17930 S.A. Razdol’skii, “Russkaia pravoslavnaia tserkov’ v Kavkazskoi voine,”
in Kavkazskaia voina, 258.
31 Lilov, Deiatel’nost’ obshchestva vozstanovleniia, 20.
32 rgia, f. 796, op. 141, 1860, d. 2040, Delo “Raport pr. Evseviia, arkhep-
iskopa kartashnskhago, Ekzarkh Gruzii,” Report from Evsevi to Holy
Synod, 13 October 1860, l. 8.
33 O deistviiakh, 2.
34 Po predlozheniiam namestnika Kavkazskago, 31.
35 rgia, f. 796, op. 205, 1860, d. 464, Delo “Pis’ma Bariatinskogo, N.I.;
Namestnika na Kavkaze, Mitr. Isidoru o polozhenii pravoslaviia na
Kavkaze,” Letter from Bariatinskii to Isidor, 25 April 1860, l. 2. Isidor was
the metropolitan of Novgorod, StPetersburg, Estonia, and Finland.
36 Platonov, Obzor deiatel’nosti, 92; on Miliutin’s support, see sssa, f. 493,
op.1, 1860–82, d. 1, Delo “O uchrezhdenii Obshchestva vosstanovleniia,”
Essay from journal of Caucasus Committee, 2 December 1857, l. 15.
37 Rieber, The Politics of Autocracy, 61.
38 rgia, f. 796, op. 205, 1858–61, d. 464, Letter to Bariatinskii, 13 October
1858, l. 26; also letters of 3 November 1859, l. 31, and 5 September 1860,
l.32; also sssa, f. 493, op. 1, 1860–82, d. 1, l. 9.
39 rgia, f. 796, op. 205, 1858–61, d. 464, Letter to Bariatinskii, 13 October
1858, l. 30.
40 O deistviiakh, 2–4.
41 spbfiri ran, f. 36, op. 2, 1839, d. 32, l. 3.
42 Dubrovin, Istoriia voiny, 1:1:92.
43 Ibid., 1:2:96. For a similar description of the Abkhaz, see 1:2:12.
44 Ibid., 1:2:93.
45 D.Z. Bakradze, “Svanetiia,” zkoirgo 6 (1864), part 2:19.
46 R.D. Eristov, “O Tushino-Pshavo-Khevsurskom okruge,” zkoirgo
(1855):96.
47 Ibid., 95.
48 sssa, f. 493, op. 1, 1860–82, d. 1, ll. 1–3.
49 P. Khitsunov, “O sostoianii nekogda byvshago khristianstva na Kavkaze,”
Kavkaz, no. 34 (24 August 1846): 135–6; no. 35 (31 August 1846): 139–40.
50 P. Khitsunov, “O Chakhkirinskom kreste,” Kavkaz, no. 15 (13 April 1846):
59.
51 A fascinating example of continuity across the bridge of the revolution in
this regard is the way in which Soviet writers in the 1920s defined the
“narod” in the North Caucasus as the “productive forces,” allowing them
to exclude Muslim clerics, Sufi teachers, privileged elites, former
chinovniki, the emerging intelligentsia, and anyone with any connection to
the surrounding empires.
52 Dubrovin, Istoriia voiny, 1:1:112.
53 Ibid., 1:1:165.
Notes to pages 43–6