The Caucasian policy of the imperial branches of power during the first Russian revolution

Other Armenian-Gregorian dioceses came into criticism as well. In Astrakhan diocese new primary classes were opened that prepared for entering a non-existent theological seminary, later a new school for girls was opened. The Spiritual Consistory in defense of its actions referred to the Imperial Edict from 1 August 1905 regarding the restoration of the confiscated property to the Armenian Church. The logic of the civil servants from the capital was clear.

The Church encouraged revolutionary movement, interfered in the prerogatives of the government and, most importantly, stimulated the development of national education. Blatant fault-finding with the church policy can be found in the text of the official letter from the Minister to the governor-general. For example, students of Armenian religious seminary in Nakhichevan-on-Don (now part of Rostov-on-Don) demanded that “one student of the 4^th class, who had been expelled for making a speech in church during the funeral of his fellow student in which he mainly raised a question of the harm of living in a boarding school to seminarians, be admitted again” [Perepiska s Sovetom ministrov ob armjano-tatarskih stolknovenijah., l. 42]. If such incidents drew the attention of the minister, it's no wonder that Vorontsov-Dashkov had a negative perception Stolypin's policy towards the Caucasus.

“The circumstances described above clearly show Patriarch-Catholicos Mkrtich's unsuitability for a high position of the head of the Armenian-Gregorian Church at present and his inability to govern it in accordance with the law”. It was also mentioned in the letter that “taking any exceptional measures with regard to the Catholicos is currently extremely undesirable” [Perepiska s Sovetom ministrov ob armjano-tatarskih stolknovenijah, l. 42]. However, P. A. Stolypin believed that the government had to demonstrate firmness. “In the first place it's necessary to recommend Patriarch-Catholicos Mkrtich, on account of his sick condition and old age, to retire, allowing him to reside in Etchmiadzin monastery, and to provide him with an adequate pension but on condition of his total exclusion from any affairs”

Ad interim the Church was supposed to be headed by the Synod., P. A. Stolypin suggested introducing a new regulation concerning the Armenian-Gregorian church. This had to be modelled “in accordance with regulations on governing other Churches without giving the exceptional independence which it now enjoys against the interest of the state” [Perepiska s Sovetom ministrov ob armjano-tatarskih stolknovenijah..., l. 43]. The clergy disloyal to the authorities were to be removed from the Patriarch's circle. The Minister urged the governor-general to notify him of any changes which had occurred in the composition of the Synod over the last two years.

The reply was sent a month later: 29 January 1907. Vorontsov-Dashkov wrote: “It is unlikely to expect the Patriarch to retire himself, and I do not know whether such is permissible according to the canons of the Armenian-Gregorian Church”. The fact that Etchmiadzin Synod governed ecclesiastical matters contradicted Russian legislation. “The Patriarch has the full cooperation of the Etchmiadzin Synod; however, never will the Patriarch give up the prerogatives of his rank, neither to the Synod, or to any other institution, nor to a representative of the state” [Perepiska s Sovetom ministrov ob armjano-tatarskih stolknovenijah., ll. 44-44 ob.]

The namestnik considered it impossible to put pressure on the head of the Armenian Church. The Catholicos was 90 years old. He had been Patriarch since 1893 and enjoyed an immense popularity among Armenians. He embodied the religious and national unity for the worshippers. “If confiscating church and school properties some time ago revolutionized the Armenian people, who had not been interested in politics before, and who are only now returning to their prior normal state, it is unrealistic not to envisage a surge of public outcry in the case of exerting any coercion on the head of the Armenian church”, wrote viceroy Vorontsov-Dashkov. He did not want to stir up he moderate sections of Armenian society. He stated: “Not denying the existence in Etchmiadzin of some persons belonging to the revolutionary party who influence the elderly Patriarch, I can't but admit a certain extent of loyalty in Catholicos Mkrtich himself” [Perepiska s Sovetom ministrov ob armjano-tatarskih stolknovenijah., ll. 44 ob. -- 45].

The patriarch thanked the governor-general who brought the all-Armenian convention in Etchmiadzin to an end. In his kontakion, the Patriarch suspended the creation of a new Armenian settlement with the assistance of foreign subjects of Armenian origin. The governor-general might have been critical of the reform of the Armenian-Gregorian church. He asked Stolypin to give proposals concerning these matters, which had been handed over to Saint Petersburg by the former commander of civil administration in the Caucasus in December 1903, back to the local administration for further debate.

The namestnik's views on the issue of emancipation of Muslim population in the Caucasus were no less “liberal”. In 1906 a meeting of the Muslim representatives of Kuban and Terek districts was held where a document about establishing an independent community administration of Muslims in Northern Caucasus was drawn up. Th relatively loyal behaviour of Muslim officials and fears of a rise of Islamism forced the government to make concessions to the local йlite. In 1913 an institute of conciliators appointed by a military governor from among Russian civil servants and local landlords was initiated in Dagestan. [Khlynina, Urushadze 2011, p. 97].

The orthodox clergy in Georgia, as well as the nobility, by and large preferred to cooperate with authorities, submitting petitions and proposals to change the situation. For example, a general request of representatives of the Georgian clergy for restoration of autocephaly seemed to be quite moderate, though one of the petitions contained threats to make a Church union with the Pope in default [Volhonskij etc. 2013, p. 156]. Nikolas the Exarch of Georgia wrote with regards to the petition of all bishops, except for the bishop of Sukhumi, about “the monarch's granting autocephaly to the Church of Georgia”: “I humbly petition to come to Saint Petersburg and report this crucial matter personally” [O snoshenijah s raznymi mestami i licami, l. 5]. It is doubtful that the authorities would have agreed to implement the reform given the absence of the independence of the Russian Orthodox Church. There was no reply to the letter...

On the whole, we fully agree with the statement that the “viceroyalty became a regional embodiment of strong centralized power having large prerogatives but at the same time.. .being close to the governed territories and, therefore, more pragmatic and flexible” [Agasbekova 2011, p. 11]. After the convocation of the first State Duma, deputes directed a barrage of criticism at the Council of Ministers. From 15 June to 23 June 1906 there followed inquiries from the Duma, unpleasant to the authorities, about the trial by court martial in Tiflis of 27 soldiers from the Mingrel regiment; about sending a punitive expedition to Svanetia; about an anticipated pogrom in Batumi; about unlawful arrest without charge [Perepiska s Sovetom ministrov ob armjano-tatarskih stolknovenijah..., l. 29]. Inquiries were initiated by deputes on the basis of information sent from the local areas, and addressed to both I. L. Goremykin and specialized ministers, namely the Minister of War and Minister of Justice. As far as inquiries about dispatching troops to Svanetia and a threat of pogroms in Batumi were concerned, the Duma received no response from the government.

New principles of the regional policy were developed by the Committee of Ministers on the basis of the decree from December 12, 1904. Under the pressure of the revolution Nicolas II agreed to administrative de-centralization. We can suggest several reasons for his decision: his personal trust in Vorontsov-Dashkov, weakening positions in central structures and uncoordinated actions of ministers in the fight against revolution in the Caucasus. The program of “pacification” of the Caucasus through the liberal administrative and political reforms associated with the name of Vorontsov-Dashkov proved to be successful in the long run. However, his hyper-independent policy resulted in multiple conflicts with civil servants in Saint Petersburg and the State Duma. These struggles hindered the implementation of the changes during the first Russian revolution. A personal factor is also worth taking into account: Vorontsov-Dashkov had awkward dealings with some members of the government, especially with P. A. Stolypin who came to the fore after 1906. In our opinion, local йlites of the region (first of all, of Transcaucasia) contributed much to the incomplete character of the reforms. Georgian, Armenian and Azerbaijani political representatives, having quite wide-scale and radical programs of reforms (due to the standards of the passive authorities of the Empire) tried to gain maximum capitulations from the government in the shortest possible time, demonstrating explicit and implicit support of revolutionary circles (Georgian social-democrats demonstrated the most aggressive behavior).

Revolutionaries were ready to support them as long as their voluntary defenders blocked the security actions of central authorities. The imperial authorities, in their turn, were willing to cooperate upon condition their prerogatives were not questioned. Having chosen the language of slogans and massive pressure on Tsarist administration, the delegates eliminated the possibility of satisfying their voters' expectations. At the same time they deliberately played the roles of background actors in settling regional conflicts without overcoming a set of local identities and positivistic approach. In conclusion, the viceroyalty was the most effective institution against the background of the First Russian revolution though it remained an interim and emergency structure. Only H. I. Vorontsov-Dashkov had enough prerogatives and the subtle understanding of the situation. However, the limitations embedded within its essence eliminated the possibility of the drastic resolution of the problems, many of which still torment the Caucasus.

References

1. Agasbekova S. S. Problema vosstanovleniia namestnichestva na Kavkaze v nachale XX veka. Nauchno- teoreticheskii zhurnal «Nauchnye problemy gumanitarnykh issledovanii», 2011, issue 8, pp. 6-12. (In Russian)

2. Bojovich M. M. Chleny Gosudarstvennoi dumy (Portrety i biografii). Vtoroi sozyv. Moscow, the Printing office of the I. D. Sytin's Partnership, 1907. XXXVIII, 519 p. (In Russian)

3. Bendin A. Ju., Volhonskij M. A., Dorskaja A. A., Zagidullin I. K., Zapal'skij G. M., Mramornov A. I., Polunov A. Ju. Dialog o knige «Pravoslavie, inoslavie, inoverie: ocherki po istorii religioznogo raznoobraziia Rossiiskoi imperii» Pola Vera. Rossiiskaia istoriia. 2013, no. 5, pp. 133-159. (In Russian) Darchieva S. V Problemy politiko-administrativnogo upravleniia na Severnom Kavkaze v nachale XX v. (na primere Terskoi oblasti). Istoriia. Etnologiia. Izvestiia SOIGSI, 2016, no. 22 (61), pp. 47-55. (In Russian) Darchieva S. V Central'noe i mestnoe upravlenie v Rossiiskoi imperii: problemy vzaimodeistviia gosudarstvennoi Dumy, Soveta ministrov i Kavkazskogo namestnichestva (1905-1917 gg.). Istoricheskie, filosof- skie, politicheskie i iuridicheskie nauki, kul'turologiia i iskusstvovedenie. Voprosy teorii i praktiki, 2013, no. 10 (36), part I, pp. 57-61. (In Russian)

4. Djakin V S. Natsional'nyi vopros vo vnutrenneipolitike tsarizma. St. Petersburg, LISS Publ., 1998. 1000 p. (In Russian)

5. Dzhabbarov F. R. Materialy revizii senatora A. M. Kuzminskogo kak istochnik po izucheniiu armiano- azerbaidzhanskoi rezni 1905 g. Severo-Kavkazskii iuridicheskii Vestnik. 2016, no. 4, pp. 135-144. (In Russian)

6. Ejubov A. K. Pozitsiia tsarizma v zavershaiushchii period armiano-azerbaidzhanskogo konflikta 1905 goda.

7. Istoricheskie nauki, 2010, no. 1, pp. 37-44. (In Russian)

8. Florinsky M. Tsentral'naia vlast' i kavkazskaia administratsiia v sisteme upravleniia Rossiiskoi imperiei v 1905-1907 gg. Tsentr i regiony v istorii Rossii. St. Petersburg, 2009, pp. 380-408. (In Russian)

9. Gasanly Dzh. Ali Mardan bek Topchibashev: zhizn, epokha, edinomyshlenniki (k 150-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia). Kavkaz i globalizatsiia, 2013, vol. 17, issue 1-2, pp. 137-168. (In Russian)

10. Golovin F. A. Zapiski F. A. Golovina. Krasnyi Arkhiv, 1926, vol. 19, pp. 110-149. (In Russian)

11. Gorodnizky R. A. Uchrezhdeniia Ministerstva vnutrennikh del na Kavkaze v 1905-1914 gg. Vestnik Moskovskogo un-ta. Ser.: Upravlenie (gosudarstvo i obshhestvo), 2004, no. 3, pp. 63-79. (In Russian) Gosudarstvennaka Duma: Stenograficheskie otchety. Sessiia Pervaia. Vol. II: Zasedaniia 19-38 (S 1 iiunia po 4 iiulia). St. Petersburg, State printing office, 1906 [2], 1186 p. (In Russian)

12. Gosudarstvennaia Duma: Stenograficheskie otchety. Sessiia Vtoraia. Vol. I: Zasedaniia 1-30. St. Petersburg, State printing office, 1907. VIII, 2344 stb. (In Russian)

13. Hovannisian R. G. Russian Armenia. A Century of Tsarist Rule. Jahrbucher fur Geschichte Osteuropas, Neue Folge. Bd. 19, H. 1 (Mдrz 1971), pp. 31-48.

14. Ismail-Zade D. 1.1. Vorontsov-Dashkov -- administrator, reformator. St. Petersburg, Nestor history Publ., 2008. 364 p. (In Russian)

15. Ismail-Zade D. Vorontsov-Dashkov. Namestnik Kavkazskii. Moscow, Zentrpoligraf Publ., 2005. 511 p. (In Russian)

16. Ismailova A. M. Ekonomicheskoe razvitie i centralizatsiia biudzhetnogo upravleniia na Iuzhnom Kavkaze v kontse XIX -- v nachale XX vv. Sovremennye tendentsii razvitiia nauki i tehnologii. 2016, no. 3-5, pp. 10-14. (In Russian)

17. Kappeler A. Obrazovanie natsii i natsional'nye dvizheniia v Rossiiskoi imperii. Rossiiskaia imperiia v zarubezhnoi istoriografii: Raboty poslednikh let: antologiia. Compiled by P Vert, P Kabytov, A. Miller. Moscow, New Publ., 2005, pp. 395-435. (In Russian)

18. Karnaukh O. D. Istoriko-pravovoi analiz stanovleniia osnovnykh rezhimov gosudarstvenno-pravovogo upravleniia regionami Rossiiskoi Imperii v kontse XIX veka. Izvestiia Sochinskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. 2013, no. 1-2 (24), pp. 43-47. (In Russian)

19. Khlynina T. P, Urushadze A. T. Ot Kavkazskogo namestnichestva k Severo-Kavkazskomu kraiu. Vestnik Iuzhnogo nauchnogo centra RAN, 2011, vol. 7, no. 2. pp. 94-102. (In Russian)

20. Kondrasheva A. S. Kavkazskoe namestnichestvo i ego deiatel'nost' na Severnom Kavkaze vo vtoroi polovine 40-kh gg. XIX -- nachale XX v.: PhD Diss. Stavropol, 2003. 319 p. (In Russian)

21. Kuzminsky A. Vsepoddanneishii otchet o proizvedennoi v 1905 godu, po Vysochaishemu poveleniiu, senatorom A. Kuzminskim revizii goroda Baku i Bakinskoi gubernii. St. Petersburg: [S. n.], 1906. 620 p. Rossiiskiigosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (RGIA). F. 1535. Op. 1. D. 1. (In Russian)

22. Mezhdu tsentralizmom i regionalizmom: administrativnye preobrazovaniia na Central'nom Kavkaze v 70-kh gg. XIX -- nachale XX v.: sbornik dokumentov. Vladikavkaz, IPC SOIGSI VNC RAN and RSO-A Publ., 2014. 225 p. (In Russian)

· poriadke podchinennosti lichnogo sostava Kavkazskikh sudebnykh ustanovlenii. Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (RGIA). F. 1276. S. 19. D. 8. 18 l. (In Russian)

· snosheniiakh s raznymi mestami i litsami. Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (RGIA). F. 1276. S. 19. D. 23. 8 l. (In Russian)

23. Ob obedinenii policeiskoi deiatel'nosti na Kavkaze. Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (RGIA). F. 1276. S. 19. D. 3. 67 l. (In Russian)

24. Perepiska s Sovetom ministrov ob armiano-tatarskikh stolknoveniiakh v Azerbaidzhane. Zaprosy chlenov Dumy po etomu povodu. Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (RGIA). F. 1276. S. 19. D. 70. 52 l. (In Russian)

25. Perinchek M. Armianskii vopros v 120 dokumentakh iz rossiiskikh gosudarstvennykh arkhivov. Moscow, Laboratory books Publ., 2011. 256 p. (In Russian)

26. Pis'mo namestnika Ego Imperatorskogo Velichestva na Kavkaze -- upravliaiushchemu delami Komiteta ministrov Ie. Iu. Nol'de. Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (RGIA). F. 1276. S. 19. D. 3. l. 40 ob. (In Russian)

27. Pljaskin V. P. Gosudarstvennaia natsional'naia politika Rossii na Kavkaze, 1864-1917gg.: Voenno-istoricheskii aspekt: Doct. Diss.: 07.00.02. Moscow, 2003. 450 p. (In Russian)

28. Pljaskin V. P, Rahmanin N. T. Deiatel'nost' rossiiskikh vlastei po preodoleniiu social'no-politicheskogo krizisa na Kavkaze v 1905-1907gg.: istoricheskii opyt i uroki. Elektrostal', Buki Vedi Publ., 2013. 205 p. (In Russian) Po povodu stolknoveniia tatar s armianami v Ierivanskoi i Elisavetpol'skoi guberniiakh. Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (RGIA). F. 1276. S. 1. D. 452. 6 l. (In Russian)

29. Pravilova E. Finansy imperii: dengi i vlast' v politike Rossii na natsional'nykh okrainakh. 1801-1917. Moscow, New Publ., 2006. 456 p. (In Russian)

30. Rustamova Dzh. Ya. Razvitie neftianoi promyshlennosti Azerbaidzhana v nachale XX veka. Istoricheskie, filosofskie, politicheskie i iuridicheskie nauki, kul'turologiia i iskusstvovedenie. Voprosy teorii i praktiki, 2013, no. 8-1 (34), pp. 171-175. (In Russian)

31. Sargent L. The «Armeno-Tatar War» In the South Caucasus, 1905-1906: Multiple Causes, Interpreted Meanings. Ab Imperio, 2010, no. 4, pp. 143-169.

32. Sejidzade D. Azerbaidzhanskie deputaty v Gosudarstvennoi dume Rossii. Baku, Azerbaijan State Publishing House, 1991. 139 p. (In Russian)

33. Sergei Efimovich Kryzhanovskii Papers, 1907-1940. Kokovtsov, Vladimir Nikolaevich to Sergei Efimovich Kryzhanovskii. Bez uk. l. Pis'mo ot 20 iiunia 1929 g. Bakhmeteff Archive of Russian and East European Culture (BAR). Series II: Manuscripts. Box 1. (In Russian)

34. Shavlokhova E. S. Popytki modernizatsii sistemy upravleniia natsional'nymi okrainami v nachale XX veka. Vestnik Severo-Osetinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. K. L. Hetagurova. Obshchestvennye nauki. Istoriia i politologiia, 2014, no. 2, pp. 85-88. (In Russian)

35. Shvanebah P. H. Zapiski sanovnika. Stolypin glazami sovremennikov. Ed. by P. A. Pozhigailo. Moscow, ROSSPEN Publ., 2008, pp. 94-119. (In Russian)

36. Sovet ministrov po namestnichestvu na Kavkaze. Po voprosu o primenenii k Kavkazu polozheniia o Gosudarstvennoi dume. Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (RGIA). F. 1276. S. 19. D. 26. 138 l. (In Russian)

37. Telegramma I. I. Vorontsova-Dashkova -- stats-sekretariu Ie. Iu. Nolde. Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (RGIA). F. 1276. S. 109. D. 24. ll. 1-1 ob., 2 (Polulisty 1-2-3). (In Russian) Topchubashev A. M. Musul'manskaia parlamentskaia fraktsiia. Otdel'nyi ottisk iz nomerov «Kaspiia» (no. 25, 26). Baku: [S. n.], 1907. 26 p. (In Russian)

38. Urushadze A. T. Kavkaz v kontse XIX -- nachale XX vv.: problemy upravleniia i modernizatsii na iuzhnoi okraine Rossiiskoi imperii. Quaestio Rossica. 2015, no. 2, pp. 144-157. (In Russian)

39. Urushadze A. T. Ot namestnichestva k namestnichestvu: poisk optimal'noi modeli upravleniia Kavkazom. Materialy III Mezhdunarodnogo foruma istorikov-kavkazovedov «Russko-kavkazskie otnosheniia: ot pervykh kontaktov do sovremennogo edinstva» (17 noiabria 2015 g., g. Rostov-na-Donu). Ex. Ed. by V. V. Chernous. Rostov-on-Don, Fund for Education and Science Publ., 2015, pp. 240-244. (In Russian) Usmanova D. M. Musul'manskie predstaviteli v rossiiskom parlamente. 1906-1916 gg. Moscow, Fan Publ., 2005. 584 p. (In Russian)

40. Volhonskij M. A. Natsional'naia politika i pravitel'stvennye krugi nakanune i v gody Pervoi russkoi revoliutsii: PhD Diss. Moscow, 2003. 326 p. (In Russian)

41. Volhonskij M. A. Natsional'nyi vopros vo vnutrennei politike pravitel'stva v gody Pervoi russkoi revoliutsii.

42. Otechestvennaia istoriia, 2005, no. 5, pp. 48-62. (In Russian)

43. Vorontsov-Dashkov H. I. Vsepoddanneishaia zapiska po upravleniiu Kavkazskim kraem general-ad'iutanta grafa Vorontsova-Dashkova. St. Petersburg, State printing office, 1907. 164 p. (In Russian)

44. Vybornye proizvodstva, raspredelennye po otdelam gosudarstvennoi Dumy. 3 otdel. Po Bakinskoi gubernii. 10 iiunia 1906 g. -- 12 iiunia 1906 g. Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (RGIA). F. 1278. S. 1. D. 41. 40 l. (In Russian)

45. Vybornye proizvodstva, raspredelennye po otdelam gosudarstvennoi Dumy. 9 otdel. Po Elisavetpol'skoi gubernii. 23 maia 1906 g. -- 22 iiunia 1906 g. Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (RGIA). F. 1278. S. 1. D. 97. 47 l. (In Russian)

46. Vybornye proizvodstva, raspredelennye po otdelam gosudarstvennoi Dumy. 9 otdel. Po Kutaisskoi gubernii. 1 iiunia 1906 g. -- 22 iiunia 1906 g. Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (RGIA). F. 1278. S. 1. D. 31. 65 l. (In Russian)

47. Zakonodatel'nye akty perekhodnogo vremeni 1904-1906 gg.: Sb. zakonov, manifestov, ukazov Pr. Senatu, reskriptov i polozhenii komiteta ministrov, otnosiashchikhsia k preobrazovaniiu gos. stroia Rossii, s pril. alfavit. predmet. ukaz. Ed. by N. I. Lazarevsky. 2^nd edition, revised and enlarged edition. January, 1, 1907. St. Petersburg, Bookstore of legal literature “Pravo”, 1907. 733 p. (In Russian)

48. Zurabov A. G. Vtoraia Gosudarstvennaia Duma: Vpechatleniia, S prilozheniem nekotorykh rechei i rezoliucii s.-d. fraktsii. St. Petersburg, Printing and Lithographic Office «Energy», 1908. 181 [2] p. (In Russian)

Размещено на Allbest.ru