THE MENNONITE BROTHERHOOD IN RUSSIA (1789 - 1910), P. M. Friesen, 1911

ities as well as by the majority of the members of society in their intercourse with the secessionists, who, in other ways, were bound to them by close ties of kinship, neighborliness and business. Very often wives suffered severely at the hands of their husbands, husbands at the hands of their wives, children at the hands of their parents and parents at the hands of their children (!), and servants at the hands of their employers. The last of these— the torment from “your own household”— was no doubt the most difficult to endure. But the archival material also proves that some of the suffering members of the young congregation did not always conduct themselves in a God-pleasing manner. This conduct, according to the originals of their own letters, was encouraged by a few of the influential leaders of the “Liberated” (cf. below), against which Reimer and his companions did earnest battle in the very heart of the congregation, and that not without success. One example out of many shall demonstrate how rude the treatment of the pious often was. During the time Claassen was in St. Petersburg, his second oldest son met one of the village worthies while on a walk behind his garden: “Well, you pious little devil, where is your father?”— was the hateful and contemptuous way in which the “Ohmke” addressed the frightened child. The congregation did indeed weary “of living with those who hate peace.” (Reimer’s diary.) §98 2. Johann Claassen ’s second journey to St. Petersburg on behalf of the M.B. Church. As a result of the constantly worsening conditions and Difficulties and Victory 245 the threats to imprison Claassen, the latter travelled quietly to St. Petersburg a second time at the behest and expense of the Brethren. He arrived there toward the end of November, 1860, and did not leave the capital until June, 1862. His activity there on behalf of civic and ecclesiastical rights of existence culminated in a most humble petition to His Imperial Majesty of May 15, 1862, the content of which will be given below (XXV.) 3. In the meantime we shall pursue the essential ecclesiastical events, the struggle for the preservation of the Mennonite privileges and for recognition as an independent Mennonite congregation in the local area. On December 27, 1860, the Brethren wrote the following letter (given below) to the Supervisory Commission. 44 This body had, according to the report of the colonial administration, ordered the Area Administra- tive Office and the church elders, on November 29: “1) To present a list of names of all the Mennonites who belong to the new sect; 2) to state which of them are the main propagators of this sect and exercise the greatest influence upon the minds and hearts of the rest of the Mennonites; 3) what kind of steps had been taken thus far by the local authorities for the suppression of this sect, and whether or not any of the sectaries had been subjected to any kind of punish