Versions of this article were presented at meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies in 1993 and of the New England Catholic Historical Association in 1994. The article is part of a larger, forthcoming study of popular Orthodoxy in prerevolutionary Russia. I thank the International Research and Exchanges Board and the Social Science Research Council for supporting the research that made this article possible. I also thank Joan Afferica, Paul Bushkovitch, Gregory Freeze, Dennis Hudson, Laurie Manchester, Jaroslav Pelikan, and Mark Steinberg for their suggestions and helpful advice.

1. See, for example, Shanin, Teodor, Russia as a “Developing Society” (New Haven, 1985), 42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lampert, Evgenii, Sons against Fathers: Studies in Russian Radicalism and Revolution (Oxford, 1965), 68 Google Scholar. Recently, this same view has been set in somewhat new terms, with the Orthodox Church presented as a “colonizer” pitted against the peasantry. See S Frank, tephen P., “Confronting the Domestic Other: Rural Popular Culture and Its Enemies in Fin-de-Siecle Russia,” in Frank, Stephen P. and Steinberg, Mark D., eds., Cultures in Flux: Lower-Class Values, Practices, and Resistance in Late Imperial Russia (Princeton, 1994), 74–107.Google Scholar

2. Such an impression is given, for example, in Christine D. Worobec's essay, “Death Ritual among Russian and Ukrainian Peasants: Linkages between the Living and the Dead,” in Frank and Steinberg, eds., Cultures in Flux, 13. My own extensive reading of clerical writings shows that clergy held mixed views regarding popular religious beliefs.

3. Fedotov, George makes this point in his study The Russian Religious Mind: Kievan Christianity, the Tenth to the Thirteenth Centuries (Cambridge, Mass., 1946), xii Google Scholar. This observation was also made in 1919 by Muratov, M. V. in his work Neizvestnaia Rossiia: O narodnoi vere i narodnom podvizhnichestve (Moscow, 1919).Google Scholar

4. This is reflected in the historiography of nineteenth- and twentieth-century Russian ethnography. In these works, peasant religious practices are usually thought of in terms of a generic “folk” religion, most of which is deemed “pagan” and thus relegated to the periphery of the “official” church. In their attempt somehow to reconcile the peasants’ “folk” religious practices with Orthodoxy, ethnographers frequently relied on the “dual-faith” or dvoeverie paradigm. For a critique of this model, see Levin, Eve, “Dvoeverie and Popular Religion,” in Batalden, Stephen K., ed., Seeking God: The Recovery of Religious Identity in Orthodox Russia, Ukraine, and Georgia (DeKalb, 1993)Google Scholar.

5. This is the case, for example, with the term bytovoe pravoslavie or “everyday Orthodoxy.” G. A. Nosova, Bytovoe pravoslavie: Na materialakh Vladimirskoi oblasti, kandidatskaia dissertatsiia, avtoreferat (Moscow, 1969), 3. Also see her “Opyt etnograficheskogo izucheniia bytovogo pravoslaviia,” Voprosy nauchnogo ateizma 3 (1967): 51–163; and her Iazychestvo v pravoslavii (Moscow, 1975).

6. The term ecclesial comes from the Greek ekklesia, historically one of the earliest words used by Christians to describe themselves as a group. In secular Greek, the term suggested an assembly or congregation of all regular citizens of a city. In its religious connotation, however, it was the word in the Septuagint used to translate the Hebraic word qahal or qahal Yahweh— “people of God.” In this article, I use the term ecclesial to refocus the stereotypic understanding of the word church from clergy and institutions to the entire community of faithful, including laity.

7. In 1861, there were 12, 186 chapels; in 1914, there were 23, 593. See Izvlecheniia iz otcheta po vedomstvu dukhovnykh del pravoslavnago ispovedaniia za 1861 (St. Petersburg, 1864), appendix #4, 14–17; Vsepoddanneishii otchet oberprokurora Sv. Sinoda po vedomstvu pravoslavnago ispovedaniia (St. Petersburg, 1916), appendix #3, 6–7.

8. For example, the Tenishev program for collecting data on peasant life was carried out from 1897 to 1899. In more than 300 files in the Tenishev archive for the province of Vologda alone, I found only four instances in which chapels were even mentioned. For a description of the Tenishev bureau and its program, see N. Nachinkin, “Materialy Etnograficheskogo biuro V. N. Tenisheva v nauchnom arkhive Gosudarstvennogo muzeia etnografii narodov SSSR,” Sovetskaia etnografiia 1 (1955); B. M. Firsov, “Teoreticheskie vzgliady V. N. Tenisheva,” Sovetskaia etnografiia 3 (1988); B. M. Firsov, “Krest'ianskaia programma V. N. Tenisheva i nekotorye rezul'taty ee realizatsii,” Sovetskaia etnografiia 4 (1988); Tenishev, V. N., Programma etnograficheskikh svedenii o krest'ianakh tsentral'noi Rossii (Smolensk, 1897).Google Scholar

9. For a discussion of this trend in ethnographic writings, see Worobec, “Death Ritual among Russian and Ukrainian Peasants,” 12.

10. Major sources for this study include more than one hundred petitions for chapel construction received by the Vologda diocesan consistory in the years between 1861 and 1917; petitions received by the Holy Synod; and descriptions of chapels that appear as part of published parish histories. After 1865 routine requests and paperwork regarding chapel construction fell to the jurisdiction of the local diocesan bishop as part of a larger plan to give more autonomy to the local bishop in diocesan affairs. Consequently, peasants’ requests sent to the local consistory provide the best insight into chapel construction in this period. Synod archives for the postreform period do not illuminate the routine process of chapel construction; nor do they provide a comprehensive view of the chapels’ overall place in the topography of popular piety in the period. Nevertheless, cases found in the Synod archives, as well as in published sources, confirm that patterns prevalent in the Vologda diocese were indeed present elsewhere.

11. An antimins is a silken or linen cloth in which the relics of saints have been sewn. On it is depicted the entombment of Christ and the four Evangelists. According to Eastern Orthodox liturgical practice, the Eucharistic liturgy cannot be performed without one. See Peter D. Day, ed., The Liturgical Dictionary of Eastern Christianity (Collegeville, 1993), 17Google Scholar. For legislation regarding the serving of the Divine Liturgy in chapels, see Polnoe sobranie zakonov (PSZ), 2d ed., vol. 19, #14231, no. 11.

12. Jungmann, Josef A., The Early Liturgy to the Time of Gregory the Great, trans. Brunner, Francis A. (Notre Dame, 1959), 175–87Google Scholar; also see Grabar, Andre, Martyrium: Recherches sur le culte des reliques et Vart Chretien antique (London, 1972)Google Scholar. For a brief review of the history of chapels and legislation concerning them in Byzantium and preemancipation Russia, see Konstantin Nikol'skii, Ochasovniakh (St. Petersburg, 1889).Google Scholar

13. Space limitations prevented me from including the number of chapels for all dioceses. Also not included are annual figures for chapel construction for each diocese. Diocesan consistories recorded the number of chapels whose construction was completed in any given year, rather than the number of petitions for such construction that the consistory received. Since most chapels took several years, and sometimes more than a decade, to complete, construction-completion figures tell us nothing of the more important fact: when peasant communities actually made the decision to build a chapel in the first place. It is this date that will enable us to analyze chapel proliferation in terms of other historical events and broader trends. In terms of completion of construction, however, more chapels were completed between 1890 and 1915 than between 1861 and 1890.

14. Russkii Muzei Etnografii (RME), f. 7, op. 1, d. 211, 1. 139 (S. Staroverov, a peasant from the Griazovets district); d. 369, 1. 40 (N. Moroliubov, Tot'ma district). Unless otherwise stated, all citations from RME are from Vologda province. Also see Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Vologodskoi oblasti (GAVO), f. 496, op. 1, d. 17993 (1903).

15. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 16767, 1. 72ob. (1895); also see “The History of the Leushino Convent,” in Abbess Thaisia: An Autobiography (Platina, 1989), 210–11.

16. Note that the early martyries were also a source of tension within the early Egyptian Christian community. See Jungmann, Early Liturgy, 186–87.

17. Iushkov, S. V., Ocherki iz istorii prikhodskoi zhizni na severe Rossii v XV-XVII w. (St. Petersburg, 1913), 52.Google Scholar

18. Nineteenth-century Russian church historians present conflicting views on the issue of episcopal blessings of chapel construction projects. lushkov in his work on parish life in Russia's northern regions from the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries states that “the construction of chapels did not require any formalities; it did not demand a deed of consent [blagoslovennaia gramota]. It was a private activity on the part of the chapel faithful.” lushkov, Ocherki iz istorii prikhodskoi zhizni, 56. On the other hand, Nikol'skii states that in medieval Russia chapels were built with the bishop's permission. “Their construction without his will was considered illegal and incorrect.” Nikol'skii, O chasovniakh, 7.

19. Iushkov, Ocherki iz istorii prikhodskoi zhizni, 63–64.

20. PSZ, series 1, vol. 40, #3.924a. See also GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 19411, 1. 3 (1913).

21. PSZ, vol. 9, #6592.

22. Nikol'skii, O chasovniakh, 18.

23. PSZ, vol. 40, #42349. Also see Vologodskie eparkhial'nye vedomosti (VEV, chast’ ofitsial'naia), 1865, no. 20: 165.

24. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 18218, 1. 11 (1905

25. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 18215, 1. 4 (1905–08).

26. A. M. “Osviashchenie chasovni-shkoly,” VEV (chast’ neofitsial'naia), 1898, no. 11: 263–66; See also I. D. Platov, Opisanie o sooruzhenii chasovni vremenno-obiazannymi krest'ianami Vologodskoigubernii, Griazovetskago uezda, derevni Semenitskovoi (St. Petersburg, 1872).

27. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 17190, 1. 1 (1897–1903).

28. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 16127, 1. 1 (1889); K. Slavorossov, “Iz religioznoi zhizni krest'ian Griazovetskago uezda,” VEV (chast’ neofitsial'naia), 1901, no. 18: 515–17.

29. Until the 1917 revolution, priests often noted in their reports that a particular chapel was being built solely on peasants’ initiative. See, GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 19576,

11. 93–104 (1914). Also see d. 16127, 1. Sob. (1889–1904).

30. Analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of peasant petitions as a source lies beyond the scope of this article. For insight into this issue, see, for example, O. G. Bukhovets, “K metodike izucheniia prigovornogo dvizheniia i ego roli v bor'be krest'ianstva v 1905–1907 godakh (po materialam Samarskoi gubernii,” Istoriia SSSR, 1979, no. 3: 96–112; Andrew Verner, “Discursive Strategies in the 1905 Revolution: Peasant Petitions from Vladimir Province,” Russian Review 54 (January 1995): 65–90. For petitions specifically to diocesan consistories, see L. V. Ostrovskaia, “Prosheniia v konsistoriiu i Sinod kak istochnik dlia izucheniia sotsial'noi psikhologii krest'ianstva poreformennoi Sibiri,” Istochniki po kul'tury i klassovoi bor'be feodal'nogo perioda (Novosibirsk, 1982), 165–81; Vera Shevzov, “Popular Orthodoxy in Late Imperial Rural Russia” (Ph.D. diss, Yale University, 1994), 27–32, 497–98.

31. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 16075, 1. 7ob. (1888).

32. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 18745, 1. 8ob. (1909).

33. GAVO, f. 496. op. 1, d. 16767, 11. 48–54 (1895); also see d. 17800, 1. 200ob. (1901); d. 19421, 1. 4 (1913).

34. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 14848, 11. 136–37 (1874). Significantly, in the 1890s, chapels sometimes began to double as local schoolhouses. A front addition included a room for the storozh, an apartment for the schoolteacher, a kitchen, and a room where students who lived far away could spend the night. The chapel area itself was used as a classroom. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 16629, 1. 1 (1894); d. 17468 (1899); Rozanov, , Voskresenskaia tserkov’ v sele Ust'e Kadnikovskago uezda Vologodskoigubernii (Vologda, 1903), 105Google Scholar; “Opisanie Pokrovskoi Ugletskoi tserkvi, Griazovetskago uezda, Vologodskoi gubernii,” V£V(chast’ neofitsial'naia), 1904, no. 19: 515–16.

35. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 16934, 1. 22 (1896); d. 16502, 1. 403 (1893).

36. Technically speaking an ambar was the hut-type building traditionally used for grain storage. However, as N. D. Zol'nikova shows in her study Sibirskaiaprikhodskaia obshchina v XVIII veke (Novosibirsk, 1990), peasants began building so-called ambarchiki during the eighteenth century when the construction of chapels was outlawed.

37. See, for example, GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 18043, 11. 50–50ob. (1903); Nikolai Sokolov, “Opisanie Pokrovskoi Ugletskoi tserkvi, Griazovetskago uezda, Vologodskoi gubernii,” VEV (chast’ neofitsial'naia), 1904, no. 19: 515.

38. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 16934, 1. 73 (1896); d. 16767, 1. 48 (1895–99).

39. A recently published work on the wooden architecture of Russia inaccurately claims that chapels had no iconostases. See Alexander Opolovnikov and Opolovnikova, Yelena, The Wooden Architecture of Russia: Houses, Fortifications, Churches (New York, 1989), 157Google Scholar.

40. Peasants sometimes chose to construct their chapels with an altar space that remained empty, without an altar table.

41. Ouspensky, Leonide, “The Problem of the Iconostasis>,” St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly 8, no. 4 (1964): 200–208.Google Scholar

42. See, for example, GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 16934, 1. 73ob. (1896). Also see Platov, Opisanie o sooruzhenii chasovni, 1–6. For other detailed descriptions of the interior and exterior of a chapel, see P. Voronov, “Georgievskaia chasovnia,” VEV (chast’ neontsial'naia), 1865, no. 18: 274–86; A. Lin'kov, Opisanie Tiksnenskoi Preobrazhenskoi tserkvi (Vologda, 1900), 38–39Google Scholar; Sokolov, Nikolai, “Opisanie Pokrovskoi Ugletskoi tserkvi,” VEV (chast’ neofitsial'naia), 1909, no. 19: 512–13.Google Scholar

43. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 16941, 1. 2 (1896); d. 18371 (1906); RGIA, f. 796, op. 442, d. 2137, 1. 13 (1906); d. 2443, 1. 7 (1911); S. I. P. “Anybskaia Preobrazhenskaia tserkov,” VEV (chast’ neofitsial'naia), 1901, no. 15: 413.Google Scholar

44. And not only chapels were used to honor such an event. Peasants requested processions in honor of the emancipation, GAVO, f. 1063. op. 81. d. 25, 1. 3. ( “Kniga zapisei po Mironositskoi-Lostenskoi tserkvi “); processions in honor of the coronation of Alexander III, RGIA, op. 164, d. 1413 (1883); icons were also ordered specially to honor the wedding and coronation of Tsar Nicholas II, see “Opisanie Khrama Sviatago Vasiliia Velikago, chto na Ud'me v Ustiuzhskom uezde,” VEV (chast’ neofitsial'naia), 1897, no. 5: 94; additions were made to churches in honor of events in the life of the royal family, GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 19367, 1. 89ob. (1913); and churches themselves were built in honor of coronations, GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 18044 (1903).

45. Ostrovskaia, “Prosheniia v konsistoriiu,” 170. For discussion of peasant petitions and appeals to the tsar in general, see Verner, “Discursive Strategies,” 69–70.

46. For example, see GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 18044 (1903); GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 18752 (1909); RGIA, f. 796, op. 178, d. 1822, 1. 4ob. (1897).

47. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 16934, 11. 1–8 (1896).

48. Regarding chapel construction and the 1888 event, see I. V. Preobrazhenskii, Otechestvenrmia tserkov po statisticheskim dannym 1840–1 po 1890–1 gg. (St. Petersburg, 1892), 27. This event was marked not only by chapel construction but by the building of churches and bell towers, the restoration of iconostases, and the purchase of icons, bells, and other items for liturgical use. See, for example, Vsepoddanneishii otchet oberprokurora Sv. Sinodapo vedomstvu pravoslavnago ispovedaniia (St. Petersburg, 1892–93), 1–2.

49. RGIA, f. 796, op. 169, d. 182 (1888); For an example of the presentation of this event in popular devotional literature, see Agronomov, A., Velikoe chudo milosti Bozhei 17 oktiabria, 1888 (St. Petersburg, 1897)Google Scholar. Peasants also widely honored the 1888 event by purchasing bells for their parish churches and obtaining an icon to commemorate the event. The icon featured all of the patron saints of the members of the royal family involved in the derailment. See “Strelitskaia Preobrazhenskaia tserkov, Totemskago uezda, Vologodskoi gubernii,” VEV (chast’ neofitsial'naia), 1902, no. 6: 156; 1902, no. 18: 536.

50. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 16934, 11. 98–99 (1892).

51. Tsar's days and political holidays were not among the days most celebrated by peasants, and when liturgies were served, churches in rural areas tended to be empty on these days. RME, f. 7, op. 1, d. 211, 1. 138 (S. Staroverov, Griazovets district); d. 326, 11. 12–13 (N. Kirillov, a schoolteacher from the Sol'vtchegodsk district); d. 376, 1–4 (I. Suvorov, Tot'ma district); GAVO, f. 1063, op. 86, d. 26, 1. 21ob.

52. Such a position is reflected in the diaries of the peasant A. A. Zamaraev. See Totemskii kraevedcheskii muzei, “Dnevnikovye zapisi A. A. Zamaraeva,” P-38, 1. 4.

53. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1., d. 15327 (1879). Also see d. 17919, 1. 73 (1902); d. 18743 (1909); f. 1063, op. 85, kor. 255, #22, 1. 12 (1871). Note that clergy also routinely referred to natural disasters in these terms. See the observations made by the priest Nikolai F. Sobolev, in GAVO, f. 4389, op. 1, d. 371, tetriad’ 1, 1. 6ob.; tetriad’ 2, 1. 16ob. (1907–08).

54. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 19978 (1915).

55. Dopolnitel'nyi trebnik (Moscow, 1895). Also see Tikhomirov, T., Na prikhode (St. Petersburg, 1915–16) 1: 44 Google Scholar. Also note the ruling issued in July 1834 regarding prayers during times of drought and other natural disasters, PSZ, series 1, vol. 9, #6603. A similar attitude toward natural disasters was often found in popular religious literature and sermons. See, for example, Amfiteatrov, Ia. K., “Besdozhdie i zasukha” reprinted in the popular leaflet series, Troitskie listki (Sergiev Posad, 1890)Google Scholar; “Otchego zasukhi i nepogody?” Troitskie listki (Sergiev Posad, 1893); “Bog zavet nas k pokaianiiu groznymi iavleniami v prirode,” in Troitskie listki (Sergiev Posad, 1911).

56. RME, f. 7, op. 1, d. 379, 1. 17ob. (I. Suvorov, Tot'ma district).

57. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 15578, 11. 32, 36–37 (1884); d. 15327 (1879).

58. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 18153, 1. 188 (1903).

59. I. A. Kremleva, “Obet v religioznoi zhizni russkogo naroda,” Pravoslavie i russkaia narodnaia kul'tura, bk. 2 (Moscow, 1993), 127–57. The vow continues to be a central feature, not only in Eastern Orthodox Christian piety, but also in Catholic piety. See, for example, Dubisch, Jill, “Pilgrimage and Popular Religion at a Greek Holy Shrine,” in Badone, Ellen, ed., Religious Orthodoxy and Popular Faith in European Society (Princeton, 1990), 113–36Google Scholar; William A., Christian Jr., Person and God in a Spanish Valley (New York, 1972), 119, 166.Google Scholar

60. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 17227 (1897–99).

61. RME, f. 7, op. 1, d. 168, 1. 18 (P. Shadrin, a schoolteacher from the Vologda district).

62. The best spokesman for the Orthodox theology of the icon remains St. John of Damascus. See his On the Divine Images, trans. David Anderson (Crestwood, 1980).

63. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 13331, 1. 26 (1861). For other examples, see d. 17190 (1897); d. 17919, 1. 97 (1902); RGIA, f. 796, ot. 6, stol 3, d. 155, 1. 5 (Viatka diocese, 1916).

64. For examples of such holy wells and springs, see RGIA, f. 796, op. 190, ot. 6, stol 3, d. 277 (Samara diocese, 1909–10); op. 155, d. 677 (Viatka diocese, 1874–79); op. 153, d. 692, (Tambov diocese, 1872–73).

65. See, for example, RGIA, f. 796, op. 145, d. 1941, (Vologda, 1864–65); d. 119 (Khar'kov, 1876); op. 168, d. 1439 (Kursk, 1887–88); op. 167, d. 1452 (Samara, 1886).

66. For example, see an account from the Samara diocese, RGIA, f. 796, op. 155, d. 654 (1874) and an account from the Tula diocese, op. 153, f. 685 (1872–73). In 1892, in the Valuisk district (Voronezh diocese), a peasant came home late at night and met an old man whom he took to be holy. The old man told him to bring his neighbors the next day and to dig a well at the spot where they stood. The water, he claimed, would serve the community well. Later an icon appeared on this site as well. RGIA, f. 796, op. 153, d. 728, (1872–79).

67. See, for example, GAVO, f. 496, op. 1., d. 19388 (1913); for example, the grave of a deceased hieromonk, Vasilii Kishkin, who was recognized as holy by pilgrims but who had not been officially canonized by the church, was such a holy site. See RGIA, f. 796, op. 185, d. 3072 (1904). Many of these local holy places attracted believers from all social groups.

68. RME, f. 7, op. 1, d. 368, 1. 4 (A. Mal'tsev, a peasant from the Tot'ma district).

69. See the observations of the priest Nikolai Sobolev in GAVO, f. 4839, op. 1, tetriad’ 1, d. 371, 1. 6ob. (1907–08); RGIA op. 169, d. 1513 (Orel diocese, 1888); op. 165, d. 1661 (Vologda diocese, 1884–94).

70. For a description of the basic ecclesial community, see Hebblethwaite, Margaret, Basic Is Beautiful: Basic Ecclesial Communities from Third World to First World (London, 1993), 19–51 Google Scholar; Bruneau, Thomas C., “Basic Christian Communities in Latin America: Their Nature and Significance (especially in Brazil),” in Levine, Daniel H., ed., Churches and Politics in Latin America (Beverly Hills, 1980), 225–37Google Scholar. There is an extensive bibliography on the subject of basic ecclesial communities in Latin America. For an introduction to this subject, see Boff, Leonardo, Ecclesiogenesis: The Base Communities Reinvent the Church (Maryknoll, 1986)Google Scholar.

71. See, for example, the discussion of this tendency in Esther Kingston-Mann and Timothy Mixter, eds., Peasant Economy, Culture, and Politics of European Russia, 1800–1921 (Princeton, 1991), 15–16.Google Scholar

72. The obednitsa is a liturgical service, usually translated as a “reader's service,” that can be performed without the presence of clergy. It is a service that is said in place of the Divine Liturgy under certain conditions. See Nikol'skii, K., Posobie k izucheniiu ustava bogosluzheniia pravoslavnoi tserkvi (St. Petersburg, 1907)Google Scholar.

73. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 18215, 1. 4 (1905).

74. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 16075, 1. 15 (1888).

75. Aleksei Beliaev, “Iz tserkovno-prikhodskoi zhizni Vel'skago uezda,” V7sV(chast’ neofitsial'naia), 1900, no. 5: 130.

76. RME, f. 7, op. 1, d. 240, 1. 54 (P. Dilaktorskii, an ethnographer from the Kadnikov district); d. 345, 1. 5–5ob. (V. Evfim'ev, a schoolteacher from the Tot'ma district); GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 19367, 1. 151ob. (1913).

77. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 18757, 1. 2. (1909).

78. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 16934, 11. 72–84 (1896).

79. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 14848, 1. 188 (1874).

80. Interestingly enough, the only article devoted to chapels in the journal Rukovodslvo dlia sel'skikh pastyrei in the period from 1861 to 1914 spoke of them in the same negative tone as the few isolated priests did in the Vologda diocese, thereby falsely giving the impression that all parish priests had a negative view of chapels. Iustinov, Nikolai, “Chasovni v nashikh selakh i derevniakh,” Rukovodstvo dlia sel'skikh pastyrei, 1899, no. 3: 273–78.Google Scholar

81. Ustav dukhovnoi konsistorii (St. Petersburg, 1896), par. 58.

82. These donations were used solely for the material upkeep of the parish church and were not used to support the parish clergy.

83. See GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 13807, 11. 50–50ob. (1864). Apparently those chapels that had been constructed to include altars prior to 1842 were allowed to keep them.

84. For examples, see GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 13469, 1. 18ob. (1862); d. 19777, 1. 5 (1915); Lin'kov, Opisanie Tiksnenskoi Preobrazhenskoi tserkvi, 28–29; Rozanov, Voskresenskaia tserkov', 105. The priest Aleksei Beliaev noted that in the Vel'sk district almost every village seemed to have a chapel and that each one had its own starosta, chosen for a term of three to four years. He was the chapel's caretaker and was responsible for gathering the goods and monies needed for its maintenance. Beliaev, “Iz tserkovnoprikhodskoi zhizni,” 129–32.

85. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 16742 (1895–98)

86. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 16742, 1. 2.

87. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 16742, 1. 1.

88. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 16742, 1. 78.

89. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 16742, 1. 108.

90. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 17800, 1. 5ob. (1901).

91. GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 17899, 1. 8 (1902).

92. For example, see GAVO, f. 496, op. 1, d. 18406 (1907); d. 19756 (1914

93. For example, this can be seen with respect to the parish reform of 1869 that aimed to reduce and merge parishes in order to improve the lot of the parish clergy. For a description of and popular reaction to this statute, see Freeze, Gregory L., The Parish Clergy in Nineteenth-Century Russia: Crisis, Reform, Counter-Reform (Princeton, 1983), 363–69Google Scholar. This can also be seen in the popular reaction to diocesan attempts to reorganize the travel itinerary of miraculous icons that were housed in monasteries. See Shevzov, “Popular Orthodoxy,” 410–21. The same principle was also at work during the attempts at liturgical reform by the “renovationists” in the 1920s. See Freeze, Gregory L., “Counter-Reformation in Russian Orthodoxy: Popular Response to Religious Innovation, 1922–1925,” Slavic Review 54, no. 2 (Summer 1995): 305–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

94. This tendency can be seen in many of the arguments favoring the restoration of a patriarch in 1917. See Evtuhov, Catherine, “The Church in the Russian Revolution: Arguments for and against Restoring the Patriarchate at the Church Council of 1917–1918,” Slavic Review 50, no. 3 (Fall 1991): 499–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

95. Church officials were willing to recognize this principle only secondarily. The main goal was to keep the central church administration functioning. See the directive by Patriarch Tikhon from 7(20) November 1920 in Regelson, Lev, Tragediia Russkoi Tserkvi 1917–1945 (Paris, 1977), 269–70Google Scholar.I wish to thank Nina Tumarkin, William R. Hutchison, Margaret Gillespie, the members of Harvard Divinity School's American Religious History Colloquium, and the two anonymous Slavic Review referees for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. Financial support for this research came from the International Research and Exchanges Board (with funds from the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Department of State [Title VIII]), the Fulbright-Hays Dissertation Research Abroad Program, and the history department of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.