The rapid modernisation of Russia in the early eighteenth century, aimed at increasing the efficiency of the state on the model of the German well-ordered police states (Raeff), led to the formation of a formally modern bureaucracy (Weber) and a change in the rules of functioning of the state apparatus – from informal practices (‘feeding / kormlenie’) to formal ones (the table of ranks, the idea of meritocracy, following instructions and written directives). 

Nevertheless, this transition gave rise to many contradictions, the most notable of which was the intersection between the religious and the secular. This is most evident in the problem of corruption in the Russian Empire, especially in the phenomenon of ‘likhoimstvo’.

Likhoimstvo as a term has Orthodox roots and denotes a whole range of acts related to self-interest (usury, extortion, bribery, etc.). It has negative connotations and was widely used in the 18th and 19th centuries, including in secular discourse. 

Because the state failed to develop a secular conceptual apparatus for defining corruption in the 18th and 19th centuries, it was forced to use religious terms in secular legislation and to incorporate religious discourse into secular discourse, as the humanist philosophy of the time failed to explain to officials why bribery was undesirable. 

Our project aims to understand what ‘likhoimstvo’ meant to a Russian person in the eighteenth century and what contribution this secular-religious concept made to shaping perceptions of corruption in nineteenth and twentieth century Russia. In other words, we seek to understand not only why officials took bribes, but also what prevented them from doing so. 

We work with a variety of sources. The first is the legislation during the reign of empress Catherine II (1762-1796). The many decrees against likhoimstvo issued by the enlightened empress are full of references to ‘fear of God’ as a means of discipline. Catherine’s laws also reform the role of the church, assigning it the function of ‘inquirer’ and ‘corrector’. The church is called upon to change man by engaging with his soul while the state is only able to control the body. 

Another category of sources is secular literature – literary magazines, works by eighteenth-century writers and theatre scripts. They clearly demonstrate society’s moral condemnation of likhoimstvo; and they reflect on the causes of this phenomenon, transgressing the boundary between the religious and the secular.

A third category of sources is court cases on charges of embezzlement. We are not so much interested in questions of law enforcement as in the reasoning of the state (why likhoimstvo is condemned) and officials (why it occurred and whether their action was likhoimstvo), and the role of the church in the moral debate on the issue. Equally important is the question of punishment: whether the state sought to ‘reform’ the person through imprisonment or church penance, or to punish physically to teach a lesson to others. 

We hope that our project will help to shed light on the entanglements between church and state concerning the perception of corruption.

– Miloš Lecić (BU 2337/5-1)