DOCSLIB.ORG

Cultural Policies in Russian Museums Olga Zabalueva

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cultural Policies in Russian Museums Olga Zabalueva Cultural Policies in Russian Museums Olga Zabalueva The self-archived postprint version of this journal article is available at Linköping University Institutional Repository (DiVA): http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-147666 N.B.: When citing this work, cite the original publication. Zabalueva, O., (2017), Cultural Policies in Russian Museums, Museum International, 69(3-4), 38-49. https://doi.org/10.1111/muse.12171 Original publication available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/muse.12171 Copyright: Wiley (24 months - No Online Open) http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/ Cultural Policies in Russian Museums by Olga Zabalueva The actual definition of the museum is articulated around different roles: the preservation of tangible and intangible heritage in addition to research on and communication of knowledge. Consequently, visitors need to trust museums with their interpretation of reality. Historical or national museums hold a central role, insofar as they strongly influence the identity of entire nations. In this article, I will study the ways in which heritage is used to construct politically engaged collective memories and contemporary Russian cultural policies, which promote such uses. In particular, I will analyse the transformation of the 2013-2016 Moscow Manege exhibitions into an entertainment centre called ‘Russia––my (hi)story’, which is promoted by the Russian Orthodox Church and supported by the authorities. Another case presented herein is the Gulag History Museum in Moscow. My aim is to demonstrate how the cultural heritage is being ‘applied’ to construct historical narratives of the difficult past and what is the relation of cultural policies implemented by the state to this process. Keywords: recent past, cultural policy, Russian museums, national museums, difficult heritage, Soviet period 1 Cultural Policies in Russian Museums by Olga Zabalueva Olga Zabalueva holds an M.A. in Museology from the Russian State University for the Humanities. She has worked in different cultural institutions in Moscow, such as the Museum of Contemporary History of Russia and the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Her second M.A. is in Cultural Analysis at Lund University, and she is currently enrolled in a postgraduate programme in the Department for Studies of Social Change and Culture at Linköping University, Sweden. Her research is, by nature, interdisciplinary and focuses on museology as a field of knowledge: museums and the (re)construction of national identities; democracy and museums; norm criticism and the active social position of a contemporary museum. Her current research concentrates on the representations of the recent past in Russian and Swedish cultural institutions. According to the ICOM museum definition, ‘[a] museum is a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment’ (ICOM 2007). The modern concept of ‘museum’ results from a number of structural and vocational transformations, evolving from private art collections and cabinets of curiosities to today’s complex institution that focuses both on visitor experience and educational purposes. Historically, a specific museum form was developed since the second half of the 18th century, the very beginning of the development of the modern museum, which supersedes its primary aims (heritage preservation and exhibition) and elaborates on the political relations in which museums are entangled (Gray 2015). In this article, I will focus on national museums as an essential example of this form, and on the role that museum plays in nation- and/or state-building as an institution. This role was studied thoroughly in recent decades. For example, Benedict Anderson (1991/2006) names the census, the map and the museum as three institutions of power that shape the construction of national state and create identities within it; Tony Bennett (1995) elaborates on the role of museum as a tool of popular instruction and discipline; and Peggy Levitt (2015) describes the processes of creating global citizens by the means of museums. Recently, the European National Museums: Identity Politics, the Uses of the Past and the European Citizen 2010–2013 (Eunamus) research project has aimed to compare national museums on a European level. The project defines the national museum as ‘a knowledge-based socio-political institution, with corresponding collections and displays that ultimately claim, articulate and represent dominant national values and myths’ (Aronsson and Elgenius 2015, p.1). The Eunamus reports and scientific publications provide a theoretical framework to study similar cultural phenomena elsewhere related to the issue at stake in the present article: Russian museums and cultural policies imposed by State. 2 Historical overview: Russian museums and cultural policy Museums and the nation in the Russian Empire National museums are transnational by nature, in that many national museums of the West were inspired by their peers (Apor 2015; Berger 2015) and, as Péter Apor points out, some national museums are aiming to define national communities despite actual state borders by implying the ideas of ‘cultural nationalism’ (Apor 2015, p. 44). It was essential for Russian national museums to follow European patterns. The first Russian public museum, Kunstkamera, was established in 1714 by Peter the Great after he visited cabinets of curiosities during his European journey. Likewise, the tsars and the country’s social elites held famous art collections essentially made of European fine arts and antiquities. The interest in national history and heritage was to develop subsequently, leading to the flourishing Russian Revival style in the arts and in architecture.1 The 19th century became a golden age for history and heritage studies in Russia. The relation to Russian antiquities has remarkably changed alongside a broader interest for national cultural heritage based on the 19th century historicism. The increasing number of scientific publications, local archaeological communities and historical ethnographical studies whose aim was to gather and preserve the ‘precious remains of the past’ brought to light the people’s demand for historical narratives.2 At the same time, a discussion on Russian national policy took place within genteel society in the 1850s, in the aftermath of the so-called Official Nationality (or ‘Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality’) theory, introduced in 1833. The debate resulted in two antagonistic intellectual movements–– paternalistic and western-oriented.3 It was widely believed, at the time, that Peter the Great’s decision to favour diplomatic and cultural relations with European nations was decisive for the Russian history. As a consequence, narratives revolving around the pre-Petrine period were in high demand in the 19th century, during the construction of nation-state in Russia. The monuments connected to the history of the first Romanovs became a national treasure and restoration works were carried out upon the Emperor’s order. The most prominent museum projects influenced by state policies were first undertaken in Moscow, the ancient capital of pre-Petrine Muscovy––the Russian State before the end of the 17th century. The Chambers of the Boyars Romanov (restored in 1856-1859 and opened in 1859 as a public museum that commemorated the first Romanov tsar) as well as the Imperial Historical Museum (inaugurated in 1883, now the State Historical Museum) both became the first Russian museums to present a national historical narrative. At the same time, as in the case of Peter the Great's Kunstkamera, the heritage practices in other Western countries were taken into account. For example, during the restoration of the Chambers of the Boyars Romanov, European methods were used in the architectural conservation. German memorial projects from the first half of the 19th century that glorified a ‘heroic’ past, were also taken as a primary reference. 4 Prince M.A. Obolensky, a chairman of the Academic Commission for the Renovation of the Chamber of the Romanov Boyars, wrote about ‘all the enlightened European states […] <where> ancient monuments are renewed’ (as cited in Batalov 2002, p. 231). In other words, in 3 Russian (architectural) conservation of the 19th century the Western practice was adopted for creation of historical narrative of the emerging nation-state which has articulated its non-Western origin. Early 20th century developments After the Russian Revolution of 1917, a new official discourse emerged with the inauguration of the V.I. Lenin Museum (opened in 1924 and closed in 1993) and the Museum of the Revolution (which was designed in 1917, inaugurated in 1922, and renamed the State Central Museum of Contemporary History of Russia in 1998) in Moscow (once again the capital of the Socialist state). Stefan Berger (2015) points out that the nation states established in the 19th century were bound to inaugurate national museums in order to foster and strengthen an emerging national identity, unlike the older nations whose identity was solidly rooted in a common past. In Soviet Russia, however, the focal point of the state-building was shifted from ‘nation’ to ideology, and central museums became, to a large extent, a didactic tool for the Communist party (for the shaping of this paradigm see Druzhinin
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Art and Power in Putin's Russia
    RUSSIA Art and Power in Putin’s Russia BY SASHA PEVAK The separation between art and power in Russia’s recent history has never been clear-cut. Soon after the fall of the USSR, contemporary art, namely actionism in the 90s, openly criticized society and entered the political sphere. This trend continued after Vladimir Putin’s election in 2000. Russian identity politics in the 2000s were based on four pillars: state nationalism with the Putin’s “power vertical”, the vision of Russia as a nation-state, Orthodox religion, and the myth of the Unique Russian Path, reinforced by the notion of “sovereign democracy” and the idea of the omnipresence of a fifth column inside the country 1. The will to consolidate society around these values provoked, according to political scientist Lena Jonson, tensions between the State and culture, especially as far as religious issues were concerned. These issues were the cause of the trials against the exhibitions “Attention! Religion” (2003) and “Forbidden Art – 2006” (2007), shown in Moscow at the Andrei Sakharov Museum and Public Centre. The latter staged temporary events and activities based on the defence of Human Rights. For part of the national opinion, the Centre symbolized democracy in Russia, whereas for others it represented an antipatriotic element, all the more so because it was financed by foreign foundations. In 2014, the Department of Justice catalogued it as a “foreign agent,” on the pretext that it carried out political actions with American subsidies 2. In 2003, the exhibition “Caution, Religion!”, organized by Aroutioun Zouloumian, was vandalized by religious activists several days after the opening 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Roots of Collectivism and Individualism in Russia Through an Exploration of Selected Russian Literature - and - Spiritual Exercises Through Art
    Understanding the Roots of Collectivism and Individualism in Russia through an Exploration of Selected Russian Literature - and - Spiritual Exercises through Art. Understanding Reverse Perspective in Old Russian Iconography by Ihar Maslenikau B.A., Minsk, 1991 Extended Essays Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the Graduate Liberal Studies Program Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences © Ihar Maslenikau 2015 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Fall 2015 Approval Name: Ihar Maslenikau Degree: Master of Arts Title: Understanding the Roots of Collectivism and Individualism in Russia through an Exploration of Selected Russian Literature - and - Spiritual Exercises through Art. Understanding of Reverse Perspective in Old Russian Iconography Examining Committee: Chair: Gary McCarron Associate Professor, Dept. of Communication Graduate Chair, Graduate Liberal Studies Program Jerry Zaslove Senior Supervisor Professor Emeritus Humanities and English Heesoon Bai Supervisor Professor Faculty of Education Paul Crowe External Examiner Associate Professor Humanities and Asia-Canada Program Date Defended/Approved: November 25, 2015 ii Abstract The first essay is a sustained reflection on and response to the question of why the notion of collectivism and collective coexistence has been so deeply entrenched in the Russian society and in the Russian psyche and is still pervasive in today's Russia, a quarter of a century after the fall of communism. It examines the development of ideas of collectivism and individualism in Russian society, focusing on the cultural aspects based on the examples of selected works from Russian literature. It also searches for the answers in the philosophical works of Vladimir Solovyov, Nicolas Berdyaev and Vladimir Lossky.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Museums Visit More Than 80 Million Visitors, 1/3 of Who Are Visitors Under 18
    Moscow 4 There are more than 3000 museums (and about 72 000 museum workers) in Russian Moscow region 92 Federation, not including school and company museums. Every year Russian museums visit more than 80 million visitors, 1/3 of who are visitors under 18 There are about 650 individual and institutional members in ICOM Russia. During two last St. Petersburg 117 years ICOM Russia membership was rapidly increasing more than 20% (or about 100 new members) a year Northwestern region 160 You will find the information aboutICOM Russia members in this book. All members (individual and institutional) are divided in two big groups – Museums which are institutional members of ICOM or are represented by individual members and Organizations. All the museums in this book are distributed by regional principle. Organizations are structured in profile groups Central region 192 Volga river region 224 Many thanks to all the museums who offered their help and assistance in the making of this collection South of Russia 258 Special thanks to Urals 270 Museum creation and consulting Culture heritage security in Russia with 3M(tm)Novec(tm)1230 Siberia and Far East 284 © ICOM Russia, 2012 Organizations 322 © K. Novokhatko, A. Gnedovsky, N. Kazantseva, O. Guzewska – compiling, translation, editing, 2012 [email protected] www.icom.org.ru © Leo Tolstoy museum-estate “Yasnaya Polyana”, design, 2012 Moscow MOSCOW A. N. SCRiAbiN MEMORiAl Capital of Russia. Major political, economic, cultural, scientific, religious, financial, educational, and transportation center of Russia and the continent MUSEUM Highlights: First reference to Moscow dates from 1147 when Moscow was already a pretty big town.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander III (1881-1894)
    Alexander III (1881-1894) Monuments to Alexander III Study the two monuments of Alexander III • They were erected after Alexander III’s death in the reign of Nicholas II (1909 and 1912) • Nicholas II approved of both, although one in particular is said to have caused a public scandal. Which do you prefer and why? Can these monuments tell us anything about the nature of Alexander III’s rule? This statue was built for Moscow, Nicholas II’s favoured capital: “The Tsar’s giant figure was a mannequin without human expression, a monolithic incarnation of autocratic power. It was straight backed on its throne, hands on knees, encumbered with all the symbols of tsarist authority – the crown, the sceptre and orb, the imperial robe and full military dress…in the manner of a pharaoh with nothing to think about except the source of his own illimitable power.” (O Figes, p16) This statue was erected in St Petersburg: “such an ingenious and formidable representation of autocracy in human form that after the revolution the Bolsheviks decided to leave it in place as a fearful reminder of the old regime…The rider and horse had been made to appear so heavy and solid that it seemed impossible for them to move.” (O Figes, p15) What happened to the other statue? Alexander’s Manifesto of Unshakeable Autocracy Find and highlight the following words: • Autocracy • Hereditary What do these • Sovereignty • Divine words mean? • Subjects How many times do they appear? Using these key words to help you, summarise the main theme of the speech in a sentence.
    [Show full text]
  • Delegate Handbook
    DELEGATE HANDBOOK ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION ON «CONSUMER PROTECTION IN THE ERA OF E-COMMERCE IN THE BRICS COUNTRIES» MOSCOW, THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 13 MARCH 2020 CONTENTS 1. The Operational Headquarters Contact Information . 3 2. Meeting Dates and Venue . 3 3. Meeting Programme . .. 3 4. Meeting Format . 5 5. Access to the Meeting Venue . 5 5 .1 . ID Badges . 5 5.2. Summary of Access Procedures . 5 5.3. Lost Badges . 5 6. Working language . 5 7. Transport . 5 7 .1 . Aeroexpress . 5 7.2. Public Transport and Taxis . 7 8. Meeting Facilities . 9 8 .1 . Information Desk . 9 8.2. Wi-Fi . 9 9. General Information . 9 9 .1 . Weather . 9 9.2. Time . 9 9.3. Electricity . 9 9.4. Smoking . 9 9.5. Credit Cards . 9 9.6. Currency and ATMs . 9 9.7. Mobile Phone Information . 10 9.8. Pharmacies . 10 9.9. Souvenir Shops . 10 9.10. Shoe Repairs . 10 10. Useful Telephone Numbers . 11 11. City Information . 11 12. Restaurants . 13 13. Venue Plan . 14 MOSCOW | 13 MARCH 2 1. THE OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS CONTACT INFORMATION • Questions on hotel accommodation should be sent to the following e-mail address: [email protected] . • Questions on visa and customs control procedures should be sent to the following e-mail address: [email protected] . • Help desk telephone number: +7 (812) 906 64 98. 2. MEETING DATES AND VENUE The meeting of the Roundtable discussion on «Consumer protection in the era of e-commerce in the BRICS countries» will take place on 13 March 2020. The main venue will be: «HOTEL NATIONAL, MOSCOW» 125009, Moscow, Mokhovaya Street, 15/1 nationalhotel-moscow.ru 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Spatial Evolution of a Museum Building: a Case of the State Historical Museum
    SPATIAL EVOLUTION OF A MUSEUM BUILDING: A CASE OF THE STATE HISTORICAL MUSEUM Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Leicester by Anna Mikhailova MA School of Museum Studies University of Leicester September 2017 Abstract Spatial Evolution of a Museum Building: A Case of the State Historical Museum in Moscow Anna Mikhailova This thesis contributes to the modern understanding of museum architecture, by exploring the relationship between a museum as an organisation and its physical form of the museum building. By choosing the spatial transformations at the State Historical Museum in Moscow as a case study, it introduces Russian museum practices into international museological context. The thesis analyses the planning and construction stages, as well as two major renovations that took place in significantly different political contexts: Imperial Russia, the Soviet Union and the modern democratic Federation. Applying a micro historical approach and a facility management lens offers an insight into the complexity of the processes that shape the physical space: its sensitivity to internal and external agencies and multiple contexts, such as the urban built environment; the political climate and the economy; museum trends; and the professional community. The building itself, once completed or at earlier stages, becomes another actor in the equation. An in-depth analysis of the events in question reveals the elaborate nature of the production of space, and demonstrates the importance of professional communication and interpersonal relationships that can impact the institution, both positively and adversely. The attitudes to the Museum, demonstrated by different governments over the years, offer an insight into how a central location can be viewed as a bigger asset than the institution itself and discourage it from independence, both organisationally and spatially.
    [Show full text]
  • Expert Meeting of the Representatives of the Tourism Authorities of the Brics Countries
    DELEGATE HANDBOOK EXPERT MEETING OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE TOURISM AUTHORITIES OF THE BRICS COUNTRIES MOSCOW, THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 18 MARCH 2020 CONTENTS 1. The Operational Headquarters Contact Information ....................................... 3 2. Meeting Dates and Venue ............................................................. 3 3. Meeting Programme .................................................................. 3 4. Meeting Format ......................................................................4 5. Access to the Meeting Venue ..........................................................4 5.1. ID Badges ......................................................................4 5.2. Summary of Access Procedures ....................................................4 5.3. Lost Badges ....................................................................4 6. Working language ....................................................................4 7. Transport ...........................................................................5 7.1. Aeroexpress ....................................................................5 7.2. Public Transport and Taxis ........................................................6 8. Meeting Facilities ....................................................................8 8.1. Information Desk ................................................................8 8.2. Wi-Fi ...........................................................................8 9. General Information ..................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • ШОС Справочник Делегата МСК 20-23.08 ENG.Indd
    DELEGATE HANDBOOK MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF NATIONAL COORDINATORS OF THE SCO MEMBER STATES MOSCOW, RUSSIAN FEDERATION 20–23 AUGUST, 2019 CONTENTS 1. Meeting dates and venue . .3 2. Meeting programme . .3 3. Access to meeting . 4 3.1. ID Badges . .4 3.2. Summary of Access Procedures . .4 3.3. Lost Badges . .4 4. Meeting facilities . 4 4.1. SCO Information Desk . .4 4.2. Wi-Fi . .4 5. General information . 4 5.1. Weather . .4 5.2. Time . .4 5.3. Electricity . .4 5.4. Smoking . .5 5.5. Credit cards . .5 5.6. Currency and ATMs . .5 5.7. Mobile phone information . .5 5.8. Pharmacies . .5 5.9. Souvenir shops . .5 5.10. Shoe repairs . .6 6. Useful telephone numbers . 6 7. City information . 6 8. Restaurants . 9 9. Venue plan . 9 MOSCOW | 20–23 AUGUST 2 1. MEETING DATES AND VENUE The meeting of the Council of National Coordinators of the SCO Member States will be held on 20–23 August 2019 in Moscow. Meeting venue: THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL, MOSCOW 3, Tverskaya str., Moscow, 125009 www.ritzcarlton.com/ru/hotels/europe/moscow 2. MEETING PROGRAMME 20 August, Mon The meeting of the Council of National Coordinators of the SCO 09:30–18:00 Member States 09:00 Delegates arrival 11:00–11:15 Coff ee-break 13:00–14:30 Lunch 16:00–16:20 Coff ee-break 21 August, Tue The meeting of the Council of National Coordinators of the SCO 09:30–18:00 Member States 09:00 Delegates arrival 11:00–11:15 Coff ee-break 13:00–14:30 Lunch 16:00–16:20 Coff ee-break 18:30 Reception on behalf of the Special Presidential Envoy for SCO Aff airs in honourмof the participants in the Council of National Coordinators meeting Cultural programme 22 August, Wed The meeting of the Council of National Coordinators of the SCO 09:30– 18:00 Member States 09:00 Delegates arrival 11:00–11:15 Coff ee-break 13:00–14:30 Lunch 16:00–16:15 Coff ee-break 23 August, Thu The meeting of the Council of National Coordinators of the SCO 09:30– 18:00 Member States 09:00 Delegates arrival 11:00–11:15 Coff ee-break 13:00–14:30 Lunch 16:00–16:15 Coff ee-break 16:15–18:00 Signing of the fi nal Protocol MOSCOW | 20–23 AUGUST 3 3.
    [Show full text]
  • The Russian Orthodox Church
    Conflict Studies Research Centre C109 The Russian Orthodox Church Dr Mark A Smith The Russian Orthodox Church’s socio-political role in Russia has increased significantly since 1991. The ROC is not a state church, but is close to being a quasi-state church. The Putin leadership is happy to promote the Church’s role, seeing it as an important part of post-Soviet Russia’s national identity. The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) was the state church in Tsarist Russia, and freedom of belief for non-Orthodox believers was severely restricted. The Russian Orthodox Church was moreover seen as an integral part of Imperial Russia’s national identity: “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality”.1 Although Church-State links were formally broken in Soviet times, the ROC was effectively a tool of the Soviet state. In the post-Soviet era, the ROC has sought to redefine its identity; it has had to adapt to a new socio-political environment in which although it no longer faces the constraints imposed by an authoritarian atheistic state, it has to face the challenges of both western consumerism and proselytism from other churches and sects. Although the ROC is no longer a state church, it is clearly the most important church within Russian society, and does have a special relationship with the state. Orthodoxy, unlike Catholicism and Protestantism, does not have a dualistic conception of Church and State. In Russian Orthodoxy, church and state are seen as part of an organic religious and political community, united by blood and soil.2 Orthodoxy has always been seen as a central part of the Russian national idea.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Florida Thesis Or Dissertation Formatting
    ETHNIC WAR AND PEACE IN POST-SOVIET EURASIA By SCOTT GRANT FEINSTEIN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2016 © 2016 Scott Grant Feinstein To my Mom and Dad ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In the course of completing this monograph I benefited enormously from the generosity of others. To my committee chair, Benjamin B. Smith, I express my sincere appreciation for his encouragement and guidance. Ben not only taught me to systematically research political phenomena, but also the importance of pursuing a complete and parsimonious explanation. Throughout my doctoral studies Ben remained dedicated to me and my research, and with his incredible patience he tolerated and motivated my winding intellectual path. I thank my committee co-chair, Michael Bernhard, for his hours spent reading early manuscript drafts, support in pursuing a multi-country project, and detailed attention to clear writing. Michael’s appreciation of my dissertation vision and capacity gave this research project its legs. Ben and Michael provided me exceptionally valuable advice. I am also indebted to the help provided by my other committee members – Conor O’Dwyer, Ingrid Kleespies and Beth Rosenson – who inspired creativity and scientific rigor, always provided thoughtful and useful comments, and kept me searching for the big picture. Among institutions, I wish to gratefully acknowledge the support of the Center of European Studies at the University of Florida, IIE Fulbright Foundation, the American Council of Learned Societies, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, IREX, the American Councils, and the Department of Political Science at the University of Florida.
    [Show full text]
  • Orthodox Political Theologies: Clergy, Intelligentsia and Social Christianity in Revolutionary Russia
    DOI: 10.14754/CEU.2020.08 ORTHODOX POLITICAL THEOLOGIES: CLERGY, INTELLIGENTSIA AND SOCIAL CHRISTIANITY IN REVOLUTIONARY RUSSIA Alexandra Medzibrodszky A DISSERTATION in History Presented to the Faculties of the Central European University In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy CEU eTD Collection Budapest, Hungary 2020 Dissertation Supervisor: Matthias Riedl DOI: 10.14754/CEU.2020.08 Copyright Notice and Statement of Responsibility Copyright in the text of this dissertation rests with the Author. Copies by any process, either in full or part, may be made only in accordance with the instructions given by the Author and lodged in the Central European Library. Details may be obtained from the librarian. This page must form a part of any such copies made. Further copies made in accordance with such instructions may not be made without the written permission of the Author. I hereby declare that this dissertation contains no materials accepted for any other degrees in any other institutions and no materials previously written and/or published by another person unless otherwise noted. CEU eTD Collection ii DOI: 10.14754/CEU.2020.08 Technical Notes Transliteration of Russian Cyrillic in the dissertation is according to the simplified Library of Congress transliteration system. Well-known names, however, are transliterated in their more familiar form, for instance, ‘Tolstoy’ instead of ‘Tolstoii’. All translations are mine unless otherwise indicated. Dates before February 1918 are according to the Julian style calendar which is twelve days behind the Gregorian calendar in the nineteenth century and thirteen days behind in the twentieth century.
    [Show full text]
  • Responses to Old Catholicism in Late Imperial Russia
    ACTA SLAVICA IAPONICA, TOMUS 41, PP. 91–109 Saving the Selves or Saving the Others? Responses to Old Catholicism in Late Imperial Russia Mikhail Suslov INTRODUCTION This paper examines Messianic thought in Russia through political and theo- logical debates on the Old Catholic movement. The Old Catholic Church emerged as a reaction to the first Vatican Council (1870) with the program of reconnecting with the Lutheran, Anglican and Orthodox Churches on the theo- logical foundation, laid out by the Church fathers and Church councils of the first ten centuries of Christianity. The Old Catholic question, which initially appeared as one of purely ecclesiological and perhaps theological interest, was broadly aired and discussed by literally every significant Russian public figure in the 1870s–1900s. Although Old Catholicism per se and its relations with the Russian Orthodox Christianity have not been successful to date,1 it induced the crystallization of a network of sympathizers in the Russian Empire. For them, Old Catholicism was a means to voice their discontent with the official Church and to shape their alternative visions about Russian Orthodoxy in world histo- ry. The Old Catholic movement stirred up religious and geopolitical hopes and initiated important ideological and theological discussions, which revolved around such questions as, what is Russia’s role in the world, and how can reli- gious principles be implemented in everyday life.2 1 In 1987 the Orthodox-Old Catholic dialogue resulted in a principal agreement on theo- logical grounds. However, palpable practical consequences did not follow. The process stalled also because the Old Catholics adopted the female priesthood, and thereby alien- ated themselves from the Russian Orthodox Church.
    [Show full text]