Homosexuality in the 18th-Century Russian Empire — Europe-Imported Homophobic Laws and How They Were Enforced

The 18th century was a period when Russia rapidly grew stronger and increasingly became one of Europe’s most influential powers. In the same era, the state, for the first time, fixed a punishment for male same-sex relations in secular state law: under Peter the Great, in 1706, Russia adopted an especially harsh option borrowed from Western European practice — death by burning. At first, however, it applied only to the military, above all to ordinary soldiers.

This article looks at how the first rules against muzhelozhstvo (literally “lying with a man”) appeared, and how the Russian Empire in the 18th century generally treated homosexuality — using several criminal cases as examples. These include everything from a nobleman’s tender letters to his coachman, to violence against serfs, to a scandal in a monastery.

The intensity of persecution for same-sex relations varied across different historical periods. It depended on many factors: how visible the phenomenon was, what society thought about it, what the state authorities believed and did, the overall level of culture, and which social policies and values were considered most important at the time.

In many periods of Russian history, attitudes toward homosexuality were milder than in a number of other countries. But this was not a straight line of “always tolerant” or “always strict”. Rather, it was a wave-like pattern — from relatively calm acceptance to severe punishments.

The 18th century can be seen as the beginning of a shift from comparatively mild responses toward criminal prosecution.

A Window to Europe and the First Punishments

In 1697–1698, Peter I (Peter the Great) travelled to Western Europe as part of the “Grand Embassy” — a large diplomatic mission meant to strengthen Russia’s ties with other states and to help import Western methods of government. He visited, among other places, England and the Dutch Republic (the Netherlands). In those countries, same-sex relations were seen as a grave offence against public morality and could be punished by death.

Peter the Great generally aimed to rebuild the state “in a European way”, and the army became one of the main areas where he introduced new rules. New standing troops appeared, with unified regulations, discipline, training, and a system of punishments.

To do this, Peter studied Western European military codes — collections of rules used to judge and punish soldiers. Many of those codes mentioned the “sin of Sodom” as a separate offence. In Western European military norms, it carried the death penalty, and that logic later became a reference point for Russian military law as well.

Map of Peter the Great’s travels

In 1706, for the first time in Russia, a secular punishment for homosexual relations was written into the Kratkii artikul (“Short Article”). It was compiled on the basis of the “Saxon Military Code” — that is, it relied on legal models from the German lands. The document’s author was the German Heinrich von Huyssen, who served under Peter the Great and took part in his reforms.

At first, this military criminal code was intended for foreigners in Russian service, recruited from Europe. Later it was translated and extended to the Russian cavalry, commanded by Prince Alexander Danilovich Menshikov.

The Kratkii artikul prescribed death by burning for homosexual relations. Burning as an execution method was generally rare and was usually used in special cases connected with “heresy”. However, no documents have been found that would confirm the real-life enforcement of this specific article of the Kratkii artikul in practice.

“Chapter III. On adultery, or what pertains to whom.

5. Whoever commits unnatural adultery with livestock, or a man with a man commits shame, shall be executed and burned; the same punishment awaits those who commit debauchery with boys.”

— from the “Short Article” (Kratkii artikul)

Ten years later, in 1716, Russia introduced a new legal act — Peter the Great’s Voinskii ustav (“Military Statute”). This was a more complete document that set out the order of service in the army and described in detail what crimes could occur among servicemen and what punishments applied.

The statute was also based on foreign experience: it used ideas and wording from the Swedish military statute, Saxon and French legal norms, and also relied on the earlier Kratkii artikul.

The Voinskii ustav listed a broad range of crimes: treason, fights, theft, and attempted suicide, among others. Compared to pre-Petrine practices, it looks especially harsh, because the death penalty could be imposed not only for murder and treason, but also for witchcraft, blasphemy (insulting religion), indecent statements about the monarch, insults directed at generals, incest, and also for theft if the sum exceeded twenty roubles.

“Sodomy” was among the punishable offences, and the provision was borrowed from the Kratkii artikul. But in the new version the punishment became milder: if the relations were considered consensual, the sentence was corporal punishment, such as beatings. Forced acts, however, were treated as far more serious: they could lead to the death penalty or exile to the galleys.

Galleys were large oared ships, and “exile to the galleys” meant penal servitude under extremely harsh conditions for a long term, sometimes for life. The appearance of galley exile as a punishment is usually linked to the influence of Swedish military norms.

In 1720, the Morskoi ustav (“Naval Statute”) was adopted. It was a set of rules for the navy, and it codified similar punishments for those serving at sea, extending the Voinskii ustav approach to naval service.

“Chapter XX. On the sin of Sodom, violence, and debauchery.

Article 166. If anyone defiles a youth, or a man commits sodomy with a man, they — as mentioned in the previous article — are to be punished (note — to punish severely on the body). But if it was done by force, then punish by death or by lifelong exile to the galleys.”

— from the “Military Statute” (Voinskii ustav)

Archival records do preserve cases where “a man commits sodomy with a man”, but it is difficult to assess the overall scale of these prosecutions. Across the entire 18th century, no more than fifty criminal cases were recorded on charges related to homosexual relations, and actual sentencing remained rare. Moreover, from 1744 the death penalty in Russia was restricted to crimes against the state, and therefore between 1741 and 1761 not a single execution was carried out in the country.

Mikhail Ivanovich Makhaev. “View of the Fontanka”. 1753

At the same time, in Europe punishments were much harsher. For example, in the Netherlands in 1730 — 1731, mass persecutions of homosexuals began, resembling a “witch hunt”. They were blamed for natural disasters — such as earthquakes and floods. On this basis, around three hundred people were executed.

The Petrine Era and Court Morality

In the Renaissance and early modern period at European royal courts — especially the French court — sexual libertinism and a lack of selectiveness were often treated as fairly normal. Multiple affairs and the absence of stable expectations of fidelity were common, and some authors also described — and judged — court life as including group sex and incest. But by the 17th century, Western Europe began taking steps to rein in the extremes.

In Russia the process was more complicated. If in Western Europe there was first a maximum loosening of restraints and then an attempt to “tame” it, then among Russia’s elites two processes unfolded at the same time: a noticeable loosening compared to the previous era, and, on the other hand, a drive to become more “civilised” by European standards.

A great deal of this shift is linked to Peter the Great personally. The 18th-century prince and political writer Mikhail Shcherbatov argued that it was precisely from the Petrine era that one should date the beginning of the “corruption of morals” in Russia:

“… morals, which, for lack of any other enlightenment, had been corrected by faith, having lost that support, began to slide into debauchery — for this example of violating the sacrament of marriage, which is by its nature inviolable, showed that one could violate it without punishment.”

— Prince Mikhail Mikhailovich Shcherbatov

Above all, this is about changes in the morals of the elite. And even in the period before Peter, not everything in elite circles was “chaste” — that is, it would be wrong to imagine the past as completely morally “pure” and strictly restrained. The changes under Peter simply made certain practices more visible, more legitimised, or shaped them in new ways.

A Nobleman’s Love Letter

A telling case comes from the 1740s. In RGADA — the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts — there is a love note written by a St Petersburg nobleman, Andrey Ivanovich Molchanov, who held a senior post in the city’s police administration. He wrote it to a local furman (a hired carriage driver or a coachman).

“My friend Vasylyushka — you’re tall in stature, but small in love. It’s clear I’m no longer needed by you. I haven’t seen you for three days now, and it’s already become lonely. It hurts that I got used to you and can’t forget you, and you’ve abandoned me… On Tuesday, if I’m still alive, I’ll come to you to steam in the bathhouse…”

• — Andrey Ivanovich Molchanov, from a note to a coachman*

The authorities learned about the letter, and an investigation was opened. The investigators were interested first and foremost in the social and service-related aspect: why does Vasylyushka have “amorous dealings” with a councillor in the Police Chief’s Chancellery? Why is a man of a lower estate maintaining a special relationship with a member of the nobility? In the logic of bureaucratic investigation, it was assumed that such closeness might be hiding a bribe, an abuse of office, or some other corruption-related crime.

The inquiry found neither bribery nor any other illegal benefit. After that, interest in the case evaporated and the investigation was closed. As we already know, at that moment punishment for same-sex relations applied only to servicemen, and Molchanov was not being treated as a member of the military.

Ivan Yakovlevich Vishnyakov. “Portrait of Matvey Semyonovich Begichev”. 1757. A typical male portrait of the mid-18th century

Catherine the Great: draft laws and a softer approach

After the death of Peter the Great, Russia continued to adopt European ideas about morality. In Europe itself, these norms had taken shape over centuries under the influence of Christianity in its different forms.

In Russia, this turn toward a “European model” is especially visible in attempts to make criminal law more systematic and easier to understand. For that purpose, “Law Commissions” were created — temporary bodies tasked with preparing a new codex of laws. These commissions included, on the one hand, officials appointed by the state, and on the other, elected representatives of different social estates.

In the draft “Criminal Code” of 1754–1766 prepared by such a commission, there was an article on the “sin of Sodom”. In the draft, the punishment depended on the accused person’s age: for those under 15 — corporal punishment with rods (a whipping with thin switches); for those aged 15 to 21, exile to a monastery “for correction” was added on top of the rods; adult men faced flogging with the knout and lifelong exile to Siberia.

This draft remained only a draft. It was never adopted, but it shows a shift in approach: instead of the death penalty, other measures were proposed — “softer” in the sense of refusing execution, but still extremely harsh.

The case of Grigory Teplov

In the 1760s, proceedings were held in the case of the influential statesman Grigory Nikolayevich Teplov: his serf servants filed a complaint accusing him of harassment. In Russia, nobles really could coerce serfs into intimate relations. For the nobility, sexual violence could serve as a way of demonstrating power and confirming “masculinity” as they understood it.

However, such complaints often did not lead to punishment for a nobleman: the state preferred to shut cases down, apparently fearing that an official acknowledgement of guilt by an influential person could increase peasant discontent and undermine the stability of the system.

In Teplov’s case, Empress Catherine the Great rejected the accusations. The case was closed, and Teplov soon received a promotion and was appointed to the Senate (one of the empire’s highest bodies of government and justice). The peasants who dared to file the complaint were exiled to Siberia.

Teplov himself was married twice and had three children. For the 18th century this does not look like a contradiction: same-sex relationships could coexist with a heterosexual marriage, because marriage often served a social function, or acted as cover to preserve honour and avoid scandal. In surviving open criminal cases for “male sodomy”, the accused men were married.

👉 We have a separate article: Grigory Nikolayevich Teplov and a Sodomy Case.

Unknown author. “Portrait of Grigory Nikolayevich Teplov”

“Shame and Disgrace” Instead of Corporal Punishment

Later, the level of persecution for same-sex relations set by the Military Statute became even milder. In Catherine the Great’s Nakaz (Instruction) of 1767 — a programmatic document where the empress set out the foundations of her policy and principles for future laws — corporal punishments for homosexual relations were no longer mentioned. Catherine believed that “shame and disgrace” could be a sufficient punishment: a person should be punished through public condemnation.

A significant part of the Nakaz drew on the ideas of the Western European Enlightenment — an 18th-century intellectual movement that argued for laws to be made more rational and humane. Among the thinkers whose ideas Catherine is said to have used are Montesquieu, Diderot, and d’Alembert.

“All punishments that can disfigure the human body should be abolished.”

— Catherine II (Catherine the Great)

At the same time, Europe was moving in the opposite direction. In 1768 the Austrian Empire adopted a criminal code known as the Constitutio Criminalis Theresiana, which prescribed the death penalty for homosexual relations. The code also included appendices with illustrations of torture devices and instructions on how to use them.

A Monastery Scandal: How the Church Handled Such Cases

In 1767 the Synod received a complaint from the Zheltovodsky Makaryev Monastery (today this is in what is now the Nizhny Novgorod region). In the Russian Empire, the Synod was the highest governing body of the Church — and at the same time its highest church court.

The complaint was filed by Archimandrite Ambrosy, the monastery’s abbot. He wrote that a monk named Anatoly, who had previously been exiled to the monastery for earlier misconduct, regularly had intimate relations with a young monastery servant named Vasily. In this context, a “monastery servant” means a young helper attached to the monastery who carried out small errands and day-to-day tasks.

Before writing to the Synod, Ambrosy tried to resolve the problem inside the monastery. He urged Anatoly to end the relationship. Anatoly repented and promised to change. He said he would stop meeting Vasily, but a couple of weeks later they were caught together again.

After that, Vasily was questioned, and he admitted that he had continued seeing Anatoly. At the same time, Vasily said he was upset that Anatoly had started an affair with another young man — a new attendant.

As punishment, Ambrosy ordered both young men to be flogged and sent back to their families in nearby villages. Yet even after that, a few weeks later Anatoly and Vasily were seen together again.

That was when Ambrosy appealed to the Synod. The investigation that followed confirmed not only the fact of the relationship, but also an internal conflict in the monastery: the case materials surfaced mutual accusations of betrayal between Anatoly and Ambrosy himself.

The outcome was this: Anatoly was transferred to another monastery, and the archimandrite was formally reprimanded. The reprimand was not because Ambrosy had “handled the investigation badly”, but because he had sent his complaint directly to the Synod, bypassing the archbishop. An archbishop is the higher-ranking regional church authority through whom such appeals were supposed to go. In other words, Ambrosy was punished for violating administrative procedure.

Church authorities could show a certain degree of tolerance toward same-sex relations among clergy in the sense that they did not necessarily try to turn such stories into the harshest possible punishment. Formally, the archimandrite’s accusation did not fall under secular law: criminal provisions about same-sex relations applied only to soldiers. At the same time, the Synod still had its own church measures: it could suspend clergy from their duties or impose epitimia — a form of church penance, such as a ban on receiving communion for a set period. The people who suffered most were the young servants.

Zheltovodsky Makaryev Monastery. Engraving, 1832

If a similar incident had happened in most European countries in the 18th century, everyone involved would most likely have faced the death penalty. But in Russia, despite borrowing from Europe in law and culture, homosexual relations were still not seen as a threat to public order and almost never became a target of real persecution. It was understood as a deviation from the norm — not as a grave crime that the state was obliged to punish as severely as possible.

Only at the end of the 18th century did a number of European countries begin to soften punishments for homosexual relations. In Austria and Prussia in the 1780s–1790s, the death penalty was replaced with imprisonment or confinement in correctional institutions. In France, during the Revolution, the new criminal code of 1791 abolished punishment for “crimes against morality”, including homosexual relations.

In Russia, by contrast, the opposite trend gradually emerged. In 1832, under Nicholas I, the Russian Empire introduced criminal punishment for the “sin of sodomy” for the civilian population. The article was included in general criminal law — not only in military regulations. But that is the subject of the next article.

---

📣 Subscribe to our Telegram channel (in Russian): Urania. With Telegram Premium, you can translate posts in-app. Without it, many posts link to our website, where you can switch languages — most new articles are published in multiple languages from the start.

---

References and Sources

• Акишин М. О. Военно-судебная реформа Петра Великого. [Akishin M. O. – Military and Judicial Reform of Peter the Great]
• Дан Х. Гомосексуальное влечение в революционной России. [Dan H. – Homosexual Desire in Revolutionary Russia]
• Кон И. С. Лунный свет на заре: лики и маски однополой любви. [Kon I. S. – Moonlight at Dawn: Faces and Masks of Same-Sex Love]
• Люблинский П. И. Преступления в области половых отношений. [Lyublinskiy P. I. – Crimes in the Sphere of Sexual Relations]
• Muravyeva M., Toivo R. M. Personalizing homosexuality and masculinity in early modern Russia.

• Tags:
• Russia