Printer Friendly

Toward "freedom of conscience": Catholicism, law, and the contours of religious liberty in late imperial Russia.

Aleksandra Andreevna Dorskaia, Svoboda sovesti v Rossii: Sud'ba zakonoproektov nachala XX veka [Freedom of Conscience in Russia: The Fate of Legislative Projects at the Beginning of the 20th Century]. 144 pp. St. Petersburg: Izdatel'stvo RGPU imeni A. I. Gertsena, 2001. ISBN 580640501X.

Aleksandra Andreevna Dorskaia, Gosudarstvennoe i tserkovnoe pravo Rossiiskoi imperii: Problemy vzaimodeistviia i vzaimovliianiia [State and Ecclesiastical Law in the Russian Empire: Problems of Interaction and Mutual Influence]. 227 pp. St. Petersburg: Izdatel'stvo RGPU imeni A. I. Gertsena, 2004. ISBN 5806408612.

Marian Radwan [Radvan], ed., Katolicheskaia tserkov' nakanune revoliutsii 1917 goda: Sbornik dokumentov [The Catholic Church on the Eve of the Revolution of 1917: A Documentary Collection]. 671 pp. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 2003. ISBN 8373061274.

E. S. Tokareva and A. V. Iudin, eds., Rossiia i Vatikan v kontse XIX-pervoi treti XX veka [Russia and the Vatican at the End of the 19th and in the First Third of the 20th Century]. 324 pp. St. Petersburg: Aleteiia, 2003. ISBN 5940670520.

Officials of the Russian empire most often used the term "religious toleration" to describe the regime's policy with respect to the empire's non-Orthodox religious groups. By this conception, adherents of the so-called I would like to thank Mikhail Dolbilov for his attentive reading of an earlier version of this review, and the Slavic Research Center at the University of Hokkaido (Japan) for providing a stimulating and congenial atmosphere for writing the initial draft of this essay. "foreign confessions" enjoyed the right to practice their religions within distinctly prescribed limits and received autonomy in certain areas of social life. At the same time, the imperial government remained committed to upholding specific privileges for the "predominant" Orthodox faith and exercised a sustained vigilance against the use of religion for "political" purposes by the regime's opponents. The tension between the desire to create the conditions for fulfillment of the religious needs of the empire's non-Orthodox populations, on the one hand, and the necessity of protecting the interests of the Orthodox Church and the state itself, on the other, represents a central theme in the history of Russia as an imperial entity.

The books reviewed here illuminate a series of crucial manifestations of this tension in the late tsarist era. The profound entanglement of religious identity with emerging national sentiment and state initiatives of Russification substantially deepened the politicization of religious affairs in Russia and accordingly eroded official commitments to "religious toleration." Already following the Poles' November uprising of 1830, but to an even greater degree after the January insurrection of 1863, the government imposed heightened restrictions on the Catholic Church and clergy, including the secularization of church property, a dramatic reduction in the numbers of monasteries and monastic clergy, limitations on the movement of Catholic religious servitors, and the closing of numerous Catholic houses of worship. Restrictions appeared in the case of other religions as well. The political crisis of the early 20th century pushed the regime to re-assess these restrictions on non-Orthodox religious life, while the revolutionary events of 1905 compelled the autocracy to grant the empire's population "freedom of conscience" in the October Manifesto. The works reviewed here examine different aspects of this complex (and incomplete) transition from "religious toleration" to "freedom of conscience" and demonstrate the degree to which religious issues were deeply implicated in a wide range of other areas of state policy and practice. The two books on Catholicism also offer insights as to how some of these religious issues played out in the early years of Soviet rule. (In this essay, I use the term "Catholic" to refer specifically to the Roman Catholic confession, while explicitly specifying the Greek Catholic [Uniate] and Armenian Catholic confessions.)

With two books published in rapid succession, Aleksandra Dorskaia has made a substantial contribution to our understanding of both the religious sources of tsarist law and the process of religious reform in the early 20th century. Her most recent book, which examines the problem of ecclesiastical law (tserkovnoe pravo) in the functioning of Russia's state system from the late 18th century until 1917, is the broader of the two in its chronological scope. Marshaling an impressive range of archival and published sources, Dorskaia demonstrates the extent to which ecclesiastical law, while central to Russia's legal and administrative order, was never fully systematized, and its place and function in that larger order never adequately specified.

Initially analyzed in the context of theology, by the 1830s or so ecclesiastical law had begun to draw the attention of legal experts as well. Thus it was introduced first into theology courses in the religious academies in 1808, and then into Russia's universities (although only for Orthodox students of law) in 1835. The first attempts to systematize ecclesiastical law came in the 1840s, as a response both to the appearance of the Svod zakonov (Law Digest) in 1832 and to the claims of Western scholars that Russian ecclesiastical law was merely a branch of state law. As Dorskaia shows, however, those aspiring to this systematization encountered great difficulty in defining ecclesiastical law with sufficient clarity. Most commentators regarded ecclesiastical norms as different from those of secular law, and yet they were compelled to acknowledge that in Russia many religious requirements were codified in secular statutes and depended for their enforcement on the power of the state. Thus religious norms had been brought into conformity with the requirements of the Svod zakonov, which required both molding certain areas of state law around religious provisions--most notably in the areas of family and marriage--and the elimination of certain religious provisions at odds with the principal aspirations of the state. (1) Some scholars sensed that "law" was a concept so intrinsically secular that it could not really be used to apply to the spiritually based rules and regulations of the church. In general, ecclesiastical law occupied a nebulous space between theology and state law, being organically linked to both of them and yet distinct from each.

In effect, then, the interpenetration of canonical and civil provisions in Russian legislation made it virtually impossible to conceptualize a discrete realm of ecclesiastical law. This indeterminacy in its turn created enormous obstacles to the implementation of religious reform in the early 20th century, since revision of the state's legal provisions inevitably encroached on religious rules of the church. Conversely, neither the Duma, nor the government, nor the pre-commission for an Orthodox church council could define ecclesiastical law as a discrete system without addressing the fundamental principles of state law itself. These entanglements ensured that the issue of ecclesiastical law had significant political implications concerning the relation of church to state. As Dorskaia suggests at one point--though without developing the point at length--the very idea of ecclesiastical law, by positing a legal realm distinct from state law, implied that the church should be separate from the state and that believers should have greater self-governance (57).

Much of Gosudarstvennoe i tserkovnoe pravo is devoted to considering the different institutions and scholars who made important contributions to the development of ecclesiastical law in Russia. Dorskaia surveys a series of scholarly centers (for the most part cities outfitted with universities and/or ecclesiastical academies) and briefly recounts the academic career of Moscow Metropolitan Filaret, Nikolai Aleksandrovich Zaozerskii, Mikhail Egorovich Krasnozhen, Il'ia Stepanovich Berdnikov, Mikhail Andreevich Reisner, and others. This discussion, while informative on its own terms, becomes rather encyclopedic, and its conclusions remain a bit banal.

While the interpenetration of ecclesiastical and state law was most extensive in the case of Orthodoxy, Dorskaia devotes some attention to non-Orthodox confessions as well. In doing so, however, she shifts the focus from the issue of ecclesiastical law--that concept is almost entirely absent in the book's third and final chapter--to the legal status of the non-Orthodox confessions and their adherents. Dorskaia argues that the state "defined and controlled practically all aspects in the life of the 'tolerated' [i.e., recognized] churches," but that "on the whole" Russian legislation allowed those confessions "to observe their fundamental religious customs" (175). She then provides a brief survey of the position of the major confessions and religions in Russia, which on the whole remains too selective and superficial to be effective. For example, Dorskaia notes that the church that stood closest to Orthodoxy in theological terms was the Uniate Church, but she omits the matter of its "reunion" with Orthodoxy and the fact that it ceased to exist legally in Russia after 1875. The consequences of these "reunions" are crucial for understanding both the state's motivations in introducing religious reform in 1905 and the confessional struggle that developed in the western provinces thereafter. She also states that "all" Muslim religious personnel (nastavniki) were under the jurisdiction of "the Spiritual Assembly" (presumably she has in mind the one in Ufa) (181), when in fact the administration of Muslims was fragmented, with different institutions in the Volga-Ural region, Crimea, and Transcaucasia, and no officially recognized religious administration at all in Central Asia and the North Caucasus. This question, too, occupied a central place in officials' deliberations on Muslim affairs in 1905-6, although as in so many other respects no concrete changes were actually introduced. (2) More important, it is not clear how Dorskaia's discussion of the non-Orthodox confessions actually relates to the problem of ecclesiastical law--ostensibly the central issue of her book. The poor integration of this discussion with the book's larger problematic is surely a result, in part, of the fact that a substantial portion of the text has been reproduced word-for-word from her earlier monograph on freedom of conscience, without any modification to suit the new context in which it appears. (3)

That earlier book, Svoboda sovesti v Rossii, focuses principally on the imperial government's attempts to give concrete legislative form to the promise of freedom of conscience contained in the October Manifesto. Although Dorskaia provides an effective discussion based on an admirably wide range of sources, the basic story she tells does not differ substantially from the one provided earlier by Diliara Usmanova and Peter Waldron. (4) Combining archival sources with memoirs, press accounts, and materials from the Duma, Dorskaia elucidates the intellectual antecedents of the idea of "freedom of conscience" at the turn of the century, then carefully traces the trajectory of religious reform from late 1904 to the decree of 17 April 1905, which liberalized conversion and conferred new rights on Old Believers and sectarians. She then analyzes how the explicit promise of "freedom of conscience" in the October Manifesto led the Interior Ministry to produce a series of draft laws, which were submitted to the Duma in February 1907. While several of these were considered by relevant Duma subcommissions, the full Duma itself considered only two of the drafts--on conversion and on Old Believers--in boisterous sessions in May 1909. (5) By this time, however, the government's commitments to its reform program had waned, and by the fall of 1909 Stolypin withdrew two of the drafts for revision in line with the demands of the Holy Synod. Dorskaia explains this capitulation in terms of the crisis of Stolypin's authority by the spring of 1909. Accused of encroaching on the prerogatives of the emperor, the prime minister felt compelled to make compromises with the right in order to save his most important initiative--agrarian reform. Although three of the drafts went forward to the parliament's upper house (the State Council), two were returned to the Duma with modifications and one was rejected by the emperor. The other drafts languished in the Duma until the Interior Ministry finally recalled most of them in 1912. In essence, then, momentum for reform had dissipated by 1909, and the promise of "freedom of conscience" remained unfulfilled in 1917.

Ultimately, Dorskaia offers a pessimistic conclusion concerning the prospects for religious reform in Russia. The establishment of "freedom of conscience" in a multi-confessional state like Russia, she contends, was incompatible with continued government commitments to the predominant position of Orthodoxy. Freedom of conscience "realistically could be introduced only with the separation of church from state, but the state [vlast'] could not embark on such a path, [as] this would have undermined its ideological foundation." Resolution of this issue became impossible "from the beginning" because of the connection between church and state. Dorskaia notes that the State Council faithfully protected the state's foundations and that the emperor, the legally established protector of the Orthodox Church, always stood as the last line of defense between a bill and its acquisition of legal force (120).

Given the fate of the government's legislative program of 1906-7, and in particular the almost complete abandonment of religious reform by the second decade of the century, it is difficult to disagree with Dorskaia's conclusions. Yet one wonders if the process was not more contingent than she allows. In many respects timing seems to have been the crucial factor. When the Synod's over-procurator objected to the Interior Ministry's bills prior to their submission to the Duma (February 1907), claiming that they went beyond the requirements of the April decree and the October Manifesto, the Council of Ministers rejected the church's protests and went ahead with their discussion (85). Certainly at that point the church's voice was not decisive. Dorskaia is correct to indicate that Stolypin's government eventually abandoned efforts to defend its own drafts, yet this seems to have occurred conclusively only in the spring of 1909, and there may well have been some basis for compromise before that time. However defensible in principle, a number of the changes introduced by the Duma--for example, its insistence on official recognition for conversion from Christianity to heterodoxy--compromised the prospects for the drafts' acceptance by the State Council and emperor. A deeper appreciation of political reality on the part of more leftist Duma delegates might have opened up greater possibilities, even if this entailed accepting a weaker version of freedom of conscience. Dorskaia herself notes that Stolypin's government was apparently seeking "the slow and gradual resolution of the question of freedom of conscience" (94), and there are grounds for concluding, in some respects at least, that Stolypin sought to realize administratively a degree of religious freedom that he recognized as being impossible to attain legislatively. (6) To the extent that the emperor indeed had the final say on any legislative proposition, Dorskaia might also have said more about the disposition of Nicholas II (1894-1917).

Here it seems crucial to think in terms of different degrees of religious freedom, rather than treating the question as an all-or-nothing proposition. One of the strengths of Dorskaia's account is her recognition at the outset that there were different ways of understanding "freedom of conscience." For analytical purposes, she adopts the broadest conception, which includes freedom of confession, the complete absence of any discrimination based on religious affiliation, and official recognition for atheism. But in doing so, perhaps she has set the bar too high. She acknowledges that many contemporaries operated with a more limited conception that focused on the right of co-religionists to form communities, confess their religion collectively, and perform all necessary rites and rituals. (7) Taking a relative view of freedom, one may ask whether, even as complete freedom of conscience remained impossible for the reasons Dorskaia indicates, a significantly greater expansion of religious freedom might still have been attained under slightly different circumstances--for example, if the Third Duma had been able to consider the bills sooner.

The number of committees and commissions concerned with the issue of religious reform between 1904 and 1917 is bewildering, and one of Dorskaia's principal accomplishments is to have untangled this process and presented it in an accessible form. Focusing primarily on the politics of the process, she devotes considerably less attention to the content of the draft laws themselves. Marian Radwan's recent volume of documents on the Catholic Church in Russia fills this gap by publishing the complete drafts. (8) Indeed, these draft laws constitute close to half of Radwan's volume, and since most of them address issues far beyond Catholicism alone, Katolicheskaia tserkov' nakanune revoliutsii 1917 goda will be of interest to anyone concerned with the history of law and religion in early 20th-century Russia.

The drafts published by Radwan demonstrate the tremendous complexity of revising Russia's religious legislation in light of the interpenetration of church and state law described by Dorskaia. Indeed, in presenting the drafts, the Interior Ministry remarked that the question of "freedom of conscience" touched on such a broad range of legal issues that producing a single draft law was impossible. All the proposed changes to the law, "while deriving from a single general principle [i.e., freedom of conscience], nonetheless concern completely independent areas of existing law" (134). Accordingly, the ministry produced not one but seven drafts, each of them with extensive and fascinating commentary. Such elaboration was necessary because the task that the ministry had set for itself--the introduction of freedom of conscience while maintaining the privileged status of Orthodoxy and the basic elements of the autocratic order--was so fundamentally tension-ridden. As Dorskaia cites a contemporary's assessment, one of the drafts represented "an amazing document of bureaucratic production, all woven from contradiction." (9)

A brief consideration of the draft on family law illustrates their contradictory nature. (10) Having contemplated the introduction of civil marriage, the government soon rejected that institution as incompatible with both the religious orientation of the empire's population and the vast corpus of existing civil law constructed around the religious conception. At the core of the draft was therefore an attempt simultaneously to re-assert the religious character of marriage and to establish greater distance between secular law and church canon. The bill asserted that "canonical rules should retain their decisive significance in marital affairs," and that the validity of marriage could be ascertained "only from a canonical perspective." At the same time, the Interior Ministry aspired to purge civil statutes of purely canonical provisions. when the rules of different religions were in contradiction, the state was obliged to interfere, determining which religion or confession should have precedence. In all other cases, however, "the secular law should refrain from any interference, leaving each religious teaching to act in accordance with its rules, without repudiating them but also without imparting its [the law's] sanction to them." A church could, of course, insist on the observance of its canonical requirements, and the state would regard the marriages of that church's adherents as legal only if the church itself defined them as valid. But the state would no longer incorporate canonical requirements directly into its own civil law for the purposes of prohibiting certain kinds of marriage. Nor would it criminalize the conclusion of such marriages, preferring instead merely to deny them legal recognition if not sanctioned by the proper religious authority. In effect, the state would allow churches to determine the validity of marriages but would no longer incorporate into its own civil law the canonical rules by which they did so. (11) Such an approach would allow Russia to secularize its law while retaining its ideological commitments to religion.

If most of the draft laws addressed several or all of Russia's confessions, the remainder of Radwan's collection relates exclusively to the Catholic church--an institution that remains remarkably understudied in the field of Russian imperial history. (12) In his introduction, Radwan interprets state policy on Catholicism as the extension to that church of principles and practices already applied to Orthodoxy. He regards 1721 as the end of the Byzantine notion of symphony and its replacement by the complete dependence of spiritual life on political structures. The church's loyalty to the state left it paralyzed, he asserts, while the Synod's over-procurator became an "absolute ruler" over the church. This principle of full state control over the church, Radwan argues, was extended to other Christian confessions as their adherents became Russian subjects. Thus, as the autocracy published the Spiritual Regulation and created the Holy Synod in 1721, it produced a regulation for Catholics in 1769 and created the Roman-Catholic College in 1801. In my view, Radwan presents something of a caricature in his discussion of Orthodoxy, ignoring the authority of that church in several areas of law and policy and the decidedly gradual process by which the over-procurator established his authority over the Synod. (13) Moreover, even though the assertion of state control over church affairs was common to the experience of Orthodoxy and Catholicism, Radwan exaggerates the similarities. The history of Russian legislation on Catholicism was considerably more complicated than it was in the case of Orthodoxy, as there was a series of fundamental shifts and new legislative initiatives at different points and no single statute, comparable to the Spiritual Regulation, that defined the church's status throughout the imperial period. (14) St. Petersburg also encountered great difficulties in getting the college to operate in the desired fashion (it never functioned as a Catholic Holy Synod), and Rome provided grudging and indirect recognition of that institution only in 1875. Indeed, the very existence of the papacy and the impossibility of eliminating this external source of religious authority--a circumstance amply documented by the materials in Radwan's own collection--was one of the principal differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. At the same time, Radwan's insistence on treating state policy on Catholicism in terms of earlier initiatives with respect to Orthodoxy usefully demonstrates that the history of the two confessions should not be separated, and that indeed many of the measures adopted with respect to non-Orthodox confessions--secularization of church properties, the creation of new bureaucratic instances for ecclesiastical administration, the regularization of religious affairs through secular legal statute--were indeed first introduced with respect to Orthodoxy and should not automatically be regarded as a particular form of persecution directed against one or another religious group. (15)

Several of Radwan's other assertions require qualification as well. He presents the Russian system of confessional administration as a "particular reflection" of the early-modern principle of cuius regio eius religio (the faith of the people is determined by their king) (30), but in light of St. Petersburg's explicit recognition of Russia's religious diversity and the right of subjects to confess a wide range of religions--even "paganism"--this assertion is problematic. The Russian experience seems to have involved less an attempt by the sovereign to determine the religion of his or her subjects than an effort to render the country's acquired confessional diversity compatible with an autocratic political order and the country's great-power pretensions. Radwan's inclination to see in the government's actions a desire "to weaken Catholicism maximally" (31) also simplifies a more complex (and more interesting) reality. To be sure, there was plenty of hostility and fear of Catholicism in ruling circles, fortified by official ties to Orthodoxy and consciousness of a long historical struggle with Poland. (16) But it seems crucial to recognize that the state was concerned above all with what it construed as "political" manifestations of religiosity--most significantly, the subordination of the Catholic religion to Polish national aspirations. Otherwise the government regarded Catholicism--and indeed all of Russia's tolerated religions--as an important resource and desirable ally in the maintenance of order, morality, and cohesion of the empire. (17) The very idea of "religious toleration" placed certain constraints on the state's mode of action, and repressive measures were usually taken with reluctance and after considerable deliberation. (18) It is certainly possible that St. Petersburg oppressed Catholic clerics out of proportion with their involvement in the national movement. (19) But what is particularly interesting and important, in my view, is the deep tension that developed between the state's desire to accommodate what it regarded as the legitimate religious needs of its non-Orthodox subjects and its determination to prevent the exploitation of religious institutions as instruments for the pursuit of "politics."

Taken from the Russian State Historical Archive (RGIA) and several other repositories, the documents in Radwan's collection were produced by the imperial government, Catholic hierarchs in Russia, and the Holy See. In this respect Radwan understands "the Catholic Church" in the volume's title principally in terms of the hierarchy, and less in terms of the laity or even the clergy at the parish level. (20) Although Radwan provides no explicit organization for the documents (other than strict chronological order), they may be grouped in three blocs that illustrate distinct phases in the state's relation to Catholicism in the early 20th century. The first group concerns the initiation of the reform process in 1904 and the scope of change that the government was prepared to countenance in 1906-7. The documents in this group include the lengthy memorandum of Metropolitan Georgii Shembek (Jerzy Szembek) to the interior minister, produced in response to a government decree of 12 December 1904 designed to begin the process of reviewing existing statutes on the rights of non-Orthodox groups. (21) Authorized by Catholic bishops of the metropolitanate, Shembek sought to demonstrate how much "the factual conditions of the religious life of Catholic residents of the empire contradict the basic principle of religious toleration" (53). What follows is a seemingly interminable list of grievances that left virtually no aspect of imperial policy on Catholicism uncriticized.

The second group of documents reflects the situation after the failure of legislative reform in 1905-9 and the Catholic response to the growing harshness of the regime's policies. Bishops again protested against numerous restrictions on Catholics in a lengthy memorandum presented by Metropolitan Vikentii Kliuchinskii (Wicenty Kluczynski) in 1912 (416-46), while the papacy submitted a similar protest on behalf of Catholics in 1913 (453-90). Kliuchinskii explained that Catholics' laudable patience was being rewarded with growing restrictions on their religious life. The Holy See, meanwhile, insisted that the resolution of many of the issues concerning Catholics in Russia required its participation and sanction, despite the government's intense resistance to papal intervention. But whereas in 1906-7 the government's response had included extensive projects for reform, in 1912-13 St. Petersburg presented a resolute justification for its policies and refused to make any significant compromise in response to Catholic complaints. Absent in the government's response, most strikingly, was any recognition that the promise of freedom of conscience remained unfulfilled. The Interior Ministry's draft response to the Holy See suggests that the Russian Foreign Ministry wanted to make concessions to reach accommodation with the Vatican, but that the Interior Ministry found the papacy's pretensions to be offensive and rejected categorically the proposition that the pope had any jurisdiction over Russia's internal affairs. (22) It was at this time too, as we know from Dorskaia's research, that the government withdrew four more of its draft laws from the Duma for further revision (109). The documents thus demonstrate that by the second decade of the 20th century, the prospects for religious reform were virtually nil.

The last group of documents concerns developments under the Provisional Government, when prospects for satisfying Catholic grievances seemed most promising. At the centerpiece of this group is the draft law of June 1917 (562-623), formulated by a specially convened commission on Roman Catholic affairs with the participation of numerous Catholic hierarchs. By the draft Catholics gained much broader autonomy in the regulation of their internal affairs, although the relationship among hierarchy, government, and Holy See was left to the resolution of the future Constituent Assembly. The basic principle behind the draft was that the interference of secular law in ecclesiastical life "should be limited to those issues that have more or less serious significance for the state" (589). At the same time, the commission recognized that the connection between church and state had not been severed entirely and that church servitors continued to fulfill certain administrative functions for the state. Having made minor modifications to the draft, the Provisional Government published the law in July (624-33). Three brief documents (659-66) covering the early Soviet period demonstrate the growing Bolshevik persecution of Catholics, in particular encroachment on the church's property, which had been declared the "patrimony of the people" in 1918. Interestingly, the rights of Catholics in Soviet Russia, who were predominantly Polish, had been internationalized by the terms of the Polish-Soviet Treaty of Riga in 1921. (23)

On the whole, then, the documents tell a story of failed reform, continued persecution of Catholics in the last years of tsarism, and the appearance of a promising reform law in 1917 subsequently negated by the Bolshevik seizure of power. Most of the documents are notable for their length--the average extends well over 20 pages--and thus the detail with which they elaborate the issues at stake. In this regard Radwan deserves great credit for making this material available to scholars. At the same time, the documents would be better served by more contextualization, since the conditions in which they were produced, as well as their consequences, are not always sufficiently clear. For example, the government's draft laws, although none actually became law, experienced rather different fates in the legislative process, with some receiving extensive consideration in the Duma and going on to the State Council, and others never even making it out of the Duma's Committee on Religious Affairs. (24) Radwan's discussion is far too superficial--particularly in light of the space devoted to the drafts in the volume--and notes merely that "these initiatives were not passed" (34). Radwan's claim that in the Committee on Religious Affairs in the Third Duma "the right wing succeeded in not permitting the broadening of the discussion" of the submitted drafts (35) is at best misleading. In fact, certain modifications to the government's drafts in the Duma were ultimately the source of the tremendous acrimony on the Duma floor in May 1909. Better explanatory notes are also essential, as a number of the terms and referents--for example, the "Mariavites" and the papal decree Ne Temere--will be unfamiliar to most readers. (25) In short, while illuminating and fascinating, the documents are presented in a form that is a bit too raw.

Among the most interesting material in Radwan's collection is a polemic between the Holy See and the Interior Ministry concerning the degree and scope of papal authority over Russia's Catholic subjects. This polemic points to a unique characteristic of the Catholic Church among Russia's confessions: the location of its spiritual head beyond the borders of the Russian empire. Although virtually all of Russia's religions, including Orthodoxy, had an international dimension of one sort or another, in most cases the imperial regime succeeded in establishing domestic sources of supreme religious authority. To be sure, in the case of Catholicism, too, the imperial government strove to "domesticate" religious authority to the extent possible and was always wary of granting the pope power over the affairs of Russian subjects. (26) Yet experience demonstrated that Catholic spiritual matters could not be fully ordered without the participation of the Holy See. The placement of bishops and the method of their communication with Rome, the resolution of marital affairs at a certain level of appeal, approval for Catholic administrative institutions within Russia (most important, the college) and for state initiatives such as the introduction of Russian into Catholic church services--all this required the involvement of the pope and thus compelled St. Petersburg to maintain relations with the Holy See. (27) These relations are the subject of Rossiia i Vatikan.

St. Petersburg first established a diplomatic mission in Rome in 1802, which thereafter became the exclusive channel for communication between Russian Catholics and the Roman Curia. After extensive negotiations beginning in 1845, the two sides concluded a Concordat in 1847, which considerably expanded bishops' power and allowed for the creation of a seventh diocese in Russia. (28) The Holy See thereafter sought further concessions from St. Petersburg, but the insurrection of 1863 drove the government to impose new limitations on the Catholic Church and eventually to break off relations with Rome and to repudiate the Concordat. Even so, each side had good reason to seek the restoration of relations, and limited agreements in 1875, 1880, and 1882 laid the groundwork for the re-establishment of permanent Russian representation at the Vatican in 1894. Russia nonetheless resisted Rome's aspirations to appoint a nuncio (papal envoy with the rank of ambassador) to St. Petersburg. After a break during the Revolution and Civil war, Soviet willingness to accept a papal humanitarian mission to Russia in 1922 led to renewed relations until a final break in 1929. (29)

Russia's relations with the Vatican were unlike those with any other foreign entity. Until 1870, the pope was of course a temporal ruler and thus a full-fledged sovereign in the international system. But the papacy's claim to independent political authority was rooted also--perhaps primarily--in its status as the organ of a universal church with a special mission in the world. The sovereign pontiff, asserted the cardinal secretary of state to the Russian Foreign Ministry in 1862, "has the duty of extending his apostolic solicitude to all the faithful scattered in the various parts of the Catholic world." (30) Therefore, relations with Russia concerned primarily, if not exclusively, the position of Catholics within the Russian empire. (31) Significantly, provisions from the Concordat of 1847 were incorporated into the 1857 edition of the Svod zakonov, thus making an international agreement a source for the domestic law of the Russian empire. (32) In general, Russian officials regarded dealings with Rome as among the most difficult and unpleasant tasks that they faced. In 1880, a government conference convened to discuss further negotiations remarked that in dealing with the Roman Curia, "one may not consider any precaution to be superfluous, since the exploitation of any word and insignificant expression for the assertion of inordinate pretensions in the future represents the basis for its system and a well-known device of its diplomacy." (33)

Rossiia i Vatikan is the product of a colloquium of Russian and Italian scholars that met in Moscow in 1998. Because the stated goal of that meeting was to describe relevant archival collections and to bring new sources to the attention of the scholarly world, (34) a number of the contributions are bibliographic or descriptive of archival collections and will be of interest primarily to those seeking to do research in these areas. (35) Yet many of the contributions are not concerned with source analysis as such but instead use newly uncovered sources to explore various aspects of Russo-Vatican relations. In contrast to the other works considered in this review, Rossiia i Vatikan also addresses the early Soviet years at considerable length.

Essays on the imperial period include O. V. Serova's discussion of the deeply strained relationship in the 1860s-70s, when St. Petersburg accused Rome of having acquiesced in a "blasphemous mixing" of religion and national politics in the Polish context. She nonetheless shows how a number of Russian officials--most notably, Foreign Minister Aleksandr Mikhailovich Gorchakov--were deeply uncomfortable with the government's disavowal "of the glorious traditions of our history, of the toleration characteristic of us and of respect for freedom of conscience." (36) Z. P. Iakhimovich shows that while a shared conservatism and concern for morality and order in Europe served as an important foundation for rapprochement between the sides, a series of problems--the Polish question, antagonism between Catholics and Orthodox in the Balkans, and growing criticism of religious repression in Russia--rendered it impossible to attain more than a modest compromise. V. P. Gaiduk documents the efforts of future Foreign Minister Aleksandr Petrovich Izvol'skii to establish permanent Russian representation at the Vatican after the termination of official relations in 1866--a goal that was attained in 1894. (37) Rita Tolomeo provides an intriguing discussion on Catholics of the Armenian rite, with respect to whom questions of geopolitics, confessional organization, and nationality coalesced in an especially complicated mix. These essays demonstrate simultaneously how complicated it was for St. Petersburg to reach compromise with the Vatican and the tremendous costs of failing to do so.

The Soviet government, in contrast, had fewer concerns about proper church organization and regarded relations with the Holy See principally as an instrument for gaining recognition from the major powers of Europe. In separate essays, Iu. E. Karlov, Giorgio Petracchi, and E. S. Tokareva describe the fascinating relations between the Vatican and the new Soviet government in the 1920s. (38) The Holy See was ambivalent in these years, being wary of the openly atheistic new regime but perhaps equally concerned, after a long history of persecution of Catholics under the Romanovs, about the resurrection of an Orthodox monarchy. The appearance of an independent Poland and its war with Soviet Russia in 1920-21 only complicated matters, although the Vatican, while not hiding its preference for the new Polish republic, nonetheless sought to restrain Polish territorial ambitions in order to keep avenues with Soviet Russia open, not least to establish a basis for proselytism there. Indeed, the Vatican's proposal for a papal relief mission for famine victims in Russia, accepted by the Bolsheviks in 1922, was motivated at least in part by such missionary aspirations. (39) The Bolsheviks recognized that Catholics nurtured little nostalgia for the tsarist regime but were also determined to use the famine as a pretext for the confiscation of church wealth. Recognizing both the benefits of the pope's efforts to raise funds for the famine victims and his ability to mobilize forces around the world against the new Bolshevik state, Soviet authorities sought to delay confrontation with the Catholic clergy. Yet at the same time they recognized that they could not afford to be seen taking a softer line on Catholics than they were on the Orthodox Church, and many Bolsheviks felt that compromise with Catholicism was impossible without repudiating the 1918 decree on the separation of church and state. In early 1923, as a result, Archbishop Ioann Tsepliak (Jan Cieplak) and vicar general Konstantin Budkevich (Constantine Budkiewicz) were sentenced to execution for their resistance to the confiscation of church property. (40) Once major states began to recognize the USSR in 1924, the benefits of cooperation with the Vatican diminished considerably, and the Soviet government terminated the relief mission that same year. As Soviet persecution of religion grew thereafter, the Holy See's conclusion of the Lateran Treaty in 1929 with the Italian government provided the final impetus for the USSR's termination of all relations. Soviet contacts with the Vatican were re-established only in 1990.

Collectively, Rossiia i Vatikan explores many problems in rich detail, often citing extensively from previously unavailable source material. The one general drawback of the essays is that most of them make little or no effort to conceptualize the problems with which they are concerned. Most of the authors take "relations" as their object, assuming that the importance and implications of this focus will be self-evident. To be sure, Tolomeo and Petracchi, by analyzing the specific problems of Armenian Catholics and the papal relief mission respectively, offer more focused considerations. Yet even those two authors resist framing those problems in terms of a set of propositions clarifying the fundamental issues at stake. In general, then, the relative absence of argument and thesis in Rossiia i Vatikan and the tendency to revert to a blow-by-blow narrative account of Russo-Vatican relations constitute central weaknesses of the collection.

It would be an understatement to say that there has been a renaissance of scholarship on the history of religion in Russia in the last decade or so. The bulk of this new research focuses on various aspects of Orthodox experience, including its remarkable sectarian traditions. (41) The recent wave of scholarship on empire, however, reminds us that Russia was a multi-confessional state, (42) and that even within Orthodoxy regional and national particularities need to be taken into account--especially in the western provinces, the Volga region, and the Caucasus. (43) The books reviewed here significantly enhance our ability to assemble a more complex and historically accurate portrait of religious experience in Russia. They demonstrate the deep and enduring interpenetration of civil and religious law that conditioned all attempts to modify Russia's confessional order by the early 20th century. They also make clear that the status and character of the Orthodox Church need to be understood relationally, not only with respect to the state complex of which it was ultimately a part but also with respect to the "foreign confessions." The focus on Catholicism in these works is particularly welcome, in light of the striking dearth of major studies in English or Russian on that confession and its adherents. Given the crucial significance of Catholicism for the articulation of Russian nationalist sentiment, for the elaboration of principles and practices of confessional governance applied throughout the empire, and for the disruption of clear distinctions between internal and foreign affairs, we must hope that the books under review will stimulate further research.

(1) On the question of the religious foundations for aspects of law in Russia, especially concerning marriage and family, see Gregory L. Freeze, "Bringing Order to the Russian Family: Marriage and Divorce in Imperial Russia, 1760-1860," Journal of Modern History 62, 4 (1990): 709-49; Laura Engelstein, The Keys to Happiness: Sex and the Search for Modernity in Fin-de-Siecle Russia (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992), esp. 31-41; William Wagner, Marriage, Property, and Law in Late Imperial Russia (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 59-223; and ChaeRan Freeze, Jewish Marriage and Divorce in Imperial Russia (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2002).

(2) See Diliara Usmanova, Musul'manskaia fraktsiia i problemy "svobody sovesti" v Gosudarstvennoi Dumy, 1906-1917 (Kazan: Master Lain, 1999), 110-16; Usmanova, "L'Assemblee Spirituelle musulmane au debut du XXe siecle: Les projets de reforme face au pouvoir politique russe," in L'Islam de Russie: Conscience communautaire et autonomie politique chez les tatars de la Volga et de l'Oural, depuis le XVIIIe siecle, ed. Stephane A. Dudoignon, Damir Is'haqov, and Rafyq Mohammatshin (Paris: Maisonneuve et Larose, 1997), 175-91; Usmanova, Musul'manskie predstaviteli v Rossiiskom parlamente, 1906-1916 (Kazan: Akademiia nauk RT, 2005), esp. 62-125; and Iurii Stanislavovich Belov, "Pravitel'stvennaia politika po otnosheniiu k nepravoslavnym veroispovedaniiam v Rossii v 1905-1917 gg." (Candidate of Sciences diss., Institute of Russian History, St. Petersburg Division, 1999), 135-42, 298-304.

(3) Indeed, even a couple of glaring mistakes, such as the assertion that many children of mixed marriages in the Baltic region were being raised in Catholicism in the years 1865-85 (they were actually being raised in Lutheranism), were not corrected when this material was transferred from the old book to the new. See Svoboda sovesti, 24; and Gosudarstvennoe i tserkovnoe pravo, 177-78.

(4) Usmanova, Musul'manskaia fraktsiia, 81-127; and Peter Waldron, "Religious Reform after 1905: Old Believers and the Orthodox Church," Oxford Slavonic Papers 20 (1987): 110-39. Dorskaia cites neither author in her book. The relative strength of her account lies in its analysis of the reform process prior to the convening of the first Duma.

(5) Using article 87 of the Fundamental Law, the government enacted the new law on Old Believers in October 1906. The parliament still needed to approve the law, however, and it was a modified version of the 1906 law that was discussed in 1909. Waldron analyzes this process in "Religious Reform after 1905." For a discussion of the law and its implications, see also Nikolai D. Kuznetsov, Zakon o staroobriadcheskikh obshchinakh v sviazi s otnosheniem tserkvi i gosudarstva (Sergiev Posad: Tipografiia Sviato-Troitse Sergievskoi lavry, 1910).

(6) See my essay "Arbiters of the Free Conscience: State, Religion, and the Problem of Confessional Transfer after 1905," in Sacred Stories: Religion and Spirituality in Modern Russia, ed. Heather Coleman and Mark Steinberg (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, forthcoming).

(7) Dorskaia, Svoboda sovesti, 7, 36.

(8) The drafts were also published in the journal Missionerskoe obozrenie, nos. 1-6 (1908): 48-72, 176-207, 342-54, 529-65, 693-736, 664-76, 854-62.

(9) S. P. Mel'gunov, as cited in Dorskaia, Svoboda sovesti, 85. For other contemporary assessments of the drafts, see I. Aivazov, "Novaia veroispovednaia sistema nashego gosudarstva," Missionerskoe obozrenie, nos. 7-8 (1908): 1032-50; Il'ia S. Berdnikov, Nashi novye zakony i zakonoproekty o svobode sovesti (Moscow: A. I. Snegirova, 1914).

(10) "Ob izmeneniiakh v oblasti semeistvennykh prav," in Radwan, Katolicheskaia tserkov', 336-89.

(11) Citations in ibid., 347-48.

(12) The most recent intervention is Dennis J. Dunn, The Catholic Church and Russia: Popes, Patriarchs, Tsars, and Commissars (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2004), a work that oversimplifies the relationship among Russia, Catholicism, and the West and contains numerous contestable claims. Otherwise, comparatively little has been published since the appearance of Count Dmitrii Andreevich Tolstoi's informative but also strongly anti-Catholic work Rimskii katolitsizm v Rossii, 2 vols. (St. Petersburg: V. F. Demakova, 1877), which does not extend past the reign of Alexander I (1801-25). A number of scholars consider Catholicism in the context of nationality policies and Russification but usually without placing Catholic believers and institutions at the center of their analysis. See, for example, Theodore R. Weeks, Nation and State in Late Imperial Russia: Nationalism and Russification on the Western Frontier, 1863-1914 (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1996); Witold Rodkiewicz, Russian Nationality Policy in the Western Provinces of the Empire, 1863-1905 (Lublin: Scientific Society of Lublin, 1998); Leonid E. Gorizontov, Paradoksy imperskoi politiki: Poliaki v Rossii i russkie v Pol'she (Moscow: Indrik, 1999); and Timothy Snyder, The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003). We have more literature at our disposal on the few, though undoubtedly interesting, Russian converts to Catholicism than about Catholicism in the Russian empire more generally. On the former, see most recently Ekaterina Nikolaevna Tsimbaeva, Russkii katolitsizm: Zabytoe proshloe rossiiskogo liberalizma (Moscow: Editorial URSS, 1999); and Jeffrey Bruce Beshoner, Ivan Sergeevich Gagarin: The Search for Orthodox and Catholic Union (Notre Dame: University Press of Notre Dame, 2002). But consider recent scholarship by Brian Porter: "The Catholic Nation: Religion, Identity, and the Narratives of Polish History," Slavic and East European Journal 45, 2 (2001): 289-99; and "Thy Kingdom Come: Patriotism, Prophecy, and the Catholic Hierarchy in Nineteenth-Century Poland," Catholic Historical Review 89, 2 (2003): 213-39. I am not in a position to assess the state of Polish-language scholarship, although notably in his introduction (translated from Polish) Radwan makes no reference to any recent studies on Catholicism in Polish.

(13) On these issues, see Gregory L. Freeze, "Institutionalizing Piety: The Church and Popular Religion, 1750-1850," in Imperial Russia: New Histories for the Empire, ed. Jane Burbank and David Ransel (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998), 210-49; Freeze, "Handmaiden of the State? The Church in Imperial Russia Reconsidered," Journal of Ecclesiastical History 36, 1 (1985): 82-102; Aleksandr Iur'evich Polunov, "Ober-Prokuror Sviateishego sinoda: Osnovnye etapy stanovleniia i razvitiia (XVIII-seredina XIX v.)," presented at the conference "Rossiia v XIX-nachale XX v. (Konferentsiia, posviashchennaia 100-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia professora P. A. Zaionchkovskogo)," Moscow, 29-30 September 2004. On the functioning of the Synod in late imperial Russia, see most recently Svetlana Ivanovna Alekseeva, Sviateishii sinod v sisteme gosudarstvennykh uchrezhdenii poreformennoi Rossii, 1856-1904 gg. (St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2003).

(14) In addition to the original statute of 1769, which was instituted before the first Polish partition, major new provisions appeared in 1801 (the creation of the Roman Catholic College), in 1847 (the conclusion of the Concordat with Rome), in the mid-1860s (in the aftermath of the insurrection of 1863), and in 1893 (when the codification of statutes on Catholicism was effectively completed). To my knowledge, there is no general overview of this process, although for an overview of Catholicism's status in Russia, see K. Bogoslovskii, Gosudarstvennoe polozhenie rimsko-katolicheskoi tserkvi v Rossii ot Ekateriny Velikoi do nastoiashchego vremeni (Khar'kov: Tipografiia Gubernskogo pravleniia, 1898).

(15) Indeed, the task of analyzing the experience of Orthodox and non-Orthodox religions and believers in Russia in a single analytical framework strikes me as a potentially fruitful line of inquiry. The period of Alexander I, in light of the Russian Bible Society and the "Dual Ministry," has received considerable attention recently. See most notably Elena Anatol'evna Vishlenkova, Religioznaia politika: Ofitsial'nyi kurs i "obshchee mnenie" Rossii aleksandrovskoi epohki (Kazan: Izdatel'stvo Kazanskogo universiteta, 1997); Vishlenkova, Zabotias' o dushakh poddannykh: Religioznaia politika v Rossii pervoi chetverti XIX veka (Saratov: Izdatel'stvo Saratovskogo universiteta, 2002); and Iu. E. Kondakov, Dukhovno-religioznaia politika Aleksandra I i russkaia pravoslavnaia oppozitsiia (1801-1825) (St. Petersburg: Nestor, 1998). Consider also Eileen Kane's recent dissertation on pilgrimage, which explores both Orthodox and non-Orthodox religions: "Pilgrims, Holy Places, and the Multi-Confessional Empire: Russian Policy toward the Ottoman Empire under Tsar Nicholas I, 1825-1855" (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 2005).

(16) For a brilliant consideration of Russian Polonophobia that includes the religious element, see Mikhail Dolbilov, "Polonofobiia i politika russifikatsii v Severo-Zapadnom krae imperii v 1860-e gg.," in Obraz vraga, ed. L. Gudkov and N. Konradova (Moscow: OGI, 2005), 127-74.

(17) For an argument along these lines, see Robert Crews, "Empire and the Confessional State: Islam and Religious Politics in Nineteenth-Century Russia," American Historical Review 108, 1 (2003): 50-83. On the degree of state commitment to the purity of non-Orthodox confessions (which I regard as somewhat more conditional than Crews does), see my article, "Schism Once Removed: Sects, State Authority, and the Meanings of Religious Toleration in Imperial Russia," in Imperial Rule, ed. Alexei Miller and Alfred J. Rieber (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2004), 85-108.

(18) Consider, for example, the assessment of the Revision Commission on the Roman-Catholic clergy, created in Vil'na after the insurrection of 1863, which explicitly recognized that the principle of "peaceful religious toleration" as established in law and state practice prohibited the application of certain repressive measures, however desirable and beneficial they may have seemed in terms of containing the Catholic threat. See Lietuvos Valstybes Istorijos Archyvas (Lithuanian State Historical Archive, LVIA) f. 378, 1866 (BS), d. 1340, ll. 62 ob.-63.

(19) Sergei Dmitrievich Sazonov, Russian minister to the Vatican (1906-9) and subsequently imperial foreign minister, implied as much when he wrote of "the rigid narrow-mindedness of our administration, which could not be induced to regard Russo-Polish relations from any angle but that of the revolutionary events of 1863." See Serge Sazonov, Fateful Years, 1909-1916: Reminiscences of Serge Sazonov (London: Jonathan Cape, 1928; repr. New York: Kraus Reprint, 1971), 11.

(20) On the relationship between Catholic parish clergy and laity, at least for the kingdom of Poland, see Mariia Alekseevna Krisan', "Tsivilizatsionnye izmeneniia rubezha XIX-XX vv. v vospriiatii krest'ian Tsarstva Pol'skogo" (Candidate of Sciences diss., Moscow State University, 2004).

(21) Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii, 3rd series, vol. 24, no. 25495 (12 December 1904). For an evaluation of this decree in the context of religious reform, see Dorskaia, Svoboda sovesti, 42-56. Radwan states that Shembek's memorandum was written and submitted to the Interior Ministry prior to [v preddverii ] the decree of 12 December 1904 and 17 April 1905 (32). But Shembek begins his memorandum by referring to the first decree (52), which suggests that his submission was motivated by its appearance.

(22) Z. P. Iakhimovich notes the general tendency of the Foreign Ministry in the last tsarist decades to support normalization of relations with the Holy See, in contrast to the Interior Ministry and the Holy Synod. See his contribution in Rossiia i Vatikan, 71-72.

(23) After the Treaty of Riga, circa 1.5 million Catholics remained in Russia, and some 950,000 of those were Poles.

(24) Dorskaia traces these different trajectories and her book thus serves as an excellent companion to the drafts themselves. See Svoboda sovesti, 75-111; and Usmanova, Musul'manskaia fraktsiia, 89-110.

(25) Mariavites were a dissenting Catholic group condemned by the Vatican and recognized by St. Petersburg as a distinct religious teaching in 1906. The papal decree Ne Temere (1907) definitively required that any marriage involving a Catholic be concluded by Catholic rite--a proposition squarely in contradiction with Russia's laws on mixed marriage.

(26) For a discussion of a plan--offered by local Catholics in the western provinces, curiously enough--to establish a hierarchy in Russia independent of Rome, leading eventually to church union, see Mikhail Dolbilov and Darius Staliunas, "Obratnaia uniia: Proekt prisoedineniia katolikov k pravoslavnoi tserkvi v Rossiiskoi imperii (1865-1866 gg.)," Slavianovedenie, no. 5 (2005): 3-34.

(27) Of the issues listed here, the one that has undoubtedly received the greatest scholarly attention is the question of the Russian language in Catholic church services, although such studies generally do not address the role of the Vatican. See Theodore R. Weeks, "Religion and Russification: Russian Language in the Catholic Churches of the 'Northwest Provinces' after 1863." Kritika 2, 1 (2001): 87-110; Mikhail Dolbilov, "Russification and the Bureaucratic Mind in the Russian Empire's Northwestern Region in the 1860s," Kritika 5, 2 (2004), 249-58; and Darius Staliunas, "Mozhet li katolik byt' russkim? O vvedenii russkogo iazyka v katolicheskoe bogosluzhenie v 60-kh godakh XIX veka," in Rossiiskaia imperiia v zarubezhnoi istoriografii: Raboty poslednikh let, ed. Pol Vert [Paul Werth], Petr Kabytov, and Aleksei Miller (Moscow: Novoe izdatel'stvo, 2005), 570-88.

(28) The curious history of the creation of that diocese, which was eventually placed at Saratov, is recounted in M. Gorodetskii, "K istorii rimskogo katolitsizma v Rossii (Tiraspol'skaia ili Saratovskaia latinskaia eparkhiia)," Istoricheskii vestnik 38, 10 (1889): 122-34.

(29) A good overview of these relations over the entire tsarist period is in E. Vinter [Eduard Winter], Papstvo i tsarizm, trans. R. A. Krest'ianinov and S. M. Raskina (Moscow: Progress, 1964). For studies covering the period prior to that addressed in Rossiia i Vatikan, see A. N. Popov, Posledniaia sud'ba papskoi politiki v Rossii, 1845-1867 (St. Petersburg: F. S. Sushchinskii, 1868); P. Pierling, La Russie et le Saint-Siege: Etudes diplomatiques, 5 vols. (Paris: Plon, 1896-1912; repr. The Hague: European Printing, 1967); Adrien Boudou, Le Saint-Siege et la Russie: Leurs relations diplomatiques au XIX siecle, 2 vols. (Paris: Plon, 1922); Judith Cohen Zacek, "The Russian Bible Society and the Catholic Church," Canadian Slavic Studies 5, 1 (1971): 35-50; and Larry Wolff, The Vatican and Poland in the Age of the Partitions: Diplomatic and Cultural Encounters at the Warsaw Nunciature (Boulder, CO: East European Monographs, 1988).

(30) Cited in Robert A. Graham, Vatican Diplomacy: A Study of Church and State on the International Plane (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1959), 235.

(31) For a detailed consideration of the pope's sovereignty in the context of diplomacy, see Graham, Vatican Diplomacy, especially 157-302. For an interesting Russian argument treating the papacy as a subject of international law after the loss of the papal states in 1870 but before the Lateran Treaty of 1929, see A. L. Baikov, Sovremennaia mezhdunarodnaia pravosposobnost 'papstva v sviazi s pravosposobnosti voobshche (St. Petersburg: M. M. Stasiulevich, 1904).

(32) The 1857 edition of Svod zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii (vol. 11, part 1) was the first to include statutes on the "foreign confessions."

(33) Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii (GARF) f. 109 (Sekretnyi arkhiv), op. 3, d. 1558, l. 7 ob. That opinion was expressed by Konstantin Pobedonostsev and endorsed by the other members of the conference.

(34) The archival sources deployed come primarily from the Russian empire's foreign policy archive (Arkhiv vneshnei politiki Rossiisskoi imperii) and the Vatican's archive of the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs (Sacra Congregazione degli Affari Ecclesiastici Straordinari). A fair number of sources on relations between Russia and Rome has been published. See, most notably, A. N. Popov, "Snosheniia Rossii s Rimom s 1845 po 1850 god," Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia, parts 147-150 (January-July 1870), which includes extensive citation from original archival sources; E. A. Adamov, ed., Diplomatiia Vatikana v nachal'nuiu epokhu imperializma (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoe izdatel'stvo, 1931); Sophie Olszamowska-Skorowonska, "Le Concordat de 1847 avec la Russie d'apres les documents authentiques," in Sacrum Poloniae Millenium: Rozprawy--Szkice--Materialy historyczne, vol. 8-9 (Rome, 1962): 455-844.

(35) In this regard one should also note Charles Frazee, "Using Vatican Archives in the Study of Eastern Christianity," in Seeking God: The Recovery of Religious Identity in Orthodox Russia, Ukraine, and Georgia, ed. Stephen Batalden (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1993), 264-82.

(36) Cited in Rossiia i Vatikan, 51. Notably, while the phrase "freedom of conscience" appeared in an official and publicized form only in the October Manifesto of 1905, in fact it was used with moderate frequency already in the 1860s and early 1870s (as the cited passage from 1872 demonstrates).

(37) Izvol'skii had been dispatched in 1888 and served as Russia's permanent representative from 1894 to 1897.

(38) These are also surveyed in Graham, Vatican Diplomacy, 349-71.

(39) The papal relief mission should be seen in the context of other relief efforts, perhaps most notably the American one. The latter has been treated in detail by Bertrand M. Patenaude, The Big Show in Bololand: The American Relief Mission to Soviet Russia in the Famine of 1921 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002). Notably, the head of the papal relief mission was an American Jesuit, Edmund Walsh, as the Soviet government refused to accept a mission headed by the citizen of a state openly hostile to Russia (above all, France and Poland).

(40) In response to international pressure, Tsepliak's sentence was reduced to ten years of internment, and he was allowed to leave the Soviet Union in 1924. Budkevich's sentence, however, was carried out in March 1923.

(41) Highlighting only major works recently published in English, we may note Laura Engelstein, Castration and the Heavenly Kingdom: A Russian Folktale (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999); Nadieszda Kizenko, A Prodigal Saint: Father John of Kronstadt and the Russian People (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000); Chris J. Chulos, Converging Worlds: Religion and Community in Peasant Russia, 1861-1917 (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2003); Valerie Kivelson and Robert Greene, eds., Orthodox Russia: Belief and Practice under the Tsars (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003); Vera Shevzov, Russian Orthodoxy on the Eve of Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); and Nicholas B. Breyfogle, Heretics and Colonizers: Forging Russia's Empire in the South Caucasus (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2005). Several of these works have been reviewed in recent issues of Kritika.

(42) Major works analyzing non-Orthodox religions in Russia are much fewer in number than those considering Orthodoxy, and several of these still await full conversion from doctoral thesis to monograph. See Kane, "Pilgrimage and Holy Places"; Robert P. Geraci and Michael Khodarkovsky, eds., Of Religion and Identity: Missions, Conversion, and Tolerance in the Russian Empire (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999); Robert D. Crews, For Prophet and Tsar: Islam and Empire in Russia and Central Asia (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006); Christian Noack, Muslimischer Nationalismus im russischen Reich: Nationsbildung und Nationalbewegung bei Tataren und Baschkiren, 1861-1917 (Stuttgart: Frank Steiner, 2000); Barbara Skinner, "The Empress and the Heretics: Catherine II's Challenge to the Uniate Church" (Ph.D. diss., Georgetown University, 2001); and Heather Coleman, Russian Baptists and Spiritual Revolution, 1905-1929 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005).

(43) On ethnic and regional particularities within Orthodoxy in Russia, see Robert Geraci, Window on the East: National and Imperial Identities in Late Tsarist Russia (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001); Paul W. Werth, At the Margins of Orthodoxy: Mission, Governance, and Confessional Politics in Russia's Volga-Kama Region, 1827-1905 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press); A. V. Gavrilin, Ocherki istorii Rizhskoi eparkhii (Riga: Filokaliia, 1999); Ricarda Vulpius, "Ukrainische Nation und zwei Konfessionen: Der Klerus and die ukrainische Frage, 1861-1921," Jahrbucher fur Geschichte Osteuropas 49, 2 (2001): 240-56; Austin Jersild, Orientalism and Empire: North Caucasus Mountain Peoples and the Georgian Frontier, 1845-1917 (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2002); and Paul W. Werth, "Georgian Autocephaly and the Ethnic Fragmentation of Orthodoxy," Acta Slavia Iaponica 23 (2006): 74-100.

Dept. of History

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

4505 Maryland Parkway

Las Vegas, NV 89154-5020 USA

werthp@unlv.nevada.edu
COPYRIGHT 2006 Slavica Publishers, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2006 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Werth, Paul W.
Publication:Kritika
Article Type:Book review
Date:Sep 22, 2006
Words:9848
Previous Article:Was there an "early Russian liberalism"? Perspectives from Russian and Anglo-American historiography.
Next Article:Between empire and revolution: new work on Soviet Central Asia.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters