The case of the peasants of the landowner Strakhov

Contents III Department of HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY'S Own Office Dep. 2 Art. 1 III Department of HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY'S Own Office Office of the Orthodox Confession of the Novgorod Diocese Note of the senior deputy Archimandrite Ignatius, with attachments Note The significance of the initial study An outline of the main actions of the second Commission Consideration of the main actions of the “re-succession” The main journal of the 2nd Commission A list of the most interesting facts that prove incorrectness “re-prosecution”, for which the second Commission was appointed by the Supreme Command, on the affairs of the Ustyug landowner Strakhov. Conclusion Brief information on the case of the Ustyug landowner Strakhov Count Nikolai Alexandrovich! Sorry that since my arrival in Ustyuzhna I have not written anything to Your Excellency. The classes of the members of the Commission and mine were office, preparatory, consisting of laborious written work and devoid of external activities: the duty assigned to us to “follow up” made it necessary to carefully review all the paperwork that had been compiled over five years, and an extract from them, which, to be clear, must have the dignity of completeness and clarity. Positive information acquired by intelligence and collected by the formal investigation proves that the complaints of Mr. Strakhov’s peasants have their cause in his behavior. He did not know how to take advantage of the leniency of the two Commissions towards him and has now brought his peasants into such a state of grief and despair that they have never been in before. It seems that Providence itself inspired the Government to outfit a new Commission to avert the tragic the denouement with which this sad and long-lasting drama should end. Now the peasants are impatiently awaiting the arrival of the Commission in their villages in order to pour out their complaints before it, and meanwhile they have taken up the most intelligent method of action. Having been taught a lesson by the first Commission, which seized and imprisoned anyone who dared to open their mouth about Strakhov’s terrible actions, they now behave extremely calmly, correcting their work with special care and obedience, so as not to give room for any cavilling. But from time to time, from this silence, reviews emerge that express their mental distress. General Ignatiev sees this state of theirs and decides, as he told me, to write to the Novgorod governor about taking Mr. Strakhov’s estate into custody. If this measure is not adopted, then it is very possible that the peasants, driven out of patience by the behavior of Mr. Strakhov and having lost all hope for the protection and justice of the Government, will decide on arbitrariness. I have this information from reliable sources. Even the local police officer, who visited the villages two days ago, under the pretext of another matter, drew from his observations and told me the following conclusion about the spirit and mood of the peasants. Strakhov's debauchery is somehow unnatural! for example: he molested three pairs of sisters, and alternately, and perhaps at the same time, had relations with them. As much as one can conclude along the way, it will end no earlier than the end of August. I hope to see you around this time; and meanwhile, with feelings of sincere devotion and excellent respect, I have the honor to be Your Excellency's most humble servant and pilgrim Ustyuzhna-Zheleznopolskaya. III Department of HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY'S Own Office St. Petersburg August 2, 1852 His Excellency Count N. A. Protasov Count Nikolai Alexandrovich. From Novgorod I received, quite privately, information that allegedly, sent to the Ustyug district, as a deputy during the reinvestigation of the case of the peasants of the landowner Strakhov, Archimandrite Ignatius, upon arrival at the scene of the investigation - before other members of the commission, visited some residents and openly said, in front of strangers, that he was sent to redo this investigation in favor of the peasants - and he will insist on this. Meanwhile, it is known that in the neighboring districts of Ustyug there are frequent riots between the landowner peasants, and that the provincial authorities, having learned about the aforementioned reviews of Archimandrite Ignatius, are afraid that they, spreading among the residents, will not give the peasants a reason for greater manifestation of self-will. Considering it my duty to convey such information to Your Excellency, I humbly ask you to accept the assurance of my deep respect and devotion to you, Gracious Sovereign. His Excellency L.V. Dubelt 3. Dear Sir, Leonty Vasilievich. As a result of Your Excellency’s attitude of August 2, No. 2975, about private information received from Novgorod, allegedly sent to the Ustyug district as a deputy during the investigation of the case of the peasants of the landowner Strakhov, Archimandrite Ignatius, visiting some residents of Ustyuzhna, openly said, in front of strangers, that he was sent to redo the investigation in favor of the peasants and will insist on this - I consider it his duty I humbly ask you, Gracious Sovereign, to inform me whether it is known to whom exactly, in whose presence and in what houses he said this, so that I can refer this matter to the right person in order to receive a proper explanation from the said Archimandrite. Please accept, dear sir, the assurance of my complete respect and devotion. III Department of HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY'S Own Office St. Petersburg November 26, 1852 Mr. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod In relation to Your Excellency, dated August 8, No. 5630, an order was made for a secret inquiry about Archimandrite Ignatius’s comments in the case of the peasants of the landowner Strakhov. Now information has been received that Archimandrite Ignatius convinced the Ustyug leader of the nobility Efimiev to assist, during the investigation, in the acquittal of the guilty priests, hinting at the participation of Her Highness Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna in this case - he expressed himself in a similar way in the house of Judge Ushakov and in a conversation with Colonel Kokovtsev; then he convinced one of the priests, who testified during previous studies about inciting peasants and was subsequently imprisoned in a monastery, to renounce his testimony, with the promise of freedom for that; - finally, before leaving for St. Petersburg, he gathered the other priests and announced that none of them would be punished. I have the honor to convey this information in response to the above-mentioned attitude of Your Excellency. Adjutant General Count Orlov. His Eminence Nikanor, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg Your Eminence Vladyka, Gracious Sovereign and Archpastor. Last August of this year, Mr. Lieutenant General Dubelt told me about the completely private information he had received, as if Archimandrite Ignatius, sent to the Ustyug district in the case of the peasants of the landowner Strakhov, upon arrival at the place of investigation, spoke openly in front of strangers that he was sent to redo the investigation in favor of the peasants and would insist on this. Both the mentioned attitude of Mr. Lieutenant General Dubelt, as well as my response to him, and the attitude now received from Mr. Chief of Gendarmes Adjutant General Count Orlov 4 on this same subject, I consider it my duty to report to Your Eminence in the lists for your discretion. With utmost respect and devotion, I have the honor to be Your Eminence the Gracious Sovereign and Archpastor as your most humble Servant Mr. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod Count Nikolai Alexandrovich Most Excellent Count, Gracious Sovereign! Due to Your Excellency’s attitude towards me dated November 30th last No. 8360 regarding the actions of the Rector of the Sergius Hermitage, Archimandrite Ignatius, during his stay in the city of Ustyuzhna during the investigation into the case of the landowner Strakhov, I have the honor to forward, at the discretion of Your Excellency, the explanation I secretly requested from Archimandrite Ignatius regarding the circumstances set out in the attached documents. indicated in relation to your two lists. Your Lordship's most humble servant Nikanor M. Novgorod and St. Petersburg. Due to the denunciation presented to me, which followed me in four points, from an unknown person during my stay in Ustyuzhna in 1852, I have the honor to present the following explanation: On the first point. Upon my arrival in Ustyuzhna, when the only investigators there were Generals Ignatiev and Stroev, the district leader of the nobility, Mr. Efimiev, honored me with his visit. By the way, during the conversation, I considered it my duty to express to him my opinion and desire, so that none of the outsiders would interfere in the ongoing investigation, but would rely on the investigators, who are well-intentioned people. The significant reason for these words, which, however, I did not explain to Mr. Leader, was that in the paperwork of the first commission (Volume 1) there is a protest from the spiritual deputy, in which he complains that during the interrogations in the next room, with the doors open to the presence, some nobles stood and overheard the research being carried out; Among other names in the protest, the name of Mr. Efimiev was also named. I hope that in my words to Mr. Efimiev some thoroughness and some good intentions can be found. Mr. Efimiev talked to me without witnesses, face to face. The thought I expressed is diametrically opposed to the thought that the informer attributes to me. I, in turn, recognize this last thought as devoid of logical meaning. If the investigative commission consisted of local members, then I would have another reason to ask the leader to recommend me to members I did not know. But what is the reason to seek assistance from the leader, when the members are not known to him at all, when I, as a deputy, had the right to relate directly to the members both in words and in writing (which I did, even with a burden for the gentlemen investigators), when, finally, outside interference is strictly prohibited by law, and the matter itself should be a secret to everyone except the investigators and the deputy? On the second point. For the reason I gave, I could not ask the judge Mr. Ushakov for the same; he could act even less than the leader on the investigators: for the investigators personally expressed to me their special distrust of this person, most of all Mr. Colonel Stankevich. The conversation in Mr. Ushakov's house was exclusively about spiritual subjects. – As for the article of the denunciation, allegedly in a conversation with Colonel Kokovtsev I asked him to help in the acquittal of the guilty, as the informer calls them, priests, I am perplexed by this article and do not know how and how to explain it. It can only be explained by the fact that the informer wanted to have fun with me and those who would take his word for it. Colonel Kokovtsev is married to the daughter of Mr. Strakhov, and has all his affection for his father-in-law. To seek that Mr. Kokovtsev acted in favor of the accused priests, therefore, against his father-in-law, would be contrary not only to logical sense, but also to common sense and the natural order. When the commission finished its studies in the villages and, on the way back to Ustyuzhna, stopped for several hours at the Strakhov-son estate to take a few additional testimonies, then for the first time in my life I met Mr. Kokovtsev. After some time, in the common room, where there were several other people, Colonel Kokovtsev, noticing that I was standing alone at the window, approached me with the friendliness of an educated person and, for five to ten minutes, explained to me the burden of the situation into which his father-in-law and all of them - Mr. Strakhov's neighbors - were brought by the present case; At the same time, he expressed his thought that the reason for the denunciation filed by priest Ivanovsky was the greed of this priest. Recognizing that I had no right to talk about the matter with Mr. Kokovtsev, I most answered him with silence. “Then the denunciation of the informer would be based on irrefutable facts, when he wrote that I asked the investigators to accurately determine the relevance of the accused priests to the case, that I troubled the commission on this subject more than once with my opinions, that, despite the almost constant refusal of the commission, I signed under the final journal that I remain with all the opinions submitted to the commission: this is all completely true. On the third point, the venerable informer, firstly, incriminates himself of extremely insufficient knowledge of the matter itself. The Highest Commission established in 1851, having reviewed all the correspondence, found in it two disparate cases, the study of which was carried out by the first Commission only at one time, and therefore separated them from one another, calling the first case on the disobedience of the peasants of the villages of Denisov and Yartsev, and the second case on the complaints of the peasants of the village of Izbishch about the burden of taxes on them by the landowner and the violence of their maidens. This division was followed by the present commission in 1852. In the first of these cases, Mr. Strakhov is the informer, and Priest Ivanovsky is the accused; according to the second, priest Ivanovsky is the informer, and Mr. Strakhov is the accused. The relationship of the two priests mentioned by the informer to the priest Ivanovsky belongs to the second case. In it (and nowhere in the case) the testimony of one of the priests mentioned by the informer against Ivanovsky in inciting the peasants is not at all present. Is there evidence from these priests against Ivanovsky that he persuaded them to join his denunciation by announcing the girls raped by Mr. Strakhov in their parishes? and Ivanovsky claimed that these priests themselves informed him about the raped girls in their parishes; research subsequently discovered such girls. Priest Ivanovsky is not accused anywhere in the case for the denunciation he made; on the contrary, his denunciation was confirmed, and he is accused solely of inciting the peasants of the villages of Denisov and Yartsev to disobedience. Being somewhat familiar with the case, could I persuade one of the priests to renounce his previous testimony about Ivanovsky inciting the peasants, which testimony, I repeat, is not in the case. If Ivanovsky incited two priests together with him to denounce Mr. Strakhov, then is this really incitement of the peasants? Are these two priests really the peasants of Mr. Strakhov? Whether the slander of the priests against Ivanovsky or Ivanovsky against the priests is fair, neither one nor the other in the least changes the question of Ivanovsky’s involvement in inciting the peasants to disobey the landowner, why the concern for changing this testimony is devoid of a reasonable reason. The last words of the third paragraph not only do not support the informer’s report, but, on the contrary, completely destroy it. The placement of these two priests in the monastery followed as follows: the Ustyug Spiritual Board received a decree of the Novgorod Spiritual Consistory, which specifically stated that these priests were being removed from their parishes for the period of re-succession, to announce which a messenger was sent to these priests; At the same time, the Board notified me of its attitude (a copy of it is attached). Consequently, the priests knew the period before meeting with me for which they were placed in the monastery, and I also knew it, and the priests also know the course of spiritual affairs, just as I am somewhat familiar with it, and I know that no one can either shorten or increase the period appointed by the Decree of the diocesan authorities, except himself. My mysterious informer puts me in a difficult position as to how to explain his denunciation, because I have hitherto been accused of many things, but not of a decisive lack of reason. Perhaps a rumor had reached him, of course in a distorted form, about an incident that I considered known to only three people, and he wanted to attribute to me an act that belonged to another person. This case is as follows. Priest Evsignei Yakovlev was invited to the commission for testimony. When he gave his testimony first verbally, then wrote it down in draft, corrected it and began to copy it out completely, the two members, Messrs. Ignatiev and Stroev, began talking to each other about the matter, and Mr. Colonel Stankevich stood near the table at which the priest was writing. When the priest reached through correspondence to the place in his testimony where something was said about the behavior of Mr. Strakhov, Mr. Stankevich gave him advice not to write this article. The priest looked significantly at the colonel and me; then followed a minute of silence and reflection, after which, however, the priest wrote the article into his testimony, contrary to the wishes of Mr. Stankevich. – As the informer calls the placement of priests in a monastery as imprisonment, I consider it my duty to explain that this expression is completely incorrect. Not only were they not imprisoned, but they were sent below 5 under the leadership, but were placed on the rights of all the brethren, they enjoyed free meals, their salaries were not stopped upon arrival, they were even allowed to leave the monastery for the city of Ustyuzhna. Before this case began, one of the priests was fined for improper use of church money, and the other was kept in a monastery for a short time for drunkenness. During this case, they showed themselves unseemly in spiritual terms, especially one even undertook to take a purifying oath, while the testimony of other persons convicted him of lying. This may seem unimportant to the informer; but in a spiritual sense, this circumstance raises the question: can such a priest continue to serve in the priesthood? Therefore, the spiritual authorities took a beneficial measure to remove them from outside influence during the re-examination. When they came to me, I, according to the instructions of my superiors, explained to them that the measure taken regarding them was actually for their benefit and protection, that placing them in a monastery was by no means a form of punishment, but only hospitality, and gave them instructions so that they show, if they are asked by the commission 6, the whole truth. The manager of the Modena monastery, Archimandrite, did not treat these two of his guests favorably; he especially said about one, whose actions were unseemly, that he was a man with a lost conscience and was very susceptible to drunken passion. But he appeared before the commission in proper form. Thus, the very answer confirmed the prudence of the measure of the spiritual authorities. During my stay in Ustyuzhna, Colonel Stankevich more than once asked me with special sympathy for the release of these priests from the monastery; I answered him that they were placed by decree of the Novgorod Consistory for the period of re-examination and that I had no right to change this order. I confess that it seemed strange to me that Mr. Colonel’s criticism of the orders of an outside agency and his participation in persons of dubious behavior seemed strange. On the fourth point. 1) Before my departure to St. Petersburg, I did not invite the accused (called guilty by the informer) priests, of whom there were three, but the head of the Ustyug clergy, senior priest Nikitin, came to say goodbye to me, then priest Yakovtsevsky came, I don’t remember whether Abryutin came, and Ivanovsky did not come at all, due to illness. 2) I did not announce to the priests that none of them would be punished for a very simple reason, namely: the priest Yakovtsevsky was recognized by the Highest Commission as inviolable from the matter of disobedience of the peasants, about which the Privy Councilor Pereverzev wrote to the Novgorod Eminence Vicar: as a result of this, the priest Yakovtsevsky, by decree of the Novgorod Consistory, was released from punishment back in 1851 and placed in his previous arrival. I would like to receive instructions from the informer: how to announce to Yakovtsevsky, without making any sense, that he will not be punished, when a year ago he was acquitted and freed from punishment? Likewise, Abryutin’s punishment has already been determined by the Holy Synod at the meeting with Mr. Minister of Internal Affairs, consisting in taking away his parish from him and removing him from Ustyuzhna to another remote district, about which a decree was received before my arrival in Ustyuzhna. How can I assure Abryutin that he will not be punished when he has already received a decree on his punishment? Priest Ivanovsky was punished by imprisonment in prison and is now being punished by being kept in a monastery under the command of: having already been punished and now being punished, to assure that he will not be punished seems alien to common sense to me. At the end of the last meeting, which was about three o'clock in the afternoon, I immediately notified the Ustyug Spiritual Board about the closure of the Investigative Commission, so that it would order the sending of the above-mentioned two priests to their parishes, and priest Ivanovsky to the monastery designated for his stay, which was immediately carried out. Having thus concluded my actions, I left Ustyuzhna that same day at 7 pm. Department of Orthodox Confession of the Novgorod Diocese Ustyug Spiritual Board Father Archimandrite Sergieva Deserts to Ignatius and Cavalier. By decree of the Novgorod Theological Consistory dated June 26, No. 4544, this Board has the honor to notify: 1) that this Board has ordered, through the deans, to the local clergy that both the dean and the parish clergy provide you with all the assistance that depends on you and fulfill all your legal demands; 2) in the case of the actions of the landowner Strakhov, in order to remove the priests of the village of Peri Vasily Kedrov and Bolshago Voenago Alexy Yakovlev from their parishes for the duration of the transfer, a messenger was sent for these priests this day to send them to the Modena Monastery. (The genuine attitude was signed by Member of the Board, Senior Priest Vasily Nikitin, and Chief of Staff Malinovsky. With authenticity it is true: Archimandrite Ignatius. There are fifteen numbered sheets in this file. Head of department (signature) A note from a senior deputy is attached to this case Archimandrite Ignatius with applications. Note from senior deputy Archimandrite Ignatius, with attachments A note from the senior deputy from the spiritual side, the Sergius Hermitage, Archimandrite Ignatius, on the actions of the Commission appointed by the Highest Command to follow up the investigations carried out in the Ustyug district of the Novgorod province on the complaints of the peasants of the landowner Strakhov about the excessive burden of their work and taxes and about his adulterous relations with their wives and minor daughters. In March of this 1851, Mr. Minister of Internal Affairs announced that - “according to the most humble report to the Sovereign Emperor about the omissions and incorrect actions of the local authorities in carrying out investigations in the Ustyug district of the Novgorod province into the complaints of the peasants of the local landowner, Lieutenant Colonel Strakhov, about the excessive burden of their work and taxes and about his adulterous relationships with their wives and minor daughters, - His Majesty was pleased to command that this matter be pursued through a special Commission of officials from the Corps of Gendarmes and the Ministries of Justice and Internal Affairs" (part 1. l. 1st) 7. The composition of the said Commission included: member of the Council of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Privy Councilor Pereverzev (who chaired it), Major General of the Gendarme Corps Akhverdov and State Councilor Afanasenko, who is in the Land Survey Department of the Senate, with a deputy from the spiritual side, Archpriest Borovitsky, Master Kostrov. – The Holy Synod appointed (July 7, 1851) Archimandrite Ignatius of Sergius Hermitage to be present in this Commission as a senior deputy from the spiritual authorities. He arrived in Ustyuzhna on July 15, when the Investigative Commission recognized the case entrusted to it as already completely completed and was preparing the final journal, read at the last meeting of the Commission on July 28. Старший депутат, по несогласию с членами Комиссии, подал на основании 1031 ст. XV т. мнение следующего содержания: “As the Highly Approved Commission announced to me in writing, dated July 17, that it (at its meeting on July 12) recognized the investigation entrusted to it as completed and that the very investigative file of the first Commission, the revision and replenishment of which were the purpose of its actions, was forwarded to St. Petersburg, and on this date, after reading the final journal, it closed its actions and decided that the members who composed it should turn to the places of their duties, then I consider it inappropriate to propose any additions or changes to her. Such changes are all the more impossible because the most general plan of the Commission, in which second place is given for the study of the denunciation of priest Ivanovsky, I - based on the opinion of the Holy Synod - recognize as incorrect; – I recognize the Commission’s accusation of the senior priest Master Nikitin in connection with the case as being alien to any legal basis; – I find the very accusation of priest Ivanovsky in the indignation of the peasants of the landowner Strakhov unfounded and the means by which the Commission was brought to such an accusation insufficient, devoid of legal dignity, therefore, incorrect and illegal. Not being able to present these provisions of mine here in detail, for lack of documents, that is, the paperwork of the first Commission, on the actions of which the second Commission often approves its conclusions, as well as copies from its final journal, I undertake, upon my arrival in St. Petersburg, to submit (as proof of the above provisions) a detailed note to my superiors, who, at their discretion, will hand it over either to the members of the now closed investigative Commission or to Mr. Minister internal affairs, since the Commission ordered him to present his paperwork.” Returning to St. Petersburg, the senior deputy examined, with possible caution and in perfect detail, delivered to him at his request: the entire paperwork of the Commission, which it divided into two parts (part 1. - “On the disobedience of the peasants Denisov and Yartsev”; part 2. - “On the rape of peasant girls by the landowner Strakhov”), and the grounds of the case itself, consisting in the initial and sequential paperwork of the Novgorod Spiritual Consistory (“On the reprehensible actions of the Ustyug landowner Lieutenant Colonel Strakhov with his peasants”). The legal facts and conclusions he derived from such consideration, forming explanations, justifications and evidence of the initial provisions contained in his above opinion submitted to the Commission, are presented in the note attached to this. – The village of Izbishchi, Novgorod province of Ustyug district, 25 versts from the city of Ustyuzhna-Zheleznopolskaya, in the parish of Pereterye or Krutets (where Alexander Ivanovsky was a priest for 18 years), was purchased by Lieutenant Colonel Strakhov in 1837 from the landowner Dolgrain (part 1, l. 65). Rumors about Strakhov’s depraved life and his cruelty have been circulating throughout the country for a long time: indications of this are scattered throughout the Commission’s records (Part 1, sheets 106 on the back, 109, BUT, 121 on the back, 122, 125, 131 on the back, 217 and 425, etc.). In 1847, in the last days of June, after Midsummer on the first Sunday, six girls, having announced to the priest in the church after Matins that the landowner had raped them, asked for protection. Such a complaint was joined, at different times, as will be evident from the paperwork, by many other girls, their parents and relatives. The priest reported this first verbally, in September of the same 1847, to the Most Reverend Leonid, vicar of Novgorod, when he was in Novgorod, and then, by order of the Right Reverend, in writing, on October 19, 1847. As a result of this, by order of the Novgorod Military Governor, an initial preliminary inquiry was carried out through the Ustyug district leader of the nobility “About the justice of the murmur of the peasants regarding the forced corruption of their daughters by the landowner Strakhov” (the attitude of the military governor to the Right Reverend Leonid, November 26, 1847 No. 14691 in the records of the Novgorod Ecclesiastical Consistory), and after - a formal investigation on the same subject through a Commission composed of the district leader, an officer of the Corps of Gendarmes and an indispensable member of the zemstvo court (relation of the same, moreover, December 16, 1847 No. 15646, ibid.). The villages of Denisovo and Yartsevo are located next door to the village of Izbishchi, the first at 6, and the second at 4 versts, and until 1847 belonged to the landowner Dolgrain, to whom Izbishchi belonged, as said, until 1837. Lieutenant Colonel Strakhov bought them in 1847 at a public auction. When the temporary department of the district court brought the peasants of the villages of Denisovo and Yartsevo into the possession of the landowner Strakhov (November 19, 1847), they announced that they did not want to belong to him (Part 1, l. 125). – This is the significant source of Strakhov’s complaint about the disobedience of the peasants Denisov and Yartsev, in which he wanted to involve the Izbishchsky peasants; hence the complaints from him and his party against priest Ivanovsky. Strakhov first reported that the priest had agitated the Izbishchi peasants; This denunciation, made after the priest’s denunciation of Strakhov, turned out to be false. After almost a year, Strakhov again reported that the priest was stirring up the newly purchased peasants Denisov and Yartsev against him (part 1, l. 440 on volume). The Holy Synod did not lose sight of this important circumstance and, in accordance with the law, recognizing Strakhov’s complaint as a “counter” complaint, found it necessary to carry out an investigation first on the denunciation of the priest, and then on the counter-denunciation of the landowner, based on the exact meaning of Art. 933 volumes. XV St. Zak. 8 (published 1842). Significance of the original study The First Commission was established “to investigate the actions of the landowner Strakhov, based on the complaint of his peasants,” - that’s how it called itself in all the papers. It was His Majesty’s pleasure to order the establishment of a second for the “re-prosecution” of this very case, that is, the case “on the complaints of the peasants of the landowner Strakhov about the exorbitant burden of their work and taxes and about his adulterous relations with their wives and minor daughters” (Part 1, l. 1). - But The first Commission, taking advantage of the constant location of the village of Izbishchi and the villages of Denisovo and Yartsevo in the same parish, and since 1847 in the same possession of the landowner Strakhov, merged, under this pretext, two cases into one, and, as if only touching on the main thing - Strakhov’s actions, blaming the priest for the indignation of the peasants, treated him as if he were a troublemaker who had already been formally convicted in a criminal offense. Regardless of this, the very paperwork of this Commission was such that the Ustyug District Court, forwarding 7 volumes of it to the Second Investigative Commission, attached to the inventory an explanation of the “infidelities and irregularities” that appeared in this case, as he put it, among which the following are especially noteworthy: - “In the second volume: 1) According to the inventory, two hundred and seven unwritten sheets were shown, and according to verification, sheets 135 and 188 were among the written sheets - unwritten. 2) On the contrary, three written sheets are missing. 3) The next numbered sheet, 215, is omitted and is not shown at all in the inventory. 4) The relationship of Mr. Lieutenant Colonel Butskovsky, dated February 20 under No. 20, shown according to the Commission’s inventory under No. 38, was not in the case” (Part 1, l. 19). – The Ustyug district court, referring to the second Investigative Commission (dated April 30, 1851, No. 231), says, among other things, that it listened to the explanation of the former Ustyug district marshal of the nobility, Prince Ukhtomsky (chairman of the first Commission), in which Ukhtomsky responded to point 3 of the court’s attitude that those sent to him, Prince Ukhtomsky, in relation to Mr. Chief provinces, the so-called question points “are written on gray, rather hard paper, it seems from Mr. Strakhov’s factory (near Ustyuzhna), glued with another sheet of paper from another factory; Why and by whom this gluing was done was not included in the investigation by the Commission. In one corner, he remembers in the lower one, it was pasted up, and there you can see a different hand, not the one with which the question points were written” (Part 1, l. 44). – The court attached to this the original explanation of Prince Ukhtomsky signed by him, where all of the above was repeated (fol. 50 on the volume). Outline of the main actions of the second Commission These circumstances alone, taking on the appearance of special importance from the essence of this matter, in themselves should have drawn the full attention of the second Commission, which was appointed by the Highest Will, which determined the dignity of the proceedings of the first, precisely to follow up on the “omissions and incorrect actions of the local authorities of Ustyuzhna”, to carry out investigations into the complaints of the peasants of the landowner Strakhov about the excessive burden of work and taxes on them and about his adulterous relations with their wives and minor daughters. But the second Commission, “after reading the investigative file of the first and the records management of the provincial government, found,” as it put it, “that although the investigation carried out on this subject was given one general name about the disobedience of the peasants of the landowner Strakhov 9, however, having delved into the essence of all the circumstances that formed the subject of surveys and correspondence, it turns out that it contains two cases: one - about the disobedience of the peasants bought by the landowner Strakhov in 1847 in the villages of Denisov and Yartsev, and another about Strakhov’s rape of peasant girls in the village of Izbishchi, which belonged to him since 1837, adjacent to the two mentioned villages and belonging to the same parish with them” (part 1, l. 100). It is not for me to determine to what extent it was necessary (and what were the unspecified reasons) for such a splitting of one case into two cases, exactly as given above, named by the Commission), which was ordered by the Highest to “re-examine” the previous proceedings, based on “omissions in them and incorrect actions,” and they, obviously, could consist not in the name of this case, but in the essence and direction of actions; However, this starting point could not help but determine the nature and entire subsequent movement of the Commission’s work, from which it is not at all positively deduced that its [deeds. – Ed. ] the actual “re-examination” was carried out, it is clear prescribed for a specific subject. From this, probably, came the fact that his [deeds. – Ed. ] it is not even shown what exactly the “omissions and incorrect actions of the local authorities” were, and no definitive conclusion is presented about exactly such a revision and proper analysis of them, according to which the first studies could be blamed or justified. Two extracts from the records of the first Commission, cited by the second, relate, each specifically, to only one of the two cases named by it; - are placed at the beginning of them, and do not give a sufficiently clear concept of the paperwork of the first Commission. This starting point, in my opinion, also led to the fact that with the accepted division of the case into two, it probably escaped attention that Strakhov’s complaint against the priest was counter to the priest’s denunciation, as the Holy Synod noted in its determination of January 24 - February 5, 1851 (Part 1, l. 82 onwards), and that therefore the first place should have been occupied by the investigation of the priest’s denunciation, that is - “about the actions of the landowner Strakhov,” which resulted in the disobedience of the peasants of the villages of Denisov and Yartsev, and in response to which Strakhov complained about the priest. It is clear that with this arbitrary direction, extremely important questions about the mutual relationship of these two cases, set out in the definition of the Holy Synod and the resolution of which was drawn to the attention of the Commission by Mr. Minister of Internal Affairs (Part 1, l. 67 and 68), remained not only unresolved, but, so to speak, untouched. Then one cannot help but draw attention to the fact that both the extract from the file of the former Commission and the main journal of the second, presenting its action plan, do not have the signature of the spiritual deputy, but were signed by members of the Commission alone 10. The year and date are not indicated on the extract (part 1, l. 160 on volume). The journal mentioned above is marked by the hand of Mr. Chairman of the Commission on June 29, 1851 (Part 1, l. 216 on the volume). This note, on the 29th of June, represents the very strange circumstance that this plan of all the actions of the Commission was drawn up after the beginning and completion of some of its [plan] [cases], and that it sets out the circumstances that have taken place, as if they were only supposed to be fulfilled. - So, on sheet 167 (page 5 from above) it says: “As during the examination of the complaint brought against Strakhov by the Izbishchensky peasants, the validity of this testimony should be revealed, and therefore it should be kept in mind only when conducting an investigation into the complaint of these peasants.” – This was said on June 29 about actions that were carried out from 17 to 28 of the same month. – On sheet 181 (page 5 from above) it says: “Similar accusations were made against Strakhov by the Izbishchensky peasants. Based on these charges, as can be seen below, the Commission has ordered a detailed investigation.” “But this supposed investigation was already done then.” - On sheet 189 on the back (page 3 from above) it says: “Those of them that relate to the case of the Izbishchensky peasants were included in this latter and are proposed for a detailed examination.” – But what was supposed (June 29) for a detailed examination was examined already between the 17th and 28th of June. – Sheet 191 on the back (p. 11 above) it is said: “The most detailed research must be carried out about Strakhov’s prodigal relations with the girls and women of the village of Izbishch.” But this research was also carried out between the 17th and 28th of the same June. The case regarding the complaint of the peasants of the village of Izbishchi and the denunciation of priest Ivanovsky was developed in the second part of the Commission’s paperwork, starting from sheet 2 to 387 (from June 17 to June 25). It is difficult to figure out and explain why this case was assigned there after the journal on June 29? and vice versa, how could the journal on June 29 include suggestions for actions that had already been carried out before, precisely between June 17 and 25? – If the original plan had been different, then the circumstances and considerations that prompted any change in it, it seemed, could not help but be set out in a special journal about this, as a very important subject and should have a decisive influence on the course of all paperwork. Having outlined the direction of the main actions, I am obliged to proceed to more detailed indications of particulars, if necessary, following the paperwork often and in the order in which it was carried out, in order to use the facts gleaned from it to explain the reasons for my disagreement with the Commission. From this, it also looks like the extent to which the Commission achieved the goal of the appointment assigned to it by the Highest Command. Consideration of the basic actions of “re-pursuit” When embarking on a detailed consideration of the re-examination of the case “on the illegal actions of the landowner Strakhov” - the re-examination that arose from the report on “omissions and incorrect actions in the production of the first investigations” - one should expect all the more attentiveness and correctness from this “re-prosecution” since it was carried out according to the Highest Will. At the beginning of each study, as it reveals the basic plan of the intended actions, one must also look for the true reason for their direction, and therefore here I will not dwell on the actual explanation: - did the Commission begin with what should be the first subject of its research? - Did she act as the rules prescribed for this in the laws command? – was it precisely on the right side of the matter, on the right faces, that you focused your attention? – has it penetrated into relationships, into the influence of circumstances on individuals, and vice versa? – did you accurately explain the reasons for the main event, the spirit of the facts? – did she leave without proper knowledge of the circumstances that throw light on the matter? – These important questions cannot but become clear by themselves from the consideration, which should begin first of all with the main journal of the second Commission, June 29. Main journal of the 2nd Commission The first point with which the Commission begins this journal contains a direct, without legalized follow-up, without proper verification, its acceptance of the accusation by the records management of the first Commission of the priest Ivanovsky: the indignation of the peasants Denisov and Yartsev is correct, and the matter about this subject has been completely investigated. It is clear that after this decisive definition at the very beginning of the Commission, it is already difficult, if not impossible, to constantly talk about the priest except as a convicted criminal. It is my responsibility, as a deputy from the ecclesiastical department, to be absolutely certain of the degree of guilt of the accused and, for this purpose, to thoroughly delve into the explanation of all the provisions of this indictment in order to determine their legal merit. Then, having collected all the circumstances set out in the whole casework in support of this accusation, find the truth of these reinforcements - bring together homogeneous facts in groups and show the relationships of dissimilar ones in order to give the case, so to speak, the opportunity to speak for itself. On this basis, following the paperwork according to the main journal, which outlined the plan of all its actions, and only the echo of which (and not a new act, due to circumstances discovered during the proceedings) can be recognized as the final journal of the Commission, it seemed necessary, for the most convenient understanding of the connection of the parts scattered in the case, to divide this note into the following main sections: I. Accusations of priest Ivanovsky and other clergy; – persecution and actions against them. II. The real reasons for the reluctance of the peasants to belong to Strakhov, their disobedience and rebellion; – encumbrance of them by the landowner, cruel treatment of them; - violence against peasant girls; – the nature of research activities on this subject. III. A quick sketch of additional evidence extracted from the proceedings of the second Commission about whether there was definitely an indignation, and how the local authorities and investigators handled this matter. Each department represents in its entirety all the important things that are scattered throughout office work on the subject to which it is devoted. Particulars, although less significant in themselves, but deserving of all attention, are included in special appendices attached to this Note. [Further, on sheets 13–193 - detailed materials on the results of the investigation of this case by the Commission, the senior deputy of which was Archimandrite Ignatius, rector of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage. On sheet No. 193, at the end there is an autograph: “Senior Deputy Archimandrite Ignatius.” Then, on sheets No. 194–198, the “List” is given. – Ed. ] A list of the most interesting facts proving the incorrectness of the “re-prosecution”, for which the second Commission was appointed by the Supreme Command, on the affairs of the Ustyug landowner Strakhov 1. The Second Commission, from the first words of its main journal, Part 1, which sets out the entire plan of its actions, contrary to the conclusion depicted in the highest order about the actions of the first Commission, which were highly recognized as “wrong and full of omissions,” recognized, moreover, without any “reexamination,” these same actions as “correct” and the case of disobedience of the peasants “fully examined.” 2. Thus, from the first step, the second Commission evaded the execution of the Highest command on “re-pursuit”. 3. But since, according to the rationale of its very purpose (“for re-examination”), the law required complete and thorough re-interrogations of the peasants, which the starting point of its actions (recognizing the record keeping of the first Commission as “correct”) already prevented it from being carried out, then the second Commission, of necessity, had to evade the execution of the laws. 4. Having made her office work contrary to the Highest command and laws, she deprived him of an essential dignity - Truth. 5. For these reasons, the paperwork of the second Commission, throughout its vast space, represents unity of character and direction. The character consists in the constant evasion of the Highest command on “reexamination”, in the constant evasion of the execution of laws that required “re-examination and revision” based on the constantly revealed “irregularities and omissions” of the first Commission, recognized by the Supreme Government, although carefully covered up by the second Commission. The constant direction, flowing naturally from the character, consisted in a continuous desire to justify the guilty and accuse the innocent: so, this direction can be called a constant desire to violate the Truth, to replace it with Untruth, clothing it, with the help of clerical tricks and techniques, in the guise of supposedly truth. The falsehood was so absorbed in the paperwork of the second Commission that it called the first part of it and presented it as the second, and the second as the first. Untruth is the quality of this matter from the first, wrapping sheet, and so on, to its last sheet. 6. Priest Ivanovsky was accused by the second Commission of indignating the peasants of Mr. Strakhov by the following means: A) the testimony of the peasants of the first Commission, without re-examining them, and despite the fact that some gave second testimony, radically contrary to their previous testimony of the first Commission; C) a distorted extract from Ivanovsky’s letter to Baranov and an incorrect interpretation of this letter, with silence and without revising the letter in its entirety; C) various, more or less important, quibbles, set out in detail in the note of the senior deputy. The accusation of priest Andrei Abryutin is even more unfounded; and the accusation against Master Nikitin is absurd, ridiculous, too petty and low. 7. The real reason for the complaints of the Izbishchi peasants and the rebellion of the Denisovskys and Yartsevskys - their landowner himself, Mr. Strakhov - is covered up by the following means: A) by not asking these latter peasants again about the reason for their reluctance to come into Mr. Strakhov's possession; C) non-following, why these peasants on November 19, 1847, when Mr. Strakhov took possession, refused to obey him; C) non-obedience, why these peasants, upon the announcement of the decree of the provincial government on the purchase of them by Strakhov on May 3, 1848, refused to obey him, although the second Commission saw in the acts of the first that as the reason for refusing to obey him they cited his cruel treatment of the Izbishchi peasants, his corruption of their relatives, the Izbishchi girls, the assignment of a quitrent to them in 60 rubles in banknotes, with two days of weekly corvee and multi-day drives; D) abandonment, and throughout, without re-examination of numerous information and testimony that revealed the above-mentioned reason; E) research on Izbishchi taxes, in their present form, and not in what they were when the Izbishchi peasants filed complaints (however, the real tax is extremely burdensome and ruinous for the peasants); F) insufficient research into the number of peasant women raped by Mr. Strakhov, despite the obvious indications of the case, which weakens before the Government the terrible picture of his depravity, which is before the eyes of the peasants, shocking their conscience, terrifying their concepts, outraged their feelings; J) evasion of a general search about Strakhov’s behavior throughout his entire estate and in neighboring villages, although this search was persistently required both by law and by the case itself. 8. The wrong actions of the local authorities were covered up by the Second Commission by evading re-examination, or by extremely insufficient re-examination, for which reason it is in the shadows, unexplained, only able to be seen with special care, that the local authorities, by their inattention to the complaints of both the Izbishchi and then the Denisovo peasants - the first about the cruelties committed against them, and the second about those appointed and announced by Mr. Strakhov - instilled in them distrust of themselves. A prudent, timely and legal restriction of Mr. Strakhov by the local authorities would have extinguished the complaints of the Izbishchiskys and prevented the rebellion of the Denisovsky peasants. Both were driven in their actions by grief, which turned into despair. Strakhov’s actions are capable of bringing any peasants into this situation. 9 . Every single opinion of the spiritual deputy, who petitioned the Second Commission, which assumed some strange rights and power, on the fulfillment of the Highest command by re-examination, on the execution of laws by re-examination and revision, on the discovery of the truth and the preservation of the holy Truth by an accurate determination of the guilt of the defendants, who petitioned for all this as if it were mercy - were harshly and contemptuously rejected by it. The conclusion of the Highest Established (Second) Commission from its paperwork, naturally, could not have had a different nature and direction. This conclusion is depicted in her Final Journal, placed at the end of the second part. The conclusion of the senior deputy, based on the same paperwork, results in diametrically opposite conclusions. What is the reason for this? How could one and the same case give rise to two different, completely opposite conclusions? The answer is short, simple and clear. The contradictory conclusions of the Commission and the deputy came from the following: the Commission for accusing priest Ivanovsky and acquitting Mr. Strakhov evaded the execution of the Highest command, the execution of State laws, the execution of the moral law of truth and, in accordance with its purpose, issued its Final Journal; but the deputy in his Note pointed out all these deviations from the fulfillment of the Highest command, from the execution of laws, from the fulfillment of the requirements of good faith - the Truth, and, having presented the facts - witnesses of the Truth, which the second Commission could not strangle, kill, despite all its efforts to do so, drew up a different conclusion, a different, so to speak, Final Journal, completely contradicting the result with the Final Journal of the Highest Commission established for re-examination, but on in fact, she was engaged, as it were, in proving (in vain!) the groundlessness of the assignment given to her, despite the fact that it was depicted to her in the Highest command. - If we speak precisely and without any sin before the Truth, we must say the following: The final journal, being one in spirit and direction with the paperwork of the second Commission, is somewhat different from it: the paperwork contains major irregularities and errors, and the final journal, containing these large errors, reinforces them with small, purely clerical errors and subterfuges that inspire contempt and disgust for the compilers of such abominations. Thus, the Final Journal says that during the forced wedding of Evdokia Abramova, the soldiers told her “Dunya!” instead of “Dunyashka” (as is clear from the original testimony); “We’ll fuck you up,” but everything is kept silent. It is said about Khristina Elistratova that she was raped by Strakhov six years ago, and this was repeated twice, but from the testimony it is clear that she was raped four years ago, in 1847, on Midsummer week, and on the first Sunday she announced this in the church to priest Ivanovsky, from which complaints of all peasant women and peasants flared up. The testimony of the Christina brothers, given by the second Commission, was kept silent, and the previous ones, given by them to the first Commission, were exposed. The testimony of Arkhip Minin was very softened, who testified in the original: “Although in the testimony taken (by the first Commission) from me on April 13, 1850, it is written that my wife, Fedosya, told me that she had made a false statement against the master, but she did not tell me this, nor did I show it to the Commission, and I don’t know why it was written” (Part 2, l. 315). What is kept silent about Fedosia Alekseeva is that during re-interrogation by the first Commission she was forced to testify contrary to the first testimony due to the threats of the gendarme, who told her: “If you point at the landowner, you will be imprisoned.” It is also silent that Strakhov, persuading her for fornication, poked her in the chest with a club (Part 2, l. 315:316). The testimony of Matrona Andreyanova's husband, Fyodor Alekseev, was omitted that he announced to the previous Commission the birth of his wife, three weeks after the wedding, of a baby, who, according to her consciousness, was born with Strakhov, but that the members of the first Commission ordered it to be shown that he married an uncorrupted girl, which order he fulfilled; Strakhov threatened him with prison. The testimony of Matrona Andreyanova was silent that the gendarme threatened her that she would rot in prison if she pointed at the landowner (Part 2, l. 313:314). What is kept silent about Savely Andreyanova is that when his sister Matrona Andreyanova, after being raped by Strakhov in his village Zaluzhye, was returned to her village Izbishchi, Savely was demanded in Zaluzhye, where the master told him: “Why was your sister hiding from me?” and for that, in the bedroom, he beat Savely on the cheeks, and then took him to the workshop by the hand and there, in the presence of Strakhov, they flogged him with two peasant whips so that he was sick for a week and a half (part 2, l. 179–191 - compare 530). It is silent that the Izbishchi quitrent peasants, upon their initial request, paying 60 rubles in banknotes to the tax dues, were obliged to serve two days of corvée, regardless of the multi-day days of forced labor. Silent in their current situation, one day per week. The important testimony of Balyasnikov, given by him to the second Commission and the decisive question about Ivanovsky’s implication, was kept silent, and the testimony of his first Commission was presented, which completely contradicts this second one. Silenced, softened, changed, and so on, and so on, and so on (see the note of the senior deputy). The senior deputy, at the first glance at the paperwork of the second Commission, recognized it as devoid of legal dignity, incorrect and illegal, but upon a detailed examination of this paperwork, he recognizes it as an unbroken chain of untruths, sometimes more subtle, sometimes more coarse, noticeable to everyone. According to the heartfelt feeling, it is a deep abyss of evil, in which the conscience and honor of the investigators, the innocence and well-being of the innocent and the criminal offenses of a criminal inveterate in crimes are drowned. Unfortunately, the actions of the members of the Commission, which unworthily bore the name of the Highest Established, became obvious and clear not only to the educated circle of Ustyuzhna, but also to the common people, who do not always immediately understand the untruth committed against them, but almost always feel it, understand it later by its fruits and become infected with the terrible disease of distrust of the Government; and this illness is strengthened by the very patience of untruth, especially when it remains unexposed by the highest authorities, which the members of the second Commission undoubtedly were in Ustyuzhna. Here is a weak sketch of the feat they accomplished. Brief information on the case of the Ustyug landowner Strakhov The numbers of quotations here point to the Deputy's Note, which should be included in the record keeping of the Highly Established Commission 11. Count Nikolai Alexandrovich Protasov In September 1847, in the parish of Pereterye or Krutets (Novgorod province in the Ustyug district), priest Ivanovsky reported to His Eminence Leonid, vicar of Novgorod, verbally (and on October 19, in writing) that the landowner of the same district, Strakhov, was corrupting the peasant women of the village of Izbishch, which belonged to him. “The raped people themselves announced this to him, the priest, in the church. A preliminary study, and then a formal investigation - “On the actions of the landowner Strakhov, based on the complaints of his peasants” - were carried out by order of the Novgorod military governor. Meanwhile, Strakhov bought, at a public auction, the villages of Denisovo and Yartsevo, which belonged to the landowner Dolgrain, 12 and were listed in the same parish where the mentioned priest had been for 18 years. – When Strakhov took possession, in November of the same 1847, the peasants of Denisov and Yartsev announced that they did not want to belong to him. They put forward the reason for this: Strakhov’s cruel treatment of the peasants of Izbishchi, - burdening them with quitrents, - oppressive work and rape of their wives and minor daughters, which the newly acquired peasants knew both from rumors that had long been circulating in the country, and not only in their neighborhood (at 4 and 6 versts) with Izbishchi, which had previously been in the same possession as Dolgrain, but also according to the family ties of the people of these villages with each other. The peasants of Izbysh were so deeply offended by the behavior of the landowner, which did not change due to their long-suffering and humility, that they not only encouraged the priest to report illegal acts, which he could not have covered up without this, but forced him, in order to calm them down and prevent a rebellion that threatened to break out, to give them a note, which testified that they had already brought their complaints to the highest authorities. Carefree, as long as the silent patience of his victims was not violated, Strakhov understood what such a discovery of his many years of numerous criminal offenses threatened him with. Having resorted to a method quite common in such cases, he filed a counter-denunciation against the priest, who allegedly agitated the Izbishchi peasants. But since it was not possible to legally prove the rebellion in Izbishchi, then, after about a year, taking advantage of the disobedience of the peasants of the villages of Denisov and Yartsev, which he had newly purchased, Strakhov, in another twist, in a new denunciation accused the same priest Ivanovsky of agitating the peasants and these villages. This served as the main action point for the first study. Given the difficulty, the decisive non-existence of the rebellion in Izbishchi, the existence of disobedience in the new villages was a very convenient circumstance; it represented an opportunity, pushing aside, obscuring the single, true reason for the unrestrained, loud complaints (like the peasants of Izbishchi, who had been in possession for 10 years already Strakhov, and the Denisovskys and Yartsevskys, who did not want to enter it, for the same fears - precisely because of the cruelty of his treatment, burdening people with taxes and work and the corruption of peasant girls), leaving aside Strakhov's behavior, tie all the actions and movements of the investigation to one rebellion of the peasants, and, imputing those complaints to disobedience, removing, seducing the search from the legitimate searching for their thoroughness, instead of this apparently existing reason, which the search would necessarily have revealed with legal clarity, to create by intensified means the ghost of another reason in the person of the priest Ivanovsky, by falsely directed research, casting on this person all responsibility not only for the development and consequences, but even for the very beginning of the case that arose from the peasant women’s announcement to him of their corruption by the landowner. Such a turn should, in fairness, seem not only strange, but surprising; A close examination of the means by which this was achieved convinces us that they required considerable work and courage from the researchers. The chief head of the province, obviously amazed by the information about them, already at the beginning of the study wrote to the chairman of the first Commission 13 on January 3, 1848 for No. 15612, “that he proposes to him, according to his first proposal, to conduct the case only about the illegal actions of the landowner Strakhov and the guardian Batyushkov, without deviating from the forms of legal proceedings given by law, opening in this case the action of Ivanovsky. That he saw that the informer (Ivanovsky) was summoned by the Investigative Commission to its Presence as an accused without prior communication about this with the spiritual authorities, and even without a deputy, answers were taken from him, based on the information of the landowner Strakhov against him; and when priest Ivanovsky refused to continue answering, due to the lack of draft notes with him, they escorted him into the house and demanded there that he take all his papers to the Commission.” The chief governor of the province announced “that he finds these actions of the Commission contrary to Art. 933 and 993, therefore 996 and therefore 1093, 1023 and 1024 of the Criminal Laws.” This stern reminder, unfortunately, did not stop actions that were subsequently removed from the boundaries of all law and legality. The Supreme Government, which did not have the opportunity to know the details of this paperwork, and based on its main features, recognized in it such “omissions and irregularities” that prompted the most obedient report and the appointment, by the HIGHEST will, of a special Commission 14 to “reexamine this matter.” To this second Commission, the Holy Governing Synod appointed Archimandrite Ignatius of the Sergius Hermitage as the senior deputy from the spiritual side. Arriving in Ustyuzhna on July 15, he found the Commission had already completed the work entrusted to it and, not agreeing with the provisions of its final journal, expressed in a dissenting opinion “that the general plan of action of the Commission, in which the investigation into the denunciation of priest Ivanovsky was given second place, he, on the basis of the opinion of the Holy Synod, recognizes as incorrect; the Commission's accusation of the senior priest Master Nikitin in relation to the case - recognizes as alien to any legal basis; the very accusation of priest Ivanovsky in the indignation of the peasants Strakhov, - recognizes as unfounded, and the means by which the Commission brought such an accusation, insufficient, devoid of legal dignity, - therefore, incorrect and illegal.” If the first glance at the case prompted the deputy, who did not yet have at hand an important part of the proceedings (which had already been sent to St. Petersburg), to so sharply express his decisive disagreement with the Commission, then a careful review of all the details of the paperwork that was subsequently delivered to him convinced him that his expression of disagreement was far from corresponding in its strength to the extreme disagreement with the law and the truth, both of a general nature and of the particulars of this second study, completely first founded. A detailed, although as concise as possible, Note, presented by a senior deputy, dwelling on each, except the most petty actions of both Commissions, and clarifying with facts their intelligence, and therefore their compliance with the demand laws and circumstances, sets out with sufficient completeness for an unmistakable assessment the generality and particularity of both the first study and the “resequence”, according to the Highest will of what was done. Here are the main, so to speak, knots of this remarkable matter in all respects, according to which in the above-mentioned Note, and after it in the paperwork itself, a confused network is conveniently unraveled, woven first by a study in which the Supreme Government recognized “omissions and irregularities,” and then by re-examination, which, instead of revising, indicating, replenishing those omissions and compensating and correcting those irregularities, - that is, instead of the prescribed “repursuit,” as his law understands, was drawn into the same line of actions, performing them with even more important deviations, since the duty assigned to her by the Highest Will was much more important. From its first step, the second Commission accepted the accusation, which was decided by the “wrong” proceedings of the first, as correct, and the case, which, according to the consciousness of the Supreme Government, was full of “omissions”, was completely investigated. Imputing to herself, as it were, this fundamental decree as a law, she, naturally, did not allow herself to “re-examine” what she had previously recognized as completely investigated. Avoiding any explanation and accurate consideration of the circumstances that would lead to proof of the imperfection, inaccuracy, incorrectness of the first study, this provision allowed the Commission to slide over the most dramatic facts - to leave without any attention and respect the events, testimony and evidence, so to speak, which strongly placed in its hands the key to the discovery of the truth - to reflect this truth, making conclusions incompatible with the meaning of the facts, and, instead of legal conclusions, to pepper the tortuous course of your paperwork with your own speculations. The commission decided to change the very chronological sequence of actions; contrary to the truth, it called the first half of its work the second, and the second the first. Meanwhile, by such a rearrangement the relative meaning of the parts is completely changed and distorted; the main [e] important thing is hidden from attention, and what has arisen from the first reasons, the secondary thing, is given the appearance of special importance. For this reason, for someone who carefully examines the case, the two indisputably most significant acts of the second Commission, its introductory and final journals, appear together as two of its strongest accusers. The first is, firstly, that it outlines not only the general plan, but also the particulars of not those (as it should be) actions that would turn out to be necessary as circumstances unfolded and according to the requirements of the prescribed “re-investigation”, but only those that were considered necessary in advance with the aforementioned early recognition of the accusation made by the first Commission as correct, and the case as completely investigated. Secondly, what is contrary to the truth, but in accordance with the same purpose, this journal sets out among the supposed actions that are supposedly still to be carried out, those that in essence had already been committed by the Commission before the signing of this journal. The final journal is that - 1, it does not at all constitute a conclusion from actions and information that could be (and partly were) caused by the course of the “research”, but is only a more developed echo of the mentioned introductory journal, so that even if a whole part of the paperwork did not fit between these two journals, then this would not at all prevent the introductory journal from compiling the final one in exactly the same spirit and direction; and 2 that in his private conclusions, based on the accepted plan set forth, he often does not at all agree with the facts contained in the case itself, and from which, even despite the lack of explanation, lack of development and evasion of them, he should have drawn completely different conclusions, which is proven in the mentioned Note of the senior deputy. Such a strange move in all respects, so to speak, a perverted move, could only be forced by the desire to achieve the assumed goal towards which everything was directed, the goal of hiding the main cause of evil, Strakhov. That is why, in return for the bitter complaints that finally flared up after many years of patience, which revealed the cruelty of the landowner’s treatment of his former peasants - the aggravation of their physical and moral condition, the deep insult and agitation of their feelings by the uncontrollable debauchery that had become part of the law of Strakhov’s life, his adulterous relationships with their wives and his numerous molestation of their minor daughters; - in return for not only reluctance, but, for all these reasons, the most decisive aversion of the newly purchased peasants to belong to the “lawless” 15, as they called Strakhov, - it was found most convenient, - due to the impossibility of completely drowning out the said complaints and hush up the testimony, - to distort their meaning, to portray them as the product of the leadership and instigation of the priest, who had lived peacefully in this parish for 18 years, and suddenly it seemed would have agitated, on a whim, not caused by anything else, three villages of peasants, who obviously showed as much meaning, will and determination in the persistence of these complaints as they previously had patience; agitate them until they discover the dishonor of their daughters and incur the most severe punishments. The study tried to establish the truth, such an unnatural thing, only because this poor priest was an informer, whom Providence had appointed to finally discover the long-hidden criminal crimes of a rich landowner. The fruit of such investigative actions are: on the one hand, the free life of this landowner and his calm management of the estate even during the investigation itself, in which he appears as a person who is barely touchable, removed from any legal restrictions and penalties, who continues to aggravate the condition and violate the will (in marriages) of his peasants, in which he is assisted by the local authorities and the military team located in the villages. On the other hand, the perversion of complaints caused by oppression and insults into disobedience and rebellion brought military execution, cruel punishments of many and the death of others; manifestation of biased interrogations, improper actions, extreme abuse of power, contrary to all laws, blasphemy; disgrace of clergy, desecration, oppression of a priest, persecution of his family and accusation of other clergy. What is especially important here is that by actions of this kind the people, who very clearly understand their significance, are convinced that the truth, which the Government seeks in everything, could not triumph in this matter for three and a half years, and that the weapons used by the law to defend justice, openly resorting to such means, the forms of law and the power that belongs to them, only drown out the complaints of the weak, cut off all their paths to protection and, trampling on the truth, plunge people first into melancholy, then into distrust, into disobedience and finally into despair. Here is the nature of this case, which deserves special attention, and the significance of the study and, unfortunately, the “re-pursuit” assigned by the Highest will. In the Note of the Senior Deputy they are explained in detail following the traces of the paperwork itself. The following indications of the main facts can, by making it easier to find them, both in the mentioned note and in the paperwork itself, clarify its extreme incorrectness and the conclusions that arise from it that are contrary to the truth. From a direct search for the reasons that prompted Priest Ivanovsky’s denunciation, the whole truth about Strakhov’s behavior would immediately become clear. She could not hide from superficial research, actually aimed at this goal, because fame about her (rumour, rumors) was as general in the country as the insults were alive, long-lasting and continuous, but the feeling they generated of a deep, rooted for many years, dislike for the lawless man, revealed after long patience, could no longer be hidden. The most striking evidence of this is scattered throughout the paperwork in almost every testimony and information; they can be found on almost every sheet of note (especially on sheets 41–43; 128–135). In order to obscure Strakhov, it was necessary to completely divert attention from him and, in order to do this, rearrange objects and distort the meaning of events. It was not enough to take advantage of his counter-denunciation about the agitation of his Izbishchi peasants by the priest; it was also necessary, contrary to the spirit of the circumstances and the law, to direct all paperwork to the study not of the behavior of the real culprit, but of the actions of the imaginary and, in this strong inclination of all the particulars of the case, try to always leave aside the main person. Despite the difficulty of such an undertaking, they decided to undertake it, probably hoping to achieve the goal with speed and severity, allegedly forced by the importance of the event. The first attempt was unsuccessful. There was no way they could prove the existence of a riot in Izbishchi; despite the efforts, they heard nothing but the same bitter, but no longer silent complaints (all interrogations, testimonies, and especially l. 168 zap), while the peasants were completely obedient and fulfilled their duties. Although these complaints were ignored, not listened to, hidden by the police chief and the leader during the first reconnaissance, they were perverted by the incorrect actions and threats of the first Commission (fol. 52 on volume, 53; 174 on volume, 175; and in many others, in the Note), and were not followed up by the second, contrary to the Highest command (almost all the conclusions of the articles her journals) - still left in the record-keeping facts bright, quite complete and not reflected in anything other than unfounded, devoid of legal dignity, the investigators’ own conclusions about them. Strakhov's relatives in the first Commission, its chairman (the same district leader, Prince Ukhtomsky) and a member (Andreyanov, bailiff of the 1st camp) built a huge pile of accusations against Ivanovsky and, turning the entire proceedings of the case exclusively on this point, as if on an axis, bringing everything to him, did not allow those interrogated to answer, show anything else, or to investigate, explain and see themselves anything other than this guilt. All paperwork (and, consequently, the entire note, sheet by sheet) serves as proof of this. Not only deviation from the straight path, but, contrary to the law, concealment of the truth and abuse of power, taking testimony from people intimidated by threats (in many places, especially l. 110–118 Record), blasphemy, public humiliation of the clergy, violence against the person of the priest, persecution of his family (l. 114; 85; 86; 93–110 Zap) - everything was used to achieve goals. The investigation began, without expecting a deputy from the spiritual side, with urgency, unjustified and unforced, on the very day of the Nativity of Christ, with the order to take the priest by force if he does not appear immediately (fol. 52 and friend - Zap); he was kept for the night in an unheated room and, as if he were guilty, the answers were taken from him - they wanted to solve everything with speed; at the same time, on the complaint of Strakhov, who indicated the instigators of the alleged riot, which threatened with danger, these instigators were interrogated 20 months later, and when the most important of them, in terms of the testimony that they could have given, died! (l. 145–178 Record). - Every circumstance, even insignificant pretexts, were turned to Ivanovsky as an accusation, without attention to events, to explanations, rejecting the representations of the spiritual deputy, without examining the essence, distorting or hiding everything contrary to the goal, in order to strangle, so to speak, the quantity of accusations, their quality and suppress the priest Ivanovsky (l. 16-44 Notes, almost the entire first section). But as, in spite of everything, the truth, revealing itself all in the same complaints, excited the passion of the investigators, then Ivanovsky’s dignity was subjected to public desecration for an empty reason, and he himself was insulted (l. 76–86 Record), - contrary to the law, they locked him up in a prison, in a secret prison, where they languished as much without need as without right (l. 86–93 Record); his family was persecuted and oppressed (l. 93–101 Record); and accused or embarrassed other clergy who deserved gratitude (l. 101–111 Record). In all this, the actions of the investigators placed Strakhov in the position of a person almost untouchable in the case. And this is the investigation that the second Commission, appointed to “re-examine” it according to the Highest Command, - having preceded it “on the irregularities and omissions” that caused the re-examination itself - recognized, as stated above, to be correct, and the case of the prosecution, which, as shown, was created by them, was completely investigated. – Having rushed along the path laid out by the first Commission, after such a decisive recognition, the second Commission could no longer follow anything up, explain anything with facts; she tried only to strengthen the actions of the former, resorting to conclusions contrary to the reason of these facts, to the incorrect application of laws, to evading herself from the general searches, interrogations, confrontations, etc., prescribed by them, in each case where they could bring the real culprit to the place assigned to him in the case by his actions. Almost every article contains precise evidence of this. Regardless of this, the Commission, not respecting the opinions of the spiritual deputy (l. 91 and other Zap), allowed itself to be incorrect, inaccurate in the presentation, softened or completely excluded in the testimony what it considered necessary for greater coordination of its conclusions, to weaken Strakhov’s guilt (l. 163–169 Record): about the most important testimony, which gave the case a completely different look, it was silent, as if about non-existent (l. 23–26. – 186 Record); and in return for the “re-prosecution” it eliminated everywhere, caused by both the circumstances and the explanations of the accused priest, it closed his last path to proving the injustice of the accusations with the strange polemics of the presiding officer (l. 70–76 Zap). - On the other hand, everything that related to Strakhov in the case was considered and discussed as indisputable evidence of his innocence and the impeccability of his actions. This will be confirmed by reading the curious information (and the Commission’s conclusion from it) about his treatment of the peasants, to whom, according to her conclusion, which is decisively contrary to the facts, he was weaker than strict (l. 143–147. - Record); - about burdening them with work and quitrents, where its conclusions are as superficial as they are incorrect (l. 135–143. Record); about forced marriages, which, to please Strakhov, were facilitated by the military team and its commander, who were on his estate (l. 147–157. Record); about his prodigal affairs and about his rape of girls, where the search for her is as strange as the strange acceptance of his unfoundedness and stubborn denial, as if for a formal refutation of numerous evidence (l. 157–163 Record). It is necessary to read the entire second and third sections of the Note, for some articles of which only fleeting indications are presented here. Such is the nature of these extraordinary studies. – No matter how obscure the facts are, which are not fully collected in them, no matter how one-sidedly they are considered, change in meaning, they still remain in the record keeping as facts and, despite their non-explanation, they themselves explain the matter with such obviousness that, eliminating the need for any re-examination, they lead to conclusions, both in general and in particular, that are decisively opposite to those that are deduced from the personal opinions of the Commissions about them. This note, kept in the Director's room, was added to the file on June 16, 1860, by order of His Excellency Mikhail Abramovich. Collegiate Assessor Bogoslovsky RGIA. F. 797. Op. 22 (1 part. 2 tbsp.). Case No. 240. L. 1 a-212. Protasov Nikolai Alexandrovich (1798–1855), Lieutenant General, Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod (since 1836), executor of special assignments for the spiritual department (since 1850). – Ed. Dubelt Leonty Vasilyevich (1792–1862), major general, chief of staff of the gendarme corps (from 1835); from 1839 - at the same time the manager of the III Department of His own Imp. Majesty's Office. – Ed. Orlov Alexey Fedorovich (1786–1861), chief of gendarmes, chief head of the III Department of his own Imp. Majesty's Office (1844–1856). – Ed. They weren't even sent. – Ed. I even believed that they would not be asked at all: for one of them was asked by the Highest Established Commission, and the current one decided in its main journal not to ask again those asked by the Highest Established Commission; and their interrogation led nowhere. Thus, everywhere in this note, for ease of reference, indications of the Commission’s paperwork itself are marked, indicating 1 or 2 parts of it and the sheet number. Code of Laws of the Russian Empire. – Ed. In the official relations of a member of the first Commission (in the office work of the Novgorod Consistory), it is always called, as stated above, the Commission to investigate the actions of the Ustyug landowner Strakhov based on the complaint of his peasants, and not about their disobedience to him. Deputy Archpriest Kostrov was at his destination from the very beginning of the “re-pursuit.” [Note – autograph of Archimandrite Ignatius. – Ed. ] Note – autograph of Archimandrite Ignatius. – Ed. To which the village of Izbishchi belonged until 1837. Which included: the district leader of the nobility (Prince Ukhtomsky, who presided over it), an officer of the Corps of Gendarmes (Lieutenant Colonel Butskovsky) and the police officer Andreyanov. It included: member of the Council of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Privy Councilor Pereverzev (who presided over it), Major General of the Corps of Gendarmes Akhverdov and State Councilor Afanasenko, who is in the Land Survey Department of the Senate, with a deputy from the spiritual side, Archpriest Borovitsky, Master Kostrov. L. 22. Zap. on about Note. All sheet numbers given here refer to the note that follows for consideration, as stated on the title page, in connection with all office work in general. [Note – autograph of Archimandrite Ignatius. – Ed. ].