The Manifesto of October 17, 1905 and the Orthodox parish clergy in 1905-1907

REZUHIN Petr Sergeevich ORCID: 0000-0002-0717-5853 Senior lecturer, Theological Seminary of the Tula Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church 75 Staronikitskaya str., Tula, Tula region, 300045, Russia p.rezuhin@yandex.ru

At the beginning of the 20th century, the Orthodox parish clergy found themselves in a difficult situation: the breakdown of the traditional social order in the context of rapid Russian modernization was complemented by a deep political crisis of 1904-1905. The events experienced – the defeats in the Russo-Japanese war, the revolutionary unrest of 1905, the formation of the Russian parliament and the legalization of political parties – could not but affect the behavior of parish priests and clergymen. On the one hand, according to the duty of their pastoral ministry, they had to reason with the flock, warn against involvement in turmoil, but most clerics were at a loss – the ideology of "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality" was gradually losing its appeal in society; the word of the priest in the conditions of growing anticlericalism of the lower classes also lost its former educational significance and other, mainly thus, legislative measures to change the situation in parishes. On the other hand, many priests and clergymen who served in parishes turned out to be no strangers to political life themselves, expecting early changes "from above" not only in state-church relations, but also in their legal and financial situation at the parish level. In communicating with the flock, they tried to carefully touch on political topics, while remaining loyal to the existing imperial-synodal system. A considerable part of the clergy, as before, remained in conservative positions, seeing in what was happening an attempt on the foundations of the state and church structure; their views were reflected in the pages of the church press. Thus, the parish Orthodox clergy found themselves unwittingly drawn into the socio-political life of the Russian Empire. Among the factors influencing the worldview and behavioral practices of the white clergy, the appearance of legislative acts of 1905 should be noted. Among them, the Manifesto "On the Improvement of State Order", published on October 17, 1905, should be highlighted ^[1]

The analysis of the content and significance of this act is given some attention in modern historiography ^{[2, pp. 458-460],[3, pp. 37-44],[4, pp. 184-188]}. In essence, the main provisions of the Manifesto boiled down to granting personal rights and freedoms to the population, expanding the electoral rights of workers and securing the status of a legislative body for the State Duma. For church circles, the proclaimed freedom of conscience was of particular interest, developing the provision on religious tolerance, fixed on April 17, 1905 ^[5]. But other ideas of this document, obviously, could not leave the representatives of the white clergy in the province indifferent in the conditions of revolutionary turmoil. On the one hand, they caused concern for the fate of the clergy, and on the other – the hope of renewal.

In existing studies based on regional sources, the issue of various forms of involvement of the clergy and clergy in the events of 1905, as well as counteraction to the rebellious sentiments of the peasants, is being studied in sufficient depth ^{[6, pp. 247-275]}. In a number of studies, archival documents illustrating cases of "misinterpretation of the Manifesto of October 17" by parish priests are introduced into scientific circulation ^{[7, pp. 186-188]}. At the same time, it should be recognized that the attitude of the clergy in the act, nicknamed by contemporaries the "constitution" ^{[8, pp.3-5]}, is not yet fully covered in modern works devoted to the history of the Russian Orthodox Church in the pre-revolutionary period. We believe that the Manifesto of October 17 could have a significant impact on the psychological state of pastors, especially rural ones, their worldview and liturgical activities. The resignation of the all-powerful K. P. Pobedonostsev from the post of chief prosecutor, which happened on October 19, two days after the publication of the Manifesto "On Improving Public Order", could also have no less influence on the mood of the clergy. These events knocked the parish clergy out of their long-standing habitual way of life.

The Tsar's manifesto was printed in the Church Gazette on October 22, 1905 ^{[9, pp. 483-484.]}. On the same day, it promptly appeared on the pages of some diocesan gazettes ^{[10, pp. 363-364]}. During November and December, the Manifesto was published in the diocesan press. Thus, the Kaluga Diocesan Gazette published the document on November 15 ^{[11, pp.407-409]}, and the printing body of the Ryazan Diocese – only on December 1 ^{[12, pp. 757-759]}. The publication of the Manifesto in the provincial church press was of particular importance: unlike the "Church Gazette", diocesan gazettes were necessarily issued in all parishes and were the most accessible media for clerics, especially in remote settlements.

The church authorities understood the possible negative consequences of the appearance of the act "On the Improvement of State Order" and tried to give explanations in hot pursuit, addressed primarily to the clergy and clergy. So, already on October 28, the message of St. Nicholas appeared. The Synod, which explained the granted freedoms ^{[13, pp. 489-491]}. The explanations were given in the most general formulations from the standpoint of Orthodox paternalism, according to which the granting of civil and spiritual freedoms to the multimillion Christian population of the Russian Empire, to their children, became a manifestation of the grace of the anointed of God. It was explained to the pastors and the flock that freedoms were granted "for peaceful work, for the feat of love and service to the Fatherland." The message of the Holy Synod also contained a warning about the need to obey the tsar not only for fear, but also for conscience: "The one who thinks of serving his Sovereign faithfully through rebellion and violence takes on his soul a grave sin" ^{[13, p. 491]}.

On the same day, the Holy Synod adopted Resolution No. 5429 "On the establishment of a special litany at the Liturgy of prayer for the troubles and disorders taking place in Russia" ^{[14, pp. 396-397]}, which called on pastors to organize "prayers in churches in view of the troubles and unrest taking place in many areas of the Empire".

The diocesan authorities also tried to direct the pastors' actions to calm the laity. In particular, the Tula Diocesan Gazette published an order of Bishop Lawrence of Tula and Belevsky of the ecclesiastical consistory dated October 23 on the mandatory participation of subordinate clergy in "eliminating internecine strife among the population" ^{[15, pp. 396-397]}. The teachings of parish priests began to be constantly published in the diocesan press. The speeches and teachings of the clergy of the Kaluga Diocesan Gazette were actively published in the October-December issues. Thus, the priest of the Kaluga diocese I. Zaretsky, in a speech to the flock on October 24, noting the merits of Alexander II to the people, stressed that "his grandson, Emperor Nicholas II, granted inner freedom, liberating the very soul of all his subjects. It seems that the entire population of Russia had only one thing to do — to thank the Tsar of Tsars and their Tsar-Father for such great mercy" and unite for a "good cause" ^{[16, p. 658]}. The cleric saw the cause of all the troubles in the oblivion of the commandments of Christ, the unexpected appearance of certain "dark forces" in Russian society.

The interpretation of the contents of the Manifesto to the public on October 17 became the duty of the clergy. And the pastors enthusiastically took up this difficult task. In particular, Cathedral Archpriest D. O. Nekrasov from Kaluga, speaking to the clergy and laity on November 15 about the need to establish peace and tranquility in the provincial center, drew the attention of the audience to the fact that "on October 17, the Royal voice of the freedoms of all the sons of Russia swept over the entire Russian land. The Russian people have been given civil freedom"and priests are charged with the duty to give freedom, within the same limits, to our neighbor" ^{[17, pp. 683-684]}.

The funds of the diocesan spiritual consistories in the regional archives contain interesting cases showing the indifferent attitude of the clergy to the reading of the contents of the royal manifesto. As an example, let's focus on an episode from the biography of the priest of the village of Malevka, Bogoroditsky district, Tula province, fr. Prokhor Shcheglov, accused by civil and church authorities of blessing peasants to destroy the farm of Count A. A. Bobrinsky on December 5-6, 1905 ^{[18, l. 5]}. The pastor was also convicted by the consistory of reading a sermon of political content, delivered, according to the zemstvo teacher and the daughter of the priest Maria Ivanovskaya, in the temple on November 20, 1905. mass time, after the Gospel", influenced by the Manifesto on October 17.

Texts of sermons with socio-political content are not often found in the records of diocesan consistories, which makes such documents the most valuable for understanding the specifics of the public consciousness of the parish clergy. In the sermon, which is an excellent example of a political pamphlet ^{[18, l. 48-55]}, Fr. Prokhor Shcheglov tried to explain in accessible, simple language to illiterate parishioners the content and meaning of the tsar's manifesto, the appearance of which he explained mainly by complaints of the people "against the unfair actions of the executive authorities", officials. With this circumstance, as well as the desire to "establish truth and justice," the pastor explained the monarch's decision to convene the State Duma from elected representatives of the people.

The characteristics of the parish priest of the rights and freedoms granted to the population by the Manifesto on October 17 also deserve special attention. In his view, personal freedom meant that "no one, no matter who they are.... He cannot arrest another person without guilt and without trial, nor drag him and put him in a cold room, he has no right even to rudely touch any person. What is freedom of conscience? This means that everyone can pray to God the way they want and no one should be hindered or forbidden to pray in their own way" ^{[18, l. 51]}

The cleric, speaking about freedom of assembly, noted that it means the opportunity to "freely gather for a meeting, for a conversation (such gatherings and meetings are called rallies) to discuss their private affairs, as well as public and national ones... And you can tell the whole truth at these meetings without fear, you can talk about your superiors, about landowners, about priests and about your position – as long as it is true. This is now called freedom of speech" ^{[18, l. 51ob-52]}.

To arrange life "more justly, in a divine way", freedom of the press was granted, "when it became possible to write the truth about what was being done," but "the word, even if free, is still half the work; one person cannot overpower to do a big, public thing, and together with others together, everything is possible; therefore, in order to make things more successful, people join together – in societies, in artels, in unions...We have many such unions now; most often they are formed by people of the same profession, i.e. of the same occupation - such unions are called professional... there is also a union of peasants" ^{[18, l. 53]}. In the context of the active growth of agrarian unrest, the mention of the Peasant Union was not entirely correct. But the priest Prokhor Shcheglov explained that before the October 17 manifesto, freedom of unions did not exist at all, "they were persecuted for this, they were imprisoned, but now it has become much freer."

In his sermon fr. Prokhor Shcheglov assessed the Manifesto as a constitution – "such a management device that makes it possible for all people to participate in the structure of public life, and not just officials" ^{[18, l. 53ob.]}. Similar characteristics often appeared in the autumn-winter of 1905, when a moderately liberal part of society saw in the Manifesto an act of a constitutional nature, based on the idea of limiting the autocrat's power to the rule of law.

At the end of the sermon fr. Prokhor Shcheglov invited the flock to thank not only God and the Tsar for the appearance of the Manifesto on October 17, but also "those people who had to endure a lot of harassment to achieve this – these people: students, doctors, college students, workers and the best of the nobility and clergy." This turnover testified to the justification of the rural pastor of the liberation movement in the country. The cleric also called on the parishioners to "try to peacefully achieve satisfaction of their needs with the help of the freedoms granted to us, without resorting to robbery and violence" ^{[18, l. 54ob]}. A sermon delivered by fr. Prokhor Shcheglov, despite the naive monarchism present in it, was close in spirit to the program of the liberal parties. It also clearly showed sympathy for representatives of the opposition social movement, sympathy for the victims of the autocracy. At the request of the governor, the diocesan authorities moved the priest to the parish of the village of Khripkovo, Aleksinsky district, significantly removed from the village of Malevka, but on June 19, 1906, the consistory dismissed the case and acquitted O. P. Shcheglov.

Among other "resonant" stories that appeared under the influence of the Manifesto on October 17, 1905, it should be mentioned the case of Tokarev, a student of the Yaroslavl Lyceum, who preached a sermon in the church of the village of Petrovsky Odoyevsky District on November 20, 1905 with the permission of the local priest Alexei Fursov ^{[19, pp.79-82]}. In the sermon withdrawn by the consistory, the main attention is paid to The interpretation of the contents of the Manifesto on October 17 was given, in particular, an explanation of the meaning of freedom of conscience, which meant that "now a Russian person is not forbidden to believe in God. As his conscience dictates, and to belong to the faith to which his conscience itself commands," and falling away from Orthodoxy will not be considered a crime ^{[19, p. 63]}. In addition, student Tokarev criticized the synodal structure of the church, when "everyone – from a simple layman to the metropolitan – was previously dependent on an official, on the person of the chief prosecutor"; disapproved of anti-Semitic sentiments within the parish clergy. And at the end of the sermon, there were arguments about the crisis of power, when "those around him reported to the tsar that everything was going well in Russia, and when the Tsar appeared to the people, he heard from the people only one cry of our Russian "hurrah" and nothing more" ^{[19, pp. 63-64]}.

The sermons delivered could not cause any unrest in rural society: most peasants, due to illiteracy, did not understand the content of the speech of the bright preachers. But such speeches, according to the rector of the Tula Theological Seminary, Archimandrite George, in any case could not be pronounced from the church pulpit, as they contained a worldly view of the laws being issued, and allowed "a lot of inappropriate expressions from the church pulpit that did not harmonize" ^{[19, p.62]}.

And yet, the Manifesto of October 17 did not go unnoticed by representatives of the church hierarchy. So, on the anniversary of the publication of the Manifesto "On the Improvement of State Order", on October 17, 1906 at the Tula Theological Seminary, the rector, Archimandrite Alexy (Simansky), appointed on October 1, 1906, uttered a word in which it was noted that the granting of rights means at the same time the imposition of new duties: "The freedom to which we are called imposes on us the duty, first of all, to take care of freeing ourselves from laziness, ignorance, and passions. If we achieve this inner, moral freedom, then we will be able to use for good the external civil freedom that was granted to us by the Autocrat" ^{[20, p. 740]}.

So, the appearance of the Manifesto on October 17, 1905 put the parish clergy in a difficult position, when, on the one hand, the priest should not have touched politics in his sermons, but on the other hand, as a pastor, he was obliged to explain the content of the most important laws, explain changes in state and public life in order to prevent the participation of believers in the Turmoil. According to one rural priest from Tula province, "... the popular movement that swept everyone in 1904 and 1905 and ended with the manifesto on October 17 divided all people into two hostile camps; a person who occupied a certain social position and could influence others, first of all, had to draw attention to himself and categorically speak out to the malice of the time; his opinion in one direction or the other inevitably generated flattering reviews from one side and hostile ones from the other. Every village priest was in this position in the memorable 1905; the first people turned to him for clarification of all issues – and how he had to be careful in his judgments so as not to incur anyone's suspicion, one extra word from him could cause a whole story and serve as a tool against him for malicious people." ^{[19, pp.82-83]}.

Thus, the Manifesto of October 17, 1905 had a definite impact on the minds and moods of the parish clergy. His appearance was positively received by a considerable part of the clergy, not all of whose actions were postponed in the records management of state and church bodies. However, the available published sources and unpublished archival materials allow us to assert that in the minds of the sacred and ecclesiastical this legislative act was perceived as freedom granted by the sovereign emperor not only for parishioners, but also for the sacred and ecclesiastical themselves. The ideas of the Manifesto inspired hope for the renewal of not only state, but also church life.