Religious Communities and Urban Communities, pages 116-125

History of the Khlyst Movement in Russia, 1850-2000

Original title: "The Historiography of the Khlyst Movement in Russia in the Second Half of the 19th and the 20th Centuries"

Olga Dekhtevich, Moscow State Regional University

Статья посвящена изучению историографии хлыстовского движения в России во второй половине XIX – начале XX вв. Хлыстовство, известное также как “христовщина” или “хлыстовщина”, представляло религиозную мистическую секту, признанную крайне вредной в Российской империи. Сектанты хранили свой культ в тайне и тщательно скрывались среди православных. Незнание всей правды о хлыстах рождало множество догадок и домыслов, при этом уровень интереса к сектантам был достаточно высок. Секта привлекала внимание различных исследователей, особенно представителей духовенства и чиновников. Однако, если о старообрядцах написано достаточно много серьезных работ, то о хлыстах их единицы. Многочисленные чиновники и сельские священники не часто заботились о качестве и достоверности информации и подчас просто переписывали друг у друга ложные сведения. Многочисленные публицисты в погоне за сенсацией тоже нередко сочиняли разные небылицы. При этом квалифицированных работ о хлыстах публиковалось крайне мало.

В связи с этим проблема историографии хлыстовского движения является актуальной и представляет большой интерес для исследования. Необходимость ее изучения заключается в том, что сектанты практически не оставили источников о самих себе. В таких условиях совокупность работ о хлыстах является незаменимым и практически единственным источником информации, с которым может работать исследователь.

Более или менее профессиональные исследования о хлыстах появляются лишь в начале XX века, когда проблема вероисповедной политики стояла в Российской империи наиболее остро. Понятно, что по идеологическим причинам тема хлыстовства крайне мало изучалась в СССР. Только конец 80-х – 90-е годы XX века можно отметить как время, когда все, что связано с мистикой, стало очень популярным. Тогда же многие исследователи возвращаются к теме русского сектантства, и в частности, к изучению хлыстовства. При этом подробное изучение историографии хлыстовского движения позволяет составить наиболее полное представление об этом явлении в русской религиозной жизни.

This chapter is devoted to the historiography of the Khlyst movement in Russia during the second half of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. The Khlysts, who were known as Khlystovshina or Bozhii ludi [God’s People], were a mass religious movement. The sect, which was formed in the 17th century, existed until the 20th century, and their great development did not go unnoticed. Over the course of several centuries, the Khlysts attracted the attention of a great number of researchers, mostly clerics and various officials whose work brought them into contact with the Sectarians. [Also see: Khysts, Wikipedia.org; and Summary of Russian Mormon Research, by James Scott.]

During the second half of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, the problem of Sectarianism grew. It was a matter of concern not only for researchers, but also for ordinary people. There were a lot of rationalist and mystic sects in the territory of the Russian empire, and Old Believers and Sectarianism were becoming a serious danger to the Russian Orthodox Church, which commanded a position of strength, not susceptible to weakness. The overdue formation of a religious policy, coupled with repressive measures taken to solve the Sectarian problem, made people hostile to the state and Orthodoxy. Harsh conditions, discontent with their spiritual life, and semi-illiteracy were responsible for people joining the sect. For over three centuries, Russian Sectarians had attracted great attention from other people. Many mysterious rituals and strange beliefs were attributed to the Khlysts, and they were regarded as followers of either an alien religious movement or an original rural Russian belief system. They were also thought to be the most dangerous sect, and were attacked in all possible ways, being accused of debauchery, the ritual murder of children and other bloodthirstiness. The greatest strength of the Khlyst sect was drawn from its mystery, and that was the reason why its original leaders had insisted that its members should strictly obey the rules of the Orthodox Church, often encouraging them to be over-zealous in their obedience in order not to give the sect away.

The researchers of the 19th century knew more about the Khlysts than we do now. Although they never managed to make a full and objective analysis of the movement, a variety of opinions about the sect tells us how important the issue was for the people during our period of study. For this reason, the historiography of the Khlyst movement is very topical, representing an extensive sphere of research.

During the 19th to the beginning of the 20th century, the attitude of researchers towards the Sectarians was quite biased; they simply copied the attributes of the Khlysts mechanically from each other, without any proper investigation. Research of a more professional nature only appeared at the beginning of the 20th century, when the problem of a religious policy became more marked. For clear ideological reasons, the Khlysts were insufficiently studied in the USSR, although the period at the end of the 1980s going into the 1990s can be noted as the time when everything connected with mysticism became very popular.

Scientists have paid greater attention to the history of the movement in the 17th and 18th centuries, and as a result, the study of the history of the movement during the second half of the 19th century and the beginning of 20th century has suffered. The historiography of the Khlyst movement represents a very interesting field for research because, while there were a lot of volumes devoted to the Old Believers, because many historians were interested in researching this movement, only very few studied the Khlyst sect. The history of its study is in itself interesting and special. On the one hand, there are many volumes devoted to how it came into existence, but on the other hand, the main aspects of most of this research concern rituals, beliefs and folklore. These works are devoted to the history of the sect in the 17th century, the time when it first appeared. There are, however, exceptions to this type of research, as reports by missionaries and priests, published in theological magazines, usually contain quite useful information about the sect.

Most materials traditionally used by researchers concerning the Russian mystic sects were collected and published during the second half of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century.

One of the first works devoted to this sect was a note by the Kaluga priest Ivan Sergeev. Entitled Iz”yasneniye raskola, imenuemogo khrystovshina ili khlystovshina [The Explanation of the Schism Called Khrystovshina or Khlystovshina], it was submitted to the Synod in 1809. Sergeev had been admitted to the community and participated in radenya [divine service assembly]. He was also one of the first to write about the sect and supply the authorities with necessary information (1).

The works devoted to the Khlysts started to appear in the early 1860s. The first researchers of the sect were officials of the Home Office, among them the professor of law N.V. Varadinov, who had written the history of the Home Office. This eighth, additional book was devoted to a history of decrees on the schism (2). Using the facts, Varadinov showed the attitudes between the Church and power structures on the one hand, and the Church and the Khlysts on the other. Being an expert on the history of law, he managed to collect and analyse a significant number of documentary sources – decrees and decisions connected with the schism. He also showed and characterised the stages of the government’s activity regarding the Old Believers.

Theological researches contributed greatly to investigating khlystovshina. They were the first to draw public attention to the sect and the fact that it was so widely spread. They began to write about it actively. One of the first was a professor of the Kazan Spiritual Academy I.M. Dobrotvorskiy, whose monograph Lyudi Bozh’i. Russkaya sekta tak nazyvaemykh dukhovnykh khristian [People Divine. Russian Sect of So-called Spiritual Christians] was published in Kazan in 1869.

The work of Dobrotvorskiy received some criticism. In his book, he designated “the doctrine about mysterious death and mysterious revival” as ostensibly typical for the Khlyst sect. But this was based only on the letters and notes of Vasiliy Radaev, who, as Dobrotovskiy stated in his book, was the Khlyst’s prophet. He also wrote about the depravity of the Khlysts. However, the great merit of Dobrotvorskiy’s work was the publication of 85 Sectarian church motets which had been collected by him (3).

Dobrotovkiy’s work was preceded by some other publications by church authors. However, they involved a minimal quantity of additional material. For example, G. Protopopov’s Opyt istoricheskogo obozreniya misticheskikh sekt v Rossii [Experience of a Historical Review of Mystic Sects in Russia] (1867) (4), suggested that the Russian sects should be divided into the following groups: “mystic” (‘Khlysts’, ‘Castratos’, ‘Napoleonits’, ‘Racers’ and ‘Montans’) and “rationalist” (‘Molokans’, ‘Dukhobors’) (5). According to the book, the Khlysts was a dangerous sect, and the author declared that it was crucial for the church and the government to fight it.

N.I. Barsov’s report, Russkiy prostonarodnyi mistitsizm [The Russian Demotic Mysticism], published in 1860-1870, is of some interest, along with his collection of Sectarian motets (103 texts) (6). The advantage of his works lies in the critical approach to P.I. Melnikov’s works Taynye sekty [Secret Sects] and Belye golubi [White Pigeons], and Dobrotovkiy’s Lyudi Bozhii. Russkaya sekta tak nazyvaemykh dukhovnykh khristian [Divine People. Russian Sect of So-called Spiritual Christians] (7). In his works, Barsov detailed the contents of all the communications concerning the Khlysts that he was aware of, although he repeated an old mistake of his predecessors. He also wrote that Vasiliy Radaev was a Khlyst, and he made some reasonably practical remarks about the genesis of the Khlysts as well as writing about the prospects for research on the sect’s folklore. Moreover, following the priest Sergeev, he tried to see a certain theological doctrine behind the tradition of the sect.

F.V. Livanov devoted a whole series of writings to the Khlysts and the Eunuchs. He described a history of the Tatarinova sect with its divine service cult (8). However, he did not check the information. He expressed confidence that the Khlysts was a political organization which posed danger to the state and society, and basically focused on the sect’s history and ceremonial practice. However, the style of the book Dissenters and Jailers [or: Schismatics and Criminals] can hardly be called scientific, as it was written in a non-academic, popular style. When reading Livanov’s works, one might think that he must have written them for ordinary illiterate people with the purpose of making them afraid of the Khlysts. As a result, his book is of little scientific value and the information in his works should be carefully checked.

One of the best-known researchers of the schism was the writer P.I. Melnikov. He showed his writing talent in the third part of the novel Na gorakh [On Mountains]. He was also famous for his non-academic, popular works such as the articles Tainye sekty [Secret Sects] and Belye golubi [White Pigeons], published in Russkiy byulleten’ [The Russian Bulletin] in 1868 and 1869, as well as his scientific research about the Castratos, which was published along with documentary materials in the archive of the Home Office. Later, it was included in the collected works of Melnikov (9). As a writer, Melnikov based his research about the Khlysts on oral communications without checking their reliability. One can forgive a writer for using of unchecked information, but as long as Melnikov was a researcher and an official of special orders, he should have chosen his sources of information more carefully. Unfortunately, he made the same error when writing Otchet o sostoyanii raskola v Nizhegorodskoy gubernii [The Report on the Condition of the Schism in the Nizhniy Novgorod Province], for the Home Office. This certainly reduces the quality of his work considerably (10).

His articles Tainye sekty [Secret Sects] and Belye golubi [White Pigeons] did not show a methodical approach to the stated facts, but as these products are literary, rather than scientific, their usage for research of the Khlysts is considerably limited in any case. However, the author probably did not aim to write a scientific work and so frequently altered the facts. The facts given in the novel Na gorakh [On Mountains] are even less reliable.

A.P. Shchapov’s volumes are of great interest. In 1858, his thesis Russkiy raskol staroobryadchestva [Russian Schism of the Old Believers] was published (11). He considered the schism to be not only religious, but also a historical, domestic and social phenomenon. Later he developed the ideas in his book Zemstvo i raskol [Zemstvo and Schism] (12).

Shchapov’s approach to the problem of Sectarianism was the best thought out and compared very favourably with all his contemporaries. His ideas on the genesis of the Russian Khlysts are still of scientific interest. In trying to present the Russian schism of the 17th century as a reaction of regional and federal tendencies to growing state centralization, he assumed that the collision resulted in mass and local religious creativity becoming more intense. He noticed, quite reasonably, that there was some kind of new belief which was distinct from official Orthodoxy in the rural environment, and, in his opinion, the reason for it was the lack of knowledge about Christianity, and semi-illiteracy among the people. The suppression of the Russian peasants generated religious imposture; that is, the occurrence of imaginary ‘Christs’ and ‘prophets’.

Nevertheless, the quality of Shchapov’s research was much better than that of those who followed. Unfortunately, he never continued his work on the Khlyst movement.

One of the researchers of the 1860s was V.I. Kelsiev. His research was followed by the publication of the four-volume Sbornik pravitelstvennykh svedeniy o raskolnikakh [Collection of Government Data on Dissenters] (London, 1860-1862) and the two-volume Sobraniye postanovleniy po chasti raskola [Assembly of Decisions in Connection with the Schism] (London, 1863). It was one of the largest publications of sources on the history of the schism.

The second edition of The Collection of Decisions in Connection with Schism contained materials about the Khlysts. It included a communication from the participants of the 1852 expedition who took part in research on the schism in the Nizhniy Novgorod, Kostroma and Yaroslavl provinces. It also included a classification of the dissenting movements which fell into three categories: Orthodox, Molokanstvo and the belief of the ‘Divine People’. He referred to the Khlysts as Divine People, saying that there was not much known about them (13).

In 1867, a series of articles entitled Sviatorusskie dvoeveri [Double-faith Believers of Holy Russia] was published in the magazines of Saint Petersburg (14). Kelsiev’s work has advantages such as the publication of some important documents as well as quite a few stories about the Khlysts’ bloodthirstiness, albeit without any proper facts that could prove these statements.

In 1872, another government work about the Khlysts was published (15), written by the Moscow official of the Ministry of Justice, N.V. Reutsky. He actively used documents from the Moscow archives: “authentic sources and original papers”, which were practically unknown to previous researchers. However, neglect of reference to the documents considerably reduces the quality of his work, although he pointed out in his research that the attitude towards the legend about the Khlyst’s “Sabaof” Danila Philippovich should be changed to a critical one.

Ten years later, in 1882, Reutskiy published an original addition to the monograph – the article that contained a history of the Khlyst movement in Moscow in the first half of the 19th century (16).

B.V. Andreev was one of the followers of Schapov’s ideas. Andreev tried to find a new approach to the question of Sectarianism and his attempt does deserve approval, although he worked with unreasonably narrow frameworks of research, which was certainly a drawback. Andreev followed the basic idea of many researchers who tried to find the roots of the Khlyst movement anywhere but in the Russian environment, presenting these religious movements as an alien phenomenon. Moreover, he stated in his work that the Khlysts were predecessors of the Castratos, which gives rise to a number of objections.

In the eighties and nineties of the 19th century, interest in the Khlyst sect increased considerably. Hundreds of research works and articles devoted to the Khlysts were published. They were the works of seminary students such as K.V. Kutepov, I.G. Ayvazov, N.G. Vysotsky, Т.I. Butkevich, N.I. Ivanovsky etc.

The thesis of the teacher of the Kazan spiritual academy, the archpriest K.V. Kutepov, is of great interest. For example, in the monograph Sekty khlystov i skoptzov [Sects of the Khlysts and Castratos] (17), the author was not too anxious to criticize any sources, and tried to unify all the data known to him about the Khlysts, but he aimed to show the harmful affect which the Khlysts had had. In 1900, Kutepov’s ‘research’ was republished without any changes, which emphasized the unwillingness of the author to change his approach to the problem of the sect.

In 1908, D.G. Konovalov published the monograph Religiozniy ekstaz v russkom misticheskom sektantstve [Religious Ecstasy in the Russian Mystic Sectarianism] (18). The views in the book were different to those of other research. In his work, he did not rank Radaev as a Khlyst, whereas he had previously been considered to be almost the ideologist of debauchery, though he was not a Sectarian at all. That has been proved and confirmed by experts from the Moscow Spiritual academy. Another advantage of Konovalov’s work was that he proved that the 12 Commandments of Danila Philippovich were of a later origin than previously thought (19).

However, the works of Konovalov contain a number of drawbacks. In spite of the fact that he found a new approach to the problem of Sectarianism, he did not manage to fully develop his ideas. Nevertheless, it should be noted that Konovalov’s ideas were more progressive than those of many of his colleagues.

I.G. Aivazov and N.G. Vysotsky were of a theological orientation. In 1910, Aivazov published some archival materials about the Khlysts and the Castratos (20). Unfortunately, he did not bother to order the documents he used, or make comments about them. This, as well as the irreconcilability of Aivazov to Sectarianism, means we cannot trust the information in his work completely. Therefore, his research should be subject to strict criticism.

In 1915, a book by Professor and Archpriest T.I. Butkevich entitled Obzor russkikh sekt i ikh tolkov [The Review of Russian Sects and Their Significance] was published (21). The author gave a detailed description of the Khlysts as a fanatical and extremely harmful sect. This publication served as a reference book for missionary work for a long time. Nearly all sects which were known about at that time were described in it. The author offered a detailed analysis of Khlyst doctrines, representing them as unequivocal. The ideas of Butkevich were typical of the majority of historians and theologians. He could not be reconciled to Sectarianism and wrote about the real need to fight it. Therefore, it is necessary to treat such research carefully.

In 1912, N.I. Ivanovskiy, Professor of the Kazan Spiritual Academy and official Councillor of State, had his book entitled Rukovodstvo po istorii i oblicheniyu staroobryadcheskogo raskola [The Manual of the History and Censure of the Old Believers’ Schism] published (22). It was a textbook for missionaries and priests. Ivanovskiy was more constrained in his ideas on the sect. In the articles published in the Ministry of Justice’s magazine, he weighed all the‘pros’and‘cons’of the Khlysts, fairly assessing and criticizing the new legislation (23).

A.S. Prugavin was one of the best known historians of the schism. From 1877, he was known as an ethnographer and a publicist. He worked on the history of the Old Believers and Sectarianism as well as the problems of a religious policy in the Russian Empire. Prugavin’s works on the Khlyst movement are of great interest to us (24). In his opinion the Khlysts were a very advanced group of people.

Prugavin’s Bunt protiv prirody [The Revolt Against Nature] is completely devoted to the Khlysts of the Samara province, a place where he had lived for some years owing to his work. According to him, the Khlysts were innocent victims of prosecutions by the authorities, and especially by the clergy.

Prugavin compared the Khlysts to the Mormons, in the way that they were thought of in society at that time. In his opinion, the Khlysts were the sanest of people, and he denies all rumours concerning general debauchery, while admitting that if there had been any instances, they would have been exceptions.

V.D. Bonch-Bruevich also contributed to the scientific development of the problem of Sectarianism. He saw huge revolutionary potential in Sectarians who resisted oppression and repression by the state. In his opinion, the Khlyst sect was the most united against the state. He wrote that the Khlysts supported revolutionary movement in the Russian villages (25).

In the multi-volume edition Materialy po istorii sektantstva i staroobryadchestva [Materials on the History of Sectarianism and Old Believers], Bonch-Bruevich expressed the same point of view on the schism. However, his research did not result in anything new.

Among the researchers of the Soviet period, it is necessary to pay attention to A.I. Klibanov, whose teacher was V.D. Bonch-Bruevich (I960-1970). Klibanov published the whole series of monographs, articles and literary sketches devoted to the history and public role of Russian heretical movements and sects, including the Khlysts (26). However, his works on the history of khristovery, as he called them, were mostly based on the research of previous authors.

In 1950-1960 Klibanov organized and led sociological and historical expeditions for studying “modern religious beliefs” (and, in particular, sectarianism) in central areas of Russia. However they did not discover much. In 1959 in Tambov regional center Rasscazovo managed to get acquainted with several postniki – followers of one of the khlyst’s branches, formed in 1820th by peasant Abakum Kopylov (27). But, anyhow, Klibanov’s works were, as a matter of fact, unique within the framework of the Soviet religious studies of a post-war period. Unfortunately, they actually did not bring anything new in studying of the sect in the second half of the 19th and the beginning of 20th century.

When speaking about research of the history and culture of Russian Sectarians in latter years, it is necessary to note A.M. Etkind and A.A. Panchenko.

A. Etkind’s book entitled Khlyst: sekty, literatura i revolyutsiya [Khlyst: Sects, Literature and Revolution] (28) (his thesis for his doctoral degree at the University of Helsinki), is devoted to Russian religious communities during the 19th and 20th centuries, and the influence of their ideas and collective forms of life on intellectuals and literature. Communal sects in Russia paved the way for the victory of Bolshevism. The author traced the destiny of Russian communal Sectarianism during the Soviet period. The archival materials he collected, together with the facts testifying to the interaction of communistic Sectarianism and Bolsheviks in construction of a new society, are valuable. He also considered the display of Khlystovstvo in the creation of figures in literature during the period known as the “silver age” as an innovation in native science.

A. A. Panchenko’s monograph called Khrystovshina i scopchestvo: folklor i traditzionnaya kultura russkikh misticheskikh sekt [Khrystovshina and Scopchestvo: The Folklore and Traditional Culture of Russian Mystic Sects] represented the first regular research of cultural tradition of the two mass religious movements from the 18th century to the beginning of the 20th century. Panchenko considered the folklore and rituals of Khrystovshina and Scopchestvo (Castratos) in the wider context of the religious culture of the common people from the 17th to the 20th centuries. However, he hardly studied Khrystovshina in the 19th century at all, limiting it to a brief summary. As a whole though, Panchenko’s work is worthy, and has great scientific interest (29).

In conclusion, it is necessary to note that the historiographic review allows us to create a representation of the development of Khlyst research in Russia. Lack of sources left by the Sectarians makes the research more complicated, and for this reason, we have to turn to numerous articles, brief literary sketches, and textbooks by missionaries on the subject of the schism, in our search for information. There has been quite a lot of research in this area, although we need to bear in mind that most of it is of poor quality. The historiography is a very important aspect of studying this religious movement, and its study is a priority.

Notes
  1. К.В. Кутепов, Секты хлыстов и скопцов [Sects of Khlysts and Castrati], Kazan 1883.
  2. Н. Варадинов, История министерства внутренних дел. Восьмая, дополнительная книга. История распоряжений по расколу [History of the Home Office. Additional. History of the Decrees on the Schism], Book 8, Saint Petersburg 1863.
  3. И.М. Добротворский, Люди Божьи. Русская секта так называемых духовных христиан [Divine People. Russian Sect of So-called Spiritual Christians], Kazan 1869.
  4. Г. Протопопов, Опыт исторического обозрения мистических сект в России [Experience of a Historical Review of Mystical Sects in Russia], “Труды Киевской духовной академии” [Works of the Kiev Spiritual Academy], 10, 11, 1867.
  5. Ibid.
  6. Н.И. Барсов, Русский простонародный мистицизм [Russian Mysticism of Common People], “Христианское чтение” [Christian Reading], 9, 1869.
  7. Н.И. Барсов, Исторические, критические и полемические опыты [Historical, Critical and Polemic Experiences], Saint Petersburg 1879.
  8. See: Ф.В. Ливанов, Раскольники и острожники [Dissenters and Extremely scarces], vol. I-IV, Saint Petersburg 1868-1873.
  9. П.И. Мельников (Андрей Печерский), Собрание сочинений [The Collected Works], vol. 1-6, Мoscow 1863.
  10. И.М. Добротворский, К вопросу о людях Божьих [To a Question on Divine People] “Православный собеседник” [The Orthodox Interlocutor], 1, 1870, pp. 19- 20, pp. 25-29.
  11. А.П. Щапов, Русский раскол старообрядчества [Russian Schism of the Old-Believers], Kazan 1859.
  12. А.П. Щапов, Земство и раскол [Zemstvo and Schism], Saint-Petersburg 1862.
  13. В.И. Кельсиев, Сборник правительственных сведений о раскольниках [The Collection of the Governmental Information on Dissenters], London 1861.
  14. В.И. Кельсиев, Святорусские двоеверы [Double-faith Believers of Holy Russia], “Заря” [Dawn], 10, 1869.
  15. Н.В. Реутский, Люди Божии и скопцы. Историческое исследование (Из достоверных источников и подлинных бумаг) [Divine People and Castrati. Historical Research (From Authentic Sources and Original Papers)], Moscow 1872.
  16. Н.В. Реутский, Московские Божии люди во второй половине XVII и XIX столетии [Moscow “Divine People” in the Second Half of XVIII and in the XIX centuries], “Русский вестник” [The Russian Bulletin], 5, 1882.
  17. Кутепов, Секты хлыстов и скопцов cit.
  18. See: Д. Коновалов, Религиозный экстаз в русском мистическом сектантстве [Religious Ecstasy in the Russian Mystical Sectarianism], Sergiev Posad 1908.
  19. Д. Коновалов, Религиозные движения в России. I. Секта хлыстов. [Religious Movements in Russia. I. Sect of Khlysts], “Ежемесячный журнал литературы, науки и общественной жизни” [The Monthly Magazine of the Literature, Science and a Public Life], 1, 1914.
  20. И.Г. Айвазов, Материалы для исследования русских мистических сект, I, Христовщина [The Materials for Research of Russian Mystical Sects, I, Khristovshina], vol. 1-3, Petrograd 1915l, И.Г.Айвазов, Первое следственное дело о христовщине [The first Investigation Affair Devoted Khrystovshina], “Миссионерское обозрение” [The Missionary Review] 7, 8, 11, 1916, pp. 360-386, pp. 641-661; Н.Г. Высотский, Критический обзор мнений по вопросу о происхождении хлыстовщины [The Critical Review of Opinions Concerning an Origin of Khlystovshina], “Миссионерское обозрение” [The Missionary Review], 13, 1903, pp. 311-325, 14, pp. 438-454, 16, pp. 703-714.
  21. Т.И. Буткевич, Обзор русских сект и их толков с изложением их происхождения и вероучения и с опровержением последнего [Review of Russian Sects and Their Senses With a Statement of Their Origin, Distribution and Dogma and With a Refutation of the Last], Petrograd 1915.
  22. See: Н.И. Ивановский, Руководство по истории и обличению старообрядческого раскола [The Manual on a History and Accusation of Old Believe Schism], vol. III, Kazan 1912.
  23. Н.И. Ивановский, Судебная экспертиза о секте хлыстов [Judicial Examination about Sect of Klysts], “Журнал Министерства юстиции” [Magazine of the Ministry of Justice], 1, 1896, pp. 79-108.
  24. See: А.С. Пругавин, Программа для собирания сведений о русском расколе или сектантстве [Program for Collecting Information on Russian Schism or Sectarianism], Moscow 1881; А.С. Пругавин, Религиозные отщепенцы (Очерки религиозного сектантства) [Religious Turncoats. (Sketches of Modern Sectarianism)], vol. 1-2, Sanct-Petersburg 1904; А.С. Пругавин, Раскол и сектантство в русской народной жизни [Schism and Sectarianism in Russian National Life], Moscow 1905; А.С. Пругавин, Бунт против природы. (О хлыстах и хлыстовщине) [Revolt Against the Nature. (About the Khlysts and Khlystovshina)], vol. 1, Moscow 1917.
  25. В.Д. Бонч-Бруевич, Среди сектантов. Статья 2 [Among the Sectarians. Article 2], “Жизнь” [The Life], 2, 1902, pp. 297-298.
  26. See: А.И. Клибанов, Реформационные движения в России [The Reformation Movements in Russia], Мoscow 1960; А.И. Клибанов, История религиозного сектантства в России [A history of Religious Sectarianism in Russia], Moscow 1965; А.И. Клибанов, Религиозное сектантство и современность [The Religious Sectarianism and the Present], Moscow 1969; А.И. Клибанов, Проблемы изучения и критики религиозного сектантства [Problems of Studying and Criticism of Religious Sectarianism], Мoscow 1971.
  27. А.И. Клибанов, Религиозное сектантство в прошлом и настоящем [The Religious Sectarianism in the Past and the Present], Мoscow 1973, pp. 181-183.
  28. А. Эткинд, Хлыст: секты, литература и революция [Khlyst: Sects, the Literature and Revolution], Мoscow 1998.
  29. А.А. Панченко, Христовщина и скопчество: фольклор и традиционная культура русских мистических сект [Khrystovshina and Scopchestvo: the Folklore and Traditional Culture of Russian Mystical Sects], Мoscow 2002.

Bibliography

Айвазов И.Г., Материалы для исследования русских мистических сект, I, Христовщина [The Materials for Research of Russian Mystical Sects, I, Khristovshina], voll. 1-3, Petrograd 1915.

Id., Первое следственное дело о христовщине [The first Investigation Affair Devoted Khrystovshina], “Миссионерское обозрение” [The Missionary Review], 7, 8,11, 1916.

Барсов Н.И., Исторические, критические и полемические опыты [Historical, Critical and Polemic Experiences], Saint Petersburg 1879.

Id., Русский простонародный мистицизм [Russian Mysticism of Common People], “Христианское чтение” [Christian Reading], 9, 1869.

Бонч-Бруевич В.Д., Среди сектантов. Статья 2 [Among of the Sectarians. Article 2], “Жизнь” [The Life], 2, 1902.

Буткевич Т.И., Обзор русских сект и их толков с изложением их происхождения и вероучения и с опровержением последнего [Review of Russian Sects and Their Senses With a Statement of Their Origin, Distribution and Dogma and With a Refutation of the Last], Petrograd 1915.

Варадинов Н., История министерства внутренних дел. Восьмая, дополнительная книга. История распоряжений по расколу [History of the Home Office. Additional. History of the Decrees on the Schism], Book 8, Saint Petersburg 1863.

Высотский Н.Г., Критический обзор мнений по вопросу о происхождении хлыстовщины [The Critical Review of Opinions Concerning an Origin of Khlystovshina], “Миссионерское обозрение” [The Missionary Review], 13, 14, 16, 1903.

Добротворский И.М., К вопросу о людях Божьих [To a Question on Divine People], “Православный собеседник” [The Orthodox Interlocutor], 1, 1870, pp. 19-20, 25-29.

Id., Люди Божьи. Русская секта так называемых духовных христиан [Divine People. Russian Sect of So-called Spiritual Christians], Kazan 1869.

Ивановский Н.И., Руководство по истории и обличению старообрядческого раскола [The Manual on a History and Accusation of the Old Believer Schism], vol. III, Kazan 1912.

Id., Судебная экспертиза о секте хлыстов [Judicial Examination About Sect of Klysts], “Журнал Министерства юстиции” [Magazine of the Ministry of Justice], 1, 1896.

Кельсиев В.И., Сборник правительственных сведений о раскольниках [The Collection of the Governmental Information on Dissenters], London 1861, 2.

Id., Святорусские двоеверы [Double-faith Believers of Holy Russia], “Заря” [Dawn], 10, 1869.
Клибанов А.И., История религиозного сектантства в России [A history of Religious Sectarianism in Russia], Moscow 1965.

Id., Религиозное сектантство в прошлом и настоящем [The Religious Sectarianism in the Past and the Present], Мoscow 1973.

Id., Религиозное сектантство и современность [The Religious Sectarianism and the Present], Moscow 1969.

Id., Реформационные движения в России [The Reformation Movements in Russia], Мoscow 1960.

Id., Проблемы изучения и критики религиозного сектантства [Problems of Studying and Criticism of Religious Sectarianism], Мoscow 1971.

Коновалов Д., Религиозные движения в России. I. Секта хлыстов. [Religious Movements in Russia. I. Sect of Khlysts] “Ежемесячный журнал литературы, науки и общественной жизни” [The Monthly Magazine of the Literature, Science and a Public Life], 1, 1914.

Id., Религиозный экстаз в русском мистическом сектантстве [Religious Ecstasy in the Russian Mystical Sectarianism], Sergiev Posad 1908.

Кутепов К.В., Секты хлыстов и скопцов [Sects of Khlysts and Castrati], Kazan 1883.

Ливанов Ф.В., Раскольники и острожники [Dissenters/Schismatics and Criminals/Prisoners], vol. I-IV, Saint Petersburg 1868-1873

Мельников П.И. (Андрей Печерский), Собрание сочинений [The Collected Works], vol. 1-6, Мoscow 1863.

Панченко А.А., Христовщина и скопчество: фольклор и традиционная культура русских мистических сект [Khrystovshina and Scopchestvo: the Folklore and Traditional Culture of Russian Mystical Sects], Мoscow 2002.

Протопопов Г., Опыт исторического обозрения мистических сект в России [Experience of a Historical Review of Mystical Sects in Russia], “Труды Киевской духовной академии” [Works of the Kiev Spiritual Academy], 10, 11, 1867.

Пругавин А.С., Бунт против природы.(О хлыстах и хлыстовщине) [Revolt Against the Nature. (About the Khlysts and Khlystovshina)], vol. 1, Moscow 1917.

Id., Программа для собирания сведений о русском расколе или сектантстве [Program for Collecting Information on Russian Schism or Sectarianism], Moscow 1881.

Id., Раскол и сектантство в русской народной жизни [Schism and Sectarianism in Russian National Life], Moscow 1905.

Id., Религиозные отщепенцы (Очерки религиозного сектантства) [Religious Turncoats. (Sketches of Modern Sectarianism)], vol. 1–2, Saint-Petersburg 1904.

Реутский Н.В., Люди Божии и скопцы. Историческое исследование (Из достоверных источников и подлинных бумаг) [Divine People and Castrati. Historical Research (From Authentic Sources and Original Papers)], Moscow 1872.

Id., Московские Божии люди во второй половине XVII и XIX столетии [Moscow “Divine People” in the Second Half of XVIII and in the XIX centuries], “Русский вестник” [The Russian Bulletin], 5, 1882.

Щапов А.П., Земство и раскол [Zemstvo and Schism], Saint Petersburg 1862.

Id., Русский раскол старообрядчества [Russian Schism of the Old-Believers], Kazan 1859.

Эткинд A., Хлыст: секты, литература и революция [Khlyst: Sects, the Literature and Revolution], Мoscow 1998.
Back to Molokans Around the World