Modern historiography has long ago abandoned the simplistic agitprop view of the Church as a "servant of autocracy", which "resolutely defended tsarism in the days of the February bourgeois-democratic revolution."[1] This thesis is not only historically incorrect, but also directly contradicts reality. The reality of that time cannot be explained by any simple theses, and the radical-monarchical beliefs of such bishops as Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Volynsk were by no means dominant in the clerical estate. As V. Buldakov correctly observed, the February Revolution was indeed "national", "in the sense that no one supported the emperor."[2] Metropolitan Evlogii (Georgievsky), who served as Volynsk bishop at the time, recalled how "an extreme right-wing, prominent Black Hundreds in a burst of revolutionary enthusiasm shouted to the crowd from the balcony: ˮMarseillaise! Marseillaiseˮ."[3] According to eyewitnesses of the February-March events in Petrograd, even V. Purishkevich walked around the city with a "red carnation" in those days, renouncing the old world.[4]
What happened to the Church in the time interval between the February and October coups d'état, each of which has reason to claim epochal significance for the revolution? This question is still poorly studied in historiography, and publications on this subject are extremely biased. The situation is even worse when it comes to investigating the reaction to the revolutionary process in the ecclesiastical provinces, which experienced it in their own special way, sometimes without getting deeply involved in the swarm of events simmering in the capitals. The provincial aspect of what historians have called the "church revolution" is an interesting and promising topic of historical research.
The reaction of the Church to the February Revolution of 1917 has relatively recently become the subject of close attention. It is worth recalling the works of M. Babkin, P. Rogozny, S. Firsov, M. Shkarovsky, D. Pospelovsky and a number of others.[5] But, unfortunately, in these works Ukrainian dioceses are not given due attention. They serve only as a general provincial "background" of metropolitan events and processes. The only study of the Church in Ukraine in 1917 remains the work of V. Ulyanovsky.[6] It will remain for a long time a "basic monograph" on the subject for those who will study the provincial dimension of the problem. The Ekaterinoslav diocese in 1917 is practically an unexplored topic, but not because of lack of interest, but because of the catastrophic shortage of documents in the Dnepropetrovsk Regional State Archive for the period in question.We are talking, first of all, about the irreparable loss of documents of the Ekaterinoslav Ecclesiastical Consistory.
It is also worth mentioning the difficulties for Ukrainian historians with access to the archive of the Chancellery of the Holy Synod, where a significant part of the necessary files are kept. Therefore, to reproduce the event history in the Ekaterinoslav diocese in 1917, they are forced to use random documents from other archives, textbooks, episodic data on the Ekaterinoslav events from historians who studied other dioceses or metropolitan processes. [The 1917 Revolution is one of the most politicised topics in historiography and will probably remain so for a long time to come. We must admit that so far we do not have a complete picture of the development of events in the Ekaterinoslav diocese in 1917, analysis of the reaction of the local Orthodox clergy and laity to the collapse of the autocracy and related processes.
These circumstances determine the purpose of this study: to highlight the first reaction of the Ekaterinoslav diocese to the "beginning of a new life" against the background of the reaction of secular circles.
The church authorities in the capitals felt the inexorable approach of terrible events. That the revolution would take place in the near future, even the representatives of the extreme right could not deny. Moscow Metropolitan Macarius (Nevsky) in his New Year's sermon opened the twentieth century with an anxious question in the air: "What will the new century bring us? Will it be a fateful time for us, when the number of apostates will exceed the number of faithful children of the Church; when wickedness will fill our cities, our homes, markets, state and public institutions, and piety will remain the property of villages and hamlets, and in the cities it will find its place only in desolate churches? We may have greatly thickened the colours of the picture of the possible future of our social life..."[8] The head of the military clergy of the Empire, Protopresbyter George Shavelsky, wrote in his memoirs that the inter-revolutionary period of the Church's history was perceived by many as decadent, or at best transitional. "The great Russian Church could not remain in the position it was in at that time. This was realised by all the penetrating people of that time."[9]
Synodal official V. Ternavtsev, opening the St. Petersburg religious-philosophical meetings in 1901, began his report by stating what "everyone felt": "the internal situation of Russia at the present time appears difficult and, apparently, hopeless". [10] And two months before the February events, in his New Year's reflections, Archbishop Nikon, a member of the Holy Synod, wrote with apocalyptic pathos in the pages of the "Church Vedomosti" that "the last day of the year resembles the last day of the world."[11]The Synodal official S. Runkevich warned in the same issue of the magazine that the terrible moment was very near. He believed that the future revolution was being planned in the general staff of the Austro-German troops, who were thus endeavouring to avoid imminent defeat.[12] In the first post-revolutionary issue of the "Church Gazette", the materials of which did not keep pace with the course of events, since they were prepared in January, the article "What is most necessary at the present time" attracts attention. Its author, Bishop Macarius, probably for the last time in history, called on behalf of the Church to unite around the Throne, because "only through unity and autocracy" can we win the world war. The formula "Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Russian nationality" was sounded for the last time as the main "beginning of our historical life". The present state of the country was characterised by the author as life on the edge of an "unfolding abyss."[13]
Literally on the eve of the revolution, the leaders of the Ekaterinoslav branch of the Union of Russian People, led by former State Duma deputy V.A. Obraztsov, appealed to Metropolitan Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky), the first present member of the Holy Synod of Kiev. They asked the vladyka and the Synod "to strengthen the autocratic Sovereign in defence of the sacred rights of the autocracy, conferred upon him by God through the voice of the people and the blessing of the Church, against which are attempted by the same criminals, who are attempting against our holy Orthodox Church."[14]
The appeal was in vain, as was a similar request by the Ober-Procurator N. P. Raev and his comrade Prince N. Zhevakhov, ignored by the Synod. The official historian of the Russian Orthodox Church, Father Vl. Tsypin, in his publications on the role of the Church in the events of late February 1917, tries to justify the Synodals' inaction, which was fatal for the monarchy: they seemed to know that the requests of the Ober-Prokuratura were not official, in the sense that they were not the initiative of the Sovereign. [15] Even so, this in no way explains or justifies what followed: when the revolution did break out, the Holy Synod was among the first to welcome and bless it. Zhevakhov recalled how Metropolitan Vladimir, who "did not understand what was happening," replied to him on 26 February: "It is always so. When we are not needed, then we are not noticed: but at the moment of danger we are the first to be called upon for help."[16]
Most likely, the prince was mistaken, believing that Metropolitan Vladimir "did not understand" what was happening. On the contrary, perhaps he was aware of the hopelessness of the situation, which is why he refused. On 27 February, viewing the revolution from the window of his Petrograd flat, the Oberprokuror's comrade became convinced that no appeals could stop it: "One procession after another passed in front of the windows. They all marched with red flags and revolutionary posters and were covered with red bows .... Here came a procession of janitors; behind it moved a procession of market traders; a separate group consisted of maids, footmen, shopkeepers .... All were shouting frantically and demanding an increase of wages; all were drunk, singing revolutionary songs...On their faces they all showed this thirst for blood, a thirst for the most ruthless, brutal reprisals, no matter whom.... It was the spectacle of demon-possessed people, who could only be tamed by firing cannons."[17]
In one of the last pre-revolutionary issues of the Ekaterinoslav Diocesan Gazette, the local clergy declared their captivation by the authorities, overloaded with numerous educational and bureaucratic duties ("accounting for income, making reports and all sorts of reports"), inability to preach freely, humiliation because of the need to ask parishioners for money for their demands. In addition, political pluralisation, admitted the author of the article, priest K.Sh., disoriented: "Where is God's, where is Caesar's? Markov, Purishkevich, Milyukov, Kerensky and other people's representatives are all Orthodox children, all fervently fighting, saving the good of the people...Now in every parish there are all kinds of parties. Each presents the pastor demand sympathy ... For whom to go clergy?"[18] While the white clergy thought about this question, the bishop of Ekaterinoslav and Mariupol received from the hands of the representative of the royal authority - Governor A.G. Chernyavsky another sign of favour - mitre.[19]
After 23 February the province awakened not instantly. For a brief moment it froze in expectation. On March 1, after the revolution, but even before the abdication of Nicholas II, when it was completely unclear who ruled Russia and who was responsible for what, when the country was only crawling rumours of what had happened, the editor of the Ekaterinoslav diocesan publication in the article "What do we need?" decided to speculate about spirituality. "Various voices talk about the reform of parish life, but for the most part, it seems, forget about the one thing we need. The first reform is the reform of our spirit."[20] The cautious, harmless-exalted and conciliatory-apolitical speeches testified unmistakably to one thing: the local clergy had decided to wait to see how the development of events in the capital would turn out, and it could well end, at a certain turn of events, in the same way as in 1905-1907. Despite the general "apocalyptic" expectations, the rebellious February was not programmed. It was one of the possibilities that became a reality due to the combination of a number of key circumstances.
М. Babkin, who has investigated this question in detail, believes that in late February and early March 1917 the Church did not simply refuse to support the Emperor, but wished to show itself the vanguard of the revolution. The Holy Synod at that time turned out to be the most revolutionary force in society, at least it "has priority in a kind of 'legitimisation' of Russian democracy". In particular, the Synod, two days earlier than the Provisional Government, declared the impossibility of resuming the monarchy in Russia."[21]
As early as 6 March, it ordered diocesan meetings throughout the country to explain the "correct" position regarding the revolution, and called for recognition of the Provisional Government.
The "correct position" of the Holy Synod was assimilated almost universally throughout the imperial space. The printed organs of the dioceses reacted to the revolution as if on command, without giving the slightest thought to the moral and ethical character of their reaction. Even a few days before the revolution, the tsar was called upon to "put down the slanderers" and "evil tongues", the Empress Alexandra was proclaimed "Mother of the Fatherland", and the people were obliged to "rally round the Tsar and the Throne in the year of trials and sufferings". However, already at the beginning of March the autocratic system was called a "dilapidated building" which was rapidly "disintegrating by itself". The position of the Church in this system was characterised as "paralysis", and yesterday's "malicious slanderers" and "dark personalities" were called the liberators of the Church, who had brought the revolution "the greatest moral satisfaction to the troubled Christian conscience". [22] As early as February 1917 some church publications propitiated V. Purishkevich and his charitable work, and in March and April they published pathos speeches about the triumph of Russian democracy and the Tsar, who oppressed the holy Church.[23]
The anti-clerical sentiments of revolutionary journalism, especially Social-Democratic journalism, did not prevent it from metaphorising revolutionary events with quasi-Orthodox rhetoric. The revolution, in particular, was presented as a "national liturgy": "On 1 March the church opened its gates wide; it was the long-awaited moment of the great national sacrifice, and the masses of the people reverently entered the bowels of the place with full consciousness of both the greatness of the present moment and the sanctity of the tasks ahead..."[24] All the secular provincial press, including the Ekaterinoslav press, picked up this Easter-people pathetics. It is noteworthy that at the same time the church press was learning revolutionary phraseology, simplifying the style of presentation to a rally speech and using, in addition to "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," words from the Social Revolutionary and Social-Democratic vocabulary.
Speaking of the Ekaterinoslav diocese and its reaction to the events, let us first say a few words about how the secular authorities in the province responded to the Petrograd "coup d'état" (according to the terminology of the time). Ekaterinoslav learned about the emergency in the capital on 2 March. The local Bolsheviks admitted that they were shocked by the unexpectedness of the long-expected events.[25] Serafima Gopner, being in Ekaterinoslav prison during these days, dreamed of revolution, but thought it would come only in a few years.[26] The officials were even more astonished. On the 3rd of March there was a commotion in the city over a telegram from M. V. Rodzianko, who by obliging provincial imagination had been transformed into "the father of the Russian Revolution," ruling the destructive-creative popular chaos. Rodzianko himself, if we are to believe the testimony of his secretary, at this time did not really lead anything and "was sad", having realised that everything that was happening was a "nightmare" and "the ruin of Russia."[27] The provinces thought otherwise.
But the provinces thought otherwise. In a joint "Announcement" of Ekaterinoslav Governor A.G. Chernyavsky and Governor-General M.I. Ebelov of 5 March it was reported that "the riots of the last days in Petrograd were stopped by the intervention of the Chairman of the State Duma Rodzianko.... "[28] The confusion of the local authorities is indicated by the fact that in the same announcement its authors cried out to God asking him to help "in everything that is in favour of our army, the State and the good Motherland."[29]The City Duma headed by I. S. Capable, the provincial Zemstvo headed by K. D. Gesberg, the governor - all were thrashing about in search of reliable information and the right decision on such an unprecedented occasion. The mayor managed to gather 58 mayors to compose a welcome telegram to the chairman of the State Duma Rodzianko and the chairman of the Council of Ministers Prince Lvov with assurances of unconditional support for the good endeavours. As a sign of devotion, it was proposed to close the Ekaterinoslav Black Hundreds' printing organ "Russkoe Delo" because of the "danger of the irreconcilable position" taken by this publication.[30]
"Ekaterinoslavskaya Zemskaya Gazeta", in addition, reported on the first encouraging successes of the revolution: having learnt of the events in Petrograd, the local railwaymen appeared before their chief and declared that they were ready to "double the productivity of their work". "By the way," the editorial cheerfully reported, "during the preceding twenty-four hours the Ekaterinoslav railway had let through twice as much freight as usual. It turned out that the efficient work of the railwaymen was hindered by the reactionary tsarist regime."[31]
As might be expected, one of the very first endeavours of the local authorities was to demonstrate to revolutionary Petrograd the radical changes in personnel. But these changes had to be made in such a way that everything would remain in its place and nothing would change in substance. The least painful way of solving the problem was the "inner spiritual transformation" of officials and renaming of their posts. Thus, K.D. Gesberg, who had previously been the chairman of the Gubernaya Executive Committee of public, workers', soldiers' and peasants' organisations, became the chairman of the Gubernaya Zemstvo. Some time later he was also appointed provincial commissioner of the Provisional Government, concentrating in his hands the governor's power.
The chief of the province, A. G. Chernyavsky, "a loquacious, plump, smooth-shaven old man in general's epaulettes,"[32]who attempted to seize the initiative of "renewal of power" by presenting himself as the "renewed" governor, was removed by a telegram from the Provisional Government. His resignation was not formalised until 1 May by government decree, "according to his petition, due to illness."[33] Incidentally, the local revolutionaries had no significant grievances against him personally, even given the imprisonment of Serafima Gopner and other political prisoners of the old government.[34]
Arrests were made of policemen and gendarmes (about 1000 people), and the repentant "railway gendarmes swore to be loyal to the new government."[35] Soon the police of Ekaterinoslav, as everywhere else, were renamed militia. As A. Kerensky explained this action, "the word 'police' became so hated by the people that it had to be replaced by the word 'militia'."[36] It is difficult to judge the all-Russian effect of the renaming, but at the Ekaterinoslav level it did not change the quality of law enforcers, rather the opposite. Many newly-minted "people's militiamen" perceived their status as a permission to enjoy all public benefits free of charge on behalf of the revolution. "Pridneprovsky Krai" describes a remarkable episode when a group of policemen addicted to the theatre refused to pay for tickets for ideological reasons. When the theatre administrator finally dared to demand payment, the guards threatened to close the theatre in the interests of the revolution.[37] Such critical publications referred to the best cadres, recruited from workers or "rethinking their civic position" gendarmes and policemen; the worst remained under arrest.
In general, the reaction of the Ekaterinoslav authorities to the February events was typical of the officials of the ordinary province, not accustomed to making important independent decisions.[38] Provincial ingratiation and solemn pathetics should have convinced the rebellious capital that Ekaterinoslav has always hated Tsarism and has long dreamed of revolution. The fact that a few months ago Rodzianko himself, at a local noble assembly, had sworn sincere devotion to "our Leader", "the only compass" of the Emperor Nicholas II and his "highest precepts" - everyone preferred to forget.[39] The insurrectionary capital was not to be forgotten.
The provincial press, in search of sensations, immediately launched a campaign to expose the former supreme power. In the first place got "weak-willed" and "indifferent" Nicholas II, who being under arrest "never once asked to give him any information from the front", was not interested in anyone and anything except the fate of his ministers.[40] The articles about Grigory Rasputin and the Empress Alexandra Fiodorovna were filled with seething hatred. Journalists "Ekaterinoslavskaya Zemskaya Gazeta" assured their readers that the German "traitor" imposed on Russia Otto von Bismarck with a malicious purpose: to bring in the reigning Russian family genetic disease.[41] In the same spirit, with a mass of dirty details and cynical hypotheses, published and other articles in the democratic press of the city. And in the local theatres about the life of Rasputin and persons of the Imperial House were staged a whole series of vulgar comedy plays, advertised in the newspapers. Newspaper public as much as possible to demonstrate to the new authorities their "revolutionary transformation".
The situation was becoming very clear: the tsarist regime was not going to fight back against the revolutionaries, the "old" local authorities had renamed themselves "new", and the Ekaterinoslav clergy, seeing the courage of the officials "purified" by the revolution, decided not to lag behind.
Practically all their actions Orthodox clergy tried to synchronise with the actions of the secular authorities of the city and province. One of the favourite heroes of the Ekaterinoslav revolutionary public for a while became Alexander Karavaev, killed by local Black Hundreds on 4 March 1908.[42] The revolution was in dire need of local heroes. Newspapers suddenly began to write enthusiastic articles and notes about the murdered deputy, a "people's university" was to be named after him, and a museum was to be opened in his house.[43]In 1908 the diocesan authorities did not notice the murder of Karavaev, not responding to the event with a single word in the Diocesan Gazette, but they reacted immediately to his glorification in 1917. It was decided to serve a memorial service in the Holy Trinity Cathedral, which was announced in the official organ of the zemstvo.[44] The memorial service on 5 March was the first symbolic gesture of the Church's recognition of the new order in Ekaterinoslav, but the "spirit" of the revolution demanded more. Already a few days later, on 12 March, the clergy and priesthood took part in a manifestation of many thousands on the occasion of the "gaining of freedom." The seminarians, led by their rector, Fr Joseph Krechetovich, greeted the cheering crowds with a choral performance of revolutionary songs.[45] The most fashionable of these was the "Marseillaise".
This was both an imperial and an all-Ukrainian tendency. Tons of telegrams were poured from all dioceses from Volhynia to Vladivostok to the address of the Provisional Government with joyful greetings of diocesan congresses in honour of the "coup d'état" and angry tirades against the "rotten autocracy" with its "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality". Thus, Fr. A. Kamensky from Poltava called the Uvarov formula "a sad and pernicious delusion for the Church, for which we are paying nowadays." He confessed that he did not know how now to explain to parishioners the fact of the Church's service to the autocracy, urging them to refer, if necessary, to the "cruel despotism" of the tsarist regime."[46]
The Uvarov triad has passed into the past, but the habit of the clergy of expressing loyalty in triads remains. Judging by the number of references to "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" in church texts, the motto of the "godless" Jacobins became an important element of the new revolutionary theology. "Clergy and laity <...> welcomed with joy the establishment of a new state order on the principles of civil Liberty, Fraternity and Equality,"[47] although not so long ago pastors had explained to their parishioners that there was no equality anywhere on the whole planet.[48]Some conscientious priests were so eager to fit into the new atmosphere that they took to writing revolutionary tracts. For example, the Khandaleyev priest Father Vasily Kotlyarevsky insistently asked D. Yavornitsky to help print a work entitled "Democracy, Freedom, Equality, Fraternity."[49]Other local theologians published pamphlets where they tried to prove to everyone that Jesus Christ was a socialist, and that socialism is true Christianity.[50] Theologians in the area were also trying to prove that Jesus Christ was a socialist and that socialism is true Christianity.
Orthodoxy's own lexicon did not have the authentic terminology for a positive view of the revolution. The often used reference to the will of God had several subtle nuances: "God's will was done" or "by the Providence of God" meant a positive rather than negative perception of the revolution (this is how the Holy Synod met the revolution); "by God's permission" indicated a rather cautiously critical attitude, since God allows the sinful will of people to take place for their own edification and punishment for their sins.
But such terminology seemed already somewhat archaic. Therefore, the French formula became a kind of incantation of the "church revolution", a marker of revolutionary devotion, distinguishing "their own" from "strangers", like the red bows that lightning-quickly replaced the badges of the NRC. [51] The Saratov church press wrote that "our coup d'état has taken place according to the inscrutable ways of God's Providence," marvelling "not that the revolution has taken place, but that it has not taken place for so long."[52] The Tula diocese called the autocracy "a soulless police system" to which "there will be no return." But the most curious of all was the telegram of the Volyn diocesan congress, which "unanimously condemned the Black Hundred policy."[53] The curiosity was that for the most part the honest fathers of Volynia were members of the "Union of the Russian People," together with tens of thousands of their parishioners. It turned out that they condemned themselves.[54]
A whole stream of telegrams also flew from the Ekaterinoslav diocese to the capital. In one of the first of its compilers reminded the large provincial landowner M. V. Rodzianko that he was a "glorious Ekaterinoslavite" (in a similar way other provincial diocesan congresses sent greetings to their fellow countrymen in the structures of the capital's power).[55] The pastors expressed to the chairman of the State Duma "gratitude for the courageous undertaking to renew Russia on the new principles of freedom and right". Rodzianko was congratulated on "the beginning of a new era," expressing the hope that "the new system will soon be realised in life." To this end, "the Ekaterinoslav diocesan clergy expresses its readiness to work with redoubled energy <...> in full subordination to the new Government."[56] It is unlikely that this rhetoric implied a doubling of the number of liturgies and prayers served (although the latter did indeed begin to be served more). It was a question of readiness to serve the ideals of the socialist revolution instead of the already irrelevant ideological needs of the collapsed empire.
In a telegram to Prince G. Lvov, the clergy "with deep indignation and tears" condemned "the treachery of the old ministers who brought Russia to the brink of destruction."[57] A. Kerensky was informed of "moral satisfaction" at the "final abolition of the death penalty."[58] The diocesan centre was not behind the diocesan centre.
The district clergy did not lag behind the diocesan centre. The fourth sub-district of the Ekaterinoslav district informed M. Rodzianko of their "sincere and long cherished" dreams of revolution;[59] the clergy of the Alexandrov district undertook to build "a bright future" under the guidance of the Provisional Government;[60] the Slavyanoserbsk clergy, expressing "full confidence in the Provisional Government," asked to take measures "for the best free arrangement of church and parish life on the principles of sobornosti. ..."[61] In a separate telegram the change of power was welcomed on behalf of the corporations of the clergy-educational institutions, monastics, deacons, psalmists, teachers of church schools, officials of the spiritual consistory, church elders, and laymen of Ekaterinoslav.[62]
Some publications express the opinion as if in Ukraine such congresses were held by the democratic Ukrainian clergy against the will of the "reactionary Russian episcopate."[63] The tendency of such a belief is understandable, but it bears little relation to reality. In most Ukrainian dioceses the bishops either participated directly in the meetings of clergy and laity, or gave their archpastoral blessing, or solemnly opened the meetings (e.g., in Ekaterinoslav, Poltava, Podolia, etc.).
Already on 4 March Bishop Agapit (Vishnevsky) of Ekaterinoslav convened an urgent meeting of the Ecclesiastical Consistory, whose presence included priests close to the bishop, Fr. Vyacheslav Mstislavsky, Fr. Andrei Odintsov, Fr Andrei Berezovsky, Fr Nikolai Ivanov, Fr. Nikolai Ivanov, Fr Demetrius Schnurkov, and secretary P.I. Zorin. The purpose of the meeting was to try to formulate the attitude of the diocese to current events, in particular to the abdication of the Emperor.[64]On 5 March an "Archpastoral Proclamation" was signed (published on 11 March), which spoke of the "dark forces" that were pushing Russia to ruin, the providentiality of the coming to power of a "government of Representatives of the People in the State Duma" around which all should unite. Agapit obliged the pastors "to familiarise the people with the present events, to show them the way of carrying out the orders of the government of the State Duma - the necessity of complete obedience to it."[65]
In turn, the rector of the Ekaterinoslav Theological Seminary, Prot. Joseph Krechetovich, decided to intercept the initiative of the "renewal" and bring the matter to public discussion. On 7 March he called a diocesan meeting, which was attended by about 500 representatives of parish priests, monks, deacons, psalmists, teachers of parochial schools.[66] It did not decide anything specifically, but laid the foundation for the creation of an alternative revolutionary centre of diocesan administration - the Diocesan Executive Committee, which was headed by the very quickly "renewed" Krechetovich. The members of the committee were Fr. V. Kapinos, P. Koretsky, Fr. A. Murin, Fr. P. Grigorovich, Deacon I. Rusanevich, psalmist L. Puglaenko, teacher M. Rusanov, Archimandrite Evlampy (representative of the monks), Fr. Odintsov (from the missionaries). A. Popov and I. Tripolsky joined the committee from the laity, and the seminary teacher V. Bednov was entrusted to elect a worthy delegate from the educational institutions of the diocese.
Bishop Agapit was also present at this meeting and one of the first questions he asked the new authorities was: for whom should we pray and how are we now allowed to be called? [67] On the one hand, the sense of dignity obliged to refuse to be called an "office," for "in a free Russian state there can be only a free Orthodox Church, and not the State Office of the Orthodox Confession."[68] (Italics ours. - S.S.) But on the other hand, the habit of self-humiliation before the authorities forced the clergy in official communications to use the old clerical forms. On 5 March, in a telegram to the Chief Procurator of the Holy Synod V. Lvov, Bishop Agapit wrote: "I and the clergy of the Ekaterinoslav diocese welcome Your Excellency and in your person the new renewed order of life in our Motherland, which, we are sure, will beneficially affect and the Office of the Orthodox Confession."[69] (Italics ours - S.S.) The officials of the Provisional Government continued to refer to the Church as an "office" until its own collapse.
The powers of the Ober-Prokuror, the "Eye of the Sovereign," who found himself without the Sovereign himself, did not raise any doubts among the Ekaterinoslav clergy; at least, they were not publicly expressed. Although the meaninglessness of this position was well realised by the representatives of the new authorities. Anton Kartashev as early as 1916 called the Ober-Procurator "a strange amphibian, who acts in the State on behalf of the Church, and in the Church on behalf of the State."[70] In July 1917 he himself decided to become this "amphibian" in order to destroy it "from within". From a purely legal point of view, in consequence of the abdication of the Romanovs, supreme power passed, according to their own will, to the Provisional Government. The latter was thus the formal "head of the Church". The Church felt its dependence on it (more psychological than institutional) until the end of the Local Council. Its delegates, even after the Bolshevik seizure of power, were concerned that their decisions would be invalid without the approval of the Department for Orthodox Church Affairs of the Ministry of Confessions of the Provisional Government."[71]
On 21-22 March 1917 a meeting of the clergy of the Ekaterinoslav diocese was held under the chairmanship of the chairman of the Diocesan Committee, Father Joseph Krechetovich, and with the blessing of Bishop Agapit (Vishnevsky). The latter, having blessed the meeting and celebrated the prayer service, hurried away. The meeting turned out to be very crowded, with more than 500 participants. Reading the minutes of the meeting, one gets the impression that the clergy sought to join the revolutionary rhythm of life as soon as possible, to declare as loudly as possible the full and unconditional loyalty of the diocese to the new government, to anticipate its desires. What is worth the applause given by the pastors after hearing the report of the emissary of the Provisional Government, Alexander Alexandrov, "On the circumstances of the coup d'état."[72] This was not to be outdone.
Sometimes the over-the-top servility looked too anecdotal, as, for example, in the story of the monument in honour of the reigning dynasty. The funds for the perpetuation of the Romanovs had been collected by the whole diocese for many years, so it was necessary to decide what to do with them next (the sum in question was 76,387 roubles 40 kopecks).[73] The assembly made a wise decision, which made it possible not to violate the accounting records: instead of a monument glorifying the Romanovs, erect a monument in honour of the liberation from the Romanovs.[74] The minutes of the assembly did not record any dissenting votes or even abstentions. According to some reports, the figure of Mikhail Rodzianko, the leader and symbol of the revolution, was to be included in the composition of the future Liberation monument. No one was embarrassed by the fact that recently Bishop Agapit (Vishnevsky) publicly called "the glorious Ekaterinoslav resident" Rodzianko a "Christ-seller."[75] And the city Duma planned to name the main square of Ekaterinoslav in honour of the famous revolutionary countryman.[76] The monument was named after the famous countryman.
The enthusiasm for the monument was clearly of an imitative and epigonal nature and was apparently inspired by the decision of the Provisional Government of 16 March to erect in Petrograd "a monument to all the heroic fighters for the freedom of Russia and to those who fell victim in this struggle."[77] The clergy demanded that the monument be named after Yekaterinoslav.
The demands of the clergymen expressed at the meeting are striking, above all, for their corporate selfishness and pettiness against the background of universal revolutionary pathos, and for their open hatred of monasticism. "The bloodless Russian Revolution, having broken the chains of Byzantine absolutism, thereby clearly raised the question of free ecclesiastical life <...> The monastic bishops treated their brethren in faith only as subordinate persons in the pagan sense of the word. So it was until the Russian Revolution. But the stronghold of pagan authority in the Church fell. The power, which was created and established 'by decree of his imperial majesty,' with the abolition of this majesty, was deprived of its support, lost its ground and hung in the air." [78] In the preface to the "Acts of the Ekaterinoslav Diocesan Assembly", in addition, the idea was expressed that it was necessary to equalise women's rights with men (up to the possibility of being members of the lower clergy - psalmistresses), to divide the land on the basis of "eternal evangelical truth" (private large land ownership was condemned), and to "increase their forces in carrying out" the plans of the Provisional Government.[79]
At the meeting itself, the priests declared their intention to abolish the hated consistory, as well as pastoral courses and schools, and demanded freedom of conscience and worship. A special demand, expressing the desire to separate from the state, was "the release of the clergy from keeping metric books and providing all statistical data, the destruction of confession books and the cancellation of the annual writing of the formular lists of the clergy."[80] But the children of the clergy should receive spiritual education at the expense of the state. Nor did the Church give up its symbolic supremacy. The future president and minister of confessions must necessarily be Orthodox. "In the case of public religious events requiring 'religious consecration' - the clergy of the Orthodox Church would be called upon."[81] At the same time, a certain respectable status should also be given to those confessions which had previously been considered "tolerant": Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam and Judaism.
It was desired that the crosses of priests should not bear "the names of former emperors,"[82] since the former "system has always been a ruin to the faith and the Church,"[83] and that the office of Ober-procurator of the Holy Synod should be abolished. It was also demanded that "arbitrary preaching of sermons of a political character, even if on texts from the Holy Scriptures," be prohibited, and that "sermons commissioned for a political purpose" be cancelled.[84] Compensation should be paid to the Church for church and monastery lands alienated in favour of the peasants.[85]
"Resolutions on the Reform of the Church" adopted by the assembly were couched in a radically renewalist spirit. The Church was to be governed by an All-Russian Council "with a decisive vote" not only of bishops, but also of priests and laymen. Its executive body was to be the Synod with the same qualitative composition of participants. Bishops were not appointed, but "elected by the diocesan assembly from representatives of the clergy and laity, not only from persons of the monastic, but also from the white clergy."[86] Thus the obligatory celibate status of the episcopate was abolished. Priests should also be elected, the resolution said, but with a significant reservation - "from persons of the educated clergy."[87] Wishing to insure themselves against unpleasant surprises, the Ekaterinoslav clerics proposed another restriction: parish priests should be "canonically irremovable", i.e., they could be dismissed only by court decision or by a statement of resignation "at their own will."[88]
Not a single word about the revival of patriarchy was uttered in the decisions of the assembly, although not so long ago the Ekaterinoslav clergy had been in solidarity with the "Revocation" of Bishop Simeon (Pokrovsky), who called for the election of a patriarch and the granting of moderate administrative powers.[89] The idea of one-man patriarchal rule among the sharply polemical clergy was not in vogue until the Local Council. And even there it did not have universal approval. It is not at all surprising that the fate of Nicholas II, arrested on 8 March, even a week before generously rewarding the clergy with "annas", "Vladimir" and gold pectoral crosses, none of the Ekaterinoslavl clergy were not interested.[90].
The diaconal "curia" of the assembly claimed the right to preach from the pulpit, equalisation of rights and church income with priests. As an alternative, the mass ordination of deacons as priests with the provision of a place of service was proposed.[91] While the priests demanded a ban on political sermons, the deacons, on the contrary, wanted to "agitate and by all available means to contribute to the establishment of a lasting state system", as well as to explain to the flock "the meaning of obscure political terms and words such as: directives, republic, anarchy, etc."[92] Obviously, the Ekaterinoslav deacons, as the church "grassroots", decided to more openly manifest revolutionary consciousness.
"The "curia" of the psalmists was the most modest, but the demands also concerned money and authority: the psalmists asked them not to be humiliated, to be equalised in rights with other members of the clergy in deciding parish and diocesan affairs, and also "to be given at the division not a fourth, but a third part of all fraternal incomes."[93] Was all this only a manifestation of the fashionable Renewalism, or a desire to squeeze out of the revolution a maximum of carer prospects, unforeseen by ordinary circumstances? Probably both.
It is noteworthy that in the revolutionary decisions of the assembly there was almost no room for internal mission among the "lost", despite the fact that this question was constantly on the agenda of all meetings in the past, and the neighbouring dioceses were seriously considering whether missionaries were now needed at all?[94] We suppose that indirectly and veiledly it was touched upon only in a brief resolution "to express <...> sympathy with all the victims of the old regime on the diocesan and synodal administrations. To entrust the Diocesan Committee to work out a project to immortalise the memory of freedom fighters."[95]
The absurdity was obvious: with this resolution the diocese sharply condemned its own missionary work carried out throughout the second half of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. After all, it was not only the "leftist" priests who were guilty, but, first of all, it was the "lost in faith" sectarians and Old Believers who were the "victims" of the synodal system, who were brought back into the fold of the Church with the help of the police, prosecutor's office and judicial authorities. Now their stubborn resistance to the mission was interpreted as a heroic "struggle for freedom," and the Orthodox missionaries themselves turned out to be the "lost ones." On 21 March, during a meeting of the clergy in the hall of the Ecclesiastical College, the Commissioner of the Provisional Government voiced political grievances against the diocesan missionaries, who were ordered to revise "the programme of missionary service" in the light of revolutionary events and new trends."[96]
Perhaps the most unexpected in its unpretentiousness was the demand of the church people. Note that, according to V. Lipkovsky, at this time no one was not constraining freedom of speech and "the laity for the long prayer vinagorodili themselves by the fact that they have already said all those things that poured on them .... "[97] Thus, the parishioners of the Ekaterinoslav diocese on 21-22 March demanded neither ecclesiastical autonomy, nor the Ukrainianisation of divine services, nor sobornopravnosti, nor patriarchy, nor even a reduction in the payment for services or the election of clergy. All their wishes can be summed up in four points: amnesty for members of parishes who are undergoing bishop's and court punishment; prohibition of trading in markets on Sundays and holidays; the fight against gambling, drunkenness and profanity; the organisation of singing choirs in parishes and "propitiatory divine service during Holy Week". [98] As the petitioning headman observed, bishops often forgot about reverent service, liturgising in a hurry to leave the parish as soon as possible to visit the homes of rich people.
"The Church Revolution" was only a part of the political revolution of 1917 and this largely determines its character. The latter brought a rupture in the normal evolutionary course of life, filled with an explosion of mass violence, pogroms, anarchy, deceit, betrayal, conformism and servility, populism and mad experiments on people. However, the violence would begin a few months later, and in March 1917 all fears and doubts were drowned in the universal enthusiasm and enthusiasm in which the masses of clergymen also took part.
С. Firsov raises the question of whether the Church was psychologically prepared for the change of political order and the dismantling of the old model of church-state relations?" The historian's answer is, "Certainly not."[99] This answer is very controversial. Judging by the almost instant revolutionary transformation of the vast masses of laity and clergy, there is no reason to speak of the Church's unreadiness to change the political order. In March 1917 hatred of the deposed monarch was almost universal and the clergy was also carried away by a wave of anti-monarchist enthusiasm.
On the one hand it rejoiced at being freed from the tutelage of the Orthodox tsarist power, but on the other it expressed its readiness to serve "faithfully and truthfully" the new state system, whose confessional strategy could be guessed from the "more than cold attitude to religion and to the Church" noted by attentive and far-sighted hierarchs.[100] The clergy were not opposed to the new political system.
The clergy were not averse to being freed from government control and formal-bureaucratic duties, but were in no hurry to be freed from state funding and religious tutelage over the "new order." And many even offered themselves to be its propagandists. Paradoxically, those who did not take part in the greetings of the "new order", did not suffer from the "disease of leftism" and remained monarchists to the end, had a better chance of surviving the revolutionary meat grinder of the 20s and 30s. Hundreds of biographies bear witness to this paradox.
The reaction of the Ekaterinoslav clergy to the revolution, if we take the declarations at face value, was revolutionary and renewalist. But, as it seems to us, public declarations made under the pressure of "general public opinion" should not be blindly trusted. There was too much conformist pragmatism, simply put, banal adaptability, in this sudden love of revolution. In the idealistic atmosphere of the "nationwide celebration of freedom," the clergy became keenly interested in the possibility of deacons being ordained to the priesthood in an accelerated manner, and married priests, in defiance of canons and traditions, to the bishopric. The division of the "circle fee" among the members of the clergy in percentage terms was also considered one of the most important issues of the "church revolution". The clergy intended to compensate in a short time for their long-standing grievances against the autocracy. In general terms the reaction of the Ekaterinoslav clerical corporation to February was something like the sad picture which Prince N. Zhevakhov observed from the window of his flat, when "all were shouting furiously and demanding an increase in their salaries."[101] The clergy, of course, had a considerable number of clergymen in the clergy.
Of course, a considerable number of the clergy, in the words of P. Rogozny, "led a half-impoverished existence" and "no one thought of them."[102] But this does not explain all the events and processes of the "Church Revolution."
М. Babkin raised the question of the alternative to the decision of the Orthodox Russian Church (both at the synodal and at the diocesan-parish level) to support the revolution rather than the Romanov monarchy. The historian believes that the decision was dictated within the framework of the fundamental problem of the competition between the kingdom and the priesthood, which in explicit or latent form permeated the whole synodal period.[103] Evidently the historian has deeply assimilated the reasoning of the synodal system as set forth in the "Spiritual Regulations" of Archbishop Theophanes (Prokopovich). M. Babkin's thesis is sharply criticised by Ya. Krotov: "The rather marginal, interesting only to a few publicists (not theologians), concept of 'priesthood and kingship' is taken out of context and receives an uncharacteristic meaning as an ostensibly basic concept for the behaviour of the clergy."[104]
It seems to us that the problem of the relation between priesthood and kingship was not so marginal in the late imperial period, even if it was not explicitly formulated. It should be distinguished between church-social thought and theology: in the first case it was present in one way or another in all discussions about the Local Council, church-parish life, synodal organisation, "mediastinism", etc. In the second, theological context, it should not be, since the question of royal power is not soteriological for Orthodoxy.[105] Recognising the "deep" conceptual correctness of M. Babkin, we believe that the question of the actual abdication of the Church from the monarchy in February-March 1917 lay in the situational-pragmatic plane. The clergy did not simply decide not to support the monarchy, looking back on long-standing grievances and fearing a "charismatic competitor", but realised the uselessness (and perhaps even the danger) of pro-monarchist statements or actions. The masses were possessed by the idol of socialism, which became too fashionable a political label even among the clergy. In the words of P. Martcheny, "to be a socialist <...> became a mere requirement of bon ton, of propriety; one had to be almost a paradoxical daredevil and cynic to dare to dissociate oneself from socialism."[106]
The Empire of 1917 was fundamentally different from the Empire of 1905, and the measures taken by the Church authorities in defence of the dynasty during the first Russian Revolution would hardly have had any effect during the second. And 1905 showed that the Church's support for the autocracy was largely conditional, forced and opportunistic; the clergy increasingly recognised the Tsar and his synodal system as a heavy burden from which it would be good to get rid of, preferably by other people's hands. The stranglehold of the first revolution led to the correction of the moderate clergy and to the moderation of the left-wing Renovationists, whose voices were briefly silenced. And by 1917 even the once formidable guardians of the monarchy, the Black Hundreds, had turned into charitable volunteer organisations, more concerned about the fate of the wounded, refugees and the poor than about fighting the "Kramolniks."[107]
The ideologeme of the "Orthodox Tsar Anointed" was certainly asserted by official Orthodoxy, and quite obsessively, but merely as part of patriotic rhetoric rather than church doctrine. Its justification was and remained the domain of the conservative press, articles or sermons of individual pastors of predominantly Black Hundreds. In defending the monarchy in March 1917, the Church could have appealed to the tired and devalued by officialdom topos of the "pious Tsar", but it was perceived by society as an anachronistic turn of phrase that had no relation to reality. Whereas the public renunciation of the Tsar had a much greater effect. It created the appearance of the unity of Church and people in a noble revolutionary impulse. Orthodoxy and nationality, leaving autocracy in the dark past, together rushing towards a "bright future". One may well agree with M. Babkin's conclusion that "archpastoral decrees to welcome the revolution and to give it an irreversible character were often ahead of the corresponding decrees of the Provisional Government."[108]
Having correctly grasped the fact that this time the "winds of change" would be unchanged, a large part of the Orthodox clergy came to the conclusion that the image of the victim of the Tsarist regime would be more acceptable to the Church than that of its faithful support. It is better to try to play the role of "victim of autocracy", becoming one with the aggrieved peasants, workers and soldiers, than to become a real victim of the "revolutionary creativity of the masses". It is better to try to obtain new privileges from the changed circumstances than to wage a risky and hopeless struggle for the old ones. It is better to pretend to lead the revolution than to be decapitated by it. This conclusion may be unfair to all the clergy of Russia, but in March 1917 the Ekaterinoslav pastors for the most part chose the path of conformism - typical for that time (and for all times, probably, too).[109] The fact of the radical world-view revolution of the clergy of the Ekaterinoslav diocese in March 1917 as best as possible confirms the well-known axiom of the classics about being determining consciousness.
[1]Плаксин Р. Ю. Крах церковной контрреволюции 1917 – 1923 гг. – М., 1968. – С. 12.
[2] Булдаков В.П. Истоки и смысл русской революции: взгляд через 90 лет // Вестник Тверского государственного университета. Серия «История». − Вып. 2. − 2007. − С. 10.
[3]Евлогий (Георгиевский), митрополит. Путь моей жизни: Воспоминания. – М.: Московский рабочий, 1994. – С. 263.
[4]Мельгунов С. Мартовские дни 1917 года. − Париж, 1961. − С. 44.
[5]Бабкин М. Духовенство Русской Православной Церкви и свержение монархии (начало ХХ в. – конц 1917 г.). − М.: Государственная историческая публичная библиотека России, 2007. – 532 с.; Российское духовенство и свержение монархии в 1917 году. Материалы и документы по истории Русской Православной Церкви / Сост. М. Бабкин. − М.: Индрик, 2006. – 504 с.; Шкаровский М. Русская Православная Церковь в ХХ веке. − М.: Вече, Лепта, 2010. – 480 с.; Поспеловский Д. Русская Православная Церковь в ХХ веке. − М.: Республика, 1995. – 511 с.; Рогозный П. Церковная революция 1917 г. − СПб.: Лики России, 2008. – 224 с.; Фирсов С. Церковь в Империи. Очерки из церковной истории эпохи Императора Николая II. − СПб.: Сатис, 2007. – 457 с.
[6]Ульяновський В. Церква в Українській державі 1917-1920 рр. (доба Української Центральної Ради). – К.: Либідь, 1997. – 202 с.
[7]Шугальова І.М. Розвиток Православної церкви на Катеринославщині у першій чверті ХХ ст. // Придніпровʼя: історико-краєзнавчі дослідження. Збірник наукових праць. − Вип. 6. − Дніпропетровськ, 2008. − C. 157-165; Бойко О.В., Сніда Є.О. Постать архієпископа Катеринославського Агапіта на тлі церковно-політичних процесів післяреволюційної доби (1917-1924) // Придніпровʼя: історико-краєзнавчі дослідження. − Вип. 6. − Дніпропетровськ, 2010. − С. 225-233; Сніда Є.О. Рефлексія катеринославського православного духовенства на Лютневу революцію 1917 року та політику Тимчасового уряду // Наддніпрянська Україна: історичні процеси, події, постаті. − Вип. 12. −Дніпропетровськ, 2014. −С. 236-242.
[8]Макарий (Невский), митр. Беседа в новолетие 1900 года // Избранные слова, речи, беседы, поучения. − М.: Отчий Дом, 1996. − С. 99.
[9]Шавельский Г., протопресв. Русская Церковь пред революцией. − М.: Артос-Медиа, 2005. − С. 11.
[10] Статья В. А. Тарнавцева «Русская Церковь пред великой задачей» (напечатана в Записках религиозно-философских собраний с пометками К.П. Победоносцева, 1901 г. – ЦГИА СССР. Ф. 1547. Оп. 2. Ед. хр. 75. [Электронный ресурс] − Режим доступа: http://www.prlib.ru/elfapps/RecordViewer/default.aspx?orderdate=03.07.2016&DocUNC_ID=131081&Token=WJJm4opS5AqpBg2bZX3e1Q==&lang=ru-RU#10
[11]Никон. архиеп. Тревожные ожидания последних времен // Прибавление к церковным ведомостям. – 1917. − 7 января. − № 1. − С. 1.
[12]Рункевич С. Великая отечественная война и церковная жизнь // Там же. − С. 14
[13]Макарий.епископ. Что в настоящее время более всего необходимо // Прибавление к Церковным ведомостям. – 1917. − 25 февраля. − №8. − С. 166-167.
[14] Документ № 678. Телеграмма первоприсутствующему члену Св. Синода митрополиту Киевскому Владимиру (Богоявленскому) членов Совета Екатеринославского отдела Союза русского народа // Российское духовенство и свержение монархии в 1917 году. Материталы и архивные документы по истории Русской Православной Церкви / Сост. М.А. Бабкин. − М.: Индрик, 2006. − С. 378.
[15]Цыпин Вл., прот. Начало конца Российской империи [Электронный ресурс] – Режим доступа: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/101513.html
[16] Князь Н. Жевахов, пытавшийся как-то оправдать случившееся, полагал, что «его ответ явился не отказом высшей церковной иерархии помочь государству в момент опасности, а самым заурядным явлением оппозиции Синода к Обер-Прокуратуре». См.: Жевахов Н. Д. Воспоминания. Т.1. Валаам: Родник, 1993. [Электронный ресурс] – Режим доступа: http://www.zhevakhov.info/?page_id=56
[17] Там же.
[18] По поводу одной речи // Екатеринославские епархиальные ведомости (ЕЕВ). − 1917. − №1. − С. 2-4.
[19] Подношение митры Преосвященному Агапиту, епископу Екатеринославскому и Мариупольскому // ЕЕВ. − 1917. − №1. − С. 1.
[20] Что нужно нам? // ЕЕВ. − 1917. − № 7. − С. 103.
[21] Бабкин М. А. Современная российская историография взаимоотношений Русской Православной Церкви и государства в начале XX века (досоветский период) // Отечественная история. − 2006. − № 6. − С. 171-180.
[22] Астраханские епархиальные ведомости. − 1917. − № 1-7. − С. 1-3; №8-13. − С. 217, 227.
[23] Кишеневские епархиальные ведомости. − 1917. − № 8. − С. 121-122; № 15-16. − С. 237-239.
[24] Письма социалиста и революционера // Конфедералист. Орган украинских социалистов-революционеров независимых. − 1917. − № 4. − С. 2.
[25]Жуковский И.Г. (М. Трубный). Екатеринослав в февральские дни // Революцией призванные. Воспоминания екатеринославских рабочих. 1893 – 1917 гг. − Днепропетровск: Промінь, 1978. − С. 115.
[26]Гопнер С. Від березня 1917 до березня 1918 року // Борці за Жовтень розповідають (Спогади учасників боротьби за владу Рад на Катеринославщині). − Дніпропетровськ, Дніпропетровське обласне видавництво, 1957. − С. 22.
[27] См.: Родзянко М. Государственная дума и февральская 1917 года революция [Электронный ресурс] – Режим доступа: http://readli.net/chitat-online/?b=60787&pg=1
[28] Объявление от Екатеринославского губернатора // Екатеринославская Земская Газета (ЕЗГ). − 5 марта 1917 г. − № 20. − С. 1.
[29] Там же.
[30] В Екатеринославе // Екатеринославская Земская Газета (ЕЗГ). − 3 марта 1917 г. − № 19. − С. 2-3.
[31] Там же.
[32]Жуковский И.Г. Екатеринослав в февральские дни // Воспоминания екатеринославских рабочих. 1893−1917 гг. / Сост., авт. комментариев В. Я. Борщевский, В. В. Крутиков; Под общ. ред. проф. В. Я. Борщевского. − Днепропетровск : Проминь, 1978 − С. 118-120.
[33] Весник Временного правительства. − Пг., 1917. − № 73 (119). − С. 2.
[34] Часть из них была отпущена на волю еще в феврале, до революционных событий, другая часть, вместе с Симой Гопнер, уже в марте. См.: ГАДО. Ф. 177. − Оп. 1. − Д. 15. − Л. 2.
[35] Арест полиции. Переход жандармов на сторону Государственной Думы // ЕЗГ. − 7 марта 1917. − № 21. − С. 4.
[36] См.: Львов Г. Воспоминания. Дополнения памяти Львова [Электронный ресурс] – Режим доступа: http://krotov.info/library/12_l/vo/v_georg_18.htm
[37]Милиционеры «театралы» // Приднепровский край. − 8 июня 1917. − С. 2.
[38] Для сравнения см: Логінов О., Семенко Л. Вінниця у 1917 році. Революція у провінційному місті. – Вінниця: Державна картографічна фабрика, 2011. – 272 с.
[39] См.: Губернское дворянское собрание // ЕЗГ. − 11 октября. 1916. − № 80. − С. 4.
[40] Жизнь Романовых под арестом // ЕЗГ. − 14 марта 1917 г. − № 23. − С. 4.
[41] Николай II и его семья // ЕЗГ. − 28 марта 1917 г. − № 27. − С. 5; Арест Николая II и царицы Александры Федоровны // ЕЗГ. – 14 марта 1917. − № 23. – С. 4; Царь перед отречением // Там же.
[42]Савчук В.Горе от добра, или жизнь и смерть доктора Караваева [Электронный ресурс] – Режим доступа: http://gorod.dp.ua/history/article_ru.php?article=1334
[43] Надо увековечить память А. Л. Караваева // Приднепровский край. − 1917. − 18 апреля. − С. 2-3.
[44] Панихида по А.Л. Караваеве // ЕЗГ. − 5 марта 1917 г. − № 20. − С. 5. Другим городам Украины в поисках жертв самодержавия повезло меньше. Например, в Виннице торжественному перезахоронению со всеми революционными почестями подверглись тела двух немецких шпионов, одного мародера и одного насильника, казненных в 1916 г. Иных жертв оперативно обнаружить почему-то не удалось. См.: Логінов О., Семенко Л. Вінниця у 1917 році... − С. 68.
[45]Российское духовенство и свержение монархии… − С. 332-333. Похожий сюжет, как известно, присутствует в одном из вариантов романа Михаила Булгакова о похождениях «черного мага» в СССР. См.: Булгаков М. Великий Канцлер. Князь тьмы. − М., 2000. − С. 31.
[46]Каменский А., прот. Наша задача // Полтавские епархиальные ведомости (ПЕВ). − 1917. − № 12. − С. 962.
[47] Чрезвычайный Полтавский Епархиальный Съезд представителей духовенства и мирян, 3-6 мая 1917 // ПЕВ. − 1917. − № 12. − С. 953.
[48] Не враг ли обходит нас? (Из бесед пастыря с прихожанами) // ЕЕВ. − 1905. − № 11-12. − С. 308.
[49] №290. Лист В. […] Котляревського // Епістолярна спадщина академіка Д.І. Яворницького. − Вип. 6. − Дніпропетровськ: Арт-Прес, 2012. − С. 317.
[50]Мудров А. Христос-социалист или христианство и социализм. − Екатеринослав, 1917. – 15 с.; Он же. Катехизис христианина или социалиста. − Екатеринослав, 1917. – 15 с.
[51]Каменский А., прот. Наша задача… − С. 963.
[52] Иноепархиальные известия // ПЕВ. −1917. −№ 8. −С. 687-689.
[53]№ 168. Из резолюции Волынского епархиального съезда духовенства // Российское духовенство и свержение монархии. − С. 154.
[54] Большинство отделов и подотделов СРН на Волыны возглавляли священники. В одном лишь «Почаевском отделе Волынской губернии ... представители духовенства возглавляли 300 сельских подотделов СРН». См.: Омелянчук И. Черносотенное движение на территории Украины (1904-1914). − К.: Совет Национальной безопасности и обороны Украины, 2000. − С. 36-37.
[55] Подольское духовенство направило телеграмму лично прот. Федору Филоненко, члену Св. Синода c 14 апреля 1917 года и депутату Государственной Думы (с 1912). Филоненко прославлялся как «стойкий борец с цезарепапизмом, деспотизмом и темными силами в православной нашей Церкви». Телеграмма закончилась славословием: «Слава первому члену Синода из нашей приходской среды, сыну народа.». См. Российское духовенство и свержение монархии… − С. 269.
[56] Председатею Государственной Думы М. В. Родзянко // Деяния Екатеринославского епархиального собрания представителей клира и мирян Православной Церкви 21 и 22 марта 1917 года. − Екатеринослав: Типография И.Е. Коган, 1917. − С. 27.
[57] Министру-Председателю Временного Правительства Князю Г.Е. Львову. Петроград // Там же. − С. 27.
[58] Министру Юстиции А.Ф. Керенскому // Там же. − С. 28.
[59] Телеграмма Председателю Государственной думы М.В. Родзянко собрания духовенства и выборных мирян 4-го благочиннического округа Екатеринославского уезда, 15 марта 1917 г. // Российское духовенство и свержение монархии… − С. 321.
[60] Телеграмма Предсетателю Совета Министров собрания духовенства и церковных старост 2-го благочиннического округа Адександровского уезда Екатеринославской губернии // Российское духовенство и свержение монархии… − С. 347.
[61] Телеграмма Председателю Совета Министров собрания духовенства и мирян 1-го благочиннического округа Славяносербского уезда Екатеринославской губернии // Российское духовенство и свержение монархии… − С. 348.
[62] Из резолюции собрания духовенства г. Екатеринослава, корпораций духовно-учебных заведений, монашествующих, дьяконов, псаломщиков, учителей церковных школ, чиновников духовной консистории, церковных старост и мирян, 7 марта 1917 г. // Российское духовенство и свержение монархии… − С. 195-196.
[63]Шугальова І. Розвиток Православної Церкви на Катеринославщині у першій чверті ХХ ст. // Придніпровʼя: історико-краєзнавчі дослідження. Збірник наукових праць. − Вип. 6. − Дніпропетровськ, 2008. − С. 161.
[64]Архипастырское воззвание // ЕЕВ. 1917. − №8. − С. 105.
[65]Там же. − С. 104.
[66] Иноепархиальные известия // ПЕВ. − 1917. − № 9.− С. 749.
[67] «Прошу указаний касательно поминовения на богослужении царского дома и правительства». См.: Телеграмма Святейшему Синоду епископа Екатеринославского и Мариупольского Агапита (Вишневского), 4 марта 1917. // Российское духовенство и свержение монархии… С. 241.
[68] Деяния… − С.16.
[69] К сведению духовенства Епархии и исполнению // ЕЕВ. − 1917. − № 8. − С. 107.
[70] См.: Карташев А.В. Реформа, Реформация и исполнение Церкви. − Пг., Изд. «Корабль», 1916. − С. 9.
[71] См.: Соколов А. Выборы патриарха в ноябре 1917 года: правовой аспект // Государство, общество, церковь в истории России ХХ века. Материалы ХII Международной научной конференции, Иваново, 20-21 февраля 2013 г. − Часть 1. − Иваново, Ивановский государственный университет, 2013. − С. 295.
[72] Деяния... − С. 11.
[73]Российское духовенство и свержение монархии… С. 150.
[74] Деяния… − С. 11.
[75] Обзор Деяний Священного Собра Православной Российской Церкви 1917-1918 гг. [Электронный ресурс] – Режим доступа: http://www.bogoslov.ru/library/text/369947/index.html
[76]Российское духовенство и свержение монархии… − С. 355.
[77]Журналы заседаний Временного Правительства. − Т.1. Март – апрель 1917 г. − М.: РОССПЭН, 2001. − С. 102-103.
[78] Деяния… − С. 3.
[79] Деяния… − С. 4.
[80] Деяния… − С. 23
[81] Деяния…− С. 13.
[82] Там же. − С. 15, 24.
[83] Там же. − С. 13.
[84] Там же. − С 24.
[85] Там же. − С. 13.
[86] Там же. − С. 16-17.
[87] Там же. − С. 23.
[88] Там же. − С. 18.
[89]Отзывы епархиальных архиереев по вопросу о церковной реформе. − Часть 1. − М.: Издательство Крутицкого подворья, 2004. − С. 118-123.
[90] Журналы заседаний Временного Правительства. − Т.1. Март – апрель 1917 г. − М., 2001. − С. 49; Высочайшие награды // Церковные ведомости. − 1917. − 25 февраля. № 8. − С. 1.
[91] Деяния... − С. 25.
[92] Там же. − С. 25.
[93] Там же. − С. 26.
[94] Собрание духовенства г. Полтавы и Полтавского уезда // ПЕВ. − 1917. − № 8. − С. 669.
[95] Деяния… − С. 11. Вряд ли есть основания согласиться с М. Бабкиным, что под «жертвами» имелись в виду лишь пострадавшие от Синода священнослужители. См.: Бабкин М. Духовенство Русской Православной Церкви… − С. 288.
[96] К сведению духовенства Епархии и исполнению // ЕЕВ. − 1917. − № 8. − С. 110.
[97] Цит. по: Власовський І. Нарис історії Української Православної Церкви. − Нью-Йорк: УПЦ в США, 1961. − С. 12.
[98] Деяния…− С. 20-21.
[99]Фирсов С. Церковь накануне перемен…− С. 17.
[100] Письма Патриарха Алексия своему духовнику. − М.: Сретенский монастырь, 2000. − С. 23.
[101] Жевахов Н. Указ. соч. − С 128.
[102]Рогозный П. Церковная революция…− С. 9.
[103] Бабкин М. Была ли альтернатива действий у Святейшего Синода Русской Православной Церкви в феврале – марте 1917 года? // Вестник Тверского государственного университета. Серия «История». − 2003. − № 27. − С. 57-65; Бабкин М. Священство и Царство. Россия, начало ХХ века – 1918 год. Исследования и материалы. − М.: Индрик, 2011. – 920 с.
[104] Кротов Я. История Русской Церкви в ХХ в. [Электронный ресурс] – Режим доступа: http://krotov.info/yakov/5_russia_moi/20_ru_moi/1910_ru_church.htm
[105] Теологически феномен русского самодержавия осмысливали Л. Тихомиров, прот. Иоанн Восторгов, прав. Иоанн Кронштадтский, миссионер И. Айвазов, архиеп. Никон (Рождественский) и некоторые другие авторы крайне правых взглядов.
[106] Цит. по: Марченя П.Массы и партии в 1917 г.: массовое сознание как доминанта русской революции [Электронный ресурс] – Режим доступа:http://rodnaya-istoriya.ru/index.php/noviie-istoricheskiie-vestnik/rossiya-v-xx-v/massi-i-partii-v-1917-g.-massovoe-soznanie-kak-dominanta-russkoie-revolyucii.html
[107] Донесение начальника Екатеринославского ГЖУ полковника Терентьева товарищу министра внутренних дел С. П. Белецкому //ГАРФ, ф. 102, 4-е д-во, 1915 г., д. 151, л. 148 - 148 об. [Электронный ресурс] – Режим доступа: http://mydocx.ru/11-87223.html
[108]Бабкин М. Духовенство… − С. 263.
[109] Для сравнения: Верещагин И. Февральская революция на страницах Архангельских епархиальных ведомостей // Государство, общество, Церковь в истории России ХХ века. Материалы ХІ Международной научной конференции, Иваново, 15-16 февреля 2012 г. – Иваново: Ивановский государственный университет, 2012. − С. 75-81.
Первая публикация: Савченко С.В. «Медовый месяц» революции: Екатеринославская епархия в марте 1917 года // Історія торгівлі податків та мита. − 2016. − № 1-2 (13-14). − Дніпро, 2017. С. 181-202.
First publication: Savchenko S. V. (2017). "Honeymoon" of the revolution: The Ekaterinoslav Diocese in March 1917. History of Trade Taxes and Customs. 2016. № 1-2 (13-14). Dnipro, p. 181-202.
© Savchenko Serhiy, Historian, PhD, docent. Dnipro City, Ukraine.
The author thanks the ENTIS Network of Independent Historians for the opportunity to freely publish the results of his research.
