RUSCA, NICCOLÒ

RUSCA, Niccolò. - Priest, born in April 1560 at Bedano in the Canton of Ticino, then in the diocese of Como, of a noble Como family, died as a result of torture at Thusis on 4 September 1618.

He studied at Pavia and Rome, then at the recently established Swiss College in Milan by St. Charles Borromeo. Ordained priest on 23 May 1587, he was parish priest of Sessa-Monteggio (Canton of Ticino) from 1588 to 1590, when

and secondly because it would also include territories not Russian).

It is therefore preferable to preserve for the name R. its traditional value, that is, ultimately, a historical-geographical one. R. is the European territory inhabited predominantly and politically organized by the Russian people and which remained the vital core of the Soviet state. Giuseppe Caraci

I. CIVIL HISTORY

R., almost from the first moments in which it emerges from the obscurities of prehistory, presents itself at once as the extreme bulwark of Europe against the nomadic waves of Asia and as an antagonistic organism to the European state formations that border it to the west. Hence, a very advantageous position; as the dukes of Moscow gradually tended to become the sole rulers of R. (even if under the formal domination of the Tatars) and as Moscow appeared as a secure and tranquil center, the Russian clergy — accustomed, according to Byzantine tradition, to support a strong authority — did not stint moral support to the Duchy (v. MOSCOW, patriarchate of). While Genghis Khan moved with his hordes from Asia, the western Russian territories meanwhile came into conflict with the Teutonic Order, the Swedes, and the Lithuanians (the Mindaugas and especially Gediminas, who died in 1341, created the Lithuanian monarchy, centered at Vilna). The struggle, in broad outline, was already clearly defined for the Russians on two fronts.

In 1380 the Tatars suffered a defeat at Kulikovo at the hands of the Russians, led by Prince Dmitry Donskoy. This was not yet the liberation of R., for the Tatars recovered, but it was the prelude to liberation. Total emancipation from the Tatars was then the consequence of the unifying policy of the rulers of Moscow.

Even more notable successes and expansions of the principality of Moscow coincided, on the European stage, with the era of the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks and with the invasion of the Russian tribes and the struggle against the barbarian tribes of the steppe: they had their seat first at Novgorod and then at Kiev, which soon became a notable commercial and military center. A very important river route led to Byzantium: the Dnieper. Guerrilla warfare and expeditions against Byzantium, no less than commercial relations with the Byzantine world, were sources of wealth for R. Gradually, however, Christianity filtered from Byzantium into Russian lands, and with the conversion to Christianity of Prince Vladimir (988), the Russian people emerged from the opaque anonymity of primitive tribes. The aggressions of the nomadic peoples of the steppe had more or less intense moments: particularly threatening was the invasion of the vigorous horde of the Polovtsy (mid-11th century), which afflicted cities such as Kiev, Chernigov, and Pereyaslavl'. Russian historians have emphasized how the campaigns of 1095 (and the following years) against the Polovtsy coincided more or less with the First Crusade: Vladimir Monomakh, tireless in fighting the steppe tribes, would thus have played, on the historical stage, the same role as Godfrey of Bouillon. The attacks of the Asian tribes and the fratricidal struggles of the princes, however, greatly weakened the "Russian land" and led to the complete decline of Kiev. More serious and harsher was, in the course of the 13th century, the invasion of the Tatars. Having subjected R., the Tatars transformed it into a province of their empire: the Russian people, however, retained its princes, who became vassals of the conquerors, obliged to "assist" the Tatars in various ways and, above all, to pay regular tribute.

Among the various Russian duchies, the Duchy of Moscow meanwhile developed increasingly, favored by its central geographical position and by the prudent and astute policy of its dukes; Ivan I Kalita (1328-41) obtained, during his reign, from the Tatar khan the right to collect all the tribute that the Russians owed to the victors: such

These aspects — on the one hand of despotism and on the other of military power — come fully to light under Ivan IV, called the Terrible (although the Russian term *groznyj* perhaps more accurately means "the powerful," "the severe"). Ivan's reign (who was to be the first tsar) lasted from 1533 to 1584; from childhood he was accustomed to scenes of cruelty and servility around him: he was indeed cruel and merciless, though never without a dramatic, inner desire for purification and a sincere devotion to the state. He reorganized the civil and military administration of the state, conquered Kazan', Astrakhan', and Siberia, and anticipated Peter the Great in the desire to "open a window onto the Baltic, to bring R. out of the 'Asiatic' period of its history." The Russians occupied Narva and Dorpat, reaching as far as Riga: the reaction of Sweden and Poland, however, ensured that the successes

"privilege" — proved very advantageous; as the dukes of Moscow tended to become the sole rulers of R. (even if under the formal domination of the Tatars) and as Moscow appeared as

from childhood, to open the way to the throne. Godunov, subsequently, had the skill to make himself long supplicated to accept the throne; yet this was not enough to silence the insinuations against him. A severe famine that afflicted R. from 1601 to 1603 aggravated the situation and created in the country a state of more or less latent brigandage. During that period, the rumor spread, evidently by design, that the young Dmitry had not died. A false Dmitry, strengthened by the aura deriving from his claim to descend from the Rurik dynasty (later concretely supported by Poland and bands of Cossacks and fugitive serfs), presented himself threateningly before Godunov, whose sudden death (1605) removed, however, every obstacle to the triumph of his clever adversary. The false Dmitry reigned only eleven months (1605-1606), disappointing Poland in various hopes placed in him and at the same time offending the Muscovites by his crude manners and failure to observe Russian traditions. The instigator of the plot against him was none other than Basil Shuisky, who had conducted the investigation at Uglich (and who subsequently became tsar). Meanwhile, anarchy raged in increasingly tragic forms throughout the country (this is the period known as the "Time of Troubles"), while Poles and Swedes sought to take advantage of the situation. The rebellion in the country and the struggle of factions and individuals within the nobility were calmed only by the election as tsar of the very young Michael Romanov (1613), with whom a family ascended the throne that was to rule in R. until the Revolution of 1917.

From the moment of the election of Michael Romanov, Russia’s position again strengthened on the international stage, while new elements of technique and (in part) of European civilization gradually penetrated the country. Nevertheless, Russia was not spared internal disorders. The most serious uprising was undoubtedly, during the reign of Tsar Alexis, that led by Sten’ka Razin (1670–72), a figure later romantically exalted in folk songs. Drawing support from Cossacks, peasants, fugitive serfs, and in part from allogeneic ethnic groups, Razin managed for a time to dominate the middle and lower Volga regions.

Around the turn of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, with the towering figure of Peter the Great (q.v.), Russia underwent profound internal transformations and presented itself to Europe as a leading power. The rise, under him, of “action” and activism, in contrast to “traditions” and “contemplative attitudes,” did not signify—unlike the climate of Western humanism and the Renaissance—a return to the values of classical civilization; instead, it sometimes took the form of brutal excesses and mockery of religion. Of the Western civilization he sought to introduce into Russia (in the name of his country’s future power), Peter perceived almost exclusively its technical and material aspects. His grandiose reforms were always somewhat improvised. His will to industrialize largely coincided with a war economy: in any case, it was the State that ordered the creation of factories in a country with scarce capital, no entrepreneurs, and few buyers (given the predominance of artisanal production). Urban centers arose not from spontaneous material and spiritual enrichment but because the State needed administrative hubs. Schools also emerged to produce officers, road and bridge builders, physicians, officials, engineers, and artillerymen. From the moment a student began his studies, he was already “in service” to the State; thus, the first characteristic seeds of an intelligentsia took root. The new, despotic, secular State cut beards and banned “old customs,” while at the same time seeking to open the world of modern technology to the boldest and ablest young men (many of whom would equate this technology with civilization itself). Peter’s fierce repressions of his opponents did not prevent this energetic sovereign—creator of the new capital on the marshy shores of the Gulf of Finland—from harboring a deep respect for “public utility” and the interests of the State. Amid military campaigns not always crowned with success,

Peter nonetheless achieved grand military successes, culminating in the victory at Poltava over Charles XII, which effectively removed Sweden from the ranks of the great powers.

Peter the Great’s reforms, however, suffered from the defect common to all reforms imposed violently from above rather than maturing gradually from the real needs and ideal aspirations of a people (or at least of its more cultured and conscious segment). Respect for the interests of the State (and above all for public funds) was often succeeded by the whims and selfishness of despots and favorites, mostly of foreign extraction. Palatial revolutions were the typical sign of this climate. Notable, however, was the figure of Empress Elizabeth, who opened the doors to French art, taste, and elegance while also emphasizing her sincere attachment to Russian traditions. With Elizabeth, around the mid-eighteenth century, certain characteristic features of “enlightened absolutism” began to take hold in Russia.

The dominant figure in Russia in the second half of the eighteenth century, however, was Catherine II, whose importance for her State was certainly no less than Peter the Great’s. Peter’s voluntarism had created, through war, industry, technology, and military art, new men—but progress had not been conceived by him in “humanitarian” terms. With Catherine II, by contrast, the climate of the Enlightenment, reformist aspirations, and emancipatory ideals entered Russia. The abolition of torture was sought, and crimes were to be prevented. New schools arose, physiocratic doctrines spread, and Voltaire, Diderot, and Beccaria became fashionable in cultured and elegant salons. Yet a great revolt in the Urals and along the Volga, led by E. Pugachev (a threatening repetition of Razin’s earlier rebellion), convinced the Empress of the “dangerous aspect” of ideas that had seemed so attractive in the salons. The Empress thus underwent a distinctly conservative turn, which was further underscored by the outbreak of the French Revolution. Notable successes were also achieved during her reign by Russia against the Turks. Following the successive partitions of Poland, Russia annexed large portions of that State’s territory, further strengthening its position as a great power.

At the dawn of the nineteenth century, Russia was still little known in the West, but its political importance and military weight began to be increasingly recognized by diplomats. Under the reign of Alexander I (1801–1825), Russia passed through another period of reforms, though many remained mere projects; from the dissatisfaction this produced arose the first revolutionary attempt. The year 1812 was of decisive importance: Napoleon’s armies invaded Russia, and Moscow was set ablaze so that the invader would find no shelter. After the victory of Russian arms, a new and more “modern” nationalism began to develop among the educated classes: Russian patriotism, hitherto identified with religious (“Orthodox”) and dynastic sentiment, increasingly sought to assign Russia a great “mission” in the world under the influence of ideas from France and Germany. Upon ascending the throne, Alexander I attempted to give his reign a broadly liberal tone: the residual Enlightenment ideals of his education curiously mingled with romantic dreams; ideals of freedom drawn from readings of Greek and Latin classics intertwined with the habits of a semi-despotic court. Many young officers, who had long believed they were “collaborating” with the Tsar in reformist activity and propaganda (especially regarding the abolition of serfdom), found themselves almost unawares becoming conspirators.

Uspenski, *L'art byzantin chez les slaves*. Paris 1912, pl. 39, no. 2.

(from T. Copenchil, *L'art byzantin chez les slaves*. Paris 1622. Russia — Sts. John and Prochorus. Miniature from the early fourteenth century. Frontispiece of the Gospel of Theodore the Black of Yaroslavl. Yaroslavl, Museum.

RUSSIA — Sts. John and Prochorus. Miniature from the early fourteenth century. Frontispiece of the Gospel of Theodore the Black of Yaroslavl. Yaroslavl, Museum.

Revolutionaries, as Alexander I gradually distanced himself from his early liberal tendencies, were driven to action. Thus (December 1825) the so-called Decembrist uprising occurred (from *dekabr'*, which in Russian means December). Among the conspirators, two broad tendencies emerged: those aiming for a constitutional monarchy of more or less English type and those who invoked broadly Jacobin ideals, with pre-socialist undertones. The uprising was easily suppressed, but it was to be the prelude to intense and profound revolutionary movements. The weakness and fantastic abstraction of Alexander I were particularly evident in the rise of the "Holy Alliance" and its developments, which were not always consonant with the contradictory dreams of the mystically inclined Emperor.

The reign of Nicholas I (1825–55) began with the crushing of the Decembrist insurrection. On the one hand, the new Emperor sought to combat every revolutionary germ at its root, while on the other, with the development of modern capitalism in Russia, the spread of industry and railways, the foundations were laid for inevitable social transformations and future unrest. Under his rule, Russia seemed immune to revolution; yet the Crimean War revealed numerous grave technical and material weaknesses, while political and social agitation, though kept subdued, spread ever more widely, especially toward the end of his reign. Nicholas I’s spirit of anti-revolutionary solidarity was stronger than the immediate voice of Russia’s national and state interests (as seen in his relations with Austria in 1849). A man in some ways of unyielding consistency, he nonetheless failed to grasp the necessity of timely political reforms and a transformation and redistribution of social relations. The Polish national uprising (1830–31) and its harsh repression drew deep enmity against Russia from the most diverse and opposing sectors of European public opinion (Catholics, liberals, and left-wing democrats).

Alexander II (1855–81), by contrast, devoted himself to a grand program of reforms. The disastrous outcome of the Crimean War and the increasingly explicit orientation of influential sectors of Russian society made sweeping reforms imperative. The fundamental achievement was the emancipation of the serfs (1861),

paving the way for revolutionaries through gradual constitutional concessions to moderate and reformist currents. Moreover, the further industrialization of the country (especially in major centers) and the notable expansion of railways contributed to swelling the ranks of the proletariat, instinctively and primitively revolutionary. Broadly speaking, the policy of Alexander III was decidedly illiberal, in contrast to that of his predecessor; yet in foreign policy, Alexander III aligned Russia with the French Republic, thus subordinating the traditional friendship among conservative-leaning empires (Russia, Austria, Germany) to national interests. The alliance with France offered Russia a guarantee of support against any expansionist ambitions of Germany and Austria and opened to Russia the French financial market.

Under Nicholas II (1894–1917), the great revolutionary agitations entered their decisive phase. The new Emperor, though a convinced advocate of autocracy, was a weak man. Faced with revolutionary unrest, he made concessions, only to withdraw them (in whole or in part) once the moment of extreme danger seemed past. Of all possible political lines, this was perhaps the most unfortunate. Corruption and intrigue within ruling circles had assumed alarming proportions. At court, servile adventurers like the infamous Rasputin gradually gained influence. Yet during his reign, serious attempts were made to curb unrest and restore finances—for example, the monetary reform associated with the minister Witte and the subsequent agrarian reform attempted by Stolypin, albeit by questionable methods. The construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway spurred internal migration. Nonetheless, terrorist attacks on members of the imperial family, governors, and police officials followed one another at an alarming pace.

The war against Japan (1904–05) accelerated the revolutionary tempo. As a great power stretching from the Arctic Ocean to the Black Sea and from the Baltic to the Pacific, Russia was inclined to look toward Asia whenever its expansion in Europe met with setbacks. The meager diplomatic gains secured by Alexander II after his victories over Turkey in the Balkans (Treaty of Berlin, 1878) indeed pushed Russia—where broad strata of public opinion felt “disappointed”—toward intensified expansionism in Central Asia and the Far East. A “minor” war with Japan (expected to yield a brilliant victory) might also have served as a useful diversion from the chronic political and social unrest. Yet Russia’s disastrous defeat at the hands of Japan soon exacerbated revolutionary agitation instead.

Those who championed the most uncompromising “autocratic” line failed to recognize that profound transformations of every kind—especially on the social plane—were necessary to drain the revolutionary mill. Liberals operated on the fringes of legality and lacked a mature, self-aware middle class capable of moderation; torn by internal strife, partly monarchist and partly republican, they sometimes encouraged revolutionary agitation only to abruptly reverse course. Vague, weak, and demagogic was the path traced by indeterminate currents seeking to reconcile “Orthodox” religious tradition with “progress.” Increasingly decisive, by contrast, were openly anti-monarchist and more or less revolutionary parties. The so-called Socialist-Revolutionaries had adherents in almost all social classes and exerted a strong fascination over students through their clandestine terrorist formations; romantic and eclectic, they aimed at a democratic republic, at formulas vaguely reminiscent of 1848 (in the European sense), and at a non-Marxist socialism, extolling “human personality” and sympathizing with the peasantry. The Bolsheviks (v. BOLSHEVISM) were an active, authoritarian minority, organized along centralized lines, and at critical moments wielded influence far beyond their numerical strength. The Mensheviks broadly corresponded to European democratic socialism but lacked a following due to the absence in Russia of skilled, well-paid workers, the extremism that had become almost instinctive among the young, and the slowness and inconsistency of governmental reforms and measures.

Interior Minister Plehve was assassinated in July 1904, and the deed elicited no public outcry—a truly symptomatic fact. The entire country was now shaken by violent revolutionary fever. Vague hopes that the tsar would grant a constitution went unfulfilled. On 9 January 1905, in St. Petersburg, a tragic “Bloody Sunday” unfolded when police fired on a massive crowd attempting to deliver a petition to the Winter Palace. The revolution seemed truly to gain the upper hand: armed patricians

Students and workers were demonstrating. While the peasants (aspiring to become small landowners) burned many manor houses, Moscow and St. Petersburg were shaken by bloody revolutionary uprisings and general strikes. In the Black Sea there was a serious mutiny in the military fleet. Among the workers the first soviets (“councils”) were formed. On 17 Oct. 1905 the tsar finally decided to grant the Russian people a partial constitution (though the word “constitution” was avoided). The revolutionary wave subsided somewhat, also because of internal exhaustion. Indeed, violent counter-revolutionary demonstrations occurred, especially in the south-western region, accompanied by excesses against the Jews. The so-called “Black Hundreds” distinguished themselves in the violence.

The first Duma (parliament) was dominated by left-wing and far-left elements; the government therefore decided to dissolve it (July 1906). The second Duma met the same fate (June 1907). The third Duma, elected under various pressures, proved more compliant. In the country the revolutionary wave seemed to be receding; the world of culture was moving away from “materialist mysticism” and revolutionary solutions. It might perhaps be thought that Russia was gradually “Europeanizing,” albeit amid further rebellions and repressions.

The outbreak of the First World War soon rekindled the flame of revolution. In the summer of 1914 a strong wave of patriotism swept over Russia, even winning over many popular elements. After the initial victories over the Austrians, however, the Russian armies suffered a series of resounding defeats; vast territories were abandoned to the Germans. Railway communications were inadequate, the army poorly reformed, and food scarce in the major cities. Among the circles close to the court vague proposals for a separate peace with the Central Powers were aired. Among the diplomats of the “Entente” there were those who hoped that a democratic revolution would intensify the war effort. In February 1917 the police proved incapable of suppressing at birth the disturbances of women and workers caused by the lack of food and war-weariness. The disturbances quickly took on a threatening character. Forced to abdicate, the tsar found that even the accession of his brother Grand Duke Michael was psychologically impossible. Russia, which had never known a European-style constitutional regime, had suddenly become a republic. The “provisional government” immediately faced immense difficulties: all social classes in the country were in violent ferment, the parties lacked political traditions, and the ethnic minorities were more or less openly seeking to secede from Russia. The army was in full disintegration, since effective discipline had been practically abolished. The leader of the liberals, Miliukov, determined to continue the war alongside the Allies and increasingly suspicious of the extremists, was gradually replaced by the weak and demagogic Kerensky, who also wanted the war to continue alongside the Entente but was unable with his abstract political formulas to restore order in the country or at the front (isolated, belated measures he took against sabotage and treason only momentarily exasperated the extremists without achieving any real result). Lenin (q.v.), leader of the Bolshevik faction, energetic and decisive in his means and aims, an excellent tactician and strategist of politics, meanwhile returned to Russia by means of the famous “sealed train” made available by Germany (which, also weary of the war, hoped for a military collapse of Russia). Soon after, Trotsky (Trotzki [q.v.]), a brilliant and energetic revolutionary who after some ideological disagreement had joined the Bolsheviks, reached Russia. The Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries were divided into “factions” and often showed marked complexes of inferiority vis-à-vis Lenin’s party. The feeble and impotent regime of Kerensky was swept away after a few months by the Bolshevik Revolution (7 Nov. 1917, according to the European calendar). A previous right-wing insurrection attempt had failed. Kerensky had deluded himself that he had “more than sufficient forces” to crush the Bolshevik coup. The Bolsheviks, who came to power under very difficult conditions, had to sign the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Imperial Germany. Soon after, civil war flared up throughout the country, bringing the horrors that civil war always entails. The imperial family was killed in 1918. The peasant masses who had supported the Revolution in the hope of seizing land grew increasingly irritated by requisitions. Yet even the so-called “White” armies lacked unity, and the leaders of the counter-revolutionary forces showed little diplomatic or propagandistic skill. The chaos caused by the so-called “war communism” in Soviet Russia was partly mitigated by the NEP (“New Economic Policy”): Lenin, in a shrewd move, had indeed given the economy a decisive turn by provisionally admitting certain “capitalist” sectors and a margin for private initiative. At Lenin’s death (Jan. 1924), Stalin, a Georgian, increasingly came to the fore. With the beginning of the “Stalin era,” Russia (which after the revolution had become the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”) embarked on a series of grandiose five-year plans aimed at transforming itself ever more into an industrial power and collectivizing agriculture. Notable technical successes were achieved at the cost of harsh sacrifices. Unlike his rival Trotsky, Stalin was convinced that it was possible to build socialism even in a single country. A series of major trials, held between 1934 and 1938, eliminated many leaders of the old Bolshevik guard. Stalin’s position became ever more powerful with the disappearance of all “factions” within the party.

In view of the strengthening of German power, starting from 1933, the Soviet leaders fundamentally re-examined their policy (along with that of the League of Nations); they then supported their political and military parties and divided Poland, while Soviet press from 1939 to 1941 was particularly polemical towards France and England. The rapprochement between Germany and the USSR did not, however, pay dividends in terms of established values. In June 1941, Hitler, fearing the persistence of the Russian unknown factor in the event of a German landing in England, suddenly launched an offensive against the USSR. Within a few weeks, German advances reached near Leningrad and Moscow, destroying much of the Soviet army. The winter, the vast distances, the Russian masses, and the increasingly abundant aid from the Anglo-Saxons to the USSR, however, made the Germans' situation quite difficult; their position worsened further during 1942 and became catastrophic in the following two years. In the spring of 1943, the Russians entered victorious into Berlin and Vienna. Following the victory, the USSR occupied vast regions of Central and Eastern Europe, quickly establishing regimes of its liking everywhere. A few years later, with the aid of skilful military and diplomatic moves, the USSR succeeded in bringing about communist victory in Manchuria. This was the prelude to communist victory throughout China and the achievement of a success of vast scope. Western policy, with its element of surprise and partly still well-disposed towards the USSR, gradually became more rigid. Thus began the Atlantic Pact, the partial rearmament of Western Europe, and, finally, in Asia, the incomplete integration of Japan into a Pacific nations' front.

11. RELIGIOUS HISTORY

For the predominant majority of the Russian population who belonged to the Russian dissident Church, V. KIEV, metropolis of; MOSCOW, patriarchate of; RASKOL.

12. Latin-Rite Catholics

In the 9th century, Christianity penetrated Russia even in the form of the Latin rite, but with the conversion of the Grand Prince St Vladimir (980-1015), the Byzantine-Slav rite prevailed.

However, in the great cities such as Kiev and Novgorod, Latin-rite Catholics continued to live, especially foreign merchants. Later, among the artists, artisans, and foreign merchants in the service of the Grand Princes of Moscow, especially from Ivan III (1462-1505) onwards, there were also Latin Catholics, who populated (along with Protestants) the Moscow suburb known as the "Nemeckaja sloboda." There were then attempts by the Latins to bring Russia to the Catholic Church. In 1586, the Jesuit Antonio Possevino, negotiating the truce between Poland and Russia, had religious disputes with Tsar Ivan IV, but without any success. The hopes placed in the False Dmitry (1605-1606), supported by Poland, also failed. In 1658, the Croatian priest Juraj Križanić (v.) went to Moscow with the same intent, but ended up being exiled to Siberia (1661-76). In 1702, Tsar Peter I granted freedom of worship, but not of religious propaganda. Emperor Leopold I of Austria (1657-1705) obtained from the Tsar that two Jesuits could reside in Moscow to provide spiritual assistance to members of his embassy and to the scattered Latin Catholics in Russia. However, the school attached to their church attracted too many sons of the Russian nobility, some conversions took place, and so the Jesuits were expelled in 1719. For a time, they were replaced by Capuchins and Franciscans.

With the first partition of Poland (1772), in addition to the Ruthenians (v.), there were also about 100,000 Latin-rite Catholics belonging to three dioceses (Vilna, Livonia, Smolensk) in Russia. Catherine II in 1772 united them into a single diocese with its seat in Mohilev. The auxiliary bishop of Vilna, Stanislaw Siestrzenciewicz-Bohusz, subservient and loyal to the Empress, accepted the diocese from her hands with the title of metropolitan. Only in 1783 did the nuncio Lorenzo Litta give canonical investiture to Siestrzenciewicz. Catherine II prohibited the publication of the brief [abolishing the Society of Jesus (1773)] in her dominions, and thus the Jesuits survived in Russia. With the following partitions of Poland (1793-95), Russia acquired other territories inhabited by Latin-rite Catholics, but these had their own hierarchy (v. POLAND). The influence of the Jesuits and French Catholic émigrés led to the conversion of some personalities in Russian high society, e.g., Prince Dmitry Golitsyn (1792), Princesses Aleksandra (1800) and Ekaterina (1810) Golitsyna, Sofia Svechina (1815). This provoked a reaction, and in 1826 the Jesuits were expelled from Russia and measures against proselytism were tightened. The Concordat concluded in 1847 between Nicholas I (1825-55) and Pius IX did not change the situation; only the new diocese of Tiraspol (1848) was erected for the southern regions of the Empire. Even in the 19th century, there were individual conversions to the Latin rite among prominent Russians; some converts even became religious and priests (Vladimir Pechorin, d. 1885; Gregory Shuvalov, d. 1859; the Jesuits: Ivan Gagarin, d. 1882, Ivan Martynov, d. 1894, Eugene Balabin, d. 1893, Paul Pierling, d. 1922; the Jesuits: Augustine Golitsyn, d. 1875, Natalia Naryshkina, d. 1874, etc.). However, they had to live and work abroad due to Russian laws against proselytism, which were only abolished in 1905. But the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 marked the beginning of a new persecution even for Latin-rite Catholics, who at that time numbered about 1,600,000 faithful in Russia, with 8 bishops, 810 priests, and 410 churches. In 1923, Msgr. Cieplak (v.), administrator of the Mohilev metropolis, was arrested and tried along with 14 priests. This was followed by arrests, deportations, and exiles of other priests, the closure of churches, and the confiscation of ecclesiastical property. Despite the fact that in 1926 Msgr. Michel d'Herbigny had secretly ordained 4 bishops in Russia, by 1937 only 10 priests and 11 churches remained open for worship in the Soviet Union. Today, the organization of the Latin-rite Catholic Church in Russia is practically annihilated, and the scattered faithful lack religious assistance.

The territorial changes that occurred in Eastern Europe after the Second World War (1939-45) brought back into the Soviet Union about 4,000,000 Latin-rite Catholics. For their history, V. ESTONIA; LATVIA; LITHUANIA; POLAND.

Initially, Latin Catholics in Russia were predominantly not of Russian origin. The majority came from the western regions of the Russian Empire; some were deportees or exiles within European and Asian Russia, while others migrated in search of land or work (Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Baltic Germans). From abroad, Germans, Czechs, French, and others immigrated. Polish-origin Catholics were numerically predominant. The practical identification of nationality with religion, widespread among Poles and Russians, was the main obstacle that prevented Catholics—though numerous—from effectively influencing the religious life of the native Russian population.

2. **Byzantine-Slavic Rite Catholics.** — In the 15th century, Metropolitan Isidore, who participated in the Council of Florence (v.), attempted to introduce union with Rome in Russia while preserving the Eastern rite, but without success. The Ruthenian dioceses united and annexed to Russia through the partitions of Poland (1772–95) were suppressed (v. RUTENI). In the 18th–19th centuries, individual Russian converts adopted the Latin rite and, in the eyes of Russian public opinion, thereby renounced their nation.

However, toward the end of the 19th century, some Russian intellectuals reached union with the Catholic Church by studying the genuine traditions of the Eastern Church and desired, even as Catholics, to preserve the Byzantine-Slavic rite as then practiced by the Russian dissenting Church. Among the first were Princess Elisabetta Volkonskaja (d. 1897), the philosopher Vladimir Soloviev (v.), and the priests Alexis Zierbaninov (d. 1933) and Nicholas Tolstoy (d. 1926). The movement gained other priests and laity, who formed in St. Petersburg, Moscow, and Saratov the first communities of Russian Catholics of the Byzantine-Slavic rite. In 1917, Metropolitan Andrei Sheptytsky of Halych (v.), passing through St. Petersburg on his return from captivity, established in Russia the Apostolic Exarchate of the Byzantine-Slavic rite by virtue of special powers received from the Holy See, and appointed the first exarch in the person of Fr. Leonid Fedorov (1879–1935). But the subsequent Bolshevik persecution stifled the development of the Exarchate. In 1923, Exarch Fedorov was arrested and deported; he died in Viatka in 1935. Further arrests and deportations of other priests soon completely shattered the small Russian Catholic Church of the Byzantine-Slavic rite. Yet the movement continued among Russian émigrés. In almost all the principal states of Europe and America, groups of Russian Catholics of the Byzantine-Slavic rite now exist, served by their own priests. To engage in apostolate among Russians, priests of other nationalities, with the permission of the Holy See, have also adopted the Eastern rite, especially members of major religious orders (Redemptorists, Jesuits, Capuchins, Benedictines, Salesians, etc.). For the formation of secular clergy, the Pontifical Russian College was opened in Rome in 1929, where Msgr. Alexander Evreinov (b. 1877), ordaining bishop for the Byzantine-Slavic rite, resides. Russian parishes of the Byzantine-Slavic rite, except Harbin (v.) in Manchuria, still depend on Latin religious orders, though under the supreme direction of the Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Church.

**

---

### III. LEGAL STATUS OF THE CHURCH (until the Revolution)

The Russian Empire regulated its relations with the Catholic Church on the basis of the “Code of Ecclesiastical Affairs for Foreign Confessions” (*Svod zakonov*, vol. XI/1, with supplements up to 1916). According to Article 66 of the Fundamental Laws of the State and Article 1 of the Code, foreign confessions were granted full freedom: “The dominant and prevailing religion in the Russian State is the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church. Nevertheless, all subjects of the State and foreigners not belonging to this Church and residing in the Russian State enjoy everywhere the free exercise of their faith and worship according to their own rites.”

Nonetheless, the Catholic Church in Imperial Russia (dioceses: Mohilev with Siberia and Vladivostok, Tiraspol, Minsk, Kamenets, Zhytomyr) always led a life of diaspora. The solemnly recognized freedom was frequently restricted or suspended by specific provisions. According to Article 13 of the aforementioned Code, the Church was dependent on the Ministry of the Interior. Article 17 regulated relations between the hierarchy and the Holy See: “All Roman Catholic Christians, both ecclesiastics and laity, who are subjects of the State, for matters concerning their confession, may communicate with the Roman Curia only through the Ministry of the Interior. No bull, letter, or instruction may be published in the Empire or in the Grand Duchy of Finland without the permission of His Imperial Majesty, requested by the Ministry of the Interior after prior verification that such acts contain nothing contrary to the decisions, sacred rights, and privileges of the supreme autocratic authority.”

The Catholic Church was permitted to provide religious instruction in schools, to establish diocesan seminaries, and to found the Ecclesiastical Academy of St. Petersburg. Social activity (care for the poor, the sick, assistance to orphans) was carried out through other charitable organizations and conferences, circles (e.g., the Vincentian Circle), and religious congregations. To establish such associations, the bishop had to obtain the consent of the civil authorities, in accordance with a circular from the Ministry of the Interior (1910, no. 1016). The Church was also recognized in principle as having the right to property, though civil authorities frequently interfered in this matter. Without special permission, it was forbidden: to send funds abroad; to own movable or immovable property; to accept bequests or donations. The administration of ecclesiastical property was supervised by episcopal censors, but also by secular chancelleries.

**

Giuseppe M. Schweig

---

### IV. RITE

It is the Byzantine rite according to the usage of the Russian Church and its branches.

**

13. Extent

The Russian rite had a first period in common with the Ruthenian rite, which may be called the Kievan period. It lasted until the metropolitan moved to Moscow after 1300, and the princes of that Grand Duchy gained the upper hand in Russia. Some usages began to differ from those of the southern regions; but toward the end of the 17th century, when Kiev entered politically and ecclesiastically into the orbit of Moscow and its patriarch, the rite of Moscow began to impose itself even in Kiev. At the same time, its liturgical books were copied by Serbs living in Turkey or sent to those exiled in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. After the third partition of Poland, it was imposed on the Ruthenians of White Ruthenia, where the union with Rome was extinguished (1839 and 1875). Today, with the Russians occupying Galicia as well, where they have abolished the Catholic hierarchy of the Ruthenians, it is likely that they have imported or are imposing their rite throughout the region as far as the Bug.**

**

14. Internal development

As far as is known, the first Typicon introduced in Kiev was that of the patriarch Alexis the Studite of Constantinople. The Studite Typicon was also observed in the Kiev Caves Monastery; at the same time or shortly afterward, the influence of the Slavic versions of liturgical books already completed by the Bulgarians and Serbs was felt. However, around 1400, Metropolitan Cyprian strove to return to the usage of the Greeks of his time, introducing the Diataxis of Philotheus (Patriarch of Constantinople, 1354–55, 1364–76) and following the Typicon of St. Sabas, translated by the unknown Athanasius in 1401. The veneration of Russian saints, a new Serbian influence after the fall of Constantinople (1453), and the lack of central authority allowed many liturgical variations that the Synod, known under the name of Stoglav (1551), could not eliminate. This diversity became even more apparent when liturgical books were printed in various cities: Cracow, Vilnius, Ostroh, Moscow. But with the advent of the Romanovs and under the impulse of Patriarch Philaret (1619–1633), a true reform began, culminating in the imprudent efforts of Patriarch Nikon (1605–1681), which led to the Great Schism of the Old Ritualists. The reform took as its model contemporary Greek books, was favored by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Paisius, and was elaborated by Andrew the Greek (Sukhanov), assisted by some monks from Kiev. In the following years, the Russian rite, through the work of Kievan clergy, underwent some Latin influence; for example, the Trebnik of Moscow (1677) admitted the indicative formula of absolution, and in the Marriage rite, the questions regarding the free consent of the spouses; the Typicon of Moscow (1682) prescribed that the celebrant bow during the words of Christ in the Divine Liturgy. After a partial reaction, the evolution of the Russian rite came to a halt. Even the books printed in Kiev had to submit to the censorship of Moscow, and the Holy Synod continued diligently to publish liturgical books in numerous, often beautiful, sometimes lavish editions.**

**

**

V. LITERATURE

The beginning of writing and literature in Russia coincides with the acceptance of Christianity by Prince Vladimir (988). From that moment, the Russian people participated, albeit in particular circumstances and ways, in the life of Europe—an Europe that for centuries would more or less identify with Byzantium—over a vast territory that is geographically the continuation of Asia, perpetually open to invasion by barbaric and primitive tribes. Christianity brought with it religious books: these were written in the Slavic-Macedonian dialect used by Constantine (Cyril) and Methodius, a dialect subsequently called Old Bulgarian or Church Slavonic. Church Slavonic penetrated into Russia, influencing the spoken language and in turn being influenced by II. Vernacular Russian and Church Slavonic fully merged into something harmonious—i.e., modern literary Russian—only toward the end of the 18th century and even more so at the beginning of the 19th, through the work of great writers such as Karamzin, Krylov, and Pushkin. The earliest written documents of Russian literature are to be considered the translations of sacred books. First among these is the Ostromir Gospel, a work by the deacon Gregory (1056–57). The lives of the saints are contained in the so-called *Chet’i Minei* and *Pateriki*. Also noteworthy among other texts is the *Instruction to My Sons* by Prince Vladimir Monomakh, who reigned in Kiev from 1113 to 1125, a work permeated with moral and religious precepts.**

**In the vast Russian plain, covered with forests and steppes, battered by winds and snowstorms, monasteries long represented the only significant cultural centers: it was the monks who zealously collected the most notable events of the “Russian land,” compiling them into chronicles (a tenacious and meticulous work that, in part, survived wars, cataclysms, and the invasions of Asian tribes—a civilizational achievement that thrilled Pushkin in the early 19th century, when Russian literature, rapidly surpassing the models of European Romanticism, asserted itself fully with original values among the great literatures). Particularly important is the Chronicle of Nestor, so called after its probable 11th-century author.**

**Among the literary documents of this period, the *Tale of Igor’s Campaign* stands at the forefront. Discovered in 1795, at a time of lively interest in folklore and medieval atmosphere (though the manuscript was lost in the fire of Moscow in 1812), the tale recounts a historical event, namely a battle fought between the Russians and the primitive tribe of the Polovtsians (1185), and is characterized by moments of high epic and authentic lyricism. The discovery of this “tale” aroused some suspicions from the outset, and recourse was indeed made to Ossian; the French Slavist A. Mazon recently revived and developed these old doubts, concluding that the *Tale of Igor’s Campaign* is nothing more than a Romantic reworking of the so-called *Zadonshchina* (a poem somewhat later than the *Tale* and of more modest artistic value). Russian scholarship, however, today upholds its absolute authenticity.**

**The Tatar domination was undoubtedly a disaster for Russian culture. After the defeat of the Tatars, national life was revived, and culture shifted northward from Kiev. In the political climate of Muscovy, a close fusion emerged between state and religious power: the *Stoglav*, or *Book of the Hundred Chapters*, was precisely the record of a Council (1551) convoked by Ivan the Terrible to arbitrate controversial matters of ecclesiastical discipline. In the *Domostroi*, a work dealing with household and family organization, one sees reflected the harsh, rigid, and authoritarian climate characteristic of Muscovy at the time. Yet, amid such images of primitive life and tyranny, a note of delicate humanity is heard in the *Life of Juliana of Lazarevo*, written by her son, George Osorgin.**

The rise and spread of religious sects was also reflected in literature, both through more or less "scientific" books by sectarians, sometimes invoking the art of divination and astrology, and through the work of Gennadij, Archbishop of Novgorod, loyal to Moscow. Particularly noteworthy is the Autobiography of the protopope Avvakum, a vigorous preacher who recounts, not without a certain artistic effectiveness, his imprisonment and the persecutions suffered by his sectarians. Alongside imitation of foreign models and simple translations, there was a growing tendency toward original compositions. In addition to sacred subjects, profane themes also began to appear with increasing frequency.

A brief and synthetic overview of the earliest Russian literature would, however, be incomplete without mention of oral literature, handed down for centuries from generation to generation. The ancient byline, epic songs, can in broad terms be linked to the centers of Kiev and Novgorod. The bogatyr (heroes) of Kiev are above all faithful warriors in the service of a patriotic ideal, while those of Novgorod (a city of flourishing trade) are especially drawn to wealth. This poetry, rich in local color and epic vigor, draws on ancient heroic figures with pagan traits and well-known legendary characters: Ilja Muromec, Dobrynja Nikitič, and Alëša Popovič (all showing Christian influences).

The environment of Kiev in the early Middle Ages had violently embraced the first wave of Christian and Byzantine civilization; in the 16th and 17th centuries, a wave of Western civilization reached the Muscovite realm through Kiev. Simeon Polockij (1629–80) was the most distinguished promoter of a predominantly Latinizing culture.

Meanwhile, with the accession of Peter the Great, old Russia had been profoundly shaken, at least on the surface, by a utilitarian and technicist revolution. Ivan Posokov (1652–1726), an intelligent amateur economist, expresses in his treatise On Poverty and Wealth many of the characteristic aspirations of the age. V. N. Tatiščev (1686–1750), author of a History of Russia and the Dialogue on the Usefulness of the Sciences and Schools, somewhat naively articulates his rationalist and utilitarian tendencies. The transfer of the capital from Moscow to the new metropolis of St. Petersburg seems to encapsulate the predominant taste for modernity and Europeanism.

A "modern" Russian literature only truly begins with the penetration of French classicism (both directly and through Germany). The skeptical and enlightened 18th century brought to Russia French tastes, fashions, and elegance, a sympathy for the "Enlightenment," cosmopolitan tendencies, and humanitarianism. Yet, as Russian power grew and the first pre-Romantic stirrings appeared, the late 18th century also fostered a greater awareness of Russian material and spiritual strength, a desire for originality, and vague aspirations that would mature in the following century. Here we may mention A. Kantemir (1709–44), author of a satire titled To Those Who Despise Learning, echoing the reforming spirit of Peter the Great; M. V. Lomonosov (born between 1708 and 1715, died 1765), a truly encyclopedic scholar of world renown; D. I. Fonvizin (1745–92), author of two successful comedies, The Brigadier and The Minor, which characteristically express the contrast between the old and new generations; and V. V. Kapnist (1757–1823), author of Slander. Catherine II herself wrote comedies with moralizing intent. The lively, somewhat superficial but intelligent empress fostered the development of journalism and schools, yet in her conservative phase she harshly suppressed journalists and writers such as N. I. Novikov (1744–1816) and A. N. Radiščev (1749–1802), who characteristically expressed the "French" ideas of the 18th century and protested against the harshness of serfdom.

The 18th century, which had witnessed Russia’s military triumphs and the first assertions of a modern literature, was in a sense linked to the 19th—the great "golden age" of Russia—through the names of Deržavin, Karamzin, and Krylov. G. R. Deržavin (1743–1816), descended from an ancient Tatar family, vigorous and rugged in his artistic expression, achieved European fame with his philosophical odes God and The Waterfall. N. M. Karamzin (1766–1826) is the quintessential exponent of "sentimentalism" in Russian literature, an echo of English literary tastes and French humanitarian attitudes. Worthy of note in this regard are his Letters of a Russian Traveller and tales such as Poor Lisa and Natalia, the Merchant’s Daughter. However, the historicist and "national" climate of the early 19th century (after the Napoleonic invasion and Russia’s great success) drew Karamzin away from his youthful 18th-century ideals: he became the author of the monumental History of the Russian State, inspired by a marked spirit of national pride and vigorous patriotism. I. A. Krylov (1768–1844) is the author of famous fables still read today as when they were written; his "talking animals" bear an unmistakable Russian accent, and his vocabulary draws on a lively and rich popular language, always used at the right moment and tempered by good taste.

The tradition of "sentimentalism" merged with new and more vibrant Romantic accents in the poetry of V. A. Žukovskij (1783–1852), best known for his reworking of Gray’s Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard and for a poem titled The Bard in the Field.

Classicism, in turn, found fresh and new expression in the poetry of K. N. Batjuškov (1787–1855), whose fame rests especially on his elegy Dying Tasso. Dramatic felicity and intolerance for Russia’s coarse and backward environment are found in A. S. Griboedov’s (1795–1829) comedy Woe from Wit.

Russian literature was to establish itself among the great European literatures through the work of Aleksandr Sergeevič Puškin (1799–1837). His harmonious nature succeeded in blending the lively lightness of the eighteenth century with the more tormented, more philosophical, more “national” taste of incipient Romanticism. European influences were combined with consummate artistry and in an original way with the discovery and revelation of the Russian soul, of the Russian landscape, and of the naïve yet profound voice of popular song. Appearing to yield only superficially to the “sentimental” predilections of the general public, he was in fact creating a new type of art. With Puškin, Russia had found not only its universal poet but also its great national poet—not merely because Boris Godunov sang of the struggles, sufferings, and glories of past centuries, but also because in The Tales of Belkin, in Eugene Onegin, and in his lyrics he dedicated to life values that seemed to slumber in the torpid lethargy of the country.

K. F. Ryleev (1795–1825), a poet who took part in the revolutionary activity of the Decembrists, sought to impress upon his verses an ideal of civic virtue and freedom. E. A. Boratynskij (1800–1844) occupies a notable place alongside Puškin; remembered are Boratynskij’s poems The Last Death and The Last Poet—a despondent vision of a “future world” in which science and technology would kill poetry. A. V. Kol’cov (1808–1842) exalted the countryside and the hard labor of Russian peasants, at times creating a felicitous harmony of typically folkloric elements and lively, original poetic sensibility. The only true emulator of Puškin was, however, Michail Jur’evič Lermontov (1814–1841), who died like Puškin in a duel but was still too young to develop fully the extraordinary gifts of his genius. Though sometimes yielding to Byronic posturing—the fashionable Romantic pose of the day—he was able in The Novice, in A Hero of Our Time, and in part of his lyric poetry to strike notes that were vivid, original, and tormented, surpassing the conventions and formulas of mannered Romanticism and even the skeptical cynicism then in vogue among young intellectuals. In some of his fragments (Princess Ligovskaja) he may perhaps vaguely foreshadow Dostoevskij.

With Lermontov there closed an era of Russian literature that one may fairly call, in a certain sense, aristocratic and refined, both because of the noble origins of its exponents and because of the tone of its creations. New forces of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois origin now emerged in literature. Romanticism, vague idealism, and even vaguer liberalism gave way to democratic tendencies and aspirations; on the philosophical plane, Positivism took hold, soon to be overwhelmed by the more militant and revolutionary materialism that in Russia would tend to harden into dogma, with a fervor that may not have been entirely without justification and that has been called, perhaps not unjustly, “ascetic.”

Nikolaj Vasil’evič Gogol (1809–52) remained aloof from this ferment of political and social passions, yet one of his final writings (Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends) was to provoke the fiercest protests from the “younger generation.” Through his multifaceted literary work, Gogol already furnished the inspiration for some of Dostoevskij’s early masterpieces (one thinks especially of Dostoevskij’s response to Gogol’s tales such as The Nose and The Overcoat); on the other hand, in Dead Souls he presented a powerful, fascinating, and anguished portrait of Russia that finds a kind of bitterly ironic counterpart in The Government Inspector, a work in which some saw only a cheerful mockery of corrupt customs.

V. V. Belinskij (1811–48) was the leader of the new critical school, for which literature’s foremost task was to fight for social and rational ideals: starting from an incipient idealist position, he soon moved to rationalism and to a socialist or at least pre-socialist stance. Belinskij’s work is not without acute literary insights; the rationalist and materialist tendencies, however, appear in cruder form in the critics Černyševskij, Dobroljubov, and Pisarev, who played a notable role in the formation of revolutionary thought. Great poets who, on the whole, remained aloof from any social content—an emphasis that was becoming increasingly fashionable—were F. I. Tjutčev (1803–73), A. A. Fet-Šenšin (1820–92), A. N. Majkov (1821–97), J. Polonskij (1820–98), and A. K. Tolstoj (1817–75). Especially Tjutčev and Fet occupy a position of the first rank in Russian poetry: little appreciated in their own time, they were later “rediscovered” at the dawn of the twentieth century by the great Symbolist poets. By contrast, the poetry of N. A. Nekrasov (1821–77) reflects a marked social tendency, drawing on certain ideals of Belinskij, yet not excluding moments of exquisite poetry; one need only think of the long poem Vlas, a rigorous narrative of a sinner who, to expiate his guilt, traverses Russia collecting alms for the building of a church.

In opposition to the “Westernizing” currents from which materialists and revolutionaries had gradually emerged, there also developed in literature the “Slavophile” movement, inspired by a cult of Russian and Slavic traditions and marked by a preference for folklore (see above,