Elena Vishlenkova lectures at Kazan University, where she holds the chair of pre-20th century Russian history. Her two previous monographs deal with the relationships between official religious policy and public opinion in the tsarist empire (published in 1997) and with theological education in Russia in 1800-1825 (1998). In the book reviewed here, Taking Care of the Souls of the Subjects: Religious Policy in Russia during the First Quarter of the 19th Century, Vishlenkova elaborates and builds upon her previous research.
The author sees this policy as “a unique phenomenon in native and world history” and “a global ecumenical experiment” (P. 3) aimed at societal homogenization via the multifaceted (including religious) integration of the peoples that were absorbed into the empire during its expansion in the late 18th century. Hitherto repressive measures against religious dissidents and exceedingly severe control of the Orthodox Church led to spiritual stagnation and extremism. The Russian establishment learned the bitter lessons of the French Revolution, in which deism, secularism, and anticlericalism triumphed. Freemasonry dominated the Russian religious, political, and cultural scene in the early 19th century. But while in France it sought to destroy the ancien regime, in absolutist Russia its overt aim was to preserve, strengthen, and unify the vast empire of the tsar. Other significant factors influencing developments were the Russo-French War (1805-1813) and the anti-Catholic policy of the Holy Alliance. They provoked restrictive measures toward Roman Catholics and Jews in Russia, who were considered a sort of “fifth column,” a subversive force.
The changed attitudes toward denominations in Russia were reflected in attempts to establish new institutions and principles of state-religion relations. Several projects in this vein were not approved because of the ever-changing government orientation. Modernization of the church presupposed and demanded reform in theological education. In this sphere, results were more palpable. Events taking place in Russian religious policy then were closely bound up with the prevalent culture of the times, characterized by attempts at social harmony, aristocratic populism, sentimentalism, mysticism, and, oddly omitted by the author, the ideals of Romanticism (P. 6). In this context, mysticism means a complex, if not heterogeneous, mixture of Pietism, Hassidism, Hesychasm (more correctly, Neo-Hesychasm), and occultism. It should be stressed that the main component of early 19th century Russian mysticism was formed by Masonic ideas.
Chapter I has a historiographical and theoretical thrust. Vishlenkova correctly considers the vast amount of preserved sources not in superfluous detail but as a unified “grand narrative.” She reviews first the sources in published collections of documents and monographs, then the vast amounts of documents in Russian and foreign archives, some of which are coded or unfinished. Especially important are the documents that the author has unearthed in the State Archive of Tatarstan (Pp. 20-21). Her sources also include sermons, articles in periodicals, and personal documents. Interpretative documents are divided into three categories: prime (initial), secondary, and successive. Vishlenkova also divides the reign of Tsar Alexander I into two parts – from 1801 until 1814, when the ideology of enlightened absolutism was predominant, and from 1814 until 1825, when the social utopia of the “all-Christian state” based on ecumenism and mysticism prevailed. Then she makes a sweeping historiographical survey of both secular and ecclesiastical studies on the topic, which she considers in many cases one-sided and positivist. Alexander’s era is currently in vogue and it is reconstructed as a model to be copied or rejected by scholars and politicians alike. Vishlenkova focuses on church-state relations and the national question in Russia.
In Chapter II, attention is paid to the particulars of the “Christian-ecumenical” program, which was met with a strong critique from the opposing ideological sides in post-war Russia: both from the left-wing circles, which found it too superficial, and from the hard line Orthodox, the Rosicrucians, and the Ultramontanists, who insisted upon a return to conservative values. The reactionaries triumphed in 1824, while the liberals organized the unsuccessful Decembrist rebellion in 1825.
Chapter III considers the opposing tendencies within the state to create a confessional system of religious administration or to control all religions via an umbrella-like structure. Details are provided of such administration of the Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic and Uniate churches, the Protestant churches, and the non-Christian religions (especially Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism). One of the examples is the Main Office of Spiritual Affairs for non-Christian Denominations, founded by Prince Golitsyn, which existed between 1810 and 1817 (subsequently it was unified with the newly formed Ministry of Spiritual Affairs and People’s Education).
Chapter IV, “From the Policy of Declarations to the Policy of Actions,” deals with the efforts of the state administration to construct a legal basis for the project of a multi-denominational Russian empire. Ideally, the legal framework was designed to provide the state with the tools for manipulation of religious life, and, consequently, serious contradictions pervaded the whole imperial religious project. The Jesuit Order was first used in education and then banned. Before the early 1820s Orthodox missionary efforts were frowned upon, but after that they received total support.
Vishlenkova explores in Chapter V the attempts of the state system to educate the clergy and to reform the theological education in accordance with the aims of this new religious policy. The author focuses in detail on the schools belonging to the various churches and religions (Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Muslim, and Jewish). She points out that introducing liberal Protestant or Enlightenment principles in education was opposed by the conservatives, who appealed for a return to bishop authority and upheld the irrevocability of the dogmas.
In respect to Vishlenkova’s recent works, it is worth mentioning a few terminological quibbles. In her previous books, she labeled the religious policy of Tsar Alexander I as “evangelism.” However, in the book reviewed, this unique Weltanschauung of the early 19th century Russian elite is treated as “ecumenism.” This term must be corrected because it was not Christian ecumenism in the modern sense as propagated by the World Council of Churches but a nation-wide movement aiming to unite all the religions and peoples on the basis of an ideology strongly tinged by Masonic concepts.
Vishlenkova inevitably touches upon various treatments of state-church relations in Russia. It is generally accepted that they followed the equality pattern (which is thought to be prevalent in medieval Bulgaria) and not the cesaropapism of Byzantium (P. 54). But in Bulgaria, where Byzantine models were widely copied, the Orthodox Church was always subservient to the state except when it took up union with the Roman curia (in 866-870, 1204-1235, and 1860-1861). An attempt to break the status quo was made by the renowned Patriarch Euthymius in the last quarter of the 14th century, who in his canonical epistles threatened the secular authorities with excommunication if they failed to toe the Orthodox line.
In my comments, however, I do not intend to detract from Vishlen-kova’s significant achievement. While paying a great deal of attention to the works of contemporaries and doing the objective study of historiography, she arrived at a sophisticated reconsideration of previous understandings of a unique epoch in Russian religious and secular history. The book itself is excellently produced and edited. It would be a worthwhile acquisition for any personal and public library specializing in the history of the Russian empire.