The Russian Empire's Religious Policy in Georgia (The First Half of The 19th Century)

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/299034300
The Russian empire's religious policy in Georgia (the ﬁrst half of the 19th
century)
Chapter · January 2014
CITATIONS READS
0 60
1 author:
Khatuna Kokrashvili
Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University
2 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Certain Aspects of Georgia-Russian Relations in Modern Historiography, David Muskhelishvili Editor, Caucasus Region Political, Economic and Security Issues, Nova
Publishers, New York, 2014. View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Khatuna Kokrashvili on 16 February 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CAUCASUS REGION POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, AND SECURITY ISSUES
CERTAIN ASPECTS
OF GEORGIAN-RUSSIAN RELATIONS
IN MODERN HISTORIOGRAPHY
DAVID MUSKHELISHVILI
EDITOR
New York
Complimentary Contributor Copy

In: Certain Aspects of Georgian-Russian Relations ISBN: 978-1-63321-921-2
Editor: David Muskhelishvili © 2014 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 6
THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE’S RELIGIOUS POLICY IN

GEORGIA (THE FIRST HALF OF THE 19TH CENTURY)
Khatuna Kokrashvili*
Institute of History at Ivane Javakhishvili University, Georgia
From the history of the Russian Georgian religious relations, in the second half of the 18th
century after the anti-Osman expedition ended successfully, Russia, according to the
Kuchuck-Kainarji peace treaty, was declared to be a defender of all eastern Christians. [1]
Hence by means of this international document, the historical ambition of the Russian empire
connected with the main idea of the Russian messiahship was officially formed. According to
this idea, born as early as in the 15th century, after the collapse of Constantinople, Moscow
was recognized as the centre of the Christian East, i.e., the ―third Rome;‖ as for the whole of
Russia, she was given the function of defender and spreader of the Orthodox Christian faith
and as successor to the Byzantine empire. According to the regulation of the 23rd article of the
Kuchuck-Kainarji peace treaty, Russia officially confirmed an important advantage for
herself in the whole of the Christian East including in the Transcaucasian region, in countries
already conquered by her, and also those she intended to conquer in future; defending the
Orthodox faith became an indivisible part of Russia‘s colonial policy; the idea of expanding
the empire‘s frontiers was interpreted as a sacred mission, entrusted to her from above, i.e., by
God Himself, besides, she was justified by spreading, defending and protecting Orthodox
Christianity within the limits of the mentioned territories.
During the whole of the 18th century the relations in the church and religious sphere also
acquired a specific character alongside the political relations of Russia and Georgia. It is
noteworthy that there was quite a large number of ecclesiastics in Russian cities and
theological centres who had come to Russia from Georgia to receive education or who had
actively found work in various places of the empire. Moreover some were entrusted with
managing independent church chairs in Russia. In this connection it is sufficient to remember
the names of the following Georgian ecclesiastics: the Georgian catholicos-patriarch, Anton I,
who was head of the archbishop‘s chair in the town of Vladimir; Archbishop Ioseb Samebeli;
the archimandrite of Yuriev monastery; Bishop Ioann Mangleli archimandrite of Znamenski
*
Main Scientific Worker/Corresponding author: E-mail: kh.kokrashvli@gmail.com.

64 Khatuna Kokrashvili
monastery in Moscow; Gaioz Baratashvili, a graduate of the Moscow Theological seminary,

later bishop of Mozdok, and still later bishop of Astrakhan. It should be noted that the latter
successfully led the Russian-Georgian ecclesiastic mission of spreading the Orthodox faith
among the Caucasian mountain peoples. [2] Thus the ecclesiastical authorities of the Russian
empire did their best to find active and trustworthy supporters of the idea of Russian Georgian
unity, among a selected part of the Georgian ecclesiastics.
Russia skillfully used the pro-Russian orientation of the Georgian kings to occupy the
dominating position in the Caucasian region: it was the critical moment and carried out by the
Georgian kings that mainly defined the course in the Russian direction. At the end of the 18th
century beyond any doubt, ―the coreligious factor‖ was one of the most important factors that
determined Georgia‘s historical choice towards Russia in the many centuries long fight
against Islamic world-orientation. [3]
It is noteworthy that the historiography of the Georgian church from the very beginning
especially accentuated the phenomenon of coreligiousness as its ideological basis. Georgia,
finding itself in a hopeless situation, with the help of this ideological basis started its relations
with Russia.[4] Academician I. Javakishvili also mentioned the great significance of the
factor of faith. He showed that the Russian authorities, as well as diplomatic establishments
profitably used this factor in their military and political interests, while Georgia, hoping to be
protected by the coreligious empire, was a loser, as a rule.
The terms, stipulated in the 8th article of the Georgievski Treaty concluded between
Russia and Georgia in 1783 seemed quite unacceptable for the autocephalous status of the
Georgian Orthodox Christian church. The 8th article defined the Georgian-Russian
interrelations in the sphere of the church; the Catholicos-Patriarch of the Georgian Orthodox
Christian Church was declared to be a member of the Russian Holy Synod, and occupied the
8th place in the Russian ecclesiastical hierarchy. In an urgent situation it was envisioned to
work out an additional article which would be able to regulate the forms of governing the
Georgian Orthodox Christian Church and settling its relations with Russia. [5] However, such
an article was not worked out; consequently, the management and the regulations of the
Georgian church remained unchanged at the given stage. It is noteworthy that the equalization
of the title of the catholicos-patriarch with ordinary rank and file members of the Holy Synod
hierarchically, as well as the attempts of the secular authorities to establish the main
principles of managing for the autocephalous Georgian church, was unjustified according to
all the laws and norms of church law. [6] All this indicated quite definitely the
insurmountable desire of the Holy Ruling Synod to subject the Georgian autocephalous
church to its influence at any cost gradually, step by step, to humiliate it and to diminish its
hierarchical status and self-consciousness.
The relations between Russia and Georgia at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries are
assessed in Georgian historiography as the manifestation of naivete on the part of the Kartli-
Kakheti authorities and their superfluous, ―inexhaustible‖ trust of Russia, founded mainly on
―coreligiousness.‖ Owing to such a policy, the development of processes ended in the well-
known manifesto of 1801 which was followed by the abolition of the Kartli-Kakheti kingdom
and the factual annexation of Georgia. [7] The same act played a decisive role in the solution
of the fate of the Georgian church.
It must be noted here as well that irrespective of coreligiousness and common faith with
Russia, the Georgian Orthodox Christian Church found itself face to face with the Russian

The Russian Empire‘s Religious Policy in Georgia 65
church, fundamentally different from it by its structure. The last circumstance determined the
character of the church policy of Russia in Georgia to a significant extent.
The church reform, carried out by Peter I in 1722, set the beginning to a new, so called
‗synod period‘ of the development of the Orthodox church in Russia. The result was the
abolition of the institute of patriarchs and the establishment of a permanently acting council
(synod) of high hierarchs the Holy Ruling Synod. The cultural-legal forms and principles of
church management were fundamentally changed. According to the ecclesiastical regulations,
the monarch was declared to be the highest ruler of the church and consequently,
representatives of the clergy took an oath of allegiance to the monarch and the dynasty, and
not to church dogmas. With the aim of guaranteeing a corresponding status to the Holy
Synod, the latter was declared to be a governmental organ, i.e., an establishment, having state
power like the Senate. The result of the reform was that the reins of government of the church
factually turned out to be in the hands of the state power; Russia‘s emperor himself governed
the affairs of the church through the Holy Synod.
The position of an over-procurator was established with the purpose of the permanent
control of the Holy Synod. At the beginning, the competence of the over-procurator was
compiling reports to the emperor and writing annual accounts for the Synod. As time went on
the circle of his duties extended and he was charged with governing the establishments and
departments of the Synod: the chancellery, economy, the teaching committee, printing-house,
etc. The over-procurator had the main position in the secretariat of the Holy Ruling Synod,
and this in its turn conditioned the further strengthening of this institution and the local
extension of its duties. However paradoxical as it may seem, the essentially non-canonical
character of the church reform of Peter I was officially recognized by the Constantinople and
Antioch patriarchs. [8]
The use of church lands in the interests of the state seemed to be quite a characteristic
phenomenon for church reforms carried out in Russia. This process was finished in the 18th
century when in 1874 all movable and immovable property of the church was declared to be
the property of the state. [9] I.e., all the rights of the control, exploitation and the disposal of
incomes turned out to be the prerogative of the state. A salary was paid to representatives of
the clergy, thus turning them into state officials.
By the beginning of the 19th century, the power of the monarchy in Russia became
absolute; all the segments found in the country were subjected to state and emperor as much
as possible. The process of the formation of capitalist relations was accompanied by definite
changes in the social and economic life of the Russian empire; these, fundamental
circumstances of their kind, determined the absolutely new relations between the state and the
church.
At the beginning of the 19th century the relations between the church and the state in
Russia stepped into quite a new phase. If the state power managed in the 18th century to halt
and put to an end to the political independence of the church, in the first half of the 19th
century the process of managing the affairs of the church appeared in the hands of secular
bureaucratic officials. In 1802 on the initiative of Alexander I the Holy Synod was deprived
of the right of any direct communication with state establishments: from that time on such
relations were realized through the over-procurator; consequently, the power of the latter
became higher: besides the power that he already had, he was also given the functions of
guiding and managing. [11]

The expansion of the territories of the empire in all directions at the expense of adjoining
regions, settlements inhabited by representatives of different nationalities and different
religions significantly influenced the general condition of the Russian Orthodox Christian
Church. It is quite natural that a question, corresponding to the state interest, was raised about
relations with various religious trends and beliefs. The existence and development of different
religions inside an empire were to be subjected to the following ideological formula
―Orthodox, Autocracy and Nationalism.‖ Consequently, all efforts were directed so that
Orthodox Christianity should preserve its position as leader so that it could fullfill, the
function of a state religion with its legal status, clearly determined by the state legislation.
It is quite natural that in conditions when absolute monarchy flourishes, Russian power
could not bear the existence of an independent self-governing church organization in Georgia.
In 1801 Eastern Georgia became a gubernia of the Romanov empire, having no rights. After
the Kartli-Kakheti kingdom was joined to Russia, the process began of transforming the
Georgian Orthodox Christian church in the Russian manner.
The interrelations between the Georgian church and the Georgian state were historically
built on the following principle: full freedom and no pressure in the matter of spreading the
Christian faith; full independence of the church ways of life and its internal management,
non-interference by secular authorities in the competence of the high hierarchs of the church;
the inviolability of church property. However, when the new epoch set in, the reorganization
of the Georgian Orthodox Christian church was turned in a diametrically opposite direction.
[12]
The Russian emperor, Paul I from the very beginning declared the following in his
highest rescript to General Knorring: ―I want Georgia to be a gubernia as I have already
written to you and so connect it with the Senate; as for the church connect it with the Synod,
without touching upon their privileges. Let the governor be someone of royal blood, but he
will be under you and the chief of the new regiment of hussars.‖ [13] At the same time the
Holy Synod revealed a special gift for initiatives with the same kind of declarations to
establish the exact number of eparchies and monasteries on the territory of Eastern Georgia,
about the availability of the organs of church courts of law, about the preparation of the
personnel of the clergy, and finally about the theological schools and church incomes. [14]
All this doubtlessly pointed to the fact that together with joining Georgia to Russia there was
a plan for reorganizing the Georgian Orthodox Christian church: it was planned to form the
Tbilisi (Kartli) eparchy and the Telavi (Kakheti) eparchy; in each of them dicasteries should
be established, and in the other towns of the country – ecclesiastical management. In addition
they intended to introduce the position of an auditor in the Tbilisi eparchy, eparchy of Gori.
[15]
After the demise of Paul I the Georgian envoys presented a note to the Russian
government. They formulated the following requests, concerning the question of the church:
non-interference in the internal affairs of the Georgian Orthodox Christian church, preserving
the title and order of the Catholicos-Patriarch, Anton II, and to all ecclesiastics in the
Georgian eparchies.

The abolition of the autocephaly and Russia’s church reform in Georgia
According to the manifesto of September 12, 1801 the Georgian clergy were promised
the inviolability of the privileges they had, free performance of religious rites and a
guaranteed right to church property. [16] As a matter of fact, the manifesto recognized and
affirmed the independence and inviolability of the Georgian church. Besides, the religious
symbols connected with Georgia obtained special significance. Alexander I expressed his
wish to return to the Georgians St. Nino‘s cross, made of vine, the Georgian people‘s
centuries long sacred relic, as a sign of favour. In this case it was extremely noteworthy that
this sacred cross was at the head of the Russian troops when they first stepped on the territory
of Georgia.
However, it is universally known that the Russian authorities were always distinguished
by their short memory: they permitted Anton II to preserve his title, but his competence was
restricted. Moreover, many cases are registered of the violation of the rights of the Georgian
Orthodox Christian church and of the clumsy interference on the part of the Russian officials
in the functions of the archpriests Knorring, Lazarev, Tsitsianov and others were the ones at
fault. The latter actively interfered in the internal affairs of the church, demanding materials,
connected with church property, and also demanding data, reflecting all income and
expenditure. Apart from that, they voluntarily and without agreeing with anybody, planned to
reduce the number of eparchies and the clergy and demanded that the Catholicos-Patriarch
should not take any decision without permission of the political authorities, etc. [17]
As soon as he assumed office, commander in chief General Tormasov began to take
important steps with the purpose of the structural and administrative reorganization of the
Georgian Orthodox Christian Church. At the beginning in order to avoid mass discontent the
imperial government intended to use local Georgian personnel while carrying out the reform.
With this purpose in mind, Catholicos-Patriarch, Anton II, was offered to draw up a project
for the reorganization of the Georgian church. Anton II agreed to carry out a reform on
condition that the independence of the Georgian church was preserved. However, the reform,
planned by the Russian imperial government, in its essence implied including the Georgian
Orthodox Christian Church into Russia‘s church system and its complete merging with it.
This, in its turn, was only possible if the autocephaly of the Georgian church was abolished. It
is not surprising that proceeding from this, the request of the Georgian patriarch, already
mentioned, turned out to beunacceptable to the Russian party.
With the purpose of registering the number of churches and monasteries existing on the
territory of Georgia, and also to define with approximate precision, the number of the
ecclesiastics, the commander-in-chief Tormasov raised a question before the over-procurator
of the Synod in 1809 regarding the establishment of a theological dicastery as the high
ecclesiastical organ of management. Supposedly the new organ was to be headed by the
Catholicos of Georgia, and Varlaam Eristavi was prepared for the role of his assistant.
Varlaam Eristavi was Georgian by origin, brought up in Russia and well-versed in questions
of the management of Russian churches. But this initiative according to the plan prepared
beforehand, was not realized, for Anton II was summoned to Russia, to Petersburg, by the
will of Emperor Alexander I. Obeying the will of the emperor, the Catholicos-Patriarch of
Georgia departed to Petersburg on November 3rd, 1810. [18]
It should be noted that as early as from 1805, according to the emperor‘s wish, under the
pretext of becoming acquainted with representatives of the high clergy and the arrangement

of the church clerical work, there was the custom in Russia to invite ecclesiastics to
Petersburg, at the expense of the state and with the right to attend the sittings of the Holy
Synod. Candidatures of the persons to be invited were chosen after undergoing a thorough
selection. Besides, as a rule, the wish of the emperor to get acquainted with the high
representatives of the clergy personally very often was used for political aims: for instance,
the new order enabled the over-procurator, Golitsin, to take advantage of the occasion and
while the head of the eparchy was visiting the emperor, to completely carry out the planned
reforms, corresponding to the new system. [19]
So as it seems it was not a fortuitous decision at all, taken by the emperor, concerning
―the invitation‖ of Anton II to Russia: by the time the Georgian Catholicos-Patriarch arrived
in Petersburg the rescript of Emperor Alexander I would have already been prepared, in it the
aims of the government were indicated quite distinctly, namely as follows: ―After the
Georgian kingdom was joined to Russia the Georgian church had to obey the rules of
management of the Holy Synod for the presence of the Catholicos-Patriarch in Georgia would
not be compatible with the new system of the church.‖ [20]. In exchange for the voluntary
rejection of the throne of the archpriest the emperor promised Anton II to preserve all his
advantages, existing in the ecclesiastical sphere, among them a permanent seat in the Holy
Synod. In spite of a decided protest of the Georgian Catholicos-Patriarch, he was removed
from the Georgian church and was forced to leave Russia by a state decree.
The Russian church reform, carried out in Georgia in the first half of the 19th century,
developed in several directions: it implied a radical structural-administrative reorganization of
the Georgian church, the commutation of the church taxes and secularization of the church
lands: besides, it was envisioned to transform the order of the church service, the condition of
the lowest strata of the clergy and the system of theological education.
It was Varlaam Eristavi who was charged with the work on the project of the
reorganization of the Georgian church. The project, presented by him, was signed and
confirmed by the emperor on June 30, 1811. [21] The first stage of the reform of the church
was also connected with this project: the autocephaly of the Georgian church was abolished;
the Georgian exarchate was established instead of the patriarchy. The exarchate in fact was
subjected to the governing Holy All-Russian Synod). The first exarch of Georgia was
Varlaam Eristavi. The number of eparchies diminished substantially – instead of 13 eparchies,
existing in Eastern Georgia only two were formed: Mtskheta for Kartli and Alaverdi in
Kakheti; a dicastery was established for the clerical work of both eparchies. It was a special
organ whose chairman was Georgia‘s exarch. It was a special ecclesiastical management for
guiding the ecclesiastical affairs of Kartli and Kakheti, substituted later by the Synodal
Office. The functions of the dicastery were to study the situation in churches and monasteries,
to impose church taxes, to calculate and register the income of churches, to study divorces
and to regulate disputable problems or lawsuits, arising between ecclesiastics.
Since that time it was the exarch who was head of the Georgian Orthodox Christian
Church instead of a Catholicos-Patriarch. In a hierarchical sense it was the eccleasistical
degree between a metropolitan and patriarch. Apart from that the exarch was given an
advantageous right to occupy a permanent fourth place in the governing Holy Synod. To tell
the truth, not a single bishop had such a high title; however in reality Georgia‘s exarch had
fewer privileges in comparison with the rest of its members, viz. in many respects his rights
were more limited than, for instance, the rights of other eparchies inside Russia. [22]

A new era of church management set in the history of the Georgian church with the
establishment of the exarchate. It is true that the Russian power abolished the autocephaly of
the Georgian Orthodox Christian Church which then directly became subordinated to the
Holy Synod. At the same time a church organization was established that was allowed to
exercise all-round state control over the Georgian church and to give priority to the interests
of the empire.
The second stage of the reorganizing the Georgian church ended in 1814 viz. after the
abolition of the catholicate in Western Georgia, and according to the project drawn up by
Archbishop Dosytheos Pitskhelauri. Its result was that the church governing organs of Eastern
Georgia, the Imereti kingdom, and also of the principalities of Samegrelo and Guria were
united in the Georgian exarchate. On May 8, 1815 a Georgian-Imeretian Synodal office was
established instead of the ecclesiastical dicasstery. According to the definition of the Holy
Synod, Eastern Georgia was to have three eparchies instead of two the Mtskheta eparchy,
Telavi eparchy and Sighnagi eparchy. It was the same Dosytheos Pitskhelauri who was made
head of the Sighnagi eparchy. He was also appointed head of the recently restored ―Ossetian
ecclesiastical commission.‖ According to the high decree of August 30, 1814 Dosytheos
Pitskhelauri was appointed Telavi and Georgian-Caucasian archbishop,‖ giving him the
Ossetian Commission to guide and govern.‖ Due to the new regulation received by the
Synod, an ecclesiastical dicastery was to be established in Western Georgia in the city of
Kutaisi, however, owing to a very critical political situation created there, the dicastery was
not established after all, and instead ―an eparchial chancellery was to be established.‖ [23]
Soon the ecclesiastical power of the Russian empire considered Varlaam Eristavi and
Dosytheos Pitskhelauri to be unreliable officials for the state. In 1817 Ryazan‘s Bishop
Feofilakt Rusanov was sent to Georgia with a special mission. He was told to finish the
structural-administrative reform that had begun there. The latter started doing what he was
charged with, in the very first days he ordered that the service in Sioni cathedral should be
held in the Russian language three times a week. [24] Apart from that, immediately after his
arrival he presented a project for the reorganization of the exarchate, approved and signed by
the emperor on December 28, 1818. [25] The changes introduced into the system of
governing the church according to this project is assessed as the third stage of reorganization
in modern Georgian church historiography, [26] viz. according to Feofilakt Rusanov‘s
project, Eastern Georgian i.e., Kartli and Kakheti eparchies were united and received a new
name, a ―Kartli-Kakheti or Georgian eparchy,‖ as for Western Georgia, eparches with names
coinciding with the name of the region were formed, for instance, Imereti, Guria and
Samegrelo eparchies. The new reform envisioned a substantial staff reduction in churches, the
substitution of the duty, paid in kind for church tax, etc. However, the projected measures
caused a strong protest in the whole of Western Georgia: rebellion started in Imereti, then
embraced Guria, Samegrelo and Racha. ―The church riot‖ was suppressed with particular
cruelty. The bishops of the Imereti eparchy Euthymius of Gaenati and Dosytheos Kutateli
were punished with special severity.
Due to the very complicated situation created in connection with the rebellion of 1819-
1820, carrying out the reform in Western Georgia was stopped. In spite of the cruel measures
used while suppressing the rebellion, and the efforts made by the imperial power, they could
not complete the process of the reorganization of the church in Western Georgia during the
whole of the first half of the 19th century.

Besides the structural-administrative reorganization, the reform envisaged the exhaustive

calculation of the amount of property and all the income of the Georgian Orthodox Christian
church. It is noteworthy that as for the governing of the property, the Georgian church was
essentially different from that of Russia: in the first case the main source of income was
donations, among them being estates with serfs; consequently the Georgian Orthodox
Christian Church possessed quite a considerable amount of property; as for Russia, as early as
in the epoch of Catherine II church property was already in the hands of the state exchequer,
and representatives of the clergy, appointed by the state received salaries. The result of such
measures was that the Russian church had lost its initial, and it must be supposed its main,
functions; finding itself depending on the state financially, representatives of Russia‘s clergy
turned, as has already been mentioned, into ordinary officials carrying out Russia‘s imperial
policy.
From the point of view of using church property, the reform to be carried out in Georgia,
as we know, besides the commutation of the church taxes i.e., substituting paying in kind by
paying rent in money, also envisaged the secularization of the church lands i.e., giving the
church immovable property to the state exchequer. It is quite natural that all this process was
directed against the nationalization of the economic basis of the Georgian Orthodox Christian
church, as well as the appropriating of church revenue. It should be noted that from the point
of view of using its own property, the Georgian church found itself in a very unpleasant
situation in the first half of the 19th century. Church historiography confirms many cases of
stealing or appropriating church lands together with serfs, evading the paying of taxes and
other violations, needing regulating by the state. [27] With the help of the ecclesiastical
dicastery, the Georgian-Imeretian Synodal Office, and also the office calculations, organized
within the first half of the 19th century, it was managed to establish the approximate number
of church serfs and define the amount of their income. In 1818 the imperial power confirmed
the new staff time-table, by this defining the number of churches in the country and the ones
who served there. The same document regulated the number of parishes: each 80-100 yards
formed a parish.
By the beginning of the 19th century the following taxes were collected from the church
for church lands sursati, makhta, gala and kulukhi and for church parishes drama and
sakhutso, i.e., the tax, paid to the priest. The church peasants had the duty of working.
Besides all this only the church peasants or all the congregation paid money too for
performing various rites such as confession, eucharist, christening, wedding ceremonies, etc.
And still the main part of the taxes was paid in kind. Georgia‘s exarch Feofilakt Rusanov
realized the commutation of the church taxes; its result was that the amount of rent
considerably rose in the church taxes and beginning with the 1840s it occupied the leading
place in the payments made by church peasants.
The result of such measures was that the sum of money raised was transferred to the
exchequer; consequently the income of the state increased considerably. [28]
As for the secularization, i.e., turning church land into state property, this process had
several stages 1) 1811-1841 the church nobility with their estates and serfs were ascribed to
the fiscal department; 2) between 1842 and 1853 began the a process of transferring the
church lands to the state fiscal department; 3) between 1853 and 1869 all the church lands,
inhabited or uninhabited, were given to the state fiscal department for eternal possession.
The process of turning the church lands into state property ended in Kartli and Kakheti in
1869, in Imereti and Guria in 1871 and in Samegrelo in 1880. From then on the church

peasants became equal in their rights to the state peasants. An annual monetary income was
appointed to the ecclesiastical department, and the clergy received a salary from the state
exchequer, i.e., like the servants of the Russian Orthodox Christian church they became
ordinary state officials. In this way the Georgian church lost the main source of its income. In
the second half of the 19th century all kinds of church landownership factually disappeared in
Georgia, as well as church peasants, they were placed at the disposal of the fiscal department.
The duties of the clergy in the Russian empire were strictly defined and assigned, with
the agreements still in force according to the regulations of 1721: the clergy undertook the
obligation ―to be a faithful, kind and obedient slave and loyal to the emperor. Besides the
clergy were to tell the respective organs ―about all the damage, harm and loss of interest of
the imperial power.‖ Moreover the ecclesiastic had to undertake the obligation to violate the
secrecy of the confession and to report on all kinds of possible or supposed cases of ―theft,
treason or rebellion against the monarch.‖ The first duty of the clergy before the state was the
inculcation of loyal feelings among the Orthodox population. In this respect they at first tried
to succeed with the help of instilling the cult of the emperor‘s power. Such a policy found its
reflection in the history of Russia in the 18th century, viz. in the attempts to idolise and the
apotheosis of the emperor‘s person: e.g., it was admitted and encouraged to present the
reigning persons in church painting. However such attempts failed to gain popularity. When
the 19th century set in, the process of instilling the cult was resumed with new intensity and
this time developed in a different direction, i.e., in the form of the so called table or ―Tsar‘s
days;‖ the divine service was accompanied by special services, acathistos and canons, by
mentioning the names of the emperor and different members of his family. In the 19th century
this tradition acquired the status of an officially established rule, preserved up to the very
collapse of the empire in 1917. It is noteworthy that the fulfillment of this tradition, i.e., of the
carrying out of this festive divine service was more strictly watched than, let us say the
holding of any of the other festive church services.[30] Archive documents confirm that
eparchies and parish churches in Georgia received instructions in advance, concerning such
significant festivities and the offering of special prayers. On such days offering the liturgy for
the good of Russia‘s royal family became an inevitable condition for all acting churches and
monasteries on the territory of Georgia.
The tradition of the divine service underwent certain changes: according to the new order,
the service in churches and monasteries was carried out according to Slav church regulation.
In ethnically mixed parishes, the vespers were chanted in Russian, and in Georgian parishes
in Georgian. To instill Slav-Russian singing in Orthodox Christian churches, and also to
improve the technique of singing, a number of measures were taken throughout the empire: in
1804 the Holy State Synod required the performing of hymns, published exclusively in music
notation between 1815 and 1856 and were the only hymns permitted to be sung in churches.
It was forbidden to use hymns not approved by the director of the State Choir Turchaninov.
[31] In this way, as time went on, Georgian church chants were performed more and more
seldom, the musical scale was laid down.
Being unable to properly appreciate the beauty and refinement of the harmony of
Georgian church singing, the Russian officials treated the centuries long traditions of
Georgian hymnography with extreme disrespect. The commander-in-chief, P. Tsitsianov in
his so called ―letter‖ of March 25, 1804, to the Georgian Catholicos-Patriarch, Anton II,
demonstrates a good example of this. In this letter he, Tsitsianov, allowed himself in a more
than an insolent form to tell the head of the Georgian Orthodox Christian church of the

superiority of Slav singing. ―As many times I have heard it i.e., the Georgian church singing,
in churches here, they sound like a goat‘s bleating and if Your Holiness will wish to order to
teach the Kiev note by translating all the hymns into the Russian language?‖ [32] The exarch
Feofilact Rusanov‘s attitude towards Georgian church singing was also just as disrespectful:
in the Tbilisi theological school he established a class for exclusively studying Slav church
singing. And as it turned out some time later, again by his order, the singing lessons were
annulled. [33] Nevertheless, it should be noted that there were real appraisers and admirers of
the Georgian church hymns among the exarchs too; there is certain information that the
Georgian exarch Moses, gathered the best connoisseurs and performers of the Georgian
hymns from, different eparchies in 1839 and he himself harmonised the melodies of the
church chants. Sometime later Exarch Evsevi (1856-1877) also paid great attention to this
sphere. He ordered to introduce teaching Georgian church hymns in the Theological
Seminary, However and unfortunately, teaching was stopped when he lost this position before
the 1990s. [34]
The imperial power of Russia paid special attention to the clergy whom they probably
thought to be faithful allies and a supporting ideological force for spreading Russia‘s
domination in Transcaucasia. As the mission of ideological preparation and persuasion of
parishioners was fully laid on the lowest layer of the clergy, the government was interested in
improving the social conditions of this layer. In this connection, in 1807 by a decree of the
emperor, representatives of the clergy were freed from serfdom and various taxes, and also
from corporal punishment. A little later, the institute of manager or mouravi was abolished in
villages, [35] and the families of ecclesiastics were freed from the tax, envisaging the support
of the military. [36]
THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION
A number of reforms was carried out in the theological educational system of the Russian
empire at the beginning of the 19th century. A project of reforming theological schools was
affirmed in 1808. ―A commission of theological educational institutions‖ was put at the head
of the system of theological schools, it was subordinated in its turn, to the Holy State Synod.
Apart from that, a four-staged educational system an academy, seminary, a district school and
a parish school was introduced. A clearly defined connection was established between these
four stages: the school of each separate stage was directly subordinated to the educational
institution of the next stage. The academies managed the educational district to which a
certain number of eparchies with all the theological schools belonging to them, were ascribed.
According to the new regulation, the academies were not only theological educational
institutions, but they were also centres of theological science. In this connection the ranks of
master, candidate, and a little later from 1824 of Doctor of Theology were introduced. [37]
After the annexation, the number of Georgian schools and other educational institutions
on the territory of Eastern Georgia considerably diminished. Many of them, among them the
Tbilisi theological seminary, were closed. Besides, the establishing of new ones, but already
reorganized in the Russian manner, was delayed at the beginning. The school for the children
of the nobility reorganized into a gymnasium in 1830, but founded in 1804, was the only
official secular school for a long time, having a state subsidy.

Solicitation before the Russian Supreme Ecclesiastical Power for establishing a

Theological Seminary in Tbilisi began as early as in 1809, however, it was not satisfied under
the pretext of having no means. In 1817 Exarch Feofilakt‘s petition for opening the
Theological Seminary and Theological Schools in Georgia was also rejected; though the Holy
Governing Synod allowed His Holiness the Exarch of Georgia to borrow the sum necessary
for establishing such educational institutions from the means, given by the same Synod to the
―Ossetian Ecclesiastical Commission‖ in 1816. Due to such material provision, the Russian
Theological Seminary with a District School and a Parish school were opened in Tbilisi in
1817 with great festivities. On October 10 of the same year a district theological school and a
parish school were established in Telavi and in 1817-1818 in Sighnagi and Gori. It is
noteworthy that all the theological and educational institutions in Georgia were financed from
the local budget, by means obtained from the church income of the Georgian exarchate; it is
quite natural, for the main function of all these ―breeding grounds of theological education‖
was the preparing of spiritual teachers with imperial impulses in their souls for Georgian
parishioners who, while doing their duty, i.e., during the divine service would instill in the
souls of their parishioners loyalty to the autocratic regime and serve the Russianizing of the
Georgian population.[38]
At the beginning the teaching course of the Tbilisi Theological Seminary was not
complete and the lessons were devoted only to rhetoric. The course of philosophy was
introduced only in 1823, and that of theology in 1827. Persons from various ends of the
Russian empire were appointed teachers, and due to the scantiness of the budget, salaries they
were paid were scanty. Besides, as a rule, mainly failures, unskilled specialists arrived in
Georgia. Owing to the deficit of the pedagogical personnel in the Tbilisi Theological
Seminary frequently it was impossible to teach the obligatory course of subjects envisaged by
the ―seminary regulations.‖ Consequently, the given circumstances considerably prevented
transferring the students of the Tbilisi Theological Seminary to the Theological Academy.[39]
In the theological schools of Georgia without taking the local conditions into
consideration, the rules established in Russian educational institutions were mechanically
transferred to Georgia. The educational process was accompanied by Russian flogging; very
often the names of students were changed in the Russian manner on the initiative of the
administration of the theological educational institutions: in the majority of cases the
foundation of ―renewed‖ surnames was the patronymic of the student, the ecclesiastical rank
or the Russian translation of the same Georgian surname. As a rule, in the majority of cases
these derived surnames adhered to the people and passed from generation to generation.[40]
From time to time the character, direction and programme of the educational system in
the Caucasus were changed according to state interests and Russia‘s imperial policy. The
question of education appeared in close connection with the far-reaching plans of the Russian
colonial policy. It should be noted that the imperial government at the given stage in every
way supported the study of the local speech with the purpose of instilling and spreading the
Christian faith and activising the missionary activities among the Caucasian peoples. The
evidence of this is ―the letter‖ of February 8, 1834 Baron Rozen to the minister of education
Uvarov which says, ―The obstacles occurring because of a lack of Russian officials knowing
local languages are felt while governing the Transcaucasian Region. To avoid this, it is
necessary to impose upon the local authorities of education to take all kinds of steps to make
the children of Russian officials, brought up in these schools to thoroughly learn the local
languages, taught there, especially the Tatar language, as the most necessary one in the

greater part of the Transcaucasian region. To achieve this aim of the government some
encouraging measures do not seem to be superfluous, for instance, awarding the pupils,
distinguished by their success in these languages at school-leaving time, with gold and silver
medals and by appointing a certain sum of money to the poorest of them for the initial
acquisition…‖ [41]
In the first half of the 19th century in the conditions of the scanty educational network
found in Georgia, the complete Russification did not seem to be an effective measure. Before
the final completion of conquering the Caucasian region by the Russian empire the local
languages had to fulfil quite a clear cut mission, i.e., at the given stage on the territories which
were to be turned into colonies, with the aborigine population worshipping heathen gods or in
a better case-professing Islam, with the help of local languages Christianity should be
instilled. The imperial power considered it to be of great importance, for they thought it to be
the main component of the state ideology and the expression of the Russian mentality.
When spreading Christianity in the Caucasus the imperial power always considered
Georgia to be an important support; consequently, the preparation of future ecclesiastical,
official and missionary personnel both in secular and theological educational institutions of
Georgia requested the inclusion of the Ossetian and Tatar languages into the list of obligatory
subjects, alongside Georgian and Russian.
Missionary Activities
In the epoch under study the Russian empire‘s policy, as well as its aspiration to expand
its frontiers, demanded activising the missionary activities with special force.
Long before these events, as early as in the 18th century on the initiative of the Georgian
ecclesiastics, working in Moscow, ―An Ossetian Ecclesiastical Commission‖ was founded
whose aim mainly was to spread the Christian faith among the Ossets. In 1815 by the decision
of Emperor Alexander I this commission resumed functioning after it had stopped in 1792.
Besides, the sphere of its activities considerably expanded, embracing the process of
Christianizing not only of the Ossets, but also other mountain peoples. The main work of the
―Ossetian Ecclesiastical Commision‖ had the following direction: building churches and
monasteries and performing various missions for instilling the Orthodox, Christian faith
among the mountain peoples, opening theological educational institutions and the work of
translators for providing the local inhabitants with theological literature etc. in their native
language, Initially the state apportioned a fiscal sum of 14,750 rubles; apart from that, a
detachment of 100 Kazaks were sent to be at the disposal of the Mission, the so called ―Kazak
hundred men detachment‖ and 30 peasant-guides. The Commission resumed its work in
Tbilisi under the Right Reverend Dosytheos Pitskhelauri Archbishop of Telavi Georgia and
the Caucasus. Of course, the Commission was directly subjected to the Governing Holy
Synod. At different times the following Georgian public figures distinguished themselves in
educational-missionary work: Nikoloz Samarganov, Ioane Ialguzidze, Ioseb Eliozidze, Petre
Avaliani, Bessarion Iluridze, Vasili Tseradze, Giorgi Amiridze, Zakaria Mamulashvili and
Iakob Zamtarauli.
The result of the hard work of the ―Ossetian Ecclesiastical Commission‖ during 1817-
1820 was that about 18,592 mountain people were converted to Christianity. The activities of
the Commission were especially fruitful and effective in the period when Feofilakt Rusanov

was the exarch. At this time instructions were prepared, establishing the rules of the
behaviour of missionaries. viz: to convert the mountain people, missionaries were to use
―more spiritual than secular motives,‖ not to leave the community but to continue preaching
until the newly converted express a wish of having their own church and priest; not to begin
discussing mundane affairs; to go to do the sacred work without telling anybody of it and
without an escort, and present oneself not as one sent by the government, but as a simple
wanderer, wanting everybody to be saved. And finally, to leave the place where their teaching
was not accepted peacefully, and where it was accepted to stay there to teach the people and
to make their belief firmer.‖ [42]
The activities of ―the Biblical Society,‖ founded in Petersburg in 1812, in Russia‘s
policonfessional social environment was fully devoted the missionary and religious-
propagandist work. The Bible and various models of divine literature were translated into
different languages in a great hurry. Translating such literature into the languages of the
Caucasian peoples became more pressing after the ―Ossetian Ecclesiastical Commission‖
resumed its work. For example, it was Ioane Ialguzidze who particularly distinguished
himself in translating such literature from the Georgian language into Ossetian. He translated
the Gospel, the catechism, various prayers, divine liturgy, etc. [43]
From the 1820s the missionary activities of the ―Ossetian Ecclesiastical Commission‖
penetrate into Abkhazia. However at the start, due to the strong opposition of the Muslim
inhabitants, the mission did not succeed. For instance, the result of the missionary preaching
of the archimandrite Ioaniki was that only 216 Abkhazs were converted to Christianity. But
later, namely from the second half of the 19th century, the activities of the Christian
missionaries in Abkhazia turned out to be more fruitful. The ―Ossetian Ecclesiastical
Commission‖ also took care of converting the Inguilos and Muslim inhabitants who were
ethnic Georgians of the recently joined historic province of Samtskhe-Saatabago. However,
the activities of the mission were not so successful. [44]
It should be noted here too that in the first half of the 19th century the Holy Synod had not
as yet worked out a united plan for missionary work. The heavy burden of the mission‘s work
lay on the shoulders of local hierarchs. [45] The missionaries had to work under the hardest
conditions and very often problems with paying salaries occurred. Besides, being a
missionary was not considered to be a prestigious occupation in Russia‘s ecclesiastical circles
and therefore it was not very popular. Consequently, the activities of the ―Ossetian
Ecclesiastical Commission‖ in this respect turned out to be rather unsuccessful among the
mountain inhabitants of the Caucasus with the exception of the Ossets. The very character of
the measures, carried out by the government under the aegis of inculcating and spreading the
Christian-Orthodox faith and also the clumsy interference on the part of the state in the
processes of forming a religious orientation which concealed the wish of encroaching upon
new territories.
This caused a just indignation and fierce resistance of the mountain population of the
Caucasus; with time this opposition turned into a holy war.
The plunder of church property
The plunder of the cultural heritage of the Georgian church, the despising of the local
customs, arbitrary disposal of national values and property belonging to churches and

monasteries – all this became an integral part of the hierarchs‘ policy in Georgia. Very often
the plunder of the national treasury became an official source of their income. Unfortunately,
alongside the Russian ecclesiastics some renegades from the Georgian clergy also actively
participated in appropriating the valuables of churches and monasteries left without
superintendence. In 1818 under the instruction of the exarch Feofilakt Rusanov a list of all
acting and closed churches and monasteries in Eastern Georgia was compiled, with an
appended description of the valuables and church silver, kept in them. However, after they
had been brought to Tbilisi all these valuables disappeared without leaving any trace. In 1820
by a voluntary decision of the same Feofilakt Rusanov the inn or caravan-serai of Tbilisi
Sioni Cathedral was sold. It was also he who distributed church lands. In 1844, during the
rule of another exarch, Iona, valuables brought from David-Gareja
monastery to Tbilisi were lost. By the exarch‘s instructions and on the basis of the request of
the Holy Synod the ancient banners and the old armour were given to the military governor.
The further fate of these military relics is unknown to this day. [46]
Thus in the first half of the 19th century the Russian supreme power both secular and
ecclesiastical finally abolished the independence of the Georgian Orthodox Christian Church,
turning it into an insignificant, if not a miserable, appendage to the Russian Church. All this
was done by ignoring and violating the World Church Law by the Russian empire. It is a
universally known fact that the abolition of the autocephaly of any independent church is
possible only if there is a decision of the Ecumenical Council concerning it and if there is the
consent of the same independent church, and not against its will and desire. As for Georgia,
the position of the Catholicos-Patriarch was abolished with a brazen violation of World
Church Law and, without elementary justice, the structural-administrative form of the
Georgian Orthodox Christian Church was changed, its property independence was violated
and its relations and close connection with parishioners and the whole of the Georgian people
were broken, and finally the relations between the church and state underwent a radical
change.
With the establishment of the exarchate, the Georgian church was forcibly subjected to
the administrative organ of an alien state, i.e., to Russia‘s Holy Synod. The local church
management was under the control of the government of the Synodal office, and the church
itself with the Georgian clergy found themselves in direct dependence on the state exchequer.
In a word, the church gradually became the means of realizing the Russianizing policy in
Georgia, and this in its turn caused the alienation of the Georgian population from the clergy,
and very often the appearance of opposition between them and a gradual dying of religious
feelings.
Christian sects in Georgia
In the first half of the 19th century, the Russian authorities took active steps against the
various groups of sects which multiplied in Russian Orthodox churches, as the latter from the
government‘s point of view presented a religious form of social protest. As the revolutionary
processes revived in Western Europe the attitude of the emperor Nicholas I towards the sects
became noticeably worse. According to the degree of their danger all the sects on the territory
of the Russian empire were divided into three groups: the most dangerous for the government
were the groups of members of a sect refusing the very concept of state, the institute of

marriage and refusing to pray for the emperor. Among them were the Dukhobors, Khlists and
Molokans. The severest measures were taken against them by the government, they were not
allowed to build new houses where they would pray, or to restore and repair the old ones;
representatives of the local power removed crosses from their church bell towers and forbade
the members of the sects to ring bells during their rites; besides all this, there were cases of
pogroms of the spiritual centres of both their members and of dissident communities. From
the 1820s to the 1830s there were programs of exiled sect members from the southern and
central regions of Russia to the outskirts of the empire.
The Christian sects did not appear in Georgia in the local conditions: their appearance
both in Georgia and in the whole of the Transcaucasian region can be considered to be the
result of Russia‘s colonial policy. One of the first groups of such people that settled down in
Georgia, namely in Redut-Kale and Sukhumi were the Skoptsi (Eunuchs). [49] From the
1830s began the process of a purposeful deportation of various groups such as the Dukhobors,
Skoptsis, Molokans and Staroobryadtsi, from different regions of the Russian empire to
Georgia. This process was assisted in many ways by the decree of May 27, 1835, according to
which the especially dangerous and harmful sects were allowed to become members of the
civilian town society of the Transcaucasian region. [48]
In the 1830s it was decided to enlist all the active Dukhobors in the military in the
Caucasian corps, and to deport those unfit for military service to the Transcaucasian
provinces. In 1831 the first current of Dukhobors appeared in Transcaucasia, namely in the
gubernias Tbilisi and Elisavetpol, and also in the Kars district. On arrival in the Tbilisi
gubernia, they were distributed in two districts: Akhalkalaki and Borchalo. The process of
deportation lasted till 1845 inclusive.[49] It is noteworthy that the imperial authorities took
special care of the deported Dukhobors. According to the instruction of May 2, 1843 the
Dukhobors received arable lands and pastures on extremely advantageous terms. [50]
From 1830 the process of moving Molokans to Transcaucasia began. Currents of
migrants arrived in the Tbilisi gubernia in 1839-1847. The Molokans settled down in both
inner and borderline regions of Georgia. The religious centre, common to all, was situated in
the village of Voronovka in Borchalo district. On the initiative of the vice-roy of the tsar in
the Caucasus, Count Mikhail Vorontsov, a special commission was organized which, in its
turn, worked out various suggestions to improve the living conditions of migrants. The
Molokans received land, 30-60 desyatins per each family; apart from that the state gave them
certain sums as a credit for expenses when moving and seeds, and, finally, they were freed
from all taxes for a certain period of time. Besides, the government established a strict
supervision that the people should not organize praying houses, and should not give shelter to
people without passports in their houses, should not hire Orthodox Christians as workers or
vice versa; the worshippers had the right to move within the Transcaucasian provinces, but
not in towns. [51]
In 1842, the functioning of one of the currents of the Molokan sect the so called jumpers,
is certified. The latter had their prayer house in Tbilisi, in Peskov Street. [52]
In this way the tsarist government skillfully used the Christian sects in its interests,
namely, it created favourable conditions for them to settle down firmly in new places of
habitation. This was done in the process of the colonization of the Transcaucasian region.
According to the consideration, deep rooted in the Georgian historiography, acting in this
way, tsarism solved several problems at the same time: it rid itself of sects in the central
regions of Russia, deporting them to the provinces on the outskirts of the empire; on the other

hand, the Russian church by this weakened the keenness of inner contradictions, for the
groups were thought to be by the government the oppositional and hostile to the state forces.
At the same time, by the deportation of the sects the imperial power created a sects‘ migration
to Transcaucasia resulting in a noticeably changed demographic balance of the local
population in favour of the Russian element. Apart from all else, the sect members, settled in
the Georgian borderline zone and were considered by the government to be a powerful anti-
Turkish force.
The Catholic Church in Georgia
Owing to Russia‘s religious policy, the life of Georgian Catholics also changed radically.
As early as 1735 the adoption of the catholic faith by Orthodox Christians was forbidden in
the whole of Russia. After the annexation, as should be expected, this interdiction spread to
Georgia too. It should be noted that in the Russian empire the attitude of the authorities
towards catholic missionaries and their activities was suspicious. They considered the latter to
be agents of European countries. Consequently, the imperial government constantly
oppressed the eastern Catholic missions. On the same basis, the commander-in-chief,
Knorring, forbade the arrival of the European catholic missionaries in Georgia, he threatened
them with banishment. The divine service and the regulation of the church in Latin were also
forbidden in Georgian Catholic churches. In 1844 an official decision of interdicting the
activities of Catholic missionaries was taken; if the latter did not obey the Mogilyovsk
consistory. However, the representatives of the Catholic mission, present in Georgia at that
time, refused point blank to agree to such conditions and preferred to leave the country. [53]
Having lost their spiritual teachers the Catholic flock was obliged to obey the Mogilyovsk
consistory which, in fact, followed the Armenian-Gregorian regulations. As is known, during
the whole of their history the Georgian Catholics conducted divine service by the Latin
regulations of the church. Consequently, with the purpose of preserving their self-
identification they left Georgia and founded their churches in Constantinople and Montoban,
France. But the part that stayed in their home country was obliged to agree to using the
Armenian regulation. From this time, on the Armenian Catholic priests when christening
changed the surnames of ethnic Georgians and wrote them down in the Armenian manner. In
this way began the process of Armenizing Georgian Catholics.
Thus, at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries the use of religious factors in political interests
noticeably strengthened in the Russian empire. As a matter of fact Orthodox Christianity
served as a means of assimilating neighbouring territories and leading its own colonial policy.
In the first half of the 19th century after the annexation of the Georgian state the church
reform carried out in Georgia by the imperial power, served a definite aim that of the
inculcation of the rules of the Russian divine service and the establishment of the church
organization controlled by the state as much as possible. It also implied the radical structural-
administrative reorganization of the Georgian church, the commutation of the church taxes
i.e., the change from paying taxes in kind to paying money and the secularization of church
lands; apart from that the reorganization of the order of the divine service and the change of
the position of the lowest layer of the clergy was planned. The result of the church and
religious policy, carried out by the imperial power, was that the autocephaly of the Georgian
church was abolished and the position of exarch was established. Owing to this, the

structural-administrative form of the church was changed and it became completely subjected
to the Holy Synod. Consequently, by this the inviolability of the church property was broken
and, alongside it the Georgian clergy found itself dependent on the state exchequer. Apart
from that, owing to the reform carried out, the close connection of the church with its parish
was broken, its attitude towards the Georgian state also changed. With time the church
became the means of carrying out the Russianizing policy in Georgia.
The appearance of religious sects in Georgia is a direct result of Russia‘s colonial policy.
On the other hand, the measures, taken towards the Catholic church conditioned the
development of the process of Armenian Georgian Catholics.
The compulsory and forcible church policy of the Russian power, the establishment of
the state control on the church, the attempt to suppress national traditions and the persecution
of the national culture, the weakening and very often the destruction of the connection
between the church and its flock, all these circumstances became the reason for the
development and aggravation of the contrary processes among the local inhabitants of both
Christian and non-Christian faith. As could be expected such a policy gave birth to religious
indifference, and in other confessional groups to an acute anti-Orthodox reaction.
REFERENCES
[1] Tsagareli, A. Deeds and Other Historical Documents of the 18th century, Concerning
Georgia, vol. I SPB, 1898, 413.
[2] Bishop Kirion. A Twelve Century Long Religious Fight of Georgia with Islam. Tiflis,
1899, 81-83.
[3] Vachnadze, M; Guruli, V. The History of Russia – the 20th Century, Tbilisi, 2003. G.
Rtskhiladze. Georgia‘s Foreign Policy of the 2nd Half of the 18th Century and a
Religious Factor. In the magaz. ―Religia,‖ 1999 No-s 3,4. T. Panjikidze, The Religious
Factor in the Formation of the Conception of the Foreign Policy of Georgia in the book:
Religious Processes in Georgia at the Turn of the 20th-21st Centuries, Tbilisi 2003,
69-71.
[4] E. K. A Brief Essay of the History of the Georgian Church and the Exarchate in the 19th
Century, Tiflis, 1901, 6-8.
[5] Javakhishvili, I. Russian-Georgian Interrelations in the 18th Century, Tbilisi, 1919,
49-57.
[6] Monuments of Georgian Law, Tbilisi, Vol. 2, p. 469.
[7] Bubulashvili. E. The Georgian Orthodox Christian Church in the Period of the
Exarchate, a Synopsis of Thesis to Obtain the Degree of Doctor of History, Tbilisi,
2006, p. 12.
[8] Javakhishvili, I. Russian-Georgian Interrelations in the 18th Century, Tbilisi, 1919, 57-
64; cf. A. Bendianishvili, A National Question in Georgia in 1801-1921, Tb., 1980, 8.
[9] Dubronravin, R. An Essay of the History of the Russian Church, SPB., 1863, 192:
History of Religion in Russia, under the general edition of Trofimchuk, M., 2002,
141-142.
[10] The History of Religion in Russia, under the general edition of Trofimchuk, M., 2002,
141-142.

[11] Ibidem. 131-133.

[12] Rogava, G. Religion and Church in Georgia in the 19th-20th Centuries, Tbilisi, 2002, 33.
[13] Acts, Collected by The Caucasian Archeographic Commission, edited by A. Berzhe,
vol. I, part II, Tiflis, 1866, 413.
[14] Acts, Collected by The Caucasian Archeographic Commission, edited by A. Berzhe,
vol. II, Tiflis, 1866, 269.
[15] E. K. A Brief Essay of the History of the Georgian Church and the Exarchate in the 19th
Century, Tiflis, 1901, p. 11. N Dubrovin, Giorgi XII, the Last King of Georgia and
Joining it to Russia, SPB, 1897, 200-201.
[16] Tsagareli, A. Deeds and Other Historical Documents of the 18th Century, Concerning
Georgia, vol. II, publ. I, SPB. 1898, 201; also: G. Rogava, The Abolition of the
Autocephaly of the Georgian Church, magazine ―Religia,” 1998, Nos 5-6, 14.
[17] Bubulashvili, E. The Catholicos-Patriarch of Georgia – Anton II, Tbilisi, 2002, 27-32.
[18] E.K. A Brief Essay of the History of the Georgian Church and Exarchate in the 19th
century, Tiflis, 1901, 35.
[19] The History of the Christian Church in the 19th Century, publ. of A. P. Lopukhin, vol.
II, part II, Petrograd, 1901, 571-572.
[20] Rogava, G. Religion and Church in Georgia, Tbilisi, 2002, 20-21.
[21] The Report of the Synod, 1811, p. 2.
[22] Bubulashvili, E. The Georgian Orthodox Christian Church in the Period of the
Exarchate, Synopsis of Thesis to obtain the Degree of Doctor of History, Tbilisi, 2006,
17-18.
century, Tiflis, 1901, p. 54.
[24] Rogava, G. The Abolition of the Autocephaly of the Georgian Church, magazine
―Religia,‖ 1998, No-s 5-6, p. 20.
[25] The History of the Christian Church in the 19th Century, publ. of A. P. Lopukhin, vol. 2,
part II, Petrograd, 1901, p. 573.
[26] Bubulashvili, E. The Georgian Orthodox Christian Church in the Period of Exarchate,
Synopsis of Thesis to Obtain the Degree of the Doctor of History, Tbilisi, 2006, p. 19.
[27] Shakiashvili, T. The Georgian Church in the First Half of the 19th Century, Monastery
Economy, in the collection of works ―Questions of Georgia‘s New History, VIII,
Tbilisi, 2005, 132-148.
[28] Rogava, G. Religion and Church in Georgia, Tb., 2002, 29-30; also M. Tadumadze,
Church Landownership in Georgia (the 1st half of the 19th Century), Tbilisi, 2006, p. 86.
[29] Rogava, G. Religion and Church in Georgia, Tbilisi, 2002, 31-32.
[30] Nikolski, NM. The History of the Russian Church 3rd edition, M. 1983, 220-221.
[31] The History of the Christian Church in the 19th Century, A. P. Lopukhin‘s edition, vol.
2, part II, Petrograd, 1901, p. 567.
[32] Acts, Collected by the Caucasian Archeographic Commission, edited By A. Berzhe,
vol. II, Tiflis, 1868, p. 268.
[33] Ibidem, p. 268.
Century, Tiflis, 1901, p. 185.
[35] Georgia‘s Central State Archive of History, F. 488, d. N84, l 7-8.
[36] Georgia‘s Central State Archive of History, F. 488, d N84, l 5.

[37] Essay on the History of the Russian Church, SPB, 1863, p. 174. The History of
Religion in Russia under the general editorship of Trofimchuk, M. 2002, p. 148.
[38] Aleksidze, M. The Russificatory Policy of Tsarism in the Tbilisi Theological Seminary
and Fight for the Georgian language, a thesis to obtain the degree of candidate of
history (synopsis of thesis). Tbilisi, 1998, p. 20.
[39] Khundadze, Tr. Essays on the History of People‘s Education in the 19th century
Georgia, Tbilisi, 1957, p. 183.
[40] Ibidem, p. 187.
[41] Acts, Collected by the Caucasian Archeographic Commission, ed. By. A. Berzhe, vol,
VIII, Tiflis, 1881, p. 99.
Century, Tiflis, 1901, p.97.
[43] Georgia‘s Central State Archive of History, F. 488, d N621.
[44] Ibidem, p.p. 102-103; also V. Tsverava. The Missionary Activities of the Georgian
Exarchate in 19th century Kutaisi, 2003, 100-101.
[45] The History of Religion in Russia, under the general editorship of Trofimchuk, M.
2002, p. 152.
[46] Bubulashvili. E. From the History of the Russian Exarchs‘ Activities (the 1st Half of the
19th Century) in the collection of works: The Questions of the New and Newest History
of Georgia, I, 2007, 246-247, 250.
[47] Songulashvili, A. ―From the History of the Religious Sects in Georgia, in the collection
of works: The Questions of the New and the Newest History of Georgia, I, 2007, p.
330, also: L. Chanchaleishvili Believers in the Old Faith (Staroveri), Living in Georgia
(a historic-ethnographic survey), magazine ―Clio,‖ No13, Tbilisi, 2001.
[48] Rogava, G. Religion and Church in Georgia, Tbilisi, 2002, p. 279.
[49] Ibidem, 257-259.
[50] Ibidem, p. 260
[51] Ibidem, p. 280
[52] Ibidem, p. 287.
[53] Papashvili, M. Georgia‘s Relations with Rome, Tb., 1995, 310-314.
View publication stats

The Russian Empire's Religious Policy in Georgia (The First Half of The 19th Century)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Russian Empire's Religious Policy in Georgia (The First Half of The 19th Century)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Chapter · January 2014

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Complimentary Contributor Copy