title: Was the Orthodox Church in the Rearguard of the February Revolution?
metadata.name: dc.contributor.author
metadata.value: Mironov, Boris N.
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.accessioned
metadata.value: 2023-02-07T14:42:57Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.available
metadata.value: 2023-02-07T14:42:57Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.issued
metadata.value: 2022-12
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.citation
metadata.value: Mironov B. N. Was the Orthodox Church in the Rearguard of the February Revolution? Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. History, 2022, vol. 67, issue 4, рp. 1396–1406. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu02.2022.420 (In Russian)
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.identifier.other
metadata.value: https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu02.2022.420
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.uri
metadata.value: http://hdl.handle.net/11701/39022
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.description.abstract
metadata.value: 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.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.language.iso
metadata.value: ru
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.publisher
metadata.value: St Petersburg State University
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.relation.ispartofseries
metadata.value: Vestnik of St Petersburg University. History;Volume 67; Issue 4
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: Russian Revolution of 1917
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: Russian Orthodox Church
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: confrontation between church and monarchy
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: new concept of relationship between church and state
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.title
metadata.value: Was the Orthodox Church in the Rearguard of the February Revolution?
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.type
metadata.value: Article
metadata.lang: en_GB
resources.filename: 15052-Article Text-50175-1-10-20221230.pdf
resources.url: https://dspace.spbu.ru/bitstream/11701/39022/1/15052-Article%20Text-50175-1-10-20221230.pdf
resources.format: Adobe PDF
resources.size: 638,79 kB