Printer Friendly

T. A. Oparina, Foreigners in 16th- and 17th-Century Russia/Inozemtsy v Rossii XVI-XVII vv.

T. A. Oparina, Inozemtsy v Rossii XVI-XVII vv. [Foreigners in 16th- and 17th-Century Russia]. 384 pp. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiia, 2007. ISBN 5898262679.

S. P. Orlenko, Vykhodtsy iz Zapadnoi Evropy v Rossii XVII veka: Pravovoi status i real'noe polozhenie [West European Immigrants to 17th-Century Russia: Legal Status and Actual Position]. 342 pp. Moscow: Drevlekhranilishche, 2004. ISBN 593646072X.

After the fall of the Soviet Union and once the ideological differences of the Cold War began to dissipate, Russian scholars began to revisit the old debate surrounding Russia's position vis-a-vis the West. Russian historians awakened to new possibilities for exploring the historical dimensions of the future course of national development between the poles of Europe and Asia. (1) With fewer political and ideological constraints, Russian historians have been able to reexamine stereotypes and historical assumptions and to look more deeply at the status and activities of foreigners in Russia.

This burgeoning work has begun to reevaluate the character and degree of Western influence, the activities of individuals, and the role of church and state in initiating, overseeing, and shaping contact. It has also begun to take up old subjects in new ways, such as the relationship between non-Orthodox Christianity and the Orthodox church hierarchy, and the interactions between foreign immigrants and the man on the street. Of particular interest are those studies that examine how knowledge and information cross the national and cultural barriers through close contacts between foreigners and the elite Russians of society and government. The experience of integration or assimilation is also an important topic within this field of study, as historians analyze how foreigners become integrated into government service and into society. One of the important conclusions that have begun to emerge from this growing literature is that many assumptions made about the relationship between Russia and the West in the 17th century will crumble as scholars examine new data and ask new questions of the old. The works of S. P. Orlenko and T. A. Oparina represent a careful exploration of exactly how Russia and the West interconnected and interacted.

One thing of particular note in these monographs is their meticulous examination of identity. In his response to Henry L. Roberts's essay on Russia and the West, Marc Raeff reminded us that "the starting point of any judgment of comparison or contrast is a recognition, usually tacit, of identity." (2) Orlenko and Oparina recognize that there are multiple levels of identity on both sides of the dichotomy of Russia and the West, and that the intercourse between sojourning Europeans and Russian society was not cut and dried and did not always follow the accepted stereotypes of behavior. In this, they go further in their understanding than many earlier discussions; however, if they fall short in any way, it is that they do not connect their conclusions to the larger theoretical superstructure inherent in the ongoing debates on Russia and the West, the transnational acquisition of knowledge, or the reception of cultural forms across profound borders.

Scholarship on European immigrants in Russia stretches back at least as far as the mid-18th century. The combined bibliographies of Orlenko and Oparina are missing some important titles by both Western and Russian scholars, (3) but by analyzing the body of work on which they base their conclusions, an interesting picture emerges of the changing character of this field of study over the last two and a half centuries. In the period before the Russian Revolution, the preoccupation of scholars studying Europeans in Russia was centered on the history of Protestant and other non-Russian Orthodox communities in Russia, as well as on discussions of religious tolerance toward and confessional freedom for European non-Orthodox Christians. After the Revolution, the interest of scholars shifted toward the study of social structures and communities; much of the work done during the Soviet period focused on the Nemetskaia slaboda (German Suburb), and the experiences of prominent families and specific nationalities. The post-Soviet period has seen an explosion of research, with the principal attention being given to the subject of military and economic specialists in trade, industry, skilled craftsmanship, and medicine. Attention to specific nationalities has continued to be important, too, in large part due to work done outside Russia on the Scots. (4) Clearly, the evolving interests of scholars in this field reflect the political and cultural realities under which they labor, and S. P. Orlenko and T. A. Oparina are best understood against the changing background of the broader field in which they work.

S. P. Orlenko's Vykhodtsy iz Zapadnoi Evropy v Rossii XVII veka is a study of the relations between elements of Russian society and immigrants from Western Europe. Orlenko describes his methodology as historical anthropology. He is interested in investigating the motives for judicial norms related to West European immigrants. He claims an influence from the Annales school with its emphasis on mentality, social consciousness, and collective views. He is interested in how a society interacts with the alien, the strange, the other, and how it correlates otherness with what it considers normal. When examining the study of the legal position of West European immigrants in Russian society, Orlenko seeks to find it in a study of social consciousness as expressed in episodes of "ordinary dialogue" between the Russians and foreigners, and how they react to one another, forming "group norms of awareness."

Chapter 1 contains a useful historiographical discussion of primary and secondary sources. Orlenko relies for this study upon the usual line-up of legislative acts and codices of the 16th and 17th centuries (Russkaia Pravda, Sudebniki, the Ulozhenie of 1649, and various gramoty and ukazy); chancellery documents collected in the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts (RGADA) that reveal the immigrants' interactions with the state, as well as their professional activities and details of their private lives; and finally, narrative sources written by foreigners who visited Russia temporarily or who remained permanently as servitors. Chapter 2 establishes the basic parameters of European immigrant life in Russia. Like other scholars who have written on foreigners in Russia, Orlenko must tackle the problem of determining exactly how many foreigners there were in 17th-century Russia. He provides many numbers but no conclusive total or trend in the growth of immigrants in Russia. When we discuss European immigrants in Russia, we are never talking about a substantial group, though Oparina argues that sufficient foreigners entered Russia during the 17th century to create a new cultural environment. It is probable that never more than 5,000 immigrants lived in Russia on a permanent basis at any given moment in the 17th century, and even more probable that far fewer lived there, most of them based in Moscow. Chapter 3 discusses the relation of European immigrants to the state and to the Russian Orthodox Church respectively. One key factor is that in the 17th century there were no legislative mechanisms by which the Russians initiated unbaptized Europeans into full participation in Russian society. Foreigners entering Russia to serve the tsar, either temporarily or permanently, did not become subjects of the tsar until they converted to the Russian Orthodox faith, which of course impaired their ability to leave the country. Basically the state's interest in foreigners was pragmatically motivated. Chapter 4 concludes the volume with a discussion of the relationship between European immigrants and various members of Russian society (Russian servitors, merchants, townspeople, and peasants).

T. A. Oparina's Inozemtsy v Rossii XVI-XVII vv. moves beyond the national dimension of the encounter between Russia and the West to examine the conditions of the foreign immigrants in their new homeland, in order to come to a more accurate historical estimate of their role in the development of Russian culture. Her methodology for approaching this task is to create a collective biography. By assembling biographies of several immigrants to Russia, Oparina hopes to understand the process of integration of Western people and ideas in 17th-century Russia, in spite of official xenophobia, and to understand how the secular and confessional status of immigrants contributed to the ultimate Europeanization of Russia in the 18th century. Some of the questions that interest Oparina include: How did the strict rules of Orthodoxy coexist with religious tolerance? What situations contributed to the development of legislation toward foreigners? What were the Russian standards of identity and citizenship? To get at these and other questions, she examines the lives of seven individuals and their families. Of the two studies, Oparina's is the more convincing and thorough-going examination of foreign immigrants; for one thing, unlike Orlenko, Oparina takes a more inclusive view of what it means to be a foreign Western immigrant.

A quick review of the chapters will confirm the coverage for which Oparina has reached in her examination of the immigrant experience. Chapter 1 is devoted to the English Puritan merchant John Barnsley and his family. Chapter 2 discusses the French baron Pierre de Remont and his Russian sons. Chapter 3 examines several generations of the Eyloff family, stemming from the Flemish Anabaptist doctor, Johan Eyloff, who treated Ivan the Terrible in the 16th century. Chapter 4 deals with the crisis of faith suffered by Mikita Markushevskii, a Ukrainian Cossack. Chapter 5 outlines the rise in social status of the Polish Catholic soldier Stanislav Vol'skii, who became a moskovskii dvarianin. Chapter 6 chronicles the fantastic career and complex identity of Iurii Trapezundskii, a Greek Orthodox sailor who became an Algerian corsair, entered Russian service, and ended his life in Siberia. Finally, chapter 7 is concerned with the Balkan Jew Ivan Selunskii, who worked as a translator for the Posol'skii prikaz. One flaw in her spectrum of immigrants is the lack of a true European military immigrant. While she discusses the military service of several individuals throughout, it is curious that she does not devote a chapter to one of the West European soldiers (such as a Carmichael, Cunningham, Gordon, Hamilton, Leslie, or Bruce, not to mention representatives of the Lermontov, Gundertmark, Fanbukoven, Gulets, or Fanzalen families) who came, fought, stayed, converted, married, and thus founded long-lived military immigrant houses.

Orlenko is interested in how social structures integrate the alien element. By understanding the values of a society and its cultural and social forms, he argues, it is possible to assess how that society makes allowances through laws and norms for the other. His approach is comparative. He examines the rights of Russians and compares them with European merchants and other aliens, such as Muslims, to establish how the actual mutual relations between Russians and aliens compare with the prescribed legislation and the norms of interaction between church and state, on the one hand, and the foreigner, on the other. Oparina's analysis of the integration of immigrants into the cultural and economic life of Russia relies on her efforts to illuminate the lives of lesser known immigrants, in order to provide a richer portrait of foreign immigrant communities. Thus she seeks out the lives of the common members of these communities. Her methodology is much different from Orlenko's. She uses personal biography to analyze the period.

In many ways Orlenko and Oparina have produced studies of how conversion to the Russian Orthodox faith allowed foreign immigrants to assimilate into the body politic. Changing faith was an act of crossing cultural borders, from exclusivity to assimilation. Orlenko argues that this crossing-over changed the immigrant's legal status, so that he became in no way different from Russians of equivalent rank. Oparina recognizes that immigrants converted both out of an "inner search" of the individual and because of the "confluence of external conditions." Conversion to Orthodoxy was sometimes restrictive, as in the case of those who could no longer leave the country, and sometimes liberating, as in the case of prisoners of war who secured personal and legal freedoms through conversion. (5) Swedish prisoners of war who accepted the "Greek baptism" remained in Russia and were not repatriated after the Peace of Kardis (1661), if it was determined that they accepted their baptism voluntarily. Sorting out the willing converts from those who converted against their will, however, became a prominent sticking point in Russo-Swedish relations in subsequent years. (6)

Conversion of foreigners was important to both church and state authorities, but in the end, conversion reduced the usefulness of foreigners to the state. Oparina argues that confessional connections were supremely important to trade, and offers the comparative example of two immigrants whose life paths support this conclusion. John Barnsley, an English Puritan, did not belong to the Muscovy Company and did not adhere to ethnic loyalties (meaning his fellow Englishmen). He married his daughters to a Hamburg Calvinist, a Dutch Calvinist, and a French Huguenot, transforming his family into both a religious community within the larger community of immigrants and a trading corporation with a stable base for economic activity. Faith was guarded carefully, and Barnsley opted to leave Russia rather than convert.

Compare Barnsley's experience with that of Daniel Eyloff, a Flemish Protestant who converted to Russian Orthodoxy. Oparina considers his acceptance of the Orthodox faith to have been a financial catastrophe for him and his family because it severed his foreign associations and deprived him of credit and other forms of capital and support from his co-religionists. Eyloff went from owning a trading vessel on the White Sea and being joint owner of a Dutch trading company to being the steward over a Russian salt works. Although salt was a potentially lucrative business, it did not offer the possibilities of international overseas trade. Oparina concludes that merchants converted rarely.

West European doctors also rarely converted. In many ways, doctors had similar reasons to the merchants for not converting to Russian Orthodoxy. Conversion would have immediately curtailed their contacts with the West and their ability to maintain their knowledge. They wanted the right to leave the country and few had the desire to remain in a country where they could never hope to establish a "medical dynasty" of children and students who could study medicine in European universities. Of those few children of immigrant doctors who did go abroad to study medicine, fewer still returned to practice in Russia.

Orlenko and Oparina have less to say about soldiers. The conversion of European military immigrants, like that of merchants and doctors, contributed to Europe's cultural diffusion eastward and to Russia's 17th-century emergence as a European power. Unlike other European immigrants, however, officers and soldiers tended to be less isolated and mingled more freely with Russians because of their assignment to regiments located throughout the countryside. (7) A nascent community of Orthodox foreign officers and soldiers formed within Russia's military society as part of the state's effort to reform its military forces.

The frequency of the conversion of foreign officers and soldiers can probably not be determined precisely. Military servitors received, like other foreign immigrants, concessions and privileges from the state, allowing them to practice their own religion. The leadership of the new-formation regiments was largely Protestant. Oparina argues that foreign colonels resisted conversion to Orthodoxy because, like merchants and doctors, they served as a religious elite among the foreign immigrant community and took an active role in the organization and construction of churches. In this conclusion she relies on Tsvetaev, among others. My own research suggests that between 1630 and 1670, close to 10 percent (N=288) of officers with general or regimental rank converted to Orthodoxy, and another 8 percent (N=709) converted among the company ranks. (8) These numbers are not substantial, but they do suggest that the military component of the foreign immigrant community was susceptible to pressures and motivations to convert to Orthodoxy.

The concept of immigrant is tricky in these studies, and it is characteristic of the whole subject of foreigners in Russia that these authors do not share a common, stable concept of who constitutes an immigrant, or even what terminology should be used when referring to immigrants and immigration. Both books appear to lack clarity about who constituted an immigrant. Was Patrick Gordon, for example, an immigrant or a prisoner of the state which employed him? Given his choice, it seems probable he might have returned to Europe if be had been free to act according to his conscience. Was Anne Barnsley, who risked a great deal to express her Protestantism in spite of being a baptized Orthodox, and against the will of church and state, truly an immigrant in a state that defined citizenship in terms of religious inclusion?

Nomenclature used by the Russians of the period and by the historians contributes to this hazy understanding of immigrant. Orlenko uses almost exclusively the term nemets, which be puts in quotation marks as it to make note of the underlying irony of using such an imprecise term. The ethnic composition of the West Europeans included representatives from German states (Holy Roman Empire), Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, and the British Isles. The country of foreign immigrants' origin cannot always be ascertained from the documents, and even if a statement about the individual's origin is found, it may not be at all reliable. Nemets was used in the 17th century to denote people from German-speaking lands; also, it referred to the German language. But a German (nemets) could come from one of the imperial German states as easily as from Livonia; he could, in fact, have been of any foreign origin at all, since nemets was a generic descriptor for Westerner. The Russian transliteration and transcription of names make it difficult to determine nationality with any accuracy, not to mention the practice of foreigners using Russian names. Even clear statements of origin can be references to the most recently served sovereign in a long and peripatetic military career, rather than an officer's nationality. (9) Thus Orlenko's reliance on the term confuses our ultimate understanding of who is a foreign immigrant to Russia.

Oparina's approach, as mentioned above, takes in a broader spectrum than merely the West Europeans, and although she does use the term nemets, she relies more on the terms vykhodtsy or immigranty when referring to foreign immigrants. The etymology of the word, vykhodets, suggests "one who walks out," as opposed to the term "immigrant" from the Latin immigrare, which means "to move into." Placing emphasis on the immigrant's character as one who has left a place rather than one being received into a new place suggests perhaps that in the Russian understanding an immigrant's position is more tenuous, that there is a lack of full acceptance or absorption into the receiving society. The importance of religious conversion for full acceptance as a citizen of the state would certainly reinforce this understanding inherent in the term.

Still, as Oparina has shown very well, the Russians of the 16th and 17th centuries acknowledged and perhaps even reinforced the continuing otherness of vykhodtsy entering their society, and their descendants. What I find curious is that the authors do not use the term nemchin (literally, "little German"), which I have encountered in my own work on this topic. Nemchin was a specific Russian term used in the sources of the period to refer to the children and descendants of foreigners, both Orthodox and non-Orthodox. The use of this term to distinguish such people may not have reflected any functional purpose for the state, except to continue to separate foreigners and their descendants categorically from other foreigners and from native Russians. We might read in a document, for example, a phrase referring to "two foreign persons [dva cheloveka inozemtsov], the nemchin Khristofor Stul and the new convert [novokreshchen] Mishka Kostiantinov." Here, nemchin refers to the son of first-generation immigrants, while novokreshchen refers to the baptized character of another foreigner.

Nemchiny, meaning those who were born in-country and who grew up within the foreign community, are the true focus of a study of foreign immigration to Russia, and their experiences suggest the high cost paid by foreigners who truly and fully entered the Muscovite body politic. Having converted to Orthodoxy, they were cut off from European family, co-religionists, and economic, professional, and educational connections and opportunities. Having no freedom to return abroad, they could not serve the Russian state as knowers of specialized knowledge. They felt the full prejudice of their peers, colleagues, family members, and co-religionists against the Orthodox faith. Commentators from many European nations with extensive experience in Russia made it plain that conversion to Orthodoxy was a betrayal of nationality and of God, and that those who converted were likely to regret their actions in the extreme and to suffer abnormal consequences as a result. (10) The Scottish colonel and diplomat, Paul Menzies, feared that his sons would be converted and on his deathbed, begged his friend, countryman, and co-religionist Patrick Gordon not to allow his three sons to convert. (11) Clearly, a strong social pressure against embracing the Russian faith existed among Europeans in Russia, which may partially explain why fewer West Europeans converted to Orthodoxy.

The term appears to have had a derisive quality when contemporaries used it and refers both to foreigners of long-standing habitation and to foreigners of perceived "lesser" quality, such as one's enemies. (12) Even foreigners used it when referring to other foreigners to suggest low social standing rather than immigrant status. (13) Nemchiny may have been derided by their countrymen, but in the military sphere, at least, they bridged the 17th century and continued to serve in Russia's military forces well into the reign of Peter I. (14)

If conversion tended to divide the foreign community, it was united by language, nationality, and Protestantism. Oparina and Orlenko both contend, however, that for the Russian state, the defining categories of foreign immigrants were less national than professional. Oparina notes also that the foreigners themselves desired isolation within Russian society and clung to stereotypes of cultural superiority that did not always allow them to interact freely with the majority population. For the West European immigrant, Protestant Christianity was the principal consolidating force, bringing adherents of several denominations together in congregations and schools.

The state encouraged foreigners to isolate themselves within special suburbs (slobody). This faith-based, state-mandated, and encouraged concentration of immigrants within the broader population served to prolong the preservation of European culture among the immigrants who continued to maintain the language, dress, and customs of their homelands across generations. The compact community of the sloboda and the Kirche corresponded with the Russian tendency to subdivide the immigrants according to ethnicity and religion. Each of the three macro-groups of unbaptized foreigners was localized in a suburb of its own: the German Suburb, the Panskaia Suburb, and the Greek Suburb. The German Suburb originated during the Livonian War and underwent several moves and attacks. It numbered no more than a few thousand people. It was centered around the site of a church built by German prisoners of war. Over time, the church was moved farther from the center of the city. Oparina argues that the farther it was moved, the more the religious practices of foreigners were regulated by government decrees. Despite these regulations, the number of foreign churches increased in Moscow.

The government sought to protect Russian society from penetration by immigrating groups with other cultures and values. The tendency to isolate immigrants created, according to Oparina, two mutually isolated societies, each with its own faith. Foreign immigrants welcomed this isolation, as did the Russian authorities, because they held to stereotypes of cultural and confessional superiority. The fact that West Europeans brought with them significant elements of their own confessional social structure meant that they consolidated their immigrant communities more effectively within the Russian environment. Such intentional isolation based on faith allowed them to preserve their culture, in terms of language, customs, and certain legal norms.

Without doubt these are both extremely valuable contributions to our understanding of the history of foreigners in Russia, but in the end both Orlenko and Oparina have delved deep into their examination of the sources without sufficient reference to the bigger picture. It remains for others to begin to sift through the growing literature on foreigners in Russia and begin to stitch together how their conclusions must inform the ongoing debate concerning Russia's relations with the West.

Dept. of History

Illinois State University

Box 4420

Normal, IL 61790 USA

(1) Examples of this new awakening include, among many others, L. I. Novikova, I. N. Sizemskaia, A. M. Petrov, V. M. Kirillin, A. M. Kantor, and O. V. Skobelkin.

(2) Marc Raeff, "Russia's Perception of Her Relationship with the West," Slavic Review 23, 1 (1964): 13.

(3) Notable omissions might include the writings of Henry L. Roberts, Donald W. Treadgold, Christopher Duffy, John L. H. Keep, Paul Dukes, Carol Stevens, Chester Dunning, and myself, not to mention a number of German and Russian historians (I have in mind particularly M. Wollmer, K. Zernack, E. E. Kolosov, A. N. Mal'tsev, I. S. Prochko, and D. I. Shor).

(4) Examples of this work include Paul Dukes, "Problems concerning the Departure of Scottish Soldiers from Seventeenth-Century Muscovy," in Scotland and Europe, 1200-1850, ed. T. C. Smout (Edinburgh: John Donal Publishers, 1986); Dukes, "The First Scottish Soldiers in Russia," in The Scottish Soldier Abroad, 1247-1967, ed. Grant G. Simpson (Edinburgh: John Donal Publishers, 1991); Mark Cornwall and Murray Frame, eds., Scotland and the Slavs: Cultures in Conflict, 1500-2000 (Newtonville, MA: Oriental Research Partners, 2001); O. Ia. Nozdrin, "Shotlandtsy v Rossii," Mezhdunarodniaia zhizn', no. 3 (2004): 147-60; O. V. Skobelkin, "Shotlandtsy na russkoi sluzhbe v seredine 10-kh godov XVII veka," Istoricheskie zapiski: Nauchnye trudy utoricheskogo fakul'teta VGU, no. 2 (Voronezh: Voronezhskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 1997), 14-21.

(5) A 16th-century English observer wrote, "Of Livonians that are captives there are many that take on them this second Russe baptism to get more liberty, and somewhat besides towards their living, which the emperor ordinarily useth to give them"; see Lloyd E. Berry and Robert O. Crummey, eds., Rude and Barbarous Kingdom: Russia in the Accounts of Sixteenth-Century English Voyagers (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1968), 224.

(6) Klaus Zernack, Studien zu den schwedisch-russischen Beziehungen in der 2. Halfte des 17. Jahrhunderts (Giessen: Kommissionsverlag W. Schmitz, 1958), 44.

(7) Patrick Gordon, Passages from the Diary of General Patrick Gordon of Auchleuchries (New York: Da Capo Press, 1968), 51-52; see also a wide variety of documents available in Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv drevnikh aktov (RGADA).

(8) W. M. Reger IV, "Baptizing Mars: The Conversion to Russian Orthodoxy of European Mercenaries during the Mid-Seventeenth Century," in The Military and Society in Russia, ed. Eric Lohr and Marshall Poe (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 389-412.

(9) See, for example, RGADA f. 210 (Moskovskii stol), d. 862, 1. 69.

(10) Berry and Crummey, Rude and Barbarous Kingdom, 224; Samuel Collins, The Present State of Russia in a Letter to a Friend at London; Written by an Eminent Person Residing at the Great Czars Court at Mosco for the Space of Nine Years, ed. Marshall T. Poe (London, 1671; Princeton, NJ: Marshall Poe, 1999), available at (accessed 7 May 2009); A. Francis Steuart, Scottish Influences in Russian History (Glasgow: James Maclehose and Sons, 1913), 18; Nicolaas Witsen, Moscovische Reyse, 1664-1665, 3 vols. (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1966-67), 3:410-11; S. F. Platonov, Moscow and the West, trans. Joseph L. Wieczynski (Hattiesburg: Academic International, 1972), 120.

(11) Quoted in Paul Dukes, "Paul Menzies and His Mission from Muscovy to Rome, 1672-1674," The Innes Review 35, D. 2 (1984): 94.

(12) RGADA f. 210, d. 332, 1. 687.

(13) Ibid., d. 862, l. 159.

(14) M. D. Rabinovich, Polkipetrovskoi armii, 1698-1725: Kratkii spravochnik (Moscow: Sovetskaia Rossiia, 1977), 13-14, 18, 23-25, 27.
COPYRIGHT 2009 Slavica Publishers, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2009 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Vykhodtsy iz Zapadnoi Evropy v Rossii XVII veka: Pravovoi status i real'noe polozhenie
Author:Reger, W.M., IV
Article Type:Book review
Date:Jun 22, 2009
Previous Article:The Intelligentsia meets the enemy: educated Soviet officers in defeated Germany, 1945.
Next Article:Mikhail Nikolaevich Luk'ianov, Russian Conservatism and Reform, 1907-14/Rossiiskii konservatizm i reforma, 1907-1914.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters