Church and State before and after the Russian Revolution of 1917

Abstract

The article discusses the collective monograph “1917: revolution, state, society and the Church” written by well-known Russian historians. According to the author of this review, the team prepared an interesting and useful study. Its characteristic features are: interdisciplinarity, relevance, juxtaposition of the past with the present, good sources, high quality texts, good design. A serious drawback of the book is the lack of historiography. In all chapters there is no evaluation of the contributions made by the predecessors. The absence of a critical analysis of the existing literature on the issues studied in the monograph does not enable not only the readers but also the authors themselves to adequately assess the meaning and novelty of the study. This is especially distressing in those cases when different, sometimes opposing, points of view are expressed in the literature. For example, there have been expressed several opinions regarding the position of the episcopate and the clergy on the relationship between the Church and the state, the restoration of the patriarchate, the overthrow of the monarchy and the legitimization of the Provisional Government, the role of the Orthodox Church Council of 1917–1918. For a long time, and probably still, most Russian and foreign researchers have believed that during the synodal period the Russian Orthodox Church turned into a mute instrument in the hands of a secular state fulfilling its will submissively even if it was contrary to its spiritual duty and its corporate interests. Some authors of the collective monograph also adhere to this concept although a fundamentally different concept is expressed in foreign and Russian historiography (G. Freeze, M. A. Babkin, P. G. Rogozny, etc.). If the authors had defended their points of view in an open discussion and had critically evaluated the concepts of their opponents, the book would certainly have benefitted.