ISSN: 2158-7051 ==================== INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN STUDIES ==================== ISSUE NO. 6 ( 2017/2 ) |
RUSSIAN MONARCHY REPRESENTATION AND RULE , By Ayse Dietrich*, Published by: Academic Studies Press, Boston. Written by Richard Worthman. Year of Publishing: 2013. Subject Area: Russian History. Book Type: History. Total Number of Pages: 332. ISBN: 978-1-61811-582-3, $69 Hardcover.
This book provides a collection of essays by
Richard Worthman about the history of the Russian monarchy.
The book consists of introduction
and four parts. In the introduction Worthman describes how and why he approached the Russian monarchy as a continuing institution and
political culture rather than a succession of individual rulers who were unaware
of the social and historical context in which they reigned; how the Russian
monarchy functioned, its depiction in visual and literary media, its presence
in Russian life; and discusses whether the monarchy plays a central role of
symbolic representation in the Russian political culture.
The book’s first section is
comprised of three essays: the first describes the Russian Monarchy and Legal
system, the evolution of the Russian Monarchy; and includes a review of Anatolii Viktorovich Remnew’s
book Somoderzhavnoe Pravitel’stvo: Komitet Ministrov v sisteme vysshego
upravlenia Rossiiskoi imperii. In this part he examines the origin and implementation of
the Court Reform of 1864, focusing on the education, ideas, and mind-set of a group of
reformers from the reign of Nicholas I and emphasizes their role in drafting
a reform measure that established a modern liberal judiciary and the
legal profession in Russia.
He then discusses the difficulties that
emerged in attempting to develop an independent judiciary withing the confines of
an autocratic. He points out that high officialw who were close to the tsar and
the court constituted one of the main obstacles due to their determination to
prevent the principle of legality from encroaching any further into the sphere
of the tsar’s authority.
Regarding how the monarchy was represented, Worthman
claims that in Russia the monarch was regarded as the embodiment of the state, whereas
in Britain the monarch was separated from the state, and by divesting him of power
he became a perpetual symbol of the nation. In addition, Russian rulers were
frequently identified with biblical, historical, or other foreign figures; Peter
the Great was portrayed as a conqueror.
Worthman discusses the Russian Empire’s legal system in
detail. He states that in this period
the law in Russian political culture enhanced the ruler’s image by serving as
an ideal and ornament. When Russia adopted western legal forms the law was
often perceived as an alien intrusion on the informal, personal relationships
common throughout Russia, because Russia lacked the legal institutions of
western monarchy. Administrative cases in Russia remained under administrative
jurisdiction despite the court reform of 1864, and administrative institutions’
legal relations remained autocratic; every official regarded himself as the
monarch’s personal representative. The European concept of Rechstaat, a
symbiosis of administrative and judicial organs and personnel, was entirely
foreign to the Russian monarchy. In addition, Western institutions were not easily
adapted to Russia, whose economic and educational levels were not on par with
the west. The centralization of power in supremacy of the monarch were a
necessary result of Russia’s vast territory and relatively sparse population.
The second essay , “The Representation of Dynasty and
‘Fundamental Laws’ in the Evolution of Russian Monarchy” focuses on the law of
succession in light of the representations of Russian monarchy. Worthman begins
by comparing royal succession in European countries with Russia’s dynastic
succession. He concludes that the borrowing of a European conception of a
fundamental law, realized first in a law of hereditary succession, proved
incompatible with Peter I’s decree of 1722 which gave the monarch the right to
select anyone as his designated successor.
After the demise of the Rurik Dynasty; there was no
hereditary connection between the previous dynasty and the new Romanov dynasty.
Hereditary succession on the basis of primogeniture was preferred, but descent alone
did not necessarily make a ruler legitimate. Therefore, the Romanovs’ customary
preference for succession by primogeniture was reinforced by popular consent.
The third essay is a review of Anatolii Remnev’s Samoderzhavnoe
pravitel’stvo: Komitet ministrov v sisteme vysshego upravleniia Rossiiskoi
imperii, vtoraia polovina XIX—nachalo XX veka, a monograph depicting the
tsar’s pervasive personal influence in the day-to-day operationof the state
administration. It uses the highest institution of the government, the
Committee of Ministers, as an example. Utilizing recent studies and published memoirs,
as well as extensive archival sources, Remnev’s book describes the practices
and psychology of Russian officials as they find ways to cope with a system of
government supposedly based on laws and regulations, but acquiescent to the
tsar’s influence.
In Part II, in the fourth essay, “The Russian Empress as
Mother,” Worthman focuses on the changing roles of mothers in raising heirs to
the throne. The queen or empress, as first lady of the land, was the first
mother as well, symbolizing the purity, wisdom, and selflessness associated
with raising a child. Her virtues would ensure the sound moral development of
her children as well as the future of the dynasty. Nonetheless, after giving
birth, the mother was no longer publicly associated with the heir.
The foreign origin of nineteenth-century empresses was
another issue. From the reign of Nicholas I on, the imperial family began to
stress its Russian character and to use Russian both within the family and the
court. The empresses had to endeavor to show their Russianness and to prove
their fealty to their new nationality. They expressed their attachment to
Russian culture in many ways, but primarily in the piety of their Orthodox
faith. However, the empress’s foreign origin made her something of an outsider,
creating uncertainties in the heir’s own sense of nationality.
Essay 5, “The Russian Family as Symbol,” examines the
idealization of the imperial family in the context of the early
nineteenth-century cult of family and dynasty. Nicholas I introduced the
imagery and ceremony that exalted the imperial family as the exemplification of
domestic virtues, elevating the monarchy and the elite as paragons of western
dynastic ideals.
Worthman claims that the domestic imagery introduced in
the reign of Nicholas I made the family a central symbol of the Russian
autocracy’s moral purity, which claimed to be the purest form of absolute
monarchy. By associating family morality and autocracy, violating the principle
of autocracy was tantamount to a biblical sin against the father. Likewise, violation
of family morality could weaken the moral foundations of autocratic rule.
The essays in Part III examine the incorporation of the
ideas of nation and people into a myth of conquest that evoked symbolic
distance between the ruler and the ruled.
In essay 6, “The Invention of Tradition and the
Representation of Russian Monarchy,” Worthman discusses traditions invented in
nineteenth century Russia as means to emphasize heroic departures and breaks
from previous reigns. Despite claims of fidelity to tradition, the depiction of
the Russian monarchy from the reign of Peter the Great displays a symbolic
discontinuity, a pattern of indications of change rather than the preservation
of traditional ties, a dynamic process, but one that produced abrupt changes of
direction that could discourage the progressive development of existing
governmental institutions.
In Russia, the symbolic supremicy of the tsar had always
been closely linked with the extent and effectiveness of monarchical power. Through
performances which reaffirmed the state’s superhuman, heroic attributes Russian
monarchs themselves constantly kept the transcendent image of the political
order before the public. Myth and ceremonies raised the image of the monarch as
a distant, legitimate sovereign whose power was derived from God, but augmented
by the foreign sources of his authority. With Peter the Great the image took on
a Western tinge, since he adopted the Roman models of Western Europe and presented
himself as Imperator.
Whether his changes represented true innovations or not
was irrelevant; the appearance of change was the important point. Every tsar,
except the last, made a symbolic repudiation of the previous reign, as an
assertion that the ruler was not limited by the legacy of his or her
predecessors.
New traditions developed that depicted the emperor’s
absolute power as an historical expression of Russia’s national heritage. For example,
the creation of a national style of church architecture expressed one theme of
official nationality, the historic link between the Russian Orthodox Church and
the autocracy.
Nicholas I and Alexander III looked to the periods before
Peter the Great as source of inspiration to construct contemporary elements of
a Russian national past. Alexander III’s coronation in 1883, and that of
Nicholas II only thirteen years later, both served as means to celebrate the
national character of the Russian emperor.
In the seventh essay, “National Narratives in the
Representation of Nineteenth Century Russian Monarchy,” Worthman shows how two
distinct conceptions of a national monarchy emerged in the nineteenth century: The
first was Nicholas I’s “Official Nationality,” which maintained the basic
themes and images of the European myth, and claimed that the Russian people were
devoted to their westernized monarchs. The second was Alexander III’s,
“national myth,” which introduced the element of ethnicity to representations
of the tsar.
In order to prove their national credentials, nineteenth
century Russian monarchs utilized mythical narratives which showed their bond
with the Russian people. The Russian monarchy attempted to appropriate nationality
for itself alone, and tried to demonstrate that the westernized absolute
monarchy was native in origin and spirit.
After Alexander III’s death in 1894, Nicholas II did not
regard himself as a heroic westernized ruler, asserting his power through the
Petrine state. In fact, during his reign monarchical nationalism in Russia was
a major factor in hindering the emergence of a democratic nationalism that could
possibly unite state and society.
In essay 8, “Moscow and Petersburg: The Problem of
Political Center, 1881-1914,” the author investigates the symbolic implications
of Alexander III’s rejection of the narrative which had regarded St. Petersburg
as the symbol of the westernized monarchy until it was stained by Alexander II’s
assassination, and was then replaced by Moscow as the sacred center of a reborn
national monarchy. In other words, depictions of the monarchy attempted to associate
the image of imperial Russia with Moscow, rather than St. Petersburg since the
events in there, especially those in the Winter Palace, discredited and
dishonored the autocracy’s the sacred space.
The extensive use of Slavophile rhetoric and images in
depictions of Muscovy served several purposes for ideologists of autocracy. For
example, it separated the monarch not only from educated, westernized society,
but also from the absolute state’s institutions which were encumbered by forms of
European legality and institutional autonomy. In addition, Moscow, “the holy
city,” represented traditional religious values.
In the essay 9, “Nicholas II and the Revolution” Worthman
discusses the evolution of the national myth into the twentieth century. In
particular, he focuses on Nicholas II’s sense of a personal emotional bond with
the Russian people that he described in his decrees, diary, and personal
correspondence, and his reaction to revolutionary actions. He accepted the
pre-Petrine myth and tbelief that the Orthodox religion and the Russian
people’s adherence to it expressed Russia’s true national spirit.
Throughout the revolution he demonstrated his belief that
he had not forsaken his office as sovereign. Despite the revolution of 1905 the
tsar remained confident in his vision of a renewed personal autocracy in
Russia. In fact, the failure of the revolution convinced him that the Russian
monarchy could overcome any difficulty, and it was his destiny to lead Russia
out of a time of troubles. Like the first Romanov, he would create a restored,
powerful absolute monarchy supported by the Russian masses.
On October 17, 1905, Nicholas II issued the October
Manifesto in order to put an end to the disturbances. In it he promised to establish
a state and to grant basic civil liberties, personal inviolability, and freedom
of religion, speech, assembly and association. However, as the founder of this
new system Nicholas II clearly believed that he had the right to change it whenever
he saw fit. That is, Nicholas II insisted on the old definition of “unlimited
and autocratic”, asserting that the new representative institutions did not
limit his authority to abolish them if he so desired.
In addition, the Fundamental Laws could only be changed with
the tsar’s consent; other laws would be enacted by the tsar with the Duma’s participation.
In effect, the tsar remained sovereign, and the new Fundamental Laws maintained
Nicholas’s belief in his autocratic power, while giving the appearance that a
limited principle of rule of law had been introduced.
In Part IV, essay 10, “The Russian Empire and Russian
Monarchy: The Problem of Russian Nationalism” explores the dynamic that
produced this outcome, shifting the focus to the monarchy and the rulers’
determination to rule without public participation; to combine the nation and
the empire within the institution of autocracy.
The chapter cites Geoffrey Hosking who claims that the
imperial state discouraged the development of a civic or ethnic Russian
nationalism that could provide the basis for a nation state. Regarding the Russian
autocracy he states that it “was generated by the needs of empire, and had to
be reinforced as that empire came increasingly into conflict with
nation-building.” According to him, “in Russia state-building obstructed
nation-building,” and that autocracy and backwardness “were symptoms and not
causes: both were generated by the way the building of the empire obstructed
the formation of a nation.”
Nationalism became a battleground between the monarchy
and educated society; each side claimed to represent the people in its efforts
to control the state. Because the Russian monarchy asserted that it embodied
both the state and the nation, the Russian people were left with little
opportunitiy to act independently.
In essay 11, “The Integrity (Tselostnost’) of the State
in Imperial Russian Representation” the absolute power of the Russian monarch
and how it was inextricably linked to the maintenance of the Russian empire’s unity
and the integrity is examined.
From the reign of Peter the Great on it was argued that
the empire was vulnerable due to both its physical size and the diversity of
peoples found in it. These factors dictated the forceful, unlimited exercise of
absolute power if it was to remain unified.
Both the need to preserve the integrity of the empire,
and the essential role of absolute rule in the Russian state’s prospering and
surviving were reaffirmed in the wake of the defeat of Napoleon’s challenge to
Russia’s independence and the Decembrists’ challenge to the monarch’s absolute
power. Russia’s defeat in the Crimean War cast a shadow on the idealization of
autocracy, as it was clear that the empire’s integrity was again vulnerable.
The Polish revolution of 1863 raised new concerns about the integrity of the state.
As before, the reaffirmation of the empire’s integrity was presented in an
ideological and symbolic statement of unity. Similarly, the revolution in 1905 resulted
in great national disorder, threatening the state’s unity and integrity.
A new legal order resulted from the unrest in 1905,
taking the form of a somewhat contradictory composite of regulations. Some regulated
a state which claimed to derive its authority from popular mandate and others
guarded the absolute, unimpeachable prerogatives of a sovereign monarch. With the
promulgation on 23 April 1906 of Article I of the new Fundamental laws the
Russian state was declared to be one and indivisible.
In the Soviet period the state’s unity was restored by
means of the Red Army’s victories, and then institutionalized in the Communist
Party, a new centralized, personalized authority that continued the concepts of
autocracy and territorial integrity.
Today, Putin’s emphasis on Russia’s territorial integrity
(territorial’naya tselostnost’) is not merely a justification for his
autocratic power, but is indicative of the unity created by the Russian people
and the state of which he is the democratically elected leader.
This article is followed by an discussion with the editors
of Ab Imperio, who pose questions that challenge Worthman’s assumptions
and conclusions.
In the last essay, “The Tsar and Empire: Representation
of the Monarchy and Symbolic Integration in Imperial Russia,” Worthman investigates
the attempts to assimilate both the nation and nationalities into the
hierarchical structure of the monarchy. In particular, the author focuses n the
reign of Alexander II, when the state is considered to have begun, and the
efforts made to create a sense of citizenship. The article summarizes these
efforts decreasing success, resulting in the use of force and the imagery of
national conquest in an attempt to reaffirm the empire’s unity. The centrifugal
tendencies already present in this multinational empire were only exacerbated
by the establishment of the Duma in 1906.
The enlightenment principles behind the European myth of the
Russian autocracy assumed that the empire’s subject peoples would eventually be
assimilated. However, the realities of local power politics in the national
regions clearly demonstrated that this assumption was false. The monarchy could
not break free on the mythology of conquest, which continued at the same time
that citizenship was being promoted. The Russian conquest and colonization of territories
in the Caucasus and Central Asia resulted in mass expulsions and the extermination
of local peoples.
Alexander II believed that the reforms and measure of
freedom permitted after he took the throne would result in his grateful
subjects making common cause with the monarchy. However, the assassination of
Alexander II and the accession of Alexander III in March 1881 put an end to
these reforms. Instead the new ruler was convinced that autocracy could only be
defended by ruthless force. The motif of conquest that rejected conciliation
and efforts at integration reappeared.
Although attempts at Russification had limited success,
this ideology was powerful barrier to the integration of nationalities
throughout the empire during the reigns of Alexander III and Nicholas II. This
national myth replaced assumed assimilation into a multi-ethnic empire, with a
preexistent national supremacy and dominance inherited from a distant, glorious
past.
At the end of the book Richard S. Wortman’s bibliography
written by Ernest A. Zitser and the references are included.
This is a well written book and its collection of essays on the
history of the Russian Monarchy provides a complete picture of the
Russian monarchy as an ongoing institution and its political culture, functions, presence in Russian life; and central role of
symbolic representation in the Russian political culture. The book would serve as a valuable
source for academicians as well as students of Russian history.
*Ayse Dietrich - Professor, Part-time, at Middle East Technical University, Department of History. Editor and the founder of the International Journal of Russian Studies. e-mail: editor@ijors.net, dayse@metu.edu.tr, dietrichayse@yahoo.com
© 2010, IJORS - INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN STUDIES