Authors

Discussion

This paper explores a curious democratic element of Russia’s imperial governance in ecclesiastical affairs: elections. To be sure, most religious personnel in Russia did not occupy their positions through an elective process, but the Armenian Church was a notable exception. Precisely because the autocracy aspired to use the Armenian Patriarch, or Catholicos, as a source of influence (or “soft power’) over foreign Armenians, it permitted Armenians—both within Russia and abroad—to participate in his election, eventually recognizing the right of Armenian representatives even in distant American dioceses (Fresno, California and Worcester, Massachusetts) to participate. At the same time, the autocracy was eager in each instance to ensure that Armenian electors embrace the “correct” candidate, so that the tsar could demonstrably confirm this popular choice. Indeed, by rules of 1836 regulating the elective process, the Armenian nation would elect two candidates for the patriarchal throne, and the Russian Emperor would confirm (or appoint) one of them. Petersburg’s goal was to promote a coincidence between the choice of the nation and the autocrat’s own selection. For a time, tsarist officials actively promoted the election of Ottoman subjects to the post of Catholicos, presuming that this would enhance that leader’s authority abroad. All of this drew tsarist diplomats more deeply into the election process through embassies and consulates, in order to bribe and cajole communal leaders into backing the right candidate. Extensive archival materials on seven elections between 1833 and 1911—their organization, manipulation, and celebration—offer fascinating insights into the role of elective principles in a generally autocratic political system.