistery v Moskovskom gosudarstve, Warsaw, 1913, 2v. After 1668 it came under the posol’sky prikaz; but security remained poor on both of the two routes west: through Smolensk and Riga.

91. Rainov, Nauka, 434-7. Copernicus and Brahe were both Eastern Europeans, and Danzig had the largest astronomical observatory in the world after Brahe’s Copenhagen observatory burned. Thus, the influx of astronomical materials during this period is not surprising—though the admixture of astrology was considerable and little practical use was made of the knowledge Russia did possess (ibid., 439-54).

92. D. Ursul, Filosofskie i obshchestvenno-politicheskie vzgliady N. G. Milesku Spafariia, Kishinev, 1955, 83-5; text of report in Church Slavonic of this remarkable Moldavian-born emissary published with intr. by A. Yatsimirsky, Kitaiskoe gosudarstvo, Kazan, 1910. See also P. Yakovleva, Pervy russko-kitaisky dogovor 1689 goda, M, 1958, 101-9. Formal relations were established in 1675; the Tsar had previously sent a less formal delegate in 1653 (ibid., 90-2). Alexis’ reign was an important period in expanding diplomatic links with central Asia also. See V. Ulianitsky, Snosheniia Rossii s Sredneiu azieiu i Indieiu v XVI-XVII vv, M, 1889, esp. 18, 38-43.

93. Istoriia russkogo iskusstva, IV, 358 ff. on the armory, which was directed from 1654 until his death in 1680 by one of Nikon’s principal court persecutors, Khitrovo. Artamon Matveev became in the 1670’s after the passing of Nikon and the eclipse of Ordyn-Nashchokin, the leading friend and counselor of Alexis. See A. Suvorin, Boyarin Artamon Sergeevich Matveev, P, 1900, 32 ff., esp. 48 on clocks; Tsvetaev dates the introduction of mirrors—which, together with the simultaneous introduction of realistic portraiture and naturalistic iconography, helped increase consciousness of the human body and its appearance—from 1665 (Protestantstvo, 737).

94. S. Polotsky, Sochineniia, 71, 10-1, 233; Polotsky, Vertograd mnogotsvetny (1678), S. Denisov, Vinograd rossiisky (1720’s).

95. V. Kruglikov, Izmailovo, M, 1948, esp. 8-19. For reconstructions of the ornate decor and concentrically circular format of the gardens see S. Palantreer, “Sady XVII veka v Izmailove,” SII, VII, 1956, 80-104.

96. Istoriia russkogo iskusstva, IV, 308-10, 406-8; Polotsky, Sochineniia, 104-5; A. Korsakov, Selo Kolomenskoe, M, 1870; and descriptions in Z. Schakovskoy, La Vie quotidienne à Moscou au XVII^e siècle, 1962, 257-60; N. Likhachev; A. Ershov, Selo kolomenskoe, M, 1913; and the exhaustive reconstruction and analysis contained in the unpublished kandidat thesis of I. Makovetsky, Kolomenskoe: issledovanie istoricheskogo razvitiia planirovki arkhitekturnogo ansamblia, M, 1951.

97. V. Snow, “The Concept of Revolution in Seventeenth Century England,” The Historical Journal, V, 2, 162, 164-74. This essentially astronomical conception of revolution apparently began to be replaced only late in the seventeenth century by the modern concept of a more cataclysmic and irrevocable change.

98. Deacon Fedor in Subbotin, Materialy, VI, 49-50, 219; and in PS, 1859, Aug, 456-8.

99. Innokenty Gizel, Mir s Bogom chelovek, Kiev, 1666 (repr. M, 1669, 1671) discussed in N. Sumtsov, “Innokenty Gizel’,” KS, 1884, Oct, 207-17.

100. Lazar Baranovich, Mech dukhovny, Kiev, 1666. Note the elaborate military crusading symbolism of the first three pages, the fifteen pages of dedication to the Tsar, and the preface to the reader beginning with Christ’s instruction to his disciples in Luke 22:36 to sell one’s mantle and buy a sword. See also I. Goliatovsky, Nebo novoe z novymy zvezdami sotvorennoe, Lwow, 1665, the very title of which purports to speak of the new heaven described in the Book of Revelation. See also the apocalyptical symbolism in Simeon Polotsky, Zhezl pravlenia, M, 1763, ch. 1, 14, ch. 2, 122 (originally written in 1666 and officially endorsed by the council of 1666-7). See also the note on the origin of the work by I. Nil’sky in Kh Cht, 1860, Nov, 482-500.

101. Uspensky, Ikonopistsy, I, 55.

102. This book consisting of ninetyseven chapters and two additions was written for Queen Christina of Sweden (who was later a convert to Catholicism) by Simon Igumnov, who was born in Viazma, then moved to Smolensk and Moscow before settling in Swedishcontrolled Kexholm. No copy of it is known to survive; and the only description of it is the Swedish one by Anders Wallwick (secretary to the governor general of Esthonia in Riksarkivet, Stockholm, collection of manuscripts, Nr. 69): in the appendix to his letter of June, 1662, to Mattias Björnklou. The letter itself indicates that a serious, if somewhat patronizing study of religion in Russia was being undertaken by the Swedes (Riksarkivet, Bjornklou collection, Nr. 6, E 3259). This illustration reinforces Tsvetaev’s insistence on the basis of other evidence (Protestantstvo, 513 esp.) that Solov’ev and others have erred in assuming that foreigners were not interested in Russian religious matters. Indeed, Swedish Lutheran propaganda could have helped steer the Russian Orthodox into apocalypticism and anti-Catholicism. The first professor of rhetoric and leading figure in the 1650’s at the newly founded Swedish Theological Academy at Turku (Åbo) in Finland (center of the Lutheran educational program in Finland and Karelia) was Eskil Petraeus, whose principal work was De Antichristo magno, qui est Romanus pontifex, Uppsala, 1653. See I. Salomies, Suomen Kirkon historia, Helsinki, 1949, II, 334-49. On the eschatological bent of Swedish religious thought during the struggle between Reformation and Counter-Reformation, see H. Sandblad, De Eskatologiska föreställningarna i Sverige, Uppsala, 1942.

103. Population estimated in P. Smirnov, Voprosy, 093; churches in Krasnozhen, Inovertsy, I, 88.

104. Avvakum, for instance (Subbotin, Materialy, I, 25).

105. The late writings of Comenius (esp. Lux e Tenebris, 1665) were a principal weapon of reinforcement for radical, apocalyptical elements in the Reformation. This distinction between a “radical Reformation” and a “magisterial Reformation” (that is supported by local political authorities whether princely or cantonal) has been made by G. H. Williams (see his introduction to Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers, Philadelphia, 1957, 18-25), and extended as far east as Poland and Lithuania in his “Anabaptism and Spiritualism in the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: An Obscure Phase of the Pre-history of Socinianism,” in Studia nad arianizmem, 215-62. The Calvinism in Lithuania and White Russia is discussed by W. Ryzy-Ryski, The Reformation in Byelorussia, Princeton Theological Seminary, unpublished, revised Th. M. thesis.

106. This comparison was frequently made by early Western students of Russian religious life. See, for instance, J. Bellermann, Kurzer Abriss der russischen Kirche, Erfurt, 1788, 240-3.

For the pacifism of Neronov and Avvakum see S. Zenkovsky, “The Ideological World of the Denisov Brothers,” HSS, III, 1957, 61-2 note 45; Subbotin, Materialy, I, 38; Pascal, Avvakum, 48-9. The Old Believer term for “church,” “temple of prayer” (molitvenny khram), was widely used during the time of Alexis. Recent Old Believer literature claims that some of the temples built even before the schism were theirs. Indeed, the Old Believer calendar for 1960 celebrates the three hundredth anniversary of their first, allegedly built near Dünaburg. See Staroobriadchesky tserkovny kalendar’ na 1960 god (Preobrazhenskaia Staroobriadcheskaia Obshchina), 58.

107. This elder, Joseph, also began his preaching activities in 1660 at distant Eniseisk, well before the formalization of the schism. See A. Pallady, Obozrenie permskago raskola, P, 1863, 1-2; and I. Syrtsov, Samozhigatel’stvo, 6-9, 12-3. The increasing absorption of Armenian merchants into the Russian Orthodox fold (see Krasnozhen, Inovertsy, 91) may point to another source of Old Believer strength, because they were particularly strong among merchant classes. Nikon, however, was also accused of initiating Armenian rites; see Polotsky, Zhezl, ch. 2, 73.

108. This is the clear implication of the excellent pseudononymous discussion of a new edition of I. Goliatovsky, Kliuch razumeniia (Kiev, 1672), entitled “Iuzhnorusskoe dukhovenstvo i evrei v XVII veke,” Voskhod, 1887, Apr, esp. 4-6. Goliatovsky’s work and the campaign in Russia against Sabbataian ideas is also dealt with, albeit less satisfactorily, in Gradovsky, Otnosheniia, 338-56; and related to his general fear of heresy by I. Ogienko, “Propoved’ Ioannikiia Galiatovskago,” SKhO, XIX, 1913, esp. 423-6. See also the catalogues of heresies in Goliatovsky’s Nebo novoe, 51-64, 68-74.

109. G. Scholem, “Le Mouvement sabbataiste en Pologne,” JHR, XLIII, 1953, 30-90, 209-32, and XLIV, 1953, 42-77, documents the enormous impact inside Poland of Sabbataian messianism and indicates its substantial legacy to Polish thought, principally through Frankist sectarianism. Some hints and indications of Sabbataian influence in Russia are contained in Scholem’s Schabbetai Zvi, Tel Aviv, 1957, I, 1-74, II, 493 ff.

On the influx of Jews into Muscovy in the late seventeenth century see material listed in the special supplement to the Russian Jewish periodical Voskhod: Sistematichesky ukazatel’ literatury obevreiakh na russkom iazyke (1708-1889), P, 1892, 53-5, esp. P. Liakud, “K istorii evreev v Rossii,” Voskhod, 1888, May-Jun, 198-208, which stresses the lack of special restrictions against Jews during the reign of Alexis. See also E. Mel’nikov, Uchastie iudeev i inovertsev v delakh tserkvi, M, 1911, esp. 11-13, for official accusations of direct Jewish (and Armenian) influence among Old Believers and 65-6 on the subsequent need of Old Believers to make common cause with Jews and other minority groups in order to survive under conditions of persecution. Yu. Gessen, “Evrei v Moskovskom Gosudarstve XV-XVII v,” Evreiskaia Starina, 1915, no. 1, 1-19; and esp. no. 2, 153-72, documents other cases of Jews in high places. Jews were particularly used for translating (see K. Wickhart, Moscowittische Reiss-Beschreibung, Vienna, 1675, 43-4.)

There are some hints of a Jewish presence or influence even within the most notoriously anti-Jewish (the term “anti-Semitic” is inaccurate for this period) groups: the Cossacks (see the study by S. Borovoy in IS, I, 1934, 141-9; and Slouschz, “Les Origines,” 80) and the Old Believers (Smirnov, Voprosy, 093-4, 096-100). For Jews in Moscow in the late seventeenth century see Evreiskaia Starina, 1913, no. 1, 96-8. As with the Judaizing heresy, the precise role of the Jews in the Russian religious ferment of the late seventeenth century has never been precisely determined; but in contrast to the situation in the fifteenth century, the seventeenth-century problem has never been systematically investigated.

110. De Rodes cited by V. Nikol’sky, “Sibirskaia ssylka protopopa Avvakuma,” UZ RANION, II, 1927, 154.

111. Dispatch of A. Alegretti and J. Lorbach of Jan 18, 1656, in Haus, Hof und Staatsarchiv, Vienna, 8 Russland I Russica, VI, 27.

112. Paul of Aleppo, Travels, I, 410; also I, 386-95, II, 74-9.

113. See article 53 of the Kormchaia of 1653 (which has never been fully reprinted or analytically compared with the pre-Nikonian edition of 1651. A substantial section is in W. Palmer, The Patriarch, I, 617-65). On Nikon’s use of the Donation, see ibid., I, 207-16, and Zyzykin, Nikon, II, 161-4 (where it is contended that Nikon was unaware that it was a forgery, and free of any intent to establish papal claims for himself). The fifteen-page supplement on church history (consulted in the copy of the 1653 Kormchaia in the Harvard Law School Library) gives much detail on the apostolicity of the Russian church; presents the founding of the Russian patriarchate as a kind of divine compensation for the apostacy of the Roman Church; and accuses Rome of having seduced the English Church away from alleged prior fealty to Orthodoxy and “the Greek Tsar.” The most sustained effort to trace papal inclinations to Nikon (largely on the basis of other argumentation than is here advanced) is I. Andreev, Papskiia tendentsii patriarkha Nikona, P, 1908.

114. Belokurov, Materialy, 101-2. An even more apocalyptical dream taken from a letter of December, 1661, in Gibbenet, Izsledovanie, II, 48 ff., depicts the Uspensky Sobor in flames and the great church leaders of the past rising from their graves in holy procession towards the altar, while Metropolitan Peter tells Nikon of his despair over the Tsar, and fire slowly mounts toward the Tsar himself. For another vision of Peter during the Advent fast of 1664, see ibid., II, 112-13.

115. Gibbenet, Izsledovanie, I, 63; also 122.

116. Gibbenet, II, 47. On regulation about rebaptism see Krasnozhen, Inovertsy, 33-4, 100 ff.

117. Zyzykin, Nikon, II, 46. The Patriarch of Constantinople was also convinced that “second Lutherans” were at work in Russia, Subbotin, Materialy, VI, 198. Odoevsky was both head of the newly created prikaz of monastic affairs and government interrogator of Nikon.

118. Ligarides’ letter to Nikon of Jul 12, 1662, in Gibbenet, Izsledovanie, I, 113. See also Zyzykin, Nikon, III, 72-4.

119. Zhitie 110 (mt of Life, 134).

120. Life, 66.

121. Ibid., 134, 34.

122. Ibid., 131.

123. Ibid., 34 (“pravoverny,” Zhitie, 55). See E. Hoffer, The True Believer, NY, 1951.

124. Subbotin, Materialy, V, 204.

125. Avvakum, Life, 22.

126. Subbotin, Materialy, VIII, 224 ff.

127. I. Shusherin, “Izvestie o rozhdenii i o vospitanii i o zhitii sviateishago Nikona, patriarkha Moskovskago i vseia Rossii,” RA, 1909, no. 9, 1-110, particularly valuable for the early years of Nikon.

On the genre of spiritual autobiography, its development in the seventeenth century, and the texts and interrelationships of the zhitie of Avvakum and of Epiphanius see A. Robinson, Zhizneopisaniia Avvakuma i Epifaniia, M, 1963.

128. A. Kluyver, “Over het Verblijf van Nicolaas Witsen te Moskou (1664-65),” Verslagen en Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, Amsterdam, 1894, 5-38, esp. 19-22.

129. Text of Witsen’s report, folio pages 136a-137b, consulted while on temporary deposit in the University of Leiden Library, 1961, May.

130. Belokurov, Materialy, 84-100; Zyzykin, Nikon, I, 25; also III, 47-52, where Nikon likens his fate to that of the Hebrew prophets. For alleged early miracles on the Old Believer side see Subbotin, Materialy, I, 204-5; VII, 35-40.

131. Gibbenet, Izsledovaniia, II, 77, 47.

132. Reprinted in Ya. Barskov, Pamiatniki pervykh let russkago staroobriadchestva, P, 1912, 1-5 and comment 265-75. Also, for Nikon’s use of the Antichrist symbol (much less known generally than that of the Old Believers), see Strannik, 1880, Aug, 526-67.

133. Och (6), 300-2; Opisanie dokumentov i bumag khraniashchikhsia v moskovskom arkhive Ministerstva iustitsii, M, 1912, XVI, 18, note 2. See also V. Lebedev and A. Novosel’sky, eds., Krest’ianskaia voina pod predvoditel’stvom Stepana Razina: sbornik dokumentov M, 1954, I, 277 for Stenka Razin’s unsuccessful negotiation with Nikon.

134. P. Verkhovskoy’s monumental study of the church reforms of Peter (Uchrezhdenie dukhovnoi kollegii i dukhovny reglament, Rostov/ Don, 1916, 2v) considers the humiliation of Nikon and the sobor of 1666-7 the decisive stage in the secularization of the church and its subordination to the state (I, 44-5, 684). Another excellent and neglected study (I. Kozlovsky, “Znachenie XVII veka v russkoi istorii,” in Sbornik istoriko-filologicheskago obshchestva, Nezhin, VI, 1908) considers the sobor of 1666-7 in effect the first synod of the state church; a contemporary study by the Saxon Pastor at Vilnius (Herbinius, Religiosae, 150) also refers to the gathering of 1666-7 as a Lutheran type of synod (in the midst of an interesting analysis of the church schism largely in terms of Western parallels, 144-70, see also 72-9).

135. Mel’nikov, Uchastie, 12-13, 86-7; Gessen, “Evrei,” 161, note 1; Gibbenet, Izsledovanie I, 122; Simeon Polotsky, Zhezl, ch. I, 17; Paul of Aleppo, Travels, I, 276; Collins, Present State, 113-21.

136. Krachkovsky, Ocherki, 62.

137. The act of 1839 formally abolishing the Uniat Church inside Russia links it to the “khitraia politika byvshei pol’skoi respubliki.” Cited in S. Mel’gunov, Iz istorii religiozno-obshchestvennykh dvizhenii v Rossii XIX v, M, 1919, 73.

138. Smirnov, Istoriia, 91-5, 121; Voprosy, 61-7.

139. S. Bezsonov, Rostov veliky, M, 1945, 9-10, 14-23

140. Pascal, Avvakum, 371-2.

141. All of these are to be found in the frescoes of the Church of Ilya Prorok in Yaroslavl, which was built in 1647-50 but adorned with its present frescoes only in 1680-1. A new study of the composition of these frescoes and their celebrated borrowings from the Piscator Bible is M. Nekrasova, “Novoe v sinteze zhivopisi i arkhitektury XVII veka,” in V. Lazarev, et al., Drevnerusskoe iskusstvo: XVII vek, M, 1964, 89-109.

142. Contrast, for instance, the uneasy figure and cluttered composition of the late-seventeenth-century Yaroslavl icon of Christ enthroned in Bunt, Russian Art, 108, with the earlier Novgorodian composition on the same theme on 87.

The increasing representation of scenes of suffering on seventeenth-century icon screens is discussed by Sperovsky (“Ikonostasy,” Kh Cht, 1892, Jan-Feb, 10-16), who points out (15) that the same trend was also evident in the iconography of the apostles; and (12) that the Church Council of 1667 markedly accelerated the trend by requiring a representation of the cross on each icon screen so that “the holy church, by looking upon the crucifixion and passion of our savior Jesus Christ, may be cured of gnawing penetration by the invisible serpent-devil.”

143. There is no thorough, scholarly study either of Sysoevich or of Rostov; and my account of its treasures (and to a considerable extent, those of Yaroslavl) is largely drawn on observations and impressions during visits there in Mar, 1961, and Jan, 1965.

For an article on the stillmagnificent bells of Rostov, largely cast under Sysoevich, see Soviet Life, 1965, Dec, 44.

2. THE WESTWARD TURN

1. On Medvedev, see the edition of his works edited by A. Prozorovsky in Cht, 1896, II, iv, 1-148; III, iv, 149-378; IV, iii, 379-604; also S. Belokurov, Sil’vester Medvedev. Izvestie istinnoe pravoslavnym, M, 1886 (also in Cht, 1885, IV): I. Kozlovsky, Sil’vester Medvedev. Ocherk iz istorii russkago prosveshcheniia i obshchestvennoi zhizni v kontse XVII v, Kiev, 1896; I. Shliapkin, Dmitry Rostovsky i ego vremia, P, 1891, 144-76, 208 ff.; and for the influx of Latin terms and scholastic concepts into the Russian language during this time see Vinogradov, Ocherki, 18-33.

On the prodigious literary and theological activies of the Likhudies see M. Smentsovsky, Brat’ia Likhudy, P, 1899, and supplementary volume of materials Tserkovnoistoricheskiia materialy, P, 1899; also BE, XVII, 857-8. For the battle of the Grecophiles and Latinizers see K. Kharlampovich, Bor’ba shkolnykh vliianii v dopetrovskoi Rusi, Kiev, 1902; A. Galkin, Akademiia, 27-59; and the discussion of C. O’Brien, Russia under Two Tsars 1682-1689. The Regency of Sophia Alekseevna, Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1952, 43-61.

2. The proliferating Western theses and treatises are listed and critically discussed in Rushchinsky, “Religiozny byt.” Saxon links are discussed by J. Herbinius, Religiosae, 4, 34-46; Swedish links by N. Berg, Exercitatio. See also H. Bendel, Johannes Herbinius, Ein Gelehrtenleben a.d. XVII Jahrhunderts, Leipzig, 1924; and two articles by I. Pokrovsky on the curriculum and cultural impact of the theological seminaries, indicating frequent borrowings from the West: Strannik 1869, Jul, 24-55; Aug, 109-38.

3. Karmirēs, Ta Dogmatika, II, 687-773.

4. Zyzykin, Nikon, II, 164.

5. See Catholic Encyclopedia, V, 572-90.

6. Gavin, Aspects, 335; also the general discussion 324-53.

7. See G. Markovich, O vremeni presushchestvleniia sviatykh darov: spor, byvshy v Moskve vo vtoroi polovine XVII v, Vilnius, 1886, for this controversy and A. Gavrilov, “Literaturnye trudy patriarkha Ioakima,” Strannik, 1872, Feb, 89-112, for the preoccupation of the official church with schismatics, which permitted the Latin position to come into widespread usage.

The continued Russian insistence on viewing the manner and timing of transubstantiation as unknowable mysteries (see Sokolov, Kratkoe uchenie, 41-2; I. Zhilov, Katekhizicheskoe uchenie, 99) is similar to the attitudes of the Jansenists a century later, who were anathemized by Pius VI (in the bull, Uctorem fidei of 1794).

8. On Medvedev’s conflict with the radical Lithuanian Protestant Jan Belobodsky see A. Gavrilov, “Propovedniki ‘nemetskoi very’ v Moskve i otnoshenie k nim patriarkha Ioakima,” Strannik, 1873, Mar, 126-37. On the Likhudies (who also wrote against Protestants and Old Believers) see Smentsovsky, Brat’ia, 33-4.

9. On Krizhanich’s early career see S. Belokurov, “Yury Krizhanich v Rossii,” in Iz dukhovnoi zhizni moskovskago obshchestva XVII v, M, 1902, esp. 152/13-159; and for his polemic activities 168-88.

For a good discussion and basic bibliography see the article by M. Petrovich in ASR, 1947, Dec, 75-92; for an excellent analysis of his political ideas see V. Val’denberg, Gosudarstvennye idei Krizhanicha, P, 1912. The spirited article by L. Pushkarev (VI, 1957, no. 1, 77-86) and vigorous supporting comments of other academicians (VI, 1957, no. 2, 202-6) seem to have restored Krizhanich from the Stalinist anathema as a reactionary plotter for the Vatican (and a Yugoslav at that). A new and complete edition is being prepared of Krizhanich’s major work (previously published in a confusing and somewhat abridged version by P. Bezsonov as Russkoe gosudarstvo v polovine XVII veka, M, 1859-60, 2v) principally by A. Gol’dberg, whose articles on Krizhanich (UZLGU, CXVII, 1947; TODL, XIV, 1958; ISR, 1960, no. 6; Slavia, 1965, no. 1) contain valuable new information. Krizhanich’s polemic pro-Catholic and anti-German writings inside Russia are partly contained in M. Sokolov, Sobranie sochinenii Krizhanicha, M, 1891, supplemented by recent manuscript discoveries in IA, 1958, no. 1, 154-89.

10. M. Murko, Die Bedeutung der Reformation und Gegenreformation für das geistige Leben der Südslaven, Prague-Heidelberg, 1927, 24-59 and esp. 38, 46, note 4, and 48, note 2, for the Croatian emissaries to Moscow in the 1590’s and 1620’s.

11. Pesaro, 1601. Vandals, Goths, and Avars are included among the “Slavs” and the role of the Southern Slavs is stressed by the Croatian Benedictine in this remarkable work, which was translated into Russian by Prokopovich (P, 1722). See E. Shmurlo, “From Krizhanich to the Slavophils, An Historical Survey,” SEER, 1927, Dec, 321-7; and BE, XLII, 91.

12. Shmurlo, “Ligarides”; and Kurie.

13. Russkoe gosudarstvo, I, 92-8.

14. IA, 1958, no. 1, 170; see also Val’denberg, Idei, 155-8.

15. On Kuhlmann see particularly his collection of mystical and prophetic poems Der Kühlpsalter, London, 1679, and second expanded edition, Amsterdam, 1685-6, two parts, of which the first fourteen pages of part two are full of interesting prophecy. See also his prophetic appeal “wherein the reformation from Popery is fundamentally asserted and the Union of Protestants convincingly urged,” To the Wiclef Waldenses, Hussites, Zwinglians, Lutherans, and Calvinists, London, 1679 (and in Latin, Rotterdam, 1679); and his appeal to the Tsar, Drei und Zwanzigstes Kühl-Jubel ausz dem ersten Buch des Kühl-Salomons an Ihre Czarischen Majestäten, Amsterdam, 1687.

For the best basic discussion see R. Beare, “Quirinus Kuhlmann: The Religious Apprenticeship,” PMLA, 1953, Sep, 828-62; also his bibliography in La Nouvelle Clio, VI, 1954, 164-82; and, for his Russian activities, Tikhonravov, Sochineniia, II, 305-75; and Chizhevsky, Aus zwei Welten, 231-52. There is a valuable analysis of his spiritual poetry by Claus Bock (Quirinus Kuhlmann als Dichter, Bern, 1957), showing among other things striking resemblances in his imagery and versification to John of the Cross (89-95).

Adam Olearius, the merchant from Holstein who wrote the most widely read foreign account of Russia in the seventeenth century, was, like Kuhlmann, a member of the Fruchtbringende Gesellschaft. See B. Unbegaun, “Un Ouvrage retrouvé de Quirin Kuhlmann,” La Nouvelle Clio, 1951, May-Jun, 257.

16. Quoted in Beare, “Apprenticeship,” 854.

17. Theophilus Varmund, La Religion ancienne et moderne des Moscovites, Cologne, 1698, 25-7 (the account first published in Latin in 1694 by a German who visited Russia just after the death of Kuhlmann).

18. Tikhonravov, Sochineniia, II, 306, 346; see also Chizhevsky, Aus zwei Welten, 197-203; Gavrilov, “Propovedniki,” 139-43.

19. Tikhonravov, Sochineniia, II, 373-5. “It is known from the history of this Kuhlmann that some of the boyars closest to the Tsar strongly interceded with the Patriarch for Kuhlmann.” A. Labzin in the introduction to his translation of Boehme’s Christophia (Put’ ko Khristu, P, 1815). xxiii-xxiv; cited in BZ, 1858, I, 131.

20. Compare the patronizing tone of the general Russian reaction as reported by the Dutchman Keller in a letter of Jun 7, 1689 (unpublished letter in Archives of the Estates General, Leiden) with the patronizing treatment of apocalyptical prophets that was concurrently becoming fashionable in England. Whereas Sir Henry Vane had still been taken with deadly seriousness for his prophecy that the Second Coming would occur in 1666, similar prophecies twenty-five years later were looked at in the modern manner, as the ravings of madmen. See Christopher Hill, “John Mason and the End of the World,” History Today, 1957, no. 11, 776-80. By the 1680’s earlier eschatological expectations had generally been replaced by a tone of weary resignation to the reign of Antichrist (Antoinette Bourgignon, L’Antéchrist découvert, Amsterdam, 1681) or by scholarly and quasi-mathematical analyses (Jacques Massard, Harmonie des prophesies anciennes avec les modernes, sur la durée de l’Antéchrist et des souffrances de l’Église, Cologne, 1687).

21. Paul Hazard, La Crise de la conscience européenne (trans. The European Mind 1685-1715, London, 1953) traces the sudden move in these years “from Bossuet to Voltaire”—a change which did not occur in Russia until late (basically under Catherine) but took place earlier in England. See S. Bethell, The Cultural Revolution of the Seventeenth Century, Boston, 1957.

22. The khlysty were alleged to have originated in Kuhlmann’s teachings by R. Reutsky (Liudi bozhii skoptsy. Istoricheskoe izsledovanie, M, 1872, esp. 1-22). This hypothesis is rejected by most scholars (including J. Sévérac, La Secte russe des Hommes-de-Dieu, 1906, who summarizes the controversy 96-8, and suggests a derivation of khlyst from Khrist, 7, note 1). The inconclusive discussion of origins by Grass, Sekten, I, 588-648, considers a variety of possible links with Western Protestant extremists. A major, neglected work that relates all the major sects to Protestant influences is that of I. Sokolov, “Vliianie protestantstva na obrazovanie khlystovskoi, dukhoborskoi i molokanskoi sekt,” Strannik, 1880, no. 1, 96-112; no. 2, 237-60.

23. Sévérac, Secte, 106.

24. Signatura Rerum and Mysterium Magnum were the popular titles of Boehme’s two most important works: his treatise on cosmology and his “spiritual commentary” on the book of Genesis. In addition to Boehme (on whom see Z. David, “The Influence of Jacob Boehme on Russian Religious Thought,” ASR, 1962, Mar, 43-64) considerable influence was exercised on Kuhlmann (and on Russian esoteric and sectarian thought) by Lully, partly through the intermediacy of the heretical seventeenth-century Jesuit Athanasius Kirchner. See Tikhonravov, Sochineniia, II, 312 ff. For indications of his influence on the Old Believers see Archimandrite Nikanor, “ ‘Velikaia Nauka’ Raimunda Liulliia v sokrashchenii Andreia Denisova,” IlaS, XVIII, kn. 2, 1913, 10-36.

25. Gavrilov, “Propovedniki,” 131.

26. Margaritov, Istoriia, 84. The figure, Tveritinov, was a doctor—illustrating the continued appeal of occult, anti-Orthodox thought to this small educated and isolated intellectual elite.

27. T. Butkevich, Obzor, 18-20; G. Protopov, “Istorichesky vid misticheskikh sekt v Rossii,” TKDA, 1867, Oct, 93-4; BSE (1), LIX, 811-2. Grass analyzes the legends about Daniel and Suslov, Sekten, I, 78-95; also Sévérac, Secte, 82-109. P. Mel’nikov (RV, 1868, May, 5-70) suggests Bogomil origins; the anonymous author of the valuable article on Suslov in RBS, XIX, 182, notes a similarity with the Hindu idea of reincarnation; Shchapov (Delo, 1867, no. 11, 160-4) sees Tatar origins and Cossack intermediacy in transmitting the sect; and Sévérac (Secte, 154-70) tends to suggest some link with Moslem dervishes. Pre-Christian or Finnopagan origins are also postulated particularly by Shchapov; and P. Smirnov (Voprosy, 093-100) hints at a partly Jewish derivation by relating the flagellants to the ascetic traditions of Kapiton.

There are many interesting parallels between Russian sectarianism and more recent sectarian movements in outlying regions just entering the throes of modernization. V. Lanternari (The Religions of the Oppressed; a Study of Modern Messianic Cults, NY, 1965, p) sees these new sects as indigenous protest movements fusing local paganism with eschatological religious ideas taken over from the resented Western intruders in order to protest against the secular and technological eschatology imposed upon them from the West.

28. Suslov was said to have died on Jan 1, 1700,—presumably as a kind of protest against the new century and the change of New Year’s Day from September to January. Actually, Suslov died a natural death in 1716 (Margaritov, Istoriia, 21-5). The tendency to blend antiinnovationist ideas and prophetic wandering into the sectarian tradition reflects in part a grafting of schismatic ideas onto the flagellant tradition—also evidenced in the tendency to transform the Boyarinia Morozova into a kind of Mary Magdalen figure for their original martyred “Christs.” See RBS, XIX, 180-4; BE, LXIII, 123-4; Sévérac, Secte, 128-31, 146-8, 217.

29. On Prokopy Lupkin, who proclaimed himself Christ in 1732, and on the trials and scandals that followed see Sokolov, “Vliianie,” 244-5; Margaritov, Istoriia, 18 ff.

30. BE, LXXIII, 407, and the entire article, 402-9; Margaritov, Istoriia, 14.

31. Margaritov, Istoriia, 88 ff.

32. Ibid., 106 ff.; 125-8 for the links between Dukhobory and Molokane; 128-33 for Judaizing influences. The distinction is often made between these eighteenth-century “rationalistic” sects and the so-called “mystical” sects that appeared earlier (the flagellants, and so on). However, the theoretical basis for the distinction is not very clear; and, in practice, there is little agreement on the category to which many sects (for example, the Dukhobors) properly belong. The close links of the later sects with Protestantism are frequently and more convincingly asserted. See, for instance, S. Bolshakoff, “Russian ‘Protestant’ Sects,” in Nonconformity, 97 ff.; N. Sokolov, Ob ideiakh i idealakh russkoi intelligentsii, P, 1904, 307 ff.

33. Cited in RBS, IX, 546.

34. Butkevich, Obzor, 84-5. F. Livanov points to the relative newness of Tambov (formally a city only in 1636 and seat of a bishopric in 1662) and the large number of foreigners in the city—implying that these factors contributed to its rather unstable fascination with extremism. Raskol’niki, I, 285 ff.

35. VF, 1960, no. 1, 143-8.

36. Cited in Mel’gunov, Dvizheniia, 104.

37. Ibid., 117, 129. Grigory Talitsky’s proclamation of Peter as Antichrist was taken so seriously that the highest ecclesiastical authority, Stepan Yavorsky, wrote a reply in 1703: Znameniia prishestviia antikhristova i konchiny veka. See the discussion and Old Believer response in N. S-n [Subbotin?], Katalog ili biblioteka starovercheskoi tserkvi sobranny tshchaniem Pavla Liubopytnago, M, 1861, 27.

38. Francesco Algarotti, in 1739, after visiting the city. See L. Réau, Saint-Pétersbourg, Paris, 1913, 16; and S. Graciotti, “I ‘Viaggi di Russia’ di Francesco Algarotti,” RiS, IX, 1961, 129-50.

For an exhaustive account of the early construction of the city, S. Luppov, Istoriia stroitel’stva Peterburga v pervoi chetverti XVIII veka, M-L, 1957; for a detailed but undocumented English account of the cultural life of St. Petersburg through the reign of Elizabeth see C. Marsden, Palmyra of the North, London, 1942.

There are three excellent attempts to deal with the city as a cultural symbol: H. Hjärne, Från Moskva till Petersburg. Rysslands omdaning. Kulturhistoriska skildringar, Uppsala, 1888-9, 2v; E. Lo Gatto, Il mito di Pietroburgo. Storia, leggenda, poesia, Milan, 1960 (esp. 152-75, contrasting Moscow and St. Petersburg); and N. Antsiferov, Byl’ i mif Peterburga, P, 1924. See also G. Florovsky’s valuable review of two other books by Antsiferov on St. Petersburg, SEER, V, 1926-7, 193-8.

39. On Dutch terminology see W. Christiani, über das Eindringen von Fremdworten in die russische Schriftsprache des 17 und 18 Jahrhunderts, 1906, 37-43. On the shortlived early German schools in Moscow (which had as many as ten well-paid teachers and seventyseven students working twelve hours a day, largely on languages) see S. Belokurov, O nemetskikh shkolakh v Moskve v pervoi chetverti XVIII v, 1701-1715, M, 1907. Pastor Glück, whose servant became the second wife of Peter the Great, had previously set up a school in 1684 to convert Russian schismatics to Lutheranism in Livonia under the patronage of the king of Sweden before setting up his school in the Naryshkin home in Moscow (ibid., iii-viii). On the education of Russians abroad see M. Nikol’sky, “Russkie vykhodtsy iz zagranichnykh shkol v XVIII stoletii,” PO, 1863, III. On the founding of the Academy of Sciences see L. Richter, Leibniz und sein Russlandbild, 1946, 107-42. On the early, unhappy history of Petrozavodsk see V. Shkvarikov, Planirovka gorodov v Rossii XVIII-nachala XIX veka, M, 1939, 52-4.

40. L. Lewitter, “Peter and Westernization,” JHI, 1958, Oct, 496.

41. V. Danilevsky, Russkaia tekhnicheskaia literatura pervoi chetverti XVIII veka, M-L, 1954, 239-62; V. Pogorelov, Materialy i originaly Vedomostei, 1702-1727, M, 1903. The extent to which scientific development in eighteenth-century Russia grew in response to military needs has been skillfully spelled out in the case of the navy by T. Rainov, “O roli russkogo flota v razvitii estestvoznaniia XVIII v,” THE, I, 1947, 169-218. The degree to which foreigners continued to dominate the Academy of Sciences throughout the eighteenth century (comprising more than two thirds the total membership for the century) is brought out by I. Yanzhul, “Natsional’nost’ i prodolzhitel’nost’ zhizni nashikh akademikov,” IAN, 1913, no. 6, 284; and this entire useful article 279-98.

42. In addition to examples already discussed see the use of “science” by theologians such as Ioanniky Goliatovsky, rector of the brotherhood school at Kiev, particularly the chapter dealing with the technique of preaching, “Nauka albo sposob zlozheniia,” in Kliuch razumeniia, Kiev, 1659, 241, 125-33. Mogila, the founder of the school, seems to have used nauka in the sense of theoretical knowledge (BE, XLVI, 484-5), probably translating from Latin (rather than drawing on the earlier uses of nauk, nauka, documented in Sreznevsky, Materialy, II, 344, but long out of use in the Muscovite period).

Magnitsky’s arithmetic was in the genre of such unprinted seventeenth-century texts as the anonymous “Practical Geometry” (Geometriia praktika) and the useful guide to arithmetic published in Amsterdam in 1689 by I. Kopievsky, Kratkoe i poleznoe rukovenie v arifmetiku. See Kol’man, “Zachatki,” 312, 315. See also the insistence (309-10) that the first general understanding of theoretical mathematics came through the mystics. A good example of the continued emphasis on practical “science” under Peter is in the title of Tatishchev’s tract of 1730, Razgovor dvukh priiatelei o pol’ze nauk i uchilishch (ed. N. Popov, M, 1888), in which only the “useful” skills of medicine, economics, law, and philosophy are recommended for study.

43. The basic armory of abstract words ending in tsiia was derived from Polish ending cja; and a mass of Latin and general European terms dealing with manners, politics, architecture, music, and so on, were adopted in the distinctive forms they acquired in Poland, particularly in the late years of the reign of Alexis (who spoke Polish). See Christiani, Eindringen, esp. 10-33, 42-54. For other aspects of the influence see Lewitter, “Peter and Westernization,” 493-505; and Vinogradov, Ocherki, 17-34, for the role of Ukrainians and White Russians as transmitters of the Polish linguistic legacy to Great Russia under Alexis as well as Peter. For the fullest over-all picture of Western borrowings under Peter see N. Smirnov, “Zapadnoe vliianie na russky iazyk v petrovskuiu epokhu,” SlaS, LXXXVIII, no. 2, 1910, 1-360; and 361-86 for an appendix with several early eighteenth-century handbook guides to the Russian equivalents of the transliterated foreign words.

44. P. Pierling, La Sorbonne et la Russie (1717-47), 1882, esp. 22-38; A. Adariukov, “Ofort v Rossii,” Iskusstvo, 1923, no. 1, 284.

45. B. Sumner, Peter the Great and the Emergence of Russia, London, 1956, P, 132. For the growing influence of Grotius and Swedish practice even before Peter and the intellectual origins of Peter’s Polizeistaat see Lappo-Danilevsky, “L’Idée,” 369-83; Verkhovskoy, Uchrezhdenie, I, iii-xv.

46. Yu. Serech, “Feofan Prokopovich as writer and preacher in his Kievan period,” HSS, II, 1954, 223. See Prokopovich, Pravda voli monarshei, P, 1726 (many subsequent editions); and other of his works in Sochineniia, ed. I. Eremin, M-L, 1961. Lappo-Danilevsky, “L’Idée,” 374 and note 1 for the influence of Buddeus and Grotius in addition to that of Hobbes. See also R. Stupperich, “Feofan Prokopovič und Johann Franz Buddeus,” ZOG, IX, 1935, 341 ff.; G. Bissonnette, Pufendorf and the Church Reforms of Peter the Great, Columbia University Ph.D., 1961; Brian-Chaninov, Church, 128-33; and E. Temnikovsky, “Odin iz istochnikov dukhovnago reglamenta,” SKhO, XVIII, 1909, 524-34.

For his opponent Yavorsky’s final struggle against the subordination of church to state under Peter see Tikhonravov, Sochineniia, II, 156-304; and for the largely Roman Catholic derivation of his arguments see I. Morev, “Kamen’ Very” Mitropolita Stefana Yavorskago, P, 1904, esp. 1-50, 187-247. Also Yu. Serech, “Stefan Yavorsky and the Conflict of Ideologies in the Age of Peter the Great,” SEER, XXX, 1951, 40-62.

On Prokopovich himself I. Chistovich, Feofan Prokopovich i ego vremia, P, 1868, is still valuable. The discussion therein of Western influences (366-84) is expanded in G. Gurvich, “Pravda voli monarshei” Feofana Prokopovicha i ee zapadno-evropeiskie istochniki, Tartu, 1915.

Neither East nor West seems overly anxious to claim Prokopovich. The Orthodox G. Florovsky declares flatly that he “was not just under the influence of Protestantism, he simply was a Protestant,” (“Westliche Einflüsse in der russischen Theologie,” Kyrios, II, 1937, 11); whereas the German Catholic R. Stupperich insists that Prokopovich was always Orthodox (“Feofan Prokopovičs theologische Bestrebungen,” Kyrios, I, 1936, 350-62).

47. F. Prokopovich, Slova i rechi, P, 1760, I, 24; II, 74-6. Cited in V. Kiparsky, “Finland and Sweden in Russian Literature,” SEER, 1947, Nov, 175. S. Zenkovsky, “Schism,” 49, claims that Prokopovich “created” as well as popularized the word rossianin; but it appears to have been already in use during the Time of Troubles. See S. Platonov, Sotsial’ny krizis smutnogo vremeni, L, 1924, 67.

48. Christiani, Eindringen, 18, 23.

49. “Vol’nokhishchna Amerika/ Liud’mi, v nravakh, v tsarstakh dika …/ Ne znav Boga, khuda duma/ Nikto zhe bo chto uspeet,/ Gde glupost’ skvern’ i grekh deet.” Karion Istomin, in P. Berkov, ed., Virshi: sillabicheskaia poeziia XVII-XVIII vekov, L, 1935, 151. It also was popular in eighteenth-century sectarian literature to blame America for tobacco, “this American plague” which has “taken away the spiritual peace of man.” (… Amerikanskaia chuma/ lishila mir dukhovnago uma”) F. Livanov, Raskol’niki, I, 237 (and entire poem, 234-52).

50. As by G. Florovsky in the chapter heading on Peter in Puti. See also the typical Slavophile usage by I. Aksakov, RA, 1873, kn. 2, 2511.

51. “Geometria iavisia,/ Zemlemerie vsem mnisia./ Bez mery nest’ chto na zemli.” Karion Istomin in Berkov, ed., Virshi, 150.

52. L. Lewitter, “Peter the Great and the Polish Dissenters,” SEER, XXIII, 1954-5, 75-101; R. Wittram, “Peters des Grossen Verhältnisse zur Religion und den Kirchen,” HZ, 1952, no. 2, 261-96.

53. P. Pierling, La Sorbonne, esp. 22-38; and Richter, Leibniz, esp. 11-37 for Liebniz’s view of Russia as a bridge between Europe and China and a means of helping restore unity to Christendom.

The interest in enlisting Orthodox collaboration for a fresh approach to church unity was principally championed by the Jansenists and Pietists within the Catholic and Protestant communions respectively. The Pietist interest was, culturally, much more important— because it related the search for lost Christian unity to the quest for the original “natural” language that had presumably existed prior to the fall of Adam and the confusion of tongues (on which see the important forthcoming book by H. Aarsleff, Language, Man and Knowledge in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century).

Heinrich Ludolph, who published the first systematic printed grammar of the Russian language (Grammatica Russica, Oxford, 1696 repr. B. Unbegaun, ed., Oxford, 1959) originally went to Russia in search of new opportunities for the reunification of Christendom. Like the Swede J. Sparwenfeld (on whom see C. Jacobowsky, J. G. Sparwenfeld: bidrag till en biografi, Stockholm, 1932, esp. 50-79) his friend and the only other important seventeenth-century Western student of the Russian language, Ludolph turned to the study of language for largely religious reasons (see D. Chizhevsky, “Der Kreis A. H. Frankes in Halle und seine slavistischen Studien,” ZSPh, XVI, 1939, 16-68). The education of Ludolph was largely supervised by his uncle, Hiob Ludolph, the famed Oriental linguist and author of the first grammar of Abyssinian. This background probably helps explain the transmission via his friend, the Saxon doctor at the Tsar’s court, Laurent Rinhuber, of the already mentioned project for an anti-Moslem alliance between Muscovy and Abyssinia. See J. Tetzner H. W. Ludolph und Russland, 1955, 10-31, 44-93; and, on Rinhuber, P. Pierling, Saxe et Moscou: un Médecin diplomate, 1893. See also materials cited in A. Florovsky, “Pervy russky pechatny bukvar’ dlia inostrantsev 1690 g,” TODL, XVII, 1961, 482-94.

54. N. Klepinin, Sviatoi i blagoverny veliky kniaz’ Aleksandr Nevsky, Paris, 1928, 183.

55. On the ideas, intrigues, and downfalls of Tveritinov see Tikhonravov, Sochineniia, II, 156-304, and note 392 on supplementary pages 53-8; also Chizhevsky, Aus zwei Welten, 252-68.

56. See A. Brückner, Iwan Possoschkow: Ideen und Zustände in Russland zur Zeit Peters des Grossen, Leipzig, 1878; and V. Kafengauz, I. T. Pososhkov: zhizn’i deiate’nost’, M, 1951, 2d ed., and the same author’s critical edition of Kniga o skudosti i bogatstve i drugie sochineniia, M. 1951. K. Papmehl, “Pososhkov as a Thinker,” SEES, 1961, Spring-Summer, 80-7, stresses the religious and conservative basis of Pososhkov’s thought.

57. A new edition of Tatishchcv’s Istoriia rossiiskaia, M, 1962, 2 vols. and more to follow, is now being published in the USSR with scholarly notes. For an excellent rehabilitation of Tatishchev from previous scornful Soviet treatment and general scholarly neglect see M. Tikhomirov, “Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev,” IM, 1940, no. 6, 43-56 and bibliography 57-62; for more detailed discussion of Tatishchev’s History see Peshtich, Istoriografiia, 222-62 and notes. See also C. Grau, Der Wirtschaftsorganisator, Staatsmann und Wissenchaftler Vasilij N. Tatiščev (1686-1750), 1963. For consideration of Tatishchev in the context of his collaboration with the “learned guard” (a term used by Prokopovich) see Plekhanov, History of Social Thought, 83-118; and (particularly for their popularization of scientific ideas) P. Epifanov, “ ‘Uchenaia druzhina’ i prosvetitel’stvo XVIII veka,” VI, 1963, no. 3, 37-53.

58. For a detailed contemporary description by a leading physicist at the Academy of Sciences see the brochure by Krafft, Wahrhaffte und Umständliche Beschreibung und Abbildung des in Monath Januarius, 1740, in St. Petersburg aufgerichteten merkwürdigen Houses von Eiss, P, 1741; and the Russian version, Podlinnoe i obstoiatel’noe opisanie ledianogo doma, Myshkin, 1887, with a preface by K. Griaznov. See also V. Guillon, Un Episode peu connu de l’histoire de Russie, Toulouse, 1873; Veselovsky, Vliianie, 57, note 1; and Marsden, Palmyra, 96 ff., including pictures opposite 98.

In the same bizarre category stands the tradition of placing dwarfs inside giant pies and having them burst forth at some prescribed time to provide “table entertainment.” Peter, for instance, at a fete for his son, had two cakes brought forth containing naked dwarfs (one of each sex), who proceeded to “address each other.” See “Zapiski Vebera,” RA, 1872, no. 7-8, 1370.

59. On Golitsyn’s political ideas see A. Lappo-Danilevsky, “L’Idée,” 372-81; and, in addition to materials referenced in 377, note 2, D. Korsakov, Iz zhizni russkikh deiatelei XVIII veka, Kazan, 219-82. Tatishchev was also deeply interested in natural law theory (Lappo-Danilevsky, 377, 381-2), as was Simeon Polotsky, who approached it more from the position of a medieval schoolman and whose use of the term zakon estestva in 1680 is the earliest I have been able to find (Berkov, Virshi, 108).

60. H. Hjärne, “Ryska konstitutionsprojekt år 1730 efter svenska förebilder,” HT, 1884, no. 4, 189-272; Lappo-Danilevsky, is less sure of Swedish derivation and gives the references for other theories in “L’dée,” 380, note 1.

61. In 1733, 237 students were studying German, 51 French, and only 18 Russian in the school. See M. Viatkin, Ocherki istorii Leningrada, M-L, 1955, I, 213; and, for more details of early elementary education, Konstantinov and Struminsky, Ocherki, 39 ff.

62. B. Unbegaun, “Le ‘Crime’ et le ‘criminel’ dans la terminologie juridique russe,” RES, XXXVI, 1959, 56, also entire discussion 47-58. On the other terms see REW, II, 343; Christiani, Eindringen, 24-31 (esp. 28-9, note 10), 45, 52-3.

63. The use of terms like “baroque” and “rococo” is even more imprecise in the artistic history of Russia than in that of early modern Europe generally. F. Shmit (“ ‘Barokko’ kak istoricheskaia kategoriia,” in Russkoe iskusstvo XVII veka, L, 1929, 7-26) provides probably the best and most ranging short discussion in his review of the collection edited by A. Nekrasov, Barokko v Rossii, M, 1926. Also valuable for relating Russian developments to the baroque among the Western Slavs is A. Angyal, Die slawische Barockwelt, Leipzig, 1961.

The distinguished French student of the Baroque, V. Tapié, ends his inconclusive discussion of the Russian baroque (La Russie, 203, and 194-204) by speaking generally of a “Russian baroque” prior to Peter, and of “the baroque in Russia” thereafter—thus stressing (1) the impossibility of clearly differentiating different architectural styles in the second half of the seventeenth century and (2) the transition to an essentially foreign style imposed from above under Peter (called “cosmopolitan” by Angyal, 265-6). A distinction can be made, however, in the late seventeenth century between the more original “Muscovite” or “Naryshkin” baroque (see M. Il’in, “Problemy Moskovskogo barokka,” Ell, 1956, M, 1957, 324-39) and the more typically Central European “Kievan” baroque (the importance of which is often minimized by Great Russian historians). See M. Tsapenko, Ukrainskaia arkhitektura perioda natsional’nogo pod’ema v XVII-XVIII vv, M, 1963—covering from the 1670’s to the 1770’s. The term “Elizabethan rococo,” (used, for instance, by Hamilton, Art, 177-83) is useful in suggesting an increased interest in the interior and decorative arts, but misleading if taken to suggest any sharp break with the precedent baroque or sudden passion for systematic imitation of a clearly recognized new Western style.

64. A. Pozdneev, “Knizhnye pesniakrostikhi 1720-kh godov,” ScS, V, 1959, 165-79.

65. B. Menshutkin, Russia’s Lomonosov, 1952 by Princeton Univ. Press, 174-5.

66. V. Garshin, “Attalea Princeps,” in Sochineniia, M-L, 1960, 89-96.

67. Description of G. Kennan, Russia Leaves the War, Princeton, 1956, 3-4.

68. Ibid.

69. The parallel here is with the interpretation put forth in Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Of course, many who were or became Old Believers fled to Siberia simply to escape serfdom; and ideological motivation in colonization may have been less widespread (though perhaps more intense) in Siberia than in North America.

70. For the spread of schismatic ideas in the north see P. Vladimirov, “Ocherki iz istorii literaturnago dvizheniia na severe Rossii vo vtoroi polovine XVIII veka,” ZhMNP, 1879, no. 10; for the building of the Solovetsk legend, K. Chistovich, “Nekotorye momenty istorii Karelii v russkikh istoricheskikh pesniakh,” TKF, X, 1958, 68-78.

71. S. Zenkovsky, “Denisov Brothers,” 49-66; also BE, XIX, 391-2.

In 1724, the prikaz of church affairs recorded 14,043 Old Believers (A. Sinaisky, Otnoshenie russkoi tserkovnoi vlasti k raskolu staroobriadchestva, P, 1895, 165. An excellent study by a scholarly priest even though confined to the years 1721-5). This figure is one of the few solid ones in the entire history of the Old Believer movement, but is almost certainly incomplete. The statistics compiled by the ministry of the interior in 1863 indicated that eight million, or about one sixth of the Orthodox population were Old Believers—with three million of them priestless. There were also estimated to be 110,000 Molokane and Dukhobory and the same number of khlysty and skoptsy. See A. Prugavin, Raskol-Sektantstvo, M, 1887, 80 (and a bibliography on the controversial statistical question, 77-81).

72. BE, XIV, 486-7; Ya. Abramov, “Vygovskie pionery,” OZ, 1884, nos. 3, 4; V. Druzhinin, Slovesnyia nauki v Vygovskoi pomorskoi pustyni, P, 1911, 2d ed.; and V. Malyshev, “The Confession of Ivan Filippov, 1744,” OSP, XI, 1964, 17-27, and works referenced therein. For new details of Old Beliver activity on the lower Pechora in Central Siberia based on recent expeditions see V. Malyshev, Ust-tsilemskie rukopisnye sborniki XVI-XX vv, Syktyvkar, 1960.

73. Cited in the valuable detailed study of N. Sokolov, Raskol v Saratovskom krae, Saratov, 1888, 23, 22.

74. Ibid., 18 and ff. for similar illustrations.

75. See A. Prugavin, “Raskol i Biurokratiia,” VE, 1909, Oct, 650-78; Nov, 162-83. The vital division for the schismatics was not the split between “churches” (theirs and the new Orthodoxy), but the schism between their religious society and the irreligious society of the new state. For the beginning of the process by which the old merchant class was destroyed and the cities repopulated with elements more dependent on the central power see P. Smirnov’s monumental Posadskie liudi i ikh klassovaia bor’ba v pervoi polovine XVII veka, M, 1947-8, 2v—a work which unfortunately gives no real consideration to the broader consequences and ideological implications of the changes it describes.

76. The so-called tarabarsky iazyk (a kind of vagabond patois) and the ofensky iazyk (virtually a separate language), as well as numerous codes based on straight word and letter substitutions (probably growing out of the long-established Southern Slav and Russian tradition of secret writing, tainopis’). See Farma-kovsky, “Raskol.” 638-40; PS, 1859, Jul, 320 ff. Little serious study has been made of these and other examples of vorovskoi iazyk. See BE, XIII, 202-3.

77. Mel’gunov, Dvizheniia, 157-62. These two communes survive even to the present day, and are the centers of the two major branches of contemporary Old Believers: the Preobrazhenskoe kladbishche of “priestless” Theodosians and the “priested” Rogozhskoe kladbishche. The unparalleled collection of some eight hundred old icons still to be found in the cathedral and library of the latter community gives eloquent testimony to the wealth and fidelity to early artistic models of the Old Believers. See the limited edition put out by the community, Drevnie ikony staroobriadcheskogo kafedral’nogo Pokrovskogo sobora pri Rogozhskom kladbishche v Moskve, M, 1956. The use of terms like “cemetery,” “commune,” and “house of prayer” are necessitated by the Old Believer conviction that since the schism there can be no more validly consecrated “churches” or “cathedrals.”

78. The Bulavin uprising has been more neglected than the Razin and Pugachev uprisings, but was in fact the first to be deeply based in the peasantry. See the valuable analytical and bibliographical discussion by A. Zimin and A. Preobrazhensky, “Izuchenie v sovetskoi istoricheskoi nauke klassovoi bor’by perioda feodalizma v rossii,” VI, 1957, no. 12, esp. 149 ff. See also the general interpretations of the phenomena of peasant wars offered by Sumner, Survey, 161-70; and by V. Mavrodin, I. Kadson, N. Sergeeva, and T. Rzhanikova, VI, 1956, no. 2, esp. 69-70; as well as by V. Mavrodin in Soviet Studies in History, 1962, fall, 43-63. The direct role of religious dissenters in the uprisings does not appear to have been great until the Pugachev rising.

79. Yu. Got’e, Smutnoe vremia, M, 1921, 30-1. The Cossacks concurrently developed a tradition in the late sixteenth century of supporting pretenders to the Moldavian throne (see N. Kostomarov, Geroi smutnago vremeni, Berlin, 1922, 62-3). For the basic study of this tradition see D. Mordovtsev, Samozvantsy i ponizovaia vol’nitsa, P, 1867, 2v; and S. Solov’ev, “Zametki o samozvantsakh v Rossii,” RA, 1868, 265-81. For a romanticized, populist account see I. Pryzhov, Dvadtsat’ shest’ moskovs-kikh Izhe-prorokov, M, 1864.

80. For new material on this uprising see Vosstanie Bolotnikova: Dokumenty i materialy, M, 1959. Various interpretive studies of the movement by I. Smirnov are less perceptive than the pre-Soviet work of Got’e, and Kostomarov.

81. G. Aleksandrov, “Pechat’ anti-khrista,” (with illustration) RA, 1873, T.2, 2068-72, 02296; Sinaisky, Otnoshenie, 299; Mel’gunov, Dvizheniia, 118; Farmakovsky, “Raskol,” 632-4; E. Shmurlo, Petr veliky v otsenke sovremennikov i potomstva, P, 1912, I, 19-26; and N. Sakharov, “Starorusskaia partiia i raskol pri imperatorom Petre I,” Strannik, 1882, no. 1, 32-55; no. 2, 213-31; no. 3, 355-71.

82. Figures in Mel’gunov, Dvizheniia, 51; and K. Sivkov, “Samozvanchestvo v Rossii v poslednei treti XVIII v,” IZ, XXXI, 1950, 89. On lesserknown nineteenth-century echoes see two articles by the famous writer V. Korolenko, “Sovremennaia samozvanshchina,” RB, 1896, no. 5, 2d pagination, 172-93; no. 8, 2d pagination, 119-54.

83. “Khleb ne roditsia potomu, chto zhensky pol tsarstvom vladeet.” N. Firsov, Pugachevshchina: opyt sotsiologo-psikhologicheskoi kharakteristiki, P-M, nd, 9. See also his equally valuable and succinct, Razinovsh-china kak sotsiologicheskoe i psikhologicheskoe iavlenie narodnoi zhizni, P-M, 1914. The attempts by scholars of the late imperial period to analyze all these phenomena in psychological terms are, on the whole, far more convincing than Soviet efforts to relate these movements to economic factors (let alone economic classes). See, for instance, L. Sheinis, “Epidemicheskiia samoubiistva,” Vestnik vospitanii, 1909, Jan, 137 ff.; and numerous articles in S. Mel’gunov’s Iz istorii religiozno-obshchestvennykh dvizhenii v Rossii XIX v, M, 1919, esp. his “Sektanstvo i psikhiatriia,” 157-202, which treats a wide spectrum of dissenting movements and deals extensively with pre-nineteenth-century developments.

84. Firsov, Pugachevshchina, 151-3, 53-7.

85. Palmieri, Chiesa, 107-8; Brian-Chaninov, Church, 99, note 1, 97-100.

86. M. Semevsky, “Samuil Vymorkov, prorok ucheniia ob antikhriste v 1722-1725,” OZ, 1866, Aug, kn. 1, 449-74, kn. 2, 680-708.

87. Palmieri, Chiesa, 108-9, for statistics on this increase.

88. First published in 1207 folio pages in Venice in 1782, the Philokalia was abridged by Velichkovsky (Dobrotoliubie v perevode Paiisiia, M, 1793). A much fuller, and more vernacular version appeared in 1877. Velichkovsky’s version was carried and drawn on by the anonymous nineteenth-century author of The Way of a Pilgrim, London, 1941. The longer, later version is drawn on in two useful English language anthologies by E. Kadlou-bovsky and G. Palmer, Writings from the Philokalia on Prayer of the Heart, London, 1951; Early Fathers from the Philokalia, London, 1954.

On Paissius’ life see Zhitie i pisaniia startsa P. Velichkovskago, Odessa, 1887, and, for the best study of his general impact and the tradition of elders, S. Chetverikov, Moldavsky starets Paissy Velichkovsky, Petseri (Esthonia), 1938, 2v. (This is an abridged translation stripped of valuable references from an almost totally unavailable earlier Rumanian-language version of this work.) His ancestor, the poet Ivan Velichkovsky, is discussed in D. Chizhevsky, Aus zwei Welten, 172-8.

89. See N. Gorodetzky, Saint Tikhon Zadonsky: Inspirer of Dostoevsky, London, 1951.

90. Fedotov, Treasury, 259; selections from Tikhon and Seraphim. For an excellent discussion of Seraphim’s impact, Behr-Sigel, Prière, 104-20.

91. Fedotov, Treasury, 257.

92. Gorodetzky, Tikhon, 180-8. See also the 1912 thesis of the Moscow Theological Academy by V. Troitsky, “Vliianie Optynoi pustyni na russkuiu intelligentsiiu i literaturu,” BV, 1913, no. 4, appendix.

93. See E. Temnikovsky’s critical review of Golubinsky’s Istoriia kanonizatsii sviatykh v russkoi tserkvi, M, 1903, in VDL, LXXXVIII, 1904, second series of pages, 1-77, esp. 1-3, 31-40.

94. Saying of Tikhon, placed at the beginning of his “Sokrovishche dukhovnoe ot mira sobrannoe” in Sochineniia preosviashchennago Tikhona Episkopa Voronezhskago i Eletskago, M, 1837, X, 1.

95. Brian-Chaninov, 103, note 1.

96. Letter of the executive committee of the “People’s Will” to Alexander III on Mar 10, 1881, in Literatura narodnoi voli, 1905, 903-8.

IV. THE ARISTOCRATIC CENTURY

1. Tatishchev’s “Honorable Mirror of Youth,” cited from the 4th ed. in Alferov et al., Literatura, 6.

Recent studies of the eighteenthcentury aristocracy (all with copious references) include M. Raeff, “L’État, le gouvernment et la tradition politique en Russie impériale avant 1861,” RHMC, 1962, Oct-Dec, 295-307; and “Home, School and Service in the Life of the 18th century Russian Nobleman,” SEER, 1962, Jun, 295-307; K. Ruffmann, “Russischer Adel als Sondertypus der europäischen Adelswelt,” JGO, 1961, Sep; and J. Blum, Lord, 345 ff., and materials referenced in the bibliography.

A valuable older study is V. Zommer, “Krepostnoe pravo i dvorianskaia kul’tura v Rossii XVIII veka,” in Itogi XVIII veka v Rossii, M, 1910, 257-412. For the derivation of the terms shliakhetstvo and dvorianstvo see A. Liutsk, “Russky absoliutizm XVIII veka,” in Itogi, 228; and Blum, 347.

1. THE TROUBLED ENLIGHTENMENT

1. See P. Berkov, ed., Problemy russkogo prosveshcheniia v literature XVIII veka, M-L, 1961, 10-11.

Soviet scholars of the Enlightenment era are placed in a difficult position, because Lenin said little about the eighteenth century to serve as a guideline for later interpretation—indeed his only reference to “enlighteners” was to the radicals of the 1860’s. In apparent deference to this fact, some Soviet scholars now distinguish enlightenment as a process (prosvetitel’stvo) from enlightenment as a non-revolutionary but progressive ideology (prosveshchenie), and claim that the former extends from the mid-seventeenth to the mid-eighteenth century, and the latter primarily from the 1760’s through the 1780’s in Russia. See Berkov’s introduction to ibid., 5-27.

2. The significance of this figure, as cited by Vucinich, Science, 51, is somewhat lost by coupling it with Shchapov’s highly negative appraisal of the quality of Ukrainian education. For a more positive discussion and references see F. Ya. Sholom, “Prosvetitel’skie idei v ukrainskoi literature serediny XVIII veka,” in Berkov, ed., Problemy, 45-62, esp. 46-7.

3. E. Winter, Halle als Ausgangspunkt der deutschen Russlandkunde im 18 Jahrhundert, 1953; W. Stieda, Die Anfänge der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in St. Petersburg, JKGS, 1926, Bd. II, Heft 2.

P. Pekarsky’s basic study (Nauka i literatura v Rossii pri Petre Velikom, P. 1862, 2v) tended to minimize the immediate effects of Peter’s reforms on Russian thought, while recognizing their long-term implications. Soviet scholars now tend to emphasize their importance and, by implication, downgrade those of Catherine. See, in addition to D. Blagoy, Istoriia, V. Desnitsky, “Reforma Petra I i russkaia literatura XVIII v,” in his Izbrannye stat’i po russkoi literature XVIII-XIX vv, M-L, 1958, 5-37; and A. Pozdneev, “Prosvetitel’stvo i knizhnaia poeziia,” in Berkov, ed., Problemy, esp. 107, 109.

4. Figures cited by V. Zommer in Itogi, 389.

5. The increase from 328 to 2,315 computed by V. Sipovsky and cited in M. Strange, “Rousseau et ses contemporaines Russes,” AHRF, 1962, Oct-Dec, 524.

6. Both were monthlies: Uedinenny poshekhonets (later Ezhemesiachnoe sochinenie), Yaroslavl, 1786-7; and Irtysh, prevrashchaiushchiisia v Ippokrenu, Tobol’sk, 1789-91—a somewhat more radical journal. See Ocherki (7), 531-2; on the theater, see M. Liubomudrov, Tvorchesky put’ yaroslavskogo dramaticheskogo teatra imeni F. G. Volkova, M, 1964.

7. G. Vinsky. On his defense of Voltaire see Veselovsky, Vliianie, 63, note 1; and “Zapiski G. S. Vinskago,” RA, 1877, kn. 1, 76-123, 180-97, esp. 87, 102-4.

8. Vucinich, Science, 145-54; P. Pekarsky, “Ekaterina II i Eiler,” ZIAN, VI, 1865, 59-92; and a number of the articles on Russo-German cultural contacts in E. Winter, ed., Die deutsch-russische Begegnung und Leonhard Euler, 1958, esp. 13 ff. on Euler, and 158-63 on his son.

9. To appreciate the full range of his activities, the standard biography by the chemist B. Menshutkin, Lomonosov, should be supplemented by P. Berkov, Lomonosov i literaturnaia polemika ego vremeni, M-L, 1936, and “Lomonosov ob oratorskom iskusstve,” in Akademiku Viktoru Vladimirovichu Vinogradovu, k ego shestidesiatiletiiu, M, 1956, 71-81; L. Maistrov, “Lomonosov, Father of Russian Mathematics,” SR, 1962, Mar, 3-18; M. Radovsky, M. V. Lomonosov i Peterburgskaia akademiia nauk, L, 1961; and (for his exchange of ideas with Schlözer on history) E. Winter, August Ludwig v. Schlözer und Russland, 1961, esp. 45-76.

10. Haumant, La Culture, 108-9, 155; F. Kogan-Bernshtein, “Vliianie idei Montesk’e v Rossii v XVIII veke,” VI, 1955, no. 5, 101, note 13; K. Shafranovsky, “‘Razgovory o mnozhestve mirov’ Fontenellia v Rossii,” VAN, 1945, no. 5-6, 223-5. See also A. Lortholary, Le Mirage russe en France au XVIII siècle, 1951, 18-25; and (in addition to the copious materials in Lortholary’s notes) the official and ecclesiastical contacts discussed in Pierling, La Sorbonne.

Kantemir, who translated Fontenelle’s Discourse, (see M. Ehrhard, Un Ambassadeur de Russie à la cour de Louis XV, le prince Cantemir à Paris, 1938) also helped introduce Newton’s ideas into Russia during the early years of the Academy of Sciences (see M. Radovsky, Antiokh Kantemir i Peterburgskaia Akademiia nauk, M-L, 1959; and “Niuton i Rossiia,” VIMK, 1957, no. 6, 96-106, esp. 104. For a full bibliography on the extraordinary activities of Kantemir see P. Berkov, ed., Problemy russkogo prosveshcheniia v literature XVIII veka, M-L, 1961, 190-270. On Tred’iakovsky, R. Burgi, A History of the Russian Hexameter, Hamden, Conn., 1954, esp. 40-60; also M. Widnäs, “Fremdsprachliches bei Wassilij Tredja-kowskij” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen (Helsinki), LXI, 1960, 97-129.

11. Likhacheva, Materialy, 100-2; also H. Grasshoff. “Kantemir und Fénelon,” ZfS, 1958, Bd III, Heft 2-4, 369-83; and A. Rambaud, “Catherine II et ses correspondants français,” RDM, 1877, 15 Jan, 278-309; 15 Feb, 570-604.

12. Veselovsky, Vliianie, 83-5; L. Réau, “Les Relations artistiques entre la France et la Russie,” in Mélanges Boyer, 118-20; REW, III, 218.

13. For the skazka of Tsarevich Khlor (which was only a variant of a popular stage piece of the day) see Sochineniia imperatritsy Ekateriny II, P, 1893, III, 94-103, translated in Wiener, Anthology, I, 276-87. For the most elaborate stage version see RFe, XXIV, 1788, 195-232.

On Catherine’s cultural activities see L. Réau, Catherine la Grande Inspiratrice d’Art et Mécène, 1930; and articles by L. Leger in his La Russie intellectuelle, 76-105; R. Vipper in MB, 1896, no. 12; V. Sipovsky in ZhMNP, 1905, no. 5; and Sukhomlinov in ZhMNP, 1865, no. 10.

More generally on Catherine see G. Gooch, Catherine the Great and Other Studies, London, 1959; V. Bil’basov, Istoriia Ekateriny Vtoroi, Berlin, nd, covering only to 1764 (also in German, Berlin, 1891, 2v); and the serviceable introduction by G. Thomson, Catherine and the Expansion of Russia, London, 1947. The most complete edition of her works is the twelve-volume edition of A Pypin and Ya. Barskov, 1901-8. The best biography (none is entirely satisfactory) is probably still A. Brückner, Katherine die Zweite, 1893. Soviet work on Catherine’s period, which has been meager and disappointing, is summarized in L. Yaresh, “The Age of Catherine II,” RSPR, LXXVI, 1955, 30-42 and notes, 57-9.

14. W. Reddaway, Documents of Catherine the Great, Cambridge, 1931, includes a full English version of the final draft, together with much of Catherine’s correspondence with Voltaire in French.

For analysis of the drafts of the Nakaz and their connection with court intrigue see Georg Sacke, “Die Gesetzgebende Kommission Katherinas II,” JGO 1940, Beiheft 2; also his article on the commission in AK, XXI, 1931, no. 2; on Catherine’s succession to the throne in AK, XXIII, 1932, no. 2; and on the aristocracy and bourgeoisie under Catherine in RBPh, XVIII, 1938. The Nakaz acquired a formal title only in the printed version of the final draft: “Instruction (Nakaz) … given to the commission for composing a new law code.” The best edition is that of N. Chechulin, P, 1907. For analysis see F. Taranovsky, Politicheskaia Doktrina v nakaze Imperatritsy Ekateriny II, Kiev, 1903; G. Fel’dshtein, Ugolovno-pravovye idei nakaza Ekaterinoi II i ikh istochniki, Yaroslavl, 1909; and Ditiatin, “Verkhovnaia Vlast’ v Rossii XVIII v,” Stat’i, 591-631.

15. The figures on the composition of the commission cited in Ocherki (7), 276-80, largely by extrapolation from A. Florovsky, are refined by M. Beliavsky, “Predstavitel’stvo krest’ian v ulozhennoi komissii 1767-1768 gg,” Sbornik … Tikhomirovu, 322-9. His conclusion (329) that only 12 to 15 per cent of the peasantry had any delegated representatives still makes it appear a remarkably representative body for its time. Beliavsky’s forthcoming work Razvitie anti-feodal’-noi ideologii nakanune krest’ianskoi voiny (scheduled to appear M, 1965) promises to give a panoramic view of the opposition to Catherine in the sixties and early seventies.

16. See Vucinich, Science, 187; Normano, Spirit, 14-5.

17. Reddaway, Documents, xxiii-xxiv, 255, 217-9, 220.

18. Carlo Gastone della Torre di Rezzonico, Ragionamento sulla filosofia del secolo XVIII, 1778.

19. Chechulin, Nakaz, CXXXII-III. T. Cizova, “Beccaria in Russia,” SEER, 1962, Jun, 384-408; Veselovsky, Vliianie, 76 notes.

20. Letter of Aug 3, 1756, in Correspondance de Catherine Alexeievna, grand-duchesse de Russie et de Sir Charles H. Williams, ambassadeur d’Angleterre 1756 et 1757, M, 1909, 3.

21. Figure from Casanova cited in Haumant, La Culture, 110. On the short-lived journal, Le Caméléon Littéraire see M. N. Popova, “Teodor Genri Chudi i osnovanny im v 1755 g. zhurnal,” IAN(G), 1929, no. 1, 17-47.

22. Veselovsky, Vliianie, 71, note 1, and 58 ff.; D. Yazykov, “Vol’ter v russkoi literature,” in the Festschrift for Nicholas Storozhenko, Pod znamenem nauki, M, 1902, 696-714; S. Artamanov, Vol’ter, kritiko-biografichesky ocherk, M, 1954, 127-59; “Rossiia i Frantsiia,” LN, XXIX-XXX, 1937, 7-200; and M. Strange, La Révolution française et la société russe, M, 1960, 45-9 (with further references) and, for the later influence of Voltaire, A. Rammelmeyer, “Dostojevskij und Voltaire,” ZSPh, XXVI, 2, 1958, 252-78 and notes. On the “Voltaire chair” see SSRIa, II, 640.

23. From letters in SRIO, XLIV, 1885, 3-5.

24. Cited in Gooch, Catherine, 61, 69.

25. This dedication, though actually added by the publisher (the work being printed only after Helvétius’ death in 1771), appears to have been fully in accord with Helvétius’ wishes (see preface, xv to Oeuvres complètes de M. Helvétius, Liège, 1774, III; also M. Tourneux, Diderot et Catherine II, 1899, 67). Helvétius, during much of his long ideological exile from France was in touch with Dmitry Golitsyn, Catherine’s ambassador to the Hague and principal intermediary with the encyclopedists. Golitsyn tried to get Catherine to publish the work in Russia. For this and the later impact of Helvétius see A. Rachinsky, “Russkie tseniteli Gel’vetsiia v XVIII veke,” RV, 1876, May 285-302.

Helvétius’ concept of Asiatic despotism is not discussed in the valuable article on the concept of inherent Eastern despotism by F. Venturi, “Oriental Despotism,” JHI, 1963, Jan-Mar, 133-42, nor in the doctoral dissertation at Uppsala on the subject by J. Hultin, De fundamentis despotismi asiatici, 1773.

26. See the special emphasis put on the impact of Montesquieu’s work by Daniel Mornet at the beginning of his section “La Guerre ouverte” in Les Origines intellectuelles de la révolution française (1715-1787), 1954, 71-3. For his influence in Russia see A. Pypin, “Ekaterina II i Montesk’e,” VE, 1903, May, 272-300; Kogan-Bernshtein, “Vliianie,” 99-110.

27. Field Marshal B. von Münnich, cited by V. Zommer in Itogi, 391.

28. Letter of 1765 to d’Alembert in SRIO, X, 1872, 31. See also Taranovsky, Doktrina, 40; Tourneux, Diderot, 139-40.

29. Chechulin (intr. to Nakaz, CXXIX-CXXX), counted 294 out of 526. There was a total of 655 articles in the Nakaz, including the two supplements of 1768 printed in Reddaway.

30. Lortholary, Mirage, 88-99, 198-242.

31. See Tourneux, Diderot, 63; Lortholary, Mirage, 179-86.

32. N. Kulakko-Koretsky, Aperçu historique des travaux de la société impériale libre économique 1765-1897, P, 1897 5-6; Veselovsky, Vliianie, 68-9. See also M. Confino, “Les Enquětes économiques de la ‘société libre d’économie de Saint-Petersbourg’ 1765-1820,” RH, 1962, Jan-Mar, 155-80; and V. Semevsky’s discussion of the replies in the first part of his Krestiansky vopros v Rossii v XVIII i pervoi polovine XIX veka, P. 1888. For the remarkably early attention to Adam Smith see M. Alekseev, “Adam Smith and His Russian Admirers in the Eighteenth Century,” in W. Scott, Adam Smith as Student and Professor, Glasgow, 1937.

33. See the excellent treatment of the fate of encyclopedias in Russia in BSE (1), LXIV, esp. 487-90; also the more detailed discussion of nineteenth- and twentieth-century encyclopedias by I. Kaufman, Russkie entsiklopedii, M, 1960.

34. C. de Larivière, Catherine II et la révolution française, 1895, 24, 187, n. 1.

35. J. Herder, “Journal meiner Reise im Jahre 1769,” in Sämtliche Werke (ed. B. Suphan), 1878, IV, 402.

The importance of Herder’s formative years in Riga and the influence of his ideas inside Russia have been insufficiently appreciated in both East and West despite considerable available material. See L. Keller, Johann Gottfried Herder und die Kultgesellschaften des Humanismus, 1904, 1-30; F. McEachran, The Life and Philosophy of Johann Gottfried Herder, Oxford, 1939, 27-9; A. Pypin, “Gerder,” VE, 1890, no. 3, 277-321; 1891, no. 4, 625-72; A. Gulyga, Gerder, M, 1963, 186-92; A. Wegener, Herder und das lettische Volkslied, Langensalza, 1928; K. Bittner, “Herders Geschichts philosophie und die Slawen,” VSP, 1929, Reihe 1, Heft 6, (esp. 104-5 for a valuable list of largely forgotten eighteenth-century German books on Russia), and “J. G. Herder und V. A. Zhukovsky,” ZSPh, 1959, no. 1, 1-44.

36. Lortholary, Mirage, 174-9 on Bernardin.

37. H. Halm, “Österreich und Neurussland,” JGO, 1941, Heft 1, 275-87.

38. “Nachal’noe upravlenie Olega, podrazhanie Shakespiru bez sokhraneniia featral’nykh obyknovennykh pravil” of 1786 in Sochineniia Imperatritsy Ekateriny II, P, 1893, II, 109-39.

Oleg’s last line delivered to the Byzantine Emperor is: “Pri otshestvii moem, Ya shchit Igorev na pamiat’ ostavliaiu zdes’. Pust’ pozdneishie potomki uzriat ego tut.” 139. For a description of the play, which celebrated victory over the Turks, see C. Masson, Mémoires secrets sur la Russie, 1804, I, 94-6. The full musical score (written by Giuseppe Sarti and several collaborators) is available in the New York Public Library, P, 1791.

For the general growth of national consciousness under Catherine, see H. Rogger, National Consciousness in Eighteenth-Century Russia, Cambridge, Mass., 1960; also A. Lipski, “Boltin’s Defense of Truth and Fatherland,” CSS, II, 1963, 39-52.

39. On Bentham’s early visits to Russia see A. Pypin, Ocherki literatury i obshchestvennosti pri Aleksandre 1, P, 1917, 6-22. For later contacts see 23-109; also W. Kirchner, “Samuel Bentham and Siberia,” SEER, 1958, Jun.

40. On the silhouette as cultural symbol see E. Friedell, A Cultural History of the Modern Age, NY, 1930, II, 283-4; on Catherine’s theatrical tastes, see R. A. Mooser, Opéras, intermezzos, ballets, cantates, oratorios joués en Russie durant le XVIII^e siècle, Geneva-Monaco, 1955, esp. 1, 111-12; also his L’Opéra-comique français en Russie au XVIII^e siècle, Geneva-Monaco, 1954, rev. and exp. ed; and Kliuchevsky, Ocherki, 319.

The legend of the Potemkin villages is one of a number of apocryphal tales about Potemkin’s misdoings by the Saxon diplomat Helbig. The phrase Potemkinsche Dörfer has subsequently enjoyed considerable vernacular usage in German. See G. Soloveytchik, Potemkin, London, 1948, 181-2. There was, however, a deeper truth behind the legend, symbolized by the so-called continuous façade (sploshnoy fasad). See Arkhitektura SSSR, 354, which was prescribed for the new cities, giving them an unreal impression of imperial elegance.

41. F. Lacroix, Les Mystères de la Russie, 1845, 201, note. (He also counts additional feast days for the family.) See also W. Bishop, “Thomas Dimsdale, MD, FRS, and the Inoculation of Catherine the Great,” AMH, 1932, Jul, 331-8.

42. C. Dany, Les Idées politiques et l’esprit public en Pologne à la fin du XVIII^e siècle. La constitution du 3 Mai 1791, 1901; U. Lehtonen, Die polnischen Provinzen Russlands unter Katharina II, Sortavala (Finland), 1906; and a valuable new collection of articles on the Polish Enlightenment edited by P. Francastel, Utopie et institutions au XVIII^e siècle, ’s Gravenhage, 1963.

43. Cited in Hans Blumenfeld, “Russian City Planning of the 18th and early 19th Centuries,” JAH, 1944, Jan, 26. In addition to this valuable article (with illustrations of the plans opposite p. 22), see V. Shkvarikov, Ocherk, esp. 134-202, for the principles of central city planning in the late eighteenth century (also 21-62 for a good discussion of pre-eighteenth-century city planning; and, for more detail, L. Tverskoy, Russkoe gradostroi-tel’stvo do kontsa XVII veka; planirovka; zastroika russkikh gorodov, L, 1953).

See also the earlier work of Shkvarikov, Planirovka, which seeks to relate Soviet city planning of the thirties (in which he was an active leader) to older Russian traditions of planned city construction; and I. Ditiatin, Ustroistvo i upravlenie gorodov Rossii, P, 1875, I, covering the eighteenth century. For provincial participation in the new architectural activities see I. Grabar, “U istokov klassitsizma,” EII, 1956; and for other illustrations and plans see Arkhitektura SSSR, 82-9, 418-23, 428, 438.

44. Raeff, “L’État,” 296. Veselovsky, Vliianie, 58; G. von Rauch, Die Universität Dorpat und das Eindringen der frühen Aufklärung in Livland, 1690-1710, Essen, 1943; Likhacheva, Materialy, 100-2. Herder, Sämtliche Werke, 1878, IV, 343-461; G. Teplov, Znaniia, voobshche do filosofii kasaiushchi-iasia, P, 1751; RBS, XX, esp. 475-6.

45. This surprising fact is stressed in A. Timiriazev, Ocherki po istorii fiziki v Rossii, M, 1949, 81, 85-6. For the influence of Locke see Veselovsky, Vliianie, 77; P. Maikov, Ivan Ivanovich Betskoy, P, 1904, prilozhenie, 49; Likhacheva, Materialy, 97; and Betskoy, Système, I, 4; II, 171, 305-8.

On Catherine’s educational projects, the useful section in W. Johnson, Heritage, should be supplemented by N. Hans, “Dumaresque, Brown and Some Early Educational Projects of Catherine II,” SEER, 1961, Dec, 229-35; and S. Rozhdestvensky, “Proekty uchebnykh reform pri Ekaterine,” ZhMNP, 1907, Dec; 1908, Feb, Mar.

46. On Pnin and Repnin, see V. Orlov, Russkie prosvetiteli 1790-1800-kh godov, M, 1953, 2d ed., 95 ff.; and (for analysis of Pnin’s Opyt o prosveshchenii otnositel’no k Rossii), 158 ff.

Betskoy has been strangely neglected by historians despite an admirable, prize-winning monograph on his life and works by Maikov, which includes the text of many of his proposals. See also I. I. Betskoy drug chelovechestva, P, 1904; and discussion and references in RBS, III, 5-12; BE, VI, 649-50, XIII, 276-7.

Misinformation on him (and on much else) abound in the memoir literature of the period, where he is generally referred to by the French version of his name, Betzky. (Even Bil’basov assigns him incorrect dates.) Relatively valuable is Chevalier de Corberon, Un Diplomate français à la cour de Catherine II, Paris, 1901, 2v. See also Strange, “Rousseau,” 518-19; Tourneux, Diderot, 2-5.

Most of his proposals are printed in his Sobranie uchrezh-denii i predpisanii kasatel’no vospitaniia v Rossii oboego pola blagorodnago i meshchanskago iunoshestva, P, 1789-91, three parts; also in his Système complet d’éducation publique, physique et morale, Neuchâtel, 1777, 2v.

47. Strange, “Rousseau,” should be supplemented by D. Kobeko, “Ekaterina II i Zh. Zh. Russo,” IV, 1883, Jun, 603-17; and Maikov, Betskoy, 47-60. Rousseau was, of course, particularly admired by the Poles, and also by Ukrainian reformers such as Ya. P. Kozel’sky (on whom see Yu. Kogan, Prosvetitel’ XVIII veka Ya. P. Kozel’sky, M, 1958). Kozel’-sky’s Filosoficheskiia predlozheniia (P, 1768) has been called “the first system of philosophy to come from the pen of a Russian author” (BE, XXX, 596). See particularly Kozel’-sky’s Rousseauian Razsuzhdenie dvukh indiitsev, Kalana i Ibragima, ochelovecheskom poznanii, P, 1788.

For the influence on Russian literature of Rousseau’s ideal of the anti-social noble savage (beginning with P. Bogdanovich’s Diky chelovek, P, 1781, and continuing through Radishchev to the anonymous Dikaia evropeanka, P, 1804), see the study by Yu. Lotman in Berkov, ed., Problemy, 89-97.

48. Maikov, Betskoy, prilozhenie, 7; also 157; and 101 ff. for an excellent history of the institution of the foundling home in the eighteenth century.

49. Sochineniia Derzhavina, P, 1895, I, 192-3; see also 234, note 56.

50. Cited by Kobeko, “Ekaterina,” 612.

51. Raeff, “L’Etat”; “Home, School and Service”; also, on the failure to develop a civic spirit, Blok, Politicheskaia literatura, 90-1, and more generally, 59-79.

52. Maikov, Betskoy, 343-55. See also E. Falconet, Correspondance de Falconet avec Catherine II, 1767-1778, with intr. by L. Réau, 1921; and D. Arkin, Medny vsadnik, Pamiatnik Petru I v Leningrade, L, 1958.

53. Betskoy, General’noe uchrezhdenie o vospitanii oboego pola iunoshestva, P, 1766, 3-10. See also A. Lappo-Danilevsky, Ivan Ivanovich Betskoy i ego sistema vospitaniia, P, 1904. Shchapov (Sochineniia, II, 537) suggests that Betskoy’s concept of a third class of educated people may have originated with the Zotov family at the time of Peter the Great.

54. Haumant, La Culture, 128; and 119-29.

55. Cited in M. Popova, “Chudi,” 26.

56. “Skol’kob liudi ni khitrili,/ skol’-kob razum ni ostrili,/ Pravda liudiam govorit’:/ Vas liubov perekhitrit’.” From Opekun professor ili liubov’ khitree krasnorechiia, in RFe, 1788, no. 24, 61-2; Kliuchevsky, Ocherki, 319; “Kak khotite, tak zhiviti/ my ne budem vam meshat’,” from Novoe Semeistvo, in RFe, 1788, no. 24, 279.

57. Russkie dramaturgi, II, 81; for Sumarokov’s definition of comedy, BE, LXIII, 58.

58. Varneke, History, 63.

59. Maikov, Betskoy, 354; D. Stremo-oukhoff, “Autour du ‘Nedorosl’ de Fonvisin,” RES, XXXVIII, 1961, 185; and text of La Harpe’s memoir of 1784 in Le Gouverneur d’un Prince, Lausanne, 1902, 253; see also 134-5.

For the general influence of Stoicism on the European Enlightenment see P. Hazard, La pensée européenne au XVIIIème siècle de Montesquieu à Lessing, 1946, II, 103-5; and the more recent study by M. Rombout, La Conception stoïcienne du bonheur chez Montesquieu et chez quelques-uns de ses contemporains, 1958.

60. Sumarokov, Izbrannye proizvedeniia, L, 1957, 104.

61. A. Mel’gunov, Seneki khristi-ianstvuiushchago nravstennyia lekarstva, M, 1783, dedicated to Metropolitan Platon of Moscow and Kaluga, an admirer of the Stoics.

62. V. Tukalevsky, “Iz istorii filosofskikh techenii Russkogo obshchestva XVIII v,” ZhMNP, 1911, May, 4-5; partial text in Alferov, etc., Literatura, 7, 11.

63. V. Hehn, De moribus Ruthenorum, Stuttgart, 1892, 71.

64. Sochineniia D. I. Fonvizina, P, 1893, 113. Cited-without attribution in D. Blagoy, Istoriia russkoi literatury XVIII veka, M, 1945, 241; see also Blagoy, 236-7, and discussion and references 214-43 on Fonvizin, and the older study by Tikhonravov, Sochineniia, III, 90-129.

On the Viennese production of 1787 see G. Wytrzens, “Eine Ünbekannte Wiener Fonvizin Ubersetzung aus dem Jahre 1787,” WSJ, 1959, VII, 118-28.

On general European ignorance of Russian literature even in the late eighteenth century see P. Berkov, “Izuchenie russkoi literatury inostrantsami v XVIII veke,” laL, V, 1930; and Lortholary, Mirage, 269-74.

For an English translation see Noyes, Masterpieces, 27-28. The title used therein, The Young Hopeful, and the more frequently used title, The Minor, are (like the title adopted here) all inadequate for the Russian Nedorosl, which has a more distinctively negative meaning of “not full grown” and unable to perform governmental (and by implication any useful) service.

65. Skovoroda, Sochineniia, ed. Bonch-Bruevich, P, 1912, 406. For the best discussion of Skovoroda’s ideas in English see V. Zenkovsky, History, I, 53-69. For widely divergent interpretations see D. Chizhevsky, Filosofija H.S. Skovorody, Warsaw, 1934; B. Skitsky, Sotsial’naia filosofiia G. Skovorody, Vladikavkaz, 1930; V. Ern, Grigory Savvich Skovoroda, M, 1912; and T. Bilych, Svitogliad G. S. Skovorody, Kiev, 1957. For supplementary material see also Istoriia ukrainskoi literatury, Kiev, 1955, I, 113-24; N. Maslov, “Perevody G. S. Skovorody,” NZK, III, 1929, 29-34; and T. Ionescu-Nisçov, “Grigory Skovoroda i filosofskie raboty Aleksandra Khidzheu,” RoS, II, 1958, 149-62.

In addition to the one-volume Bonch-Bruevich edition of his works see also the original one-volume Sochineniia, ed. Bagalei, Kharkov, 1894; and the two-volume edition published by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences under the editorship of Bilecki, et al., in Kiev, 1961. See also his Kharkivs’ki baiki, ed. Tichini, Kiev, 1946, and the list and basic discussion of his works in BE, LIX, 217-19; also Edie, Philosophy I, 11-62.

66. Zenkovsky, History, I, 56.

67. Istoriia ukrainskoi literatury, I, 120.

68. T. Kudrinsky, “Filosof bez sistemy,” KS, IX, 1898, 43. Mel’-gunov, Dvizheniia, 190-1.

69. Ern, Skovoroda, 31.

70. Cited in ibid., 136.

71. “Skazhi mne imia ty, skazhi svoe sama;/ Ved’ vsiaka bez tebe durna u nas duma./ U grekov zvalas’ ia sofiia v drevny vek,/ A mudrost’iu zovet vsiak russky chelovek./ No rimlianin mene minervoiu nazval,/ A khristianin dobr khristom mne imia dal.” Skovoroda, Sochineniia (ed. Bagalei), 293.

72. Radishchev, Puteshchestvie, M, 1944, 9-10, 59-60. There is an English translation by L. Wiener, edited by R. Thaler, Harvard, 1958; and a biography and bibliography on Radishchev by D. Lang, The First Russian Radical, London, 1959. Lang includes additional references and a critical discussion of Soviet scholarship on Radishchev in his “Radishchev and Catherine II,” in Curtiss, ed., Essays, 20-33. See also A. McConnell, A Russian philosopher: Alexander Radishchev, 1749-1802, The Hague, 1964.

73. “Ia tot zhe chto i byl/ i budet ves moi vek/ Ne skot, ne derevo, ne rab,/ no chelovek.” Cited in V. Yakushkin, “K biografii A. N. Radishcheva,” RS, 1882, Sep, 519.

74. Lang, Radical, 217-23. This idea was apparently derived from Herder’s Ideen zur Geschichte der Menschheit. See K. Bittner, “J. G. Herder und A. N. Radishchev,” ZSPh, XXV, 1956, 8-53; also V. Sipovsky, “Iz istorii russkoi mysli XVIII-XIX vv. Russkoe Vol’ter-ianstvo,” GM, 1914, Jan, 108.

75. According to a letter of Bonch-Bruevich (who had been Lenin’s personal secretary) to A. M. Nizhenets, written in 1955 shortly before Bonch-Bruevich’s death, discussed in Nizhenets, “V. D. Bonch-Bruevich pro G. S. Skovorodu,” RL, 1958, no. 3; and (more briefly) by F. Sholom in Berkov, ed., Problemy, 61-2.

76. A. Afanas’ev, “Nikolai Ivanovich Novikov,” BZ, 1858, no. 6, 166-7. See also L. Fridberg, “Knigoizdatel’skaia deiatel’nost’ N. I. Novikova v Moskve,” VI, 1948, Aug, 23-40.

There is no adequate account of Novikov’s extraordinary career in a Western language, and no fully satisfactory account in Russian. The valuable standard work by V. Bogoliubov (N. I. Novikov i ego vremia, M, 1916) has neither full references nor a bibliography, for which one should consult G. Vernadsky, Nikolai Ivanovich Novikov, P, 1918, 143-63. The philosophic and occult interests of Novikov are minimized and at times even suppressed in Soviet treatments, such as that of G. Makogonenko, Nikolai Novikov i russkoe prosveshchenie XVIII veka, M-L, 1951. More balanced is the recent anthology of articles and documents edited by I. Malyshev, N. I. Novikov i ego sovremenniki, M, 1961, which chides the efforts to exclude this aspect of Novikov’s work by Makogonenko and Berkov (502). For Novikov’s later years and religio-philosophic interests, all of the above should be supplemented by M. Longinov, Novikov i Moskovskie Martinisty, M, 1867; and his neglected later correspondence in B. Modzalevsky, K biografii Novikova, P, 1913. Fresh archival materials (particularly from the Shliakhetsky Korpus) have been used by M. Strange to show the considerable student interest that developed in the writings of Radishchev and Novikov. See his Formirovanie raznochinnoi intelligentsii XVIIIogo veka (forthcoming, M, 1965).

77. See A. Lipski, “Boltin’s Defense,” 39-52. The first collection of Russian songs, published by G. Teplov in 1759, may have been preceded by others. See M. Azadovsky, Istoriia, 149. However, real interest in Russian folk music began only with Chulkov’s publications of fable and song: Kratky mifologichesky leksikon (1767); Peresmeshnik ili slavianskiia skazki (1766-8), four parts; Russkie skazki (1780-3), published in ten parts by Novikov on the university press; and Sobranie raznykh pesen’, some of which was published in the early or mid-seventies, but which has survived only in the expanded second edition published in collaboration with Novikov in 1790-1 and known as the “Novikov song-book.” See BE, LXXVII, 32-3. P. Struve considered the publication of this latter work the “most influential and important development of the eighteenth century,” in the formation of modern Russian literature (Nabliudeniia, 9).

78. Sumarokov, preface to the tragedy “Dmitry Samozvanets,” text in Alferov, Literatura, 138. On Falconet’s travels, see Réau, “Relations,” in Mélanges Boyer, 127-8.

79. For this estimate and other details on the wealth and indolence of Moscow see Zommer, in Itogi, 391-5. See also Putnam, Seven Britons, 334-6; M. Anderson, “Some British Influences on Russian Internal Life and Society in the 18th Century,” SEER, 1960, Dec, esp. 154 ff.; and P. Berkov, “English Plays in St. Petersburg in the 1760’s and 1770’s,” OSP, VIII, 1958.

Many aristocrats of the late eighteenth century enjoyed a totally apolitical life of leisure modeled to a large extent on that of the English landed aristocracy. There was a sudden interest in gardening, yachting, hunting, and dancing, and a rash of “English clubs” in major cities. See BE, XXIX, 426-8; also A. Afanas’ev, “Cherty russkikh nravov XVIII stoletiia,” RV, 1857, Sep, 248-82.

80. “Chto novogo pokazhet mne Moskva?/ Segodnia bal’ i zavtra budet dva.” A. Griboedov, “Goria ot uma,” in Sochineniia, M, 1953 (ed. Orlov), 19. For an excellent description of Moscow in Griboedov’s time as reflected in his plays see M. Gershenzon, Griboedovskaia Moskva, M, 1916, 2d corr. ed.

81. The vast literature available on Masonry contains relatively little dispassionate analysis, and has been relatively untouched by intellectual historians. The best work has been done on French Masonry: A. Lantoine, Histoire de la franc-maçonnerie française, 1925; G. Martin, La Franc-maçonnerie française et la préparation de la révolution, 1926; and D. Mornet, Origines intellectuelles, 357-87, with excellent bibliography 523-5. The latter conclusively demonstrates that “the majority of masons” were “not revolutionaries, not even reformers, nor even discontent.” (375) Unfortunately, Mornet makes no real effort to say what they in fact were, and betrays little awareness of the international importance of Masonry—a failure common to almost all French studies of the subject.

For some appreciation of the extraordinary, Europe-wide impact of the movement see the good introduction by G. Huard, L’Art royal. Essai sur l’histoire de la franc-maçonnerie, 1930; the excellent bibliography of masonic works published between 1723 and 1814 in C. Thory, Acta Latomorum ou chronologie de l’histoire de la franche maçonerrie, 1815, II, 349-400; the detailed study of A. Wolfstieg, Werden und Wesen der Freimaurerei, 1923, 2v; and the vast bibliography compiled by Wolfstieg, Bibliographie der freimaurerischen Literatur, Leipzig, 1923-6, 4v.

For the impact of the movement in individual countries see F. Schneider, Die Freimaurerei und ihr Einfluss auf die geistige Kultur in Deutschland am Ende des 18 Jahrhunderts, Prague, 1909; Ernst Friederichs, Geschichte der einstigen Maurerei in Russland, 1904; and Die Freimaurerei in Russland und Polen, 1907; and V. Viljanen’s less comprehensive, Vapaamu-urariudesta Suomessa ja Venäjällä, Jyväskyllä, 1923.

Masonry is analyzed as a religious movement by L. Keller, Die geistigen Grundlagen der Freimaurerei, Berlin, 1922 (2d ed.); and (more critically) by C. Lyttle, “The Religion of Early Freemasonry,” in J. McNeill et al., Environmental Factors in Christian History, Chicago, 1939, 304-23.

Among the many studies of Russian Masonry, two are particularly good in relating Russian developments to those in Europe as a whole: I. Findel’s pioneering study, Istoriia Frank-Masonstva, P, 1872-4 (which is a Russian translation and elaboration of a revised German edition); and the richly illustrated collaborative work edited by S. Mel’gunov and N. Sidorov, Masonstvo v ego proshlom i nastoiashchem, M, 1914-15.

The most stimulating and sophisticated studies are those by Tira Sokolovskaia, published largely as short articles in RS during the first fifteen years of the twentieth century. See also her invaluable monograph based almost entirely on primary materials: Russkoe masonstvo i ego znachenie v istorii obshchestvennago dvizheniia, P, nd; and her Katalog Masonskoi Kollektsii D. G. Burylina, P, 1912; “Ionnov Den’—Masonsky Prazdnik,” More, 1906, 23-4; and especially “Masonstvo kak polozhitel’noe dvizhenie russkoi mysli v nachale XIX veka,” VsV, 1904, May, 20-36. See also the well-documented older studies by M. Longinov, A. Pypin, and S. Eshevsky referenced in the notes to Longinov, Sochineniia, M, 1915, I; G. Vernadsky, Russkoe Masonstvo v tsarstvovanie Ekateriny II, P, 1917 (particularly for membership statistics, 85-90); and Ya. Barskov, Perepiska moskovskikh masonov XVIII-go veka, P, 1915; and Russkoe masonstvo i ego znachenie v istorii obshchestvennago dvizheniia (XVIII i pervaia chetvert’ XIX stoletiia), P, nd.

More tendentious but useful for detail are the English account by a Russian Masonic émigré, B. Telepnev, “Freemasonry in Russia,” AQC, XXXV, 1922, 261-92; the Nazi-sponsored research of H. Riegelmann, Die Europäischen Dynastien in ihrem Verhältnis zur Freimaurerei, 1943 (esp. 295-314 for information suggesting close links between the Romanov dynasty and European Masonry); and V. Ivanov’s impressionistic Ot Petra Pervago do nashikh dnei, Russkaia intelligentsiia i Masonstvo, Harbin, 1934. For another literary portrayal besides the famous caricature in Tolstoy’s War and Peace, see A. Pisemsky, Masony, P, 1880, a novel of nearly 1,000 pages.

Of all the Bolshevik leaders, the only one who appears to have made any study of Masonry was Trotsky, who confessed (most uncharacteristically) his total inability to assess its historical significance. See My Life, NY, 1930, 120. The renewed influence of Masonry in the early twentieth century (particularly among the non-Bolshevik reformers and within the Provisional Government of 1917) is stressed by G. Aronson, “Masony v russkoi politike,” Rossiia nakanune revoliutsii, NY, 1962, 109-43.

82. Detailed, if fragmentary and far from conclusive, evidence for deriving Freemasonry from the medieval guild of stone masons is presented by D. Knoop and G. Jones, An Introduction to Freemasonry, Manchester, 1937.

83. Eshevsky, Sochineniia, M, 1870, III, 445; also Telepnev, “Freemasonry,” 261-2.

84. Telepnev, 263.

85. Cited in Tukalevsky, “Iz istorii,” 12.

86. Listed in Telepnev, “Freemasonry,” 264-9.

87. Cited in Bogoliubov, Novikov, 258.

88. The term “higher order Masonry” is used here for all the various lodges that preached the necessity of attaining grades beyond the original three of Masonry. This includes the Scottish rite, the primarily German lodges of “strict observance,” most Swedish orders, and others—generally known as “red” or “purple” Masonry as distinct from the “blue” Masonry of the lower orders; and, in Russia, orders of Andrew as distinct from John.

The term “higher order Masonry” is also used to include societies that were technically separate from the Masonic structure but were largely outgrowths of Masonry, seeking to answer the same demand for occult knowledge and stricter moral discipline (that is, Rosicrucians, élus cohens, and so on). The term as used here does not include those outgrowths of Masonry that were interested primarily in radical social and political reform such as the “illuminists” of Bavaria (who sought to extend the reforms of Joseph II, referring to Vienna as the “new Rome”) and some of the Polish lodges that were interested in radical reform rather than inner regeneration. These rationalistic and reformist societies have been inaccurately bracketed with the far more numerous conservative and mystical “higher orders” by anti-Masonic pamphleteers.

For the best analysis of the origins of the higher orders and the tangled conflicts that developed among them see R. Le Forestier, L’Occultisme et la francmaçonnerie écossaise, 1928, La Franc-maçonnerie occultiste au dix-huitième siècle et l’ordre des Élus Coëns, 1928; and Les Plus Secrets Mystères des hauts grades de la maçonnerie dévoilés, 1914. See also the well-documented iconoclastic study by P. Arnold, Histoire des rose-croix et les origines de la franc-maçonnerie, 1955.

89. T. Tschudi, L’Étoile flamboyante ou la société des francs-maçons considerée sous tous ses rapports, Frankfurt-Paris, 1766, 2v. See esp. I, 4-5, 160; and 41-7 for his speech to a lodge in St. Petersburg; also II, 179-232 for his catechism. Tschudi was the original Franco-Swiss spelling of his name, under which works published in the West appeared. For his Masonic activities see J. Bésuchet, Précis historique de l’ordre de la franc-maçonnerie, 1829, I, 42-3, 47; II, 275-9.

The passion for new catechisms was particularly marked in Germany. See J. Schmitt, Der Kampf um den Katechismus in der Aufklärungsperiode Deutschlands, Munich, 1935.

90. Bogoliubov, Novikov, 285.

91. Tukalevsky, “Iz istorii,” 29-31, 18-20.

92. Findel, Istoriia, I, 273; also 253-73, 306-18. See also Zdenek David, “Influence of Boehme,” 49 ff.; and D. Chizhevsky, “Swedenborg in Russland,” Aus zwei Welten. The only work known to me which views the struggle between French and German ideas as a major theme for understanding Russian thought of the era is M. Kovalevsky, “Bor’ba nemetskago vliianiia s frantsuzskim v kontse XVIII i v pervoi polovine XIX stoletiia,” VE, 1915, 123-63.

93. Paul was almost certainly a practicing Mason. See T. Sokolovskaia, “Dva portreta imperatora Pavla I s Masonskimi emblami,” RS, 1908, Oct, for pictures of Paul in Masonic garb 82-3; text 85-95; also Masonstvo, 11-12, and AQC, VIII, 1895, 31; Riegelmann, Dynastien, 298-301; and, particularly for the impact of higher order Masonry on his ideological education and later policies, G. Vernadsky, “Le Césarévitch Paul et les francsmaçons de Moscou,” RES, VIII, 1925, 268-85.

94. BE, XXXVI, 511-12. Tukalevsky, “Iz istorii,” 33 ff. On Schwarz, see Tikhonravov, Sochineniia, III, 60-81; M. Longinov, “Novikov i Shvarts,” RV, 1857, Oct, 539-85; comments on this article by S. Eshevsky, RV, 1857, Nov, 174-201; RBS, XI, 621-8; and the sophisticated discussion together with documents and references in Barskov, Perepiska.

“Sons of the university” or “alumni” are probably more accurate modern equivalents than “foster children” for the term pitomtsy as used in Schwarz’s group.

95. RBS, XXII, 625; Tukalevsky, 27; also “Materialy dlia istorii druzheskogo uchenogo obshchestva,” RA, 1863, vyp, 3, 203-17; A. Afanas’ev, “Nikolai Ivanovich Nokikov,” BZ, 1858, no. 6, 161-81.

96. See F. Valjavec, “Das Woellnersche Religionsedikt und seine geschichtliche Bedeutung,” HJ, 72, 1953, 386-400; Tukalevsky, 41-2; RBS, XXII, 623-4.

97. Cited in Tukalevsky, 29.

98. From text in Malyshev, ed., Novikov, 216.

99. Ibid., 217.

100. Tukalevsky, “Iz istorii,” 31-8. See also A. Viatte, Les Sources occultes du romantisme, 1928, I, 33-41, 120, on triadic ideas in the occult tradition; and C. Bila, La Croyance à la magie au XVIII^e siècle en France, 1925, for ample signs that the occult tradition was far more widespread even in “enlightened” French circles than is often appreciated.

101. Cited in Tukalevsky, “Iz istorii,” 51, note 3. The manuscript which was located in Jan, 1965, under the number referenced by the usually reliable Tukalevsky (Q III, 175, of the manuscript collection of the Saltykov-Shchedrin Library in Leningrad) does not include this quotation, but many similar ones, asking “Chto takoe sut’ idei?” referring to Christ as “ideia vsekh idei” (5b) and his true followers as “smysliashchie/ intelligentes” (55b). Tukalevsky’s quotation may, thus, be only a paraphrase. However, since his page reference of 107 seems completely inappropriate to this document in any case, it may be that reference numbers have been changed, or that he was citing some other document in this rich collection of occult literature. The extensive translation of German and Latin philosophical terminology into Russian by Schwarz and his followers has never been systematically studied; but it seems probable that the term “intelligentsia” was derived not directly from Latin as is generally assumed, but indirectly through the adoption of Latin terms in German occult literature. The usage of “intelligentsia” cited by Tukalevsky is close to the concept of pure spirits, or Intelligenzen, in German occultism (see C. Kiesewetter, Geschichte des neueren Occultismus, Leipzig, 1891, 259). Ivan Aksakov, who apparently was the first to introduce the term “intelligentsia” into more general usage in the 1860’s (see A. Pollard, “The Russian Intelligentsia: The Mind of Russia,” CSS, III, 1964, 7, note 19), derived (like Schwarz) his philosophic training and terminology from the German. The transposition of the Latin t into the Russian ts suggests the possible intermediacy of the German z or perhaps the Polish cja.

This later Russian idea that the intelligentsia bears a message of liberation for all mankind recalls the original chiliastic idea of Joachim of Flora that a new “third realm” of the spirit was coming in which men would be ruled no more by coercion, but by intelligentia spiritualis. See R. Kestenberg-Gladstein, “The ‘Third Reich,”’ JWI, XVIII, 1955, 245, 270.

102. Findel, Istoriia, II (published in Jan, 1874).

103. From his diary of Baron Schroeder, the new grand master, on his arrival in 1784 at the age of twenty-eight, in Barskov, Perepiska, 215. Schroeder referred to the Rosicrucians as “Protestant Jesuits” (225), but felt that there was a natural affinity between Protestantism and Orthodoxy, Prussia and Russia.

104. M. de Vissac, “Dom Pernety et les iluminés d’Avignon,” MAV, XV, 1906, 219-38; A. Pypin, “Materialy dlia istorii masonskikh lozhov,” VE, 1872, Jan, esp. 204-6; Viatte, Sources, I, 89-92; and Vernadsky, “Césarévitch.”

105. RA, 1908, no. 6, 178. Note that even after the French Revolution (in the preceding document of 1790 on the same page), while accusing the Masons of preaching an “equality not existing in nature,” she categorizes it as a “mystical heresy” and not a political movement.

Her opposition to Masonry began as early as 1759, according to Longinov, “Novikov i Shvarts,” 584. Catherine’s anti-Masonic plays are reprinted in her Sochineniia, P, 1893, I, 138-209; and her general attitude toward Masonry examined in depth by A. Semeka, “Russkie rozenkreitsery i sochineniia Ekateriny II protiv masonstva,” ZhMNP, 1902, no. 2, 343-400.

106. Cited in Mel’gunov, Dvizheniia, 181; and see entire excellent discussion of the sociopolitical ideas of dissenters under Catherine, 179-95.

107. V. Flerovsky, Tri politicheskiia sistemp London, 1897, 46-7, note.

108. On Alexis Elensky and the bozhestvennaia kantseliariia see A. Prugavin, Raskol vverkhu, ocherki religioznykh iskanii v privilegirovannoi srede, P, 1909, 76-83. For a fantastic example of latter-day efforts to attribute conspiratorial political genius to the skoptsy see E. Josephson, The Unheeded Teachings of Jesus, or Christ Rejected, NY, 1959, which contends, among other things, that the USSR was at that time ruled by a secret coterie of skoptsy operating within the Communist system.

109. Mel’gunov, Dvizheniia, 180.

110. Citations in Longinov, “Novikov,” 563-4. Lopukhin, in fact, used the schismatic image of the Antichrist in his treatise on the “inner Church”: Bogoliubov, Novikov, 209. Like almost all subsequent movements within the Westernized educated classes, Masonry was rigorously rejected by the schismatics. See Riabushinsky, Staroobriadchestvo, 48-9.

111. Longinov, “Novikov,” 572, and 565 ff.

112. See Saint-Martin’s Mon Portrait historique et philosophique (1789-1803), 1961, ed. R. Amadou; also P. Arnold, Histoire, esp, 259-63, as well as M. Matter, Saint-Martin, le philosophe inconnu, 1862, esp. 134-45 for Russian contacts in London in the mid-1700’s. Information on his Masonic activities and influence in Russia is provided by H. C. de la Fontaine, “The Unknown Philosopher,” AQC, XXXVII, part 3, 1924, 262-90 (including comments). For his central influence on two of the greatest nineteenth-century European writers, Balzac and Mickiewicz, P. Bernheim, Balzac und Swedenborg: Einfluss der Mystik Swedenborgs und Saint-Martins auf die Romandichtung Balzacs, 1914. W. Weintraub, Literature as Prophecy, Scholarship and Martinist Poetics in Mickiewicz’s Parisian Lectures, ’s Gravenhage, 1959.

Some authorities derive the term “Martinist” from Martinez rather than Saint-Martin. See, for instance, M. Kovalevsky, “Masonstvo vo vremia Ekateriny,” VE, 1915, Sep, 108 note 1.

113. Mon Portrait, 56.

114. On the treatise Réintégration des ětres, by Martinez de Pasqually, the shadowy teacher of Saint-Martin, De Maistre, and others, see De Maistre, Franc-maçonnerie, 15-16.

115. A. Herzen, PSS i pisem, ed. Lemke, XI, 11.

116. Cited in Veselovsky, Vliianie, 95, note 2.

117. N. Mikhailovsky, Sochineniia, P, 1896, I, v.

On some of Lavater’s links with Russia see Viatte, Sources, II, 72-3; Lavater, Correspondance inédite avec l’Impératice Marie de Russie sur l’avenir de l’âme, 1863; “Perepiska Karamzina s Lafaterom,” German and Russian facing texts published as an appendix to ZIAN, LXXIII, 1893.

118. Merzliakov, cited in V. Istrin, “Druzheskoe Literaturnoe Obshchestvo,” ZhMNP, 1910, Aug, 291-2.

119. N. Drizen, “Ocherki teatral’noi tsenzury v Rossii v XVIII v,” RS, 1897, Jun, esp. 555-62; and for the general atmosphere of the time and ample references see M. Strange, La Révolution; C. de Larivière, Catherine II, 139-40; also 357-75 for her mémoire of 1792 on the subject of revolution.

120. Ocherki po istorii russkoi zhurnalistiki i kritiki, L, 1950, I, 82.

121. E. Al’bovsky, “Imperator Pavel I i Mitropolit Sestrentsevich-Bokush,” RS, 1897, May, 279-82; Pierling, La Russie, V, esp, 183-97.

122. Cited by V. Istrin, “Russkie studenty v Gettingene v 1802-1804 gg,” ZhMNP, 1910, no. 7, 125. For some of the later terms of adulation for Alexander, particularly during the Napoleonic wars, see Cherniavsky, Tsar, 128 ff. For the continuing impact of Göttingen on Russian intellectual life, see E. Tarasov, “Russkie ‘gettingentsy’ pervoi chetverti XIX v. i vliianie ikh na razvitie liberalizma v Rossii,” GM, 1914, no. 7, 195-210.

123. Cited in Lang, Radical, 254. For the ideas of La Harpe and their impact on Alexander see several articles by L. Mogeon in Revue Historique Vaudoise, particularly “L’influence de La Harpe sur Alexandre,” 1938, May-Jun.

124. See G. Vernadsky, “Reforms under Czar Alexander I: French and American Influences,” RP, 1947, Jan, 47-64; M. Raeff, “The Political Philosophy of Speransky,” ASR, 1953, Feb, 3-18; “The Philosophical Views of Count M. M. Speransky,” ASR, 1953, Jun, and Michael Speransky: Statesman of Imperial Russia 1772-1839, The Hague, 1957, esp. 204-27.

125. Raeff, Speransky, 1-118; see also A. Pypin, Ocherki, esp. 42-8, on the influence of Bentham and his followers on Speransky.

126. Raeff, Speransky, 23, note 2.

127. See A. Yakhontov, Istorichesky Ocherk Imperatorskago Litseia, Paris, 1936.

128. Raeff, Speransky, 119-69.

129. Letter of Alexander to La Harpe of Mar 12, 1811, in SRIO, V, 1870, 41.

130. “Svoboda—tam gde est’ ustavy,/ Svoboda mudraia sviata,/ No ravenstvo—mechta.” Cited in Ocherki … zhurnalistiki, 147.

131. See discussion in N. Bulich, Ocherki po istorii russkoi literatury i prosveshcheniia s nachala XIX veka, P, 1902, I, 273-303; also Ocherki … zhurnalistiki, 132-52 for Karamzin’s impact on journalism and letters; and R. Pipes, Karamzin’s Memoir on Old and New Russia, Cambridge, Mass., 1959; an analysis together with translation of the text; also Pipes’ “Karamzin’s Conception of the Monarchy,” HSS, IV; W. Mitter, “Die Entwicklung der politischen Anschauungen Karamzins,” FOG, Bd. 2, 1955, 165-285, and H. Rothe, “Karamzinstudien II,” ZSPh, Bd. XXX, Heft 2, 1962, 272-306.

132. See account of the story and citations in Bulich, Ocherki, I, 82; also Karamzin, Istoriia gosudarstva rossiiskago, P, 1819, 2d ed., VI, 130-2.

133. Cited in Bulich, Ocherki, I, 82.

134. See especially K. Ryleev, “Otryvki Dumy ‘Marfa Posadnitsa’,” and notes thereto in LN, LIX, 1954, 23-4.

135. See the extraordinary forty-six points put forward by Count Mamonov for his would-be society of “Russian knights” in the valuable anthology edited by A. Borozdin, Iz pisem i pokazanii dekabristov. Kritika sovremennago sostoianiia Rossii i plany budushchago ustroistva, P, 1906, 145-8. The secret “society of the united Slavs,” one of the last to form (and most radical) of the groups participating in the Decembrist movement, used as their emblem four anchors signifying the White, Black, Baltic, and Mediterranean seas, which they envisaged as the naturalboundaries of a united Slavic federation that would require a navy and a great port on each sea. See M. Nechkina, Obshchestvo soedinennykh slavian, M-L, 1927, 91-2, 104-6, and symbolic signs of the society in the fold-out appendix.

For a valuable but undocumented account of the movement Zetlin, The Decembrists, NY, 1958. For more detail and documentation, see M. Nechkina, Dvizhenie dekabristov, M, 1955, 2v; also the bibliography of Soviet writings on the movement between 1928 and 1959 edited by Nechkina and bearing the same title Dvizhenie dekabristov, M, 1960; for discussion of their ideas, V. Semevsky, Politicheskie i obshchestvennye idei dekabristov, P, 1909; and H. Lemberg, Die nationale Gedankenwelt der Dekabristen, Cologne, 1963. For new materials on the neglected figure of Mamonov see articles by Lotman referenced in the bibliography Dvizhenie, 79, 199.

136. For the range of these early journalistic activities see Ocherki … zhurnalistiki, 194-235.

137. M. Lunin, Sochineniia i pis’ma, P, 1923, 82.

138. For exhaustive discussion of the Decembrists’ idealization of Novgorod see Volk, Vzgliadi, 321-47.

139. See P. Ol’shansky, Dekabristy i pol’skoe natsional’no-osvoboditel’noe dvizhenie, M, 1959, including 165-213 on links with Lithuania, particularly the Philomat society at Vilnius University, which was actually one of the earliest of the radical student secret societies to appear in the Russian Empire. Fear of Polish connections and of repercussions in Poland of any slackening of authority inside Russia was almost an obsession with the official interrogators of the Decembrists prior to their trial. See, for instance, the examination of Pestel in Borozdin, ed, Iz pisem, 99-108.

140. On his speech to the sejm of Mar 15/27, 1818, see Semevsky, Idei, 265-74, also 281. Semevsky finds the revolutionary events in Western Europe and the Americas more important influences on the Decembrists than any writings. Ibid., 234-57.

141. Materials discussed in G. Naan, ed., Istoriia Estonskoi SSR, Tallinn, 1958, 208-10. See also Mickiewicz’s Pan Tadeusz. Küchelbecker also popularized Russian reformist ideas in the West glorifying Novgorod in his lectures of 1821 at the Athenée Royal in Paris. See his Dnevnik, L, 1929; and Yu. Lotman, Uusi materjale dekabristide võitlusest balti aadli vastu, Tartu, 1955; also Mel’gunov, Dela, 265-7.

142. F. Glinka, “Zinovy Bogdan Khmel’nitsky,” cited in Ocherki … zhurnalistiki, 216.

143. Text of the project in V. Yakushkin, Gosudarstvennaia vlast’ i proekty gosudarstvennoi reformy v Rossii, P, 1909, appendix. This belief in the federal distribution of power within the Russian empire aroused opposition of Great Russian chauvinists and, curiously enough, of the Polish Patriotic Association founded in Warsaw in 1819 and sympathetic to the idea of greater Poland. Note that most Decembrists tended to admire the American and even the Dutch revolution and the federal systems that emerged from them over the French Revolution and the forms of rule that issued from it. See Volk, Vzgliady, 237-81, and more briefly, 443-4.

144. For documents and discussion on Pestel, see M. Nechkina, ed., “Russkaia Pravda” P. I. Pestelia i sochineniia, ei predshestvuiushchie (Vosstanie dekabristov: dokumenty, VII), M, 1958. See also A. Adams, “The Character of Pestel’s Thought,” ASR, 1955, Apr; J. Schwarz-Sochor, “P. I. Pestel: The Beginning of Jacobin Thought in Russia,” International Review of Social History, III, part 1, 1958, 71-96, and M. Kovalevsky, “Russkaia Pravda Pestelia,” MG, 1958, no. 1, 1-19. Volk shows (Vzgliady, 263) that Pestel was not alone in his advocacy of a temporary, interim dictatorship; Nechkina shows (Obshchestvo) that the Society of the United Slavs also favored abolition of the monarchy and an end to most forms of aristocratic privilege. See also P. Miliukov, “La Place du Décabrisme dans l’evolution de l’intelligencija russe,” and B. Mirkine-Guétzévitch, “Les Idées politiques des Décabristes et l’influence française,” Le Monde slav, 1925, Dec, 333-49; 380-3.

145. The connection between Masonic and revolutionary groups appears to be tenuous if not mythic outside of certain extremely conservative Catholic milieux (parts of Bavaria, Austria, and Spain). Although a large number of Decembrists were former Masons, their association was largely with the lower order forms of philanthropic Masonry, and was for the most part much less sustained and intimate than was the association of imperial officials and counter-revolutionaries with higher order Masonry. See V. Semevsky, “Dekabristy Masony,” MG, 1908, Feb, 1-50; Mar, 127-70; also Idei, 286-377. Semevsky’s evidence does not sustain the belief in a close connection which led him to begin the study and may have prevented him from drawing as clear a conclusion as seems warranted.

The membership of Pestel (Idei, 289) does not itself appear to have been a determining influence (see T. Sokolovskaia, “Lozha trekh dobrodetelei i eia chleny dekabristy,” RA, 1908, no. 20, 321-2); and his later interest in adopting Masonic forms appears to have been largely opportunistic (though quite extensive). See N. Druzhinin, “Masonskie znaki P. I. Pestelia,” in Muzei revoliutsii SSSR, vtoroi sbornik statei, M, 1929, 12-49.