Orthodox Christianity and Nationalism in Nineteenth-Century Southeastern Europe

Nation-building processes in the Orthodox commonwealth brought together political institutions and religious communities in their shared aims of achieving national sovereignty. Chronicling how the churches of Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, and Serbia acquired independence from the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the wake of the Ottoman Empire’s decline, Orthodox Christianity and Nationalism in Nineteenth-Century Southeastern Europe examines the role of Orthodox churches in the construction of national identities. Drawing on archival material available after the fall of communism in southeastern Europe and Russia, as well as material published in Greek, Serbian, Bulgarian, Romanian, and Russian, Orthodox Christianity and Nationalism in Nineteenth-Century Southeastern Europe analyzes the challenges posed by nationalism to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the ways in which Orthodox churches engaged in the nationalist ideology.

The Romanian Orthodox Church

At first glance, the nationalist ideology of the French Revolution seems to have had little impact on the Orthodox Church in Romanian-speaking territories. Romanians were the predominant inhabitants of the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia and the neighboring territories of Transylvania (including Crişana, Maramureş and Banat), Bukovina, Bessarabia, and Dobrudja. The majority of ethnic Romanians belonged to the Orthodox faith while their communities were at the intersection of geopo liti cal interests of the Rus sian, Ottoman, and Habsburg empires. In 1859 the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia (known as the Old Kingdom between 1866 and 1918) united into a single state under the rule of a local prince. The term "Romania" began to be used by the new state in its of cial documents in 1862. Two years later, the state supported the declaration of a Romanian autocephalous (in de pen dent) church that was recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1885. As an integrative part of the Orthodox commonwealth, the church was situated between the competing jurisdictions of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Rus sian Orthodox Church, while its declaration of autocephaly followed a pattern in the spread of national churches in Southeastern Europe. From the Treaty of Kuchuk Kainardji of 1774 to the beginning of the Greek War for In de pen dence in 1821, the Romanian principalities were under the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire, which had full control of their po liti cal and economic affairs. The sultan appointed princes, and the Porte determined their po liti cal and judicial status. The princes were drawn from the "Phanariots," and were directly appointed by the Porte from preponderantly Greek elite rather than the Romanian local elite, the boyars (boieri).1 In each principality, the church was headed by a metropolitan who was under the direct jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. That religion mattered to local population as a means of social cohesion was suggestively depicted by Anatole de Demidoff, an En glish traveler in the region in 1837. Arriving in Bucharest, the capital of Wallachia, he claimed that: I know of no city in Europe in which it is possible to find more agreeable society, or in which there is a better tone, united with the most charming gaiety⋯. Religion, which is here of the schismatic Greek creed, does not, properly speaking, hold any great empire over the minds of the Wallachian people, but they observe its outward forms, and particularly the austerities of fasting, with scrupulous exactitude. The people are seen to attend divine ser vice with every sign of respect, and the great number of churches existing in Wallachia, bear witness to the ardent zeal with which outward worship is honored.2 The Romanian Orthodox Church was a national institution, closely linked to social, economic, and po liti cal structures. In most cases, Orthodox hierarchs were appointed from the families of boyars, thus ensuring a close relationship with the state authorities and its policies. As one of the largest landowners in the principalities, the church had a prime role in administrating healthcare and education. Although the majority of the clergy was uneducated, it dispensed both ecclesiastical and civil justice and in many cases worked closely with boyars in local administration.3 The lower clergy not only contributed directly to the economy but also benefited from tax privileges. Some small villages had an unusually high proportion of clergy in comparison to the overall population. For example, in 1810, Stənisləveşti, a village in the south of Wallachia, was composed of eleven houses and had two priests, five deacons, and three cantors; similarly, the Frəsinet village of nineteen houses had two priests and five deacons.4 Although these cases were exceptional, they indicate both the economic value of being a member of the clergy and the wider canonical dimension of church jurisdiction. The special status of the clergy was reflected not only at lower but also at higher levels. Bishops and metropolitans engaged with state policy and in many cases opposition to the authorities led to the loss of a spiritual seat. The metropolitan of each principality worked with the prince and was president of the divan, the gathering of all boyars. He held the right to be the first person to comment on state policy and to make recommendations when the prince was absent. The metropolitan replaced the prince when the principality had no political ruler, such as in the cases of Metropolitan Veniamin Costachi of Moldavia in 1806 and Metropolitan Dositei Filitti of Wallachia, while the bishops of Buzəu and Argeş were members of the provisional government during the Rus sian occupation of the principalities in 1808. The higher clergy had both religious and political prerogatives in relation to foreign powers as evident in their heading of the boyars' delegation to peace negotiation between the Rus sian and Ottoman empires at Focşani in 1772 and addressing memoranda to the Austrian and Rus sian governments in 1802.5 The primary role of the church in the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia was paralleled by the national mobilization of Orthodox communities in the neighboring territories that had Romanian inhabitants. Although throughout the region Orthodox communities were incorporated into church structures as part of the Habsburg, Austrian or Rus sian empires, the nineteenth century was characterized by the leadership's search for political autonomy and the building of a Romanian national identity. The Orthodox communities outside the Old Kingdom maintained relations with the faithful in principalities across the Carpathian Mountains and the Dniester River and sought support in their struggle for political and religious rights.

McKinney, Mark. Redrawing French Empire Comics. Columbus, The Ohio State University Press, 2013. 304 pages. 9780814212202

The history of France and its empires is one that has been well trodden, particularly the French occupation, and subsequent war, in Algeria. In this companion to his earlier work, 2011’s The Colonial Heritage of French Comics,McKinney attempts to examine the reconstruction of French national identity in the wake of decolonisation through the medium of Francophonecomics. He endeavours to study the colonial affrontier (3), the space in which France and its colonies are connected and divided, where they seek to confront each other, or to seek peace and the removal of the division. McKinney argues this affrontier can be found most strongly in the Francophone comics produced dealing with the French colonial experience in Algeria, as well as that of Indochina,and does so from both sides of each conflict. McKinney examines in detail the French colonisation of Algeria (1830sonwards), the French war in Indochina (1946–54) and the Algerian war (1954–62), and his work is the first to approach these well-covered areas of research through the medium of comics. The resulting work takes the form of an investigation into the five forms of genealogical inquiry utilised in comics regarding these conflicts. His approach investigates the familial, ethnic, national, artistic and critical forms of genealogy relating to colonialism and imperialism from a variety of viewpoints, including the previously overlooked perspective of the pieds noirs. He aims to highlight both those cartoonists that critique the colonial ideology, as well as those cartoonists who to some extent attempt to gloss over or even romanticise the French empire, strengthening the affrontier. He positions himself alongside Foucault in seeing genealogy as a useful means of establishing ‘historical knowledge of struggles’ (Foucault1980, 85), but McKinney looks at the colonial representation in a popular medium,including the recent increase in comics produced which consider the French colonial experience. He argues that this consideration of the present, as well as European imperialism, is absent in the work of Foucault. The text is accompanied by a number of black and white facsimiles of pages from the comics he analyses to illustrate the different and often conflicting positions of cartoonists on these issues. Overall, McKinney’s work is a welcome addition to the study of the French colonial experience, which separates its elf from the rest by using Francophonecomics as lenses through which to look at these already well-trodden areas of study. He succeeds in determining if and how cartoonists critique colonial ideology and representations on both sides of the conflicts, a task in which he is unarguably successful. McKinney’s work, however, is unfortunately let down by typo graphicerrors, which occur throughout the text.Nevertheless, McKinney’s work is another important work in the field of Bande Dessine ́e scholarship, and useful for anyone interested in the representations of colonialism and imperialism in French comics, accompanied by anencyclopaedic bibliography of comics produced on this topic.