Reviewed by: The Tsar’s Foreign Faiths: Toleration and the Fate of Religious Freedom in Imperial Russia by Paul W. Werth Lucien J. Frary (bio) Paul W. Werth, The Tsar’s Foreign Faiths: Toleration and the Fate of Religious Freedom in Imperial Russia (Oxford University Press, 2014). xvi + 288 pp., ills. Bibliography. Index. ISBN: 978-0-19-959177-0. Over the past two decades, historians have been engaged in major reinterpretations of empires. Borderlands, shatter zones, grand strategies, nationalism, and ethnic integration are among the central topics of discussion.1 Recent research on European religious history has added to this debate by focusing on the social, economic, and political circumstances that promoted religious toleration as an element of state building.2 The resulting picture draws as much from political expediency as from the moral compositions [End Page 453] of philosophers. Since few states exhibited the same degree of religious diversity as Russia, a study of the Russian empire’s multiconfessional character constitutes a timely and important topic of research. Drawing on an impressive arsenal of sources (the bibliography lists fourteen archives in five countries), Paul Werth’s excellent new book synthesizes recent writing on religious toleration and applies these findings to the Russian milieu.3 Divided into nine chapters, the book chronicles the history of the Russian state’s interaction with various non-Orthodox religious groups, from Muscovite times to the eve of World War I. Balanced and meticulously organized, the book examines the evolution of Russian policy toward “foreign faiths,” which, the author suggests, is an important reason for the state’s longevity. In sum, through legislation and the codification of duties, the government and representatives of non-Orthodox confessions worked in unison to construct a religious order (Russia’s “multiconfessional establishment”) that framed the practice of faith and defined the limits of spiritual freedom. Whereas Orthodoxy retained its predominant role and foreign confessions experienced some restrictions, the regime granted significant rights to recognized religious groups and permitted them various forms of protection and patronage. This system enabled the integration of confessions, including Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Armenians, Muslims, and Buddhists, and strengthened the links between individual subjects and the state. The upshot was a relatively durable amalgam that endured the challenges of modernity into the twentieth century. Werth’s review of the historical foundations of religious toleration reminds scholars not to underestimate the pragmatism of Russia’s early modern elite. Whereas Muscovite practices segregated non-Orthodox believers from holy spaces and rituals, the leadership recognized [End Page 454] that tolerating foreigners helped introduce important skills into the country and that guaranteeing the immunity of local religions facilitated the integration of new populations. During the eighteenth century, as the Enlightenment engaged the educated elite, the idea of religious toleration took root as a “universal” ideal or positive concept and assisted the country’s modernization.4 Although full religious freedom remained elusive, Russian policy toward multiple faiths promoted a stable coexistence in a pluralistic environment. The acquisition of new territories (especially under Catherine II) prompted imperial officials to construct new institutions and laws (in part modeled on the state’s management of Orthodoxy) to administer non-Orthodox believers, incorporate the population, and minimize the likelihood of rebellion. By the early nineteenth century, a new entity called the Directorate for the Spiritual Affairs of Foreign Confessions, created by the reform-ist statesman Mikhail Speranskii (and later merged into the interior ministry), issued statutes and legislation designed to govern various confessions. Drawing on petitions and appeals from non-Orthodox representatives, Werth demonstrates how the regime used law as a tool of ordering religious life and how some foreign confessions recognized the benefits of codification and institutionalization. The state’s policy regarding the degree of independence enjoyed by non-Orthodox confessions evolved over time. Orthodox missionary pressure within Russia, apostasy, and the problem of schism within foreign religions created problems as well as opportunities for the state. The implications of conversions were ambiguous: depending on the circumstances, methods were employed to induce or coerce non-Christians to baptism; however, until the final years of the old regime, the state adamantly proscribed conversion from Christianity to any non-Christian faith. The evidence indicates that the...