Religious Tolerance in the Russian Empire’s Northwest Provinces

Abstract

Aleksandr Iur'evich Bendin, Problemy veroterpimosti v Severo-Zapadnom krae Rossiiskoi imperii (1863-1914) (Problems of Religious Tolerance in Northwest Territory of Russian Empire). 439 pp. Minsk: BGU, 2010. ISBN-13 978-9855184400. The Russian Empire was a tolerant state--within certain boundaries. As is well known, Orthodox Church held a position of special prominence and privilege, non-Christian religions were tolerated but hardly respected, and a number of Christian denominations of sects from Baptists to Old Believers were regarded with considerable suspicion by Russian officials. Then there was Catholic Church: inevitably identified with Polish nation, Jesuits, and disloyalty to St. Petersburg, its freedom of maneuver was greatly reduced after uprising of 1863. Robert lobaums statement that in this period, which lasted to end of Russian Empire, the Roman Catholic church was simply terrorized to submission, expresses a generally held conviction among both professional historians and general public in Poland and Lithuania. (1) A. Iu. Bendin explicitly and at length argues against this conception, countering that both before and after religion tolerance ukaz of 17 April 1905 Russian measures toward Catholicism in Northwest provinces were characterized by a reasonable desire to maintain public order, prevent ethno-religious strife, and protect Orthodox believers from aggressive Polonism. (2) This argument, based on an enormous amount of archival research, cannot be dismissed. Indeed, most historians would agree, I think, that Russian Empire was more interested in public order and stability than in proselytizing or crushing Catholic faith. (3) However, Bendin considerably weakens his case by concentrating entirely on Russian sources; his bibliography does not include a single title in any other language. He does cite, in two footnotes (21-22), some recent works by Darius Staliunas, Paul Werth, Mikhail Dolbilov, and others, but arguments of these historians are never considered, not even as a foil against which Bendin might argue. In end, Bendin's book is extremely useful as a reflection of mentality of Russian officialdom in post-1863 period. As a work of critical historical scholarship, however, work is quite unacceptable. This is unfortunate, because author's larger thesis--that late Russian Empire was characterized more by rule of law and religious toleration than by capricious repression and grinding pressure to force conversions to Orthodoxy--is very well taken. From time of Great Reforms (1860s-70s) even Russian conservatives recognized that a modern state could not be run simply by whim of an autocrat. At same time, however, logical next step--to discard or at least downplay assertions of tsar's unlimited power--was never taken, not even after 1905. In fact, as such causes celebres as Vera Zasulich trial showed, tsar and his bureaucracy could not simply do as they pleased--nor did they want to. There was both a genuine desire to stick to legal norms and a tendency to circumvent legal system by declaring various forms of martial law or (as in aftermath of Zasulich trial) by transferring irksome court trials away from civilian system. (4) Still, to return to western provinces, at times one still encounters a master narrative of dastardly Russian officials unrestrained by any laws or administrative rules conniving to Russify hapless Poles, Lithuanians, and others (official Russia regarded Belarusians and Ukrainians as legitimate objects of Russification). (5) This is not to say that no attempts were made at conversion, and, of course, if individuals were to embrace Russian culture fully and voluntarily, so much better from point of view of official Russia. The general attitude and policy, though, was deeply conservative, accepting of status quo and in this sense tolerant. …