Глава 6. «Иоанниты»

Concerns of church hierarchs regarding the phenomenon of Fr. John were not in vain. Some of his admirers clearly went beyond the boundaries of canonical Orthodox behavior; This phenomenon took extreme forms in the “Johannite” sect. It was not easy to give them an unambiguous definition. Who are the Johannites? Pious but misguided Orthodox who went too far in their reverence for Fr. John, or the sectarians hiding behind his name? Were they “fishers of human souls,” adherents of a dangerous cult, which represented one of the anti-intellectual trends of the right-wing radical movement? The Johannites, like the Old Believers of the 17th century, were a more complex phenomenon and did not fit into any of the categories proposed above. Initially, these were poorly educated laymen, attracted by the passionate faith of Fr. John and his calls for Russia to heal spiritually, revive true Orthodoxy and, before it is too late, take the path of salvation. Unlike many clergy, who seemed imbued with the spirit of liberalism, rationalism and progress - and all these concepts were anathematized by the Johannites - Fr. John spoke in a language they understood. For them, he embodied Orthodoxy. However, the Johannites directed their worship in an unexpected direction: they themselves began to lay claim to his charismatic gift. Despite the resistance of Fr. John, the Johannites grouped around him, gathered in communities and traveled throughout the Russian Empire, raising funds and recruiting more and more followers of their own brand of charismatic piety. The Johannite worldview also affected politics: they supported autocracy and attacked representatives of modern trends among church hierarchs, secular authorities and the so-called Jewish press 669. They challenged not only canonical Orthodoxy, but also liberal politics, and as a result turned out to be one of the most distorted and misinterpreted religious phenomena in Russia in the 20th century. For a long time, contemporaries remained unclear about the relationship between the Johannites and Fr. John (it is characteristic that the press hostile to them christened them with this name). In addition, the official Church and the ultra-radical press, which usually take opposing positions, showed surprising unanimity in their rejection of the Johannites. Thus, the line of cleavage in Russian public opinion regarding this movement did not coincide with the traditional line of opinion that developed during the era of political conflicts at the beginning of the 20th century. Even greater confusion was created by the representations of the Johannites on both sides, which were often incorrect and deliberately distorted. For example, church authors of that time put a lot of energy into showing where the Johannites deviated from church teaching, and thus assign them a certain place among the sects then existing in Russia. They especially emphasized the sectarian orientation of the Johannites and the fact that Fr. John dissociated himself from them 670. Likewise, they did not fail to make a distinction between Fr. John and the Johannites are moderate magazines that feel it is their duty to defend the Orthodox Church 671. For the radical press, the Johannites provided a convenient springboard for attacks on both Fr. John and the masses of his fans, and on his political views. The “antics” of the Johannites were useful in the sense that they seemed to reflect the shortcomings of their leader 672. The positions of outside observers are clear and obvious, but it is much more difficult to determine how the Johannites themselves described themselves. Until the weakening of censorship in 1905–1906. 673 Johannites had nowhere to publish. Their statements have reached us mostly in an indirect and distorted form, preserved in the records of government agencies, such as the Holy Synod or the Police Department 674. One of the most reliable first-hand sources are written appeals to Fr. John 675. In addition, leading representatives of the Johannite movement began to publish brochures and a weekly magazine called “The Kronstadt Lighthouse.” However, this source also does not appear to be exhaustive, since it remains unclear to what extent these publications represent the views of all supporters of the movement. It is characteristic that both church hierarchs and journalists made distinctions between the motives and actions of the “leaders” of the Johannites and the “dark, simple crowd.” In addition, there is no unity in the views of specific representatives of the movement 676. The most obvious argument for how difficult it is to classify the Johannites is the fact that they themselves never used this name and did not agree with it, insisting that they were Orthodox Christians. The Ioannites represent a very interesting phenomenon to study, starting with the formation of a sect of individual, unrelated individuals to its gradual transformation into a certain community of people with a similar type of behavior. Who were the Johannites? At first it was very difficult to find the slightest difference between them and Orthodox Christians, partly because their behavior at first glance differed little from the behavior of other admirers of Fr. John. Like other Orthodox Christians, they considered him a chosen vessel of God, were in awe of the miracles he performed and admired his boundless generosity towards the poor and needy. Like many other Orthodox Christians, the Johannites kept images of Fr. in a place of honor in their home. John, be it portraits, photographs or lithographs, distributed by tireless peddlers throughout Russia. In addition, they carefully preserved material evidence of his blessing: candles, prosphora, icons, holy water. They also treated any other objects that the priest came into contact with with reverence. Both Orthodox and Johannites often believed that Fr. John addressed God with different prayers than his fellow priests, and they sought to obtain the texts of these special, effective prayers. Finally, unlike movements such as the Baptists or Pashkovites, the Johannites insisted on their adherence to the Orthodox sacraments of confession and communion. That is, the religious practice of the Johannites was so similar to traditional manifestations of Orthodox piety that it was extremely difficult to separate them from typical Orthodox Christians, even extremely ardent ones. It was this similarity that prevented the religious and political authorities from characterizing the Johannites and developing tactics for dealing with them. Nevertheless, differences existed, and gradually the authorities began to pay attention to them. The Ioannites believed that the end of the world would soon come - most likely after the revolution - and that everyone who came to God, incarnate in Fr. John. Some taught that Fr. John is the prophet Elijah, others are Jesus Christ, others are the Lord of hosts 677. Even in the apology of the Johannites, entitled “The Truth about the Johannite Sect,” it was said: “God appeared in the flesh in Father Kronstadt, He justified himself in the spirit. He showed himself to the angels and preached to the nations” 678. This formulation contains characteristic ambiguity that causes confusion. In what sense, according to the Johannites, did God become incarnate in Fr. John? Other statements cause no less bewilderment: Fr. John is called “the village of God, the dwelling of the Holy Trinity - God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, who rest in it,” and anyone who blasphemes him will be destroyed; “come to Kronstadt and find the Bridegroom Christ,” etc. 679 The next step was the creation of a community of devoted like-minded people - but not an official monastery or charitable institution like the House of Diligence of Fr. John. Both Orthodox forms of communities, apparently, imposed too many restrictions on the behavior of the Johannites: the monasteries had their own charter and routine, which had little in common with the main postulates of the Johannites about the end of the world and charisma. In any case, the monastery would have tried to eradicate these individualistic tendencies and would certainly have banned the rituals of the Johannites, which were too reminiscent of Holy Communion 680. In addition, admission to the monastery was under very strict conditions, including an entrance fee, which the Johannites, most of them poor, could hardly pay 681. In the House of Diligence, they taught crafts and educated in the spirit of Orthodoxy, but the practical orientation of the institution repelled the ardent Johannites. The next distinguishing feature of the Johannites was their reluctance to remain under the control of church or state authorities, including Fr. John. In accordance with Orthodox teaching, submission to the hierarchy and, more broadly, to the spiritual mentor - the presbyter - is necessary for salvation 682. The Johannites, on the contrary, believed that only the truth was revealed to them and that they had the right to brand hierarchs and churchmen as “false shepherds” 683. The Ioannites completely overturned the traditional Orthodox idea of ​​hierarchy. Honoring Fr. John, ordained, they did not accept the strict delineation of gender roles characteristic of Orthodoxy. The presence of female leaders and the overlap in the roles of men and women distinguishes the Johannites (like many other sectarian groups) from the Orthodox community, in which gender functions are very clearly defined. Among the Johannites there is also a certain division of roles. So, all their publicists are men, and almost all recruiters, booksellers and community leaders are women. Moreover, the second most important spiritual leader after Fr. John for the Johannites was Porfiria Kiseleva, a woman whom many called the “Mother of God.” There was a clear numerical superiority of women in the sect, and this was used against the Johannites both by the Synod and by the radical press, which wrote with alarm about female power 684 . Finally, the Johannites, contrary to Orthodox canons, traveled, preached, recruited supporters and tried to copy church rituals. In Orthodox practice, instruction and preaching were entirely the domain of the clergy; leadership roles for lay people, especially women, were limited. Some individual righteous women might inspire admiration and serve as role models, but women who wanted to form a community—especially those of the lower classes—generally encountered resistance. The Ioannites, on the contrary, preached their interpretation of Scripture and sold—the clearest example of a violation of all canons—“the communion of Father John” for a ruble apiece 686. The Church of the Johannites: first responses and REPRESENTATIONS It took time for all these traits to crystallize. In the beginning, the Johannites were a small group of like-minded people who acted independently of each other. Peasant Vasily Kondratov in the Gdov region in 1892, peasant woman Klipikova in Samara in 1895, a wanderer named Maxim in 1896 - they all preached that the end of the world was near and that Fr. John is Christ himself 687. So far, the connection between these incidents was not clear, and they were often considered at the local level: the bishop of a particular diocese often directed Fr. John straight to the native parish of the troublemaker to admonish him 688. It took years to identify general patterns of movement. Meanwhile, the discouraged priests, who encountered such suspicious parishioners in their parish, began to turn directly to Fr. John. So, in 1900 Fr. Alexey Zlatoustov from Pokrovsky district told the pastor that three women had come to them from Kronstadt, preaching that Fr. John is the only true, legitimate shepherd in Russia (and also immortal) and that, therefore, we need to pray to him and his images; that money is the seal of the Antichrist and that people should quit their jobs, give away their savings and go to Kronstadt to confess. Young and inexperienced Fr. Alexey asked the priest to answer the most controversial questions in writing, “in order to calm the worried ones in time” 689. Other priests reported that their parishioners treated Fr. John as the Lord who had risen in glory, quoting the Gospel of John (“There was a man sent from God; his name was John,” John 1:6), and, like many sectarians, they declared marriage to be adultery 690. Zlatoustov’s request makes you think. It is not surprising that peasants, soldiers and laymen asked about. John in his letters: “About the booksellers, explain those who call themselves your disciples, interpret the Gospel unsoundly, and teach people unrighteously. They call you God, they say that you need to leave married life, give away all your property and follow Christ” 691. However, the fact that the priests also seriously asked the same questions shows to what extent Fr. John changed traditional ideas. He transformed the administration of the sacraments; he maintained his virginity during marriage (which many Johannites used as an argument in favor of complete chastity). His sermons became increasingly apocalyptic; such a person could well have sent his disciples everywhere. Therefore, it was important for Orthodox priests to understand whether the wanderers received the blessing of Fr. John. Whether the traveling speakers limited themselves to preaching the imminent end of the world or pointed to a specific layman as the source of salvation - in any case, they should have been immediately recognized as sectarians. However, since they associated themselves with the name of Fr. John, many priests still hesitated 692. There was an additional factor that complicated the position of the priests. They were the guardians of Orthodoxy in the localities and were responsible for preserving true prayers and true faith among their flock. They had to answer not only to the Lord and parishioners, but also to the church authorities. Before reporting to their superiors, the priests probably sought to exhaust all other possibilities and be firmly convinced of everything. In the case of the Johannites, the next authority after Fr. John there were local diocesan magazines that served as a kind of information exchange center on the most confusing problems faced by priests 693 . Thanks to articles such as “The New Admirers of Fr. John of Kronstadt in the Don Region,” priests throughout Russia learned of the existence of these “new admirers”—and helped classify this phenomenon. It was in journal articles that the characteristics of the Johannites were first brought together in an attempt to determine their place in the existing typology of religious groups 694 . No less decisive here was the unequivocal answer of Fr. John. And although later critics expressed the opinion that he seemed to make almost no attempt to dissociate himself from crude flattery, it must be emphasized that the priest expressed his opinion about the so-called admirers no less decisively than the rest of the clergy, without mincing words. The critics' accusations are not supported by sources 695. Father John not only made trips to expose such admirers, but also wrote invective against as yet unknown troublemakers. His behavior was a response to both the hierarchs and the laity. One of the first such examples occurred in 1895, when the Holy Synod forwarded to the priest a report from Bishop Vissarion of Kostroma and Galicia that in the diocese entrusted to him, a peasant woman named Pelagia Vasilievna Kabanova kept images of Fr. John in his icon case so that they cover the icons; she prays to him as to Jesus. When they threatened her with arrest, she said that she was ready to endure anything for her Savior. The Synod urgently ordered Fr. John to “bring some sense to Kabanova.” Shepherd attempted this in a detailed letter dated March 12, 1895: “The fanatical, ignorant, senseless false teaching of Pel. Kabanova meets among the ignorant and senseless, especially women, and sometimes men, illiterate and dark... God, who searches hearts and wombs, is my witness, that I did not give the slightest reason for the appearance of such women's fables as they teach simple, gullible people... I did not give any reason to Kabanova, or anyone else, to consider me for Christ, me, a sinful, weak man. The grace of God and long-term service in the priesthood so enlightened the eyes of my heart and strengthened my faith in the Lord and St. The Church, as well as the consciousness of my weakness and sinfulness, and the need for the constant assistance of God's grace to me - that I never thought highly of myself, but recognized myself as weak and sinful more than anyone else, and I am amazed at the absurdity, senselessness and error indicated by K., and now I am denouncing her with this writing of mine in the absurdity and destruction of her false teaching, and I say: Leave your nonsense and your absurd, senseless innovation, bring your guilt to your shepherds and judges, whom you have confused with your harmful novelty, and believe, as all Orthodox Christians believe and confess... there is no other name under heaven, which is fitting for us to worship, except the name of Jesus Christ... Who, Who is in heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and with His faithful abides and will remain until the end of the age is invisible in his Church. “And if we preach the gospel rather than preach the word of God, let him be anathema, according to the word of the Apostle” 696. And when the soldier Semyon Tarabrin in his letter begged Fr. John to confirm whether it is true that he is God, Porfiria Kiseleva is the Mother of God, and Kronstadt is the New Jerusalem, the shepherd wrote on the letter: “Oh nonsense! Oh the absurdity! and immediately answered 697. Later, at the request of parishioners, statements by Fr. John began to be published in order to thereby try to stop the spread of dubious teaching 698. Particularly expressive are the priest’s comments regarding the akathist composed in his honor by the peasant Ivan Artamonov Ponomarev. Akathists were sometimes composed as a form of personal piety, but they could not be performed publicly without the permission of the Synod; and there could be no talk of an akathist in honor of a person currently living and not yet canonized 699. However, this did not stop Ponomarev. In his akathist he calls Fr. John "great and holy", as well as "God in the flesh", "Judge of the whole world" and "Triune Lord" 700. Even if Ponomarev limited himself to what he called Fr. John to the saints, that would be too much. However, his obvious likeness to the Lord went beyond all limits. Bishop Vissarion sent Fr. John a copy of the akathist with instructions on how to deal with it, and Fr. John followed them. He sent a furious letter to Ponomarev, which was reprinted in the Kostroma Diocesan Gazette in 1902. The letter shows that the shepherd was extremely indignant: “Who, ignoramus, inspired this akathist to you? I guess it's Satan. How did you, stupid one, dare to use my name for evil, and for me, a sinful person, although a priest, to compose an akathist suitable only for saints? What have you not heaped up, what inimitable blasphemies? It is impossible for any sane person to read the countless absurdities in your book-abuse. And you read the words of your madness to simple-minded people, simple and unlearned, and they believed you, a madman and an impostor? Pathetic! And what was your intention in compiling this nonsense? Found your own schismatic society, gather your own meetings and excommunicate good, simple people from the Church of God? Isn't it in St. Churches of their godly akathists? And how did you dare to make me, a sinner, a saint? Who do you think you are? You forgot the most important thing, namely, that you are ignorant, senseless; crazy. I curse your akathist. Say this to all your listeners and followers" 701. However, this hot answer did not make the proper impression on Ponomarev. He continued to spread his akathist and consecrated Fr. John turned water into a source of income. Why the accusatory pathos of Fr. Was John not enough to stop Ponomarev? According to the rules of Orthodox obedience, censure on the part of the spiritual mentor was supposed to destroy at the root the initiative of his erring follower. Perhaps Ponomarev tried to justify the accusation against Fr. John's reference to modesty. Or maybe he saw in the priest’s categorical rebuff a forced concession to the church hierarchs 702 . In any case, Ponomarev’s disdain for Fr. John was not an isolated case - other Johnites, both “leaders” and “followers,” showed such disdain. This suggests that Fr. John served for them as a convenient point of application for religious activity, which in practice did not always have anything to do with him. The shepherd became only a suitable pretext for their own activities. Both in letters and during Ponomarev’s visit to Fr. John acted in two guises - a righteous man striving for salvation, and an Orthodox priest. Day and night, giving thanks to the Lord for the immeasurable love of people and the grace given, he was truly horrified by the thought that someone could fall into temptation by calling him a deity. However, the priest’s anxiety could not compare with the rage that he experienced when he saw what he called “abuses” on the part of Ponomarev and others like him. U o. John, like most Orthodox clergy and hierarchs, had no doubt whether the laity had the “right to vote” to preach, compose akathists, or organize a religious meeting without the supervision of a church official. The answer was negative. In particular, Fr. John ordered Ponomarev’s fellow villagers to obey only their priests in everything, and in no way to troublemakers - that is, laymen who showed their own initiative. As soon as it turned out that the so-called admirers did not express any particular desire to follow the sharp and unambiguous reprimands of Fr. John, most of the clergy took up arms against them 703. First representations in the press and police reports The press perceived and assessed the Johannites completely differently from the clergy. What the church called “false teachings” was called ignorance by the press, and this is extremely revealing. However, their descriptions were similar in many ways. According to the newspaper "Russia" dated September 9, 1901, fifteen young women came to the village of Sustye, Novgorod province and began to preach to its residents that the end of the world was near, that Fr. John is the messenger of God and that anyone who wants to be saved must go to Kronstadt and serve him. The women added that no work pleases God more than weaving decorative wreaths (in Kronstadt, under the guidance of more experienced mentors), and that they themselves and their boss, Petka, are saved in such a pious way, near Fr. John. However, the main newspaper news was different. While the villagers called the priest to deal with the mysterious guests, they disappeared, taking with them three girls from this village 704. The way the story was presented in the newspaper was very different from the church. “Russia” did not pay much attention to the young women’s mention of Fr. John or Kronstadt - that is, precisely for that circumstance that was of paramount importance for the clergy. The journalist is concerned about something else. He is shocked by the terribly low level of “enlightenment” and writes: “There are constantly educational institutions in the village (church and school), there are spiritual and secular pastors, a “big brother” at hand (6 landowner estates near the village), and meanwhile... girls come from nowhere, tell all sorts of nonsense, and this nonsense is immediately greedily accepted by everyone... It’s as if people have never known absolutely anything educational and educational, as if they were some kind of savages.” 705. The journalist then asks the readers if there is any food for thought here. The question was rhetorical in nature and set the tone for many subsequent publications on this topic. The eschatological consciousness demonstrated by the women in Sustya caused rejection, even rejection, among the educated part of Russian society, and was considered the worst sign of “village darkness.” "Russia" published this article as a kind of essay on the theme of the backwardness of rural Russia; its author is not interested in the fate of the three recruited girls. However, the Police Department became interested in their fate. The police also requested information about “Petka,” mentioned by the women, and contacted local provincial authorities to obtain more detailed information 706 . According to the report received, Pyotr Trofimov worked in a factory in St. Petersburg until his left arm was cut off by a machine. Then he became a peddler and for the last two years he went to monasteries and prayed. Trofimov often came to Fr. John to Kronstadt and read his books. In addition, he convinced several girls to go with him and sing psalms. The singing of this trio attracted the villagers 707. However, the singers also tried to persuade the people to go with them to Kronstadt to Fr. John for general confession. Trofimov managed to persuade the peasant Ivan Petrov, his wife and one girl (and not three, as the Rossiya newspaper wrote). This girl remained in Kronstadt and was now engaged in weaving wreaths there; her father visited her; both stated that they were happy with her current situation. Additional evidence was also collected from peasants who were present when Pyotr Trofimov and his comrades performed in the house of Timofey Ivanov. According to them, the singers sang spiritual poems and prayers in honor of Fr. John and others, “but it is difficult to understand their meaning” 708. It is unclear whether the peasants actually had difficulty understanding the chants, or whether this was an act of self-defense so that the authorities could not understand what they thought about it. However, the authorities still cite the words of the peasants that Fr. John should be revered as God and that he is “better than our priests.” It remains unclear whether these statements belong to the peasants, to Trofimov himself, or to the officials who prepared their certificates. These three also called themselves "servants of Father John" and "apostles." In general, the episode described in “Russia” was not something new - according to the testimony of village residents, Trofimov recruited someone in each of his parishes and took them with him to Kronstadt. Mobilizing the Government: The Police Department and the Holy Synod Unauthorized movements of people, especially minors, were the responsibility of the police, but the religious aspect of what was happening meant that the matter had to be referred to the appropriate authorities. Therefore, the police transferred Trofimov’s case to the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, K. P. Pobedonostsev 709. The actions of the police, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the chief prosecutor, the local bishop and the Holy Synod in the early stages of the emergence of the Johannite movement demonstrate how the power structures of the Russian Empire of the late 19th - early 20th centuries. with joint efforts they coped with deviations in religious behavior. From the point of view of the Orthodox hierarchs, the accused were the “leaders” of the erring admirers of Fr. John. And regardless of whether they were sectarians or simply seeking profit, they were considered charlatans. For the Church, non-Orthodox religiosity, coupled with collecting funds from peasants, was synonymous with extortion. No less significant, however, is the policy of disengagement consistently pursued by Fr. John with his supposed followers. Their persistence confirms that Fr. John was able to dispel all suspicions against himself and secured his reputation in the eyes of the hierarchs as a reliable priest, “one of their own.” Preparing his response on December 29, 1901, Pobedonostsev consulted with Gury, Archbishop of the Novgorod diocese. According to the archbishop, Trofimov, like many other leaders of admirers of Fr. John (of which he was well aware), used the name of the shepherd as a cover. In fact, according to Guria, these adventurers pursued mercantile goals. Their actions were based either on a primitive thirst for profit, or on the creation of a “harmful” sect. In response, Pobedonostsev only noted that he considered it his duty to consult the Ministry of Internal Affairs on this matter - and that, in his opinion, Trofimov should have been expelled from the Novgorod province and strict police surveillance should have been established over him. Thus, the Synod in the Trofimov case was most concerned about the possibility of the emergence of a new sect, while the police were primarily interested in unauthorized population movements and facts of financial extortion 710. However, despite different reasons for concern, both structures accused movement activists of violating the laws on freedom of religion and freedom of the press, approved in February 1903 and October 1905. 711 The appropriate authority - in this case the Synod - developed a line of conduct with regard to religion, the Ministry of Internal Affairs sanctioned it, and the police implemented it. If the police suspected the presence of a sect even before receiving a corresponding notice about it from the church authorities, then the first thing they did was contact the Ministry of Internal Affairs - in particular, the Department of Spiritual Affairs of Foreign Denominations - which, in turn, contacted the Synod to receive instructions. In the case we are considering, the police referred Trofimov's case to the religious authorities because they needed clear directives 712. Both in the Trofimov case and later, the Synod sought to accuse persons suspected of sectarianism at any cost. The case of the “Johannites” (they still did not have an official name) from 1904 especially clearly demonstrates that the Synod was actively involved in shaping the image of the Johannites and in collecting information discrediting them. Case No. 3069, opened on December 9, 1904 (that is, immediately after the adoption of the first law on “freedom of religion”), was an attempt by the Synod Office to attract the attention of such “civil” institutions as the police, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Moscow prosecutor. The way the Office staff presented the case was particularly important in terms of the language and details that the Office believed would motivate police and prosecutors to take action. According to the report of the Chancellery, the bourgeois Maria Alexandrova and the peasant Natalia Ivanovna Sukhanova were initially accused of trafficking in religious literature. Since literature with “spiritual content” had its own laws and norms, doubts about whether women had permission to sell it were resolved by the Spiritual Consistory. And although it turned out that the books were approved by the censor (in other words, women did not sell literature without the stamp “allowed by censorship,” which could be of a sectarian nature), women did not have the legal right to sell them. This was the first accusation of 713. Further, the Office claims that Alexandrova and Sukhanova announced Fr. John the true Lord God, “for Jesus Christ was incarnate in him.” One piece of evidence was that both women wore a photograph of Fr. John, which they filmed while “insisting” to a mostly female audience that everyone should also pray in front of them. They did the same with a photograph of a woman whom they called “The Queen of Heaven” and “The Most Eternal Mother of God” 714. By constantly emphasizing that the movement was predominantly female, the Chancellery may have implied that women were irrational creatures, easily influenced by others, and implied that the presence of men would help to pacify the sectarians. It was also emphasized that during prayers, women displayed photographs for worshipers instead of icons. At the end of the prayers, Alexandrova and Sukhanov gave everyone present to drink water and taste the prosphora, presumably consecrated by Fr. John. The employees of the Chancery described this act - naturally, with a tinge of condemnation - as the celebration of the sacrament (“they gave them communion”); however, it is unclear whether the women themselves actually perceived or described their actions in this way. The mere fact that the laity drank holy water and ate consecrated bread outside the Liturgy is not a deviation from the norm. It was customary for the Orthodox to collect holy water on the feasts of Holy Epiphany and Mid-Pentecost for household or emergency needs; pious believers often began their day with the blessing of food 715. The practice of exchanging prosphora consecrated in holy places or on the day of a major church holiday was also widespread. Thus, those who visited Kronstadt could well be expected to share this piece of Divine grace with their neighbors. Calling this behavior of women “communion,” and the anointing they perform with oil, also, apparently, consecrated by Fr. John, “confirmation”, the Chancellery sought to present Alexandrova and Sukhanova in the most unfavorable light. Alexandrova and Sukhanova especially emphasized that they are connected with Fr. John, and claimed that they possessed grace only through communication with him. All of this was classified as religious offenses. The Office added more significant charges to them. Aleksandrova and Sukhanova sold pieces of fabric under the guise of holy objects, which, according to them, were cut from Fr. John and from the dresses of the “Immortal Mother”. They traded sand, on which, as they said, Fr. walked. John and this woman (as if he helped to be healed of all diseases), and with copper crosses, passing them off as silver; They also sold books about the shepherd and his images at inflated prices. They told the woman wearing gold earrings and a silver chain that it was sinful to wear such luxury, and convinced her to give them the jewelry (so that they would give it to a shepherd, who, in turn, would give it to some poor sister in Christ). Moreover, they persuaded people to sell all their property “for pennies” and go with them to Kronstadt. As a result, it followed from the report that these two women extorted money from the people under the guise of donations from Fr. John. At the end of the report, employees of the Synod Chancellery decisively declare that Alexandrova and Sukhanova are members of a gang of swindlers (still nameless), put together by Porfiria Ivanovna Kiseleva, the so-called “Our Lady of Oranienbaum,” and a certain Mikhail Petrov (“Archangel Michael”). According to the Chancellery, Porfiria convinced everyone that she was the right hand of Fr. John, and has already defrauded overly gullible citizens of hundreds of rubles. This is where the Office ends its accusation 716. However, the presented arguments did not fully convince the prosecutor of the Moscow Judicial Chamber. On January 7, 1905, officials from the judicial department contacted the police and asked to answer whether the evidence presented by the Chancery was sufficient to consider the existence of a “gang of swindlers” established, and also requested additional information. Police officials replied that Porfiria, about whom they had already heard, had been wanted since 1902 and had been acting much more cautiously since then. They confirmed that profit lovers are grouped around her. Quite unexpected information was also reported that Fr. John always visited Kiseleva when he passed through Oranienbaum (later it turned out that he was her confessor), and that she regularly and generously showered his entourage with money and gifts in order to have guaranteed access to the priest 717. And since it was mentioned about some contacts between Fr. John and Porfiria, the matter was not given an official move. In St. Petersburg, both police and church authorities understood the problem much more subtly, since in the capital it was possible to obtain first-hand information about the activities of the Johannites. In April 1905, the Ministry of Internal Affairs came to the conclusion that there was a well-organized group of money extorters. The group was headed by Porfiria Ivanovna Kiseleva (“Theotokos”), Mikhail Petrov (“Archangel Michael”), Elizaveta Korchacheva (“Solomonia the Myrrh-Bearer”) and Nazariy Dmitriev (“John the Theologian”). However, the Ministry of Internal Affairs officers regretfully state that it was extremely difficult for them to bring charges, since, firstly, blasphemous nicknames, apparently born of "an ignorant and fanatical mass of admirers" rather than the leaders of the movement themselves; secondly, even when people were defrauded of everything they had, they preferred to remain silent. Nevertheless, officials warned the Governor-General that, taking into account the appearance in newspapers of publications showing Porfiria in the most unsightly light, her activities should not be left unpunished: it was high time to legally satisfy the complaints received against her. And it would be best to send one or two secret agents to each province to collect evidence 718. (False) testimonies about the main Johannite Porfiria Ivanovna Kiseleva, the “Immortal Mother of God,” was the most notorious St. John. She created one of the largest Johannite communities, first in Oranienbaum and then in Kronstadt, and was a central figure in the prayer meetings of the Johannites. In Johannite literature, she was glorified as a “pure virgin” who worked more than the holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Mary Magdalene, Saint Nina (the enlightener of Georgia), the holy martyr Thekla, and who “was visited by the Lord in the person of Father John of Kronstadt” 719. Some of the hymns of the Johannites in her honor are based on Orthodox chants in honor of the martyrs: Christ's stone of great value One might consider these verses to be curious examples of popular piety - if not for the strict Orthodox prohibition on the composition of any texts of this kind in honor of living people. Porphyria blessed the people and received religious honors. This was welcomed by the Johannites, but undoubtedly did not correspond to the behavior of an Orthodox person. This alone was enough to make her a target for attacks by the Orthodox Church. Many wrote about. John, warning him that Porphyria, who dared to declare herself the Mother of God, was getting imitators 721. There were also malicious hints that this “maiden” was examined by a midwife in the maternity ward of the Oranienbaum hospital and that she generally had a dark past 722. Alexander Serebrov, who visited Porfiria’s apartment, describes her this way: “A plump woman with a disgustingly drooping lower lip, Porfiria sold herself in her youth” 723. Kiseleva’s financial activities aroused even more suspicion. One woman in a letter of petition to Fr. Ioannou wrote that her husband wanted to sell all their property and leave her in order to be “saved” by Porphyria. He was ordered to do this by a certain Vasily Pustoshkin, who said about himself that grace had descended on him 724. Several men wrote that their wives fell under the influence of Porphyria and ran away with all the family funds from a joint bank account. They added sadly that they were grieving not so much about money as about their departed wives 725 . Some reported that Porfiria's henchmen proclaimed themselves representatives of Fr. John, allegedly collecting money for him, which guaranteed one hundred percent success of their enterprise 726. When the press began to write about Porfiria’s exploits, Fr. John began to receive indignant letters from people of different classes, from peasants to students, asking him to put an end to the “abuse of the Church” 727. However, the most striking description of Porphyria appears in Black Crows, a play written by the former Orthodox missionary V. V. Protopov. She is presented there in the image of Maria Guseva, a woman posing as the Mother of God in the flesh in order to cynically use her gullible followers. Guseva’s gestures, manner of speaking, and appearance were copied from Porfiria and greatly contributed to the collapse of her reputation (in the end she had to “suffer for Christ,” as it is sung in the hymn of the St. John’s) 728 . Father John and the Johannites meet on the pages of the press “Black Crows” became one of the first literary works in which a parallel was deliberately drawn between Porfiria and her comrades and Fr. John. So, in one of the scenes an actor comes out dressed as Fr. John, and blesses Guseva. When it comes to robbing the blind, Guseva mentions Fr. John as a teacher who taught her everything she knows. The parallel drawn in the play between the priest and this enterprising company upset even the liberal representatives of the Orthodox Church 729. However, the Johannites themselves tried their best to strengthen the impression of their connection with Fr. John. Their main weapon to achieve this goal was their own printed organ - the weekly magazine “Kronstadt Lighthouse”. The initial goal of the “Lighthouse” seemed simple: to collect “Ioanniana” for the purpose of the subsequent canonization of Fr. John. Thus, the issue usually began with an excerpt from some sermon by Fr. John. (All sermons have previously been officially published.) However, a closer study reveals that Mayak’s publications and objectives were far from being as modest as was declared. First, there was a recruitment strategy. The Mayak editorial board “cordially encouraged” subscribers to buy not only the magazine, but also inexpensive editions of Fr. John “for distribution and sale among the population” (my italics - N.K.). In addition, although the publishers of Mayak stated that their book warehouse contained “all the works of Father John of Kronstadt and other spiritual writers that meet the spiritual needs of the Russian people,” in fact there were many more collections of dubious spiritual poems dedicated to him than his works. The magazine boasted mainly of the church composition of the authors, but in fact it turned out that the proposed books were written or compiled by obvious laymen Vasily Pustoshkin or Nikolai Bolshakov and were called: “The 20th century - why kingdoms were destroyed,” “The red summer has passed, but there is nothing in the garden,” and “How you need to live in order to be rich and walk cleanly.” However, if an attentive reader can discern in the magazine an ambiguity of interpretation bordering on heresy (and this was precisely the point of view of the clergy), then for a less sophisticated audience, such as, for example, for the majority of police officials, the images of Fr. John on the covers of “Lighthouse” and the use of such well-known folklore and religious genres as spiritual poems testified that the Johannites were just overly zealous, perhaps slightly “crazed” admirers of Fr. John. Despite the growing flow of letters to the pastor, which expressed concern about the use of his name by the Johannites, as well as about the breakdown of families, the separation of children and parents, only the Church and government authorities were still interested in the Johannites. They became the object of general attention only after the scandal with the shelters. Shelters and the associated scandal And it all started quite innocently. The leitmotif of the meetings of the Johannites with the peasants was the call to “sell your property and follow them.” Women and children were especially easily persuaded to settle in Kronstadt in the Johannite communities. Taking into account that minors and often women could live away from their families only with the permission of their parents, it may seem strange that so many parents agreed to let their daughters and sons go somewhere with strangers. However, the piety of the parents, the assurances of the Johannites that their children will receive an Orthodox upbringing, and finally, the glory of Fr. John and his House of Diligence - all this was extremely convincing. Many peasants sincerely believed that moving to Kronstadt with representatives of Fr. John will be a change for the better for their extra mouths; they will have the opportunity to see the world and gain the experience of growing spiritually next to the righteous. In the conditions of that time, when children were often given to relatives (or even left at the doors of orphanages), the offer of the Johannites seemed reasonable, and sometimes turned out to be an opportunity sent down from above. So it seemed at first glance. And then, in the fall of 1907, newspapers, one after another, began to publish sensational exposes about living conditions in St. John’s shelters. Children were starved, exploited, overworked, and forced to follow a prayer regimen that even monks could not endure. Some articles also contained vague hints that the girls were being sexually harassed. After a furious press campaign, the asylums were subject to police inspections and were closed in 1909. However, everything was not so simple. Voices were heard that in fact the children lived clean and well-fed and were content; that they were placed in the St. John's orphanages with the consent of their parents, that they were traumatized by the violent and sudden removal from there, and that their religious beliefs were now being mocked in the "Jewish" orphanages to which they were transported by force. In the heat of the struggle, many newspapers, from Birzhevye Vedomosti to Kopeika, reveled in relishing what they called “monstrous details” and “naked truth.” Other newspapers called such publications lies and even slander. In the resulting confusion, fierce disputes began about Orthodox traditions and dietary standards, about freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and the rights of parents and the state over children. The controversy took on particular urgency because the St. John's asylum scandal provided a convenient opportunity both for the expression of public discontent and for attacks on religiosity. The initial incentives for creating shelters were the piety of Fr. John, and the successes of the House of Industriousness, whose guests acquired useful skills in various crafts. It is therefore not surprising that enterprising people wanted to replicate this model and benefit from both parts of it. And while the Orthodox Church might have preferred that they support the House of Industry itself, such initiatives were also welcomed as positive examples of “active” Orthodoxy 730 . The Ioannites rode out on the crest of Fr.'s glory. John, but took a different route. They had two recruitment strategies. One, as we have seen, was to persuade adults to follow the Johannites to Kronstadt to lead a God-fearing life in anticipation of the end of the world. Members of the Johannite community lived together, did not marry (and if they did, they lived separately from their spouses) and recruited new members. Younger and more attractive Johannites became merchant preachers who traveled around Russia with bags of religious literature, photographs of Fr. John and wreaths to decorate icons and graves, calling on the people to go with them to Kronstadt. The second strategy was aimed at parents concerned about the material and spiritual future of their children. They were persuaded to send their children to Kronstadt to learn crafts, which would allow the children to earn their own living, resist the harmful influence of the modern city and strengthen spiritually. However, many of the children who left with the Johannites could not cope with heavy agricultural work, either because of age or because of physical weakness. Sometimes both strategies were combined, as in the cases of young widows with children to raise. Arriving in the community, the younger children were assigned to make wreaths and decorate photographs, which the older children then sold. Thus, these communities were completely self-sustaining, offering “soul-saving” work and lifestyle. Regular (weekly or monthly) visits to St. Andrew in Kronstadt, where Fr. served. John, formed part of the schedule of 731. Children were often sent to orphanages with some clothing and supplies, depending on the welfare of their parents. However, soon many parents began to receive letters asking them to send more money - on the envelopes were the names of their children, but the handwriting was someone else's. When the parents became suspicious and decided to check what was going on, it turned out that the letters were a fraudulent ploy and that their children had been fleeced 732. They turned to the authorities indignantly, and this had a result. Some children were returned home to their parents 733. Father John published an open letter in Russian Pilgrim, denying any connection between the recruiters and his beloved monastery in St. Petersburg, which was discredited by the orphanage scandal. He denied allowing anyone to trade in his writings; he called on the police to investigate these "dens". This letter of renunciation was printed in thousands of copies and sent to priests for distribution in parishes, and the St. Petersburg Police Department began a comprehensive investigation 734. It was a real time of freedom for the press. The articles became increasingly sensational: they described how children were kidnapped by members of a religious sect, how they were cruelly treated, beaten, poorly fed, dressed in rags, forced to sleep on the floor, work backbreakingly, and participate in dubious rituals 735 . Articles entitled “THE TERRIBLE TORTURE OF CHILDREN – CHILDREN IN THE HOWS OF JOHNITES – INFANT MARTYRS” emphasized that the children looked pale, covered in sores and made a depressing impression 736 . Doctors from the Children's Welfare Society testified that they found the children in terrible physical condition 737 . The apocalyptic statements of the Johannites were described as “false rumors about the imminent end of the world” 738. To increase the public's indignation at the fate of the unfortunate children, the words of one Johannite were quoted that the physical health of children does not matter, the main thing is that the soul is healthy 739. Some journalists called for the shelters to be closed immediately. Others admitted that, no matter what disgusting spectacle the Johannites presented, they had a right to exist - but only as long as the matter did not concern children, their physical and mental health. And here society has the right to intervene 740. What bothered the police chief most, however, was the article that directly challenged his department. It appeared in the St. Petersburg Gazette on September 29, 1907. The headline, in capital letters and bold font, read: “SHELTERS. - STOP CHILDREN. – BLESSED WREATHS. – TRIP “TO WORSHIP”. – MISSING TWO JEWS.” The article began with a message that the kidnapping of two Jewish girls, which excited the whole of Oranienbaum, was related to the Johannite shelters. However, it later became clear that there was no connection between the Johannites and the two missing girls. However, the author of the article attacked the police for not knowing that the shelters were “that kind of organization.” The ill-fated police official who answered the author tried to explain that since the managers of the orphanages complied with all official requirements and behaved within the law, the police believed that the children there were simply St. Petersburg street children. However, the main target of the author of the article in St. Petersburg Gazette was not so much the police as Fr. John and the connection between him and the shelters that he persistently sought to make. As far as the police knew, Fr. John never visited these orphanages, but the parents of the children living there often combined their visit to them with a trip to Kronstadt. The journalist seized on this, asking whether in these orphanages there were really only children of St. John the Great or admirers of Fr. John. The equal sign between “Johnnites” and “admirers of Father John” was placed so quickly that it went almost unnoticed. The gap between the worship of Fr. John and “Johannithood” practically disappeared. The author of the article develops the idea of ​​this alleged connection. For example, mentioning that the high prices for the wreaths made by St. John himself were allegedly blessed by Fr. John, the journalist wrote that in the eyes of fanatics this “religious sanction” makes the wreaths especially valuable. They are credited with miraculous power - you just need to place such a wreath on your head, and a piece of heavenly grace from Fr. John. Thus, hiding behind righteous anger towards the “fanatical sectarians,” the author managed to discredit the general principle of veneration of material objects associated with the saint - be it robes, relics, or any object blessed by him. For those who were looking for an opportunity to make fun of the fundamentals of Orthodox piety, the Johannites represented a gold mine: while ridiculing “sectarian abuses,” opponents of Orthodoxy had the opportunity to go over Orthodox customs. It was this aspect of the scandal with the Johannites that became the stumbling block. If the critics went a little overboard with their revelations, then many Orthodox Christians began to sympathize with the “sectarians” whom they would like to accuse of both charlatanism and the oppression of children. Moreover, if the author of the revelation was not Orthodox, then there was a great temptation to doubt and ask oneself whether the campaign launched in the press against the Johannites was a pretext to undermine the foundations and customs of the Orthodox Church itself. Protopov's "Black Crows" was the first such attempt. However, in some cases, equating the Johannites with Fr. John and canonical Orthodoxy was not only offensive, but also blasphemous. Thus, Alexander Amfitheatrov composed a parody of the hymn of the evening service to be performed “at the zeal of St. John and similar festivals of Russian foolishness, mainly at the meeting of the reverend father Archpriest John Ilyich Sergiev, from the black hundreds of beings, the woman prophet, the blessed money-maker, all the rogues and the breech of the prayer book and dreimader miracle worker" 741: Leading you out of darkness into the sun, So that the prosecutor will cover your tricks!” 742 While Amfitheatrov's poems, being a parody of one of the most revered church hymns, were especially offensive to the feelings of Orthodox believers, other parallels between Fr. John, the Johannites and Orthodoxy were almost as vulgar 743. In the period from 1907 to 1909, it was hardly possible to find at least one periodical in St. Petersburg that did not mention “orphanage scandals.” Even more amazingly, the police checked virtually every mention of them. No sooner is the article published, promising “new terrifying revelations,” than literally the next day a memorandum appears from the pen of the police chief, to which the cut article is attached; The address of the proposed shelter is circled, and at the top there is a laconic note: “To sort it out as soon as possible.” Police reports from this period are remarkable for their detail. Thus, employees of the second police station in St. Petersburg wrote about the shelters at Teryaevskaya, no. 13–14, and Ordinarnaya, no. 8: “The first one has 13 girls age. 6–9 years and 45 women age. 18–30, and the second has 14 boys aged 4–8 years. and 10 women at the same age as the first. The children are dressed in ordinary clothes, and the adults in all black; Children are placed on bunks, on mattresses, and adults are placed on the floor. The apartments are kept in exemplary cleanliness, which has been inspected by officials. esp. charge Gr. Lansky. They eat lean, but good and healthy food. Classes for both children and adults are held in weaving corollas and making flowers sold in the provinces under the guise of being blessed by Fr. John of Kronstadt, as well as in rel. chants, conversations and readings and in attending church services at the Ioannovsky Convent, located in the same area on the river embankment. Karpovka No. 45" 744. Other police reports were more negative, describing the children's plight, which investigators attributed to poor nutrition and lack of fresh air, as the children spent virtually all of their time indoors. The difference between the equally horrific descriptions of the asylums in the press and the rich diversity in the assessments of conditions there in police reports is striking. Even if we allow for the differences in the goals and points of view of their authors, the discrepancy is still impressive. The most surprising thing: while some children did show signs of exhaustion, others looked “cheerful and healthy,” they told investigators that no one forced them to work or pray, that they went to bed at midnight, got up at 5 a.m. and had a “quiet hour” during the day. They believed that they were fed well and sufficiently 746. This evidence suggests that the assessment of conditions in St. John's shelters largely depended on the level of expectations and previous experience of the eyewitness. An orphan from a poor peasant family will perceive life in an orphanage completely differently than the children of an educated widow, city journalists, or the chairman of the Society for the Care of Poor and Sick Children 747 . The living conditions of the urban poor were in any case better than those of a child from a poor peasant family. For example, when one girl from the Urals was asked by her parish priest how she was living in the orphanage, she replied that at first she missed her parents, but then it seemed to her that the orphanage was very fun: they were taken for rides in a car (in fact, as the priest clarified, on a tram), and she also liked Kronstadt and St. Petersburg more than Perm 748 . It's hard to disagree with the last assessment. So, when analyzing the contradictory and contradictory data in police reports, we should not forget about the above-mentioned discord. In July 1909, after almost two years of campaigning, the authorities of St. Petersburg finally closed the ill-fated shelters, sending their charges either to guardians or to shelters run by respected charitable societies 749 . As a result, the police had to use reasons such as organizational violations to close the shelters. Since children were taught crafts in the Johannite orphanages, they should have been considered as trade and craft schools or vocational schools, for the maintenance of which the Johannites did not have permission 750. However, the story did not end there. Many children begged not to be taken from the orphanages. After the forced relocation, they were outraged that the Gospel was taken away from them and given novels to read in return. Their parents filed claims that the authorities, by taking children from orphanages without their consent, encroached on their freedom. One father, referring to the gynecological examination his daughter had undergone, particularly insisted that she had been “abused.” The parents showed amazing organization and assertiveness: not limiting themselves to a petition to the Ministry of Justice, they turned to almost all organizations and high-ranking officials, including P. A. Stolypin 751. Indignantly declaring that their children had been deprived of Orthodox care against their will and handed over to people who ridiculed their religious beliefs and observance of fasts, they charged that the freedom of religion of Orthodox Christians was under threat 752. They argued that the allegedly poor conditions in the Johannite shelters were a fiction and slander of the “Jewish” press, thus trying to create the impression that the Johannites were a purely Russian phenomenon, and their opponents were either foreigners (for example, Russified Germans) or non-Orthodox (Lutherans, Catholics and Jews). In other words, the Johannites tried to reduce the liquidation of shelters and all “persecution” against them to a conflict between Russian and foreign, between traditional and new 753. The success of the campaign was especially facilitated by the fact that Nikolai Nikolaevich Zhedenov, a nobleman and member of the Union of the Russian People, took on the leading role. His letter campaign in defense of the Johannites was so widespread that it affected almost every governor and minister 754. Zhedenov argued that he was defending the right of parents to place their children wherever they please, and the right of Orthodox Christians to live in accordance with their beliefs, and not norms arbitrarily imposed by foreign bureaucracies and a hostile press. He distinguished between three varieties of so-called “Johannites”: “bullies” who threaten Fr. John by disturbances during worship; those who have experienced his miraculous gift and now praise it to the skies (he compared them to opera and ballet “claque”), and hardworking, honest Russians who prefer to live in a community for economic reasons. Each group requires a special approach. He argued that the Johannites were not a sect, but Orthodox Christians, and were persecuted not by the Church, but by secular authorities, who themselves were far from Orthodoxy 755. Finally, he noted that the production of wreaths by the Johannites is called a “worthless, parasitic” activity, but if we proceed from this idea, then it is time to suppress many other centers of Russian folk art, for example, to close the Suzdal school of iconography 756. The campaign, which completely ignored the role played by the dogmatic Synod in the persecution of the Johannites, had some success. In response, there was a surge of nationalism. Publications such as Zemshchina played on hatred of the bureaucracy, especially emphasizing that children were taken from orphanages by force because their documents were not in order 757. The moderate St. Petersburg Vedomosti commented: “Let’s call the Johannites fanatics, let’s recognize them as heretics, but let’s face the truth: the children don’t want to leave them - they cry and fight back... Let’s remember Dostoevsky: are all the good intentions worth one child’s tears?” Vedomosti also sarcastically noted that there were many starving children in the world who could have been helped by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty, rather than the Johannite children who did not want to leave the orphanages, where they were well fed and kept in good conditions. The article claimed that evidence of the molestation of girls and the beating of children was fabricated: a thorough medical examination showed that all the children were healthy, and all the girls remained virgins. Comparing the persecution of the Johannites with the persecution of revolutionaries, the author summarized that, perhaps, the Johannites should be fought, but not with such “medieval” methods 758. Even such a “leftist” publication as “New Voice”, which called reports of “miracles” about. John, with fantasies fanned by the press, spoke out against any form of official persecution of the Johannites. According to the publication’s staff, it’s time for Russian society to grow out of short pants and not trust any government agencies with the right to speak on its behalf; The Johannites deserve nothing more than simple contempt 759. The scandal with the shelters, persecution in the press, the ever-increasing hostility of the Orthodox clergy, now almost united in advocating the official synodal condemnation of the Johannites as heretics - all this created among the Johannites the feeling that the whole world had truly taken up arms against them. Now they knew their enemies. Moreover, the current situation helped them better understand who they are and how they differ from “canonical” Orthodox Christians. The idea of ​​the imminent end of the world has become even stronger. Increasingly aware of themselves as a single collective, the Johannites changed their strategy during 1908. They have already gained experience in communicating with various organizations and the state machine and have now begun to use this to their advantage. The tone of their publications and discussions with government officials changed from exculpatory to offensive. However, it was precisely the successful declaration of their own position that ultimately turned against them: the Johannites demonstrated how far they had departed from what most people understand as Orthodoxy. Thus, a number of attacks by Johannite leaders against Orthodox hierarchs concerned the clergy, who poisoned the Johannites as “wolves of sheep”; The Johannites appeared in their printed speeches as new apostles and true Christians, who can and are obliged to explain who is the true shepherd and who is the false one. As soon as a layman arrogates to himself the right to judge everything independently, as the Johannites did after 1907, the very foundations of the Orthodox hierarchy are undermined. For example, the publication of the Johannites from 1908, “The Church of Christ is in Danger,” is one continuous accusatory speech against the Orthodox clergy in the form of quotations from the Bible, coupled with parallels from modern reality. The authors urged true believers to shun the “nobles,” who, as Jeremiah warned, “though they know the way of the Lord, the law of their God,” have “broken the yoke and broken the bonds” (Jeremiah 5:5). They are also characterized by reliance on Scripture in the complete absence of quotations from the Fathers of the Church (which is understandable, given that the Fathers of the Church, as a rule, paid special attention to the subordination established by the Church). The play "Black Crows" provided the Johannites with another opportunity to attack the official Church. No less than the representatives of the Synod, they were depressed by the mockery of Orthodoxy present in the play. However, they used the fact that the play was written by an Orthodox missionary, as well as the very principle of promoting their ideas on the theater stage, to criticize the trends towards modernizing the Church. The worst examples are the author of the play Protopov, a former missionary, and the church magazines “The Bell” and “Missionary Review” 760. Of greatest interest are the claims of the Johannites to the role of a beacon of true Orthodoxy in turbulent revolutionary times. The laws and political institutions generated by the revolution of 1905 were anathematized by the Johannites: “not a single true Christian who loves the faith, the Tsar and the Fatherland will enter the State Duma”; priests belonging to left-wing parties are “Judas-traitors, conscious murderers who have given themselves over to Satan” 761. They interpreted the Book of Ezekiel in the light of modern politics: in chapter 39, which begins with the words “But you, son of man, prophesy against Gog” (Ezekiel 39:1), they compared the “son of man” with Fr. John, and “Gog” - with the Duma 762. The ideas of freedom of conscience and equality of religions, laid down in the law of 1905, played a key role for the Johannites, who perceived themselves as relics of the true faith: while the official Church (in their opinion) could not express its position, being constrained by its connection with the state, they could afford it. They argued that because of the new legislation, the flock freely migrated from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, and this mass conversion took place with the approval of the “false shepherds.” In the end, the Johannites agreed to the point that the liberal press was deliberately preparing the ground for an armed rebellion against Jesus Christ, the Church and the autocratic king, God's anointed 763. In fact, almost all of those who converted to Catholicism were Uniates who had previously been forcibly converted to Orthodoxy. Moreover, many Christians, including the Orthodox clergy and Fr. John, at least they admitted that the Duma could represent a Christian point of view 764. However, for Pustoshkin, Bolshakov and other Johannites, any deviation from the “truth” was defiled by the spirit of secularism; they absolutely did not see the subtleties, did not recognize the complexity and diversity of the Church. The difference between the claim to possess a single truth, on the one hand, and a broader understanding of the universality and diversity of the one Church, on the other, is undoubtedly one of the basic differences between sectarian and church consciousness. In this sense, the apocalyptic, chiliastic beliefs that the Johannites shared, for example, with the Old Believers, are characteristic. Pustoshkin and Bolshakov - like those on whose behalf they dared to speak - were endowed with these qualities in abundance 765. The Johannites still managed to confuse the authorities. On August 23, 1909, even the Department of Spiritual Affairs of Foreign Denominations under the Ministry of Internal Affairs was forced to turn to the Office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod with the question of whether the Johannites are considered true members of the Holy Church or whether they are a religious movement that has decisively dissociated itself from Orthodoxy 766. At the All-Russian Missionary Congress in Kyiv, the Orthodox Church decided to once and for all deal with the uncertainty in this issue. At the congress, by a majority vote (112 versus 14), it was decided to consider the Johannites a sect (the mildest possible definition is “religious-mystical tendency”) 767. However, the discussion that accompanied the vote shows that the attitude of the clergy towards the Johannites was more complex and ambiguous than the final result suggests. For example, St. Petersburg missionary-preacher Dmitry Bogolyubov believed that it was still unclear whether “Johannism” was really a sect. He saw in this movement a unique form of Orthodoxy, which is somewhat akin to ultra-right patriotic organizations in politics, and believed that the Orthodox Church should not stigmatize “Johannism,” but patronize and guide it. Bogolyubov warned that if the Johannites were declared a sect at the council, this could push them to transform from a hitherto imaginary sect into a truly dangerous sect. He called on his colleagues, instead of condemning the Johannites, to enter into a discussion with them in the hope that in the dialogue their inherent extremes would disappear by themselves, and these “mostly kind and naive” people could then serve for the good of the Church; Bishop Andrei of Mamadysh expressed similar thoughts 768. However, another point of view won. The voting ended, and the Johannites were recognized by a majority of votes as a sect similar to the Khlysty 769. This decree, soon approved by the Synod, became the starting point for all further decisions regarding the Johannites 770. All Orthodox Christians were now warned against cooperation with the Kronstadt Lighthouse. The clergy were ordered to be vigilant towards those who sympathized with the Johannites, and before performing any sacraments on them, to demand that they renounce their main errors. The clergy also had to warn parishioners against traveling to Kronstadt, where they might encounter the Johannites. Those laity who continued to persist in Johannity after the instructions of the clergy were excommunicated from the church 771. The Council of Ministers, headed by P. A. Stolypin, also believed that the so-called Johannite sect was in fact a gangster group and should be prosecuted by law. The Council of Ministers contacted the Synod to receive instructions and develop a further line of conduct regarding the Johannites 772. Ioannites and the “Union of the Russian People” Faced with a growing stream of condemnation against them, the Johannites were forced to seek support in organizations that were not threatened with closure. It turned out to be not so difficult. The political views of the Johannites made them military comrades-in-arms of the “Union of the Russian People” (RRN). The obvious similarity of the tasks of both groups (in each issue of the Kronstadt Lighthouse it was stated that “the direction of the magazine is religious and moral, in the spirit of the Orthodox Church and the Russian people”), similar types of leaders (Nikolai Zhedenov, for example, actively participated in both organizations) and the approval of the RNC by Fr. John - all this forced members of both groups to strive for rapprochement. However, the idea of ​​unification soon collapsed. The stumbling block was the constant condemnation of the Johannites by Fr. John, as well as the fact that the Orthodox Church recognized them as a sect. For all the sympathy the RNC leaders had for their ideological comrades, they had to take care of their reputation. If they wanted to maintain the status of a respected Orthodox body, they had to “keep up the mark.” So, the problem of the Orthodoxy of the Johannites became decisive for the position of the RNC. On July 23, 1908, the Yaroslavl branch of the RNC made the first attempt to determine what the connection was between the Johannites and Fr. John. Representatives of the “Union” met with the shepherd at the Vaulovsky Assumption Skete, which he built in the Yaroslavl province. According to them, as soon as they raised the topic of the Johannites, Fr. John said indignantly: “I have anathematized them more than once before, and now, in front of witnesses, I curse them again.” He denied that he was in any way collaborating with the Kronstadt Lighthouse, and blessed the RNC to fight the Johannites - however, being apparently aware of the accusations of excessive cruelty among the Union members, he urged them to fight only by legal means 773. Despite the report of the Yaroslavl branch of the RNC and the guilty verdict of the Kyiv Congress of Missionaries, the problem of the Johannites caused a temporary split among the members of the “Union”. The RNC leadership refused to support the Johannites and expelled their leaders from their ranks. Regretting that some members of the “Union” secretly sympathized with Johanniteism, the RNC “officially and categorically” declared that it had nothing in common with “Johannite fanatics” and that declaring someone a saint is the exclusive prerogative of the Orthodox Church 774 . In the newspaper "Kolokol", which carried out the most consistent criticism of the Johannites from a conservative, Orthodox point of view, a note appeared with harsh statements addressed to the Johannites 775. However, the branch of the Union in St. Petersburg welcomed the Johannites and became their main defender. On September 8, 1909, a new organization began its work - the Brotherhood of St. John. Its creators set themselves the goal of perpetuating the memory of Fr. John, primarily the compilation of his life and the establishment of charitable organizations named after him. Like the earlier Johannites, the Brotherhood did not support any of the institutions opened by Fr. John, be it the House of Labor or monasteries. The Brotherhood's connection to far-right political organizations is obvious. Thus, Article 4 of the organization’s Charter stated: “The Brotherhood may include Orthodox Russian people who sacredly observe the oath of allegiance to the Anointed Emperor of God and the Autocrat of All Russia and reject the false teachings of materialists, socialists, revolutionaries and Freemasons” 776. Precisely because the Ministry of Internal Affairs decided to consider the “Brotherhood” primarily a political and conservative organization (like the “Union of the Archangel Michael”), and Fr. John - more a philanthropist than a religious figure, it approved of the fact that the Brotherhood was based on secular foundations 777. However, as soon as Nikolai Bolshakov and other famous Johannites joined the ranks of the Brotherhood, both the Synod and the police began to monitor the activities of the organization more closely. In fact, it turned out that the Brotherhood, contrary to the requirements of the Charter, does not establish a single educational or charitable organization, but pursues mainly religious goals. According to the police investigation, in the period from September 20 to October 1, weekly lectures with the following titles were to be given at the Brotherhood: “On the Judgment of God,” “On temptation and conversion to another faith,” and the like. Moreover, during meetings of the Brotherhood, anti-sectarian sermons were regularly read, in which Baptists, Pashkovites and Frederick William Farrar, an English religious writer of those years, were denounced, but the Johannites were defended. As soon as the St. Petersburg authorities responsible for the functioning of the societies became aware of this “deviation from the originally stated purpose of the organization,” they ordered the closure of the Brotherhood 778 . Besides the fact that in 1908, at a missionary congress in Kyiv, the Johannites were declared a sect, and in 1909, the Brotherhood was closed, they suffered other failures. On January 2, 1910, Nikolai Bolshakov died suddenly. The Society in Memory of Father John was created with the explicit goal of protecting his “blessed name and deeds” from the atrocities of the Johnnites. The police continued to guard any manifestation of activity on the part of the Johannites, claiming, in particular, that traces of their activities were found in the St. Petersburg garrison. There was a feeling that the Johannite movement was running out of steam 779. However, this was not the case. In 1909–1913 the flow of people who sold their property and went to live in Johannite communities led by local “prophets” did not dry out 780. There were reports that Johannite preachers were found in such widely separated regions as Vologda, Vladimir, Pyatigorsk, Kislovodsk, Samara, Saratov and Minsk 781 . Now, after the death of Fr. John, their sermons became more heterogeneous than ever. Some predicted that Nicholas II would soon be killed and that the Antichrist would reign in his place in the guise of Leo Tolstoy (or Sergei Witte) 782 . Others insisted on a public debate with Tolstoy; still others preached a ban on marriage and meat food, but at the same time advocated free love 783. Peasant Fyodor Lobodin, with the help of a book called “Interpretation of the Gospel,” which, according to him, was blessed by Fr. John, healed and exorcised evil spirits from Voronezh peasants 784. Instead of Fr. John, new “Jesuses” appeared - Chursikov in Petrograd, Koloskov in Moscow, Stefan Podgorny in Ukraine 785. A temperance society was created, whose members called themselves the “Ivanovo Brothers” 786. The activities of the Johannites were so diverse that some newspapers put forward the following hypothesis: the Ivanovo Brothers, Johannites, Baptists and Adventists sought to form an anti-Orthodox front, directed mainly against Orthodox missionaries 787. The authorities were still confused. When local officials asked central authorities what measures should be taken against the Johannites, they received a surprising number of conflicting instructions. For example, in a note dated March 28, 1910, officials of the Department of Spiritual Affairs and Foreign Confessions, responding to a request from the governor of the Tomsk province on how to act in relation to the recently discovered Ioannites, recommended to him: "T. n. The Johannites, in so far as they have been studied to this day, have not formed to this day into any sect with a dogmatic or canonical doctrine different from the Orthodox Church... [they] are, as far as we have been able to find out, only a kind of pious organization pursuing the goals of moral self-improvement and going partly into exaltation. Therefore, this phenomenon on the ground should be treated not from a religious, but exclusively from a general civil point of view” 788. In 1911, in a similar situation, the chamberlain of the court responded to the Tobolsk governor no less resourcefully, pointing out that the Johannites were not a sect, but a pious group of people whose only goal was the glorification of Fr. John. He added that after the adoption of the new law in 1906, the previous law on censorship was considered annulled and that the publications of the Johannites could not be prosecuted on this basis 789. Is it possible that the opinions of representatives of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Imperial Court were so different from the point of view expressed by the Synod and the resolution of 1908? Obviously, the fact that the Synod approved the decision of the All-Russian Missionary Congress, held in Kyiv in 1908, was not enough. On April 12, 1912, a special meeting of the Synod convened, dedicated exclusively to the problem of the Johannites. Now Johannity was officially recognized as a sect similar to the Khlysty; Kiseleva, Pustoshkin, Nazariy and Zhedenov were called to account; Special explanatory statements were prepared for the Orthodox 790. However, the Johannites managed to leave such a strong impression on themselves that even their Orthodox ill-wishers partly adopted their rhetoric. Thus, a pamphlet published in 1912 says: “These damned Fr. John and, through him (my italics - N.K.), by God Himself, the heretics John..." 791 And although after 1990 the silent rehabilitation of the Johannites began (by including their literature in the general religious discourse of the era), at the end of the Russian Empire they were clearly perceived as a threat to Fr. John, and for Orthodoxy as a whole. As a result, we can conclude that the Johannites are one of the numerous and popular religious movements that sought to return the “true” faith and awaken people in the face of the imminent end of the world 792. In the context of Russia at the end of the 19th – beginning of the 20th centuries. they represented part of a broader nationalist, far-right reaction to modernization and secularization. Their characteristic difference from other sects, which also awaited the onset of the thousand-year reign of Christ, was the attention that society paid to them, since the Johannites claimed to be the “true” followers of Fr. John. The actions of the Johannites, thus, inevitably reflected not only on the shepherd himself, but also on all of Orthodoxy, which ultimately contributed to the general crisis of identity of the Orthodox Church in autocratic Russia. For particularly clear formulations, see the book: Pustoshkin V.F. The Church of Christ is in danger. Rebuke of the Reverend Bishop Filaret, head of the Vyatka diocese. St. Petersburg, 1908; Bolshakov N. Ya. False defender of Orthodoxy and the “Black Crows” // Kronstadt Lighthouse. St. Petersburg, 1908. No. 3, appendix. A typical example of such an approach is in the book: Butkevich T.I. Review of Russian sects and their interpretations. Kharkov, 1910. pp. 156–162. Publications close to the Church also consistently made a distinction. See: Bell. 1909. No. 1054. [September 16]. S. 1. See, for example: St. Petersburg Gazette. 1909. September 20. S. 2. See, as the most typical example, in the book: Poetic satire of the first Russian revolution (1905–1907) / Comp. A. Ninov. L., 1985. pp. 122–125. On the influence of censorship on religious publications, see: Lyalina G.S. Censorship policy of the church in the 19th – early 20th centuries // Russian Orthodoxy: Milestones of History. M., 1989. pp. 463–500. Primary sources about the Johannites are preserved in three main archives: GARF. F. 102 (Police Department). 3rd case D. 3069; 4th case 1907. D. 154 (“About the Johannites”); RGIA. F. 821. Op. 133. Unit hr. 206 (formerly Department of Spiritual Affairs. D. 155) (“Ioannites”); TsGIA SPb. F. 569. Op. 20. D. 344, link 334 (“Ioannites”), Most of these letters are located in the Central State Historical Archive of St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 38 (Correspondence about the Johannites, November 2, 1895 - September 16, 1905). For a description of the Church’s position, see the statement of priest Nikolai Podosenov: Central State Historical Archive of St. Petersburg. F. 569. Op. 20. D. 344, bundle 334. L. 238 vol.; about press statements, see: On the existence of the “Johannite” sect // Volga-Kama speech. Kazan. October 16, 1907. P. 5. Letter dated November 2, 1895 from priest Alexy Solntsev to: Central State Historical Archive of St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 37. L. 1; Letter dated November 21, 1897 from priest Viktor Stavrov, Astrakhan province. Right there. D. 7, L. 1. Bolshakov N. Ya. The truth about the Johannite sect. St. Petersburg, 1906. P. 64. Pustoshkin V.F. Church of Christ. pp. 16, 17. Despite the fact that these statements were published much later, similar statements were recorded during the investigation. Ioannite Prokhor Skorobogatenkov, for example, often took prosphora and a chalice with wine and brought them to the portrait of Fr. John and asked, addressing him as God, that he would turn the bread into the Body of Christ, and the wine into the Blood of Christ. In the end, fearing such misuse of objects depicting Fr. John, the Synod in 1895 declared the production of enamel mugs with the image of a shepherd illegal; despite this, violations still occurred. For the decision of the Synod, see: RGIA. F. 796. Op. 176. Units hr. 3498. L. 1. Additional confirmation that the mugs with the image of Fr. John were used in “communion” rituals, see: Letter to the mayor from priest Nikolai Podosenov, dated April 24, 1908 (TsGIA St. Petersburg. F. 569. Op. 334. D. 20. L. 237). Lack of funds was put forward by some Johannites as an argument in response to police requests. See the investigation data dated October 18, 1907 in: TsGIA St. Petersburg. F. 569. Op. 20. D. 344, bundle 344. L. 93. On the relationship between submission to elders and hierarchs, see: Smirnov S.I. Spiritual Father in the Ancient Eastern Church. History of clergy in the East. Sergiev Posad, 1906. pp. 52–64. For published anticlerical statements, see: Pustoshkin V.F. Church of Christ. pp. 19, 25; eyewitness accounts see: GARF. F. 102 (Police Department). III department D. 1366 (About the Malovishersky tradesman Pyotr Trofimov, seeking to form a sect of a religious nature in the Lyuban volost). L. 5–5 vol. Letter from priest Pavel Vasiliev dated March 6, 1904 to: Central State Historical Archive St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 37. L. 6; for an excerpt from “Outskirts” for April 9, 1908, see: GARF. F. 102. 4 deed. D. 154 (I). L. 8. See, for example, the obstacles that Anastasia Logacheva faced in the book: Meehan V. Holy Women of Russia: The Lives of Five Orthodox Women Offer Spiritual Guidance for Today. Crestwood, N.Y., 1997. Especially p. 42–50. However, this model was not universal: Ekaterina Vasilievna Malkova, a married laywoman, was respected for her missionary work and was cited as an example to the wives of priests. See: Woman missionary and missionary shelter // St. Petersburg Spiritual Messenger. October 10, 1897 No. 41. pp. 806–809. Mentioned in a letter from Elizaveta Zemborskaya: Central State Historical Archive of St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 37. L. 31. See: New false teaching // Wanderer. 1895. T. 36, No. 3. P. 629. This is exactly what happened with Kondratov and Ivan Ponomarev. See: Necessary admonition // Kostroma Diocesan Gazette. 1902. No. 12. pp. 321–322, 549–553. Letter from Zlatoustov dated March 3, 1900, in: TsGIA St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 7a. L. 1–2. Letters from priest Sergius Dremyatsky, March 7, 1904: Ibid. D. 37. L. 8; and from priest Leonid Tomesh. D. 37. L. 14. Letter without date. Right there. D. 38. L. 22. Wed. the case of a peasant woman who wanted to open a religious community, claiming that Fr. John gave her his blessing for this. Russian State Historical Archive of Moscow (hereinafter RGIA Moscow). F. 203. Op. 392. D. 3. L. 1, 5 vol. Davis R. H. 19th-century Russian Religious-Theological Journals: Structure and Access // St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly. 1989. Vol. 33, No. 3. P. 235–259. For an example of such an informative article, written in anticipation of a response from other representatives of the clergy, see: Ovsyannikov E. New admirers of Fr. John of Kronstadt in the Don region // Orthodox guide. 1903 (April). pp. 489–494. For similar arguments, see: Clay E. J. Orthodox Missionaries and “Orthodox Heretics” in Russia, 1866–1917 // Of Religion and Empire: Missions, Conversion, and Tolerance in Russia/ Ed. by Khodarkovsky M., Geraci R. Ithaca, 2001. P. 34. Letter dated March 12, 1895, in: RGIA. F. 796. Op. 175. Units hr. 2017, 2 tbsp. 3 dept. L. 5–6. Letter from 1905, in: Central State Historical Archive of St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 37. L. 7. Nikolai Volochuchin was one of the first to ask for such clarifications in 1899. Ibid. D. 37. L. 29–30. About the akathist as a popular form of worship and its strict canons, see the opinion of Abbess Taisia ​​in the book: Abbess Thaisia ​​of Leushino: The Autobiography of a Spiritual Daughter of St. John of Kronstadt. Platina, Calif., 1989, pp. 161–166. About the akathist composed before the canonization of Fr. John, see: Sursky I.K. Father John of Kronstadt. T. 2. pp. 332–344. See: Zubarev E. The Ioannites are cursed, Fr. John of Kronstadt. 2nd ed. Kostroma, 1912. pp. 1–2. See: Necessary admonition. pp. 321–322. This statement was made by Rev. Boris Nikolaev. See: Oral History Archive of the Russian State University for the Humanities. F. Pskov expedition, interview dated July 17, 1989, L. 2. Terletsky V.N. Sect of “Johannites”. Poltava, 1910. P. 14. Strange adventure // Russia. 1901. No. 852 (September 9). S. 3. GARF. F. 102 (Police Department). D. 1366, III department. (About the Malovishersky tradesman Pyotr Trofimov, who seeks to form a sect of a religious nature in the Lyuban volost). L. 5–5 vol. Spiritual poems as a folk genre and their perception are discussed in the book: Fedotov G.P. Spiritual Poems. Russian folk faith based on spiritual verses. M., 1991. GARF. F. 102 (Police Department). D. 1366, III department. L. 5–5 vol. October 6, 1901, No. 1115. Information dated October 15, 1901, in: GARF. F. 102. D. 1366, III department. L. 5 rev.–7. For a detailed analysis of the investigation into the financial offenses of the Johannites, see: Case of the Chancellor. St. Petersburg Governor General; general orders for police service / April 9, 1905 Central State Historical Archive of St. Petersburg. F. 2075. Op. 1. D. 15. L. 4. For debates at the time about the consequences of these laws, see: Hourwich I. Religious Sects in Russia // The Case of Russia: A Composite View. N.Y., 1905. P. 341–387. See also: Blane A. Protestant Sects in Late Imperial Russia // The Religious World of Russian Culture, Russia and Orthodoxy. Vol. 2: Essays in Honor of Georges Florovsky. The Hague/Paris, 1975, pp. 267–278. In other words, although the Holy Synod was formally a government agency and the Orthodox faith was still the official religion of the Russian Empire, the Synod could not independently bring charges against a religious group that aroused suspicion: it first had to bring the matter to the attention of the appropriate individuals and organizations. On the specifics of selling books from hand to hand, see: Rossabi M. J. Peasants, Peddlers, and Popular Prints in Nineteenth-century Russia // Bulletin of Research in the Humanities. 1986–1987. Vol. 87, No. 4. P. 418–430. GARF. F. 102, 3 delopr. 1069. L. 5–5 vol. See: TsGIA St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 31. L. 73. GARF. F. 102, 3 delopr. 1069. L. 5 vol. Right there. L. 6, 9. Explanations about. John regarding his relationship with Kiseleva, see the book: Alekseev I.A. The defeat of the Johannites. St. Petersburg, 1909. P. 30. Correspondence between the Ministry of Internal Affairs (table 3, 4) and the St. Petersburg Governor General, April 9 – June 7, 1905, in: Central State Historical Archive of St. Petersburg. F. 2075. Op. 1. D. 15. L. 4–12. Bolshakov N. Ya. The truth about the Johannite sect. pp. 32, 35, 44, 47. Quote according to the book: Terletsky V.N. Sect of “Joannites”. P. 7. TsGIA SPb. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 40. L. 40. Terletsky V.N. Sect of “Johannites”. P. 7. Serebrov A. Time and people: memories, 1898–1905. M., 1960. P. 39.0 For how the visual typology of prostitutes was created, see the book: Engelstein L. The Keys to Happiness: Sex and the Search for Modernity in Fin-de-Siècle Russia. Ithaca, 1994, pp. 130–152. TsGIA SPb. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 40. L. 8. Right there. D. 40. L. 41; D. 65. L. 5 et seq. Letter dated October 10, 1897 from Ferdinand de Beeck to Alexandra Ivanovna. Right there. D. 37. L. 3; March 6, 1904 from Pavel Vasiliev. Right there. D. 37. L. 6. Letter from Yakov Dalmatov and I. Alexandrov. March 27, 1905 Ibid. D. 37. L. 35. Protonov V.V. Black crows. A play in five acts. St. Petersburg, 1908. See: From periodicals. “Black Crows” // Theological Bulletin. 1907. December. P. 866. See: New events in the fight against beggary in St. Petersburg; Charitable society for helping the parish poor at the Vladimir Church // St. Petersburg Spiritual Bulletin. 1897. No. 24. pp. 459–465. New time. March 11, 1908, in: GARF. F. 102. Delopr. 4. D. 154 (1). L. 7. See, for example, the correspondence between Pavel Ilyanov and his father, in: TsGIA St. Petersburg. F. 569. Op. 20. D. 344, St. 334. L. 26–31 vol. For example, Al. Iv. Bryauzova (September 5, 1907, in: Central State Historical Archive of St. Petersburg. F. 569. Op. 20. D. 344, St. 344. L. 34). Circular in: Central State Historical Archive St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 37. L. 28; Russian pilgrim. 1907. No. 33. P. 526; GARF. F. 102, 4 delopr., 1907. D. 154. L. 2–3, 58, letter dated September 29, 1907 from the Office of the St. Petersburg Mayor to the 3rd Spassky and 4th Petersburg districts. See, for example: Orderlies in Johannite hostels/slums. GARF. F. 102, 4 delopr. D. 154. L. 162–163. While the article claimed that there were approximately "ninety little girls", according to the police investigation, there were thirteen girls aged between 4 and 13 and seventy-one people in total. Petersburg newspaper. May 17, 1909, in: Central State Historical Archive of St. Petersburg. D. 569. Op. 334. Units hr. 20. L. 230. Ioannites // Today. Samara, November 23, 1907. P. 1. RGIA. F. 821. Op. 133. Unit hr. 206. L. 7. Word. No. 31 (April 5, 1909). S. 2. Amphitheatres used the word "presentation" to draw a parallel with the feast of the Presentation of the Lord. Poetic satire. pp. 122–123. See, for example: The fight against the Johannites // Modern Word. October 15, 1909 P. 3; Ioannitic agitation // Stock Exchange Gazette. No. 10113 (September 22, 1907). S. 1. Police report dated October 18, 1907, in: TsGIA St. Petersburg. F. 569. Op. 20. D. 344, St. 344. L. 92–93. Report dated November 8, 1907 to the mayor from the bailiff of the 2nd section of the St. Petersburg part, in: Central State Historical Archive of St. Petersburg. Right there. L. 168–169. October 25, 1907 Ibid. L.150. Report dated August 11, 1907 of the Perm Spiritual Consistory from priest Alexander Merkurov, in: Central State Historical Archive St. Petersburg. Right there. L. 178–179. RGIA. F. 821. Op. 133. Unit hr. 206. L. 1 (On the closure of shelters opened by St. John the Great in St. Petersburg, and on the return of children taken to shelters to their parents or relatives). By doing so, they expressed the desire that the decision would become legal for the entire empire. Right there. Unit hr. 206. L. 2–3. The mayor referred to Article 387, vol. XI, part II of the PSZ. TsGIA SPb. F. 569. Op. 334. D. 20. L. 230, 376; GARF. F. 102, 3 delopr. D. 3069. L. 108. For letters to Stolypin, see; TsGIA SPb. F. 569. Op. 334. D. 20. L. 272–273, 282. Letter from Zhedenov to Privy Councilor and Senator S.E. Kryzhanovsky. RGIA. F. 821. Op. 133. Unit hr. 206. L. 15. Right there. L. 50–51 vol. A longer version of his letter appeared in an appendix to The Kronstadt Lighthouse under the title “Terrible Revenge.” Right there. L. 29–30. GARF. F. 102, 4 delopr., 1907. D. 154. L. 127. Right there. 3 business case D. 3069. L. 116; reprinted in St. Petersburg Gazette, October 1, 1909. Zemshchina. September 19, 1909; Right there. 4 business D. 154 (I). L. 107. St. Petersburg Gazette. September 20, 1909. P. 2. New voice. December 13, 1908, clipping in: GARF. F. 102, 4 delopr. D. 154 (I). L. 65. Bolshakov N. Ya. False defender of Orthodoxy. S. 3; Protonov V.V. Black Crows. C.ii. Pustoshkin V.F. Church of Christ. P. 7. Quote in: Russian Word. May 7, 1909 (GARF. F. 102, 4 cases. D. 154 [I]. L. 63). Bolshakov N. Ya. False defender of Orthodoxy. S. 2. For modern arguments in support of combining liberal democracy with Orthodoxy, see: Voinov V. The Western Idea of Democracy Through the Prism of the Russian Religious Mind. Unpublished paper presented at the AAASS conference held in Albany, New York, March 1997. About the sermon of Fr. John on the opening of the Duma (April 27, 1906) see: Sergiev I.I. Sermons of Father John of Kronstadt on the Tsarist Autocracy. St. Petersburg, 1914. pp. 12–13. Troeltsch E. Sect-type and Church-type contrasted // Troeltsch E. The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches. Vol. 1. N.Y., 1960. P. 331–349; Florovsky G.V. Paths of Russian theology. Paris, 1937. pp. 68–69. Letter dated August 23, 1909 No. 5360, in: RGIA. F. 821. Op. 133. Unit hr. 206. L. 5. All-Russian Missionary Congress. Additions to the Church Gazette. 1908. No. 30. P. 1407. According to the beliefs of the Khlys, God was incarnated not only once - in his Son; He continues to incarnate in some people in order to more fully reveal the truth and show the people the path to salvation. These chosen righteous become living Gods to whom ordinary laws do not apply. See: Whips // Brockhaus F. A., Efron A. Ya. Encyclopedic Dictionary. St. Petersburg, 1903. T. 73, pp. 402–409. Letter from the office of the Synod dated September 15, 1909, in: RGIA. F. 821. Op. 133. Unit hr. 206. L. 54. This was reported in “New Time” for December 12, 1908. GARF. F. 102, 4 delopr. D. 154 (I). L. 63. Council meeting of December 10, 1908. Ibid. D. 154 (I). L. 64. Russian word. No. 176. July 30, 1908. P. 4. Various versions of the meeting were retold in “Russian People” on August 1 and 10, 1908, No. 360, 369; and also in the “Voice of Moscow” on July 30, 1908. See: GARF. F. 102, 4 delopr. D. 154 (I). L. 29, 37–38. This was reported in the “Veche” on August 23, 1909, p. 2; GARF. F. 102, 4 delopr. D. 154 (1). L. 96. Right there. 4 business 1907. L. 177. John's Brotherhood. Charter RGIA. F. 821. Op. 133. Unit hr. 206 (formerly the Department of Spiritual Affairs of Foreign Denominations. D. 155). L. 52. Letter dated September 15, 1909 from the Department of Spiritual Affairs of Foreign Denominations to the St. Petersburg mayor. Right there. Unit hr. 206. L. 53. They did so on the basis of Section I, Art. 4 and 33 of the Law on Unions and Societies of March 4, 1906 See: RGIA. F. 821. Op. 133. Unit hr. 206. L. 110, 132, 137. Letter dated October 9, 1909 from the Ministry of Internal Affairs to the mayor. Right there. Unit hr. 206. L. 108. On the formation of society, see: RGIA St. Petersburg. F. 2216. Op. 1. D. 1. L. 17 vol. See, for example, cases in December 1909 in Novo-Vorontsovka and Kherson district: RGIA. F. 821. Op. 133. Unit hr. 206. L. 139, 149. See, for example: Johannite campaign in the Caucasus // Tiflis leaflet. No. 243. October 25, 1909, in: RGIA. F. 821. Op. 133. Unit hr. 206. L. 119, 152, 154, 174, 175, 226; GARF. F. 102, 4 delopr., 1907. D. 154. L. 121–193. Kherson police report, No. 9305, October 2, 1909. GARF. F. 102.4 delopr., 1907. D. 154. L. 130.135. Right there. D. 154. L. 161–164. Antonii (Khrapovitskii), metropolitan. Confession. P. 44–45. Telegram dated December 30, 1909 RGIA. F. 821. Op. 133. Unit hr. 206. L. 143. See the statement made in the Kolokol on April 8, 1910 by a “Perm resident.” During the police interrogation, the author stated that Baptists, in particular, disseminated socialist and revolutionary ideas (RGIA. F. 821. Op. 133. Item 206. L. 229). Right there. Unit hr. 206. L. 166; italics mine. GARF. F. 102, 4 delopr. 1907. D. 154. L. 189. Right there. D. 154. L. 193; This was also reported in Rech for April 14, 1912. Zubarev E. Ioannites are cursed. S. 5. About similar movements in Russia, see: Klibanov A. Ya. History of religious sectarianism in Russia (60s of the 19th century - 1917). M., 1965; It's him. People's social utopia in Russia, XIX century. M., 1978.