G. V. Krivchenkov. Forms of Charity during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878 (Based on
Materials from the Smolensk Province) // Petersburg Historical Journal, no. 1, 2026, pp. 45–56.
DOI: 10.51255/2311–603X_2026_1_45

Abstract:

The article deals with the organization and holding of charitable events during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878 in the Smolensk province. The main attention is paid to the joint work of the
provincial administration of the Red Cross, city government bodies and the landed gentry in opening hospitals in the province. Ladies of the noble class participated in the organization of charity circles at the provincial administration of the Red Cross. Ladies’ circles provided daily care for the sick sent by the Kyiv evacuation commission to the province for treatment. Material support for ladies’ circles was provided by the landed gentry. The activities of the Russian Orthodox Church in collecting donations for the army and navy, the role of the peasant community in providing material assistance to soldiers and their families are examined. In order
to collect funds, the clergy established a collection of donations from parishioners during the liturgy, and the parish clergy accepted humanitarian aid for the army from local residents. Due to poverty, Smolensk peasants often participated in charitable events by collecting food and things that they themselves used in everyday life. Peasants donated warm clothes for the transportation of wounded soldiers from railway stations to medical institutions in the winter. The peasant community made decisions on collecting donations at village meetings. According to reports from Red Cross commissioners and officers, the humanitarian aid from Smolensk was of
good quality. The author concludes that the mass participation of the population in charitable activities during the war years is associated with the idea of its fair nature.

Key words: Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878, Russian Orthodox Church, mug collection, donations, charity, charity events, Red Cross, city government, local gentry, hospital, peasant community.

Author: Krivchenkov, Gleb Valentinovich — PhD in History, Department of Russian History, Smolensk State University (Smolensk, Russia).
Е-mail: krivcen123@gmail.com
ORCID: 0009-0008-3129-7704

References:
Airapetov, O. R. Vneshnyaya politika Rossiiskoi imperii. 1801–1914 gg. [Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire. 1801–1914. In Russ.]. Moscow, Evropa publ., 2006. 668 p.

Buganov, A. V. Otnoshenie krest’yanstva k russko-turetskoi voine 1877–1878 gg. [The Attitude of the Peasantry to the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878. In Russ.]. In Istoriya SSSR. 1987. No. 5, pp. 182–189.

Gorskaya, N. I. Krest’yanstvo i zemstvo Smolenskoi gubernii vo vremya russko-turetskoi voiny 1877–1878 godov: sotrudnichestvo v okazanii pomoshchi deistvuyushchei armii i postradavshim ot voiny [The Peasantry and Zemstvo of the Smolensk Province During the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878: Cooperation in Providing Assistance to the Active Army and War Victims. In Russ.]. In Novyi istoricheskii vestnik. 2024. No. 3 (81), pp. 6–26.

Gorskaya, N. I. Vlast’ i obshchestvo v usloviyakh russko-turetskoi voiny 1877–1878 gg.: po dokumentam Smolenskogo gosudarstvennogo arkhiva [Authority and Society in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878: Based on Documents from the Smolensk State Archives. In Russ.]. In Vestnik arkhivista. 2024. No. 3, pp. 685–702.

Ivochkin, D. A. Sotsial’naya i prosvetitel’skaya deyatel’nost’ Russkoi pravoslavnoi tserkvi v provintsii vo vtoroi polovine XIX — nachale XX vekov (na materialakh Smolenskoi gubernii) [Social and Educational Activities of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Provinces in the Second Half of the 19th — Early 20th Centuries (Based on Materials from the Smolensk Province). In Russ.]: dis. … kand. ist. nauk. Bryansk, 2010. 272 p.

Krivchenkov, G. V. Mobilization Measures and Informing the Peasants of the Smolensk Province about the Events of the Russian-Turkish War of 1877–1878. In International Journal of Religion. 2024. Vol. 5, no. 12, pp. 342–346.

Kuz’micheva, L. B. Serbskaya gosudarstvennaya ideya v 60–70-e gg. XIX v. (Problema ideologicheskogo vybora) [The Serbian State Idea in the 1960s–1970s (The Problem of Ideological Choice). In Russ.]. In Volkov, V. K. (ed.). Dvesti let novoi serbskoi gosudarstvennosti. K yubileyu nachala Pervogo serbskogo vosstaniya 1804–1813 gg. St. Petersburg, Aleteya publ., 2005, pp. 150–174.

Miku, N. V. Krest’yanstvo i russko-turetskaya voina 1877–1878 gg. (po materialam Penzenskogo regiona) [The Peasantry and the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878 (Based on Materials from the Penza Region). In Russ.]. In Mezhdunarodnyi nauchno-issledovatel’skii zhurnal. 2016. No. 5–6 (47), pp. 116–117.

Shemyakin, A. L. Smert’ grafa Vronskogo. K 125-letiyu serbo-turetskoi voiny 1876 g. i uchastiya v nei russkikh dobrovol’tsev [The Death of Count Vronsky. On the 125th Anniversary of the Serbo-Turkish War of 1876 and the Participation of Russian Volunteers. In Russ.]. Moscow, Indrik publ., 2002. 144 p.

Skritskii, N. V. Balkanskii gambit: neizvestnaya voina 1877–1878 gg. [The Balkan Gambit: The Unknown War of 1877–1878. In Russ.]. Moscow, Veche publ., 2006. 413 p.

Suchalkin, E. A. Russko-turetskaya voina 1877–1878 gg. v otsenkakh rossiiskikh sovremennikov [The Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878 in the Assessments of Russian Contemporaries. In Russ.]: dis. … kand. ist. nauk. Belgorod, 2013. 224 p.

Similar Posts

PHJ № 1 (49) 2026 — I. V. Goncharova, M. V. Druzin, M. V. Kovaleva. V. N. GINEV. AUTOBIOGRAPHY. FROM LETTERS

This publication features memoirs and excerpts from letters from the last decade of the life of Vladimir Nikolaevich Ginev (1932–2025), a prominent Soviet and Russian historian of populism and volost self-government. In his autobiographical notes, Ginev recalls his childhood during the difficult times of the Great Patriotic War, his evacuation, his postwar years in Oryol, and his studies at Leningrad University and graduate school at the Leningrad Branch of the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Ginev’s work on his major historical works is covered in detail. The author also explores his relationship with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Marxist-Leninist ideology. As head of the St. Petersburg Institute of Historical Studies (SPbIHI RAS) Archive for ten years, Ginev reveals the history of the archive’s collections and the challenges it faced in the 2000s. His teaching at Oryol State University in the 1990s–2010s and his supervision of graduate students also occupy a special place in his memoirs. The chronological autobiographical memoirs continue with excerpts from letters from V. N. Ginev to his student at Oryol University, M. V. Kovaleva, written between 2015 and 2024. The letters contain memoirs about various stages of Vladimir Nikolaevich’s life. In them, he continues to participate in and follow the life of the St. Petersburg Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, documenting, as a contemporary, the changes in the country’s scientific life and all the hardships of life in one’s later years.

PHJ № 1 (49) 2026 — A. A. Efimov. THE INITIAL STAGE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT IN PALACE CITIES: STAGECOACHES AND OMNIBUSES IN THE 1830S — EARLY 1850S

The article addresses one of the important issues of the existence of palace towns in the 19th century, highlighting the initial stage of public transport development in these settlements. In relation to the period under consideration, the author recognizes stagecoaches and omnibuses owned by companies or private entrepreneurs as such. The article notes that until the 1830s, multi-seat carriages operated only for trips between the capital, St. Petersburg and the nearest residences, Tsarskoye Selo and Peterhof. The main player in this field was the Society of the Initial Establishment of Stagecoaches, founded in 1820, which worked in both directions. At the same time, it also had local competitors. The opening of the Tsarskoye Selo Railway in the autumn of 1837 created serious competition for the Company, but entrepreneurs responded promptly, opening in 1838 a service between Gatchina and Tsarskoye Selo to replace the route from the capital, which had become unprofitable. In the following decade and a half, several new entrepreneurs appeared in the sphere of stagecoach service, organizing trips along the already mentioned routes St. Petersburg — Tsarskoye Selo, St. Petersburg — Peterhof and Tsarskoye Selo — Gatchina, and opening a service between Tsarskoye Selo and Pavlovsk, as well as intracity transportation, in Tsarskoye Selo to the railway station, and in Peterhof — to the steamship pier. The progressive development of railway service by the 1850s increasingly complicated the existence of stagecoach service. At the same time, officials, on the one hand, tightened the conditions for entrepreneurs, ordering the Gatchina — Tsarskoye Selo line to synchronize the frequency of arrival and departure of crews with the train schedule, and on the other hand, they tried to prevent the complete ruin of already operating entrepreneurs, limiting competition in the conditions of unstable passenger flow, which did not guarantee significant income even for the only transporter.

|

PHJ № 4 (48) 2025 — V. S. Parsamov. REPUBLICAN PROJECTS IN THE DECEMBRIST MOVEMENT

The political projects of the Decembrists concerning the future structure of Russia were diverse, yet all were predicated on the establishment of a republican system in Russia. The tradition of contrasting the constitutional projects of P. Pestel and N. Muravyev as republican and constitutional-monarchical is the result of the transfer of later ideas to the Decembrists’ era. Within the political thought of the early 19th century, both projects were regarded as republican, with the primary distinction lying in the nature of the republican system itself. The two systems under discussion are Pestel’s parliamentary republic and Muravyev’s presidential one. In addition to the two projects previously described in detail in the works of their respective authors, there were at least two other projects that were not described in detail, but can be reconstructed from indirect evidence. The concept of a presidential republic, as outlined by N. Turgenev, deviates from Muravyov’s proposal by virtue of the heightened authority bestowed upon the president, in contrast to the imperial republic of the Order of Russian Knights, a concept elaborated upon within the milieu of M. A. Dmitriev-Mamonov and M. F. Orlov.

| |

PHJ № 3 (47) 2025 — A. Yu. Fomin. WAR AND THE “SMUTA”: THE MILITARY DEPARTMENT’S STRUGGLE TO PRESERVE THE ARMY’S LOYALTY IN 1905–1907

The unsuccessful war with Japan and the onset of revolution placed the Russian military authorities and officer corps in a challenging position. The challenge of the era was to combat the spread of revolutionary propaganda among the troops. For the government, the army was its last bulwark in the fight against the revolution after its humiliation in Manchuria, but there was a real threat of revolutionary unrest spreading to the army itself. These circumstances led the military authorities to realise the necessity of fighting the revolutionaries using their own methods — namely, printed counter-propaganda and oral patriotic agitation. Since 1906, a special subdivision of the military department — the Committee for the Education of Troops under the Military Council — had been examining printed matter intended for the troops and selecting publications that were useful from the authorities’ point of view. Dozens of books and brochures, as well as military newspapers and magazines with a patriotic slant, were approved by the Committee for the Education of Troops. The committee believed that official government publications would not be able to compete with the revolutionary and opposition press and therefore relied on private publications for support. Enterprising publishers were eager to offer the government their help in combating revolutionary propaganda in the hope of making a profit. However, the Ministry of War ultimately recognised the ineffectiveness of this approach. Soldiers were far more interested in anti-government propaganda that largely reflected their own sentiments than in conservative publications.

PHJ № 2 (46) 2025 — L. P. Marney. DEVELOPMENT OF THE MONETARY AND CREDIT SYSTEM OF THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE 19 TH CENTURY IN PROJECTS OF M. M. SPERANSKY AND D. A. GURYEV

In the early 19 th century, two Russian statesmen, Secretary of State Mikhail Speransky and Minister of Finance Dmitry Guryev, proposed financial reforms with a particular emphasis on the development of the monetary system, a key component of the economic security of the Russian Empire. This strategy, which sought to enhance financial management, mobilise material resources, strengthen monetary circulation and stabilise the Empire’s financial system, had been in development since 1802, when the Ministry of Finance was established, and continued until 1823, when the subsequent finance plan was formulated. Despite the presence of certain discrepancies and idiosyncrasies, the finance plans devised by Speransky and Guryev constituted a unified programme for the development of the Russian financial system. The objective of this programme was to consolidate all revenue streams within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance, to ensure the autonomy of the monetary system, to facilitate the implementation of administrative and political reforms, and, in general, to enhance the resilience and stability of the Russian Empire’s economic and political systems.

PHJ № 2 (42) 2024 — I. V. Ruzhitskaya. “CATASTROPHE” OR NOT: THE LATEST HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE CRIMEAN WAR

The researchers discussed in the report evaluate the results of the war and the reasons for its defeat, contrary to the tradition that has developed in Russian historiography over a century and a half. They believe that the degree of Russia’s military backwardness from England and France in the field of weapons is greatly exaggerated, and its readiness to repel a military threat is understated. Some of these historians believe that Russia’s loss in the war was due to the initial hopelessness of its strategic position, and was not a consequence of military defeat. The technical backwardness and weakness of the military administration, in their opinion, had no fundamental significance against this background: the outcome of the struggle was predetermined by the strong political isolation of Russia and the geographical dispersion of potential theaters of military operations.