The birth of the (monastic) prison
Monasteries as multifunctional spaces of confinement in Russia of the 18th century
p. 131-144
Texte intégral
1The birth of the monastic prison for lay people begins with the Solovecki Uprising (1667-1676). The largest and most influential monastery in the north—the Solovecki Monastery—resisted the ecclesiastical reforms of Patriarch Nikon. Part of the oppositional stance of the monastic brotherhood was the rejection of secular service to the Tsar, which included the use of the monastery as a secular place of exile1.
2The rebellious monastery’s refusal to imprison the convicts sent by the government was part of the petition from the Solovecki Monastery to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovič in 1669. This petition was delivered via an exile. The imprisonment of the laity was, in the eyes of the monastery, a secular activity, not peculiar to the monastery. The severe crisis of faith in the Schism period set the course for the growth of banishment to the monasteries, which the rebellious monastery tried in vain to stop. The result of the suppression of the rebellion was the strengthening of the secular authorities in the regulation of monastic banishment, and the monasteries, episcopal authorities and administrative offices of the patriarch became increasingly dependent on them. The last three decades of the 17th century can therefore be seen as a time of establishing new relations between the large monasteries in the north, such as Solovecki Monastery and Kirillo-Belozerskiy Monastery, and the ecclesiastical and secular power. And these relations did not turn out in favour of the church.
Solovecki Uprising 1667-1676
3How can we place the Solovecki Uprising in the historical context of the “rebellious century”? This uprising occupies a special place in the historiography of popular uprisings that opposed the strengthening of central power2. Firstly, because it ran under the banners of the staroobrjadčestvo, the Old Ritualism, and because this was also a rebellion against the change in the status of the Church in the system of state relations. And, further, because it led to the strengthening of the unofficial faith, the mystical-theological tradition, the doubting of the correctness of the tsarist power (idea of the anti-Christ) and thus to the widening of the gap between the official and the non-official religiosity.
4The antecedents of the revolt lie in the monastery’s refusal to adopt the new forms of prayer, liturgy and dress for clerical hierarchs. Even though the Solovecki monks always declared their loyalty to the Tsar in their petitions to him, they nevertheless made it clear that they saw themselves as martyrs in the fight for the Old faith—and were also prepared to die for it.
5In September 1667, the fifth “Solovecki petition” was adopted at the meeting of the monastic brotherhood. It contained a resolute decision to resist the tsarist power if it did not reverse the church reform. After the radical break with the secular power, the siege of the monastery began. The militant actions of the rebels began after the radicalisation of the ideology in 1671, which ended with the capture of the monastery in 1676 by the secular power and the executions of the remaining rebels. Before 1667, the monastery had 700 people (brothers, novices and laymen), but after the crushing of the uprising, imprisonment and executions, as well as banishment to other remote monasteries, only about a hundred monks remained here3. The fact that the monastery was able to hold its own against the superior Tsarist Strelitzen-guard for so long is due to great support for the monastery and the idea of revolt by the local population. The inhabitants of the nearby Anzerski hermitage were able to reach the monastery without restriction and brought fish, butter and other foodstuffs. The close connection of the insurgents with the local population is the reason why the uprising lasted so long4. The Solovecki-brothers, through their support of the local clergy, inspired the secular neighborhood to protest, so that the Strelitzen were also considered “heretics” and “splittists” by the lay people. The protest of the “Old Believer”-monks went to the people, so to speak, and led to the strengthening of the rejection of the Tsarist form of government. The crushing of the uprising ended a free form of existence for the monastery, which also weakened its role as a cultural center. Protest faith took on secret, illegal forms that the secular power punished severely—and, paradoxically enough, precisely with banishment to the monasteries for “improvement in faith” (ispravlenie v vere).
6The custody of the Old Believers in the monasteries was formally not for violation of ecclesiastical or secular law, but nevertheless the authorities considered it appropriate to isolate these persons within the monastery walls. The regime of their custody was identical to the regime of the lay people (convicts, fools, drunkards) who were there. What was the practice of monastic custody in early modern Russia?
7From the last third of the 17th century, the addressees of the banishment and confinement were no longer limited to the circle of clergymen. Now it included also secular persons: men and women, young and old and from all strata of society. “For the riots”—besčinstva—became the popular formula for the exile under surveillance (pod načal): this includes sloppy behavior, drunkenness, fornication, adultery, and a whole spectrum of misdemeanors, which at that time still has no concrete names. In fact, we have a heterogeneous “society in confinement” in Russian monasteries of the 18th century, in which—apart from the learned monks living in asceticism—there were also drinkers, adulterers, “schismatics”, criminals and the insane (izumlennye)5.
8From the late 17th century, the following secular and ecclesiastical institutions ordered banishment as a sanction: The Tsarist Offices (of the Great Palace, the Monastery Office, the Malorossiya Office, the Strelitzen Office, the Preobraženski Office), the Offices of the Patriarch—the Office of Spiritual Affairs (Prikaz duchovnych del), and the offices of the local archbishops. No statistics are available for the all-Russian context, but it can be assumed that most of the banishment orders came from the church representatives6.
9In this article I will first show various functions of monastic prisons; then, present the development of the practice of monastic confinement in the 18th century; finally try to explain the shift from logic of punishment of the body to “correction” of the individual and his “soul”.
10By including the religious component—the monastic penance—in the analysis of banishment and imprisonment, the monasteries appear as multidimensional, complex spaces of atonement, punishment and social control, which can also be used as an example to examine a conflictual relationship between secular and ecclesiastical actors. Imprisonment in the monastery was by no means an “ordinary” prison sentence. Here, both dimensions of disciplining came together—state penal discipline, which was aimed at punishment, and ecclesiastical penance, which promised the prospect of improvement and salvation of the soul. It is therefore important to ask how these two intentions and the functions of discipline interacted in the Early modern Russia.
Monasteries as hybrid spaces: the functions of confinement
11In Russia monasteries had many functions as spaces of confinement, as they were used for a variety of crimes. Perhaps best known is their use as places of political exile for the disgraced statesmen or throne rivals. The authorities also got rid of their opponents by banishment and isolation of Old Believers, heretics or doubting Christians. The monasteries were also important in their caritative function, as “invalids’ houses” for the soldiers who were no longer fit for field service. They were sent to monasteries for supplies, however here they had to take over the function of guards for the prisoners. The use of monasteries as madhouses (Dollgauzy) was widespread. Also, the monasteries were also used as orphanages and poorhouses for “vagrants”.
12These manifold uses of monasteries represent two central meanings of monastic imprisonment: punishment and correction of behavior. In the course of the 18th century the accent shifted from one to the other objective: from punishment to improvement—and it is the practice of monastic penance (monastyrskoe pokajanie, monastyrskoe podnačal’stvo) and it’s political and theological context that is important for this transformation. Here lies the peculiarity of confinement in the monastery, which distinguishes it from similar processes in the secular work houses (or correction houses) in the Western Europe.
Monastic penance as penitentiary practice
13In the early 18th century, the practice of penance moved away from its canonical original. The monastery penance in the early 18th century had hardly similarity to its historical form, which had been religious communication, aiming the “healing the soul7”.
14“Keep in chains under surveillance”—“deržat’ v podnačalstve skovana”—, becomes the most common sentence in the Petrine time. Neither was repentance—and overcoming the sin—formulated as the goal of monastic penance, nor its form was preserved. Rather, we encounter a different logic and function: Breeding, taming, isolating, under strict supervision to preserve for life, something that approached more and more to the practice of “smirenie”, of taming—, an internal form of punishment in the monastery.
15Taming, smirenie consisted of physical punishment (whipping), bondage under guard or imprisonment in the “underground hole”, hard labor and severe fasting. The soul-saving conversations were not part of this practice: the healing of the soul was no longer the goal.
16We can assume that at the beginning of the Petrine period this changed form of severe penance characterized the practice and was ordered by various institutions precisely in this sense. The custody in monastery (monastyrskoe podnačal’stvo) is no longer penance aimed at repentance and correction (pokajanie), but punitive discipline (smirenie). How did this come about?
17Monastery confinement as a sanction wasn’t anchored in secular jurisdiction as a measure of punitive sanction. In the valid set of laws of the secular rule, the Sobornoe Uloženie (Code of 1649), the monastic penance (monastyrskoe podnačal’stvo) is missing as a punitive sanction for laymen, and nevertheless this practice was applied. It is another sign of how this norm-setting differed from norm implementation in early modern Russia8; Jurisdiction was based on precedents and not on law books such as Sobornoe Uloženie or the Nomokanon. The beginning of law-making in relation to monastic banishment was marked by Patriarch Adrian’s Instruction of 26 December 1697, which determined who was subject to punitive confinement in a monastery. It was the secular clergy (černye popy) and church or official people who housed “disgraceful” (zazornye) persons with them, as well as the Old Believers, “raskolniki”. Further, they were clergymen, priests who were said to have connections with robbers, monks and nuns who had performed unlawful ordinations, persons involved in the birth of a child out of wedlock and men and women who had entered into a fourth marriage9. These were to be banned pod načal, the form and deadline of the monastic penance (podnačal’stvo) was not specified. Thus, it was initially the Church that legally regulated the banishment of the laity. This practice was based on previous particular decrees, not on existing canonical regulations. In the 18th century, Adrian’s Instruction served as the legal basis for the judging ecclesiastical institutions, including synods, ecclesiastical consistories, episcopal chanceries and abbey courts. At the same time, the practice of banishing clergy from monasteries continued as a disciplinary punitive sanction.
18Peter the Great himself sent several officials and servants on his own decrees. The first break in the development of the nationalization of ecclesiastical-punitive functions was Peter’s named order to all monasteries of 31 July 1701, which stipulated that banishment to the pod načal monastery could only be ordered by the tsar himself from the Preobraženskij Office (Czar’s Chancellery for Secret Affairs) and that the monastery office merely had to confirm the banishment10. In the second step, Peter combined the monastery banishment with banishment to forced labor in Siberia—a punitive practice that now increasingly replaced the death penalty11. The decree of 19 December 1707 stipulated that delinquents who were not suitable for the hard labor at the galley—because of old age or as a result of excessive torture during the investigation—were to be sent to the monastery office. From here the weak and mutilated criminals were to be distributed to the monasteries. Since even minor offences were now sufficient to be sent to forced labor, the number of monastery exiles also grew.
19The Petrine decree from 1719 states accordingly: “Semen Safronov, the soldier of the Fedorov Regiment, is to be sent from the Preobraženski Office to the Kirillo-Belozerski Monastery for life instead of forced labor because of his age for the ‘indecent words’, and in this monastery he is to be kept until the end of life, and if he wishes to be shorn to monkhood, then he should be shorn12.”
20Peter I’s successors continued this policy and even intensified it. In 1725, the Monastyrski prikaz (Monastery Office) was abolished as the executive authority for monastic banishment. Under Peter II, the Supreme Privy Council and the Senate could order monastic banishment without first seeking confirmation from the Synod, the latter was merely informed. There were no longer any limits to the use of monasteries as places of banishment. Thus, in 1729, the Supreme Privy Council had all Moscow prisoners (kolodniki13) banished from the city detention centers to the monasteries outside the city (Andreevsky Monastery, Pokrovsky Monastery and Donskoy Monastery)14. The council’s instruction ordered that the kolodniki were to be kept in spacious cells (“not more than ten in one room”). There was no mention of religious practices in the order.
21However, during the Petersburg epoch, there is a mixture of the forms and logics of punishment. Physical punishment, capital punishment, banishment to the galley, monetary penalties and rituals of shame co-existed with the monastic confinement. It is difficult to detect a system in the arrangement of penalties. The banishment to monastery was not regulated in the civil codes of the 18th century.
22In the Petrine time the monasteries as relatively free religious spaces were turned into the places of punishment. The simultaneous pluralization of instances that could order penance as a form of punishment had an even greater impact on the changed character of penance. A punishment with detention in the monastery was no more and no less a punishment by imprisonment (carcer).
Gute Policey: monasteries as orphanages and madhouses
23Significantly, Peter’s first church-political decrees concerned the inner monastic life and monastic discipline15. The Czar saw monasteries not only as refuges for vagabond idlers, but also as dangerous nests for suspicious, disloyal supporters of the old order and thus opponents of his pro-Western reforms16. One of Peter’s first decrees forbade writing in monastery cells: Monks were forbidden to possess ink and paper17.
24For Peter, the monasteries were mostly interesting as social institutions for the state. He and the chief cleric Feofan Prokopovyč, who assisted him in word and deed, significantly expanded the functionality of the monasteries. Of course (as in Western Europe), monasteries had have this traditional christian charity as function, but they could not be forced to take in the poor and sick to care for them—and that should be changed under Peter I.
25In “Supplement to the Spiritual Reglement”, which he wrote in 1722 under the guidance of Feofan Prokopovyč, monasteries appear as places that are a drain on the state treasury, yet wealthy, but not really beneficial institution18. The “Supplement” is characterized by the spirit of mistrust towards the church and the fundamental dissatisfaction with the life of the clergy, the monastic brotherhood and their (lack of) social function.
26Peter gave thought to the practical rededication of some monasteries: “in the monasteries should be the soldiers who have been retired and the orphans, and they should be taught to read and write, namely grammar, arithmetic and geometry, but it is better that this instruction is not under the monastic supervision, but in a separate place (osoblivoe mesto), in a dissolved monastery19”.
27The decree of 31 January 1724 determined the guidelines that governed the use of the monasteries as charitable institutions until the end of the 18th century20. The first point stipulated that soldiers taken out of service, “who cannot work” and “the other poor” should be attributed to the monasteries. Peter I drew inspiration from the examples of the monasteries in the Netherlands, German lands and France, where many monasteries had a charitable function from the outset or were secularized and rededicated. A particularly lucid example of entanglement of charitable and isolative-punitive institutions is the use of the monastery as a dollgauz, madhouse.
28Partly for charitable purposes, partly for police considerations, the monasteries were used for the confinement of the “insane” (izumlennye) throughout the 18th century. The use of monasteries as places for the custody of the insane should be seen in the context of the centuries-old tradition of Christian culture of dealing with the “possessed”. The Church traditionally had the role of caretaker of the sick, the aged, the maimed and the mentally ill. However, neither the Nomocanon, nor the decisions of the Stoglavyj Sobor in 1551 or the Great Council of Moscow addressed the question of the sanity of the insane or the rules of their monastic confinement.
29The Petrine decree of 1723 on the use of monasteries as institutions for the care of the elderly and the sick also mentioned the insane (“possessed”): “The possessed (‘besnujuščiessja’) are to be sent to monasteries, and in these monasteries they are to be kept in a special place under guard so that they do not do themselves any harm21.”
30In fact, Peter’s decree confirmed the already existing practice of monastery confinement of the insane, whereby the latter were now treated as objects of care on a par with retired soldiers. Most striking is the proximity of the practice of correction of the mind and that of drunkenness. For both groups, monasteries were places of detention and improvement. Church music and the regulated daily life in the monastery were considered “medicine”. To put an example: In 1728, Vassili Selenin, a clerk in the synodal chancellery, was sent to the Troice-Sergiev monastery for the “improvement of the mind”: his relatives, clerical father and neighbors complained about his “desert manner” (neistovstva), his superior merely pointing out that Selenin had simply drunk too much. After a few months in the monastery, the “healthy” Selenin returned to duty22.
31Another case shows that the insane had to do the same hard work as other prisoners. In 1728 the archimandrite of the Spaso-Evfimiev monastery Pitirim received the decree from Peter II about the peasant Vassili Savel’ev who had been banished to him pod načal and had fallen into insanity. He was to be led to every church mess, supervised and reprimanded by the monk in charge of the monastery bakery (“chlebennyj monach”) and put to work in the monastery bakery (“chlebnja”)23.
32At the beginning of the 18th century, the sources do not allow us to distinguish between the custodial regime of the delinquent and the insane. The type of work mentioned—in the kitchen (“trudy v povarne”), in the mill (“mukosejnye trudy”) and at the bread oven (“chlebnja”)—was considered hard labour. This work was an important element of custody in the 18th century, both for the insane and for other monastic prisoners.
33It is not possible to determine exactly what the hard labor in Russian monasteries was—the punishment for the offences committed in madness or a means of disciplining and improving man. However, it is thought-provoking that there was no difference in the practice of acting on the deranged and on the drunkard—as well as on the adulterer and delinquent. “The improvement of the mind” was both—a means of healing and a process of correcting the inmate’s inner discipline. In this prominent importance of work, a remarkable analogy could be noted with the penitentiaries in Western Europe, which had used the same practice ora et labora—that of work and religious communication and accompaniment24.
34In the most time of the 18th century, the legislation on insane, melancholics and “lunatics” was limited to banishing the insane to the monasteries. It was just 1775, as Catherine II founded the asylums, (doma prizrenija), a system of reformatories, workhouses and nursing homes. Dollgauzy, hospitals for the mentally ill, built according to the western example, were part of this25. But in the reality the practice of sending the insane to a convent continued until the end of the 18th century.
From punishment to correction, from carcer to claustrum
35In the “enlightened absolutism” of Catherine II, the monastery is no longer a repressive space, and the secular authorities begin to appeal to the “cleansing of the delinquent’s conscience” (očiščenie sovesti) by using a religious language. In addition, the practice of monastic penance is combined with the ideas of rationalism: The misdemeanors are classified and categorized according to the form and duration of the penitential practices. For the release from the monastic imprisonment, it is essential that the repentance of the crime and thus the inner correction of the prisoner is evident. The supervision was carried out not only to ensure that the prisoner wouldn’t escape, but also to ensure that the penance was carried out according to its form: fasting, regular prayers, bows, and instructions from experienced monks. And: this supervision was carried out by monks, guards, spiritual father, parents or spouses.
36Let me bring some examples:
37In 1777, soldier Nikita Jakličev beat his wife to death. The Synod assumed unintentional killing and determined penance for him for the half of the time determined in Nomokanon (5 years), but in Kozeletsky-Georgiev monastery. He had to be here in monastic labour and to practice penance in the following manner: for half a year he shall not enter the church, but shall come to the church to every liturgy and here do penance for his sin on his knees before the entrance; for the remaining two years he shall enter the church and every day he shall make 30 prostrations with prayer “Oh merciful God, forgive me, the sinner”. At the end of this time, after confession to his spiritual father, he may receive the Holy Sacraments again. In order for Jakličev to do this penance, he is to be observed without fail and the monastery warden is to report every third year to the bishop whether Jakličev “truly repents of his sins26”.
38In 1783, Alexander Teplitski, sub-lieutenant off duty, had to be banished into Solovecki-monastery until he shows remorse in “his boldness and corrects his corrupt life”. It was his mother, who had asked for his incarceration in a petition to the Empress. Catherine II instructed the archimandrite: “He (Teplitski, K.M.) is to be restrained from all rule-breaking and insolence, he is not to receive anything from the monastery food, but is to be made to earn his subsistence money through work. And observations as to whether he repents and improves shall be reported every six months27.”
39Especially often it comes to the monastic confinement in cases of family conflicts, like insulting the parents and adultery: these are now—as a rule at the petitions of the relatives—punished by spiritual and secular authorities with monastic penance28. For all sides, it seems, it depends crucially on the same: on the repentance and purification of the offender. The insight into the guilt and the showing of repentance (raskajanie) became the goal of the monastery confinement—here the interests of state, church and society coincide. So, if repentance is evident, relatives apply to clerical or secular powers for the release of their partner or child.
The context of shifting from punishment to correction: Monastic confinement goes back from carcer to claustrum
40The reasons for the change in punishment logic in the 18th century are manifold and difficult to identify. It is known, that secular power in its politics of teaching and disciplining its subjects was in need of help of the church. In the province, church was often the only administrative and judicial authority on the spot29. However, the language of the Church, the sermons, were rather incomprehensible to the subjects. The change in the language of sermons played an important role in the religious enlightenment of that time. The language of secular literature and the language of sermons are combined in a form that makes it possible to formulate the instructive and educational contents in an accessible and clear way.
41This in mind, I would like to put forward a working hypothesis: not only the effect on Secular Enlightenment, but also the “ecclesiastical Enlightenment30” had the impact on the swift from punishment to improvement as a logic of monastic confinement. To put it clearly: Monasteries were still combined, multifunctional institutions, but more and more it is about the betterment of the human being. How the ecclesiastical discourse had influenced the shift in the practice of monastic confinement in the late 18th century?
42The activity of such enlightened clergymen as Platon (Levshin), Gavriil (Petrov) and Tikhon of Zadonsk (Archbishop of Voronezh) and their work on the moral-religious teaching (nazidanie) of subjects influenced the discourse on punishment and discipline31. According to the church scholar Andrei Ivanov: “There has been greater interaction between Russian Orthodoxy and the protestant west than has been acknowledged so far. The penetration of ideas spanned not only theology but also the sublime and sacred spheres of personal and monastic spirituality32.”
43In their studies, several researchers have drawn attention to the influence of Protestant doctrine on the sermon texts and writings of the “great” clerics, above all through the translation and reception of the Lutheran theorists (J. Arndt et al.). This also included the insight, that the improvement of the offenders can only be achieved through active work on faith, not through the torture of the body. The soul can be “healed” by the classical rule of Benedictines “ora et labora”—pray and work—not by the torture of the body or even its physical destruction (i. e. execution). The idea of useful and creatively active human being, and that the aim of punish should be the improvement, in a prison as well, came in the Russian ecclesiastical and secular thinking. That is how two important intentions for action come together, as Barbara Skinner put it: “desire on the part of the Orthodox church leadership to help the parish clergy engage more actively and fruitfully in the spiritual development of their flock33”, and the enlightenment politics of Empress Catherine II. The idea of regeneration enters into the discourse of education and teaching: permanent self-improvement through conscientiously exercised penance, sincere showing of repentance are here the foundations of conversion to the right Christian and “good citizen34”. The semantic connection between the true Christian and good citizen was typical for the Western sermons of enlightenment of that time35.
44The turn in the logic of monastic confinement can hardly be understood outside the context of influential clergymen and their new concepts and perspectives of the Enlightenment era, both religious and secular. The “humanization” of punishment we notice in the late 18th century is thus not only to be explained by Beccaria’s writings, their reception by Catherine II. and the French Enlightenment, but also by German Protestantism and the discourses of penance, to which also the “corrective” role of labor belonged. The aspect of the prisoners’ work played an important role as a means of improving their situation.
45This is remarkable, that Russian monasteries became institutions of practical implementation of this new penal discourse before the establishment of the corrective houses (smiritelnye doma) in the 19th century. This means a similar critical rethinking of Foucault’s thesis that disciplinary punishment was linked to modernity also for the Russian case.
46The hypothesis, which is have to be proven through the following research, is that the elites of the Russian Orthodox Church, by adopting the discourse of Pietism from Western Europe, exercised an even greater influence on the penal system than the edicts of the monarchs. These principles were transferred through following techniques: sermons by priests who were in one way or another influenced by the ideas of Pietism and whose names are associated by specialists with the so-called “clerical revolution” or “Orthodox Church Enlightenment” observed in Russia in the 18th century and also transfer and translations. In contrast to Catholicism and Protestantism, Orthodox theosophical lore did not have such a strong written tradition, and so there was inevitably a constant borrowing, adaptation and reinterpretation of the European intellectual experience in the Russian spiritual sphere. Translations were made, as a rule, by church hierarchs who themselves, in their sermons and original writings, often became translators of the values of Pietism, which likewise had an impact on penal practices.
47Therefore, the Church determined the content of the penance and regained some of the freedom it lost in the aftermath of the Solovecki Uprising.
Conclusion
48Studies on medieval monastery of Western Europe as “monasterium panopticum36”, as place of imprisonment and correction, demonstrated the evidence for pre-modern experimentation on matters of crime and punishment. In Russia this development occurred later and had to do with the delayed centralization of power and real decline in abbots’ and abbesses’ decision-making power. But the similarity in the development of monasteries in Western Europe and Russia cannot go unnoticed. These combined institutions had punitive, educational and charitable functions here and there (although in the West we are dealing with the secularized monasteries, in Russia—with the still functioning ones). The question about the role of transfer of knowledge and practice concerning criminal and disciplinary practices from Western Europe to Russia in 18th century is a field still waiting for its researchers.
Bibliographie
ARCHIVES
RGADA (Rossiiskiy Gosudarstvennyy Archiv drevnikh aktov), Moscow
– Fond 1201, Solovecki monastery
– Fond 1441, Kirillo-Belozerski monastery
– Fond 1203, Spaso-Evfimiev monastery
RGIA (Rossiiskiy Gosudarstvennyy Istoričeskiy Arkhiv), Sankt-Peterburg
– Fond 796 Kancelyariya Sinoda (Synods Chancery)
Notes de bas de page
1Shaljapin Sergej, “Klosterhaft in der Gerichts- und Verwaltungspraxis der russischen Bischöfe Ende des 17. und Anfang des 18. Jahrhunderts”, Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, 69, 3, 2021, p. 183-208, here 186f.
2For the historical context of the Uprising see Chumicheva Ol’ga Valer’evna, Solovetskoe Vosstanie 1667-1676, Novosibirsk, Nauchno-izdatel’skij tsentr SO RAN, 1998 and Michels Georg, At war with the church. Religious dissent in Seventeenth century Russia, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1999.
3Chumicheva Ol’ga Valer’evna, Solovetskoe Vosstanie, op. cit., p. 97.
4Ibid., p. 92.
5Makhotina Ekaterina, “Melancholija prichodit v Rossiju. Monastyri kak dolgauzy v Rossii v 18 veke”, Vivliofika: E-Journal of Eighteenth-Century Russian Studies, vol. 7, 2019, p. 21-46.
6Shaljapin Sergej, Tserkovno-penitentsiarnaja sistema v Rossii XV-XVIII vekov, Archangel’sk, IPTS Safu, 2013.
7Milovanov Ivan, O prestuplenijakh i nakazaniakh tserkovnykh (po kanonam drevnej vselenskoj tserkvi), Sankt-Peterburg, Tip. F. Eleonskago i Co, 1888, p. 7.
8Schmidt Christoph, Sozialkontrolle in Moskau. Justiz, Kriminalität und Leibeigenschaft 1649-1785, Stuttgart, Frank Steiner Verlag, 1996, p. 404.
9Pol’noe Sobranie Zakonov Rossijskoj imperii, vol. 3, Sankt-Peterburg, tip.II-go Otdelenija S.E.I.V. Kantseljarii, no 1612, 1830, p. 413.
10RGADA, f. 1441, op. 2, d. 47.
11Gentes Andrew A., Exile to Siberia, 1590-1822, England/New York, Basingstoke, 2008.
12RGADA, f. 1441, op. 2, d. 378 (1719).
13Kolodniki—from “kolodka”, cuffs for Ankles and hands made of timber, which had to be carried by the convicts, the prisoners were called so by their contemporaries because of this.
14“Resolution of the Supreme Privy Council 1729 on the transfer of prisoners from Moscow to the monasteries”, Opisanie dokumentov i del, khrannjaščichsja v archive Svjatejshego Pravitel’stvujushchego Sinoda (after—ODDS), vol. 9, no 240-242, -, 1913, (d. 161, 2.5.1729).
15On Peter’s special attention to clerical discipline see Zhivov Viktor, Iz tserkovnoj istorii vremen Petra Velikogo, Moskva, Novoe Lit. Obozrenie, 2004, p. 47-58 and Lavrov Aleksandr, Koldovstvo i religija v Rossii 1700-1740, Moskva, Drevlekhranilishche, 2000, p. 343.
16Gol’cev Viktor A., Zakonodatel’stvo i nravy v Rossii XVIII veka, Sankt-Peterburg, Tip. A. Jakobson, 1896, p. 93.
17Decree from 31. Januar 1701.
18Verchovskoj Učreždenie duchovnoj kollegii i duchovnyj reglament, t. 2: Materialy, Rostov-na-Donu, t-vo A. S. Suvorina “Novoe vremja”, 1916, p. 153.
19Kabinet del Petra otd.1, kn.31, s. 56. cited by Čistovič Igor’, Feofan Prokopovič i ego vremja, Saint-Peterburg, tip.imperatorskoj Akademii nauk, 1868, p. 141.
20“Objavlenie o monashestve”, Ukaz 31.1.1724 cited here, Verchovskoj Učreždenie duchovnoj kollegii i duchovnyj reglament, t. 2, Materialy, Rostov-na Donu, t-vo A. SSuvorina “Novoe vremja”, 1916, p. 128.
21Rossiiskiy Gosudarstvennyy Istoričeskiy Arkhiv (RGIA), f. 796, op. 54, d. 297, 1767. l. 1 ob-2.
22ODDS, t. 8, Sankt-Peterburg, tip. Sv.Sinoda, no 433, 1891, (17 Juli 1728).
23RGADA, f. 1203, op. 1, vjaz. 227, d. 160 (1728).
24There is extensive literature on the “mixed institutions” of Western Europe: Muchnik Natalia, Les prisons de la foi. L’enfermement des minorités (xvie-xviiie siècle), Paris, Presses universitaires de France, 2019; Bretschneider Falk, Gefangene Gesellschaft. Eine Geschichte der Einsperrung in Sachsen im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert, Konstanz, UVK, 2008; Spierenburg Peter, The Prison Experience. Disciplinary Institutions and their Inmates in Early Modern Europe, Amsterdam, Amsterdam Academic Archive, 2007.
25Jangulova Lija, Institucionalizacija psichiatrii v Rossii, Genealogija praktik svidetel’stva i opisanija bezumija. Konec XVII-XIV vv (avtoreferat dissertacii, Gosudarstvennyj universitet Vysšaja škola ėkonomiki), Moskva, 2004.
26RGIA, f. 796, op. 58, d. 350 (1777). L. 2-5.
27RGADA, f. 1201, p. 5, d. 5386 (1786).
28For more details see Makhotina Ekaterina, “Liebe, Leidenschaft und (T)Reue: Familiäre Konflikte im Russland des 18. Jahrhunderts im Spiegel der Bittschiften”, Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, 1, 2021, p. 67-101.
29Lavrov Aleksandr, Koldovstvo i religija v Rossii, op. cit., p. 343.
30The term from Tsapina Olga, “Beyond the Synodal Church: Problems and Perspectives in the Studies of Eighteenth Century Russian Orthodoxy”, Classical Russia, 1, 2006, p. 19-52.
31Tsapina Olga, Beyond the Synodal Church, op. cit ; Wirtschafter Elise Kimerling, Religion and Enlightenment in Catherinian Russia: the Teachings of Metropolitan Platon, DeKalb, Illinois, 2013; Skinner Barbara, “Guidelines to Faith. Instructional Literature for Russian Orthodox Clergy and Laity in the Late Eighteenth Century”, The Russian Review, 74, October 2015, p. 599-623; Schierle Ingrid, “Protestantism in Russia during the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries: Introductory Remarks”, Vivliofika: E–Journal of Eighteenth Century Russian Studies, vol. 5, 2017, p. 2-4; Ivanov Andrey, “The Impact of Protestant Spirituality in Catherinian Russia. The Works of St. Tikhon of Zadonsk”, Vivliofika: E–Journal of Eighteenth Century Russian Studies, vol. 5, 2017, p. 40-72; Freeze Gregory, “Lutheranism in Russia: Critical Reassessment”, in Hans Medick and Peer Schmidt (ed.), Luther zwischen den Kulturen. Zeitgenossenschaft – Weltwirkungen, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004, p. 297-317.
32Ivanov Andrey, “The Impact of Protestant Spirituality in Catherinian Russia”, art. cit., p. 56.
33Skinner Barbara, “Guidelines to Faith”, art. cit., p. 599.
34Marasinova Elena, „Zakon“ i „graždanin“ v Rossii vtoroj poloviny XVIII veka: Očerki istorii obščestvennogo soznanija, Moskva, NLO, 2017.
35Reichelt Stefan, “Recepcija tvorčestva Ioanna Arndta v Rossii”, in Roger P. Bartlett et al. (ed.), Eighteenth–Century Russia. Society, Culture, Economy, papers from the VII International Conference of the Study Group on Eighteenth-Century Russia, Wittenberg, 2004, Lit. Verlag Dr. W. Hopf, Berlin, 2007.
36This article deals with the origins of monastic custody in the Western Church, Jezierski Wojtek, “Monasterium panopticum”, Frühmittelalterliche Studien, 40/1, 2009, p. 167-182.
Auteur
Université de Bonn (Allemagne).
Katja Makhotina, a consacré sa thèse à la mémoire collective de la Seconde Guerre mondiale en Lituanie qu’elle a publiée en 2017, Erinnerungen an den Krieg – Krieg der Erinnerungen. Litauen und der Zweite Weltkrieg, Göttingen 2017 et, depuis, coécrit un ouvrage avec Franziska Davies sur les lieux de mémoire de la Seconde Guerre mondiale en Europe orientale, Offene Wunden Osteuropas. Reise zu den Erinnerungsorten des Zweiten Weltkrieges, Darmstadt 2022. Elle travaille désormais à un projet d’habilitation, Emprisonnés et guéris. La détention monastique dans la pratique pénale russe du xviiie siècle (Gefangene und Geheilte. Klosterhaft in der Strafpraxis Russlands des 18. Jahrhunderts).

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Un constructeur de la France du xxe siècle
La Société Auxiliaire d'Entreprises (SAE) et la naissance de la grande entreprise française de bâtiment (1924-1974)
Pierre Jambard
2008
Ouvriers bretons
Conflits d'usines, conflits identitaires en Bretagne dans les années 1968
Vincent Porhel
2008
L'intrusion balnéaire
Les populations littorales bretonnes et vendéennes face au tourisme (1800-1945)
Johan Vincent
2008
L'individu dans la famille à Rome au ive siècle
D'après l'œuvre d'Ambroise de Milan
Dominique Lhuillier-Martinetti
2008
L'éveil politique de la Savoie
Conflits ordinaires et rivalités nouvelles (1848-1853)
Sylvain Milbach
2008
L'évangélisation des Indiens du Mexique
Impact et réalité de la conquête spirituelle (xvie siècle)
Éric Roulet
2008
Les miroirs du silence
L'éducation des jeunes sourds dans l'Ouest, 1800-1934
Patrick Bourgalais
2008