Why were the Old Believers so rich? Old Believers - the killers of Russia? "The merchant screams like an angry walrus."
The world of the Old Believers. History and modernity. Issue 5. Publishing House of Moscow University, 1999., pp. 341-376.
List of merchant Old Believer surnames in Moscow (XIX - early XX century)
A.V. Stadnikov
Recently, the study of the Moscow Old Believers has noticeably intensified. This is largely due to the interest in charity of Moscow merchants and industrialists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. (many of whom were Old Believers), as well as with increased attention in general to the history of anniversary Moscow. However, until recently, in popular publications and even in historical literature, only some Old Believer surnames (Morozovs, Guchkovs, Ryabushinskys) alternate with enviable constancy. In this regard, from our point of view, it is important to create a brief reference and information list that will allow not only to quickly attribute a particular industrialist or merchant belonging to the Old Believers, but also in the shortest form will give the most systematic overview of family ties, social status, merchant and industrial capital in the Moscow Old Believer environment in the 19th - early 20th centuries. This publication can serve as a starting point for such work.
The source basis of the List is several important complexes. Firstly, these are the results of the 10th merchant revision of 1857, published in the Materials for the History of the Moscow Merchants (M., 1889. Vol. 9). They detail the marital status of merchants and belonging to guilds. From our point of view, it is not advisable to use earlier revisions, since they did not indicate the religion of the merchants.
Another important source is the Books about the schismatics and the Books about the trading establishments of Moscow in parts of the city for the 1860-1870s. (1265th CIAM fund). These documents contain surname lists of Moscow "schismatics of the priestly persuasion", as well as information about their economic activities. The greatest number of coincidences when comparing the corresponding names of the Old Believers and the owners of trade establishments is observed in the books of the Rogozhskaya part of Moscow. Information about the economic activities of the Old Believers can also be identified from the study by D.A. Timiryazev "Statistical Atlas of the Main Branches of the Factory Industry of European Russia" (St. Petersburg, 1870. Issue 1). Here, Old Believer surnames are maximally represented in the section of the textile industry. In Timiryazev's work, in addition to references to the names of the owners of enterprises, the main economic indicators (number of workers, annual turnover, etc.) are given, which makes it possible to judge the scale of the Old Believer textile production in the middle of the 19th century. The work of D.A. Timiryazev was largely based on the work of St. Tarasov "Statistical Review of the Industry of the Moscow Province" (M., 1856). It uses materials from the Vedomosti about factories and manufactories of the Moscow province of 1853, which greatly increases the value of Tarasov's work. When determining the status of a merchant in a community, the documents of the fund of the Rogozhsky Almshouse (246th fund of the OR RSL) are extremely important, where there are materials for elections to the Trustees of the RBD, to elected communities, information about membership in the School Council, etc.
An important aspect in the study of the Old Believer clans of the Rogozhsky cemetery community is the participation of almost all merchants in charitable activities. In the List, we used data from 246 funds of the OR RSL, funds of the Central Historical Archive of Moscow: No. 179 (Moscow City Administration), No. 16 (Moscow Military Governor-General), as well as published works about the largest philanthropists. In addition to these sources, the List additionally used CIAM materials: fund 17 (Moscow civil governor), fund 450 (Moscow branch of the state commercial bank), fund 2 (Moscow city house), as well as the published Necropolis of the Rogozhsky cemetery (World of Old Believers Issue 2. M., 1995), Address-calendar of Moscow for 1873 and 1876, fragmentary data of VIII - IX merchant revisions (Materials for the history of the Moscow merchants. TT.7, 8. M., 1882).
Directory Structure
All surnames are arranged in alphabetical order and with a single numbering. Under each number, the following information is given:
- Surname, name, patronymic, dates of life(may be inaccurate, because registers of birth were not used).
- Information about belonging to the merchant guild, the presence of the title of "personal honorary citizen", "honorary citizen", "hereditary honorary citizen", "commercial adviser" or others, indicating the date the person was mentioned in this title.
- Information about the wife- 1 or 2 marriage, first name, patronymic, sometimes maiden name, dates of life, if possible - indications of kinship with other Old Believer surnames included in the List.
- Information about children or other family members- name, dates of life. In the event that heirs further on the List are presented separately, their names are underlined and there is an indicator "see no." Surname, name, patronymic of brothers, social status, dates of life.
- Information about economic activity- name of production or trade enterprises, branch of production or trade, location, if possible, data on the number of workers, annual turnover, information on loans, real estate value, etc.
- Information about the situation in the community of the Rogozhsky cemetery- participation in elective office of the community, Guardianship of the RBD (indicating the dates and the second trustee).
- Information about participation in public city elected offices- Job title with dates.
- Information about charitable activities- size and purpose of the charitable donation, date, honorary position associated with charitable activities, awards.
- additional information about persons with an identical last name, whose family ties with this person have not been established - last name, first name, patronymic, information of a different nature, date.
- Sources are given in square brackets at the end of the text. When using multiple sources, each source is placed directly after the information that is extracted from it.
Abbreviations:
beneficent- charity;
br.- brothers;
brk.- marriage;
in married.- in marriage;
G.- guild;
hospital- hospital;
lips.- province;
d.- children;
due- position;
well.- wife;
factories- factories;
to-ha- merchant's wife;
To.- merchant;
personal mail.gr.- personal honorary citizen;
Mr.- manufactory;
m. 1(2.3)- Moscow 1st (2.3) merchant guild;
MSWRC- Moscow Old Believer community of the Rogozhsky cemetery;
real estate- the property;
total- Participation in elective office of the community;
opt.- wholesale;
victims.- donations;
sweat.po.gr.- hereditary honorary citizen;
soil gr.- honorable Sir;
R.- birth;
r.g.turnover- rubles of annual turnover;
r.seb.- silver rubles;
slave's- workers;
RBD- Rogozhsky almshouse;
cm.- look;
standing.- price;
thousand- thousand;
y.- county;
mind.- died (la);
mention.- mentioned;
ur.- nee (th);
f-ka- factory;
household- economic activity;
h.- part (district of the city).
Sources
X merchant revision // Materials for the history of the Moscow merchants. T. 9. M., 1889. S. 10;
[ZhMiT] - Journal of Manufacture and Trade; Necropolis of the Rogozhsky cemetery // World of the Old Believers. Issue. 2. M., 1995. S. 5;
[M.St. - 5] - Necropolis of the Rogozhsky cemetery// World of the Old Believers. Issue 2. M., 1995.S.5;
[OR 246-3-9-11] - Department of Manuscripts of the Russian State Library. Fund 246. Cardboard 3. Unit. ridge 9. L. 11;
[Tarasov-10] - Ta race S. Statistical review of the industry of the Moscow province. M., 1856. S. 10;
[Timiryazev-20] - Timiryazev D.A. Statistical atlas of the main branches of the factory industry in European Russia. SPb., 1870. Issue. 1.C. twenty;
[CIAM 16-110-853-3] Moscow Central Historical Archive. Fund 16. Op.110. Case 853. L. 3.
This List, of course, does not provide exhaustive information about all the Moscow merchant families that belonged to the concords of those accepting the priesthood. However, this work is perhaps the first attempt to systematize disparate archival information about the merchant families of the Old Believers in Moscow. In the future, it is planned to supplement this List with new data, as well as to include in it the information published and therefore available, taken into account in merchant certificates.
1. Agafonov Ivan Semyonovich(? - after 1910)
personal post. gr.
d. Vasily (see, No. 2)
total elected MSORK since 1896 [OR 246-9-1-28rev.]
2. Agafonov Vasily Ivanovich (?)
m. 2 g.k. (1905)
well. Lidia Karpovna (nee Rakhmanova) [CIAM 179-57-1016-114] general. founding member of the MSORK (1913) [OR 246-95-2-4]
3. Alekseev Semyon Mikhailovich (?)
beneficent 150 r. ser. on the wounded in the Crimean War (1854) [CIAM 16-110-853-20rev.]
4. Ananiev Ivan (?)
m. (1864)
well. Natalya Ivanovna (b. 1840) [CIAM 1265-1-89-7rev.] cit. Ananiev Gerasim Ivanovich and Nikifor Ivanovich (1862)
(in a petition addressed to the Moscow military governor-general of the Old Believers of Bogorodsky district for permission to freely gather for prayer) [CIAM 16-110-1389-3ob.]
5. Andreev Ivan Ivanovich (?)
m. (1854)
beneficent 1854 victims. 15 p. ser. on the wounded in the Crimean War
[CIAM 16-110-853-3rev.]
6. Apetov Mikhail Mikhailovich (1836 -?)
m. (1875)
well. Natalya Ivanovna (1836-?) [CIAM 1265-1-354-7]
7. Apetov Fedor Mikhailovich (1823-?)
m. - S. 145]
8. Arzhenikov Ivan Ivanovich (1812-?)
m. (1857)
well. Pelageya Antonovna (1816-?)
e. Nikolai Ivanovich (1843-?), Agniya Ivanovna (1845-?) [X rev. - S. 46]
9. Arzhenikov Petr Ivanovich (1815 - ?)
m. (1857)
well. (1 brk.) no information
well. (2 brk.) Ekaterina Ivanovna (1832-?)
(1 brk.) Zinaida Petrovna (1840-?), Vladimir Petrovich (1844-?), Anna
Petrovna (1847-?), Yulia Petrovna (1848-?)
(2 brk.) Avgusta Petrovna (1852-?), Konstantin Petrovich (1853-?) [X rev. - S. 45]
benefic 1854 victims. 100 r. ser. on the wounded in the Crimean War [CIAM 16-110-853-2]
mention. In his house (Lefortovskaya h., 5 quarter) there was one of the largest prayer rooms in Moscow [CIAM 17-13-581-64]
1.0. Afanasyeva Matrena (1804-?)
m. 3 years of k-ha (1864), widow of Akim Afanasiev (died before 1864)
Maksim Akimovich (1830-?) [f. - Elena Maksim. (1831-?) d. Tatyana Maksimovna (1853-?), Sergey Maksimovich (1854-?): Agrafena Maksimovna (1859-?)] [CIAM 1265-1-89-6rev.]
11. Babkin Mikhail Samoilovich (?)
m.? GK (1854)
benevolent 1854 victims. 3000 r. ser. on the wounded in the Crimean War [CIAM 16-110-853-1]
household paper-weaving factory in Moscow (Lefortovo h. 180 workers, 99 382 r.g. turnover) [Tarasov-32]
12. Balabanov Ivan Evdokimovich (?)
13. Balashov Sergey Vasilievich (1835-1889)
well. Pelageya Sidorovna (nee Kuznetsova) (1840-1898)
d. Alexander (?) pot.poch.gr., Sergey (1856-1900), Vasily (1862-
1891.) (see No. 14) Maksim - founding member of the MSORK (1913) [OR
246.-95-2-9, M.St. - S. 134-135]
14. Balashov Vasily Sergeevich (1862-1891)
household Partnership "Vas. Balashov and Sons" textile production [OR 246-61-3-3]
15. Banquetov Grigory Grigorievich (?)
m. (1854)
well. Maria Onisimovna (?)
benevolent 1854 victims. 150 r. ser. on the wounded in the Crimean War [CIAM 16-110-853-3]
mention. in 1861 he bought a house with a priestly prayer house from the petty bourgeois P.A. Pavlova [CIAM 16-110-1369-1]
mention. Banketovs Vladimir Dmitrievich and Nikolai Dmitrievich (1913) - founding members of the MSORK [OR 246-95-2-47], also. mention. Banquetov Alexey Vasilievich - director of the Association "S.M. Shibaev's sons" (1909-1915) (see Shibaev SM.) [CIAM 450-8-544-28]
16. Baulin Ivan Fyodorovich (1821-?)
m. (1856)
well. Olga Ivanovna (?)
D. Ivan Ivanovich (1845-?) (see No. 17). Dmitry Ivanovich (1848-?) (see No.
eighteen.) . Natalya Ivanovna (1843-?) [CIAM 2-3-1216-2]
household six grocery stores in Rogozhskaya h., two houses in Rogozhskaya h., a house in Lefortovskaya h.
due Ratman of the Moscow City Orphan's Court (1852- 1855)
beneficent victims. "for the state militia and other military needs" - 1800 rubles. ser. (1853,1855) [CIAM 2-3-1216-2], victims. 500 r. ser. on the wounded in the Crimean War (1854) [CIAM 16-110-853-2v.]
17. Baulin Ivan Ivanovich (1846-1888)
m. (1877)
well. Vera Prokofievna (1849-?)
Maria Ivanovna (1861-1880, married Alyabyeva), Olga Ivanovna (1873-?), Anna Ivanovna (1875-?) [CIAM 1265-1-354-2rev.]
18. Baulin Dmitry Ivanovich (1848-1909)
m. 2 g.k., sweat. post. gr. (1909)
total 1897-1900 - elected MSORK
household "Trade in sheet, sectional and other iron by D. Baulin, Moscow" (1908) [CIAM 179-57-1016-147]
19. Baulin Pavel Afanasyevich (1798-1851)
m. 3 g.k. (1851)
well. (2 brk.) Avdotya Afinogenovna, m. 2, k-ha
d. (2 brk.) Elizaveta Pavlovna (b. 1839), Nikolai Pavlovich (b. 1840)
[d. Aleksey Nikolaevich - candidate for the elected MSORK (1897-1900) OR 2 246-9-1-28] [X rev. - S. 18]
household Baulina A.A. - brocade shops in the City Ch. of Moscow, 1860 [CIAM 14-4-375-240]
20. Belov Ivan Khrisanfovich (1793-1853)
well. Anfimya Terentyevna (1797 - died after 1870), m. 3
d. Yakov (b. 1824) + f. Olga Yegorovna (b. 1832); Vasily (b. 1825) [X rev. - S. 73]
household wool and paper spinning factory (80 workers, 67,430 r.g. turnover) [Tarasov-12]
21. Bogomazov Ivan Grigorievich(b. 1831-?)
m. 2 g.k. (1875)
well. Alexandra Alexandrovna (b. 1841)
d. Mikhail Ivanovich (?) [CIAM 1265-1-354-2]
22. Bogomazov Andrei Osipovich (?)
household weaving paper-wool factory in Moscow (1854) [CIAM 14-4-829-6rev.]
2.3. Borisov Nikolay ? (1803-?)
m. 3 GK (1857)
well. Matrena Ippolitovna (b. 1804)
d. Ivan Nikolaevich (b. 1827) + f. Avdotya Kirillovna (b. 1830) [Nikolai Ivanovich (b. 1850), Alexei Ivanovich (b. 1855), Boris Ivanovich (b. 1856)]
Fedor Nikolaevich (b. 1826) + f. Alexandra Vasilievna (b. 1826) [d. Lyubov Fedorovna (b. 1849), Maria Fedorovna (1854), Ivan Fedorovich (1856)], Alexei Nikolaevich (b. 1832), Yegor Nikolaevich (b. 1839), Mikhail Nikolaevich (b. 1840) [X rev. - S. 36]
household 11 seed and mosquito shops (Gorodskaya h.), vinegar cellars, pantries (Pyatnitskaya h.) [CIAM 14-4-375-320]
24. Borisov Prokhor Ivanovich (?)
m. (1854)
household seed shop, mosquito shop, vinegar cellar (Gorodskaya h.) [CIAM 14-4-375-340]
beneficent 1854 victims. 25 p. on the wounded in the Crimean War [CIAM 16-110-853-2]
25. Borodin Mikhail Vasilievich (1833-?)
m. (1853) from the Buguruslan philistines, Samara province) [X rev. - S. 125]
26. Botnev Alexander Vladimirovich (1846 - ?)
m. (1875)
well. Olga Anfimovna (b. 1841) [CIAM 1265-1-354-6]
mention. Botnev A.M. - paper-spinning factory (Bogorodsky near Moscow province) [CIAM 810-1-75-11 Zob.]
27. Brusnikin Sofron Timofeevich (1774-1851)
d. Peter (b. 1811), m. 3 GK, from 1858 - tradesman
Anisim (1817- 1857), m. 3rd year + Agrafena Sergeevna (b. 1819), m. 3, k-ha.
[d. Nikolai Anisimovich (b. 1842), Vasily Anisimovich (b. 1844),
Alexander Anisimovich (b. 1851), Ivan Anisimovich (b. 1853),
Olga Anisimovna (b. 1840)] [X rev. - S. 84]
28. Brusnikin Alexander Timofeevich (1786-1853)
Prokofy Aleksandrovich (b. 1810), m. 3 c.c. + f. Maria Yakovlevna
[d. Mikhail Prokofievich (b. 1844), Anna (b. 1842), Maria (b. 1846), Nastasya (b. 1848), Fedosya (b. 1852), Ivan (b. 1851), Alexei (b. 1857)]
Fedor Alexandrovich (b. 1822), from 1855 - in the bourgeoisie, Vasily Alexandrovich (b. 1837), from 1855 - in the bourgeoisie [X rev. - S. 110]
29. Butikov Petr Ivanovich (1770-1846)
buried at the Rogozhsky cemetery [M. Art. P. 135] v. Butikov Ivan Petrovich (see No. 30)
30. Butikov Ivan Petrovich(?), in inch. Hilary
well. Ekaterina Afinogenovna (1814-1876), in the evening. Eulampia
d. Ivan Ivanovich (1830-1885) (see No. 31)
household two spinning factories in Moscow (Gorodskaya h.) [CIAM 14-4-375-345]; wool weaving factory (Moscow) - 653 workers, a year. turnover - 825,000 rubles. [Timiryazev - P.20]
Blessing 300 r. donation for the wounded in the Crimean War (1854)
[CIAM 16-110-853-2]
Awarded with a medal for a donation of 7000 rubles. "in favor of the poor inhabitants of Moscow" (1851) [CIAM 16-110-706-1]
31. Butikov Ivan Ivanovich (1830-1885)
household "Association of M. and Iv. Butikov" (wool weaving factory)
total Trustee of the RBD (1876-1879), together with P.E. Kulakov [OR 246-3-2-11]
32. Butin Timofey Fedorovich (1805-?)
well. Matrena Kuzminichna (b. 1809)
Ivan Timofeevich (b. 1840) (see No. 33) [CIAM 1265-1-89-2]
33. Butin Ivan Timofeevich(b. 1840-?)
well. Maria Egorovna (b. 1840)
d. Fedor Ivanovich (b. 1860), Ivan Ivanovich (b. 1862) [CIAM 1265-1-89-2]
household Butin I. fur shop, Ilyinka [CIAM 450-8-366-5ob.]
34. Bykov Ivan Ivanovich (?)
soil gr. (1854)
br. Bykov Mikhail Ivanovich (1812-1844), m. post. gr., buried at the Rogozhsky cemetery [M.St. - S. 135]
benevolent 200 r. on the wounded in the Crimean War [CIAM 16-110-853-2ob.]
35. Bykov Nikolay Vasilievich (1808-?)
m. 3 g. to (1857)
d. Alexander Nikolaevich (b. 1826), Dmitry Nikolaevich (b. 1829) + f. Anna Ivanovna (b. 1837), d. Pavel Dm. (b. 1855) [X rev. - S. 79]
3.6. Varykhanov Terenty Ivanovich
m. gr.
d. Fedor (b. 1867) + f. Maria Vasilievna (b. 1851)
Alexey (b. 1846) [CIAM 1265-1-102-5]
household a glue factory in Moscow (Serpukhovskaya h., 10 workers, 9625 rubles per year turnover (1853) [Tarasov-92.89], a tannery (Moscow, Serpukhovskaya h., 31 workers, 16,844 rubles). g.turnover (1853)
3.7. Varykhanov Nikolay Petrovich(?)
sweat. post. gr.
br. Dmitry Petrovich, sweat. post. gr.
total Founding member of the MSEC (1913) [OR 246-9-1-2]
3.8. Vasiliev Yakov (?)
1850s - prayer room in the house (Rogozhskaya h., 3 quarter) [CIAM 17-13-581-64ob]
3.9. Vinogradov Savel Denisovich, guild (died after 1853)
household iron foundry in Moscow (Rogozhskaya h., 16 workers, 6000 regular turnover) (1853) [Tarasov-66]
Vinogradov Yakov Savelyevich (1831-?)
m. 2g.k. (1867) [CIAM 1265-1-102-4]
household iron foundry mechanical establishment, in own house since 1863 [CIAM 1265-1-95-13]
40. Vinokurov Fedot Gerasimovich (?)
m. 2 g. k. (1877)
well. Varvara Alexandrovna (?) [CIAM 1265-1-450-7]
41. Vinokurov Fedor Vasilievich (?)
benevolent 110 r. on the wounded in the Crimean War (1854) [CIAM 16-110-853-1]
42. Vinokurov Fedor Ivanovich (1797-1867)
well. Ksenia Fedorovna, buried at the Rogozhsky cemetery [M. St.-S. 136]
43. Vorobyov Egor Fyodorovich (1793-?)
m. 1 g. k. (1854)
well. Irina Klimentyevna (b. 1799) [X rev. - S. 83]
good. 1200 r. on the wounded of the Crimean War [CIAM 16-110-853-1]
44. Glazov Moses Vikulovich (1792-1850)
m. 3 g. k. (1850)
d. (3 brk.) Anna (b. 1842), Olimpiada (b. 1845), Maria (b. 1849) [ X
br. Glazov Yakov Vikulovich (1854 - 25 p. on the wounded in the Crimean
war [CIAM 16-110-853-2])
45. Gornostaev Fedor Andreevich (?)
m. 2 g. k. (1875) [CIAM 1265-1-354-6]
household wood warehouses (Rogozhskaya h.) (1866) [CIAM 1265-1-98-51]
46. Gudkov Timofey Ivanovich (1831 - ?)
m. 3 g. k. (1854)
well. Ekaterina Korneevna (b. 1837) [X rev. - S. 141]
benevolent donation for the wounded in the Crimean War [CIAM 16-110-853-2]
4.7. Danilov Petr ? (1808-?)
m. 3 g. k. (1857)
since 1858 from the freed peasants of Count Dmitriev-Mamonov,
well. Praskovya Artamonovna (b. 1804) [X rev. S. 74]
4.8. Dmitriev Vasily ? (1804-?)
well. (3 brk.) Natalya Petrovna (b. 1826)
Nikolay (b. 1833), Felicity (b. 1845) [X rev. P. 13]
mention. Dmitriev M.
household paper-weaving factory, Moscow - 130 workers 85.5 thousand rubles income [Timiryazev - S.4]
49. Dosuzhev Andrey Alexandrovich (1803-1876)
well. Anna Vasilievna (1807-1844)
d. Alexei (b. 1835), Alexandra (1828-1854) (see No. 50)
household cloth factory (Pyatnitskaya h., 3rd quarter) 1860s [CIAM 14-4-375-345rev.]
due ratman of the Moscow Deanery Council (1843-1846) deputy in the Committee for the supervision of factories and factories in Moscow (1850)
benevolent 2000 r. to the state militia (1853 and 1855)
awards: gold medal on the Vladimir ribbon (1850) gold medal on the Annen ribbon (for donations 1851) [CIAM 2-3-1228]
50. Dosuzhev Alexander Andreevich (1828-1854)
well. Elizaveta Gerasimovna (1828-1882), buried at Rogozhsky
cemetery [M.St. - p. 136]
d. Anna (b. 1850), Alexei (b. 1853) [X rev. - S. 138]
household Trade house "A.A. Dosuzhev sons" cloth and wool-weaving factories in Moscow - the cost is 128,000 rubles (1906); Ustyinskaya - 117 910 rubles. (1906); Troitskaya - 22,000 rubles. (sold in 1907); annual turnover of "A.A. Dosuzhev and Sons" - 2 212 823 rubles (1906) [CIAM 920-1-1-1a]
51. Dubrovin Pavel Fedorovich (1800- ?)
well. Praskovya Ermilovna (b. 1817) [X rev. - p.7]
household fringe and hardware shops (Pyatnitskaya hour) [CIAM 14-4-390-284]
52. Dubrovin Fedor Grigorievich (1829-?)
well. Anna Alekseevna (b. 1832) [X rev. - S. 12]
household ten vegetable and grocery shops (Gorodskaya and Sushchevskaya h.) [CIAM 14-4-375-355ob.], tavern, tavern, restaurant (Gorodskaya, Sushchevskaya h.) [CIAM 14-4-390-275]
53. Dubrovin Vasily Gavrilovich(b. 1783-?)
from the townspeople in - m. 3 g.k. in 1852
d. Gavrila Vasilyevich (b. 1809) (see No. 54) [X rev. - S. 12]
household 1 vegetable shop, 1 grocery shop in Gorodskoy h. [CIAM 14-4-390-274]
54. Dubrovin Gavrila Vasilievich(1809 - before 1875)
well. Anna Nikolaevna (?) Voskresenskaya, 2nd year of college (1875).
Julia (b. 1847), Vladimir (b. 1849), Zinaida (b. 1855) [X rev.-S. 12]
household six grocery and vegetable shops (Gorodskaya h.) [CIAM 14-4-375-355rev.]
55. Egorov Yakov Vasilievich(b. 1812-?)
well. Ekaterina Grigorievna (b. 1822)
d. Vasily (b. 1840) [X rev. S. 97]
56. Efimov Alexey Petrovich (?)
br. Efimov Petr Petrovich, m. (1854)
household silk weaving factory in Moscow (Rogozhskaya h., 50 workers, 80,000 r.g. turnover) (1853) [Tarasov-19]
benevolent 100 r. on the wounded in the Crimean War [CIAM 16-110-853-2ob.]
57. Zelenov Zakhar Arsenievich (?)
Trustee of the RBD (1876-1879)
mention. Zelenov Panfil Petrovich, m. - 100 r. on the wounded in the Crimean War [CIAM 16-110-853-2]
5.8. Ivanov Xenophon ? (1809-?)
m. 3 g. k. (1864)
well. Aksinya Afanasievna (b. 1814) m.k-ha 3 years old
Mikhail (b. 1836), Gerasim (b. 1839), Peter (b. 1843), Fedor (b. 1846), Ivan (b. 1848), Anna (b. 1843) [CIAM 1265-1-89 -one]
household tavern (Rogozhskaya h., 3 quarter) [CIAM 1265-1-95-10]
59. Kabanov Makar Nikolaevich (?)
m. 2 g. k. (1854)
benevolent 500 r. on the wounded in the Crimean War (1854) [CIAM 16-110-853-3ob]
60. Kartylov Mikhail Leontievich (?)
m. (1854)
61. Katsepov Nikita Timofeevich(d. 1913)
Kolomna 1st city
household partnership "Timofey Katsepov's sons" (Baranovskaya textile factory, Moscow province)
total founding member of the MSORK (1913) [OR 246-95-2-10]
benevolent 100 r. and 300 arshins of canvas in the RBD (1905) [OR 246-61-3-4]
62. Kleymenov Grigory Ilyich (1820-1895)
m. (1857), from 1851 - from the middle class.
well. Elena Alekseevna (b. 1814) [X rev. S. 84]
total trustee of the RBD (1894-1895) [OR 246-9-1-36]
63. Kokushkin Petr Prokhorovich (1793-?)
m. [X rev. - S. 41]
household paper-spinning factory in Shuya (756 workers, 150,000 r.g. turnover) [Timiryazev - P. 1]
mention. Kokushkin A.V. and K.V. post. gr. - paper weaving f-ki with. Lezhnevo Kovrovsky st. Vladimir province. (935 slaves, 100,000 r.g. turnover.)
Kokushkin F.M. post. gr. - paper-weaving factory in Shuisky district. (115 slaves, 141,000 rubles turnover.) Kokushkin D.P. - chintz-printing factory in Shuisky district. (voznesensky village) - (12 slaves, 43,250 rubles. turnover) [Timiryazev - p.2, 3, 8]
64. Kuznetsov Ivan Fyodorovich (?)
m. 1 g. k. (1851)
beneficent 3000 r. co-religionists + 1000 r. (since 1851) annually to Moscow orphanages [CIAM 16-110-626-1]
1000. r. on the wounded in the Crimean War (1856) [CIAM 16-110-853-1rev.]
65. Kuznetsov Vasily Fyodorovich (1803-?)
n. mail. gr., m. 3 g.k. (1875)
well. Anna Antonovna (b. 1823)
Konstantin (b. 1857), Fedor (b. 1832), Yulia (b. 1844), Antonina (b. 1852) [CIAM 1265-10354-5]
benevolent 500 r. on the wounded in the Crimean War (1854) [CIAM 16-110-853-1 rev.]
66. Kuznetsov Matvey Sidorovich (1846-1911)
m. 1 because, sweat. post. gr., commerce adviser
well. Nadezhda Vukolovna (nee Mityushina, sister of E.V. Shibaeva) (1846-1903)
d. Nikolai (b. 1868), sweat. post. gr., Chairman of the Council of the MSORK (1918)
Sergei (b. 1869) sweat. post. gr., Alexander (b. 1870), pot. post. gr., Georgy (b. 1875), pot.poch. gr., Pavel (1877-1902), Ivan (1880-1898), Mikhail (b. 1880-?), pot. post. c. Claudia (b. 1887-?)
household "Association for the production of porcelain and faience products M.S. Kuznetsov" (1887). Plants: Dulevsky (1,500 slaves, 500,000 rubles per year; turnover); Riga (1200 slaves, 700,000 rubles per year turnover); Tverskoy (900 slaves, 450,000 rubles per year); shops in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Riga, Kharkov, Kiev, Rostov; by 1903 - 8 factories (total turnover - 7,249,000 rubles); since 1903 - "Supplier of the Court of His Imperial Majesty" [Pavlenko V. M. S. Kuznetsov // Degree work of the Russian State Humanitarian University, 1996]; co-founder of the partnership "Istomkinskie manufactory S.M. Shibaeva" [CIAM 450-8-544-1]
d. Nikolai, Alexander - founding members of the MSORK (1913)
benevolent member of the Society for the Care of the Wounded and Sick [OR 246-95-2-4]
67. Kulakov Egor Stepanovich (?)
post. gr. (1854)
D. Petr Egorovich (?)
total Trustee of the RBD (1876-1879), together with I.I. Butikov [OR 246-3-2-11]
beneficent 300 r. on the wounded in the Crimean War (1854) [CIAM 16-110-853-1v.]
6.8. Latrygin Efim (?)
mention. in the 1860s prayer room in the house (Rogozhskaya h., 3 quarter) [CIAM 17-13-581-64v.]
6.9. Lubkova A. I. (?)
m. 3 g.k-ha
Popovskaya prayer house in the house (Pyatnitskaya h., 3 quarter) - 1860s [CIAM 17-13-581-64], closed in 1930
70. Makarov Grigory Afanasyevich (1794-?)
m. (1857), from 1854 - from the middle class.
well. Avdotya Ivanovna (b. 1795)
v. Ivan (b. 1830) + f. Maria Fedorovna (b. 1831)
[d. Pelageya (b. 1852), Praskovya (b. 1855)] [X rev. - S. 113]
beneficent 100 r. on the wounded in the Crimean War [CIAM 16-110-853-3]
71. Malyzhev Egor Trifonovich(d. after 1913)
total Trustee of the RBD (1894-1897, together with G.I. Kleimenov and F.M. Musorin), since 1897 - elected MSORK. [OR 246-9-1-36]
72. Manuilov Petr Andreevich (?)
d. Nikolai (1830-1882)
beneficent 200 r. on the wounded in the Crimean War (1854) [CIAM 16-110-853-2v.]
household wool weaving factory in Moscow (Khamovnicheskaya h., 140 workers, 57953 r.g. turnover) [Timiryazev - P.20]
total Trustee of the RBD (1870-1873, together with T.I. Nazarov) [OR 246-2-7-1]
74. Medvedev Fedot Eremeevich (1827-1891)
well. Stepanida Ignatievna (b. 1827-1892)
Mikhail Fedotovich (1854 - after 1913) + f. Anastasia Efimovna (b. 1857) [CIAM 1265-1-354-2]
Andrey Fedotovich (b. 1851) + f. Tatyana Mikhailovna (1850-1877), village Nikolai (b. 1875) [CIAM 1265-1-354-2]
Olimpiada Fedotovna (b. 1862), Anfisa Fedotovna (1863-1877), Alexandra Fedotovna (b. 1867) [ 1265-1-450-14]
household wool weaving factory in Moscow (63 workers, 48,250 rubles per year) [Timiryazev - P. 21]
total Elected MSORK since 1879 [OR 246-3-6-24rev.]
75. Medvedev Mikhail Kuzmich (?)
m. (1854)
well. Feodosia Ivanovna (1801-1834).
household paper-weaving factory in Moscow (Rogozhskaya part 65 workers, 20811 r.g. turnover) [Tarasov-34]
benevolent 200 r. on the wounded in the Crimean War [CIAM 16-110-853-2]
76. Medvedev Fedot Kuzmich (?)
77. Melnikov Petr Kirillovich (1826-1890)
br. Pavel Kirillovich (1818-1890), Stepan Kirillovich (1812-1870), Fyodor Kirillovich (1831-1888)
household candle plant [OR 246-92-19]
78. Milovanov Dmitry Osipovich (1817-1890)
m. 1 g. k. (1854)
well. Ekaterina Alexandrovna (1819-1868)
well. (2 brk.) Pelageya Ivanovna (?)
e. Ivan (b. 1844), Grigory (b. 1846), Maria (b. 1843), Alexander (1848-1866) [X rev.-S. 24]
household brick factory (Moscow, Lefortovskaya h., 150 workers, 37,800 r.g. turnover. (1853) [Tarasov-120]
total trustee RBD (1882-1885) [OR 246-6-4-1]
beneficent 400 r. on the wounded in the Crimean War (1854) [CIAM 16-110-853-2]
7.9. Mikhailov Antip ( 1819-?)
m. (1857), from 1854 from the middle class.
well. Nastasya Fedorovna (b. 1828) [X rev. - P. 37]
80. Mikhailov Vasily Mikhailovich(b. 1837-?)
m. (1885)
well. Felicita Karpovna (b. 1841)
Valentin (b. 1869), Mikhail (?) [CIAM 1265-1-354-2]
total From 1879 - elected MSORK, trustee of the RBD (1885-1888, together with F.M. Musorin) [OR 246-6-4-1]
81. Mikhailov Fedor Semenovich(b. 1843)
m. (1875)
well. Ekaterina Gavrilovna (b. 1851)
Sergei (b. 1870), Peter (b. 1870) [CIAM 1265-1-354-5]
household a wool-weaving factory in Moscow (236 workers, 123,600 rubles per year) [Timiryazev - P. 20]; silk-weaving factory in Moscow (Rogozhskaya part,
88. worker, 34 271 r.g. turnover.) [Tarasov - 20]
beneficent full member of the Society of Commercial Knowledge Lovers (at the Academy of Commercial Sciences) [Address-calendar of Moscow, 1873. P. 123]
82.-83. Morozov- Founding members of MSORK
elected, members of the School Council of the MSEC,
honorary trustees of the RBD.
household a branch of Abram Savvich - the partnership of the Tver m-ry of paper products;
branch of Timofey Savvich - partnership "Nikolskaya m-ry"
a branch of Zakhar Savvich - the company of the Bogorodsko-Glukhovskaya m-ry;
the family of Elisey Savvich belonged to the Beglopopovskaya branch of the Old Believers (the partnership of Mr. Vikula Morozov and Sons, the Partnership of Savvinskaya Mr.)
See, for example, about economic activity "Information about industrial establishments" of the Association of the Nikolskaya M-ry "Savva Morozov and Sons" M., 1882.
about charitable activities: Dumova N. Friends of the Art Theater: Savva //Znamya. 1990. No. 8. pp. 199-212; Buryshkin P. Those same Morozovs // Fatherland. 1991, No. 2. S.37-43; Semenova N. Morozov // Ogonyok. 1992. No. 7 and others.
84. Muraviev Mitrofan Artamonovich (1804-?)
m. 1 g.k. (1854)
well. Matrena Timofeevna (b. 1806)
the village of Stepan (b. 1824) + f. Maria Ivanovna (b. 1826)
[d. Anna (1852)]
Peter (b. 1838), Afinogen (b. 1843), Tatiana (b. 1841),
Dmitry Mitrofanovich (1835-?) + w. Olimpiada Abramovna (ur. Morozov) (1836-1870)
[d. Zinaida (b. 1854), Ekaterina (b. 1856), Kapitolina (b. 1857)]
Alexei (b. 1847) [X rev. - S. 28]
household wool-weaving factory in Moscow (252 workers, 236,721 rubles per year turnover); wool-weaving factory in Moscow (270 workers, 290,000 rubles turnover) [Timiryazev - P. 20]
due 1843-1849, 1855-1858 - sworn trustee of the Moscow Commercial Court; since 1858 - sworn competitor of the Moscow Art Society [CIAM 2-3-1259]
beneficent 1000 r. on the wounded in the Crimean War (1854) [CIAM 16-110-853-1rev.]
85. Muravyov Alexey Mitrofanovich(b. 1847)
household In 1884 - one of the founders of the partnership "S.M. Shibaev and Co. 0" - chemical plants in Baku, founding capital - 6.5 million rubles] [CIAM 450-8-544-2]
86. Musorin Timofey Mikhailovich (?)
well. Tatyana Vasilievna (1816-1883)
d. Peter (?) [M. St-141]
br. Fedor Mikhailovich (See No. 87), Sergei Mikhailovich (See No. 88)
household trading house "Timofey Musorin and sons" - textile shops, 1885 - balance - 425,000 rubles, deficit - 42,168 rubles); in 1885-1894 - administrative management of the trading house
real estate: two stone houses in Moscow, two wholesale shops [CIAM 450-8-117-5]
87. Musorin Fedor Mikhailovich (?)
well. Maria Sergeevna (1832-1894)
total trustee of the RBD (1885-1888, 1895-1897) [OR 246-6-4-1]
88. Musorin Sergey Mikhailovich (?)
d. Nikolai, Mikhail, Ivan.
total trustee of the RBD (1888-1891, together with V.A. Shibaev), elected by the community since 1896 [OR 246-9-1-2rev.]
89. Nazarov Ivan Nazarovich (1799-1869)
m. (1854)
d. Fedor Ivanovich (1823-1853), m. 2
Timofei Ivanovich (1824-1902). (See No. 90).
household paper-weaving factory in Moscow (1853) (Lefortovo part 85 workers, 38 375 rubles turnover) [Tarasov-39]
beneficent 300 r. on the wounded in the Crimean War (1854) [CIAM 16-110-853-1 rev.]
mention. Nazarovs R.E. and S.S. - paper-weaving factories in Suzdal (27,000 and 23,000 rubles per year, respectively), Nazarov A.S. - a linen factory in Suzdal (10,000 rubles. turnover), Nazarov I. F. linen factory in the village of Zhirokhovo, Vladimir province. (11,000 ruble turnover.) [Timiryazev - S. 3, 12]
90. Nazarov Timofey Ivanovich (1824-1902)
m. 1 g.k., sweat. post. gr.
well. Alexandra Ivanovna (died before 1903), aunt of A.G. Tsarskaya
D. Pavel. (1848-1871), Simeon (1856-1886).
household a wool-weaving factory in Moscow (200 workers, 154,000 rubles turnover) [Timiryazev - P. 20]; wholesale barns and shops in Moscow (Ilyinskaya line), Nizhny Novgorod, in all Ukrainian fairs [OR 246-9-1-4rev.]
total trustee of the RBD (1870-1873, together with R.D. Martynov); elected MSORK since 1896 [OR 246-9-1-2rev.]
91. Neokladnov Boris Matveevich (1788-?)
m. (1857)
well. Marfa Grigorievna (?)
d. Alexander (b. 1833)
should honorary member of the Council of the Moscow Commercial School, from 1826 - comrade of the city headman, 1831-1834 - deputy of sinks, trade deputation, 1843-1846 - assessor from the merchants in the 1st department of the Moscow Chamber of the Civil Court, 1852-1855 member of the Moscow Stock Exchange.
benevolent 1000 r. to the hospital; things (1853), 4100 rubles to the Militia hospital (1855) [CIAM 2-3-1261-2]
from 1854 - co-religionist
92. Nyrkov Fedor Fedorovich (1835-1891)
m. (1875)
well. Avdotya Abramovna (b. 1850)
Nadezhda (b. 1871), Margarita (b. 1872), Lyubov (b. 1873), Sergei (b. 1874), Alexander (b. 1868) (see No. 93) [CIAM 1265-1-354- 6]
93. Nyrkov Alexander Fedorovich (1868-?)
m. 3 g. k., sweat. post. gr.
total member of the construction commission of the MSORK (1913); founding member of the MSORK (1913) [OR 246-18-8-26rev.]
94. Ovsyannikov Stepan Tarasovich (1805 - ?)
st. petersburg 1 g.c. (1875)
well. Elizabeth (?), fugitive.
Gleb Stepanovich (1829-1902) (see No. 95). Vasily Stepanovich (d. 1908) (see No. 96), Fedor Stepanovich (St. Petersburg, 1st year of life?), Lyubov Stepanovna (married to A.I. Morozov), Alexandra Stepanovna (d. 1901) (married to P.M. Ryabushinsky)
household wholesale trade in bread.
real estate estates: 1) Voronezh province. (29,611 acres - worth 1,480,600 rubles), 2) Tambov province (5,834 acres - worth 641,740 rubles), 3) Oryol province. (11,862 acres - worth 177,945 rubles) [CIAM 450-8-138-66]
in 1875 convicted of setting fire to a competitor's steam mill, deprived of all rights of estate and exiled to Siberia [Spasovich Sobr. Op. T. 6. S. 40-48]
95. Ovsyannikov Gleb Stepanovich (1829-1902)
eisky 1 g.k. (1864)
well. Olga Alekseevna (ur. Rakhmanova) (d. 1901) (see No. 111).
household The value of property under a will - 1,040,000 rubles (1902) [CIAM 450-8-138-72]
96. Ovsyannikov Vasily Stepanovich (?-1908)
d. Leonid, Sergey (?), Alexandra (married Gubonina), Elizaveta, Julia (married Petrova)
household trading house "Brothers Ovsyannikovs and Ganshin", since 1887 - the partnership "Brothers Ovsyannikovs and A. Ganshin with sons" (weaving, dyeing and dressing factories in Yuryev-Polsky, fixed capital 750,000 rubles, 7.5 million rubles. turnover) [CIAM 450-8-546-51]
real estate - house in Moscow (Nikolo-Bolvanovskaya street); the estate of the former Prince Cherkassky (worth 320,000 rubles), land in hereditary estates (worth 328,612 rubles), the general condition by 1908 is 1,050,000 rubles. [CIAM 450-8-138-66]
97. Ovchinnikov Alexey Petrovich (?)
m. (1875)
d. Fedor (?) (see No. 98). [CIAM 1265-1-354-8]
98. Ovchinnikov Fedor Alekseevich (?)
household factory of church utensils in Moscow, Basmannaya street (1899) [CIAM 450-8-366-9rev.]
9.9. Osipov Nikolai (?) Osipovich
m. c (1854)
household wool-weaving factory in Moscow (Pyatnitskaya h., 975 workers, 600,000 rubles turnover) [Tarasov-6]
beneficence: 5000 r. on the wounded in the Crimean War [CIAM 16-110-853-1rev.]
10.0. Parfyonov Emelyan (?)
m. (1854)
beneficent 50 r. on the wounded in the Crimean War (1854) [CIAM 16-110-853-3]
101. Prasagov Artem Vasilievich (?)
m. (1854)
household 2 paper-weaving factories in Moscow (Rogozhskaya part, 80 workers, 18,370 yearly turnover, and 36 workers, 15,000 yearly turnover - 1853) [Tarasov-43]
beneficent 150 r. on the wounded in the Crimean War (1854) [CIAM 16-110-853-3]
102. Pugovkin Ivan Alekseevich (1790-1852)
m. (1852)
well. Irina Stepanovna (b. 1795), m. 3, k-ha (1857)
Alexey (b. 1823) (see No. 103), Nikolai (1829-1879) + f. Alexandra Semyonovna (1835-1866) [X rev. - p.71]
103. Pugovkin Alexey Ivanovich (1822-1878)
m. (1875)
well. Alexandra Vasilievna (1826-1897)
v. Ivan (b. 1854) (see No. 104), Lyubov (b. 1863) [CIAM 126M-ZM-2rev.]
104. Pugovkin Ivan Alekseevich(1854-after 1918)
household two hat shops in Moscow and a wholesale warehouse in Nizhny Novgorod (1904) [CIAM 450-10-39]
should member of the Audit Commission of the Society of Upper Trading Rows on Red Square (1898) [OR 246-9-1-46]
total chairman of the Council of the MSORC (1906-1909) [OR 246-12-10], foreman of the elected MSORC (1897) [OR 246-9-1-46], deputy chairman of the Council of the MSORC (1918) [OR 246-18-6- 4]
105. Rastorguev Ivan Ivanovich (1828-?)
m. (1864)
well. Filizata Vasilievna (b. 1831)
Nikolai (b. 1860), Elizaveta (b. 1861), Ivan (b. 1863) [CIAM 1265-1-89-5v.]
106. Rastorguev Mikhail Petrovich (1795-1862)
m. (1857)
well. (1 brk.) Olga Osipovna (1801-1848)
f (2 brk.) Pelageya Paramonovna (b. 1819)
d. no (as of 1857)
real estate house in Myasnitskaya h. (acquired)
should 1848 - member of the commission "for the adoption of rye flour for sale to the poor", 1855-1857 - vowel of the Moscow Six-voice Duma.
Blessing 100 r. for hospital things (1853), 50 rubles. to the state militia (1855) [CIAM 2-3-1267-2]
107. Rastorguev Petr Sidorovich(d. after 1913)
m. (1894), sweat. post. Gr
household fish trade shop on Solyanka, wholesale fish trade in Russia, from 1882 a loan was opened at the State Commercial Bank for 15,000 rubles, then increased to 150,000 rubles. (closed in 1912)
real estate: house in Myasnitskaya h. (Malozlatoust lane) [CIAM 450-8-91]
total deputy from Moscow Old Believers to congratulate the emperor on St. Easter (1894) [OR 246-2-6-15], 1896 - 1900 elected MSORK [OR 246-9-1-27]
10.8. Rakhmanov* Petr Markovich(1774-?) (About the Rakhmanovs, see: Stadnikov A.V. Forgotten patrons: the Moscow merchant family of the Rakhmanovs // Moscow archive. M., 1998. Issue 2.)
in 1828 - from the serfs, m. 3 g.k. (1833)
well. Avdotya Alekseevna (b. 1772)
Ivan (1801-1835), Abram Bolshoy (b. 1803), Abram Menshoy (b. 1813), Alexander (b. 1818) [VIII rev. - p.38]
household 6 butcher shops in Moscow (1850s) [CIAM 14-4-391-311v.]
109. Rakhmanov Andrey Leontievich (1747-1815)
m. (1815)
well. Fedosya Yegorovna (1755-1839), m.
d. Fedor (1776-1854) (see No. 110), Dmitry (b. 1774), Terenty (1787-1852), m. 3, Aleksey P792-1854. (see No. 111) [VII rev. - p.74]
household trade in bread. Status by 1815 - 20 thousand rubles. ser. [CIAM 2-3-345-1]
110. Rakhmanov Fedor Andreevich (1776-1854)
post. gr., m. 1 g.k. (1854)
total RBD trustee (1850s)
household wholesale trade in bread (trading company "Brothers F. and A. Rakhmanov" (purchase of bread along the Volga, in the Tula and Kaluga provinces); by 1854 - a fortune of over 1 million rubles. Ser.
111. Rakhmanov Alexey Andreevich (1792-1854)
m. gr.
female (1 brk.) Anna Alekseevna (ur. Kuznetsova) (1804-1821)
female (2 brk.) Evdokia Dionisovna (ur. Sychkov) (1806-1879), pot. post. gr-ka.
d. Olga (d.190P (married Ovsyannikova, (see No. 95), Anna (1836-1898) (married Dyachkova), Apollinaria (1838-?), Maria (?) [M. St - S .80]
household wholesale trade in bread, large creditor (up to 20,000 rubles. Ser.)
112. Rakhmanov Vasily Grigorievich (1782-?)
well. Agafya Filippovna
due director of sinks, offices of the State Commercial Bank (1843-1857), member of the Committee for finding ways to trade
was awarded a gold medal on the Annenskaya ribbon "For diligent service"
113. Rakhmanov Ivan Grigorievich (1774-1839)
until 1819 - m. 3 GK, from 1819 - Bogoroditsky 2 GK
well. Alexandra Karpovna (ur. Shaposhnikova) (1787-1841)
Semyon Ivanovich (1808-1854) (see No. 114), Egor (b. 1809), Pavel (b. 1811), Olga (b. 1810), Elizabeth (b. 1814), Nikolai (b. 1816, m.1 g.k), Karp (1824-1895. (see No. 116), Fedor (b. 1820), Ivan (b. 1822). [VII rev. - P. 74]
household wholesale trade in bread in the Moscow and Tula provinces. [OR 342-57-38-1]
114. Rakhmanov Semyon Ivanovich (1808-1854)
m. (1854)
well. Serafima Fedorovna (nee Kartasheva) (1818-1881)
Fedor (b. 1848) - p.79]
household trade in bread [OR 342-57-38-3]
115. Rakhmanov Fedor Semenovich (1848-?)
sweat. post. gr.
total trustee of the RBD (1897-1900), foreman of the elected MSORK (1893-1896, 1903-1906) [OR 246-9-1-40]
116. Rakhmanov Karp Ivanovich (1824-1895)
m. gr.
well. Xenia Egorovna (b. 1831)
d. Alexandra (1851 - 1903) (See No. 120), Georgy (?) (See No. 117), Ivan (?) (See No. 118), Emilia (1869-1907) . (see No. 119), Sergei (?), Agniya (?), Lydia (in the marriage of Agafonov, (see No. 2) [X rev. - P.79]
total foreman elected MSORK (1875-79), elected (1870s-1895) [OR 246-3-2-11]
117. Rakhmanov Georgy Karpovich (?)
assistant professor at Moscow University
total founding member of the MSEC (1913), member of the School Board of the MSEC, member of the Special Trustees of the Council of the MSEC (1916) [OR 246-95-2-8]
118. Rakhmanov Ivan Karpovich (?)
m. 1 g.k., sweat. post. gr. (1903)
household brick factory (station Kryukovo, Moscow province)
total Chairman of the Council of the MSORK (1903-1906)
benevolent 200 000 rubles to a tuberculosis sanatorium in Barybino (1903) [CIAM 179-57-117]
119. Rakhmanova Emilia Karpovna (1869-1907)
sweat. post. lady (1907)
benevolent 5000 r. Society for the Encouragement of Diligence, 10,000 rubles. - to the account of the RBD, the House of Free Apartments (for 100 people, cost 60,000 rubles) [CIAM 179-57-1016]
120. Rakhmanova Alexandra Karpovna (1851-1903)
sweat. post. gr-ka.
beneficent almshouse them. A.K. Rakhmanova (for 70 people, cost 133,000 rubles) [Izv. My. mountains Dumas, Common. Dep. 1909, No. 1, p. 60]
121. Rybakov Nikolay Petrovich (?)
br. Rybakov Alexey Petrovich (?), m. (1875) [CIAM 1265-1-354-6] general. founding member of the MSORK (1913) [OR 246-95-2-4]
122. Ryabushinsky Pavel Mikhailovich (1820-1899)
m. 1, commercial advisor
well. (2 brk.) Alexandra Stepanovna (ur. Ovsyannikova) (d. 1901)
D. Pavel (1871-1924) (see No. 123). Sergei (1874-1942) (see No. 124), Stepan (b. 1874-?) (see No. 125). Dmitry (b. 1882-?) (see No. 126), Vladimir, Fedor.
household since 1887 - the partnership "P.M. Ryabushinsky and sons" - textile factories with an authorized capital of 2 million rubles.
total elective MSORK (1860s-1890s) [OR 246-9-1-27]
123. Ryabushinsky Pavel Pavlovich (1871-1924)
m.1 g.c., banker
well. (1 br.) I.A. Butikova
well. (2 brothers) E.G. Mazurina
household Russian Linen Industrial Joint-Stock Company, Central Russian Joint-Stock Company (timber holding), Okulovskaya stationery factory, Joint Stock Moscow Bank (fixed capital 25 million rubles - 1912), Kharkov Land Bank
due Chairman of the Moscow Exchange Committee, Chairman of the Moscow Military Industrial Committee, member of the State Council (1916)
total Chairman of the School Council of the MSORK, Chairman of the Old Believer Congress (1905), elected community (since 1896) [OR 246-9-1-2]
(About P. Ryabushinsky, see: Petrov Yu.A. Pavel Pavlovich Ryabushinsky // Historical silhouettes. M., 1991. P. 106-154)
124. Ryabushinsky Sergey Pavlovich (1874-1942)
well. A.A.Pribylova(?)
household co-founder of the automobile plant AMO (1916)
total chairman of the School Council of the MSORK (1909), elected by the community [OR 246-9-1-2]
125. Ryabushinsky Stepan Pavlovich (1874-?)
household co-founder of AMO (1916)
total chairman of the Council of the MSORK (1906-1909) [OP 246-9-11-2]
126. Ryabushinsky Dmitry Pavlovich(b. 1882)
corresponding member French Academy of Sciences; founded the 1st Aerodynamic Institute in the world (1904, Kuchino estate) (Petrov Yu. P.P. Ryabushinsky // Historical silhouettes. M., 1991. P. 106-154)
127. Savvin Vasily Savvich (?)
m. (1854)
beneficent 300 r. on the wounded in the Crimean War (1854) [CIAM 16-110-853-2v.]
128. Sapelkin Vladimir Andreevich (1801-?)
m. (1857)
well. Praskovya Dmitrievna (b. 1803)
d. Fedor (1834), Alexander (b. 1837), Alexei (b. 1838) [X rev. - S. 130]
household wax-white factory (since 1820, village Vladimirovo, Moscow province, district 27, 15,000 regular years; turnover; candle factory (Moscow, Basmannaya h., 15
slave x, 65 750 rubles turnover.)
1849. - a small silver medal for the quality of candles at the St. Petersburg exhibition; 1852 - silver medal for wax at the Moscow Agricultural Exhibition. [Zhmit. SPb., 1853. Part 3. S. 65-70]
benevolent 150 r. on the wounded in the Crimean War (1854) [CIAM 16-110-853-2v.]
129. Sapelov Ivan Matveevich (?)
beneficent 1000 r. on the wounded in the Crimean War (1854) [CIAM 16-110-853-2v.]
130. Sveshnikov Artemy Yakovlevich (1801-1860)
eysk. 1st year (1854)
brothers: Sveshnikov Mikhail Yakovlevich (1814-1865) .(see No. 131), Sveshnikov Fedor Yakovlevich (1815-1884) .(see No. 132.)
benevolent 200 r. on the wounded in the Crimean War (1854) [CIAM 116-110-853-2rev.]
131. Sveshnikov Mikhail Yakovlevich (1814-1865)
m. (1854)
beneficent 25 p. on the wounded in the Crimean War (1854) [CIAM 16-110-853-3]
household mentioned: Sveshnikov A.I. - a paper-spinning factory in Moscow (83 workers, 23843 yr. turnover), Sveshnikov P.A. - a wool-spinning factory in Moscow (80 workers, 42025 rubles per year turnover) (Timiryazev - p.5, 21]
132. Sveshnikov Fedor Yakovlevich (1815-1884)
m. (1854)
Aleksey, m. 3, 1913 - founding member of the MSORK [OR 246-95-2-4]
household wool weaving factory in the Moscow province. (295 slaves, 105294 yr. turnover) [Timiryazev - p.21]
beneficent 300 r. on the wounded in the Crimean War (1854)
mentioned: Sveshnikova I.P. - a gift of paintings and engravings to the Rumyantsev Museum (1911), Sveshnikova E.V. - construction of a doss house in Moscow (1910), Sveshnikova K.V. - the establishment of a bed in the almshouse. Geer (1909) [CIAM 179-57-117-21]
133. Sveshnikov Petr Petrovich (?)
br. Ivan Petrovich (?)
household TD "P. Sveshnikova Sons" (sawmills) 1897 - fixed capital - 1.2 million rubles, from 1899 - 1.8 million rubles. wholesale in Moscow and the Nizhny Novgorod Fair.
real estate land estates 42,355 dec. (worth 868,000 rubles), timber materials - 4 million rubles. (1899), sawmills in Uglich, Rostov, Pereyaslav counties (total cost 90,741 rubles) (1899) [CIAM 450-8-366]
13.4. Simonova (ur. Soldatenkova) Maria Konstantinovna (1803-1870)
m. group (1864) [CIAM 1265-1-89-2]
beneficent 100 r. on the wounded in the Crimean War [CIAM 16-110-853-2]
135. Sidorov Fedor Semenovich (?)
Zvenigorodskaya 3rd city (1854)
benevolent 50 r. on the wounded in the Crimean War (1854) [CIAM 16-110-853-2v.]
136. Smirnov Filimon Nikitovich (1790-1857)
m. (1857)
well. Irina Vasilievna (b. 1807)
d. Peter (b. 1843)
household paper-weaving factory in Moscow (Basmannaya h., 80 workers, 54,067 year turnover (1853) (Tarasov-46]
beneficent 100 r. on the wounded in the Crimean War (1854) [CIAM 16-110-853-3]
137. Soldatenkov Kuzma Terentievich (1818-1901)
Commerce Advisor, post. gr.
household Publishing house K.T. Soldatenkov
should vowel of the Moscow City Duma, member of the Moscow branch of the Manufactory Council, full member of the Society of Commercial Knowledge Lovers at the Academy of Commercial Sciences, honorary member of the Brotherly-loving Society for the Supply of Poor Apartments
total elective MSORK 1860-1901
beneficent "Soldatenkovskaya" hospital (Botkinskaya) worth 2 million rubles, a collection of paintings and icons in the Tretyakov Gallery, etc.
about him see: MertsalovIG. Russian publisher. Philanthropist Kuzma Terentyevich Soldatenkov and his merits for Russian education // Izvestia Volf. No. 9-10.
13.8. Sobolev Nikolay (?)
total elected community (1897) [OR 246-9-1-2ob]
139. Sokolov Alexander Nikolaevich (?)
sweat. post. gr. (1913)
founding member of the MSORK (1913) [OR 246-95-2-4]
brother Sokolov Nikolai Nikolaevich (?)
household founder of the "partnership for the production of Russian mineral oils and chemical products" S.M. Shibaev and K 0 "(1884) with a fixed capital of 6.5 million rubles [CIAM 450-8-552-3]
140. Solovyov Vasily Yakovlevich (1802-1855)
D. Andrey (b. 1835). (See No. 141). Taras (1827-1899) . (See No. 142). Makar (1842-1886), m. 1 year of colony, Dorotheus (b. 1829) from 1853 - in the middle class [X rev. - p.41]
141. Solovyov Andrey Vasilievich(b. 1835)
m. (1857)
well. Maria Kononovna (1842-1883), born Royal [X rev. - p.46]
142. Solovyov Taras Vasilievich (1827-1899)
m. (1857), sweat. post. gr.
well. Avdotya Ivanovna (1826-1905)
Anna (b. 1842), Maria (b. 1847), Praskovya (b. 1855), Sergei (b. 1856) (see No. 143) [X rev. - p.41]
143. Solovyov Sergey Tarasovich (?)
sweat. post. gr.
total elective MSORK (1897) [OR 246-9-1-2rev.]
144. Strakopytov Kozma Alexandrovich (1820-1887)
m.1 (1864)
well. Natalya Petrovna (b. 1826)
household wool-weaving factory in Moscow (16 workers, 18,670 rubles per year) [Timiryazev - P. 22]
total 1879-1881 - elected MSORK [OR 246-3-6-24rev.] charitable. 50 r. on the wounded in the Crimean War (1854) [CIAM 16-110-853-2rev.]
14.5. Sushchov Fedor (?)
m. (1854)
beneficent 15 p. on the wounded in the Crimean War (1854) [CIAM 16-110-853-2v.]
146. Tatarnikov Ivan Parfenovich (1800-?)
m. (1857)
well. (2 brk.) Praskovya Alekseevna (b. 1830)
(1 brk.) Ivan (1836), Dmitry (b. 1838)
d. (2 brk.) Elena (b. 1842) [X rev. - S. 144]
147. Tatarnikov Emelyan Parfenovich (1797-?)
m. (1857)
well. Praskovya Larionovna (d. 1857)
v. Ivan (b. 1816) + f. Anna Savelyevna (b. 1819),
[d. Ivan Ivanovich (b. 1843), Peter (1849), Avdotya (1847), Pelageya (R-1851)]
Mikhail Emelyanovich (b. 1834), Peter (b. 1837), Kozma (b. 1840), Maria (1843) [X rev.-S. 146]
148. Tatarnikov Fedor Vasilievich (1853-1912)
household trade in linen products, transport offices (Moscow, St. Petersburg, Volga region)
should member of the Merchant Council, elected Merchant Bank, member of the Moscow Exchange Society [f. Church. 1912]
149. Tarasov Yakov Alexandrovich (1814-?)
m. (1857)
well. Agrafena Yakovlevna (b. 1822)
Makar (1843-1855), Stepan (b. 1845), Elizaveta (b. 1855), Praskovya (b. 1857), Evdokia (b. 1852), Porfiry (b. 1853) (see No. 150) [ X rev. -138]
150. Tarasov Porfiry Yakovlevich (1853-?)
personal post. gr. (1913)
total founding member of the MSORK [OR 246-95-2-7]
151. Timashev Alexander Larionovich(b. 1821-?)
m. (1875), in 1856 from the Smolensk province., Sychevsky 3 merchant children.
well. Yefimiya Petrovna (b. 1931)
d. Elizabeth (b. 1864) [X rev. - p.114]
household wool-weaving factory in Moscow (167 workers, 77,600 rubles per year) [Timiryazev - P.21]
Mentioned by: Timashev M.L. - wool-weaving factory in Moscow (180 workers, 55,720 rubles per year turnover) [Timiryazev - P.21]
benefactor: Timasheva E.P. founded a chamber in the Rogozhsky almshouses (1908) [OR 246-61-4-Juob.]
152. Tolkachev Yakov Yakovlevich (?)
m. 3 g.k. (1854)
beneficent 100 r. on the wounded in the Crimean War (1854) [CIAM 16-110-853-2]
153. Tregubov Osip Egorovich (1798-1856)
m. (1856)
well. Daria Timofeevna (1807-1862), m. 3, k-ha
v. Ivan (b. 1820) + f. Marya Semyonovna (b. 1832) [d. Maria (b. 1854)]
Egor (b. 1827) + f. Marfa Petrovna [d. Pelageya (b. 1855)]
Alexey (1834) (see No. 154), Peter (b. 1836-1913) - d. Ivan (see No. 155) [X rev. - p.77]
154. Tregubov Alexey Osipovich (1834-1912)
sweat. post. gr.
well. Maria Ivanovna (b. 1838)
155. Tregubov Ivan Petrovich (?)
sweat. post. gr. (1913)
Sergey (b. 1898), Nikolai (b. 1903), Alexandra (1909)
total founding member of the MSORK (1913) [OR 246-95-2-4]
156. Tryndin Egor Stepanovich (1808-?)
from the Moscow bourgeois (1857), m. 3 g.c. (1861)
well. Elizaveta Kondratievna (b. 1817)
Olga (1844-1865), Maria (b.1848), Sergei (b.1847I see No. 157), Peter (1852-1909) [X rev. - p.57]
household Optical and Surgical Instruments Factory (Moscow, Myasnitskaya h., 15 workers, 9000 year old turnover. (1853) [Tarasov-71]
should Ratman 1 of the Department of the Moscow Magistrate (1861-1864) [CIAM 2-3-1280-2]
157. Tryndin Sergey Egorovich(b. 1847)
Commerce Advisor (1913)
d. Anastasia (died after 1916), in the marriage of Shchepotiev
158. Filatov Yakov Mikhailovich (?)
total founding member of the MSORK (1913) [OR 246-95-2-7]
159. Fomin Trifon Grigorievich (1778-?)
m. (1857)
d. Ivan (b. 1808). (see No. 160), Andrei (b. 1814), Yermolai (b. 1825) [Chrev. - p.93]
beneficent 300 r. on the wounded in the Crimean War SHIAM 16-110-853-2]
160. Fomin Ivan Trifonovich (1808-?)
m. (1857)
d. Peter (b. 1831) (see No. 157), Vasily (b. 1841), Natalia (b. 1836), Maria (b. 1844) [X rev. - p.96]
161. Fomin Petr Ivanovich(1831- after 1870)
well. Serafima Ivanovna (b. 1835)
d. Konstantin (b. 1854), Alexei (b. 1856)
household wool-weaving factory in Moscow (250 workers, 70,000 r.g. turnover) - 1870 [Tarasov-21, 22]; wool weaving factory in Moscow (50 workers, 15,750 rubles, turnover - 1870) [X rev. - p.96]
162. Tsarsky Ivan Nikolaevich (?-1853)
m. gr.
household meat trade in Moscow (1845) [CIAM 16-13-1542-211]
due deputy from the merchants in the Board of the 4th District of Communications, deputy in the Board of Public Buildings.
post. titles: philanthropist of the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities, member of the Imperial Archaeological Society and the Russian Geographical Society, honorary correspondent of the Imperial Public Library, correspondent of the Archaeological Commission, full member of the Odessa Society of Russian History and Antiquities, full member of the Moscow Commercial Academy and the Copenhagen Art Society of Northern antique dealers.
awards: a gold medal on the Vladimir ribbon (for donations of manuscripts and coins in 1828) [Obituary// Northern Bee. 1853. No. 169]
163. Tsarsky Konon Anisimovich (1812-1884)
m. 1 because, the surname is allowed to be called from 1853
d. Maria (married Solovyova, 1842-1883) (see No. 141), Seliverst (1835-1897) + f. Praskovya Grigorievna (1840-1888) - niece of A.I. Nazarova (see No. 90), Egor (b. 1844) [X rev. - S. 129]
total trustee of the RBD (1876-1879) [OR 246-3-6-24rev.]
164. Tsarsky Nikolai Dmitrievich (?)
total trustee of the RBD (1850s)
(Melnikov PI. Och. Popovshchina // RV. 1866. T. 63. No. 5.S. 15)
165. Shaposhnikov Fedor Semenovich (1834-?)
m. (1857)
well. Alexandra Zakharovna (b. 1836) [X rev. -98]
d. Evtikhy Fedorovich m. 3 g.k. (1913), founding member of the MSORK [OR 246-95-2-10]
household wool-weaving factory (Moscow U. S. Nikolskoye, Moscow Province, 455 workers, 212500 R. yr. turnover) [Tarasov-10]
166. Shelaputin Antip Dmitrievich (?)
m. 1 because, post. gr. (1820)
br. Shelaputin Prokopiy Dmitrievich, m.1 g.k., commerce-advisor
household until 1821 - joint, total cost - 50,000 rubles + 2-storey stone house in Basmannaya Ch. [CIAM 2-3-412]
total trustee of the RBD (1850s).
167. Shelaputina Matrena Nikitichna (1813-?)
m. 3 g k-ha, widow (1857) [X rev. - p.118]
168. Shelaputin Maxim Fedorovich (1813-?)
m. 3 g.k., from 1867 - tradesman,
well. Anna Afanasievna (b. 1822)
Dmitriy (b. 1849) (see No. 165), Zinaida (b. 1851)
household silverware workshop (for 1865), silver bench [CIAM 1265-1-95-15,20]
169. Shelaputin Dmitry Maksimovich (?)
m. tradesman
total founding member of the MSORK (1913) [OR 246-95-2-13]
170. Shelaputin Pavel Grigorievich (1847-1914)
m.
well. Anna (?)
d. Boris (? -1913), Grigory (? -1901), Anatoly (? -1908).
household Balashikha wool-spinning m-ra (1914 - 3000 workers, 8 million rubles per year turnover.)
beneficent Gynecological Institute for Doctors named after Anna Shelaputina (1893), Gymnasium named after Grigory Shelaputin (1902), three vocational schools (1903), Real School named after A. Shelaputin (1908), Pedagogical Institute (1908), Women's Teacher's Seminary (1910) ) (Schetinin B.A. Zealot of education // Historical Bulletin. 1914. No. 7. P. 230)
171. Shibaev Andrey Martynovich (1818-1873)
br. Shibaev Sidor Martynovich (see No. 172)
household Dyeing and finishing factory in Bogorodsky district. Moscow province. (60 slaves 20,000 rubles turnover) [Timiryazev - P. 27]
172. Shibaev Sidor Martynovich (?-1888)
bogorodsky 1st city
well. (1 brk.) Maria Ivanovna (1825-1858)
well. (2 brk.) Evdokia Vukolovna (? -1899) (nee Mityushina, sister of N.V. Kuznetsova).
Ivan, Nikolay, Sergey, Matvey, Peter, Alexey.(?)
household since 1857 - a textile shop in the village of Istomkino, Moscow province (1257 workers, 1,093,000 rubles turnover.) [Timiryazev - p. M. Shibaev Sons" - (3 factories in the village of Istomkino, 7 million rubles per year. Turnover. (1912) [CIAM 450-8-544], oil fields in Baku, since 1884 - Partnership "S .M.Shibaev and Co. (factory for the manufacture of mineral oils, fixed capital 6.5 million rubles), Shibaevskoe Oil Industrial Company in London (credit) [CIAM 450-8-552]
173. Shibaev Lev Fedorovich (1804-?)
m. (1857)
well. (2 brk.) Maria Denisovna (b. 1820)
d. (1 brk.) Nikolai (b. 1836) + f. Elizaveta Konstantinovna (b. 1839)
(2 brk.) Ivan (b. 1843) (see No. 174), Alexei (b. 1847) [X rev. - p.92]
174. Shibaev Ivan Lvovich(1843-after 1900)
beneficent almshouse for 180 people (1899) [CIAM 179-58-308]
175. Shibaev Ivan Ivanovich (1835-?)
m. (1857) [X rev. - p.106]
176. Shibaev Vasily Andreevich (?)
m. (1897)
d. Ivan (1860-1889)
total Trustee of the RBD (1897-1900) together with F.S. Rakhmanov [OR 246-9-1-40]
M. SOKOLOV: Alexander Vladimirovich, here comes Nicholas II, and what? Is the situation really changing? The empire begins to pursue a policy of partially open doors, the introduction of foreign capital. This, in fact, leads to a conflict between the Moscow Old Believer merchant class and the gradual government, right? That is, they are trying to change something... This was really the most fundamental question for them - there, according to the customs tariff, according to some kind of export duties, and so on?
A. PYZHIKOV: Yes. There are 2 key points in the history of the Old Believer merchant class. We have already mentioned one thing - this is the middle of the 19th century, when they, in fact, entered the civil field of the empire. And the second key point, which was reflected in the fate of the entire Russian Empire, was the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, associated with a change in the course of tsarism. What exactly was the change? Of course, the protectionist tariff was high, it remained high. Finance Minister Witte, who by that time had become finance minister, naturally did not encroach on him. But he put forward the following idea, which he personified in person. The idea was to attract foreign capital in amounts never seen before. The logic was simple: “Russian merchants are good, no one says. But it can take a very long time to wait until they reach the necessary conditions, when they grow up. We will hopelessly lag behind the West. Therefore, we need to immediately make a breakthrough. "First of all. Let them come here, equip factories, enterprises, make some industrial assets. This will make it possible to make a leap forward. What about the merchants? Good, but let them wait." That is, thereby they indicated a second role. And they claimed to be the most important violin in the economy. And they were told that from now on there can be no talk of any first roles. It was very insulting for them, because Witte started absolutely as a man of the circles of Aksakov and Katkov. He was published in their editions, in their newspapers. His own uncle, Fadeev, was the leader of the Russian Party, who wrote its manifestos and published them in circulation ... They considered him theirs, and now this man (why Witte had such a reputation as a chameleon) was so reoriented that St. Petersburg bankers became his best friends during led by Rodshtein, director of the International Petersburg Bank. This, of course, was just a slap in the face for the merchants that the person they considered theirs treated them in such a way.
M. SOKOLOV: That is, it happened that, as Alexei NRZB writes to us, that the conservatives turned into reformers and leaned, it turns out, to such an active political position at some point, from which they evaded...
A. PYZHIKOV: Quite right, the essence of the matter is noticed in this question. I'll say a little more. Of course, when under Alexander III there was a renaissance of the Moscow merchants, even a renaissance of the Old Believers ... Preobrazhenskoye, Rogozhskoye cemeteries felt better than ever ... These are their spiritual centers. They were no longer financial arteries, as before ... Everything seemed to go according to their scenario. And their policy, the policy of loyalty - to crawl on their knees around the throne - fully justifies itself. Dividends economic go in hand. The Russian Party properly draws up these dividends and, so to speak, materializes them into a concrete policy. Things are good. But then, when there was a Witte turn, which we are talking about, a turn towards foreign capital, in volumes of which there has never been in Russia ... I emphasize. Neither under Peter I, nor under Catherine II, this can even be said. This is no comparison. When there was this new financial emphasis, they realized that kneeling at the throne would not solve the issue. And the loyal spells they used to devote all their time to don't work anymore. Some other mechanisms are needed to get out of this situation, to somehow minimize their such an infringed position in which they so unexpectedly found themselves.
M. SOKOLOV: So what? How did this bloc come about - on the one hand, the merchants, on the other hand, some kind of zemstvo liberal-democratic movement. How did they find each other?
A. PYZHIKOV: In fact, until the end of the 19th century, the liberal movement was a rather pitiful sight. Even all those police sources who tracked all this, analyzed - they did not hide their irony towards this movement. They said that there are 10-15 people capable of taking some decisive steps, the rest are just not serious, there are no fears. So it remained. Until the beginning of the 20th century, no one had succeeded in trying to interest the merchants in some kind of liberal-constitutional projects. This
attempts were absolutely doomed. Now the situation has changed. The merchants quickly and actively began to look for new mechanisms. What are the new mechanisms? Mechanisms to limit the autocracy and the ruling bureaucracy, so that there are no such things as Witte did with them, so primitively speaking. These mechanisms were immediately found. They have already been tested in Europe for a long time, they bloomed there. This is what constitutional government is. That is, all legal rights should be expressed not by the supreme will, but by the constitution, first of all. And the ruling bureaucracy should not have a monopoly on governance. That is, parliamentary forms should limit it in the implementation of policy. The merchants saw this mechanism and began to invest in it.
M. SOKOLOV: And which of the groups of the same Old Believers - priests, bezpopovtsy, some kind of sense - turned out to be the most active in supporting these movements?
A. PYZHIKOV: This is a very important point that is often overlooked. Namely, when we say "Old Believers", "schismatics", "Old Believer merchants" - this is not entirely correct. Because to be ideologically accurate, you must always keep in mind which Old Believers are priests or non-priests. Of course, all we are talking about is this Moscow merchant group - the backbone of it was the priests, this is the Belokrinitskaya hierarchy, which we mentioned. The main backbone of millionaires who grew up from a peasant environment - they were representatives of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy, that is, the Rogozhsky cemetery. Bezpopovtsev there were few. There are very few of them in the front row of leading millionaires.
M. SOKOLOV: Well, we will continue our conversation with Alexander Pyzhikov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, professor of the Russian State University for the Humanities, about the Old Believers, merchants before and during the Great War after the release of the news.
M. SOKOLOV: On the air of "Echo of Moscow" and the TV channel "RTVi" "The Price of Victory. The Price of Revolution". Today our guest is Alexander Pyzhikov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, author of the book "The Edges of the Russian Schism". We continue our conversation about the role of Old Believer merchants in the changes that took place in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. Well, right now I have a question. Alexei asks: "Which of the groups of Old Believers was the most active in the revolutionary movement?" And Alexey Kuchegashev wrote: "What connected Savva Morozov and the Bolsheviks?" Truly the most interesting figure. Apparently, perhaps the brightest. Merchants appeared who sponsored not only the liberals, the Zemstvo movement, but also the Social Democrats. Why?
A. PYZHIKOV: Firstly, the merchants had a special position in the opposition movement. Since we were talking about how they ended up in this opposition movement. They invested in the approval of the formation of a mechanism for limiting the ruling bureaucracy headed by the emperor, then their interest was immediately riveted to all those who shared these ideas. These ideas always smoldered among the intelligentsia, Zemstvo, some third element ...
M. SOKOLOV: I think the bureaucracy too.
A. PYZHIKOV: Yes. This is a special article. There, of course, yes. This is also an unknown page. But if now we are talking about the merchants, yes ... That is, such different groups have always existed. Small groups. This is at the circle level. It never went beyond the circle level until the early 20th century. It has always remained there. Therefore, when I looked at all these police reports on this topic in the archive, no one expressed any concern. It is absolutely true. But everything changed at the beginning of the 20th century. And according to these police reports, already by 1903, it is felt that they are filled with anxiety. They feel that something has changed. What has changed? There was a fashion for liberalism, for the constitution. This fashion arose in Russian society, primarily among the intelligentsia. Where? How did it happen? Here the answer is very simple. The Moscow merchants have done one very significant thing since the end of the 19th century, which everyone knows about, but no one understands and now they have forgotten the purpose of this cultural ...
M. SOKOLOV: Everyone was in the Tretyakov Gallery.
A. PYZHIKOV: Yes, a cultural and educational project, if I may say so, initiated and paid for, most importantly, by the Moscow merchants. Prominent representatives of the Moscow merchant clan actually created this entire cultural and educational infrastructure, in modern terms. What I'm talking about? The Tretyakov Gallery, which was going to... Let's not forget how it was going to. She was going in defiance of the imperial hermitage. The Hermitage was filled with paintings by Western European artists. Here the emphasis was on our own, on the Russians. And, in fact, this is the backbone of the Tretyakov Gallery. Then the theater is the Moscow Art Theater, the Moscow Art Theater is nothing but the invention and implementation of a merchant's idea. This is a very significant phenomenon. In cultural life, it goes beyond the limits ... It survived the limits of 1905, and 1917, and 1991. That is, how good a fruitful idea it really was. At the head of the Moscow Art Theater was, as you know, Konstantin Sergeevich Stanislavsky. Not everyone knows that this is the Old Believer merchant family of the Alekseevs. He is one of the relatives of Alekseev, who even was the Moscow mayor in the capital ... The Moscow Art Theater replicated, carried liberal democratic ideas. He made them trendy. Gorky's plays are known to everyone ... For example, "At the Bottom" is known to everyone - this is nothing more than the execution of the order of the Moscow Art Theater, which asked Gorky to write something so democratic, soul-grabbing, and Gorky issued this play "At the Bottom". There were all these premieres, which ended with huge sold-out crowds, then with demonstrations in honor of Gorky and the Moscow Art Theater, that they made such a cultural product. Mamontov's operas, Mamontov's private operas, where the discovery of Russian culture shone - this is Fyodor Chaliapin. This is all the discovery of Mamontov. And what operas did this private opera put on! What performances! "Khovanshchina" is an absolutely Old Believer epic, which is unpleasant for the Romanovs. "Boris Godunov" - again, an unpleasant page for the Romanovs' house. Intricate, such ideas are taken out and replicated to the public. That is, this infrastructure has created such a liberal-democratic atmosphere. And many educated people from the intelligentsia immediately began to show interest in it. There was a fashion, as I said, for liberalism. But this was not limited to the Moscow merchants.
A. PYZHIKOV: You were right in your question, the radio listener is asking the right question. How are these revolutionary elements? That's right, because the merchants perfectly understood that there were not enough different respectable zemstvos of noble origin, wise professors - this was not enough to push through a model to limit autocracy and ruling democracy. Yes, it's good, it's necessary, but it's not enough. It is much more convincing if all these ideas sound against the background of explosions, bombs and shots from guns. Here they needed the audience that is able to provide this background. And the merchants occupied, as I said, a unique movement in the opposition movement. It communicated both with professors and zemstvos, who were princes and counts, some of them ... And it felt just as comfortable with those layers that could carry out these terrorist acts and something like that ...
M. SOKOLOV: And Savva Mamontov? Was he an exotic character in this case?
A. PYZHIKOV: A normal merchant character. Why is everyone talking about him?
M. SOKOLOV: Because such a tragic fate - suicide...
A. PYZHIKOV: In May 1905... There are different versions. Someone says that he was killed, someone that he shot himself. This can be figured out...
M. SOKOLOV: The money went to the Bolsheviks in part.
A. PYZHIKOV: Of course, he talked. Gorky testifies to this. But why do they say? .. Savva Timofeevich Mamontov ...
M. SOKOLOV: Savva Morozov.
A. PYZHIKOV: Morozov, excuse me. Savva Timofeevich Morozov is such a bright character, you correctly noticed. But the matter is not limited to them. This is not some personal initiative of his. This is the initiative that the whole clan showed, this is a community of merchants. This is the merchant elite. There are many other names out there. The same one that was mentioned, Mamontov, the Ryabushinsky brothers, who also did much more on this path than the same Savva Morozov. And then there are a lot of surnames. And not only from Moscow.
M. SOKOLOV: They write to us: "The Chetverikovs, Rukavishnikovs, Dunaevs, Zhivago, Shchukins, Vostryakovs, Khludovs" - all this is one group, right?
A. PYZHIKOV: The Khludovs, the Shchukins, the Chetverikovs are all one group, this is the so-called Moscow group.
M. SOKOLOV: Alexander Vladimirovich, good. The revolution passed, so to speak, achieved the State Duma, achieved some limitation of autocracy, although the Duma did not control about 40% of the budget of state-owned companies and state banks, and did not have direct influence on the government either. That is, it turned out like this: they fought, fought, sponsored, sponsored, but there was no result. What happened before the First World War, again, with this group? What was its political activity, this Moscow merchant group, I would say?
A. PYZHIKOV: Of course, the Duma was established. In general, in my opinion, Nicholas II would have established this Duma anyway, only, of course, according to his own scenario, with his own logic, in his own sequence, which he planned to follow. But he didn't succeed. These turbulent events, especially in the autumn of 1905, are the so-called Moscow exacerbation. The December uprising is the highest point of this aggravation. The December uprising armed in Moscow brought down this scenario.
M. SOKOLOV: Yes, when merchants bought weapons for their workers.
A. PYZHIKOV: Yes. It's absolutely, like... I'm absolutely not a trailblazer here. Many authors have pointed out that the entire strike wave in Moscow began with factories and factories that belonged to merchants. The mechanism is very simple. They paid a salary, but said that it was possible not to work that day. As you can imagine, there were many applicants. Everyone was happy to participate. This was encouraged. This initiated this whole strike wave. This mechanism has long been open. Many scholars have written about this. In this case, I just summarized most of what is written. Of course, not all. So, the establishment of this Duma took place. Yes, the Duma is legislative. More has not yet been claimed. It was necessary to see how this new state mechanism would work. That is, it was necessary to test how it would function in action. Here, from the merchant clan undertook to conduct this approbation, if I may say so, the famous Moscow figure Alexander Ivanovich Guchkov. His position in the Moscow merchant class is special. He did not belong to the main backbone of this Moscow merchant class, namely, to the Belokrinitskaya hierarchy. He came out of the Feodosievsky bezpopovsky consent. But by the end of the 19th century, he was a co-religionist. It was such a camouflage net, such an image. He was a fellow believer, although, of course, he treated Orthodoxy no better than his ancestors. This is clear. But this Alexander Ivanovich Guchkov is an active politician. He advanced in 1905. He undertook to become a kind of leader who expresses the interests of the Moscow merchants in relation to the authorities, to the government, to St. Petersburg. He established a very warm and trusting relationship with Prime Minister Stolypin. This is a known fact. He convinced all these Moscow circles that he would be able to make this model, which was being pushed through in 1905, work, work as we would like, and he would be responsible for it. He heads the largest faction in the State Duma, the Octobrist faction, he has full trusting relations with Stolypin, so he can,
in our language, to resolve all commercial issues.
M. SOKOLOV: But it didn't work out.
A. PYZHIKOV: His first experience was positive in 1908. Still, Guchkov and the Duma were able to persuade Stolypin to stop initiatives to create a trust from metallurgical activities in the south, where foreign capital was at the heart of it. It was a very big victory in 1908. Historians of economics know it, I think they remember it. Then, of course, slippage began. Feeling this, Guchkov decided to take an extreme step. He decided to head the third State Duma in order to gain access to the king. He then received the right of a permanent report from the emperor. He decided to use this right to influence him. And so in 1910, from the head of the largest faction, he became the chairman of the State Duma. But communication with the king did not work out. Specifically, Guchkov planned ... He was convinced that he persuaded the tsar to appoint one character as the minister of the sea. Nicholas II agreed, saw him off with a smile and appointed another - Grigorovich in 1911, after which it became clear to everyone what Guchkov's influence was, that it was close to zero, if at all one could talk about any here. After that, the merchants came to an understanding, the realization that this model would lead nowhere.
M. SOKOLOV: Alexander Vladimirovich, it turns out that somewhere in 1914 we see a real political aggravation by the summer of 1914 exactly similar to the same scenario in the summer before 1905 - practically the same slogans, strikes begin at various enterprises, Moscow in particular. What's this? So they're up to their old ways again, right? Only by finding allies, as I understand it, also in the bureaucracy. A. PYZHIKOV: Here is the most interesting episode in our history of the tsarist empire, which for some reason falls out of the field of view of researchers. We were just talking about Guchkov, that he was trying to play some kind of role as an intermediary, such as between the government and Moscow business circles. All this ended in complete political bankruptcy of him at that time. Then another character was found who took on this role with great success and reason. This is not about some kind of merchant, but about one of the royal favorites, favorites of the royal couple - the emperor and empress. I'm talking about Alexander Vasilyevich Krivoshein. This is an extremely interesting figure in Russian history. What's interestnig? He moved up the royal bureaucratic ladder, very confidently moving quickly. That is, it was a very turbulent career. She was provided by one royal entourage - this is Goremykin. Such was the Prime Minister, Minister of the Interior. He provided patronage to Krivoshein. Krivoshein moved very quickly and ended up in Stolypin's government almost as his right hand. But one detail is overlooked. Krivoshein was not just a tsarist bureaucrat. At the end of the 19th century, he married the granddaughter of Timofey Isaevich Morozov, the pillar himself, the father of Savva Morozov, Elena Karpova, to be exact in her last name. And he became related to such a merchant clan, which was at the center of this entire Moscow bourgeoisie and Moscow merchants. He became his own. And here we are, for the first time in Russian history, which was not the case for the entire 19th century, and there is no need to talk about an earlier time, we are witnessing such a strange combination of circumstances that the tsar's favorite and his own man in the Moscow merchants. It was this special position of him in these power and economic structures that allowed him to become a centerpiece in the promotion of the parliamentary project, that is, the transformation of the Duma from a legislative into a full-fledged parliament in the Western sense of the word. That is, the Duma, which not only issues laws, but also influences appointments in the government that governs. Krivoshein wanted to do it. The Moscow merchants, naturally connected with him by family ties, entered into a stronger alliance with him than with Guchkov. He at that time had already moved to the second or third roles, he was not visible. It was Krivoshein who undertook to push it from above. This is 1915. In 1914, before the war, it all started, it started successfully, Krivoshein took very successful steps to eliminate his opponents from the government. Of course, there was a corresponding strike fund in St. Petersburg. It all started again. Of course, other people were already in charge here - this is the Social Democratic faction of the Duma "Trudoviki", where Kerensky is already appearing. They were already led by representatives of the merchant class,
In particular, Konovalov is a major capitalist, the closest ally of Ryabushinsky, an ally of a whole group ... He is also a very prominent and respected merchant of Moscow. He was in touch, he was also a member of the State Duma, he was responsible for this direction. That is, the whole situation was agitated again. In 1915, there were already military conditions, but nevertheless, due to the fact that there were failures at the front, it was decided to revive this topic again. Krivoshein started it...
M. SOKOLOV: That is, a progressive bloc was created from the right to the actual social democrats in the Duma under the slogan of such a responsible government of people's trust. In fact, it turns out that you think that it was the Moscow merchant group that stood behind him.
A. PYZHIKOV: In economic terms, if all this worked out and was implemented, then in the economic sense, the Moscow merchants would be the main beneficiary of this whole thing. This is beyond any doubt.
M. SOKOLOV: And why didn’t Nicholas II make such a decision, on the contrary, somehow turned his back, finally dismissed Krivoshein, went to a confrontation. What was the point? The project was quite profitable during the war. They promised stabilization, full mutual understanding with the virtually stable majority of the Duma. Why did he make such a suicidal decision?
A. PYZHIKOV: Here, after all, the key words are probably "During the war." This whole epic, the whole story with the progressive bloc developed during the war. Nicholas II refused to make such political moves under military conditions. He believed that it was necessary to bring this war to a victorious end first, and then return to this topic on the laurels of the winner, but not earlier. It was for this sequence of actions that he spoke very harshly. And Krivoshein could not convince him. Krivoshein said that this should be done, it would have a better effect on our military affairs and we would win faster. But Nicholas II believed that it was still better to lead the army. He became supreme commander just in August 1915. "It is now more timely than to get carried away with political combinations. Political combinations," he thought, "will wait for the end of the war. We will return to them later." In the meantime, he laid down his authority, which, by the way, Krivoshein did not advise him to put on the altar of his authority and his figure, his royal person, that it would be better to let the Supreme Commander-in-Chief Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich lead the troops. Even in case of failure, everything can be attributed to him, as it were. But Nicholas II decided that he would take it all upon himself, this is his duty. And he laid himself completely on the military direction, which is natural during the war years. And he decided to leave all political combinations, political actions for later. But since Krivoshein and his allies from the government insisted, he was forced to part with them, so to speak.
M. SOKOLOV: Good. Well, nevertheless, with the participation of the merchants of this already familiar to us, military-industrial committees were created, with working groups under them. The police, in particular, I see, considered them a network of conspirators, destabilizers and so on. And in their main activities, they were not effective enough ... What is your opinion? What were those structures anyway? Were these structures helping the army or were they structures that were preparing some kind of political actions?
A. PYZHIKOV: During the war years, it was in Moscow that she was the initiator... Bourgeois circles, zemstvo circles initiated the creation of public organizations to help the front. That is, the idea is that the bureaucracy is not coping with its duties, cannot ensure victory, so the public must get involved. Here, in the person of the zemstvo city union and a new such organization ... This invention of the First World War is the military-industrial committees, where the bourgeoisie gathers strength and helps the front to forge victory. But we note that all the military-industrial committees acted on public funds. All this from the budget went to these military-industrial committees. They operated with these amounts, but they didn’t particularly want to report, of course. Here, in addition to helping the front, so-called working groups arose under the military-industrial committees ... Again, this is a trademark, such, a sign of the Moscow merchants,
when the popular layers were again pulled up to solve some problems that they needed to push through at the top. Such a fund was created. These working groups, so to speak, demonstrated the voice of the people in support of the initiatives that the merchant bourgeoisie is implementing. By the way, there are a lot of working groups ... For example, at the Central Military Industrial Complex - this is at the Central Military Industrial Committee - they have done very big things. With the help of the working group, the sequestration of the Putilov plant, which belonged to the banking group of the Russian-Asian bank, was carried out. The Moscow merchants have always opposed the banks of St. Petersburg and tried to infringe on them as much as possible. The working groups made their contribution here even during the First World War. And of course, just before February 1917, all those memoirs that have been published and studied in exile now, they allow us to assert that the working groups were really a military headquarters, I will not be afraid of this word, to loosen the tsarist regime directly at the last stage. It was they who coordinated all the actions together with the Duma in order to show tsarism that it was doomed.
M. SOKOLOV: Tell me, the Guchkov conspiracy, the military-merchant conspiracy, which many of your colleagues write about, allegedly against Nikolai and Alexandra Fedorovna, is still a myth or an unrealized opportunity due to such a spontaneous start of a soldier’s revolt in February 1917.
A. PYZHIKOV: Of course, this is not a myth. The whole sequence of actions performed by the Moscow merchants convinces that they went to this consciously. For this, there were various allies - Guchkov, Krivoshein ... By the way, when the tsar dismissed Krivoshein in September 1915, they quickly forget about him, all the Moscow merchants. He becomes nothing to them. They are already fully determined to undermine the tsarist regime frankly. And here the theme of Rasputin reaches its climax. She was so smoldering, and now she is becoming a powerful tool with which the royal couple is discredited. Soldiers' riot, yes, happened. This is in February 1917. There really was a riot. Of course, they created the whole atmosphere in which it could happen, but they hardly expected those consequences.
M. SOKOLOV: And the last thing, perhaps, I still want to look into what you have not yet written in 1917. Why did these people, who were so actively rushing to power, not be able to keep it?
A. PYZHIKOV: Well, yes. Well, firstly, the February Revolution of 1917 ended in bankruptcy. It was replaced by the October one and beyond ... Well, because after all, the liberal project that the Moscow merchants promoted - it suffered a complete collapse, it failed. That is, the restructuring of state life on liberal rails, constitutional, liberal, as they wanted and believed that this would help Russia was not fully justified. The popular masses turned out to be absolutely deaf to this liberal project, absolutely deaf. They didn't accept him. They did not understand the charms that were obvious to the Moscow merchants, the political charms. The masses had completely different priorities, a different idea of how to live ...
M. SOKOLOV: That is, all the same community and all the same idea of the old schismatic?
A. PYZHIKOV: Yes. These deep layers... They lived by their communal collective psychology. It was she who burst out. The liberal project has become irrelevant here.
On Thursday, June 19, the cycle of lectures Homo religiosus, organized by the Yegor Gaidar Foundation, the Russian Economic School and the Dynasty Foundation, ended. As part of the lecture "Economics and Orthodoxy" Danila Raskov, Candidate of Economic Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Economic Theory and the Department of Problems of Interdisciplinary Synthesis in the Field of Social and Human Sciences of St. Petersburg State University, spoke about how economic relations were formed among the Old Believers and why they turned out to be so effective as entrepreneurs. The full text of the lecture can be read on the website of the Yegor Gaidar Foundation, and we abbreviated that part of it that is directly devoted to the analysis of the economic activity of the Old Believers in Russia.
I don’t know how much detail is needed and whether it is necessary to explain who the Old Believers are. Initially, the split, as you know, arose as a result of the reform of 1654-1666: there was a long process, since ritual differences gave rise to a rather serious struggle, which resulted in one of the greatest tragedies in the history of our country. It is no coincidence that Solzhenitsyn is credited with the words that "if it weren't for the 17th century, there would be no 1917." What we see here: well, let's say, two-fingered. Indeed, due to the advance of the Russian Empire towards Little Russia, Ukraine, it became necessary to bring the ritual part to a single canon. There was an idea to call the Greeks and stabilize the rite. In history, it must be said, they were baptized with three fingers, and with two. By the 17th century, on the very territory of Constantinople, they were baptized with three fingers, but then historians revealed that there is a Studian charter and a Jerusalem charter, they are just different, and there is a different sign of the cross. But because of this seemingly small difference, it all started: how to draw - “Jesus” or “Jesus”, to pray on seven or five prosphora, on the sun or against the sun.
The Old Believers set themselves the task of preserving unchanged not only the ritual side - this was connected with the entire liturgical rite. Then, of course, what is interesting, the original conservatism brought to life serious innovations. For example, the radical innovation of the Bespopovites: to renounce five of the seven sacraments altogether, since the rejection of the priesthood led to this. In this sense, they are just compared, and partly rightly, with Protestants: there will be an instrumental similarity here. The second element of the picture of the world that can be identified among the Old Believers is the idea of "Moscow is the third Rome" and, in general, eschatologism. It is generally inherent in Christian thought, and not only in Christian thought, both Babylonian and Egyptian. But when this becomes actual, it is difficult to understand why, at some point in time, eschatological feelings lead to self-immolation, and at some point, to hard work. This is one of the ambivalent elements that manifest themselves differently in different periods of time, and it is inherent in the entire Christian culture.
Well, the last thing I would note in the picture of the world is the desire to develop a practice that would be more in line with the true, correct life. Because where is the Antichrist, he can be very close: maybe in the handset, maybe in the device; or maybe how I pick up the phone depends on whether he is there or not. Some today are convinced that you shouldn't keep your phone at home. Then such hooks appeared: you come to the house, to the sacred space, and hang up your mobile phone at the entrance. The TV is also taboo for the older generation, but if it is in the closet, it is already easier, sometimes it opens - to show cartoons, for example. In fact, these practices of salvation have interesting aspects in economic life too.
If we talk about economic ethics and practice, what do we see? Both missionaries and those who traveled around the country, for example Aksakov, who was sent to Moldavia and Bessarabia, were surprised, left notes that the Old Believer villages were more prosperous: it was cleaner there, more horses, cows, and so on. And so it is almost everywhere. Thrift yes, idleness no. No one should be idle - community interaction, help, trust. The institutions of trust could also be transformed into the area of capital. When a community finds itself in a situation of persecution, these issues are quickly updated, any means of fighting for survival become important and significant.
By the way, what happened in the Old Believers: the spiritual elite itself initially blessed both trade and entrepreneurship. Moreover, the experience of the Vygovskaya Pomeranian Hermitage (this is still the beginning of the 18th century, that is, one of the very first experiments) showed that the kinoviarchs, that is, the leaders of such a secular monastery (secular, because there were no priests, there were no monks by definition, therefore correctly called - hostel or kinovia), they themselves led the trade and participated in it, took loans together. It's pretty much even described. Trading rules appeared: how to trade, how to keep records. According to some observations, even in the Soviet years, the Old Believers were more trusted with accounting. This issue requires a separate study, but is partially confirmed.
At the same time, we have a certain paradox: the paradox of conservatism and innovative potential. He, of course, is not the only one - here you can recall, say, Orthodox Jews, recently a lot of research has appeared on this subject, in America - the Amish, for example. The examples are local, but they are interesting.
How many Old Believers-industrialists were in Moscow?
How successful were the Old Believers in Moscow, in particular in textiles, what determined success, what was the dynamics? Actually, what has been done in historical and economic terms. There are two sets of data: one is industrial, the other is confessional, that is, associated with belonging to the Old Believers. Their union gives an answer to the question of how successful the Old Believers were. Of course, a lot of doubts arise here: if the head of the enterprise is an Old Believer, can we consider that this is an Old Believer business? Ambiguous. The question is even if he acts like an Old Believer, but has already converted to a common faith or official Orthodoxy, does business cease to be an Old Believer or not? You have to answer somehow. I answer yes to the first question, and no to the second. If the head of the factory is an Old Believer, then yes, I believe that this is an Old Believer enterprise, although there are some reservations.
By the end of the 19th century, the situation becomes more complicated, joint-stock companies appear - more impersonal forms of business management, which did not exist in the middle of the 19th century, or were extremely uncommon. But textiles are still dominated by private business. Even if a joint-stock company is being created, it is still known who the shareholder is: usually it is five families, five dynasties or someone outside, foreigners or from official Orthodoxy - at the end of the 19th century, this all changes.
In the 1850s, the question arose: how many schismatics do we really have? We began to look at what data they supply: every year - the same thing, with a slight downward trend. But if you look - who supplies? Bishops. But the bishops report: the struggle is going well, there are fewer and fewer of them. They sent a commission to the places, but there are no criteria here either. It got to the point of absurdity. For example, there was such a Sinitsyn: he came to the Yaroslavl province and wherever he found copper icons in the houses, he believed that they were Old Believers. It turned out that there are 18 times more Old Believers than according to the data of the bishops, which is also wrong, because if a person has a copper icon, then it can simply be folk Orthodoxy, he is not necessarily an Old Believer. Then a criterion was introduced: is there a rosary and how is it baptized. But a person can also be baptized with two fingers, and in church several times with three fingers, while one of the priests is watching. That is, the criteria were very difficult.
In the 19th century, we really see a lot of biographies, when a person lived, and then once - and suddenly he suddenly became rich. Ryabushinsky - it's only for the sake of marriage that he converts to the old faith, the founder of the dynasty, then he rises. We see: a lot of neophytes. The founder of the Preobrazhensky cemetery, Ilya Alekseevich Kovylin, is also a neophyte, and there are a lot of such biographies. People from Guslitsa are known - such an ancient place where people have never been engaged in agriculture, but where there were a lot of crafts - Gzhel is also included there. It was rumored that they were also good at forging banknotes, if necessary, passports.
Trumps of the Old Believers
What is the comparative context for this problem? On the one hand, ethics, on the other, the effect of the persecuted group. What interests economists in such topics? Economists are interested in the homogeneity of the group and the various characteristics of this homogeneity, and it is clear that this has certain advantages for trade. The possibility of private settlement of conflicts: if the legal system is not developed, and the community itself, for example, can discount bills or conduct some other operations, or generally guarantee property rights, that is, exercise parallel control. The same goes for the origin of the mafia in Italy, one of the theories is: the aristocracy is gone - the lords are gone, and who are the masters of the land? And then people appear and say: we know how to act.
With a strong legal and judicial system, this comparative advantage becomes irrelevant - institutions of trust, reciprocity, big debates on reputation mechanisms - how are they even measured and how do they affect trade and industry? And, of course, all this can be packaged into formulas such as human capital and social capital. For example, education or literacy: it is obvious that the Old Believers were generally more literate than the average peasantry, which is part of official Orthodoxy. Why? We had to conduct the service ourselves, copy the books ourselves. Literacy in this sense was expensive, not everyone could afford it. It took time, effort, and money to learn. Suppose the cow had to be given to the one who taught. Social capital is the relationships that are already formed in communities: an instrument of reputation, trust, and so on. All this can be packaged in different ways, as I said.
How do we know the numbers?
Now very briefly about the data - and move on to the results. In principle, revisions give a lot in terms of understanding belonging to the Old Believers in Moscow. The ninth and tenth revisions took into account religion. According to the results of the ninth audit, 624 families were registered as parishioners of either the non-priest community or the priest's community. Most of the priestly community, somewhere around 85% for this period. The difference between priests and bespopovtsy ranges from 70% to 90%. This is due, among other things, to the fact that the Bespopovtsy advertised their affiliation less, remained in the shadows, because they were officially recognized as more harmful, and feared reprisals.
Very interesting information is given by the synodics. We already know this for sure: since they pray in the church of the Rogozh community, it means that they are definitely Old Believers. There were observations of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, a very interesting document of 1838, in fact, about all significant merchants with a description of their activities. As for industry, they managed to take seven points - this is not so many, but not so few - and get hold of all the data on doing business. For processing, information was used only for six years, the cut-off level was from 10 thousand rubles, because the same accounting was not carried out for all years. Of course, we still need to figure it out, but in general we can say that there is still no more reliable information. For textile factories, there is data on turnover, the number of workers, and what they did. For 1871 - detailed information about the technical condition, but this has yet to be provided additionally.
This is what industrial information looks like: who and where is located, how many mills, workers, turnover, what it produces - by year.
This map shows how important Moscow industry was: we see that with a huge excess, twice, in 1870 Moscow industry is in the lead. Then factories appear in the Vladimir region, in the Ryazan region, of course, in St. Petersburg, but this is somewhat later. By 1832, as a result of this processing, we see that 18% of the textile industry belongs to the Old Believers. The next question is: is it a lot or a little? In principle, given that this is thoroughly confirmed, a lot. In this case, we are talking about 60, if we take the city and counties, and 76 enterprises. They are, of course, different in size. There is no exact data on the number of Old Believers, but estimates fluctuate, starting at 4%. The most optimistic figure is 16% for one of the years. From this you can judge what is happening.
These are general data, they are pro-cyclical, and we see that the upper blue border is the total number of firms, then the dotted pink dash is just the proportion of Old Believer firms. There is some stability, and then a recession. Stability is about 20-25%, then, at the end of the 19th century, there is a decrease. Accordingly, the number of firms remains roughly the same.
If we take the overall data for the textile industry, we see (share is the red line, green dotted line is the labor force) that at some periods there is a comparative advantage in the labor force, that is, they are able to attract significantly more workers. And the share of firms in the total turnover is also subject to such a single cycle. In this case, it is more than 20%, and after 1870 there is a decline.
More specifically, in the wool industry. In the first column here is simply the share of enterprises, then the share in turnover, the share in the labor force. In this table, it is interesting that the share of the employed labor force almost always exceeds the share of firms, that is, there are relatively more workers working there, while the output is relatively higher than the labor force indicator, labor productivity is higher. And this delta is the difference in the median value for the totality of Old Believers and non-Old Believers, Old Believers minus non-Old Believers. In this sense, their average labor productivity per worker is higher. It is clear that this is the “average temperature in the hospital”, because there are some very large enterprises, and there are small ones, but this will still tell us a lot, especially since we are taking not the average here, but the median, and this gives closer to reality.
We no longer have this in the cotton industry, and here it is clear that these are mainly small firms with low productivity, and the share will be much higher than the share in terms of turnover. Well, not significantly - depending on the years, sometimes significantly, sometimes the same. But here we no longer see the general dynamics. Moreover, by the end of the 19th century, the cotton industry partially left Moscow and the Moscow district, so we see such data. In any case, the Old Believers no longer have any weight here: the Morozovs are already working in the Tver province or in other districts, for example, in Borovsky.
In principle, what we found is that the Old Believers were overrepresented, they had an increased propensity for entrepreneurship, they hired on average more labor in the wool industry, and the enterprises showed high productivity. In general, until 1870 we observe a very stable participation in economic life, then a relative decline.
Waves of repression and cycles of economic activity
How to interpret the fall and how important are empirical data to us in this aspect? It is very interesting to trace the cyclical waves of repression. Some historians write that this is of great importance, because first there were harsh repressions, almost suffocation, and then weakening. And then moments of weakening, liberalization, respectively, form a special community, institutions appear, and this very moment of persecution leads to the fact that natural selection leaves these close-knit people, the strongest. I am joking about this: for a long time there was no persecution of the Old Believers, so now they are not so noticeable economically. But this is a joke, of course. In principle, already under Nicholas I, they set the task of solving the problem with the Old Believers, but they could not. At the same time, for example, they still awarded medals - there were persecutions and awards at the same time, because who will solve the problems? I came across a document: it is known that the sovereign will go there and there, and then they missed it, the road is broken, because military exercises or something like that took place along it. Who will restore? We turned to the Old Believer merchants. They have restored everything and say: we have only one thing - give us a state diploma that we are so good. Well, they did. Or in Petrozavodsk: the sovereign will arrive - but the embankment is not in order. Who will fix it? And a medal for that too. That is, the history of the appearance of the medal is clear here. There were different interpretations, I probably won't dwell on it.
A more interesting question is how to explain the decline. At first, we see the underdevelopment of market institutions, and then the role of the Old Believers is significant. In general, when personal relationships dominate, Christian ethics are in demand; when legal institutions grow, its role in any case decreases, it becomes marginalized. For example, honesty: it is clear that honesty is important in trading. By the way, while researching the Old Believer entrepreneurship, I saw that not everything is simple there. Sometimes siblings give each other money by receipt. It would seem: why on receipt - these are brothers. And so that the devil does not get stuck! That is, they gave a receipt - and you can live in peace.
The role of Moscow
In the second half of the 19th century, we see the development of joint-stock forms of ownership, that is, impersonal relations, the banking sector; growing number of foreigners. If you look at the St. Petersburg merchant guild, then 40 percent there will be Protestants and Jews, in some periods even more. This is a different picture in terms of the fact that the very nature of business is changing. The role of the state has changed: if in the first half of the 19th century it was not particularly active, then later it is more and more clearly indicated. Therefore, of course, the Old Believers in this sense consciously or unconsciously distance themselves. On the one hand, the state itself is not exactly eager to help them financially, on the other hand, they themselves are retreating. Other areas are developing: railway construction, metallurgy, mining. Well, in general, the role of St. Petersburg is important - as Ryabushinsky wrote, slow Russian peasants who measuredly make decisions, crossing themselves, die in the atmosphere of St. Petersburg. Here already other personalities come to replace.
Pros and cons of the Old Believer model
The last aspect that I will dwell on is that economic ethics itself has an ambivalent character. It would seem that hard work is good. But to a certain extent. Everything depends on the historical moment, on the ability to adjust and adapt. If at some stage this can contribute to high productivity, then at another stage it preserves labor-intensive production. We work hard and work and work instead of replacing it with machine labor.
Thrift – On the one hand, frugality has promoted self-financing. On the other hand, when it became possible to take bank loans at low interest, thrift could slow down processes, because a habit was formed to live on one's own. When there was no capital market, it was very important.
Trust, but trust in whom - in the elect, in the same Old Believers. It is clear that there may be an interest-free loan, and the availability of labor, but the flip side is weak integration into the impersonal market process and even some kind of distrust in it. That also hinders development.
Finally, community. On the one hand, it ensures close economic ties, but they are self-contained, segregated. There is a well-known sociological work - "The Power of Weak Ties": the strength of weak ties among the Old Believers is no longer observed, because strong ties dominate. In this sense, one can show the ambivalence of economic ethics, which at different stages can either promote or hinder development.
M. SOKOLOV: Good evening. On the air of "Echo of Moscow" and the TV channel "RTVi" "The price of victory. The price of revolution. Mikhail Sokolov is at the microphone. Today in our studio Alexander Pyzhikov, Professor of the Russian State University for the Humanities, Doctor of Historical Sciences. We are talking today about the Old Believers, or schismatics, in the era before the great war and during it. The initiators were the NRZB sponsors of the revolution, some have suggested. Actually, I'll start with a general, such approach. Alexander Vladimirovich, official statistics gave the figure of 2 million schismatics in Russia. But in fact, what part of the population of the Russian Empire at the beginning of the 20th century was in different senses, currents, agreements of the old faith?
A. PYZHIKOV: Good evening. Of course, the question of the statistics of the Old Believers is the most painful topical issue in the study of this entire phenomenon of Russian history. It's not just important. As important as it is, it is also confusing. Since, of course, there are no reliable statistics on how many Old Believers in different stories were in our country. To answer it, one must, of course, recall the decree of Peter I - this was the time of the first revision in 1716. That is, this is the first revision that described how many people are on the territory of the Russian Empire, then the question was first raised of who would consider themselves to be Old Believers, schismatics, as they said then. The result was such that of those who participated in this census, in modern terms, 2% of the population called themselves Old Believers - 191 thousand people, a little more. This accounted for 2% of that population of the Russian Empire. Since then, from 1716 until the end of the 19th century, namely, until the 1897 census, the census of the Russian Empire, which was carried out by decree of Nicholas II, this figure - 2% of the population - has not changed much. And 1897 gave the same results. In the column "Religious affiliation", again, the same 2% of the population classified themselves as schismatics. Only the population of the empire increased and therefore it was no longer 191 thousand people, as in 1716, but already about 2 million people. But nevertheless, this is still the same 2% of the population of the empire. These are quantitative data. They tried to question them. They tried to question them and find out what the real state of affairs in this matter was the imperial power itself, namely Nicholas I. Emperor Nicholas I initiated and conducted large-scale geographical, as they were then called, statistical in spirit, research on the commonality of the Old Believers. He checked the great interest in this religious denomination that existed on the territory of the country, and he was constantly told that, of course, there was no talk of any 2% here, it was simply inappropriate to talk about it. Then Nicholas I had a reasonable question: how much exactly? Selectively 3, as they were then called, expeditions (commissions, expeditions, to use the terminology of those years) were organized selectively in the province of the central region - namely, in Kostroma, Nizhny Novgorod and Yaroslavl. These expeditions were organized by the forces of the central apparatus of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. It was the Ministry of Internal Affairs in those years that was the main ministry and was in charge of the affairs of the split. Why by the forces of the central apparatus? Since the data provided by the local provincial authorities were known. They did not inspire confidence in the authorities. Therefore, in order to clarify the real true state of affairs, it was decided to send officials of the central apparatus, who had nothing to do with the local authorities, to give them the broadest powers in this matter so that they could somehow clarify this issue.
M. SOKOLOV: Well, how?
A. PYZHIKOV: By the way, we were lucky. Historians are lucky. Because we have a very complete picture of these commissions. Especially about the Yaroslavl commission, which was headed by Count Stenbock-Fermor, this was ... The 27-year-old official of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the central apparatus Ivan Sergeevich Aksakov, the future Russian writer, publicist known to everyone, worked in this commission. So, Aksakov wrote letters from there - from the Yaroslavl province - to his relatives home, where he shared his impressions, which he gathered a lot there. By the way, these expeditions were not short-lived. They lasted 2-3 years.
M. SOKOLOV: Alexander Vladimirovich, do not languish. How much was actually calculated for the provinces?
A. PYZHIKOV: These officials and the Ministry of Defense came to the conclusion that the figures that appear in the provincial reports should be multiplied by 11 times. But they made a comment: "Apparently, this does not reflect the true state of affairs."
M. SOKOLOV: That is, apparently, the ratio remained approximately the same, that is, at least 25-30% actually belonged not to the Nikonian faith, but to the Old Belief ...
A. PYZHIKOV: In 1897, when the census was carried out and the same 2% of schismatics - 2 million - were indicated, then in the Russian press of those years, a mass of articles immediately appeared that began to comment on this. The articles were titled: “2 million or 20?” That is, again, this is a tenfold, elevenfold increase. That is, even an increase that was recorded in good faith in the epoch of Nicholas (Nicholas I) - it has been preserved. Apparently, if we are to put an end to this issue, it must be said in this way: if 2% is real of the population of the empire, and there were over 70% of the Orthodox in the Russian Empire, then, it seems to me, given all the events that then happened to this empire - the fact that it ceased to exist - allows us to talk about a figure of 35% of the population from the Orthodox who lived on the territory of our country.
M. SOKOLOV: Let me remind you that Alexander Pyzhikov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, is on the air of Ekho Moskvy. We are talking about schismatics, Old Believers… Phone for SMS, so you can send your question - +7-985-970-45-45. Alexander Vladimirovich, didn’t the empire perceive the Old Believers as foreign agents? After all, as I understand it, the highest hierarchy, for example, the priests, was outside Russia, but, in my opinion, in Austria-Hungary. So it was?
A. PYZHIKOV: Yes. The white cornice is, of course, a well-known historical plot ...
M. SOKOLOV: That is, they tried to control them all the time, so to speak, as such a suspicious community.
A. PYZHIKOV: Yes, especially the same Nicholas I, whom we just mentioned. In general, he was preoccupied with all sorts of revolutionary ideas, currents that developed at that time and gained popularity in the West. Therefore, he was worried about everything that posed a threat to his throne, so to speak. And the old believers as well.
M. SOKOLOV: Good. If we talk about, in fact, already that part of the Old Believers who rose up, got rich, and so on ... If you look at your book, you get the feeling that something happened there, something interesting, I would say, with morality at the end of the 19th century. After all, many Old Believers actually got rich on community money, on public money. And then it turned out that they privatized this common, so to speak, such, confessional property, they became merchants, manufacturers. However, they seem to have retained their influence over fellow believers, right? An interesting phenomenon, isn't it? On the one hand, they seem to have slightly robbed them, and on the other hand, they could influence them. How to explain it?
A. PYZHIKOV: Yes, indeed. This interest of Nicholas I in the Old Believers ended with the fact that the Old Believers fell under the harsh repressive pressure that he arranged. That is, he decided that since the matter here is dark and muddy with this old belief, then it is necessary to destroy it all. Nicholas I first of all tried to destroy the economic model, the economic model of the Old Believers. And rightly so, as you said, the economic model of the Old Believers was based not on private property, but on communal property. Our language, on public property. That is, such collective beginnings in the economy. Why was it? Where did it come from? Why is it so preserved? It's very simple. Because the old faith was that losing religious denomination, which was always subjected to persecution and pressure. In order to survive in an environment alien to them, in the confessional plan, first of all, then, of course, some kind of collective efforts were required. Therefore, all their development and the alignment of their lives took place not around the establishment of the institution of private property, but around collective communal principles. That is, "all together must support life and preserve our faith." Hence such conservation and chanting of such collective principles. All of this was indeed ancient. On the part of the authorities, this was not at first revealed so clearly and clearly. This understanding came only in the middle of the 19th century. Again, it is Nicholas I and his officials who established this first. What happened? It turned out that Nicholas I decided to simply stop this practice and transfer everything to the normal, so to speak, rails of Roman law ...
M. SOKOLOV: That is, to transfer the property to private owners.
A. PYZHIKOV: Yes, everything is as it should be. That is, the heirs must inherit, there, the right to inheritance cannot be questioned by anything and everything else. Although there, inside this confessional Old Believer society, there was a different logic and other, so to speak, laws, if they can be called laws. The managers were not the owners. They were the managers of these enterprises. They were not the real owners. And they could not tell someone if the children ceased, as it were, to be related to faith or did not show those business qualities, like their parents. But now, in the middle of the 19th century, this model is completely broken under pressure from the authorities. And it is being normalized from the point of view of civilized civil law. The right of heritage has been completely restored. And I must say that these managers, who looked like owners in the first half of the 19th century for the authorities, they quickly realized where this power press gives them advantages. What are the benefits? The benefits are simple. Dependence not on the Gentiles, but on the imperial law, of course, seemed more promising. They quickly accepted these rules of the game, which the authorities imposed. And, in fact, from the middle ... To be more precise, after the abolition of serfdom, already in the post-reform period, they completely integrated into the civil and legal field of the empire and became the same capitalists as those from St. Petersburg or the south or some others.
M. SOKOLOV: As I understand it, in Russia, somewhere by the end of the 19th century, such a rather powerful Moscow group of merchants, manufacturers and immigrants from the Old Believers appeared, who found mutual understanding with the authorities, at least under Alexander III. On what basis did this mutual understanding arise at that moment?
A. PYZHIKOV: Of course, it appeared. You're right. This must be singled out and said that this is such an integral and important feature of the history of the 19th century. From the middle of the 19th century, the entire second half of this century is characterized by the fact that a powerful economic player enters the economic arena - this is the Moscow merchant group. Why Moscow? This is not in the sense that it acted exclusively within the framework of Moscow. Moscow is somewhat of a common name. They lived in Moscow. But their factories, manufactories and enterprises were located throughout central Russia. It's a huge enclave. Center of Russia, Volga region. This Moscow group grew up absolutely on market conditions, absolutely without the help of the government, they did not ask for help, and they did not think that why should anyone help ... They had their own interests - foreign, noble circles. So, this group, which grew up on confessional peasant market foundations, they all came from peasants, semi-literate. The first ones especially. This group began to claim their right to their rightful place in the Russian Empire, motivated by the fact that “We are, in fact, native Russian people. We are locals, we are not foreigners, we are not semi-Germans, as is the bureaucracy and so on. And we have the right, so to speak, to a controlling stake in the Russian economy. We are Russian people, we have this right.”
M. SOKOLOV: And, in general, it somehow happily coincided with the change in the official ideology…
A. PYZHIKOV: Of course. Alexander II, as it were, kept tolerant towards them, but at a distance. Lots of facts about it. That is, he did not seek to meet them, but at the same time, of course, he stopped the practice that Nicholas I used. That is, these are already diametrically opposed things. But he did not cooperate. Such a quiet neutrality was friendly. With Alexander III the situation changes. And it changes very noticeably. We all remember that Alexander III was such a nationally oriented sovereign, if I may say so ... Alexander II, by the way, spoke French most of the time. With Alexander III, the situation, of course, is absolutely radically changing. It is nationally emphasized. He relies on national forces, since the ideological course of Alexander III was provided by the so-called Russian party, as it is called in history. This is a Russian party, which included the Slavophiles, Aksakov, whom we mentioned, Samarin, Chizhov - this is such a businessman of the Slavophil spill, a group headed by Katkov, who, of course, also showed himself in the national field, Prince Meshchersky is a childhood friend Alexander III, who, so to speak, the branch of the Russian Party in St. Petersburg, as it was called, arranged ...
M. SOKOLOV: The newspaper "Citizen"...
A. PYZHIKOV: Yes, the Grazhdanin newspaper. And it was these people who gathered a different audience ... Moreover, the writer Dostoevsky was there. He participated in these meetings. Melnikov-Pechersky, who wrote about the Old Believer epic in the forests on the mountains. That is, everything was saturated with such a national spirit.
M. SOKOLOV: Dostoevsky advised them: “Call the gray zipuns”, that is, “Appeal to the peasantry, to the people” ... They, the merchants, were called, people from the people ...
A. PYZHIKOV: Here, yes, it turned out ... This group, called the Russian Party, found itself an object worthy of applying its ideological views. Moreover, these merchants willingly went to this meeting, because they understood that not everyone at the top of that time was ready to cooperate with them. They understood everything perfectly. They were happy to play the natives of the people, who need to be taken care of, whose business needs to be helped in every possible way.
M. SOKOLOV: Helped,
A. PYZHIKOV: Of course, they helped. Alexander III took a step towards them. In general, I even say in my book using such a wording that the Old Believer merchants of Moscow represented a kind of economic branch of the Russian Party. They fed the economic ideas of Katkov and Aksakov. What are economic ideas? This is protectionism. Rigid protectionism. Of course they helped. Alexander III went for it. His finance minister was Vyshnegradsky, who was promoted to a key post by the economic efforts of Katkov, Aksakov, Meshchersky instead of Bunge, whom they considered liberal and unworthy of responding to national ideas. Vyshnegradsky established the most powerful, it is known, protectionist customs tariff... The largest in Europe. And under the protection of his tariff...
M. SOKOLOV: In other words, closed the market and made their business opportunities more profitable?
A. PYZHIKOV: Yes, so that they get stronger, so that the domestic economy gets stronger, so that representatives of this domestic economy can reach a new level. And they went out. This is absolutely accurate. By the end of the 19th century, the Moscow merchant group had grown stronger than ever.
M. SOKOLOV: Alexander Vladimirovich, here comes Nicholas II, and what? Is the situation really changing? The empire begins to pursue a policy of partially open doors, the introduction of foreign capital. This, in fact, leads to a conflict between the Moscow Old Believer merchant class and the gradual government, right? That is, they are trying to change something... This was really the most fundamental question for them - there, on the customs tariff, on some kind of export duties, and so on?
A. PYZHIKOV: Yes. There are 2 key points in the history of the Old Believer merchant class. We have already mentioned one thing - this is the middle of the 19th century, when they, in fact, entered the civil field of the empire. And the second key point, which was reflected in the fate of the entire Russian Empire, was the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, associated with a change in the course of tsarism. What exactly was the change? Of course, the protectionist tariff was high, it remained high. Finance Minister Witte, who by that time had become finance minister, naturally did not encroach on him. But he put forward the following idea, which he personified in person. The idea was to attract foreign capital in amounts never seen before. The logic was simple: “Russian merchants are good, no one talks. But it can take a very long time to wait until they reach the right conditions when they grow up. We are hopelessly behind the West. Therefore, you need to immediately make a breakthrough. First of all, we need to open the gates for foreign capital here. Let them come here, equip production facilities, enterprises, make some industrial assets. This will allow you to make a leap forward. And the merchants? Good, but let's wait." That is, thereby they indicated a second role. And they claimed to be the most important violin in the economy. And they were told that from now on there can be no talk of any first roles. It was very insulting for them, because Witte started absolutely as a man of the circles of Aksakov and Katkov. He was published in their editions, in their newspapers. His own uncle, Fadeev, was the leader of the Russian Party, who wrote its manifestos and published them in circulation ... They considered him theirs, and now this man (why Witte had such a reputation as a chameleon) was so reoriented that St. Petersburg bankers, headed by Rodshtein, director of the International Petersburg Bank. This, of course, was just a slap in the face for the merchants that the person they considered theirs treated them in such a way.
M. SOKOLOV: That is, it happened that, as Alexey NRZB writes to us, that the conservatives turned into reformers and leaned towards, it turns out, to such an active political position at some point, from which they evaded...
A. PYZHIKOV: Quite right, the essence of the matter is noticed in this question. I'll say a little more. Of course, when under Alexander III there was a renaissance of the Moscow merchants, even a renaissance of the Old Believers ... Preobrazhenskoe, Rogozhskoe cemeteries felt better than ever ... These are their spiritual centers. They were no longer financial arteries, as before ... Everything seemed to go according to their scenario. And their policy, the policy of loyalty - to crawl on their knees around the throne - fully justifies itself. Dividends economic go in hand. The Russian Party properly draws up these dividends and, so to speak, materializes them into a concrete policy. Things are good. But then, when there was a Witte turn, which we are talking about, a turn towards foreign capital, in volumes of which there has never been in Russia ... I emphasize. Neither under Peter I, nor under Catherine II, this can even be said. This is no comparison. When there was this new financial emphasis, they realized that kneeling at the throne would not solve the issue. And the loyal spells they used to devote all their time to don't work anymore. Some other mechanisms are needed to get out of this situation, to somehow minimize their such an infringed position in which they so unexpectedly found themselves.
M. SOKOLOV: So what? How did this bloc come about - on the one hand, the merchants, on the other hand, some kind of zemstvo liberal-democratic movement. How did they find each other?
A. PYZHIKOV: In fact, until the end of the 19th century, the liberal movement was a rather pitiful sight. Even all those police sources who tracked all this, analyzed - they did not hide their irony towards this movement. They said that there are 10-15 people capable of taking some decisive steps, the rest are just not serious, there are no fears. So it remained. Until the beginning of the 20th century, no one had succeeded in trying to interest the merchants in some kind of liberal-constitutional projects. This
Absolutely doomed were attempts. Now the situation has changed. The merchants quickly and actively began to look for new mechanisms. What are the new mechanisms? Mechanisms to limit the autocracy and the ruling bureaucracy, so that there are no such things as Witte did with them, so primitively speaking. These mechanisms were immediately found. They have already been tested in Europe for a long time, they bloomed there. This is what constitutional government is. That is, all legal rights should be expressed not by the supreme will, but by the constitution, first of all. And the ruling bureaucracy should not have a monopoly on governance. That is, parliamentary forms should limit it in the implementation of policy. The merchants saw this mechanism and began to invest in it.
M. SOKOLOV: And which of the groups of the same Old Believers - priests, bezpopovtsy, some kind of sense - turned out to be the most active in supporting these movements?
A. PYZHIKOV: This is a very important point that is often overlooked. Namely, when we say "Old Believers", "schismatics", "Old Believer merchants" - this is not entirely correct. Because to be ideologically accurate, you must always keep in mind which Old Believers are priests or non-priests. Of course, all we are talking about is this Moscow merchant group - the backbone of it was the priests, this is the Belokrinitskaya hierarchy, which we mentioned. The main backbone of millionaires who grew up from a peasant environment - they were representatives of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy, that is, the Rogozhsky cemetery. Bezpopovtsev there were few. There are very few of them in the front row of leading millionaires.
M. SOKOLOV: Well, we will continue our conversation with Alexander Pyzhikov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, professor of the Russian State University for the Humanities, about the Old Believers, merchants before and during the Great War after the release of the news.
NEWS
M. SOKOLOV: On the air of Ekho Moskvy and RTVi TV channel The Price of Victory. The price of revolution. Today our guest is Alexander Pyzhikov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, author of the book "The Edges of the Russian Schism". We continue our conversation about the role of Old Believer merchants in the changes that took place in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. Well, right now I have a question. Alexei asks: “Which of the groups of Old Believers was the most active in the revolutionary movement?” And Alexey Kuchegashev wrote: “What connected Savva Morozov and the Bolsheviks?” Truly the most interesting figure. Apparently, perhaps the brightest. Merchants appeared who sponsored not only the liberals, the Zemstvo movement, but also the Social Democrats. Why?
A. PYZHIKOV: Firstly, the merchants had a special position in the opposition movement. Since we were talking about how they ended up in this opposition movement. They invested in the approval of the formation of a mechanism for limiting the ruling bureaucracy headed by the emperor, then their interest was immediately riveted to all those who shared these ideas. These ideas always smoldered among the intelligentsia, Zemstvo, some third element ...
M. SOKOLOV: I think the bureaucracy too.
A. PYZHIKOV: Yes. This is a special article. There, of course, yes. This is also an unknown page. But if now we are talking about the merchants, yes ... That is, such different groups have always existed. Small groups. This is at the circle level. It never went beyond the circle level until the early 20th century. It has always remained there. Therefore, when I looked at all these police reports on this topic in the archive, no one expressed any concern. It is absolutely true. But everything changed at the beginning of the 20th century. And according to these police reports, already by 1903, it is felt that they are filled with anxiety. They feel that something has changed. What has changed? There was a fashion for liberalism, for the constitution. This fashion arose in Russian society, primarily among the intelligentsia. Where? How did it happen? Here the answer is very simple. The Moscow merchants have done one very significant thing since the end of the 19th century, which everyone knows about, but no one understands and now they have forgotten the purpose of this cultural ...
M. SOKOLOV: Everyone was in the Tretyakov Gallery.
A. PYZHIKOV: Yes, a cultural and educational project, if I may say so, initiated and paid for, most importantly, by the Moscow merchants. Prominent representatives of the Moscow merchant clan actually created this entire cultural and educational infrastructure, in modern terms. What I'm talking about? The Tretyakov Gallery, which was going to... Let's not forget how it was going to. She was going in defiance of the imperial hermitage. The Hermitage was filled with paintings by Western European artists. Here the emphasis was on our own, on the Russians. And, in fact, this is the backbone of the Tretyakov Gallery. Then the theater is the Moscow Art Theater, the Moscow Art Theater is nothing but the invention and implementation of a merchant's idea. This is a very significant phenomenon. It goes beyond the limits in cultural life ... It survived the limits of 1905, and 1917, and 1991. That is, how good a fruitful idea it really was. At the head of the Moscow Art Theater was, as you know, Konstantin Sergeevich Stanislavsky. Not everyone knows that this is the Old Believer merchant family of the Alekseevs. He is one of the relatives of Alekseev, who even was the Moscow mayor in the capital ... The Moscow Art Theater replicated, carried liberal democratic ideas. He made them trendy. Gorky's plays are known to everyone ... For example, "At the Bottom" is known to everyone - this is nothing more than the execution of the order of the Moscow Art Theater, which asked Gorky to write something so democratic, soul-stirring, and Gorky gave out this play "At the Bottom". There were all these premieres, which ended with huge sold-out crowds, then with demonstrations in honor of Gorky and the Moscow Art Theater, that they made such a cultural product. Mamontov's operas, Mamontov's private operas, where the discovery of Russian culture shone - this is Fyodor Chaliapin. This is all the discovery of Mamontov. And what operas did this private opera put on! What performances! "Khovanshchina" is an absolutely Old Believer epic, which is unpleasant for the Romanovs. "Boris Godunov" - again, an unpleasant page for the Romanovs' house. Intricate, such ideas are taken out and replicated to the public. That is, this infrastructure has created such a liberal-democratic atmosphere. And many educated people from the intelligentsia immediately began to show interest in it. There was a fashion, as I said, for liberalism. But this was not limited to the Moscow merchants.
A. PYZHIKOV: You were right in your question, the radio listener is asking the right question. How are these revolutionary elements? That's right, because the merchants perfectly understood that there were not enough different respectable zemstvos of noble origin, wise professors - this was not enough to push through a model to limit autocracy and ruling democracy. Yes, it's good, it's necessary, but it's not enough. It is much more convincing if all these ideas sound against the background of explosions, bombs and shots from guns. Here they needed the audience that is able to provide this background. And the merchants occupied, as I said, a unique movement in the opposition movement. It communicated both with professors and zemstvos, who were princes and counts, some of them ... And it felt just as comfortable with those layers that could carry out these terrorist acts and something like that ...
M. SOKOLOV: And Savva Mamontov? Was he an exotic character in this case?
A. PYZHIKOV: A normal merchant character. Why is everyone talking about him?
M. SOKOLOV: Because such a tragic fate - suicide ...
A. PYZHIKOV: In May 1905... There are different versions. Someone says that he was killed, someone that he shot himself. This can be figured out...
M. SOKOLOV: The money went to the Bolsheviks in part.
A. PYZHIKOV: Of course, he talked. Gorky testifies to this. But why do they say? .. Savva Timofeevich Mamontov ...
M. SOKOLOV: Savva Morozov.
A. PYZHIKOV: Morozov, excuse me. Savva Timofeevich Morozov is such a bright character, you correctly noticed. But the matter is not limited to them. This is not some personal initiative of his. This is the initiative that the whole clan showed, this is a community of merchants. This is the merchant elite. There are many other names out there. The same one that was mentioned, Mamontov, the Ryabushinsky brothers, who also did much more on this path than the same Savva Morozov. And then there are a lot of surnames. And not only from Moscow.
M. SOKOLOV: They write to us: “The Chetverikovs, Rukavishnikovs, Dunaevs, Zhivago, Shchukins, Vostryakovs, Khludovs” - all this is one group, right?
A. PYZHIKOV: The Khludovs, the Shchukins, the Chetverikovs are all one group, this is the so-called Moscow group.
M. SOKOLOV: Alexander Vladimirovich, good. The revolution passed, so to speak, achieved the State Duma, achieved some limitation of autocracy, although the Duma did not control about 40% of the budget of state-owned companies and state banks, and did not have direct influence on the government either. That is, it turned out like this: they fought, fought, sponsored, sponsored, but there was no result. What happened before the First World War, again, with this group? What was its political activity, this Moscow merchant group, I would say?
A. PYZHIKOV: Of course, the Duma was established. In general, in my opinion, Nicholas II would have established this Duma anyway, only, of course, according to his own scenario, with his own logic, in his own sequence, which he planned to follow. But he didn't succeed. These turbulent events, especially in the autumn of 1905, are the so-called Moscow exacerbation. The December uprising is the highest point of this aggravation. The December uprising armed in Moscow brought down this scenario.
M. SOKOLOV: Yes, when merchants bought weapons for their workers.
A. PYZHIKOV: Yes. It's absolutely, sort of... I'm absolutely not a trailblazer here. Many authors have pointed out that the entire strike wave in Moscow began with factories and factories that belonged to merchants. The mechanism is very simple. They paid a salary, but said that it was possible not to work that day. As you can imagine, there were many applicants. Everyone was happy to participate. This was encouraged. This initiated this whole strike wave. This mechanism has long been open. Many scholars have written about this. In this case, I just summarized most of what is written. Of course, not all. So, the establishment of this Duma took place. Yes, the Duma is legislative. More has not yet been claimed. It was necessary to see how this new state mechanism would work. That is, it was necessary to test how it would function in action. Here, from the merchant clan undertook to conduct this approbation, if I may say so, the famous Moscow figure Alexander Ivanovich Guchkov. His position in the Moscow merchant class is special. He did not belong to the main backbone of this Moscow merchant class, namely, to the Belokrinitskaya hierarchy. He came out of the Feodosievsky bezpopovsky consent. But by the end of the 19th century, he was a co-religionist. It was such a camouflage net, such an image. He was a fellow believer, although, of course, he treated Orthodoxy no better than his ancestors. This is clear. But this Alexander Ivanovich Guchkov is an active politician. He advanced in 1905. He undertook to become a kind of leader who expresses the interests of the Moscow merchants in relation to the authorities, to the government, to St. Petersburg. He established a very warm and trusting relationship with Prime Minister Stolypin. This is a known fact. He convinced all these Moscow circles that he would be able to make this model, which was being pushed through in 1905, work, work as we would like, and he would be responsible for it. He heads the largest faction in the State Duma, the Octobrist faction, he has full trusting relations with Stolypin, so he can,
In our language, resolve all commercial issues.
M. SOKOLOV: But it didn't work out.
A. PYZHIKOV: His first experience was positive in 1908. Still, Guchkov and the Duma were able to persuade Stolypin to stop initiatives to create a trust from metallurgical activities in the south, where foreign capital was at the heart of it. It was a very big victory in 1908. Historians of economics know it, I think they remember it. Then, of course, slippage began. Feeling this, Guchkov decided to take an extreme step. He decided to head the third State Duma in order to gain access to the king. He then received the right of a permanent report from the emperor. He decided to use this right to influence him. And so in 1910, from the head of the largest faction, he became the chairman of the State Duma. But communication with the king did not work out. Specifically, Guchkov planned ... He was convinced that he persuaded the tsar to appoint one character as minister of the sea. Nicholas II agreed, saw him off with a smile and appointed another - Grigorovich in 1911, after which it became clear to everyone what Guchkov's influence was, that it was close to zero, if at all one could talk about any here. After that, the merchants came to an understanding, the realization that this model would lead nowhere.
M. SOKOLOV: Alexander Vladimirovich, it turns out that somewhere in 1914 we see a real political aggravation by the summer of 1914 exactly similar to the same scenario in the summer before 1905 - practically the same slogans, strikes begin at various enterprises, Moscow in particular. What's this? So they're up to their old ways again, right? Only by finding allies, as I understand it, also in the bureaucracy. A. PYZHIKOV: Here is the most interesting episode in our history of the tsarist empire, which for some reason falls out of the field of view of researchers. We were just talking about Guchkov, that he was trying to play some kind of role as an intermediary, such as between the government and Moscow business circles. All this ended in complete political bankruptcy of him at that time. Then another character was found who took on this role with great success and reason. This is not about some kind of merchant, but about one of the royal favorites, favorites of the royal couple - the emperor and empress. I'm talking about Alexander Vasilyevich Krivoshein. This is an extremely interesting figure in Russian history. What's interestnig? He moved up the royal bureaucratic ladder, very confidently moving quickly. That is, it was a very turbulent career. She was provided by one royal entourage - this is Goremykin. Such was the Prime Minister, Minister of the Interior. He provided patronage to Krivoshein. Krivoshein moved very quickly and ended up in Stolypin's government almost as his right hand. But one detail is overlooked. Krivoshein was not just a tsarist bureaucrat. At the end of the 19th century, he married the granddaughter of Timofey Isaevich Morozov, the pillar himself, the father of Savva Morozov, Elena Karpova, to be exact in her last name. And he became related to such a merchant clan, which was at the center of this entire Moscow bourgeoisie and Moscow merchants. He became his own. And here we are, for the first time in Russian history, which was not the case for the entire 19th century, and there is no need to talk about an earlier time, we are witnessing such a strange combination of circumstances that the tsar's favorite and his own man in the Moscow merchants. It was this special position of him in these power and economic structures that allowed him to become a centerpiece in the promotion of the parliamentary project, that is, the transformation of the Duma from a legislative into a full-fledged parliament in the Western sense of the word. That is, the Duma, which not only issues laws, but also influences appointments in the government that governs. Krivoshein wanted to do it. The Moscow merchants, naturally connected with him by family ties, entered into a stronger alliance with him than with Guchkov. He at that time had already moved to the second or third roles, he was not visible. It was Krivoshein who undertook to push it from above. This is 1915. In 1914, before the war, it all started, it started successfully, Krivoshein took very successful steps to eliminate his opponents from the government. Of course, there was a corresponding strike fund in St. Petersburg. It all started again. Of course, other people were already in charge here - this is the Social Democratic faction of the Duma "Trudoviki", where Kerensky is already appearing. They were already led by representatives of the merchant class,
In particular, Konovalov is a major capitalist, the closest associate of Ryabushinsky, an associate of a whole group ... He is also a very prominent and respected merchant of Moscow. He was in touch, he was also a member of the State Duma, he was responsible for this direction. That is, the whole situation was agitated again. In 1915, there were already military conditions, but nevertheless, due to the fact that there were failures at the front, it was decided to revive this topic again. Krivoshein started it...
M. SOKOLOV: That is, a progressive bloc was created from the right to the actual social democrats in the Duma under the slogan of such a responsible government of people's trust. In fact, it turns out that you think that it was the Moscow merchant group that stood behind him.
A. PYZHIKOV: In economic terms, if all this worked out and was implemented, then in the economic sense, the Moscow merchants would be the main beneficiary of this whole thing. This is beyond any doubt.
M. SOKOLOV: And why didn’t Nicholas II make such a decision, on the contrary, somehow turned his back, finally dismissed Krivoshein, went to a confrontation. What was the point? The project was quite profitable during the war. They promised stabilization, full mutual understanding with the virtually stable majority of the Duma. Why did he make such a suicidal decision?
A. PYZHIKOV: Here, after all, the key words are probably “During the war”. This whole epic, the whole story with the progressive bloc developed during the war. Nicholas II refused to make such political moves under military conditions. He believed that it was necessary to bring this war to a victorious end first, and then return to this topic on the laurels of the winner, but not earlier. It was for this sequence of actions that he spoke very harshly. And Krivoshein could not convince him. Krivoshein said that this should be done, it would have a better effect on our military affairs and we would win faster. But Nicholas II believed that it was still better to lead the army. He became supreme commander just in August 1915. “It is now more timely than getting carried away with political combinations. Political combinations,” he thought, “will wait for the end of the war. We will return to them later." In the meantime, he laid down his authority, which, by the way, Krivoshein did not advise him to put on the altar of his authority and his figure, his royal person, that it would be better to let the Supreme Commander-in-Chief Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich lead the troops. Even in case of failure, everything can be attributed to him, as it were. But Nicholas II decided that he would take it all upon himself, this is his duty. And he laid himself completely on the military direction, which is natural during the war years. And he decided to leave all political combinations, political actions for later. But since Krivoshein and his allies from the government insisted, he was forced to part with them, so to speak.
M. SOKOLOV: Good. Well, nevertheless, with the participation of the merchants of this already familiar to us, military-industrial committees were created, with working groups under them. The police, in particular, I see, considered them a network of conspirators, destabilizers and so on. And in their main activity they were not effective enough… What is your opinion? What were those structures anyway? Were these structures helping the army or were they structures that were preparing some kind of political actions?
A. PYZHIKOV: During the war years, it was in Moscow that she was the initiator... Bourgeois circles, zemstvo circles initiated the creation of public organizations to help the front. That is, the idea is that the bureaucracy is not coping with its duties, cannot ensure victory, so the public must get involved. Here, in the person of the zemstvo city union and a new such organization ... This invention of the First World War is the military-industrial committees, where the bourgeoisie gathers strength and helps the front to forge victory. But we note that all the military-industrial committees acted on public funds. All this from the budget went to these military-industrial committees. They operated with these amounts, but they didn’t particularly want to report, of course. Here, in addition to helping the front, so-called working groups arose under the military-industrial committees ... Again, this is a trademark, such, a sign of the Moscow merchants,
When the popular strata were again pulled up to solve some problems that they needed to push through at the top. Such a fund was created. These working groups, so to speak, demonstrated the voice of the people in support of the initiatives that the merchant bourgeoisie is implementing. By the way, there are a lot of working groups... For example, under the Central Military Industrial Complex - this is under the Central Military Industrial Committee - they have done very big things. With the help of the working group, the sequestration of the Putilov plant, which belonged to the banking group of the Russian-Asian bank, was carried out. The Moscow merchants have always opposed the banks of St. Petersburg and tried to infringe on them as much as possible. The working groups made their contribution here even during the First World War. And of course, just before February 1917, all those memoirs that have been published and studied in exile now, they allow us to assert that the working groups were really a military headquarters, I will not be afraid of this word, to loosen the tsarist regime directly at the last stage. It was they who coordinated all the actions together with the Duma in order to show tsarism that it was doomed.
M. SOKOLOV: Tell me, the Guchkov conspiracy, the military-merchant conspiracy, which many of your colleagues write about, allegedly against Nikolai and Alexandra Fedorovna, is still a myth or an unrealized opportunity due to such a spontaneous start of a soldier’s revolt in February 1917.
A. PYZHIKOV: Of course, this is not a myth. The whole sequence of actions performed by the Moscow merchants convinces that they went to this consciously. For this, there were various allies - Guchkov, Krivoshein ... By the way, when the tsar dismissed Krivoshein in September 1915, they quickly forget about him, all the Moscow merchants. He becomes nothing to them. They are already fully determined to undermine the tsarist regime frankly. And here the theme of Rasputin reaches its climax. She was so smoldering, and now she is becoming a powerful tool with which the royal couple is discredited. Soldiers' riot, yes, happened. This is in February 1917. There really was a riot. Of course, they created the whole atmosphere in which it could happen, but they hardly expected those consequences.
M. SOKOLOV: And the last thing, perhaps, I still want to look into what you have not yet written in 1917. Why did these people, who were so actively rushing to power, not be able to keep it?
A. PYZHIKOV: Well, yes. Well, firstly, the February Revolution of 1917 ended in bankruptcy. It was replaced by the October one and beyond ... Well, because after all, the liberal project that the Moscow merchants promoted - it suffered a complete collapse, it failed. That is, the restructuring of state life on liberal rails, constitutional, liberal, as they wanted and believed that this would help Russia was not fully justified. The popular masses turned out to be absolutely deaf to this liberal project, absolutely deaf. They didn't accept him. They did not understand the charms that were obvious to the Moscow merchants, the political charms. The masses had completely different priorities, a different idea of how to live ...
M. SOKOLOV: That is, all the same community and all the same idea of the old schismatic?
A. PYZHIKOV: Yes. These deep layers… They lived by their communal collective psychology. It was she who burst out. The liberal project has become irrelevant here.
M. SOKOLOV: Thank you. Today, the guest of the Echo of Moscow studio and the RTVi TV program was Alexander Pyzhikov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of the Russian State University for the Humanities. This program was hosted today by Mikhail Sokolov. All the best.
A. PYZHIKOV: Good luck.
M. SOKOLOV: Goodbye.
Famous Old Believer dynasties: Morozovs, Ryabushinskys, Guchkovs, Soldatenkovs, Khludovs, Konovalovs.
How is that? It did not fit in my head: a believer is a rich man.
And what about the wealth of the monasteries?
Did the leaders of the clergy with expensive watches and expensive cars cause you irritation or bewilderment?
Why: one everything, and the other nothing?
Didn't this question bother you?
I am not an envious person. But still, it was not clear to me how the business giants of pre-revolutionary Russia correlated with the fact of their deep religiosity? However, there is an understandable explanation.
Let's start with the parable of the talents.
The parable of the talents is one of the parables of Jesus Christ, contained in the Gospel of Matthew and talking about the second coming:
“For [He will act] as a man who, going to a foreign country, called his servants and entrusted his property to them: and to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his strength; and immediately set off. The one who received the five talents went and put them to work and acquired another five talents; in the same way, he who received two talents acquired the other two; He who received the one talent went and dug it in the ground and hid his master's money.
(Matthew 25:14-30) »
Upon his return, the master called the slaves to him and demanded from them a report on how they disposed of the money entrusted to them. He praised the slaves who used money for business, saying “well, good and faithful slave! you have been faithful in a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master." The slave came last, buried the money in the ground and said: “Sir! I knew you that you are a cruel man, you reap where you did not sow, and gather where you did not scatter, and being afraid, you went and hid your talent in the ground; Here is what is yours” (Matthew 25:24-25).
In response, the master addressed him and those present with the following speech:
“Cunning slave and lazy! you knew that I reap where I did not sow, and gather where I did not scatter; therefore you ought to have given my money to the merchants, and when I came, I would have received mine with a profit; Therefore, take the talent from him and give it to the one who has ten talents, for to everyone who has it will be given and it will be multiplied, but from the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. but cast the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 25:26-30) »
How do agnostics perceive wealth and power? Means for life, for realization of ideas, for comfort. An agnostic sees objects as either his or someone else's, which either gives him the right to dispose of property at his own discretion, or does not give such a right. Having received the right to dispose of wealth and power, an agnostic (and in his person I mean a "non-believer" person) makes such orders, guided by his morality, his own rules for determining what is good and what is evil. And such a person can either start building hospitals and gardens, or start sponsoring wars and selling drugs - it's up to him.
And how does a believer perceive the material world? He sees his stay in this world as temporary, and sees the cleansing of the soul from sin as the most important thing, so that at the end of the mortal path he will gain eternal blessings (well, and not fall into the fiery hyena). The world was created by God, and everything here does not belong to people. The material world, these are the very "talents", who are five, who are two, who are one - are given by the Lord to his servants, in order to ask later. A person on earth, by the will of the Lord, receives this or that property at temporary disposal, and how will he dispose of these talents? The owner will ask. A believer manages according to the morality enshrined in the Gospel, and not personal preferences.
Here, of course, they can begin to philosophize - how to understand what is written, and how to understand this. Suffice it to recall that women were burned at the stake in the name of the Lord and wars were waged, also with his name. Wise people are much ...
To avoid this, it is enough to remember how you deal with moldy food? You throw it away and wash the dishes, don't you? In the same way, one sees the wisdom of a person that is poisoned by the mold of pride, vanity, greed. To avoid poisoning, it is enough to wash your soul from reasoning according to your own understanding, and to perceive the knowledge and logic from Evangelia, which cannot be the subject of human thought, and are a source of pure knowledge. But that's a completely different story.
Thus, disposing of temporarily entrusted material wealth or power, a believer does not seek personal gain, for he knows that these "wealth" will remain in this temporary world. But being a temporary manager, he shows his spiritual maturity, which is what is said in the above parable.
ps: from the book of St. Ignatius Brianchaninov "Ascetic Experiences"
Loading...