Defender of Minorities: Paul Schiemann, 1876-1944 by John s> Hiden (review)

Abstract

344 SEER, 84, 2, 2oo6 principles'stance,his sustainedinsistenceon the need to 'ground'any contemporary problem or polemic in its broader theological and historicalcontext. His defence of the persecutedJews of I88osand I89osRussiawas consistently outspoken and brave, and he cared passionately for the flourishing of the Jewish people; nevertheless, argues de Courten, 'it seems that he blended Jewish messianic thought with the nineteenth-centuryphilosophicalhistorical conception of the historicmission of a nation, and applied this to the Russian empire, on whose soil Christiansociety had to be realised' (pp. 395-96). De Courten reinforcesthis point, saying:'In the end, his treatmentof theJewish question was instrumentaland he integratedsome aspects of it into his own agenda' (p. 398). It is this order of knowledge, detail and discernmentwhich puts de Courten'swork up among the most valuable studies of Solov'evnow availableto us. Without wishing in any way to minimize the scale of Dr de Courten's achievement, I should mention the extremely favourablemilieu and circumstances in which she carried out her doctoral research. The University of Nijmegen in the Netherlands(recentlyrenamed Radboud University)was the location of a large four-yearresearch project on 'Vladimir Solov'ev and the Values of Civil Society', devised by her supervisor, the philosopher Evert van der Zweerde. Participantsin the projectincluded the philosophersAnton Simons and Machiel Karskens(Nijmegen),FrancesNethercott (St Andrews), a leading British specialistin Russian intellectualhistory, Pauline Schrooyen (Nijmegen), Katarina Breckner (Hamburg)and Tatiana Kochetkova (Kiev). As she herself is the first to recognize, Manon de Courten had a singularly favourableworking environment. The sheer intellectualrigour and liveliness of her studycome as no surpriseto me and fit extremelywell with the quality of work that I have come to associate with the Philosophy Faculty at Nijmegen. Department ofRussianandSlavonic Studies JONATHANSUTTON University ofLeeds Hiden, John. Defenderof Minorities:Paul Schiemann, i876-I944. Hurst & Company, London, 2004. xii + 314 PP.Illustrations.Notes. Bibliography. Index. f20.00 (paperback). MINORITIES appear to have become the litmus test of the modern moral and political sensibilitiesof Europe. This applies to East-CentralEuropean countries and to the Baltic region better than to anything else. The Baltic States can hardly celebrate their best political traditionsas having sprungfrom the inter-warperiod yet, to their credit, they showed some respect and sensitivity to their minorities. At this point, the case of Lithuaniais instructive.In I9I8 Lithuaniagranted her Jewish minority cultural autonomy, an act that was nothing short of miraculous bearing in mind the political traditions of Eastern Europe. Although the miracle did not last long cultural autonomy was abolished aftera coup in I926 that resultedin Lithuania'sPresidentAntanas Smetona's REVIEWS 345 dismissalof Parliamentand the implementation of soft authoritarianrule Lithuaniadid not relapseinto humiliatingtreatmentof her historically-formed culturalcommunities. Whereas historical and modern Lithuania would be unthinkablewithout Jews, i.e. Litvaks, Russian Old Believers, Poles, Belarusians, Tatars and Karaims,it is impossibleto describeLatviaadequatelywithoutmentioningthe Baltic Germans who were always an important economic and culturalpresence . Some representativesof the Baltic minorities eagerly anticipated and supportedthe new turn in Baltic historythat occurredin I9I8 and resultedin the emergence of the Baltic States;others were less involved in the dramatic political clashes and conflictsof loyalty. In his new book John Hiden masterfullyportrays Paul Schiemann, an interwarLatvian-Germanpolitician and journalist whose profoundlyliberal, democratic and anti-totalitarianviews, along with his defence of minority rights,representedone of the high points in modern Latvia'shistory.Arguably one of the greatestEuropean defendersof the right to practise one's culture, Schiemann also appears to have been an insightful political commentator: 'Reflecting in June I922 on Lenin's illness and on how Bolshevism had replacedthe dominance of an aristocracyof birthwith an aristocracyof party, Schiemann predicted the system outlastingits leader with the phrase: "The Russia of Bucharin or Trotsky will doubtless remain the Russia of Lenin"' (p. 87).Moreover,a staunchdefenderof the independenceof the BalticStates, Schiemann had a well-informed attitude to Russia, and was sufficiently politicallyperceptiveto grasp,as earlyas 1922, Russia'sthreatto the futureof the Baltic States:'The independence of the Baltic statesand the maintenance of their democraticdevelopment is a preconditionfor any productivework in solving the Russian problem' (p. 87). In spite of his generous attitudeand unquestionableloyalty to independent Latvia, Schiemann clearly saw the shortcomingsand weaknessesof nationalism . He perfectlywell understoodthe vulnerablepoints of Baltic historythat made thisregion distinctfromWesternEuropein termsof identitypoliticsand...