Russian Orthodoxy on the Eve of Revolution

Rating:
Summary: Well researched, but only partly informative
Review: For people who know little about Russian Orthodoxy, there is much that readers will find valuable in Vera Shevzov's book on pre-revolutionary Orthodoxy. The book uses 14 archival collections, sixty contemporary newspapers, and has more than twenty pages of contemporary and secondary material. It discusses the complex relationship between hierarchy and laity, the role of church and chapel, the problem of feasts, and possesses two chapters on icons, one with special focus on the Virgin Mary. But readers should be forewarned that in finding out information about these subjects they will have to read Shevzov's strikingly dull and verbose prose, while vital questions about Russian Orthodoxy are ignored.

Shevzov subtitles one of her chapters "Symbols of Ecclesial Antinomies," and that is all too typical of her style. Sentences like "The relationship between churches and chapels and the distinct though related ways in which they mobilized individual sensibilities and became expressions of collective belonging found parallels in the celebration of sacred time" are all too common. Shevzov herself is the daughter of a priest, and the result is a book in which complex theological minutiae swamps one would think are more important questions. Historians such as Orlando Figes consider much of Orthodox culture a thin veneer of Christianity over a peasant mass of superstition and outright paganism. What does Shevzov say about this? As little as possible. Other historians of religion have looked at what nominal Christians actually knew about their religion. So what did average Russians know about the Gospels, the Bible, the requirements for salvation? What did most Russians actually think about "their" church? Shevzov tells us little or nothing. The possibility of a pagan or syncretist influence is not even raised. It is striking that Jews are mentioned in passing only twice in the whole book. There is nothing here about Orthodox relations with the other religions in the Russian Empire, whether it is with Jews, Catholics, Muslims, the sectarians within their midst or the atheists who would soon scourge it. There is little about the politics of Orthodoxy and how they faced the political and intellectual challenges that would soon overwhelm it. (Rasputin doesn't even appear in the index, and there is no real discussion of ecclesiastical politics). Orthodoxy, like all religions, demanded a certain standard of conduct from its followers. How successful were they in getting it? Again, Shevzov tells us nothing. It is also striking that someone could write a whole book on religion and not look at gender.

There is a tendency in the book to make Orthodoxy appear more reasonable and open-minded than was actually the case. It is surprising how little there is about superstition. True, Shevzov does mention that some people thought Russia was defeated by Japan because a certain icon failed to reach Port Arthur in time. And she does mention the rather elaborate, endless rituals worshippers had to go through in order to get holy Communion, with the result that few people did. You shouldn't spit or kiss on the day in question, many ate only a Lenten diet, and abstained from sex. You shouldn't eat between Confession and Communion the next day. A rate of once a year was considered reasonable. But these are exceptions and they are not dealt with harshly. And so we get discussions of miracle-working icons and elaborate rules for feast days without any sense that anyone might find anything unreasonable in all this. And certainly there is nothing about ritual-murder beliefs. A key theme for Shevzov is the relationship between the church and the laity. The popular image of Orthodoxy is one of a strictly elitist religion in which the clergy gave orders and the laity followed. Shevzov, on the one hand wants to counter the reputation for servility and submission. But on the other hand she does not want it to appear that the church was constantly fighting. So we get discussions among Orthodox intellectuals about the proper role of the laity. By her own admission not much was reformed before 1917, though this does not stop her from comparing the debates to the Council of Trent and Vatican II. And we also get long discussions of quarrels between laity and hierarchy over church affairs and getting approval to build chapels. There were also quarrels over how to sanctify the right icons, and the rules for the right iconic procession. Sometimes the hierarchy would get the removal of the "wrong" kind of icons from private homes and there would be discussion and debate over whether this was a good thing. There is an emphasis on laic initiative in church affairs, keeping popular feasts and iconic devotion, though Shevzov does point out that the laity was not the same as the nominal Orthodox population. The idea is to break down the popular/official dichotomy in the study of Orthodoxy, without really challenging it. The result seems more like slight of hand, than sustained analysis.

Rating:
Summary: Russian Orthodoxy as a Living Tradition
Review: Russian Orthodoxy on the Eve of Revolution is a sophisticated and original reconstruction of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Russian religious life, indeed the first work of its kind to integrate the experience and beliefs of ordinary laypeople into the history of modern Russian Orthodoxy. Drawing upon a wide range of social and institutional sources, including archival material which until recently was inaccessible even to Russian scholars, Shevzov bridges the gap between religious histories which focus on the hierarchy of the Russian church, and social histories which focus on the common folk yet ignore the massive role that religion plays in their lives. She thus paints a vivid portrait of "lived Russian Orthodoxy" - a world in which the learned religious elite and ordinary believers are tied to each other (whether in conflict or harmony, stability or change) by shared culture-forming practices: the veneration of miracle-working icons, communal feasts, the cult of the Virgin Mary, and the liturgical rhythms of everyday life in churches and chapels.

Here is a sampling of expert reviewers' comments from the back cover: Jaroslav Pelikan, the eminent Yale historian of Christian doctrine writes "Anyone who wants to understand either Russian Pravoslavie or the Marxism-Leninism that (temporarily!) supplanted it must read her report from the front line." John Erickson, the Dean of St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary, comments "This is a remarkable book! With masterful attention to detail, Shevzov presents a fascinating and challenging picture of the Russian Orthodox Church on the eve of the revolutionary period, from the corridors of power in St. Petersburg to the humblest provincial village chapel." Eve Levin, a historian of Russia from the University of Kansas calls the book "a magisterial study of religious identity and community in late Imperial Russia." Paul Valliere, McGregor Professor in the Humanities, Butler University writes, "Thanks to the erudition, uncanny eye and eloquence of our guide, we see the Russian church tradition in all its color, emotion, energy, inventiveness, activism-in a word, in all its life."