Introductions

The Komis are among the peoples who inhabit the Russian territory and whose nationalist movement has yet to be studied in detail. Researchers working with nationalist movements of the peoples of the former Russian Empire have limited themselves to relatively large ethnic groups, which had separate soviet republics during the Soviet period. Quite a large number of research papers on the Baltic peoples, Ukrainians, as well as Transcaucasians and even Central Asians have been published. On the autonomous republic level, ethnic groups have not yet been studied in detail, except only recently the Tatar people and Chechens, whose nationalist movements have been more powerful thus becoming the day’s top news. Nationalist movements of the Finno-Ugrians within Russian territory are almost an untouched topic so far, probably because of the relatively weak and “safe” nature of the movements. Being a titular ethnic group in their republic, a number of ethnic minorities in Russia play an important part in the political life of their region, and the nationalist movements of these ethnic groups, including Komis, will be a far more crucial factor in the overall domestic policy of Russia in the near future. In the case of the central government deciding to cut national independence of regions or reduce ethnic diversity, for example or in the case Russia might collapse. In order to understand nationalism, we should know their history. A characteristic feature of nationalism is the use of old legends, symbols and texts, beliefs ingrained in history for the solution of their contemporary problems and tasks.

This paper addresses one of the central aspects of Komi nationalism – relationships between the Komi nationalist movement and Orthodox Christianity. As it turns out, the relationships used to be complex and controversial already when the Komi nationalist movement first emerged and has continued to be today.

Stephen of Perm

The key figure of the Komi Orthodox Christianity is Stephen of Perm (also Stephan Hrap). Stephen came from Veliky Ustyug. He had a good religious education, and in addition to Komi and Russian languages that he had acquired probably in his childhood, he had a good knowledge of Old Slavonic and Greek. The general attitude is that, for the conversion of the Komi people to Christianity, Stephen invented an original Komi alphabet in about 1372 (the “Old-Permic alphabet”)¹ and translated some of the most common holy texts into the Komi language. In 1379, on his own initiative and supported by the great prince Dmitri Donskoy and the church administration of the Moscow principality, Stephen started his missionary work in the Zyryan Komis’ territories which formally belonged to the feudal republic of Novgorod. From the year 1380 on, he lived in Ust-Vym, where a monastery and the first churches were built. On the monastery’s estate, a well-known workshop for making icons was built, books were rewritten and a chronicle recorded. In the monastery school, local clergymen were trained for further missionary work. In 1383, the Perm Bishopric with its centre in Ust-Vym (subject to the Moscow metropolitan) was established to the south west of the present Republic of Komi. Stephen was appointed the first bishop. This marked the transition of the Komi Zyryans’ lands to the Moscow principality, yet at first Stephen was quite on his own and his bishopric resembled a feudality with a considerably high degree of autonomy. In 1396, Stephen of Perm died, the successful conversion of Komis to Orthodox Christianity being completed by his successors (Gerassim, Pitirim, Iona etc.). In the second half of the 15th century, Komi-Permyaks were also christianised (Lytkin 1889: 3–12; Kotov 1997b: 88). Then Orthodoxy moved on to northern and eastern areas together with Komi settlement. In 1492, with Filofei being bishop, the territory around Vologda, which was separated from Novgorod Bishopric, was united with the Perm Bishopric, and they formed the bishopric of Perm and Vologda. Bishops then preferred Vologda as a residence, instead of the remote and provincial Ust-Vym, and thus Komi areas became peripheral areas of the bishopric. Russian bishops then moved away from the Komi Orthodox tradition and let it fade gradually (Lytkin 1889: 15–16; Kotov 1997a: 90; Rogachev 1997: 198–199). The Orthodox Church in Komi became Russian and provided strong support for the authorities until the end of the tsarist period.

Komi Orthodox Tradition in 18th–19th Centuries

The Komi Orthodox tradition created by Stephen of Perm did not disappear completely, however, but underwent a rebirth in the second half of the 18th century. This was carried out by sons of the Komi clergy, separated from their native environment from an early age and put to Russian church schools (seminaries) (in Ustyug during 1738–1786, in Vologda from the year 1786). In the 18th century and first half of the 19th century, clergymen were the only learned people among Komis. As a result of the translations of religious literature made by clergymen, a special Komi jargon full of borrowings from Russian developed (Lytkin 1889: VI–VI).² The use of the Komi language by clergymen was based on the Komi Orthodox traditions created by Stephen of Perm. Without such a background, the Komi Orthodox church would have paid far less attention to the native language, as was the case in other eastern Finno-Ugrians. Already in 1843, the clergymen who were to be sent to Komi, received training in the Komi language in the Vologda seminar. In 1896, the Komi people had an official celebration of the five-hundredth anniversary of the death of Stephen of Perm, with special religious ceremonies in Komi and processions led by a cross and readings about his life (Istoriya… 1981: 94; Yekishev 1996: 85). St. Stephen was not, then, forgotten, the tradition created by him has continued to the present day. With the permission to hold church ceremonies in the Komi language given by the Orthodox clergy, they considered mainly religious aspects. However, because in the tsarist period, the Komi language could be published only by religious means – holy writings – this played an important role in the emergence of Komi-speaking intelligentsia and Komi professional culture.

Orthodoxy in the Komi Area at the End of the Tsarist Time

The first all-Russian census of population held in 1897 showed that 98.5% of all Zyryan Komis living in the Russian Empire were orthodox, and 1.5% were old believers. Among the Komi-Permyaks, the percentage rates were 97.49 and 2.51 respectively (Die Nationalitäten… 1991: table 007). In tsarist Russia, Orthodox Christianity was the state religion and part of the official nationalism. The fact that the majority of Komi people were Orthodox also affected the position of Komis among the peoples of the empire and consequently the development of their nationalism. Thanks largely to the effective missionary work in the native language carried out by Stephen of Perm and his successors, Komi people were really converted to Orthodoxy relatively early. Orthodox Christianity was familiar to them and officially recognised. Unlike the Nenets, Khanty, Mari and Udmurt peoples who were ‘christianised’ superficially and using force as a means of conversion, there were no pagans among Komis. They were predominantly Orthodox and resembled Russians in that aspect. Komis were fully integrated into the empire and considered reliable by the state. Unlike predominantly Lutheran Estonians and Germans, Catholic Polish people, Islamic Tatars or partly pagan Finno-Ugric and Siberian peoples, Komis did not have this potentially conflicting claim against the central government. Also, there was no religious discrimination against the Komi people. Their division between religious confessions was just like Russians and united them with other mostly agrarian and settled ethnic groups that had integrated into the empire relatively early, such as Votians, Izhorians, Karelians, Vepsians and Mordvins (see also Kappeler 1997: 19). The confessional subdivision of Komis probably did not favour the development of their nationalism. There was no point of friction or conflicting claims between Komis, the central government and Russians. Instead, the common Orthodox identity united them.

By 1916, there were 117 Orthodox churches and over 200 chapels throughout the territory of the present Republic of Komi. The Orthodox Church played an important role in the educational system, was actively involved in charity, started the temperance movement in the Komi village. The church was the centre of spiritual life; their priests normally had a high reputation in the village community. By the end of the 19th century, the dynasties of Komi Orthodox priests had been established. The Orthodox clergy had a significant impact upon the formation of Komi intelligentsia (Malkova 1996: 154; Rogachev 1997: 199). The 1897 census showed that, among the Zyryan Komis living in the Arkhangel oblast, the number of people from the clergy was 25 (0.11%), and the respective figure among the Zyryan Komis living in the Vologda oblast was 461 (0.4%). The latter figure corresponds with the average statistics of the empire. Among Komi-Permyaks, however, there were practically no persons from that estate, except for two women who were most probably wives of Russian clergymen (Pervaya… I: table XXIV; VII: table XXIV; X: table XXIV; XXXI: table XXIV). Komi-Permyaks were at the edge of the Komi Orthodox tradition created by Stephen of Perm, they did not have their own clergy and the formation of their native intelligentsia was also delayed.

We might conclude that Orthodox Christianity has been a controversial issue if Komi nationalism is considered. On the one hand, mostly Orthodox Komis were well integrated into, and loyal to the Russian Empire. Komi peasants were patriots of Russia and believed in the benevolent tsar. On the other hand, the Komi native Orthodox tradition, created by Stephen of Perm, provided the opportunity for the emergence of Komi intelligentsia and Komi professional culture and consequently for the Komi national movement. There had been no violation of relig1ious freedom of Komis, yet they faced some discrimination based on estate and language in the first place, the controversy that the emerging Komi intelligentsia made people aware of and expressed this through nationalism.

Komi Nationalist Movement

The ultimate aim of the nationalist movement is the nation state and its flourishing (Gellner 1994: 2221, 2227). The Komi national movement started in the middle of the 19th century, which was relatively early compared to other eastern Finno-Ugrians. This is an example of nationalism more typical for Central and Eastern Europe. Unlike the peoples with a long history, Komis did not have the tradition or experience of statehood – they developed the nation on a cultural basis, in particular language and elements of local folk-culture as the only sources for that. Nation-state, or at the very least, political autonomy appeared as a mirage in the future and thus the first nationalist leaders did not even think of them seriously. The primary purpose was to create a nation that would then make the effort to have its own state. Until the end of the tsarist period, Komis remained on a level where a few nationalist intellectuals dealt with issues such as native language, folklore and history and were sympathetic towards their suffering people, trying to “awake” them and provide them with cultural enlightenment without much success (see Hroch 1968: 24–26). Georgi Lytkin, Ivan Kuratov and Kallistrat Zhakov were the most remarkable of such nationalistically minded intellectuals.

During that period, Komis were predominantly peasants. The 1897 census showed that only about 14% of all Zyryan Komis and 6% of Komi-Permyaks were literate (Pervaya… I: table XV; VII: table XV; X: table XV; XXXI: table XV). School education was in Russian, no periodicals were published in Komi, and the existence of the Komi written word was possible only in religious writing.

In order to go further into the issue of the relationships between Komi nationalism and Orthodox Christianity, I will discuss the attitudes of the three most outstanding Komi nationalists to Orthodoxy.

Georgi Lytkin (1835–1907)

was the son of a wealthy Komi merchant who went bankrupt. He was among the first Komis to receive secular education from the beginning. In 1859, he graduated from the St.Petersburg University. Lytkin outlined Komi cultural history with a very comprehensive book “Komi Area During Perm Bishops and the Komi Language”. He was famous as a translator of holy texts into the Komi language, as a linguist and promoter of the Komi literary language (see Jääts 2000a: 101–120). It is unclear, however, how Orthodox he was – his wife was Protestant. At the beginning of the 1860s, he and his wife were narodniks – members of the 19th century socialist movement – in St.Petersburg and followers of Chernyshevsky. Being a Komi nationalist, Lytkin most probably made use of the only channel opened up to the Komi written word – religious writing – in order to develop Komi writing and literature. Lytkin continued the tradition of the Komi Orthodoxy established by Stephen of Perm and timed his translations of holy writings published with government support to coincide with the dates connected with St.Stephen³. Yet, Lytkin opposed the traditional Komi writing created by his contemporary clergymen, accusing it of the abundance of Russian text. He defended the idea of the pure Komi language, referring to the translations made by Stephen. Possibly Lytkin, being a nationalist, attempted to remove Stephen from the contemporary Orthodox Church.⁴ He admired and respected St.Stephen. Lytkin supported the idea that Stephen was, at least, partly of Komi origin, and that the apostle of Komis was also the creator of the Komi alphabet and writing (Lytkin 1889: 5, 14, 61–62). Lytkin then elevated Stephen to the status of a national hero and a prime example to himself. Lytkin has worked hard to elevate the Komi literary language, known as early as from the 14th century, to a position in national pride. He might even think about the possibility of the national Komi Orthodox church, as there were national Orthodox churches in Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania. The titles of the translations made by Lytkin leave the reader with the impression that he had devoted his whole life to Orthodoxy. A more detailed examination of Lytkin’s life revealed that, for him, religious writing was only a means he used to achieve nationalist aims. He found it useful, after all, that Komi peasants received Orthodox teaching in their native language.

Ivan Kuratov (1839–1875)

was the great poet of the Komi people, who has had the reputation of being a founder of Komi literature in Soviet literary criticism since World War II. Born the son of a deacon, he attended the Yarensk church school and Vologda church seminary. As with many of his contemporaries, with a similar educational background and full of high ideals (Nikolai Chernyshevsky and Nikolai Dobrolyubov being the most prominent of them), he was disappointed in the official church and government authorities already during his school years. Because of overall inequality and poverty around him, he was also disappointed in God and turned away from a God who let that happen (Berdyayev 1990: 41–42). Kuratov became an intellectual sharing many ideas of the narodniks. He believed his mission was to serve his suffering people and offer enlightenment, the aims that did not coincide with loyalty to official Orthodoxy (Feodorova 1980: 34–38). During the Soviet period, Komi literary critics have searched and found atheist and anti-clerical motifs in his poems.⁵ In his works, he used elements of Komi pagan folklore, planning an epic poem “Yag mort” and the poem about Pam, a Komi animist priest and opponent of St.Stephen (Mikushev, Rochev & Chistalev 1979: 22; Martynov 1988: 60, 78, 88). Being close to the narodniks, Kuratov saw literature as a means to awaken the masses and fight for the improvement of their standards of living. He then criticised the sentimental and religious attitudes in the verses by P.Rasputin, a Komi writer from the clergy. Kuratov considered the Orthodox Church to be an obstacle to further progress. It is unclear, however, whether he was a convinced atheist. After graduation from the seminary in 1860, Kuratov went to study at the ecclesiastical academy in Moscow, although he was expelled from there soon after because of his involvement in a student movement (Feodorova 1980: 39). He recognised the positive impact of the14th-century Komis’ conversion to Russian Orthodoxy. During the Vologda seminary period, trying to disguise their content, Kuratov wrote his poems in the Komi alphabet created by St.Stephen (Feodorova 1980: 34). Waiting in vain for the publication of his works in the Komi language, Kuratov also planned to use the translations of religious literature into Komi to promote the Komi literary language as Lytkin did. Kuratov has translated some excerpts of the Gospel of Luke into Komi (Tiraspolsky 1983: 120; Vaneyev 1989: 16).

Kallistrat Zhakov (1866–1926)

was active in Komi public life, as a philosopher, researcher, and writer (see Jääts 2000b: 1267–1295). His father was a peasant handicraftsman, icon painter, close to clergy. Zhakov had a secular education. At the Vologda county school, he showed his liberal attitudes and was expelled from school for expressing atheist views. Yet his aspirations took him to the Zaozersk monastic school in Vologda guberniya, from where he was also expelled because of his often-conflicting nature and liberal attitudes (Turkin 1990: 5–45; Zhereb­t­sov 1990: 26–41; Mikushev 1993: 5–25). Apparently, Zha­kov was not in conflict with the religion as such but with the official Russian Orthodoxy and the narrow-minded clergymen. At the beginning of the 20th century, he developed a new philosophical-religious teaching called “limitism”, according to which God or Primary Potential is the same for everybody, although known by different names and forms. In his religious beliefs, Indian religions and philosophies, as well as the teaching of Leo Tolstoy influenced Zhakov (Belokon 1988: 112–124; Zherebtsov 1990: 26–41; Mikushev 1993: 5–25; Muravyev 1993: 93–96). It is obvious his teaching did not fit in the existing framework of the Russian Orthodox Church. Zhakov saw his contemporary Orthodox Church as oppressive, idealising in his predominantly Russian and highly romantic writings the ancient pagan period of Komis, the golden age when everybody was living in harmony with Nature and the whole of the Universe, before their conversion to Russian Orthodoxy. Among other issues, Zhakov also addresses the well-known conflict between St. Stephen and Pam, the leader of pagan Komi people. Yet unlike Lytkin, Zhakov is thoroughly in favour of Pam (Demin 1993: 11; Mikushev 1993: 18–21). Pam, the clever man, pagan priest, with fine story-telling skills, poet and philosopher – is among Zhakov’s most popular personalities. Another work by him idealising the pagan ancient period is the epic poem “Biarmia” (1916). Based upon Komi mythology and folklore, the poem romanticises Biarmia, a powerful and wealthy Komi state of merchants on the lower course of the North-Dvina River in the early Middle Ages. He also had, among other good characters, sotnik Pan, who resisted Russian Orthodox mission (Demin 1993: 11; Korolev 1993: 83–84). Apparently, this literary epic reflects the yearning of Komi nationalists for a glorious and prestigious history and independent state tradition.

Conclusion

As we can see from the above, there is a major difference (and controversy) of opinion about Russian Orthodoxy among these three Komi nationalist intellectuals. They do not represent any common attitude toward Orthodoxy, allm of them having a unique and strong personality. During the Tsarist period, Komi nationalism was only, in its initial phase, trying to find its way. Each young nationalist grouping needs its own respectable narrative of history. Unlike most Finno-Ugric peoples, the Komis had their alphabet as early as the 14th century, the fact that undoubtedly enhanced the self-pride and self-esteem of Komi intellectuals and, through their activity and propaganda, common Komis as well. The Komi language Orthodox tradition was revived by Georgi Lytkin who considered the second half of the 14th century to be the golden age of Komi history (Annus 2000: 88–95). This golden age of St. Stephen was destroyed by his Russian successors as Perm bishops, whose negligence toward the Komi alphabet let it die. Stephen of Perm was the main national hero for Lytkin, who considered himself to be a follower of Stephen’s work and acted for the restoration of the golden age. Kallistrat Zhakov, on the other hand, saw the Biarmia state of merchants as the golden age of Komi history when people lived in harmony with Nature and with the whole Universe. Orthodox Russian missionaries from Moscow destroyed this golden age. For Zhakov, Stephen was the negative character, he idealised the pagan Pam, the wise man. Ivan Kuratov, however, has not expressed his clear preferences, being more of an atheist compared to the other two. His writings include evaluation of both paganism and Komi language Orthodox tradition created by St. Stephen.

Which relations have been there between the Komi nationalism and Orthodoxy in the 20th century? In the 1920s, as with much other nationalism, the Komi nationalism displayed itself in full bloom, while Orthodoxy was in disgrace and a target of political repression– the clergy as a social class was destroyed. From the 1930s onwards, the Komi nationalism and the Orthodoxy were both in disgrace. The 1990s marked the rehabilitation of Orthodoxy and release of political pressure on Komi nationalism, yet the relations between the two seems to be distant. Although the Syktyvkar and Vorkuta Bishopric covering the whole Republic of Komi was established, it remained just a part of the Russian Orthodox Church and Russian is used as the only language. Stephen of Perm won admiration and respect again. In 1996, the 600th anniversary of his death was celebrated. In Ust-Vym, centre of his missionary work, churches have been renovated. The book “Komi Area during Perm Bishops and the Komi Language” by G.Lytkin was published again. It is still unclear whether Stephen is considered to be rather a Russian missionary or an apostle of the Komis. It is still an open question whether to include Komi Orthodox tradition created by St. Stephen to the Komi nationalist narrative or cast it aside and develop the Komi national identity on paganism.

Annus, Epp 2000. Kiigelaual mineviku ja tuleviku vahel: rahvuslikust müto­loo­giast. – Looming 1: 88–95.

Belokon 1988 = С. Белокон. Зырнский Фауст. – Даугава 5: 112–124.

Berdyayev 1990 = Н. А. Бердяев. Истоки и смысл русского коммунизма. Москва.

Demin 1993 = В. Н. Демин. К. Ф. Жаков как явление финно-угорской культуры ХХ века. – К. Ф. Жаков. Проблемы творчества. Труды института языка, литературы и истории. Выпуск 55. Сыктывкар.

Die Nationalitäten des Russischen Reiches in der Volkszählung von 1897. 1991. Henning Bauer, Andreas Kappeler, Brigitte Roth (Hrsg.). Bd. B. Ausgewählte Daten zur Sozio-ethnischen Struktur des Russi­schen Reiches – Erste Aus­wertungender Kölner NFR-Datenbank. Stuttgart.

Feodorova 1980 = А. Н. Федорова. Основоположник коми литературы Иван Алексеевич Куратов. – История коми литературы. Том 2. Сыктывкар, 34–38.

Gellner, Ernest 1994. Rahvused ja rahvuslus. – Akadeemia 10: 2227–2238.

Hroch, Miroslav 1968. Die Vorkämpfer der nationalen Bewegungen bei den klei­nen Völkern Europas. Praha: Univerzita Karlova.

Istoriya… 1981 = История Коми АССР с древнейших времен до наших дней. Сык­­тывкар.

Jääts, Indrek 2000a. Georgi Lõtkin ja tema raamat “Komimaa Permi piiskoppide ajal ja komi keel”. – Ajalooline Ajakiri 3/4 (106/107): 101–120.

Jääts, Indrek 2000b. Kallistrat ˇakov. Komi kirjanik ja filosoof. – Akadeemia 6: 1267–1295.

Kappeler 1997 = Андреас Каппелер. Россия – многонациональная империя. Возникновение. История. Распад. Москва.

Korolev 1993 = К. С. Королев. Поема К. Ф. Жакова “Биармия” и современные представления о Биармии. – К. Ф. Жаков. Проблемы творчества. Труды института языка, литературы и истории. Выпуск 55. Сыктывкар, 83–84.

Kotov 1997a = П. П. Котов. Коми край в системе церковно-территориального устройства России. – Историко-культурный атлас Республики Коми. Москва: Дрофа, Дик, 90–91.

Kotov 1997b = П. П. Котов. Миссионерская деятельность пермских епископов и православные храмы XIV–XVII веков. – Историко-культурный атлас Республики Коми. Москва, 88.

Lytkin 1889 = Г. С. Лыткин. Зырнский край при епископaх пермских и зырнский язык. Пособие при изучении зырнами русскаго языка. Санкт-Петер­бургъ.

Malkova 1996 = Т. А. Малкова. Портрет приходского священника Коми края конца XIX – начала XX века. – Христянизация Коми края и ее роль в раз­ви­тии государственности и культуры. Том 1. Пленарные доклады. История. Сыктывкар.

Martynov 1988 = В. И. Мартынов. Становление коми литературы. Идейно-эстетический аспект. Москва.

Mikushev 1993 = А. К. Микушев. Коми “Калевала”. Об одном неизвестном финно-угорском литературном эпосе и его создателе Каллистрате Жако­ве. – К. Ф. Жаков, Биармия. Коми литературный эпос. Сыктывкар, 5–25.

Mikushev, Rochev, Chistalev 1979 = А. К. Микушев, Ю. Г. Рочев, П. И. Чис­та­лев. История собирания и изучения коми фольклора. – История коми лите­ратуры. Том 1. Сыктывкар.

Muravyev 1993 = В. В. Муравьев. Религиозные взгляды К. Ф. Жакова. – К. Ф. Жа­ков. Проблемы творчества. Труды института языка, литературы и истории. Выпуск 55. Сыктывкар, 93–96.

Pervaya… = Первая всеобщая перепись населения Российской империи, 1897 г. Издания центрального статистического комитета министерства внутрен­ных дел. Под редакциею Н. А. Тройницкаго. I Архангельская губерния, 1899–1904; VII Вологодская губерния, 1901–1904; X Вятская губерния, 1904; XXXI Пермская губерния, 1904.

Rogachev 1997 = М. Рогачов. Религия и церков. – Республика Коми. Энцик­ло­педия. Том 1. Сыктывкар: Коми книжное изд.-о.

Zherebtsov 1990 = И. Л. Жеребцов. “Создам я сказку всемирную...” (общест­вен­но-политические взгляды К. Ф. Жакова). – Родники пармы. Научно-популярный сборник. Сыктывкар, 26–41.

Zhurnal… 1884 = Журнал Министерства Народнаго Просвещения. Декабръ, 91–94.

Zorgenfrei 1927 = Т. Зоргенфрей. Г. С. Лыткин. Библиографический очерк. – Коми Му – Зырнский край 4–5, апрель-май. Устьсысолск.

Taagepera, Rein 1999. The Finno-Ugric Republics and the Russian State. London: Hurst.

Tiraspolsky 1983 = Г. И. Тираспольский. По следам переписки И. А. Куратова и Г. С. Лыткина. – Север 2.

Turkin 1990 = А. И. Туркин. Каллистрат Фалалеевич Жаков. – К. Ф. Жаков. Под шум северного ветра. Сыктывкар, 5–45.

Vaneyev 1989 = А. Е. Ванеев. В поисках истины. Мировозрение и эстети­ческие взгляды И. А. Куратова. Сыктывкар.

Vologodskiya… = Вологодския епархиальныя ведомости. Сентября 1. Но. 17, 1901, 484–489; Марта 1. Но. 5, 1904, 126–138.

Yekishev 1996 = Ю. А. Екишев. Празднование 500- и 600-летия Успения Свя­тителья Стефана Пермского. – Христянизация Коми края и ее роль в разви­тии государственности и культуры. Том 1. Пленарные доклады. Исто­рия. Сыктывкар.