Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:35:05.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pobedonostsev's Religious Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Arthur E. Adams
Arthur E. Adams
Affiliation:
Michigan State College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Konstantin Pobedonostsev, over-procurator of the holy synod in the Russian Church from 1880 until 1905, occupies an important place in Russia's history. As adviser and confidant of the last tsars, Alexander III and Nicholas II, he left his firm imprint upon imperial policies during years of crisis. As ruler of the church he also played a significant part in religious affairs—a part which has not yet been accurately evaluated. Too often it has been assumed that ardent religious faith guided his conduct of church affairs, and he has been likened to Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor, or called the Russian Torquemada. In truth, however, Pobedonostsev was a man of politics; more particularly, a man of Russian politics. His main objective was always the preservation of a strong and powerful Russian state; and in almost every act which at first glance appears to have been determined by religious motives, a more critical study reveals the primacy of his political aims.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , December 1953 , pp. 314 - 326
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1953

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Byrnes, R. F., “Pobedonostsev's Conception of the Good Society: An Analysis of His Thought after 1880,” The Review of Politics, XIII, No. 2 (04, 1951), 178.Google Scholar

2. Pobedonostsev, K. P., Pisma Pobedonostseva k Aleksandru III [Letters o Pobedonostsev to Alexander III] (Moscow, 1925–1926, 2 v.Google Scholar) (hereafter cited as “Pisma”), I, 355 (November 11, 1881).

3. Pobedonostsev, K. P., “Pisma K. P. Pobedonostseva k gr. N. P. Ignatyevu,” [Letters of K. P. Pobedonostsev to Count N. P. Ignatyev] Byloye, Nos. 27–28 (1924) (hereafter cited as “Pisma k Ignatyevu”), p. 62Google Scholar (October 22, 1881).

4. Pisma, I, 373 (02 12, 1882)Google Scholar; cf. Pobedonostsev, , “Pisma k Ignatyevu,” Byloye, Nos. 27–28 (1924), pp. 73–74Google Scholar (April 12, 1882).

5. Pisma, II, 324 (09 21, 1899)Google Scholar.

6. Ibid., p. 323.

7. Pobedonostsev, K. P., “Iz chernovykh bumag K. P. Pobedonostseva,” [From the Rough Drafts of K. P. Pobedonostsev] Krasny Arkhiv, XVIII (1926), 204.Google Scholar Prince Peter D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky was minister of the interior, 1904 to January, 1905.

8. Pisma. II, 324 (09 21, 1899)Google Scholar.

9. Ibid., I, 208–209 (May 17, 1879), 293 (February 15, 1882); II, 13 (March 11, 1883).

10. Ibid., II, 157 (June 23, 1887).

11. Steinmann, Friedrich and Hurwiez, Elias, Konstantia Petrowitsch Pobjedonoszew der Staatsmann der Reaktion unter Alexander III (Königsberg, 1933), pp.68–70Google Scholar; cf. Pisma, I, 64–65 (01 10, 1877)Google Scholar; Leroy-Beaulieu, Anatole, The Empire of the Tsars and the Russians (New York, 1894–1896, 3 v.), III, 176–77.Google Scholar

12. Pisma, II, 10 (03 11, 1883); II, 154 (06 23, 1887)Google Scholar.

13. Ibid., p. 11 (March 11, 1883).

14. Ibid., pp. 157 (June 23, 1887), 183 (July 15, 1888), 258 (May 5, 1892).

15. Ibid., p. 259 (May 5, 1892).

16. Ibid., pp. 26–27 (May 28, 1883), 128–29 (January 21, 1887), 155 (June 23, 1887).

17. Ibid., I, 384–85 (May 24, 1882).

18. Ibid., II, 155–57 (June 23, 1887); Leroy-Beaulieu, III, 513.

19. Steinmann and Hurwiez, p. 74.

20. Obzor deyatelnosti vedomstva pravoslavnago ispovedaniya za vremya tsarstvovaniya Imperatora Alelisandra III [Survey of the Activity of the Department of the Orthodox Religion in the Time of the Reign of Emperor Alexander III] (St. Petersburg, 1901) (hereafter cited as: “Obzor deyatelnosti vedomstva pravoslavnago tspovedaniya”). pp. 126–31.

21. Leroy-Beaulieu, III, 537.

22. Biriukov, P. I., L. N. Tolstoi (Berlin, 1921, 4 v.), III, 495–505.Google Scholar

23. Steinmann and Hurwicz, p. 75.

24. Leroy-Beaulieu, III, 529.

25. Pisma, II, 137 (02 28, 1887)Google Scholar.

26. Ibid., pp. 166–67 (12, 1887).

27. Steinmann and Hurwicz, pp. 76–77.

28. Ibid., p. 77. The Evangelical Alliance was founded at London in 1846 by a conference of 900 clergymen and laymen from all parts of the world. Its membership in the eighties made it an international organization dedicated to the achievement of freedom of conscience and worship in all lands (Schaff, D. S., “Evangelical Alliance,” Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James, Hastings [New York, 1912], V. 601–602).Google Scholar

29. Lowe, C., Alexander III of Russia (New York, 1895), p. 221Google Scholar; cf. Pobedonostsev, K. P., K. P. Pobedonostsev ego korrespondenty, pisma i zapiski [K. P. Pobedonostsev and his Correspondence, Letters and Records] Vol. I: Novum regnum (Moscow, 1923), Part II, p. 885Google Scholar; Leroy-Beaulieu, III, 514–15. This open letter was addressed to the president of the Swiss Committee of the Evangelical Alliance, Edward Naville; it was published in the Church Messenger and the Petersburg Gazette, thus gaining an official character.

30. Dalton, H., Offenes Sendschreiben an den Oberprokureur des russischen Synods Herrn Kirklichen Geheimrat Konstantin Pobedonoszeff (Leipzig, 1889).Google Scholar

31. Ibid., p. 23.

32. Ibid., pp. 13, 57–58, 65–70.

33. Obzor deyatelnosti vedomstva pravoslavnago ispovedaniya, p. 237.

34. Rationalist as used here and by Russian publicists signifies the rejection of ecclesiastical authority, and the claim that individuals may think out their own creed and interpret the scriptures without the aid of priest or church (Conybeare, F. C., Russian Dissenters, Vol. I of Harvard Theological Studies [Cambridge, 1921] p. 261).Google Scholar

35. The Stundists received their name from the German word Stunde, derived from their hour-long meetings with Germans who read and discussed the Bible. Stundism was discovered in the late sixties and early seventies of the nineteenth century, in and around Odessa. It was a direct outcome of Western Protestantism, for Russians met with German Protestants and learned their ideas and quickly left the Orthodox church. Their main tenets were adopted from the Anabaptist and Mennonite sects. The Stundists had no fixed rites except that of breaking bread, but they read and discussed the Bible and sang hymns) (Obzor deyatelnosti vedomstva pravoslavnago ispovedaniya, pp. 247–51; Leroy-Beaulieu, III, 451–54; Conybeare, pp. 331–35.

36. Obzor deyatelnosti vedomstva pravosiavnago ispovedaniya, pp. 247–51.

37. See below, pp. 19–21.

38. Pisma, II, 157 (06 23, 1887)Google Scholar.

39. Kravchinsky, S. M., King Stork and King Log, A Study of Modern Russia (London, 1896, 2 v.), I, 117–29.Google Scholar

40. Obzor deyatelnosti vedomstva pravoslavango ispovedaniya, pp. 285–89.

41. Ibid., p. 249.

42. Pobedonostsev, K. P., “Perepiska K. P. Pobedonostseva s preosvyashchennym Nikanorom episkopom Ufimskim,” [Correspondence of K. P. Pobedonostsev with the Most Reverend Ufimsky Bishop Nikanor] Russky Arkhiv (1915) (hereafter cited as “Perepiska s Nikanorom”), IV, 463–64, 469; V, 106; VII, 338, 352, 355, 359, 361–63, 371, 373–74, 525 (1883–1885)Google Scholar.

43. Pisma, II, 129 (January 21, 1887).

44. Pobedonostsev, , “Perepiska s Nikanorom,” Russky Arkhiv (1915), VII, 359–60.Google Scholar

45. Ibid., p. 375.

46. Milyukov, P. N., Ocherki po istoriirusskoi kultury [Outlines of the History of Russian Culture] (Paris, 1931, 3 v.), II, 144Google Scholar.

47. Pisma, II, 158–59 (07 30, 1887)Google Scholar.

48. Ibid., p. 196 (August 31, 1888).

49. Ibid., I, 284 (May 10, 1880); Pobedonostsev, , “Perepiska s Nikanorom,” Russky Arkhiv (1915), V, 106Google Scholar; VII, 355; cf. Leroy-Beaulieu, III, 473.

50. Pobedonostsev, , “Perepiska s Nikanorom,” Russky Arkhiv VII, 359–60Google Scholar; cf. Leroy-Beaulieu, III, 472–73.

51. Pisma, II, 158–59.

52. Ibid., pp. 159–60, 163 (September 25, 1887), Milyukov, II, 144.

53. Pobedonostsev, , “Perepiska s Nikanorom,” Russky Arkhiv (1915), VII, 355 (05 18, 1884)Google Scholar; Biryukov, pp. 174–75, 495–509; Milyukov, I, 107.

54. Pisma, II, 158 (07 30, 1887)Google Scholar.

55. Obzor deyatelnosti vedomstva pravoslavnago ispovedaniya, p. 239; Conybeare, pp. 240–49; Milyukov, II, 153–56.

56. Pobedonostsev, , Novum regnum, pp. 580–82.Google Scholar

57. Pisma, II, 316 (May 15, 1896).

58. Ibid., p. 155 (June 23, 1887).

59. Ibid.

60. Ibid., p. 28 (March 23, 1883).

61. Obzor deyatelnosti vedomstva pravoslavnago ispovedaniya, p. 256.

62. Ibid., p. 260.

63. Pisma, II, 102–104 (April 1, 1886).

64. Obzor deyatelnosti vedomstva pravoslavnago ispovedaniya, p. 296.

65. Leroy-Beaulieu, III, 340–46.

66. Conybeare, p. 237.