S. Savchenko: Varvara Yasevich-Borodaevskaya (1861?–1920)

Varvara Ivanovna Yasevich-Borodaevskaya (1861?–1920) stands as a notable figure in the intellectual and social history of Russian empire during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Renowned for her studies of Old Believers and sectarian movements, she also maintained close ties with revolutionary circles. Born, likely, in the Katerynoslav Governorate to a noble family, her exact birthplace remains uncertain, as does her birth year, with sources citing 1859, 1860, or 1861. Her father served as a major in the imperial army. Yasevych-Borodaevskaya received her education at the Katerynoslav Gymnasium, completing an additional course in 1878 that qualified her as a home tutor with the right to teach arithmetic. She later graduated from the Poltava Institute for Noble Maidens and attended higher women’s courses in the capital [1].

In the 1870s, she was swept up in the populist fervor for the peasantry, participating in the famous “going to the people” movement. By the early 1880s, Yasevych-Borodaevskaya became a prominent figure in the literary circles of the capital, where she met Oleksandr Prugavin, whose influence inspired her to study the history of religious schisms. In the summer of 1883, she lived with Prugavin and his brother in the Vladimir Governorate, researching peasant life and worldviews. That autumn, she traveled abroad and, in November, met members of the “Emancipation of Labor” group in Geneva, providing them with modest financial support and receiving their publications for clandestine distribution within the Russian Empire [2].

References to Varvara Yasevich-Borodaevskaya are primarily found in the writings of her revolutionary comrades. Lev Deich, who first met her in Geneva in 1883, was utterly captivated by her energy, youth, and beauty. In 1920, in the journal Vestnik Literatury, he left warm reminiscences of her:

“I first met Varvara Ivanovna Yasevich-Borodaevskaya when she was still a very young woman—scarcely nineteen or twenty years old. And, truth be told, she was strikingly beautiful. This was in the autumn of 1883 in Geneva, where she had just arrived and immediately joined our circle. At that time, the first Russian social democrats were beginning to emerge, still tentative in their steps. That same autumn, a charming young lady, Varvara Ivanovna Borodaevskaya, arrived with a letter of introduction from Oleksandr Prugavin, an old acquaintance of Vera Zasulich. Graceful, slender, and dressed with impeccable taste, she bore little resemblance to the women of our revolutionary milieu. She had come from Nice, where she had been traveling fashionable resorts with her friend, Countess Rehbinder, and her husband.

We, I confess, pinned certain hopes on her. This beautiful young woman, as I recall, was utterly indifferent to theories, particularly Marxism. Yet, finding herself among us Marxists, this elegant girl unhesitatingly took our side. Upon learning of our dire financial circumstances, she offered to help. In St. Petersburg, she claimed, she had influential connections, and raising a few thousand rubles would pose no difficulty. Naturally, the sudden appearance of this enchanting young fairy in our modest dwellings could not but delight us all. We men—what is there to hide?—were not averse to paying court to this dark-eyed Ukrainian. But she quickly made it clear that her heart was already spoken for: she was engaged to a well-known literary figure…” [3, pp. 4–6].

Deich briefly employed her as a courier for illegal literature and a liaison, while also teaching her encryption and the use of “chemical ink.” However, her collaboration with the social democrats ended there, and the promised thousands of rubles never materialized. Deich noted with regret that the young lady fell under a “bad influence” and forgot her promises [3].

In December 1883, Yasevich-Borodaevskaya returned from abroad. That same year, she published her first article on sectarianism, which described the Shaloput movement in southern Ukraine. Officially, sectologists classified the Shaloputs as a dangerous “mystical” sect with a worldview akin to the Khlysty. Notably, Yasevich-Borodaevskaya referred to Orthodox believers who disapproved of the Shaloputs as “bigots,” not the sectarians themselves [4].

She went on to publish regularly in the press and deliver lectures. In March 1884, she came under covert police surveillance due to suspicions of revolutionary activity. A significant milestone in her biography was her move to Katerynoslav in 1885, where she began working in the provincial zemstvo administration. Given her ongoing research interests, it is likely that her work in the zemstvo involved studying religious dissent among the local population. The Katerynoslav zemstvo actively collected statistical and ethnographic data on the region’s inhabitants, and her expertise in religious schisms was undoubtedly valuable for gathering information about religious minorities. The scholarly outcome of her zemstvo work was her aforementioned Essays on the History of Sectarian Movements in the Katerynoslav Governorate.

During this period, she maintained ties with the Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will) movement and was considered the fiancée of revolutionary Lev Yasevych. Little is known about him. Born in 1852 in the Vilna Governorate to a noble family, he was noted for disloyalty to the authorities, though he was not formally part of revolutionary organizations. In 1879, he was exiled to Kholmogory in the Arkhangelsk Governorate, and by 1881, he had moved to Taganrog. Yasevych joined the Narodnaya Volya and later led its Voronezh branch. In October 1885, a Narodnaya Volya meeting took place at Borodaevska’s Katerynoslav apartment, with Yasevich’s active participation. The meeting resolved to escalate terrorist actions against the authorities. Yasevich personally crafted eleven explosive projectiles, which he distributed to conspiratorial apartments and hideouts. However, these efforts were in vain: no assassinations succeeded, the police discovered the explosives, and Yasevich was arrested.

Little is known about Varvara’s role in this meeting, except that one of her fiancé’s comrades, Voskresensky, made inappropriate advances toward her, leading to his expulsion from Yasevich’s circle and the party [5, p. 76].

In January 1886, she traveled to Paris, where she married Yasevich, who had escaped arrest. Notably, both Yasevich and Borodaevskaya were friends with Alexey Makarevskiy, a future luminary of veterinary science and, at the time, a Katerynoslav-Kharkiv Narodnik. Yasevich fled to Paris with Makarevskiy in 1885, though the details of their escape remain unclear. Makarevskiy had somehow broken free from arrest in a Kharkiv prison and secretly arrived in Katerynoslav for the same Narodnik congress. In Paris, both escapees and Varvara met with Lev Tikhomirov, but they made little impression on him. “With their arrival,” wrote the “patriarch” of populism, “I became convinced that revolutionary Russia… no longer exists. Revolutionaries remain, they stir and will continue to stir, but this is no storm, only ripples on the sea’s surface. The people have become terribly diminished, capable only of slavishly imitating the examples of past heroes… Of course, this does not prevent them from being good people, but in politics, that is not enough” [6, p. 234].

In 1886, Makarevskiy resolved to continue the struggle and attempted to return to Russia, where he was rearrested and exiled to Yakutia. There, he gradually abandoned revolutionary activity, focusing instead on veterinary science and vaccinations, though he never renounced his views. In spring 1887, Varvara moved to Switzerland, while her husband, passing through Austria-Hungary, was arrested and deported to Russia. A year later, with official permission, Borodaevskaya returned to the capital. By 1890, police surveillance over her was lifted after she convinced the authorities of her withdrawal from revolutionary activity. As for her husband, while imprisoned, he betrayed his comrades to the authorities. Rumors circulated among them of his religious mania and repentance for his anti-government terrorist activities [7].

This spared him Siberian hard labor but not administrative exile under police supervision in the Caucasus [8]. Varvara petitioned for his pardon and permission to return home under her supervision, a request that was granted. His subsequent fate remains unknown, and Deich’s ambiguous account makes it unclear whether he was alive by 1920.

Meanwhile, likely following Tikhomirov’s example, Borodaevskaya abandoned revolutionary activity and devoted herself to scholarly work. By 1890, she was a contributor to Severny Vestnik [9, p. 552], a monthly literary, scholarly, and political journal founded in 1885, edited by women: O. V. Sabashnikova, A. M. Evreinova, and L. Ya. Gurevich. She joined the Legal Society at St. Petersburg University and the Imperial Geographical Society, by then already well-known in intellectual circles. As an active member of the Geographical and Religious-Philosophical Societies, she advocated for those persecuted for their beliefs. Her most significant works include the article Essays on the History of Sectarian Movements in the Katerynoslav Governorate (Novoe Slovo, 1897, No. 4, pp. 215–262), Sectarianism in the Kyiv Governorate: Baptists and Malevantsy (1902), and her culminating monograph The Struggle for Faith (1912) [10].

Borodaevskaya was acquainted with prominent intellectuals of her time, including A. S. Prugavin, Ya. P. Polonsky, G. I. Uspensky, Ya. V. Abramov, I. S. Turgenev, and others. Her personal archive in the Pushkin House reveals active correspondence with P. D. Boborykin, S. Yu. Witte, V. G. Druzhinin, V. I. Lamanskiy, N. K. Mikhailovskiy, and other scholars, publishers, and publicists [11]. She regularly contributed to leading periodicals, including Severny Vestnik (1890, No. 8), Istorichesky Vestnik, and Novoe Slovo, where her Essays appeared. She also contributed to the collection In Memory of Nadezhda Vasilievna Stasova (1896), authoring an obituary and biographical essay. Her shared advocacy with Stasova for women’s civil rights and education bound them closely [12]. Freedom of faith and women’s rights became the central themes of her work and activism.

Ultimately, she emerged as a prominent public intellectual. Officials preparing liberal reforms began to heed her opinions. In 1905, Yasevich-Borodaevskaya contributed to the drafting of the imperial decree on religious freedom, proposing her reform project to Sergey Witte. In the preface to The Struggle for Faith, she wrote:

“I am pleased to note that this work, presented by me in early 1905 to the former Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, Count S. Yu. Witte, whose name is so closely tied to the precious act of April 17, 1905, was accepted by him and, at his direction, printed in a very limited number of copies for distribution to all members of the Committee of Ministers and participants in the commission addressing issues of religious tolerance and freedom of conscience. On April 17, 1905, the tsar’s voice finally resounded from the throne, and to no one was this proclamation of freedom of conscience sweeter or dearer than to those who suffered for their faith and all those for whom the welfare and spiritual growth of the people are near and dear” [10].

Varvara Ivanovna deeply mourned the Stolypin reaction, horrified by the return to religious persecution despite the formal guarantees of dissenters’ rights, which she believed were partly secured through her efforts. Her major work of the inter-revolutionary period, The Struggle for Faith: Historical and Everyday Essays and a Review of Legislation on Old Believers and Sectarianism in Its Sequential Development (1912), was published unimpeded thanks to the remaining political freedoms.

This comprehensive study examined the legal and social status of Old Believers and sectarians in the Russian Empire. At the time, few such works existed, as the topic was largely dominated by Orthodox missionaries, whose objectivity was questionable. Thus, Yasevich-Borodaevskaya’s liberal, rights-based study was a groundbreaking contribution to the scholarly discourse. The ideological influence of Aleksandr Prugavin, with whom she maintained close correspondence, is undeniable, though not always constructive.

Her work meticulously traced the evolution of legislation concerning religious minorities from the 17th-century Orthodox schism to the early 20th century, addressing both national decrees and local persecution practices. Based not only on archival materials but also on 25 years of personal interactions with religious communities, it remains a valuable source for studying the history of Old Believers and sectarianism in 19th- and early 20th-century Ukraine.

In 1912, Istorichesky Vestnik published an enthusiastic review signed with the initials L. I. [13, pp. 18–20]. The reviewer noted that “threads of Russia’s sectarian and Old Believer life, threads of prayers, sufferings, hopes, and aspirations of the masses enduring religious repression, converged on Varvara Ivanovna from across the country.” The book’s aim was seen as political: “to put an end to the shameful present” [13, pp. 18–19].

The ideological and scholarly direction of Yasevych-Borodaevskaya’s sectarian studies is reflected in the emotive introduction to her work:

“Having become interested in religious movements among the people, I first encountered the remarkable and tragic figure of Dupliy, a vivid representative of the so-called Shaloput sect, to whom I dedicated my first article in 1883. This martyr for faith opened before me an entire constellation of bearers of other religious worldviews, up to and including Kindratiy Malovany, along with their followers, set against the backdrop of the unique religious and everyday environment they created. All these people, driven by a desire to know the truth and illuminate their existence with it, deeply moved me, and their lives, filled with suffering and grief, steeped in bitter tears and blood, became my grief, my suffering…” [10].

Some reflections on Yasevich-Borodaevskaya’s sectarian studies are warranted. In our view, despite the wealth of factual material and invaluable firsthand observations of Ukrainian sectarians, her works are marked by a certain superficiality and excessive emotionality. A lack of systematic historical and theological training is evident. Her writings resemble engaging, fact-rich journalistic reports rather than rigorous academic studies.

For instance, Yasevich-Borodaevskaya claimed that the Shaloput teachings “differed little in their dogmas from the Orthodox Church.” This assertion is fundamentally flawed. The Shaloputs lacked any codified doctrine and made no attempt to develop one. Unlike the Stundists, they did not oppose the church but rather mimicked devout believers. Their similarity to Orthodoxy stemmed not from dogmatic affinity but from operating within a shared religious-cultural space of “folk religiosity,” which allowed for remarkable transitions, mutual influences, and transformations. Additionally, sectarians often employed deliberate religious dissimulation, with some adherents so adeptly feigning Orthodox devotion that they held positions in anti-Stundist missionary structures. For example, the Khlyst “prophet” Osip Durmanov served as an Orenburg missionary until his activities attracted judicial scrutiny [14]. As for “dogmatics,” the Shaloput belief in Porfiriy Katasonov as “deified flesh” hardly aligns with Orthodox doctrine: “He, Porfiriy Petrovich, opened my eyes, and I understood the word of God and changed my life; I was reborn. And one night in a dream, the Lord appeared to me and revealed that Porfiriy Petrovich, in royal purple and a crown, had ascended to heaven. Then I understood that Porfiriy Petrovich was not only a saint but a god-man” [15, p. 409].

These nuances were evidently of little importance to the researcher. Her populist worldview likely hindered scholarly objectivity. Yasevich-Borodaevskaya seemed less interested in structured analysis of peasant religious practices than in sympathizing with peasants as victims of autocracy and the Synodal Church. Her texts often glorify the suffering of “truth-seeking” peasants rather than critically analyzing their religiosity. Moreover, they idealize the “progressive spirit” of sectarian movements, particularly the Shaloputs. For example, she highlighted their respectful treatment of women but misunderstood its basis. The Shaloputs recognized the possibility of female as well as male “christs,” a practice rooted in their mystical worldview, not a feminist reevaluation of women’s roles.

Her views on Stundists and Baptists were similarly questionable. “Baptism from the outset became a radical sectarian movement in the Kyiv Governorate,” she claimed in her essay on sectarianism there. She attributed the distinctiveness of Kyiv Baptism to the absence of mentors due to persecution, forcing Baptists to abandon rituals. She overlooked theological differences between Stundists and Baptists, preferring to believe that all peasants breaking with the Synodal Church were Protestants, with Kyiv Baptists’ beliefs rooted in the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Beyond Protestantism, she saw in them an overcoming of patriarchal norms and an elevation of women’s roles, a theme she sought everywhere [16, pp. 36–39].

She expressed similar views on Old Believers:

“In the women’s Old Believer sketes on the Leksa River, the question of women’s equality was first raised and brought forth by life itself. Here, women, despite unfavorable conditions requiring them to forgo personal lives, took an honorable place as enlighteners of the masses and ardent defenders of ancient traditions. They established their social and civic rights, acting not merely as assistants but often as independent, energetic leaders in communal and ecclesiastical affairs alongside men” [17].

This persistent emphasis on women’s issues, which permeated her texts regardless of the topic, elicited polarized reactions: admiration from some and accusations of bias from others. The liberal scholarly community praised her work on folk sectarianism, overlooking its methodological flaws. However, as early as 1902, Ivan Franko, from distant Lviv, critiqued her historical dilettantism and inappropriate politicization. While sympathetic to “persecuted freethinkers,” her methodological errors and ideological bias irritated him.

In Literaturno-Naukovyi Vistnyk, Franko reviewed her work on Stundists and Malevantsy in the Kyiv Governorate, calling it a report she deemed necessary to “embellish” with a historical introduction on 16th–17th-century religious movements in Ukraine, including the Reformation and Socinianism. He noted that “these movements had no direct connection to modern sectarianism, and the author clearly does not understand them, spouting considerable nonsense in those few lines of historical excursus” [18, p. 160]. It is unlikely Yasevych-Borodaevska read Franko’s review, though one wonders how she might have responded.

Philosopher Vasiliy Rozanov offered an ambivalent assessment of The Struggle for Faith, combining critical remarks with deep respect for the author. He valued her 25 years of dedicated work among peasants, traveling Ukrainian villages by oxcart to study their lives, sufferings, and sentiments firsthand, lending her work exceptional authenticity: “Pages and dozens of pages in it constitute, so to speak, observations ‘taken from the earth’—their value will never fade, no matter how our theories of sectarianism or our attitudes toward it change. In these qualities, The Struggle for Faith is a timeless book to which researchers will always return” [4].

Rozanov admired her selfless defense of sectarians, prioritizing their interests over her own, which imbued the book with emotional depth and vitality. However, he pointed out a significant flaw: the absence of theological reflection and personal religious experience. “The issue is that she wanders among sectarians without ‘God’ in her mind; without ‘theology’ as a living personal confession: and this is not possible. Let her then study convicts, exiles, visit hospitals, the destitute, the deformed, the lepers. But how can one enter the realm of ‘faith’ without ‘faith’? This she does not understand, alongside Mrs. Prugavin, Bonch-Bruevich, and others” [4].

While Rozanov sympathized with persecuted heretics, his view of figures like the Shaloput Dupliy, whom Yasevich-Borodaevskaya portrayed as a martyr, differed sharply. He saw Dupliy not as a sectarian but as an Orthodox peasant with extreme ascetic tendencies, suffering not from reactionary authorities but from his own fanatical self-torture — fasting to exhaustion, inflicting bodily harm, and rubbing salt into his wounds to intensify the pain.

Rozanov likened the author to a mother fiercely protecting her children, acknowledging that her feminine sensitivity added warmth and humanity to the book but reduced its analytical objectivity. He characterized The Struggle for Faith as a thorough yet emotionally charged advocacy speech that significantly influenced the April 17, 1905, act on religious tolerance [4].

Orthodox missionaries of a conservative bent were even harsher, accusing Yasevich-Borodaevskaya of one-sidedness, superficial conclusions, excessive sympathy for Old Believers, and failure to grasp the fundamental differences between Old Believerism and sectarianism. They criticized her for ignoring the religious roots of schisms and sectarianism, reducing them to national-political and socio-economic factors that supposedly drove peasants to break with the church and create their own religions. Finally, they rejected her admiration for the excommunicated Lev Tolstoy and her deference to his authority [19].

Conclusion. The monograph The Struggle for Faith marked the pinnacle not only of Yasevich-Borodaevskaya’s scholarly career but of her entire life. She took great pride in this achievement, gifting copies to close friends and closely following its reception in the academic press.

How she greeted the 1917 revolutions—with enthusiasm or disillusionment—requires further exploration through additional sources. From Deich’s note Two Meetings, it seems she neither embraced Marxism before nor after the revolutions. The Bolsheviks did not persecute her but showed no particular favor either; she received a scholarly food ration only on the eve of her death. This token from the Bolshevik authorities was of no use to her. In the summer of 1920, in Petrograd, she died of physical and nervous exhaustion, having outlived her husband, several children, and a six-year-old grandson who succumbed to illness. Her life and work as a populist were devoted to hastening a revolution that ultimately brought neither happiness nor freedom. In the new world, there was no place for her, the sectarians she defended, or those who oppressed them.

The fate of this Ukrainian scholar remains underexplored. We hope this article will serve as one of the first building blocks in the foundation of her future scholarly and creative biography. Directions for further research are clear: her noble lineage, information about her parents, her zemstvo activities in Katerynoslav, her work in capital academic institutions, the reception of her work in scholarly circles, the Yasevych family’s ties to Narodnik revolutionaries, the fate of her husband and children, and other aspects.

References

1.           Pysatelnytsy Rossii (materialy dlya biobibliohraficheskoho slovarya) https://book.uraic.ru/elib/authors/gorbunov/sl-7.htm [in Russian].

2.           Yasevych-Borodaievska, V. I. Varvara Ivanivna Yasevych-Borodaievska. https://infor24.ru/Ясевич-Бородаевская,_Варвара_Ивановна [in Russian].

3.           Deich, L. (1920). Dve vstrechi. Vestnik literatury, (12), 4–6. [in Russian].

4.           Rozanov, V. V. (2006). Sobranie sochineniy. Priznaki vremeni (Stat’i i ocherki 1912 g.). http://az.lib.ru/r/rozanow_w_w/text_1912_edinstvo_ili_prazdelenie.shtml [in Russian].

5.           Bakh, A. N. (1929). Zapiski narodovoltsa. Moscow–Leningrad [in Russian].

6.           Tikhomirov, L. (2003). Vospominaniia. Moskva. 617 s. [in Russian].

7.           Yasevych, L. Leon Frantsevych Yasevych. https://www.hrono.ru/biograf/bio_ya/yasevich.html [in Russian].

8.           Yasevych, L. Lev (Leon) Iosifovych Yasevych. https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/БСЭ1/Ясевич,_Лев_Иосифович [in Russian].

9.           Masanov, I. F. (1960). Slovar psevdonimov russkikh pisatelei, uchenykh i obshchestvennykh deiatelei. Moskva. 561 s. [in Russian].

10.        Yasevych-Borodaievska, V. I. (1912). Borba za veru: Istoriko-bytovye ocherki i obzor zakonodatelstva po staroobriadtstvu i sektantstvu v ego posledovatelnom razvitii. URL: http://www.bibliard.ru/vcd-1128-1-1573/index.html [in Russian].

11.        Yasevich (pseud. Borodaevskaia), V. I. (1859–1920). Literator. Fund 350, Institut russkoy literatury, Pushkinskiy dom RAN. https://ro.pushkinskijdom.ru/stocks/10546# [in Russian].

12.        Borodaevskaia, V. I. (1895). Nadezhda Vasilevna Stasova (biograficheskii ocherk). Istoricheskii vestnik, 62, 561–572. [in Russian].

13.        L.I. (1912). Retsenzіia na: Yasevych-Borodaievska V. Borba za veru: Istoriko-bytovye ocherki i obzor zakonodatelstva po staroobriadtstvu i sektantstvu. Istoricheskiy vestnik, 128, 18–20. [in Russian].

14.        Butkevych, T. (1910). Obzor russkikh sekt i ikh tolkov. Kharkiv. 607 s. [in Russian].

15.        Protokol Rostovskogo Missionerskogo Komiteta (1886). Ekaterinoslavskie eparkhialnye vedomosti, (21), 408–411. [in Russian].

16.        Yasevych-Borodaievska, V. I. (1902). Sektantstvo v Kyivskoi gubernii. Baptysty i malevantsy. Zhivaia starina, 1, 33–74. [in Russian].

17.        Belyakova, E. V., Belyakova, N. A., Emchenko, E. B. Zhenshchina v pravoslavii. https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/antropologiya-i-asketika/zhenshhina-v-pravoslavii-tserkovnoe-pravo-i-rossijskaja-praktika/5 [in Russian].

18.        Franko, I. (1902). Baptysty i malevantsi Kyivskoyi huberniyi. Literaturno-naukovyi visnyk, 5(19), 154–160. [in Ukrainian].

19.        Belolikov, V. Z. (1913). Istoriko-kriticheskiy obzor sushchestvuyushchikh mneniy o proiskhozhdenii, sushchnosti i znachenii russkogo raskola staroobryadchestva. Kiev. 52 s. [in Russian].