Was the Orthodox Church in the Rearguard of the February Revolution

The article evaluates the second edition of M. A. Babkin's monograph “The Priesthood and the Kingdom” in the context of numerous reviews of the first edition. Most historians think that the Russian Orthodox Church was an uncomplaining tool in the hands of the state during the synodal period. According to Babkin, the leadership of the Orthodox Church was dissatisfied with its position, was burdened by state control and sought to gain self-government. By supporting the Provisional Government, the hierarchs hoped to gain new prerogatives, but they miscalculated. The first edition of monograph caused heated debate. Many reviewers recognized the conclusions of the author; some objected to certain provisions, the adequacy of sources and methodology. According to B. N. Mironov, many of Babkin’s findings are well-reasoned, but he doubts the assessment of the degree of democracy of the hierarchs and the clergy in general and their ability to influence the course of events. In 1985, Gregory Freeze challenged the point of view about the Russian Orthodox Church as a servant of the state. In his opinion, after the reforms of Peter the Great and until 1917, the Church retained the status of an institution parallel to the state apparatus and firmly defended its prerogatives, remaining a force to be reckoned with by the authorities. By 1917, the alliance between the throne and the altar had disintegrated, and the Orthodox Church had become a prominent factor in the revolution. In fact, Babkin, using other sources and a theological approach, reasonably supported and developed Freeze’s opinion, which would be correctly called the concept of Freeze-Babkin

Alliance · Altar · Institution · Political science · Theology · Byzantine Studies and History · Classics · History · Law · Philosophy · Security, Politics, and Digital Transformation · Soviet and Russian History