Speaker 1: Welcomed Unobscured, a production of I Heart Radio and Aaron Minky.
Speaker 1: Our guest today is Dr Heather Coleman. Dr. Coleman is
Speaker 1: a historian of Russian religion whose research guides us back
Speaker 1: into Russia's past to see the importance of religion as
Speaker 1: a force for social change, and she comes at the
Speaker 1: topic from some surprising directions. For instance, take her book
Speaker 1: Russian Baptists and the Spiritual Revolution nineteen o five to
Speaker 1: nineteen twenty nine. When she learned that few historians had
Speaker 1: written about the importance of Russian Baptists during the rise
Speaker 1: of the Bolsheviks, she wrote the book herself. Ever since,
Speaker 1: Dr Coleman has focused her work on the stories that
Speaker 1: give life to Russian religious history. Her more recent collection
Speaker 1: is Orthodox Christianity in Imperial Russia, a source book on
Speaker 1: lived religion. It takes the perspective of people on the ground,
Speaker 1: helping us to understand how everyday Russian's connected to their church,
Speaker 1: their faith, and the powers at the hearts of the Empire.
Speaker 1: We love nothing better than the stories that give meaning
Speaker 1: to our lives. So Dr Coleman's focus on the ways
Speaker 1: that Christianity was experienced beyond the courts and palaces of
Speaker 1: the romanof Empire made her a perfect guide to the
Speaker 1: ins and outs of the church during the life of
Speaker 1: Grigory Rasputin. This is the Unobscured Interview series for season four.
Speaker 1: I'm Aaron Manky for Unobscured Podcast. I'm Karl Nlis and
Speaker 1: today I'm talking with Dr Heather Coleman, Professor of History
Speaker 1: at the University of Alberta. Dr Coleman is a historian
Speaker 1: of Russia. She has written extensively on religion and modernization
Speaker 1: in Russia and across the Russian Empire in the nine
Speaker 1: and twentieth centuries. For ten years, Dr Coleman served as
Speaker 1: editor of the Canadian Slavonic Papers, and she directs the
Speaker 1: program on Religion and Culture at the Canadian Institute of
Speaker 1: Ukrainian Studies. It's a privilege to be talking with Dr
Speaker 1: Coleman today, So Heather, welcome to Unobscured Podcast. Thank you
Speaker 1: for having me. I'm very excited to talk to you. Well,
Speaker 1: we're so glad to have you with us. Um, let's
Speaker 1: just start a little bit more about your work. Uh,
Speaker 1: in your words, you focused your scholarly work on religion
Speaker 1: in Russia. What originally brought you to this study. Well,
Speaker 1: I actually didn't think much about religion when I first
Speaker 1: started my graduate work. To be honest, in the nineteen eighties,
Speaker 1: when I was an undergraduate, religion was was not just
Speaker 1: treated as though it didn't matter in modern Russian history.
Speaker 1: It was quite simply not treated. I just it was
Speaker 1: just not really covered, and so I didn't really develop
Speaker 1: questions about it. I was interested in understanding how ordinary
Speaker 1: people experienced the utopianism of the nineteen twenties, the early
Speaker 1: Bolshevik period, a period when the Bolsheviks were driving to
Speaker 1: trying to sort of create a new were old and um.
Speaker 1: For my master's thesis, I was exploring their their programs
Speaker 1: for transforming women's lives. But in the newspapers of the
Speaker 1: nineteen twenties, I found the Bolsheviks very very anxious about
Speaker 1: the Baptists and and perceiving the Baptists as their competition
Speaker 1: for organizing women. Oh, look, the Baptists have a choir.
Speaker 1: Maybe we should have a choir. And I started to think, well, now,
Speaker 1: isn't that interesting. Maybe religion did matter, maybe it was
Speaker 1: a thing. And as I pursued my moved into my
Speaker 1: doctoral studies, I came back to this, this interesting observation,
Speaker 1: and I went into the library at the University of
Speaker 1: Illinois where I was doing my PhD. And by miracle,
Speaker 1: they had a full run of a nineteen twenties Baptist
Speaker 1: Ukrainian magazine, and I opened it up and there was
Speaker 1: lively public life, an organization that was that was experiencing
Speaker 1: a religious revival in the midst of early socialism, and
Speaker 1: I was fascinated. Um and so that was part of it.
Speaker 1: But it was also timing. This was the early post
Speaker 1: Soviet period, a period when there were all kinds of
Speaker 1: new archival opportunities, the archives that had been closed were
Speaker 1: opening up, But it was also a period of great
Speaker 1: religious revival. H And I think that we had a
Speaker 1: sense that that religion was an important factor in historical change, uh,
Speaker 1: something that historians in the in the sort of middle
Speaker 1: of the twentieth century had had tended to disregard. But
Speaker 1: we saw it, you know, in our own lives. We
Speaker 1: saw how religion was a lens through which individuals were
Speaker 1: making sense of the collapse of communism in Central and
Speaker 1: Eastern Europe. And so I think I think that um,
Speaker 1: there were both intellectual reasons and and and and reasons
Speaker 1: of timing that brought me to this. And my professor
Speaker 1: said to me when I said I wanted to do
Speaker 1: religious topic, oh, you'll have that phone booth to yourself.
Speaker 1: But when I got to the archives in in in
Speaker 1: in Russia, there were all kinds of graduate students who
Speaker 1: had all independently come to be interested in religious topics,
Speaker 1: and we'd all been told we'd be alone, and there
Speaker 1: we were together. And so I've been working on this
Speaker 1: ever since. Mhm wow, Well, and you focused on on
Speaker 1: those Baptists. Um, can you say maybe just a couple
Speaker 1: more words about how your work on the Baptist in
Speaker 1: that early beginning, how has it continued to inform your scholarship. Well, um, yeah,
Speaker 1: so I mean came to the topic through the nineteen twenties,
Speaker 1: but I then discovered that there was a whole pre
Speaker 1: revolutionary story that explained why they were such an issue
Speaker 1: in early Soviet Russia. Um. This the state church and
Speaker 1: the majority religion in Imperial Russia was the Orthodox Church,
Speaker 1: and Russia until nineteen o five was an autocracy with
Speaker 1: no constitution, no representative government. It was illegal to leave
Speaker 1: the Orthodox Church if you were orthodox um. And yet
Speaker 1: I I discovered through um my my research that in
Speaker 1: the last decades before the Revolution, the Baptist faith was
Speaker 1: rapidly spreading among ordinary people. Um. And These were people who,
Speaker 1: you know, government and church were used to thinking of
Speaker 1: as as sort of true and patriotic Russians. But these
Speaker 1: people were embracing a Western form of religion, one that
Speaker 1: had egalitarian communities that elected their own pastors. And and
Speaker 1: and so these people's private religious choices became a big
Speaker 1: public issue in late Imperial Russia. They became a touchstone
Speaker 1: for discussions about Orthodoxy and Russian identity, about the relationship
Speaker 1: between church and state, about freedom of conscience, about civil society,
Speaker 1: about the democratic potential of the Russian people, about socialism.
Speaker 1: And and I think that this, my work on religious sectarianism,
Speaker 1: continues to inform my scholarship because it it alerted me
Speaker 1: to the importance of religion in people's lives, the importance
Speaker 1: and in public discourse. Um. It brought to it brought
Speaker 1: me to an interest in Orthodoxy, which I have now
Speaker 1: been studying for many years, because it brought me to
Speaker 1: a realization that the church, which had been treated as
Speaker 1: sort of irrelevant and we'll talk more about this, but
Speaker 1: kind of dead um was was was not as dead
Speaker 1: as previously reported. Um. And and my interest in the
Speaker 1: relationship between religion and power in Russian state and society
Speaker 1: has been a thread that started with this work on
Speaker 1: the Baptists and has continued throughout my career. Mhmm, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's great. Can you, from that point tell us a
Speaker 1: bit more about what we know about the varieties of
Speaker 1: Christianity active across the massive Russian Empire in the late
Speaker 1: eighteen hundreds and early nineteen hundreds. You know, you say,
Speaker 1: the Orthodox Church, of course, was the state Church, the
Speaker 1: sanction church, um. But what were the varieties of Christianity
Speaker 1: in such a big and multivarious place. Yes, the word
Speaker 1: empire is key here, because, of course it's there was
Speaker 1: a huge variety of Christianity, in part due to huge
Speaker 1: ethnic variety. UM. As you just mentioned, the overwhelming majority
Speaker 1: of Christians were Orthodox Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Georgians, small communities
Speaker 1: of Greeks and Serbs who lived in the south. They
Speaker 1: were all traditionally Orthodox. But there were also um substantial
Speaker 1: numbers of Roman Catholics. We forget that that much of
Speaker 1: Poland was part of the Russian Empire in this period,
Speaker 1: and they were Catholic. U. Large numbers of Lutherans, especially
Speaker 1: in the in the northwest Finland what are what are
Speaker 1: now Estonia and Latvia were part of the Russian Empire. Uh.
Speaker 1: There were lots of Mennonites in the South Army the
Speaker 1: Armenian Apostolic Church. And then there were a wide variety
Speaker 1: of smaller groups that were care arized by the government
Speaker 1: of sects, so groups like the Duka Bors or the Molikons,
Speaker 1: the Old Believers, UM, Evangelical Christians of various sorts, especially
Speaker 1: the Baptists I just mentioned. So in addition to UM,
Speaker 1: Islam and Buddhism and many many other faiths, there was
Speaker 1: a huge variety of Christianity. Mm hmm. Could you say
Speaker 1: a few words about the role of print culture in
Speaker 1: changing the Russian experience of religion Broadley during the late
Speaker 1: Imperial period. Well, that's a good question to um. The
Speaker 1: late let's say, from from the middle from the eighteen sixties,
Speaker 1: when Russia began a period of profound reform and transformation
Speaker 1: UM and some loosening up of government control and censorship.
Speaker 1: In the eighteen sixties right up to the revolution. UM,
Speaker 1: you see a real transformation of the UH, an expansion
Speaker 1: of the press, but also a sharp rise in literacy rates. UM.
Speaker 1: And these work together, of course, UM. You know, there's
Speaker 1: this is a period of the great rise of the
Speaker 1: popular press more generally in in the world, due to
Speaker 1: technological change, but also to changing literacy rates. And certainly,
Speaker 1: for example, with the Great Reforms, you have the great
Speaker 1: expansion in public education and so UH. In you know,
Speaker 1: at the beginning of the Great Reforms, at the beginning
Speaker 1: of the eighteen sixties, perhaps six percent of the population
Speaker 1: in rural areas were was literate. But by nineteen seventeen, um,
Speaker 1: over you know, over of rural women and six of
Speaker 1: urban women were literate. And and those rates were quite
Speaker 1: a bit higher for men, especially for young men. So
Speaker 1: we have a great expansion of of um of literacy.
Speaker 1: But we also have the development of a mass circulation press. UM.
Speaker 1: This includes both UM sort of popular newspapers and and magazines,
Speaker 1: but also just a lot of short pamphlets and UH
Speaker 1: and and other very inexpensive print products that are circulating. UH.
Speaker 1: This is also a period of a great rise in
Speaker 1: the religious press. And this has a role, very very
Speaker 1: important role in religious life in two ways. UM. First,
Speaker 1: the the there's a rise in UH press that is
Speaker 1: published by the church for the church, and so there's
Speaker 1: a great flowing flowering of local diocesan newspapers and UH
Speaker 1: magazines aimed at UH at parish priests, helping them to
Speaker 1: preach better, to try new techniques, to organize their their
Speaker 1: their religious lives, of their communities better. But there's also
Speaker 1: a great rise of of magazines that are aimed at
Speaker 1: ordinary believers. UM, you know, with stories of of religious UH,
Speaker 1: people's religious experiences with explanation, you know, stories of people's pilgrimages,
Speaker 1: of people's miracles that people have experienced, with explanations of
Speaker 1: Bible stories and so on. Lives of the Saints in
Speaker 1: cheap editions. Also UM. In the in eighteen sixty two,
Speaker 1: the the first Russian translations of the Gospel into ordinary
Speaker 1: spoken Russian in cheap editions became available and these were
Speaker 1: widely distributed through the church networks in the beginning in
Speaker 1: the sixties and right through until the Revolution, and the
Speaker 1: Orthodox Church emphasized putting the Bible in people's hands, and
Speaker 1: so UH there's a great distribution of the Bible. And
Speaker 1: what's important about this is that even though literacy rates
Speaker 1: remained low compared to many of Russia's European competitors, uh,
Speaker 1: they're still pretty good among young people and increasingly good
Speaker 1: among young people. And that and that meant that people
Speaker 1: who couldn't read still had access to this print culture.
Speaker 1: Because people who could read read to their their elders,
Speaker 1: read to their grandparents, it's read to their families and
Speaker 1: so Uh. This print culture allows the diffusion of common
Speaker 1: ideas and stories. It makes people more aware of, um,
Speaker 1: you know, places they might go on pilgrimage and and
Speaker 1: and better familiar with the Bible and with the stories
Speaker 1: of the saints and so on. Mm hmm. Thinking about
Speaker 1: that expanse of the Russian Empire, are there distinct regional
Speaker 1: differences in Russian religion, say east and west of the Urals? Yes,
Speaker 1: so the Urals are the traditional dividing line between European
Speaker 1: and Asian Russia. Um. I think the the answer is yes. Um,
Speaker 1: there's still we still actually have a lot of work
Speaker 1: to do precisely on this topic of the varieties of
Speaker 1: orthodox see um. But I certainly can say a few
Speaker 1: words now, I mean regional variety was actually, of course normal. Um,
Speaker 1: it's really all across Europe in the nineteenth century. Modernization
Speaker 1: means leads to churches to seek a kind of a uniformity,
Speaker 1: and modern communications helped to promote uniformity. But religion all
Speaker 1: across Europe remained very much regional and even local um
Speaker 1: in its variations. So UM, local areas will have preferred
Speaker 1: preferred saints, they will have UM hymns that they love,
Speaker 1: you know, they'll have local traditions. Um. Certainly, I would
Speaker 1: say that Russian religion was different east of the Urals. Um.
Speaker 1: In in Siberia, Um you have um much more old belief,
Speaker 1: much more religious sectarianism, because um, the area east of
Speaker 1: the Earls was was a place where where where religious
Speaker 1: dissenters fled in the early modern period to get away
Speaker 1: from the power of the state, before state communications became better. Um,
Speaker 1: you have of course Islam, which uh, which Christianity encounters
Speaker 1: east of the Earls, and south of the Earls, Um
Speaker 1: you have indigenous religion in its great variety. East of
Speaker 1: the Earls. Um there's a kind of a frontier atmosphere.
Speaker 1: The official church infrastructure was much less developed. We shouldn't
Speaker 1: exaggerate this. In in western Siberia we have ancient diocese
Speaker 1: to boys quotsk and so on, but are not even
Speaker 1: your quotes to boys. Um. But but there's there's very
Speaker 1: little by way of seminary education and and so on.
Speaker 1: So so certainly um, there is much more Uh, the
Speaker 1: church has much more trouble um regulating religious practice just
Speaker 1: because of distances and variety east of the earls. M
Speaker 1: In the introduction to Orthodox Christianity and Imperial Russia, that
Speaker 1: that really helpful source book that you edited and and
Speaker 1: that you that you wrote the introduction for. You make
Speaker 1: a few comments about the idea of dual faith, which
Speaker 1: is that Russian peasant Christianity was a kind of thin
Speaker 1: veneer over fundamentally pagan beliefs that the peasants somehow had um.
Speaker 1: And while you know that this was a convenient simplification
Speaker 1: for Soviet writers, could you say, if you words on
Speaker 1: the distinctions between the religion practiced by church authorities and
Speaker 1: popular religion as it was practiced by people, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe it's not a thin veneer over fundamentally pagan beliefs,
Speaker 1: and you know, maybe that's the wrong way to simplify it.
Speaker 1: But if we're talking about maybe Siberian Christianity versus what's
Speaker 1: going on in St. Petersburg, how do we how do
Speaker 1: we see differences between the religion of the church authorities
Speaker 1: and popular religion. Yeah, this is something that you know,
Speaker 1: my generation of scholars has been really trying to think
Speaker 1: in new ways about Uh. This notion of dual dual
Speaker 1: faith is somewhat problem problematic, but we can we can.
Speaker 1: We can also, of course say that religion is um
Speaker 1: is certainly going to be different in different social classes
Speaker 1: and different ethnic groups and different regions. And and UM.
Speaker 1: I think that what what my generation has perhaps UM
Speaker 1: as exemplified in that Orthodox Christianity and Imperial Russia book
Speaker 1: has has has sort of combat It is a view
Speaker 1: that that just because um, uh say, lower class groups
Speaker 1: do things differently from what the Church might prescribe, we
Speaker 1: shouldn't necessarily jump to the conclusion that this is pagan
Speaker 1: and and uh sort of um anti clerical. But because
Speaker 1: usually the the um the people who are doing these
Speaker 1: things believe what they are doing to be truly Christian
Speaker 1: and are not doing this in any sense of opposition. UM.
Speaker 1: Certainly ordinary people, peasants, lower class people, in the cities
Speaker 1: often did things differently from how the priests would have
Speaker 1: liked them to do things. So, for example, UM popular
Speaker 1: religion was was certainly much more UM local, much more experiential,
Speaker 1: much more oral. Uh. They people would would perhaps um
Speaker 1: uh say prayers and get some of the words wrong,
Speaker 1: and and then understand the reason for those prayers differently
Speaker 1: because they had not understood all of the words. UM.
Speaker 1: They had local sites of pilgrimage that were that that
Speaker 1: that UM, we're not unnecessarily approved by the powers that
Speaker 1: be UM. They would uh local local UM. Local communities
Speaker 1: would often have UM, for example, icons that they regarded
Speaker 1: as miraculous UM and that had not been officially approved.
Speaker 1: And it's quite interesting because the priests would be in
Speaker 1: a funny position with many of these local practices because
Speaker 1: on one on the one level, priests were supposed to
Speaker 1: ensure sort of Orthodox orthodoxy, you know, to make sure
Speaker 1: that people were doing things right UM. At the same time,
Speaker 1: the priests were members of the local community, and they
Speaker 1: they they they appreciated their their their parishioners faithfulness, and
Speaker 1: they appreciated their parishioners involvement, and so they had to
Speaker 1: walk a fine line between correcting and supporting the religion
Speaker 1: pocity of their parishioners. Would you describe the place of
Speaker 1: relics in Russian Orthodoxy? And if we want to get
Speaker 1: a little kind of theological you know what that says
Speaker 1: about Orthodox theology maybe of the body or um, of
Speaker 1: whether the material world is somehow redeemable. What's going on
Speaker 1: with relics in the in the Russian church? Um, well,
Speaker 1: thanks for the that's a good question. Um. This gets
Speaker 1: to the heart actually of orthodox theology. Um. The doctrine
Speaker 1: of the incarnation, the notion that God became fully human
Speaker 1: in the form of Jesus Christ and yet remained fully
Speaker 1: God at the same time, is at the heart of Christianity,
Speaker 1: and it's particularly at the center of Orthodox spiritual practice. Um.
Speaker 1: So the aim of a Christian life is to preserve
Speaker 1: and intensify the union between God and humans that that
Speaker 1: God exemplified by becoming a man in Jesus Christ. And
Speaker 1: and um, the the the what's the word? Sorry? The
Speaker 1: the sorry, the it's not worshiping the sorry. I'm having
Speaker 1: a blank here. I'll try this again. The relics of
Speaker 1: the saints play an important role in this sort of
Speaker 1: incarnational theology and this incarnational spirituality. Uh the relics of
Speaker 1: saints are are perceived as um as a reminder that
Speaker 1: God took a material body and that by doing that,
Speaker 1: God proved that matter could be redeemed and so um.
Speaker 1: There there is a uh An Orthodox tradition it's not
Speaker 1: a dogma, but a tradition that um that the bodies
Speaker 1: of of saints will not corrupt, that they are incorruptible
Speaker 1: and um and that they're miraculously preserved from decay. And
Speaker 1: so in many monasteries there are the the uncorrupted remains
Speaker 1: of various saints, and people will come on pilgrimage to
Speaker 1: pray before these these relics um and you know, and
Speaker 1: and sermons and magazines at the time would explain that
Speaker 1: that that these incorruptible bodies of God's saints were God's
Speaker 1: way of showing people that they too participated in in
Speaker 1: this connection between God and and humans, that their own
Speaker 1: bodies would be resurrected at the end of time. That
Speaker 1: that and that Orthodox truth was was sort of shown
Speaker 1: through these bodies, and so people would come to pray
Speaker 1: before the relics as um as channels of divine power
Speaker 1: as as ways to to focus on the lives of
Speaker 1: those saints and the the the the realities of the incarnation.
Speaker 1: This is this is a kind of a related question
Speaker 1: and not in my list, But I was talking with
Speaker 1: the theologian that I'm working with, who's who's researching the program,
Speaker 1: and we we've kind of been wondering, how influential do
Speaker 1: you do you know how influential St. Simme and the
Speaker 1: New Theologian was on Russian monasticism in this period. I don't,
Speaker 1: I don't know. Okay, that's that's all right, that's right.
Speaker 1: You know, of course we're headed towards Resputin, and Rasputin
Speaker 1: seems to have taken the teachings of St. Simmean, the
Speaker 1: New Theologian and the the Relic as a means of
Speaker 1: connecting with God and veneration, devotion and taking that onto
Speaker 1: him onto himself. And you know, maybe in a distortion
Speaker 1: or an idiosyncratic way of interpreting um that the living
Speaker 1: body of Rasputin the teacher should be treated as a
Speaker 1: relic or the way that a dead relic would be. Um. Well, this,
Speaker 1: I mean this, this does connect into the the Orthodox.
Speaker 1: This is a distortion of of a broader Orthodox theology
Speaker 1: of of um the image and UM. You know that
Speaker 1: that Orthodoxy is um is a much more has a
Speaker 1: much more well developed theology of the material then Western
Speaker 1: Christianity does. And um Uh Orthodoxy UM believes that we
Speaker 1: I mean, as as do other Christians, that humans are
Speaker 1: are are made in the image of God, and so
Speaker 1: Jesus is an icon uh an image of God. But
Speaker 1: so is each person and and that are that our
Speaker 1: our our goal in life are our salvation entails becoming
Speaker 1: uh that that perfect image of God. Um. Salvation involves
Speaker 1: connecting with the holy energies that are around us and
Speaker 1: aligning our behavior and our minds and our spirits with
Speaker 1: with those holy energies in order to fully realize this,
Speaker 1: this incarnation, this this this um, the fact that we
Speaker 1: are created in the image of God and so and
Speaker 1: so you know when Resputin is doing this, he's drawing
Speaker 1: on UM. He's drawing on important ideas that are at
Speaker 1: the heart of Orthodox spirituality. That's great, UM, so kind
Speaker 1: of climbing back into our our questions and our outline. Here,
Speaker 1: would you give us a brief description of what is
Speaker 1: meant by Old believers in Russia at this period. Oh sure,
Speaker 1: so the Old Believers were quite a large group of
Speaker 1: of Orthodox people who were in schism with the main
Speaker 1: Orthodox Church. Back in the seventeenth century, the official Orthodox
Speaker 1: Church began to to modernize and began to reform and
Speaker 1: try to standardize religious practice. And as it did so,
Speaker 1: it um it discovered that Russian practice had begun to
Speaker 1: differ from that of the Greeks. Um. The Orthodox faith
Speaker 1: had originally come from from the Greeks and Uh. The
Speaker 1: leaders of the church at this time UH, as they
Speaker 1: were standardizing, tended to standardize in ways that that followed
Speaker 1: the ways that the Greeks did things um. And this
Speaker 1: was very upsetting to many Orthodox believers because as I
Speaker 1: as I just mentioned um right Orthodox he means right
Speaker 1: practice and the physical practice, the way that one worships,
Speaker 1: is considered to be critical to reaching salvation. And Russia
Speaker 1: had had traditionally crossed themselves with two fingers um uh and,
Speaker 1: which is a symbol of the incarnation, but the Greeks
Speaker 1: crossed themselves with three fingers, a symbol of the Trinity,
Speaker 1: another important doctrine um and uh and when the when
Speaker 1: the church began to correct the ways in which believers worshiped. UH.
Speaker 1: There was a whole element who, for example, resisted crossing
Speaker 1: themselves with three fingers because they really believed that that
Speaker 1: if they practiced wrong, that they that their salvation was
Speaker 1: in jeopardy. UM. There were many UH, there were many
Speaker 1: issues connected to the the emergence of the Old Believers.
Speaker 1: But at the center of it was this this dispute
Speaker 1: about religious authority and and about and about wrecked practice.
Speaker 1: And so in the late seventeenth century you have large
Speaker 1: numbers of people who left the church UH and became
Speaker 1: known dubbed as the old Believers. UM. And they UH
Speaker 1: and and the old Believers continued UM. Right, well, there
Speaker 1: are still old Believers today. UM. But it was illegal
Speaker 1: to be an old Believer, and so many of them
Speaker 1: fled to Siberia and to the farther reaches of the Empire. UM.
Speaker 1: And and they were they became gradually more and more
Speaker 1: tolerated in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. UM. But
Speaker 1: but they were. But they were the The Orthodox Church
Speaker 1: consistently UM wanted to bring them back into the fold,
Speaker 1: and so they were considered a problem from the perspective
Speaker 1: of the official Orthodox Church. Speaking of groups that are
Speaker 1: treated as a problem. Could you described the Chlisti for
Speaker 1: us uh the last the well Um the Klisti Um
Speaker 1: started life as a group called the Um, the Christovchina
Speaker 1: or the Christova Viera, which means the faith of Christ
Speaker 1: or or God's People UM. This was a Russian religious
Speaker 1: movement that that really began life in the late seventeenth
Speaker 1: century out of the as a branch of the Old
Speaker 1: belief And like certain other branches of the Old belief,
Speaker 1: the the Christochina demanded celibacy from its adherents and Um
Speaker 1: they had they had. They didn't have different doctrines or
Speaker 1: any sort of systematic doctrine. These were groups of believers
Speaker 1: who met together regularly at night for long prayer meetings
Speaker 1: where they would see spiritual verses and church hymns and
Speaker 1: recite the Jesus Prayer, a central Orthodox prayer UM, that
Speaker 1: is is recited in a meditative format. Lord Jesus, Christ,
Speaker 1: Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner, and
Speaker 1: you recite it over and over UM. And these meetings
Speaker 1: UM UH would the goal was to have the Holy
Speaker 1: Spirit descend on certain of the members UH. These leaders,
Speaker 1: who were known as Christ's or as mothers of God.
Speaker 1: And then and then they would dance, and they would
Speaker 1: prophesy um. At the same time, these people would faithfully
Speaker 1: attend the official Orthodox Church and fulfill their obligations in
Speaker 1: the official Orthodox Church. Some of them even entered convents
Speaker 1: and monasteries. But and so, But very early their enemies
Speaker 1: started calling them uh Christi or Christ's but clisti, which
Speaker 1: means a whip or flagolence. Um. They were accused of
Speaker 1: sexual immorality, of having orgies. Um. The American historian Eugene
Speaker 1: Clay has shown that there wasn't fact, there is in
Speaker 1: fact no evidence of this and um that you know
Speaker 1: already in the early eighteenth century, the term clisti really
Speaker 1: doesn't have any any meaning. It's it's it's applied to
Speaker 1: a whole range of unrelated sort of charismatic religious movements. Um.
Speaker 1: There's no religious group that claims to be clisti. Um.
Speaker 1: There are certainly some evidence of networks of these charismatic groups,
Speaker 1: but they saw themselves as being within Orthodoxy. Mm hm.
Speaker 1: Would you say a bit about why Baptist faith in
Speaker 1: Russia was considered German or foreign? Yeah, well, that's a
Speaker 1: that's a good question. UM. Not not so surprising about
Speaker 1: the foreign bit, but certainly about the German bit, because
Speaker 1: those who know the history of the Baptist Faith know
Speaker 1: that it it's an English phenomenon originally, UM. But it's
Speaker 1: the Baptist Faith spread into the German Lands in the
Speaker 1: early nineteenth century and UM and UH through sort of
Speaker 1: pious networks and so on, and and then UM by
Speaker 1: the eighteen forties and fifties, it's spread into the Russian
Speaker 1: Empire through the many, many, many German UH colonies of
Speaker 1: people living within the Russian Empire. So there were there
Speaker 1: were German communities spread throughout Poland, which was adjacent to
Speaker 1: the German Lands. There were German speaking communities all across
Speaker 1: the south of the Empire what is now Ukraine, UM,
Speaker 1: who had been invited to come and and develop agricultural
Speaker 1: communities and so on in the empire. UM. And there's
Speaker 1: of course German speakers in the Baltic provinces and and
Speaker 1: so the Baptist Faith came through those German networks into
Speaker 1: the Russian Empire and developed first among ethnic Germans UM
Speaker 1: in the cities and in the countryside, and then UM
Speaker 1: local Russians and Ukrainians who were in contact with these
Speaker 1: Germans sometimes became attracted to UH, to the sort of
Speaker 1: revivalist hymn singing meetings and started started joining them. And
Speaker 1: the Baptist faith began to spread among Russians and Ukrainians
Speaker 1: in the Empire, but it was considered to be sort
Speaker 1: of a foreign thing because it was because to be
Speaker 1: Russian was to be Orthodox. Mm hmm. Could you say
Speaker 1: a little bit more about that? How how did the
Speaker 1: Orthodox Church relate not just to the Baptists but also
Speaker 1: to the Old Believers and these other devotional movements, charismatic movements.
Speaker 1: Is there a way to kind of crystallize and articulate
Speaker 1: how the church authorities related to sects and sectarianism in
Speaker 1: the eighteen nineties and the early nine hundreds. Well, um
Speaker 1: so in the in the eighteen nineties, the in large
Speaker 1: part from through pressure from the Orthodox Church, the state
Speaker 1: had a system of classifying the danger of various what
Speaker 1: it called religious sects and um and they were They
Speaker 1: were classified as more or less dangerous based on their
Speaker 1: um on on a couple of on their distance from Orthodoxy,
Speaker 1: on their UH evangelicalism with a small e. In other words,
Speaker 1: whether they were sort of proselytizing or not, and then
Speaker 1: on their on their um sort of moral stance. And
Speaker 1: so the Policeti are are classified as as most dangerous
Speaker 1: because they are also allegedly uh you know, self flagellating
Speaker 1: and sexually dangerous and and so on, even if they
Speaker 1: were in fact also somewhat imaginary. Um. And the Baptists
Speaker 1: are classified as in the most dangerous category because they
Speaker 1: were very big on proselytization. Um. So. So there's a state,
Speaker 1: a state and church structure that are related. But in
Speaker 1: the eighteen nineties and early nineteen hundred's, the Orthodox Church
Speaker 1: also had very active missions to bring all of these
Speaker 1: groups what they called internal missions that were aimed at
Speaker 1: bringing all of these groups that that had Russian ethnic
Speaker 1: Russian believers back to the church um. And so there
Speaker 1: were separate the the old Believers were perceived as as
Speaker 1: their own sort of category, and there were separate mission
Speaker 1: missions to the old believers and then to the various
Speaker 1: religious quote unquote sects and uh so the so so
Speaker 1: there was and and and the church was very worried. Um.
Speaker 1: It did not want the state to to to tolerate
Speaker 1: these these sex and it and it encouraged a perception
Speaker 1: that that religious descent was connected to political dissent, and
Speaker 1: that if you were not faithful to the state church,
Speaker 1: how could you be faithful to the state. So on
Speaker 1: the Russian church and state. Would you give us a
Speaker 1: sketch of the structures of authority within the Russian Orthodox Church? Uh?
Speaker 1: Maybe starting with Peter the Great, how his reign created
Speaker 1: what you write is a major realignment in church and
Speaker 1: state relations. What happened there? And then what does authority
Speaker 1: look like with church and state towards the end of
Speaker 1: the Russian Empire? Mm hmm, Well, this is, of course,
Speaker 1: this question of church and state is a huge one.
Speaker 1: Um the uh so, Oh sorry, I don't even know
Speaker 1: where to start. Sorry, let's just get myself together here. Um. Yeah, So,
Speaker 1: the the relationship between church and state is usually seen
Speaker 1: as having been fundamentally reordered under Peter the Great in
Speaker 1: the early eighteenth century. UM. In the seventeenth century, the
Speaker 1: Russian Orthodox Church was what is known as an autocephalis,
Speaker 1: or self governing independent Orthodox church, and it had, as
Speaker 1: autos Cephalish churches do, a patriarch a UM. The the
Speaker 1: top person in the church was um was called the
Speaker 1: patriarch and UM. The There was already a lot of
Speaker 1: tension between church and state in the seventeenth century, precisely
Speaker 1: over the Old Believer reforms, the reforms that led to
Speaker 1: the development of the Old Believer schism UM. When the
Speaker 1: when the Church, the states stepped in and sort of
Speaker 1: UH legislated on the schism and said that the church
Speaker 1: was right, but that the patriarch who had instituted them
Speaker 1: UH needed to go UM. So the church was already
Speaker 1: weakened by the late seventeenth century visa VI the state UM.
Speaker 1: But in seventeen hundred, when the patriarch died, Peter the
Speaker 1: Great didn't UM, didn't organize UH the appointment of a
Speaker 1: new patriarch and just left the office empty. And then
Speaker 1: in seventeen twenty one he introduced a new body to
Speaker 1: replace to formally abolish the patriarchate and UH, and he
Speaker 1: replaced it with a council of bishops known as the
Speaker 1: Holy Senate and UH. This council of Bishops UH, starting
Speaker 1: the following year in seventeen twenty two, was supervised by
Speaker 1: a state official known as the over Procurator, who was
Speaker 1: meant to be the eyes and ears of the monarch
Speaker 1: in the Senate. This was later considered to be a
Speaker 1: real sort of revolution against the traditional form of management
Speaker 1: of the Orthodox Church, but also a diminution of the
Speaker 1: Orthodox Church because the the Council of Bishops is was
Speaker 1: although although it is incorrect as it is often stated
Speaker 1: to suggest that it became a simply a department of
Speaker 1: the state, the Holy Synod was was not the sort
Speaker 1: of a parallel monarch the way that the patriarch had
Speaker 1: been a parallel monarch of this church to the monarch
Speaker 1: in the state. Um. And throughout the throughout the eighteenth century,
Speaker 1: the over procurator had relatively little power. But in the
Speaker 1: nineteenth century we have a series of over procurators of
Speaker 1: these general directors of the Senate who uh, who become
Speaker 1: interested in religion and who interfere, and who who frustrate
Speaker 1: the bishops by by by by interfering and by by
Speaker 1: trying to introduce um use the church for the state's purposes.
Speaker 1: And so there was there was considerable tension in that system. Um. Yes,
Speaker 1: I guess the only other thing I would say about
Speaker 1: structures of authority within the Orthodox Churches that that I
Speaker 1: should have mentioned at the beginning is that the the
Speaker 1: the the the um, the bishops, the the the hierarchy
Speaker 1: of the church are all monastics. They're all monks and
Speaker 1: uh they preside over UH. In order to rise in
Speaker 1: the church, you have to be a monk uh and
Speaker 1: may preside over a church that is has a secular
Speaker 1: clergy known as the white clergy, which are who are
Speaker 1: who are the parish priests. But the parish priests cannot
Speaker 1: rise into the hierarchy unless they take monastic vows. So
Speaker 1: the structures are quite complex. Um in that respect, would
Speaker 1: you say a little bit more about that difference between
Speaker 1: the monastic clergy and the parish clergy at this point?
Speaker 1: How are their lives different? Sure? So these are two
Speaker 1: the two big categories, the monastic clergy known as the
Speaker 1: black clergy, and the parish clergy sometimes known as the
Speaker 1: white clergy. UM. The monastic clergy is divided into subdivided
Speaker 1: within itself into other categories um. The monastic clergy, the
Speaker 1: the the elite of the monastic clergy, the the the
Speaker 1: abbots of monasteries, the the diocesan hierarchs, the bishops um
Speaker 1: are are all part of what it what was a
Speaker 1: sort of a learned um uh monasticism. These were These
Speaker 1: were monks who who trained in the theological academies and
Speaker 1: who who became monks on the on the road to
Speaker 1: their rise through the church as as as I say,
Speaker 1: rectors of seminaries and and bishops of provinces and dioces,
Speaker 1: dioces and so on. Uh. Then there was a broader
Speaker 1: um set of monks who were more or less educated
Speaker 1: um and who who um were were um were lived
Speaker 1: a much more reclusive monastic life um. And then there
Speaker 1: were also female monastics as well, nuns. UM. On the
Speaker 1: white clergy or parish clergy side, we have a very
Speaker 1: very different story, very interesting situation. The monastic sorry, the
Speaker 1: parish clergy were a uh largely almost an almost a cast. Uh.
Speaker 1: They were a married clergy. So they like like you
Speaker 1: know Anglican or um or you know Lutheran pastors. They
Speaker 1: they had families, um. They but they're but the children
Speaker 1: of parish priests became themselves parish priests. They were educated
Speaker 1: within uh. The church had a separate system of education
Speaker 1: for clergy children, and clergy daughters tended to marry clergyman's
Speaker 1: sons and uh and and they would they would become
Speaker 1: priests and priests wives, just like their parents had been
Speaker 1: before them. Uh. The parish clergy were increasingly well educated. Um.
Speaker 1: The in the eighteenth century you have a bunch of
Speaker 1: reforming bishops who who are instituting seminary education throughout the empire,
Speaker 1: and by the by the eighteen thirties or forties, that's
Speaker 1: become pretty much universal. Um, seminary education. Um. So the parish,
Speaker 1: the parish clergy were quite quite well educated. Um. And Uh,
Speaker 1: they live they live very isolated lives in the village
Speaker 1: where they are often the only educated people. And so
Speaker 1: their families we were very Um they were at once
Speaker 1: connected to the village. There part of village life, and
Speaker 1: they're separate because the children go off to these these
Speaker 1: boarding schools in the provincial capitals to be educated and
Speaker 1: and and and they they they come back to the
Speaker 1: village with with with an urban culture that that that
Speaker 1: is not shared with the villagers. So they're kind of um,
Speaker 1: they're kind of monkeys in the middle the the the
Speaker 1: the bishops usually had come from clerical families, UM, so
Speaker 1: they know that culture. But they but they lived very
Speaker 1: different lives from the parish priests who who had to
Speaker 1: be UM had to be supported by their local communities
Speaker 1: and thus had a sometimes tricky relationship with their local communities.
Speaker 1: How did the Great Reforms of the eighteen sixties change
Speaker 1: Russian religious life? How was the church affected by that
Speaker 1: period of of change the Great reforms? Yeah, so the
Speaker 1: Great reforms of the eighteen sixties, Uh, you know, the
Speaker 1: the the reforms that follow from the emancipation of the
Speaker 1: serfs in eighteen sixty one were the part of this.
Speaker 1: There was a there was a profound reform of the
Speaker 1: church that accompanied this. UM efforts to to to to
Speaker 1: to modernize the church, to to make the make the parish,
Speaker 1: to to to make the parish clergy more vocational and
Speaker 1: less inherited as a as a as a profession, UM,
Speaker 1: to free up the children of parish clergy, to to
Speaker 1: to leave the clerical state and work in other areas
Speaker 1: of society, UM, and so on. So on one level,
Speaker 1: we have UM this this this sort of shake up
Speaker 1: in the organization and of the church and efforts to UH,
Speaker 1: efforts to allow clerical children to to to move out
Speaker 1: into the broader world, and that actually had a profound
Speaker 1: effect on on education in the Russian Empire. Which was
Speaker 1: booming in this period because many of those those UM
Speaker 1: clergy sons and daughters go into the education field and
Speaker 1: and bring with them the values of their of their UH,
Speaker 1: their their their priest kids. You know, they bring those
Speaker 1: values of of of of of their families into the
Speaker 1: Russian broader Russian society. UM. It's also a period UM
Speaker 1: when when the Church, like all other organizations, is participating
Speaker 1: in education in UM UH the the the expanded communications world,
Speaker 1: and is trying to trying to popularize and standardize religion UM,
Speaker 1: to organize brotherhoods and other ways of of enlivening the
Speaker 1: life of the laity in the church and making lay
Speaker 1: practice more more knowledgeable and more UM more active. UM.
Speaker 1: And so the eighteen sixties UM that that spirit, that
Speaker 1: sort of populism with a small p of the eighteen sixties,
Speaker 1: that that desire to reach out to the people and
Speaker 1: to lift the people really animates many priests vision of
Speaker 1: their ministry, and priests UM who had previously put great
Speaker 1: emphasis on their their liturgical function, their their role as
Speaker 1: ritual specialists. Although that although ritual remains profoundly important to
Speaker 1: Orthodox spirituality, UH priests really adopt a very very pastoral,
Speaker 1: educational uh kind of self image from the eighteen sixties onward,
Speaker 1: and so uh and so we see the really the
Speaker 1: rise of of of regular sermon giving and all all
Speaker 1: kinds of interest in organizing oh say um uh anti
Speaker 1: drinking circles in the parishes and Bible study groups and
Speaker 1: these sorts of things. So I think that the Great
Speaker 1: Reforms did have a real impact on Russian religious life.
Speaker 1: The final way I would say is that the Great
Speaker 1: Reforms are saw the beginning of the movement of some
Speaker 1: peasants out of the villages. That you have the beginning
Speaker 1: of industrialization, you have a lot of migrant workers and um,
Speaker 1: people are less tied to the village than they had
Speaker 1: been before UM. And and so that all of that
Speaker 1: movement and uh exposes people to new kinds of ideas,
Speaker 1: and that can be quite um uh for the church.
Speaker 1: That's a real challenge and and and the churches is
Speaker 1: very worried about um how how peasants are are are
Speaker 1: are are no longer fully rooted in the village, and
Speaker 1: and they fear that peasants will encounter such such dangerous
Speaker 1: things as as the Baptists or or the alisty. You've
Speaker 1: also written that the eighteen hundreds is a time when
Speaker 1: the percentage of people in monasteries shifts towards women. M
Speaker 1: What was driving that change? Why why were more women
Speaker 1: going into the monasteries during the eighteen hundreds. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: that's also very interesting, and it's it's actually not just women.
Speaker 1: UM the there there is overall just a boom in
Speaker 1: monasticism in the nineteenth century um and and there's no
Speaker 1: question that it's a disproportionate boom for for women. UM.
Speaker 1: In the eighteenth century, the Russians church and state UM
Speaker 1: like like other UM in other in Catholic Europe as well,
Speaker 1: was quite anti monastic and um and there was a
Speaker 1: real push to to too closed down most monasteries by
Speaker 1: the late eighteenth century um and and UM monasteries had
Speaker 1: been had had had largely operated in cities before that,
Speaker 1: and they and basically to join a monastery you had
Speaker 1: to sort of have your own money, You had to
Speaker 1: be able to pay for yourself to come and be
Speaker 1: in the monastery. And there's a shift towards a more
Speaker 1: communal model of monasticism in the early nineteenth century. Uh
Speaker 1: And there's a and the state becomes and the Church
Speaker 1: become more positive about monasticism in the early nineteenth century,
Speaker 1: and that allowed for ordinary people to join these uh,
Speaker 1: these these convents and monasteries when there was a collectivist
Speaker 1: model where you where the monastery itself became an economic unit,
Speaker 1: and and and the monks or the nuns worked together
Speaker 1: to farm or or produce artisanal things, to say, to
Speaker 1: pay for their way, or they had patrons. And the
Speaker 1: monasteries also moved out into the countryside. And and so
Speaker 1: both men monasteries and women's monasteries UH saw a huge
Speaker 1: influx of peasants and lower urban people from the lower
Speaker 1: urban classes who who could now join these monasteries. And
Speaker 1: and most of these monasteries new monasteries were also in
Speaker 1: the countryside, so they're more easily accessible. Um. It's actually
Speaker 1: fairly hard for us to get at UH. We have
Speaker 1: very few personal documents to give us insight into these
Speaker 1: very ordinary people's goals and what attracted them. But what
Speaker 1: we see is a combination of religious and personal and
Speaker 1: emotional benefits that that um, that people got from going
Speaker 1: to these monasteries. And we know that these women's monasteries
Speaker 1: in particular tended to start as informal lay communities that
Speaker 1: could could exist for years and years, and they were
Speaker 1: they were. This seems to have been a socially acceptable
Speaker 1: way for peasant women who wanted to serve God who
Speaker 1: who who didn't want to participate in uh the the
Speaker 1: the the the the sort of obligatory marriage and family
Speaker 1: uh and agricultural life that most peasant women participated in.
Speaker 1: And these communities often were supported by local communities and
Speaker 1: perceived as as as acceptable and and um and and
Speaker 1: places that that women who had a different sort of
Speaker 1: spiritual calling could could go. And then gradually UH these
Speaker 1: um these informal communities would become formalized and be become
Speaker 1: part of the of the the monastic system of the church.
Speaker 1: So it's hard for us to say, but we can
Speaker 1: certainly say for sure that by by the time of
Speaker 1: the revolution there were far more women monastics than men.
Speaker 1: Mm hm, you write that in uh, in popular moods
Speaker 1: there were both affection and contempt for Russian Orthodox ministers.
Speaker 1: Would you just say a little bit more about that? Sure,
Speaker 1: there were certainly lots of you know, lots of folklore
Speaker 1: that made fun of of priests and um and and
Speaker 1: you know, funny little phrases about priests. UM. The priest was,
Speaker 1: of course a central figure in every village life, in
Speaker 1: the community in the cities as well. UM. Priests were
Speaker 1: were on one level highly respected. UH. They they performed
Speaker 1: the sacraments. They they were they were village leaders. They
Speaker 1: were educated people in the community, both in the cities
Speaker 1: and in the countryside. UH. Priests wives were leaders in
Speaker 1: the community as well. Their families were were ideally seen
Speaker 1: as as models. UM. But there was also UM. There
Speaker 1: was also contempt, and the contempt came from two sources.
Speaker 1: The contempt on one level, came from the social from
Speaker 1: from the from the rest of educated society, from noble
Speaker 1: and professional classes of of educated society. And this came
Speaker 1: from the fact that the clergy was such a sort
Speaker 1: of self contained, almost cast like social group who were
Speaker 1: educated in the seminaries, who married one another children. UM.
Speaker 1: They were perceived by the sort of secular uh educated
Speaker 1: uh society as as being um sort of inward looking
Speaker 1: um um nativist. Uh. They're perceived as as as being
Speaker 1: country bumpkins live in the countryside, and their education was
Speaker 1: different their education UH, the education in the in the
Speaker 1: state U gymnasea. The the state secondary schools was on
Speaker 1: a European Western European classical sort of model um and uh.
Speaker 1: The the and and it emphasized Western European history, Western
Speaker 1: European literature, and so on. The seminary education emphasized religion,
Speaker 1: not surprisingly um and it also emphasized Russian literature and
Speaker 1: Russian culture um uh and and that was so they
Speaker 1: had different they had different cultural worlds that they came
Speaker 1: from and and so they were looked down on in
Speaker 1: that way. Now, meanwhile, with their communities, UM they were
Speaker 1: they were certainly, as I say, central figures of of
Speaker 1: the parish community and and looked up to most of
Speaker 1: the time. But they were also um they were also resented.
Speaker 1: And they were resented because the community had to support
Speaker 1: them financially. And they had large families, so they were
Speaker 1: expensive um and they were very expensive. Moreover, because the
Speaker 1: church required that required that they educate their sons at
Speaker 1: these church run institutions. There were prep schools from about
Speaker 1: the age of oh about nine or or so until
Speaker 1: about fifteen, and they you went to the seminary, and
Speaker 1: the seminary was from about age fifteen to twenty two. UM.
Speaker 1: The these parish these parish priests. Families were just in
Speaker 1: a constant financial straits, trying to scrape up the money
Speaker 1: to pay to send the kids, you know, and pay
Speaker 1: for the boarding houses where the kids would live in
Speaker 1: the towns for this education and uh the priests. The
Speaker 1: priests were paid basically through um uh tips, gratuity ees
Speaker 1: and orthodoxy um has a involves a lot of different
Speaker 1: rituals that people will have performed both in their homes
Speaker 1: and and at the church. So um for baptisms and
Speaker 1: marriages and funerals, a tip would be expected. But also
Speaker 1: the priest would visit to bless your home after Christmas
Speaker 1: us in January and and so on and and tips
Speaker 1: would be expected, and this of course created a very
Speaker 1: awkward situation. And then the parish is also needed to
Speaker 1: supply homes for their priests and land that the priest
Speaker 1: could work. But then the parishioners would also be expected
Speaker 1: to help farm that land, and of course that took
Speaker 1: time from the parishioner's own farming uh. And so there
Speaker 1: was a lot of tension about the frankly paying the
Speaker 1: clergy um. And then finally there was tension because as
Speaker 1: I mentioned, um, you know, parishioners generally wanted religious services,
Speaker 1: and they wanted their priests uh in the community, but
Speaker 1: they didn't like when the priests corrected how them and
Speaker 1: they didn't necessarily like it if the priest didn't perform
Speaker 1: the ritual the way they wanted it performed. Um. And
Speaker 1: so sometimes there could be tension about about that as well.
Speaker 1: M hm. So let's head toward the Romanov court and
Speaker 1: religion in Russian high society. Um, would you describe the
Speaker 1: role of the czar in the Russian Church? Were there
Speaker 1: differences in how this role you know, was perceived among
Speaker 1: the elite by himself versus how that's are in the
Speaker 1: would have been perceived popularly as a religious figure. So, um,
Speaker 1: the there was a lot of there was a lot
Speaker 1: of brew ha ha in in the West, which has
Speaker 1: made its sway into into a lot of writing about
Speaker 1: the Russian Church, which argued that the Russian Church was
Speaker 1: Caesaro papist, that just like the Byzantine Church, that the
Speaker 1: that that sar was you know, that the tsar was
Speaker 1: the head of the church and ran the church, and
Speaker 1: that that was made particularly clear, you know with Peter
Speaker 1: the Great reforms and um. And that the church tsar
Speaker 1: had a heavy handed role in the church. I wouldn't
Speaker 1: say that was the case in in practice. UM, certainly
Speaker 1: that sarum has a very very important role. That Russia
Speaker 1: was an autocracy until nineteen o five. And and the
Speaker 1: the the church UM, the church certainly preaches that the
Speaker 1: that that tsar is that that's that that'sar is anointed
Speaker 1: I the church to to to legislate in a moral
Speaker 1: fashion and to to lead the people as a as
Speaker 1: a as a as a an orthodox leader who is
Speaker 1: advised and by by the church. UM. And and they
Speaker 1: they they they also the church also tries to to
Speaker 1: assert its authority in society by reminding that's are of
Speaker 1: his responsibility to the church that anoints him, uh, to
Speaker 1: his responsibility to God and to God's Church. UM. The
Speaker 1: that's are you know, in my own in my own research,
Speaker 1: I can see you know, certainly that's our you know,
Speaker 1: read over um annual reports from the diocese and would
Speaker 1: put comments in the margin, and those comments would be
Speaker 1: followed up on UM. And you know that the tsar
Speaker 1: was certainly involved. But I wouldn't describe the csar as
Speaker 1: more than a symbolic kind of role in in the church. UM. Now,
Speaker 1: different stars had different views of their role in the
Speaker 1: church and UM. And you know, UM, Nicholas the second,
Speaker 1: the final, the last Tsar of the Empire was a
Speaker 1: very very devout person and he took very seriously this
Speaker 1: this this sense that he was anointed by God and
Speaker 1: that he had a divine responsibility. UM. And he he
Speaker 1: also had a very UM. He idealized the Russian people,
Speaker 1: and he he believed that that the people believed that
Speaker 1: about him and that he had a responsibility of religious
Speaker 1: responsibility to the people. Um. The elite Um was divided.
Speaker 1: I would say, Um, the elite, Uh, there were there
Speaker 1: were many members of the I would say that overall
Speaker 1: the Russian nobility was we're faithful orthodox people. UM. That
Speaker 1: Orthodoxy was was an important part of um, of of
Speaker 1: Russian elite life. UM. Now there were certainly, Um, there
Speaker 1: were certainly elements that were were less enthusiastic about the church.
Speaker 1: The Church was not integrated into elite life the way
Speaker 1: for example, the Anglican Church was in in Britain. Um.
Speaker 1: Because you know at the Anglican Church, you or or
Speaker 1: even you know before the revolution, the French Church. You know,
Speaker 1: elite family's younger sons might go into the church, whereas
Speaker 1: in in in Russia, Uh, the the elite's younger sons
Speaker 1: did not go into the church. The church hierarchy came
Speaker 1: out of Uh, we're sons of parish priests basically, um,
Speaker 1: and so so so we don't have that same kind
Speaker 1: of affinity or connection to the church and um. And
Speaker 1: I've already mentioned this sort of disdain for um, for
Speaker 1: the church culturally, and and the snobbishness educationally and so on. Um.
Speaker 1: In terms of the popular, the populace, that's another very
Speaker 1: complex question. Um. Um, they they're they're the historians have
Speaker 1: have pointed to a great phenomenon of naive monarchism of
Speaker 1: of ordinary people who who believed that the that the
Speaker 1: government um was the problem and if only they could
Speaker 1: get to the tsar, that'sar was was faithful to the
Speaker 1: to the to the to the little guy, and um,
Speaker 1: and that you know, the problem was the bureaucrats in between.
Speaker 1: And UM. It's possible that there was some of that
Speaker 1: on a religious level between from the population, uh, sort
Speaker 1: of thinking that there were problems with the church, but
Speaker 1: that perhaps that's our was was better than that. UM.
Speaker 1: But I don't think we see a lot of that
Speaker 1: UM the church. Certainly, the church certainly pre eached UM,
Speaker 1: you know, devotion to the Tsar and uh preached a
Speaker 1: vision of the Tsar as a as a as a
Speaker 1: quasi religious figure. UM. But I have to say, I'm
Speaker 1: not I'm not sure what we can concretely say about
Speaker 1: popular perceptions of the Tsar's role in the church. So
Speaker 1: how important was the decree of religious tolerance that went
Speaker 1: out in nineteen o five. Well, I think it was
Speaker 1: a very important moment. UM. It's uh. So In in
Speaker 1: April of nineteen o five, in the midst of the revolute,
Speaker 1: the the growing revolution of nineteen o five, the the
Speaker 1: Tsar signed a decree on on Easter Day UM declaring
Speaker 1: that previously UM that that people who had left Orthodoxy
Speaker 1: would would would or that it would now be possible
Speaker 1: to leave Orthodoxy UM and join another another faith, and
Speaker 1: allowed for um a legal existence for the old Believers,
Speaker 1: for the Baptists, for the Molocons and Duca Bors, and
Speaker 1: the various religious groups nonconformist religious groups. This was a
Speaker 1: terrible shock to the church. The church felt betrayed by this.
Speaker 1: The church felt that they had um that that this
Speaker 1: was an example of the state over stepping its bounds.
Speaker 1: Um that that that religion was the was the the
Speaker 1: bailey wick of the church, and that the government had
Speaker 1: had interfered um and it uh but it but it
Speaker 1: also spurred the church to a discussion about mission, about
Speaker 1: about religious tolerance, about its position within the state. Um.
Speaker 1: There's uh for for the for the various non orthodox
Speaker 1: religious Christian denominations, this was a period of great flowering
Speaker 1: um picture. They all started magazines and started holding congresses
Speaker 1: and and um. Although they were technically not allowed to proselytize,
Speaker 1: they were only allowed to publish for their own people
Speaker 1: and so on. Um. This this really was the beginning
Speaker 1: of a of a different relationship with the with the
Speaker 1: state and a front level of legitimacy for religious difference
Speaker 1: in Russia. The government tries to kind of claw this
Speaker 1: back um uh but but there but there were there
Speaker 1: were long debates in the Dooma, the the the parliament
Speaker 1: that emerged from the in the semi constitutional order after
Speaker 1: nineteen o five, that that that debated how to continue
Speaker 1: to implement and manage religious tolerance. And so I think
Speaker 1: it was very important because it opened up this huge
Speaker 1: and ongoing public conversation about the relationship between the church
Speaker 1: and the state and the church and UH and the
Speaker 1: individual conscience. In the introduction to the book Sacred Stories,
Speaker 1: You're write with Mark Steinberg that writers, artists, and intellectuals
Speaker 1: at this point pursued a nonconformist kind of gods seeking
Speaker 1: often and this isn't every person, but that there was
Speaker 1: a culture of private prayer, of mysticism, interest in spiritualism, theosophy,
Speaker 1: Nietzschean philosophy, and more Eastern religions, other idealizations of imagination, feeling,
Speaker 1: mystical connections. That there was a home for all of
Speaker 1: this in Russian high society and in Russian intellectual society
Speaker 1: at the time. Would you say a little bit about
Speaker 1: what created this space for that kind of religiosity, that
Speaker 1: kind of mode of religious seeking to flourish. Yes, absolutely,
Speaker 1: there was there was a This is a period of
Speaker 1: great of great UH spiritual ferment and and of of
Speaker 1: of seeking of new paths. Think that there were a
Speaker 1: number of things going on in Russian intellectual life by
Speaker 1: the early twentieth century that that encouraged this UM. The
Speaker 1: first is um the in a sense um, the the
Speaker 1: Revolution of nineteen o five. It it is, it was
Speaker 1: the it was the culmination of of of a of
Speaker 1: a sort of a movement UM, kind of a liberal
Speaker 1: movement to to UH for constitutionalism, for for transformation of
Speaker 1: the of the state UM. And then there's a period
Speaker 1: of of of disillusionment with the people and disillusionment with
Speaker 1: with the results of that of that revolution of nineteen
Speaker 1: o five, and many intellectuals who had who had been
Speaker 1: Marxists or liberals UM begin to and but especially Marxists,
Speaker 1: begin to turn away from from materialism and they and
Speaker 1: they are drawn to to idealism, They're drawn to to
Speaker 1: UH religion. They are frustrated with the political world, and
Speaker 1: they they look for other other forms of of meaning
Speaker 1: and identity and so on as the as the political
Speaker 1: situation becomes less and less free after nineteen o six
Speaker 1: nineteen o seven. So partly it's that. Partly it's connected
Speaker 1: to broader changes in Russian and and and frankly Pan
Speaker 1: European intellectual culture of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.
Speaker 1: The turn from realism in UM, which had been the
Speaker 1: dominant sort of artistic philosophy of in literature and in
Speaker 1: art in the second half of the nineteenth century. UM
Speaker 1: and uh turn towards symbolism. Uh, this this sort of
Speaker 1: modernist rejection of of of of realism, and so that
Speaker 1: also encouraged this, this this interest in in mysticism, spiritualism
Speaker 1: and so on. UM. And I think also it's this,
Speaker 1: it's this sense of separateness from me from the Russian
Speaker 1: Orthodox Church that was experienced among a certain love, certain
Speaker 1: element of Russian uh educated society, and that they were
Speaker 1: specifically looking to live outside or beyond the Russian Church.
Speaker 1: M hmm. Yeah, and you know that there's so I
Speaker 1: think that there's a turn away from there's a turn
Speaker 1: towards spiritual Uh, there's a there's an interest, there's a
Speaker 1: renewed interest across Europe in um the spiritual, the mystical
Speaker 1: um and uh and and this is this is ah,
Speaker 1: this takes these people who uh in some senses are
Speaker 1: detached from the church. UM, this provides them with an
Speaker 1: avenue for exploring this kind of um the spiritual desires
Speaker 1: and and and concerns. Mhm M. So if dissatisfaction with
Speaker 1: the established church was part of spurring these kinds of
Speaker 1: religious energies and seeking m how important were kind of
Speaker 1: individual mystics and healers in that movement, in that ferment.
Speaker 1: Mm hmm, well, I think there were. I think that
Speaker 1: there was there was huge variety here and there. You know,
Speaker 1: when we talk about popular urban religious ferment, um, there's
Speaker 1: it's different in different classes social classes. Um. There is
Speaker 1: there is also religious ferment at the you know, among
Speaker 1: the sort of working classes as well. Um. And and
Speaker 1: certainly there were there there were individuals who um around
Speaker 1: whom various um, various movements gathered. Some of these, uh,
Speaker 1: some of these were in the church. UM. So you have,
Speaker 1: for example, um, father John of Cronstat, who was truly
Speaker 1: the Billy Graham of late Imperial Russia. He was a
Speaker 1: priest who had a church outside of Petersburg and Craunchtat
Speaker 1: where he emphasized a kind of a charismatic um participatory
Speaker 1: um uh form of orthodoxy. Um. It had a quite
Speaker 1: a quite a sort of mystical side. People would travel
Speaker 1: to his to his parish, they would write to him,
Speaker 1: they had people would carry posters and cards about him.
Speaker 1: He was he was a huge religious figure and he
Speaker 1: was within the church. But then he had groups of
Speaker 1: followers who who um sort of went beyond and and
Speaker 1: sort of idealized him and turn him into a sort
Speaker 1: of a mystical figure that they that they that they
Speaker 1: admire in and of himself. But you also have, as
Speaker 1: you say, certainly various individuals who gather groups of people
Speaker 1: around them, both among the lower classes and the upper classes.
Speaker 1: Um Uh. I would say that it was not unusual,
Speaker 1: but that most of this religious revival, both among educated
Speaker 1: and especially among uneducated people, was basically within the um.
Speaker 1: The was was basically more inclined to be Evangelical with
Speaker 1: you know, Baptist in some sort of way um or
Speaker 1: or um on the edges of Orthodoxy. Um. So, a
Speaker 1: popular teacher who doesn't see himself as outside of Orthodoxy,
Speaker 1: but who gathers a following, and the church is a
Speaker 1: little nervous about that person because he's not you know,
Speaker 1: he's not a formal priest or or or monk. But
Speaker 1: but the people are not perceiving themselves as as as
Speaker 1: outside of the church. Yeah, yeah, and I would say sorry,
Speaker 1: I just to finish another point is that you know,
Speaker 1: like all other churches, the Orthodox Church had trouble keeping
Speaker 1: up with the growth of of working class suburbs. In cities,
Speaker 1: and and so sometimes you know, there's a lack of
Speaker 1: available ability of a church right there in the neighborhood,
Speaker 1: and so people make their own fun you know. Well
Speaker 1: then yeah, I'll just say. You know, today we think
Speaker 1: of of Resputin, Gregory Resputin as a kind of singular
Speaker 1: figure who stands out from history for all the legends
Speaker 1: that we know about him. But do you have peers
Speaker 1: in Russian life and rest Russian religious life. Maybe that
Speaker 1: made him legible to those around him where they would
Speaker 1: kind of know, oh, this is the kind of person
Speaker 1: that that is. Well, I would say yes and no. Um.
Speaker 1: So I think Resputin fits into two familiar categories um
Speaker 1: sort of Um. The first is the religious traveler, the
Speaker 1: strai um, the religious wanderer. Um. There was a great
Speaker 1: tradition uh in Russian life of welcoming pilgrim, of welcoming
Speaker 1: holy people who traveled to two shrines, who traveled from
Speaker 1: village to village, living on on donations and and trying
Speaker 1: to These were people who were religious searchers, who were
Speaker 1: trying to to become the person that God had made
Speaker 1: them to be. Um. And and so there was great
Speaker 1: respect for that sort of religious traveler um a sort
Speaker 1: of maybe there's three there. Another another category that sometimes
Speaker 1: overlapped with the religious traveler was the holy fool um.
Speaker 1: This is someone who is a long there's a long
Speaker 1: tradition in in Orthodox culture of the fool for Christ
Speaker 1: of someone who is um uh we might art as
Speaker 1: as insane um, someone who lives on the edge of society,
Speaker 1: who perhaps does not behave according to social norms, who
Speaker 1: may not wash, or who may you know, um speak
Speaker 1: in strange ways, who may may behave in an odd way,
Speaker 1: but who is perceived as as being as being a
Speaker 1: fool for Christ, as someone who who is there to
Speaker 1: sort of test our, our our love, and our and
Speaker 1: our tolerance, and to and to tell us the truth
Speaker 1: that we don't want to hear, because the person is
Speaker 1: such an outsider that they can say things that others
Speaker 1: would not could not say. So I see, I think
Speaker 1: that those are components that might make us putin legible.
Speaker 1: And then a final component is the traged of the statuts.
Speaker 1: The statsy were the word means elder and um. The
Speaker 1: nineteenth century, in addition to a monastic revival, sees a
Speaker 1: great a great revival of um of of an eldership
Speaker 1: in the church. And these UM these religious elders were
Speaker 1: not they tended to be monks or nuns, but mostly
Speaker 1: monks UM and they but they were not um uh
Speaker 1: their their their authority was charismatic rather than official. So
Speaker 1: they were not appointed to be elders, not appointed to
Speaker 1: be spiritual advisors. But they become recognized by the population
Speaker 1: as spiritual advisors as as as people who UH could
Speaker 1: guide people in their individual spiritual searching and um and
Speaker 1: so there were various monasteries where various UH spiritual elders
Speaker 1: became famous, and people would travel for great distances to
Speaker 1: visit these elders and talk to them about their their
Speaker 1: spiritual journeys, to seek advice, to seek support. UM educated
Speaker 1: people might write to these spiritual elders. These would be
Speaker 1: longstanding relationships that could go on for decades between a
Speaker 1: a believer and A and a and a static's uh
Speaker 1: one of these um spiritual advisors. But these but they
Speaker 1: were not official figures and the church had a very
Speaker 1: sort of UM mixed feeling about them. Again because they
Speaker 1: have they have an authority that's that's charismatic and hard
Speaker 1: to control. UM so resputing um fit into some of
Speaker 1: these modes. And and this is where I think Um
Speaker 1: the ts are and his spirituality, Nicholas the second spirituality,
Speaker 1: his his idealization of the common people, and his fundamental
Speaker 1: disconnection with actual, real ordinary people comes into play because um,
Speaker 1: you know, circles around that's our who who welcomed respute
Speaker 1: and saw him as a status. They saw him as
Speaker 1: an elder um. But he didn't really have that kind
Speaker 1: kind of authority among he within the church. Um. He
Speaker 1: he did have the charismatic authority in the sense that
Speaker 1: he was recognized by the czar and by or or
Speaker 1: by the Sarina and members of the members of their
Speaker 1: circles as of and of high society as having having
Speaker 1: a religious um uh sort of eldership. But I think
Speaker 1: that he would certainly he's certainly not typical of these
Speaker 1: of these elders in reality. How did the church handle
Speaker 1: reports of miraculous healing in the nineteen hundreds, maybe this
Speaker 1: early period the end of the Russian Empire. Were the
Speaker 1: reports welcomes, where they celebrated, where they investigated, where they
Speaker 1: treated with skepticism? How did the church handle reports like this?
Speaker 1: M HM. So the church by the early twentieth century,
Speaker 1: the Church, like the Roman Catholic Church to the west,
Speaker 1: had a had a very mixed relationship with miraculous healing UM.
Speaker 1: On one level, UM the church UH preached that miraculous
Speaker 1: healing was was possible and happened UM and UH and
Speaker 1: and the church supported UM people's people's desire for religious healing. UM.
Speaker 1: At the same time, the church was very careful about
Speaker 1: recognizing UM miraculous healing and had a bureaucratic process for
Speaker 1: UH invest the gating reports of miraculous healing UH, investigating
Speaker 1: UH talking finding, going to somebody's home community and finding
Speaker 1: out about their their their previous illness, and invest interviewing
Speaker 1: the person who claimed a miraculous healing, interviewing witnesses UM.
Speaker 1: So there was in fact a very a very complex relationship. Now,
Speaker 1: the the church had had a number of popular magazines
Speaker 1: that were aimed at at ordinary people and UH there
Speaker 1: would be fairly extensive reports about these approved miraculous healings
Speaker 1: in these magazines. So the church, as I say, UM,
Speaker 1: was not against them, but the church was very careful
Speaker 1: about them and had to comply bureaucratic process. And this
Speaker 1: this meant that UM this. This could could be quite
Speaker 1: frustrating for an individual who felt that she or he
Speaker 1: had had a miraculous healing uh, and then found that
Speaker 1: the church authorities were skeptical about it. UM. So it's
Speaker 1: a it's a it's a it's an area of tension
Speaker 1: I would say, between um, religious communities and the official church.
Speaker 1: But it's an area of tension where the church and
Speaker 1: the communities are are fundamentally on the same side in
Speaker 1: believing in miraculous healing. But but the church needs to
Speaker 1: be very careful about its authority in terms of sort
Speaker 1: of what miraculous healings it recognizes. M hm. That's great
Speaker 1: by way of coming to a club those Um. We've
Speaker 1: talked about the idea that the church was I love
Speaker 1: the way you put it and some of you writing
Speaker 1: that it was a moribund branch of the state bureaucracy,
Speaker 1: and you've kind of talked about how that's actually not
Speaker 1: the case. UM. But you do also deal in your
Speaker 1: writing with this idea that religious factors don't need to
Speaker 1: be included in general histories, specifically of war or revolution
Speaker 1: in Russia. Could you spend the last couple maybe a
Speaker 1: minute or two or five or however long you want
Speaker 1: to take here and reflect on how important religion was
Speaker 1: not just in responding to historical changes, but in driving
Speaker 1: forward what we see as a period of tremendous cultural
Speaker 1: change at the end of the Russian Empire. Yeah, thank
Speaker 1: you for the question, because I think this is, um,
Speaker 1: you know, a very important perspective that historians in the
Speaker 1: last generation have have have have tried to drive home,
Speaker 1: which is that that religion is not just a reflection
Speaker 1: of other more important factors, but that it can be,
Speaker 1: as you say, a driving for force, uh, an agent
Speaker 1: of change in societies, and thus a historical factor. UM.
Speaker 1: And I think that the I think that there's a
Speaker 1: couple of ways in which I really think that religion
Speaker 1: needs to be worked into standard narratives of late imperial
Speaker 1: and revolutionary Russia. The first is that is precisely this whole,
Speaker 1: this whole uh, the way in which religion was fundamentally
Speaker 1: and debates about religious difference and religious choice was fundamentally
Speaker 1: tied into the broader discussions about the individual, about civil society,
Speaker 1: about about the democracy and socialism in Russian society, elate
Speaker 1: imperial Russian society, that religion is a place where people
Speaker 1: are trying out some of these ideas, or where others
Speaker 1: perceive people who don't who don't necessarily perceive themselves as
Speaker 1: doing this as trying out questions of of of um
Speaker 1: new kinds of social organization, about whether Western ideas are
Speaker 1: suitable for ordinary Russian people, all kinds of ideas that
Speaker 1: are being worked out through people's individual religious choices UM
Speaker 1: and and the debate religion is integral to the debates
Speaker 1: about about the what is what it means to be
Speaker 1: a Russian Russian nationality Russia and what it means to
Speaker 1: be a good patriotic Russian, the Russian state and its character.
Speaker 1: So I think it's fundamental actually to the great debates
Speaker 1: of the late Imperial period. UM. But if we need
Speaker 1: proof that religion is um is quite simply a constitutive
Speaker 1: factor of of of of change in the imperial in
Speaker 1: the late Imperial and revolutionary period, I think we can
Speaker 1: look no further than what happened with the collapse of
Speaker 1: the monarchy in February of nineteen sev UM. The first
Speaker 1: point is to say that the church did not stand
Speaker 1: up for that's our the official church um UH said
Speaker 1: UM goodbye. When that's our abdicated, and the next morning
Speaker 1: got to got to work reforming itself and got to
Speaker 1: work getting on with the things that it wanted to do.
Speaker 1: And the main thing that the church wanted to do
Speaker 1: was to call a great Church Council to rethink the
Speaker 1: relationship between the Church and the state, and the relationships
Speaker 1: within the church between the bishops and the parish clergy
Speaker 1: and the lady, and to reorganize the church for the
Speaker 1: modern world, and so um. Almost immediately after the collapse
Speaker 1: of the of the Empire, the the the the Church
Speaker 1: Council was called, and it met in Moscow, um starting
Speaker 1: in August of nineteen seventeen, and was was going right
Speaker 1: through during the revolution of October and into early nineteen eighteen,
Speaker 1: during the revolutionary days. And but for me, what's so
Speaker 1: important is to see that in the spring and summer
Speaker 1: of nineteen seventeen, after this the Council had been called
Speaker 1: all over the country, the local diocese met to choose
Speaker 1: their their representatives to the to the council. The bishops
Speaker 1: had initially thought of a council that would involve just bishops.
Speaker 1: The parish priests had pushed and then the parish priests
Speaker 1: were included. The laity had pushed and then the laity
Speaker 1: were included, and so by this had been talked about
Speaker 1: for quite a few years before. But but when so
Speaker 1: in the in the spring of nineteen seventeen, local diocese
Speaker 1: are choosing their representatives and there is a great revolution
Speaker 1: that is going on in the church, and people are
Speaker 1: trans forming the church from below into a democratic organization.
Speaker 1: There are there are dioceses that that ejected their bishops
Speaker 1: and voted for bishops, which was not canonical, unheard of.
Speaker 1: But we can see how how people are living out
Speaker 1: the implications of that democratic revolution of February nineteen seventeen
Speaker 1: in their church life, and and that that is in
Speaker 1: fact their first experience. They're not having elections yet, you know,
Speaker 1: for the for the Constituent Assembly in the spring of
Speaker 1: nineteen seventeen. People are are are living this out in
Speaker 1: their church communities first, uh. And these are people of
Speaker 1: all social groups who are doing this because the church
Speaker 1: incorporates all social groups. And so I really think that
Speaker 1: that the way that the church um is having its
Speaker 1: own revolution that is part of this utter revolution of
Speaker 1: nineteen seventeen, is really a clear example, a clear evidence
Speaker 1: of how UH we cannot write the history of UH
Speaker 1: late Imperial Russia or the Russian Revolution without considering the
Speaker 1: religious component. Um. And that's just the Orthodox Church. All
Speaker 1: of these other groups are also similarly active and exploring
Speaker 1: UH in nineteen seventeen and and UH putting themselves on
Speaker 1: on the on the choice, the list of choices. Everybody
Speaker 1: is coming out in nineteen seventeen and offering their answer
Speaker 1: to how to save Russia, what Russia needs, and all
Speaker 1: of these religious groups are participating in that conversation. M beautiful, Well, Heather,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. That's all I have for us. Okay, well,
Speaker 1: thank you for your great question. That's it for this
Speaker 1: week's episode of Unobscured. Stick around after this short sponsor
Speaker 1: break for a preview of what's in store for next week.
Speaker 1: The political power of nationalism, including its ability to mobilize
Speaker 1: much stronger armed forces, was evident quite quickly to politicians. UM.
Speaker 1: And so you have all of these pre national multi
Speaker 1: ethnic states, the Habsburg Empire, the romanof Dynasty, the Ottoman Empire,
Speaker 1: all of them are trying to nationalize themselves over the
Speaker 1: course of the nineteenth century. And so their problem is
Speaker 1: in a multi ethnic state as all of them are,
Speaker 1: as Russia certainly is. They either have to figure out
Speaker 1: how to fashion a multi ethnic national project, that is,
Speaker 1: to say, a nation that is not founded on a
Speaker 1: single ethnicity, or to engage in building ethnic nationalism. In fact,
Speaker 1: Russia tried to do both. Unobscured was created by me
Speaker 1: Aaron Manky and produced by Matt Frederick, Alex Williams, and
Speaker 1: Josh Thane in partnership with I Heart Radio, with research
Speaker 1: by Sam Alberty, writing by Carl Nellis, and original music
Speaker 1: by Chad Lawson. Learn more about our contributing historians, source
Speaker 1: materials and links to our other shows over at grimm
Speaker 1: and mild dot com, slash Unobscured, and as always, thanks
Speaker 1: for listening. Un