|
Religious Communities and
Urban Communities, pages 116-125
History of the Khlyst Movement in Russia,
1850-2000
Original title:
"The Historiography of the Khlyst Movement in
Russia in the Second Half of the 19th and the 20th
Centuries"
Olga Dekhtevich, Moscow State Regional University
Статья посвящена
изучению историографии хлыстовского движения в России во
второй половине XIX – начале XX вв. Хлыстовство, известное
также как “христовщина” или “хлыстовщина”, представляло
религиозную мистическую секту, признанную крайне вредной в
Российской империи. Сектанты хранили свой культ в тайне и
тщательно скрывались среди православных. Незнание всей
правды о хлыстах рождало множество догадок и домыслов, при
этом уровень интереса к сектантам был достаточно высок.
Секта привлекала внимание различных исследователей,
особенно представителей духовенства и чиновников. Однако,
если о старообрядцах написано достаточно много серьезных
работ, то о хлыстах их единицы. Многочисленные чиновники и
сельские священники не часто заботились о качестве и
достоверности информации и подчас просто переписывали друг
у друга ложные сведения. Многочисленные публицисты в
погоне за сенсацией тоже нередко сочиняли разные небылицы.
При этом квалифицированных работ о хлыстах публиковалось
крайне мало.
В связи с этим проблема историографии хлыстовского
движения является актуальной и представляет большой
интерес для исследования. Необходимость ее изучения
заключается в том, что сектанты практически не оставили
источников о самих себе. В таких условиях совокупность
работ о хлыстах является незаменимым и практически
единственным источником информации, с которым может
работать исследователь.
Более или менее профессиональные исследования о хлыстах
появляются лишь в начале XX века, когда проблема
вероисповедной политики стояла в Российской империи
наиболее остро. Понятно, что по идеологическим причинам
тема хлыстовства крайне мало изучалась в СССР. Только
конец 80-х – 90-е годы XX века можно отметить как время,
когда все, что связано с мистикой, стало очень популярным.
Тогда же многие исследователи возвращаются к теме русского
сектантства, и в частности, к изучению хлыстовства. При
этом подробное изучение историографии хлыстовского
движения позволяет составить наиболее полное представление
об этом явлении в русской религиозной жизни.
This chapter is devoted to the historiography of the
Khlyst movement in Russia during the second half of the
19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. The
Khlysts, who were known as Khlystovshina or Bozhii ludi [God’s
People], were a mass religious movement. The sect, which
was formed in the 17th century, existed until the 20th
century, and their great development did not go unnoticed.
Over the course of several centuries, the Khlysts
attracted the attention of a great number of researchers,
mostly clerics and various officials whose work brought
them into contact with the Sectarians. [Also see: Khysts,
Wikipedia.org; and Summary
of Russian Mormon Research, by James Scott.]
During the second half of the 19th century and the
beginning of the 20th century, the problem of Sectarianism
grew. It was a matter of concern not only for researchers,
but also for ordinary people. There were a lot of rationalist and mystic sects in the
territory of the Russian empire, and Old Believers and
Sectarianism were becoming a serious danger to the Russian
Orthodox Church, which commanded a position of strength,
not susceptible to weakness. The overdue formation of a
religious policy, coupled with repressive measures taken
to solve the Sectarian problem, made people hostile to the
state and Orthodoxy. Harsh conditions, discontent with
their spiritual life, and semi-illiteracy were responsible
for people joining the sect. For over three centuries,
Russian Sectarians had attracted great attention from
other people. Many mysterious rituals and strange beliefs
were attributed to the Khlysts, and they were regarded as
followers of either an alien religious movement or an
original rural Russian belief system. They were also
thought to be the most dangerous sect, and were attacked
in all possible ways, being accused of debauchery, the
ritual murder of children and other bloodthirstiness. The
greatest strength of the Khlyst sect was drawn from its
mystery, and that was the reason why its original leaders
had insisted that its members should strictly obey the
rules of the Orthodox Church, often encouraging them to be
over-zealous in their obedience in order not to give the
sect away.
The researchers of the 19th century knew more about the
Khlysts than we do now. Although they never managed to
make a full and objective analysis of the movement, a
variety of opinions about the sect tells us how important
the issue was for the people during our period of study.
For this reason, the historiography of the Khlyst movement
is very topical, representing an extensive sphere of
research.
During the 19th to the beginning of the 20th century, the
attitude of researchers towards the Sectarians was quite
biased; they simply copied the attributes of the Khlysts
mechanically from each other, without any proper
investigation. Research of a more professional nature only
appeared at the beginning of the 20th century, when the
problem of a religious policy became more marked. For
clear ideological reasons, the Khlysts were insufficiently
studied in the USSR, although the period at the end of the
1980s going into the 1990s can be noted as the time when
everything connected with mysticism became very popular.
Scientists have paid greater attention to the history of
the movement in the 17th and 18th centuries, and as a
result, the study of the history of the movement during
the second half of the 19th century and the beginning of
20th century has suffered. The historiography of the
Khlyst movement represents a very interesting field for
research because, while there were a lot of volumes
devoted to the Old Believers, because many historians were
interested in researching this movement, only very few
studied the Khlyst sect. The history of its study is in
itself interesting and special. On the one hand, there are
many volumes devoted to how it came into existence, but on
the other hand, the main aspects of most of this research
concern rituals, beliefs and folklore. These works are
devoted to the history of the sect in the 17th century,
the time when it first appeared. There are, however,
exceptions to this type of research, as reports by
missionaries and priests, published in theological
magazines, usually contain quite useful information about
the sect.
Most materials traditionally used by researchers
concerning the Russian mystic sects were collected and
published during the second half of the 19th century and
the beginning of the 20th century.
One of the first works devoted to this sect was a note by
the Kaluga priest Ivan Sergeev. Entitled Iz”yasneniye raskola,
imenuemogo khrystovshina ili khlystovshina [The
Explanation of the Schism Called Khrystovshina or
Khlystovshina], it was submitted to the Synod in 1809.
Sergeev had been admitted to the community and
participated in radenya
[divine service assembly]. He was also one of the
first to write about the sect and supply the authorities
with necessary information (1).
The works devoted to the Khlysts started to appear in the
early 1860s. The first researchers of the sect were
officials of the Home Office, among them the professor of
law N.V. Varadinov, who had written the history of the
Home Office. This eighth, additional book was devoted to a
history of decrees on the schism (2).
Using the facts, Varadinov showed the attitudes between
the Church and power structures on the one hand, and the
Church and the Khlysts on the other. Being an expert on
the history of law, he managed to collect and analyse a
significant number of documentary sources – decrees and
decisions connected with the schism. He also showed and
characterised the stages of the government’s activity
regarding the Old Believers.
Theological researches contributed greatly to
investigating khlystovshina.
They were the first to draw public attention to the sect
and the fact that it was so widely spread. They began to
write about it actively. One of the first was a professor
of the Kazan Spiritual Academy I.M. Dobrotvorskiy, whose
monograph Lyudi Bozh’i.
Russkaya sekta tak nazyvaemykh dukhovnykh khristian [People
Divine. Russian Sect of So-called Spiritual Christians]
was published in Kazan in 1869.
The work of Dobrotvorskiy received some criticism. In his
book, he designated “the doctrine about mysterious death
and mysterious revival” as ostensibly typical for the
Khlyst sect. But this was based only on the letters and
notes of Vasiliy Radaev, who, as Dobrotovskiy stated in
his book, was the Khlyst’s prophet. He also wrote about
the depravity of the Khlysts. However, the great merit of
Dobrotvorskiy’s work was the publication of 85 Sectarian
church motets which had been collected by him (3).
Dobrotovkiy’s work was preceded by some other publications
by church authors. However, they involved a minimal
quantity of additional material. For example, G.
Protopopov’s Opyt
istoricheskogo obozreniya misticheskikh sekt v Rossii
[Experience of a Historical Review of Mystic Sects in
Russia] (1867) (4), suggested that
the Russian sects should be divided into the following
groups: “mystic” (‘Khlysts’, ‘Castratos’, ‘Napoleonits’,
‘Racers’ and ‘Montans’) and “rationalist” (‘Molokans’, ‘Dukhobors’) (5). According to the book, the Khlysts
was a dangerous sect, and the author declared that it was
crucial for the church and the government to fight it.
N.I. Barsov’s report, Russkiy
prostonarodnyi
mistitsizm [The Russian Demotic Mysticism],
published in 1860-1870, is of some interest, along with
his collection of Sectarian motets (103 texts) (6). The advantage of his works lies in
the critical approach to P.I. Melnikov’s works Taynye sekty [Secret
Sects] and Belye golubi
[White Pigeons], and Dobrotovkiy’s Lyudi Bozhii. Russkaya sekta tak
nazyvaemykh dukhovnykh khristian [Divine People.
Russian Sect of So-called Spiritual Christians] (7). In his works, Barsov detailed the
contents of all the communications concerning the Khlysts
that he was aware of, although he repeated an old mistake
of his predecessors. He also wrote that Vasiliy Radaev was
a Khlyst, and he made some reasonably practical remarks
about the genesis of the Khlysts as well as writing about
the prospects for research on the sect’s folklore.
Moreover, following the priest Sergeev, he tried to see a
certain theological doctrine behind the tradition of the
sect.
F.V. Livanov devoted a whole series of writings to the
Khlysts and the Eunuchs. He described a history of the
Tatarinova sect with its divine service cult (8). However, he did not check the
information. He expressed confidence that the Khlysts was
a political organization which posed danger to the state
and society, and basically focused on the sect’s history
and ceremonial practice. However, the style of the book Dissenters and Jailers [or: Schismatics and Criminals]
can hardly be called scientific, as it was written in a
non-academic, popular style. When reading Livanov’s works,
one might think that he must have written them for
ordinary illiterate people with the purpose of making them
afraid of the Khlysts. As a result, his book is of little
scientific value and the information in his works should
be carefully checked.
One of the best-known researchers of the schism was the
writer P.I. Melnikov. He showed his writing talent in the
third part of the novel Na
gorakh [On Mountains]. He was also famous for his
non-academic, popular works such as the articles Tainye sekty [Secret
Sects] and Belye golubi
[White Pigeons], published in Russkiy byulleten’ [The Russian
Bulletin] in 1868 and 1869, as well as his scientific
research about the Castratos, which was published along
with documentary materials in the archive of the Home
Office. Later, it was included in the collected works of
Melnikov (9). As a writer, Melnikov
based his research about the Khlysts on oral
communications without checking their reliability. One can
forgive a writer for using of unchecked information, but
as long as Melnikov was a researcher and an official of
special orders, he should have chosen his sources of
information more carefully. Unfortunately, he made the
same error when writing Otchet
o sostoyanii raskola v Nizhegorodskoy gubernii [The
Report on the Condition of the Schism in the Nizhniy
Novgorod Province], for the Home Office. This certainly
reduces the quality of his work considerably (10).
His articles Tainye
sekty [Secret Sects] and Belye golubi [White
Pigeons] did not show a methodical approach to the stated
facts, but as these products are literary, rather than
scientific, their usage for research of the Khlysts is
considerably limited in any case. However, the author
probably did not aim to write a scientific work and so
frequently altered the facts. The facts given in the novel
Na gorakh [On
Mountains] are even less reliable.
A.P. Shchapov’s volumes are of great interest. In 1858,
his thesis Russkiy
raskol staroobryadchestva
[Russian Schism of the Old Believers] was published
(11). He considered the schism to be
not only religious, but also a historical, domestic and
social phenomenon. Later he developed the ideas in his
book Zemstvo i raskol
[Zemstvo and Schism] (12).
Shchapov’s approach to the problem of Sectarianism was the
best thought out and compared very favourably with all his
contemporaries. His ideas on the genesis of the Russian
Khlysts are still of scientific interest. In trying to
present the Russian schism of the 17th century as a
reaction of regional and federal tendencies to growing
state centralization, he assumed that the collision
resulted in mass and local religious creativity becoming
more intense. He noticed, quite reasonably, that there was
some kind of new belief which was distinct from official
Orthodoxy in the rural environment, and, in his opinion,
the reason for it was the lack of knowledge about
Christianity, and semi-illiteracy among the people. The
suppression of the Russian peasants generated religious
imposture; that is, the occurrence of imaginary ‘Christs’
and ‘prophets’.
Nevertheless, the quality of Shchapov’s research was much
better than that of those who followed. Unfortunately, he
never continued his work on the Khlyst movement.
One of the researchers of the 1860s was V.I. Kelsiev. His
research was followed by the publication of the
four-volume Sbornik
pravitelstvennykh svedeniy o raskolnikakh
[Collection of Government Data on Dissenters] (London,
1860-1862) and the two-volume Sobraniye postanovleniy po chasti raskola
[Assembly of Decisions in Connection with the Schism]
(London, 1863). It was one of the largest publications of
sources on the history of the schism.
The second edition of The
Collection of Decisions in Connection with Schism
contained materials about the Khlysts. It included a
communication from the participants of the 1852 expedition
who took part in research on the schism in the Nizhniy
Novgorod, Kostroma and Yaroslavl provinces. It also
included a classification of the dissenting movements
which fell into three categories: Orthodox, Molokanstvo
and the belief of the ‘Divine People’. He referred to the
Khlysts as Divine People, saying that there was not much
known about them (13).
In 1867, a series of articles entitled Sviatorusskie dvoeveri
[Double-faith Believers of Holy Russia] was published in
the magazines of Saint Petersburg (14).
Kelsiev’s work has advantages such as the publication of
some important documents as well as quite a few stories
about the Khlysts’ bloodthirstiness, albeit without any
proper facts that could prove these statements.
In 1872, another government work about the Khlysts was
published (15), written by the Moscow
official of the Ministry of Justice, N.V. Reutsky. He
actively used documents from the Moscow archives:
“authentic sources and original papers”, which were
practically unknown to previous researchers. However,
neglect of reference to the documents considerably reduces
the quality of his work, although he pointed out in his
research that the attitude towards the legend about the
Khlyst’s “Sabaof” Danila Philippovich should be changed to
a critical one.
Ten years later, in 1882, Reutskiy published an original
addition to the monograph – the article that contained a
history of the Khlyst movement in Moscow in the first half
of the 19th century (16).
B.V. Andreev was one of the followers of Schapov’s ideas.
Andreev tried to find a new approach to the question of
Sectarianism and his attempt does deserve approval,
although he worked with unreasonably narrow frameworks of
research, which was certainly a drawback. Andreev followed
the basic idea of many researchers who tried to find the
roots of the Khlyst movement anywhere but in the Russian
environment, presenting these religious movements as an
alien phenomenon. Moreover, he stated in his work that the
Khlysts were predecessors of the Castratos, which gives
rise to a number of objections.
In the eighties and nineties of the 19th century, interest
in the Khlyst sect increased considerably. Hundreds of
research works and articles devoted to the Khlysts were
published. They were the works of seminary students such
as K.V. Kutepov, I.G. Ayvazov, N.G. Vysotsky, Т.I.
Butkevich, N.I. Ivanovsky etc.
The thesis of the teacher of the Kazan spiritual academy,
the archpriest K.V. Kutepov, is of great interest. For
example, in the monograph Sekty khlystov i skoptzov [Sects of the
Khlysts and Castratos] (17), the
author was not too anxious to criticize any sources, and
tried to unify all the data known to him about the
Khlysts, but he aimed to show the harmful affect which the
Khlysts had had. In 1900, Kutepov’s ‘research’ was
republished without any changes, which emphasized the
unwillingness of the author to change his approach to the
problem of the sect.
In 1908, D.G. Konovalov published the monograph Religiozniy ekstaz v russkom
misticheskom
sektantstve [Religious Ecstasy in the Russian
Mystic Sectarianism] (18). The views
in the book were different to those of other research. In
his work, he did not rank Radaev as a Khlyst, whereas he
had previously been considered to be almost the ideologist
of debauchery, though he was not a Sectarian at all. That
has been proved and confirmed by experts from the Moscow
Spiritual academy. Another advantage of Konovalov’s work
was that he proved that the 12 Commandments of Danila Philippovich
were of a later origin than previously thought (19).
However, the works of Konovalov contain a number of
drawbacks. In spite of the fact that he found a new
approach to the problem of Sectarianism, he did not manage
to fully develop his ideas. Nevertheless, it should be
noted that Konovalov’s ideas were more progressive than
those of many of his colleagues.
I.G. Aivazov and N.G. Vysotsky were of a theological
orientation. In 1910, Aivazov published some archival
materials about the Khlysts and the Castratos (20). Unfortunately, he did not bother
to order the documents he used, or make comments about
them. This, as well as the irreconcilability of Aivazov to
Sectarianism, means we cannot trust the information in his
work completely. Therefore, his research should be subject
to strict criticism.
In 1915, a book by Professor and Archpriest T.I. Butkevich
entitled Obzor russkikh
sekt i ikh
tolkov [The Review of Russian Sects and Their
Significance] was published (21). The
author gave a detailed description of the Khlysts as a
fanatical and extremely harmful sect. This publication
served as a reference book for missionary work for a long
time. Nearly all sects which were known about at that time
were described in it. The author offered a detailed
analysis of Khlyst doctrines, representing them as
unequivocal. The ideas of Butkevich were typical of the
majority of historians and theologians. He could not be
reconciled to Sectarianism and wrote about the real need
to fight it. Therefore, it is necessary to treat such
research carefully.
In 1912, N.I. Ivanovskiy, Professor of the Kazan Spiritual
Academy and official Councillor of State, had his book
entitled Rukovodstvo po
istorii i oblicheniyu staroobryadcheskogo raskola [The Manual
of the History and Censure of the Old Believers’ Schism]
published (22). It was a textbook for
missionaries and priests. Ivanovskiy was more constrained
in his ideas on the sect. In the articles published in the
Ministry of Justice’s magazine, he weighed all
the‘pros’and‘cons’of the Khlysts, fairly assessing and
criticizing the new legislation (23).
A.S. Prugavin was one of the best known historians of the
schism. From 1877, he was known as an ethnographer and a
publicist. He worked on the history of the Old Believers
and Sectarianism as well as the problems of a religious
policy in the Russian Empire. Prugavin’s works on the
Khlyst movement are of great interest to us (24). In his opinion the Khlysts were a
very advanced group of people.
Prugavin’s Bunt protiv
prirody [The Revolt Against Nature] is completely
devoted to the Khlysts of the Samara province, a place
where he had lived for some years owing to his work.
According to him, the Khlysts were innocent victims of
prosecutions by the authorities, and especially by the
clergy.
Prugavin compared the Khlysts to the Mormons, in the way
that they were thought of in society at that time. In his
opinion, the Khlysts were the sanest of people, and he
denies all rumours concerning general debauchery, while
admitting that if there had been any instances, they would
have been exceptions.
V.D. Bonch-Bruevich also contributed to the scientific
development of the problem of Sectarianism. He saw huge
revolutionary potential in Sectarians who resisted
oppression and repression by the state. In his opinion,
the Khlyst sect was the most united against the state. He
wrote that the Khlysts supported revolutionary movement in
the Russian villages (25).
In the multi-volume edition Materialy po istorii sektantstva i
staroobryadchestva [Materials on the History of
Sectarianism and Old Believers], Bonch-Bruevich expressed
the same point of view on the schism. However, his
research did not result in anything new.
Among the researchers of the Soviet period, it is
necessary to pay attention to A.I. Klibanov, whose teacher
was V.D. Bonch-Bruevich (I960-1970). Klibanov published
the whole series of monographs, articles and literary
sketches devoted to the history and public role of Russian
heretical movements and sects, including the Khlysts (26). However, his works on the history
of khristovery, as he called them, were mostly based on
the research of previous authors.
In 1950-1960 Klibanov organized and led sociological and
historical expeditions for studying “modern religious
beliefs” (and, in particular, sectarianism) in central
areas of Russia. However they did not discover much. In
1959 in Tambov regional center Rasscazovo managed to get
acquainted with several postniki
– followers of one of the khlyst’s branches, formed
in 1820th by peasant Abakum Kopylov (27).
But, anyhow, Klibanov’s works were, as a matter of fact,
unique within the framework of the Soviet religious
studies of a post-war period. Unfortunately, they actually
did not bring anything new in studying of the sect in the
second half of the 19th and the beginning of 20th century.
When speaking about research of the history and culture of
Russian Sectarians in latter years, it is necessary to
note A.M. Etkind and A.A. Panchenko.
A. Etkind’s book entitled Khlyst: sekty, literatura i revolyutsiya
[Khlyst: Sects, Literature and Revolution] (28) (his thesis for his doctoral
degree at the University of Helsinki), is devoted to
Russian religious communities during the 19th and 20th
centuries, and the influence of their ideas and collective
forms of life on intellectuals and literature. Communal
sects in Russia paved the way for the victory of
Bolshevism. The author traced the destiny of Russian
communal Sectarianism during the Soviet period. The
archival materials he collected, together with the facts
testifying to the interaction of communistic Sectarianism
and Bolsheviks in construction of a new society, are
valuable. He also considered the display of Khlystovstvo in the
creation of figures in literature during the period known
as the “silver age” as an innovation in native science.
A. A. Panchenko’s monograph called Khrystovshina i scopchestvo:
folklor i traditzionnaya kultura russkikh misticheskikh sekt
[Khrystovshina and Scopchestvo: The Folklore and
Traditional Culture of Russian Mystic Sects] represented
the first regular research of cultural tradition of the
two mass religious movements from the 18th century to the
beginning of the 20th century. Panchenko considered the
folklore and rituals of Khrystovshina
and Scopchestvo
(Castratos) in the wider context of the religious
culture of the common people from the 17th to the 20th
centuries. However, he hardly studied Khrystovshina in the
19th century at all, limiting it to a brief summary. As a
whole though, Panchenko’s work is worthy, and has great
scientific interest (29).
In conclusion, it is necessary to note that the
historiographic review allows us to create a
representation of the development of Khlyst research in
Russia. Lack of sources left by the Sectarians makes the
research more complicated, and for this reason, we have to
turn to numerous articles, brief literary sketches, and
textbooks by missionaries on the subject of the schism, in
our search for information. There has been quite a lot of
research in this area, although we need to bear in mind
that most of it is of poor quality. The historiography is
a very important aspect of studying this religious
movement, and its study is a priority.
Notes
- К.В. Кутепов, Секты
хлыстов
и скопцов [Sects of Khlysts and Castrati],
Kazan 1883.
- Н. Варадинов, История
министерства
внутренних дел. Восьмая, дополнительная книга.
История распоряжений
по расколу [History of the Home Office.
Additional. History of the Decrees on the Schism],
Book 8, Saint Petersburg 1863.
- И.М. Добротворский, Люди Божьи. Русская секта так
называемых духовных христиан [Divine People.
Russian Sect of So-called Spiritual Christians], Kazan
1869.
- Г. Протопопов, Опыт
исторического
обозрения мистических сект в России
[Experience of a Historical Review of Mystical Sects
in Russia], “Труды
Киевской духовной академии” [Works of the
Kiev Spiritual Academy], 10, 11, 1867.
- Ibid.
- Н.И. Барсов, Русский
простонародный
мистицизм [Russian Mysticism of Common
People], “Христианское чтение” [Christian Reading], 9,
1869.
- Н.И. Барсов, Исторические,
критические
и полемические опыты [Historical, Critical
and Polemic Experiences], Saint Petersburg 1879.
- See: Ф.В. Ливанов, Раскольники и острожники [Dissenters
and Extremely scarces], vol. I-IV, Saint Petersburg
1868-1873.
- П.И. Мельников (Андрей Печерский), Собрание сочинений
[The Collected Works], vol. 1-6, Мoscow 1863.
- И.М. Добротворский,
К вопросу о людях Божьих [To a Question on
Divine People] “Православный собеседник” [The Orthodox
Interlocutor], 1, 1870, pp. 19- 20, pp. 25-29.
- А.П. Щапов, Русский
раскол
старообрядчества [Russian Schism of the
Old-Believers], Kazan 1859.
- А.П. Щапов, Земство
и раскол [Zemstvo and Schism],
Saint-Petersburg 1862.
- В.И. Кельсиев, Сборник
правительственных
сведений о раскольниках [The Collection of
the Governmental Information on Dissenters], London
1861.
- В.И. Кельсиев, Святорусские
двоеверы [Double-faith Believers of Holy
Russia], “Заря” [Dawn], 10, 1869.
- Н.В. Реутский, Люди
Божии
и скопцы. Историческое исследование (Из достоверных
источников и подлинных бумаг) [Divine People and
Castrati. Historical Research (From Authentic Sources
and Original Papers)], Moscow 1872.
- Н.В. Реутский, Московские
Божии
люди во второй половине XVII и XIX столетии
[Moscow “Divine People” in the Second Half of XVIII
and in the XIX centuries], “Русский вестник” [The
Russian Bulletin], 5, 1882.
- Кутепов, Секты
хлыстов и скопцов cit.
- See: Д. Коновалов, Религиозный экстаз в русском мистическом
сектантстве [Religious Ecstasy in the Russian
Mystical Sectarianism], Sergiev Posad 1908.
- Д. Коновалов, Религиозные
движения
в России. I. Секта хлыстов. [Religious
Movements in Russia. I. Sect of Khlysts], “Ежемесячный
журнал литературы, науки и общественной жизни” [The
Monthly Magazine of the Literature, Science and a
Public Life], 1, 1914.
- И.Г. Айвазов, Материалы
для
исследования русских мистических сект, I,
Христовщина [The Materials for Research of
Russian Mystical Sects, I, Khristovshina], vol. 1-3,
Petrograd 1915l, И.Г.Айвазов, Первое следственное дело
о христовщине [The first Investigation Affair
Devoted Khrystovshina], “Миссионерское обозрение” [The
Missionary Review] 7, 8, 11, 1916, pp. 360-386, pp.
641-661; Н.Г. Высотский, Критический обзор мнений по вопросу о
происхождении хлыстовщины [The Critical
Review of Opinions Concerning an Origin of
Khlystovshina], “Миссионерское обозрение” [The
Missionary Review], 13, 1903, pp. 311-325, 14, pp.
438-454, 16, pp. 703-714.
- Т.И. Буткевич, Обзор
русских
сект и их толков с изложением их происхождения и
вероучения и с опровержением последнего [Review of
Russian Sects and Their Senses With a Statement of
Their Origin, Distribution and Dogma and With a
Refutation of the Last], Petrograd 1915.
- See: Н.И. Ивановский, Руководство по истории и обличению
старообрядческого раскола [The Manual on a
History and Accusation of Old Believe Schism], vol.
III, Kazan 1912.
- Н.И. Ивановский, Судебная
экспертиза
о секте хлыстов [Judicial Examination about
Sect of Klysts], “Журнал Министерства юстиции”
[Magazine of the Ministry of Justice], 1, 1896, pp.
79-108.
- See: А.С. Пругавин, Программа для собирания сведений о русском
расколе или сектантстве [Program for
Collecting Information on Russian Schism or
Sectarianism], Moscow 1881; А.С. Пругавин, Религиозные отщепенцы
(Очерки религиозного сектантства) [Religious
Turncoats. (Sketches of Modern Sectarianism)], vol.
1-2, Sanct-Petersburg 1904; А.С. Пругавин, Раскол и сектантство в
русской народной жизни [Schism and
Sectarianism in Russian National Life], Moscow 1905;
А.С. Пругавин, Бунт
против природы. (О хлыстах и хлыстовщине)
[Revolt Against the Nature. (About the Khlysts and
Khlystovshina)], vol. 1, Moscow 1917.
- В.Д. Бонч-Бруевич, Среди сектантов. Статья 2 [Among the
Sectarians. Article 2], “Жизнь” [The Life], 2, 1902,
pp. 297-298.
- See: А.И. Клибанов, Реформационные движения в России
[The Reformation Movements in Russia], Мoscow 1960;
А.И. Клибанов, История
религиозного сектантства в России [A history
of Religious Sectarianism in Russia], Moscow 1965;
А.И. Клибанов, Религиозное
сектантство
и современность [The Religious Sectarianism
and the Present], Moscow 1969; А.И. Клибанов, Проблемы изучения и
критики религиозного сектантства [Problems of
Studying and Criticism of Religious Sectarianism],
Мoscow 1971.
- А.И. Клибанов, Религиозное
сектантство
в прошлом и настоящем [The Religious
Sectarianism in the Past and the Present], Мoscow
1973, pp. 181-183.
- А. Эткинд, Хлыст:
секты, литература и революция [Khlyst: Sects,
the Literature and Revolution], Мoscow 1998.
- А.А.
Панченко, Христовщина
и
скопчество: фольклор и традиционная культура русских
мистических сект [Khrystovshina and
Scopchestvo: the Folklore and Traditional Culture of
Russian Mystical Sects], Мoscow 2002. [Also: "Strange
Faith and the Blood Libel" Staraya Ladoga
Collection. Vol. III. Saint-Petersburg,
Staraya Ladoga, 2000.]
Bibliography
Айвазов И.Г.,
Материалы для
исследования русских мистических сект, I, Христовщина
[The Materials for Research of Russian Mystical Sects, I,
Khristovshina], voll. 1-3, Petrograd 1915.
Id., Первое следственное дело о
христовщине [The first Investigation Affair
Devoted Khrystovshina], “Миссионерское обозрение” [The
Missionary Review], 7, 8,11, 1916.
Барсов Н.И., Исторические, критические и
полемические опыты [Historical, Critical and
Polemic Experiences], Saint Petersburg 1879.
Id., Русский простонародный
мистицизм [Russian Mysticism of Common People],
“Христианское чтение” [Christian Reading], 9, 1869.
Бонч-Бруевич В.Д.,
Среди сектантов. Статья
2 [Among of the Sectarians. Article 2], “Жизнь”
[The Life], 2, 1902.
Буткевич Т.И., Обзор русских сект и их
толков с изложением их происхождения и вероучения и с
опровержением последнего [Review of Russian Sects
and Their Senses With a Statement of Their Origin,
Distribution and Dogma and With a Refutation of the Last],
Petrograd 1915.
Варадинов Н., История министерства
внутренних дел. Восьмая, дополнительная книга. История
распоряжений по расколу [History of the Home
Office. Additional. History of the Decrees on the Schism],
Book 8, Saint Petersburg 1863.
Высотский Н.Г., Критический обзор мнений по
вопросу о происхождении хлыстовщины [The Critical
Review of Opinions Concerning an Origin of Khlystovshina],
“Миссионерское обозрение” [The Missionary Review], 13, 14,
16, 1903.
Добротворский И.М.,
К вопросу о людях Божьих
[To a Question on Divine People], “Православный
собеседник” [The Orthodox Interlocutor], 1, 1870, pp.
19-20, 25-29.
Id., Люди Божьи. Русская секта
так называемых духовных христиан [Divine
People. Russian Sect of So-called Spiritual Christians],
Kazan 1869.
Ивановский Н.И.,
Руководство по истории и
обличению старообрядческого раскола [The Manual
on a History and Accusation of the Old Believer Schism],
vol. III, Kazan 1912.
Id., Судебная экспертиза о
секте хлыстов [Judicial Examination About Sect
of Klysts], “Журнал Министерства юстиции” [Magazine of
the Ministry of Justice], 1, 1896.
Кельсиев В.И., Сборник правительственных
сведений о раскольниках [The Collection of the
Governmental Information on Dissenters], London 1861, 2.
Id., Святорусские двоеверы
[Double-faith Believers of Holy Russia], “Заря” [Dawn],
10, 1869.
Клибанов А.И., История
религиозного сектантства в России [A history of
Religious Sectarianism in Russia], Moscow 1965.
Id., Религиозное
сектантство в прошлом и настоящем [The
Religious Sectarianism in the Past and the Present],
Мoscow 1973.
Id., Религиозное
сектантство и современность [The Religious
Sectarianism and the Present], Moscow 1969.
Id., Реформационные
движения в России [The Reformation Movements in
Russia], Мoscow 1960.
Id., Проблемы
изучения и критики религиозного сектантства
[Problems of Studying and Criticism of Religious
Sectarianism], Мoscow 1971.
Коновалов Д., Религиозные движения в
России. I. Секта хлыстов. [Religious Movements in
Russia. I. Sect of Khlysts] “Ежемесячный журнал
литературы, науки и общественной жизни” [The Monthly
Magazine of the Literature, Science and a Public Life], 1,
1914.
Id., Религиозный экстаз в
русском мистическом сектантстве [Religious
Ecstasy in the Russian Mystical Sectarianism], Sergiev
Posad 1908.
Кутепов К.В., Секты хлыстов и скопцов
[Sects of Khlysts and Castrati], Kazan 1883.
Ливанов Ф.В., Раскольники и острожники
[Dissenters/Schismatics and Criminals/Prisoners], vol.
I-IV, Saint Petersburg 1868-1873
Мельников П.И.
(Андрей Печерский), Собрание
сочинений [The Collected Works], vol. 1-6, Мoscow
1863.
Панченко А.А.,
Христовщина и
скопчество: фольклор и традиционная культура русских
мистических сект
[Khrystovshina and Scopchestvo: the Folklore and
Traditional Culture of Russian Mystical Sects], Мoscow
2002.
Протопопов Г., Опыт исторического обозрения
мистических сект в России [Experience of a
Historical Review of Mystical Sects in Russia], “Труды
Киевской духовной академии” [Works of the Kiev Spiritual
Academy], 10, 11, 1867.
Пругавин А.С., Бунт против природы.(О
хлыстах и хлыстовщине) [Revolt Against the
Nature. (About the Khlysts and Khlystovshina)], vol. 1,
Moscow 1917.
Id., Программа для собирания
сведений о русском расколе или сектантстве
[Program for Collecting Information on Russian Schism or
Sectarianism], Moscow 1881.
Id., Раскол и
сектантство в русской народной жизни [Schism
and Sectarianism in Russian National Life], Moscow 1905.
Id., Религиозные
отщепенцы (Очерки религиозного сектантства)
[Religious Turncoats. (Sketches of Modern
Sectarianism)], vol. 1–2, Saint-Petersburg 1904.
Реутский Н.В., Люди Божии и скопцы.
Историческое исследование (Из достоверных источников и подлинных бумаг)
[Divine People and Castrati. Historical Research (From
Authentic Sources and Original Papers)], Moscow 1872.
Id., Московские Божии люди во
второй половине XVII и XIX столетии [Moscow
“Divine People” in the Second Half of XVIII and in the
XIX centuries], “Русский вестник” [The Russian
Bulletin], 5, 1882.
Щапов А.П., Земство и раскол
[Zemstvo and Schism], Saint Petersburg 1862.
Id., Русский раскол
старообрядчества [Russian Schism of the
Old-Believers], Kazan 1859.
Эткинд A., Хлыст: секты, литература и
революция [Khlyst: Sects, the Literature and
Revolution], Мoscow 1998.
|