This article was downloaded by: [Monash University Library]

On: 21 July 2013, At: 19:34

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Central Asian Survey

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccas20

The Russian Empire and the Georgian

Orthodox Church in the first decades
of Imperial rule, 1801–30
a
Nikolas K. Gvosdev
a
Dphil candidate at St Antony's College, Oxford
Published online: 13 Sep 2007.

To cite this article: Nikolas K. Gvosdev (1995) The Russian Empire and the Georgian Orthodox
Church in the first decades of Imperial rule, 1801–30, Central Asian Survey, 14:3, 407-423, DOI:
10.1080/02634939508400914

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02634939508400914

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever
as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the
authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of
the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,
actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in
relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms
& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/
terms-and-conditions
 Central Asian Survey (1995), 14(3), 407-423

The Russian Empire and the

Georgian Orthodox Church in the
first decades of Imperial rule,
1801-30
NIKOLAS K. GVOSDEV
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 19:34 21 July 2013

Within the first three decades following the absorption of Georgia into the
Russian Empire (beginning with the annexation of Kartli-Kakhetia in 1801), the
Georgian Orthodox Church underwent a sweeping transformation at the hands of
the Russian authorities. Initially, the Imperial government had hoped that the
Georgian Church would prove to be an important ally in the creation and
maintenance of the new administration, since, in Russia:
the chief and most invaluable aid which the [C]hurch rendered was that of using its
authority and influence to silence or weaken opposition to the government.1
Through its hierarchical and territorial structures, the Georgian Orthodox Church
possessed a network which, if placed at the service of the Russians, would
enable the new regime to extend its authority across Georgia. The Church,
therefore, was envisioned as a potential medium between its Georgian flock and
the Imperial government. The Georgian Church, however, was accustomed to
playing a very different role in society than the Russian Church. Moreover, it
was not prepared to execute willingly the designs of the Imperial government.
As a result, the Russians took steps to ensure that the Georgian Church would
conform to the needs and wishes of the new administration.
The purpose of this article is to document the changes in the position and
status of the Georgian Orthodox Church in the first decades of Imperial rule
(1801-27). By examining the reasons behind Russian policies toward the
Georgian Church, further insight can be gained into the Russian strategy to
solidify their position in Transcaucasia by either absorbing or neutralizing the
existing structures of authority.

Georgian Church and society before 1801

The Imperial regime had to deal with a Church deeply rooted within Georgian
society, and whose traditions preceded those of the Russian Church by six
centuries. The Georgian Church had been formed in the 4th century AD after the
Nikolas K. Gvosdev is a Dphil candidate at St Antony's College, Oxford.

0263-4937/95/030407-16 © Society for Central Asian Studies.

 NIKOLAS K. GVOSDEV

conversion of the King of Kartli and his nobles to Christianity by St Nino (AD
330). The Georgian Church became autocephalous, that is, a completely self-
governing Church, during the second half of the 8th century, a status reaffirmed
by the Council of Antioch (1057).2 The Church was closely tied into the existing
feudal system. At the summit of all loyalties lay the king, who was, in theory,
the supreme overlord. In reality, however, when royal authority was weak, the
lesser rulers acted with near-independent authority. Below the king were the
ERISTAVEBI (singular eristavi), the hereditary royal governors of the provinces,
and the TAVADEBI (singular tavadi), the senior nobles of the realm. The ruling
nobles, in turn, possessed retinues formed from the ranks of the AZNAUREBI
(singular aznauri). These lower nobles were not independent in their own right
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 19:34 21 July 2013

but were the sworn vassals to a higher authority. A petty noble might be the
vassal of an eristavi, or pledged to the service of the Church. Below the
aznaurebi were the petty freemen and then the serfs, persons who were under an
obligation to render service and tribute to their lord. Craftsmen, merchants, and
lower clergy, in addition to peasants, could be held as serfs by a local lord. It
is important to note that towns in Georgia were not autonomous corporations but
part and parcel of a province or district. The serf class itself was divided into two
ranks, the msakhurebi, usually comprising domestic servants, clergy, or crafts-
men, and the glekhebi, the enserfed peasantry.3
The Georgian Orthodox Church was structured in such a way that it comple-
mented the secular order. As a contemporary observer noted, the 'Christian
hierarchy was constituted in a perfectly analogous manner to the temporal feudal
state, with which it was closely connected'.4 The Catholicos-Patriarch was the
primate of the Church. In the Law Code of Vakhtang VI (18th century), the king
and the Catholicos had 'equivalent status as heads of the temporal and spiritual
hierarchies'.5 Under the Catholicos were his archbishops and bishops, whose
ranks corresponded to those of the eristavebi and tavadebi. The diocesan bishops
were under the authority of the Catholicos but retained considerable indepen-
dence in running the day-to-day affairs of their sees. Within each diocese, all the
priests and the lower clergy owed allegiance to their bishop, in a similar fashion
as the aznaurebi owed to the liege lords.6
Unlike the Russian Empire, where Church and state had clearly defined and
separate roles, the line between sacred and secular authority was often blurred
in Georgia. In the 12th century, at the Council of Ruis-Urbnisi, King David the
Rebuilder, in an effort to stabilize the Georgian state, combined the office of the
Archbishop of Tchkondidi (normally the second-highest see but at that time the
pre-eminent one) with that of the State Chancellor into one position, the
Mtsignobartukhutses-ChqondideV This action set a precedent that the primate of
the Church should also play a prominent role in the governance of the state, an
expectation which stood directly in contradiction to the Russian model of a
politically isolated hierarchy. In later centuries, the Catholicos was often a
member of the royal family: Catholicos Antonii I (1744-56; 1765-88) was the
son of King Iese; and Antonii II (ruled 1788-1811) was the son of King Iraklii.8
In turn, the Church strongly supported royal authority. In the Nomo-

408
 THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND THE GEORGIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH

canon (Church canon law) found in Vakhtang's Code, 'Those who defied
Church authority should be treated as guilty of personal insubordination against
the king, while anyone guilty of treason against the king should be condemned
by the Church.'9 In contrast to the situation in Russia, where the Patriarchate
itself had been abolished in 1721 and replaced by the Holy Synod, a collective
body which was constituted as a government organ and over which presided the
Ober-Procurator, a lay representative of the Tsar,10 the Georgian Church was
not only allowed but expected to take an interest in state affairs.
This pattern replicated itself at the diocesan level. Most bishops were
themselves of noble rank, and often the diocesan bishop and the local ruler came
from the same family. For example, Metropolitan David of Imeretia (19th
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 19:34 21 July 2013

century) was the son of Prince Zurab Tsereteli and his maternal uncle was the
Dadian of Mingrelia." From the beginnings of the Church in Caucasia, there had
been a trend to dynasticize the Church, since the principal sees corresponded not
to urban areas but instead 'were made to correspond to the more important
princely states', and control of these bishoprics would be passed down through
the ruling family.12 Sometimes the bishops were appointed from the noble
families to fill sees while they were still children.13 Like secular lords, bishops
had vassal nobles and serfs under them, and Georgian bishops would lead troops
into battle.14 As a royal charter from 1722 relates, during times of war, the
bishops of Rustaveli commanded under their standard the bishops of Sameba and
Nekresi together with their peasants; the princes Guramishvili, Cholokashvili,
Gildashvili and Makashvili, etc.15 As a result, the bishops were not merely
spiritual functionaries, but also exercised many of the functions of secular
nobles, thus making it difficult for the Russians to compartmentalize the bishops,
as had occurred in Russia, where the provincial synods of bishops had been
disbanded, and where prelates were required to obtain Imperial sanction for all
major decisions.16
Because the hierarchs and the secular rulers were united, both by ties of class
and by blood, potential conflicts between civil and religious authority could be
easily defused. The Church was one of the largest property owners in Georgia,17
and had a great deal of freedom to manage its estates; even royal officers had
no authority over Church lands.18 In theory, the Church's ongoing acquisition of
land through donations and grants could have become a destabilizing factor,
because less land would then be available for the maintenance of the nobility.
This problem was avoided because Georgian law recognized two types of land
tenure. Satavistavo lands were directly owned by an individual. Sasakhlo lands
were properties in which the title to the land was held by a particular institution
but of which the actual rights of ownership were given to a specific individual.
In return for meeting certain obligations, the individual could treat the property
in question as his own. Often, rights to supervise sasakhlo land were hereditary.
Over time, a noble's estate would include both properties that were his direct
personal inheritance, as well as lands over which he held hereditary rights of
tenure. The bishop would either directly control land or would parcel out
responsibility for Church lands to various aznaurebi, who, in return, became

409
 NIKOLAS K. GVOSDEV

Church vassals, charged with the defence and management of Church lands.19 In
a 1794 Charter of Iraklii II, Archbishop Arsenius entrusted the responsibility for
Church estates and peasants of the Manglisi Cathedral to the governor David
Abashishvili. In return, the secular governor was to ensure that the peasants
fulfilled their monetary and service obligations to the Church. The governor was
then given the right to settle Church peasants on his own lands.20
Although corruption existed, particularly during the reign of Iraklii II,21 this
system nevertheless ensured that the Church possessed a stable and independent
economic base, at the same time reinforcing its alliance with the secular nobility
through the granting of tenure rights. While this accommodation suited the needs
of the Georgian polity, it presented several problems for the Russian administra-
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 19:34 21 July 2013

tion. It integrated the two hierarchies of the country, spiritual and secular, into
a common system, with common political interests. Furthermore, it placed the
resources at the Church's disposal beyond the purview and control of the state
apparatus. This stood in direct contrast to the situation then prevailing in Russia
itself, where all Church and monastic lands had been nationalized by Catherine
II in 1765 and the Church was placed on a fixed subsidy dispensed from the
Imperial budget, therefore 'making the [Cjhurch even more dependent upon the
state than before.'22 If the Imperial government hoped to achieve the same
degree of control over the resources of the Georgian Church, therefore, it would
require a complete reorganization of the system of land tenure then existing in
Georgia.
At the local level, the parish priests did not form an estate separate from
secular society but were integrated into the feudal order. All priests owed
allegiance to their diocesan bishop in spiritual matters. Depending on their rank
in society, they also had obligations to fulfil to secular authority. Some members
of the lower clergy owned property and possessed serfs,23 while other priests
were themselves serfs. Serf priests, like all other serfs, were required to fulfil
obligations of service and tribute, only exempted from duties that were deemed
to conflict with the exercise of the priestly office.24 On the basis of the evidence,
it can therefore be argued that the priesthood in Georgia was more of an
occupation rather than a separate caste. Closely integrated into local society, the
ordinary parish priests could not be easily isolated from their surroundings and
made dependent on an outside authority, as had happened to their counterparts
in Russia. Through a series of decrees issued throughout the 18th century, the
Russian government tightly regulated the number of clergy and gradually
restricted entry into the priesthood solely to the children of priests. The clergy
of the Russian Orthodox Church, therefore, became a distinct social class based
on inheritance rather than vocation.25

Russian reforms of the Georgian Church

At first, the Russians showed little inclination for interfering in the affairs of the
Georgian Church. In the 8th Article of the Treaty of Georgievsk, the 1783 Treaty
that made the East Georgian kingdom of Kartli-Kakhetia a protectorate of the

410
 THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND THE GEORGIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH

Russian Empire, the Russian government acknowledged the autocephaly, or

independence, of the Iberian Church, and guaranteed that the rights and privi-
leges enjoyed by the Church would be respected.26
No specific blueprint had been drawn up for guiding policy toward the
Georgian Church. Even when East Georgia had been directly incorporated into
the Empire following the death of King Georgi in 1800, the Emperor Paul had
been vague in his instructions, stating only that he wanted to see the Georgian
Church under the supervision of the Russian Holy Synod.27 Writing a century
later, one Georgian Church activist noted that for most of the 'first decade of the
union of Georgia with Russia', the Emperor and the Holy Synod of the Russian
Orthodox Church 'recognized ... the Georgian Church as autocephalous'.28
Nevertheless, Imperial officials came to worry that the Church, as an import-
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 19:34 21 July 2013

ant symbol of Georgian identity, might become a rallying point for opponents of
the new regime, especially after the deportation of members of the old royal
family.29 Concerns were also expressed about how Church funds and properties
were being managed.30
Some Georgian Church leaders, such as Metropolitan Varlaam Eristavi, the
Catholicos's assistant who had also served as a member of the Russian Holy
Synod from 1801 to 1808, were interested in pursuing some administrative
reforms within the Church to streamline the Church bureaucracy and prevent
corruption.31 Under the guise of reform, therefore, the Russian authorities were
able to introduce a series of far-reaching changes that were to transform the
social base and operations of the Iberian Church.

Abolition of independence
At the beginning of 1811, the newly appointed Governor-General of Georgia,
General Alexander P. Tormasov, noted in a report that:
... in my opinion, it is not possible to expect that Catholicos Antonii would bring ... into
order those affairs which concern the clergy of this place, both on the account of the
weakness of his health, and even more because he is used to directing everything arbitrarily
by himself, to which local custom gives him the right, according to his descent from the
royal family, as he is the son of King Iraklii and the brother of the last king, Giorgi.32

In particular, the viceroy complained about the manner in which the Catholicos
was spending Church income. In his opinion, the Catholicos had no authoriza-
tion to use the funds. As a result, Tormasov concluded:
... therefore I consider it useful to appoint as the Exarch of the Holy Synod over Georgia
... Archbishop Varlaam, as a member of the governing Synod, to bring into order the
spiritual administration, as it is observed in Russia.33
As a result of Tormasov's concerns, the Russian government took action to take
tighter control over the affairs of the Georgian Church. Such measures were
legally justified by the Russian government because in the 1783 Georgievsk
Treaty the Russian government, although pledging to respect existing institu-

411
 NIKOLAS K. GVOSDEV

tions, had vested ultimate responsibility for Church affairs within the Holy
Synod of the Russian Church.34 On 6 November 1809, Prince Golitsyn, the lay
procurator of the Russian Holy Synod, sent a request (ukaz No 957) to Antonii
to travel to St Petersburg to discuss ways to implement Russian-sponsored
reforms for the Church administration. Upon Antonii's arrival in the Russian
capital on 10 July 1811, he was discharged from his office. A Synodal ukaz of
30 June 1811, transmitted to General Tormasov, revoked the autocephaly of the
Georgian Orthodox Church and created a 'Georgian Exarchate' under the
'immediate governance of the Synod' in its place.35
It is important to remember that this action did not originate from a voluntary
union of the two Churches but as a result of an Imperial order. The presump-
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 19:34 21 July 2013

tuous way in which the subjugation of the Church was carried out rankled many
Georgians. Nevertheless, the immediate reaction to the abolition of autocephaly
was muted, perhaps due to the appointment of Metropolitan Varlaam as the first
Exarch, for, despite some protests, the change in status was 'on the whole
calmly' accepted in Eastern Georgia.36 By birth, the Metropolitan was a member
of the influential Eristavi family, one of the most important in Georgia after the
royal Bagratid family. Despite the formal abolition of autocephaly, the appoint-
ment of Varlaam seemed to suggest that the Georgian Church would retain a
great deal of autonomy due to the retention of a Georgian primate.
The new Exarch was interested in creating a more orderly and accountable
Church administration. During his tenure, the Georgian service books were
published and distributed for the first time on a large scale.37 Despite his reforms,
Metropolitan Varlaam did not appear to consider himself part and parcel of the
Russian administration. As a result:

... the tsarist government was not pleased with the slowness of Varlaam [in implementing
Imperial policies] and decided to nominate a new Exarch, one more hard and decisive.38

On 14 May 1817, Varlaam was removed from his post as Exarch and transferred
to a see in Russia proper. From 1817 until the restoration of the Catholicosate
101 years later, all the subsequent heads of the Georgian Church were to be
Russians appointed from St Petersburg. The formal abolition of the Catholi-
cosate in 1811 and the removal of Varlaam signified the end of many hopes for
any autonomy for the Georgian Church under Russian rule. If Catholicos Antonii
and Exarch Varlaam would not follow the direction of St Petersburg, then the
only solution for the Imperial administration was not only to end the canonical
independence of the Georgian Church but also to import 'reliable' hierarchs
from Russia itself.
In Varlaam's place, the Holy Synod appointed as Exarch of Georgia the
Bishop of Riazan, Theofilakt (Rusanov). Theofilakt was a hot-tempered man
determined to carry out his mandate to restructure the Georgian Church.
Unwilling to compromise with local practice, he brooked no opposition to his
policies. Repressive measures were taken against clerics who spoke out against
his reforms.39 The nobles of Kutais, the capital of Imeretia, addressed an open

412
 THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND THE GEORGIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH

letter (1819) to the Russian authorities, in which they complained that, as a result
of Theofilakt's actions:
The priests who educated us and pray for us properly will be taken away, and we will lose
the ability ... to praise Christ ... and to serve him physically; we will also be separated
from the blessings of our hierarchs.... Of what are we guilty, that our hierarchs ... and
priests are taken away from us?40

Theofilakt became such a controversial figure that when he decided against the
'experienced and wise advice of Governor Ermolov' to visit Imeretia to observe
first-hand the implementation of his decrees, open rebellion broke out, led by
clerics and nobles opposed to his policies. Unwilling, as Bishop Kirion noted, 'to
wait for more favourable circumstances for his business, he ran for military force
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 19:34 21 July 2013

and stirred the people to rebellion'.41 Even the Russian military commanders, at
times, had to request him to desist from his activities. In a letter of 11 July 1819,
Ermolov's assistant, General I. A. Vel'iaminov, responding to Theofilakt's call
for assistance, wrote that, in light of the Russians' campaigns then underway in
the North Caucasus:
there is no possibility to bring into Imeretia any troops in order to implement by open force
the ... ukaz on the restructuring in this land of the 'spiritual part'.... And so I ask you to
cut short all of your activities toward this goal until a more favourable time.42

Following Theofilakt's death from natural causes on 19 July 1821 the Synod
continued to appoint Russian bishops as Exarch of the Georgian Church, a
practice which continued until the restoration of Georgian autocephaly in 1917.

Changes in the status of the dioceses and their bishops

The subordination of the Georgian Church to the Synod in St Petersburg was
complemented by greater centralization within the Georgian Exarchate itself.
The Russian authorities found the existing Church structure to be too weak to
regulate the activities of Church personnel and institutions throughout Georgia.
Since the 'affairs of the Georgian clergy had not been so exactly regulated' by
the central Church administration, many key decisions about the status of Church
personnel or property were made by the local bishop or the clerical nobles.43 As
a result, when pressed by the Russian authorities to provide precise figures on
Church incomes and other items, as General Tormasov requested of Metropoli-
tan Varlaam on 13 December 1810, 'it was impossible to give definite figures on
the incomes brought by the Georgian Church peasants to the churches and
monasteries.'44
The first steps toward greater centralization were taken when, on 6 June 1809,
Prince Golitsyn issued a decree providing for the establishment within the
Georgian Dikasteria45 of new regulations and forms of administration 'on such
foundations upon which similar institutions within Russia itself exist'.46 The new
court, presided over by the Exarch, consisted of three parish archpriests and
three archimandrites from the monasteries; and a secretary, a translator and a

413
 NIKOLAS K. GVOSDEV

counsellor (in this case, the head of the Tiflis Noble Academy) were also
appointed.47
The right of the Dikasteria to hear all major cases arising within the Church
was reaffirmed. However, the new Dikasteria was given additional, expanded
responsibilities. It was given the authority to engage in inspections throughout
Georgia, to close churches, and to dismiss clergy from their posts. All dioceses
and monasteries were required to send the Dikasteria reports on the status of the
clergy, on the financial position of all the parishes, and the expenses and
disbursements of diocesan funds. Appointments to church schools and institu-
tions also had to be cleared through the Dikasteria. Every diocese was required
to send directly to the Dikasteria all incomes designated for the support of
Church welfare and educational institutions.48 Most importantly, the Dikasteria
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 19:34 21 July 2013

was given the final responsibility to determine the Church's overall budget, and
no monies could be released to meet expenses unless they had already been
approved.
However, the jurisdiction of this body remained limited to Eastern Georgia. In
order to further institutionalize the authority of the Russian Holy Synod and its
Exarch over all Georgia, the Holy Synod created the 'Georgian-Imeretian Office
(Kontora) of the Ruling Holy Synod' on 30 August 1814. Simultaneously, the
Synod issued an ukaz specifically placing all of the Western Georgian hierarchs
and dioceses 'under the direct supervision of the Holy Synod and the Exarch of
Georgia'.49 The permanent members included the Exarch Varlaam, Dositheus the
Archbishop of Telavi, two archimandrites, and two archpriests. In addition, a lay
procurator was appointed to oversee the work of the Office.50 The new Kontora
took upon itself the responsibilities of the former Dikasteria which had existed
in Tbilisi and created a subsidiary Dikasteria for Western Georgia, which would
be based in Kutais, to supervise more directly the churches in Imeretia,
Mingrelia, and Guria.51
The new Office did not undertake the day-to-day administration of the
diocese, which was left in the hands of the local bishops. Like the Dikasteria
before it, however, the Office had the right to hear and render judgements over
all major church cases (although its decisions could be appealed to the Synod in
St Petersburg). All dioceses were required to send to the Kontora all information
pertaining to their incomes and expenditures; in return, the Office dispensed
funds to the local churches for various operations. The Kontora assumed full
jurisdiction over all cases pertaining to marriages and family law. In Western
Georgia, the subsidiary Dikasteria set up under the aegis of the Kontora was
given the authority to approve the budgets of all the Western Georgian dioceses,
to inspect all church estates, and to hear complaints. It, in turn, was required to
make regular reports to the Kontora in Tbilisi, and was not allowed to distribute
funds of over R200 for church expenses in Western Georgia without the
approval of the Tbilisi Office. The Kontora also took upon itself the responsi-
bility to regulate the affairs of the monasteries. In particular, the Office was
concerned that the number of monks in Imeretia (48) was disproportional to the
number of monasteries (15). The Office therefore reserved the right to resolve

414
 THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND THE GEORGIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH

this discrepancy either by increasing the number of monks, or by closing down

monasteries.52
In conjunction with policies promoting greater centralization, the new admin-
istration also began to reduce the number of dioceses, thereby reducing the
number of ruling bishops, by consolidating existing dioceses into larger units.
(Appendix 2 provides full details of this process.) In its report to the Emperor
of 30 June 1811 the Holy Synod detailed its plans to consolidate 13 dioceses in
Eastern Georgia into two, one for all of Kakhetia and one for all of Kartli, with
an additional vicariate at Gori.53 Given that several sees were vacant, this plan
was not without merit. Nevertheless, the ensuing process of consolidation meant
that the links between a diocese and a secular province were broken. Further-
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 19:34 21 July 2013

more, now that the Georgian Church was technically a part of the Russian
Church, bishops could be transferred to sees outside of Georgia, which allowed
the authorities either to placate bishops who had become superfluous or to
remove hierarchs recalcitrant in carrying out Synodal policies.
In Western Georgia, a different approach was taken. Rather than undertaking
an immediate consolidation, the Kontora in 1815 resolved to leave intact the
existing diocesan structures for the time being.54 Following the deaths of two of
the three bishops of Mingrelia in 1823, however, the Church in Mingrelia was
consolidated into one diocese. Following the outbreak of a revolt in Imeretia in
1819 and the deportation of two bishops implicated in the rebellion to Russia,
the Synod decided, on 19 November, 1821, to consolidate the four eparchies in
Imeretia into one diocese. Guria was left intact as an independent diocese until
the death of its Metropolitan Nikolai in 1827; in 1833, Guria was formally
annexed to the Imeretian Diocese.55

Changes in the management of Church properties

Because of the economic base which the Georgian Church possessed, from the
very beginning of Imperial rule the Russian administrators were concerned how
Church resources were being managed. In particular, the peculiarities of the
Georgian system of land tenure, with title for Church lands being vested in the
Church but the rights of ownership being borne by a noble, was disquieting to
the Russians. In its report to the Emperor on 21 June 1811, the Holy Synod
highlighted its fears that such practices, of 'giving to private persons church
property' would result in the loss of 'resources intended for the support of the
church and its servants'.56 As a result, on 30 June 1811 the Emperor decreed that
all Church lands should be 'secured' from inappropriate acquisition and use.57
To carry out these orders, the Dikasteria and its successor, the Kontora, were
charged with the responsibility to inspect the management of all Church lands
and to ensure that estates were not passing into private ownership or that
incomes meant for the use of the Church were not being diverted into private
hands. To aid in this process, three 'ober-officiers' were appointed directly by
the lay procurator of the Kontora and placed in Gori, Telavi, and Kutais. They
were made responsible for observing Church lands and reporting directly to the

415
 NIKOLAS K. GVOSDEV

procurator on how these orders were being implemented.58 Church estates thus
fell under the immediate supervision of Tsarist officials.59
In conjunction with this decree, the Russian authorities in 1811 promulgated
a law (extended to cover Western Georgia in 1821) which freed the aznaurebi
(lower nobles) who were vassals of the Church, of clerics, or of monasteries
from their obligations to the Church. Clerical nobles and their personal land were
placed under state authority, that is, under the direct supervision of the state
Treasury. Clerical nobles were ordered to be resettled from Church lands to
deserted Treasury lands, 'in order', as General Tormasov hoped, 'to bring to a
close their influence over Church estates'.60 The land and peasants which these
vassals had held for the Church were later put under the direct authority of the
state Treasury.61 In all, 1,850 peasant households in Eastern Georgia were
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 19:34 21 July 2013

transferred from Church jurisdiction to state control.62

In 1824, the state Council handed down further regulations on the status of
Church lands in Georgia. It recognized that some properties had been legally
delivered, either by mortgages or deeds of sale, into private hands, but the state
Council annulled the provisions of the law code of Vakhtang VI that allowed for
the sale of Church lands to private individuals. Church peasants were also
forbidden to run up debts by using Church lands as collateral.63
The purpose of these reforms was twofold. The first, was 'to deprive' the
Georgian Church 'of an independent economic base' in order to ensure the
Church's compliance with the wishes of the Imperial administration.64 The
second, was to prevent any mobilization of the Church's resources against the
new administration. The process of bringing the Church's property under total
state control came to an end in 1852, when Church lands, formerly under
Treasury supervision, were formally nationalized by the state, which paid a lump
compensatory sum to the Church for its land. After that, the Church received a
yearly income directly from the state Treasury as determined in the overall state
budget.

Changes in the status of the clergy

The first major alteration in the status of the clergy came in 1808, when all
priests or deacons in Eastern Georgia who were tied to princes or nobles by
serfdom were freed 'for all time' from all their obligations to their masters, as
well as their families and descendants.65 By a postscript of 19 November 1821,
this decree was extended to Western Georgia. Unlike in Russia, however, the
Imperial authorities in Georgia did not mandate that all future priests must come
only from the ranks of the clerical families. As a result, children of priests who
did not wish to enter the priesthood were not re-enserfed, but became state
peasants with a guaranteed allotment of land.66 At the same time, however,
clerics who had exercised rights now designated as belonging to nobles lost such
privileges; an 1832 decree, for example, prohibited all non-nobles, including
clergy, from holding serfs.67 The purpose of this act was to make the clergy a
distinct group in society isolated from other classes. By breaking the traditional

416
 THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND THE GEORGIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH

ties which had bound priests to the local nobility, the Imperial government hoped
to be able to draw the clergy more directly under their influence.68
In addition to restructuring the social position of the clergy, the Russians also
introduced legislation to alter the ways in which the clergy obtained their
livelihood, insisting that congregations shift from in-kind to money payments to
the clergy.69 Many traditional forms of church collections, such as the drama,
were abolished in favour of more denned collections for which the 'designated
needs' for the 'maintenance of churches and clergy' would be agreed upon.70
The state thus sought to increase its influence over the clergy by making them
more dependent on state funds for the bulk of their income. To further this goal,
Exarch Theofilakt issued guidelines for regulating the fees that were to be
charged by priests for the performance of church services. In his Circular of 1
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 19:34 21 July 2013

February 1819, the Exarch laid down precise rules as to how church incomes
were to be divided. Of every rouble collected for a service, for example, 60
kopecks were to be given to the celebrating priest, while 40 kopecks were to be
divided among the other church servers.71 In a letter addressed to General
Vel'iaminov of 6 February 1820, the Exarch gave further instructions: priests
were to receive 20 kopecks for a baptism, 10 kopecks for blessing a home at
Epiphany, etc.72
Theofilakt also moved to create a more formalized, and more distant, relation-
ship between a priest and a parish. Parishes were to be set up on the basis of 60
to 80 households; if a village was too small, then several villages would be
combined together into one parish.73 Theofilakt hoped that one of the results of
this policy would be the 'reduction [in the numbers] of surplus clergy according
the number of parishioners'. To bring this about, all ordinations were halted for
a period of time to allow the numbers to stabilize.74 Moreover, Church Slavonic
and modern Russian were increasingly used in the seminaries for the education
of future members of the clergy. As a result, as later generations were to
complain, such policies helped to divide priests from their congregations,
because the clergy, although ethnic Georgians, were now being educated in an
alien language and culture.75
The cumulative effect of all the above-described reforms was to break many
of the traditional ties that had bound the Georgian Church to the rest of society,
leading both to its growing isolation from society, as well as to the Church being
more tightly regulated and controlled by the Imperial administration.

Policy motivations
Imperial reorganization of the Georgian Church was predicated on the observa-
tion that in its pre-1801 structure and organization the Georgian Orthodox
Church had posed a threat to Imperial rule. First, the Church had been a principal
institution of the old order. In the first decade of Russian rule, the Church was
led by the only member of the royal family to remain in Georgia. Some of his
relatives, including his brother, Prince Alexander, were involved in leading
anti-Russian rebellions. Under his leadership, the Church resisted the surrender

417
 NIKOLAS K. GVOSDEV

of any of its prerogatives and demonstrated an unwillingness to alter its structure

in order to become a part of the new administration. Although Antonii had not
overtly shown himself to be disloyal to the Russians, he was removed from his
post. Furthermore, steps were taken to ensure that future heads of the Orthodox
establishment in Georgia would be more responsive to Imperial needs.
Second, the Church was closely integrated with the nobility, with whom the
Russian Empire had had a strained relationship for the first three decades of
Imperial rule. Unrest among the nobility often led to acts of rebellion. In 1810,
serious disturbances broke out in Imeretia when Solomon II refused to recognize
his deposition by the Russian authorities, followed by the outbreak of rebellion
in Kakhetia in 1812, caused by Russian bureaucratic mismanagement.76 In
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 19:34 21 July 2013

addition to causing significant internal unrest, these revolts occurred against the
backdrop of Russian wars with Persia and the Ottoman Empire.
In order to retain control of Georgia, the Imperial government realized that it
was vitally necessary to prevent the sacred and secular nobilities from joining
forces in opposition and to ensure that the economic base of the Church would
not be used to support the overthrow of Russian rule. The Church, as Ronald
Suny concluded, was a 'potential centre for national opposition' to Russian
rule.77
What the Russians feared came to pass in Imeretia in 1819, when Metropoli-
tan Theofilakt arrived on a pastoral visit to begin implementation of Russian-
mandated reforms. Realizing that their interests were threatened, the clergy
convinced the nobility that its own status was in jeopardy. Metropolitans
Dositheus of Kutais (the capital of Imeretia) and Euthemius of Gaenati, two of
the leading hierarchs in Western Georgia, invoked their 'ties to local princes and
nobles ill-disposed to Russian rule'.78 Together they raised the banner of revolt.
As Prince Zurab Tsereteli related, the rebels explained the reasons for the
uprising as follows:
that in Imeretia there was never an Exarch, neither to register Church peasants and
properties, nor to decrease Church incomes and liberate priests from their landowners ...
79

The revolt thus demonstrated how the close ties between Church and nobility
could be used against the Russians.
The rebellion raged for over a year and spread to parts of Mingrelia and Guria
as well. One district, Ratcha, was not pacified until 1822.80 Metropolitans
Dositheus and Euthemius were both removed from their sees in 1820 and
deported into Russia, and Metropolitan Euthemius died on route to exile as a
result of the mistreatment he had suffered at the hands of his captors.81
As one historian noted, within the first decades of Imperial rule, 'the churches
of Armenia and Georgia made fundamental and irreversible accommodations to
the new order'.82 Failing to achieve a compromise with the existing Georgian
Church, the Imperial government, spurred on by the threat it perceived that the
Church posed to the stability of Imperial rule, moved to ensure the complete
reliability of the Georgian Orthodox by depriving it of its institutional indepen-

418
 THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND THE GEORGIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH

dence, making it canonically dependent upon the Russian Church, and reorganiz-
ing its organization so that its horizontal links with the rest of Georgian society
at the diocesan and parish levels came under Imperial supervision.

APPENDIX 1

The Georgian Church at the beginning of the 19th century: statistics83

Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 19:34 21 July 2013

Kartli-Kakhetia:
Bishops: 7
Priests: 746
Deacons: 146
Parishes: 799
Monasteries: 25 (both proper monasteries and 'sketes', small monastic com-
munities)
Parish households: 10,083
Annual income: 58,000 silver roubles

Imeretia:
Bishops: 5 (four dioceses)
Priests: 693
Deacons: 197
Parishes: 618 parishes
Monasteries: 15
Parish households: 12,908
Serf households held by the Church: 1808 households
Clerical nobles: 130
Annual income: 11,482 silver roubles

Mingrelia:
Bishops: 3 (three dioceses)
Parishes: 233
Monks: 61

Guria:
Dioceses: 1

419
 NIKOLAS K. GVOSDEV

APPENDIX 2
A comparison of the structure of the Georgian Church: 1810 and 1826
1810 1826
Primate: Primate
Catholicos-Patriarch Russian Synodal Exarch
(Antonii II) (Iona Vasilevskii)

Dioceses: Dioceses:
Mingrelia Mingrelia
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 19:34 21 July 2013

Tchkondidi Tchkondidi and all

(Vissarion) Mingrelia (1823)
(Vissarion)
Tsageri
(Ioann)
Chaishi
(Gregory)

Guria Guria
Dzhumati Dzhumati
(Nikolai) (Nikolai, dies 1827)
see abolished 1833

Imeretia Imeretia
Kutais
(Dositheus)
Gelati
(Euthemius)
Khoni
(Antonii)
Ratcha Diocese of Imeretia (1821)
(Sophronius) (Sophronius)

Kakhetia Kakhetia
Alaverdi Alaverdi/Telavi (Signakh
Ioann, 1811) united with this see 1817)
(Ioann)
Signakh
(no information)
Ninotsminda
(Ioann)

420
 THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND THE GEORGIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH

Appendix—continued
Rustavi
(Stefan)
Nekresi
(Ambrosius)

Kartli Kartli
Mtskhet'a Mtskhet'a-Tbilisi
(primatial see) (held by the Exarch)
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 19:34 21 July 2013

Tbilisi Gori (auxiliary)

(Arsenius) (Stefan of Rustavi)
Samtavros
(no information)
Ruisi
(Justin)
Tsilkani
(Gervasius)
Urbnisi
(Julian)
Mikozi
(Athanasius)
Khobi [?]
(Dositheus)

Notes and references

1. John Shellon Curtiss, Church and State in Russia: The Last Years of the Empire (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1940), p 74.
2. Very Rev. Elie Melia, 'The Church of Georgia', Orthodoxy 1964 (Athens: ZOE, 1964), pp 87-106.
3. Ronald G. Suny, The Making of the Georgian Nation (London: I. B. Tauris, 1989), p 65; Baron August
von Haxthausen, Transcaucasia: Sketches of the Nations and Races Between the Black Sea and the
Caspian (London: Chapman & Hall, 1854), pp 117-119; L. Hamilton Rhinelander, The Incorporation of
the Caucasus into the Russian Empire: The Case of Georgia, 1801-1854 (Columbia University PhD thesis
1972, self-published 1975), pp 50-53.
4. Haxthausen, op cit Ref 3, p 117.
5. David M. Lang, The Last Years of the Georgian Monarchy, 1658-1832 (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1957), p 39.
6. Haxthausen, op cit Ref 3, p 118.
7. Suny, op cit Ref 3, p 35.
8. Platon Ioselian, A Short History of the Georgian Church, trans. Rev. S. C. Malan (London: Saunders,
Ottey & Co., 1866), pp 165, 170, 181.
9. Lang, op cit Ref 5, p 44.
10. W. H. Frere, Some Links in the Chain of Russian Church History (London: Faith Press, 1918), p 129.

421
 NIKOLAS K. GVOSDEV

11. Andrei N. Murav'ev, Gruziya i Armeniya, Vol III (St Petersburg: Third Section of the Imperial
Chancellory, 1848), p 122.
12. Cyril Toumanoff, Studies in Christian Caucasian History (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press,
1963), pp 138-139.
13. Lang, op cit Ref 5, p 76.
14. Ibid, p 29.
15. Gruzinskie Tserkovnye Gudzhari, collected D. P. Purtseladze (Tiflis: Tipografiia Glavnogo Upravleniia
Namestnika, 1881), p 3.
16. Frere, op cit Ref 10, pp 132-133.
17. Suny, op cit Ref 3, p 87.
18. Lang, op cit Ref 5, p 70.
19. Suny, op cit Ref 3, p 65; Rhinelander, op cit Ref 3, pp 52-53.
20. Purtseladze, op cit Ref 15, p 12.
21. Lang, op cit Ref 5, p 190.
22. Curtiss, op cit Ref 1, p27.
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 19:34 21 July 2013

23. Suny, op cit Ref 3, p 67.

24. Ibid, pp 77-78.
25. Nicolas Brian-Chaninor, The Russian Church, trans. Warre B. Wells (London: Burns, Oates & Wash-
bourne, Ltd., 1931), pp 132, 135.
26. A. Khakhanov, 'On the persecution of the Georgian Church', Moskovskii ezhenedelnik, 24 January 1909,
p 50; Prince Varlaam Cherkezov (Cherkezisvili), Georgian Treaties with Russia, trans. Oliver Wardrop
(manuscript, Wardrop Collection, Bodleian Library, Oxford University), p 7.
27. Quoted in G. V. Khachapuridze, K Istorii Gruzii Pervoi Poloviny XIX Veka (Tbilisi: Zarya Vostoka, 1950),
p 52.
28. Khakhanov, op cit Ref 26, p 50.
29. Lang, op cit Ref 5, p 269.
30. See, for example, the Proclamation of General Vel'iaminov to the residents of Imeretia, in which he states
that Russian policy toward Church lands is designed to protect Church incomes from 'incorrect uses' and
from being stolen or misappropriated (11 July 1819). Document 744 of the Akty Sobrannye Kavkazskoiu
Arkheograficheskuiu Kommissieiu (Arkhiv Glavnogo Upravleniia Namestnika Kavkazskago), intro. A.
Berzhe; Vol 6, Part I (Tiflis: Kavkazskaia Arkheograficheskaia Kommissiia, 1874), p 538.
31. For an example of the reform sentiment in the late 18th century Georgian Church, see the Encyclical of
the Catholicos of Imeretia and Abkhazia issued in 1762, and found in Purtseladze, op cit Ref 15, pp 40-42.
32. The Rt. Rev. Kirion, Kratkii Ocherk Istorii Gruzinskoi Tserkvi i Ekzarkhata za 19-oe Stoletie (Tiflis: K.
P. Kozlovskii, 1901), p 43.
33. Ibid, pp 43, 44.
34. Rev. Nikandor Pokrovskii, Kratkii Ocherk Tserkovno-Istoricheskoi Zhizni Pravoslavnoi Gruzii (Tiflis:
Tiflisskii Listok, 1905), p 155; Melia, op cit Ref 2, p 107.
35. Ioselian, op cit Ref 8, p 206; Kirion, op cit Ref 32, p 19.
36. Khachapuridze, op cit Ref 27, p 150.
37. Kirion, op cit Ref 32, pp 19, 44, 48.
38. Khachapuridze, op cit Ref 27, p 150.
39. Lang, op cit Ref 5, p 269.
40. Quoted in Document 519, Akty, op cit Ref 30, p 391.
41. Kirion, op cit Ref 32, p 70.
42. As quoted in Document 745, Akty, op cit Ref 30, p 539.
43. Kirion, op cit Ref 32, pp 37-38.
44. Ibid.
45. From the Greek dikasterion, a court of justice.
46. Ibid, p 34.
47. Ibid, pp 34, 42.
48. Ibid, pp. 40-41, 42, 44.
49. Document 502, Akty, op cit Ref 30, p 377.
50 Kirion, op cit Ref 32, p 55.
51. Ibid, pp 54, 58.
52. Report of the Synod, 17 June 1818, found in Document 502, Akty, op cit Ref 30, pp 380-381; Report of
the Synod, 4 November 1821, found in Document 556, Akty, op cit Ref 30, pp 420-421.
53. Istoriia Gruzinskoi Ierarkhii (Moscow: Synodalnaia Tipografiia, 1826), pp 24-25.
54. Kirion, op cit Ref 32, p 57.
55. Ibid, pp 76-85; 49.

422
 THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND THE GEORGIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH

56. Ibid, p 50.

57. See Document 556, Akty, op cit Ref 30, p 420.
58. Kirion, op cit Ref 32, pp 58-59, 55.
59. Khachapuridze, op cit Ref 27, p 149.
60. Kirion, op cit Ref 32, p 46.
61. Suny, op cit Ref 3, pp 67, 82.
62. Khachapuridze, op cit Ref 27, p 149.
63. Letter of General Vel'iaminov to the Exarch, 17 December 1824, found in Document 112, Akty, op cit Ref
30, pp 70-71; also cf. Document 589, Akty, op cit Ref 30, p 438.
64. Khachapuridze, op cit Ref 27, pp 149-150.
65. Kirion, op cit Ref 32, pp 263-264.
66. Ibid, pp 242-243.
67. Suny, op cit Ref 3, p 67.
68. Khachapuridze, op cit Ref 27, p 149.
69. Report of General Kurnatovskii, 26 July 1819, found in Document 758, Akty, op cit Ref 30, p 547.
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 19:34 21 July 2013

70. Circular of the Exarch, 1 February 1819, found in Document 510, Akty, op cit Ref 30, pp 386, 390.
71. Ibid, p 385.
72. Cf. Document 528, Akty, op cit Ref 30, p 401.
73. Kirion, op cit Ref 32, p 239.
74. Document 502, Akty, op cit Ref 30, pp 378-79.
75. Petition of the Georgian Church presented to the Viceroy of the Caucasus (24 October 1905), trans.
Marjorie Wardrop (Wardrop Collection, file C.I., Bodleian Library, Oxford University).
76. Suny, op cit Ref 3, p 70.
77. Ibid, p 84.
78. Document 523, Akty, op cit Ref 30, p 395.
79. Document 755, Akty, op cit Ref 30, p 595. These reasons comprise the bulk of the policies described
above.
80. Lang, op cit Ref 5, p 270.
81. Ibid, p 269.
82. Suny, op cit Ref 3, p 63.
83. Kirion, op cit Ref 32, p 40; Document 502, Akty, op cit Ref 30, p 377; Document 556, Akty, op cit Ref
30, pp 418-419; Melia, op cit Ref 2, p 105; Ierarkhii, op cit Ref 53, pp 27, 41, 65-66.

423