The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

Revolts of seminarists in 1905-1907: a traditional protest in the conditions of revolution

t. A. Pavlenko


In the conditions of REVOLUTION *

Work is presented by group of history of the Russian revolutions and social movements of the St. Petersburg institute of history of RAS.

The research supervisor - the doctor of historical sciences, professor B.I. Kolonitsky

Article is devoted to studying revolts of the studying orthodox seminaries during the First Russian revolution. This research shows the system of relationship between seminarists, representatives of administration of educational institution and Educational committee at St. Synod.

Key again: protest history, history of the First Russian revolution, history of education.

The article is about the revolts of students of the Orthodox seminaries during the First Russian Revolution. The study case shows the system of relations among seminarians, administrative agents of educational institution and representatives of the Educational Committee of the Holy Synod.

On February 14, 1905 at ten o'clock learning evenings- & #34; бей" rushed to the apartment of the inspector,

shchiyesya the Minsk seminary, having seen off is- crushed all furniture and ware. Inspek-

klyuchenny "for unreliability" tova- Torahs escaped, having jumped out of a window, same

a rishcha, "returned to seminary, with shouts the apartment of the rector underwent defeat,

where everything was turned into chips" [8, l. 3]. In the apartment of representatives of administration, documents, books were torn and money is stolen. Disorder continued in the building of the main building of seminary and in the hostel where pupils broke furniture and doors, broke lamps, beat out glasses. In a teacher's room broke off conduits and destroyed archive [23, page 2]. The arrived police and Cossacks surrounded the building of educational institution, however violence continued to three o'clock in the morning. In the morning all attendees were rewritten [8, l. 3]. Until clarification of circumstances of the incident the Holy Synod decided to close the Minsk seminary, and pupils to dismiss on houses till April. The decision on an exception of 83 pupils, according to other data, more than 100 (about a half from the total number of pupils) was made [1; 27].

At first sight described picture of disorder allows to doubt the planned nature of this protest action. As a rule, historians recognize only strikes and demonstrations as organized forms of a protest [2; 3; 6; 14; 15; 16; 20], revolts carry to spontaneous performances [3; 6; 14; 16; 18; 19; 20; 22]. According to them, emergence of rebellious protest actions demonstrates spontaneity and "weakness" of the movement of pupils [3; 16; 20]. It is represented that studying seminar revolts will allow to correct the ideas of their character existing in a historiography. In this article it is planned to consider the protest actions applied by pupils during the revolt and also to track dynamics and feature of these protest actions during revolution 1905-

1907 . It is supposed that the detailed research of revolts will allow to see influence of revolutionary culture on the choice of any given protest actions and to find the cultural code of a revolt to which pupils followed.

As a seminar revolt in the present research it is understood collective

the protest against the power and (or) the order existing in seminary which is followed by damage of property to the building of educational institution and (or) to apartments of representatives of administration with (or without) causing physical harm by it.

The revolt which happened on February 14-15, 1905 in the Minsk seminary was traditional in the form. Pupils began a revolt in the evening, having extinguished light: in the dark the inspectorate could not establish names of participants of disorder and, therefore, define fault of each pupil. The Minsk seminarists prepared for this protest action in advance, previously having stocked up with stones and sticks. Possibly, on the general meeting (as it is accepted in the seminar environment) the pupils made the decision on time and the venue of a protest action, having defined a signal - a beating of glasses in the doorway.

The beating of glasses is frequent, whistle and cottons served as an appeal to a revolt. Clearing of lamps, whistle and shouts, the device of barricades in the building of educational institution, destruction of state furniture were the main elements of this form of a protest. Application of any given protest action in itself did not mean the beginning of a rebellious protest action yet. Cases when seminarists were limited to a beating of glasses in apartments of objectionable mentors are known. But the protest actions realized in a certain order, continuously following one after another, demonstrated increase of the conflict as if warning about the arising revolt. Thus, the cultural code was a peculiar key / code with a set of the symbols actions developed for a rebellious protest action.

At the organization of a revolt the Minsk seminarists pursued a definite purpose: to strive for cancellation of the new rule introduced after Christmas holiday - restrictions for an exit to the city. Pupils complained of this innovation even revizo-

ru to D. Tikhomirov who visited seminary shortly before the revolt [27].

Trying to justify oneself before the authorities for violation of an order in the city, the administration of seminary presented this incident as an act drunk (so, not realizing the actions) teenagers, having stated: "apparently, were drunk" [8, l. 3]. But soon the administration declared other cause of a revolt: as fault all event was served found in one pupil (excluded subsequently) the copy of the act of a meeting of the pupils of the Vladimir seminary who decided to petition before the administration and St. The synod about admission in higher educational institutions of all graduates of seminary, and the reply to this letter of the Moscow seminarists, "but made already on a political lining" [8, l. 5]. Representatives of administration of educational institution emphasized with this statement negative impact from pupils of other seminaries. Thus, they tried to drop against themselves the charges of rather bad supervision of pupils and to avoid dismissal from a post.

The St. Synod, in turn, accepted the version of local government. The lost prestige among studying the rector archimandrite Nikolay (Eagles) was transferred to the Kostroma theological seminary, but not demoted [27]. However, not always the administration of seminary managed to avoid punishment: after the revolt of the Stavropol seminarists in February, 1906 the St. Synod made the decision on dismissal of the faces of all inspection structure oppressing pupils [5, page 2].

The historian B.V. Titlinov also claimed that the appeal of residents of Vladimir became a push to the organization of a revolt of the Minsk seminarists [25, page 90-91]. However the researcher P.N. Zyryanov noted that in the Minsk seminary there was a spontaneous revolt to defeat of apartments of representatives of administration of educational institution. Claiming,

that "the seminar movement of the beginning of 1905 differed in spontaneity and disorganization", it denied influence of the Vladimir seminarists on protest performances of pupils of other seminaries [16, page 84].

As a rule, revolts were directed against the administration, teachers or employees of seminary who allowed to speak incorrectly to pupils or to take out in relation to them, according to them, the unfair decision. This discontent with mentors was expressed in disorder of their apartments or drawing injuries by it. So, the vospitannikiar-Don seminary during the February revolt of 1905 glasses in apartments of the rector and inspector beat [24, page 2], and pupils of the Saratov seminary, destroying everything on the way, pursued the representatives of administration trying to disappear from furious pupils [21, page 652.]. In March, 1905 the Tambov seminarists, having rushed into a teacher's room, beat representatives of inspectorate and teachers. During the same revolt the pupils cried out the slogan "Long Live Constituent Assembly!" [25, page 92; 4, page 23]. Use of similar political slogans by seminarists is very characteristic of the revolutionary period.

Fall of 1905 there was strengthening of the movement of seminarists who from September to December, 1905 organized 22 strikes, demanding to transform a system of dukhovnouchebny institutions, and repeatedly participated in street demonstrations. However it was not succeeded to find any case of holding a revolt during this period so far. It is represented that the surge in revolutionary activity of the population of the Russian Empire which happened during this period (the movement of pupils of various highest and average educational institutions, the General October strike) influenced search by seminarists of new ways of resolution of conflict. Only in 1906, without having achieved from the church authorities of reform spiritual obrazova-

a niya and having lost the companions excluded for active participation in protest performances, seminarists come back to the device of revolts, boycotts and even attempts again.

On February 2, 1906 after a month of disobedience to the administration in the Simbirsk seminary there was a revolt against the assistant to the inspector: pupils smashed bedrooms, singing revolutionary songs [9, l. 2-2 about]. The special activity during the First Russian revolution was shown by pupils of the Penza seminary who during the various protest actions including they of a revolt, repeatedly used revolutionary symbols and slogans [25, page 103; 8, l. 9, 13]. But it is optional that application of these revolutionary symbols and slogans demonstrated political struggle of pupils. Perhaps, seminarists sought to present these performances as something bigger, than a revolt. Using revolutionary symbols and slogans, they thereby legitimized the performance, trying to show the participation in "business of revolution" [17].

After summer vacation from September to December, 1906 the seminarists preferred to organize boycotts, various protests and to make attempts at representatives of administration of educational institution, but did not organize revolts. In 1907 the seminarists change tactics of performances, using more drastic remedies. Even during the revolts they blew shells and petards, arranged "chemical obstructions". Especially use of explosive substances in May, 1907 when there was a movement for setting out of end-of-year examinations ** became more frequent. On May 3 in the Smolensk seminary during the examinations in a corridor the pupils threw petards, sang "Marseillaise", arranged "chemical obstruction". In the evening, having thrown out a red flag over seminary, pupils began to disperse from singing of revolutionary songs, shooting with a revolver and beating out glasses in

windows and doors [11, l. 3-3 about; 26, page 182-183]. On May 10 pupils of the Kaluga seminary also organized a revolt. It was succeeded to restore order only after pupils, not persons interested to take end-of-year examinations [10, l were sent on leave. 126-126 about].

From the beginning of new academic year in the fall

1907 pupils repeatedly blew shells and petards [12, l. 1-1 about; 7, l. 4-4 about, 6; 13, l. 2-2 about], but revolts were not organized. Pupils of seminaries returned to the organization of traditional revolts only in
1908 . In January the Chisinau and Volynsk seminarists during the revolts beat glasses, threw various objects into the tutors wishing to calm the wards [25, page 117-120]. Thus, with recession of revolutionary activity of the population also former elements of revolts are restored.

In 1905 the seminarists continued to make those protest actions which were taken during the prerevolutionary period during the revolt. It is possible that some revolts took place spontaneously. But the available data on thorough training to the forthcoming protest performance and holding all-seminar meetings confirm the planned nature of many revolts.

Since 1906 under the influence of the general revolutionary situation revolutionary symbols and slogans, though infrequently began to be used. According to the historian B.V. Titli-nov, it demonstrated the political nature of performances of seminarists. At the same time researchers of X. M. Zangi-ev, T.G. Leontyeva and A.N. Pluzhnikov noted that pupils were far from policy [15, page 40; 18, page 20-21; 22, page 411]. It is possible to assume that use of revolutionary symbols and slogans spoke about their prevalence during the revolution of 1905-1907 and about attempts of the bringing of the political status to traditional, in fact, revolts rather. Besides, for -

seminarists of rhetoric and but to tell an imstvovaniye about return of tradition before -

symbolics, created Russian revolutionary time.

revolutionary tradition, the certificate- On ours to calculations, in time of the First

a shaft about influence of the general revolutionary si- the Russian revolution it was organized

tuation on actions of pupils. 10 revolts. Undoubtedly, rises and recessions

In 1907 except habitual shouts, svi- revolutionary movement, stages obsuzh-

st, a beating of glasses and suppression of lamps in vre- a deniye of future transformations to St. Si-

mya revolts pupils blew shells and to a note found reflection in the choice uchashchi-

arranged "chemical obstructions". Ve- misya forms of a protest and among the conflicts,

royatno that application of similar for the sake of- the seven-filament means of fight by seminarists which were coming to the end with a time closing riya. In general the studying Orthodox Christians semibylo it is caused several the reason- nariya of the Russian Empire united

mi. There was a loan of tactics similar problems and common goals. Therefore

fight from an arsenal terrorist orga- we can speak about presence of the general se-

nization. Besides, explosions and "khimiche- the minarsky movement, for which harak-

sky obstructions" pupils suited still sloes identical forms of a protest and edi-

in the second half of the 19th century. Therefore IOJ- the ny cultural code of a protest action.


1. I. Bezvershenko. About life of the diocese and not only//the Minsk courier. 2007. March 23. Rlektron-ny resource]. - Access mode:
2. D. Vasilyev. Past: Essays of history of revolutionary movement of youth in 1905-20 in the Vladimir province. Vladimir, 1923.
3. N.S. quilted jacket. The movement of pupils of average educational institutions during the first Russian revolution (on materials of the Moscow educational district). Yew. to Sais. Wuchang, degrees edging. east. sciences. M, 1985.
4. A.K. Voronsky. Behind live and dead water: Memoirs. M, 1927.
5. Voice. Stavropol, 1906. June 11.
6. S.A. Golubtsov. The Moscow spiritual academy during a revolutionary era: academy in the social movement and service at the beginning of the 20th century. M, 1999. T. 1.4. 3.
7. State Archive of the Russian Federation (SARF). T. 10. Op. 238. 1. Part 47.
8. GARF. T. 102. Op. 233. 3. Part 4.
9. GARF. T. 102. Op. 233. 3. Part 94.
10. GARF. T. 102. Op. 237. 89. T. 2.
11. GARF. T. 124. Op. 45. 1659.
12. GARF. T. 124. Op. 45. 2234.
13. GARF. T. 124. Op. 45. 2313.
14. A.G. Danilov. The intellectuals of the South of Russia at the end of XIX - the beginning of the 20th century. Rostov-on-Don, 2000.
15. Zangiyev of X. M. Ardonskaya seminary: Historical essay. Ordzhonikidze, 1965.
16. P.N. Zyryanov. Orthodox church in fight against revolution of 1905-1907 of M., 1984.
17. B.I. Kolonitsky. Symbols of the power and race for power. To studying political culture of the Russian revolution of 1917 SPb., 2001.
18. T.G. Leontyeva. Life, customs and behavior of seminarists at the beginning of the 20th century//Revolution and people. M, 1997. Page 20-38.
19. Leontyeva T.G. Popovichi: customs of Bursa of post-reform Russia//Homeland. 2000. No. 7. Page 49-53.
20. N.V. Malysheva. The social and political movement of the studying youth of provincial Russia at the end of XIX - the beginning of the 20th century Diss. to Sais. Wuchang, degrees edging. east. sciences. Penza, 1999.
21. Myshtsynv. From periodicals. About theological seminaries//the Theological messenger. 1905. July-August. Page 651-677.
22. A.N. Pluzhnikov. Rebellious lines of performances of the studying youth of the Tambov province in 1905-1907//the Social history of the Russian province in the context of modernization of agrarian society in XVSh-XX of centuries: Materials of the international conference (May, 2002). Tambov, 2002. Page 411-415.
23. North Caucasus. Stavropol, 1905. March 8.
24. North Caucasus. Stavropol, 1905. March 12.
25. B.V. Titlinov. Youth and revolution: from the history of revolutionary movement among the studying youth of spiritual and average educational institutions. 1860-1905. L., 1924.
26. The heavy page from life of spiritual school//the Christian. 1907. No. 5. Page 182-183.
27. Chistyakov 77. The Minsk diocese at the end of XIX - the beginning of the XX centuries. Historical and statistical review. (To the 210 anniversary of the basis, 1793-2003). Rlektronny resource]. - Access mode://http://

* Article is executed with assistance of Gerda Henkel Stiftung fund (Germany), the special program for historians of Belarus, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine, AZ 22/SR/07 grant.

** According to the Synod resolution of March 20, 1907 only those pupils who had annual marks 4 and 5 were exempted from passing these examinations. This resolution became the reason of discontent of seminarists who began to organize new protest actions.

Kimberly Davis
Other scientific works: