Building Doukhoboriia: religious culture, social identity and Russian colonization in Transcaucasia, 1845-1895

Abstract

The 1890s remain the most (in)famous period in the life of the Russian Doukhobors and have successfully overshadowed previous Doukhobor history in Transcaucasia -- a time starkly different from the 1895 conflagration. The popular image represents a uni - dimensional, incomplete portrayal of the Doukhobor religious community. To be sure, the image of the oppressed resistor and Christian radical stands, deservedly, as a central and inviolable component of Doukhobor history and identity. But this was not the only Russian Doukhobor archetype. To understand more fully the complexities of Doukhobor experience in the Transcaucasus, three other roles, or identities, must be seen to have co - existed with the "dissenting sectarian": the "accommodationist Doukhobor," "Russian colonist," and "Russian peasant."(f.8) These Doukhobor "types" evolved from the interplay and mutually reinforcing negotiations of three forces: the internal aspects of the Doukhobor community -- religious beliefs, social practices, governing structures and economic growth; the Transcaucasus, its indigenous peoples and physical environment; and the relations between sect and state, especially processes of colonization. In addition, while these identities describe Doukhobor existence in the Transcaucasus as historical typologies, their interactions themselves played an active function in charting the course of the Doukhobor past.(f.9)

The state and Synod considered the Doukhobors anti - feudal pariahs and religious heretics -- "dissenting sectarians." Like other sectarians, they were forcibly relocated from the Empire's centre as part of efforts to prevent the spiritual contagion of Orthodox peasants through geographic isolation, prompt conversion to Orthodoxy and restrict the sect's numerical growth. In the case of the Doukhobors' transfer from New Russia, impetus also came from accusations, followed by an administrative investigation, of murder, torture, harboring deserters and other wrong - doing in their Milky Waters' communities.(f.15) Yet, despite their characterization as "pernicious" sectarians, the Doukhobors gradually took on the coloration of quasi - official representatives of Russia upon their arrival in the Transcaucasus. As early as the 1860s the Doukhobors were considered model colonists -- raising "high the banner of Russian [russkii] culture" -- with their economic success and good relations to the local population.(f.16) For their role as carriers of Russian civilization, government administrators, ironically, bestowed certain privileges upon the Doukhobors: such as relatively large land grants and access to weapons.(f.17) In addition, the local and regional state administrations took a "laissez - faire" approach towards Doukhobor colonists -- a system that devolved almost all regulatory functions to the hands of the communities themselves. This arrangement permitted the Doukhobors to develop "a state within a state" -- often labeled Doukhoboriia -- that at least one author observed "looked upon Russia [Rossiia] as a friendly neighboring power, relations with whom are confined on its side only to the payment of 'tribute'."(f.18)

Doukhobor marriage practice in Transcaucasia stemmed from a combination of Doukhobor theology and traditional patterns of Russian peasant marriage.(f.33) Nonetheless, it was a social practice that differentiated the Doukhobors from the Orthodox in the eyes of the Synod and its missionaries. In fact, the unceremonial nature of Doukhobor marriage practices attracted rumors of improper sexual behavior from among the Orthodox.(f.34) In theory, marriage for Doukhobors required nothing other than the mutual decision of the couple to make a life - long commitment and the assent of the parents -- although, in practice, marriages were often arranged by parents.(f.35) Doukhobor observer and state secretary V.R. Marchenko relates how "sometimes ... this mutual consent is not made evident until the bride has become a mother."(f.36) While no special sacraments or ceremonies were required, Doukhobor wedding practice in Transcaucasia became ritualized and, especially in the 1880s, very ostentatious and expensive. The expenditure on drink alone could exceed 100 rubles at even the most modest banquet.

Building Doukhoboriia: Religious Culture, Social Identity and Russian Colonization in Transcaucasia, 1845 - 1895

ABSTRACT

While the arms burning of 1895 remains the most renowned moment in the Doukhobors' Russian past, the years preceding this event represent a period different both in tone and content from the turbulent 1890s. Nicholas Breyfogle provides a broad outline of Doukhobor history in Transcaucasia from 1845 - 1895. He touches on such themes as religious beliefs and practices; family and marriage structures; Doukhobor self - government and leadership; economic development and prosperity; relations between the Doukhobors and the indigenous populations; and the interaction between state and Doukhobors, especially in regards to the not inconsequential role played by the latter in Tsarist colonization of the southern borderlands. The author ends with a discussion of the six primary forces whose mutual influence resulted in the enormous conflict between state forces and Doukhobors after 1895.

The dramatic events surrounding the 1895 arms burning have dominated scholarship on the nineteenth - century history of the Russian Christian sect known as the Doukhobors.(f.1) Indeed, the pervasive Doukhobor image, both from within and outside the community, derives from these incidents. Doukhobors are depicted, on one hand, as adherents to a radical religious movement and conscious dissenters from secular power. On the other hand, they are seen as a religious minority perpetually at odds with the state and continually suffering for their faith, much like the early Christians. This representation is not unexpected. The highly charged incidents constituted a watershed both within the Doukhobor community and in relations between the sect and Russian state power. Moreover, a large body of polemical literature has grown up around the 1895 conflict with each side determined to argue its case in the public arena.(f.2)

For the Doukhobors, the period 1886 - 1899 was one of accelerating ferment.(f.3) Internally, for both spiritual and socio - political reasons, Doukhobors split into two (and later three) factions -- a fissure that literally tore families apart -- and engaged in a court battle over control of their communal property. The so - called Large party,(f.4) under the millenarian leadership of Peter Verigin, took up more radical religious beliefs and practices, including complete non acceptance of secular power, a commitment to nonviolence and social equality, contempt for property and riches, abstinence from sex for those married and from marriage for those unwed, vegetarianism, sobriety and renunciation of tobacco. In external relations, this Doukhobor majority refused to swear an oath to the new Tsar, repudiated military service, returned military equipment and reservist papers, burned personal arms in their possession, withheld taxes from a state they did not recognize, and proselytized among the local population. In response to these and other actions, the local administration imprisoned, beat, tortured and forcibly relocated 4,000 of these Doukhobors. At the end of the decade, Doukhobors emigrated en masse to Canada to escape utter destitution.(f.5)

At the time, these incidents involved not only the state and its opposition -- particularly Tolstoyans and Social Democrats(f.6) -- but also the international community, which was awakened to the conflict through Lev Tolstoy's letter to the London Times of October 23, 1895 and the subsequent publicizing work of V.G. Chertkov and P. I. Biriukov.(f.7) More recently, the Canadian Doukhobor community has taken up the mantle of 1895. They celebrate these years as the beginnings of their contemporary history -- a birth by fire -- which will be marked over the course of 1995 - 96 with a series of festivals and exhibitions.

The 1890s remain the most (in)famous period in the life of the Russian Doukhobors and have successfully overshadowed previous Doukhobor history in Transcaucasia -- a time starkly different from the 1895 conflagration. The popular image represents a uni - dimensional, incomplete portrayal of the Doukhobor religious community. To be sure, the image of the oppressed resistor and Christian radical stands, deservedly, as a central and inviolable component of Doukhobor history and identity. But this was not the only Russian Doukhobor archetype. To understand more fully the complexities of Doukhobor experience in the Transcaucasus, three other roles, or identities, must be seen to have co - existed with the "dissenting sectarian": the "accommodationist Doukhobor," "Russian colonist," and "Russian peasant."(f.8) These Doukhobor "types" evolved from the interplay and mutually reinforcing negotiations of three forces: the internal aspects of the Doukhobor community -- religious beliefs, social practices, governing structures and economic growth; the Transcaucasus, its indigenous peoples and physical environment; and the relations between sect and state, especially processes of colonization. In addition, while these identities describe Doukhobor existence in the Transcaucasus as historical typologies, their interactions themselves played an active function in charting the course of the Doukhobor past.(f.9)

The "accommodationist Doukhobor" identity(f.10) was pre - eminent from 1845 to 1886 -- from the end of the forced Doukhobor migration to the Transcaucasus from New Russia to the death of Doukhobor leader Lukeria Kalmykova(f.11) -- although it continued to exist in the modified form of the Small Party through 1895. In those years, the Doukhobors constructed a community in Russia's southern borderlands relatively free from state interference. It was characterized by a vibrant and successful economy, peaceful relations with Russian state power and spiritual compromise with earthly demands. This accommodation led to social stratification between rich and poor as growing wealth went hand in hand with a tendency away from communalism, and to an uneasy drifting away from such religious tenets as nonviolence, sobriety and indifference to literacy. To use sociologist Bryan Wilson's terminology, they crafted a form of Doukhobor religiosity in which "introversionist" and "reformist" tendencies stood out over "conversionist" and "utopian."(f.12)

From the moment that the Doukhobors were forcibly settled in Transcaucasia, they also took on the role of "Russian colonists." The Transcaucasus was only recently conquered and far from being under Russian control. For both military and economic reasons, Imperial policy in the newly acquired lands strove to populate the territory with ethnic Russians -- a policy similar to other borderland regions of the expanding Empire.(f.13) However, processes of internal migration and colonization in Transcaucasia are particularly interesting because of the disproportionately large role played by sectarians and schismatics. Into the 1880s, they comprised the majority of ethnic Russian settlers in the region.(f.14)

The state and Synod considered the Doukhobors anti - feudal pariahs and religious heretics -- "dissenting sectarians." Like other sectarians, they were forcibly relocated from the Empire's centre as part of efforts to prevent the spiritual contagion of Orthodox peasants through geographic isolation, prompt conversion to Orthodoxy and restrict the sect's numerical growth. In the case of the Doukhobors' transfer from New Russia, impetus also came from accusations, followed by an administrative investigation, of murder, torture, harboring deserters and other wrong - doing in their Milky Waters' communities.(f.15) Yet, despite their characterization as "pernicious" sectarians, the Doukhobors gradually took on the coloration of quasi - official representatives of Russia upon their arrival in the Transcaucasus. As early as the 1860s the Doukhobors were considered model colonists -- raising "high the banner of Russian [russkii] culture" -- with their economic success and good relations to the local population.(f.16) For their role as carriers of Russian civilization, government administrators, ironically, bestowed certain privileges upon the Doukhobors: such as relatively large land grants and access to weapons.(f.17) In addition, the local and regional state administrations took a "laissez - faire" approach towards Doukhobor colonists -- a system that devolved almost all regulatory functions to the hands of the communities themselves. This arrangement permitted the Doukhobors to develop "a state within a state" -- often labeled Doukhoboriia -- that at least one author observed "looked upon Russia [Rossiia] as a friendly neighboring power, relations with whom are confined on its side only to the payment of 'tribute'."(f.18)

Throughout their tenure in Transcaucasia Doukhobors were also "Russian peasants." More than one hundred years ago, the populist writer S.M. Kravchinskii boldly asserted:

we see that our peasantry, in its intellectual awakening, shows a remarkable tendency to run into religious channels. Dumb and inert in the domain of politics, it is in the founding of religious sects that our peasantry has formulated its most cherished ideals and social aspirations. Here they exhibit not only great intellectual activity but also unlimited moral energy.(f.19)

It may be going too far to agree entirely with Kravchinskii's evaluation of the meaning of sectarianism to Russia's peasants. Certainly, it is an undertaking fraught with pitfalls to envision one as simply a more articulated version of the other. Nevertheless, he is not incorrect to highlight the significant connections between sectarianism on one hand and peasant culture, society, and politics on the other. Doukhobors should be considered another varietal of a social group, the complexity of which historians are only now beginning to document.(f.20) Although Doukhobors were different in fundamental ways from other Russian peasants, as well as other sectarians, they shared salient similarities in social and cultural practices. Moreover, Doukhobors were juridically considered state peasants by the government, at least until the Emancipation.

Doukhobor history in the Transcaucasus should be understood differently, then, from the image left by 1895. Indeed, the identities of the "accommodationist Doukhobor," "Russian colonist," and "Russian peasant" must be added to that of the "dissenting sectarian" if the essence of these years is to be grasped more fully. The remainder of this article will discuss each of three causative agents -- religious, social, political and economic structures, relations to local inhabitants, and Russian state policies, central, local and colonial -- so as best to understand the formation of Transcaucasian Doukhobor identities, and of Doukhobor history, 1845 - 1895, in general. It will also examine how, once formed, these identities became themselves -- and through their blending -- producers of historical events. The study moves from the "bottom up," beginning with the internal workings of the Doukhobor community and then expanding outward to incorporate the influences of outside forces. By way of conclusion, the article will note reasons for the considerable change in Doukhobor - state relations in the 1890s, commenting on both the parameters of tolerated behavior in late Imperial Russia and the nature of Russian national identity.

Doukhobor Religion in Transcaucasia

Between 1841 and 1845, approximately 4,000 Russian peasants subscribing to the Doukhobor faith were forced to migrate from New Russia to the Transcaucasus by terms of a 1839 State decree.(f.21) Despite the geographic dispersion that the Doukhobor community underwent during the process of migration to Tiflis and Elizavetpol' provinces (and later to Kars territory (1879 - 1881)), Doukhobors maintained strong ties: politically through unquestioned support of the leader and annual meetings in Doukhoboriia's administrative center, Goreloe; through strong economic ties, both on a day - to - day basis but also through their highly developed welfare system; and most importantly through shared bonds of religious faith and cultural experience.(f.22)

The new settlers brought with them a religious faith, practice and experience forged over 75 to 100 years both in central Russian provinces and in the "Milky Waters" region of Tauride guberniia. Both in personal and state terms, their identity as Doukhobors stemmed from their religiosity, social practices, internal governing structures and their Russian peasant origins. In the Transcaucasus, Doukhobor spiritual systems continued to undergo constant evolution. Nonetheless, certain tenets run through their Transcaucasian history as a binding thread.(f.23)

At the core of Doukhobor faith lay the belief that the spirit of God resides constantly in each and every human being.(f.24) Since all humans are endowed with the spirit of God -- Doukhobor and non - Doukhobor, man and woman, rich and poor alike -- Doukhobors believed in the equality of all. They recognized no outward distinctions between individuals and did not hold temporal rulers in any higher esteem. Furthermore, the Doukhobors considered killing a great sin since, in effect, it was killing God. The Doukhobors denied the divinity of Christ. Christ was no doubt a son of God, but only in the manner in which all humans are also children of God. He was unquestionably a special man in the strength and depth of his connections to God's spirit, but he was flesh and blood just as they. For Doukhobors, there was one God, but in three parts: God the father was memory, God the son, intelligence, and the Holy Spirit, will. In that sense, all people were themselves the embodiment of the Trinity.

To worship and praise God, humans must open themselves up to their internal light -- a task for which an official church with priests, buildings and liturgy was unnecessary. Each individual has a direct connection to God and can act as his or her own "priest" or mediator.(f.25) The Doukhobors denied the importance of any external manifestations of religiosity such as fasts, icons, festivals and church sacraments, like baptism and weddings. The only outward displays of their faith -- outside of a good and godly day - to - day life -- came in the saying and singing of psalms and prayers, which accompanied every stage of life, and the bread, salt and water placed on the table at meetings -- traditional peasant symbols of the foundations of life. While sobriety was a component of Doukhobor religious practice at other times, in Transcaucasia drinking played a very significant part in both everyday life and special occasions.(f.26)

Significantly the Doukhobors disregarded any written sources -- such as the Bible, gospels, or works of church leaders. Rather than through writing, the Doukhobors passed on their beliefs and doctrine orally in the form of the "Living Book" [Zhivotnaia Kniga].(f.27) This "book" was the unwritten compilation of their psalms and prayers, many ostensibly of Davidian origin, others written by various Doukhobor leaders of which the most important were Saveli Kapustin and Ilarion Pobirokhin.(f.28) The contents of the "book" were taught to children as their sole education from the moment they could speak.

The oral transmission of psalms and prayers led, according to observers, to their partial or complete alteration, sometimes to a point where they made little sense.(f.29) When challenged on inconsistencies Doukhobors held firm to a belief that these words were indeed identical to those their fathers and forefathers had said, and that, change or no change, God understood the meaning of their hearts and their prayers. Critiques of psalm content mistake the intellectual for the experienced religion -- the sense of communal demonstration of faith through joint action, and the ability to lift up the soul through the singing or humming of songs. To Doukhobors, the spiritual heights of the form, the doing, were more important than the rational consistency of the content.

In a visit to the Doukhobor village of Slavianka in the 1860s, the artist V.V. Vereshchagin took part in a Doukhobor prayer service.(f.30) As he describes, Doukhobor services were simple in structure, and lacked the external manifestations of faith that were found among the Orthodox. The Sunday service took place in a special hut, packed full of people. Men stood on one side and women on the other facing each other, a design that allowed each celebrant to look at the image of God during the service.(f.31) The worshippers in turn said prayers out loud. When a mistake was made in the relating of a particular prayer, those around the speaker immediately corrected him or her and in this manner, the Doukhobors asserted, the prayers had remained the same since the day they were created. Men made more mistakes than women and women held a pre - eminent role as correctors -- a fact that speaks to the significance that Doukhobors assigned to women as guardians and preservers of the faith. The prayers lasted hours to the point of physical exhaustion. Vereshchagin relates, somewhat irreverently, how the sounds of snores from the back gave impetus for someone in the group to suggest that they move to the singing.

The entire group exited the hut into the village courtyard [dvor], where they again split into sides of men and women. Psalms were sung in a mournful and plaintive tone that deeply affected Vereshchagin, evoking for him the feeling of far - off homelands. Those who did not know the words to a specific psalm simply "wailed" the music. Standing in front of the men was the choir leader [zapevala] who was responsible for starting the group on a particular psalm. The position of choir master was one of prestige and responsibility among the Doukhobors and was given to a village elder. The zapevala with whom Vereshchagin conversed was visibly proud of his role. Before the end of the service, the participants turned to every other individual at the service and, grabbing right hands, they bowed twice to each other, then kissed and bowed twice again, all the while singing continued.(f.32)

Marriage and Divorce Among the Doukhobors

Doukhobor marriage practice in Transcaucasia stemmed from a combination of Doukhobor theology and traditional patterns of Russian peasant marriage.(f.33) Nonetheless, it was a social practice that differentiated the Doukhobors from the Orthodox in the eyes of the Synod and its missionaries. In fact, the unceremonial nature of Doukhobor marriage practices attracted rumors of improper sexual behavior from among the Orthodox.(f.34) In theory, marriage for Doukhobors required nothing other than the mutual decision of the couple to make a life - long commitment and the assent of the parents -- although, in practice, marriages were often arranged by parents.(f.35) Doukhobor observer and state secretary V.R. Marchenko relates how "sometimes ... this mutual consent is not made evident until the bride has become a mother."(f.36) While no special sacraments or ceremonies were required, Doukhobor wedding practice in Transcaucasia became ritualized and, especially in the 1880s, very ostentatious and expensive. The expenditure on drink alone could exceed 100 rubles at even the most modest banquet.

The process of marriage was divided into four stages: matchmaking, betrothal, the gathering [svod] and the wedding. At each point in the marriage procedure, psalms, food and drink played central roles, and gifts were bestowed, both to the families and to the guests. At betrothal the groom handed from fifty to 100 rubles to the bride's family -- however, the significance of monetary transactions for Doukhobors appears much more symbolic than in the case of Orthodox peasants.(f.37) Since the elapsed time between gathering and wedding could be substantial, a husband was entitled to sleep with his wife at her parents' house after this former stage. During the wedding, either outdoors or in the bride's house, the parents gave advice to the young bride over how to conduct her marriage and her life. The central themes of the counsel centered on loving each other, the blessings of God on the marriage, and the importance of keeping rumors and gossip from the house. There were no written documents to certify the marriage. V.D. Bonch - Bruevich describes a typical wedding ceremony:

The father of the bride normally conducted the "ceremony" by asking the couple whether they wished to live together and whether they loved one another. Receiving an affirmative answer, the bride's father then declared the couple's mutually professed love to be the word of law....(f.38)

At each stage the role of women, especially the matchmaker, was paramount.(f.39) In fact, in the social life of the Doukhobors women played a particularly important role both spiritually and secularly. Since the spirit of God exists in all individuals, Doukhobor women took on an extremely important role as the life - givers of Christ. Indeed, each woman was considered a "Virgin Mary." Svetlana Inikova relates how the similarity of both clothing and hairstyle between married and unmarried women mirrored Doukhobor emphasis on perpetual purity. Unlike Orthodox peasant women who underwent elaborate changes in hairstyle and clothing upon marriage to reflect both their change in status in the community and their new function as a woman, Doukhobors privileged the religious role of women over their physical and marital status.(f.40) This may indeed explain the absence in Dzhashi's narrative of any discussion of marriage consummation which played such a significant and symbolic role in the "ritual drama" of Orthodox peasant weddings.(f.41)

Despite the outwardly informal nature of marriage and the ease of divorce -- the decision to leave a husband or wife, in theory, required only the public announcement of intent and the payment of a sum -- contemporary witnesses assert that the incidence of marriage termination among Doukhobors was very low during the fifty years under consideration.(f.42) However, this marital stability came to a crashing end after the death of Kalmykova. From exile, Peter Verigin ordered his followers to break all ties with any who followed the Small Party. The Doukhobor Vasia Pozdniakov relates:

Thus, if anybody belonging to the Large party has a wife which [sic] sympathizes with the Small party, he ought to turn her out of the house, even if she had children, -- let her go to the Small party; and a wife of a husband belonging to the Small party, if she sympathizes with the Large Party, ought to leave her husband and come to the Large party. The Large party followed Verigin's order, and thus many families were separated and hundreds of children were left without attendance. The authorities had to issue an order. They ordered the husbands to give allowances to their wives they had turned out; and those wives that had run away from their husbands were installed in their homes again, and forced to provide for their children.(f.43)

Ethnographer I. E. Petrov agrees with Pozdniakov's characterization of the impact of the split on marital relations. While divorce was uncommon among the Doukhobors beforehand, from the day of the beginning of the "ferment" (which Petrov dates to August 29, 1889), eighteen couples divorced in Slavianka, one in Novo - Troitskoe, three in Novo - Spasskoe and one in Novo - Gorelevoe.(f.44)

Doukhobor Government

Like all states, Doukhoboriia required a complex system of governance. Unlike the fragmented and messianic leadership of exiles in the 1890s, Doukhobor administration in the Transcaucasus -- especially during the reign of Lukeria Kalmykova, 1864 - 86 -- was an efficiently functioning, systematized structure meeting the needs of both internal and external affairs.(f.45) On one hand, the management system ensured an environment for the growth of a Doukhobor spirituality and identity through a judiciary, welfare support system, and economic coordination policy. On the other hand, the administration acted as the negotiators with Russian state power and struggled to channel and control, to the best of their abilities, the state's impact on them as colonists and sectarians.(f.46)

Doukhobor government in the Transcaucasus has been called a theocracy, which rested on four pillars: 1) God as the ultimate source of power, 2) undisputed equality of all Doukhobors, 3) the rule of an all - powerful individual leader (the only, albeit enormous, exception to the second pillar) and 4) the administrative structures -- legal, financial and legislative -- constructed around the Orphan Home [Sirotskii dom].(f.47) An elder [starshina], ataman and a council of elders conducted day - to - day business management and assisted the leader. These "state" structures were reproduced in miniature in each village, although not always systematically.

Since God was considered the ultimate source of power, Doukhobors doctrinally denied the omnipotence of the tsar and his representatives. However, as will be discussed below, during the years in Transcaucasia they came to a modus vivendi with Russian state power in which they would fulfill all outward duties that did not contradict their religious beliefs -- such as killing or swearing oaths.(f.48) The assertion of equality of all Doukhobors in the decision - making of the village grew directly from Doukhobor beliefs in the existence of God's spirit in all humans. Thus, in village gatherings, both rich and poor, men and women had an equal vote in the resolution of issues. In the instance of village decision - making, settlements were determined by a unified and agreed spirit.

The development of single - leader rule among the Doukhobors took place over many generations and with three leaders in particular. The first Doukhobor leader, Silvan Kolesnikov (approximately 1750 - 1765), claimed that God was found in the souls of all humans and that they were "the image of God on earth." Ilarion Pobirokhin, the next recognized leader of the Doukhobors (approximately 1765 - 1790), deviated substantively from extant teachings when "not content with recognizing himself to be a son of God like others, inspired by the holy spirit sufficiently to enable him to discern his duty and progress towards perfection, he claimed to be Christ."(f.49) Pobirokhin asserted that the spirit of Christ never left earth and in every generation it is embodied in one individual. The personification of Christ will manifest the strength and characteristics of Christ, such as an absence of sin andthe incapacity to be wrong, and by destiny will lead the community of faithful. Since all orders from the Christ - leader came by definition directly from God, the Doukhobors held "unquestioning obedience" to their ruler.(f.50) Under the subsequent leadership of Saveli Kapustin (approximately 1790 - 1818) the characteristics of the Christ - spirit and the Christ - leader took one more turn. Kapustin claimed not only that the spirit of Christ was transferred from generation to generation, but that it was passed hereditarily through one family. Thus, from Kapustin through to the death of Lukeria Kalmykova in 1886, Doukhobor rule rested in the hands of one family.(f.51)

State commentators on Doukhobor governance, such as Lieutenant - General Kuropatkin, called rank - and - file Doukhobors "blind" and complained, ironically, of the danger of placing so much power in the hands of one individual. Furthermore, Doukhobor leaders were charged with sexual debauchery, drunkenness and arbitrary, violent rule -- accusations that were directed at both male and female leaders. Rumors abounded among the neighboring populations that a central reason for the good relations between the Doukhobors and the administration was the sexual relations between Kalmykova and various high level governors - general and viceroys, Grand Duke Michael in particular.(f.52) Petrov claims that Kalmykova was never in short supply of handsome young Doukhobors to satisfy her sexual appetite. Among these was Peter Verigin, who executed this post in her waning years. The author goes on to assert how "understandably, a twenty - year - old beauty was not satisfied by relations with one 'Virgin Mary' and he drank and debauched everywhere possible...".(f.53)

Accusations did not come solely from outside the Doukhobor community. Among his charges against Peter and Vasili Verigin, Vasia Pozdniakov includes gross sexual impropriety. Discussing the terms of Peter Verigin's exile in the late 1880s and early 1890s, Pozdniakov relates: "His life in exile was not hard at all. He had plenty of money, rented good apartments, and was living in an agreeable company. When he was taking a drive, in the company of some girls of his acquaintance ..." Later, when discussing Vasilii Verigin, Peter's younger brother, Pozdniakov states: "He was driving about the Doukhoborian villages in the company of a singing chorus, -- ofgirls mostly, -- and everywhere he came he found an entertainment ready."(f.54) In addition, the Canadian Doukhobor historian Peter Malov makes astonishing claims about Vasilii Kalmykov.(f.55)

Of the two Kalmykov brothers Vasilii was the older, but because his personality was so strange and mysterious the younger brother Peter was considered the future leader of the Doukhobors. Vasilii's strangeness included the fact that he often wore women's dresses, spent more time with women and avoided young men. It was said about him that from birth he was not normal physically, that is, he was half man, half woman, although the truth of this no - one knew.(f.56)

Moreover, many sources argue that the leaders often took a "do as I say not as I do attitude" in their dealings with the rank and file. Peter Kalmykov (Lukeria's husband and predecessor as leader) -- who reportedly drank to excess and regularly brought the beautiful young women of the village with him to the baths to wash(f.57) -- asserted that in his function as Christ, he took it upon himself to carry out the most egregious sins, either (depending on the source) to purge the rest of the community of such actions, or to provide a negative example that the others could then avoid imitating.(f.58) Despite the accusations, however, Doukhobor leaders were loved and supported among the community. Indeed the outpouring of love for Lukeria Kalmykova at her death is testimonial not only to the heartfelt love for the ruler but also to the spiritual faith in the Christ origins of the leader.(f.59)

As the earthly well - spring of spiritual faith and temporal power, the Christ - leader was both a symbolic and an actual focal point for a Doukhobor community spread across a broad geographic area.(f.60) In contrast, the Orphan Home located in Goreloe, while also a unifying symbol, was more directly involved in day - to - day affairs of running the Doukhobor state. Ostensibly, the Sirotskii dom existed to provide shelter for the aged, crippled and orphans among the Doukhobors. In reality it was the Doukhobors' administrative and religious center. Used for general prayer meetings and the worship of Christ, the Orphan Home was also the "palace" or residence of the Doukhobor leader, and therefore the seat of government. It was in addition the source of general welfare support for the entire community.(f.61)

Bonch - Bruevich relates how there were few orphans in Doukhobor villages who might need the services of the centralized Orphan Home since the Doukhobors maintained a very strong system of family support. Thus, any orphan or cripple could rely on even the most distant relative