Military clergy of the Russian Empire. Military and naval clergy in Russia Babkin Russian clergy and the overthrow of the monarchy
The clergy, that is, people who were “professionally” involved in religion, formed the ideological basis of the Russian Empire. The country was Christian, and although other beliefs - Islam, Catholicism and so on - were respected, the Orthodox religion dominated everything
The clergy was a specific, closed class in which following the chosen path - serving God - as a rule, was inherited. Children of male priests themselves became priests, daughters married “their own” and became priests. The network of churches covered almost all corners of the vast empire where people constantly lived. Geographically, residents living near a temple constituted the parish of that temple. Therefore, when we read: “at the Intercession”, “at St. Nicholas’s” - it means that a person lives near the Church of St. Nicholas, that is, in this parish. Here he comes for confession to his spiritual father (“I was in the spirit,” “speak as if in the spirit” in everyday conversation), here they bring a newborn child to baptize, in their church a person is buried (A.S. Pushkin was buried in the Konyushenny Church courtyard located near his apartment on Moika, 12).The Russian Orthodox Church, with external independence, was in a subordinate position to the state. Its affairs were in charge of a higher institution called the Synod, the head of which, the chief prosecutor, was appointed by the emperor. Therefore, the Russian church elite did not pursue an active independent policy, like, for example, the Catholic Church, but supported the now living sovereign in everything essential.
The clergy is divided into black and white. Black is monks who move away from the “world” and earthly temptations, living in monasteries, completely devoting their lives to serving God. When tonsured as a monk, after a period of obedience, a kind of probationary period, a person accepted certain responsibilities, including a vow of chastity. The black clergy was divided into five degrees, or orders. The highest ones are the metropolitan and the archbishop, they should be addressed as “your eminence”; then the bishop - "your eminence." All three highest ranks also had a common title - "lord". The lower degrees of the black clergy are the archimandrite and the abbot (who headed the monastery), they were addressed by “your reverence.” The abbess, that is, the abbess of a convent, could be a woman, but women were not allowed into the white clergy.
The white clergy, that is, priests living “in the world,” among people with families and children, were also divided into five orders. These are protopresbyter, archpriest (the title is “your reverence”), priest, protodeacon and deacon (“your reverence”). In everyday life, in private conversation, especially among peasants and middle-class people, the priest was often called by name - “Father Fedor” - or “father”, “father”.
As already mentioned, priests who did not live in monasteries could have a family. The priest's wife, priest (daughter - priest), was often called "mother" in everyday life. But a person could only marry before being ordained to the first rank of deacon. After ordination, the clergyman becomes, as it were, engaged to the Church, and earthly marriage becomes impossible. Therefore, for a person of the clergy, the choice of a life partner is extremely limited in time; as a rule, these are years of study, after which he already becomes a deacon. Either he manages to find his future mother, or he remains lonely all his life. Naturally, the closest thing was to the society of young girls from the clergy class, which is why marriages between representatives of this layer of society were so frequent. And of course, even if among the laity divorce was very rare and was accompanied by long and painful procedures, then for a priest divorce was simply impossible. That’s why the sexton from A.P.’s story suffers so much. Chekhov's "The Witch" - she can never leave her husband, no matter how hateful he may be.
Clergy received their education in special educational institutions: theological schools, theological seminaries and theological academies. There were also lower educational institutions for women.
The ordained priests in the church were assisted during services by choristers, sextons, servers, and so on. These assistants were not officially classified as clergy and could be from other classes.
Attitudes towards members of the clergy were most likely different in Russia. Now, in the 21st century, this is often debated. Some are guided by the search for God of the heroes of L. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky; religion seems to them to be a binding spiritual force that unites all Russians, and they see the loss of religiosity as the source of many current troubles. Others take as a starting point the greedy Priest from Pushkin’s fairy tale, Chekhov’s deacon from “The Witch,” and religion for a Russian person of the 19th century seems to them to be something official, deceitful, and formal. Real life is more complicated than any scheme, and in Russia there were both deeply religious Christians with a capital C, and completely atheist-minded people. Let's say, Levin in L. Tolstoy's novel "Anna Karenina" does not go to church for many years, and only the upcoming sacrament of wedding forces him to perform the required rituals; and at the same time, questions of faith and its essence deeply concern him. And Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy himself, a deeply religious thinker, was anathematized by the official church, that is, excommunicated. And at the same time, demonstrative atheism was considered indecent, violating norms of behavior. The mayor in The Inspector General reproaches the judge: “But you don’t believe in God; you never go to church...”.
The clergy, as the ideological basis of the empire, had certain benefits from the state. Clergy were exempt from taxes and military service. Censorship monitored the compliance of works of art with both political and religious norms of permissibility. By the way, the appearance of a priest as a character in the play was practically excluded. After all, theater, from the point of view of the church, is a “sinful” thing. During Lent, performances were prohibited; artists were presented as people of very dubious morality. In Chekhov's story "Dirge", the shopkeeper's daughter, who became an actress, is called a "harlot" by her father himself. Judas in Saltykov-Shchedrin's "The Golovlev Lords" and Foma Fomich in Dostoevsky's "The Village of Stepanchikovo and Its Inhabitants," for all their aggressive religiosity, cannot have an official relationship to the clergy - censorship would never allow such a work to be published.
Children of priests also had civil benefits. If they did not become priests, they had certain advantages when entering secular educational institutions and public service; some of them could receive the title of "honorary citizen" - a kind of "semi-nobility". A few even managed to gain rank in the real nobility, in the civil service departments to become major figures in Russian history, such as M.M. Speransky. The priest's son was N.G. Chernyshevsky. But the semi-contemptuous nickname “Popovich”, “he’s one of the priest’s children” sometimes haunted these people all their lives. So, M.Yu. In Lermontov’s plans for planned but unrealized works we read: “The plot of a tragedy (not even a drama! - A.Z.). A young man in Russia who is not of noble origin is rejected by society, by love, humiliated by his superiors (he was from the priesthood or from the bourgeoisie , studied at the university and traveled at government expense). He shoots himself."
The monograph analyzes the relationship between church and state, as well as intra-church processes in a fateful time for Russia. Models of church-state relations developed by the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1905-1917 are considered mainly from the point of view of the historical and theological problem of “priesthood-kingdom” " In this vein, changes in liturgical rites and the reaction of the Russian clergy to the overthrow of the monarchy are analyzed. Particular attention in the book is paid to the study of the official political position of the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church regarding the events of the February Revolution. The activities of the Local Council during its first session are also analyzed. The book is intended for students, graduate students, researchers and anyone interested in the history of the Fatherland and the Orthodox Church. UDC 94(47)+322 BBK 63.3(2)52-3© Babkin M.A. ... ., following the paradigm shift in Russia in the 90s. last century, the transition to a market economy and the construction of a legal, democratic state saw a change in the ideological guidelines of society. Focusing people's attention on the negative facts of the Soviet past led to the abandonment of communist ideals, which often began to be replaced by religious ideals. A certain idealization of both the religious worldview and the church as a social institution that educates and shapes it began to be observed. This idealization began to be accompanied by an increase in the role of the church in the social and political life of the country. There was also a change in the relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC)1 and the state.1 In the “Code of Laws of the Russian Empire” and in other official documents up to 1936 (in particular, in the materials of the Local Council of 1917-1918 and in the famous “ Declaration" of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) dated July 16 (29, 1927) used the name "Orthodox Russian Church" (see, for example: Acts of His Holiness Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, later documents and correspondence on the canonical succession of the highest church authority , 1917-1943: collection Part 1, 2 / compiled by M.E. Gubonin, 1994. P. 49, 144, 307, 509, 705, etc.). However, in unofficial documents the names “Russian Orthodox”, “All-Russian Orthodox”, “Orthodox Catholic Greek-Russian” and “Russian Orthodox” Church were often used. Due to the fact that in 1943 the title of the Patriarch of Moscow changed (instead of “... and all Russia” it became “... and all Rus'”), the Orthodox Church received a modern name, called “Russian” 3An important historical problem is the study of church-state relations in revolutionary events of 1905-1907. and especially 1917, when power changed several times, and the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church sought independence, to convene a Local Council and restore the patriarchate abolished by Emperor2 Peter I. During that period - again after the 17th century. - the clergy, in a certain sense, raised the question of what is more charismatic and, accordingly, more important: secular or spiritual power (what is the historical and theological problem of the “priesthood-kingdom” relationship). Starting from the spring of 1905, the clergy considered the question of changing the form of relationship between church and state established during the synodal period. In 1906 and 1912-1914. At special church commissions (Pre-Conciliar Presence and Pre-Conciliar Meeting), relevant projects were adopted. According to them, on the one hand, it was necessary to sharply reduce the church powers of the tsar, and on the other, to introduce the patriarchate. However, these plans were not destined to come true until 1917. In 1917, two qualitative socio-political changes occurred in Russia (not counting the change of power as a result of the October Revolution). Firstly, the form of state power has changed: from royal power to democracy devoid of sacred meaning. Secondly, along with the destruction of the institution of autocracy3, the institution of patriarchy was created. Tem(ROC). Accordingly, in historiography, the use of the abbreviation “ROC” and not “PRC” has been established.2 In this work, we will use the words “emperor” and “tsar” as synonymous. On the sociocultural dynamics of the meaning of these words, as well as on their different interpretations in Greek, Latin and Russian language traditions, see: Uspensky B.A. Tsar and Emperor. Anointing for the kingdom and the semantics of royal titles. M., 2000. P. 34-52; It's him. Tsar and Patriarch. The charisma of power in Russia: the Byzantine model and its Russian rethinking. M., 1998. P. 10.3 Using the concept of “autocracy”, we will mean the tsarist rule in general. Some historians and lawyers believe that, together with the appearance of the Manifesto on October 17, 1905, the existence of autocracy ceased to exist in Russia - the “priesthood” itself. in a certain sense, took over the “kingdom”. (One of the signs of such an established “primacy” is spelling, if not rules, then trends in writing the basic concepts of the topic)4. To understand the socio-political processes in modern Russia, it is necessary, in particular, to turn to the study of church-state relations of the pre-Soviet period of the 20th century. (when the secular authorities were in that form of government. However, others believe that the autocracy continued to exist until the February Revolution (see more about this: Mironov B.N. Social history of Russia during the imperial period (XVIII - early XX centuries): genesis of personality, democratic family, civil society and the rule of law. St. Petersburg, 1999. T. 2. P. 154, 156).4 This paper attempts to consider Russian church-state relations in 1917 from the point of view of the problem of “priesthood.” -kingdom.” The main question of this problem is what is higher and more important: state or spiritual power. This question is reflected in the established traditions of spelling. In modern common practice, the spelling “solution” of this issue, for a not entirely clear reason, took shape in favor of the priesthood. , the state and the Church as institutions are almost always written unequally: the first word is written with a lowercase letter, and the second with a capital letter, as if the Church (church) stands “above” the state, “more important” and “above” it. The Provisional Government and the State Duma in historiography are awarded one capital letter, the Holy Synod and the Local Council - two, and the emperor, tsar, autocrat (not in the personal sense, but as the holder of supreme power) are always written with capital letters. Isn’t this a kind of indicator of the still ongoing struggle (rather on the “theoretical front”) between the charismatic authorities about primacy over each other? In our opinion, in the case of the simultaneous use of names with the “conflicting” use of lowercase and capital letters (one of which, even if it is a proper name), can (and perhaps should) adhere to spelling “equality”. For example, write: The Holy Governing Synod and the All-Russian Emperor, the Orthodox Church and the Russian State. As an argument in favor of this practice, it can be pointed out that not only the Kingdom and the Church, but also the State itself in the historical tradition (for example, the Roman Empire) was often endowed with a sacred meaning (see about this, for example: Ch. P. Deification of the state in Ancient Rome // Wanderer. St. Petersburg, 1914. No. 12. P. 520-539; Zhivov V.M., Uspensky B.A. Tsar and God (Semiotic aspects of the sacralization of the monarch in Russia) // Languages of culture and problems of translatability. . M., 1987. P. 47-153). 5THE CLERGY OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH AND THE OVERTHROW OF THE MONARCHY
(beginning of the 20th century - end of 1917).
Repnikov A.V., Gaida F.A. M.A. Babkin. The clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church and the overthrow of the monarchy (beginning of the 20th century - end of 1917) // Domestic history. 2008. No. 5. P. 202-207 (review).
In the monograph by M.A. Babkin examines an extremely important and relevant topic - the relationship between the Church and the state in 1900-1917. as the author correctly notes, neither in domestic nor in foreign historiography has there yet been any work covering the attitude of the Orthodox clergy to the overthrow of the monarchy. In those that appeared at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries. research by T.G. Leontyeva, V.A. Fedorova, S.L. Firsov, this topic, as a rule, is considered only in the general context of the history of church-state relations at the beginning of the 20th century. Modern church historians and Orthodox publicists also usually avoid it. In addition, as Babkin believes, “a distinctive feature of church-historical monographs is a certain idealization of the history of the Russian Orthodox Church, the desire to overlook some negative and unpleasant facts and, first of all, the Church’s support for the overthrow of the Romanov dynasty” (p. 30).
The last 20 years, starting with the memorable celebrations dedicated to the millennium of the Baptism of Rus', have been marked by the revival of Orthodoxy in Russia. Many new studies, collections of documents, memoirs and articles, published with the participation of the Russian Orthodox Church, constituted essentially a new layer of historiography, which is still poorly coordinated with academic science. In this regard, both the criticism by representatives of the Church of scientific monographs and the assessment by employees of scientific institutes of Church publications are more likely to resemble not a constructive dialogue, but a monologue, with the help of which each side tries to prove that it is right, without listening to the arguments of the interlocutor. This is largely due to the fact that Babkin’s book has already caused diametrically opposed responses and even accusations of bias against the author.
While working on the monograph, Babkin examined materials from 40 funds from various federal and regional archives (RGIA, GA RF, RGADA, CIAM, RGA Navy, Russian State Archive of Film and Photo Documents, OR RSL, State Archive of the Sverdlovsk Region, Documentation Center for Public Organizations of the Sverdlovsk Region, The United State Archive of the Chelyabinsk Region) studied about a thousand cases, a significant part of which was previously unknown to historians. He examined the definitions of the Holy Synod, orders, pastoral messages and sermons of bishops, resolutions of congresses and meetings of the clergy that took place in the spring and summer of 1917, telegrams sent by them to representatives of government authorities, transcripts of the Local Council of 1917-1918. In addition, the author analyzes the legislative acts of the Russian Empire, diaries, memoirs and correspondence of Nicholas II, Empress Maria Fedorovna, bishops Veniamin (Fedchenkov), Evlogiy (Georgievsky), Nestor (Anisimov), Feodosius (Almazov), priests Georgy Shavelsky, Vasily Vinogradov and Vasily Zenkovsky, Ioann Vostorgov and Vladimir Krasnitsky, Nikolai Lyubimov and Sergiy Bulgakov, as well as A.I. Verkhovsky, F.V. Vinberga, V.N. Voeykova, A.I. Guchkova, A.I. Denikin, book. N.D. Zhevakhova, A.V. Kartasheva, A.F. Kerensky, V.N. Lvova, N.E. Markova, S.P. Melgunova, P.N. Milyukova, V.D. Nabokova, M. Paleologa, M.V. Rodzianko and others. Babkin also worked on a large number of newspapers and magazines published in Russia in 1905-1917. He carefully examined more than 90% of all church publications published in 1917.
Thanks to such an extensive source base, the author was able to trace in detail the process of political reorientation of the Orthodox clergy during the February Revolution of 1917. Moreover, the conclusions he made characterize not only the views and actions of individuals, but also the position of the entire Russian Orthodox Church. According to Babkin, from 1901 until the February Revolution, Orthodox hierarchs tried to limit the emperor’s participation in church governance and sought to “distance” the Church from the state. After a number of unsuccessful attempts to obtain the consent of the monarch to convene a Local Council, bishops increasingly pinned their hopes for the “emancipation” of the Church from state control with “the expected change in the form of state power in Russia, with the final resolution of the issue between the “priesthood” and the “kingdom”” (with . 132). Contributing to the “desacralization” of imperial power, the clergy proceeded from the fact that there were no fundamental differences between the power of the king and any other form of power (“there is no power not from God”). Accordingly, the flock perceived the king not as the spiritual leader of the people and the anointed of God, but exclusively as a simple layman at the head of the state. However, Babkin’s conclusion that the clergy worked to “create, to a certain extent, a “theological justification” for the revolution” (p. 134) still seems debatable.
The author believes that in the pre-revolutionary years, the bishops tried to resolve in favor of the Church the historical and theological dispute about the superiority of secular power over spiritual or, conversely, spiritual over secular (the so-called problem of “priesthood and kingdom”). Most clearly, in his opinion, this confrontation between the “priesthood” and the “kingdom” manifested itself precisely in the first days and weeks of the February Revolution. Babkin believes that at a time when church hierarchs welcomed the abdication of Nicholas II, the question of the future form of government in Russia still remained open. Meanwhile, numerous sources testify that the members of the Holy Synod from the very beginning made a firm choice in favor of the new government and against the restoration of the monarchy. They were by no means inclined to consider the political situation in Russia as being in a state of “uncertainty” until the corresponding decision of the Constituent Assembly on the form of government. This position of the Synod, taking into account the influence of the clergy under its jurisdiction on the multi-million Orthodox flock, actually excluded the possibility of implementing a monarchical alternative.
In the fact that in March 1917 “the Church actually refused to defend the emperor” (p. 144), Babkin sees an attempt by the clergy to change the political system of the Russian state. Innovations of an anti-monarchical nature, implemented by the Synod in the spring of 1917, often caused confusion and grumbling among believers. However, only a few shepherds continued to defend conservative-monarchical values at that time (pp. 168-169). In the “Teachings” of the Holy Synod, the tsarist government was accused of bringing Russia “to the brink of destruction,” as a result of which “the people rose up for the truth, for Russia, overthrew the old government, which God through the people punished for all its grave and great sins "(p. 175). “The government regime has recently been unprincipled, sinful, immoral,” wrote Bishop Andrei (Ukhtomsky) of Ufa and Menzelinsky. “The autocracy of the Russian tsars degenerated first into autocracy, and then into obvious autocracy, which surpassed all probability” (p. 231). Bishop Mikhail (Kosmodemyansky) of Aleksandrovsk, in his Easter sermon, compared autocracy with the “devilish chains” that fettered the lives of the Russian people (p. 232).
Studying the relationship between the “priesthood” and the “kingdom,” Babkin focused his attention on the events of the beginning of the 20th century. At the same time, he makes a number of interesting historical excursions, turns to the era of Peter I, and reports that “in the hundred pre-revolutionary years, almost the only case of a priest denouncing the contents of a penitent’s confession to the authorities was known” (p. 63). The theological comments in the book, which are not always found in the works of “secular” historians, are also valuable. The appendices to the monograph provide statistical information about the Orthodox clergy of the early 20th century, a list of bishops who occupied church departments on March 1, 1917, and other materials.
Nevertheless, I would like to point out some issues that were not fully disclosed by the author and require further research. Thus, practically nothing is said about the projects of church reform developed by L.A. Tikhomirov. In the book he is mentioned only once, although his active participation in the affairs of the Church was noticed by Nicholas II and was highly appreciated by Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky). Several times in the book it is mentioned about the possible existence of a kind of Masonic lobby among the highest clergy (pp. 39-40, 189). “The unanimity of... the highest hierarchs with representatives of the authorities in terms of overthrowing the tsarist autocracy,” writes Babkin, “suggests that among the members of the Holy Synod there were also Freemasons. First of all, this applies to those hierarchs who determined the course of the highest body of church power: Archbishop Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Finland and Metropolitan Vladimir (Epiphany) of Kyiv” (p. 189). Unfortunately, the author does not provide any evidence confirming this hypothesis. In connection with Masonic themes and “conspiracy theory”, it should be emphasized the need for a careful attitude towards the books used by N.N. Babkin. Berberova, M.V. Nazarov and O.A. Platonov, containing, among other things, accidentally or intentionally distorted information.
Babkin’s work, which became the basis for his successfully defended doctoral dissertation, shows that “the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church as a whole played an important role in the revolutionary process aimed at overthrowing the monarchy in Russia” (p. 412). Of course, one can challenge the author’s concept, but one can no longer ignore the documents introduced by Babkin into scientific circulation. The fact that some of the book’s conclusions caused controversy and conflicting responses only testifies to the fruitfulness of the work done by the author, its scientific novelty and significance, since serious research always gives rise to discussions. Undoubtedly, the monograph under review makes a significant contribution to historical science, and one can only regret that the small circulation has already made it a bibliographic rarity.
A.V. Repnikov, Doctor of Historical Sciences (Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History)
M.A. Babkin’s monograph is devoted to the attitude of the Orthodox clergy to the monarchy and the revolution in 1917. The author covers the preceding events rather sparingly, relying, as a rule, on the works of other researchers (S.L. Firsova, B.N. Mironov, o . Georgy Orekhanov, Fr. Vladimir Rozhkov, etc.). However, based on them, the author draws completely independent, and sometimes diametrically opposed, conclusions. So, he tries to prove that at the beginning of the 20th century. the clergy strove for “independence from the state” and was ready for this to “legitimize the overthrow of the monarchy in the minds of the flock” (pp. 138-139). “The main motive for the revolutionary spirit of the clergy” Babkin sees “in the desire to destroy and overthrow the tsarist power as a charismatic “rival”” (p. 201). However, in his book he never named a single church hierarch who would have expressed such desires before or even after the revolution.
Babkin attributes to the members of the Holy Synod a hostile attitude towards the monarchy and almost sympathy for the republican system. Meanwhile, the existence of such sympathies is not only difficult to prove with the help of available sources, but even to admit as a speculative assumption. The highest hierarchs were well aware that the position of the clergy in the monarchical states of Europe (Great Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary) was much stronger than in republican France, which experienced at the beginning of the 20th century. another surge of anticlericalism, or in Portugal, where in 1910 the republic was proclaimed simultaneously with the confiscation of monastic property.
It should also be taken into account that the relationship between the Orthodox episcopate and the liberal opposition on the eve of the revolution was extremely tense. Octobrist leader A.I. Guchkov was the main organizer of sharp criticism of the Synod in the Duma. Octobrist I.V. Nikanorov, who spoke on behalf of the faction in the State Duma on church issues, wrote in the Voice of Moscow about the “terrible state” of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is “on the edge of the abyss.” The Cadets spoke even more unkindly about the “synodal bureaucracy” and the bishops, and their leader P.N. From the Duma rostrum, Miliukov called for the release of the Church “from the captivity of the hierarchy.” The close ties that existed between the liberal opposition and the Old Believers were no secret to anyone. Of course, among the Orthodox hierarchs of the early 20th century. there were people of radical liberal political views, such as the Ufa Bishop Andrei (Ukhtomsky) or the retired Vladikavkaz Bishop Antonin (Granovsky). But there were very few of them, and their influence in the Church remained minimal. The cooling between the Synod (and the episcopate as a whole) and the last Russian emperor was explained not so much by the mythical “anti-monarchical mood” of the bishops, but by the Rasputin story, which undermined the authority of the highest church administration in the eyes of society, and the attempts of the authorities to drag the clergy into politics, as it was, in in particular, during the election campaign of 1912.
Babkin argues that even after the abdication of Nicholas II, “in case of official support from the Orthodox Church, a very significant and influential part of the electorate could speak out for the monarchical path of development of Russia”: “... From March 3, if the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church supported the monarchical system authorities, in the political field, in our opinion, an alternative between a constitutional monarchy and a democratic parliamentary republic would be discussed (the largest potential electorate of the former was the Cadets and the Right, and the latter - mainly the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries)” (pp. 209-211). However, the author himself writes about “the massive revolutionary spirit that gripped the majority of the country’s population from the first days of March 1917,” and states that “in those days, monarchical ideas were extremely unpopular,” and the right-wing parties not only did not resist, but also did not protested against their ban. At the same time, he admits that “this point of view of the general public influenced the formation of the opinion of the clergy,” and not vice versa (pp. 188, 266).
This obvious contradiction indicates that, speaking about the “monarchical alternative” that was not implemented due to the fault of the Synod in 1917. Babkin significantly and unreasonably exaggerates the political weight of the clergy, and when analyzing the balance of power in society, he passes off wishful thinking. Thus, he writes that “the influential Kadet party advocated a constitutional monarchy (although there was still no unity in its ranks on this issue).” But if the program of the People's Freedom party, drawn up back in 1905-1906, spoke of a parliamentary monarchy as the most preferable form of government, then by 1917 the overwhelming majority of the Cadets were already republicans. Immediately after the revolution, corresponding changes were made to the party program.
In fact, the Synod had no influence either on the generals, or on the political parties that led the Duma, or on the rebellious masses. Moreover, as the so-called church revolution that unfolded in the spring of 1917 showed, the ruling bishops often did not enjoy proper authority in the eyes of the parish clergy and laity. Meanwhile, the author seriously assures readers that at the end of February 1917 the Synod, with the help of appeals, appeals and religious processions, could stop the revolution (pp. 204-209).
Babkin resolutely insists that in March 1917 “the monarchy in Russia as an institution - according to the act. book Mikhail Alexandrovich - continued to exist,” and, accordingly, the Synod had to act as if an “interregnum” had been established in the country (p. 210). At the same time, the author completely does not take into account that the Synod was not at all authorized to give its interpretations of government acts, especially such controversial ones from a legal point of view as the acts of March 2-3, 1917. And the definition of the 1st Department of the Senate did not give the slightest basis for "existence" of the monarchy. The senators explained that “the Provisional Government, by the will of the people, is invested with dictatorial power, self-limiting by its own declaration and until the Constituent Assembly.” Upon taking office, the ministers of the Provisional Government took the oath: “As a member of the Provisional Government, by the will of the people at the initiative of the State Duma, I undertake and swear before Almighty God and my conscience to serve with faith and truth the people of the Russian State, sacredly protecting their freedom and rights, honor and dignity and inviolably observing in all my actions and orders the principles of civil freedom and civil equality and with all the measures provided to me suppressing any attempts directly or indirectly aimed at restoring the old system [emphasis added. - F.G.].” It is characteristic that already in March the activities of monarchist parties were prohibited. Of course, theoretically, the Constituent Assembly could re-establish the monarchy (and then the monarchy “by the will of the people”, and not by the “grace of God”), but there were no prerequisites for this. Even on March 2-3, only Miliukov and Guchkov, known, among other things, for their harsh anti-church speeches, actively advocated the preservation of the monarchy as an institution. It was they, in Babkin’s opinion, that the Synod should have helped.
In the situation that developed in the spring of 1917, the Church could not help but take into account the unprecedented expression of the will of the monarch and the need to maintain civil peace and harmony during the period of the most difficult war (in this regard, the positions of Nicholas II and the members of the Synod completely coincided). It is not surprising that even such convinced monarchists as Bishops Andronik (Nikolsky) and Macarius (Gnevushev) were forced to openly support the new government.
Babkin’s coverage of the relationship between church hierarchs and the new revolutionary government also raises eyebrows. The decision of the Synod to establish contact with the Provisional Committee of the State Duma, according to the author, “gives grounds to assert that the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church recognized the revolutionary power even before the abdication of Nicholas II from the throne” (pp. 144-145). Meanwhile, the “Committee of the State Duma for the establishment of order and for relations with institutions and persons” did not proclaim itself a body of supreme power and officially declared that it took power in the capital involuntarily, due to the absence of any other power. As early as March 1, the Committee established contact with Headquarters and foreign embassies, after which it was virtually universally recognized. The Synod decided to enter into relations with the Committee on March 2 and only the next day came into contact with it, perhaps the last of the capital's central institutions. There was nothing revolutionary or anti-government in this anymore. Contact with the Provisional Government was established after the refusal. book Mikhail Alexandrovich from the throne.
The relations of the Synod with the Provisional Government are viewed by Babkin as extremely one-sided. The author focuses exclusively on the analysis of the forms through which the Synod expressed its loyalty to the government. The causes and nature of the conflict that immediately arose between the members of the Synod and Chief Prosecutor V.N. Lvov, interest him only insofar as they manifested the desire of the church hierarchy for independence from the state. Babkin puts forward a hypothesis “about the existence of a certain agreement between the Provisional Government and the Holy Synod,” which was subsequently violated by Lvov: “The essence of it was that the Provisional Government would provide the Russian Orthodox Church with freedom to govern in exchange for the Church taking measures to calm the country’s population and form a ideas about the legitimate change of power” (p. 196). However, the author is neither able to prove the existence of such a “conspiracy” based on sources, nor to explain the reasons for its violation by the government.
In an effort to prove the active role and interest of bishops in the revolution, Babkin often ignores the fact that the “church revolution” that began in the spring of 1917 was largely directed precisely against the episcopate, which was indiscriminately accused of “debauchery.” Under pressure from the radically minded part of the parish clergy and laity, 17 bishops lost their departments in the very first months. It is difficult to believe that under these conditions the revolution and the revolutionary government, which in every possible way encouraged local initiative, aroused sincere sympathy among the bishops.
In general, an attempt to depict church-state relations at the beginning of the 20th century. in the form of a struggle between “priesthood and kingdom” seems far-fetched and untenable. Despite the wide range of sources used by the author, the main provisions of his concept (charismatic rivalry between church hierarchs and the emperor on the eve of the revolution of 1917, the leading and determining role of the clergy and the Holy Synod in the overthrow of the monarchy, the election of the patriarch as a victory of the “priesthood over the kingdom”, etc.) ) rely on speculative reasoning and hypothetical assumptions. Trying to prove them, the author is more than once forced to build false connections between facts that did not exist in reality. At the same time, the monograph by M.A. Babkina undoubtedly enriches Russian historiography with both new, previously unstudied materials reflecting the attitude of the clergy to revolutionary events, and with pressing controversial issues. It convincingly demonstrates the need for a special study of the political role and activities of the clergy in the Russian Empire, as well as the worldview of the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is still very poorly studied.
F. Gaida, Candidate of Historical Sciences (Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov)
Notes
1. Previously, he had already published a collection of documents on the same topic: The Russian clergy and the overthrow of the monarchy in 1917: Materials and archival documents on the history of the Russian Orthodox Church / Ed. 2. M., 2007. Comp. preface and comm. M.A. Babkin. M., 2006. For reviews, see: Domestic History. 2007. No.Z.S. 194-196.
3. State Duma. Verbatim reports. Convocation IV. Session I. St. Petersburg, 1914. Part III. Stb. 1347. April 28, 1914
4. See ., for example: Gaida F.A. Liberal opposition on the path to power (1914-spring 1917). M., 2003. pp. 49-52, 332-335, etc.
5. Quote. from: Power and reforms. From autocratic to Soviet Russia. St. Petersburg, 1996. P. 655.
6. GA RF, f. 1779, op. 1, d. 6, l. 40-40a.
7. For more details, see: Frumenkova T.G. The highest Orthodox clergy of Russia in 1917 // From the depths of time. Vol. 5. St. Petersburg, 1995. pp. 74-94; hers. To the biography of Vladimir Nikolaevich Lvov // From the depths of time. Vol. 9. St. Petersburg, 1997. P. 95; Gaida F.A. The Russian Church and the political situation after the February Revolution of 1917 (to pose the question) //From the history of the Russian hierarchy: Articles and documents. M„ 2002. P. 60-68.
1.2. From sermons and messages
TO THE FLOCK OF THE EPISCOPATE, ADDRESSES OF SPIRITUAL CONSISTORIES
No. 23. From the sermon to the flock of the vicar of the Yaroslavl diocese, Bishop Cornelius (Popov) of Rybinsk
You and I are alarmed like a thunderstorm by the sad news of the terrible internecine warfare in Petrograd. The reason for everything is the tsarist government. It has already been overthrown by the will of the people, as it did not satisfy its purpose and allowed the country to famine and unrest. The State Duma, at the request of the people, elected a new government from representatives of the people, so that this new government would lead the Russian people and the Russian army onto the path of victory and glory.
Yaroslavl dioceses. statements. Yaroslavl, 1917. No. 9-10. Some unofficial P. 109.
No. 24. Order of Bishop Nikandr (Fenomenov) of Vyatka and Slobodsk to the vicar bishop of Sarapul and Elabuga Ambrose (Gudko) and the dean of the diocese on March 3, 1917.
Upon receipt of newspapers and telegrams with Manifestos about the abdication of the Sovereign from the throne, order that the Manifestos be read in churches and replace petitions about him and the reigning house in the litanies and prayers with the words “about the All-Russian Governing Synclite.” Do this until you know the order of the Holy Synod. Have a calming effect on the people.
Word and life. Vyatka. No. 19. P. 4.
No. 25. From a note on the political position of the vicar of the Vyatka diocese, Bishop of Sarapul and Elabuga Ambrose (Gudko)
Bishop Ambrose, in a cathedral crowded with worshipers, praised the former Tsar [Nicholas II] and especially his wife [Empress Alexandra Feodorovna], which created an unwanted excitement among the people1.
Kama. Sarapul, 1917. No. 52. P. 4.
As a reaction to the mentioned sermon from the Sarapul City Duma and representatives of all groups of the population, on March 5, 1917. A complaint was sent to the Holy Synod against Bishop Ambrose. The archpastor was accused of delivering a monarchist sermon and expressing sympathy for Nicholas II and the empress. Less than two weeks had passed when the Synod of March 1 decided to retire Bishop Ambrose and appoint him rector
one of the remote monasteries (TsV. 1917. No. 9-15. P. 70; Word and Life. Vyatka, 1917. No. 23. P. 4.).
No. 26. From the response of Metropolitan of Kyiv and Galicia Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky) to the welcoming speech of the new Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod V.N. Lvov at the first meeting of the Holy Synod under the Provisional Government on March 4, 1917.
[Metropolitan Vladimir] stated that he had known V.N. for a long time. Lvov as a zealous defender of the Orthodox Church and welcomes him as a welcome guest, under whose leadership the work of the Synod will be more successful for the benefit of the homeland and the Orthodox Church.
Russian word. M., 1917. No. 51. P. 2.
1 An excerpt from the Metropolitan’s welcoming speech is given in the source.
No. 27. From the speech of Archbishop Arseny (Stadnitsky) of Novgorod and Staraya Rus1 at the first meeting of the Holy Synod under the Provisional Government on March 4, 1917.
At this historical moment I cannot help but say a few words, perhaps awkward, but coming from the heart. Mr. Chief Prosecutor speaks about the freedom of the Church. What a wonderful gift! Freedom was brought from heaven by our Savior and Lord: “if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed” [John. 8, 36]; it was suffered by the apostles, bought with the blood of martyrs. And the great gift of freedom is worth the trials and suffering. For two hundred years the Orthodox Church remained in slavery. Now she is given freedom. God, what space! But a bird that has been languishing in a cage for a long time, when it is opened, looks with fear at the vast space; She is unsure of her abilities and sits down in thought near the threshold of the doors. This is how we feel at the moment, when the revolution gave us freedom from Caesar-papism... The great gift of freedom was bought and is always acquired at the price of trials. Establish, Lord, Your Church!
Novgorod dioceses. statements. Novgorod, 1917. No. 7. Part of the informal language. pp. 324-325.
2 The speech was made in response to an announcement by Chief Prosecutor V.N. Lvov on granting the Russian Church “freedom from Caesar-papism” by the Provisional Government. The speech was reproduced by Archbishop Arseny on March 26 at a meeting of the clergy of Novgorod.
No. 28. Statement by Archbishop of Novgorod and Staraya Russa Arseny (Stadnitsky) at the first meeting of the Holy Synod under the Provisional Government at the time of the removal of the royal chair on March 4, 1917.
Here they are bringing out the symbol of Caesar-papism!
Theological works. M., 1998. Issue. 34. Anniversary issue. P. 81.
1 In “Theological Works” it is said that at this meeting the position of Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod was brought up and the following statement was made by Archbishop Arseny as a reaction to this event. However, numerous eyewitnesses (including Arseny himself) testify that it was the royal chair that was taken away. Moreover, when the throne was removed, hierarchs and members of the Holy Synod took part, including Metropolitan Vladimir (Epiphany) (see: Zhevakhov N.D. Op. cit. Vol. 2.
C 191; VTSOV. 1917. No. 1. P. 2-3; Novgorod dioceses. statements. Novgorod, 1917. No. 11. Part of the unofficial. C 451; Russian word. M., 1917. No. 51. P. 2; Stock statements. Pp, 1917. No. 55. P. 4).
According to Archbishop Arseny, the royal chair (throne), which stood at the head of the meeting table of the members of the Holy Synod, was “a symbol of Caesaropapism in the Russian Church” (Novgorod Diocesan Gazette. Novgorod, 1917. No. 11. Part of the unofficial. P. 451). It was located next to the chair of the hierarch presiding over the synod and was intended exclusively for the king.
Narrating the same (March 4) meeting of the Holy Synod, at the Novgorod diocesan congress, on May 31, Archbishop Arseny differently reproduced his words at the moment of the removal of the royal chair. Arseny said: “... I could not restrain myself and greeted [the members of the Holy Synod and the Chief Prosecutor] that the Church is free” (Novgorod Diocesan Gazette. Novgorod, 1917. No. 11. Part of the unofficial. P. 451; Novgorod life. Novgorod, 1917. No. 21. P. 3).
No. 29. From the appeal to the pastors and flock of the Georgian Exarchate1 by the Exarch of Georgia, Archbishop of Kartalin and Kakheti Platon (Rozhdestvensky) on March 4, 1917.
To you, my colleagues and my flock, my word at this historical moment.
Our homeland is taking a new path. What our Motherland needs now is not rebellion, not disintegration, not ruin, not strife, but unification, strengthening, and calm. In peaceful, meek, long-suffering Russia there should not be and, God willing, there will not be a revolutionary hell. There should not be any wavering of minds and hearts and, God willing, there will not be any now in crusader Georgia. This is imperatively required of us, first of all and most of all, by the current state of affairs. Our valiant troops, strong in spirit, are marching victoriously, at the direction of their glorious leader, our August Governor2, towards Baghdad.
And now, fighting the insidious enemy with one hand, we will do peaceful creative work with the other, we will peacefully and possibly calmly rebuild our inner life, if it requires reworking and restructuring. Should we worry, should we upset each other and, moreover, shed blood if it benefits not us, but our enemies? Conscious of the importance of the moment we are experiencing, let each of the citizens remaining at home devote themselves to peaceful creative work, knowing that only peace, harmony, love and unanimity will lead us to the promised land of an orderly and comfortable life.
Without calm, without unity, unity and awareness of our duty to the Motherland, no government, no matter how ideal, will save us. As the archpastor of the Church of Christ, a preacher of peace and love, I fatherly appeal to you, my colleagues and my flock, not to lose self-control, patience and prudence in this historical moment and to calmly meet everything that God sends to us, without His will and hair does not fall from our heads. He, the Most Merciful, will not send us anything that would not be for our good and for our benefit.
Tiflis leaf. Tiflis, 1917. No. 51. S. 1.
1 Four Caucasian dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church were united into the Georgian Exarchate: Georgian (Kartalin and Kakheti), Imereti, Gurian-Mingrelian and Sukhumi. The exarch was an authorized, independent official representative of the corresponding four dioceses and their constituent vicariates. Until 1917, the chair of the Exarch of the Caucasus in the Russian Orthodox Church was considered fourth in honor after Petrograd, Moscow and Kyiv (Bulgakov S.V. Decree. Op. T. 2. P. 1399; Complete Orthodox Theological Encyclopedic Dictionary. T. 1. P. 686 -687, 853).
From the definitions, decrees and messages of the Holy Synod...
sermons and messages to the flock of the episcopate of the Russian Orthodox Church
2 The Emperor’s viceroy in the Caucasus and the commander-in-chief of the troops of the Caucasian Front was the cavalry general, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich Romanov (Younger; 1856 - 1929; grandson of Emperor Nicholas I) (Soviet Military Encyclopedia. T. 5. M., 1978. P. 597 ).
Today the Tsar’s manifesto was printed in our city. Here is the document by which the Tsar Himself frees us from the oath given to faithful service to Him and, transferring the Russian Throne to His Brother Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, commands Him to rule over state affairs in complete and inviolable unity with the representatives of the people in legislative institutions.
Thus, we found ourselves under a new, but completely legal government, consisting, as it were, of two halves: the legal sovereign and representatives of the people in legislative institutions. It was necessary to wait for the manifesto of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich on His accession to the throne, but instead an official telegram was received about the Abdication of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich from the Throne.
Thus, freed by the Sovereign Himself from the oath to Him, we have, in the person of the Provisional Government, established by the State Duma, a completely legitimate power, to which the Sovereign and after him Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich transferred their Supreme rights. Therefore, we must now obey our Provisional Government, just as we obeyed not out of fear, but out of conscience, our Sovereign, who has now renounced governing us.
Tambov dioceses. statements. Tambov, 1917. No. 10-11. Unofficial department pp. 247-248.
No. 31. From the speech of Bishop of Pskov and Porkhov Eusebius (Grozdov) in the Pskov Cathedral
Beloved brethren, at an hour full of deep historical significance, at an hour when a new form of government is being created, I dare, together with the holy Apostle, to turn to you with the same prayer: “Little children, love one another.” Let us remember that this commandment is not only of the apostle, but also of Our Beloved Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. Let us remember that the Provisional Government, to which the Supreme Power has now quite legitimately passed, is calling us to calm, to the absence of hatred and enmity, mutual respect, and the fulfillment by each of his duties.
I, a humble servant of the Crucified One, for my part, invoke God’s blessing on your peaceful and fruitful activities in the new construction.
Pskov dioceses. statements. Pskov, 1917. No. 6-7. Unofficial department P. 89.
No. 32. From a conversation between a correspondent of the newspaper “Moskovsky Listok”1 and Bishop Antonin (Granovsky), formerly of Vladikavkaz2
[Bishop Antoninus] looks brightly at the future, but declares that there will be a struggle for which we must be prepared.
Moscow leaflet. M., 1917. No. 67. P. 3.
1 The conversation with Bishop Antonin is printed in a brief summary, which is published in full.
2 Bishop Antonin lived in retirement in Moscow, in the Epiphany (according to other sources - in Zaikonospassky) monastery. He had a reputation as a fighter against autocracy. In 1905, after the release of the Manifesto on October 17, Antonin (at that time - Bishop of Narva, vicar of the St. Petersburg diocese) stopped commemorating the emperor as “autocratic” at church services, for which he was subjected to church punishment in the form of exile to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery St. Petersburg Metropolitanate. See comments to document No. 686 and its appendix.
Firmly believing that beyond the cross of our trials and internal turmoil of our dear Motherland there will come a bright resurrection and renewal of Great Russia, the Orthodox clergy of the city of Novgorod calls on everyone to unite in a common fervent prayer to the Merciful Lord, may He bless in these difficult moments the creative work of the new, invested with trust of the people of the Government2, and asks the Orthodox population of Novgorod, for the good of the Motherland, to remain in complete and inviolable unity with the representatives of the people in the Legislative Institutions, observing complete unanimity in all their actions and calmly fulfilling the legal demands of the Authority, which is currently represented in the city of Novgorod by the Committee of Public Peace .
Novgorod dioceses. statements. Novgorod, 1917. No. 5. Part of the unofficial. P. 252; Theological works. M., 1998. Issue. 34. Anniversary collection. P. 72.
1 Vicar of the Novgorod diocese, Bishop Alexy (Simansky): from 22.01 (04.02). 1945 - Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy I.
2 Only part of this appeal was reprinted in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate (ZhMP) (ZhMP. M., 1957. No. 11. P. 40). The passage in the ZhMP ends at the place marked “2”. Unlike the original source, the end of the last sentence in the ZhMP sounds like this: “the creative work of the new system.”
No. 34. From the sermon of the vicar of the Novgorod diocese, Bishop Alexy (Simansky) of Tikhvin in the St. Sophia Cathedral of Novgorod on March 5, 1917.
[Recently in Russia], on the one hand, there was a heavy war unprecedented in the history of nations, and on the other, unheard-of betrayals were committed inside by those who were called by the tsar as closest collaborators in governing the state. ...Gradually, an increasingly dense wall was erected between the tsar and the people, which was deliberately built by those who wanted to hide the needs and cries of the people from the tsar. ...Calling everyone to intense prayer for God's help in this time of terrible trial, to unite in the spirit of Christian love and peace, to calm submission to the new government, which arose at the initiative of the State Duma and invested with full power to create future power and happiness in our dear homeland , His Eminence2 invoked God’s blessing on this new Government, pointing out that without God’s help the best human impulses are in vain.
Novgorod Provincial Gazette. Novgorod, 1917. No. 18. P. 2.
From the definitions, decrees and messages of the Holy Synod...
From sermons and messages to the flock of the episcopate of the Russian Orthodox Church
1 In the source, the sermon is presented in exposition. In an even more brief summary, it was published in the magazine “Theological Works” (Moscow, 1998. Issue 34. Anniversary collection. pp. 72-73).
2 Bishop Alexy (Simansky).
No. 35. From the speech of Archbishop Alexy (Dorodnitsyn) of Vladimir and Shuisky before the prayer service in the cathedral on March 5, 1917.
We will do everything we can for her1, so that during these days she will be peaceful, calm and confident in her children, confident that no one and nothing will stop her from creating a new political system, from creating a new state power.
On these sacred days of creating a new state life there should be no violence and murder, robbery, drunkenness and other manifestations of evil will. We must indulge in intense prayer for the good of our dear Motherland with hope in God’s mercy, peacefully awaiting what kind of power He will send us. We are not alone. There, in Petrograd, people's representatives are working to build state power. They have already created power for our city - this is the Temporary Executive [Vladimir] Provincial Committee. He is the central power, we must obey him and carry out his orders. Moreover, we must help him with all the measures in our power to maintain order and a calm flow of life in our province; we must firmly remember that by helping him, we are doing the common national cause of building a new state life.
Vladimir dioceses. statements. Vladimir, 1917. No. 9-10. Unofficial department P. 82.
1 That is, for the Motherland.
No. 36. From the message to the flock of Archbishop of Tauride and Simferopol Dimitri (Prince Abashidze)
March 5, 1917
It's finished. He, without whose will not a hair falls from our heads, put a limit to the reign of the former Sovereign. Countless destructive disorders committed by the former government, which carried out its service in extreme dishonesty, abused power, and constantly and skillfully misled everyone, led to state ruin and disorder in all our affairs.
The current bloody Great Patriotic War has clearly, clearly revealed to everyone that our country and the Russian people are standing on the edge of an abyss that has greedily opened its mouth to devour our Fatherland. This terrible abyss was created and the supreme power returned to the great Russian people, both in terms of the space of the earth, and in its numbers, and in spirit, to organize its state life on a new basis. God's will for the new destinies of our Fatherland has been accomplished. Who will resist His will? [Rome. 9, 19].
Now the Provider has left us to our own devices. Now the Heavenly King Himself has occupied the Throne of the Russian Kingdom, so that He, the One All-Powerful One, may be our faithful helper in the great sorrow that has befallen us, in the disasters brought upon us by the former leaders of our state life.
A truly difficult and difficult time has come for the Russian land. Our Fatherland is now suffering the labors and pains of birth. Our days, which delight us with the bright and peaceful future of the Russian land, now in almost everything remind us of the ancient great shock that befell our Fatherland three hundred years ago, when a neighboring people attacked the Russian land, filled its villages and cities, took the capital of the Kingdom and was preparing to erase the most Russian name on earth. Likewise, now external enemies have surrounded us, they are waging a life-and-death struggle with us, they are trying in every possible way to break our fortress, take possession of us, seize our land, deprive us of royal freedom and make us their slaves, equating us with senseless cattle.
We must all now forget all the strife, contention, quarrels, disputes and misunderstandings that ever existed between us and, remembering the commandment of Christ God about our unity, the covenant of His great Apostle about maintaining saving unity, about non-separation, about not saying: “I am Pavlov.” , I am Apollosov, I am Kifin,” to be the sons of a single Fatherland, to defend it, not sparing your life and in everything diligently and conscientiously, not out of fear, but out of conscience, without grumbling and hypocrisy, obey Our new Government. This is the saving obedience required of us by the Word of God, which tells us that the existing authorities are established by God, and in which God Himself declares: “By me the rulers legitimize righteousness” [Rom. 13, 1; Prov. 8, 15], must first of all be manifested in the preservation of silence and order by all of us, in the peaceful fulfillment by each of us of his public and private duties.
The fighting Army needs food and requires a huge amount of bread for itself. The army itself has nowhere to get food. We have a duty to nourish it; it is our most sacred duty. For the best, most useful fulfillment of this duty, we must form one whole with the Army in the field; must form one continuous chain from the battlefields to our peaceful homes; we must have an inexhaustible supply of food and equipment for our army; We should be like a convoy for her, delivering everything she needs. We are obliged, at the very first call of our People's Government, to open our barns, granaries and bring grain for the army, leaving for our families only the amount that we need before the new harvest...
Tauride church-society. messenger Simferopol, 1917. No. 8-9. pp. 175-179.
No. 37. From the sermon of Archbishop Anastasius (Gribanovsky) of Chisinau and Khotyn in the Cathedral of Chisinau on March 15, 1917.
Let each of you renounce your affairs and devote yourself to serving the common good of saving the Motherland from an external enemy. Renounce2 your deeds and become like the Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich, who, out of love for his homeland Russia, as he proclaims in his manifesto, renounced the throne of his pious ancestors and resigned his supreme power so that it would be good for the common homeland.
Remember all the deeds of the Sovereign, everything that he did on his way of the cross during his reign. Remember his last testament, with which he calls on all the faithful sons of the fatherland to fulfill their duty in difficult times of national trials in order to lead the Russian state onto the path of victory, prosperity and glory.
Watch and pray, so as not to fall into misfortune, and be faithful sons of your mother, the Church of Christ. Only through common efforts is it possible to beg the Lord to withdraw His punishing hand from us and not allow us to perish3.
From the definitions, decrees and messages of the Holy Synod...
From sermons and messages to the flock of the episcopate of the Russian Orthodox Church
RGIA. F. 797. On. 86. 1917. Ill department. IVtable. D. 64. L. 70 b. Clipping from the newspaper “Bessarabets” (Chisinau, 1917. March 6).
1 There is another edition of this sermon, published on the pages of the diocesan magazine: “Let each of you renounce your affairs and devote yourself to serving the common good of saving the Motherland from an external enemy, like the Sovereign Emperor, who, out of love for Russia, made the greatest sacrifice , which can only be brought by laying down the heavy burden of governing the state. Let us be tempted by the visit of the Lord, so that He does not add sickness to sickness to us; Let us watch and pray as faithful children of the Church of Christ, for the days are evil (Kishinev Diocesan Gazette. Kishinev, 1917. No. 15-16. Unofficial Department. P. 277).
2 So in the text.
3 At the request of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod about the content of the sermon published on the pages of the right-wing newspaper Bessarabets, Archbishop Anastassy answered that “the expressions in which the sermon is presented are more than inaccurate, but the main idea is presented correctly.” Archbishop Anastasy also noted that his words “brought noticeable calm to the people’s thought and conscience,” and that he “received a number of expressions of gratitude from pilgrims for his short word” (RGIA. F. 797. Op. 86. 1917. III department . IV table. D. 64. L. 69-70a.v.).
No. 38. From the teaching of Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kharkov and Akhtyrsky in the Assumption Cathedral in Kharkov on March 15, 1917.
They ask me why I didn’t respond to the flock awaiting my word about who should now obey in civil life and why they stopped remembering the royal family in prayer.
I answer, but I answer on my own initiative. Representatives of the new Government did not see me, did not write to me, and did not convey their wishes through others. Let no one think that this silence, or what I am about to say, is inspired by fear. I am not afraid of the arrest that some speakers in the square are threatening me with, nor am I afraid of death. I will say more: I will be delighted to die for Christ. - So, from February 28 to March 3, I didn’t say anything because I didn’t know what the will of the sovereign to whom we swore allegiance was. His name continued to be raised in prayers; On March 3, it became known that he was abdicating the throne and appointing his brother as Sovereign; then on March 4, in a meeting of the clergy, we worked out the commemoration of Mikhail Alexandrovich as the Russian Sovereign. However, an hour later a manifesto became known about his abdication pending his election by the Constituent Assembly, if such an election takes place. At the same time, the new sovereign ordered obedience to the Provisional Government, the composition of which, headed by Prince Lvov, Mr. Rodzianko, is known to you from the newspapers. - From that moment on, the said Government became legitimate in the eyes of all monarchists, that is, Russian citizens who obey their Sovereigns. And I, as the shepherd of the church, obliged to always exhort my people to obey the authorities in power, I call on you to fulfill this duty now, that is, to obey the Committee of New Ministers2 and its head - Prince Lvov and Mr. Rodzianka, as the temporary head of the State, as well as to all local authorities who have been and will be approved by the said Committee and its authorized representatives. We must do this, firstly, in fulfillment of the oath we gave to Sovereign Nicholas II, who transferred power to Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, who handed over this power to the Provisional Government until the Constituent Assembly. Secondly, we must do this in order to avoid complete anarchy, robbery, massacre and blasphemy of holy places. Only in one case should one not listen to anyone, neither now nor in the past - neither kings, nor rulers, nor crowds: if they demand that one renounce the faith, or desecrate shrines, or generally do clearly lawless and sinful things.
Now the second question: why don’t we pray for kings? Because now we don’t have a tsar, and we don’t have one because both tsars themselves refused to rule Russia, and it is impossible to force them to be called by the name that they gave up. If our tsar had not renounced power and even languished in prison, then I would have exhorted to stand for him and die for him, but now, for the sake of obedience to him and his brother, we can no longer exalt his name as the All-Russian Sovereign. It is up to you, if you wish, to establish tsarist power in Russia again, but in a legal manner, through reasonable elections of your representatives to the Constituent Assembly. And what the legal order of elections will be will be decided, not by us who are spiritual, but by the Provisional Government3.
Shepherd and flock. Kharkov, 1917. No. 10. Part of the unofficial.S. 279-281.
1 In the memoirs, the same sermon of Archbishop Anthony is given, but in a different, more concise version: “When we received news of the abdication of the Most Pious Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich from the Throne, we prepared, according to his orders, to commemorate the Most Pious Emperor Mikhail Alexandrovich. But now he too has renounced and ordered to obey the Provisional Government, and therefore, and only for this reason, we remember the Provisional Government. Otherwise, no force would have forced us to stop commemorating the Tsar and the Royal House” (Antony (Khrapovitsky), Metropolitan. Letters of His Beatitude Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky). Jordanville, N.Y., Holy Trinity Monastery. 1988. P. 57).
2 To the Provisional Government.
Telegrams, LETTERS AND APPEALS OF THE LAY TO THE SECULAR AND CHURCHY AUTHORITIES AND TO THE PEOPLE
No. 677. Telegram to Emperor Nicholas II of the Saratov departments of the Union of the Russian People (Dubrovinsky) and the Union named after Michael the Archangel
February 1917
Tsarskoe Selo, to His Imperial Majesty the Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich.
Great Sovereign and Sufferer for the Russian Land! Your meek heart grieves, Your kind, straightforward soul worries at the sight of the inner turmoil that has begun. Legislative institutions set an example of monstrous lawlessness; they seek to wrest your paternal Tsarist power over the Russian Land. By flattery, deceit, and threats of revolution, they are forcing You to give them those supreme rights that Your ancestor Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov received from the Russian land in 1613. All of Russia continues to look at You in the same way as it looked at the founders of Your glorious dynasty, as at the autocratic, unlimited Russian Tsar-Autocrat. Only blind people and conscious haters and despisers of the Russian people want a change in the state system in a foreign way, they want it in order to fragment the great Russian State in order to subjugate it to foreigners and cosmopolitans.
There is no doubt - the change from the Autocratic system to a parliamentary one is a betrayal of Russia. Great Sovereign! We bow to the ground and tearfully beg You: do not, however, lay down the heaviest royal burden from Yourself, and do not betray the will of the people, expressed in their oath to the Tsar-Autocrat.
By authority of the assembly of the Saratov Provincial Department of the Dubrovinsky Union of the Russian People
Chairman of the department G.I. Karpenko, priest M. Platonov. Chairman of the People's Union of Michael the Archangel Grishin, No. 678. Telegram to the first present member of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Vladimir (Epiphany) of Kyiv, members of the Council of the Ekaterinoslav Department of the Union of the Russian People
Pg. To the Most Reverend Metropolitan Vladimir.
The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church of Christ, but the fate of Orthodoxy in our fatherland is inextricably linked with the fate of the tsarist autocracy. Remembering on the Sunday of Orthodoxy the church-state merits of the Russian saints, we filially dare to turn to Your Eminence and other first hierarchs of the Russian Church with unanimous blessings and advice in the spirit of peace and love to strengthen the most autocratic Sovereign to defend the sacred rights of the autocracy, entrusted to him by God through the voice of the people and the blessing of the Church, against which The attempts are being made by the same seditious people who are making attempts against our holy Orthodox Church.
Your Eminence's spiritual children are members of the Council of the Ekaterinoslav Department of the Union of the Russian People.
Chairman V.A. Samples.
RGIA. F. 796. On. 204. 1917. 1st department. V table D. 54. L. 29-31. Script;
No. 680. Telegram to M.V. Rodzianko of the nobility of the Kazan province
The Kazan nobility welcomes the new constitutional government, believes and hopes that it, headed by the monarch, will lead great Russia to a bright future, unconditional victory over a stubborn enemy and will bring peace and order to the people's life. Provincial leader of the nobility Sergei Tolstoy-Miloslavsky. RGIA. F. 1278. On. 54. 1917. D. 1272. L. 12. Original.
To the Holy Governing Synod.
Your Holiness. God-loving Fathers and Archpastors!
Raise your voice: ask the State Duma and the Provisional Government not to rape the people's conscience with the random majority of the Constituent Assembly. Let the Russian Orthodox people, by popular vote (plebiscite), first express their will as to what should happen, the Tsar or the Republic. After all, only one Russian Orthodox people, the collector of the earth, has the right to do this, and the Constituent Assembly should have one task: relying on the already expressed will of the Russian people, to develop new fundamental laws.
Chairman of the Union Iv[...].
No. 682. Letter to Archbishop Nikon (Rozhdestvensky) from Tomsk University student I.A. Zimina
Your Eminence, Most Reverend Bishop! I appeal to you with a request to explain to me how I need to look at everything that has happened in our state. Firstly, I am concerned with the question of how the clergy of all of Russia, who so strongly defended the autocracy, now recognize the Provisional Government and remember it in their prayers. How to explain such a change in view of the form of government? Today the clergy prays for [Emperor] Nicholas, tomorrow for the new government, etc. What kind of dependence of church views on power? Doesn't this prove the lack of personal convictions among the clergy? Didn’t the clergy really know that G.E. was hiding behind the autocracy? Rasputin? In my opinion, this couldn't happen. Secondly, why did this clergy always try to adapt to the spirit of power. Where have the zealots of the first golden ages of Christianity gone? Or has the Church lost its way? But no, it can't be. I believe. Then, is it necessary to separate Church and State? And finally, what tasks are now facing the clergy in a free Russia? Isn't conquered freedom an image of the freedom of the first Christian centuries? I contacted competent persons here, but they did not tell me satisfactorily. I am turning to you because I have known you for a long time as the archpastor and editor of the Trinity Word, which I often read. I deeply apologize for disturbing you, but I could not remain silent as a believing Christian, for now the time has come to speak and defend the Truths of Orthodoxy. Many people ask me the above questions and, of course, they are not satisfied with my meager answers.
I humbly ask Your Eminence not to refuse me to answer and indicate suitable literature on these issues.
I ask for your blessings and prayers.
Student I.A. Zimin.
My address: Tomsk. University. Student I.A. Zimin.
No. 683. Letter to members of the Holy Synod of a group of Orthodox Christians
March 1917
We are Orthodox Christians, we earnestly ask you to explain to us in the newspaper "Russian Word" what the oath we took of allegiance to Tsar Nikolai Alexandrovich means in intercession before the Lord God? We are talking that if this oath is worth nothing, then a new oath to the new Tsar will cost nothing.
Is this so, and how should we understand all this? We turned to our brother, an intelligent man, for clarification, but he sent us neither two nor one and a half, which you yourself will see from the letters of this man which we send to the GOVERNING SYNOD for judgment.
It is advisable for us not to decide this matter ourselves, as our friend advises us, but by the GOVERNING SYNOD, so that everyone understands this as it should be understood without disagreement. Because disagreement has made it impossible to live and there is no order. The Jews say that the oath is nonsense and a deception, that it is possible without the oath, the priests are silent, and the laity each have their own way, and this is not good. Again they began to say that there is no God at all and that churches will soon close because they are no longer needed. And we, in our own way, think, why close someone else’s life better under the church. Now they destroyed the Tsar it became bad, and if they cover the churches it will be even worse, but we need it to be better. Take the trouble, OUR HOLY FATHERS, to explain to everyone the same way to deal with the old
The oath and the one they are forced to take? Which oath should be more dear to God, the first or the second? Because the Tsar did not die, but is alive in captivity. And is it right that all churches will close? Where then can we pray to the Lord God? Is it really possible to go to the Jews in the same company and pray with them? Because now all their power has become and which they boast over us. If things continue like this, then this is not good, and we are very unhappy.
No. 687. From the “Message to the Holy All-Russian Council” by the peasant Mikhail Evfimovich Nikonov of the Semendyaevsky Epiphany parish of the village of Kalug, Kalyazin district, Tver province
TO HIS EMPLOYMENT The Most Reverend Seraphim Archbishop of Tver and Kashinsky
MESSAGE TO THE HOLY ALL-RUSSIAN COUNCIL
Your Eminence Vladyka, I ask for your Hierarch’s blessing for transmitting this message to the Most Holy All-Russian Council.
Holy fathers and brothers! [...] We think that the Holy Synod made an irreparable mistake, that the Eminences went towards the revolution. We do not know this reason. Is it for fear of Judeisk? Either because of the desire of their hearts, or for some valid reasons, but still their act created a great temptation among believers, and not only among the Orthodox, but even among the Old Believers. Forgive me for touching on this issue - it is not our business to discuss this: this is the matter of the Council, I only put the popular judgment on the surface. There are such speeches among the people that the alleged act of the Synod has misled many sensible people, as well as many among the clergy. At the parish and dean's meetings, I can't even believe what we heard. The spiritual fathers, tempted by the charm of freedom and equality, demanded that hierarchs they disliked be removed from the chairs they occupied, and that they choose them for themselves at will. The psalmists demanded the same equality in order not to obey their superiors. This is the absurdity they have reached by emphasizing the satanic idea of revolution. The Orthodox Russian people are confident that the Holy Council, in the interests of the Holy Mother of our Church, the Fatherland and Father Tsar, impostors and all traitors who have desecrated their oath, will anathematize and curse their satanic idea of revolution. And the Holy Council will indicate to its flock who should take the helm of government in the great State. We must assume that he is the one who is in captivity, and if he does not want to reign over us traitors who are subject to the Lord’s parable about a man of high birth, then he will indicate who should take over the rule of the State; This is common sense. It is not a simple comedy that the act of the Sacred Coronation and anointing of our kings with the Holy Chrism in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, who received from God the power to govern the people and give answer to the One, but not to the constitution or some parliament of gathered not entirely clean people, capable only of devices of seditious arts possessed by lust and love of power...
All of the above that I wrote here is not just my personal composition, but the voice of the Orthodox Russian people, a hundred million rural Russia, in whose midst I am.
Peasant Mikhail Evfimovich Nikonov.
.No. 688. From the speech of priest Vladimir Vostokov at a meeting of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church
In this hall too much has been said about the horrors experienced, and if they were all listed and described, then this huge hall could be filled with books. Therefore, I will no longer talk about horrors. I want to point out the root from which these horrors were created. I understand our present meeting as a council of spiritual doctors over a dangerously ill mother - the motherland. When doctors come to treat a patient, they do not stop at the latest manifestations of the disease, but look deeper and investigate the root cause of the disease. So in this case, it is necessary to discover the root of the illness experienced by the homeland. From this pulpit, before the altar of the enlightener of Russia, St. Prince Vladimir, I testify with my priestly conscience that the Russian people have been deceived, and so far no one has told them the complete truth. The moment has come when the Council, as the only legitimate and truly elected meeting of the people, must tell the people the holy truth, fearing no one except God alone. [...] The historical train was pushed off the track at the end of February 1917, which was facilitated primarily by the Jewish-Masonic world organization, which threw the slogans of socialism, the slogans of illusory freedom, among the masses. [...] The Council must say that in February-March a violent coup was carried out, which for an Orthodox Christian is a crime of oath, requiring purification by repentance. All of us, starting with Your Holiness and ending with me, the last Member of the Council, must bow our knees before God and ask Him to forgive us for our connivance in the development of evil teachings and violence in the country. Only after nationwide sincere repentance will the country be reconciled and reborn, and God will exalt His mercy and grace to us. And if we only anathematize, without repentance, without declaring the truth to the people, then they will tell us, not without reason: “And you are guilty of what led the country to the crimes for which anathema is now given out6. With your cowardice, you allowed evil to develop and were slow to call the facts and phenomena of public life by their real names.” [...] Shepherds of the Church, protect the soul of the people! And if we do not tell the people the complete truth, do not call them immediately to nationwide repentance of certain sins, we will then emerge from this cathedral chamber as traitors and traitors to the Church and the Motherland. I am so unshakably convinced of what I am saying now that I would not think of repeating the same thing if I were to die now. It is necessary to revive in the minds of people the idea of pure, central power, clouded by all-Russian deception. We overthrew the king and submitted to the Jews! (Voices of the Council members: True, true...,). The only salvation of the Russian people is the Orthodox Russian wise Tsar. Only through the election of an Orthodox, wise, Russian Tsar can Russia be put on the good, historical path and good order restored. Until we have an Orthodox wise king, we will not have order, but people’s blood will be shed, and centrifugal forces will divide the united people into warring groups, until our historical train completely breaks down or until foreign peoples enslave us as a crowd incapable of independent state life. [...] We must all unite into one Christian family under the banner of the Holy Life-Giving Cross and under the leadership of His Holiness the Patriarch to say that socialism, which supposedly calls for brotherhood, is clearly an anti-Christian evil phenomenon, that the Russian people have now become a playground for Jewish-Masonic organizations, behind which the Antichrist is already visible in the form of an international king, that, playing with false freedom, he forges Jewish-Masonic slavery for himself. If we say this honestly and openly, then I don’t know what will happen to us, but I know that Russia will then be alive!
Acts of the Holy Council... Vol. 6. Act 67. M., 1996. pp. 41-44.
Related articles
The best amulets against the evil eye and damage Amulet against the evil eye with hands for children
How to read the Psalter correctly
Delicious dishes with sausages
A glimpse of Bella. Romantic chronicle. A glimpse of genius. Messerer about Akhmadulina Boris Messerer glimpse of Bella romantic chronicle
I dreamed that I was sailing on a boat on the river
How to cook beef entrecote in a frying pan
About the company Foreign language courses at Moscow State University
Which city and why became the main one in Ancient Mesopotamia?
Why Bukhsoft Online is better than a regular accounting program!
Which year is a leap year and how to calculate it